hotair--2020-09-14--Has Hollywood jumped the shark over fears of Trump's re-election?

Some members of the cast of Parks and Recreation will reunite for a fundraiser for Wisconsin Democrats .
If this sounds familiar , it should .
The cast of Princess Bride is also reuniting for the same purpose – helping guarantee that Wisconsin turns out the vote for Joe Biden .
Several of the show ’ s stars , including Amy Poehler , Adam Scott and Nick Offerman , will hold a virtual event raising money for the Wisconsin Democratic Party .
Aubrey Plaza , Retta , Jim O ’ Heir and series co-creator Michael Schur will also join in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some surprise guests .
The event is titled “ A Parks and Rec Town Hall ” and will feature a Q & A with the cast members .
It ’ s not clear from the announcement if the town hall questions are to be about politics and the presidential election or just a chance for fans to interact with their favorites from the show .
Are any of the actors known for astute political observations or clever opinionated discussions ?
Not that I ’ m aware of .
I know Amy Poehler was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This event sounds kind of sad , though , as participants are asked to make a donation to the virtual event , even if it is just $ 1.00 .
The event ’ s website says any donation at all will “ be used to ensure that Trump loses Wisconsin , and thereby the White House.
” The pitch for just one dollar was also used in the announcement about the Princess Bride cast reunion .
The town hall will be live-streamed on Sept. 17 at 8 p.m. CT followed by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CT .
The cast of The West Wing was first to announce a reunion for fundraising purposes in support of Black Lives Matter , teaming up with Michelle Obama .
Wisconsin Democrats took that idea and are using it to fundraise because of the importance of the state as a swing state in the presidential election .
The entire cast of Parks and Recreation came together in April with a virtual scripted special .
It raised more than $ 2.8 million and drew over 3.6 million viewers for COVID-19 relief .
Not all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Wisconsin Democrats .
This brings me to a question – Is the entertainment industry entering overkill territory in their desperation to oust President Trump from the White House ?
Sure , it ’ s normal for Hollywood to support whichever Democrat is running for president .
They fundraise and make guest appearances at campaign rallies , bringing star power to draw a crowd to political events .
But this cycle it ’ s different .
There is a certain desperate viciousness to it all .
There are the usual tell-all books from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hit jobs from James Comey , Bob Woodward , and Michael Cohen .
But not everyone reads books .
More people watch television or stream entertainment .
So , there have been offerings to the Trump deranged Democrats to keep them riled up against him .
There was a reading of the Mueller Report by Hollywood celebrities .
There is a movie coming out before the election based on Comey ’ s book .
There is a behind the scenes style show of the presidential campaigns on Showtime , The Circus but it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are all Biden voters .
Last night ’ s show , for example , concentrated in promoting the Democrat talking points that Trump is working with the USPS to rig the election in his favor .
But the one Hollywood production that made me think that the market is saturated and likely not providing the outcome hoped for was a new release on HBO that began airing Saturday night .
Coastal Elites is a one-time event that features five actors who deliver individual monologues .
All are anti-Trump rants , some more dramatic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ covered it and wrote a good review of it .
The most obnoxious was the monologue delivered by Bette Midler , as you can imagine .
It was a full-on overwrought emotional breakdown over the bad Orange Man .
She is so Trump deranged , she explains , that she was arrested for snatching a MAGA hat from a Trump supporter who had the nerve to wear it in New York City .
The others were dramatic in varying degrees .
The fifth actor – an actress who portrays a nurse working in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just describing working in a hospital during the plague and one patient she becomes attached to .
She calls herself an Independent but by the end of her monologue , she obviously has become a Biden voter .
The problem is that there has been a solid four years of liberal meltdowns over Trump .
Hollywood actors are useful idiots for the Democrat Party .
None of these productions will change a vote if you ask me .
People are fatigued by the political divisions that demonize the president while offering no real @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the HBO production , for example , are enthusiastic Joe Biden voters – they are anyone-but-Trump voters .
Exaggerated dramatic productions won ’ t move the needle with voters at this point .
Let the Wisconsin Democrats try to deliver that state for Biden , one dollar at a time .
Are swing state voters and voters in flyover states paying attention to Hollywood ’ s antics ?
When regular people , not political junkies but regular voters look for entertainment to distract them from the plague and the economy and the stresses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t think they are turning to pampered liberal actors who dwell in coastal bubbles for voting advice .
I may be wrong , but it sure looks like Hollywood is jumping the shark during this election cycle .

Some members of the cast of Parks and Recreation will reunite for a fundraiser for Wisconsin Democrats. If this sounds familiar, it should. The cast of Princess Bride is also reuniting for the same purpose – helping guarantee that Wisconsin turns out the vote for Joe Biden.
Several of the show’s stars, including Amy Poehler, Adam Scott and Nick Offerman, will hold a virtual event raising money for the Wisconsin Democratic Party. Aubrey Plaza, Retta, Jim O’Heir and series co-creator Michael Schur will also join in on the fundraiser, in addition to some surprise guests. The event is titled “A Parks and Rec Town Hall” and will feature a Q&A with the cast members.
It’s not clear from the announcement if the town hall questions are to be about politics and the presidential election or just a chance for fans to interact with their favorites from the show. Are any of the actors known for astute political observations or clever opinionated discussions? Not that I’m aware of. I know Amy Poehler was a huge Hillary Clinton fangirl in 2016. This event sounds kind of sad, though, as participants are asked to make a donation to the virtual event, even if it is just $1.00. The event’s website says any donation at all will “ be used to ensure that Trump loses Wisconsin, and thereby the White House.” The pitch for just one dollar was also used in the announcement about the Princess Bride cast reunion.
The town hall will be live-streamed on Sept. 17 at 8 p.m. CT followed by the exclusive Q&A at 8:30 p.m. CT.
The cast of The West Wing was first to announce a reunion for fundraising purposes in support of Black Lives Matter, teaming up with Michelle Obama. Wisconsin Democrats took that idea and are using it to fundraise because of the importance of the state as a swing state in the presidential election. The entire cast of Parks and Recreation came together in April with a virtual scripted special. It raised more than $2.8 million and drew over 3.6 million viewers for COVID-19 relief. Not all cast members are doing this fundraiser for the Wisconsin Democrats.
This brings me to a question – Is the entertainment industry entering overkill territory in their desperation to oust President Trump from the White House? Sure, it’s normal for Hollywood to support whichever Democrat is running for president. They fundraise and make guest appearances at campaign rallies, bringing star power to draw a crowd to political events. But this cycle it’s different. There is a certain desperate viciousness to it all. There are the usual tell-all books from Trump’s opponents, including the hit jobs from James Comey, Bob Woodward, and Michael Cohen. But not everyone reads books. More people watch television or stream entertainment. So, there have been offerings to the Trump deranged Democrats to keep them riled up against him.
There was a reading of the Mueller Report by Hollywood celebrities. There is a movie coming out before the election based on Comey’s book. There is a behind the scenes style show of the presidential campaigns on Showtime, The Circus but it largely focuses on Biden and the hosts are all Biden voters. Last night’s show, for example, concentrated in promoting the Democrat talking points that Trump is working with the USPS to rig the election in his favor. But the one Hollywood production that made me think that the market is saturated and likely not providing the outcome hoped for was a new release on HBO that began airing Saturday night.
Coastal Elites is a one-time event that features five actors who deliver individual monologues. All are anti-Trump rants, some more dramatic than others. A colleague at NewsBusters covered it and wrote a good review of it. The most obnoxious was the monologue delivered by Bette Midler, as you can imagine. It was a full-on overwrought emotional breakdown over the bad Orange Man. She is so Trump deranged, she explains, that she was arrested for snatching a MAGA hat from a Trump supporter who had the nerve to wear it in New York City. The others were dramatic in varying degrees. The fifth actor – an actress who portrays a nurse working in NYC during the coronavirus – starts out just describing working in a hospital during the plague and one patient she becomes attached to. She calls herself an Independent but by the end of her monologue, she obviously has become a Biden voter.
The problem is that there has been a solid four years of liberal meltdowns over Trump. Hollywood actors are useful idiots for the Democrat Party. None of these productions will change a vote if you ask me. People are fatigued by the political divisions that demonize the president while offering no real alternative. None of these actors in the HBO production, for example, are enthusiastic Joe Biden voters – they are anyone-but-Trump voters. Exaggerated dramatic productions won’t move the needle with voters at this point.
Let the Wisconsin Democrats try to deliver that state for Biden, one dollar at a time. Are swing state voters and voters in flyover states paying attention to Hollywood’s antics? When regular people, not political junkies but regular voters look for entertainment to distract them from the plague and the economy and the stresses on life in general, I don’t think they are turning to pampered liberal actors who dwell in coastal bubbles for voting advice. I may be wrong, but it sure looks like Hollywood is jumping the shark during this election cycle.


