The elimination of tracking has come up in comments here. This caught my eye on twitter.
Comparing Academically Homogeneous and Heterogeneous Groups in an Active Learning Physics Class
Student feedback, pretest, and posttest data indicated that low- and middle-performing students benefitted the most from academically homogeneous groups. Results for the one full semester of the study and the rationale for discontinuing are presented.
The study is with college students.
The results were evidently striking:
However, as will be explained, the study was terminated halfway through the second semester as it had become sufficiently apparent that placing students in academically heterogeneous groups was negatively impacting both their learning and their overall experience to the point that it seemed unethical to continue. At that point, all students were shifted to academically homogeneous groups.
There are some observations of dynamics:
In the heterogeneous room, the students labeled as high performers had substantially greater gains than the other students in that room. Our observations and their feedback indicated that in most groups the high-performing student was likely doing most of the thinking for the group. The other students had a strong tendency to defer to that student to let him or her figure things out, and then explain it to them (or just copy down their work).
Gosh. Really?
And guess what? Being in the heterogenous group doesn’t make the students feel good about themselves!
For example, from one heterogeneous group, a low-performing student wrote “I feel as if I am not smart enough for my group. Both of my groupmates are highly intelligent and I feel as if I slow them down. Therefore, I am afraid to ask them questions and feel less adept.â€
Admittedly, this is not high school or elementary school. But it does seem to be an attempt to actually collect and observe. It’s also not tracking– everyone was taking the same course. But it was sorting groups to do work together. Sorting by ability was better.
Hi Lucia,
The experiences of my now 10th grade daughter mirror the findings of the study. In the 2d grade, she was placed in a subgroup of high achievers and had her best year in elementary school. In the 3rd grade the high achievers were spread throughout different classes. She quite often complained to me that the boys were too noisy.
We moved to a new school district and in the 5th grade, she said to me that the class was so easy she didn’t want to try. Why was everything repeated over and over. Luckily she tested into gifted and things went better from there.
This study shoots a huge hole in the efforts to stop gifted education. Am wondering whether it will be retracted like the PNAS study dealing with police shootings whose findings didn’t match the Left’s narrative.
The paper cites past work looking at the effect of homogenous and heterogenous lab groupings. Homogeneous was better. Then one about groupings in traditional lecture– didn’t matter. (Which one might expect in a traditional college lecture. The lecturer goes at their own pace regardless. You keep up or you don’t. It doesn’t matter much who you sit next to.)
That’s the plans they have for Virginia math. The school board was presented with a group project, with questions that might involve looking up tile prices for different colors on Home Depot’s website.
MikeN,
Only different colors? The big price differences come from different types of tile!!
I have no problem believing that there may be some late starters / highly competent students who would benefit from the elimination of tracking if it was done correctly.
.
However I don’t believe there would be an overall benefit to all students because of the downsides, specifically highly competent students being held back by their less talented peers. It is telling that this perspective is rarely ever mentioned in the public debate despite it being the number one fear of parents of highly competent students.
.
It is getting very Orwellian(?) with the goals of education lately. Maybe just irrational is a better description. Activists are directly asking for lower standards and trying to force minimal competence thresholds upon society. This is just a bad plan for progress of society. One can acknowledge that it is possible to press kids too hard and also see that the proposed remedy is crazy.
.
A small percentage of high achievers drive innovation in tech and they aren’t going to stop these highly motivated individuals and parents. These people will simply go to private schools and the gap will widen even further if the activists got what they wanted. See NYC public schools.
Italian tiles are expensive, ha ha. Doing a house renovation. We had to give up wood floors in our house due to the moisture content of the slab and now we are putting in lovely pictures of wood painted onto rocks, otherwise known as wood look tile.
.
Fortunately for us the wood floors we ordered were stuck in supply chain madness (ordered in July, never delivered) and we were able to switch without a problem.
.
We were just about to pull the trigger on the house renovation when covid hit last year. Finally getting around to it.
I would also say that parents of highly competent students don’t need studies to tell them what they already know from their own educational experiences growing up.
Tom Scharf
And if they don’t get vouchers offset the cost, they will stop voting in favor of projects to fund schools.
The weird thing about efforts to eliminate ability grouping is that it can’t and won’t reduce the large discrepancies in student capability. The issues which actually impact student performance (home study, consistent school attendance, a learning environment at home, responsible and attentive parents who keep track of how their kids are doing, and, of course, the verboten subject of varying native ability) will remain unchanged, and good students who are being badly miss-served by public schools will continue to excel, one way or another, in spite of the school’s efforts to hold them back.
.
The whole “equity” approach to education is incredibly stupid as well as destructive. Only 1) voting the responsible politicians out of office, followed by 2) firing teachers and administrators who insist on bad educational policies, will fix the problem.
Well, with luck, Youngkin will eake past McCauliffe tomorrow. Polls are showing a statistical tie now. McCauliffe was fairly well ahead about a month or two ago. Education and especially Loudin county’s craptastic board of education have been key factors. Biden’s administration managing to identify the upset father of a girl who was raped in the bathroom as a “terrorist” when suggesting the FBI look into terrorism by parents at schoolboard sure helped shine the light on Louden county too.
Statistical tie = Youngkin loss.
Early voting started with McAuliffe up 5, and his debate statement that parents shouldn’t be telling schools what to teach happened 11 days after early voting started.
It comes down to whether the Fox poll that has Youngkin with a big lead is accurate. All the other polls are tied or McAuliffe up one, when Youngkin has to overcome probably a 60-40 lead among early voters that are over 40% of the final vote.
It could be this early vote wouldn’t have changed their mind in the intervening month.
McAuliffe won the first time by 2 with a Libertarian taking 6%, and the big issue was ObamaCare and Cuccinelli closed the gap and it felt like he just ran out of time.
In 2017, polls showed Ed Gillespie close and he lost big.
SteveF, wait until you see grading for equity:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6E_E60b8rlU
This has already been implemented in top school districts, Loudoun and Fairfax, and I think Arlington is set to do the same.
MikeN,
Only if the polls are closely representative of the actual voting population. National polls appear to over-represent Democrats. Your Ed Gillespie example is interesting, but far from probative. For one thing, Trump was President then, while Biden is President now. The approval rates today are similar.
Watching the Virginia race with interest. I don’t know how to read it, I could argue either guy will win. We’ll soon see!
Eye-opening piece about the supply chain mess:
https://medium.com/@ryan79z28/im-a-twenty-year-truck-driver-i-will-tell-you-why-america-s-shipping-crisis-will-not-end-bbe0ebac6a91
MikeN,
If I made myself watch the whole thing I would certainly hurl. Evil and stupid.
Manchin:
“While I’ve worked hard to find a path to compromise, it is obvious compromise is not good enough for a lot of my colleagues in Congress. It is all or nothing, and their position doesn’t seem to change unless I agree to everything. Enough is enough. It is time your elected leaders stop playing political games,” Manchin said. “I will not support the reconciliation without knowing how the bill will impact our debt and our economy.”
.
Let’s hope he sticks to his guns. The reconciliation bill is utter garbage, and its many parts should be each openly debated and voted on. The entire enterprise is meant to ram-rod a bill the public doesn’t want down everyone’s throat. As Manchin says, enough is enough.
Mike M,
I saw the trucker’s piece. It seems to me disjointed and confused. “Everything is wrong” doesn’t guide improvements.
I’m surprised by Manchin’s actions. I assumed he was pretending to support the filibuster to help get the Democrats elected in Georgia. Since then he has been agreeing to many Democrat demands that violated his ‘red lines’. But now he appears to be going back to his red lines. He said he was opposed to new entitlements, and appears to be sticking to it.
I wonder if he is being a gentleman and taking the heat off Sinema, who had activists disrupting a wedding that she was performing.
Mike N,
It could be that Manchin is calibrating his position on the reconciliation bill in the hope of winning one last election in W Va. If that is his objective, then I don’t think it is going to work. The other factor which may be motivating him is the endless abuse he is getting from his own party; after a while that has to piss him off. The sensible thing for him to do is to tell his party that if they don’t back off he will declare himself an independent and caucus with Republicans…. effectively ending any hope of the kinds of laws progressives are forcing through reconciliation, and the kinds of extreme-left judicial appointments the Biden administration wants to make. By threatening Democrats with that ‘nuclear option’, I think Manchin would get exactly what he wants, including an end to the abuse from his party…… Chuck Schumer really doesn’t want to hand control of the Senate back to McConnell.
SteveF, Sinema should have called Schumer with the same threat during the wedding. Those activists would have been moved out in two minutes.
The financing of the left’s social package is a master class in dishonesty. They basically just said all the programs will end in 5 years instead of 10 to cut the budget. The media continues to cover for them. Every other budget gimmick will be brought out as well. This is why people dislike the government.
.
Manchin won’t accept anything that overtly hurts coal, but he may allow himself to be bought by a huge budget concession to his state. Progressives likely won’t go for that. Personally I’d rather see the whole thing implode at this point.
Pretty funny. NPR and NBC run articles on the VA election, Trump is mentioned 27 times between them, Youngkin 34 times. The media’s election strategy is showing up as expected. PTSD – Post Trump Stress Syndrome.
Finally, CDC report on natural immunity:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/vaccine-induced-immunity.html
.
“Available evidence shows that fully vaccinated individuals and those previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 each have a low risk of subsequent infection for at least 6 months. Data are presently insufficient to determine an antibody titer threshold that indicates when an individual is protected from infection. At this time, there is no FDA-authorized or approved test that providers or the public can use to reliably determine whether a person is protected from infection.”
.
“- The immunity provided by vaccine and prior infection are both high but not complete (i.e., not 100%).
– Multiple studies have shown that antibody titers correlate with protection at a population level, but protective titers at the individual level remain unknown.
– Whereas there is a wide range in antibody titers in response to infection with SARS-CoV-2, completion of a primary vaccine series, especially with mRNA vaccines, typically leads to a more consistent and higher-titer initial antibody response.
– For certain populations, such as the elderly and immunocompromised, the levels of protection may be decreased following both vaccination and infection.
– Current evidence indicates that the level of protection may not be the same for all viral variants.
– The body of evidence for infection-induced immunity is more limited than that for vaccine-induced immunity in terms of the quality of evidence (e.g., probable bias towards symptomatic or medically-attended infections) and types of studies (e.g., observational cohort studies, mostly retrospective versus a mix of randomized controlled trials, case-control studies, and cohort studies for vaccine-induced immunity). There are insufficient data to extend the findings related to infection-induced immunity at this time to persons with very mild or asymptomatic infection or children.”
Continued, the most important data:
.
Comparison of Infection- and Vaccine-induced Immune Responses
.
A systematic review and meta-analysis including data from three vaccine efficacy trials and four observational studies from the US, Israel, and the United Kingdom, found no significant difference in the overall level of protection provided by infection as compared with protection provided by vaccination; this included studies from both prior to and during the period in which Delta was the predominant variant [79]. In this review, the randomized controlled trials appeared to show higher protection from mRNA vaccines whereas the observational studies appeared to show protection to be higher following infection.
.
A more recent analysis of data from a network of 187 hospitals in the United States found that, among more than 7,000 COVID-19–like illness hospitalizations whose prior infection or vaccination occurred 90–179 days beforehand, there was a 5.5 times higher odds of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 among previously infected patients than among fully vaccinated patients [80]. This study included data on persons more recently infected and/or vaccinated than the studies in the systematic review, though the authors noted one limitation of the design was the potential of missing testing that may have occurred outside of the healthcare network.
.
The Office of National Statistics in the United Kingdom used data from a large-scale longitudinal community survey of COVID-19 to compare the risk of infection among fully vaccinated, partially vaccinated, unvaccinated/previously infected, and unvaccinated/uninfected persons during two different periods 1) when Alpha was the predominant variant (December 2020–May 2021) and 2) when Delta was the predominant variant (May–August 2021) [81]. Based on results that included over 26,000 RT-PCR positive tests, they found full vaccination to provide the greatest protection during the Alpha predominant period (79% vs. 65% reduction in risk), but equivalent protection from full vaccination and infection during the Delta predominant period (67% vs. 71% reduction in risk).
.
(NOTED: It would appear the CDC has no data of their own)
Tom Scharf,
“The financing of the left’s social package is a master class in dishonesty. ”
.
Of course. The left views honesty/dishonestly through the distorting prism of already knowing *for certain* what is the right thing to do, and they (of course) choose to do what they believe is right, not what is honest. Whether it is lying about Trump and Russia, lying about the George Floyd riots and looting, lying about the huge influx of illegal immigrants, lying about the budget, lying about FBI agents inciting the January 6 riot, lying about critical race teaching in schools, or any other subject: Lying is OK when you are advancing “the noble cause” of leftist policies. The only (partial) answer is for politicians on the left to be voted out of office where possible and denied majorities in Congress.
Tom Scharf,
“Based on results that included over 26,000 RT-PCR positive tests, they found full vaccination to provide the greatest protection during the Alpha predominant period (79% vs. 65% reduction in risk), but equivalent protection from full vaccination and infection during the Delta predominant period (67% vs. 71% reduction in risk).”
.
Only the CDC can with a straight face say 79% vs 65% is greater protection but 67% versus 71% is the same protection. The way I read those numbers is that the vaccines are not quite as effective as recovery from infection for the dominant delta strain but moderately more effective for a virus strain (alpha) that is no longer in circulation. Their vaccine bias may be showing a bit. More to the point: they want to make sure they give support to the Biden administration to force people to get vaccinated, even if they have recovered and are just as immune as those who have been vaccinated.
The CDC spent a lot of excess words saying vaccines are great for infected people. I will give credit to them for leading off with “…found no significant difference in the overall level of protection provided by infection as compared with protection provided by vaccination”.
.
I’m guessing somebody at the CDC had to fight pretty hard to get that put in and to start off with it.
.
If you do a news search on how this report is covered, it is highly entertaining how it is misrepresented in the media. Very similar to climate change coverage, the biggest source of distortion is the media filter. Journalism is embarrassing itself once again.
Early returns are promising for Youngkin. He is almost even with McAuliffe in Loudoun, which includes the early vote totals.
McAuliffe is winning big in Fairfax, but that may be the early vote total which I was told would be dumped early this time, instead of the usual 11PM.
MikeN,
That’s what I’m reading: promising. But they also say it’s dominated by rural areas. So it’s still uncertain.
Yeah… I think Fairfax county reported they weren’t going to make some sort of deadline? Problems? We’ll know soon enough though.
I gotta tutor. 🙂
Historically early returns are always pro Republican in VA. Even a close contest will make the left lose their mind. A really close loss should be really fun with the usual suspects claiming election fraud and our “democracy” under threat, ha ha.
Loudoun produced more than 10K net for McAuliffe in the last precincts, when reports were expecting it to go the other way.
I estimate 100K is available for McAuliffe outside of Fairfax, and 64K in Fairfax, while Youngkin is up 195K. Fairfax has been sitting at McAuliffe +80,000 with 54% in for over 30 minutes. Only way McAuliffe wins is Fairfax waiting to see how many votes they need to create.
Wow. He did it.
It is looking good for Youngkin, but McAuliffe is not conceding. Maybe he has an ace up his sleeve. Or, more likely, a whole lot of absentee ballots.
CBS has called the race for Youngkin. He’s ahead by about 3 percentage points with an estimated 95% counted.
MikeN — with about 95% counted, Fairfax county now shows McAuliffe ahead by 124K votes.
All three statewide races in VA now look almost certainly to be won by republican candidates. More interesting still is that 6 seats in the House of Delegates have flipped to Republicans; if that holds (and it looks very solid) the state will go from complete Democrat control to complete Republican control. I can already hear the wailing, but as Barry Obama said, elections have consequences.
.
More shocking is NJ, where a 10% win by Murphy was expected, but Murphy is actually behind by 0.1% with 97+% of votes counted. Which just shows that being an arrogant fool in office makes reelection difficult. “If someone doesn’t like high property taxes, they shouldn’t live in NJ.” Perfectly stupid, like most of Murphy’s policies.
SteveF,
“Shellacking” was one of Obama’s better bon mots.
John Ferguson,
The real shellacking will come a year from now, when Nancy Pelosi is (finally) driven into retirement, and McConnell likely becomes majority leader again. My only doubt is how much damage the Democrats will do before they no longer control Congress. I fear it may be considerable, with hundreds of billions in economically damaging ‘green’ boondoggles enacted that will be difficult to get rid of unless a Republican wins the presidency in 2024.
John Ferguson,
Unlike Trump, I suspect Biden will be removed from office by 2024…. his mental decline is on a glide path to the 25th Amendment. Of course his replacement is distressing.
The left needs to figure out how to talk about their race initiatives in schools. They currently just uniformly say almost by rote “CRT is a decades old academic legal theory not being taught in schools”.
.
I’m not sure what all that screaming is about at school bard meetings, ha ha. This is just blatant denial of what they are pushing and failing to take responsibility for their own out of control unpopular activism. They created this monster with their pandering and now must tame it somehow.
.
I think the biggest looming issue for the left is actually inflation, nobody likes rising prices and they will hold politicians accountable for it whether they are or are not really responsible. It will be easy to tie out of control government spending to rising inflation and the party in power will not be able to hand wave that one away.
Tom Scharf,
To which the response is,
“I don’t care what it’s called: Are you saying that Mom is lying when she reports her white daughter was told she should feel guilty for being white?”.
It’s not dissimilar to the rape in the Louden county bathroom.
* Was the girl raped? Yes.
* Was the boy wearing a skirt? Yes.
* Did the Board hide the situation *and lie in response to a direct question*? Yes.
* Did they have complaining Dad hauled off and charged for calling the woman who told him she didn’t believe daughter was raped a bitch? Yes.
They can try to change this to “he’s not really trans… but..)
Lucia,
“Did the Board hide the situation *and lie in response to a direct question*? Yes.”
.
And here is the head-scratcher: in spite of McAuliffe’s (inexplicable and indefensible) defense of the Loudoun county school board, he carried Loudoun county by 55% to 45%. Seems Loudoun county is mainly a bedroom community for lefty Washington bureaucrats, who would vote for the Devil himself if there were a D after his name on the ballot.
.
McAuliffe has finally conceded defeat, but went out guns blazing, insisting all the policies that lost the election for him have to be kept in place. He’s nuts. I hope all the Democrats who are at risk in 2022 are just as nutty as McAuliffe, which will ensure lots more of them lose.
Looks like the slow count of mail-in ballots in NJ will eke out a narrow win for Murphey. Too bad.
Spot on, Lucia. The left are busy playing semantic games and feigning ignorance while people are staring at the results, then attacking them for their relatively restrained response. They’re still doing it right now.
“Fact” checkers at work. Compare and contrast:
.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ted-cruz-fall-asleep-joe-biden/ (“True”)
.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-sleep-climate-summit/ (“Unproven”)
>Seems Loudoun county is mainly a bedroom community for lefty Washington bureaucrats,
The county has substantial rural parts, and the suburbs have only recently converted farmland to housing. Metro connection to DC has not been completed yet, and Reston in Fairfax is still the westernmost stop.
There has been a huge buildup of data centers, with claims that a third of internet traffic runs through Ashburn. H1Bs who get citizenship are voting Democrat by default. I suspect most still have no idea what is happening in schools, largely having Dish Network and watching Indian channels.
The Republican Party hasn’t really adjusted to the population center shifting out of Leesburg and towards the suburbs, while the Democrats campaign at Diwali parties. There has been some recent activity by Republicans with Ian Prior trying to recall the school board, and in the easternmost suburbs, they haven’t been able to get enough signatures. Fairfax failed in its recall when the Soros DA told the judge to dismiss the case. In Loudoun the judge ordered an independent prosecutor and the school board member resigned. They haven’t brought the other three cases yet.
There was some notice by Indians when they changed the magnet school admissions to a per school max quota, to lower the Asian numbers, but even there many people applying weren’t aware of the changes that dropped their chances to get in by 90%.
The state Senate is not up for election until 2023. In 2019, Dems won 21-19, and were close in six more races. It will come down to was that due to changing demographics or was it anti-Trump sentiment. They tried to pass gun control legislation immediately, but the gun group(not NRA) managed to convince some of these newly elected Dems to vote no.
What is the biggest cost to the US Treasury in the Democrat’s reconciliation package? Nation-wide pre-school? No. Endless green boondoggles? No. $3,600 cash payments per child to parents? No.
.
The biggest cost in the bill is that state and local tax deductions from Federal taxes are being 100% restored for people in high tax states (that is, no longer limited to $10,000). This will cost the Treasury $500 billion over 5 years, with over 60% of those costs benefiting the top 1% of all taxpayers. The benefit to the average middle class taxpayer? Near zero. The states that will reap most of the benefits: New York, New Jersey, California, Massachusetts and a handful of others… all states that reliably support Democrats. (Just coincidence for sure.)
.
So much for rich people paying their “fair share” of taxes. I guess what they really mean to say is rich people in low tax states should have to subsidize the taxes payed by rich people in high tax states.
The Loudon bathroom incident was pretty bad. The only reasonable response was “criminal behavior needs to be punished regardless of whether it is a cultural hot button and needs to be transparently handled”. The apparent attempted cover up confirms a lot of suspicions people have of unreasonably favorable treatment of certain identity groups.
.
Things like Antifa protesters being given a free pass unless they commit a felony while throwing the book at Capital protesters leads one to believe certain parties don’t believe equality before the law is very important. There is a lot of perception problems here, one side thinks it is fixing equality problems by formally instituting inequality.
.
This type of justice problem remains unchanged for hundreds of years which is why the justice system was created the way it was. I still have reasonable faith that it is working OK as far as ultimate convictions and sentencing goes. It needs constant monitoring and exception do occur.
DeSantis is calling the Biden administration the “Brandon administration”, ha ha.
.
It may not be long before the Ministry of Truth decides that is hateful and must be censored.
SteveF,
Reading the requirements to effect a 25th amendment removal suggests to me that if the incumbent resists, one will never happen.
Two thirds of the Senate AND two thirds of the House seems completely unlikely. Impeachment requires only a simple majority in the House and nothing from the Cabinet.
In the instant case, despite my liberal taint, I find the prospect of a President Harris much more worrying than suffering through Biden’s inevitable decline. I suspect a Harris nomination in 2024 very unlikely.
Who knows? A few more defeats like McAuliffe’s might inspire the liberals to consider the remote possibility that there are a lot of us out here who do not want to be told how to run our lives, what’s best for us, etc. etc.
John Ferguson,
“….might inspire the liberals to consider the remote possibility that there are a lot of us out here who do not want to be told how to run our lives, what’s best for us, etc. etc.”
.
If that were to happen, it would be a first in my adult lifetime. I wish it would happen, but I just don’t think there is much chance it will.
.
George Will once noted: ‘Liberals are people who just want to boss everyone around.’ But I think Will was being far too kind, and there is much more to it than that. Barry Obama’s comment about the flyover proletariat “clinging bitterly to their religion and their guns” and Hillary’s “basket of deplorables” gaffe are probably more typical of the liberal hostility toward the unwashed masses they believe they should control. Or as a famous text message stated about visiting a Walmart in rural VA “I could almost smell the Trump supporters”. Which sounds to me disturbingly like Nazis describing Jews before the Holocaust.
Of course all his policies have to be left in place. That’s the way elections always work!!
MikeN (Comment #206975): “The state Senate is not up for election until 2023.”
.
Huh. The entire Virginia state Senate up for election every four years. I wonder if any other state does that, rather than the usual half every two years.
John wrote: “A few more defeats like McAuliffe’s might inspire the liberals to consider the remote possibility that there are a lot of us out here who do not want to be told how to run our lives, what’s best for us, etc. etc.”
.
I doubt it. The moral tyrant is never wrong. They have simply failed to convince. Once they’ve decided they’re done with convincing because their opponents are just too stupid and stubborn to see how right they are, they will turn to other means. For your own good, and for the greater good, by any means necessary.
I think equally important is that in makes people think “School boards lie both flagrantly and intentionally”.
.
This is a big problem for those who want to respond to parents complaints with “schools teach CRT is a conspiracy theory”. Maybe they don’t. (Even not considering the whole word game aspect.) But … shose word do we have that CRT is not taught: School boards. At least one of which was caught him a ginormous lie and is still trying to find ways to spin that against parents. So people see it isn’t just word games. Some boards just flat out lie.
.
And then the US was treated to the spectacle of members of the Biden administration amplifying the lie by picking that dad as their poster boy for “terrorist parent”.
.
And, of course, McCauliffe saying such outrageous anti-parent things didn’t help him any.
.
And then, to top it all off, a Dem affiliated group decided to try that “fake white supremacist Youngkin supporters” bit and got caught at it.
After they got caught, I imagine people on the fringe who hear about the stunt are likely to reason, “If Youngkin really had tons of white supremacist supporters, the Democrats wouldn’t have to hire fake ones to make their point about Youngkin’s white supremacist followers. White supremacists aren’t exactly wall flowers!”
.
I’m sure there were other factors voters considered. But coming off as big fat liars really could not have helped the Democrats.
DaveJR,
I agree it might not change their minds about lecturing others. But it could leave them with a lot fewer people in office and so with little power to try to bend others to their wills.
The left is technically correct that CRT itself is not taught in K-12 schools. But it’s just semantics because the conclusions of CRT, i.e. white privilege, systemic racism, the NYT’s 1619 project, etc., are being taught as if they had been proved beyond all doubt. And any criticism of any of these topics is met with the race card. Yet the idea that because of systemic racism Blacks can have no agency is as racist as you can get. The KKK would be all in on that.
And in the category of terminally tone deaf, McAuliffe actually brought in Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, to campaign for him on Monday.
“Malcolm Gladwell explains why you’d be better off going to a worse school (and why you should hire people at the top of their class, regardless of the pedigree of their institution).
Google Zeitgeist is a collection of talks by people who are changing the world. Hear entrepreneurs, CEOs, storytellers, scientists, and dreamers share their visions of how we can shape tomorrow.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7J-wCHDJYmo&t=1s
Critical race theory isn’t used as an exact phrase very often, but even this can be found in materials put out by Virginia and Loudoun school boards. What is used is things like ‘culturally responsive teaching’ ‘culturally sensitive curriculum’. Wisconsin did this under then state superintendentm now governor Tony Evers. I thought their site explained things a bit, but all I can find now is this:
https://dpi.wi.gov/sspw/mental-health/framework/foundations/culturally-responsive-practices
Howard,
Some of the best teachers I had were in college, where there was not an education degree to be found. Being intelligent, knowledgeable of the subject matter, and passionate about the subject was all that was needed to teach well. I’ll bet our host Lucia wasn’t a teaching major, but I’ll bet she can teach. Learning from people who actually work in a field is far more informative than learning from someone for whom subject matter expertise is an afterthought.
There have been numerous examples of “CRT like†ideology being presented in school materials and corporate training sessions. This is what the blowback is all about. I think you will get 50 different definitions from 50 people of CRT, but people understand it as white people as a group being held responsible for disparate outcomes of other minority groups regardless of any intent or evidence to the contrary.
.
People who make an effort their entire lives to treat people as individuals fairly and with respect regardless of their identity group take this accusation personally. This is the moral framework they were taught, that they teach their children, and they do not want a different moral framework that treats people differently based on their identity group taught in public schools.
.
In my view the teaching of CRT like ideology is closer to a religious framework and doesn’t belong in public schools. If I get the opportunity I will vote that way. This ideology is very unpopular and activists know it will fail a voter referendum, so they try to backdoor it in.
Is CRT the original sin of white people and without equivalence in any other ethnic group?
When do the witch hunts commence?
Tom,
I agree with you. I think schools actually call it ‘DEI’ (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) and that many people mistake this for CRT.
CRT and its many fellow travelers can be easily defined: they are the philosophical and moral opposite of judging people “not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character”. I find CRT to be profoundly immoral, and dishonestly presented to the public to boot.
I believe “social emotional learning” is another buzzword crt likes to hide behind.
When a “learning theory” says getting the correct answer to a math problem is racist, that is not a learning theory, it it is just political garbage.
Howard (Comment #206988)
Interesting observations from the YouTube link. I am sending this on to my son and daughter-in-law.
From the 1994 university textbook “Critical Race Theory: The key writings that formed the movement” :-
.
“With it’s explicit embrace of race consciousness, critical race theory aims to reexamine the terms by which race and racism have been negotiated in American consciousness and to recover and revitalize the radical tradition of race consciousness among African Americans and other peoples of color, a tradition that was discarded when integration, assimilation, and the ideal of “color blindness” became the official norms of racial enlightenment.”
.
They don’t like people simply being non-racist. They explicitly want people to view the world through a racial lens, and this is what they are promoting in schools. They view the term “American consciousness” as a form of “race” which is synonymous with “white”. Given that the American consciousness is effectively codified in the Constitution, upholding the Constitution etc is therefore an expression of “white supremacy”. It explains how someone with black skin, for example, who promotes the concepts of the Constitution are also “white supremacists”.
.
The people who came up with this stuff were avowed Marxists etc who recognized that the concepts enshrined by “Americanism” were too entrenched and resistant to fall prey to to their political ideals by frontal assault. It required weakening and dismantling. They recognized that “diversity” is a key weakness which can be exploited just as class was, and that by promoting grievances and differences between groups on the lines of race, sex, orientation etc, and blaming the “American consciousness” aka “whiteness” for these grievances, they could effectively use a divide and conquer strategy.
.
You will note that not only is “diversity” promoted as a “strength” as if this is self evident, but the concepts and symbols which unify us are being increasingly attacked as shameful reminders of a terrible past which should be discarded.
.
They want to cement these ideas into kids as early as possible so they will reject “whiteness” which will create an identity vacuum they can fill with their own ideology.
DaveJR,
Yes. Some academics openly say Marxism was an instance of general critical theory. Here for example.
.
It’s striking to me that CRT advocates assuming as a starting point the conclusions it wants (the existence of widespread pervasive systemic racism) and then going forth to look for evidence to support the desired conclusions. It astonishes me that anybody thinks that’s a good idea. For quite a long time now, people involved in scientific inquiry have followed the opposite procedure of taking a hypothesis and looking diligently for evidence that the hypothesis is false.
It just boggles the mind sometimes.
.
[Edit: Some support for my claims about CRT can be found here for simplicity’s sake.]
DaveJR
And yet…. it will backfire.
There is a limit to how much self hate someone can instill in everyone. During slavery, some slaves didn’t try to escape. Likely, mostly, out of hopelessness. But many did try to escape, dream of escape. Some (definitely not most) were allowed to do “side jobs” earn money and buy their freedom. They did so. They didn’t all just “accept” that they were all deserving of servitude for ever and ever and ever as their “lot”. This despite certainly being told it was their lot, just, what the bible said and so on and so on. Their owners were certainly not telling them blacks were equal to whites, or deserving of anything!
During Jim Crowe, black didn’t all just accept that they should be treated badly.
Howard,
I would say lower rated (and probably less expensive) rather than worse. But I agree. I went to Caltech for my undergraduate education and certainly don’t regret it. However, when my daughter was accepted at Caltech with no financial support and at Furman with a full tuition scholarship, we chose Furman. She graduated close to the top of her class and received an NSF Graduate Research Fellowship in Chemistry. She earned a Ph.D. from UNC Chapel Hill. She might have done as well at Caltech, but it would have been a whole lot harder. Being the biggest fish in a smaller pond can pay benefits.
For an engineer who isn’t planning on getting a post-graduate degree, Caltech might be worth the money. But it wasn’t for us. Also, I now immediately trash all requests for money from Caltech. If I couldn’t afford to send my daughter there, I’m not going to give them money to educate other people’s children.
Your point is a fair one, Lucia. However, a slave has no freedom. Oppression, on the other hand, grants limited freedom in exchange for obedience. That little bit of carrot makes a big difference as it forms the foundations of all(?) human societies already. Only the degree of freedom varies and the amount of oppression to enforce it.
.
Show children the worst of history. The most foul behaviors. Tell them this is who they are so they think of themselves as “evil”. Tell them they can find redemption by doing “the work”, which is essentially doing as they’re told. Of course, “the work” is never ending. One cannot be absolved of these sins. It’s a quasi-religious framework applied with the worst of intentions.
The Russian Igor Danchenko, who did most of the “research” included in the Steele Russia/Trump dossier hoax has been arrested by Federal agents following a sealed indictment by Durham (apparently for false statements to FBI agents). That sealed indictment suggests more indictments are likely; I’ll bet those described but not named in Durham’s indictment of Michael Sussmann are getting very nervous. The descriptions in that indictment suggested most of them conspired to and did in fact mislead the FBI (and everyone else) about Trump’s alleged connections to Russia.
.
It was a huge political “dirty trick” that stepped over the legal line when the group worked to have the FBI start an investigation into Trump based on information they knew to be false. Whether these folks are convicted or not, they are going suffer the substantial costs and difficulty of a Federal criminal prosecution.
.
Whether or not they are convicted may depend on where the court cases are heard….. a jury in Washington DC is unlikely to ever convict people trying to get Trump thrown out of office, no matter what they did, but there are lot of other places where a conviction would almost be certain.
It’s hard to not be cynical about politics when Pelosi adds the SALT deduction back in at the last moment. This is a cost, not a tax, and a rather large one. This from the alleged “tax the rich” party.
Rand Paul vs Fauci after the recent NIH letter on GOF research.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/rand-paul-anthony-fauci-senate-hearing-gain-of-function
.
See the 8 minute video. Fauci is dissembling here and just looks bad IMO. Fauci will not address the risk of GOF research.
.
And then there is this:
“Up until recently, the NIH website had a section that discussed gain of function research, providing a broad definition of “a type of research that modifies a biological agent so that it confers new or enhanced activity to that agent.â€
On Oct. 20 (note: the same day as the NIH letter), the NIH removed that section from its website, replacing it with one that discusses “enhanced potential pandemic pathogen†research, which it defined as “research that may be reasonably anticipated to create, transfer or use potential pandemic pathogens resulting from the enhancement of a pathogen’s transmissibility and/or virulence in humans.â€
Tom Scharf,
“It’s hard to not be cynical about politics when Pelosi adds the SALT deduction back in at the last moment. ”
.
Not hard, impossible.
.
She added it late on election day, when the news could no longer influence the vote (by showing just how dishonest the Dems are). That scheme had to have been in the works for a while. Cost to the Treasury: $500 billion over 5 years. More than 62% goes to the top 1% of earners, and most all the rest to the top 10% of earners.
Of course…. those benefits go mainly to very high tax states (CA, NY, MA, NJ, etc) that routinely support Democrats…. imagine that.
.
Combine this scandalous sop with the scandalous carried interest sop, and you can see more clearly what is going on: the Democrats are scoundrels who always abandon principles and suck up up to their donors, and who never actually do what they claim they will. It is all about keeping power and punishing everyone who is not on the left.
I am thinking that (a la Wisconsin) the Democrats in VA will be tempted to call a special session and pass laws to restrict what Youngkin can do via executive order and add rules/regulations that he will be forced to abide by. Since Dems will continue to control the VA Senate (at least until 2023), any laws passed and signed by the lame duck governor between now and when Youngkin takes office in two months will remain in force. I guess it will depend on if a handful of Dem senators in competitive districts are willing to fall on their swords to keep Youngkin from governing for the next two years. The potential downside is that voters could choose to punish Dems (even more!) in the 2022 midterms if they hamstring Youngkin in a special session.
.
We will see.
It looks more and more like Russian Collusion was real. It is just that it was the other campaign doing the colluding. With the FBI as willing dupes.
California Tries to Close the Gap in Math, but Sets Off a Backlash
.
Proposed guidelines in the state would de-emphasize calculus, reject the idea that some children are naturally gifted and build a connection to social justice. Critics say math shouldn’t be political.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/04/us/california-math-curriculum-guidelines.html
.
“The draft rejected the idea of naturally gifted children, recommended against shifting certain students into accelerated courses in middle school and tried to promote high-level math courses that could serve as alternatives to calculus, like data science or statistics.
The draft also suggested that math should not be colorblind and that teachers could use lessons to explore social justice — for example, by looking out for gender stereotypes in word problems, or applying math concepts to topics like immigration or inequality.”
.
Nope, no such thing as CRT in schools.
Mike M,
There were lies in the Steele Dossier? Are you crazy? I’ve been told by the most credible sources that this information had been verified. Stop peddling your misinformation, it’s a threat to Democracy.
.
The Washington Post did have this to say today:
“An analyst who was a primary source for a 2016 dossier of allegations against Donald Trump has been arrested on charges that he repeatedly lied to the FBI about where and how he got his information, officials said Thursday.”
.
“But the 39-page indictment unveiled Thursday paints a more detailed picture of claims that were allegedly built on exaggerations, rumors and outright lies. The indictment is likely to buttress Republican charges that Democrats and FBI agents intentionally or accidentally turned cheap partisan smears into a high-stakes national security investigation of a sitting president.”
