hotair--2020-02-28--Bernie campaigning aggressively in Massachusetts before Super Tuesday

Bernie campaigning aggressively in Massachusetts before Super Tuesday -- to try to finish off Warren

I admire his ruthlessness here .
Well , maybe “ ruthlessness ” is too strong .
What he ’ s doing is perfectly rational , not vindictive .
But after Warren spent the entire campaign lamely pulling her punches against him , even after she ’ d clearly sunk to a distant second in the “ progressive lane ” of the race and needed to shake things up , it ’ s gratifying to see him go for the throat .
You want to win ?
Then play to win .
Now , in the run-up to the March 3 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on his bid to pick off Massachusetts , culminating in a four-day music and canvassing festival in Worcester that begins Friday… Losing a home state primary doesn ’ t necessarily spell the end of the campaign for presidential hopefuls .
But it ’ s both a humbling result and a sign of weakness that has caused some candidates — like Republican Marco Rubio in the 2016 GOP primary — to drop out .
Others have ended their campaigns before risking a home state defeat and risking damage to their future political prospects… Sensing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here to his top progressive rival , Sanders has events planned across the state in the final days before the primary , starting with the Worcester festival his campaign has taken to calling “ Berniepalooza.
” He will hold a rally in Springfield on Friday , the largest city in Western Massachusetts , followed by a rally on the Boston Common on Saturday .
That ’ s a lot of time and effort to spend on a not-particularly-big state in the waning hours before Super Tuesday .
You could understand it if Massachusetts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ menu next week , but it isn ’ t .
There are 91 pledged delegates at stake there .
Texas has 228 pledged delegates at stake .
California ?
415 pledged delegates .
You could also understand it if Bernie were uncompetitive in those larger states .
No sense spending time in California and Texas if they ’ re out of reach ; focus instead on states where victory is plausible .
But both of those states — and many more — are winnable on Tuesday , per Nate Silver ’ s latest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ North Carolina , Virginia , Minnesota , Oklahoma , and Arkansas are all very much in play .
In every case except one , it ’ s Joe Biden , not Elizabeth Warren , who ’ s Bernie ’ s chief competition .
( The one exception is Amy Klobuchar in Minesota , not Warren . )
Bernie ’ s win probability in Massachusetts is higher right now than it is in any of those other states , a strong argument that he should be spending time elsewhere this weekend .
In fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ today shows him surging ahead of Warren after being statistically tied last week , even before “ Berniepalooza ” has begun : The poll shows Sanders is the choice of 25 % of likely Democratic primary voters , while Warren is in second place with 17 % .
The former mayors , Pete Buttigieg and Michael Bloomberg , are in a virtual tie for third at 14 % and 13 % , respectively .
Former Vice President Joe Biden rounds out the top five at 9 % … The Warren campaign is working @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that a loss at home would be devastating to a presidential bid trying to regain its footing .
A week ago it was Sanders 21 , Warren 20 .
One could even argue that Bernie ’ s time would be better spent this weekend in California , a state he ’ s already all but guaranteed to win , since running up the score there could mean an even richer windfall of delegates from the most delegate-rich state on the map .
Instead he ’ s in Massachusetts .
Why ?
Because he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , of course .
She ’ s been talking tough lately about staying in the race until the convention but that depends entirely on her financial supply chain .
If Bernie can convince Warren donors that she ’ s hopeless , the money dries up and the Warren campaign collapses .
Running up the score in her own state should demoralize her fans and convince them to give up on her , with many then moving on to Bernie himself as their second-favorite progressive in the race .
And there may be some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debate performance last week in Nevada brought a revival in her fundraising , and lately she ’ s begun to benefit from big , big bucks being poured into a Super PAC that ’ s running ads on her behalf .
( She famously refused to accept Super PAC help during the campaign until about a week ago , realizing that she was dunzo if she didn ’ t . )
The odds of a Warren comeback are very long but the more encouragement , and money , she receives the more progressive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Bernie in primaries to come , even if she never reenters the top tier of the race .
So he ’ s going for the throat .
Beat her on her home field , watch her supporters close their wallets , then watch her campaign die .
Sanders becomes the only left-wing game in town .
I ’ m skeptical that she ’ ll still be in the race after Tuesday , but who knows ?
Maybe she really has convinced herself that she ’ s going to somehow emerge as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sanders and Biden deadlock , as if the Berniebros wouldn ’ t burn down the building if she tried to usurp him .
Possibly she ’ ll run as long as she can just to keep her name and face in front of Democratic voters .
Exit question : Um , who ’ s funding that Super PAC for her ?
I know that our very , very populist senator from Massachusetts would recoil at the thought of being bankrolled by a billionaire .

I admire his ruthlessness here. Well, maybe “ruthlessness” is too strong. What he’s doing is perfectly rational, not vindictive.
But after Warren spent the entire campaign lamely pulling her punches against him, even after she’d clearly sunk to a distant second in the “progressive lane” of the race and needed to shake things up, it’s gratifying to see him go for the throat. You want to win? Then play to win.
Bernie’s playing to win.
Now, in the run-up to the March 3 primary, Sanders is going all in on his bid to pick off Massachusetts, culminating in a four-day music and canvassing festival in Worcester that begins Friday… Losing a home state primary doesn’t necessarily spell the end of the campaign for presidential hopefuls. But it’s both a humbling result and a sign of weakness that has caused some candidates — like Republican Marco Rubio in the 2016 GOP primary — to drop out. Others have ended their campaigns before risking a home state defeat and risking damage to their future political prospects… Sensing an opportunity to deal a serious blow here to his top progressive rival, Sanders has events planned across the state in the final days before the primary, starting with the Worcester festival his campaign has taken to calling “Berniepalooza.” He will hold a rally in Springfield on Friday, the largest city in Western Massachusetts, followed by a rally on the Boston Common on Saturday.
That’s a lot of time and effort to spend on a not-particularly-big state in the waning hours before Super Tuesday. You could understand it if Massachusetts was the biggest delegate prize on the menu next week, but it isn’t. There are 91 pledged delegates at stake there. Texas has 228 pledged delegates at stake. California? 415 pledged delegates.
You could also understand it if Bernie were uncompetitive in those larger states. No sense spending time in California and Texas if they’re out of reach; focus instead on states where victory is plausible. But both of those states — and many more — are winnable on Tuesday, per Nate Silver’s latest model of win probabilities.
UPDATED Super Tuesday win probabilities, where you can see the impact of Biden's good polling in SC & other Southern states. Bernie looks as good as ever outside the South. CA—Sanders 86%, Biden 9%
TX—Biden 45%, Sanders 42%, Bloomberg 9%
NC—Biden 45%, Sanders 35%, Bloomberg 19% https://t.co/AkhMmb7u8E — Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) February 27, 2020
VA—Sanders 44%, Biden 38%, Bloomberg 16%
MA—Sanders 53%, Warren 28%, Biden 11%, Buttigieg 5%
MN—Klobuchar 53%, Sanders 40%
CO—Sanders 78%, Warren 9%, Biden 8%
TN—Biden 50%, Sanders 29%, Bloomberg 17%
AL—Biden 68%, Bloomberg 16%, Sanders 13% — Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) February 27, 2020
OK—Biden 37%, Bloomberg 30%, Sanders 28%
AR—Biden 31%, Sanders 30%, Bloomberg 29%, Buttigieg 8%
UT—Sanders 86%, Warren 5%
ME—Sanders 63%, Biden 11%, Bloomberg 10%, Warren 9%, Buttigieg 8%
VT—Sanders >99%
AS—Sanders 35%, Biden 30%, Bloomberg 20%, Warren 9% — Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) February 27, 2020
Texas, North Carolina, Virginia, Minnesota, Oklahoma, and Arkansas are all very much in play. In every case except one, it’s Joe Biden, not Elizabeth Warren, who’s Bernie’s chief competition. (The one exception is Amy Klobuchar in Minesota, not Warren.) Bernie’s win probability in Massachusetts is higher right now than it is in any of those other states, a strong argument that he should be spending time elsewhere this weekend. In fact, a new poll of MA out today shows him surging ahead of Warren after being statistically tied last week, even before “Berniepalooza” has begun:
The poll shows Sanders is the choice of 25% of likely Democratic primary voters, while Warren is in second place with 17%. The former mayors, Pete Buttigieg and Michael Bloomberg, are in a virtual tie for third at 14% and 13%, respectively. Former Vice President Joe Biden rounds out the top five at 9%… The Warren campaign is working hard in Massachusetts, understanding full well that a loss at home would be devastating to a presidential bid trying to regain its footing.
A week ago it was Sanders 21, Warren 20. One could even argue that Bernie’s time would be better spent this weekend in California, a state he’s already all but guaranteed to win, since running up the score there could mean an even richer windfall of delegates from the most delegate-rich state on the map.
Instead he’s in Massachusetts. Why? Because he’s trying to take Warren out, of course. She’s been talking tough lately about staying in the race until the convention but that depends entirely on her financial supply chain. If Bernie can convince Warren donors that she’s hopeless, the money dries up and the Warren campaign collapses. Running up the score in her own state should demoralize her fans and convince them to give up on her, with many then moving on to Bernie himself as their second-favorite progressive in the race. And there may be some urgency here: Warren’s strong debate performance last week in Nevada brought a revival in her fundraising, and lately she’s begun to benefit from big, big bucks being poured into a Super PAC that’s running ads on her behalf. (She famously refused to accept Super PAC help during the campaign until about a week ago, realizing that she was dunzo if she didn’t.) The odds of a Warren comeback are very long but the more encouragement, and money, she receives the more progressive votes she’ll continue to hoard from Bernie in primaries to come, even if she never reenters the top tier of the race.
So he’s going for the throat. Beat her on her home field, watch her supporters close their wallets, then watch her campaign die. Sanders becomes the only left-wing game in town.
I’m skeptical that she’ll still be in the race after Tuesday, but who knows? Maybe she really has convinced herself that she’s going to somehow emerge as a compromise candidate at a brokered convention once Sanders and Biden deadlock, as if the Berniebros wouldn’t burn down the building if she tried to usurp him. Possibly she’ll run as long as she can just to keep her name and face in front of Democratic voters. Exit question: Um, who’s funding that Super PAC for her? I know that our very, very populist senator from Massachusetts would recoil at the thought of being bankrolled by a billionaire.


