Kevin Vallier on Decentralization and the Election Results

The election results have been traumatic to many people, and have occasioned the revival of two structural proposals usually unpopular among left-leaning liberals–decentralization through federalism, and secession. Both strike me as pointless and unrealistic gimmicks. The first won’t solve the problem; the second won’t work, and might not solve the problem if it did.

The real options, it seems to me–at least for those of us traumatized by the prospect of a Trump presidency, as opposed to those welcoming it or viewing it with equanimity–are endurance or emigration. Since I count myself among the traumatized, those are what I regard as my own options. Endurance is the less pleasant but more realistic option, emigration the more attractive but harder to pull off. Continue reading

The Victim Who Wasn’t: or, The Continuing Saga of the Purloined Pillow

November 19, 2016

Pamela M McCauley
Victim-Witness Coordinator
Office of the Essex County Prosecutor
Essex County New Courts Bldg
Newark, NJ 07102-0000

Dear Ms. McCauley:

Over the past few weeks, I have been receiving correspondence from your office concerning State vs. Godfrey, Prosecutor File # 16-002030, Indictment # 16-0601832-I. The correspondence comes from the Office of Victim-Witness Advocacy, and describes me as the victim in the abovementioned case. Unfortunately, the correspondence re State vs. Godfrey has all been sent to me in error.  I am not the victim in State vs. Godfrey. I phoned your office and left a message about this matter several weeks ago, but have not received a response.

I am the victim in a case of larceny involving a defendant named Michael Ramos (Prosecutor File # 16-002203). The alleged crime took place in Bloomfield in March of 2016. In your last correspondence to me regarding the case, the case had been referred back to Bloomfield Municipal Court for adjudication. I have heard nothing about it since. In any case, I lack the standing to receive victim impact information regarding State vs. Godfrey. To the best of my knowledge, the case has nothing to do with me.

Best wishes,

Irfan Khawaja


For previous installments in the series, see “Best Voice Mail Ever,” “Our Friend, the State,” and “Pissed, Dissed, and Out $89.18.

Felician University Event: “Community Policing in Rutherford”

FIRST CALL: “Community Policing in Rutherford,” a conversation about town/county/university relations and related issues, with John Russo, Chief of the Rutherford Police Department, and Gurbir Grewal, Bergen County Prosecutor.

The event is the third in the University’s series on Race and Criminal Justice in America, and takes place Wednesday, November 30, @1-2 pm, Castle View Room, Felician University Rutherford campus (227 Montross Ave, Rutherford, NJ, 07070). All are welcome. Free registration required at the door.

Sponsored by the Felician University Committee for Leadership & Social Justice, the Department of Criminal Justice, the Pre-Law Program, and the Felician UN Fellows Program.


Prior events in the series:

September 27: “Racial Profiling in Bloomfield? A Discussion,” with Professor Mark Denbeaux, Seton Hall University Law School.

November 10: “Police Stops: What Are Your Rights? What Should You Do?” with Maria Lopez-Delgado (New Jersey Office of the Public Defender) and John E. Link (adjunct professor of Criminal Justice, Felician University; former Chief of Police, Clifton, New Jersey).

Against Unity: A Response to Mayor Michael Venezia (Bloomfield, New Jersey)

This is a comment I wrote on the Citizens of Bloomfield Facebook page, responding to Michael Venezia, Mayor of Bloomfield (Nov. 11 at 2:10 pm). Venezia had called in his post for a “united Bloomfield” behind Trump. I reject the idea. My comment was deleted from the comments section of the post without explanation, as apparently violating the site’s policies. Evidently, the mayor has free rein to say whatever he wants, but firm criticism is impermissible.

I’m not interested in any form of unity with anyone who voted for Trump. The whole idea of “uniting” with such people is presumptuous and ridiculous. No, we shouldn’t violate their rights (or anyone else’s). We should keep our hands off others’ property and persons, regardless of their politics. And yes, those in power should facilitate a peaceful transition of power.

But that has nothing to do with making common cause with Trump supporters. I have nothing in common with them, and they have nothing in common with me. We have to stop engaging in wishful thinking and amnesia about these people and their intentions. We can’t make America great by uniting with people who unapologetically believe in and promulgate lies. We can only keep our distance from them and demand that they do the same from us.

It’s cheap for Venezia to preach to us about “unity.” No one’s ever accused him of dancing in the streets after 9/11. Let that accusation sink in and then, as it does, try to “unify” with the people who spread it. I didn’t see Michael Venezia’s wanting to “unify” with Mark Denbeaux after the Seton Hall racial profiling report came out. And I don’t imagine Bloomfield is going to “unify” with Denbeaux now. Fair enough–but then don’t expect people like me to unify with Trump supporters. They are our enemies, not our fellow citizens.

The election is over. We don’t need any more cheap political rhetoric from our mayor or anyone else. We need Democratic leaders to tell it like it is–as Trump supposedly does, but more truthfully. We need them to face the fact that the Republic is in danger. It’s time to face that danger and call it by its proper name–rather than appeasing it with baby talk. I voted for Venezia and the entire Democratic line. They owe us more than this.


Worth reading, very much on target, and of broader scope than my post: Masha Gessen’s “Autocracy: Rules for Survival,” and David Cole’s “The Way to Stop Trump,” both from The New York Review of Books.

