Lessons in Power -- Washington Style

Too many people do not understand power or authority.

They too often think that power comes from a title. They too often think that authority comes from a  position granted by others. They do not understand that power and authority comes from one's ability to get the people who work for or with you to do the things you want.

And to get those people on board one must have a vision, and one must be able to get others to believe in that vision. If the buy-in is low, the results often are even lower.

Donald Trump and Paul Ryan just ran into that reality.

Let's take Donald "The Closer" Trump first. The co-author of "The Art of the Deal" thought that every deal he made was based on his personal prowess. He was The Donald and everyone, especially real estate people and bankers, wanted to work with him. He was the brash, high-profile scion of real estate, the marble and gilded king, a man of billion-dollar deals.

That many of his creditors had to fight for 10 cents on the dollar after he filed multiple bankruptcies was not important. Being a part of The Donald's orbit was enough. After all, financial losses can be hidden in balance sheets or slipped into a tax return as a loss and, thereby, a tax deduction that allows one to pay a lower tax rate than a secretary making $35,000 a year.

Style -- even when it is gauche -- trumps substance. (Please pardon the pun.)

Then there is Ryan, an Ayn Rand devotee.

Ryan thinks PowerPoint presentations, an unctuous frat-boy smile, and the ability to talk -- okay I'll just say it -- bullshit makes a thinker. And when the media is desperately looking for a conservative intellectual, even a lightweight will do.

But then comes reality Washington style. Being a bully, thinking that everyone wants to be your friend when several of the people you are dealing with have egos larger than yours, and they believe that you are where you are because they gave too much credence to political polls . . . . well guess what? They do not have to work with you.

You think you can threaten me? Bring it. I know my rubes better than you do.

Oh, you think that fooling a lot of liberal pundits and reporters into thinking you are a budget genius makes me kowtow to you? Think again because I know your Wisconsin rubes as well as I know my rubes.

And I'm in a safe district. Are you?

So Donald "The Closer" Trump and Paul (I Really don"t care health plan) Ryan discovered that in Washington everyone is a self appointed king who does not have to listen to anyone.

Today, Trump and Ryan were given a lesson in the fact that one can only bully the fearful. But will that lesson sink in? 

  

  

A Multiple Choice Test for America

If one is still not convinced of the cruelty and mendacity of Republicans today, then one is:

A) Complicit in the GOP's madness
B) Not paying attention
C) Delusional beyond hope
D) Suffering from anosognosia
E) All of the above.

This week proved it more than ever when Republicans, who had campaigned on repealing Obamacare when they were the minority; decided to "repeal and replace" when they took over both chambers of Congress and the White House; postponed a vote on the American Health Care Act on Thursday so Donald "The Closer" Trump could seal the deal, and withdrew the bill on Friday when it was obvious that defeat was at hand.

Simply, the cruelty of the Republican bill was too much for some moderate members of that party, and not severe enough for some of its conservative members. That the bill would have placed too many grandmothers, grandfathers, fathers, mothers, aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters, cousins, children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren at risk was not enough to stop the Paul Ryan express.

And that is the problem. Though this effort faced its own death panel, other efforts may live on and may be successful.    

Ryan, the Republican House Speaker from Wisconsin, offered up the AHCA with great fanfare, even providing his customary PowerPoint to impress the media and the American people.

If the AHCA is passed, Ryan promised, Americans would be free of the yoke of the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare as Republicans derisively call the former president's heath-care insurance plan. Medicaid would be block granted, and the mandate to purchase insurance would be lifted from those who have been harmed by the socialist overreach of Barack Hussein Obama.

Of course, anyone with critical literacy or critical thinking skills knows that to be untrue.

The AHCA is nothing more than a vicious manifestation of Republican desires to make heath care a privilege, not a right. Under the plan announced by Ryan, as many as 14 million people would lose health care in the first year of the plan, according to scoring by the Congressional Budget Office. That number would shoot up to 24 million within a decade, the office concluded. In addition, the cost of health insurance would have jumped 500 percent for the elderly.

