prodigious reader, chronic forgetter
4457 stories
·
14 followers

“I’m not mad at you”

1 Share

The administration — led by JD Vance, one of the most despicable people in the history of American politics — believes that the video of Renee Good’s murder showing this sequence of events is exculpatory:

You can clearly see her being “Minnesota nice” to the man who shoots her and even smiling at him, with her dog in the back seat, seconds before he kills her. “That’s fine,” she says in her final words to the ICE agent, using a mom’s high pitch. “I’m not mad at you.”

Good’s wife, filming with a cell phone, taunts him a bit from a distance about the fact that ICE changes their license plates every morning, which must have pissed him off. Then he shoots Good in the face three times as she tries to drive away from him, right in front of her wife, and says, “Fuckin’ bitch.”

Admittedly, Fox News seems to understand the problem that a hardcore misogynist creep like Vance is unable to perceive:

Fox News claims to be airing the "entire video" — but they're cutting off before the officer says, "fucking bitch."

[image or embed]

— Matthew Gertz (@mattgertz.bsky.social) Jan 9, 2026 at 1:17 PM

I also agree that it’s probably not an accident that Trump has let Vance be the frontperson on the rush to defend this heinous killing:

if trump thought he had a winning hand here he would be the first person in front of the press. they know it’s bad so they send their little pig man out to gobble up the slop

— jamelle (@jamellebouie.net) Jan 8, 2026 at 11:12 AM

Call me over-optimistic but I just don’t think this will play at all belong hardcore MAGA types.

The post “I’m not mad at you” appeared first on Lawyers, Guns & Money.

Read the whole story
rocketo
37 minutes ago
reply
seattle, wa
Share this story
Delete

In the Horrifying New Video Filmed by Renee Good’s Killer, Her Real “Crime” Is Clear

1 Share
A man kneels at a memorial for Renee Nicole Good near the site of her shooting on Thursday in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Read the whole story
rocketo
38 minutes ago
reply
seattle, wa
Share this story
Delete

The Consequences of Rejecting "Defund the Police"

1 Comment
Minneapolis. January 7, 2026. (Photo: Getty)

A paranoid and fearful man gets a bunch of loaded guns and leaves them in every room of his house. Eventually, his curious toddler, or his boastful teenager, or the man himself on a drunken bender picks one up, and something awful happens. When it does, we say to the man: “You shouldn’t have had all those loaded guns laying around.”

In our country, the loaded guns are referred to as “law enforcement.” But rather than listening to those who say that constantly increasing the number of armed men with badges is unwise, we mock and scorn them. We accuse them of being unrealistic, dreamy, overly radical, not tough on crime. Then, always, something awful happens. After a brief pause for collective head-shaking, we do it all over again.

In 2020, millions of Americans marched in the streets to protest police violence. Millions of people called for defunding the police. What did they mean by that? They meant that it is unwise to continually buy more and more loaded guns and leave them around our house in the name of safety. They meant, concretely, that our government at every level should spend less money on armed local police and armed state police and armed federal police, and spend more money on addressing the social and economic issues that are the underlying causes of what we call “crime.”


How Things Work is a reader-funded publication. To support us, become a paid subscriber.


For this eminently wise and sensible suggestion, they were made fun of by the entire political establishment. They were dismissed by blow-dried pundits on television and in print. And they saw the Democratic Party politicians who had, only months before, been marching with them in the popular protests run away from their actual policy demands as fast and as loudly as possible. “The answer is not to defund our police departments, it’s to fund our police,” said Joe Biden, echoing all of his mainstream Democratic peers. You could almost hear the crunching of tires over the bones of Black Lives Matter as the Democrats threw them under the bus.

More than five years later, I still find the Democrats’ 2020 heel turn on policing to be one of the most despicable acts of political cowardice I have witnessed in my adult lifetime. Yet to this very day, the party and its favorite consultants and pundits still believe that they did the right thing. Guess what? You didn’t. Defunding the police is a good idea. By rejecting it, you have only allowed more and more guns to accumulate around our house. Yesterday, in Minnesota, one of them shot and killed Renee Good. Ironically, she was killed while protesting for the rights of her neighbors to be free from harassment by armed men. Her death is the latest awful and predictable consequence of our lunatic attachment to the myth that safety comes at gunpoint.