.
“The indictment also suggests Danchenko may have lied to Steele and others about where he was getting his information. Some of the material came from a Democratic Party operative with long-standing ties to Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, according to the charges, rather than well-connected Russians with insight into the Kremlin.
The allegations cast new uncertainty on some past reporting on the dossier by news organizations, including The Washington Post.”
.
Much of the information directly came from Clinton operatives. This is the least surprising thing I have read this month. Everyone knows this whole affair was a weak partisan smear from the beginning so it will generate little outrage and coverage. An epic journalistic embarrassment that they ever took this seriously. Time to eat some crow and Dolan better get his legal team on retainer pretty quick if you ask me.
What do you mean about adding in SALT deduction at the last moment? I’ve known about this for quite awhile. I read an article about the different budget gimmicks they are using to lower the price tag. One of them was this SALT deduction. Under current law it is set to reappear in 2026. So the current proposal reinstates the deduction, then puts the cap back in 2026, for a net cost of 0.
Lucia, where it was easier for slaves to escape, owners had an incentive to not treat slaves harshly.
In cities it was not unusual for slaves to be living on their own and paying the owner a portion of wages.
I looked up a school in California earlier in the year. It was either Jaime Escalante’s school or one of the schools in the Riverside study.
Their calculus looked pretty weak, still covering derivatives in late February. One of the extra credit assignments was writing about your favorite female inventor.
Tom: “Everyone knows this whole affair was a weak partisan smear from the beginning so it will generate little outrage and coverage.”
.
I just wish that was true, Tom. Sadly, neither “everyone” believes, nor was it weak. It was highly successful and dogged Trump’s presidency for pretty much the entirety of his term, leading to arrests and federal harassment of his advisors and people who supported him. Just look at what they did to Flynn. The message was loud and clear.
.
Trust in the media is still something like 60%+ for democrats and they have been successfully “programmed” to ignore anything labelled “right wing”, which is anyone presenting an opposing view. They fully believe it is “us” who are dangerously unhinged and out of touch with reality “clinging onto God and guns”. They really do believe they are fighting to save “democracy” because of it.
.
Even now, the lamestream media is still sowing conspiracy theories of how Trump is going to suspend “democracy”, starting with republicans passing laws to strengthen election integrity and accusations that Biden is senile. If Harris was ever placed in the same situation as Pence, they fully endorse her overturning the vote, and I suspect she would be happy to do so. The ends justify the means. By any means necessary.
I read the Danchenko indictment. They are moving up the food chain toward the Clinton campaign staff. “PR executive 1” looks to be at risk of indictment. PR executive 1 is described as a long time Clinton associate and advisor to the Clinton campaign in 2016. He appears to be the key person coordinating the dossier smear and personally provided those generating the dossier false information about Trump and his purported connections to Russia.
.
What I found most interesting in the indictment was the pervasive political opposition to Trump…. those cooking up the dossier were self-admittedly motivated by a desire to defeat Trump’s election and later to hobble his presidency. This doesn’t just look illegal, it looks like an utter disregard for the truth in pursuit of a political goal. I look forward to seeing the arrest of PR executive 1.
Tom Scharf (Comment #207010): “California Tries to Close the Gap in Math”.
.
Now there’s leftist thinking. To close the gap in math, teach less math!
.
Oh. I assumed the gap of concern is the one between us and China. Maybe they are worried about the gap between good students and weak students. That would make it merely extremely stupid rather than Babylon Bee silly.
Tom Scharf (Comment #207011): “The Washington Post did have this to say today”.
.
Did they happen to mention that back in 2016 people in the FBI were concerned that the dossier was Russian disinformation?
.
Addition: “PR executive 1†is Charles Dolan, who had extensive contacts in Russia and made a dirt-finding trio to Moscow in 2016, quite possibly with the cooperation of the Russian government. But that last bit is not clear.
I used to help my daughter and some of her friends (all upper middle class) with high school algebra. In college the school hired me to tutor ‘disadvantaged’ students who were failing at math. I can state with certainty that there are huge differences in “native ability” in math, and that California’s dumbing down of their math teaching will not change that.
Tom Scharf
Data science and statistics would be fine if done in addition to calculus rather than instead of. They aren’t going to achieve that by eliminating the fast math track.
.
I’m sure some kids who ought to be put in the track don’t get in for reasons of bias. But getting rid of the track is the wrong solution to that problem.
.
Elective summer school could, potentially, be the solution to that problem. But I’m sure those advocating getting rid of the accelerated track would be against it because … well.. they know the “wrong” kids would take summer school and get even further ahead. So the ‘gap’ would be larger.
.
I don’t think kids getting ahead is inherently bad provided those behind are not given crumbs. But evidently, those against the accelerated courses can’t think the slower or average track is “crumbs” because they want everyone on that track.
Parents are going to make sure their kids have access to advanced math, especially in today’s tech economy. There is always going to be a path here, whether it is taking these classes at community college or at the local school. These type of “close the gap” plans which just eliminate advanced classes are so idiotic it doesn’t really need a response. You have to wonder how the adults in charge think this isn’t going to cause massive blowback. My guess is they know it will but are depending on someone else doing it so they don’t have to stick out their necks.
.
It really has gotten to the point where if you want advanced math for your kids then you are apparently a racist in the eyes of a few rather loud people, these people should not be taken seriously. This week’s election cycle saw several school boards get realigned back to sanity, I’d expect more of the same if this keeps happening.
“I don’t think kids getting ahead is inherently bad provided those behind are not given crumbs. But evidently, those against the accelerated courses can’t think the slower or average track is “crumbs†because they want everyone on that track.â€
.
There is a transparent system in place where progress and ability is measured. The varsity basketball team is not open to those who aren’t gifted and practice basketball. The state has to make a good faith effort to teach kids math (but not basketball) but their responsibility ends there.
.
There are no doubt some problems, especially in bad schools, but this entire thought process is getting closer and closer to being that the state has sole responsibility for bringing up kids. This is just not ever going to work in the US. If your child isn’t even trying at math then that isn’t the state’s responsibility in my view. Where to draw the line where the state stops trying is debatable, but it isn’t “until everyone comes out equal†and crippling the good kids is absurd.
.
There is nothing wrong with remedial and special education programs as long as the cost to society can be reasonably paid for. This is the case in the US.
Mask mandates are starting to fall around the country.
.
Even super PC Apple Inc. will lift mask mandates at 100 of its ~270 stores within a week or so.
.
In Florida, the FL supreme court has issued rules for all FL state courts, prohibiting judges from requiring masks in courthouses, and several of the school boards that were defying the state requirement of parental mask opt-out have now added the parental opt out. None of those have allowed students to choose not to wear a mask, but I suspect that will come very soon when the difficulty of administering different rules for different kids becomes apparent. Daily confirmed cases have now reached approximately 5 per 100,000 population statewide, and continue to drop. At current case rate, an individual’s risk of catching the virus in Florida has fallen to under 2% *per year*. Absent a new variant, the pandemic looks to be (finally) over in Florida.
.
Delta continues to burn through some other states, especially those where lockdowns/mask rules/restaurant & bar closures/etc had suppressed case numbers. But everywhere in the States looks to be not more than a couple of months from the end of the pandemic.
SteveF (Comment #207023): “Mask mandates are starting to fall around the country.”
.
Lately I have been noticing people ignoring the mandate here in NM. I have taken to wearing my mask below the nose (MUCH more comfortable) but have not had the nerve to go full topless.
Mike M,
“but have not had the nerve to go full topless.”
.
Sounds a little like “Blame it on Rio”.
.
NM remains near 50 daily cases per 100,000 population, so I don’t think Gov Grisham is going to remove mandates anytime soon, especially since the people who elected her want mandates to continue (and maybe forever).
It looks like Pelosi could care less what she passes in the social(ist) spending bill, it’s just a gatekeeper to get the infrastructure bill voted on to allow the progressives in the House to save face. The Senate will ignore what the house passes and that’s where the real fight will be. If we are lucky the social spending monstrosity will die in an intra-party squabble.
Tom Scharf,
Pelosi is a dishonest scoundrel, and always has been.
.
If the bipartisan infrastructure bill gets past the House, then the Senate will delay the boondoggle bill climate/social spending bill for a long time….. hard to say how long or what will be left in it. I think when Manchin saw the phony budgeting gimmicks the House used to keep the “cost” below $1.75 trillion, and the ghastly sop to return to full state and local tax Deductions for the wealthy in high tax states… retroactive to two years ago, no less…. he told Pelosi to pound sand: he was never going to vote for that monstrosity. He was probably helped by House Democrats in competitive districts who said something like: “Are you insane…..didn’t you see what happened on Tuesday?”
In Virginia, the state group clearly doesn’t care for
calculus, putting up some charts about why it is not important to take calculus in high school.
They left it in as option, just so they can alleviate parents with ‘calculus will still be available in high school’. In fact they are selling their plan as making calculus accessible to more kids in high school, because they are lying and claiming their grade 8-10 classes will be blended algebra/geometry/algebra 2. This would be pretty surprising as it would lower their SOL pass scores and increase the racial disparity they highlighted.
MikeN,
“In Virginia, the state group clearly doesn’t care for
calculus, putting up some charts about why it is not important to take calculus in high school.”
.
Sure, that is because no engineer or scientist needs to understand calculus. Everyone knows that… and stupid politicians know it for certain.
.
You can learn calculus as a college freshman (I did), but it is a big advantage to have calculus before college…. it makes several courses that require knowing calculus easier and more informative.
SteveF (Comment #207025): “NM remains near 50 daily cases per 100,000 population, so I don’t think Gov Grisham is going to remove mandates anytime soon”.
.
Yeah. I’ve been starting to think about moving one state to the east.
.
p.s. – By the way, it is Gov. Lujan Grisham. One of those confusing two word last names, like Conan Doyle.
MikeN
I trying to figure out how a teacher can effectively blend all three classes. It isn’t as if you can explain some algebra 1, and then give out a few “extra/deeper” assignments that turn it into geometry, much less algebra 2. Either they mean
Grade 8= algebra
Grade 9 = GEometry
Grade 10 = algebra II,
Which would be fine, or they mean something crazy.
Mike M,
Those two-word last names should be hyphenated. Eliminates confusion. Lujan-Grisham it is.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/04/us/california-math-curriculum-guidelines.html
Which means what precisely? No memorizing x=-B±sqrt(B^2-4AC)/2A, and “reasoning it out” every freakin time? And not remembering the definition of sinθ is “opposite”/”hypotenuse”.
.
Math always has a lot of problems solving. But there are some key formulas that replace “reasoning” every freakin’ thing out. Yes, I can use calculus to find out A=Ï€R^2 when I need it. And maybe there is a non-calculus way to do it. But some forumlas are useful if you are later going to solve other problems!
.
If it does, great. Could the NYT’s journalists ask for a link to a paper with data? Nope. That’s not what journalists do.
.
(The ‘con’ person’s paragraph criticizing Barne’s claim contains links…. I have to go back and click.)
Lucia, Lubos said this is the norm in Europe(no separate geometry class), but never responded if they do tracking.
They can’t blend Algebra and Algebra 2, but you can spiral the geometry in over three years. Already I saw in geometry class they had some trig spirals introducing sin/cos/tan.
Beyond the spirals, an example of blending would be
The sides of an equilateral triangle are x+3y, 2x+y, and 4x-3y+7. What is the perimeter?
The links to an article that (omg) uses numbers and data is
https://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=13698
https://www.familiesforsanfrancisco.com/updates/inequity-in-numbers
So fewer were required to repeat because the previous standard of achievement was dropped.
Next claim: More kids take advanced math. M
So the way they get the student count for kids taking “advanced math” up is to add the count from a class that is not advanced (and previously not offerred.)
.
.
3rd claim: more African American’s and Latino students achieved in some way in AP Math:
Specifically: They don’t publish the pass rate on the test. That ought to be key as teachers can’t fiddle that by giving their kids high grades.
And on top of all that with California’s new pathways, “inequity” is increased.
You know whose going to take the private school path, fee-based course and so on. It’s not poor black kids or english language learners for the most part!
MikeN,
That looks like algebra. Just mentioning “equilateral triangle” is pretty lame if considered as “geometry”.
.
Also I hope that’s not a real problem because if I set up to solve for x or y, I first get x=2y. I then get 7=0. If this is a specific example of an assignment then… oy!!!
Lucia,
” No memorizing x=-B±sqrt(B^2-4AC)/2A, and “reasoning it out†every freakin time? And not remembering the definition of sinθ is “oppositeâ€/â€hypotenuseâ€.”
.
Well no, the students they are trying to “help” could never reason it out even a single time, never mind every time they have to solve a quadratic. Obviously you’re a racist and trying to confuse thoughtful Democratic Socialists with your mumbo-jumbo recitations of 100% racially prejudiced, 100% racist math formulas. And don’t forget 3-4-5 right triangles, or common square roots of numbers like like 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, etc…. more racists jargon. Or heck, the very *idea* of a square root, or a prime number for that matter. All of it is racist, and so should not be taught.
AFAICT,
Pelosi’s gambit on the bipartisan infrastructure bill seems doomed. The crazy left says they absolutely will not vote for it without simultaneous approval of the $4 trillion green boogdoggle/social welfare/tax hike legislation.
.
Could not happen to a more dishonest and hateful Speaker. I look forward to next year when Pelosi is driven to retirement.
AOC thinks the Dems lost VA because they weren’t progressive enough. *sigh* Yet another example of groupthink. I doubt she has any significant contact with anyone who is less crazy than she is.
The hive is divided. It’s quite remarkable that the Dems can’t pass anything and can’t even pin the impasse on Republicans. I try not to get too pleased; keep expecting them to overcome differences enough to pass something. But I’m honestly starting to wonder if they will.
Damned if they do (blame for driving inflation), damned if they don’t (ineffective governance). The shellacking is still a year away, but I think it is pretty much baked in at this point. It’d take something extraordinary to prevent it.
[Edit: ~grins~. Oh well!]
DeWitt,
“AOC thinks the Dems lost VA because they weren’t progressive enough.”
.
Of course. And if the left is given a chance, your job is taken away, your property confiscated, and finally out come enforcing thugs in jackboots. And that is really the point. To the left’s way of thinking, there is no legitimate government except by the left, so any measure which helps the left gain political power is perfectly acceptable and morally defensible.
.
The left makes no substantive compromises. It has been the same in every country where the left has taken over, even though that has too often led to millions of deaths. Our homegrown crop of leftist idiots is no different and no better.
mark bofill (Comment #207043): “It’s quite remarkable that the Dems can’t pass anything and can’t even pin the impasse on Republicans.”
.
Indeed. When the “bipartisan” bill passed the Senate, some Fox News pundits had a meltdown, accusing the Republicans who voted for it of being stupid and betraying their constituents. That is always a possibility with Lindsey Graham and his ilk, but at the time I wondered of they weren’t actually being smart. The result of helping it pass the Senate is that instead of taking fire from the Dems, they are standing back and watching the Dems form a circular firing squad.
.
So maybe the “moderate” Republicans were smart. Or maybe it was just dumb luck.
Thanks for reminding me of that Mike. I was somewhat irritated about that as I recall. You’re right, hard to say if it was luck or foresight.
Mike M.,
Based on past performance, I’d put my money on dumb luck. But I wouldn’t bet much because it’s not a sure thing.
Not an actual problem. I made it up and didn’t check it correctly. I saw something similar with circles in a geometry class homework.
Pelosi got 13 Republicans, and limited Dem defections to the six worst crazies in “the squad”, passing the bipartisan infrastructure bill with 10 votes to spare. She had to promise the other 54 of the “progressive caucus” that the green boondoggle/social spending/taxation bill would include nationwide family leave entitlement…. something Joe Manchin has said he will not vote for. Even that doesn’t guarantee passage in the house, since the 13 Republicans won’t vote for it….. so it remains hostage to the six crazies, since she only has three Dem votes she can lose. Of course the crazies have lost most of their leverage now that the bipartisan vote is done, so I guess they will vote for whatever is included, then the fight with Manchin and Sinema can begin.
.
Republicans should start right now beating up on Dems over the inclusion of the carried interest loophole and removal of the SALT limit….. which goes mainly to the top 1% in high tax states.
SteveF,
Does the loophole allowing IIRC reduced taxation of carried interest continue?
SteveF (Comment #207049): “Pelosi got 13 Republicans, and limited Dem defections to the six worst crazies in “the squadâ€, passing the bipartisan infrastructure bill with 10 votes to spare.”
.
So the House Republicans left the Dems off the hook. How kind of them. And their kindness is only costing the taxpayers a trillion dollars.
.
Primary ’em. Not for being moderates; for being stupid.
John Ferguson,
The content of the bill is not fixed, and will be subject to action in the Senate, but AFAIK, both the carried interest loophole and the removal of limitations on deductibility of SALT remain in the House bill. Sure wish I could count on never paying a last dollar tax rate over 20%, but then I am not a huge campaign donor to Democrats.
Mike M,
“Primary ’em. Not for being moderates; for being stupid.”
.
I suspect they understand that possibility, but figured they are safe in their respective districts or plan on retiring.
.
Whether they would have been better off putting the political thumb-screws to Pelosi by withholding their votes is a different question. They maybe think there is need for spending on physical infrastructure, and that is more important than hammering Pelosi. I can think of nobody in Washington who deserves political abuse more than the hyper-partisan Pelosi, but that doesn’t mean she will get what she deserves.
Mike M,
I looked at the list of House Republicans who voted for the infrastructure bill. It includes pretty much all who voted in favor of impeaching Trump, plus a handful more from strongly Dem leaning states. These folks are not worried about a primary challenge, and were they to lose such a challenge, the district would likely flip to Dem.
.
A couple (including Kinzinger) will retire or may retire. Kinzinger is a vocal critic of Trump, and voted for his impeachment…. then was essentially redistricted out of office by Dems when Illinois lost a house seat and combined his district with a district that has a popular conservative Republican. Got to love how wisely he chose his friends. He should never have run as a Republican.
What I don’t understand, this BBB bill is called a reconciliation bill that cannot be filibustered in the Senate, because it is a reconciliation bill and they can use this once a year, which they are now doing twice.
They are saying that whatever the House passes will then undergo changes by the Senate, and they would have to get together and work out a compromise. I thought this is what the reconciliation bill is supposed to be in the first place, and why it can’t be filibustered.
I suspect in democrat parlance, “reconciliation” involves giving them everything they want for the pain, suffering, and harm they have to endure from not getting everything they want.
Probably the best case the Democrats could have hoped for. Good ole’ GOP, tirelessly snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Budget reconciliation can be used one each fiscal year for revenue, spending and federal debt…. so three times maximum. If all three issue are addressed in a bill, then only one such bill per fiscal year.
.
BUT, the fiscal year ends in September, so a crafty congress can use the process twice in the same calendar year, which is what is happening with the green boondoggle/expanded entitlements/tax (increases + scams) bill the House is trying to pass. There are other limitations: the bill can’t reduce Social Security benefits, nor can it increase Federal deficits past an allowed 10 year window…. which is why everything in the boodoggle bill (except tax increases, which can be permanent) must have a sunset date within 10 years.
.
Obamacare passed the Senate by normal order (60 Dem votes, which the Senate had just long enough to pass the bill before Scott Brown won a special election in Massachusetts and reduced that number to 59, so it has no sunset date.
.
Of course, the senate can overrule the Senate parliamentarian with a simple majority and put any garbage they want in a reconciliation bill, and pass as many reconciliation bills as they want, but so far, Manchin and Sinema (at least) say they will not go along with this.
One of the best stories from last Tuesday is the New Jersey truck driver who spent less than $10K to defeat the state senate president, who had a $2M war chest. The incumbent is refusing to concede, claiming that thousands of ballots have just been “found” and might change the outcome.
.
Now remember: Only conspiracy theorists believe in election fraud.
Plot twist. The votes all go to the truck driver. Shenanigans are called. Fraud is proved. Culprits not identifed. The vote is overturned. Incumbent “wins” and opposition discredited.
.
Too cynical?
When picking up dinner last night, the restaurant had a news station (CNN?) on the TV. The chyron suggested that Democrats blamed their loss in the gubernatorial race on the fact that Washington hadn’t passed either of the large spending bills under consideration. [I.e., “infrastructure” and “build back better”.]
I don’t know about others, but the squabbling of Congress doesn’t enter in the least into my choices for local elections.
…But I suppose political consultants have to point their fingers at something…
HaroldW,
As Napoleon is claimed to have said, never interfere with your adversary when they are making an error. It it simply not comprehensible to those on the left that anyone could rationally and in good faith oppose their leftist policies. Hence, the losses in VA are claimed to be because of a combination of ‘systemic racism’, inadequate messaging, and failure to have enacted more of the kinds of policies the voters do not want. And don’t get me started on the disgusting claims that Lt Gov elect Sears has betrayed her race because she is black and a Republican.
.
As Charlie Munger long ago pointed out (one of his ‘reasons for human misjudgment’): People sometimes find reality too painful to accept, so instead completely deny that reality. It is what you see on the left whenever voters reject leftist policies. It is what you see on the left when a black or hispanic person holds conservative views. You can count on seeing much more of that denial a year from now.
HaroldW,
Chyron is a new word to me. I had to look it up.
That conclusion would seem to be counterintuitive. If the bills were truly popular and the reason the bills haven’t passed is due to Republican opposition, then one would expect the voters would punish the Republicans, not the Democrats. But expecting logic from progressives is also counterintuitive.
Apparently it was Sen. Warner (D-VA) who suggested that the failure to pass the infrastructure bill affected the VA gubernatorial race results.
https://www.businessinsider.in/politics/world/news/sen-mark-warner-says-the-virginia-gubernatorial-election-results-might-have-been-different-if-the-bipartisan-infrastructure-bill-had-passed-earlier/articleshow/87574449.cms
I still don’t get it.
CDC Director: “Masks can help reduce your chance of COVID19 infection by more than 80%.”
.
What a howler, better than vaccines! I guess we don’t really mandates after all, just put on a crappy old cloth mask.
Clearly if they would have passed a $10T spending bill, the Democrats would have won, ha ha. Activists always say election losses were due to them not doing enough of (fill in the blank) that they support, even when exit polling shows something completely different. As far as I can tell the left is now proposing 10 years of taxes to pay for spending programs that sunset after 4 years. It’s lunacy and our ever present fact based self righteous media just gives them a pass. My favorite part is how they typically ramp up taxes so they take effect for the next President in line. It’s all so shady.
.
I wonder how well Obamacare’s funding is going. Was the Medicare “doc fix” made permanent as the CBO had to assume? Did the government recover epic amounts of “waste fraud and abuse” that was assumed? No and no, and nobody cares.
Tom Scharf,
“Masks can help reduce your chance of COVID19 infection by more than 80%.â€
.
It is a ridiculous statement, of course. But like most of the people who run the Federal Bureaucracy, she is a political hack who is schilling for Biden and his foolish mask and vaccine mandates. She most certainly does not believe a cloth mask is 80% effective at avoiding infection. Like all politically appointed hacks, she’ll be gone the moment the presidency changes parties.
Tom Scharf,
On masks: I was under the impression that everyone else wearing a mask was supposed to protect you. But even so, if everyone wearing a mask was 80% effective, there wouldn’t have been any surges after the first round.
HaroldW
“Apparently it was Sen. Warner (D-VA) who suggested that the failure to pass the infrastructure bill affected the VA gubernatorial race results.”
.
Warner (66 YO) nearly lost in the 2014 midterm (when Dems were getting “shellacked”), winning by only 0.8% of the vote. With Trump on the ballot, Warner won easily in 2020. His next election will be in the 2026 midterms. Assuming Republicans gain the White House in 2024, Warner will likely survive that midterm, and will be 78 in 2032 when he is up for election again in a presidential year. Sadly, he is probably in the Senate until either death or 84 YO, whichever comes first.
.
I do wonder if Trump realizes what I negative impact he would have in 2024 on Republican prospects. Even if he were to win (and I doubt he can, he just motivates too many people who loath him to vote), I think his candidacy would put both houses of Congress in play, if not in 2024 then certainly in 2026.
.
Does the guy *really* want to face an endless stream of impeachment attempts….. AGAIN? I hope not. I have been thinking he will come to his senses and not run, but I am beginning to think he will run, and that will cause a lot of damage to the country by putting the left back in charge. All very discouraging.
On the Florida school mask parental opt-out fight:
.
The administrative law judge who heard the case filed by the recalcitrant school boards ruled against the boards and said they had no administrative complaint about the Florida parental opt-out rule…. everything was done correctly. Meanwhile the Florida appeals court hearing the case filed by parents of disabled students has stated in preliminary rulings that the parents do not have standing to file suit, and absent an administrative law judge ruling against the DeSantis administration, the school boards do not have a case at all… they have to follow the rules from the department of education. Final appeals court ruling to come soon. Of course, the parents and school boards will appeal to the FL supreme court. If that court even agrees to hear the cases (which I doubt), they will almost certainly lose in a quick ruling. More likely is a per curiam denial of the appeal.
.
The good news: cases are now so low in Florida that most everyone (except the school boards and a few crazy parents) recognizes masks are not really needed at all. Two more of the remaining eight boards (originally there were 13) have agreed to the parental opt-out, leaving six in defiance, and it looks like two or three others will follow shortly. Reality on the ground (almost no covid cases in schools, masks mandates or not) should already have ended these silly cases, but the Biden administration wants them to continue, so they will drag on for a while longer.
And now five counties of 13 remain in defiance. Orange county has not joined the other five in any appeal of the administrative law judge ruing….. for sure they will be allowing mask opt-outs. Palm Beach county is also as of today allowing mask opt-outs.
.
The county countdown continues. But it is difficult to say when it all ends, since the Biden administration is claiming they can pay the defiant districts for resisting the FL regulations, by compensating school boards for fines levied by FL for failure to follow the regulations.
.
A special legislative session later this month may bring it to an end by giving DeSantis legal authority (backed up by uniformed state police officers) to remove school board members who refuse to follow state regulations.
This one is particularly entertaining, he’s the armed “medic” who got shot by Rittenhouse. Pretty credulous reporting by NPR, as expected.
.
A person shot in the arm by Kyle Rittenhouse in Kenosha takes the stand at his trial
https://www.npr.org/2021/11/08/1053567574/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-gaige-grosskreutz-testimony-kenosha
.
“I was never trying to kill the defendant,” he testified. “In that moment, I was trying to preserve my own life. But doing so while also taking the life of another is not something that I’m capable of or comfortable doing.”
“In cross-examination, they emphasized Grosskreutz’s Glock pistol — which was in his hand at the moment Rittenhouse shot him — and proximity to Rittenhouse, just about 3 feet, at the time of the shooting. Grosskreutz said he was not intentionally pointing the weapon at Rittenhouse.”
“But then he encountered Rittenhouse. Hearing shouts from the crowd that Rittenhouse had just shot somebody, Grosskreutz decided to run in the same direction Rittenhouse was headed.
Prosecutor Thomas Binger sought to characterize Grosskreutz’s change of direction as motivated by the fact his “services as medic might be more needed in the direction the defendant was headed.” Defense lawyer Corey Chirafisi repeatedly called it a “chase,” which Grosskreutz denied.”
“Grosskreutz had drawn his gun, holding the pistol in his right hand and his cellphone in his left. He testified that he did not draw the gun “with the express intent of using it” but rather to be “ready” if he felt that it was necessary.”
.
Etc, etc. IMO this is rather unhelpful for the prosecution. As I recall from the video the reason he didn’t fire his gun at Rittenhouse was that it had clearly misfired (the slide was not cocked). This is definitely a “don’t whiz on me and tell me it’s raining” testimony.
SteveF,
Not according to a poster on a comment thread at the WSJ. According to him all the COVID-19 data from FL is fake and hospitals are still overwhelmed with cases. That would imply that DeSantis has Xi Xinping level control over the state of FL. I’m pretty sure he was serious, although it can be hard to tell online.
I don’t know if this link will get you to the comments, but here it is:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/voters-make-america-sane-election-woke-trump-biden-virginia-new-jersey-riot-jan-6-blm-11636384590?st=678e983kazwodnk&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
Tom Scharf,
“According to him all the COVID-19 data from FL is fake and hospitals are still overwhelmed with cases.”
.
Oddly enough, that is not what the staff at multiple FL hospitals say.
.
There are conspiracy nuts on both right and left… as that nutcake proves. Some people are just not at all influenced by reality (as the reaction to the VA elections in the MSM shows). Cases are very low in FL right now, and are still dropping.
Tom Scharf,
I suspect Rittenhouse will walk on all the charges except the misdemeanor of a person under 18 possessing a weapon while not hunting…. up to 9 months in prison. He was clearly being assaulted and had good reason to believe he was in considerable physical danger… the Glock in an assailant’s hand, and the attempts to hit him over the head with a skateboard probably constitute credible threats of serious injury.
.
Rule 1: Don’t attack someone holding an AR-15, even if you don’t like their politics.
Rule 2: Read Rule 1 again if you have any doubt.
.
At 17, he should not have been there with a weapon, which is the one valid charge against him.
.
“As I recall from the video the reason he didn’t fire his gun at Rittenhouse was that it had clearly misfired (the slide was not cocked). ”
.
Funny how the prosecution sees an (incompetent) attempt to fire the Glock as nothing worth charging….. even though the *intent* to kill Rittenhouse was obvious.
To be clear I don’t have much sympathy for anyone who got shot, and if Rittenhouse had gotten shot I wouldn’t have much sympathy for him either. Showing up at a riot can be hazardous to your health. I suspect there will be a hung jury here. It seems likely there will be at least one person on both sides who won’t change their position, I can’t see Rittenhouse convicted of any form of murder or manslaughter. That’s going to be a tough jury room.
Tom Scharf,
“It seems likely there will be at least one person on both sides who won’t change their position, I can’t see Rittenhouse convicted of any form of murder or manslaughter.”
.
Yup. If there were ever a case where a jury consensus won’t form, it is this one.
https://www.npr.org/2021/11/08/1053567574/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-gaige-grosskreutz-testimony-kenosha
I assume he means he was unaware his permit had expired but knew he was carrying the gun.
.
Grosskreutz who has a gun decides to run in the same direction as Rittenhouse.
.
Well… yes. And you were also carrying a gun.
Besides that, if you plan to help someone who might be shot in the fugure, you can always trail the potential shooter at a distance. You don’t have to get really, really close to the active shooter to help others who might get shot.
.
So you drew your gun. With the intention of having it be “ready” if “necessary”.
Rittenhouse would have known you drew the gun. He could not have know whether you had an express intent of using it. Or perhaps you had a non-express intent of kinda-maybe-sort of using it or an intention to not use it but just wave it around in a threatening manner. It’s ridiculous to assume Rittenhouse can read your mind.
.
Yep. Scary. Cuz he had a gun.
.
But you were running toward him carrying your gun! You think Rittenhouse didn’t think he was going to die?
.
Yeah. Like it or not, you are standing right there with a gun. You’d run to that very spot with your gun. You haven’t thrown the gun away. Someone had just tried to thwock the guy you ran toward with a skateboard.
What’s Rittenhouse supposed to do? Recognize you are someone who runs toward him carrying a drawn glock but that you are the sort of person who would never use it? (Sorry, I don’t believe this. People who would never use glocks don’t buy glocks)
Is he supposed to recognize that and tThrow his riffle away? Yeah, he re-racked to be ready– just like you got your gun to be ready.
.
So you thought the best thing to do was lunge at a guy who has re-racked but not shot you yet? Why not step back slowly…. Say… “I’m putting the gun away….”
I sort of believe he wasn’t planning to kill Rittenhouse. But how the heck is Rittenhouse supposed to know that? He knows what Grosskreutz did not what he thought.
.
With a gun in your hand!!
.
Grosskreutz may be entirely truthful about what was going on in his head. (Well… that’s assuming one can actually fully remember what was going on in your head under stress.) But the fact is:
1) For some reason, he brought a concealed weapon.
2) He ran toward Rittenhouse. Even if he wasn’t “chasing” him, it would have seemed so to Rittenhouse.
3) He got very near Rittenhouse carrying a gun.
4) Carrying the gun, he then lunged at Rittenhouse which would certainly look like he intended to attack.
.
I’d clear Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse can’t be expected to read people’s minds. He can only see actions. This guy acted like someone who was “ready” to shoot him if he “felt that it was necessary”.
Video of the moment in question here about 56 seconds in for anybody who wants to refresh their memory.
I believe Rittenhouse will walk.
Tom Scharf,
Same here. If Grosskreutz had shot Rittenhouse, I’m sure he would say something like “… he did not [rerack] the [rifle’ “with the express intent of using it—. That is: just exactly what Gorsskreutz said. He was just getting “ready” to use it if he “felt it was necessary”.
.
Look: Don’t intentionally go to riots. If your plan is to take a defensive position, take a defensive position. Don’t go out running in the street. If you really aren’t the kind to use a gun, don’t get a concealed weapons permit and carry one around!. The only reason to carry a gun is if you would use it!
.
Both guys are idiots. The only slightly forgivable thing with Rittenhouse is he was 17 at the time. Young enough that his brain is still in ‘idiot’ mode. But… sheesh!
Lucia, well said.
The only thing I’d add is, Rittenhouse was running. Didn’t look like he wanted to kill those people to me. From the ground / after he tripped, at pretty much during the last possible seconds as his attackers closed, only then does he fire. If that’s not self defense, there’s no such thing as self defense anymore.
The “heroes” who attacked Rittenhouse can arguably be said to be trying to take down someone who had just murdered another person, not that they really knew what had happened. People were yelling he had just shot someone. These people watch way too much TV and play too many video games. You don’t get to respawn in real life. If I get to choose to fight with a skateboard or an AR-15 style weapon I’m going to choose the rifle and I like my chances. I can’t think of a stupider action than trying to disarm someone running away with a rifle.
.
If I had somehow gone insane and found myself running down a road with a rifle and people started attacking me with skateboards and trying to take my gun, I’m not very interested to find out what is going to happen once they take my gun away.
.
Alternately it is kind of crazy to allow “citizen heroes” to roam the streets of an ongoing riot with rifles. This is not going to end well a lot of times. All I know is I don’t want to be anywhere near these events in progress and law enforcement needs to have better answers to that ongoing situation one way or the other.
Kind of crazy to ‘allow’ citizen heroes to roam the streets of a riot? Kind of crazy to ‘allow’ the riot, if it comes to that.
.
I agree with the general sentiment that Rittenhouse shouldn’t have been there. I think he was looking for trouble and sure enough he found plenty. Doesn’t mean it wasn’t self defense.
.
But I can’t agree that we should prevent citizen heroes from roaming the streets when we are not preventing rioters from roaming the streets.
On Oct. 27, Gavin Newsom received his booster shot. He has not been seen since, having cancelled all public appearances. His office says he will be back in public soon, but have not really given a reason (“family obligations”) for his disappearance.
.
Bad vaccine reaction?
mark,
Well, if they are allowing people on the streets, they are allowing them. Rioters, ‘heroes’, gun-toting medics, citizen journalists, deluded onlookers blah blah. Some are miscreants; some are deluded; some are foolish and naive. They all have equal right to be there. Most are just being stupid. (The rioters aren’t being stupid. Their intention is to riot and the accomplished that.)
Lucia: “(The rioters aren’t being stupid. Their intention is to riot and the accomplished that.)”
I’m reminded that Friday was Guy Fawkes Day. He is widely credited with being ” The Only Man Ever to Enter Parliament with Honest Intentions”
Lucia,
I essentially agree. I am reconsidering part of my position. Let me try the argument out:
Did Rittenhouse really have no business being there? What is the proper course for people of integrity when rioters and vandals descend to destroy one’s town. Granted — it wasn’t Rittenhouse’s town, and in my eyes that makes it more foolish for Rittenhouse to have gone out of his way to involve himself.
But I ask myself, what would I do if rioters came to destroy Huntsville? Cower in my house with my weapons and hope nobody takes the trouble to hike over the mountains to get me? Probably. Probably that’s what I’d do. I’ve got a family, wife, kids, responsibilities. I’m not law enforcement, not military, none of that. Personally I feel like my life is worth too much to me to take such avoidable risk.
But maybe that just makes me a selfish coward. It doesn’t necessarily make me right. It’s not clear to me that people are wrong to defend their communities from rioters and vandals if they feel that the authorities aren’t going to protect their communities.
I’m thinking out loud; anyone feel free to point out my errors. I expect I’ve made some.
I agree on what the law is, but the outcome of this event is not an exemplar for why we need open carry of rifles in society.
.
