Reason Roundup

Banned Microplastics Pose No Risk to Human Health, Says World Health Organization

Plus: More on the 1619 Project, a chart shows how crazy U.S. military spending is, and more...

|

No evidence microplastics in water harm human health. As folks rush to stop everything from exfoliating soaps to plastic straws in the name of preventing water pollution, here's another reminder that they're following the ban-first-ask-questions-later model that's all too common among governments. According to a new study from the World Health Organization (WHO), "no data suggests overt health concerns associated with exposure to microplastic particles through drinking-water."

"Microplastics"—small pieces of plastic, generally defined as less than five millimeters long—can come from bigger pieces of plastic breaking down and also from the "microbeads" sometimes used in products like body wash and toothpaste.

The federal government banned microbead usage in cosmetics and toiletries back in 2015, and states have also passed their own bans. But "microbeads are not a recent problem," notes the National Ocean Service. "Plastic microbeads first appeared in personal care products about fifty years ago, with plastics increasingly replacing natural ingredients. As recently as 2012, this issue was still relatively unknown."

Now, the WHO review has found no evidence that these microplastics are a danger to human health, despite being "ubiquitous in the environment and…detected in marine water, wastewater, fresh water, food, air and drinking-water, both bottled and tap water." In analyzing 50 previous studies on the subject, WHO researchers determined that "microplastics greater than 150 μm are not likely to be absorbed in the human body and uptake of smaller particles is expected to be limited."

Furthermore, they found "a low health concern for human exposure to chemicals [in plastics] through ingestion of drinking-water, even in extreme exposure circumstances." As for "chemicals and microbial pathogens associated with microplastics" in water, "no reliable information suggests it is a concern."

As the WHO notes, this doesn't mean there are no environmental risks to overabundant plastic use. But the group cautions that "care must be taken…so that addressing one problem does not simply result in the creation of a new one." (See, for instance, the new, non-reusable paper straws McDonald's has employed to replace its recyclable plastic ones.) It adds that the "benefits of plastic must also be considered before introducing policies and initiatives. For example, single-use syringes play an important role in preventing infections. Priority management actions should be "no regrets," in that they confer multiple benefits and/or that they are cost-effective."


FREE MINDS

Damon Linker on The New York Times' 1619 Project:

For those who haven't been following along, this past weekend the paper devoted the entirety (just under 100 pages) of The New York Times Magazine, along with a separate stand-alone section of the Sunday paper, to a breathtakingly ambitious and ideologically radical undertaking—nothing less than the telling of the story of American history, perhaps for the very first time, "truthfully."

Inside, a note from NYTM editor Jake Silverstein informs his readers that it is wrong to trace the true origin of the United States to the founding of the English settlement in Jamestown, Virginia, in 1607, or to the landing of the Puritans at Plymouth Rock in 1620, or to the publication of the Declaration of Independence in 1776. Instead, the Times proposes to overturn such mythmaking in favor of an effort to "reframe American history," treating 1619 as "our nation's birth year."

Linker considers the Times project important, illuminating, and ambitious, but he takes issue with the "reframing American history" bit. "Achieving that goal has required the Times to treat history in a highly sensationalistic, reductionistic, and tendentious way, with the cumulative result resembling agitprop more than responsible journalism or scholarship," Linker writes, offering a critique of some of the specific pieces (including a nuanced read of a piece challenging views on slavery and capitalism).


FREE MARKETS

A reminder how vastly the U.S. outpaces other countries on defense spending:

Or, as Cato's Julian Sanchez commented, "NATO doesn't make us blow $690 billion a year on welfare for Raytheon. That's pretty much on us."


ELECTION 2020


QUICK HITS

  • "'It was because Adolf Hitler and his party faced so much criticism and resistance among the press that I became particularly interested in joining their movement,' wrote a party member named Friedrich Jörns": Vice looks at old letters from Nazis.
  • "A Colorado man who says he was delivering legal hemp to Minnesota is facing up to 36 years in prison after being arrested last month in Jackson County by South Dakota troopers who accused him of possessing and selling marijuana," reports the Rapid City Journal. "Herzberg's arrest and charges is the latest incident illustrating how South Dakota's hemp and CBD oil laws are distinct from many other states and can cause confusion about which products are legal."
  • Evergreen reminder:

  • The Donald Trump reelection campaign is "celebrating women's suffrage" by touting "the achievements of President Trump on behalf of women."
  • Is Trump an anti-Semite?

NEXT: How I Was a Criminal Defendant in a N.J. Harassment Case

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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Breaking: Gov. Jay Inslee announces on @maddow that he’s leaving the 2020 presidential race.

    I missed where he announced he was in it.

    1. Hello.

      1609, 1617. Whatever. Project on projection? NYT editor found to be rrrracist!

      https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/08/22/exclusive-crappy-jew-year-new-york-times-editors-antisemitism-racism-exposed/

      1. See, I don’t have to read Breitbart. All their talking points make their way into this comment section.

        1. You don’t have to read it because your ignorant assumptions are good enough for you. You feel comfortable in a state if ignorance. You’re consistent on this point.

        2. You people play rough.

          1. We ain’t hockey playing sissies!!

    2. So did everyone else. Not even sure who this guy is. My understanding is his single-issue candidacy was stopping Climate Change. I guess he discovered how much people give a shit about it. He wasn’t invited to a CNN debate on climate change with the presidential candidates. My understanding was that was the nail in the coffin.

      1. He wasn’t invited to a CNN debate on climate change with the presidential candidates.

        They aren’t sure if they’re going to have a debate:

        Democratic National Committee officials will vote today on whether to hold a presidential primary debate focused only on climate change.

        “The climate crisis is an emergency and we need the DNC to start acting like it,” says Nicole Karsch, action lead for the Sunrise Movement in Philadelphia.

        At a recent protest the group staged there, a few dozen young people held yellow and black signs calling for a climate debate. Their focus was a building where they thought Pennsylvania’s Democratic Party had an office.

        Protesters staged a sit-in in the building lobby. Police arrested 11 people and led them out to a van in plastic handcuffs. The group says the activists were released a short time later.

        There was a hitch though — there is no Democratic Party office in that building. Sunrise organizers say they got bad information.

        Caution: Extreme levels of both idiocy and vocal frying from both men and women.

        The timeless question of whether the DNC should cater to morons who get arrested protesting at the wrong building…

        1. Agh! Tag fail!

          1. Agh! Tag fail!

            1. They brought Blockquote back!

    3. I saw an Inslee sticker at a shopping center near my house. That was the first and last time I ever heard that name.

  2. Trump also said he’s seriously considering an end to birthright citizenship…

    And immediate revocation of CNN’s birth certificate.

    1. You misspelled AOC

  3. “Breaking: Gov. Jay Inslee announces on @maddow that he’s leaving the 2020 presidential race.”

    I don’t even know who that is but I’m sure he’s better than Tulsi Gabbard.

    #GabbardRussia

  4. Why Kamala Harris’ star is fading.

    She was just too cop for this world.

    1. “Someday you will find me
      Caught beneath the landslide
      In a champagne supernova in the sky”

    2. Kamala Rouge

  5. Texas executed a likely innocent man last night.

    Sacrificed so that our cherished institutions can stand rock solid.

    1. Guy’s last words.
      “Lord forgive ’em,” he said. “They don’t know what they’re doing.”

      It will fly over the heads of those in the criminal justice system just like they never apologize to defendants released after hard work by the Innocence Project.

      The corrupt cops, prosecutors, and judges never think they are part of the problem.

  6. Inside, a note from NYTM editor Jake Silverstein informs his readers that it is wrong to trace the true origin of the United States to the founding of the English settlement in Jamestown, Virginia, in 1607, or to the landing of the Puritans at Plymouth Rock in 1620, or to the publication of the Declaration of Independence in 1776. Instead, the Times proposes to overturn such mythmaking in favor of an effort to “reframe American history,” treating 1619 as “our nation’s birth year.”

    Telling whites none of their contributions to American history matter and they should only feel shame for being white. Yeah, that won’t help create a white racial identity movement or anything. Nope. Whites are all self loathing assholes like those who work at the New York Times.

    1. Actually the 1619 Project is a necessary step in building support for reparations for slavery. And as usual, the Democrats are on the right side of history on this issue, with several of their Presidential candidates expressing openness to paying the tens of trillions of dollars African Americans are owed.

      I look forward to Reason’s racial justice correspondent Shikha Dalmia presenting “The Libertarian Case for Reparations” in time for the 2020 election.

      #LibertariansForReparations

      1. Greeks owned slaves too. Do I get reparations?

          1. Which races get equivalence? Egyptians, Iraqis, asian?

            1. Blacks.
              Only blacks.
              Only blacks living in the USA.
              Only blacks living in the USA who were never slaves.
              You haven’t been paying attention.

      2. Give it up, OBL. It’s not sarcastic when the people you are attempting to parody actual say the same things.

        1. #ThatsThePoint

      3. And as usual, the Democrats are on the right side of history on this issue,

        With their racism and anti-capitalism, I’d say Democrats are on the far, far right side of history.

    2. Isn’t white the amalgamation of all the colors in the world?

      JUST. SAYING.

      1. Depends. Are you mixing light or paint?

        1. Color.

          He’s mixing color.

          Paint can HAVE color, Leo, but it isn’t A color.

