Political change: straws breaking camels’ backs

The New Neo Posted on by

In my recent post about Dershowitz saying that he really might stop voting for Democrats because of the Biden administration’s stance on Israel in the Gaza war (in particular the US’s abstention in the UN), a number of people in the comments wrote that they saw him as caring more about Israel than about all the other things Democrats are doing to destroy our country.

I think they might have had a point if the interests of Israel and of the US were at odds here. They are not, however. Dershowitz also made that plain when he wrote that it’s a “terrible decision both for us and for Israel.” He might even have added, “and for the Western world.” Because that is also true. And also, “for humanity.”

That’s what has caused such a powerful reaction for Dershowitz and so many others, including many non-Jews who previously had been moderate Democrats.

What’s more, Dershowitz has written extensively and strongly in recent years against what Democrats and Biden have been doing on a host of other topics. He also defended Trump in his impeachment trial in Congress, at great personal cost.

The “dual loyalty” or “higher loyalty” charge is an old one against Jews. In this case it is especially inappropriate.

Dershowitz has opined on a myriad of questions and issues over the years that support conservative positions. I’ve written about many but certainly not all of them; you can see the list here. No, he’s not a conservative or even a Republican and doesn’t support the position of the right down the line. But he’s been more courageous in defending positions that are essentially conservative than a lot of Republicans have, and the majority of those positions have had nothing to do with Israel. He is strongest on anything that has to do with liberty and law.

One glaring exception, however, is when Dershowitz defended a cause that was anti-liberty: his statement that vaccine mandates are okay in certain circumstances. Dershowtiz said that there is no inherent legal right to refuse a vaccine if the government required it in order to protect others in situations of grave danger, but he later said he was not in favor of such mandates for the COVID vaccine, especially once it was proven that it didn’t protect against transmission.

Dershowitz has been one of the most prolific and thoughtful writers in the US for many decades on a host of issues. But until now he’s also been a Democrat, something that puzzles a great many people on the right and seems contradictory. However, I’ve noticed for many years that he’s been edging closer and closer to repudiating his Democrat affiliation and making a clean break. He hasn’t done it quite yet, though – not even over the UN abstention concerning a ceasefire – although he’s been tantalizingly close. What holds him back from making the full break? I believe it is mostly what I discussed in this post, and is summarized by my oft-stated observation that “A mind is a difficult thing to change” – particular in terms of long-term political affiliation.

I assume you’re familiar with the saying “the straw that broke the camel’s back.” When I was very young, I misunderstood it and thought it refered to the sort of “straw” with which I was most familiar: a drinking straw made of paper. I pictured such a straw on a camel, and why it would break the beast’s back was completely puzzling to me. A few years later I learned it was about a straw of the haylike variety, which made even less sense rather than more.

And then I finally learned what the saying really meant, which was that a huge pile of straws can be placed on that camel’s back and then at a certain point a single straw more will be too much. It will be the last straw, the final straw. For Dershowitz, there obviously has been a long line of disillusionments, disappointments, and disagreements with Democrats, and at some point he might actually say “enough!” and his Democrat affiliation will be broken

Dershowitz lives in a state where his defection from the Democrats wouldn’t really matter in terms of the vote: Massachusetts is thoroughly blue. That’s not the issue, of course. It’s more a question of conscience. I recall hearing him say some years ago (can’t find it now) that he stays in the Democratic Party in order to try to reform it from within. I think that may have been true for a while, but I believe part of what he’s wrestling with now is that he’s given up on having much effect on a party that’s been spinning ever leftward and more and more distant from the principles Dershowitz holds dear.

Here is what Dershowitz said a while back about voting for Obama’s second term. Note that back then the alternative to Obama was Romney and not Trump. Romney was an easier alternative for Dershowitz to contemplate:

Why am I focusing on Dershowitz so much? I do so because I think he’s emblematic of the struggle many people go through in wrestling with political change. His struggle is just more public. I don’t think most people are politically all one thing or another. There are hundreds (or maybe thousands) of elements that combine to make up a political position, and how we vote ends up being a result of which side weighs heavier in the balance scale. But early and habitual political affiliation, as well as the environments in which we live, also play a role.

The Illinois Parole Board makes a deadly mistake

The New Neo Posted on by

And a family pays a terrible price for it:

An 11-year-old Chicago boy died Wednesday [March 13] as he tried to protect his pregnant mother from her knife-wielding ex-boyfriend who was released from prison a day earlier.