If we are going to prevent the looting and burning of businesses society should maybe train a force of professionals who understand when to use lethal force as a last resort, are easy to identify, and can put down a riot with overwhelming force when necessary.
.
The root cause IMO is the police stepping back and allowing a bunch of poorly trained yahoo’s to take over. This was intentional anarchy. I’m for giving police a somewhat longer leash when putting down a riot, I think most people also think this way(?), and the media needs to cover this in a sane way. Curfews, mass arrests, accountability. Even the true believers of BLM have to see these outcomes destroy their stated goals.
.
But it is complicated, there is something to be said for letting a bunch of unhappy people vent for a few days and get it out of their system. Ultimately Defund the Police is dead among record violence increases, BLM has been tainted by the mostly peaceful violence, the media is seen as hopelessly biased in its coverage, and NYC elects a law and order mayor. Sometimes giving people exactly what they are asking for is the best remedy even when you disagree.
I think Tony Evers is about the only person who should have been held responsible but wasn’t. The local police and mayor asked for national guard troops BEFORE the riots started. Evers refused. He sent troups after the first night of rioting, but only 1/3 as many as he was asked for. He finally sent enough to quell the riots on the fourth day. Had he sent the number national guardsmen that Kenosha initially requested, it is likely things would never have gotten so out of hand, and people would not have been walking around with semi-auto weapons to keep the arsonists and looters at bay.
.
I hope the voters in Wisconsin remember that when Evers runs for re-election next year.
Thanks Tom Scharf. I don’t think I fully agree, but there’s some parts of what you’re saying I agree with.
One of my problems is — it’s easy to be detached about unhappy people venting for a few days when they’re destroying somebody else’s stuff; somebody else’s business, somebody else’s favorite restaurant, so on. Just because you or I don’t care about what’s being destroyed doesn’t mean nobody cares about what’s being destroyed. It’s sort of hard luck on those poor people.
I think the case where the trained professionals aren’t protecting communities might be exactly the case for citizen militias with guns.
Don’t misunderstand me. Vigilantism is a bad idea. Much better for the police and national guard to do the job.
But when they don’t — when the governor decides to play political games — its like a game of chicken. When the trained professionals won’t do the job, the next best thing is for the citizens to do the job. Maybe. At least that seems arguably preferable to letting rioters and vandals destroy the citizen’s community.
I don’t know. Like I said, thinking out loud. Maybe the darn citizens get what they deserve for electing an idjit for governor. But only slightly more than half of them needed to vote for the idgit governor; again, that’s a pretty tough break for the other poor people who didn’t actually do anything wrong.
Do all of us deserve the disasters that are unfolding under Biden? Maybe.
Steve,
I agree.
mark bofill,
“But only slightly more than half of them needed to vote for the idgit governor…..”
.
Indeed it was about 1% more than 50%. Any governor who will countenance widespread rioting/looting/arson (AKA ‘mostly peaceful protests’) without a swift and overwhelming response is simply not up to the job. And that is Evers. I would not say he is an “idgit”, but he is profoundly foolish and irresponsible.
It’s clearly a political failure. The police have to do their job and society is constructed around this prerequisite. They are there so we don’t have mentally unstable people running around deciding who to shoot on a whim. Now people know what it looks like without police, not sure why this had to be demonstrated, but it has been.
.
Militias are more of an anti-government group who are there to protect from an overly aggressive police force of an authoritarian government that is out of control. My model of the need for open carry is more based on the police being the problem, not being ultra passive. I haven’t really thought that hard about it and consider most militias to be batsh*t crazy. Not well versed here.
Okay.
1) I think it’s best for professionals to enforce the law as opposed to citizens by a large margin.
2) I think an argument can be made that it might be preferable for citizens to defend their communities in organized groups if the professionals refuse or are prevented from doing the job.
2a) …Preferable to letting organized groups of looters and vandals destroy communities.
3) We could call the organized groups [of citizens defending communities] in (2) above militias or not. It doesn’t really matter AFAICT. Call them the Associated Neighborhood Watch Chapters if we want.
I don’t believe what I think you’re saying is what you’re really saying. Open carry because of the police being the problem, open carry in order to use firearms against police?
I don’t know what you mean, but I doubt you meant that. I don’t support bearing arms against the police. Let them take me to jail. I’ll have my day in court. If they did something wrong I’ll walk. Fruit of the poisonous tree and all that.
A medic’s primary tools are a phone and a gun. Everyone knows that.
The jury in the case of the officers who shot Daunte Wright is being intimidated by antifa led by George Floyd’s nephew. They went past the security in the judge’s building and up to his door, or perhaps just what they thought was his address, with a crowd outside. He posted a video saying they were filming the jury.
Lawyer: “with your arms up in the air, he never fired, correct?”
.
Grosskreutz: “correct”
.
Lawyer: “it wasn’t until you pointed your gun at him. Advanced on him, with you gun and your hands pointed at him, that he fired. Right?”
.
Grosskreutz: “correct”
.
Prosecutor: Facepalm.
.
Edit: earlier in the trial, it came out that the group that Grosskreutz was with, maybe Grosskreutz himself, said something along the lines of “If I see you around later, I’m going to kill you.”
DaveJR
Yes. But in his mind he never intended to use it. He just wanted to be ‘ready’ incase he “felt” he needed to use it!!
.
I mean, seriously. No. Just No.
.
The standard for self defense cannot be that you have to read the mind of someone advancing with a gun and differentiate between someone who mentally “intends” to pull the trigger and someone who think they just “intend” to make you think they are armed, deadly, pointing a gun at you and intending to shoot you.
.
And of course, the jury could ask themself is Grosskreutz memory of his mental state is correct. Or even if he’s just lying. But it’s irrelevant. He was lunging toward prone person, pointing a gun in his face at point blank range. The person on the ground has every reason to believe he is about to shoot.
Here is my summary after watching the whole tape.
Really brief summary. KR was not aggressive to anyone. Mob chasing him. Jump kick man tries to jump kick KR in head and misses. Anthony Huber comes next and attacks KR with skateboard. Huber is killed by KR. GG gets about 3 ft from KR and KR does nothing until GG points gun at KR’s head. KR shoots GG in arm. Meat of testimony begins at 2:09 of video.
1. When initially interviewed by police day after shooting Gaige Grosskreutz didn’t mention that he had gun. When interviewed a month later he brought lawyer with him and refused to answer questions about the incident. GG’s $10 million claim against city didn’t mention that he had a gun when incident occurred.
….
2. Has filed $10 million claim against city. If KR is convicted he stands to benefit.
….
3. KR was never aggressive towards him or anyone else that GG saw until KR shot & killed Anthony Huber
4. Prior to Huber assaulting KR with a skateboard another man jumped at KR while he was on the ground (jump kick man) and tried a jump kick at KR’s head.
….
5. A mob was chasing KR, yelling get him, or get his ass. KR was going towards the police.
……
6. KR walked past GG and left GG alone. Then when GG was more than 30 feet from KR, GG started pulling his concealed handgun out from under his belt. Eventually, GG caught up with KR.
……
7. After jump kick man was done and after Huber attacked KR in the head with skateboard, KR shot and killed Huber.
……
8. GG initially raised his hands when near KR and KR did nothing. Then GG lowered his hands and pointed his gun at KR’s head. KR then shot GG in the arm.
…..
9. At 2:35 of the video their is a picture of jump kick man flying over KR (about 2 ft away) and Anthony Huber banging on KR with skateboard. You don’t see it in the picture but GG admits that at the time of this picture he was close to KR with a gun in his hands. SO AT THE TIME KR SHOT HUBER AND SHORTLY LATER SHOT GG HE WAS SURROUNDED BY 3 PEOPLE WITH BAD INTENTIONS TOWARD HIM AND AROUND THEM THERE WAS A MOB STATING THINGS LIKE GET HIS ASS.
My link to video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIXE6JsmyhQ
There is no case with Grosskreutz, that one is pretty much open and shut self defense. I suppose the prosecution would prefer not putting Grosskreutz on the stand but felt that they had to. The original killing and skateboard hero are a little more questionable. They have witness testimony (first hero) and video footage (second hero) that both of those people tried to take the gun from Rittenhouse and were aggressive towards him.
.
Perhaps the jury can settle on Rittenhouse with reckless endangerment as a stand in for being a dumba** and for bringing a rifle to a riot, but the shootings just aren’t going to get a jury agreement with evidence that is pretty clear that Rittenhouse was never the initial aggressor and didn’t fire on anyone who didn’t attack him. There probably wouldn’t even be charges under normal circumstances but there was political pressure to do so.
It’s not going to hurt Rittenhouse that he has a baby face. Some young guys look like adults at 14. Some adults look like kids for a long time. Heck, some adult actors continue to play kids into their late 20s. Rittenhouse has that type of face.
.
I don’t see how Rittenhouse can possibly be convicted on the evidence. Even in other states where it is harder to prove self defense it looks like self defense.
It seems to me that all three shootings were open and shut self-defense. The standard for that is a reasonable belief that your life is in danger. I do not see how one can reasonably argue that if was not reasonable for Rittenhouse to think his life was in danger. Many states also have a “duty to retreat” requirement, if it is possible to do so. No question that Rittenhouse fulfilled that: His first choice was to try to run away.
.
I also can not see how one can claim reckless endangerment since he did nothing reckless other than to be there. That did not violate any law.
.
It would seem they have him on the misdemeanor gun charge.
———–
It is perfectly reasonable (and legal) for people to try to protect their property against rioters. It is perfectly reasonable (and legal) for others to help. Whether or not it was prudent is beside the point.
Skateboard guy was a child molester. Drop kick guy a domestic abuser. Gross guy a thief. Convicted criminals taking advange of government sanctioned anarchy to create some chaos and mayhem.
I have a question. The misdemeanor gun violation is for doing something that would not be legal if Rittenhouse were an adult. He is being tried as an adult, I presume. So how can he be charged with something that would only be a crime if he were a minor? Seems like a contradiction.
MikeM
Interestingly, Grosskreutz would have been violating that had he shot. He ran toward what he claims to have thought was an active shooter. Whatever his claimed reason for doing this, it was not retreating. He also decided to lunge toward KR when KR was aiming a loaded gun. KR was prone.
According to this truck driver, the shipping crisis is not going to end any time soon. And it’s not just California. It’s everywhere and no one has an incentive to fix it. They’re all making too much money. Well, except for the non-union truck drivers.
https://medium.com/@ryan79z28/im-a-twenty-year-truck-driver-i-will-tell-you-why-america-s-shipping-crisis-will-not-end-bbe0ebac6a91
Wait until Black Friday and store shelves are empty. I would be surprised if Biden’s approval rating doesn’t crater. Needless to say, there is nothing in the ‘bipartisan’ infrastructure bill that addresses this problem. Mobilizing the National Guard won’t help because it’s not just a shortage of drivers, there aren’t enough trailers and they can’t get the trucks into and out of the facilities in a timely fashion. Oh, and our transportation secretary is still on family leave.
DeWitt,
It is a strange situation. The actual drop in demand for goods (and fear of drop in demand) due to covid motivated lots of companies to scale back capacity (retire older equipment, etc). There was a brief period near the beginning of the pandemic when shipping prices (eg containers from Asia) actually DROPPED in cost. When shipping demand did not fall as much as anticipated, and recovered more completely than anticipated, there were lots of capacity shortfalls.
.
Seems like now people are trying to catch up with delayed purchases, and the system doesn’t have the capacity to meet that “catch up” demand. In addition, it seems that ports like LA and Long Beach have plenty of other problems that are made much worse by the increase in shipping demand. Seems a bit like how carrying capacity of a roadway reaches a maximum at a certain traffic density, but any increase in cars trying to enter then causes capacity to drop rapidly (under the heading of ‘grid-lock’).
.
I have no doubt the issue will be resolved, but it looks like it will take some time. My next door neighbor removed the screen-in enclosure around his pool 4 months ago, expecting it could be replaced quickly. Nope. The enclosures come from (surprise!) China, and so far, no delivery has been promised. The mosquitos are happy.
I posted about Daunte Wright because I got confused and initially posted this was the Rittenhouse trial. It turns out the jury was being doxxed here, someone put up a video saying they were filming the jury. Later, they caught someone recording in the courtroom.
Gavin Newsom is back from the dead with an interesting excuse for cancelling his trip to the climate conference:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/gavin-newsom-i-skipped-climate-summit-because-my-kids-had-an-intervention-for-me-about-halloween
Yeah, right. That’s believable.
.
Of course, Halloween was 10 days ago, so where has he been since? Maybe a real bad bellyache from too much candy?
.
He says he went as a pirate. That I can believe.
Mike M,
Newsom’s lame excuse for disappearing for two weeks reminds me of the joke about knowing when politicians are lying: it’s when their lips are moving.
.
Unlikely Newsom’s true reason for disappearing will ever be disclosed, but some kind of significant health problem is likely. Perhaps a case of covid, a reaction to the Moderna vaccination, or an unrelated illness. Another possibility is his wife discovered he has a girlfriend (or two) and they were ‘working on their relationship’.
Rittenhouse is testifying this morning.
I can’t believe they put Rittenhouse on the stand, there is only downsides here, he had already won the case IMO. He probably overruled his lawyer.
Inflation at 30 year high. Once Biden has to start speaking the I word (inflation) often, he is toast. $5/gallon gas prices will not be politically survivable given the narrow margins and it’s not something the media can wish away with their selection bias. They have already been down the “man behind the curtain says it will only be temporary†road.
.
Climate virtue signaling with high energy costs will not be tolerated. Shutting down pipelines won’t be politically helpful. $4T spending bills based on budget gimmicks also will be a very hard sell.
.
Maybe it will go away, but I’m saying that expert opinion is likely clueless in this prediction market and biased politically for a favored outcome. High inflation sucks.
Tom Scharf,
Ya, shutting down a critical gas pipeline, threatening customers with shortages this winter, is just stupid, but exactly what we can expect from the Biden administration.
.
OTOH, I am pleased they have all apparently decided to fall on their swords over global warming, ensuring electoral ruin outside of Dem bastions like New England, NY and the Left coast, since everything Biden is doing is regulatory not statutory. Everything can be reversed by the next Republican administration. I hope that next Republican administration is run by someone other than Trump…. someone who will not take his eye off the ball of reversing all that damage by endlessly fighting against Congressional idiots like Pelosi.
It sounds like the prosecution is making quite the spectacle. Apparently Binger questioned Rittenhouse exercising his right to remain silent as if it might be evidence of guilt and the judge went berserk:
https://www.newsweek.com/rittenhouse-trial-heats-judge-screams-da-dont-get-brazen-me-1648027
My guess — prosecutor knows he’s lost. He’s looking for hero points so he can run for political office with progressive support.
Oh, I’m sorry. The bit I quoted was the judge yelling at the prosecution for bringing up something else that was excluded in a pre-trial order. But apparently the prosecutor did try to go there with the exercising right to remain silent == evidence of guilt.
[Edit: Fun fact(? I think?) I see stuff indicating that pre-arrest silence can be used as evidence against a person.]
Tom Scharf (Comment #207121): “I can’t believe they put Rittenhouse on the stand, there is only downsides here, he had already won the case IMO. He probably overruled his lawyer.”
.
Self defense is an affirmative defense, so the defense has the burden of proof. It might be a problem to argue that burden was met without having heard from the defendant. I am not saying that is the case, since I don’t know. Just pointing out that the norm might be different from a trial in which the burden is on the prosecution.
mark bofill,
Yes, the prosecutor probably knows he is going to lose on all the counts except misdemeanor weapons possession.
.
But wow! Sounds like the assistant DA is very close to a contempt of court citation. He is raising issues in front of the jury that the judge already *explicitly* prohibited from being raised. Outright defiance of the trial judge in that judge’s presence is blatant contempt, and would normally lead to jail time.
.
I think the judge has been remarkably patient; another judge could well have sent the jury away, had the bailiff arrest the assistant DA, and sentenced him on the spot to 15 or 30 days in prison. The actual Wisconsin statute reads:
The immediate punitive sanction does not require anything more than the judge’s order. I think the assistant DA must be a lefty or crazy (not mutually exclusive).
Incidentally, the Wisconsin contempt statute calls for immediate arrest and imprisonment in the case of:
That sounds exactly like what the assistant DA has been doing. It looks to me like very thin ice.
I’ve been reading updates on Binger’s cross examination of Rittenhouse. Binger’s line of questioning is purely obnoxious.
There’s a difference between being prepared to defend yourself and intent to kill people. Being prepared for an attack doesn’t mean you ‘plan’ on being attacked.
.
[Thanks Steve]
Steve,
Indeed the defense has asked the judge to declare a mistrial because of the prosecutions shenanigans and the judge said he’d take it under advisement. So the prosecution might yet come to regret conducting themselves this way.
Mark bofill,
The odd thing to me is that the prosecution even bothered with this case beyond trying to get a guilty plea on the misdemeanor gun charge (9 months prison maximum). Everybody involved was more than a bit crazy, but Rittenhouse (at 17) was arguably the least crazy of the bunch. Chase after and then physically assault someone holding a semi-auto rifle? That is almost the definition of a death wish… and their wishes were twice granted.
.
Rittenhouse should have been at home playing video games, not in Kenosha with a rifle. But to say he was *planning* to kill people is obvious nonsense. I believe he will walk on everything except the gun charge.
.
What is not clear to me is if the assistant DA will end up spending more time in prison than Rittenhouse; the guy needs to get a grip on reality. He has a losing case, and that is not his fault. But is he so stupid as to put himself in prison for contempt over a losing case? Donno… could be. The left is strange that way.
mark bofill
Presumably, so did Grosskreutz who the prosecutor put on the stand and who has no testified that he carried a concealed gun, carried it and point it straight at Rittenhouse all with no intention of using it. 🙂
.
I agree being prepared to defend yourself is not the same as intent to attack.
.
My understanding is Rittenhouse’s inital plan was to go stay in a store. Then somehow, he was with a group and got separated. (Obviously he left the store. That was probably the specific unwise thing he did. I don’t know why he left though.)
lucia,
I’ve read (here but who knows how accurate this is, it’s GQ) that imply that Rittenhouse left to offer medical assistance to protesters, and then discovered he couldn’t return to Car Source (the place he was protecting) because police blocked him.
Don’t know though, the story could be wrong.
Well, if this transcript is accurate (no idea), Rittenhouse testified to that effect:
Offer first aid assistance and put out fires, sounds like the reasons he left.
I have plotted the weekly Covid-19 cases and vax rates for the 50 states plus the District of Columbia over the period from early Jan to late Oct of this year. The Delta variant was dominate during most of the surges.
I have some concerns about cycles showing independence of the vaccination rates – even though knowing that those rates are a significant factor in the differences in state cases per one million population. My concerns include the uncertainty of the Ro for the Delta variant, the combined immunity for vaccinations and previous infections with regards to reaching herd immunity, strength of immunity for infections and vaccinations, the vaccination rates going into winter and the number of the vaccinated who will get a booster shot in a timely manner.
Below I have linked the plots with a brief introduction. If any of you posting here have the time and interest take a look and give me your interpretations of what you see, your efforts will be appreciated.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hk88y69qfg165yx/DeltaCasesVaxRatesPlots.pdf?dl=0
Kenneth,
I will look more closely at the document over the next couple of days.
.
In the mean time, it is almost comic justice that the most sanctimonious of states that beat up on DeSantis about delta cases and deaths in Florida in August are now looking pretty bad…. lots of delta cases, in spite of draconian (AKA stupid) rules on masking, vaccines, vaccine passports, etc. These folks are shameless and arrogant, not to mention offensive, and they will never accept their own considerable faults, even while casting stones at everyone who disagrees with their politics. 2022 can’t come too soon.
Mike M,
You are correct that many people with self defense strategies do take the stand, thanks for that point. Rittenhouse’s attorney said he would take the stand at the start of the trial as well.
.
WP: ““Wisconsin establishes a low bar for the defense,†said Findley. “It just needs to produce ‘some evidence’ in support of the claim of self-defense — that his fear was reasonable and that he responded reasonably.â€
The prosecution must convince the jury that Rittenhouse didn’t act in self-defense. “A jury could decide he can’t invoke the privilege of self-defense because of his own unlawful conduct, or that he provoked the attack on himself,†Findley said.”
.
The prosecution has a tough job here. It seems he is probably working harder to get “recklessly endangering safety” convictions which are possible but still seem like a stretch to me. If he gets convicted he will be sentenced like other people on that charge so likely won’t be too severe. Anyone who discharges a firearm with people nearby could get this I assume.
Turns out the judge in the Rittenhouse case is not actually an occupant of Hillary’s basket of deplorables, nor part of the KKK or some other white racist organization. He was appointed by a Democrat. The stupidity of prosecution of this case is ever more obvious.
Tom Scharf (Comment #207139): “he is probably working harder to get “recklessly endangering safety†convictions which are possible but still seem like a stretch to me”.
.
So what did Rittenhouse supposedly do to endanger safety?
My guess is the argument is he broke the law by being 17 years old and bringing a rifle to a riot and this endangered the public. Not an especially strong argument perhaps. I’d call open carry by not proven to be qualified people at a potential riot endangering the public but I also recognize that is certainly not the law as it sits.
.
Lots of people had concealed weapons there so Rittenhouse shouldn’t be punished any more than those others would have, and the aggressive behavior by the rioters proves the necessity of having a weapon is another arguable position.
.
Lots of highly agitated polarized people in the same space with deadly weapons is not a formula for public safety. The entire thing is crazy start to finish.
I actually think the prosecutor will be happy with a mistrial in this situation. The media will imply Kyle only got off on a technicality.
The prosecution would have a hard time getting a conviction on having the rifle, because the law is vague. Rittenhouse testified he would not have been allowed to have a handgun, and appears to know the state laws better than the prosecutor.
They included the gun charge, as part of an attempt to remove the self defense argument. In Wisconsin, self defense does not apply if you provoke the attack.
Looks like the mistrial narrative is already being prepared. Judge has a “God bless the USA” ringtone……..
Major news outlets are already attacking the judge.
This is not incompetence by the Biden administration. They don’t care if Biden’s popularity drops. They just want to implement whatever they can in four years. Things getting worse is part of the plan. It is Cloward-Piven, which was Marxist talking points decades ago, including when Obama was in college as one of them.
Make the system worse, so the middle class will stop being complacent and voting against reform. ObamaCare not working was by design, to create a push for single payer.
Covid cases In Florida now lower than at any time since June 13, 2020…. and falling. Several northern states still near their peak of delta surge are keeping total USA cases almost constant.
MikeN,
“They don’t care if Biden’s popularity drops. They just want to implement whatever they can in four years.”
.
Sure, the ‘progressive left’ always wants to make immediate ‘progress’ by every dishonest means, which they think will be later difficult or impossible to undo. But I believe even many on the left understand that If Biden’s popular support continues to fall, then getting the really crazy stuff past more centrist Democrats (who are already worried about 2022) will become just about impossible…. even most Democrats want to stay in office. It is not yet possible to say what will happen with the green climate boondoggle/tax increases/entitlements bill (AKA BBB) when Democrats return from their Thanksgiving break, but I am betting those in competitive districts are not going to like what they hear from constituents back home. I will be surprised if the bill is not further reduced in scope and cost.
.
The other imponderables are how the “independent” CBO scores the “true cost” and how much Joe Manchin insists on honest budgeting in the bill (right now the bill is completely dishonest, and only claims about 50% of the true cost).
SteveF, they are implementing things with executive actions. The nominee for currency comptroller has a goal of bankrupting energy companies, and having the Fed take direct control of all deposit accounts. She is from Kazakhstan and attended Moscow State University, so she might not be as Marxist as your typical Biden appointee.
MikeN,
Of course, but most executive actions can be reversed. Voiding legislation is a much tougher hurdle, so I am much more concerned about legislation.
.
Of course, it will take a smarter administration of the reversal process than Trump practiced….. Trump wasted huge amounts of time fighting Dem appointed judges who had blocked most reversals of executive orders for failure to cross T’s and dot I’s. I hope the next Rep administration will be a lot more savvy about avoiding executive orders being blocked by Dem judges.
They are deliberately letting in illegal immigrants and shipping them to Republican states, with an eye on long term vote gains. It is short term gain if they get amnesty passed, or their voting ‘reform’ bill.
Higher inflation now is part of their goal.
They can’t do much about the shipping in California. The link above didn’t mention California’s emissions rules that are taking half the trucks out of commission for clearing the ports. There are trucks that are delivering to Nevada and offloading there to another truck to finish the delivery.
Those long term votes might not be as secure as they think. They have bribery on their side, but latinos tend to be far more socially traditional, which puts them at odds with the rest of the dem platform. Dumping them in conservative areas without a few rounds of indoctrination could very easily backfire.
They are demanding climate reparations now on top of their $100B/year demand, ha ha. Good luck with that. A story a month ago said they now want $850B/year in climate financing. What a complete farce.
Toms Scharf,
” A story a month ago said they now want $850B/year in climate financing. What a complete farce.”
.
Sure, “international” climate mitigation has always been a farce, one that only a few rich and foolish countries have been able to indulge in. Nothing of substance is going to happen, and certainly not endless transfers of vast wealth to the pockets of corrupt politicians in poor countries. If global warming ever becomes a real problem, and it certainly sin’t right now, then a handful of wealthy countries will agree to spend a few billion per year to put sulfate aerosols in the stratosphere and reflect 1% or 2% of sunlight to space. This isn’t even that hard a problem to resolve, since even a bad miss-estimate of how much aerosol would be needed would be evident in year or two…. sulfate aerosols are not “forever”. Heck, they aren’t even medium term in influence like CO2, and their quantity could be adjusted on the fly as needed. Humanity has real problems with costly and difficult solutions; global warming isn’t one of them…. global warming merits little more than an eye-roll.
SteveF,
The thing that worries be about “geo-engineering” projects after my initial concern that they are unlikely to involve engineers is the possibility of adverse unintended consequences. It sounds like the method you identify is tuneable, so we might sneak up on the dosage without destroying life as we think we know it.
As to not having engineers involved which somehow seems the default mode for projects like this, what you get when you hire an engineer is someone whose living is in “making it work”, not just talking about it which seems to me what most everyone else does.
Hi John,
“The thing that worries be about “geo-engineering†projects after my initial concern that they are unlikely to involve engineers is the possibility of adverse unintended consequences.”
.
Sure, and even without geoengineering, life is full of risks. However, in this case we have documented examples of volcanic eruptions with (approximately) known injections of sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere. It is not like volcanic eruptions are going to disappear, and it is not like we could not stop putting aerosols in the stratosphere if things went sideways. It is a project to start slow and see how it goes.
.
For me, it is a balance of relative risks and benefits. Should we impoverish half of humanity indefinitely to reduce global average temperature by 1 or 1.5 degree C? (Or reduce the income of half the world by half to make income more euitable?) That seems to me too high a price to pay for what is until now a non-problem. Which is not to say it could not become a problem… just that is clearly is not a problem right now; humanity is healthier, richer, and lives longer than at any time in the past. My personal preference is to extend that wealth to the 40% of humanity that continues to suffer relative poverty.
.
After having seen plenty of poverty around the world, I am strongly inclined to work toward enriching all of humanity, and then work out the details of global warming. YMMV.
The experts at the NYT have spoken:
“Rocketing inflation has become a headache for U.S. consumers, and President Biden has a go-to prescription. He says a key way to help relieve increasing prices is to pass a $1.85 trillion collection of spending programs and tax cuts that is currently languishing in the Senate.
A wide range of economists agree with the president”
.
Ummmm, yeah. Can I get a bet on that with those experts? Those are obviously the same economists who said Trump was going to be an economic catastrophe before the 2016 election.
.
Of course one must read a little harder …
“But many researchers, including a forecasting firm that Mr. Biden often cites to support the economic benefits of his proposals, say the bill is structured in a way that could add to inflation next year, before prices have had time to cool off.”
.
“They (others) argue that potential inflationary risks are not a good reason for the Biden administration to curb its ambitions”
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/11/business/economy/biden-inflation.html
.
It is noted that when passing along rather dubious arguments to support one’s partisan bias, experts prefer to remain unnamed and the NYT is more than happy to help. We just went through months of BS transitory inflation. The media needs to try harder to track credibility of alleged experts over time. I’m not holding my breath on that one.
SteveF,
I couldn’t agree more.
NPR again today:
https://www.npr.org/2021/11/11/1054949120/prosecutors-lesser-charges-against-kyle-rittenhouse
.
“Grosskreutz was himself armed with a loaded pistol. In testimony Monday, he acknowledged that his gun was pointed toward Rittenhouse at the moment he was shot, though he said he was not pointing it intentionally and did not intend to harm Rittenhouse.”
.
As the sports meme goes … C’mon Man! There have to be editors at NPR, right?
Tom Scharf
I should think it would be impossible to know whether a gun was pointed “intentionally” or “unintentionally” nor to know if the person pointing it “intended” to shot or not.
In other news, after the FBI raid on project veritas, the FBI leak client privileged information to the NYT, who have no issue publishing it. This is what government suppression of the media actually looks like. Not accusing fake news of being fake news, or people chanting fake news at people producing fake news. Will the WP jump to their defense to lecture us on how democracy dies in darkness, I wonder?
Tom Scharf,
“There have to be editors at NPR, right?”
.
Certainly there are people with that job title. But what they are paid to do is perhaps different from what editors have historically done: the editors make sure that all published material conforms to lefty political narratives NPR agrees with…. never is a contrary word allowed.
.
Same with most large newspapers (NYT, Washington Post, etc.). So long as there is enough popular support for the editorial positions those publications take to keep selling subscriptions and advertising, the editorial enforcement of the left’s narratives will never change.
.
The MSM has always been biased to the left, at least during my entire adult lifetime, but I still find the complete elimination of any attempt to present unbiased facts truly shocking. While the change in the MSM seems to me to have started around the time of Reagan, and accelerated during the Obama years, Trump coming down the escalator marked the complete conversion of the MSM to vocal advocates against Trump, all his policies, and all the voters who elected him to implement those policies.
.
The complete lack of popular consensus on a wide range of public policies, and indeed, the ever growing moral/cultural divide between the left and right over most public policies, combined with the growing refusal of those on the left to compromise on public policies, suggests to me that (moderately) “honest journalism” as practiced after WWII is gone….. if not forever, then probably for for decades.
Sounds like what used to be called a Mexican standoff. Therefore, Grosskreutz would have been justified shooting and killing Rittenhouse in self defense.
Howard,
Except that Grosskreutz was chasing Rittenhouse and that Rittenhouse was running away, and that the incident between Grosskreutz and Rittenhouse only happened because Rittenhouse tripped and as a result was unable to continue running away, pretty much.
I read that the prosecution wants to add new lesser charges. I didn’t think they could do that after already having conducted the trial. If they do, does Rittenhouse get a new / fresh opportunity to defend himself against the additional charges? It’d seem to me that that’d be important.
I don’t know the legal stuff, but my guess is the judge will disallow reduction of charges after the prosecution apparently thinks the trial went badly, and seemed to be looking to trigger a mistrial. I think the prosecutor has now moved on from pounding the table to whatever happens after that.
Reduction of charges, I see. So he has already had an opportunity to offer his defense. Makes sense, thanks Tom.
Howard (Comment #207166): “Sounds like what used to be called a Mexican standoff. Therefore, Grosskreutz would have been justified shooting and killing Rittenhouse in self defense.”
.
mark bofill (Comment #207167): “Except that Grosskreutz was chasing Rittenhouse and that Rittenhouse was running away”.
.
Mark is correct. The aggressor can’t argue self-defense.
mark bofill (Comment #207168): “I read that the prosecution wants to add new lesser charges.”
.
Surely that can not be allowed. Maybe the ADA is trying to get locked up for contempt, so as to look like a hero fighting an out-of-control judge. If so, he should be disbarred.
The Matt Helm (the Donald Hamilton books not the idiotic Dean Martin movies very loosely based on them) rule on guns is that you don’t point a gun at someone you are not intending to shoot immediately. If nothing else, they will take your gun away from you. IIRC, Rittenhouse didn’t point his gun at Grosskreutz until Grosskreutz started to bring his gun to bear.
Chasing away an armed man is self defense. Did Rittenhouse keep his weapon slung and safety on? No. It was cocked and his trigger finger was at the ready. He was a threat to everyone around him. The fact is he killed unarmed people who used every means necessary defending themselves from his lethal weapon threat. Unfortunately they were not available to testify.
I did finally get a J&J vaccine shot. I was sick for about a day and a half. Unless things change drastically, i.e. a vaccine specifically targeted to a new variant, I don’t plan to get a booster.
Howard,
That’s sarcasm right? You can’t possibly be serious.
Howard,
Legally speaking, that’s not correct.
Laws vary, but in general, self defense is:
Further,
A mob does not need weapons to kill someone. Rittenhouse was attacked by a guy who tried to jump and stomp on his face, a guy who hit him in the head with a skateboard, and was accosted by Grosskreutz who was pointing his glock at Rittenhouse before he was shot. None of these people were defending themselves from Rittenhouse. Ritthenhouse was defending himself from them. Obviously.
I like discussions and alternate viewpoints that have some substance behind them. Do you have anything other than hot air?
I’m pretty sure that another person’s open carry of a weapon is generally not sufficient in and of itself to meet the criteria for reasonably believing there is an immediate threat of death or great bodily harm. Were this the case, open carry would not generally be legal. [Edit: Well, that or the law regarding self defense would be different. ]
DeWitt,
“That’s sarcasm right? You can’t possibly be serious.”
.
That is a more flattering explanation for Howard than the alternative. If he is serious, then he is utterly delusional, and there may be future for him somewhere in the MSM.
.
There is eye witness testimony that the first guy Rittenhouse shot had directly threatened Rittenhouse with death, and that before the shooting, the guy had attempted to take Rittenhouse’s rifle (confirmed by powder burns). Lemme see…. someone tells you they are going to kill you, then tries to take the rifle you are carrying away from you. Shooting that person seems to me a perfectly reasonable reaction. The jury is likely to agree.
I also got a booster shot this week, same as the original set, namely Moderna. Similar symptoms as the 2nd shot– headache, fever, chills, all gone within 24 to 36 hours.
No urge to eat brains (yet). But if I do experience same, I know enough to stay away from Washington DC.
Howard (Comment #207174): “Chasing away an armed man is self defense.”
.
Nobody chased Rittenhouse away from anything. He was pursued with clear intent to do him harm.
.
Howard: “Did Rittenhouse keep his weapon slung and safety on? No. It was cocked and his trigger finger was at the ready.”
.
Do you have evidence for that? Of course you don’t. No, he did not have the weapon stowed away; I don’t know any reason why that should be expected but I do see why it was reasonable not to do so. Did you overlook the fact that there was a riot going on around him? In the pictures and video I have seen, he seems careful to not point the gun at anybody and to keep his finger off the trigger. I think it a pretty safe bet that he had the safety on. And I am almost certain that the AR-15 was not “cocked”; it is a semi-automatic, not a single-action revolver.
.
Howard: “He was a threat to everyone around him.”
.
Nonsense. He might well have been deemed a threat carrying the gun in that manner down an ordinary city street. But there was a riot going on around him.
.
Howard: “The fact is he killed unarmed people who used every means necessary defending themselves from his lethal weapon threat.”
.
That is unhinged. The people who got shot had a really simple way of defending themselves. All they had to do was to not attack Rittenhouse.
.
Howard: “Unfortunately they were not available to testify.”
.
Well the guy who got shot and did testify ended up making it quite clear that Rittenhouse acted in self-defense.
HaroldW,
“No urge to eat brains (yet). But if I do experience same, I know enough to stay away from Washington DC.”
.
Unless you want to lose a few pounds.
What was Rittenhouse threatened with? You carry a loaded AR-15 with a round chambered into a riot with your finger on the trigger guard ready to shoot someone… That’s threatening behavior. More threatening than words, fists and skateboard. I can see Rittenhouse shooting G because he pointed a gun at him. At that point they were both justified in shooting each other.
An untrained child with a combat weapon at the ready is a threat. He was out of his depth and asking for trouble.
Mike,
I took this to mean he was saying the action was closed. I’m not an AR expert, my brother’s got one and I’ve shot it at the range a few times. It’s still ‘bolt action’ even though it’s semi automatic. It’s confusing to explain but it’s simple to see in real life. When the action is open you can’t fire. When it’s closed you can fire semi-auto.
Here is a grotestquely overcomplicated discussion… Surely I can do better… Still rummaging…
Actually in the videos and photos a lot of people have remarked on Rittenhouse’s trigger discipline, which is to say, he kept his finger off the trigger in general until he was about to fire.
And then there were none: “Last 3 Florida school districts drop student mask mandates”
.
