hotair--2020-10-27--Cancel culture needs a 'path to redemption' says...Sarah Silverman? (Bari Weiss agrees)

Last Friday , comedian Sarah Silverman posted a portion of one of her podcasts on Twitter in which she offered an opinion about cancel culture .
Her take is that the problem with cancel culture is that it lacks a path to redemption for the accused : “ In this cancel culture , and we all know what I ’ m talking about , whether you think there is one or there isn ’ t one or where you stand on it , and there ’ s a lot of gray matter there , but without a path to redemption @ @ @ @ @ @ @ found a tweet they wrote seven years ago or a thing that they said , and you expose it and you say , this person should be no more , banish them forever , ” Silverman said .
“ They ’ re going to find someplace where they are accepted and it ’ s not going to be with progressives , which ironically means to be changed , progress.
” … “ If we don ’ t give these people a path to redemption , then they ’ re going to go where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mother—–g dark side , ” she said .
“ I think there should be some kind of path .
Do we want people to be changed ?
Or do we want them to stay the same to freeze in a moment we found on internet from 12 years ago ?
” One reason Silverman isn ’ t eager to join the woke on their crusade to silence everyone that offends them is that she ’ s been on the receiving end of this before .
Last year she was fired from a film @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she wore blackface circulated .
At the time she called it “ righteousness porn.
” “ I think it ’ s really scary and it ’ s a very odd thing that it ’ s invaded the left primarily and the right will mimic it , ” adding that she dubs it “ righteousness porn ” .
“ It ’ s like , if you ’ re not on board , if you say the wrong thing , if you had a tweet once , everyone is , like , throwing the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s so odd .
It ’ s a perversion .
It ’ s really , ‘ Look how righteous I am and now I ’ m going to press refresh all day long to see how many likes I get in my righteousness.
’ ” One reason Silverman ’ s comments are circulating widely today is that they became fodder for a segment on the view featuring Bari Weiss .
Weiss pointed out that it ’ s not just celebrities who get “ cancelled ” and mostly recover .
There are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t have the ability to fight back .
She offered the example of Emmanuel Cafferty , who is Mexican-American , was fired from his job at San Diego Gas and Electric after a protester took a photo and alleged he was making a white supremacist hand sign .
“ I just think that is wrong and it is deeply un-American , ” Weiss said .
Co-host Sunny Hostin completely ignored the story about Emmanual Cafferty and claimed cancel culture was really just holding people accountable for bad behavior .
“ Rather than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ call it consequence culture , ” she said .
Wow , I am so tired of this stupid talking point from people who fully expect to always be on the side of the accusers not the accused .
Sara Haines responded by pointing out that consequences are usually supposed to fit the crime at hand but with cancel culture every statement or failure from a decade or more ago is treated as if it were a capital crime .
“ I think there ’ s this unforgiving culture right now that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I think sadly if it were to affect you or someone you love you would expect more grace and nuance but we don ’ t extend that to other people , ” Haines said .
Whoopi Goldberg closed out the segment saying that she knows something about cancel culture because she had been cancelled .
She said it was only because Barbara Walters gave her a shot on the View that she ever had a job again .
“ I ’ m real particular about going after people and cancelling them because sometimes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she said .
The fact that only one person on a show known for leaning left defended this behavior is a hopeful sign .
Maybe the real solution to cancel culture is to have it go after a few more celebrities .
Eventually , after enough of them get hit with this , they ’ ll start defending classical liberalism from the woke extremists hounding everyone online .
Here ’ s the View segment .
Below that is the podcast segment Sarah Silverman posted on Twitter .

Last Friday, comedian Sarah Silverman posted a portion of one of her podcasts on Twitter in which she offered an opinion about cancel culture. Her take is that the problem with cancel culture is that it lacks a path to redemption for the accused:
“In this cancel culture, and we all know what I’m talking about, whether you think there is one or there isn’t one or where you stand on it, and there’s a lot of gray matter there, but without a path to redemption, when you take someone, you found a tweet they wrote seven years ago or a thing that they said, and you expose it and you say, this person should be no more, banish them forever,” Silverman said. “They’re going to find someplace where they are accepted and it’s not going to be with progressives, which ironically means to be changed, progress.”… “If we don’t give these people a path to redemption, then they’re going to go where they are accepted, which is the mother—–g dark side,” she said. “I think there should be some kind of path. Do we want people to be changed? Or do we want them to stay the same to freeze in a moment we found on internet from 12 years ago?”
One reason Silverman isn’t eager to join the woke on their crusade to silence everyone that offends them is that she’s been on the receiving end of this before. Last year she was fired from a film role after a 2008 skit in which she wore blackface circulated. At the time she called it “righteousness porn.”
“I think it’s really scary and it’s a very odd thing that it’s invaded the left primarily and the right will mimic it,” adding that she dubs it “righteousness porn”. “It’s like, if you’re not on board, if you say the wrong thing, if you had a tweet once, everyone is, like, throwing the first stone,” she continued. “It’s so odd. It’s a perversion. It’s really, ‘Look how righteous I am and now I’m going to press refresh all day long to see how many likes I get in my righteousness.’”
One reason Silverman’s comments are circulating widely today is that they became fodder for a segment on the view featuring Bari Weiss. Weiss pointed out that it’s not just celebrities who get “cancelled” and mostly recover. There are other victims of this mindset who don’t have the ability to fight back. She offered the example of Emmanuel Cafferty, who is Mexican-American, was fired from his job at San Diego Gas and Electric after a protester took a photo and alleged he was making a white supremacist hand sign. “I just think that is wrong and it is deeply un-American,” Weiss said.
Co-host Sunny Hostin completely ignored the story about Emmanual Cafferty and claimed cancel culture was really just holding people accountable for bad behavior. “Rather than call it cancel culture, why not call it consequence culture,” she said. Wow, I am so tired of this stupid talking point from people who fully expect to always be on the side of the accusers not the accused.
Sara Haines responded by pointing out that consequences are usually supposed to fit the crime at hand but with cancel culture every statement or failure from a decade or more ago is treated as if it were a capital crime. “I think there’s this unforgiving culture right now that’s become acceptable to mob mentality. And I think sadly if it were to affect you or someone you love you would expect more grace and nuance but we don’t extend that to other people,” Haines said.
Whoopi Goldberg closed out the segment saying that she knows something about cancel culture because she had been cancelled. She said it was only because Barbara Walters gave her a shot on the View that she ever had a job again. “I’m real particular about going after people and cancelling them because sometimes they’re not guilty,” she said.
The fact that only one person on a show known for leaning left defended this behavior is a hopeful sign. Maybe the real solution to cancel culture is to have it go after a few more celebrities. Eventually, after enough of them get hit with this, they’ll start defending classical liberalism from the woke extremists hounding everyone online.
Here’s the View segment. Below that is the podcast segment Sarah Silverman posted on Twitter.


hotair--2020-10-27--Out-of-state donors funded the push for ranked-choice voting in Massachusetts

Next week , voters in Massachusetts will be deciding on more than who the next President will be .
Their ballots will include “ Question 2.
” That ’ s a referendum on whether or not the state will follow in the path of Maine to adopt ranked-choice voting .
One group has been flooding the airwaves and people ’ s mailboxes with promotional material attempting to convince everyone to support this radical change .
The Yes on 2 Committee has been driving this frenzy of advertising and activism and they ’ ve poured a ton of money into it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what should be a very telling detail about this “ movement ” taking place in the Bay State .
Of the nearly ten million dollars that Yes on 2 has spent , nearly all of it came from out of state .
And beyond that , it was largely from a scant handful of very wealthy liberal donors .
The one leading the charge is a Texas billionaire who is a former energy hedge fund manager and Enron trader , named John Arnold .
“ Houston , ” the billionaire wrote of his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the way in bringing it to Texas.
” Eighteen months later , it ’ s voters in Massachusetts and Alaska — not Texas — weighing whether to push into a new frontier of voting this November .
It ’ s also still Arnold helping drive the case for why they should .
Arnold and his wife , Laura , are among a network of wealthy out-of-state donors helping fuel ranked-choice voting ballot initiatives in Massachusetts and beyond , by seeding local committees with millions of dollars and , in the Arnolds ’ case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s potential impact .
When we talk about the influence of “ out of state money ” in local races , referendums , etc.
, we ’ re usually cherry-picking some wealthy activists or dubious organizations who kick in as part of some broader push in support of a given candidate or issue .
But when it comes to the ranked-choice voting question in Massachusetts , that ’ s not the case at all .
This isn ’ t some local , grassroots effort getting a “ boost ” from the outside .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ballot referendum came from the Yes on 2 Committee .
It ’ s added up to $ 9.8 million .
Of that total , $ 3.4 million came from the Arnolds and their lobbying group created specifically to do this .
One of Rupert Murdoch ’ s daughters-in-law , Kathryn , kicked in another $ 2.5 million in just the past month .
Her Unite America group put in another $ 445,000 .
Of that $ 9.8 million dollar total , only 19 sources , the majority of which are from outside Massachusetts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Of the remaining $ 600K that actually came from within the state , $ 450,000 came from Michael Porter , a Harvard University professor .
In other words , of the nearly ten million dollars that ’ s been spent trying to cajole Massachusetts voters to accept this ranked-choice voting scheme , only $ 150,000 of it might potentially have come from random state residents who actually think it ’ s a good idea .
And the vast , vast majority of it came from a handful of activists that don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is playing out in Alaska , where a similar measure is on the ballot .
And in that state , it ’ s the same list of names I provided above flooding virtually all of the money into this effort .
Shouldn ’ t that be telling the voters something ?
How good of an idea is this for Massachusetts if , even after all of this media saturation , almost nobody in the state is willing to donate to the cause and they have to bring in all their money from these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the opposition to a ballot referendum like this doesn ’ t exactly excite enough people to go out and fight against it with equal intensity .
So many of the voters will go to the polls only knowing the sunny spin that these interlopers have put on the story .
Ranked-choice voting in Maine already overturned one congressional race during the first time it was used .
You won ’ t be surprised to learn that a Republican incumbent who garnered the most votes on election day wound up having his admittedly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ began turning over nearly all of the votes for the more wacky third party candidates to his Democratic opponent .
And the reality of ranked-choice voting is that every one of those people who voted for the non-viable candidates was allowed to vote twice .
Or even three times .
Their initial votes were tossed out until their final choice for a viable candidate was entered .
None of the people who voted for the viable candidates was given the option of changing their vote .
This system stinks on ice .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as wish to .
The public decides who is or isn ’ t a strong candidate .
Then we hold an election and the person with the most votes is supposed to win .
If there ’ s any sort of “ do-over , ” it should be a runoff where everyone has the chance to vote a second time .
But thanks to massive infusions of outside money , both Massachusetts and Alaska may soon follow Maine down this dangerous and frankly undemocratic path .

