Law enforcement

Police Search Rape Kit DNA To See if Victims Are Also Criminals

Plus: Spike in people who want less immigration, gun enforcement won't stop violent crime, the Palin libel trial, and more...

|

California officials are calling for an end to rape kit testing outside of rape investigations. San Francisco's district attorney said Monday that DNA collected from alleged rape victims—evidence known as a rape kit—has been used to check if they are also criminals. District Attorney Chesa Boudin accused the city's police crime lab of searching a database that includes DNA from sexual assault investigations in "attempts to identify crime suspects."

"I am disturbed that victims who have the courage to undergo an invasive examination to help identify their perpetrators are being treated like criminals rather than supported as crime victims," said Boudin. "We should encourage survivors to come forward—not collect evidence to use against them in the future. This practice treats victims like evidence, not human beings. This is legally and ethically wrong."

According to Boudin, this practice led to at least one person—a woman whose DNA was collected years ago as part of a rape examination—being arrested for a property crime. Boudin said his office is investigating how often arrests of this sort occur, as well as "demanding that this practice end immediately [and] encouraging local and state legislators to introduce legislation to end this practice in California."

Some lawmakers are already taking up the task.

"If survivors believe their DNA may end up being used against them in the future, they'll have one more reason not to participate in the rape kit process," said state Sen. Scott Wiener (D–District 11). "That's why I'm working with the DA's office to address this problem through state legislation, if needed."

San Francisco District 9 Supervisor Hillary Ronen is also working on it. "Any DNA evidence collected from victims of rape must not be used for any other purpose than investigating the rape itself," said Ronen. "I have asked to the City Attorney to draft legislation to prevent DNA evidence—or any sort of evidence from a victim's rape kit—to be used for anything other than investigating that rape."

Without admitting that it's done, San Francisco Police Chief Bill Scott said he is committed to stopping it. "We must never create disincentives for crime victims to cooperate with police, and if it's true that DNA collected from a rape or sexual assault victim has been used by SFPD to identify and apprehend that person as a suspect in another crime, I'm committed to ending the practice," Scott said.

The practice might be unconstitutional under California's constitution, since it violates victim privacy, pointed out Michael Risher of the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California.

"Federal law rightly prohibits the police from uploading these types of samples into the national Combined DNA Index System (CODIS), which is used to match DNA samples collected from crimes scenes with those collected from people convicted of or in some cases arrested for crimes," noted Risher. "Local agencies that maintain separate databases should follow this sensible rule to ensure that victims' DNA is not retained and used for unrelated purposes. This is especially important for California law-enforcement agencies like SFPD because, unlike the federal Constitution, the California Constitution expressly protects privacy rights and victims' rights."


FREE MINDS

Immigration policy preferences appear disconnected from reality. A new poll reveals how politics, media, and public perception may drive immigration sentiment more than reality does. Immigration levels went down in 2021, but people who want less immigration to the U.S. are less satisfied with immigration levels now than they were in the past few years, with the jump driven by dissatisfaction among Republicans. The findings suggest that people may simply believe—without evidence, or because of rhetoric coming from right-leaning press and politicians—that immigration is much higher under Joe Biden than it was under Donald Trump.

In fact, "immigration into the United States in 2021 plunged as a result of both a decline in international travel brought on by the Covid-19 pandemic and restrictive U.S. immigration policies, according to new report from the Census Bureau," The Intercept reported in January:

The nation's political and media classes were seemingly so obsessed over the images of migrants at the border that they failed to grasp the truth, which was that immigration levels collapsed in 2021.

The startling Census Bureau report found that net international migration into the United States increased by just 247,000 people in 2021, the lowest annual level for any year since at least 2010. That's about half the number of people who came into the country between 2019 and 2020, during the Trump administration, when net international migration totaled 477,000. The 2021 figure was also far below the 1,049,000 who came into the U.S. between 2015 and 2016, the highest level for any year in that decade.

Overall, "nearly six in 10 Americans, 58%, are dissatisfied with the level of immigration into the U.S. today, while 34% are satisfied. This marks an eight-percentage-point increase in dissatisfaction since last year and a return to the 2019-2020 range," report the pollsters at Gallup. Some 35 percent want to see less immigration, 9 percent want to see more immigration, and 14 percent said they're dissatisfied with current levels but also don't want to see a change.

"The proportion who want less immigration has nearly doubled from 19% in 2021 and is well above where it was in 2019 (23%) and 2020 (25%)," notes Gallup. And "since last year, spanning the change from the Trump to the Biden administration, Republicans' dissatisfaction has grown from 55% to 87%. The current figure is three points above the previous high recorded in 2015, the last time a Democrat occupied the White House."


FREE MARKETS

Why aggressive gun control isn't the way to stop violent crime. A new report out of Philadelphia looked at more than 2,000 shootings between 1999 and 2019 and policies intended to stop them. "Focusing so many resources on removing guns from the street while a constant supply of new guns is available is unlikely to stop gun violence," notes the report.

At Slate, Jon Pfaff examines the report's results and compares them to the gun policies proposed by New York City Mayor Eric Adams:

During Biden's visit to New York City, Adams called for a "9/11-type response" to gun violence. The thrust of his plan—besides exhorting the state legislature to roll back recent reforms on bail and discovery—is to aggressively go after guns by increasing detection efforts at state entry points, expanding funding for the New York Police Department's Gun Violence Suppression Division, working more closely with the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to trace guns, and investing in new surveillance technology to detect illegal firearms. Most consequentially, Adams promises to revive the NYPD's undercover "anti-crime units"—disbanded in 2020 amid concerns about unconstitutional stops and excessive violence—and rechristen them "Neighborhood Safety Teams," deploying 400 to 500 officers on the streets to focus on "gun removals."

The Philadelphia report—written by a wide range of sometimes contentious stakeholders, including the Philadelphia Police Department, the district attorney's office under reformer Larry Krasner, the Department of Public Health, and the Defender Association of Philadelphia—suggests that such interdiction is likely futile. The authors provided analyses and policy recommendations for a city suffering from a record 559 homicides in 2021. While the proposals from the Philadelphia police broadly track with the Adams plan, the recommendations from the other stakeholders, including the city's district attorney, caution strongly against an approach that centers on gun interdiction. …

Krasner also worries that gun enforcement won't actually solve gun violence; he notes that many in law enforcement support gun possession cases as a way to fight gun violence "in spite of little research supporting the approach."


FOLLOWUPS

Mayor resigns after ice fishing comments. The mayor of Hudson, Ohio, earned nationwide mockery for his comments about ice fishing and prostitution. Mayor Craig Shubert insists it was just dry humor that the rest of us didn't get. Nonetheless, he has resigned from his position. "My attempt to inject a bit of dry humor to make a point about this, in the midst of a cold, snowy February, was grossly misunderstood," Shubert said in a resignation letter.

Sarah Palin case thrown out. Earlier this month, we covered the defamation case that former Alaska governor and Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin brought against The New York Times, noting that she faced an uphill battle in proving her defamation claims since—as a public figure—she had to show the Times was acting with malice in an editorial that suggested a link between Palin's political action committee and a mass shooting. A judge has now thrown out that case, saying that Palin's team failed to show that the Times had been knowingly sharing false information or reckless in doing so.

U.S. District Court Judge Jed Rakoff did not think they showed that the paper had acted with actual malice. "The judge said that standard, aimed at allowing robust public debate on issues of public importance, is open to question. However, he said it was not his role to revisit that rule," notes Politico. "Rakoff said he would continue to allow the jury to deliberate to a verdict, arguing that an appeal in the case seems inevitable and that the jury's verdict could be useful to the appeals court."

Canada invokes emergency powers to break up trucker protest. "Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says he's invoking the Emergencies Act for the first time in Canada's history to give the federal government temporary powers to handle ongoing blockades and protests against pandemic restrictions," reports CBC News. Trudeau said on Monday that "it is no longer a lawful protest at a disagreement over government policy. It is now an illegal occupation. It's time for people to go home."

The act gives Trudeau a frightening amount of leeway to target individual protesters. The prime minister said he will not send in the military, but "instead threatened to tow away vehicles to keep essential services running; freeze truckers' personal and corporate bank accounts; and suspend the insurance on their rigs," reports the Associated Press.


QUICK HITS

• Why does America make it so hard to become a doctor?

• Airlines are pushing for a national no-fly list.

• "Elon Musk donated roughly $5.7 billion worth of Tesla Inc. shares to charity last year," reports the Wall Street Journal. The revelation comes from a new security filing, which "doesn't name recipients for the 5,044,000 Tesla shares that Mr. Musk reported donating over the course of more than a week in November."

• "There's growing consensus among policing leaders that the risks of [no-knock warrants], which came into vogue during the height of the drug wars in the 1990s and into the 2000s, far outweigh any potential rewards," notes CNN.

• Is Republican centrism a fantasy?

NEXT: Teacher Spying Is Instilling Surveillance Culture Into Students

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

  1. Canada invokes emergency powers to break up trucker protest.

    Good thing Trudeau's fascism is justified, unlike Trump's would have been.

    1. Inventing emergency powers in order to violently break up a peaceful sit-in = totes libertarian, okay?

      1. If the thing you are protesting doesn't change in two weeks or less then the government automatically wins and your lawful protest is now an illegal occupation. I don't make the rules

        1. Two weeks to flatten the protesters.

          1. The physics says ~2 minutes, depending on munition used.

            1. I make 85 dollars each hour for working an online job at home. KLA02 I never thought I could do it but my best friend makes 10000 bucks every month working this job and she recommended me to learn more about it. The potential with this is endless.
              For more detail …. http://rb.gy/u603ti

        2. Don't worry, the emergency powers only last 30 days.
          At which time they will declare another emergency.

        3. Pretty sure Trudeau declared them illegal before they even started. So it appears they become illegal if you are even planning protests that question government authority.

      2. At some point you do have to clear the highway.
        At no point do you have to freeze the protestors' bank accounts.

        1. Or, cut the bullshit so they just go home.

      3. It's Reason-style Libertarian, not actually libertarian.

    2. It's not fascism. It's just a little "leeway."

    3. Fuck Justin Trudeau

      and Joe Biden

      1. Fuck Castreau

      2. Let's Go Bieber!

    4. I'm waiting on Sullum's 50 articles regarding Canada's fascism.

      1. While you're waiting you can go through the ones I've written 😉

        https://simulationcommander.substack.com/p/tyrants-gonna-tyrant

        This one has links to the others.

