Before getting to the legal, political, and cultural ramifications of the “not guilty” verdicts in the Kyle Rittenhouse case, I want to note that Friday’s passage of the Build Back Better bill by the House is a BFD.
And that’s especially true when living descendants of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s administration—like
James Roosevelt Jr., Henry Scott Wallace, June Hopkins, and Tomlin Perkins Coggeshall, all writing for The Hill, say that it is.
Our group of New Deal descendants first started corresponding with Biden (as
two of us described in this publication) when he made clear in spring of 2020 that he was planning an “
FDR-sized presidency.” He
said that the crises that would confront the next president were big enough to “eclipse what FDR faced.” After taking office, Biden
sat down with prominent historians to discuss lessons from the New Deal and proposed a
Civilian Climate Corps modeled on FDR’s wildly successful Civilian Conservation Corps. He seems to
love the FDR comparisons and has
FDR’s portrait in the place of honor above the fireplace in the Oval Office.
Candidate Biden couldn’t have been clearer about his New Deal-scale ambitions, and he proceeded to win by seven million votes. Though a few cautious members of his party may now be getting nervous, the fact is, we are still in a New Deal moment. We still have a health crisis and accompanying economic crisis, with a climate crisis and a democracy crisis thrown in for good measure.
The American people didn’t just vote for a bland “
return to normalcy” (the campaign slogan of Warren Harding in 1920, whose presidency is memorable only for its corruption). They voted for, and deserve, big bold action that will improve their daily lives.
And history shows, this boldness will be rewarded. FDR’s leadership to rebuild the U.S. economy, create jobs and improve Americans’ economic security earned him victory in his first midterm election,
adding seats in both the House and Senate — an extremely rare occurrence.
To be sure, FDR’s administration deserves more than a few withering criticisms, for reasons that have been discussed at Daily Kos many times. But FDR’s administration was also politically ambitious on many fronts (as those times dictated).
And I’m sure that few people understand the legislative obstacles that face President Joe Biden better than this quartet of descendants; they’re legislative obstacles that their illustrious ancestors (by and large) did not have to face.
Moving back to Rittenhouse,
Jennifer Rodgers of CNN describes the high legal hurdles that the prosecutors faced.
This case was always going to be an uphill battle for prosecutors. The key issue was whether Rittenhouse acted in self-defense, which means that he reasonably feared for his life when he pulled the trigger and shot Joseph Rosenbaum, Anthony Huber and Gaige Grosskreutz that night.
Trying to weigh Rittenhouse's self-defense claim amid the two dueling narratives was not an easy job for the jury. One could reasonably argue that Rittenhouse provoked the attacks on him by openly carrying his weapon in a threatening manner, and that he had the option to retreat or otherwise avoid using deadly force, even if defending himself. If the jury had found either of these things to be true, it would have defeated the
self-defense claim. But there was also evidence -- including the critical videos of the events in question and the testimony of Rittenhouse himself -- that in the key moments right before he pulled the trigger, Rittenhouse acted in response to imminent threats to his personal safety because
he believed he was in danger.
The laws and applicable legal standards also created a tough road for prosecutors trying to win a conviction here. Our criminal justice system generally favors the defendant, because of our core belief that it is better to see a guilty man go free than to convict an innocent one. Thus in criminal cases, prosecutors carry the highest burden of proof known to our legal system: proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
The words “generally” and “reasonable” sure are doing a
lot of work in these paragraphs, aren’t they? (More on the word “reasonable” below).
Kimberly Wehle, writing for The Hill, describes other legal hurdles faced by the prosecution in the Rittenhouse case.
There was no dispute that Rittenhouse shot and killed Rosenbaum and Huber. The case instead boiled down to two concepts under Wisconsin law: self-defense and provocation. Did Rittenhouse act in self-defense? And did he provoke Rosenbaum and Huber in the first place? If Rittenhouse provoked the victims, then his self-defense claim only worked if he resorted to killing as a last resort.
Here’s the other complicating factor: Wisconsin is a so-called “open carry” state when it comes to civilian firearms. The text of its
disorderly conduct law criminally bans “violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud or otherwise disorderly conduct under circumstances in which the conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance.” But absent a showing of “criminal or malicious intent,” a person may not be charged with disorderly conduct “for carrying or going armed with a firearm . . . without regard to whether the firearm is loaded or the firearm . . . is concealed or openly carried.”