The Congressional Budget Office lists many other problems with the Ryan-doesn't-really-care plan.

Yet, while nearly everyone -- from doctors, to hospitals, to citizens, to AARP -- trashed the AHCA, Republicans tried to force it through the House of Representatives, claiming the AHCA would dramatically reduce how much Americans pay for health insurance. (That is probably the one thing that is true about the program: Many Americans will realize those much-vaunted premium savings because they will not have to pay premiums after losing their policies.)

So when discussing the AHCA on the Sunday talk shows, Democrat after Democrat attacked the Republican plan while many in the GOP applauded the speaker's bold action. Too be fair, some Republicans, particularly those in the Senate who hail from state's that expanded Medicaid, voiced concerns about increased costs and benefit reductions for the elderly and poor. Many Republicans, though, cheered the proposed destruction of Medicaid, as well as the gutting of government subsidies to buy insurance. The complaint of the Freedom Caucus was that Ryancare was not draconian enough.

The level of glee at denying millions of people health-care coverage -- along with the conflation that is the Republican standard -- was mind boggling.

On one show on MSNBC, for example, the host brought on a Republican party official from North Carolina and a Democratic strategist to discuss the plan. As one would expect each echoed the talking points of his party. 

Where the breakdown really occurred was when the North Carolina Republican proclaimed the AHCA as a great thing because it would allow states to determine who was eligible for Medicaid and would once again increase the support that private charities give to the poor.

To make his point, the North Carolina Republican cited the way the people of the Raleigh-Durham area pulled together to help those affected by a large fire in downtown Raleigh..

The host of the show then became complicit with Republican mendacity and cruelty. Instead of deconstructing that Republican assertion, he quickly moved on to a different question.

North Carolina was one of the state's that did not expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. That means that tens -- if not hundreds -- of thousands of people who might have gotten health insurance that could have lead to care that could have saved their lives were left uninsured. So how did that work out for poor people in that state?

In addition, while people may be quick to respond to a one-off tragedy such as a fire in the heart of a city, it is another thing to expect that same community to respond each and every day to the tragedies facing those without health-care insurance. Imagine the massive undertaking that would be needed for a community to help just 100 families with their medical needs. It could easily overwhelm and drain that community's resources.

That is when the Federal government is supposed to step in. Spreading that costs across the nation through taxes helps all Americans. Yes, some people will be better off than others under such a system. But isn't that what insurance is all about?

A healthy young man or woman might lose on some levels because each may not use their insurance that much. The upside is that by sharing the burden of costs a family that is struggling or an elderly person with greater health needs may have a chance to live longer because of medical care.

Suggesting or hoping that the local church, VFW, Kiwanis Club, Moose Lodge, or any other civic organization should carry such a burden everyday is to expect too much, particularly in light of The Closer's proposal to cut funding from Meals on Wheels.In many towns and cities across America, those charitable organizations are already overwhelmed by the need to feed families, some of whom include working adults.

We are not a small country, and when one realizes the size and diverse needs of America one begins to realize that small government just does not cut it. People come to accept that fact when their community is hit by a natural disaster and the federal government redistributes wealth by sending federal dollars through FEMA to help people rebuild their lives.
 
Luckily many people, including some Trump voters, are waking up to these facts, albeit slowly. Now they must answer another pressing question: When the 2018 midterm elections arrive I will:

A) Register to vote and register my family and friends
B) Vote in my congressional, state, and local elections
C) Fight efforts to roll back programs that help those who need help the most
D) Oust morally corrupt legislators
E) All of the above.  

When the Dog Catches the Car

When it comes to Republicans one has to wonder just how stupid stupid is. Who knew creating a health care program was so complicated, Donald Trump asked recently. Considering we are only in March and we are talking about Republicans, I am quite sure that stupid is more stupid than we thought because anyone paying attention over the last seven years knew creating a health care plan is extremely complicated.

Which is what the Republicans in Congress are finally discovering. Their plan to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare as GOP leaders like to say, shows that ignorance, stupidity, and hypocrisy knows no bounds when it comes to Republicans and their voters.

