hotair--2020-06-11--It's come to this: Boston school apologizes for letting police ... use the restrooms

It ’ s difficult to identify the single most embarrassing bit of virtue-signaling of the present moment — the competition ’ s too stiff — but this is a solid candidate .
Let not their drippings befoul our pristine toilets is a high bar as far as gratuitous shows of contempt for the police go .
But it ’ s also self-defeating .
If you think cops are aggressive and ill-tempered normally , wait until you see them do the job while they ’ re holding in a deuce .
Those are the officers they should send into that “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact .
They ’ ll have it cleared out in five minutes .
The grave tone of that letter is roughly what you ’ d expect if the school were reporting , say , a wave of sexual assaults on campus .
No one got raped , guys .
Some cops pinched a loaf .
We ’ re not bringing back slavery because of it .
“ Some people want to make war with police , ” said the head of a local police union about Berklee ’ s letter .
He ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clearly does present the police as a sort of enemy faction to whom no quarter should be given rather than a state agency whose institutional culture needs reform .
The irony is that the school administration clearly feels more threatened by the woke brigades to whom the letter is addressed than by the police themselves .
They had no problem with letting cops use the can until they were informed that that was a crime against the cause , at which point they urgently repented .
Coincidentally , there ’ s a counterexample @ @ @ @ @ @ @ side ” repenting for a small show of generosity to the other “ side.
” Robert Cattani is a lieutenant with the NYPD in Manhattan .
He was at the protests in the city on May 31 when the crowd started chanting at officers to express some appreciation for the justness of their cause by taking a knee .
Cattani was one of four officers who complied .
That must not have gone over well inside the precinct because he sent an email around a few days ago apologizing : A Manhattan NYPD @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officers apologizing for kneeling alongside George Floyd protesters late last month — telling them that “ the cop in me wants to kick my own ass.
” … He wrote that his decision to kneel “ goes against every principle and value I stand for.
” “ I spent the first part of my career thriving to build a reputation of a good cop , ” he said .
“ I threw that all in the garbage in Sunday.
” Since Cattani took a knee , he said , he ’ s struggled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaving the department .
“ The cop in me wants to kick my own ass ” is a picture-perfect example of the kind of thinking that the kneeling is attempting to address and reform .
There are other sinister examples of groupthink about .
There ’ s the case of David Shor , described today by Jonathan Chait in a post for New York magazine .
Shor is a liberal data analyst who posted this innocuous tweet a few weeks ago : A straightforward point .
Voters are drawn to nonviolent protests in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from rioting .
Note that this wasn ’ t Shor ’ s opinion ; he ’ s a data guy , so he was offering hard numbers .
Didn ’ t matter .
He was accused of “ anti-blackness ” and — tell me if this sounds familiar — some of his colleagues at work began complaining that his tweet made them feel unsafe .
Shor dutifully ( and shamefully ) apologized to the mob but that didn ’ t matter either .
He was fired .
I take it that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about : You can either commit a crime against wokeness , like , say , by letting a cop take a leak or you can keep your job .
They looked out for number one .
Er , no pun intended .

It’s difficult to identify the single most embarrassing bit of virtue-signaling of the present moment — the competition’s too stiff — but this is a solid candidate. Let not their drippings befoul our pristine toilets is a high bar as far as gratuitous shows of contempt for the police go.
But it’s also self-defeating. If you think cops are aggressive and ill-tempered normally, wait until you see them do the job while they’re holding in a deuce.
Those are the officers they should send into that “autonomous zone” in Seattle, in fact. They’ll have it cleared out in five minutes.
The grave tone of that letter is roughly what you’d expect if the school were reporting, say, a wave of sexual assaults on campus. No one got raped, guys. Some cops pinched a loaf.
We’re not bringing back slavery because of it.
“Some people want to make war with police,” said the head of a local police union about Berklee’s letter. He’s overstating it, but the letter clearly does present the police as a sort of enemy faction to whom no quarter should be given rather than a state agency whose institutional culture needs reform. The irony is that the school administration clearly feels more threatened by the woke brigades to whom the letter is addressed than by the police themselves. They had no problem with letting cops use the can until they were informed that that was a crime against the cause, at which point they urgently repented.
Coincidentally, there’s a counterexample on the wires today of one “side” repenting for a small show of generosity to the other “side.” Robert Cattani is a lieutenant with the NYPD in Manhattan. He was at the protests in the city on May 31 when the crowd started chanting at officers to express some appreciation for the justness of their cause by taking a knee. Cattani was one of four officers who complied.
In Foley Square, resounding chants of “NYPD take a knee.” Eventually, four cops kneel to huge chants. “We just want to get home safely, same as you,” says one protester. pic.twitter.com/6eRC4h9L0Q — Jake Offenhartz (@jangelooff) June 1, 2020
That must not have gone over well inside the precinct because he sent an email around a few days ago apologizing:
A Manhattan NYPD lieutenant sent an email to his fellow officers apologizing for kneeling alongside George Floyd protesters late last month — telling them that “the cop in me wants to kick my own ass.”… He wrote that his decision to kneel “goes against every principle and value I stand for.” “I spent the first part of my career thriving to build a reputation of a good cop,” he said. “I threw that all in the garbage in Sunday.” Since Cattani took a knee, he said, he’s struggled to eat and sleep and even considered leaving the department.
“The cop in me wants to kick my own ass” is a picture-perfect example of the kind of thinking that the kneeling is attempting to address and reform.
There are other sinister examples of groupthink about. There’s the case of David Shor, described today by Jonathan Chait in a post for New York magazine. Shor is a liberal data analyst who posted this innocuous tweet a few weeks ago:
Post-MLK-assasination race riots reduced Democratic vote share in surrounding counties by 2%, which was enough to tip the 1968 election to Nixon. Non-violent protests *increase* Dem vote, mainly by encouraging warm elite discourse and media coverage. https://t.co/S8VZSuaz3G. pic.twitter.com/VRUwnRFuVW — (((David Shor))) (@davidshor) May 28, 2020
A straightforward point. Voters are drawn to nonviolent protests in support of a righteous cause but recoil from rioting. Note that this wasn’t Shor’s opinion; he’s a data guy, so he was offering hard numbers. Didn’t matter. He was accused of “anti-blackness” and — tell me if this sounds familiar — some of his colleagues at work began complaining that his tweet made them feel unsafe. Shor dutifully (and shamefully) apologized to the mob but that didn’t matter either. He was fired. I take it that’s what the Berklee officials were ultimately worried about: You can either commit a crime against wokeness, like, say, by letting a cop take a leak or you can keep your job. They looked out for number one. Er, no pun intended.


hotair--2020-06-11--How Putin plans to create a semblance of democracy while undermining opposition parties

The next regional elections in Russia take place in September .
In advance of that date , and the federal elections next year , the Russian Justice Ministry has been quickly approving a host of new parties .
But this isn ’ t a sign of real democracy in action inside Russia .
On the contrary , this is Putin ’ s attempt to create a semblance of democracy while actually setting up spoiler parties designed to divide the opposition .
Last month , Russia ’ s Justice Ministry registered four new political parties , giving them the right to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ September and potentially in next year ’ s national parliamentary vote as well .
All the new groups fulfilled the cumbersome requirements for registration in record time — even though most of the country remains under strict quarantine measures .
Registration officials voiced no concerns .
Neither the ease nor the speed should give cause for surprise : As reported in Russian media , the new parties — like most of the nearly 50 political parties now on the register — were created with the political blessing of the government .
This Russian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been approved in the past year .
Many of them have generic names making it difficult to even tell them apart .
Over the past year , the Ministry of Justice registered information on 39 organizing committees of new parties , with 17 of them appearing in September – December 2019 , and another four in January 2020… According to the Ministry of Justice , the names of the seven organizing committees contain the words “ people ” and “ justice ” : “ Good for the people ” , Party of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the people ” , Union of Fair Forces of Russia , etc .
While the ballot is filling up with new parties that have little or not support , actual opposition parties have been denied the right to appear on the ballot : Unlike , say , the Cossack Party or the Party of Gardeners , which had no trouble fulfilling the registration requirements , the party led by anticorruption activist Alexei Navalny — one of Russia ’ s most prominent opposition figures , who received nearly 30 percent of the vote when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — was denied registration by the Justice Ministry a total of nine times .
The goal of all of this chicanery is to avoid the kind of humiliation Putin ’ s United Russia party suffered last year .
That ’ s when elections in Moscow seemed to be shaping up as a defeat for Putin .
Rather than take the risk , the government disqualified the popular opposition candidates .
There were protests but so long as his party won the election , what did Putin care .
And that ’ s when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 45 seats in the Moscow Duma , 20 were won by opponents of pro-government candidates… Perhaps the most comical result came from the north side of Moscow .
The opposition candidate in District 3 was Alexander Soloviev who , like others , had been barred from the ballot and arrested .
Among his opponents was another man named Alexander Soloviev , a spoiler nominated by one of the smaller registered parties — an engineer with no apparent interest in politics who had not met with voters , held any campaign events or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Days before the election , the opposition backed the spoiler as a tactical move against United Russia — and he cruised to victory without as much as lifting a finger .
“ Guys , you forgot to remove a spoiler you put there yourselves — and you lost even to him , ” the “ real ” Soloviev wrote from his jail cell .
That is just spectacular .
But you can see why Putin doesn ’ t want to see a repeat , either this year or next .
So his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that .
Hopefully the opposition can continue to find new ways to humiliate Putin even if they can ’ t beat him at the ballot box because they aren ’ t allowed to compete .

