Tuesday, April 24, 2018
In the United States you have no legal right to expect that the police will protect you from criminal acts or arrest the perpetrators after the fact. There's actually a lot of case law on this subject but I'll stick to just two cases.
In 1975, Carolyn Warren, Joan Taliaferro, and Miriam Douglas were victimized, at knife point, by Marvin Kent and James Morse in a rooming house in Washington, DC. The police were called numerous times but they dropped the ball with the result that "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of Kent and Morse." The victims later "sued the District of Columbia and individual members of the Metropolitan Police Department for negligent failure to provide adequate police services" in federal court. In affirming the dismissal of their lawsuit the en banc District of Columbia Court of Appeals adopted the reasoning of a lower court (citations omitted):
The Court, however, does not agree that defendants owed a specific legal duty to plaintiffs with respect to the allegations made in the amended complaint for the reason that the District of Columbia appears to follow the well-established rule that official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection ... This uniformly accepted rule rests upon the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen ...
A publicly maintained police force constitutes a basic governmental service provided to benefit the community at large by promoting public peace, safety and good order ... Accordingly, courts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community. [Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (1981)]In 1999, Jessica Gonzales' estranged husband, Simon Gonzales, abducted their three daughters in violation of a restraining order against him. She made repeated attempts to get police to enforce the restraining order and return her children to her. They did essentially nothing. Her husband murdered the girls and then committed suicide-by-cop.
She filed a lawsuit in federal court alleging that "the town of Castle Rock, Colorado, violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution when its police officers, acting pursuant to official policy or custom, failed to respond properly to her repeated reports that her estranged husband was violating the terms of a restraining order." The US Supreme Court reinstated the District Court's order dismissing the lawsuit. They concluded that Jessica Gonzales "did not, for purposes of the Due Process Clause, have a property interest in police enforcement of the restraining order against her husband" (Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005)).
Sunday, April 01, 2018
|(click on images to enlarge them)|
Source: Brian K. Vaughn & Fiona Staples, Saga (Image Comics, 2018) vol. 8
Tuesday, March 27, 2018
6-minute infomercial today on the music of the new Ubisoft release, Far Cry 5. FC5 is a first-person shooter game where the player is a sheriff's deputy and the bad guys belong to Eden's Gate, an evil cult in Montana. I haven't played the game but various media reports indicate the cult is Christian-based (see here and here). One of the cover art pieces (see image at right) is a clear reference to Da Vinci's "The Last Supper" and then there's the baptism trailer.
The game also calls to my mind the massacres at Ruby Ridge and Waco, along with the M.O.V.E. massacre. According to the game's creative director, Dan Hay, FC5 was partly inspired or influenced by the 2016 armed protest at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge but mostly by his own insecurities:
"[That] brings us to the creative of the game," Hay said. "We are going to Montana. We are going to the frontier of Montana in present day. What we learned there is this concept of 'freedom, faith, and firearms.' People in that region, they don't want to be fucked with. We're applying that to Far Cry. We did that two-and-a-half years ago. But even today, this morning when I turned on the news, this concept of dissatisfaction, feeling like something is wrong, something is off. It brings me very much back to when I was a kid. I don't know that I feel safe."Hay's words seem to also echo Obama's notorious bitter clingers remark.
I realize that my limited engagement with the game is no substitute for having actually played it. My analysis here though is not really so much about the game itself as about the mainstream media response to public representations of FC5.
Thus, listening to the fawning NPR piece left me wondering how they would cover a mirror-image game where the first person shooter is a militia member or a deputy sheriff who is gunning down a caricature of the Left, say evil prominent Lefty gun controllers who are surrounded by armed guards and based in New York, for example. What about a game taking out protesters run violently amuck, based loosely on Black Lives Matter or Antifa?
Methinks Ari Shapiro et al. would not similarly overlook the dynamics of who was shooting whom and why in such a game. A gamer friend made a search and found no such parallel games to FC5 with contemporary center-Left villains so we needn't worry, I suppose.
Last year, Chris Plante wrote in The Verge: "But Far Cry 5, should it commit to the direction the key art suggests, will be the biggest and most aggressive game to adjust the sights of the first-person shooter genre against people in the United States .... The game promises a conversation about ... why it became acceptable to murder virtual versions of one group of people, but not another." Unfortunately, I see very little evidence of the promised conversation taking place.
