hotair--2020-06-10--The Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone has already had its first incident of self-appointed-police violenc

The Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone has already had its first incident of self-appointed-police violence

Earlier today Allahpundit wrote about the so-called Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone ( CHAZ ) which was set up in Seattle after police retreated from a few square blocks .
The denizens of this new experiment in police-free living were probably envisioning a utopia full of peace and community love .
Instead they got a new self-appointed police force led by a rapper named Raz Simone .
Early this morning someone posted a video clip to Reddit which shows Simone and a group of people confronting a graffiti artist .
Things escalate and eventually the tagger is assaulted by someone in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ away .
The video is about an hour long but here ’ s a summary created by someone in the Reddit thread : tl ; dw : Man was tagging over someone else ’ s art , Raz and group approach and separate him from crowd , chasing him for two blocks .
He begins to film them with his phone , they take it from him .
He tries to get it back and they attack him , kicking him in the head and breaking his glasses .
At one point , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They then begin to gaslight him that it was all his fault .
Audio only for most of the end , because woman in Raz ’ crew filming puts the phone in her pocket while the stream continues .
Someone else created this timeline of significant moments in the video .
I ’ ve verified that this is roughly accurate though some of the wording is slightly different than in the actual video : 0:35 : “ We are the police of this community now !
” 6:20 : “ For your own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seems like a thinly veiled threat 7:10 : “ You might need a little love tap ” as a cutesy way of describing earlier assault 9:10 : “ We got to the point where addressing the point physically was the best way to get our point across.
” 11:00 : Video blacked out as conflict heats up .
12:30 : Someone starts yelling “ WHAT THE FUCK ” for reasons unclear .
Based on later context , this appears to be when most of the assault occurred , may have involved kicking , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Give me your phone and sit down.
” / “ You just broke my glasses !
I ’ m blind !
” / ” If you don ’ t sit down , I ’ ll make you sit down !
” 13:45 : “ You just broke my glasses and stole my phone !
” 14:45 : “ You just broke my glasses !
” “ Yeah , we should have broken your face !
” 15:10 : “ Don ’ t be making no threats n**** , I ’ ll blow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threat ” appears to have been “ I want to leave here within the next 15 minutes ” , I think ? )
Eventually , the victim of the assault did get his phone back and stuck around for a “ conversation ” which , according to Raz Simone solved everything .
Here ’ s a brief portion of the video followed by Raz Simone ’ s claim that everything ended with hugs and apologies .
Not everyone is convinced this “ went beautifully.
” Some in the Reddit thread point out that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the kind of law enforcement violence protesters have been protesting about .
Others are suggesting Simone is a de facto “ warlord.
” You can watch the full clip for yourself here .
Most of the action happens via audio only as the person filming put the phone in her pocket .
But we do hear the victim say at least a dozen times that someone broke his glasses .
While the criminal justice front of CHAZ doesn ’ t seem to be going very well , here ’ s a list of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ includes abolishing police and the courts and refers to the Seattle PD as a “ terrorist cell.
” The Seattle Police Department and attached court system are beyond reform .
We do not request reform , we demand abolition .
We demand that the Seattle Council and the Mayor defund and abolish the Seattle Police Department and the attached Criminal Justice Apparatus .
This means 100 % of funding , including existing pensions for Seattle Police… We demand decriminalization of the acts of protest , and amnesty for protestors generally , but specifically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ The George Floyd Rebellion ” against the terrorist cell that previously occupied this area known as the Seattle Police Department .
We ’ ve seen all of this before , sadly .
If you were around when the Occupy protests were a thing , they also believed they had created a new utopia of equality for everyone to emulate .
And then it became clear that people were being assaulted , threatened and even raped inside the camps .
The lead camp in Zuccotti Park even set up a women-only tent in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assault .
But , hey , I ’ m sure the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone will work out great .
Instead of all that messy due process and police we ’ ll just have an armed rapper and his guys wandering around smacking and threatening to kill people who get on their nerves .
What could possibly go wrong ?

Earlier today Allahpundit wrote about the so-called Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ) which was set up in Seattle after police retreated from a few square blocks. The denizens of this new experiment in police-free living were probably envisioning a utopia full of peace and community love. Instead they got a new self-appointed police force led by a rapper named Raz Simone.
Early this morning someone posted a video clip to Reddit which shows Simone and a group of people confronting a graffiti artist. Things escalate and eventually the tagger is assaulted by someone in the group and has his phone taken away. The video is about an hour long but here’s a summary created by someone in the Reddit thread:
tl;dw: Man was tagging over someone else’s art, Raz and group approach and separate him from crowd, chasing him for two blocks. He begins to film them with his phone, they take it from him. He tries to get it back and they attack him, kicking him in the head and breaking his glasses. At one point, Raz threatens to shoot the man. They then begin to gaslight him that it was all his fault. Audio only for most of the end, because woman in Raz’ crew filming puts the phone in her pocket while the stream continues.
Someone else created this timeline of significant moments in the video. I’ve verified that this is roughly accurate though some of the wording is slightly different than in the actual video:
0:35: “We are the police of this community now!” 6:20: “For your own safety, you need to go” seems like a thinly veiled threat 7:10: “You might need a little love tap” as a cutesy way of describing earlier assault 9:10: “We got to the point where addressing the point physically was the best way to get our point across.” 11:00: Video blacked out as conflict heats up. 12:30: Someone starts yelling “WHAT THE FUCK” for reasons unclear. Based on later context, this appears to be when most of the assault occurred, may have involved kicking, definitely broke his glasses. 13:20: “Give me your phone and sit down.” / “You just broke my glasses! I’m blind!” /”If you don’t sit down, I’ll make you sit down!” 13:45: “You just broke my glasses and stole my phone!” 14:45: “You just broke my glasses!” “Yeah, we should have broken your face!” 15:10: “Don’t be making no threats n****, I’ll blow your brains out” (the “threat” appears to have been “I want to leave here within the next 15 minutes”, I think?)
Eventually, the victim of the assault did get his phone back and stuck around for a “conversation” which, according to Raz Simone solved everything. Here’s a brief portion of the video followed by Raz Simone’s claim that everything ended with hugs and apologies.
This actually went beautifully and we all hugged it out and spoke with his dad. His dad now wants me to mentor him. It was great black dialogue and men apologizing to each other, abandoning pride. We all hugged each other, cried it out and it was beautiful. — Raz Simone (@RazSimone) June 10, 2020
Not everyone is convinced this “went beautifully.” Some in the Reddit thread point out that this isn’t so different from the kind of law enforcement violence protesters have been protesting about.
Others are suggesting Simone is a de facto “warlord.”
You can watch the full clip for yourself here. Most of the action happens via audio only as the person filming put the phone in her pocket. But we do hear the victim say at least a dozen times that someone broke his glasses.
While the criminal justice front of CHAZ doesn’t seem to be going very well, here’s a list of demands made by the organizers. It includes abolishing police and the courts and refers to the Seattle PD as a “terrorist cell.”
The Seattle Police Department and attached court system are beyond reform. We do not request reform, we demand abolition. We demand that the Seattle Council and the Mayor defund and abolish the Seattle Police Department and the attached Criminal Justice Apparatus. This means 100% of funding, including existing pensions for Seattle Police… We demand decriminalization of the acts of protest, and amnesty for protestors generally, but specifically those involved in what has been termed “The George Floyd Rebellion” against the terrorist cell that previously occupied this area known as the Seattle Police Department.
We’ve seen all of this before, sadly. If you were around when the Occupy protests were a thing, they also believed they had created a new utopia of equality for everyone to emulate. And then it became clear that people were being assaulted, threatened and even raped inside the camps. The lead camp in Zuccotti Park even set up a women-only tent in an effort to protect women from sexual assault.
But, hey, I’m sure the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone will work out great. Instead of all that messy due process and police we’ll just have an armed rapper and his guys wandering around smacking and threatening to kill people who get on their nerves. What could possibly go wrong?


hotair--2020-06-10--Frey: We need to bust the union contract, not dismantle the police

