The Root Problems with Police in America

Let me begin by saying that yes, there are good officers on every police force.  That said, I suspect every police force in the nation also has officers who have no business wearing a badge and carrying a gun.  One of the big problems as noted in prior posts is that rather than weeding out these unfit officers, the entire system within departments is focused on protecting them seemingly under a mindset that views admitting that some officers are toxic and need to be removed somehow discredits the entire force.  As people are now realizing (new study shows 74% of Americans see a problem with police), not getting rid of these toxic and unfit officers is what is what is destroying the image of the entire force.  If someone is racist, prone to brutality and gets an adrenaline rush by abusing citizens, they simply do not belong on a police force anywhere.  Add to this mix the militarization of police forces and  it is a recipe for problems.  A Washington Post column looks at the problem and possible solutions, which include ridding the country of an occupant of the White House who fans racism, division and violence.  Here are excerpts: 

Every day — every night, to be more precise — more bad apples roll before our eyes. The video is horrifying; the camera unflinching. So, more Americans — white Americans, even Republican Americans, a majority of Americans except, it seems, those who work behind fortified barricades for President Trump — have come to understand: The problem of policing is not individual apples, but bushels full of them. It is a diseased tree.

A diseased tree with three infected and intertwined branches that each must be lopped off. The worst, by far, is systemic racism in police departments nationwide — and here perhaps the arboreal metaphor fails, and the disease is in the trunk itself, if not in the soil of our national history. The second is the embedded culture of brutality and tolerance of brutality among police officers. The third, connected to the second, is the militarization of police departments, with combat-style equipment designed for battlefields and heedlessly deployed in American streets, that reinforces this culture of violence and, as Trump would have it, “domination.”

Those who were inclined, who had the distance — and, yes, the privilege — to be inclined to give officers and departments the benefit of the doubt can no longer soothe themselves with the illusion that these are random, unrepresentative incidents. Technology in the form of omnipresent video cameras has conclusively ended that debate. Those who are white can no longer rest comfortably in the fiction that this is a problem confined to the other.

[W]hile there should be no doubt that police brutality has a racial cast, there is also no doubt that lighter skin offers no absolute immunity. Witness the violent assault Monday on peaceful protesters of every hue at Lafayette Square. Witness the unprovoked shoving Thursday of 75-year-old Martin Gugino by police officers during a demonstration in Buffalo: Officers push Gugino, shove a baton into him, his head hits the pavement, he is motionless and bleeding, and the officers march on. We are not all George Floyd now, because not all of us are at similar risk. But all of us are at some risk when police believe they can act like this.

The gratifying news is that the public gets it, more than ever before. A new ABC News/Ipsos poll finds that three-fourths of those surveyed believe Floyd’s killing is not an isolated incident but part of a broader problem in the treatment of African Americans by police.

The shift is remarkable. Just six years ago, after the police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., and the death of Eric Garner after he was put in a chokehold by New York City police, just 43 percent thought the incidents signified a broader problem, compared with 74 percent today.

No single measure will suffice to fix the situation; many individual steps can help.

Training to create a police culture of intervention against out-of-control colleagues, not a blue wall of silence. Swift — and, where appropriate, criminal — consequences . . . .Revamping police union contracts to end unwarranted protections for violent officers, including shielding their disciplinary records from public view and making it difficult to remove them.

Restoring the Justice Department’s role — abandoned by the Trump administration — in reshaping the behavior of rogue departments. Reconsidering the doctrine of qualified immunity that has shielded officers from civil liability for their abuses.

And demilitarizing police departments. Under a 1997 law, more than $7 billion in surplus military equipment, from grenade launchers to armored vehicles, has been transferred at no cost to local police departments. . . . . As researchers Ryan Welch and Jack Mewhirter explained in 2017, even controlling for household income, population characteristics and violent crime levels, “more-militarized law enforcement agencies were associated with more civilians killed each year by police.” In short, “Militarization makes every problem — even a car of teenagers driving away from a party — look like a nail that should be hit with an AR-15 hammer.

