So, you didn't think he was going to do what he actually said he was going to do?! People say there is a fine line between co-dependancy/enabling and empowerment but I don't really think there is at all. When consequences are removed it's enabling. When consequences are clear and fair and society helps the person dealing with the consequences to accept them and see a place for themselves in society when and if they choose to become healthy it's not.
Maybe next time you won't be fooled. Also, may want to check yourself for co-dependant inclination. Not saying this to judge. I came from a dysfunctional family and had some myself. Taking account and accepting my well intentioned but dysfunctional role helped me to move past it to better relationshps.
As a former Cali resident, Chesa and people like him are so obviously wrong I find it hard to believe anyone could fall for their schtick without unexamined personal issues themselves.
I like your articles because they make me think. I can see how Boudin's initial message would be attractive. I also think we have an incarceration problem, and if I found myself or someone I loved on the wrong side of the law, I'd like to think that the system wasn't there just to be punitive. In fact, you're right in a lot of what you say, including that Boudin set back such sentiment by decades.
The problem in this country is that we have all been taught to think in exclusive and exhaustive dichotomies. I've seen such sentiment in some of the comments. And maybe there's a reason. Maybe even though some of us have hope that at some point someone will break the "exclusive and exhaustive dichotomies," it never happens. Our politicians can never seem to "thread the needle," and so we begin to think it can't be threaded. Based on that, we find foolish anyone who suggests it can.
American workers are not the natural base of progressives. They might be the natural base of communists or even socialists (systems that elevate workers). And in a very surprising twist of events, they have become the base of the Republican party, which blows my mind, but there you have it. And this is something you can easily conclude if you study people. America does not have the best social welfare system, but it has a decent one. You can live most places in this country and not work, and many do. And then you throw in places where you can break the law for a living, and you can avoid traditional work and live, I won't say "well," but you can live "as well" as someone who works retail or service jobs, and maybe better.
And therein lies the problem for people like Ross Barkan. They are trying to force into one coalition two types of people: (1) those who believe, still, that work is honorable and/or a way to get ahead and that the system will reward them at some point or that it's inescapable or that they owe it to all those around them to abide by the system even if it's broken, and (2) those that have turned their backs on the system and feel justified in at the least not supporting it with their labor or, often, preying on those who still subscribe to the system (your shopkeeper). This is merely an observation, not a judgment or defense of either group.
But here is the problem, for the progressives and the Democrats, in forcing them to coexist in one party. They can't, not the way the Democrats and progressives have been doing it. And I don't know if people like Ross Barkan realize this and are coldly cynical or if they are naive, but it ends the same. They end up catering to group 2 because that's the group you can't "bully" into submission. At the same time, they either ignore or try to shame group 1 into falling in line. That only lasts for so long, and then you get, well, Boudin's recall and the strange phenomenon of pitting the intellectuals against the workers on behalf of those that, for whatever reason, by choice or by circumstance (like addiction), live outside of and defy the system.
Of course, there's more to the whole thing than what I've described above, and we could "thread the needle" if certain groups were more interested in helping than winning. But if the Democrats and progressives don't stop blaming Republicans and the "ignorance/selfishness/anti-intellectualism/populist sentiment" of the working class, they are going to keep having Boudin moments.
Not sure exactly how "Boudin's vision . . . is still a viable political aspiration". Certainly, the criminal justice system could do better to ensure that justice is equal across race and class, and there are also better ways to achieve public safety than mass incarceration. But Boudin's "vision" never seemed to really incorporate public safety at all, and it certainly never included law and order, which is, after all, a precondition for public safety. If you don't aspire to create material conditions in society under which laws are followed and order prevails, you should stay in the public defender's office and not run for D.A.
I still think recall should be reserved for public servants who are way out of line (see: BOE focused on renaming schools during pandemic). Boudin was acting on campaign promises. If the recall supporters were so worked up about him, where were they when he was being elected?? There's no way anyone can argue that this was a democratic decision when only a quarter of the voters voted! It's bogus.