The next regional elections in Russia take place in September. In advance of that date, and the federal elections next year, the Russian Justice Ministry has been quickly approving a host of new parties. But this isn’t a sign of real democracy in action inside Russia. On the contrary, this is Putin’s attempt to create a semblance of democracy while actually setting up spoiler parties designed to divide the opposition.
Last month, Russia’s Justice Ministry registered four new political parties, giving them the right to take part in scheduled regional elections in September and potentially in next year’s national parliamentary vote as well. All the new groups fulfilled the cumbersome requirements for registration in record time — even though most of the country remains under strict quarantine measures. Registration officials voiced no concerns. Neither the ease nor the speed should give cause for surprise: As reported in Russian media, the new parties — like most of the nearly 50 political parties now on the register — were created with the political blessing of the government.
This Russian site reports that nearly 40 new parties have been approved in the past year. Many of them have generic names making it difficult to even tell them apart.
Over the past year, the Ministry of Justice registered information on 39 organizing committees of new parties, with 17 of them appearing in September – December 2019, and another four in January 2020… According to the Ministry of Justice, the names of the seven organizing committees contain the words “people” and “justice”: “Good for the people”, Party of the people, “We are from the people”, Union of Fair Forces of Russia, etc.
While the ballot is filling up with new parties that have little or not support, actual opposition parties have been denied the right to appear on the ballot:
Unlike, say, the Cossack Party or the Party of Gardeners, which had no trouble fulfilling the registration requirements, the party led by anticorruption activist Alexei Navalny — one of Russia’s most prominent opposition figures, who received nearly 30 percent of the vote when he ran for Moscow mayor in 2013 — was denied registration by the Justice Ministry a total of nine times.
The goal of all of this chicanery is to avoid the kind of humiliation Putin’s United Russia party suffered last year. That’s when elections in Moscow seemed to be shaping up as a defeat for Putin. Rather than take the risk, the government disqualified the popular opposition candidates. There were protests but so long as his party won the election, what did Putin care. And that’s when it all went horribly wrong:
It was not possible to present a real alternative or create genuine competition in the 2019 Moscow election. So opposition activist Alexei Navalny and his Anti-Corruption Foundation proposed a tactic they referred to as “smart voting.” The idea was to humiliate pro-regime candidates by backing placeholders from other registered parties who were placed on the ballot to create the semblance of choice. And this is precisely what Muscovites did on Sunday — with spectacular results.


hotair--2020-06-11--Escalation: Senate committee votes to order Pentagon to rename all military assets currently named a

Escalation: Senate committee votes to order Pentagon to rename all military assets currently named after Confederates

I can ’ t believe how blatantly Democrats are baiting Trump to go all-in on this issue and how he ’ s actually taking the bait .
Yesterday Pelosi sent around a letter calling for statutes of Confederate figures in the Capitol to be removed .
The day before that , Elizabeth Warren announced that she ’ d use her position on the Senate Armed Services Committee to purge the military of Confederate tributes — not just by renaming bases but by renaming all assets , like ships , whose names celebrate the CSA .
What ’ s clever about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a wedge between Trump and Republicans in Congress .
There ’ s a spectrum of GOP opinion on this issue in the House and Senate , I ’ d guess : Some are happy to see Confederate names stripped , some are indifferent but willing to do it to ingratiate themselves to swing voters , and some are either worried about the politics in red states or flatly unwilling .
Democrats want to get Republicans fighting over Confederate iconography in a bright media spotlight at a moment when the country is momentarily trending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And if they can get Trump involved in that fight , so much the better .
That ’ s the point of Pelosi ’ s letter , I think : The more they can goad Trump into defending Confederate symbols , the more they can use it against him and ultimately against downballot Republicans .
Every Republican in the House and Senate will potentially be forced to say whether they side with ( gasp ) the Confederacy or with ( gasp ) the Democrats against Trump .
If you ’ re a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you embrace this image or run from it ?
Warren ’ s proposal was an amendment to the defense bill that Congress is currently working on , which makes it even more potent .
That bill , which funds the Pentagon , has passed every year for 59 straight years .
If Republicans were to try to block it this year because of Warren ’ s amendment , they ’ ll be shredded by Dems and the press for treating Confederate nomenclature for the U.S. military as a more urgent priority than actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kill the amendment quietly in committee than add it to the final bill and force a big showdown over it .
Surprisingly , though , the Republican-controlled Senate Armed Services Committee approved Warren ’ s amendment today via voice vote — despite Trump ’ s warning yesterday that he ’ ll never agree to rename American bases .
The committee adopted an amendment to the annual Pentagon policy bill that gives the Defense Department three years to remove the names of Confederate generals from U.S. military assets , according to a source familiar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , adopted by voice vote as President Donald Trump preemptively threatened to veto any defense bill that did just that , affects massive bases like Fort Bragg in North Carolina and Fort Benning in Georgia .
But it also goes further and includes everything from ships to streets on Defense Department property… [ Trump ’ s ] effective veto threat sets up a standoff with Capitol Hill , with House Democrats likely to advance similar provisions in that chamber ’ s defense authorization , especially after the Senate committee action .
“ Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a difficult spot ” after the amendment passed , CNN reported .
Now anything they do makes for awkward optics .
If they try to strip the amendment out of the final bill they ’ ll be forced to explain why an anti-Confederate measure with bipartisan support offended them .
If they vote down the bill because Warren ’ s amendment was included , the media will have a field day with GOPers holding up military funding in the name of defending Confederate generals .
If they pass the bill and send it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will veto it and the party will end up being accused of holding up military funding in the name of defending Confederate generals anyway .
This is exactly the reaction Democrats want from him , forcing Republicans to die foolishly on this hill : The least painful option for House and Senate Republicans would be to pass the bill with veto-proof majorities .
In a way , that would be a win/win .
Trump would get to burnish his “ politically incorrect ” cred by vetoing the bill and congressional Republicans would get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subject .
The Pentagon would be funded .
Are there enough GOPers in either chamber willing to join with Democrats and defy Trump , though , even when it ’ s in their own political interest to do so ?
Here ’ s the biggest “ tell ” of how awkward this debate is for the party .
It takes a lot to get Kevin McCarthy to separate himself from Trump , especially on a culture-war issue in which the president is vocally invested .
But even he ’ s leaving open the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ de-Confederate military bases .
He also said today that he ’ d support a bill banning chokeholds by police .
I don ’ t think Trump ’ s commented on that yet ; normally it ’ s unlike McCarthy to get ahead of the president on legislation .
Clearly ( and correctly ) he ’ s concluded that politics on race relations and police reform favor a little more conciliation than Trump is willing to give .
So he ’ s creating a little space for his caucus to compromise .
Here ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jefferson Davis that was toppled last night in the capitol of the Confederacy .
Note that over the weekend the Marine Corps banned all displays of the Confederate flag on Marine installations .
The military is somewhat ahead of the Democrats on this .

I can’t believe how blatantly Democrats are baiting Trump to go all-in on this issue and how he’s actually taking the bait.
Yesterday Pelosi sent around a letter calling for statutes of Confederate figures in the Capitol to be removed. The day before that, Elizabeth Warren announced that she’d use her position on the Senate Armed Services Committee to purge the military of Confederate tributes — not just by renaming bases but by renaming all assets, like ships, whose names celebrate the CSA.
As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I filed an amendment to the annual defense bill last week to rename all bases named for Confederate generals. It's long past time to end the tribute to white supremacy on our military installations. https://t.co/eP6ktRWK8C — Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) June 9, 2020
What’s clever about that bill is how it potentially drives a wedge between Trump and Republicans in Congress. There’s a spectrum of GOP opinion on this issue in the House and Senate, I’d guess: Some are happy to see Confederate names stripped, some are indifferent but willing to do it to ingratiate themselves to swing voters, and some are either worried about the politics in red states or flatly unwilling. Democrats want to get Republicans fighting over Confederate iconography in a bright media spotlight at a moment when the country is momentarily trending more liberal on issues related to race. And if they can get Trump involved in that fight, so much the better. That’s the point of Pelosi’s letter, I think: The more they can goad Trump into defending Confederate symbols, the more they can use it against him and ultimately against downballot Republicans. Every Republican in the House and Senate will potentially be forced to say whether they side with (gasp) the Confederacy or with (gasp) the Democrats against Trump.
If you’re a Republican in a non-southern state, do you embrace this image or run from it?
Warren’s proposal was an amendment to the defense bill that Congress is currently working on, which makes it even more potent. That bill, which funds the Pentagon, has passed every year for 59 straight years. If Republicans were to try to block it this year because of Warren’s amendment, they’ll be shredded by Dems and the press for treating Confederate nomenclature for the U.S. military as a more urgent priority than actually funding the U.S. military. Better to kill the amendment quietly in committee than add it to the final bill and force a big showdown over it. Surprisingly, though, the Republican-controlled Senate Armed Services Committee approved Warren’s amendment today via voice vote — despite Trump’s warning yesterday that he’ll never agree to rename American bases.
The committee adopted an amendment to the annual Pentagon policy bill that gives the Defense Department three years to remove the names of Confederate generals from U.S. military assets, according to a source familiar with the closed-door proceedings. The language, adopted by voice vote as President Donald Trump preemptively threatened to veto any defense bill that did just that, affects massive bases like Fort Bragg in North Carolina and Fort Benning in Georgia. But it also goes further and includes everything from ships to streets on Defense Department property… [Trump’s] effective veto threat sets up a standoff with Capitol Hill, with House Democrats likely to advance similar provisions in that chamber’s defense authorization, especially after the Senate committee action.
“Republican leaders acknowledged Thursday that they are in a difficult spot” after the amendment passed, CNN reported. Now anything they do makes for awkward optics. If they try to strip the amendment out of the final bill they’ll be forced to explain why an anti-Confederate measure with bipartisan support offended them. If they vote down the bill because Warren’s amendment was included, the media will have a field day with GOPers holding up military funding in the name of defending Confederate generals. If they pass the bill and send it to Trump’s desk, Trump will veto it and the party will end up being accused of holding up military funding in the name of defending Confederate generals anyway.
This is exactly the reaction Democrats want from him, forcing Republicans to die foolishly on this hill:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1271145584791965696
The least painful option for House and Senate Republicans would be to pass the bill with veto-proof majorities. In a way, that would be a win/win. Trump would get to burnish his “politically incorrect” cred by vetoing the bill and congressional Republicans would get to distance themselves from him on the subject. The Pentagon would be funded. Are there enough GOPers in either chamber willing to join with Democrats and defy Trump, though, even when it’s in their own political interest to do so?
Here’s the biggest “tell” of how awkward this debate is for the party. It takes a lot to get Kevin McCarthy to separate himself from Trump, especially on a culture-war issue in which the president is vocally invested. But even he’s leaving open the possibility of Republicans supporting a bill to de-Confederate military bases.
Asked if he'd vote in favor of removing Confederate leaders names from Army bases, Rep. Kevin McCarthy says he is "not opposed to it" and will look to see what comes out of the the National Defense Authorization Act to make his decision. https://t.co/nemkeZRWY6 pic.twitter.com/p8QmQimjCn — This Week (@ThisWeekABC) June 11, 2020
He also said today that he’d support a bill banning chokeholds by police. I don’t think Trump’s commented on that yet; normally it’s unlike McCarthy to get ahead of the president on legislation. Clearly (and correctly) he’s concluded that politics on race relations and police reform favor a little more conciliation than Trump is willing to give. So he’s creating a little space for his caucus to compromise.
Here’s what remains of the statue of Jefferson Davis that was toppled last night in the capitol of the Confederacy. Note that over the weekend the Marine Corps banned all displays of the Confederate flag on Marine installations. The military is somewhat ahead of the Democrats on this.


