Update from the Sunland
No.1114
15.5.23 – 21.5.23
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
A friend and frequent contributor to this humble forum forwarded a Daily Kos newsletter dated Wednesday, 17.May.2023 at 08:42. It was not appropriate to ‘cut & paste’ here, and I could not find a URL for the whole newsletter to share. Two topics raised in the newsletter sparked my attention and thought—vigilantism and religion.
Where does the boundary line exist and how is that line defined between vigilantism and community engagement?
“Abbreviated Pundit Roundup: The ominous rise of vigilantism”
Greg Dworkin for
Daily Kos
Published: Wednesday May 17, 2023 4:00 AM PDT
The recent death of Jordan Neely [1113] has raised the public debate about vigilantism, again. It is not first time and certainly will not be the last. The death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin was shot to death in Sanford, Florida, by neighborhood watch volunteer (i.e., a vigilante) George Zimmerman [26.2.2012]. Neely died at the hands of good Samaritan (i.e., vigilante) Daniel Penny. The episode has been widely covered in the Press, so I do not believe there is any need to recount the details. The Penny case, like the Zimmerman case, returns us to the leading question.
Penny is charged with second-degree manslaughter. We can argue whether the charge is appropriate or not, but the case is headed to court, so we are likely to see the factual details in a court trial. From what we know from the publicly available information, the incident is not entirely clear. I do not believe Penny intended to kill Neely, but the fact remains, he did. Penny held the chokehold he had applied to Neely after the man had been subdued and rendered unconscious. The extended application eventually suffocated Neely. At the bottom line, Penny went too far and deserved the appropriate charge and punishment for erroneously (or accidentally) taking Neely’s life.
The Penny case and the Daily Kos article raise the societal question: when is it appropriate for a citizen to intervene? I will argue that Penny did the right thing in subduing Neely, neutralizing the threat to other subway riders, but he made a dreadful mistake and went too far.
The police cannot be everywhere all the time. Yes, citizens should report crimes or potential crimes to the police and allow them to perform their community protection functions. On that subway train car that day, the police (in any form) were not present. Neely reportedly acted in a manner that threatened other passengers in that subway car. Penny acted to subdue the threat. Neely reportedly did not physically assault anyone but was acting erratically and intruding into the space of other riders. His behavior did not respect other passengers. I have long argued that citizens must do more to assist law enforcement in keeping all of us safe. To me, there is a very fine and misty line between vigilantism and community engagement, and the differentiation comes at reaction versus intention or premeditation. Penny reacted to an apparently threatening situation. Zimmerman’s actions were very near the line and perhaps crossed over. We need community engagement. We do not need vigilantism.
The Daily Kos article pointed to the following Politico article:
“The Religious Landscape is Undergoing Massive Change. It Could Decide the 2024 Election – The new decennial Religion Census offers cause for hope — and alarm — for both parties.
By Ryan Burge
Politico
Published: 05/14/2023 07:00 AM EDT
Whether religion is growing or declining in the United States of America (or the world for that matter) is a problem for another time. I am struck by one overriding concern. On 1.January.1802, president-elect Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter response the Danbury Baptists, in which he spoke of “. . . a wall of separation between Church & State.” The hard-right and Evangelical Christians want to believe that Jefferson’s Wall of Separation of which he spoke was a one-way membrane. The State could not and must not impose upon religion as articulated in the First Amendment. In both examples, the hard-right Christians are wrong in such assumptions. In reality, the Wall of Separation is a two-way street. The Government must not enter into the affairs of religion, but it is equality true that religion must remain out of the political realm.
The Burge article misses an additional aspect. Perhaps religion has just become another political hack organization, seeking to impose their will, their values on all citizens. Morality, the private thoughts and conduct of people, is the domain of religion. Public or injurious behavior is the domain of the State. Yes, there are intersections and crossover. The problem is too many religious organization or so-called religious individuals have gone too far into the public domain. I can appreciate the zealousness of evangelicals, but I cannot support their attempts to impose their beliefs on other citizens.
The abortion issue represents perhaps the paramount example of a crossover too far. The anti-abortion crowd repeatedly attempts to claim the pro-choice folks support late term (near birth or birth capable) abortion. To be precise and crystal clear, late term abortions have NEVER been legal, not before Roe, not during the validity of Roe v. Wade [410 U.S. 113 (1973)] [319], nor after Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization [597 U. S. ____ (2022)] [1067, 1068], which overrode Roe. That stated, the real constitutional question is not the morality of abortion. I have long contended that Roe was about our fundamental right to privacy. The Dobbs Court ignored every citizens’ right to privacy to return the regulation of abortion back to the states. Now, for the record, that is exactly where medical procedure regulation belongs—with the states, with virtually all other medical regulation. So, the Dobbs Court got that part correct. Where the majority of Dobbs Court went wrong was the outright paucity of any sensitivity to every citizen’s fundamental right to privacy in making medical decisions for her/his life. The political wrangling over the abortion issue is exactly and precisely why religion must not cross the Wall of Separation. The State must do likewise, although I must state that the State has been far more restricted than the religious community. The Supreme Court has maintained a very strict interpretation of the religion clause of the First Amendment. The reverse has not so tested and is not likely to be so tested as a consequence of the current conservative Court.
