hotair--2020-05-26--Daily Beast: At best, Shaun King is a terrible manager of resources

The Daily Beast published a lengthy story yesterday which looks closely at activist Shaun King ’ s history of fundraising for progressive causes and projects .
The story is long , in part , because there are so many projects he has started but , in many cases , not finished .
At a minimum , the story makes a case that Shaun King is a spectacularly bad manager of both talent and funds .
But the piece suggests there could be something worse than bad management happening here .
When Shaun King and progressive journalist Benjamin Dixon launched an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abolitionist newspaper , The North Star , last February , it was celebrated across social media by prominent voices , including Susan Sarandon , Michael Eric Dyson , and Megan Mullally .
A month later , the company boasted on Twitter that it already had “ multiple angel investors ” and more than 30,000 subscribers contributing $ 5 per month for students and $ 10 a month and up for the general public… But 14 months after launching , almost none of what King promised to build has appeared and the site has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The headquarters and television studio was quietly shuttered last summer , and all Atlanta-based staffers laid off .
The mobile app disappeared for over a year , and the “ full news site ” displays branded The North Star apparel for sale alongside relatively scant original journalism .
King told me in an extensive email exchange for this story in early April that The North Star ’ s stumbles , including the dearth of deliverables promised , can be chalked up to the same overzealousness that has been the downfall of his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take on too much , too soon… But seven former employees of The North Star—three of whom spoke anonymously out of fear of reprisal by King , and six of whom were told they had to sign nondisclosure agreements to receive severances—said the issue was less King ’ s over-ambition than his absenteeism , insistence on absolute control , and radical incompetence… While it should be noted that no criminal or civil charges have ever been filed against King , the story—in the words of former employees of The North Star—was one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and “ really shady f**king business ” with “ a liar & a fraud.
” This is far from the first time questions have been raised about King ’ s fundraising practices .
Last September , Black Lives Matter activist Deray McKesson wrote an equally lengthy piece on Medium in which he described how he ’ d once defended King himself but had gradually learned that was a mistake : I have seen many people , against their better judgment , defend Shaun .
I know because I was once one of those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defend own decision-making , especially about people .
But the love for our people must be greater than the love of any one person .
Shaun has continued to thrive because many people can not believe that they have been duped , used , or taken advantage of .
As with the current Daily Beast piece , McKesson ’ s basic allegation is that King fundraises for one project after another but rarely delivers much of what was promised to investors .
Generally speaking , King ’ s response to all of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many of his projects have failed , that doesn ’ t make him a thief .
And yet , when asked to account for funds he raised for specific projects , King refused to answer .
King also did not respond to my question about the report ’ s omission of a $ 17,500 grant to Justice Together , the anti-police-brutality organization he disbanded in 2015 .
King cited the grant in this Facebook post from 2015 and in emails he sent to Justice Together board members the same year .
The money @ @ @ @ @ @ @ filing from the Proteus Fund , the grant-giving organization .
.. King ’ s auditors wrote that when he abruptly and unilaterally shuttered Justice Together in 2015 , he “ refunded 100 % of the donations made.
” But a representative from the Proteus Fund , which provided the $ 17,500 grant , told me that King never returned that money .
Nor did he submit the mandated report explaining how the funds were used to support justice work .
King did not respond to a question about that disparity .
Also omitted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ donation made to Justice Together by David Heinemeier Hansson , a former member of the organization ’ s board , which he told me “ had no resemblance to any legitimate board in terms of responsibilities and insight.
” … King did not respond to a question about the missing $ 10,000… In all , the phrase “ King did not respond ” appears in the story 10 times , though not all of them deal directly with fundraising .
Some deal with the departure of former employees , many of whom were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ receive a small severance package .
King has made his name by highlighting criminal cases involving apparently racial injustice , most recently the shooting of Ahmaud Arbery .
But King ’ s elevation of cases to greater public attention has also had its share of problems .
Last year he suggested a white man in a pickup truck was responsible for the shooting of a 7-year-old black girl who was killed in a drive-by attack .
It turned out the man in question was a witness but not the shooter .
King did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claimed he didn ’ t care about the race of the shooter ) but by that time the man he ’ d named was getting death threats .
And in 2018 King claimed a Texas police officer had “ kidnapped & raped ” a black woman after pulling her over for a traffic stop .
He named the officer he said was responsible .
But body camera footage of the full traffic stop showed the officer , Daniel Hubbard , had done nothing wrong .
Shaun King wrote a piece on Medium admitting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ professional and patient throughout the ordeal.
” Between his false allegations on social media and his repeated start-up failures , it ’ s amazing that Shaun King is taken seriously by so many people .

The Daily Beast published a lengthy story yesterday which looks closely at activist Shaun King’s history of fundraising for progressive causes and projects. The story is long, in part, because there are so many projects he has started but, in many cases, not finished. At a minimum, the story makes a case that Shaun King is a spectacularly bad manager of both talent and funds. But the piece suggests there could be something worse than bad management happening here.
When Shaun King and progressive journalist Benjamin Dixon launched an ambitious multimedia reboot of Frederick Douglass’ abolitionist newspaper, The North Star, last February, it was celebrated across social media by prominent voices, including Susan Sarandon, Michael Eric Dyson, and Megan Mullally. A month later, the company boasted on Twitter that it already had “multiple angel investors” and more than 30,000 subscribers contributing $5 per month for students and $10 a month and up for the general public… But 14 months after launching, almost none of what King promised to build has appeared and the site has struggled with issues that alienated many subscribers. The headquarters and television studio was quietly shuttered last summer, and all Atlanta-based staffers laid off. The mobile app disappeared for over a year, and the “full news site” displays branded The North Star apparel for sale alongside relatively scant original journalism. King told me in an extensive email exchange for this story in early April that The North Star’s stumbles, including the dearth of deliverables promised, can be chalked up to the same overzealousness that has been the downfall of his other projects—the result of his tendency to take on too much, too soon… But seven former employees of The North Star—three of whom spoke anonymously out of fear of reprisal by King, and six of whom were told they had to sign nondisclosure agreements to receive severances—said the issue was less King’s over-ambition than his absenteeism, insistence on absolute control, and radical incompetence… While it should be noted that no criminal or civil charges have ever been filed against King, the story—in the words of former employees of The North Star—was one of “self sabotage” by him, and “really shady f**king business” with “a liar & a fraud.”
This is far from the first time questions have been raised about King’s fundraising practices. Last September, Black Lives Matter activist Deray McKesson wrote an equally lengthy piece on Medium in which he described how he’d once defended King himself but had gradually learned that was a mistake:
I have seen many people, against their better judgment, defend Shaun. I know because I was once one of those people. We are all apt to defend own decision-making, especially about people. But the love for our people must be greater than the love of any one person. Shaun has continued to thrive because many people cannot believe that they have been duped, used, or taken advantage of.
As with the current Daily Beast piece, McKesson’s basic allegation is that King fundraises for one project after another but rarely delivers much of what was promised to investors. Generally speaking, King’s response to all of this is that while it’s true many of his projects have failed, that doesn’t make him a thief. And yet, when asked to account for funds he raised for specific projects, King refused to answer.
King also did not respond to my question about the report’s omission of a $17,500 grant to Justice Together, the anti-police-brutality organization he disbanded in 2015. King cited the grant in this Facebook post from 2015 and in emails he sent to Justice Together board members the same year. The money is further confirmed by a 2015 IRS filing from the Proteus Fund, the grant-giving organization. .. King’s auditors wrote that when he abruptly and unilaterally shuttered Justice Together in 2015, he “refunded 100% of the donations made.” But a representative from the Proteus Fund, which provided the $17,500 grant, told me that King never returned that money. Nor did he submit the mandated report explaining how the funds were used to support justice work. King did not respond to a question about that disparity. Also omitted from the report is a $10,000 donation made to Justice Together by David Heinemeier Hansson, a former member of the organization’s board, which he told me “had no resemblance to any legitimate board in terms of responsibilities and insight.”… King did not respond to a question about the missing $10,000…
In all, the phrase “King did not respond” appears in the story 10 times, though not all of them deal directly with fundraising. Some deal with the departure of former employees, many of whom were asked to sign NDAs in order to receive a small severance package.
King has made his name by highlighting criminal cases involving apparently racial injustice, most recently the shooting of Ahmaud Arbery. But King’s elevation of cases to greater public attention has also had its share of problems. Last year he suggested a white man in a pickup truck was responsible for the shooting of a 7-year-old black girl who was killed in a drive-by attack. It turned out the man in question was a witness but not the shooter. King did back off his false claim (and claimed he didn’t care about the race of the shooter) but by that time the man he’d named was getting death threats.
And in 2018 King claimed a Texas police officer had “kidnapped & raped” a black woman after pulling her over for a traffic stop. He named the officer he said was responsible. But body camera footage of the full traffic stop showed the officer, Daniel Hubbard, had done nothing wrong. Shaun King wrote a piece on Medium admitting that Officer Hubbard was actually “very professional and patient throughout the ordeal.”
Between his false allegations on social media and his repeated start-up failures, it’s amazing that Shaun King is taken seriously by so many people.


hotair--2020-05-26--NFL: We got the pass interference rule "totally wrong"