hotair--2020-02-28--Turley: Dems have more than 150 million ways to sound stupid on gun issues, you know

Just how badly are Democrats mangling gun issues in their primary campaigns ?
In a column at The Hill , Jonathan Turley dismantles every argument being made on stage in the presidential debates and campaigns , even while expressing some sympathy for their motives .
Joe Biden ’ s nonsensical claim that 150 million Americans have been killed in the past 12 years through gun violence is the least of the falsehoods being promoted , the George Washington University law professor declares : The much greater danger , however , is not the statistical but the legal misrepresentations on gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just to Biden .
After all , cracking down on guns is one of the defining issues for former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg , who has pledged to “ stop this nationwide madness.
” In the debate , Biden dramatically glared into the camera to speak directly to the National Rifle Association , saying that he will fight the organization and the gun manufacturers if elected .
The other Democratic candidates have made similar claims that they will reduce gun violence significantly with executive orders and laws .
Such statements are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of fancy promoted by Biden .
Gun ownership is an individual constitutional right under the Second Amendment .
A constitutional right can not be reduced or changed by either executive order or legislation .
You can only work on the margins of such exercises of constitutional rights , which belies the promise by Bloomberg that these measures would make an “ enormous difference.
” Elizabeth Warren declared that “ we need a president willing to take executive action ” to end gun violence without any explanation what she can do to limit an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unilaterally .
There ’ s plenty of claims about fighting the NRA , but at least on the terms the Democratic candidates are laying out , the NRA has little to worry about .
In the first place , most of their ire falls on so-called “ assault weapons ” that are in widespread common use , such as the AR-15 , which the Supreme Court will almost certainly not allow to be banned .
That weapon class also accounts for a surpassingly small percentage of firearms deaths , which as Turley notes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also primarily suicides rather than homicides of others .
Their attacks on gun manufacturers and the 2005 immunity bill that Bernie Sanders backed is also far less significant than the demagoguery suggests .
Turley points out that lawsuits over the use of firearms without an actual product failure wouldn ’ t succeed anyway , as courts routinely dismiss claims against products without evidence of defect .
Turley opposed the bill at the time , not because it was bailout for gun manufacturers but because it was entirely unnecessary : It barred liability for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were later used by criminals .
The bill saved the industry some litigation costs , but the industry would have prevailed in such actions anyway if they were tried .
Product liability and tort actions against manufacturers have uniformly and correctly been rejected by the courts .
Guns are lawful products , and holding companies liable for later misuse of such products is absurd .
You might as well sue an axe manufacturer for the Lizzy Borden murders .
Thus , even if you remove immunity protections , ban certain magazines or devices @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ban a couple weapon types , the reduction in gun deaths would not likely fall significantly .
Individuals still would have a constitutional right to possess guns .
Moreover , the vast majority of guns would remain unaffected .
That does not mean we should not try to reduce those fatalities or pass these measures .
Any saved life is worth the effort .
But candidates are misleading voters in suggesting that , if elected , they can dramatically impact the numbers of these cases .
Although Turley doesn ’ t mention it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nostalgia expressed on stage for the Assault Weapons Ban .
Gun deaths had already started declining before the ban passed , and they continued to decline after the law expired .
The percentage of homicides from long-barrel firearms of all types has always been around 6 % or lower , and so-called “ assault weapons ” are a small subset of this category .
Even if someone managed to not just bar all long-barrel weapons but magically made them disappear overnight , it would only have a marginal impact on homicides — and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t just use a handgun instead .
It ’ s nonsense all the time , but the demagoguery has gotten so much traction that the truth has no chance of breaking through … at least in a Democratic debate : Of course , none of that would make for a memorable debate moment for any of the candidates .
Biden would be less than riveting if he glared into the camera and poked a figurative National Rifle Association in the chest while saying he would take them on and “ marginally reduce the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incidents.
” That is the reason why there are lies , damned lies , statistics , and presidential debates .
Do Democrats want blockbuster ratings for a new debate ?
Here ’ s a suggestion : limit the topic to gun control — a major plank in all their campaign platforms — and have Turley moderate it .
By the time it ’ s over , the Georgetown Law professor might be the first moderator to win the nomination for himself .
Not the first one to try , of course , but @

Just how badly are Democrats mangling gun issues in their primary campaigns? In a column at The Hill, Jonathan Turley dismantles every argument being made on stage in the presidential debates and campaigns, even while expressing some sympathy for their motives. Joe Biden’s nonsensical claim that 150 million Americans have been killed in the past 12 years through gun violence is the least of the falsehoods being promoted, the George Washington University law professor declares:
The much greater danger, however, is not the statistical but the legal misrepresentations on gun control, and those are not confined just to Biden. After all, cracking down on guns is one of the defining issues for former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has pledged to “stop this nationwide madness.” In the debate, Biden dramatically glared into the camera to speak directly to the National Rifle Association, saying that he will fight the organization and the gun manufacturers if elected. The other Democratic candidates have made similar claims that they will reduce gun violence significantly with executive orders and laws. Such statements are far more dishonest than the statistical flight of fancy promoted by Biden. Gun ownership is an individual constitutional right under the Second Amendment. A constitutional right cannot be reduced or changed by either executive order or legislation. You can only work on the margins of such exercises of constitutional rights, which belies the promise by Bloomberg that these measures would make an “enormous difference.” Elizabeth Warren declared that “we need a president willing to take executive action” to end gun violence without any explanation what she can do to limit an individual right, let alone do it unilaterally.
There’s plenty of claims about fighting the NRA, but at least on the terms the Democratic candidates are laying out, the NRA has little to worry about. In the first place, most of their ire falls on so-called “assault weapons” that are in widespread common use, such as the AR-15, which the Supreme Court will almost certainly not allow to be banned. That weapon class also accounts for a surpassingly small percentage of firearms deaths, which as Turley notes comes primarily from handguns — and are also primarily suicides rather than homicides of others.
Their attacks on gun manufacturers and the 2005 immunity bill that Bernie Sanders backed is also far less significant than the demagoguery suggests. Turley points out that lawsuits over the use of firearms without an actual product failure wouldn’t succeed anyway, as courts routinely dismiss claims against products without evidence of defect. Turley opposed the bill at the time, not because it was bailout for gun manufacturers but because it was entirely unnecessary:
It barred liability for injuries due to the fact that firearms were later used by criminals. The bill saved the industry some litigation costs, but the industry would have prevailed in such actions anyway if they were tried. Product liability and tort actions against manufacturers have uniformly and correctly been rejected by the courts. Guns are lawful products, and holding companies liable for later misuse of such products is absurd. You might as well sue an axe manufacturer for the Lizzy Borden murders. Thus, even if you remove immunity protections, ban certain magazines or devices, require background checks, or even ban a couple weapon types, the reduction in gun deaths would not likely fall significantly. Individuals still would have a constitutional right to possess guns. Moreover, the vast majority of guns would remain unaffected. That does not mean we should not try to reduce those fatalities or pass these measures. Any saved life is worth the effort. But candidates are misleading voters in suggesting that, if elected, they can dramatically impact the numbers of these cases.
Although Turley doesn’t mention it, the same argument applies to the nostalgia expressed on stage for the Assault Weapons Ban. Gun deaths had already started declining before the ban passed, and they continued to decline after the law expired. The percentage of homicides from long-barrel firearms of all types has always been around 6% or lower, and so-called “assault weapons” are a small subset of this category. Even if someone managed to not just bar all long-barrel weapons but magically made them disappear overnight, it would only have a marginal impact on homicides — and that assumes that the perps didn’t just use a handgun instead.
It’s nonsense all the time, but the demagoguery has gotten so much traction that the truth has no chance of breaking through … at least in a Democratic debate:
Of course, none of that would make for a memorable debate moment for any of the candidates. Biden would be less than riveting if he glared into the camera and poked a figurative National Rifle Association in the chest while saying he would take them on and “marginally reduce the minority of deaths associated with nonsuicidal gun incidents.” That is the reason why there are lies, damned lies, statistics, and presidential debates.
Do Democrats want blockbuster ratings for a new debate? Here’s a suggestion: limit the topic to gun control — a major plank in all their campaign platforms — and have Turley moderate it. By the time it’s over, the Georgetown Law professor might be the first moderator to win the nomination for himself. Not the first one to try, of course, but …