Next week, voters in Massachusetts will be deciding on more than who the next President will be. Their ballots will include “Question 2.” That’s a referendum on whether or not the state will follow in the path of Maine to adopt ranked-choice voting. One group has been flooding the airwaves and people’s mailboxes with promotional material attempting to convince everyone to support this radical change. The Yes on 2 Committee has been driving this frenzy of advertising and activism and they’ve poured a ton of money into it. But the Boston Globe has revealed what should be a very telling detail about this “movement” taking place in the Bay State. Of the nearly ten million dollars that Yes on 2 has spent, nearly all of it came from out of state. And beyond that, it was largely from a scant handful of very wealthy liberal donors. The one leading the charge is a Texas billionaire who is a former energy hedge fund manager and Enron trader, named John Arnold.
“Houston,” the billionaire wrote of his hometown, “should aim to lead the way in bringing it to Texas.” Eighteen months later, it’s voters in Massachusetts and Alaska — not Texas — weighing whether to push into a new frontier of voting this November. It’s also still Arnold helping drive the case for why they should. Arnold and his wife, Laura, are among a network of wealthy out-of-state donors helping fuel ranked-choice voting ballot initiatives in Massachusetts and beyond, by seeding local committees with millions of dollars and, in the Arnolds’ case, buttressing research on the system’s potential impact.
When we talk about the influence of “out of state money” in local races, referendums, etc., we’re usually cherry-picking some wealthy activists or dubious organizations who kick in as part of some broader push in support of a given candidate or issue. But when it comes to the ranked-choice voting question in Massachusetts, that’s not the case at all. This isn’t some local, grassroots effort getting a “boost” from the outside.
Virtually all of the advertising for this ballot referendum came from the Yes on 2 Committee. It’s added up to $9.8 million. Of that total, $3.4 million came from the Arnolds and their lobbying group created specifically to do this. One of Rupert Murdoch’s daughters-in-law, Kathryn, kicked in another $2.5 million in just the past month. Her Unite America group put in another $445,000. Of that $9.8 million dollar total, only 19 sources, the majority of which are from outside Massachusetts, accounted for $9.2 million. Of the remaining $600K that actually came from within the state, $450,000 came from Michael Porter, a Harvard University professor.
In other words, of the nearly ten million dollars that’s been spent trying to cajole Massachusetts voters to accept this ranked-choice voting scheme, only $150,000 of it might potentially have come from random state residents who actually think it’s a good idea. And the vast, vast majority of it came from a handful of activists that don’t even live there. The same situation is playing out in Alaska, where a similar measure is on the ballot. And in that state, it’s the same list of names I provided above flooding virtually all of the money into this effort.
Shouldn’t that be telling the voters something? How good of an idea is this for Massachusetts if, even after all of this media saturation, almost nobody in the state is willing to donate to the cause and they have to bring in all their money from these other people? The obvious problem is that the opposition to a ballot referendum like this doesn’t exactly excite enough people to go out and fight against it with equal intensity. So many of the voters will go to the polls only knowing the sunny spin that these interlopers have put on the story.
Ranked-choice voting in Maine already overturned one congressional race during the first time it was used. You won’t be surprised to learn that a Republican incumbent who garnered the most votes on election day wound up having his admittedly narrow victory stolen when the new system began turning over nearly all of the votes for the more wacky third party candidates to his Democratic opponent. And the reality of ranked-choice voting is that every one of those people who voted for the non-viable candidates was allowed to vote twice. Or even three times. Their initial votes were tossed out until their final choice for a viable candidate was entered. None of the people who voted for the viable candidates was given the option of changing their vote.
This system stinks on ice. As many people can run for any office as wish to. The public decides who is or isn’t a strong candidate. Then we hold an election and the person with the most votes is supposed to win. If there’s any sort of “do-over,” it should be a runoff where everyone has the chance to vote a second time. But thanks to massive infusions of outside money, both Massachusetts and Alaska may soon follow Maine down this dangerous and frankly undemocratic path.


hotair--2020-10-27--Today's hot topics on #TEMS: SCOTUS at nine, Senate on the line, Erdogan crosses the line, economy h

Today's hot topics on #TEMS: SCOTUS at nine, Senate on the line, Erdogan crosses the line, economy high sign, and more!

Today on The Ed Morrissey Show ( 4 pm ET ) , we have another great lineup for the news of the day !
The show will be streamed on Hot Air ’ s Facebook page and embedded here and on the show page for those who are not on Facebook .
Join us as we welcome : • Andrew Malcolm joins us for Tuesdays with Andrew !
The Prince of Twitter and I will discuss all of the hot political stories of the day .
What will happen to the Senate next week ?
What will happen to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
• Jeff Dunetz joins us to discuss the meeting of the World Zionist Congress , plus the positive signs at the border with the new wall construction in western Arizona .
• King Banaian of St .
Cloud State University joins us again to discuss the latest in the Caucasus , especially the bizarre behavior of Erogan in Turkey .
We ’ ll also break down the latest durable-goods report and take a look at the prognosis for the economy after the election .
The Ed Morrissey Show and its dynamic chatroom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ page .
Be sure to join us , and don ’ t forget to keep up with the debate on my Facebook page , too !
How can Republicans and conservatives keep the momentum going ?
Find out in GOING RED , published in April from Crown Forum !

Today on The Ed Morrissey Show (4 pm ET), we have another great lineup for the news of the day! The show will be streamed on Hot Air’s Facebook page and embedded here and on the show page for those who are not on Facebook.
Join us as we welcome:
Andrew Malcolm joins us for Tuesdays with Andrew! The Prince of Twitter and I will discuss all of the hot political stories of the day. What will happen to the Senate next week? What will happen to the polling and the media coverage this week?
Jeff Dunetz joins us to discuss the meeting of the World Zionist Congress, plus the positive signs at the border with the new wall construction in western Arizona.
King Banaian of St. Cloud State University joins us again to discuss the latest in the Caucasus, especially the bizarre behavior of Erogan in Turkey. We’ll also break down the latest durable-goods report and take a look at the prognosis for the economy after the election.
The Ed Morrissey Show and its dynamic chatroom can be seen on the permanent TEMS page. Be sure to join us, and don’t forget to keep up with the debate on my Facebook page, too!
How can Republicans and conservatives keep the momentum going? Find out in GOING RED, published in April from Crown Forum!


hotair--2020-10-27--Breonna Taylor grand jurors: Kentucky AG lied, police officers were "criminal" in raid

We knew this would get ugly for Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron and for the Louisville PD , and now the bill is coming due for both .
Grand jurors sued for the right to speak publicly about their deliberations after Cameron declared that they had agreed that no charges except reckless endangerment were warranted in the Breonna Taylor killing .
CBS News teased an interview with two of the grand jurors that will air tomorrow morning , both of whom angrily dispute that characterization .
They both claim that the AG ’ s office denied them the opportunity to consider @ @ @ @ @ @ @ declares that police acted in a “ criminal ” fashion in the raid : Both grand jurors told the station they believed cops were at fault in the raid that led to Taylor ’ s death in a barrage of police bullets .
“ Negligent , ” said one of the men , identified by the station as Juror No .
1 .
“ They couldn ’ t even provide a risk assessment , and it sounded like they hadn ’ t done one .
So , their organization leading up to this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I mean by they were negligent in the operations.
” Juror No .
2 told co-host Gayle King that he believed the actions of the three cops — Sgt .
Jonathan Mattingly , Det .
Myles Cosgrove , and since-fired Det .
Brett Hankison — were “ criminal.
” “ They were criminal leading up to this , ” he said .
“ The way they moved forward on it , including the warrant , was deception.
” After Cameron ’ s initial press conference on September 23 , two of the grand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lift the secrecy of their deliberations .
The clear implication was that Cameron misled the public in his characterization of the decision .
By the end of the month , Cameron reversed himself and admitted that the grand jury did not have the carte blanche he declared on a whole range of potential charges .
Instead , Cameron ’ s office had limited the grand jury to just the endangerment charge , which meant that jurors felt confined to that narrow issue .
That is certainly within the purview of prosecutors .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to only those charges on which they feel confident of securing a conviction .
That ’ s arguably a smarter approach than a carte blanche in a highly emotional and political pressure cooker .
However , that should have been Cameron ’ s initial explanation .
Instead , he squandered his credibility by either exaggerating or flat-out lying about how his office approached the case , which makes it look like the AG ’ s office was relying on grand-jury secrecy to cover up for the Louisville PD .
From the facts of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might have been the right call anyway .
If Kenneth Walker shot at them , then police had the right to defend themselves .
Now , however , who will trust Cameron ’ s exercise of discretion ?
One more interesting point : so far , it appears that only these two jurors have a public beef with Cameron and the police department .
Will we hear the same complaints from other grand jurors ?
Or were these the only two that were offended by Cameron and what happened in this case ?