A few weeks ago , I looked at the NFL ’ s decision to dump their new pass interference review rule after only a single season .
To say that this was a shortsighted decision is to put it very mildly indeed .
The league has been getting an earful about this from all sides ever since , and now the NFL ’ s Vice President of football operations , Troy Vincent is admitting that they got things “ miserably wrong ” when it came to the new rule .
Sadly , Vincent isn ’ t admitting that they were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Quite the opposite , in fact .
He ’ s saying that they never should have put the rule into effect to begin with .
( NY Post ) The NFL eventually paid the price with plenty of confusion , controversy and frustration regarding its implementation and effectiveness .
“ Those outcomes were not good for professional football , ” Vincent said .
“ Because we didn ’ t do the proper due diligence , it played out publicly .
The last thing people should be talking about is the way the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] should be faceless objects , managing and facilitating game flow .
The idea to review pass interference was in response to the blown non-call against the Saints game that likely cost them a chance to reach the Super Bowl .
As I explained in the previous article , the NFL didn ’ t screw up by “ rushing ” to put a new rule in place .
That rule had been needed for a very long time .
Pass interference calls are routinely blown in both directions .
Non-calls follow some of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and flags are tossed when nothing close to legitimate interference was taking place .
All the league is doing here is reversing course and going back to that sad state of affairs .
There ’ s an interesting quote in the linked article from Vincent where he says , “ The last thing people should be talking about is the way the game is officiated .
They [ officials ] should be faceless objects , managing and facilitating game flow.
” Yes , in some imaginary world where that would somehow be possible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But that ’ s not how the zebras roll on far too many occasions .
And because of the massive penalties that can be incurred as a result of pass interference on big-gain plays , it ’ s still important that you find a way to get it right as often as possible .
There ’ s nothing stopping the league from doing what the XFL did and putting a replay official up in the booth wearing a mic so everyone can hear them .
Every penalty ( and every play , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the fans can follow the process as it plays out .
That led to far fewer disputed penalty calls in the XFL than you normally see in the NFL .
There ’ s simply no reason not to adopt something similar if not identical .
And you could still get it done in time for this season if you really wanted to .
I realize that everyone is still upset over the non-call at the end of the NFC Championship game between the Saints and the Rams last year .
It was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under the old rules where there was no option for a review .
The same rules that you are now returning to .
Imagine how that game could have ended with a couple of minutes being made available for the officials to look it over .
The whole thing is a hot mess and the league isn ’ t doing themselves any favors with this response .

A few weeks ago, I looked at the NFL’s decision to dump their new pass interference review rule after only a single season. To say that this was a shortsighted decision is to put it very mildly indeed. The league has been getting an earful about this from all sides ever since, and now the NFL’s Vice President of football operations, Troy Vincent is admitting that they got things “miserably wrong” when it came to the new rule. Sadly, Vincent isn’t admitting that they were wrong to scrap the rule so quickly. Quite the opposite, in fact. He’s saying that they never should have put the rule into effect to begin with. (NY Post)
The NFL eventually paid the price with plenty of confusion, controversy and frustration regarding its implementation and effectiveness. “Those outcomes were not good for professional football,” Vincent said. “Because we didn’t do the proper due diligence, it played out publicly. The last thing people should be talking about is the way the game is officiated. They [officials] should be faceless objects, managing and facilitating game flow. The idea to review pass interference was in response to the blown non-call against the Saints game that likely cost them a chance to reach the Super Bowl.
As I explained in the previous article, the NFL didn’t screw up by “rushing” to put a new rule in place. That rule had been needed for a very long time. Pass interference calls are routinely blown in both directions. Non-calls follow some of the most blatant examples of the offense and flags are tossed when nothing close to legitimate interference was taking place.
All the league is doing here is reversing course and going back to that sad state of affairs. There’s an interesting quote in the linked article from Vincent where he says, “The last thing people should be talking about is the way the game is officiated. They [officials] should be faceless objects, managing and facilitating game flow.”
Yes, in some imaginary world where that would somehow be possible, it would be lovely Mr. Vincent. But that’s not how the zebras roll on far too many occasions. And because of the massive penalties that can be incurred as a result of pass interference on big-gain plays, it’s still important that you find a way to get it right as often as possible. There’s nothing stopping the league from doing what the XFL did and putting a replay official up in the booth wearing a mic so everyone can hear them. Every penalty (and every play, for that matter) can be reviewed and the fans can follow the process as it plays out.
That led to far fewer disputed penalty calls in the XFL than you normally see in the NFL. There’s simply no reason not to adopt something similar if not identical. And you could still get it done in time for this season if you really wanted to.
I realize that everyone is still upset over the non-call at the end of the NFC Championship game between the Saints and the Rams last year. It was a debacle. But that disaster happened under the old rules where there was no option for a review. The same rules that you are now returning to. Imagine how that game could have ended with a couple of minutes being made available for the officials to look it over. The whole thing is a hot mess and the league isn’t doing themselves any favors with this response.


hotair--2020-05-26--"I can't breathe": FBI to investigate death of man detained by Minneapolis PD; <span class='red'>Upd

"I can't breathe": FBI to investigate death of man detained by Minneapolis PD; Update: Mayor announces four officers "terminated"

How did a forgery suspect end up dead while in custody of the Minneapolis police department ?
The suspect , later identified as George Floyd , initially resisted arrest , but police had him handcuffed on the ground for several minutes while an officer put his knee on his neck .
A bystander video picks up after Floyd had already been corralled , and it picks up comments from witnesses urging the police to get off his neck .
Now the FBI has opened an investigation into an incident that seems inexplicable when watching the video .
By the four-minute @ @ @ @ @ @ @ responsive , and yet the knee remained while bystanders demanded that police “ check his pulse.
” Be warned — this is not easy to watch , and some language is NSFW : A man appearing to yell “ I can ’ t breathe ” as a Minneapolis police officer pinned him to the ground and put his knee on the man ’ s neck for about eight minutes died Monday night , prompting the FBI and Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension to step in and investigate .
Video of the incident shows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ black man pinned to the ground next to the back tire of his patrol car with his knee on the man ’ s neck .
“ Please , please , please I can ’ t breathe , ” the man begs .
“ My stomach hurts .
My neck hurts .
Please , please .
I can ’ t breathe.
” Onlookers outside the Minneapolis deli urge the officer to get off the man .
“ You ’ re stopping his breathing right now , you think that ’ s cool ?
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is bleeding , look at his nose !
” says a woman .
And then the man goes silent .
“ Did they f***ing kill him ?
” one woman says at the 6:30 mark .
Only after that does a state trooper check Floyd ’ s pulse — and the officer kept the knee on his neck .
In fact , the officer kept his knee on the suspect ’ s neck until EMS showed up with a gurney , by which time Floyd is clearly incapacitated , if not already dead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ preceded this , and we won ’ t until we see the body-cam footage , but it ’ s tough to imagine what required this continued application of potentially lethal force for this long .
Remember that police have limits on the application of lethal force just as citizens do , albeit somewhat broader in terms of public safety .
The limit is that justification ends when a threat to life or serious injury ends , which is what the FBI and the MBI will both keep in mind when investigating Floyd ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not unusual , but its application far past the threat is .
Using this technique to end resistance and cuff a suspect is understandable ; keeping a handcuffed person in this position for several minutes isn ’ t .
They could have loaded Floyd in the back of a cruiser while processing the rest of the arrest , which again was for forgery , not a violent crime .
It seems clear that by the time this video began , Floyd was subdued enough to control any more resistance and to assure the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Minneapolis mayor Jacob Frey got emotional while perhaps jumping to a conclusion a bit soon .
“ What we saw was horrible , completely and utterly messed up , ” Frey said today , choking back tears .
“ Whatever the investigation reveals , it does not change the simple truth that he should be with us this morning ” : In an early morning news conference at City Hall , Minneapolis police Chief Medaria Arradondo said he asked for the federal probe after watching the video from a bystander and receiving “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ several officers , who have since been relieved of duty .
“ There was additional information that I had received that quite frankly , from community sources , that just provided more context than I had preliminarily , ” he said , without elaborating the nature or source of the information .
Mayor Jacob Frey said at the same news conference it was clear from the video that race played a part in the encounter .
“ Being black in America should not be a death sentence , ” said Frey .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ white officer press his knee into a black man ’ s neck .
Five minutes .
When year hear someone calling for help , you ’ re supposed to help .
This officer failed in the most basic , human sense .
What happened on Chicago and 38th last night is awful .
It was traumatic .
It serves as a reminder of how far we have to go.
” Minneapolis police have a spotty track record on use of lethal force , to be kind .
Arradondo owes his position to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to resign .
This won ’ t help build any confidence in the local PD either , especially since they appear to have not told the truth in their initial statement on this incident : In the chaotic hours after the incident , police issued a news release that was to be sharply contradicted by the bystander footage .
The release said that man , whose identity wasn ’ t released but who is thought to be in his 40s , died at a nearby hospital a short time after the incident , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while struggling with officers .
Speaking to reporters a few hours after the incident , police spokesman John Elder would not elaborate on whether the man had any pre-existing medical conditions , but said that he appeared to be under the influence of alcohol or a narcotic .
He insisted that he was limited in what he could divulge because the case had already been turned over to the state Bureau of Criminal Apprehension ( BCA ) .
The man got out of the car on his own , but then “ physically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ After they handcuffed him , officers noticed that the man was in “ medical distress , ” Elder said , and an ambulance was called to the scene .
That turned out to be entirely false .
Floyd wasn ’ t having a “ medical episode ” until the police officer ’ s knee hit his neck .
( What part of a “ medical episode ” would be helped by the application of a knee to a neck for 10-plus minutes ? )
If that was what the officers reported , then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not what the officers reported , then the police department itself lied .
And if bystanders hadn ’ t recorded as much of the incident as they did , it ’ s possible that Floyd ’ s death would have been written off — which seems to be what the MPD hoped would happen .
Of course , we have yet to see the body cam video and the statement from the officers involved , so we can ’ t necessarily rush to judgment in the other direction .
However , it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an explanation to make this video irrelevant .
Update : Frey ’ s not waiting for the internal review , it seems : Four ?
Only two can be seen on camera , and only one used force against Floyd .
One has to wonder whether this immediate termination has something to do with the now-debunked narrative MPD tried to use yesterday .