        1. Did you see the Indian-Canadian commentator on this (well, on the lead up to this)? She was pissed that Trudeau's advice to India on its protests last year is vastly different that the tone he is striking with his own protests.

          1. I heard a report on NPR this morning. They were talking (briefly) about using emergency powers to seize funds, stifle dissent, and had made it impossible to get any news outside of state-controlled sources -- in Africa. Somewhere. Maybe Tutsis were involved.

            But I was caught off guard: 90% of the wording could have applied to Canada.

          2. I did not, do you have an URL?

      2. I'm sure he'll take a personal check, Jesse. Might even take Venmo.

        At least ENB mentioned the story. I guess that's something.

        1. Trudeau has now explicitly assumed the power to confiscate bank accounts they SUSPECT are guilty of THOUGHT crimes.
          This is a really, really big deal.

          Honestly, it's such a momentous development that Reason should've had someone put out an article on it last night. They do that for shit that's much less serious.

          1. There is no direct threat to illegal aliens or transsexuals, so the coverage can wait.

            1. Or prostitutes. Actually ending the protests and getting the truckers back to work benefits lot lizards.

        2. It is pretty amazing, given that the protests are anti mask mandate, and carried out but folks who don't live in urban centers or spend all their time on social media. One would have thought this was 'too local' and too icky for Reason to notice.

    5. ●▬PART TIME JOBS▬●◄ STAY AT HOME & WORK AT HOME FOR USA ►Check it out, and start earning yourself . for more info visit any tab this site Thanks a lot Her Open this Site For Full Detail...........MORE DETAIL.

  2. My attempt to inject a bit of dry humor to make a point about this, in the midst of a cold, snowy February, was grossly misunderstood...

    I applaud him if that's the case, although I'm not sure the point.

    1. It was just a tip-up.

    2. Having sat through hours and hours of Hudson, Ohio city council meetings?

  3. Airlines are pushing for a national no-fly list.

    Someone is getting too many subsidies if they can afford to turn away customers.

    1. We could send the CEOs some balls instead.

      1. It sure seems to me like they are being told to ask for this.

        It makes zero sense from an airline point of view. They started at "planes are proven safe. The airflow and filtration systems on planes makes masks unnecessary"

        Mask mandates from the feds lead to altercations....

        But the request is to crack down harder on masks?

        Nope. Not buying that. They are the "National School Board Association" in this story.

  4. The findings suggest that people may simply believe—without evidence, or because of rhetoric coming from right-leaning press and politicians—that immigration is much higher under Joe Biden than it was under Donald Trump.

    Just ignore the 2 million estimated illegal immigrants last year.

    What gaslighting lol.

    1. Its not happening and its good for us.

    2. YEP and secretly flying them around the country without documenting who is where or even bothering to test for covid just makes everyones imagination go WHAT THE HELL?

    3. Stop pouncing!

    4. The description from The Intercept article quote that a quarter million increase in immigration is a collapse does take the cake. As well as apparently no acknowledgement that any decrease in expected numbers might have something to do with the pandemic. Or that people might be upset with facing restrictions on movement for themselves might be a bit incredulous that immigration remains relatively high.

    5. What complete bullshit. A majority of Americans believe that a whole assload of illegal immigration is happening because we have seen mobs of Spanish speaking people dumped off by DHS personnel at airports, with plane tickets and aid applications in their hands. And when the government is questioned about it, they either stonewall or say they aren't doing that "any more". They were doing that last August.

      Did they stop? Hell no. DHS reports 100-150K immigrants crossing the border every month. Is there a huge tent city just on this side of the Rio Grande? Has Brownsville tripled in size? No! So what's happening? These immigrants, asylum seekers, illegals must be being distributed across American cities, the DHS is just not getting caught now. My guess is some huge giveaway contact to some bussing company, yet another pile of billions of dollars from the infrastructure slush fund.

      So, they are lying about not distributing millions of immigrants across the country, because they are not piling up near the border. The math doesn't work out. And if they are lying about this, what else are they lying about?

      How stupid do you have to be to believe what the government says about ANYTHING at this point?

    6. The majority of which will never show up for their court date as well.

  5. Why does America make it so hard to become a doctor?

    Weeding out the independent thinkers takes effort.

    1. Gotta keep supply down so prices stay high. I'm old enough to remember the AMA yammering about a doctor glut.

      1. It's a cartel.

  6. "Spike in people who want less immigration"

    I don't believe that. Those polls must be conducted by wingnut.com. Reason has repeatedly told me its benefactor Charles Koch's open borders agenda is wildly popular.

    #OpenBorders
    #(EspeciallyDuringAPandemic)

    1. Who doesn’t love a law breaker?

      1. Ladies love an outlaw like a baby loves stray dogs.

  7. A judge has now thrown out that case, saying that Palin's team failed to show that the Times had been knowingly sharing false information...

    How could its reporters possibly know what was accurate?

    1. I guess juries are just courtroom decoration now.

      1. Judge was worried the Jury would fine for Palin

    2. Meh, the Second Circuit overruled this judge on this case previously. They stated his reasoning was badly flawed, and erroneous. His decision will be appealed to the Second Circuit.

      Hope the jury sticks it to the Old Grey Hag. They deserve it. What they did was deliberate.

      1. Considering they had to order him to hold the case in the first place, and he has now dismissed it while jury deliberation has already started, I think there is a good chance that, no matter what the jury decides, she has a real good case for an appeal. The only thing is possible double jeopardy, but does that apply in civil cases?

        1. Also, given that the judge originally dismissed it and then his decision was overturned by the appeals court, and he now dismissed it during jury deliberations, it isn't far fetched to conclude that the judge is biased against the plaintiff, and that his actions may be the result of his fear that Palin case will be successful. This is why it is important to report the whole story, because reporting in a vacuum leaves out context.

          1. And without context it would appear that she doesn't have a case, however, in context it suggests either she doesn't have a case or that the judge is biased.

          2. Additionally, can a judge be removed from the bench for tainting the jury?

  8. Any big news regarding Hillary Clinton, John Durham, or the 2016 campaign?

    Hmm....guess not, or Reason surely would have mentioned it...

    1. Nope. Nothing at all to report there. Definitely not that the Biden campaign also used the tech company implicated:

      https://freebeacon.com/biden-administration/biden-had-firm-at-center-of-trump-hacking-scandal-on-campaign-payroll/

      And absolutely nothing to report about the fact that Obama appointed the president and CEO of the same company to the National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee.

      https://www.home.neustar/about-us/news-room/press-releases/2011/president-obama-names-neustar-president-and-ceo-lisa-hook-to-national-security-telecommunications-advisory-committee

      Nothing to see there.

      1. Corporate fascism is fine per our fine editors at this establishment. They are PRIVATE COMPANIES after all.

        1. Private companies who might give these editors a better job someday.

          1. Useful idiots are never rewarded.

        2. Plus no orange men.

    2. Too hot to handle.

      1. Too cold to hold?

        1. RIP Ivan Reitman

          1. Ghostbusters and Ghostbusters II were awesome movies and Reitman was a great movimaker. Also the concept was a super meme used to great advantage by Atheists and Skeptics in refuting superjatural/paranormal claims.

    3. I have read on the Twitteratti that these are just accusations and no proof has been offered about any of it, therefore not REAL NEWS.

      1. No documentation excluding emails, text and billing other than that there is no proof.

        1. Kind of like
          if you don't enforce laws fewer crimes were committed, or

          if you don't report illegal immigration and just move them around there is a drop in illegal immigration. or

          when the CDC said don't report hospitalizations of those who had the covid vaccine then all the covid hospitalizations will be from the unvaccinated

          there is a pattern of lies here that fits what George O'rwell foretold

    4. The fugazi libertarians of Reason all know that WE know that they completely fell for Operation Crossfire Hurricane (aka the Russian collusion hoax) hook, line, and sinker and made themselves look like complete and total fools. Which they pretty much are. So I totally understand why they don’t like talking about the subject too much!

      I wonder if fat ugly Ron Jeremy lookalike Dave “The Hedgehog” Weigel will continue trolling me every weekend with his stupid claim that Durham never found anything. My guess is he probably will.

      1. Per my post below: did they fall for it, or were they part of it?

        1. The Reason staff isn't important enough to be part of it.

          1. Probably true.

          2. And yet here we are and still nothing.

          3. And here we are 8 hours later…

    5. So I’ve been thinking about the fact that most of the MSM has completely ignored this story. Not barely covered it, not minimized it, not the usual word games they play. Completely ignored it.

      Now let’s review: We already knew that James Comey used leaking to his sources in the media so they reported on it, to provide corroborating evidence. Seems this is a common tactic.

      So IF this turns out to be as serious as it seems (spying on the sitting president to get him removed, there’s a word for that), how involved were all the members of the media that hyped this story daily? Was it just the people in the media engaged in group hysteria, or was it truly a coordinated effort, directed by whoever in the government/Hillary campaign (same people) was involved?

      I’m not saying this is true, more of a working “what if” hypothesis. But there may very well be people high up in corporate media that shit their pants on Friday.

      1. Yes, certain higher-ups at CNN/MSNBC/NYT/WaPo were absolutely in on it (and the rest were useful idiots who bought it). Don't forget that John Brennan and various other ex-feds are all employed at CNN.

        1. As much as I would like to see a reckoning I have a feeling if it starts getting serious either Biden will fire Durham or there will be a flurry of pardons before it goes to court or both. What are they going to do, as we saw with both Clinton and Trump there is almost no chance of him being convicted in the Senate and he isn’t going to run again in 24.

  9. A judge has now thrown out that case, saying that Palin's team failed to show that the Times had been knowingly sharing false information or reckless in doing so.

    This is false. The judge cited a lack of finding regarding malice. He acknowledged the NYT was wreckers and wrong in their comments. They admitted so on the stand.

    This is the issue woth the malice standard. It is a subjective thought crime requirement. Much like hare crime uppers. It should not be an allowable standard.

