Reason Roundup

Kamala Harris Tries (Again) to Rewrite Her History as a Prosecutor of Petty Crimes

Plus: YouTube moderation, over-the-counter birth control, craft brewery regulation, New York prostitution laws, and more...


Sen. Kamala Harris (D–Calif.) is "leaning into" her history as a prosecutor, some observers noted after the 2020 presidential candidate gave a speech Saturday in South Carolina. Rewriting her history would be more accurate.

"In this election, regarding my background as a prosecutor, there have been those who have questioned my motivations, my beliefs, and what I have done," Harris said at an event organized by the South Carolina NAACP. "But my mother used to say, you don't let people tell you who you are. You tell them who you are. Let me be clear, self-appointed political commentators do not get to define who we are and what we believe."

But if we're to rely on Harris' own words and writing about who she is and what she believes, we're left with a whole lot of contradictions and all sorts of major gaps—as I note in Reason's latest print issue. Throughout her political career, Harris has been prone to playing up her progressive bona fides when it suits her and her carceral-centric side at other times. But her actions as a prosecutor almost always fell in the latter camp.

I don't presume to know what Harris truly believes or who she really is behind the mask, which is why I think that her actions as a prosecutor and legislator are probably a better guide to how she would govern than anyone's commentary. And that record bears little resemblance to the prosecutor that Harris has been conjuring on the campaign trail.

The Harris campaign slogan is "Kamala Harris For the People" (a callback to her days representing Alameda and San Francisco counties in court), and her campaign is pushing hard on the idea that America needs a prosecutor-in-chief to counter President Donald Trump's corruption and lawlessness.

This seems to be missing the point of running for president. If Trump loses the 2020 election, we won't need a president to relitigate his past. That's not to say everyone should just write off any crimes committed by people in and around the Trump administration after it's gone. But the job of the next administration is to lead America forward, not keep us an eternal loop around the 2016 election.

The Harris campaign argument makes more sense when applied to how she would handle Trump in the general election, but it still falls flat as something particularly aspirational for a candidate. A smiling Harris grilling Trump from the debate stage may satisfy some. But Democrats need someone who can show up Trump without making it feel like merely a self-interested, sneaky, and partisan attack if they want the sympathy of swing voters or of people tempted to stay home. Again and again, Harris has failed on that.

Here's some of the rhetoric her communications person shared on Twitter as an example of "the kind of sharp, effective prosecution voters can expect from in a general election," as well as a showcase of her "wit and humor":

The quote above is from Harris' Sunday speech in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. No matter what you think of health care or tax policy, that's political grandstanding, not a realistic indictment of Trump or his administration. She goes on to crack a joke about Trump engaging in "securities fraud" for buddying up with foreign dictators.

None of the above comes across like much of a punchline when you watch Harris' delivery, and no one can be heard laughing in the audience. It's just the "sharp and effective" prosecutor casually suggesting that legislation passed by Congress could be a crime if Democrats don't agree with it.

Harris wraps up the theme by joking that Trump was also guilty of "identity fraud" against Barack Obama by claiming to be the best president this century.

The line might not be terrible coming from an entertainer. But coming from someone who has spent nearly her entire career putting people behind bars and threatening to (often for petty crimes like drug possession, truancy, and sex work, and at other times when she knew federal law disallowed her arrests), during an administration that has at least flirted with using the power of the executive to punish political enemies, following an election filled with Republicans chanting about the same…joking about all the trumped up charges you would bring as president and all the tortuous cop logic you can conjure in service of it just don't feel all that funny.



Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.) has been calling for birth control pills to be sold over-the-counter:

Will she join her Republican counterparts in the Senate in sponsoring legislation to help see it through?


  • How "scores of articles" from a fake journalist got published in The Hill, Forbes, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, and other political outlets.
  • New regulations in New Jersey threaten to strangle the state's craft brewery industry.
  • When does life not begin at conception for the life-begins-at-conception crowd?
  • Members of the House of Representatives vote tomorrow "on a civil contempt resolution against Attorney General William Barr and former White House counsel Don McGahn."
  • Following D.C.'s decrim bill last week:

  • Book banners never say die, they just take new forms:

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

205 responses to “Kamala Harris Tries (Again) to Rewrite Her History as a Prosecutor of Petty Crimes

  1. In this election, regarding my background as a prosecutor, there have been those who have questioned my motivations, my beliefs, and what I have done…

    “…so why don’t you all just make up for yourselves whatever spin makes me palatable and we’ll go with that.”

    1. Hello.

      Caleb Cain is an easily brainwashed loser and that article is useless anecdotal garbage. If you look at the collage of images, it’s preposterous to think those people (including Friedman, Rubin, Peterson and the fricken Fiamengo Files…) are ‘alt-right.

      If they’re ‘extremists’, then the NYT are indeed far left-wing nut jobs.

      1. The most hilarious thing about that NYT article was caleb was never alt right. He even identifies as a traditional conservative in the article. How the first third of the article is about being alt right is completely disingenuous. The author of the piece is a known liberal activist. Why he was given time in the NYT says more about the “unbiased” NYT than it says about caleb.

        Tim Poole had a pretty good rant against the article.

        1. Oh, that much was obvious. The straw man was jacking off hard in this piece of drivel.

          Gatekeepers my ass.

