hotair--2020-06-04--"Consider destroying your enemy": Project Veritas infiltrates Antifa, insanity ensues

Didn ’ t we already get an exposé of extreme action and militancy from Antifa by Project Veritas this year ?
Oh no , wait — that was from among Bernie Sanders ’ campaign workers .
At least they ’ re keeping busy these days .
This time , Project Veritas really has infiltrated Antifa , or at least one of its cells in Oregon .
Their undercover operative managed to get some video and audio of training sessions in which extremists were urged to gouge people ’ s eyes , assault them and to “ consider like destroying your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ retired ” from Rose City Antifa , the video notes at the end , but he ’ s still doing “ blacklock ” to keep his identity hidden : For an organization that ’ s supposedly not organized , their op-sec is … pretty impressive .
The meetings apparently manage to mostly protect identities , so Nicholas Cifuni might have some griping to do after this video release .
Or perhaps he might have some talking to do , either to the FBI or to his attorney .
Someone in law enforcement is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tape , and perhaps in determining the identities of a few others who appear in it .
At any rate , it ’ s clear that the group is organized enough for strategic planning sessions and training , and like PV ’ s undercover operative says , this suggests some money behind the organizing , too .
Unlike other PV projects , it doesn ’ t appear that they have more in the can on Antifa .
That may not matter long , however , because the Department of Justice has now started @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unrest sweeping cities this week : For the past couple of weeks , there have been plenty of people trying to deny any real organization behind Antifa and even their involvement in rioting , despite a long history of violent street action across the country .
In the Twin Cities , our leadership tried pinning it on “ white supremacists ” from outside of the state , only to end up with egg on their faces when the data from arrests started coming to light .
Even the SPLC ended up calling shenanigans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s focus on anarchists and Antifa will likely have a lot more success than attempts to shift the blame away from the extreme-leftist orgs that routinely conduct such operations , only not to this level of success .

Didn’t we already get an exposé of extreme action and militancy from Antifa by Project Veritas this year? Oh no, wait — that was from among Bernie Sanders’ campaign workers. At least they’re keeping busy these days.
This time, Project Veritas really has infiltrated Antifa, or at least one of its cells in Oregon. Their undercover operative managed to get some video and audio of training sessions in which extremists were urged to gouge people’s eyes, assault them and to “consider like destroying your enemy.” The operative has since “retired” from Rose City Antifa, the video notes at the end, but he’s still doing “blacklock” to keep his identity hidden:
Nicholas Cifuni, Rose City Antifa: “Practice Things Like an Eye Gouge, it Takes Very Little Pressure to Injure Someone’s Eyes.”
Nicholas Cifuni, Rose City Antifa: “Police Are Going to Be Like: ‘Perfect, We Can Prosecute These [Antifa] F**kers, Look How Violent They Are.’ And Not That We [Antifa] Aren’t, But We Need to F**king Hide That Sh*t.”
Nicholas Cifuni, Rose City Antifa: “Consider Like, Destroying Your Enemy. Not Like Delivering a Really Awesome Right Hand, Right Eye, Left Eye Blow You Know. It’s Not Boxing, It’s Not Kickboxing, It’s Like Destroying Your Enemy.”
Ashes, Rose City Antifa: “The Whole Goal of This, Right, is to Get Out There and do Dangerous Things as Safely as Possible.”
For an organization that’s supposedly not organized, their op-sec is … pretty impressive. The meetings apparently manage to mostly protect identities, so Nicholas Cifuni might have some griping to do after this video release. Or perhaps he might have some talking to do, either to the FBI or to his attorney. Someone in law enforcement is bound to take an interest in this tape, and perhaps in determining the identities of a few others who appear in it. At any rate, it’s clear that the group is organized enough for strategic planning sessions and training, and like PV’s undercover operative says, this suggests some money behind the organizing, too.
Unlike other PV projects, it doesn’t appear that they have more in the can on Antifa. That may not matter long, however, because the Department of Justice has now started to look into their involvement in the unrest sweeping cities this week:
Wray says the feds are pursuing "anarchists like Antifa and other agitators" — Betsy Woodruff Swan (@woodruffbets) June 4, 2020
For the past couple of weeks, there have been plenty of people trying to deny any real organization behind Antifa and even their involvement in rioting, despite a long history of violent street action across the country. In the Twin Cities, our leadership tried pinning it on “white supremacists” from outside of the state, only to end up with egg on their faces when the data from arrests started coming to light. Even the SPLC ended up calling shenanigans on that claim. The DoJ’s focus on anarchists and Antifa will likely have a lot more success than attempts to shift the blame away from the extreme-leftist orgs that routinely conduct such operations, only not to this level of success.


hotair--2020-06-04--Drew Brees: I apologize for saying that kneeling during the national anthem is disrespectful

How many years now has this country spent slogging through the arguments over whether kneeling during the anthem to protest police brutality is disrespectful ?
This is year four , is it not ?
I don ’ t begrudge Brees or anyone else the right to change their mind about anything .
It ’ s a mark of good character to be willing to relinquish a weak opinion in which you ’ ve invested time and energy .
But don ’ t do it literally overnight , after four years of sticking to your guns , because you were hit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Here he was yesterday : A respectable , even noble sentiment .
When the anthem plays he thinks of his grandfathers , both veterans , and the sacrifices they and others have made to protect America .
He views it as a moment of pride and unity , and thus resents seeing it used as an opportunity to highlight a matter of national shame and disunity .
He got destroyed for that on social media , and not just by randos .
Aaron Rodgers replied to Brees by saying , “ A few @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arms in solidarity before the game .
It has NEVER been about an anthem or a flag .
Not then .
Not now .
Listen with an open heart , let ’ s educate ourselves , and then turn word and thought into action .
# wakeupamerica # itstimeforchange # loveoverfear # solidarity # libertyandjusticeforall # all ” .
Meanwhile , closer to home : Michael Thomas is a teammate of Brees ’ s on the Saints .
Another teammate , Malcolm Jenkins , laid him out on Instagram .
Some profanity here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charity work for Louisiana and New Orleans , the population of which is majority African-American , only to be told here by Jenkins that he ’ s been paying lip service to the concept of brotherhood .
Per Quin Hillyer , “ His philanthropy , especially for communities of color , is legendary .
For years , he has denounced ‘ racism … [ and ] inequality for people of color , for minorities , for immigrants.
’ He has been outspoken against the killing of Floyd , participated enthusiastically in # BlackoutTuesday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to young people what it is to love and respect all . '
” Didn ’ t earn him any benefit of the doubt as to good intentions yesterday .
How are we still having misunderstandings about this in the year of our lord 2020 ?
People who support kneeling during the anthem say they ’ re not communicating disrespect , they ’ re communicating their indignation at being disrespected by a justice system that doesn ’ t treat blacks equally .
They do it during the anthem , a moment of supposed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unity isn ’ t possible until the disparate treatment ends .
If you don ’ t accept their explanation or think they should find some other way to make their point , fair enough .
( They ’ d respond that people who are hostile to their message will always find fault with how they ’ re communicating that message , until they do it in a way that ’ s so ineffectual that it can be safely ignored . )
The point is , there ’ s no way Brees is still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ four years of digesting it .
He ’ s heard the pro-kneeling arguments ad nauseam and dismissed them ; only when he got lambasted yesterday did he relent .
So why didn ’ t he relent sooner ?
Why step on this rake and make his teammates mad at him instead of changing his mind earlier in a less obviously expedient way ?

How many years now has this country spent slogging through the arguments over whether kneeling during the anthem to protest police brutality is disrespectful? This is year four, is it not?
Pick a side, buddy.
I don’t begrudge Brees or anyone else the right to change their mind about anything. It’s a mark of good character to be willing to relinquish a weak opinion in which you’ve invested time and energy. But don’t do it literally overnight, after four years of sticking to your guns, because you were hit with an avalanche of peer pressure.
That’s not thoughtful reconsideration, it’s conformity.
Here he was yesterday:
Highlight: @readdanwrite asks @drewbrees what the star NFL quarterback thinks about "players kneeling again when the NFL season starts."@drewbrees: “I will never agree with anybody disrespecting the flag of the United States of America or our country.” Full exchange: pic.twitter.com/MpCkFyOMed — Yahoo Finance (@YahooFinance) June 3, 2020
A respectable, even noble sentiment. When the anthem plays he thinks of his grandfathers, both veterans, and the sacrifices they and others have made to protect America. He views it as a moment of pride and unity, and thus resents seeing it used as an opportunity to highlight a matter of national shame and disunity.
He got destroyed for that on social media, and not just by randos.
WOW MAN!! 🤦🏾♂. Is it still surprising at this point. Sure isn’t! You literally still don’t understand why Kap was kneeling on one knee?? Has absolute nothing to do with the disrespect of 🇺🇸 and our soldiers(men and women) who keep our land free. My father-in-law was one of those https://t.co/pvUWPmh4s8 — LeBron James (@KingJames) June 3, 2020
He’s beyond lost. Guarantee you there were black men fighting along side your grandfather but this doesn’t seem to be about that. That uncomfortable conversation you are trying to avoid by injecting military into a conversation about brutality and equality is part of the problem https://t.co/ON81UsOWPw pic.twitter.com/HH3EVTIH8p — Richard Sherman (@RSherman_25) June 3, 2020
@drewbrees SMH. You represent New Orleans Louisiana. Don’t ever forget that! #Bottomofthemap — Tyrann Mathieu (@Mathieu_Era) June 3, 2020
Aaron Rodgers replied to Brees by saying, “A few years ago we were criticized for locking arms in solidarity before the game. It has NEVER been about an anthem or a flag. Not then. Not now. Listen with an open heart, let’s educate ourselves, and then turn word and thought into action. #wakeupamerica #itstimeforchange #loveoverfear #solidarity #libertyandjusticeforall #all”. Meanwhile, closer to home:
https://twitter.com/Cantguardmike/status/1268240391561773057
Michael Thomas is a teammate of Brees’s on the Saints. Another teammate, Malcolm Jenkins, laid him out on Instagram. Some profanity here:
Brees has done a lot of charity work for Louisiana and New Orleans, the population of which is majority African-American, only to be told here by Jenkins that he’s been paying lip service to the concept of brotherhood. Per Quin Hillyer, “His philanthropy, especially for communities of color, is legendary. For years, he has denounced ‘racism … [and] inequality for people of color, for minorities, for immigrants.’ He has been outspoken against the killing of Floyd, participated enthusiastically in #BlackoutTuesday, and urged everyone to ‘model to young people what it is to love and respect all.'” Didn’t earn him any benefit of the doubt as to good intentions yesterday.
Today he recanted:
How are we still having misunderstandings about this in the year of our lord 2020? People who support kneeling during the anthem say they’re not communicating disrespect, they’re communicating their indignation at being disrespected by a justice system that doesn’t treat blacks equally. They do it during the anthem, a moment of supposed national unity, to signal that meaningful unity isn’t possible until the disparate treatment ends. If you don’t accept their explanation or think they should find some other way to make their point, fair enough. (They’d respond that people who are hostile to their message will always find fault with how they’re communicating that message, until they do it in a way that’s so ineffectual that it can be safely ignored.) The point is, there’s no way Brees is still working through this in his mind after four years of digesting it. He’s heard the pro-kneeling arguments ad nauseam and dismissed them; only when he got lambasted yesterday did he relent. So why didn’t he relent sooner? Why step on this rake and make his teammates mad at him instead of changing his mind earlier in a less obviously expedient way?