    The standard for libel cases should be intent. Here thr NYT edited the wording to include it in an article prior to publishing. It was intentional. That should have been the standard.

    1. I think there is also an argument to be made for negligent risk management. In my company if a human mistake can cause damages of some sort, then once that risk is identified, the company must make reasonable effort to limit that risk. Even if the person who made the mistake wasn't negligent or operating in bad faith, if the company has reason to know that their controls are not mitigating risk, they are open to a lawsuit if they make damages.

      While legal precedent may require malice, from a logical and moral standpoint, I don't see why a company should have to meet a "malice" standard. Hell, I don't even understand how a corporation can have malice. When a corporation determines that its processes are causing damages, it must reasonably mitigate them. In this case, NYT already knew that these allegations were false, and their editorial controls failed to prevent re-publishing the lie.

      1. All this talk aside, DNC propagandists will never be held accountable for slandering or libeling enemies of The Party until things change.

    2. Why did the judge let it go the jury before making this decision?
      Hell, I thought judges often ruled on this kind of stuff before even calling and seating a jury. Something wrong here.

  10. Airlines are pushing for a national no-fly list.

    But please keep bailing us out.

    - Airline Industry Spokesman

    1. Is this like a no peanut thing? R. M. Renfield hardest hit.

  11. Elon Musk donated roughly $5.7 billion worth of Tesla Inc. shares to charity last year...

    AS A TAX DODGE!

    1. Jokes on them, he plans on running the company into the ground!

    2. Yep. He should have hand-delivered those funds to Liz Warren for direct deposit in the IRS federal slush fund.

    3. Hi. I'm going to donate $5.7 Billion to charity to avoid paying $2.8 Billion in taxes.

      Riiiiiiiiiiiight.

  12. There's growing consensus among policing leaders that the risks of [no-knock warrants], which came into vogue during the height of the drug wars in the 1990s and into the 2000s, far outweigh any potential rewards...

    The risk that they might lose some measure of QI over the optics.

  13. "The findings suggest that people may simply believe—without evidence, or because of rhetoric coming from right-leaning press and politicians—that immigration is much higher under Joe Biden than it was under Donald Trump."

    Holy shit this is a deceitful article. Legal immigration may have collapsed, but it is a fact that the southern border is out of control:
    https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-land-border-encounters

    Encounters by border patrol have increased by massive amounts, YoY starting in February of 2021. You can also go to CIS (dot) org and find estimates of illegal immigration. While I don't necessarily like CIS because of their bias, I they are the only ones out there attempting to estimate illegal immigration post 2018 (wonder why that is). It shows clear increases in immigration population starting in 2021, and that seems to match the NBP data above.

    Wanna know why the US populace doesn't like our immigration system? It is because it is lawless and arbitrary right now. Despite having a majority in congress and the executive branch, Democrats have done nothing for immigration except signal that for four years they would arbitrarily enforce standing laws. I want less restrictive borders, but arbitrary rules like this will never get people to accept immigration. Canada's population supports much HIGHER levels of legal immigration into the country. And one of the main reasons Canadians support this is that they believe that the country is appropriately managing the immigrants, and not ignoring an entire underclass of people.

    1. Here is the CIS data from December of 2021.

      https://cis.org/Camarota/Immigrant-Population-Hits-Record-462-Million-November-2021

      Reason really needs to get this into their heads. People are not going to support "Freedom" if it is equated to "Lawlessness". Opposition to BLM was declining for years until the 2020 summer of riots. At that point, support for BLM began declining, and opposition started increasing. That trend has continued.

      If there is collapsing support for immigration into this country, then it is only because the Democrats and Biden administration *wasted* their opportunity to simplify the immigration system, while chasing after green subsidies for their rich donors. This is now the second time in 15 years that the Democrats had the opportunity to make meaningful changes to the law, and the second time in decades that they have opted to leave people chained up under bridges and dependent on them rather than actually improve the situation.

    2. Thank you for posting this. I took ENB's statement at face value, and was starting to wonder how we ended up with such a mismatch in news versuses reality considering the biases of most media. Should have known better. Of course a reason writer would intentionally mislead their readers when it comes to data on immigration. It's why they have no credibility on the subject.

      1. “I took ENB's statement at face value,”

        New here?

        1. Don't even have that excuse. Just didn't expect an outright lie.

          1. As someone who watched almost every one of Trump’s Covid pressers two years ago live, then read ENB’s accounts of them the next morning I can assure you, that ENB out and out lying should be the default assumption.

    3. It may have had something to do with Fox News flying a drone over a bridge that 11,000 people were living under

  14. Days since enbs last yegalsias mention
    1

    1. I support this counter.

    2. Seriously, are they married? If not, her spouse should be VERY concerned...

      1. She is married to one of Yglesias' buddies from Vox. Probably a throuple.

        1. Her husband probably has to sit in the corner and watch.

          1. Be serious, it's Yglesias. ENB sits in the corner and watches.

  15. Is Republican centrism a fantasy?

    Lol, there is no center to anything anymore. Politics is a doughnut now.

    1. More like a butthole.

        1. More descriptive still: A solidified doughnut inside a butthole with mouth level back-up of shit behind it.

    2. Perhaps, but I wouldn't take the word of someone who comes off as being able to count on one hand the number of minutes he's spent talking to any Republicans in his entire life

    3. Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold

      1. It's like The Widening Gyre meets The Downward Spiral.

    4. Perhaps that so many of those "centrists" ended up being Democrats, I don't have any faith in them at all.

      1. As I've noted before, while a vacuum is possible it's very difficult to maintain one artificially. So, "Centrism" ends up going one way or another.

        1. Which is true. Since the left has moved so far left, it is hard to have "centrist Republicans" unless they move far enough left to be what used to be considered blue dog Democrats.

    5. It's the biggest fear of progressives, that the great mass of centrist voters will realize that the Democrat party has been taken over by ideological extremists out of touch with the common citizen, and who, if not distracted by the "nightmare bogeyman" of Trump, might realize that voting Republican is the way to return to normalcy.

      Even the San Francisco school board is getting recalled.

      Hence the mocking of Noonan for stating the obvious, and derogatory remarks about a picture of working class people wearing cowboy hats and flannel shirts.

  16. Convoy responds to Canada's use of executive actions.

    “No one really cares about any new announcement. I mean the police have been breaking the law long before any emergency power. They were taking our fuel away. They were arresting people for purely having jerry cans or having empty tanks of fuel,” he said.

    “They’ve already been doing these ‘emergency powers’ and all it does is make people dig their heels in more,” Paisley added. “The irony … is that these very powers and threats are why we are here.”

    1. Is there any way to support these guys [financially]?

      1. Use, Give send go. I'd link but Reason!

          1. Reason has been not allowing certain links the last few days. It has been weird. Hopefully it was just an IT error.

            1. You have to type something along with the link. If you just post a link with no text, it gets blocked.

              1. Is that because of Buttplug?

      2. Right now the way to support these people is to write letters to your congress-critter calling on them to publicly support these efforts and to criticize anyone in the Federal government who supports what Trudeau is doing.

      3. Also you can donate bitcoin via tally coin. This link has a link to the donation page.
        https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/bitcoin-fundraising-for-ottawa-truckers-freedom-convoy-hits-close-to-one-million

      4. It’s like the Canadians are in one of those third world countries where all the donations in the world don’t matter because warlords.

      5. Crypto.

    2. If only they were smashing windows of small business, burning down the CVS, looting shoes from Nike, assaulting people wearing the wrong team's clothes, overturning tables of outdoor diners and throwing bottles of urine at the cops....

      Trudeau would be taking a knee for them!

      1. In blackface?

  17. "Elon Musk donated roughly $5.7 billion worth of Tesla Inc. shares to charity last year"

    If he's smart he'll donate to organizations that advocate unlimited, unrestricted immigration. Like how Charles Koch's money keeps the lights on at Reason.com in exchange for its writers promoting his access to cost-effective foreign-born labor.

    #Libertarianism101

    1. Don't forget about women's rights. He better have donated at least a portion to Planned Parenthood.

  18. "The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth"

    Is that just on TV now?
    The truth, the parts of the whole truth that liberals think should be allowed, and a bunch of stuff not the truth. That seems more like it.

    Of course, the correct answer, if from a libertarian site, is no DNA databases.

    1. Thanks reason for not blocking a news site btw. Last 3 days were strange.

  19. As the left moves to the very extreme left we get articles about the center right being an issue. No enemies to the left indeed

  20. I am disturbed that victims who have the courage to undergo an invasive examination to help identify their perpetrators are being treated like criminals rather than supported as crime victims...

    What are these crimes they were being accused of? If DNA is in the mix of evidence, one has to wonder.

    1. You can get DNA from a fingerprint these days. This article was from 2005. DNA seq tech is basically in the log phase of growth like computer processors were in the late 90's.
      https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/dna-fingerprints

      1. But it would still need to be worthwhile to run it and do the search so this isn't shoplifting a Snickers.

    1. Another letter published on Feb. 26 in Emerging Microbes and Infections cited “no credible evidence supporting claims of the laboratory engineering” of the virus. However, emails between two of the authors on Feb. 16 had stated, “We cannot rule out the possibility that it comes from a bat virus leaked out of a lab.” Coincidentally, since the publication of their article, the authors have received over $15 million in federal research dollars from Fauci and Collins.

    2. This is actually a rehash of old news (not criticizing, just pointing out that we've known this for awhile). This is an oped from Senator Marshall who is trying to get a commission started in congress to investigate this stuff.

      One piece of info I wasn't aware of was that the authors of all the "It's not a lab leak" articles in science press had about $10 Billion in total grants at stake (i.e. they were granted, but still being paid, or would be granted over following months). That is a massive conflict of interest.

      1. The massive funding is why the whole "muh private companies" line is so laughable these days. Billions of dollars from the government means your company is no longer private but can be influenced.

  21. On the Canadian front, my understanding is that Trudeau will need to go back to parliament in two weeks, after emergency powers are granted, to get them reauthorized. When he comes back to have them reauthorized, it will presumably be after he does what he does to clear the protesters out, and the reauthorization may not be as forthcoming after what's about to happen as it was before.

