It’s Wednesday, June 17th, 2020…but before we begin, meet 31-year-old Rashid Brimmage, as he exhibits all the charm and civility visitors and residents have come to expect from the Big Apple, as he bids good morning to a 92-year-old woman:
Thankfully, Brimmage is Black, while the woman is White, thus the nation can forego what would have been, had the races been reversed, another round of senseless, lawless violence…though we’ve no doubt Rashid’s actions resulted from the latent effects of slavery and Jim Crow he’s too young to have experienced himself.
Now, here’s The Gouge!
First up, NRO‘s Kevin Williamson examines the latest example of judicial activism at the highest level as he details…
“…If some conservative critic had said in 1964 that the civil-rights bill then under consideration would outlaw discrimination against men who wish to undergo voluntary genital amputation in service of a persistent fantasy that they are in some transcendent sense female, Lyndon Johnson would have looked at him a little funny. Even Barry Goldwater did not think such a thing. There is not a word about sexuality, homosexuality, or the contemporary phenomenon politely known as transgenderism in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
…This is not jurisprudence. This is magical thinking. The law says whatever the wizards in the black robes say it says, and they are not very particular about distinguishing between what it says and what theythink it should say. If a few lawyers can pretend to be persuaded by an argument, and everybody who wants the outcome it would produce also can pretend to be persuaded by it, then who are you to hold out? Did you go to law school?
And so we must rely on the ladies and gentlemen in Washington to interpret the scriptures for us. Can we trust them to be honest brokers and evenhanded? Consider that the day before yesterday, gathering for a church service was a crime against humanity and getting a haircut in Georgia was to offer human sacrifice to Mammon. And then — poof! — gathering in gigantic crowds of non-socially distanced, sweaty protesters chanting and looting and rioting and burning was an absolute necessity for the survival of democracy and the cause of genuine justice. Consider that the right to keep and bear arms, which is actually found in the Constitution, is severely limited (unless you are leading a left-wing militia uprising in Seattle!), but the right to an abortion, which is found nowhere in the Constitution, is considered virtually absolute. “You can’t see the emperor’s new clothes? Well, we know what you are, then!”
Phyllis Schlafly was wrong about a lot of things. She was right not to trust these charlatans.“
This quote from Justice Alito’s dissent forwarded by Keith Calcotte offers the perfect summation:
“Many will applaud today’s decision because they agree on policy grounds with the Court’s updating of Title VII. But the question in these cases isnot whether discrimination because of sexual orientation or gender identity should be outlawed. The question is whether Congress did that in 1964.It indisputably did not…There is only one word for what the Court has done today: legislation.“
As King David wrote in Psalm 146:3 “Put not your trust in princes, in mortal men, who cannot save.” Let alone in men…and/or women…who feel themselves a certain kind of royalty. And for heaven’s sake don’t place it in a Supreme Court justice appointed by a Republican!!!
Next, writing at Townhall.com, it’s the expert opinion of criminal defense attorney Marina Medvin…
“…Ofc. Rolfe was 100 percent justified in his use of force. He acted professionally and appropriately throughout his interaction with Mr. Brooks. Ofc. Rolfe adjusted the proportionality of his force to respond to the growing threats from Mr. Brooks, who has only himself to blame for what happened. Mr. Brooks was not entitled to commit whatever felonies of his choosing, to feloniously assault police officers, to attempt to tase a police officer, and to get away with it.
For those not in law enforcement or in the field of criminal law, witnessing a police officer in the process of criminal apprehension or arrest tends to appear overly aggressive. Understand – the job of law enforcement isn’t to hand out participation stickers for felonies. It is to apprehend dangerous people physically and to bring them to a jail cell. Criminals don’t immediately walk themselves into jail cells with a ballon escort and words of positive encouragement; that’s just not how the world works. Please understand that your cushy office job and your ability to play Monday morning quarterback isn’t commensurate with what law enforcement officers deal with on the street. Remember, this officer shifted levels of force and defended himself against the threat by the fleeing felon within a two-second time period.“
Here’s the juice: the shooting of Rayshard Brooks isn’t a question of right or wrong, but of right or wrong choices, and ultimately, one of responsibility. Unfortunately for Mr. Brooks every choice he made that night… driving drunk (as well as likely under the added influence of a controlled substance)…falling asleep in the Wendy’s drive-thru…resisting arrest…assaulting a police officer…grabbing Officer Brosnan’s taser…fleeing the scene…and finally, and fatally, firing the taser at Officer Rolfe…was the wrong choice.
