RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/3895242-post-decency-politics-house-democrats-use-a-hearing-to-attack-free-speech-and-a-free-press/

“At long last, have you left no sense of decency?” Those words were first asked by lawyer Joseph Welch in his confrontation with Sen. Joseph McCarthy (R-Wis.) during the Senate’s infamous Army-McCarthy hearings. This week, nearly 70 years later, Welch’s words seem more relevant than ever after House Democrats savaged two journalists who attempted to explain a government effort to censor citizens. 

It was only the latest of a series of hearings in which FBI agents and other whistleblowers, experts and journalists have been personally attacked for raising free-speech concerns. This week’s hearing showed definitively that we live in a post-decency era.

The latest attacks came as journalists Matt Taibbi and Michael Shellenberger testified about breaking the “Twitter Files” story, detailing how the FBI and other agencies secretly sought to censor or ban citizens from social media. In her opening statement, Delegate Stacey Plaskett (D-Virgin Islands), the ranking member of the House Judiciary subcommittee, attacked them as “so-called journalists” and said they were “a direct threat” to the safety of others by reporting the censorship story.

Taibbi pushed back, saying that “I’m not a ‘so-called journalist’” and giving a brief description of his award-winning career at Rolling Stone magazine and other publications. Yet other committee members also attacked the honesty of the two journalists. And after failed efforts to claim they were Elon Musk’s corrupt “scribes,” or limited by him in their investigations, the committee members attacked their ethics.

The witnesses were attacked on everything but their choice of socks.

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/israel-middle-east/articles/protest-porn

A few days after the November 2016 elections, I sat down to write out my feelings, which consisted mainly of fear and loathing. The president-elect, I intoned, was a dangerous lunatic, one likely to recall the ghosts of Fuehrers past. His election meant the death of America, of democracy itself, and maybe even scores of Americans. “Assume the worst is imminent,” I advised. Celebrities I’d admired my entire life praised the piece on Twitter. NPR came calling. Seven years later, my cri de coeur remains one of Tablet’s most widely read articles. As a piece of writing, it was moving, forceful, and … entirely wrong.

You can find much to dislike about Trump—his policies, his personality, and an assortment of other failings—and, over the next four years, I did just that, often and with gusto. But my piece remains an embarrassment, more hysterical ululation than an attempt at the kind of useful or correct analysis that readers deserve. Reading it today, I realize that, for a brief moment there, I lost my goddamned mind.

So, what happened? It’s important for all of us, but particularly for those of us who make a living asking others for their trust, to give an honest accounting of our mistakes, so here’s a very brief one of mine. Trump’s ascendance was a time of uncertainty, and I felt scared. The language of moral absolutes offered some solace; so did the company of so many others who treated me to encomia like “morally courageous” or “a fierce and clear-eyed defender of democracy,” and with whom I relished text threads in which we shared articles and tweets and posts that enabled us to soak together in a pool of ever-expanding righteous fury.

The resistance offered purpose and community, and something else too: It offered the pleasure of letting yourself get caught up in something. The Women’s March, BLM, Russiagate—they all seemed to offer, in the moment, the irresistible possibility of coming-together-ness to promote or defend justice. And in every single one of these cases, the core leadership or premise which we held as solid was later proven wrong, or worse.

And now, the same fever is taking over Israel.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/silicon-valley-bank-doesnt-deserve-a-taxpayer-bailout-federal-reserve-fdic-risk-startups-treasury-interest-rates-ad440fe9?mod=opinion_lead_pos5

Mr. Ramaswamy, a candidate for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, is a co-founder of Strive Asset Management.

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen announced Sunday evening that Silicon Valley Bank’s uninsured depositors would gain access to their deposits on Monday. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. insures only deposits up to $250,000. The bailout creates incentives for risky behavior, teaching large depositors that they can throw money at risky banks without diversifying or conducting diligence. SVB long lobbied for looser risk limits by arguing that its failure wouldn’t create systemic risk and thus didn’t merit special intervention by the U.S. government. Yet on Sunday, Treasury deemed SVB “systemically important.”

To the extent that failing to make SVB’s uninsured depositors whole would have heightened the risk of a run on other banks, the Federal Reserve should have played its role as lender of last resort. Another option would have been to increase the FDIC coverage limit to a level that would avert a run, shoring up public confidence in other U.S. banks without showing favoritism toward SVB.

SVB’s situation is different from that of most U.S. banks. Only 11% of its deposits were insured. While the operating accounts of small businesses often exceed the FDIC limit, large banks usually sweep the excess into cash-management programs that buy Treasury bills and other securities. As the nation’s 16th-largest bank, SVB simply chose not to do so. For some reason Roku, the publicly traded maker of streaming devices, had a $487 million balance with the bank.

https://dianebederman.com/what-is-the-legal-origin-of-self-defence/

Is self-defence a God Given right? Are our Courts breaking God’s law?

We begin with one of the most important statements from the Bible:

All life is sacred.

There are millions who say that individuals have the right to self-defence. This right has been questioned in America and Canada.

In America we watched the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse who was ultimately found not guilty for the act of self defense.

“Self-defence law in Wisconsin, which is generally consistent across the states, allows for an individual to use deadly force when they reasonably believe deadly force or serious force that could cause great bodily harm or death is about to be used against them.”

In Canada, a man was charged with murder for killing an intruder in his house who was also carrying a gun.

“An Ontario case raises the thorny question of how far Canadians can go to protect themselves and their property from attack — and avoid criminal charges.”

Lisa Dufraimont, a criminal law professor at York University’s Osgoode Hall law school said:

“What we’re trying to do here is to balance the security of the person who is being subjected to some sort of attack or assault on the one hand, with the security of the person who might get shot…. We don’t want to undervalue either of those lives.”

Because we start with the teaching: all life is sacred.