          1. One of the greatest things about the Internet and video is that it utterly destroyed the idea that the MSM are unbiased gatekeepers and only give the American public the good news that they need to know.

            Clearly there is all sorts of news that the MSM spins, pushes, or outright withholds to maintain a Lefty Narrative.

            Propagandists have always tended to use the state to go after dissenting voices who can reach audiences.

        2. To the NYT, anyone more conservative than Bloomberg is alt-right.

  2. If Trump loses the 2020 election, we won’t need a president to relitigate his past.

    Every administration is too busy covering up their own misdeeds to focus on the previous one’s.

    1. This might be the best that we can ever hope for. Distract all the politicians with scandals that they have to constantly defend, and nothing ever gets done. Winner: society.

      1. Except we need someone like Trump who is willing to take all the bullshit just to rollback the gigantic Nanny-State that we ALREADY have.

        Your plan works to keep the state tiny and limited. We’re far past that now.

        1. Wait, did spending under Trump go down? Uh, no, it went up.

          1. Minor quibble.
            Federal spending is solely the responsibility of the house of representatives, aided and abetted by the senate.

            1. Yeah, the president doesn’t send them a budget or anything like that.

              1. The presidential budget plan is basically ignored completely. What is the point of bringing it up?

                1. Spending bills do require a presidential signature, though, no? So it seems that they are not “solely the responsibility of the house of representatives” unless it’s politically expedient to say they are.

                  1. You are right and Trump should not have signed the spending bills.

                    Nevermind that the spending bills had over 2/3 majorities to override his vetos.

                    Trump should take the political hit, instead of 98% blaming the Keepers of the Purse.

                    1. They ALL should take the political hit.

                      In fact it should be easier for Trump to veto a bill passed by 2/3 on principle than to simply sign it, because it would be meaningless. It would also be a signal to his voters and his party that he is serious about cutting spending. At least the veto would put RINOs (as you like to call them) on record in the override vote as to going against the platform and de facto leader of their party.

                    2. Because we havent seen the MSM ever twist Trumps actions? They would say it was a waste if Congress’ time to send ot back, call him an authoritarian, etc. Why bother for no result?

                  2. If you want to get into constitutional arguments, they are not required. It was a legal request made by Congress, but wouldnt hold up in court if the Executive refused to send a budget request.

                    Also it is still a nothing document as Congress plainly ignores it. Obama was often times late on his budget submission, waiting until the appropriations had largely been written.

                    So no, the presidential budget request means nothing as far as House spending responsibilities go.

          2. Rollbacks dont necessarily equate to spending cuts, since only Congress can do that.

            The federal shutdown was the biggest spending cut Trump could force on Democrats. The Senate helped too.

            1. The federal shutdown ended up costing more, not saving money.

              1. Your citation fell off. BTW: All the articles that say the shutdown “cost the economy $11 billion” dont count because those are not costs to taxpayers.

                Its impossible for hundreds of thousands of federal workers who are not using monies above their back-paid salaries to spend more while they are on furlough.

                1. Funny side note: After more than 6 months, even on page 4 of Google, I could not find any total numbers of federal employees that quit because of the shutdown.

                  Its almost like the media does not want to address how Trump got piece of shit federal workers to quit and save taxpayers money.

                2. What? They didn’t work and still got paid. What about that don’t you understand?

                  1. Poor Chipper.

                    He does not understand how back pay is a lower cost than furloughed federal workers would have gotten with overtime, travel expenses, and other costs had they been at work.

                    1. There are other fringe benefit. My brother in law works for a government contracting firm. He is a project manager, and his company works with GS employees. His opposite number from the feds is a GS 15. I am told the GS employee is incredibly lazy, and incompetent. When the shut down happened, productivity among the contract firm workers went up dramatically.

                      My brother in law told me that the only problem they had with the shutdown was that it came to an end. The GS workers are that worthless.

                  2. Chipper thinks government runs at 100$ efficiency. How cute!

          3. What were the Congressional vote totals chipper?

        2. Trump has not done much to roll back entitlements, which are killing America.

          1. Congress has entitlements set on cruise control.

            Look at how Congress freaked out when Trump’s budget proposal cut most federal agencies by a 9%+.

            1. Rand Paul’s 2% was too much for congress.

              1. Yup. IIRC the 2% was across the board, while Trump’s 9%+ was all agency spending, except DoD and entitlements.

    2. Of course we want to revisit the 2016 election. Some people will never get over it, and whatever we can do to “correct” that will rally the troops. Not to mention media clicks and sales.

  3. Tim Pool: ‘Left Wing Media Activist Email Leak Shows How They Deplatform Political Rivals.’ So is this conspiracy to deprive people of civil rights under the civil rights laws? Or is it a conspiracy in restraint of trade — since the people targeted are often journalistic/pundit competitors — under the antitrust laws?

    1. The Resistance We Need: The Trump Administration Gears Up to Trust-Bust the Tech Giants
      The industry’s influence flourished most under President Obama, where Google’s presence, for example, was all but ubiquitous, with nearly 250 people shuttling one way or the other between government service and Google employment, and dozens of others going between the search giant and his campaign operations. Needless to say, the search giant had little to fear from corporate lawyer Eric Holder’s Justice Department, which was more interested in delivering politically correct homilies than protecting consumers or small businesses through anti-trust actions.