Jacob Frey might come closest among progressives in Minneapolis to identifying the actual problem with policing in his city , but the mayor still manages to leave some dots unconnected .
In an interview with CBS This Morning , Frey insists that he opposes efforts to “ defund ” or “ dismantle ” the police and will seek reforms instead .
Right now , though , Frey lacks the authority to do either — and fingers the police union for the problem : Frey goes on to complain about “ state law ” hamstringing the city from changing the terms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Progressive mayors and chiefs ” preceding Frey have tried and failed to get those reforms , but Frey promises to change that .
First , however , Frey needs to ask and answer : who exactly negotiated these union contracts and collective bargaining agreements ?
It wasn ’ t a statute .
To answer that , let ’ s take a look at Camden , the example used by many progressives as the model that Minneapolis should follow .
However , not only is that a different situation , Camden never “ defunded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Camden only “ dismantled ” its police force in name only to bust the union — so it could put more cops on the streets , as Stephen Walters reminds us , and its problems involved a lack of force rather than an abuse of force .
At the heart of the problem was the Camden police CBA : At the time , the cop cartel had pumped up average annual costs per officer ( including extraordinarily generous fringe benefits ) to $ 182,168 .
At that monopoly price , poor Camden could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and during peak nighttime crime hours only a dozen might be on patrol .
But laying off the union cops and then rehiring many as county employees reduced costs to $ 99,605 per officer , enabling lots of new hires while keeping total expenditures roughly the same .
Within a couple of years , Camden ’ s force exceeded 400 — a little over 50 cops per 10,000 residents , about triple the national average for similarly sized cities .
So Camden did not “ abolish police , ” as some of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claim , but actually employed more police — and more law enforcement .
As the now-retired chief who led the transition explained , understaffing had made his city force a “ triage unit going from emergency to emergency.
” Staffing up enabled more proactive policing ( including the use of some surveillance tools that civil libertarians consider problematic ) .
That made policing in Camden not just more cost-effective but better overall , incorporating training , rules of engagement , and accountability protocols otherwise unaffordable or unacceptable .
While its approach has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a great deal of Camden ’ s crime turnaround came courtesy of what looks like an application of “ broken windows theory ” ( that treating small signs of public disorder can head off larger problems ) .
One question should be asked about the union contract before Camden busted the union : how did the costs get so high in the first place ?
It ’ s because Democrats in charge of Camden had negotiated those contracts with the unions that back Democrats .
It ’ s the same system that created @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that can ’ t possibly be fully funded now , thanks to ridiculously generous guaranteed benefits .
That situation resulted from decades of mutual backscratching between public-employee unions and elected Democratic municipal officials , which continues to this day .
That brings us back to Minneapolis , which has an annual police budget of $ 193 million for 892 cops .
Even if one throws in the 175 civilian employees , that comes up to … $ 180,880 per employee , about where Camden was when it pulled its three-card union-busting monty .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Again , Democrats negotiated those contracts with their union pals in what seems like anything but an adversarial process .
PEUs got Democrats elected , and in exchange negotiated sweetheart deals — and not just for police , but across the board .
That ’ s another reason for skepticism about “ defunding ” police in Minneapolis .
The aim here is much more likely to bust the union with the threat of pulling a Camden , even if Lisa Bender and the council don ’ t really have the authority or political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want major concessions from the police union , although not likely on costs , in exchange for a political win over accountability .
The CBA isn ’ t the real “ elephant in the room.
” The real elephant is the corrupt relationship between Democrats at the municipal level and the public-employee unions that help elect them .
That ’ s the connection that needs busting , but only the voters can do that by dumping their progressive leadership in favor of real accountability .
Addendum : Police chief Medaria Arradondo amplified the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the union : Arradondo said he will withdraw from negotiations with the Minneapolis Police Federation , and bringing advisers to see how the contract can be restructured for greater transparency and changes .
“ I need to as chief step away from the table with the Minneapolis Police Federation and really take a deep dive in terms of how we can do something that is historically been something that is in the way of progress , that I ’ ve been hearing from many in our city , ” Arradondo said .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to evolve.
” Arradondo said the focus will be toward significant aspects of the contract like use of force , the “ significant ” role supervisors play , and the discipline process , including grievances and arbitration .
“ I believe I speak for my chief peers here in the state of Minnesota , as well as across our country , that there is nothing more debilitating to an employment matter from a chief ’ s perspective , that when you have grounds to terminate an officer for misconduct and you ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for that employee to not only be back at the department , but to be patrolling in your communities.
” he said .
Get ready for a very big battle … between traditional allies .

Jacob Frey might come closest among progressives in Minneapolis to identifying the actual problem with policing in his city, but the mayor still manages to leave some dots unconnected. In an interview with CBS This Morning, Frey insists that he opposes efforts to “defund” or “dismantle” the police and will seek reforms instead. Right now, though, Frey lacks the authority to do either — and fingers the police union for the problem:
"We need a full-on culture shift in terms of the way the police department does business. But am I for abolishing the entire department? No, I'm not. And yes, the elephant in the room is the police union, is the collective bargaining agreement." — Minneapolis @MayorFrey pic.twitter.com/4ZYcfh1s1k — CBS This Morning (@CBSThisMorning) June 10, 2020
Frey goes on to complain about “state law” hamstringing the city from changing the terms of the collective bargaining agreement. “Progressive mayors and chiefs” preceding Frey have tried and failed to get those reforms, but Frey promises to change that. First, however, Frey needs to ask and answer: who exactly negotiated these union contracts and collective bargaining agreements? It wasn’t a statute.
To answer that, let’s take a look at Camden, the example used by many progressives as the model that Minneapolis should follow. However, not only is that a different situation, Camden never “defunded” its police. In fact, Camden only “dismantled” its police force in name only to bust the union — so it could put more cops on the streets, as Stephen Walters reminds us, and its problems involved a lack of force rather than an abuse of force. At the heart of the problem was the Camden police CBA:
At the time, the cop cartel had pumped up average annual costs per officer (including extraordinarily generous fringe benefits) to $182,168. At that monopoly price, poor Camden could afford to employ just 175 cops, and during peak nighttime crime hours only a dozen might be on patrol. But laying off the union cops and then rehiring many as county employees reduced costs to $99,605 per officer, enabling lots of new hires while keeping total expenditures roughly the same. Within a couple of years, Camden’s force exceeded 400 — a little over 50 cops per 10,000 residents, about triple the national average for similarly sized cities. So Camden did not “abolish police,” as some of the more radical voices in the current debate claim, but actually employed more police — and more law enforcement. As the now-retired chief who led the transition explained, understaffing had made his city force a “triage unit going from emergency to emergency.” Staffing up enabled more proactive policing (including the use of some surveillance tools that civil libertarians consider problematic). That made policing in Camden not just more cost-effective but better overall, incorporating training, rules of engagement, and accountability protocols otherwise unaffordable or unacceptable. While its approach has been branded as “community policing,” a great deal of Camden’s crime turnaround came courtesy of what looks like an application of “broken windows theory” (that treating small signs of public disorder can head off larger problems).
One question should be asked about the union contract before Camden busted the union: how did the costs get so high in the first place? It’s because Democrats in charge of Camden had negotiated those contracts with the unions that back Democrats. It’s the same system that created the vast pensions that public-sector workers have that can’t possibly be fully funded now, thanks to ridiculously generous guaranteed benefits. That situation resulted from decades of mutual backscratching between public-employee unions and elected Democratic municipal officials, which continues to this day.
That brings us back to Minneapolis, which has an annual police budget of $193 million for 892 cops. Even if one throws in the 175 civilian employees, that comes up to … $180,880 per employee, about where Camden was when it pulled its three-card union-busting monty. How did it get that high? Again, Democrats negotiated those contracts with their union pals in what seems like anything but an adversarial process. PEUs got Democrats elected, and in exchange negotiated sweetheart deals — and not just for police, but across the board.
That’s another reason for skepticism about “defunding” police in Minneapolis. The aim here is much more likely to bust the union with the threat of pulling a Camden, even if Lisa Bender and the council don’t really have the authority or political juice to pull it off. They want major concessions from the police union, although not likely on costs, in exchange for a political win over accountability.
The CBA isn’t the real “elephant in the room.” The real elephant is the corrupt relationship between Democrats at the municipal level and the public-employee unions that help elect them. That’s the connection that needs busting, but only the voters can do that by dumping their progressive leadership in favor of real accountability.
Here’s the full CBS interview:
Addendum: Police chief Medaria Arradondo amplified the pressure today by withdrawing from negotiations with the union:
Arradondo said he will withdraw from negotiations with the Minneapolis Police Federation, and bringing advisers to see how the contract can be restructured for greater transparency and changes. “I need to as chief step away from the table with the Minneapolis Police Federation and really take a deep dive in terms of how we can do something that is historically been something that is in the way of progress, that I’ve been hearing from many in our city,” Arradondo said. “…It’s time that we have to evolve.” Arradondo said the focus will be toward significant aspects of the contract like use of force, the “significant” role supervisors play, and the discipline process, including grievances and arbitration. “I believe I speak for my chief peers here in the state of Minnesota, as well as across our country, that there is nothing more debilitating to an employment matter from a chief’s perspective, that when you have grounds to terminate an officer for misconduct and you’re dealing with a third-party mechanism that allows for that employee to not only be back at the department, but to be patrolling in your communities.” he said.
Get ready for a very big battle … between traditional allies.


hotair--2020-06-10--Trump: I won't consider renaming military bases that are named after Confederate generals

