House Founder Johnny Hill discusses the current issue of division in our American society.

Discontent is looming in Ukraine this winter. Following the 2014 Revolution of Dignity, the country's political climate has changed dramatically after six years of imperfect progress. In recent months, the government has abandoned reforms and reverted to the worst practices of the toxic past. Ukraine is now in danger of descending into the same kind of corrupt chaos that characterized its first two decades as an independent nation.

As one of the reformers who entered government in the tumultuous period after the traumatic events of early 2014, I recognize that now we are at an ominous crossroads in Ukraine's nation-building journey. Indeed, we haven't lost the war yet, but we've lost a significant battle.

Over the past six years, thousands of young Ukrainians have interrupted their careers to contribute to the transformation of their country. In the immediate aftermath of the Revolution of Dignity, some took up public office. Volodymyr Groysman and Oleksiy Honcharuk both did so during their later governments. This period of optimism and idealism has ended.

Their place has been taken by officials whose values are completely different from their own. Advocates of reform and supporters of liberal, pro-Western views have been forced out of public service altogether. They are now being illegally targeted by the security services.

Young Ukrainians' enthusiasm for public service in recent years is unlikely to be repeated. Despite the patriotic sentiment in the private sector, the government has done everything it can to discourage its top talent from joining the government.

In addition to intentionally low wages, bogus criminal charges, and the near-certainty of persistent attacks by Ukraine's oligarch-controlled mainstream media, there are other deterrents. Few people find this appealing, as it is understandable.

The most tragic aspect of the current situation is that President Zelenskyy had the opportunity to fundamentally change this country a little over one year ago. Following his unexpected victory in Ukraine's presidential election in April 2019, coupled with the Servant of the People party's equally impressive victory in parliamentary elections three months later, he had an unprecedented opportunity to push through a program of potentially tough reforms.

Ukraine, on the other hand, has shifted in the opposite direction. Ukraine's president has now undone most of the modest progress that came before him, despite running on a vague but broadly reformist platform. Eight years have passed subsequently Ukraine has regressed.

Insert Photo

 It has been the country's oligarchs who have played the decisive role so often in its history as an independent state. Due to their near-total control over the Ukrainian media, democratic forces have been marginalized and discredited. Through their widespread influence in the civil service, law enforcement, business, and particularly the judiciary, they have sabotaged, blocked, stifled, and ultimately reversed reform after reform.

This oligarch-led counter-revolution is evident. Now that Ukraine's Euro-Atlantic integration isn't a foregone conclusion, the country's pro-Russian lobby is once again gaining confidence and raising its voice. The West is gradually lessening its support for Ukraine as formerly dependable allies begin to doubt the direction it is taking under President Zelenskyy. What better way to change that than war?

Ukraine's future trajectory is a subject of doubt among the domestic audience. Millions of Ukrainians have watched bewildered and angry in recent weeks as the Constitutional Court casually annulled some of the most significant reforms of the past six years.

Zelenskyy's blustering response to the crisis has become bogged down in parliament, so there are concerns that the Constitutional Court will now follow the same course. There is widespread expectation that the court will reverse even more of the post-2014 legislation that briefly brought Ukraine closer to the dream of a European future.

Zelenskyy's first eighteen months as president have had little in common with the ideals that he claimed to represent throughout his campaign. On top of that, they directly contradict the will of the Ukrainian people, who have made it clear that they wish to see the country pursue radical reforms.

Unrest and instability are a result of this disconnect between policy and promises. Ukraine's underlying problems need to be resolved before mass protests can succeed.

It has now become painfully clear that efforts to transform Ukraine since 2014 have not succeeded in changing the state's foundation or ushering in a truly new era. As long as we continue to play by the rules of the oligarchic system, Ukraine will remain destined to repeat its mistakes.

Ukrainian popular uprisings have achieved some important gains such as the right to free and fair elections and the end of blanket government censorship. This progress, however, hasn't addressed the underlying reasons for the country's chronic resistance to reform.

Ukraine's fate remains in the hands of an all-powerful oligarchic class that is actively hostile to the rule of law and more than willing to make terms with the Kremlin based on recent developments. Ukraine's future will remain hostage to the interests of oligarchs unless national debate focuses on solving this problem specifically.

Source

Serhiy Verlanov is the former Head of Ukraine’s State Tax Service.