      1. Too bad the conservative courts will have the last say.

      2. the unholy alliance between conservatives and liberals to tear down tech companies they don’t like is a scary development.

        1. Tech companies thought they could buy off the left by supporting their social agenda and wanting immigrants. They were wrong. Tech brought this on themselves – I’m not shedding any tears.

          1. When you succumb to team politics you give away your principles and lay the groundwork for more bad team politics. Just because Facebook is run by a bunch of liberal douchebags doesn’t mean we should cheer heavy-handed government intervention.

            1. When you succumb to team politics you give away your principles and lay the groundwork for more bad team politics.

              No, that’s how you survive in a Darwinian social and political environment, which has been created by the same liberal douchebags for their ostensible benefit.

              “Go woke, get split up” doesn’t have the same poetic ring, but it is the best way to punish lefties with their own weapons.

        2. The unholy alliance between monopolistic tech companies and liberals is even scarier.

    2. Conservatives are just as bad! Snowflakes!

      1. But they are just as bad. When you finally realize that, Rufus, you will feel liberated.

        1. In light of the left’s activity over the last century or so, it takes an especially stupid motherfucker to think the right is just as bad. The right IS awful. The left is worse.

          Because at the end of the day, tens of millions dead is worse than restricting abortion.

          1. A lot of so-called lefties consider the Nazis to be right wing because they were … umm bad I guess. Despite the word Socialist being in the partys name.

            1. Liberals are 1984 in real life. They are worse than evangelicals who believe everything bad is from Satan. Liberals just replaced Satan with conservatism.

              See how they keep continuing the idiotic belief that Nixon flipped all of the KKK with his Southern Strategy. Look how they claim the Republicans were not at the forefront of civil rights and other freedom movements.

              Now we have Bernie trying to claim he was never authoritarian despite video of him praising communist Russia, Venezuela, Ortega, and Cuba.

  4. YouTube’s New Ban On Nazis Hits Reporter Who Documents Extremism, Professor Teaching About Hitler

    We need Hitler’s subtitled bunker reaction to this latest blunder.

    1. Once people forget about the Holocaust, due to disallowing any mention of it online, then muslims and free Palestine retards can finally destroy Israel.

      1. It is unlikely people will forget the Holocaust, and Israel’s existence is not contingent on the Holocaust in any case. Don’t forget the Israeli Air Force and the USA.

        1. Israeli foreign aid is at least partly dependent upon memories of the holocaust.

        2. Go look at some of the polling for exiting seniors. Many have no idea on any details of the holocaust. we literally just had a representative claiming allies of Hitler were trying to help Jews flee persecution. We had the media celebrate David Hogg copying the slogan for remembering the holocaust to use for gun control in hoggs awful book.

          1. That Hogg kids is pure poison. Let’s hope that he meets a brutal end at the hands of some rough trick.

    2. Hey, if most people never learn what real Nazis were like, it makes it much easier to use the Nazi label in present day arguments.

      1. Or fascism.

        Weiterally have multiple democratic presidential candidates pushing for economic patriotism.. something lifted right out of fascist Italy.

  5. Nothing on Mexico paying for border security?


    1. I’m just waiting for the new Amash is God article due any moment since he attacked Trump again.

  6. New regulations in New Jersey threaten to strangle the state’s craft brewery industry.

    Finding out if craft breweries know how to grease a palm.

    1. “Grease a Palm”

      New craft beer flavor?

      1. Palm Grease Ale. Goes down easy (most of the time), and leaves you sleazy.

        1. You are mistaken. You dont drink it, you shove the bottle up your ass and thank the crony company for fucking you.

        2. Don’t look for it in cans. It’s only available on graft.

  7. When does life not begin at conception for the life-begins-at-conception crowd?

    When it’s behind a paywall, obviously.

    1. TL;DR version: Conservatives claim that life begins at conception, yet their abortion bans provide exceptions that allow the destruction of fertilized eggs in vitro.

      So hypocrites or politicians or something.

      1. It was written by Molly Jong-Fast, it’s delusional to expect anything of worth being written by her.

        1. Are you suggesting that saying life begins at conception so must be protected and that one can kill embryos are not hypocritical positions?

          1. Or… different individuals have different opinions on these things.

            There are certainly plenty of people who oppose the destruction of frozen embryos.

            A politician carving out an exemption doesn’t contradict that.

            Something about the perfect being the enemy of the good?

          2. These positions aren’t necessarily hypocritical, although I would doubt that many on either side of the debate understand negative/positive rights and instead arrived there by accident or political expediency.

            If you believe that natural rights don’t include positive rights, then there’s no fundamental right to life that requires me to positively support fertilized eggs in a condition that allows them to live. But I could still respect the negative right to life that says I can’t physically destroy them against the wishes of a rightful owner of the eggs who would want to maintain the conditions that allow them to live. Fertilized eggs which haven’t reached the point of viability, for all practical purposes, should be the property of the parents (even though that’s a rather cold way to think about them).

            It’s the conclusion that Roe stumbled upon, essentially, with the idea of viability. If they are viable (self-sustaining) then keeping them alive requires no positive action from the mother and that right to life (negative) should be respected.