Axios claimed this morning that Trump aides were “ despondent ” over his tweet yesterday blaming the old man in Buffalo for the incident with police that landed him in the hospital .
“ One former aide remarked that it ’ s tweets like this that make him wonder whether Trump actually wants to get re-elected , ” said Jonathan Swan .
It ’ s understandable .
Trump sounded like a vicious crank , a guy who ’ d couldn ’ t muster an ounce of sympathy for an elderly person who was left untended by the police , unconscious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did something to piss them off .
Basic good politics by the president would have been to say that he was sending his best wishes to the guy for a full recovery .
Saying nothing at all would have been fine too ; he ’ s not obliged to comment on every controversy .
Instead he stooped to a conspiracy theory to try to exculpate the cop responsible .
If his aides were despondent yesterday at him sabotaging himself , though , wait ’ til they see this .
Does this mean the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unity ” speech they were allegedly planning ?
It has to , right ?
You can ’ t do a “ Hands off the Confederacy ” tweetstorm and then turn around and cry crocodile tears over racial divisions .
Lay aside the substance of his points for a second and focus on this : These tweets gain him nothing .
He already won all 11 former Confederate states in 2016 .
At most this ’ ll help him hold on in places like Texas and Georgia that are trending blue — although it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there , especially black Democrats , to turn out and beat him .
Anyone who ’ s sufficiently invested in preserving Confederate “ heritage ” or in “ fighting political correctness ” was already safely voting for Trump this fall .
At best he gave his base a new reason to love him , another example of his inexplicable strategy of working harder to impress voters who already worship him than voters in the middle who are leery of him .
What he cost himself here was some ability to maneuver on race @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suburban votes from Biden .
His staff wants him to give a “ unity ” speech believing that it might help at the margins with black voters this fall and with upscale whites who dislike Trump ’ s “ divisiveness ” and have been trending blue over the past several years .
There aren ’ t a lot of concrete policy options available to Trump to impress those audiences .
There ’ s police reform , sure , but he ’ s already ruled out ending qualified immunity for cops and will probably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ token reforms to policing .
Renaming U.S. military bases that are currently named for traitors to the country would have been a small gesture of goodwill in lieu of more significant policy changes , not unlike Nikki Haley agreeing to remove the Confederate flag from the statehouse grounds in South Carolina after the Charleston massacre while the left was demanding gun control .
He even got some cover to do it yesterday from David Petraeus , who ’ s all for renaming bases : For an organization designed to win wars to train @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who led a losing force is sufficiently peculiar , but when we consider the cause for which these officers fought , we begin to penetrate the confusion of Civil War memory .
These bases are , after all , federal installations , home to soldiers who swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States .
The irony of training at bases named for those who took up arms against the United States , and for the right to enslave others , is inescapable to anyone paying attention .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for us to pay such attention… Plainly put , Lee , Bragg , and the rest committed treason , however much they may have agonized over it .
The majority of them had worn the uniform of the U.S. Army , and that Army should not brook any celebration of those who betrayed their country .
As others have said on social media this week , if we ’ re going to have forts named after Confederates we might as well name a fort after Erwin Rommel too .
He has the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , killed many Americans , did so on behalf of a regime that persecuted minorities in the most ruthless ways imaginable .
There ’ s one notable difference between Rommel and ( most of ) the Confederates apart from their places of birth , though : Rommel was a brilliant commander .
As Petraeus notes , many of the CSA officers honored with having military installations named after them are among the lesser lights of Confederate leadership .
Their names aren ’ t on the forts because they were superb generals who happened @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the forts because they were Confederates .
Which compounds the disgrace .
Trump doesn ’ t need to share Petraeus ’ s view that it ’ s time to rename the forts .
As with the Buffalo incident , he could have opted for shrewd silence about this apart from a vague “ we ’ ll take it under advisement.
” Why he chose to weigh in on this , on the side that he did , at this unusual moment is better left to a psychologist to explain than a political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on race relations and police misconduct has shifted dramatically since the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis , with Americans significantly more likely to say they believe in systemic racism and side with the wave of protesters who have stormed the streets to demonstrate against police brutality .
Six in 10 white Americans now say racism is “ a big problem ” in society , an enormous increase from polls taken when Barack Obama was president .
More than 2-in-3 say Floyd ’ s killing reflects broader problems within law enforcement in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such a dramatic , almost on-the-spot change , I don ’ t think we ’ ve ever seen anything of this level , ” said Scott Finnie , executive director of Eastern Washington University ’ s race and cultural studies program .
“ After the Eric Garners , the Trayvon Martins , that have left kind of an impression — this thing left a seismic quake and a crack , not just an impression.
” Want to see what this looks like on the specific subject of Black Lives Matter ?
Behold : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Confederate symbolism : Option one for Trump was to make a gesture of conciliation towards Americans who are worried about racism by renaming the forts .
Option two was to do nothing and keep quiet so as not to gift-wrap a talking point for Democrats that he ’ s making the problem worse .
Option three was to do what he did .
How could it have been any other way ?
VoteVets posted a useful thread yesterday about the many illustrious Confederate officers with whose names our military bases are decorated .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ as warriors for an evil regime , all are known for poor character .
Exit quotation :

Axios claimed this morning that Trump aides were “despondent” over his tweet yesterday blaming the old man in Buffalo for the incident with police that landed him in the hospital. “One former aide remarked that it’s tweets like this that make him wonder whether Trump actually wants to get re-elected,” said Jonathan Swan. It’s understandable. Trump sounded like a vicious crank, a guy who’d couldn’t muster an ounce of sympathy for an elderly person who was left untended by the police, unconscious and bleeding, because he said or did something to piss them off.
Basic good politics by the president would have been to say that he was sending his best wishes to the guy for a full recovery. Saying nothing at all would have been fine too; he’s not obliged to comment on every controversy. Instead he stooped to a conspiracy theory to try to exculpate the cop responsible.
If his aides were despondent yesterday at him sabotaging himself, though, wait ’til they see this.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1270787974880526337
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1270787978626052096
Does this mean the White House has scrapped the “national unity” speech they were allegedly planning? It has to, right? You can’t do a “Hands off the Confederacy” tweetstorm and then turn around and cry crocodile tears over racial divisions.
Lay aside the substance of his points for a second and focus on this: These tweets gain him nothing. He already won all 11 former Confederate states in 2016. At most this’ll help him hold on in places like Texas and Georgia that are trending blue — although it could also provide extra motivation for Democrats there, especially black Democrats, to turn out and beat him. Anyone who’s sufficiently invested in preserving Confederate “heritage” or in “fighting political correctness” was already safely voting for Trump this fall. At best he gave his base a new reason to love him, another example of his inexplicable strategy of working harder to impress voters who already worship him than voters in the middle who are leery of him.
What he cost himself here was some ability to maneuver on race relations in hopes of clawing back some suburban votes from Biden. His staff wants him to give a “unity” speech believing that it might help at the margins with black voters this fall and with upscale whites who dislike Trump’s “divisiveness” and have been trending blue over the past several years. There aren’t a lot of concrete policy options available to Trump to impress those audiences. There’s police reform, sure, but he’s already ruled out ending qualified immunity for cops and will probably reject any bill that requires more than token reforms to policing. Renaming U.S. military bases that are currently named for traitors to the country would have been a small gesture of goodwill in lieu of more significant policy changes, not unlike Nikki Haley agreeing to remove the Confederate flag from the statehouse grounds in South Carolina after the Charleston massacre while the left was demanding gun control.
He even got some cover to do it yesterday from David Petraeus, who’s all for renaming bases:
For an organization designed to win wars to train for them at installations named for those who led a losing force is sufficiently peculiar, but when we consider the cause for which these officers fought, we begin to penetrate the confusion of Civil War memory. These bases are, after all, federal installations, home to soldiers who swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. The irony of training at bases named for those who took up arms against the United States, and for the right to enslave others, is inescapable to anyone paying attention. Now, belatedly, is the moment for us to pay such attention… Plainly put, Lee, Bragg, and the rest committed treason, however much they may have agonized over it. The majority of them had worn the uniform of the U.S. Army, and that Army should not brook any celebration of those who betrayed their country.
As others have said on social media this week, if we’re going to have forts named after Confederates we might as well name a fort after Erwin Rommel too. He has the same credentials: Fought against the United States, killed many Americans, did so on behalf of a regime that persecuted minorities in the most ruthless ways imaginable. There’s one notable difference between Rommel and (most of) the Confederates apart from their places of birth, though: Rommel was a brilliant commander. As Petraeus notes, many of the CSA officers honored with having military installations named after them are among the lesser lights of Confederate leadership. Their names aren’t on the forts because they were superb generals who happened to be Confederates. Their names are on the forts because they were Confederates. Which compounds the disgrace.
Trump doesn’t need to share Petraeus’s view that it’s time to rename the forts. As with the Buffalo incident, he could have opted for shrewd silence about this apart from a vague “we’ll take it under advisement.” Why he chose to weigh in on this, on the side that he did, at this unusual moment is better left to a psychologist to explain than a political analyst. I mean:
Public opinion on race relations and police misconduct has shifted dramatically since the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, with Americans significantly more likely to say they believe in systemic racism and side with the wave of protesters who have stormed the streets to demonstrate against police brutality. Six in 10 white Americans now say racism is “a big problem” in society, an enormous increase from polls taken when Barack Obama was president. More than 2-in-3 say Floyd’s killing reflects broader problems within law enforcement in the United States… “When it comes to such a dramatic, almost on-the-spot change, I don’t think we’ve ever seen anything of this level,” said Scott Finnie, executive director of Eastern Washington University’s race and cultural studies program. “After the Eric Garners, the Trayvon Martins, that have left kind of an impression — this thing left a seismic quake and a crack, not just an impression.”
Want to see what this looks like on the specific subject of Black Lives Matter? Behold:
Even NASCAR’s had it with Confederate symbolism:
Option one for Trump was to make a gesture of conciliation towards Americans who are worried about racism by renaming the forts. Option two was to do nothing and keep quiet so as not to gift-wrap a talking point for Democrats that he’s making the problem worse. Option three was to do what he did. How could it have been any other way?
VoteVets posted a useful thread yesterday about the many illustrious Confederate officers with whose names our military bases are decorated. Most are known as bad commanders; as warriors for an evil regime, all are known for poor character. Exit quotation:


hotair--2020-06-10--Pittsburgh man faces federal charges after leaving backpack full of Molotov cocktails in public spac

Pittsburgh man faces federal charges after leaving backpack full of Molotov cocktails in public space

