Let’s talk about the death of Jordan Neely. If you’re not familiar with the story, he was a mentally ill homeless man behaving erratically on the New York subway. Daniel Penny, characterized as a “24 year old ex-Marine”, put Mr. Neely in a headlock which he held for three minutes. He was assisted by several other of the car’s passengers. Mr. Neely was taken to a hospital where he was pronounced dead. The death has resulted in demonstrations, complaints of racism and anti-homeless bigotry, and an endless torrent of columns and op-eds.

I suspect I’m the only person here who has taught self-defense. As practically anyone who teaches self-defense will advise, the first rule of self-defense is avoidance. The second is defusing the situation. You don’t resort to force unless there is no other alternative.

Mr. Neely was not harmless. He had assaulted an elderly woman a couple of years ago.

I think there is a slippery slope here. The slope goes from avoidance to “stand your ground” to force when you feel threatened to shoot first and ask questions later. Not only is that not effective self-defense it’s no way to organize a workable society.

This letter, posted at RealClearPolitics, from longtime Cook County prosecutor Jason Poje makes for depressing reading. He’s not the first prosecutor to resign and I doubt he will be the last. Here’s a snippet:

The simple fact is that this State and County have set themselves on a course to disaster. And the worst part is that the agency for whom I work has backed literally every policy change that had the predictable, and predicted, outcome of more crime and more people getting hurt.

Bond reform designed to make sure no one stays in jail while their cases are pending with no safety net to handle more criminals on the streets, shorter parole periods, lower sentences for repeat offenders, the malicious and unnecessary prosecution of law enforcement officers, overuse of diversion programs, intentionally not pursuing prosecutions for crimes lawfully on the books after being passed by our legislature and signed by a governor, all of these so-called reforms have had a direct negative impact, with consequences that will last for a generation.

Read the whole thing. One point that he makes is worth repeating. Our legal system is adversarial. In it defense attorneys defend and prosecutors prosecute. When defense attorneys defend and prosecutors defend, the system can’t work.

The editors of the Wall Street Journal who have long supported increased immigration lament:

All of this is depressing enough for its human and other costs, but also for those who believe the U.S. needs more legal immigration. Even pro-immigration Republicans aren’t going to support more legal visas until the border is all but closed. A deal to legalize the Dreamers brought here illegally as children looks to be more distant than ever.

The only way to stop the migrant deluge now is to radically change the incentives to come. Send the message that if you are caught arriving illegally at the border, you will be deported and put on a banned list for legal entry. No exceptions. Once the flow subsides, it might then be possible to rebuild enough public trust for a bipartisan immigration compromise.

The tragedy is that Joe Biden has done more to undermine public support for immigration than Trump adviser Stephen Miller ever imagined he could.

I have include the graph at the top of this page for context. As you can see, since Joe Biden became president the percentage of people who think we should have more immigration or about the same amount of immigration has declined while the percentage of those who think it needs to decrease has risen. In fairness the trend began before he became president; he just hasn’t helped.

My own view is that the number of immigrants should remain about the same but the mix of immigrants should be different than at present. That can’t be accomplished without controlling the number crossing our southern border.

I have a neighbor who just retired from a lengthy job working for the federal government processing asylum requests. She’s depressed about the situation. I may try to solicit a guest post from her.

I won’t expand on the Wall Street Journal’s editorial about the Biden family business:

House Republicans on Wednesday released their latest report on the Biden family’s business ties, and one conclusion is that it’s good to be related to Joseph Robinette Biden. Hunter Biden and his relatives traded profitably off the Biden name with transactions that suggest the main family business is influence peddling.

other than to observe that that Michael Kinsley was right: the scandal is what’s legal. Influence-peddling is not illegal in the United States. Being an unregistered foreign agent is.

Also, I don’t care about George Marcos. It sounds to me like he’s a pathological liar. You can fool all of the people some of the time, etc.

There are contradicting opinion pieces on the debt limit in the Wall Street Journal today. William Galston says that the House should relent:

F. Scott Fitzgerald once wrote that “the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.” The challenge for Congress and the president is to meet this test. On one hand, the likely consequences of default are unacceptable. On the other, our long-term fiscal trajectory isn’t sustainable. Our political leaders must find a way of reconciling these truths to reach a practical result.

Like many observers, I believe that the disagreements between the parties are too deep to resolve between now and June. I hope that party leaders can agree to suspend (not increase) the debt ceiling until Sept. 30, allowing discussions of the debt ceiling and the budget to proceed simultaneously. Mr. Biden has said that he is willing to discuss fiscal policy as part of the budget negotiations, but only separately from debt-ceiling talks. Republicans should care more about the substance of budget cuts than about the legislative context in which they occur.