The State parental opt out requirement remains in force, and now the school board members won’t have their salaries withheld any more.
.
Will the Biden administration drop its crazy lawsuit against DeSantis? Not a chance. Revenge…. and setting an example of very negative consequences….. is always a big thing with the left. It is why the left is so unhinged that Rittenhouse may walk away from all the murder charges….. no example to frighten people about using self defense.
Howard,
Yup, you do indeed seem unhinged.
Rosenbaum was trying to take Kyle’s gun when he got shot. Not the action of someone trying to defend themselves. It seems he was pissed after Kyle and some others prevented him from pushing a burning dumpster into a gas station and was looking for some payback. Witnesses state Rosenbaum said “I catch any of you guys alone tonight, I’m going to fucking kill you.”
.
The guy had spent 15 years in prison for sexually assaulting 5 boys, including anal rape, and had just got out of a mental institution after attempted suicide, apparently he was also bipolar.
.
As Tucker aptly put it, he died as he lived, trying to force himself on a minor.
.
Edit: I believe Grossguy also testified that it was his understanding Kyle was working for the police as an informer or something, and that he didn’t know Kyle had shot anyone before attacking.
Howard,
.
Mobs of people (multiple attackers) are quite dangerous, even unarmed. I used to be a karate student, and we’d train what to do when fighting multiple attackers. Mostly that would be to run, and when running was impossible we’d practice moving such that the minimum number of people could clobber us at one time.
.
But all of this is besides the point. Walking around openly carrying a weapon, even with poor trigger discipline is not generally accepted as justification for using force under the legal protection of self defense.
.
Maybe he was out of his depth. Maybe he was an untrained child. Supposing all of this is so, it does not provide legal justification for a mob to assault him. That’s just wrong.
At the start of a trial like this, nobody is the aggressor and nobody is a victim. The trial attempts to sort this out with evidence.
.
Howard, you can’t just shoot and kill people who are walking or running down the street who are armed, even if a random stranger said he shot somebody. You have to have a justifiable belief that he is a direct threat to you personally before you can use lethal force.
.
Shooting someone who is aiming a gun at someone else is not even legal, in this case if somebody had killed Grosskreutz for aiming at gun at Rittenhouse then that isn’t self defense, right? You need more information, and most of the justification arguments I have seen are post-hoc, it only matters what the person knew at the time of the attack or shooting.
.
If you erroneously gun down somebody you thought was mass shooter based on a stranger’s comment then you get charged with murder. If you gun down somebody who you personally saw maliciously shoot somebody then maybe things change, but it depends on the state.
.
The details matter.
In fact, parents will have a mask opt-out starting today in Alachua. Several local stations reported otherwise, but they were mistaken. The board voted 3-2 to give parents the mask opt out option.
Many people have had their eyes opened to the facts by the trial, after being given completely the wrong impression by the garbage media. Some even apologized for being so wrong, Anna Kasparian of The Young Turks being a notable example. Given that she is part of the media, one can only ask how she got it so wrong when being on top of these things might be considered part of her job? The simple answer is they don’t bother. They allow others to tell them what “the truth” is and so a large fraction of the country really does live in an alternate reality while they smugly point at everyone else as being ignorant and misinformed.
Tom Scharf,
You could do it in Texas. Several people were returning fire from Charles Whitman at the University of Texas tower in 1968 and there was another incident around the same time where someone saw a highway patrol officer get shot and took the shooter down with his deer rifle. There were no charges. Back then, of course, pretty much every pickup truck, even in Austin, had a gun rack and during deer season, there was usually a rifle in it.
A lot of people are upset that the laws allow Rittenhouse to walk around with a rifle in the middle of volatile situation and this predictably antagonizes unstable people to commit violent behavior. Rittenhouse doesn’t have a problem and 2 people end up being undead if he doesn’t bring that rifle to that protest. Agreed in hindsight. They have a point, this is a bad idea. So … be mad at the laws and try to change them.
.
Alternately allowing and supporting police to use overwhelming force to put down a riot with looters and Rittenhouse never shows up.
.
Perhaps we could say open carry after a curfew constrained in time and location is illegal or some such law. That probably won’t pass constitutional muster, but something to protect society from congregating stupid people next to each other with lethal weapons in selective situations. You can’t open carry in high school (at least almost everywhere, ha ha).
.
But you cannot extrapolate this arguable bad legal system to punish Rittenhouse. It gets even worse and openly partisan when you wish to punish him * selectively *. Is everyone carrying weapons at a riot going to do the same time, or just the opposition party members?
.
Rittenhouse probably walks and in some ways I agree that this is an injustice for effectively rewarding stupidity. He apparently has $2M in donated legal funds. I don’t agree that this is the current justice system gone wrong, it is in fact it working as it is disallowing selective mob justice. Rittenhouse may lose, and that’s OK by me too although I wouldn’t agree with it.
See, take these guys. Black Panthers, marching open carry assault weapons in Atlanta for Stacey Abrams. I’d like to believe we’d agree that nobody who merely felt uncomfortable with these guys walking around with rifles [was] legally entitled to open fire on them and call it self defense.
Would you agree to this Howard?
Disarming a child with a military grade weapon at a riot could be considered self defense. Running off an armed child could be considered self defense. Shooting an unarmed man because they are defending against what they perceived as an armed threat seems like a stretch of self defense. A disproportionate response.
None of us was there and none of us has seen and heard all the evidence. From what I have read, it could go either way. I think the certainty with which some people justify the killings is politically motivated and bias confirming.
I’m willing to accept the jury verdicts.
How do you folks feel about the Ahmaud Arbery case in Georgia? It’ll be interesting to see how that trial using self defense as a defense for gunning down an unarmed man is debated on social media.
The Texas shooter had demonstrated his willingness to shoot random people maliciously, pretty clear cut. Also the shooting of a unformed police officer can be sorted to good guy / bad guy pretty easily.
.
Alternately one can imagine somebody who walks up in public to a man who raped his daughter and shoots him down. There is no indication he has a desire to harm anyone else and no indication of why the shooting happened. OK for the public to shoot him down in response? I just don’t know. I think there are lots of edge cases that are going to come down to specifics.
Yeah, I remember that one. [Ahmaud Arbery]
My opinion? Those dudes murdered him.
“Disarming a (* not known to be 17 year old *) child with a military grade (legally obtained and sold) weapon at a (informally defined) riot could be considered self defense.â€
.
No. Definitely not under the current law and unlikely to ever be the law. Even if this was legal, it would be rather unwise to your estimated lifetime.
.
From what I know Ahmaud Arbery was chased down and murdered, those guys are likely going to prison. Worse, there appeared to be a cover up. We have the videos with Rittenhouse and that makes a big difference.
.
Realistically Rittenhouse is an easy self defense case. More often are people claiming self defense when the only other party is dead and can’t testify. What to do with that? Ugh. My guess is most of these people are convicted unless the victim has a pattern of violent behavior. Rittenhouse probably gets convicted without the video is my guess.
Howard,
Considering that there’s absolutely nothing you could do about the jury verdicts, that’s a pretty meaningless statement. Only the lawyers and judge involved and possibly a local federal district attorney who could bring a civil rights charge don’t have to accept the jury verdicts.
DaveJR,
“They allow others to tell them what “the truth†is and so a large fraction of the country really does live in an alternate reality while they smugly point at everyone else as being ignorant and misinformed.”
.
Sadly, this is true. Dilbert creator Scott Adams began talking about two completely different and conflicting versions of reality when Trump was running for office in 2016. It has only gotten worse since then.
Howard wrote: “Shooting an unarmed man because they are defending against what they perceived as an armed threat seems like a stretch of self defense.”
.
How about an unarmed man, who previously threatened to kill you after you stopped him from burning down a gas station, who is following you and getting closer, who, when you try to juke to avoid him, grabs your weapon. Is that a stretch of self defense?
.
How does the argument look that he was just “disarming a child” (which he didn’t know was a child) when it later comes out that the man is a convicted felon. Spent 15 years in jail for raping children, just got out of a mental asylum and is bipolar. I’m going to put my money on “I’m going to fucking kill you” as his primary motivation for trying to take Kyle’s gun and I have not doubt the world is a better place without him.
I notice that there has been no mention I could find of the race of the people who did a drive-by harassment of gold medal winning Suni Lee and a group of her friends. My guess would be, therefore, that they were Black. That seems to be the dirty secret of Asian-American hate crimes recently. But admitting that Blacks are racists would violate the fundamental principles of CRT. Blacks are always and everywhere victims, so they can’t possibly be oppressors. Besides, Asians are probably now lumped in with whites in the oppressor class, see admissions at Harvard, e.g., so it probably wasn’t really a hate crime.
Of course, Kyle isn’t really the one on trial here. The concept of self defense is. The riots put one thing into stark contrast. Loot, burn, and murder for certain political goals, very little will happen. Attempt any kind of resistance, and the law will attempt to crucify you.
.
Anarchotyranny. Rules for thee but not for me. Attack these people, nothing will happen. If they fight back, we’ll nail them with the law.
Brother, I tell you what. I promise you, in the unlikely case that a mob is ever after you shouting that they are going to beat you up and I happen to be in the vicinity, I will not lift my firearm to defend you.
Tom Scharf,
“Ahmaud Arbery was chased down and murdered, those guys are likely going to prison.”
.
Sure looks that way. They had no reason to be chasing after the guy, who was plainly not armed and running along a street in daylight. Their claim of suspecting burglary is rubbish. That is not how most buglers operate. The guy posed no threat to them at all, and they had already called the police. They should have left it at that.
.
Howard,
FWIW, I said from the first time I saw the Floyd video that Derek Chauvin will probably spend the rest of his life in prison. It is now obvious that he will indeed (between the existing sentence and the soon to be imposed civil rights sentences). Unless Chauvin is protected by complete isolation from the general prison population, I believe he is at very high risk of being killed by other inmates. The guy is a sociopathic killer and deserves to be in prison. A 17 YO running away from a mob of arsonists, looters, and rioters does not deserve life in prison…. and I am confident he will get more like a year or two, if that; he may well walk free due to prosecutorial misconduct, which was blatant.
Dave,
Exactly.
DeWitt,
“I notice that there has been no mention I could find of the race of the people who did a drive-by harassment of gold medal winning Suni Lee and a group of her friends. My guess would be, therefore, that they were Black.”
.
If you want to be accepted in polite company, you must never say some things, even if they are true. We can’t know the race of the harassers in this case, because the MSM refuses to report it, but plenty of published data shows that most anti-Asian harassment (and most anti-Asian ‘hate crime’) is perpetrated by blacks. You know the left is involved when factually reality becomes verboten to even speak.
I wonder how well various witness statements correlated with the video in the Rittenhouse case? When everyone there was highly polarized I would imagine there were quite a few discrepancies. It would be very interesting to find out.
LAPD tells residents to “cooperate” with robbers as thefts skyrocket.
I’m assuming this is a real question. Among other things, he was hit with a skateboard which was going to be reused. A glock aimed point blank in his face. A guy saying he was going to kill him, jumping him and trying to grab his gun. Those were all threats directly at him each of which could result in his death.
You may see this as somehow menacing. But none of this was a direct threat to any individual. He didn’t point it at anyone until after they did things like jump him, aim guns at him, attack him with a heavy object — sufficiently heavy to crack your skull if wielded with force. (i.e. skateboard.)
Not a direct threat to anyone.
Yes. He was out of his depth. Because of that, he did get in trouble. He put himself in a position where others attacked him. Then, he used self defense against the attackers. This isn’t hard.
Howard
It might be perfectly legal to disarm him. But it’s not ‘self defense’ in the legal sense used in a murder trial.
.
Uhmmm shooting someone who is in the process of trying to bash your head in with a skateboard is self defense. Shooting someone who says they intend to kill you and who tries to take your gun to do so is self defense. Shooting someone who is pointing an armed glock in your face and lunghing at you is self defense.
.
It doesn’t matter what the “reasons” these people give for trying to bash your brains in, point an armed gun in your face or threatening to kill you and grab your gun. These are all actions that, if you allow them to happen, will result in your death. “Self defense” is protecting yourself from imminent– immediate danger of being killed or seriously maimed.
.
I haven’t followed it. I see this
https://www.nytimes.com/article/ahmaud-arbery-shooting-georgia.html
The three white dudes were acting like the guys Rittenhouse shot. They were chasing Arbery down who was fleeing. The white dudes had decided they were going to be the ones to enforce the law against Arbery.
Ahmaud arbery seems to be more like the situation Rittenhouse was in. He fell while being chased. He then tried to defend himself but failed.
If Arbery had killed the three guys attacking him, I’d say he should get self defense. Same as I think Rittenhouse should.
Howard,
A 17 yo can enlist in the US military with parental consent. I think that means he isn’t a child. And he clearly had some training as demonstrated by his trigger discipline. Also, he only shot people who were actually attacking him, not random bystanders.
Mixed feelings. Washington Post tries to cleanup its mess:
.
The Washington Post corrects, removes parts of two stories regarding the Steele dossier
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/media-washington-post-steele-dossier/2021/11/12/f7c9b770-43d5-11ec-a88e-2aa4632af69b_story.html
“The Washington Post on Friday took the unusual step of correcting and removing large portions of two articles, published in March 2017 and February 2019, that had identified a Belarusian American businessman as a key source of the “Steele dossier,†a collection of largely unverified reports that claimed the Russian government had compromising information about then-candidate Donald Trump.
The newspaper’s executive editor, Sally Buzbee, said The Post could no longer stand by the accuracy of those elements of the story.”
.
“Buzbee said the indictment and new reporting by the newspaper has “created doubts†about Millian’s alleged involvement. The new reporting included an interview with one of the original sources in its 2017 article, who now is uncertain that Millian was Source D”
.
So now they are uncertain, ha ha. Confidential and anonymous sources should be exposed once they have been found to be fraudulent, it should be part of the agreement. Anybody want to guess that source was none other than Dolan? I think this retraction is likely triggered by a liability concern.
Tom Scharf,
Yes, the Clinton campaign was ultimately the source for most of the dossier’s claims, not to mention the utterly fraudulent claim that Russia broke into the DNC server and pilfered email messages. It was all lies, and they new it was all lies. That someone so dishonest and corrupt as Hillary came close to winning the presidency is a sobering thought, especially since the entire 2016 fraud against the voters would have disappeared the moment she took office….. nobody would ever have heard even a whisper of the truth. With a bit of luck, more indictments of these evil political hacks are coming.
Did Rittenhouse have parental consent to go to a riot armed with a military grade weapon? Perhaps they should be culpable for the homicides.
How is disarming a child with a military grade weapon not self defense. Are people in the middle of a chaotic riot supposed to trust him and assume he means no harm?
I’ve given you the basic definition of self defense already. If you didn’t read my response and think it through the first time, I see little hope you’ll read and think it through [this time].
Give it a try. Go back up, read what self defense means, and see if you can answer your own question.
[Here, I’ll make it even easier. Link: http://rankexploits.com/musings/2021/ability-grouping-in-physics/#comment-207177 ]
Maybe that wasn’t explicit enough. How about this:
.
Self defense is a type of defense to certain criminal charges like murder wherein the use of force is justified as necessary for the defense of oneself.
.
Nobody has charged anybody for using force in trying to disarm Rittenhouse. If they had, self defense would likely not be applicable because of the rules that define when use of force is justified in self defense.
.
Don’t take our word for it. Go read about it. We aren’t making this up.
Also, the ‘child’ modifier you keep using seems irrelevant. None of these people knew Rittenhouse’s exact age. They didn’t know he was a minor as opposed to an 18 year old. Therefore they would not have been justified in assuming he was a child.
Nor did they have any particular reason to make any assumptions about how well trained he was.
They absolutely did have reason to believe he wasn’t a threat. He was running away from them, calling out ‘friendly, friendly, friendly!’.
Further, there is no particular evidence to suggest that they wanted to disarm him out of some concern for safety. What they were shouting to each other was that they wanted to physically beat him.
Give it a rest. Or kick it up a notch. Your arguments suck.
mark bofill,
‘Give it a rest. Or kick it up a notch. Your arguments suck.’
.
You seem to be expecting a reasoned, reflective argument. It isn’t. It is a feeling that a person with a semi-auto rifle who ends up shooting three people is ‘bad’ and must be punished. Just like it is a ‘feeling’ that semi-auto rifles should simply be banned. You can’t have a reasoned argument when you are the only one offering reason. I once had an in law who worked as a school teacher announce that “all income over $80 thousand should be confiscated and redistributed”. The statement came after a nice restaurant meal with some good wine….. that I had paid for with my over $80 thousand earnings… still sitting in her belly. You can’t expect anything logical from the left, just strongly held feelings, combined with an obnoxious certainty they are absolutely right and you are absolutely wrong. It is why I rarely engage such people, on line or in person.
Steve,
You’re probably right as usual. Wasting my time…
Howard (Comment #207217): “Did Rittenhouse have parental consent to go to a riot armed with a military grade weapon?”
.
Yet another bit of rubbish. Rittenhouse did NOT have a “military grade weapon”.
Howard
No one needs to trust anyone’s intentions every. Not at at riot; not elsewhere. This is irrelevant to whether Rittenhouse‘s actions were self defense.
Whether or not he had mommy and daddy’s permission is also irrelevant.
.
I”m guessing both your irrelevant questions were intended rhetorically. As if the weight of the question communicated something grave and unanswerable about Rittenhouse. They didn’t communicate anything.
.
Please stop with the pointless rhethorical questions.
.
The question is not “Was he a bad little boy?”. The question is “was it self defense?” Bringing in pointless rhetorical questions doesn’t change that answer. You need to show actual evidence that those people were not attacking him.
ISTM that these people have a pathological underdog mentality, resulting in actual victims being thrown to the wolves they protect and coddle because some of them may have actual tragic backstories. “Normal” people are viewed as seemingly deserving of the violence committed against them, because their very normalcy is an intentional provocation to the traumatized criminal. Serves them right for having a nice car, a good house, a loving family.
.
In Chicago, an Asian student was robbed at gunpoint. After cooperating, he was murdered. A model citizen, unlike Kyle.
DaveJR (Comment #207226): “In Chicago, an Asian student was robbed at gunpoint. After cooperating, he was murdered. A model citizen, unlike Kyle.”
.
He was the third University of Chicago student murdered this year.
It appears the prosecution are going for one last attack. Using a computer generated image, created from an image of the evening, to say the original showed Kyle threatening pedoguy with his gun. By claiming Kyle provoked the incident, they can apparently overturn his self defense argument. That this evidence was admitted is a failure of both judge and defense.
.
You’ll see what I mean when you see the original and “enhancement”. I guess we’ll see whether the jury are also technically illiterate and fall for this exchange of fact with fiction, ignoring witness testimony to the contrary.
Who was the source of Michael Cohen traveling to Prague?
Because Michael Cohen did travel to Prague. A different Michael Cohen, whose travel was mistaken for the real thing, and this was fed to Steele as data that the FBI could verify.
I also want to know which agent was tasked with verifying this trip by Michael Cohen to Prague, and what they did when they found out it was a different Michael Cohen, and thus the whole dossier was fake.
MikeN,
Sometimes partisans find a story too good to not be true. I doubt we will ever know what agent first verified that Trump’s Michael Cohen never went to Prague. But whoever it was, they didn’t blare that information to discredit the dossier: Some stories are just too good to not be true.
.
It works both ways, of course (Obama not born in the USA, Hillary abusing children in the basement of a pizza parlor). The difference is that the whole MSM jumps to discredit any crazy conservative story, but does every thing it can to protect (and amplify!) every crazy story adored by the left. There remain millions of dems who completely believe Trump is a Russian asset, even though there is overwhelming evidence it is not true. That is in part because the MSM prefers it that way, and in part because that is a story too good to abandoned….. the alternative (Trump is a blowhard who legitimately won election in 2016, but is not a a Russian asset), is not going to be accepted by many many Dems.
Dave JR “It appears the prosecution are going for one last attack. Using a computer generated image, created from an image of the evening, to say the original showed Kyle threatening pedoguy with his gun. By claiming Kyle provoked the incident, they can apparently overturn his self defense argument.”
I didn’t listen to all of the testimony about the enlargement of the drone footage. However, the defense made a good point about new pixels being added and the person doing the enlargement having no idea how those pixels were adjusted for color. Even more damaging to his credibility was that although he stated he worked 3 days on the enlargement, he never bothered to check whether his work was consistent with the original. Absolutely amazing incompetence to me.
Detailed study from the UK on deaths of people 18 and younger associated with the Wuhan virus:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01578-1
Of those under 18
‘CYP’ means children and young people , i.e <18 years old.
.
So about 60% of deaths with the virus but not from the virus. And less than 1% of deaths were due to the virus. They also say that 15 of the 25 deaths from the virus were in people with a "life-limiting condition".
Some here have claimed that viral strains do not compete in the sense that the appearance of a new strain does not cause the disappearance of prior strains. I was pretty sure that was wrong, but could not cite strong evidence to that effect.
.
It turns out that it is well established that for influenza, the appearance of a new strain causes prior strains to disappear. How is still not well understood. Also, respiratory viruses can suppress other respiratory viruses; it is inclear how. That is the likely reason that flu-like illness largely disappeared last year.
.
A nice summary here:
https://medium.com/illumination-curated/the-unexpected-case-of-the-disappearing-flu-64fd1fa5e909
MikeM,
The paper says “So perhaps[thing thing most people thinks doesn’t happen] actually happens.” It doesn’t say “this thing is the likely reason.
MikeM,
Color me unimpressed. The author is a ‘climate scientist’ who studies climate models, rainfall, and urbanization. That alone ought to give you pause about his analytical skilz set. More to the point, his own reference, which he claims ‘proves’ all respiratory viruses spread by aerosols, actually says:
There are dozens if not hundreds of published analyses which show flu (and common colds) spread by multiple routes. Not so covid-19, where aerosols spread seems to be much more important than any other route. There are other glaring inconsistencies and blind spots in the article as well.
.
The most obvious problem with the entire analysis is that both the population and individuals are broadly exposed to flu multiple times during a single lifespan, so there is substantial immune memory against flu (individually and societally), even though the flu virus has evolved in ways that allow it to sometimes re-infect. We saw one influenza pandemic in the last 120 years comparable to covid-19, not multiple pandemics….. once exposed, people become more resistant, and if re-infected suffer milder illness.
.
The situation with covid-19 was very different: more people susceptible to the virus, so greater chance of transmission. And with previous exposure to flu, flu has much lower death rates. From 2009 to 2015, estimated total annual cases of flu in the USA averaged about 25 million, and deaths about 35,000, for a death rate of about 0.13%. With covid-19 total cases are likely over 100 million, and deaths near 800,000, with a death rate near 0.5% to 0.8%.
.
All the isolation, hand washing, bar closures, restaurant closures, school closures, blocked international travel, and mad, mad, mad mask mania could not stop the spread of covid-19…. that doesn’t mean those draconian measures didn’t stop the spread of flu.
.
Where are the published papers showing the delta variant drove earlier strains out of circulation? I do not believe such papers exist, nor do I think they ever will.
SteveF
My understanding is they are still around.
.
The paper MikeM cites also seems to be under the impression that the only anti-Covid measure undertaken was wearing masks! .
.
It’ claims this
The if/then is itself not necessarily true. Maybe masks work for one but not for the other. Size of virons is not the only factor that influences whether mask wearing “works”. How the stay alive in air, at different levels of humidity. How the virons themselves are affected by UV. Yada,yada…
But also: the implied claim is that someone is saying it was the masks alone that reduced influenza. I’m not sure anyone is saying it and if they were, one would obviously ask them: You don’t think all the “staying at home” happened? Or that it could have mattered? I’m not sure how uptake of flu vaccines was last year. I got one quickly. I’ve gotten mine this year.
.
And in case you don’t think the mask wearing is someone the only thing these guys imply happened we have more “If mask usage were almost entirely removing …”
.
So the article jumps from “mask wearing isn’t what did it” to “it must be this other not well accepted reason…”. And they do so without engaging any of the other reasons why influenza could be suppressed (including all the isolating of people, reduced travel, increased vaccine uptake, all done in the presence of a population with quite a bit of prior immunity and so on.)
.
In anycase, even the authors don’t deem their speculation to be the “likely” reason. The introduce it as “So perhaps”.
SteveF (Comment #207235): “Color me unimpressed. The author is a ‘climate scientist’ who studies climate models, rainfall, and urbanization.”
.
There are at least three problems with that. It is an ad hominem attack. It assumes guilt by association, but there are many fine scientists doing climate related work. Roy Spencer, for instance. Finally, as near as I can tell Sunde is a hydrologist, not a climate scientist.
SteveF (Comment #207235): “There are dozens if not hundreds of published analyses which show flu (and common colds) spread by multiple routes. Not so covid-19, where aerosols spread seems to be much more important than any other route.”
.
So mask wearing should be MORE effective at blocking spread of the Wuhan virus.
.
SteveF: “The most obvious problem with the entire analysis is that both the population and individuals are broadly exposed to flu multiple times during a single lifespan, so there is substantial immune memory against flu (individually and societally), even though the flu virus has evolved in ways that allow it to sometimes re-infect.”
.
An interesting point, but it does not explain the sudden transitions from one flu variant to another nor the fact that there always seems to be at least one variant circulating.
lucia (Comment #207237): “The paper MikeM cites also seems to be under the impression that the only anti-Covid measure undertaken was wearing masks!”
.
Uh, no. Sunde wrote:
————
lucia (Comment #207234): “The paper says “So perhaps[thing thing most people thinks doesn’t happen] actually happens.†It doesn’t say “this thing is the likely reason.”
.
He says the usual explanation does not hold water, then says “so perhaps” X, then presents support for X, then concludes that X presents “a far more plausible explanation”. I think “likely X” is a reasonable description, although I suppose one could say I should have said “likely either X or something completely unknown”.
MikeM
It’s true they say many experts attributed it to that. But read the paper over all. Despite that, over and over, their support for their speculative hypothesis is “if mask wearing did X for covid, it would do it for influenza”. They drop the rest. That’s true even if the admit the rest at the beginning.
.
lucia (Comment #207242): “if mask wearing did X for covid, it would do it for influenzaâ€.
.
I think that is backwards. He says if mask wearing did X for influenza, it would do it for covid. Because influenza has other ways to spread.
.
Recall that the reason “the science” changed with regard to mask wearing (to the extent that it did) it was because they decided that masks should be more effective for controlling the Wuhan virus.
I don’t think that the Sunde piece proves that viruses compete. It provides strong evidence that viral interference is something that happens. It is not correct to just dismiss that out of hand and that it was a likely factor in the near absence of influenza last year.
NONE of his 1-4 includes the effect of people social distancing. Which they did– even in Sweden where they didn’t have anything approaching lockdowns.
None of his 1-4 includes the effect of reduced air travel especially between northern and southern hemispheres– and there was reduced air travel. So less spread over long distances.
His 1. is rather overblow: influenza viruses don’t need to achieve unprecedented levels of efficiency to dramatically reduce flu if there is also social distancing relative to other years or greater uptake.
It’s worth noting that this guy picks odd numbers to make influenza vaccines seem not-efficatious which he “needs” to try to support his claim 1 that unable to “explain” low rates of influenza vaccines don’t explain reduced ifluenza. His claim (“influenza vaccines probably have a small protective effect against influenza and ILI, as 71 people would need to be vaccinated to avoid one influenza caseâ€)
Yeah. Sure. When there is no major outbreak, the chance of the unvaccinated getting influenza is already low. But if you go to the underlying paper) the more appropriate figure is to say “Inactivated influenza vaccines probably reduce influenza in healthy adults from 2.3% without vaccination to 0.9% (risk ratio (RR) 0.41,”. So the vaccine actually works pretty well. If Ro were 2, and every person vaccinated was now effectively immun, it’s good enough to drop Ro,effective below 1. That protects the non-vaccinated and perfectly well “explains” why given the fact that many are vaccinated many unvaccinated don’t get sick despite not being vaccinated. (See https://www.cochrane.org/CD001269/ARI_vaccines-prevent-influenza-healthy-adults) So in fact: influenza vaccines can explain lower rates of influenza– and especially reduced ones if there is any additional factor that reduced Ro,efficitve further below 1.
His point 2. That handwashing might not work is neither here nor there. No one really claims that’s what made the difference. Handwashing isn’t social distancing nor reduced travel.
His 3. ?The reduction (or more accurately disappearance) in influenza cases has occurred in all geographic regions, regardless of the nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) that have been employed.” Yes. And we know this is entirely consistent with the seasonal pattern and the reduced air travel from hemisphere to hemisphere. It’s what we would expect. So this doesn’t even need any fancy explanation. It’s what we expect based on past observations of what happens specifically with influenza.
Butting this sentence next to “And this (utterly expected thing) happened when Covid also happens” doesn’t magically make Covid the explanation for it.
It would be like me observing that gravity acted while Covid was present, so gravity must be due to Covid. Yeah. They acted at the same time. Because gravity acts whether or not Covid is present!
4 is his mask point.
The guy ignores social distancing. He ignore telecommuting. He discounts vaccines (by totally misleading on their efficacy.) Not remotely convincing.
MIkeM
No. It presents a speculation and provides no evidence.
(And by the way, there are ways in which they compete. Weve said so here. The compete in the sense that if virus A gives immunity to B, then B hit herd immunity sooner. There could be other ways they compete. But that paper doesn’t provide any evidence.
LOl…and it continues
.
“..We know Fulton County ordered 1,058,210 “Emergency†ballots. Fulton County and Gabriel Sterling affirm the reason that the ballots were ordered, and both claim they were never needed. They are now planning to destroy those ballots, but for some reason only have
284,901 to destroy. Which begs the question:
.
Where are the missing 773,309 ballots?..â€
.
https://uncoverdc.com/2021/11/12/fulton-county-and-sos-plan-to-destroy-unused-ballots/?PageSpeed=noscript
It can be as simple as covid stays alive much longer than the flu when it is airborne, or that is takes much smaller doses for it to become active. It can also be much more complex. It’s a good idea to try to figure this out, I don’t think anyone has.
Variants “compete”. I don’t even know why this is up for discussion. (I guess the above comment was flu vs covid competing?)
http://images.hindustantimes.com/images/app-images/2021/4/p7-16apr.jpg
.
The above is delta taking over in India. It’s not like delta destroys the other viruses, it is just much more likely to infect people. I think the US is >99% delta now. I guess I’m not sure what this discussion is. What is the question beyond “compete” that is being asked? Exactly why it becomes so predominate to the almost total elimination of other variants is maybe a bit surprising.
.
I doubt these other variants are just dying out on their own. One could argue that perhaps a large proportion of the population became immune to alpha and thus allowed delta to propagate but I don’t think that is happening here.
Tom Scharf,
Sure, details of covid-19 transmission are not completely understood.
.
But my objection to Mike M’s linked article is the (unfounded, I think) speculation that one virus in circulation makes the spread of another much less likely….. one virus inhibits another! It strikes me as the *least* plausible explanation for the lack of influenza cases right now. There are lots of simpler and more plausible explanations. This segways right into the claim that the delta strain somehow made it impossible for less infective strains to infect people; the fall in cases from both the original strain and the alpha strain *preceded* the arrival of the more infective delta strain. To suggest the delta strain ‘displaced’ the earlier strains is supported by neither logic nor data….. the earlier strains had nearly died out by May of this year, and the surges in different states have been driven by the arrival of delta (and the arrival local conditions conducive to transmission…. people forced indoors by weather).
Tom,
We agree they “compete” in the sense that if virus A gives immunity to B, then the existence of A will reduce the ability of B to replicate by removing possible hosts. But in the same way virus A “competes” with itself.
In fact, we do compete with themselves in this way. We see common cold viruses die utterly die out on small islands after herd immunity is well past. Then colds come back when new arrivals bring the virus back after a fraction generation has passed and the island is well below herd immunity. But we usually don’t call this a virus A competing with itself.
.
But MikeM’s paper is suggesting some other way in which they compete.
Rather empty marketing for mandates:
“And mandates do appear to have helped drive increases in vaccination rates among target populations. United Airlines, which had one of the strictest mandates for a major air carrier, said its employee vaccination rate increased to more than 99 percent.”
.
Mandates aren’t likely to magically eliminate vaccinations so rates only go up no matter what (with or without mandates), and a policy of vaccinate or get fired results in a predictable end vaccination rate.
.
“Many hospitals in New York and California saw vaccination rates increase to more than 90 percent by the deadlines of the states’ mandates for health-care workers.”
.
The media totally ignores all the people who got fired. Only up to 10% of the workforce! This is a story they don’t want to tell. Rule #1 of media bias, examine the anecdotal stories they choose to tell and those they don’t.
SteveF
Yes. And the way they make their argument is to
(1) Ignore that social distancing is expected to reduce exposure and so lower R0
(2) Rely on strange numbers to try to support a claim that influenza vaccines don’t work. The do work fairly well. In terms of this argument, they can reduce the Reff for the target flu variants by roughly 1/2 which is a lot.
(3) Ignore that the human population has been exposed to lots of flu variants and is likely to have some resistance to even new variants.
(4) Ignore that we know flu is seasonal, so the break in international travel especially from the northern to southern hemisphere would be expected to have a pretty big effect by limiting spread of variants that popped up from one hemisphere to the other.
.
The article tries to “speculate” that Covid circulating makes people not get influenza (or ‘influenza like’ illness) because Covid is circulating.
Dave JR and JD Ohio:
I actually watched the enlarged photo argument and can report that the enlarged image is so blurry it doesn’t show anything (in my opinion). Of course that won’t stop the prosecution from arguing they see the defendant pointing the gun at people in that blurry blob on the photo. The judge watched like three different versions of the drone footage and even with the prosecutor pointing to the defendant on the tv screen – I still couldn’t even see the defendant – much less him pointing his gun in the direction of a crowd of people.
This all goes to support their argument they intend to make that getting chased was provoked by him threating a crowd or maybe just one guy in the crowd, by pointing his gun at them (or him) – and to make the dead guys out to be victims stopping an active shooter. Bicep man actually testified he was trying to surrender to the defendant, and also at the same time trying to stop an active shooter! And stepped forward and pointing his pistol at the defendant (the pistol which just fell into his hand he said). What a joke. Most people on the jury will probably see that Kyle was defending himself from a person pointing his gun right at his head (in my opinion).
Personally I think the photo does not show the defendant pointing his gun at anybody – just shifting it as he was running away from his attacker.
But the jury will get to decide that issue. If I were on the jury I wouldn’t find the enlarged photo to show anything at all, since it is so very blurry, and would just ignore it.
From what I watched of the trial, I saw three bad guys attacking Kyle for having the temerity to put out their fires. Each attack is clearly shown and there seems no question Kyle had a reasonable fear of great bodily injury – so the self defense claim seems like a sure thing to me.
My money is on the defendant being acquitted on all charges. And for more riots in Wisconsin (and probably in every major city).
Lucia,
And,
.
(5) The article was written by a ‘climate scientist’.
.
Which is reason to have doubt right from the start. That identifiable group seems to me to have frequent issues with rationally connecting cause and effect.
RickA,
“My money is on the defendant being acquitted on all charges.”
.
Probably all the homicide charges (although one of the “lesser charges” the judge has allowed… which shocked me…. might stick). But there is no way he escapes the misdemeanor weapons charge. Unless they are hunting, 17 YO’s in Wisconsin are never allowed to carry a weapon in public. That charge has a 9 month maximum prison sentence.
.
Even if convicted on a lesser charge for killing those who were attacking him, I very much doubt Rittenhouse will spend more than a year or two in prison, and maybe no time at all. Most sensible people can see that he was being attacked by a mob of crazies, and defending himself was a perfectly rational choice. The misconduct of the prosecutor during the trial is clear cause for immediate appeal should any of the significant charges stick, so Rittenhouse will likely remain free pending the appeals process.
Mike M,
Yes, I admit I have prejudice against people who describe themselves as “environmental scientists”… to the extent that description lights up my bullshit antenna big-time.
.
And I didn’t make the description up. He describes himself: “PhD. Environmental Science. Researcher. Interested in Facts.” O. K. But please forgive me if I have been influenced by previous exposure to environmental scientists, experiences that that make me roll my eyes with any such a description. Like most humans, I sometimes use intellectual shortcuts: A person breaking a window after midnight, to gain access to a house, could be the lawful owner of the house, or could be a thief. A high level of suspicion of window breakers is perfectly rational. ‘Environmental scientists’ seem to me to have broken far too many windows after midnight.
I can’t see 12 people(or 10?) agreeing this was a homicide of any kind. The first shooting is less known, but the last two were pretty clear that shots weren’t fired until they were clearly provoked. His firing discipline (lucky? skill?) may save him a long prison term. I can’t say I could have done that in a life or death panic. Not saying he is a hero at all here…just that something like wild firing would be harder to defend.