hotair--2020-03-01--Grow younger in Christ: Sunday reflection

Note to readers : Unfortunately , I am under the weather today — and apparently so is my main computer .
Please enjoy this reflection on the same Gospel reading from three years ago , and I promise to get back to this next weekend .
At that time Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil .
He fasted for forty days and forty nights , and afterwards he was hungry .
The tempter approached and said to him , “ If you are the Son of God , command that these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said in reply , “ It is written : One does not live on bread alone , but on every word that comes forth from the mouth of God.
” Then the devil took him to the holy city , and made him stand on the parapet of the temple , and said to him , “ If you are the Son of God , throw yourself down .
For it is written : He will command his angels concerning you and with their hands they will support you , lest you dash @ @ @ @ @ @ @ answered him , “ Again it is written , You shall not put the Lord , your God , to the test.
” Then the devil took him up to a very high mountain , and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in their magnificence , and he said to him , “ All these I shall give to you , if you will prostrate yourself and worship me.
” At this , Jesus said to him , “ Get away , Satan !
It is written : The Lord , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him alone shall you serve.
” Then the devil left him and , behold , angels came and ministered to him .
The first time I recall hearing someone say , “ The more I learn , the less I know , ” was probably in my early twenties .
Before that , I could sing the refrain to the Bob Dylan ’ s “ My Back Pages ” — I was so much older then , I ’ m younger than that now — and get another glimpse of the same wistful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without the context of experience it sounded like wisdom , and I vaguely remember thinking that it would make even more sense later in my life .
Three decades later , the nuances of the song and the adage ( based off a quote from Albert Einstein ) just keep getting more and more pertinent .
Life teaches us humility , whether we desire it or not , and in a particular way — by constantly reminding us of just how much we don ’ t know , or ever will know .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ direction , almost akin to the film Benjamin Button , whose protagonist was born old and aged backwards toward infancy .
In life , many of us start off believing we burst onto the world fully formed , and fully armed with wisdom and knowledge .
We put our confidence ourselves , considering ourselves the be the largest part of the world , and believing deeply that we really know everything there is to know and that we can run things better than anyone else .
As we age , we grow smaller @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expands impossibly around us .
Today ’ s readings bring this to mind .
In our first reading from Genesis , the creation of man is explained , and then the fall from Eden .
Adam and Eve are young , close to the Lord , but full of desire to master the world .
The serpent tempts them to disobey by promising that they will become God ’ s equal when they eat the forbidden fruit , able to discern good from evil and run things themselves rather than trusting in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the fruit and thus gain knowledge and experience — but it also teaches them just how unprepared they are for the role they hoped to usurp .
They discover their nakedness , hide from the Lord , and end up having to leave the Garden and brave the wilderness on their own — and find out how much they really don ’ t know .
Through this act of disobedience and arrogance , Adam and Eve transform the world of the Lord into the world of men , and of original sin .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ divide reality into two parts : the world as God willed it , and the world that man created through devotion to his own will .
Throughout the Old Testament , God continuously called men and women back to His will , only to have us choose repeatedly to serve our own will instead .
The Lord called Israel out of Egypt to bear His word in Jerusalem as a nation of priests , so that all nations could hear His law and be saved .
Israel instead chose to be a worldly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wound up destroyed and exiled .
The Lord restores them to their land , only to have them fall back on their own sin and desires , and wind up under the thumb of the Greeks and then the Romans .
This brings us to our Gospel reading today , where Satan offers three temptations to Christ in the desert .
At each turn , Jesus redeems the great failures of mankind .
He first refuses to sell His birthright for food , answering both Esau and the Israelites ’ rebellion that prompted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ desert .
Jesus then rejects Satan ’ s taunting demand for a test of His identity , answering the Israelites ’ faithless idolatry of the Golden Calf as a way of rejected Moses and the Lord .
Finally , and most importantly , Jesus rejects the temptation that felled Adam and Eve — the promise of power that rightly belongs to the Lord .
Jesus , sent to save mankind as the Word made incarnate , understands His place as the servant of the Father ’ s will .
Rather than get caught @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Jesus accepts the will of the Father and refuses to bend to sin as the one true man , the redeemed Adam .
He remains obedient , rather than usurp the Lord ’ s role .
By doing so , Paul reminds us in his letter to the Romans , Jesus bridges the gap between the world of men and the world of God .
“ [ J ] ust as through one transgression condemnation came upon all , so , through one righteous act , acquittal and life came to all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners , so , through the obedience of the one , the many will be made righteous.
” What is righteousness , though , except the realization of our proper relationship with the Lord , and through that with each other ?
The law and the prophets all aim at two eternal truths — there is one God , and we are not Him .
Therefore , we should not murder , steal , or blaspheme , because to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ place as our own and to reject eternity for a bite of dangerous fruit .
Love your neighbor as yourselves is the practical command that is predicated on the basis that we occupy the same relative status as our neighbors when it comes to the authority of God , and the same knowledge of all the world — far too limited to run it , and most times too blinkered to realize it .
Jesus ’ instruction to love our enemies as well as our neighbors makes this predicate even more clear .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ other way to read it , other than each life has the same sacramental value to the Lord .
We should care for it for the same reason we care for our own — because it all belongs to the Lord , and we should act within His will , not our own .
If we love the Lord with all our heart , we have no room for hatred or jealousy with His other children .
We may act according to the law simply because it ’ s the law , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and make us realize why it matters , then we become Pharisees .
For most of us , we learn the hard way just how limited we are , and find righteousness almost by the process of elimination .
Serving righteously may be difficult to do in this world made from the will of mankind , disordered as it is by human beings clinging to their own wills rather than the Lord ’ s .
But perhaps this disorder serves the Lord ’ s will , too , in a way .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accept or reject the Lord , part of the gift of free will and being made in His image .
In some manner , we all face that temptation — to usurp the Lord , assuming we can control the world and have enough knowledge and will to run it for ourselves .
We spend this life exhausting ourselves in those efforts , slowly learning our limitations and shortcomings , and finally understanding just how little we truly understand .
If we allow it , that provides a powerful formation process to ready @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will in our hearts , as well as by our actions .
We need to learn these lessons now , so that we know to trust the Lord in the world He truly means for us when we are ready to accept it through Christ , who rebuked Satan and taught us to do the same .
Jesus told the disciples in Matthew 18:3 that “ unless you change and become like little children , you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
” We need to go through that process described so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our knowledge to realize how much we need to rely on the Lord .
I was so much older then , we can sing , adding hopefully , I ’ m younger than that now .
May our love of God and reliance on His will make us young enough for that wisdom .
The front-page image is “ The Temptations of Christ , ” a 12th-century mosaic in St. Mark ’ s Basilica in Venice , Italy .
“ Sunday Reflection ” is a regular feature , looking at the specific readings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Catholic parishes around the world .
The reflection represents only my own point of view , intended to help prepare myself for the Lord ’ s day and perhaps spark a meaningful discussion .
Previous Sunday Reflections from the main page can be found here .
For previous Green Room entries , click here .

