I went back to State Street this morning and saw how the murals have changed...

"As his criminal justice proposal made clear months ago, Vice President Biden does not believe that police should be defunded."

"He hears and shares the deep grief and frustration of those calling out for change, and is driven to ensure that justice is done and that we put a stop to this terrible pain. Biden supports the urgent need for reform — including funding for public schools, summer programs, and mental health and substance abuse treatment separate from funding for policing — so that officers can focus on the job of policing...."

Said Biden campaign spokesman Andrew Bates, quoted at The Hill.

Has Biden himself come forward to speak to reporters? I'd like to see him do that and to face aggressive questioning on the subject — as aggressive as the questioning reporters use on Trump.

It's irritating to get the message from a campaign spokesman, and I really dislike the preface "As his criminal justice proposal made clear months ago." So much has happened in the last 2 weeks, and Biden should make a show of caring about the new push for dismantling the police. To say, we already talked about this months ago sounds a bit callous toward the people who are demanding very strong measures like abolishing the police and unresponsive to those of us who are anxious about these extreme demands.

"What if in the middle of the night my home is broken into — who do I call?"

CAMEROTA: "What if in the middle of the night my home is broken into. Who do I call?"

BENDER: "Yes, I hear that loud and clear from a lot of my neighbors. And I know — and myself, too, and I know that that comes from a place of privilege." pic.twitter.com/WhubQ9yJIf

— Eddie Zipperer (@EddieZipperer) June 8, 2020

"The Compton Cowboys, a close-knit club of friends, joined thousands of people for a peaceful trip through Compton on Sunday."

"The club, which formed in 2017 to dispel stereotypes against black people, welcomed all riders for a march from Gateway Towne Center to Compton City Hall."

Unfit.

"A tweet Saturday from CrossFit founder Greg Glassman that appeared to make light of both the death of George Floyd and the novel coronavirus pandemic resulted in a widespread backlash within the CrossFit community. On Sunday, Reebok announced it was ending its corporate partnership with the popular fitness company, and after some gyms said they were cutting ties to the CrossFit brand, and others said they’re considering doing so, Glassman issued an apology. Glassman was responding Saturday to a tweet posted by the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), in which the research center declared, 'Racism is a public health issue.' 'It’s FLOYD-19,' replied Glassman, 63. That sparked outrage among some owners of CrossFit gyms, or 'boxes,' as they’re called, that pay fees of several thousands of dollars annually to license the brand."

From "CrossFit founder jokes about George Floyd as Reebok, gyms drop the brand" (WaPo).

If what you're selling is branding, you'd better maintain that product. You're asking other people to put your reputation on themselves! You're not a solo, roving comedian. Even if it had been a great joke — which it wasn't — Glassman was an idiot to tweet it.

"Seeing the brutality of a white power structure toward its poor black citizens [on the streets of Ferguson], and at its rawest, helped shape the way a generation of reporters..."

"... most of them black, looked at their jobs when they returned to their newsrooms. And by 2014... Twitter...  offered a counterweight to their newsrooms, which over the years had sought to hire black reporters on the unspoken condition that they bite their tongues about racism. Now, as America is wrestling with the surging of a moment that began in August 2014, its biggest newsrooms are trying to find common ground between a tradition that aims to persuade the widest possible audience that its reporting is neutral and journalists who believe that fairness on issues from race to Donald Trump requires clear moral calls.... The fights at The Times are particularly intense because Mr. Sulzberger is now considering candidates to replace the executive editor, Dean Baquet, in 2022, the year he turns 66. Competing candidates represent different visions for the paper, and Mr. Bennet had embodied a particular kind of ecumenical establishment politics. But the Cotton debacle had clearly endangered Mr. Bennet’s future. When the highly regarded Sunday Business editor, Nick Summers, said in a Google Hangout meeting last Thursday that he wouldn’t work for Mr. Bennet, he drew agreement from colleagues in a chat window.... Mr. Sulzberger... told me... 'We’re not retreating from the principles of independence and objectivity. We don’t pretend to be objective about things like human rights and racism.'"

Writes Ben Smith in "Inside the Revolts Erupting in America’s Big Newsrooms/Staff members’ demands helped end the tenure of James Bennet as Opinion editor of The New York Times. And they are generating tension at The Washington Post. Part of the story starts in Ferguson, Mo." (NYT).

We’re not retreating from the principles of... objectivity. We don’t pretend to be objective....

"So, don’t ever, ever let anyone tell you that you’re too angry, or that you 'should keep your mouth shut.'"

