Reason Roundup

California School Shooting Leads to Renewed Demands for Assault Weapons Ban

Plus: Uber and Los Angeles transit regulators go to war over user data, young adult novelists cancel critic, and ex-ambassador testifies in impeachment hearings.

|

On Thursday, two students were killed and another three injured, in a shooting at Saugus High School in Santa Clarita, California. The gunman has yet to be identified, but police say he was another student at the school and that he has been hospitalized after shooting himself in the head.

The shooting is shocking and tragic. The response from politicians is depressingly predictable: They claim that such shootings are common, they declare that new firearms laws are needed to prevent them from happening, and they don't spend much time considering whether the laws they're proposing would actually have prevented the crime. Former President Bill Clinton and current presidential candidate Kamala Harris both went on CNN to call for a ban on "assault weapons." But the shooter used a .45 semi-automatic pistol, a weapon unlikely to be covered by even the broadest assault weapons ban.

A Los Angles Times editorial noted that the killer is 16 and then declared that "it's not a leap to say that no 16-year-old should have ready access to a firearm outside the immediate supervision of an adult." The fact that the minimum age to purchase a handgun in California is 21 didn't warrant a mention.

Others said that "common sense" gun control legislation shouldn't be a contentious political issue and ripped into Republicans, the National Rifle Association (NRA), and Senate Leader Mitch McConnell (R–Ky.) for making it one.

Others noted that some schools have reacted to mass shootings by performing traumatizing shooter drills—and cited that bad policy to justify yet more bad policies. "Every politician paid to defend the status quo by the gun lobby needs to answer whether they are comfortable with live shooter drills becoming routine, students running terrified from their classrooms, and entire communities being locked down," former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords told The New York Times.

It needn't be repeated that school shootings are a terrible and tragic thing. It does need to be repeated that these are also rare, and that the long-term trend has been for them to happen less often, not more often.

Rare or not, we obviously should do what we can to stop such shootings from happening. But you can't do that without being aware of the nature of the problem, the trade-offs of the solutions, and—above all—whether the policies you're proposing would even have stopped the crime being discussed.


FREE MARKETS

Uber is fighting for its right to keep deploying dockless for-hire electric scooters in Los Angeles, now that city officials have issued a temporary suspension of the company's permit.

The Wall Street Journal reports that Uber has requested a hearing with L.A.'s transit regulators to discuss the suspension of its permit. The move will allow the company to keep operating while they wait for that hearing.

The dispute comes down to the data. The Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) requires all dockless scooter companies to share real-time trip data with the city, something Uber has said is a massive violation of their users' privacy.

"By demanding real-time information about people's movements, LADOT is an outlier among hundreds of cities around the world—and independent privacy experts and advocates raised the alarm more than a year ago that LADOT's misguided technique poses serious risks to consumer privacy," an Uber spokesperson told the Journal.

The company has threatened legal action against LADOT if it continues with its demands for real-time data—demands that are likely illegal under state law.


FREE MINDS

Brooke Nelson, a graduate of Northern State University in South Dakota, told the local paper that she opposed efforts to make a young adult novel by Sarah Dessen the required Common Read book for incoming freshmen.

"She's fine for teen girls," Nelson told Aberdeen News. "But definitely not up to the level of Common Read. So I became involved simply so I could stop them from ever choosing Sarah Dessen."

This has since blown up into a major controversy, with Dessen and other popular authors ripping into Nelson on Twitter. By suggesting that college students shouldn't be being assigned young adult fiction, Nelson was allegedly disparaging already-marginalized teen girls.

Washington Post writer Elizabeth Bruenig has a good thread on what this says about the state of woke culture:


QUICK HITS

  • A Texas state lawmaker has resigned after police found a sealed envelope, bearing official letterhead, that was full of cocaine.
  • A police officer in Arizona was filmed tackling an armless, legless 15-year-old.
  • The Economist has an interesting article on how people's music preferences match to how they vote.
  • Squad member Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D–Mass.) has introduced an ambitious criminal justice reform bill.

NEXT: Andrew Yang Proposes Making Social Media Algorithms Subject to Federal Approval

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. A Texas state lawmaker has resigned after police found a sealed envelope, bearing official letterhead, that was full of cocaine.

    It was a letter from the coke brothers.

    1. OK, that’s not bad.

  2. A police officer in Arizona was filmed tackling an armless, legless 15-year-old.

    The officer could not tell at the time he was unarmed.

    1. You know what his name is when he is swimming?

      Bob.

      1. nail him to the wall he’s Art.

      2. In front of your door?

        Matt

        In a pile of leaves?

        Russell

      3. When he’s water skiing? Skip.

    2. The officer had no idea where to put the handcuffs.

      1. When the suspect refused to put his hands behind his back, the officer shot his dog.

    3. Fist is en fuego this morning.

  3. What’s with the clapping hands emoji? Looks like some kid wrote it.

    1. Not the kid tackled by police though.

  4. How will late entrants Michael Bloomberg and Deval Patrick affect the Democratic primaries?

    More chances for presidential gloat tweets when they eventually exit?

    1. That’s real public service!

  5. So I’m watching this lady’s opening statement
    She can hang from a lamppost

    1. Was she sworn in?

      …not that it matters. She’s had few qualms perjuring herself before.

      1. She’s not only a liar, she’s an entitled bitch that thinks far too highly of herself as a “noble”
        Corrupt hag goes on and on about how everyone else is “corrupt”

        1. You’re delusional or worse. It’s hard to believe you honestly believe what you just wrote because it’s so insane and disconnected from reality.

          1. Lol

            So.
            Much.
            Projection.

            1. Chris Wallace on Fox News: “If you were not moved by the testimony of Marie Yovanovitch, you don’t have a pulse.”

              1. Chris Wallace is a Democrat jackass.
                Her whining about feeling “bullied” is a pathetic attempt at manipulating the public into remaining silent about the abuse her caste continually directs our way

                1. What are you exactly? A psychopath? You think this women should be hanging this women from a lamppost?

                  1. Ask Nardz his views on violence.
                    Yes he is a psychopath.

                    1. “Blah, blag, blag- virtue signal, virtue signal, virtue signal, lie!”

                    2. Nardz
                      November.12.2019 at 6:04 pm
                      Yes, you’re far off – though I do respect violence, as it is literally the fundamental dynamic of existence.

                      https://reason.com/2019/11/12/immigration-enriches-migrants-and-their-new-countries/#comment-8009001

                    3. Not much for physics, eh jeff?

              2. It’s funny if you think this really means anything.

              3. Chris Wallace hasn’t been a thing ever.

              4. Yes, I often feel bad for political appointees who thinks it’s totally not fair that they lost their job they had no right to.

                1. You’ll have to explain to pod what a political appointee is. He is pretty ignorant.

          2. I agree. Nardz is far kind to her. She’s much worse than his description.

              1. Ah, so “liking the perjuring elitist skank” is now your determination of good v evil?

                You might need to get outside more often.

                1. Those are the only two choices, eh? Either you like her or you think she should be hung.

                  1. “They said you was hung!”

                    “They were right!”

                    1. “They was right!”

  6. By suggesting that college students shouldn’t be being assigned young adult fiction, Nelson was allegedly disparaging already-marginalized teen girls.

    Teen girls did the marginalizing when I was in high school.

    1. They tried to marginalize my toast, but I said I preferred butter.

    2. What does this bitch have against sexy vampires?

    3. yeah, everyone knows college students aren’t adults yet, so how could they be young adults?