Note to readers: Unfortunately, I am under the weather today — and apparently so is my main computer. Please enjoy this reflection on the same Gospel reading from three years ago, and I promise to get back to this next weekend.
This morning’s Gospel reading is Matthew 4:1-11:
At that time Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil. He fasted for forty days and forty nights, and afterwards he was hungry. The tempter approached and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command that these stones become loaves of bread.” He said in reply, “It is written: One does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes forth from the mouth of God.” Then the devil took him to the holy city, and made him stand on the parapet of the temple, and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down. For it is written: He will command his angels concerning you and with their hands they will support you, lest you dash your foot against a stone.” Jesus answered him, “Again it is written, You shall not put the Lord, your God, to the test.” Then the devil took him up to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in their magnificence, and he said to him, “All these I shall give to you, if you will prostrate yourself and worship me.” At this, Jesus said to him, “Get away, Satan! It is written: The Lord, your God, shall you worship and him alone shall you serve.” Then the devil left him and, behold, angels came and ministered to him.
The first time I recall hearing someone say, “The more I learn, the less I know,” was probably in my early twenties. Before that, I could sing the refrain to the Bob Dylan’s “My Back Pages” — I was so much older then, I’m younger than that now — and get another glimpse of the same wistful and humbling nature of experience. Even without the context of experience it sounded like wisdom, and I vaguely remember thinking that it would make even more sense later in my life. Three decades later, the nuances of the song and the adage (based off a quote from Albert Einstein) just keep getting more and more pertinent.
Life teaches us humility, whether we desire it or not, and in a particular way — by constantly reminding us of just how much we don’t know, or ever will know. Our arc of wisdom takes a curious direction, almost akin to the film Benjamin Button, whose protagonist was born old and aged backwards toward infancy. In life, many of us start off believing we burst onto the world fully formed, and fully armed with wisdom and knowledge. We put our confidence ourselves, considering ourselves the be the largest part of the world, and believing deeply that we really know everything there is to know and that we can run things better than anyone else. As we age, we grow smaller, less arrogant, while the world expands impossibly around us.
Today’s readings bring this to mind. In our first reading from Genesis, the creation of man is explained, and then the fall from Eden. Adam and Eve are young, close to the Lord, but full of desire to master the world. The serpent tempts them to disobey by promising that they will become God’s equal when they eat the forbidden fruit, able to discern good from evil and run things themselves rather than trusting in the Lord to do so. They eat the fruit and thus gain knowledge and experience — but it also teaches them just how unprepared they are for the role they hoped to usurp. They discover their nakedness, hide from the Lord, and end up having to leave the Garden and brave the wilderness on their own — and find out how much they really don’t know.
Through this act of disobedience and arrogance, Adam and Eve transform the world of the Lord into the world of men, and of original sin. From this point forward, we can divide reality into two parts: the world as God willed it, and the world that man created through devotion to his own will. Throughout the Old Testament, God continuously called men and women back to His will, only to have us choose repeatedly to serve our own will instead. The Lord called Israel out of Egypt to bear His word in Jerusalem as a nation of priests, so that all nations could hear His law and be saved. Israel instead chose to be a worldly nation of alliances and wars, and wound up destroyed and exiled. The Lord restores them to their land, only to have them fall back on their own sin and desires, and wind up under the thumb of the Greeks and then the Romans.
This brings us to our Gospel reading today, where Satan offers three temptations to Christ in the desert. At each turn, Jesus redeems the great failures of mankind. He first refuses to sell His birthright for food, answering both Esau and the Israelites’ rebellion that prompted the Lord to provide manna in the desert. Jesus then rejects Satan’s taunting demand for a test of His identity, answering the Israelites’ faithless idolatry of the Golden Calf as a way of rejected Moses and the Lord.
Finally, and most importantly, Jesus rejects the temptation that felled Adam and Eve — the promise of power that rightly belongs to the Lord. Jesus, sent to save mankind as the Word made incarnate, understands His place as the servant of the Father’s will. Rather than get caught up in His own desires and arrogance, Jesus accepts the will of the Father and refuses to bend to sin as the one true man, the redeemed Adam. He remains obedient, rather than usurp the Lord’s role.
By doing so, Paul reminds us in his letter to the Romans, Jesus bridges the gap between the world of men and the world of God. “[J]ust as through one transgression condemnation came upon all, so, through one righteous act, acquittal and life came to all,” Paul instructs. “For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so, through the obedience of the one, the many will be made righteous.”
What is righteousness, though, except the realization of our proper relationship with the Lord, and through that with each other? The law and the prophets all aim at two eternal truths — there is one God, and we are not Him. Therefore, we should not murder, steal, or blaspheme, because to do so is to claim God’s place as our own and to reject eternity for a bite of dangerous fruit. Love your neighbor as yourselves is the practical command that is predicated on the basis that we occupy the same relative status as our neighbors when it comes to the authority of God, and the same knowledge of all the world — far too limited to run it, and most times too blinkered to realize it.
Jesus’ instruction to love our enemies as well as our neighbors makes this predicate even more clear. In fact, there’s no other way to read it, other than each life has the same sacramental value to the Lord. We should care for it for the same reason we care for our own — because it all belongs to the Lord, and we should act within His will, not our own. If we love the Lord with all our heart, we have no room for hatred or jealousy with His other children. We may act according to the law simply because it’s the law, but if it does not touch our hearts and make us realize why it matters, then we become Pharisees. For most of us, we learn the hard way just how limited we are, and find righteousness almost by the process of elimination.
Serving righteously may be difficult to do in this world made from the will of mankind, disordered as it is by human beings clinging to their own wills rather than the Lord’s. But perhaps this disorder serves the Lord’s will, too, in a way. As free beings, we can choose to accept or reject the Lord, part of the gift of free will and being made in His image. In some manner, we all face that temptation — to usurp the Lord, assuming we can control the world and have enough knowledge and will to run it for ourselves. We spend this life exhausting ourselves in those efforts, slowly learning our limitations and shortcomings, and finally understanding just how little we truly understand. If we allow it, that provides a powerful formation process to ready ourselves to accept the Lord’s will in our hearts, as well as by our actions.
We need to learn these lessons now, so that we know to trust the Lord in the world He truly means for us when we are ready to accept it through Christ, who rebuked Satan and taught us to do the same. Jesus told the disciples in Matthew 18:3 that “unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” We need to go through that process described so lyrically by Dylan, or to use our knowledge to realize how much we need to rely on the Lord.
I was so much older then, we can sing, adding hopefully, I’m younger than that now. May our love of God and reliance on His will make us young enough for that wisdom.
The front-page image is “The Temptations of Christ,” a 12th-century mosaic in St. Mark’s Basilica in Venice, Italy.
“Sunday Reflection” is a regular feature, looking at the specific readings used in today’s Mass in Catholic parishes around the world. The reflection represents only my own point of view, intended to help prepare myself for the Lord’s day and perhaps spark a meaningful discussion. Previous Sunday Reflections from the main page can be found here. For previous Green Room entries, click here.


hotair--2020-03-01--Jewish professional wrestler wins WWE title...in Saudia Arabia

World Wrestling Entertainment held their latest show in Saudi Arabia on Thursday , their fifth under a ten year deal with the Kingdom .
It was your typical WWE show featuring pyro , championship matches , tag team wrestling , and a match for a Saudi-specific prize .
Two things stand out from the spectacle , possibly revealing a glimmer of hope for human rights in Saudi Arabia .
The first was the match between Smackdown Women ’ s Champion Bayley and Naomi .
WWE previously featured female performers in Saudi Arabia including the first women ’ s match ever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a championship match , however , meaning it ‘ broke ground ’ for lack of a better term even within the worked environment of professional wrestling .
Bayley and Naomi were allowed a little more freedom to showcase their skills including one where Naomi was thrown into a ringside barrier .
A mite tougher than last year ’ s semi-basic affair between Natalya and Lacey Evans ( best guess is the latter were told to keep things simple ) .
Saudi Arabia , despite their horrible human rights record , attempted a bit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ female athletes to the Olympics .
Saudi Sports launched their first women ’ s soccer league last Monday but the cynic in me takes a wait and see attitude on its long-term viability .
The WWE matches may be another sign that women will get further sporting opportunities in a country where equality has been a seemingly unattainable dream .
Yet , even more interesting was the end of the show featuring almost all of Mohammed Abdu Arena on the Boulevard cheering as Bill Goldberg won the WWE Universal Championship .
That ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Muslims roared in approval as someone San Diego Jewish Journal once proclaimed “ The Hebrew Hulk ” captured one of the top prizes in WWE .
The irony is unmistakable .
Judaism is not welcome in Saudi Arabia .
There are no synagogues in the Kingdom and the imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca once prayed for the destruction of all Jews .
Yet , Goldberg was booked to win the belt in Saudi Arabia .
This raises an obvious question .
Did WWE purposefully switch the belt onto Goldberg as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Saudi Arabia ?
The answer is maybe , but probably not .
“ If someone asked WWE , I could see their PR team pointing out that the company has been trying to help move things forward culturally , as that ’ s the tag line when they have their female performers on the Saudi events , ” Mike Johnson from PWInsider.com told me in an email about Goldberg ’ s win .
“ My gut feeling , however , is that the real reason the title switch was done there was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They likely wanted to slide Goldberg into their Wrestlemania plans ASAP .
Wrestlemania is not sold out .
Goldberg vs. John Cena and Goldberg vs. Roman Reigns , etc .
Theoretically , those are big dream matches that the average person might be entranced in wanting to see and pay for .
I think that ’ s more of the big picture thought process there… ” Johnson also noted Royal Family members are huge fans of 90 ’ s era wrestling which would include Goldberg , who was once one of WCW ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are meant to be a big spectacle .
“ I just don ’ t know that it was booked with the idea of being some sort of backdoor cultural milestone .
“ Johnson opined while nothing it ’ s still culturally unique .
“ It was booked because it fit into WWE ’ s plans and they thought it was a good attraction for the show.
” Saudi Arabia has a long way to go before its culture and human rights record catches up to America .
Dissidents are murdered , women are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and religious minorities are persecuted .
Yet , for one night , thousands of Saudis applauded a Jew from Georgia for winning a professional wrestling match .
And freedom also won .

