We need Trumans on tax today. More are more aware today on matters of e.g. race, yet, in 10 years, basically little has changed in the guts of things.
The History Behind the White House Tax Deal
[...]
Reputable and respected pundits and policy makers with mainstream platforms — Nobel laureates like Joseph Stiglitz, former top officials like Robert Reich — have been rigorously linking our current hard times to what Yale political scientist Jacob Hacker calls our “economic hyperconcentration at the top.”
''Our politics follows from our economics, and vice versa,'' says Robert Reich, a leading progressive intellectual, once a member of Bill Clinton's cabinet and now Professor of Public Policy at the University of California, Berkeley.
''In times of economic growth, when everyone's incomes are growing, it's easy to feel generous,'' says Reich. ''In times of economic stagnation, when incomes are flat or endangered, almost every issue becomes a zero-sum game in which either you win or 'they' win.''
And how. Those divisions are being magnified once more by the grim economic reality in which America stews - divisions of race, of class and mostly of opportunity - while scapegoats are being stalked. Illegal immigrants, whose cheap labour has for decades helped underpin economic growth, are being demonised.
The Ideology of Racism: Misusing Science to Justify Racial Discrimination
"Trump stokes division with racism and rage – and the American oligarchy purrs"
About the author William H. Tucker William H. Tucker is Professor of Psychology at Rutgers University-Camden (United States) and specializes in the study of social scientists whose work is used to support oppressive social policies. His most recent book is titled The Funding of Scientific Racism.
In his exceptionally insightful book, Racism: A Short History, Stanford University historian George M. Fredrickson notes the paradox that notions of human equality were the necessary precondition to the emergence of racism. If a society is premised on an assumption of inequality, producing an accepted hierarchy -- one unquestioned even by those relegated to its nadir -- then there is no need to locate the cause of the underlings' position in some specific characteristic on their part that makes them less worthy than others.
However, as societies have become increasingly committed to the belief in freedom and equality -- as once revolutionary ideas about equal rights for all have become more widespread, especially in the West -- then those groups that are systematically denied these entitlements are claimed to possess what Fredrickson calls "some extraordinary deficiency that makes them less than fully human". That is, racism arose as a result of the contradiction between egalitarian principles coupled with the exclusionary treatment of specific ethnic groups: the rejection of organically hierarchical societies brought with it the implied necessity to account for the fact that some groups were subjected to servitude, enforced separation from the rest of society, or ghettoization.
Beginning around the end of the eighteenth century, as Enlightenment rationalism replaced faith and superstition as the source of authority, the pronouncements of science became the preferred method for reconciling the difference between principle and practice. In societies in which there has been systematic discrimination against specific racial groups, inevitably it has been accompanied by attempts to justify such policies on scientific grounds.
Broadly speaking, there have been three types of scientific explanations offered in putative support for racial discrimination, each of them having a lengthy history. One approach has been to claim that there are biological dangers involved in racial interbreeding. Indeed, it was precisely on the basis of this belief that in the United States and South Africa for many years there were statutory prohibitions against intermarriage. The first supposed evidence for this conclusion was provided in the mid-nineteenth century primarily by physicians, who claimed that, as a result of their mixed blood, "mulattoes" were considerably more susceptible to disease than either of their parents and thus exceptionally short-lived. In addition, were persons of mixed race to intermarry, according to leading anthropologists at the time, they became progressively less fertile, eventually becoming completely sterile.
In the early twentieth century, shortly after the scientific community's discovery of Gregor Mendel's work led to a new, exciting branch of biology, geneticists warned that the intermarriage of "far apart" races could produce what they called genetic "disharmonies". Charles Benedict Davenport, a world renowned researcher at the time, observed, for example, that if a member of a tall race, such as the Scots, should mate with a member of a small race, such as the Southern Italians, their offspring could inherit the genes for large internal organs from one parent and for small stature from the other, resulting in viscera that would be too large for the frame. Naturally these claims were not tenable for long, but they were soon replaced by assertions less easily disprovable, as some social scientists insisted that the children of mixed race parentage were morally and intellectually inferior to either of the parents.