  7. Any morons out there who still think this impeachment process is legitimate, consider why polling matters to dems, and why the narrative changes constantly. Hopefully (Jeff, Mike, Pod) you’ll realize you’re a brain dead sheep and this is just a song and dance

    https://twitter.com/rachaelmbade/status/1195166773450092545

    1. OF COURSE this impeachment saga is a song and dance. It’s entertainment for the political base of both parties. I don’t trust that the Dems are interested in a fair neutral process, just like I don’t trust the Reps are interested in honest participation in the process.

      It is entirely consistent to believe that this whole impeachment clown show is a giant distraction, AND that Trump acted inappropriately with the Ukraine. You get that right?

      1. It is 100 percent a clown show, I’m glad you agree. The guy made a living acting inappropriately, it’s why we hired him.

        Also, calling it “the Ukraine” may have been done in error but is 100 percent something Trump would say and cracked me up.

        1. Actually, “the Ukraine” is the official name of the country. It’s one of the few times when his verbal diarrhea wasn’t wrong.

          1. Isn’t the official name Ukraine? No “the”.

            I live in the United State of American doesn’t mean the official name is The United States of America. Anyone fixating on the “the” is being a bit foolish.

            1. Okay, I was wrong. It is actually “Ukraine” but I was under the impression that it was officially called “The Ukraine”.

              1. “Before you talk, you should read a book.”—Fred Schneider

              2. I think it was “The Ukraine” when it was part of the Soviet Union, but it’s just “Ukraine” now. Because of their history under Stalin and gang, they get a bit touchy over the distinction.

              3. It’s not officially called The Ukraine, but it IS often called The Ukraine legitimately. It’s an acceptable thing to call it.

              4. It’s called “the Ukraine”, like Eastern Washington is called “the Palouse”, for similar reasons — cold, windy, snowy steppes both.

              5. Russia attempts to call it “the Ukraine” as a way of branding it like a rebellious province than a sovereign state. It’s part of the style guide in any Russian-language source (that was printed in Russia, anyways).

          2. According to Groovus, who actually moved there, it’s “Ukraine”–and don’t even think of adding that ‘the’.

      2. ^ This

        I should also add that you can believe Trump acted inappropriately AND that he shouldn’t be impeached over it.

        1. How sacred your betters are!

          That is what this is about – the US ruling caste reminding you that they are untouchable

          1. I take it you don’t believe Trump is part of the ruling caste?

            1. Eh, it’s nebulous.
              The ruling caste certainly hates him

              1. Half of the ruling caste.

                1. Both halves of the ruling caste hate him, but one half knows that opposing him will cost them their jobs, while the other half knows that not opposing him will cost them their jobs.

                2. Inner party / outer party, it’s the same thing. Mencius Moldbug is the guy to read on this stuff.

        2. I will believe he acted “inappropriately” as soon as someone explains to me why that is. So far, it looks to me like he was doing his job.

          1. He had different foreign policy goals than lifer bureaucrats. That is inappropriate.

          2. If he indeed withheld money for political gain, that is inappropriate. Notice I didn’t say it is impeachable.

            I don’t follow all the various he-said, she-said details of this, because quite frankly I don’t care that much. I’m not even saying the evidence says he did that, but we should at least get to hear the evidence against him AND his defense.

            1. No amount of evidence will convince John. He is firmly in the “he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue” camp.

              1. It’s not just John of course. It seems that both sides have made up their minds, when we really haven’t heard much actual evidence yet. Statements to the media are hardly “evidence” for either side.

              2. He is firmly in the “he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue” camp.

                Being opposed to the ‘murder a witness in a Federal Prison’ camp doesn’t necessarily make you a part of the ‘could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue’ camp.

                1. What I mean is, John and Jesse and damikesc and a bunch of the other Trump bootlickers around here will always find some reason to excuse Trump for his behavior regardless of what it is. Trump could do literally anything and John will find a way to justify it.

                  1. ….and jeff will continue parroting whatever the idiot meme of the day is.

                    How DID “collusion” work out, jeffy?

                    1. Why don’t you find a post of mine that supported the “Russian collusion” narrative. Hint: you won’t find it. But go ahead and keep projecting, it’s gotten you this far, hasn’t it?

                  2. Fuck you Jeff. You are as dumb as a post. You literally never add anything to the conversation and do nothing but lose one argument after another on here. And you are the most transparently phony leftist troll I have ever seen. The facts are what they are. Telling them is not bootlicking anything you mendacious twit.

                    1. Truth hurts, doesn’t it Johnnie boy?

                      There is no line that Trump could cross that is too far for you.

                      Let’s see what happens if/when Trump actually does invade another country and topple its government. Your response will be STILL NOT AS BAD AS OBAMA

                    2. Jeff is providing no evidence as usual. Go back to Vox or ratical.org to organize your thoughts you fucking idiot.

                      You literally ran away after I posted a ukranian court ruling on 2016 election interference that you denied happened just yesterday fuckhead.

                      The next fact you post will be your first.

                    3. Unlike you, Jesse, I have a job, and don’t read everything that you write. After all, someone has to pay taxes to fund your Social Security check so that you can sit around all day and complain about socialism. Did you post something that I failed to respond to? Oh, that is too bad. Maybe if you posted something that wasn’t right-wing drivel all the time I might be more interested in what you have to say.

                  3. Trump could do literally anything and John will find a way to justify it.

                    What I mean is, killing the king of pedophile island while being held in federal custody is empirically worse than talking about grabbing someone’s pussy with(out) their implied consent.

                    Neither behavior justifies the other. One is unquestionably more indicative of wide-scale corruption and criminality.

                  4. Baby jeffrey lying as usual. Both john and I have criticized trump dumbass. We just dont agree with the IC attempt to take down a democratically elected presidential you do fucktard.

                    1. Both john and I have criticized trump dumbass.

                      Yes yes I know. Some days his toupee isn’t attached straight.

                    2. IC attempt to take down a democratically elected presidential

                      Huh I had no idea that the IC was in charge of impeachment. News to me!

                      Here is a news flash, this isn’t some covert CIA black ops mission to overthrow the government.

              3. You need to provide any evidence before talking about the amount of evidence baby jeffrey. You’re still on hearsay and opinions as evidence.

            2. So, the President can’t do anything in his job that might benefit him politically? It looks like Joe Biden is guilty of some real corruption. You don’t think that Trump should use US leverage to get Ukraine to investigate that if it benefits him politically?

              What the hell kind of standard is that?

              1. These people are order followers.
                They’ll bitch about things from time to time, but ultimately they’ll uphold the narrative that their masters tell the masses to.

              2. By that standard I am not sure how the Democrats holding impeachment hearings is not a corrupt interference in the 2020 election.

                1. Volodymyr Zelensky and/or Putin should call for a more thorough investigation of Trump as part of the impeachment hearings.

                  I don’t think my sides would stop hurting until sometime in Feb. 2021. An abundance of electrolytes from delicious salty tears would hopefully stave off the more painful cramping.

              3. It’s certainly improper to defy an act of Congress for the sole purpose of gaining political dirt on his opponent(s). Not saying he did that (until we hear all the facts), but he is alleged to have done this.

                You wouldn’t accept that from a Democrat in the White House and you shouldn’t accept it from your own party either. Just like the Democrats shouldn’t accept that Obama can use his IC to investigate a Republican presidential candidate. That is even more blatantly abuse of power.

                1. No it is not improper to defy an unjust demand by Congress leo. Separation of powers still exists. That is why they can take subpoenas to court, something democrats and the House are refusing to do.

                  We know jeff is sophomoric, be less like Jeff.

                  1. Just like it was totally okay for Eric Holder to defy Congressional demands back in the day. Right Jesse?

                    Oh no wait, “unjust demand” is whatever Jesse says it is.

              4. If you think Hunter Biden getting that job was corruption, you must definitely want Trump’s corruption with what Ivanka, Jared, Jr. and Eric are up to punished.