World Wrestling Entertainment held their latest show in Saudi Arabia on Thursday, their fifth under a ten year deal with the Kingdom. It was your typical WWE show featuring pyro, championship matches, tag team wrestling, and a match for a Saudi-specific prize.
Two things stand out from the spectacle, possibly revealing a glimmer of hope for human rights in Saudi Arabia.
The first was the match between Smackdown Women’s Champion Bayley and Naomi.
WWE previously featured female performers in Saudi Arabia including the first women’s match ever last year. The Bayley-Naomi match was a championship match, however, meaning it ‘broke ground’ for lack of a better term even within the worked environment of professional wrestling. Bayley and Naomi were allowed a little more freedom to showcase their skills including one where Naomi was thrown into a ringside barrier. A mite tougher than last year’s semi-basic affair between Natalya and Lacey Evans (best guess is the latter were told to keep things simple).
Saudi Arabia, despite their horrible human rights record, attempted a bit of liberalization over the past decade sending female athletes to the Olympics. Saudi Sports launched their first women’s soccer league last Monday but the cynic in me takes a wait and see attitude on its long-term viability. The WWE matches may be another sign that women will get further sporting opportunities in a country where equality has been a seemingly unattainable dream.
Yet, even more interesting was the end of the show featuring almost all of Mohammed Abdu Arena on the Boulevard cheering as Bill Goldberg won the WWE Universal Championship. That’s right, hundreds of Saudi Arabian Muslims roared in approval as someone San Diego Jewish Journal once proclaimed “The Hebrew Hulk” captured one of the top prizes in WWE.
The irony is unmistakable. Judaism is not welcome in Saudi Arabia. There are no synagogues in the Kingdom and the imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca once prayed for the destruction of all Jews. Yet, Goldberg was booked to win the belt in Saudi Arabia.
This raises an obvious question. Did WWE purposefully switch the belt onto Goldberg as a way to provide an avenue towards moderation in Saudi Arabia?
The answer is maybe, but probably not.
“If someone asked WWE, I could see their PR team pointing out that the company has been trying to help move things forward culturally, as that’s the tag line when they have their female performers on the Saudi events,” Mike Johnson from PWInsider.com told me in an email about Goldberg’s win. “My gut feeling, however, is that the real reason the title switch was done there was based on one factor – financials. They likely wanted to slide Goldberg into their Wrestlemania plans ASAP. Wrestlemania is not sold out. Goldberg vs. John Cena and Goldberg vs. Roman Reigns, etc. Theoretically, those are big dream matches that the average person might be entranced in wanting to see and pay for. I think that’s more of the big picture thought process there…”
Johnson also noted Royal Family members are huge fans of 90’s era wrestling which would include Goldberg, who was once one of WCW’s top stars. The Saudi shows are meant to be a big spectacle.
“I just don’t know that it was booked with the idea of being some sort of backdoor cultural milestone. “ Johnson opined while nothing it’s still culturally unique. “It was booked because it fit into WWE’s plans and they thought it was a good attraction for the show.”
Saudi Arabia has a long way to go before its culture and human rights record catches up to America. Dissidents are murdered, women are treated horribly, the press is suppressed, and religious minorities are persecuted.
Yet, for one night, thousands of Saudis applauded a Jew from Georgia for winning a professional wrestling match. And freedom also won.


hotair--2020-03-01--Media amnesia: Suddenly Joe Biden is inevitable again?

This morning , with all but a handful of precincts reporting , it became clear that Joe Biden had a very good night in South Carolina .
In fact , he appears to have overperformed against even the most optimistic polls , coming in dangerously close to the 50 % mark .
Bernie Sanders , by contrast , underperformed a bit , registering just shy of 20 % , but that will be more than enough to ensure he grabs some delegates on his way out the door .
So congratulations are in order for Uncle Joe .
Well done @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the difference in the media coverage of the Democratic primary between this morning and what it looked like only 24 hours ago is stunning .
One of the best examples can be found in this analysis from Jonathan Chait at New York Magazine .
You see , it was less than three weeks ago that Chait published an obituary for the Biden campaign , declaring that “ Biden ’ s campaign was a disaster for liberalism and his party.
” And yes , you will note that he refers to Biden in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Stick a fork in Uncle Joe because he ’ s done .
This morning , Chait just as boldly declares that “ Joe Biden is now the only candidate that can stop Bernie Sanders.
” After Biden ’ s South Carolina victory , the first primary he has ever won in his three presidential campaigns , things look quite different .
The status of Biden ’ s campaign has not only been upgraded to “ alive ” — at this point he is the primary , and probably the sole , alternative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of overreacting in the opposite direction , Biden appears to have taken control of the Democrat party ’ s center-left voters so decisively , none of his mainstream rivals will be able to sustain a rationale for their candidacy .
Michael Bloomberg , Amy Klobuchar , Pete Buttigieg — all of whom have made Biden-esque pitches to the electorate — will face enormous pressure to leave the race after Super Tuesday , and possibly even before .
Chait is hardly alone .
CNBC is expecting a “ flood ” of new Biden donations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ former Obama adviser who declares that this is now a two-person race between Biden and Sanders .
The list goes on .
Pardon me for being the toad at the garden party here , but weren ’ t most of you declaring Biden ’ s presidential aspirations dead and buried as recently as Wednesday ?
Has the entire press corps suddenly developed collective amnesia ?
What happened to Joe ’ s “ declining ” mental sharpness ?
( To say the least . )
Or his creepy interactions with women ?
There were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a “ disaster.
” Apparently , this has all been forgotten after Biden won a single state .
Moving on , let ’ s look at the current theory , perhaps best exemplified in Chait ’ s article I linked above .
Supposedly , Buttigieg , Bloomberg and Klobuchar will “ face enormous pressure ” to drop out of the race , possibly before Tuesday , clearing the moderate lane for Joe .
Similarly , Warren will need to go home leaving the socialist lane to Bernie .
As theories go , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still more total support for the “ moderate ” candidates combined than there is for Sanders and Warren .
But there ’ s one little problem with this vision .
The only person who dropped out of the race after South Carolina was Tom Steyer .
( No word yet as to where Steyer ’ s two supporters will migrate . )
If any of the others had planned on dropping if South Carolina went badly for them , I think we ’ d have heard from them last night .
Warren was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Buttigieg and Klobuchar both flew out to Super Tuesday states .
Doesn ’ t look to me like any of them are going anywhere just yet .
As far as Bloomberg goes , he didn ’ t even compete in the first four states .
He ’ s been banking on Super Tuesday from the day he announced .
Why on Earth would he drop out now ?
And speaking of Super Tuesday , Joe Biden has a lot of work to do in a very short time if this is the beginning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s trailing Bernie by 8 in Texas and is barely ahead of Bloomberg .
CNN had Bernie up by twenty in California only one week ago and Biden was even losing to Warren .
Sanders has a solid lead in Virginia as well as Michigan .
Klobuchar may take her home state of Minnesota , but Bernie is her only real challenger there .
Biden is in single digits .
Heck , Sanders is even leading Warren in Massachusetts .
The only place I see Biden leading in Tuesday races is North @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
If Joe Biden limps out of Super Tuesday with only a single win , which still looks entirely possible , why would the other moderates be scared out of the race ?
I wouldn ’ t want to predict this too solidly , but we may be poised to see another round of media amnesia on Wednesday morning .
At that point , it ’ s still possible that Biden may come roaring back to claim the mantle of moderate favorite , but the press could just as easily be spreading @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Again .

This morning, with all but a handful of precincts reporting, it became clear that Joe Biden had a very good night in South Carolina. In fact, he appears to have overperformed against even the most optimistic polls, coming in dangerously close to the 50% mark. Bernie Sanders, by contrast, underperformed a bit, registering just shy of 20%, but that will be more than enough to ensure he grabs some delegates on his way out the door. So congratulations are in order for Uncle Joe. Well done.
With that out of the way, the difference in the media coverage of the Democratic primary between this morning and what it looked like only 24 hours ago is stunning. One of the best examples can be found in this analysis from Jonathan Chait at New York Magazine. You see, it was less than three weeks ago that Chait published an obituary for the Biden campaign, declaring that “Biden’s campaign was a disaster for liberalism and his party.” And yes, you will note that he refers to Biden in the past tense throughout the entire article. Stick a fork in Uncle Joe because he’s done.
This morning, Chait just as boldly declares that “Joe Biden is now the only candidate that can stop Bernie Sanders.”
After Biden’s South Carolina victory, the first primary he has ever won in his three presidential campaigns, things look quite different. The status of Biden’s campaign has not only been upgraded to “alive” — at this point he is the primary, and probably the sole, alternative to Bernie Sanders. At the risk of overreacting in the opposite direction, Biden appears to have taken control of the Democrat party’s center-left voters so decisively, none of his mainstream rivals will be able to sustain a rationale for their candidacy. Michael Bloomberg, Amy Klobuchar, Pete Buttigieg — all of whom have made Biden-esque pitches to the electorate — will face enormous pressure to leave the race after Super Tuesday, and possibly even before.
Chait is hardly alone. CNBC is expecting a “flood” of new Biden donations to his bundlers. Mediaite interviews a former Obama adviser who declares that this is now a two-person race between Biden and Sanders. The list goes on.
Pardon me for being the toad at the garden party here, but weren’t most of you declaring Biden’s presidential aspirations dead and buried as recently as Wednesday? Has the entire press corps suddenly developed collective amnesia? What happened to Joe’s “declining” mental sharpness? (To say the least.) Or his creepy interactions with women? There were a host of reasons that he was a “disaster.” Apparently, this has all been forgotten after Biden won a single state.
Moving on, let’s look at the current theory, perhaps best exemplified in Chait’s article I linked above. Supposedly, Buttigieg, Bloomberg and Klobuchar will “face enormous pressure” to drop out of the race, possibly before Tuesday, clearing the moderate lane for Joe. Similarly, Warren will need to go home leaving the socialist lane to Bernie. As theories go, the math at least works. There is still more total support for the “moderate” candidates combined than there is for Sanders and Warren.
But there’s one little problem with this vision. The only person who dropped out of the race after South Carolina was Tom Steyer. (No word yet as to where Steyer’s two supporters will migrate.) If any of the others had planned on dropping if South Carolina went badly for them, I think we’d have heard from them last night. Warren was back on the attack immediately, while Buttigieg and Klobuchar both flew out to Super Tuesday states. Doesn’t look to me like any of them are going anywhere just yet.
As far as Bloomberg goes, he didn’t even compete in the first four states. He’s been banking on Super Tuesday from the day he announced. Why on Earth would he drop out now? And speaking of Super Tuesday, Joe Biden has a lot of work to do in a very short time if this is the beginning of his comeback kid story. He’s trailing Bernie by 8 in Texas and is barely ahead of Bloomberg. CNN had Bernie up by twenty in California only one week ago and Biden was even losing to Warren. Sanders has a solid lead in Virginia as well as Michigan.
Klobuchar may take her home state of Minnesota, but Bernie is her only real challenger there. Biden is in single digits. Heck, Sanders is even leading Warren in Massachusetts. The only place I see Biden leading in Tuesday races is North Carolina (which is still very tight).
If Joe Biden limps out of Super Tuesday with only a single win, which still looks entirely possible, why would the other moderates be scared out of the race? I wouldn’t want to predict this too solidly, but we may be poised to see another round of media amnesia on Wednesday morning. At that point, it’s still possible that Biden may come roaring back to claim the mantle of moderate favorite, but the press could just as easily be spreading flowers at the funeral for his campaign. Again.


