"Progressive" Prosecutors

There were two interesting pieces, one in the Wall Street Journal and the other in the Los Angeles Times, on the topic of progressive District Attorneys.  In the WSJ, on 8/1/22, was an Op-Ed ("Why I Support Reform Prosecutors") by none other than George Soros, the left-wing billionaire who has successfully funded the campaigns of quite a few "progressive" prosecutors across the country.  In the LA Times was an editorial ("Gascon is an easy scapegoat") discussing the recall petition of LA County's district attorney.

The piece by Soros is filled with platitudes, yet lacking in any facts.  "Yet our system is rife with injustices that make us all less safe...If people trust the justice system, it will work.  And if the system works, public safety will improve."  How's that?  When criminals can say that the system is "fair," they will stop committing crimes?  I am not following the "logic."  

Soros:  "We need to acknowledge that black people in the U.S. are five times as likely to be sent to jail as white people."  What Soros fails to discuss is the rate at which different racial groups commit crime.  For example, for the year 2019, the FBI reported that blacks committed 55.9% of the homicides in the US, while accounting for only approximately 14% of the population.  Clearly, those numbers are going to account for increased arrest and incarceration rates for blacks.  

Soros asserts that the rise in crime can be attributed to an increase in mental illness as a result of young people being isolated as a result of the pandemic.  He also points to a "pullback in policing in the wake of public criminal justice reform protests."  Hmm.  He is clearly on to something, although he draws the wrong conclusions.  There is little doubt that there has been a "pullback in policing," as police have seen decreased support from the public and elected officials.  But then it's a vicious circle - elect soft on crime district attorneys and mayors, and the police curtail law enforcement.  Why would the police put themselves at risk, in terms of their own safety and freedom even, if the people they arrest are back out on the streets in a matter of hours.  All because left-wing politicians have instituted "no bail" reforms.

The LA Times is upset that there is a pending recall petition (assuming enough signatures qualify) of LA D.A. George Gascon.  The Times makes some rather bizarre assertions.  The editorial mentions the June 7 recall of progressive San Francisco D.A. Chesa Boudin.  Explains the Times:  "Boudin was a high-profile target of justice reform opponents, in part because his city is a leading bastion of progressive politics, and in part because his parents were convicted of killing police officers in the 1980's..."  The Times does not care to explain that, given those facts, how was it that Boudin was elected D.A. in 2019 in the first place?  Nor does the Times care to discuss the rather inconvenient fact that San Francisco, one of the most left-wing cities in the country, booted their progressive D.A. on June 7.  Might it be because even people on the left have no desire to be victims of crime.  

Here is something we can agree on:  "The increase in crime in Los Angeles County is real and deeply troubling..."  So much so that the LAPD has taken to advising people to be wary of the expensive cars they drive and jewelry they wear.  Yet, LA was always known for the rich and famous dressing and driving ostentatiously.  What happened?  

The Times:  "Yet the notion that it's the prosecutors - not the police, the mayor, county supervisors and other players or criminal laws and policies regarding health, economics, education - that control crime is fairly new and somewhat odd."  No one is disagreeing with the idea that left-wing elected officials, with their left-wing laws, play a role in increasing crime.  But let's not pretend it is "odd" for a D.A. to be blamed for increasing crime when he immediately instituted these policies:  an end to seeking the death penalty, ending the requirement of cash bail in many cases, eliminating sentence enhancement charges, and other changes.  

Yet, I regularly see on the local news family members, often minorities, of loved ones badly injured or killed, begging for the D.A. to throw the book at the perpetrators.  And then complaining when that does not happen.  What these left-wing D.A.'s, politicians and media people don't understand, is that minorities are the frequent victims of crime, and their family members want to see the perpetrators brought to justice.  They don't want these criminals back out on the streets.

What Soros and the Times editorial board also fail to mention is the success of former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.  Giuliani became Mayor in 1994, following David Dinkins, who served from 1990 through 1993.  My recollection from that time is of the New York Times fretting over whether New York could ever bounce back after Dinkins left office.  But bounce back it did.  Giuliani, a former federal prosecutor, instituted the "broken windows" theory of policing.  If you let the "minor" crimes go without punishment, if you let neighborhoods deteriorate with a few broken windows, then criminals will move on to more major crimes.  Giuliani cleaned up Times Square.  People moved back into New York City.  Businesses returned.  All honest citizens want the same thing - safe neighborhoods.  They don't want soft on crime prosecutors.  Only the left-wing fringe, and their supporters in the mainstream media, want that.           

A Good Guy With A Gun

On July 17, a shooter at the Greenwood Park Mall in Greenwood, Indiana, killed 3 people and injured 2 others.  Greenwood is a suburb of Indianapolis.  The shooting stopped when a 22 year old who was legally carrying, shot and killed the shooter.  Said the city's police chief:  "A good Samaritan with a handgun" killed the shooter.  The city's Mayor added:  "On behalf of the City of Greenwood, I am grateful for his (referring to the Good Samaritan) quick action and heroism in this situation." 

As my friend, the retired police officer, has advised me, when a good guy with a gun (whether a cop or a citizen) takes aim at a shooter, it gives people time to run and escape from danger.  It also results in the cop or civilian putting themselves in harms way, because the shooter will turn his attention to the person shooting at him and fire back.  As my friend explained, when a cop does that, it is his or her job.  But as far as I am concerned, when a civilian does it, it is an act of bravery.

But not everyone was happy with the "good guy" being referred to as a "Good Samaritan."  Said one commentator who took offense:  "The term 'Good Samaritan' came from a Bible passage of a man from Samaria who stopped on the side of the road to help a man who was injured.  I cannot believe we live in a world where the term can equally apply to someone killing someone...My G-d."  Maybe someone can explain this to me.  Aiding an injured man is good, but saving lives is no good?