Long-term budget talks need a goal that is both feasible and meaningful. A balanced budget would require spending cuts and tax increases that neither Congress nor the American people would accept. A more practical target is to reduce the annual deficit enough so that U.S. debt grows no faster than the U.S. economy.

while James Freeman says that’s absurd:

Those not accustomed to studying the absurdities of Washington may wonder why Biden administration staff are discussing increasingly kooky ways to evade federal law rather than simply accepting the constitutional reality that Congress has a say in federal spending and debt decisions. Perhaps due to Mr. Biden’s career as a political posturer, he doesn’t even appear to be embarrassed as he pretends that he’s standing on principle in rejecting negotiation to secure more borrowing authority. Naturally our posturer-in-chief had the opposite position as a senator and as vice president, when he served as a negotiator.

Now, apparently disappointed that he didn’t cut a better deal on behalf of President Obama in 2011, Mr. Biden suddenly pretends that negotiation is unnecessary and the White House can simply order Congress to pass a higher debt limit.

Yet much of the press portrays Mr. Biden as someone who is trying to solve a problem. “Biden meets with congressional leaders in urgent bid to avoid default,” claims a Washington Post headline. But his bid is obviously not urgent if he’s still unwilling to negotiate on the subject.

Tyler Pager and Jeff Stein report for the Post:

The White House in recent days has emphasized that Biden is willing to discuss spending cuts as long as they are not tied to the debt ceiling increase, a message he is expected to repeat at Tuesday’s meeting.

So he’s conceded that a president must negotiate such things with Congress, except at the moment when negotiations are most needed? This is absurd. But it won’t be funny if the government can’t pay its bills.

As a matter of policy I’m more predisposed to agree with Mr. Galston’s view but for one detail: President Biden poisoned the well when he reneged on his commitments to Sen. Manchin in the Inflation Reduction Act. At this point it is not unreasonable to conclude that President Biden will honor no commitments on spending cuts unless forced on him.

Thirty years ago as the Cold War ended and people were talking about the “peace dividend” I observed that it would be fun while it lasted but it wouldn’t last. The same was true of the COVID-19 spending spree.

There is obviously a desperate need for us to align federal spending with the growth of the economy. Everything that we know tells us that the higher the debt overhang the greater the impediment to economic growth. China is experiencing that as well.

The question is how to accomplish it. It won’t be easy with one party that believes every dollar spent by the federal government stimulates the economy while the other party believes that every dollar by which taxes are reduced does the same. Two one-trick ponies together do not make for a competent team.

The reaction of the editors of the Wall Street Journal to President Trump’s loss in the civil suit about which I commented yesterday resembles mine:

Does it matter politically now that a jury has found Donald Trump liable for battery and defamation against a woman who said he assaulted her sometime in the 1990s? In a better world it would matter, but in the debased and polarized American politics of 2023, it may not.

[&#133l

Yet it’s no small matter that the jury sorted the testimony and found against Mr. Trump on the preponderance of evidence standard that applies in civil litigation. (The criminal statute of limitations that requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt has long expired.) The jury rejected Ms. Carroll’s claim that Mr. Trump raped her. But they found it more likely than not that he sexually assaulted her and lied about it. The jury awarded her a more than token civil penalty of $5 million.

They go on to observe that Mr. Trump’s deposition did him little good:

A modicum of restraint, or twinge of regret about the accusation against him, might have put some doubt in the jury’s mind. Yet even when it’s in his legal interest, Mr. Trump can’t stop from justifying his crude behavior. This is the Donald Trump whose words and actions so often subverted his own Presidency.

Here’s the crux of the editorial:

Yet if most Republicans dismiss the verdict as one more political assault, Mr. Trump’s opponents and the press have themselves to blame. They also show no restraint. This lawsuit, like the two impeachments and the recent Alvin Bragg indictment that stretches the law, seems less an attempt to get at the truth than to find some way, any way, to disqualify him from ever becoming President again. Voters don’t like being told that a man they elected should be disqualified by members of the opposite party or the press.

Character matters in a President, however, and Republicans will want their presidential nominee to win in 2024 and then to govern successfully. The Carroll lawsuit, compounded by the liability judgment, is the kind of tempest that is Mr. Trump’s constant companion.

From what I’m seeing at this point it makes little difference.

The editors of the Washington Post caution us not to expect too much from the Ukrainian counter-offensive:

Unlike many TV series, most military battles do not feature tidy endings. The long history of warfare includes few fights that conclusively settled the larger struggle, which is why we know the names of the relative handful that did: Yorktown, Waterloo, Hastings.

That’s a useful historical context for considering Ukraine’s long-telegraphed counteroffensive against Russia’s heavily dug-in forces, which might begin in the coming days or weeks — depending partly on how long it takes for fields to dry after heavy spring rains. Much as it might frustrate Ukraine’s allies, its chances of a decisive victory, let alone a quick one, are rated by most analysts as slim. The West should prepare to continue supporting Ukraine even if the counteroffensive’s results are meager.

while in another editorial they quote the head of NATO:

I’m absolutely confident that the strong U.S. bipartisan support for Ukraine will remain, not least because this is in the security interest of the United States. A strong NATO is good for Europe, and support for Ukraine is also good for the United States, especially when we see the security challenges posed by China.