We knew this would get ugly for Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron and for the Louisville PD, and now the bill is coming due for both. Grand jurors sued for the right to speak publicly about their deliberations after Cameron declared that they had agreed that no charges except reckless endangerment were warranted in the Breonna Taylor killing. CBS News teased an interview with two of the grand jurors that will air tomorrow morning, both of whom angrily dispute that characterization. They both claim that the AG’s office denied them the opportunity to consider other charges.
One of the two declares that police acted in a “criminal” fashion in the raid:
Both grand jurors told the station they believed cops were at fault in the raid that led to Taylor’s death in a barrage of police bullets. “Negligent,” said one of the men, identified by the station as Juror No. 1. “They couldn’t even provide a risk assessment, and it sounded like they hadn’t done one. So, their organization leading up to this was lacking. That’s what I mean by they were negligent in the operations.” Juror No. 2 told co-host Gayle King that he believed the actions of the three cops — Sgt. Jonathan Mattingly, Det. Myles Cosgrove, and since-fired Det. Brett Hankison — were “criminal.” “They were criminal leading up to this,” he said. “The way they moved forward on it, including the warrant, was deception.”
After Cameron’s initial press conference on September 23, two of the grand jurors went to court to ask to lift the secrecy of their deliberations. The clear implication was that Cameron misled the public in his characterization of the decision. By the end of the month, Cameron reversed himself and admitted that the grand jury did not have the carte blanche he declared on a whole range of potential charges. Instead, Cameron’s office had limited the grand jury to just the endangerment charge, which meant that jurors felt confined to that narrow issue.
That is certainly within the purview of prosecutors. They have the discretion to limit grand-jury presentations to only those charges on which they feel confident of securing a conviction. That’s arguably a smarter approach than a carte blanche in a highly emotional and political pressure cooker. However, that should have been Cameron’s initial explanation. Instead, he squandered his credibility by either exaggerating or flat-out lying about how his office approached the case, which makes it look like the AG’s office was relying on grand-jury secrecy to cover up for the Louisville PD.
From the facts of the case known so far, this might have been the right call anyway. If Kenneth Walker shot at them, then police had the right to defend themselves. Now, however, who will trust Cameron’s exercise of discretion?
One more interesting point: so far, it appears that only these two jurors have a public beef with Cameron and the police department. Will we hear the same complaints from other grand jurors? Or were these the only two that were offended by Cameron and what happened in this case?


hotair--2020-10-27--Orange County's Silverado Fire expands to 11,000 acres

Yesterday the wildfire known as the Silverado Fire in Orange County , California expanded from a few acres early in the morning to about 4,000 acres as of 1 pm local time .
Since then the fire has continued to grow and has now consumed more than 11,000 acres .
Here ’ s what the line of flame looked like last night : One of my close friends lives less than a mile from the evacuation zone and told me all he heard all day yesterday was the sirens of emergency vehicles .
This morning the Orange County Fire Authority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Silverado Fire : That tweets puts the number of people being evacuated at 76,000 ( up from 60,000 yesterday ) but news reports put the number at 90,000 .
Soon after it started , the Silverado prompted orders by officials for residents of Orchard Hills to leave their homes .
By the end of the day more than 90,000 residents in Irvine and more in Lake Forest were under evacuation orders .
On Tuesday morning , authorities said , Silverado , Modjeska and Trabuco canyons along Live Oak Canyon Road were under evacuation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also warned that residents there may need to evacuate .
Two firefighters were gravely injured yesterday while fighting the fire , suffering severe burns .
Their names have not been released yet but their ages are 26 and 31 : In addition to the Silverado Fire , there is a second fire expanding just north in Yorba Linda .
It ’ s been dubbed the Blue Ridge Fire .
It has already consumed 8,000 acres : A fast-moving vegetation fire between Riverside and Orange counties has entered its second day and gobbled up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ homes in Yorba Linda , fire officials said Tuesday morning , Oct. 27 .
So far , firefighters had not contained any of the Blue Ridge fire , which has damaged 10 homes in Yorba Linda , according to the Orange County Fire Authority .
Some images and video of the Blue Ridge Fire starting yesterday : One of the homes burned by the fire yesterday had a Trump 2020 banner out front .
Naturally there are horrible people responding to this on Twitter just as you would expect them to .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s a local news report from this morning showing the strength of the winds driving the flames : And they ’ re still at it today : There could be updates to this post throughout the day .
Hopefully we ’ ll get some news on the two firefighters in the hospital .

Yesterday the wildfire known as the Silverado Fire in Orange County, California expanded from a few acres early in the morning to about 4,000 acres as of 1 pm local time. Since then the fire has continued to grow and has now consumed more than 11,000 acres. Here’s what the line of flame looked like last night:
The #SilveradoFire is burning close to thousands of homes in Orange County and producing smoky skies over SoCal… from #Air7HD @abc7 #abc7eyewitness pic.twitter.com/kxeTmuHR50 — Chris Cristi (@abc7chriscristi) October 27, 2020
One of my close friends lives less than a mile from the evacuation zone and told me all he heard all day yesterday was the sirens of emergency vehicles. This morning the Orange County Fire Authority tweeted out the updated totals for the Silverado Fire:
#SilveradoFire Update:
14 helicopters
11,200 acres
More than 750 firefighters
5% contained
10-15 mph winds with ridge top gusts reaching 35 mph Residents under evacuation order:
70,000 Irvine
6,000 Lake Forest Footage taken at Crean Lutheran HS and La Perla in Foothill Ranch pic.twitter.com/t2SbCvmaSo — OCFA PIO (@OCFA_PIO) October 27, 2020
That tweets puts the number of people being evacuated at 76,000 (up from 60,000 yesterday) but news reports put the number at 90,000.
Soon after it started, the Silverado prompted orders by officials for residents of Orchard Hills to leave their homes. By the end of the day more than 90,000 residents in Irvine and more in Lake Forest were under evacuation orders. On Tuesday morning, authorities said, Silverado, Modjeska and Trabuco canyons along Live Oak Canyon Road were under evacuation warnings. Part of Mission Viejo was also warned that residents there may need to evacuate.
Two firefighters were gravely injured yesterday while fighting the fire, suffering severe burns. Their names have not been released yet but their ages are 26 and 31:
•65% of the first handcrew firefighters body was covered in second and third degree burns. •50% of the second handcrew firefighter’s body is covered with second and third degree burns. #SilveradoFire — OCFA PIO (@OCFA_PIO) October 26, 2020
In addition to the Silverado Fire, there is a second fire expanding just north in Yorba Linda. It’s been dubbed the Blue Ridge Fire. It has already consumed 8,000 acres:
A fast-moving vegetation fire between Riverside and Orange counties has entered its second day and gobbled up 8,000 acres so far as it threatens homes in Yorba Linda, fire officials said Tuesday morning, Oct. 27. So far, firefighters had not contained any of the Blue Ridge fire, which has damaged 10 homes in Yorba Linda, according to the Orange County Fire Authority.
Some images and video of the Blue Ridge Fire starting yesterday:
#BlueRidgeFire is reaching Box Canyon area, my little neighborhood. Pls send prayers for all of Yorba Linda. It’s going to be a critical few hours ahead of us to see where the wind takes this fire. Thankful for all the firefighters working tirelessly to battle Mother Nature. pic.twitter.com/VBLqoizJoH — d$ (@devonmorones) October 27, 2020
Incredible video of a fire retardant drop from a large plane:
Slightly more activity at our house today than expected. But I cannot thank you enough to the local fire that has come from land and air to fight this. 🙏🏼 This video capture from our yard by a fire fighter. 💪🏻 #BlueRidgeFire pic.twitter.com/blhPTj0BYn — Graham Rahal (@GrahamRahal) October 26, 2020
One of the homes burned by the fire yesterday had a Trump 2020 banner out front. Naturally there are horrible people responding to this on Twitter just as you would expect them to.
Flames damage large home at the end of Blue Ridge Dr. in #YorbaLinda but crews were able to save dozens of others as #BlueRidgeFire continues to rage out of control. pic.twitter.com/V2vwASOq1Q — Leanne Suter (@abc7leanne) October 27, 2020
The firefighters kept working all night:
Your Corona Firefighters worked through the night to protect our city from the Blue Ridge Fire. While there is still much work to be done, the efforts of the CFD have resulted in minimal fire activity on the Corona side of the fire with no current threat to our community. pic.twitter.com/0h5fT3v6y1 — Corona Fire Dept #CoronaFire (@CoronaFireDept) October 27, 2020
The Blue Ridge Fire broke out on Monday and quickly grew to more than 3,000 acres, forcing nearly 5,000 evacuations in Southern California https://t.co/nt7OvncW9R pic.twitter.com/W4Wes3Enak — CBS News (@CBSNews) October 27, 2020
Wind driven flames rip thru the brush behind homes in #YorbaLinda .
Firefighters making a stand saving hundreds of homes in the #BlueRidgeFire .
1100 acres charred & counting.
1 structure burned, 0% containment.
Live report 11pm @ABC7 pic.twitter.com/WmnZPTN5mc — Leanne Suter (@abc7leanne) October 27, 2020
Here’s a local news report from this morning showing the strength of the winds driving the flames:
And they’re still at it today:
Crews light a #backfire to burn away fuel near a neighborhood as Blue Ridge Fire burns towards #ChinoHills communities @CBSLA p pic.twitter.com/XwheiQYmyq — Kara Finnstrom (@KaraFinnstrom) October 27, 2020
There could be updates to this post throughout the day. Hopefully we’ll get some news on the two firefighters in the hospital.


hotair--2020-10-27--Hmmm: Does a new COVID-19 study *suggest* immunity only lasts months?