hotair--2020-03-01--Sunday morning talking heads

Sunday morning talking heads

As I write this on Saturday morning the odds are excellent that Joe Biden will be taking a victory lap on the Sunday shows , celebrating a big victory in South Carolina that ’ ll supposedly — supposedly — propel him to a series of wins in the south on Tuesday and make this a two-man race .
But there ’ s a small chance that SC didn ’ t come through for him , that Bernie pulled the upset , in which case the race is over and Sunday morning is the final day of Joe Biden ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ set for “ This Week , ” “ Meet the Press , ” “ State of the Union , ” and “ Fox News Sunday.
” If he won South Carolina , he ’ ll use these appearances to make the case to Super Tuesday voters that Sanders is unelectable and that they should turn out in 72 hours to stop him .
If he lost South Carolina , he ’ ll reflect on where his campaign went so terribly , disastrously wrong , even in his “ firewall ” state .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ start talking up Bernie , now the presumptive nominee , in anticipation of the Democrats ’ battle with Trump this fall .
Or he ’ ll just cancel all of his bookings and avoid people for awhile .
If he did end up losing last night , it would mean Joe Biden never won a single primary in three separate runs for the presidency over more than 30 years .
Hoo boy .
Sanders will be on this morning too , chatting with “ This Week ” and “ Face the Nation ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and start hyping his expected victories on Super Tuesday , most notably California and ( maybe ) Texas .
Elsewhere , the two faces of Trump ’ s coronavirus response team will talk with various Sunday shows to try to ease the public ’ s nerves and pre-game what sort of measures might be taken to contain a mass outbreak .
It ’ ll be Mike Pence on “ Meet the Press ” and “ State of the Union ” and HHS Secretary Alex Azar on “ This Week ” and “ Face @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asked why the CDC can ’ t get its act together on a reliable COVID-19 test after weeks of trying , leading some state labs to put together their own tests on the fly .
The full line-up is at the AP .

As I write this on Saturday morning the odds are excellent that Joe Biden will be taking a victory lap on the Sunday shows, celebrating a big victory in South Carolina that’ll supposedly — supposedly — propel him to a series of wins in the south on Tuesday and make this a two-man race.
But there’s a small chance that SC didn’t come through for him, that Bernie pulled the upset, in which case the race is over and Sunday morning is the final day of Joe Biden’s lo-o-o-o-o-ng political career. He’s set for “This Week,” “Meet the Press,” “State of the Union,” and “Fox News Sunday.” If he won South Carolina, he’ll use these appearances to make the case to Super Tuesday voters that Sanders is unelectable and that they should turn out in 72 hours to stop him. If he lost South Carolina, he’ll reflect on where his campaign went so terribly, disastrously wrong, even in his “firewall” state. And, I guess, he’ll start talking up Bernie, now the presumptive nominee, in anticipation of the Democrats’ battle with Trump this fall.
Or he’ll just cancel all of his bookings and avoid people for awhile. If he did end up losing last night, it would mean Joe Biden never won a single primary in three separate runs for the presidency over more than 30 years. Hoo boy.
Sanders will be on this morning too, chatting with “This Week” and “Face the Nation” to spin the outcome in South Carolina and start hyping his expected victories on Super Tuesday, most notably California and (maybe) Texas. Elsewhere, the two faces of Trump’s coronavirus response team will talk with various Sunday shows to try to ease the public’s nerves and pre-game what sort of measures might be taken to contain a mass outbreak. It’ll be Mike Pence on “Meet the Press” and “State of the Union” and HHS Secretary Alex Azar on “This Week” and “Face the Nation.” Expect them to be asked why the CDC can’t get its act together on a reliable COVID-19 test after weeks of trying, leading some state labs to put together their own tests on the fly. The full line-up is at the AP.


hotair--2020-02-29--Uncle Joe's firewall: South Carolina primary open thread

This is the last stop on the primary bus route before Super Tuesday and we should at least have the benefit of knowing the results fairly early .
( Since they use actual voting machines and all . )
As usual , we ’ ll have the live results widget installed below and it updates in close to real-time .
As Allahpundit wrote earlier , everyone seems to believe that Uncle Joe will finally pull out his long-awaited first win .
The socialist surge had Bernie challenging him for a while and then it sort of faded .
But will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then denied predicting before admitting he ’ d said it ?
If he brings in 40 % as many analysts anticipate it will be a solid night , but the basis for most of those forecasts were based on the fact that Biden was supposed to consolidate and dominate the Black vote in the Palmetto State .
So who really did the best with African-American voters ?
At least according to one analysis from NBC News… none of them .
No matter who wins the Democratic presidential primary on Saturday , the story @ @ @ @ @ @ @ missed opportunities for a field of candidates that failed to fully connect with the state ’ s black electorate .
That may be most true for former Vice President Joe Biden , who is well positioned to win the state but could fall short of the kind of decisive victory that catapulted Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to the Democratic nomination in 2008 and 2016 , respectively .
This is the first time since 2004 that no single candidate is poised to take the vast majority of the African American vote .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this year on candidates courting black voters pocket by pocket to build a coalition .
But polling suggests that , with only a day left until the last election before Super Tuesday , that hasn ’ t happened yet .
All the polling from the past ten days has Biden anywhere from the mid-30s to the low-40s , with an RCP average of 39.5 .
As I said , that ’ s a solid , respectable number , but not a blowout .
Sanders isn ’ t all that far behind , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % he ’ ll still bag a respectable number of earned delegates and hold his lead going into Super Tuesday .
Unless one of the others pulls off a miracle , they probably won ’ t get any delegates out of this race , or at best just one or two .
As far as I ’ m concerned , that would still leave Sanders as the nominal frontrunner , but there won ’ t be anyone who is a clear favorite heading into Tuesday .
And as I ’ ve written here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ splintered , the less chance that the Democrats will be able to “ clear the field ” and just start focusing on beating Donald Trump .
We ’ ll know soon enough .
Let ’ s get to the live results .
Cross your fingers , everyone .
This could remain an interesting , chaotic race far longer than the DNC would like .

This is the last stop on the primary bus route before Super Tuesday and we should at least have the benefit of knowing the results fairly early. (Since they use actual voting machines and all.) As usual, we’ll have the live results widget installed below and it updates in close to real-time. As Allahpundit wrote earlier, everyone seems to believe that Uncle Joe will finally pull out his long-awaited first win. The socialist surge had Bernie challenging him for a while and then it sort of faded. But will it be the firewall Joe predicted, then denied predicting before admitting he’d said it? If he brings in 40% as many analysts anticipate it will be a solid night, but the basis for most of those forecasts were based on the fact that Biden was supposed to consolidate and dominate the Black vote in the Palmetto State.
So who really did the best with African-American voters? At least according to one analysis from NBC News… none of them.
No matter who wins the Democratic presidential primary on Saturday, the story of South Carolina will be one of missed opportunities for a field of candidates that failed to fully connect with the state’s black electorate. That may be most true for former Vice President Joe Biden, who is well positioned to win the state but could fall short of the kind of decisive victory that catapulted Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to the Democratic nomination in 2008 and 2016, respectively. This is the first time since 2004 that no single candidate is poised to take the vast majority of the African American vote. So, there should have been a premium this year on candidates courting black voters pocket by pocket to build a coalition. But polling suggests that, with only a day left until the last election before Super Tuesday, that hasn’t happened yet.
All the polling from the past ten days has Biden anywhere from the mid-30s to the low-40s, with an RCP average of 39.5. As I said, that’s a solid, respectable number, but not a blowout. Sanders isn’t all that far behind, and if he can do better than 25% he’ll still bag a respectable number of earned delegates and hold his lead going into Super Tuesday. Unless one of the others pulls off a miracle, they probably won’t get any delegates out of this race, or at best just one or two.
As far as I’m concerned, that would still leave Sanders as the nominal frontrunner, but there won’t be anyone who is a clear favorite heading into Tuesday. And as I’ve written here before, the longer the field remains splintered, the less chance that the Democrats will be able to “clear the field” and just start focusing on beating Donald Trump. We’ll know soon enough. Let’s get to the live results. Cross your fingers, everyone. This could remain an interesting, chaotic race far longer than the DNC would like.


