New Jersey Police Slashed a Man’s Tires and Smashed His Window After He Filed a Complaint Against Them

Smashed window

Two New Jersey police officers pleaded guilty this week to fourth-degree criminal mischief charges stemming from the retaliation they took against a city resident who filed an internal affairs complaint against them in September 2019.

On Tuesday, Asbury Park police officer Stephen Martinsen and former city Special Law Enforcement Officer Thomas Dowling admitted to vandalizing vehicles belonging to Ernest Mignoli after he filed an internal affairs complaint against them with the police department, according to a statement released Tuesday by the Monmouth County Prosecutor’s Office. The pair smashed a window on one of Mignoli’s vehicles and used a knife to slash tires on that vehicle and another, inflicting $500 worth of damage.

Mignoli told New Jersey 101.5 that a few days before his vehicles were vandalized, he had filed a complaint after seeing a drunk officer riding an electric scooter and performing tricks on a sidewalk outside of a bar frequented by police. In a 2019 interview, Mignoli described himself as an “outspoken critic of Asbury Park Police Department” and says he has documented multiple instances of what he believes to be inappropriate behavior carried out by local police. 

When the charges against Martinsen and Dowling were announced last year, the prosecutor’s office told the Asbury Park Press it could not speak to the nature of the administrative complaint, but said the police officers wore disguises on the night they damaged Mignoli’s property. Martinsen was initially suspended without pay while Dowling was terminated.

“Spiteful retaliation from law enforcement officers towards a citizen for any reason is an unacceptable option,” said Monmouth County Prosecutor Christopher J. Gramiccioni in the Tuesday statement. “This is in no way condoned at any level, for any reason.”

Asbury Park Police Chief David Kelso, who previously denounced the officers’ lack of “professionalism,” told Reason, “These officers were held accountable for their actions and misconduct and we will continue to hold our officers responsible to build upon the trust of the community that we serve.”

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2QrW3Vt
via IFTTT

New Jersey Police Slashed a Man’s Tires and Smashed His Window After He Filed a Complaint Against Them

Smashed window

Two New Jersey police officers pleaded guilty this week to fourth-degree criminal mischief charges stemming from the retaliation they took against a city resident who filed an internal affairs complaint against them in September 2019.

On Tuesday, Asbury Park police officer Stephen Martinsen and former city Special Law Enforcement Officer Thomas Dowling admitted to vandalizing vehicles belonging to Ernest Mignoli after he filed an internal affairs complaint against them with the police department, according to a statement released Tuesday by the Monmouth County Prosecutor’s Office. The pair smashed a window on one of Mignoli’s vehicles and used a knife to slash tires on that vehicle and another, inflicting $500 worth of damage.

Mignoli told New Jersey 101.5 that a few days before his vehicles were vandalized, he had filed a complaint after seeing a drunk officer riding an electric scooter and performing tricks on a sidewalk outside of a bar frequented by police. In a 2019 interview, Mignoli described himself as an “outspoken critic of Asbury Park Police Department” and says he has documented multiple instances of what he believes to be inappropriate behavior carried out by local police. 

When the charges against Martinsen and Dowling were announced last year, the prosecutor’s office told the Asbury Park Press it could not speak to the nature of the administrative complaint, but said the police officers wore disguises on the night they damaged Mignoli’s property. Martinsen was initially suspended without pay while Dowling was terminated.

“Spiteful retaliation from law enforcement officers towards a citizen for any reason is an unacceptable option,” said Monmouth County Prosecutor Christopher J. Gramiccioni in the Tuesday statement. “This is in no way condoned at any level, for any reason.”

Asbury Park Police Chief David Kelso, who previously denounced the officers’ lack of “professionalism,” told Reason, “These officers were held accountable for their actions and misconduct and we will continue to hold our officers responsible to build upon the trust of the community that we serve.”