hotair--2020-09-14--San Francisco prepares to allow children to vote

There will be more than just presidential and congressional elections on the ballot on November 3rd .
In San Francisco , they ’ re going to be voting about voting .
Specifically , city residents will be voting on whether or not to lower the voting age for municipal elections to 16 , making the City by the Bay the first , major municipality to do so .
( Some smaller cities and towns have already implemented similar measures over the past decade . )
This scheme is largely being driven by a group known as Vote 16 , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This is the second time they ’ ve tried , with the first effort failing two years ago .
( NBC News ) San Francisco residents will cast ballots in November to determine not just who should be in the White House but also whether 16- and 17-year-olds should be allowed to vote in local elections .
A similar measure introduced in 2016 narrowly failed , with 48 percent of the vote , but local activists and organizers are confident that it will pass this time .
“ I really think that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in San Francisco establish the habit of voting at an earlier age and really provide them with the support and the resources that they need to continue building on that habit as they grow older , ” said Crystal Chan , 18 , an organizer for Vote 16 SF who fought to get the measure on the ballot .
It appears that Vote 16 is trying to glom onto the current state of racial unrest sweeping the nation after coming up short in 2018 .
Notice how their spokesperson specifies that the measure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ establish the habit of voting at an early age .
But the proposition doesn ’ t only apply to minorities .
It applies to all children 16 and older .
And the reality is that nobody establishes a habit of voting at 16 in almost all of the United States because we don ’ t allow children to vote , regardless of their race , gender or any other factor .
That fact highlights the primary reason to oppose a measure such as this and it ’ s no different from questions we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minimum age for all manner of activities .
These include the ability to get married , to drink alcohol or smoke tobacco products , or enlist in the military .
Voting should be no different as far as I ’ m concerned .
More than a year ago I posed a question here that I felt led to some productive discussions .
When are you an adult ?
While it varies greatly from culture to culture , pretty much all of humanity has recognized from the beginning that there ’ s some point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they leave the stage of childhood and enter into the world of adult responsibilities .
And there ’ s plenty of science to support the proposition that human brains , both physically and emotionally , continue to develop for quite a while .
The people supporting Vote 16 in San Francisco don ’ t appear to disagree with that premise , otherwise why not let children vote at 14 ?
Or 8 ?
But they ’ re not suggesting that .
They ’ re saying that you should be mature enough at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ affect everyone in your community and impact legislative activity , budgets and everything else .
How many of you really think 16-year-olds have that kind of maturity ?
Sure , there are exceptions who come from families that provide the appropriate levels of discipline and guidance at an early age , but those are the exceptions rather than the rule .
Frankly , I ’ m not sure most 18-year-olds should be trusted with such matters , particularly when I remember how I was at 18 when I enlisted in the military .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ head in the middle of too many other crisis situations .
But there ’ s nothing to be done about it at this point .
This is a local matter and the citizens of the city will have to decide for themselves .
But if the 2020 municipal budget winds up including free tickets to Disneyland for everyone , don ’ t come crying to us .

There will be more than just presidential and congressional elections on the ballot on November 3rd. In San Francisco, they’re going to be voting about voting. Specifically, city residents will be voting on whether or not to lower the voting age for municipal elections to 16, making the City by the Bay the first, major municipality to do so. (Some smaller cities and towns have already implemented similar measures over the past decade.) This scheme is largely being driven by a group known as Vote 16, who worked to get it on the ballot. This is the second time they’ve tried, with the first effort failing two years ago. (NBC News)
San Francisco residents will cast ballots in November to determine not just who should be in the White House but also whether 16- and 17-year-olds should be allowed to vote in local elections. A similar measure introduced in 2016 narrowly failed, with 48 percent of the vote, but local activists and organizers are confident that it will pass this time. “I really think that Vote 16 will help youth of color in San Francisco establish the habit of voting at an earlier age and really provide them with the support and the resources that they need to continue building on that habit as they grow older,” said Crystal Chan, 18, an organizer for Vote 16 SF who fought to get the measure on the ballot.
It appears that Vote 16 is trying to glom onto the current state of racial unrest sweeping the nation after coming up short in 2018. Notice how their spokesperson specifies that the measure will help “youth of color” establish the habit of voting at an early age. But the proposition doesn’t only apply to minorities. It applies to all children 16 and older. And the reality is that nobody establishes a habit of voting at 16 in almost all of the United States because we don’t allow children to vote, regardless of their race, gender or any other factor.
That fact highlights the primary reason to oppose a measure such as this and it’s no different from questions we’ve debated here before concerning the minimum age for all manner of activities. These include the ability to get married, to drink alcohol or smoke tobacco products, or enlist in the military. Voting should be no different as far as I’m concerned.
More than a year ago I posed a question here that I felt led to some productive discussions. When are you an adult? While it varies greatly from culture to culture, pretty much all of humanity has recognized from the beginning that there’s some point in a person’s development where they leave the stage of childhood and enter into the world of adult responsibilities. And there’s plenty of science to support the proposition that human brains, both physically and emotionally, continue to develop for quite a while.
The people supporting Vote 16 in San Francisco don’t appear to disagree with that premise, otherwise why not let children vote at 14? Or 8? But they’re not suggesting that. They’re saying that you should be mature enough at the age of 16 to make decisions that affect everyone in your community and impact legislative activity, budgets and everything else. How many of you really think 16-year-olds have that kind of maturity? Sure, there are exceptions who come from families that provide the appropriate levels of discipline and guidance at an early age, but those are the exceptions rather than the rule. Frankly, I’m not sure most 18-year-olds should be trusted with such matters, particularly when I remember how I was at 18 when I enlisted in the military.
This is more left-coast nonsense rearing its head in the middle of too many other crisis situations. But there’s nothing to be done about it at this point. This is a local matter and the citizens of the city will have to decide for themselves. But if the 2020 municipal budget winds up including free tickets to Disneyland for everyone, don’t come crying to us.


hotair--2020-09-14--Did we just find life on Venus?

Did we just find life on Venus?

There was quite a bit of buzz on the interwebs yesterday after some news leaked out from the British Royal Astronomical Society .
( Not a source for leaks you normally see here . )
The results of a study of the upper atmosphere of the planet Venus have produced some startling findings that the scientists involved in the project plan to announce later today .
The long and the short of it is that they ’ ve discovered significant amounts of phosphine in the Venusian upper atmosphere .
This basic chemical compound composed of one phosphorus atom and three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in large amounts in the atmosphere of Venus for one simple reason .
It ’ s most commonly ( though not uniquely ) produced as a result of the breakdown of organic matter .
In other words… life .
Could something actually be alive in the atmosphere of Venus ?
A brief explanation from astrobiology.com follows .
[ A ] ccording to several sources knowledgeable with the details of the announcement phosphine has been discovered in the atmosphere of Venus .
Its presence suggests – suggests – some strange chemistry going on since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expect to see if life ( as we know it ) was involved .
The presence of phosphine is seen by many astrobiologists as a “ biosignature ” i.e .
an indicator of the possible presence of life .
The detection was made by the Atacama ( ALMA ) array located in Chile and the James Clerk Maxwell telescope located in Hawaii .
The research team includes members from the University of Manchester , the Massachusetts Institute of Technology , and Cardiff University .
A paper will appear in the 14 September issue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cardiff University seem to be pretty excited about this .
They ’ ve been studying the data for a while now , trying to find some non-biological source that might account for the levels of phosphine being observed and they ’ re drawing a blank .
And if we eliminate the other potential sources , the only thing lefts appears to be some form of life in Venus ’ upper atmosphere .
In this leaked video , astrobiologist Janusz Petkowski from MIT explains how they seem fairly convinced we ’ re on to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an explanation ( yet ) aside from life .
So this is crazy , right ?
Life on Venus ?
Well… maybe not as crazy as it first sounds .
A popular and plausible theory among astrophysicists holds that a couple of billion years ago , Venus looked a lot like Earth did in its formative stages .
It may have had liquid water and conditions suitable for life for several billion years until roughly 750 million years ago when everything went to literal hell in a handbasket .
So perhaps life did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ biology is floating around in the planet ’ s upper atmosphere , which is actually quite hospitable compared to conditions on the surface .
It ’ s full of water vapor and other random particulates and the temperature is pleasantly warm far above the Venusian surface .
But with that said , you ’ re asking the Venusians to do some seriously heavy lifting .
When I said things went to literal hell there , I wasn ’ t exaggerating .
The Soviet Union landed dozens of probes on Venus between 1967 and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ data .
What they found was a planet with surface temperatures of nearly 900 degrees Fahrenheit , a partially molten surface and a nearly constant condition of rainfall .
Except the “ rain ” isn ’ t water .
It ’ s sulfuric acid .
At some point , the planet may have been habitable , but it spiraled into an out-of-control greenhouse effect that changed it utterly .
( We don ’ t know why that happened , but for now , I ’ ll just assume that the Venusian fracking program @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . )
Could some microbes have found a way to survive in the more pleasant conditions found in the upper atmosphere for all of this time ?
Perhaps .
But there is one other possible explanation to consider .
Remember those Soviet probes I mentioned above ?
Couldn ’ t it be possible that some Earth microbes hitched a ride on one or more of them , peeled off as the probe entered the atmosphere , and basically seeded the clouds with a starter kit for life ?
In order to find out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ d have to have a probe capable of collecting and returning some samples and examine them .
If they have the same DNA as the microbial beasties found on the Earth , we might have our answer .
But if they are something almost entirely different , then the case could be made for a true Venusian Genesis , and wouldn ’ t that spur some interesting conversations ?
Of course , if you happen to believe in the panspermia hypothesis ( as I do ) then the galaxy is probably lousy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ common ancestor , modified through evolution to fit the environment where it lands .
The official announcement from the British Astronomical society will be made later this morning on their Facebook page .
Stay tuned .