hotair--2020-06-11--Today's relevant topics on Relevant Radio®: Illinois' forced coverage of abortion, 2020 election pro

Today's relevant topics on Relevant Radio®: Illinois' forced coverage of abortion, 2020 election projection, and COVID-19's social outcomes

Once again , I get to step outside the box and guest host A Closer Look on Relevant Radio® from @ @ @ @ @ Catholic talk-radio network is heard nationwide on the air , as well as online and @ @ @ @ @ that plays live and podcast shows .
• Thomas More Society ’ s Peter Breen @ @ @ @ @ state of Illinois over forced coverage for abortions , as well as concerns that COVID-19 @ @ @ @ @ elderly and infirm .
• Has COVID-19 increased abortion rates ?
National Catholic Register ’ @ @ @ @ @ look at the data and the despair that might be driving it .
• How @ @ @ @ @ voting booth to all this social unrest and rioting ?
Dr. Gerard Lameiro offers his @ @ @ @ @ We will also take your calls at 1-888-914-9149 .
You can also listen on the @ @ @ @ @ where you are in the world , so download it now .
I ’ ll @ @ @ @ @ you !

Once again, I get to step outside the box and guest host A Closer Look on Relevant Radio® from 6-7 ET today! The Catholic talk-radio network is heard nationwide on the air, as well as online and through their free mobile app that plays live and podcast shows.
Today’s Relevant Radio® show includes:
We will also take your calls at 1-888-914-9149. You can also listen on the Relevant Radio® app no matter where you are in the world, so download it now. I’ll look forward to talking with you!


hotair--2020-06-11--NY Times: The first rule of Biden's economic policy committee is you do not talk about the economic

NY Times: The first rule of Biden's economic policy committee is you do not talk about the economic policy committee

The NY Times published a story today headlined , “ Biden ’ s Brain Trust on the Economy : Liberal and Sworn to Silence.
” The piece attempts to tease out who is advising Joe Biden on economics but ultimately has to make some guesses because no one involved will admit they are involved .
In fact , the Biden campaign has specifically given them a “ Fight Club ” style warning in the form of a memo .
The first rule of being part of Biden ’ s economic policy committee , it seems , is that you do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is now seeking input from more than 100 left-leaning economists and other researchers , but there is little clarity on who has true influence .
The Biden campaign recently formed an economic policy committee , which includes these outside experts , and imposed strict rules to ensure their public silence .
A three-page document , sent last month ahead of the committee ’ s first online meeting , warned participants not to circulate email from committee leaders or refer to “ the candidate or to the campaign ” in documents .
“ You @ @ @ @ @ @ @ others who are involved in the committee to nonmembers , ” according to the memo , which has not previously been reported .
Members were allowed to tell friends and colleagues that they are participating , it continued , but “ you should not , however , disclose your participation on social media such as Facebook or LinkedIn or in your professional bio.
” A section about press inquiries began , “ Simply put , do not talk to the press.
” The Times contacted some of the individuals believed to be part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from their responses that they were : While it ’ s not clear exactly why the campaign is trying to keep things so quiet , one reason may be that Biden is increasingly reaching out to economists on the left , like Zucman , who the Times previous referred to as one of “ the most polarizing economists in the 2020 campaign.
” The other was Emmanuel Saez who , like Zucman , teaches at Berkeley .
Together they were the behind Warren ’ s 2 % wealth tax proposal .
So is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wealth tax ?
Is this a hint about who he ’ s going to select as his running-mate ?
It could be , but no one is talking .
And economic advisor to President Trump complained recently about Biden ’ s team of hidden advisors .
“ It is unethical to formally advise a candidate and publicly advocate the candidate ’ s views while concealing that relationship , ” Kevin Hassett said .
He added , “ If he does have an economic team , then he should identify them .
If he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the advisers should , at the very least , identify themselves as Biden supporters when appearing in the media.
” A Biden spokesman replied , “ Dr .
Hassett and his boss should both spend less time griping over cable news coverage and more time trying to fix this mess they got us into.
” I think the mess “ they got us into ” refers to the shutdown caused by the coronavirus which in turn damaged the economy ?
Remember just a few weeks ago when every Democrat was saying Trump should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crazy to talk about reopening in May ?
Now all of the damage caused by the thing Democrats wanted more of is just Trump ’ s fault I guess .
Soon enough we ’ ll get a better idea how far left Biden is willing to move , but for now mums the word .

The NY Times published a story today headlined, “Biden’s Brain Trust on the Economy: Liberal and Sworn to Silence.” The piece attempts to tease out who is advising Joe Biden on economics but ultimately has to make some guesses because no one involved will admit they are involved. In fact, the Biden campaign has specifically given them a “Fight Club” style warning in the form of a memo. The first rule of being part of Biden’s economic policy committee, it seems, is that you do not talk about it.
Mr. Biden is now seeking input from more than 100 left-leaning economists and other researchers, but there is little clarity on who has true influence. The Biden campaign recently formed an economic policy committee, which includes these outside experts, and imposed strict rules to ensure their public silence. A three-page document, sent last month ahead of the committee’s first online meeting, warned participants not to circulate email from committee leaders or refer to “the candidate or to the campaign” in documents. “You are not to disclose the names of others who are involved in the committee to nonmembers,” according to the memo, which has not previously been reported. Members were allowed to tell friends and colleagues that they are participating, it continued, but “you should not, however, disclose your participation on social media such as Facebook or LinkedIn or in your professional bio.” A section about press inquiries began, “Simply put, do not talk to the press.”
The Times contacted some of the individuals believed to be part of the group and had to infer from their responses that they were:
Asked over email if he was advising Mr. Biden, Gabriel Zucman, one of the architects of Senator Elizabeth Warren’s proposed tax on high-wealth Americans, referred a reporter to an email address for Mr. Biden’s press office. That address matched one that campaign officials sent to members of the newly formed economic policy committee, with instructions to give it to reporters in the event of questions about Mr. Biden.
While it’s not clear exactly why the campaign is trying to keep things so quiet, one reason may be that Biden is increasingly reaching out to economists on the left, like Zucman, who the Times previous referred to as one of “the most polarizing economists in the 2020 campaign.” The other was Emmanuel Saez who, like Zucman, teaches at Berkeley. Together they were the behind Warren’s 2% wealth tax proposal.
So is Biden going to adopt Warren’s wealth tax? Is this a hint about who he’s going to select as his running-mate? It could be, but no one is talking.
And economic advisor to President Trump complained recently about Biden’s team of hidden advisors. “It is unethical to formally advise a candidate and publicly advocate the candidate’s views while concealing that relationship,” Kevin Hassett said. He added, “If he does have an economic team, then he should identify them. If he doesn’t identify them, then the advisers should, at the very least, identify themselves as Biden supporters when appearing in the media.”
A Biden spokesman replied, “Dr. Hassett and his boss should both spend less time griping over cable news coverage and more time trying to fix this mess they got us into.” I think the mess “they got us into” refers to the shutdown caused by the coronavirus which in turn damaged the economy? Remember just a few weeks ago when every Democrat was saying Trump should have shuttered the country sooner and was crazy to talk about reopening in May? Now all of the damage caused by the thing Democrats wanted more of is just Trump’s fault I guess.
Soon enough we’ll get a better idea how far left Biden is willing to move, but for now mums the word.


hotair--2020-06-11--Today's hot topics on #TEMS: American warlords, Biden's gourd, Dem mayoral accords,  cultural overlo

Today's hot topics on #TEMS: American warlords, Biden's gourd, Dem mayoral accords,  cultural overlords, and more!

Today on The Ed Morrissey Show ( 4 pm ET ) , we have another great lineup for the news of the day !
The show will be streamed on Hot Air ’ s Facebook page and embedded here and on the show page for those who are not on Facebook .
Join us as we welcome : • Duane “ Generalissimo ” Patterson brings us up to date on the week ’ s top stories and gives us a preview of tomorrow ’ s Hugh Hewitt show .
We ’ ll go over the latest on # DefundthePolice , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ruled by a warlord , Joe Biden ’ s latest conspiracy theory , and much much more !
• Plus , we ’ ll dedicate a little bit of time to the sudden demise of “ Live PD , ” and what it says about access and rule by cultural elites .
The Ed Morrissey Show and its dynamic chatroom can be seen on the permanent TEMS page .
Be sure to join us , and don ’ t forget to keep up with the debate on my Facebook page , too !
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ after 2016 ?
Find out in GOING RED , published in April from Crown Forum !