Yes, I know we are being told by liberal pundits and others that we liberals should not assail Trump voters, that we should not anger them any more than we have with out elitist views. We should, as the pundits like to say, separate the voters from the candidate and his buffoonery in an effort to bridge the gap that keeps so much of America divided. We must embrace the pain of the white working-class. Criticism of that forgotten America just drives them closer to the Trumps of the world.

Well, making nice with such people will not be easy. They asked for this, and they now have what they have desired for years.

Consider that Kentucky, for example, elected two Republicans to the U.S. Senate, both of whom declared that they would vote to repeal Obamacare. The people who sent Rand Paul and Mitch McConnell to Washington want Obamacare repealed, in part because many of them see it as socialism run amok. Those voters hate Obama and Obamacare.

Yet, they embrace the Affordable Care Act, which gave many Kentucky voters insurance for the first time in their lives. That the Affordable Care Act and Obamacare are one in the same somehow escaped those voters for years.

Kentucky, when it had a Democratic governor, created a very efficient and effective state health portal for those seeking health insurance. The state chose to expand its Medicaid program, and its workers signed up thousands of people who never had health care coverage..

So what did Kentucky voters do?

They elected a Republican governor who is pushing to make the Affordable Care Act and Kentucky's state of the art heath insurance web portal as ineffective as possible. They re-elected McConnell to the Senate. Now many of those same voters fear they will lose their newly obtained health care coverage.

You can't make this stuff up. The Republicans are set to give those Kentucky -- and all the other Republican -- voters what they have been clamoring for for years: A repeal of Obamacare.

The House plan released Monday shows that while Republicans knew how to use a hatred of Obama and Obamacare to generate votes, they have no idea of how to create a health care plan that will not result in millions of people losing insurance or finding themselves unable to afford coverage, putting much of the nation back where it was in those dark days before Obamacare.

It is not just in Kentucky.

Republicans across the country voted again and again for men and women who promised to kill Obamacare. Yet, those voters are now wondering how a loss of Obamacare will affect them and their loved ones. Will Nana be able to stay in her nursing home if Medicaid is block granted? Will I be able to afford my health insurance if my government subsidy is only $3,000 a year?

The list of questions go on and on. The answers are simple.

If Republican legislators have their way Nana will not be able to stay in her nursing home, and you will not be able to afford health care coverage. So be thankful. You are getting what you wanted since the Affordable Care Act was passed in 2010.

The so-called socialism that is Obamacare will be decimated under the GOP plan released Monday by Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. Subsidies to working class families will be cut dramatically. The wealthy will get the biggest breaks. Medicaid will eventually be slashed under block granting.

And that is just the tip of the iceberg.

Republican legislators show a total disdain for helping the American people, and they do so under the guise of protecting "freedom."

Affordable health insurance for all Americans is not a right, according to Republicans, but a privilege. If a person wants health coverage, especially someone who is not well off, then that person needs to get rid of his or her iPhone to pay for health insurance. In the world of Republicans everything is a trade off in which the only people who should get government help are the people who need it the least.

Luckily, some Republicans, including Senators Rob Portman of Ohio, Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, Cory Gardner of Colorado, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, have assailed the House "replacement" plan because of its threat to Medicaid, which was expanded in their states.

But others, such as Paul and Mike Lee of Utah, attacked the House plan as not being draconian and heartless enough. Paul labeled the House plan "Obamacare lite." Other conservatives called it "Obamacare 2.0."

The Koch brothers and their network of billionaire sponsored "grassroots" organizations are set to attack the Republican plan as not going far enough to stamp out the socialism of Obamacare. The Heritage Foundation, the organization that came up with the individual mandate and created the blueprint that became Romneycare and later Obamacare, has already gone on the attack in hopes of destroying any remnants of the plan it created as an alternative to Hillarycare in the 1990s.

Of course much of this may be a way for Republicans to provide coverage for those members who now realize it was easier to promise a repeal of Obamacare when there was no chance of it happening than it is to actually come up with a replacement plan that does not harm constituents.

