Reason Roundup

239 Scientists Ask WHO To Change Its Position on How COVID-19 Spreads Through Air

Plus: debunking antitrust myths, defunding U.S. Air Marshals, and more...


Research scientists want less emphasis on hand-washing, more on masks. A group of 239 scientists from 32 countries is asking the World Health Organization (WHO) to revise its position on the airborne spread of COVID-19.

The change could "cause an enormous shudder through the infection control society," said New South Wales University epidemiologist Mary-Louise McLaws, part of a WHO committee on the issue.

But this brewing battle will likely have little impact on behavior, at least in America, where coronavirus containment measures have depended little on the slow-moving advice of public health bodies or state and federal authorities. Many of us have been doing things like wearing masks inside stores and other businesses, keeping our distance from others within them, and avoiding them if they're too crowded—regardless of, or with no idea about, what the WHO recommends. We've been hearing for months that droplets from people infected with the new coronavirus could linger in the air and cause new infections, and doing our best to take precautions.

Precisely how much danger aerosol droplets from COVID-19 patients pose is still unclear.

"There is no incontrovertible proof that SARS-CoV-2 travels or is transmitted significantly by aerosols, but there is absolutely no evidence that it's not," Trish Greenhalgh, a doctor at the University of Oxford, told The New York Times.

For a while, however, most scientists have seemed more worried about the airborne spread of COVID-19 than surface-based spread.

But not the WHO. "Even in its latest update on the coronavirus, released June 29 … [it] said airborne transmission of the virus is possible only after medical procedures that produce aerosols, or droplets smaller than 5 microns," notes the Times. The WHO's focus has been to emphasize surface-based spread.

In not recommending precautions against airborne spread, the WHO is lagging behind not only scientists but basically everyone else, too.

This isn't the first time in this pandemic that the WHO—or public health authorities and government "experts" more broadly—have sowed scientific confusion or lagged on recommending things that many people and businesses are already doing and many individual scientists and medical workers were already encouraging.

The good news: nobody seems to be waiting for the WHO catch up—and the precautions a lot of people are currently taking to stop indoor transmission are probably fine.

Bill Hanage, an epidemiologist at Harvard University, told the Times we needn't go overboard with fear of the virus hanging in the air:

We have this notion that airborne transmission means droplets hanging in the air capable of infecting you many hours later, drifting down streets, through letter boxes and finding their way into homes everywhere.

But that's not the case.

As the Times explains, "the coronavirus seemed to be most infectious when people were in prolonged contact at close range, especially indoors, and even more so in superspreader events—exactly what scientists would expect from aerosol transmission."

WHO members told the Times that airborne spread was downplayed because they worried that it would distract people from handwashing or that it would lead poorer hospitals and countries to divert resources from other strategies.

In interviews, other scientists criticized this view as paternalistic. "'We're not going to say what we really think, because we think you can't deal with it?' I don't think that's right," said Don Milton, an aerosol expert at the University of Maryland.


• "When A.B. 5 took effect in California on January 1, we didn't see hundreds of companies convert independent contractors into employees. Instead, thousands of independent contractors lost work they loved, sometimes ending up without any income at all," writes Kim Kavin.

• Defund U.S. Air Marshals? A thread:

• Food and Drug Administration commissioner Stephen Hahn said it's "too early to tell" whether the Republican National Convention that's scheduled for Jacksonville in August will be able to happen.

• Kanye West tweeted Saturday night that he's running for president.

NEXT: COVID-19 Pulls Back the Mask on America's Prison System 

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

  1. Research scientists want less emphasis on hand-washing, more on masks.

    Someone’s moved from the pocket of Big Soap and into the pocket of Big Mask.

    1. There is no evidence either way, but believe The Science!

      1. Do you believe that there is literally “no evidence”?

        1. “There is no incontrovertible proof that SARS-CoV-2 travels or is transmitted significantly by aerosols, but there is absolutely no evidence that it’s not,” Trish Greenhalgh, a doctor at the University of Oxford, told The New York Times.

          They do.

          1. Do you understand the role of the adjective, “incontrovertible”, in the sentence you just quoted?

            1. Yes it means he’s right.

      2. There may not be any evidence either way, but it doesn’t do any harm to take precautions.

        Wearing a mask is a relatively low effort and low cost way for you to lower your risk of spreading your asymptomatic covid-cooties to your grandma and likewise handwashing is a relatively low effort and low cost way for you to avoid catching the virus from someone else if you have not caught it already.

        If you’re not willing to take these simple precautions you kinda deserve to die but your grandma doesn’t.

        1. “but it doesn’t do any harm to take precautions.”

          Provably false. Masks restrict breathing, and trap allergens and pathogens.

          1. ^ What a pussy.

            1. Your arrow is pointing at your name

              1. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new…TRd after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

                Here’s what I do…………………………..► Click here

        2. so hazmat suits all around? Just in case.

          1. Hazmat suits are not a “low effort and low cost way” to avoid spreading the virus.

            1. Furthermore, hazmat suits are what medical personnel wear to avoid being infected by pathogens, which is why in all off the pictures of people dealing with wuflu victims or testing people suspected of being wuflu show people in serious protective clothing practising extreme protocols to avoid being infected.

              But, when the surgeon about to cut you open dons the mask, gown, gloves and scrub cap he or she is not doing so to avoid cooties from you, he is doing so to avoid passing on any potential bacilli that while they might be living harmlessly to him in his system or his hair or on his body or street clothes are a serious threat to you in you state of lowered immune system vulnerability.

              Don’t you think you owe the same courtesy to your or someone else’s grandma or do you just not give a fuck?

        3. It’s important for the non-vulnerable population to cause the virus to vanish by becoming a “resistant” (a person who doesn’t “catch” COVID or pass it along) or a “recovered”. A few weeks after that, the vulnerable will be able to resume an ordinary life. The expected death charts are the most useful and they are already back to normal. Masks are counter productive for young people.

    2. Hello.

      Defund is the new deconstruct.

      Defund it all? Sure, why not?

      1. But apparently defund doesn’t mean defund.

    3. Washable masks are the solution.

    4. We have no idea if masks actually are doing anything, but we should emphasize them more anyway. WTF?

    5. But masks offer no protection against aerosols. Even N95s only stop half of COVID-sized particles!

    1. “Brooks’ death escalated protests that had already been ongoing since the death of George Floyd,  who died in Minneapolis Police custody May 25.”

      How many hundreds of people have died because of these “protests”, whether directly or indirectly, and the asshole media STILL brings up George Floyd and Brooks? Shouldn’t they change the name to ThugLivesMatter since that is all they apparently care about?

      1. Can you imagine if some anti lock down protest or some Tea Party protest resulted in the death of an 8 year old girl? The media would lose their minds and want every Republican in America locked up for murder on account of it. BLM does it and they ignore it and have an excuse when they can’t do that.

        1. I wonder if they would be able to break themselves away from the resulting circle jerk long enough to charge all of the Republicans with treason or would they have the self control to at least wait until the trial to jerk each other off

          1. …would they have the self control to at least wait until the trial to jerk each other off

            Delaying gratification does not appear to be one of their strong suits, so I highly doubt it.

            1. Hell, they’re probably jerking each other off in anticipation right now.

          1. Hey, Eric, you can’t generalize from that one incident, for which one person is responsible, to a whole group of people!

            1. Yes you can. If the people they are with support and enable what that person does. Feel free to hold the Proud Boys and the rest of the idiots at least partially responsible for that guy. You should also hold Antifa partially responsible because they showed up and started a riot, which foreseably resulted in someone’s death.

              You don’t really understand how this works do you?

              1. Oh I see, you feel the need to attack BLM right now, so personal responsibility is not a thing anymore.

                1. There are degrees of personal responsibility. Are they as responsible as the guy who did it? No. But they are responsible to some degree and that fact doesn’t take away from the responsibility of the person who actually did it.

                  Personal responsibility is still a thing. You just don’t understand what it is and how it works. And yes, maybe you should also feel the need to attack a group that is engaging in violence and murder. Why wouldn’t you?

                  1. I try to treat people as individuals. Individuals are the only ones responsible for the acts they commit. Now, if you are a bystander and do nothing to stop someone from committing a crime, are you responsible? Legally, no, in most cases (other than perhaps a duty to report in some cases). Morally, it depends. Is an old lady morally responsible if she does not interfere with a six foot six guy beating on someone? I think it goes to capacity. Does the bystander have the capacity to safely interfere and stop the crime? That’s what you should be arguing.

                    1. CMW gets upset when his lefty boos are criticized.

                    2. Seriously? “CMW gets upset when his lefty boos are criticized” is all you got out of what CMW just wrote?

                    3. It’s accurate.

                    4. “I try to treat people as individuals”
                      The hell you do. As soon as you think that you can blame something on MAGA no matter how tenuous, you’re the first one out grabbing the rope and pitchforks.

                    5. I must confess I am lazy and write “Trump fan” instead of explicitly listing: John, JesseAz, Nardz, Sevo, Geraje or whatever his name is, loveconstitution1789, that guy with the boring schtick about the Kochs (always forget his name), and a few others. I am, however, referring to specific individuals, and am familiar with numerous comments posted by those specific individuals over months and months here at

                    6. The protesters are actively allowing those committing the crimes to blend back into their crowds. CHOP was actively providing no witness statements to multiple shootings.

                      You seem to not understand what your actual argument is.

                    7. And White Knight proves his ignorance as most of the people he listed, including myself, have posted multiple times the areas we disagree with Trump. But he is too ignorant to notice that. instead if you have ever agreed with Trump once, you’re a trump fan boy. Only full criticism is allowed for The White Knight Liberal.

                    8. Right, JesseAz has maybe agreed with Trump once or twice. That’s it. Sure.

                  2. Meanwhile, The White Knight is a liberal … because … well, based on nothing.

                    1. based on nothing. his posts every day

                    2. Link to even one.

                2. Pretty much. Let’s throw individualism out the window.

                  1. So Stalin is in no way responsible for the deaths the people under him caused? He didn’t pull the trigger right?

                    Marx is in no way responsible for the deaths assocaited with Communism.