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2QrW3Vt
via IFTTT

Is Andrew Cuomo Responsible For Thousands Of Nursing Home Deaths? The DoJ Is Trying To Find Out

Is Andrew Cuomo Responsible For Thousands Of Nursing Home Deaths? The DoJ Is Trying To Find Out

Tyler Durden

Wed, 08/26/2020 – 17:25

The DoJ is officially considering whether to launch high-profile federal investigations into a handful of mostly Democratic governors who adopted regulations requiring hospitals to return COVID-19 positive patients to nursing homes or other long-term care facilities, a blunder that has been described as perhaps the biggest policy error of the entire US outbreak.

Put another way – the DoJ (which Dems will undoubtedly castigate for ‘bowing to political pressure from the administration’) is trying to prove that Gov Andrew Cuomo really did kill grandma.

In a press release published Wednesday afternoon, the DoJ’s Civil Rights Division said it had requested data from New York, New Jersey, Michigan and Pennsylvania – all states with Democratic governors (though PA and MI are considered swing states) – about the timing of their mandatory return policies, and what input went into establishing them.

Cuomo has answered questions about the policy before; he’s claimed that he reversed it as soon as he was made aware of what was happening. But clearly not fast enough to stop the Empire State from reporting the largest death toll in the country, both per capita and in terms of the standalone total.

New York’s death rate by population is the second highest in the country with 1,680 deaths per million people. New Jersey’s death rate by population is 1,733 deaths per million people – the highest in the nation. In contrast, Texas’s death rate by population is 380 deaths per million people; and Texas has just over 11,000 deaths. According to Worldometer, NY reported a total of 32,984 deaths.

The goal is to determine whether there’s enough there to launch an investigation under the “Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act” (CRIPA), which protects the civil rights of residents in state-run nursing homes. Specifically, they need to determine whether orders to mandate returning sick patients to the homes ultimately contributed to the higher rate of mortality.

Of course, even states like Texas, Florida and California, which are large states like New York, didn’t see such pronounced fatalities – or anything close to it. Those states are all in the ballpark of 10k deaths, and they only just reached that level recently.

Assistant Attorney General Eric Dreiband told the AP that the federal government has a responsibility to ensure that nursing home residents are adequately cared for with “dignity and respect”, and that their lives aren’t put at undue risk.

Cuomo hasn’t said anything about Wednesday’s DoJ announcement – he’s been too busy grandstanding about the new CDC guidelines, which he – and a group of other Democratic governors – claimed was part of a plot by Trump to cover up the coronavirus pandemic…or something like that.

It’s not like New York and these other states ever cared about federal guidelines before? Why should they start now?

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/31we3EH Tyler Durden

What Are You Going To Do As Our Money Dies?

What Are You Going To Do As Our Money Dies?

Tyler Durden

Wed, 08/26/2020 – 17:05

Authored by Adam Taggart via PeakProsperity6.com,

Central banks are killing our currency to protect the already-rich…

In our recent article It’s Time To Position For The Endgame, Chris Martenson explained how the US Federal Reserve and its sister central banks around the world have been engaged in the largest and most egregious wealth transfer in all of history — one that has been drastically exacerbated by the covid-19 pandemic.

The official response, tremendous monetary stimulus by the central banks paired with massive fiscal stimulus from national legislatures, has been pitched as “saving the system”.

Yet, in reality, it has merely served to accelerate the transfer of capital from the public into the pockets of the already-rich.

Anyone with eyes can see how the central banks have abandoned all pretense of monetary fiduciary responsibility and have simply cranked their printing presses up to “maximum”:

In concert with this surge of liquidity, national legislatures have added their own emergency measures. In the US alone, the CARES Act pushed nearly $3 trillion in fiscal stimulus into the system, and will highly likely soon be followed by another $1-3 trillion depending on which party’s bill gets passed.

Despite these staggering sums, the amount of money trickling into the average US household has been meager and is drying up.

Instead, these $trillions are mostly finding their way into the coffers and share prices of corporations. We have seen the fastest and most extreme V-shaped recovery in the history of the financial markets since the March swoon. The major indices are now back to record all-time-highs, despite the major carnage covid-19 has wreaked on the global economy.

So who benefits from that? Oh yeah, the people who own those companies. The already-rich.