            1. Good explanation, Leo. I still think Walter Bloch has it right with evictionism.

              1. I completely agree. While he and I may not necessarily use the same words (I don’t think he invokes positive/negative rights in his writing on the subject), the implications are the same.

                I no more have the obligation to keep an unviable intruder on my property alive than a woman has an obligation to keep an unviable intruder in her body.

                That many pro-life conservatives believe that the state shouldn’t provide medical care for everyone and many pro-choice liberals do is the bigger hypocrisy. Believing in the distinction between positive/negative rights only when politically convenient is the real indication that your position isn’t rooted in any guiding principle.

                1. “I no more have the obligation to keep an unviable intruder on my property alive than a woman has an obligation to keep an unviable intruder in her body.”

                  A better analogy is having a guest (invited, btw) in your boat. Do you have the right to eject him so he drowns?

                  1. Block addresses that through the idea of contracts. You enter into an implied contract when you invite a person onto your boat (I think he uses airplane, but same concept) that you won’t expel them.

                    You can’t enter into a contract with a fetus that doesn’t exist at the time of intercourse, nor is it cognizant enough to enter into a contract anyway.

                    1. “You can’t enter into a contract with a fetus that doesn’t exist at the time of intercourse, nor is it cognizant enough to enter into a contract anyway.”

                      Ah, so he lamely and stupidly hides behind legal constructs because his position is so weak.

                    2. I thought we were talking about the legality of abortion, thus the whole “legal constructs” aspect of my argument.

                      I’d be happy to talk about the morality of abortion. I think it’s immoral.

                    3. We are. That’s why I said “he lamely and stupidly hides behind legal constructs because his position is so weak.”

                      His position and yours relies on a very favorable, immutable definition of who can and cannot enter into a contract.

                      Nothing about your favored definition is immutable, so as a postiion, it is easily mooted.

                    4. Tulpa, serious question. What practical limits are there, if any, on a person’s “right to life?”

                2. Leo is fine with running through hospitals pulling plus of all coma patients!

                  1. JesseAz continues to show that he doesn’t understand the difference between positive rights and negative rights, nor why libertarians might care.

                    Would you be willing to have taxpayers pay for keeping all coma patients alive?

                    1. Way to dodge that one Leo.

                    2. Leo, can you try an honest argument for once? If your argument is predicated on viability, then you agree we can kill patients in comas, extremely disabled people, etc.

                      You used the term, not me. You have a weak and sophomoric argument. Sorry I pointed it out.

        2. It was written by Molly Jong-Fast, it’s delusional to expect anything of worth being written by her.

          How about attacking the argument on its merits, rather than succumbing to the genetic fallacy?

            1. Alanis Morisette called…
              Irony – A figure of speech in which the intended meaning is the opposite of that expressed by the words used; usually taking the form of sarcasm or ridicule in which laudatory expressions are used to imply condemnation or contempt.

              Or is it your contention that CMW really meant something the opposite of what he said?

              1. He, you, and others constantly use the genetic fallacy against me.

                Which would have been obvious and saved you making a fool of yourself if you had any self awareness.

                1. I was trying to match your normal level of pedantry. Even if what you are saying is true, you’ve misused the word “irony”

                  1. It appears that you realize you were wrong and it was use perfectly and now you’re just trying to save face because you realize you look even dumber.

                    the most fascinating part about this is that it’s obvious to everyone you’re lying about your actual motivation based on your original post and then your second post on the subject however for some reason you think we can I see that you’re lying about this and instead continue to lie because you’re embarrassed about how stupid you look

                    1. “I totally misunderstood what you were saying, but I’m going to pretend I didn’t and lie about my motivation” – you in that post

                  2. “Even if what you are saying is true, you’ve misused the word “irony””

                    Jfc, how are you this stupid?

                    His statement wasn’t ironic. Him bitching like a scalded dog about doing things he does himself IS.

                    “a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often amusing as a result”

                    The IRONY is that he does it himself. One EXPECTS based on his admonition that he is not an offender, but he IS.


                    God damn man HOW ARE YOU THIS STUPID?

                  3. “I was trying to match your normal level of pedantry”

                    Nah, you’re just a, sad fucking liar who realizes he looks stupid and can’t stand it. That lame ass fucking excuse doesn’t help.

      2. Would she provide any exceptions that allow viable fetuses to not be killed?

        1. She could not be reached for comment.

    2. Clearly we need federal funding for abortion… related articles.

    3. Apparently, any compromise position by the pro life side is just hypocrisy to the pro–aborts. Practical politics to nudge the law closer to your principles is unacceptable. It is all or nothing, black and white, winner take all.

      I guess that explains the extremist pro-abortion legislation in New York and Virginia that deems it unacceptable for a child who survives being aborted to be given any legal protections. Acknowledging the other side may have some points is unacceptable weakness.

  8. Members of the House of Representatives vote tomorrow “on a civil contempt resolution against Attorney General William Barr and former White House counsel Don McGahn.”

    “I resolve to vote along party lines.”

    1. No, I predict Amash will vote for contempt and Sollum or Gillispie will run an article on how dreamy he is.

      1. TDS is all important for these people. Never mind that Trump and a few cabinet members are some of the very few people in the government today actually trying to rollback this bloated federal government.