    I always look to data and public opinion to figure out what's likely to happen, rather than trust the headlines, but I'm not sure who is and isn't a reliable source of data on Canada--especially in terms of public opinion about the mandates. I did come across this data (dated February 15) from a market research company called "Maru" that has some interesting things to say about Canadians attitudes towards pandemic mandates.

    "TORONTO, February 15, 2022—The results of a national survey released today by Maru Public Opinion finds that as federal and provincial leaders seemingly race to lower or eliminate societal restrictions to prevent the spread and impact of COVID (and possibly as a concession to protesters who demanded such over the past three weeks) all things considered, unless their local hospitals/ICUs are affected by a sudden surge that compromises the care for people, two thirds (64%) of Canadians say it’s time to drop the restrictions imposed on Canadians because of COVID and we should start to live with the virus.

    Further, a majority (56%) of Canadians agree that it’s time to stop pressuring those who refuse to get vaccinated – if they haven’t by now, they won’t, and all its doing is creating backlash that is worse than living with them in our communities. And a significant minority (45%) of Canadians believe it’s time for the chief medical Officers and health officials to stand back and be less involved in deciding what’s best for “our society”".

    https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5a17333eb0786935ac112523/t/620ab5b8fcb5050d1f409b5c/1644869049522/Relaxing+restrictions+F+15+02+22.pdf

    Whatever Trudeau does with his emergency powers is likely to make him less popular than he is now, and just like it was smart to predict Joe Manchin's behavior based on public opinion in West Virginia (rather than the headlines), we should probably expect the Canadian parliament to ultimately reflect changes in the opinions of Canadian voters.

    Surely, we should expect whatever public support there is for Trudeau's pandemic restrictions to recede as the pandemic itself fades, and omicron has already dramatically receded. In the United States, we're back to where we were before Christmas in terms of the number of infections. If Canada is tracking America's infection rate, two weeks from now, Trudeau may be asking parliament to enforce pandemic mandates without much of a pandemic anymore.

    For every PM who's ever suffered an unsolicited no confidence vote in any parliamentary system, it was never because the PM set out to lose power. It always seems like they're doing the smart thing--right up until the moment they lose the support of the members of their own coalition. I remain persuaded that the future of Canada won't be decided by Justin Trudeau. It will be decided by whether the people of Canada are willing to tolerate his authoritarianism. I had a lot of faith in the people of West Virginia, and I have a lot of faith in the Canadian people, too.

    1. I wish I shared your optimism.

      1. After public opinion in West Virginia saved us from the Green New Deal, a massive expansion of socialist entitlement programs, and saved the filibuster, too--why not be optimistic about legitimate democracy and the power of public opinion?

    2. P.S. All the losers who went after our Canadian friends here in comments at Reason for discussing American stories should be ashamed of themselves. Note, this isn't a tu quoque. I'm not saying that now they shouldn't comment on a story about Canadian politics. I'm saying they should be ashamed of themselves for their past stupidity. The issues surrounding pandemic restrictions are universal, and if there's anything different about seeing them play out in other countries, it's mostly because that lets us see the issues more objectively.

      1. We know who you’re referring to, and they don’t feel shame. Ever, it seems.

      2. Fanatics don't feel guilt or shame. All hail our Lord and Savior, the Federal government.

      3. But how then can they dismiss Mother's Laments comments when they disprove the original posters position?

    3. two thirds (64%) of Canadians say it’s time to drop the restrictions imposed on Canadians because of COVID and we should start to live with the virus.

      the most shocking part here is that it's only 64%. That's really astounding.

      1. CBC and CNN really did a job on frightening our urban boomers. I have an aunt who soaked up the rhetoric like a sponge.

        1. Just part of the plan. Liberal parties have become the cheer leaders of panic and safetyism, and the home for all victims who demand protection.

    4. "we should probably expect the Canadian parliament to ultimately reflect changes in the opinions of Canadian voters."

      That'd be a refreshing change, but it hasn't happened before. For example the Liberal party got far less votes than the Conservative party last election (33% vs 35%), but far more seats in the house.

      1. In this case, it would be more like Manchin turning his back on the progressives from within the Democratic party. The Republicans couldn't do anything, but Democrats from Arizona and West Virginia were looking at public opinion in their state.

        You won't get rid of Trudeau until the Liberal and/or NDP backbenchers revolt. When the backbenchers become convinced that they have a better chance of keeping their seats by opposing the leadership than they do by toeing the line, that's when you'll get a vote of no confidence. It may happen in the NDP first because their future isn't as tied to Trudeau. If they think they can do better without him, there will be another election--and whether they can do better without him all depends on public opinion.

        Three weeks from now, Trudeau may be asking them for the reauthorization of emergency powers to inflict pandemic policies--without a pandemic. And that will be after Trudeau has either bashed some heads and/or provoked a larger protest movement. And it wouldn't surprise me at all to see the NDP backbenchers revolt at that point. Why should they suffer a defeat in 2025 for Justin Trudeau, when they can hold an election now and run on the fact that they voted against giving Trudeau emergency powers?

    5. Trudeau is clamping down harder because the protest are working and some areas are dropping their mandates. the Authoritarin can't let that happen

      1. Well he's a literal authoritarian this morning. Invoking an act meant for times of war gives him the powers of a dictator.

        1. Well, his father was a dictator, so he's just doing what he knows.

          1. The resemblance is uncanny.

  22. Why aggressive gun control isn't the way to stop violent crime.

    Stopping crime was never the goal. Making tools of self defense a crime is increasing criminal offenses, the opposite of reducing crime.

    1. Suppose everyone who did NOT belong to organizations like the SAF, NAGR, NRA, etc. and those who do NOT have concealed carry permits stopped committing crimes and killing people. What would the gun homicide rate be then ? If not absolute zero, it would be very close to that.

      I have never encountered to gun control measure, be it "reasonable and common sense" or whatever, that accomplished anything other than targeting those who were not the problem, as describes 99.99% of gun owners. As you say, it is never about crime, but a monolithic attack on implements that the vast majority of us legally own and responsibly possess.

      That is why gun control is so opposed; not rocket science, is it?

      1. They want to take away all your guns for a reason.

        It's not to protect you.

        1. No progressive society can possibly envision itself without a compliant and manageable citizenry. Toward that end the guns just gotta go; besides that really disturb and "trigger" our urban elite betters.

          Add to that freedom of speech and all that entails; peaceful assembly and protest [as we are seeing being quashed in Canada at this very moment], freedom from illegal search and seizure, and of course greatly expanded police powers. By the time the useful idiots who pride their virtue over "doing the right thing" realize the Trojan horse they ushered in, the Greeks will already be amongst them and their own rights will be slashed away.

          1. Moving to texas seems better and better to be honest.

            1. Check out the latest!

              https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/15/nyregion/sandy-hook-families-settlement.html
              Sandy Hook Families Settle for $73 Million With Gun Maker Over Massacre

              For the families of 9 killed… 73 / 9 = $8.1 million per death! How many victims’ families (of drunk drivers) get that much? How many soldiers killed in action get that much? WTF?!!?

              1. If gun manufacturers are responsible for murders then Biden and fauci are surely responsible for vaccine an lockdown injuries and deaths.

    2. During Biden's visit to New York City, Adams called for a "9/11-type response" to gun violence.

      Funny. If each one of those planes on 9/11 had so much as one 6-shot .38 revolver and a passenger willing to use it against suicidal, genocidal murderers seeking "pie-in-he-sky-in-the-bye-and-by," history would be very different.

      The hijackers would have seen the armed citizen and knew they wouldn't get to visit their Allah as a martyring Jihadi and they would have called off their plans. 9/11 would have been just another day.

      1. I do not ever endorse bullets on planes because of holes.

        Use 20ga rocksalt.

  23. "I am disturbed that victims who have the courage to undergo an invasive examination to help identify their perpetrators are being treated like criminals rather than supported as crime victims," said Boudin.

    This is nothing new. Just about everyone I know who has asked the police for help got searched and ran for warrants before being told that the cops don't investigate crimes with victims. They're too busy preventing crime by busting druggies and stealing their stuff.

    1. When I got robbed at gunpoint a few years ago, the police investigators took samples of my DNA and fingerprints - as one of the victims - allegedly to 'eliminate' me from any DNA / prints at the scene.

      But I'm sure they still have it on file. Probably in a database they share with other agencies.

      1. The only reason they showed up was to get samples from you so they might have an excuse to arrest you. They did no investigation into the crime against you. They don't care.

  24. > Immigration policy preferences appear disconnected from reality.

    Because the anti-immigrants still see the brown skinned immigrants that are here. Lower immigration does not mean legal residents are being deported, and that's what the anti-immigrants really want. They want everyone who isn't like them gone. They still see jobs in the hands of non-white people and that infuriates them. In my state, which was once a part of Mexico, and has Latino families that have been here from before the Mayflower, I still run across oldsters complaining about all the Mexicans ruining the state.

    Meanwhile what I see are a bunch of white kids refusing to work while the brown brown are happy to work. Screw the lazy ass white teenagers, give me more immigrants!

    Maybe it's because I came from a middle class culture, but I don't see a problem with brown people working for a living. Mexicans, Pakastanis, Vietnamese, bring them all here if they want to work! What I don't want to see are people watching daytime TV all day long and whining about their jerbs in the coal mine that got closed down twenty years ago. Twenty years and you haven't gotten off your ass yet?

    The country isn't divided into haves and have-nots. It's divided into those that whine to the government and those that work for a living. And this pandemic has really made it obvious who is who.

    1. The hatred in you runs deep.

    2. Lower immigration does not mean legal residents are being deported, and that's what the anti-immigrants really want.

      yes! When obama set the record for mass deportations I held a neighborhood celebration with my friends.

    3. "They're anti-immigration, not anti-illegal immigration!"

      Telling lies about the other's actual objections and motives is the only way folks like Brandybuck and the Reasonistas can win the argument.

      1. ^ even if true, so what? So they're half right.

    4. "Because the anti-immigrants still see the brown skinned immigrants that are here. Lower immigration does not mean legal residents are being deported, and that's what the anti-immigrants really want. They want everyone who isn't like them gone."

      I always love how self righteous pricks just jump to, "it's cuz they are racist" whenever people don't agree with them. Somehow in their intolerant brain matter, they think these people are racist even though 3 years ago, they supported immigration. Somehow, even though they have seen "brown skinned immigrants" in the US for the past 3 decades, they have been lying to pollsters for all this time, and only now decided to let their mask slip.