The cult of law enforcement is bipartisan. Democrats and Republicans differ only in degree, and the degree is minor, and often, Democrats decide to try to outdo Republicans on this issue in order to score political points, so the net effect is that there is very little real counterpoint to this cult in the entire political establishment. This cult worships the idea that spending more money on armed men is the path to safety, and to justice, and to peace. This cult is why we have so many local police, and so many of them are absurdly armed with weapons of war. And it is also why we have the largest military budget on earth, and a sprawling security state that reaches into every corner of the world with spies and drones and satellites. All of this is of a piece.

The problem with this approach to “public safety” is twofold. First, hiring more armed men does not, in fact, do anything to solve the underlying problems like poverty and inequality and oppression that produce “crime,” and therefore, with a fixed budget, every dollar that you spend on armed men is one that is not going to mitigate the actual systemic issues that create the conditions that the armed men purportedly exist to fight. Second, when you create large pools of armed, empowered men, sooner or later someone whose ideas you dislike will be in charge of them.

Democrats ran against this.

When people warned Barack Obama and Joe Biden about the worrying persistence of the huge armed global apparatus that America has built up since the “War on Terror” began, this is what they were warning about. Now, a bad man has it, and he is doing bad things with it. This was the easiest thing in history to see coming. This is what happens when you have an endless cycle of increasing the guns in your house, and you never get rid of any. You cannot just add police and soldiers and spies and weapons forever and expect that nobody will ever do anything bad with them. You have to actually take the positive corrective step of getting rid of them.

You can’t just talk about how the police should be better. You have to defund the police. You can’t just say that you hope nobody will ever pick up one of the loaded guns you have laying around. You have to get rid of them.

As Renee Good, a mother and wife, lays dead, I would like for the sober and serious members of the Democratic Establishment, and the well-intentioned liberal voters across the country, to take time to look very hard in the mirror and think about the broader consequences of their knee-jerk dismissal of the very concept of defunding the police. The consequences that have rippled far out past a single election cycle. The consequences of establishing very publicly that there are not two positions on the question of whether or not more armed men produce safety. The consequences of saying to voters, “There are two parties in this country, and on this, they both agree: More police. More guns. On this, there is no other choice.”

ICE is police. Liberals may object to what ICE is doing. They may find it scary that Congress has appropriated tens of billions of dollars to hire ten thousand ICE agents who will constitute an army of Trump loyalists empowered to purge our nation of brown people. But you, liberals, Democrats, must recognize that you teed this up for them. We had a historic opportunity to have a grand national reckoning with the thesis that more police are always better. In Washington, the Democrats very deliberately chose not to have that reckoning in any substantive way. They, and the good liberal establishment, chose to cling to the belief that defunding the police was unwise, unpopular, and unrealistic, and that America would be able to somehow progress past our blood-soaked legacy of oppression even while leaving all of those armed men in place. Just by asking them to be better.


Give a gift subscription


It doesn’t work. By rejecting the very idea of defunding the police, our political leaders left open the door for what is happening now. They left voters with no opposition party, with no alternate scenario. They left the Overton window of our mainstream political commentary with no faction of intellectuals making the wild, controversial argument that filling your house with more and more guns does not make you safer, and that filling your cities with more and more armed men does not solve our social problems, and that making the United States military more and more powerful does not make the world a more just and peaceful place. The entire vision that peace, justice, and happiness might increase as a result of moving resources away from armed men and into health and education was tossed in the trash by a united, bipartisan front of political leaders.

So here we are. Now Trump has all of it. He uses the very same logic of policing and safety to launch a Nazi-esque immigration purge. Armed ICE agents are kidnapping people in the streets. They are shooting and killing people. Do you feel safer? This is bipartisan logic in action. Trump uses the mighty U.S. military machine that generations of bipartisan administrations have built up to assassinate boaters and invade foreign countries and threaten global stability at will. Are you proud of this, all of you hard-nosed military realists? This is the manifestation of what you have built.

Give guns and special powers to thousands and thousands of men everywhere, and bad things will happen. Spend your money on armed men instead of schools and housing and teachers and doctors, and your population will have worse lives. I guarantee it. Everyone with common sense knows it. This is the simple argument that everyone asking to defund the police was making. They were mocked. Now, there are more armed men and more oppression. Please, for god’s sake, let us be smarter than this. It is the idea that is wrong here. We will never get rid of bad people. But we do have the power to stop leaving all these loaded guns around for them to pick up.

Leave a comment


Also

  • Related reading: Talk Louder About Defunding the Police; How to Murder a Good Idea With Conventional Wisdom; Building the American Brownshirts; New Orleans Is Watching You, ICE.