A 52-year-old resident of Pittsburgh was charged with planting a backpack full of Molotov cocktails in a public space downtown after a recent protest .
Matthew Michanowicz , 52 , faces federal charges of illegal possession of a destructive device , the U.S. District Attorney ’ s Office for the Western District of Pennsylvania said .
Michanowicz , who was allegedly captured on surveillance footage placing the backpack under trees at PNC Plaza , told investigators that he ’ d ridden his bike to the area to observe the aftermath of recent protests , court documents say .
Based on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ above shows the area where the backpack was left .
Here ’ s a description of what was found inside the backpack : The devices are described as “ spent OC vapor grenades ” ( identified by the PBPBS as spent devices they had previously deployed ) which contained a fluid that had a smell similar to an ignitable liquid .
The liquid was leaking out of one or more of the devices .
All three devices had wicks attached to them , which were held in place by what appears to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after the backpack was left behind , an officer was in the same spot where the backpack had been discovered and saw a man who matched the description of the suspect ( based on surveillance video which you can see here ) .
Michanowicz was brought in for questioning and admitted that he ’ d been in the area and that he was the person seen in security video but he denied knowing anything about a backpack full of explosives .
The following day , ATF agents executed a search warrant at his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ATF Agents from the Pittsburgh Field Office executed a federal search warrant at Michanowicz ’ s residence at 144 Republic Street , Pittsburgh , PA 15211 .
The search revealed , all in close proximity to each other on a workbench in the garage , a bundle of fuse exhibiting the same color and characteristics of the fuses found on the previously seized destructive devices , some partially burnt fuse remnants that appear to be from the same fuse bundle , a can of spray foam insulation consistent with the type of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the exterior of all three recovered destructive devices , and a syringe emitting a strong odor consistent with an ignitable liquid .
Also found in the garage were approximately 10 camouflage backpacks that were similar in size , pattern and configuration to the bag in which the destructive devices were discovered .
A search of the trashcan in the garage revealed retail packaging of fuses and a pair of used latex gloves that emitted a strong odor consistent with an ignitable liquid .
Michanowicz faces up to 10 years in prison if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had for the other 10 identical backpacks found in his house .
Also , what was he doing back at the scene where he left the backpack two days later ?
Was he looking for it ?
Was he looking for signs of damage ?
The press release doesn ’ t go into those details .
The other big question is his motive .
PNC Plaza is an area where PNC Bank is headquartered .
So this could be some kind of far-left statement about wealth inequality .
But it ’ s also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Or maybe he was staging the Molotov ’ s to throw them at police vehicles .
The only thing we know for sure is he wasn ’ t there for a peaceful protest .
Speaking of violent protesters in Pittsburgh .
You may recall that federal charges were previously filed against a 20-year-old man named Brian Bartels who is accused of inciting a riot and damaging a police vehicle .
Last week Bartels turned himself in to police .
We now know something more about his motive .
According to the criminal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in part , “ that he considers himself to be far ‘ left ’ and that he had become fed up with incidents involving police mistreatment of citizens.
” “ He explained that he had previously hoped that he would be able to change things through voting , but nothing changed , ” the complaint added .
So this was exactly what it looked like , a far 20-something acting like a goon and inciting other people to do likewise .
Here ’ s a local news report on Michanowicz .

A 52-year-old resident of Pittsburgh was charged with planting a backpack full of Molotov cocktails in a public space downtown after a recent protest.
Matthew Michanowicz, 52, faces federal charges of illegal possession of a destructive device, the U.S. District Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Pennsylvania said. Michanowicz, who was allegedly captured on surveillance footage placing the backpack under trees at PNC Plaza, told investigators that he’d ridden his bike to the area to observe the aftermath of recent protests, court documents say.
Based on the description I think the Google image above shows the area where the backpack was left. Here’s a description of what was found inside the backpack:
The devices are described as “spent OC vapor grenades” (identified by the PBPBS as spent devices they had previously deployed) which contained a fluid that had a smell similar to an ignitable liquid. The liquid was leaking out of one or more of the devices. All three devices had wicks attached to them, which were held in place by what appears to be “spray foam insulation.”
Two days after the backpack was left behind, an officer was in the same spot where the backpack had been discovered and saw a man who matched the description of the suspect (based on surveillance video which you can see here). Michanowicz was brought in for questioning and admitted that he’d been in the area and that he was the person seen in security video but he denied knowing anything about a backpack full of explosives. The following day, ATF agents executed a search warrant at his house:
On June 4, 2020, ATF Agents from the Pittsburgh Field Office executed a federal search warrant at Michanowicz’s residence at 144 Republic Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15211. The search revealed, all in close proximity to each other on a workbench in the garage, a bundle of fuse exhibiting the same color and characteristics of the fuses found on the previously seized destructive devices, some partially burnt fuse remnants that appear to be from the same fuse bundle, a can of spray foam insulation consistent with the type of spray foam insulation that had been applied to the exterior of all three recovered destructive devices, and a syringe emitting a strong odor consistent with an ignitable liquid. Also found in the garage were approximately 10 camouflage backpacks that were similar in size, pattern and configuration to the bag in which the destructive devices were discovered. A search of the trashcan in the garage revealed retail packaging of fuses and a pair of used latex gloves that emitted a strong odor consistent with an ignitable liquid.
Michanowicz faces up to 10 years in prison if convicted. I wonder what plans he had for the other 10 identical backpacks found in his house. Also, what was he doing back at the scene where he left the backpack two days later? Was he looking for it? Was he looking for signs of damage? The press release doesn’t go into those details.
The other big question is his motive. PNC Plaza is an area where PNC Bank is headquartered. So this could be some kind of far-left statement about wealth inequality. But it’s also possible he was looking to injure protesters. Or maybe he was staging the Molotov’s to throw them at police vehicles. The only thing we know for sure is he wasn’t there for a peaceful protest.
Speaking of violent protesters in Pittsburgh. You may recall that federal charges were previously filed against a 20-year-old man named Brian Bartels who is accused of inciting a riot and damaging a police vehicle. Last week Bartels turned himself in to police. We now know something more about his motive.
According to the criminal complaint, Bartels said his motive was, in part, “that he considers himself to be far ‘left’ and that he had become fed up with incidents involving police mistreatment of citizens.” “He explained that he had previously hoped that he would be able to change things through voting, but nothing changed,” the complaint added.
So this was exactly what it looked like, a far 20-something acting like a goon and inciting other people to do likewise. Here’s a local news report on Michanowicz.


hotair--2020-06-10--It's over. Baltimore dodges a bullet in mayoral race

It took more than a week for the City of Baltimore to plow through a mountain of mail-in ballots , some of which kept arriving for days after the election .
( The ballots could be postmarked up until election day . )
But now they ’ ve counted a sufficient amount of them to call the mayoral primary race .
While he was trailing for quite a while in the early counts , City Council President Brandon Scott has eked out a narrow victory over Charm City ’ s disgraced former mayor Sheila Dixon , but it literally came @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between them .
( Baltimore Sun ) Brandon Scott has won the crowded Democratic primary for Baltimore mayor , making good on his campaign to “ change the guard ” at City Hall and usher in a new generation of leadership .
The 36-year-old City Council president eked out a narrow victory over former Mayor Sheila Dixon , who sought to reclaim the office she lost a decade ago when she resigned amid a public corruption scandal .
Scott holds 29.4 % of the votes counted so far in the election , according @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dixon has claimed 27.7 % .
He was ahead by more than 2,300 votes .
If nothing else , this experiment in massive numbers of write-in ballots may at least prove to be something of a Petrie dish in terms of how things will go in November .
There are some other races that are still too close to call , and some undisclosed “ error ” at one of the precincts resulted in most of the ballots having to be recounted by hand .
But don ’ t worry .
I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ honest in the end .
The evolution of the mayoral primary vote was also a study in shifting tides .
As recently as last Friday , convicted embezzler Sheila Dixon was still leading by a couple of points and looked as if she might be on a path to victory .
By Sunday , it was a statistical tie , with Dixon still holding a slight lead.But by Tuesday , Scott had finally pulled into a lead that , while small , continued to grow through the end of the count .
What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the largest surge in support that Scott received came from people who decided in the final few days of the race .
Those were the ballots that were mailed on Monday and Tuesday of last week and arrived last .
It ’ s certainly possible that many of the undecided voters saw the polling information and realized that they were on the cusp of sending an ex-mayor who was also a convicted criminal back to be in charge of the cookie jar .
This result may come as a relief for those looking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s government .
Brandon Scott is young and he ran on a promise to clear out the old guard in City Hall and restore trust in the government .
And since this is Baltimore , the Democratic primary is basically the same as the general election .
( Democrats outnumber Republicans by ten to one . )
Scott has his plate full , too .
He ’ ll have to figure out how to turn around the city ’ s skyrocketing gang murder rate and do so while potentially dealing with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police have little or no trust in City Hall and most of the community doesn ’ t think very well of the police .
If Scott can cobble together a winning formula he will have pulled off something barely short of a miracle .
But should the vote have even been this close ?
Has that much really changed in Baltimore ?
They came within a two percent margin of sending one of the same old corrupt faces that have been dragging the city down for years back to office .
Apparently , @ @ @ @ @ @ @

It took more than a week for the City of Baltimore to plow through a mountain of mail-in ballots, some of which kept arriving for days after the election. (The ballots could be postmarked up until election day.) But now they’ve counted a sufficient amount of them to call the mayoral primary race. While he was trailing for quite a while in the early counts, City Council President Brandon Scott has eked out a narrow victory over Charm City’s disgraced former mayor Sheila Dixon, but it literally came down to a couple of percentage points between them. (Baltimore Sun)
Brandon Scott has won the crowded Democratic primary for Baltimore mayor, making good on his campaign to “change the guard” at City Hall and usher in a new generation of leadership. The 36-year-old City Council president eked out a narrow victory over former Mayor Sheila Dixon, who sought to reclaim the office she lost a decade ago when she resigned amid a public corruption scandal. Scott holds 29.4% of the votes counted so far in the election, according to returns released Tuesday night, while Dixon has claimed 27.7%. He was ahead by more than 2,300 votes.
If nothing else, this experiment in massive numbers of write-in ballots may at least prove to be something of a Petrie dish in terms of how things will go in November. There are some other races that are still too close to call, and some undisclosed “error” at one of the precincts resulted in most of the ballots having to be recounted by hand. But don’t worry. I’m sure everything worked out square and honest in the end.
The evolution of the mayoral primary vote was also a study in shifting tides. As recently as last Friday, convicted embezzler Sheila Dixon was still leading by a couple of points and looked as if she might be on a path to victory. By Sunday, it was a statistical tie, with Dixon still holding a slight lead.But by Tuesday, Scott had finally pulled into a lead that, while small, continued to grow through the end of the count.
What this appears to tell us is that the largest surge in support that Scott received came from people who decided in the final few days of the race. Those were the ballots that were mailed on Monday and Tuesday of last week and arrived last. It’s certainly possible that many of the undecided voters saw the polling information and realized that they were on the cusp of sending an ex-mayor who was also a convicted criminal back to be in charge of the cookie jar.
This result may come as a relief for those looking for true, foundational change in Baltimore’s government. Brandon Scott is young and he ran on a promise to clear out the old guard in City Hall and restore trust in the government. And since this is Baltimore, the Democratic primary is basically the same as the general election. (Democrats outnumber Republicans by ten to one.) Scott has his plate full, too. He’ll have to figure out how to turn around the city’s skyrocketing gang murder rate and do so while potentially dealing with a second wave of the pandemic. The police have little or no trust in City Hall and most of the community doesn’t think very well of the police. If Scott can cobble together a winning formula he will have pulled off something barely short of a miracle.
But should the vote have even been this close? Has that much really changed in Baltimore? They came within a two percent margin of sending one of the same old corrupt faces that have been dragging the city down for years back to office. Apparently, some people never learn their lesson.