What do you want first — the good news or the ( possible ) bad news ?
We have a mixed bag today on the vaccine front of the COVID-19 pandemic , which are even mixed within themselves .
Let ’ s start with the good news from Pfizer , whose Phase 3 trials of their two-stage vaccine appear to be approaching a successful conclusion .
Their third-quarter report suggests they could apply for an FDA emergency-use authorization as soon as next month : It said nearly 36,000 of the volunteers have already received the second of its two-dose Covid-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alongside German drugmaker BioNTech on the experimental vaccine .
It contains genetic material called messenger RNA , or mRNA , which scientists hope provokes the immune system to fight the virus .
In September , Pfizer expanded the enrollment of its phase three trial to up to 44,000 volunteers from the initial target of up to 30,000 .
The company said the expansion would allow it to further increase diversity in the trial as well as include adolescents as young as 16 years old and people with preexisting conditions .
The phase three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to get the vaccines cleared for distribution .
Three other U.S.-backed candidates are in phase three : Moderna , AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson .
Pfizer expects to apply for an emergency use authorization with the Food and Drug Administration next month .
They ’ re already set to roll out forty million doses , with more on the way : Pfizer , the pharmaceutical giant behind one of the coronavirus vaccine efforts , will be able to provide an initial 40 million doses of its vaccine in the US by the end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tuesday .
Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla revealed the news while speaking to shareholders during a Q3 earnings call , saying he expected to be able to hand them over to the US by the end of the year .
Bourla also noted that new vaccine data was scheduled to come out this Friday , ahead of the Nov. 3 presidential election .
That information , however , will not be released until a week after the company ’ s data and safety monitoring board conducts its review of the drug , according to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ data won ’ t come before the election , but we pretty much knew that already .
Getting it to the FDA by next month would still be great news , considering that the previous record for developing an effective vaccine was four years .
The FDA still plans to conduct a rigorous if expedited review , now that the election pressure has faded , but it ’ s still possible that Pfizer could begin distribution within weeks .
That could give a huge boost to efforts to contain a new rise in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and help keep the economic recovery going .
But here ’ s the kinda-sorta-maybe bad news , which might not actually be news at all .
The immunity from vaccines might only provide a safety window of a few months , a study in the UK suggests .
Post-infection antibody levels begin declining at that point , although no one is yet sure what that means : British scientists have found that the number of people testing positive for antibodies has fallen by 26 percent over three months , raising questions about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ data from the REACT2 study , published Tuesday , showed that in a random sample of more than 365,000 adults in the U.K. from June to September , the presence of antibodies fell for all age groups .
It fell from 6 percent to 4.4 percent over that time .
“ We know seasonal colds can reinfect people every six months , ” said Wendy Barclay , head of infectious disease department at Imperial College London , in a video call with journalists Monday .
She added that COVID-19 shows a similar profile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yet know what level of antibody is needed in a person ’ s blood to prevent reinfection , ” said Barclay .
This was “ critical to understand , ” since vaccines were being developed to generate an immune response , she added .
That is a critical problem with this report .
A 4.4 % level might end up being the baseline and still effective against re-infection .
The rarity of re-infections at this point — now eight months into the global pandemic — suggests that whatever levels of antibodies get produced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for almost everyone who had an exposure before .
How long that continues , and whether that baseline will continue to decline after several months or years , has yet to be determined .
Columbia University virologist and Forbes contributor Angela Rasmussen points out that a decrease to a baseline is actually normal , and doesn ’ t necessarily impact immunity .
Rasmussen explained the murky implications of this study in a Twitter thread : Note Rasmussen ’ s emphasis on natural herd immunity , which is accomplished by unchecked spread of an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ herd immunity by defeating the antigen before it can start acute cases and spread further .
Either way , we get to “ herd immunity , ” but mitigation and vaccination allow us to do so in the most rational and least traumatic manner possible .
And point 3 explains the rare reinfections that we have seen , which means immunity after infection seems to be lasting a while longer than this study ’ s toplines would lead laypeople to believe .
Even if it only lasts a few months , however , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ news as well .
First , the bodies of those exposed/infected by COVID-19 will likely still have enough resistance to render future reinfections much less harmful , as happened with influenza after its eruption a century ago .
We get annual vaccines to boost that mitigation , if not to avoid acute cases altogether .
Second , if we get vaccines widely and rapidly distributed , it ’ s possible that we can kill transmission of COVID-19 through rapidly acquired herd immunity via that vaccination , plus the social distancing and mask-wearing behaviors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wipe it out altogether , although vaccinations would likely continue for safety , especially among higher-risk populations .
Permanent immunity is the best possible scenario , of course .
We may still find that permanent immunity is achievable for all but a handful of exceptions .
But even if we fall short of that , the vaccines will have a huge impact , and we are way ahead of that cycle .
And that ’ s good news indeed .

What do you want first — the good news or the (possible) bad news? We have a mixed bag today on the vaccine front of the COVID-19 pandemic, which are even mixed within themselves. Let’s start with the good news from Pfizer, whose Phase 3 trials of their two-stage vaccine appear to be approaching a successful conclusion. Their third-quarter report suggests they could apply for an FDA emergency-use authorization as soon as next month:
It said nearly 36,000 of the volunteers have already received the second of its two-dose Covid-19 vaccine. Pfizer has as been working alongside German drugmaker BioNTech on the experimental vaccine. It contains genetic material called messenger RNA, or mRNA, which scientists hope provokes the immune system to fight the virus. In September, Pfizer expanded the enrollment of its phase three trial to up to 44,000 volunteers from the initial target of up to 30,000. The company said the expansion would allow it to further increase diversity in the trial as well as include adolescents as young as 16 years old and people with preexisting conditions. The phase three trials are a critical last step needed to get the vaccines cleared for distribution. Three other U.S.-backed candidates are in phase three: Moderna, AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson. Pfizer expects to apply for an emergency use authorization with the Food and Drug Administration next month.
They’re already set to roll out forty million doses, with more on the way:
Pfizer, the pharmaceutical giant behind one of the coronavirus vaccine efforts, will be able to provide an initial 40 million doses of its vaccine in the US by the end of this year, its CEO said Tuesday. Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla revealed the news while speaking to shareholders during a Q3 earnings call, saying he expected to be able to hand them over to the US by the end of the year. Bourla also noted that new vaccine data was scheduled to come out this Friday, ahead of the Nov. 3 presidential election. That information, however, will not be released until a week after the company’s data and safety monitoring board conducts its review of the drug, according to CNBC.
Pfizer said that the vaccine data won’t come before the election, but we pretty much knew that already. Getting it to the FDA by next month would still be great news, considering that the previous record for developing an effective vaccine was four years. The FDA still plans to conduct a rigorous if expedited review, now that the election pressure has faded, but it’s still possible that Pfizer could begin distribution within weeks. That could give a huge boost to efforts to contain a new rise in transmissions, both here and in Europe, and help keep the economic recovery going.
But here’s the kinda-sorta-maybe bad news, which might not actually be news at all. The immunity from vaccines might only provide a safety window of a few months, a study in the UK suggests. Post-infection antibody levels begin declining at that point, although no one is yet sure what that means:
British scientists have found that the number of people testing positive for antibodies has fallen by 26 percent over three months, raising questions about long-term protection from the virus. Latest data from the REACT2 study, published Tuesday, showed that in a random sample of more than 365,000 adults in the U.K. from June to September, the presence of antibodies fell for all age groups. It fell from 6 percent to 4.4 percent over that time. “We know seasonal colds can reinfect people every six months,” said Wendy Barclay, head of infectious disease department at Imperial College London, in a video call with journalists Monday. She added that COVID-19 shows a similar profile. … “We don’t yet know what level of antibody is needed in a person’s blood to prevent reinfection,” said Barclay. This was “critical to understand,” since vaccines were being developed to generate an immune response, she added.
That is a critical problem with this report. A 4.4% level might end up being the baseline and still effective against re-infection. The rarity of re-infections at this point — now eight months into the global pandemic — suggests that whatever levels of antibodies get produced after this drop-off are sufficient for resistance for almost everyone who had an exposure before. How long that continues, and whether that baseline will continue to decline after several months or years, has yet to be determined.
Columbia University virologist and Forbes contributor Angela Rasmussen points out that a decrease to a baseline is actually normal, and doesn’t necessarily impact immunity. Rasmussen explained the murky implications of this study in a Twitter thread:
1. Antibodies drop to baseline titers that are undetectable by commonly used serology assays. There are still low levels of antibody as well as memory B cells that can rapidly produce more antibody in the event of re-exposure (anamnestic response). This is not "waning immunity" — Dr. Angela Rasmussen (@angie_rasmussen) October 27, 2020
3. Some people (possibly with mild infection) do not have long-lasting antibodies for whatever reason. They do not have sufficient memory B cells to mount an effective anamnestic response. This is "waning immunity" — Dr. Angela Rasmussen (@angie_rasmussen) October 27, 2020
However, this should underscore the fact that "natural herd immunity" is not the way to go. There are too many unknowns to choose this as a safer, easier path to population immunity vs a vaccine that undergoes rigorous evaluation in controlled trials. — Dr. Angela Rasmussen (@angie_rasmussen) October 27, 2020
Note Rasmussen’s emphasis on natural herd immunity, which is accomplished by unchecked spread of an antigen. A vaccine provides an expedited herd immunity by defeating the antigen before it can start acute cases and spread further. Either way, we get to “herd immunity,” but mitigation and vaccination allow us to do so in the most rational and least traumatic manner possible. And point 3 explains the rare reinfections that we have seen, which means immunity after infection seems to be lasting a while longer than this study’s toplines would lead laypeople to believe.
Even if it only lasts a few months, however, there are two silver linings to that news as well. First, the bodies of those exposed/infected by COVID-19 will likely still have enough resistance to render future reinfections much less harmful, as happened with influenza after its eruption a century ago. We get annual vaccines to boost that mitigation, if not to avoid acute cases altogether. Second, if we get vaccines widely and rapidly distributed, it’s possible that we can kill transmission of COVID-19 through rapidly acquired herd immunity via that vaccination, plus the social distancing and mask-wearing behaviors we are currently using. That might wipe it out altogether, although vaccinations would likely continue for safety, especially among higher-risk populations.
Permanent immunity is the best possible scenario, of course. We may still find that permanent immunity is achievable for all but a handful of exceptions. But even if we fall short of that, the vaccines will have a huge impact, and we are way ahead of that cycle. And that’s good news indeed.


hotair--2020-10-27--Should Barrett have declined the White House swearing-in?

