hotair--2020-10-01--Tucker Carlson: In hindsight, it was a mistake to focus so much on Joe Biden's mental decline

We “ honestly ” did think Biden was going to forget his own name onstage , Carlson says at one point in the clip below .
Which isn ’ t true .
The Fox audience may have honestly believed that after being fed months of completely self-sabotaging hype about Biden being a drooling imbecile .
But Tucker didn ’ t think that .
He ’ s had many opportunities to watch Biden ’ s virtual fundraisers and meager public events this summer .
At some point he must have watched or rewatched the one-on-one debate between Biden and Bernie Sanders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lost the proverbial step for sure , but no one who ’ s truly senile could get through months of events without betraying his condition .
And however much he ’ s declined from his 2012 self , he ’ s miles away from being so far gone that he might forget his own name .
What Tucker ’ s doing here is patronizing his viewers .
*They* took the bait about Biden being incapacitated despite a million people shouting at them that they were only helping the Democrat by doing so , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where basic coherence would allow him to claim a debate victory .
Carlson went along with it because demonizing the opposition as unfit in every way to hold power is a basic task of partisan media .
If you ’ re going to call Biden corrupt and radical , you can ’ t rightly draw the line at “ senile.
” When he claims he “ honestly ” thought Biden might forget his own name , he ’ s trying to reassure the audience that no , really , he wasn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s mental state .
He ’ s as surprised as they are about Sleepy Joe ’ s performance !
But he isn ’ t .
Speaking of believing nonsense about the debate , hoo boy : I ’ ve seen four polls on who won .
YouGov had it Biden 48/41 , CNN had it Biden 60/28 , CNBC had it Biden 53/29 , and today Morning Consult has it Biden 50/34 .
There were informal social media polls that showed Trump winning , but anyone can participate in those .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Whichever candidate ’ s supporters spend more time spamming the poll will ensure a “ win ” for their guy .
Does Trump “ honestly ” believe that polls show him winning the debate ?
I bet that he does , for the simple reason that his team knows to keep information away from him that might make him angry .
Even Mr. Trump ’ s political allies acknowledged on Wednesday that he had behaved in a brutish manner during the debate , transforming his first face-off with Mr. Biden — one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the trajectory of the race — into an orgy of mudslinging and personal vitriol against the former vice president… Mr. Trump himself was not displeased with his own performance , according to his advisers .
On the contrary , he was elated about the debate and saw it as a successful outing for him , according to three people close to the campaign .
Some of Mr. Trump ’ s advisers , who shy away from giving him bad news , made no attempt to disabuse the president of that assessment .
WaPo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ While Republican senators were calling the debate “ awful ” and a “ sh*tshow ” and GOP megadonors were complaining to the media about Trump ’ s performance , the president himself apparently thought he killed it : Who ’ s going to tell him ?
Why , no one ’ s going to tell him , certainly no one within his inner circle of aides and cronies .
Trump doesn ’ t wield the powers of an autocrat but the extent to which he seems to cocoon himself in a bubble of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ *is* reminiscent of what autocrats do .
And ultimately it ’ s to his detriment , as in the case of the Biden senility jabs .
He probably really did convince himself that Biden is a falling-down imbecile , which made it easy for Biden to perform well enough that Carlson felt obliged to inch away from the “ senility ” jabs afterward .
The president ’ s so deep in a bubble , in fact , that often he uses shorthand to describe stories and scandals that are well-known to people who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media but must seem mystifying to the other 90 percent of the country .
“ He refers to events , like ballots found in a wastepaper basket , but doesn ’ t tell the story of where they happened , or why they matter , ” noted Michael Brendan Dougherty after the debate .
I think it ’ s because Trump simply assumes that the rest of the country is watching the same news channels and reading the same websites he is , and thus will instantly grasp what he ’ s describing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is wildly untrue .
But who ’ s going to tell him ?
There ’ s another instance coming up soon where Trump would benefit from having advisors willing to get in his face and steer him away from a mistake .
He ’ s planning two rallies in Wisconsin this Saturday at airport hangars despite the fact that that state is currently suffering the nastiest COVID outbreak in the country .
Maybe no one who attends will get infected ; maybe everyone there will be masked up and spread out , to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us would bet on it .
But as a political matter , that ’ s beside the point .
The optics of insisting on holding rallies there at a moment when local pols are begging people to do everything possible to limit community spread underlines the perception that Trump has never taken the pandemic seriously enough .
This is his biggest liability of the campaign ( policy-wise ) and yet he ’ s doing something that will deepen that liability in a state that ’ s essentially a must-win .
The last thing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ months of seeming callous about the threat from COVID is to seem callous about it in Wisconsinites ’ backyard .
But he ’ s doing the rallies anyway , probably because he ’ s convinced himself that the public actually loves the idea of pretending like everything ’ s normal at a moment when local hospitals are filling up .
Who ’ s going to tell him otherwise ?
Needless to say , his habit of embracing an alternate reality is why so many Trump critics are nervous about the days and weeks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , there ’ s no margin of victory for Biden that will make Trump say , “ Yeah , I guess I lost.
” There are margins of victory that will make *the people around him* — some , at least — say , “ Okay , yeah , he lost , ” which will leave him with no option but to grudgingly stand down .
But if it ’ s close , how many of them will decide that they have no choice but to go along with his version of reality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to tell him otherwise ?

We “honestly” did think Biden was going to forget his own name onstage, Carlson says at one point in the clip below. Which isn’t true.
The Fox audience may have honestly believed that after being fed months of completely self-sabotaging hype about Biden being a drooling imbecile. But Tucker didn’t think that. He’s had many opportunities to watch Biden’s virtual fundraisers and meager public events this summer. At some point he must have watched or rewatched the one-on-one debate between Biden and Bernie Sanders six months ago. Biden’s lost the proverbial step for sure, but no one who’s truly senile could get through months of events without betraying his condition. And however much he’s declined from his 2012 self, he’s miles away from being so far gone that he might forget his own name.
What Tucker’s doing here is patronizing his viewers. *They* took the bait about Biden being incapacitated despite a million people shouting at them that they were only helping the Democrat by doing so, lowering expectations for him to the point where basic coherence would allow him to claim a debate victory. Carlson went along with it because demonizing the opposition as unfit in every way to hold power is a basic task of partisan media. If you’re going to call Biden corrupt and radical, you can’t rightly draw the line at “senile.” When he claims he “honestly” thought Biden might forget his own name, he’s trying to reassure the audience that no, really, he wasn’t lying to them all along about Biden’s mental state. He’s as surprised as they are about Sleepy Joe’s performance! But he isn’t.
Tucker Carlson: "The main thing we learned last night is that it was a mistake to focus on Biden's mental decline… [Biden] did not seem senile" pic.twitter.com/10i2djZRSq — nikki mccann ramírez (@NikkiMcR) October 1, 2020
Speaking of believing nonsense about the debate, hoo boy:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1311685923097260034
I’ve seen four polls on who won. YouGov had it Biden 48/41, CNN had it Biden 60/28, CNBC had it Biden 53/29, and today Morning Consult has it Biden 50/34. There were informal social media polls that showed Trump winning, but anyone can participate in those. They’re not representative of the population. Whichever candidate’s supporters spend more time spamming the poll will ensure a “win” for their guy.
Does Trump “honestly” believe that polls show him winning the debate? I bet that he does, for the simple reason that his team knows to keep information away from him that might make him angry.
Even Mr. Trump’s political allies acknowledged on Wednesday that he had behaved in a brutish manner during the debate, transforming his first face-off with Mr. Biden — one of his few remaining chances to change the trajectory of the race — into an orgy of mudslinging and personal vitriol against the former vice president… Mr. Trump himself was not displeased with his own performance, according to his advisers. On the contrary, he was elated about the debate and saw it as a successful outing for him, according to three people close to the campaign. Some of Mr. Trump’s advisers, who shy away from giving him bad news, made no attempt to disabuse the president of that assessment.
WaPo’s hearing the same thing. While Republican senators were calling the debate “awful” and a “sh*tshow” and GOP megadonors were complaining to the media about Trump’s performance, the president himself apparently thought he killed it:
Trump, however, remains confident that his bombastic approach is effective. “There is no way that people want Joe Biden after watching that,” Trump told his aides after the debate, according to a Trump political adviser who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations with the president.
Who’s going to tell him? Why, no one’s going to tell him, certainly no one within his inner circle of aides and cronies. Trump doesn’t wield the powers of an autocrat but the extent to which he seems to cocoon himself in a bubble of happy talk and vicious smears of opponents *is* reminiscent of what autocrats do. And ultimately it’s to his detriment, as in the case of the Biden senility jabs. He probably really did convince himself that Biden is a falling-down imbecile, which made it easy for Biden to perform well enough that Carlson felt obliged to inch away from the “senility” jabs afterward. The president’s so deep in a bubble, in fact, that often he uses shorthand to describe stories and scandals that are well-known to people who consume lots of Fox News and righty media but must seem mystifying to the other 90 percent of the country. “He refers to events, like ballots found in a wastepaper basket, but doesn’t tell the story of where they happened, or why they matter,” noted Michael Brendan Dougherty after the debate. I think it’s because Trump simply assumes that the rest of the country is watching the same news channels and reading the same websites he is, and thus will instantly grasp what he’s describing without need for further elaboration. Which is wildly untrue.
But who’s going to tell him?
There’s another instance coming up soon where Trump would benefit from having advisors willing to get in his face and steer him away from a mistake. He’s planning two rallies in Wisconsin this Saturday at airport hangars despite the fact that that state is currently suffering the nastiest COVID outbreak in the country. Maybe no one who attends will get infected; maybe everyone there will be masked up and spread out, to minimize the risk, although none of us would bet on it. But as a political matter, that’s beside the point. The optics of insisting on holding rallies there at a moment when local pols are begging people to do everything possible to limit community spread underlines the perception that Trump has never taken the pandemic seriously enough. This is his biggest liability of the campaign (policy-wise) and yet he’s doing something that will deepen that liability in a state that’s essentially a must-win. The last thing he should want right now after six months of seeming callous about the threat from COVID is to seem callous about it in Wisconsinites’ backyard.
But he’s doing the rallies anyway, probably because he’s convinced himself that the public actually loves the idea of pretending like everything’s normal at a moment when local hospitals are filling up.
Who’s going to tell him otherwise?
Needless to say, his habit of embracing an alternate reality is why so many Trump critics are nervous about the days and weeks after the election. If he loses, there’s no margin of victory for Biden that will make Trump say, “Yeah, I guess I lost.” There are margins of victory that will make *the people around him* — some, at least — say, “Okay, yeah, he lost,” which will leave him with no option but to grudgingly stand down. But if it’s close, how many of them will decide that they have no choice but to go along with his version of reality once again? Who’s going to tell him otherwise?