hotair--2020-06-04--Defund Police: Mayor Garcetti announces $150 million cut to LAPD budget (Update: Police abolitionist

Defund Police: Mayor Garcetti announces $150 million cut to LAPD budget (Update: Police abolitionists demand respect)

One of the few concrete demands you ’ ll hear from Black Lives Matter protesters is a call to # DefundPolice .
There ’ s disagreement among activists about exactly what that means , but at a minimum some would like to see cuts to police budgets and to see that money redirected toward more social services instead .
Here ’ s how the Black Lives Matter website puts it : “ We call for a national defunding of police .
We demand investment in our communities and the resources to ensure Black people not only survive , but thrive.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Los Angeles gave the activists some of what they want , announcing that he is rolling back a planned increase in the LAPD budget and instead seeking cuts of $ 100- $ 150 million from the LAPD .
In an unexpected move , Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti said Wednesday that a planned funding increase for LAPD has been canceled and the city will likely seek as much as $ 150 million in further cuts , with the money used for “ reinvesting in black communities and communities of color.
” … @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was actually planning a 7 % increase in funding for LAPD , which would have given the department approximately 53 % of the city ’ s general fund .
This despite the fact that major cuts were planned for other essential services due to budget shortfalls caused by the COVID-19 pandemic shutdowns .
“ We can ’ t walk to the promised land in a single day , nor a single week , but we better get ready , ” Garcetti said .
The Mayor ’ s ability to defend a budget increase @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a comment LA Police Chief Michel Moore made Monday night .
“ We didn ’ t have protests last night — we had criminal acts , ” Moore said during a news conference with Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti on Monday night .
“ We didn ’ t have people mourning the death of this man , George Floyd — we had people capitalizing .
His death is on their hands as much as it is those officers.
” Moore apologized minutes later , saying he “ misspoke when I said his blood @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he regretted “ that characterization.
” Those comments resulted in demands that Chief Moore be fired .
The Mayor defended Moore but obviously decided not to defend the LAPD budget .
In any case , Garcetti ’ s announcement of cuts to the budget were immediately judged insufficient by an LA Black Lives Matter organizer : And that raises the question of what exactly would be enough to satisfy the # DefundPolice activists who are making similar demands around the country .
Vox ’ s Matt Yglesias looked at this question yesterday and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ Vox colleague German Lopez expressed frustration at the vague sloganeering which has made its way into print recently : In any case , Yglesias points out that there are a several serious problems with defunding police .
The first is that police a still quite popular overall .
The second is that a real argument can be made that “ underpolicing of black neighborhoods and underprotection of black crime victims is a critical but underconsidered dimension of racial inequity in the United States.
” He cites a poll from 2015 which found @ @ @ @ @ @ @ treated unfairly by the police were significantly more likely to want to see more police hiring not less .
Finally , Yglesias points to an article he wrote last year arguing that hiring more police would actually solve some of the problems BLM protesters want solved : More police officers , in particular , doesn ’ t need to mean more arrests and more incarceration .
More beat cops walking the streets seems to deter crime and reduce the need to arrest anyone .
And some of the best-validated approaches to reducing excessive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ departments to adopt more manpower-intensive practices .
In terms of the intersection of criminal justice policy and racial politics , new polling provided exclusively to Vox from the leading Democratic data firm Civis Analytics shows that black voters — just like white ones — support the idea of hiring more police officers .
Black voters are likely aware that they are disproportionately likely to be victims of crime and disproportionately likely to benefit from extra police staffing in high-crime areas .
Indeed , as Jenée Desmond-Harris wrote for Vox in 2015 , one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ criminal justice systems is that black neighborhoods are paradoxically underpoliced .
If any of this is true then defunding police as LA has decided to do could actually exacerbate some of these problems rather than solve them .
As for the calls to actually zero out police budgets , I don ’ t think that ’ s going anywhere .
Probably the best that can be said about this is that our cities , like our states , are laboratories of democracy .
Some cities may follow LA ’ s lead and cut @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I think we ’ ll find out fairly soon if that made things better or worse in the communities it was intended to help .
Here ’ s the full Garcetti press conference .
Update : I quoted Vox authors Matt Yglesias and German Lopez above .
I missed that Vox ’ s has also become a center of controversy by stating the obvious today , i.e .
“ Abolish police ” is a stupid idea .
For this he was quickly pushed to apologize : A nice response from Esoteric Jeff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subsequent apology :

One of the few concrete demands you’ll hear from Black Lives Matter protesters is a call to #DefundPolice. There’s disagreement among activists about exactly what that means, but at a minimum some would like to see cuts to police budgets and to see that money redirected toward more social services instead. Here’s how the Black Lives Matter website puts it: “We call for a national defunding of police. We demand investment in our communities and the resources to ensure Black people not only survive, but thrive.”
Wednesday night, Mayor Eric Garcetti of Los Angeles gave the activists some of what they want, announcing that he is rolling back a planned increase in the LAPD budget and instead seeking cuts of $100-$150 million from the LAPD.
In an unexpected move, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti said Wednesday that a planned funding increase for LAPD has been canceled and the city will likely seek as much as $150 million in further cuts, with the money used for “reinvesting in black communities and communities of color.”… Prior to the announcement, the city was actually planning a 7% increase in funding for LAPD, which would have given the department approximately 53% of the city’s general fund. This despite the fact that major cuts were planned for other essential services due to budget shortfalls caused by the COVID-19 pandemic shutdowns.
“We can’t walk to the promised land in a single day, nor a single week, but we better get ready,” Garcetti said. The Mayor’s ability to defend a budget increase for police may have been hurt by a comment LA Police Chief Michel Moore made Monday night.
“We didn’t have protests last night — we had criminal acts,” Moore said during a news conference with Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti on Monday night. “We didn’t have people mourning the death of this man, George Floyd — we had people capitalizing. His death is on their hands as much as it is those officers.” Moore apologized minutes later, saying he “misspoke when I said his blood is on their hands” and that he regretted “that characterization.”
Those comments resulted in demands that Chief Moore be fired. The Mayor defended Moore but obviously decided not to defend the LAPD budget. In any case, Garcetti’s announcement of cuts to the budget were immediately judged insufficient by an LA Black Lives Matter organizer:
Black Lives Matter Los Angeles organizer Melina Abdullah, in a statement relayed through the People’s Budget campaign, said they were “encouraged to see that our constant action has pushed Mayor Garcetti, City Council to back up their nice words with some actual action, however small, that directly confronts the racist police state that is the city of Los Angeles.”
And that raises the question of what exactly would be enough to satisfy the #DefundPolice activists who are making similar demands around the country. Vox’s Matt Yglesias looked at this question yesterday and found a range of answers:
The “defund” slogan dances ambiguously between abolition-type schemes and just saying officials should spend less money on policing at the margins. The Black Lives Matters #DefundThePolice explainer page argues that “law enforcement doesn’t protect or save our lives. They often threaten and take them.” By contrast, a Justin Brooks op-ed at the Appeal titled “Defund the Police Now” is an extended argument for spending somewhat less money on crime control and somewhat more on social services, as a win-win resulting in less crime, less punishment, and less police violence against civilians.
Yglesias’ Vox colleague German Lopez expressed frustration at the vague sloganeering which has made its way into print recently:
https://twitter.com/germanrlopez/status/1268411077055873026
In any case, Yglesias points out that there are a several serious problems with defunding police. The first is that police a still quite popular overall. The second is that a real argument can be made that “underpolicing of black neighborhoods and underprotection of black crime victims is a critical but underconsidered dimension of racial inequity in the United States.” He cites a poll from 2015 which found that black adults who said they were treated unfairly by the police were significantly more likely to want to see more police hiring not less.
Finally, Yglesias points to an article he wrote last year arguing that hiring more police would actually solve some of the problems BLM protesters want solved:
More police officers, in particular, doesn’t need to mean more arrests and more incarceration. More beat cops walking the streets seems to deter crime and reduce the need to arrest anyone. And some of the best-validated approaches to reducing excessive use of force by police officers require departments to adopt more manpower-intensive practices. In terms of the intersection of criminal justice policy and racial politics, new polling provided exclusively to Vox from the leading Democratic data firm Civis Analytics shows that black voters — just like white ones — support the idea of hiring more police officers. Black voters are likely aware that they are disproportionately likely to be victims of crime and disproportionately likely to benefit from extra police staffing in high-crime areas. Indeed, as Jenée Desmond-Harris wrote for Vox in 2015, one primary grievance African Americans have with the criminal justice systems is that black neighborhoods are paradoxically underpoliced.
If any of this is true then defunding police as LA has decided to do could actually exacerbate some of these problems rather than solve them. As for the calls to actually zero out police budgets, I don’t think that’s going anywhere.
Probably the best that can be said about this is that our cities, like our states, are laboratories of democracy. Some cities may follow LA’s lead and cut police budgets under pressure from BLM activists. I think we’ll find out fairly soon if that made things better or worse in the communities it was intended to help. Here’s the full Garcetti press conference.
Update: I quoted Vox authors Matt Yglesias and German Lopez above. I missed that Vox’s has also become a center of controversy by stating the obvious today, i.e. “Abolish police” is a stupid idea.
I'm sorry, but "abolish the police" seems like a poorly-thought out idea that's gotten popular with shocking speed — Zack Beauchamp (@zackbeauchamp) June 4, 2020
For this he was quickly pushed to apologize:
It's not a good sign that Zack felt the need to all but apologize for the original tweet. In this case, expressing a position held by 90% of American people of color isn't enough. He has to be 'educated,' made to repent. This is what is going on in many news organizations. pic.twitter.com/NmAVtS5qWS — Jesse Singal (@jessesingal) June 4, 2020
3/ If you think police abolition is a good idea, you are in a tiny, tiny, tiny minority. It doesn't matter if members of that tiny, tiny, tiny minority are overrepresented in your social circles. You should see it as your urgent job to convince, not browbeat. — Jesse Singal (@jessesingal) June 4, 2020
A nice response from Esoteric Jeff mocking the abolish police concept and the subsequent apology:


hotair--2020-06-04--New hotness: Celebrity elite demand defunding of police departments

That would be the celebrity elite that can afford their own private police force , right ?
Riiiiiight .
One might think that a week-plus of rioting and looting would demonstrate the necessity of effective community-based policing , but not in Elysium , apparently : A catalog of celebrities have signed an open letter urging local communities to defund police department budgets .
Celebrities such as Jane Fonda , Lizzo , Natalie Portman , Megan Rapinoe , and others signed the letter , according to Rolling Stone , which urges people to vote to decrease funds going to police departments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ healthcare and education .
“ We call for defunding of police and for those dollars to be rerouted to create a public national healthcare system , ” the letter states , citing the Urban Institute ’ s findings that police budgets have increased by 220 % since 1977 , estimating $ 194 billion was spent in 2017 .
Before we actually get to this data — and its full context from the Urban Institute — we should ask this question .
Will every celebrity that signs this petition also pledge not to ever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of their lives ?
If they want to consign the rest of us to live without police protection — those who can ’ t afford to buy protection and justice — they should be willing to live under the same conditions .
Right ?
No more gated communities , no more security for their homes or concerts .
If the rest of us can ’ t have our businesses protected by the police , why should they be able to hire their own ?
As far as the funding issues go , this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so facile it could only come from limousine liberals .
The 220 % increase in spending didn ’ t just apply to police .
If one bothers to read the actual study , the very next sentence shows that police spending rose in proportion to all other government expenditures : Actually , this chart from the Urban Institute suggests police funding increases have lagged — and police spending is a very small amount in any case : The idea that police and corrections funding eclipses the programs that these celebrities want to bolster @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chart from UI also demonstrates : Anyway , the expansion of police budgets have kept pace at best with expansion of all other spending .
Why might that be ?
For one thing , state and local governments keep passing more laws for them to enforce .
For another , populations have grown significantly over the last 40 years .
Note that none of this data is presented in a per-capita context .
Both of those trends mean that communities require more police for enforcement .
If celebrities want police reform , great @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what that means .
For one , it should mean repealing some laws that require more intrusive policing , where biases can play out in the ambiguity .
That ’ s not just drug laws either , but all sorts of intrusive issues relating to domestic issues and family law .
Since their suggestion is not to have police at all available , that shouldn ’ t be a problem , right ?
Second , let ’ s be sure we direct demands for police reform where they belong — at the state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authority from their cities and counties , almost all of which have been run by one party for decades — and it ain ’ t the GOP .
If “ systemic racism ” exists in those systems , then the celebs should take it up with their political allies , George Korda writes in the Knoxville News : Below are pertinent questions , given the way the Democratic Party defines itself as being the party of tolerance and inclusion , and many Democrats ’ characterizations of Republicans or conservatives as racists or racially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been under Democratic control since 1978 .
Chicago has been under Democratic control for 89 years ; its present mayor is a black woman .
Philadelphia has had Democratic mayors for 68 years ; three of its last five mayors have been black men .
Six of the last seven Atlanta , Ga. , mayoral administrations were led by black Democratic mayors , and the present mayor is a black woman .
“ A city runs its police department and other services ; therefore , if there is so much ‘ systemic racism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t it been corrected over so many years under Democratic leaders ?
“ Why aren ’ t these cities garden spots of racial tolerance , understanding , and virtue ?
” There have been no answers .
… When people talk about the need to deal with systemic racism , if they ’ re not willing to talk about the systems run – often for generations by the political party or politicians they support – they aren ’ t interested in an open and honest conversation ; instead , they want only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against people who aren ’ t them .
Anyone who doesn ’ t direct the efforts for reform and calls for political change at the local level where they belong simply are unserious about the matter .
That applies in truckfuls to the limousine liberals calling for “ defunding the police ” rather than dealing with the real issues and hard work of reform .

That would be the celebrity elite that can afford their own private police force, right? Riiiiiight. One might think that a week-plus of rioting and looting would demonstrate the necessity of effective community-based policing, but not in Elysium, apparently:
I signed on to #DefendBlackLives and to push to #DefundThePolice. Join our 5 days of action with @Mvmnt4BlkLives. pic.twitter.com/Sgbwtm6S2S — John Legend (@johnlegend) June 3, 2020
A catalog of celebrities have signed an open letter urging local communities to defund police department budgets. Celebrities such as Jane Fonda, Lizzo, Natalie Portman, Megan Rapinoe, and others signed the letter, according to Rolling Stone, which urges people to vote to decrease funds going to police departments to instead have the money go toward healthcare and education. “We call for defunding of police and for those dollars to be rerouted to create a public national healthcare system,” the letter states, citing the Urban Institute’s findings that police budgets have increased by 220% since 1977, estimating $194 billion was spent in 2017.
Before we actually get to this data — and its full context from the Urban Institute — we should ask this question. Will every celebrity that signs this petition also pledge not to ever hire private security again for the rest of their lives? If they want to consign the rest of us to live without police protection — those who can’t afford to buy protection and justice — they should be willing to live under the same conditions. Right? No more gated communities, no more security for their homes or concerts. If the rest of us can’t have our businesses protected by the police, why should they be able to hire their own?
As far as the funding issues go, this take on UI’s data is so facile it could only come from limousine liberals. The 220% increase in spending didn’t just apply to police. If one bothers to read the actual study, the very next sentence shows that police spending rose in proportion to all other government expenditures:
From 1977 to 2017, state and local government spending on police increased from $42 billion to $115 billion (in 2017 inflation-adjusted dollars). However, as a percentage of direct general expenditures, police spending has remained consistently at just under 4 percent for the past 40 years.
Actually, this chart from the Urban Institute suggests police funding increases have lagged — and police spending is a very small amount in any case:
The idea that police and corrections funding eclipses the programs that these celebrities want to bolster is pretty much nonsense, as this chart from UI also demonstrates:
Anyway, the expansion of police budgets have kept pace at best with expansion of all other spending. Why might that be? For one thing, state and local governments keep passing more laws for them to enforce. For another, populations have grown significantly over the last 40 years. Note that none of this data is presented in a per-capita context. Both of those trends mean that communities require more police for enforcement.
If celebrities want police reform, great, but let’s be clear what that means. For one, it should mean repealing some laws that require more intrusive policing, where biases can play out in the ambiguity. That’s not just drug laws either, but all sorts of intrusive issues relating to domestic issues and family law. Since their suggestion is not to have police at all available, that shouldn’t be a problem, right?
Second, let’s be sure we direct demands for police reform where they belong — at the state and local level. Police operate on authority from their cities and counties, almost all of which have been run by one party for decades — and it ain’t the GOP. If “systemic racism” exists in those systems, then the celebs should take it up with their political allies, George Korda writes in the Knoxville News:
Below are pertinent questions, given the way the Democratic Party defines itself as being the party of tolerance and inclusion, and many Democrats’ characterizations of Republicans or conservatives as racists or racially insensitive. “Minneapolis, Minn. has been under Democratic control since 1978. Chicago has been under Democratic control for 89 years; its present mayor is a black woman. Philadelphia has had Democratic mayors for 68 years; three of its last five mayors have been black men. Six of the last seven Atlanta, Ga., mayoral administrations were led by black Democratic mayors, and the present mayor is a black woman. “A city runs its police department and other services; therefore, if there is so much ‘systemic racism’ in these organizations, why hasn’t it been corrected over so many years under Democratic leaders? “Why aren’t these cities garden spots of racial tolerance, understanding, and virtue?” There have been no answers. … When people talk about the need to deal with systemic racism, if they’re not willing to talk about the systems run – often for generations by the political party or politicians they support – they aren’t interested in an open and honest conversation; instead, they want only to use the issue as a club against people who aren’t them.
Anyone who doesn’t direct the efforts for reform and calls for political change at the local level where they belong simply are unserious about the matter. That applies in truckfuls to the limousine liberals calling for “defunding the police” rather than dealing with the real issues and hard work of reform.