Remember: 84% of all stocks are owned by the top 10% of households.

So in a nutshell, the official response from our “leaders” in government to the pandemic threat has been: Rescue the markets at all costs!

Chris refers to this as the Leave No Billionaire Behind (LIBB) Program. As he describes:

Between March-April 2020, the Fed added a staggering $282 billion to the bottom-line wealth of US billionaires:

But that wasn’t enough.

So the Fed kept printing. And buying, buying, and buying more and more financial assets held – of course – mainly by the already-wealthy.

By May 2020 the total added became $434 billion, making all the US billionaires more billionaire-y:

But even that wasn’t enough for the Fed.  So it printed even more, increasing the total to $583 billion by June:

Yep, you guessed it. It didn’t stop there. By July, the grand total was up to $637 billion:

Considering that US GDP dropped by -32.9% (annual rate) and clocked in at an annual rate of $19,408 billion in the second quarter of 2020, the US Federal Reserve had granted an astonishing (truly!) 3.3% of the entire output of the entire country to US billionaires.  For doing absolutely nothing.

Yes, people have many reasons to be angry and to protest these days. But they ought to be furious with the Federal Reserve and its lackeys in Congress who have utterly and completely failed to check these egregious, unfair, and socially destructive policies that grossly reward the elite at the expense of the bottom 99%.

Let’s do a little math here. Handing 3.3% of the value of the entire economic output of 160,000,000 working people to roughly 600 individuals is the equivalent of granting each one of those 600 billionaires the entire yearly output of 9,020 people.

It’s like the Fed decided that each billionaire deserved to have 9,020 people become their slaves for the year.  How is that *not* psychopathic?  How is that fair?  What’s the plan here? Keep going until these 600 people own everything in the world?

And where’s the media on this? They happily parrot every statement the Fed makes, without asking even the slightest of critical questions. They are failing us badly, too.

Okay, so why should you care?

Because what the Federal Reserve is doing generates enormous systemic risks which could well destroy the economy and much of our future prosperity.

At heart, I am a conservative in the sense that I’d like to keep (i.e. “conserve”) what we’ve got, both ecologically and economically. I’d vastly prefer that we change our nation’s destructive path now on our own terms than being forced to on reality’s terms later on. As painful as the former may be, the latter will be much more so.

History is complete on the matter: one cannot print one’s way to prosperity.  It’s been tried over and over again and my view is that if it could be done, we’d all be speaking Latin because the Roman Empire with it brilliant engineers would have figured it out millennia ago and would never have collapsed.

If the Romans couldn’t work it out, it simply can’t be done.  Mathematically, it also doesn’t pencil out.  Money is a social agreement, a contract.  It’s not real wealth.  Taking the attempt to the extreme, what would happen if everybody had a billion dollars and nobody had to work?

So printing currency only manages to delay and exacerbate the inevitable by building up the energy for its own destruction.

And the longer the delay, the worse the reckoning when it ultimately arrives.

So to recap, the Fed et al have ensured that the covid-19 pandemic has resulted in a boom for the elites, while the rest of us are experiencing an economic Depression that could last for years:

So, with the central banks hell-bent on supporting the rich by sending the prices of all financial assets farther into the stratosphere, is high/runaway inflation the natural next stage from here?

Will those worrying about a systemic “crash” from all the intervention and deformation be proved wrong?

We addressed these questions earlier this month for Peak Prosperity’s premium subscribers in Chris report Is High Inflation Now A Bigger Danger Than A Deflationary Crash?

Every so often, we’re encouraged by our paying subscribers to share an important report with the general public. This is one of those times.

If you’re not yet a subscriber, you can read the report in full, for free, by clicking here. (free registration required)

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3hyoltg Tyler Durden

All Tonight’s NBA Playoff Games ‘Boycotted’ In “Protest” For Social Justice

All Tonight’s NBA Playoff Games ‘Boycotted’ In “Protest” For Social Justice

Tyler Durden

Wed, 08/26/2020 – 16:45

Update (1650ET): CNN is reporting that all games have been boycotted tonight…

*  *  *

It appears boycotting entire games is the new “taking a knee”.