There was quite a bit of buzz on the interwebs yesterday after some news leaked out from the British Royal Astronomical Society. (Not a source for leaks you normally see here.) The results of a study of the upper atmosphere of the planet Venus have produced some startling findings that the scientists involved in the project plan to announce later today. The long and the short of it is that they’ve discovered significant amounts of phosphine in the Venusian upper atmosphere. This basic chemical compound composed of one phosphorus atom and three hydrogen atoms shouldn’t be found in large amounts in the atmosphere of Venus for one simple reason. It’s most commonly (though not uniquely) produced as a result of the breakdown of organic matter. In other words… life. Could something actually be alive in the atmosphere of Venus? A brief explanation from astrobiology.com follows.
[A]ccording to several sources knowledgeable with the details of the announcement phosphine has been discovered in the atmosphere of Venus. Its presence suggests – suggests – some strange chemistry going on since phosphine is something you’d only expect to see if life (as we know it) was involved. The presence of phosphine is seen by many astrobiologists as a “biosignature” i.e. an indicator of the possible presence of life. The detection was made by the Atacama (ALMA) array located in Chile and the James Clerk Maxwell telescope located in Hawaii. The research team includes members from the University of Manchester, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Cardiff University. A paper will appear in the 14 September issue of Nature Astronomy.
Both MIT and Cardiff University seem to be pretty excited about this. They’ve been studying the data for a while now, trying to find some non-biological source that might account for the levels of phosphine being observed and they’re drawing a blank. And if we eliminate the other potential sources, the only thing lefts appears to be some form of life in Venus’ upper atmosphere.
In this leaked video, astrobiologist Janusz Petkowski from MIT explains how they seem fairly convinced we’re on to something and they don’t have an explanation (yet) aside from life.
So this is crazy, right? Life on Venus? Well… maybe not as crazy as it first sounds. A popular and plausible theory among astrophysicists holds that a couple of billion years ago, Venus looked a lot like Earth did in its formative stages. It may have had liquid water and conditions suitable for life for several billion years until roughly 750 million years ago when everything went to literal hell in a handbasket. So perhaps life did arise there and some remnant of Venusian biology is floating around in the planet’s upper atmosphere, which is actually quite hospitable compared to conditions on the surface. It’s full of water vapor and other random particulates and the temperature is pleasantly warm far above the Venusian surface.
But with that said, you’re asking the Venusians to do some seriously heavy lifting. When I said things went to literal hell there, I wasn’t exaggerating. The Soviet Union landed dozens of probes on Venus between 1967 and 1983, sending back video and environmental data. What they found was a planet with surface temperatures of nearly 900 degrees Fahrenheit, a partially molten surface and a nearly constant condition of rainfall. Except the “rain” isn’t water. It’s sulfuric acid.
At some point, the planet may have been habitable, but it spiraled into an out-of-control greenhouse effect that changed it utterly. (We don’t know why that happened, but for now, I’ll just assume that the Venusian fracking program was insufficiently regulated by their global government.) Could some microbes have found a way to survive in the more pleasant conditions found in the upper atmosphere for all of this time? Perhaps.
But there is one other possible explanation to consider. Remember those Soviet probes I mentioned above? Couldn’t it be possible that some Earth microbes hitched a ride on one or more of them, peeled off as the probe entered the atmosphere, and basically seeded the clouds with a starter kit for life? In order to find out, I’m guessing that we’d have to have a probe capable of collecting and returning some samples and examine them. If they have the same DNA as the microbial beasties found on the Earth, we might have our answer. But if they are something almost entirely different, then the case could be made for a true Venusian Genesis, and wouldn’t that spur some interesting conversations? Of course, if you happen to believe in the panspermia hypothesis (as I do) then the galaxy is probably lousy with life and it all shares some common ancestor, modified through evolution to fit the environment where it lands.
The official announcement from the British Astronomical society will be made later this morning on their Facebook page. Stay tuned.


hotair--2020-09-14--BLM riot erupts in Lancaster after police shoot a charging knife-wielding domestic-disturbance suspe

BLM riot erupts in Lancaster after police shoot a charging knife-wielding domestic-disturbance suspect

Correction : A charging knife-wielding domestic-disturbance suspect with a track record of stabbing people .
Police got called out to a domestic disturbance yesterday and were immediately confronted by Ricardo Munoz , who chased after the officers with a knife .
The police officer ’ s body cam shows how quickly the call turned deadly ( caution — disturbing ) : The Lancaster District Attorney ’ s Office is investigating the shooting but has said that Munoz was acting in a threatening manner toward police who had been called over a domestic disturbance .
Officers arrived at the home in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lancaster around 4:15 p.m. , the DA ’ s office said .
The video released Sunday night shows an officer approaching the home and asking a woman who answered the door “ where ’ d he go ?
” After a moment , a man can be heard saying something as the woman says “ ay Dios ” or “ oh god ” in Spanish .
While she goes to a side porch , the officer tells her to get back as a man comes running out of the home with a knife @ @ @ @ @ @ @ man chases him with the knife raised , and shots can be heard in the footage .
The man can then be seen lying on the sidewalk .
Perhaps unknown to officers at that time , this wasn ’ t Munoz ’ first time attacking people with a knife .
In early 2019 , police had arrested Munoz after a stabbing spree that injured four people and a standoff during which Munoz threatened to slice his own throat ( via Twitchy ) : Even if the officers involved didn ’ t know Munoz @ @ @ @ @ @ @ makes it crystal clear that Munoz was a deadly threat .
It takes almost no time whatsoever for a knife-wielding attacker to kill someone if they get within 20 feet of their intended victim , and Munoz clearly intended to attack the police officer , who was retreating the entire time .
Even if the shooter was a civilian , this would be a clear case of self-defense .
Police released this footage as soon as possible to head off riots in Lancaster .
Unfortunately , it didn ’ t work .
Black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and those quickly turned into rioting , necessitating the use of gas to clear the street .
That only came after significant damage around the police station : Hundreds of people gathered at the scene of the shooting on Sunday evening before marching to the city ’ s police station , according to WGAL-TV .
The windows of police vehicles were smashed at one point , the station reported .
Several posts on social media suggested protesters were angered by Munoz ’ s body being left , reportedly uncovered , on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ … Pictures posted on Twitter by Lancaster Online reporter Carter Walker showed damage to the vehicle and others showed that protesters also made a barricade out of street signs , trash and other items .
Later , a dumpster was set on fire .
Here are a few of the images taken by Walker during the riots : And more from Blaze TV ’ s Elijah Riot , which makes the intent to riot pretty clear : Police said protesters ignored multiple warnings that chemical munitions would be deployed if they did not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ didn ’ t move , chemical agents including pepper spray was used to disperse the crowd , police said “ People on the ramp , W. Chestnut St. and the park adjacent to the station threw water bottles , glass bottles , rocks , bricks , gallon jugs of liquids and parts of plastic road barricades at Officers , ” police said .
“ OC spray was also deployed at protestors that refused to move from the ramp and were physically challenging Officers that were moving to clear people from the ramp.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that appears entirely justified — but of course , that isn ’ t the point .
If that was the point , people would have waited for the evidence to emerge before deciding whether Munoz ’ death required any public protest at all .
It is clear that rioters are looking for any pretext , real or imagined , to destroy property and terrorize communities as a means to advance their radical political agenda .
This isn ’ t a social-justice movement ; it ’ s the brownshirts all over again .
Now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , one has to wonder how Pennsylvania voters will react to this .
Suddenly , that law-and-order issue won ’ t seem anywhere near as academic as it might have last week in the Keystone State .

Correction: A charging knife-wielding domestic-disturbance suspect with a track record of stabbing people. Police got called out to a domestic disturbance yesterday and were immediately confronted by Ricardo Munoz, who chased after the officers with a knife. The police officer’s body cam shows how quickly the call turned deadly (caution — disturbing):
The Lancaster District Attorney’s Office is investigating the shooting but has said that Munoz was acting in a threatening manner toward police who had been called over a domestic disturbance. Officers arrived at the home in the 300 block of Laurel Street in Lancaster around 4:15 p.m., the DA’s office said. The video released Sunday night shows an officer approaching the home and asking a woman who answered the door “where’d he go?” After a moment, a man can be heard saying something as the woman says “ay Dios” or “oh god” in Spanish. While she goes to a side porch, the officer tells her to get back as a man comes running out of the home with a knife. The officer runs, as the man chases him with the knife raised, and shots can be heard in the footage. The man can then be seen lying on the sidewalk.
Perhaps unknown to officers at that time, this wasn’t Munoz’ first time attacking people with a knife. In early 2019, police had arrested Munoz after a stabbing spree that injured four people and a standoff during which Munoz threatened to slice his own throat (via Twitchy):
Ricardo Munoz, the man who died in the officer-involved shooting in Lancaster today that Black Lives Matter is rioting over, has a history of stabbing people. In 2019, he stabbed four people, including a teenager. pic.twitter.com/8SA9UwtPqy — Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) September 14, 2020
Even if the officers involved didn’t know Munoz’ history, the body cam footage makes it crystal clear that Munoz was a deadly threat. It takes almost no time whatsoever for a knife-wielding attacker to kill someone if they get within 20 feet of their intended victim, and Munoz clearly intended to attack the police officer, who was retreating the entire time. Even if the shooter was a civilian, this would be a clear case of self-defense.
Police released this footage as soon as possible to head off riots in Lancaster. Unfortunately, it didn’t work. Black Lives Matter staged protests over the shooting, and those quickly turned into rioting, necessitating the use of gas to clear the street. That only came after significant damage around the police station:
Hundreds of people gathered at the scene of the shooting on Sunday evening before marching to the city’s police station, according to WGAL-TV. The windows of police vehicles were smashed at one point, the station reported. Several posts on social media suggested protesters were angered by Munoz’s body being left, reportedly uncovered, on the street for hours after the shooting. … Pictures posted on Twitter by Lancaster Online reporter Carter Walker showed damage to the vehicle and others showed that protesters also made a barricade out of street signs, trash and other items. Later, a dumpster was set on fire.
Here are a few of the images taken by Walker during the riots:
The scene in front of the Lancaster city police station at 12:22 AM pic.twitter.com/88EXjkkNsM — Carter Walker (@CarterLNP) September 14, 2020
Damage to police station and post office pic.twitter.com/2fvdzU3xnm — Carter Walker (@CarterLNP) September 14, 2020
And more from Blaze TV’s Elijah Riot, which makes the intent to riot pretty clear:
LANCASTER: BLM riots kick off in Lancaster, PA after an officer involved shooting of a man armed with a knife pic.twitter.com/iGX1D03hiN — ELIJAH SCHAFFER (@ElijahSchaffer) September 14, 2020
Police said protesters ignored multiple warnings that chemical munitions would be deployed if they did not move from the ramp. When they didn’t move, chemical agents including pepper spray was used to disperse the crowd, police said “People on the ramp, W. Chestnut St. and the park adjacent to the station threw water bottles, glass bottles, rocks, bricks, gallon jugs of liquids and parts of plastic road barricades at Officers,” police said. “OC spray was also deployed at protestors that refused to move from the ramp and were physically challenging Officers that were moving to clear people from the ramp.”
All of this erupted over a shooting that appears entirely justified — but of course, that isn’t the point. If that was the point, people would have waited for the evidence to emerge before deciding whether Munoz’ death required any public protest at all. It is clear that rioters are looking for any pretext, real or imagined, to destroy property and terrorize communities as a means to advance their radical political agenda. This isn’t a social-justice movement; it’s the brownshirts all over again.
Now that BLM riots have come to Lancaster, one has to wonder how Pennsylvania voters will react to this. Suddenly, that law-and-order issue won’t seem anywhere near as academic as it might have last week in the Keystone State.