hotair--2020-10-01--Alexei Navalny says 'Putin was behind the crime' and describes what it's like being poisoned with a

Alexei Navalny says 'Putin was behind the crime' and describes what it's like being poisoned with a nerve agent

Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny is still in Germany recovering from his poisoning with a nerve agent .
Today Der Spiegel published an interview with Navalny in which he described what he ’ s been doing since he awoke from a coma ( mostly exercising ) and his prospects for a full recovery .
He also gave a detailed description of what it was like to be poisoned by Novichok , the Russian nerve agent that very nearly killed him .
I guess I ’ d always assumed that being poisoned with a nerve agent would be excruciatingly painful .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ passenger on the plane you could hear him shouting in apparent pain .
But he tells Der Spiegel he felt no pain at all , just the growing certainty that he was about to die .
Navalny : It was a wonderful day .
I ’ m on my way home , with a strenuous and successful business trip behind me .
We shot videos for the regional election campaign , and everything had gone according to plan .
I ’ m sitting comfortably in my seat and I ’ m looking forward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can watch a series .
Once I get back to Moscow , I am looking forward to recording my weekly YouTube show and then spending the weekend with my family .
I feel good , as I did at the airport .
And then… it ’ s hard to describe because there is nothing to compare it with .
Organophosphorus compounds attack your nervous system like a DDos attack attacks the computer – it ’ s an overload that breaks you .
You can no longer concentrate .
I can feel that something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a cold sweat .
I ask Kira beside me for a tissue .
Then I say to her : Speak to me .
I need to hear a voice – something ’ s wrong with me .
She looks at me like I ’ m crazy and starts talking .
Navalny : I don ’ t understand what is happening to me .
The stewards come by with the trolley .
I first want to ask them for water , but I then say : No , let me by , I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wash myself with cold water , sit down and wait and then wash myself again .
And then I think : If I don ’ t get out now , I ’ ll never get out .
The most important feeling was : You are feeling no pain , but you know you ’ re dying .
And I mean , right now , yet nothing hurts .
I leave the toilet , turn to the steward – and instead of asking for help , I say , to my own surprise : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ m dying.
” And then I lay down on the ground in front of him to die .
He ’ s the last thing I see – a face that looks at me with slight astonishment and a light smile .
He says : “ Poisoned ?
” and by that he probably means I was served bad chicken .
And the last thing I hear , already on the floor is : Do you have heart problems ?
But my heart doesn ’ t hurt .
Nothing hurts .
All @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Then I hear voices growing ever quieter , and a woman calling : “ Don ’ t leave us !
Don ’ t leave us !
” Then it ’ s over .
I know I ’ m dead .
Only later would it turn out that I was wrong .
DER SPIEGEL : There ’ s a video shot by a passenger in which your screams can be heard on the plane .
It sounds horrible , almost like the cries of an animal .
Navalny : I ’ ve watched @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the internet under the title : “ Navalny screaming in pain.
” But it wasn ’ t pain .
It was something else , worse .
Pain makes you feel like you ’ re alive .
But in this case , you sense : This is the end .
It wasn ’ t the end for Navalny because of a series of lucky breaks that could have all gone very differently .
He became ill on the plane mid-flight and had the plane continued to its intended destination , he would have died @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plan .
His body would have wound up in a morgue in Moscow and no one would have looked too hard for evidence of what killed him .
Instead , the pilot changed course and landed the plane quickly .
An ambulance was waiting for him .
He made it to the hospital alive and got some treatment .
And then there was a change of tone and doctors said he wouldn ’ t be allowed to leave .
But Navalny ’ s wife and his people pushed the issue and made news @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this turned the whole spectacle into a kind of reality TV show .
If he was allowed to die slowly in Russia he would have become a kind of martyr which isn ’ t the kind of death his poisoners wanted for him .
So , after two days , Russia let him be moved to Germany where doctors identified the poison and saved his life .
As for who is responsible , Navalny has no doubt about that .
And his reasons are pretty sound .
Ultimately , only one person in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Novichok .
Navalny : I assert that Putin was behind the crime , and I have no other explanation for what happened .
I ’ m not saying this out of self-flattery , but based on the facts .
The most important fact is Novichok .
The order to use or produce it can only come from two men – the head of the FSB or the head of SWR , the foreign intelligence service .
DER SPIEGEL : What about the military intelligence agency GRU , which has been linked to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Probably also the GRU .
When Putin claims that I myself produced Novichok and poisoned myself with it , it ’ s an impossibility .
We can assume that only three people can give the order to initiate “ active measures ” and deploy Novichok .
If you ’ re familiar with the Russian reality , then you also know that FSB head Alexander Bortnikov , SVR head Naryshkin or the head of the GRU can not make a decision like that without being instructed by Putin .
They report to him .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Putin ’ s division of the opposition into two camps : enemies and traitors .
In his view , Sergei Skripal and other former agents who fled Russia are traitors .
Those are the people Russia uses Novichok to kill .
But before this , Navalny would have seemed to be in the other camp , an enemy of Putin but not someone who had fled the country .
Navalny believes that after two years of efforts to crack down on his organization , i.e .
frozen bank accounts , raiding offices and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wasn ’ t enough .
A decision was made that the normal methods of opposition control weren ’ t sufficient .
At that point , he believes , he received a kind of upgrade from being treated as an enemy to the treatment usually reserved for “ traitors.
” Navalny plans to return to Russia and resume his life there but he admits he sometimes worries what could happen to his wife and children .
“ That ’ s just how it is : We are fighting again monstrous villains who are prepared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ”

Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny is still in Germany recovering from his poisoning with a nerve agent. Today Der Spiegel published an interview with Navalny in which he described what he’s been doing since he awoke from a coma (mostly exercising) and his prospects for a full recovery. He also gave a detailed description of what it was like to be poisoned by Novichok, the Russian nerve agent that very nearly killed him.
I guess I’d always assumed that being poisoned with a nerve agent would be excruciatingly painful. In a widely-circulated video taken by a passenger on the plane you could hear him shouting in apparent pain. But he tells Der Spiegel he felt no pain at all, just the growing certainty that he was about to die.
Navalny: It was a wonderful day. I’m on my way home, with a strenuous and successful business trip behind me. We shot videos for the regional election campaign, and everything had gone according to plan. I’m sitting comfortably in my seat and I’m looking forward to a quiet flight during which I can watch a series. Once I get back to Moscow, I am looking forward to recording my weekly YouTube show and then spending the weekend with my family. I feel good, as I did at the airport. And then… it’s hard to describe because there is nothing to compare it with. Organophosphorus compounds attack your nervous system like a DDos attack attacks the computer – it’s an overload that breaks you. You can no longer concentrate. I can feel that something is wrong. I break out in a cold sweat. I ask Kira beside me for a tissue. Then I say to her: Speak to me. I need to hear a voice – something’s wrong with me. She looks at me like I’m crazy and starts talking. DER SPIEGEL: What happened then? Navalny: I don’t understand what is happening to me. The stewards come by with the trolley. I first want to ask them for water, but I then say: No, let me by, I’m going to the bathroom. I wash myself with cold water, sit down and wait and then wash myself again. And then I think: If I don’t get out now, I’ll never get out. The most important feeling was: You are feeling no pain, but you know you’re dying. And I mean, right now, yet nothing hurts. I leave the toilet, turn to the steward – and instead of asking for help, I say, to my own surprise: “I’ve been poisoned. I’m dying.” And then I lay down on the ground in front of him to die. He’s the last thing I see – a face that looks at me with slight astonishment and a light smile. He says: “Poisoned?” and by that he probably means I was served bad chicken. And the last thing I hear, already on the floor is: Do you have heart problems? But my heart doesn’t hurt. Nothing hurts. All I know is that I am dying. Then I hear voices growing ever quieter, and a woman calling: “Don’t leave us! Don’t leave us!” Then it’s over. I know I’m dead. Only later would it turn out that I was wrong. DER SPIEGEL: There’s a video shot by a passenger in which your screams can be heard on the plane. It sounds horrible, almost like the cries of an animal. Navalny: I’ve watched it – it’s circulating on the internet under the title: “Navalny screaming in pain.” But it wasn’t pain. It was something else, worse. Pain makes you feel like you’re alive. But in this case, you sense: This is the end.
It wasn’t the end for Navalny because of a series of lucky breaks that could have all gone very differently. He became ill on the plane mid-flight and had the plane continued to its intended destination, he would have died. He believes that was likely the plan. His body would have wound up in a morgue in Moscow and no one would have looked too hard for evidence of what killed him.
Instead, the pilot changed course and landed the plane quickly. An ambulance was waiting for him. He made it to the hospital alive and got some treatment. And then there was a change of tone and doctors said he wouldn’t be allowed to leave. But Navalny’s wife and his people pushed the issue and made news demanding he be released. Navalny says this turned the whole spectacle into a kind of reality TV show. If he was allowed to die slowly in Russia he would have become a kind of martyr which isn’t the kind of death his poisoners wanted for him. So, after two days, Russia let him be moved to Germany where doctors identified the poison and saved his life.
As for who is responsible, Navalny has no doubt about that. And his reasons are pretty sound. Ultimately, only one person in Russia could made a decision to utilize Novichok.
Navalny: I assert that Putin was behind the crime, and I have no other explanation for what happened. I’m not saying this out of self-flattery, but based on the facts. The most important fact is Novichok. The order to use or produce it can only come from two men – the head of the FSB or the head of SWR, the foreign intelligence service. DER SPIEGEL: What about the military intelligence agency GRU, which has been linked to the attack on Sergei Skripal? Navalny: Probably also the GRU. When Putin claims that I myself produced Novichok and poisoned myself with it, it’s an impossibility. We can assume that only three people can give the order to initiate “active measures” and deploy Novichok. If you’re familiar with the Russian reality, then you also know that FSB head Alexander Bortnikov, SVR head Naryshkin or the head of the GRU cannot make a decision like that without being instructed by Putin. They report to him.
There’s an interesting discussion about Putin’s division of the opposition into two camps: enemies and traitors. In his view, Sergei Skripal and other former agents who fled Russia are traitors. Those are the people Russia uses Novichok to kill. But before this, Navalny would have seemed to be in the other camp, an enemy of Putin but not someone who had fled the country.
Navalny believes that after two years of efforts to crack down on his organization, i.e. frozen bank accounts, raiding offices and taking office equipment, someone realized it wasn’t enough. A decision was made that the normal methods of opposition control weren’t sufficient. At that point, he believes, he received a kind of upgrade from being treated as an enemy to the treatment usually reserved for “traitors.”
Navalny plans to return to Russia and resume his life there but he admits he sometimes worries what could happen to his wife and children. “That’s just how it is: We are fighting again monstrous villains who are prepared to commit the most heinous crimes.”