There have been complaints about why the "bad guys" aren't more clearly identifiable as members of the real "alt-Right" and other perceived nemeses of the Left. As Adi Robertson put it, writing more recently in The Verge: "many reviews have criticized Far Cry 5’s cult for not drawing on real Christian Fundamentalist or neo-Nazi ideology" (that would likely be the Left's insupportably expansive definition of neo-Nazi ideology).
Relatedly, some are also unhappy that the "good guys" aren't more clearly not conservatives. The two links below astutely critique in much greater detail some left-of center responses to FC5.
- "SJWs Complain That Far Cry 5 Isn’t Anti-Conservative, Anti-Christian Enough"
- "Gamespot Whines About Far Cry 5 Portraying Conservatives As Good Guys"
Sunday, March 18, 2018
I have long felt uncomfortable hearing people say, "There but for the grace of God go I". I realize that most people who say it have good intentions. They mean it as an expression of sympathy for someone who has, to their mind, fallen into misfortune or sin. They may also mean to convey a sense of humility to the effect that only God's grace, and not their own merit or efforts, prevents them from likewise falling.
Good intentions notwithstanding it seems to me that there is an implied arrogance and judgmentalism in the phrase. The problem is in the idea that you can look at the external circumstances of another person's life, discern the presence or absence of God's grace, and assert that somehow explains the situation. Then, too, there is the implication that God's grace has formed a hedge keeping you from descending down into the same condition. Given this how do you imagine someone who is experiencing what is perceived as misfortune or sin would feel about learning that another has assessed their situation and declared, "There but for the grace of God go I"?
It's worth also noting the phrase is not biblical. Rather, it is attributed:
to the English evangelical preacher and martyr, John Bradford (circa 1510–1555). He is said to have uttered the variant of the expression - "There but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford", when seeing criminals being led to the scaffold. He didn't enjoy that grace for long, however. He was burned at the stake in 1555, although, by all accounts he remained sanguine about his fate and is said to have suggested to a fellow victim that "We shall have a merry supper with the Lord this night".In the case of Bradford the expression may have had a markedly different meaning than in modern times. It is possible that Bradford meant to suggest that those facing death were in some measure the beneficiaries of God's grace. There, after all, was a time when Christians more commonly understood suffering as a powerful means of identification with and faithfulness to the cause of Christ (Phl 1:29; 2Th 1:4,5; 1Pe 4:12-16). I have no conclusive evidence that this is what Bradford had in mind but I think it is from far inconceivable.
There is though considerable cause for doubt that the expression originated with Bradford. As one source states, the earliest appearance in print of any version of the saying goes back only to 1771. In any case, as I have already said, the expression is not biblical. Although there are numerous references to the grace of God in the Bible there are none I am aware of that hold up God's grace as a reference point for interpersonal judgment or comparison.
The Greek New Testament phrase most frequently translated as "grace of God" appears only once in the Gospels. It appears in Luke 2:40 to describe Jesus' spiritual maturation while still a child. In considering "There but for the grace of God go I" four other biblical passages come to my mind.
First, there is Jesus' admonition to "Judge not, that ye be not judged" (Mat 7:1; cf. Luk 6:37). I do not take this as a blanket exhortation to never judge any thing or any actions but to refrain from making judgments about the spiritual conditions of others. Taken in context, it seems to me that Jesus is saying, among other things, that spiritually judging others is an example of false piety and that we are really in no position to make such judgments. It follows then that we likewise should not presume to know where God's grace is to be found.
Second, in John 9 there is the blind man whom Jesus sent to wash in the pool of Siloam. Jesus' disciples ask, "Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?" Jesus answers, "Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him." So, in this instance, it would appear that the man was born blind—something many sighted people would consider a misfortune—by the grace of God.
Third, there seems to special place reserved for sexual sins/sinners in the working of God's grace as is apparent from the genealogy of Jesus. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke both describe the paternal lineage of Jesus. Unlike Luke, Matthew's version (1: 1-18) includes, among the many men, four women: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba. Including Mary, an unwed mother, there are five women listed in Jesus' family tree.