      2. Apparently Amash now denies coequal branches of government on top of his hate for the fourth and fifth amendments. Who cares of the underlying crime was bogus, we have people Amash doesnt like to string up.

        1. The important point is NOT that the crime was bogus, it is that Trump knew no crime was committed and he nothing to fear, i.e. nothing to cover up, which is a key component for obstruction.

          1. So basically he’s an idiot, not a crook. The old Nixon defense.

            1. Everything Trump does is random.

              He could not possibly be smart enough to turn millions into billions and take on Deep State bureaucrats and win.

            2. Nixon willfully and knowing he had committed a crime, had tapes erased and paid off criminals . Not even remotely similar.

          2. Trump not being scared and giving in to the Deep State and Democrats because he KNEW that he had not committed a crime put the deepest fear in Lefties.

            Imagine if Americans simply fight back and ignore the threats of the Socialists.

  9. California is exactly what Koch / Reason libertarians should want the entire country to look like.

    California will become the first state to pay for some adults living in the country illegally to have full health benefits.

    Of course, we libertarians generally want to reduce government spending. However, an exception should be made for government spending that encourages immigration.


    1. Awesome.
      Free minds, markets, and healthcare!

      Does it include penis and bosoms enhancements?

      Asking for my illegal alien neighbors.

      1. Only penis enhancements for her; bosom enhancement for him.

    2. OBL, how did you miss article on the Koch memo saying they are going to start funding Democrats as long as they are open border and dont like trumps trade deals.

      1. I believe I posted about that exciting development the other day.


    3. From the article: “To pay for part of it, the state agreed to start taxing people who don’t have health insurance. ”

      Unbelievable. Tax the citizens who are too poor to buy their own health insurance and clearly don’t have a job that provides it, to spend that money to give free healthcare to illegal immigrants.

      You can’t make up this madness if you tried.

  10. A bill is being introduced in New York to fully decriminalize sex work.

    Pretty soon there will be no more easy arrests and prosecutions to be had.

    1. Do you have a prostitution permit?

      1. Hes not the international planned parenthood, so no.

    2. Not to mention free BJs.

    3. Decriminalize instead of legalize? Three cheers for completely arbitrary enforcement. At least the State Attorney General will be safe to indulge from now on.

  11. Kamala Harris Tries (Again) to Rewrite Her History as a Prosecutor of Petty Crimes

    Kamala Rouge strike again!

  12. Well said about Harris.

    She exudes bad news and has the authenticity of cheap Chinese Gucci knock offs from Canal St.

  13. California Dems agree to full health benefits for many low-income illegal immigrants, in swipe at Trump

    Please vote for the Democrat Party! We need you illegals to beat Trump because most of America hates the Democrat Party.

    1. But the open border crowd swore to me no illegal immigrants use government services!

    2. If California wants to fund their healthcare, so what? As long as the other 49 states are NEVER asked to bail out CA when it crashes. I’d like to see some sane Senator introduce such legislation.

      1. Oh, and by the way, end the part of that funding that is federal tax money?

      2. Medicare and Medicaid receive federal taxpayer monies.

        Taxifornia knows this, which is why they are fine with buying votes in federal elections with non-California taxpayer money,

      3. Except that California has a terrible history of separating illegal and legal immigrants in their databases, see DMV database. So why do you think they wont attempt to slip them into federal repayment?

    1. The opioid crisis that almost perfectly follows with states who had Medicaid expansions… good times.

      1. ^THIS

        The media NEVER mentions this. Give “free” medical care to shitbird drug addicts and they suddenly have all sorts of injuries that require pain meds. They dont have to pay, so yippee, more external costs to taxpayers.

  14. Sexually Transmitted Infections Spread to 1 Million Daily

    This is all the Republicans’ fault. They’re always trying to defund Planned Parenthood.


    1. I read a story over the weekend about all thousands of cases of children with HIV they’re finding in Pakistan. They’re trying to pin it all on one doctor, but it’s apparently about widespread reuse of needles in clinics all over country.

      Antivaxxers may have a point about vaccinations being more dangerous than people realize–if you’re living in Pakistan.

      Has there ever been a country with more highly educated elite that is more fucked up than Pakistan? If there’s ever been a better argument against the idea that a highly educated elite is the key to economic development–better than India–surely it must be Pakistan.

      Isn’t it generally known by women in the U.S. that if you don’t see your healthcare provider take the syringe out of the plastic yourself, you don’t let them inject you with it? I’d be surprised if the solution to this problem doesn’t have something to do with Pakistan failing to educate their women.

      1. Has there ever been a country with more highly educated elite that is more fucked up than Pakistan?

        I seem to remember a state in Central Europe that was very highly educated that caused a couple of dustups back in the 20th C.

      2. I seriously doubt that Americans would ever stop to consider that their doc might be reusing a needle.

        1. I’m probably biased for having worked in a hospital.

          They used to purposely NOT flag HIV patients on their charts because we were supposed to treat every patients as if they had HIV, especially considering that HIV doesn’t always show up for a while and plenty of people are HIV+ but just haven’t been tested. Flag the ones who are known to have HIV, and you’re likely to let your guard down when people aren’t flagged. Treat them all as if they have HIV, and you’re a lot safer. Oh, and things like hepatitis are far more contagious from exposure to blood anyway.