Definition of evolution: From the Collins Dictionary,

make your life online as miserable as possible. To keep us divided as possible and cut each

So I ask again have we in truth, devolved into a money-centric intelligent animal? Have we

Taking the law into our own hands and claiming self-defense when someone is shot is the subject of the Kyle Rittenhouse and Ahmaud Arbery cases.

During two closely watched murder trials in two different states this past week, juries heard strikingly similar stories: men bought guns in the name of protecting the public and then told juries they killed unarmed people in self-defense.

Another case involved Ahmaud Arbery, a Black man, who was shot after being pursued by three white men suspected of breaking into a house in the neighborhood. In both cases, the defendants started shooting as the victims were trying to steal their guns.

In other words, their own decision to carry a gun became a justification to use it, lest it be wrested away from them,” said Eric Ruben, an expert on the Second Amendment at the S.M.U. Dedman School of Law in Dallas.

It is evident, from these two cases, that; our concept of self-defense has deep flaws that are treasured, but not prepared to deal with an era of gun rights expansion, political extremism, and rising violence in a situation where race is heavily influencing perceptions of threat.

As a result of the fact that our citizens have guns, every line has become blurred. The combination of "stand your ground" provisions and citizen's arrest laws has granted people license not only to defend themselves but to go after others as well.[See Source]

Defense is the act of defending. But what constitutes reasonableness? At what point must one retreat? And when is a citizen allowed to act as an aggressor on behalf of the state?

Rifts have appeared in several debates, starting with whether openly displaying firearms makes people feel safer at  the expense of everyone else, whether brandishing a gun constitutes a threat or self-defense, and whether people may benefit from self-defense claims if their actions contributed to the danger.

Migrant militia members accused of plotting to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer clashed with elected officials trying to make a so called  citizen’s arrest. It was argued in St. Louis whether white residents who aimed guns at Black Lives Matter protesters were assaulting them or defending their homes. They pleaded guilty to misdemeanor assault and harassment, then were pardoned by the governor.

Nine plaintiffs who were among those injured or traumatized by the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Va., in 2017, are suing the rally's organizers, alleging a plan and intent to engage in violence, but the defendants claim that the violence, in which one counterprotester died, was justified by self-defense.

People have the right to self-defense when they reasonably believe there is an imminent threat of harm, whether or not they are right. It is possible to mistake a realistic prop gun for a real weapon, for instance.

Some statutes, however, stipulate that someone cannot claim self-defense if they were the "initial aggressor" - in other words if they provoked or were doing something wrong at the time of the use of force. If an initial aggressor withdraws or backs away from an encounter they may regain their self-defense claim. The aggressor must also pose a threat of imminent harm.

It is provocation if you assault someone without justification. If you ask for an explanation of offensive words, address a sensitive subject, engage in an inconsiderate act, or travel near someone, it does not constitute provoking an encounter.

In the Arbery case, According to defendants Gregory McMichael, Travis McMichael and neighbor William Bryan, they were pursuing Mr. Arbery as part of a citizen's arrest, and he was shot after trying to grab one of their guns.

What makes the perception that Ahmaud Arbery would have lived if he had complied instead of reaching for a gun, and hence it was his duty to comply. It would be good framing for Ahmaud Arbery if three guys rolled up on him with guns, he didn't know what their intentions were?

There has been a tendency in the United States to increase the right to self-defense rather than to protect those whose actions may harm others. As a result of "make my day" laws, people who harm intruders in their own homes are presumed to have acted in self-defense. Classic self-defense theory's "duty to retreat" has been undermined by laws requiring people who are in an area where they have a right to be to retreat, such as at a public protest, to retreat.

Most states require prosecutors to demonstrate that the defendant did not act in self defense, rather than requiring defendants to demonstrate that they did.

A new law in Utah, except for those accused of attacking a police officer, enables defendants to request a special hearing at which prosecutors must prove the accused was not acting in self-defense. 

Despite the expansion of the legal framework for self-defense, experts say it has left certain key concepts like the "initial aggressor" poorly defined. As part of the trial of George Zimmerman, Mr. Zimmerman was accused of killing Trayvon Martin. In 2012, while visiting relatives in a gated community. Mr. Zimmerman, who was Hispanic, was deemed the first aggressor by prosecutors. He followed Mr. Martin on foot and in his car before Mr. Martin knocked him down. Mr. Zimmerman initially identified Mr. Martin as suspicious. The jury disagreed and acquitted Mr. Zimmerman.

