Mamdani’s dream team: Imagine there are no prisons

The New Neo Posted on by

All is proceeding as foreseen. Mamdani has assembled a group that’s brimming with ideas. Some of those ideas may seem vaguely familiar to you, if you came of age in the late 1960s and spent some time on college campuses. Now these stale warmed-over Rousseauvian theories come out of the mouths of young people who are running the show in NYC rather than shooting the late-night breeze in the dorm while passing the bong around:

Late last month, the mayor-elect released the roster of his transition team’s Committee on Community Safety, a 26-person group that will advise him on criminal-justice and related issues. The list contains several activists who are not only openly hostile to law enforcement but also reject the very concept of carceral punishment.

What could possibly go wrong?:

Brooklyn College professor Alex Vitale, the author of The End of Policing, has argued, for example, that policing is “fundamentally a tool of social control to facilitate our exploitation.” He has also described police as “violence workers,” who should be turned to only as a “last resort.”

And he seems like the conservative on the team, compared to several others:

Advocates like Vitale and Olderman often cast the criminal-justice system, and even America itself, as a villain. In doing so, they echo the worldview of transition-team member and former Women’s March leader Tamika Mallory, who said days after the death of George Floyd in 2020, “We are not responsible for the mental illness that has been inflicted upon our people by the American government institutions and those people who are in positions of power. Don’t talk to us about looting. We learn violence from you.”

There is a tiny kernel of something true in all the claptrap, and that “something” is that the causes of crime and related social ills are multifaceted, and that a lot of criminals really are mentally ill and/or addicted, something that’s also true of the homeless. It’s interesting that a great many of the solutions suggested by the Mamdani appointees involve intervention by social workers rather than police; good luck with that, is what I say having known a great many social workers, most of whom are not the least bit eager to be the first on the scene of a potentially – or actually – violent situation.

The idea of protecting the non-criminal public from criminals seems to be the furthest thing from the minds of Mamdani’s crew.

Perhaps my favorite part of the article is this. Kassandra reminds me most forcibly of the type of thinking that one would often hear back in the late 60s and early 70s. Let’s reminisce, readers:

Kassandra Frederique, head of the Drug Policy Alliance and another Mamdani committee member, has framed her advocacy in “abolitionist” and revolutionary terms. During a 2021 appearance on a web show, for example, she discussed the prospect of black revolutionaries “tak[ing] over the state.” She also seemed to endorse drug use as a way for some advocates to embrace more radical positions. “There are some people in our movement that need to be high so that they can imagine the world that we can’t see currently,” she said.

Imagine.

Roundup

The New Neo Posted on by

(1) Scott Johnson of Powerline fisks the mendacious local coverage of the Somali fraud cases.

(2) Today SCOTUS heard oral arguments in Trump v Slaugher, a case that bears on the question of whether “a president should be able to have full control over government agencies, even those set up by Congress to be shielded from presidential interference.”

In the 90-year-old ruling known as Humphrey’s Executor, the court found that, while the president has the ability to remove executive officers without cause, such a power does not apply to agencies like the FTC that are “neither political nor executive, but predominantly quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative”.

During oral arguments on Monday, the four conservative justices on the court appeared to disagree with Ms Slaughter’s lawyers’ arguments that this would be an unacceptable expansion of Trump’s powers.

Arguing for the Trump administration, US Solicitor General John Sauer called the Humphrey’s rule an “indefensible outlier” and “decaying husk” of a Supreme Court decision that should be overturned.

(3) Quite a few Republican House members will be retiring, but at least they seem to be coming from so-called “safe seats.” I keep reading anxiety-provoking articles about the House in the 2026 midterms, though.

(4) Homan says that the Trump administration has saved about 62,000 “migrant” children whom the Biden administration had lost.

(5) What are they teaching the kids of San Jose, California? Then again, this was probably inspired by TikTok or other social media; it was shared on Instagram:

Eight San Jose high school students formed a human swastika on their school’s football field in a horrifying display of antisemitism that has sent shockwaves through the Silicon Valley community.

The disturbing scene was photographed and shared in a since-deleted Wednesday social media post that featured an antisemitic 1939 quote from Adolf Hitler.

“If the international Jewish financiers in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, then the result will not be the Bolshevization of the earth, and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe,” read what appeared to be an Instagram caption.

Everything old is new again.

Chauvin lawyer asks for a new trial

The New Neo Posted on by

I think Chauvin very much deserves one. And it shouldn’t be in Minneapolis, either. Having followed his trial closely, and written about it at length, I’ve been convinced for a long time that his trial was anything but fair.

The claims:

Early on in the document, Joseph [Chauvin’s attorney] notes that five years have passed since Chauvin’s high-profile trial and convictions, enough time for the emotion that surrounded Floyd’s death and the subsequent protests to subside.

“This Court is removed from the hysteria of the day and can finally look at the facts and evidence through a clear lens,” the documents read. “It is the first time a judicial officer can view the case without the pressure of the public mood.”