                    If I go and tell someone their wife is cheating on them and that guy then goes and beats up the man I said she was sleeping with, I have no responsibility for that?

                    Look Jeff, I know you are stupid but even you are not this stupid. Just stop wasting everyone’s time.

                    1. He’s here to lie and twist and misrepresent, that’s what he does.

                    2. Stalin was at the head of a government where he ordered people to go out and commit murder, and they carried out those orders. Hardly an analogous situation to deciding to, say, participate in a march that was organized by BLM.

                      I’m not familiar with that much of what Marx wrote, so I don’t know if he specifically called for deaths and violence. With that caveat, he was not *directly* responsible for any of the deaths associated with Communism. He may have had some culpability. It’s a subject that you probably know more about than I do.

                    3. So, you are concerned about lying and misrepresenting, but you are OK with John claiming, without any evidence:
                      (a) BLM is behind the shooting of the 8-year-old girl.
                      (b) I am the same person as Jeff.

                    4. So White Knight, answer this one. The Nazi Youth/SS created a lot of violence. Some of them didn’t, but a good percentage did. Were there any good people in either group in your view?

                    5. There might have been some good people in Hitler Youth. It’s quite possible some hapless young man was coerced into being a member of Hitler Youth, but never personally perpetrated violent acts.

                      There may well have been people in SS or Hitler Youth that didn’t both good and bad acts in their lives.

                      There’s a subtle shift you’ve made in the argument. You can debate whether a particular act is good or bad. For example, is it good or bad for someone to participate in a march organized by BLM? But you’ve shifted the debate to whether an entire person’s life can be labeled “good” or “bad”.

                      Of course, your “Godwin’ing” the argument by bringing up Hitler isn’t a subtle shift at all.

          2. That wasn’t a tea party or a lock down demonstration. That was a riot between a few hundred far right losers and a few hundred Antifa losers. No one on the mainstream right ever did anything but repudiate the people Charlottesville. Meanwhile, everyone in the Democratic party must embrace and support BLM and its actions or be called a racist.

            So, come back when you have something besides a complete false equivalency.

            1. @John,
              Not sure how you took that, I thought I was kind of proving your original point.

              1. I misunderstood. My apologies. Sorry about that. Really.

              2. It’s angrily argue first, understand later with John.

                1. Fuck off, hypocrite. That’s your modus operandi, not John’s.

                  1. Except for the ‘understand’ part. You have no interest in that.

                    1. I understand things very well, which is what you find frustrating. For example, I understand perfectly that John made up a connection between the shooting of the 8-year-old girl in Atlanta and BLM-organized protests.

                    2. I’m sorry, where in the article you just linked does it mention “BLM” or “Black Lives Matter”?

                    3. I understand things very well,

                      You understand that you’ve poisoned your original screen name so you have to masquerade until your normal proclivities poison your new one.

                  2. Find one incident of me expressing anger here.

                    1. Literally your existence here

                    2. Yes, Nardz, I realize you would like to have a little bubble here where you and other Trump fans and “unreason” critics could have a circle jerk every day without someone calling you out on your b.s.

                    3. There are several in your posts upthread.

                      Additionally, your sockpuppeting.

                    4. Link to even one comment where I expressed anger.

                    5. You asked for an incident of you expressing anger.
                      I pointed out that your entire existence here is a continuous instance of you expressing anger, as you’ve said so yourself.
                      You do it in that very post whining about your own insecurities and projecting them onto myself and others.
                      You’re a sad, stupid dilettante

                    6. So, again, you got nothin’.

        2. You don’t have to imagine it. Antifa up in Seattle decided to stage a protest, at night, on a highway, around a curve in the road, they wore all black (as ya do), no lights, and blocked the road with 2-3 vehicles. A guy comes around the corner at 60 miles per hour, sees the cars, swerves to avoid them and ends up hitting 2 dumb white bitches, killing one. The driver (who’s black) is getting charged with manslaughter, despite the fact that he’s not the one who chose to break the law and stand around on a fucking highway.

          As long as the police and local government support these shitheads, we aren’t going to have justice

          1. A guy comes around the corner at 60 miles per hour, sees the cars, swerves to avoid them and ends up hitting 2 dumb white bitches, killing one. The driver (who’s black) is getting charged with manslaughter, despite the fact that he’s not the one who chose to break the law and stand around on a fucking highway.

            “Black Lives Matter! Right up until the time we do something stupid that predictably results in the death of a couple of white bitches, at which point fuck those n*****s!”

            1. He was really dumb to stop.

              1. Guy was following the law, he didn’t go out looking to hurt anyone. It’s probably better for him that he did, if he hadn’t stopped they would have upped the charges. The most hilarious part of this whole sad sorry state of affairs was when the protestors who were screaming “fuck the police” immediately start crying “call the cops, call the cops man” when shit went down.

                1. He drove onto the freeway up an offramp.

                  Both parties decided the law didn’t apply to them and now one is dead.

                  But fuck that hideous pig anyway

        3. Can you cite some source that “BLM [did] it” in regards to killing the 8-year-old girl?

          1. This is the angle you’re going with huh? Just open ignorance.

            1. In other words, you got nuthin’.

      2. All the people who are peacefully assembling, and not shooting anyone, are exercising their First Amendment rights.

        The thugs who shot the little girl are thugs, but we, as libertarians, do not judge people collectively. Each individual is responsible for their actions, and it follows that those who did not commit a crime and are peacefully protesting are not guilty by association.

        1. When you participate in a rally that you know will be violent, you are an accessory to that violence. And if a movement is constantly violent like BLM is, the movement is violent not just the “thugs who did it”.

          You know that. And would never contradict it if these were not leftists. Stop fucking lying.

          1. Going back to the story that you linked to at the top of the page: an eight-year-old girl was shot near the Atlanta Wendy’s where Rayshard Brooks was killed. There is nothing in the story about any BLM-organized protest. You haven’t established any connection to BLM.

            To have any kind of concrete discussion, and not just discussing the demons inside your own head, give a specific example of a BLM-organized protest where people who showed up knew that it would become violent.

          2. I’m with White Knight here.

            Just because nihilist assholes are showing up and causing havoc doesn’t mean more sober-minded people with legitimate issues should stop exercising their constitutional right to assemble and petition the government for the redress of grievances.

            I’m angry at the nihilists precisely because they engender this kind of reaction that John is expressing above. Fuck them. They are ruining the message and import of the non-nihilists. But definitely absolutely, without question, the non-nihilists have a right to continue their protests and SHOULD.

            1. And I agree that rioters and thugs and nihilists are ruining the message.

              1. I’d think BLM not being too upset to even mention an 8 year olds killing is kinda ruining their message…

                1. It certainly doesn’t help damikesc

                2. Yes, it would be good if they spoke out against it, but it’s also not exactly damning if they make no statement about a matter they were not involved in.

                  1. Silence is violence.

                  2. Umm, Knight, what is their name?

                    Black LIVES matter.

                    They weren’t involved in George Floyd’s death, either, yet certainly expressed displeasure.

                    But THIS death…well, it’s a black life that they do not give two shits about.

                    Don’t complain when you get called out for ignoring your self-professed raison d’etre.

                    1. Not making a statement =/= “not give two shits”.

                    2. When your job is making statements then yes that is exactly what it means

                  3. Accidentally flagged your comments trying to kill the popup.


            2. I’m with White Knight here.

              You will excuse them as they slit your damned throats.

              The last words you will gurgle as you bleed out will be–

              “Can you cite some source that BLM [did] it”

              1. Damn First Amendment!

              2. Why can’t the government keep all those scary protestors off the streets and ensure our safety from getting our throats slit by scary people?!

                Oh, yeah, darned First Amendment gets in the way of LAW & ORDER!

                1. It’s also a state issue and the states where they are still occurring support the protests.

                  I mean, CA had no problem utterly handcuffing religious services which would ALSO fall under First Amendment.

                  Tell me more, pleas.

            3. You’re missing the fact that the protesters are knowingly harboring the criminals and refusing even witness statements at these shootings.

              But you do you.

        2. we, as libertarians, do not judge people collectively

          ^ This. and this. and this. and this again 1000 times.

          1. Agree.

          2. Any individual participating in, defending, or excusing the “protests” at this point is a collectivist moron who deserves nothing but scorn

          3. So collectively libertarians don’t judge people collectively?

    2. Yeh, that ‘they’re peaceful protestors’ didn’t age well.

      1. The regular useful idiots here were still claiming peaceful protests in comments over the weekend.

        1. I eagerly await the Orange Man Bad takes on Trump not giving disaster relief to Minneapolis after the peaceful protests.

      2. Is it possible, maybe, that in this giant country of ours there are both peaceful protestors and rioters in existence at the same time?

        1. Yes.

        2. There is no time for that kind of sophisticated nuance any more.

          1. We cannot have libertarianism or a free society without some capacity for nuance. Sigh.

            1. You have no nuance. you’ve claimed multiple times now that if you didn’t pull the trigger, you were peaceful. you ignore the actual hiding of the criminals, the refusal to participate as witnesses to the crimes, etc. T hose are all individual actions the protesters have chosen to taken.

              1. Those are all individual actions that *some* of the protestors have “chosen to taken” [sic].

        3. “Every time I’ve given my friend a ride this month, he’s robbed a liquor store while I’m out peacefully driving. Thats no reason to stop peacefully driving and giving him rides though!”

          If you think any of the “protesters” are legitimate at this point, you’re just another useful idiot

        4. yeah, the peaceful protesters are largely stupid people providing cover for rioters or they are protesting something else entirely…i.e. the arbitrary enforcement of lockdown measures

        5. Yes, but not in John’s or Jesse’s worldview.

          1. They can, but they currently aren’t dummy. I’m sorry you’re too ignorant to understand this.

            The protesters are actively providing cover for criminal actions. That is not even a question at this point.