          The other thing that was amazing to me was that one of the most common accidents was nurses and needle sticks–the overwhelming majority of which were nurses recapping needles. There is only one good reason to recap a needle–when you’re a surgical nurse and need to maintain a sterile field on an instrument tray. Even then, the solution is to recap it one-handed–and it was never the surgical nurses that stuck themselves. It was always the others. They had no reason to recap needles! There were used needle receptacles in every room. You use it. You throw it away. You throw the cap away. That’s it.

          If you can’t trust a nurse not to try to recap a needle unnecessarily–not even to save her own life–then why would you trust someone who came into the room to inject you with a needle you didn’t see come out of the package wearing rubber gloves you didn’t see them put on? There’s an Infection Control professional in every hospital whose job it is to set procedures and see that they’re followed, and it’s one of the worst kinds of jobs, as far as I’m concerned, because most of the failures are about people just not doing what they know they’re supposed to do.

          Our IT guy once sent an innocuous program called “bunny” to the managers in charge of educating their subordinates about proper security procedures. This was right after they’d been given a seminar about how to do things and what not to do. If they clicked on the .exe file, it turned the volume all the way up on their speakers and shouted, “Hey everybody! Come to my office! I’m in here watching PORNO! YEEEEEEEEEEEE-HAW!” A bunch of them, in groups and one by one, came to tell him how funny his attachment was. Why not just resign instead

          Congratulations. You just demonstrated to the CEO that you can be given a full day seminar on what not to do, and you’re so dumb that you’ll come to the IT office and brag about ignoring everything you learned.

          There is no good substitute for thinking for yourself. There is no good reason to place your faith in people you don’t know. I suspect women know more about this stuff than men, because they tend to be more interested in this stuff–for whatever reason–especially when it comes to the health of their children. Suffice it to say that for every one of the thousands of three year old and under babies who have tested positive for HIV in Pakistan, it is likely that there was a mother who stood there and watched someone inject their baby with a disposable syringe that they didn’t see come out of the wrapper with their own eyes.

          I’d like to think that the more educated women become, the more likely they are to question what’s being done to them and their children, and I know that Pakistan has a hard time with educating women.

  15. Iowa Poll: Joe Biden leads, followed by Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg

    The Party of slavery leadership is having its White men lead the pack!?!


    1. OLD white men, the worst kind. They are old enough to remember slavery.

    2. The bottom of the pack better start professing their love of ethanol if they want a chance.

  16. Did you guys know that it’s possible for a charitable group to sponsor a prosecutor in a state Attorney General’s office, much like a charitable organization endows a professor at a university?

    “NYU Law School’s State Energy and Environmental Impact Center (SEEIC) finances the salaries and benefits of legal fellows in the New York Attorney General’s office as “special assistant attorneys general.” The program began in 2017 and is bankrolled by Bloomberg Philanthropies.

    Funding is only available to state AGs committed to “advancing progressive clean energy, climate change, and environmental legal positions,” according to the group’s August 2017 email to numerous AGs obtained by Chris Horner, a former fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. In other words, an outside group is funding legal services for AGs who pursue the group’s political priorities.”

    This practice is coming under fire over the state Attorneys General lawsuit against ExxonMobile for supposedly misleading investors about the costs of climate change.

    The prosecutor who signed the complaint against ExxonMobile for the state of New York is on the payroll of Bloomberg Philanthropies.

    Bloomberg Philanthropies has about half of Michael Bloomberg’s $50 billion fortune behind it, and they’re heavily invested in political advocacy associated with climate change. There’s nothing wrong with that, per se, but how can it be appropriate for a climate change oriented political advocacy group to pay for the salary and benefits of someone in the New York Attorney General’s office who is prosecuting ExxonMobile over climate change?

    1. Don’t give The Bros any ideas.

      1. They’re already doing this. They’ve been doing it since 2017.

    2. It is totally not a bribe to pay the salaries of government officials.

      1. Shouldn’t that significantly weigh on the preponderance of the evidence when the jury is informed that the prosecutor’s salary is being paid by a political advocacy group that’s fighting against climate change?

        Can ExxonMobile’s due process rights be respected if the jury isn’t made aware of that fact? The jury’s job isn’t just to determine whether the prosecution’s case wins by a preponderance of the evidence. It’s also to weigh the credibility of evidence, witnesses, and the prosecution.

        If a witness for the defense were being paid by ExxonMobile, wouldn’t the prosecutor be within his rights to point that fact out to the jury? Why shouldn’t the defense be free to point out that the prosecutor is essentially being paid by the plaintiff–and why shouldn’t that influence the jury?

        1. Seeing as how the DoJ fought a lawsuit in the 90s the would have allowed defense teams to highlight pleas deals of witnesses used against them and disallow the DoJ of using threats of harsh punishments to get a plea deal…

          Isnt it also illegal currently to argue breathalyzers have wide error bars for resulta?

  17. McMarxist from the Bronx is unbelievably immature.

    Pst. You’re in Congress now woman. Play the part and speak and write professionally. And knock it off with the stupid emojis.

    And go learn to properly calculate interest.