Says Michelle Obama — in "Graduates, 'Don’t ever, ever let anyone tell you that you’re too angry'" (WaPo).

If you don't let other people say things, then you are the one who is silencing the other. Where does anyone get the power not to let other people say things? I know, it's a figure of speech, and when you don't "let" another person "tell" you something, what you mean is that you don't have to believe what you're told. They can tell it, but you don't have to accept it as true.

But is it never true that you're too angry? Is Obama saying that no one should ever believe that they're too angry. No, she's just saying form your own opinions about whether your anger has gone too far. You can't trust anyone who tries to impose that opinion on you — to tell you you're too angry.

When I read Obama's advice, the first person I thought of was Donald Trump. Maybe somebody told him that at his graduation: Don’t ever ever let anyone tell you that you’re too angry. But doesn't he let Ivanka tell him that he's too angry?

We're told not to take "defund the police" and "abolish the police" literally.

In this WaPo op-ed — "Defund the police? Here’s what that really means." — by Christy E. Lopez, who is a a Distinguished Visitor from Practice at Georgetown Law School where she co-directs the Innovative Policing Program. She tells us not to be "afraid" because it's "not as scary (or even as radical) as it sounds."

We turn to the police in situations where years of experience and common sense tell us that their involvement is unnecessary, and can make things worse. We ask police to take accident reports, respond to people who have overdosed and arrest, rather than cite, people who might have intentionally or not passed a counterfeit $20 bill. We call police to roust homeless people from corners and doorsteps, resolve verbal squabbles between family members and strangers alike, and arrest children for behavior that once would have been handled as a school disciplinary issue.

Police themselves often complain about having to “do too much,” including handling social problems for which they are ill-equipped. Some have been vocal about the need to decriminalize social problems and take police out of the equation. It is clear that we must reimagine the role they play in public safety. 

Defunding and abolition probably mean something different from what you are thinking. For most proponents, “defunding the police” does not mean zeroing out budgets for public safety, and police abolition does not mean that police will disappear overnight — or perhaps ever. Defunding the police means shrinking the scope of police responsibilities and shifting most of what government does to keep us safe to entities that are better equipped to meet that need. It means investing more in mental-health care and housing, and expanding the use of community mediation and violence interruption programs....

Why not use words that people can understand and that convey the meaning you want to put in our head? If your idea is so reasonable, why not use words that are effective in making people who care about peace and harmony agree with you?

Police abolition means reducing, with the vision of eventually eliminating, our reliance on policing to secure our public safety....

Now, that's just confusing! You said "reducing" but then you said "eliminating."

The “abolition” language is important because it reminds us that policing has been the primary vehicle for using violence to perpetuate the unjustified white control over the bodies and lives of black people that has been with us since slavery.

But the slavery abolition movement was not about reducing our reliance on slavery! Why take such an important word and undermine what it means? If you successfully "remind us" of the evils of slavery, you are making us think you are saying the police are an evil, like slavery, that must be entirely eradicated.

At the Western Sunrise Café...

... you don't have to look right at things.



And, by the way, here is the Althouse Portal to Amazon.

"A veto-proof majority of the Minneapolis City Council pledged on Sunday to dismantle the city’s Police Department."

The NYT reports.

Saying that the city’s current policing system could not be reformed, the council members stood before hundreds of people who gathered late in the day on a grassy hill, and signed a pledge to begin the process of taking apart the Police Department as it now exists.

I don't see how this can possibly be done. It sounds like madness. There is some ray of rationality in "to begin the process" and "taking apart the Police Department as it now exists."

Maybe it's a slow process and they take it apart but they put it back together again in a form that's just different from the way it now exists. Maybe it's just a new way to say reform.

Council members said in interviews on Sunday that they did not have specific plans to announce for what a new public safety system for the city would look like. They promised to develop plans by working with the community, and said they would draw on past studies, consent decrees and reforms to policing across the nation and the world.

So they have no plan or even a general idea of what it is, but they pledge to do it. I imagine a lot of Minneapolis people are alarmed and anxious but won't say too much about all this.

ADDED: "Dismantle" is an interesting word. Especially in this context, it makes me think of the famous essay title "The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master's House." And did you know that the original meaning of the word is "to divest of a mantle or cloak; to uncloak" (OED)? The extended meaning is "To render (fortifications, or the like) useless for their purpose; to pull down, take to pieces, destroy, raze."

"I want a dog that doesn’t know it’s cute."

An overheard line, reported in the NYT's Metropolitan Diary.