            You are too stupid, literally, to understand that just using the word nuance doesn’t mean the current situation requires it.

            1. They are also completely full of shit

        6. Is it possible, maybe, that in this giant country of ours there are both peaceful protestors and rioters in existence at the same time?

          That’s racis

        7. Can you cite any remotely right-wing protests that the media fell all over themselves portraying as “mostly peaceful”? They were whining that the anti-lockdown protests would kill grandma, for God’s sake.

          1. There was Fox & Friends’ notoriously apologetic coverage of the 2017 Unite the Right rally.

            1. Describe this “notoriously apologetic” coverage.

              Keep in mind, we’ve had years of the press claiming Trump praised white supremacists by cutting a speech off at the line before he condemned them.

      3. There are plenty of people making excuses for the violent protesters/rioters which is disgusting. But it’s important to make the distinction. There are tons of people out peacefully protesting for BLM. Then there are the hardcore idiot BLM “movement” people who want to tear down western civilization for some reason. And then there are always people who just want to do some looting or fuck shit up for the hell of it.

        1. If the group is full of violent people who want to tear everything down, and it is, then what excuse do “peaceful protestors” have for associating with them? Jesus Zeb, if they were peaceful protesting for the KKK, would you excuse that too?

    3. It wasn’t just her–something like 25 people were shot in Atlanta over a 24-hour period between July 4th and 5th. In my hometown, there’s been at least 25 over the last month.

      The combination of race-baiting and cheerleading for the lockdowns by the media is having it’s boomerang effect now.

      1. Yes there were. And I bet all of them were black. Black lives matter so much, that we will stop enforcing the law and allow them to be murdered with impunity or something.

        I cannot believe that the black community is happy about this. A bunch of white liberals have created riots and unrest killing literally hundreds of black people. The old school racist whites didn’t kill this many black people when they rioted.

        1. I cannot believe that the black community is happy about this.

          They may not be happy about it, but actions speak louder than words, and they clearly don’t give enough of a shit to actually hold their own accountable for it. It’s a lot easier to blame whitey and systemic racism than look in the mirror and acknowledge that your own people and culture might be a key part of the problem.

          Keep in mind that white people kill each other in about the same raw numbers as black people do. And a white person is twice as likely to be killed by a black person as a black person is to be killed by someone who’s white. The stats are pretty clear about that. But the progressive pieces of shit in the mainstream media don’t think those deaths are any big deal unless it was caused by a right-wing mass shooter. They’re not interested in solving the problem, they’re only interested in how they can use it to blackmail what they perceive to be “white society” out of more welfare programs and free shit, and making white people hate themselves is the primary way they’ve been accomplishing that for about 50 years now.

          1. Yeah. 50 years ago, out of nowhere, blacks jinxed whites into feeling bad about something incredibly mysterious.

            1. Thanks for acknowledging that collective white guilt has been a liberal shibboleth for 50 years.

              1. Was that right around when public sentiment on Jim Crow turned around?

                1. No, it was right around when the left decided that whiteness was the original sin.

                  1. You think? I think it’s a lot more recent than that that it has started to enter the mainstream left.

              2. I don’t feel guilty. I blame people like you for this mess. This country was poisoned by rightwing fascism and we’re not going to clear the poison overnight.

                1. Shut the fuck up, honky.

                  1. That word has no power over me. Means nothing to me.

                    1. Same thing with racist for me.

                      Now shut the fuck up, honky.

          2. I think if nothing else it is going to depress the hell out of black turnout. I don’t see how the Democrats can motivate blacks to show up and vote for them when they have cheered this on.

            1. Certainly you’ve got your pulse on what Democrats and black persons think!

              1. Certainly you’ve got your pulse on what Democrats and black persons think!

                We all do.

                You people won’t stop shrieking about it.

                We can’t get away from you even if we try.

                1. And thats the problem.
                  These people are miserable, and cannot tolerate anyone else not being miserable

          3. You do have black leaders speaking up against BLM (including some former BLM leaders) because it’s clear to them that BLM’s been hijacked. Unfortunately, since the fanatics control the media, no one is able to hear them speak out.

            1. Ah, there’s that conservative persecution complex, again. Never mind that there are plenty of huge conservative media outlets, like Fox.

              1. “plenty”

              2. Would you like to trade all left-leaning outlets for all right-leaning ones? Because I’d take that offer in a second.

              3. “there are plenty of huge conservative media outlets, ”


                1. He said FOX!!!!!!

          4. People should stop saying “the black community” unless they are speaking of a particular group of black people who are actually a community. Black people in general have no more obligation to hold violent activists and thugs accountable for anything than I do.

            1. You’d think BLM and other activists do though

        2. “A bunch of white liberals have created riots and unrest killing literally hundreds of black people. ”

          Never been to one of these protests, thanks for confirming. Also, pictures and video doesn’t exist for you.

          1. Around three-quarters of the protesters have been white, dummy.

            1. There was an actual study done that said 60% of participants were white.

          2. I saw the protests in DC first hand. And they were 50 50 black white and every single person engaging in violence was white. Indeed, all of the people who have been arrested in DC for trying to destroy the statues and such have been white.

            1. “all of the people who have been arrested in DC for trying to destroy the statues and such have been white.”


              1. Every link I find has white people being arrested. Find me one of a black person being arrested for it Washington because I can’t find it. And I can’t prove a negative. You can however prove the positive by showing a single link to a black person being arrested.

                1. Citation?

                  You made this claim. Prove it.

                  1. You could just go check instead of being lazy. He’s under no obligation to prove anything to you, that’s a made up bullshit internet rule that aspies like you grip when you’re wrong Jeff.

                2. I have no doubt there’s some black folks being arrested, however I agree that from what I’ve seen, it’s been reeing white assholes who have been instigating the violence. We saw that all the way back in Minneapolis, where while there were plenty of black people who were willing to take advantage of opportunities, it was white people like the Umbrella Man who started shit.

        3. Snoop Dogg doesn’t care.

          /makes whypippo rap motion.

      2. Another 14 people were shot a block from my friend’s house. 3 died.
        But that was because of a block party where dudes were doing donuts in the middle of a crowd on a 3 lane wide road, and one car bumped another.

        1. And it happened in Trump’s America. I guess we need a new president and a different way.

          1. Yes, they were so upset about Trump being President that they lost control and shot their own people.

          2. Boring
            Take your State Supremacist leftism and hang yourself with it

    4. I’m pretty sure more black people have now been killed in protests related violence than were killed by cops last year. If you count the 200% increase in shootings and violence in major cities it is definitely true.

      1. Hell, more black people were killed in one weekend over Father’s Day in Chicago than all of the unarmed black men killed by cops during the previous year. I look at that, and my reaction is supposed to be that the cops are the problem? As much as bad policing needs to be reformed, all the reforms in the world won’t do jack shit when the community itself is so rotten, vindictive, and dysfunctional.

      2. As I’ve pointed out, CHAZ killed at least two unarmed black people in about 2-3 weeks.

        All police, nationally, killed about 9 last year in total.

        6 blocks hit about a quarter of the national total in about 4% of the time.

    5. Any journalist who has the audacity or utter stupidity to write the phrases ‘mostly non-violent’ or ‘mostly peaceful’ should be summarily banned from publishing. This perversion of language and meaning needs to be held up to ridicule, scorn and derision until it ceases.

      And, just to be clear, blocking traffic is neither peaceful nor non-violent. It is a tactic that has been used for years to get a reaction from drivers that justifies the escalation to property damage and assault through claims of self defense. The claims that protesters are being targeted by drivers is an outright lie.

    6. Really weird that this story is not getting picked up by major news feeds. Could it be perhaps that the the girl is black, was in the car with her black parents and was shot by a black man surrounded by black men? This story does not fit the race war narrative. If the girl was white and black men were accused or was black and white men were accused, it would be the top story in the nation.

      1. It’s appearing on all the mainstream news feeds, as far as I can tell. But go on with your narrative.

        1. Its not a narrative if I haven’t seen the story anywhere else yet, fuckstick. George Floyd hit the news feeds like a ton of bricks.

            1. Nope, it sure isn’t.

          1. What is it with all the conservatives, and conservatarians, and Trump fans who hang out here in the comments, that you all resort to personal attack at the drop of a hat?

            1. Yeah, Tony would never do that.

              1. Yes, Tony, does do that. Although, I don’t think Tony is around much anymore. Or maybe he uses a different handle.

                1. I think maybe it’s “Queen Amalthea” these days.

                  1. Might not be. “Tony” just appeared today elsewhere in the commentariat.

                    1. He’s never use 2 handles on the same day.

                    2. Despite all the silly, deflective accusations you throw around about person X being a sock puppet for person Y, there’s no evidence “Tony” has posted under any handle other than “Tony”.

                    3. Prove a negative?

                    4. So you got nothing

            2. Everyone that disagrees with me is a conservative and a Trump fan!

              1. No, they literally have posted hundreds of comments apologizing for Trump over and over again. See example I posted below of JesseAz’s shilling for Trump during the impeachment.

                1. LOL. god you’re such a joke. Saying the impeachment was a political process, which it was, is schilling?

                  You really are pathetic jeff.

        2. “Why would anyone respond to my passive-aggressive rejoinders with hostility? Such a mystery!”

      2. ” If the girl was white and black men were accused”

        maybe 20 years ago. we’re past that point now. Remember a few weeks ago when it was national news when an african american mad killed two white octogenarians at a Veteran’s cemetery? Me neither…

    7. Was there a BLM-organized protest event going on at that location at the time?

      1. Yes.

        And then, no.

        And then yes again.

        BLM turns it’s support on and off as needed.

        But you’re too stupid to see that.

        1. I purposely used the word, “organized”. You are shifting that to talking about BLM “supported”.

          I know what “organized” means: applying for permits, advertising and publicizing that the protest it going to be occurring at such and such time and place.