[A]nother necessary element of the solution: a president who will help change the culture of brutal and racist policing, not reinforce it. Not send out his national security adviser to contend that the problem is limited to “a few bad apples that have given law enforcement a bad name.” Acknowledging the scope and nature of the disease is an essential precondition to curing it.

PRRI Survey: 72% of Americans Support LGBT Non-discrimination Protections

It what comprises bad news for the Trump/Pence regime and its war against LGBT Americans and the Christofascists (many of whom are also white supremacists) make up the GOP base, a new Public Religion Research Institute ("PRRI") survey shows 72% of Americans support LGBT equality under the civil laws and support laws that would protect LGBT people against discrimination in jobs, public accommodations, and housing.  In short, everything the Christofasists and their political whores in the GOP oppose.  Indeed, even in deep red states, more than 60% of voters support LGBT protections and raise the question of how much longer the GOP can ignore the popular will as that party prostitutes itself to Christofascists who embrace ignorance and have made hate and bigotry the face of Christianity to many in America (40% of the under 30 generation has left religion and cite anti-LGBT extremism as a leading cause for their exodus).  A piece in The Advocate looks at the survey findings.  Here are highlights:

There is broad support for LGBTQ equality across the U.S., despite how polarized the nation is on many other issues, according to survey results released today by the Public Religion Research Institute.

The survey, conducted from March through December of last year, found an overwhelming majority of respondents favoring inclusive nondiscrimination laws, while support for equal marriage rights is at an all-time high. There is majority opposition to allowing small businesses to refuse service to gay and lesbian customers, but that opposition has waned somewhat.

“Seventy-two percent of Americans — including majorities of both political parties, religious groups, and nearly every major demographic group — favor laws that would protect LGBT people against discrimination in jobs, public accommodations, and housing,” notes a PRRI press release. The level of support has remained largely stable since PRRI began asking the question in 2011. “Support for LGBT rights continues to be strong and expansive in all 50 states. Issues that in the recent past demarcated major political and religious fault lines now find broad agreement,” PRRI founder and CEO Robert P. Jones said in the release. In most states and the District of Columbia, at least two-thirds of survey respondents of respondents favor for nondiscrimination protections for LGBT people (the PRRI survey uses the term LGBT rather than LGBTQ). At its lowest levels, support dips below two-thirds in of Alaska (59 percent), Montana (62 percent), Louisiana (63 percent), Oklahoma (63 percent), Kentucky (64 percent), Alabama (64 percent), Wyoming (64 percent), West Virginia (64 percent), Tennessee (65 percent), and Arkansas (66 percent). This support comes when only 21 states have laws banning discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity; Virginia will join this group in July. The Equality Act, which would ban such discrimination nationwide, is stalled in Congress; the House has passed it, but the Senate has not voted on it and appears unlikely to, and Donald Trump has said he would not sign it. The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Joe Biden, has endorsed it and said he would make it a priority, a stance shared by all those who sought the Democratic nomination. PRRI also noted that the intensity of support for marriage equality has risen, while the intensity of opposition has waned. Support is greater among women than men, among Democrats and independents than Republicans, and among younger people, although the 2019 survey marked the first time a majority of people age 65 and older — 51 percent — supported equal marriage rights. The survey was conducted via telephone, with more than 40,000 interviews on specific issues. PRRI is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that conducts independent research at the intersection of religion, culture, and public policy.

The Christofascist are fighting a losing battle and the GOP is stupidly casting its lot with a dwindling portion of the population base.  

Americans' Trust in Honesty, Ethics of Clergy Hits All-Time Low

Clergy honesty: click image to enlarge - source Gallup.