Either way there are some basic things we must remember. The year is less than three months old, and the ignorance, stupidity, and hypocrisy of  Republicans and their voters will be on full display for some time to come.

The Not so Newsey News Analysis

I am a fan of The New York Times. After all, I worked there for nearly nine years.

But there are some stories The Times does that send me over the top.

"Are Liberals Helping Trump," a news analysis that appeared on The Times' website on Saturday was one of those articles.

According to the analysis, the upsurge in anti-Trump protests since the inauguration is pushing "moderate conservatives" who voted for Trump closer to him.

"We're backed into a corner," Jeffrey Medford, a 46-year-old owner of a small business in South Carolina, told the analysis' author, Sabrina Tavernise. "There are at least some things about Trump that I find defensible. But they are saying: 'Agree with us 100 percent or you are morally bankrupt. You're an idiot if you support any part of Trump."

He later told Tavernise: "I didn't choose a side. They put me on one."

Bryce Youngquist, a 34-year-old salesman at a tech start-up in Mountain View Calif., said of liberals:

"They are complaining that Trump calls people names, but they turned into some mean people."

Youngquist told Tavernise that when he finally admitted to his friends that he supported Trump they attacked him as being a "disgusting human being."

"They were making me want to support him more with how irrational they were being," he said. "The name calling from the left is crazy."

Ann O'Connell, a 72-year-old retired administrative assistant in Syracuse who said she voted for Bill Clinton twice, said she drifted from the Democratic Party because she felt it had moved away from its middle-class economic roots toward identity politics.

"I don't have a problem with protesting as long as it's peaceful, but this is destroying the country," she said. "I feel like we are in some kind of civil war right now. I know people don't like to use those terms. But I think it's scary."

She went on to say of liberal protestors: "These people are destroying our democracy. They are scarier to me than these Islamic terrorists. I feel absolutely disgusted with them and their antics. It strengthens people's resolve in wanting to support Trump. It really does."

That Medford, Youngquist, and O'Connell are disgusted with liberals does not bother me. That their responses to liberal protests is to double down on their conservativism does not bother me. The truth is I expect such a reaction.  

What bothers me is that there is little evidence that Tavernise pushed the three on why they voted for Trump in the first place, or whether they felt the same way when conservatives attacked President Barack Obama, calling him a closet Muslim and saying he was not born in the United States.

For eight years, conservative trolls referred to liberals as ‘libetards.” They called the President and First Lady apes. A Republican screamed “You lie” at President Obama during a State of the Union address. And of course there were the Tea Party protests.

Were these “moderate conservatives” upset at the protests and attacks from conservatives when it was directed at Obama? If they can't defend Trump now, then why did they vote for him? Are they upset at Trump's tendency to lie? Do they have questions about his possible conflicts-of-interest? Do they think it was okay for Trump not to release his taxes? How can "moderate conseratives," who called Hillary Clinton a crook, justify voting for a man who thinks its good business not to pay the owners of small businesses money he owes? Is there doubling-down a defense mechanism for voting for an unfit candidate for President?   

We won’t know reading Tavernise’s analysis.  

Rising Anger in Trumpland

It was possibly one of the most idiotic things a Republican has said so far in this age of Trump.

After being assailed by people afraid of losing their health insurance if the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare, is repealed, Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, a Wisconsin Republican, complained of “organized opposition by people who were on the losing side of the election.”

No shit Sherlock.

Who else is going to complain? The people who won?

“Oh god, I am so peeved that my candidate won because now he can do everything he promised.”
People who win do not complain. They celebrate. They take victory laps. They spike the ball in the end zone.

People who lose get angry. They protest. They organize other people. They show up at town hall meetings with lots of questions.

And when you threaten to take away the one thing that keeps them or a loved one alive they get into your “grill,” as Rep. Dave Brat, a Virginia Republican, discovered not too long ago.

