Now that the world was shocked to learn that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was found guilty on all 30 counts, we enter the penalty phase where it is decided if we kill him. I’ve found it interesting that going into the trial, all the jurors were asked if they would be willing to vote to kill him should he be found guilty. That stuck out to me. I imagine everyone on the jury being a bunch of compliant people. I’m sure there are many reasons why I would never have been allowed on that jury, but certainly I could not have answered that question truthfully in the affirmative. No, just because the law says we can kill people in the name of justice doesn’t mean that I think that’s right.

The down side of an opinion like mine is that whether a defendant lives or dies would be left totally up to chance. Is there someone like me on the jury? Or is it filled with a bunch of people who simply do whatever the prosecutor wants — like the beaten dogs that they are? That is indeed a problem. But can anyone seriously say that our justice system is consistent? Who we kill and who we don’t is mostly just a matter of dumb luck.

But in the case of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, I have visions of Frankenstein with an angry mob with pitchforks and torches. I’m not saying that Tsarnaev isn’t guilty. I’m not saying that his crimes are not horrible. I just don’t see what killing him gets us. But I’m afraid that I’m extremely clear on what killing him gets those who are baying for blood. For them, Tsarnaev is no longer a convicted criminal; he is a symbol; he is a sacrifice that we use to wash away the blood of that terrible afternoon two years ago.

Of course, his death will not do that. All it will do is show yet again that the United States really isn’t a civilized country. Because let’s face it: Tsarnaev isn’t anywhere close to as awful a person as others who we have not put to death. We didn’t put Jeffrey Dahmer to death for example. Charlie Pierce noted a few other more obvious analogies, A Verdict in Boston: What the Trial Is Still About. Ted Kaczynski killed three and badly injured 23 others. Eric Rudolph, the Olympic Park Bomber, killed two and injured 111. Yet they are still alive. Could it have something to do with the fact that these men were captured long after their crimes? I suspect so.

And that raises an important question: can we meed out justice when crimes are still vivid. I remember after 9/11 when the country was so hot to go to war in Afghanistan and to pass the Patriot Act and to set up the Department of Homeland Security. At that time, all I could think was, “This is a huge mistake.” And I wasn’t alone. Others said the same thing. Of course, they were dismissed as un-American. And the fact that we are later shown to be right hardly matters. Right now, there are a lot of people who want to feel a sense of justice by seeing Dzhokhar Tsarnaev killed. I understand it. But it doesn’t have a thing to do with justice.

What does it say about American conservatism that the most reasonable writer around is totally unreasonable? On Friday, David Brooks wrote, The Revolution Lives! It is one of the most disingenuous things I’ve ever read. He starts by asking, “Are the men who control [Iran] more like Lenin or are they more like Gorbachev?” Forget Iran for the moment; since when was Lenin unreasonable and irrational? Brooks is posing the question in such a way that there are “good” enemies who you make deals with and there are “bad” enemies that you don’t. This is what makes Brooks special in the conservative movement. Instead of making patently false statements about never negotiating with enemies, he’s carved out a niche of enemies that may be negotiating with. Of course, in practice, it is all the same.

On Thursday, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei gave a big speech where he demanded that all sanctions be dropped as soon as the deal is struck. Instead of seeing this for what it is — part of the negotiating process and Khamenei’s attempt to pacify hardliners in his country — Brooks sees this as proof that Khamenei can’t be trusted. He is supposedly still in the grip of the revolution. He seems to have forgotten the Iran-Contra affair where the sainted Ronald Reagan made a deal with the Iranians when they were much closer to their revolution.

Brooks is also upset that people listening to Khamenei’s speech were chanting, “Death to America!” This is just silly. This is like Benjamin Netanyahu’s claim that the only deal that we should make with Iran must include Iran’s statement that Israel has a right to exist. In this case, the Iran deal is about nuclear enrichment; it isn’t about America and Iran becoming best buddies. But consider those people chanting, “Death to America!” These are the same as the people here in America who want to “Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran” back to the stone age. Any reasonable person would be more concerned about the latter, more specific, claims.

Another part of Brooks’ argument is that Iran doesn’t trust the United States. Funny that. Why would Iran be suspicious of the United States? Might it be the 1953 coup that we organized against Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq? The United States has done a great deal to meddle with Iran and what does the United States have to complain about? An attack of a bunch of college kids on the US embassy in 1979 — something that even 36 years later our country can’t get over?

