Reason Roundup

Prosecution Rests in Ahmaud Arbery Murder Trial

Plus: The View eats its own, NPR ignores a victory for Asian-Americans, and more...

|

While the Kyle Rittenhouse trial has largely captured the media's attention for the last few weeks, another murder trial of significant public interest has been happening at the same time.

Ahmaud Arbery, a 25-year-old black man, was shot and killed by Gregory and Travis McMichael, a father and son pair, in Brunswick Georgia back in February 2020. Their neighbor, William Bryan Jr., has also been charged. The trio of white men is accused of chasing down and murdering Arbery, who was jogging through the neighborhood.

The prosecution rested its case on Tuesday, CNN reports:

On Tuesday, Georgia Bureau of Investigation forensic pathologist Dr. Edmund Donoghue—the man who performed Arbery's autopsy—detailed Arbery's injuries as jurors saw graphic photos from the examination.

Donoghue's autopsy report from April 2020 did not detail the order in which Arbery's gunshot wounds happened. But he testified Tuesday that he could do so now, combining the autopsy with widely seen cell phone video taken by Bryan. Arbery and Travis McMichael can be seen in the video wrestling over the firearm before the shooting.

Though three shots were fired, only the first and third struck Arbery, Donoghue testified. The first not only grazed his right wrist—hitting an artery and causing severe bleeding—but also struck his center chest, he said.

The third shot struck his left chest and armpit, hitting his axillary vein and axillary artery, Donoghue testified.

While a tourniquet could have remedied the wrist injury, nothing could be done on scene to save Arbery's life after either of the torso wounds, Donoghue said.

Prosecuting attorney Linda Dunikoski asked whether Arbery's first set of injuries—the wrist and chest being hit by the same shot—could be "consistent with someone pushing a shotgun away from them" or "consistent with someone maybe grabbing the shotgun."

"It could be, yes," Donoghue answered to both questions.

The Washington Post has more:

Attorneys for Travis McMichael say their client sought first to scare off Arbery and "de-escalate," firing as Arbery got close and fearing that the unarmed man would take McMichael's weapon. Prosecutors contend that McMichael cannot claim self-defense because he, his father and their neighbor were the aggressors—pursuing Arbery in their trucks and then confronting him in their coastal Georgia neighborhood of Satilla Shores in February 2020.

The defense previously tried to bar Al Sharpton from sitting with the family of the victim, arguing unsuccessfully that this amounted to jury intimidation.

While the Rittenhouse trial, which increasingly looks like it may result in an acquittal, has been wrongly framed by some in the media as an issue of racial animus, the Arbery case is much more straightforward: Three white men chased down a black man who had done nothing wrong and killed him. He didn't have a gun, and he wasn't threatening them. It's much easier to argue that the McMichaels were the aggressors—though ultimately, the jury will decide.


FREE MINDS

Jedediah Bila is a Fox News pundit and a former host of The View. On Tuesday, she appeared on her old program as a remote guest to plug her new book. The conversation went south very quickly when host Joy Behar brought up the fact that Bila is unvaccinated, which necessitated the remote setup.

Bila explained that she did not get the vaccine because she has a "medical exemption to the vaccine" co-signed by three different doctors. "I am not a candidate for this vaccine," she said. She further clarified that she was not anti-vaccine in general, but because of her own health issues—and her natural immunity from a prior COVID-19 infection—it did not make sense for her to get the vaccine.

This perfectly sensible statement did not seem to alarm the hosts, but when Bila brought up the (unfortunately true) fact that the vaccines do not prevent transmission of COVID-19, Behar and the audience lost it.

Sunny Hostin accused Bila of prioritizing "your personal freedom over the health and safety of others" and stated that The View should not even allow Bila to voice such "disinformation." This was a remarkable claim since nothing Bila said was remotely false. Nevertheless, Daily Beast columnist Wajahat Ali celebrated Hostin for shutting down Bila.

Again, Bila did not make any false claims. Her claim that natural immunity from a prior infection gives her robust protection from COVID-19 was true. Her claim that the vaccines—while terrific at reducing severe hospitalization and death—do not prevent the spread of COVID-19 was also true.


FREE MARKETS

NPR, America's government-funded media outlet, published a story on Monday that sounded a negative note about incoming Boston Mayor Michelle Wu's historic win—she's the city's first Asian American mayor—because… she beat out several black candidates. Here's a screenshot of the tweet:

NPR subsequently deleted the tweet after receiving much-deserved criticism.

"We realize we don't always get things right the first time, and our previous tweet/headline misrepresented the story," wrote NPR. "We deleted the previous tweet, which was causing harm, and have updated the story."

The replacement tweet was only marginally better, and the real issue was that the entire premise of the story itself was hopelessly flawed. The initial tweet did not misrepresent the story at all: It was an unending parade of outrage from social justice activists of color that Bostonians had dared to elect an Asian woman. This weird obsession with race is tokenizing and insulting, yet unfortunately has come to dominate NPR's coverage, as noted by journalist and podcaster Katie Herzog.


QUICK HITS

  • For The Atlantic, David French explains that while Kyle Rittenhouse is plausibly innocent, that does not make his actions heroic or praiseworthy.
  • White House chief medical adviser Anthony Fauci is moving the goalposts again, saying that in order to get to pre-pandemic normal life, cases in the U.S. must fall below "well below 10,000" a day.
  • Some Democratic strategists want to defend critical race theory and accuse Republicans of putting "white supremacists" in charge of the curriculum.
  • Brad Polumbo of the Foundation for Economic Education raises a valid point:

NEXT: Can the Government Hide Its Misdeeds as 'State Secrets'?

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

Please to post comments

473 responses to “Prosecution Rests in Ahmaud Arbery Murder Trial

  1. Fuck Joe Biden

    1. Fuck Joe Biden
      *clap, clap, clappidty clap*

      1. This year do not worry about money you can start a new Business and do an online job I have started a new Business and I am making over $84, 8254 per month I was started with 25 persons company AHf now I have make a company of 200 peoples you can start a Business with a company of 10 to 50 peoples or join an online job.

        For more info Open on this web Site............E-CASH

        1. Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening…FGh And i get surly a check of $12600 what’s awesome is I m working from home so I get more time with my kids.

          Try it, you won’t regret it........CASHAPP NOW

          1. I am making $165 an hour working from home. i was greatly surprised at the same time as my neighwewbour advised me she changed into averaging $ninety five however I see the way it works now. I experience masses freedom now that i'm my non-public boss.
            that is what I do...... Visit Here

    2. Fuck Joe Biden

    3. Let's Go Brandon

    4. I feel your pain losers. Try salve.

      1. Pretty sure LGB is chapping your cheeks, not ours.

        1. Fuck Joe Friday too.

    5. It warms my heart when the first thread is the FJBLGB+ thread.

  2. While the Kyle Rittenhouse trial has largely captured the media's attention for the last few weeks, another murder trial of significant public interest has been happening at the same time.

    Oddly, the narrative in that one seems to have taken a back seat. Waaaay back.

    1. Democrats doing what they do best.

    2. Which is telling, since the Arbery situation ticks off more of the boxes required for the narrative than the Rittenhouse one does (and is much less likely to go in favor of the accused). It's almost like they prefer the one they think isn't going to go their way.

      1. If it goes their way, there’s no reason to riot.

      2. Part of this is to display their ability to use violence to control us. They want everyone to know that you are not allowed to defend yourself from them. You must comply.

  3. An hour after they elected her, they wanted another mayor.

    1. This joke sure left me wonton more.

    2. Terrible Boston drivers have chosen their new leader.

  4. The conversation went south very quickly when host Joy Behar brought up the fact that Bila is unvaccinated, which necessitated the remote setup.

    Behar is exactly the kind for whom the divisive policies being pushed are targeted. Not only falls for it, but amplifies it like the good mindless lemming.

    1. All she had to do was strap an old tee shirt across her face.

    2. Well, at least one good thing, Behar will now be kicked off of Twitter for spreading misinformation on the COVID pandemic.

    3. Seems bizarre that MULTIPLE doctors who have examined her do not know as well what is needed for her specifically as some hack in DC.

      1. That hack is backed up by thousands of self-proclaimed elite nannies.

    4. Why does The CovenView still have any audience at all?

      1. Reason journalists editors work from home and need breaks from their Twitter research.

      2. It doesn't, but everyone still pretends it does, much like CNN.

      1. Would it matter if she had?

        This crisis hasn't been about effective public health since April 2020.

      2. She would approve. The cancel Christmas part specifically.

    5. The View eats its own

      Jedediah Bila was just on #TheView to promote her new book and things just went South. Like way South past the Mexico border South.

      ...Go on...

      1. saw that too.

        1. scarred for life?

      2. Down to the golden triangle?

    6. The conversation went south very quickly when host Joy Behar brought up the fact that Bila is unvaccinated, which necessitated the remote setup opened her mouth.

      Fixed

  5. Rittenhouse prosecutors have now been found to withheld 2 pieces of data from the defense.


    shipwreckedcrew.substack.com
    @shipwreckedcrew
    WOW -- Rittenhouse attorneys have the goods on prosecution having withheld evidence. Pros. sent a compressed version of the drone video to defense, when they had the full resolution which they held until closing. 3.6 MB v. 11.5 MB. Huge difference.

    This is the hail Mary drone footage that was grainy. They had higher resolution video.

    They also knew the name of jump kick man who had come forward to try to get immunity in another case. The name was not given to the defense.

    1. The lesson I'm taking from all of this: If you have to kill someone in self defense, pick up your empties walk away from the scene. If there's any way it can be spun into a "race issue" your life will be over. The lynch mob is now in charge; this includes prosecutors.

      1. Some recommend revolvers for that reason.

        1. A revolver would have been illegal for Rittenhouse to have used. That was why the weapons charge was thrown out, it does not apply to long rifles.

          1. There are rifles with reolver mechanisms, albeit, they aren't a common design.

            1. Revolver, that is.

          2. The important thing here is to make sure you use a legal gun?

        2. Riotous crowd and a six shooter? I'll pass.

          1. Not necessarily. The mob still has to guess which six will get shot and which of the rest will do the cannibalizing. That thought alone serves to deter thuggery. A bandoleer full of Speed-Loaders and a place to take cover would be helpful too.

          2. Was once present where there was a strong potential for it. And had just a J-frame. I was not happy with my choice. Thankfully, it was not needed.
            Anyhow, when I now roll wheelgun it is a 686+ so there are 7 shots. With a couple speedloaders.

            The original point was, and had been articulated by folks in the gun community, that a revolver does not eject spent casings by itself.

            1. Totally your get intention regarding spent casings. I simply prefer having 32+1 readily available.

              1. Double stack Glock 9mm?

                1. G22 with 15 round mags (30+1, not 32+1)

                  1. Ahh. Thought you were referring to the G18 mags (that fit the double stack 9s).

        3. That, and they aren't as subject to jamming, unlike automatics.

          1. Au contraire, Encog. Revolvers most certainly can jam, and it is a cast iron bitch fix when it happens. Usually involves disassembly to begin to diagnose the problem.

            It doesn't happen often, admittedly.

            1. Which is why I said "aren't as subject to jamming." Any human artifact, of course, is subject to break-down and entropy.

              1. Fair. I missed the "as". Apologies.

                Entropy always wins.

                1. That explains Joe Biden.

                2. "'S'allight."--Señor Wences.

      2. Alternately, use fairly generic ammunition, and make sure you don't leave evidence when loading your mags. Or shoot from far enough away that TPTB have little idea where to start their investigation. Leave your phone and/or tablet at home.

        Suppose Kyle was wearing a mask, did everything else he did that night, but never turned himself in? Odds he'd have been eventually found? I'm thinking better odds than he's facing right now.

        1. The firing pin and chamber marks are distinctive. Allegedly.

          1. Replacing firing pins is cheap and easy. Allegedly.

            1. Or your weapon was lost in a tragic boating accident.

              1. Or your weapon was lost in a tragic boating accident.

                Ironically, Grosskreutz said during testimony that the pistol he nearly used to kill Rittenhouse was lost prior to the trial.

              2. Man, there's so many people having these "tragic boating accidents," I'm sitting on the shore with a tear like Iron Eyes Cody.

                The thing is, though, the gun grabbers may be on the shore too, watching and dragging the water ways with nets, sonar, and submarine drones with metal detectors too, not to mention boat slip and dock records. These "tragic boating accidents" only have so much footprint that can easily be re-traced.

                1. A couple of decades ago, there was a case around here where a kid doing his first solo flight decided to follow the Mississippi River. Unfortunately, he didn't think this through and was flying too low and slammed into some high-tension lines that crossed the river. The plane exploded and he crashed into the river. You know the only thing they ever found was a seat cushion. They knew within a certainty where it went down and, yet, they never found him or any part of the plane. I'm pretty sure you could dump a tractor trailer load of guns in the Mississippi River and never hear from them again.

                  So I guess the lesson is, have your boating accident on a major river with lots of current.

                  1. I live in Michigan. They’re not finding shit in the Great Lakes.

          2. To an individual rifle. If they don't have that rifle to compare it to..

            Alternately, change/alter the bolt, or extractor.

            Most CSI evidence---DNA being the shining exception, fingerprints if you're insanely lucky---only proves up what you already know. It doesn't give you a lead on other people that you weren't already aware of.

            For X cartridge case, the cops can tell: who the manufacturer was and what caliber/type of cartridge it is. Maybe there's DNA/fingerprints on the case too? Which sounds like parallel construction bullshit to me, given the conditions in a rifle chamber, but that's what's claimed. If you can obtain the weapon that allegedly shot those cartridges, you might be able to establish that the weapon likely did or did not shoot them. That's it.