hotair--2020-06-10--Gleeson: DoJ conducting "gross abuse" of power by demanding dismissal of Flynn case

Go figure that the special master hand-picked by Judge Emmet Sullivan sees the Michael Flynn case the same way .
In a filing at the deadline before a hearing at the DC Circuit Court of Appeal , retired federal judge John Gleeson argues that a motion to dismiss charges against Flynn amounts to a “ gross abuse ” of power to favor a political crony of President Donald Trump .
Not only does Sullivan have the authority to reject the dismissal motion , Gleeson argues , Sullivan has an explicit duty to punish Flynn — at least for lying to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ former federal judge appointed to review the Justice Department ’ s motion to dismiss criminal charges against President Donald Trump ’ s former national security adviser Michael Flynn said there was evidence of a “ gross abuse ” of prosecutorial power and that the request should be denied .
Former U.S. District Judge John Gleeson said in a filing Wednesday that the government “ has engaged in highly irregular conduct to benefit a political ally of the President.
” He urged the judge handling the case to deny the motion and argued that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Government ’ s ostensible grounds for seeking dismissal are conclusively disproven by its own briefs filed earlier in this very proceeding , ” Gleeson wrote .
“ They contradict and ignore this Court ’ s prior orders , which constitute law of the case .
They are riddled with inexplicable and elementary errors of law and fact .
And they depart from positions that the Government has taken in other cases.
” Sullivan also asked Gleeson to explore whether he should hold Flynn in “ criminal contempt for perjury.
” Well , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to look at a dismissal motion where the Department of Justice , er … [ checks notes ] … cops to misconduct by its prosecutors and by the FBI .
Isn ’ t that a “ gross abuse ” of power , too , one that calls for specific remedies and sanctions ?
That would make the perjury charge one hell of a way to punish the government .
What ’ s next — giving a defendant the electric chair after a Miranda violation ?
For another perspective , our Red State colleague @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s brief “ a trashy piece of s***.
” YMMV , of course : Crew discussed the case and its nuances with Cam Edwards and me on our VIP Gold Chat this afternoon , and he will have more soon at Red State .
For me , I find this both a bit mystifying and also a little anti-climactic .
It seemed very likely that Gleeson would argue for Sullivan , not so much on the merits of the case , but because Sullivan appointed him as a quasi-alternative to the DoJ once @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And we knew that because Gleeson wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post opposing the dismissal , an op-ed which prompted Sullivan to appoint him in the first place .
Once you see the deck being stacked , it ’ s hardly surprising to see the results .
The mystifying part is that Gleeson seems so eager to assume the prosecutorial mantle that it undermines his argument .
This amicus brief is political advocacy , not unbiased analysis .
Does Gleeson really think the court needs to see more political advocacy in this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intervention — and its tight time line for response — should have made it clear that the panel wants to pull the leash a bit on something that ’ s turning into a circus .
All of this adds up to nothing much in those terms .
If the appellate court thought that Sullivan was on firm ground , as Gleeson suggests , they wouldn ’ t have intervened .
Perhaps they will be more convinced by oral arguments , but a demand to let Sullivan punish Flynn for perjury when he hasn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is likely to convince the panel that the circus is bigger than they thought .
Friday ’ s hearing should be interesting to watch , or at least to discuss afterward .
It might not have the bombast of a Cornel West-Leo Terrell debate , but it might be a lot more edifying .
Update : Via a good friend , the DC Circuit Court of Appeals has … its own YouTube channel .
Not sure if this will actually air live , but just in case , here you go .

Go figure that the special master hand-picked by Judge Emmet Sullivan sees the Michael Flynn case the same way. In a filing at the deadline before a hearing at the DC Circuit Court of Appeal, retired federal judge John Gleeson argues that a motion to dismiss charges against Flynn amounts to a “gross abuse” of power to favor a political crony of President Donald Trump. Not only does Sullivan have the authority to reject the dismissal motion, Gleeson argues, Sullivan has an explicit duty to punish Flynn — at least for lying to the court in his plea:
A former federal judge appointed to review the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss criminal charges against President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn said there was evidence of a “gross abuse” of prosecutorial power and that the request should be denied. Former U.S. District Judge John Gleeson said in a filing Wednesday that the government “has engaged in highly irregular conduct to benefit a political ally of the President.” He urged the judge handling the case to deny the motion and argued that Flynn had committed perjury. … “The Government’s ostensible grounds for seeking dismissal are conclusively disproven by its own briefs filed earlier in this very proceeding,” Gleeson wrote. “They contradict and ignore this Court’s prior orders, which constitute law of the case. They are riddled with inexplicable and elementary errors of law and fact. And they depart from positions that the Government has taken in other cases.” Sullivan also asked Gleeson to explore whether he should hold Flynn in “criminal contempt for perjury.”
Well, sure, that’s one way to look at a dismissal motion where the Department of Justice, er … [checks notes] … cops to misconduct by its prosecutors and by the FBI. Isn’t that a “gross abuse” of power, too, one that calls for specific remedies and sanctions? That would make the perjury charge one hell of a way to punish the government. What’s next — giving a defendant the electric chair after a Miranda violation?
For another perspective, our Red State colleague and former prosecutor Shipwreckedcrew calls Gleeson’s brief “a trashy piece of s***.” YMMV, of course:
Second he includes these two lines in his "Facts"
1. "Flynn asked Russia to take particular actions."
2. "Both requests were at odds with official U.S. policy at the time."
As to the first, Flynn asked Russian to "not escalate" the dispute. How is that a bad thing? — shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) June 10, 2020
But he can't be troubled enough to say what the policy was, nor explain how the unspecified "particular actions" were "at odds" with that policy. — shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) June 10, 2020
Gleeson's work deserves ZERO respect or serious consideration because its simply DNC talking points wrapped up in a legal brief. Just like the Mueller Report. — shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) June 10, 2020
Crew discussed the case and its nuances with Cam Edwards and me on our VIP Gold Chat this afternoon, and he will have more soon at Red State. For me, I find this both a bit mystifying and also a little anti-climactic. It seemed very likely that Gleeson would argue for Sullivan, not so much on the merits of the case, but because Sullivan appointed him as a quasi-alternative to the DoJ once they signaled they would pull out. And we knew that because Gleeson wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post opposing the dismissal, an op-ed which prompted Sullivan to appoint him in the first place.
Once you see the deck being stacked, it’s hardly surprising to see the results.
The mystifying part is that Gleeson seems so eager to assume the prosecutorial mantle that it undermines his argument. This amicus brief is political advocacy, not unbiased analysis. Does Gleeson really think the court needs to see more political advocacy in this case? The appellate court’s intervention — and its tight time line for response — should have made it clear that the panel wants to pull the leash a bit on something that’s turning into a circus.
All of this adds up to nothing much in those terms. If the appellate court thought that Sullivan was on firm ground, as Gleeson suggests, they wouldn’t have intervened. Perhaps they will be more convinced by oral arguments, but a demand to let Sullivan punish Flynn for perjury when he hasn’t been charged with that crime is likely to convince the panel that the circus is bigger than they thought.
Friday’s hearing should be interesting to watch, or at least to discuss afterward. It might not have the bombast of a Cornel West-Leo Terrell debate, but it might be a lot more edifying.
Update: Via a good friend, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals has … its own YouTube channel. Not sure if this will actually air live, but just in case, here you go.


hotair--2020-06-10--AOC dodges question about whether 'defund police' is contrary to best evidence on reducing crime