At least, that’s what breaking news out of the NBA is making it out to look like. Those who were ready for an afternoon of playoff basketball and were getting set to tune into this afternoon’s Milwaukee Bucks vs. Orlando Magic game 5 are going to be sorely disappointed.

Why? The Milwaukee Bucks are reportedly refusing to play.

The team “never took the floor before the start of Game 5 against the Orlando Magic on Wednesday” according to NBA.com. The same report says that “players across the league have been adamant that more needs to be done to effect social change after the recent police shooting of Jacob Blake in Kenosha, Wisconsin.”

The Orlando Magic followed suit, returning to their locker room since there was nobody to compete against. 

Adrian Wojnarowski of ESPN a has said the Bucks have decided to boycott the entire game.

This should go over great with the league’s fans and the advertisers who have signed up for spots during the game today. Then the question becomes – if players chose to simply not play – what are the leagues and teams paying them for?

How long before people in other professions decide to simply walk out on their jobs in the name of “justice”?

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3loPdhC Tyler Durden

Nancy Rommelmann: The Disturbing Drift of the Portland Protests

portlandprotest

What’s behind the monthslong violent protests in Portland, Oregon, and are they coming soon to a city near you?

Since the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis in late May, demonstrators in Portland have taken to the streets every night, often smashing windows, setting buildings on fire, and scuffling with local and federal law enforcement as well as fellow city dwellers. Lately, protesters have been entering residential neighborhoods in the early morning hours, shining lights into windows and telling people to literally and figuratively “wake up” to a world the protesters say is made intolerable by racism, income inequality, the presidency of Donald Trump, and more.

Veteran journalist Nancy Rommelmann has been covering the Portland protests for Reason. She knows Rose City like the back of her hand, having lived there for 15 years. Nick Gillespie spoke with her about the roots of the unrest in Portland, what she’s learned by talking with the protesters and authorities, and what might be coming next. Rommelmann paints a disturbing picture of mostly young demonstrators who are becoming increasingly restive, prone to violent rhetoric, and unfocused in their demands.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/34zZD8n
via IFTTT

Cato Unbound Symposium on the 50th Anniversary of “Exit, Voice, and Loyalty” Continues

Exit, Voice, and Loyalty 2

The Cato Unbound  symposium on the 50th anniversary of economist Albert O. Hirschman’s classic work, Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States now has multiple additional contributions. Mercatus Center scholar Adam Thierer, author of the lead essay, has now posted a response to the three commentators, including pieces by, sociologist Mikayla Novak, Max Borders, and myself. Borders’ commentary itself was posted only recently.

Here’s an excerpt from Thierer’s reply:

The response essays by Mikayla Novak, Ilya Somin, and Max Borders demonstrate the continuing relevance of Albert Hirschman’s Exit, Voice, and Loyalty fifty years after its publication. Each author makes important contributions to a better understanding of what Hirschman’s book—and each of the terms in its title—mean today.

Mikayla Novak rightly points to the importance of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement in thinking about how digital technologies can “help to reduce the costs of collective action along various margins” and “catalyze the creation and amplification of contentious voices…”

Somin stresses “the continuing importance of physical freedom of movement” in ensuring that our rights our honored. “No technological innovation provides an adequate substitute for the power to ‘vote with your feet’ by choosing where to live and work.” Somin’s latest book, Free to Move: Foot Voting, Migration and Political Freedom, drives that point home powerfully.

I agree wholeheartedly that we must never ignore the physical component of the exit equation. In fact, in an essay earlier this year, I made “The Case for Sanctuary Cities in Many Different Contexts,” as “a way to encourage experiments in alternative governance models and just let people live lives of their choosing.” In theory, sanctuaries can help advance exactly the sort of foot voting Somin desires. Unfortunately, today’s sanctuary movements are quite one-dimensional, focusing exclusively on single causes like immigrant rights, gun rights, or marijuana decontrol. Worse yet, selective morality runs deep when it comes to the support they garner…

Consistent with what Somin advocates in his essay and recent book, I believe there is a profoundly positive case for embracing sanctuaries and the free movement of people among them regardless of what the cause is. Greater localized decisionmaking, policy experimentation, and alternative governance arrangements have value in and of themselves. The question is whether sanctuaries can scale and become a more meaningful and lasting form of exit to help us capitalize on the dream Somin and I both share….