  • A GoFundMe to support Renee Good’s wife and son can be found here. There are ongoing protests against ICE around the country—go to one where you live. And one more request from me, as these issues unfold: The public conversation around defunding the police has always been plagued by tedious and beside-the-point meta-commentary about whether or not it is a “good slogan.” Please do not do that in your comments here or elsewhere. Focus on the underlying issues.

  • Thank you all for reading How Things Work. Independent media is, I think, more important today than it has ever been in my 20+ years in journalism. This publication exists wholly thanks to the financial support of readers just like you. I am able to keep this place paywall-free wholly thanks to the financial support of readers just like you. If you like reading How Things Work and want to help support independent media, please take a quick second to click the link below and become a paid subscriber yourself. It’s not too expensive and it helps keep us rolling. I appreciate you.

Subscribe now

Read the whole story
rocketo
2 hours ago
reply
"So here we are. Now Trump has all of it. He uses the very same logic of policing and safety to launch a Nazi-esque immigration purge. Armed ICE agents are kidnapping people in the streets. They are shooting and killing people. Do you feel safer? This is bipartisan logic in action. Trump uses the mighty U.S. military machine that generations of bipartisan administrations have built up to assassinate boaters and invade foreign countries and threaten global stability at will. Are you proud of this, all of you hard-nosed military realists? This is the manifestation of what you have built. "
seattle, wa
Share this story
Delete

How Hard Is It To Oppose Murder?

1 Comment

By now you've almost certainly seen the video for yourself, or read about it: an ICE agent shooting a Minneapolis woman, Renee Nicole Good, in the head from point-blank range, killing her as she attempted to drive away from the scene of an immigration sting where protesters had gathered on Wednesday. The agent's actions, caught from several angles on video now widely available across all forms of visual media, are indefensible. By any human standard the shooting is a murder, made all the more appalling by the Trump administration's rush to exonerate the murderer with obvious lies, and paint the victim, an unarmed U.S. citizen guilty of nothing more than perhaps having panicked when masked agents surrounded her car and tried to yank her out of it, as a terrorist and would-be killer.

The murder and the response seem to have shocked the nation; they've even largely driven Trump's unlawful invasion of Venezuela and kidnapping of its president down the figurative and physical page. Here is what Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar has to say about it:



Read the whole story
rocketo
8 hours ago
reply
"Why does the mainstream Democratic response to authoritarian violence always have to be abstracted like this? What would it take for these freaks to voice objection to the actual fact of state terror happening right in front of their faces, rather than raising limp procedural qualms over Trump not having filed the proper paperwork to inflict it with sufficient bipartisanship?"
seattle, wa
Share this story
Delete

I Need to Get Something Off My Chest

1 Comment

Exactly one year ago, I profiled Junko Kazukawa, a 61-year-old ultrarunner who, like me, had earned a spot in the 2025 Hardrock Hundred after a decade in the lottery. A breast cancer survivor who had a double mastectomy, I asked if she had reconstructive surgery with implants or stayed flat. She answered: “Flat, 100 percent. ... As a runner, I don’t want anything bouncing around. I never had big breasts, but just enough to annoy me when running. The doctor also told me that if I got [implants], I’d have to replace them in 10 to 20 years, and I don’t want surgery again.”

Junko opened my mind and inspired me not only with her dedication to her sport, but also with her commitment to be true to herself and to do what felt right for her, rather than adhering to society’s norms and beauty standards.

I offer the following essay in the same spirit: hoping to inspire other women to be true to themselves and accept their bodies as-is. I hope you might share it with other women you know who face breast surgery because they have old implants that need replacement or removal, or they face mastectomy, or they’re considering augmentation—or they simply but deeply struggle with body image.

For 22 years, I ran around with small bags of saline water on my chest. I told only a handful of my closest friends, because I felt ashamed about artificial enhancement, which is antithetical to my all-natural and athletic aesthetic.

Now those bags are gone, since I had explant surgery (i.e. implant removal without replacement) December 1, and I decided to share my secret here because I hope more women will know about the risks and consequences of implants and the benefits of staying flat.

I hope more women will ask—as I’m asking internally—why the hell do we do this to ourselves? Who are we trying to please, and why?

In early 2004, when I was 34, I went to a plastic surgeon and told her, “I want runner boobs. Like, ballerina boobs”—meaning, I wanted augmentation that looked natural and fit my body. “I want the world’s smallest boob job.” And I got it.