Not surprisingly , Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is on board with the protester-driven push to “ defund police.
” In an interview today on Good Morning America , host George Stephanopoulos pushed back on this slightly and at least one of his questions seemed to have caught AOC off guard .
Asked about Joe Biden ’ s refusal to go along with the “ defund ” effort , AOC didn ’ t criticize Biden directly but did say that New York City ’ s funding priorities were out of line with what residents want .
She suggested that spending more on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social discord ” from taking place .
Stephanopoulos pushed back a bit .
“ I understand the argument you ’ re making about expanding social services and investing in social services but the research does show that more police on the street means less crime , ” he said .
“ Well , I think there ’ s one question that is interesting here is that , when it comes to funds , it ’ s not always just about the number of officers in the street , ” AOC said .
She @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these police precincts that have tanks , that have military weaponry and frankly have a degree of—that have a degree of material resources and war-like weaponry that people ask ‘ why does a local police precinct have this in the first place ? '
” You may have noticed that she didn ’ t really answer the question .
Stephanopoulos was pointing to evidence that increasing the number of police reduces crime .
Monday I wrote about a Vox piece from 2019 which made this argument based on research in the criminal justice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jonathan Glick and Alex Tabarrok found a clever instrument to measure the effects of officer increases through the terrorism “ alert levels ” that were a feature of the early to mid-aughts .
During high-alert periods , the Washington , DC , police force would mobilize extra officers , especially in and around the capital ’ s core , centered on the National Mall .
Using daily crime data , they found that the level of crime decreased significantly on high-alert days , and the decrease was especially concentrated on the National Mall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that adding police officers leads to more arrests and then locking up crooks leads to lower crime in the long run .
It ’ s simply that with more officers around , fewer people commit crimes in the first place .
That seems to be the criminal justice ideal , in which fewer people are getting locked up because fewer people are being victimized by criminals .
That ’ s just a sample but it gives you an idea .
And though it ’ s not spelled out , the corollary to this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is that fewer cops on the street probably results in more crime .
More crime also means more victims of crime and more people involved in the criminal justice system .
Instead of addressing any of this , AOC tries to shift the conversation to police departments buying tanks .
It ’ s true that some local police forces have purchase armored personnel vehicles like this BearCat purchased by a town in New Hampshire , but that money isn ’ t coming out of local coffers it ’ s coming in the form @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that police forces are blowing the city budget buying new tanks every year is misleading .
In fact , when you actually look at the budget for the NYPD , which is nearly $ 6 billion per year , nearly all of that money goes to personnel costs .
At $ 5.9 billion in the current fiscal year , the NYPD has the third-largest budget of all city agencies after the Department of Education and Department of Social Services .
It comprised about 6 % of the city ’ s total $ 92.8 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year ( FY2020 ) .
Most of that police department funding comes from the city , with a few hundred million from state and federal grants… It would be hard to significantly cut the NYPD ’ s budget without severely reducing its headcount .
The city in 2015 added nearly 1,800 employees to the NYPD , including 1,300 new officers at the behest of the City Council .
According to an analysis by the Independent Budget Office , about 88.8 % of the department ’ s adopted budget in Fiscal Year 2019 covered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overtime ) while 11.2 % went to “ Other than Personal Services ” ( OTPS ) to fund purchase of supplies and equipment .
Salaries and overtime for full-time employees – more than 36,000 uniformed personnel and about 15,500 civilian employees – covered nearly 75 % of the budget .
Planned overtime alone accounted for about 10 % ( or nearly $ 600 million ) of spending that year while actual overtime spending was $ 730 million by the end of the fiscal year .
Notice first that the NYPD ’ s budget @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the city .
It comes after Education and Social Services , something that AOC failed to mention .
She also fails to mention that it ’ s 6 % of the total city budget .
The only way to significantly cut the police budget is to reduce overtime and reduce the number of officers .
Both reductions will mean fewer officers on the street and , most likely , more crime , more victims of crime and more people involved in the criminal justice system .
It would be great if someone would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cut the police budget without cutting officers instead of allowing her to ramble about tanks .
Finally , the other thing AOC doesn ’ t mention is that the NYPD operating budget does not include the $ 5 billion per year the city spends on pensions contributions necessitated by fat union contracts .
We could save a tremendous amount of money without taking any officers off the street by cutting back on those pension costs .
Presumably AOC , as a leftist who believes unions are always good , would never support such @ @

Not surprisingly, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is on board with the protester-driven push to “defund police.” In an interview today on Good Morning America, host George Stephanopoulos pushed back on this slightly and at least one of his questions seemed to have caught AOC off guard.
Asked about Joe Biden’s refusal to go along with the “defund” effort, AOC didn’t criticize Biden directly but did say that New York City’s funding priorities were out of line with what residents want. She suggested that spending more on social programs would “prevent crime and social discord” from taking place.
Stephanopoulos pushed back a bit. “I understand the argument you’re making about expanding social services and investing in social services but the research does show that more police on the street means less crime,” he said.
“Well, I think there’s one question that is interesting here is that, when it comes to funds, it’s not always just about the number of officers in the street,” AOC said. She continued, “It’s about these police precincts that have tanks, that have military weaponry and frankly have a degree of—that have a degree of material resources and war-like weaponry that people ask ‘why does a local police precinct have this in the first place?'”
You may have noticed that she didn’t really answer the question. Stephanopoulos was pointing to evidence that increasing the number of police reduces crime. Monday I wrote about a Vox piece from 2019 which made this argument based on research in the criminal justice field:
In a 2005 paper, Jonathan Glick and Alex Tabarrok found a clever instrument to measure the effects of officer increases through the terrorism “alert levels” that were a feature of the early to mid-aughts. During high-alert periods, the Washington, DC, police force would mobilize extra officers, especially in and around the capital’s core, centered on the National Mall. Using daily crime data, they found that the level of crime decreased significantly on high-alert days, and the decrease was especially concentrated on the National Mall. Critically, the finding was not that adding police officers leads to more arrests and then locking up crooks leads to lower crime in the long run. It’s simply that with more officers around, fewer people commit crimes in the first place. That seems to be the criminal justice ideal, in which fewer people are getting locked up because fewer people are being victimized by criminals.
That’s just a sample but it gives you an idea. And though it’s not spelled out, the corollary to this idea that more cops equal less crime is that fewer cops on the street probably results in more crime. More crime also means more victims of crime and more people involved in the criminal justice system.
Instead of addressing any of this, AOC tries to shift the conversation to police departments buying tanks. It’s true that some local police forces have purchase armored personnel vehicles like this BearCat purchased by a town in New Hampshire, but that money isn’t coming out of local coffers it’s coming in the form of grants from DHS.
The idea that police forces are blowing the city budget buying new tanks every year is misleading. In fact, when you actually look at the budget for the NYPD, which is nearly $6 billion per year, nearly all of that money goes to personnel costs.
At $5.9 billion in the current fiscal year, the NYPD has the third-largest budget of all city agencies after the Department of Education and Department of Social Services. It comprised about 6% of the city’s total $92.8 billion adopted budget for the current fiscal year (FY2020). Most of that police department funding comes from the city, with a few hundred million from state and federal grants… It would be hard to significantly cut the NYPD’s budget without severely reducing its headcount. The city in 2015 added nearly 1,800 employees to the NYPD, including 1,300 new officers at the behest of the City Council. According to an analysis by the Independent Budget Office, about 88.8% of the department’s adopted budget in Fiscal Year 2019 covered personnel services (salaries, wages and overtime) while 11.2% went to “Other than Personal Services” (OTPS) to fund purchase of supplies and equipment. Salaries and overtime for full-time employees – more than 36,000 uniformed personnel and about 15,500 civilian employees – covered nearly 75% of the budget. Planned overtime alone accounted for about 10% (or nearly $600 million) of spending that year while actual overtime spending was $730 million by the end of the fiscal year.
Notice first that the NYPD’s budget isn’t the largest one in the city. It comes after Education and Social Services, something that AOC failed to mention. She also fails to mention that it’s 6% of the total city budget.
The only way to significantly cut the police budget is to reduce overtime and reduce the number of officers. Both reductions will mean fewer officers on the street and, most likely, more crime, more victims of crime and more people involved in the criminal justice system. It would be great if someone would press AOC on how she plans to cut the police budget without cutting officers instead of allowing her to ramble about tanks.
Finally, the other thing AOC doesn’t mention is that the NYPD operating budget does not include the $5 billion per year the city spends on pensions contributions necessitated by fat union contracts. We could save a tremendous amount of money without taking any officers off the street by cutting back on those pension costs. Presumably AOC, as a leftist who believes unions are always good, would never support such cuts.


hotair--2020-06-10--Will the US Space Force lose a trademark battle with... Netflix?

It ’ s not a coincidence that the newest branch of our military , the United States Space Force , was rolling out at roughly the same time that Netflix began developing their own comedy series named Space Force , starring Steve Carrell .
It was a natural topic for the development of such a show , particularly during a time when so much of the mainstream media has been dabbling in the subject of UFOs and space movies are making a big comeback .
But trouble may be brewing for our new military branch and it ’ s not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our satellites .
They ’ re getting caught up in a trademark war .
As it turns out , the Netflix show began putting in applications for trademarks around the globe at the beginning of last year .
It gives them the right to control the name in terms of selling merchandise and other marketing schemes .
But the military likes to sell their own merch for the various branches of the armed services and Space Force will be no exception .
Except they didn ’ t file for their first trademark until @ @ @ @ @ @ @ applied in Europe or elsewhere .
So has Netflix won the war before the first laser bolt has been fired ?
( Gizmodo ) The real Space Force may be going down in flames against the fictional Space Force : According to the Hollywood Reporter , the newly founded military branch appears to be losing a trademark battle with the Netflix comedy show of the same name .
Netflix “ has outmaneuvered the U.S. government to secure trademark rights to ‘ Space Force ’ in Europe , Australia , Mexico and elsewhere , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Air Force—under which the Space Force is organized—simply has a pending application stateside .
This mostly has ramifications for merch .
Consumers won ’ t have trouble discerning between the military branch and Space Force when it comes to which one stars Steve Carrell , but they might not be able to tell who is selling a line of Space Force shirts .
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office relies on a “ first-to-use ” system when assigning rights , and Netflix has been submitting trademark applications for the Space Force across @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Under that “ first-to-use ” system , the real Space Force may be in trouble .
Not only did they file their application later than Netflix , but they didn ’ t become an official military branch until last December .
By then Netflix was already in production and selling t-shirts and all the rest of the usual show merchandise .
But what if the US Space Force starts selling t-shirts , hats and all of the stuff that the other branches already market ?
( I checked their website this morning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ memorabilia page yet . )
Would Netflix actually have the solid brass cojones to sue the military over trademark infringement ?
Of course , the Space Force has gotten off to a rocky start in terms of brand identify pretty much from day one .
Remember that when the new flag for the branch was unfolded during an Oval Office ceremony ?
It got stuck just for a moment at an unfortunate point and the resulting screen capture set # UFOTwitter abuzz immediately .
Here ’ s the video of the event .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ capture of the key moment in case you missed it .
Observe the exposed letters toward the right side of the flag .
( Click for full-size image . )
The flag seemed to snag just when the letters “ UFO ” were revealed .
Was it an unfortunate accident or was the Pentagon trying to send us a subtle message about what the Space Force is really up to ?
Each of you can be the judge of that as you see fit .
As for me , I ’ m not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s definitely aliens .