hotair--2020-02-29--Washington Post: No evidence of computer fraud in Bolivian election

I missed this story when it appeared Thursday at the Washington Post ’ s Monkey Cage blog .
A pair of researchers with MIT ’ s Election Data and Science Lab have gone over the results of the last Bolivian election and claim they see no evidence of fraud .
That contradicts the conclusion of the OAS report issued last year .
As you may recall , the OAS report was the chief support for the idea that the election had been tampered with .
It led to Evo Morales being encouraged to leave office by the military under a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Mexico .
At the time all of this was happening , many on the left including AOC and Bernie Sanders were calling Morales ouster a “ coup.
” The Post ’ s new report essentially argues , based upon a statistical look at the data , that Morales may have legitimately won the election : The Bolivian constitution requires that a candidate either earn an outright electoral majority or 40 percent of the votes , with at least a 10-percentage-point lead .
Otherwise , a runoff election will take place .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the vote counted , when Morales had a 7.87 percentage-point lead .
Though the halt was consistent with election officials ’ earlier promise to count at least 80 percent of the preliminary vote on election night and continue through the official count , the OAS quickly expressed concern over the stop .
When the preliminary count resumed , Morales ’ s margin was above the 10-percentage-point threshold… Since Morales had surpassed the 40-percent threshold , the key question was whether his vote tally was 10 percentage points higher than that of his closest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be forced into a runoff election against his closest competitor — former president Carlos Mesa .
Our results were straightforward .
There does not seem to be a statistically significant difference in the margin before and after the halt of the preliminary vote .
Instead , it is highly likely that Morales surpassed the 10-percentage-point margin in the first round… There is not any statistical evidence of fraud that we can find — the trends in the preliminary count , the lack of any big jump in support for Morales after the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s margin all appear legitimate .
All in all , the OAS ’ s statistical analysis and conclusions would appear deeply flawed .
The OAS didn ’ t respond when asked by the authors of the Monkey Cage analysis , though it ’ s not clear how much time they were given .
However , the OAS did publish a response to the story yesterday : The aforementioned article contains countless falsehoods , inexactitudes and omissions .
The piece purposefully distorts the final report of the audit of the elections in Bolivia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Organization of American States ( OAS ) on December 4 , 2019 .
The article ignores the main finding of the OAS audit report .
Those findings prove unequivocally there was “ intentional manipulation ” of the elections in two areas .
First , the audit detected changes in the tally sheets and the falsification of the signatures of poll officials .
Second , it was found that in processing results the data flow was redirected to two hidden and unauthorized servers and not controlled by personnel of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possible to manipulate data and falsify tally sheets .
Those findings are , of course , front and center in the OAS audit report and have been widely publicized as basic information when analyzing recent events in Bolivia .
The European Union , which deployed a team of experts for the election , supported the OAS findings and presented evidence of other irregularities .
It is astonishing that two scientists —as well as the editors at The Monkey Cage and The Washington Post —would ignore those facts when purporting to analyze the OAS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own 60+ page report on the situation which you can see here .
However , the only version of the report I can find is in Spanish .
A translation of a VOA news story about the EU report reads in part : In addition to the EU report , Morales ’ government hired a company called Ethical Hacking to look at the irregularities in the system .
Their final report is here and once again it ’ s in Spanish .
Here ’ s a description of their conclusions : Ethical Hacking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ electronic system to count the votes and the work of Neotec , released its own report which identified nine vulnerabilities in the electronic system .
These vulnerabilities put at risk the security and integrity of the data .
Furthermore , 12 security incidents were detected while the system was in use , as well as modifications made in the database by Neotec .
At 19:30 on 20 October , some minutes before the system was halted , excessive data traffic was detected from an unknown computer outside the controlled system , used by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he did this because the members of the Electoral Court wanted to see the results before publishing them .
On 25 October Ethical Hacking reported inconsistencies in more than 4,000 votes .
‘ We can not attest to the integrity of the election results , ’ their report states , ‘ because the entire process is corrupt and nullified due to the number of alterations to the source code , the multiple accesses and manual modifications to the databases during the electoral process , and the inconsistencies of the software that were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So there seems to be widespread agreement that the computer system used to tabulate votes was not reliable and that something unusual was happening at the time the system was halted .
The OAS found that the system switched to another server which was not part of the electoral process .
Also someone with “ root access ” accessed the servers storing the results and had the ability to alter those results .
The Post ’ s story essentially argues that , despite these significant irregularities , there ’ s no proof of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the system was shut down .
The OAS report also found evidence of non-computer manipulations including falsifications of signatures and changes in tally sheets .
The Post story doesn ’ t address any of this .
Obviously , statistical analysis is a garbage in , garbage out process .
If the voting was being manipulated before it reached the computers a lack of evidence of computer manipulation doesn ’ t prove much .
At this point it ’ s increasingly difficult to know what to believe .
The election seems to have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before the reporting stopped .
And what if the answer here isn ’ t one of the other , i.e .
what if Morales cheated in an election he was probably going to win anyway ?
Remember he arguably shouldn ’ t have been running for a 4th term in the first place .
The fact that some voters in a random sample examined by the OAS were apparently voting in multiple locations ( or their signatures were being manipulated to cast multiple votes ) makes it hard to trust the raw data @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Monkey Cage authors have something to say about the validity of the underlying data , their statistical analysis doesn ’ t seem conclusive .
That said , this is a very significant issue given the outcome in Bolivia so it deserves more scrutiny .

I missed this story when it appeared Thursday at the Washington Post’s Monkey Cage blog. A pair of researchers with MIT’s Election Data and Science Lab have gone over the results of the last Bolivian election and claim they see no evidence of fraud. That contradicts the conclusion of the OAS report issued last year.
As you may recall, the OAS report was the chief support for the idea that the election had been tampered with. It led to Evo Morales being encouraged to leave office by the military under a cloud of suspicion. He sought asylum in Mexico. At the time all of this was happening, many on the left including AOC and Bernie Sanders were calling Morales ouster a “coup.” The Post’s new report essentially argues, based upon a statistical look at the data, that Morales may have legitimately won the election:
The Bolivian constitution requires that a candidate either earn an outright electoral majority or 40 percent of the votes, with at least a 10-percentage-point lead. Otherwise, a runoff election will take place. The preliminary count halted with 84 percent of the vote counted, when Morales had a 7.87 percentage-point lead. Though the halt was consistent with election officials’ earlier promise to count at least 80 percent of the preliminary vote on election night and continue through the official count, the OAS quickly expressed concern over the stop. When the preliminary count resumed, Morales’s margin was above the 10-percentage-point threshold… Since Morales had surpassed the 40-percent threshold, the key question was whether his vote tally was 10 percentage points higher than that of his closest competitor. If not, then Morales would be forced into a runoff election against his closest competitor — former president Carlos Mesa. Our results were straightforward. There does not seem to be a statistically significant difference in the margin before and after the halt of the preliminary vote. Instead, it is highly likely that Morales surpassed the 10-percentage-point margin in the first round… There is not any statistical evidence of fraud that we can find — the trends in the preliminary count, the lack of any big jump in support for Morales after the halt, and the size of Morales’s margin all appear legitimate. All in all, the OAS’s statistical analysis and conclusions would appear deeply flawed.
The OAS didn’t respond when asked by the authors of the Monkey Cage analysis, though it’s not clear how much time they were given. However, the OAS did publish a response to the story yesterday:
The aforementioned article contains countless falsehoods, inexactitudes and omissions. The piece purposefully distorts the final report of the audit of the elections in Bolivia, published by the General Secretariat of the Organization of American States (OAS) on December 4, 2019. The article ignores the main finding of the OAS audit report. Those findings prove unequivocally there was “intentional manipulation” of the elections in two areas. First, the audit detected changes in the tally sheets and the falsification of the signatures of poll officials. Second, it was found that in processing results the data flow was redirected to two hidden and unauthorized servers and not controlled by personnel of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE), which made it possible to manipulate data and falsify tally sheets. Those findings are, of course, front and center in the OAS audit report and have been widely publicized as basic information when analyzing recent events in Bolivia. The European Union, which deployed a team of experts for the election, supported the OAS findings and presented evidence of other irregularities. It is astonishing that two scientists —as well as the editors at The Monkey Cage and The Washington Post —would ignore those facts when purporting to analyze the OAS audit report.
The EU published its own 60+ page report on the situation which you can see here. However, the only version of the report I can find is in Spanish. A translation of a VOA news story about the EU report reads in part:
A report of the Technical Mission of Electoral Experts of the European Union announced on Friday that its observers detected “numerous errors and irregularities in the electoral records”, during the presidential elections held on October 20 in Bolivia. According to the document, “there were minutes with an unusually high number of null votes, blank votes and a hundred percent participation of voters in a series of polling stations.”
In addition to the EU report, Morales’ government hired a company called Ethical Hacking to look at the irregularities in the system. Their final report is here and once again it’s in Spanish. Here’s a description of their conclusions:
Ethical Hacking, the company hired to audit the electronic system to count the votes and the work of Neotec, released its own report which identified nine vulnerabilities in the electronic system. These vulnerabilities put at risk the security and integrity of the data. Furthermore, 12 security incidents were detected while the system was in use, as well as modifications made in the database by Neotec. At 19:30 on 20 October, some minutes before the system was halted, excessive data traffic was detected from an unknown computer outside the controlled system, used by the director of Neotec. He explained that he did this because the members of the Electoral Court wanted to see the results before publishing them. On 25 October Ethical Hacking reported inconsistencies in more than 4,000 votes. ‘We cannot attest to the integrity of the election results,’ their report states, ‘because the entire process is corrupt and nullified due to the number of alterations to the source code, the multiple accesses and manual modifications to the databases during the electoral process, and the inconsistencies of the software that were emerging in the computer system’.
So there seems to be widespread agreement that the computer system used to tabulate votes was not reliable and that something unusual was happening at the time the system was halted. The OAS found that the system switched to another server which was not part of the electoral process. Also someone with “root access” accessed the servers storing the results and had the ability to alter those results. The Post’s story essentially argues that, despite these significant irregularities, there’s no proof of a discontinuity in the vote tally after the system was shut down.
The OAS report also found evidence of non-computer manipulations including falsifications of signatures and changes in tally sheets. The Post story doesn’t address any of this. Obviously, statistical analysis is a garbage in, garbage out process. If the voting was being manipulated before it reached the computers a lack of evidence of computer manipulation doesn’t prove much.
At this point it’s increasingly difficult to know what to believe. The election seems to have been close to going Morales’ way even before the reporting stopped. And what if the answer here isn’t one of the other, i.e. what if Morales cheated in an election he was probably going to win anyway? Remember he arguably shouldn’t have been running for a 4th term in the first place.
The fact that some voters in a random sample examined by the OAS were apparently voting in multiple locations (or their signatures were being manipulated to cast multiple votes) makes it hard to trust the raw data that was being reported. Until the Monkey Cage authors have something to say about the validity of the underlying data, their statistical analysis doesn’t seem conclusive. That said, this is a very significant issue given the outcome in Bolivia so it deserves more scrutiny.