Although belief in such genetic mismatches was once fairly widespread within the scientific community and cited specifically to rationalize various racially oppressive policies, this notion now enjoys far less credibility. However, while there has been absolutely no evidence that racial interbreeding can produce a disharmony of any kind, warnings of some kind of genetic discord are still far from entirely extinct. Only a few years ago, Glayde Whitney, a prominent geneticist and former President of the Behavior Genetics Association, claimed that the intermarriage of "distant races" could produce a harmful genetic mixture in offspring, citing the wide range of health problems afflicting African Americans and their high infant death rate as examples of the effects of "hybrid incompatibilities" caused by white genes that were undetected due to the "one drop" convention defining all "hybrids" as blacks. Unsurprisingly, he was also a regular speaker before neo-Nazi groups and, in an address to a convention of holocaust deniers, blamed Jews for a conspiracy to weaken whites by persuading them to extend political equality to blacks.Another trend in the scientific justification of racial discrimination has been the claim that prejudice is a natural and indeed an essential phenomenon necessary for the evolutionary process to be effective by ensuring the integrity of gene pools. In this view, evolution exerts its selective effect not on individuals but on groups, which makes it necessary for races to be kept separate from each other and relatively homogeneous if there is to be evolutionary progress. One anthropologist who adheres to this belief refers to the tendency to "distrust and repel" members of other races as a natural part of the human personality and one of the basic pillars of civilization.
Finally, the most common way in which science has been used to support racial discrimination is through pronouncements that some groups are systematically less well endowed than others in important cognitive or behavioural traits. This is not to say that there may be no group differences in these traits, but rather that at this point there are no clear conclusions, which in any event would be irrelevant to issues of social and political equality. Nevertheless, there is again a long history of the use of such claims for oppressive purposes. For the first quarter of the twentieth century, there was particular concern over the results of early intelligence tests, which supposedly demonstrated that Southern and Eastern Europeans were not only intellectually inferior to their Northern counterparts, but were also unfit for self-rule. Some of the most important scientists of the time explained that Nordics, characterized as they were by greater self-assertiveness and determination, as well as intelligence, were destined by their genetic nature to rule over other races. In the last half century, the controversy over intellectual and moral traits has focused primarily on the differences between blacks and other races, which were often cited by those seeking to preserve white minority rule in South Africa and legal segregation in the United States.
At present, the most well known researcher to emphasize the importance of racial differences is Canadian psychologist J. Philippe Rushton, the author of Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective, which was distributed unsolicited in an abridged version to tens of thousands of social scientists in an unsubtle attempt to influence both fellow scientists and public opinion. In the preface to the abridged paperback, Rushton promised to explain why races differ in crime rates, learning ability and AIDS prevalence. In the ensuing account, he asserted that the behaviour of blacks, whether in Africa or the diaspora, reflected what he called a "basic law of evolution", in which reproductive strategy was linked to intellectual development, such that the more advanced the latter, the fewer the number of offspring and the greater the investment of time and effort in the care of each of them. Thus, he declared, in comparison to Caucasians and Asians, blacks tended to be more sexually active and aggressive, while less intelligent and less capable of self-control, complex social organization and family stability. Like Glayde Whitney, Rushton too has been a favourite speaker at conventions of organizations dedicated to political policies that would encode white supremacy officially into law.
In the aftermath of the Second World War, two conferences of internationally recognized scientists, held by the United Nations, Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), issued statements about race. Although there were some slight differences in their observations about the possibility of innate differences, both groups agreed that equality as an ethical principle concerning the rights to be enjoyed by all members of a society was not predicated on any scientific conclusion about racial characteristics. This position should still inform our thinking about race and science. Although the strains of thought discussed in this article do not have widespread support among contemporary scientists, whether they are appropriate issues for scientific pursuit is beside the point. Such claims, scientifically bogus or valid, should be utterly irrelevant to the entitlements enshrined in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The Ugly, Fascinating History Of The Word 'Racism'
"Trump stokes division with racism and rage – and the American oligarchy purrs"
Code Switch
January 6, 201411:55 AM ET
Gene Demby
Richard Henry Pratt was the first person the Oxford English Dictionary records using the word "racism," in a speech decrying it. But his own legacy on race is checkered. Library of Congress
The Oxford English Dictionary's first recorded utterance of the word racism was by a man named Richard Henry Pratt in 1902. Pratt was railing against the evils of racial segregation.