hotair--2020-10-01--NYT opinion section: Cotton's too extreme for us, but let's give platform to China's apologist on Ho

NYT opinion section: Cotton's too extreme for us, but let's give platform to China's apologist on Hong Kong crackdown

Remember when the New York Times newsroom erupted in righteous anger over the publication of an op-ed by Senator Tom Cotton ?
Cotton had argued in early June that the Trump administration should use the Insurrection Act to order the military to restore order in Portland , Seattle , and other jurisdictions with riots where governors refused to call up the National Guard .
They argued that just the idea put NYT staffers at risk , especially minorities , and espoused fascism rather than gave a forum to discuss a strategy allowed by law — and an idea favored by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , rightly or otherwise .
For the sin of publishing an argument from a sitting US Senator on a legal strategy in dealing with a clear and acute crisis , the NYT kicked its opinion editor to the curb and refused to put Cotton ’ s op-ed into its print edition .
They drew a clear line in the sand — discussion of the use of federal action to deal with ongoing riots and unrest .
Or so we thought .
Today , the NYT opinion section runs this defense of China ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ip , who serves on the city ’ s Beijing-controlled Executive Council .
The protests in the street for political freedom and the autonomy guaranteed by Beijing created “ months of chaos , ” as the NYT ’ s subhead argues in its featured presentation .
“ Something had to be done , ” Ip declares , “ and the Chinese authorities did it.
” No amount of outcry , condemnation or sanctions over the Chinese government ’ s purported encroachment in Hong Kong ’ s affairs will alter the fact that Hong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its destiny is intertwined with the mainland ’ s .
Hong Kong has been rocked by a series of crises after the eruption of protests last year over a proposed bill ( long since withdrawn ) that would have allowed the extradition of some suspects in criminal cases to mainland China .
Hong Kongers who wanted the city promptly to return to peace thought the authorities ’ handling of the situation , which dragged on for months and grew more and more violent , was incompetent .
For other locals , many outsiders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a people ’ s legitimate quest for more democracy was being suppressed .
Something had to be done , and the Chinese authorities did it .
As for the new and ominously ambiguous national security law that started the protests , Ip argues that it ’ s misunderstood .
Its vagueness is a feature , not a bug : No one doubts the “ intended effect ” of this new law .
That ’ s precisely why Hong Kong began protesting it in the first place , and why the rest of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the regime she serves hadn ’ t exactly been subtle about why they demanded it , after all — to suppress any dissent .
However , Ip ’ s apologetics for Xi are at least useful in airing out China ’ s bald imposition of totalitarianism on Hong Kong , violating international agreements that guaranteed its autonomy .
It allows everyone to discuss the issue , its implications , and to lay down a marker on the issues involved .
That ’ s why newspapers print op-eds — or at least what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such essays from repressive world leaders such as Nicolas Maduro , Vladimir Putin , and mouthpieces from the Taliban and the Iranian regime .
That brings us back to Cotton ’ s op-ed and the New Standard of Acceptable Opinion at The Paper of Record .
Cotton wrote an argument for a legal exercise of federal jurisdiction under temporary conditions to stop unrest , not to end local governance .
That also would have been useful in the national debate .
Where are the outraged staffers demanding an accounting from management over the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ force to quell chaos in Hong Kong as well as to impose totalitarianism ?
Where is the News Guild of New York ‘ s cri de coeur about the NYT ’ s publishing apologetics for “ the use of force at protests ” ?
Clearly , all of that was nonsense on stilts all along .
New York Times staffers objected not to the content but to the author of the Cotton op-ed .
The paper threw James Bennet under the bus because he had the temerity to publish an op-ed from a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ip ’ s piece exposes the hypocrites at the New York Times all the way from the boardroom to the newsroom .
Shame on every last one of them .

Remember when the New York Times newsroom erupted in righteous anger over the publication of an op-ed by Senator Tom Cotton? Cotton had argued in early June that the Trump administration should use the Insurrection Act to order the military to restore order in Portland, Seattle, and other jurisdictions with riots where governors refused to call up the National Guard. They argued that just the idea put NYT staffers at risk, especially minorities, and espoused fascism rather than gave a forum to discuss a strategy allowed by law — and an idea favored by a majority of Americans at the time, rightly or otherwise.
For the sin of publishing an argument from a sitting US Senator on a legal strategy in dealing with a clear and acute crisis, the NYT kicked its opinion editor to the curb and refused to put Cotton’s op-ed into its print edition. They drew a clear line in the sand — discussion of the use of federal action to deal with ongoing riots and unrest.
Or so we thought. Today, the NYT opinion section runs this defense of China’s takeover of Hong Kong from Regina Ip, who serves on the city’s Beijing-controlled Executive Council. The protests in the street for political freedom and the autonomy guaranteed by Beijing created “months of chaos,” as the NYT’s subhead argues in its featured presentation. “Something had to be done,” Ip declares, “and the Chinese authorities did it.”
No amount of outcry, condemnation or sanctions over the Chinese government’s purported encroachment in Hong Kong’s affairs will alter the fact that Hong Kong is part of China and that its destiny is intertwined with the mainland’s. Hong Kong has been rocked by a series of crises after the eruption of protests last year over a proposed bill (long since withdrawn) that would have allowed the extradition of some suspects in criminal cases to mainland China. Hong Kongers who wanted the city promptly to return to peace thought the authorities’ handling of the situation, which dragged on for months and grew more and more violent, was incompetent. For other locals, many outsiders and apparently much of the global media, a people’s legitimate quest for more democracy was being suppressed. Something had to be done, and the Chinese authorities did it.
As for the new and ominously ambiguous national security law that started the protests, Ip argues that it’s misunderstood. Its vagueness is a feature, not a bug:
To some, the new national security law is especially chilling because it seems simultaneously vague and very severe. But many laws are vague, constructively so. And this one only seems severe precisely because it fills longstanding loopholes — about subversion, secession, local terrorism, collusion with external forces. One person’s “severe” is someone else’s intended effect.
No one doubts the “intended effect” of this new law. That’s precisely why Hong Kong began protesting it in the first place, and why the rest of the world objected to it. Ip and the regime she serves hadn’t exactly been subtle about why they demanded it, after all — to suppress any dissent.
However, Ip’s apologetics for Xi are at least useful in airing out China’s bald imposition of totalitarianism on Hong Kong, violating international agreements that guaranteed its autonomy. It allows everyone to discuss the issue, its implications, and to lay down a marker on the issues involved. That’s why newspapers print op-eds — or at least what the NYT claims when it routinely runs such essays from repressive world leaders such as Nicolas Maduro, Vladimir Putin, and mouthpieces from the Taliban and the Iranian regime.
That brings us back to Cotton’s op-ed and the New Standard of Acceptable Opinion at The Paper of Record. Cotton wrote an argument for a legal exercise of federal jurisdiction under temporary conditions to stop unrest, not to end local governance. That also would have been useful in the national debate. Where are the outraged staffers demanding an accounting from management over the publication of a defense of using national force to quell chaos in Hong Kong as well as to impose totalitarianism? Where is the News Guild of New York‘s cri de coeur about the NYT’s publishing apologetics for “the use of force at protests”?
Clearly, all of that was nonsense on stilts all along. New York Times staffers objected not to the content but to the author of the Cotton op-ed. The paper threw James Bennet under the bus because he had the temerity to publish an op-ed from a conservative US Senator. The publication of Ip’s piece exposes the hypocrites at the New York Times all the way from the boardroom to the newsroom. Shame on every last one of them.