          What do you mean by BLM “supported”?

          1. Has there ever been an actually organized march from BLM?

            Governments ignoring their regulations are not the same thing as an actually organized event.

            1. In my own city, BLM organized a protest in front of a government building. Not a march, but a protest. Don’t personally know if they applied for permits or anything like that, but they promoted and advertised the event.

              1. Around here they are telling the authorities what route they are marching so they can just shut the road down, and then marching down different streets so they can still block traffic.

                1. Do you know for a fact that the “they” you are referring to is BLM?

                  1. How about you fuck off. You don’t want to learn.

                  2. It was an offshoot of BLM called Black Femme Slags aka “Chicks no one wants to fuck”

              2. So, you cannot say if they did what you stated they did? Good to know.

          2. “I purposely used the word, “organized”. ”

            Of course you did, you’re running cover like Azatoth said.

            God damn dude you can’t do EXACTLY what he said you do and then pretend you’re not doing it.

            1. He can and he will. He’s part of the Lying Jeffy brigade.

  2. The WHO’s focus has been to emphasize surface-based spread.

    Look, I’m planning my big COVID-19 party and I just need to know if the guests should be licking doorknobs or not.

    1. Well, if it’s that kind of party, got any mashed potatoes?

      1. “We’ve got the mashed potatoes just the way you like ’em: 98.6.”

    2. Whoa, Fist with the NC-17 joke. First time for everything! 🙂

      1. I’ve worked blue before.

  3. When A.B. 5 took effect in California on January 1, we didn’t see hundreds of companies convert independent contractors into employees. Instead, thousands of independent contractors lost work they loved, sometimes ending up without any income at all…


    1. They obviously needed a union and not freedom of choice in their careers.

      1. The left believes in freedom of choice. Choose between any of the following one options.

        1. More like a choice of which left wing overlord will tell you what to do.

    2. those were ‘bullshit jobs’ anyways! /s

  4. Doctors wear masks to prevent the spread of bacterial infections to or from the doctor.

    Masks do not work for viruses.

    1. Surely you have noticed all the lab technicians in the virology labs wearing single ply cotton bandannas.

    2. It’s a sneeze guard. That’s literally it. It’s benefit is that some people are now sneezing into the mask instead of their hands. Note the some people part, because a lot of people would take the mask off to sneeze.

      1. Are you going to wear a snot soaked mask?

        1. No.

          And I’m not gonna to cough in my elbow or cover my mouth when I sneeze.

          I shall wipe my snot over every doorknob and countertop that I come across, just to prove “mask don’t work”.

        2. Are you implying I’m doing it wrong?

      2. Sneezing isn’t a symptom of this virus.

        1. Yeah, but humans sneeze on a daily basis even when they aren’t sick. Dust and allergies, you know.

          1. Dust and allergies?!? Go back in the house!!!

          2. The irony being CDC guidance on peanuts led to an explosion of deadly peanut allergies.

          3. The dust from my N95 mask made me cough like crazy the other day lukily i was done coughing from teh mask particles by the time i got in the store

    3. Doctors wear masks because when you get the bill, you know you’ve been robbed.

      1. Why did the mask wearer cross the road?

        To run away from the virus.

    4. What is the source for your assertion?

      1. Do the math.

        Determine the maximum probable cross-sectional area of a large virus.

        Determine the smallest area through which a standard N95 or KN95 mask will block particles from going through.

        Divide the answer you got from the mask by the answer you got from the virus.

        Do it yourself. Don’t take anyone else’s word for it, including mine.

      2. I don’t need to do that calculation to know that bacteria are typically bigger than virii.

        1. So you’re saying you asked a stupid question Tony.

  5. Food and Drug Administration commissioner Stephen Hahn said it’s “too early to tell” whether the Republican National Convention that’s scheduled for Jacksonville in August will be able to happen.

    Well, if the FDA said it…

    1. Perhaps he should realize that it is not his call?

  6. Kanye West tweeted Saturday night that he’s running for president.

    A bid for attention is how the current one got started.

    1. If West took even 10% of the black vote, it would likely be devastating to Biden’s chances.

      1. They ain’t black though.

        1. I believe the term is not “black black”.

          1. Snoop dog straight up called them Coons. Somehow twitter forgot its policy on no derogatory comparisons to animals and are still leaving his tweet up.

            Racism against white and racism against black conservatives, only allowed and cheered racism left.

            1. “How come black people get to use the n-word? What a double standard!” – JesseAz

              1. That is an incredibly stupid hot take of what Jesse said.

                1. He’s incredibly stupid, so that makes sense.

              2. Jesse commented on how racist attacks on individuals is supposed to be forbidden on Twitter.

                He then showed a specifically racist attack against individuals on Twitter.

                I am laying this out because you don’t seem to have strong comprehension skills based on your retort.

              3. You’re not smart.

  7. I’m gonna disrespectfully disagree with those 239 scientists.

    Not only is there no proof of airborne transmission, there’s no proof masks do much.

    So what am I missing here except I’m stating to really hate public health officials and scientists who sign these letters?

    1. You are missing The Science!

      1. So much science. I can’t follow it!

        What we need is 239 scientists who say the opposite.


    2. Are the 239 mad? A conspiring cabal? Or are you missing something? Can you point me to your accomplishments in this field, since you’re opining on it I imagine they are impressive. Surely you’re not an armchair quarterback likely motivated by confirmation bias here. It’s those several hundred experts that are nuts/wicked, right?

      1. Accomplishments like an under 50% replication rate in the field you’re defending? This field is notorious for bad science and p value hunting. If I have to explain to you how that isnt science, you cant be helped. See eggs/butter/fats in studies the last 50 years as an example.

        On top of this a lot of the science has been replaced with modeling. And these scientists are terrible modelers. They have no validation or accreditation process to speak of in these models. Very basic simulation requirements like repeatability are completely ignored.

        1. So, again, what have you done in this, or any related area? Please cite.

          1. Your whine doesn’t even make sense.

          2. Not an argument. Nor is it good trolling. You are probably a big hit on social media though.

        2. You know what has an even worse replication crisis, Jesse? The alternative to which you subscribe. Reading entrails, glossolalia, and interpreting Revelations has had a terrible replication rate for thousands of years and no one is doing anything about it.

          1. Was unaware that the ONLY options were “terrible models” and “Christian medicine”. I assumed there were, you know, a litany of possible options, but CMW has wisened us all up to know just how binary science is.

            1. Do you understand the difference between a sarcastic comment and reasoned debate? BTW, those are the only two options and nothing in between!

              1. Oh, that was “sarcasm” and not the your usual bilge?

              2. I understand your post was retarded because you’re pissed and know you have the worst of the argument,

              3. Shorter CMW: I like to make up shit about people to advance my argument, then say it’s just sarcasm when I get called out.

              4. Uh oh, Chipper is declaring his idiotic comment as sarcasm again.

          2. Chipper, where did I subscribe to what you stated? How dishonest are you?

            Pointing out flaws in science is actually doing science. Science is always changing as new information is discovered. That is literally what science does. When it is not reproducible, it is a warning sign.

            You are not smart.

      2. You sound upset that people are recognizing that the Scientific Community can’t figure out its ass from its elbow on this.

        1. People often talk from their butts.

          1. Yes, like you are. An appeal to authority is a logical fallacy and not a valid refutation of any argument.

            1. An appeal to authority is perfectly acceptable in inductive logic. But, if you’re mistakenly invoking the appeal to authority fallacy that amateur logicians learn about re: deductive logic, I can see your mistake.

              Can you, though?

              1. Yes. My mistake is responding to a troll in the first place.

                However, appealing to authority as a reason to believe something is fallacious whenever the authority appealed to is not really an authority in this particular subject, when the authority cannot be trusted to tell the truth, when authorities disagree on this subject (except for the occasional lone wolf), when the reasoner misquotes the authority, and so forth.

                Not sure which of the above reasons does not apply to the highly politicized Science! that has been vomited out in response to COVID-19.

              2. Oh, and fuck off, Hihn.

              3. You can’t see your error, and are talking down to Chuck P, that is the amusing thing.

          2. Speaking from experience?

          3. Leave AIDS out of this.

      3. Appeal to authority, ad hominem, straw man…

        1. ^^IRT Queen, not Red Rocks^^

          1. See 10:41

      4. Appeals to authority isn’t cool man.

        /moons Queen Twat.

        Here. That’s my accomplishment.

        You fucken sheep.

        1. Sure, people with much more experience, education and accomplishment in a field likely are wrong in conclusions in that field, and you, without that, and with confirmation bias to boot, are likely right.

          Keep citing that Community College Logic Course fallacy…

          1. So because some “experts” say so, it must be true? Yes. Appeal to authority.

            And I normally reserve this comment for open marxists – GET UP OFF OF YOUR KNEES.

            1. She, he, Xe – whatever- doesn’t quite grasp the notion that there’s no ‘97% consensus’ on masks.

              Apparently, it’s up to other scientists to debunk their specious claims. Nice little racket.

              They do the same exact thing in the climate change cult.

            2. “people with much more experience, education and accomplishment in a field likely are wrong in conclusions in that field, and you, without that, and with confirmation bias to boot, are likely right.”

              Address it my one horned friend

              1. Tell it to Emilie Du Chatelet.

              2. people with much more experience, education and accomplishment in a field likely are wrong in conclusions in that field

                Not what I said. Do you buy your straw wholesale or just grow it yourself?

              3. Their conclusions are developed thru models that have, quite bluntly, been unable to accurately predict much of anything (remember the expected deaths models showed from COVID?)

                If you’re spectacularly wrong, you need to actually demonstrate your bona fides.

          2. Oh – so citing a NYT article about (but not directly citing) a future letter to the WHO – from as-yet-unnamed ‘experts’ (as defined by the NYT) from as-yet-unknown countries (but apparently important authoritative ones – as defined by the NYT) – is an example of ACTUAL authority rather than a specious appeal to authority?