Gremlins of insecurities skewed my thoughts and actions during that period of time. My little A-cup breasts had risen to the occasion to nurse my two babies from 1998 through 2002, and after weaning, they literally vanished, as if my body absorbed every cell of breast tissue. I became flatter than my husband. My fit-runner physique developed a masculine chest with a texture that made me think of beef jerky.

Two shots from late 2003 and early '04, shortly before I had surgery, showing the flat me. In the left I'm with my wonderful first coach, and in the right I'm racing and winning a 5K.
About a year and a half after the surgery.

Meanwhile, I was working to rebuild my marriage. I had fallen prey to another man’s flattery after he plugged into my lifelong needs for attention, validation, and reassurance that I’m attractive. I had been conditioned early in life, by the culture of the time and by parents who casually commented on “good tits,” to please men sexually. And my ego was at a low point as a stay-at-home mom with a shelved career.

Suffice to say, 34-year-old me wasn’t in a good headspace. I needed counseling more than cosmetic surgery.

My tenderhearted, respectful husband never suggested that I refill my flat chest, though he wasn’t opposed to the idea; he liked the way B cups would look. It was my decision entirely but influenced by a desire to please him since I had hurt him. I wanted to look feminine for him, because he had fallen in love with a curvy party girl (the pre-runner version of me), not a ripped runner.

My self-confidence had become as deflated as my post-nursing breasts. I framed and justified my decision as reconstruction, not augmentation.

When I got it done, I gave virtually no thought to the surgeon’s admonishment that they’d need replacement in 15 or so years. That time frame seemed way, way far off in the future.

This is what I would tell the 34-year-old me, or anyone considering implants for augmentation or for mastectomy reconstruction:

There’s a good chance your implants will harden over time and feel like hockey pucks, making them rise up and look extra fake with their firmness, and making it uncomfortable to sleep on your stomach. This is called capsular contracture, and I developed it on one side badly and on the other side mildly.

There’s a good chance you’ll lose sensitivity on and around one or both nipples. Yep, I checked that box.

According to testimonials from countless women, but not proven definitively, implants can trigger Breast Implant Illness (BII), an umbrella term for an array of symptoms such as joint pain and autoimmune reactions such as rashes. I elected to get saline rather than silicone implants, which are safer insofar as if they rupture, the body will harmlessly absorb the fluid. But saline implants are encased in a silicone shell, and both types can cause infections and other complications. (Thankfully, I never had BII symptoms.)

Not always but in some cases, implants can interfere with breastfeeding, especially if placed over the muscle, where they can compress milk ducts.

Implants make it harder to get and read a mammogram. Mammography technologists have a work-around, but it’s not perfect, and it compounds the difficulty of detecting tumors in dense breast tissue (which many small-breasted women have). I also suspect—without evidence but based on my experience—that implants may make women less inclined to get routine mammograms. I admittedly avoided mammograms because the process is extra uncomfortable with implants, and I worried the machine might rupture them, which is very rare but not impossible. Psychologically, I didn’t want to fess up to my implants. Even with my medical providers, I felt shame because I was a secret phony who hypocritically advocated authenticity.

Explant surgery (removal without replacement) likely will leave your chest looking altered, even damaged, rather than merely returning it to its pre-surgery appearance of small-breasted or flat. You’ll have smiley-shaped scars, and your breasts may look concave or dimpled in areas because the implant no longer fills out that space. To improve this outcome, some larger-breasted women may opt for a breast lift (removing excess skin to tighten tissue) or a more comprehensive aesthetic flat closure to reshape the chest wall to be flat and smooth. Some may also get a fat transfer (liposuction from one area to inject fat cells in the chest, which is a milder form of augmentation than implants; liposuction can be painful and cause complications). I did not get any of this extra work done because I’m so flat, I don’t have much sag to fill or tissue to sculpt, and I wanted the surgery to be as uncomplicated and low risk as possible.

Our society has normalized cosmetic surgery, but the surgery is significant and, in my view, pretty freaking gruesome and expensive. My bilateral explant with capsulectomy (removal of the scar tissue around the implant) cost $5617 not covered by insurance, and it would’ve been $8403 if I had opted for an exchange (new implants put in). Long plastic tubes with grenade-shaped bulbs exited my rib cage and drained bloody fluid for two weeks, which severely limited movement, disrupted sleep, and made it awkward to be in public (I wore oversized sweaters to hide them). I was instructed to maintain “T-rex arms” with upper arms kept near my sides, and no heavy lifting or reaching, for four weeks, along with no high-impact activity or anything that would significantly raise my heart rate, because high blood flow could trigger blood pooling and harm healing at the surgery site. (I cheated and restarted a small amount of running after three weeks, because my chest felt OK). No push-up or chest-press exercises for longer.