Crosetti Brand, 37, is accused of stabbing the boy in the chest and the 33-year-old woman before he was arrested for the heinous killing of Jayden Perkins, according to the Chicago Police Department.

Brand had been paroled Tuesday from the Stateville Correctional Center, where he was serving a 16-year sentence for home invasion and aggravated assault. …

Perkins’ 5-year-old brother was also present and witnessed the attack. …

The mother, who had a “lifetime” order of protection against Brand, dated the felon more than 15 years ago, Chicago Police Chief of Detectives Antoinette Ursitti said. …

The alleged child killer had been previously paroled last year in October.

However, Brand was reasserted in February after “he threatened the female victim via text – and also showed up at her home,” Foxx said.

The mother and baby are in critical condition but are expected to survive. I assume that the murderer, Brand, thought he’d killed them too. It also appears that he’d been trying to kill this woman, or wanting to kill her, for many years – perhaps fifteen.

The article is so poorly written that it’s a bit hard to follow, but I supplemented it with this one from three days ago:

The chair of the Illinois Prisoner Review Board and a board member have resigned over backlash for granting the release of a man who fatally stabbed his ex-girlfriend’s young son less than 24 hours after he was freed.

Board chair Donald Shelter and board member LeAnn Miller stepped down on Monday in the wake of 11-year-old Jayden Perkins’ murder on March 13, according to CBS 2. …

… Smith had begged for an order of protection against Brand just last month.

At the time of the filing, Brand was doing 16 years behind bars for home invasion and aggravated assault.

A Cook County judge scheduled a hearing about the order for March 13, according to CBS 2.

Both parties were expected to attend, with Brand being notified about the hearing in prison.

Miller, however, wrote a report that approved Brand for parole on the 12th — and Smith and her son were attacked just hours before the hearing was supposed to take place.

Both the Illinois Department of Corrections and the Illinois Prisoner Review Board subsequently claimed they did not know about the protection order hearing, CBS 2 reported.

But emails obtained by the outlet indicated that the Department of Corrections knew about the hearing as early as Feb. 22.

This is confusing as well. The previous article said she had a “lifetime” order of protection against Brand. Which was it?

My prior experience, however, is that such orders are worthless when someone really wants to kill somebody. All they do is allow the person who obtains the orders to call the police if the threatening person appears, and have that latter person arrested and perhaps reincarcerated.

This guy wanted to kill this woman and appeared at her home when she was leaving with her children; no protection order would have helped her in this case. Keeping Brand in prison much longer would have helped her, but since he didn’t have a life sentence he couldn’t be kept there indefinitely. However, he certainly could and should have been kept there as long as possible. I can’t find an article that says how much of his term he had already served and how close he was to release even without being paroled; that seems as though it’s an important fact, as well.

I used to work with battered women who were living in shelters, back in the days before the internet. It was easier then for people to move and keep their new addresses secret. I don’t know whether this woman attempted to do that or not, but the internet makes it more difficult to be successful at hiding, although not impossible.

And here’s a little more information:

According to police, Smith has an order of protection against Brand.

Brand was out on parole when the incident occurred. He was serving a 16-year sentence for a home invasion and currently has three orders of protection violations against him, according to police. ABC News has reached out to Brand’s legal team.

Chief of Detectives Antoinette Ursitti, in a March 15 press conference, said Brand had been “paroled and placed on electronic monitoring last October. While he was on parole, he threatened the female victim via text and also showed up at her home. He was sent back to prison in February for this parole violation.”

RIP Jayden Perkins. You were a hero.

A California judge has recommended the disbarment of John Eastman for giving legal advice that Democrats don’t like

The New Neo Posted on by

Part of the Democrats’ lawfare against Trump and the right is their decision some years ago (see this) to go after lawyers for Trump or Trumpian causes and make them afraid to defend him or give him legal advice. The latest victory in that war on the right is the judicial recommendation for the disbarment of John Eastman in California:

The attorney and former law school dean facing imminent disbarment from the California Bar, based on a recommendation by California Bar Court Judge Yvette D. Roland for his legal work in support of President Donald J. Trump’s attempts to resolve irregularities in the 2020 presidential election, promised to fight for his reputation and livelihood in a statement released his legal team.

Here is her very lengthy opinion.

Eastman’s lawyer had this to say:

“Dr. Eastman maintains that his handling of the legal issues he was asked to assess after the November 2020 election was based on reliable legal precedent, prior presidential elections, research of constitutional text, and extensive scholarly material,” Miller said.