          3. When someone says something like, “I can’t prove it isn’t airborne,” (which that doctor says in this article) you absolutely should question that person’s scientific credentials.

            You can’t prove a negative. Her saying that is basically the equivalent of saying, “I don’t know shit.” It’s the antithesis of the scientific method-you start with the known, you don’t assume things that are unknown, and you test.

            Plus it’s not surprising in the medical field to find 239 doctors offering, “Well it can’t hurt” as a justification for whatever policy.

      5. Can you cite any actual evidence of airborne infections?

    3. I think they are looking for cover. There is little/no evidence whatsoever that the virus spreads much via aerosol outside two particular situations – medical environments with things like nebulizers and prolonged contact in contained environments. Rather than deal with those settings – where a solution is going to be similar regardless of how it spreads – they want to have some pissing contest about the virus.

      It’s the same desire for lack of accountability that led them all to screw up stuff like protecting nursing homes and other institutional settings. That has led many of them in Europe/US to not focus on the basic stuff of their jobs like contact trace/test.

      If the virus really did mainly spread via aerosol – like measles – the spread would be overwhelmingly random. Passing strangers/etc in near proximity would be the main danger. But the spread is overwhelmingly NOT random. It is family, friends, workplace, and people who stay for awhile in obviously ‘superspreader’ high-risk type situations.

      1. Hi JFree! Can you show me where you know what you’re talking about with these evaluations? Years or accomplishments in the field and such.

        1. You sure like the word ‘accomplishment’.

          Something tells me he can produce all the ‘accomplishments’ and you won’t care.

          How about this? How’s about YOU go do the fricken work because if you look you’ll find a beautiful botanical garden of literature that challenges your narrative of ‘accomplishments’.

          1. How about you produce a relevant accomplishment? Don’t be a snowflake here!

            1. I already mooned you.

              1. So, no accomplishment? Got it.

                The fact that you opine in an area you are not accomplished in doesn’t make you some hero, it makes you a likely blowhard.

                1. I’m also gonna marry a carrot.

        2. Just interpreting actual disease spread and cluster data from Singapore, South Korea, Germany, and Australia

          Countries that actually bothered to do that stuff early – even if they kind of delayed or failed to do other stuff. In every case, they were quite able to keep it confined to clusters for a LONG time. That is not POSSIBLE with predominantly airborne spread where it quickly leaks out. Clusters quickly turn into mere ‘superspreader’ events and epicenters and in doing that becomes ‘uncontrollable’. And where because of that, the whole idea of trace/test becomes as irrelevant as trying to bail out a leaky boat with a spoon that’s smaller than any hole in the boat.

          Oh and BTW – I look forward to you showing me the ACTUAL letter to the WHO of those ACTUAL experts. Because I’m interested in knowing whether they are experts from countries that have failed to date or countries that have succeeded to date. A FAR better proof of whether those experts know their ass from their elbow than their degrees.

          Rather than just some fucking NYT article talking about some future letter to the WHO from as-yet-unnamed experts because hey – trust us we’re the New York Fucking Times.

        3. Hi Tony.

    4. and if you are worried about airborne transmission then you better be covering your eyes as well. full body suites for everyone all the time. but washing hands is still very important. these people are fools and clearly moving goal post

      1. The masks are to prevent transmission from the infected person. Eyes don’t emit airborne particles.

        1. Yet…they’re working on it.

        2. Yes but a non infected person can become infected thru the eyes and yes if something is on teh surface and you touch the surface then your eyes like most people do then your infected

  8. Hmmmmm, now if only the media could realize that Bill Hanage’s complaint about the WHO sums up why normal people are ignoring authorities now. If you lie to people “for their own good” you have no one but yourself to blame for people not taking your advice anymore.

    1. At least the WHO finally admitted (Reason didn’t note this, as per usual) that China never actually reported the pandemic ever. The claim that they did so in December was a lie.

      1. That’s the biggest story in all this.

        All this wasted energy on masks should be focused on CHINA.

  9. “There is no incontrovertible proof that SARS-CoV-2 travels or is transmitted significantly by aerosols, but there is absolutely no evidence that it’s not,”

    But all this inconclusive research fully justifies destruction of the entire economy. Otherwise, the socialist takeover might be delayed.

    1. Sounds like someone wants to be fed with more research money

    2. Sure, there was no motivation to save lives behind the lockdowns. Only socialists, springing out from behind the bushes where they have been hiding, to unleash their nefarious plan!

      Paranoid much?

      1. Keep crying clown.

  10. I was flipping channels this morning and a Trump ad about defunding the police came up. It seems pretty devastating to me.

    The fact that the media is having a fit about it and calling it “deceptive” is pretty good evidence the media agrees that it is.

    1. “I’m a fan of Trump, please watch this ad!”

      1. Stunning rebuttal Jeff.

        1. I guess a more stunning rebuttal from you would be to say ‘hey, I think this Candidate X ad has a great retort, please click on it!’

      2. Where are your accomplishments to question this? Seems to be a field you have no expertise in.

    2. Yeah well you’re a fascist creep so yeah you would get boner.

      1. You are a idiot using a sock puppet who wouldn’t know the meaning the word “fascist” if it hit you over the head. But you are profoundly stupid and ignorant. So there is that.

        And yes, you don’t like the add either. That is pretty good evidence it is telling the truth.

        1. I didn’t watch it John. I get enough of that poison reading your comments. People who politicize crime to promote the police state are fascists. That’s what you and the right wing media are doing right now and it’s the kind of campaign Trump is running.

          1. I’m sure you’re all broken up about the black people that have been shot and killed over the last month.

            1. It makes me sick to see it because of the personal tragedy of it and then because of the way it’s used by fascists and rightwingers to undermine freedom and kindness.

              1. Stop lying.

              2. Right wingers are mentioning a large uptick in killings. They aren’t DOING the killings, just mentioning that they are occurring.

                So, natch, the right wingers are undermining “kindness”. Not the, you know, killers.

              3. It makes you sick because it hurts you politically. Otherwise you don’t give a fuck. Go back in your whole racist.

        2. “you don’t like the add either. That is pretty good evidence it is telling the truth.”

          speaks volumes itself.

  11. Frederick Douglass statue vandalized on anniversary of his famous Rochester speech

    1. So what? What do you think it means? An individual committed vandalism. Big fucking deal.


        1. Are you talking about the right wing terrorists capitalizing on these protests?

          1. You mean the black right-wing terrorist that pasted those commie slors in Seattle?

          2. Can you cite these right wing terrorists?

            I mean, you made the claim.

      2. A single person tore down and destroyed a statue? It’s probably not connected to all the other people pulling down statues, right?

        1. Pulling down statues is something libertarians have long denounced. Just look at the history of people pulling down statues and the horrible symbolism associated with it. Disrespecting great historical figures is a threat to civilization itself.

        2. Why were the statues put up in the first place? You ever look into that question? I don’t give two fucks about a statue. I’m not in the business of glorifying and whitewashing history. I like my history dirty, complicated and in a museum.

          1. When they start destroying paintings, you going to be OK with that too?

            1. I don’t like the look of some of these protests. We’re all humans here and more or less susceptible to overdoing it. I even see fascism in the way some of these protesters are acting and I don’t like it. But it informs me. It teaches me about people. It’s one of the reasons I read because libertarians are pretty good at nuance.

          2. I like my history dirty, complicated and in a museum.

            Except when it makes your fellow travelers look bad.

      3. The same statue had been vandalized by a couple of teens in 2018, and there was no political motive.

        Given the current situation, it’s reasonable to suspect that there was a (misguided and ignorant) political motivation this time, especially given that other abolitionist statues have been vandalized/toppled for ostensibly political reasons.

        Currently, there are no suspects identified, so it remains to be seen whether or not it’s a BFD.

      4. And it’s probably smart to condemn that person instead of everyone tacitly accepting that we’re just anti-statues now.

      5. “So what? Some random dude lit a cross. Common vandalism. Big fucking deal” — Lord of Strazele

      6. It’s nice when pieces of shit like you prove how racist and bigoted you are.

    2. Even as recently as half a year ago, if someone vandalized a statute of Frederick Douglass, I would suspect some neo-Nazis who put away the meth and kiddie porn and crawled out of their moms’ basements.

      Now I can not be too sure about that….

      1. Antifa destroyed a Douglas statue. They are just lunatics.

  12. America’s cultural revolution is just like Mao’s
    To many who survived the crackdown in China, events in the US are frighteningly familiar


      BBC News (UK)
      Jun 10
      “I think what we’re seeing here is a genesis of a cultural revolution”

      Lawyer and political and women’s rights activist Dr Shola Mos-Shogbamimu says she sees the removal of films and statues as “representing breaking the symbolic shackles of racism”

    2. It would like to be. The problem is that the Chinese one had the full support of the government behind it and it’s victims were defenseless. Here, they don’t have the support of the government, just the acquiescence in a few cities and the vast majority of the intended victims are armed and not defenseless.

      So it is really just COSPLAY at a cultural revolution.

    3. What an incredible insult to anyone who actually went through the Cultural Revolution. Next you’ll say masks=Holocaust.

      1. So desperate, you just keep making yourself look dumber

        1. I’d say a desperate person is someone who equated wearing a mask during a pandemic with the Cultural Revolution. Or maybe someone ignorant of the Cultural Revolution…

          1. Nobody really cares what you say because your pedantic attempts at “gotchas” are as transparent as BLM’s marxist scam

          2. The article had literally nothing to do with masks.

            1. Poor Tony just can’t help himself.

      2. I’d call you Mizek, but I’m not sure who I’d be insulting.

      3. mask ≠ Holocaust but mask = gold star on cloths. everything starts somewhere

        1. Guy Fawkes mask has a sad.

      4. Wow, you have people who actually went through this shit saying “guys, they’re doing it again”, and your response is that they’re insulting themselves. Keep proving how much of a fucking mental degenerate you are.