Me post-op in early December.

Going flat and staying that way IS an option. If you have a mastectomy, you don’t need reconstruction, even though your doctors may assume that’s what you want and talk about it as if it’s a given. I understand and respect breast cancer survivors who opt for reconstruction; I’m just saying, I hope they’ll consider the alternative as realistic, not radical.

If your breasts shrink after breastfeeding, then you are normal and blessed that they did their job of feeding your babies.

If you get implants and later choose “exchange” rather than “removal,” you’ll face all this surgery and recovery again when the implants reach the end of their lifespan. No thank you!

Mostly, you are fine as is! If you’re feeling down on yourself, you may need to work on your head and heart more than your outward appearance.

Let’s spend time on that last point, because I continue to struggle with self-acceptance and to push back against peer and societal pressure to conform to beauty standards.

Family fun in Las Vegas circa 1976.

Let’s briefly detour to my childhood to marvel at this gem of a photo, which captures the ethos and culture of my 1970s upbringing with bawdy parents. Our family made annual pilgrimages to Vegas, since my dad was a skilled gambler, and my sibs and I took this photo at a casino with this cutout caricature.

I’m the little girl, age 7 if I recall correctly, on the left. My parents thought it was hilarious (and I can’t help but laugh now, too, even as I wince at how the photo evokes material from the Epstein files). A poster-sized blowup of this photo hung in my childhood bedroom for years, subconsciously shaping my view of women’s roles and bodies even more than the ubiquitous Farrah Fawcett red swimsuit pinup. I also daily viewed a ceramic mug on my dad’s bureau shaped as a woman’s large, bare upturned breast (which he used to hold spare change and golf tees).

For these reasons and others, I grew up thinking that well-shaped breasts with cleavage mattered as much as smooth feathered hair, and puberty gave me neither.

As an adult, I have said “no” to the epidemic of Botox-frozen foreheads, brow lifts, and lip injections. I can’t stomach the cost when I think of the more worthwhile things the money could buy, and I want to role model aging naturally for my daughter and her peers. Plus, lifts and injections are a slippery slope, and the more you do, the more hooked you become on misbelieving you need to “get back” to your younger appearance and preserve it rather than embracing the age you are and celebrating the fact that aging equals living.

But let’s face it, being as flat as a door isn’t easy when nearly every female celebrity who is celebrated as attractive is thin, smooth-skinned, and has two well-rounded mounds on her chest—a nearly impossible combo naturally—thanks to cosmetic treatments and implants.

The pressure hits female athletes when role models like Olympic gymnast Simone Biles has multiple cosmetic enhancements, including an obvious breast augmentation, which to me is incredibly sad—as if being the most successful gymnast ever, earning seven gold medals, isn’t enough to feel good about her body. She was beautiful and admirable as her “before” self and looks artificial now.

The before and after of Simone Biles from People magazine.

Where does it stop? You get a boob job, a straight thin nose, an eyebrow lift, and/or cheekbone or jaw implants only to focus on your saggy neck, or your flat or too-large butt, and obsess about “fixing” them too.

“This past year, [cosmetic] surgery crossed the Rubicon,” writes Vanity Fair writer Marisa Meltzer, who covers the fashion and beauty industries, in an excellent essay in the New York Times. “Many famous people who are getting work done do not necessarily look like a younger version of themselves anymore; they simply look expensive. ‘Uncanny’ is an overused word these days, but it’s a good way of describing the inhuman artifice of the prevailing plastic surgery tends. … We are now at a point where forgoing cosmetic procedures is almost remarkable.” (emphasis added)

I’d like to be remarkable in that way. And you know what? It feels easier to give the finger to appearance expectations as I age. At long last, I’m letting go, bit by bit, of caring about being attractive in the eyes of others. I feel more secure in my peer group, community, and body in my mid-fifties than early forties. The rebel in me shouts fuck this! I am not playing that game of pleasing anyone else, trying to look like anyone else, or needing anyone’s admiration anymore.

It also helps to learn that I am part of a growing trend, which emboldens me to speak out as I’m doing here. My plastic surgeon told me he’s doing more explant surgeries because more women are choosing to look flatter and natural. His observation is backed up by studies like this and this about plastic surgeons seeing an uptick in explant surgery, and testimonials like this on TikTok by influencers talking about why they’re removing their implants.