hotair--2020-06-04--NYT staffers revolt over publication of Tom Cotton's "Send in the Troops" op-ed

This same paper has run op-eds by Putin , Nicolas Maduro , and members of the Taliban , among others , with little or no pushback from its reporters .
Defensibly , I should add .
Sometimes it ’ s worth publicizing loathsome views because it ’ s in the public ’ s interest to know how a figure with influence over U.S. or world affairs is thinking .
And sometimes it isn ’ t : You ’ re not going to see any “ The Holocaust Never Happened ” or “ Three Cheers for Derek Chauvin !
” op-eds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is Khamenei or some racist American politician .
There ’ s no hard and fast rule I ’ m aware of to guide how a newspaper , or blog , should handle a dilemma like that .
Sometimes the author is sufficiently prominent and the subject matter sufficiently pertinent that you run it for that reason alone ; sometimes the view expressed is so fringe and contemptible that you pass on it , irrespective of authorship , rather than give it oxygen .
A publication is entitled to assert its values in what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only in what it does I don ’ t think this case was a close call , though .
Of course you publish Cotton ’ s op-ed .
“ Among those tweeting in solidarity [ against running the piece ] were a diverse swath of editorial and production staffers , including restaurant critics , art and graphics producers , travel , style and culture reporters , tech writers , and Times opinion writers like Roxane Gay , ” notes the Daily Beast .
The editor of the op-ed page , James Bennet , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ although given the way these things normally go , both he and Dean Baquet will probably be delivering groveling apologies to the newsroom before the day is out .
For me Cotton ’ s piece easily passes the “ beyond the pale ” test that would rule out publication .
He ’ s a U.S. senator , a possible future defense secretary , and a certain candidate for president in 2024 .
His view matters , maybe a lot .
What he ’ s endorsing , invoking the Insurrection Act , is lawful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the public supports using the military to help police quell rioting , 58/30 .
The Times ’ s newsroom may not like that it ’ s a mainstream view — I ’ m not thrilled about it myself — but it ’ s a mainstream view .
In those circumstances one would think a group of professional writers and nominal free-speech advocates would favor demanding that a rebuttal op-ed , possibly by an esteemed retired military officer like James Mattis , be published instead of resorting to “ speech = violence ” sophistry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans in danger .
But this is the journalist class we have .
There ’ s no shortage of points to make against invoking the Insurrection Act .
For starters , no governor has requested it , which distinguishes Trump ’ s and Cotton ’ s interest in it from Bush 41 ’ s invocation of it in 1992 .
There ’ s also no reason right now that I ’ m aware of to believe local police and the National Guard lack the manpower they need to suppress looting .
Sending regular @ @ @ @ @ @ @ civic costs too .
Some peaceful protesters might end up dead in the chaos ; parts of the population might come to view the military as hostile to them or their cause for justice for George Floyd and an end to police brutality .
There ’ s a reason why so many retired brass seem creeped out this week about the prospect of troops being deployed , from Mattis to Mullen to Stavridis to , most recently , John Allen .
Trump and Cotton see “ strength ” and “ law and order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mattis et al .
see a poisoning of civil-military relations .
From Allen ’ s new piece : Second , Trump was clear he views those engaged in the unrest and criminal acts in these riots as terrorists , an enemy .
He said so , ostensibly as justification to deploy the U.S. military to apply federal force—his “ personal ” force—against the riots .
Indeed , the secretary of defense used the military term “ battlespace ” to describe American cities… [ T ] he governors have sufficient law enforcement capacity—and , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the National Guard—to handle their respective crises .
If not , they can ask for federal assistance .
There is no precedent in modern U.S. history for a president to wield federal troops in a state or municipality over the objections of the respective governor .
Right now , the last thing the country needs—and , frankly , the U.S. military needs—is the appearance of U.S. soldiers carrying out the president ’ s intent by descending on American citizens .
This could wreck the high regard Americans have for their military , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the spectacle on Monday of cops clearing Lafayette Park of protesters so that Trump could trudge across the street for his Bible photo op in front of the church .
( “ The slide of the United States into illiberalism may well have begun on June 1 , 2020 .
Remember the date .
It may well signal the beginning of the end of the American experiment.
” ) That ’ s the punchline to Cotton ’ s demand in his op-ed for “ an overwhelming show of force to disperse , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lafayette Park incident proved that when Trump and Bill Barr want to show “ strength , ” they don ’ t discriminate between “ lawbreakers ” and regular protesters .
Why should anyone trust them to strictly observe that distinction when deploying U.S. troops against American citizens when they couldn ’ t do it in their own backyard three days ago ?
Even Mark Milley , the chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff , who ’ s been enlisted in Trump ’ s law-and-order pageant , felt obliged to put out a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that they answer to the Constitution and the American people first and foremost .
If America ’ s top military officer senses there ’ s momentarily enough doubt about to whom the military ultimately owes loyalty that he has to reiterate basic civics in a memo , I ’ d say that ’ s a bad moment to invoke the ol ’ Insurrection Act .
Grumpy Times staffers should look on the bright side : That op-ed may have done Cotton more harm than good politically .
I ’ m less likely to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I was before he published it .
I ’ m sure some independents feel the same way .
Maybe we ’ re in a minority , per the polling , or maybe as the rioting burns out more people will come around to the view in hindsight that sending in the troops would have been a dangerous overreaction .
Sunshine is the best disinfectant .

This same paper has run op-eds by Putin, Nicolas Maduro, and members of the Taliban, among others, with little or no pushback from its reporters.
Defensibly, I should add. Sometimes it’s worth publicizing loathsome views because it’s in the public’s interest to know how a figure with influence over U.S. or world affairs is thinking. And sometimes it isn’t: You’re not going to see any “The Holocaust Never Happened” or “Three Cheers for Derek Chauvin!” op-eds in the Times even if the author is Khamenei or some racist American politician.
There’s no hard and fast rule I’m aware of to guide how a newspaper, or blog, should handle a dilemma like that. Sometimes the author is sufficiently prominent and the subject matter sufficiently pertinent that you run it for that reason alone; sometimes the view expressed is so fringe and contemptible that you pass on it, irrespective of authorship, rather than give it oxygen. A publication is entitled to assert its values in what it chooses not to publish, not only in what it does
I don’t think this case was a close call, though. Of course you publish Cotton’s op-ed.
NYT reporters in a rare open revolt over the opinion side running Tom Cotton’s op-Ed calling to deploy the military to “restore order.” pic.twitter.com/MgLuR8EunJ — Alex Thompson (@AlexThomp) June 3, 2020
https://twitter.com/nhannahjones/status/1268334601166106624
THREAD: As a former @nytimes Op-Ed editor I am reluctant to weigh in on my alma mater. But the decision to publish @SenTomCotton calling for troop deployments to quell unrest falls short of sound journalistic practice. pic.twitter.com/SgXSndkq8l — Sewell Chan (@sewellchan) June 3, 2020
“Among those tweeting in solidarity [against running the piece] were a diverse swath of editorial and production staffers, including restaurant critics, art and graphics producers, travel, style and culture reporters, tech writers, and Times opinion writers like Roxane Gay,” notes the Daily Beast. The editor of the op-ed page, James Bennet, defended the decision to publish it — although given the way these things normally go, both he and Dean Baquet will probably be delivering groveling apologies to the newsroom before the day is out.
https://twitter.com/JBennet/status/1268328279624351757
https://twitter.com/JBennet/status/1268328281557827584
https://twitter.com/JBennet/status/1268328283646521344
For me Cotton’s piece easily passes the “beyond the pale” test that would rule out publication. He’s a U.S. senator, a possible future defense secretary, and a certain candidate for president in 2024. His view matters, maybe a lot. What he’s endorsing, invoking the Insurrection Act, is lawful. And a recent poll shows that the public supports using the military to help police quell rioting, 58/30. The Times’s newsroom may not like that it’s a mainstream view — I’m not thrilled about it myself — but it’s a mainstream view.
In those circumstances one would think a group of professional writers and nominal free-speech advocates would favor demanding that a rebuttal op-ed, possibly by an esteemed retired military officer like James Mattis, be published instead of resorting to “speech = violence” sophistry about Cotton’s op-ed placing black Americans in danger. But this is the journalist class we have.
Our statement: pic.twitter.com/0XgUBv9IIv — NewsGuild of New York (@nyguild) June 4, 2020
Remember 6 years ago when conservatives would point at the censorious college PC woke leftists and say "LOL, those kids are in for a rude awakening they enter the real world." That was always wrong. It was the rest of us who needed to brace for them. https://t.co/iaLpFowZif — Tim Carney (@TPCarney) June 4, 2020
There’s no shortage of points to make against invoking the Insurrection Act. For starters, no governor has requested it, which distinguishes Trump’s and Cotton’s interest in it from Bush 41’s invocation of it in 1992. There’s also no reason right now that I’m aware of to believe local police and the National Guard lack the manpower they need to suppress looting. Sending regular troops into the streets would risk serious civic costs too. Some peaceful protesters might end up dead in the chaos; parts of the population might come to view the military as hostile to them or their cause for justice for George Floyd and an end to police brutality. There’s a reason why so many retired brass seem creeped out this week about the prospect of troops being deployed, from Mattis to Mullen to Stavridis to, most recently, John Allen. Trump and Cotton see “strength” and “law and order” in invoking the Insurrection Act whereas Mattis et al. see a poisoning of civil-military relations. From Allen’s new piece:
Second, Trump was clear he views those engaged in the unrest and criminal acts in these riots as terrorists, an enemy. He said so, ostensibly as justification to deploy the U.S. military to apply federal force—his “personal” force—against the riots. Indeed, the secretary of defense used the military term “battlespace” to describe American cities… [T]he governors have sufficient law enforcement capacity—and, if necessary, the combat power of the National Guard—to handle their respective crises. If not, they can ask for federal assistance. There is no precedent in modern U.S. history for a president to wield federal troops in a state or municipality over the objections of the respective governor. Right now, the last thing the country needs—and, frankly, the U.S. military needs—is the appearance of U.S. soldiers carrying out the president’s intent by descending on American citizens. This could wreck the high regard Americans have for their military, and much more.
Allen was especially galled by the spectacle on Monday of cops clearing Lafayette Park of protesters so that Trump could trudge across the street for his Bible photo op in front of the church. (“The slide of the United States into illiberalism may well have begun on June 1, 2020. Remember the date. It may well signal the beginning of the end of the American experiment.”) That’s the punchline to Cotton’s demand in his op-ed for “an overwhelming show of force to disperse, detain and ultimately deter lawbreakers.” The Lafayette Park incident proved that when Trump and Bill Barr want to show “strength,” they don’t discriminate between “lawbreakers” and regular protesters. Why should anyone trust them to strictly observe that distinction when deploying U.S. troops against American citizens when they couldn’t do it in their own backyard three days ago?
Even Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, who’s been enlisted in Trump’s law-and-order pageant, felt obliged to put out a memo last night reminding his top deputies that they answer to the Constitution and the American people first and foremost.
This memo is fascinating. The text — a direct reminder that soldiers' highest loyalty is to the Constitution — is less interesting than the subtext, that the reminder is deemed vitally necessary at this moment: pic.twitter.com/9l9awUNaZD — David French (@DavidAFrench) June 3, 2020
If America’s top military officer senses there’s momentarily enough doubt about to whom the military ultimately owes loyalty that he has to reiterate basic civics in a memo, I’d say that’s a bad moment to invoke the ol’ Insurrection Act.
Grumpy Times staffers should look on the bright side: That op-ed may have done Cotton more harm than good politically. I’m less likely to vote for him in 2024 now than I was before he published it. I’m sure some independents feel the same way. Maybe we’re in a minority, per the polling, or maybe as the rioting burns out more people will come around to the view in hindsight that sending in the troops would have been a dangerous overreaction. Sunshine is the best disinfectant.