                Oh right, it’s Trump so by definition he has the divine infallibility of the God Emperor.

          3. I am speaking in generalities about what is and is not appropriate behavior of a leader.

          4. Trump was trying to tie military aid to their government exposing American corruption on their soil. Since the corrupt American’s father is running for President, that’s bad.

            But it’s totally okay for concerned high-ranking career bureaucrats to receive and publicize a phony Russian intelligence “dossier” on the actual President, or to enlist British intelligence to monitor the building his campaign was run from.

        3. I noticed you didnt include “you can believe the IC is targeting political opponents.” Apparently you have no concerns for bureaucrats acting on their own for their own benefit. Not shocking for you.

          1. Jesse, do you think it is even possible for a neutral, fair-minded person, to look at the evidence and come to the conclusion that the whistleblower wasn’t “targeting” anyone, but instead exposing what he/she honestly believed to be genuine corruption?

            1. The problem isn’t that that is possible. The problem is that you think it is the only thing that is possible and believe whatever bullshit is fed to you.

            2. Conspicuous this thread is full of your dumb posts but mike laursen posts are nowhere to be found.

              How pathetic do feel knowing you waste time of your life to create multiple accounts on message boards to try and rationalize (read pretend to yourself) that other people would agree with your dumbass if only there was more people parroting the same ignorant, obtuse drivel.

              1. Hate to shatter your brilliant detective work, but the simple answer was I was busy earlier today.

            3. it’s possible, if you ignore what you already know about government

            4. Jeff. Stop thinking yourself as neutral. You’ve made it clear you are not as you dismiss evidence you dont like ornmove goalposts when proven laughably wrong.

              You’re a dishonest shithead.

              1. Oh I didn’t say *I* was neutral.

        4. I’m can understand that point of view. I think he acted inappropriately and don’t care one way or the other whether he is impeached over it.

      3. The fact that you think reps owe an honest participation in a kangaroo court shows your ignorant bias.

        1. There you go. Always going to the defense of Team Red.

          Never change Jesse, what would we do without a Team Red fluffer here.

          1. Lol. God you’re retarded jeff. I didnt propose a defense of Republicans here, I pointed out the irony of the argument he made.

            He literally is requiring people to participate in unjust procedures. That is a fucking stupid requirement regardless if politics.

            You are really terrible at logic.

  8. Here is a little bit more detailed explanation of Ayanna Pressley’s plan.

    https://theappeal.org/rep-ayanna-pressley-unveils-sweeping-plan-to-reshape-american-criminal-legal-system/

    From a libertarian perspective, it seems there are some things to like and some things to not like. At a minimum it forms a basis for a concrete discussion.

    1. That article is complete garbage.
      Vague buzzwords with no details of the idiotic shit she’s proposing.

      1. Additional details here

        While it’s not a policy proposal, per se, it is a lanudry list akin to a political platform.

        She proposes decriminalizing marijuana, prostitution, and illegal border crossing (making it a civil offense instead); ending the death penalty; ending direct transfer of military equipment to police; ending qualified immunity; some good, libertarian stuff in there.

        Then she has to throw in a firearms ban. Ugh.

        1. Some good, vague ideas in there.
          Also some really idiotic ideas like ending life sentences (debatable) and giving trannies prison choice. Lots of calls for more public funds going to prisoners. Lots of racial “justice”

        2. some good, libertarian stuff in there

          Just like gay marriage. Gay people should be free to marry, what could possibly be the downside?

          Fewer guns in the hands of private citizens, fewer life sentences for people who’ve earned life sentences and lighter sentences and alternative sentencing methods for the people who fall short; what’s not to love? There’s probably a rock solid guarantee in there that, when crime rates do go up, guns won’t be blamed and then further regulated, right?

          A shit sandwich with the cheese on top of the shit instead of below it is still a shit sandwich. This continued digging through mountains of shit to find the one or two libertarian parts of any/all proposals gets irritating. Especially when the parts that get held up aren’t, alone, in any way libertarian. It’s like saying gun control is a good idea because it helps prevent people from initiating aggression against one another. You aren’t wrong but you’re going to shit all over the other half (or more) of libertarianism enforcing your idea.

          1. The problem with these types of proposals is that they get voted on in some omnibus form. Accept ALL of this or NONE of this.

            It’s hard to deny that there are good points in these proposals that should be debated. Let’s allow debate and vote on them 1 by 1.

            1. The problem with these types of proposals is that they get voted on in some omnibus form. Accept ALL of this or NONE of this.

              It’s hard to deny that there are good points in these proposals that should be debated. Let’s allow debate and vote on them 1 by 1.

              Disagree. The proposal is the proposal. They’re free to propose singular changes and the grouping or linking of changes isn’t unintentional. By the same token, open borders isn’t a libertarian principle. Open borders, with little/no minimum wage, minimal welfare, and unassailable property rights is the libertarian position. Open borders as a singular issue is rife for abuse, especially if the next issue right after it is expanding the welfare state to help immigrants selectively the issue right before it was giving them the right to vote.

              I don’t disagree with line item, but it’s not the solution to the problem.

              1. It’s not like you’d come back to her and say, we’re gonna go with decriminalizing marijuana, prostitution, ending direct transfer of military equipment to police, and ending qualified immunity and she’d say, “OK, great!”

                1. Maybe not, but those things should stand on their own merit. Let’s debate them, not dismiss everything this person ever says because she’s a socialist and in favor of gun control.

                  It might surprise you how much middle ground there is on a lot of these reforms if one side or the other isn’t always pushing their own pet agenda into the discussion. Not every act of Congress needs to be a 10,000 page bill.

  9. ormer President Bill Clinton and current presidential candidate Kamala Harris both went on CNN to call for a ban on “assault weapons.”

    Crisitunity.

    1. That will surely keep a handgun out of an underage users hands.

    2. 10 to 1 says Bill tried to cop a feel.

      1. Tried? Man must be slipping in his old age.

        1. In her case that is spot on.

          1. Speaking of spots, what color dress was she wearing?

  10. Today’s witness… yovonovitch.

    First we know she lied in her deposition about democratic discussions based on an FOIA email release… but she was a problem even before that.

    She is an Obama appointee (ie serving at the whim of the president) who took it upon herself last year to provide the lead prosecutor of Ukraine a do not prosecute list. This is confirmed by both Lesenko and our other favorite witness George Kent… you know from Wednesday. This list included prosecutors favorable to the ex president of ukraine that was replaced by the current president.

    She also sought lesenko to fire the prosecutor that got a Ukranian court to rule that Ukraine had meddles in the 2016 elections.

    Baby jeffrey and ignorant mikey will be by shortly to tell you Solomons reporting was discredited earlier this year based in a newspaper story filed in Ukraine after Solomons reporting. A report that stated Lesenko recanted. Lasenko has stated he never talked to that newspaper. That newspaper foes recieved funds frolic Soros whose political company in Ukraine was on the do not prosecute list. So believe what you want.

    https://johnsolomonreports.com/the-real-ukraine-controversy-an-activist-u-s-embassy-and-its-adherence-to-the-geneva-convention/

    She sounds like a winning witness.

    1. The word is that they are coaching her to cry. I am not kidding.

      1. You’re insane and your insanity is a gold mine for crooks like Trump and Putin.

        1. You are a moron who apparently can’t read. Numerous journalists on Twitter were saying that the Dem staff is telling them that the plan is for her to cry to create some drama that they didn’t have yesterday.

          Now that it is out, maybe she won’t. But coaching a witness to cry on the stand is hardly unheard of or beneath the clowns running this thing. The fact that all you can say in response is “that is insane” shows that you likely have heard the same thing and expect her to do it.

          1. There’s no reasoning with you.

            1. “”You’re insane and your insanity is a gold mine for crooks like Trump and Putin.””

