Why those cities? Because I’ve heard that the “Defund the Police” movement has managed to get those places to discuss the idea of cutting police budgets. The entire concept of trying to achieve gains against racism by cutting the budgets of the people who are expected to uphold the laws is simply mind-boggling to me. I certainly support the idea that a policeman, or for that matter, anyone, who abuses their power against any minority should have to answer for his actions. But that is a very different position from the collective punishment of those whose job it is to uphold the law. It seems to me that the catch phrase of “Black Lives Matter” has been co-opted by people whose agenda is not overcoming racism, but promoting anarchy. Local governments that cave in to such demands are busy trying to protect their own privileged positions by currying favor with a very vocal group of demonstrators. I would certainly prefer that they supported their local police and worried about fair and even-handed enforcement in all the communities they are supposed to represent.
From my personal point of view the idea of profiling, whether on a racial, or any other basis, has more than a little merit. There is still a vast difference between focusing attention on a particular community and harassment. I believe it would be better to increase funding for the police. That might allow them to put a little more effort into improving relations with minority groups whose feeling of being discriminated against is being exploited by those supporting “Defund the Police”.
I would not be disappointed to see the current Speaker of The House of Representatives lose her job over this. It shows such blatant, and obvious, disregard for the rule of law that she is supposed to have sworn to uphold. I no longer live in California, and am probably better off because of it. But this insidious idea of cutting police budgets leaves all citizens with less protection from lawlessness than would otherwise be the case.
Wetherhorn 