How did a forgery suspect end up dead while in custody of the Minneapolis police department? The suspect, later identified as George Floyd, initially resisted arrest, but police had him handcuffed on the ground for several minutes while an officer put his knee on his neck. A bystander video picks up after Floyd had already been corralled, and it picks up comments from witnesses urging the police to get off his neck.
Now the FBI has opened an investigation into an incident that seems inexplicable when watching the video. By the four-minute mark, Floyd had clearly stopped being responsive, and yet the knee remained while bystanders demanded that police “check his pulse.” Be warned — this is not easy to watch, and some language is NSFW:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xt0EqqWE4Vk
A man appearing to yell “I can’t breathe” as a Minneapolis police officer pinned him to the ground and put his knee on the man’s neck for about eight minutes died Monday night, prompting the FBI and Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension to step in and investigate. Video of the incident shows that a white police officer had a black man pinned to the ground next to the back tire of his patrol car with his knee on the man’s neck. “Please, please, please I can’t breathe,” the man begs. “My stomach hurts. My neck hurts. Please, please. I can’t breathe.” Onlookers outside the Minneapolis deli urge the officer to get off the man. “You’re stopping his breathing right now, you think that’s cool?” one man says. “His nose is bleeding, look at his nose!” says a woman. The officer doesn’t budge. And then the man goes silent.
“Did they f***ing kill him?” one woman says at the 6:30 mark. Only after that does a state trooper check Floyd’s pulse — and the officer kept the knee on his neck. In fact, the officer kept his knee on the suspect’s neck until EMS showed up with a gurney, by which time Floyd is clearly incapacitated, if not already dead.
We don’t know what preceded this, and we won’t until we see the body-cam footage, but it’s tough to imagine what required this continued application of potentially lethal force for this long. Remember that police have limits on the application of lethal force just as citizens do, albeit somewhat broader in terms of public safety. The limit is that justification ends when a threat to life or serious injury ends, which is what the FBI and the MBI will both keep in mind when investigating Floyd’s death.
The technique itself is not unusual, but its application far past the threat is. Using this technique to end resistance and cuff a suspect is understandable; keeping a handcuffed person in this position for several minutes isn’t. They could have loaded Floyd in the back of a cruiser while processing the rest of the arrest, which again was for forgery, not a violent crime. It seems clear that by the time this video began, Floyd was subdued enough to control any more resistance and to assure the safety of officers at the scene.
Minneapolis mayor Jacob Frey got emotional while perhaps jumping to a conclusion a bit soon. “What we saw was horrible, completely and utterly messed up,” Frey said today, choking back tears. “Whatever the investigation reveals, it does not change the simple truth that he should be with us this morning”:
In an early morning news conference at City Hall, Minneapolis police Chief Medaria Arradondo said he asked for the federal probe after watching the video from a bystander and receiving “additional information” about the incident involving several officers, who have since been relieved of duty. “There was additional information that I had received that quite frankly, from community sources, that just provided more context than I had preliminarily,” he said, without elaborating the nature or source of the information. Mayor Jacob Frey said at the same news conference it was clear from the video that race played a part in the encounter. “Being black in America should not be a death sentence,” said Frey. “For five minutes, we watched a white officer press his knee into a black man’s neck. Five minutes. When year hear someone calling for help, you’re supposed to help. This officer failed in the most basic, human sense. What happened on Chicago and 38th last night is awful. It was traumatic. It serves as a reminder of how far we have to go.”
Minneapolis police have a spotty track record on use of lethal force, to be kind. Arradondo owes his position to a previous lethal-force incident that forced his predecessor to resign. This won’t help build any confidence in the local PD either, especially since they appear to have not told the truth in their initial statement on this incident:
In the chaotic hours after the incident, police issued a news release that was to be sharply contradicted by the bystander footage. The release said that man, whose identity wasn’t released but who is thought to be in his 40s, died at a nearby hospital a short time after the incident, during which he suffered a medical episode while struggling with officers. Speaking to reporters a few hours after the incident, police spokesman John Elder would not elaborate on whether the man had any pre-existing medical conditions, but said that he appeared to be under the influence of alcohol or a narcotic. He insisted that he was limited in what he could divulge because the case had already been turned over to the state Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA). The man got out of the car on his own, but then “physically resisted” officers, Elder said. After they handcuffed him, officers noticed that the man was in “medical distress,” Elder said, and an ambulance was called to the scene.
That turned out to be entirely false. Floyd wasn’t having a “medical episode” until the police officer’s knee hit his neck. (What part of a “medical episode” would be helped by the application of a knee to a neck for 10-plus minutes?) If that was what the officers reported, then they lied. If that’s not what the officers reported, then the police department itself lied. And if bystanders hadn’t recorded as much of the incident as they did, it’s possible that Floyd’s death would have been written off — which seems to be what the MPD hoped would happen.
Of course, we have yet to see the body cam video and the statement from the officers involved, so we can’t necessarily rush to judgment in the other direction. However, it’s going to take one hell of an explanation to make this video irrelevant.
Update: Frey’s not waiting for the internal review, it seems:
Four responding MPD officers involved in the death of George Floyd have been terminated. This is the right call. — Mayor Jacob Frey (@MayorFrey) May 26, 2020
Four? Only two can be seen on camera, and only one used force against Floyd. One has to wonder whether this immediate termination has something to do with the now-debunked narrative MPD tried to use yesterday.


hotair--2020-05-26--The Central Park Karen incident; Update: Karen fired

I don ’ t know that I ’ ve ever seen a video of a nonviolent encounter between two randos go quite this viral in so short a time .
Twenty-five million views in less than 24 hours is a mega-sensation .
Why , it even drew the attention of America ’ s least competent mayor : Here it is , short and sweet .
Karen , a.k.a .
Amy Cooper , really does seem to go out of her way to racialize their dispute , which had to do with whether her dog was supposed to be on leash @ @ @ @ @ @ @ She ’ s not just calling the cops to tell them that a man is threatening her .
She ’ s calling to tell them that an African-American man is threatening her .
That way they know it ’ s serious , I guess .
He ’ s certainly not threatening her in the footage , although the conversation that preceded the video is much more ambiguous .
This transcript comes from the man himself , Christian Cooper , per his Facebook post about what happened : ME : Ma ’ am , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the leash at all times .
The sign is right there .
HER : The dog runs are closed .
He needs his exercise .
ME : All you have to do is take him to the other side of the drive , outside the Ramble , and you can let him run off leash all you want .
HER : It ’ s too dangerous .
ME : Look , if you ’ re going to do what you want , I ’ m going to do what I want , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like it .
HER : What ’ s that ?
ME ( to the dog ) : Come here , puppy !
HER : He won ’ t come to you .
ME : We ’ ll see about that… “ DON ’ T YOU TOUCH MY DOG !
” he claims she shouted , just before he began recording .
What was he planning to do to the dog that she was “ not going to like ” ?
Because that *does* sound threatening .
Did she fear he was planning to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Or to choke it , maybe ?
If so , no worries : Looks like she had that covered herself , given the way she ’ s yanking the dog around by the neck in the clip while on the phone with 911 .
According to NBC ’ s New York affiliate , she “ voluntarily ” surrendered the dog last night after the clip went viral and people began accusing her of animal cruelty .
And not just because of this incident : “ Internet sleuths digging into Ms. Cooper ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cocker spaniel mix and began sharing old photos documenting injuries the dog had suffered.
” That ’ s how quickly the rapid response is nowadays when you end up as Twitter ’ s villain du jour .
“ I sincerely and humbly apologize to everyone , especially to that man , his family , ” she said in a phone call .
“ It was unacceptable and I humbly and fully apologize to everyone who ’ s seen that video , everyone that ’ s been offended…everyone who thinks of me in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do.
” “ When I think about the police , I ’ m such a blessed person .
I ’ ve come to realize especially today that I think of [ the police ] as a protection agency , and unfortunately , this has caused me to realize that there are so many people in this country that don ’ t have that luxury , ” she continued .
…but that may have to do more with trying to soothe the Twitter mob that ’ s now after her job : As for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ I ’ m going to do what I want , but you ’ re not going to like it , ” he told CNN that “ he keeps dog treats with him to get dog owners to put their dogs on leashes because , in his experience , dog owners hate when a stranger feeds their dog treats and immediately restrain their dogs afterward.
” He objected to the dog being off-leash because he ’ s a bird-watcher and having dogs running around in the area scares off the ground-dwelling birds and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part , Amy Cooper says she took his comment as threatening : “ I didn ’ t know what that meant .
When you ’ re alone in a wooded area , that ’ s absolutely terrifying , right ?
” But she reiterated her apologies to him anyway , insisting what she said is “ not excusable , it ’ s not defensible ” and lamenting that her “ entire life is being destroyed right now.
” The moral of the story : Avoid all contact with other human beings .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ safe .
Does she get her dog back , at least ?
Or would that be too dangerous for the dog ?