              Is this an example of “reasoning”?

              1. No, my comment is not an example of “reasoing”. I just said there’s no reasoning with John. It’s useless.

                1. FWIW, I’ve been on this board for over ten years. John and I have had disagreements. I find reasoning with John much easier than reasoning with you.

                  1. In order to reason, you have to have something, and some one, to reason with.

                    Otherwise you just get a bunch of trollish insults. Cases in point:

                    “You’re evil.”
                    “What are you exactly? A psychopath?”
                    “You’re insane and your insanity is a gold mine for crooks like Trump and Putin.”
                    “There’s no reasoning with you.” Given the preceding statements, no less.

            2. “Reasoning” would require something more substantive than middle-school-level gossip.

      2. Hearsay? In DC? Heavens to Betsy, now I’ve heard all.

    2. In other impeachment news… chris Anderson’s testified in a deposition that Trump ended various military excercises as a warning shot in the pid pro quo. No excercises were ever canceled.

      https://www.dailywire.com/news/foreign-service-officer-claims-trump-canceled-navy-operation-near-ukraine-u-s-navy-thats-not-true

      1. The word now is bribery. The polls told them that prid pro quo wasn’t playing with the public.

        1. Liberals would be better to stick to one narrative here. Their ever moving goalposts are turning people off.

          Then again it is hard to have a consistent narrative built on sand.

          1. Sticking to one narrative implies removal is the end goal. The Democrats already know that is not going to happen so there is no need for them to have a coherent narrative. The Democrats know they don’t have to prove any of the facts, so the facts and the theories are largely irrelevant.

            It’s a lot like when Mueller indicted those twelve Russians for election interference despite knowing there would never come a time when he would actually have to *prove* any of the facts in the indictment. So, he just loaded up on every conspiracy he could muster, threw in everything, paraded the innuendo, disseminated it to the media for amplification, and then stepped back and let everyone draw the conclusion that the indictment somehow proved that Trump was an agent of the Kremlin.

            When the goal of a process is to smear your targets with unsubstantiated insinuations, rather than to prove objective facts, committing to a narrative is self-defeating.

            1. AOC even went off the reservation yesterday and admitted that this was all for show, as a means to keep an increasingly fractured, demoralized party motivated enough to come out and vote next year.

              1. Very true. The irony is that her days in Congress may well be numbered. As it turns out, her progressive screeching is too extreme even for New Yorkers.

        2. “”The word now is bribery.””

          That’s so Pelosi can say it meets the constitutional standard of high crimes and misdemeanors.

          Does bribery only apply to when it’s a foreign entity? Is not the promise for free college in exchange for a vote bribery? It would seem odd that giving something in exchange for something that would help you in an election would be worse that giving something in exchange for a vote directly.

          1. Does bribery only apply to when it’s a foreign entity?

            Every trade agreement is a quid pro quo. If quid pro quo = bribery, every trade agreement amounts to bribery.

            Trump cannot legally reduce the tariffs, it might get him re-elected.

            1. Next you’re gonna tell me 1 billion to iran is a bribe.

        3. On 11/08/19 Thirty three girl writers signed a letter to the NYT that they must stop using “Quid Pro Quo”
          link Believe all womyn. They don’t do math or Latin.

      2. What Naval commander worth their salt would take orders from John Bolton? He was never in the chain of command and had no authority whatsoever to order them to do shit. Even under the assumption that he tried, the commander would immediately be on the horn with the Navy Chief of Staff to verify it–because that’s who is actually his boss, not John Bolton. In fact, he would be a lot more likely to tell Bolton to fuck off and stay in his lane.

        I can’t believe the Dems paraded that idiot out there as a reputable witness, especially if he was going to make a claim that was so easily refuted.

        1. No one in DOD takes orders from people from other agencies outside the chain of command. The agency rivalries are brutal. John Bolton isn’t telling anyone in DOD to do jack.

    3. LOL!!!

      Schiff is reading Trump’s live tweeting about how shitty a job this lady’s done.
      Somalia, Ukraine
      Bang up job

    4. I do believe she’s a shit witness, but I’d prefer more than one source when it comes to news, especially re: Lesenko and whether he did or did not receive a “do not prosecute” list.

    5. Where is the hard evidence of this so-called “do not prosecute” list?

      1. The Ukranian prosecutor claims she gave him a list when they first met. Of course, if we want to talk about hard evidence, it would probably have been nice to be worried about that during the Mueller investigation, the Kavanaugh circus, and whatever we’re gonna end up calling this impeachment shitshow.

        1. Yeah, so no hard evidence then. Didn’t think so.
          But John Solomon said so, so Jesse gobbles it up.

          1. You add nothing, and have negative value

            1. Oh good, a list claiming to be the “do not prosecute” list.

              Now all we need is some verification that this list actually is some sort of “do not prosecute” list that Yovonovich put forth.

              Do you have that?

              1. You know you’re proving yourself a dishonest clown here right?

          2. Where his information is from is in the article backed by kent.

            God jeff… weren’t you proffering you were a neutral observer above?

      2. Its linked in Solomon’s article you fucking halfwit.

  11. We don’t yet have all the details of the horrifying events in Santa Clarita. But…

    Stop right there.

    1. Details, shmetails. You gotta get out ahead of this thing and push your political agenda…. for the children.

  12. http://spectator.us/big-dope-marijuana-benefited-slickest-pr-campaigns/

    Interesting Peter Hitchens piece on the connection between pot use and mass shootings. I am starting to think that it is entirely possible that pot does have some very bad affects on people with pre existing mental illness or some kind of susceptibility to psychosis. Yes, correlation is not causality but it doesn’t preclude it and it is a necessary condition for causality. I think it is something that needs to be investigated.

    Even if it is true, that still doesn’t mean pot should be illegal. But I think those who argue for an end to its prohibition need to be honest and willing to examine this and not just pretend that pot is this wonderful drug. Maybe it is but it is possible it isn’t. And lying or not looking for the truth is never a good answer.

    1. I don’t at all. The type of disaffected and mentally challenged people who actually commit these mass shootings are going to be taking all kinds of mind altering substances you have to disassociate yourself from reality to be able to even contemplate and plan something so horrific. Weed consumption is up in our culture and Violence overall is down. I’m not saying their aren’t drawbacks to weed but I don’t think correlation equals causation in this case.

      1. Violence is down but mass shootings are up. I think it is possible that weed causes people who are already psychotic or close to become more so and for a few of them to go full nuts and start shooting people. Again, we don’t know. But all of these guys smoke weed. I think that fact makes it worthwhile to look into it and consider the possibility. Weed is a powerful drug. It is more powerful mentally than something like cocaine. I could see it doing very bad things to someone who wasn’t all there to begin with.

        1. I’m not discounting it completely I just think weed is one factor of many and not even in the top 5 for why. These people use it to disassociate and escape it’s not the reason why they want to disassociate and escape. It’s really easy for people to say this is singularly why re ban it and claim the issue is fixed politically. Personally I believe even if we go back to prohibiting it they will find other drugs to use to disassociate. These mass shootings were on the rise before weed was legalized. I don’t know though I just don’t think this is the answer, but I’m not saying the issue shouldn’t be studied I just don’t think there is any one answer or even multiple answers think it’s complex and can’t be solved by anyone or thing.

        2. “” I think it is possible that weed causes people who are already psychotic or close to become more so and for a few of them to go full nuts and start shooting people.””

          No, no, no.

          How many of them were on, or had been on a psych drug that has a known side affect of causing harm to self or others. Pot has never had that side affect to my knowledge.

          I suspect this could be a reason for increased violence in homeless. They get into a shelter, get a psych eval, get psych meds, leave the shelter and their support mechanism, can’t get their psych meds anymore, known side affects kick in.