There are three objections to last night ’ s festivities being made today , one of which is silly , another of which is weak if not quite silly , and the last of which is more compelling .
The silly one : White House ceremonies for newly appointed justices are bad in principle .
It ’ s foolish for officials who are supposed to be nonpartisan and independent to let themselves be used as props by political actors like the president at political events .
I ’ m sympathetic to that point in the abstract , but , ah @ @ @ @ @ @ @ game to worry about it now .
Showing off new SCOTUS appointees isn ’ t a Trump thing .
It ’ s a president thing : Read Dan ’ s thread and you ’ ll find links to White House ceremonies for various recently appointed justices , Republican and Democrat .
If your problem with the Barrett ceremony is that judges should be above this sort of stuff , you ’ re setting a special standard for Trump nominees that their predecessors weren ’ t held to .
The weak but not totally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ newly appointed justices are okay in principle but not this close to an election .
The circumstances in which Barrett is joining the Court are highly unusual , a matter of 40 days from the vacancy opening to her filling the seat in order to deny Democrats the chance to argue that they should make the appointment if they win big next week .
Because the electoral context looms so heavily in her case , she should have politely declined Trump ’ s invitation and opted for a low-key swearing-in at the Supreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a justice do a White House event during a campaign , particularly the home stretch of a campaign , is a bit queasier than usual .
But there ’ s no reason to believe Barrett will be more or less likely to rule in Trump ’ s favor in a case involving the election because of the timing of her appointment than Gorsuch or Kavanaugh .
Everyone on the Court has had their star turn at the White House after being confirmed ; every one of them has certain partisan inclinations .
Are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ votes against Trump any less assured because they did the buddy-buddy thing with Joe Biden ’ s former boss at the White House years ago instead of more recently ?
The timing argument is underwhelming .
The more compelling one : White House ceremonies for newly appointed justice are okay in principle , even close to an election , but not when the president has gone out of his way to undermine perceptions of the appointee ’ s independence .
Let ’ s go back to September 23 , days after Ruth Bader @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scrambling to make the case that the seat needed to be filled before the election .
And , as usual , he wasn ’ t subtle about his motivations : “ I think this will end up in the Supreme Court .
And I think it ’ s very important we have nine justices , ” Mr. Trump said Wednesday , speaking to state attorneys general and reporters about the November race during a meeting on social media… “ But I think it ’ s better if you go before the election because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Democrats are pulling — it ’ s a scam , the scam will be before the United States Supreme Court , ” the president continued .
“ And I think having a 4-4 situation is not a good situation , if you get that .
I don ’ t know that you ’ d get that .
I think it should be 8-nothing or 9-nothing .
But just in case it would be more political than it should be , I think it ’ s very important to have a ninth judge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you didn ’ t know anything about him , you might read that and think , “ Well , all he wants from the Court is certainty .
The country can ’ t tolerate a deadlocked SCOTUS being forced to defer to a lower court .
We need clarity in a case that would decide the presidency.
” But we do know things about Trump .
We know how he craves loyalty from his deputies and appointees .
He allegedly demanded loyalty from James Comey at their private dinner soon after taking office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gorsuch ’ s show of disloyalty during his confirmation hearing when Gorsuch obliquely criticized Trump ’ s comments about judicial partisanship .
Jeff Sessions ’ s refusal to show loyalty by retaining control of the Russiagate probe earned such intense and abiding hatred from Trump that the president told donors recently that he might have endorsed Democrat Doug Jones if Sessions had won the Republican Senate primary this summer .
Sources are whispering to Axios this week that cabinet officials ranging from Chris Wray to Mark Esper to Gina Haspel are all on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , all for essentially the same sin — disloyalty .
It ’ s a specific kind of disloyalty too , the disloyalty they ’ ve displayed by not using their official powers as public servants to damage Trump ’ s political enemies when they had the chance .
The creepiest thing about Trump as president , light years worse than the tweets or his kinship with international autocrats , is that he ’ s never recognized a distinction between his public office and his personal interests .
That ’ s the whole Ukraine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s also why he feels no compunction about using the official presidential residence for partisan events like the Republican convention or that de facto rally he held after recovering from COVID even though both were nakedly flagrant violations of traditional norms .
In his view , all of the trappings of his office , including the people who work for him , are perks he gets to use as needed to advance his partisan or personal goals .
That ’ s the dynamic Barrett walked into last night by agreeing to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who very publicly expects “ loyalty ” from people who owe their jobs to him , including administrators of justice like Wray and Sessions and Bill Barr , who ’ s spent every day for months trying to convince the public that if he loses next week it can only have been due to fraud , who ’ s been telling the media that he needs Barrett on the Court as a swing vote to decide who gets to be president next year , wanted to show her off to his base as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” And she went along .
He even posted a quasi-campaign ad of the moment : It ’ s the White House logo , not the Trump campaign logo , that appears at the end .
But as I ’ ve just reminded you , Trump sees no distinction between the two .
The obvious reply here is , “ Just because Barrett participated in his pageant doesn ’ t mean that she actually *will* show loyalty by taking his side in an election dispute with Biden .
She ’ s independent now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” That ’ s true , but the optics will add to the political and civic pain if she concludes that Trump really does have the better case on the merits and ends up taking his side .
Democrats will weaponize this footage to “ prove ” that Barrett has been in the tank all along .
Public confidence in the Court will be shaken irrespective of what happened last night but the video will drive it home in a gut way that mere partisan rhetoric couldn ’ t : Look at those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ White House eight days out from the vote .
He demanded loyalty , he told the world what he wanted her to do , and she did it .
Public perceptions of her will never be the same — which is grossly unfair to her , but that ’ s what happens when the president treats it as a selling point that he thinks you ’ ll be a partisan hack in an election case if one comes before you .
No one in America wants a clear result on Tuesday one way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does .

There are three objections to last night’s festivities being made today, one of which is silly, another of which is weak if not quite silly, and the last of which is more compelling.
The silly one: White House ceremonies for newly appointed justices are bad in principle. It’s foolish for officials who are supposed to be nonpartisan and independent to let themselves be used as props by political actors like the president at political events.
I’m sympathetic to that point in the abstract, but, ah, it’s late in the game to worry about it now. Showing off new SCOTUS appointees isn’t a Trump thing. It’s a president thing:
1. If it was good enough for Ruth Bader Ginsburg & Stephen Breyer at the Clinton White House, & for Sonia Sotomayor & Elena Kagan at the Obama White House, it should be good enough for Amy Coney Barrett at this White House. https://t.co/eNs1SDn2t0 — Dan McLaughlin (@baseballcrank) October 27, 2020
Read Dan’s thread and you’ll find links to White House ceremonies for various recently appointed justices, Republican and Democrat. If your problem with the Barrett ceremony is that judges should be above this sort of stuff, you’re setting a special standard for Trump nominees that their predecessors weren’t held to.
The weak but not totally silly one: White House ceremonies for newly appointed justices are okay in principle but not this close to an election. The circumstances in which Barrett is joining the Court are highly unusual, a matter of 40 days from the vacancy opening to her filling the seat in order to deny Democrats the chance to argue that they should make the appointment if they win big next week. Because the electoral context looms so heavily in her case, she should have politely declined Trump’s invitation and opted for a low-key swearing-in at the Supreme Court instead.
I agree that having a justice do a White House event during a campaign, particularly the home stretch of a campaign, is a bit queasier than usual. But there’s no reason to believe Barrett will be more or less likely to rule in Trump’s favor in a case involving the election because of the timing of her appointment than Gorsuch or Kavanaugh. Everyone on the Court has had their star turn at the White House after being confirmed; every one of them has certain partisan inclinations. Are Sotomayor’s and Kagan’s votes against Trump any less assured because they did the buddy-buddy thing with Joe Biden’s former boss at the White House years ago instead of more recently? The timing argument is underwhelming.
The more compelling one: White House ceremonies for newly appointed justice are okay in principle, even close to an election, but not when the president has gone out of his way to undermine perceptions of the appointee’s independence. Let’s go back to September 23, days after Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away. Trump was already scrambling to make the case that the seat needed to be filled before the election. And, as usual, he wasn’t subtle about his motivations:
“I think this will end up in the Supreme Court. And I think it’s very important we have nine justices,” Mr. Trump said Wednesday, speaking to state attorneys general and reporters about the November race during a meeting on social media… “But I think it’s better if you go before the election because I think this — this scam that the Democrats are pulling — it’s a scam, the scam will be before the United States Supreme Court,” the president continued. “And I think having a 4-4 situation is not a good situation, if you get that. I don’t know that you’d get that. I think it should be 8-nothing or 9-nothing. But just in case it would be more political than it should be, I think it’s very important to have a ninth judge,” Mr. Trump said.
If you didn’t know anything about him, you might read that and think, “Well, all he wants from the Court is certainty. The country can’t tolerate a deadlocked SCOTUS being forced to defer to a lower court. We need clarity in a case that would decide the presidency.”
But we do know things about Trump. We know how he craves loyalty from his deputies and appointees. He allegedly demanded loyalty from James Comey at their private dinner soon after taking office. He was reportedly furious at Neil Gorsuch’s show of disloyalty during his confirmation hearing when Gorsuch obliquely criticized Trump’s comments about judicial partisanship. Jeff Sessions’s refusal to show loyalty by retaining control of the Russiagate probe earned such intense and abiding hatred from Trump that the president told donors recently that he might have endorsed Democrat Doug Jones if Sessions had won the Republican Senate primary this summer. Sources are whispering to Axios this week that cabinet officials ranging from Chris Wray to Mark Esper to Gina Haspel are all on the chopping block if Trump wins reelection, all for essentially the same sin — disloyalty.
It’s a specific kind of disloyalty too, the disloyalty they’ve displayed by not using their official powers as public servants to damage Trump’s political enemies when they had the chance. The creepiest thing about Trump as president, light years worse than the tweets or his kinship with international autocrats, is that he’s never recognized a distinction between his public office and his personal interests. That’s the whole Ukraine impeachment saga in one sentence. It’s also why he feels no compunction about using the official presidential residence for partisan events like the Republican convention or that de facto rally he held after recovering from COVID even though both were nakedly flagrant violations of traditional norms. In his view, all of the trappings of his office, including the people who work for him, are perks he gets to use as needed to advance his partisan or personal goals.
That’s the dynamic Barrett walked into last night by agreeing to do a White House swearing-in. A president who very publicly expects “loyalty” from people who owe their jobs to him, including administrators of justice like Wray and Sessions and Bill Barr, who’s spent every day for months trying to convince the public that if he loses next week it can only have been due to fraud, who’s been telling the media that he needs Barrett on the Court as a swing vote to decide who gets to be president next year, wanted to show her off to his base as his insurance policy against Democratic “cheating.” And she went along. He even posted a quasi-campaign ad of the moment:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1320933522601844738
It’s the White House logo, not the Trump campaign logo, that appears at the end. But as I’ve just reminded you, Trump sees no distinction between the two.
The obvious reply here is, “Just because Barrett participated in his pageant doesn’t mean that she actually *will* show loyalty by taking his side in an election dispute with Biden. She’s independent now, free to vote as she wishes.” That’s true, but the optics will add to the political and civic pain if she concludes that Trump really does have the better case on the merits and ends up taking his side. Democrats will weaponize this footage to “prove” that Barrett has been in the tank all along. Public confidence in the Court will be shaken irrespective of what happened last night but the video will drive it home in a gut way that mere partisan rhetoric couldn’t: Look at those two collaborators having a lovefest at the White House eight days out from the vote. He demanded loyalty, he told the world what he wanted her to do, and she did it. Public perceptions of her will never be the same — which is grossly unfair to her, but that’s what happens when the president treats it as a selling point that he thinks you’ll be a partisan hack in an election case if one comes before you. No one in America wants a clear result on Tuesday one way or another more than Amy Coney Barrett does.