hotair--2020-06-04--Texas enters Phase 3 of reopening despite spike in new COVID-19 cases

Governor Greg Abbott is moving ahead in reopening the Texas economy .
All businesses in Texas can now operate at 50 % of their maximum occupancy .
The announcement was made yesterday , the same day that the seven-day average for new daily cases hit 1,466 , up from 1,280 in mid-May .
The governor is forging on with reopening plans because of the success that Texas has seen in doing so in a safe manner .
Most Texans continue to use common sense and practice personal responsibility measures .
So , why the spike in coronavirus cases ?
Governor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prisons , jails , nursing homes , and meatpacking plants as the cause for nearly half of all new cases .
Containment in these hot spots is key going forward .
Hot spots are being handled with surge response teams that include public health officials and members of the National Guard .
Teams from the Division of Emergency Management have been active in more than 100 counties .
It ’ s a fine line the governor is walking here .
Hospitals are not overwhelmed but hospitalizations are up for the past week .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the point of being at peak level .
The number of COVID-19 deaths per day is down – 23 deaths per day over the past week .
That number was 40 in mid-May .
Governor Abbott said he is closely watching hospitalizations and deaths as he proceeds with reopening the state .
The state ’ s major cities have all extended stay-at-home orders and mandated facial masks but those orders are unenforceable , easily overruled by the governor ’ s executive orders .
Yet , generally speaking , Texans are following the recommendations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , practicing social distancing in public , at-risk people staying at home whenever possible , and reminding everyone to practice personal hygiene like frequent handwashing .
Texas is likely plateauing at this point – no dramatic drops or surges in cases .
With the large numbers of people attending rallies and protests in recent days , though , public health officials are expressing concerns that a spike may come .
One thing the governor didn ’ t mention yesterday when he announced the beginning of Phase 3 was the positivity rate — the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He has done so in previous briefings but didn ’ t include it yesterday .
Wednesday the rate rose to nearly 7 percent , the highest rate since early May .
Democrat critics who jump ugly at the first chance are voicing opinions that it ’ s time to hit the brakes on reopening the state .
They point to a lower number of tests performed than was hoped and the hiring process of 4,000 contact tracers has only produced 2,000 so far .
Some in the medical community voice the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chair of the Texas House Democratic Caucus , said the trends show “ a troubling lack of progress.
” “ Unfortunately , COVID-19 numbers are moving in the wrong direction right now and we need to tap the brakes , not step on the gas , ” he said in a statement .
Dr. Peter Hotez , an infectious disease expert at Baylor College , warned last month that the state is moving too quickly .
“ I understand the importance of opening up the economy , ” he told the Chronicle .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ we haven ’ t put in place a public health system — the testing , the contact tracing — that ’ s commensurate to sustain the economy.
” This isn ’ t naive optimism from Governor Abbott .
He spoke of understanding that the virus is still here and self-distancing practices remain in place .
Like everyone else , he is waiting for the arrival of a vaccine or medications to treat those who test positive for the coronavirus .
Meanwhile , a slow and cautious reopening with an eye kept on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hospitalizations , and deaths are showing signs of success .
Abbott says if the trend continues , a full statewide reopening is possible this summer .
Does an increase in testing bring about an increase in cases ?
Sure .
Testing increased during the last week by 36 % while the number of confirmed infected cases rose by 51 % , so an increase is real .
But it doesn ’ t necessarily mean the spread of the outbreak is getting worse .
Why the number of positive cases hasn ’ t decreased @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poll released Wednesday by Quinnipiac University shows findings that 38 percent say Governor Abbott has moved too quickly and 12 percent saying he hasn ’ t moved fast enough .
Under half of Texans agree with the phases of reopening , which sounds about right , given the current atmosphere in this political cycle .
There is no separating politics from the nationwide economic shutdown , that ’ s for sure .
This was a poll of 1,100 registered voters in Texas .
The poll also shows Governor Abbott ’ s approval rating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Registered voters used as polling data is often less reliable than using likely voters .
So , bars and restaurants can increase capacity levels and other businesses can reopen , like amusement parks , fine arts performance halls , and video game facilities .
There are still restrictions along with the plan – bar patrons must remain seated .
Table sizes in restaurants may expand from six to ten people .
And , restaurants may expand occupancy levels to 75 percent on June 12 .
Late last night Gov .
Abbott tweeted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ # COVID19 hospitalizations in the past 6 weeks .
And , we now rank # 1 in America for the most recoveries from COVID .
”