According to a new Gallup Survey, Americans are seemingly belatedly waking up to a reality that should have been obvious long before now: most church clergy are not trustworthy or ethical.  Not surprisingly, the view of Catholic clergy has taken a major hit and are seen as significantly less honest and trustworthy than Protestant clergy in general.  That said, evangelical clergy who have tied themselves to the thoroughly immoral Donald Trump have suffered as well - hence the exodus of young evangelicals who disdain the political partisanship and homophobia that now defines perhaps a majority of evangelical clergy.  Here are some survey highlights which found nurses to be the most honest and trustworthy of any profession:

Americans' view of the honesty and ethics of clergy has fallen to an all-time low in a ranking of different professions released by Gallup.

The Gallup poll, conducted between Dec. 3-12 of 1,025 U.S. adults, found that only 37 percent of respondents had a "very high" or "high” opinion of the honesty and ethical standards of clergy. Forty-three percent of people gave them an average rating, while 15 percent said they had a “low” or “very low” opinion, according to the poll that was released on Dec. 21. 

Gallup noted that the 37 percent "very high" or "high" score for clergy is the lowest since it began asking the question in 1977. The historical high of 67 percent occurred back in 1985, and the score has been dropping below the overall average positive rating of 54 percent since 2009.

"The public's views of the honesty and ethics of the clergy continue to decline after the Catholic Church was rocked again this year by more abuse scandals,” Gallup noted in its observations.

Sexual abuse claims, involving both children and adults, have rocked churches across the U.S., South America and Europe this year, affecting both Protestant and Catholic congregations.

In the Gallup poll, 48 percent of Protestants rated clergy positively, compared to only 31 percent of Catholics.

Nurses, meanwhile, came out on top of the rankings, with 84 percent of respondents rating their honesty and ethical standards as "very high" or "high."

Medical doctors, pharmacists and high school teachers followed near the top of the list, while at the very bottom were telemarketers, car salespeople, and members of Congress.

"One notable change this year is that one-third of Americans now rate the honesty and ethics of journalists more highly, marking a 10-point jump since 2016 to a level not seen in four decades,” Gallup observed.. 

Why Chief Justice John Roberts Might Support Gay Marriage

Numerous posts before have speculated at the possible vote by Chief Justice John Roberts on the issue of gay marriage.  Today in oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court we may get more hints of what Roberts may decide to do with the issue.  Roberts does seem to have a high level of vanity, but unlike Scalia who cares nothing about how he will be viewed by history, he seems to have his eye on the long picture and where he will fit in history.  A column in the New York Times looks at why Roberts might vote to strike down same sex marriage bans nationwide to the consternation of the Christofascists.  Here are excerpts:

ON Tuesday, when advocates press the United States Supreme Court for a nationwide right to marry for same-sex couples, they and their supporters will have reason to be optimistic. Since the court decided United States v. Windsor in 2013, a vast majority of state and lower federal courts — not to mention the wider public — have embraced the overwhelming moral, logical and evidentiary case for the freedom to marry.

The litigants hope to persuade the swing justice, Anthony M. Kennedy, who has written three previous opinions affirming gay rights, and his four more liberal colleagues. But what about Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.?

In Windsor . . . . Roberts dissented, but he focused primarily on procedural issues — leading some observers, like the Slate writer Mark Joseph Stern, to speculate that he could come around this time.

Others have wondered whether Chief Justice Roberts was instrumental in the Supreme Court’s decision last year to not review appeals of lower court rulings upholding the right of same-sex couples to marry. 

It takes only four votes to grant review, and, according to this theory, if the three more right-leaning justices (Samuel A. Alito Jr., Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas) were ready to consider those cases, they apparently lacked Chief Justice Roberts’s vote. But these votes are done in secret, so one can only speculate.

[T]here are a number of institutional reasons Chief Justice Roberts might, and should, cast a vote for the freedom to marry. 

First, a Supreme Court ruling authorizing the states to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples would lead to enormous confusion. The court’s decision not to take appeals of earlier cases, or put other appeals of lower court decisions on hold, has induced many couples to marry. . . . . The consequences of such a ruling would be dramatic — and quite unsettling. Administrative agencies would have to shift policies (again), create new forms (again), and educate their bureaucracies on a variety of matters — all of which could be undone by a new legislative act or state constitutional amendment. Given the sheer number of economic rights, presumptions and obligations that travel under the “marriage” heading, denying gay couples access to a uniform institution, with all the complications, headaches and (possibly) litigation it could bring, seems like the antithesis of restraint.