hotair--2020-10-27--NY Times: Seven ways to 'fix the Supreme Court' (Update: Thought experiment)

In response to the confirmation yesterday of Amy Coney Barrett , the NY Times published a multi-part editorial today titled “ How to fix the Supreme Court.
” The paper offers seven separate editorials by different authors only one of which recommends leaving the courts as they are .
The other six pieces recommend different fixes from packing the Supreme Court to creating a term limits for Justices .
Here ’ s a sample of each recommended fix : The way to save the court is to create another one .
The United States should join scores of other nations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ create a specialized court to decide constitutional questions… This court would be made up of judges from other federal courts , selected by the president from a slate generated by a bipartisan commission to create legitimacy and balance .
The judges would serve limited terms , then return to their previous courts .
Staggered terms would guarantee each president several appointments .
The idea here is to simply bypass the existing Supreme Court in favor of one appointed by the next president .
Democrats looking at the national polls right now probably think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The “ bipartisan commission ” would select a slate of judges but the president would actually select from that slate , meaning he or she wouldn ’ t have to pick any but the most partisan judges .
This seems to make the new court more directly partisan than the existing one which at least has justices who have been around a while .
Over all , though , strategic retirements give the justices too much power in picking their own successors , which can lead to a self-perpetuating oligarchy .
The current @ @ @ @ @ @ @ justices are more political actors than judges , which damages the rule of law .
It may even change the way the justices view themselves .
That is why we need to permanently reform the broken process for selecting Supreme Court justices .
My proposal is a constitutional amendment that would create a single 18-year term for each of them .
No other major democracy in the world gives the justices on its highest court life tenure , and nor do 49 of the 50 states .
I think the author has a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when they retire has obviously become political .
As we ’ ve all heard , Justice Ginsburg ’ s dying wish was to not be replaced until after the election .
She clearly hoped a Democrat would win and she could retire assured of a like-minded successor .
That plan didn ’ t work out which is ultimately why the Times is publishing this entire piece .
Term limits would put an end to that sort of thing .
Of course it ’ s not really fair that Democrats only want to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ majority on the Court .
How about we start this next time Democrats hold a majority ?
The certiorari process means that , unlike lower courts that may merely “ call balls and strikes , ” in Justice Roberts ’ s memorable framing , the Supreme Court controls who ’ s at bat .
Through this power , justices can promote their own agendas by choosing cases that operate as tools to bend the law to their preferences .
Taking away this power — to determine the issues it decides and on what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s best option to curb the court ’ s activism , and restore its legitimacy… The court couldn ’ t always do this .
For the first 100-odd years of the Republic , the court had to review every case that litigants appealed .
Only with the Judiciary Act of 1925 did the court begin to exercise vast discretion over its docket .
This author has harsh words for the idea of court packing .
This piece discusses an approach to Supreme Court rulings which attempts to determine which side will suffer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The author argues this is a good , moderate approach and explains the Court ’ s current popularity .
He says threatening to pack the Courts can ensure this trend continues : Liberals say that if Joe Biden wins the election , Democrats should answer by adding justices to the Supreme Court .
Republicans respond with faux outrage that this would politicize the judiciary .
But they have already politicized the judiciary .
The question is whether only one side should play that game .
Besides , not only is enlarging the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ changed seven times over its history .
Adding judges would be a political response to a political act .
But the extremes to which Republicans have been willing to go leave the Democrats no other choice .
Not for revenge or because turnabout is fair play , but as the only way back to a less politicized process .
Not for revenge .
Oh no , dear reader , never that .
You have to appreciate Democrats ’ conviction .
Even when they are contemplating seizing power in bold new ways they still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The pitch here is that the Court is already politicized so why not politicize it more to depoliticize the court over time .
Genius .
The saddest thing about this piece is that I think the author actually believes it .
The vast majority of cases never reach the Supreme Court .
They are resolved in the federal trial courts and federal courts of appeals : The appeals courts alone handle more than 50,000 cases each year .
Since the Supreme Court hears arguments in fewer than 100 cases each year , almost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ final .
Any court reform — indeed , any democracy reform — requires more lower federal courts… A larger roster of lower federal courts would ensure that more cases are resolved by judges who better reflect the democratic values and diversity of our country .
It would also decrease the likelihood of the increasingly conservative lower federal courts significantly altering the law without the kind of public scrutiny that accompanies Supreme Court decisions .
There may be some principle here that people could agree with across party lines , i.e .
there are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than there used to be so having more federal courts makes sense .
However , the author soon makes clear that the goal is to dilute the impact of conservative court appointees .
Again , would the author make the same recommendation if the parties were reversed .
My impression is probably not .
Keep the Courts the Same The final and the most inherently conservative take : For over 150 years , the Supreme Court has consisted of nine justices , a number set by Congress .
This norm of nine is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : the norm against changing the number of justices solely to achieve a partisan or ideological advantage .
Violating this norm is called “ court packing.
” … Once the norm against court packing is gone , there is no limit on how often it will be used by each party when it controls both Congress and the presidency .
If Democrats expand the number of justices in 2021 , Republicans will do the same when they have the power .
There ’ s also a response to the term limits idea : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could really be a conservative motto : “ the reality is that things can quickly get much , much worse.
” If 2020 has taught us anything at all , that should be it .
You can read the full essays for yourself but in the end the real impact of this is that the NY Times is stating as loudly as possible that the Court is broken and therefore some fix is needed .
The only real question is which one .
I don ’ t think anyone believes for a second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if Democrats held a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court .
Once again , Democrats are facing the results of losing an election and once again they declare it illegitimate and want to change the rules .
All of this is an exercise in pure partisanship and should be treated as such .
Update : Guy Benson with the thought experiment which should be asked of everyone currently pushing to fix the Supreme Court : If Trump wins do you still believe this ?

In response to the confirmation yesterday of Amy Coney Barrett, the NY Times published a multi-part editorial today titled “How to fix the Supreme Court.” The paper offers seven separate editorials by different authors only one of which recommends leaving the courts as they are. The other six pieces recommend different fixes from packing the Supreme Court to creating a term limits for Justices. Here’s a sample of each recommended fix:
Create a New Court
The way to save the court is to create another one. The United States should join scores of other nations, including Germany and France, and create a specialized court to decide constitutional questions… This court would be made up of judges from other federal courts, selected by the president from a slate generated by a bipartisan commission to create legitimacy and balance. The judges would serve limited terms, then return to their previous courts. Staggered terms would guarantee each president several appointments.
The idea here is to simply bypass the existing Supreme Court in favor of one appointed by the next president. Democrats looking at the national polls right now probably think that’s a great idea. The “bipartisan commission” would select a slate of judges but the president would actually select from that slate, meaning he or she wouldn’t have to pick any but the most partisan judges. This seems to make the new court more directly partisan than the existing one which at least has justices who have been around a while.
Give Justices Term Limits
Over all, though, strategic retirements give the justices too much power in picking their own successors, which can lead to a self-perpetuating oligarchy. The current system also creates the impression that the justices are more political actors than judges, which damages the rule of law. It may even change the way the justices view themselves. That is why we need to permanently reform the broken process for selecting Supreme Court justices. My proposal is a constitutional amendment that would create a single 18-year term for each of them. No other major democracy in the world gives the justices on its highest court life tenure, and nor do 49 of the 50 states.
I think the author has a point here. Allowing justices to pick when they retire has obviously become political. As we’ve all heard, Justice Ginsburg’s dying wish was to not be replaced until after the election. She clearly hoped a Democrat would win and she could retire assured of a like-minded successor. That plan didn’t work out which is ultimately why the Times is publishing this entire piece. Term limits would put an end to that sort of thing. Of course it’s not really fair that Democrats only want to do this now that conservatives have a 6-3 majority on the Court. How about we start this next time Democrats hold a majority?
Don’t Let the Court Choose It’s Cases
The certiorari process means that, unlike lower courts that may merely “call balls and strikes,” in Justice Roberts’s memorable framing, the Supreme Court controls who’s at bat. Through this power, justices can promote their own agendas by choosing cases that operate as tools to bend the law to their preferences. Taking away this power — to determine the issues it decides and on what terms it decides them — is America’s best option to curb the court’s activism, and restore its legitimacy… The court couldn’t always do this. For the first 100-odd years of the Republic, the court had to review every case that litigants appealed. Only with the Judiciary Act of 1925 did the court begin to exercise vast discretion over its docket.
This author has harsh words for the idea of court packing.
(Threaten) to Pack the Courts
This piece discusses an approach to Supreme Court rulings which attempts to determine which side will suffer the least harm based on the outcome. The author argues this is a good, moderate approach and explains the Court’s current popularity. He says threatening to pack the Courts can ensure this trend continues:
Progressives should play the long game. By threatening to pack the court, they can put much-needed pressure on the conservative justices to moderate their views and to consider which side will suffer the least harm — and thus earn the public’s confidence. If they don’t, there will be time to turn to other options.
Pack the Courts
Liberals say that if Joe Biden wins the election, Democrats should answer by adding justices to the Supreme Court. Republicans respond with faux outrage that this would politicize the judiciary. But they have already politicized the judiciary. The question is whether only one side should play that game. Besides, not only is enlarging the Supreme Court legal, its size has changed seven times over its history. Adding judges would be a political response to a political act. But the extremes to which Republicans have been willing to go leave the Democrats no other choice. Not for revenge or because turnabout is fair play, but as the only way back to a less politicized process.
Not for revenge. Oh no, dear reader, never that. You have to appreciate Democrats’ conviction. Even when they are contemplating seizing power in bold new ways they still give themselves credit for pure intentions. The pitch here is that the Court is already politicized so why not politicize it more to depoliticize the court over time. Genius. The saddest thing about this piece is that I think the author actually believes it.
Expand the Lower Courts
The vast majority of cases never reach the Supreme Court. They are resolved in the federal trial courts and federal courts of appeals: The appeals courts alone handle more than 50,000 cases each year. Since the Supreme Court hears arguments in fewer than 100 cases each year, almost all of these lower-court decisions will be final. Any court reform — indeed, any democracy reform — requires more lower federal courts… A larger roster of lower federal courts would ensure that more cases are resolved by judges who better reflect the democratic values and diversity of our country. It would also decrease the likelihood of the increasingly conservative lower federal courts significantly altering the law without the kind of public scrutiny that accompanies Supreme Court decisions.
There may be some principle here that people could agree with across party lines, i.e. there are a lot more people in the country than there used to be so having more federal courts makes sense. However, the author soon makes clear that the goal is to dilute the impact of conservative court appointees. Again, would the author make the same recommendation if the parties were reversed. My impression is probably not.
Keep the Courts the Same
The final and the most inherently conservative take:
For over 150 years, the Supreme Court has consisted of nine justices, a number set by Congress. This norm of nine is supported by another that is more fundamental: the norm against changing the number of justices solely to achieve a partisan or ideological advantage. Violating this norm is called “court packing.”… Once the norm against court packing is gone, there is no limit on how often it will be used by each party when it controls both Congress and the presidency. If Democrats expand the number of justices in 2021, Republicans will do the same when they have the power.
There’s also a response to the term limits idea:
From both the left and the right, we hear calls for “term limits” for justices. This should require a constitutional amendment, but some claim it can be accomplished legislatively by moving older justices to a form of “senior status” or by some other device… Without the norm of lifetime service, justices are more likely to rule in ways that will maximize their future employment prospects. Once again, this will decrease their independence and increase the political nature of their rulings, undermining the perceived legitimacy of the court.
The piece concludes with a line which could really be a conservative motto: “the reality is that things can quickly get much, much worse.” If 2020 has taught us anything at all, that should be it.
You can read the full essays for yourself but in the end the real impact of this is that the NY Times is stating as loudly as possible that the Court is broken and therefore some fix is needed. The only real question is which one. I don’t think anyone believes for a second the Times would be publishing this editorial if Democrats held a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court. Once again, Democrats are facing the results of losing an election and once again they declare it illegitimate and want to change the rules. All of this is an exercise in pure partisanship and should be treated as such.
Update: Guy Benson with the thought experiment which should be asked of everyone currently pushing to fix the Supreme Court: If Trump wins do you still believe this?


hotair--2020-10-27--Democrats open up 11th hour, second battle front against McConnell

So what ’ s going on with Cocaine Mitch ’ s reelection battle in Kentucky now that we ’ re finally nearing the end of this endless grind ?
His race against Democrat Amy McGrath has certainly been tighter than expected , particularly over the summer , but at this point , the RCP polling average has McConnell coasting over the finish line with a lead of somewhere between nine and twelve points .
Kentucky Democrats haven ’ t given up the ship yet , however , and they ’ re rolling out a new strategy in the final days @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enough voters to support McGrath and defeat Midnight Mitch directly , they ’ ll try to boost the fortunes of a third-party candidate and see if they can drain some votes away from McConnell that way .
( Free Beacon ) A liberal PAC is spending more than $ 1 million to bolster Kentucky ’ s Libertarian Party nominee in a last-ditch attempt to funnel votes away from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R. ) .
Ditch Mitch Fund , an anti-McConnell PAC founded by national liberal operatives , has raised hundreds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I. , Vt. ) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ( D. , N.Y. ) , campaign-finance disclosures show .
The money has helped the group spend more than $ 10 million on ads slamming McConnell and championing Democratic nominee Amy McGrath .
But in the closing days of the campaign , Ditch Mitch Fund is instead spending big to sing the praises of Libertarian candidate Brad Barron .
As of the last Mason-Dixon poll , Libertarian candidate Brad Barron was polling at all of 4 % .
The guy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Democrats realize that they haven ’ t been able to sell McGrath to enough voters to take down the Apex Predator of Politics , so they ’ re scrambling to try something else .
That shouldn ’ t come as much of a surprise since that same poll shows McGrath ’ s favorable to unfavorable numbers are stuck at 32/45 while McConnell is floating at his usual level of 44/43 .
This wouldn ’ t be the first time that a third-party candidate has been fluffed up to try to split the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but it ’ s certainly one of the most blatant .
The PAC that ’ s funding this effort has no interest in the Libertarian Party nor its politics .
They exist for only one reason , as the name implies .
They want to get Mitch McConnell out of office at any cost .
If they could have beaten him by running a ham sandwich , Kentucky residents would be watching ham sandwich advertisements all day , every day .
But with only one week to go , it doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters left out there , to say nothing of those who might suddenly be convinced to vote for an off-brand candidate they ’ ve never heard of until this week .
One reason this story should be kept in mind , however , is that we ’ re probably going to be seeing a lot more of this if more states adopt so-called “ ranked-choice voting ” in the coming years as Maine recently did .
Under that system , shenanigans such as this will become the rule of the day .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , third-party candidate and hope that your candidate will be their second choice , you could really throw off the actual vote .
McConnell won ’ t need to worry about that effect in Kentucky , but others will in the future .

So what’s going on with Cocaine Mitch’s reelection battle in Kentucky now that we’re finally nearing the end of this endless grind? His race against Democrat Amy McGrath has certainly been tighter than expected, particularly over the summer, but at this point, the RCP polling average has McConnell coasting over the finish line with a lead of somewhere between nine and twelve points. Kentucky Democrats haven’t given up the ship yet, however, and they’re rolling out a new strategy in the final days. If they can’t convince enough voters to support McGrath and defeat Midnight Mitch directly, they’ll try to boost the fortunes of a third-party candidate and see if they can drain some votes away from McConnell that way. (Free Beacon)
A liberal PAC is spending more than $1 million to bolster Kentucky’s Libertarian Party nominee in a last-ditch attempt to funnel votes away from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R.). Ditch Mitch Fund, an anti-McConnell PAC founded by national liberal operatives, has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars from far-left donors to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.), campaign-finance disclosures show. The money has helped the group spend more than $10 million on ads slamming McConnell and championing Democratic nominee Amy McGrath. But in the closing days of the campaign, Ditch Mitch Fund is instead spending big to sing the praises of Libertarian candidate Brad Barron.
As of the last Mason-Dixon poll, Libertarian candidate Brad Barron was polling at all of 4%. The guy is barely an afterthought in that race. Democrats realize that they haven’t been able to sell McGrath to enough voters to take down the Apex Predator of Politics, so they’re scrambling to try something else. That shouldn’t come as much of a surprise since that same poll shows McGrath’s favorable to unfavorable numbers are stuck at 32/45 while McConnell is floating at his usual level of 44/43.
This wouldn’t be the first time that a third-party candidate has been fluffed up to try to split the vote in a relatively close election, but it’s certainly one of the most blatant. The PAC that’s funding this effort has no interest in the Libertarian Party nor its politics. They exist for only one reason, as the name implies. They want to get Mitch McConnell out of office at any cost. If they could have beaten him by running a ham sandwich, Kentucky residents would be watching ham sandwich advertisements all day, every day. But with only one week to go, it doesn’t seem like there are that many persuadable voters left out there, to say nothing of those who might suddenly be convinced to vote for an off-brand candidate they’ve never heard of until this week.
One reason this story should be kept in mind, however, is that we’re probably going to be seeing a lot more of this if more states adopt so-called “ranked-choice voting” in the coming years as Maine recently did. Under that system, shenanigans such as this will become the rule of the day. If you can sell voters on a hopeless, third-party candidate and hope that your candidate will be their second choice, you could really throw off the actual vote. McConnell won’t need to worry about that effect in Kentucky, but others will in the future.