hotair--2020-10-01--Gallup: Trump job approval rises to highest level since May, majority expect him to win

His approval rating today : 46 percent .
Barack Obama ’ s approval rating eight years ago today : 47 percent .
Trump ’ s not licked yet .
There are two differences between them , though .
One is that Trump ’ s disapproval rating stands at 52 percent .
Obama ’ s was 46 percent .
Flipping someone who ’ s undecided into your column is a lot easier than flipping someone who disapproves of you , which is the task facing Trump with that crucial three or four percent that he still needs .
The other difference @ @ @ @ @ @ @ soon rose above 50 and he ended up spending nearly all of that month at or above 49 percent .
Trump has touched 49 just a few times since 2017 in Gallup ’ s polling , typically landing between 41-46 percent .
He ’ s never reached 50 .
And on every major issue with the notable exception of the economy , disapproval of him is north of 50 .
A look at the RCP average shows that Gallup ’ s numbers are no fluke , which seems incongruous .
The state and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this week for Trump and yet his approval rating remains a decent 45.5 percent .
How can his chances of winning the election be slipping if his job approval isn ’ t ?
Part of the answer lies in the last paragraph : Pretty much everyone who ’ s not pro-Trump is anti-Trump , not undecided , and the latter group is bigger than the former .
But there ’ s also a fascinating discrepancy between his job approval and his head-to-head polling against Biden that ’ s shown up in a number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s some small but meaningful number of voters who say they approve of his performance — but are voting for the Democrat anyway .
Compare the last six months of Trump ’ s job approval , where he enjoyed a rating of 45-46 both before and after this year ’ s summer swoon… …with the last six months of head-to-head polling , which shows him unable to reach even 44 percent against Biden since the first days of April : There ’ s a subset of voters out there worth one or two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thinks he ’ s doing a decent enough job but want him out anyway .
That ’ s the difference between a 50/45 Biden victory , which is probably enough to guarantee that Sleepy Joe wins the electoral college , and a 48/47 Biden victory , in which Trump winning the electoral college remains very possible .
Looking at two recent Quinnipiac polls , one national and one of South Carolina , it seems like this subset consists mainly of independents .
In the national poll , 43 percent of indies say they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just 41 percent choose him over Biden .
In South Carolina , 41 percent approve of him but only 39 percent prefer him to Biden .
It ’ s anyone ’ s guess why that is , but an obvious possibility is that it ’ s a personality thing .
Some indies like his policies well enough , it seems , but they may have tired of the circus .
If that ’ s the case , then his decision to go full Trump at the debate on Tuesday was a poor one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the same Gallup poll that ’ s out today : You can read that various ways .
Maybe it ’ s nothing more than the residue of Trump ’ s shocking 2016 win at work .
The polls predicted Hillary would win last time , Hillary didn ’ t win , so there ’ s no reason to trust the polls this time .
Another way to read it is as a sign of a secret preference for Trump .
If you ’ re all-in on the “ shy Trump voter ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against Biden , here ’ s your evidence that some independents and maybe even some Democrats are secretly planning to vote for him .
They won ’ t tell a pollster straight out that they prefer him to Biden , but ask them who they think will win and their hidden preference creeps into that answer .
It should be noted that this question — whom do you think is *likely* to win ?
— has correctly predicted the popular-vote winner in every election back to 1996 .
In 2000 and 2016 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ win , and they did indeed get the most votes that fall .
The wrinkle , though , is that the streak is all but certain to end next month : While Trump stands a fair chance of winning the electoral college , no one apart from the most diehard members of the MAGA base expects him to win the popular vote .
Even his campaign doesn ’ t pretend that he has a serious shot at it , knowing that Biden is a more popular candidate than Hillary was .
That ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ above probably explains the numbers here .
Americans learned in the most dramatic possible way four years ago not to underestimate the extent of Trump ’ s support , no matter what the pre-election numbers say .
They won ’ t bet against him this time .
Meanwhile , though , the map continues to look bluer .
This morning Larry Sabato ’ s site moved its forecast for Ohio and Iowa from “ lean Republican ” to toss-up in both states .
Biden currently stands at 274 electoral votes in their projections @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Ohio , Iowa , North Carolina , Arizona , and Florida all still up for grabs .

His approval rating today: 46 percent. Barack Obama’s approval rating eight years ago today: 47 percent. Trump’s not licked yet.
There are two differences between them, though. One is that Trump’s disapproval rating stands at 52 percent. Obama’s was 46 percent. Flipping someone who’s undecided into your column is a lot easier than flipping someone who disapproves of you, which is the task facing Trump with that crucial three or four percent that he still needs. The other difference is that O’s job approval soon rose above 50 and he ended up spending nearly all of that month at or above 49 percent. Trump has touched 49 just a few times since 2017 in Gallup’s polling, typically landing between 41-46 percent. He’s never reached 50. And on every major issue with the notable exception of the economy, disapproval of him is north of 50.
A look at the RCP average shows that Gallup’s numbers are no fluke, which seems incongruous. The state and national polling against Biden has been grim this week for Trump and yet his approval rating remains a decent 45.5 percent. How can his chances of winning the election be slipping if his job approval isn’t? Part of the answer lies in the last paragraph: Pretty much everyone who’s not pro-Trump is anti-Trump, not undecided, and the latter group is bigger than the former. But there’s also a fascinating discrepancy between his job approval and his head-to-head polling against Biden that’s shown up in a number of surveys. Namely, there’s some small but meaningful number of voters who say they approve of his performance — but are voting for the Democrat anyway. Compare the last six months of Trump’s job approval, where he enjoyed a rating of 45-46 both before and after this year’s summer swoon…
…with the last six months of head-to-head polling, which shows him unable to reach even 44 percent against Biden since the first days of April:
There’s a subset of voters out there worth one or two percentage points across the entire electorate that thinks he’s doing a decent enough job but want him out anyway. That’s the difference between a 50/45 Biden victory, which is probably enough to guarantee that Sleepy Joe wins the electoral college, and a 48/47 Biden victory, in which Trump winning the electoral college remains very possible.
Looking at two recent Quinnipiac polls, one national and one of South Carolina, it seems like this subset consists mainly of independents. In the national poll, 43 percent of indies say they approve of Trump’s performance but just 41 percent choose him over Biden. In South Carolina, 41 percent approve of him but only 39 percent prefer him to Biden. It’s anyone’s guess why that is, but an obvious possibility is that it’s a personality thing. Some indies like his policies well enough, it seems, but they may have tired of the circus.
If that’s the case, then his decision to go full Trump at the debate on Tuesday was a poor one.
Here’s another interesting number from the same Gallup poll that’s out today:
You can read that various ways. Maybe it’s nothing more than the residue of Trump’s shocking 2016 win at work. The polls predicted Hillary would win last time, Hillary didn’t win, so there’s no reason to trust the polls this time. Another way to read it is as a sign of a secret preference for Trump. If you’re all-in on the “shy Trump voter” theory of why his polling is poor against Biden, here’s your evidence that some independents and maybe even some Democrats are secretly planning to vote for him. They won’t tell a pollster straight out that they prefer him to Biden, but ask them who they think will win and their hidden preference creeps into that answer.
It should be noted that this question — whom do you think is *likely* to win? — has correctly predicted the popular-vote winner in every election back to 1996. In 2000 and 2016, more Americans thought Gore and Clinton would win, and they did indeed get the most votes that fall. The wrinkle, though, is that the streak is all but certain to end next month: While Trump stands a fair chance of winning the electoral college, no one apart from the most diehard members of the MAGA base expects him to win the popular vote. Even his campaign doesn’t pretend that he has a serious shot at it, knowing that Biden is a more popular candidate than Hillary was. That’s why I think the first theory above probably explains the numbers here. Americans learned in the most dramatic possible way four years ago not to underestimate the extent of Trump’s support, no matter what the pre-election numbers say. They won’t bet against him this time.
Meanwhile, though, the map continues to look bluer. This morning Larry Sabato’s site moved its forecast for Ohio and Iowa from “lean Republican” to toss-up in both states. Biden currently stands at 274 electoral votes in their projections, more than enough to win, with Ohio, Iowa, North Carolina, Arizona, and Florida all still up for grabs.


hotair--2020-10-01--Lone Star lunacy: Hollywood celebs join with Democrats in Turn Texas Blue campaign