          1. They get into a shelter, get a psych eval, get psych meds, leave the shelter and their support mechanism, can’t get their psych meds anymore, known side affects kick in.

            Not to be too persnickety, but after you’ve gone off the meds, it’s withdrawal. Personally, I think it paints a more accurate picture of someone who, while barely hanging on with meds, can become worse than their previous dysfunction without them.

        3. Weed was plentiful back in the 70’s when I was in high school, easier to get than beer, and lots of people brought their guns to school with no incidents. That said weed is a lot stronger these days

          1. “”That said weed is a lot stronger these days””

            I think it’s more like the really good stuff back then was not plentiful as the good stuff now. Mexican and Columbian was very common back then. Thai stick, Panama Red, not so much.

            I would some good ole Ozark Sensimillia up against any Kush any day.

      2. I’m not saying we should look for links or patterns either, but I think a ton of these problems that lead to people committing these acts are complex and can’t be solved by banning any one thing either. I don’t think banning or prohibiting weed is going to solve this issue or have any impact on solving this issue. Problems such as Family life, how we treat these people psychologically, public schools, modern social interactions and how the media glorifies and talks about these people probably have much more to do with it none which are easily fixable.

        1. There is a lot going on. But, I think there may be something about weed that affects people with pre-existing mental conditions in very bad ways. We need to figure out what that is. Also, I think the science on the effects of using weed during adolescence is pretty good and says that it has very bad effects on minds of kids that age.

          That is in fact a good reason to legalize it. It is easier to keep kids from using it if it is legal and regulated. I am fine with no one being able to use it legally until they are 18.

          1. Since I know you read Instapundit, you should go back and read the guest post that some author did on the blog. He told the story about how his wife almost became a serial killer when using some anti-depression drug. It was very interesting.

            I wouldn’t be shocked to find out that the MJ use is a marker, not a cause. Kids that are being medicated by their parents/doctor are also self medicating with MJ.

    2. Sure, drugs can have unexpected effects, particularly in people with mental issues. In my experience, weed usually helps people with mental illness be less crazy. But obviously those are the people it works for. It’s certainly possible that in some cases it exacerbates some conditions.
      I’m not so sure about the claim that crazy people doing terrible things is more common since the 60s, though.

      1. I think it is. Mass shootings of this type really were rare before the 60s. And the truth is that we really don’t know what weed does to people. I really think we need to be studying that a lot more than what we are. Maybe it helps some people and sends others over the edge. I don’t know. But I don’t think we are taking its risks seriously enough.

        1. I going to go out on a limb and guess people smoked weed before the 1960’s.

          1. They did but not in the numbers they did after. Weed really was something that musicians and people on the fringes did. It would have been unheard of for some kid in a white middle class high school to be smoking weed in the 1950s. Not so much by the 70s.

            1. I honestly have no idea beyond what i’ve seen in popular culture but from my cursory knowledge weren’t people smoking weed in the 30’s at a pretty well known rate? like jazz musicians were writing songs about it and smoking it and they were a huge part of culture. Reefer Madness came out in 1936.

              1. People knew about it. And people did it. But it was not something people did in anything like the numbers they do today. Pot was never sold as being medicinal. So it was never widely used the way cocaine and opium were back in the 19th Centuries. I am told Queen Victoria was a big pot smoker, which is funny. But, I still don’t think it was used that much outside of certain circles.

                1. People have used Cannabis for all of recorded history. As a ‘medicinal,’ Tincture of Cannabis was for sale in the US via the Sears Catalog, right along with Laudanum, Heroin, Cocaine and hypodermic needles. Montgomery Ward sold it, too.

                  http://antiquecannabisbook.com/Add-13a/Sears.htm

                  And while white folks may not have used Cannabis in the 50s, they had plenty of weapons and mind-bending alternatives like Benzedrine and hard liquor. Violent crime existed then, too. The ‘good old days’ never existed.

                  I do agree with you on several important points:

                  First, correlation is NOT causation. So, fear not, scientists are studying Cannabis widely…just not in the US. Why, you ask? Last I knew, in the US, the government’s desire for Drug War propaganda trumps scientific discovery. Samples can only be obtained through ONE government lab, and that government lab refuses to provide samples out of fear that the results of research may undermine the Drug War lies they’ve been spewing forth for 50+ years. The ONDCP and ‘Drug Czar’ (there’s an American title if I’ve ever heard one!) are literally mandated to prevent any research that reveals anything positive about banned drugs like Cannabis.

                  At any rate, adults should be free to decide for themselves what to ingest (and bear the consequences of those choices). Kids should not abuse psychoactive substances of any kind – booze being the most widespread in America. That, of course, is the job of parents, not the government!

    3. I’m not necessarily saying that pot use could lead to mass shootings, because that type of thing frankly sounds like more “Reefer Madness” nonsense, but I do think that the possible negative externalities of legal drug use is something that libertarians ought to have a serious discussion on.

      There ARE psychoactive substances that will alter one’s state of mind far more severely than marijuana does, and if we want all of that to be legal too, then what happens next?

  13. …huge followings collectively dunked on a college student who opined in a local South Dakota paper that college students should be reading at a higher level than YA.

    I doubt she got dunked on. Piled on, maybe.

  14. “Former President Bill Clinton and current presidential candidate Kamala Harris both went on CNN to call for a ban on ‘assault weapons.’ But the shooter used a .45 semi-automatic pistol, a weapon unlikely to be covered by even the broadest assault weapons ban.”

    Ugh, I’m sure gun fetishists will seize on this technicality. Or they’ll pounce on the fact that California already has strict gun safety laws.

    As a Michael Hihn style libertarian, I know that our philosophy demands — and the Constitution permits — comprehensive gun control legislation.

    #BanAssaultWeapons
    #UnbanMichaelHihn

    1. You’ve summed up their argument quite nicely. Practically put it all into a pretty little box for us. Thank you.

    2. you forgot #LibertariansForCommonSenseInfringementsOnTheSecondAmendment

  15. If you want criminal justice reform, you can’t present it with anti-white hatred. The proportion of minorities in jail is proportional to the crimes they commit. Get over it, and use a better narrative.

    https://www.conservativereview.com/news/can-incarceration-rates-racist-reflect-actual-crime-rates/

    1. And the reform has to be letting people out who are serving unjustly long sentences and are not a danger to society. It can’t be let dangerous criminals out on the street. Sadly, that is what leftists want it to be and if we are not lucky will make it. If that happens the resulting backlash will leave us much worse off than we are and kill any hope of reform for a generation.

      1. “And the reform has to be letting people out who are serving unjustly long sentences and are not a danger to society”

        100 percent

      2. Be careful what you wish for. After all, who determines who is ‘dangerous?’ The way things are going, many government agents see non-violent people who embrace certain ideologies – Libertarianism or Constitutionalism for instance – as far more dangerous to society than some drunken, wife-beating ‘good ole’ boy’ or a politically ignorant urban-dwelling serial strong-arm robber with an IQ of 80.

        Also, the laws in some states vary wildly. A bar fight in, say, Illinois is typically a misdemeanor offense while in Georgia, it can easily rise to the level of a ‘Seven Deadlies’ felony…even if you didn’t throw the first punch.

    2. But the crime rate itself has elements of racial bias in it, to the extent that it represents police patrolling minority neighborhoods more heavily than non-minority ones.

      But, you might argue, “that’s because minority neighborhoods tend to have more crime, not because cops are racists seeking out brown people to arrest”. Okay, to the extent that’s true, WHY do minority neighborhoods tend to have more crime? Are there any elements of racial bias in THAT?

      1. Poor, stupid people do poor, stupid things.
        Same is true in the trailer park as in the ghetto.
        Difference is, the ghetto is in the middle of areas with high population density, while the trailer park is out in the sticks.
        Seen vs unseen

        1. Poor, stupid people do poor, stupid things.
          Same is true in the trailer park as in the ghetto.

          But the trailer park is not policed as heavily as the ghetto. That is partly my point here. So if one only looked at the crime statistics, one would be led to the false conclusion that those who lived in the ghetto are more violent than those who lived in the trailer parks, even if the level of actual criminality of both groups were the same.

          1. You insist on proving your stupidity time and time again.

            1. Frightening.

            2. Because I’m *agreeing* with you here that the crime in the ghetto is more visible and therefore gets more attention, compared to the crime in the trailer park in the sticks? What’s the stupid part here, exactly?

      2. “WHY do minority neighborhoods tend to have more crime? Are there any elements of racial bias in THAT?”

        This is my entire point, now you’re lost in the weeds. My argument would be that government handouts and government housing caused much of that issue. But that doesn’t matter because this isn’t about the minutiae and history of government failures.

        If you want policy to gain popularity, it has to be simple, and it has to appeal to everyone. I applaud this effort but the tactics create class and race warfare, and thus render it ineffective.

        There’s way too may people of all colors in jail for minor/ nonviolent offenses. Point out the specific people and rules that are unjust, one by one. And I can’t believe I am saying this, but Kim Kardashian has been the most effective at this tactic, and there is very little pushback.

        1. If you want policy to gain popularity, it has to be simple, and it has to appeal to everyone.

          The problem is, if there is a policy in place which unjustly benefits one group at the expense of another, then any proposed reform to that policy will not, by definition, “appeal to everyone”. Those enjoying the benefits will object to the idea of having their privileges taken away.

  16. “Squad member Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D–Mass.) has introduced an ambitious criminal justice reform bill.”

    And here it is.

    https://pressley.house.gov/sites/pressley.house.gov/files/Pressley_The%20People%27s%20Justice%20Guarantee%20FINAL.pdf

    1. Wouldn’t this apply only to federal crimes?

      1. Other sources I’ve read suggest withholding funding and/or extending tax benefits to states that adopt the policies.

        1. Should have read withholding funding from states that don’t comply

        2. Isn’t withholding funding now bribery though?

    1. Yeah, I thought nerds were “cool” now. The Silicon Valley workers seem like incredibly unlikable dorky busybodies. I wouldn’t want to talk, look, or fuck them either.

      1. Like every other group, a lot of nerds are just assholes. Just because you are picked on growing up doesn’t mean you were not asking for it.

        1. most who work in SV are ordinary people just like in the movie Office Space, the problem is when you are an office drone of millions people start looking for something and dopamine fasting will be a thing now and then. I think the Puritans and Mr Kellogg were anti Dopamine to a degree. So nothing new

        2. Yeah, I feel like that’s partly because its the only social interaction they got while developing. At the end of the day, its still on them, but if they don’t have any friends and the only interactions they have are negative, then that can be seen as the “norm”. And I include myself in that group

    2. I am not a socially maladjusted nerd who can’t make friends or get laid. I am just on a dopamine fast

      Got tired of TM, yoga, pilates, cleanses, bosu balls, standing desks, gluten free, and regular fasting didja?

      It’s almost like when you’re an emasculated soy boy, you jump on the same idiotic fads that your “70% of consumer spending” female co-workers jump all over. Maybe if you dopamine fast long enough, you’ll fit into the old pair of jeggings skinny jeans.

  17. More bad economic news.

    Charles Koch current net worth: $61.7 billion

    Still stagnating in the $58,000,000,000 to $62,000,000,000 range. Drumpf’s high-tariff / low-immigration policies are not merely bad in theory; they’re causing real suffering.

    #HowLongMustCharlesKochSuffer?

    1. OBL, I don’t think anyone gives you credit for copying the goalpost shifting of your prototypes. Nice job.

    2. Don’t worry, Elizabeth Warren has a plan for the 60 billion dollar fortune.

  18. Former President Bill Clinton and current presidential candidate Kamala Harris both went on CNN to call for a ban on “assault weapons.” But the shooter used a .45 semi-automatic pistol, a weapon unlikely to be covered by even the broadest assault weapons ban.

    Oops. Perhaps Bill and Kamala will call for a ban on “shameless pandering”.

    1. Bill Clinton and Kamala Harris?
      sag

      Sluts Against Guns

      1. Damn it!
        Better one:
        S.H.A.G.
        Sluts Hating Awful Guns

      2. Bill’s always gonna go where the bad girls are.

        He knows Willie Brown, so I’m sure he’s heard plenty of stories about Kamala.

        1. didn’t Obama cast his male gaze upon fair Kamala back in the day?

  19. Marie L. Yovanovitch, former American ambassador to Ukraine, will testify in today’s impeachment hearings.

    They’re still doing that thing?

  20. “Pelosi says Trump committed ‘bribery’ in Ukraine scandal”
    https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/14/pelosi-trump-bribery-impeachment-070914

    They tried ‘THE RUSSKIS!’, ‘Obstruction’, ‘Extortion’, and nobody saluted when they ran any of them up the flagpole.
    Now, they’ll give this a try. If not, it’ll be ‘unpaid parking tickets’.

  21. Update on the story regarding Google and HIPAA

    “All of Google’s work with Ascension adheres to industry-wide regulations (including HIPAA) regarding patient data, and come with strict guidance on data privacy, security and usage. We have a Business Associate Agreement (BAA) with Ascension, which governs access to Protected Health Information (PHI) for the purpose of helping providers support patient care. This is standard practice in healthcare, as patient data is frequently managed in electronic systems that nurses and doctors widely use to deliver patient care. To be clear: under this arrangement, Ascension’s data cannot be used for any other purpose than for providing these services we’re offering under the agreement, and patient data cannot and will not be combined with any Google consumer data.

    —-Tariq Shaukat, President, Industry Products and Solutions, Google Cloud

    November 11, 2019

    https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/inside-google-cloud/our-partnership-with-ascension

    If you slide down that post, Google says that the data has been siloed, encrypted, etc. and is supposedly inaccessible to all but a few Google employees, all of whom have been authorized to access the information by Ascension in order to service Ascension’s account. Meanwhile, they submit to annual audits of logs to ensure compliance with HIPAA.

    So, there’s nothing to worry about, right?

    Here’s the problem: HIPAA violations are not entirely rare, the awards are often capped at $1.5 million, and Google has issues with truthiness.

    HHS collects about $25 million a year in HIPAA violation fines (see the link below), and it may be worth more than the cost of fines for Google to ask for forgiveness rather than permission to mix consumer and patient data. Saying that Google has no designs on that patient data–now or in the future–is what the fox would say if you were hiring someone to guard the hen house. Why would anyone believe that?

    1. The real question is whether or not they are anonymizing the data. I can easily see a good use of this data for machine learning purposes, but you need to strip out identifiable information. And if you are doing that, it means that they cannot join it with consumer data.

      1. It doesn’t sound like they are anonymizing it. Sounds like they are implementing a service for Ascension where anonymizing the data wouldn’t work for Ascension’s purposes.

  22. “Early analysis shows Elizabeth Warren’s wealth tax would slow US economic growth, but advocates argue it ignores the full impact”
    https://www.businessinsider.com/warren-wealth-tax-could-slow-economic-growth-study-2019-11

    Those ‘advocates’ are right; when the ‘full impact’ hits, it’ll kill the economy.

    1. But Elizabeth Warren is closer to the Koch / Reason immigration position than Orange Hitler is. When the next Democratic President implements open borders, the influx of highly skilled doctors and engineers (especially from Mexico) will dramatically strengthen our economy.