Was it absolutely, positively necessary to shoot Rayshard? Maybe…maybe not. But the facts remains HE put HIMSELF in that position, NOT the officers. Rayshard made the choices which forged every link in the chain of events, NOT the officers; they were simply reacting. Had Brooks been so inclined, he could have opted out at any point in the process, and be alive today. But he didn’t, so, sadly, he isn’t; but he bears the responsibility for his actions and choices.
Trust us, we know of what we write: during an incident back in 1978 while in Navy flight training, we were one wrong choice away from taking a round from one of Pensacola’s finest…and it would have been our fault, not the officer’s.
As this series of stills from the great Stilton Jarlsberg relates, a taser fired in the darkness…
…looks a helluva lot like a muzzle flash. And as Ms. Medvin observed, Officer Rolfe had a two-second window to react.
Meanwhile, here’s an interesting aspect of the case Medvin highlighted earlier in her commentary:
“…In direct contradiction to the evidence and the law, the prosecutor, Paul Howard, told CNN on Sunday that Mr. Brooks “did not seem to present any kind of threat to anyone, and so the fact that it would escalate to his death just seems unreasonable.” This sham prosecutor then went on to threaten the good guy in this story, Ofc. Rolfe, with criminal charges of murder or felony murder.
According to Townhall, this prosecutor is under investigation following local reporters’ discovery that about $200,000 of funds sent to his office for crime prevention programs ended up in his pocket. Embezzlement, anyone? (Which makes Howard an ideal candidate for mayor of Baltimore!)
It’s certainly plausible that this prosecutor is utilizing the mass media hysteria surrounding Mr. Brooks’ shooting to deflect attention from his own criminal wrongdoing. That would explain why he had the audacity to get on CNN and falsely claim that fleeing felon Mr. Brooks “did not seem to present any kind of threat to anyone.”
Malicious prosecution, which means bringing frivolous, vindictive, or otherwise improper criminal charges, is a cause of action in Georgia. This prosecutor might find himself in hot water if he proceeds…”
Like Mike Nifong, the now-disbarred Durham D.A. who knowingly pursued a malicious prosecution against the Duke lacrosse players.
In a related item courtesy of James Nichols, Mining Awareness offers some facts inquiring minds wanted to know, detailing that…
Which offers a far more believable reason Rayshard resisted arrest than the convenient fable fabricated by his family’s attorney as he offers facts not in evidence:
“Asked why Brooks ran, family attorney L. Chris Stewart suggested he may have feared for his life.
“They put George Floyd in handcuffs and he was subsequently killed,” Stewart said.“So just getting put in handcuffs if you’re African American doesn’t mean, oh, you’re going to get nicely taken to the back of a police car.”…”
After all, the reserve and decency with which Rayshard had been treated during the 40 minutes prior to him him going apesh*t could have been a clever ruse designed to lull him into a false sense of security…right up until the cops slapped the bracelets on him, threw him to the ground and put their knees on his neck…all in full view of their fully-functional dashboard and body cams…in the parking lot of the Wendy’s.
Next up, in what can only be described as a dreadfully and depressingly ironic…
“Tallahassee police found the bodies of Oluwatoyin Salau, 19, and Victoria Sims, 75, on Saturday in the vicinity of the home of Aaron Glee, according to reports. Glee was taken into custody in connection with their deaths, police said on Facebook Monday, adding that there was no further information to release “at this time.”
Salau and Sims met after recent Black Lives Matters protests seeking justice after the death of Floyd, a black man who died in police custody in Minneapolis, the Tallahassee Democrat reported.
Salau spoke at the protests and carried signs pleading for justice in the wake of black lives lost, the paper reported.
She was last seen on June 6.That afternoon she tweeted that a man molested her that morning after offering to give her a ride back to a church where she had “refuged” for a couple of days “to escape unjust living conditions.”…”
“Unjust living conditions”? Sorry, but WTF are “unjust living conditions”?!? Where, and with who?
Objection, your honor…
Goes to establishing the victim’s state of mind, your honor…which frankly seems more than a little suspect. Still, it’s more than sad, as we somehow doubt anything seemed just in Ms. Salau’s world, who the Intelligencer described as “home insecure“…i.e., “homeless”?!?
“After the release of our new logos on April 24, I was made aware of the negative connotation between the serpentine walls and slavery,” Williams said in a news release.“I was not previously aware of the historical perspective indicating the original 8-foot-high walls were constructed to mask the institution of slavery and enslaved laborers from public view.
“Over the last few weeks, I have worked to better educate myself and that education will continue. There was no intent to cause harm, but we did, and for that I apologize to those who bear the pain of slavery in our history. As such, we have redesigned the logos to remove that detail.All other aspects of the logos will remain the same.”