    3. Also, foregoing loads and loads of laudable African American history to focus on a singular happenstance where pirates sold some slaves they captured probably isn’t going to do much to ingratiate you with the African American community either.

      Fuck Douglass, Attucks, Marshall, Truth, Tubman, Parks, Carver, King, Thomas, Powell, etc., etc. we’ve got to focus on some no-name slaves who’s only notoriety is that they were bought from Africa by the Portuguese and sold to Americans by pirates.

  7. “Why Kamala Harris’ star is fading.”

    I’m confident my favorite progressive prosecutor can turn things around. Democratic voters are smart enough to see through Tulsi Gabbard’s flagrantly dishonest misrepresentation of her record.

    #LibertariansForHarris

    1. Its fading because she was never a star and realized you cant sleep with 350 million voters to get into a position of power. Works at the state level, country not so much.

  8. “Support President Trump and his efforts to help America grow!”

    People are going to be disappointed when they look at a globe instead of a map and find that Greenland is actually tinier than the president’s hands.

    1. “I was in the pool!”
      – Greenland

    2. “…..and the whole motherfucking rust belt here is….hey, Mulvaney, which state is this?”
      “That’s Greenland, Mr. President.”
      “Ok, fine, but which state owns that island? It’s so big.”
      “Sir, that’s, uh, not part of the United States. That’s….um….part of Denmark, technically, but sort of its own country.”
      “Are you kidding me? We don’t own that? That could be one of the biggest islands in the world.”
      “It is the biggest.”
      “Mulvaney, I am getting chubbed. I am gonna buy it. Call Denmark. It’s time to make a deal. Let’s get this done today.”

      1. Good one

    3. I liked Bob’s suggestion to John on how to make the country grow; more Bridget Bardot!

      1. Only if you include a time machine.

  9. It was because Adolf Hitler and his party faced so much criticism and resistance among the press that I became particularly interested in joining their movement…

    You know who else has been making much out of press opposition lately?

    1. Bernie Sanders.

    2. Miley Cyrus?

    3. Boris Johnson?

  10. The Donald Trump reelection campaign is “celebrating women’s suffrage” by touting “the achievements of President Trump on behalf of women.”

    Life of Julia, Part II

  11. Wait until the anti micro plastic crowd finds out what Miralax is.

  12. Trump believes all the anti-Semitic stereotypes about Jews. But he sees those traits as admirable.

    Trump probably rooted for the Ferengi.

    1. If the traits are admirable, they aren’t “anti-semitic”.
      QED

    2. Hell, I often rooted for Quark. Sisko and the rest of the Federation (especially Picard) could be so damn smug and condescending.

  13. NEW from DOJ:
    While non-U.S. citizens make up 7% of the U.S. population, they accounted for:
    24% of all federal drug arrests
    25% of all federal property arrests
    28% of all federal fraud arrests

    https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/icfjs9818.pdf

    Now I expect Reason to say, no one should be in jail for drugs, citizen or non-citizen. And whether non-citizens commit crimes is irrelevant to their belief that anyone should be able to cross any border for any purpose. But maybe, and I know I am hoping against hope, they’ll stop with the immigrants commit crimes at a lower rate than natives nonsense.

    1. While non-U.S. citizens make up 7% of the U.S. population, they accounted for:
      24% of all federal drug arrests
      25% of all federal property arrests
      28% of all federal fraud arrests

      This is a highly misleading statistic. OF COURSE there are going to be disproportionately more non-citizens prosecuted for federal crimes, because immigration matters are (almost) exclusively the domain of federal law enforcement authorities. The feds do not investigate every drug crime, property crime, or instance of fraud; they only investigate the ones that are within their jurisdiction, which includes a substantial immigration portfolio. Most of the drug crimes, property crimes, and instances of fraud, are prosecuted at the state level.

      These statistics say very little about the propensity of various groups to commit crime, and instead only speak to the jurisdictions of the relevant authorities.

      But maybe, and I know I am hoping against hope, they’ll stop with the immigrants commit crimes at a lower rate than natives nonsense.

      If you want to have reliable data to support that claim, you have to look at all of the relevant jurisdictions that are prosecuting those crimes, not just the federal one.

      1. I like how Jeff didnt even bother to investigate his own assumptions to see if true. There was a study done a few years ago about the crimes federal prisoners committed based on immigration status… try educating yourself instead of ignoring facts you downtime with baseless assumptions you pull out of your ass.

        1. There was a study done a few years ago about the crimes federal prisoners committed based on immigration status

          Do you have a link to this study?

          And in any event, looking only at FEDERAL prisoners is an example of a type of selection bias. The feds do not prosecute every crime. They only prosecute a small number of crimes, and not equally distributed across all areas of criminal behavior. To the extent that they deal disproportionately with crimes associated with immigration and immigrants, of course they are going to have a disproportionate number of criminals who are non-citizens.

          If you want to know if a group of people is more likely to commit crimes than another group of people, you have to eliminate biases such as selection bias. If you don’t, then it’s just lying with statistics.

          1. Again, you excuse away numbers on baseless assumptions you form to dismiss anything you dont agree with as a first impression. You’re a fucking idiot.

            https://crimeresearch.org/2018/01/impact-illegal-aliens-crime-rates/

            1. Selection bias!!!!!

              “Undocumented immigrants are at least 142% more likely to be convicted of a crime than other Arizonans. They also tend to commit more serious crimes and serve 10.5% longer sentences, more likely to be classified as dangerous, and 45% more likely to be gang members than U.S. citizens. ”

              Stop researching gang and serious crimes!!! Include jaywalking to prove americans are just as bad!!!! Selection bias!!!! – Baby Jeffrey.

              1. THAT study that you cited actually attempts to compare apples to apples. Good for him. Unlike what Milo posted, which looks at only people prosecuted at the federal level, and then tries to make some global prediction about criminal behavior of groups *overall*.

                Do you think selection bias is just some made-up term or something? Are you so afraid of actually scrutinizing the data, because you think proper application of valid methods will lead to the unraveling of your narrative?

                1. Selection bias is real. But just throwing out the word doesnt mean it is real. You’ve done nothing to prove there is selection bias on criminal prosecution at the federal level dumbfuck.

                  Do you know what baseless assumptions are?

                  1. You’ve done nothing to prove there is selection bias on criminal prosecution at the federal level dumbfuck.

                    The feds’ very scope of jurisdiction is ITSELF an instance of selection bias. I’m not arguing that the federal prosecutors themselves deliberately cherrypick their cases in some purposefully biased scheme. I’m arguing that the federal prosecutors are restricted in what they are able to prosecute by federal jurisdiction. The feds have jurisdiction over immigration; states do not. Since immigrants are, by definition, non-citizens, looking at prosecutions for federal crimes will necessarily mean a disproportionate number of those prosecutions will involve non-citizens, compared to other jurisdictions, even if citizens and non-citizens were to commit crimes at equal rates.

            2. baseless assumptions

              You think selection bias is a “baseless assumption”?

              Do you even know what it is?

              Here, read this

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias

              1. Jeff, your entire argument was baseless you utter moron. You made an assumption on why the numbers are wrong without any information to base your assumptions on, ie baseless. God you’re bad at logic.

                1. Clearer for jeff… you’ve provided no evidence there was selection bias in the Milo study. Therefore your assumption is baseless. Do you understand dummy?

                  1. Milo’s “study” wasn’t a study. I said that Milo’s conclusion that he drew from the raw statistics presented by the DOJ suffered from selection bias. Do you not see the difference?

                    I didn’t say the numbers were wrong. I said that the conclusion that Milo hoped to draw from the numbers was invalid. Get it now?

                    1. Jeff I legit signed up because I saw the insanity you are getting lol. You are 100% correct.

                    2. It is just nuts.

                      Tulpa is just a troll. He does not offer anything in good faith.

                      Jesse is fully invested in the narrative that undocumented immigrants are inherently more crime-prone than native-born citizens. This may actually be a truthful statement, but his problem is, he will go to the mat to defend this claim even when the evidence presented in a particular situation does not support the claim. Such as when one looks only at federal prosecutions to try to draw a conclusion OVERALL about citizens vs. non-citizens committing crimes. He lets his tribalism overtake his senses.

                    3. Chemjeff YOU have always been the troll.

                      You have changed your handle multiple times.

                      I hope delusion works out for ya.

                    4. Can someone explain to me why these five or six posters have such a hate boner for Chemjeff? Near as I can tell, his only crime is being vaguely centrist, which is apparently horrible enough to justify people following him around screaming obscenities in every thread. I mean, I get that the reason comment section is significantly more conservative/less libertarian than the magazine itself, but Jesus Christ people.

          2. you have to eliminate biases such as selection bias

            No, you don’t, because we can reason about it. If illegal aliens are overrepresented in the federal prison population, all things being equal, they are committing more crimes. The only way they could be committing rates at a lower rate than citizens is if they committed state crimes at a much lower rate than citizens, which is implausible. It is particularly implausible given that gangs, drug smugglers, and other criminals are also overrepresented among illegal populations.

            And that’s not even counting the numerous crimes illegal aliens commit every day just to be able to function in society.

      2. I like how Jeff didnt even bother to investigate his own assumptions to see if true. There was a study done a few years ago about the crimes federal prisoners committed based on immigration status… try educating yourself instead of ignoring facts you disagree with using baseless assumptions you pull out of your ass.

        1. If you want to have reliable data to support that claim, you have to look at all of the relevant jurisdictions that are prosecuting those crimes, not just the federal one.

          Yeah, it’s funny that governments that collects all sorts of data on offenders by race, doesn’t do that for immigration status. So we get a lot of competing claims from CIS vs. CATO as to what the real numbers are.

          It’s almost like someone doesn’t want the question to be answered.

          I will note that Reason and other Open Borders types don’t even want a count of how many non-citizens are present in the country. Without that number there’s no way to determine the actual rate of immigrant crime.

          And let’s look to Germany:

          Out of all the suspects logged by police in the report, around 34 percent of them were described as non-German — a figure that is slightly down from last year. Seehofer cautioned against politicizing statistics on foreign suspects.

          Yeah, wouldn’t want to politicize this.

          1. I will note that Reason and other Open Borders types don’t even want a count of how many non-citizens are present in the country. Without that number there’s no way to determine the actual rate of immigrant crime.

            This is a completely different question than the one you raised above.

            I repeat: looking only at federal crime statistics to try to determine which group of people OVERALL is more crime-prone is misleading and statistically invalid.

            BUT, it IS very useful in trying to push a narrative among people who don’t understand statistics.

            1. I repeat: looking only at federal crime statistics to try to determine which group of people OVERALL is more crime-prone is misleading and statistically invalid.

              Come on, Jeff, use your head. If group X commits federal crimes at a far above average rate, then in order to have a lower crime rate, they would have to commit state crimes at a far below average rate to make up for it (and even that may not be enough). There is no reason to believe that that is true, and every reason to believe that it is false.

          2. This issue w prosecutors/legal system not keeping data on immigration status is why the Lott study was so powerful and ignored by virtually all pro open border think tanks and media. He was the first to conduct a well implemented study instead of utilizing assumptions on data that didnt exist. He used a common baseline measurement, prison population, to compare the two groups.

            1. Good for Lott to do that. I’m glad he did. More info is better than less info.

              The trickier part is trying to interpret his data correctly, of course.

    2. <i?I am hoping against hope, they’ll stop with the immigrants commit crimes at a lower rate than natives nonsense.

      The numbers you present don’t show that immigrants commit crimes at higher rates than natives.

  14. News Media Trends in the Framing of Immigration and Crime, 1990–2013

    From the abstract:

    “Our results reveal that most immigration-crime news stories describe immigrants as especially crime-prone or as increasing aggregate crime rates. Moreover, this framing has increased in prevalence over time, as have narratives inaccurately describing undocumented immigration as a crime itself, while framing immigrants as victims of crime has declined significantly over the 1990–2013 period.”

    1. Our results reveal that most immigration-crime news stories describe immigrants as especially crime-prone or as increasing aggregate crime rate

      Given the massive increases in illegal migration, and the massive increases of drug and gang related activity by illegal migrants, that increase reflects reality.

  15. …an argument for the US to bring down its vast defense spending to the same percentage of GDP as its European allies.

    Or bring their defense spending percentage up by sending them a bill.

    1. teh percentage is also a missleading number what is the actual American dollar value of their contributions. I seems that if we didn’t spend as much as we do they would have little to no protection and note some of our defensive spending dollars goes to the bases in those nations which is a net boon to their economy not ours

  16. “Trump also said he’s seriously considering an end to birthright citizenship, reports CNN, “despite the fact that such a move would face immediate legal challenge and is at odds with Supreme Court precedent.””

    There is no precedent. USSC has never considered the question. How is CNN so awful at facts?

    1. “USSC has never considered the question”

      Vance v Terrazas and US v Wong Kim Ark. Just to name a couple of the cases.

      1. Vance was about citizenship being taken away when already granted. Not birthright to establish citizenship.

      2. Wong Kim ark involved a birth from parents legally established as residents, not citizens here illegally.

        1. In Vance, in order to argue over whether citizenship could be taken away citizenship first had to be deemed to exist. If the court didn’t recognize birthright citizenship, then the case would have been moot.

          In Kim, the court recognized birthright citizenship. The 14th doesn’t distinguish as to the citizenship status of the parents.

          1. http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction/

            According to the legislators who wrote the amendment, it would be ridiculous to claim that children born on US soil to illegal alien parents are automatically citizens.
            The only argument behind “birthright citizenship” as a matter merely of location is “FYTW”

            1. In England at the time, the general rule – not a hard rule since could be suspended when required by the King – every person born within the Kings allegiance and within any of the King’s realms or dominions was considered a natural born subject under the maxim every man owes natural allegiance to the King whom may have been born in any of his realms or dominions. This natural allegiance was perpetual and difficult to severe or alter (Once a English subject, always a English subject) and was found odious in this country (America went to war against this “natural allegiance” in 1812).

  17. The @NRCC is fundraising with a t-shirt of a US map that includes Greenland

    Damn – they are already out of XL.

    1. That’s funny.

    2. +10000

    3. Do they label “Greenland” because many young Americans are too stupid to know geography?

  18. “Is Trump an anti-Semite?”

    No.

    1. No link, nothing, Even I admit that was a pretty stupid thing to just blurt out, ENB.

      1. “So is Trump a philo-Semite or an anti-Semite? The answer is both. The principle that explains his seemingly contradictory outlook toward Jews is simple: Trump believes all the anti-Semitic stereotypes about Jews. But he sees those traits as admirable.”

        Remember when Trump said he likes “Jew accountants” because they are tightwads?

        1. Remember when Democrats teamed up with a pro terrorist, blood libel pushing, neo nazi screed copying group to pay for their trips to israel?

          1. You mean their trip to “Palestine”

        2. And? I went to a private prep college (long story) where there were Jews and even worked with DA JOOOOS in finance.

          We’d joke about stereotypes all the time and vice-versa with Italians. Big sense of humors us.

          Didn’t make any of us racist. /smells armpits.

          Mind you, I guess by today’s standards I am.

          Never mind.

          Ignore this post.

          1. What is a ‘prep’ college? Is that like a Junior College?

      2. Par for the course lately. Half of the roundup the last few days are just tweets from people disagreeing with X and no analysis.

        1. That’s news everywhere these days. Even the national news TV shows do it. It is bizarre, but calculated. It is an easy way to frame a narrative.

          “They” accuse Trump of something. Not our team of reporters with multiple sources and vetted facts. No, “they”. But we got it out there.

          And at the same time you can paint the opposition as any kind of crazy you want. “Trump supporters are tweeting that Kamala Harris should go back to Africa and be a housewife in the jungle”. See? Trump is totes racist and sexist!!

          You just gotta mix in a couple of cat videos so it isn’t so blatant.

    2. I’ve seen zero evidence that Trump is anti-Semitic.

      What’s funny is that the controversial cartoons that various people have shared/published and caused uproars have shown Trump as a lapdog of Israel. So the left complains that he’s a puppet of Israel, but only when they’re not complaining that he’s an anti-Semitic racist. Not trying to have it both ways. Nope.

    3. I agree he is not an anti Semite.

      He just has not way with words. I think these remarks he made are off putting and somewhat offensive but not anti Semitic.

      He is a jerk in my opinion but that is another matter.

      1. “He just has not way with words”

        Nobody gives a damn what you think is off putting and offensive.
        My Jewish friends appreciated the hell out of it

        1. I am Jewish and I realize we are not friends. Consider that there may be more than one opinion among Jewish people.

  19. No evidence microplastics in water harm human health.

    In fact, I consider them necessary roughage.

    1. This comment got me lol. Underrated.

    2. Wait until they find out you can’t digest kale properly without a little plastic in your pseudo-gizzard?

  20. “Daniel W. Drezner

    @dandrezner
    “So is Trump a philo-Semite or an anti-Semite? The answer is both. The principle that explains his seemingly contradictory outlook toward Jews is simple: Trump believes all the anti-Semitic stereotypes about Jews. But he sees those traits as admirable.””

    Must make for awkward, tense moments at family gatherings.

  21. ‘It was because Adolf Hitler and his party faced so much criticism and resistance among the press that I became particularly interested in joining their movement,’ wrote a party member named Friedrich Jörns”

    Sounds like most Trump converts.

    1. Sounds like the rantings of a TDS victim
      Fuck off, turd.

      1. I’m not “party first” loyalist like you are, you Trump-saluting jackoff.

        1. You’re pedophilia first.

          1. I thought Jeff was the pedo? Oh, wait, everyone who is not Trump-Trash is a pedo.

            1. Only people who post kiddy porn links …

              Jeff defended pedos to make a point, you’re just a morally bankrupt POS

            2. You were banned for putting up instructions on how to access child porn on the dark web. This is why your screen named changed from “Palin’s” to “Sarah Pain’s”

              You are a fucking disgusting animal. Go away. You will never again post on here without being reminded of what an animal you are.

            3. The person who posts CP then laughingly admits to doing so beats Jeff every time.

              1. “But raping children isn’t a reason to keep him from going wherever he wants!”
                -chemjeff

        2. Fuck off, turd

        3. “”I’m not “party first” loyalist like you are,””

          So you are you planning to vote for in 2020? Whoever wins the party?

  22. “No evidence microplastics in water harm human health. As folks rush to stop everything from exfoliating soaps to plastic straws in the name of preventing water pollution, here’s another reminder that they’re following the ban-first-ask-questions-later model that’s all too common among governments. According to a new study from the World Health Organization (WHO), “no data suggests overt health concerns associated with exposure to microplastic particles through drinking-water.””

    Aren’t we all dead from the horrible increase in temperatures already?

    1. Yeah…

      And we are even deader because of glyphosphate.

      But GMO high fructose corn syrup has kept us in an undead zombie state.

  23. “Why Kamala Harris’ star is fading.”

    Giggling Harris is just a cop-sucker. Get it? I replaced cock with cop. Forget it.

    “And then I through the hobo in prison because I’m serious about hobos playing hooky!”

    /Giggles. Takes awkward puff from doobie. Warren appears with beer bottle. Takes sip, spits beer out. Leaves stage as Harris coughs uncontrollably. Crowd watches in stunned silence.

  24. “‘It was because Adolf Hitler and his party faced so much criticism and resistance among the press that I became particularly interested in joining their movement,’ wrote a party member named Friedrich Jörns”: Vice looks at old letters from Nazis.

    “The corporate press is the enemy of the people”- MM

  25. Denmark offers to buy America from Russia

    Mette Frederiksen, the Prime Minister of Denmark has reportedly expressed an interest in buying the Russian controlled territory of the United States of America.

    Rich in natural resources and fuckwits the territory covers almost 10 million square kilometers and is said to contain huge oil and gas reserves and the largest number of fatties on the planet.

    Russian Premier Vladimir Putin who bought the US with a Betamax videotape of two prostitutes urinating on a dementia patient told The Rochdale Herald. “It’s a pretty good deal and we’re open to discussing it with Denmark. Russia bought North America for the price of two hookers and a large bottle of Evian Water so anything over 75 rubels is a good return on our investment.”

    “Denmark would be a pretty good acquirer for the territory. They’re the happiest country in the world, have an amazing welfare state and they can all read.”

    https://rochdaleherald.co.uk/2019/08/21/denmark-buy-america-from-russia/

    1. Because as Mueller’s investigation definitively proved, Russians control our government.

      #TrumpRussia
      #ItsMuellerTime
      #MaddowWasRight

    2. America should offer to buy all of Denmark from Nazi Germany.

      The Danish cooperated with the Nazis. Denmark was a Reichsbevollmächtigter (‘Reich Plenipotentiary’) and Danish King Christian X got Denmark a very favorable relationship with Nazi Germany.

      1. Danish kids were the only ones to fight the Nazis – their parents were too chicken shit. Kids were sabotaging rail yards and attacking supply depots. I went to the danish resistance museum in Copenhagen, and they said their country’s greatest victory in WWII was sinking part of their own navy when the Germans crossed their borders.

        1. Denmark could have politely refused to sell Greenland and that be it.

          The Danish Socialists had not virtue signaled enough, evidently, so they are trying to duel with Trump. These people are morons.

          Trump is so good at what he does, he makes you shoot yourself in a Duel. See Lefty behavior since Election 2016.

          1. I was going to tie in a shoot yourself in the face to spite Trump…but shooting attacks on 1st Amendment and all that.

          2. “Trump is so good at what he does, he makes you shoot yourself in a Duel”

            Great line.
            Wording could be improved, but magnificent concept

            1. Thanks. I will tweak and improve and shotgun it here at reason from time to time.

        2. “[Denmark’s] greatest victory in WWII was sinking part of their own navy when the Germans crossed their borders.”

          And smuggling most of their Jews to safety in Sweden. The Danish Red Cross also persistently tried to inspect the Nazi concentration camps. Since they were more “Aryan” than Hitler, refusing them made the Nazis uncomfortable. Finally, a show camp (Theresienstadt) was created to house the few Danish citizens that were imprisoned, and others famous enough that the Red Cross might ask specifically about them, in much better conditions than usual. But in the last few months of the war, the Nazis decided that it no longer mattered and murdered most of them…

        3. “[Denmark’s] greatest victory in WWII was sinking part of their own navy when the Germans crossed their borders.”

          And smuggling most of their Jews to safety in Sweden.

      2. I posted yesterday. 90% of Danish Jews survived the holocaust. As soon as they were tipped off that the nazis were planning on rounding up the Jews the Danish hid them. They made their way to the fishing ports and the resistance smuggled them to Sweden in fishing boats and small craft.

        Unlike many European countries, when the Jews returned after the war their property and possessions had been safeguarded and were returned.

        It is quite an amazing story.

  26. You know, it is becoming a bit creepy to see the NYT 1619 project described as “ambitious” in some superlative fashion in just about every article describing it, including, and perhaps especially the critical ones. It sounds like everyone is reading off the same brochure.

    1. ambitious does not mean quality or truthful or beneficial, it is none of those.

      As far as race baiting propaganda goes, it is ambitious.

      1. And it won’t work because anyone reading that drivel has already had their fair share of race baiting propaganda. There’s no new material. You’re either brain washed or red pilled by now.

      2. Trying to realize 1984 in reality is quite ambitious.

      3. Yes, I know that. It is the near universal repetition of the phrase with perhaps different adjectives that strikes me as weird.

    2. Mickey Rat
      August.22.2019 at 10:16 am
      “You know, it is becoming a bit creepy to see the NYT 1619 project described as “ambitious” in some superlative fashion in just about every article describing it, including, and perhaps especially the critical ones. It sounds like everyone is reading off the same brochure.”

      The local rag has a “Homeless Project”, which has been going on for some 3 years now with zero effect on the issue, but since ‘notable people’ get their names mentioned in the paper, it is also called ‘ambitious’.

  27. You don’t have to speculate about the 1619 project being agitprop. The actual editor of the NYT has already opined on this topic. See slate.com for leaked notes of an internal meeting where the editor of the NYT specifically states that they built the NYT news room around pushing the Russia story in order to get Trump out of office.

    He further goes on to state that after Mueller failed to remove Trump, the NYT had to rethink their strategy. Their new strategy is to aggressively report about issues of race, seeking to frame Trump and his supporters as racist in order to ensure an election victory in two years.

    This is not speculation or partisan tea-leaf reading. He says it directly and to the point. He’s saying it in defense of his management teams actions as he is being grilled by his staff for not doing enough to get rid of Trump. The NYT news room is outed as officially existing for the purpose of getting rid of Trump.

    And even more damning: The Slate article about it is actually calling them to the carpet for not doing enough to whip up racism in the US in order to get rid of Trump.

    1. It is not surprising but still amazing how brazen they have become.

      1. The editor, in defense of a headline that his writers deemd too neutrally worded (several writers tweeted their dismay):

        Baquet: OK. I mean, let me go back a little bit for one second to just repeat what I said in my in my short preamble about coverage. Chapter 1 of the story of Donald Trump, not only for our newsroom but, frankly, for our readers, was: Did Donald Trump have untoward relationships with the Russians, and was there obstruction of justice? That was a really hard story, by the way, let’s not forget that. We set ourselves up to cover that story. I’m going to say it. We won two Pulitzer Prizes covering that story. And I think we covered that story better than anybody else.

        The day Bob Mueller walked off that witness stand, two things happened. Our readers who want Donald Trump to go away suddenly thought, “Holy shit, Bob Mueller is not going to do it.” And Donald Trump got a little emboldened politically, I think. Because, you know, for obvious reasons. And I think that the story changed. A lot of the stuff we’re talking about started to emerge like six or seven weeks ago. We’re a little tiny bit flat-footed. I mean, that’s what happens when a story looks a certain way for two years. Right?

        I think that we’ve got to change. I mean, the vision for coverage for the next two years is what I talked about earlier: How do we cover a guy who makes these kinds of remarks? How do we cover the world’s reaction to him? How do we do that while continuing to cover his policies? How do we cover America, that’s become so divided by Donald Trump? How do we grapple with all the stuff you all are talking about? How do we write about race in a thoughtful way, something we haven’t done in a large way in a long time? That, to me, is the vision for coverage. You all are going to have to help us shape that vision. But I think that’s what we’re going to have to do for the rest of the next two years.

        This is no longer a story where the Washington bureau every week nails some giant story by [Washington correspondent] Mike Schmidt that says that Donald Trump or Don McGahn did this. That will remain part of the story, but this is a different story now. This is a story that’s going to call on different muscles for us. The next few weeks, we’re gonna have to figure out what those muscles are.

        In terms of how to keep people from having these discussions on social media, I’m not 100 percent sure. I think we should tighten the rules a little, which always upsets people a little bit. I mean, there were tweets that people at the New York Times retweeted or liked last week that were really painful for this newsroom and for me personally. So I’m gonna keep saying that, and maybe we should tighten the rules.

        https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/08/new-york-times-meeting-transcript.html

        It is hard to wade through, but the topic is “our staff is angry that we failed to bring Trump down and thinks we have to quit going so soft on him”.

        Management response is essentially “don’t worry, we built our entire organization around bringing Trump down, but when Mueller failed we had to pivot to something else. We are not going to scream it from the headlines with big stories, we are going to change the subject and the tone, making everything about race and racism. We are going to find new ways to reach middle America with stories about racism.”

        1. “…Did Donald Trump have untoward relationships with the Russians, and was there obstruction of justice? That was a really hard story, by the way, let’s not forget that…”

          No it wasn’t. It was fake news from day one, and I don’t care how many awards you got for lying.

          1. And if they had been a bunch of investigative journalists as they claim, rather than a group of propagandists, they would have seen that there was a story to be found in uncovering who authorized spying on an American Presidential candidate.

            At any prior point in history any one of the facts of this “Russia investigation” would have been enough to bring down the president. They recorded phone calls of campaign officials. Already worse than Watergate right there.

            They sent a “honeypot” FBI agent to spy on a campaign official and attempt to entrap him in an illegal payment scheme. He didn’t fall for it. That’s worse than anything that happened in Watergate.

            They sent not one, but two foreign spies (maybe more) to infiltrate the campaign. (colluding with foreign agents? Remember how taking a meeting with a supposed Russian attorney was Treason?)

            There was so much meat here to go after, but the NYT didn’t want to cover it.

            In fact, to make matters worse, the NYT was in celebration mode after the inauguration when they published the accounts of senior Obama officials who strategically planted classified information throughout the government to be leaked after the inauguration in order to precipitate an independent counsel, leading to impeachment. They had the conspirators in their (virtual) newsroom, and chose to celebrate them instead of outing them.

            It is as if John Dean, Gordon Liddy, H. R. Haldeman, John Ehrlichman, John N. Mitchell, etc. all in a room detailing how the Watergate break-in went down and how they were going to cover it up…. and chose to help with the coverup!

            Here, one more time, because people just don’t seem to be able to see it.

            https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/01/us/politics/obama-trump-russia-election-hacking.html

            This is the article with Obama’s version of Haldeman and Liddy telling the Times all about how they are implementing their conspiracy.

            1. +100

    2. http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/339717/

      And every goose stepping leftist teacher is going to be spreading this garbage as well.

      1. Hitler lost the battle but he was correct about the Thousand Year Reich. Socialism is trying to stick around.

      2. What good is propaganda if you don’t spread it?

  28. The “Trump is an anti-Semite” is their new coordinated attack to keep the Jewish vote on the plantation. It is suddenly, magically everywhere. But totes not coordinated behind the scenes.

    Here’s their go-to for bat-shit hot takes, Amanda Marcotte:

    Trump’s anti-Semitic comments are the new normal: Threats and blackmail are all he has left

    https://www.salon.com/2019/08/21/trumps-anti-semitic-comments-are-the-new-normal-threats-and-blackmail-are-all-he-has-left/

    1. It is not going to convince anyone. What a crock of shit. And the Jews who vote democrat are not on anyone’s “plantation”.

    2. I recall, I think it was Obama when he first was elected invited some prominent rabbis and Jewish leaders to the White House. He was showing them around and said that he promised them he would have a “kosher kitchen” installed. The Rabbi replied “ that is fine Mr President. Now talk with us about the economy”.

      American Jews do not appreciate being talked down to and condescending crap. They see right through that. We are Americans and vote like Americans democrat or republican.

      1. Thanks for speaking for the community you have no connection to or insight into.

        1. I am Jewish. My wife is Jewish and the daughter of holocaust survivors. My entire extended family is Jewish. I had a traditional Jewish education and have a BA in Judaic Studies from a well known university.

          Jew creds enough for you?

            1. Unless you’re going for Bernie Sanders style

            2. The reason I bothered to reply to you Nardz is because you accused me of having no connection to the Jewish community and not having any insight into that community which is simply not true.

              Feel free to disagree with my opinions but I don’t go in for personal attacks.

              I am far from perfect but we are all strangers here. I try to give other people the same courtesy and respect that I would expect from them. You don’t know who you are really talking to on the internets so it is best not to make assumptions.

  29. Economic twilight zone: Bonds that charge you for lending

    So….Boehm is NOT going to cover this story?

    On Wednesday, for the first time ever, the German government sold 30-year bonds at a negative interest rate. The bonds pay no coupon interest at all. Yet bidders at the auction were willing to pay more than the face value they would receive back when the bonds mature.

    1. Why not bury the money in the back yard instead? At least you would remain liquid (with a shovel)

  30. “The other way to read this graph is as an argument for the US to bring down its vast defense spending to the same percentage of GDP as its European allies.”

    Are you unaware of Trump’s attempts to get our allies to meet their NATO spending requirements–so the U.S. doesn’t have to shoulder what should be their burden?

    The only countries that have been meeting their NATO commitments on military spending are the UK, Estonia, Greece, and Poland.

    https://time.com/4680885/nato-defense-spending-budget-trump/

    Greece’s spending is related to both their falling GDP (it’s easier to meet the percentage of GDP requirements when your GDP fell so low), and because of their traditional animosity with Turkey.

    The UK meets their NATO commitments because they mean to be a loyal and dependable ally.

    Estonia and Poland meet their spending commitments because they know they’re the next two countries on the menu that Russia would love to gobble up again–right behind the rest of the Ukraine.

    The reason France, Germany, and the rest have so much money to spend on jobs programs, bailing out Greece and Spain, immigrants, and the environment is in on small part because they expect the United States to pick up the slack at no cost to their taxpayers.

    It would be great if we announced that we would be moving our bases and our forces to prioritize the defense of Estonia and Poland–on a specific date in the future–unless Germany, et. al. take it upon themselves to meet their NATO spending requirements–but make no mistake: If Trump did that, journalists everywhere would go hysterical about Trump abandoning our European allies freeloaders.

    The solution to the U.S. spending less on the defense of western Europe is for western Europe to start meeting their commitments. If we cut our military spending to Europe’s below treaty commitment levels, we’d effectively be killing NATO. If that’s what you want, have the ovaries to say so. Do you want Trump to kill NATO?

    P.S. When you see the Europeans use public spending to fight climate change by way of something like the Paris Accords, try to remember who’s paying for it. If that public spending should have been going to their own defense but their failure to meet their spending commitments is being covered by the United States, then the money for that public spending to fight climate change is ultimately coming out of your future paychecks–as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow.

    1. Excellent post

    2. “Do you want Trump to kill NATO?”
      Yes.

      1. Soonest begun, soonest done.

    3. Why are we defending Spain and Italy? Are they in some sort of eminent danger?

      1. The Spaniards and Italians are in immediate danger of losing their free shit if Spain and Italy have to pay for their own defense,

        1. They’re also in danger of being overrun by the moors, oops, I mean refugees, again

          1. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
            -Santayana

      2. During the Cold War, Italy, for instance, accepted 112 Pershing II nuclear missiles–and pointed them at the Soviet Union.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pershing_II#Deployment

        This did a couple of things.

        For one, it made a first strike against the US more difficult. If the Soviets launched a first strike against the US, the Pershing II arsenal from our allies in Western Europe would land in the Soviet Union before the Russians’ missiles landed in the U.S.

        Second, it made Italy a primary target for the Soviets. Plenty of people all over western Europe opposed the deployment of U.S. nuclear missiles in their country for that reason. There was a huge protest movement that erupted all over Europe against their deployment. Reagan did a tour over there where he went from country to country and stumped for the leaders who accepted our missiles arguing that the deployment was necessary to make a first strike by the Soviet Union a doomed enterprise.

        Those leaders won their elections. The Italian people, more or less, willingly put themselves in harm’s way for the sake of the alliance, and I think we should respect that. Incidentally, having those Pershing II missiles deployed throughout western Europe made our leverage in our subsequent negotiations with the Russians much greater than it would have been without them. The willingness of the western Europeans, like the Italians, to accept the deployment of our missiles may have been a necessary step to get to the end of the Cold War.

        P.S. Don’t forget Italy’s proximity to the eastern bloc, especially with Romania and Yugoslavia. Whether their participation in the alliance is still necessary today may be an open question, but they were important during the Cold War, and that’s what NATO was all about.

        1. +10

      3. The sixth fleet is based in Italy and that has nothing to do with defending Italians. There are other bases there as well.

        In general I agree with the idea of reducing forward bases and having a defense force. I would like to see significant cuts to the military as a whole.

        I do not know if that will convince the Europeans to increase military spending or if that is even in the best interest of the US.

        It is interesting what is going on with Turkey. That relationship is going down the tubes. They have the s-400 now. I think it is because it is the only system potentially capable of taking on the F-22 and F-35.

        Israel has the F-35s now and is planning on getting more. Now Turkey is out of that program because they bought the Russian system. So where will they get new generation stealth aircraft?

    4. “Estonia and Poland meet their spending commitments because they know they’re the next two countries on the menu that Russia would love to gobble up again–right behind the rest of the Ukraine.”

      Why?
      Why would Russia love to gobble them up?
      I’ve yet to see an answer to this.
      It’s simply progressive-neocon shibboleth that you swallow without question.
      One might also ask why NATO is so eager to gobble up former Warsaw Pact countries…

      1. Uh, because Russia has already gobbled them up and kept them under the Jackboot for 50 years.

        Russia grabbed The Crimea in 2014 and tried to grab The Ukraine in 2013.

        Russia considers Ukraine part of Russia. Ukrainians dont like Russians and don’t want to be part of Russia.

        It’s obvious why Poland and Estonia want America to protect them from Russia. Russia historically rules thru tyranny.

        1. Try again.
          The Soviet Union, headed by Georgians and Ukrainians, ruled over them for 50 years.
          Crimea was faced with the prospect of living under the tyranny of neonazi paramilitaries wielded by Kiev, or acquiescing to Russian protection.
          Eastern Ukraine wanted to remain part of Ukraine, and Russia didn’t try to take any land there. Eastern Ukrainians wanted a federal Ukraine, and certainly didn’t want their language outlawed and their lands stolen by Kiev. So they fought back when Kiev sent ethnic Romanian troops to shell their homes and infrastructure.
          Russia supplied them with arms and advisers to resist the imposition of tyranny by Kiev.
          The initial coup was indeed orchestrated, or enabled, by the West. John McCain and Victoria Nuland have chains of emails bragging about it.
          Poland and Estonia bear historic grudges against Moscow. Understandably. That’s something that goes back centuries. They also know that the West is far richer than Moscow, and are only to happy to wield – I mean, “join” – NATO to threaten Russia and enrich themselves.
          Putin himself has offered for Russia to join NATO, but that doesn’t jibe with Gazi (global socialist) plans, because Russia, and Putin, are fiercely nationalistic (as in, proud of their nation – not the bullshit spewed by progressives) and independent.
          And Russia has every reason to be nervous. Initially Great Britain, then the US, have been openly aggressive toward Russia since the end of the Napoleonic Wars. Russia has been devastated by Swedish, French, and German invasions. Scorched earth retreat is not something any peoples undertakes lightly, but has been necessary. So they survive the Cold War but admit defeat. The US promises not to expand into Warsaw countries. Clinton sends advisers to “help” transition to a market economy. Those advisers precipitate a massive economic collapse and, while Russia struggles through that, NATO begins inviting Warsaw Pact nations into its “protection”. NATO takes the Bsltic states, then starts nosing around Georgia and Ukraine – that finally crosses the line, and Russia is forced to prevent complete encirclement.
          On top of that, who’ve been the greatest victims of Marx?
          Russia.
          They’ve suffered through generations of their royal families (even the reformers) being slaughtered, multiple revolutions, and finally the invasion of Nazi Germany and tyranny of the USSR.
          Since Peter opened up to the West in the early 1700s, Russia has gotten an almost endless amount of shit poured in by the West.
          The US, prior to the Bolshevik revolution, was friendly with Russia. There is no reason to be antagonistic toward them now, and every reason to be friends again. Strategically, it makes too much sense to have a strong ally between China and Europe, and strong bonds between the only two nuclear superpowers in the world (90% of all nuclear weapons are either in US or Russian possession), instead of pointing at each other, would make the world a safer place.
          But noooOOOOoooo – we have to vilify Russia and Putin because that’s what the global socialist ruling caste wants. Can’t have strong national identities led by strong, individual personalities looking after their own people if we’re gonna accomplish the utopia of one world government, a permanent ruling class, and global socialism!

        2. Part of Poland and most, if not all, of the Baltic countries were ruled by Russia for centuries before the Soviet Union existed. E.g., when the Polish nobility was meeting to elect a new king, Catherine the Great sent an army on maneuvers nearby and “suggested” her former lover for king. He was elected. A while later, she changed her mind and divided up Poland with Prussia and Austria.

          Russia is now ruled by a former KGB agent. If I were in any of the smaller neighboring countries, I would certainly be concerned about Russia reverting to the pattern of conquest that held with both the Tsars and the Soviets.

          1. Totally not irrational, right?

  31. Anyone else read the article on the Wikipedia war on changing the definition of concentration camp to defend Democrats?

    1. No, but it sounds about right for politics, wikipedia, Democrats and Godwin’s law. Perfect storm.

    2. That must mean that the Democrats are close to re-advocating for Internment/Concentration camps here in the USA..again.

  32. “Texas executes an innocent man”

    Yeah, probably not.

    Read the discussion in the article comments for more.

    Go to the appellate decisions for even more. Appellate court says there is a mountain of inculpatory evidence. Extremely strong language for an appellate court.

    The Innocence Project case has a bunch of nitpicks that amount to dueling experts and probably change nothing. Except for the one big one. They claim the time of death is 2 weeks later than the prosecution expert.

    They only have our guys vs. your guys on that one.

    But the other evidence against the guy is inexplicable otherwise, and their time of death isn’t firm, it is quite speculative.

    So I’m gonna guess that this one isn’t the smoking gun to hang your hat on with the “killed an innocent man” thing.

    1. The fallacy is that if there is no DNA evidence or it doesn’t match up that the person is necessarily innocent. That is just not true.

      The other thing is that the evidence that this guy did it at the time alleged is also evidence that the defense expert on the time of death is wrong.

      1. I thought we had to prove guilt, not innocence?

    2. The Innocence Project has a fantastic record for getting convictions overturned.

      The fact that they took this case, should have been reason enough to delay the execution.

      It is important to have finality in convictions but our criminal justice is really broken. We need to fix it before executing defendants when their appellate claims have prima facie validity to investigate more.

      1. This one apparently got put off another 5 years.

        My huge beef is with the state fighting tooth and nail to avoid DNA testing.

        In this case they made claims about blood under the victims fingernails…. but when the I.P. came calling, suddenly they claimed that that blood might just be contamination. So it couldn’t have any exculpatory value.

        WTF is that?

        So after 5 years of fighting they finally split the baby and let them test a handful of things… all negative for any male DNA. But they won on the big one. They did not get to test the blood under the fingernails. The one thing that had the best chance of giving a yes or no answer. And they kept it off the table.

        Makes no sense to me at all.

        1. There is simply no excuse for a defendant getting free DNA testing of the evidence. Plus, it is very telling that the state is scared to test the DNA material. These corrupt shitbags are more concerned about being made to look bad than for charging the wrong person and putting them in prison.

          The reality is that defendant appeals are too slow in the appellate courts and really only get the attention of good defense attorneys once the death date gets imminent. A lot of these indigent defendants cannot afford these types of reviews by great attorneys until the state pays for the last minute appeal before death. This defendant’s claims about DNA testing should have been resolved over a decade ago with a lower appellate court and him getting DNA testing to prove his innocence…or not.

        2. “My huge beef is with the state fighting tooth and nail to avoid DNA testing. ”

          My beef is the state offering testimony consisting of bullshit forensics at the initial trial. Once that is done, untangling the mess is very, very difficult to do.

          1. +100

  33. What we know about Jeffrey Epstein’s will, and what happens next with his estate

    Two days before he died in what was ruled a suicide in a Manhattan jail cell, Jeffrey Epstein signed a will that put all of his holdings into a trust. The will, filed in the U.S. Virgin Islands and obtained by CBS News, is a “pour-over will” that transfers, or pours over, all of Epstein’s vast assets into a private trust. The trust is secret, not open to the public, and is administered by trustees. Epstein’s will, which is a public document, claimed assets of more than $577 million.

    As I said, the government fucked up and went after Epstein instead of helping victims sue him first, then indict him. Now the “victims” will likely get nothing. There are no “victims” if he was never convicted on new charges and served his time on the plea deal from 10 years ago.

    1. I dunno. Sensational claims. Big pile of money.

      Sounds ripe for a government takeover. Probably a good idea to go ahead and get in line with some claims.

      1. I just don’t see how there is any Constitutional basis to seize Epsteins assets when he was never convicted on these new charges. The 5th Amendment requires nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

        His estate, which has a Will, is entitled to “just compensation” if the government takes Epstein’s property.

        The “victims” can sue but the perpetrator is dead and cannot defend himself. Epstein was a shitbag but the government fucked up and gave Epstein no way out. The bureaucrats tend to count on people cooperating with the “System”.

        If you kill yourself before you are convicted or represent yourself and convince a jury to acquit you, it tend to send bureaucrats scrambling to seek revenge.

        1. Heh… Constitution. Yeah… we used to have one of those.

          Con-sti-tu-tion… yeah, that’s funny.

          1. I know..I know.

    2. Could the will be ruled invalid since he had tried suicide only a few days earlier? Sound mind and all that.

  34. California hotel cook arrested after allegedly planning mass shooting

    I guess covering Hispanic violence is okay when it serves the greater good by getting the public behind “Red Flag laws”.

  35. McConnell rejects Democrats’ ‘radical movement’ to abolish filibuster

    Just ask Harry Reid how that worked out for Democrats.

    1. Sanders… introduced… a resolution in July to declare climate change a national emergency.

      I don’t understand how tariffs are going to stop climate change.

      1. A few of the National Emergencies are about Common Defense and some are not.

        This one is not.

        1. Washing machines are critical to our Common Defense. Declare war on grass stains!

          1. Poor Leo knows the argument is about domestic manufacturing and strategic reserves but uses bad jokes to convince nobody.

            Sad. Sarcasmic does sad shit like that too.

  36. Manhunt underway for sniper who shot Los Angeles sheriff’s deputy shot by sniper from apartment building

    Who ever said that its tough to shoot a moving target from a distance, was clearly wrong.

    1. are we sure the cop didn’t just accidently discharge his weapon and is blaming it on a sniper. also the cop was in a parked car so he wasn’t moving at the time

      1. I didnt see that article say he was “in” his car. Evidently the cop was getting ready to take his ballistic vest off when he got shot in the parking lot.

        1. one report this morning said he was in a car another report is claiming the shot came from above possible from the 4 story bld’g yet if thats the case how did the bullet being shot from above richochet to his neck off his vest it should have gone down not up. to many different stories at this point but for now I think my earlier statement is even more relevant, he may have shot himself. If he did we will never know the truth now.

          1. “”yet if thats the case how did the bullet being shot from above richochet to his neck off his vest it should have gone down not up. “”

            The magic bullet theory?

  37. Amazon’s Ring line of consumer home surveillance products enjoys an extensive partnership with local police departments all over the country. Cops receive free product, extensive coaching, and pre-approved marketing lines, and Amazon gets access to your 911 data and gets to spread its network of security cameras all over the nation. According to a trio of new reports, though, the benefits to police go even further than was previously known—as long as they don’t use the word “surveillance,” that is.

    Gizmodo on Monday published an email exchange between the chief of police in one New Jersey town and Ring showing that Ring edited out certain key terms of a draft press release before the town published it, as the company frequently does.

    The town of Ewing, New Jersey, in March said it would be using Ring’s Neighbors app. Neighbors does not require a Ring device to use; consumers who don’t have footage to share can still view certain categories of crime reports in their area and contribute reports of their own, sort of like a Nextdoor on steroids.

    http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/08/dont-call-our-surveillance-products-surveillance-ring-tells-police/

    Amazon might be as evil as Google.

  38. Hickenlooper announces Senate run against GOP incumbent, after dropping White House bid

    I am sure Hickenlooper is quite the prankster with a name like that.

    1. The only difference is that Cory Garner gave up fighting against legal weed when the voters passed it; governor Hickenlooper didn’t.

  39. At least 28 people have been arrested over “threats” to commit mass attacks since the El Paso and Dayton shootings

    I guess the 1st Amendment Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press don’t get a say until after the cops get to try out new handcuffs.

    1. Threats are a crime. You have no free speech rights to threaten people anymore than you have to slander people or commit fraud.

      1. The question is… were there threats?

        Or were there weirdos that people found scary.

        I’d suspect both are true in a list of 28 in as many days.

        1. That is a fair point. To be a threat the threat of harm must be imminent and apparent to a reasonable person. Were these that? I don’t know.

          1. I know a few were kids saying “I’m going to shoot up my school”. When confronted by police, the kids said it was a joke. The cops still arrested them.

            The articles tend to mention that the police are emphasizing “After the mass violence we’ve seen in Florida and across the country, law enforcement officers have a responsibility to investigate and charge those who choose to make these types of threatening statements,” the sheriff’s office involved in that case wrote on its Facebook page.

            The 1st Amendment should be most strictly protected when government gets all whipped up and arrests people for words when their intent was not to act.

            The fact that police officers cannot tell the difference should scare people more than these people arrested. Cops simply arrest people because they tend to make bad judgment decisions on the scene. Police tend to escalate a situation instead of de-escalate it.

        2. Well, how is that different from banning guns based solely on looks?

  40. “Linker considers the Times project important, illuminating, and ambitious, but he takes issue with the “reframing American history” bit.”

    Wouldn’t the world be a better place if people believed this list of things–regardless of whether they’re actually true?

    Plato saw this coming from 2,400 years ago.

    If I accidentally stepped in some neoconservatism while wearing my favorite motorcycle boots, I might throw them out rather than pick that nastiness out of the tread. Yuck! That being said, ol’ Leo Strauss hit the ball out of the park when he was juxtaposing Heidegger with Plato’s noble lies. If the truth is inescapably subject to perspective, why not use perspective to create the truth you want?

    “Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda. A majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents believe it’s likely Saddam was involved.”

    https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm

    1. Reparation narratives are like mobile anthrax labs, yellowcake from Niger, etc., etc. Same shit different day, but the shit that happens because people believe whatever authority’s noble lies is scary. I don’t care if it’s either side of the argument for a war, immigration policy, climate change, reparations for slavery, or anything else.

      If you need to believe in something, here’s a reliable quote from an unreliable authority:

      “When you believe in things that you don’t understand, then you suffer”

      https://vimeo.com/145728250

      Test it for yourself.

      1. One quibble, they did find the mobil labs but since you can use them for other commercial purposes they said they weren’t for making anthrax but in reality no one uses a mobil lab unless they need to hide what they are making

        1. Saddam Hussein was not complicit in 9/11, and yet almost 70% of the American people still believed he was–six months after we invaded Iraq.

          If you continued to support the war after it became clear that he was not complicit in 9/11–and you continued to support it because you still believed Saddam Hussein was complicit in 9/11 despite all evidence to the contrary–then that’s on you.

          If you supported a war because you believed things that weren’t true, that isn’t on you.

          The most trusted ex-general in America, our intelligence services, and everyone else who should know were all more or less saying the same thing. No one should expect you to know more about the facts than the “authorities” who have access to the raw data. Uncertainty is the human condition, and we are often required to make tough decisions in the face of uncertainty about the truth. There’s no shame in being lied to.

          The shame is in lying to others so that they’ll support your course of action based on your lie. The shame is in believing what people say because of the people who said it. The shame is in refusing to admit when we were wrong. The shame is in choosing a course of action that could turn out to be wrong because your sole justification is so heavily dependent on data that may turn out to be false.

          The justification for the Iraq War was just one example. They’re doing the same thing with climate change. They’re doing the same thing with anti-fa and the Proud Boys. They’re doing the same thing with immigration. They’re doing the same thing with the purchase of Greenland. Jane Fonda did the same thing with the Vietnam War. She wanted people to oppose the war, so she wanted them to believe that American POWs were never tortured. People want to see Facebook and Google go down, and they seem willing to believe things that aren’t true and ignore other things that are true–just because they want to see Zuckerberg and company fall on their faces.

          1. Propaganda can work.

            1. It can be effective.

              Over time, the bullshit always rises to the surface, and reality is what it is regardless.

              Meanwhile, it’s unusual when people do smart things for bullshit reasons. A blind man can hit a bullseye by accident, but formulating policy isn’t like that, and the negative consequences of the bullshitting may not play out for a long time. For instance, now it’s hard to get people to take the threat of Iran seriously–and they really are/were a state sponsor of terror with a WMD program.

              That’s just one negative consequence of the bullshit. We also have to deal with the negative consequences of the “success”. We used to have a check on Iran in the region. Now Iran is dominant. The negative consequences of our “success” in removing Saddam Hussein from power by bullshitting people to support the war are still what they are–regardless of the propaganda.

              You can get people to support something with propaganda that they wouldn’t support otherwise, but that doesn’t make the policy you’re pursuing any smarter than it was before. In fact, if you can’t get enough people to support your policy without bullshitting them, then that may be a good sign that it’s a bad policy.

              People are dumping their cable companies for Roku and streaming. The cable companies can lie to you about this and that when you go to cancel, but if the truth is that they’re overcharging everybody for an inferior product, then all the advertising and bullshit in the world won’t change that fact–and ultimately, those subscribers are going elsewhere.

              You can fool partisans most of the time–by telling them what they want to hear. If people want to believe that Saddam Hussein attacked us with anthrax or that Donald Trump is insane, then most any bullshit will do.

              1. +100

              2. The cable company owns something. The cable.

                If all you want is entertainment you can find alternatives.

                I need very high speed internet because I work from home with a lot of data running through that pipe. Without reliable 100Mbps at least I am out of business. I also need a land line.

                There is no alternative for me. It actually works very well. I get speeds in excess of that.

                So you talk like what everyone needs is reruns of friends and a cell phone. Run a business on that running gigabytes of data.

              3. What you are talking about I think Ken is entertainment content. That the cable companies are losing. They are not in the business of that. But they still have that hardware.

                1. It’s an example of bullshit not being more powerful than the truth.

                  If the truth is that most cable subscribers can get as or better quality from streaming rather than cable, then bullshitting potential cord cutters lies will stop the flood for long. No amount of bullshit can change the truth, and over the long run, reality will conform to truth rather than bullshit. You can lie to a horse and tell him that it’s water, but you can’t make him drink water that doesn’t actually exist.

          2. My information about the Labs came from the after action and the labs have no tie to 9/11. The after action report came from the government for what thats worth. Thats all I was responding to and not the validity of the war itself.

            Interesting point though try finding the after action report now, I haven’t been able to for a long time now and my old link no longer works, I have found other reports but i can’t prove their lineage

          3. The justification for the second Iraq war wasn’t that Hussein was complicit in 9/11.

            The idea that it was is propaganda.

            The second war in Iraq was justified by Hussein’s repeated violations of the cease-fire agreement. Which was proven numerous times over.

            1. I doubt the American people would have supported spending all the money we did on Iraq because we wanted to show Saddam Hussein who’s boss on the cease-fire agreement. Throw in all the suffering by American troops and civilians on the ground, and there’s no way they would have supported it on that basis.

              People forget what they believed and when they believed it. When people thought the Iraq War was a war of self-defense against Saddam Hussein because he attacked us with anthrax circa 9/11, their enthusiasm for the Iraq War was genuine and broad. When it became clear that it wasn’t a war of self-defense, their support for the war diminished.

              When it became clear that Iraq War wasn’t a war of self-defense, they fell back on all sorts of rationalizations–some of which the neocons had in fact cited as reasons to depose Saddam Hussein in the first place. But those weren’t the reasons the American people supported the Iraq War when it started.

              Six months after we invaded, a majority of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans still believed that Saddam Hussein was personally complicit in 9/11. If there were other reasons for their support for the invasion of Iraq, they paled in comparison to what we thought was a Pearl Harbor perpetrated by Saddam Hussein that specifically targeted American civilians.