Regardless, what political leaders say in their own countries do not necessarily have much to do with what they are actually doing in their foreign affairs. And Brooks knows this. He even wrote, “Khamenei’s remarks could be bluster, tactical positioning for some domestic or international audience.” Of course, he throws the idea to the side. He added, “If Iran still has revolutionary intent, then no amount of treaty subtlety will enforce this deal.” Does he really think this way? It was Ronald Reagan who said, “Trust, but verify.” That’s what this deal is about. Not, “Trust, and hope for the best.”

This is Brooks’ ultimate argument, “If President Obama is right and Iran is on the verge of change, the deal is a home run.” What it shows is that Brooks, like all the other conservative loons thinks that we really shouldn’t make deals with enemies. If Iran is about to turn into our ally, then this deal is good. But if that’s the case, we wouldn’t need a deal at all.

Brooks is just a conservative apologist. He exists to make the crazy conservatives sound like there is some reasonable argument for what they think. But there isn’t. David Brooks doesn’t think we should make a deal with Iran for the same reason that hardliners here didn’t think that Reagan should make a deal with Gorbachev. Their analysis was wrong then and his analysis is wrong now. But that is to be expected.

Earlier this week, Paul Krugman wrote, Rand Paul and the Empty Box. It follows on what I seem to be seeing everywhere: the argument that Rand Paul can’t become president because there just aren’t that many libertarians. Apparently, one in nine voters call themselves libertarians. I guess people can call themselves whatever they want. But even as an ex-libertarian, I find most people’s use of the term offensive. For most people, being a “libertarian” is something like Rand Paul: they are conservatives who think maybe we shouldn’t incarcerate cannabis smokers and maybe we should leave the LGBT community alone. Or as I often put it: libertarians are conservatives who are embarrassed to call themselves Republicans.

But Krugman countered the libertarians with what we might call the populists. These are people who are socially conservative and economically liberal. Krugman thinks that there are even fewer of these people than there are libertarians. Everyone has their blind spots, I guess. And Krugman’s overall point is correct, regardless of what people think, they tend to gravitate into the liberal or conservative camps. But that doesn’t mean that there aren’t a lot of populists. I think that the populists may, in fact, be the biggest political class in the United States.

Think back to Thomas Frank’s What’s the Matter With Kansas? The whole story of that book was not that the people of Kansas were economically conservative. It was that their social conservatism trumped everything else. Although the book has been characterized as being about people voting against their own interests, it is not. It is about people placing social issues at the top of their concerns and the Republican Party using that to enact laws that mostly have nothing to do with what the social conservatives want.

If you look at polling on American’s beliefs about different political issues, you will see that they are slightly to the right on social issues and they are fairly far to the left on economic issues. In fact, they are usually well to the left of the Democratic Party itself. I’ve discussed this problem a lot around here. The Democratic Party really doesn’t offer much of a choice on economic issues — it is mostly like Republican Lite. So if a populist cared equally about social and economic issues, she would have a real problem choosing one of the two big parties because the Republicans would to her right on social issues and the Democrats would be to her right on economic issues.

I am a liberal on social and economic issues. But they are not equal in my eyes. If there were a truly populist party — moderately conservative on social issues and quite liberal on economic issues — I would abandon the Democratic Party. I wouldn’t feel good about the social issues. But I would feel certain that greater economic equality would lead to greater social equality. And it might do so quicker than it would on our current path.

But it bothers me me greatly that as keen a commentator as Paul Krugman would think that these populists represent a small part of the electorate. His belief is part of what sustains a political system that does not even try to appeal to a huge segment of the population. Instead, we are stuck with both major American political parties beholden to Wall Street and other interests. This is democracy in name only.

JJ Goldberg provided a little history for us regarding the brilliant statesmanship of Netanyahu, How Bibi and Bush Made a Mess of the Middle East. At the time of 9/11, Ariel Sharon was prime minister of Israel. And when the Bush administration started talking war with Iraq, Sharon’s administration was shocked. They advised against it. They correctly predicted three things: it would cause sectarian warfare; it would keep the US stuck in the country for a decade; and it would empower Iran, which they rightly considered a far greater threat. But that wasn’t what the Bush administration wanted to hear.