            OK, the killer used a .223 rifle, and these are Aguila cases. Maybe powder/primers that are used in Aguila factory ammunition. Great, now what?

            1. Have seen arguments both ways. If the guns someone possess, in that configuration, did not fire a specific bullet and eject a specific casing then it is your argument to lose as opposed to explaining why your gun was present at the time of an incident.

          3. I think ballistics tests are as bullshit as fingerprints. Ok for excluding a possibility, but shit as evidence for inclusion.

            1. Fingerprints, oddly enough, are good to go for generating additional leads. Provided you have enough points for a statistically meaningful comparison. IIRC, it takes 10 to allow the prints to be used in court as a means of identification, but a few less (not sure just how many less) is fine to give you a starting point for where to look. Most crooks are frequent guests of the C.J. system and their prints should be on file.

              Of course, this assumes that prints were left, that they were legible, etc...

          4. Use cash. Allegedly. And normally run with a spare barrel purchased with cash. Allegedly. And don’t leave spent casings and rounds around the back 40 if you target practice there like John Lee Malvo. Allegedly.

            If Rittenhouse gets acquitted, like he should, another option would be to carry a throwdown. Not a firearm mind you. But a throwdown skateboard.

            1. .John Lee Malvo? I thought i was John Mohammed and Lee Boyd Malvo, the two D.C. area snipers?

        2. I've always wondered why automatics don't have a little cartridge shell catcher at the ejection port to keep shells from littering the ground. With that, you could dispach rioting dirt-bags, retain shells for reloading, and "Recycle America" and "Keep America Beautiful" in more ways than one. Like, Groovy, Man! 🙂

          1. Aftermarket brass catchers exist. Placing anything in close proximity to the ejection port is a recipe for jamming. While watching competitions I've seen spent cartridges rebound off nearby surfaces and re-enter the open chamber before the bolt could even close - it can happen that fast.

            1. Iirc, during the Newhall Incident, some of the cops were shot while picking up the empties they had ejected because their range required them to do that. This seemingly money-saving practice trained them into something that cost them time during an actual gunfight and may have contributed to them being shot.
              I pick up empties after an entire session. But not while shooting. I do pocket empty mags instead of letting them drop. But I’m not military or LEO so I’m not running to trouble.

            2. "While watching competitions I've seen spent cartridges rebound off nearby surfaces and re-enter the open chamber before the bolt could even close - it can happen that fast."

              I feel that feel. I've had it happen at an indoor gun range, where the case took just the right carom into the action. Usually, it's just the right carom to go down my shirt, catch between my hat and the top of my shooting glasses, etc...

            3. Wow! A ricochet cartridge! What are the chances of that? If the tip ricocheted back into the barrel at the same time, would you have a cartridge with no powder? 😉

      3. Or just be a white leftist who guns down and executes black teens to advance the leftist cause...

    2. Not enough to dismiss with prejudice, unfortunately, JesseAZ. Hopefully Kyle Rittenhouse will be acquitted today.

      1. If he's not acquitted, this revelation will be huge when he appeals.

      2. Curious as to what the jurors are discussing for this long.

        1. How to avoid the mob?

          1. /thread

        2. New ids

          1. The lunch menu.

            1. Is Chinese takeout that good in Wisconsin?

        3. Tweet said yesterday that 2 of the jurors were scared to vote Not guilty based on media leaking their names and fearing for their jobs. That was per a US Marshall per the tweet.

          1. Fortifying a verdict.

            1. Why a US Marshal would have anything to do with a state murder trial, is a question best left unanswered... The Tweeter was likely full of shit.

              Sounds like something that's happening though, and that's usually enough.

              1. Possibly communicated via the LEO grapevine.

                1. Ballsy of the original leaker. Though this is Clown World, so who knows if anything would happen to the loose-lipped bailiff?

                  1. A number of LEOs are pro 2A and pro 2A for “citizens.” These assholes were rioting in their city and they were not given the go ahead to address it. A law abiding citizen was also there helping prevent a gas station explosion, gets assaulted multiple times with deadly weapons and happens to shoot three of them. Two fatally. If you are that pro 2A cop living in that area, do you think this should have even gone to trial?

              2. Us marshals are usually responsible for witness protection

              3. The Tweeter was likely full of shit.

                I don't understand how this could be possible.

          2. Not sure how/why a US Marshall would know that. But pretty wild if true.

        4. There are some holdouts who likely will never understand why this young man had a right to carry a rifle that night, and will hold that fact against him, the law be dammed.

          It's one of the reasons jury selection and voir dire is so important for practitioners. You want to identify these people ahead of time, get them to blab their bias or that they can't follow the law as directed, and kick them off.

        5. Allegedly they're discussing the threat of backlash for acquitting.

          1. Aquit. And any rioter assaulting someone as a result should be Rittenhoused.

      3. Sure it is, XY. The judge, like any prudent experiencec judge, is waiting to see what the jury does first. Acquittal? Then no need to do anything. (Beyond dropping a dime to the Wisconsin State Bar Association on the prosecutors' antics).

        Conviction, or a hung jury? That's when the judge would set aside the verdict, and enter judgment for acquittal. Or grant a mistrial motion by the defense. And since jeopardy has attached, and the mistrial would be due to prosecutorial misconduct, said mistrial should be with prejudice.

        1. The irony is palpable. People who supported a riot about police misconduct are now publicly supporting prosecutorial misconduct.

          If anything, the media should be furious at the prosecutor for messing up this case so badly.

          1. The solution to bad government is more government!!!!

            1. This time it will be better. You'll see.

        2. Let's see what happens. Hopefully, Rittenhouse will be acquitted.

          ADA Binger should be sanctioned.

      4. Politically, the best thing that could happen for the Democrats would be the jury convicting and the judge declaring a mistrial with prejudice. The media have already been setting up the judge as a racist Right Winger who has already decided that Rittenhouse is innocent.

        I suspect this is why the judge is so keen to get a jury verdict, counting on it being 'not guilty,' because he knows how a mistrial is going to be spun in the media.

  6. This was a remarkable claim since nothing Bila said was remotely false.

    Heresy is always considered false.

    1. "Misinformation" never meant "untrue", it just meant opposing the preferred narrative of the powers that be.

      1. Yep. Viewers of MSNBC are more likely to Correctly state that the virus didn't come from a lab and that a vaccine would be impossible to develop within a year.

  7. The truth is misinformation.

    1. Facts schmacks. It only matters who can yell the loudest, and most convincingly. And then be promoted by MSM according to the narrative.

      Then say "the truth has a liberal bias."

      1. Don't forget one of the foundations of CRT and other critical threories: there are no objective facts.

        1. It is a basic tenet of postmodernism.

        2. Yep, it's been proven with Science.

      2. No, it's not about who can yell the loudest or most convincingly.
        It's about who has institutional power and an army of mindless zombies who can be easily programmed.
        The Left is at war with you.
        Wake the fuck up.

    2. Ignorance is Strength

    3. When it is a bad fact.

  8. Whistle-blower docs show DoJ was marking outspoken parents in a terrorist database.

    https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-fbi-counterterrorism-unit-tracking-threats-against-school-officials-school-boards-whistleblower-docs-show

    This was known Garland the day before he denied it in front of Congress

    1. You still think rule of law applies to everyone?

    2. Just think...the Left is pissed that this hack is not on the fucking SCOTUS.

      Tar and feathers is too good for him.

      1. Tar and feathers

        Shouldn't he be in prison for at the very least perjury?

        1. Can you perjure yourself in front of Congress, seeing as they are not part of the judiciary?

          1. I thought perjury was lying under oath, regardless of whether it was in front of Congress or in a courtroom.

            1. Lying to Congress is perjury, but Congress cannot prosecute it. That goes to the AG, who isn't going to prosecute himself in this case, and generally won't prosecute members of his own gang administration, as in the case of Lois Lerner and others in the Obama administration.

    3. Things are falling apart.

    4. Wait... He lied to Congress?? Really??

      The same guy who is so worried about respecting Congress that he convened a grand jury to go after a political enemy for having the temerity to assert executive privilege?

      I really can't see how that is possible.

  9. Bidens HHS is trying to remove RFRA religious exemptions in leaked internal memo.

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hhs-ocr-memo-rfra-trump-religious-liberty

    1. We really need to get government out of healthcare.

      1. We need to get the government out of everything.

  10. NPR subsequently deleted the tweet after receiving much-deserved criticism.

    NPR's deliberately divisive (the theme for today) tweet divided their Twitter... from them.

    1. But the staff at NPR feels SO HARD.

  11. Federal Judge rules the clauses that states could not reduce their taxes if they accept Covid spending funds is invalid.

    https://justthenews.com/nation/states/federal-judge-rules-favor-states-fighting-arpa-tax-mandate

  12. "This perfectly sensible statement did not seem to alarm the hosts, but when Bila brought up the (unfortunately true) fact that the vaccines do not prevent transmission of COVID-19, Behar and the audience lost it."

    ----Robby Soave

    "The Ottawa Senators Have a 100% Vaccination Rate—and 40% of the Team Has Tested Positive for Covid"

    ----WSJ

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/ottawa-senators-covid-11637123408

    There are so many progressives who don't care whether they're wrong or right, whether they're rational or irrational, and don't care about the facts either. If The View were commenters here at Reason, they'd be indistinguishable from trolls, and we'd mute them.

    1. That is what happens when you challenge someone's religious beliefs.

      1. Exactly.

        She committed a sin, and she did it in public, too--and publicly committed sins are unpardonable.

        We can't have the general population thinking it's okay to have sinful thoughts.

    2. Not only are progressives the most horrible Americans but also the most ignorant.

      1. Ignorance + cognitive disfunction = religion

        1. It is possible to be rational AND believe in a higher power. Plenty of highly intelligent and productive people believe in a Creator. Not all of us are cultish drones.

          1. And you'll find plenty of people here who agree with you.

            Rational religious belief encompasses a certain amount of uncertainty, much like a rational theory in science. Rational Christians have a word for the rational beliefs they hold despite the uncertainty, and that word is faith.

            Progressivism as a religion doesn't share those features with rational Christians. The progressive faith doesn't value facts or logic, and the progressive faith abhors uncertainty. There are two basic problems with progressivism as a religion: 1) They don't acknowledge it as a religion, and 2) their religion does not encompass facts, logic, and uncertainty.

            1. As a libertarian atheist for the past 50 years (who has searched for and found zero evidence of the existence of god(s), devils, angels, heaven, hell, reincarnation, or other theocratic dictates) , its clear to me that Marxism and militant Islam are the two worst religions that exist, primarily because they are intolerant of dissent and dissenters.

              1. Given that Marxism also describes itself as 'atheist' it would seem your definition of 'religion' is distinct from the notion of belief in "god(s), devils, angels, heaven, hell, reincarnation, or other theocratic dictates."

              2. Is murdering someone because your bored or want to see them die always wrong?
                That's the train of thought that led me back to agnosticism...
                either nihilist subjectivists are correct, or morality comes from somewhere.

              3. Nota beje Islam gets its zealotry and cribs a lot of it's characters and theology from the two Abrahamic predecessors.

                Also, while Marxism lacks Theistic God, it does share with Christianity a notion of a Golden Age Paradise from which man fell by an Original Sin ("alienation of Man from Labor,") and wn apocalyptic struggle between Ultimate Good and Evil ("Class Struggle between Proletariat and Bourgeoisie") from which will emerge a New Heaven and Earth ("Classless Society") and a New Creature of a human being ("New Communist Man."]

                Everything rotten about Islam and Marxism came from it's predecessors. They all rise and fall together.

            2. "... and the progressive faith abhors uncertainty."

              Hubris is one of their signature traits.

            3. You use these words "rational" and "faith." I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

              Rationality and faith are, by definition, antipodes, opposites. Rationality is acceptance of a notion based upon evidence and faith is acceptace of a notion without regards to and even against evidence.

              1. This is in your mind and not in reality.

                If the valid logic of your sound facts lead you to believe in God, then believing despite the uncertainty is rational. It is certainly not the case that your arguments must be irrational or your facts off by virtue of coming to a particular conclusion.

                Kierkegaard's arguments about faith are rational. When Sartre argues that the differences between Christian existentialists and atheist existentialists are minor compared to the differences between existentialists and non-existentialists, (intentionally or otherwise) he's underscoring the point that Christian faith can be and is rational like his atheism. Paul Tillich is rational. Assuming the irrationality of an argument because of its conclusions is a mistake. Believing in things because that's where the logic and the premises take us--despite a certain amount of uncertainty--is not irrational, and that's what we're talking about when we're talking about rational faith.

                1. So present the the syllogism that makes faith rational, including the definitions of the terms you are using.

          2. But believing in self-contradictory, contradictory-of-the-Natural Universe, Supernatural Beings is not part of their rationality.

            1. "contradictory-of-the-Natural Universe"

              I'd like to see you remotely justify that statement given your limited knowledge of the universe.

              And please don't be foolish enough to try to cherry pick a limited case. Your statement not in any way being so limited.

              1. I'd like to see you remotely justify that statement given your limited knowledge of the universe.

                ^

              2. A Supernatural Being, by definition, contradicts a Natural Universe. One need not know everything in the Natural Universe to know that much.

                1. "A Supernatural Being, by definition, contradicts a Natural Universe."

                  If there is a real omnipotent being that created the universe and the natural world, it is not a supernatural being.

                  You're assuming the conclusion of your argument far too soon.

                  You can't explain the mechanism by which gravity works with anything close to certainty. Does that make gravity supernatural?