      #LibertariansForWarren
      #ImmigrationAboveAll

      1. Fuck off. Your act is long past tired.

  23. “Every politician paid to defend the status quo by the gun lobby needs to answer whether they are comfortable with live shooter drills becoming routine, students running terrified from their classrooms, and entire communities being locked down,”

    End public schooling. Problem solved.

    1. its funny they want others to stop what they are doing to kids

  24. We already have common sense gun safety reforms. We have waiting periods. We have trigger locks. The only thing missing, in my opinion, is a mandatory safety class. Controversial, yes, but it’s not what’s on the Democrat’s table.

    To the Democrats, “common sense” means an overwhelming bureaucracy of regulatory oversight over gun purchases, ammo purchases, outright ban of most guns, bans of transfers, and filing forms just to visit a gun range. They want full European style gun control. Nothing less.

    I am not heartless on this issue. I’ve had a friend back in school who died from playing with a loaded gun he found in his dad’s closet. I’ve been violently mugged with a gun. I have friends who lived next door to a mass school shooting.

    Common sense is fine, common sense is needed. But what you call common sense is not what the Democrats call common sense.

    1. schools used to teach shooting, now they ban even finger waging, its not about the gun its about nutty systems that oppress students to the point of them having only one outlet left and that is actual violence. When i was a kid if two kids fought they were sent to walk together or taken to the gym and given boxing gloves. Now they go to a counselor and told a bunch of garbage that resolves nothing.

  25. So…Trump just dumped the transcript of his first call with Zelensky at the start of today’s hearings. Schiff is not amused, apparently.

    And David Limbaugh with the best take so far:
    “It bothers me that this Dem lead counsel isn’t hatable enough. LOL.”

    1. Zelensky, mind you, agreed with the removal of the whiny woman, saying she wouldn’t accept him as the new President enough to actually do diplomacy.

      1. And Schiff, as expected, is blocking Republicans from asking questions…

      2. I’m looking at the transcript of the April 21st call right now, and Zelensky and Trump don’t discuss Yovanovitch.

        Can you say where you learned that “Zelensky […] agreed with removal of [Yovanovitch]…” Assuming you’re not talking about some other whiny woman…

    2. Why is Schiff angry other than the obvious reason that the transcript makes Trump look good and Schiff look like an idiot? What is he saying is the problem?

      1. The problem is, and always has been, that Trump is not Hillary.

      2. The transcript of the April 21st call is just an exchange of pleasantries between Trump and Zelensky, so the content of the transcript can’t be it. If Schiff is pissed, it must be because Trump dumped the transcript without his knowing it was coming, so he could spin it.

    3. The Ds went out and found the slimiest looking guy they could do be lead counsel… perhaps to distract from the obvious child molester they put in as Chair

  26. “Rare or not, we obviously should do what we can to stop such shootings from happening.”

    And if you have no proposal which might accomplish that, you can grand-stand instead.

  27. I sense a hihnfection coming.

    1. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

  28. Squad member Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D–Mass.) has introduced an ambitious criminal justice reform bill.

    If she gets this passed and signed by Trump, she will be almost as good as Trump on this topic.

  29. A police officer in Arizona was filmed tackling an armless, legless 15-year-old.

    Art? Matt? Skip? Bob? Russel? Lance?

  30. Trump also offered a WH visit to Zelensky in their first call in April. So, no, he was not dangling that offer.

    1. Trump should have charged for Zelensky to visit the Lincoln Room.

    2. Logically, isn’t it possible he later didn’t honor the offer?

    3. I have the transcript of the April 21st call right in front of me and there’s no invitation to the White House mentioned in the call.

      Trump does say, “… we will see you very soon, regardless” and “I’ll see you soon.” Is that what you are referring to?

  31. Rare or not, we obviously should do what we can to stop such shootings from happening.

    No, that’s not good logic. If something is sufficiently rare, attempts to fight it will (at best) change the risk from “infinitesimal” to “infinitesimal”, while probably having harmful side effects.

    1. Good logic doesn’t lead to the totalitarian power that is their ultimate goal in every action

    2. Teenagers driving cars are far more dangerous, but no one is banning cars.

      1. Not to mention cars are involved in 100% of all drunk driving deaths.
        Ban them immediately!

  32. I believe Sevo lives in San Francisco (or environs), so he can probably do a better job tearing this down than I can, but I came across the story of San Francisco’s new District Attorney, Chesa Boudinm, who just won election last weekend. Looking at this guy’s resume from the perspective of an average American, it’s . . . fucking incredible.

    When he was 14, his parents were arrested and ultimately convicted of felony murder–crimes they committed as part of the Weather Underground, a terrorist organization. Of course, there’s no reason why he should be held responsible for what his parents did. There is a question of what informs his thinking, and according to his Wiki page, custody was entrusted to other members of the Weather Underground.

    It might be noted that the SFPD was a frequent target of the Weather Underground–and now he’s the DA. Who’d a thunk it?

    I’d assume he repudiated the tactics and his past associations with the Weather Underground, though, but assuming makes an ass of “u” and “me”.

    He went to Oxford as a Rhodes scholar, where he did a masters thesis on “forced migration”.

    Before going to law school, he went to Venezuela and worked for the Hugo Chavez government as a translator. He wrote a book about the experience titled, Gringo, apparently a travel and leftist political screed that sounds sorta like a white boy’s answer to Che Guevara’s, The Motorcycle Diaries. You can learn a lot from watching Hugo Chavez, I guess, but I’m not sure any of it is good.

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

    Now, he’s the District Attorney for San Francisco. With a resume like that, it’s hard to imagine someone with stronger credentials to represent San Francisco in Congress. This guy may make AoC look like a moderate. I’m sure this isn’t the last we’ll hear from him.

    1. I’m honestly a bit surprised this wasn’t brought up in the comments before. Boudin’s a no-fucking-kidding offspring of radical left-wing bombers. He was raised by Ayers and Dorhn after his thot mother was carted off to jail.

      Maybe Trump’s ultimate strategy in pissing off the Norks is so they’ll launch a nuke at SF.

    2. Hey, wasn’t he endorsed by the San Francisco Libertarian Party?
      If he is good enough for them, then he is good enough for…….

    3. I really can’t add anything to your comments other than to verify them; he’s on the left of SF’s politics.
      Similarly, on the national stage, Buttigieg’s old man gets not a peep from the media:
      “The father of Democratic presidential hopeful Pete Buttigieg was a Marxist professor who spoke fondly of the Communist Manifesto and dedicated a significant portion of his academic career to the work of Italian Communist Party founder Antonio Gramsci, an associate of Vladimir Lenin.”
      https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/2019/04/all-american-mayor-pete-buttigiegs-dad-was-marxist-daniel-greenfield/

      Certainly the son shouldn’t bare the sins of the father, but you’d think Buttigieg might distance himself from such unadulterated clap-trap.
      Nope.
      And, natch, the old man preferred to sing the praises of the commies while living far away from the hell-holes which practice it.

      1. “sing the praises of the commies while living far away from the hell-holes which practice it.”

        As is the case with all virtue signalers; many Americans do it in a voting booth.

    4. https://californiaglobe.com/section-2/san-francisco-voters-elect-son-of-cop-killing-terrorists-as-district-attorney/

      Key take away for me:

      Backed by millions in funding from billionaire George Soros, the American Civil Liberties Union announced in April 2017 a campaign to target, remove, and replace pro-law enforcement, anti-illegal immigration district attorneys around the country, I wrote in 2018 at Legal Insurrection. Described by the ACLU as “major drivers of mass incarceration, lacking accountability and transparency, and posing obstacles to criminal justice reform,” the ACLU received a $50 million grant from George Soros’ Open Society Foundations in 2014 to turn DA races.