Think about that. Being publicly “violent” or “abusive” is a potential crime in Wisconsin — unless it entails waving around a loaded firearm.
Michael Harriot writes for
The Guardian about the origins of the “reasonable man” test and the white supremacist work that it frequently does in American jurisprudence.
The “reasonable man” test derives from the description of a nondescript English character called the “
man on the Clapham omnibus” – a reasonably educated, but average, hypothetical passenger on a London bus route whose thoughts and actions are defined as “ordinary”. The US supreme court case Graham v Connor enshrined this concept into law. The reason police are often acquitted of killing unarmed citizens is that
they can argue that a “reasonable” police officer would have used deadly force,
even if the officer turned out to be wrong and the victim was unarmed. When I first heard this principle, the first thing I thought was: “A white person came up with this.”
Because all of our opinions are shaped and colored by our experiences, “reasonable” is a subjective notion. Only white people’s perceptions are made into a reality that everyone else must abide by. Think about how much privilege one must have for their feelings to become an actual law that governs the actions of people everywhere.
While there is no doubt about the value of the white lives Rittenhouse snuffed out, there’s also no doubt that Rittenhouse was venturing into one of the scariest, most dangerous situations those white jurors could imagine: a Black Lives Matter protest. It is easy to see how, for Rittenhouse and jurors, the victims were part of the frightening mob of “evil thugs”.
In America, it is reasonable to believe that Black people are scary.
Jennifer Rubin of
The Washington Post correctly identifies GQP radicalization, and not “polarization,” as the true disease affecting the American political environment.
Only one party conducts fake election audits, habitually relies on conspiracy theories and wants to limit access to the ballot. A
recent study from the libertarian think tank R Street found: “In Republican states, legislation tended to scale back the availability of mail-in voting and ballot drop boxes and to provide more uniform, if not shorter, early voting windows. Meanwhile, in Democratic states, legislators sought to increase the availability of early voting not only by expanded voting windows but also by instating universal vote-by-mail.”
Only one party overwhelmingly refused to participate in a bipartisan investigation of the Jan. 6 insurrection. Only one party tolerates and defends House members who resort to violent imagery and
harass fellow lawmakers. Talk of “
secession” comes from only one party. Only one party is turning a vigilante who killed two people and seriously injured another into a
folk hero. Only one party
rises in defense of parents publicly threatening school boards. Only one party has taken to defending book-banning and book-burning. Governors of only one party are suing private companies and localities that follow coronavirus guidelines.
Only one party has a media machine that propagates misinformation (from
conspiracy theories about the death of a young Democratic National Committee staffer to the
blatant lies about Dominion Voting Systems) and foments racism with a steady diet of “replacement theory” rants and
hyperventilation about immigrants. Only one party pounds away at the already debunked connection between crime and immigrants solely for the purpose of enraging and scaring voters.
Zack Beauchamp of Vox adds that only one party is threatening the proper functioning of public servants.
The new wave of threats is
cresting on one side of the partisan divide. Generally, the individuals responsible seem to believe former President Donald Trump’s fraudulent claims about the 2020 election, oppose Covid-19 vaccines and masks, and claim schools are indoctrinating their kids with “critical race theory.”
This most likely reflects the way extreme polarization and Trumpian populism have convinced a segment of the population that their political opponents are not mere rivals but existential threats to American society. Political scientists, who have termed the spread of this us-versus-them mindset “
pernicious polarization,” find that it has undermined the foundations of democracy in countries such as Hungary, Venezuela, and Turkey.
Threats against public servants show how such democratic erosion manifests in practice. Already, experts are warning of a retention crisis in public institutions, with election workers, school officials, and public health leaders so overwhelmed that they’re likelier to quit rather than continue to subject themselves and their families to abuse.
Steve Luxenburg of
The Washington Post writes that Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards will approve an application that will pardon Homer Plessy.
The twisted pursuit of racial discrimination once made it a crime to sit in the wrong railroad car.
[...]
To test and protest that unprecedented Louisiana law, 29-year-old Homer Plessy volunteered himself for arrest on a June day in 1892. Now, nearly 130 years later,
he will be pardoned for his offense. Louisiana’s governor says he will approve an application from descendants of those involved in the
legal battle that became known as
Plessy v. Ferguson.