The good news is that celebrity endorsements usually don ’ t end up meaning very much in political campaigns .
The bad news is that just before the first presidential debate took place , some Hollywood celebs decided to start their own fundraising campaign to Turn Texas Blue .
Texas is a battleground state and Democrats are amped up , giddy with optimism that this is the year that the state goes blue .
They did well in the 2018 election cycle , riding a wave of enthusiasm over Beto O ’ Rourke ’ s challenge to Senator Ted Cruz @ @ @ @ @ @ @ victory but it was a closer race than traditionally seen in the last couple of decades in Texas .
Democrats are looking for lots more victories in the state in November .
Battleground Texas began in 2013 .
I use this group as an example of the work on the ground to turn Texas blue .
The group has been laying the groundwork and organizing with the intent of doing just that – turning Texas blue again .
I attended the group ’ s first organizational meeting in Houston back then out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to sound the alarm that change was coming .
Frankly , few Republicans took the movement seriously , and only after the 2018 election cycle has the fruits of the left ’ s labor been undeniable .
Harris County ( Houston ) is now completely blue .
The city has been for quite some time but now the county is , too .
There is no denying that Texas is now a battleground state .
The presidential race is too close for comfort here , to be honest .
I ’ ve lived @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years politically active here as a Republican woman .
I ’ m not an alarmist but I ’ m concerned .
I still think that Trump will win Texas and John Cornyn will win his re-election but tons of money is flooding the state from the Democrats .
Just the fact that I ’ m concerned about the Republican candidate for president winning Texas is unnerving .
Hollywood celebrities are joining the efforts of state and national Democrats .
Remember how they all threw-in for Beto in 2018 and then when he first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they couldn ’ t get him elected in Texas and he quickly faded in the Democrat primary for the party ’ s presidential nomination , too , so this effort seems like a last-minute push born of over-confidence .
Let them spend their money on Sleepy Joe in Texas .
We ’ ll know soon enough if it works .
The pitch from the celebs is for their supporters to donate $ 38 dollars to the Turn Texas Blue campaign .
Texas has 38 electoral votes , you know .
The group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Amy Schumer , Mark Ruffalo , and Pink , asked for supporters to chip in $ 38 for Democratic causes in Texas to buoy Biden ’ s chances of securing the state ’ s 38 electoral votes — one of the biggest delegate prizes on Election Day .
“ There ’ s no debate : If we # TurnTexasBlue , Trump is through .
$ 38 for 38 electoral votes .
Match me : 38for38.com , ” they tweeted , sharing a message that has gone viral across social media .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percolating on social media ahead of the first presidential debate in Cleveland , Ohio , between President Trump and Democratic nominee Joe Biden .
These Democrats are right – if Trump loses Texas , it is impossible for him to win the presidency .
Trump won Texas by nine points over Hillary in 2016 .
That was the closest the Democrats came to winning the state since 1996 .
According to Real Clear Politics , the latest polling shows Trump up by 4 points and Cornyn up by 10 .
Republicans can ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and that is a concern .
Republican voters have taken the state for granted for too long and times are changing , largely due to demographics of the state .
The people who make a living reciting words written by other people are all repeating the same message .
$ 38 for 38 electoral votes .
Mark Ruffalo asked for only $ 10 in his plea the day after the others asked for $ 38 , though .
Hideous Hillary was the keynote speaker for a fundraising dinner for Democrats in Austin last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Texas as a “ leans Republican ” state .
The blitz of campaign ads is real in Texas , certainly in the Houston area .
Texas Republicans are hoping Trump can put the state on his campaign schedule .
The state chairman says he has delivered the message that he ’ d like the president to visit Texas at least once more before the election , especially to North Texas – the Dallas area .
He thinks Trump can do better than in 2016 and that Republicans can do better than in 2018 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about Republicans doing well in November , saying he ’ s “ not overconfident , [ but ] confident ” that the party will see better successes this year than it did in 2018 .
He also said he thinks Trump “ will be able to at least maintain ” the 9-point margin the president carried the state with in 2016 , suggesting that he “ may even exceed it.
” Recent polling has shown the race between Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden , the Democratic nominee for president , is @ @ @ @ @ @ @

The good news is that celebrity endorsements usually don’t end up meaning very much in political campaigns. The bad news is that just before the first presidential debate took place, some Hollywood celebs decided to start their own fundraising campaign to Turn Texas Blue.
Texas is a battleground state and Democrats are amped up, giddy with optimism that this is the year that the state goes blue. They did well in the 2018 election cycle, riding a wave of enthusiasm over Beto O’Rourke’s challenge to Senator Ted Cruz’s re-election. Cruz delivered a victory but it was a closer race than traditionally seen in the last couple of decades in Texas. Democrats are looking for lots more victories in the state in November.
Battleground Texas began in 2013. I use this group as an example of the work on the ground to turn Texas blue. The group has been laying the groundwork and organizing with the intent of doing just that – turning Texas blue again. I attended the group’s first organizational meeting in Houston back then out of curiosity and began writing about the group to sound the alarm that change was coming. Frankly, few Republicans took the movement seriously, and only after the 2018 election cycle has the fruits of the left’s labor been undeniable. Harris County (Houston) is now completely blue. The city has been for quite some time but now the county is, too. There is no denying that Texas is now a battleground state.
The presidential race is too close for comfort here, to be honest. I’ve lived in Houston since 1998 and spent many years politically active here as a Republican woman. I’m not an alarmist but I’m concerned. I still think that Trump will win Texas and John Cornyn will win his re-election but tons of money is flooding the state from the Democrats. Just the fact that I’m concerned about the Republican candidate for president winning Texas is unnerving.
Hollywood celebrities are joining the efforts of state and national Democrats. Remember how they all threw-in for Beto in 2018 and then when he first began to run for president? Well, they couldn’t get him elected in Texas and he quickly faded in the Democrat primary for the party’s presidential nomination, too, so this effort seems like a last-minute push born of over-confidence. Let them spend their money on Sleepy Joe in Texas. We’ll know soon enough if it works.
The pitch from the celebs is for their supporters to donate $38 dollars to the Turn Texas Blue campaign. Texas has 38 electoral votes, you know.
The group of celebrities, which includes Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Amy Schumer, Mark Ruffalo, and Pink, asked for supporters to chip in $38 for Democratic causes in Texas to buoy Biden’s chances of securing the state’s 38 electoral votes — one of the biggest delegate prizes on Election Day. “There’s no debate: If we #TurnTexasBlue, Trump is through. $38 for 38 electoral votes. Match me: 38for38.com,” they tweeted, sharing a message that has gone viral across social media. The “Turn Texas Blue” campaign began percolating on social media ahead of the first presidential debate in Cleveland, Ohio, between President Trump and Democratic nominee Joe Biden.
These Democrats are right – if Trump loses Texas, it is impossible for him to win the presidency. Trump won Texas by nine points over Hillary in 2016. That was the closest the Democrats came to winning the state since 1996. According to Real Clear Politics, the latest polling shows Trump up by 4 points and Cornyn up by 10. Republicans can’t get complacent now, though, and that is a concern. Republican voters have taken the state for granted for too long and times are changing, largely due to demographics of the state.
The people who make a living reciting words written by other people are all repeating the same message. $38 for 38 electoral votes.
Mark Ruffalo asked for only $10 in his plea the day after the others asked for $38, though.
Texas is in play!! I support @TexasDemocrats. With so much on the line, will you chip in $10 today too? https://t.co/5O1QofZ5QM — Mark Ruffalo (@MarkRuffalo) September 30, 2020
Hideous Hillary was the keynote speaker for a fundraising dinner for Democrats in Austin last week.
“I don’t need to tell you, Texas is the biggest battleground state in our country,” Hillary Clinton told Texas Democrats last week in a video speech during a fundraising dinner.
The Cook Political Report shows Texas as a “leans Republican” state. The blitz of campaign ads is real in Texas, certainly in the Houston area. Texas Republicans are hoping Trump can put the state on his campaign schedule. The state chairman says he has delivered the message that he’d like the president to visit Texas at least once more before the election, especially to North Texas – the Dallas area. He thinks Trump can do better than in 2016 and that Republicans can do better than in 2018.
More broadly, West expressed optimism about Republicans doing well in November, saying he’s “not overconfident, [but] confident” that the party will see better successes this year than it did in 2018. He also said he thinks Trump “will be able to at least maintain” the 9-point margin the president carried the state with in 2016, suggesting that he “may even exceed it.” Recent polling has shown the race between Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden, the Democratic nominee for president, is much closer than that in Texas.
Early voting starts in Texas on October 13.


hotair--2020-10-01--The Las Vegas mass shooting payout sets yet another bad precedent

Today marks the third anniversary of the worst mass shooting in the history of the United States .
On October 1st , 2017 , Stephen Paddock killed 58 people and wounded more than 850 others when he opened fire on the crowd attending an outdoor concert from the window of his room in the Mandalay Bay Hotel in Las Vegas .
On the eve of this dark anniversary , a court in Clark County , Nevada awarded a massive payout of nearly a billion dollars to the victims of that attack and their families .
But the payment is coming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , MGM Resorts International , and its insurers .
The company isn ’ t contesting the ruling and is not expected to appeal .
While some are describing this resolution as a form of closure , we ’ re once again seeing the blame for this atrocity being placed on the wrong shoulders .
( The Hill ) A Clark County , Nev. , judge on Wednesday approved a payout of $ 800 million to the victims and relatives of the 2017 mass shooting at Las Vegas ’ Mandalay Bay Hotel .
District @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from MGM Resorts International to more than 4,400 people , according to The Associated Press .
Bell cited “ near-unanimous participation in the settlement among potential claimants ” in her order .
MGM Resorts , which did not acknowledge fault with the payout , will pay $ 49 million in the settlement , with its insurers covering the balance .
You ’ ll note that one key aspect of the settlement is the fact that MGM Resorts did not accept any fault in the mass shooting .
They took no responsibility for all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yet they ’ re the ones shelling out all of that money .
Perhaps we should be asking ourselves why .
After years of investigations by the police , the FBI and other agencies , we are still no closer to understanding what drove Stephen Paddock to engage in that murderous rampage .
At this point , we ’ ll likely never know .
He didn ’ t leave behind a suicide note and none of his friends or relatives seemed to have any clue that he would even consider doing such a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be taken alive , so all we were left with was questions .
But there ’ s one thing that we do know without a shadow of a doubt .
The responsibility for all of that carnage rests solely on the shoulders of Stephen Paddock .
The room he rented had the same safety features and accommodations as any other casino hotel room in Sin City and met all applicable building codes .
He had to shoot the windows out in order to carry out his plan .
The room offered no easy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He was the one who surreptitiously smuggled all of his firearms and ammunition into the room .
He was the one who pulled the trigger .
The fault for all of those deaths and injuries is his alone .
And yet MGM Resorts International is the entity being made to pay for it .
This was obviously a public relations decision on the part of the chain ’ s management , offering an opportunity for “ closure ” for the families .
But the fact is that Paddock , while a relatively successful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of assets that would have been required to render a settlement of this size .
So the attorneys for the victims and their families decided to go after the nearest available deep pockets .
Those belonged to the hotel chain that did nothing more than rent a room to one of the thousands of seemingly inconspicuous tourists who arrived for a Las Vegas getaway that week .
How does this add up to any form of justice , either for the victims or for the hotel chain ?
It ’ s easy enough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ MGM Resorts makes tons of money and they have insurance so “ they can afford it.
” But that ’ s really not the question here .
The company ’ s management may have agreed to the payout in the interest of looking like “ the good guys , ” but there ’ s been a serious miscarriage of justice in this case .
And since nobody wants to say anything upsetting to those who were affected by the attack , everyone will just look the other way and let the winners go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assured that the attorneys who also stuffed their own pockets when they sued MGM Resorts International knew that ’ s what the company would do .
In fact , they were counting on it .
And it ’ s just not right .