It is a basic tenet of the First Amendment, the right of the people to seek redress from government, to protest as individuals or as groups. To organize. Lamenting that such people are organized does not silence their voices, nor does it negate the legitimacy of their grievances.

Americans, particularly many of the roughly 73 million people who voted against Donald Trump in November, are angry, and they have every right to be so.  Not because Trump won although the majority of Americans who voted chose a candidate other than him.

No.

They are rightly angry because his election has removed the only bulwark against a mob of faux patriots who believe the U.S. Constitution exists simply for their pleasure.

The voices of those angry people have risen to show their displeasure with the Boob-in-Chief. They have fought efforts to marginalize women and minorities, to place a back door ban on Muslim immigration.

Mostly they have raised their voices in chorus against efforts to kill the Affordable Care Act.
   
Brat, a former economics professor who defeated House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in the 2014 Republican primary, was taken aback when he was accosted by women terrified of losing their health insurance.

“Since Obamacare and these issues have come up, the women are in my grill wherever I go,” Brat told a gathering of local conservatives in Virginia. “They come up to me and go, 'When's the next town hall?' And believe me, it's not to give positive input.”

Other Republicans are experiencing the same reaction.

“If I could give you an answer today, I would, but I can’t,” Sensenbrenner told a questioner at his town-hall-style meeting at the Pewaukee Public Library.

Rep. Tom McClintock of California needed a police escort after his meeting, and Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah faced a crowd of 1,000 people, many of them shouting “Do your job.” Things have become so tense that House Republicans were recently advised on security precautions at their meetings and district offices.

Others, such as Rep. Kevin Brady of Houston and Rep. Mike Coffman of Denver, faced similar audiences.
                                                                  
But such encounters are not enough.

Each protest should include voter registration drives and tips on how to keep people engaged until 2018.

Based on Republican talking points, we also can expect an assault on laws that protect us from a predatory financial class; an assault on Social Security; on women’s health; on voting rights; on public education.

The lists goes on and on. Assaults on everything that progressives hold dear. And that is the true threat to our democracy – attacks on progress by small minded men and women in Congress who want a nation this continuously looks back not forward. 

Where's Les McCann When We Need Him?

Whenever I hear a Republican speak these days I have a serious Les McCann moment.

You know the one that McCann, along with Eddie Harris, gave the world at the 1969 Montreux Jazz Festival in Switzerland.

"I love the lie and lie the love/A-hangin' on, with push and shove/Possession is the motivation that is hangin' up/The God-damn nation looks like we always end up in a rut (everybody now!)/Tryin' to make it real -- compared to what." 

Since Jan. 20, 2009, Republicans have repeatedly shown that they are a callous and irksome lot that loves the lie. Don't simply take my word. Look at the GOP's six-year policy of obstructionism that was hatched as Barack Obama was being sworn in as the nation's 44th president.

For years Republicans lied about the President's economic policies and the Affordable Care Act, saying each would destroy the economy. Now that we have seen more than 50 months of steady job growth -- 3.1 million jobs in 2014 alone -- since 2011, a drop in the unemployment rate to below 6 percent, records set on the stock market, soaring profits by the nation's major corporations, and GPD growth we haven't had since before 2008, Republicans seek to take the credit, saying it was the anticipation of a Republican takeover of Congress this year that pushed the economy forward. Of course, they still lie about the Affordable Care Act and their so-called replacement plan, which seeks to gut the ACA and would leave millions of Americans without health insurance -- again.

But if those six years of Republican "no's" and obstructionism in Congress are not enough then look at the actions of the Republican party since it expanded its majority in the House of Representatives and took control of the Senate after the 2014 midterm elections. One can also look at the actions of Republican governors and state legislatures around the country. Whether it is the doubling down of broken fiscal and tax policies in Kansas, Wisconsin, or Louisiana, the ridiculous comments of state legislators on what constitutes rape, or efforts to further destroy unions, the evidence is there.