                  1. Supernatural means beyond the realm of the Natural Universe. If a God is not Supernatural, then it is Natural and thus part of the Natural Universe. And if this God creatrd the Natural Universe, did it create itself along with everything else too? If so, how?

                    Gravitational pull is a function of the mass and distance of the objects involved. Even if it isn't know how that happens, to say "God did it" is an Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy.

                    1. If God created the natural forces and himself abides by the natural forces he created, then he is not supernatural. He is the origin of the natural world, and he is part of the natural world. I'm sure helicopters would have seemed supernatural to people a thousand years ago. Because God can do things we can't do and understands things we don't understand, doesn't mean he's supernatural. I hope you at least appreciate that the cosmological argument does not depend on anything supernatural per se.

                      "The cosmological argument is part of classical natural theology, whose goal is to provide evidence for the claim that God exists."

                      ----Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

                      https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/

                    2. "Natural theology, once also termed physico-theology,[1] is a type of theology that provides arguments for the existence of a deity based on reason and ordinary experience of nature.[2]"

                      ----Natural Theology

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

            2. I've never really seen an atheist response to the cosmological argument for God that I thought was persuasive, but you seem to be presupposing one.

              I maintain that being rational presupposes a certain amount of uncertainty. Believers and atheists without uncertainty are properly described as irrational, and rational faith isn't the absence of uncertainty. Agnosticism isn't a term for people who admit uncertainty. Agnosticism is the belief that there isn't enough evidence to form a rational opinion about the existence of God--one way or the other. There are very few true agnostics, and I question the intelligence of the few there are.

              Rational faith is what you believe despite a certain amount of uncertainty. It's like a scientist forming a hypothesis when the results of the experiment are still a mystery. If a scientist has rational expectations about what the results are likely to be before he sees them, does that make him irrational? The correct answer is no--so long as the scientist accepts a certain amount of uncertainty.

              Atheists who believe there is no God with absolute certainty and believers who believe in God with absolute certainty should both both be put in the same irrational category. Hell, even the spaghetti monster argument falls apart when a rational Christian admits that he or she has a certain amount of uncertainty. Even IF IF IF it were worse to insist that a spaghetti monster exists with absolute certainty, demanding that believers prove a spaghetti monster exists with absolute certainty is irrational in itself.

              Is it necessary to have absolute certainty to believe that whatever boson is somehow related to the elusive graviton? Is it irrational to believe that there must be some mechanism by which gravitational fields work? Is it irrational to believe in gravity despite not completely understanding why it works the way it does--or even identifying the mechanism by which it works? The correct answer to all these questions is no--so long as you accept a rational posture with due respect for uncertainty.

              God save us all from progressives, Christians, and atheists who are absolutely sure they're right!

              1. I probably misunderstand agnosticism. I believe there is enough proof of something higher, but have no clue what it is.

                1. Imagine an alien from outer space suddenly descended from the sky, landed in front of you and stuck a ray gun in your face. The alien says he knows whether there's a God, asks you if you believe in one, and says that if you answer incorrectly, he'll disintegrate you on the spot.

                  If you're really an agnostic, you reach into your pocket for a quarter and flip a coin--because you truly don't have an opinion one way or the other. Believing there isn't enough information to form an opinion is what it means to be agnostic. The rest of us--both the rational and the irrational--are either believers or atheists.

                  Those who are uncertain as to whether there is a God but choose to believe there probably isn't--based on the evidence--and use reason to form their opinions--are rational atheists. Those who are not absolutely certain that there is a God but look at the evidence--and use reason to form their qualified opinions--and believe there probably is a God are rational believers.

                  Those who are absolutely certain there is or isn't a God are irrational.

                  Somehow, people have come to associate uncertainty with agnosticism, but it's really indecisiveness.

                  Uncertainty is inescapable in science. If newly discovered evidence becomes available tomorrow that the sun orbits the earth after all, we'll need to adjust what we believe accordingly. That's a working theory that is highly unlikely to change, but the fundamental problem of science never goes away--in that we never get to the point that our current beliefs can't be shown to be false by new discoveries in the future. Rationality requires the same kind of uncertainty--at least--from both atheists and believers.

                  You may find the cosmological argument for God compelling, but that argument doesn't negate the possibility of other religions representing the true God. Maybe you look at the teachings from the Sermon on the Mount, and you test them against what you see in the world around you--and find to to be true. Seems like a rational conclusion to me, even if there is still a possibility that Jesus is wrong. Meanwhile you read in the Bible that when Jesus was dying on the cross, he said, "My God, why hast thou forsaken me?". You might conclude that uncertainty isn't a sin, and you'd have a hard time convincing me Jesus' uncertainty was irrational. You need a certain amount of uncertainty to be a rational Christian.

                  You need to accept a certain amount of uncertainty to be an atheist, too. Anyone who says there is no evidence that could possibly become available in the future that would persuade them that there is a God is being willfully irrational. Most atheists won't say that. They'll tell you that the burden of proof is on the theist, or they'll cop to a certain amount of uncertainty by calling themselves agnostic. Their uncertainty doesn't make them different from rational atheists, however, and it doesn't make them different from rational Christians either. If an agnostic were someone who believes there probably isn't a God but has doubts, what should we call believers who think there probably is a God but has doubts?

                  Atheists don't need to flip a coin. They think there probably isn't a God--even if they're not 100% certain because they're rational.

                2. Herein is the added problem with Theistic Agnosticism. if you haven't defined what the "something higher" is, how, then, can you say that the "something higher" exists?

                  To exist means to be something as opposed to nothing and to have attributes distinguishing it from everything else. If the distinguishinng attributes aren't defined, one cannot say that an entity exists.

                  I do believe a certain Musical Genius had something to say on this subject:
                  "Superstition"
                  https://youtu.be/0CFuCYNx-1g

              2. The Cosmological Argument contains the Beg the Question assumptions that the Universe was created and that God was the creator, assumptions they are supposed to prove and not found in evidence.

                Your assertion about Agnosticism is a category mistake and your assertion about Agnostics is an Ad Hominem. Agnosticism is not a position on the existence of God, but upon the nature of knowledge. Agnosticism is not simple lack of knowledge about something, but denial of the possibility of knowledge of some or all of reality. Agnosticism (as well as Epistemological Gnosticism) is a position on knowledge which both Theists and Atheists can hold. (Agnosticism has it's own internal contradiction of asserting that knowledge of something or anything is impossible as a statement of certainty.)

                There is no contradiction in having varying degrees of certainty, but all levels of certainty must be based upon evidence. Faith, by contrast, is assertion of a truth claim regardless of and against evidence, so not the same thing.

                1. You're out the window here.

                  Just about everything you need to know about the cosmological argument can be found here:

                  "If X exists, then there is a sufficient explanation for why X exists.

                  If E occurs, then there is a sufficient explanation for why E occurs.

                  If P is true, then there is a sufficient explanation for why P is true."

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_sufficient_reason#Formulation

                  If the universe came into existence from nothing, there is a reason, and if you think you can refute that, don't waste your time here in comments with it. Write an email to a philosophy professor at Princeton and have yourself hired as his dean.

                  Agnostics are people who think there is enough information to make a choice about what to believe, and there are very, very few agnostics. If uncertainty were the measure of agnosticism, the only people who weren't agnostic would be idiots on both sides who imagine their positions are both logically and factually unassailable. Certainly Christians who understand faith as an expression of the state of uncertainty would be considered agnostics under that definition, too--if agnosticism were only about being uncertain. It simply isn't so. Agnostics aren't smart enough to be make a choice about what to believe without knowing the the answer to the question beforehand, and that's absurd. It's like saying it's irrational to invest in any stock on the stock market because you don't know yet whether the price will go up or down in the future.

                  Taking measured risks isn't irrational. Making choices based on facts and logic isn't irrational in the face of uncertainty, and being agnostic is really just about being indecisive--not being unsure.

                  I doubt there is a philosophy professor in the world who classifies the spectrum of belief who believe that atheists are people who are sure there's a God, agnostics are people who think there probably isn't one, and believers who are sure there is a God. That would be a convenient and irrational way to assume that everyone who isn't agnostic is irrational. The fact is that every rational person is reasonably uncertain to some extent, and whether you think there is or isn't a God--despite the uncertainty--are the only positions that matter.

            3. But believing in self-contradictory . . . is not part of their rationality.

              Is light a wave, or a particle?

              1. It'S a FlYiNg SpAgHeTtI mOnStEr!

                1. Caps lock works best when not jittery.

                  Have some Sanka!
                  https://youtu.be/xLR3Llh-TH8

              2. Waves and particles are not contradictory phenomena and both exist within the realm of the Natural Universe.

          3. Thank you!

        2. Historical ignorance + Aspergers = New atheism

          1. You got a medical sheepskin to make that prognosis?

            And there's no such thing as New Atheism. There is just Atheism, and the arguments for and against the existence of a God have gone back to Pre-Socratic Greek philosophy and the pre-Hindu Charvaka School.

            What the Four Horsemen Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Daniel Dennett have done is basically popularize the classic Atheist arguments for today's audience.

            1. Atheism is a statement of certainty in the absence of complete knowledge. While it may not be a religion it certainly is a faith.

              1. I'll comment here, but please see my post above for details.

                Certainty in this area is irrational. Agnostics aren't uncertain--they don't have an opinion either way. Atheists and believers who are absolutely certain are irrational. We make rational choices all the time in the face of uncertainty. We buy rationally homes despite not knowing whether we'll lose our jobs next year. We choose whether to believe in God in similar fashion--despite the uncertainty. Without uncertainty, there can be no rational faith, but faith is not the lack of uncertainty. Faith is what we believe despite accounting for the uncertainty in a rational way. When I was in school, I never did a lab that didn't require an uncertainty analysis at the end. Statisticians have a 68-95-97.7 rule, which tells them that a number is likely to land within 1, 2, or 3 standard deviations--with a 68%, 95%, or 97.7% confidence level. Their faith is not irrational.

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/68%E2%80%9395%E2%80%9399.7_rule

                1. " Faith is what we believe despite accounting for the uncertainty in a rational way. "

                  Pretty much yeah. Faith is most anything that cannot be sustained by pure rational means, but it is not necessarily unreasonable. The best any of us an do is recognize when we are making decisions based upon a matter of faith, and also recognize when our understanding has expanded to the point where what was previously faith becomes known and certain knowledge - e.g. the Sun always rising in the East.

                  1. Faith is rational. It's Man's superpower. Confidence = with faith.
                    Irrationality enters the equation on the side of what one has faith in.
                    Believing one knows what one cannot empirically know isn't itself either rational or irrational - that characterization depends upon how one's faith affects one's life.

              2. Atheism is a statement of certainty in the absence of complete knowledge.

                baloney; it is a statement of disbelief, as opposed to religious belief...that some atheists (as well as theists) profess to certitude about divinity does not entitle you to make a blanket statement about the entire cohort...

                1. Christians disbelieve in Zeus, Odin, Vishnu, Thor, Athena, and thousands of other gods that humans have worshipped. Atheists just disbelieve in one more god.

              3. Not at all. Faith is mere belief absent or in spite of evidence.

                Negative Atheism i.e. "I don't believe in a God" isn't a belief at all, but a lack of belief.

                And Positive Atheism (i.e. the affirmative assertion "There is no God") can be proven a priori by using the definition of the concept of "God" to show it's self-contradiction, as well as proven empirically by showing it's contradiction of phenomena in the Natural Universe.

            2. "And there's no such thing as New Atheism."

              Okay, I guess I just imagined it. I better tell them all that they aren't real.

              "You got a medical sheepskin to make that prognosis?"

              Not medical per say, but does anthropology count?

              "There is just Atheism...
              What the Four Horsemen Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Daniel Dennett have done is basically popularize the classic Atheist arguments for today's audience"

              Ah, I see, when you redefine the intent and meaning you get to also invalidate the term. How magical.

              "pre-Hindu Charvaka School"

              I think you're going to shock archaeologists with this bold new discovery. To think a school of thought arising around 500 BC actually predates the more than 4000 year old Vedic precepts and stories. Here everyone was thinking its origins were in Sintashta and Bactria–Margiana, but it was actually even younger than Buddhism.
              Remarkable.

              FWIW I was thinking of people exactly like you when I formulated that equation.

              1. Nowhere do you find that The Four Horsemen call themselves The New Atheists. "New Atheism" came from Wired Magazine writer Gary Wolf. in 2006.

                I mispoke about Charvaka. Charvaka goes back at least as far as 700 B.C.E., however, other less systematized versions of non-Theistic thought are thought by some scholars to be Pre-Vedic:

                The Untold History of India's Vital Atheist Philosophy By Dag Herbjørnsrud--The Blog of The American Philos9phical Association
                https://blog.apaonline.org/2020/06/16/the-untold-history-of-indias-vital-atheist-philosophy/?amp

                No, Anthropology is not Medical Science. Even if you were a Medical Doctor or played one on TV, tele-medicine is still not good enough to make a diagnosis of Asperger's of people whom you've never met.

            3. the Four Horsemen Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Daniel Dennett

              Or perhaps the Four Evangelists . . .

              1. Barely noticeable until pointed out by the sea of Christian Evangelists and Apologists.

          1. Shared sacrifice makes them feel like they're a part of something bigger than themselves. And their willingness to sacrifice makes them feel like their lives have meaning. They believe in a climate driven apocalypse, and they have their own definitions of sin as sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, and racism. They believe that we could usher in something like a paradise if we only struggled together against sin, and they use every opportunity to decry examples of the evils they see--whether it be Trump or Kyle Rittenhouse. Whether what they did was wrong is beside the point if they had sin in their hearts. They believe in the original sin of racism, which is what teaching their religion in the form of CRT is about. They even have a word for converting to their religion, "woke" that's a version of a word for an awakening--something we've called historical waves of religious revival for years. Everything about them screams religion.