But there was someone in Israel who was telling Bush what he wanted to hear: the once and future prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He’s kind of like the John McCain of Israel: there is no problem that cannot be solved with a war. He is a great example of how if you are powerful and — in this country anyway — conservative, being wrong never matters. He was shockingly wrong about the Iraq War. Here is video of him testifying before Congress about the “enormous positive reverberations on the region” that it would have. And maybe his idea of enormous positive reverberations is the rise of the Islamic States. But for most people, this has been a bad thing.

It is hard to escape the conclusion that Netanyahu and all of the neocons are disinterested in the health and safety of the United States, Israel, and the world. They just want to go to war. They don’t believe in diplomacy. As Robert Parry noted recently, “The neocons are so confident in their skills at manipulating the U.S. decision-making process that some have gone so far as to suggest Americans should side with al-Qaeda’s Nusra Front in Syria or the even more brutal Islamic State, because those groups love killing Shiites and thus are considered the most effective fighters against Iran’s allies.” There is no long-term thinking in any of this. We hate Iraq, destroy it. If that gives the Islamic State power, destroy it. It we decide that Iran is the real threat, back the Islamic State (we can destroy it later). The idea that Obama was playing 11-dimensional chess was always fatuous. But this “bomb Iran” crowd is playing one-dimensional chess.

What’s really interesting about Goldberg’s narrative of the long process that led us to the current Iran nuclear deal is how the American and Israeli governments switched in 2009. The US went from only halfheartedly trying to make a deal with Iran to being very interested in it. Meanwhile, Israel went from the much more open-minded leadership of Ehud Olmert to that of Benjamin Netanyahu (so mean he once shot a man just for snoring). As Daniel Larison wrote recently, there is a generalized rejection among conservatives in the very idea of diplomacy.

Indeed, this is what Fred Kaplan concluded in an article at Slate, The Deal of a Lifetime. He was blunt, “Anyone who denounces this framework is not a serious person or is pursuing a parochial agenda.” But we knew this; after the framework came out and it looked better than we could have hoped, Netanyahu claimed that the deal must include Iran recognizing Israel’s right to exist. In other words, no deal would be good enough. If he got that totally irrelevant concession, he would then require that all Iran convert to Judaism — or something similarly silly and outrageous.

According to conservatives in the United States, we should listen to Netanyahu. But just like Netanyahu’s complains about the Iraq deal, our own conservatives only look to him because he is telling them what they want to hear. If he suddenly deciding that the deal was good for Israel, conservatives would abandon him with claims like, “I don’t see why we are looking to the leaders of other countries to decide what American foreign policy should be.” And if they did that, they’d be making the most sense they’ve made in a long time.

North Charleston, South Carolina police officer Michael Slager has been charged with the murder of Walter Scott. We’ll see if he gets convicted, and if so, of what charge. Obviously, this is a tragedy. Scott should be busy planning his wedding. And it certainly seems that Slager is guilty. So the criminal justice system works! Hooray! But I don’t see it that way.

Let’s start with the fact that somehow Slager thought that it was proper to shoot eight bullets at the back of Scott while he ran away. How is it that police officers — who we are told ad nauseam are such highly trained professionals — so often don’t seem to have a clue about the law? It seems that in our police departments, the philosophy is: the police are always right and any civilian who doesn’t do exactly what an officer wants deserves to die.

But what bothers me about this case is that if it weren’t for the video recording of the stop, there would be no story. It would just be yet another case when a police officer was fully justified in using deadly force against an unarmed civilian. It appears in America, the only way you have a chance at justice is if you have a gang of people following you around surreptitiously filming you.

The Daily Beast published an interesting article, Michael Slager’s Attorney Dumped Him As Soon As He Saw Video. The lawyer is cagey because he can’t break attorney-client privilege. But reading between the lines, it seems that what he’s saying is that Slager lied to him in a way that the video made very clear.

What I find most striking about the video is how unreal it seems. The officer shows no emotion. And then, after Scott is bleeding on the ground, there is no rush to get help. It seems like just another day — nothing to get especially excited about.

The mystery in the video is the way that Slager picks up something from the ground where he shot from and casually drops it next to Scott body. Speculation is that it had to do with the taser. Regardless, it would seem that Slager is tampering with the crime scene. And the other officer doesn’t say a thing. Again: just another day on the job.