Max Borders calls me out for adopting this more incrementalist approach. Borders is distressed that I am even willing to entertain the idea of seeking small victories when we should be swinging for the fences instead…

Jefferson’s call for a rebellious spirit and periodic resets of government has long animated my life’s work, but, as I noted I my opening essay, “repeated revolutionary acts… would be difficult to accomplish and certainly highly disruptive to society and economy alike.” Borders prefers we go further, so much so that his essay raises the question whether we should have any loyalty whatsoever to our current constitutional order. Alas, he shies away from discussing just how far we should go, preferring instead to merely say that we need to be “constructive revolutionaries, accelerating those innovations most likely to undermine the apparatuses of state power.”

As can be seen from this excerpt, Thierer has more disagreements with Max Borders than with the other two commentators. I actually agree with most of what Thierer says in the response essay, including his reply to Borders, and most of his comments on sanctuary jurisdictions.

I myself have written extensively about immigration sanctuary cities (e.g. here and here). I am even one of the relatively few people who is sympathetic to both liberal immigration sanctuaries and conservative gun rights sanctuaries. Thierer is right that there is a good deal of inconsistency and “selective morality” in the discourse over sanctuary cities. But even hypocritical sanctuary movements can still provide valuable foot-voting options, and protect people against overreaching federal government policies.

I will likely have more to say in further comments at the Cato Unbound website, as the symposium continues. Stay tuned!

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2Qux1F8
via IFTTT

Nancy Rommelmann: The Disturbing Drift of the Portland Protests

portlandprotest

What’s behind the monthslong violent protests in Portland, Oregon, and are they coming soon to a city near you?

Since the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis in late May, demonstrators in Portland have taken to the streets every night, often smashing windows, setting buildings on fire, and scuffling with local and federal law enforcement as well as fellow city dwellers. Lately, protesters have been entering residential neighborhoods in the early morning hours, shining lights into windows and telling people to literally and figuratively “wake up” to a world the protesters say is made intolerable by racism, income inequality, the presidency of Donald Trump, and more.

Veteran journalist Nancy Rommelmann has been covering the Portland protests for Reason. She knows Rose City like the back of her hand, having lived there for 15 years. Nick Gillespie spoke with her about the roots of the unrest in Portland, what she’s learned by talking with the protesters and authorities, and what might be coming next. Rommelmann paints a disturbing picture of mostly young demonstrators who are becoming increasingly restive, prone to violent rhetoric, and unfocused in their demands.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/34zZD8n
via IFTTT

Cato Unbound Symposium on the 50th Anniversary of “Exit, Voice, and Loyalty” Continues

Exit, Voice, and Loyalty 2

The Cato Unbound  symposium on the 50th anniversary of economist Albert O. Hirschman’s classic work, Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States now has multiple additional contributions. Mercatus Center scholar Adam Thierer, author of the lead essay, has now posted a response to the three commentators, including pieces by, sociologist Mikayla Novak, Max Borders, and myself. Borders’ commentary itself was posted only recently.

Here’s an excerpt from Thierer’s reply:

The response essays by Mikayla Novak, Ilya Somin, and Max Borders demonstrate the continuing relevance of Albert Hirschman’s Exit, Voice, and Loyalty fifty years after its publication. Each author makes important contributions to a better understanding of what Hirschman’s book—and each of the terms in its title—mean today.

Mikayla Novak rightly points to the importance of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement in thinking about how digital technologies can “help to reduce the costs of collective action along various margins” and “catalyze the creation and amplification of contentious voices…”

Somin stresses “the continuing importance of physical freedom of movement” in ensuring that our rights our honored. “No technological innovation provides an adequate substitute for the power to ‘vote with your feet’ by choosing where to live and work.” Somin’s latest book, Free to Move: Foot Voting, Migration and Political Freedom, drives that point home powerfully.