Governor Greg Abbott is moving ahead in reopening the Texas economy. All businesses in Texas can now operate at 50% of their maximum occupancy. The announcement was made yesterday, the same day that the seven-day average for new daily cases hit 1,466, up from 1,280 in mid-May.
The governor is forging on with reopening plans because of the success that Texas has seen in doing so in a safe manner. Most Texans continue to use common sense and practice personal responsibility measures.
“The people of Texas continue to prove that we can safely and responsibly open our state for business while containing COVID-19 and keeping our state safe,” the Republican governor said, while encouraging the continued use of face masks and other safety practices in public.
So, why the spike in coronavirus cases? Governor Abbott points to specific hot spots like prisons, jails, nursing homes, and meatpacking plants as the cause for nearly half of all new cases. Containment in these hot spots is key going forward.
Abbott said nearly half of all new cases are isolated at jails and prisons, meatpacking plants and nursing homes, environments where he says outbreaks can be contained as the reopening progresses. The state has moved to increase testing at many of those locations, though testing as a whole remains stagnant, well below the governor’s goal of 30,000 tests per day. The state has averaged about 23,000 tests per day for the past three weeks.
Hot spots are being handled with surge response teams that include public health officials and members of the National Guard. Teams from the Division of Emergency Management have been active in more than 100 counties.
It’s a fine line the governor is walking here. Hospitals are not overwhelmed but hospitalizations are up for the past week. Statewide, hospital capacity is well below the point of being at peak level. The number of COVID-19 deaths per day is down – 23 deaths per day over the past week. That number was 40 in mid-May. Governor Abbott said he is closely watching hospitalizations and deaths as he proceeds with reopening the state.
The state’s major cities have all extended stay-at-home orders and mandated facial masks but those orders are unenforceable, easily overruled by the governor’s executive orders. Yet, generally speaking, Texans are following the recommendations of public health officials – wearing masks, practicing social distancing in public, at-risk people staying at home whenever possible, and reminding everyone to practice personal hygiene like frequent handwashing.
Texas is likely plateauing at this point – no dramatic drops or surges in cases. With the large numbers of people attending rallies and protests in recent days, though, public health officials are expressing concerns that a spike may come. One thing the governor didn’t mention yesterday when he announced the beginning of Phase 3 was the positivity rate — the rate of people testing positive for COVID-19. He has done so in previous briefings but didn’t include it yesterday. Wednesday the rate rose to nearly 7 percent, the highest rate since early May.
Democrat critics who jump ugly at the first chance are voicing opinions that it’s time to hit the brakes on reopening the state. They point to a lower number of tests performed than was hoped and the hiring process of 4,000 contact tracers has only produced 2,000 so far. Some in the medical community voice the same concerns.
Rep. Chris Turner, the chair of the Texas House Democratic Caucus, said the trends show “a troubling lack of progress.” “Unfortunately, COVID-19 numbers are moving in the wrong direction right now and we need to tap the brakes, not step on the gas,” he said in a statement. Dr. Peter Hotez, an infectious disease expert at Baylor College, warned last month that the state is moving too quickly. “I understand the importance of opening up the economy,” he told the Chronicle. “The worry I have is that we haven’t put in place a public health system — the testing, the contact tracing — that’s commensurate to sustain the economy.”
This isn’t naive optimism from Governor Abbott. He spoke of understanding that the virus is still here and self-distancing practices remain in place. Like everyone else, he is waiting for the arrival of a vaccine or medications to treat those who test positive for the coronavirus. Meanwhile, a slow and cautious reopening with an eye kept on the analysis of the numbers of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths are showing signs of success. Abbott says if the trend continues, a full statewide reopening is possible this summer.
Does an increase in testing bring about an increase in cases? Sure. Testing increased during the last week by 36% while the number of confirmed infected cases rose by 51%, so an increase is real. But it doesn’t necessarily mean the spread of the outbreak is getting worse. Why the number of positive cases hasn’t decreased is a question going forward.
A poll released Wednesday by Quinnipiac University shows findings that 38 percent say Governor Abbott has moved too quickly and 12 percent saying he hasn’t moved fast enough. Under half of Texans agree with the phases of reopening, which sounds about right, given the current atmosphere in this political cycle. There is no separating politics from the nationwide economic shutdown, that’s for sure. This was a poll of 1,100 registered voters in Texas. The poll also shows Governor Abbott’s approval rating of 56% is unchanged since September. Registered voters used as polling data is often less reliable than using likely voters.
So, bars and restaurants can increase capacity levels and other businesses can reopen, like amusement parks, fine arts performance halls, and video game facilities. There are still restrictions along with the plan – bar patrons must remain seated. Table sizes in restaurants may expand from six to ten people. And, restaurants may expand occupancy levels to 75 percent on June 12.
Fine arts performance halls and video game facilities may reopen at 50 percent occupancy starting June 10. Beginning June 19, amusement parks and carnivals in counties with more than 1,000 COVID-19 cases may open at 50 percent capacity. “As we begin Phase III, I ask all Texans and Texas businesses to continue following the standard health protocols and to heed the guidance of our state and federal officials who continue to closely monitor COVID-19,” Abbott said in the release. If we remain vigilant, we will continue to mitigate the spread of this virus, protect public health, and get more Texans back to work and their daily activities.”
Late last night Gov. Abbott tweeted: “Today Texas had the fewest #COVID19 hospitalizations in the past 6 weeks. And, we now rank #1 in America for the most recoveries from COVID.”


hotair--2020-06-04--What do the new charges in the George Floyd case mean for the future of prosecutions?

Allahpundit already broke down the legal details of the various charges against Derek Chauvin and the three other officers involved in the death of George Floyd .
But charging people with crimes and obtaining convictions are two very different things .
What I wanted to focus on this morning was the way that the charges have evolved over a relatively short period of time and whether or not we ’ re seeing the normal evolution of a potential criminal case or some new phenomenon of charges being driven by media attention or public outcry .
First , let ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the news .
( CNN ) At the news conference , [ Attorney General Keith ] Ellison insisted that the protests did not influence the charges .
“ I did not allow public pressure to impact our decision-making process , ” he said .
“ We made these decisions based on the facts that we gathered since this matter occurred and made these charges based on the law that we think applies.
” Ellison was appointed by Gov .
Tim Walz to take over the case from Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ellison had cautioned against a rush to judgment , citing the difficulty of prosecuting police officers .
So we ’ ve now gone through three stages in the evolution of the charges against these officers .
Initially , there were no charges filed against any of the four .
You can read that however you like , and some analysts have hinted that the local prosecutor never planned on bringing charges .
But that ’ s actually a fairly typical situation .
You need to investigate what actually happened , review bodycam footage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to arrest a cop .
We should also remember that George Floyd died on May 25th and all four officers were fired the following day on May 26th .
That ’ s a pretty rapid response compared to most cases of a suspect dying in police custody .
We quickly moved to stage two .
Derek Chauvin was arrested two days later on May 29th and charged with third-degree murder and homicide .
There were still no charges filed against any of the other three officers , but officials told the public that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by then , the protests that started in Minneapolis had spread around the country , and cities were being set afire .
Two days later , on May 31st , Keith Ellison takes over the investigation from the county prosecutor .
His investigation runs for three days until we reach stage 3 on June 3rd .
The other three officers are charged and arrested while Chauvin has an additional charge of second-degree murder added .
All of this took place in a little more than a week against a backdrop of flames engulfing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a loop on every cable network .
So was the investigation into the circumstances of Floyd ’ s death handled thoroughly and impartially ?
The fact that Ellison had to go out of his way to insist that he did not “ allow public pressure to impact our decision-making process ” suggests that he knows exactly what this looks like and he ’ s trying to head off the expected criticism in advance .
I ’ ll admit that it ’ s certainly possible that the prosecutor could have reviewed all of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three days and been able to at least come to enough of a preliminary conclusion to justify charges .
But having determined that third-degree murder was the appropriate charge with the best chance of obtaining a conviction , what could possibly have come to light in the following 72 hours to justify the upgrade to the far more serious charge of second-degree murder ?
Despite Ellison ’ s protests to the contrary , it ’ s hard to avoid the idea that the new charge was filed because the pressure was on to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the streets .
If that ’ s the case , we ’ re left facing some difficult questions .
Are we inviting a new era where a sufficient number of stores being set on fire and looted will result in prosecutors rushing into charging police officers ?
( I specify the cops because I highly doubt you will ever see these sorts of protests demanding the arrest of a civilian defendant . )
All of the evidence thus far points to Derek Chauvin being guilty of something awful , but there are any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deadly force encounters where the suspect had a weapon and a very real threat to either the police or the public exists .
Those officers are almost always cleared of wrongdoing after an investigation is concluded .
But will a sufficient amount of rioting force prosecutors to bend a knee and charge them anyway ?
How many other people are charged with any given crime only to have the court of public opinion force an upgrade in their charges ?
We should also ask what the results will be if public pressure forces @ @ @ @ @ @ @ big-ticket charge but the officer is then acquitted because of prosecutorial overreach ?
That still may happen in the case of Chauvin .
Third-degree murder was going to be a tough enough hill to climb to begin with .
A conviction on second-degree may prove entirely impossible .
This entire situation is growing increasingly disturbing .
The criminal justice system may have its flaws , but it needs to be allowed to work while offering transparency to the public .
Suggesting that “ enough riots ” is all it takes to get Lady @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to one side or the other is a horrible precedent .

Allahpundit already broke down the legal details of the various charges against Derek Chauvin and the three other officers involved in the death of George Floyd. But charging people with crimes and obtaining convictions are two very different things. What I wanted to focus on this morning was the way that the charges have evolved over a relatively short period of time and whether or not we’re seeing the normal evolution of a potential criminal case or some new phenomenon of charges being driven by media attention or public outcry. First, let’s see how some in the press received the news. (CNN)
At the news conference, [Attorney General Keith] Ellison insisted that the protests did not influence the charges. “I did not allow public pressure to impact our decision-making process,” he said. “We made these decisions based on the facts that we gathered since this matter occurred and made these charges based on the law that we think applies.” Ellison was appointed by Gov. Tim Walz to take over the case from Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman on Sunday. A former Democratic congressman, Ellison had cautioned against a rush to judgment, citing the difficulty of prosecuting police officers.
So we’ve now gone through three stages in the evolution of the charges against these officers. Initially, there were no charges filed against any of the four. You can read that however you like, and some analysts have hinted that the local prosecutor never planned on bringing charges. But that’s actually a fairly typical situation. You need to investigate what actually happened, review bodycam footage and interview everyone involved before you decide to arrest a cop. We should also remember that George Floyd died on May 25th and all four officers were fired the following day on May 26th. That’s a pretty rapid response compared to most cases of a suspect dying in police custody.
We quickly moved to stage two. Derek Chauvin was arrested two days later on May 29th and charged with third-degree murder and homicide. There were still no charges filed against any of the other three officers, but officials told the public that the investigation was “ongoing.” But by then, the protests that started in Minneapolis had spread around the country, and cities were being set afire.
Two days later, on May 31st, Keith Ellison takes over the investigation from the county prosecutor. His investigation runs for three days until we reach stage 3 on June 3rd. The other three officers are charged and arrested while Chauvin has an additional charge of second-degree murder added. All of this took place in a little more than a week against a backdrop of flames engulfing major cities with those images running on a loop on every cable network.
So was the investigation into the circumstances of Floyd’s death handled thoroughly and impartially? The fact that Ellison had to go out of his way to insist that he did not “allow public pressure to impact our decision-making process” suggests that he knows exactly what this looks like and he’s trying to head off the expected criticism in advance. I’ll admit that it’s certainly possible that the prosecutor could have reviewed all of the civilian video and police bodycam footage within three days and been able to at least come to enough of a preliminary conclusion to justify charges.
But having determined that third-degree murder was the appropriate charge with the best chance of obtaining a conviction, what could possibly have come to light in the following 72 hours to justify the upgrade to the far more serious charge of second-degree murder? Despite Ellison’s protests to the contrary, it’s hard to avoid the idea that the new charge was filed because the pressure was on to get the protesters and rioters out of the streets.
If that’s the case, we’re left facing some difficult questions. Are we inviting a new era where a sufficient number of stores being set on fire and looted will result in prosecutors rushing into charging police officers? (I specify the cops because I highly doubt you will ever see these sorts of protests demanding the arrest of a civilian defendant.) All of the evidence thus far points to Derek Chauvin being guilty of something awful, but there are any number of police who wind up in deadly force encounters where the suspect had a weapon and a very real threat to either the police or the public exists. Those officers are almost always cleared of wrongdoing after an investigation is concluded. But will a sufficient amount of rioting force prosecutors to bend a knee and charge them anyway?
How many other people are charged with any given crime only to have the court of public opinion force an upgrade in their charges? We should also ask what the results will be if public pressure forces a prosecutor to go for a really big-ticket charge but the officer is then acquitted because of prosecutorial overreach? That still may happen in the case of Chauvin. Third-degree murder was going to be a tough enough hill to climb to begin with. A conviction on second-degree may prove entirely impossible.
This entire situation is growing increasingly disturbing. The criminal justice system may have its flaws, but it needs to be allowed to work while offering transparency to the public. Suggesting that “enough riots” is all it takes to get Lady Liberty to tip her scales a bit to one side or the other is a horrible precedent.