According to Bustle, Slager had a pretty clean employment record. There was, however, one incident reported “in September 2013 by a man who alleged that Slager had ‘shot him with a taser for no reason.’ The matter was subsequently investigated internally, and Slager was exonerated of any wrongdoing.” Of course, that goes without saying; there was no video of the incident and in this country, we always assume that the police are honest — despite a mountain of evidence indicating that this isn’t true.

Here is a summary of the official story the police department told before the video surfaced:

This might all be technically true. Nowhere in it does it say that Slager had to resort to his service weapon. The video is consistent with Scott grabbing the taser. But very clearly, Scott is running away while Slager is drawing his gun. And slowly, he aims and kills Scott. There are two circumstances under with an officer can use deadly force. The first is when someone’s life is in danger. That’s clearly not the case here. The second is when the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect has “committed a serious violent felony.” That doesn’t seem to be the case either; though we can be certain that Slager will argue just that, “He grabbed my taser!” And it wouldn’t surprise me at all if a jury accepts that excuse.

The main thing is that this case is exceptional in that we have evidence that the officer and the department were at least being deceptive. The statement above was designed to give an incorrect impression about what had happened. But that is not exceptional. I’m sure that happens all the time. And I fear that after officers are all wearing body cameras, there will be lots of cases where the cameras don’t work or were accidentally turned off. We are a very long way from holding our police forces accountable.

Update (10 April 2015 10:07 pm)

Unbelievable:

Andrew Sprung wrote a really interesting article, Why Do More People Say the ACA Has Harmed Than Helped Them? In addition to all the polling data from people saying that they don’t like Obamacare, there are also people who claim that they have been directly hurt by the new healthcare law — more than say that they have been helped. And that is, well, not factually true. Sprung tried to get to the bottom of why that is.

How exactly can someone be hurt by Obamacare? It’s a curious question, because if lots of people were hurt by the law, the Republicans would be parading them everywhere. Yet polling by the Kaiser Family Foundation currently finds that 22% of Americans think the law has hurt them and only 19% think it has helped them.

To some extent, this is predictable. Insurance rates generally go up each year. With the very effective propaganda campaign of the conservative movement, many people simply think that any changes in their healthcare are the fault of Obamacare. It is hard for people to see the fact that their premiums are rising more slowly than before as something that is helping them. But there are good signs. Last May, 24% of the people thought the law had hurt them and only 14% thought it had helped them.

What really seems to be going on is that companies all over the nation are using Obamacare to scare employees and to justify things they are doing for other reasons. I discussed a particular instance of this back in January, Worker Delusions and Corporate Profits. A local FedEx driver was complaining that Obamacare had more than doubled his health insurance costs. But the truth was that FedEx was just using “Obamacare” as a way to cut “the company’s fastest-growing expenses.”

There is a lot of complaining about how individuals and voters just aren’t very rational. That’s often true. But I don’t see how we can complain when businesses show the same irrationality. More reasonable businesses have applauded Obamacare as a way to reduce their expenses. For example, Trader Joe’s put their part-time employees in the public exchanges and gave them $500 per year. That increased the amount of money that the employees had and decreased expenses for the company. A win-win for everyone.

The companies like FedEx are in the middle ground where they take advantage of Obamacare where they can directly, but mostly just use it as an excuse to change worker contracts that hurt workers and help the company. And then there are the truly delusional companies who are just certain that Obamacare is destroying their profits — often even before the law went into effect.

Of course, fundamentally, the “Obamacare hurt me” meme is based on people just not liking and understanding the law because of the “nonstop disinformation and smear campaign conducted by the GOP these past six years.” For example, 40% of Republicans claimed the law had hurt them. There’s no way the law can have that kind of a partisan effect. I wouldn’t doubt that we would see similar numbers if Republicans were asked, “Did Obamacare kill a baby you know?”

A number of healthcare observers have noted that Obamacare will never be popular because it was designed to be invisible. Most people who benefit from Obamacare (for example, by getting cheap insurance on the exchanges) don’t see it as getting Obamacare). But it does seem that over time, people will stop thinking about Obamacare at all. And that is the way the law works. I think after Obama is out of office, things should improve more rapidly. But meanwhile, people will continue to blame the law for everything they don’t like about our admittedly screwed up healthcare system.