      It's just like all those Obama voters who suddenly became racists and voted for Trump in 2016. They must have been playing the long game, you see.

      As I note above, the reason people are increasingly fed up with immigration is that right now "immigration" is largely a lawless border rush that has people crammed concentration camp style under overpasses on the Texas border. They have seen what Biden calls "Immigration" and they are having none of it.

      1. Those who cry "racist" are either morons who really can not see any other reason why others might oppose progressive "equity justice" policies or lying assholes who know that rhetoric will resonate with the morons.

      2. For ignorant bigoted dipshits whose kneejerk response is 'because racism,' the concept that people might want immigration laws upheld is apparently puzzling. That those same people would have the audacity to suggest that immigration law reform be accomplished versus mass illegal immigration, literal white nationalism.

    5. So for the last few days you and sarc have reverted to calling anybody who doesn't believe in pure open borders as racist.

      Good work on your transition to full on leftism.

      1. By the way, both Brandy and Sarc also admit to being in lily white areas of the country and where they live. Brandy was even whining about how he doesn't have enough immigrants in his own neighborhood. Something he chose when he moved to his location. It is astounding.

      2. FWIW, I am probably much closer to their (Brandy/Sarc) positions on Open Borders than I am to you, and we have had words on the subject in the past.

        But I recognize that what Biden is doing doesn't move us in any way whatsoever closer to Open Borders. In fact, it does the opposite. Biden has implied to the world that they can come here and live, and that he will look the other way. Inviting people to break the law by implying that you won't prosecute them is immoral and it is the type of cynical plantation building that makes me throw up in my mouth.

        I want open borders. I don't want people hiding in plain site, as quasi criminals who are constantly afraid that integrating with society means being arrested or deported. I don't want people settling here under false pretenses (most don't even understand their legal status, and have been lied to by coyotes, notaries public, and ICE field agents). Because that is just a problem that we are going to have to clean up in 10 years.

        And I certainly don't want this shit sandwich that Biden has provided us, because (as we see in the polls) it continues to divide public perception of the issues.

    6. I assume you were one of those lazy ass white teenagers that grew into a lazy ass white adult. Did your middle class culture include a lily white neighborhood free of gang violence and paying taxes providing services to people who don't even speak the language? Mow your own fucking lawn.

    7. Honestly, if you think immigrants are so awesome, how come you didn't buy your house in a barrio? Wouldn't you want that exponential cultural enrichment around you 24/7, or, like a lot of open borders freaks and white leftists, you only love diversity at a distance?

    8. They still see jobs in the hands of non-white people and that infuriates them.

      What a fool.

      1. I have to admit I think we should amend immigration law to allow attractive women in immediately.

        1. Attractive women don't like fat slobs like, like you deelion mikejefftard. And they don't like limp gimps like squirrel either.

        2. Fucking sexist slob.

        3. Brag about your inter-racial children again Dee.

      2. The next time you post a link that's less than 2 years old will be the first time.

        1. Moron! Dizzled-so-called-"brains"!!! Just now you responded to a post where I showed a link from TODAY! You have the attention span of a gnat with ADHD!

          SQRLSY One
          February.15.2022 at 1:02 pm
          Check out the latest!

          https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/15/nyregion/sandy-hook-families-settlement.html
          Sandy Hook Families Settle for $73 Million With Gun Maker Over Massacre

          For the families of 9 killed… 73 / 9 = $8.1 million per death! How many victims’ families (of drunk drivers) get that much? How many soldiers killed in action get that much? WTF?!!?

          Dizzle
          February.15.2022 at 2:56 pm

          If gun manufacturers are responsible for murders then Biden and fauci are surely responsible for vaccine an lockdown injuries and deaths.

  25. A new poll reveals how politics, media, and public perception may drive immigration sentiment more than reality does.

    The elite class drives immigration policy, same as any other public policy, and therefore drives sentiment in course of enacting that policy.

  26. Sarah Palin case thrown out.

    That right there is proof of election fraud. Think about it. A totally legitimate case against a Republican was thrown out. Just like all the investigations into voter fraud were thrown out. It's proof of a grand conspiracy within the courts against Republicans. May as well be a smoking gun.

    1. Ideas!

      1. He can't help himself.

    2. Suddenly deciding to throw it out when the jury is already in deliberations is proof of a bribed or threatened judge.
      Hate to disappoint, but there's obviously going to be a retrial.

      1. Judge even said in their statement they knew the ruling would be appealed either way, so he had no problem throwing it out.

        1. Probably had vacation plans soon.

          1. Have to spend all that lovely Soros money somehow.

      2. I have read this morning that the judge's timing has likely caused a mistrial. As the jury isn't sequestered, they likely already know what the judge has done, so deliberations are now pointless.

    3. So grand even some Republican-appointed judges (even some Trump-appointed, not RINO-appointed) are in on it!

  27. In terms of looking at data instead of the headlines, . . . The Duma asking Putin to recognize two Ukrainian provinces as part of Russia aside, I'm reading that the Russians are building field hospitals on the Ukrainian border and moving their combat units to the front lines.

    The diplomatic solutions the headlines are all about appear to be about Minsk-2, which would effectively give Putin a veto over the Ukrainian parliament. I'd rather go to war with Russia than given Putin a veto over the U.S. Congress. Don't be surprised if the Ukrainian people feel the same way about the Ukraine.

    The Ukraine, apparently, has the goal of joining NATO written into its constitution, and if they were to drop that--as well as acquiesce to the two provinces Russia has already taken becoming an official part of Russia--that might avert a war.

    Short of that, war will only be averted if and when Putin comes to believe that the cost of invading Ukraine will be greater than the likely benefits of doing so politically at home. Germany pushing Minsk-2, which is probably what will happen today, won't avert war. It will just delay it, and the next target will be our Baltic allies and Poland.

    If Biden acquiesces to a deal that gives Russia a veto over the Ukrainian legislature--without the consent of input of the Ukrainians--he'll not only be committing a grievous sin against democracy, he'll be setting up a war over our allies for the next president. Biden has played this well so far (after capitulating to Nord Stream 2), and I hope that doesn't change.

    1. Reminds me of something....

      "[The Sudetenland] is the last territorial demand I have to make in Europe"

      1. Peace in our time.

      2. The time to have stopped Hitler wasn't the Sudetland, it probably wasn't even Austria, it was when he reoccupied the Rhineland in defiance of the Versailles Treaty. The time to have stopped Russia was likely 2008. But the world didn't. I don't think if Putin is intent on invading the Ukraine that there is jack shit we can do about it, other than reinforce Poland, the Baltics and Romania. Since they are NATO allies, I doubt Putin will invade them, even if he wants to. If he does, and NATO doesn't respond, than NATO is worthless.
        I think the fact that Biden didn't get a unified agreement from NATO before he acted, it may have sent the message to Putin that NATO is not likely to follow it's treaty obligations. That is the biggest worry.

        1. The one thing that gives me comfort is that Russia still isn't a real threat to NATO, other than as a nuclear power and Putin realizes it. Their military is still pretty demoralized, undertrained, technologically deficient and under equipped compared to the US, despite all the recent upgrades. Much like China, they have a few well trained and equipped, with modern equipment units, while the vast majority are worse than our National Guard or Reserve. Select units, the best equipped and trained, did well in Syria, but that was mainly against insurgents (the same as what we have recently fought) and their experience was similar to ours in Iraq and Afghanistan. They won the battlefield, but failed to eliminate the insurgents. Additionally, they had a better strategic position in Syria, than we did in either Iraq or Afghanistan. They were supporting an established government that had around 50% of the population behind them. We had to build governments in both Iraq and Afghanistan and the governments we built won't exactly popular or effective.

    2. There is going to be a war, Ken. It is too late now.

      But it is a European, not American problem. Ukraine is not a NATO member. The Europeans can fight this out amongst themselves. There is no vital US national interest in Ukraine.

      1. There's several national interests in Nord Stream.

        Putin is gonna steamroll Ukraine and nobody is gonna do a damn thing about it beyond blustering.

    3. I disagree with you. Biden has only ratcheted up hostility in the region. Moving troops into a hostile region only increases hostility. Those troops should have been moved into that region when Trump first proposed it, probably even earlier. Now, it is a hostile action. Not necessarily unwarranted. Additionally, the capitulation on Nordstream, completely undercut our negotiating powers, as you alluded to. In fact, Putin has penned a deal with China to sell any gas that is cut off by a renewed Russian embargo, to China, at likely even more profit as fuel prices will spike in the case of a war.
      As for the likelihood of war, I am not sold. The reports are that Russia is also withdrawing a number of troops from the border region. And I don't think a war with Russia, which carries a high chance of going nuclear between the two largest nuclear powers in the world, is worth it. Biden has painted himself into a corner, and Putin is well aware that short of a Pearl Harbor type situation, NATO is unlikely to declare war. Even if he wants a war with Ukraine, I believe he has concluded that Russia, and especially the ruling class, will likely be able to weather the repercussions. And I think he is correct. The new deal with China greatly benefits both countries, and makes embargoes from western Europe and the US meaningless. The US is not going to launch embargoes against China over Russian aggression. Therefore, any loss of commercial trade with western Europe will be more than offset by trade with China.

    4. The failure to stop Nordstream, the failure to speak to NATO and get an agreed upon strategy, the failure to move troops into Eastern Europe from Western Europe before the crisis, the failure to sell arms to Ukraine, and even the reversal of already approved arms sales, prior to the crisis, all have made it all but impossible to accomplish anything. All these actions were done by Democrats, almost exclusively. Obama was the first to block approved arms sales. When Trump tried moving troops from Germany to Poland it was Democrats who blocked him. It was Democrats almost exclusively who voted against arms sales to Ukraine. It was Biden who removed the embargo against Nordstream, and who decided to start ratcheting up rhetoric before he had all NATO allies in agreement. I can't think of a single thing Biden or the Democrats get any credit for except making things worse.

  28. From reason

    “ In a city council video that reads like sketch comedy—Shubert's comic delivery would be perfect, if this were comedy”

    But prostitution is no laughing matter for ENB!

