Cosby is still guilty

While Bill Cosby's accusers are understandably upset, to put it mildly, by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court overturning his conviction for sexual assault, it's crucial to remember that the court didn't find that the evidence against him was false. The court didn't find that he didn't do the things he was accused of doing.

No, the court vacated his conviction because a prior prosecutor gave Cosby what I've heard described as a "handshake" promise that the disgraced comedian's testimony in a civil matter wouldn't result in criminal charges. The state high court ruled that Cosby should never have faced the trial that ended in his conviction and imprisonment.

If ever one were justified in saying somebody got off on a technicality, this would be the time.

Now, I can frankly agree with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's vacating of the conviction. Cosby relied on the prosecutor's word, it seems. If you're pissed that he got off, blame the original prosecutor, one Bruce L. Castor, Jr. I don't know if he should have entered into the agreement with Cosby in the first place, but having done so, he should have made that fact clear to his office. Sloppy, Mr. Castor.

(It's of some interest that after leaving his prosecutor job, Castor went on to cover himself with glory — or something — defending the domestic Dear Leader during the latter's second impeachment trial. If Senate Republicans hadn't had the fix in from the beginning, Castor would very likely have cemented his place in history for a shambolic "defense" that led to the first presidential impeachment conviction. Castor is not my idea of a fine legal mind, nor does he seem to be detail-oriented.)

However, let me repeat that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court didn't find what was revealed at trial to be untrue. And what was revealed at trial convinced a jury to convict Cosby.

Cosby did the things of which he was accused.

He no longer has this criminal conviction on his record — but he is in no way innocent.

Evacuate our Afghan allies

My God, are we still fussing over how, or even whether, to evacuate the Afghanis who helped us during our long war in Afghanistan?

Apparently so, according to George Packer's piece in The Atlantic.

In the past few weeks, the outlook for Afghans who helped the United States in Afghanistan has gone from worrying to critical. As U.S. and NATO troops leave the country with breathtaking speed, the Taliban are attacking districts that had long been in the Afghan government’s hands, setting up checkpoints on major roads, and threatening provincial capitals. Many of the 18,000 Afghans who, along with their families, have applied for Special Immigrant Visas will soon have nowhere to hide, no armed force standing between them and their pursuers.

I don't know how President Biden made the decision to extricate U.S. forces from Afghanistan by 11 September 2021 (Packer says that informed opinion is that most will be gone by the 4th of July). I won't second-guess the decision, as I can imagine very good reasons for it. However, it would be unconscionable for the U.S. to abandon those Afghanis who put their lives on the line for us.

Packer cites possible reasons for the administration's foot-dragging:

No doubt an administration that polls poorly on immigration fears a public backlash, particularly as America approaches the bitter 20th anniversary of September 11. Evacuation would require the suspension of all kinds of standard procedures. There is always the risk of fraud, and perhaps of allowing an enemy combatant into the United States. The spectacle of evacuation might induce Afghan security forces to panic and desert in even larger numbers than they’re deserting now, causing a rush to the airports and borders and a collapse of the government of President Ashraf Ghani.

Most of these reasons strike me as abject moral cowardice that should not be tolerated in our government.

The immediate obstacles include legislative ones: Congress controls how immigration occurs. Congress must act swiftly to bend those rules. Guam has offered itself as a place where the necessary processing of immigrants (to keep out enemy combatants, for instance) can take place, rather than forcing all of it to take place in Afghanistan. The logistics of getting everyone out who needs to get out are manageable but becoming more difficult every day.

Mr. Biden, get your administration moving on this. You created this situation. You must address this consequence of your decision.

U.S. credibility and honor are at stake. Do we stand by those who have helped us, or not?

Awkward question about gun safety

The killing of nine innocent victims at the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) light rail yard in San Jose, California on 26 May was horrific. The gunman, himself a VTA employee, possessed what police later discovered to be a veritable arsenal, including more than 20,000 rounds of ammunition. He also appears to have tried to divert emergency responders away from the light rail yard by setting his house on fire (via a delayed-ignition mechanism) at approximately the same time he was starting his rampage. Clearly, he planned very carefully for his murder spree.

The gunman committed suicide as police closed in so we will never hear a reason for the slaughter from his lips. However, statements from his ex-wife and ex-girlfriend suggest that he was volatile — possibly mentally ill, though he was never diagnosed. Moreover, the Wall Street Journal reported that the gunman had been detained by Customs officials in 2016 after returning from the Philippines; per the San Francisco Chronicle, the officials "found a notebook expressing hatred for his workplace, along with books about terrorism".

The Santa Clara County district attorney says Homeland Security never contacted San Jose police to report the 2016 encounter.

“I am concerned about an individual who has books about terrorism and is so angry at their coworkers that they are writing it down, not typing it but taking pen-to-paper and writing down how angry they are. Now that’s not a crime to do those things but it is certainly something for a D.A., for a police chief, would be of interest."

The D.A. has a point. On the other hand, what exactly would local officials have been able to do?

The Second Amendment, as the modern-day SCOTUS has interpreted it, offers a virtually unfettered right for private citizens to own firearms. There are very limited circumstances under which someone may be permanently barred from gun ownership, or have his or her weapons' temporarily seized (under so-called "red flag" laws). However, the exceptions are extremely narrow.

And when it comes right down to it, what law would have allowed police either to seize this guy's weapons, or to prevent him from buying them, prior to his rampage?

That's the awkward question this incident raises. It's why gun-safety advocates would be well-advised not to use this tragedy to argue for strengthened gun-safety legislation.

Yes, this guy was volatile and angry. However, this country has no shortage of volatile, angry people, and most of them, even if they own guns, don't shoot other people. (At least, that's my impression; if you've done the research to prove me wrong, speak up.)

Unfortunately, the ones who do pop their cork kill more than enough of the rest of us. Shooting sprees that kill four or more people at once (the definition of "mass shooting" used by some incident trackers) grab the headlines but a lot more of us die one or two at a time, often at the hands of someone we know.

So, absent the ability to read minds or peer into the future, shootings large and small will plague us. Prudent laws (limiting magazine size, for instance) might reduce the damage but ultimately shootings are unavoidable so long as private gun ownership is treated as sacrosanct.

(By the way, don't start with that "if everybody were armed we'd all be safer" crap. The idea that "good guys with guns" can neutralize the threat of "bad guys" is simpleminded horseshit that would leave the country hip-deep in bodies.)

This lamentable situation has convinced me that the Second Amendment must go. Moreover, its repeal must be followed by the drying-up of the unfathomably large surplus of firearms already in private hands. Neither of these things is likely to happen in my lifetime but nevertheless, that's my hope.

(I'll offer one alternative to repeal of the Second Amendment: an ironclad rule that gun ownership be licensed at least as strictly as driving, with periodic psychological exams to determine emotional fitness to operate guns safely. I doubt any such examination is possible today or will be possible in my lifetime.)