I’m motivated to walk with good posture, shoulders back, and not hide the level surface of my chest. Inwardly I wince when I examine the flatness while undressed and view the scars and a slight indentation. So I close my eyes and remind myself that I feel better. I feel more aerodynamic and boyish when I run. I feel comfortable when I lie on my stomach to sleep. I feel strong and, regardless of what the mirror shows, youthful!

I was at my Berkeley OBGYN’s office in 2002, the year I stopped nursing my son, when I shyly and cautiously asked my doctor what she thought of breast implants. Her reply stuck with me.

She was a graying feminist who remembered life before Roe. “What do I think of it?” she asked rhetorically, her voice ratcheting up a level. “I think it’s self-mutilation!”

Her reply—which promptly ended our conversation—stung and fed my need for secrecy when I got mine done. For years, I resented her judgmental and insensitive comment, because she missed an opportunity to query with compassion and curiosity about why I asked about it and perhaps to steer me toward therapy.

Now, however, having read many articles about cosmetic surgery’s spread to younger ages and to more body parts (like this, “Plastic Surgery Comes for the Waist,” about ribcage alteration to make Barbie-like corseted waistlines) and the horrifying homogenization of “Mar-A-Lago Face,” and having chosen to cut open my body to reshape it and suffered the shitty aftermath of recovery and scars, I look back on my granola doc’s declaration and think, you know, she had a point.

I’ll leave you with this recent poem by Rosemerry Wahtola Trommer, which spoke to me—actually, made me cry—its title capturing the long road to liberation and self-love the way you are.

But Not a Moment Sooner

Eventually we learn to laugh when we drop
the glass and it shatters all over the floor,
finding laughter more fun than a shackle of curses.
We can wiggle our butt more when someone
says it looks big instead of trying to tuck it
tighter beneath our hips. Eventually we learn
there is no way to not be exactly ourselves.
What freedom then. We can listen to the sound
of our own voice without cringing. Can dance
in front of anyone. Can wake up grateful for our aging face
in the mirror. Can wear questions like exotic perfume
and see how they grow us. Eventually,
we can look at each other and say,
I’m so glad you are exactly who you are.

Me now. That's all, folks!

If this story resonated with you, I hope you’ll share it, and I invite you to read these two posts from the past year that touch on similar themes.

On fitting in, feeling ugly or pretty, the sexualization of young women, and why dressing up triggers me:

On how “wellness” has become a repackaging of the beauty and diet industries pushing unproven products and heightening women’s insecurities in the name of “self-care”:

Thank you for reading this far, and happy new year! If you’d like to support this newsletter but would rather not commit to a paid subscription, I have a virtual tip jar if you’d like to make a small donation.

Buy Me a Coffee virtual tip jar

Read the whole story
rocketo
8 hours ago
reply
But Not a Moment Sooner

Eventually we learn to laugh when we drop
the glass and it shatters all over the floor,
finding laughter more fun than a shackle of curses.
We can wiggle our butt more when someone
says it looks big instead of trying to tuck it
tighter beneath our hips. Eventually we learn
there is no way to not be exactly ourselves.
What freedom then. We can listen to the sound
of our own voice without cringing. Can dance
in front of anyone. Can wake up grateful for our aging face
in the mirror. Can wear questions like exotic perfume
and see how they grow us. Eventually,
we can look at each other and say,
I’m so glad you are exactly who you are.
seattle, wa
Share this story
Delete

ICE Is Modeling Its Brutality After The IDF

1 Comment

Call it recency bias, personal interest, or perhaps just a general concern for society's trajectory right now, but as I followed Wednesday's news of an ICE agent killing 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis, then watched the federal government flatly lie about the sequence of events, the indignant language and informational smokescreens felt nauseatingly familiar. It was as if someone had taken Israel's playbook for Gaza and tested it out stateside.

You don't have to leave the city, much less the state or country, to find precedent of law enforcement slaughtering the people they're supposed to protect. It's an American tradition already illustrated by many devastated families and callous police union presidents. But for years now, both in Gaza and the West Bank, the Israeli government has modeled how to act with both viciousness and total impunity. That in turn has affected the efficacy of public pressure in other parts of the world. Entities within the sphere of U.S. power have realized that it is even easier to slaughter a person in the street and get away with it.



Read the whole story
rocketo
9 hours ago
reply
israel has long been the testing ground for warfare against the people (undesirable according to the state) who live there
seattle, wa
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories