hotair--2020-06-23--Will Jimmy Kimmel get the N-word cancellation he planned for Trump? <span class='red'>Kimmel: "I've

Will Jimmy Kimmel get the N-word cancellation he planned for Trump? Kimmel: "I've evolved and matured"

Let ’ s just preface this by saying that “ canceling ” comics for poking fun at society is nothing more than politically-correct nihilism .
With that said , however , Jimmy Kimmel has a big problem — or would , if it weren ’ t for media-driven double standards .
Kimmel has taken a hiatus in the middle of a controversy over previous blackface bits from earlier in his career , but he can add hypocrisy to his sins , as Fox News reported last night ( via Twitchy ) : Jimmy Kimmel , who urged actor Tom Arnold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tape of President Trump in 2018 , admitted years ago that he imitated rapper Snoop Dogg ’ s voice for a track in a 1996 Christmas album — an original song in which Kimmel used the “ N-word ” several times .
The admission came in a January 2013 podcast obtained this weekend by Fox News .
In the podcast , Kimmel also changed his speech pattern in an attempt to adopt the voice of black comedian George Wallace , in what host Adam Carolla called Kimmel ’ s “ crazy black voice.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ other occasions as well .
Kimmel , who is slated to host the Emmy Awards this year , announced last week that he ’ s taking the summer off amid a brewing blackface controversy ; he has not issued an apology .
Fox then provides extensive quotes from the rap satire ( not safe for work , natch ) , complete with every instance of “ n_____ ” in it .
This isn ’ t exactly my genre so I ’ m not familiar with all of its tropes , but it sounds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would hear in other R-rated rap music .
This isn ’ t Kimmel using the N-word in anger , or to use it condescendingly , which is clearly what he hoped Arnold would find on Trump , but it ’ s still a pretty bad look in light of his 2018 statements .
Glass house , stones , some disassembly required , etc .
That ’ s not Kimmel ’ s biggest problem .
His blackface routines on Comedy Central ( one example here ) are still much more problematic , even if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comedy … of a bygone era , anyway .
This is much closer to minstrelsy than the rap satire , and it ’ s much less explicable today than it would have been even twenty years ago .
Fox notes that Kimmel has also mimicked comedian George Wallace and other African-American people , but that ’ s a fine line ; Rich Little made an entire career out of impersonation humor , but he never ( to my knowledge ) used blackface to do it .
It ’ s tough to imagine what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these sketches .
However , don ’ t bet on Kimmel getting canceled , even from his ABC late-night roost .
There are two sets of rules when it comes to cancelations , and celebrities who reliably mouth the correct platitudes get the benefit of the elite rules .
All we need to do to confirm this is to peruse the pages of the Washington Post , which reported one week ago that Kimmel would host the Emmys in September .
There is not a single mention of Kimmel and the blackface scandal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a single mention of it anywhere at any time in the Washington Post .
Neither does it appear in the New York Times , although they did cover a similar scandal with NBC ’ s Tonight Show host Jimmy Fallon .
Want to see the double standard ?
This is the same newspaper that ran a despicable 3,000 word essay on some random woman who appeared in blackface at Tom Toles ’ Halloween party .
The Washington Post thought this unknown woman ’ s use of blackface at a private party was of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to even report on its commercial use by a national celebrity to advance his career .
Sue Schraeder got canceled by the Post ; Kimmel gets a pass .
Why do you suppose that is ?
Oh , let ’ s not always see the same hands … When Kimmel returns , he will atone for this sin by continuing to target Donald Trump and anything conservative while tossing softballs to Joe Biden .
That ’ s all he needs for absolution by the media outlets that like to pick on randos while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Kimmel finally addressed this by saying he ’ s “ evolved and matured ” : While I do have some sympathy for this argument , this is also true : Your game , your rules .
That explanation didn ’ t work for Sue Schraeder ; why should it work for Jimmy Kimmel ?
Furthermore , the tone of this seems pretty hostile for a guy who ’ s admitting to his alleged sins .
Why does Kimmel demand grace for his transgressions while refusing any grace at all to his critics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ racist ?
That ’ s a strange choice , not to mention grotesquely hypocritical .

Let’s just preface this by saying that “canceling” comics for poking fun at society is nothing more than politically-correct nihilism. With that said, however, Jimmy Kimmel has a big problem — or would, if it weren’t for media-driven double standards. Kimmel has taken a hiatus in the middle of a controversy over previous blackface bits from earlier in his career, but he can add hypocrisy to his sins, as Fox News reported last night (via Twitchy):
Jimmy Kimmel, who urged actor Tom Arnold to release an alleged “N-word” tape of President Trump in 2018, admitted years ago that he imitated rapper Snoop Dogg’s voice for a track in a 1996 Christmas album — an original song in which Kimmel used the “N-word” several times. The admission came in a January 2013 podcast obtained this weekend by Fox News. In the podcast, Kimmel also changed his speech pattern in an attempt to adopt the voice of black comedian George Wallace, in what host Adam Carolla called Kimmel’s “crazy black voice.” Kimmel acknowledged imitating black people on other occasions as well. Kimmel, who is slated to host the Emmy Awards this year, announced last week that he’s taking the summer off amid a brewing blackface controversy; he has not issued an apology.
Fox then provides extensive quotes from the rap satire (not safe for work, natch), complete with every instance of “n_____” in it. This isn’t exactly my genre so I’m not familiar with all of its tropes, but it sounds like an R-rated version of what one would hear in other R-rated rap music. This isn’t Kimmel using the N-word in anger, or to use it condescendingly, which is clearly what he hoped Arnold would find on Trump, but it’s still a pretty bad look in light of his 2018 statements. Glass house, stones, some disassembly required, etc.
That’s not Kimmel’s biggest problem. His blackface routines on Comedy Central (one example here) are still much more problematic, even if they are still within the realm of comedy … of a bygone era, anyway. This is much closer to minstrelsy than the rap satire, and it’s much less explicable today than it would have been even twenty years ago. Fox notes that Kimmel has also mimicked comedian George Wallace and other African-American people, but that’s a fine line; Rich Little made an entire career out of impersonation humor, but he never (to my knowledge) used blackface to do it. It’s tough to imagine what Comedy Central was thinking when they green-lit these sketches.
However, don’t bet on Kimmel getting canceled, even from his ABC late-night roost. There are two sets of rules when it comes to cancelations, and celebrities who reliably mouth the correct platitudes get the benefit of the elite rules. All we need to do to confirm this is to peruse the pages of the Washington Post, which reported one week ago that Kimmel would host the Emmys in September. There is not a single mention of Kimmel and the blackface scandal in that article — nor is there a single mention of it anywhere at any time in the Washington Post. Neither does it appear in the New York Times, although they did cover a similar scandal with NBC’s Tonight Show host Jimmy Fallon.
Want to see the double standard? This is the same newspaper that ran a despicable 3,000 word essay on some random woman who appeared in blackface at Tom Toles’ Halloween party. The Washington Post thought this unknown woman’s use of blackface at a private party was of national import, but they have yet to even report on its commercial use by a national celebrity to advance his career.
Sue Schraeder got canceled by the Post; Kimmel gets a pass. Why do you suppose that is? Oh, let’s not always see the same hands … When Kimmel returns, he will atone for this sin by continuing to target Donald Trump and anything conservative while tossing softballs to Joe Biden. That’s all he needs for absolution by the media outlets that like to pick on randos while sucking up to left-leaning celebrities.
Update: Kimmel finally addressed this by saying he’s “evolved and matured”:
While I do have some sympathy for this argument, this is also true: Your game, your rules. That explanation didn’t work for Sue Schraeder; why should it work for Jimmy Kimmel?
Furthermore, the tone of this seems pretty hostile for a guy who’s admitting to his alleged sins. Why does Kimmel demand grace for his transgressions while refusing any grace at all to his critics, immediately assuming that the criticism is racist? That’s a strange choice, not to mention grotesquely hypocritical.


hotair--2020-06-23--Martha McSally: Let's give every taxpayer a $4,000 credit to go on vacation

Imagine you and your spouse being told you ’ re in line for a refund of up to eight grand from Uncle Sam at tax time — but only if you ’ ve spent that amount on travel .
Not on groceries or rent or child care or any of the thousand other higher priorities one might reasonably have during a global pandemic and terrifying economic downturn .
You have to have spent the money doing something public-health experts actually advise against doing right now .
This bill is a spending blowout on top of an already historic spending blowout @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican administration was running pre-pandemic , when the economy was growing explosively .
And for what ?
Nothing grander than tourism .
How would Congress justify this giveaway once it eventually ends the beefed-up unemployment benefits that Americans have been relying on to get by amid the COVID-19 layoffs ?
The American TRIP Act provides a $ 4,000 travel credit for individuals , and $ 8,000 for joint filers ( plus an additional $ 500 credit for dependent children ) , for 2020 , 2021 , and 2022 .
This credit applies to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its territories , so long as the travel and expenses and final destination is 50 miles from the principal residence of the filer ( s ) .
Qualified expenses for the credit include lodging , travel , and entertainment .
It ’ s unfair to blame McSally completely for this .
She ’ s an easy scapegoat because she ’ s a bad politician who ’ s on the brink of losing another Senate seat in Arizona to a Democrat but this harebrained scheme didn ’ t come from her .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tourism industry cooked up by the industry itself .
“ Industry lobbyists are circulating a plan in Congress and at the White House that would dangle $ 4,000 tax breaks in front of Americans to get them to begin traveling and spending money at hotels , theme parks and other tourism businesses , ” reported the Orlando Sentinel two weeks ago .
Trump brought up the idea ( the “ Explore America ” credit ) more than a month ago in a roundtable with service-industry executives , no doubt encouraged by the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off politically by encouraging economic revival and maybe literally in the form of donations from the industry .
McSally ’ s taking ownership of it , I assume , because tourism is worth billions to Arizona and she needs some sort of hook to try to get back in the race against Mark Kelly .
She ’ s also accompanying Trump on his visit to Arizona today ; maybe he intends to discuss it publicly and wanted there to be a bill in the works somewhere in Congress so that he could point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ America ’ s hotels , airlines , restaurants , and so on .
But it ’ s a cockamamie idea , and not just because it ’ ll leave most Americans baffled as to why there ’ s a tax credit for luxuries like tourism but not for necessities like food .
If you ’ re going to pass a stimulus geared at the tourism industry , notes Forbes , doing it as a tax credit is idiotic .
That requires Americans to front the money for the trip themselves at a moment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other things ; they won ’ t see reimbursement from Uncle Sam until next spring .
Anyone who has four or eight grand lying around that they ’ re willing to blow on a trip to Vegas or DisneyWorld — or the Grand Canyon , as McSally is hoping — isn ’ t in desperate need of a tax credit anyway .
It ’ s the people who don ’ t have that money lying around that need it , and for more important matters than tourism .
If Trump and McSally are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up and do it as some sort of voucher or gift card that can be used only at travel-related businesses .
In fact , look at the actual text of the bill and you ’ ll see that the credit is nonrefundable .
If you ’ re poor and you scrape together the money to take a vacation in the belief that you ’ ll get it all back next year from McSally ’ s tax credit , you ’ re in for a rude surprise .
Only people with tax liability of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ couples ) can take full advantage .
Anyone who spends , say , $ 2,000 on a trip out of state and ends up owing $ 1,000 in taxes for the year will see that $ 1,000 tax liability offset .
That ’ s all .
The bill is cockamamie for another reason too : Coronavirus infections are spiking in parts of America , and the parts of America where they aren ’ t probably aren ’ t eager for an influx of tourists from the parts that are .
In normal times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ welcome money from travelers from Florida .
As it is , Andrew Cuomo ’ s threatening to quarantine visitors from that state for two weeks after they arrive .
The irony of McSally , of all people , floating this bill is that Arizona is arguably the worst hot spot in the entire United States at the moment , with ICUs at some hospitals at capacity .
Who wants to go see beautiful downtown Scottsdale at a time like this ?
Which is to say , this is a rare circumstance in which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sense than giving money back to taxpayers and encouraging them to spend it .
Normally that ’ s a fine small-government form of stimulus , but at a moment when ( a ) retail activity risks spreading a deadly disease and ( b ) we want to limit outbreaks geographically rather than seeding them around the country , just handing cash to tourism businesses to keep them afloat would probably do less damage than incentivizing Americans to get out and transmit that virus .
Exit question : If we ’ re going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tourism ?
Where ’ s the tax credit for money spent on takeout from local restaurants , to help keep them in business ?
Where ’ s the tax credit for money spent at neighborhood bars and movie theaters ?

Imagine you and your spouse being told you’re in line for a refund of up to eight grand from Uncle Sam at tax time — but only if you’ve spent that amount on travel. Not on groceries or rent or child care or any of the thousand other higher priorities one might reasonably have during a global pandemic and terrifying economic downturn.
You have to have spent the money doing something public-health experts actually advise against doing right now.
This bill is a spending blowout on top of an already historic spending blowout on top of the trillion-dollar deficits a Republican administration was running pre-pandemic, when the economy was growing explosively. And for what? Nothing grander than tourism.
How would Congress justify this giveaway once it eventually ends the beefed-up unemployment benefits that Americans have been relying on to get by amid the COVID-19 layoffs?
The American TRIP Act provides a $4,000 travel credit for individuals, and $8,000 for joint filers (plus an additional $500 credit for dependent children), for 2020, 2021, and 2022. This credit applies to all travel within the United States and its territories, so long as the travel and expenses and final destination is 50 miles from the principal residence of the filer(s). Qualified expenses for the credit include lodging, travel, and entertainment.
It’s unfair to blame McSally completely for this. She’s an easy scapegoat because she’s a bad politician who’s on the brink of losing another Senate seat in Arizona to a Democrat but this harebrained scheme didn’t come from her. It’s a soft bailout of the struggling tourism industry cooked up by the industry itself. “Industry lobbyists are circulating a plan in Congress and at the White House that would dangle $4,000 tax breaks in front of Americans to get them to begin traveling and spending money at hotels, theme parks and other tourism businesses,” reported the Orlando Sentinel two weeks ago. Trump brought up the idea (the “Explore America” credit) more than a month ago in a roundtable with service-industry executives, no doubt encouraged by the same lobbyists, hoping that it would pay off politically by encouraging economic revival and maybe literally in the form of donations from the industry.
McSally’s taking ownership of it, I assume, because tourism is worth billions to Arizona and she needs some sort of hook to try to get back in the race against Mark Kelly. She’s also accompanying Trump on his visit to Arizona today; maybe he intends to discuss it publicly and wanted there to be a bill in the works somewhere in Congress so that he could point to it as progress towards helping out America’s hotels, airlines, restaurants, and so on.
But it’s a cockamamie idea, and not just because it’ll leave most Americans baffled as to why there’s a tax credit for luxuries like tourism but not for necessities like food. If you’re going to pass a stimulus geared at the tourism industry, notes Forbes, doing it as a tax credit is idiotic. That requires Americans to front the money for the trip themselves at a moment when cash is tight and needed for other things; they won’t see reimbursement from Uncle Sam until next spring. Anyone who has four or eight grand lying around that they’re willing to blow on a trip to Vegas or DisneyWorld — or the Grand Canyon, as McSally is hoping — isn’t in desperate need of a tax credit anyway. It’s the people who don’t have that money lying around that need it, and for more important matters than tourism. If Trump and McSally are serious about this, they should man up and do it as some sort of voucher or gift card that can be used only at travel-related businesses.
In fact, look at the actual text of the bill and you’ll see that the credit is nonrefundable. If you’re poor and you scrape together the money to take a vacation in the belief that you’ll get it all back next year from McSally’s tax credit, you’re in for a rude surprise. Only people with tax liability of $4,000 (or $8,000 for couples) can take full advantage. Anyone who spends, say, $2,000 on a trip out of state and ends up owing $1,000 in taxes for the year will see that $1,000 tax liability offset. That’s all.
The bill is cockamamie for another reason too: Coronavirus infections are spiking in parts of America, and the parts of America where they aren’t probably aren’t eager for an influx of tourists from the parts that are. In normal times, sure, New York City would welcome money from travelers from Florida. As it is, Andrew Cuomo’s threatening to quarantine visitors from that state for two weeks after they arrive. The irony of McSally, of all people, floating this bill is that Arizona is arguably the worst hot spot in the entire United States at the moment, with ICUs at some hospitals at capacity. Who wants to go see beautiful downtown Scottsdale at a time like this?
Which is to say, this is a rare circumstance in which a straightforward federal bailout might make more sense than giving money back to taxpayers and encouraging them to spend it. Normally that’s a fine small-government form of stimulus, but at a moment when (a) retail activity risks spreading a deadly disease and (b) we want to limit outbreaks geographically rather than seeding them around the country, just handing cash to tourism businesses to keep them afloat would probably do less damage than incentivizing Americans to get out and transmit that virus.
Exit question: If we’re going to do this, why limit it to tourism? Where’s the tax credit for money spent on takeout from local restaurants, to help keep them in business? Where’s the tax credit for money spent at neighborhood bars and movie theaters?


hotair--2020-06-23--Governor to Texans: Don't make me shut down this state again

Remember that phrase used by frustrated parents to rowdy kids in the car ?
Don ’ t make me turn this car around .
That is what the latest coming from Texas Governor Abbott sounds like as he addresses a spike in COVID-19 cases in the state .
In this case , the state is the car and Abbott is saying that if Texans don ’ t get with the program , he ’ ll have no choice but to put the state back into lockdown mode .
Back in May during a private phone call , Governor Abbott admitted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the state would cause an increase in new cases of the coronavirus .
“ How do we know reopening businesses won ’ t result in faster spread of more cases of COVID-19 ?
” Abbott asked during a Friday afternoon phone call with members of the state legislature and Congress .
“ Listen , the fact of the matter is pretty much every scientific and medical report shows that whenever you have a reopening—whether you want to call it a reopening of businesses or of just a reopening of society—in the aftermath of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lead to an increase and spread .
It ’ s almost ipso facto.
” “ The more that you have people out there , the greater the possibility is for transmission , ” Abbott said on the call , which a spokesperson confirmed was authentic on Tuesday .
“ The goal never has been to get transmission down to zero.
” That was an expansion of what the governor was telling Texans at the time , though .
Publicly , Governor Abbott only acknowledged that the number of cases would rise due to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Abbott admitting that increased physical contact would inevitably cause a rise in cases , not just increased testing .
Texas is experiencing a spike in cases , there is no argument there .
There is an increase in the number of positive cases from testing , as the governor predicted , but there is also a spike in hospitalizations which is even more troubling .
Last night eyebrows were raised as reports began coming in that the Texas Children ’ s Hospital , a part of the Texas Medical Center in Houston , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ additional capacity through ICU and acute care beds across its campuses to both pediatric and adult patients .
Houston , in particular , has seen a marked increase in cases in the month of June .
Adult patients who have COVID-19 will be cared for in an expanded Special Isolation Unit at Texas Children ’ s Hospital West Campus .
The hospital is also admitting adults who don ’ t have COVID-19 .
“ Texas Children ’ s Hospital , our employees , medical staff and leadership team continue to carefully monitor the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID-19 cases in the greater Houston area and across the State .
We are committed to doing our part to assist the city as the number of COVID-19 cases continues to rise , ” the statement read .
Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner continues to sound the alarm about the spike in cases .
CEO and President of Houston Methodist , Dr. Marc Boom , has a leading role in mitigating the coronavirus spread in the city .
He , too , is addressing the uptick in cases .
On Monday , Houston Mayor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reporting some of the highest numbers the city has had since the start of the pandemic .
“ We are moving very fast and we are moving very fast in the wrong direction , ” said Turner .
“ The course that we are currently on is not in the best interest of our city or state.
” Dr. Marc Boom , CEO and President of Houston Methodist and a member of COVID-19 response in the Texas Medical Center , said Methodist hospitals have seen triple the amount of COVID-19 patients in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s a pretty dramatic uptick with most of it occurring over the last two weeks or so , so we are concerned about an uptick , ” he said .
So , here we are .
The concern is that though there is not a shortage of hospital beds right now , a continued spike in cases will create a shortage .
The fact that Texas Children ’ s Hospital is pro-actively moving to free up hospital beds in other hospitals by admitting adults to the children ’ s hospital is raising red @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people were hospitalized Monday .
Granted , Texas is a big , sprawling state , but the majority of cases of COVID-19 tend to be centralized in larger cities .
Governor Abbott calls the recent spike as “ unacceptable ” .
He continues to ask everyone to wear face masks in public , avoid large gatherings of people , social distance , and continue personal hygiene like frequent hand washing .
Monday the governor said the virus “ must be corralled.
” And , he said , another lockdown “ will always be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the availability of hospital beds is not at a critical stage across the state .
While Abbott has not mandated the use of face masks in public , he emphasized their importance to people who may feel it ’ s “ inconvenient ” or an “ infringement of freedom.
” “ Wearing a mask will help us to keep Texas open because not taking action to slow the spread will cause COVID to spread even worse , risking people ’ s lives , and ultimately leading to the closure of businesses , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are concerning , but he said hospitals “ continue to have abundant capacity to treat patients with COVID-19.
” The state reported Monday that 14,697 hospital beds and 1,517 beds in intensive care units were available across Texas .
During his press conference on Monday , Abbott said that the state ’ s positivity rate has nearly doubled since late May – it is now at nearly 9 % over the last five days .
The governor didn ’ t impose any new rules or requirements Monday .
He is beefing up enforcement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enforcement of the rules , increasing testing , and continuing to ask Texans to socially distance .
He isn ’ t mandating the wearing of face masks but has agreed that local officials can penalize businesses for not making customers and employees wear face coverings .
In other words , he is putting the burden on businesses , not individual Texans .
The governor acknowledges that a mandate on wearing masks is impractical in Texas .
Rural areas are relatively coronavirus-free and don ’ t need such a mandate .
Since hospitalizations have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % over the span of a week , it is important for state and local officials , including the governor , to encourage everyone to do what they can to prevent further spread of the virus .

Remember that phrase used by frustrated parents to rowdy kids in the car? Don’t make me turn this car around. That is what the latest coming from Texas Governor Abbott sounds like as he addresses a spike in COVID-19 cases in the state. In this case, the state is the car and Abbott is saying that if Texans don’t get with the program, he’ll have no choice but to put the state back into lockdown mode.
Back in May during a private phone call, Governor Abbott admitted that the act of reopening businesses in the state would cause an increase in new cases of the coronavirus.
“How do we know reopening businesses won’t result in faster spread of more cases of COVID-19?” Abbott asked during a Friday afternoon phone call with members of the state legislature and Congress. “Listen, the fact of the matter is pretty much every scientific and medical report shows that whenever you have a reopening—whether you want to call it a reopening of businesses or of just a reopening of society—in the aftermath of something like this, it actually will lead to an increase and spread. It’s almost ipso facto.” “The more that you have people out there, the greater the possibility is for transmission,” Abbott said on the call, which a spokesperson confirmed was authentic on Tuesday. “The goal never has been to get transmission down to zero.”
That was an expansion of what the governor was telling Texans at the time, though. Publicly, Governor Abbott only acknowledged that the number of cases would rise due to increased testing. The phone call shows Abbott admitting that increased physical contact would inevitably cause a rise in cases, not just increased testing.
Texas is experiencing a spike in cases, there is no argument there. There is an increase in the number of positive cases from testing, as the governor predicted, but there is also a spike in hospitalizations which is even more troubling. Last night eyebrows were raised as reports began coming in that the Texas Children’s Hospital, a part of the Texas Medical Center in Houston, released a statement that it is providing additional capacity through ICU and acute care beds across its campuses to both pediatric and adult patients. Houston, in particular, has seen a marked increase in cases in the month of June.
Adult patients who have COVID-19 will be cared for in an expanded Special Isolation Unit at Texas Children’s Hospital West Campus. The hospital is also admitting adults who don’t have COVID-19. “Texas Children’s Hospital, our employees, medical staff and leadership team continue to carefully monitor the ongoing active transmission and increasing number of COVID-19 cases in the greater Houston area and across the State. We are committed to doing our part to assist the city as the number of COVID-19 cases continues to rise,” the statement read.
Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner continues to sound the alarm about the spike in cases. CEO and President of Houston Methodist, Dr. Marc Boom, has a leading role in mitigating the coronavirus spread in the city. He, too, is addressing the uptick in cases.
On Monday, Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner said the health department is reporting some of the highest numbers the city has had since the start of the pandemic. “We are moving very fast and we are moving very fast in the wrong direction,” said Turner. “The course that we are currently on is not in the best interest of our city or state.” Dr. Marc Boom, CEO and President of Houston Methodist and a member of COVID-19 response in the Texas Medical Center, said Methodist hospitals have seen triple the amount of COVID-19 patients in the month of June. “That’s a pretty dramatic uptick with most of it occurring over the last two weeks or so, so we are concerned about an uptick,” he said.
So, here we are. The concern is that though there is not a shortage of hospital beds right now, a continued spike in cases will create a shortage. The fact that Texas Children’s Hospital is pro-actively moving to free up hospital beds in other hospitals by admitting adults to the children’s hospital is raising red flags. The state reported over 3,700 people were hospitalized Monday. Granted, Texas is a big, sprawling state, but the majority of cases of COVID-19 tend to be centralized in larger cities.
Governor Abbott calls the recent spike as “unacceptable”. He continues to ask everyone to wear face masks in public, avoid large gatherings of people, social distance, and continue personal hygiene like frequent hand washing. Monday the governor said the virus “must be corralled.” And, he said, another lockdown “will always be the last option.” So far, the availability of hospital beds is not at a critical stage across the state.
While Abbott has not mandated the use of face masks in public, he emphasized their importance to people who may feel it’s “inconvenient” or an “infringement of freedom.” “Wearing a mask will help us to keep Texas open because not taking action to slow the spread will cause COVID to spread even worse, risking people’s lives, and ultimately leading to the closure of businesses,” he said. Abbott acknowledged the trends are concerning, but he said hospitals “continue to have abundant capacity to treat patients with COVID-19.” The state reported Monday that 14,697 hospital beds and 1,517 beds in intensive care units were available across Texas.
During his press conference on Monday, Abbott said that the state’s positivity rate has nearly doubled since late May – it is now at nearly 9% over the last five days. The governor didn’t impose any new rules or requirements Monday. He is beefing up enforcement measures, though. He mentioned more enforcement of the rules, increasing testing, and continuing to ask Texans to socially distance. He isn’t mandating the wearing of face masks but has agreed that local officials can penalize businesses for not making customers and employees wear face coverings. In other words, he is putting the burden on businesses, not individual Texans.
The governor acknowledges that a mandate on wearing masks is impractical in Texas. Rural areas are relatively coronavirus-free and don’t need such a mandate. Since hospitalizations have increased in some spots by about 50% over the span of a week, it is important for state and local officials, including the governor, to encourage everyone to do what they can to prevent further spread of the virus.


hotair--2020-06-23--Senate Intelligence Committee commissions public report on UFOs

The ufology community is all abuzz this week about some news out of Washington , and for good reason .
The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence just released their Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 .
Much of it is the standard housekeeping dealing with appropriations , structural changes to departments in the CIA and some rearranging of the deck chairs in various departments inside the intelligence community .
It also includes directions for reports to be generated on the activities of Russia , the Chinese Communist Party and other adversaries of interest .
But buried back on pages @ @ @ @ @ @ @ section of the report that set the UFO community off like a 4th of July fireworks display .
The title of that section is “ Advanced Aerial Threats.
” Buckle up , campers .
Things are about to get wild .
Here ’ s the introductory paragraph with emphasis added by yours truly .
The Committee supports the efforts of the Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon Task Force at the Office of Naval Intelligence to standardize collection and reporting on unidentified aerial phenomenon , any links they have to adversarial foreign governments , and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and installations .
However , the Committee remains concerned that there is no unified , comprehensive process within the Federal Government for collecting and analyzing intelligence on unidentified aerial phenomena , despite the potential threat .
The Committee understands that the relevant intelligence may be sensitive ; nevertheless , the Committee finds that the information sharing and coordination across the Intelligence Community has been inconsistent , and this issue has lacked attention from senior leaders .
There ’ s a lot going on in that introduction .
First of all , the Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the multi-department program in the Pentagon that investigates incidents involving UFOs .
( Or “ Unidentified Aerial Phenomena ” if you insist . )
And they gave it a name with all capitalized letters .
The Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon Task Force .
This is the program that Pentagon spokeswoman Susan Gough shockingly dropped a reference to earlier this year when fielding UFO questions from journalists .
This is about as close to total government confirmation as you could hope for and it speaks to the reality that the AATIP program never really ended @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had a new name assigned to it and the organizational structure was shifted around and broadened .
The committee also acknowledges the potential threat that these UAP could post to our military assets .
This is what Luis Elizondo and the folks from TTSA have been screaming from the rooftops for more than three years .
And it sounds like at least some folks in Congress have been listening .
But wait… there ’ s more .
The committee is calling for an official report on what we know about the UAPs so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the end of the year and ( wait for it… ) they want the report to be made public .
Therefore , the Committee directs the DNI , in consultation with the Secretary of Defense and the heads of such other agencies as the Director and Secretary jointly consider relevant , to submit a report within 180 days of the date of enactment of the Act , to the congressional intelligence and armed services committees on unidentified aerial phenomena ( also known as ‘ ‘ anomalous aerial vehicles ’ ’ ) , including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ identified .
The Committee further directs the report to include : 1 .
A detailed analysis of unidentified aerial phenomena data and intelligence reporting collected or held by the Office of Naval Intelligence , including data and intelligence reporting held by the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force ; 2 .
A detailed analysis of unidentified phenomena data collected by : a. geospatial intelligence ; b. signals intelligence ; c. human intelligence ; and d. measurement and signals intelligence ; 3 .
A detailed analysis of data of the FBI , which was derived @ @ @ @ @ @ @ phenomena data over restricted United States airspace ; The list of information the report must contain goes on at length .
But basically , the committee is saying that there are too many chimneys that UAP reporting falls into and no central collection channel to coordinate it all .
They want this situation addressed and a responsible person identified who will collect all of this data for analysis and coordinate communications between the different agencies that are part of the task force .
And the instructions finish with this gem : “ The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but may include a classified annex.
” The inclusion of all this UAP stuff was almost certainly driven by Mark Warner .
He ’ s been briefed on the UAP situation with the Navy in the past and has said he wanted more information and for non-sensitive material to be made public .
So is this it ?
Is this the beginning of the “ Big D ” government Disclosure on UFOs that so many of us have dreamed of for so long ?
While it ’ s an encouraging signal , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their hopes up too much .
There ’ s a big difference between organizing military reports of unknown objects in our airspace and finding out what , if anything , has been going on in the deepest bowels of the military and intelligence communities .
But it ’ s a start if nothing else .
Getting Washington to publicly admit that they ’ ve been tracking strange things in our skies for a very long time and that they have no idea what some of them are is a huge leap forward .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ make sure that the Tic Tacs aren ’ t something cooked up by the Russians or the Chinese and there may be information on advanced drones ( of human origin ) that can ’ t be released to the public .
But at least we ’ ve finally got them talking on the record .
And that ’ s a whole lot better than nothing .

The ufology community is all abuzz this week about some news out of Washington, and for good reason. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence just released their Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021. Much of it is the standard housekeeping dealing with appropriations, structural changes to departments in the CIA and some rearranging of the deck chairs in various departments inside the intelligence community. It also includes directions for reports to be generated on the activities of Russia, the Chinese Communist Party and other adversaries of interest. But buried back on pages 11 and 12, there is one section of the report that set the UFO community off like a 4th of July fireworks display.
The title of that section is “Advanced Aerial Threats.” Buckle up, campers. Things are about to get wild. Here’s the introductory paragraph with emphasis added by yours truly.
The Committee supports the efforts of the Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon Task Force at the Office of Naval Intelligence to standardize collection and reporting on unidentified aerial phenomenon, any links they have to adversarial foreign governments, and the threat they pose to U.S. military assets and installations. However, the Committee remains concerned that there is no unified, comprehensive process within the Federal Government for collecting and analyzing intelligence on unidentified aerial phenomena, despite the potential threat. The Committee understands that the relevant intelligence may be sensitive; nevertheless, the Committee finds that the information sharing and coordination across the Intelligence Community has been inconsistent, and this issue has lacked attention from senior leaders.
There’s a lot going on in that introduction. First of all, the Senate Intelligence Committee just confirmed the existence of the multi-department program in the Pentagon that investigates incidents involving UFOs. (Or “Unidentified Aerial Phenomena” if you insist.) And they gave it a name with all capitalized letters. The Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon Task Force. This is the program that Pentagon spokeswoman Susan Gough shockingly dropped a reference to earlier this year when fielding UFO questions from journalists. This is about as close to total government confirmation as you could hope for and it speaks to the reality that the AATIP program never really ended as they previously claimed. It just had a new name assigned to it and the organizational structure was shifted around and broadened.
The committee also acknowledges the potential threat that these UAP could post to our military assets. This is what Luis Elizondo and the folks from TTSA have been screaming from the rooftops for more than three years. And it sounds like at least some folks in Congress have been listening.
But wait… there’s more. The committee is calling for an official report on what we know about the UAPs so far. They want the report by the end of the year and (wait for it…) they want the report to be made public.
Therefore, the Committee directs the DNI, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense and the heads of such other agencies as the Director and Secretary jointly consider relevant, to submit a report within 180 days of the date of enactment of the Act, to the congressional intelligence and armed services committees on unidentified aerial phenomena (also known as ‘‘anomalous aerial vehicles’’), including observed airborne objects that have not been identified. The Committee further directs the report to include:
1. A detailed analysis of unidentified aerial phenomena data and intelligence reporting collected or held by the Office of Naval Intelligence, including data and intelligence reporting held by the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force;
2. A detailed analysis of unidentified phenomena data collected by:
a. geospatial intelligence;
b. signals intelligence;
c. human intelligence; and
d. measurement and signals intelligence;
3. A detailed analysis of data of the FBI, which was derived from investigations of intrusions of unidentified aerial phenomena data over restricted United States airspace;
The list of information the report must contain goes on at length. But basically, the committee is saying that there are too many chimneys that UAP reporting falls into and no central collection channel to coordinate it all. They want this situation addressed and a responsible person identified who will collect all of this data for analysis and coordinate communications between the different agencies that are part of the task force. And the instructions finish with this gem: “The report shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified annex.”
The inclusion of all this UAP stuff was almost certainly driven by Mark Warner. He’s been briefed on the UAP situation with the Navy in the past and has said he wanted more information and for non-sensitive material to be made public.
So is this it? Is this the beginning of the “Big D” government Disclosure on UFOs that so many of us have dreamed of for so long? While it’s an encouraging signal, I would advise everyone to not get their hopes up too much. There’s a big difference between organizing military reports of unknown objects in our airspace and finding out what, if anything, has been going on in the deepest bowels of the military and intelligence communities. But it’s a start if nothing else. Getting Washington to publicly admit that they’ve been tracking strange things in our skies for a very long time and that they have no idea what some of them are is a huge leap forward. I’m sure they want to make sure that the Tic Tacs aren’t something cooked up by the Russians or the Chinese and there may be information on advanced drones (of human origin) that can’t be released to the public. But at least we’ve finally got them talking on the record. And that’s a whole lot better than nothing.


hotair--2020-06-23--Reopening reality sets in. Many restaurants can't reopen at 25% capacity

Illinois is one of the states that ’ s currently reopening in “ phases ” after the pandemic lockdowns .
On Friday , the next phase kicks in and most restaurants will be allowed to reopen for indoor dining , but only at 25 % capacity .
While that no doubt sounds like good news to both diners and unemployed restaurant wait staff , not all of the owners are excited about it .
Some of them in Chicago are telling CBS News that they aren ’ t going to open up this week under the new rules .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the new normal ” would most likely bankrupt them .
Some restaurant owners say they won ’ t reopen next Friday when limited indoor seating is allowed because 25 % capacity will sink their businesses .
The restaurants that have the ability to host people outside and inside are in a much better position .
Not everyone can , and those that do aren ’ t doing well .
“ Our industry has taken a huge hit , ” said Tony Priolo , chef and partner at Maillard Tavern in River West .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to cash in and more of a way to help his 14 employees make ends meet .
I ’ ve spoken to a few managers of diners and restaurants that we ’ ve traditionally frequented around here and most of them tell a similar story .
When they were doing curbside pickup service only , they were mostly doing it to make sure people in the community remembered them and to keep at least a few of their workers employed .
But they weren ’ t making any money by doing that and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ closed anyway .
Opening up at 25 % capacity to enforce social distancing isn ’ t going to be much better for a lot of them .
The business is typically designed to run at a minimum of two-thirds capacity or they can ’ t turn a profit .
Many dishes are cooked in bulk and can ’ t be served again the next day as “ leftovers ” so food waste goes up .
Keeping all of their wait staff on hand when traffic is really slow also drains money .
Then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the lights on , the stoves hot , the cleaning supplies restocked and all the rest of the usual overhead costs .
Those don ’ t really go down just because there are fewer diners in the facility .
Add all of that up and then consider the fact that the food and beverage industry is one of the most competitive markets out there .
They tend to run on fairly narrow profit margins in the best of times because customers have no problem with the idea of voting with their wallets and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ steep .
Expecting restaurants with no outdoor seating options to operate under these conditions is an economic suicide mission .
That ’ s unfortunate for both diners looking to finally get out of the house for a nice meal and employees of these eateries who really need to get their regular income stream going again .
But I think it ’ s also just the reality we ’ re facing during what I certainly hope is only a transitional period .
But what if it ’ s not ?
If state government mandates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are left in place permanently , all of these establishments will need to figure out a new business model .

Illinois is one of the states that’s currently reopening in “phases” after the pandemic lockdowns. On Friday, the next phase kicks in and most restaurants will be allowed to reopen for indoor dining, but only at 25% capacity. While that no doubt sounds like good news to both diners and unemployed restaurant wait staff, not all of the owners are excited about it. Some of them in Chicago are telling CBS News that they aren’t going to open up this week under the new rules. If they do, their return to “the new normal” would most likely bankrupt them.
Some restaurant owners say they won’t reopen next Friday when limited indoor seating is allowed because 25% capacity will sink their businesses. The restaurants that have the ability to host people outside and inside are in a much better position. Not everyone can, and those that do aren’t doing well. “Our industry has taken a huge hit,” said Tony Priolo, chef and partner at Maillard Tavern in River West. He calls it less of an opportunity to cash in and more of a way to help his 14 employees make ends meet.
I’ve spoken to a few managers of diners and restaurants that we’ve traditionally frequented around here and most of them tell a similar story. When they were doing curbside pickup service only, they were mostly doing it to make sure people in the community remembered them and to keep at least a few of their workers employed. But they weren’t making any money by doing that and some of them eventually gave up and closed anyway.
Opening up at 25% capacity to enforce social distancing isn’t going to be much better for a lot of them. The business is typically designed to run at a minimum of two-thirds capacity or they can’t turn a profit. Many dishes are cooked in bulk and can’t be served again the next day as “leftovers” so food waste goes up. Keeping all of their wait staff on hand when traffic is really slow also drains money. Then there are the typical costs of keeping the lights on, the stoves hot, the cleaning supplies restocked and all the rest of the usual overhead costs. Those don’t really go down just because there are fewer diners in the facility.
Add all of that up and then consider the fact that the food and beverage industry is one of the most competitive markets out there. They tend to run on fairly narrow profit margins in the best of times because customers have no problem with the idea of voting with their wallets and going elsewhere if the prices seem too steep. Expecting restaurants with no outdoor seating options to operate under these conditions is an economic suicide mission.
That’s unfortunate for both diners looking to finally get out of the house for a nice meal and employees of these eateries who really need to get their regular income stream going again. But I think it’s also just the reality we’re facing during what I certainly hope is only a transitional period. But what if it’s not? If state government mandates concerning minimum distances between tables and barstools are left in place permanently, all of these establishments will need to figure out a new business model.


hotair--2020-06-23--Trump: Say, did you know that vandalizing statues is a federal crime? <span class='red'>Update: No D

Trump: Say, did you know that vandalizing statues is a federal crime? Update: No DC CHAZ, Trump pledges

Looks like Donald Trump has had enough of the attempts to tear down statues in Lafayette Park .
So far Andrew Jackson has managed to survive , but not all such monuments have been so fortunate .
This morning , Trump announced that he would “ authorize ” the prosecution of anyone attacking or vandalizing monuments on federal property , with “ no exceptions.
” Is this exceptional ?
In one way , yes … Strictly speaking , Congress authorized the arrests of people who attack or vandalize monuments or memorials .
The law cited by Trump passed in 2003 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do so on federal land at any time , or to cross state lines to attack any other memorial .
The only exceptional part about this is the actual political will to enforce the law , which at the moment seems singularly lacking in other jurisdictions .
Trump must have gotten buttonholed by Sen. Tom Cotton ( R-AR ) , who sent a letter yesterday to Attorney General William Barr demanding enforcement of the law .
Cotton also raised the issue of the older Anti-Riot Act , which Congress passed in the last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aimed specifically at those crossing state lines to foment violent unrest : On Friday , this mobocratic spirit reached an absurd conclusion with the tearing down of a statue of Ulysses S. Grant in San Francisco .
That would be General Grant , the commander of the Union forces , who destroyed the Confederate Army and whose very initials captured his tenacious , unrelenting approach : “ unconditional surrender.
” And it would be President Grant , the statesman who smashed the Ku Klux Klan , signed the first major civil-rights legislation , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Amendment .
When the mob tears down a statue of U.S. Grant , it ’ s not about the Civil War-it ’ s because they hate America .
And that ’ s just one example .
Elsewhere , mobs have also destroyed monuments to George Washington , Francis Scott Key , Saint Junipero Serra , and Christopher Columbus , among others .
It ’ s past time to stop the mob ; these vandals should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law .
Unfortunately , local authorities , who normally would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in many cases to uphold the rule of law .
In some cities , it appears that feckless politicians have directed police to stand idly by while mobs rampage .
Thus , I urge the Department of Justice to bring charges against these criminals .
They aren ’ t exactly criminal masterminds , typically filming their crimes and posting the videos on social media .
Federal laws such as the Anti-Riot Act and the Veterans Memorial Preservation and Recognition Act should cover some crimes .
Other federal laws may also apply .
Cotton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” has already been taken by the DoJ .
They ’ re scouring social media for video evidence of crimes , and have already made a handful of arrests along those lines .
Those crimes involved commercial property rather than memorials , for the most part , which means the Anti-Riot Act would apply best — although so far it ’ s not clear that the DoJ has included it in any indictments yet .
Perhaps the most famous application of the Anti-Riot Act came after the infamous 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the violent demonstrations got convicted under the Anti-Riot Act , but later had their convictions reversed on appeal .
The Department of Justice would probably reserve its use for any organized leaders of such riots who cross state lines , but it is a fairly broad statute that doesn ’ t necessarily include organizing as a sole predicate .
Even those who “ participate in ” or merely “ encourage ” a riot after crossing state lines could theoretically get convicted under the Anti-Riot Act , although whether a court would uphold it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the DoJ has been “ authorized ” to pursue such crimes for almost two decades in one instance and over five decades in the other .
Trump ’ s tweet isn ’ t an EO — it ’ s a statement of political will , or at least a declaration of prosecutorial priorities .
Unfortunately , the will to enforce the law seems lacking in places like Seattle and in New York , where Andrew Cuomo doesn ’ t see anything wrong with mob nihilism : The problem isn ’ t with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” don ’ t destroy public property .
The problem is with mobs taking upon themselves decisions that should be made by the entire community , and elected officials capitulating to those mobs rather than enforce the law .
If we ’ re now making decisions by mob rule , why do we need governors and mayors at all anymore ?
Update : This isn ’ t much of a surprise , either : I think that much had already been made clear , but the explicit warning about force is certainly notable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , anyway .

Looks like Donald Trump has had enough of the attempts to tear down statues in Lafayette Park. So far Andrew Jackson has managed to survive, but not all such monuments have been so fortunate. This morning, Trump announced that he would “authorize” the prosecution of anyone attacking or vandalizing monuments on federal property, with “no exceptions.”
Is this exceptional? In one way, yes …
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1275379766959505408
Strictly speaking, Congress authorized the arrests of people who attack or vandalize monuments or memorials. The law cited by Trump passed in 2003 and made it a federal felony to do so on federal land at any time, or to cross state lines to attack any other memorial. The only exceptional part about this is the actual political will to enforce the law, which at the moment seems singularly lacking in other jurisdictions.
Trump must have gotten buttonholed by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), who sent a letter yesterday to Attorney General William Barr demanding enforcement of the law. Cotton also raised the issue of the older Anti-Riot Act, which Congress passed in the last era of great social upheaval, and aimed specifically at those crossing state lines to foment violent unrest:
On Friday, this mobocratic spirit reached an absurd conclusion with the tearing down of a statue of Ulysses S. Grant in San Francisco. That would be General Grant, the commander of the Union forces, who destroyed the Confederate Army and whose very initials captured his tenacious, unrelenting approach: “unconditional surrender.” And it would be President Grant, the statesman who smashed the Ku Klux Klan, signed the first major civil-rights legislation, and presided over passage of the Fifteenth Amendment. When the mob tears down a statue of U.S. Grant, it’s not about the Civil War-it’s because they hate America. And that’s just one example. Elsewhere, mobs have also destroyed monuments to George Washington, Francis Scott Key, Saint Junipero Serra, and Christopher Columbus, among others. It’s past time to stop the mob; these vandals should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Unfortunately, local authorities, who normally would prosecute such crimes, have proven unwilling in many cases to uphold the rule of law. In some cities, it appears that feckless politicians have directed police to stand idly by while mobs rampage. Thus, I urge the Department of Justice to bring charges against these criminals. They aren’t exactly criminal masterminds, typically filming their crimes and posting the videos on social media. Federal laws such as the Anti-Riot Act and the Veterans Memorial Preservation and Recognition Act should cover some crimes. Other federal laws may also apply.
Cotton’s point on “criminal masterminds” has already been taken by the DoJ. They’re scouring social media for video evidence of crimes, and have already made a handful of arrests along those lines. Those crimes involved commercial property rather than memorials, for the most part, which means the Anti-Riot Act would apply best — although so far it’s not clear that the DoJ has included it in any indictments yet.
Perhaps the most famous application of the Anti-Riot Act came after the infamous 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago. The seven men accused of organizing the violent demonstrations got convicted under the Anti-Riot Act, but later had their convictions reversed on appeal. The Department of Justice would probably reserve its use for any organized leaders of such riots who cross state lines, but it is a fairly broad statute that doesn’t necessarily include organizing as a sole predicate. Even those who “participate in” or merely “encourage” a riot after crossing state lines could theoretically get convicted under the Anti-Riot Act, although whether a court would uphold it is another matter.
At any rate, the DoJ has been “authorized” to pursue such crimes for almost two decades in one instance and over five decades in the other. Trump’s tweet isn’t an EO — it’s a statement of political will, or at least a declaration of prosecutorial priorities. Unfortunately, the will to enforce the law seems lacking in places like Seattle and in New York, where Andrew Cuomo doesn’t see anything wrong with mob nihilism:
“Do you agree with the president’s guidance cities should do more to protect monuments?” @savannahguthrie to @NYGovCuomo "I don't even know what the president's guidance is. People are making a statement about equality … against slavery. I think those are good statements." pic.twitter.com/FqdzzTQHz5 — TODAY (@TODAYshow) June 23, 2020
The problem isn’t with people making “statements.” “Statements” don’t destroy public property. The problem is with mobs taking upon themselves decisions that should be made by the entire community, and elected officials capitulating to those mobs rather than enforce the law. If we’re now making decisions by mob rule, why do we need governors and mayors at all anymore?
Update: This isn’t much of a surprise, either:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1275409656488382465
I think that much had already been made clear, but the explicit warning about force is certainly notable. The mayor of Portland would approve, anyway.


hotair--2020-06-23--San Francisco riots feature "Kill Cops" graffiti

Over the weekend , San Francisco saw a renewed round of rioting and destruction of public property that stretched from Friday night until Sunday morning .
The focus of most of the unrest was the Music Concourse in Golden Gate Park .
As is now the routine of the mob , plenty of statues were torn down with the rest being tagged with graffiti .
A couple of the figures portrayed in these monuments were slave owners prior to the Civil War , but others included a famous man who fought to free the slaves and another who was a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provided video coverage of the aftermath , along with reactions from locals who came out to view the destruction and a tardy and tepid response from the Mayor .
And as we ’ ll see in a moment , some of the graffiti was far from “ peaceful , ” signaling far worse to come .
Among the suddenly-empty pedestals , one that held Star-Spangled Banner poet Francis Scott Key , a man who , in fact , owned slaves .
Another held Junipero Serra , founder of California missions and also a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t finished with the toppling of the Key and Sera statues .
They also knocked down the monument to former Pres .
Ulysses S. Grant who , as Union general accepted the surrender of the Confederacy then , later , sent U.S. troops to fight the Ku Klux Klan .
“ I don ’ t get Ulysses S. Grant because he was fighting for the abolition of slavery , not for slavery , ” a man named Seth told KPIX .
“ So I don ’ t understand why ( his statue ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not removed was a statue of Miguel de Cervantes , a Spanish writer who was himself a slave for five years .
Before we get to some of the more horrific details , here ’ s the brief CBS video coverage of the riot in progress and its aftermath .
So they took down the statues of Francis Scott Key , Junipero Serra and… Ulysses Grant .
They tagged the other statues with spray paint .
And guess who was watching this all unfold .
The police .
Yes , San Francisco ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ simply stood there and watched all of the destruction unfold .
You can rest assured that this wasn ’ t a decision made by the cops .
The instructions to stand down came from City Hall .
And this is after the Mayor already endorsed new “ police reform ” measures that include barring cops from responding to “ neighborhood disputes.
” And the cops may have more than that to worry about .
Check out this lovely piece of street art , where one of the “ peaceful protesters ” scrawled the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ street sign .
( Click for full size image ) So what did Mayor London Breed have to say about all of this ?
After weeks of coddling the rioters on a daily basis , she finally decided to speak up .
Well… sort of .
I suppose hearing any form of disapproval from her is an improvement .
There is very real pain in this country rooted in our history of slavery and oppression , especially against African-Americans and Indigenous people .
I know that pain all too well .
But the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ went far beyond just the statues that were torn down , and included significant damage to Golden Gate Park .
Every dollar we spend cleaning up this vandalism takes funding away from actually supporting our community , including our African-American community .
I say this not to defend any particular statue or what it represents , but to recognize that when people take action in the name of my community , they should actually involve us .
And when they vandalize our public parks , that ’ s their agenda , not ours @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intent on causing destruction is going to be scared off by the Mayor ’ s comments ?
She once again starts off by apologizing and excusing all of this rioting in the name of the “ very real pain ” resulting from the country ’ s history of slavery .
She also implies that if it were *only* the statues being torn down , that would probably be okay .
But the rest of the vandalism they have to clean up is a ( small ) step too far .
Will anyone be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the money they have to spend cleaning up the park will take away from funding needed to “ support our African-American community.
” The Mayor is not on the side of law and order .
She has surrendered the streets of her city to rioters and looters and she ’ s keeping the police force on the sideline .
She has abdicated her responsibilities .
But guess what , San Francisco .
You overwhelmingly voted her into office knowing precisely how she planned to lead .
Like the rest of these cities we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ got exactly what you asked for .
So there ’ s no sympathy coming from my direction .

Over the weekend, San Francisco saw a renewed round of rioting and destruction of public property that stretched from Friday night until Sunday morning. The focus of most of the unrest was the Music Concourse in Golden Gate Park. As is now the routine of the mob, plenty of statues were torn down with the rest being tagged with graffiti. A couple of the figures portrayed in these monuments were slave owners prior to the Civil War, but others included a famous man who fought to free the slaves and another who was a slave himself. The local CBS outlet provided video coverage of the aftermath, along with reactions from locals who came out to view the destruction and a tardy and tepid response from the Mayor. And as we’ll see in a moment, some of the graffiti was far from “peaceful,” signaling far worse to come.
Among the suddenly-empty pedestals, one that held Star-Spangled Banner poet Francis Scott Key, a man who, in fact, owned slaves. Another held Junipero Serra, founder of California missions and also a slave owner… But the crowd wasn’t finished with the toppling of the Key and Sera statues. They also knocked down the monument to former Pres. Ulysses S. Grant who, as Union general accepted the surrender of the Confederacy then, later, sent U.S. troops to fight the Ku Klux Klan. “I don’t get Ulysses S. Grant because he was fighting for the abolition of slavery, not for slavery,” a man named Seth told KPIX. “So I don’t understand why (his statue) would be taken out.” Vandalized but not removed was a statue of Miguel de Cervantes, a Spanish writer who was himself a slave for five years.
Before we get to some of the more horrific details, here’s the brief CBS video coverage of the riot in progress and its aftermath.
So they took down the statues of Francis Scott Key, Junipero Serra and… Ulysses Grant. They tagged the other statues with spray paint. And guess who was watching this all unfold. The police. Yes, San Francisco’s finest were on hand and they simply stood there and watched all of the destruction unfold. You can rest assured that this wasn’t a decision made by the cops. The instructions to stand down came from City Hall. And this is after the Mayor already endorsed new “police reform” measures that include barring cops from responding to “neighborhood disputes.”
And the cops may have more than that to worry about. Check out this lovely piece of street art, where one of the “peaceful protesters” scrawled the words “Kill Cops” across a street sign. (Click for full size image)
So what did Mayor London Breed have to say about all of this? After weeks of coddling the rioters on a daily basis, she finally decided to speak up. Well… sort of. I suppose hearing any form of disapproval from her is an improvement.
There is very real pain in this country rooted in our history of slavery and oppression, especially against African-Americans and Indigenous people. I know that pain all too well. But the damage done to our park last night went far beyond just the statues that were torn down, and included significant damage to Golden Gate Park. Every dollar we spend cleaning up this vandalism takes funding away from actually supporting our community, including our African-American community. I say this not to defend any particular statue or what it represents, but to recognize that when people take action in the name of my community, they should actually involve us. And when they vandalize our public parks, that’s their agenda, not ours.
Do you think a single person intent on causing destruction is going to be scared off by the Mayor’s comments? She once again starts off by apologizing and excusing all of this rioting in the name of the “very real pain” resulting from the country’s history of slavery. She also implies that if it were *only* the statues being torn down, that would probably be okay. But the rest of the vandalism they have to clean up is a (small) step too far. Will anyone be punished for this? Nope. But the money they have to spend cleaning up the park will take away from funding needed to “support our African-American community.”
The Mayor is not on the side of law and order. She has surrendered the streets of her city to rioters and looters and she’s keeping the police force on the sideline. She has abdicated her responsibilities. But guess what, San Francisco. You overwhelmingly voted her into office knowing precisely how she planned to lead. Like the rest of these cities we’ve been covering lately, you got exactly what you asked for. So there’s no sympathy coming from my direction.


hotair--2020-06-22--Is renaming cities the next step in racial equality?

Don ’ t look now but if your city is named for a legendary white man , there may be a petition circulating to have the name changed .
There are two examples in the news that point to what may be the next step in appeasing the racial equality protesters .
With statues coming down all over the country , it is probably to be expected .
The aggrieved feel entitled to erase history , whether it is in the halls of federal buildings or in a city park .
It doesn ’ t matter if the erased are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Founding Fathers .
Let ’ s take Columbus , Ohio first .
City officials have agreed to take down the statue commemorating its name – Christopher Columbus .
That is not a unique decision , statues of Columbus are coming down in many cities because of the history of cruelty he brought upon Indigenous people .
Columbus Mayor Andrew Ginther announced the action with a hyperbolic flourish when he said , “ For many people in our community , the statue represents patriarchy , oppression , and divisiveness .
That does not represent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no longer live in the shadow of our ugly past.
” There is a twist in that story , though .
The decision to remove the statue in Columbus has opened the door to a call for renaming the city .
The demand is now in the form of a petition drawn up by a 32-year-old man named Tyler Woodbridge .
He says removing the statue of Christopher Columbus isn ’ t enough .
It ’ s never enough with the social justice warriors .
He says even though Columbus is his favorite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a bit ashamed of the name ” .
So , he started an online petition which , as I write this on Monday morning , has 27,842 signatures .
The goal stated is 35,000 signatures .
I will note now that Woodbridge lived in Columbus for seven years and no longer lives there .
He now lives in Tennessee .
And , because this is 2020 , guess which person he thinks the city should honor with the name change ?
Celebrity chef and restauranteur Guy Fieri .
How does the name Flavortown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Columbus .
Flavortown is a catchphrase used by Fieri .
Woodbridge described Fieri as a very “ charitable man , ” pointing to the fact that the famous restauranteur has helped raise more than $ 20 million for restaurant workers during the pandemic and that he ’ s officiated more than 100 LGBTQ weddings .
“ That kind of optimism and charitable work embodies more of what Columbus , Ohio , is about rather than the tarnished legacy of Christopher Columbus , ” Woodbridge said .
But the fact that Flavortown came @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the main reason why he ’ s pushing for the name , Woodbridge said .
Describing the city as a “ melting pot ” of different cultures and nationalities , Woodbridge said the name would honor the city ’ s “ proud heritage as a culinary crossroads and one of the nation ’ s largest test markets for the food industry , ” according to the petition .
But wait , there ’ s more .
The petition has gathered enough signatures to catch the attention of Budweiser , which offered to give @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the city ’ s residents if the name is officially changed to Flavortown .
Look , I ’ ve got nothing against Guy Fieri .
I ’ ve seen some of his shows on the Food Network and he ’ s an entertaining guy .
It just strikes me as odd that a superfan is trying to change the name of a city to honor him .
It also makes me shake my head that Budweiser jumped onboard , even if it is to promote one of its beverages .
The second example @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a name change is St. Louis , Missouri .
A quick history of St. Louis shows that the city is named for King Louis IX of France .
He gave a land grant to Pierre Laclede Liguest .
Liguest and his 13-year-old scout , Auguste Chouteau , selected the current site of St. Louis as a fur trading post .
They settled on the name Saint Louis because he was the most famous Frenchman of all time .
King Louis IX was beloved by his countrymen , along the lines of George Washington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ IX became the only king of France to ever be canonized as a saint by the Catholic Church .
So , that ’ s how St. Louis got its name .
The city ’ s statue of King Louis IX must go , the aggrieved say , but not for the reason you might think .
Activists want the city ’ s name changed and the statue gone because King Louis IX was a loser or something .
Apotheosis of Saint Louis is its official name – sitting high on Art Hill and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ medieval Christian monarch .
At least to some .
“ You can think of King Louis IX as the Chicago Cubs European kings .
The man won nothing , ” said activist Umar Lee .
“ We ’ ve got a loser on a horse up here with a sword of hate.
” Lee , along with restaurateur Ben Poremba , said add in King Louis ’ role in the Crusades and he should be disqualified from serving as a symbol of the city .
They ’ ve started a petition to have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a statue to commemorate someone who ’ s heroic , who shares our modern values , ” said Lee .
Confluence ’ or ‘ Scott ’ for Dred Scott are two suggestions for the name change Lee and Poremba have been given by supporters .
I keep thinking of a description of 1992 that Queen Elizabeth used in her annual address that year .
She called it an “ annus horribilis ” – a horrible year .
That ’ s 2020 in a nutshell .

Don’t look now but if your city is named for a legendary white man, there may be a petition circulating to have the name changed. There are two examples in the news that point to what may be the next step in appeasing the racial equality protesters.
With statues coming down all over the country, it is probably to be expected. The aggrieved feel entitled to erase history, whether it is in the halls of federal buildings or in a city park. It doesn’t matter if the erased are Confederate-era figures or our nation’s Founding Fathers. Let’s take Columbus, Ohio first. City officials have agreed to take down the statue commemorating its name – Christopher Columbus. That is not a unique decision, statues of Columbus are coming down in many cities because of the history of cruelty he brought upon Indigenous people. Columbus Mayor Andrew Ginther announced the action with a hyperbolic flourish when he said, “For many people in our community, the statue represents patriarchy, oppression, and divisiveness. That does not represent our great city, and we will no longer live in the shadow of our ugly past.”
There is a twist in that story, though. The decision to remove the statue in Columbus has opened the door to a call for renaming the city. The demand is now in the form of a petition drawn up by a 32-year-old man named Tyler Woodbridge. He says removing the statue of Christopher Columbus isn’t enough. It’s never enough with the social justice warriors. He says even though Columbus is his favorite city, he has always been “a bit ashamed of the name”. So, he started an online petition which, as I write this on Monday morning, has 27,842 signatures. The goal stated is 35,000 signatures. I will note now that Woodbridge lived in Columbus for seven years and no longer lives there. He now lives in Tennessee. And, because this is 2020, guess which person he thinks the city should honor with the name change? Celebrity chef and restauranteur Guy Fieri. How does the name Flavortown sound to you? Fieri was born in Columbus. Flavortown is a catchphrase used by Fieri.
Woodbridge described Fieri as a very “charitable man,” pointing to the fact that the famous restauranteur has helped raise more than $20 million for restaurant workers during the pandemic and that he’s officiated more than 100 LGBTQ weddings. “That kind of optimism and charitable work embodies more of what Columbus, Ohio, is about rather than the tarnished legacy of Christopher Columbus,” Woodbridge said. But the fact that Flavortown came from Fieri is a bonus and not the main reason why he’s pushing for the name, Woodbridge said. Describing the city as a “melting pot” of different cultures and nationalities, Woodbridge said the name would honor the city’s “proud heritage as a culinary crossroads and one of the nation’s largest test markets for the food industry,” according to the petition.
But wait, there’s more. The petition has gathered enough signatures to catch the attention of Budweiser, which offered to give out free Bud Light Seltzer to all the city’s residents if the name is officially changed to Flavortown.
Bud Light Seltzer for all of Flavortown if this happens https://t.co/hUMViimR3n — Bud Light (@budlight) June 18, 2020
Look, I’ve got nothing against Guy Fieri. I’ve seen some of his shows on the Food Network and he’s an entertaining guy. It just strikes me as odd that a superfan is trying to change the name of a city to honor him. It also makes me shake my head that Budweiser jumped onboard, even if it is to promote one of its beverages.
The second example of a city facing a demand for a name change is St. Louis, Missouri. A quick history of St. Louis shows that the city is named for King Louis IX of France. He gave a land grant to Pierre Laclede Liguest. Liguest and his 13-year-old scout, Auguste Chouteau, selected the current site of St. Louis as a fur trading post. They settled on the name Saint Louis because he was the most famous Frenchman of all time. King Louis IX was beloved by his countrymen, along the lines of George Washington in America or Abraham Lincoln. Louis IX became the only king of France to ever be canonized as a saint by the Catholic Church. So, that’s how St. Louis got its name.
The city’s statue of King Louis IX must go, the aggrieved say, but not for the reason you might think.
Activists say King Louis IX doesn’t fall in line with modern values and that he was specifically problematic when it comes to his views on Jewish and Muslim religions. “To many people of Jewish heritage, he is known as someone who persecuted the Jewish people of France, confiscated and burned the Talmud, and 665 years before Adolf Hitler became chancellor of Germany he required Jewish people to wear an identification badge in public,” architectural historian Michael Allen with Washington University said.
Activists want the city’s name changed and the statue gone because King Louis IX was a loser or something.
Apotheosis of Saint Louis is its official name – sitting high on Art Hill and held up as the pinnacle of a medieval Christian monarch. At least to some. “You can think of King Louis IX as the Chicago Cubs European kings. The man won nothing,” said activist Umar Lee. “We’ve got a loser on a horse up here with a sword of hate.” Lee, along with restaurateur Ben Poremba, said add in King Louis’ role in the Crusades and he should be disqualified from serving as a symbol of the city. They’ve started a petition to have him taken down. “We need a statue to commemorate someone who’s heroic, who shares our modern values,” said Lee.
Confluence’ or ‘Scott’ for Dred Scott are two suggestions for the name change Lee and Poremba have been given by supporters.
I keep thinking of a description of 1992 that Queen Elizabeth used in her annual address that year. She called it an “annus horribilis” – a horrible year. That’s 2020 in a nutshell.


hotair--2020-06-23--De Blasio: What this city needs is a giant police operation to root out ... illegal fireworks that k

De Blasio: What this city needs is a giant police operation to root out ... illegal fireworks that keep me awake, or something

What does it take to turn progressive mayors into police boosters ?
In the Big Apple , apparently it just takes firing off a few Roman candles under Hizzoner ’ s windows .
Earlier today , Bill de Blasio took a moment out of this crisis in confidence in law enforcement to declare a massive undercover operation to spy on New Yorkers to stop illegal fireworks .
And get off his damn lawn , while you ’ re at it : To be fair , de Blasio tried to ignore the fireworks issue for a few days .
People fed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ de Blasio ’ s inaction where it might have the greatest effect .
Looks like it worked !
And it ’ s not as if this isn ’ t a public-safety issue , either .
Yossi Gestetner makes a valid point about the dangerous uses already in play : It ’ s a problem , but what is the proper solution ?
It might be as simple as getting more officers on the streets to enforce the law .
Unfortunately , de Blasio ’ s already committed to defunding the NYPD : Okay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ launch a 40-officer task force for undercover buys and a “ huge sting operation ” ?
What happened to being “ reached , not policed ” ?
Does “ reach ” include using police to spy on New Yorkers for the purpose of tracking down illegal fireworks — but not for , say , conspiring to riot and destroy historical landmarks ?
Why not just use “ social services ” to educate people on Safe & Sane Fireworks instead ?
Because that won ’ t stop the interruptions to Hizzoner ’ s sleep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this might serve as an example of why people feel that police have become more intrusive and oppressive .
It ’ s not so much because policing has changed , but we keep demanding more and more interventions by police over the annoyances in our lives .
The best way to “ defund ” police is to reduce the number of laws and regulations we expect them to enforce .
Instead , de Blasio wants to use them as his personal moral squad while complaining that they ’ re doing too much .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ or the other , that would at least be defensible , but announcing a “ huge ” sting operation while decrying too much policing would qualify as satire if it wasn ’ t already happening in NYC .