I agree wholeheartedly that we must never ignore the physical component of the exit equation. In fact, in an essay earlier this year, I made “The Case for Sanctuary Cities in Many Different Contexts,” as “a way to encourage experiments in alternative governance models and just let people live lives of their choosing.” In theory, sanctuaries can help advance exactly the sort of foot voting Somin desires. Unfortunately, today’s sanctuary movements are quite one-dimensional, focusing exclusively on single causes like immigrant rights, gun rights, or marijuana decontrol. Worse yet, selective morality runs deep when it comes to the support they garner…

Consistent with what Somin advocates in his essay and recent book, I believe there is a profoundly positive case for embracing sanctuaries and the free movement of people among them regardless of what the cause is. Greater localized decisionmaking, policy experimentation, and alternative governance arrangements have value in and of themselves. The question is whether sanctuaries can scale and become a more meaningful and lasting form of exit to help us capitalize on the dream Somin and I both share….

Max Borders calls me out for adopting this more incrementalist approach. Borders is distressed that I am even willing to entertain the idea of seeking small victories when we should be swinging for the fences instead…

Jefferson’s call for a rebellious spirit and periodic resets of government has long animated my life’s work, but, as I noted I my opening essay, “repeated revolutionary acts… would be difficult to accomplish and certainly highly disruptive to society and economy alike.” Borders prefers we go further, so much so that his essay raises the question whether we should have any loyalty whatsoever to our current constitutional order. Alas, he shies away from discussing just how far we should go, preferring instead to merely say that we need to be “constructive revolutionaries, accelerating those innovations most likely to undermine the apparatuses of state power.”

As can be seen from this excerpt, Thierer has more disagreements with Max Borders than with the other two commentators. I actually agree with most of what Thierer says in the response essay, including his reply to Borders, and most of his comments on sanctuary jurisdictions.

I myself have written extensively about immigration sanctuary cities (e.g. here and here). I am even one of the relatively few people who is sympathetic to both liberal immigration sanctuaries and conservative gun rights sanctuaries. Thierer is right that there is a good deal of inconsistency and “selective morality” in the discourse over sanctuary cities. But even hypocritical sanctuary movements can still provide valuable foot-voting options, and protect people against overreaching federal government policies.

I will likely have more to say in further comments at the Cato Unbound website, as the symposium continues. Stay tuned!

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2Qux1F8
via IFTTT

Kenosha Doesn’t Have To Be a Vision of America’s Future

zumaamericastwentyeight302971

Protests in Kenosha, Wisconsin against the shooting by police of Jacob Blake degenerated into lethal violence Tuesday night, with two dead and one injured. Who did what last night is still unclear, though a suspect is in custody.

While we’ll learn more details, what’s unlikely to change is the chaos in the streets, with multiple hard-to-identify factions and unaffiliated individuals joining up in loose alliances or squaring off in volatile confrontations. That’s the face of modern social unrest, and a sight with which we’ll become very familiar if the situation in this country continues to spiral out of control.

“Two people were killed and a third injured in a shooting at a used car lot on the corner of Sheridan Road and 63rd Street overnight Wednesday by a man armed with an AR-15-style rifle,” Kenosha News reports. “The man, who was white, was seen on social media with a group of armed men described online as ‘militia’ who were at a small used car lot on the northwest corner of Sheridan Road and 63rd Street.”

“Militia” could mean anything at this stage, from local people defending businesses to organized groups from elsewhere participating in the scrum. For what it’s worth, at least one Boogaloo Boys group disavows any connection to the shooter.

But there are any number of possible participants. In Portland, Proud Boys and antifa (and others) tangled over the weekend while police pulled back. In communities around the country, residents and business owners have faced-off against protesters and sometimes shot looters. And lone individuals—advocating police reform, or else supportive of cops, or just wanting to see shit burn—have shown up to participate in protests or to just stir the pot.