Like so much of the racial reckoning now underway, Plessy’s pardon is both atonement and opportunity. Atonement for treating Plessy as a criminal. Opportunity to learn about and honor the long line of 19th century men and women on whose shoulders he stood.
It is important to remember that Plessy did not act alone. Like many of those who preceded him or came after, he was part of an organized resistance — in his case, mostly men of mixed race in New Orleans. They called themselves the Citizens’ Committee to Test the Constitutionality of the Separate Car Act.
Also important to remember: Separation on trains didn’t originate in Louisiana. The pernicious practice began in the North, two decades before the Civil War, at the dawn of the railroad age. It evolved after emancipation, as state legislatures in the South were looking to go beyond the custom of separation and enact laws mandating it.
Dave Zirin of
The Nation blasts the International Olympic Committee for their silence on the disappearance of Chinese tennis player Peng Shuai.
The World Tennis Association surely felt compelled to respond because an outcry was mounting throughout the tennis world. Tennis mega-stars like
Naomi Osaka,
Serena Williams,
Andy Murray, and the legendary Billie Jean King have voiced concern for Peng Shuai’s safety under the hashtag #WhereIsPengShuai. The Women’s Tennis Association issued a blistering statement saying that they would pull out of China entirely, a decision that would cost them hundreds of millions of dollars, if Peng Shuai does not emerge. They also said, “We continue to call for independent and verifiable proof that Peng Shuai is safe and that her sexual assault allegation will be investigated fully, fairly and without censorship. If not, the WTA is prepared to do what is right.”
Yet one group that has been conspicuously silent is the International Olympic Committee. We are only 75 days from the Winter Games in Beijing, so the IOC is uniquely positioned to demand safety for one of its own. Instead it issued a weak-kneed
statement asserting that “experience shows that quiet diplomacy offers the best opportunity to find a solution for questions of such nature.” The IOC added, “This explains why the IOC will not comment any further at this stage.”
This ethical abdication by the IOC is absolutely breathtaking. As the Beijing Olympics loom, it is effectively choosing silence. Once again, the IOC is hiding behind a thin veil of political neutrality. Yet, as we see all too often, this “neutrality” of the IOC means acting in favor of those in power, in this case an authoritarian state not willing to brook dissent. Instead of a stance that could make a difference, we get instead exhibit 7,492 that the IOC is a craven organization more interested in protecting its power and wealth than the many ideas around freedom and human rights that are harbored in the Olympic Charter.
Crystal Chow and Crystal Ying Chan write for
The Diplomat about climate change, as it relates to the threat of mosquito-borne diseases facing the urban poor in Asia and, specifically, the poor in Hong Kong.
The link between urbanization, poverty, and the risk of mosquito-borne diseases is well established. A study from the United States, for example,
finds that residents in low-income areas in Baltimore with high levels of residential abandonment, rife with rain-filled litter and overgrown foliage, are more vulnerable to the risk of diseases carried by Asian tiger mosquitoes (Zika virus included) than those from better-off neighborhoods.
Adding to this mounting burden is the way climate change drives the transmission of diseases. The urban poor in Asia is set to bear the brunt of worsening health impacts of climate change; a study estimates that by 2080, Asian tiger mosquitoes alone could expose
over 41 million people across East Asia to disease transmission risks for the first time.
Like most families cramped in small living units, Siu Fung can tell the summers are getting warmer and longer. A recent survey from Oxfam Hong Kong finds
nearly 70 percent of subdivided flat tenants are already affected by the extreme heat; half of the flats recorded higher temperatures indoors than outside. And with heat and humidity come the mosquitoes.
Finally today,
Zoe Hannah of
WIRED explains why puzzles can be a soothing distraction for those suffering from depression.
“What’s so satisfying about puzzles is that there are no surprises,” James says. “Nothing unexpected is going to happen in a puzzle.”
Focusing such that your mind is occupied but not excessively challenged, James says, is incredibly helpful for people with depression, anxiety, and stress because it offers what she describes as “a little holiday from yourself.” For some people, this “gentle focus” takes the form of tending to a garden or tidying a room, while for others, puzzles fill this space.
The difference between traditional gentle focus and puzzles, though, is the satisfaction of an “elegant solution” at the end, according to James. In a world filled with ever-changing norms and expectations, the clear-cut rules and codes present in puzzles make the solver feel in control—the rules of the puzzle won’t change willy-nilly, so the only question is whether you can solve it.
Everyone have a great day!