Today on The Ed Morrissey Show (4 pm ET), we have another great lineup for the news of the day! The show will be streamed on Hot Air’s Facebook page and embedded here and on the show page for those who are not on Facebook.
Join us as we welcome:
Duane “Generalissimo” Patterson brings us up to date on the week’s top stories and gives us a preview of tomorrow’s Hugh Hewitt show. We’ll go over the latest on #DefundthePolice, Seattle’s “autonomous zone” ruled by a warlord, Joe Biden’s latest conspiracy theory, and much much more!
Plus, we’ll dedicate a little bit of time to the sudden demise of “Live PD,” and what it says about access and rule by cultural elites.
The Ed Morrissey Show and its dynamic chatroom can be seen on the permanent TEMS page. Be sure to join us, and don’t forget to keep up with the debate on my Facebook page, too!
How can Republicans and conservatives keep winning after 2016? Find out in GOING RED, published in April from Crown Forum!


hotair--2020-06-11--Rubio to Zoom: Explain your interventions against China's critics -- here in the US

Has Zoom become a Trojan horse for China ’ s regime ?
More than two months after the FBI began issuing warnings about security risks with Zoom , the company now admits that it intentionally disrupted “ a few recent meetings ” involving critics of China .
The news affirms earlier suspicions that the popular video-conferencing platform might have been co-opted by the Xi Jinping regime in Beijing : Several prominent critics of the Chinese government , including protest leaders in Hong Kong and pro-democracy activists in the United States , have accused Zoom of shutting their accounts and severing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Beijing .
The three incidents are reviving concerns about the fast-growing Silicon Valley company ’ s susceptibility to Chinese government influence weeks after the firm began facing scrutiny over security , including its routing of data through China .
Coming in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic , the episode also highlights the world ’ s dependency on services such as Zoom and their ability to control speech .
Zoom on Thursday acknowledged that “ a few recent meetings ” related to China have been disrupted .
In each instance , event @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relied on Zoom in lieu of in-person events because of social distancing and travel restrictions .
And each of the Zoom accounts and events was created and hosted outside mainland China but appeared to be quashed under Chinese government pressure after they were publicly advertised .
The fact that Zoom admitted to this is fascinating enough .
At the beginning of April , when the FBI sent up warnings about pornographic Zoom-bombing , the Pentagon raised the potential threat that China might be exploiting the platform for its own ends .
The DoD @ @ @ @ @ @ @ military contractors , but others “ fact checked ” the idea that China was using the platform to spy on Americans and found the claim “ mostly false.
” Zoom announced new options for users to route their data around China in order to allay those fears .
Now it seems that those fact-checks blew it .
Two users impacted by Zoom ’ s disruptions live and work in the US , where they tried to set up meetings to commemorate the Tiananmen Square massacre : In the first week of June , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Zhou Fengsuo , a California-based Chinese dissident , days after he hosted a videoconference commemorating Beijing ’ s bloody crackdown in Tiananmen Square on June 4 , 1989 , according to Zhou .
And on June 3 , a separate Tiananmen commemoration was severed after the Zoom account that hosted it was deactivated midstream .
The live event that began with 200 participants suffered two disruptions that “ practically destroyed it , ” said one of the organizers , former Tiananmen student protest leader Wang Dan , who is based in Washington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ using Zoom to spy on Americans , doesn ’ t it ?
Perhaps PolitiFact ought to rethink its approach to these questions in the future .
Speaking of questions , Sen. Marco Rubio — now the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee — has a few for Zoom : Perhaps we ought to also ask just how reliable those options for routing meetings actually are .
I ’ d bet that the two US-based dissidents probably took care to keep the meetings from routing through China , and yet they got noticed anyway @ @ @ @ @ @ @ customers might want to take note of that , or at least those customers that stay with the platform after this .

Has Zoom become a Trojan horse for China’s regime? More than two months after the FBI began issuing warnings about security risks with Zoom, the company now admits that it intentionally disrupted “a few recent meetings” involving critics of China. The news affirms earlier suspicions that the popular video-conferencing platform might have been co-opted by the Xi Jinping regime in Beijing:
Several prominent critics of the Chinese government, including protest leaders in Hong Kong and pro-democracy activists in the United States, have accused Zoom of shutting their accounts and severing live events in recent weeks under pressure from Beijing. The three incidents are reviving concerns about the fast-growing Silicon Valley company’s susceptibility to Chinese government influence weeks after the firm began facing scrutiny over security, including its routing of data through China. Coming in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, the episode also highlights the world’s dependency on services such as Zoom and their ability to control speech. Zoom on Thursday acknowledged that “a few recent meetings” related to China have been disrupted. In each instance, event organizers told The Washington Post that they relied on Zoom in lieu of in-person events because of social distancing and travel restrictions. And each of the Zoom accounts and events was created and hosted outside mainland China but appeared to be quashed under Chinese government pressure after they were publicly advertised.
The fact that Zoom admitted to this is fascinating enough. At the beginning of April, when the FBI sent up warnings about pornographic Zoom-bombing, the Pentagon raised the potential threat that China might be exploiting the platform for its own ends. The DoD banned its use among the services and military contractors, but others “fact checked” the idea that China was using the platform to spy on Americans and found the claim “mostly false.” Zoom announced new options for users to route their data around China in order to allay those fears.
Now it seems that those fact-checks blew it. Two users impacted by Zoom’s disruptions live and work in the US, where they tried to set up meetings to commemorate the Tiananmen Square massacre:
In the first week of June, Zoom also shut down a private account of Zhou Fengsuo, a California-based Chinese dissident, days after he hosted a videoconference commemorating Beijing’s bloody crackdown in Tiananmen Square on June 4, 1989, according to Zhou. And on June 3, a separate Tiananmen commemoration was severed after the Zoom account that hosted it was deactivated midstream. The live event that began with 200 participants suffered two disruptions that “practically destroyed it,” said one of the organizers, former Tiananmen student protest leader Wang Dan, who is based in Washington.
That looks pretty suspiciously like China using Zoom to spy on Americans, doesn’t it? Perhaps PolitiFact ought to rethink its approach to these questions in the future.
Speaking of questions, Sen. Marco Rubio — now the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee — has a few for Zoom:
A few ?? for @zoom_us 1.What data do you routinely share with #China?https://t.co/DUxm1qt3oa you have a CCP branch in your company? 3.Which “local laws” are you complying with?https://t.co/2KSoX2KRCW many other accounts/events affected? https://t.co/UpmH1hvaWS — Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) June 11, 2020
Perhaps we ought to also ask just how reliable those options for routing meetings actually are. I’d bet that the two US-based dissidents probably took care to keep the meetings from routing through China, and yet they got noticed anyway. The rest of Zoom’s customers might want to take note of that, or at least those customers that stay with the platform after this.


hotair--2020-06-11--Cornell Prof. William Jacobson on the push to get him fired (or denounced)

Professor William Jacobson has been a thorn in the left ’ s collective side for years .
His blog Legal Insurrection has done some great original reporting over the years including reports last year on the legal battle between Gibson ’ s Bakery and Oberlin College .
But despite having blogged about hot-button topics since 2008 , Professor Jacobson has never had a push to get him fired or denounced like the one he says is taking place now .
Living as a conservative on a liberal campus is like being the mouse waiting for the cat to pounce .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ cat did not pounce .
Though there were frequent and aggressive attempts by outsiders to get me fired , including threats and harassment , it always came from off campus… Not until now , to the best of my knowledge , has there been an effort from inside the Cornell community to get me fired .
The impetus for the effort was two posts I wrote at Legal Insurrection regarding the history and tactics of the Black Lives Matter Movement : • Reminder : “ Hands up , don ’ t shoot ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Brown case ( June 4 , 2020 ) • The Bloodletting and Wilding Is Part of An Agenda To Tear Down The Country ( June 3 , 2020 ) Jacobson is of course correct about the history of “ Hands up , don ’ t shoot.
” That was a false claim ( among many false claims ) about the Michael Brown shooting .
But the fact that it was false doesn ’ t seem to matter to the protesters around the country who are still chanting it or to the media which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been fact-checked already .
It didn ’ t happen .
Despite this , the pushback started with a series of emails from law school alumni to the Dean of the law school .
Jacobson writes that the emails appear to be part of a coordinated effort because , “ some of the emails were in a template form.
” So far the Dean is defending Jacobson ’ s right to free speech .
Meanwhile , a group of colleagues co-signed a letter to the student paper which said in part : As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ racism in all its forms .
We are outraged by the murders of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor , and by the killings of countless other Black people who have lost their lives as a result of racialized violence .
We are also outraged by commentators , some of them attached to Ivy League Institutions , who are leading a smear campaign against Black Lives Matter .
In describing the protests , they deliberately use terms like “ wilding , ” a racially loaded term coined in 1989 to describe the imagined actions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wise , Kevin Richardson , Raymond Santana , Antron McCray and Yusef Salaam ) who were wrongly convicted and sentenced to lengthy prison terms for the assault of a White jogger .
These commentators express rage over the sporadic looting that has taken place amidst the largely peaceful protests , calling for organized manhunts to track down those responsible .
Theirs is a form of racism that gives cover to those police who use their batons and tear gas and rubber bullets and fists to silence and maim their critics .
While Jacobson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s pretty clear who they are talking about .
He adds that the Black Law Student Association has decided not to push for his ouster but only because they don ’ t want to bring more attention to his blog .
Instead they are seeking to have him denounced as a racist .
BLSA and other groups are working on their own effort against me .
Based on documents I ’ ve seen , there was consideration of demanding my firing , but it appears to have moved away from that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me fired , but “ because calling for his firing would only draw more attention to his blog and bolster his platform , and we do not want to give him that satisfaction.
” The plan is to call for “ the law school to unequivocally denounce his rhetoric , acknowledge the harm caused by subjecting students to his racist pedagogy , and critically examine the views of the people they employ as professors of the law.
” They plan to circulate the petition to the law school community and to “ inform @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rather than try to respond through the student paper , Jacobson suggested a representative from his critics should agree to hold a debate with him on the issue : In this toxic political environment in which intellectual diversity and differences of opinion are not tolerated , trying to shut down debate through false accusations of racism seems to be the preferred tactic .
I challenge a representative of those student groups and a faculty member of their choosing to a public debate at the law school regarding the Black Lives Matter Movement , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and confront the false allegations in real time rather than having to respond to baseless community email blasts .
I ask the law school to arrange an in-person live-streamed debate during fall term , or if for some reason the law school does not have in-person instruction , to arrange a ‘ virtual ’ format .
Will anyone step up to defend BLM ’ s honor ?
Maybe such a debate could actually bring some light to this subject .
Jacobson concludes we are living in times reminiscent of the Cultural Revolution in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dangerous times , reminiscent of the Chinese Communist Cultural Revolution , in which professors guilty of wrongthink were publicy denounced and fired at the behest of students who insisted on absolute ideological orthodoxy .
It ’ s a way of instilling terror in other students , faculty , staff , and society , so that others shut up and don ’ t voice dissenting views .
We are seeing monuments destroyed in Taliban-fashion because they represent an uncomfortable history , movies and TV shows cancelled , and individuals disappeared from employment due to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political culture .
Whether you agree with him or not , Professor Jacobson ought to have the right to his own opinions without the threat of being fired or denounced .
Here ’ s hoping the school will continue to defend his rights from those who would seek to punish him for his refusal to kowtow to the new orthodoxy .