“The process undertaken by Dr. Eastman in 2020 is the same process taken by lawyers every day and everywhere – indeed, that is the essence of what lawyers do,” he said.

“They are ethically bound to be zealous advocates for their clients – a duty Dr. Eastman holds inviolate. To the extent today’s decision curtails that principle, we are confident the Review Court will swiftly provide a remedy,” he said.

From Judge Roland:

…[Eastman pursued] a strategy to challenge the results of the 2020 presidential election that lacked evidentiary or legal support. Vigorous advocacy does not absolve Eastman of his professional responsibilities around honesty and upholding the rule of law. While his actions are mitigated by his many years of discipline-free practice, cooperation, and prior good character, his wrongdoing is substantially aggravated by his multiple offenses, lack of candor and indifference.

In other words, she disagrees with his argument and thinks it has no merit. So what? He’s a lawyer; lawyers argue meritless stuff all the time. Not that I agree Eastman’s advice has no merit; I’m just saying that, even if it had no merit, that wouldn’t be a reason for disbarment.

And if someone accused of something doesn’t think he or she did wrong, then lack of remorse is simply honesty.

Much more at the link.

I’m unaware of any similar case to this, and I find this sort of political lawfare very dangerous. One comparison Judge Roland cites is the Segretti case, whose facts are extremely different (“dirty tricks” under the lawyer’s direction in a campaign).

I certainly hope Eastman wins on appeal. I think to do so he might have to go further than a California appeal, however. I believe that SCOTUS does [see *NOTE below] have jurisdiction over a case such as this:

The State Bar “acts under the authority and at the direction of the Supreme Court[,]” which has “inherent jurisdiction over the practice of law” in the state. Cal. R. Ct. 9.3.

*NOTE: It’s been called to my attention that “Supreme Court” in the above sentence might be referring to the California appellate court rather than the US Supreme Court. I tried to get clarification on the question of whether the US Supreme Court has any jurisdiction in a case like Eastman’s, but I haven’t found anything so far on it.

Dershowitz reaches a turning point of sorts

The New Neo Posted on by

I’m talking about this statement:

US Law Professor Alan Dershowitz spoke to Channel 12 News about the Biden Administration’s decision not to veto a UN Security Council resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza during Ramadan and criticized the administration for its stance.

“I was surprised by the US decision not to veto Israel. This is a terrible decision, because it gives Hamas everything it wants, without demanding anything in return. This will lengthen the war. This is a terrible decision both for us and for Israel,” Dershowitz said.

He added, “Many Americans won’t vote for Biden after this. This vote is not a difference between Biden and Netanyahu, this is a difference between Biden and Israel. There is no dispute about the need of getting the hostages back. Biden is going against Israel.”

On a personal note, Dershowitz said, “I’ve been voting Democrats since 1960. This is the first time that I am thinking of not voting for them. I can’t vote for them, because that is a vote against Israel.”

As I’ve said many many times, a mind is a difficult thing to change.

RIP Joe Lieberman

The New Neo Posted on by

Joe Lieberman was 82 years old:

Joe Lieberman, a longtime senator from Connecticut who became the first Jewish American to be nominated on a major party’s ticket, died Wednesday. He was 82.

Lieberman’s family stated that he died “due to complications from a fall. He was 82 years old. His beloved wife, Hadassah, and members of his family were with him as he passed.”

Halfway through his 24-year Senate career, Lieberman was chosen as Al Gore’s running mate for the 2000 presidential election. The ticket lost one of the closest elections in American history.

Lieberman was an old-fashioned Democrat and not a leftist. Not long after his vice-presidential run, he was effectively drummed out of the party and he ran (and won) the race for senator in 2006 as an Independent.

Not only was Lieberman Jewish, he was an Orthodox Jew. He praised Trump for moving the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and he recently attacked Schumer:

Earlier this month, he wrote a column in the Wall Street Journal attacking Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer for saying that Israel needed to replace Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as its leader.

“While Mr. Schumer’s statement undoubtedly pleased American critics of Israel,” he wrote, “for the Israelis it was meaningless, gratuitous and offensive.”

RIP.

Roundup!

The New Neo Posted on by

(1) Mexico’s president has shared his point of view on drug cartels:

Over the years, President Andrés Manuel López Obrador has laid out various justifications for his “hugs, not bullets” policy of avoiding clashes with the cartels. In the past he has said “you cannot fight violence with violence,” and on other occasions he has argued the government has to address “the causes” of drug cartel violence, ascribing them to poverty or a lack of opportunities.

Actually, history is replete with examples of successfully fighting violence with violence.