- Segregating any class or race of people apart from the rest of the people kills the progress of the segregated people or makes their growth very slow. Association of races and classes is necessary to destroy racism and classism. -
Although Pratt might have been the first person to inveigh against racism and its deleterious effects by name, he is much better-remembered for a very different coinage: .. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16516865 .. Kill the Indian...save the man.
"A great general has said that the only good Indian is a dead one," Pratt said. "In a sense, I agree with the sentiment, but only in this: that all the Indian there is in the race should be dead. Kill the Indian in him, and save the man."
We're still living with the after-effects of what Pratt thought and did. His story serves as a useful parable for why discussions of racism remain so deeply contentious even now.
But let's back up a bit.
Beginning in the 1880s, a group of well-heeled white men would travel to upstate New York each year to attend the Lake Mohonk Conference Of The Friend Of the Indian. Their primary focus was a solution to "the Indian problem," the need for the government to deal with the Native American groups living in lands that had been forcibly seized from them. The Plains Wars had decimated the Native American population, but they were coming to an end. There was a general feeling among these men and other U.S. leaders that the remaining Native Americans would be wiped out within a generation or two, destroyed by disease and starvation.
The Lake Mohonk attendees wanted to stop that from happening, and they pressed lawmakers to change the government's policies toward Indians. Pratt, in particular, was a staunch advocate of folding Native Americans into white life — assimilation through education.
Top: A group of Chiricahua Apache students on their first day at Carlisle Indian School in Carlisle, Pa. Bottom: The same students four months later. John N. Choate/Hulton Archive/Getty Images
He persuaded Congress to let him test out his ideas, and they gave him an abandoned military post in Carlisle, Pa., to set up a boarding school for Native children. He was also able to convince many Native Americans, including some tribal leaders, to send their children far away from home, and leave them in his charge. (They had reasons to be skeptical of Pratt, given the dubious history of white promises to Indians.)
"These [chiefs] were smart men," said Grace Chaillier, a professor of Native American studies at Northern Michigan University. "They saw the handwriting on the wall. They knew their children were going to need to be educated in the ways of the dominant culture or they weren't going to survive."
For many Natives, Chaillier said, this wrenching decision came down to a grim arithmetic: the boarding school would provide their children with food and shelter, which were hard to come by on the reservations. "The reservations were becoming very, very sad places to be," she said. "These were places of daunting poverty. People were starving."
The Carlisle Indian Industrial School would become a model for dozens of other unaffiliated boarding schools for Indian children. But Pratt's plans had lasting, disastrous ramifications.
He pushed for the total erasure of Native cultures among his students. "No bilingualism was accommodated at these boarding schools," said Christina Snyder, a historian at Indiana University. The students' native tongues were strictly forbidden — a rule that was enforced through beating. Since they were rounded up from different tribes, the only way they could communicate with each other at the schools was in English.
"In Indian civilization I am a Baptist," Pratt once told a convention of Baptist ministers, "because I believe in immersing the Indians in our civilization and when we get them under, holding them there until they are thoroughly soaked."
"The most significant consequence of this policy is the loss of languages," Snyder says. "All native languages are [now] endangered and some of them are extinct."
Pratt also saw to it that his charges were Christianized. Carlisle students had to attend church each Sunday, although he allowed each student to choose the denomination to which she would belong.
When students would return home to the reservations — which Pratt objected to, because he felt it would slow down their assimilation — there was a huge cultural gap between them and their families. They dressed differently. They had a new religion. And they spoke a different language.
"These kids coming from the boarding schools were literally unable to speak with their parents and grandparents," Chaillier said. "In many cases, they were ashamed of them, because their grandparents and parents were living a life that nobody should aspire to live."