Professor William Jacobson has been a thorn in the left’s collective side for years. His blog Legal Insurrection has done some great original reporting over the years including reports last year on the legal battle between Gibson’s Bakery and Oberlin College. But despite having blogged about hot-button topics since 2008, Professor Jacobson has never had a push to get him fired or denounced like the one he says is taking place now.
Living as a conservative on a liberal campus is like being the mouse waiting for the cat to pounce. For over 12 years, the Cornell cat did not pounce. Though there were frequent and aggressive attempts by outsiders to get me fired, including threats and harassment, it always came from off campus… Not until now, to the best of my knowledge, has there been an effort from inside the Cornell community to get me fired. The impetus for the effort was two posts I wrote at Legal Insurrection regarding the history and tactics of the Black Lives Matter Movement: Reminder: “Hands up, don’t shoot” is a fabricated narrative from the Michael Brown case (June 4, 2020)
The Bloodletting and Wilding Is Part of An Agenda To Tear Down The Country (June 3, 2020)
Jacobson is of course correct about the history of “Hands up, don’t shoot.” That was a false claim (among many false claims) about the Michael Brown shooting. But the fact that it was false doesn’t seem to matter to the protesters around the country who are still chanting it or to the media which never seems interested in reminding people this has been fact-checked already. It didn’t happen.
Despite this, the pushback started with a series of emails from law school alumni to the Dean of the law school. Jacobson writes that the emails appear to be part of a coordinated effort because, “some of the emails were in a template form.” So far the Dean is defending Jacobson’s right to free speech. Meanwhile, a group of colleagues co-signed a letter to the student paper which said in part:
As individuals and as professors, we oppose racism in all its forms. We are outraged by the murders of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, and by the killings of countless other Black people who have lost their lives as a result of racialized violence. We are also outraged by commentators, some of them attached to Ivy League Institutions, who are leading a smear campaign against Black Lives Matter. In describing the protests, they deliberately use terms like “wilding,” a racially loaded term coined in 1989 to describe the imagined actions of five innocent Black teenagers (Korey Wise, Kevin Richardson, Raymond Santana, Antron McCray and Yusef Salaam) who were wrongly convicted and sentenced to lengthy prison terms for the assault of a White jogger. These commentators express rage over the sporadic looting that has taken place amidst the largely peaceful protests, calling for organized manhunts to track down those responsible. Theirs is a form of racism that gives cover to those police who use their batons and tear gas and rubber bullets and fists to silence and maim their critics.
While Jacobson isn’t mentioned by name, it’s pretty clear who they are talking about. He adds that the Black Law Student Association has decided not to push for his ouster but only because they don’t want to bring more attention to his blog. Instead they are seeking to have him denounced as a racist.
BLSA and other groups are working on their own effort against me. Based on documents I’ve seen, there was consideration of demanding my firing, but it appears to have moved away from that not because they don’t want me fired, but “because calling for his firing would only draw more attention to his blog and bolster his platform, and we do not want to give him that satisfaction.” The plan is to call for “the law school to unequivocally denounce his rhetoric, acknowledge the harm caused by subjecting students to his racist pedagogy, and critically examine the views of the people they employ as professors of the law.” They plan to circulate the petition to the law school community and to “inform incoming students” of the situation.
Rather than try to respond through the student paper, Jacobson suggested a representative from his critics should agree to hold a debate with him on the issue:
In this toxic political environment in which intellectual diversity and differences of opinion are not tolerated, trying to shut down debate through false accusations of racism seems to be the preferred tactic. I challenge a representative of those student groups and a faculty member of their choosing to a public debate at the law school regarding the Black Lives Matter Movement, so that I can present my argument and confront the false allegations in real time rather than having to respond to baseless community email blasts. I ask the law school to arrange an in-person live-streamed debate during fall term, or if for some reason the law school does not have in-person instruction, to arrange a ‘virtual’ format.
Will anyone step up to defend BLM’s honor? Maybe such a debate could actually bring some light to this subject. Jacobson concludes we are living in times reminiscent of the Cultural Revolution in China.
We are living in extraordinarily dangerous times, reminiscent of the Chinese Communist Cultural Revolution, in which professors guilty of wrongthink were publicy denounced and fired at the behest of students who insisted on absolute ideological orthodoxy. It’s a way of instilling terror in other students, faculty, staff, and society, so that others shut up and don’t voice dissenting views. We are seeing monuments destroyed in Taliban-fashion because they represent an uncomfortable history, movies and TV shows cancelled, and individuals disappeared from employment due to even the slightest deviation from the prevailing political culture.
Whether you agree with him or not, Professor Jacobson ought to have the right to his own opinions without the threat of being fired or denounced. Here’s hoping the school will continue to defend his rights from those who would seek to punish him for his refusal to kowtow to the new orthodoxy.


hotair--2020-06-11--Biden: You'd better believe the military will have to force Trump out of the White House, or somethi

Biden: You'd better believe the military will have to force Trump out of the White House, or something

What is Joe Biden ’ s greatest concern in 2020 — the COVID-19 pandemic that ’ s kept him locked in his basement ?
Economic disaster from the shutdown ?
China ?
( That ’ s too much to ask , I know… ) Anything to do with the issues that impact voters ’ lives ?
Not really , no .
Joe Biden ’ s greatest concern in 2020 is that Donald Trump will act like … [ checks notes ] … Hillary Clinton and Stacey Abrams .
Trump refusing to accept the results of the upcoming election is “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told The Daily Show ’ s Trevor Noah .
However , Biden promises that Trump ’ s perp walk by the military will make it all worth it , or something : “ This president is going to try to steal this election , ” Biden said in an interview on “ The Daily Show with Trevor Noah.
” The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee said of ensuring that the voting process is fair : “ It ’ s my greatest concern .
My single greatest concern.
” Biden was also asked whether he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wins but Trump refuses to leave office .
The interview appeared to be edited at that point , but Biden resumed by speaking about the number of high-ranking former military officers who spoke out over the past week about Trump ’ s response to the protests .
“ I ’ m promise you , I ’ m absolutely convinced they will escort him from the White House with great dispatch , ” Biden said .
Not accepting the results of an election , you say ?
Isn ’ t Stacey Abrams still on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Actually , maybe not : Jim Geraghty thinks that Team Biden might have lost interest after Abrams ’ superhero-coverage stunt at the Washington Post .
The truth might be more direct , given Biden ’ s continued flogging of nutcase conspiracy theories about Trump .
Two months ago , Biden was insisting that Trump would postpone or cancel the election , even though Trump has no authority to do either .
For a national media obsessed with fact-checking , Jonathan Turley noted at the time , journalists seemed oddly uninterested in challenging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from this edit of the segment , it doesn ’ t look as though Noah was particularly interested in pushing back against Biden , either .
What evidence does Biden have that Trump won ’ t respect the outcome of an election ?
Because we have plenty of evidence from Democrats since 2016 of that very sin .
Hillary Clinton has spent the last three-plus years claiming she was robbed by an ever-shifting series of mechanisms .
Had she been an incumbent president in January 2017 , that evidence suggests more strongly than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been needed to oust her from the Oval Office .
The Democrats ’ pursuit of the nonsensical Russia-collusion theory without any evidentiary basis whatsoever also provides a lot more evidence of their propensity for delegitimizing election results , too .
As for Abrams , delegitimizing an election result provides her only national platform .
If Biden plans to flog this paranoid-conspiracy theory any further , having the Queen of Delegitimization as a running mate might be soooo hypocritical that even the mainstream media might have to take notice of it .
As it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Abrams shows enough hypocrisy that the lack of a challenge from Noah and other journalists speaks very loudly on bias .