Today marks the third anniversary of the worst mass shooting in the history of the United States. On October 1st, 2017, Stephen Paddock killed 58 people and wounded more than 850 others when he opened fire on the crowd attending an outdoor concert from the window of his room in the Mandalay Bay Hotel in Las Vegas. On the eve of this dark anniversary, a court in Clark County, Nevada awarded a massive payout of nearly a billion dollars to the victims of that attack and their families. But the payment is coming from the hotel’s parent company, MGM Resorts International, and its insurers. The company isn’t contesting the ruling and is not expected to appeal. While some are describing this resolution as a form of closure, we’re once again seeing the blame for this atrocity being placed on the wrong shoulders. (The Hill)
A Clark County, Nev., judge on Wednesday approved a payout of $800 million to the victims and relatives of the 2017 mass shooting at Las Vegas’ Mandalay Bay Hotel. District Court Judge Linda Bell approved the payout from MGM Resorts International to more than 4,400 people, according to The Associated Press. Bell cited “near-unanimous participation in the settlement among potential claimants” in her order. MGM Resorts, which did not acknowledge fault with the payout, will pay $49 million in the settlement, with its insurers covering the balance.
You’ll note that one key aspect of the settlement is the fact that MGM Resorts did not accept any fault in the mass shooting. They took no responsibility for all of the deaths and injuries. And yet they’re the ones shelling out all of that money. Perhaps we should be asking ourselves why.
After years of investigations by the police, the FBI and other agencies, we are still no closer to understanding what drove Stephen Paddock to engage in that murderous rampage. At this point, we’ll likely never know. He didn’t leave behind a suicide note and none of his friends or relatives seemed to have any clue that he would even consider doing such a thing. He obviously never intended to be taken alive, so all we were left with was questions.
But there’s one thing that we do know without a shadow of a doubt. The responsibility for all of that carnage rests solely on the shoulders of Stephen Paddock. The room he rented had the same safety features and accommodations as any other casino hotel room in Sin City and met all applicable building codes. He had to shoot the windows out in order to carry out his plan. The room offered no easy opportunity to do what he did. He was the one who surreptitiously smuggled all of his firearms and ammunition into the room. He was the one who pulled the trigger. The fault for all of those deaths and injuries is his alone.
And yet MGM Resorts International is the entity being made to pay for it. This was obviously a public relations decision on the part of the chain’s management, offering an opportunity for “closure” for the families. But the fact is that Paddock, while a relatively successful businessman, had nowhere near the amount of assets that would have been required to render a settlement of this size. So the attorneys for the victims and their families decided to go after the nearest available deep pockets. Those belonged to the hotel chain that did nothing more than rent a room to one of the thousands of seemingly inconspicuous tourists who arrived for a Las Vegas getaway that week.
How does this add up to any form of justice, either for the victims or for the hotel chain? It’s easy enough to shrug our shoulders and say that MGM Resorts makes tons of money and they have insurance so “they can afford it.” But that’s really not the question here. The company’s management may have agreed to the payout in the interest of looking like “the good guys,” but there’s been a serious miscarriage of justice in this case. And since nobody wants to say anything upsetting to those who were affected by the attack, everyone will just look the other way and let the winners go cash their checks. You can rest assured that the attorneys who also stuffed their own pockets when they sued MGM Resorts International knew that’s what the company would do. In fact, they were counting on it. And it’s just not right.


hotair--2020-10-01--Portland Mayor: Stop federal deputation of our police officers

Last weekend , Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler declared a state of emergency in anticipation of a planned demonstration by the Proud Boys in his city .
As part of the preparations for possible violence , dozens of Portland Police Department officers were deputized by federal agents .
The plan seemed to work out fairly well all the way around , but this week Wheeler has come forward to complain about the process , declaring that his office didn ’ t really understand how it all worked and calling for an end to such deputation of his cops .
So what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heart ?
When Wheeler was panicking over the idea of the Proud Boys coming and putting the boot to some of the Antifa thugs who are burning down his city , he seemed more than willing to accept some help from the feds .
But now he claims that he didn ’ t understand that the deputation would last until the end of the year .
He ’ s also “ concerned ” that attacks on police who have been federally deputized could lead to more serious federal charges against people who attack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler ( D ) said on Tuesday that he asked U.S. officials to end the federal deputation of police officers in the city in response to months-long demonstrations .
Wheeler said he “ asked the U.S. attorney ’ s office to withdraw the designation ” that deputized the officers , The Associated Press reported .
“ A key feature of the designation is that anyone who assaults a federally deputized official could be subject to federal charges , ” Wheeler said in the statement , according to the newswire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Multnomah County district attorney will continue to prosecute anyone who assaults or otherwise harms police officers or others.
” We should probably first note the rather twisted attitude of the Mayor when it comes to the turmoil in his city ’ s streets .
When the Proud Boys come to town , it ’ s a federal emergency .
But on any other night when residents and business owners are being terrorized , shops are being looted and buildings set on fire , it ’ s a “ fight for racial justice.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a press conference with a straight face remains a mystery .
In terms of the deputation process , it serves a number of productive purposes .
Federally deputizing the police allows for more formal cooperation , coordination , and sharing of resources when dealing with rioters in the streets .
Additionally , as the Mayor himself pointed out , attacks on federally deputized police officers open the door to substantial federal charges against anyone attacking them .
This offers the perhaps futile hope that some of the rioters will think twice before attacking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of their buddies heading off for ten years in the Crowbar Hotel instead of a night in the drunk tank and a slap on the wrist , they might think about leaving their Molotov cocktails at home .
Wheeler seeking to undo the deputation process is nothing but yet another signal that he ’ s afraid of angering the rioters .
He still seems to be clinging to the futile idea that if he can appease them enough they will somehow disband and return the city to some sense of normalcy .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ different ways he reacts to a Proud Boys demonstration as compared to Antifa .
In his comments this week he said , “ Those engaged in violence and hate are working in opposition to racial justice .
They are creating the conditions that allow white supremacy and intimidation to thrive.
” Here ’ s a news flash for you , Mr. Mayor .
You don ’ t have a white supremacy problem .
You don ’ t have a racism problem .
You don ’ t have a police problem .
You have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ left-wing thugs and opportunistic criminals who are taking advantage of the chaos to gut the City of Portland .
Perhaps you should stop trying to blame everything on the Bad Orange Man and restore order to your streets .
Just a thought , anyway…

Last weekend, Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler declared a state of emergency in anticipation of a planned demonstration by the Proud Boys in his city. As part of the preparations for possible violence, dozens of Portland Police Department officers were deputized by federal agents. The plan seemed to work out fairly well all the way around, but this week Wheeler has come forward to complain about the process, declaring that his office didn’t really understand how it all worked and calling for an end to such deputation of his cops.
So what’s causing this sudden change of heart? When Wheeler was panicking over the idea of the Proud Boys coming and putting the boot to some of the Antifa thugs who are burning down his city, he seemed more than willing to accept some help from the feds. But now he claims that he didn’t understand that the deputation would last until the end of the year. He’s also “concerned” that attacks on police who have been federally deputized could lead to more serious federal charges against people who attack them. Seriously? (The Hill)
Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler (D) said on Tuesday that he asked U.S. officials to end the federal deputation of police officers in the city in response to months-long demonstrations. Wheeler said he “asked the U.S. attorney’s office to withdraw the designation” that deputized the officers, The Associated Press reported. “A key feature of the designation is that anyone who assaults a federally deputized official could be subject to federal charges,” Wheeler said in the statement, according to the newswire. “Fortunately, I am confident the Multnomah County district attorney will continue to prosecute anyone who assaults or otherwise harms police officers or others.”
We should probably first note the rather twisted attitude of the Mayor when it comes to the turmoil in his city’s streets. When the Proud Boys come to town, it’s a federal emergency. But on any other night when residents and business owners are being terrorized, shops are being looted and buildings set on fire, it’s a “fight for racial justice.” How this man manages to hold a press conference with a straight face remains a mystery.
In terms of the deputation process, it serves a number of productive purposes. Federally deputizing the police allows for more formal cooperation, coordination, and sharing of resources when dealing with rioters in the streets. Additionally, as the Mayor himself pointed out, attacks on federally deputized police officers open the door to substantial federal charges against anyone attacking them. This offers the perhaps futile hope that some of the rioters will think twice before attacking the cops. If they see some of their buddies heading off for ten years in the Crowbar Hotel instead of a night in the drunk tank and a slap on the wrist, they might think about leaving their Molotov cocktails at home.
Wheeler seeking to undo the deputation process is nothing but yet another signal that he’s afraid of angering the rioters. He still seems to be clinging to the futile idea that if he can appease them enough they will somehow disband and return the city to some sense of normalcy. This attitude is also reflected in the very different ways he reacts to a Proud Boys demonstration as compared to Antifa. In his comments this week he said, “Those engaged in violence and hate are working in opposition to racial justice. They are creating the conditions that allow white supremacy and intimidation to thrive.”
Here’s a news flash for you, Mr. Mayor. You don’t have a white supremacy problem. You don’t have a racism problem. You don’t have a police problem. You have a rioting problem being driven by violent left-wing thugs and opportunistic criminals who are taking advantage of the chaos to gut the City of Portland. Perhaps you should stop trying to blame everything on the Bad Orange Man and restore order to your streets. Just a thought, anyway…


hotair--2020-10-01--Feinstein, Senate Dems: You're not giving us enough time to "vet" Barrett, IYKWIM