But Pratt's idea to assimilate Native Americans gained traction, and the government began to make attendance at Indian boarding schools compulsory. Families who didn't comply were punished by the government. "For a period in the 1890s, federal Indian agents could withhold rations [from families] to kind of forcibly starve someone out," Snyder says.
Students at the Carlisle Indian Industrial School were forbidden from speaking in any language but English. Library of Congress
Tsianina Lomawaima, who heads of the American Indian Studies program at the University of Arizona, told our colleague Charla Bear .. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16516865 .. that the government's schooling policy had more cynical aims.
- "They very specifically targeted Native nations that were the most recently hostile," Lomawaima says. "There was a very conscious effort to recruit the children of leaders, and this was also explicit, essentially to hold those children hostage. The idea was it would be much easier to keep those communities pacified with their children held in a school somewhere far away." -
------ Someone is either a racist and therefore an inhuman monster, or they're an actual, complex human being, and therefore, by definition, incapable of being a racist. ------
Unhappy, homesick students regularly ran away from the schools, and authorities were sent out to apprehend deserters, who were sometimes given asylum by Native communities who protested the mandatory school laws.
But since there was little oversight of the boarding schools, the students were often subjected to horrific mistreatment. Many were regularly beaten. Chaillier said that some of the schools were rife with sexual abuse. Tuberculosis or trachoma, a preventable disease causes blindness, were rampant. All of the boarding schools, she said, had their own cemeteries.
Chaillier said that Pratt wasn't always aware of these conditions. But these were the consequences of the popularity of his philosophies.
Chaillier, who is Lakota, told me a story that her mother often shared with her about her Indian school experience. One day, according to her mother's story, a young student snuck out from his room at night, fell into a hole being dug for a well on the school grounds, broke his neck and died. His body was put on display and the students were assembled, forced to view their schoolmate's corpse as a reminder of what happened to students who were disobedient.
But Chaillier's mother insisted that she didn't attend one of the bad Indian boarding schools. And she wanted Chaillier to attend one, as well. "If you were Indian, you went to Indian school," she said, describing her mother's feelings. Her mother felt that the Indian schools were a net good, even as they were calamitous for Indian cultures.
It's that ambivalence that makes Pratt's legacy so hard to neatly characterize.
"Richard Henry Pratt was an incredibly complex individual in many ways," Chaillier said. "Some of the worst outcomes that have happened in society have started out with someone thinking they were doing something good."
"For his time, Pratt was definitely a progressive," Snyder said. Indeed, he thought his ideas were the only thing keeping Native peoples from being entirely wiped out by disease and starvation. "That's one of the dirty little secrets of American progressivism — that [progress] was still shaped around ideas of whiteness."
Snyder said that Pratt replaced the popular idea that some *groups *were natively inferior to others with the idea that some *cultures *that were the problem, and needed to be corrected or destroyed. In other words, he swapped biological determinism for cultural imperialism.
Given the sheer scale of the physical and cultural violence he helped set in motion, was Pratt himself a practitioner of the very ill he decried at the Lake Mohonk convention? Was he a racist?
Over a century after he was first recorded using the word, we still ask that question — is she or isn't she racist? — in situations where no clear answer would ever present itself. We argue about the composition of the accused's soul and the fundamental goodness or badness therein. But those are things we can't possibly know. And as we litigate that question, other more meaningful questions become obscured.
Racism remains a force of enormous consequence in American life, yet no one can be accused of perpetrating it without a kicking up a grand fight. No one ever says, "Yeah, I was a little bit racist. I'm sorry." That's in part because racists, in our cultural conversations, have become inhuman .. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/hey_wait_a_minute/2008/03/playing_the_racist_card.2.html . They're fairy-tale villains, and thus can't be real.
