Tuesday, December 30, 2014

Blame the NRA and Its Supporters - Not Mayor De Blasio


Huffington Post

Patrick Lynch, the president of the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, is garnering headlines by blaming New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio for encouraging protests against police killing of black men which, he claims, has created a political atmosphere that led Brinsley to target the two police officers, gunned down while they sat in their squad car outside a Brooklyn housing project.
This is absurd. For one thing, de Blasio has been a strong defender of New York's police department, but he has also criticized police abuses and supported people's right to protest nonviolently. Equally important, Lynch must know that Brinsley was not making a political statement when he shot the two officers. Brinsley's sister told the media that her brother was "emotionally troubled" and suicidal. "He needed help," she said, "He didn't get it." He killed himself after murdering Ramos and Liu.
If Lynch wants to point the finger of blame for his colleagues' deaths, he should focus on the NRA, not de Blasio. For decades, the NRA has fought every effort to get Congress and states to adopt reasonable laws that would make it much less likely that people like Brinsley would be able to obtain a gun. The NRA even defends the right of Americans to carry concealed weapons in bars, churches, schools, universities, and elsewhere. This poses a huge threat to police and civilians alike.


  1. I responded to the exalted "Distinguished Professor of Politics" here.

  2. Kurt, don't you think you should change your little picture that the Examiner uses, I mean being so honest and all? I find it quite misleading to portray yourself as you may have been once upon a time years ago. Don't you?

    1. Is this the sort of thing you refer to when you accuse me of "diverting" the discussion, Mikeb?

      But fine, I'll answer your question, the none-of-your-business nature of it notwithstanding.

      No, I feel no moral obligation to change the pic. I do not owe readers a way to visually identify me, and nor can I see a useful purpose--readers' or anyone else's--being served by my giving them that ability. I would think you know that--I don't remember seeing you posting pics of yourself around here.

      Examiner required a pic, but they didn't impose an age limit on said pic.

      Now grow up.

    2. You know, Mikeb, you must be truly desperate to finally find a single example of dishonesty on my part, if you're reduced to pointing to my use of an old photograph in my Examiner bio as the "evidence" by which to impugn my honesty.

      Don't you worry that doing so makes you look like a petty, whining little bitch? Or is it simply that you're OK with that?

      Oh, and what's this " . . . portray [my]self as [I] may have been . . . "? You're questioning that this is really a picture of me? Don't you think that such a deception would be a bit hard to pull off? Some people, after all, who have known me for decades read the column, at least occasionally. Besides, if I were going to steal someone's visual identity, I'd like to think I'd find a better looking guy than that.

    3. I was't suggesting it's a fake picture. I took it to be a younger you. But it's patently dishonest. It would be like my posting a picture of myself in Marine Corps dress blues, the one my mother still has on the wall of her home. More years have passed, granted, between that pic taken in 1970 and today, but the foolish attempt at deception would be the same - foolish.

      I'm guessing by your two successive responses to the same comment, one day apart, I see, I must have hit a sore spot.

    4. Actually, I would have no objection to your using your Marine Corps pic from 1970. And I repeat, there is no attempt at "deception." I never claimed the pic is current. and again, I don't owe anyone a current pic. Who the hell cares what I look like?

      I'm guessing by your two successive responses to the same comment, one day apart, I see, I must have hit a sore spot.

      If you say so. I suppose I am kinda offended by flagrant nitwittery like you're engaging in here. The stupid--it burns!

    5. "But it's patently dishonest"

      Really? But it was OK to use a younger picture of Trayvon Martin?

    6. Bingo, that is a perfect comparison. Patently dishonest.

    7. I never really objected to the Martin pic, either, but at least it could be argued that in that case, portraying the angelic little young Trayvon Martin, as opposed to the larger, more thuggish teen Trayvon Martin served an agenda.

      My use of an old pic, on the other hand, is irrelevant, because what I look like is irrelevant to anyone smarter than a tapeworm.

    8. Bull-shit.

      What is "[b]ull-shit"--that my current visual identity is irrelevant? To whom does it matter, and what possible reason could there be for it to be of any interest to anyone?

      You certainly like trying to "divert" conversations in irrelevant directions, don't you?