  13. ‘It’s Over’: Atlanta Mayor Says Protesters Should Clear Out After 8-Year-Old Girl Shot And Killed

    1. Let’s not forget that this is at the end of the day, the mayor’s fault. When Brooks was shot for attacking officers, she gave the cops over to the mob. The reason there’s so much unrest in Atlanta is because of her.

      1. Brooks did not attack officers.

        There’s a damn video that shows what happened. He was shot in the back while running away.

        1. are you high or just a moron? He did attack the officers, spiked one on the officer’s head, and took a taser away from the other. He shot the taser at the officer who was still on his feet as he ran, and the officer followed his training and returned fire. He was drunk, aggressive, and armed, with a history of violence. Based on police SOP the cop could argue shooting him was justified on that alone since he was arguably a danger to others. At no point in the 40 minutes of video do the cops give any indication of wanting to escalate the situation. And spare me the bullshit that a taser isn’t a deadly weapon, you had the same DA that’s going after the cop make the argument that it was a deadly weapon a week before the shooting happened. If Brooks had tased the cop he would have had both officers at his mercy, and their guns. Cops are trained to never let this happen and have it rammed into their heads with training videos showing what happens when career criminals catch cops. You can argue the training needs to be changed, but the cop did nothing wrong in this scenario. He followed his training in a split second situation and it ended with a dead asshole who chose to start a fight because he knew he was breaking parole.

          1. He was shot in the back while running away.

            1. After he did those things.

              Are people mental in 2020?

              1. Sorry, I meant to be more clear. he was shot in the back TWICE while running away.

                “those things” he did are not grounds for summary execution. You understand that right? Are people mental in 2020?

                This is how you get a police state, people.

                1. Sure, the things people do are not grounds for ANY consequences in the guilt-free, thought-free, truth-free participation trophy generation society.

                  Fuck off.

                  1. if you can take your tongue off the boot of your police state for a minute.. you might reflect on the fact that he was shot in the back while running away. TWICE.

                    There are definitely consequences for resisting arrest and running away.. but summary execution should not be one of them and no liberty-minded person with a shred of human decency (not to mention any awareness at all about the nature of the citizen vs. state relationship) would advocate for such a thing.

                    1. Well atleast you stopped lying about him attacking officers.

                2. He fired a deadly weapon at an officer (hey, the DA said tazers are that under Georgia law). Not sure how having a deadly weapon fired at you does not justify an equal retaliation.

            2. While running away as he shot at the cops…

      2. Also remember that she ordered the police to enforce those curfews a few weeks ago. Then she railed against the cops because some innocent young people got hurt in the course of the enforced curfews. Then she extended the curfews.

        Hey, dumbass, take a look at your own policies for a second.

  14. China Suppression Of Uighur Minorities Meets U.N. Definition Of Genocide, Report Says

  15. WATCH: Antifa Rioters Throw Bricks, Mortars, M-80s at Police as Portland Descends Into a War Zone

    1. The state and local governments could smash these idiots in a day if they wanted to. How long will the people who live in these places put up with them not doing so?

      1. Shouldn’t attacks on federal property by rebellious elements be rewarded with large, glorious monuments of the leaders of the rebellious elements?

        1. Only if they’ve killed commies in the process.

      2. A few people have tried to stop them but they keep getting arrested and called far right extremist NAZIs. who new defending ones life and LIBERTY was the same as being a NAZI

    After 37 days of violent antifa & BLM protests and a mild response from Portland Police & the city, scores of federal police and what looks like military stand outside to protect the federal courthouse. Last night, the building was attacked w/mortars.

    1. Everyone needs to keep in mind here that, when the radical left decided to try and assert itself in the same manner 100 years ago, it led to a resurgence of the Ku Klux Klan that was so strong, they actually were able to de facto run large cities the same way Antifa basically runs Portland.

      If this keeps up for any considerable length of time, expect a MASSIVE reaction, and it isn’t going to be black or mestizo activists getting suppressed, it’s going to be the white liberal rioters that make up the vast majority (estimates are around 3/4) of the actual protesters. These are the people who are the real face of the movement, because white liberals are the only political demographic that actively hates their own ethnic group.

      1. Only the left has agency, and as such always to blame.

        1. Only the right has guilt, and as such always to blame.

      2. Crips are keeping BLM out of their neighborhoods, because they don’t want white antifa destroying them.

        1. No news there, the Crips keep everybody else out of their neighborhoods.

        2. Latin Kings were doing the same in Chiraq.

      3. I think it was Lap who said that this is not how you get more Trump. This is how you get Pinochet. And I think that is about right.

    2. How the fuck did a protestor get a hold of a mortar or a cannon big enough to shoot it?

      I’m getting a feeling that mortars in this context aren’t the things I’m thinking of.

      1. Sounds more like Roman candles.

      2. They do have some very high powered lasers, apparent in video from Saturday night.
        It’s almost like there’s some sort of funding behind the leftist assaults nationwide

      3. They’re most likely talking about mortar style fireworks, but they could also be talking about home-built hand mortars like the Nicaraguans were using these last few years:

      4. Mortars the size of tennis balls are pretty typical fireworks.

        1. Did anybody else do that thing when you were kids, where you tape a bunch of cans together, one on top of the other, after you cut off the tops and bottoms, put gasoline in the can on the bottom, and fire tennis balls through it at your friends?

          1. Oh yeah. Back in the day of steel beer cans. Good times.

          2. We tried to make napalm by mixing gasoline and Styrofoam, then coated tennis balls in it and played tennis.
            Game didn’t last long

  17. Planned Parenthood ‘steeped in white supremacy,’ employees, supporters charge

    A letter signed by more than 350 “current and former staffers” of Planned Parenthood of Greater New York, as well as about 800 donors, supporters and volunteers, declared that founder Margaret Sanger was “a racist, white woman” and that the organization suffers from “institutional racism.”

    “We know that Planned Parenthood has a history and a present steeped in white supremacy and we, the staff, are motivated to do the difficult work needed to improve,” said the June 18 open letter from Save PPGNY.

    1. By killing more babies of every color

    Tbf, ending civilization would cure obesity.

    1. Soap is racist… because of course it is.

  19. Does ENB wear a mask? She seems to be cool with it.

    Which is fine by me if voluntary.

    1. Depends on the scene.

  20. German council confiscates six apartments to help ease migrant housing shortage – and owner will have to pay five-figure renovation bill

    1. They’ve been doing that for a couple of years.

      They were kicking people out of their apartments to make space for them.

      Know what else the Germans were planning?

      To put people in psyche wards for not wearing….masks.

      Ghosts of Bismarck and Hitler.

      1. Get em out by Friday?

      2. This is an announcement from Genetic Control
        It is my sad duty to inform you of a four foot restriction on
        Humanoid height
        I hear the directors of Genetic Control have been buying all the
        Properties that have recently been sold, taking risks oh so bold
        It’s said now that people will be shorter in height
        They can fit twice as many in the same building site
        They say it’s alright
        Beginning with the tenants of the town of Harlow
        In the interest of humanity, they’ve been told they must go
        Told they must go-go-go-go

    Apple has stopped updating tens of thousands of mobile games on the China App Store after coming under pressure from the Chinese government to comply with local rules.
    Apple told mobile game developers in February that their games would need an official license from Chinese regulators from June 30.
    The App Store generates more revenue in China than it does in any other country, including the U.S.

  22. “…but there is absolutely no evidence that it’s not,” Trish Greenhalgh, a doctor at the University of Oxford, told The New York Times.”

    Could we please see this “no evidence”?

    1. “Could we please see this “no evidence”?”


    2. “I can’t prove a negative, therefore, we must assume the affirmative without proof of the affirmative.”

      And just like that, Trish proved that she’s not a scientist. Feel free to mock her.

    1. This story is fucking crazy and should be getting more play

  23. GOP Saps Need to Quit Being Idiots

    I want to know the name of one single voter who cried out, “Take that, Columbus Day! And now that Fort Benning is known as Fort Diversity Rainbow Unicorn, I shall cast my ballot proudly for the generic GOP stooge who helped make that happen because when my country is burning and I am under attack, I want to be represented by people whose first inclination is to suck up to the Democrats!”

    What’s this guy’s name, GOP geniuses? Who is this mystery voter you are courting at the expense of people otherwise inclined to support you? I’d like to meet him, and to sell him a bridge.

    …But even if changing base names did not implicitly and falsely indict my three Fort Benning diplomas (Officer Candidate School, Airborne, and Infantry Advanced Course) as badges of oppression instead of symbols of freedom – as well as those of millions of other veterans – I would still be against changing any base names or holidays now because you never, ever negotiate with a gun to your head.

    1. No more capitulation to Marxist assholes or liberaltarian pussies

  24. “Dominion Energy Inc and Duke Energy Corp said on Sunday they decided to abandon the $8 billion Atlantic Coast Pipeline project after a long delay to clear legal roadblocks almost doubled its estimated cost.

    Despite a favorable ruling by the United States Supreme Court in June, the two companies said it was not enough to justify the project’s economic viability given the increased legal uncertainty and anticipated delays.”

    —-Reuters July 5, 2020

    That pipeline would have pumped natural gas from West Virginia to Maryland and a natural gas liquification facility on the Chesapeake Bay. No doubt, Dominion Energy and Duke Energy might have toughed it out and kept fighting if the economy were better and energy prices were expected to go higher–especially after they won that Supreme Court case a few weeks ago. It should be noted that Dominion Energy is not only dropping the plans for the pipeline across the Appalachian trail but also selling their existing gas pipeline business short to Warren Buffet. This is more than just a press release. They’re taking their bat and ball and going home.

    The reason they’re giving up is because of all the legal and political opposition due to the interests of “environmentalist” groups. I put scare quotes around “environmentalist” because I’m not convinced this pipeline would have been bad for the environment or global warming. The “environmentalist” cause is to resist any and all attempts to bring more energy out of the ground and burn it, but what their fanaticism doesn’t adequately account for is the fact that natural gas burns about 40% cleaner from a greenhouse gas perspective than coal and helping to further displace dirtier coal and oil is what this pipeline would have done.