So, if we want to discuss the apparent decline of religion in the United States, we do not need to look much deeper than the abortion issue. Hard-right conservatives and Evangelical Christians have penetrated too far beyond the Wall of Separation, and they must be resisted. The intrusion of religion into the public domain has to be a major factor in the diminishing influence of religion in our lives. Individual rights and freedoms are not the domain of states. Religion should stay in their lane, and religious citizens should keep their religion to themselves—private. I do not want religion to disappear. Organized religion has been a significant positive influence in the evolution of humanity, but sometimes they have gone too far for parochial reasons. Let us get back into balance.
Once again, we have a very small fraction of our society willing to force their views on everyone and punish the entire nation for their beliefs. We have discussed the fallaciousness and worthlessness of the so-called national debt limit in numerous previous Updates. Yet, here we are again. The once noble purpose of §1 [40 Stat. 288] of the Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917 [PL 65-I-043; 40 Stat. 288; 31 USC §3101; 24.9.1917] has been malignantly mutated by one portion of a political party over recent decades, when they had sufficient numbers to use the law maliciously. We are long past due in taking that weapon from their tool kit. Today, the law serves no beneficial purpose beyond a willful minority dictating and potentially punishing the entire nation to further their political agenda. This debt limit fiasco is identical to all the other efforts of that group to impose their values on every citizen—majority be damned. My opinion has become more calcified and perhaps extreme. If the miniscule minority wants default, recession, or deep depression, I say let us get on with it. Perhaps deep depression will be sufficient motivation to overpower that disgusting minority and finally repeal §1 of 40 Stat. 288. We must render that minority toothless and irrelevant. Congress allocated the funds, and the Executive spent the funds; we must pay our debts, period, full stop, shut the front door. The proper time to deal with the debt is at the allocation stage. Let us stop this senseless foolishness. I hold McCarthy and the fBICP House members directly responsible for this induced crisis. I hope President Biden remains strong and does not give into these extortionists.
Comments and contributions from Update no.1113:
Comment to the Blog:
“What I find hard to believe about Tiny’s recent history is that CNN gave him a forum to spew his venom. I imagine they were trying to acquire Fox viewers put off by that enormous finding against them for lying about Tiny’s election loss. The loyalists will ignore that and it will cost CNN legitimate news viewers.
“We may hope George Santos is removed from Congress. Given the polarization, neither party can afford to lose any votes.
“I’m less interested in people emigrating to the United States at this point than in barriers other countries put up to me immigrating there.”
My response to the Blog:
I would be lying if I claimed I was not conflicted about allowing him to have a national/international platform. The primary in-favor aspect is the fact that he is the leading fBICP candidate; he may well be the Party’s chosen candidate . . . again. We can attribute all kinds of motives. The final judgment for me to watch that abomination was the need to expose that conman to bright sunlight. We need to know what the radicals are thinking and saying, so that we can deal with them appropriately. That said, I look forward with yearning hope to the day when we never see him, hear him, or have any reflection of his existence. Lastly, I will laud Kaitlin Collins for her challenging moderation and standing up to him despite the hostile audience.
Yes, we can, and I do hope for that rectification. Having read the charging document, I suspect the USG has ample evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt each of those charges. I also suspect that additional charges will be added before he is convicted and sent to prison. Whether McCarthy expels him upon conviction is yet to be seen. Yeah, McCarthy is going to hold onto every vote as long as he can.
I am not sure what you were trying to say in your last sentence. Are you trying to immigrate to another country? If so, which ones?
. . . follow-up comment:
“I'm not planning to move at the moment, but if the government gets worse, it might be the wisest way. Canada doesn't take poor people, but there are alternatives.”
. . . my follow-up response:
Ahso. I confess to that thought coming to me more than once, but such considerations have been brief, passing, and aperiodic. I trust the troubles we face today are temporary and not a sign of unrecoverable decline. I admit that I could be wrong, but I will hang in here until there is no hope. The challenge to We, the People, is our capacity to reset comes every four years and partially every two years. Slow! Good luck with your choices. Voting is so bloody important.