hotair--2020-02-29--TX DA: 69 possibly innocent people got prison due to crooked cop

It was 13 months ago when Houston police stormed into the home of Dennis Tuttle and Rhogena Nicholas .
A no-knock search warrant claimed the husband and wife sold heroin to a confidential informant .
The raid went horribly wrong .
Tuttle and Nicholas died and four police officers were shot .
A fifth suffered an injured ankle in all the chaos .
“ We are sick and tired of having targets on our back , ” Houston Police Officers ’ Union President Joe Gamaldi raged after the failed raid .
“ We are sick and tired of having dirtbags @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ re trying to do is protect this community and protect our families .
Enough is enough .
And if you ’ re the ones out there spreading the rhetoric that police officers are the enemy , well just know : we ’ ve all got your number now .
We ’ re going to be keeping track of all of y ’ all and we ’ re going to make sure that we hold you accountable every time you stir the pot on our police officers .
We ’ ve had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out there doing our jobs every day putting our lives on the line for our families.
” Gamaldi refused to back down on the strong statement later claiming to KHOU activists were stirring up use of force incidents , “ even though it is overwhelming justified in every single case.
” The facts appear otherwise .
No heroin was ever found inside the home .
May brought about questions whether Tuttle and Nicholas ever fired weapons as police claimed .
By August , felony murder charges were filed against Gerald Goines , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ murder charges were filed against Goines in November .
A Harris County grand jury indicted Goines for murder last month .
Another now-former officer was indicted on tampering with evidence accusations .
A civilian was accused of making fake 911 calls .
The botched raid caused a review of hundreds of cases Goines secured arrests and convictions .
Two brothers were eventually declared innocent in connection with a 2008 drug conviction .
But now 69 convictions are under review because Goines may have lied to secure warrants .
From the Harris County DA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ Harris County DA Kim ] Ogg has concluded that defendants in cases during the period from 2008 to 2019 in which Goines played a substantial role are entitled to a presumption that he provided false evidence to secure their convictions .
“ We need to clear people convicted solely on the word of a police officer whom we can no longer trust , ” Ogg said .
Most of the cases involve delivery of a controlled substance and nearly all resulted in the loss of liberty , ranging from a few months @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice .
In all cases , Goines was the sole witness to the offense .
Lawyers for each defendant would review whether the evidence presented by Goines was material in convicting their client – and if so , decide whether to request a new trial .
Problematic to say the least .
Goines ’ false angelic facade as a Houston cop possibly led to dozens of innocents spending time behind bars .
The false arrests and convictions cost Harris County and Houston taxpayers in prosecutorial expenses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is probably on the way once all the lawsuits are figured out .
How did this happen ?
What is the solution ?
The short-term solution will be a hefty prison sentence for Goines and his accomplices for the deaths of Nicholas and Tuttle .
Records will be expunged for those convicted by Goines ’ false testimony .
The longer-term solution , however , is nuanced .
Goines was able to target his victims by claiming they sold drugs .
Perhaps it ’ s time to reconsider drug possession laws .
Preferably full @ @ @ @ @ @ @ convictions may be a stopgap .
Fine people for possession of less than x amount of grams for all drugs similar to what states and cities currently do for marijuana .
End mandatory minimums for certain drug crimes and give prosecutors and judges more leeway to consider certain situations like when a weapon happens to be on someone possessing narcotics .
These solutions could prevent another Goines from locking up innocents to advance his or her career .
Along with preventing unnecessary deaths and injuries and ridiculous statements from hotheaded police union officials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) like what happened in Houston last year .

It was 13 months ago when Houston police stormed into the home of Dennis Tuttle and Rhogena Nicholas. A no-knock search warrant claimed the husband and wife sold heroin to a confidential informant.
The raid went horribly wrong. Tuttle and Nicholas died and four police officers were shot. A fifth suffered an injured ankle in all the chaos.
“We are sick and tired of having targets on our back,” Houston Police Officers’ Union President Joe Gamaldi raged after the failed raid. “We are sick and tired of having dirtbags trying to take our lives when all we’re trying to do is protect this community and protect our families. Enough is enough. And if you’re the ones out there spreading the rhetoric that police officers are the enemy, well just know: we’ve all got your number now. We’re going to be keeping track of all of y’all and we’re going to make sure that we hold you accountable every time you stir the pot on our police officers. We’ve had enough, folks. We’re out there doing our jobs every day putting our lives on the line for our families.”
Gamaldi refused to back down on the strong statement later claiming to KHOU activists were stirring up use of force incidents, “even though it is overwhelming justified in every single case.”
The facts appear otherwise.
No heroin was ever found inside the home. May brought about questions whether Tuttle and Nicholas ever fired weapons as police claimed. By August, felony murder charges were filed against Gerald Goines, the officer who secured the warrant. Federal murder charges were filed against Goines in November. A Harris County grand jury indicted Goines for murder last month. Another now-former officer was indicted on tampering with evidence accusations. A civilian was accused of making fake 911 calls.
The botched raid caused a review of hundreds of cases Goines secured arrests and convictions. Two brothers were eventually declared innocent in connection with a 2008 drug conviction.
But now 69 convictions are under review because Goines may have lied to secure warrants. From the Harris County DA’s Office with emphasis mine:
[Harris County DA Kim] Ogg has concluded that defendants in cases during the period from 2008 to 2019 in which Goines played a substantial role are entitled to a presumption that he provided false evidence to secure their convictions. “We need to clear people convicted solely on the word of a police officer whom we can no longer trust,” Ogg said. Most of the cases involve delivery of a controlled substance and nearly all resulted in the loss of liberty, ranging from a few months in the Harris County Jail to four years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. In all cases, Goines was the sole witness to the offense. Lawyers for each defendant would review whether the evidence presented by Goines was material in convicting their client – and if so, decide whether to request a new trial.
Problematic to say the least. Goines’ false angelic facade as a Houston cop possibly led to dozens of innocents spending time behind bars. The false arrests and convictions cost Harris County and Houston taxpayers in prosecutorial expenses and likely public defender expenses. More is probably on the way once all the lawsuits are figured out.
How did this happen? What is the solution? The short-term solution will be a hefty prison sentence for Goines and his accomplices for the deaths of Nicholas and Tuttle. Records will be expunged for those convicted by Goines’ false testimony.
The longer-term solution, however, is nuanced.
Goines was able to target his victims by claiming they sold drugs. Perhaps it’s time to reconsider drug possession laws. Preferably full legalization although raising the threshold for criminal convictions may be a stopgap. Fine people for possession of less than x amount of grams for all drugs similar to what states and cities currently do for marijuana. End mandatory minimums for certain drug crimes and give prosecutors and judges more leeway to consider certain situations like when a weapon happens to be on someone possessing narcotics.
These solutions could prevent another Goines from locking up innocents to advance his or her career. Along with preventing unnecessary deaths and injuries and ridiculous statements from hotheaded police union officials (who still have yet to apologize) like what happened in Houston last year.