Let's look at Congress first. After six years of making Congress as dysfunctional as possible and lowering its favorability rating to single-digits at various times by shutting down the government, playing brinksmanship with the debt ceiling, and blocking all meaningful legislation, the first bills the newly empowered Republican majorities voted in the House and Senate do nothing to break the logjam of do-nothingness in Congress or help the American people who continue to face economic hardship six years after the economy collapsed.

Instead, they have voted to put the Federal Government on the hook again for reckless banking practices that the Dodd-Frank financial regulations sought to curb; have voted to repeal or alter the Affordable Care Act for the 56th time; pushed through a law that would thwart Obama's actions to block the unnecessary Keystone XL pipeline project; have voted that future analysis of tax bills should use a questionable formula that would make all tax cuts seem good; and have added a poison pill to the Department of Homeland Security funding bill in an effort to block the President's executive order granting a reprieve to immigrants whose parents brought them into the country illegally as children.

Oh yeah, we also have a Republican U.S. Senator who says restaurants should be able to "opt-out" of the requirement that employees must wash their hands after using the restrooms, and several so-called Republican doctors who equivocate on the importance of vaccinations to stem preventable diseases that have the potential to kill.

And that is just the tip of the iceberg.

We also have several Republican governors doubling down on failed tax and fiscal policies that have stymied economic growth in their states and have blown large holes in their budgets. With the 2016 presidential election season already in progress, Republicans have said that the next president should be a governor, someone with executive experience.

Yet, a look at those Republican governors gives us Bobby Jindal whose home state is facing a $1.6 billion budget hole this year and in the foreseeable years because of tax cuts, budget gimmicks, one-shots, and a drop in oil prices; Scott Walker whose home state faces so large a budget gap that he plans to cut about $300 million from the state's vaunted public college system; Rick Scott who faces multiple claims of ethics violations, the most recent for allegedly firing the top state law-enforcement official investigating the governor for wrongdoing; Chris Christie -- a bellicose, bullying, buffoon -- who has more scandals and junkets from businessmen than any other governor should ever have and still be walking free; and Jeb Bush who we now know was a hashish smoking alleged bully who wants other people's kids incarcerated for something that he did and seemed to enjoy as a teenager.  

To add further insult, Republican-led state legislatures are filled with "whacko birds" that have no idea of what constitutes rape. According to one Republican state legislator, while rape of a woman is ugly, it becomes less ugly if the woman gets pregnant. Then there is the Republican legislator who wonders why it is considered rape to have sex with an unconscious woman.

And we can't forget the religious right, which is trying to change state laws to make discrimination legal as long as one can cite religious belief. Yes, Les McCann was right.

"Church on Sunday, sleep and nod/Tryin to duck the wrath of God/Preachers fillin' us with fright/They all tryin' to teach us what they think is right/They really have to be some kind of nut (I can't use it!)/Tryin to make it real -- compared to what."
 

Time for the Leaders to Lead

The tragic shooting deaths of two New York City police officers in the Bedford-Stuyvesant section of Brooklyn over the weekend is a grim reminder of how America has lost its way, allowing hatred, partisanship, and revenge to overwhelm tolerance, cooperation, and reason.

Officers Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos were sitting in their car near Myrtle and Tompkins Avenues when Ismaaiyl Brinsley fired several shots without warning. Police and city officials called the attack an assassination.

Patrick Lynch, the head of the Police Benevolent Association, said it was a sign of how Mayor Bill de Blasio had made police a target. Others shot disdainful looks at President Barack Obama, U.S. Attorney Eric Holder, the Rev. Al Sharpton, and the tens of thousands of protesters who have expressed outrage after several incidents in which white police officers have killed unarmed black men and children without facing charges.

Regrettably, very few people in positions of authority noted or took stock of the violence that permeates our society at a time when crime is steadily declining. That Brinsley was armed with a misguided grudge, a silver Taurus 9-millimeter handgun, and a history of mental issues was ignored during the effort to score rhetorical points.

Take Lynch for example. The head of the NYPD's largest police union was quick to say that the officers' blood "starts on the steps of City Hall" in general and "in the office of the mayor" in particular. He also lead a protest in which police officers turned their backs on the mayor at the hospital where the officers were pronounced dead.