That’s all too common a pattern, and an unpleasant indicator of where the whole country could be headed if the growing political and racial tensions of recent years follow the path on which the people of Kenosha, Portland, and elsewhere are already walking.

In terms of where those tensions are taking us, the possibility of domestic strife as serious as a second Civil War has been a topic of conversation in recent years—sometimes mockingly (#secondcivilwarletters, anybody?)—but other times more seriously. Three years ago, Thomas E. Ricks scared the hell out of a lot of people when he casually asked “smart national security thinkers” their spitball estimates of the near-term chance of a second civil war and came up with an average estimate of “about 35 percent” for a piece in Foreign Policy.

Most Civil War 2 discussions dwell on a red states vs. blue states battle, as if clear geographical divisions and well-defined sides are a standard feature of civil wars. But social unrest in the modern world is usually messier.

“The war in Bosnia and Herzegovina was a battle between three factions—the Bosnian Muslims, Croats (Catholic) and Serbs (predominately Orthodox Christian),” the U.S. Army notes of the experience of Hajrudin Djedovic, who left the Yugoslav Army in 1992 as that country was falling apart to fight for Bosnia and Herzegovina. “It was strange fighting against people he had served with only a few years earlier, he said. One day, they are neighbors and friends. The next day—they attacked his village, killed his friends and members of his family.”

Countries don’t have to collapse for chaos to reign. From the late 1960s through the early 1980s, Italy muddled through the anni di piombo—years of lead. The Economist summarizes the confusion of that time, which still cast a shadow over Italians’ lives:

Marxist extremists, notably the Red Brigades, began kidnapping and assassinating ‘anti-worker’ officials: policemen, judges, journalists. Their right-wing opponents bombed civilians to ‘drown democracy under a mountain of corpses’. Both sides hoped to weaken the state and to spark revolution or a military takeover. Members of the Italian secret service nudged things along, working with neo-fascist killers to frame the left.

For a taste of the uncertainty of a country plagued by factional violence, it’s worth seeing the 2014 movie ’71. Set in Belfast at the start of “The Troubles,” it follows an accidentally stranded British soldier whose fate depends on the loyalties of the neighborhoods through which he passes, and the inclinations of whichever paramilitary has him at its mercy— not just unionist or nationalist, but specific factions thereof.

The U.S. as a whole is not yet immersed in its own version of “The Troubles” or the “years of lead,” let alone a Balkan-style civil war. But we’re not as far from that state as we were six months ago, let alone a decade ago.

We started this year with nearly six in 10 Americans believing that political tensions in this election year would lead to protests and rioting, according to Ipsos polling. The source of those fears is obvious, given the contempt in which the country’s major political factions hold each other. Fifty-five percent of Republicans and 44 percent of Democrats say the party opposing their own is “not just worse for politics—they are downright evil,” according to a 2019 YouGov survey. As a result of those hostilities, just over 20 percent of both Democratic and Republican respondents believe violence is at least somewhat justified if their side loses the election, according to the Democracy Fund Voter Study Group.

To that political tension, we’ve added pandemic-fueled panic and lockdown orders that have crippled the economy and increased stress. We’ve also seen an eruption of long-simmering resentment over police treatment of civilians—especially African-Americans. The killing of George Floyd brought that anger against law enforcement abuses to a head, and it continues to this day.

The result has been protests, which have all-too-often morphed into violence in the streets in multiple cities. That violence features antifa, Proud Boys, Black Lives Matter, Boogaloo Boys, neighborhood watches, and other factions and individuals of every and no ideological flavor. They interact in various shades of support, conditional alliance, and outright opposition—sometimes resulting in bloodshed.

And we haven’t even arrived at Election Day, which had Americans so on-edge at the beginning of the year.

Kenosha doesn’t have to be a vision of America’s future. Neither does Portland. But the fact that the violence is continuous and seems to be escalating is cause for concern. To avoid the spread of that conflict, we’re going to have to find a way to live with each other, or to leave each other alone. If we don’t, the violent social unrest that plagues some of our communities will become a feature of many more.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3lq4gbc
via IFTTT