On the front page of the New York Times this week was a friendly little story about the real threat to the world in this pandemic. It was about how white evanglicals could prolong the pandemic because they're refusing to take the vaccine. Nice. Some object because of perceived "aborted cell tissue." Some object because "It's not trusting God." Some are warning that it's "the Mark of the Beast." So a tiny sliver of a tiny population in America could kill us all. I'm pretty sure the fact that it is "white" and not all evangelicals and that it is "evangelicals" and not all Christians is irrelevant. Wait ... no, I'm not.
What's in a Word?
In a bold move last week, Arkansas's governor vetoed a bill from the legislature that would restrict health care procedures for transgender youth. In a surprising turn, then, the lawmakers overrode his veto, making it illegal for people under 18 to get "gender-affirming treatments." Wait, now, hold on. "Gender-affirming treatments"? Yeah, you know, like cutting off body parts and using hormone therapy to disrupt their development. Gender-affirming. If, by "gender-affirming treatments," they meant "treatments that help a young person to accept and embrace the gender they were born to," I'd be all for it. I just can't read, "Maim them while they're young because they feel like it" as anything "affirming."
In a bold move last week, Arkansas's governor vetoed a bill from the legislature that would restrict health care procedures for transgender youth. In a surprising turn, then, the lawmakers overrode his veto, making it illegal for people under 18 to get "gender-affirming treatments." Wait, now, hold on. "Gender-affirming treatments"? Yeah, you know, like cutting off body parts and using hormone therapy to disrupt their development. Gender-affirming. If, by "gender-affirming treatments," they meant "treatments that help a young person to accept and embrace the gender they were born to," I'd be all for it. I just can't read, "Maim them while they're young because they feel like it" as anything "affirming."
Cancel Culture On Parade
The story is actually that it ended, but for awhile San Francisco was working hard at changing the names of schools with offensive names -- names like Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Paul Revere. Oh, and Dianne Feinstein. Nice. Because, you see, someone somewhere had come to believe that all of these (and more) had at some point done something that someone found offensive. Like Dianne Feinstein who, when she was mayor in 1984, made the decision to replace a vandalized Confederate flag that was part of a longstanding display outside city hall. Cancel her. So they stopped the effort ... for now. Got to get kids back to school before they correct all the errors of history. Having never learned, I suppose, the principle of "He who is without sin cast the first stone."
Fair is Not Necessarily Fair
In their attempt to be ever gracious and fair, Senate Democrats have figured out how to work around the filibuster so they can get their agenda passed with a simple 51 votes ... which is what they have available. "This way we can help Americans rather than throw them to the wolves like the Republicans want," a Schumer aide said. To be safe, they're voting next (requiring a just 51 votes) to pass a rule that if Democrats in the Senate become a minority, then the minority vote is the one that passes. Just to be safe.
I Heard No Immunity
Wikipedia defines "qualified immunity" as "a legal doctrine in United States federal law that shields government officials from being sued for discretionary actions performed within their official capacity, unless their actions violated 'clearly established' federal law or constitutional rights." New Mexico decided that was a bad idea to protect officials doing their job from legal action, so they removed qualified immunity. I understand that this is designed to protect people from officials who do the wrong thing, but if I was a police officer in New Mexico, I'd get out immediately since "qualified immunity" means you can't be prosecuted for doing your job and New Mexico will not protect you for that.
We Have Re-Gretas
She's at it again. Greta Thunberg, now 18, has found a cause more important than saving the planet from climate change. It's COVID vaccine inequality. She won't attend the climate summit in Glasgow in November until countries stop vaccinating young people before the at-risk groups in the world are vaccinated. Umm, Greta, isn't that inequality -- demanding that one group get vaccinated (worldwide) before another? Okay, she's demanding equal vacine distribution. Not even sure how that works. (Seriously. I'm not at all sure how that works.)
Back to Normal
As states begin to ease back to normal conditions, Texas says they will return to shooting people wearing masks on the assumption that they're stagecoach robbers as before.
Meanwhile, President Biden has outlawed guns for everyone except criminals and people guarding him. Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
6 comments:
Stan,
The NM law appears to be driven by some folks in their CPS that were engaged in some pretty nasty behavior. I think that the concept of qualified immunity is, in theory, a good thing but that it might be something that can be accomplished in other ways. Clearly people in these position absolutely need discretion to do their jobs. It seems like there is a place to protect that, while making it easier to punish those who abuse it.
A coworker from New Mexico was quick to point out that New Mexico is known for bad cops. Kind of like Chicago, I guess. And I figured the law was intended to remove immunity from people that shouldn't have it ... like bad cops. Unfortunately removing protection from all police in order to stop some bad police is a bad idea on the face of it since not all police are bad police and most good government, police or otherwise, will be making their constituents unhappy sometimes by doing their job, just now without a net.
I have a long-time friend who was a sheriff's department cop in New Mexico. He took the job after moving there retired from 28 years as a cop in a town in Lake County, IL in order to deal with the higher cost of health care. Now, he's not only quit the force after two years, but has sold his 40 acre property (which unfortunately I hadn't the opportunity to visit and see) for a place in Wyoming. He didn't mention the elimination of qualified immunity, but he did mention the elimination of his night stick, mace and some other tool or technique I can't at present recall, which clearly puts him at risk by it's prohibition.
I wonder how your co-worker came to believe NM was "known" for bad cops. They're all over the place. The question is to what percentage. I've a cousin who was a former cop in a Chicago suburb. She spoke of gang members among the force, with one with whom she worked closely being arrested by her for that fact once the connection was confirmed. It's not at all uncommon, apparently across the country, with naturally come places more infiltrated with scum than others. I recall reading an article about the same problem in the military. Just sayin'.
Stan,
Despite all of our anecdotal evidence, I still believe that the concept of qualified immunity, like tenure, is something that can be looked at and improved.
I am not in favor of eliminating qualified immunity. I think it is necessary and just. People who do government jobs will, legally and necessarily, do things that common citizens should not. For that, they should be protected. Removing qualified immunity is a dangerous mistake. Abusing qualified immunity to protect lawbreakers is an equally dangerous mistake, and too many times actual lawbreakers have gotten away with criminal activity under the guise of qualified immunity. Like gun laws, I think if qualified immunity was properly applied and properly enforced, it would work. Removing it prepares the way for innocent police to be prosecuted and America has always (in the past) been all about protecting the innocent. I suppose, then, this elimination of protection for police doing their job is another step into the "guilty until proven innocent" world of cancel culture.
Stan,
I'm not necessarily in favor of eliminating it, I'm certainly not in favor of eliminating it without another option. I think, that like many things, that we can reexamine things in light of changed circumstances.
Post a Comment