What does it take to turn progressive mayors into police boosters? In the Big Apple, apparently it just takes firing off a few Roman candles under Hizzoner’s windows. Earlier today, Bill de Blasio took a moment out of this crisis in confidence in law enforcement to declare a massive undercover operation to spy on New Yorkers to stop illegal fireworks.
And get off his damn lawn, while you’re at it:
NEW: New York City cracks down on selling of illegal fireworks as complaints skyrocket. "We're going to start a huge sting operation to go and get these illegal fireworks at the base," Mayor Bill de Blasio says. https://t.co/SHmU0gVbWc pic.twitter.com/DjIyOrOzbp — ABC News (@ABC) June 23, 2020
To be fair, de Blasio tried to ignore the fireworks issue for a few days. People fed up over the issue decided to protest de Blasio’s inaction where it might have the greatest effect. Looks like it worked!
Our message tonight was simple: Mr. Mayor, if we can’t sleep, you won’t sleep. pic.twitter.com/7UuWnLfyrg — Councilman Deutsch (@ChaimDeutsch) June 23, 2020
And it’s not as if this isn’t a public-safety issue, either. Yossi Gestetner makes a valid point about the dangerous uses already in play:
VIDEO: Massive honking protest on the streets around Gracie Mansion. Since New Yorkers can not sleep due to the fireworks, the idea I guess is that the @NYCMayor should also not sleep. pic.twitter.com/GvowfK9EKp — Yossi Gestetner (@YossiGestetner) June 23, 2020
It’s a problem, but what is the proper solution? It might be as simple as getting more officers on the streets to enforce the law. Unfortunately, de Blasio’s already committed to defunding the NYPD:
This morning we committed to move resources from the NYPD to youth and social services as part of our City’s budget. Our young people need to be reached, not policed. We can do this AND keep our city safe. — Mayor Bill de Blasio (@NYCMayor) June 7, 2020
Okay, but can you do that and launch a 40-officer task force for undercover buys and a “huge sting operation”? What happened to being “reached, not policed”? Does “reach” include using police to spy on New Yorkers for the purpose of tracking down illegal fireworks — but not for, say, conspiring to riot and destroy historical landmarks? Why not just use “social services” to educate people on Safe & Sane Fireworks instead?
Because that won’t stop the interruptions to Hizzoner’s sleep, that’s why.
Perhaps this might serve as an example of why people feel that police have become more intrusive and oppressive. It’s not so much because policing has changed, but we keep demanding more and more interventions by police over the annoyances in our lives. The best way to “defund” police is to reduce the number of laws and regulations we expect them to enforce. Instead, de Blasio wants to use them as his personal moral squad while complaining that they’re doing too much. If de Blasio would pick one side or the other, that would at least be defensible, but announcing a “huge” sting operation while decrying too much policing would qualify as satire if it wasn’t already happening in NYC.


hotair--2020-06-23--Twitter: We've flagged Trump's tweet about using force against a Washington "autonomous zone" as abu

Twitter: We've flagged Trump's tweet about using force against a Washington "autonomous zone" as abusive

A bad decision for several reasons , although David French ’ s point is well taken .
It would be easier to defend Trump here if he hadn ’ t already demonstrated , both in word and in deed , that he doesn ’ t draw bright lines between violent miscreants and peaceful protesters .
Even so , this will backfire .
Here ’ s what Trump ’ s tweet looks like now on the Twitter website : Problem one : Notwithstanding the president ’ s own difficulty distinguishing law-abiding demonstrators from rioters , it ’ s foreseeable that lawful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ autonomous zone ” outside the White House .
How many shootings have there been in the CHAZ in Seattle this week ?
What would happen if the “ occupiers ” started trying to control public access to the “ zone ” ?
These little makeshift communes are fun for the media and all but it ’ s not a coincidence that chatter about a new “ autonomous zone ” in D.C. last night was taking place alongside mob action to pull down a statue of Andrew Jackson .
The “ zones ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Hopefully they can be dismantled peacefully , with persuasion , but mobs aren ’ t known for responding to reason .
Problem two : Calling a dubious foul like this on Trump makes it seem like Twitter ’ s now holding him to a separate standard in policing his tweets for violations of its terms of service .
That ’ s ironic considering that they let him have the run of the place for 10 years , saying whatever he wanted about anyone with no repercussions until finally the agita over him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forced them to act last month .
( And they didn ’ t actually act against his Scarborough tweets when they did .
They dinged him for disinformation about mail-in voting instead . )
They ’ ve now come full circle , slapping his wrist for vowing “ serious force ” against an autonomous zone in D.C. even though it ’ s hard to imagine them punishing randos for demanding “ serious force ” in Seattle , say .
It reminds me of how Twitter belatedly flagged a pair of tweets by a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the United States for seeding China ’ s COVID-19 outbreak but only after Trumpers started asking why those were acceptable to the company but Trump ’ s mail-in-voting tweets weren ’ t .
Twitter is now clearly policing Trump more closely than it is even other high foreign government officials tweeting more sinister disinformation .
Would a tweeted threat by the Chinese government to use “ serious force ” in Hong Kong have merited the same quick action ?
Problem three : We ’ re left to speculate whether Twitter would have reacted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ serious force ” against a potentially threatening right-wing gathering , but we all hold the same suspicion about it .
Today ’ s action isn ’ t just Twitter being hard on Trump , it ’ s Twitter being especially protective of a cause with which its management sympathizes .
( “ # BlackLivesMatter ” is part of the official Twitter bio . )
It ’ s not unlike public-health experts deciding that mass gatherings to protest George Floyd ’ s death were an important public-health interest notwithstanding the risk of viral @ @ @ @ @ @ @ April as grossly irresponsible because of how they might spread COVID-19 .
Institutions like to pretend that they enforce their rules neutrally , without respect to political sympathies , but they rarely do .
As I say , it will backfire .
Republican senators like Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz know that crusading against Big Tech for partisan bias is good politics , especially ahead of a presidential primary in 2024 .
This will help the cause .
Trump didn ’ t say anything about “ violent anarchists , ” Ted — that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — and Twitter didn ’ t “ censor ” him by leaving his tweet up and adding a note to it , but oh well .
Anyway , maybe Twitter figures that they gain more from the publicity of red-flagging Trump than they risk losing from a quixotic effort led by Cruz and Hawley to amend Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act .
That bill ’ s never going to pass so long as Democrats control either house of Congress or the White House , and Dems are all but assured of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year .
If Mike Lee can ’ t be convinced to strip immunity from tech companies that moderate content in a way that angers conservatives , good luck getting Pelosi to do it .
I ’ ll leave you with this comment from French .

A bad decision for several reasons, although David French’s point is well taken. It would be easier to defend Trump here if he hadn’t already demonstrated, both in word and in deed, that he doesn’t draw bright lines between violent miscreants and peaceful protesters.
Even so, this will backfire.
We’ve placed a public interest notice on this Tweet for violating our policy against abusive behavior, specifically, the presence of a threat of harm against an identifiable group.https://t.co/AcmW6O6d4t — Twitter Safety (@TwitterSafety) June 23, 2020
Here’s what Trump’s tweet looks like now on the Twitter website:
Problem one: Notwithstanding the president’s own difficulty distinguishing law-abiding demonstrators from rioters, it’s foreseeable that lawful force might be required to evict an “autonomous zone” outside the White House. How many shootings have there been in the CHAZ in Seattle this week? What would happen if the “occupiers” started trying to control public access to the “zone”? These little makeshift communes are fun for the media and all but it’s not a coincidence that chatter about a new “autonomous zone” in D.C. last night was taking place alongside mob action to pull down a statue of Andrew Jackson. The “zones” are a form of mob action too. Hopefully they can be dismantled peacefully, with persuasion, but mobs aren’t known for responding to reason.
Problem two: Calling a dubious foul like this on Trump makes it seem like Twitter’s now holding him to a separate standard in policing his tweets for violations of its terms of service. That’s ironic considering that they let him have the run of the place for 10 years, saying whatever he wanted about anyone with no repercussions until finally the agita over him smearing Joe Scarborough as a likely murderer forced them to act last month. (And they didn’t actually act against his Scarborough tweets when they did. They dinged him for disinformation about mail-in voting instead.) They’ve now come full circle, slapping his wrist for vowing “serious force” against an autonomous zone in D.C. even though it’s hard to imagine them punishing randos for demanding “serious force” in Seattle, say. It reminds me of how Twitter belatedly flagged a pair of tweets by a Chinese government spokesman in which he blamed the United States for seeding China’s COVID-19 outbreak but only after Trumpers started asking why those were acceptable to the company but Trump’s mail-in-voting tweets weren’t. Twitter is now clearly policing Trump more closely than it is even other high foreign government officials tweeting more sinister disinformation. Would a tweeted threat by the Chinese government to use “serious force” in Hong Kong have merited the same quick action?
Problem three: We’re left to speculate whether Twitter would have reacted as aggressively to a left-wing politician vowing “serious force” against a potentially threatening right-wing gathering, but we all hold the same suspicion about it. Today’s action isn’t just Twitter being hard on Trump, it’s Twitter being especially protective of a cause with which its management sympathizes. (“#BlackLivesMatter” is part of the official Twitter bio.) It’s not unlike public-health experts deciding that mass gatherings to protest George Floyd’s death were an important public-health interest notwithstanding the risk of viral contagion after slamming the anti-lockdown protests in April as grossly irresponsible because of how they might spread COVID-19. Institutions like to pretend that they enforce their rules neutrally, without respect to political sympathies, but they rarely do.
As I say, it will backfire. Republican senators like Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz know that crusading against Big Tech for partisan bias is good politics, especially ahead of a presidential primary in 2024. This will help the cause.
Beyond satire. Twitter is literally censoring the President of the United States for saying that violent anarchists will not be allowed to take over our nation’s capital & that law enforcement will act to protect public safety. In Big Tech’s Orwellian world, that’s “abusive.” https://t.co/x5FPzcUPWb — Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) June 23, 2020
Trump didn’t say anything about “violent anarchists,” Ted — that’s French’s point exactly — and Twitter didn’t “censor” him by leaving his tweet up and adding a note to it, but oh well. Anyway, maybe Twitter figures that they gain more from the publicity of red-flagging Trump than they risk losing from a quixotic effort led by Cruz and Hawley to amend Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. That bill’s never going to pass so long as Democrats control either house of Congress or the White House, and Dems are all but assured of controlling at least one of those next year. If Mike Lee can’t be convinced to strip immunity from tech companies that moderate content in a way that angers conservatives, good luck getting Pelosi to do it.
I’ll leave you with this comment from French.