Fake News

This is an example of the reactionary histrionics that are destroying intelligent political dialogue in America:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/01/20/donald_trump_puts_black_lives_matter_osu

The author contends the Administration is targeting Black Lives Matter (BLM), yet provides no references to BLM from the White House website.

Instead, the author claims the reference is implicit in the statement, "The Trump Administration will be a law and order administration."

Should the Administration be *against* law and order?

The author then calls out the following text from the White House website: "The dangerous anti-police atmosphere in America is wrong."

Seems innocuous enough, but for the insight provided by the author.  You see, the White House website goes on to indicate who is responsible for this atmosphere:  “Our job is not to make life more comfortable for the rioter, the looter, or the violent disrupter.”

"OK?...So what?", says the unenlightened reader.

Don't you see? the author effectively asks, directly tying "the rioter, the looter, or the violent disrupter" to BLM: "it was chilling to see such unambiguous evidence of his contempt for those who've protested against police violence."

Again, nowhere is BLM mentioned on the website and nowhere is peaceful protest condemned.  Rather the author equates rioting, looting, and violent disruption to protests against police violence and, Q.E.D, BLM. 

Apparently the author has never ventured to the BLM website, where the following snippets of the movement's platform can be gleaned:

"We are committed to embodying and practicing justice, liberation, and peace in our engagements with one another."

And:

"We are committed to collectively, lovingly and courageously working vigorously for freedom and justice for Black people and, by extension all people. As we forge our path, we intentionally build and nurture a beloved community that is bonded together through a beautiful struggle that is restorative, not depleting."

Rather, the author equates BLM to rioters, looters, and violent disruptors before harkening back to a false example of police brutality in Ferguson ( "Hands up, don't shoot" was proven to be false, but not until the community had been devastated by riots, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/03/19/hands-up-dont-shoot-did-not-happen-in-ferguson/?utm_term=.8764bdeae70f ).

It's not that I think Trump is a good man.  He's repeatedly demonstrated his boorish character.  It's that examples of that specific behavior should be the subject of criticism.  There's no need to read between the lines with this guy - 140 characters don't allow for many lines to begin with.

It's not that I oppose protesting police brutality.  I've witnessed it with my own eyes, and not through an out of context youtube clip.   Police brutality is an issue that needs to be addressed (there's probably not a career that involves more psychological and physical stress so it should not be a surprise that some police go off the rails).  

It's that failing to distinguish between Selma and Ferguson, and between a statement supporting law enforcement and a message targeting a specific political group can only be the result of crowd-induced mania, extreme ignorance, or blatant disingenuousness. None of these alternatives bodes well for the future of political debate in America.