Then there is the broader issue of social consensus. The continuing nationwide division over same-sex marriage, notwithstanding the recent shift in public opinion, might give Chief Justice Roberts pause. 

Since the 2013 Windsor ruling, four federal appellate courts and more than 30 federal trial judges have issued pro-marriage rulings for same-sex couples. (By contrast, only one federal appellate court — the Sixth Circuit, based in Cincinnati — and a handful of federal trial judges have ruled against same-sex couples.) These judges reflect a broad array of appointees by Republican and Democratic presidents alike. Does Chief Justice Roberts truly believe that so many of his lower-court colleagues have gotten the law wrong? Possibly — but the growing consensus on the ground could nudge him to side with a vast majority of his colleagues on the federal bench.

[T]he court may decide that a uniform rule favoring same-sex couples would be the more prudent and moderate outcome.

In short, the posture of these cases, their significance in the broader history of the Supreme Court, and their administrative and practical implications are likely to give the chief justice pause before voting against the right to marry. If Chief Justice Roberts focuses on these questions, his vote should be with the plaintiffs this time around.

63% of Americans Say Same Sex Marriage is a Constitutional Right

Yet another poll underscores the fact that the Christofascists are losing the war over marriage equality.  A CNN poll that looked at a number of issues, including Barack Obama's approval levels and support for the Affordable Health Care Act , found the following:

63% of Americans say that gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry and have their marriages recognized by the law as valid. That's up from 49% in August 2010. Over that time, the share who see marriage as a constitutional right has climbed 15 points among Republicans to 42% and 19 points among Democrats to 75%.

These findings coupled with the growing belief even among Republicans that opposition to same sex marriage is NOT acceptable in a GOP presidential candidate ought to be striking terror in the hearts of anti-gay Christofascist who have been making a lucrative living peddling anti-gay hate and opposition to marriage equality.   I can almost hear the shrieking and whining in the offices of Family Research Council, the American family Association, and the National organization for Marriage.  God forbid, these folks may yet have to find real jobs.

Federal Recognition of Gay Marriage Now Matches Public Opinion

Over the weekend the federal government announced that it was recognizing same-sex marriages in six additional states: Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, North Carolina, West Virginia and Wyoming.  For couples in those state, this means access to marriage benefits previously denied to them.  Just as importantly, it continues the process of making same sex marriage "normal" and an everyday occurrence, something slowly but surely undercuts the Christofascists' anti-gay propaganda and will put increased pressure on the Republican Party to jettison these foul members of the GOP base over time.  A piece in The Atlantic looks at this federal recognition and how it increasingly matches public opinion.  Here are highlights:

Now, gay couples in Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, North Carolina, West Virginia and Wyoming eligible for a variety of federal benefits such as Social Security for widowers or the ability to file a joint income tax return—a move that puts the government more in tune with popular opinion.

"With each new state where same-sex marriages are legally recognized, our nation moves closer to achieving of full equality for all Americans," said Attorney General Eric Holder. "We are acting as quickly as possible with agencies throughout the government to ensure that same-sex married couples in these states receive the fullest array of benefits allowable under federal law."

Last week, Holder issued a similar announcement about seven other states: Colorado, Indiana, Nevada, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin. With Saturday’s announcement, the federal government recognizes same-sex couples in 32 states and the District of Columbia. The two announcements come after the Supreme Court declined to hear appeals in cases that made gay marriage legal in each of these states.

Coincidentally, with the addition of the six states today, now about 39 percent of Americans (roughly 120 million people) live in states where same-sex marriage is not federally recognized—which is the same as the percentage of Americans who oppose it, according to Pew. In other words, the number of Americans who don't oppose same-sex marriage is roughly the same as the number of Americans who live in states where it's federally recognized.