More recently:

But on Friday, while discussing his refusal to go after the cartels, he made it clear he viewed it as part of what he called a “Mexico First” policy.

“We are not going to act as policemen for any foreign government,” López Obrador said at his daily news briefing. “Mexico First. Our home comes first.”

One would think that even a “Mexico First” policy would encourage going after the cartels. But one would think wrong.

(2) RFK Jr. has chosen a leftist running mate, 38-year-old Nicole Shanahan. Mainstream Democrats seen to think this will hurt Biden’s chances of re-election. I sure hope so. Kennedy doesn’t have a chance to win; he’s just a spoiler. I hope he spoils Biden more than Trump, and this VP pick might help that happen.

(3) The IDF has confirmed that Marwan Issa was killed in an airstrike eleven days ago. He was third in command of Hamas. I’m not sure how these confirmations work, but I would assume that DNA is involved.

(4) Disney settles with DeSantis and Florida. I call that a win for DeSantis.

(5) Anti-Semitism and education are correlated.

Positively, not negatively:

Anti-Semitism has long been thought to be primarily a function of ignorance. Events since October 7, however, have disabused us of that view, as America’s most prestigious educational institutions have become the centers of virulent anti-Semitism. …

… a study by professors Jay P. Greene, Albert Cheng, and Ian Kingsbury, found that the more education a person has, the more anti-Semitic he is likely to be.

Though earlier studies had suggested a correlation between low education levels and anti-Semitism, Greene et al suspected that those with higher education were too sophisticated to give “wrong” answers when asked straight up how they felt about Jews or whether they agreed with blatantly anti-Semitic stereotypes. So instead, the researchers used a test based on double standards by asking about comparable cases involving a Jewish example and a non-Jewish example. And they found that “more highly educated people were more likely to apply principles more harshly to Jewish examples.”

In the test, no subject was asked both about the Jewish case and the non-Jewish case to prevent them from discerning the nature of the test. When asked, for instance, whether “attachment to a foreign country creates a conflict of interest,” respondents with four-year degrees were 7 percent more likely, and those with advanced degrees 13 percent more likely, to express concern when the country was Israel than when it was Mexico. Those with advanced degrees were 12 percent more likely to support the military in prohibiting Jewish yarmulkes than in prohibiting Sikh turbans. While a majority of respondents supported a ban on public gatherings during Covid, those with advanced degrees were 11 percent more likely to do so with respect to Orthodox funerals than BLM protests.

(6) The Francis Scott Key bridge was especially vulnerable because of where it was built, and this was known:

“Classical education” making a small comeback

The New Neo Posted on by

This trend is of interest:

The future of the controversial classical education movement will be showcased later this month [it already has occurred] when Columbia University senior lecturer Roosevelt Montás is scheduled to deliver a keynote address at a national symposium hosted by Great Hearts, the biggest classical charter network.

The views of Montás, author of the widely praised memoir “Rescuing Socrates,” are well to the left of many in the classical charter movement, which is rooted in Christian conservatism. What makes Montás’ upcoming speech so notable, then, is the signal it sends about the movement’s effort to diversify its brand and project a welcoming attitude as it seeks to expand beyond conservative strongholds and suburbs where it began.

But not everyone is enamored of the effort, neither educational conservatives nor local school officials, unions, and progressive advocates. The latter liken classical charters to a Trojan Horse, sneaking quasi-Christian right-wing dogma into public education under the cover of liberal arts. …

In all, there are about 250 classical charters today, according to one study, making them a small niche within the broader charter sector of 8,000 schools and campuses …

By making common cause with a range of prominent black and Latino thinkers and educators like Montás, classical charter leaders hope to show that their style of moral education is valuable to students from all backgrounds and beliefs.

There is no reason a classical education would have to be tied to belief in a specific religion. As some in the movement have said:

“We base ourselves in the West, in the culture of freedom that produced the Magna Carta, the founding documents of this country, and the civil rights movement,” said Dan Scoggin, co-founder of Great Hearts and a Claremont alum. “We read Marx, Rousseau – writers who push back on the Christian tradition, but it’s also a big part of Western culture. To those who try to pigeonhole classical charters as pseudo-Christian, no, we are not.”

Here’s a website to promote classical education with a broader outreach.

I wish them luck. Education has been so destructive in recent years, and the rot so pervasive, that it’s hard to come up with something that could reverse it. Any movement that would do so would have to be able to appeal to a broad swath of people, and academic rigor can be a very tough sell.

NOTE: See also this.