In an article on Bill de Blasio winning the election for mayor of New York City, a New York Daily News columnist waxes philosophically about the 'problems' a liberal Democratic mayor will face with no countervaling voices to contradict him, since the next City Council, public advocate, and controller all share his philosophies.
He goes on to give examples of people who contradicted Giuliani (whom he worked for) and Bloomberg in their administrations and how this served a useful function in promoting debate.
But then he drops this so casually that he doesn't even realize what he has just said:
Similarly, de Blasio, who has made a career of channeling complaints about the NYPD, will soon be the commander-in-chief of those armed forces, responsible for driving the murder rate lower and holding the line on quality-of-life crimes.Sure, Bloomberg said he was in charge of the world's seventh largest army, but he said it wryly. At least I think he did.
The armed forces do not fight crime. They protect the nation against invaders.
This columnist, just drops this as a matter of course, as if this is a known, accepted fact and truism. The police are 'armed forces' and the mayor is in charge of them, like a 'commander in chief'. Yes, the police state has been creeping up on us, but it isn't supposed to be accepted like this, without question! If there were any doubts that we have been transformed into a police state, this should put them to rest. The line between the military and the police has been unimaginably blurred.