Donald Trump’s Muslim Registry: A Demand for Clarity and a Call for Pre-Emptive Civil Disobedience (Updated)

Nobody seems to know precisely what Donald Trump has said or wants in the way of compulsory registration of “Muslims” in the United States. This is what he said last year. This is where he is on the issue now. (Fixed a link that previously went to the wrong place. For an update, see below.*)

It’s all mud, and it’s all insane. It doesn’t much matter whether he intends to put all Muslim refugees on the list, or all committed Muslims on the list, or or all nominal or committed Muslims on the list, or everyone on the list who could be Muslim, or everyone who looks like a Muslim, or everyone who looks like he could be a Muslim, or everyone who was born a Muslim, or was born and raised a Muslim, or looks like he could have been born a Muslim, or is currently a declared atheist but could legitimately be suspected of undue nostalgia for having once been a Muslim…etc. The list can be extended ad nauseum. The problem is, it might well be extended ad nauseum. Trump’s explanations are incoherent and meaningless enough to require registration by anyone somehow problematically “linked” to Islam (to use a favorite piece of jargon), no matter what they actually believe. In other words, what we have on our hands is an incipient witch hunt. Continue reading

“Police Stops” Event Tonight

Just a reminder for PoT readers: “Police Stops: What Are Your Rights? What Should You Do?” is tonight, @7-8:15 pm, Education Commons Auditorium, Felician University’s Rutherford campus, 227 Montross Ave, Rutherford, New Jersey 07070. The event is the second (of five) in the University’s year-long series on Race and Criminal Justice in America. It’s sponsored by the Felician University Committee on Leadership & Social Justice, the Department of Criminal Justice, the UN Fellows Program, and the Pre-Law Program.

I happened to have conversations with both speakers over the last week or so, and am confident that we’ll have an informative, enlightening, productive conversation tonight. They agree on enough to share common ground, but disagree on enough to bring out some important unresolved issues. Continue reading

Character-Based Voting, 9/11 Celebrations: Some Election Day Re-Runs (Updated)

I thought I’d re-run my post on character-based voting from two years ago, in case anyone finds it of interest. I’m inclined to think it has clear application to the candidacy of Donald Trump. The thesis of the post plus the facts that have emerged about Trump over the past year or so rule out voting for him. Whatever you do tomorrow, there is no justification for voting for Trump.

I updated the post to include some facts about Trump, but stopped after December 2015. That was enough. I really don’t think you can justifiably vote for someone who lies about whether thousands of his fellow-citizens have been celebrating in the streets over a mass-murder terrorist attack on the country.

As I said the first time around, a year ago, Trump  lied about those “celebrations.” He didn’t just mis-state the facts. He didn’t just get the facts wrong. He didn’t just mis-remember this or that detail. He didn’t just exaggerate. He lied. Then he doubled down on the lies. He hasn’t disavowed his lies, he hasn’t stopped lying, he shows no sign of ever stopping, and he shows no consideration for the foreseeable consequences of this particular lie–that those who believe the lie will regard people of Muslim or even apparently or nominally Muslim or Arab background as traitors and enemies of the state who, in virtue of that fact, deserve mass deportation, mass incarceration, or for that matter, mass death.    Continue reading

CFP: Eleventh Annual Conference, Felician Institute for Ethics and Public Affairs

Speaking of events I’m organizing, here’s one worth keeping in mind: the Eleventh Annual Conference of the Felician Institute for Ethics and Public Affairs, taking place on Saturday (9 am – 6 pm), April 22 on the Rutherford campus of Felician University (227 Montross Ave., Rutherford, New Jersey, 07070). Here’s the official CFP itself:

The Institute invites submissions on any topic in moral or political philosophy, broadly construed, not exceeding 25 minutes’ presentation time (approximately 3000 words). Please send submissions in format suitable for blind review to felicianethicsconference at gmail dot com by February 1, 2017. Acceptances will be announced by March 1, 2017.

Here’s last year’s program. Here’s 2015. You can look at the rest, going back to 2007, by going to the Institute’s web page, clicking the “Spring Conference” tab, and scrolling down a bit.  Continue reading

Cato Unbound Debate: Immanuel Kant and Classical Liberalism

In case you haven’t had your fill of Kant via David Potts’s post below, check out the debate on Kant and classical liberalism at Cato Unbound: Mark White (College of Staten Island), Gregory Salmieri (Rutgers), Stephen Hicks (Rockford), and Roderick Long (Auburn). I haven’t read it carefully enough to come to a verdict, just carefully enough to know that it ought to be read more carefully than I so far have. Continue reading

What Mary Never Did Know; or, How Kant Was Right

A well-known argument, due to Frank Jackson, goes as follows. (You can read the short version here.) The brilliant genius Mary has complete knowledge of physical reality. All the sciences, physics, chemistry, neuroscience, etc., have been completed—there is nothing more to add—so that the fundamental physical constituents and causes of all phenomena are known, together with everything that supervenes on them, and Mary has mastered all of this. But although Mary thus knows everything about the physical world there is to know, she does not know everything there is to know. For, a peculiarity about Mary is that she has lived her entire life in a black and white room and has never been permitted to view anything except in black and white. Thus, on the day when she finally leaves her room and sees, say, a red object, she will learn something she didn’t know before. She will say, “Ha! So that is what seeing red is like.” If this is correct, then, apparently, red, or the experience of seeing red, is not part of physical reality.

The “Mary” argument is just one of several ways to bring out what is really an old, classic problem with any sort of reductionistic physicalism. It is this. Continue reading