Last year, the New York Times reported on CDC findings that in the US, there are anywhere from 60,000 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses each year.

Meanwhile, on July 12, the Austin American-Statesman reported on the release of the 77 minute video from Uvalde, Texas.  The paper said that the video "shows in excruciating detail dozens of sworn officers, local, state and federal - heavily armed, clad in body armor, with helmets, some with protective shields - walking back and forth in the hallway, some leaving the camera frame and then reappearing, others training their weapons toward the classroom, talking, making cellphone calls, sending texts and looking at floor plans, but not entering or attempting to enter the classrooms." 

Dozens of officers in Uvalde compared to a single 22 year old in Greenwood.  Something to ponder.

Growing Up In 1971

 (Note.  On July 10, I wrote "Growing Up In 1961."  The story continues around 1971, with more to follow.)

My college years at Rutgers began in September, 1969.  And it was quite an eventful month.  On September 27, 1969, Rutgers played Princeton in the 100th anniversary of college football game; the first game being played between Rutgers and Princeton in 1869.  (Rutgers won that game, more in the style of rugby, by a score of 6 to 4.)  It was a home game for Rutgers, so, of course, I went.  It was thrilling to have TV cameras there, which was not a common occurrence for Rutgers at that time.  I remember it as a perfect fall day.  And the game ended with a perfect result, with Rutgers shutting out Princeton 29-0.

Perhaps not surprisingly, I was exposed to left-wing ideology for the first time.  Not only by some professors, but by fellow students.  And I became all in.  It was not how I was raised.  My parents were classical liberals.  That liberalism has nothing in common with leftism.  But the Vietnam war was raging and I attended various peace rallies at Rutgers.  I was also at the peace rally in New York City at Bryant Park, on April 22, 1972, organized by the National Peace Action Coalition.  (As an aside, Bryant Park is where the New York Public Library is; and other than the Library of Congress, it is the largest library in the country.)  Anyway, John Kerry spoke at the rally, although I have no recollection of him being there.  I do recall the headliners - John Lennon and Yoko Ono. 

But prior to that rally, in the spring of 1970, were the protests against the bombing of Cambodia.  It was an effort by the US to end the supply lines to the Viet Cong.  It was quite a tumultuous time as that spring, on May 4, 1970, 4 students at Kent State University in Ohio, were shot and killed by members of the Ohio National Guard.  Students there, and across the country, were also protesting the expansion of the war into Cambodia.  After that shooting I remember thinking that any of us at these protests could be targeted. 

At Rutgers I grew a full beard and a Jewfro, although it was already thinning at the top.  As a freshman I lived in what was called the "language section" of one of the dorms.  As I recall, it was a new experiment at Rutgers.  Students who scored at least a 600 on the foreign language SAT in either Spanish or French, were eligible to live there.  My foreign language was Spanish.  The idea was to encourage the day to day speaking of those languages.  I am not sure how often that occurred, but I do recall each of us having been called by our name in that foreign language.  I, of course, was Miguel.  

During my sophomore year at Rutgers my parents and brother moved from New Jersey to California.  I believe it was at the end of the school year when a friend at school was also flying to California, as his family also lived there.  A group of the guys from the language section drove us to the airport.  At the ticket counter was this sign:  "Warning - carrying a concealed weapon is a federal offense."  It was the era of plane hijackings.  Another Spanish speaker from the dorm saw the sign and joked:  "Hey Miguel, you better hide your gun."  So here I was with a full beard and a bushy head of hair, and I'm called "Miguel," at a time when there were hijackings to Cuba.

My friend and I walked down to the gate and were waiting to board the plane.  Suddenly a man in a three piece suit walks up to us and asks our names.  Then he takes out his badge and says:  "Federal Marshal, you two come with me."  He immediately asks which one of us has the gun.  It took me a few seconds to remember what my other friend said about hiding my gun.  Clearly, the man at the ticket counter reported us to the Marshals.  I explained to the Marshal that it was a joke.  Said the Marshal:  "Does it look like I'm laughing?"  He then frisked my friend and me and went through our carry on baggage. 

After seeing that there was no gun anywhere the Marshal told us that he could still arrest us.  Or he could let us go on the plane.  I think he saw two terrified college students, and let us go with a warning.  After the plane took off, I opened up my carry-on and took out the latest edition of the student newspaper, the Rutgers Targum.  Although not an Ivy League school, Rutgers was an all male college, with our sister school being Douglass, which was across town in New Brunswick.  Back to the Targum.  What was the front page headline I saw?  "Bomb scare at Douglass College."  I could not believe it.  I knew the airlines had Marshals on virtually every flight.  I knew if I said the word "bomb" on the plane I would definitely be arrested.  I immediately closed the paper, put it back in my carry-on, and sat with my hands folded on my lap for the rest of the flight.  Without saying a word.  

It was not constant politics at Rutgers, although it may have been the dominant activity.  But it was the beginning of video games, which we could play at the Rutgers student center.  And I went to concerts at Rutgers.  I recall Arlo Guthrie and Sha Na Na playing at Rutgers.  And George Carlin came and did his routine.  I still remember one of his lines, pretending to be the hippie dippie dippie weatherman.  His forecast?  "The weather for tonight is getting dark, and getting lighter towards the early morning hours."  I have no idea why I remember that.  

I was not a hippie.  I was not a joiner; so I never joined any groups such as SDS, Students for a Democratic Society.  But when I left Rutgers in 1973, I definitely departed as a man of the left.