My feeling is interpolated videos and images shouldn’t be allowed at all in court. I’ve done a lot of photo and image processing over the years. Nearest neighbor interpolation (blocky) should be all that is allowed so one can see what is being invented and what isn’t. This is effectively no invented pixels allowed.
.
The commonly used bilinear interpolation is probably OK as it effectively just creates a blurry blob between pixels and only uses the 4 surrounding pixels for invention. However I think any invention of pixels should just not be allowed to make the rules simple.
.
The real problem is advanced image processing that has been around in Photoshop for a while (content aware fill), also called magic eraser for Apple, which uses the surrounding * region * to more wisely fill in an area. It has gotten amazingly good in some circumstances. This is more for removing stuff from pictures but the same tech can be used for AI interpolation for zooming. This would be a disaster for a courtroom. For the Rittenhouse trial it is unknown what an iPad does, but it’s likely bilinear interpolation for real time zooming which is easy for graphics hardware assist.
.
Too many people think CSI “Enhance!” is real, I laugh out loud every time I see this and feel compelled to tell anyone in the room that it is total BS. Unfortunately those people are sitting on juries, thus nearest neighbor only.
.
It gets even more complicated the deeper you go. Both image (jpg) and video (mpg, etc.) are heavily compressing images and then re-inventing pixels based on an algorithm on display. Heavy compression has known artifacts (jpeg 8×8 blocks, mosquito noise etc.). Single frames of heavily compressed zoomed in video should not be trusted for just about anything that isn’t obvious at 100% zoom levels shown in real time.
Tom
I agree with you.
I also think there is a difference between fill-in for intelligence operations which could be exploratory and fill in for evidence. Intenlligence can definitely benefit from what might amount to “speculation”. You still need to be careful, but it works. Evidence should be what is known.
“.. For one, the blurry photo, which prosecutors claim shows Rittenhouse lifting the rifle, shows what prosecutors claim is Rittenhouse’s raised arm on the wrong side for him to be carrying the rifle in it (he’s not left-handed, and the supposed raised arm is on his left-hand side. He was carrying the rifle in a sling..
.
https://minnesotarightnow.com/2021/11/14/rittenhouse-trial-debunking-the-states-absurd-blurry-photo-provocation-argument/
Tom Scharf,
It’s not just CSI. There was an episode in the reboot of Battlestar Galactica where a blurry image comprising a tiny fraction of the original image was supposedly ‘enhanced’ to a nearly HD resolution. If the information isn’t there, no amount of enhancement will change that fact. What you’re more likely to get is a deepfake. That technology was used in the movie Roadrunner about the life of Anthony Bourdain.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/deepfake-a-piece-of-thieves-slang-gets-a-digital-twist-11626983869?st=ybucny3ol2pa88r&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
Tom Scharf (Comment #207262)
November 14th, 2021 at 3:40 pm
Tom, let the defense know you are available or someone with your background. Perhaps the defense can show a reasonably clear video of an image with its blurred version of the same image and then the interpolated version of the blurred image for comparison with the clear.
Wondering if the defense has the same technical resources as the prosecution.
DeWitt,
Thanks for mention of RoadRunner deepfaking. I hadn’t heard about that.
Tom, I thought that image compressions use Principal Component Analysis or some algorithm like it whereby the important and larger variations in the image are retained and the lesser important ones are eliminated. Isn’t a blurry image one with missing information that can only be estimated using adjacent areas that are clearer? I am asking because I am not at all sure what the prosecution intends to do, or explain what they are doing, with the images.
You could very well be correct about the gun possession charge. I read the statute in question and it is so poorly written I cannot quite understand it.
It reads on its face that he is in violation because he is under 18 (or was). But the violation is only a Class A misdemeanor. The exception is weird because it only talks about under 16 and under 12, and doesn’t speak to 17. But it is for hunting – except that the title isn’t read into the statute (according to the judge). So I don’t know what will happen with that charge.
Again – being a betting man – I would wager that due to the circumstances the jury will nullify this provision and just ignore it – if they decide he was using self-defense to defend himself from three mob attackers. Kind of an OJ situation, in other words. Just a guess on my part – but if I was on the jury I would not convict a kid of any age from defending themselves from death or great bodily injury just because they had a gun in their possession. If you were at home and chased out into the street by a home invader – while carrying a rifle – and defended yourself in the street – you would be guilty according to the strict reading of this statute. Doesn’t make any sense to me in a self-defense situation.
So we will see.
I bet the jury comes back Tuesday with their verdict. It will take all day to do closing arguments and read the jury the instructions – so my guess is they will sleep on it and decide the case Tuesday.
Bottom line – I wager all my quatloos (ha ha) he is found NOT GUILTY on all charges. I still have some virtual quatloos from guessing the monthly temperature anomaly from years ago.
Many (the best?) image enhancement methods depend on defining some kind of “point spread function” where individual pixels in the final (blurry) image are assumed to be a combination of multiple pixels in an original (non-blurry) image. Camera images generally are blurred due to motion during exposure and/or due the image being out of focus. The point spread function is used with an iterative deconvolution method like two dimensional Richardson-Lucy to produce a best-possible calculated original (non-blurred) image consistent with the point spread function and the blurred image. If the point spread function is well defined (like the blurred original Hubble telescope images due to an error in the shape of the mirror) then the deconvolution can recover a nearly perfect reconstructed image, with ‘perfect’ meaning image resolution matching that of an in-focus, non-blurred image from the hardware that captured the image. Where the point spread function is poorly defined (or not known at all), then some kind of ‘bootstrap’ deconvolution method can be used, but at the risk of substantial distortion of the image (AKA “making up” information in the image). If I were the part of the defense team, I would have someone with knowledge of camera optics/image resolution look at the hardware which captured the image in question and determine if that hardware can possibly capture the image resolution the prosecution contends.
.
BTW Richardson-Lucy is a Bayesian deconvolution which yields the “most probable” original image consistent with the applied point spread function. Use a garbage point spread function and you get a garbage original image.
SteveF (Comment #207271)
November 15th, 2021 at 7:07 am
Thanks, Steve, for the info on blurred images. I would like to hear how this is explained to the jurors, and the judge, for that matter.
A Bayesian approach would require a prior and producing an uninformed one would have to be explained to jurors and judge – or maybe not if they are expected to take an “expert’s word” for it.
RickA, you are looking at a subsection of the gun possession law.
From Jonathan Turley:
Under Section 948.60(2)(a) (“Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18â€), “[a]ny person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.â€
Well, you then have to look at the subsection (c), which states that “This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593.â€
Since there is no evidence that Rittenhouse violated Section 941.28, he presumably must be in violation of both sections 29.304 and 29.593. The defense conceded Rittenhouse was in violation of Section 29.593, which requires certification for weapons. However, he is not in violation of section 29.304, entitled “Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.†As the title indicates, the section makes it illegal for persons under 16 to use firearms. Rittenhouse was 17 at the time and the prosecution has not challenged that fact.
RickA (Comment #207270): “You could very well be correct about the gun possession charge. I read the statute in question and it is so poorly written I cannot quite understand it.”
.
I also found the statute confusing. My guess is that an examination of case law would be needed to determine what it really means. Obviously, a minor can be provided with a gun for certain purposes, such as hunting or target practice. Does self defense qualify? The statute itself does not say.
.
Self defense is a necessity defense, in which one argues that an act that is normally illegal (killing someone) is justified by circumstances (he was trying to kill you). I suspect that the guy who gave Rittenhouse the gun will argue that when he is tried (assuming that he does not agree to a plea bargain).
.
I have read that when prosecutors over charge, the result is often a not guilty verdict on all charges, even ones that would surely have resulted in a guilty verdict if they had been the most serious charges. If so, that may help Rittenhouse.
.
On the other hand, the jury members likely feel like they are under a lot of pressure to return a guilty verdict. So they might feel that they have to find Rittenhouse guilty of *something*. Most likely the gun charge, but maybe also one of the lesser included charges. I don’t even know what those are.
Kenneth,
The prior is normally the starting blurred image (since this is the closest to deconvoluted result), although that is not required. The way the algorithm is set up, you can start with a completely neutral prior, where all data are set to the average for the entire image. After the first iteration, a neutral prior generates the original (blurred) image, so it makes sense (and saves an iteration) to just start with the blurred image as a prior.
.
I have used one dimensional Richardson-Lucy to deconvolute data in the form of an x-y graph, with a point spread function generated from known physical causes for broadening of what should be sharper peaks in the graph. The most interesting thing I found was how quickly the algorithm converges on a solution in one dimension: after four or five iterations the deconvoluted graph is already very, very close to an optimal deconvolution, with ‘optimal’ being minimized least square error between the original graph and a ‘pseudo-original’ graph generated from the deconvoluted graph and the point spread function.
SteveF,
If I’m reading this article correctly, we could recover the Hubble images from the original camera now, but couldn’t do it then. There were other problems with the Hubble that were also fixed when the camera was replaced. But if they hadn’t had the camera replacement to justify the mission, it’s not at all clear that those problems would have been fixed.
Rittenhouse — possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18 charge dropped.
Fixing lens distortions is more of a correction than an enhancement. Modern DSLR’s read the lens model and then apply specific fixes for that lens type for chromatic aberration, barrel distortion, etc. These all work very well and do make the image “better”. It’s a known and mappable image distortion.
.
The entire class of enhancements that take indeterminate objects and try to sharpen them using generic mathematical algorithms are of limited utility. It’s mostly garbage in, slightly sharper garbage out. Some things such as motion blur where the image is known to have moved in a certain direction have a little better success, but not that much.
.
The class of enhancements that is becoming increasingly viable is object recognition and interpolating from a library of examples of the known object. As an example a photo could recognize a letter Z in a Times Roman font, effectively convert that part of the picture to a vector object and then interpolate that with high precision as far as you wanted to zoom. It could even do this specific to a camera, lots of pictures of your wife taken with that camera, that blurry photo kind of looks like your wife, fill it in with past examples … and that’s your wife holding the gun!
.
The Google lens feature has gotten amazingly good at object identification. I have used it many times to identify, fish, snakes, turtles, plants, etc. and it really does well.
.
So we just don’t want that kind of stuff happening for the court room where the initial guess at the object is what really matters, not the fill in the details mechanics.
.
This is not to say that what replaces this is any better, namely eye witness testimony. It’s not like the brain isn’t doing pattern matching and object replacement storage for memory with all its undocumented flaws.
JPEG / MPEG / etc. compression don’t necessarily attempt to keep all parts of the image uniformly, they specifically focus on the quirk’s of the brain’s image perception mechanics. The brain doesn’t use color information as much as it uses contrast and edge detection.
.
This is only usually meaningful when there are very high levels of compression. Image and video compression hate lots of low level random noise and try to throw it out to save storage. If you watch a football game check out closely how poorly the grass is resolved, a muddy mess of changing blurs. Security cameras are usually really bad, even the unzoomed stuff is terrible usually.
.
There are no algorithm replacements for proper focus, holding the camera still, and having enough storage bandwidth for a good bit rate storage. There are some scenarios that really break video compression. They are cheating in every way imaginable to get near 100x compression.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6Rp-uo6HmI
.
Realistically the video of the Rittenhouse incident has stellar video quality given it was taken at night by phone cameras. Nothing even close to this was possible ten years ago.
DeWitt,
I don’t doubt there has been additional progress on how to restore blurred images, but shortly after the Hubble ST problem was identified, there was an entire conference (Baltimore, August 1990) which focused entirely on recovering blurred data from the HST. https://www.stsci.edu/files/live/sites/www/files/home/hst/documentation/_documents/RestorationofHSTImagesandSpectra.pdf
.
Some of the recovered images from that conference were pretty impressive. It is certainly not accurate to say recovery of blurred data was not possible before corrective optics were installed, even though the corrective optics no doubt did better than the deconvolution algorithms.
Tom Scharf (Comment #207279)
November 15th, 2021 at 10:41 am
I am wondering how old the young man doing that YouTube presentation is. Looks younger than Rittenhouse. I was impressed.
SteveF (Comment #207280)
November 15th, 2021 at 11:17 am
Steve, wasn’t the Hubble problem caused by a known error in lens construction where the correction would be some kind of transform. If so, I would think that would not be the case with everyday images.
If you have two independent light rays from different lens areas hitting the same pixel due to bad optics, it’s going to be fundamentally impossible to separate them again. Then you get into “most probable†fixes based on other image areas. To say that solution won’t be popular on a billion dollar optics instrument is an understatement.
.
Lens correction such as chromatic aberrations just means the different colors are stretched slightly different across the pixel array and they can then be resized and realigned with pretty good success as long as you have access to the raw data array (Bayer pattern). Can be done in camera or by software and RAW file formats. Mostly just for pixel peepers.
.
It used to be that this problem had to be only minimized with very expensive lens assemblies for film cameras. There are still many problems that can only be fixed with optics.
https://photographylife.com/what-is-chromatic-aberration
Kenneth,
Yes, the Hubble mirror optical error was well defined (even though it was an obscenely bad optical error!), so a calculated point spread function was also well defined.
.
Real world image problems are not so commonly due to an error in optical components, but rather mundane things like the optical train being out of focus or movement of the camera relative to the subject during exposure, causing blur. Finding a suitable PSF may not be as simple, but since most of the time blur is going to be mainly due to one or both of those rather than an error in the optical components, a certain amount of trial-and-error (eg Gaussian blur due to poor focus over x pixels and/or lateral blur of y pixels in one direction and z pixels in the other) and be tried to find a reasonably accurate PSF.
.
A big problem with all deconvolution is (of course) noise amplification, and regularization methods are often used to keep noise from overwhelming the image. But if image blur is not terrible, then deconvolution can make a big improvement without introducing too much noise. That is, recovering a slightly out-of-focus image without introducing spurious noise is much easier than recovering a badly out-of-focus image.
So the gun charge was dropped. That is good for Rittenhouse – although I still think he would have been found not guilty if the judge had not dismissed.
I don’t quite understand why there are more witnesses.
Oh well – now probably Wed before jury comes back.
Are there more witnesses? I’m reading closing arguments are underway. That’s odd.
mark bofill (Comment #207277): “Rittenhouse — possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18 charge dropped.”
.
Huh. This article by Jonathan Turley makes that unsurprising:
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/judge-questions-rittenhouse-gun-charge-jonathan-turley
.
It seems that RickA and I are not alone in finding the law confusing. Turley writes:
In other news, it’s confirmed the infamous memo written by the school board union president asking the WH to do something about domestic terrorist parents was solicited by the WH.
Stars are also interesting as they are basically a point source of light that should only ever be hitting a single pixel on the array with perfect optics. You can’t easily use surrounding areas to get smart for that problem. Star pictures with all kinds of pointy parts are usually optics defects as far as I can tell.
.
The best space picture ever IMO was the Hubble Deep Field. I still remember the first time I saw that one, OMG. Almost everything in that shot is a galaxy. The field of view is like looking through a straw. If you ever want to feel insignificant then look at that for a while, ha ha.
https://esahubble.org/science/deep_fields/
Mark:
The Judge read jury instructions and the lawyers got into a squabble over something (not paying to much attention). All of the sudden there were more witnesses (still ongoing).
Not sure why the state wanted more witnesses all of the sudden.
Rick,
What link?
I’ll add that I suspect Garland was the one who specifically solicited the letter, his wife having something to do with promoting CRT in schools.
How are prosecutors able to add more charges now, and why is the defense agreeing to some of them?
DaveJR (Comment #207292): “I’ll add that I suspect Garland was the one who specifically solicited the letter, his wife having something to do with promoting CRT in schools.”
.
Not his wife, his son-in-law, if memory serves,
MikeN (Comment #207293): “How are prosecutors able to add more charges now, and why is the defense agreeing to some of them?”
.
It seems that adding lesser included charges are often decided on as part of the jury instruction.
DaveJR
I bet we can find people will patiently explain it’s “not CRT”. 🙂
DaveJR,
Google knows nothing about the infamous memo after October 27. I’ll second the call for a link.
From the WSJ online:
And water is wet and the sun rises in the East. Who writes these headlines anyway, Captain Obvious?
“Mr. Binger during his closings said that Mr. Rittenhouse pointed his gun at two people as he arrived at the scene of a fire, provoking Joseph Rosenbaum to chase him through a parking lot, where Mr. Rittenhouse shot and killed him.”
.
As expected, they have to argue something. Not a very convincing argument. The jury may end up convicting him of something smaller because they may agree that his bad behavior cannot be allowed to go unchecked.
.
Famous last words, but I just don’t see there being unrest after this verdict even though the media will market it, and invite it.
Mark:
I am watching on Youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cncFU_mPdI
You know what – I looked at the date and I think this is 10 day old video. So sorry.
So sorry everyone for the confusion. I was watching live and I guess it skipped to a different trial video without me realizing it.
I confused myself and therefore everybody else.
Again – I apologize.
Tom Scharf,
Winter is closing in on Kenosha. It will be in the 20’s and 30’s for the next several nights. I doubt there will be much in the way of street protests, even if Rittenhouse is acquitted. But in any case, the Kenosha police are more likely prepared than they were last year.
I think there’s a distinct possibility of a hung jury. Someone will hold out for a conviction.
DeWitt,
I agree, a hung jury is a very real possibility, especially with the current political chasm between left and right…. which is painfully evident in Wisconsin and many other places. I think that it may well be impossible to get a verdict in this case in Kenosha, even if it is re-tried.
.
Put the same trial in Portland Oregon, and the only question would be if life in prison were enough… the jury might recommend public drawing and quartering. Such is the sorry state of our politics in 2021.
Link is here https://defendinged.org/press-releases/new-nsba-foia-reveals-timeline-of-white-house-conversations/
.
I’ll retract my first statement. It doesn’t say who initiated contact AFAICT, only that they had been in contact with the WH mid September.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #207303)
November 15th, 2021 at 2:40 pm
I was thinking hung jury this morning also. There are many people on the left who would like to see Rittenhouse get the maximum sentencing and what is to say that at least one such dispositioned person is not on the jury. On the right you could have a person disgusted with rioting and private property damage take that into account for Rittenhouse. The majority of the jurors would probably opt for following what the prosecution and defense presented, but that does not mean I could predict who they thought was more convincing.
Tom Scharf (Comment #207299): “The jury may end up convicting him of something smaller because they may agree that his bad behavior cannot be allowed to go unchecked.”
.
What bad behavior? Trying to help his community? Trying to keep rioters from destroying property? Rendering first aid? Being prepared to defend himself? Please enlighten me.
.
One can argue that what Rittenhouse did was unwise, especially for a teenager. But otherwise his behavior seems exemplary, at least to me.
The bad behavior is bad judgment in showing up at a late night protest after curfew open carrying an AR-15. One can switch parties and imagine a bunch of militant Antifa people open carrying rifles at a Proud Boys “prayer event” which then somehow degrades to shootings. This (open carrying at a mostly peaceful protest) is just something society probably needs to not allow … somehow. Not saying I have the legal answer, but getting 12 people to agree this is a bad idea won’t probably be too hard.
.
Although this was technically legal (and IMO he should walk because of that) a compromise in a hung jury may be to convict him of reckless endangerment to send a signal to society that doing this in the future will have consequences. It’s a “there ought to be a law against this” attitude so we are going to convict him of the closest thing we have and let him walk on the big charges. Otherwise I think we may very well never get a jury conviction on this one way or the other. That’s OK too, but sets a bad precedent for future protests.
Apparently the state can ban firearms at demonstrations in 24 states either selectively or you can never carry.
https://www.thetrace.org/2017/09/35-states-local-officials-cant-ban-guns-protests/
Tom Scharf,
Banning guns at demonstrations would be appropriate if the police were going to enforce the law. But they didn’t. And we did see people carrying ‘assault style’ rifles in the Seattle Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone.
Tom Scharf (Comment #207308): “The bad behavior is bad judgment in showing up at a late night protest after curfew open carrying an AR-15. One can switch parties and imagine a bunch of militant Antifa people open carrying rifles at a Proud Boys “prayer event†which then somehow degrades to shootings.”
.
I don’t think there was any curfew, it was a riot not a protest, Rittenhouse did not go to the protest he went to a place of business to protect it in case rioters showed up, he and those he was with made no attempt to provoke or confront anyone. Your counterexample has nothing in common with what happened in Kenosha, other than guns.
Tom Scharf,
Other posters nailed it earlier. The bad behavior was in the government stepping back and allowing relative anarchy. Once that happens, vigilantism becomes probable. People aren’t left any good choices — vigilantes or anarchy, arson, and ruin.
Not sure if you were being sarcastic. I’ll assume you were here. It wasn’t all that peaceful. Lots of fires were set, lots of stuff was destroyed. Again, as I’ve remarked before, just because you or I don’t personally care about what was destroyed doesn’t mean nobody cares.
It’s a political answer. The government needs to enforce order.
mark bofill (Comment #207313): “The bad behavior was in the government stepping back and allowing relative anarchy. Once that happens, vigilantism becomes probable.”
.
And bad behavior by those who started the riots.
.
But Rittenhouse et al were not vigilantes; they were merely playing defense. Vigilantes pursue and punish alleged criminals; that is, they go on offense. Those guys on trial in Georgia might be vigilantes, certainly the standard view would support that.
mark bofill,
“… just because you or I don’t personally care about what was destroyed doesn’t mean nobody cares.”
.
I sure as hell personally care!
.
When crazies on the left are given a free hand to destroy, burn and steal private property, then destroy, burn and steal they will. You might note that just about 100% of the destructive riots/looting/arson, etc over the past 18 months were people (at least claiming to be) on the left, and supported, or at least apologized for as ‘justified’, by the crazy lefties who control the MSM megaphone.
.
I am old enough to know that what has been happening in the last 18 months is in no way ‘normal’, nor will it lead to improved social relations nor political accommodation. It has been crazies and criminals behaving horribly, but given excuses and cover by the MSM. Shame on the MSM. They are now the biggest part of the problem, not part of the solution. There have always been and will always be criminals ready to take advantage of the smallest failure of public safety; this is the first time in my life that the MSM has abandoned public safety and become *cheerleaders* for the criminals.
Thanks for pointing that out Mike. I agree, but I realize that sentiment regarding this may vary. The line between lawful and criminal gets more difficult to objectively realize when law enforcement is absent and people are left to their own devices. At least that’s how I see it.
The event in Kenosha wasn’t officially a “demonstration” of the type where one could ban things. It wasn’t like a parade where you get a permit, and then the town does some things to keep things orderly. (Close streets, have some barriers etc.)
.
You really can’t have a law that says you can ordinarily carry, but then suddenly, if a mob appears and starts setting the town on fire, carrying becomes illegal for everyone other than those setting the town on fire.
.
The fact that they haven’t charged Grosskreuss is rather telling too. If it was illegal to carry at that event, he shouldn’t have been carrying either.
An idiot (named Mark Brown) from the Chicago Sun Times weighs in on Rittenhouse:
“Even though I think an acquittal would be a proper verdict, I’d still come away from the Rittenhouse trial believing that to be an unjust result.”
.
Ah yes, “justice” of the left: disconnected from actual law, disconnected from a jury verdict…. sitting alone, unsupported, as a moral absolute truth… based upon nothing more that a strong personal feeling…. not guilty by law, but very, very guilty for those on the political left. Call in the Jacobins to punish people.
.
He is a disgusting fool and an idiot. May he burn in Hell…. or at least lose his useless, silly job and end up flipping burgers at Burger King.
Steve,
.
I agree wholeheartedly.
.
Personally, I think the Marxist thinking behind BLM and other leftist pet projects like critical theory drives this. Breakdown of law and order so people can be intimidated. Grosskreutz was a member of ‘The People’s Revolution of Milwaukee’ if I remember correctly for Lord’s sake.
.
I knew more than a few older people when I was young (30 years ago) who dreamed of a Marxist revolution in this country. I think unfortunately the dream didn’t die with those bastards. Just my impression though.
.
[Edit: Lucia, I agree with you too.]
SteveF
Huh? If it’s the proper verdict, that’s because it was self defense. Does he think it’s “unjust” to be allowed to defend yourself? That’s just nuts.
“The fact that they haven’t charged Grosskreuss is rather telling too. If it was illegal to carry at that event, he shouldn’t have been carrying either.”
Laws are strange.
The judge dismissed the weapons charge because the gun was too long to be considered a handgun or concealable weapon which a minor would not be allowed to have.
Makes sense when you think of any army cadet [are they that young] parading with a rifle.
Grosskreuss was carrying a concealable firearm which would be legal for an adult if he had a permit, for gun and carry?
The Washington Post? had an article mistakenly stating the gun KR carried was too short for him to be charged.
Wrong way round but only a journalist.
Mark bofill,
‘”I knew more than a few older people when I was young (30 years ago) who dreamed of a Marxist revolution in this country.”
.
The the left never gives up and never compromises. The idiots running humanity, history, political science, etc. departments at US universities have been pushing the same garbage forever, certainly for the last 50 years.
.
Marxism, and its many poisonous variants like CRT, is fundamentally a moral/religious rejection of all personal liberty, or perhaps more accurately, a rejection of all personal agency in favor of collective control. It has always been and will always be a fundamentally *moral* position that does not allow meaningful compromise. It has nothing to do with logic, reason, or fact. According to the left, the public MUST be able to completely control the individual; nothing else will be accepted.
.
Sadly, few seem willing to view the great moral (and political) conflict or our times clearly. Once in a while, the ugliness of the collective mindset becomes so apparent that it can’t be ignored (eg vaccine mandates for all). I hope the SC has the courage to reject that mandate 100% as an unconstitutional intrusion on personal liberty.
.
If not, personal liberty and agency is probably lost.
Grosskreutz was carrying a Glock.
Pictures here and elsewhere.
It’d be legal for concealed carry if he had a permit.
Wisconsin is a permissive open carry state — if it was open carry, no permit required.
lucia (Comment #207318): “The fact that they haven’t charged Grosskreuss is rather telling too. If it was illegal to carry at that event, he shouldn’t have been carrying either.”
.
I think that, as a convicted felon (unless I misremember), there is no circumstance in which Grosskreuss could legally have a gun.
.
It is amazing how comfy the “common sense gun law” people are with criminals having illegal guns.
mark bofill,
“Grosskreutz was carrying a Glock.”
.
Don’t worry, permitted or not, licensed or not, Grosskreutz will never, ever be charged with anything. Justice, as the left says, like everything else, is only a social construct. So screw the law and let unlicensed lefties run rampant with concealed weapons.
Angech,
Firearms regulation and laws are quite strange in the U.S.
Take the Mossberg Shockwave for example. It’s got a 14 inch barrel.
Sawed off shotguns with barrels under length 18 inches are generally illegal in the U.S. Yet the Shockwave is legal. Why?
Not made to be fired from the shoulder basically, so it’s not a shotgun, legally speaking.
There was a curfew the night of the shootings, it was broadly disregarded.
https://twitter.com/KenoshaPolice/status/1298362960583286784
.
I don’t know about Kenosha but an unlawful protest can also be declared such as in Portland every night (ha ha). Either of these could potentially trigger a no weapons allowed rule in a limited region for a limited time as an example. Guns can be disallowed in a school regardless of a protest status, there are limits. Rittenhouse probably doesn’t shoot people if it was legal concealed carry only. Open carry was * legally * antagonizing mentally unstable people in this situation. They had agency in their own deaths, but was this really something people had to die over? Where the constitutional lines are is a bit unclear.
.
I’m in total agreement that the police should have done their jobs and Rittenhouse was within the law (curfew not withstanding). However reasonable people, perhaps a clear majority(?), aren’t going to want poorly trained openly armed citizens roaming the streets with AR-15’s in a highly volatile situation.
.
Kenosha was an exception and this happens very rarely so perhaps a fix isn’t necessary other than the police enforcing the curfew and aggressively putting down violent behavior. Just because the shooting was likely legal doesn’t mean we can’t figure out a way to stop idiots from killing each so easily.
Steve,
Oh, I know.
I admire Rittenhouse in this way. If I were in his shoes that night, I’d have killed Grosskreutz. I wouldn’t have shot him in the arm and assumed the threat was neutralized, I would have shot again. I should add, I’d probably be on my way to prison for a good while. Hopefully Rittenhouse will escape a lengthy sentence.
[Edit: It’s probably a flaw in the way I’ve indoctrinated myself about firearms. Only shoot what you mean to kill…]
Lucia,
“Does he think it’s “unjust†to be allowed to defend yourself? That’s just nuts.”
.
He is a lefty…. AKA nuts. Nothing more to say.
“the MSM has abandoned public safety and become *cheerleaders* for the criminals”
.
I think the liberals have been peddling “the perps are the victims and the victims (society) are the perps” fantasy for decades now. It is almost unheard for the MSM to profile victims of violent crime unless it is a mass shooting or Jan 6th or somehow directly supports a favored narrative. It is rather unhelpful to their political aspirations.
.
If you are robbing a grocery store to feed your family that is one thing, but that just isn’t reality in the USA.
The BLM’s fantasy of abolishing police and using some vague community enforcement mechanism was just demonstrated in Kenosha. I vote for public funding of a properly trained police department. We should have never gotten to the point where the last line of defense for burning and looting was 17 year olds with rifles. This gets almost no discussion in the media.
.
The police normally don’t stop shooting until the target is down once it starts, I think this is how they are trained. Rittenhouse holding fire after shooting Grosskreutz wouldn’t happen with police normally.
mark bofill,
” I wouldn’t have shot him in the arm and assumed the threat was neutralized, I would have shot again.”
.
Donno.
.
When Grosskreutz was shot he immediately turned away and then presented little apparent threat. Hard to say what would have happened had you been in Rittenhouse’s place. One thing is certain: a trained solider or police officer would have shot him earlier AND shot him twice, a second time to the heart or head…. just to be sure.
angech
His permit was expired.
mark bofill,
That is Matt Helm’s second rule for guns.
1. Don’t point a gun at someone you’re not intending to shoot right now.
2. Shoot to kill.
A deer hunter friend of mine says that it is exceedingly rare for a deer to immediately drop to the ground when shot unless you hit them in the head or spine. The same goes for people.
I didn’t listen to the closing arguments, but I was told that the prosecutor claimed that the use of fully jacketed bullets rather than hollow points was evidence against him. As I remember, the Geneva Conventions require fully jacketed bullets for soldiers.
DeWitt,
Yup. If I had to get shot, I’d rather take my chances getting shot FMJ than hollow point. I’d prefer not to be shot in any event obviously, but.
I know it’s probably wrong for me to think the prosecutor was an idiot. Some of what I’ve gathered about his questions make him come across that way to me. The FMJ bit isn’t inconsistent with this impression.
Huh? First, how would a person carrying a weapon know that “fully jacketed” somehow means you intend to go out on a killing spree and hollow points mean… what? You just want to maim?
This wikipedia article suggest hollow points are more deadly…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow-point_bullet
But whether one or the other is more deadly is beside the point. The riot is an at least somewhat spontaneous event. Was Kyle supposed to stock up on a variety of bullet types and then pick “just the right type” before coming? If you think he’s supposed to, that’s just nutso.
Ammo is hard to come by anyway these days. Sometimes you just get what’s available. I bet Rittenhouse had full metal jacket because that’s generally cheaper than hollow point.
I read there’s also open tip match rounds for AR-15 (in addition to FMJ and hollowpoint). I don’t remember bumping into those before. I don’t have an AR, so I don’t really know all that much about it.
DeWitt wrote: “the prosecutor claimed that the use of fully jacketed bullets rather than hollow points was evidence against him.”
.
FMJ is a standard practice round because it’s cheap. When intending to shoot people, hollow points are preferred because they cause way more damage to the body. FMJ is also disliked because the tendency to go through means you could hit someone else.
.
Armored vest wise, depends what you’re wearing, but it looks like it might not matter whether its an fmj or hollowpoint if you have the wrong one on.
.
I have no idea why not trying harder to kill people counts against you.
Wonder what you guys think. Kyle fired 4 shots in .75 of a second at Rosenbaum. Prosecution argued that after first shot,which hit the hip and appeared to drop Rosenbaum, Kyle should have stopped. See video 33:46 here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2vMnM0xnhw
**********
Kyle said Rosenbaum threatened to kill him twice. Another witness Balch confirmed that Rosenbaum had threatened to kill both of them 30 minutes before Rosenbaum’s attack. Joshua Ziminsky fired a gun into the air seconds before Rosenbaum reached Kyle while Rosenbaum was chasing Kyle that Kyle heard. There was a good amount of testimony that the city was on fire and that there were lots of gunshots. Kyle said he thought he was being ambushed.
**********
Seems to be jury would have to find Kyle in panic mode when being chased by Rosenbaum to justify any shot other than the first. I do believe panic is reasonable argument to make, but I believe the prosecution argument here is reasonable.
JDOhio,
Not sure how anyone could even evaluate the effect of the first shot in less than 0.75 second. 0.75 second for four shots sounds like as fast as he could pull the trigger of his semiautomatic, which is probably expected under the circumstances. Panic is the normal reaction to being chased by a mob, and being attacked by someone in that mob who has twice threatened to kill you shortly before the attack. Rittenhouse could wait to see the effect of a first shot if he were hunting deer from a blind, but not if being attacked in a parking lot.
Agree with Steve. Ridiculous post hoc reasoning of a chaotic, panic/adrenaline fuelled moment. These kinds of arguments ultimately weaken self defense laws to the point of unuseability because they cannot be met in the situation where defense is necessary.
.
I’ve also heard it said that one shouldn’t fire a warning shot because doing so indicates you are not afraid for your life which could land you in prison. This is the kind of nonsense that helps nobody but a prosecutor.
Yeah. It looks like Rosenbaum falls on the ground. I guess I’m left puzzled looking it over and over because I only see one puff and fall. The second showing of the first shot appears to be 33:45.
Are the 2nd-4th shots obscured by the cars? (I assume that’s what he’s saying.) But anyway, I assume the number of shots is not in question. And Rosenbaum definitely seems to go down on the first shot.
(As a juror, I would probably go with panic-mode though. I don’t shot guns. But I, myself, would be damn scared. And I guess I can’t wrap my mind around the standard that someone being chased by several people (which the video clearly shows) needs to have presence of mind to stop and process info really fast to make “right” decisions. That’s just me though. Let’s face it: Rosenbaum is dead either way. The trial is of Rittenhouse. Still, other jurors might weigh that differently from me. I couldn’t say they were wrong.)
I’m puzzled that the prosecutor seems to emphasize “4 ft away” and “away from gun– not Rittenhouse” as if that’s not close enough to be dangerous. They are running into a bunch of parked cars where Rittenhouse had to slow and start to manouver. He could easily be pinned. I would suspect Rittenhouse shot just then because he could no longer run away effectively!
.
Rosenbaum is running at Rittenhouse whose escape path is now difficult because he is blocked by cars. They are between vehicles. I’m sure he would have caught him if not shot. Is “4 ft” to far to be self defense? I, as a fairly weak woman don’t think a guy rushing at me but still a “whole” 4 ft away is safe. I think it would be ridiculous for the standard to be that I have to wait until he is 1 ft away.
Ahh… I hadn’t caught the amount of time. That would explain why I didn’t “see” four shots. It’s just additions to the smoke that hasn’t cleared yet.
.
I don’t know much about weapons. I guess I’m seeing it sort of like you do. Yeah… Rosenbaum is probably down and no longer a threat. But 0.75 seconds is hardly time for shooter to process this info.
.
Others could see it differently though.
I also see no problem with the 4 shots.
How do they know where the first shot hit Rosenbaum?
Lucia,
A comparison is instructive: a major league fastball reaches home plate in about 0.45 second; 0.75 second does not seem like enough time for Rosenbaum to be stuck by the first shot and fall to the ground, never mind enough time for Rittenhouse to evaluate the situation and make a decision to not fire more than one shot. My guess is that all four shorts were fired before Rosenbaum is down; just as fast as he could pull the trigger. I am sure the autopsy report would include angles of entry which would show Rosenbaum’s position for each shot. Most people who have semi-auto rifles say they can pull the trigger at not more than ~5 times per second, when trying for maximum rate, which sounds a lot like the rate Rittenhouse fired: first shot t=0, second shot t=0.2, third shot t=0.4, fourth shot t=0.6.
A bit of good news:
“About 500 Wisconsin National Guard troops are on standby outside Kenosha in the event of trouble following a verdict in the high-profile Kyle Rittenhouse homicide trial.
Gov. Tony Evers authorized the deployment to support local police and hundreds of officers from other agencies who volunteered to help keep the peace in Kenosha.”
.
Seems even a numbskull like Evers can learn.