What is Joe Biden’s greatest concern in 2020 — the COVID-19 pandemic that’s kept him locked in his basement? Economic disaster from the shutdown? China? (That’s too much to ask, I know…) Anything to do with the issues that impact voters’ lives?
Not really, no. Joe Biden’s greatest concern in 2020 is that Donald Trump will act like … [checks notes] … Hillary Clinton and Stacey Abrams. Trump refusing to accept the results of the upcoming election is “my single greatest concern,” Biden told The Daily Show’s Trevor Noah. However, Biden promises that Trump’s perp walk by the military will make it all worth it, or something:
“This president is going to try to steal this election,” Biden said in an interview on “The Daily Show with Trevor Noah.” The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee said of ensuring that the voting process is fair: “It’s my greatest concern. My single greatest concern.” Biden was also asked whether he has considered what would happen if he wins but Trump refuses to leave office. “Yes, I have,” he said quickly. The interview appeared to be edited at that point, but Biden resumed by speaking about the number of high-ranking former military officers who spoke out over the past week about Trump’s response to the protests. “I’m promise you, I’m absolutely convinced they will escort him from the White House with great dispatch,” Biden said.
Not accepting the results of an election, you say? Isn’t Stacey Abrams still on Joe Biden’s running-mate short list? Actually, maybe not:
On @colbertlateshow, @StaceyAbrams says she has not received any calls about being vetted as @JoeBiden's running mate. “I have said many times that if called I will answer, but I've not received any calls." (h/t @AnnieGrayerCNN) — Sarah Mucha (@sarahmucha) June 11, 2020
Jim Geraghty thinks that Team Biden might have lost interest after Abrams’ superhero-coverage stunt at the Washington Post. The truth might be more direct, given Biden’s continued flogging of nutcase conspiracy theories about Trump. Two months ago, Biden was insisting that Trump would postpone or cancel the election, even though Trump has no authority to do either. For a national media obsessed with fact-checking, Jonathan Turley noted at the time, journalists seemed oddly uninterested in challenging Biden on this point.
At least from this edit of the segment, it doesn’t look as though Noah was particularly interested in pushing back against Biden, either. What evidence does Biden have that Trump won’t respect the outcome of an election? Because we have plenty of evidence from Democrats since 2016 of that very sin. Hillary Clinton has spent the last three-plus years claiming she was robbed by an ever-shifting series of mechanisms. Had she been an incumbent president in January 2017, that evidence suggests more strongly than with Trump that the military would have been needed to oust her from the Oval Office. The Democrats’ pursuit of the nonsensical Russia-collusion theory without any evidentiary basis whatsoever also provides a lot more evidence of their propensity for delegitimizing election results, too.
As for Abrams, delegitimizing an election result provides her only national platform. If Biden plans to flog this paranoid-conspiracy theory any further, having the Queen of Delegitimization as a running mate might be soooo hypocritical that even the mainstream media might have to take notice of it. As it is, Biden’s footsie with Abrams shows enough hypocrisy that the lack of a challenge from Noah and other journalists speaks very loudly on bias.


hotair--2020-06-11--Mark Milley: I apologize for participating in Trump's Lafayette Park photo op; <span class='red'>Upd

Mark Milley: I apologize for participating in Trump's Lafayette Park photo op; Update: Tom Cotton "commends"

This is something else .
He ’ s entirely right that he shouldn ’ t have been there , but it ’ s not entirely right for him to be second-guessing the commander-in-chief in public this way .
“ My presence in that moment and in that environment created a perception of the military involved in domestic politics , ” he says , correctly .
It was the sight of Milley , in battle dress no less , strolling along behind Trump after the Park Police cleared Lafayette Square of protesters that reportedly made James Mattis flip his lid and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Milley already had an uneasy relationship dating to Mattis ’ s time as SecDef but watching Milley lend military muscle to Trump ’ s threat to send regular troops into American cities to confront looters was the last straw .
“ Never did I dream that troops taking that same oath would be ordered under any circumstance to violate the Constitutional rights of their fellow citizens , ” wrote Mattis of the presence of the National Guard in the park , “ much less to provide a bizarre photo op for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alongside.
” Milley ’ s gotten something of a bad rap for his role in that pageant , though .
A defense official told NBC that he and Mark Esper were en route to the FBI ’ s D.C. field office on that Monday afternoon to monitor protests with Bill Barr and Chris Wray when they were told to head to the White House to brief Trump .
After the briefing , Trump walked out to the Rose Garden to rhetorically rattle his saber at rioters and then proceeded into Lafayette Square and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ According to NBC ’ s source , Esper and Milley thought “ they were going into Lafayette Park to review the efforts of the troops.
” Little did they know Trump wanted them in tow as he symbolically reclaimed territory lost to protesters and then waved the Bible around .
It ’ s possible that that ’ s a lie , that Esper and Milley knew what they were in for and went along , concocting a self-serving story later about how they had been shanghaied by Trump into the photo op .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s true .
There were many reports last week of a shouting match between Trump and Milley in the days before the photo op in which Milley refused to send regular troops against American citizens .
( “ I ’ m not doing that , ” he allegedly said .
“ That ’ s for law enforcement.
” ) If Milley was willing to say no to the boss privately about using the Insurrection Act , it ’ d be strange for him to want to lend military symbolism to Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Insurrection Act just days later .
The Times says Milley has been stewing about his role in the stunt since it happened , amid loads of criticism from respected retired officers like Mattis , Mike Mullen , and James Stavridis : General Milley ’ s friends said that for the past 10 days , he has been agonized about appearing — in the combat fatigues he wears every day to work — behind Mr. Trump during the walk across Lafayette Square , an act that critics said gave a stamp of military approval @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the protesters .
The general believed that he was accompanying Mr. Trump and his entourage to review National Guard troops and other law enforcement personnel outside Lafayette Square , Defense Department officials said .
In the days after the photo op , General Milley told Mr. Trump that he was angered by what had happened .
“ Maybe the image of Milley in battle fatigues outside the White House was just a passing moment , or maybe it will turn out to be the first in a series of pictures in some future @ @ @ @ @ @ @ democracy , ” said Robert Kagan last week .
That ’ s not the legacy Milley wants .
Hence today ’ s video .
Of course , not everyone is willing to accept his apology : The arresting thing about the clip is that it ’ s sure to irritate Trump .
Here ’ s the country ’ s top officer insisting that his role in the commander-in-chief ’ s photo op was regrettable .
I don ’ t think there ’ s any violation of rules or regulations in that ( although @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but it ’ s not a great look , especially when in uniform .
The UCMJ forbids soldiers from uttering “ contemptuous ” words about the president but nothing Milley says here quite rises to the level of “ contempt.
” The Code also forbids insubordination , of course , but Milley didn ’ t defy any orders from Trump as far as we know .
He did in fact make the walk across Lafayette Square with him .
( I doubt Trump actually gave him a formal order to accompany him in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Milley never uses Trump ’ s name or blames him for what happened in the square ; he ’ s apologizing for a decision he made himself to participate in it .
But in context he ’ s condemning the whole point of the photo op , which was to show that Trump was willing to use force to get rough with protesters who weren ’ t breaking any laws .
The National Guard helped clear the square , then the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff symbolically helped reclaim it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that ’ s what Milley ’ s now condemning .
It ’ s a deliberate repudiation of , and embarrassment to , the president .
Why didn ’ t Milley resign ?
Or is he hoping Trump will fire him ?
Update : Gon na give Tom Cotton an “ A ” for effort in trying to spin Milley ’ s statement as something that Trump might welcome rather than bristle at .
“ I know one thing Gen. Milley regrets is that he was at the White House in his camouflage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an interview with Fox News ’ Ed Henry and Sandra Smith .
“ By custom and courtesy , military officers always wear dress uniforms there.
” … “ He is acting in the finest traditions of military leadership , and he is taking responsibility not just for the reality , but for perceptions , ” Cotton said .
“ And if he thinks that perceptions reflected negatively on the commander in chief all the way down to our young troops who were out in Lafayette Park or on the streets of Washington , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s going to take responsibility for it as a military leader .
I commend him for that , and we all should.
” Milley doesn ’ t regret wearing his fatigues because he was underdressed for the White House , he regrets wearing them because they suggested he was preparing to do battle with Americans — which Trump doubtless loved .
And Milley didn ’ t apologize for his role in the Lafayette Park photo op because his participation reflected badly on Trump , he apologized because it reflected badly on the military @ @ @ @ @ @ @ m sure , to have a powerful general at his side offering symbolic approval as the Park Police and the National Guard ran demonstrators out of the square .
Cotton knows all that .
Either he ’ s trying to straddle both sides here , defending both Trump and Milley , or he ’ s trying to convince the president not to fire Milley by going on his favorite TV network to float this spin .