Tamar "played the harlot" in order to deceive her deceased husband's father into impregnating her (Gen 38:15-24). Rahab didn't pretend to be a prostitute; she was a prostitute (Jos 2: Heb 11:31; Jas 2:25). Tamar and Rahab are also both reckoned by scholars to have been Canaanites. Ruth was a Moabitess, meaning she was a descendant of Lot, who engaged in incest with his eldest daughter (Gen 19:36, 37) and part of a group who worshiped Chemosh (Num 21:29; Jer 48:7, 13, 46). And Bathsheba, as you may recall, was the mother of Solomon by King David who first impregnated her (with another son) in an act of adultery. In order to try to conceal that adultery, David essentially murdered Uriah, Bathsheba's husband. As if to underscore this, Matthew makes specific mention of Uriah in verse 1:6.
Finally, there is the fact that Jesus was repeatedly judged a sinner. For example, by strict (mis-)interpretation of the Law he was indeed a sinner for, among other things, aiding and abetting the violation of the Sabbath after he healed the paralytic at the pool of Bethesda as recounted in John 5:
Jesus said to him, "Get up, pick up your pallet and walk." Immediately the man became well, and picked up his pallet and began to walk.The mandate to keep the Sabbath is part of the Ten Commandments, along with, for example, the prohibition on murder. Thus, violating the Sabbath was a very serious offense, as is evident from the text below (Num 15:32-36).
Now it was the Sabbath on that day. So the [Judaeans] were saying to the man who was cured, "It is the Sabbath, and it is not permissible for you to carry your pallet." But he answered them, "He who made me well was the one who said to me, 'Pick up your pallet and walk.' " They asked him, "Who is the man who said to you, 'Pick up your pallet and walk'?" But the man who was healed did not know who it was, for Jesus had slipped away while there was a crowd in that place. Afterward Jesus found him in the temple and said to him, "Behold, you have become well; do not sin anymore, so that nothing worse happens to you." The man went away, and told the [Judaeans] that it was Jesus who had made him well. For this reason the [Judaeans] were persecuting Jesus, because He was doing these things on the Sabbath. But He answered them, "My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working."
For this reason therefore the [Judaeans] were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.
Now while the sons of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering wood on the sabbath day. Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation; and they put him in custody because it had not been declared what should be done to him. Then the LORD said to Moses, "The man shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp." So all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death with stones, just as the LORD had commanded Moses.Through his life, death, and resurrection Jesus completed the Law and finally terminated its claim on the lives of humans. We are under grace, not the yoke of the Law (Mat 5:17; Jhn 1:17; Rom 6:14; Gal 3:13). Jesus also challenged and overthrew the false understanding of the Law, declaring, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath" but more importantly from Matthew 22:
But when the Pharisees heard that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered themselves together. One of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" And He said to him, " 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments depend [lit. "hang"] the whole Law and the Prophets."The Old Testament and the Gospels make clear that this is not a novel idea but Jesus, by his actions and his words, repeatedly challenged Pharisees and others stuck in legalism to go beyond a shallow, intellectual understanding of this important truth and to incorporate it in a meaningful way in their lives, practices, and doctrines.
I think this understanding of the Law is important when considering judgments about God's grace in the case of those who seem to be fallen not into misfortune but into sin. The point being that even sinfulness is not always so easy to discern when thinking about God's grace or its absence.
Saturday, February 17, 2018
Used to losing battles over gun control, gun controllers latch onto any proposal popular enough to make it through the legislature—usually right after some school shooting or other tragedy. Whether or not a proposed law will actually curb gun deaths is irrelevant; gun control extremists will stand behind it. —Adam Winkler in Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America (Norton, 2011).
Watch what happens when these color blind men are able to see in color for the first time.
Tuesday, January 16, 2018
An extremely dirty, shabby, or otherwise unpleasant place.
Sen. Cory Booker is the among latest grandstanding asses to pontificate over Trump's alleged remarks reportedly disparaging Haiti, El Salvador, and unspecified African countries. The fact is that some of these countries are, indeed, "shitholes" of crime, corruption, human rights abuses, violence, disease, unemployment, poverty, etc. Of course, the polite and likely more informative terms are failed or fragile states but the main observation, however it is articulated, is not false.
In the context of a discussion of immigration policy Trump's alleged remarks—like much that emanates from his mouth or Twitter feed—were inflammatory, unproductive, and evinced ignorance. However, they could have served as an opening for a rational and illuminating discussion. That is, if anyone in politics or the mainstream media were interested in principled discourse instead of political point-scoring.