I agree with earlier remarks about panic and time to process. Even if somebody is keeping a cool head, there is something called ‘stopping power‘ to consider. Stopping power is essentially the power of the firearm to cause a target to be incapacitated or immobilized.
The AR-15 doesn’t have very good stopping power, relative to other firearms. So, even if Rittenhouse was keeping his wits about him, I think it’s more reasonable for him to believe multiple shots might be necessary than would be the case with say a shotgun or another type of weapon.
[Edit: Pump action shotguns are the way to go in my book. Why fool with an AR-15? That’s for shooting stuff at long distances, AFAIC. Rittenhouse should’ve gone with a Maverick-88 or something similar.]
MikeM
Good question. As I don’t see the individual shots, I don’t know which shot took him down.
A dropped ball (with no support at all) would fall:
> 1/2*9.8*0.75^2
[1] 2.75625 meters. That’s certainly enough for a ball dropped from head height to hit the ground.
BUT Rosenbaum is NOT a dropped ball. EVEN if is hip is broken, his body will still provide some force to slow the drop because part of his body is in contact with the ground. I don’t know how much though. But if Rosenbaum were *literally* a dropped ball, he’s on the ground in 0.75 seconds.
But let’s continue to make him a ball. He is probably
tallershorter than 3 meters. No matter what a goodly fraction of the 0.75 seconds, Rosembaum has not yet hit the ground. (A dropped ball drops roughly 1 meter in 0.451 seconds. ) It falls 2 meters (~6 ft) in 0.64 seconds. So that gives Rittenhous 0.09 seconds to recognize the *dropped ball* HIT the ground and stop. That’s not much time. (And as I noted: Rosembaum is NOT a ball. The ball will drop FASTER than Rosembaum.)The time for a ball to reach the plate is also instructive. Many people can’t react fast enough to hit the ball at all. And the ONLY reason the batters can is they have practiced, they know the pitcher is winding up to pitch, know ball is coming and are hyper-focussed on that ball.
That’s not the same as being surrounded by threats, not knowing quite what to look for.
“But let’s continue to make him a ball. He is probably taller than 3 meters.”
.
So about 10ft tall :p.
Dave JR.
Yep. Heh. Yeah, I meant shorter. 🙂
Anyway: my thought is if he’s ~2 meters (or ~6 ‘ 6″ which is still very tall) a ball dropped from head height hits the groupd in 0.64 seconds. Dropped from my head hight (5’4″) it hits the ground in 0.576 seconds. That’s the fastest my head could possibly hit the ground. It’s what happens if there is zero force from the ground on my body and, specifically zero force from my body to my head. That’s a goodly fraction of the 0.75 seconds used to fire 4 bullets.
.
I don’t know what human reaction times are. This suggest 0.2s.
Time for my head to drop “like a ball” and hit the ground and reaction time is 0.2s+ 0.576 s = 0.776. All the bullets were fired inside this window.
I think it’s fair to say Rittenhouse could not have processed the information that Rosembaums was down and stopped any more quickly than he did stop shooting!
.
Where do we have information to confirm all 4 bullets were fired in 0.75s? (I’m just going by SteveF’s numbers.)
Shots fired and estimated rate should be discernable from sound recording.
Lucia,
“Where do we have information to confirm all 4 bullets were fired in 0.75s? (I’m just going by SteveF’s numbers.)” The defense called an expert witness on self-defense and there was a big argument over the timing question and court allowed it in. (Not so much that it was inaccurate, but that the content hadn’t been disclosed until the day before it was introduced) Don’t think there is any real doubt that the .75 figure is accurate.
Would add that your analysis above starting from 6 feet appears to be inaccurate because Rosenbaum was lunging at Kyle and was almost parallel to the ground when hit. Appears that you should start from 3 or 4 feet. Useful way of looking at it though.
Lucia,
Re 0.75 second: JD Ohio (Comment #207340)
.
DaveJR,
The shot sequence should be audible, but depending on where the mic was, you would have to be cautious about echos which might confuse the sound sequence.
[JD :
]
Rosenbaum or Grosskreutz?
I thought it went down like this:
Rosenbaum was shot first, shot four times. I don’t know that Rosenbaum was lunging.
Grosskreutz (I believe) was lunging and was shot once.
How high off the ground was his head? his being “parallel” doesn’t matter. The only thing that matters is how high off the ground it was.
The analysis would change depending on that variable.
Also “lunging” doesn’t affect the analysis. Horizontal velocity doesn’t affect time to drop. The only thing that matters to the bounding calculation is the height of his head of the ground. That’s what affects the time for his head to hit the ground. (Which is when he is first actually “prone”.).
MarkB “Rosenbaum was shot first, shot four times. I don’t know that Rosenbaum was lunging.
Grosskreutz (I believe) was lunging and was shot once.”
Rosenbaum definitely lunging. See video and closing arguments. Grosskreutz lowering his hand with the gun and pointing it at Kyle’s head.
JD Ohion– the 6ft is certainly wrong because Rosenbaum is 5’8″ tall. 🙂 But I’m modifying for that.
Bear in mind: this is the FASTEST he could fall though. He would fall more slowly. Someone could do a more refined estimate knowing something about structures of the human body… blah… blah…. This is bounding.
Thanks JD. My mistake.
Lucia Re: Height of Rosenbaum. Does appear that you are roughly correct. In taking another look at video. He was beginning a lunge but wasn’t in full crouch. I was fooled by the trajectory of his bullet which went through his arm to his hip. The gun must have been pointed downward. Defense however, appeared to be arguing that Rosenbaum was close to parallel.
JD Ohio,
FWIW, if Rosenbaum “jumped up” while lunging, it takes him MORE time to hit the ground that if he lunges absolutely parallel. (I think it’s actually physically difficult to launch yourself absolutely parallel. You NEED a normal (vertical) force to create a friction force. You need the friction force to propell yourself forward.)
Anyway, the upward component of velocity when you propell yourself means your trajectory is a parabola that goes up, reaches the top and only then goes down. The time to go up to the top increases stuff. (You can see this trajectory with long jumpers. Then go in a parabola up and down. You can also see it with ballet dancers. It means the are in the air LONGER.)
I’ll look at the video a bit more.
JD– thanks for the info on the “lunge”.
The fatal shot to Rosenbaum entered his chest 4 or 5 inches left of his sternum, through his lungs and heart, and lodged near his right collarbone (near right shoulder). Hard to say exactly what that means. Did Rosenbaum pull up and turn to his right when he was hit with the first shot (breaking his pelvis)? I don’t know that there is a verified sequence of which shot caused which injury, but maybe that was presented during the trial. Certainly there is no possibility of him voluntarily reacting much to the first shot before the second was fired, since human reaction time is typically 0.2 to 0.25 second.
.
Rule 1. Don’t attack someone with a semiautomatic rifle in their hands.
Rule 2. In case of doubt, refer to rule 1.
Is there a good slow motion video of the 5 seconds around Rosenbaums shooting? Or does anyone know how to conveniently download youtube videos so I can look at the cruicial time more conveniently in quick time. There are things I *think * I might be seeing. (I wanted to see close to exact first shot and as much as I can about the trajectory of Rosenbaum to engage JD Ohios comments.)
Last time I tried to download a youtube video for further processing (a couple months ago) it was fairly painful and involved. I don’t know how to do this conveniently or easily, no.
Lucia “Is there a good slow motion video of the 5 seconds around Rosenbaums shooting? Or does anyone know how to conveniently download youtube videos so I can look at the cruicial time more conveniently in quick time.”
Just do a Bing search for youtube downloaders. There are dozens of free ones and some work better than others. (Google always tries to disable them) Better than the downloaders are programs that copy your screen while playing like Snagit. If I get a chance, I will Snagit and email you the video. During trial it was probably slow moed, but I don’t know where.
SteveF Re: Killing Shot
……
The fourth and final shot is what killed Rosenbaum. Undoubtedly he was immobilized by the first 3 although the shootings were so quick that Kyle probably didn’t realize that. The significance of the 4th shot being the killing shot is that Kyle had to have a reasonable belief that he was in imminent danger of death or bodily harm. If this had gone down slower and Rosenbaum was writhing on the ground, Kyle wouldn’t have had a self-defense claim.
I need a good way to slow-mo the time bewteen 3:29 and 3:35. I think the VIDEO shows Rosenbaum was not down 1 second after the first shot was fired. That’s better than physics — because the physics always needs an assumptoin.
I also think whatever “crouch” Rosembaun did, it did not significantly lower the height of his head. (Not enough to materially alter the conclusion that based on physics of falling, Rittenhouse did NOT shoot him when he was on the ground.)
Because of glare, you sort of need to see motion. But I *think* we can see after shot, Rosenbaum is still moving toward Rittenhouse (momentum would tend to propell him that way. ) His head is still pretty high off ground before the 0.75s time lapse. But I really need a good way to slow-mo to say for sure (and to show.)
(Mind you: I still think Rittenhouse was seriously unwise to go there armed and allow himself to be separated yada, yada…. But that’s all irrelevant to the self defense.)
JD Ohio
I agree. Absolutely, if Rosenbaum was clealry on the ground, writhing or unable to get up, Rittenbaum could see and react to that and he shot, then that 4th shot is not self defense. So the kill would not be self defense.
But, but I now think (based on my viewing of video in slow mo) that Rosenbaum was almost certainly still falling when the fourth shot went off. That is: he was still falling 1 second after the first appearance of smoke. (You’d expect him to still be falling based on physics, and it looks like he was. At least to me. )
If I were on the jury and allowed to look at the vidoe in slow mo, I would conclude the 4th bullet entered while Rosembaum was still falling, not after he was on the ground. Rosenbaum was still moving forward (as expected based on physics: Law of Inertia.) Rittenhouse would have no way of knowing what the bullets he’d fired had done. For all he knew, he’d missed. Or hit a hand. Or whatever. The body is coming toward him. He kept shooting.
Yes. The first shot probably injured Rosembaum enough that he would have fallen and been harmless. But there was no way for Rittenhouse to know that at least until Rosembaum hit the ground.)
I don’t know if the jury will look at those seconds in slow mo. I’d doubt they will look at the kinematics of projectile motion to estimate how long it takes to fall. But to me: looks like Rittenbaum shot 4 times while he was falling. The locations of the shots probably have to do with how Rosenbaum’s body moved while falling. (Some twisting etc. could have happened.)
CNN and Fox both report that the jurors have asked for 11 additional copies of the instructions. I wonder if that doesn’t indicate disagreement among the jurors. Maybe we’re in for a long wait.
JD Ohio
I would add that “immobilized” in the sense that he was no longer able to control his motion. But owing to Newton’s first law (law of inertia), he would still be moving *forward* (even accounting for the momentum of the bullet, he’s still got forward momentum after being shot.)
.
So to Rittenhouse, he will still look like an object moving at him.
.
This reasoning probably won’t be discussed in the jury room. 🙂
Lucia: “So to Rittenhouse, he will still look like an object moving at him.
.
This reasoning probably won’t be discussed in the jury room. 🙂”
..
The issue is whether he was dropping like a sack of rice or whether his inertia would keep him moving forward somewhat. You are much more capable of making that determination than me.
….
Here are links to the experts testimony — haven’t listened to all of it. However, it was long and undoubtedly went into matters you are discussing here.
…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jltJbALc7NM
….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dq8yKKBGiFk&t=2016s
….
Would add that he did a very good job explaining video and software and potential distortions. Prosecutor expert was horrible and simply said he went by algorithm and didn’t check his product against original.
Strangely until now I never noticed that baseball is launched from about head level, though this is lower than height. They generally have a small vertical start to add to the time, more for a curve ball.
Then there is Chad Bradford
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPbls4-ykzM
JD Ohio (Comment #207371): “The fourth and final shot is what killed Rosenbaum. Undoubtedly he was immobilized by the first 3 although the shootings were so quick that Kyle probably didn’t realize that.”
.
I thought that two of the shots only grazed Rosenbaum. Do we know that it was the first shot that hit him in the pelvis? Even if it was, I doubt there was enough time for Rittenhouse to realize that Rosenbaum was no longer a threat.
JD Ohio,
Looking at teh video, it looks like he’s still moving forward. And that’s what you would expect. It’s the law of inertia. His losing support because of a shattered his would not have caused him to stop moving forward. (And the momentum of the bullet isn’t enough either.) If he lost support entirely he should move like a tossed potato. If it was moving forward when it left a hand, it continues to move forward. That forward motion doesn’t stop.
But it would be nice to see the video a bit better. The smoke from the gun obscures stuff, but I think you can see motion. People would want to see it corroborated by video.
Mike N– The pitchers mound is also 10 inches higher than home plate. That’s only a little higher, but it helps. A small upward angle when thrown can deal with the natural tendency of the ball to fall in the time to take to home plate.
Shots
Note: if his hand was pushing away the rifles muzzle, he would have been moving toward Rittenhouse. (Which is what I think I see in the video and what makes sense based on physics. BTW: Rittenhouse clearly starts backing away during the seconds of teh shots.)
“Must have” based on what? There isn’t enough time for him to be prone between the 1st and 4th shot. I’d have to hear what it is about investigting the wounds that suggest this. Because it doesn’t match the limited time for things happening.
I assume you can tell this from the wound.
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2021/11/09/prosecution-rests-case-against-kyle-rittenhouse-defense-starts-its-case/6354020001/
I watched very little of this trial, but I was wondering if anything was said in the presentations by the defense that split second images, slow motion videos and after-the-fact theorizing about when a shot was taken with respect to the position of the person being shot do not take into account what even a very reasonable person can take into account in split seconds. It appears to me to be over analyzing and not a very good way to show intent on the part of the shooter.
If the jurors get wrapped up in these accounts without consideration of how a normal human being reacts in these split second situations they could well vote to convict.
I was able to do a second update on my previous post. I like and need that.
Kenneth Fritsch (Comment #207382): “I was wondering if anything was said in the presentations by the defense that split second images, slow motion videos and after-the-fact theorizing about when a shot was taken with respect to the position of the person being shot do not take into account what even a very reasonable person can take into account in split seconds.”
.
A very important point. I recall reading that the self-defense expert emphasized that.
I bet there aren’t any hunters on the jury. The .223 caliber of an AR-15 is not legal for deer hunting in many states because it isn’t lethal enough.
IIRC, cops, when they have to shoot someone, often empty their guns. So I’m actually surprised that Rittenhouse only fired four shots at Rosenbaum. When someone is lunging at you, nobody with any sense would shoot once and then wait to see what happens. That’s how you end up dead.
And again, normally a large animal like a deer or a human, will not drop like a sack of potatoes when hit just once unless it’s a head or spine hit. Supposedly the 1911 45 automatic was invented because the previous smaller caliber side arms did not have the stopping power to save the lives of soldiers in the Philippines when they were attacked.
Lucia,
“I’d doubt they will look at the kinematics of projectile motion to estimate how long it takes to fall.”
.
I suppose there could be a juror who knows some basic mechanics and kinematics, but the chance is not high.
Lucia (Comment #207381),
That description is absolutely inaccurate. The testimony at trial (from the autopsy) showed without doubt that the fatal shot entered Rosenbaum’s chest, past through his lungs and heart, and never exited his body (stopping near his right collarbone close to his right shoulder…. no entry or exit wounds were on his back. The claims that Rosenbaum was shot in the back were complete falsehoods, apparently suggested by the prosecution…. even while the prosecutors knew those claims were false…. more prosecutorial misconduct.
Kenneth
I think it’s possible to exclude somethings. The prosecution appears to try to make the case that Rittenhouse shot someone who was immobile on the ground, and that Rittenhouse knew or should have known he was no longer a threat and so should have stopped.
.
But I think we can safely exclude the possibility that Rosenbaum was on the bround before 0.6 s. The video looks like he wasn’t. And we know human reactions times. So, in fact, no matter what Rittenhouse’s motive, until Rosenbaum actually hits the ground, he just couldn’t know Rosenbaum had a broke hip and would no longer be able to be a threat, in less than 0.6 s from the shot. And he couldn’t physically react to that knowledge in less than 0.8 s after the first shot.
.
So what we know is the evidence points to the idea that if it was reasonable to think Rosenbaum was life threatening when Rittenhouse fired the first bullet, it was reasonable to think it for at least 0.6 s. and one can’t react in less than 0.2. So Rittenhouse would still be able to claim self defense covering the 0.75 s of shooting after the first shot.
.
Of course, you thought the first shot wasn’t self defense, then all this doesn’t matter. But as far as I can see: if his first shot was self defense, so where the other three. We don’t even need a “panic” defense.
.
I’m still trying to process how the bullet would go through the head as if th ebody was prone if he wasn’t on the ground…. Except, mostly I haven’t been able to put it in the cateogry of “impossible”. With the hips shattered a torque could be applied to the upper body. If so, the upper body could rotate down and the head could end up below the hips before the whole body collapses. But I don’t know enough about everything to say if that’s likely. It’s just not impossible as far as I can tell so far. (I don’t think I’ll be able to resolve this btw.)
Lucia,
I am mistaken, there was an entry wound on Rosenbaum’s back, although the angle of entry is not described anywhere I can find.
I don’t think the sequence of events after the shooting started is very meaningful. It is everything that led up to the first shot being taken. Once it comes to shooting I’m OK with doing whatever it takes to end the threat, even if might seem like overkill in hindsight. I would think most people who have never been in a situation like that basically blank out and run on pure instinct anyway.
.
All the micro-analysis of the moments before the shooting pale in comparison to the witnessed threat made to kill Rittenhouse and the noted instability and bad temper of Rosenbaum. If I’m on the jury I’m just not going to care very much how many times he ended up getting shot. He threatened to kill him, he chased him knowing he was armed, he ended up getting shot. End of story.
.
It should be noted that almost anyone who is shot can continue fighting for quite a while if they choose to do so. It should be in Rittenhouse’s favor that he allowed Rosenbaum to get that close, shooting him 20 yards away wouldn’t look so good.
“Kelley said all but the shot to the hand were probably fired from intermediate range — with the muzzle between one and four feet from Rosenbaum.”
.
Is that really saying 4ft is intermediate range?
SteveF,
Yeah. I wouldn’t think it would be easy for the body to be in a position where the bullet goes in through the back while falling. But I also can’t say it’s impossible. So… dunno. The time for falling has less wiggle room– especially looking at the video.
Bullets do crazy deflections off of bones.
Tom Scharf,
Bullets do tend to bounce around in the chest cavity, especially small bore rounds. They also tumble rather than stay pointed in the same direction.
Since the whole shot sequence was 0.75 second, it seems most likely that Rittenhouse shot first as Rosenbaum got close enough to threaten taking the rifle (1 to 4 feet). The first bullet went through his hand before bouncing off the pavement and into his leg. The medical examiner testified that the hand wound and powder burns were consistent with direct contact with the end of the gun barrel. Again suggesting an attempt to take the gun. Once the first shot was fired, there were two more shots, one grazing Rosenbaum’s head (not fatal) and one into his pelvis, sequence of these two unknown. At that point (either after the second or the third shot) Rosenbaum was in fact incapacitated, and almost certainly had started falling, at which point the final fatal shot entered somewhere near his upper back and downward through his abdomen,causing fatal damage. The timing is simply too tight to expect someone to not fire the fourth shot.
.
That it has taken this long already indicates to me the chance of a hung jury.
SteveF,
Yeah. I have no idea how they try to determine the order of the wounds. Maybe there is something in forensics that permits that, but I didn’t listen to that testimony.
.
I’m glad I don’t know Rittenhouse or his family. I just watching this all at a distance.
FWIW,
Both felony and misdemeanor convictions in Wisconsin must be unanimous among 12 jurors. I just don’t see how than could possibly happen once the misdemeanor gun charge was dropped by the judge. Hung jury on all charges (including the lesser charges the judge allowed) is my guess.
One might go on the Rittenhouse diet… eat nothing until the jury returns a verdict…. you might well die of hunger waiting.
If they don’t reach a verdict tomorrow, they will probably hang.
Tom Scharf,
Probably. You never know, of course, but the social/philosophical/political divisions in Wisconsin (and in most of the States!) make a hung jury more likely than not. The big question for me is how many times the prosecution will attempt to re-try the case if the jury is hung. If this jury hangs, then it is very likely the next will as well. If the hung jury is 10-2 for acquittal, then a retrial is probably just a stupid waste of time and money. If it is 10-2 for conviction on one or more remaining charge, they will probably try again. Of course, Rittenhouse getting an unprejudiced jury at this point is almost impossible, and if the case is re-tried, I would be shocked if the trial were not moved to a different jurisdiction.
SteveF, looks like you are saying the jury has been ability grouped with regards to physics.
Tucker sums it up https://youtu.be/89-Qiz8g4Zc
I have had some concerns about the pace of decreasing Covid-19 cases with the current vaccination rate and since I have online sources for an abundance of data dealing with the US states, I did an analysis with up-to-date data to determine factors affecting the current pace and what to expect in the future.
The conclusion from the analysis was that while the vaccination rates are a significant factor in reducing cases for the Delta variant, the rate of reduction over time might be longer than some have expected, and the Delta variant could be more contagious than initially thought. The upcoming winter and more state vaccinations will allow better estimations.
I have again written up my findings to determine what I might have overlooked and as a reminder for future reference. If any of you are interested, I have put these finding in the link below.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/my3tcxxzxfpdtpr/Update_Covid_19_Cases_Deaths_VaxRate_Mobility_DeltaSurge.pdf?dl=0
MikeN,
The fraction of the adult population who understand H = (1/2) * a * t^2 is pretty small. From my very limited experience with jury selection, seems knowing something technically relevant about a case is a sure-fire way to not get on a jury, so I guess juries are in fact ability grouped…. no knowledge desired.
Kenneth,
Since different states have different rates of infection, and since travel between states continues, seems to me that states with lower case rates are constantly receiving net new cases from places with higher case rates. The expected result is a failure for total new cases to decline as expected; that is, until the influx of new cases from travel stops, there will be a low background ‘pseudo-equilibrium’ of propagation, even if the local Reff is under 1.
.
The homogeneous nature of cases within a state population (some areas with higher and some with lower rates) will of course have the same effect… case rates for multiple interacting groups with different case rates will never drop as fast as expected for an isolated population with Reff below 1.
SteveF
Influx is not going to stop unless we have Reff under 1 everywhere. Research on vaccines is actually continuuing in the background. They may find a way to create a sterilizing vaccine, which would make a big difference.
Polio had a to stage vaccination process. One gave humoral immunity; one mucosal. Only with both did people get sterilizing immunity. In that case, boosters were actually something different. They didn’t merely “boost”.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10210087/Prosecutors-Kenosha-shooter-trial-WITHHELD-evidence-defense.html
.
EXCLUSIVE: Kyle Rittenhouse prosecutors HELD BACK high-def drone footage of Kenosha shootings from defense and gave them low quality video – sparking them to file mistrial motion that could see teen walk free
DaveJR,
Just saw that on twitter too. I think I learned witholding is a BIG bad thing when I watched “Cousin Vinny”?
It may be the judge is waiting to see whether the jury come back not guilty. Word is two jurors are feeling intimidated, which is why it didn’t happen yesterday. If they don’t, then he might call a mistrial.
Apparently, jumpkick guy has been identified. Another felon .
.
Edit: Prosecutors knew who he was. Defense weren’t given that information. Not sure whether withholding a witness falls in the same category.
So the prosecution used an enhancement of low definition drone footage as pretty much the entire basis of their attack when they had the HD footage?
DaveJR (Comment #207414): “It may be the judge is waiting to see whether the jury come back not guilty. Word is two jurors are feeling intimidated, which is why it didn’t happen yesterday. If they don’t, then he might call a mistrial.”
.
That raises several interesting possibilities. One would be a simple mistrial, which would allow the prosecutor to try Rittenhouse again. It seems to me that would be a grave injustice.
.
Another possibility would be a mistrial with prejudice. That would preclude a new prosecution. I think it would require a finding of prosecutorial misconduct, which might be in order.
.
Yet another possibility would be the judge entering a not guilty “judgment as a matter of law”. That would also seem to be in order. It can be done even if the jury comes back with a verdict of guilty. I think that would be very appropriate if the reason for the hung jury appears to be intimidation.
The intimidation story is suspect as a writer on RedState explained.
It would require the bailiff to tell the US Marshal who talked to the author Posobiec, as marshals do not have direct access to a jury room.
Was the video handed over directly on a USB, or was it emailed to the attorneys? I wonder if a 10MB(GB?) attachment limit caused them to use compression.
I wonder what else the FBI caught on its drone footage that they chose not to prosecute.
I think it’s safe to say that the jury are aware of the possible consequences of returning a verdict counter to the lefts narrative. Posobiec has been on the ground in this case from the start. I believe he was one of the witnesses who had spoken to Kyle earlier in the evening so it sounds possible to me he could get a word out of someone who would know.
Dave,
https://babylonbee.com/news/kyle-rittenhouse-asked-to-step-outside-and-defend-the-courthouse-while-verdict-is-being-read
🙂
Thanks, mark. It is nice to know that we can still count on the Bee to inject some sanity into events.
Rittenhouse apparently fired at but missed “jump-kick man”; news reports now say he is 40 years old and:
“According to online court records, Jump Kick Man has a criminal record that dates back more than two decades, with multiple felony convictions for car theft, ID theft, drug possession, and escaping custody.”
.
Those Kenosha protesters attacking Rittenhouse were a stellar group indeed: A convicted child molester, a convicted domestic abuser, another convicted domestic abuser, and a guy with a history of multiple felonies. These are the people the MSM calls ‘heroes’? Come on. It’s like a sick joke.
Lucia,
“One gave humoral immunity; one mucosal. Only with both did people get sterilizing immunity.”
.
Sure. We might hope that a covid vaccine (or combination of vaccines) which provides permanent sterilizing immunity can be developed… but I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting. Those who have been immunized (and now many ‘boosted’) have about as much risk of death from covid -19 as they have from flu, which isn’t very high. People managed to live normal lives while risking flu; they can (and should!) do the same while risking covid-19. The USA should simply declare victory over covid-19 and move on.
.
Sadly, there will continue to be too many deaths among the at-risk population who have chosen to not get vaccinated. But short of Bidenesque forced vaccinations for everyone, nothing is going to change that. The whole “forced vaccination” approach so adored by the left has considerable social and political costs which I think can’t possibly be justified by the lives saved. YMMV.
SteveF,
I’m not holding my breath.I’m getting on with my life. I think at this point, life has to re-open rather generally. This did not turn out to be the Black Death. Life had to resume after that too.
I’d have to see the two drone videos in order to see if it made much difference. It’s possible there really isn’t anything to this other than reencoding the video for trial use. For example one can change the encoder from old school mpg to HEVC and drop the bit rate in half and suffer little degradation loss.
.
Alternately one can re-encode stellar video that has a really high bit rate to a fraction of that and capture everything meaningful. I have a 4K drone that records at 100 mbits/sec. This produces gigantic super detailed files. Showing this requires a very good network connection and hardware accelerated decoding.
.
Youtube / Netflix / AppleTV sends out 4K video at around 20 mbits/sec. Your lucky to get maybe 8 mbits / sec for HD and usually lower. The causal viewer can barely tell the difference from 100 mbits to 8 mbits. You can tell the difference from 8 mbits to 0.5 mbits. There are reasonable floors and ceilings here. If the drone was using an IR camera (haven’t seen it) then it is almost certain the original video was low resolution as high quality IR sensors and lenses are super expensive.
.
Anyhow this may be nothing, but the defense should have made the original file available anyway. If the prosecution analysis depends on finding something in low quality video that doesn’t exist on the original then that is a major problem.
I wouldn’t get too myopic on the US with covid containment. The UK continues to be a very odd outlier. They still have relatively high sustained transmission with a fairly low death rate and apparent high immunity levels. Totally different that the 2 month surge seen almost everywhere else. Israel had a pretty sizable surge with a relatively high vaccination rate. These 2 places have pretty reliable data gathering.
.
Europe is going through another surge and the northern US looks to be ramping up for a winter delta surge. Will it be a hot burn like Florida? I don’t know and it would really just be guessing to predict it. Florida continues to be very low but has pretty much plateaued to where they were in June, that’s still 1400 cases a day. It is notable that this case rate was the peak of our hard lock down early last year.
.
My overall feeling is that anyone who hasn’t accepted covid as endemic is going to over the next 6 months. We haven’t talked about the Pfizer pill, but that is a huge deal, an effective treatment. Between ongoing boosters, this treatment, and the most vulnerable already having succumbed we should have the large death counts behind us as it turns into a flu like disease that will continue to kill those that are old and / or immunocompromised.
.
There are still vulnerable people out there and they will need to be cautious basically forever. I’m guessing covid will be like the weather for the next several years, it will need to be monitored based on your activities. If you have good quality at home covid tests and a bottle of Pfizer pills in the bathroom then this becomes much more self manageable.
Steve, I agree with your comments about the continuing spread of Covid-19 with even low Rt. I believe what we have seen in the latest surge with Delta is a variant that is much more contagious than the earlier varieties and maybe even more contagious than the most pessimistic estimates. I repeat here that the potential winter surge (at least for northern states) and increased vaccinations rates will reveal how contagious Delta is.
I also agree with your hopes about calling off the mandates and not letting Covid-19 precedents devolve into invoking them for the flu. Unfortunately mandates without bounds have not found any judicial restraints other than perhaps rulings that they can be imposed by states but not the federal government – and even there it is an unsettled issue. In issues like this I sometimes think that reference to the Constitution is just cover for justifying unbounded mandates. With the large portion of the public favoring these mandates and any number of politicians eager to impose them, I can see “emergencies†becoming more common for triggering mandates. It is not at all clear at what point if any the judicial system would set some bounds – not that I would be happy with the bounds I might anticipate. I do think that individual property rights allow private citizens and organizations to set rules in these cases but not the government unless it can show cause that an individual is directly harming other individuals. That would have to be legislated and not in the form of a mandate.
I think that the anti-viral pills can be a game changer in treating the infected. The tests appear very promising.
Tom Scharf (Comment #207427)
Tom, I agree with what you are saying. I posted before seeing yours.
I must be getting old and docile. I have been agreeing with everyone lately – even my eldest son.
I do not need or want to minimize a problem as a basis for keeping the government at bay.
Tom Scharf,
“We haven’t talked about the Pfizer pill, but that is a huge deal, an effective treatment.”
.
It was briefly mentioned, but yes, a treatment which cuts the death rate/serious illness rate by a factor of two is a big deal, but especially a big deal for those who have so far refused vaccinations. Combine that with monoclonal antibody treatment, and the death rate could be very low, even for the unvaccinated. Oddly enough, the Biden administration seems not to care much about these treatments that can save lots of lives.
.
WRT the UK case rate: the UK has a VERY low death rate per confirmed case (about 0.4%), no doubt because of their high rate of vaccination among those over 50 YO. Their death rate for all cases is no doubt lower yet, since lots of infected people will not be tested. There are many younger people in the UK who have not been vaccinated, and they are responsible for most of the cases. I believe the delta surge will die off in the UK very soon, because most everyone will have been exposed, recovered, vaccinated, or all three. My personal impression of the UK based on my travel there: the air in their buildings probably exchanges at a rate of about once per 3 years…… not good for transmission of covid or other airborne illnesses.
Kenneth,
” Unfortunately mandates without bounds have not found any judicial restraints other than perhaps rulings that they can be imposed by states but not the federal government – and even there it is an unsettled issue. In issues like this I sometimes think that reference to the Constitution is just cover for justifying unbounded mandates. With the large portion of the public favoring these mandates and any number of politicians eager to impose them, I can see “emergencies†becoming more common for triggering mandates.”
.
I agree. I keep hoping that the SC will get the OSHA mandate case and toss it to the curb with an expansive ruling, setting a clear future limit on government power over individual health care choices, but it is not at all clear to me they will do that. The slippery slope is (of course) that most every action in the life of an individual becomes mandated, which reminds me quite a lot of the political conditions in China. I do not think that is a coincidence.
UK had severe lockdowns, but I think early on they were lax and pursuing a herd immunity strategy.
MikeN,
No matter the UK’s policies, their cumulative confirmed cases remain relatively low compared to many countries. The pandemic probably dies out in the UK when that number of cases grows another 15% or so.
Rittenhouse judge bars MSNBC from trial for allegedly following jury bus
.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/crime/rittenhouse-judge-bars-msnbc-from-trial-for-allegedly-following-jury-bus
Ed Forbes,
Of course MSNBC wants to intimidate the jurors. There could be no other motivation for following the jurors as they headed home except to identify them for intimidation. Unlawful actions mean nothing when you know you are ‘on the right side of history’, as Barry Obama used to say.
The judge ought to issue a bench warrant, haul the guy into court, name and shame, and warn him how much time in prison he will get if he does any like it again.
According to the article published in my local paper, the hi-res video was the one shown to the jury and was also the one that was used for the frame that was expanded and enhanced to supposedly prove that Rittenhouse was pointing his weapon at others. The defense was supplied with a compressed version of the video. The defense filed a motion for a mistrial without prejudice. The prosecution says that it was the defense’s fault that they only received the compressed version. The previous defense motion was related to questions the prosecution asked the defendant during cross-examination was for a mistrial with prejudice.
https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2021-11-16/rittenhouse-jurors-to-return-for-day-2-of-deliberations
Your local paper is reporting the “laundry list” of excuses the prosecution put forward. From LegalInsurrection:
.
“Assistant DA Kraus had a laundry list of excuses for why the defense ended up with only a lower-resolution, smaller file size, different file name version of this critical drone video, including blaming everybody but himself–indeed, both this colleague ADA Binger and lead Detective Howard were blamed by Kraus, as well (of course) as the defense itself.
.
The judge was unconvinced by these excuses and suggested the possibility of putting the prosecution on the witness stand themselves to testify under oath as to how this video mix-up occurred.”
.
Apparently, the defense only realized they had a lower resolution when the prosecution said something about using their version to show to the jury, because it was clearer.
DaveJR,
Strictly speaking, it’s the Associated Press that’s reporting. The local paper just printed it as is.
Side by side comparison of the videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8mBTHWgkvI
.
Note that YouTube does its own compression when it reencodes. There is a substantial difference here, mostly because of the resolution difference. There is no excuse for the prosecution not making this easily available, it is not up to the defense to know there is a higher resolution version. It might just be normal run of the mill technical incompetence. It kind of does look like he points the gun at the chaser and then turns around and keeps running, a bit unclear in the high-res version. Whether this is material to the trial outcome is debatable, it helps the defense just as much IMO. A man who threatened to kill Rittenhouse is clearly shown chasing him down.
.
Looks like this one is heading to a hung jury.
If he’s already chasing Kyle then I’d say turning around without shooting is a last attempt to get him to stop rather than a taunt. Given the type of person pedoguy is, my bet is he thought Kyle didn’t have the guts to use the weapon and was probably stating as much as he chased him.
DaveJR,
“Given the type of person pedoguy is…”
.
Was.
DaveJR,
As far as I can tell, Rittenhouse slowed down when he arrived at a cluster of cars and trucks in his way. I would suspect he slowed down because he reached an obstacle course. At that point, his immediate reaction was probably “yikes”!! Even if he was younger and faster he was going to have trouble getting away.
He likely turned around to see how close the chaser was because it was going to get hard to move. He was going to be at risk of being pinned against cars and so on.
The chaser was close and still running.
The many cases filed against the Biden Administration in different circuits over the OSHA emergncy covid vaccine mandate have been consolidated and assigned (random draw) to the 6th circuit, which is bad news for the Biden administration: 10 conservative judges and 6 liberal judges.
.
Several plaintiffs have asked for an immediate em banc hearing (bypassing the normal 3-judge panel), no doubt because they know they are almost certain to win with an en banc hearing, but a three judge randomly drawn panel (which could include many ‘semi-retired’ liberal judges) is too much a crap shoot….and a three judge panel could immediately allow the Biden administration to proceed (OSHA is currently blocked by the 5th circuit). By the time a politically opposed three judge panel got around to making a ruling, followed by an en banc hearing to over-rule the three judge panel, it could be several months after the January 4th deadline the Biden administration has set for enforcement.
.
So my guess is the 6th circuit will agree to hear the case en banc, permanently block the OSHA mandate, and ultimately conclude the mandate is both legally and constitutionally flawed. At which point the Biden administration will probably give up on the mandate, since there is no way the SC would reverse such a ruling, and probably not even agree to hear the case if the Biden administration appealed. I’m keeping my fingers crossed. This specific over-reach by the Biden administration looks to be soon gone.
.
Earth to Biden: blatantly mis-apply a statute, and the courts may well stop you.