              Incidentally, many of our causus belli are pitched the same way–whether they’re legitimate or not. When you want the American people to support a war, these are the kinds of justifications they’ll buy into. The impressment of American soldiers into the British navy helped inspire the War of 1812. The atrocities inflicted on our folk heroes at the Alamo. The atrocities inflicted on slaves in the South. The sinking of the Maine. The sinking of the Lusitania. The Zimmerman Telegram. Pearl Harbor. The Gulf of Tonkin incidents. And, yeah, the anthrax attack around 9/11. If you want the American people to go to war, convince them that atrocities are being perpetrated on good people (especially Americans), and they’ll support anything up to and including dropping nuclear bombs.

              Some of those causus belli were probably horseshit. The sinking of the Maine was sensationalist propaganda. If the Lusitania was carrying munitions for the British–and using Americans as human shields–that might make the ship a legitimate target within the context of total war. Not sure I’d act offended at that and try to justify the American firebombing of Tokyo in the same breath. The second Gulf of Tonkin incident was horseshit, and even if it were 100% factually accurate, did that justify the resources and suffering spent in response? Yeah, add to that list the idea that Saddam Hussein was personally complicit in 9/11. These are the stories we love to tell ourselves before we go to war.

              1. There are few places left in the world that Anglo-Saxons haven’t invaded or conquered at some point in history, and in all those situations, we always seem to believe that we’re acting in righteous defense after being provoked by some atrocity. When Sheridan was torching every farm in the Shenandoah Valley, slave owning or not, he was sure he was avenging various atrocities that were perpetrated by the South. When the war was over, he was transferred to the American west, where he massacred Native American tribes for the same reasons–they were perpetrating atrocities. Maybe those atrocities were real, but I’m not sure it really matters.

                If you want the American people to go anti-fa against someone, all you need to do is convince them that the group in question is responsible for atrocities–and it really doesn’t matter whether you tell them the truth so much as that they believe it’s true. After the lynchings are over, people will rationalize it in all sorts of ways. We’re basically a lynch mob on a hair trigger with the most awesome war machine the world’s ever seen. When we get into a frenzy, it’s a scary thing, but I do take solace in the observation that we snap out of it over time. The drug war against marijuana and the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq are ending because the frenzy gave way to reality–facts and logic. Facts and logic seem so futile when you’re trying to reason with an angry mob, but at the end of the day, reality has a funny way of asserting itself and people eventually start to listen.

                1. Agree with your thesis.

                  But the Iraq war was sold on Saddam’s possession of WMDs more than anything else. Who can forget Powell’s UN presentation? Who were we supposed to believe, a decorated war hero or Hans Blix?

                  1. Yeah, who am I to disagree with the intelligence community over Saddam Hussein’s capabilities? I didn’t do that. I just pointed out that it was a red herring. The Bush administration framed the question of war that way–because that’s the way people accept wars. But the question of whether we went to war with Iraq should never have been primarily about WMD.

                    My opposition to the Iraq War certainly wasn’t about WMD. I came up with the same answers regardless of whether Saddam Hussein had WMD: All the reasons not to remove Saddam Hussein from power in 1991 were still valid in 2003–regardless of whether Saddam Hussein had WMD. These arguments were made at the time by people like Brent Scowcroft:

                    Interviewer: If I’m sitting out there listening, watching this, why was it OK to go after [Saddam Hussein] at a certain point, and then not after another?

                    Brent Scowcroft: We go in . . . We could have gone to Baghdad. We could have occupied Iraq. There we are, in control of a hostile country. What do we do with it?

                    Brent Scowcroft: First of all, one of our objectives was not to have Iraq split up into constituent … parts. It’s a fundamental interest of the United States to keep a balance in that area, in Iraq.

                    Interviewer: So part of the reason to not go after his army at that point was to make sure there was a unified country, whether or not it was ruled by Saddam?

                    Brent Scowcroft: Well, partly. But suppose we went in and intervened, and the Kurds declare independence, and the Shiites declare independence. Then do we go to war against them to keep a unified Iraq?

                    —-Frontline, November 2001

                    https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/scowcroft.html

                    Read the interview. Scowcroft went on to argue against the invasion with the same basic points right up through the invasion itself.

                    1) Saddam Hussein’s regime acts as a counterweight to Iran in the region. If you remove that, the region becomes Iran’s sphere of influence like Lebanon and Syria.

                    2) If Saddam Hussein is removed from power, the different factions In Iraq will descend into civil war–and if the US is the occupying power, we’ll be responsible for building a country in the middle of a civil war.

                    All of those reasons not to invade Iraq were just as legitimate if Saddam Hussein had WMD as they were if Saddam Hussein didn’t have WMD. In fact, they’re exactly the same reasons why we shouldn’t have invaded Syria in response to Assad’s forces using WMD on its own people. The question wasn’t whether Assad did it–although Obama tried to make it about that. The question was whether it was in the best interests of the United States to invade Syria–regardless of whether Assad had WMD.

                    In the backs of their minds, a lot of people, I suspect, are reacting to that observation about Assad differently because they imagine that the Assad situation was different because Assad didn’t attack Americans with his WMD. It’s important to remember, however, that Saddam Hussein also did not attack Americans with WMD–certainly not on 9/11. They know that Saddam Hussein wasn’t complicit in 9/11 in their minds, but in their hearts, they’ve internalized the “noble lie”. In their hearts, the Iraq War was a response to 9/11.

                    I suspect that even the military personnel who ended up in Iraq, a lot of them came into the military when volunteers flooded into the recruitment centers in the wake of 9/11.

              2. Apparently you didn’t read what I wrote.

                Six months after we invaded, a majority of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans still believed that Saddam Hussein was personally complicit in 9/11

                This is propaganda, spread by the left, during the time that they were deciding whether or not to go back into Iraq.

                They used polls, anecdotes, and anything else they could find to try to make this idea stick.

                And it stuck exactly where it was meant to–among the ‘I’m smarter than those people‘ set who parrot it to this day.

      2. >>>Reparation narratives are like

        world’s most unsolvable accounting problem. no way to figure out who takes, and no way to figure out who is taken from.

    2. The reason article on 1619 was the best I have read so far. Very thoughtful, with only one Soave-esque “to be sure” nod to how very, very important it is to have taken on the 1619 project.

  41. I find it interesting when the left and media and democrats claim anyone who votes for Trump is voting against their own interest and are racist nazi etc….. but when Trump one time say Jews voting for democrats are voting against their own interest he is called a racist so doesn’t that then mean that the left is racist when they say white people are voting against their own interest when voting for Trump. I don’t think the left understands what they are saying or their just hypocrits.

    1. Saying they’re voting against their own interest is fine, but accusation of disloyalty is crossing the line.

      1. The Jews I know have no idea why Trump saying that Jews who vote D are being disloyal to Jews is supposed to be particularly offensive to Jews.
        He didn’t even drop a hard “J”

        As usual, it’s just disingenuous pearl clutching and D desperation at the prospect of more of their field hands wandering off

        1. It is not particularly offensive and we all know that Trump is not careful in his language. He is not making any friends using the words he did but that is Trump.

          Concerning Israel there have been friends and foes from both the Republican and Democratic parties so it is not so clear cut. Same with antisemitism.

          So (shrugs shoulders) more political meshugas.

          If you look at the American Jewish population they vote pretty much in line with their demographics. Mostly urban east and west coasts a few other places like Chicago all democratic strongholds , look at education, income levels and Jews vote just like other similar Americans.

  42. >>>More on the 1619 Project

    finally calling it nonsense?

  43. Kamela’s problem is just a super-sized example of the old aphorism to always tell the truth because there’s less to remember. She lied in San Francisco; she changed lies to become California Attorney General; she changed lies yet again to become California Senator; yet all those lies were pretty easy to square in California, because it’s California, and the jump from San Francisco to state office only required covering up San Francisco lies. But the jump to nationwide candidacy required changed too many lies for every debate and press conference, and not even her staff can keep up with what lies are current.

    The one lesson all politicians ought to know is never promise specifics. Bernie’s been spouting the same nonsense for years and has less to remember. Lizzie’s going to be caught up by promising to use the same wealth tax many times over for all her programs, and she keeps coming up with new ones. Kamela will probably have to wait a couple of national elections before she learns the lesson and has settled down to a simple standardized set of lies to remember.

  44. Banned Microplastics Pose No Risk to Human Health, Says World Health Organization

    The Party of Science ain’t gonna like that.

  45. treating 1619 as “our nation’s birth year.”
    Birth date July 30, 1619?

    1. Birth of a Nation?

      1. On July 30, 1619, Governor Yeardley convened the General Assembly as the first representative legislature in the Americas

        1. Nothing done by anyone named Yeardley should be taken seriously.

          YEER-d-lee. YUR-d-lee. How do you pronounce that anyway?

          1. throat warbler mangrove

  46. “As the WHO notes, this doesn’t mean there are no environmental risks to overabundant plastic use. ”

    You mean like harm to marine life?

    1. Cite missing.

  47. It doesn’t matter if these items harm people or not.
    That’s not the point.
    The point is the government has the authority to rid of anything that is not to their standards set by their cronies who are paying them under the table.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.