In London, a depressed man struggling with mental illness got two large knives and pulled them out in front of Buckingham Palace, but the police, trained on how to surround and subdue a man like him with nonlethal force, did so in less than a minute.
In the United States, though, eight officers and a police dog, surrounded a mentally ill man with a knife, and, instead of subduing him, shot at him 46 times until he bled out and died there in the parking lot.
In an Economist article entitled “Trigger Happy,” the true story of just how quickly American police are willing to shoot and kill people is made frighteningly clear:
Last year, in total, British police officers actually fired their weapons three times. The number of people fatally shot was zero. In 2012 the figure was just one. Even after adjusting for the smaller size of Britain’s population, British citizens are around 100 times less likely to be shot by a police officer than Americans. Between 2010 and 2014 the police force of one small American city, Albuquerque in New Mexico, shot and killed 23 civilians; seven times more than the number of Brits killed by all of England and Wales’s 43 forces during the same period.
Europe stands up to the bullies. Read the whole column. Interesting that I heard nothing of this on the “news”.
Fox retraction tells us a lot | Albuquerque Journal News By Leonard Pitts / Syndicated Columnist PUBLISHED: Saturday, January 24, 2015 at 12:05 am
Fox is, after all, the network of death panels, terrorist fist jabs, birtherism, anchor babies, victory mosques, wars on Christmas and Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi. It’s not just that it is the chief global distributor of unfact and untruth but that it distributes unfact and untruth with a bluster, an arrogance, a gonad-grabbing swagger, that implicitly and intentionally dares you to believe fact and truth matter.
Many of us have gotten used to this. We don’t even bother to protest Fox being Fox. Might as well protest a sewer for stinking.
But the French and the British, being French and British, see it differently. And that’s what produced the scenario that recently floored many of us.
“At every step, we were told our goals were misguided or too ambitious,” [President Obama] declared, “that we would crush jobs and explode deficits. Instead, we’ve seen the fastest economic growth in over a decade, our deficits cut by two-thirds, a stock market that has doubled, and health-care inflation at its lowest rate in 50 years.”
Good news, indeed, and in telling the Republicans that all their predictions turned out to be wrong, he reminded his fellow citizens which side, which policies and which president had brought the country back. …
There is something odd in the notion that Obama is supposed to abandon his convictions because the Republicans won a low-turnout midterm election whose Senate races were fought mostly in territory hostile to Democrats.
Ronald Reagan was never asked to stop being a conservative after Democrats took the Senate in the 1986 elections and emerged in control of both houses of Congress. Republicans praised George W. Bush for his courage in upping his commitment in Iraq through the troop surge, even though the Democratic sweep of 2006 was in large part a repudiation of the war on which he doubled down. Are only progressive presidents expected to trim their sails?
Elections have consequences. Remember this in 2016.
Just two weeks into the new Congress, [Republicans] voted Tuesday afternoon to bring to the House floor their current priority: a bill banning abortions after 20 weeks. The legislation, which doesn’t even grant exceptions to victims of rape unless they report it to police, was scheduled to be taken up Thursday — on the 42nd anniversary of Roe v. Wade and coinciding with the annual March for Life.
It was a classic bait-and-switch.
Abortion got barely a mention in last year’s campaign, which led to unified Republican control of Congress. Voters in exit polls said their top priorities were the economy (45 percent), health care (25 percent), immigration (14 percent) and foreign policy (13 percent) — not surprising, given that these are the issues Republicans talked about. A Gallup poll after the election found that fewer than 0.5 percent of Americans think abortion should be the top issue, placing it behind at least 33 other issues.
But instead of doing what voters wanted, House Republicans are making one of their first orders of business a revival of the culture wars. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), the new Senate majority leader, has promised to take up the bill, too.
WASHINGTON, DC – JANUARY 7: Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) holds a telephone conference with reporters in his office on Capitol Hill on January 7, 2015 in Washington, DC. (Andrew Harnik/For The Washington Post)
By Eugene Robinson Opinion writer January 19 at 6:59 PM
“Hold on a minute,” I hear someone objecting. “I seem to recall that last winter featured the dreaded polar vortex, which brought frigid arctic air to much of the United States. Some warming!”
Is that you, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), new chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee and the Senate’s point man on climate change? Let me try to put this in a way you might understand: The planet we live on is really, really big — so big that when it’s cold in our country, which covers only a small percentage of Earth’s surface, it can be hot in other places. At the very same time!
Okay, I’m being somewhat unfair. Inhofe actually reacted to the news of 2014’s record heat by calling the reported increase tiny and meaningless. But his long-held position is not that climate change is overblown or misinterpreted or poorly understood but that it is actually a “hoax” and a “conspiracy.” He wrote a book taking this stance. At times, he has claimed that global warming, if it were indeed taking place, would be a good thing. And he has scoffed at the notion that humans could ever have such a massive impact on God’s immense creation.
Let me repeat: This is the man whose task is to lead the U.S. Senate in setting environmental policy.
King said: “This country has socialism for the rich, rugged individualism for the poor.” …
King explained the shift in his focus: “Now our struggle is for genuine equality, which means economic equality. For we know that it isn’t enough to integrate lunch counters. What does it profit a man to be able to eat at an integrated lunch counter if he doesn’t earn enough money to buy a hamburger and a cup of coffee?”
Majority of U.S. public school students are living in poverty | Albuquerque Journal News By Lyndsey Layton / The Washington Post PUBLISHED: Monday, January 19, 2015 at 12:05 am
For the first time in at least 50 years, a majority of U.S. public school students come from low-income families, according to a new analysis of 2013 federal data, a statistic that has profound implications for the nation.
Our system caters to the rich at the expense of all others.