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

            This should be expected to happen periodically.

    3. Why should we expect a useless hack like Wajahat Ali to actually pay attention to the facts, when there's a radical left narrative to push?

      1. The biggest question for these people is about what they're trying to accomplish with their efforts to wipe out the pandemic.

        The purpose of the vaccine is to stop people from having to go to the hospital. It is not to stop people from getting the flu.

        Do they plan to fight other, typically non-lethal flu viruses the same way forever? Do they plan to shut the country down ever flu season?

        Stopping vaccinated people from getting the flu was never a legitimate objective from a scientific standpoint.

        1. The fact that they've been equating a worldwide-hopping coronavirus with stuff like smallpox and polio shows that they've completely lost the plot on how to manage this thing. It's not about ending a pandemic, which is impossible at this point, it's simply flailing about like spastics and blaming others when your grand schemes don't come to fruition.

          Keep in mind that Trump tried shutting down travel from China when reports of this first got out, and the response by shitlib politicians was to tell people to go out for Chinese New Year and hug a Chinaman to show how Not Racist you were.

          1. A lot of it is trying to rationalize their past behavior. Maybe we can measure the pandemic's progress and demise in terms of their internal narrative. Maybe the pandemic is over when they get to the point where they say, "We were always against mask mandates".

          2. It's not about ending a pandemic, which is impossible at this point
            Because it already ended. People seem to have this weird idea that as long as SARS-CoV2 is around we are "in a pandemic". Which is not how it works.

            1. The pandemic has already ended. What we are now dealing with is an endemic virus.

              1. Yeah. Isn't that what I said?

                1. I think Thomas was reiterating your point

    4. Probably related: the Senators lost the fewest games due to COVID of any team in the league last year. But hockey is also tailor-made for the spread of these kinds of viruses (they still deal with the mumps sometimes, ffs); it might as well be bear weekend every game.

      What this highlights is: why the fuck are we still living under a mass testing regime anyway? Get over it already.

      1. I think this may be part of the process. You need stupid people to say stupid shit and pursue stupid policies--very publicly--before enough of them finally start to find it embarrassing to be so stupid. We may need more stupid and ignorant people like Joy Behar--sticking their foot in their mouth in public--to get past this.

    5. There are so many progressives who don't care whether they're wrong or right, whether they're rational or irrational, and don't care about the facts either

      It's called faith.

      If The View were commenters here at Reason, they'd be indistinguishable from trolls

      To put it more explicitly, the trolls simply parrot the same party church line that the hosts at The View parrot.

      1. It's blind faith.

        1. They believe in “revolutionary truth.”

  13. It was an unending parade of outrage from social justice activists of color that Bostonians had dared to elect an Asian woman.

    So there is an epidemic of Asian hate after all? It just happens to be coming not from traditional white supremacists but instead the race activists in the clickbait bullpens?

    1. Harvard taught them well.

    2. No ricepect.

      1. That's lacist.

        1. It's racist, you plick!

    3. All the black on Asian crime hadn’t already given that away?

      1. And is also reliably leftist, and exceedingly well educated:

        https://whdh.com/news/massachusetts-is-most-educated-state-in-america-new-study-says/

        Not a coincidence.

  14. While the Rittenhouse trial, which increasingly looks like it may result in an acquittal, has been wrongly framed by some in the media as an issue of racial animus, the Arbery case is much more straightforward: Three white men chased down a black man who had done nothing wrong and killed him.

    The media is focused on Rittenhouse because they need to destroy any and all counter narratives. Rittenhouse becomes their focal point to prove they can break and jail even in cases where both sides agree. It is a means to protect their narratives and break the counter narratives. It is also done to lroject the modern SS of the left in protecting antifa and BLM.

    1. "Increasingly looks"? If you paid any attention, it has looked like obvious self defense from the start.

      1. They are finally having to answer to the many voices screaming at them "watch the fucking video!" as thus far they have been able to propagate such scams as showing only the prosecutions arguments without the defense's, and interviewing a key witness on air about how guilty kyle is.

        To this day I still see media commenting on this trial saying things like "I havent closely followed the trial" or "I mean I havent seen the videos"...SMH

        1. I'm still seeing leftists push the nonsense statement that "he carried an AR-15 across state lines!" when that was already shattered during the trial.

          If you're getting your information on the trial solely from media reports instead of the actual videos of the event and the full trial footage, you're simply not going to be informed on the case. This trial in particular has revealed just how insidiously deceitful the American media industry has become in the service of pushing radical leftism. Literally nothing they say can be taken at face value anymore. They're liars, hacks, and political activists, not journalists. It shouldn't take the fuckin' Daily Mail, of all rags, to break the news that the prosecution violated the Brady rule.

          1. "This trial in particular has revealed just how insidiously deceitful the American media industry has become in the service of pushing radical leftism..."

            Should things turn irredeemably to shit in the near future, one of the casualties in the aftermath is going to be the cultural desire for a free press.

            They've chosen their sides. They should fervently hope that they win.

          2. The gun was purchased in Wisconsin and stayed in Wisconsin. Kenosha is 21 miles from Antioch IL. Kyle's father lives there and Kyle worked there. Antioch has a population of 27k, Kenosha 100k. It's the big town in the area. Kyle is a local kid. As recently as yesterday media is reporting that he crossed a state border with an illegal weapon intent on killing peaceful protesters.

            1. Yes. Antioch is definitely part of the kenoshaland area. The out of towner line was bs from go to the locals.
              We in Kenosha are at the north end of chi metro and about 2 miles from the southern end of mke metro.
              All those shit suburbs in il are local to us as is Racine (mke metro).

          3. I mean they've said bullshit like that he drove 4 hours to get there and fired 60 rounds into a crowd. It's all lies and they're intentionally getting people riled up to start another riot because riots make for good coverage.

            The only reason this case is getting so much traction is because of the obvious bullshit-plenty of people can see through it and recognize that this is clear self-defense. It makes the case into a wedge issue when it should be unanimous.

      2. Obvious self defense is different from an obvious acquittal.

    2. Three men chased down someone who they likely had probable cause to suspect was guilty of attempted burglary under Georgia law. They were idiots to do it, likely were unreasonable in the force they used to accomplish the citizens arrest, killed a man, and very likely will suffer criminal punishment for their actions.

      You can say those three yahoos were idiots, likely criminally so, without canonizing the deceased.

      1. Police also considered him potentially armed and dangerous. A lot of people are picturing this as a case of them driving him down and shooting him the back, based on what they've heard, when they spent a long time trying to get him to stop without shooting him.

        Police had also solicited community help in identifying Arbery. Several times. They'd gone door to door in the neighborhood, and in fact told the guy who owned the home under construction that he should call Greg McMichael if he saw anything, because he lived like two doors down and could respond much faster than police.

        None of this makes them innocent but there's a ton of mitigating factors. They didn't just randomly see some black guy and start chasing him. He was a burglary suspect that the police had been trying to identify without success for several months.

        1. AIUI, "attempted burglary" is a lot easier to meet the requirements for in Georgia, than it is in many other States. I don't think that Arbery's conduct, what I know of it, would meet the standard for attempted burglary in Texas. And I have seen what I think is the surveillance tape from Arbery's trespass into the house construction site.

          But it might in Georgia. It's murky, as has been said elsewhere in this thread and others here. Me, I'd have called the cops, and been a good witness. The cops would likely have shown up in the McMichael's case, unlike if I were to try and call them on similar facts here in Houston.

          1. Did they call the cops before they began their pursuit? I can't remember or I've missed if that happened. The problem is that this is a guy the police have responded to at least 3 times and each time, he's gone before police arrive, and they're struggling to identify him. They couldn't just find Arbery later at his house because police didn't know who he was.

            If they called police to let them know they'd found the guy and were following so he couldn't just disappear this time, that's potentially mitigating. If they just decided to capture him and then call police after he was detained, that's really stupid, but not inconsistent with the level of intelligence these defendants seem to have.

        2. None of this makes them innocent

          gee, y'think...?

    3. I think there's at least a 50% chance of acquittal in the Arbery trial, based on what we've seen come to light in that case. I'm not sure what we'll see in terms of lesser-included offenses, but the prosecution was way over-zealous. The media is not paying attention to the information that's coming out but what happened in that case was drastically different than the stories people have heard.

      I think those two yahoos are somewhat racist (not fully Klan members or anything). But that's not against the law, and they have a lot of favorable facts on their side in that trial. If all the facts had been out there before the trial and people weren't lied to-for instance, Arbery wasn't a jogging and hadn't been jogging when they saw him-there's probably a good chance of conviction and people are primed to address reality. But the prosecution did lie to the jury and it's been demonstrated and there's a chance the jury will acquit out of frustration as a result and the media will incite a riot.

  15. ...David French explains that while Kyle Rittenhouse is plausibly innocent, that does not make his actions heroic or praiseworthy.

    If the left is going to demonize him, the right is going to have to praise him. There's no getting around it. But after 1/6, the fire extinguisher (real or imagined) has become a symbol of hate. It is the new swastika.

    1. David French is an insult to the French at this point.

      I can only imagine how many people his hard-on for never-ending wars killed.

    2. And David French is a retard. Rittenhouse likely prevented someone's business from being burned down

      1. No chance a burning dumpster being pushed towards a gas station could lead to problems.

        1. I don't think he was even the one who put it out. That was the event that ended up setting off Rosenbaum and Kyle just happened to be the closest target, especially after Ziminski pointed him out and tried to sic the mob on him.

      2. Even if he didn't do that, merely being willing to defend a business and offer first aid during a lawless situation is heroic. We need more Kyle Rittenhouses and fewer Ziminskis and Rosenbaums. And he's made progress in that regard.

      3. Prevented the cops and NG from jacking off at the courthouse while the city burned too

  16. For The Atlantic, David French explains that while Kyle Rittenhouse is plausibly innocent, that does not make his actions heroic or praiseworthy.

    Standing up for self defense is always praiseworthy.

    David French is a fucking ass turned grifter.

    1. I tend to omit French when I talk about the remaining respectable conservatives — Bill Kristol, Jennifer Rubin, David Frum, Joe Walsh, Rick Wilson, John Weaver, Tom Nichols, etc. — but maybe I should change that.

      #LibertariansForFrench

      1. David Freedom

      2. This was a particularly good one.

    2. His wife was a teenage whore.

      1. "Was" seems awfully generous.

        But David seems like the epitome of a cuck, no?

    3. There is a difference between standing up for self defense and willing putting your self in danger to the point where you have to use self defense.

      I mean come on. Responsible gun owners don't start shit to the point where they have to use their weapon. The whole point is that an armed society is a respectful society. If they do, and validly use it, that's self defense! Its legal! But they don't for good reason. Kyle is not a hero.

      If your reason for owning a weapon is to create scenarios necessitating their use, well then the gun control advocates are right. You do realize this? The argument for mass gun ownership is that it prevents crime ... no one would invade my house if they knew its armed.

      If it turns out mass gun ownership means idiots brandishing weapons, creating chaos, and killing people, well, the arguments for the 2nd amendment do not hold water.

      1. He may not be a hero, but he certainly is not a murderer. Clear self defense.

        And what should be a clear message to future rioters. If you show up to burn a city and attack an armed individual that is there to put the fires out, you will end up in a body bag and itll be your fault

      2. The argument for mass gun ownership is that it prevents crime

        And that is what Kyle was doing. Trying to prevent businesses from being burned to the ground. He didn't create the scenario.

        1. He was not invited to do so by the owners of the business he was guarding. They testified to that fact.

          That means “guarding businesses” was just Rittenhouse’s pretense for going out and looking for a fight.

          1. White Mike keeps lying and lying and lying.

          2. I missed where the owners invited the rioters to burn down their business. You have a cite for that?

          3. There is a dispute about whether the owner's invited him. They may have motivation to deny they did invite him as they would have civil liability for what happened.

            1. I guess their can be “dispute”, meaning someone can doubt their sworn testimony in court.

              1. I guess your a weasel.

                1. I don’t guess. I know.

              2. It is known the prosecution has suborned perjury from others witnesses in this case.

                1. Oh, that’s “known”, yet there is no mistrial

          4. You can say that, but most evidence seems to show that he was trying to avoid a fight. I see no reason to believe that his motivation wasn't simply to help, whether or not his choices in how to do so were wise.

          5. Mike didn't watch the trial. Two high as fuck sons of the owner claimed they didn't invite them due to liability fears. But also had pictures w the group.

            Employee for the business says they were absolutely invited, given keys, and shown where ladders were located.

            Mike again proves ignorant.

          6. "That means “guarding businesses” was just Rittenhouse’s pretense for going out and looking for a fight."

            If he was "looking for a fight", why did he ONLY shoot people who attacked him?

        2. And ultimately he ended up killing 2 people in the process.

          I didn't say he was a murderer. But if the intention was that carrying an AR-15 in the middle of a riot was supposed to calm stuff down and prevent violence ... that is completely idiotic.

          Yes, the AR-15 isn't an assault rifle. It isn't much more dangerous than other weapons. But it IS provocative. And not in a good way for this particular purpose.

          It is not even an effective self defense tool if that was the goal that night. You would reach for a handgun or something like that which is more mobile.

          He carried an AR 15 because the goal was to scare people, but he failed to do any of the actual legwork that would communicate such a threat. If I see a dude fire at somebody ... I am going to fire at them. That is the point of concealed carry.

          During the LA riots businesses hired snipers on the roofs and security guards. That IS protection. The snipers themselves are in relatively safe locations. They are well trained and hired. The business is notified beforehand. They clearly appear as security officials.