This is something else. He’s entirely right that he shouldn’t have been there, but it’s not entirely right for him to be second-guessing the commander-in-chief in public this way.
General Mark Milley apologizes for taking part in Trump’s Bible photo op outside the White House: “I should not have been there…It was a mistake.” pic.twitter.com/h8PIunEOCP — Keith Boykin (@keithboykin) June 11, 2020
“My presence in that moment and in that environment created a perception of the military involved in domestic politics,” he says, correctly. It was the sight of Milley, in battle dress no less, strolling along behind Trump after the Park Police cleared Lafayette Square of protesters that reportedly made James Mattis flip his lid and issue his statement denouncing Trump. He and Milley already had an uneasy relationship dating to Mattis’s time as SecDef but watching Milley lend military muscle to Trump’s threat to send regular troops into American cities to confront looters was the last straw. “Never did I dream that troops taking that same oath would be ordered under any circumstance to violate the Constitutional rights of their fellow citizens,” wrote Mattis of the presence of the National Guard in the park, “much less to provide a bizarre photo op for the elected commander-in-chief, with military leadership standing alongside.”
Milley’s gotten something of a bad rap for his role in that pageant, though. A defense official told NBC that he and Mark Esper were en route to the FBI’s D.C. field office on that Monday afternoon to monitor protests with Bill Barr and Chris Wray when they were told to head to the White House to brief Trump. After the briefing, Trump walked out to the Rose Garden to rhetorically rattle his saber at rioters and then proceeded into Lafayette Square and ultimately St. John’s church. According to NBC’s source, Esper and Milley thought “they were going into Lafayette Park to review the efforts of the troops.” Little did they know Trump wanted them in tow as he symbolically reclaimed territory lost to protesters and then waved the Bible around.
It’s possible that that’s a lie, that Esper and Milley knew what they were in for and went along, concocting a self-serving story later about how they had been shanghaied by Trump into the photo op. But it’s also possible that it’s true. There were many reports last week of a shouting match between Trump and Milley in the days before the photo op in which Milley refused to send regular troops against American citizens. (“I’m not doing that,” he allegedly said. “That’s for law enforcement.”) If Milley was willing to say no to the boss privately about using the Insurrection Act, it’d be strange for him to want to lend military symbolism to Trump’s public threat to use the Insurrection Act just days later.
The Times says Milley has been stewing about his role in the stunt since it happened, amid loads of criticism from respected retired officers like Mattis, Mike Mullen, and James Stavridis:
General Milley’s friends said that for the past 10 days, he has been agonized about appearing — in the combat fatigues he wears every day to work — behind Mr. Trump during the walk across Lafayette Square, an act that critics said gave a stamp of military approval to the hard-line tactics used to clear the protesters. The general believed that he was accompanying Mr. Trump and his entourage to review National Guard troops and other law enforcement personnel outside Lafayette Square, Defense Department officials said. In the days after the photo op, General Milley told Mr. Trump that he was angered by what had happened.
“Maybe the image of Milley in battle fatigues outside the White House was just a passing moment, or maybe it will turn out to be the first in a series of pictures in some future history text about the undermining of American democracy,” said Robert Kagan last week. That’s not the legacy Milley wants. Hence today’s video.
Of course, not everyone is willing to accept his apology:
What is he talking about it? There wasn’t a “perception” that the military was involved in domestic politics. The military was knee deep. National Guard troops were everywhere. Recon planes were flying overhead. Milley was marching through the streets overseeing it all. https://t.co/vaJguAxjyK — Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) June 11, 2020
The arresting thing about the clip is that it’s sure to irritate Trump. Here’s the country’s top officer insisting that his role in the commander-in-chief’s photo op was regrettable. I don’t think there’s any violation of rules or regulations in that (although I invite vets to correct me) but it’s not a great look, especially when in uniform. The UCMJ forbids soldiers from uttering “contemptuous” words about the president but nothing Milley says here quite rises to the level of “contempt.” The Code also forbids insubordination, of course, but Milley didn’t defy any orders from Trump as far as we know. He did in fact make the walk across Lafayette Square with him. (I doubt Trump actually gave him a formal order to accompany him in the first place.) In fact, Milley never uses Trump’s name or blames him for what happened in the square; he’s apologizing for a decision he made himself to participate in it.
But in context he’s condemning the whole point of the photo op, which was to show that Trump was willing to use force to get rough with protesters who weren’t breaking any laws. The National Guard helped clear the square, then the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff symbolically helped reclaim it. That’s what Trump wanted, that’s what Milley’s now condemning. It’s a deliberate repudiation of, and embarrassment to, the president. Why didn’t Milley resign? Or is he hoping Trump will fire him?
Update: Gonna give Tom Cotton an “A” for effort in trying to spin Milley’s statement as something that Trump might welcome rather than bristle at.
“I know one thing Gen. Milley regrets is that he was at the White House in his camouflage utility uniform,” Cotton said in an interview with Fox News’ Ed Henry and Sandra Smith. “By custom and courtesy, military officers always wear dress uniforms there.”… “He is acting in the finest traditions of military leadership, and he is taking responsibility not just for the reality, but for perceptions,” Cotton said. “And if he thinks that perceptions reflected negatively on the commander in chief all the way down to our young troops who were out in Lafayette Park or on the streets of Washington, D.C. last week, then he’s going to take responsibility for it as a military leader. I commend him for that, and we all should.”
Milley doesn’t regret wearing his fatigues because he was underdressed for the White House, he regrets wearing them because they suggested he was preparing to do battle with Americans — which Trump doubtless loved. And Milley didn’t apologize for his role in the Lafayette Park photo op because his participation reflected badly on Trump, he apologized because it reflected badly on the military. Trump was thrilled, I’m sure, to have a powerful general at his side offering symbolic approval as the Park Police and the National Guard ran demonstrators out of the square.
Cotton knows all that. Either he’s trying to straddle both sides here, defending both Trump and Milley, or he’s trying to convince the president not to fire Milley by going on his favorite TV network to float this spin.


hotair--2020-06-11--How 'Paw Patrol' became a focus of controversy over 'Defund the Police'

The media has taken great pains to clean up after the protesters .
In today ’ s NY Times , Columnist Nicholas Kristof has another in a now fashionable line of media explainers which attempts to soften and explain the meaning of “ defund the police.
” “ Defund the police ” is a catchy phrase , but some Americans hear it and imagine a home invasion , a frantic call to 911 — and then no one answering the phone .
That ’ s not going to happen .
Rather , here ’ s a reassuring example of how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then points to the decriminalization of drugs in Portugal in the late 90s as an example of the kind outside-the-box thinking “ defund the police ” supposedly represents .
Even if you disagree with the specific example he ’ s offering , the takeaway is that “ defund the police ” isn ’ t at all what it sounds like .
It ’ s just a way to frame creative new thinking which could actually bring about some improvements in policing .
Relax , citizens .
All is well .
As Jesse Singal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really this thoughtful and creative , why don ’ t they start by fixing the stupid and misleading slogan they ’ ve adopted : But it turns out some protesters really do want to kick puppies , at least cartoon cop puppies .
Yesterday the Times ’ pop culture critic wrote about increasing pressure on television producers to eliminate any and all positive depictions of police , including from a children ’ s show called “ Paw Patrol.
” “ Paw Patrol ” is a children ’ s cartoon about a squad of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pretense for placing household pets in a variety of cool trucks .
The team includes Marshall , a firefighting Dalmatian ; Rubble , a bulldog construction worker ; and Chase , a German shepherd who is also a cop .
In the world of “ Paw Patrol , ” Chase is drawn to be a very good boy who barks stuff like “ Chase is on the case !
” and “ All in a police pup ’ s day !
” as he rescues kittens in his tricked-out S.U.V .
But last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ official Twitter account put out a bland call for “ Black voices to be heard , ” commenters came after Chase .
“ Euthanize the police dog , ” they said .
“ Defund the paw patrol.
” “ All dogs go to heaven , except the class traitors in the Paw Patrol.
” It ’ s a joke , but it ’ s also not .
As the protests against racist police violence enter their third week , the charges are mounting against fictional cops , too .
Even big-hearted cartoon police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police dogs — are on notice .
Some on the right picked up on the attacks on Paw Patrol as an example of how silly and extreme the anti-police left has become : Rep. Kevin McCarthy even mentioned it on Hannity last night .
There are apparently no plans to actually cancel Paw Patrol , and some are already saying that Republicans were taken in by what was always meant to be dark humor , i.e .
no one calling to get rid of the cartoon cop really meant it .
I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but in any case , the pushback on Paw Patrol is far from the only evidence that actual pushback on cop shows exists .
Last week , Tom Scharpling , an executive producer of “ Monk , ” criticized his own show on Twitter : “ If you — as I have — worked on a TV show or movie in which police are portrayed as lovable goofballs , you have contributed to the larger acceptance that cops are implicitly the good guys.
” Griffin Newman , an actor who appeared in two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a detective , donated his $ 11,000 in earnings to a bail fund , inspiring other actors who have played cops to do the same .
LEGO has halted marketing on its “ LEGO City Police Station ” and “ Police Highway Arrest ” sets .
A & E has pulled its reality show “ Live PD ” from the schedule .
On Tuesday night , “ Cops , ” the show that branded suspects as “ bad boys ” and spawned the whole genre of crime reality television , was canceled after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the cancellation of Live PD earlier today .
So even if you put Paw Patrol aside , the pushback on positive depictions of police is real .
I wrote about another sincere piece making the case a week ago that all cop shows should be cancelled .
The protesters don ’ t want to just defund the police in the real world , they really do want to make sure police aren ’ t portrayed as heroic in the fictional world of television too .
And that should tell you something about where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” is coming from .
This isn ’ t just about coming up with creative new approaches to policing , this is about depicting police as the problem .