    Liquefied natural gas can be used to power trucks, cars, and buses, too, but even more so, from the perspective of electric cars, if your electricity is produced from a coal plant rather than from natural gas, then your electric vehicle is contributing around 40% more in the way of greenhouse gases than it would be otherwise if they were using less expensive natural gas to generate electricity. Plenty of “environmentalists” will be driving dirtier Teslas because of this.

    From a realistic environmentalist perspective, no scare quotes, the rate at which we contribute greenhouse gases should be a primary consideration while entrepreneurs and the market continue to find more efficient ways to generate electricity without carbon based fuels. People who genuinely hate the environment might do the same thing the “environmentalists” have done in killing off this pipeline. They think they’re limiting the absolute amount of accessible carbon based fuels that can be pumped into the atmosphere, but they’re really just making sure that the rate at which those gases are released remains at an elevated level.

    Oh, and someone should probably mention the people of West Virginia, who are suffering all sorts of problems associated with rural poverty. Oh, and someone should probably mention the standard of living of American consumers on the east coast, who could have enjoyed the benefits of lower energy costs due to more low priced competition for energy but will now be stuck paying higher prices instead. Forcing other people to sacrifice their standard of living in order to push your own qualitative preferences on them which they don’t share–that’s probably about as good a definition for elitism as there needs to be.

    1. We really need to fix the lawsuit system. If you lose a case you brought, you should be required to pay defense fees, as well as for time and money lost. This would also be the only way to make Qualified Immunity being taken away viable, and it needs to be taken away.

      1. They’re going to sue them over every single land acquisition and permit requirement between the Appalachian Trail and the Chesapeake Bay, too.

        And maybe the worst part of all is that they’re wrong about what natural gas does to the environment.

        If they don’t like the fact that the American people won’t suffer the economic fall out from their carbon free Green New Deal, then they should realize that cutting 40% of the carbon emissions from coal is a good thing.

        It isn’t that elitists can’t account for the interests of average Americans; it’s that they don’t want to. They’d rather be elitist than advance their “environmentalist” goals.

        Certainly, the less economically painful it is for Americans to give up on carbon emitting activity, the sooner they’ll stop emitting so much carbon! And if you can get them to give up 40% of the emissions caused by their electricity usage, of their own free will, because natural gas costs less, then you will be 40% of the way to getting to getting to 100% carbon free electricity production. What’s not to like about that?!

        The problem is largely a function of the activist organizations themselves. I won’t name any names, but those organizations are all competing for the same donor dollars, and the way they raise money is by telling people there’s an emergency and going after the bad guys in the suits who are making all the money–energy companies like Dominion and Duke. It’s clear to me, anyway, that the environmentalist groups leading the charge on this are more interested in raising money for their own organizations than they are in fighting climate change–because they’ll sell the best interests of the environment short to raise money.

        1. Yep. They’re basically legal grifters.

    1. Frederick Douglass, Confederate General?

      1. There’s this thing called sarcasm, and your sarcasm detector needs to be well calibrated for it around here.

      2. Thank you for verifying your bot-level intelligence.

    2. Two points:

      1) The Frederick Douglas statue, obviously, may have been torn down in retaliation for Confederate War statutes by people who support keeping “problematic” statutes–although what’s “obvious” these days may need to be said out loud.

      2) Frederick Douglas wrote a letter to a newspaper about the Lincoln state that’s been in the news lately–with Lincoln hovering over a slave in chains. Until a couple of historians recently uncovered Frederick Douglas’ letter in an old newspaper from 1876, the contents of the letter had only been talked about by people who supposedly read it. The alleged contents were considered questionable, and were considered apocryphal.

      You can read Frederick Douglas’ opinion of the statue at the Smithsonian website here:

      To summarize, Frederick Douglas wrote that one statute couldn’t possibly tell the whole truth of slavery, and he argued that there was room in the park for another statue–one showing a freed slave standing on his own two feet.

      The argument gaining currency after the discovery of this letter is that they should put in a statue of the woman who first started raising the money for the statue everyone wants to tear down now. She was apparently a freed slave.

      1. Except (1) is unprecedented, while social “justice” warriors tearing down icons of civil rights, and other stuff (another Christopher Columbus was beheaded and an elk statue destroyed), is par for the course

        1. I agree, but there’s a lot of “unprecedented” going around these days…

          1. Retaliation doesn’t require a whole lot in the way of precedent–start attacking the statutes some people hold dear and sooner or later they’ll start to come after your statues, too.

            Meanwhile, this isn’t unprecedented. An Arthur Ashe statue was recently hit with “White Lives Matter”, and there were statues being defaced when I was a kid.

            It’s also important to keep in mind that accounting for facts rather than denying hard truths is the standard method of progressives. If you don’t want it to be true, then it isn’t–that’s the progressive way.

            I don’t need to pretend that no one on the right would ever deface a statue of an abolitionist hero–because I have facts and reason to defend my ideas. Progressives need to distract us away from reality because their arguments don’t make any sense, but libertarian capitalists don’t have that problem.

            1. P.S. I support the Second Amendment–regardless of whether guns are sometimes used to mass shootings.

              This is the same thing. Because someone on the right may have defaced the statue of an abolitionist hero changes nothing–so there’s no reason to pretend that couldn’t be the case.

            2. Thats all well and good, but the probability of it being Marxist SJWs is far, far higher than the chance it’s “right” wingers.
              Don’t be a useful idiot

            3. Fair enough, but I wouldn’t put money on either outcome at this point, though I agree with Nardz that marxists/antifa or misguided BLM are more likely than not under the circumstances.

              Vandalizing statues is certainly not unprecedented, but I believe that the scale and scope of it are. If you know of a time when so many statues in the US (and not just here, but also In Britain, Australia, and elsewhere) were being toppled/defaced/etc. in such a short time by mostly one “group” (arguably a bit nebulous, though), then I’d be interested in learning of it.

      2. Remember when things were so bad that actual issues were addressed and real change was brought to a country that actually had systemic racism problems?

        now it’s statues all the way down..

  25. Remember when Michelle and the girls went to Mount Rushmore and it was all cool?

    I ‘member.

    1. Can you cc the copy of their speech?

      1. You mean when she called it “one of the great American sites”?

        1. Yes, citation? Let’s see if it’s analogous.

          1. It’s from the 2013 Holiday Press Review.

          2. Why don’t you look it up for yourself you lazy smart ass?

            See the browser? Just type in whatever it is you want to search for.

            For example, ‘Why am I a lazy retard?’

            Enjoy the results.

            1. I don’t think it can read.

  26. Just caught what seems to be the replacement for Biden’s daft youtube ad.
    Now, rather have him try a 10-word sentence, they’ve broken the pitch into several 2-3 word phrases. They could patch together part of this take and part of that take to make it appear as if he’s not demented!

    1. It’s the third Youtube ad
      1st – Got the words wrong
      2nd – Paused mid-sentence while waiting for the teleprompter to show the next line
      3rd – The chopped up one they’re using now.

      1. Well, he’s still ‘not Trump’, so the TDS contingent doesn’t care if they keep him upright with a shovel-handle up his ass.

        1. Just don’t blame me, I voted for Kanye.

          1. Gold digger.

            1. +1 upstaged Taylor Swift

  27. In interviews, other scientists criticized this view as paternalistic.

    I’m shocked, shocked I tell you, to hear that an international extra-governmental body composed of “scientists and experts” would behave in a paternalistic fashion. /sarc

  28. Defund U.S. Air Marshals?

    That would be a good start, but don’t stop there.

    1. Proof of concept. Call it a pilot program.

      1. I see what you did there.

      2. Nice. Also, can we get the ATF out after them? No country really NEEDS an ATF after all, they just like having one for hunting.

    2. It’s a laugh. The air marshals never seem to cause trouble, so it’d be hard to get the needed clamor to get rid of them. The first time an air marshal hijacks a plane, though, then we may see action on this.

  29. at least in America, where coronavirus containment measures have depended little on the slow-moving advice of public health bodies or state and federal authorities.

    Not true. The advice has been fast moving, and consistently wrong.

  30. In not recommending precautions against airborne spread, the WHO is lagging behind not only scientists but basically everyone else, too.

    In all fairness to the WHO, Pete and Roger are getting long in the tooth, and Keith and John are dead (not from COVID, amazingly).

  31. Trump’s speech at Mount Rushmore was fantastic!

    Anybody who talks crap about it because of what you’ve heard, you’re part of the problem.

    It was especially poignant at Mt. Rushmore, under the gaze of monuments to four presidents, all of whom are under attack at the moment–even a statue of Lincoln as was mentioned up thread.

    I don’t know if coming out strongly against a national lock down policy, against looting and arson (as opposed to the news media who clearly support “protesting”), and coming out in favor of American history will be enough to beat back the formidable genius of Joe Biden hiding in his basement for fear of being associated with all the embarrassing polices the social justice warriors and the news media are backing, but President Trump seems to be coming out strongly on the reasonable side of all these issues.

    1. It was very good.

      No script

      Gives way better speeches than Obama.

      Notice he doesn’t stammer like Obama does.

    2. If a politician’s speech doesn’t make you a little nauseous, you’re part of the problem.

      1. It had its cliches. Under normal circumstances, sure, but it was nice to hear it.

        1. Over recent weeks, the left has transformed those cliches into profound and revolutionary ideas.

          Trump does better when he projects himself as a underdog fighting against the elitists, which is to be expected from a populist–since populism (in all its forms from left to right) is always a reaction to elitism.

          Before Trump, it was hard for me to imagine an incumbent president running against the elitists as an underdog, but the social justice warriors and the media have somehow managed to make that possible. I don’t think they can stop themselves.