The school’s original serpentine walls were built in the 1820s and were later removed.The current walls were constructed in the 1950s with a shorter height and wider berth, the school said…”
In all seriousness, precisely WHO was harmed by the squiggles on the grips of the crossed swords? WHO…particularly associated with the University of Virginia, either student or faculty…bears the pain of slavery?!? Particularly as the original slave-shielding serpentine walls were removed, and the replacement wall, of different dimensions, constructed in the 1950s. Unless of course the replacement wall was intended to initially shield the effects of Jim Crow, and later the…
Turning now to our continuing coverage of the Wuhan virus debacle, writing at the WSJ, Messrs. David Henderson and Jonathan Lipow inform us…
“Early in the Covid-19 pandemic, an influential economic analysis from the University of Chicago concluded that the likely benefits of moderate social distancing would greatly exceed the resultant costs. The New York Times and the Washington Post recently cited that study as evidence that the use of strict lockdowns to control the virus’s spread has been justified, and that current efforts to “open up” social and economic activity around the U.S. are dangerous and irresponsible.That is seriously misleading; the Chicago study is already out of date. More recent research supports the idea that the lockdowns should end.
The Chicago study came out in early March and was the first truly rigorous economic analysis of the pandemic. It estimated that a three- to-four-month regime of mitigation, “combining home isolation of suspect cases, home quarantine of those living in the same household as suspect cases, and social distancing of the elderly and others at most risk of severe disease,” would save 1.76 million lives between March 1 and Oct. 1, resulting in benefits of $7.9 trillion, a number that far exceeds any conceivable cost of the mitigation strategy.
…But as the Chicago team carefully noted in their paper, “the particular benefits estimates are only as reliable…as projections on Covid-19’s spread and health risks.” Unfortunately, their analysis relied on projections for Covid-19 from Imperial College of London that by now have been shown to be full of analytical and even coding errors, and its estimates of Covid-19’s impact were too high—by more than an order of magnitude.Inevitably, this meant that the Chicago estimates were also way off.
Fortunately, economists no longer have to rely on inherently flawed projections. We can use real data. In what might turn out to be the best paper on the economics of Covid-19, a team of economists from the University of California, Berkeley carefully evaluated empirical data on social distancing, shelter-in-place orders, and lives saved. To measure the impact of social distancing, they gathered data from cellphones on travel patterns, foot traffic in nonessential businesses, and personal interactions.
Their findings?Social-distancing measures reduced person-to-person contact by about 50%, while harsher shelter-in-place rules reduced contact by only an additional 5%. Then, using data on Covid-19 infection and mortality, they estimated that these measures saved 74,000 lives. Finally, after using demographic data to adjust the VSL—which is lower for older people, who have fewer years to live—the study found that the gross benefit of social distancing has been a mere $250 billion…”
In other words, this entire exercise has been a needless waste of time, money and suffering. Hell’s bells: palm readers have a better chance of picking winning lottery numbers than these prognosticators have of being right. And we’re willing to bet everyone of them is still employed…and preparing their next projection in the service of Progressive politics.
Which brings us, appropriately enough, to The Lighter Side:
So much for our old stand-by, “When in doubt, choose “C”!
Then there’s this from Balls Cotton…
…along with this stream of Conservative consciousness and common sense from Ed Hickey:
Finally, we’ll call it a wrap with yet another sordid story straight from the pages of The Crime Blotter, courtesy today of James Nichols and Science magazine, which reports…
“Some 54 scientists have resigned or been fired as a result of an ongoing investigation by the National Institutes of Health into the failure of NIH grantees to disclose financial ties to foreign governments. In 93% of those cases, the hidden funding came from a Chinese institution.
The new numbers come from Michael Lauer, NIH’s head of extramural research. Lauer had previously provided some information on the scope of NIH’s investigation, which had targeted 189 scientists at 87 institutions. But his presentation today to a senior advisory panel offered by far the most detailed breakout of an effort NIH launched in August 2018 that has roiled the U.S. biomedical community, and resulted in criminal charges against some prominent researchers, including Charles Lieber, chair of Harvard University’s department of chemistry and chemical biology.
“It’s not what we had hoped, and it’s not a fun task,” NIH Director Francis Collins (shown above) said in characterizing the ongoing investigation. He called the data “sobering.”
In the vast majority of cases, Lauer reported, the person being investigated has been an Asian man in his 50s. Some three-quarters of those under investigation had active NIH grants, and nearly half had at least two grants. The 285 active grants totaled $164 million…”
Just curious: has anyone from the NIH been fired, let alone punished as a result of this taxpayer-funded scandal?!?
Loading ...
You must be logged in to post a comment.