Unfortunately, although five years have indeed passed, I don’t think we’re nearly removed enough from “the pressure of the public mood.” That may be especially true in Minneapolis, where the hysteria – and threats – always ran very high and hot. Will any judge there have the guts, even now, to go against that? I doubt it. And if Chauvin loses this fight in state court, will an appeal to SCOTUS be heard? His last appeal was denied such a hearing.

Nevertheless:

While wide-ranging, the crux of the appeals argument boils down to four major assertions by the defense:

– That then-Minneapolis Police Chief Maderia Arrandono, Inspector Katie Blackwell, and training coordinator Lt. Johnny Mercil allegedly lied on the stand when they said the “hobble” technique used by Chauvin to control Floyd was not part of MPD training and therefore a violation of department policy.
– The defense argues that state experts testified on the cause of Floyd’s death based not on his autopsy or medical tests, but on what they had seen in videotapes from the scene at 38th and Chicago.
– Prosecutors allegedly abused videotaped evidence, using it despite its lack of a medical foundation. The defense cited the findings of Hennepin County Medical Examiner Dr. Andrew Baker, who testified that severe heart disease and the presence of fentanyl and methamphetamine in his system played a major role in Floyd’s death. Baker’s testimony said he found no sign of asphyxiation.
– That jurors were given faulty instructions by Judge Peter Cahill, including misstatements of law.

The documents reference a book written by journalist Liz Collin and Dr. JC Chaix that is critical of Chauvin’s trial and conviction, and say that since it was published in 2022, 34 current and former MPD officers have come forward to provide sworn statements saying the knee-to-neck restraint used by Chauvin to subdue Floyd was part of their training.

“Not only was the knee-to-neck/upper shoulder restraint trained, its use was common knowledge and part of MPD policy,” one wrote.

I can attest to the fact that the technique was certainly part of the online manual/information for the policy of the Minneapolis police, at least at first. I saw it there myself shortly after Floyd’s death, but it was erased a while later. I had taken notes, however (I should have taken a screen shot, I suppose), and in August of 2020 I wrote this post on the subject. Read it and you’ll see what I mean.

One of the many terrible results of the Floyd death and the Chauvin trial was that health authorities showed themselves to be complete hypocrites. While the country was mostly locked down to a large extent, and in many places people weren’t even allowed to gather in groups outside, the health authorities announced that protests against Floyd’s death were just fine and well worth any possible health hazards. This added to the profound distrust so many people now have for health authorities.

When the only lettuce was iceberg

The New Neo Posted on by

During Thanksgiving week I usually make turkey sandwiches with leftovers, and this time I bought some iceberg lettuce for that purpose. I cannot remember the last time I bought iceberg lettuce, but it may have been about forty years ago. I bought it this time because I remembered that it used to be good in sandwiches, having a bit more heft than a lot of the other kinds of lettuce.

Yesterday I made some salad with the remainder of the lettuce, and eating it reminded me that I really prefer other kinds of lettuce these days. But it got me to thinking about the times when iceberg lettuce was just generic lettuce, and I didn’t know there was any other kind.

In my home, when I was growing up, we used to have salad with dinner most nights, and that salad was iceberg lettuce and a few tomatoes and cucumbers. With Wishbone dressing. There was no thought of any other kind of salad until years later.

Life was simpler and choices were much simpler. Iceberg lettuce, or no lettuce.

The only sneakers were Keds, and Converse for basketball.

The girls all wore penny loafers and and circle pins. At least, for a while.

I don’t recall any foreign cars, either, except VWs. We had Chryslers, Chevrolets, and Fords. Maybe I’m wrong about that because cars were not really on my particular radar screen, but that’s what I remember.

There was meat and there was potatoes and there was a veggie such as green beans. In our house, we rarely had dessert, but if we did it tended to be a Sara Lee cake.

Broadway shows cost a few dollars, and you didn’t have to take out a loan to go to Disneyland.

Pearl Harbor Day is tomorrow

The New Neo Posted on by

[NOTE: This is a revised and expanded edition of a post first published in 2006.]

Eighty-four years ago tomorrow, Pearl Harbor was attacked.

That’s long enough ago that only a vanishing few remember the day and its aftermath with any clarity. Many generations – including my own tiresome one, the baby boomers – have come up since then, and the world has indeed changed.

Prior to 9/11, the Pearl Harbor attack of December 7, 1941 was the closest thing America had to 9/11. The differences between the two are profound, however: at Pearl Harbor we knew the culprit. It was clearly and unequivocally an act of war by the nation of Japan, which was already at war in the Pacific.

But it was, like 9/11, a sneak attack that killed roughly the same number of Americans – in the case of Pearl Harbor mostly (although not exclusively) those in the armed forces. And the Pearl Harbor attack, in the reported (but disputed) words of Japanese Admiral Yamamoto, awakened the “sleeping giant” of the US and filled it with a “terrible resolve.”

In the case of Pearl Harbor, that resolve lasted the duration of the war, an all-out conflagration that required far more sacrifice of the US (and the world) in money, comfort, and the all-important cost of human lives. The scale of such a loss is not even remotely comparable to that of our present conflicts. In addition, the first years of World War II featured some losses and much peril. It was a different world, however, and failure was not considered an option.