- The idea that America has lots of racism but few actual racists is not a new one. Philip Dray titled his seminal history of lynching At the Hands of Persons Unknown because most "investigations" of lynchings in the South turned up no actual lynchers. Both David Duke and George Wallace insisted that they weren't racists. That's because in the popular vocabulary, the racist is not so much an actual person but a monster, an outcast thug who leads the lynch mob and keeps *Mein Kampf *in his back pocket. -
[Note that though some racists today are not seen as monsters, it is still fair and appropriate to label that normal person, who acts and talks like a racist, as a racist.]
We can ask whether Richard Henry Pratt was himself racist even as he decried racism. But that question distracts from the concrete and lingering realities of his legacy. It's far more valuable to wrestle with these two ideas at once:Pratt probably improved the material lives of many individual Native American children who lived in poverty and were at risk of starving. He also aggressively campaigned to destroy their cultures and subjected them to a panoply of miseries and privations.
In the century since Pratt used the word racism, the term has become an abstraction. But always buried somewhere underneath it are actions with real consequences. Sometimes those outcomes are intended. Sometimes they're not. But it's the outcomes, not the intentions, that matter most in the end.
Proper attribution goes to Lori Gallagher Witt. I sure agree with it, and perhaps we can answer many of the repetitious posts from conservatives by number. P - I'm a liberal, but that doesn't mean what a lot of you apparently think it does. Let's break it down, shall we? https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=156282754
"Trump stokes division with racism and rage – and the American oligarchy purrs"
By Crime and Justice News | 20 hours ago
Frustrated by Attorney General William Barr’s recent comments on police and racism, a group of more than 75 retired black Drug Enforcement Administration agents are speaking out about systemic racism in the agency. The former agents said DEA suffers from a dearth of black agents across the agency as well as in supervisory positions. They say a class-action lawsuit filed 40 years ago still is being litigated. “Systemic racism has ended aspirations, careers, and in some cases even lives. Unfortunately, it has taken the despicable killing of George Floyd to awaken the collective conscience of the American people,” according to the statement, reported by the Baltimore Sun .. https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/bs-md-ci-cr-black-dea-agents-racism-20200618-47ctxvzd7vebjiozh5jtoycnza-story.html?utm_medium=notification&utm_source=onesignal . “For the highest-ranking law enforcement officer in the country to be blinded to this notion is inconceivable and will continue to have detrimental consequences.”
Barr told CBS this month, “There’s racism in the United States still, but I don’t think that the law enforcement system is systemically racist.” The retired agents say that just eight percent of nearly 4,500 DEA agents as of last fall were black. Just four of 50 senior executives are black. Just last year, a federal judge ruled in the class action suit dating from 1977 that DEA needed to take more steps to cure systemic race bias in promotions. The former agents say that if DOJ “will not abolish the 40-plus years of racism in one of its component law enforcement agencies, how can they expect police departments to do the same?” A DEA spokesman said the agency is “committed to recruiting, retaining and promoting a workforce that reflects the diversity of our country and the people we serve.” Gary Tuggle, who ran DEA’s Baltimore field office, believes the problem has worsened. “The DEA hasn’t had an African-American female special agent in charge in years,” Tuggle said. “That’s ridiculous.”
Five Officers Charged With Murder in Memphis Police Killing As the city awaits video of the fatal encounter with Tyre Nichols, a 29-year-old Black man, a law enforcement official described the footage as “absolutely appalling.” https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/26/us/tyre-nichols-memphis-police.html
"Trump stokes division with racism and rage – and the American oligarchy purrs [...]JPMorgan has made it difficult for black people to get mortgage loans. In 2017, the bank paid $55m to settle a justice department lawsuit accusing it of discriminating against minority borrowers. Researchers have found banks routinely charge black mortgage borrowers higher interest rates than white borrowers and deny them mortgages white applicants would have received. P -BlackRock is one of the biggest investors in private prisons, disproportionately incarcerating black and Latino men. P - Starbucks has prohibited baristas from wearing Black Lives Matter attire and for years has struggled with racism in its stores as managers accuse black patrons of trespassing and deny them bathrooms to which white patrons have access."