And if you remember what happened to Brett Kavanaugh , ITYD .
Ranking Judiciary Committee member Sen. Dianne Feinstein issued an open letter to chair Lindsey Graham last night complaining about the scheduled October 12 confirmation hearing for Amy Coney Barrett .
The letter , signed by the other Democrats on the committee , complained that the “ abbreviated ” schedule was a “ sharp departure from past practice and that it would “ deprive the American people of a meaningful opportunity to gauge the nominee and her record.
” So how much time does Feinstein need ?
Three guesses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dishonesty .
Feinstein et al complain that the short time frame “ specifically calls into question the following ” processes needed to adequately vet a nominee : All of this ignores one key fact , which is this same committee just did this three years ago with Barrett .
Senate Democrats conducted a hostile examination in detail of Barrett in her previous confirmation hearing to the appellate court , in part because it was clear that Donald Trump and Republicans considered her a stellar choice for a future Supreme Court nomination .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the last three years , which should be rather easy to complete in the next two weeks .
Unless Feinstein and her colleagues want to argue that they half-assed their effort in 2017 while putting a Trump appointee on the Seventh Circuit , this time frame should be sufficient for the purposes listed above .
If it ’ s too tight , how much time do Senate Democrats need to accomplish these tasks ?
How about a hearing on October 19 , or October 26 ?
Would Senate Democrats commit to voting on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if Graham allowed more time ?
The end of the letter shows that they don ’ t actually want to vet Barrett at all , offering a truly breathtaking level of intellectual dishonesty : So none of those issues are the real objection — Feinstein and her colleagues just used them as excuses to demand that Trump leave the seat open .
She might have well added this to the paragraph ( NSFW ) : Let ’ s take the process argument up again , however , in light of Democrats ’ behavior @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats had three months to prepare for Kavanaugh ’ s confirmation , which Feinstein used to leak an unsubstantiated accusation of an assault at a teen-age party from decades earlier that not even the accuser ’ s cited witnesses would back up .
Senate Democrats then successfully delayed the process even further so that they could drum up even more unsubstantiated accusations , boosted by Trump-opposing attorneys ( in both the Ramirez and Swetnick cases ) , allowing Senate Democrats to conduct a character assassination on Kavanaugh on national television .
That is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ constitutional role.
” I think we can pardon Graham for not allowing enough time for Senate Democrats to run that playbook against Barrett .

And if you remember what happened to Brett Kavanaugh, ITYD. Ranking Judiciary Committee member Sen. Dianne Feinstein issued an open letter to chair Lindsey Graham last night complaining about the scheduled October 12 confirmation hearing for Amy Coney Barrett. The letter, signed by the other Democrats on the committee, complained that the “abbreviated” schedule was a “sharp departure from past practice and that it would “deprive the American people of a meaningful opportunity to gauge the nominee and her record.”
So how much time does Feinstein need? Three guesses:
Chairman Graham's abbreviated timeline for the confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett undercuts the Senate's ability to fulfill its constitutional advice and consent role. The American public deserves a deliberative, thorough process, and this falls far short. Read our letter: pic.twitter.com/eqkYuANCAw — Senator Dianne Feinstein (@SenFeinstein) October 1, 2020
This letter is a masterpiece of dishonesty. Feinstein et al complain that the short time frame “specifically calls into question the following” processes needed to adequately vet a nominee:
Specifically, the timeline you have set calls into question the following: The FBI’s ability to thoroughly vet the nominee and her background as part of the background investigation (BI) process; The production and review of documents that may bear on the nominee’s fitness for appointment to the Supreme Court; Adequate time to review the nominee’s entire record; Adequate time for questioning the nominee, including through the submission of written Questions for the Record (QFRs).
All of this ignores one key fact, which is this same committee just did this three years ago with Barrett. Senate Democrats conducted a hostile examination in detail of Barrett in her previous confirmation hearing to the appellate court, in part because it was clear that Donald Trump and Republicans considered her a stellar choice for a future Supreme Court nomination. The only period that needs review would be the last three years, which should be rather easy to complete in the next two weeks. Unless Feinstein and her colleagues want to argue that they half-assed their effort in 2017 while putting a Trump appointee on the Seventh Circuit, this time frame should be sufficient for the purposes listed above.
If it’s too tight, how much time do Senate Democrats need to accomplish these tasks? How about a hearing on October 19, or October 26? Would Senate Democrats commit to voting on the nomination in November after the election if Graham allowed more time? The end of the letter shows that they don’t actually want to vet Barrett at all, offering a truly breathtaking level of intellectual dishonesty:
The timeline for consideration of Judge Barrett’s nomination is incompatible with the Senate’s constitutional role. We again urge you to delay consideration of this nomination until after the presidential inauguration.
So none of those issues are the real objection — Feinstein and her colleagues just used them as excuses to demand that Trump leave the seat open. She might have well added this to the paragraph (NSFW):
Let’s take the process argument up again, however, in light of Democrats’ behavior in the last Supreme Court confirmation. Democrats had three months to prepare for Kavanaugh’s confirmation, which Feinstein used to leak an unsubstantiated accusation of an assault at a teen-age party from decades earlier that not even the accuser’s cited witnesses would back up. Senate Democrats then successfully delayed the process even further so that they could drum up even more unsubstantiated accusations, boosted by Trump-opposing attorneys (in both the Ramirez and Swetnick cases), allowing Senate Democrats to conduct a character assassination on Kavanaugh on national television.
That is how Feinstein and her colleagues view their “constitutional role.” I think we can pardon Graham for not allowing enough time for Senate Democrats to run that playbook against Barrett.


hotair--2020-10-01--The Breonna Taylor grand jury recordings will be released sooner than expected

As Ed pointed out yesterday , the potential release of recordings of roughly 20 hours of testimony from the grand jury considering the shooting of Breonna Taylor looked to be in doubt for a while .
Originally scheduled to happen yesterday , Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron asked for another week to get everything in order , calling into question whether he was really ready to go through with this .
The judge hearing the case went with something of a compromise , agreeing to a delay , but only until Friday .
Cameron still sounds like he has his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new deadline .
( NBC News ) Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron has until Friday to release the grand jury proceedings in the Breonna Taylor case after he asked a judge for a one-week extension .
The recording was expected to be released Wednesday after a judge ruled earlier this week for it to be made public .
But Cameron filed a motion with the court saying his office needs more time to “ redact personal identifiers of any named person , and to redact both names and personal identifiers of any private @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the delay is necessary to protect witnesses , “ and in particular private citizens named in the recordings.
” Cameron ’ s stated reason for requesting the delay is a completely valid one .
The proceedings of the grand jury are supposed to be secret to begin with and they are never intended for public consumption .
But if they must be released , the identity of both witnesses who testified and the jurors themselves need to be protected .
Otherwise , future cases will find themselves stymied when fearful witnesses refuse to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ due to worries over their own safety .
But Cameron offered more objections to the order , claiming that the public release of the recordings could “ compromise the ongoing federal investigation ” and potentially poison the jury pool .
Both of those comments leave me wondering if there ’ s more to come that may provide some surprises .
When you look at the initial conclusions of the grand jury as described by Cameron , the situation was presented as being mostly a case of nothing to see here , move along @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officer recklessly shooting into neighboring apartments not covered by the warrant , with no blame assigned for the actual shooting of Breonna Taylor .
But if that ’ s the case , why would the contents of the grand jury recordings endanger the federal investigation ?
If the jury didn ’ t find fault with the actions of the police officers on the night in question , why would Cameron believe that there was anything for the feds to dig up ?
And why would any potential jury pool be poisoned ?
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surely be convicted of reckless endangerment at this point unless something presented to the grand jury calls even that relatively minor offense into question .
The other possibility is more disturbing and it ’ s the one that Ed touched on yesterday .
Cameron has already admitted that he never even asked the jury to consider murder charges against the officers who fired into Taylor ’ s apartment .
But at least one juror appears to disagree with his decision .
If the recordings reveal testimony or other information suggesting that such charges @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disregarded that information , the situation becomes far messier .
From everything we ’ ve heard thus far , that ’ s probably not the case .
The officers executed the no-knock warrant and at least claim that they announced their identity .
One officer was shot in the leg by Taylor ’ s boyfriend and they returned fire .
If it ’ s as simple as that , the jury likely reached the correct conclusion .
Why bring forward a case that the prosecutors are almost certain to lose ?
We ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ questions tomorrow .
But in the meantime , Louisville should brace for more riots and unrest .
I ’ m afraid this ride is far from over .