Mr. Zimmerman was the only person armed in that case. In a situation where two strangers are armed, who is the "primary aggressor"? 

In the Kenosha trial, Mr. Rittenhouse, now 18, was armed with a semiautomatic rifle that he was not legally allowed to own. After he shot and killed a man who he believed was trying to grab his gun, as well as a man who hit him with a skateboard in an apparent attempt to stop him, a nearby paramedic named Gaige Grosskreutz raised his hands in the air.

In that moment, Mr. Grosskreutz said this week, he believed Mr. Rittenhouse racked his rifle and refused to accept his surrender.

Grosskreutz pointed his handgun toward Mr. Rittenhouse, although his concealed-carry permit had expi d. Mr. Rittenhouse fired one shot at Grosskreutz.

Both Grosskreutz and Rittenhouse said they were trying to save their own lives. According to philosopher Renee Jorgensen, who has researched self-defense and reasonable mistakes, one can look at the parking lot as a Wild West situation where neither man wrongs the other and neither is wronged by the other.

As white men, Mr. Rittenhouse and Mr. Grosskreutz took the law into their own hands to varying degrees that night, offering themselves as private guardians of public safety.

According to experts, self-defense, vigilantism, and policing are related practices rooted in deeply racialized American traditions in which Black people, particularly men, are seen as threats and white people are given the benefit of the doubt.

In an analysis of homicides after Trayvon Martin's death, the Urban Institute discovered that white perpetrators and black victims were 281% more likely to be ruled justified than white perpetrators and white victims.

In the Arbery case this past week, a defense lawyer objected to having high-profile Black pastors in the courtroom, arguing that their presence was “intimidating.”

The standard of reasonable fear applies to both self-defense cases and police use-of-force cases, although officers are given greater leeway than civilians. Many police killings have been viewed as being the product of implicit bias due to the reasonable fear standard.

Based on our research, scholars are considering ways to adapt self-defense laws to a nation awash in guns and counteract prevailing prejudices. GW law professor Cynthia Lee has begun work on a universal definition of what is considered an initial aggressor. Lee is known for her model statute on police use of force. A law like Wisconsin's would give prosecutors another option, allowing them to prove that the aggressor intended to provoke violence with a plan of retaliation, something that is difficult for prosecutors to do. There would also be special scrutiny when guns are involved, regardless of whether they were legal.

Displaying a firearm or pointing it at another person is a threatening act that could reasonably lead to death or serious bodily harm, in my opinion.

In closing, this writer would contend that walking around in public with a symbol of hate and white supremacy strapped to your shoulder period much less at a Black Lives Matter riot makes Rittenhouse the real initial aggressor in this case and we feel here in the House of Public Discourse that justice was not only not served in this case it was purposely circumvented by a racist judge. 

Yesterday I reposted an article about how relatively well-paid pharmacists at CVS were rebelling over how they were treated. They were rebelling with their feet, as part of the “Great Resignation.

That there is no choice. If you want the things of success then you have to play their game and there is no other choice. You must literally sell your soul to them, make a lifelong deal with the Devil to keep the car and mortgage payments being made. 

There is a bottom-line truth here that they do better, while you do not. That is the equation of the “Trickle Down”, monopoly economy. You do as they tell you or it will all be taken away from you!

“Having access to capital can make a genius out of an idiot and not having it can make an idiot out of a genius.” 

The Cons restrict capital and dole it out at a high cost. Hoping for a huge profit in either your success or your failure. The Foundation’s second economy is based on profit from the success of an individual. 

And of course, there is the civilization-ending war, the deceptions and ploys, factional maneuvering, and the power to poverty equation we see every day, now. 

Helen Folasade Adu CBE (Yoruba: Fọláṣadé Adú [fɔ̄láʃādé ādú]; born 16 January 1959), known professionally as Sade Adu or simply Sade (/ʃɑːˈdeɪ/ shah-DAY), is a Nigerian-born British singer, songwriter, and actress, known as the lead singer of her eponymous band. One of the most successful British female artists in history, she is often recognized as an influence on contemporary music.[6][7] Her influence on music was recognized in the UK with an award of the Officer of the Order of the British Empire in 2002, and a was made Commander in the 2017 Birthday Honours.