          If one of them was attacked and one fired in self defense ... that is self defense and totally appropriate. That is protection. But the point is they didnt have to! Self defense is about communicating to an adversary that you can fire back, not about firing back. Carrying a gun into a riot does not communicate that message effectively.

          Sure, the police wasn't doing their jobs. But even if you want to do their jobs for them without asking ... which is stupid, but regardless, you get organized and communicate the threat you pose. You don't just show up, one guy with a big gun that isn't even particularly dangerous.

          Again, he should be acquitted. But he is also the epitome of everything you should not do as a firearm owner, and you can't fight for gun rights and convince people of gun rights without explaining, no, we won't get Kenosha everywhere, why, because people will be responsible. And this isn't it.

          1. "I didn't say he was a murderer. But if the intention was that carrying an AR-15 in the middle of a riot was supposed to calm stuff down and prevent violence ... that is completely idiotic."

            If you want to defend yourself in a violent riot, an AR-15 is a pretty good choice. Our military uses the same style rifle for the same reasons in the same scenario--because it's a good choice. If he wanted to shoot people indiscriminately, he might have picked a shotgun instead. I'd rather taken an AR-15 shot to the arm than a blast of buckshot to the shoulder any day.

            Regardless, the question isn't what his intentions were beforehand. The question is whether he was defending his life when he fired. Some people seem to want to put gun rights advocates and Trump supporters on trial for thought crimes by proxy with the Rittenhouse trial, and that's just making a mockery of justice. You're not one of those people, are you?

            1. “If you want to defend yourself in a violent riot, an AR-15 is a pretty good choice.”

              Much better way to defend yourself: don’t be there. Especially, if you not only don’t live in that city, but don’t even live in that state.

              1. No freedom of movement from the board weasel

                1. It’s funny Dee likes to claim she’s one of the few real libertarians here, but then claims people don’t have a right to be somewhere she doesn’t want them.

                  1. She's a joke.

                    1. Afraid to deal with the serious points I raise, I see.

            2. “Regardless, the question isn't what his intentions were beforehand.”

              AC made it clear he isn’t just talking about the trial, but talking about the bigger picture. When we are looking at the bigger picture, Rittenhouse’s intentions beforehand are absolutely fair game for discussion.

          2. It is not even an effective self defense tool if that was the goal that night. You would reach for a handgun or something like that which is more mobile.

            And which would have been illegal for Rittenhouse to possess.

        3. And that is what he did. Riots ended then and there.

      3. None of what you said has any bering on the case. The rioters shouldn't have been there eighter, if you want tk play that retarded point. Also Rittenhouse didn't start anything and tried to flee, but you probably didn't watch the video, or are pulling a damn my lying eyes.

      4. Who is claiming Rittenhouse a hero for being in Kenosha that night? The ones defending rittenhouse are standing up for self defense.

        It is a false narrative that he is being lionized for carrying a gun around during a riot.

        Also Rittenhouse didn't create a scenario necessitating their use. He was attacked. You're pushing false conclusions to demonize him. Next you'll say she shouldn't wear the short skirt.

        1. But also, Rittenhouse was a hero for being in Kenosha that night. I'll come out and fucking say it. It's not important to the trial or anything, but laws are not solely the province of the state. If you're not allowed to defend things you own from being destroyed by a riotous mob, what rights do you have?

          1. “Rittenhouse was a hero”

            It is so fucked up to claim he is a hero. He was a dumb teenage boy (like most teenage boys) looking for trouble, and got in way over his head.

            1. He was not looking for trouble. Trouble, as personified by Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz, literally came after him.

              1. So, if he had been sitting at home playing Xbox, they’d have shown up at his door to harass him?

            2. I’d say your friends that he shot were the ones in over their heads. If it wasn’t for a corrupt prosecutor, he’d be just fine.

          2. “If you're not allowed to defend things you own.:.”

            Kyle Rittenhouse owned property in Kenosha, WI?

          3. Thank you. He had every right to be there, and defending property from violent anarchists is heroic.

          4. what rights do you have?

            you have exactly as many 'rights' as the powers that be that granted them in the first place are willing to enforce on your behalf...if they choose to stand down rather than engage trangressors, well, then, your 'rights' don't amount to a hill of beans, do they...?

            1. You’ve confused rights with privileges.

          5. Rosenbaum's group was trying to set fire to a gas station. That is not just damaging a business. If they had fully succeeded, they'd have blown up and set fire to an area of a block or more, and probably killed several people.

            But Rittenhouse didn't shoot to stop this arson/possible mass murder. He put out the fire, and at least 3 men, one armed with a pistol, attacked him in revenge for frustrating their criminal plan. If he had not been armed, with a weapon clearly superior to a pistol, they'd have beat him like Reginald Denny, or worse.

      5. If our society insists on defunding police or simply obliging them to "stand down" whenever violence occurs, then it's unrealistic and silly to whinge about "vigilantes". In that scenario they will inevitably appear whether you want them to or not.

        And while it's true that vigilantes can and do get out of hand, can anyone honestly say the police don't?

        1. The Kenosha Police Department was not defunded, even if there was talk about doing so. The police were out there that night trying to prevent things like, oh say, someone killing two people.

          1. The police were out there that night trying to prevent things like, oh say, someone killing two people.

            Haha, your allies got clacked and there's nothing you can do about it.

            Anyway, only a shithead simp like White Mike would argue that the police were out there "trying to prevent things" that they'd utterly failed to prevent the previous two nights. Only St. Kyle shooting three criminal shitheads calmed that down.

          2. No, they were not. They sat back and did not do a damned thing.

          3. Well, in that case, they were certainly overwhelmed, as they were not present to stop either the shooting or (according to ABC Chicago) over 100 buildings that were damaged or destroyed. So the point still stands.

            Depending on your interpretation, the police had either abdicated their responsibility or were simply unable to control the situation. How can you blame people for wanting to stand up for their community?

            1. Kenosha wasn’t Kyle Rittenhouse’s community.

              1. Oh, bullshit. I suppose you're going to argue that Washington, D.C. isn't the "community" of someone who works in D.C. but lives in Fairfax or Montgomery County?

              2. Here’s Dee the libertarian deciding she’s the arbiter of what communities Kyle can be a part of.

          4. If they were trying, they were failing pretty badly. Their intentions wouldn't help the property owner if his garage had been burned down.

            1. Garage? All the accounts say it was a gas station. Gas station fires frequently reach the thousands of gallons of gasoline in underground tanks, with results similar to a large bomb. Rosenbaum and his fellow idiots may or may not have wanted that, but it's what would probably have happened if Rittenhouse hadn't put out the fire.

          5. They were told to stand down and the governor kept the national guard out you halfwit.

        2. "...then it's unrealistic and silly to whinge about "vigilantes"....

          Unrealistic and silly has never stopped the Left before, from whining about the consequences of their ideas. In fact, they can be relied on to complain when someone dares to resist their evil behavior. Especially if that resistance is merely using their own tactics against them.

          1. Yes, it appears that the best way to stop the left is to adopt all of there ideas and pricinciples and direct them to support assholes.

            And people wonder what happened to the conservative movement.

            1. Yes, it appears that the best way to stop the left is to adopt all of there ideas and pricinciples and direct them to support assholes.

              Looks like chemtard is concern trolling again.

              1. He's not himself when he's hungry. Problem is, he's always hungry.

      6. Responsible gun owners don't start shit

        Kyle didn't start shit, as the videos and the trial clearly showed. People started shit with him and paid the price.

        If it turns out mass gun ownership means idiots brandishing weapons, creating chaos, and killing people, well, the arguments for the 2nd amendment do not hold water.

        If it turns out letting left-wing mobs have their way means communities getting burned to the ground, well, the arguments for allowing protests do not hold water.

        1. If the goal was to prevent the mob, he did an extremely shitty job of it.

          1. Considering they calmed the fuck down the next day after their buddies got clacked, I'd say he did pretty good, shithead.

        2. If it turns out letting left-wing mobs have their way means communities getting burned to the ground, well, the arguments for allowing protests do not hold water.

          a very good point...

          1. Police should allow protests, but stop crimes like property damage, arson, and assault and battery. They'd have been fully justified in shooting to kill the rioters pushing a flaming dumpster towards a gas station, because that could kill many people. Not being a cop, Rittenhouse just put out the fire - and that infuriated the mob into chasing him, with the obvious intention of beating him like Reginald Denny. Shooting the fool who charged him and grabbed the muzzle of his rifle was plain self-defense. Shooting any other fools within 21 feet would also have been self-defense.

      7. When the police refuse to do their job, which they did in Kenosha, the people who took the responsibility on themselves are heroes.

        It's a shame Kyle HAD to do it...but somebody did.

      8. Do you also watch nature documentaries and criticize the antelope who got culled from the herd for goring the lions trying to eat him?
        Because he also shows off those horns to the ladies and displays them to intimidate the other males.

        Common sense horn control would protect the males from hurting each other, but the real beneficiaries are the lions.

      9. So you're saying he shouldn't have worn such a short skirt if he didn't want to provoke criminals into assaulting him?

        1. I'm saying that if you are pissed about 9 11 you join the military or get training as a private mercenary if you are for whatever reason opposed to military service.

          You don't just show up in Afganistan in a war zone with a gun not understanding the language and expect yourself to be doing anything actually productive. Because you are not.

          1. What a terrible, pathetically servile attempt at analogy

            1. Lol. Maybe the worst ever.

      10. So your criticism amounts to "she was dressed provocatively, so she was asking for it"

        1. If you don't understand the difference, I really can't help you. Owning a gun is not like wearing clothing. It isn't something to be paraded around and used to show how cool and awesome you are. Its not a car. It is not something to be flaunted. It is a tool that is to be used with respect and care and caution.

          If someone had their Lexus out in Harlem and in got stolen, I am not saying he had it coming. He is a victim. And yet he was stupid for doing that. Not mutually exclusive.

          And when did I say Kyle had it coming? I am saying he was stupid. Being a victim does not make you are hero! Or are you gonna parrot that piece of leftist nonsense at me like I am leftist? Because I am not, and I dont think that being a victim makes you are hero.

          I'm willing to bet the vast majority of commentators here prostituting themselves for Kyle have never touched a weapon in their live.

          1. I'm willing to bet the vast majority of commentators here prostituting themselves for Kyle have never touched a weapon in their live.

            I'm willing to be the only gun you've ever touched was a super-soaker.

            Tell me, did you believe Fatboy when he said that there's no such thing as a left-handed gun?

          2. "...I'm willing to bet the vast majority of commentators here prostituting themselves for Kyle have never touched a weapon in their live."

            Where in our newest lying pile of shit proves him/her self to be stupid, besides.

        2. His criticism amounts to the same bullshit that the fence-sitters have been slinging--"OH WE CAN'T HAVE UNTRAINED VIGILANTES RUNNING AROUND THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE ENFORCEMENT AGENTS FOR!"

          Never mind the fact that the cops and the National Guard had sat around doing fuck-all for two nights prior while the city burned, at least they were professionally trained to watch the fires.

          1. And they're also resorting to mind reading and amateur psychoanalysis of Rittenhouse.

            1. Oh, really. Rittenhouse has done plenty to publicly reveal his political thoughts and allegiances.

      11. I'm not sure what I think. In some ways it was foolish for him to get into the situation in the first place. But on the other hand, when police aren't going to help, I can't really say it's a bad thing if regular people step up to help. When civil order is already falling apart, perhaps it is time for people to arm themselves and do what the government can't or won't to protect life and property. There has to be some level of civil disorder when that becomes appropriate, doesn't there?
        In any case, it's irrelevant to the trial. If he was being attacked, he gets to defend himself.

      12. " idiots brandishing weapons"

        Brandishing is a word with specific legal meaning. In this case it is an inapt pejorative misrepresentation.

        Lucky for you the First amendment recognizes your ability to shoot your mouth off.

      13. "Responsible gun owners don't start shit to the point where they have to use their weapon."

        No one cares about your fantasies.

        1. Responsible protesters don't start shit so that other responsible people have to put out fires or shoot to protect themselves from the arsonists.

          Virtually every commenter criticizing Rittenhouse clearly does not expect leftists to be responsible.

      14. "Don't stand up to leftist totalitarianism because it's dangerous, thus not heroic"

  17. White House chief medical adviser Anthony Fauci is moving the goalposts again, saying that in order to get to pre-pandemic normal life, cases in the U.S. must fall below "well below 10,000" a day.

    He's already admitted explicitly to this modus operandi. Why would anyone be surprised.

    1. Because he's now facing a potential perjury charge? It's not like he's James Clapper and has all the dirt on the Senate he needs to evade arrest.

      1. Hahahaha.... Perjury charge...

        With the most political DOJ in living memory? The same DOJ that seems a grand jury for contempt of Congress on a contested application of executive privilege?

        Hahahaha!

        Yeah, that is going to happen.....

        1. It's still not illegal to dream in this country, I think. And at the least, I hope the Senate and House flip and he is impeached.

          1. Depends what you dream.

  18. Some Democratic strategists want to defend critical race theory and accuse Republicans of putting "white supremacists" in charge of the curriculum.

    The white supremacists thing is a no brainer (it worked so well in Virginia), but defending CRT? It will be interesting to watch as that happens while they simultaneously insist that it's not being taught.

    1. Obama was the peace president with a kill list. I think they can manage it.

    2. First paragraph: Rittenhouse shouldn't be there
      Neighter should the protesters

      Second paragraph:no joke, did you see their white supremist lt Gov? She clearly is a clansmen

      1. Stupid comment getting mixed up with an earlier attempt

      2. At least it still more coherent than our squirrel

  19. "Some Democratic strategists want to defend critical race theory and accuse Republicans of putting 'white supremacists' in charge of the curriculum."