I don’t know that I’ve ever seen a video of a nonviolent encounter between two randos go quite this viral in so short a time. Twenty-five million views in less than 24 hours is a mega-sensation.
Why, it even drew the attention of America’s least competent mayor:
The video out of Central Park is racism, plain and simple. She called the police BECAUSE he was a Black man. Even though she was the one breaking the rules. She decided he was the criminal and we know why. This kind of hatred has no place in our city. https://t.co/6PP7jIwL1g — Mayor Bill de Blasio (@NYCMayor) May 26, 2020
Here it is, short and sweet. Karen, a.k.a. Amy Cooper, really does seem to go out of her way to racialize their dispute, which had to do with whether her dog was supposed to be on leash in this part of Central Park. She’s not just calling the cops to tell them that a man is threatening her. She’s calling to tell them that an African-American man is threatening her. That way they know it’s serious, I guess.
Oh, when Karens take a walk with their dogs off leash in the famous Bramble in NY’s Central Park, where it is clearly posted on signs that dogs MUST be leashed at all times, and someone like my brother (an avid birder) politely asks her to put her dog on the leash. pic.twitter.com/3YnzuATsDm — Melody Cooper (@melodyMcooper) May 25, 2020
He’s certainly not threatening her in the footage, although the conversation that preceded the video is much more ambiguous. This transcript comes from the man himself, Christian Cooper, per his Facebook post about what happened:
ME: Ma’am, dogs in the Ramble have to be on the leash at all times. The sign is right there.
HER: The dog runs are closed. He needs his exercise.
ME: All you have to do is take him to the other side of the drive, outside the Ramble, and you can let him run off leash all you want.
HER: It’s too dangerous.
ME: Look, if you’re going to do what you want, I’m going to do what I want, but you’re not going to like it.
HER: What’s that?
ME (to the dog): Come here, puppy!
HER: He won’t come to you.
ME: We’ll see about that…
“DON’T YOU TOUCH MY DOG!” he claims she shouted, just before he began recording. What was he planning to do to the dog that she was “not going to like”? Because that *does* sound threatening.
Did she fear he was planning to feed the dog a poisoned treat? Or to choke it, maybe? If so, no worries: Looks like she had that covered herself, given the way she’s yanking the dog around by the neck in the clip while on the phone with 911. According to NBC’s New York affiliate, she “voluntarily” surrendered the dog last night after the clip went viral and people began accusing her of animal cruelty. And not just because of this incident: “Internet sleuths digging into Ms. Cooper’s life found an Instagram profile of her cocker spaniel mix and began sharing old photos documenting injuries the dog had suffered.” That’s how quickly the rapid response is nowadays when you end up as Twitter’s villain du jour.
She’s since apologized…
“I sincerely and humbly apologize to everyone, especially to that man, his family,” she said in a phone call. “It was unacceptable and I humbly and fully apologize to everyone who’s seen that video, everyone that’s been offended…everyone who thinks of me in a lower light and I understand why they do.” “When I think about the police, I’m such a blessed person. I’ve come to realize especially today that I think of [the police] as a protection agency, and unfortunately, this has caused me to realize that there are so many people in this country that don’t have that luxury,” she continued.
…but that may have to do more with trying to soothe the Twitter mob that’s now after her job:
In response to an incident involving an employee on May 25th, Franklin Templeton issued the following statement. pic.twitter.com/8f2lMwK0r5 — Franklin Templeton (@FTI_US) May 26, 2020
As for what Christian Cooper meant when he said “I’m going to do what I want, but you’re not going to like it,” he told CNN that “he keeps dog treats with him to get dog owners to put their dogs on leashes because, in his experience, dog owners hate when a stranger feeds their dog treats and immediately restrain their dogs afterward.” He objected to the dog being off-leash because he’s a bird-watcher and having dogs running around in the area scares off the ground-dwelling birds and risks ruining the plantings. For her part, Amy Cooper says she took his comment as threatening: “I didn’t know what that meant. When you’re alone in a wooded area, that’s absolutely terrifying, right?” But she reiterated her apologies to him anyway, insisting what she said is “not excusable, it’s not defensible” and lamenting that her “entire life is being destroyed right now.”
The moral of the story: Avoid all contact with other human beings. It’s the only way to be safe.
Update: The scalp is claimed.
Following our internal review of the incident in Central Park yesterday, we have made the decision to terminate the employee involved, effective immediately. We do not tolerate racism of any kind at Franklin Templeton. — Franklin Templeton (@FTI_US) May 26, 2020
Does she get her dog back, at least? Or would that be too dangerous for the dog?


hotair--2020-05-26--Judge Sullivan has hired a defense attorney, here's what could happen next

In order for this to make sense you have to be familiar with the preceding steps in this very unusual case .
You probably know by now that Judge Emmett Sullivan is the judge handling the case of Michael Flynn .
When the Department of Justice decided to drop the case against Flynn , it appeared that would be the end of it .
But instead of dismissing the case , Judge Sullivan appointed a retired judge named John Gleeson to come up with arguments contrary to those presented by the DOJ , i.e .
arguments why he shouldn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The selection of Gleeson for this task was not arbitrary .
Just days before Sullivan selected him , Gleeson had co-authored a piece in the Washington Post headlined , “ The Flynn case isn ’ t over until the judge says it ’ s over.
” In the piece , Gleeson recommend the judge appoint someone to make the case against the dismissal and Judge Sullivan responded by picking Gleeson for the task .
What was odd about that was that Gleeson had already expressed a clear opinion on the case itself .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ nothing regular about the department ’ s effort to dismiss the Flynn case .
The record reeks of improper political influence.
” In response to Sullivan ’ s decision to prolong the case , Michael Flynn ’ s lawyers filed a writ of mandamus with the DC Circuit Court of Appeals .
Last week that court ordered Judge Sullivan to explain himself .
They gave him ten days to do so , which means he has until next Monday .
Judge Sullivan responded to that order by hiring an attorney : In a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case ’ s already unusual path , U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan has retained Beth Wilkinson to represent him in defending his decision to a federal appeals court in Washington , according to a person familiar with the hire who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter .
The U.S. District Court of Appeals for the D.C .
Circuit is now examining the judge ’ s actions and the larger case against Flynn after lawyers for Trump ’ s former national security adviser asked the court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s guilty plea… A federal judge doesn ’ t typically hire private counsel to respond to an appeals court , and yet so much about Flynn ’ s case has been a departure from the norm .
Andy McCarthy also finds Judge Sullivan ’ s decision to hire an attorney odd : One of the immediate questions raised about this arrangement was who is paying the bills for Judge Sullivan ’ s representation ?
The big question is what happens next .
In a piece published today by the Washington Post , former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argues the DC Circuit Court should give the dismissal decision to another judge .
In Flynn ’ s case , the judge has already abused his wide discretion by inviting outside advocates to weigh in , which would make a circus of the solemn judicial proceeding , and by selecting an outside party to make the case against dismissal who has already made clear his bias against dismissal via this very newspaper… Bringing in an outside party in essence to argue for the continued prosecution of the case is unusual enough , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is the wrong choice .
In an op-ed piece in which he all but argued that Sullivan should not grant the motion to dismiss , he revealed his bias on the very question in which his impartial advice is being sought .
The court of appeals should therefore proceed as follows : grant the writ of mandamus ; disallow amicus briefs ; have the judge select a different adviser to assist him confidentially , if necessary and the court of appeals agrees ; and urge that the judge rule promptly on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in full for appellate review .
There are ample grounds in the actions the district court has already taken for the appeals court to order that the government ’ s motion to dismiss be heard by a different judge , and it should so order .
Having the case handed to another judge would be a pretty significant slap on the wrist for Judge Sullivan , but that ’ s where this may be headed .
We ’ ll know for certain next week .