hotair--2020-10-27--Riots break out in Philadelphia after police shooting, 30 officers injured

Another police-involved shooting , another “ mostly peaceful ” protest , and … another riot , this time in Philadelphia .
After police shot a man who approached them with a knife and refused to put it down , hundreds of demonstrators marched in support of Black Lives Matter .
That didn ’ t stay peaceful for long , CBS ’ affiliate in Philadelphia reports , and at least thirty police officers got injured in the rioting : Protesters upset over alleged police brutality took to the streets in Philadelphia overnight .
This came hours after police shot and killed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Philadelphia on Monday afternoon .
Officers opened fire when they say the man walked toward them near 61st and Locust Streets , refusing to drop the knife .
The man who was shot and killed by police was identified as 27-year-old Walter Wallace , Jr. His killing led to a night of protests and riots in West Philadelphia .
On Monday night , a group of about 300 people marched through the streets of West Philly to protest the killing of Wallace Jr .
However , they turned violent .
Police say 30 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 56-year-old female officer who was hit by a car at 52nd and Walnut Streets .
Police say she suffered a broken leg .
Interestingly , CBS specifically reports that the demonstrators began the violence , a departure from the usual passive voice used by other media outlets .
Normally , we hear that “ violence broke out ” or “ reports of looting emerged.
” Kudos to CBS Philly for clarity , and also to the CBS reporter from New York uses the exact same phrase to describe the initiation of the riots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Not particularly so , according to the Philadelphia Inquirer and New York Post .
A local socialist group directed activists to police movements by monitoring police communications : “ Community call for protest at 7pm , Malcolm X Park , ” the group tweeted Monday night after news started spreading of the fatal police shooting of Walter Wallace after he refused to drop a knife .
Dozens answered the call , gathering at the park chanting “ black lives matter ” before marching on a police precinct , The Philadelphia Inquirer said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ looting , torching police vehicles and attacking cops , leaving at least 30 injured — with Philly Socialists following almost every move online .
The “ base-building socialist organization ” spent the following hours until early Tuesday updating protesters on where police were — readily admitting it was coming from police scanners .
The group also called for “ bodies needed ” by “ comrades ” at some areas where there were clashes with officers .
That doesn ’ t sound spontaneous at all .
In fact , it sounds not just like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ criminal conspiracy to riot .
To the extent that this group has connections to other groups — like Antifa , say — one could envision a RICO-type action , assuming that local prosecutors plan to charge the rioters themselves in the first place .
One video of the shooting that triggered the riots makes it appear to have been a reasonable use of force .
According to witnesses , Wallace advanced on officers with a knife and refused to drop it , presenting a lethal threat that they met with lethal force : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two officers circling Wallace as he moves slowly toward them while allegedly carrying the blade .
They eventually fired multiple shots in front of a crowd , including his mother , who came screaming toward his body on the street after the shooting .
Officers said they yelled for Wallace to drop the knife , but he ‘ advanced toward ’ police with the blade , leading him to be shot ‘ several times , ’ a police spokesperson told AP .
It is not clear if he is carrying a blade in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said that Wallace was carrying a knife .
… The victim ’ s father , Walter Wallace Sr , told the Philadelphia Inquirer that his son struggled with mental health issues and was on medication .
‘ His mother was trying to diffuse the situation , ’ he said .
‘ Why didn ’ t they use a taser ?
He has mental issues .
Why you have to gun him down ?
’ Police don ’ t use a taser in that situation for good reasons .
One , tasers have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be close to them to deploy a taser .
Two , a suspect that close armed with a knife can kill quicker than a taser can take effect , especially with suspects wearing multiple layers of clothing .
And three , tasers aren ’ t designed to stop lethal threats , but to deal with non-compliance or non-lethal threats .
They aren ’ t universally effective enough to end lethal threats , nor were they designed to be .
No one blames the father for asking that question in his grief , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the threat posed to officers and others in this instance , regardless of Wallace ’ s mental condition .
Police have yet to release their body-cam footage , but if it matches what was seen here , then it ’ s likely to be ruled justifiable .
That will certainly provoke even more riots , but it ’ s not because of injustice — it ’ s because these groups are looking for excuses to commit rioting and political terrorism on the streets .
And they are getting better organized for it , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to follow up rioting with charges serious enough to start disincentivizing those practices .

Another police-involved shooting, another “mostly peaceful” protest, and … another riot, this time in Philadelphia. After police shot a man who approached them with a knife and refused to put it down, hundreds of demonstrators marched in support of Black Lives Matter. That didn’t stay peaceful for long, CBS’ affiliate in Philadelphia reports, and at least thirty police officers got injured in the rioting:
Protesters upset over alleged police brutality took to the streets in Philadelphia overnight. This came hours after police shot and killed a man with a knife in West Philadelphia on Monday afternoon. Officers opened fire when they say the man walked toward them near 61st and Locust Streets, refusing to drop the knife. The man who was shot and killed by police was identified as 27-year-old Walter Wallace, Jr. His killing led to a night of protests and riots in West Philadelphia. On Monday night, a group of about 300 people marched through the streets of West Philly to protest the killing of Wallace Jr. However, they turned violent. Police say 30 officers were injured, they include a 56-year-old female officer who was hit by a car at 52nd and Walnut Streets. Police say she suffered a broken leg.
Interestingly, CBS specifically reports that the demonstrators began the violence, a departure from the usual passive voice used by other media outlets. Normally, we hear that “violence broke out” or “reports of looting emerged.” Kudos to CBS Philly for clarity, and also to the CBS reporter from New York uses the exact same phrase to describe the initiation of the riots.
How spontaneous were these riots? Not particularly so, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer and New York Post. A local socialist group directed activists to police movements by monitoring police communications:
“Community call for protest at 7pm, Malcolm X Park,” the group tweeted Monday night after news started spreading of the fatal police shooting of Walter Wallace after he refused to drop a knife. Dozens answered the call, gathering at the park chanting “black lives matter” before marching on a police precinct, The Philadelphia Inquirer said. Hundreds eventually gathered in West Philly, looting, torching police vehicles and attacking cops, leaving at least 30 injured — with Philly Socialists following almost every move online. The “base-building socialist organization” spent the following hours until early Tuesday updating protesters on where police were — readily admitting it was coming from police scanners. The group also called for “bodies needed” by “comrades” at some areas where there were clashes with officers.
That doesn’t sound spontaneous at all. In fact, it sounds not just like an organized effort, but potentially a criminal conspiracy to riot. To the extent that this group has connections to other groups — like Antifa, say — one could envision a RICO-type action, assuming that local prosecutors plan to charge the rioters themselves in the first place.
One video of the shooting that triggered the riots makes it appear to have been a reasonable use of force. According to witnesses, Wallace advanced on officers with a knife and refused to drop it, presenting a lethal threat that they met with lethal force:
https://twitter.com/SomeBitchIKnow/status/1320985934393954304?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1320985934393954304%7Ctwgr%5Eshare_3%2Ccontainerclick_1&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fredstate.com%2Fshipwreckedcrew%2F2020%2F10%2F27%2Fbiden-efforts-to-rally-supporters-in-philadelphia-goes-up-in-smoke-riot-videos-inside-n270245
The video which sparked that unrest shows two officers circling Wallace as he moves slowly toward them while allegedly carrying the blade. They eventually fired multiple shots in front of a crowd, including his mother, who came screaming toward his body on the street after the shooting. Officers said they yelled for Wallace to drop the knife, but he ‘advanced toward’ police with the blade, leading him to be shot ‘several times,’ a police spokesperson told AP. It is not clear if he is carrying a blade in the video, but police and witnesses said that Wallace was carrying a knife. … The victim’s father, Walter Wallace Sr, told the Philadelphia Inquirer that his son struggled with mental health issues and was on medication. ‘His mother was trying to diffuse the situation,’ he said. ‘Why didn’t they use a taser? He has mental issues. Why you have to gun him down?’
Police don’t use a taser in that situation for good reasons. One, tasers have a relatively short range — suspects have to be close to them to deploy a taser. Two, a suspect that close armed with a knife can kill quicker than a taser can take effect, especially with suspects wearing multiple layers of clothing. And three, tasers aren’t designed to stop lethal threats, but to deal with non-compliance or non-lethal threats. They aren’t universally effective enough to end lethal threats, nor were they designed to be. No one blames the father for asking that question in his grief, but the answers are obvious — as was the threat posed to officers and others in this instance, regardless of Wallace’s mental condition.
Police have yet to release their body-cam footage, but if it matches what was seen here, then it’s likely to be ruled justifiable. That will certainly provoke even more riots, but it’s not because of injustice — it’s because these groups are looking for excuses to commit rioting and political terrorism on the streets. And they are getting better organized for it, thanks to prosecutors who lack the will to follow up rioting with charges serious enough to start disincentivizing those practices.