hotair--2020-09-15--Rochester Mayor fires police chief who already resigned over alleged BLM complaint

As John reported last week , the Chief of Police in Rochester , New York resigned , along with his entire command staff , in the wake of riots and unrest over the death of Daniel Prude following his arrest in March .
The mob taking to the streets had already injured three police officers and engaged in the usual acts of arson so many cities have experienced this year .
Chief Le ’ Ron Singletary was scheduled to depart at the end of the month after a replacement was identified , but that apparently wasn ’ t good enough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Singletary yesterday , effective immediately .
( NY Post ) Rochester Mayor Lovely Warren on Monday fired Police Chief Le ’ Ron Singletary over his department ’ s handling of the death of Daniel Prude — less than a week after the top cop announced his intention to retire at month ’ s end .
“ This initial look has shown what so many have suspected , that we have a pervasive problem in the Rochester Police Department , ” said Warren in a press briefing announcing the shake-up .
“ One that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ badge and not the citizens we serve .
“ It shows that Mr. Prude ’ s death was not taken as seriously as it should have been by those who reviewed the case throughout city government at every level.
” In addition to firing the Police Chief , Warren suspended both the City Attorney and her communications director for thirty days without pay .
The message she ’ s trying to send seems to be clear and the audience for that message is obviously the mob that has swollen to numbers in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s death isn ’ t even two weeks old and can ’ t possibly be close to a conclusion yet .
This makes the Mayor ’ s decisions here seem all the more arbitrary and capricious .
And given the history of events in Portland , Seattle , Minneapolis and Chicago ( among other cities ) , it seems highly unlikely that the angry crowds are going to be satisfied with these actions or return the city to a normal state of order .
It may indeed be necessary to take a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ death , but the conclusions being drawn by both the media and the mob are far from obvious .
The body camera footage that ’ s been released definitely paints some of the officers in a bad light for the gallows humor on display during the arrest and the jokes being made at Prude ’ s expense , but poor taste and disrespectful comments are a far cry from murder or the other serious charges being alleged .
As we discussed here previously , Prude had a long history of mental health issues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day of his fateful encounter with the cops , police had already taken him to a hospital for a psychiatric evaluation at the request of his family after he had threatened to do himself harm .
After being discharged a few hours later , Prude was massively high on PCP and running around in the street naked when his brother called 911 yet again .
Prude began spitting on the responding officers , who had no idea of his COVID status or other health issues , aside from his mental illness .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the cops declared that Prude had “ coded ” because of a massive PCP overdose , not the effects of having a “ spit hood ” placed over his head .
So it ’ s possible that some corrective action and adjustments to the procedures followed by the cops that night are in order .
A thorough investigation should be able to determine what ’ s required .
But it ’ s not at all clear that this incident bears any resemblance to the death of George Floyd .
The Mayor of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the required information in an effort to appease the mobs in her streets .
And that ’ s an effort that is almost certainly doomed to fail .

As John reported last week, the Chief of Police in Rochester, New York resigned, along with his entire command staff, in the wake of riots and unrest over the death of Daniel Prude following his arrest in March. The mob taking to the streets had already injured three police officers and engaged in the usual acts of arson so many cities have experienced this year. Chief Le’Ron Singletary was scheduled to depart at the end of the month after a replacement was identified, but that apparently wasn’t good enough for Mayor Lovely Warren. She fired Singletary yesterday, effective immediately. (NY Post)
Rochester Mayor Lovely Warren on Monday fired Police Chief Le’Ron Singletary over his department’s handling of the death of Daniel Prude — less than a week after the top cop announced his intention to retire at month’s end. “This initial look has shown what so many have suspected, that we have a pervasive problem in the Rochester Police Department,” said Warren in a press briefing announcing the shake-up. “One that views everything through the eyes of the badge and not the citizens we serve. “It shows that Mr. Prude’s death was not taken as seriously as it should have been by those who reviewed the case throughout city government at every level.”
In addition to firing the Police Chief, Warren suspended both the City Attorney and her communications director for thirty days without pay. The message she’s trying to send seems to be clear and the audience for that message is obviously the mob that has swollen to numbers in the thousands.
The new investigation into Prude’s death isn’t even two weeks old and can’t possibly be close to a conclusion yet. This makes the Mayor’s decisions here seem all the more arbitrary and capricious. And given the history of events in Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis and Chicago (among other cities), it seems highly unlikely that the angry crowds are going to be satisfied with these actions or return the city to a normal state of order.
It may indeed be necessary to take a fresh look at Daniel Prude’s death, but the conclusions being drawn by both the media and the mob are far from obvious. The body camera footage that’s been released definitely paints some of the officers in a bad light for the gallows humor on display during the arrest and the jokes being made at Prude’s expense, but poor taste and disrespectful comments are a far cry from murder or the other serious charges being alleged. As we discussed here previously, Prude had a long history of mental health issues and drug addiction.
On the same day of his fateful encounter with the cops, police had already taken him to a hospital for a psychiatric evaluation at the request of his family after he had threatened to do himself harm. After being discharged a few hours later, Prude was massively high on PCP and running around in the street naked when his brother called 911 yet again. Prude began spitting on the responding officers, who had no idea of his COVID status or other health issues, aside from his mental illness. The paramedic who responded to the call along with the cops declared that Prude had “coded” because of a massive PCP overdose, not the effects of having a “spit hood” placed over his head.
So it’s possible that some corrective action and adjustments to the procedures followed by the cops that night are in order. A thorough investigation should be able to determine what’s required. But it’s not at all clear that this incident bears any resemblance to the death of George Floyd. The Mayor of Rochester appears to be overreacting without all of the required information in an effort to appease the mobs in her streets. And that’s an effort that is almost certainly doomed to fail.


hotair--2020-09-14--Breakthrough? Pittsburgh scientists discover antibody component that completely blocks coronavirus i

Breakthrough? Pittsburgh scientists discover antibody component that completely blocks coronavirus in mice and hamsters