    1. What about clown hookers?

      1. Nothing is funny to a feminist, except men's pain.

  29. To put what Trudeau has done into context, the Act is the successor that replaced Canada’s War Measures Act. It has never been invoked before, but its predecessor has three times in Canada’s history for serious wars.

    The first time was for WW1 and it gave the government the ability to intern Canadian citizens of Ukrainian and German descent in internment camps on the prairies, because of their ethnicity.

    The second time was for WW2 and it gave the government the ability to intern Canadian citizens of Japanese descent in internment camps in BC, because of their ethnicity.

    The third time was for the October Crisis. A pseudo-terrorist group called the Front de libération du Québec planted 200 bombs all over the place, stole several tons of dynamite, and were kidnapping foreign diplomats and government ministers and killing them.
    This gave the government the ability to detain thousands of Quebequois without charges based on political association.

    This is the fourth time an act granting emergency powers has been used, and the first time for the updated version.
    No war, no bombs, no kidnappers, no violence. Just bouncy castles, street dancing and a fascist clown in Ottawa furious that the plebians won’t obey his diktats. Wrap you’re head around this, he’s invoking an act created for a war on a peaceful mom and pop protest.
    I guess this is what he was building his “quarantine” camps deep in the wilderness of Northern Saskatchewan for. To intern unvaxxed.

    It's pure Nazism.
    Canada will need to hold a post-Covid Nuremburg Trail for the politicians, functionaries, judges, journalists and policemen who conspired to deny Canadians their Charter rights.

    1. "Canada will need to hold a post-Covid Nuremburg Trail for the politicians, functionaries, judges, journalists and policemen who conspired to deny Canadians their Charter rights."

      There will be a political reckoning. If there were an election three months from now, would the NDP benefit at the expense of the Liberals? Does the NDP have a good reason to want a new election? My understanding is that they're to the left of the Liberals, but if Trudeau is now seen as an extremist, shouldn't that benefit the NDP to be seen as relatively moderate compared to Trudeau?

      1. The NDP went all in on Trudeau's rhetoric up until the Emergencies Act was invoked which no one actually expected Trudeau to do, because Canada isn't at war.
        Jagmeet Singh is condemning the invocation, but I don't think it'll go farther than that. He's a little culpable too.

        1. Sorry, he's condemning Trudeau's "failure of leadership" but not the invocation.

          Fucking clown world.

          1. What I'm trying to get across is that what Trudeau is about to do is likely to make Trudeau less popular rather than more so.

            You understand what's about to happen because of Trudeau's emergency power grab, but there are plenty of Canadians who don't. It's like with Nord Stream 2. Plenty of people, both Democrat and Republican, knew what the consequences of Nord Stream 2 would be for Germany and the Ukraine. But there were an awful lot of Americans who didn't. Now that those consequences are materializing, suddenly they realize that Nord Stream 2 was a mistake.

            I suspect something like that will happen with the Canadian people. They aren't thinking about Trudeau's power grab in terms of the consequences because the consequences haven't been realized. When this comes to a head, the consequences won't be pretty--for Trudeau or the Liberals. If there were another election, after Trudeau cracks some heads or provokes more resistance, it would probably hurt Trudeau and the Liberals.

            If the Conservatives can't win an absolute majority in an election after Trudeau does what he's about to do, then the NDP would probably benefit from that election. And that's what's likely to make them pull the rug out from under Trudeau. On the other side of that election, they might have more seats than the Liberals--and the Liberals would need to support Jagmeet Singh as PM to form a governing coalition.

            1. I think most Canadians do know, and the primary reaction is shock. Threatening is one thing, but actually declaring martial law is ridiculous.
              Only the safetyists will cheer this. Most Canadians will need some time to think. Whether or not Canadian's will turf Justin and Jagmeet depends on how effective the propaganda is in the next few weeks.

      2. I've been looking for news of a swell of protestors flooding into Ottawa. If there was an ongoing protest in DC and the President declared Martial Law (like as an actual law, and not the pretend "Trump sent ICE to Portland" type of thing) I expect people would stream to join the protests in droves.

        What's working against Canada right now is that it's extremely cold in Ottawa.

        1. The police are also blocking routes to the city and then lying that it's the protesters.

          1. Yeah, I've heard that, but I don't know the geography well enough to know how people can get into Ottawa. I know that there's plenty of US cities that if the local cops/National Guard declared they were "blocking access" to the city, they wouldn't be able to because there's so many roads.

      3. Yes, Ken, keep that absolute faith in the system.
        It totes will be justified this time!

  30. "I am disturbed that victims who have the courage to undergo an invasive examination to help identify their perpetrators are being treated like criminals rather than supported as crime victims,"

    Um, both could be true.

    Which I realize is a cognitive impossibility for the delusional bleeding heart victim culture practitioner. But becoming the victim of one crime does not negate the capability of committing other crimes. And especially when both "crimes" occur in the same event. See examples of burglars shot in the act by a person who had an illegal weapon.

    1. Yup. Doesn't matter if you're a legal gun owner and the victim of a rape or a burglary, Don't. Talk. To. The. Police. with any orifice.

      Same old Reason: Fuck presumption of innocence for thee but not for me, semen in vagina = perpetrator.

    2. I can see both sides. We want even criminals who have been raped to come forward, as we want to convict rapists. My bigger problem is the quote used to describe the proposed law. The way the quote reads, it could be construed, without much effort, to imply even the offenders DNA couldn't be used to investigate or convict on other crimes. Hopefully, the ones writing the law write it correctly, but how often does that happen?

      1. We want even criminals who have been raped to come forward, as we want to convict rapists.

        You're also ignoring the fact that a significant or significantly vocal portion of the population wants to convict non-rapists. To the point that they would not just interpret but overtly write a law that says "It's OK to test DNA from the penis of the victim."

        1. Depends really on the crime. Also, if we collect evidence from victims of crime, to run against a data base, why stop at rape? Should we collect fingerprints and DNA from mugging victims? How about the family of murder victims? How about victims of burglaries?

          1. We do.

            When prints are collected in a murder investigation, they have to collect the prints of everyone who was supposed to be there. As far as I know, these all go in the file.

            Anyone who undergoes a background check gets fingerprinted. So if you are a school volunteer, there is a chance that your fingerprints will be taken and go in the database. (Depending on background check level required)

            If you join the military, or even get checked out for the military, you go in the database.

            DNA is nowhere near that ubiquity.... Yet.

            1. The DoD database is supposed to be protected, and they do collect DNA in the military as well, mainly for body identification if other methods are not possible.

        2. Collecting evidence is part of the investigative process and in no way implies guilt. I have seen several people make this argument. A rape kit does more than just collect DNA. DNA kits are not enough alone to convict. It makes it easier, but doesn't in itself show guilt.

          1. What that DNA *would* do is identify a suspect..... If you had DNA to test.

            This is a temporary conundrum (unless we pass some really strict health information laws). Today, most people do not get their DNA sequenced. Yet the data from 23 and me can track you down even if you are not a 23 and me customer. They can identify you through relatives.

            Soon, DNA testing for routine health conditions will be ubiquitous. Everyone will be sequenced several times. Normal medical records will include DNA sequencing information. And at that moment, this becomes moot.

            Even if only 80% of the population is sequenced, that will be enough to ensure that a specific suspect can be identified almost every time.

            1. It could also be used to rule out suspects, as in the recent case where a wrongly convicted prisoner, serving life for a rape he didn't commit, was cleared based upon old DNA evidence. Of course, it is best to not eat or drink anything the police gives you, and not volunteer DNA until you speak to a lawyer. Make them get a warrant.

      2. I suspect the majority of serial committers of serious crimes have been raped.

        1. I don't think that follows logically, however, even if true, you can't convict for future crime.

    3. Exactly, because even after being convicted of lieing and falsifying police reports the media would have us believe jussie smollet was both the victim of white supremacist African Americans and committed the crime of fibbing about it to the police.

      1. That doesn't relate at all. The reason Smollett was convicted was because of evidence the police collected. Collecting a rape kit doesn't in and of itself result or equal conviction.

        1. Exactly... It would merely aid in the identification of a suspect. With proper databases of sequences, you could pull a completely unknown suspect from 3 states away for a crime with no witnesses. Not usually enough to convict by itself... But enough to place them at the scene and enough to act as reasonable suspicion for further investigation.

          1. Exactly. It could also link open cases, even if no suspect is identified. This may not lead to the case being solved but could help identify a serial offender, especially if the cases occur in different jurisdictions.

    4. Philadelphia asked men to volunteer DNA to find a criminal. Hundreds did.

      After, the police said, nope, we're keeping the database!

      Courts: Ok!!!

      Into the burning pits of Helk with the lot of them.

    5. Does anybody else find it super interesting that supposedly so many police departments don't have money for testing rape kits that languish on shelves for decades... yet they have money to do this?

  31. These SF commies are right for once about the rape kit thing. Amazing.

    1. But if they were looking for insurrectionists and white supremacists, well now that would be a horse of a different color.

    2. Assuming that District Attorney Chesa Boudin isn't lying his pro-crime ass off about what the police are doing, which would hardly be unprecedented.

  32. If you haven't seen much coverage of the story about the Hillary Clinton campaign spying on Trump both before and after he became president--apparently fabricating evidence of Trump collaborating with the Russians--I have three likely explanations:

    1) It's happening in an alternate universe, and the mainstream media doesn't cover stories from alternate realities.

    2) By covering this story in depth, the mainstream news would be broadcasting its own incompetence to its viewers--for pushing the Russia collaboration story for so long.

    3) They're afraid Trump will win the nomination again in 2024, and they still want to use every piece of ammunition they have against him.

    1. "they still want to use every piece of ammunition they have against him."

      Not that I disagree with this, but how does not reporting this give them ammunition to use in 2024?

      1. They need to sustain the delusion. We were arguing with progressive trolls here yesterday who still believed that Trump conspired with the Russians to steal the election. People still believe that shit. Why give it away?

        1. I have to ask, why.

          Meaning, why are all these people SO opposed to POTUS Trump even running again? If he was so terrible, they should be cheering for him to run. The efforts to deny POTUS Trump the ability to even run for office are completely unprecedented in US History (Civil War, excepted).