Another contribution:
“Politicians huh! You know my views-I know that’s democracy at work but we, the public, need to be very cautious who we put into power. I guess the person whose name is unmentionable will figure highly in all politically minded spiel for some time to come which I guess is just how he would wish it.”
My reply:
Yes, absolutely. While I have criticized politicians from all political parties, recently, I have been woefully disappointed in the myopia and paucity of vetting by voters in this once grand republic. The likes of George Santos (if that is his real name), Marjorie Taylor Green, Matt Gaetz, Paul Gosar, et al ad infinitum ad nauseum, all come from one party and are mind-numbing. A disproportionate share come from Arizona. Each of them told us who they were before their first election, and voters in their districts elected them. The election and repeated election of those crazies says far more about the mindset of voters in those districts than in the crazies themselves. It is going to take quite some time, perhaps several generations, to overcome this nonsense. I am left with only one conclusion—they want chaos, dysfunction, and revulsion. And, they are led by the worst of them all—a conman, huckster, snake-oil purveyor.
We live in an insane time, my friend, but we shall endure.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
2 comments:
Good Monday, Cap,
One more argument against vigilantism: the untrained, such as Daniel Penny and George Zimmerman, lack even the minimal threat assessment skills in which police officers are trained. Furthermore, many of them will kill, rather than subdue, those they perceive as dangerous. Whether that is deliberate we can’t know.
My impression of the article on religion was that they assumed we were aware of the far-right faction of Christians and their political ambitions. Based on this and other sources, the far-right Christians are gaining a few adherents even during a decline in the voting power of religion in general. However, the demographics of age and ethnicity will put a stop to ultra-conservatives in general unless they can manage a takeover soon.
I re-posted to Facebook a few minutes ago Robert Reich’s opinion that the Biden Administration should simply ignore the debt limit, continue finding ways to pay the bills, and let the Republicans sue. I agree.
I’ll note that various organizations have issued travel advisories for Florida. I myself wouldn’t take the risk of going there.
Have a good day,
Calvin
Good morning to you, Calvin,
You are absolutely correct. No argument or debate. Trained citizens are not a reasonable expectation or achievable goal. Like pilots, retired law enforcement officers are not current on laws, policy, and guidance. The reality of which you speak does not alter my contention. We cannot afford to have a law enforcement apparatus we need to deal with the bad men out there. Regrettably, even if we provide intelligence, often the police do not have the capacity to act on the intelligence. Like military and medical operations, the police must triage and prioritize what they can address. We have focused our discussion of the governmental or law enforcement side, but there is also a perpetrator side. If Jordan Neely stopped disrespecting and imposing upon other patrons, I doubt Penny would have engaged. The same is true with Martin; if he had just kept walking on his way rather than turn and confront Zimmerman, there would have been no encounter. We must not forget the stimulant for these incidents. We see the result when citizens do not engage in the blatant and aggressive (and costly) shoplifting in San Francisco. Companies are leaving the city because of the phenomenon. These are our communities. Law enforcement is our responsibility as well. When we see an apparent drunk driver, we call the police and report it. The driver may be tired or having some medical event, but an erratic driver is still a physical threat to other citizens on or near the roadway. Sometimes we see the police react; sometimes not.
Well said, I would say. We cannot know the inner-workings and hidden mechanisms of the far-right and Evangelical Christians, but we certainly see the results and consequences. U.S. history is replete with examples of social conservatives dictating what we could see, or read, or do, or in some cases even think. We do not need more examples. I believe they have felt their “authority” and dominance is waning, and they have become progressively more desperate and extreme to reassert their dominance. They appear to be perfectly comfortable abandoning democracy for some form (perhaps any form) of authoritarian or autocratic governance they control . . . all in the name of patriotism. We bear direct witness to their extremism in the January 6th insurrection and its aftermath. Fortunately, so far, our system of democratic governance has withstood the assault. Yet, this confrontation is far from over. We must remain vigilant and persistent.
Ignoring the debt limit imposed by §1 of 40 Stat. 288 is a potential option as Reich suggests. That statute contains no enforcement provision. In this latest Republican-induced crisis, it is too late to repeal the law, which is the correct way to deal with the problem. As we have discussed, short of repeal, this may be the time to test the validity of §4 of 14th Amendment, and while we wait for the challenge to work its way through the Judiciary, the USG can and should suspend debt limit. I would rather keep this fight within the domain of the Constitution and the law rather than simply ignore the law. I trust President Biden will remain strong against that MAGA faction and the rest of the fBICP dupes.
I have no interest in visiting Florida for the same or similar reasons you cite. It has become a very hostile place and does not reflect the values I cherish. We have no plans that involve that rogue state.
Have a great day. Take care and enjoy.
Cheers,
Cap
Post a Comment