In order for this to make sense you have to be familiar with the preceding steps in this very unusual case. You probably know by now that Judge Emmett Sullivan is the judge handling the case of Michael Flynn. When the Department of Justice decided to drop the case against Flynn, it appeared that would be the end of it. But instead of dismissing the case, Judge Sullivan appointed a retired judge named John Gleeson to come up with arguments contrary to those presented by the DOJ, i.e. arguments why he shouldn’t dismiss Flynn’s case.
The selection of Gleeson for this task was not arbitrary. Just days before Sullivan selected him, Gleeson had co-authored a piece in the Washington Post headlined, “The Flynn case isn’t over until the judge says it’s over.” In the piece, Gleeson recommend the judge appoint someone to make the case against the dismissal and Judge Sullivan responded by picking Gleeson for the task. What was odd about that was that Gleeson had already expressed a clear opinion on the case itself. He wrote, “There has been nothing regular about the department’s effort to dismiss the Flynn case. The record reeks of improper political influence.”
In response to Sullivan’s decision to prolong the case, Michael Flynn’s lawyers filed a writ of mandamus with the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Last week that court ordered Judge Sullivan to explain himself. They gave him ten days to do so, which means he has until next Monday. Judge Sullivan responded to that order by hiring an attorney:
In a rare step that adds to this criminal case’s already unusual path, U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan has retained Beth Wilkinson to represent him in defending his decision to a federal appeals court in Washington, according to a person familiar with the hire who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter. The U.S. District Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is now examining the judge’s actions and the larger case against Flynn after lawyers for Trump’s former national security adviser asked the court to force Sullivan to toss Flynn’s guilty plea… A federal judge doesn’t typically hire private counsel to respond to an appeals court, and yet so much about Flynn’s case has been a departure from the norm.
Andy McCarthy also finds Judge Sullivan’s decision to hire an attorney odd:
He’s totally entitled to fume on the record that Flynn looked him in the eye and swore that he lied, that Flynn’s erratic litigation strategy caused the court needless effort, and that he thinks DOJ is wrong. But the law requires him to grant the dismissal. Do your job. 2/2 — Andy McCarthy (@AndrewCMcCarthy) May 23, 2020
One of the immediate questions raised about this arrangement was who is paying the bills for Judge Sullivan’s representation?
Who is paying for Judge Sullivan's attorney? Taxpayers, out-of-pocket, or pro-bono? In any scenario, Sullivan is not acting like a neutral and impartial arbiter. — Tom Cotton (@TomCottonAR) May 23, 2020
The big question is what happens next. In a piece published today by the Washington Post, former Court of Appeals Judge J. Michael Luttig argues the DC Circuit Court should give the dismissal decision to another judge.
In Flynn’s case, the judge has already abused his wide discretion by inviting outside advocates to weigh in, which would make a circus of the solemn judicial proceeding, and by selecting an outside party to make the case against dismissal who has already made clear his bias against dismissal via this very newspaper… Bringing in an outside party in essence to argue for the continued prosecution of the case is unusual enough, but Gleeson, though a well-respected former judge, is the wrong choice. In an op-ed piece in which he all but argued that Sullivan should not grant the motion to dismiss, he revealed his bias on the very question in which his impartial advice is being sought. The court of appeals should therefore proceed as follows: grant the writ of mandamus; disallow amicus briefs; have the judge select a different adviser to assist him confidentially, if necessary and the court of appeals agrees; and urge that the judge rule promptly on the motion to dismiss, explaining his reasoning in full for appellate review. There are ample grounds in the actions the district court has already taken for the appeals court to order that the government’s motion to dismiss be heard by a different judge, and it should so order.
Having the case handed to another judge would be a pretty significant slap on the wrist for Judge Sullivan, but that’s where this may be headed. We’ll know for certain next week.


hotair--2020-05-26--More Omar: On second thought, I'm endorsing Biden, but "believe survivors," or something

What does “ believe survivors ” mean ?
In Ilhan Omar ’ s case , it means endorsing the man alleged to have assaulted Tara Reade for the presidency .
On Good Morning America , Omar tried to square a circle she created in an interview with the Times of London for her new memoir , in which she proclaimed her belief in Reade ’ s allegations against Joe Biden .
When challenged by ABC ’ s host , “ Do you still believe Tara Reade ?
” , Omar answers by endorsing Biden … and then not addressing Reade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we should “ believe survivors ” : Rep. Ilhan Omar , D-Minn. , said that while she will support 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden in his White House bid , she also thinks it is important to believe survivors of sexual assault , including a woman who has leveled allegations against the former vice president .
Omar appeared on “ Good Morning America ” on Tuesday morning and responded to questions about a recently published interview with the Sunday Times of London in which she said she believed Tara Reade , a former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him of sexual assault during her time in the office .
Omar said that the interview quoted in the Sunday Times of London was several weeks old , and did not take a firm stance on whether she still believes all aspects of Reade ’ s allegations .
Instead , she said it ’ s possible to support Biden in his presidential run while still creating a space for survivors to come forward .
“ There ’ s obviously parts of what she has said that have been corroborated and parts that haven @ @ @ @ @ @ @ place to litigate her story , ” Omar told “ GMA ” of Reade ’ s allegations against Biden .
“ I think it ’ s important when someone says they have been assaulted and they see themselves as survivors that we , as we have been saying , believe survivors.
” Omar needs to pick a standard here and stick with it .
Not only is endorsing Biden the exact opposite of “ believe survivors , ” she ’ s acknowledging that Reade has exceeded that standard to some degree .
Some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ corroboration , which goes beyond “ belief ” and into litigation , precisely what Omar claims she doesn ’ t want to do .
And in all Omar ’ s blather on GMA , she still never explains what ’ s different between then and now and why the “ several weeks ” between matter a bit about her position .
Let ’ s litigate this a little further .
“ Believe survivors ” or “ believe women ” meant a conviction without due process in Brett Kavanaugh ’ s case , even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allegation .
( Recall that the four people named by Christine Blasey Ford denied any knowledge of such an assault . )
And yet , not only did Omar oppose Kavanaugh ’ s confirmation on the basis of “ believe women , ” she called for his impeachment from the Supreme Court last September on the basis of yet another uncorroborated charge that didn ’ t even come from the woman supposedly involved : Now , suddenly , “ believe women ” or “ believe survivors ” has become a vehicle for dismissing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been established .
The only difference appears to be the party affiliation of the accused .
Omar wants Kavanaugh impeached for a series of completely unsubstantiated allegations , but wants Biden elected as president .
Does that sound like “ believe survivors , ” or does that sound like “ exploit accusers for political gain ” ?
Oh , let ’ s not always see the same hands …

What does “believe survivors” mean? In Ilhan Omar’s case, it means endorsing the man alleged to have assaulted Tara Reade for the presidency. On Good Morning America, Omar tried to square a circle she created in an interview with the Times of London for her new memoir, in which she proclaimed her belief in Reade’s allegations against Joe Biden. When challenged by ABC’s host, “Do you still believe Tara Reade?”, Omar answers by endorsing Biden … and then not addressing Reade’s allegations except to say that we should “believe survivors”:
Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., said that while she will support 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden in his White House bid, she also thinks it is important to believe survivors of sexual assault, including a woman who has leveled allegations against the former vice president. Omar appeared on “Good Morning America” on Tuesday morning and responded to questions about a recently published interview with the Sunday Times of London in which she said she believed Tara Reade, a former Senate staffer for Biden who has accused him of sexual assault during her time in the office. Omar said that the interview quoted in the Sunday Times of London was several weeks old, and did not take a firm stance on whether she still believes all aspects of Reade’s allegations. Instead, she said it’s possible to support Biden in his presidential run while still creating a space for survivors to come forward. “There’s obviously parts of what she has said that have been corroborated and parts that haven’t, that is not my place to litigate her story,” Omar told “GMA” of Reade’s allegations against Biden. “I think it’s important when someone says they have been assaulted and they see themselves as survivors that we, as we have been saying, believe survivors.”
Omar needs to pick a standard here and stick with it. Not only is endorsing Biden the exact opposite of “believe survivors,” she’s acknowledging that Reade has exceeded that standard to some degree. Some of what Reade has claimed has indirect corroboration, which goes beyond “belief” and into litigation, precisely what Omar claims she doesn’t want to do. And in all Omar’s blather on GMA, she still never explains what’s different between then and now and why the “several weeks” between matter a bit about her position.
Let’s litigate this a little further. “Believe survivors” or “believe women” meant a conviction without due process in Brett Kavanaugh’s case, even without any such independent corroboration of any allegation. (Recall that the four people named by Christine Blasey Ford denied any knowledge of such an assault.) And yet, not only did Omar oppose Kavanaugh’s confirmation on the basis of “believe women,” she called for his impeachment from the Supreme Court last September on the basis of yet another uncorroborated charge that didn’t even come from the woman supposedly involved:
Nothing terrifies this corrupt president more than the idea of Congress upholding the rule of law. We must open impeachment inquiries against Trump *and* Kavanaugh immediately. It’s our constitutional duty. https://t.co/OVjBDWSqZT — Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN) September 15, 2019
Now, suddenly, “believe women” or “believe survivors” has become a vehicle for dismissing such claims even when some indirect corroboration has been established. The only difference appears to be the party affiliation of the accused. Omar wants Kavanaugh impeached for a series of completely unsubstantiated allegations, but wants Biden elected as president. Does that sound like “believe survivors,” or does that sound like “exploit accusers for political gain”?
Oh, let’s not always see the same hands …


hotair--2020-05-26--Husband of deceased Joe Scarborough aide begs Twitter: Please delete Trump's tweets