  33. Brooke Nelson, a graduate of Northern State University in South Dakota, told the local paper that she opposed efforts to make a young adult novel by Sarah Dessen the required Common Read book for incoming freshmen.

    But once you remove coloring books and Harry Potter, what will be left for the Arthur L. Hicklibs of our glorious university system to read that will easily allow them to project their #Resistance fantasies?

    1. I try my best to be skeptical of the claims that “things today are worse than before”. The past was not some enlightened age where everyone walked around discussing Plato and War and Peace. That said, I find the trend of adults in their 20s and 30s reading young adult fiction to be really odd and not good. If you still enjoy reading that stuff and nothing else as an adult, I think it is a sign you have never really matured intellectually.

      1. My nephew read all the Vampire and harry potter books just so he could talk to the girls who were all reading those things. it worked well for him

      2. That whole mindset of young adult fiction is just really bizarre. It makes for some absurd story lines, too. I think it was the third film in the The Hunger Games franchise, where Donald Sutherland’s character, the head of the fascist government, has the ability to completely wipe out the revolution and their leadership, but instead of doing so, he elects to use the opportunity to ruin Catpiss Neverclean’s relationship with her boyfriend–withe devastating results!

        Harry Potter is shit compared to Tolkien, and when you talk to younger people today about the franchises, they’re mostly talking about the movies anyway.

        Yeah, I suspect kids who were reading Anne Rice and Tolkien were far better off than the shit being shoveled specifically for younger readers today, but no, I haven’t bothered reading any contemporary young adult fiction for myself. My mom actually read Tolkien for the first time recently and loved it. I can’t imagine there’s any contemporary young adult fiction from today that a non-millennial could stomach for more than a chapter or two.

        They’re romance novels.

        1. Young adult novels started trending in the 2000s because they were one of the last few simple reads. Modern adult literature had gotten overly fussy or dour (No Country for Old Men, The Road, Those Lovely Bones, etc). As an adult you had speculative fiction or young adult fiction to just have an enjoyable read.

          Sadly, even those areas are being slowly overtaken by the fussy nannies who tut-tut at a simple hero’s journey.

      3. I think there is a certain segment of people who don’t read/read very little for fun. This has probably always been the case, but in this day and age I think its become more “acceptable” in schools/colleges to let students get away with it.

      4. I read War and Peace in high school. And yes, freshmen at my college were required to read and discuss Plato and Homer and Aristotle and Augustine.

  34. Interesting discussion about UBI which turns into a more general discussion of the Hayekian conception of “republican freedom”.

    https://www.niskanencenter.org/hayek-republican-freedom-and-the-universal-basic-income/

    1. One of the first questions I have about UBI idea is if you hand everyone $1000 (or whatever) will it just end up causing the price of everything to go up.

  35. It’s pretty remarkable that it’s almost the holidays and we still have new clowns piling their way into the democratic party clown car. It tells you how weak and vulnerable a front-runner Joe “Early Onset Dementia” Biden is seen to be. Will the biggest clown of them all, Hillary “Hildog” Clinton decide you jump in at the last second??

    1. Well she is under “tremendous pressure” to do so.

    1. Yes, semi auto [so .45 ACP]; apparently it was empty after 6 rounds; I’m guessing it was a sub compact taken from his home [parent]

      1. right so ban assault weapons and twinkies and sewing machines etc.

  36. Hispanic kid with a hand gun. Doesn’t fit the Crazy White Boy With A Rifle narrative. Nothing to see here.

    1. Sorry, I jumped to conclusion. He’s actually Asian, not Hispanic. My point stands, though.

    1. Ukraine become a vital ally around the time that people in Ukraine started putting people like Hunter Biden on their staff. A couple billion dollars to some Ukrainian business people, and a couple million of that makes its way back to think tanks and politicians’ children here in the states, and voila! We have always been at War in Ukraine.

      The same is true in the middle east. Legacy wars and decisions have created institutions in these areas- a few billion dollars circling around and making cronies rich. And all they need to do to keep that money circling around is ensure that the politicians keep it as a priority.

  37. Brooke Nelson, a graduate of Northern State University in South Dakota, told the local paper that she opposed efforts to make a young adult novel by Sarah Dessen the required Common Read book for incoming freshmen.

    Little did she know that her life was soon to changed by this fateful decision. How would hunky Nelson Brook, the captain of the lacrosse team she secretly had a crush on, respond to her new-found notoriety? Would her best friends Violet and Ashleigh support her decision or turn their backs on her? Would Professor Posthumous, her favorite English Lit instructor, rescind the special friendship they shared and the standing invitation for afternoon tea and crumpets in the faculty conference room? And all this coming at a time when she is desperately trying to find a balance between school and home life, where her mother is suffering a lingering illness from an old war wound and her alcoholic father has retreated into a slough of self-pity that threatens to overwhelm the family. Brooke is a strong and resourceful young woman, but even she may be facing a confluence of forces she cannot withstand. All this and more in acclaimed YA author Petaluma Q. Aardvark’s latest tale of teen angst, The Moon, the Goose, and the Purple Nurple, available now wherever good books are sold.

    1. I’ll take three copies please.

    2. Perfect. Short enough to make it mandatory reading in both literature and rhetoric classes by reading it out loud. The exact sort of piece a good literature professor would end off with, “I’m here to challenge you. If this sounds like a compelling story that you’d like to read for this class, your challenge is to leave now or endure a semester reading actual literature.”

    3. Damned fine work there.

    1. Looks, incriminating. At the very least he’s got some splain’n to do.

    2. This news has been reported, by the way, in a bunch of mainstream media stories.

      Sigh. Tried to post links, but it’s “awaiting moderation”. If you google “Burisma” and “Rosemont Seneca”, it turns up stories by checkyourfact.com, New York Times, Reuters, etc.

  38. >A police officer in Arizona was filmed tackling an armless, legless 15-year-old.

    was he getting away?

    1. He made a furtive movement with his…nevermind.

    2. The 15-year-old, in a group home after being abandoned by his family, apparently kicked over a garbage can and verbally threatened a worker.

      That kids has got some kind of skills. I hope the cop threw the cranial shackles on him.

      1. That kids has got some kind of skills.

        I don’t know what word you were typing that autocorrect changed to ‘skills’ but kicking over garbage cans isn’t a skill and if the kid had any skill at all he wouldn’t be living in a group home, kicking over garbage cans like a 3-yr.-old.

        1. You clearly missed the fact that he’s a quadruple amputee.

  39. Fuck Paywalls.

    Did anyone read the article from The Economist about politics vs msuic? Did it say anything more interesting than Republicans are more likely to listen to country music and democrats were more likely to listen to alt-pop?

    1. Swing voters listen to Metal.

    2. “Fuck Paywalls.”

      Weren’t we promised that we would have micro-payments so we could pay a few cents for each article we want to read? Micro-payments seem to have gone the way of flying cars.

  40. ” But the shooter used a .45 semi-automatic pistol, a weapon unlikely to be covered by even the broadest assault weapons ban.”

    Not if any of these fucking progtard Donk assholes have anything to do with it. They will ban a Shoulder Thing That Goes Up.

  41. 2nd Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    All gun control is unconstitutional and the 14A sets a minimum of protected rights for state residents.

  42. Just for clarity, this is a government school, right? Altruism, initiation of force, acceptance of pseudoscience and rejection of reason all part of the curriculum, I’d wager. What percentage of these acts of initiation of force occur at government schools?

  43. My fine pal’s sister-in-law makes $88 each hour on the laptop. She has been laid off for 8 months however remaining month her earnings become $13248 just operating at the pc for a few hours. look those up,,,

    http://buzzjobs.com.nu/

Please to post comments