hotair--2020-06-04--Hmmm: Coroner rules homicide in another police-custody "I can't breathe" incident

Add another name to the protests sweeping the nation .
A coroner has ruled the death of an African-American man who died in the custody of Tacoma police a homicide .
Manuel Ellis had reportedly assaulted officers before being detained , but complained while on the ground , “ I can ’ t breathe.
” That sounds similar to what happened to George Floyd in Minneapolis and Eric Garner in New York , even though the circumstances of those cases were different : Police officers encountered Mr. Ellis , a musician and father of two from Tacoma , on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stopped at an intersection .
They saw him banging on the window of another vehicle , Detective Troyer said .
Mr. Ellis approached the officers , Detective Troyer said , and then threw an officer to the ground when the officer got out of the vehicle .
The two officers and two backup officers who joined — two of them white , one black and one Asian — handcuffed him .
“ Mr .
Ellis was physically restrained as he continued to be combative , ” the Tacoma Police Department said in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the Ellis case told reporters that he doesn ’ t believe officers used a chokehold or a knee to the neck of Ellis .
No one knows for sure , though , because none of the officers were wearing body cameras .
The case has other curiosities , too , including the fact that Ellis was still breathing on his own when EMS arrived , at least according to the police .
Forty minutes later , the 33-year-old man died anyway .
How does a 33-year-old man suddenly drop dead while still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ruled that the police detention caused the death , although Ellis did have other issues : The situation may not be all that different from Floyd ’ s in the end .
Recall that the first Minneapolis police description of the incident sounded a bit like the police description of Ellis ’ arrest — a struggle while being detained , followed by a “ medical incident ” that resulted in death .
Only after video from bystanders exploded into viral status did the police realize that something entirely different had happened to Floyd @ @ @ @ @ @ @ life unfolded precisely in the manner Tacoma police describe , but … video sure would be handy to corroborate that , wouldn ’ t it ?
Regardless , the coroner ’ s ruling of homicide at the hands of police will now push the case forward for prosecution .
Troyer says the district attorney ’ s office will get the case as early as tomorrow .
Public pressure for charging the four officers will be tremendous , especially in this particular moment , but a lack of video of the incident will make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of juries on police integrity .
Still , the defense is going to have a tough time explaining away the death of a 33-year-old unarmed suspect by compression and restraint , unless they can undermine the coroner ’ s findings in court .
If nothing else , it underscores the power of video for accountability .
Keep the smartphones handy , and perhaps more communities should be investing in body cams .

Add another name to the protests sweeping the nation. A coroner has ruled the death of an African-American man who died in the custody of Tacoma police a homicide. Manuel Ellis had reportedly assaulted officers before being detained, but complained while on the ground, “I can’t breathe.” That sounds similar to what happened to George Floyd in Minneapolis and Eric Garner in New York, even though the circumstances of those cases were different:
Police officers encountered Mr. Ellis, a musician and father of two from Tacoma, on the night of March 3 as they were stopped at an intersection. They saw him banging on the window of another vehicle, Detective Troyer said. Mr. Ellis approached the officers, Detective Troyer said, and then threw an officer to the ground when the officer got out of the vehicle. The two officers and two backup officers who joined — two of them white, one black and one Asian — handcuffed him. “Mr. Ellis was physically restrained as he continued to be combative,” the Tacoma Police Department said in a statement on Wednesday.
The detective assigned to the Ellis case told reporters that he doesn’t believe officers used a chokehold or a knee to the neck of Ellis. No one knows for sure, though, because none of the officers were wearing body cameras. The case has other curiosities, too, including the fact that Ellis was still breathing on his own when EMS arrived, at least according to the police. Forty minutes later, the 33-year-old man died anyway.
How does a 33-year-old man suddenly drop dead while still breathing when EMS arrives? The coroner ruled that the police detention caused the death, although Ellis did have other issues:
Mr. Ellis died from respiratory arrest, hypoxia and physical restraint, according to the medical examiner’s office. The report listed methamphetamine intoxication and heart disease as contributing factors.
The situation may not be all that different from Floyd’s in the end. Recall that the first Minneapolis police description of the incident sounded a bit like the police description of Ellis’ arrest — a struggle while being detained, followed by a “medical incident” that resulted in death. Only after video from bystanders exploded into viral status did the police realize that something entirely different had happened to Floyd. Perhaps Ellis’ last minutes of life unfolded precisely in the manner Tacoma police describe, but … video sure would be handy to corroborate that, wouldn’t it?
Regardless, the coroner’s ruling of homicide at the hands of police will now push the case forward for prosecution. Troyer says the district attorney’s office will get the case as early as tomorrow. Public pressure for charging the four officers will be tremendous, especially in this particular moment, but a lack of video of the incident will make it tougher to overcome the traditional reliance of juries on police integrity. Still, the defense is going to have a tough time explaining away the death of a 33-year-old unarmed suspect by compression and restraint, unless they can undermine the coroner’s findings in court.
If nothing else, it underscores the power of video for accountability. Keep the smartphones handy, and perhaps more communities should be investing in body cams.


hotair--2020-06-04--Ambush attack on NYPD inflames tensions

Ambush attack on NYPD inflames tensions

According to most of the reports we ’ re seeing this morning , the violence , looting and arson abated somewhat last night in most of the cities .
There were still large demonstrations and violations of curfew orders taking place , but any reduction in the violent mayhem is a welcome sign .
The improvements are widely being credited to the arrests of the three other police officers involved in the death of George Floyd , but that ’ s obviously hard to verify .
Sadly , that doesn ’ t mean that all of the news was good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unprovoked attack on a police officer shortly before midnight .
In Brooklyn , a suspect snuck up behind one NYPD officer and stabbed him in the neck .
This drew more cops to the scene resulting in two more officers being injured before the attacker was shot by the police .
A confrontation in Brooklyn late Wednesday left one police officer stabbed in the neck , two officers with gunshot wounds to their hands and another man shot by police , the New York Police Department said .
The officers were taken to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expected to be life-threatening , the department said .
The condition of the man shot by police was not immediately released .
The bloodshed happened just before midnight in the hours after an 8 p.m. curfew that was intended to quell unrest over the death of George Floyd in Minnesota .
Details on how it unfolded weren ’ t immediately available .
There ’ s no excuse for engaging in a cowardly , potentially lethal attack on a police officer , and you ’ re pretty much asking to be shot if you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it ’ s not entirely clear that this incident was related to the ongoing unrest surrounding the George Floyd protests .
The spot in Brooklyn where the attack took place is on the same block where there were police cars being set on fire and shop windows being smashed the night before .
But last night the police had that block mostly locked down .
One resident told reporters that there wasn ’ t any protest action or violent rioting in that area when the stabbing took place .
Of course , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attacker wasn ’ t part of the mob from the previous night who was just coming back to start more trouble , but we don ’ t have the details to support that idea at this point .
Clearly , seeing unprovoked attacks on the NYPD is nothing new and it ’ s been going on since long before all of these George Floyd protests began .
Back in February , a maniac shot two cops in a twelve-hour period , with the second attack taking place inside of a police station .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Back in October , another officer wound up in a coma after being randomly attacked by another psychopath .
Sadly , there are enough examples like those to fill up several columns worth of space .
The police have been under assault for some time .
But in the past , it was usually lone attackers or small groups seeking to take on the cops .
Under the current conditions , something has changed in a drastic fashion .
As long as most of the public supports law and order , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and bring the situation under control .
But when hundreds of rioters take to the street with the police as their targets , the thin blue line can be overwhelmed .
And those are the conditions we ’ ve been experiencing for several nights .
We should hope that the lull in violence last night was the beginning of a trend and not just a short break in the action .
But if not , the Mayor and the Governor are going to have to do something to put an end to this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the National Guard again ( or even the Army ) , then that ’ s what they ’ re going to have to do .
They can ’ t simply surrender the city to mob rule .