Surely some accommodation can be reached between Twitter ’ s need to police its own terms of service and the president ’ s need to viciously smear his critics .
What if Twitter allowed him to keep tweeting about Lori Klausutis but changed his username to “ I ’ m a Garbage Person With a Garbage Brain ” ?
There ’ s room for compromise there too if need be .
Maybe Trump would agree to “ I ’ m a Garbage Person ” as his username without the “ Garbage Brain ” part .
Or vice versa .
Let @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is what I ’ m saying .
WaPo approached Klausutis ’ s family over the weekend and asked about Trump using their late daughter as a prop in his vendetta against Scarborough , but they declined to comment .
For good reason : “ No one in Klausutis ’ s family would talk about Trump ’ s tweets for this article , fearing retaliation by online trolls of the type who went after parents of the Sandy Hook massacre victims.
” A special privilege of the Internet age if your relative dies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is being harassed by the dregs of humanity afterward , potentially for years .
Klausutis ’ s family has an admirably firm grasp , via painful firsthand experience , on how depraved our culture has become .
But although none were willing to speak to the Post , one family member was willing to speak to Twitter .
Timothy Klausutis , Lori Klausutis ’ s husband , sent a letter to management over the weekend asking them to treat Trump the way they ’ d treat any other user of their platform and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ murdered .
You can read his letter in full here .
By no means is Trump the first troll to insinuate foul play about his wife ’ s death , notes Klausuits , but as the nominal leader of the free world he does have a unique ability to amplify the smear .
Normally Trump would be nudging his friends at the National Enquirer to impugn Scarborough over Klausutis ’ s death on his behalf but that relationship probably isn ’ t what it used to be ever since David Pecker cooperated with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Is there no one in Fox primetime who ’ ll step up and play the Enquirer ’ s part by doing the president ’ s dirty work for him ?
Hannity took an interest in the Seth Rich conspiracy theory awhile back .
Where is he when Trump needs him on this ?
King Troll ’ s reaction to the news of Timothy Klausutis ’ s letter this morning was to … keep tweeting about Scarborough and Lori Klausutis : NYT columnist Kara Swisher ( who published Klausutis ’ s letter in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ solution being considered by Twitter is “ is to label the tweets as false and link to myriad high-quality information and reporting that refute the tweets ’ sinister insinuations.
” Deleting the tweets is another possibility .
Either way , the company ’ s destined to end up in a spat with Trump , a scenario they ’ ve long tried to avoid because of suspicions that he ’ s willing to use certain forms of state power to punish his corporate enemies .
( Ten days ago he suggested that it was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to control Google , Facebook , Twitter , and Instagram , which it definitely is not . )
At the barest minimum , he ’ s going to grouse loudly about whatever new restrictions Twitter places on him and possibly start using another social media platform , like Facebook .
Then he ’ ll be Mark Zuckerberg ’ s problem .
But Twitter has no choice .
This fracas has now reached a sufficient level of visibility that they ’ re going to have to do something : Are they sure they don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ride this out ?
He ’ ll tweet something even more obnoxious soon enough , likely at a less sympathetic target than the Klausutis family , and we ’ ll forget all about this .
The nice thing about showing that you ’ re unfit for office every day is that your critics never have time to dwell on yesterday ’ s evidence .
All Twitter needs him to do is provide a new shiny object that ’ s not quite so uncomfortable to handle .
Give him a few hours .
Here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ earlier this morning .
I ’ ll leave you with a point I saw made on Twitter that ’ s jarring but also eminently true : Trump would be just fine with the idea of Scarborough having killed an aide if “ Morning Joe ” was still in the pro-Trump camp .
The president practically admitted it in his tweets today , claiming that he ’ d heard the smears against Scarborough for years and never ruled them out when they were on friendly terms — but went on being friendly with him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s idea of morals is purely transactional : There ’ s no sin he won ’ t happily overlook so long as you ’ re on his side .
You could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and you wouldn ’ t lose his vote of confidence in you — until you start badmouthing him .
That ’ s what offends Trump about Scarborough , not his non-murder of a former aide .

Surely some accommodation can be reached between Twitter’s need to police its own terms of service and the president’s need to viciously smear his critics.
What if Twitter allowed him to keep tweeting about Lori Klausutis but changed his username to “I’m a Garbage Person With a Garbage Brain”?
There’s room for compromise there too if need be. Maybe Trump would agree to “I’m a Garbage Person” as his username without the “Garbage Brain” part. Or vice versa.
Let’s work this out like adults, is what I’m saying.
WaPo approached Klausutis’s family over the weekend and asked about Trump using their late daughter as a prop in his vendetta against Scarborough, but they declined to comment. For good reason: “No one in Klausutis’s family would talk about Trump’s tweets for this article, fearing retaliation by online trolls of the type who went after parents of the Sandy Hook massacre victims.” A special privilege of the Internet age if your relative dies in a way that has political ramifications is being harassed by the dregs of humanity afterward, potentially for years. Klausutis’s family has an admirably firm grasp, via painful firsthand experience, on how depraved our culture has become.
But although none were willing to speak to the Post, one family member was willing to speak to Twitter. Timothy Klausutis, Lori Klausutis’s husband, sent a letter to management over the weekend asking them to treat Trump the way they’d treat any other user of their platform and remove his tweets implying that Klausuits was murdered. You can read his letter in full here. By no means is Trump the first troll to insinuate foul play about his wife’s death, notes Klausuits, but as the nominal leader of the free world he does have a unique ability to amplify the smear.
More:
Normally Trump would be nudging his friends at the National Enquirer to impugn Scarborough over Klausutis’s death on his behalf but that relationship probably isn’t what it used to be ever since David Pecker cooperated with the feds in the Stormy Daniels matter. Is there no one in Fox primetime who’ll step up and play the Enquirer’s part by doing the president’s dirty work for him? Hannity took an interest in the Seth Rich conspiracy theory awhile back. Where is he when Trump needs him on this?
King Troll’s reaction to the news of Timothy Klausutis’s letter this morning was to … keep tweeting about Scarborough and Lori Klausutis:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1265271286789558273
NYT columnist Kara Swisher (who published Klausutis’s letter in her column today) says that one solution being considered by Twitter is “is to label the tweets as false and link to myriad high-quality information and reporting that refute the tweets’ sinister insinuations.” Deleting the tweets is another possibility. Either way, the company’s destined to end up in a spat with Trump, a scenario they’ve long tried to avoid because of suspicions that he’s willing to use certain forms of state power to punish his corporate enemies. (Ten days ago he suggested that it was illegal for the “Radical Left” to control Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, which it definitely is not.) At the barest minimum, he’s going to grouse loudly about whatever new restrictions Twitter places on him and possibly start using another social media platform, like Facebook. Then he’ll be Mark Zuckerberg’s problem.
But Twitter has no choice. This fracas has now reached a sufficient level of visibility that they’re going to have to do something:
Twitter statement re: Trump's tweets about Lori Klausutis: "We are deeply sorry about the pain these statements… are causing the family." Changes are in the works to "expand existing product features and policies so we can more effectively address things like this going forward" pic.twitter.com/JxiYmaYYL4 — Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) May 26, 2020
Are they sure they don’t want to try to just ride this out? He’ll tweet something even more obnoxious soon enough, likely at a less sympathetic target than the Klausutis family, and we’ll forget all about this. The nice thing about showing that you’re unfit for office every day is that your critics never have time to dwell on yesterday’s evidence. All Twitter needs him to do is provide a new shiny object that’s not quite so uncomfortable to handle. Give him a few hours.
Here’s Scarborough digging in on this earlier this morning. I’ll leave you with a point I saw made on Twitter that’s jarring but also eminently true: Trump would be just fine with the idea of Scarborough having killed an aide if “Morning Joe” was still in the pro-Trump camp. The president practically admitted it in his tweets today, claiming that he’d heard the smears against Scarborough for years and never ruled them out when they were on friendly terms — but went on being friendly with him anyway. And why not? Trump’s idea of morals is purely transactional: There’s no sin he won’t happily overlook so long as you’re on his side. You could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and you wouldn’t lose his vote of confidence in you — until you start badmouthing him. That’s what offends Trump about Scarborough, not his non-murder of a former aide.