I’ve got to give DeSantis credit for his choice of venue, Brandon Ford. “Florida Gov. DeSantis trolls President Biden, signs bills limiting vaccine mandates in Brandon, FL” https://www.foxnews.com/politics/florida-desantis-trolls-president-biden-brandon-vaccine-mandates
I looked at the higher resolution drone video frame by frame. I could see clearly that Rittenhouse turned and raised his rifle when he couldn’t find an easy escape from the parked cars. When he fired the first shot, Rosenbaum was already close to Rittenhouse. By the final shot, it looks like Rosenbaum was still moving toward Rittenhouse, but falling toward the pavement and in an almost horizontal position (but appears not yet on the pavement). That is consistent with the fourth shot hitting Rosenbaum in the upper back, since the gun was angled downward toward the falling Rosenbaum.
.
Rosenbaum had been released from a hospital that same day, where he had been confined because of a suicide attempt. His attack on Rittenhouse does strike me a consistent with someone not caring if he lives or dies.
NPR on Boston election:
Myth 4: Asian Americans are fairly represented
.
Asian Americans have the lowest degree of representation in political office compared with any other racial or ethnic group – and are even underrepresented in states with high concentrations of Asian American residents.
.
Also NPR (later deleted):
.
Michelle Wu, an Asian American, is the first woman and first person of color elected to lead the city. While many are hailing it as a turning point, others see it as more of a disappointment that the three black candidates couldn’t even come close.
.
NPR showing off their racist credentials again.
We will never know, but my assessment of Rosenbaum was that he thought Rittenhouse didn’t have the balls to use that weapon and he was going to teach him a lesson. Bad judgement. His release that day after a suicide attempt is relevant to his state of mind, I don’t think they allowed that in the trial(?).
Most of the media has gone fully racist over the past decade by the classic definition, in fact most have a section devoted to (anti) racist stories. Code Switch at NPR has put out some really crazy stuff. It’s hard to predict but I have a feeling these stories are going to age as well as eugenics did.
.
I didn’t notice it until it was pointed out that Rittenhouse is identified as white is most media stories, but the shooting victims are usually not racially identified, and many times as just stated to be BLM protesters. The attempts to force race into this episode has mostly failed, but it wasn’t because they didn’t try. It would be much more volatile had Rittenhouse shot someone who wasn’t white, even though it shouldn’t change the legal outcome. They sometimes like to call Asians “white-adjacent” and I suppose they are trying to call white BLM protesters “black-adjacent”. It’s really just normal in-group / out-group dynamics with the media being mostly in one group.
Tom Scharf,
The basic political conflict of this century is that those on the left refuse to accept anything other than perfectly equal outcomes for all races in all endeavors…. which is to say, they reject completely the possibility that differences in outcome could be due to anything other than societal discrimination. It is, of course, an absolutely insane belief, since it is easy to show huge impacts of cultural, gender and individual preferences on outcomes, and these have nothing whatever to do with societal racial prejudices.
.
The MSM, academia, and Hollywood have 100% swallowed the lies about racial prejudices being responsible for all differences in outcomes. But they are still nothing but lies, and as you say, in the long run this will not age well. The only way this craziness stops is at the ballot box; enough people have to recognize this destructive focus on race for what it is: simple racism, and then change the course of the culture.
.
Or as John Roberts said (in one of his very few thoughtful moments), “The way to stop racial discrimination is to stop discriminating by race.”
Rittenhouse — not guilty on all counts.
Tom Scharf (Comment #207458): “It would be much more volatile had Rittenhouse shot someone who wasn’t white”
.
I guess he was lucky that he missed jump-kick guy.
———
mark bofill (Comment #207460): “Rittenhouse — not guilty on all counts.”
.
Glad tidings, indeed!
Mike,
Yep. I’m surprised, I thought we were headed to a hung jury. I guess one never can tell.
Does not guilty mean the jury voted 12-0?
mark bofill (Comment #207463): “Yep. I’m surprised, I thought we were headed to a hung jury. I guess one never can tell.”
.
Indeed. I saw Jonathan Turley yesterday making that exact point: that you never can tell. He was cautioning against drawing any conclusion from how long deliberations were taking.
.
I just learned that the jury instructions were 36 pages long and were described by the *judge* as “very confusing”. So that was likely a factor in the duration of deliberations.
mark bofill,
Like you, I am surprised…. I figured a hung jury. I didn’t think the case was close at all on the facts… an obvious case of self defense…. but the long deliberations made me think hung jury.
.
Now is the time for Gov. Evers to have the national guard move into Kenosha, not later after the place is on fire…. again.
Mike N,
Yes, only a unanimous verdict is allowed in Wisconsin; anything else is hung.
Mike M,
I think that he missed “jump-kick guy” was good fortune for both of them…. and for the city of Kenosha.
MSNBC states:
“After three and a half days of deliberations, some in the panel appeared fatigued in the jury box. As the verdicts were read, some had their hands on their chins, rubbed their eyes and appeared ill-at-ease, shifting in their chairs or folding their arms across their chests.”
.
Of course!
.
They were *ALL* regretting the unanimous decision to let the murderous, right wing, reactionary, vigilante, profoundly racist culprit go. And they only did it because there was so much pressure from violent rabble on the courthouse steps to acquit.
.
No, the violent rabble was pretty much 100% on the left.
.
The MSM is run by people who are almost impossibly stupid and impossibly disconnected from reality.
CNN:
“The verdict cannot be appealed.”
.
Dah.
.
It is as if these people never read the bill of rights, not to mention actually ever understood how the criminal justice system in the USA is set up. I would say ‘idiots’… but that would be too kind. Dishonest criminals is closer to correct.
SteveF
US constitution 101.
Neither can OJ’s verdict.
The length of deliberation had me sweating bullets!
Thank god you can still defend yourself from a mob that is trying to kill you because they are angry at you for putting put out their illegal fires.
De Blasio’s garbage take:
.
Anthony Huber and Joseph Rosenbaum are victims. They should be alive today.
.
The only reason they’re not is because a violent, dangerous man chose to take a gun across state lines and start shooting people.
.
To call this a miscarriage of justice is an understatement.
.
Sounds like he just got off MSNBC.
Heh. The wailing and the gnashing of the teeth has commenced.
DaveJR,
“a violent, dangerous man chose to take a gun across state lines and start shooting people.”
.
Ummm… no, as a smallish matter of fact, Rittenhouse didn’t take a gun across states lines. Proving, yet again, that DeBlasio is both 1) utterly unknowing and 2) an utterly irredeemable fool.
.
Rittenhouse shot only the very most deserving of targets… people directly attacking him.
Lucia,
“Neither can OJ’s verdict.”
.
Sure, but not sure I see the connection. People can believe Rittenhouse is guilty of (you fill-in-the-blank), if they want. Still, Rittenhouse didn’t cut peoples throats with a large knife. Too bad drone footage wasn’t available for that gruesome crime.
This is the point where Twitter sends in the jackboot squad to blitz tweets complaining that the judge was corrupt and Kyle is guilty after banning people for saying Kyle was innocent pre-verdict, but they won’t. Dishing out misleading information only contravenes “community guidelines” if it disagrees with “The Community”.
The connection is that’s just what the law is. Whether the ruling is correct or not, not guilty can’t be appealed.
.
If it could be appealed, I suspect OJ’s deserved to be. But it can’t.
.
I lean toward Kyle’s actions being self defense. At worst, there would be a reasonable doubt that it is not self defense. So I would have gone for not-guilty.
.
Most articles complaining it can’t be self-defense are just trying to tell us his character isn’t good. But good character or bad character are irrelevant to self defense. Two people in the process of hitting you over the head with feet and skateboard with others looking ready to join is relevant. And etc.
I watched the videos that were uplinked shortly after the shooting went down where the time line was examined is detail.
.
I was then, and still am, in awe of Kyles firing discipline and ability to coherently think under extreme pressure. To engage that many targets, in such a short span of time, being continually physically attacked, and under extreme stress without resulting to wild panic fire is remarkable. I would say that most active military and police officers would not have done as well as Kyle in the situation Kyle found himself in.
Local Kenosha activists respond to Rittenhouse verdict: “this is a direct attack on our democracy” – NBC Chicago
.
Democracy is code for mob justice. I hope they checked IDs to see whether these really were “local activists”.
Ed, I’ll second that. I seriously doubt I’d acquit myself half as well under similar circumstances.
What’s funny is I almost fell for a troll comment replying to deblasio with :
.
“I’m so tired of people thinking this is okay just because the “jury saw all the evidence.” We are supposed to be living in a democracy, and clearly more of the public think he’s guilty. What happened to the democracy?”
.
And then someone makes the argument seriously on NBC 😂
DaveJR,
I knew there was going to be a good reason why I left the room before NBC news came on this evening.
My daughter was in grad school at the time of the OJ trial. She watched a lot of the trial. As I remember she said she would have voted to acquit to punish the prosecution for wasting nine months of her life. The prosecution spent at least a week, maybe two, explaining GC-Mass Spec to the jury. And that’s only the tip of the iceberg. The prosecution was incompetent and so was the judge. The police detectives were clearly racist and probably corrupt to boot. Maybe that wouldn’t have been so obvious if they had spent only a few weeks on the case. But everybody wanted sound bites on TV every night.
Oh, and, to belabor the point, we don’t have a democracy.
Thankfully our justice system still mostly works, and it isn’t run by the Twitter mob. We learned hundreds of years ago that mob justice is rather arbitrary and a bad way to run society.
Tom Scharf,
But that’s what Twitter and the rest of social media is all about: mob justice, otherwise known as cancel culture. So the people who lived back then learned it. It’s not at all clear that it’s being taught now.
Edit: Actually, it’s fairly clear that it isn’t being taught
DeWitt,
I agree. Turning the gun on the jury was insane. I don’t know what he thought he was trying to do. Make them “feel” what it’s like to have a gun in your face? How on earth could that help the prosecution? I mean, Grosskreuss had a gun in Rittenhouse’s face. And Who-he-what’s it was slaming him with a skateboard, after kickjump guy kicked him and a third guy is running at him. Having the jury “feel” danger they can’t avoid was not in the interest of the prosecution!!!!!
.
There were other nutty things. I happend to watch the tape with Rittenhouse “slowing down” and “turning” over several times. The prosecutions tone of voice seems to suggest he’s just slowing in order to be able to brace himself to shoot because the desire to kill suddenly overcame him as opposed to slowing down for some other reason. But the obstacles (cars and trucks) are right there in the video. Did the prosecutor think not even one out of 12 people would say, “Well, yeah. He was clearly fleeing– hoping to get away. But of course he slowed down because, unlike Superman, he can’t walk through walls! Or cars! Or trucks!”
No amount of breathless intonation and “tone” is going to make all 12 be sufficiently distracted to not notice there was a very good reason to “slow down” and “turn” just then. Once someone points it out in the jury room, even those who didn’t think of it in the first place are likely to say, “Oh. yeah….” After that, some are going to think, “Well… maybe I should rethink all the intimiations by the prosecutor!”.
.
I’d call it incompetence. But the real problem is that once the case was in court the prosecutor had to do something. And there just wasn’t that much he could do.
…because the desire to kill suddenly overcame him …
This was pretty entertaining Lucia, TY.
One thing I noticed in watching the higher resolution video of KR shooting Rosenbaum was that it was backing up as he was shooting. If he had stayed in one spot after the first shot Rosenbaum would have been right on top of him.
The civil case against the Kenosha authorities and police by the deceased will be very interesting. They will claim they failed to do their jobs which resulted in those deaths. This has some chance of success, and I’m not sure I wouldn’t like to see it happen. It’s one thing to make an effort to restore order and failing because you are outnumbered, it is another thing entirely to stand by and allow anarchy in the streets. This would set a legal precedent that a reasonable attempt to restore order must be made or the authorities will be in civil jeopardy. I don’t know the law here, it’s possible the burden for proof is very high or even the lawsuit will not be allowed.
Pointing the gun at the jury certainly was nuts. I think the prosecutor was trying to claim that Rittenhouse provoked the bad guys with his big scary gun.
I don’t know that the prosecution was incompetent more than they were handed an unwinnable case. It’s that guy’s job to polish that turd and there just weren’t very many good options. There was video that made this case not even worthy of a trial. Had there not been publicity this thing would never have made it to court IMO.
I don’t know. The DA could’ve dismissed the charges if they felt like there was no case. Pursuing an unwinnable case for political reasons smacks of incompetence to me.
mark bofill (Comment #207495): “The DA could’ve dismissed the charges if they felt like there was no case. Pursuing an unwinnable case for political reasons smacks of incompetence to me.”
.
One should never attribute to mendacity that which can be adequately explained by incompetence. This was mendacity.
.
I don’t think the prosecutor’s poor performance can be explained by incompetence. As Tom said, they were trying to polish a turd. IMO, they were doing that because they were too cowardly to make the correct decision. So they passed the buck to the judge and jury, without regard for Rittenhouse’s rights. They deserve to be disbarred.
For you ivermectin fans, a deep dive into the studies:
https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/ivermectin-much-more-than-you-wanted
.
“As several doctors and researchers have pointed out (h/t especially Avi Bitterman and David Boulware), the most impressive studies come from places that are teeming with worms.”
.
Part of the issue apparently could be that ivermectin treats covid by defeating worms in the patient which makes them more resilient to covid. YMMV.
I believe the next large factor in Covid-19 infection mitigation is going to be booster shots. Break through cases are not rare anymore. I am looking for a source of the portion of the population that is eligible that is getting booster shots and preferably by states.
My main take away from the Rittenhouse trail is the reaction of those viewers who saw and heard the evidence but do not want to let go of the leftwing narrative – that includes Joe Biden. Narrative uber evidence.
Mike M.,
“One should never attribute to mendacity that which can be adequately explained by incompetence. This was mendacity.”
.
Whatever it was, it was a catastrophe for the county, and I will not be surprised if the DA is voted out of office at his next election…. the profoundly foolish assistants will go as well, if not sooner, of course. That they beclowned themselves so fully during tethe trial (“Rittenhouse should just have accepted a beating by the mob.”) may make their next job a bit more difficult to find.
Everyone needs to take a beating sometimes, that was a classic argument, ha ha. Sometimes silence is a better argument.
I guess Portland is rioting over Rittenhouse? Meanwhile, Kenosha is peaceful. I read BLM was planning a demonstration in Chicago at 2 pm today. It’s quarter to 2 now.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/11/riot-rittenhouse-protest-portland-kenosha-peaceful.html
I told Jim: If it’s cold and icky out, there won’t be soo many riots. If it’s nice we might see them.
Lucia,
To riot properly you can’t be too cold. That is why left coast cities can have riots non-stop. Kenosha is safe from riots…. Chicago probably safe too…. well, except for the daily gang shootings.
Kenneth Fritsch,
There are more breakthrough cases for at least two reasons. First, a substantial fraction of the population has been vaccinated and second the vaccine is leaky. If 100% of the population were vaccinated, then 100% of the cases would be breakthrough cases. Unfortunately, the leakiness apparently increases with time. But even at the initial 95% effectiveness, there were still breakthrough cases, even in the vaccine phase 3 trial. So with 100 million vaccinated, there are still 5 million susceptibles. That number, unfortunately increases over time.
Apparently, most of the breakthrough cases in the vaccinated cohort are likely asymptomatic so they are unlikely to be found. How infectious these asymptomatic cases are is unlikely to ever be known with any certainty. But the probability that they are infectious isn’t going to be zero.
The idea that wearing masks in a crowded theater on Broadway will do any good is, IMO, ludicrous. If you’re vaccinated but susceptible sitting next to an infectious asymptomatic case for a couple of hours, it’s not going to make much difference if both of you are wearing masks.
Absent a nasal or possibly an oral vaccine, pretty much everybody is eventually going to be infected. But if you have been vaccinated, you are still very unlikely to have a serious illness.
Oh, and total COVID-19 deaths during the Biden administration starting January 21, 2021 is approaching the number during the Trump administration.
DeWitt,
“Oh, and total COVID-19 deaths during the Biden administration starting January 21, 2021 is approaching the number during the Trump administration.”
.
But that is still Trump’s fault. And DeSantis’, and the Deplorables, and white racists…. not an Alzheimer-addled old man who can’t seem to keep track of where he is or what he is saying, never mind stay connected to factual reality. I give him another 12-18 months until every decision is made for him, assuming that is not already the case.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #207510)
DeWitt, I agree with your reasoning on break-through cases. However in my analysis I was somewhat surprised to see that the deaths to cases ratio had not decreased more than it has. I do think that eventually we will get to the point were Covid-19 is at the infectious and medical complication levels of seasonal flu, but that the Delta variant might put that point later in time than some have expected.
I am of the mind that the mandates and mitigations have had unintended consequences that out weigh the intended results. I suspect that voluntary measures would have worked as well and been more suited to the individual level. Beyond that there has to be the concern, that when individual liberties can be infringed (and particularly at the level of mandates) by declaring an emergency, how often in the future will the current precedent be invoked and at what level of emergency.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-19-breakthrough-hospitalizations-concentrated-among-most-vulnerable-11637499602?st=9akbwntedxfbk8d&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
There’s a lot of data in this article. The main take-home is that even if you are fully vaccinated, if you are 65 or over or you have a comorbidity like diabetes, then you need to get a booster no more than six months after your last vaccination.
This isn’t in the article, but IMO if you received the J&J vaccine, you likely need a booster after two months, especially if you are in a high risk group.
Britain will review racial bias in medical devices.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/11/21/world/covid-vaccine-boosters-mandates/britain-racial-bias-medical-devices
““That cannot be acceptable at any level,†said Mr. Javid to the BBC on Sunday, adding that people had “possibly†died because of these (racial) disparities during the pandemic. “These oximeters are being used in every country, and they have the same problem,†he said.”
.
Having designed oximeters for decades I will dutifully report to the reeducation and bias center for my daily flogging until such a time as the physics of light change and dark skin stops blocking more light than light skin. I could go on and on about how misleading this article is but it’s really not worth it.
Tom Scharf,
So, do or do not oximeters somehow discriminate against dark skinned people? If not, why the investigation? If so, why not a version for dark skinned people?
Article behing pay wall or signup, but I suspect it’s the usual overblown nonsense looking for a financial settlement and to stir up some righteous victimization. A pulseox is a guide (increases/decreases from baseline) and even though it can be affected by skin color, among other things, seems remarkably insensitive nonetheless. If anything it’s more likely to give a false positive, indicating supplemental oxygen when none is required.
.
There are plenty of signs someone is struggling to breathe (rapid breathing, increased HR, distress, cyanosis) and if respiratory status needs checking, an arterial blood gas will tell you everything you need to know, regardless of skin color.
Tom,
My understanding is there is a similar problem with some laser devices for various cosmetic procedures. For example, there are some permanent hair removal devices that use lasers. They work best on light skinned people with dark hair root bulbs because the light can travel through the skin and the is absorbed by the hair root, which then is destroyed. They don’t work on grey hair because the root has no pigment. The can cause overheating of dark skin, and potentially burn and scar rather than remove hair.
LA Times (another Democrat party organ) says:
“There’s only one real solution for supply chain problems: Stop consuming so much”
.
The Dems are doomed in 2022; they can’t see even the most obvious of problems for what they actually are. I am guessing a swing of 60 seats in the House and 3 in the Senate. The consequent investigations of the Biden administration (especially justice and the FBI) are going to make the rest of Biden’s Alzheimer decline to 2024 pretty embarrassing.
.
The only way Republicans can blow it is 1) re-litigating 2020 electoral issues, and 2) nominating Trump in 2024. It is hard for me to imagine a presidential candidate for the Republicans losing in 2024….. except for Trump. Too many voters simply loath him. The guy needs to declare victory over woke extremism and concentrate on golf.
SteveF,
I expect Biden to recycle Jimmy Carter’s Crisis in Confidence speech any day now.
Pulse oximeters works perfectly fine for dark skinned people and FDA testing is mandated to be done with a diverse patient set.
.
When pulse oximeters struggle it is because of:
1. Bad sensor placement (most common, race is irrelevant)
2. Motion artifacts, the sensor is moving (race is irrelevant)
3. A condition known as low perfusion, the pulsatile part of the received waveform is unusually small, this is normally due to the patient having pre-existing conditions, but just being cold can cause the finger pulse to become restricted. Most oximeters show a warning for this.
4. Low signal level. This is rarely a problem but it is obviously worse with darker skinned people with less LED light transmitting though the finger to optical sensor. Big fat digits. Normally only an issue with neonatals trying to get through a big fat baby foot.
5. A combination of any of the above.
.
Normally when a pulse oximeter has a bad reading it * reads too low * and sets off false alarms. I only read a summary of the study here but it smells like total race baiting BS. As has been pointed out endlessly when the narrative is desired, minorities have worse health overall and will be more likely to have health problems that result in oximeters reading erroneously. The graph I saw had errors of around 4% to 5%, the spec for oximeters is +-2% for healthy people and an error of 7% is considered clinically significant where it can cause bad decisions to be made.
.
We never had a problem with adults, but occasionally some people really do not read as accurate on oximeters for different reasons. They will test out to ~4% accuracy instead of under 2%. There is no technical “fix” for this, the oximeter is operating perfectly when the raw data is examined, they are just outliers. Some people are amazingly accurate. I don’t recall there being any particular correlations with patient type.
The Republicans can blow it many different ways, they are almost as talented at self sabotage as the left is. The most likely way to blow it is by overreaching on abortion or embracing Trump too much.
Tom Scharf (Comment #207527)
Thank you for your recent excellent comments.
I have had a pulse oximeter at work for years and have one at home and believe they work equally well on everyone and should work well with everyone.
–
My feeling on Kenosha is that BLM people who really care about black lives would have no issue with white people shooting white people in self defense or otherwise. My expectation of any rioting in Kenosha itself was very low.
Re the republicans wrecking things the Roe V Wade may well act as a trigger to Biden stacking the Supreme Court if an adverse to Democrats ruling is made.
This is one liberal area I am fully supportive of from a libertarian point of view.
angech,
While I personally accept the legality of early abortion, there is very strong opposition in many places, and I will not be surprised if Roe v Wade is reversed. The issue before the court is not whether or not abortions should be allowed…. at some point in a pregnancy they are not allowed (viability). The legal issue is who should decide on laws governing abortion: the courts or the state legislatures. Right now, we have a court ruling which enforces a “constitutional right” which is nowhere to be found in the constitution.
.
If Roe is reversed, the effects on the number of abortions will be minimal, since many states will continue to allow abortion; there will be more travel for access to abortion, but that is about it.
.
Biden does not have and will not have the votes to pack the court, independent of the court’s ruling on challenges to Roe. There are enough Democrats who recognize how damaging (politically and socially) packing the court would be. It could influence the 2024 election, but it is difficult to say how much.
angech,
My prediction: up coming ruling for the TX law will not go well for TX. But… dunno. It’s a weird law and the first ruling will not really be about abortion. They have a strange structure set to intimidate or chill providers. If it stays, it will be used to intimidate gun sales very soon.
That’s always the problem with innovation in conflict. One side develops a new trick, tactic, or technology. Generally doesn’t help long term- the other side picks it up soon enough.
The problem with ruling on the TX law is that, AFAIK, no one has actually filed a suit against an abortion provider in TX. Appeals courts aren’t supposed to make rulings on laws without an actual case. I expect that the law will eventually be thrown out because the state cannot give standing to sue to a party who hasn’t been injured. But they can’t make that ruling until someone actually uses the law. I think. That would also apply to a similar law applying to gun manufacturers. I think. IANAL.
One way or another, the Texas law will be struck, and very soon. Law enforcement is inherently a government function; when it becomes something individuals are allowed to enforce, with no legal means to stop that enforcement, then government has lost much of its reason to exist, and all the rights ensured by the constitution become subject to effective elimination by any legislature.
.
I am sure the people in Texas who passed the law thought they were being very cleaver, but in fact they were being very dumb, not to mention destructive: undermining the legitimacy of government and putting at risk liberties protected by the constitution. The law will go; there is no alternative if representative government limited by the constitutional is to survive.
In other legal news: the 6th circuit has asked for OSHA to respond to plaintiffs’ requests for an en banc hearing on the vaccine mandate, rather than a three judge panel. OSHA has until Nov 30 to respond. My guess: there will be an en banc hearing some time in December, the 6th will strike the OSHA mandate by early January, and the SC will either refuse to hear the case or take it up only some time later in 2022 when the case is essentially moot.
.
Let’s go Brandon!
I went back to my analysis to obtain the Covid-19 deaths per 1 million population in the 3 periods of interest for the previous analysis. The periods were for 1 through 3 for the weeks after March 10, 2020 of 1-30, 31-60 and 61-86, respectively. Weeks 61-86 are the weeks of the Delta surge and vaccinations steadily increasing. I did this because deaths to cases ratio can be confused by the potential of more asymptomatic break through cases not being reported. I also did an OLS regression of death rate versus vaccination rate for period 3.
For the 50 states and District of Columbia the 3 period deaths per 1 million population were 549, 1062 and 613 for Periods 1, 2 and 3 respectively. Period 3 was adjusted for having 26 weeks versus 30 for the other periods. The regression for period 3 gave an r squared value of 0.68 after excluding Florida as an outlier. That r square value is nearly the same as that found for cases per 1 million population for period 3 when regressed versus the end vaccination rate. Extrapolating the fitted regression line for deaths to a theoretical (not practical) zero as I did for cases gave percent vaccination of 78% versus for cases where it was 88%.
While all these results are in the expected direction, I do not think the expected timing is as rapid as was initially thought it would be for cases and deaths.
DeWitt
That is precisely the problem. And the issue that will be addressed is this:
Is it permissible to create a law that creates a sword of damocles that hangs over those who provide services necessary to the exercise of constitutionally guaranteed rights?
If it is, this sort of law could be written to interfere with any right: abortion, guns, some speech and so on and so on.
.
Threat of defamation actions can inhibit some speech. But at least only the defamed person can lodge the suit. If , you said something that I thought defamed SteveV, and I (or anyone) could file a suit, things could get really weird. Speech could be seriously dangerous or chilled.
.
It would already be seriously chilled before anyone lodged a suit against anyone. And of course, wrt to the TX law that’s the hope of those who wrote and passed the law.
.
But of course, meanwhile TX abortion providers are living under a sword of damoclese, which I do see as a “harm”, even if it’s not as concrete as actually being sued by anyone in particular.
.
We don’t “know” if such a law is barred by the constitution right now because the question hasn’t been raised. Is this “harm” seen as a harm from the POV of the law? I don’t know because it’s a different question from just being ‘a harm’.
We do know the hope of those who passed the law is that this manouvre will be legal and that this type of harm is not the kind courts see as sufficient to intervene. But if courts can’t intervene until there is a suit, we can probably kiss lots of rights good bye for all practical purposes. We would live in a very chilled society. So I hope the court “sees” this as not being allowed.
.
That said: I haven’t read any legal arguments. So I don’t know how much torture to the constitution is required to not allow this. It’s going to be a hard legal case.
Lucia,
“So I don’t know how much torture to the constitution is required to not allow this. It’s going to be a hard legal case.”
.
Nor does anyone else know, but I doubt it will be a hard legal case. It is clear from questioning by the justices is that several of the conservatives on the SC recognize the Texas law directly undermines liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. I predict they will strike it, if not 9-0, then 7-2 or 8-1.
Lucia,
FWIW, my guess is the SC will enjoin Texas state courts from ever hearing civil cases brought under the Texas law, reasoning that even hearing such a case is a violation of individual Constitutional protections. The SC enjoins activities by lower courts all the time.
SteveF,
Enjoining the civil cases strikes me as a good way. It sounds like, basically, you weren’t harmed. So, no, TX can’t it acceptable for you to lodge the civil suit.
.
Maybe that sort of block would would be analoguous to “No, Lucia, you can’t sue Dewitt because you think he defamed SteveF. Only SteveF gets to do that. And no, Illinois, Florida, whatever state can’t decree that you have standing to bring such a suit.
.
Because, basically, that’s what TX is trying to do. Make anyone supposedly have standing to sue the abortion provider for a “harm” that was not to them.
From a web site called boston.com:
“Two law enforcement officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized the discuss the matter publicly, identified the person as 39-year-old Darrell Brooks.
.
Online court records showed a person named Darrell Brooks, with a birthdate making him 39, has two open criminal cases in Milwaukee County. In one case, filed Nov. 5, he is charged with resisting or obstructing an officer, reckless homicide, disorderly conduct, bail jumping and battery. Records show $1,000 bond was posted on Friday.
.
In the other case, filed in July 2020, Brooks is charged with reckless endangering and illegal possession of a firearm.”
.
Seems odd the local DA hasn’t yet charged and identified the driver. If he actually was released last Friday on $1,000 bail, even though he previously jumped bail, then there will be political consequences.
AP reports:
“Records show Brooks was arrested on 5 November on charges of domestic abuse, resisting an officer, and second-degree recklessly endangering safety, disorderly conduct and felony bail jumping.
.
He pleaded not guilty to all counts and was released two days before the deadly Christmas parade attack after posting the $1,000 bond.
.
Brooks has another open felony case for second-degree recklessly endangering safety and possession of a firearm as a convicted felon from July 2020.
.
He has convictions dating back to 1999, according to Wisconsin court records.”
.
So he is a career criminal with many convictions, dating from when he was 18. The guy should have been sitting in a prison cell, not running over kids walking in a parade to escape arrest for a knife fight. Somebody beyond Mr. Brooks needs to be held to account, but I very much doubt they will be. Something is very wrong with a legal system where violent career criminals are on the street endangering the public.
I have serious doubts that he blew through police barriers and ploughed through a parade at high speed to escape arrest from a knife fight when he wasn’t even being chased.
.
Edit: clearly there were people monitoring police frequencies because the chatter has been posted. Not seen anything referring to this fight.
SteveF (Comment #207522): “It is hard for me to imagine a presidential candidate for the Republicans losing in 2024….. except for Trump.”
.
I think that a corporatist Republican like Jeb! or Romney could manage to lose. especially if the Dems dump Biden/Harris and nominate someone reasonable. Lots of Trump voters would stay home. And any Republican, especially ones who support the Trump agenda, will get tarred by the media as a Trump puppet.
.
But lots of people’s brains go into lockdown at the mention of Trump. If enough moderate Dems and independents get red-pilled between now and 2024, then someone like DeSantis could do better than Trump. But if the key is energizing the base, then Trump might be the strongest candidate.
lucia (Comment #207533): “They have a strange structure set to intimidate or chill providers. If it stays, it will be used to intimidate gun sales very soon.”
.
Excellent point. The Texas abortion law is an abomination, not because of severely restricting abortions but because if allowed to stand it will trash the rule of law.
Mike M,
“But if the key is energizing the base, then Trump might be the strongest candidate.”
.
But the key is not energizing the base, the key is getting a majority of votes in competitive states. And that is where Trump lost in 2020… and I believe would lose again. Voters really don’t like the guy (nor do I!), and he remains even less popular than Biden… an incompetent Alheimers patient who can barely talk, never mind govern.
.
In 2016 there was at least the possibility Trump could “grow into the job”, which enabled more ‘hold your nose’ votes for Trump; nobody believes that now, and too many people don’t want to vote for someone they think is an a$$hole. Too many people who would otherwise stay home after watching the dumpster fire of the Biden administration will be highly motivated to vote against Trump, not for whoever he is running against. Trump would drive voter turnout like nothing else….. turnout mainly to vote against him. More sensible policies won’t make up for so many people simply loathing the guy as an individual.
.
IMHO, he is un-electable, and if Republicans choose him as their candidate, I predict he will lose again. He should step aside for someone who is electable.
I will go out on a limb here and make a bold prediction: a week from now, the MSM will memory-hole the murder of innocents marching in a Christmas parade, and you will basically never hear of it again. Trial, conviction, and prison sentence…. not for life, of course, will not be covered at all. Killing of innocents by a career criminal, who was out on bail, after just having jumped an earlier bail, will not even register on the outrage meter at the MSM a few days from now. (Next comes: What were they doing in the street anyway? People have to drive fast you know.) I wonder, does running people over and killing them infringe on their civil rights? Not in the MSM!
.
The criminal justice system is set up to allow dangerous people, with a long history of violent, antisocial, behavior, to walk the streets and act criminally again. Violent career criminals are rarely put in prison (more or less permanently, as they should be) to protect the public from harm. A 17 YO defending himself from a violent mob, a mob trying its best to injure or kill him, is completely unacceptable (‘Take away their guns, and let them have a beating, that the answer!’), but a career criminal killing innocents with an SUV doesn’t say anything about how criminal law is administered.
.
“Investigators were questioning the person in custody about an earlier crime, which one of the officials described as an argument involving a knife. The official cautioned the investigation was still in the early stages.”
.
Please, enough already. Tell the truth: the guy should have been sitting in a prison cell, not driving.
How is the Texas law different from various federal laws that allow environmentalists to file a civil case?
MikeN,
Right or wrong, courts have held that everyone is “harmed” by degradation of the environment, so everyone has sanding to bring suit. Unfortunately. It is a purely political decision masquerading as law.
MikeN (Comment #207553): “How is the Texas law different from various federal laws that allow environmentalists to file a civil case?”
.
Good question. I do not have a good answer. I suppose the environmentalists would argue that everyone suffers from dirty air and water. And it seems to me that those are bad laws.
So the guy wasn’t fleeing from anywhere.
.
The media justify hiding facts because they claim they can make people angry and lash out at innocent people identifying as the same group. Ok. Makes sense to collectivists I suppose.
.
However, then they engage in the most disgusting, dehumanizing language on prime time TV against another group of people, and engage in lying about acts committed by “them” on an almost daily basis, but apparently think this isn’t going to drive anyone to “seek justice”. It’s “okay” because there are more of them… Words really fall short to describe this…
.
I’ve even seen this defended. A minority has no power so are in no position to act. So what’s the big deal with terrorists, mass shooters, serial killers etc? They have no power.
The story is unfolding. If you click, it could be a 12 hour old article, a 1 hour old article and so on.
I’m reading that Victims include “Dancing Grannies”. https://milwaukeedancinggrannies.com/
DaveJR,
The only thing that stops the present madness is for the voters to stop electing Democrats. In Wisconsin, they need to 1) vote idiots like Gov Evers out of office, 2) vote incompetent DAs who refuse to enforce existing laws out of office, and 3) change criminal laws, and especially bail rules, to control crazy Dem judges and make sure violent criminals spend time awaiting trial confined to a cell, not driving SUVs on the streets.
Victims include the Dancing Grannies, school kids, and everyone else he ran over. But you know, the DA STILL can’t charge nor name the culprit. Nor explain the circumstances leading to his murderous ride through the parade. And most of all, can’t possibly comment on his long criminal history, his $1,000 bond last Friday, his jumping of his previous bond, and his failure to appear in court for previous felony charges. The local authorities need to get a grip and grow a pair. But most of all, they need to be voted out of office.
SteveF,
Jim is often irate when various DuPage County or city authorities in the county arrest criminals released by Cook County and Chicago. They tend to end up remaining locked up if arrested out here though. But Cook/Chicago often releases them.
Lucia,
“But Cook/Chicago often releases them.”
.
Of course. That local DAs are given the autonomy to flout laws and allow dangerous people to roam can only be solved at the state level. In Illinois, that is hopeless, of course, and will never happen. Lori Lightfoot is free forever to do as much damage as she wants, and neither Pritzker nor the legislature will ever change that. (BTW, have you considered moving someplace more reasonable?)
.
But maybe not in Wisconsin. The state legislature has the legal authority to set strict limits on bail bonds with multiple violent arrests. Get the governorship and both houses in the hands of Republicans, and this sort of tragedy can be eliminated with strict rules for bail awaiting trial…. eg. jump bail once and you are in for the duration.
You have to love the irony (which like entropy always increases):
.
“Brooks has a lengthy rap sheet and had just been let out of prison on a $1,000 bail earlier this month after he allegedly ran a woman over in the same SUV that he used to plow into Waukesha residents on Sunday.”
.
Actually, he had been arrested on the earlier assault, then let out of prison last Friday for US$1,000 bail, and then two days later over-ran the parade.
.
Lemme see. You run over one person in your SUV, following a domestic dispute. They arrest you but let you out on bail, even though you absolutely represent a clear risk to the public . So what the heck…. why not get involved in *another* violent domestic dispute… this time with a knife…. and then kill a lot of people in the street with your SUV as you run away? Worked before. Perfectly reasonably.
I think the issue in Wisconsin is that they have a massive backlog of cases (because covid) so they can not provide speedy trials. As a result, they have been lowering bail requirements. So there is a real problem without a good solution. So maybe the people killed by Brooks should be classified as lockdown deaths.
.
Note that I am not saying that Wisconsin is using the best solution to their problem. Just that this case might not be just due to feckless prosecutors and courts.