I was going to write about the new Reese ’ s peanut butter cup with potato chips in the filling but I suppose this is the more newsworthy breakthrough of the two .
This isn ’ t as good as a vaccine but if it pans out it ’ d be the next best thing .
It ’ s an antibody treatment — or , more specifically , a treatment involving an antibody component .
Scientists at the University of Pittsburgh realized that you don ’ t need whole entire intact antibodies to fight off COVID ; what you need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the virus ’ s “ spike ” protein , thereby blocking it from attaching itself to human cells .
What they did , according to today ’ s press release , is set about trying to find which antibody — in a library of 100 billion or so — bound most tightly to SARS-CoV-2 ’ s spike .
They exposed the virus to that library and discovered that part of an immunoglobulin antibody produced the best fit .
If I ’ m understanding the science right , they then took the genetic sequence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ produce a drug they call Ab8 .
How ’ d Ab8 do in tests ?
The researchers report today in the journal Cell that Ab8 is highly effective in preventing and treating SARS-CoV-2 infection in mice and hamsters .
Its tiny size not only increases its potential for diffusion in tissues to better neutralize the virus , but also makes it possible to administer the drug by alternative routes , including inhalation… [ A ] team at UTMB ’ s Center for Biodefense and Emerging Diseases and Galveston National Laboratory tested Ab8 using @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concentrations , Ab8 completely blocked the virus from entering cells .
With those results in hand , a team at UNC tested Ab8 at varying concentrations in mice using a modified version of SARS-CoV-2 .
Even at the lowest dose , Ab8 decreased by 10-fold the amount of infectious virus in those mice compared to their untreated counterparts .
Ab8 also was effective in treating and preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection in hamsters , as evaluated by scientists the University of Saskatchewan .
Researchers at the University of British Columbia uncovered the unique way Ab8 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sophisticated electron microscopic techniques .
Antibody treatments can be used as either therapeutics , for people who ’ ve already been infected , or as temporary vaccines , to prevent infection .
Someone who has the virus and is struggling to fight it off might turn the tide as Ab8 enters their system and starts blocking the virus ’ s ability to enter new cells .
According to the researchers ’ report , it may prevent contagion as well : “ It not only reduced the viral load in the lung and alleviated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the upper airway ( nasal washes and oral swab ) , which could potentially reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2 .
Impressively , VH-Fc ab8 was active therapeutically even at 3 mg/kg.
” How excited should we about all this ?
I remembered when I read the press release that the University of Pittsburgh also announced early on , in April , that they had a novel vaccine candidate that would be applied as a patch instead of a shot and could be transported without it needing to be refrigerated .
Unfortunately , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t in clinical trials .
I assume the timeline for this antibody treatment is also long-ish if they haven ’ t begun testing on humans yet , which means that it could be moot by the time it ’ s ready for the market .
Then again , the timeline on beating COVID is longer than many expect despite everyone ’ s hopes for the vaccine .
Anthony Fauci said a few days ago that he ’ s not expecting a return to normalcy until later in 2021 , after the vaccine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the population has been immunized .
If Ab8 is on the market before then , it ’ s potentially enormously significant .
Even after the vaccine has arrived , the many , many , many Americans who are skeptical of vaccinations might be less skeptical of Ab8 as a therapeutic for whatever reason , making this a lifesaver for anti-vaxxers and others who can ’ t get the vaccine for medical reasons .
And of course it ’ s possible that the vaccine ’ s immunity won ’ t be long-lasting , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only some segment of the population .
We ’ ll need a highly effective treatment for infected people in that case .
Is this it ?
Here ’ s the head of Pitt ’ s program explaining the process in mostly intelligible terms .
By the way , the senior author of the study was also one of the first scientists to discover antibodies for the original SARS in 2003 .

I was going to write about the new Reese’s peanut butter cup with potato chips in the filling but I suppose this is the more newsworthy breakthrough of the two.
This isn’t as good as a vaccine but if it pans out it’d be the next best thing. It’s an antibody treatment — or, more specifically, a treatment involving an antibody component. Scientists at the University of Pittsburgh realized that you don’t need whole entire intact antibodies to fight off COVID; what you need is something that’ll bind to the virus’s “spike” protein, thereby blocking it from attaching itself to human cells. What they did, according to today’s press release, is set about trying to find which antibody — in a library of 100 billion or so — bound most tightly to SARS-CoV-2’s spike. They exposed the virus to that library and discovered that part of an immunoglobulin antibody produced the best fit. If I’m understanding the science right, they then took the genetic sequence of that component and used it to produce a drug they call Ab8. How’d Ab8 do in tests?
The researchers report today in the journal Cell that Ab8 is highly effective in preventing and treating SARS-CoV-2 infection in mice and hamsters. Its tiny size not only increases its potential for diffusion in tissues to better neutralize the virus, but also makes it possible to administer the drug by alternative routes, including inhalation… [A] team at UTMB’s Center for Biodefense and Emerging Diseases and Galveston National Laboratory tested Ab8 using live SARS-CoV-2 virus. At very low concentrations, Ab8 completely blocked the virus from entering cells. With those results in hand, a team at UNC tested Ab8 at varying concentrations in mice using a modified version of SARS-CoV-2. Even at the lowest dose, Ab8 decreased by 10-fold the amount of infectious virus in those mice compared to their untreated counterparts. Ab8 also was effective in treating and preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection in hamsters, as evaluated by scientists the University of Saskatchewan. Researchers at the University of British Columbia uncovered the unique way Ab8 neutralizes the virus so effectively by using sophisticated electron microscopic techniques.
Antibody treatments can be used as either therapeutics, for people who’ve already been infected, or as temporary vaccines, to prevent infection. Someone who has the virus and is struggling to fight it off might turn the tide as Ab8 enters their system and starts blocking the virus’s ability to enter new cells. According to the researchers’ report, it may prevent contagion as well: “It not only reduced the viral load in the lung and alleviated pneumonia; but it also reduced shedding in the upper airway (nasal washes and oral swab), which could potentially reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Impressively, VH-Fc ab8 was active therapeutically even at 3 mg/kg.”
How excited should we about all this? I remembered when I read the press release that the University of Pittsburgh also announced early on, in April, that they had a novel vaccine candidate that would be applied as a patch instead of a shot and could be transported without it needing to be refrigerated. Unfortunately, as of late July that vaccine still wasn’t in clinical trials. I assume the timeline for this antibody treatment is also long-ish if they haven’t begun testing on humans yet, which means that it could be moot by the time it’s ready for the market.
Then again, the timeline on beating COVID is longer than many expect despite everyone’s hopes for the vaccine. Anthony Fauci said a few days ago that he’s not expecting a return to normalcy until later in 2021, after the vaccine has been deployed and a critical mass of the population has been immunized. If Ab8 is on the market before then, it’s potentially enormously significant. Even after the vaccine has arrived, the many, many, many Americans who are skeptical of vaccinations might be less skeptical of Ab8 as a therapeutic for whatever reason, making this a lifesaver for anti-vaxxers and others who can’t get the vaccine for medical reasons. And of course it’s possible that the vaccine’s immunity won’t be long-lasting, or that it’ll work on only some segment of the population. We’ll need a highly effective treatment for infected people in that case. Is this it?
Here’s the head of Pitt’s program explaining the process in mostly intelligible terms. By the way, the senior author of the study was also one of the first scientists to discover antibodies for the original SARS in 2003.


hotair--2020-09-14--Coffee mogul jolts no one with an endorsement of Joe Biden

The billionaires are lining up for Joe Biden .
Starbucks former CEO Howard Schultz announced his endorsement of Biden Monday by letter in which he said that he and his wife Sheri Schultz will vote for the former vice president and donate to his campaign .
This isn ’ t a surprise , of course , because Schultz is a Democrat .
He flirted briefly with his own presidential run this cycle before being smacked by reality – no one is interested in a President Schultz .
The far-left , as a matter of fact , threatened a boycott of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ race because he was thinking about running as a third-party candidate .
Democrats were concerned he would take votes from the party ’ s nominee .
He hired both Democrat and GOP consultants , Republican grifters like Steve Schmidt and Obama spokesman Bill Burton for example , but his idea was a flash in the pan .
Schultz ’ s endorsement won ’ t bring votes to Biden of people looking to the coffee mogul for voting advice but it does signal another billionaire willing to go on the record in support of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the story over the weekend that another wannabe president , Michael Bloomberg , pledged $ 100M of his fortune to get Biden elected , with a concentration on Florida .
Schultz hasn ’ t announced how strong his financial commitment is to Sleepy Joe , though .
When Schultz floated the idea of running for president , he was all about the country over party mantra .
He wanted to run as an Independent , though he is a Democrat .
So , in his letter announcing his endorsement of Biden , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to vote “ for the future of our republic.
” He is playing on the Democrats ’ fearmongering that America can not survive another four years of Donald Trump in the White House .
Trump is killing democracy , you know .
“ In my view , our choice this November is not just for one candidate over another , ” he said in the letter .
“ We are choosing to vote for the future of our republic.
” “ What is at risk is democracy itself : Checks and balances .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ An acceptance of facts , not ‘ alternate facts.
’ Belief in science .
Trust in the rule of law .
A strong judicial system .
Unity in preserving all of our rights of life , liberty , and the pursuit of happiness , ” he added .
The former CEO said it was “ essential ” for Americans to vote in the upcoming election and to do so “ safely , whether by mail or in person ” amid the coronavirus pandemic .
He warned that “ it would be a grave @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a Biden victory.
” What malarkey .
Elections are always about the future of our republic .
Joe Biden is the ultimate swamp creature with a nearly 50-year record of doing very little and historically wrong on most policy debates .
He may say he is running as a unifier but his campaign is as divisive as Trump ’ s – in other words , a standard campaign .
He offers nothing new or innovative .
Schultz was hoping to run on the unity thing , too , but he wasn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Schultz cautions that Biden doesn ’ t have the election in the bag so getting out the vote is important .
He also warns that after the election , assuming Biden wins , is not the time for Democrats to seek revenge or adopt far-left policies .
That ’ s adorable , right ?
Biden will be a figurehead and Kamala Harris and her sisters in The Squad will push policy farther and farther to the left .
They will make Barack Obama look like a moderate .
He and his wife support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of our elections and ensure that the winner is not declared in the presidential contest until all votes are tallied.
” He sure talks like a politician .
So , this move by Schultz should be seen as a green light to other wealthy voters , encouragement to go ahead and contribute to Biden .
This cycle finds Wall Street and the financial industry figures less influential than in previous years .
The financial industry has so far donated $ 83 million to the 2020 presidential campaigns of Republican President Donald Trump and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Center for Responsive Politics data through July 31 .
Although that figure is up 6 % from the same period in 2016 , the industry ’ s proportion of overall dollars donated has fallen to 9 % from 14 % .
“ Eight years ago , we were super important .
Four years ago , we were very important .
And now we are no longer as relevant or important , ” said one billionaire hedge fund manager who , like most , spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid backlash .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ less influence.
” Wall Street ’ s influence in elections is waning because its money is not as critical as it once was as grassroots contributions soar .
And a harsh political and economic climate makes politicians and bankers want to steer clear of each other .
In today ’ s political atmosphere , big donors on Wall Street don ’ t want to call attention to their donations .
They get criticized from both the left and the right .
It ’ s unlikely that a nudge from Schultz will change anyone @ @ @ @