    Fantastic. The Koch-funded libertarian decision to explicitly align ourselves with progressive Democrats is looking smarter every day.

    #LibertariansForCRTInPublicSchools
    #RadicalIndividualistsForRacialCollectivism

    1. OBL...Could you briefly comment on the Rittenhouse trial? How does the Koch-funded libertarian see this trial?

      1. He. Literally. Crossed. State. Lines.

        Now you might think we Koch / Reason libertarians wouldn't obsess over that detail because we don't even believe in national borders. But you'd be wrong. It is, in fact, a huge deal.

        Furthermore, this trial is literally all about race. If he walks, it will prove INSTITUTIONAL RACISM in our court system. Oh, and the judge is possibly a Drumpf supporter.

        #RaceAboveAll

        1. Perfect! Please do not ever change, OBL. You are a national treasure.

      2. The only way he was justified in bringing that scary-looking gun to the riot is if it was one of those undocumented Fast & Furious guns, back from Mexico . . .

  20. How can natcon conservatives oppose these mandates?

    After all, Trump created the vaccine.

    1. WTF Is a 'natcon' conservative?

      1. National(ist) Conservative - big government conservative.

      2. "National Conservatives". They're trying to make patriotism sound Nazi-ish a la similar sounding words.

    2. It was okay for Joe and Kamala to tell people not to trust the vaccine because orangemanbad last year, but refusing now because of actual harm, is racist.

    3. And gets booed by his own MAGA rally attendees if he says anything positive above vaccines. The Frankenstein’s monster he created has broken loose from the leather straps on the laboratory table.

      1. Such terrible cult followers.

      2. White Mike Yesterday - "IT'S A CULT!"

        White Mike Today - "WHY AREN'T THEY OBEYING TRUMP!?"

      3. Lol. Goddamn, mike. Just stop. Seriously.

  21. Rep. Gloria Johnson has a brilliant take on the vile "F*** Joe Biden / Let's go Brandon" trend.

    As a friend said, I think [Let's go Brandon] should be equated with burning the flag, in essence, that’s what they are doing.

    Insightful comparison. Expressing disapproval of a powerful politician is literally the most un-American thing I can imagine.

    #DefendBidenAtAllCosts

    1. #ResistanceistheHeightofPatriotismSometimes

      1. #ResistOnlyWhenYourBettersApprove

    2. "Insightful comparison. Expressing disapproval of a powerful politician is literally the most un-American thing I can imagine."

      Now I'm cleaning the coffee off my screen. 🙂

      1. If by American she means some kind of collective submission to self-righteous authority, well, OK.

      2. OBL is on fire today.

    3. *chef's kiss*

      1. A true master of his craft.

    4. It can be equated with burning the flag, as both are protected by 1A.

      1. Which used to be a celebrated Democratic talking point.

        Except it seems now that objecting to the government is only allowed in one direction.

    5. Wait, if it is the same as burning the flag, is that good or bad according to her?

    6. Not a good analogy. Burning the flag is protected speech under the first amendment. Saying "Let's go Brandon" should be regarded as an act of insurrection, to be punished at least as severely as wandering around the Capitol without permission.

  22. Is Howie Carr still on? If so he must be having fun at Wu's expense.

  23. "While the Kyle Rittenhouse trial has largely captured the media's attention for the last few weeks, another murder trial of significant public interest has been happening at the same time."

    After the left wing media's (and Biden's) longstanding narrative (insisting Rittenhouse is a white supremacist) has been debunked as a Big Lie, Soave reinjects racism into the Rittenhouse trial discussion (by linking it to the vastly different and unrelated case of Arbery's murder).

    Looks like Soave is just another left wing race baiter.

    1. Robby's not doing anything of the type. It's a fact that the Aubery case hasn't gotten nearly the level of attention that the Rittenhouse one has, probably because the prosecution in the former hasn't been fucking up on such an epic level, and the facts of the case are a lot murkier.

      1. But Robby's headline and article directly linked these two distinctly different cases in a deceitful attempt to resurrect the white supremacist narrative in the Rittenhouse trial (that left wing media continue to spewed daily).

        1. I think you're reading too much into it - Robby actually had a pretty good takedown on media coverage of Rittenhouse recently, particularly noting the retarded attempts to racialize it.

          1. Robby is false opposition

  24. Her claim that the vaccines—while terrific at reducing severe hospitalization and death—do not prevent the spread of COVID-19 was also true.

    Aside from the that, the Branch Covidians actually cite this as their excuse for continuing to require the Holy Face Diaper even if you're vaccinated.

    1. Branch Covidians

      Hadn't heard that. Love it.

      1. I confess I stole that from somebody; I don't remember who. But it does fit.

      2. We need to make that go viral (pun intended).

  25. Terrifying moment massive avalanche thunders down a Nepalese mountain forcing villagers to flee homes and school

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10211581/Avalanche-thunders-Nepalese-mountain-forcing-villagers-flee-homes-school.html

    The video is pretty fucking scary.

    1. Yup. Still drunk.

  26. "NPR, America's government-funded media outlet, published a story on Monday that sounded a negative note about incoming Boston Mayor Michelle Wu's historic win—she's the city's first Asian American mayor—because… she beat out several black candidates."

    Even worse, on the night of the election and the day after, I don't recall seeing/hearing NPR or any other left wing media propagandists (i.e. at MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, NYT, WaPo, LA Times, USA Today, Politico, Buzzfeed, etc.) even mention that Winsome Sears was the first black, first woman and first immigrant to be elected as Lt. Governor in Virginia.

    Instead, all of the left wing media propagandists deceitfully claimed her victory was due to white supremacy.

    1. Also recall that these same left wing media propagandists aggressively promoted the false narrative (repeated by the WSJ and Fox News) that violence by white supremacist against Asian Americans has sharply increased, and falsely insisted that Trump's truthful claim (that covid originated in China) was racist and was the cause of increased violence against Asian Americans.

      And yet, virtually all of the increased violence against Asian Americans was committed by urban black males, which the news media still hasn't truthfully acknowledged.

      1. "and falsely insisted that Trump's truthful claim (that covid originated in China) was racist and was the cause of increased violence against Asian Americans"

        Yes.
        We should also ask ourselves why the media called it the Wuhan virus until the moment the Chinese government began their big propaganda push, then it instantly became racist.

        Our media is much, much worse than just biased.

        1. Somebody has to suck those little, yellow dicks.

      2. Skin color is the most important thing.

        1. Tony says they are all brown on the inside.

    2. They even pointed out the white Supreme y of Larry elder

  27. "We deleted the previous tweet, which was causing harm, and have updated the story."

    So they're using their PC standards to help adjudicate a catfight between black and asian race-baiters. Or should I say, between race-baiters who *profess* support for black people versus race-baiters who *profess* support for asians.

    So at best, #StopAsianHate prevailed over an alternative, equally bogus narrative.

  28. Brad Polumbo of the Foundation for Economic Education raises a valid point:
    "Aren’t they just using the state to assert the “common good” above individual autonomy—aka what y’all clamor for?"

    Except that they don't. I don't know where Polumbo and Robby got this idea from, but shit is being made up again.

  29. The biggest story going is the question of whether America will take a sharp largely irrevocable turn to the socialist left over the next ten years, and from the outside, it looks like a big part of the answer to that question may be coming before November 19th.

    Five Democrats holdouts on the budget reconciliation bill promised to back it under several conditions, 1) The progressives bring the infrastructure bill up for a vote, 2) the budget reconciliation bill is brought up before November 15th, and 3) the CBO scores the budget reconciliation bill in line with the Biden administration's projections. The CBO has now announced that they will be finished scoring the budget reconciliation bill sometime before November 19, but the Biden administration is already attacking the CBO's scoring.

    "The CBO does not have experience analyzing revenue amounts gained from tracking down wealthy tax cheats who are taking advantage of every honest taxpayer"

    ----Deputy Press Secretary Andrew Bates to White House press corps

    https://news.yahoo.com/biden-white-house-claims-cbo-222827443.html

    From a libertarian capitalist perspective, promising to go after "tax cheats" may be worse than spending money we don't have. (In Libertopia, maybe the IRS will go after politicians [tax thieves] for trying to raise our taxes.) Regardless, if the CBO doesn't score tax collection the way the Biden administration did, it will give the moderates an out.

    Whether they'll have the ovaries necessary to withstand the bullying of their progressive colleagues for supposedly breaking their word is another question, but it looks to me like the White House doesn't expect the CBO scoring to match their projections on revenue, and I don't see any reason to disagree with the White House's assessment on that point.

    1. "The Congressional Budget Office anticipates publishing a complete cost estimate for H.R. 5376, the Build Back Better Act (Rules Committee Print 117-18 incorporating a manager’s amendment by Congressman Yarmuth), by the end of the day on Friday, November 19. The estimate will be published on CBO’s website."

      https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57616

      Even IF IF IF the BBB budget reconciliation bill passes the House, that won't be the end of the story. The amnesty for millions of illegal aliens part can't be included in the budget reconciliation bill in the Senate, according to the Senate parliamentarian, and Manchin will likely tear out some of the more controversial provisions that will hurt the coal industry, etc. The House progressives may still pass a bill that cuts out some of their spending, but the question is whether the moderate Democrats in the House will still be on board if Manchin kills some of the taxes.

      It won't be over if the CBO scoring comes back in Biden's favor, but it might be over if the CBO scoring comes back against Biden's projections--and time is running out.

      1. I don't think Manchin and Sinema would be in on the mass amnesty anyway. Seems like a poison-pill to me, indicating that Pelosi doesn't really want the thing to actually pass.

        1. It was a result of progressives signaling in the House. They generally care more about signaling than actually accomplishing anything, and some of them care much more about signaling than others.

  30. When the left talks about getting as many as possible under the same tent, they are referring to Joy Behar’s mumu.

  31. "Again, Bila did not make any false claims. Her claim that natural immunity from a prior infection gives her robust protection from COVID-19 was true. Her claim that the vaccines—while terrific at reducing severe hospitalization and death—do not prevent the spread of COVID-19 was also true."

    Well, maybe true in some racist numbers and data sort of way, but definitely false in contradicting the official narrative, and therefore seditious.

  32. What I learned from listening to the reason podcast:

    Even among our fellow travelers in the libertarian community, misinformation persists and is believed more strongly than actual facts. Also, people at the level of national commentary feel fully empowered to offer authoritative opinions on things that they have not even bothered to follow.

    In discussing the Rittenhouse trial, The first thing they said was that they have not followed the testimony. They then proceeded to have a lengthy discussion about exactly what this trial means for society.

    Pro tip: the next thing after "I am not knowledgeable in this subject" should be "therefore I am going to reserve comment".

    There were lengthy discussions about things that are not true. More lengthy discussions about things that are canards (e.g. travelled from out of state).

    1. "...Pro tip: the next thing after "I am not knowledgeable in this subject" should be "therefore I am going to reserve comment"..."

      Camera whores object that this would cut into their face-time.

    2. "In discussing the Rittenhouse trial, The first thing they said was that they have not followed the testimony. They then proceeded to have a lengthy discussion about exactly what this trial means for society"

      This sounds like the most neo-Reasoney thing ever. It could go on the masthead.

    3. 'The next thing after "I am not knowledgeable in this subject" should be "therefore I am going to reserve comment". ' This would require intelligence and integrity, versus allegiance to an in-group and inflated opinion of ability. There's a dearth of the former two in this society.

  33. The trio of white men is accused of chasing down and murdering Arbery, who was jogging through the neighborhood.

    It may or may not be pertinent that Arbery was jogging away from a house under construction that he had been previously warned by the cops to quit trespassing on due to the fact that the homeowner had complained that Arbery kept coming on to the property apparently to scope out anything he might steal.

    And, if I remember correctly, this is the same Arbery who, when the police notified his mother that her son had been shot to death during the commission of a crime, seemed to be unsurprised by the news and had no reason to suspect that the cops were not telling her the truth.

    Which is not to say that Arbery's attackers were not guilty of a crime and were criminally stupid - threatening somebody with a gun is governed by the same laws as shooting somebody with a gun, you're only legally justified in pulling a gun on somebody if you can make a persuasive case that you feared for your life. Otherwise, it's known as "brandishing". You never pull a gun on somebody in order to threaten them, you only pull a gun in order to shoot them. If you aren't prepared to shoot them, you'd better be prepared to have the gun taken away from you and shoved up your ass sideways because that's what's likely about to happen.

    1. Which is not to say that Arbery's attackers were not guilty of a crime and were criminally stupid - threatening somebody with a gun is governed by the same laws as shooting somebody with a gun, you're only legally justified in pulling a gun on somebody if you can make a persuasive case that you feared for your life. Otherwise, it's known as "brandishing". You never pull a gun on somebody in order to threaten them, you only pull a gun in order to shoot them. If you aren't prepared to shoot them, you'd better be prepared to have the gun taken away from you and shoved up your ass sideways because that's what's likely about to happen.

      Could they have even known that Aurbery was suspected of scoping out the construction site?

      Even if a search of his house showed detailed plans with a clear intent to burglarize the construction site, the defendants could not have known it, and indeed do not have claim to have known it.

      1. In the same sense the cops couldn’t have known if the protesters were armed or not.

      2. You clearly did not see any of the testimony elicited by the defense.

        The case is much more ambiguous than this narrative. "He was just a curious jogger" is not plausible, despite being the descriptor most commonly used. The prosecutor made a ton of claims that fell apart on cross.

        The end result is still that a bunch of idiots tried to effect a citizens arrest when they should not have .. but there is way, way way more to it than that.