I'm no dog expert, but this one is easy. The way a dog knows it's cute is that the people continually tell it it's cute. The same thing happens with children too. If you don't want to find yourself living with a dog/child that knows it's cute, you need to keep a straight face about the cuteness. That will preserve the cuteness of the cuteness.

"The New York Times announced Sunday that Editorial Page Editor James Bennet is resigning — amid reports of anger inside the company over the publication of an op-ed from Sen. Tom Cotton..."

"... about the George Floyd unrest last week. Bennet, the brother of 2020 White House candidate Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., had apologized late last week after previously defending the piece, titled, 'Send in the Troops.' Cotton, R-Ark., called for the government to deploy troops as a last resort to help quell riots and looting that emerged amid the anger over Floyd's death in Minneapolis police custody last month. The publication sparked a revolt among Times journalists, with some saying it endangered black employees. Some staff members called out sick Thursday in protest, and the Times later announced that a review found the piece did not meet its standards.... 'Last week we saw a significant breakdown in our editing processes, not the first we've experienced in recent years,' [Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger wrote]. 'James and I agreed that it would take a new team to lead the department through a period of considerable change.'"

Fox News reports.

ADDED: NYT writer Bari Weiss has some very useful commentary at Twitter:

The civil war inside The New York Times between the (mostly young) wokes [and] the (mostly 40+) liberals is the same one raging inside other publications and companies across the country. The dynamic is always the same.  The Old Guard lives by a set of principles we can broadly call civil libertarianism. They assumed they shared that worldview with the young people they hired who called themselves liberals and progressives. But it was an incorrect assumption. The New Guard has a different worldview, one articulated best by @JonHaidt and @glukianoff. They call it "safetyism," in which the right of people to feel emotionally and psychologically safe trumps what were previously considered core liberal values, like free speech.

It's interesting that people who made safety so overwhelmingly important would accept rioting and vehemently oppose government's protecting citizens from the forces of chaos.

“I love the giant bear.”

"[S]ome of the usual tools for organizing students may be of limited use in the coming months if colleges begin the fall semester virtually...."

"... That makes messaging to large groups of students at once trickier, and Democrats are making plans to be as present as possible on the virtual versions of those quads and dorms: 'There are so many campus-based meme pages where you can spread content dedicated to people usually on those campuses,' he said. He cited the University of Wisconsin at Madison as an example: The 'UW-Madison Memes for Milk-Chugging Teens' Facebook group has nearly 28,000 members; the school has around 32,000 undergraduates. Meanwhile, the Biden camp itself has so far been tentative about its digital outreach to young voters, wary of looking like it’s pandering and conscious of the need to target its messaging to relevant media....  Biden himself has stepped only gingerly into such targeted outreach.... Internally, Biden’s senior aides have been vetting possible appearances and content by asking if it will be a chance to focus on the message of decency, empathy, and connection to real people, which they believe are the former VP’s best attributes to communicate online...."

From "Joe Biden Would Like a Word With the Youths" by Gabriel Debenedetti (Intelligencer/NY Magazine).

It's hard to do social media gingerly. If you're careful, it doesn't work. If you're not careful... you're Trump.

"JK Rowling faces backlash for comments on the phrase ‘people who menstruate.'"

"... Rowling said she believed that the headline should refer to women instead. Her comment was seen as transphobic, as transgender men can still menstruate."

Twitter reports on a Twitter trend that started here:

‘People who menstruate.’ I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?

Opinion: Creating a more equal post-COVID-19 world for people who menstruate https://t.co/cVpZxG7gaA

— J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) June 6, 2020

She followed up with:

"I have never felt desired. My past boyfriends never made me feel desired. None of them."

"And it’s a big thing in my life that I feel I have never been physically desired by somebody. So I dress the way I dress as I don’t like to think of you guys – I mean anyone, everyone – judging it, or the size of it.... And sometimes I feel trapped by this persona that I have created, because sometimes I think people view me not as a woman.... But my body is mine and yours is yours. Our own bodies are kind of the only real things which are truly ours. I get to see it and get to show it when I want to.... All I ever wanted was a boyfriend. Any time when it was rainy or cloudy, all I would wish is I was with some boy. That was my thing. Whenever we were somewhere nice, a beach or a balcony with a sunset, I would never be able to enjoy the experience as I just used to wish I was with some boy....  I have never felt powerful in a relationship. I did once and, guess what, I took advantage of that person’s kindness. I wasn’t used to it. It’s been months and I am not attracted to people any more."

Said the big pop star Billie Ellish, quoted in "Billie Eilish: Confessions of a Teenage Superstar" (GQ). She's 17. CORRECTION: She's 18.