    1. Solar panels on jails! What dint you understand?!?

      1. Put the prisoners on bikes to generate electricity, split the profits with them.

    2. Play the part and speak and write professionally.

      She’s using language that people these days understand. Just like the president does.

      1. Yeh well he’s far funnier and likely part of an overall tactic.

        She’s just an illiberal twit.

      2. So you’re saying public schools in general have failed.

    3. Hey, if we are going to lower the voting age (ultimately to birth) we need to communicate accordingly.

      Vote for the fuzzy bear emoji!

  18. Kamala plagiarized her slogan from Morgan & Morgan:

    Morgan & Morgan: For the People</a.

    1. In any event, it’s a pretty lame slogan.

      I suggest “Kamala, Shmamala”.

      1. “I suck so you don’t have to”

        1. The video of Salwell going for an applaud line on his slogan was hard to watch.

          1. Swalwell is the Ron Burgundy of the current crop of Dem hopefuls.

  19. Top Iran diplomat warns US it cannot ‘expect to stay safe’

    “Mr. Trump himself has announced that the U.S. has launched an economic war against Iran,” Zarif said. “The only solution for reducing tensions in this region is stopping that economic war.”

    Zarif also warned: “Whoever starts a war with us will not be the one who finishes it.”

    Boehm and Zarif are right. This is a Trade War!

  20. Beto speaks to empty pews at Iowa church

    Welch’s Beto-Boner just got harder. Nothing like pushing for a Socialist candidate that cannot even fill a church to listen to him.

    1. And it didn’t go well:

      Beto addressed desegregation in Texas as the audience listened quietly. A lone person coughed.

      1. A lonely person coughed?

  21. Jack Dorsey, Emily Weiss and 185 other CEOs sign letter calling abortion bans ‘bad for business’

    This is the type of thing I show my progressive friends when they complain about “the rich” and “the corporations” having too much influence in politics. In fact, rich people are on the right side of history on issues like immigration and abortion access, so their influence is welcome.


    1. Kids are bad for business… Probably true but usually companies are not so forthright about it.

    2. But post birth abortions? Those are toots sweet. They have no problems with those States.

  22. David Frum, one of the few remaining respectable conservatives, explains what Tulsi Gabbard’s campaign is all about.

    Gabbard is not running for the Democratic nomination. She’s running for a third party line to help re-elect Trump

    What else would you expect from Putin’s favorite Democrat?


  23. The article on holding Barr in contempt for his contempt suggests that support or opposition to an impeachment inquiry is determined by whether people are liberals or so called moderates and that’s not neccessarily true. There are plenty of so called conservatives who favor impeachment and some true blue liberals for all sorts of different reasons. I think it’s a mistake to believe views on healthcare or military spending determine the question of removing the grifter in chief.

  24. Democrats complain about debates.

    Why not have a debate tournament? A series of 30-minute one-on one debates with the winner advancing? With 24 candidates you could have 8 ‘seeded’ candidates that get a bye in the first round. Have 101 ‘neutral’ Democrat voters in the audience as the judges. That would be great TV. I’m guessing the actual debates will be as interesting as watching water evaporate off the driveway.

    1. I’m hoping the actual debates will be more like watching water evaporate off a frying pan.

      1. I recently read that FOX will not be permitted to broadcast the upcoming Dem debates this summer. The DNC has some issue with their reporting.

        I got the idea that FOX should make a short puppet show of the Dem debates using puppets for each of the 15 or so candidates. Make the puppets look exactly like the candidates and have them debate using the most ridiculous statements the various people have made, and of course add some exaggerations to make it as ridiculous as possible. FOX could run this in the same time slot as the debates, and then put it on YouTube.

        You might have them argue about abortion, each one extending it into older and older ages: “Fourth trimester?? How about 40th trimester? That would give the mother real freedom to choose!!” “Why should we end it at all? It would save the mother’s mental health if she didn’t have to listen to backtalk from those brats.” “And they should be free!” “Free, no these poor moms need reparations for being impregnated due to testosterone poisoning. Make it at least $50,000. More if the fetus is older than 3 years.”

        Or socialism: “America has been successfully implementing socialism for decades – look at Social Security and Medicare. I am fully in support of such social programs.” “Oh yeah, well I think that’s a pale imitation of the real thing! We need cradle to grave security, guaranteed jobs, and government regulation of farming.” “And we definitely need to root out anti-government activists and lock them away … for the children. We could establish ‘safe spaces’ for them, away from the cities. Maybe on government farms or in government mines.” “Indeed, a string of such camps to show the dignity of labor – you know, labor camps. Like a string of small islands with only the good agricultural practices. What’s the word for that again…?” “An archipelago. We could call it a Good-Ag Archipelago!”

        And free stuff. “Health care is a human right. Medicare for all!” “Not just healthcare. You know what’s even more important …. FOOD. Food must be a human right, too. Free food for all”. “And how about housing? Who wants their fellow citizens to sleep out on the streets? Free housing for all!” “And not some little hovel, each person must have at least 1,000 sq ft of space.” “With nice furniture and a modern kitchen!” “And a two car garage.” Etc, etc, etc

        In following weeks, to keep it interesting, the puppets might be replaced with cartoons, or marionettes, or just faces painted on someone’s hand (like they did on Big Chuck/Little John.