hotair--2020-05-26--NAACP to Biden: C'mon man, we didn't endorse you

The hits just keep coming from the interview Joe Biden did with The Breakfast Club host Charlemagne tha God .
As we all know now , Biden was trying to end the interview and let his guard down .
He made a parting mistake by saying “ If you have a problem figuring out whether you ’ re for me or Trump , then you ain ’ t black.
” Toward the end of the interview a Biden aide tried to wrap it up and said they were out of time .
Charlemagne wasn ’ t ready to stop , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can ’ t do that to black media.
” Biden responded , “ I do that to white media and black media.
” He went on to explain that Dr. Jill needed to use their home media studio for an interview of her own .
That was when Charlemagne said he ’ d like to do another interview and Biden arrogantly tried to school him about falling in line and voting for him because , you know , black people have to vote for Democrats .
While he was sputtering on about his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the NAACP endorsed him in all of his past races .
“ Take a look at my record man , I extended the voting rights 25 years , I have a record that is second-to-none , the NAACP ’ s endorsed me every time I ’ ve run , I mean , come on .
Take a look at the record.
” The NAACP national press secretary set the record straight that the NAACP doesn ’ t endorse candidates as an organization but individuals can endorse separately , on their own .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ non-partisan organization , the NAACP does not endorse and has one mission and that is fighting for and advancing our Black communities towards an equitable reality .
Our primary focus in this moment is to ensure that our communities that have been victims of domestic terrorism and disproportionately impacted by this pandemic have the opportunity to cast their powerful vote come November.
” Also… for further clarification persons affiliated with the NAACP at the national , state , and local levels are free to make candidate endorsements in a personal capacity , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NAACP as an organization.
” The NAACP had to correct the statement from Biden quickly because it has to do with their bottom line – tax exemption status is involved here .
Political activity is prohibited and can cause the NAACP to lose its tax-exempt designation as a “ non-partisan ” organization .
( Wink , wink , nod , nod ) The organization has found itself in hot water in the past and there have been investigations into partisan remarks made during speeches by NAACP leaders in the past .
The President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a statement to clear up the matter .
“ Yesterday , former Vice President Joe Biden made a comment about the NAACP ’ s endorsement , ” the statement by Derrick Johnson , president and CEO of the NAACP , said .
“ We want to clarify that the NAACP is a non-partisan organization and does not endorse candidates for political office at any level.
” But Johnson in his statement said that “ the NAACP has one mission and that is fighting for and advancing our Black communities towards an equitable reality.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ moment is to ensure that our communities that have been victims of domestic terrorism and disproportionately impacted by this pandemic have the opportunity to cast their powerful vote come November , ” he said .
Gerald A. Griggs , an attorney posted a tweet from a statement by the President of the Georgia NAACP .
So , while the NAACP was cleaning up on aisle 3 , Charlemagne tha God expressed his own concerns about Joe Biden .
While Biden does have a record of receiving the votes of African-American voters he also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years in elected office .
Now that Joe wants to be the most powerful man in the world , it is only natural for black voters with knowledge of his record to ask questions about where he stands now .
Joe Biden has a history of lying during political campaigns about his own record .
He embellishes his record and activism to the point that in the past he has had to withdraw from two past presidential runs .
In his first presidential campaign in 1987 , he claimed to be a civil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He eventually had to withdraw that claim .
During the current campaign , Kamala Harris blasted him for his voting record on busing and segregation in the past .
Charlemagne doesn ’ t sound like he ’ s sold on Biden ’ s bid for president .
It should be noted that Biden never actually apologized for his “ You ain ’ t black ” remark .
He nuanced it to the point of not getting around to saying he is sorry for saying what he did .
At first a campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a joke .
Then Biden gave his response .
Biden campaign adviser Symone Sanders defended the comments on Friday , saying they were made “ in jest ” .
“ Let ’ s be clear about what the VP was saying : he was making the distinction that he would put his record with the African American community up against Trump ’ s any day .
Period.
” Mr Biden scrambled to make amends on a call later to black business leaders .
“ I should not have been so cavalier , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never , never , ever taken the African American community for granted.
” He added : “ I shouldn ’ t have been such a wise guy.
” He continued : “ No-one should have to vote for any party based on their race , their religion , their background.
” And , can we talk about how condescending it is for an old white man to use the word ‘ ain ’ t ’ to a black audience when he doesn ’ t do that with others ?
It ’ s like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a southern accent though they aren ’ t from the South .
I still can hear Hillary Clinton recite “ I don ’ t feel no ways tired ” as she pandered to black audiences .

The hits just keep coming from the interview Joe Biden did with The Breakfast Club host Charlemagne tha God. As we all know now, Biden was trying to end the interview and let his guard down. He made a parting mistake by saying “If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.”
Toward the end of the interview a Biden aide tried to wrap it up and said they were out of time. Charlemagne wasn’t ready to stop, though, and said, “You can’t do that to black media.” Biden responded, “I do that to white media and black media.” He went on to explain that Dr. Jill needed to use their home media studio for an interview of her own. That was when Charlemagne said he’d like to do another interview and Biden arrogantly tried to school him about falling in line and voting for him because, you know, black people have to vote for Democrats.
While he was sputtering on about his record while in office, he said that the NAACP endorsed him in all of his past races.
“Take a look at my record man, I extended the voting rights 25 years, I have a record that is second-to-none, the NAACP’s endorsed me every time I’ve run, I mean, come on. Take a look at the record.” The NAACP national press secretary set the record straight that the NAACP doesn’t endorse candidates as an organization but individuals can endorse separately, on their own. That distinction is important.
As a non-partisan organization, the NAACP does not endorse and has one mission and that is fighting for and advancing our Black communities towards an equitable reality. Our primary focus in this moment is to ensure that our communities that have been victims of domestic terrorism and disproportionately impacted by this pandemic have the opportunity to cast their powerful vote come November.” Also… for further clarification persons affiliated with the NAACP at the national, state, and local levels are free to make candidate endorsements in a personal capacity, but they do not reflect support by the NAACP as an organization.”
The NAACP had to correct the statement from Biden quickly because it has to do with their bottom line – tax exemption status is involved here. Political activity is prohibited and can cause the NAACP to lose its tax-exempt designation as a “non-partisan” organization. (Wink, wink, nod, nod) The organization has found itself in hot water in the past and there have been investigations into partisan remarks made during speeches by NAACP leaders in the past.
The President and CEO of the NAACP also issued a statement to clear up the matter.
“Yesterday, former Vice President Joe Biden made a comment about the NAACP’s endorsement,” the statement by Derrick Johnson, president and CEO of the NAACP, said. “We want to clarify that the NAACP is a non-partisan organization and does not endorse candidates for political office at any level.” But Johnson in his statement said that “the NAACP has one mission and that is fighting for and advancing our Black communities towards an equitable reality.” “Our primary focus at this moment is to ensure that our communities that have been victims of domestic terrorism and disproportionately impacted by this pandemic have the opportunity to cast their powerful vote come November,” he said.
Gerald A. Griggs, an attorney posted a tweet from a statement by the President of the Georgia NAACP.
Let the record reflect that the @NAACP has NEVER endorsed @JoeBiden. We don’t endorse candidates as an organization. Per @iMajorWish President of @Georgia_NAACP. — Gerald A. Griggs (@AttorneyGriggs) May 22, 2020
So, while the NAACP was cleaning up on aisle 3, Charlemagne tha God expressed his own concerns about Joe Biden. While Biden does have a record of receiving the votes of African-American voters he also has a checkered record over his forty years in elected office. Now that Joe wants to be the most powerful man in the world, it is only natural for black voters with knowledge of his record to ask questions about where he stands now. Joe Biden has a history of lying during political campaigns about his own record. He embellishes his record and activism to the point that in the past he has had to withdraw from two past presidential runs. In his first presidential campaign in 1987, he claimed to be a civil rights activist as a teenager in Delaware. He eventually had to withdraw that claim. During the current campaign, Kamala Harris blasted him for his voting record on busing and segregation in the past. Charlemagne doesn’t sound like he’s sold on Biden’s bid for president.
“My takeaway from the conversation was I heard him talking about things he did for black people back in the day, but you know ‘what have you done for me lately’ is my motto,” he said on CNN late Friday. He also said Biden was “really one of the people on the front line when it came to the war on drugs and mass incarceration.”
It should be noted that Biden never actually apologized for his “You ain’t black” remark. He nuanced it to the point of not getting around to saying he is sorry for saying what he did. At first a campaign adviser tried to claim it was just a joke. Then Biden gave his response.
Biden campaign adviser Symone Sanders defended the comments on Friday, saying they were made “in jest”. “Let’s be clear about what the VP was saying: he was making the distinction that he would put his record with the African American community up against Trump’s any day. Period.” Mr Biden scrambled to make amends on a call later to black business leaders. “I should not have been so cavalier,” he said. “I’ve never, never, ever taken the African American community for granted.” He added: “I shouldn’t have been such a wise guy.” He continued: “No-one should have to vote for any party based on their race, their religion, their background.”
And, can we talk about how condescending it is for an old white man to use the word ‘ain’t’ to a black audience when he doesn’t do that with others? It’s like when politicians suddenly try to speak with a southern accent though they aren’t from the South. I still can hear Hillary Clinton recite “I don’t feel no ways tired” as she pandered to black audiences.


hotair--2020-05-26--Could the GOP really lose the Senate?

Could the GOP really lose the Senate?

While everyone is focusing on the Presidential race and the electoral college this year , some GOP strategists are getting a bit nervous about the Senate .
Of the upper chamber seats up for grabs , the GOP is defending more of them that look potentially vulnerable if Democrats get some momentum going .
This is probably even more important than the question of who wins the White House .
If Donald Trump manages to lose his bid for a second term , a GOP Senate majority is the only thing that would act as a check on the new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that winds up being Joe Biden or somebody else .
The Hill has a breakdown of the Senate races to keep an eye on this fall .
And if you ’ re a fan of the conservative agenda , the look of this map might have you getting a bit worried .
Five senators are staring down serious political danger ahead of the November elections .
With less than three months to go until Election Day , the battle for control of the Senate hinges on five key states .
Democrats are after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Colorado , Maine and North Carolina – while Republicans are largely playing defense , but see an easy pickup opportunity in Alabama .
A handful of seats in states like Iowa , Montana and Michigan are also showing signs they may be in play .
As things stand right now , in order to take control , the Democrats will need to flip a net total of four GOP seats if Trump wins or three seats if Biden takes the Oval Office , allowing his veep to break all the ties .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ flip is that of Democrat Doug Jones in Alabama .
He ’ s only in the Senate because Roy Moore was such a heavily damaged candidate .
Either Jeff Sessions or Tommy Tuberville ought to be able to remove Jones , so then the Democrats will need to flip 5 or 4 seats , depending on Trump ’ s outcome .
So where do they find five seats ?
In Colorado , pretty much every analyst has recognized the Cory Gardner is in trouble , particularly if he ’ s facing John Hickenlooper @ @ @ @ @ @ @ polls over the summer , the GOP will probably lose that one .
In Arizona , Republican Senator Martha McSally is doing pretty poorly in the polls against retired astronaut Mark Kelly .
But Arizona still isn ’ t as blue as some Democrats seem to think and the GOP still controls a majority of the statewide offices .
That race will probably tighten quite a bit by September , but it could still wind up being another pickup for the Dems .
In Maine , there ’ s plenty of chatter about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the bubble .
But that ’ s been true of pretty much all of her races and she always seems to find a way to make it over the finish line .
If we ’ re trying to be generous to the Democrats here , we can give them Maine as a possible third pickup .
The only other Republican that looks like a possible loss is probably Thom Tillis in North Carolina , but that ’ s far from an easy mark for the Democrats .
If they somehow manage to take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ loses , the Senate would be pretty much gone and a looming liberal disaster could be on the horizon .
If Trump wins , they would still need to find one more seat to thwart his judicial appointments , though .
Where do they get it ?
It ’ s hard to see Joni Ernst losing in Iowa .
Other than that , the Democrats would need to go fishing for another seat in Kansas , Georgia or Montana .
None of those states are particularly fertile ground for liberals .
So looking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not have as much to worry about as some CNN analysts would have you believe .
They will need to go four-for-four in Colorado , Maine , Arizona and North Carolina if Trump wins .
( And if he wins , he ’ ll probably bring some coattail effects down the ballot in marginal states . )
If he loses , the Dems will still need to go three-for-four .
Not an impossible task , but I wouldn ’ t place any large bets on such an outcome at this point .