      3. Yes, they could. It's been shown at trial. They helped police look for him one night when he was at the construction site. They were walking around with guns, shining flashlights. They had photos of him from a good security camera. One of the McMichaels had identified him and described him before being shown photos and saying, "Yep, same guy."

        Arbery was a known suspect police had been looking for and the McMichaels had participated in that investigation.

        1. This is one of the things that came out early and was quickly "debunked" and memory holed.

          Now that it came up at trial, it is even more egregious that the media keeps claiming that none of this happened and he was attacked because he was a black guy in their white neighborhood.

          There is a lot wrong about what happened and how it happened, and very little of it fits the narrative they are so desperate to push.

    2. The Arbery case, and the Rittenhouse case shows how wrong private efforts to replace police functions can go, even if the regular police are a flawed institution.

      1. The [cases] show how wrong private efforts to replace police functions can go,

        There are uncountable numbers of successful private efforts every day.

        even if the regular police are a flawed institution.

        Institutions dominated by corrupt and incompetent individuals are not flawed, they're illegitimate.

  34. "Some Democratic strategists want to defend critical race theory and accuse Republicans of putting "white supremacists" in charge of the curriculum."

    Seems like left wing ideologues still believe the Democrats can win next year's election by continuing to falsely accuse Republicans of being white supremacists (if left wingers keep repeating their false race baiting claims daily).

    Its time for Republicans to remind Americans that Democrats championed and imposed racist policies for the past 200 years, while the GOP has fought to end slavery, Jim Crow, the KKK and other racists policies of Democrats for the past 160 years.

    1. They still think all of America bought into the Great Awokening®™.

    2. Its time for Republicans to remind Americans that Democrats championed and imposed racist policies for the past 200 years, while the GOP has fought to end slavery, Jim Crow, the KKK and other racists policies of Democrats for the past 160 years.

      No, this "Dems R Da Reel Rayciss!" argument is an outdated neocon line that is completely useless against an opponent like the radical left. No normie gives a shit that the KKK were almost all Democrats 150 years ago.

      The only message that's had any resonance is pointing out that the Democrats hate white people, particularly working class white people, are obsessed with indoctrinating your kids with that crap, and expect you to shut up and obey when you push back against that. You keep hammering that they deceitfully deem any resistance to their evil agenda as "divisiveness," and are determined to keep you apathetic while they take over your communities and turn them into the dysfunctional, violent, neo-feudal behavior sinks that define today's blue urban areas.

      The Dems lost in Virginia and on school board and city council elections because the Republicans finally got some balls and started goading the Dems into revealing that, yes, the Dems really do want non-leftists broke, dead, their children raped and brainwashed, and they think it's funny.

      1. Well, to be fair, they also have complete contempt for black people. And immigrants. And generally people have all races. They just voiced that contempt in different ways depending on which group you happen to belong to.

      2. Quotations like the NPR story above actually do work, though. Even die-hard supporters have a hard time wrapping their heads around it.

        The simple statement: I'm not a racist. I don't care what the color of your skin is. I care how well you can do a job. If you care about the skin color of who is doing what, you are a racist.

        Simple. Inarguable. Compatible with Dr King's Dream.
        Stick to your principles while your enemy is going mad, and you gradually will get more and more people to your side.

        1. Ben the catch-22 is you can't say "I'm not a racist." Because in leftist sleight-of-hand, saying "I'm not a racist" is immediately seized upon as proof that you're a racist. "Only a racist would say that."

          I have proceeded to live my life as not a racist, but not declare myself one way or the other. Just treat people right, and don't worry about whether others want to call me "racist." Defeating the power of the falsely-applied word lies not in pushing back that you are one, but not caring what others call you.

          I happen to be bald. If someone repeatedly insists that I have a luscious head of hair, I wouldn't keep arguing with them that I don't. I would simply shake my head at the crazy person and carry on with my day.

          1. True, but such arguments on their end sound stupid to any third party, and many people feel stupid saying it themselves.

            Also, another key point is you call them a racist for caring about the color of people's skin. That's something that's been taught to us practically in the cradle, and it does sometimes resonate with people.

      3. They spent the better part of last year burning down black neighborhoods and murdering black children, so I don't know about that.

        The real goal is simply to get whites and minorities to see each other as collectives and hate the other side and they don't care who dies in the process. That way they're easier to control. The ol' divide and conquer strategy.

        1. They applaud and encourage segregation by race. Just like the KKK

  35. ...David French explains that while Kyle Rittenhouse is plausibly innocent, that does not make his actions heroic or praiseworthy.

    The fuck it doesn't. Not only did Rittenhouse attempt to do what the designated authorities utterly fail to do in Kenosha, which is keep a violent radical mob from trying to burn the city to the ground, in the act of trying to retreat from people who were attempting to do him deadly harm, he only engaged those who directly went after him rather than go for the high score, and even tried to turn himself in to the police, only for them to not only wave him on by, one of the stupid fuckers actually pepper-sprayed him while he was attempting to surrender. In the process, he obliterated a child rapist and a domestic abuser, and maimed a grandma-slapping burglar.

    And let's not forget that, in three days of violence with the fuckin' FBI conducting drone surveillance and metadata gathering of the whole event, NOT ONE FUCKING PERSON from the mob has been charged with property destruction, attempted murder, or inciting a riot. The only person who's been put on trial is the guy who tried to defend himself and his community.

    Fuck David French and his left-wing simpery.

  36. OT: I counted 15 out of the first 30 amazon results for "512GB micro sd card" are fraudulent, including the first 2 results. The reviews are the expected mix of a few "Works great! More excellent for my device" fake reviews and everyone else talking about data corruption, which is no such thing: these are 64 or 128GB cards re-marked as 512GB, so as soon as you get a reasonable chunk of data on it, it's just rewriting itself. Skeezy companies are just gambling that won't happen until 30 days are up, and you're skrood.

    Question: does anyone know a good way to alert Amazon to fraud, besides buying one of each and then dumping it back for refund at the UPS store? Or is this my big chance to join the class action lottery?

    1. Stop using Amazon.

    2. Get off your ass and buy stuff from a reputable store in your town.

    3. Interesting that they can write algorithms to detect people who disagree with official narratives and shut them down, but obvious scams cannot be found using comments like "this is a scam"

  37. Her claim that the vaccines—while terrific at reducing severe hospitalization and death—

    "terrific" is pushing it. There is some indication that outcomes are better but I wouldn't say it's terrific, just an improvement.

    1. It's actually a significant improvement over not being vaccinated, both in reducing likelyhood of hospitalization along with reducing severity of treatment needed.

  38. Seems like the Kenosha prosecutors are now the ones on trial (instead of Rittenhouse).
    https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/megan-fox/2021/11/17/mistrial-prosecution-withheld-evidence-from-rittenhouse-defense-n1533798

    Even if the jury convicts Rittenhouse of one charge (due to threats against jurors and the City of Kenosha by racist BLM thugs), the judge should set the verdict aside, and declare a mistrial.

    1. Not a mistrial. A directed verdict of not guilty.

      Failing that, a mistrial *with prejudice*.

  39. <blockquoteFor The Atlantic, David French explains that while Kyle Rittenhouse is plausibly innocent, that does not make his actions heroic or praiseworthy

    Though, it should be noted, they were.

    It's kinda disheartening to see a nominally libertarian magazine swallow the 'state is the only legitimate provider of defense's Kool aid.

    1. "It's kinda disheartening to see a nominally libertarian magazine swallow the 'state is the only legitimate provider of defense's Kool aid."

      Kinder gentler statism is what Reason is.

      Nominal indeed being the key word.

    2. What a tool French is.

  40. The View eats its own

    Don't dangle food in front of the four horsewives of the apocalypse.

  41. White House chief medical adviser Anthony Fauci is moving the goalposts again, saying that in order to get to pre-pandemic normal life, cases in the U.S. must fall below "well below 10,000" a day.

    In 1940, Lysenko became director of the Institute of Genetics within the USSR's Academy of Sciences, and he used his political influence and power to suppress dissenting opinions and discredit, marginalize, and imprison his critics, elevating his anti-Mendelian theories to state-sanctioned doctrine.

    Not that I'm trying to compare Trofim Fauci to Anthony Lysenko.

    1. With the expiration of the Ethics in Government Act, may understanding is that Congress can no longer appoint a special counsel. However, they can hold congressional investigations of their own, and this has been used to dramatic effect in the past. We're not likely to see the Biden administration appoint a special counsel to investigate Fauci and the NIH without significant pressure.

      It may be helpful that the things Fauci did that were really wrong were perpetrated before Biden came to the White House. The trick is to hold public hearings that are so embarrassing, the Biden administration will appoint a special counsel just to make the hearings stop. And the Democrats aren't about to initiate that kind of a hearing. The Republicans need control of the House before they can pursue any of that.

  42. guess Crazy Rich Asians was a bad idea after all.

  43. also you guys need to put French on the shelf.

    1. They need people like French and Kristol so that they can still pretend that they're considering other views.

  44. A lot dummies here, including the author of this article, the guest on view, and most commenting here.

    Vaccines do reduce the spread of Covid. You are less likely to catch it, a necessary condition for spreading it.

    Vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 transmission to household contacts during dominance of Delta variant (B.1.617.2), August-September 2021, the Netherlands

    "Abstract
    We estimated vaccine effectiveness against onward transmission by comparing secondary attack rates among household members between vaccinated and unvaccinated index cases, based on source and contact tracing data collected when Delta variant was dominant. Effectiveness of full vaccination of the index against transmission to fully vaccinated household contacts was 40% (95% confidence interval (CI) 20-54%), which is in addition to the direct protection of vaccination of contacts against infection. Effectiveness of full vaccination of the index against transmission to unvaccinated household contacts was 63% (95%CI 46-75%). We previously reported effectiveness of 73% (95%CI 65-79%) against transmission to unvaccinated household contacts for the Alpha variant."

    https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.10.14.21264959v1

    Also, unless she was tested, the guest on The View cannot assume she is immune because she had a case. as many as 1/3 of those who have caught it do not develop anti-bodies.

    Smarten up, get your shot, and encourage others to do the same. Do it for yourself, your family, your community, your state, the USA.

    1. Sorry I couldn't understand you, it sounded real mumbley, what with your tongue all over those statist boots.

      The "lady with contraindications for vaccine who had covid should inject herself anyways for good measure" take is retarded, anti-science, and the ridicule you get, you deserve

      1. Jimbo, she can do what she wants. I merely called bulls..t where there was bulls..t.

      2. Joe is the Washington Generals of the Reason commentariat.

        1. Yes.
          It's like he's deliberately creating the means of his own arguments defeat.

    2. The alpha variant is mostly extinct. Any study that bases vaccine effectiveness of something that no longer exists is useless.

    3. May your chains rest lightly upon your shoulders. Preferably in a deep body of water.

      1. EEyore, there is no reason to think other forms of covid without the highly contagious nature of the Delta variant will somehow more easily overcome the resistance of vaccines. That make no sense, though in keeping with typical posts here by the true believers.

        1. there is no reason to think other forms of covid without the highly contagious nature of the Delta variant will somehow more easily overcome the resistance of vaccines

          You cite a study and then completely ignore what that study says about Alpha v. Delta to make a wild-ass speculation based on what you think makes sense?

          Sounds about left. (I can't bring myself to say it sounds about right with JF.)

        2. That may be true. But now that most people are vaccinated, the forms of the virus that are resistant to the vaccines will be the dominant ones (which is likely exactly why Delta is the common strain now). How the hell is a virus that the vaccines are effective against going to make it? This is just basic natural selection.

        3. I'm not Eeyore, and he's not me.

          And my comment was a reference to your desire for subservience. But you knew that.

    4. Effectiveness of full vaccination of the index against transmission to fully vaccinated household contacts was 40% (95% confidence interval (CI) 20-54%), which is in addition to the direct protection of vaccination of contacts against infection. Effectiveness of full vaccination of the index against transmission to unvaccinated household contacts was 63% (95%CI 46-75%).

      Hey, douchebag, take a statistics class. When you consider those giant error bars, you don't have much justification for comparison. Especially since fully vaccinated households are more likely to take other precautions which could be having a significant effect. You could have exactly the same results if there is no difference whatsoever.

      You also neglected to report the caveats that, "Possible waning of vaccine effectiveness against infection and against onward transmission could result in increases." and but differences in risk behavior may also play a role.

      Here is best thing you left out: This study found that VET waned over time since vaccination of the index case. We explored whether such waning is also visible in our data (SupplementaryTableS2). VET estimates are indeed lower when the index reached full vaccination status 60 or more days ago.

      60 days after vaccination, the VET drops. Worst. Vaccine. Ever.

      1. Sure Chuck, all kinds of excuses available for you to continue to do the dumb stuff - I especially liked your self damning admission that families who have been vaccinated probably did other smart things - and yeah! Too bad there aren't boosters. You nailed that one.

        1. He did. And if you don't see how, you're a dope.

          1. Zeb, so you never heard of boosters either and are waiting until the world's scientists get you the perfect vaccine your perfect body demands or ..... they're out of luck?

            1. No, I'm not waiting for anything. People should get the vaccine if they want it. And it's no one else's business if they do or not.
              We just need to live with it and get on with life. Which is what I've been doing all along. There was never any good reason for most people to radically alter their lives over this.

              1. Zeb, it's a public health issue involving a pandemic. Of course it's other's business that you get your shot. Fine if you don't, but stay home. This is long established law and you or your kids already complied if they went to school and many universities.