          The level of effort against him is what has now convinced me that he was doing the right things 2016-20, and not kissing billionaire ass, and kowtowing the the 4th estate. They (billionaires) are pushing back, along with the fourth estate. It is really quite remarkable. The history books sure will be interesting.

          1. You answered your first paragraph with your second. Trump wasn’t in the business of enriching globalist billionaires and forwarding their agendas. And he’ll be even worse for them if re-elected.

            It’s one of the reasons many of us were so critical of Reason’s coverage of Trump. While there was some issues he wasn’t good on from a libertarian perspective, there were others that were. And Reason focused on those that weren’t good, which also happened to align with the interests of their billionaire globalist benefactor. That’s why OBL’s schtick works. Meanwhile minimizing his pro-libertarian positions (no wars, Abraham Accords, reduced taxes and regulations, criminal justice, etc.).

        2. Both can be true. The Clinton campaign attempted to fabricate evidence AND there can be real evidence. I’ve seen some of the “trolls” trying to say as much.

          As a master of logical thinking, you know this, of course.

          1. Bahahahaha.

            Your "real" evidence was a drunk Russian telling bar jokes.

            Keep up with the court cases junior.

            Do you wear one of those hats woth a helicopter propeller on top?

            1. Those are hard to wear when you have a pointed head.

          2. Dee’s got me muted, so maybe someone else can inform her about the Mueller investigation?

      2. You want to report things as close to the election as possible. If they break the story now we'll all have forgotten about it by 2024 and any attempt to resurrect it will have a tinge of "old news, don't care" to it.

    2. You're being generous with incompetence, Ken. The media pointedly did not investigate, but accepted what they were told. They were a willing partner, colluding, so there was a massive criminal collusion, but not the one touted by DNC, Hillary, and press.

    3. Re: 1 and 2.

      Wait, so in *our* universe, Russians did hack the election, riots were peaceful, masks and vaccines stop the spread, and Sicknick was killed with a fire extinguisher? I feel like even if mainstream media isn't broadcasting their own incompetence, Hollywood has misled me about how easy this 'multiverse' thing would be to conceptualize.

  33. Canada invokes emergency powers to break up trucker protest.

    Can you imagine if Trump had done this over BLM riots? "mOsT rAcIsT pResiDeNt eVeR!"

    1. Obama did this over Gun Stores, Check Cashing and Porn Actresses.

      The Canada executive order calling on Banks to confiscate money of anyone supporting the trucker protests is the direct descendant of Operation Choke Point

      In the US this has become a background network that allows the leverage to make sure that something like Rumble gets blocked by app stores, hosting services, ISP services and payment processors... All at the same time.

      Banks are a choke point. Without banking, you have to live a hand to mouth, cash only existence.

      Canada responded to successful fundraisers and tow truck companies refusing to tow protesters by getting banks to steal their money and refuse them services.

      Remember how you called this a slippery slope fallacy when we warned about the dangers of Operation Choke Point? (And who cares if porn stars can get a bank account anyway)

      Well.... We certainly arrived at Orwell's doorstep a lot faster than I thought possible.

      1. Banks are PrIvAtE cOmPaNiEs!

      2. "Obama did this over Gun Stores, Check Cashing and Porn Actresses."

        Trudeau literally just invoked martial law. This is a law reserved for wartime, not bouncy castles and hottubbing in downtown Ottawa. He just suspended our laws and grabbed dictatorial power. There's no democracy to the north of you this morning, but a strongman state, Cyto.

        1. I've read the news stories, but I'm not familiar with Canadian law. Is there no check on this? Is it possible for any other branch or member of the government to block this action?

          1. Apparently their parliament can vote to revoke, and if they don't vote to accept it within 14 days it ends. But I don't have much faith in political critters willingly bringing media fire upon themselves by sitting this power grab down.

            1. The NDP have already said that they'll vote with the liberals, so unless some backbenchers find some balls it's not an option.

          2. Yes and no.
            The premiers of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Quebec all condemned the action, and they represent half the population, so that's a pretty big deal, and a court challenge is being mounted, but at the moment nothing can really stop Justin until a court says what he's doing is illegal.

            The Emergencies Act was created for times of war and has a set of measures that must be met before it can legally be invoked. Like war for example. A trucker shindig doesn't meet those measures, so Justin's invocation is completely illegal.

            But there's two problems here.

            1. Canadian judges are just as crooked as American ones and rulings can be bought. I guarantee they're shopping judges right now.

            2. If a court does rule against Zoolander it'll be too late and the damage will already be done.

      3. Obama did this over Gun Stores, Check Cashing and Porn Actresses.

        Assuming we're talking about the same policy, Trump's Office of Comptroller of Currency issued a finalized rule effectively preventing it and the Biden Administration announced last year that "it has paused publication of its rule to ensure large banks provide all customers fair access to their services."

        The bulk-standard "the process is the punishment" tactic from the left.

    2. Can you imagine Trudeau freezing the bank accounts of BLM protestors because of the actions of the most violent among them? Me neither.

  34. "UN report on climate adaptation being finalized, likely to be grim"
    https://www.msn.com/en-xl/news/other/un-report-on-climate-adaptation-being-finalized-likely-to-be-grim/ar-AATPKzf?ocid=uxbndlbing

    Seen the trailer; it's pretty much a repeat of the earlier episodes.

    1. "We're all gonna die. give us your money and full control over your life!"

      "Will that help make things better?"

      "Just do it!"

      1. Not one single proposal has offered a single specific claim of improving the matter and certainly not anything like a schedule, while every prediction of doom has been shown to be false.
        Any, yes, 'give us all your money and total control of your life'!

        1. Pandemic response only a shade of gray of what is to come. We should all be on notice.

          Of course for the likes of Joe Friday et al, COVID has been a fucking watershed of mandated compliance.

  35. "During Biden's visit to New York City, Adams called for a "9/11-type response" to gun violence."

    What, invade Iraq again?

    1. Iraq? Afghanistan has all the guns!

    2. Field calls from mosques about disenfranchised Muslims' propensity to violence and then portray the shooting as anti-gay hate and call for more red tape laws after the fact.

    3. Considering 90% of these perps, especially the recent subway attackers, all wear sweatpants, a t shirt, and a hoodie that's 4 sizes too big, I'd think they could just watched for frumpy dressed retards hanging around subway stations.

      1. Profiling is racist.

  36. "Former Levi’s Brand President Jennifer Sey Talks Free Speech and Corporate Culture"
    [...]
    "Former Levi’s Brand president Jennifer Sey’s departure from the company Sunday — after nearly two years of publicly airing her personal views about mandatory school closures — sparked international new coverage Monday.
    In an interview Monday afternoon, Sey said, “For me, this is not so much about Levi’s, but the stifling of speech and dissent. I think so many people have felt stifled and that they couldn’t say what they believed for fear of this mob coming for you. At this point, if your views in any way depart from the orthodoxy, it’s seen as an HR violation. I think people in the world and definitely in corporate culture feel they can’t really speak out about what they believe in. That’s meaningful to people to see someone do that. They feel, ‘Maybe I can say it.’”"
    https://news.yahoo.com/former-levi-brand-president-jennifer-230602386.html

    She put her money where her mouth is; moved to Denver to get open schools.

  37. The other shoe that nobody is talking about yet...

    The Durham filing about Clinton spying on Trump has another tidbit.... The spying started in 2014. Well before he announced his candidacy.

    And continued after he was in the white house.

    The next question... How many other people was the Clinton intelligence network spying on? How far does the "vast left wing conspiracy" extend?

    Does this inform the Romney collapse against Obama? Does it inform corporate compliance with DNC objectives?

    1. In case the dot connecting was not clear... Trump was a low level political gadfly in 2014. He was not even a plausible candidate in 2015.

      So he would hardly be a likely target for the Clinton machine to be spying on... Certainly not in the top 10. Yet he was spied on.

      So... How many people are under surveillance like this? You gotta figure more obvious candidates were being targeted first. Rand Paul. Romney. Graham. McConnell. ... And what of Bernie?

      All more likely to be opponents than Trump in 2014.

      1. In the article this morning Jesse linked to a Twitter feed (where everyone somehow believes this is bad for Trump) had a screenshot indicating there’s a file named “Rudy” involved. Of course the person who posted it believes it implicates Rudy, not that he was the one spied on.

        https://mobile.twitter.com/chrislhayes/status/1493368696395468802

        1. And it was actually fro the thread that was RE-tweeted.

        2. Hey now, mike and sarc claim I never provide citations!

          1. I hardly ever go very far into Twitter threads, but these are hilarious.

    2. And people are asking how were they able to spy on Trump computers once he was in office. Simple answer the MIT techies had a grant form the pentagon they were going thru the pentagon system. there are plenty of military leaders who need to be removed for this coup attempt.

  38. "A judge has now thrown out that case, saying that Palin's team failed to show that the Times had been knowingly sharing false information or reckless in doing so."

    The judge went on to say, "Besides, everyone knows Palin is an idiot, and the Times was performing a public service by slamming that bitch."

  39. "Why does America make it so hard to become a doctor?"

    Especially since we now know that math and objective evidence and logical reasoning are constructs of white male supremacy, designed to oppress women and POCs. Equity and justice demand that we empower people to self-identify as medical doctors, with full legal recognition (and parking rights).

  40. Mayor Craig Shubert insists it was just dry humor that the rest of us didn't get. Nonetheless, he has resigned from his position. "My attempt to inject a bit of dry humor to make a point about this, in the midst of a cold, snowy February, was grossly misunderstood," Shubert said in a resignation letter.

    Well, you made me actually go check out what he said. Since he's a Republican and I'm becoming very used to Republicans being interpreted with full-on bad faith, where jokes are repeated as if they're literal, I had to go find the video.

    Doesn't sound like he was joking though, so let the mockery continue.

    1. As someone who's been told his humor could be used to dessicate beef jerky (not all of us can be as nuanced and eloquent as Jimmy Carr), it sounded to me like it's as he portrays and one that, of course, ENB, and people like her, would take and spin an actual libertarian position/argument into a (women's rights) issue (Again, see Jimmy Carr above).