It’s not a coincidence that the newest branch of our military, the United States Space Force, was rolling out at roughly the same time that Netflix began developing their own comedy series named Space Force, starring Steve Carrell. It was a natural topic for the development of such a show, particularly during a time when so much of the mainstream media has been dabbling in the subject of UFOs and space movies are making a big comeback. But trouble may be brewing for our new military branch and it’s not in the form of aliens taking out our satellites. They’re getting caught up in a trademark war.
As it turns out, the Netflix show began putting in applications for trademarks around the globe at the beginning of last year. It gives them the right to control the name in terms of selling merchandise and other marketing schemes. But the military likes to sell their own merch for the various branches of the armed services and Space Force will be no exception. Except they didn’t file for their first trademark until later in the year and they never applied in Europe or elsewhere. So has Netflix won the war before the first laser bolt has been fired? (Gizmodo)
The real Space Force may be going down in flames against the fictional Space Force: According to the Hollywood Reporter, the newly founded military branch appears to be losing a trademark battle with the Netflix comedy show of the same name. Netflix “has outmaneuvered the U.S. government to secure trademark rights to ‘Space Force’ in Europe, Australia, Mexico and elsewhere,” according to the Reporter, while the Air Force—under which the Space Force is organized—simply has a pending application stateside. This mostly has ramifications for merch. Consumers won’t have trouble discerning between the military branch and Space Force when it comes to which one stars Steve Carrell, but they might not be able to tell who is selling a line of Space Force shirts. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office relies on a “first-to-use” system when assigning rights, and Netflix has been submitting trademark applications for the Space Force across the globe since the start of 2019.
Under that “first-to-use” system, the real Space Force may be in trouble. Not only did they file their application later than Netflix, but they didn’t become an official military branch until last December. By then Netflix was already in production and selling t-shirts and all the rest of the usual show merchandise. But what if the US Space Force starts selling t-shirts, hats and all of the stuff that the other branches already market? (I checked their website this morning and there’s no merchandise or memorabilia page yet.) Would Netflix actually have the solid brass cojones to sue the military over trademark infringement?
Of course, the Space Force has gotten off to a rocky start in terms of brand identify pretty much from day one. Remember that when the new flag for the branch was unfolded during an Oval Office ceremony? It got stuck just for a moment at an unfortunate point and the resulting screen capture set #UFOTwitter abuzz immediately. Here’s the video of the event.
And now here’s the screen capture of the key moment in case you missed it. Observe the exposed letters toward the right side of the flag. (Click for full-size image.)
The flag seemed to snag just when the letters “UFO” were revealed. Was it an unfortunate accident or was the Pentagon trying to send us a subtle message about what the Space Force is really up to? Each of you can be the judge of that as you see fit. As for me, I’m not saying it’s aliens… but it’s definitely aliens.


hotair--2020-06-10--Can the Minneapolis city council *actually* defund the police? Er ...

The Minneapolis city council might learn a very hard lesson in political expectation-setting this summer .
Several of its members have gone full tilt into the # DefundthePolice movement on the progressive fringe , but can they deliver on it ?
Do they even have the authority to deliver on it ?
Actually … no , not really , as the Star Tribune briefly explained yesterday .
In fact , they have to fund and staff its police department in accordance with its population by the terms of its city charter : In other words , “ not entirely ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can limit the police department ’ s size to this formulation , which at present would allow the city council room for a reduction — but nothing like “ defunding ” or “ dismantling ” implies .
At present , the Strib notes , the PD has 892 sworn officers and 175 civilian employees , with a population of 425,400 or so as of 2018 .
That would require a minimum of 724 employees , about 25 % reduction over the present staffing level .
However , the union might have a lot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , to which we ’ ll return in a moment .
Why not just change the city charter ?
It ’ s not that simple , at least not for the city council to do on its own .
It would almost certainly require a vote by the whole city : Who can change the charter ?
The council alone can not do this .
It needs to be a 13-0 vote with the mayor ’ s approval .
But three council members have not said whether they support the dismantling and one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unclear whether a 12-0 vote would be considered unanimous for the purpose of changing the charter .
Mayor Jacob Frey has already declared his opposition to defunding and dismantling the police department , so that seems like a non-starter anyway .
He did so again today on CBS This Morning , which we ’ ll cover in a later posy .
Anything less than 13-0 plus the mayor , and it will get tied up in court for years .
It would take a direct vote from the city ’ s residents to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what happened when the police retreated two weeks ago , getting a simple majority for eliminating the police seems like a very heavy lift .
Salem VP ( and my pal ) Tom Tradup predicts a lot of business owners will close up if Minneapolis even comes close to doing this , based on his experiences in Chicago : If not wanting to be burglarized , raped or murdered constitutes “ a place of privilege ” in the mind of Minneapolis ’ City Council , I probably won ’ t be the only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s travel itinerary .
It is sad and pathetic that America—the land of the free and the home of the brave , a nation where opportunity abounds and people cling to the bottom of pickup trucks just to get across our borders for a chance at a better life—has been portrayed around the world by our slanted , mentally sick and agenda-driven media as home to little more than violent rioters and looters and rogue cops .
While ignoring the very clear and present danger of public officials with a view of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ant .
Minneapolis has—literally and figuratively—hung out the ‘ GOING OUT OF BUSINESS ’ shingle .
Hopefully , the rest of America will learn from their mistakes .
Well , they haven ’ t yet , mainly because the city council can ’ t do it on its own .
Even so , however , council president Lisa Bender and her allies on the council are playing a dangerous game .
They are setting expectations for a dismantling of police that they don ’ t have the authority to accomplish .
What happens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s just say that avoiding Minneapolis this summer might not be a bad strategy .

The Minneapolis city council might learn a very hard lesson in political expectation-setting this summer. Several of its members have gone full tilt into the #DefundthePolice movement on the progressive fringe, but can they deliver on it? Do they even have the authority to deliver on it?
Actually … no, not really, as the Star Tribune briefly explained yesterday. In fact, they have to fund and staff its police department in accordance with its population by the terms of its city charter:
Can the Council “defund” the police and stop paying them? Not entirely. The Council must follow the City Charter which requires the funding of “a police force of at least 0.0017 employees per resident, and provide for those employees’ compensation, for which purpose it may tax the taxable property in the City up to 0.3 percent of its value annually.”
In other words, “not entirely” means “not at all.” It can limit the police department’s size to this formulation, which at present would allow the city council room for a reduction — but nothing like “defunding” or “dismantling” implies. At present, the Strib notes, the PD has 892 sworn officers and 175 civilian employees, with a population of 425,400 or so as of 2018. That would require a minimum of 724 employees, about 25% reduction over the present staffing level. However, the union might have a lot to say about those kinds of cuts, to which we’ll return in a moment.
Why not just change the city charter? It’s not that simple, at least not for the city council to do on its own. It would almost certainly require a vote by the whole city:
Who can change the charter? The council alone cannot do this. It needs to be a 13-0 vote with the mayor’s approval. But three council members have not said whether they support the dismantling and one seat is vacant. It’s unclear whether a 12-0 vote would be considered unanimous for the purpose of changing the charter.
Mayor Jacob Frey has already declared his opposition to defunding and dismantling the police department, so that seems like a non-starter anyway. He did so again today on CBS This Morning, which we’ll cover in a later posy. Anything less than 13-0 plus the mayor, and it will get tied up in court for years. It would take a direct vote from the city’s residents to settle the question, and after watching what happened when the police retreated two weeks ago, getting a simple majority for eliminating the police seems like a very heavy lift. Salem VP (and my pal) Tom Tradup predicts a lot of business owners will close up if Minneapolis even comes close to doing this, based on his experiences in Chicago:
If not wanting to be burglarized, raped or murdered constitutes “a place of privilege” in the mind of Minneapolis’ City Council, I probably won’t be the only person scratching the city off my family’s travel itinerary. It is sad and pathetic that America—the land of the free and the home of the brave, a nation where opportunity abounds and people cling to the bottom of pickup trucks just to get across our borders for a chance at a better life—has been portrayed around the world by our slanted, mentally sick and agenda-driven media as home to little more than violent rioters and looters and rogue cops. While ignoring the very clear and present danger of public officials with a view of our nation similar to that of an ant. Minneapolis has—literally and figuratively—hung out the ‘GOING OUT OF BUSINESS’ shingle. Hopefully, the rest of America will learn from their mistakes.
Well, they haven’t yet, mainly because the city council can’t do it on its own.
Even so, however, council president Lisa Bender and her allies on the council are playing a dangerous game. They are setting expectations for a dismantling of police that they don’t have the authority to accomplish. What happens when they inevitably fail? Let’s just say that avoiding Minneapolis this summer might not be a bad strategy.


hotair--2020-06-10--WH coronavirus task force: 70 testing sites have been destroyed by the unrest over George Floyd's de

WH coronavirus task force: 70 testing sites have been destroyed by the unrest over George Floyd's death