‘It never stops’: killings by US police reach record high in 2022
Law enforcement killed at least 1,176 people or about 100 people a month last year, making it the deadliest for police violence
A vigil for Breonna Taylor, who was shot dead by police in Louisville in March 2020. Photograph: Sam Upshaw/AP
Sam Levin in Los Angeles @SamTLevin Fri 6 Jan 2023 22.00 AEDT Last modified on Tue 17 Jan 2023 02.50 AEDT
US law enforcement killed at least 1,176 people in 2022, making it the deadliest year on record for police violence since 2013 when experts first started tracking the killings nationwide, a new data analysis reveals.
Police across the country killed an average of more than three people a day, or nearly 100 people every month last year according to Mapping Police Violence .. https://mappingpoliceviolence.us/ . The non-profit research group maintains a database of reported deaths at the hands of law enforcement, including people fatally shot, beaten, restrained and Tasered.
The preliminary 2022 total – a possible undercount as more cases are catalogued – marks 31 additional fatalities than the year before. In 2021, police killed 1,145 people; 1,152 in 2020; 1,097 in 2019; 1,140 in 2018; and 1,089 in 2017. The earliest data goes back to 2013, when journalists and racial justice advocates began counting these fatal incidents on a national basis. A database .. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/?itid=lk_inline_enhanced-template .. run by the Washington Post, which tracks fatal shootings by police, also shows 2022 as a year with record killings.
The data release comes two years after the murder of George Floyd sparked national uprisings calling for racial justice, police accountability and reductions .. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/aug/15/defund-police-movement-us-victories-what-next .. in the funding and size of police forces. Despite the international attention and some local efforts to curb police brutality, there has been an intensifying backlash to criminal justice reform, and the overall number of killings has remained alarmingly high.
“It just never stops,” said Bianca Austin, aunt of Breonna Taylor, whose March 2020 killing in Kentucky sparked mass protests. “There was a movement and uproar across the globe, and we’re still having more killings? What are we doing wrong? It’s so disheartening.”
Behind the numbers: ‘Routine encounters’
While the numbers have crept up, the circumstances that precede the killings have remained consistent.
In 2022, 132 killings (11%) were cases in which no offense was alleged; 104 cases (9%) were mental health or welfare checks; 98 (8%) involved traffic violations .. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/apr/21/us-police-violence-traffic-stop-data ; and 207 (18%) involved other allegations of nonviolent offenses. There were also 93 cases (8%) involving claims of a domestic disturbance and 128 (11%) where the person was allegedly seen with a weapon. Only 370 (31%) involved a potentially more serious situation, with an alleged violent crime.
IMAGE - Numbers 2008-2022 listed
“These are routine police encounters that escalate to a killing,” said Samuel Sinyangwe, a data scientist and policy analyst who founded Mapping Police Violence and provided 2022 data to the Guardian. “The reduction in the conversation around police violence does not mean that this issue is going away. What’s clear is that it’s continuing to get worse, and that it’s deeply systemic.”
The racial disparities have also persisted: Black people were 24% of those killed last year, while making up only 13% of the population. From 2013 to 2022, Black residents were three times more likely to be killed by US police than white people. The inequality is particularly severe in some cities, including Minneapolis where police have killed Black residents at a rate 28 times higher than white residents, and Chicago, where the rate was 25 times higher, Mapping Police Violence reported.
An NYPD officer gets zip ties ready handcuff protesters during a “Defund the Police” protest. Photograph: Eduardo Muñoz/AFP/Getty Images
“Police’s ability to be judge, jury and executioner has been taken to another level. No matter how much we insist that it’s wrong, society allows it to take place,” said Jacob Blake Sr, whose son was shot by Kenosha police and left paralyzed in 2020. Blake Sr and Austin run a group .. https://www.thefamiliesunited.org/ .. called Families United that assists people whose loved ones have been killed by police.
Sinyangwe also found that there had been a notable uptick in killings by sheriff’s departments, which are generally county agencies run by an elected leader. In 2022, sheriffs were involved in 416 killings, higher than the share in 2013, which was 277 cases.