As Ed pointed out yesterday, the potential release of recordings of roughly 20 hours of testimony from the grand jury considering the shooting of Breonna Taylor looked to be in doubt for a while. Originally scheduled to happen yesterday, Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron asked for another week to get everything in order, calling into question whether he was really ready to go through with this. The judge hearing the case went with something of a compromise, agreeing to a delay, but only until Friday. Cameron still sounds like he has his doubts, but agreed to meet the new deadline. (NBC News)
Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron has until Friday to release the grand jury proceedings in the Breonna Taylor case after he asked a judge for a one-week extension. The recording was expected to be released Wednesday after a judge ruled earlier this week for it to be made public. But Cameron filed a motion with the court saying his office needs more time to “redact personal identifiers of any named person, and to redact both names and personal identifiers of any private citizen.” The attorney general said that the delay is necessary to protect witnesses, “and in particular private citizens named in the recordings.”
Cameron’s stated reason for requesting the delay is a completely valid one. The proceedings of the grand jury are supposed to be secret to begin with and they are never intended for public consumption. But if they must be released, the identity of both witnesses who testified and the jurors themselves need to be protected. Otherwise, future cases will find themselves stymied when fearful witnesses refuse to come forward or jurors decline to participate due to worries over their own safety.
But Cameron offered more objections to the order, claiming that the public release of the recordings could “compromise the ongoing federal investigation” and potentially poison the jury pool. Both of those comments leave me wondering if there’s more to come that may provide some surprises. When you look at the initial conclusions of the grand jury as described by Cameron, the situation was presented as being mostly a case of nothing to see here, move along. The only fault found involved one officer recklessly shooting into neighboring apartments not covered by the warrant, with no blame assigned for the actual shooting of Breonna Taylor.
But if that’s the case, why would the contents of the grand jury recordings endanger the federal investigation? If the jury didn’t find fault with the actions of the police officers on the night in question, why would Cameron believe that there was anything for the feds to dig up? And why would any potential jury pool be poisoned? The one officer who was indicted will almost surely be convicted of reckless endangerment at this point unless something presented to the grand jury calls even that relatively minor offense into question.
The other possibility is more disturbing and it’s the one that Ed touched on yesterday. Cameron has already admitted that he never even asked the jury to consider murder charges against the officers who fired into Taylor’s apartment. But at least one juror appears to disagree with his decision. If the recordings reveal testimony or other information suggesting that such charges may have been justified and Cameron simply disregarded that information, the situation becomes far messier.
From everything we’ve heard thus far, that’s probably not the case. The officers executed the no-knock warrant and at least claim that they announced their identity. One officer was shot in the leg by Taylor’s boyfriend and they returned fire. If it’s as simple as that, the jury likely reached the correct conclusion. Why bring forward a case that the prosecutors are almost certain to lose? We’ll potentially have the answers to those questions tomorrow. But in the meantime, Louisville should brace for more riots and unrest. I’m afraid this ride is far from over.


hotair--2020-09-30--WHO/UN to "probe" widespread sexual abuse in DR Congo

We haven ’ t seen any new stories about widespread sexual abuse and pedophilia accusations against “ relief workers ” from various United Nations agencies in a while now .
Perhaps that ’ s because the entire planet ’ s media has been a bit obsessed with other things of late .
But according to a recent report from the BBC , that doesn ’ t mean that it hasn ’ t been going on .
The World Health Organization , a specialized agency under the umbrella of the UN , has been busy fighting a different sort of viral @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in central Africa for the past two years .
While they ’ ve had some success in treating victims , the current report indicates that far too many of their workers , including some of the doctors , have allegedly been using their assignments as an opportunity to prey on vulnerable women and children .
It ’ s far too reminiscent of the charges previously leveled against the organization which the UN said they would have “ zero tolerance ” of going forward .
The usual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ WHO and other aid agency staff were accused by 50 women in a joint investigation by two news agencies .
Local women were allegedly plied with drinks , “ ambushed ” in hospitals , forced to have sex , and two became pregnant .
The allegations cover the period between 2018 and March this year .
The New Humanitarian news agency and the Thomson Reuters Foundation have carried out an almost year-long investigation .
The investigation turned up fifty women and young girls who accused the WHO/UN staffers of sexual assault and coercion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ones they could convince to come forward with their stories .
One 32-year-old Ebola survivor told reporters of how she was invited by her doctor to come to a hotel for “ counseling.
” She was offered a free soft drink while she waited .
She woke up hours later , naked in a hotel room with physical evidence that she ’ d been raped while unconscious .
Multiple women described how they had applied for jobs with the agencies involved and were told that having sex with the person who interviewed them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Having no other employment opportunities on the horizon , many of them complied .
One simply described a situation where “ the practice of men demanding sex had become so common that it was the only way to get a job.
” Similar stories abound and the number of victims who were too fearful to speak up will likely never be known .
This is all part of a repeating pattern .
As you may recall , previous reports identified well-organized rings of pedophiles who applied for jobs with UN peacekeeping forces @ @ @ @ @ @ @ children.These agencies , primarily working in third world nations , were described as being rife with sexual assault and harassment claims .
Previous investigations found that these international relief charities have an institutionalized pedophilia problem .
Based on the findings of the BBC ’ s investigation , that “ zero tolerance ” policy wasn ’ t worth the paper it was printed on .
And we rarely hear of anyone actually being convicted of a crime in these incidents .
Even in this investigation , all the WHO would say in response was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be held to account and face serious consequences , including immediate dismissal.
” ‘ Immediate dismissal ?
’ How about immediate arrest ?
Surely there ’ s some form of local law enforcement agency or even international enforcement avenue that could deal with these incidents as criminal cases .
If all you do is dismiss them , they ’ re probably just going to apply for jobs with a different “ charitable ” group in a different country and go right back to their old patterns of criminal conduct .
The entire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of days , or at least so it seems at times .
And we ’ ve seen far , far too many of these stories over the years to simply write them off as isolated incidents or bad apples .
Obviously not every doctor , nurse or aid worker who volunteers to go help people in these desperate situations is a monster .
I would hope the majority do it for the right reasons .
But they clearly have many monsters among them and the top leadership at the United Nations is either @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to these horrific abuses of power and authority .

We haven’t seen any new stories about widespread sexual abuse and pedophilia accusations against “relief workers” from various United Nations agencies in a while now. Perhaps that’s because the entire planet’s media has been a bit obsessed with other things of late. But according to a recent report from the BBC, that doesn’t mean that it hasn’t been going on. The World Health Organization, a specialized agency under the umbrella of the UN, has been busy fighting a different sort of viral outbreak, Ebola in this case, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in central Africa for the past two years. While they’ve had some success in treating victims, the current report indicates that far too many of their workers, including some of the doctors, have allegedly been using their assignments as an opportunity to prey on vulnerable women and children. It’s far too reminiscent of the charges previously leveled against the organization which the UN said they would have “zero tolerance” of going forward. The usual reader cautions about disturbing content apply.
WHO and other aid agency staff were accused by 50 women in a joint investigation by two news agencies. Local women were allegedly plied with drinks, “ambushed” in hospitals, forced to have sex, and two became pregnant. The allegations cover the period between 2018 and March this year. The New Humanitarian news agency and the Thomson Reuters Foundation have carried out an almost year-long investigation.
The investigation turned up fifty women and young girls who accused the WHO/UN staffers of sexual assault and coercion. And that’s just the ones they could convince to come forward with their stories. One 32-year-old Ebola survivor told reporters of how she was invited by her doctor to come to a hotel for “counseling.” She was offered a free soft drink while she waited. She woke up hours later, naked in a hotel room with physical evidence that she’d been raped while unconscious.
Multiple women described how they had applied for jobs with the agencies involved and were told that having sex with the person who interviewed them was part of the conditions of employment. Having no other employment opportunities on the horizon, many of them complied. One simply described a situation where “the practice of men demanding sex had become so common that it was the only way to get a job.” Similar stories abound and the number of victims who were too fearful to speak up will likely never be known.
This is all part of a repeating pattern. As you may recall, previous reports identified well-organized rings of pedophiles who applied for jobs with UN peacekeeping forces or relief agencies so they could molest children.These agencies, primarily working in third world nations, were described as being rife with sexual assault and harassment claims. Previous investigations found that these international relief charities have an institutionalized pedophilia problem.
Based on the findings of the BBC’s investigation, that “zero tolerance” policy wasn’t worth the paper it was printed on. And we rarely hear of anyone actually being convicted of a crime in these incidents. Even in this investigation, all the WHO would say in response was that anyone found to be involved “will be held to account and face serious consequences, including immediate dismissal.”
‘Immediate dismissal?’ How about immediate arrest? Surely there’s some form of local law enforcement agency or even international enforcement avenue that could deal with these incidents as criminal cases. If all you do is dismiss them, they’re probably just going to apply for jobs with a different “charitable” group in a different country and go right back to their old patterns of criminal conduct.
The entire UN is a mess on the best of days, or at least so it seems at times. And we’ve seen far, far too many of these stories over the years to simply write them off as isolated incidents or bad apples. Obviously not every doctor, nurse or aid worker who volunteers to go help people in these desperate situations is a monster. I would hope the majority do it for the right reasons. But they clearly have many monsters among them and the top leadership at the United Nations is either unwilling or unable to put an end to these horrific abuses of power and authority.