The billionaires are lining up for Joe Biden. Starbucks former CEO Howard Schultz announced his endorsement of Biden Monday by letter in which he said that he and his wife Sheri Schultz will vote for the former vice president and donate to his campaign.
This isn’t a surprise, of course, because Schultz is a Democrat. He flirted briefly with his own presidential run this cycle before being smacked by reality – no one is interested in a President Schultz. The far-left, as a matter of fact, threatened a boycott of Starbucks if he jumped into the primary race because he was thinking about running as a third-party candidate. Democrats were concerned he would take votes from the party’s nominee. He hired both Democrat and GOP consultants, Republican grifters like Steve Schmidt and Obama spokesman Bill Burton for example, but his idea was a flash in the pan.
Schultz’s endorsement won’t bring votes to Biden of people looking to the coffee mogul for voting advice but it does signal another billionaire willing to go on the record in support of Biden. This comes on the heels of the story over the weekend that another wannabe president, Michael Bloomberg, pledged $100M of his fortune to get Biden elected, with a concentration on Florida. Schultz hasn’t announced how strong his financial commitment is to Sleepy Joe, though.
When Schultz floated the idea of running for president, he was all about the country over party mantra. He wanted to run as an Independent, though he is a Democrat. So, in his letter announcing his endorsement of Biden, he explained he is calling on Americans to vote “for the future of our republic.” He is playing on the Democrats’ fearmongering that America cannot survive another four years of Donald Trump in the White House. Trump is killing democracy, you know.
“In my view, our choice this November is not just for one candidate over another,” he said in the letter. “We are choosing to vote for the future of our republic.” “What is at risk is democracy itself: Checks and balances. Rigorous debate. A free press. An acceptance of facts, not ‘alternate facts.’ Belief in science. Trust in the rule of law. A strong judicial system. Unity in preserving all of our rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” he added. The former CEO said it was “essential” for Americans to vote in the upcoming election and to do so “safely, whether by mail or in person” amid the coronavirus pandemic. He warned that “it would be a grave miscalculation to think this election is secured for a Biden victory.”
What malarkey. Elections are always about the future of our republic. Joe Biden is the ultimate swamp creature with a nearly 50-year record of doing very little and historically wrong on most policy debates. He may say he is running as a unifier but his campaign is as divisive as Trump’s – in other words, a standard campaign. He offers nothing new or innovative. Schultz was hoping to run on the unity thing, too, but he wasn’t up to the task either.
Schultz cautions that Biden doesn’t have the election in the bag so getting out the vote is important. He also warns that after the election, assuming Biden wins, is not the time for Democrats to seek revenge or adopt far-left policies. That’s adorable, right? Biden will be a figurehead and Kamala Harris and her sisters in The Squad will push policy farther and farther to the left. They will make Barack Obama look like a moderate.
He and his wife support non-partisan initiatives that “defend the legitimacy of our elections and ensure that the winner is not declared in the presidential contest until all votes are tallied.” He sure talks like a politician.
So, this move by Schultz should be seen as a green light to other wealthy voters, encouragement to go ahead and contribute to Biden. This cycle finds Wall Street and the financial industry figures less influential than in previous years.
The financial industry has so far donated $83 million to the 2020 presidential campaigns of Republican President Donald Trump and Democratic candidate Joe Biden, according to Center for Responsive Politics data through July 31. Although that figure is up 6% from the same period in 2016, the industry’s proportion of overall dollars donated has fallen to 9% from 14%. “Eight years ago, we were super important. Four years ago, we were very important. And now we are no longer as relevant or important,” said one billionaire hedge fund manager who, like most, spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid backlash. “I’ve got a lot less influence.” Wall Street’s influence in elections is waning because its money is not as critical as it once was as grassroots contributions soar. And a harsh political and economic climate makes politicians and bankers want to steer clear of each other.
In today’s political atmosphere, big donors on Wall Street don’t want to call attention to their donations. They get criticized from both the left and the right. It’s unlikely that a nudge from Schultz will change anyone’s mind.


hotair--2020-09-17--PBS' White House correspondent Yamiche Alcindor: 'We all should be grateful for the 1619 Project'

I ’ ve written before about the blatant bias in PBS ’ White House correspondent Yamiche Alcindor ’ s work .
She has become a star on the left for her tweets which often include asides offering “ context ” or facts she thinks are important to add to whatever she is reporting .
But that context always trends in one direction .
So , for instance : Those tweets clearly seem to have a partisan edge ( she knows her audience ) but at least the things she ’ s appending to her coverage are factual .
Today she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ simply offer her opinion as part of her “ coverage ” of President Trump ’ s criticism of the 1619 Project .
Alcindor is apparently a 1619 stan : Look , I know Hannah-Jones won a Pulitzer but I don ’ t think saying she “ is a national treasure ” is a matter of undisputed fact any more than saying ‘ Tucker Carlson is a national treasure.
’ No doubt there are many people on both sides who believe those statements but it ’ s a matter of personal opinion .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ important note ” as if she ’ s presenting a fact-check .
Why doesn ’ t she just say , “ In my opinion… ” and leave it at that ?
Also , she must be aware that her claim that 1619 put in context “ how America came to be ” is widely disputed .
The idea of choosing the date 1619 was in part to replace or supercede 1776 as the founding of the country and to do that Hannah Jones alleged that the Revolutionary War was primarily just an effort @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1776 just a continuation of the story that started in 1619 .
The problem was that it wasn ’ t true as several professional historians pointed out .
In fact , we later learned that Hannah Jones had been warned it wasn ’ t true prior to publication but went with it anyway .
She must have thought no one would call her on it and she was nearly right .
Only about half a dozen historians did .
There were indications that others knew the claim was wrong but didn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reputation in public .
In any case , after intially denying the need for a correction , Hannah-Jones and the Times eventually admitted the claim was in error .
They have since portrayed this admission as just a minor correction but it actually undoes the main thesis .
If 1776 wasn ’ t a continuation because it wasn ’ t prmarily about protecting slavery then 1619 isn ’ t the starting date for America .
But Alcindor wasn ’ t done offering her opinions as if they were facts : The idea that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ educate the nation with facts ” is again a particular partisan interpretation .
I ’ m sure supporters of “ patriotic education ” ( whatever that is ) will also sincerely claim they are just trying to education the nation with facts .
It ’ s important to remember that 1619 wasn ’ t written by a historian but by a journalist .
It won a Pulitzer not for history but for commentary .
So the claim that it ’ s just presenting the facts is absurd .
I don ’ t think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ She has said it ’ s not about history but memory , i.e .
it ’ s an “ attempt to challenge the national narrative.
” Hannah-Jones is of course free to present her challenge to the national narrative .
She is writing commentary for a private enterprise , albeit one that has apparently been taken over from the inside by the far left .
Alcindor on the other hand is allegedly doing straight reporting for a news site partly funded by taxpayers .
I know her fans on the left won ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ playing field , they never do when the journalists are tilting in their direction .
Still , I wonder if PBS NewsHour has anything to say about it .
Is Yamiche Alcindor doing news or opinion at this point ?
In my view she seems to be doing both without noting there ’ s a difference .

I’ve written before about the blatant bias in PBS’ White House correspondent Yamiche Alcindor’s work. She has become a star on the left for her tweets which often include asides offering “context” or facts she thinks are important to add to whatever she is reporting. But that context always trends in one direction. So, for instance:
"The stock market is booming," says President Trump. Context: Since mid-March, some 39 million Americans have filed for unemployment. — Yamiche Alcindor (@Yamiche) June 3, 2020
Here’s another example:
"African-American unemployment stands at the lowest rate ever recorded, and Hispanic American unemployment has also reached the lowest levels in history," Pres Trump says. Fact: Unemployment rates among both groups are still significantly higher than whites unemployment rates. — Yamiche Alcindor (@Yamiche) January 31, 2018
Those tweets clearly seem to have a partisan edge (she knows her audience) but at least the things she’s appending to her coverage are factual. Today she seemed to dispense with facts entirely and simply offer her opinion as part of her “coverage” of President Trump’s criticism of the 1619 Project. Alcindor is apparently a 1619 stan:
An important note that as President Trump gears up to attack the 1619 project, @nhannahjones is a national treasure who put in context how America came to be, the black enslaved people it exploited and the way forward. We should all be grateful for the 1619 Project. — Yamiche Alcindor (@Yamiche) September 17, 2020
Look, I know Hannah-Jones won a Pulitzer but I don’t think saying she “is a national treasure” is a matter of undisputed fact any more than saying ‘Tucker Carlson is a national treasure.’ No doubt there are many people on both sides who believe those statements but it’s a matter of personal opinion. So why is Alcinor calling this “an important note” as if she’s presenting a fact-check. Why doesn’t she just say, “In my opinion…” and leave it at that?
Also, she must be aware that her claim that 1619 put in context “how America came to be” is widely disputed. The idea of choosing the date 1619 was in part to replace or supercede 1776 as the founding of the country and to do that Hannah Jones alleged that the Revolutionary War was primarily just an effort to protect slavery. That effectively made 1776 just a continuation of the story that started in 1619.
The problem was that it wasn’t true as several professional historians pointed out. In fact, we later learned that Hannah Jones had been warned it wasn’t true prior to publication but went with it anyway. She must have thought no one would call her on it and she was nearly right. Only about half a dozen historians did. There were indications that others knew the claim was wrong but didn’t want to damage the Project’s reputation in public.
In any case, after intially denying the need for a correction, Hannah-Jones and the Times eventually admitted the claim was in error. They have since portrayed this admission as just a minor correction but it actually undoes the main thesis. If 1776 wasn’t a continuation because it wasn’t prmarily about protecting slavery then 1619 isn’t the starting date for America.
But Alcindor wasn’t done offering her opinions as if they were facts:
Trump just announced he will soon be signing an executive order establishing a "national commission to promote patriotic education" called the "1776 Commission." It is unclear what that means but he has been trashing the 1619 project which aims to educate the nation with facts. — Yamiche Alcindor (@Yamiche) September 17, 2020
The idea that the 1619 Project merely “aims to educate the nation with facts” is again a particular partisan interpretation. I’m sure supporters of “patriotic education” (whatever that is) will also sincerely claim they are just trying to education the nation with facts.
It’s important to remember that 1619 wasn’t written by a historian but by a journalist. It won a Pulitzer not for history but for commentary. So the claim that it’s just presenting the facts is absurd. I don’t think even Nikole Hannah Jones believes that. She has said it’s not about history but memory, i.e. it’s an “attempt to challenge the national narrative.”
https://twitter.com/nhannahjones/status/1287737122477223947
https://twitter.com/nhannahjones/status/1287744084560547843
Hannah-Jones is of course free to present her challenge to the national narrative. She is writing commentary for a private enterprise, albeit one that has apparently been taken over from the inside by the far left. Alcindor on the other hand is allegedly doing straight reporting for a news site partly funded by taxpayers. I know her fans on the left won’t complain about this tilting of the playing field, they never do when the journalists are tilting in their direction. Still, I wonder if PBS NewsHour has anything to say about it. Is Yamiche Alcindor doing news or opinion at this point? In my view she seems to be doing both without noting there’s a difference.