      2. As politicians’ speeches go, this one was excellent, especially in its defense of things like liberty and the principles of the Constitution, etc.

      3. I am pretty sure Lincoln’s second inaugural doesn’t make me nauseous. Neither does Reagan’s Boys of Point Du Hoc speech.

        Sometimes speeches really are good.

        1. But that’s way less dogmatically “edgy”

    3. Any Democrat who launched a culture war offensive against his political opponents, using the occasion of Independence Day, a day that is supposed to be a day of celebration for *all* Americans, would be condemned by the usual right-wing nuts around here as an unfit leader and a corrosively divisive partisan.

      Just imagine if Obama said:
      “Happy Independence Day, America! Now let me tell you how Republicans are racists who hate you and want to put you into chains.”

      We would never hear the end of it.

      1. If Republicans were going around burning down cities demanding every statue of a black person be torn down and every black person apologize for being black, I would hope Obama would say that.

        If you don’t like Trump saying that Democrats want to destroy our history and the founding principles of the country, well, the Democrats need to stop doing that. As it is, just pretending they are not when they clearly are and do so openly every single day on national TV, isn’t going to persuade anyone.

        There is nothing divisive about saying everyone should be proud of the country and it’s history. It is only “divisive” because the Democrats have decided the opposite.

        1. When President Obama was scheduled to speak at the 75th anniversary of Pearl Harbor, I was genuinely concerned that he might apologize to the Japanese prime minister for the attack.

      2. “Happy Independence Day, America! Now let me tell you how Republicans are racists who hate you and want to put you into chains.”

        Uh, the Democrats’ current Presidential candidate actually said that, you worthless quisling.

      3. “Happy Independence Day, America! Now let me tell you how Republicans are racists who hate you and want to put you into chains.”

        Is that a direct quote from President Trump’s speech, or did you just make that up?

        1. Sounds like Biden in his more cogent days

          1. Well, the point is that Thomas Jefferson, for instance, isn’t celebrated because he was a slaveholder. He’s celebrated because he wrote eloquently about liberty and freedom–and thereby provided for our national expectations of freedom. If it hadn’t been for Thomas Jefferson and the things he wrote, the arguments for abolitionism wouldn’t have found such a receptive argument in the ears of average people in the North, ahead of the Civil War, the arguments against segregation wouldn’t have found such a receptive audience among average Americans in the civil rights era, and fewer people would care about the arguments of social justice warriors today. We celebrate Thomas Jefferson today because of his contribution to our national character in its expectations for liberty–not because Thomas Jefferson was a slaveholder.

            And I’m here to tell you that Thomas Jefferson wasn’t clear on his ideas about liberty in spite of being a slaveholder. He was almost certainly clear on his ideas about freedom because he was a slaver holder.

            This is where I need to pause to credit Orlando Patterson of Harvard University and his book from 1991, “Freedom in the Making of Western Culture: Volume I” In that book, Patterson makes an excellent case that freedom, as we have come to think of it, came into the consciousness of western culture as the antithesis of slavery in the ancient world. If Patterson is right about that, and I think he is, then, “Fuck off, Slaver!” is the perfect and ancient response to anyone infringing on our liberty.

            No, we don’t celebrate Jefferson because he was a racist, but the reason we celebrate him–because his ideas about liberty and articulation of freedom helped form the core of our national culture–that probably came to him because he spent every day of his life staring into the face of slavery. In that sense, to cancel Thomas Jefferson is to cancel the legitimate contribution of slavery to our national culture–if the reason we value freedom so highly is in no small part because some of our influential founders had such an intimate acquaintance with its opposite.

            1. Doubt you’ll see this, but thank you Ken for the reading recommendation.

              1. It’s an excellent book.

      4. When the Democrats are demonizing anyone who wants to celebrate being an American as racist, then yeah, it’s alright. You and your friends have jumped the shark.

      5. Your leftist fellow travelers spent the 4th of July trampling and burning flags

      6. “Just imagine if Obama said:
        ‘Happy Independence Day, America! Now let me tell you how Republicans are racists who hate you and want to put you into chains.'”

        He was smart enough to not say what he actually felt, unlike HRC, who stated in a speech on 17th Jan. 2006 that the Republicans were running the House of Representatives “like a plantation”. For added context, that was MLK Jr. Day…and she was making that speech in a black church in Harlem…and then she followed that statement with “you know what I mean”. Stunning and brave…

  32. So tell me again how this all works.
    The WHO, a dignified and respected bureaucracy of corrupt politically controlled executives that passes as the last word in all things scientific shoudld pay attention to any group of 239 regular folks who will not donate any funds exactly why?

    1. The reason you criticize WHO is to get the media’s attention.

      If a tree falls in the middle of a forest and the media doesn’t cover it, then it shouldn’t have bothered falling.

      1. If a tree falls in the middle of a forest and the media doesn’t cover it, is it still Trump’s fault? I think we all know the answer.

        1. Well the media might not bother covering it if it weren’t Trump related somehow.

    2. 239 scientists will soon become ‘97% consensus’.

      And fields are these scientists in anyway?

      The 97% climate change scam had psychologists and other non-sciencey people in it if I recall correctly.

      1. I remember seeing a t-shirt on a deadhead once that read something like, “374 neon colored teddy bears can’t all be wrong”.

        Yes they can!’

        Science really is consensus driven. It’s isn’t just that reproducability is important to the method either. Whether there’s a consensus in the field is one of the tests of whether we’re committing an appeal to authority fallacy, which is to say that if there’s no general consensus, their opinion isn’t authoritative.

        And even if there is a consensus in the field, that consensus can always be overturned when new data comes in that wasn’t available when the consensus was formed.

        1. This is a good time to repost the link to Statistician’s Blues


    I know the media does everything it can to lie and cover this sort of stuff up, but they can’t cover it all up. How do the Democrats win a national election with clowns like this being so closely associated with their party?

    1. “One, two, three, four, slavery, genocide and war. Five, six, seven, eight, America was never great”

      They call them “far-left protesters”, but I’m not sure that’s true. Isn’t that more or less the standard opinion at MSNBC and the New York Times?

      1. Yes it is. And anyone in those places who doesn’t affirmatively agree, is fired.

      2. And every campus across america. Not just their standard opinion but required curriculum for every student. You could be a physics major but your basic requirements include social justice classes. The indoctrination is comprehensive, concerted, and determined.

    2. Was “God damn America” always a statement by “far-left protesters” or was that a public statement by the minister where Barack Obama regularly attended church?

      I think there’s a pattern here. When the statement is a little too embarrassing for prime time, it’s “far-left”–regardless of the proportion of people on the left who agree with it.

    3. Maybe if the left doesn’t want to be accused of hating the US, they should stop doing things that show they hate the US.

    4. >>How do the Democrats win a national election

      they don’t.

      1. Not gonna lie, I’m interested in seeing how the black vote splits this election. You’ve had 3 or 4 different polls including Rasmussen saying black approval for Trump is in the low 40s. Since the democrats were on record back during Obama saying that if more than 20% of the black vote split away from the Democrats, they’d cease to be nationally viable, and I wouldn’t be surprised if Black voters, just like everyone else, are a little hesitant to voice support for Trump publically, November could be very interesting.

        1. >>hesitant to voice support for Trump

          the Biden signs are out but not in force.

      2. cheating successfully is kind of like winning, not that they would DREAM of doing that…

        on an unrelated matter, how is DC statehood coming along?

  34. Regarding ‘the letter’ from 239 scientists; let’s do some parsing here:
    239 scientists from 32 countries; ~10/country. That’s a VERY small sample.
    Further, how did we find out about this?
    “a doctor at the University of Oxford, told The New York Times.”
    Hmm; seems someone knew to send it to the NYT, that noted bastion of impartiality!
    I’d say a bit of skepticism is due here.

    1. ‘scuse me:
      239/32 = 7-1/2 per country.

      1. If you factor in the 163 countries that couldn’t give a fuck, it might bring that down even further.

        1. i love those countries.

    2. Also, once again, worth pointing out that she’s assuming the affirmative because she can’t prove the negative. Not. A. Scientist.

  35. >>A group of 239 scientists

    politicians. and fuck them they can live w/socks stuffed in their mouths I won’t comply.

  36. The ‘scientists’ who are making this argument really do not know what they are saying.

    Airborne is not the same as droplet transmission.

    Droplet precautions include both mask and a face shield (which, coupled with improper usage, is why current public mask usage is all but pointless.)

    But droplet precautions do not give protection from airborne transmission. Protection from airborne transmission means proper air filtration, isolation of the infected, and N95 respirators for anyone in close proximity (same room) as the infected.

    1. Please also note that N95 respirators only filter in one direction as well.

    2. They know what they’re saying–it’s just a desperate attempt to try and wrench the narrative back to “mass gatherings bad” after they did a 180 at the beginning of June and said that protesting was a public health necessity.

  37. i making over 17k $ working part time . It was all true and hass totally changed my life ……. Click For Full Detail.

  38. Thank you for sharing the information about It. I learned a lot from it! I appreciate you the detail you went into it. I am grateful for the amount of time and effort you put into this helping us. Your insights and summary are beneficial.

  39. I have received $17634 last month from home by working online in my part time. I am a full time student and doing this easy home based work for 3 to 4 hrs a day. This job is very simple to do and its regular earnings are much better than any other office type work….Click For Full Details.

  40. Fauci hears a WHO.
    As if I give a shit about either one of these two says or thinks.

  41. Bullshit. When “239 scientists” write about anything, you can bet that 230+ of them are not actually involved in the research. And based on the quality of work being published lately (see the Reproducibility Crisis, for example), it’s another good bet that most of them can’t do the necessary statistics to properly interpret and critique someone else’s research.

    To be quite blunt, the primary research paper supporting the use of masks was based solely on computer modeling. But the model merely quantified the assumptions built into the model in the first place – namely, that the masks work. That’s circular reasoning. Computer models are mathematical restatements of your hypothesis. They may be useful but they are not data.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.