                1. No. If the vaccines made a significant dent in infection or transmission, you might have a point. I would still disagree, but there would be something there. As it is, we can see in countries with nearly 100% vaccination that it doesn't stop infections or significant outbreaks. There is no justification for any mandate or anyone being worried about whether or not someone is vaccinated. There is no reason to be more concerned about an unvaccinated person who is not sick than a vaccinated person who is not sick. Yes, there may be some difference, but it's really splitting hairs.
                  And there is no established law that you can force everyone to get a shot as a condition of employment. The vaccines mandated for school are generally well understood and quite effective at stopping infections and have been in use for a long time.
                  Long established law can be immoral. Slavery was long established law for most of human history. That don't make it right.

          2. And if you don't see how, you're a dope.

            No need for the conditional there.

          3. Agreed Joe is a dope, especially on anything Covid related.

        2. I especially liked your self damning admission that families who have been vaccinated probably did other smart things -

          As I have said before, Joe, you are 100% disingenuous in your arguments, even if you sincerely believe what you write. You fail to logically support anything, instead choosing to emote.

          I didn't admit anything. I didn't claim risk adversity affected the hypothesis. I was pointing out that the statistics don't support what you say they support based on uncontrolled variables and those giant error bars. That you choose not to address my actual conclusion says a lot more about you than it does me.

          1. Chuck your argument is with the Dutch researchers who's study it is and their conclusion. While your at it, you can also argue with this Yale researcher and her study of Israeli data.

            https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.13.21260393v1

            1. Chuck your argument is with the Dutch researchers

              My argument is that you are misrepresenting reports that you don't understand. Your continued appeal to authority only supports that conclusion. So shut the fuck up.

    5. Where did the notion that 1/3 of people who had covid do not develop antibodies come from?

      This has been tested in the wild. Immunity from prior infections is like 30 times more effective than the vaccine. That isn't from some model... That is from multiple real world epidemiology investigations.

      1. if a real world epidemiology investigation is held and Fauci does not agree with it, was a real world epidemiology investigation held?

      2. Cyto (link to study at Forbes article):

        " A study just published in the journal Emerging Infectious Disease found that 36% of those who had had Covid-19 didn’t have antibodies against the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in their blood....

        a research team, led by first author Weimin Liu, M.D. and senior author Beatrice Hahn, M.D. from the University of Pennsylvania, checked blood samples from 72 people who had tested positive for the Covid-19 coronavirus via RT-PCR tests. All but two of the people had had symptoms, with 13 (18%) having mild disease, 48 (67%) moderate disease, and nine (12%) severe disease. They waited at least three weeks after each person no longer had symptoms before checking their blood.

        Only 46 of the 72 participants ended up having detectable antibodies against the Covid-19 coronavirus spike protein in their blood samples. Plus, the amount of antibodies detected ranged significantly from 182 to greater than 312,500. They found similar results for antibodies against other parts of the virus including the receptor-binding domain (RBD) and nucleocapsid (N). Ultimately, 26 (36%) remained seronegative, meaning that they never developed detectable levels of such antibodies in their blood, even when multiple blood samples were checked for each person...."

        https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2021/09/05/36-of-those-who-had-covid-19-didnt-develop-antibodies-study-says/?sh=109e41675f60

        1. Is that people who had a positive PCR test, or people who actually got sick?
          And antibodies aren't all of, or even most of, your immunity to a virus. They are just the easiest thing to measure. When you are immune to a virus, you don't have antibodies for it in your blood forever, but are able to produce them quickly when needed.

          1. Zeb, these sloppy scientists no doubt missed the finer points you will have foreseen, but hey, what do you expect from a bunch of guys who took 11 months to develop a 90% effective vaccine (typical for flu vaccines) which makes death from the virus exceedingly rare and with exceedingly very few deaths from complications - rip-off artists!

            1. Which is not what I said or meant. How about responding to what people actually say rather than guessing their intentions? Or tell me to read the damn paper myself.

              Scientists get things wrong a lot. More than half of published research is wrong. There is no good reason to put so much faith in recent research. Many drugs turn out to be more dangerous or less effective than initial studies show. The science is not settled here by a long shot. No science is ever settled in less than a year.

              1. Zeb, scientists do get things wrong occasionally but nearly as often as anonymous posters on the internet.

                You get my drift?

                1. No, not occasionally, most of the time. Most new published research is wrong. I was amazed by that fact as well, but it does appear to be the case.

        2. 36% of those who had had Covid-19 didn’t have antibodies against the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in their blood

          People don't spontaneously recover from infections.

          I will fully admit that I don't know enough to explain it correctly, but I know enough to know that you are drawing conclusions that have no foundation because you have no idea that you are talking about completely different issues as if they are the same thing.

          1. Chuck, again you somehow think I produced the research I am citing and therefore the research is from a fellow anonymous internet poster. Take it up with the scientists.

            1. you somehow think I produced the research I am citing

              I know you didn't produce it. I know it doesn't mean what you think it means. Since you don't know what it means, you can't refute my claim and just keep referring to Science! like a good little lefty.

              Go surf porn, it's more in keeping with your intellect. You can't gaslight people who are informed.

      3. I remember Fauci kept saying they had no assurance that recovering from a case of Covid would confer immunity, while simultaneously touting vaccination. If immune resistance from actually having the bug was not reliable, why would vaccines be better? They work off the same mechanisms. It was a talking point that seemed inherently contradictory.

        1. Yeah, that was pretty silly. Of course, we don't know until we look. But it was always the reasonable default assumption that being infected would give you some useful degree of immunity.

        2. Mickey, vaccines are better and those who have had covid also benefit from them. Look it up, and I don't mean here.

          1. Better than what? Natural immunity? Actual population studies strongly suggest otherwise. Not antibody studies, actual studies of who gets sick in the real world.

            1. Joe Friday unfortunately just likes to stir the pot, I'm pretty sure at this point his contracting consists of boasting about jobs but never delivering to his "customers"

              1. "Well, I have to rip out these pipes: they're not up to code. Of course I'll be back on Monday to fix it."

          2. Even NPR recognizes that natural immunity beats any vaccine.

            1. sarcasmic, link to NPR's research please?

              1. LOL!

                A little troll on troll action happening here. Usually you have to pay for a premium subscription to get that.

            1. "Most Vaccinated" Nation On Earth Cancels Christmas Over Surge In COVID Cases
              https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/most-vaccinated-nation-earth-cancels-christmas-over-surge-cases

            2. How Swede it is.

          3. 'It's unacceptable': Several Calif. children sick after receiving wrong dose of COVID vaccine
            https://6abc.com/kids-given-wrong-dose-of-covid-vaccine-sutter-health-for-california-get-adult-pfizer-shot/11242363/

              1. This doctor trained at the Mayo Clinic and runs the largest independent testing laboratory in Idaho.
                Listen to what his lab testing is showing.
                https://twitter.com/ToriaMart/status/1459675860458524677

                1. "A viral video features a doctor making dubious claims about COVID-19 vaccines and treatments at a forum hosted by Idaho’s lieutenant governor. Dr. Ryan Cole claims mRNA vaccines cause cancer and autoimmune diseases, but the lead author of the paper on which Cole based that claim told us there is no evidence mRNA vaccines cause those ailments....

                  Cole has now added: “mRNA trials in mammals have led to odd cancers. mRNA trials on mammals have led to autoimmune diseases — not right away, six, nine, 12 months later.”

                  We asked Cole to provide support for those claims, and he referred us to a 2018 paper published in the journal Nature Reviews Drug Discovery that reviewed trials and studies of various, earlier mRNA vaccines.

                  But that paper doesn’t support his statement.

                  Norbert Pardi, a research assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, was the lead author of the paper. He told us in an email, “No publications demonstrate that mRNA vaccines cause cancer or autoimmune diseases.”

                  Pardi’s 19-page paper does make one passing reference to autoimmune diseases, which is what Cole highlighted to us.

                  The paper says: “A possible concern could be that some mRNA-based vaccine platforms induce potent type I interferon responses, which have been associated not only with inflammation but also potentially with autoimmunity. Thus, identification of individuals at an increased risk of autoimmune reactions before mRNA vaccination may allow reasonable precautions to be taken.”

                  But, Pardi explained, he and the other researchers included that passage because they wanted to note some potential concerns. However, he emphasized that “no scientific evidence has confirmed that these concerns are real.”

                  It’s also worth noting that the paper predated the COVID-19 pandemic by two years, so it doesn’t include any information specifically about the COVID-19 vaccines.

                  Simply put, “there is no scientific evidence that shows that mRNA vaccines cause autoimmune diseases,” Pardi said. “Multiple clinical trials have been performed with mRNA vaccines in the past 10 years and none of them found that mRNA vaccination caused autoimmune diseases. Further, we are not aware of any studies showing an autoimmune disease appearing many months after vaccination as Dr. Cole inaccurately suggests.”.."

                  https://www.factcheck.org/2021/04/scicheck-idaho-doctor-makes-baseless-claims-about-safety-of-covid-19-vaccines/

            1. It's unacceptable, but what will be done to stop it? Or punish the person who injected those children without due care?

              Nothing.

      4. You would have to totally ignore heapings of publicly available population-level data to make an assertion that vaccination is somehow superior to naturally acquired resistance.

        This is a case in point of how so much of science nowadays makes an explicit point of missing forests for the sake of a couple of trees.

    6. Vaccines do reduce the spread of Covid. You are less likely to catch it, a necessary condition for spreading it.

      Really? Care to provide us with a graph where the X axis is % of population "vaccinated" in a given US State, and the Y axis is number of Covid cases in that State?

      I've seen some of those, none of them supported your position. you got one that does?

      The jabs make it more likely that if you catch Covid, you will be asymptomatic.

      Asymptomatic people continue to go out and infect other people, symptomatic people tend not to. That there can lead to a significant increase in infections caused by the "vaccinated".

      1. Greg, I provided 2 studies above with links.

        1. Don't bother, Greg. He can't even summarize what the studies found. He just copy-pastes the abstract like a douchebag high-schooler copying off the smart kids.

    7. Give up. Nothing but morons here honestly. They'll yell "freedom" or some other bullshit not realizing you can use your freedom to get the shot too.

      They're more obsessed with being contrarians than being smart.

      1. I have no issue with people using their freedom to get the shot or not. Like most libertarians, it is the mandates and vaccine passports I oppose, and the overselling of the vaccine effectiveness and the economic, health and social damage inflicted by the lockdowns.

        I was vaccinated (twice), not out of fear of COVID but to avoid the inconvenience of living in a state with ill-advised COVID rules, and to feel safer about visiting my elderly parents. Now I hear the vaccines fade over time and boosters are needed (even though Moderna's own data barely demonstrated this) and they don't necessarily stop you from spreading the virus anyway, so keep wearing a mask (even though mask mandates have pretty close to zero proven effectiveness).

        Freedom is worth defending, even if some of your allies in that defense are loons (both left and right).

    8. SHE HAS ANTIBODIES, you fvckin simpleton, she is not 1/3 of a chance not to habe them, she 100% has them

  45. Prosecuting attorney Linda Dunikoski asked whether Arbery's first set of injuries—the wrist and chest being hit by the same shot—could be "consistent with someone pushing a shotgun away from them" or "consistent with someone maybe grabbing the shotgun."

    "It could be, yes," Donoghue answered to both questions.

    Wow, that pretty much defines "reasonable doubt" to be on the side of the defense, no?

    1. Wow, that pretty much defines "reasonable doubt" to be on the side of the defense, no?

      If he had grabbed a shotgun prior to the trigger being pulled, wouldn't there be scorch marks on the body?

      1. There should be unburned powder stippling on Arbery anyway, as close as the discharge was to him. It wasn't a contact wound though, AFAIK. I've not looked at autopsy accounts.

        In other news, it may be that we will be subjected to Rittenhouse Trial 2.0. The defense is asking for a mistrial...without prejudice. Observers are getting heated.

  46. "Prosecution Rests in Ahmaud Arbery Murder Trial"
    Really? Then what am I watching at 4:55 PM on Wed, the 17th? It appears to be the prosecutor cross-examining the younger McMichael and then taking a break until tomorrow. While I presume that, at some point between now and tomorrow, pretty much all of the prosecution team will certainly rest, that I really is not what is meant by the headline.
    Hard to understand such a lazy mistake.

    1. It's not a mistake. After the prosecution makes their case and rests, the defense makes their case, and prosecution is allowed to cross-examine any defense witnesses, including the defendants. Just because the prosecution is done with their case doesn't mean the trial is over.

  47. https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1460931168195522561?t=ewYW9butQO_nBWvZ8oMyNw&s=19

    HD drone footage the the prosecution witheld from Rittenhouse lawyers. Pretty much proves self defense. No wonder they witheld it.

    1. Thanks for linking that, I loved watching the child-raping piece of shit get ventilated again because he was too fucking high on drugs to use his brain and not chase an armed individual.

      No matter how the trial ends up, it's a beautiful thing that this asshole got shot in the head and in the dick and will never burden society with his presence again.

  48. "Three white men chased down a black man who had done nothing wrong and killed him."

    Jesus you're full of shit. Their neighborhood had been robbed previously and he's on video wandering around in someone's house while it's under construction.

    Then he took off running and they chased after him.

    1. If he was running away from them, he was not not threatening their lives.

  49. "Three white men chased down a black man who had done nothing wrong and killed him."

    Don't be a lazy-ass. Nick Gillespie on the Roundtable podcast repeated the just a jogger narrative. I thought he was more inquisitive than that. AA didn't start running until after he realized that he had been seen. They called the cops and then went after him.

    Look at the full videos of AA caught shoplifting and almost being tased while being questioned by officers in a high drug area. Then you tell me that Mr. Tuxedo was just going for a little jog.

Comments are closed.