hotair--2020-09-17--Wisconsin Dems already making Evers a scapegoat for a Biden loss?

This certainly doesn ’ t sound like a state party whose presidential candidate leads by six points , as the WaPo/ABC poll yesterday declared .
This report from Politico sounds like a state party proactively setting up excuses for failure — and searching for a scapegoat whose name doesn ’ t rhyme with Shmoe Shmiden .
Wisconsin Democrats have begun setting up Gov .
Tony Evers for that role , calling him a potential “ liability ” for Joe Biden after the Kenosha riots got out of hand and Evers seemed paralyzed over them : Evers is drawing heat from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moving quickly enough to tamp down rioting in Kenosha .
Like Walker before him , Evers is facing a nascent effort to recall him from office .
He ’ s been steamrolled by Republicans who dominate the legislature and have repeatedly blocked his initiatives , including police reform .
And while Evers is still above water in polls , his approval rating slid 6 points after his handling of the Kenosha unrest .
… But interviews with more than two dozen activists , strategists , local officials and voters surfaced serious concern that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such a pivotal state , Evers is diminishing what should be a significant advantage for the party .
Rather than act as an attack dog or savvy politico who helps amplify Joe Biden ’ s message to combat President Donald Trump , they say , Evers instead has allowed Republicans to cast him as weak and ineffective .
“ I don ’ t think that he has his pulse [ on ] what is going on in this state .
He doesn ’ t have a forceful personality .
He doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ qualities of a great leader and that ’ s what we need now , ” said Terry Rose , a former county supervisor and Democratic Party chair in Kenosha County .
“ We need a Winston Churchill , not a Neville Chamberlain.
” Wisconsin Democrats have a long list of complaints about Evers , some of which don ’ t have anything to do with rioting or the election campaign .
They ’ re unhappy that the Republican-controlled legislature is running roughshod over Evers , but that ’ s a situation of their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign against Scott Walker for years , transforming the state ’ s political atmosphere into bitter trench warfare .
Evers ’ attempts to rule by decree during the COVID-19 crisis didn ’ t help matters either , making him neither Churchill or Chamberlain but more of a dime-store Huey Long without the personality .
Blaming Evers over the Kenosha riots may be fair to a degree , but not entirely .
The Black Lives Matter protests and the Antifa rioting have been cheered on by Democrats ’ progressive wing , not just in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political options for dealing with them .
If the state party wants to blame anyone for that conundrum , perhaps they ’ d be better off looking at Joe Biden himself , who ’ s been pretty milquetoast about condemning the riots and the violence .
That ’ s not the only way to blame Biden for a bad performance in Wisconsin .
As former Democratic governor Jim Doyle tells Politico , the real problem in the state is the utter lack of a ground game .
That ’ s on Biden , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state party : Control of Wisconsin ’ s governorship has provided an edge to Democrats in the past .
Former Wisconsin Gov .
Jim Doyle , a Democrat , recounted in an interview how his political machine helped John Kerry and Barack Obama carry the state in 2004 and 2008 , respectively .
“ In both of those elections it was really my political organization that was kind of at the heart of where most of the work was done — most of it was ground work , ” Doyle said .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time .
Whatever power a governor ’ s political operation might have supplied in 2020 is greatly diminished , Doyle said , largely because Covid-19 curbed in-person politicking by Democrats .
Republicans , though , have taken part in door-to-door persuasion .
“ When you don ’ t have this huge ground game , it ’ s a different kind of atmosphere , ” Doyle said .
Interestingly , Politico doesn ’ t follow up on that point , even though it goes to the crux of the issue in Wisconsin and elsewhere @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ground game , and apparently the state party doesn ’ t either .
That ’ s a unilateral disarmament in a political battle , and it ’ s going to be costly .
Just how costly depends on a lot of factors , but even Doyle says that Dems only held Wisconsin for as long as they did through person-to-person retail politicking .
When Doyle left office , Republicans took control of Wisconsin even with Doyle ’ s organization still largely in the field .
If Biden loses in Wisconsin , that will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The state party is setting Evers up as a scapegoat , but that will only be a distraction from their own failure to organize an effective campaign themselves .
And the fact that they ’ re already trying to manufacture those excuses tells us plenty about where Wisconsin Democrats expect to end up after Election Day .

This certainly doesn’t sound like a state party whose presidential candidate leads by six points, as the WaPo/ABC poll yesterday declared. This report from Politico sounds like a state party proactively setting up excuses for failure — and searching for a scapegoat whose name doesn’t rhyme with Shmoe Shmiden. Wisconsin Democrats have begun setting up Gov. Tony Evers for that role, calling him a potential “liability” for Joe Biden after the Kenosha riots got out of hand and Evers seemed paralyzed over them:
Evers is drawing heat from some in his own party for not moving quickly enough to tamp down rioting in Kenosha. Like Walker before him, Evers is facing a nascent effort to recall him from office. He’s been steamrolled by Republicans who dominate the legislature and have repeatedly blocked his initiatives, including police reform. And while Evers is still above water in polls, his approval rating slid 6 points after his handling of the Kenosha unrest. … But interviews with more than two dozen activists, strategists, local officials and voters surfaced serious concern that in such a pivotal year, in such a pivotal state, Evers is diminishing what should be a significant advantage for the party. Rather than act as an attack dog or savvy politico who helps amplify Joe Biden’s message to combat President Donald Trump, they say, Evers instead has allowed Republicans to cast him as weak and ineffective. “I don’t think that he has his pulse [on] what is going on in this state. He doesn’t have a forceful personality. He doesn’t have, in my view, the qualities of a great leader and that’s what we need now,” said Terry Rose, a former county supervisor and Democratic Party chair in Kenosha County. “We need a Winston Churchill, not a Neville Chamberlain.”
Wisconsin Democrats have a long list of complaints about Evers, some of which don’t have anything to do with rioting or the election campaign. They’re unhappy that the Republican-controlled legislature is running roughshod over Evers, but that’s a situation of their own making. Democrats conducted a scorched-earth campaign against Scott Walker for years, transforming the state’s political atmosphere into bitter trench warfare. Evers’ attempts to rule by decree during the COVID-19 crisis didn’t help matters either, making him neither Churchill or Chamberlain but more of a dime-store Huey Long without the personality.
Blaming Evers over the Kenosha riots may be fair to a degree, but not entirely. The Black Lives Matter protests and the Antifa rioting have been cheered on by Democrats’ progressive wing, not just in Wisconsin but nationwide, limiting Evers’ political options for dealing with them. If the state party wants to blame anyone for that conundrum, perhaps they’d be better off looking at Joe Biden himself, who’s been pretty milquetoast about condemning the riots and the violence.
That’s not the only way to blame Biden for a bad performance in Wisconsin. As former Democratic governor Jim Doyle tells Politico, the real problem in the state is the utter lack of a ground game. That’s on Biden, and it’s also on the state party:
Control of Wisconsin’s governorship has provided an edge to Democrats in the past. Former Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle, a Democrat, recounted in an interview how his political machine helped John Kerry and Barack Obama carry the state in 2004 and 2008, respectively. “In both of those elections it was really my political organization that was kind of at the heart of where most of the work was done — most of it was ground work,” Doyle said. That’s not going to happen this time. Whatever power a governor’s political operation might have supplied in 2020 is greatly diminished, Doyle said, largely because Covid-19 curbed in-person politicking by Democrats. Republicans, though, have taken part in door-to-door persuasion. “When you don’t have this huge ground game, it’s a different kind of atmosphere,” Doyle said.
Interestingly, Politico doesn’t follow up on that point, even though it goes to the crux of the issue in Wisconsin and elsewhere. Biden doesn’t have a ground game, and apparently the state party doesn’t either. That’s a unilateral disarmament in a political battle, and it’s going to be costly. Just how costly depends on a lot of factors, but even Doyle says that Dems only held Wisconsin for as long as they did through person-to-person retail politicking. When Doyle left office, Republicans took control of Wisconsin even with Doyle’s organization still largely in the field.
If Biden loses in Wisconsin, that will be the reason, not Evers. The state party is setting Evers up as a scapegoat, but that will only be a distraction from their own failure to organize an effective campaign themselves. And the fact that they’re already trying to manufacture those excuses tells us plenty about where Wisconsin Democrats expect to end up after Election Day.