        Ridicule is very effective at downgrading someone’s standing, their reputation. Remember “I can see Russia from my house.”??

        Do you think this would interest FOX or the RNC?

        1. +100000

        2. Which part is the exaggeration?

          1. The idea that FOX or the RNC would have such imagination.

            1. LOL true that.

        3. In following weeks, to keep it interesting, the puppets might be replaced with cartoons, or marionettes, or just faces painted on someone’s hand (like they did on Big Chuck/Little John.

          Ridicule is very effective at downgrading someone’s standing, their reputation. Remember “I can see Russia from my house.”??

          Do you think this would interest FOX or the RNC?

          *Sheds tear for Sifl, Olly, and MTV of yesteryear*

    2. Trump could organize the contest.

    3. I could go for that. I have no real interest in seeing them argue about who is more socialist than who, but I could go for a gambling pool based on the debate ladder.

  25. > Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.) has been calling for birth control pills to be sold over-the-counter:

    A stopped clock is right twice a day! I’ve been arguing this for years. Make the morning after pill over the counter too.

    Some birth controls need a prescription. Some of them actually require surgical implanting or special fitting and the like. It simply would not be feasible to get them at your local Rite-Aid. But birth control pills can be. And their easy availability would due wonders in reducing abortion. Which is why so many proggies are opposed to it. And why OCA will soon have to recant this suggestion or be excommunicated.

    1. Come on, the only thing worse than restrictions on abortion is the chance of eliminating abortion as a political issue.

    2. A lot of things should be available OTC that are not. But yeah, BC and MA pills should definitely be available OTC. I wonder if some leftists are secretly against that to preserve it as a wedge issue to polarize the electorate.

      1. Indeed, the worst thing in the world for “activists” of any kind is to get exactly what they say they want. They wouldn’t know what to do with themselves.

    3. Id be more impressed if she called for all drugs to be sold over the counter.

      1. At the very least, all steroids and sex (gender?) hormones, for consistency.

  26. “When does life not begin at conception for the life-begins-at-conception crowd?”

    And the link is to an opinion piece in the New York Times which casually throws off the accusation that prolifers oppose “maternal health and early-childhood programs.”

    For one thing, why would that be a problem for libertarians if that were true?

    And the aid which prolifers give, out of their own pockets, to unwed mothers, apparently doesn’t count – nor does the fact that choicers are trying to restrict or close down the prolife women’s centers.

    As for the main point of the article, it shows that many Republicans (not to mention immigration officials) don’t treat personhood as always beginning at conception.

    Considering that Republicans are scum, almost as bad as Democrats, and that prolifers have to drag them kicking and screaming into supporting *any* protection for the unborn, this is not shocking information.

    1. Abortion violates a right to not be killed.

      Refusing to provide maternal health and childhood programs does not.

      As libertartians, they should know that.

    2. It is almost as if the prolifers are trying to pass something which aligns better with their point of view and is acceptable to enough to get a majority and may save some lives. Apparently, that is too sneaky for NYT writers too comprehend the Right doing.

  27. Why Don’t White Athletes Understand What’s Wrong With Trump?
    The Red Sox players who visit the White House owe their black and brown teammates an explanation.

    As Ms Hill once wrote: “Rooting for the Celtics is like saying Hitler was a victim. “

    1. For those who don’t click the link, yes, the establishment media is now fully opposed to free speech.

    2. Thanks for the link and all the best.

      1. It appears that Vox and the NYT are part of the thought police looking for thoughtcrimes on youtube.

  28. Your next president will be Elizabeth Warren. Choke on it, morons.

    1. I look forward to the Green New Deal when we will all transport on foot, by bicycle, canoe, and solar powered trains.

      Don’t take a plane = flight shame your friends

    2. If that;s who gets chosen through the constitutionally-designated means, then her presidency must be endured.

      I mean, who would want to freak out, riot, and use the n-word (“nazi”) over a fellow-citizen being duly elected to the Presidency?

    3. Does Putin really like her that much?

    4. “Your next president will be Elizabeth Warren. Choke on it, morons.”

      Really? So unappealing, and so unpopular. I figured you would be touting Bernie, or Butt-gag. Or one of the other turds.

      But Warren?

      1. Maybe he has fantasies about being paddled by a schoolmarm.

    5. oh good lord. You are wrong on so many things but this may be your biggest wrongness yet.

    6. Now we’ll all remember where we were on 6/10/19 at 12:18 pm, when Tony said something stupid.

      1. Tony says stupid shit everytime hes on here.

        Tony will off himself live at reason after Trump wins reelection.

    7. Tony is 1/1024 correct.

      In other words, wrong.

  29. What crime could be more petty than carrying a firearm in public without the “right” piece of paper.

    The Shooting Of Justine Ruszczyk: How Mindless Tribalism Makes Justice Impossible

    But enough about Barack Obama…

  30. “He promised health care and then he tried to rip health care away from millions of people. What’s that called? Health care fraud.

    But enough about Barack Obama…

  31. just before I looked at the paycheck four $6755, I accept that my friend could realey making money in there spare time online.. there friend brother haz done this less than 22 months and resently cleard the morgage on their appartment and purchased a great new Acura. I went here,

  32. Why do you all keep misspelling “persecutor” when you write stories about this bitch?


Please to post comments