It’s unclear what’s driving that increase, though Sinyangwe said there had been growing partnerships between sheriffs and other agencies, with deputies executing search warrants or doing chases that can result in death. Sheriffs’ offices are also particularly politicized during elections, which could contribute to the problem, he said: “There are campaigns, in which there’s a race to the bottom to compete to be more ‘tough on crime’. And the result is more violent sheriff’s departments.”
‘There are solutions’
Despite the national increase in killings, there are some local signs of progress.
-- These are routine police encounters that escalate to a killing ... What’s clear is that it’s continuing to get worse Samuel Sinyangwe --
“For each of these types of routine encounters, there are solutions and alternative responses that are already being piloted, that are already producing data showing they are dramatically more effective than police,” Sinyangwe said.
There are also some local jurisdictions and states that have seen reductions in lethal force. California, the most populous state, has experienced a 29% drop in killings since 2013, while Texas, with the second-largest population, has seen a 30% increase in that timeframe, according to Mapping Police Violence.
The consistent numbers year after year make clear that “broad systemic change” is necessary to prevent these killings, said Dr Elizabeth Jordie Davies, a Johns Hopkins postdoctoral fellow and expert on social movements. While there have been growing calls to defund police, leaders of both political parties have advocated the opposite – pushing for the expansion of law enforcement, she said.
“There’s a continual commitment to using violence to control people and manage problems in this country. And as we keep giving police more money and power, we’ll continue to see more police violence.”
This article was amended on 14 January 2023 to clarify that the Mapping Police Violence records date back to 2013. A reference - lost during editing – to this being the first nationwide collection of data on killings by police was added, along with detail of the advocates involved in collecting such data.
Police block the street to a house where three people were killed and four others wounded in a shooting at a short-term rental home in an upscale Los Angeles neighborhood on Saturday. Richard Vogel/AP
LOS ANGELES — Three people were killed and four others wounded in a shooting at a multimillion dollar short-term rental home in an upscale Los Angeles neighborhood early Saturday, police said.
The shooting occurred about 2:30 a.m. in the Beverly Crest neighborhood. This is at least the sixth mass shooting in California this month.
Sgt. Frank Preciado of the Los Angeles Police Department said earlier Saturday that the three people killed were inside a vehicle.
Two of the four victims were taken in private vehicles to area hospitals and two others were transported by ambulance, police spokesperson Sgt. Bruce Borihanh said. Two were in critical condition and two were in stable condition, Borihanh said. The ages and genders of the victims were not immediately released.
Investigators were trying to determine if there was a party at the rental home or what type of gathering was occurring, Borihanh said.
Borihanh said police have no information on suspects. With the shooting over, the block was sectioned off as investigators scoured for evidence.
The mid-century home is in Beverly Crest, a quiet neighborhood nestled in the Santa Monica Mountains where houses are large and expensive. The property, estimated at $3 million, is on a cul-de-sac and described in online real estate platforms as modern and private with a pool and outdoor shower.
LAPD Officer Jader Chaves said the department did not know if the house had a history of noise or other party-related complaints.
The early Saturday morning shooting comes on top a massacre at a dance hall in a Los Angeles suburb last week that left 11 dead and nine wounded and shootings at two Half Moon Bay farms that left seven dead and one wounded.
Last Saturday, 72-year-old Huu Can Tran gunned down patrons at a ballroom dance hall in predominantly Asian Monterey Park, where tens of thousands attended Lunar New Year festivities earlier that evening. He drove to another dance hall but was thwarted by an employee. Many of the dead were in their 60s and 70s.
Tran later killed himself as police closed in on the van in which he sat.
On Monday, a man shot and killed four people at the mushroom farm where he worked, then drove to another farm where he had previously worked and killed three people there, authorities said. Chunli Zhao, 66, is in jail and faces murder charges in what police called a case of workplace violence.
The killings have dealt a blow to the state, which has some of the nation's toughest firearm laws and lowest rates of gun deaths.
For the third straight year, the U.S. in 2022 recorded over 600 mass shootings in which at least four people were killed or injured, according to the Gun Violence Archive .. https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls .
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