Instead, political and media pontificators, such as Booker, generally showed themselves to be the mirror image of Trump (also an ass) by stooping to renew ill-founded allegations of racism, White supremacism, etc.1 Such is the shithole of American politics.
If Booker et al. were seriously interested in the truth and what's best for this country and for would-be immigrants they should have started out by conceding that, yes, some countries are failed states or in American vernacular, shitholes. That is one of the main reasons why so many people are eager or desperate to leave them for a better life in the US, Norway, and elsewhere. From a humanitarian perspective one might argue this is exactly why immigration from these countries should be permitted.
The abysmal situation in the countries at issue is thus a driver of immigration, legal and otherwise, and any comprehensive immigration policy would at least acknowledge that if not invoke it as a rationale to (re-)consider the implications of US foreign policy, including aid and military intervention.2 In many cases, US foreign policy under Trump's predecessors—with the complicity of the mainstream media and politicians of all stripes—has contributed directly to the appalling state of affairs in places like Haiti and El Salvador as is well-documented.3
It also bears mentioning in any reasoned discussion on the subject that just because someone lives in or comes from a "shithole country" does not render them unworthy of life or regard. Nor does it make them unable to adjust or contribute to humanity or American society. In the 1800s when some of my ancestors fled Ireland that country was a shithole suffering under centuries of British colonial oppression. Yet, most Americans would probably agree the United States has benefited significantly from 19th century Irish immigration.
1. Trump may in fact be a racist but my point is that nothing he has uttered so far points definitively to that conclusion. Trump's remarks are more plausibly understood as a manifestation of recklessness and/or ignorance of or well-deserved contempt for the Liberal canons of acceptable thought/expression. The latter clearly resonates with his political base, whom many in the chattering classes have unjustly written off as irredeemably racist.
2. To be clear, US foreign aid has, by design, all too often been a tool to deliberately prop up corrupt, repressive regimes and keep the masses people of countries such as Haiti and El Salvador in subjugation and dependency. Of course, that need not be the case but it has been.
3. Two cases in point of media collusion are the selling of the transparently false stories of Iraqi WMDs and cooperation with al-Qaeda to justify the 2003 invasion of that country. Further back, there is the shameless betrayal and abandonment of Raymond Bonner after he broke the story of the 1981 El Mozote massacre in El Salvador by elite US-backed military forces. Thanks, in no small part, to US media collusion the US funded civil war there would continue another decade after the massacre was revealed.
See also: "On Propriety, Power, and Social Protest"
Wednesday, December 20, 2017
As one Atlantic Council wag put it: "The Trump administration's published National Security Strategy is as interesting for what it says as much as what it leaves out. When it comes to the Arab world, the framing is clear — it suffers, as this administration does more generally, from an 'Israel first' lens."
Here's a key passage from the NSS:
For generations the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians has been understood as the prime irritant preventing peace and prosperity in the region. Today, the threats from jihadist terrorist organizations and the threat from Iran are creating the realization that Israel is not the cause of the region's problems. States have increasingly found common interests with Israel in confronting common threats.In 2013, Trump's SecDef, retired Gen. James Mattis, told the Aspen Security Forum: "I paid a military security price every day as a commander of CENTCOM because the Americans were seen as biased in support of Israel". We now know that even if he is an Iran hawk (see here and here) clearly Mattis was a Jew-hating ass at least when he said this, along with every other ignoramus who considers the Israeli occupation of Palestine to be major issue in US-Arab affairs.
Never mind that before Israel was created there were no "jihadist terrorist organizations" and that Jews arguably introduced terrorism into modern Palestine (see here, here, and here). And if only we could have the pro-Israel Pahlavi regime (see here and here) back in charge of Iran. That could happen if crown prince Reza Pahlavi gets his way but I digress.
This isn't the first time Trump has put Israel first. One of his administration's first major foreign policy efforts after the election last year, but before he took the oath of office, was to do Israel's and Bibi's bidding in a failed attempt to block UNSC resolution 2334 on Israeli settlements. That effort also involved outreach to the Russian government but its Israel first impetus doesn't get much press for some mysterious reason.
Earlier this year the Times of Israel crowed: "Outlining budget, Trump puts aid to Israel first while slashing elsewhere". And more recently the Electronic Intifada noted: "Trump puts Israel first with UNESCO withdrawal".