While everyone is focusing on the Presidential race and the electoral college this year, some GOP strategists are getting a bit nervous about the Senate. Of the upper chamber seats up for grabs, the GOP is defending more of them that look potentially vulnerable if Democrats get some momentum going. This is probably even more important than the question of who wins the White House. If Donald Trump manages to lose his bid for a second term, a GOP Senate majority is the only thing that would act as a check on the new Democratic president’s agenda, whether that winds up being Joe Biden or somebody else.
The Hill has a breakdown of the Senate races to keep an eye on this fall. And if you’re a fan of the conservative agenda, the look of this map might have you getting a bit worried.
Five senators are staring down serious political danger ahead of the November elections. With less than three months to go until Election Day, the battle for control of the Senate hinges on five key states. Democrats are after four seats in particular – in Arizona, Colorado, Maine and North Carolina – while Republicans are largely playing defense, but see an easy pickup opportunity in Alabama. A handful of seats in states like Iowa, Montana and Michigan are also showing signs they may be in play.
As things stand right now, in order to take control, the Democrats will need to flip a net total of four GOP seats if Trump wins or three seats if Biden takes the Oval Office, allowing his veep to break all the ties.
The first and most likely seat to flip is that of Democrat Doug Jones in Alabama. He’s only in the Senate because Roy Moore was such a heavily damaged candidate. Either Jeff Sessions or Tommy Tuberville ought to be able to remove Jones, so then the Democrats will need to flip 5 or 4 seats, depending on Trump’s outcome. So where do they find five seats?
In Colorado, pretty much every analyst has recognized the Cory Gardner is in trouble, particularly if he’s facing John Hickenlooper. Without some dramatic shift in the polls over the summer, the GOP will probably lose that one. In Arizona, Republican Senator Martha McSally is doing pretty poorly in the polls against retired astronaut Mark Kelly. But Arizona still isn’t as blue as some Democrats seem to think and the GOP still controls a majority of the statewide offices. That race will probably tighten quite a bit by September, but it could still wind up being another pickup for the Dems.
In Maine, there’s plenty of chatter about Susan Collins (R) being on the bubble. But that’s been true of pretty much all of her races and she always seems to find a way to make it over the finish line. If we’re trying to be generous to the Democrats here, we can give them Maine as a possible third pickup. The only other Republican that looks like a possible loss is probably Thom Tillis in North Carolina, but that’s far from an easy mark for the Democrats.
If they somehow manage to take all four of those seats and Trump loses, the Senate would be pretty much gone and a looming liberal disaster could be on the horizon. If Trump wins, they would still need to find one more seat to thwart his judicial appointments, though. Where do they get it? It’s hard to see Joni Ernst losing in Iowa. Other than that, the Democrats would need to go fishing for another seat in Kansas, Georgia or Montana. None of those states are particularly fertile ground for liberals.
So looking at the overall map, conservatives may not have as much to worry about as some CNN analysts would have you believe. They will need to go four-for-four in Colorado, Maine, Arizona and North Carolina if Trump wins. (And if he wins, he’ll probably bring some coattail effects down the ballot in marginal states.) If he loses, the Dems will still need to go three-for-four. Not an impossible task, but I wouldn’t place any large bets on such an outcome at this point.


hotair--2020-05-26--Forget the Murder Hornets. Here come the Cannibal Rats

Let ’ s see .
First , we got hit with the pandemic .
Then there was a literal plague of locusts swarming across Africa .
Then came the volcano lighting .
We were next warned of an incoming wave of murder hornets .
Well , the hornets have turned out to be something of a bust , at least thus far .
But the next curse to fall upon your houses will probably sound even more messed up .
Get ready for hordes of cannibal rats who are becoming increasingly aggressive according to some rodentologists at the CDC .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Disease Control and Prevention has warned of “ unusual or aggressive ” behavior in American rats as a consequence of more than two months of human lockdown for city-dwelling rodents who now find themselves unable to dine out on restaurant waste , street garbage and other food sources .
Last month , according to the national health body , dumpster-diving rats were observed resorting to open warfare , cannibalism and eating their young in the wake of urban shutdowns .
“ Community-wide closures have led to a decrease in food available to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” the CDC said in recently updated rodent-control guidelines .
They could have just said “ rats ” in this case , don ’ t you think ?
But the rats in some of our larger cities apparently are resorting to killing and eating their young in some places .
And besides… “ cannibal rats ” makes for a much more catchy headline I suppose .
All jokes aside , what we ’ re seeing with these rats seems to be yet another unanticipated side effect of the “ world without people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
( There ’ s even a show dedicated to “ Life After People ” for apocalypse porn fans and it ’ s been running for multiple seasons . )
We ’ ve already seen clearer skies as smog quickly receded when people largely stopped leaving their homes .
But there are other types of pollution that we generally don ’ t notice as much , particularly in our larger cities .
One of those is the restaurant and grocery store waste that usually fills the city ’ s dumpsters on a daily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supply for rats , who generally lurk out of sight as much as possible .
( With Pizza Rat being the notable exception . )
Suddenly , food waste has decreased significantly and there aren ’ t so many easy meals for the rats to find .
But would they really attack a human being if they become hungry enough ?
I did find one story of a young girl being hospitalized after being attacked by a swarm of rats in France a few years ago , but she was a paraplegic and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from that it sounds like rat attacks are extremely rare .
In the meantime , the rats will likely be thinning their own ranks for as long as the food supply remains minimal .
There ’ s little in the way of good news coming out of this pandemic , but a temporary reduction in the number of rats might be one benefit .
Let ’ s close with a video from New Orleans that was recorded by CCTV at the end of March .
The rats on Bourbon Street are clearly not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they sheltering in place .

Let’s see. First, we got hit with the pandemic. Then there was a literal plague of locusts swarming across Africa. Then came the volcano lighting. We were next warned of an incoming wave of murder hornets. Well, the hornets have turned out to be something of a bust, at least thus far. But the next curse to fall upon your houses will probably sound even more messed up. Get ready for hordes of cannibal rats who are becoming increasingly aggressive according to some rodentologists at the CDC. (The Guardian)
The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has warned of “unusual or aggressive” behavior in American rats as a consequence of more than two months of human lockdown for city-dwelling rodents who now find themselves unable to dine out on restaurant waste, street garbage and other food sources. Last month, according to the national health body, dumpster-diving rats were observed resorting to open warfare, cannibalism and eating their young in the wake of urban shutdowns. “Community-wide closures have led to a decrease in food available to rodents, especially in dense commercial areas,” the CDC said in recently updated rodent-control guidelines.
They could have just said “rats” in this case, don’t you think? But the rats in some of our larger cities apparently are resorting to killing and eating their young in some places. And besides… “cannibal rats” makes for a much more catchy headline I suppose.
All jokes aside, what we’re seeing with these rats seems to be yet another unanticipated side effect of the “world without people” that environmentalists love to talk about. (There’s even a show dedicated to “Life After People” for apocalypse porn fans and it’s been running for multiple seasons.)
We’ve already seen clearer skies as smog quickly receded when people largely stopped leaving their homes. But there are other types of pollution that we generally don’t notice as much, particularly in our larger cities. One of those is the restaurant and grocery store waste that usually fills the city’s dumpsters on a daily basis. That provides an endless food supply for rats, who generally lurk out of sight as much as possible. (With Pizza Rat being the notable exception.)
Suddenly, food waste has decreased significantly and there aren’t so many easy meals for the rats to find. But would they really attack a human being if they become hungry enough? I did find one story of a young girl being hospitalized after being attacked by a swarm of rats in France a few years ago, but she was a paraplegic and unable to scare them off. Aside from that it sounds like rat attacks are extremely rare.
In the meantime, the rats will likely be thinning their own ranks for as long as the food supply remains minimal. There’s little in the way of good news coming out of this pandemic, but a temporary reduction in the number of rats might be one benefit. Let’s close with a video from New Orleans that was recorded by CCTV at the end of March. The rats on Bourbon Street are clearly not taking any time off, nor are they sheltering in place.