I can’t find it now but several days ago I received an email from an organization I have a peripheral relation to that they are committed to “protect[ing] their vulnerable population.”  Protecting people is good but “vulnerable” didn’t sit well with me.  One of my goals in life is to avoid being vulnerable.  You and I may have limited ability to affect whether we’re marginalized but vulnerability is, to some degree, within our control.  If a bully punches you, gouge him in the eyes.  Impress upon him that his aggression will cost him.

I write this in the context of the Democratic Party having inflicted no meaningful damage on Trump for his lawlessness.  That’s not recent.  It goes back to his first term.  People have let Trump skate all his life.  He’ll continue until he’s forcibly stopped.

The criminal interview:

This is where the criminal decides if you are safe to attack.

Yes, with all violence, the assailant’s safety is a critical factor in deciding whether or not to attack…

“Can I get away with it?” is a major motivation for what people decide to do — or not do. Hence, the interview.

This is one interview you want to fail. If you fail, the assailant decides that he cannot successfully, or easily, attack you. Then if he is a criminal, he will proceed to seek easier prey.

Continue reading →

From Dan Drezner’s, My Extremely Brief Take on January 6th:

Folks are going to point out that today marked a peaceful transfer of power, overseen by the loser of the last presidential election, and isn’t that a great thing for democracy?! Usually, it is. But the fact remains that the only reason for the peace is because the guy who has threatened or fomented political violence for the last ten years won the election this time around. America’s political elite appeased a bully, the American people endorsed that strategy, and now America’s economic elite is falling all over itself to appease the bully some more.

And when you think about that dynamic for more than half a second, you realize how pathetic it makes this country sound.

Catherine Rampell, Fan club for suspected shooter is a symptom of burn-it-all-down populism:

Public praise for a killer is an escalation of a troubling trend: bloodlust for destruction & retribution. Americans are rejecting leaders who propose solutions for problems, in favor of antiheroes who just want to burn everything down—figuratively or literally.

I disagree with Rampell’s characterization of Senator Warren’s statement as expressing sympathy with Mangione – Warren offered an explanation of the motivations for vigilantism, not an excuse for it – but otherwise I concur with her take:

Here’s the thing about indulging this annihilative reflex to infuriating social problems: Besides the obvious moral odiousness, it doesn’t fix the problems.

Murdering health-care executives won’t help more Americans get care. Purging the FBI won’t reduce crime. Jailing political enemies won’t lower egg prices.

It’s easier to break something than to build it. But to solve a problem, something eventually needs to be built. That part is boring, hard and, lately, not well appreciated by the public.