      The issue isn't specifically about prostitution, that part was a joke, but that if you open a lake to ice fishing and shanties then policing does become an issue. Other municipalities have solved the problem of who owns what square footage to what depth of any given lake in any given year and whether police have a right to search a shanty legally and for what crimes, but still, the point remains that if they open up the lake, they're going to have to solve that problem themselves.

      Funny that, once again, Reason can't cover any one of a number of national and international issues beyond maybe one article but still manages to, despite an unofficial anti-'too local' policy, slam dunk on issues confined to one lake that they themselves find to be a humorous non-issue.

      1. Oh Hell. I was hoping Ice Fishing would become an Olympic event.

  41. Once again, Reason editors chose to NOT report an extremely important story about criminal actions by Democrats (i.e. Clinton campaigners) to illegally spy on Trump before and after his 2016 election, and left wing media lies claiming it never happened.
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-really-was-spied-on-2016-clinton-campaign-john-durham-court-filing-11644878973?mod=opinion_lead_pos1

    Seems like Reason editors and writers always choose to ignore or cover up the most outrageous and egregious actions taken by partisan Democrats and their left wing media propagandists to frame, lie about and destroy Trump and his supporters by distracting us with less important news.

    1. No more mean tweets.

    2. The Twitter blue check marks are not talking about it, then it is not real.

  42. • Is Republican centrism a fantasy?

    Seems like GOP hating ENB absurdly believes that Trump hating former Republicans (including Peggy Noonan) are the future of the GOP.

    1. Given the source, she should be embarrassed even citing it. And given the current number of centrist Republicans and Centrist Democrats, it would suggest that the likelihood of centrist Democrats is even less. And given the fact that the media considers Biden a centrist Democrat, it makes you question the metric.

  43. wouldn't have thought Trudeau's dick was big enough for him to step on, but here we are.

    >>evidence known as a rape kit—has been used to check if they are also criminals

    sick and wrong. bad cops. bad.

    1. Disagree. Women have a right to refuse a rape kit and the kits are only like 1% effective in leading to a conviction (the numbers in question were for some 28,000 kits which means 27,720 men who aren't/couldn't be convicted of rape have their DNA on file to have a suspected rape hung around their neck).

      If I were running guns illegally, suffered a theft, and turned evidence over to the police that they then used against me in my gun running, my attorney probably shouldn't collect a paycheck, and a judge should probably be replaced if the evidence alone leads to a conviction, but the police were just doing the job they're supposed to be doing.

      Somebody quoted it here recently and I'm paraphrasing P.J. O'Rourke who said, 'You don't get to have exactly what you asked for and then complain about the (un)fairness of the outcome.'

      1. victims of sexual assault are not equivalent to gun runners in this instance.

        1. Right. A gun without a serial number is de facto and prima facie evidence of a crime while the presence of DNA pretty much anywhere is not.

  44. "The nation's political and media classes were seemingly so obsessed over the images of migrants at the border that they failed to grasp the truth, which was that legal immigration levels collapsed in 2021."

    FTFY. We had a fuck-ton of illegals cross the border, ENB. Have you been paying attention to anything related to the southern border for the last, I don't know, DECADE?!

    1. Any one questioning our governments actions can now be charged with sedition.

      I wonder when propaganda and misinformation will soon fall on deaf ears form over use and obviously false claims like the over used racist claims

      1. There is no such thing as misinformation, just alternative information. It could of course still be false.

    2. Step 1: Allege some kind of foreign collusion
      Step 2: Deplatform and seize assets as fruits of terrorism
      Step 3: PROFIT

  45. https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1493603757971681284?t=2reNIZoIIXyPoW384yjFoQ&s=19

    They debanked Lindell

    They're debanking the truckers

    They're coming for you next

    1. "My private cumpany" was the start of all this. They've just gotten more blatant and started skipping the excuses and the middle man.

    2. It's really disturbing that a government agency can do anything they want with your bank accounts without due process. This has got to change.

  46. https://twitter.com/AuronMacintyre/status/1493357401562656772?t=6DGW1XghqWnltRI6DUIlUA&s=19

    It was never going to stop with Australia and it won’t stop with Canada either

    Western countries are seeking more expansive control over their populations and once one acquires it the rest follow suit

  47. “San Francisco's district attorney said Monday that DNA collected from alleged rape victims—evidence known as a rape kit—has been used to check if they are also criminals.”

    Wow, that is one of the scummiest, low-down things I have ever heard.

    1. And if there had been any evidence whatsoever provided that this wasn't just one more case of the notoriously anti-cop Chesa Boudin telling low-down scummy lies about police, it would have been worth reporting.

      1. Fair enough. Could be a lie. I admit I have no personal way to really know.

  48. "I have asked to the City Attorney to draft legislation to prevent DNA evidence—or any sort of evidence from a victim's rape kit—to be used for anything other than investigating that rape." If we only limit this to the victims DNA, than I see no problem with this law, however, given how poorly most laws are written, this could have unwanted consequences. If the perpetrator's DNA links them to another rape or murder, it is possible, at least the way the DA stated it, that under the proposed law, law enforcement couldn't use that as evidence. Given the number of rapists who are serial rapists, or otherwise habitual criminals, this could really hamper prosecution of people who deserve punishment.

    1. Call me old fashioned, but I'm still not entirely clear on how semen in a vagina (or other orifice) automatically implies a perpetrator and a victim one way or the other a priori. Shouldn't there be a conviction before we can definitively say that someone is a victim and someone is a perpetrator?

      Let's say a woman produced a condom or even just a blue dress or an alleged pubic hair on a coke can as evidence of a rape/assault/harassment, would testing the condom or coke can for her DNA/cells be off limits?

      If you're worried about being convicted of a crime, don't talk to the police, extra special orifices offer no extra special protection. Justitia is blindfolded, carring a sword and scales, not demurring while covering up her naughty bits empty handed.

      1. An older case where an officer asked a female suspect to lift her shirt off her waistline and then ran his hands under the waistband of her pants in a way that was, in no way, overtly sexual and the forum rose to the defense of her claims of sexual harassment came to mind.

        As per the usual lack-of-Reason anti-police freak out, no (or next to no) focus on the reason for the stop or the justification for the search, just pure "She was sexually assaulted/harassed!" for a stop and search that wouldn't have raised a peep, if not generating laughter, if the allegation had been made by a male suspect.

        1. Your example is exactly why collecting physical evidence is important.

      2. Semen collected is not a conviction. It can however be evidence of a rape. It is evidence collected but in and of itself is not the end of the investigation. Also, rape kits have a very specific protocol and collect far more evidence than just DNA from the vaginal canal.
        Are you arguing that they shouldn't collect physical evidence of a possible rape as part of an investigation? If so, I think that is extremely short-sighted, as then we could only rely on the word of the accuser.

        1. Are you arguing that they shouldn't collect physical evidence of a possible rape as part of an investigation?

          No, I'm saying evidence collected as part of a rape investigation that, by law, can only implicate the man/perpetrator in this crime and not the woman/victim in any other is definitively prejudicial and unequal by sex. I would agree that there's a case to be made that the kit alone shouldn't be used for any/all convictions but ruling it out of investigations is definitively prejudicial.

          It creates an additional bias whereby women/victims can cry rape in order to have their DNA excluded from other cases.

          1. That is, ruling it out of investigations *on the assumption of a victim/perpetrator* is definitively prejudicial.

          2. Thinking more about it, the whole thing is wrapped up in stupid anti-rational, neo-puritanical sexual taboos.

            Imagine saying the police couldn't use evidence from the women's restroom against the alleged victim because the victim alleged she was attacked there.

            Imagine saying that the police couldn't investigate the purchase of the rope or the checks issued by Jussie Smollett.

            The victim's orifices are different? You're right. The police need permission or a warrant. Or are some tissue and bodily fluids not just privileged, but exceptionally privileged such that no warrant can be attained and others, like saliva and hair samples, not?

  49. I see Reason is once again confusing legal immigration with illegal immigration. The fact that dissatisfaction with immigration has gone up is solely the result of the increased rate of illegal immigration and is not contradictory to the decrease in legal immigration.

    1. "I see Reason is once again confusing legal immigration with illegal immigration."

      Accidentally on purpose. Brandybuck pulled the same stunt above.

  50. I am going to trust the New Yorker to give an unbiased evaluation of the future of Republican Centrism about as much as I trust a coiled up rattlesnake. The fact that there are more serving centrist Republicans than centrist Democrats is all the evidence needed as to the direction each party is currently going.

    1. Also, looking at the actions of our supposedly centrist Democratic President, I also question the metric applied.

  51. Any article on immigration that fails to distinguish between legal and illegal immigration is intentional bullshit.

  52. "Primary care physician" is a job that exists only because of regulatory capture. Nearly everything they do could be replaced by an app, home testing devices, and more OTC medications.

    1. Actually, primary care physicians are important, as they coordinate all your care. Specialist are terrible about monitoring interactions between medications, or in monitoring co-morbidities outside their specialty. If you have surgery, and require impatient care, you should insure your surgeon requires a medical consult, preferably with a primary care physician you have a previous relationship with. Especially if you are on any prescribed medication or have morbidity not related to your surgery.
      Additionally, you should always follow up with your PCP whenever a specialist changes or prescribes new medications, especially if the medication is being filled at a large chain store, where it is likely the order is being filled by a pharmacy tech as opposed to a licensed pharmacists. Don't rely on technology alone to catch any possible interactions or to differentiate between serious, mild, common or uncommon to catch possible interactions.

      1. Also, much of primary care has been largely diffused out to RNs and NPs.

  53. "My attempt to inject a bit of dry humor to make a point about this, in the midst of a cold, snowy February, was grossly misunderstood"

    Never try to inject humor without lube.

  54. Let me help--

    Legal Immigration levels went down in 2021, but people who want less ILLEGAL immigration to the U.S. are less satisfied with ILLEGAL immigration levels now than they were in the past few years, with the jump driven by dissatisfaction among Republicans. The findings suggest that people may simply believe—with MOUNTAINS OF evidence, or because of rhetoric coming from right-leaning press and politicians—that ILLEGAL immigration is much higher under Joe Biden than it was under Donald Trump.

    There, start with that, I've made it so simple that even a person who writes for Reason can understand.

    1. “There, start with that, I've made it so simple that even a person who writes for Reason can understand.”

      Cite?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.