The media has taken great pains to clean up after the protesters. In today’s NY Times, Columnist Nicholas Kristof has another in a now fashionable line of media explainers which attempts to soften and explain the meaning of “defund the police.”
“Defund the police” is a catchy phrase, but some Americans hear it and imagine a home invasion, a frantic call to 911 — and then no one answering the phone. That’s not going to happen. Rather, here’s a reassuring example of how defunding has worked in practice.
He then points to the decriminalization of drugs in Portugal in the late 90s as an example of the kind outside-the-box thinking “defund the police” supposedly represents. Even if you disagree with the specific example he’s offering, the takeaway is that “defund the police” isn’t at all what it sounds like. It’s just a way to frame creative new thinking which could actually bring about some improvements in policing. Relax, citizens. All is well.
As Jesse Singal pointed out yesterday, if protesters are really this thoughtful and creative, why don’t they start by fixing the stupid and misleading slogan they’ve adopted:
Me: KICK PUPPIES! Everyone: That's a horrible slogan! Why would you say that? Me: Nononononono, the point isn't to 'kick' 'puppies' — it's far more subtle than that. Read these 10 links explaining what the phrase REALLY means. This will get you on my side, I'm sure — Jesse Singal (@jessesingal) June 10, 2020
But it turns out some protesters really do want to kick puppies, at least cartoon cop puppies. Yesterday the Times’ pop culture critic wrote about increasing pressure on television producers to eliminate any and all positive depictions of police, including from a children’s show called “Paw Patrol.”
“Paw Patrol” is a children’s cartoon about a squad of canine helpers. It is basically a pretense for placing household pets in a variety of cool trucks. The team includes Marshall, a firefighting Dalmatian; Rubble, a bulldog construction worker; and Chase, a German shepherd who is also a cop. In the world of “Paw Patrol,” Chase is drawn to be a very good boy who barks stuff like “Chase is on the case!” and “All in a police pup’s day!” as he rescues kittens in his tricked-out S.U.V. But last week, when the show’s official Twitter account put out a bland call for “Black voices to be heard,” commenters came after Chase. “Euthanize the police dog,” they said. “Defund the paw patrol.” “All dogs go to heaven, except the class traitors in the Paw Patrol.” It’s a joke, but it’s also not. As the protests against racist police violence enter their third week, the charges are mounting against fictional cops, too. Even big-hearted cartoon police dogs — or maybe especially big-hearted cartoon police dogs — are on notice.
Some on the right picked up on the attacks on Paw Patrol as an example of how silly and extreme the anti-police left has become:
This is beyond parody. https://t.co/DMhEMWi3FL — Megyn Kelly (@megynkelly) June 10, 2020
Rep. Kevin McCarthy even mentioned it on Hannity last night.
You know Democrats have really lost it when the two pillars of their police reform plans are:
1. Defunding Police.
2. Banning Paw Patrol. pic.twitter.com/19c0nR0vzG — Kevin McCarthy (@GOPLeader) June 11, 2020
There are apparently no plans to actually cancel Paw Patrol, and some are already saying that Republicans were taken in by what was always meant to be dark humor, i.e. no one calling to get rid of the cartoon cop really meant it. I’m not convinced that’s true but in any case, the pushback on Paw Patrol is far from the only evidence that actual pushback on cop shows exists.
Ed just wrote about the cancellation of Live PD earlier today. So even if you put Paw Patrol aside, the pushback on positive depictions of police is real. I wrote about another sincere piece making the case a week ago that all cop shows should be cancelled. The protesters don’t want to just defund the police in the real world, they really do want to make sure police aren’t portrayed as heroic in the fictional world of television too. And that should tell you something about where the the push to “defund police” is coming from. This isn’t just about coming up with creative new approaches to policing, this is about depicting police as the problem.


hotair--2020-06-11--So long, <i>Live PD</i> -- and viewer choice

First they came for Gone with the Wind and I said nothing , mainly because Gone with the Wind is overrated and antiquated trash , but also because it hasn ’ t disappeared .
No matter whether HBO Max decides to stream it , the film is still widely available to anyone who wants to waste four hours of their lives on it .
Then they came for Live PD , which does nothing more than point cameras in real time at law enforcement , and I said … huh ?
A & E canceled their top-rated show , practically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matter much any more : A & E has canceled its flagship series and one of the highest-rated shows on basic cable .
A week after Live P.D .
was pulled in the wake of George Floyd ’ s death , the reality series ’ hiatus has been made permanent .
The decision was made jointly by A & E and MGM ’ s Big Fish Entertainment , which produces the series .
“ This is a critical time in our nation ’ s history and we have made the decision to cease @ @ @ @ @ @ @ network said in a statement to Deadline .
“ Going forward , we will determine if there is a clear pathway to tell the stories of both the community and the police officers whose role it is to serve them .
And with that , we will be meeting with community and civil rights leaders as well as police departments.
” Full disclosure : I am , or rather was , a big fan of Live PD and its offshoots , Live PD Cam and Live PD Wanted .
Not only did I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hosts of the show — Dan Abrams and former law-enforcement officers Tom Morris Jr and Sean “ Sticks ” Larkin — I found it very educational as well .
For instance , the unreasonableness of the force used against George Floyd is even more stark after watching other law-enforcement officers routinely deal with detainees , even those who resist arrest .
The transparency the show provided on day-to-day law enforcement had a value beyond its ratings .
And don ’ t forget about all the missing children that Live PD featured and helped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s talk about the ratings too , which are the lifeblood of TV entertainment and income .
Supposedly , the issue was that neither the channel nor the production company could see “ any path forward ” for doing a show that only had to point cameras in real time at police work that would take place with or without the cameras present , and which had a proven vast and loyal audience .
Cops is a somewhat different case , in that it tapes the interactions and edits them later into episodes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with narrative over immediacy and transparency .
And people watched it in droves , creating a loyal fan base .
It must have made A & E tons of money , and for a relatively moderate investment .
If the ratings and loyal viewer base disappeared because of the anger over the George Floyd homicide , then cancellation would be understandable .
It ’ s still an open question as to whether people might lose their taste for the show after all of the unrest of the last couple of weeks .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make that decision on their own ?
If the ratings collapsed , then the “ no way forward ” conclusion might make sense .
The obvious conclusion is that ratings and viewers don ’ t actually matter to A & E .
Or , perhaps more accurately , ratings and viewers matter less to A & E than pretensions to “ wokeness.
” And in this case , education and transparency regarding law enforcement will lose out to corporate virtue-signaling .
Abrams apparently got blindsided by the decision , and was understandably upset @ @ @ @ @ @ @ delivered the ratings and the viewer loyalty that any network would desire : Maybe another cable network might enjoy that viewer base and ratings .
Don ’ t bet on it , though , because we ’ re in for a long season of our cultural elites dictating to us what we should watch , read , and believe .
Addendum : No really , Gone with the Wind is a terrible film with the most annoying protagonist in supposedly “ classic ” cinema , not to mention its “ Lost Cause ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Its source material , Margaret Mitchell ’ s novel , is even worse on all counts .
But I ’ d fight for the right of anyone who wanted to watch/read them to have access to to both .
Besides , I routinely rewatch Battlefield Earth as one of the better unintentional comedies of the last generation .
Your tastes might vary , which is the point .

First they came for Gone with the Wind and I said nothing, mainly because Gone with the Wind is overrated and antiquated trash, but also because it hasn’t disappeared. No matter whether HBO Max decides to stream it, the film is still widely available to anyone who wants to waste four hours of their lives on it. Then they came for Live PD, which does nothing more than point cameras in real time at law enforcement, and I said … huh?
A&E canceled their top-rated show, practically their tentpole, because ratings must not matter much any more:
A&E has canceled its flagship series and one of the highest-rated shows on basic cable. A week after Live P.D. was pulled in the wake of George Floyd’s death, the reality series’ hiatus has been made permanent. The decision was made jointly by A&E and MGM’s Big Fish Entertainment, which produces the series. “This is a critical time in our nation’s history and we have made the decision to cease production on Live PD,” the network said in a statement to Deadline. “Going forward, we will determine if there is a clear pathway to tell the stories of both the community and the police officers whose role it is to serve them. And with that, we will be meeting with community and civil rights leaders as well as police departments.”
Full disclosure: I am, or rather was, a big fan of Live PD and its offshoots, Live PD Cam and Live PD Wanted. Not only did I find it entertaining, thanks to the hosts of the show — Dan Abrams and former law-enforcement officers Tom Morris Jr and Sean “Sticks” Larkin — I found it very educational as well. For instance, the unreasonableness of the force used against George Floyd is even more stark after watching other law-enforcement officers routinely deal with detainees, even those who resist arrest. The transparency the show provided on day-to-day law enforcement had a value beyond its ratings. And don’t forget about all the missing children that Live PD featured and helped find, too.
But let’s talk about the ratings too, which are the lifeblood of TV entertainment and income. Supposedly, the issue was that neither the channel nor the production company could see “any path forward” for doing a show that only had to point cameras in real time at police work that would take place with or without the cameras present, and which had a proven vast and loyal audience. Cops is a somewhat different case, in that it tapes the interactions and edits them later into episodes. Live PD‘s structure dispensed with narrative over immediacy and transparency. And people watched it in droves, creating a loyal fan base. It must have made A&E tons of money, and for a relatively moderate investment.
If the ratings and loyal viewer base disappeared because of the anger over the George Floyd homicide, then cancellation would be understandable. It’s still an open question as to whether people might lose their taste for the show after all of the unrest of the last couple of weeks. But why not wait to let the viewers make that decision on their own? If the ratings collapsed, then the “no way forward” conclusion might make sense.
The obvious conclusion is that ratings and viewers don’t actually matter to A&E. Or, perhaps more accurately, ratings and viewers matter less to A&E than pretensions to “wokeness.” And in this case, education and transparency regarding law enforcement will lose out to corporate virtue-signaling.
Abrams apparently got blindsided by the decision, and was understandably upset by it. After all, he delivered the ratings and the viewer loyalty that any network would desire:
Shocked & beyond disappointed about this. To the loyal #LivePDNation please know I, we, did everything we could to fight for you, and for our continuing effort at transparency in policing. I was convinced the show would go on. . More to come. . .https://t.co/WWh7fDrig2 — Dan Abrams (@danabrams) June 11, 2020
Maybe another cable network might enjoy that viewer base and ratings. Don’t bet on it, though, because we’re in for a long season of our cultural elites dictating to us what we should watch, read, and believe.
Addendum: No really, Gone with the Wind is a terrible film with the most annoying protagonist in supposedly “classic” cinema, not to mention its “Lost Cause” sympathies and glossing over of slavery. Its source material, Margaret Mitchell’s novel, is even worse on all counts. But I’d fight for the right of anyone who wanted to watch/read them to have access to to both. Besides, I routinely rewatch Battlefield Earth as one of the better unintentional comedies of the last generation. Your tastes might vary, which is the point.