So, you didn't think he was going to do what he actually said he was going to do?! People say there is a fine line between co-dependancy/enabling and empowerment but I don't really think there is at all. When consequences are removed it's enabling. When consequences are clear and fair and society helps the person dealing with the consequences to accept them and see a place for themselves in society when and if they choose to become healthy it's not.
Maybe next time you won't be fooled. Also, may want to check yourself for co-dependant inclination. Not saying this to judge. I came from a dysfunctional family and had some myself. Taking account and accepting my well intentioned but dysfunctional role helped me to move past it to better relationshps.
As a former Cali resident, Chesa and people like him are so obviously wrong I find it hard to believe anyone could fall for their schtick without unexamined personal issues themselves.
I like your articles because they make me think. I can see how Boudin's initial message would be attractive. I also think we have an incarceration problem, and if I found myself or someone I loved on the wrong side of the law, I'd like to think that the system wasn't there just to be punitive. In fact, you're right in a lot of what you say, including that Boudin set back such sentiment by decades.
The problem in this country is that we have all been taught to think in exclusive and exhaustive dichotomies. I've seen such sentiment in some of the comments. And maybe there's a reason. Maybe even though some of us have hope that at some point someone will break the "exclusive and exhaustive dichotomies," it never happens. Our politicians can never seem to "thread the needle," and so we begin to think it can't be threaded. Based on that, we find foolish anyone who suggests it can.
American workers are not the natural base of progressives. They might be the natural base of communists or even socialists (systems that elevate workers). And in a very surprising twist of events, they have become the base of the Republican party, which blows my mind, but there you have it. And this is something you can easily conclude if you study people. America does not have the best social welfare system, but it has a decent one. You can live most places in this country and not work, and many do. And then you throw in places where you can break the law for a living, and you can avoid traditional work and live, I won't say "well," but you can live "as well" as someone who works retail or service jobs, and maybe better.
And therein lies the problem for people like Ross Barkan. They are trying to force into one coalition two types of people: (1) those who believe, still, that work is honorable and/or a way to get ahead and that the system will reward them at some point or that it's inescapable or that they owe it to all those around them to abide by the system even if it's broken, and (2) those that have turned their backs on the system and feel justified in at the least not supporting it with their labor or, often, preying on those who still subscribe to the system (your shopkeeper). This is merely an observation, not a judgment or defense of either group.
But here is the problem, for the progressives and the Democrats, in forcing them to coexist in one party. They can't, not the way the Democrats and progressives have been doing it. And I don't know if people like Ross Barkan realize this and are coldly cynical or if they are naive, but it ends the same. They end up catering to group 2 because that's the group you can't "bully" into submission. At the same time, they either ignore or try to shame group 1 into falling in line. That only lasts for so long, and then you get, well, Boudin's recall and the strange phenomenon of pitting the intellectuals against the workers on behalf of those that, for whatever reason, by choice or by circumstance (like addiction), live outside of and defy the system.
Of course, there's more to the whole thing than what I've described above, and we could "thread the needle" if certain groups were more interested in helping than winning. But if the Democrats and progressives don't stop blaming Republicans and the "ignorance/selfishness/anti-intellectualism/populist sentiment" of the working class, they are going to keep having Boudin moments.
Not sure exactly how "Boudin's vision . . . is still a viable political aspiration". Certainly, the criminal justice system could do better to ensure that justice is equal across race and class, and there are also better ways to achieve public safety than mass incarceration. But Boudin's "vision" never seemed to really incorporate public safety at all, and it certainly never included law and order, which is, after all, a precondition for public safety. If you don't aspire to create material conditions in society under which laws are followed and order prevails, you should stay in the public defender's office and not run for D.A.
I still think recall should be reserved for public servants who are way out of line (see: BOE focused on renaming schools during pandemic). Boudin was acting on campaign promises. If the recall supporters were so worked up about him, where were they when he was being elected?? There's no way anyone can argue that this was a democratic decision when only a quarter of the voters voted! It's bogus.
Still to be learned is when / how to make diversion successful.
Always remember and never forget. " Criminals make the best revolutionaries " - Danton
have you views changed at all? or do you think boudin's execution was just really bad?