The only entity more enthusiastic about riots than woke media is SARS-CoV-2 .
So the demonstrations are a double whammy .
Not only are the mass gatherings fostering transmission , the damage done to testing facilities is limiting local authorities ’ ability to spot the new outbreaks as they pop up .
Meanwhile , on a separate call with governors a week earlier , Birx told them that although they hadn ’ t detected a spike from Memorial Day excursions yet the task force had seen signs of renewed community spread in some states : Birx noted that while all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states—California , Arizona , and North Carolina—had seen positive test results rise at the same time ; an ominous sign about the virus ’ trajectory .
“ That makes us quite concerned , ” Birx said .
Pointing specifically to increased cases in Phoenix , Charlotte , and in Salt Lake City , she said it was her belief that “ there is active community spread in California , North Carolina , Utah , and Arizona.
” Birx noted , in particular , that her team had seen data that showed community spread @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and she urged governors to ensure that the communities there knew that “ there are tests , and tests are free.
” If this model is accurate , there are 12 states right now where the transmission rate exceeds 1.0 , which means infections are increasing .
The good news is that in every case it ’ s only the tiniest bit above 1.0 .
As Nate Silver noted earlier today , although the trends in some states are worrisome , the scale of the new outbreaks is a fraction of what it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disease in March and April .
It ’ s not a moment to panic .
But it is a moment for concern — especially in red states .
Of the 12 where the transmission rate exceeds 1.0 , fully 10 of them are red , which of course were more likely to reopen early than blue states were .
It seems like more than a coincidence that the upward trends we ’ re now seeing in places like Texas and Arizona are occurring two weeks after Memorial Day , when Americans were more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ socialize if their state ’ s rules permitted it .
The timeline is exactly what we ’ d expect given the standard incubation course of COVID-19 .
WaPo ’ s following the uptick in hospitalizations in some states since Memorial Day too : “ In Texas , North and South Carolina , California , Oregon , Arkansas , Mississippi , Utah and Arizona , there are an increasing number of patients under supervised care since the holiday weekend because of coronavirus infections .
The spikes generally began in the past couple weeks and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In Arkansas , hospitalizations are up 88 percent in the past two weeks , although the raw numbers remain low ( from 92 people to 173 ) .
In California , nearly half of the state ’ s 39 million residents live in counties where infections are trending high enough to land them on a “ watch list ” for potential new lockdown orders ( ! )
down the line .
Arizona ’ s the most troubling trouble spot , though .
Some of their hospitals are already filling up and the trend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I assume that at the moment practically none of the uptick anywhere is owing to the protests .
It ’ s just too soon since they started happening on a mass scale for people to have incubated the virus , then progressed to mild symptoms , then deteriorated to the point of needing to go to the ER .
But next week could be bad .
We ’ ve had a little national attention-span vacation from COVID since mid-May .
That ’ s probably about to end .
As for Birx ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” in testing rates in states where facilities were destroyed , it ’ s not showing up clearly in the data .
It *is* true that the total number of tests nationally on Monday and Tuesday of this week were lower than they were on the Monday and Tuesday of the preceding week — but only slightly lower .
Meanwhile , the U.S. notched its two biggest testing days ever on Friday and Saturday , recording more than half a million tests on each day .
Presumably most or all of the destroyed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the more violent protests happened shortly after George Floyd ’ s death .
Looking at the data for Minnesota specifically ( on the assumption that the protests there were more likely to turn violent ) , you can see a dip in testing from May 31 to June 2 — but then they ’ re back with a vengeance over the past week , testing at some of their highest levels to date .
Megan McArdle asks a good question : How many facilities were truly “ destroyed ” and rendered inoperative long-term @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down for a day to , say , repair broken windows ?
Either way , the political wing of the White House seems to be largely done with the epidemic .
The task force is reportedly meeting only twice a week now and the president is hellbent on restarting his rallies even though , unlike the protests , presumably most or all of them will be held indoors with attendees stationary and breathing the same recycled air .
We ’ ll see what Birx has to say about that when she ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Here ’ s a parting thought from Benjy Sarlin on our current reality involving a “ manageable ” epidemic .
We ’ re settled into a comfort zone with around 6,000 deaths per week .
There are 30 weeks left in 2020 .
Do the math .

The only entity more enthusiastic about riots than woke media is SARS-CoV-2.
Speaking via conference call, a recording of which The Daily Beast obtained, Deborah Birx, Trump’s coronavirus response coordinator, relayed fears that the yelling by protesters could potentially negate the health benefits of wearing a mask, and that the destruction of testing sites at those protests would set back efforts to contain the virus’ spread. Birx said 70 such sites had been destroyed, which had already resulted in an appreciable drop in testing rates there. She advised governors to “scramble now to make sure there is testing available in urban areas.”
So the demonstrations are a double whammy. Not only are the mass gatherings fostering transmission, the damage done to testing facilities is limiting local authorities’ ability to spot the new outbreaks as they pop up. Meanwhile, on a separate call with governors a week earlier, Birx told them that although they hadn’t detected a spike from Memorial Day excursions yet the task force had seen signs of renewed community spread in some states:
Birx noted that while all states had dramatically increased testing, three states—California, Arizona, and North Carolina—had seen positive test results rise at the same time; an ominous sign about the virus’ trajectory. “That makes us quite concerned,” Birx said. Pointing specifically to increased cases in Phoenix, Charlotte, and in Salt Lake City, she said it was her belief that “there is active community spread in California, North Carolina, Utah, and Arizona.” Birx noted, in particular, that her team had seen data that showed community spread in “metro Hispanic neighborhoods,” and she urged governors to ensure that the communities there knew that “there are tests, and tests are free.”
If this model is accurate, there are 12 states right now where the transmission rate exceeds 1.0, which means infections are increasing. The good news is that in every case it’s only the tiniest bit above 1.0. As Nate Silver noted earlier today, although the trends in some states are worrisome, the scale of the new outbreaks is a fraction of what it was during the first wave of the disease in March and April.
Something I don't think is appreciated is the extent to which current coronavirus spread in the US is occurring at a medium-high level in many places, as opposed to a super-high level in some places. At the peak in NYC, an estimated 11% of people had an active COVID infection! — Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) June 10, 2020
By contrast, a sample of the number of people currently infected in some of the hotspots that are getting media attention today: 0.6% (Georgia), 0.7% (Los Angeles), 0.6% (Arizona), 0.4% (North Carolina), 0.4% (Dallas), 0.4% (Florida), 0.2% (Utah). — Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) June 10, 2020
It’s not a moment to panic. But it is a moment for concern — especially in red states. Of the 12 where the transmission rate exceeds 1.0, fully 10 of them are red, which of course were more likely to reopen early than blue states were. It seems like more than a coincidence that the upward trends we’re now seeing in places like Texas and Arizona are occurring two weeks after Memorial Day, when Americans were more likely to let down their hair and socialize if their state’s rules permitted it. The timeline is exactly what we’d expect given the standard incubation course of COVID-19.
WaPo’s following the uptick in hospitalizations in some states since Memorial Day too: “In Texas, North and South Carolina, California, Oregon, Arkansas, Mississippi, Utah and Arizona, there are an increasing number of patients under supervised care since the holiday weekend because of coronavirus infections. The spikes generally began in the past couple weeks and in most states are trending higher.” In Arkansas, hospitalizations are up 88 percent in the past two weeks, although the raw numbers remain low (from 92 people to 173). In California, nearly half of the state’s 39 million residents live in counties where infections are trending high enough to land them on a “watch list” for potential new lockdown orders(!) down the line.
Arizona’s the most troubling trouble spot, though. Some of their hospitals are already filling up and the trend in overall cases is … not great.
I don't share the purely cumulative chart often since it's arguably misleading. But seeing the turn from linear to exponential that has occurred since the end of May is important. Simply, put, this line must bend the other way. pic.twitter.com/gHF0KGwZKg — The AZ – abc15 – Data Guru (@Garrett_Archer) June 10, 2020
I assume that at the moment practically none of the uptick anywhere is owing to the protests. It’s just too soon since they started happening on a mass scale for people to have incubated the virus, then progressed to mild symptoms, then deteriorated to the point of needing to go to the ER. But next week could be bad. We’ve had a little national attention-span vacation from COVID since mid-May. That’s probably about to end.
As for Birx’s claim about an “appreciable drop” in testing rates in states where facilities were destroyed, it’s not showing up clearly in the data. It *is* true that the total number of tests nationally on Monday and Tuesday of this week were lower than they were on the Monday and Tuesday of the preceding week — but only slightly lower. Meanwhile, the U.S. notched its two biggest testing days ever on Friday and Saturday, recording more than half a million tests on each day. Presumably most or all of the destroyed facilities were ravaged before then, since the more violent protests happened shortly after George Floyd’s death. Looking at the data for Minnesota specifically (on the assumption that the protests there were more likely to turn violent), you can see a dip in testing from May 31 to June 2 — but then they’re back with a vengeance over the past week, testing at some of their highest levels to date. Megan McArdle asks a good question: How many facilities were truly “destroyed” and rendered inoperative long-term and how many merely had to shut down for a day to, say, repair broken windows?
Either way, the political wing of the White House seems to be largely done with the epidemic. The task force is reportedly meeting only twice a week now and the president is hellbent on restarting his rallies even though, unlike the protests, presumably most or all of them will be held indoors with attendees stationary and breathing the same recycled air. We’ll see what Birx has to say about that when she’s asked, which she will be.
Here’s a parting thought from Benjy Sarlin on our current reality involving a “manageable” epidemic. We’re settled into a comfort zone with around 6,000 deaths per week. There are 30 weeks left in 2020. Do the math.