I suspect that the Ukrainian counter-offensive will influence that support.

As a farewell gift to her successor, outgoing Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot has declared a state of emergency in Chicago due to the number of migrants. Greg Hinz reports at Crain’s Chicago Business:

With more and more refugees again arriving in Chicago, outgoing Mayor Lori Lightfoot today released what amounts to a loud and public appeal for help, declaring a state of emergency.

In a statement, the mayor’s office said, “The City of Chicago is in the midst of a national humanitarian crisis, and through a unified effort in accordance with its values as a welcoming city, Chicago is doing everything it can to respond to the urgency of this matter.”

and

The immediate legal impact of the measure was not immediately clear. Neither the White House nor Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s office had any immediate response. But the move clearly ups the political stakes for both, as well as incoming Mayor-elect Brandon Johnson.

The declaration states that Lightfoot reserves the right to ask Pritzker for mobilization of the National Guard “to provide staffing and logistical support to address this emergency in the City of Chicago.”

During an afternoon press conference, her first since losing her re-election bid, Lightfoot said that she’s not now asking for the national guard and “commend(ed)” Pritzker for his help. But, she added, “There may be a point where we need additional resources in the form of the national guard…(running) spaces that can handle hundreds of people at a time.”

Lightfoot insisted the city has been planning for a surge for weeks, but, “Chicago simply does not now have the infrastructure or the resources to continue… the burden can’t rest on our city alone.”

The order, she said, will allow all of the city’s agencies to “do whatever is feasible and necessary.”

There’s no actual plan in place.

This is not a city or state problem. I’m sure that El Paso and McAllen are in equally serious shape.

It’s a federal problem and the federal government has been too slow in addressing it. Governors should be suing the federal government and the president.

For years I have been saying that Donald Trump was not a good guy. For some that was too much; for others not nearly enough. Now a jury in a civil trial has found Donald Trump liable for defamation and sexual abuse. James Fanelli and Corinne Ramey report at the Wall Street Journal:

A federal jury found Donald Trump liable to E. Jean Carroll for battery and defamation and ordered him to pay $5 million in damages, after a civil trial in which the columnist alleged the former president raped her in a Manhattan department store nearly 30 years ago.

The jury, following a two-week civil trial, didn’t find that Mr. Trump committed rape but found it more likely than not that he sexually abused Ms. Carroll in a dressing room of Bergdorf Goodman, sometime around 1996. Jurors also found that Mr. Trump defamed Ms. Carroll in comments he made denying her allegations, which she first made publicly in 2019.

Here’s my question: will this be enough to convince his supporters not to support his running for re-election in 2024? At Just Security Ryan Goodman and Norman L. Eisen remark:

The unanimous jury verdict that has turned Donald Trump from an alleged sexual assaulter into a proven one may create political shockwaves if recent history is any guide. As numerous empirical studies have shown, the American public has come to view sexual assault as a form of abusing power that can disqualify a perpetrator from holding public office. Trump may suffer significant political damage from this new majoritarian understanding.

In November 2017, 61% of voters – including 56% of men and a nontrivial margin of white men (50-43) and white women (55-37) – said then-President Trump should be impeached and removed from office if he were proven to have engaged in “sexual harassment,” according to a Quinnipiac poll. That overall support – the eye popping number of 61% – was higher than any poll tracking public support for impeachment and removal from office for the scandalous conduct in Trump’s first and second impeachments (see Five Thirty-Eight’s complete collection of surveys for the first and second impeachment). What’s more, Quinnipiac asked only about sexual harassment not sexual assault in the case of Trump. The latter, which is also the core crime in the E. Jean Carroll verdict, would have presumably produced even greater levels of support for removal from office.

The Quinnipiac poll was not alone.

A December 2017 Public Policy Polling survey found 53% of voters thought Trump should resign because of the “allegations” of sexual harassment against him, and another Quinnipiac poll in December 2017 found that 50% of voters already thought Trump should resign because he had “been accused of sexual harassment and sexual assault by multiple women.” (See appendix below for the exact wording and results of each of these surveys.)

concluding:

With #MeToo translated into the political arena, many Americans have shown they are not willing to support a candidate for elected office who has committed sexual assault – with the understanding that such a severe abuse of power is simply disqualifying for holding a position of public trust. Time will tell if the E. Jean Carroll sexual assault verdict has the effect that a large majority of Americans said they wanted in 2017, namely, to deny the presidency to Trump if the allegation that he had engaged in such abominable conduct was proven. It now has been.

If not what would?