According to most of the reports we’re seeing this morning, the violence, looting and arson abated somewhat last night in most of the cities. There were still large demonstrations and violations of curfew orders taking place, but any reduction in the violent mayhem is a welcome sign. The improvements are widely being credited to the arrests of the three other police officers involved in the death of George Floyd, but that’s obviously hard to verify.
Sadly, that doesn’t mean that all of the news was good. New York City saw yet another unprovoked attack on a police officer shortly before midnight. In Brooklyn, a suspect snuck up behind one NYPD officer and stabbed him in the neck. This drew more cops to the scene resulting in two more officers being injured before the attacker was shot by the police.
A confrontation in Brooklyn late Wednesday left one police officer stabbed in the neck, two officers with gunshot wounds to their hands and another man shot by police, the New York Police Department said. The officers were taken to a hospital with wounds that were not expected to be life-threatening, the department said. The condition of the man shot by police was not immediately released. The bloodshed happened just before midnight in the hours after an 8 p.m. curfew that was intended to quell unrest over the death of George Floyd in Minnesota. Details on how it unfolded weren’t immediately available.
There’s no excuse for engaging in a cowardly, potentially lethal attack on a police officer, and you’re pretty much asking to be shot if you do it. But with that said, it’s not entirely clear that this incident was related to the ongoing unrest surrounding the George Floyd protests. The spot in Brooklyn where the attack took place is on the same block where there were police cars being set on fire and shop windows being smashed the night before.
But last night the police had that block mostly locked down. One resident told reporters that there wasn’t any protest action or violent rioting in that area when the stabbing took place. Of course, that doesn’t mean that the attacker wasn’t part of the mob from the previous night who was just coming back to start more trouble, but we don’t have the details to support that idea at this point.
Clearly, seeing unprovoked attacks on the NYPD is nothing new and it’s been going on since long before all of these George Floyd protests began. Back in February, a maniac shot two cops in a twelve-hour period, with the second attack taking place inside of a police station. Thankfully neither of the officers was killed. Back in October, another officer wound up in a coma after being randomly attacked by another psychopath.
Sadly, there are enough examples like those to fill up several columns worth of space. The police have been under assault for some time. But in the past, it was usually lone attackers or small groups seeking to take on the cops. Under the current conditions, something has changed in a drastic fashion. As long as most of the public supports law and order, the police can generally swarm a dangerous criminal and bring the situation under control. But when hundreds of rioters take to the street with the police as their targets, the thin blue line can be overwhelmed. And those are the conditions we’ve been experiencing for several nights.
We should hope that the lull in violence last night was the beginning of a trend and not just a short break in the action. But if not, the Mayor and the Governor are going to have to do something to put an end to this madness. And if that means calling in the National Guard again (or even the Army), then that’s what they’re going to have to do. They can’t simply surrender the city to mob rule.


hotair--2020-06-04--Finally: First clinical study of hydroxychloroquine shows ... everyone was a little wrong

Is it an effective defense against , or treatment for , COVID-19 ?
Or is it a dangerous drug that could either ( a ) kill vast swaths of people for whom it is prescribed , or ( b ) kill vast swaths of people who face a shortage in their regular supply of it ?
The status of hydroxychloroquine , a well-known antimalarial drug , has been bandied about by politicians and advocates based on anecdotal and sometimes contradictory data for months .
Now we finally have data from an actual clinical trial of hydroxychloroquine ’ s effect on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Minnesota ’ s trial data , the drug has no prophylactic value in preventing development of the viral infection : “ While we are disappointed that this did not prevent COVID-19 , we are pleased that we were able to provide a conclusive answer , ” said Dr. David Boulware , leader of the U trial .
“ Our objective was to find an answer.
” Results published online Wednesday by the New England Journal of Medicine showed little difference in the onset of COVID-19 in 414 people who took hydroxychloroquine and a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ folic acid vitamins .
All participants had at least moderate risk for COVID-19 after being exposed to others in their homes or workplaces who had the illness .
There was a small difference , as 11.8 % of people taking the drug developed COVID-19 , compared with 14.3 % of those taking vitamins , the study showed .
However , that difference was considered statistically insignificant .
Even if valid , the small difference means that 42 people would have to take the drug prophylactically to prevent one COVID-19 case .
That would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ side effects .
The study showed that 40 % experienced mild side effects such as nausea , but it allayed fears that widespread use of the drug could result in cardiac and other complications .
This study only considered prophylaxis .
Another UM study is under way for treatment : But what about the zinc ?
The backers of hydroxychloroquine have claimed that earlier anecdotal data missed the point because it didn ’ t include zinc supplements in its dosing .
This study did review that question as well , and found it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ single clinical trial won ’ t fully settle the question , especially with the relatively smallish sample in the UM study .
If anything , these findings should encourage more study , as it ’ s now clear that the Lancet study that set off warnings about research on hydroxychloroquine was based on false data ; we know now that such research can be done safely .
The study on its use as a treatment can go forward , for instance , and other countries can consider larger and perhaps more diverse studies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anecdotally supposed to support hydroxychloroquine and zinc in combination against COVID-19 .
More trials might be necessary for other reasons .
One of the ironies of studying COVID-19 is how tough it is to structure a normal clinical trial in a shutdown .
Dr. David Boulware had to conduct the study with more remote work than usual , with medications/placebos mailed to study participants .
Some of those were included based on symptoms rather than confirmation of COVID-19 infection by testing , especially early on when testing was still tough to get .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ come after it , ” Boulware told the Star Tribune , “ but the data are what the data are.
” However , this is the kind of double-blind clinical trial that generally produces much more reliable conclusions .
The conclusions here are that all those who hyped it as a miracle drug and who hyped it as a lethal danger were wrong .
The rest of us feel like Jen Reiner of Edina , a study subject quoted by the Star Tribune when the results of the study got published yesterday : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perhaps look more to a vaccine for prophylaxis , and see what Boulware ’ s team concludes from its study of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment .
It beats jumping to conclusions … one way or the other .

Is it an effective defense against, or treatment for, COVID-19? Or is it a dangerous drug that could either (a) kill vast swaths of people for whom it is prescribed, or (b) kill vast swaths of people who face a shortage in their regular supply of it? The status of hydroxychloroquine, a well-known antimalarial drug, has been bandied about by politicians and advocates based on anecdotal and sometimes contradictory data for months.
Now we finally have data from an actual clinical trial of hydroxychloroquine’s effect on COVID-19. According to the University of Minnesota’s trial data, the drug has no prophylactic value in preventing development of the viral infection:
“While we are disappointed that this did not prevent COVID-19, we are pleased that we were able to provide a conclusive answer,” said Dr. David Boulware, leader of the U trial. “Our objective was to find an answer.” Results published online Wednesday by the New England Journal of Medicine showed little difference in the onset of COVID-19 in 414 people who took hydroxychloroquine and a comparison group of 407 that took only folic acid vitamins. All participants had at least moderate risk for COVID-19 after being exposed to others in their homes or workplaces who had the illness. There was a small difference, as 11.8% of people taking the drug developed COVID-19, compared with 14.3% of those taking vitamins, the study showed. However, that difference was considered statistically insignificant. Even if valid, the small difference means that 42 people would have to take the drug prophylactically to prevent one COVID-19 case. That would be costly and expose people to drug side effects. The study showed that 40% experienced mild side effects such as nausea, but it allayed fears that widespread use of the drug could result in cardiac and other complications.
This study only considered prophylaxis. Another UM study is under way for treatment:
The study provides evidence only of whether the drug is effective in preventing COVID-19 onset following exposure to someone with the infection.
But what about the zinc? The backers of hydroxychloroquine have claimed that earlier anecdotal data missed the point because it didn’t include zinc supplements in its dosing. This study did review that question as well, and found it made no difference at all:
While not a primary goal, the study also found no increased protection for participants who also took zinc or vitamin C. A separate study suggested that zinc could boost the effectiveness of chloroquine, but even if that’s true, the U authors noted that most Americans consume enough zinc already so supplements shouldn’t be needed.
A single clinical trial won’t fully settle the question, especially with the relatively smallish sample in the UM study. If anything, these findings should encourage more study, as it’s now clear that the Lancet study that set off warnings about research on hydroxychloroquine was based on false data; we know now that such research can be done safely. The study on its use as a treatment can go forward, for instance, and other countries can consider larger and perhaps more diverse studies — perhaps using azithromycin, which was anecdotally supposed to support hydroxychloroquine and zinc in combination against COVID-19.
More trials might be necessary for other reasons. One of the ironies of studying COVID-19 is how tough it is to structure a normal clinical trial in a shutdown. Dr. David Boulware had to conduct the study with more remote work than usual, with medications/placebos mailed to study participants. Some of those were included based on symptoms rather than confirmation of COVID-19 infection by testing, especially early on when testing was still tough to get. “I’m sure people will come after it,” Boulware told the Star Tribune, “but the data are what the data are.”
However, this is the kind of double-blind clinical trial that generally produces much more reliable conclusions. The conclusions here are that all those who hyped it as a miracle drug and who hyped it as a lethal danger were wrong. The rest of us feel like Jen Reiner of Edina, a study subject quoted by the Star Tribune when the results of the study got published yesterday:
“A bit bummed the drug didn’t seem to work,” Reiner said, “but it had to be one way or the other.”
Indeed. For now, we can perhaps look more to a vaccine for prophylaxis, and see what Boulware’s team concludes from its study of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment. It beats jumping to conclusions … one way or the other.