Others have warned that the shootings of the two officers, both of whom are being mourned by their family, friends, fellow officers, and the citizenry, were acts of war.

According to a message attributed to police, but which the PBA denies issuing, the NYPD has become "a 'wartime' police department."

"We will act accordingly," the missive declared.

Meanwhile, a who's who of reactionary Republican politicians from former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani to former New York Gov. George Pataki to U.S. Sen. Lindsay Graham of South Carolina, assailed de Blasio for expressing support for the rights of protesters, saying he had created a dangerous climate for police officers by indulging lawlessness.

Ignored, of course, is a very basic truth: when police and civilians do not trust each other, do not work together, do not seek common ground then we are all in danger. And when those who are supposed to lead retreat to their partisan rhetorical corners nothing will ever be accomplished.

Let us understand some very simply things. America has married the worship of guns to a delegitimizing of authority -- an authority often steeped in abuse and overreach. Because Brinsley allegedly cited the deaths of Eric Garner in Staten Island and Michael Brown in Ferguson as reasons for his rampage, few people are looking at the things that are at the heart of such violence. 

The deaths of Officers Liu and Ramos are not the manifestation of protests against excessive police abuse. Nor are their deaths the desired result that most people sought in voicing their displeasures with police actions. Their deaths can be tied to a mental health system that is almost non-existent, our gun culture, the inability to see each other's humanity, the rationalization of excessive violence in the name of safety, and on and on and on.

When James Eagan Holmes opened fire in a movie theater in Aurora, Colo., on July 20, 2012, conservatives, Republicans, and the National Rifle Association went to great lengths to blame the violence on a single twisted mind, arguing that those deaths had nothing to do with lax gun policies and over the top rhetoric that adulated guns. The same occurred when Adam Lanza killed 26 innocent children in Newtown, Conn., on Dec. 14, 2012.

We heard it again when many defended the torture of prisoners by the Central Intelligence Agency, and others decided that Garner died not because of pressure applied to his throat and chest, but because he was obese and had asthma.

The humanity of those who died was denied.

For example, in making his claims that the citizenry hates the police, Lynch failed to recognize that it was the mother of Brinsley's shooting victim in Baltimore who sought to help police find him, and it was two civilians who followed an armed and dangerous Brinsley to the subway station so as to point him out to police.

Members of a society that hates police do not take such action. Yes, there are those who in their ignorance will rejoice in the officers' deaths. Such people are not reflective of society. Many people in this country have either friends or relatives who are police officers, and those people worry each night if those loved ones will return home.

It is the same with civilians who wonder if their parents, siblings, relatives, and friends will make it home at night, who fear that a life can be easily snuffed by a person puffed on his or her own sense of authority.

It is why everyone who seeks to end or to at least curb the violence must speak up. 

So far, it has been the protesters and the families of those who have suffered the most at the hands of the violence that have been the most reasonable.

"I hope and pray that we can reflect on this tragic loss of life that has occurred so that we can move forward and find an amicable path to a peaceful coexistence," Lucy Ramos, an aunt of Officer Rafael Ramos, said late Sunday afternoon.

"An act of violence is against humanity," Carmen Perez, a co-founder of Justice League NYC, told The New York Times in an interview. "It's not mutually exclusive. We can mourn Eric Garner and the two officers. It's O.K. to do that."

Indeed it is.

"We need to use the pain that all of us are experiencing and turn it into purpose," Eric Adams, a former NYPD captain and current Brooklyn borough president, said, adding that "calling for police reform is not a call for harm of police officers."

Adams' words reflect the reasonable response that many seek and the city so desperately needs. To question police department tactics and policies is not to attack police.

The problem is that for too many anything short of total capitulation and admiration of the police is an attack on the nation's men and women in blue.

But somewhere along the line, the good police and the good citizens have to come to grips with a fundamental truth: As long as the bad guys operate with impunity, regardless of whether they are police officers or rogue citizens, all of us are in danger.

And no amount of partisan rhetoric will change that.