hotair--2020-09-17--Dep't of Education investigating Princeton's federal funding after president claims school is system

Dep't of Education investigating Princeton's federal funding after president claims school is systemically racist

Sources are telling Tiana Lowe that this is a legit probe that the department is duty-bound to undertake after Princeton President Christopher Eisgruber wheezed about embedded racism at the school in a letter a few weeks ago .
But all of the righties high-fiving over it on political Twitter this afternoon seem to be treating it as an elaborate troll aimed at forcing progressive academics to eat their own pandering words about rampant racism at their institutions .
It seems like a troll to me too .
A clever one .
Whether the federal government should be in the business @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , of course .
But maybe it should ?
American politics is 95 percent culture-war fights and proxy fights now .
Why not have the Department of Ed use its time and money to hassle disingenuous wokesters for laughs with an inquiry that ’ s almost certainly not going to end with Princeton losing its federal funding ?
President Christopher L. Eisgruber published an open letter earlier this month claiming that “ [ r ] acism and the damage it does to people of color persist at Princeton ” and that “ racist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the University itself.
” According to a letter the Department of Education sent to Princeton that was obtained by the Washington Examiner , such an admission from Eisgruber raises concerns that Princeton has been receiving tens of millions of dollars of federal funds in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 , which declares that “ no person in the United States shall , on the ground of race , color , or national origin , be excluded from participation in , be denied the benefits of , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
” … “ Based on its admitted racism , the U.S. Department of Education ( “ Department ” ) is concerned Princeton ’ s nondiscrimination and equal opportunity assurances in its Program Participation Agreements from at least 2013 to the present may have been false , ” the letter reads .
“ The Department is further concerned Princeton perhaps knew , or should have known , these assurances were false at the time they were made .
Finally , the Department is further concerned Princeton ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to students , parents , and consumers in the market for education certificates may have been false , misleading , and actionable substantial misrepresentations in violation of 20 U.S.C .
§ 1094 ( c ) ( 3 ) ( B ) and 34 CFR 668.71 ( c ) .
Therefore , the Department ’ s Office of Postsecondary Education , in consultation with the Department ’ s Office of the General Counsel , is opening this investigation.
” You can read Eisgruber ’ s letter here , including this passage near the end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the legal boundaries in reducing racism in academic : “ We can and will provide central support and increased accountability to enhance Princeton ’ s diversity , but there are limits , including legal restrictions , to what we can do or require as we press ahead with initiatives to diversify the University .
For example , we can not reserve jobs or specific positions for members of underrepresented minority groups.
” What they can do is expand their attempts to recruit minority faculty and students , one of several reforms he proposes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s gotten him in trouble with the government , sort of , is the stuff Lowe quotes in which he claims the university itself is guilty of the R-word .
Which is to say , what we have here is two different definitions of racism in conflict .
The old-school statutory definition seeks concrete examples as a basis for denying funding : Has the school denied anyone a particular benefit or opportunity on the basis of race ?
Eisgruber ’ s definition is the gassier woke variety .
“ Racism and the damage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ persist at Princeton as in our society , sometimes by conscious intention but more often through unexamined assumptions and stereotypes , ignorance or insensitivity , and the systemic legacy of past decisions and policies , ” he writes in his letter .
I think this exchange between lefties Bill Scher and Zaid Jilani captures the argument and counterargument against the probe well : Under the statute , “ insensitivity ” and stereotyping don ’ t seem actionable ; the victim has to have been denied something tangible for liability to arise .
Eisgruber @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” sometimes fuels racism at Princeton is more interesting , but he can always point to racist incidents among the student body , not the faculty or administration , to support that claim .
Bottom line for legal eagles : Is there any chance here realistically , however slight , that one of the country ’ s most prestigious universities gets stripped of its federal funding because the guy in charge was sloppy with his woke palaver ?
I ’ m imagining Eisgruber sitting for an interview with the DOE , saying he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ denied a benefit on the basis of race , and then explaining that by “ racism ” he meant that the school needs more minorities on staff and that its curriculum doesn ’ t pay enough attention to the special hardships experienced by people of color in the western world but is working to change that .
Does anyone seriously believe that violates the Civil Right Act ?
How many man-hours and taxpayer dollars will be spent putting him through his paces to teach egghead lefties not to talk so freely about “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ basically the same thing could be accomplished at zero cost by having Trump tweet about Eisgruber ’ s letter instead .
“ Can you believe Princeton ’ s president just admitted his school is racist ?
America ’ s students must boycott !
” Coincidentally , this Princeton news is breaking on a day when Trump is announcing a new executive order to teach “ patriotic education , ” which is his counter to the Times ’ s 1619 Project .
Here he is earlier talking it up .

Sources are telling Tiana Lowe that this is a legit probe that the department is duty-bound to undertake after Princeton President Christopher Eisgruber wheezed about embedded racism at the school in a letter a few weeks ago. But all of the righties high-fiving over it on political Twitter this afternoon seem to be treating it as an elaborate troll aimed at forcing progressive academics to eat their own pandering words about rampant racism at their institutions.
It seems like a troll to me too. A clever one. Whether the federal government should be in the business of own-the-libs trolling is a separate question, of course.
But maybe it should? American politics is 95 percent culture-war fights and proxy fights now. Why not have the Department of Ed use its time and money to hassle disingenuous wokesters for laughs with an inquiry that’s almost certainly not going to end with Princeton losing its federal funding?
President Christopher L. Eisgruber published an open letter earlier this month claiming that “[r]acism and the damage it does to people of color persist at Princeton” and that “racist assumptions” are “embedded in structures of the University itself.” According to a letter the Department of Education sent to Princeton that was obtained by the Washington Examiner, such an admission from Eisgruber raises concerns that Princeton has been receiving tens of millions of dollars of federal funds in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which declares that “no person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”… “Based on its admitted racism, the U.S. Department of Education (“Department”) is concerned Princeton’s nondiscrimination and equal opportunity assurances in its Program Participation Agreements from at least 2013 to the present may have been false,” the letter reads. “The Department is further concerned Princeton perhaps knew, or should have known, these assurances were false at the time they were made. Finally, the Department is further concerned Princeton’s many nondiscrimination and equal opportunity claims to students, parents, and consumers in the market for education certificates may have been false, misleading, and actionable substantial misrepresentations in violation of 20 U.S.C. § 1094(c)(3)(B) and 34 CFR 668.71(c). Therefore, the Department’s Office of Postsecondary Education, in consultation with the Department’s Office of the General Counsel, is opening this investigation.”
You can read Eisgruber’s letter here, including this passage near the end that suggests he’s aware of the legal boundaries in reducing racism in academic: “We can and will provide central support and increased accountability to enhance Princeton’s diversity, but there are limits, including legal restrictions, to what we can do or require as we press ahead with initiatives to diversify the University. For example, we cannot reserve jobs or specific positions for members of underrepresented minority groups.” What they can do is expand their attempts to recruit minority faculty and students, one of several reforms he proposes elsewhere in the letter. What’s gotten him in trouble with the government, sort of, is the stuff Lowe quotes in which he claims the university itself is guilty of the R-word.
Which is to say, what we have here is two different definitions of racism in conflict. The old-school statutory definition seeks concrete examples as a basis for denying funding: Has the school denied anyone a particular benefit or opportunity on the basis of race? Eisgruber’s definition is the gassier woke variety. “Racism and the damage it does to people of color nevertheless persist at Princeton as in our society, sometimes by conscious intention but more often through unexamined assumptions and stereotypes, ignorance or insensitivity, and the systemic legacy of past decisions and policies,” he writes in his letter. I think this exchange between lefties Bill Scher and Zaid Jilani captures the argument and counterargument against the probe well:
https://twitter.com/ZaidJilani/status/1306678524846247938
https://twitter.com/ZaidJilani/status/1306680406020849664
Under the statute, “insensitivity” and stereotyping don’t seem actionable; the victim has to have been denied something tangible for liability to arise. Eisgruber’s admission that “conscious intention” sometimes fuels racism at Princeton is more interesting, but he can always point to racist incidents among the student body, not the faculty or administration, to support that claim.
Bottom line for legal eagles: Is there any chance here realistically, however slight, that one of the country’s most prestigious universities gets stripped of its federal funding because the guy in charge was sloppy with his woke palaver? I’m imagining Eisgruber sitting for an interview with the DOE, saying he knows of no case of anyone being denied a benefit on the basis of race, and then explaining that by “racism” he meant that the school needs more minorities on staff and that its curriculum doesn’t pay enough attention to the special hardships experienced by people of color in the western world but is working to change that.
Does anyone seriously believe that violates the Civil Right Act? How many man-hours and taxpayer dollars will be spent putting him through his paces to teach egghead lefties not to talk so freely about “systemic racism”? I feel like basically the same thing could be accomplished at zero cost by having Trump tweet about Eisgruber’s letter instead. “Can you believe Princeton’s president just admitted his school is racist? America’s students must boycott!”
Coincidentally, this Princeton news is breaking on a day when Trump is announcing a new executive order to teach “patriotic education,” which is his counter to the Times’s 1619 Project. Here he is earlier talking it up.