Yes, mistakes were made in World War II. Mistakes always will be made in war. The tactics and even the strategies of World War II don’t fit today’s wars. But tactics and strategies aren’t the issue – although they are extremely important. The overarching issue is will. Without that, a war cannot be won. And, in that respect as in many others, current generations don’t compare to the one known as “The Greatest Generation.”

For some contrast, go back to FDR’s “Day of Infamy” speech (a misquote, it turns out: he actually said “date which will live in infamy”). Following are some of the less famous quotes from the speech; I have selected them because they speak to the question of will. FDR was assisted in mustering that will by the relative clarity of the enemy and its intent in World War II. But it still seems to me, on reading these words, that such unequivocal determination could not be summoned today in the US, even if given the exact circumstances of the infamous attack of December 7, 1941. It may, however, be present in Israel at the moment, but I’m not completely sure:

…No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.

I believe that I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost but will make it very certain that this form of treachery shall never again endanger us.

Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory and our interests are in grave danger.

With confidence in our armed forces – with the unbounding determination of our people – we will gain the inevitable triumph – so help us God.

Making Trucks Great Again

The New Neo Posted on by

I have to admit that I know next to nothing about trucks. But apparently they have been so highly regulated in recent years that their prices have become exorbitant.

Trump is attempting to improve that situation:

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy explained that Trump is not entirely rolling back the CAFE standards, which were enacted into law by Congress in 1975. Instead, Trump is getting rid of the Biden-era rules that added to the law, forcing automakers to spend billions on technology that no one wants or can afford.

What is done by executive order can be undone by executive order – unless some district judge in Hawaii decides it can’t. But then it’s also the case that it can be undone once again by a subsequent president of the opposite persuasion. And on and on it goes.

But enjoy, for now.

Lies that get halfway around the world, and then become entrenched

The New Neo Posted on by

We’ve seen it many times before. Whenever there’s a murder or a terrorist attack that has some political overtones, first reports are that the person was/is a Trump supporter.

This also happened with the J6 pipe bomber suspect. The usual unnamed sources tell the MSM the person is MAGA, which gives the media license to report it, and so often it turns out to be untrue.

Just like the idea the Hegseth ordered a hit on two guys clinging to the wreckage of a completely destroyed boat, saying “kill them all.”

Or what later became known on the right as the Charlottesville Hoax, but known on the left as “proof that Trump is a white supremacist.”

The MSM is willing to put out these poorly-sourced stories that are later found to be false, for the simple reason that they know a great great many people will continue to believe them. That’s why, for example, Joe Biden was able to kick off his 2020 campaign with the utterly debunked Charlottesville Hoax; because for so many Democrats, it had become entrenched not just as truth, but as a foundational truth about Trump. A lie doesn’t just get halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to put its boots on, but often the lie stays entrenched in people’s minds.

This is especially true, of course, if the lie takes the form of confirmation bias. If a person already “knows” that Trump is a racist, any further “evidence” of that “fact” will find a welcome home and be extremely difficult to dislodge.

One of the strongest beliefs for well over half of Americans is that behind the JFK assassination was some sort of shadowy cabal of powerful plotters. It’s been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that this was not the case, but it has barely affected that deeply-held belief in the conspiracy. I was reminded of this yesterday when I listened to a bit of an interview between Russell Brand and head conspiracy theorist Candace Owens. Both are popular podcasters, and Owens is currently peddling a host of conspiracy theories about Charlie Kirk’s assassination. Brand was questioning her and evinced some doubt about what she was saying, but then he added something like this, “Of course, for my whole life I’ve been hearing that JFK was killed by a lone gunman, and of course that’s false, and so I’m open to what you’re saying.”

That, in a nutshell, is the sort of thing that paves the way for poison peddlers such as Owens. “Everybody knows” certain things that are actually untrue, and those things foster the conspiratorial mindset that can believe just about anything. When the belief system becomes strong enough, for many if not most people no logic and no amount of evidence can destroy it.

What’s in a name? That which we call a knucklehead by any other name would smell as sweet

The New Neo Posted on by

Trump called Tim Walz a “retard,” and Walz is understandably miffed:

TIM WALZ says that people are driving by his house and using the term ‘retard.’

“This creates danger… we know how these things go, they start with taunts, they turn to violence.”

Well no, Tim. The term “retard” is rude, but doesn’t usually lead to any violence – except, perhaps, in Nazi Germany, where they killed disabled people as “life unworthy of life.”

In this country, however, calling someone “Nazi” or “Fascist,” as the left is inclined to do, is more likely to lead to violence against the person so labeled. And in fact, as luck would have it, Walz himself has used terms like that for people on the right, or even for law enforcement. For example, here he called ICE agents “modern-day Gestapo” (he mispronounced the word, but it was clear that’s what he meant). And here’s some of Walz’s oh-so-gentle rhetoric about Trump:

Those words are far more likely to incite violence compared to “retard,” which is very mild in comparison.

And of course, during the 2024 campaign Walz called himself a “knucklehead,” which means “a stupid, bumbling, inept person.” He was being too kind. Knave and fool.