In the WSJ editorial linked below they talk about a SC precedent that would be required to hear this case since the plaintiffs lack standing. The editorial gives the path through the Texas state court to the SC that would not require the unprecedented move by the SC. This is an important issue that has serious ramifications. I think Lucia alluded to this issue in a recent post. The editorial writer(s) believe the Texas law is unconstitutional. In effect for the SC to rule on an unprecedented case it would have to be an unprecedented ruling.
Regardless of how this decision is handled and with the left calling it a vigilante law, in a similar case like gun control laws, a very similar approach to the Texas one, that is perhaps better thought through to give the liberal justices sufficient wriggle at some future time to approve it, could well happen. Roe v Wade was a precedent.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-texas-abortion-case-supreme-court-roe-wade-standing-justice-department-11635706725
Mike M. (Comment #207563)
I heard from Ben Shapiro that bail in WI was lowered because it was felt there were inequities in the portion of Blacks in prison and the issue of not affording bail. Brooks had been charged many times before Covid-19 and failed to appear with evidently no further consequences to him.
My guess is yet another mentally ill person having a psychotic break.
.
They had one view of the beginning of this thing where a security camera showed the SUV driving down the road, but he drove within feet of a flag girl at a high rate of speed. If it was your typical somewhat coherent whacko wanting to maximize body count then he would have ran that person over, so I think this one is a bit different.
Because of the Trump and Trump supporter dilemma, I do not see the slam dunk for the Republicans in 2022 and 2024. However, you may have liked some of Trump’s policies, Trump always has and always will be in a race for himself and not for some idealistic political philosophy or being opposed to the other party’s policies – unless they can be opposed for his benefit. He was a Democrat when he felt that was to his benefit and a Republican when that was more beneficial for him.
He did not care what happened in the Georgia elections but was more interested in seeking out political allies to agree that the election was stolen from him. In 2022 he will demand that those running for Congress pledge allegiance to him and that will include the stolen election meme. He would in my opinion prefer that those who do not pledge to him be defeated so that leverage could be used for his running in 2024. He does not know how to operate any other way.
Some of his most loyal supporters must be very much like him and support him for being Trump and not a Republican or being against the leftist drift of the Democrat party. They well could be swing voters (or non voters) depending on the fate of Trump and allegiances to Trump (not his policies). The issue will be how many potential voters out there fall into this category.
Mike M,
It is indeed feckless prosecutors and courts (aka co-criminal conspirators) that are the problem. How much time did they waste prosecuting an obviously innocent 17yo versus their efforts to restrain an obviously violent career criminal with a 20 year long rap sheet? I’d guess between 0% and 0.1% of the effort.
.
The voters in Wisconsin are (I hope) smart enough to put mealy-mouthed excuses aside and throw the all of them out of office.
Kenneth,
“He does not know how to operate any other way.”.
Sure, and that is a big part of what makes him a jerk. It is Trump…Trump… Trump. Nobody else. What a jerk.
“The Milwaukee County district attorney said Monday that Mr. Brooks was out on $1,000 in cash bail posted Nov. 11. In the view of the DA’s office, the bail, which was the state’s recommendation and accepted by the court, was inappropriately light, given Mr. Brooks’s recent charges and pending charges.
The DA’s office said it is conducting an internal review of the decision.”
.
Yeah, right. Letting a bunch of alleged criminals roam the streets increases risk, it must be balanced against being overly punitive and the assumption of innocence. I think it is possible for people to disagree on where that line is in good faith. Where it gets a bit obnoxious is when the Capital “insurrectionists” were left in jail or given extremely high bails, and run of the mill career violent criminals are let go for $1,000. There seems to be no balance. Rittenhouse had a $2M bail. There are rather loose standards here.
Tom Scharf,
“Where it gets a bit obnoxious is when the Capital “insurrectionists†were left in jail or given extremely high bails, and run of the mill career violent criminals are let go for $1,000.”
.
It is much worse…. the guy jumped bail the last time. How the heck is he even *considered* for bail after that? It is to me incomprehensible. He should have been sitting in a cell until his trial. That hundreds of non-violet ‘trespassers’ with no criminal records have been held without bail, often in solitary, for months is just more of the same leftist garbage. Let’s go Brandon.
Just to beat my dead horse once again, now that Delta is burning in the north and very light in the south … covid levels no longer mean anything about the morality of the people or their elected politicians. It has once again turned into a terrible disease that only produces victims who have no agency in outcomes.
.
It would appear the European citizens are getting pretty Trumpy about new lockdowns.
Lucia, one of the nicer more intelligent people from your neck of the woods who stated that the Waukesha killings were Karma for Rittenhouse acquittal and probably self defense:
..
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2021/11/22/mary-lemanski-twitter-linking-rittenhouse-waukesha-killings-karma/8726936002/
Tom Scharf,
The horse may be long dead, so all moral certitude of the crazy left aside: it is clear that social controls make not much difference, except to the extent that they do economic damage and diminish quality of life. Lockdowns, restrictions, ‘vaccine passports’, masks and the rest are mainly social preening that costs a lot and does very little. What DOES make a difference is getting those truly at risk vaccinated. UK: basically everyone over 45 has been vaccinated; raging delta spread, very few deaths (looks like ~1 in 300 cases). Same thing pretty much everywhere. Vaccinate everyone at risk and very few will die. Vaccines clearly save lots of lives. Everything else is pointless, because everyone is going to be exposed unless they sit in their basement forever. So chuck the damned masks and the endless, pointless restrictions, get vaccinated if you are over 45, and get on with your life. If you are a healthy kid or young adult? Doesn’t matter much; get vaccinated to avoid a potentially very unpleasant illness, or take your chances. Either way, covid is less likely to kill you than a car accident in the next couple of years.
JDOhio,
Sounds a lot like the argument that AIDS was God punishing gays for their sins. Very comparable morality for both.
JD Ohio,
Yep. Lemansky clearly was a bit unhinged!
A second oral antiviral for covid has beed developed, this one by Pfizer. Unlike the Merck antiviral that disrupts RNA transcription (and reduces serious cases by ~50%) the Pfizer antiviral interferes with assembly of protein segments into complete proteins. Clinical trials with unvaccinated, at-risk individuals (elderly, co-morbidities, or both) show 90% effectiveness at eliminating hospitalization, and close to 100% reduction in deaths. Both require starting treatment within a few days of first symptoms. Trials of these drugs as preventative treatments are said to be on-going. Unfortunately, both drugs are expected to cost near $1000 for a course in developed countries ($25 in poor countries).
.
If both treatments are combined, does covid 19 become a minor illness (a lallapalooza effect of combined drugs)? Seems like a good chance.
.
Even more interesting: both drugs are apparently effective against a wide range of RNA viral pathogens, including the flu. Has research on covid 19 brought about the end of a host of common human illnesses? It’s beginning to sound that way.
SteveF,
The reduction in deaths for both antivirals was from something like 8-10 in control groups to zero in test groups. So although they are clearly effective in reducing deaths, we don’t know by how much.
.
I recall seeing that the reason for the different effectiveness between Merck and Pfizer may be that everyone in the latter trial got the drug within 3 days whereas the former had a wider range of treatment onset times. But my memory may be faulty.
Mike M,
Our best estimate of reduction in deaths is 100%, although with a fairly long uncertainty bar toward lesser reductions.
If it is effective against flu, then the reduction of deaths can be listed as greater than 100%.
SteveF (Comment #207582): “Our best estimate of reduction in deaths is 100%, although with a fairly long uncertainty bar toward lesser reductions.”
.
I am not at all sure that is really the best estimate. You have to be really careful when working with such small numbers. But I am certain that 100% is not a meaningful estimate simply because the true value must be less than 100%.
Mike M,
I agree that the actual value almost certainly is somewhere below 100%, and only a much larger sample will define the efficacy accurately. After all, terminal cancer patients who’s immune systems are non-functional would be included in a sufficiently large study, and nothing may help those patients.
.
I think the rate of hospitalization may give us a better Idea of the effectiveness. Among high risk patients, it looks to be 89% effective at eliminating hospitalization; this seems to me a reasonable “floor” value estimate for efficacy against death, since people don’t usually die from covid at home.
.
in any case, combined with the Merck oral antiviral and/or monoclonal antibody treatment, it looks like the risk of death from covid – 19 will soon be very, very low, even for at risk, unvaccinated people.
Since Joe Biden has come into office, he has tried to consistently reduce US production of petroleum (the consequences at the gasoline pump are well known). What is less well known is that Biden has ALSO concurrently sold off about 5% of the nation’s strategic petroleum reserve, and now promises to release another 8+% of the remain reserves (bringing the total to about 554 million barrels, from a high of 727 million barrels at the start of 2010). So lemme see. Release reserves to keep prices from rising too quickly, thus putting the country at increased risk should a real crisis arrive, and at the *same time* do your best to inhibit increases in domestic production, with the hope of eliminating all petroleum use within 25 years.
.
Only a lunatic green or a greatly diminished Alzheimer’s patient could imagine this is a good plan. In Biden’s case, it is probably both. Let’s go Brandon.
SteveF (Comment #207585): “people don’t usually die from covid at home.”
.
I saw numbers on that from Minnesota, maybe early this year or late last year. Roughly 1/3 of those dying from covid were never hospitalized. The big reason probably was advance directives. It gives some insight into the degree that the Wuhan virus is mostly a risk to those near the end of their mortal run.
Mike M,
“Roughly 1/3 of those dying from covid were never hospitalized.”
.
Maybe in Minnesota (which seems to have a lot of crazy people anyway), but for sure not in the placebo controlled trials of the Pfizer antiviral. Tell me if you think otherwise. I believe we can trust those hospitalization and death numbers.
New York Times gives front page to the vehicle rampage.
In Charlottesville. A civil trial held organizers responsible.
Waukesha is on A22.
MikeN,
“Waukesha is on A22.”
.
It will very soon not be reported on at all. The MSM quickly memory-holes any news which conflicts with their crazy leftist narrative.
.
Narrative: the criminal justice system is unfair to black people, so we must not have bail requirements which might keep black suspects in jail.
.
Reality: Black males under the age of 45 have, by far, the very highest rate of violent criminal convictions of any identifiable group. Efforts to release violent offenders (be they black, Hispanic, or white!) who have long conviction records, is a formula guaranteed to injure the public, and most often those injured will be black Americans, not white. Those promoting this garbage need to be voted out of office, ASAP.
MikeN,
That is completely expected. A white man kills one person in Charlottesville while a black man kills at least 5 and seriously injures many more. The NYT will always emphasize Charlottesville over Waukesha.
DeWitt,
“The NYT will always emphasize Charlottesville over Waukesha.”
.
Sure. If I were a believer, I would say they are joined at the hip to Satan. But since I am not, I can only say they are profoundly and willfully harmful to the USA, and indeed, to all of humanity. ‘Evil’ is the only appropriate description for the NYT.
It gets a bit weird when the race of perpetrator and victims of Waukesha cannot even be ascertained when every crime is viewed through an identity lens otherwise. I’m not saying they should view this crime in that manner, only that the inconsistencies in coverage are striking to anyone paying attention.
.
I didn’t follow the Charlottesville civil liability case at all, but it seems that one stands a good chance of getting tossed on first amendment grounds unless there were direct and specific calls for violence from the leaders. The near criminalization of disfavored speech here is consistent with the ongoing cancel culture. I very much doubt there is any universal speech standard in play here that wouldn’t penalize even people in Congress for rather loose rhetoric. The process is the punishment.
They are pusuing a conspiracy charge against people who were not conspiring, and for the most part never even met each other.
Ahmaud Arbery verdict is in, although we don’t know what it is yet. Haven’t followed this one closely. From what little I know, I hope these three guys who killed him don’t walk with no penalties.
For those who may be feeling traumatized:
–Acknowledge your feelings
–Create Community
–Prioritize self-care with boundaries
–seek therapy.
[ SARC ] :p
(I’ve always preferred bourbon for life’s really rough patches, YMMV)
Whew. [Sounds like all three guys] found guilty of [] murder. That’s a relief.
And in more 2020 election news
.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/11/racine-county-sheriff-files-criminal-charges-5-6-members-wisconsin-election-commission-first-material-charges-country-wide-related-2020-election-theft/
.
The recommended charges are the same for each commissioner, and include:
.
• Misconduct in Public Office in violation of Wis. Stat. § 946.12(2) (Felony)
• Election Fraud – Election Official Assisting with Violations in violation of Wis. Stat. § 12.13(2)(b)7 (Felony)
• Party to the Crime of Election Fraud – Receive Ballot Non-Election Official in violation of Wis. Stat. § 12.13(3)(n) (Misdemeanor)
• Party to the Crime of Election Fraud – Illegal Ballot Receipt in violation of Wis. Stat. § 12.13(3)(p) (Misdemeanor)
• Party to the Crime of Election Fraud – Solicit Assistance in violation of Wis. Stat. § 12.13(3)(s) (Misdemeanor)
The reasons for the recommended charges were clearly explained during the October 28, 2021, news conference and in the supporting documentation.â€
mark,
The did seem guilty to me. But like you, I didn’t follow it much.
lucia,
Yep. I’m pleased. I’d like to think that the general takeaway from Rittenhouse and Arbery is that groups of people running down and trying to [apprehend or] kill individuals isn’t something our society will let slide – regardless of what races or politics are involved.
Ed Forbes,
.
I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for the DA to pick up the case. (AKA, ‘never going to happen’.)
.
Which is not to say there were not many irregularities in voting in Wisconsin in 2020, there were; Evers and his appointees made sure of it. They are just not going to be pursued criminally. The voters in Wisconsin can fix things if they want……. in 2022 (tossing Evers out of office) and 2024 (tossing the Dems from the White house). But they can do nothing now.
mark bofill,
“I’d like to think that the general takeaway from Rittenhouse and Arbery is that groups of people running down and trying to [apprehend or] kill individuals isn’t something our society will let slide – regardless of what races or politics are involved.”
.
I think most voters would like to think that, but certainly not the unhinged left. They see the cases as unrelated, but as in all things, they are mistaken.
.
In the Arbery case, there were some crazies who attacked and killed a completely non-threatening person. They will be in prison just about forever, as they should be. In Kenosha, there were some crazies who attacked and wanted to kill a non-threatening person. But he had a gun, so a couple of the attackers will be dead forever. What makes the cases similar is aggressive crazies instigated both attacks.
.
What makes the cases different is that Arbery didn’t have a Glock in his pocket, which is unfortunate.
Steve,
.
Agreed.
Cue President Biden:
How about a future where no one fears violence from aggressive crazies. I’d sort of prefer that myself.
mark bofill,
“Instead, we must recommit ourselves to building a future of unity and shared strength, where no one fears violence because of the color of their skin.”
.
The guy is immune to influence from reality.
.
I suggest instead that we must recommit ourselves to building a future were demented Alzheimers patients don’t become President. I really think he is so intellectually lost he just parrots what people around him tell him…. with with his socialist wife likely the worst of his puppet masters.
He’s what the voters wanted I guess.
No mean tweets…
~shrug~
Steve, the charges have been filled with the local county DA.
.
“..“ Based upon the failure of Attorney General Josh Kaul to initiate a statewide investigation, I have forwarded charging recommendations to the Racine County District Attorney’s Office for their review. The recommended charges are for Commissioners Margaret Bostelmann, Julie Glancey, Ann Jacobs, Dean Knudson, and Mark Thomsen.â€..â€
.
Local DA’s are closer to the views of the locals than state AG’s, so charges may actually move forward.
.
The AG is a Democrat, the DA is a Republican, and the county went for Trump.
marc bofill,
“No mean tweets…”.
.
Indeed, no mean tweets. All those buttons on the phone are quite confusing…. so Biden can’t tweet, mean or otherwise, except via a surrogate communist. But in spite of no mean tweets, he still promotes stupid, destructive public policies. We might describe them as Alzheimers policies.
“The AG is a Democrat, the DA is a Republican, and the county went for Trump.”
If that mattered then the charges (or not) are clearly politcal theatre rather than matter of law.
In something else I didnt understand, I read that Wisconsin redistricting will always give party controlling rural areas an advantage. Huh? Are districts not sized according to population?
Phil,
Would you provide a link to what you read? I’m not sure what they were talking about.
It could be simple gerrymandering. But rural areas are generally Republican and urban areas tend to be Democrat dominated.
[Edit: Here’s 538 talking about it. But it doesn’t help me understand the claim you’re citing.]
“ If that mattered then the charges (or not) are clearly politcal theatre rather than matter of law.â€
.
Politics is generally political theatre and law is produced by politics.
.
You must of missed the part where the charges were originally given to the Democrat AG, who refused to look at case. He made it a political issue.
Mark, I read it here:
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/nov/23/janet-bewley/bewley-wrong-legislative-maps-could-be-drawn-provi/
Couldnt make sense of it.
Ed: Only in America…
Phil Scadden,
Not sure why you can’t make sense of it. Plenty of states in the USA are in the same situation. Suppose a state has one relatively large city that is 80% democrat, and that physical region has 25% of the total state population, while the rest of the state, with 75% of the population is 52% Republican. Districts must be contiguous, so the districts drawn in the region of the large city (25% of the total) will be absolutely dominated by democrats no matter how extreme (think loony-tune like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez), while districts (75% of the total) in other areas will more likely elect moderate Republicans. So, the total number of Democrats in the state is 20% + 36% = 56%, but they are very unlikely to have a majority of the legislature. Where they can often often win is in state-wide elections: the Wisconsin state legislature is dominated by Republicans, but the governor is an unhinged lefty Democrat who won in a very close race…. mostly because Donald Trump motivated exceptionally high turnout among Democrats.
.
The other consequence of regional dominance is that regions were one party utterly dominates end up electing the most extreme candidates in primary elections (once again AOC is the classic example), while regions that are closer in split usually end up with more moderate candidates. The situation in the US Congress demonstrates the result: Absolute refusal of Democrats to even entertain compromise of their legislation with Republicans. The only compromises you see are between Democrats (a compromise between extreme left and less extreme left).
Phil,
The number of people per district is even. But there isn’t a good rule about where boundaries are. Data for voting patterns is available, so those making regions will try to draw lines to favor their party relative to the actual balance of votes in the states.
This is a hypothetical gerrymander of Illinois to wildly favor Democrats
You can see district 13 is really weird. That’s capturing all the big university campuses inside the rural areas. But other districts are also weird. (See district 9!)
Some people have tried to call for a rule that trues to impose some geographic sense into these things. Like: basically, nothing shaped like 13. We you see a lot of shapes like that, you can usually be sure it’s gerrymandard. But it can be done to a lesser degree.
The article is here:
https://www.axios.com/democrats-house-redistricting-new-york-illinois-a6b1d53a-3bf6-4d37-8d2e-7004c38700d2.html
Yeah. Figuring out what is ‘fair’ when it comes to districting can be tricky.
Well, it can be argued that the interests of the urban folk can be substantially different than the rural people. Public transportation comes to mind, but I’m sure there are other examples. So, there is some sense to representation based on geographic districts as opposed to just population. But it’s complicated and difficult to establish what is ‘fair’, at least in my view.
In practice, parties in power try to redraw lines that are favorable to them, insofar as they can get away with it. Shrug. Human nature is like that.
Happy Thanksgiving!
Phil Scadden,
SteveF is correct: the main factor is causing districting to favor Republicans is the huge concentration of Democrat voters in certain cites. The gerrymandering lucia refers to is also a factor, but less so, if only because both parties do it.
.
Elbridge Gerry was governor of Massachusetts about 200 years ago. He drew a legislative map with a ludicrous district, like the one in lucia’s map. A political cartoonist embellished it to look like a salamander and dubbed it a gerrymander. The name stuck. 🙂
MarkBofil
This is why a rule as simple as “minimize the ratio of the length of boundary to area” isn’t entirely fair. But some gerrymanders show obvious intent. If we get one like the one shown (and we may not) that clearly shows someone is drawing boundaries based to maximize something— in that example outcome for Democrats.
It’s also not as if these boundaries are related to anything like county lines, township lines, city boundaries etc, nor even simplicity of creating ballots.
I googled– it’s a 2 1/2 hour drive from Cham-bana to East St. Louis. We vote local, state and federal issues during major elections. That sort of shape means there are going to have one heck of a lot of different ballot in district 13 because they are all in different local jurisdictions! Different school board, different park district and so on and so on.
I should have added: A long boring ride between endless corn and soy fields planted on flat ground! Yes. I’ve done it.
Lucia,
Yeah. It’s been nearly a decade since I’ve driven through that area, but I remember endless fields of stuff as well. I remember the corn. I don’t think I’d recognize soy if I wrecked my car in a field of it.
Phil,
You’ll hear similar complaints every four years around the U.S. on the Federal level as well, because the electoral college gives a similar advantage to low population regions of the country. People argue that the Senate is [also] an example of this ‘problem’. It’s not really a problem though. That is and always has been the idea in this country — it’s not unchecked majority rule, by design.
Lucia,
And yes, I agree. Sometimes gerrymandering is a little obvious and extreme.
Mark:
The soy is shorter. You’d learn. 🙂
Phil: “ Ed: Only in America…â€
.
Politics is not only in America, but it is also not a dirty word as you seem to imply.
.
Politics is people talking out policy issues which includes making laws. When people stop talking, they start shooting, and this is true the world over. The failure of politics is war, either internally or externally.
Wishing a very happy Thanksgiving to all the Blackboard denizens!
mark bofill,
Soybeans are relatively unimportant in your neck of the woods…. MS and AL each produce only about $100 million per year of soybeans, but I’m still surprised you aren’t familiar with them. You can always tell it’s soybeans because the farmer leaves them in the field until the plant (an annual) dies and drops its leaves, leaving bare stalks with the bean pods hanging from the stalks. The pods are light brown and covered with bristles. When the beans are dry enough they are harvested.
.
Happy Thanksgiving to all…. We have 10 people this year… typical for us.
Thanks Steve. I googled a picture and I know now I’ve seen fields of the stuff before without realizing it was soy. It is somewhat uncommon around here I think, mostly you see corn and cotton around Huntsville. There are no *really huge* fields of anything around here (that I’m aware of anyway), just little farms dotted around.
Hmm, let me try that again.
Thanks Steve.
I googled a picture and I know now I’ve seen fields of the stuff before without realizing it was soy. It is somewhat uncommon around here I think, mostly you see corn and cotton around Huntsville. There are no *really huge* fields of anything around here (that I’m aware of anyway), just little farms dotted around.
Thanks Lucia!
Ed – politics is everywhere, but most democracies as far as I can tell also strongly separate the process of law from political interference. Politicians make the laws – and their job finishes there. Whether charges are prosecuted should depend only on whether the charges are likely proven in a court of law. Our system, and indeed most parlimentary systems are full of protections to prevent party allegiance influencing such decisions. As for politicians appointing judges…
Uhm, sure Phil. Everybody knows that the USA is a sham and that Australia’s governance is the last great hope of the West. Obviously.
Steve, the obvious districting would be dividing big cities into lots of districts and rural into large areas. You would expect rural reps to advocate for rural concerns and vice versa. I would also have expected that redistricting should aim to deliver a representation that reflects the overall voting pattern. That seems to be the missing step. Gerrymanders are feature of both parties, but it also appears that GOP are better at it for the moment.
http://www.redistrictingmajorityproject.com/
Or you could switch to a proportional voting system since we live in 21st century not 19th.
Phil,
Are you Australian, or are you a citizen of that obscure little island nation to the east / southeast of Australia? I forget the name of the place…
Mark – I am kiwi not West Islander. But I dont think there is anything much different from us to many European countries, especially on independence of legal system. Our “constitution” is basically English common law. Our MMP system is pretty much lifted direct from Germany.
Hmm.
You guys still have a monarch, is that right?
Phil,
The problem (from the Dem pov) is the “obvious” redistricting favors the Republicans. In Illinois, it divides “chicago” into a bunch of districts. Those vote….. oh… 90% DEM. Then, the rest of the state ranges from close to 50-50 to mostly GOP. So, you get a GOP balance to the state. You get more GOP state reps than DEM state reps even if the state is 50-50 split.
.
So instead of dividing Chicago into a number of districts, they snake the district out to “capture” some GOP voters from the suburbs. But if the goal is to gerrymander in favor of the Dems, you corral just enough suburban voters to keep the districts voting majority DEM. The boundary is not picked at random– you keep track and adjust the boundaries to maximize the number of DEM wins. Given flexibility, you can get it to shift so you have a higher percentage of DEM reps than the total number of people who vote DEMS.
.
Yes. The GOP often “does better”. But that’s partly just because if you did the partitioning “geographically” or “by neighborhood” and so on, you end up with all the Dems in the same voting district because there are heavily populated areas that have 90% DEM voting people (big cities). Meanwhile Republicans almost never make up that percentage. They live in the tons of 50-70% GOP districts.
Mark – I am an obscure little kiwi not a West Islander, worrying about broken systems in a nation that exerts such enormous influence. But I dont think there is anything much different from us to most European countries, especially on independence of legal system. Our “constitution” is basically English common law. Our MMP system is pretty much lifted direct from Germany.
Fair enough Phil. You might want to pay more attention to suppressing the urge to utter remarks reflecting causal contempt of that nation that exerts such enormous influence if you’d like for your views to be taken seriously by the citizens of that nation. On an important holiday of that nation. People might mistake you for a troll.
Mark, “causal contempt of a nation”? Hmm. I forget it is Thanksgiving over there but that seems a bit strong. I would say outright that I think USA international influence has been good more often than bad, but the increasing cultural wars in US at moment are frightening and, yes, I think they are showing that existing systems are not fit for purpose and perhaps US should be looking at other options. An unreflective belief that “made in USA” must be the best is dangerous. Do you really appreciate the current state of US? (aside from fact that Dems are in power). I would find that even more surprising, but I guess it should not be an outsider like me to criticize so I will butt out.
Mark, I should say that I am an out and out republican. Getting rid of the monarchy is tricky however. In first instance, there is the “if it ain’t broke, dont fix it” feeling in population, But the actual function of monarchy is done by Governor General, and process for picking GG is fraught to put it mildly.
The real barrier is Treaty of Waitangi. This agreement between Maori and the Crown of Britain and it is pretty hard to see the route to a republic without renegotiating that which so far there has been no stomach for. Another generation and it will happen I think. The thorny issue of maori sovereignty is slowly being picked through.
Lucia – I am still not really getting it. What would be the criteria for “good redistricting”? To me, it is representative government. (Seats in government reflect overall party vote). There are obviously other criteria to meet. Why are 90% Dem districts a problem? Or maybe why are GOP 50-70% districts a problem?
Phil,
The easiest response first — I couldn’t possibly care less about your monarchy. I am certainly inclined to agree with the ‘if it ain’t broke don’t fix it’ sentiment. I only mentioned it to draw your attention to the absurdity of your argument that the problem with U.S. governance is adherence to 19’th century practices.
Phil,
Well, that would make you a progressive in the US. I’m not a progressive. Many of us are not, probably most of us. I think our system has stood the test of time surprisingly well actually, and I’ve got this strange disinclination to listen seriously and carefully to the advice of someone like you who isn’t even a citizen of my country, and who doesn’t demonstrate any particular expertise regarding my country. In fact, I think your opinion on what reforms are appropriate to the US are likely of similar quality to mine regarding the reforms your country ought to make regarding the monarchy. In other words, pretty much worthless.
Fair enough Mark. As I said, I will butt out.
Phil Scadden (Comment #207630): “Whether charges are prosecuted should depend only on whether the charges are likely proven in a court of law. Our system, and indeed most parlimentary systems are full of protections to prevent party allegiance influencing such decisions. As for politicians appointing judges…”
.
So where do you get your judges and prosecutors? It seems to me, they are either elected or appointed and that politics gets involved one way or another.
No, actually I beg your pardon Phil. Maybe others here would be happy to discuss these things with you. I ought to remove myself from this conversation, since I’m the one that finds no value in it.
My apologies. Like I alluded to above, I only really jumped in because I thought you were trolling us.
Mike, I would said I would butt out, but I think I can answer this. All human interactions involve politics, I understand that, but the process here works strongly to prohibit party political considerations. While the process up to appointment by GG is convoluted, they are effectively chosen by their peers (senior barristers).
Phil
Sure. And the people who are clearly doing everything in their power to gerrymander claim that’s their goal. When the propose districts like the one in the image of Illinois above, I am dubious of their claim.
You sound like a Republican. That’s precisely what Republicans ask Democrats. And they take the existance of these districts ad “Republican gerrymanding”. 🙂
Think of this math problem:
The state has 1000 voter. 50% are democrats; 50 % republican, The sate will divide into 10 districts with a “geographic” algorithm. The implement a rule like “Minimize the ration of the the length of the countour to the area” while “having 100 peopl ein each district. In principle, a circle meets this– but you can’t really make everything circles. But you could implement this algorithm and create a map. What you’d get is district that look like “compact” geographic districtions. (None like 13 in the above map.)
But no consider the possibility that one of the districts in in a “big city” and contains 100 democrats. Then the remaining 900 voters are distributed uniformly– that is the other 9 districts are 44% Dem and 56% GOP.
.
Come the election, district 1 vote in a Democrat. Districts 2-10 vote in Republicans. The Republicans are jubulent. The Democrats are not so happy.
The Democrats complain, and the Republicans ask them exactly the question you ask. “What’s wrong with 90% or even 100% Democrat districts?” The Republican’s point out this just happens due to “geography” not “gerrymanding”.
.
For the most part, the articles you read complaining that the Republicans gerrymander “more” are complaining there is something “wrong” with 90% Democrat districts– even if those occur merely because all the Democrats live near each other.
Phi
That does not strike me as protection against partisan choices!! (At least it wouldn’t in the US!)
Mike M,
“So where do you get your judges and prosecutors? It seems to me, they are either elected or appointed and that politics gets involved one way or another.”
.
Of course, whether elected or appointed, every functionary of government is a political animal, as are we all. I think what Phil wants is ideal people (of the left, of course) in the judiciary who will then have no political prejudices. Such ideal people don’t exist of course.
.
What is not appreciated by many observers outside the States is that the difficulty of making substantitive changes in government policy is a desired feature of the US constititional design, not a flaw. Phil’s “not fit for purpose” is the kind of expression many ‘progressives’ in the states would agree with. But being ‘fit for purpose’ depends on what you believe the ‘purpose’ of government is.
.
The idea that a simple majority does not have (and must never have!) complete control is rejected by the left everywhere, because for the left there are no legitimate limitations on the will of 50%+1. It is the stuff of which foolish, destructive laws are born. In several ‘democracies’ people can now be thrown in jail for many years if they refuse to follow covid inspired behavioral rules. These are 50%+1 countries, and it shows.
.
Fortunately, the form of government in the USA will not allow that kind of crazy law to pass…. and Biden’s vaccine mandate is almost certainly DOA in the Federal courts, as it should be.
Lucia,
That was an excellent explanation of the districting issue. I’ll admit that it has occurred to me that my vote is sometimes pretty irrelevant in Alabama for the reasons you explain – Alabama is roughly 2/3’rd Republican overall (specific regions vary of course). There are times I think it’d be neat to live in a swing state.
Phil,
I think part of the difference in perspective is you live in a country with a tiny population….. 5 million is the population of three or four counties in south Florida, and Florida has 22 million total. Within Florida alone, we have a vast array of ethnicities, backgrounds and languages, and *big* disagreements about the appropriate size and scope of government. At present republicans have a few more registered voters than democrats, but in reality, republicans are likely to better democrats in nearly every state-wide election because un-aligned (independent) voters tend to vote more for republicans. Due to democrats living mainly in the biggest cities, the Florida legislature is even more heavily republican. Multiply the size of Florida by 15 (in population) and you can begin (maybe) to see how there can be profound political disagreements between different states and different regions. I am pretty sure any significant move toward 50%+1 rule would lead to armed revolution.
.
Alabama is just about identical to New Zealand in population, and Alabama is dominated by a single party, as are most lower population states. No surprise there. I think drawing comparisons between New Zealand and a large, populous, diverse country like the USA is not very informative.
Lucia – I’m with Mark at least in agreeing that was an excellent explanation of the districting problem. Thanks.
“That does not strike me as protection against partisan choices!” Possibly, but how do know what person’s political preferences are? I think it is more culture-based. There is a strong desire to keep party politics out of judiciary and so while everyone will have their likely personal political preferences, it would be a no-no to raise such things in any discussion of candidates. No human system is ideal, but aspirations count.
Steve. Point taken. The tortuous politics of the EU would be closer.
Phil,
‘aspirations count”
.
Not very much. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Phil,
The EU is a better comparison. The UK already left. I am pretty sure others will eventually follow; I am more than a little surprised the EU has lasted this long. The EU does not adequately protect the interests of minorities, and does not guarantee personal liberties. Their one-size-fits-all all-powerful bureaucracies make even US bureaucrats green with envy. The EU does serve a few good purposes: common currency, unrestricted travel, and open borders. I traveled in Europe before and after these three things, and after is much better. Everything else the EU does: uniformly horrible.
Phil Scadden (Comment #207647): “While the process up to appointment by GG is convoluted, they are effectively chosen by their peers (senior barristers).”
.
That sounds an awful lot like an aristocracy. I find the US system far superior. See below.
.
lucia (Comment #207649): “That does not strike me as protection against partisan choices!! (At least it wouldn’t in the US!)”.
.
Indeed. In the US, lawyers are overwhelmingly Democrats.
.
Ultimately, either the New Zealand system or the US system depends on the integrity of prosecutors and judges so that they put the public good ahead of party, ideology, or personal advancement. Of course, there will always be individual exceptions but as long as the norm is a widely accepted concept of the public good then either system will work.
.
But that last statement includes the reason either system can break down. It used to be that in the US there was a widely accepted set of values respected by both parties. And it used to be that politics in the judicial system was not a big problem. But now we have one party trying to tear down our traditional institutions and values and the other party trying to defend them. That conflict rears its head almost everywhere, including in the judicial system.
.
A system like New Zealand’s would simply ensure that one side could potentially completely control the judicial system, without regard for the public. No thank you.
Phil,
FWIW, I’d like to explain some of my hostility here. The quite reasonable and common sense idea you have that politics shouldn’t interfere with law, within reason / in general and as far as I can tell used to be the way things worked in this country. In my view, it’s mainly been since the advent of modern progressive activism that it has become a widespread acceptable view to openly advocate results based on the ‘politics’ of a case as opposed to the actual law. Take Joe Biden’s disapproval of the Rittenhouse acquittal; it is a prime example.
But changing our legal [or political] system isn’t the approach to the answer in my view, it’s more of a cultural crisis we are experiencing. Or a moral or philosophical one. I think.
BTW – I apologize for deliberately being rude to you earlier, I see it was unjustified, again for what little that might be worth.
People often know other people’s political views. I have a pretty good notion about the political views of my neighbors. Right wing gun-toting to the east; left to the west. Definitely Republican across the street. Not raising political views in discussing candidates hardly prevents those choosing from considering their political views. If you know people you usually have a notion of their views, and I’m sure those selecting judges have a good notion also.
.
Aspirations count to some extent. But it’s naive to think aspirations are all that protective.
.
Yep. That type of system could definitely be captured by one party. It may not have in NZ, but it definitely is vulnerable.
Mark – your cultural wars terrify me. But no need to apologize. I was out of line.
Well the process for judges is something like this from my understanding of it. Nominations “arise” from senior barristers and Solicitor General (public servant, not political appointee) works through list with AG (a government minister). AG notifies cabinet of choices (who could object) and puts them to GG for appointment. GG will then appoint unless GG has some reason to believe there is threat to constitution from such appointments and uses reserve powers to decline. Never happened.
The bottom end of process is somewhat opaque and different AGs have pushed changes to prevent an “old boys” club among judges, especially requesting a greater diversity of candidates since the 70s.
From demographics, I would guess majority of judiciary are from National Party (conservative) backgrounds but hard to tell.
Robustness to bad actors? Quite a few checks there but no system is perfect. I dont think there is any great incentive to having judges of a particular leaning to drive bad actors. That helps.
Phil Scadden,
Our public servants have drifted into being largely DEM, and often highly partisan. So this as a first step could strongly lead to more and more promotion of the politically “correct” party.
Is it ethnic/gender diversity? Or political? Because around here, “diversity” calls tend to be ethnic and gender. They don’t result in less political partisanship.
Lucia,
“Because around here, “diversity†calls tend to be ethnic and gender. They don’t result in less political partisanship.”
.
Fore sure. Those who call for “diversity” usually mean admitting/hiring/promoting people at least in part because of their physical attributes and their ethnic background, not their qualifications. Most calls for “diversity” are in large measure explicit racial discrimination, nothing more.
.
But worse, all increases in “diversity” seem to go hand-in-hand with even more focused efforts to reduce political diversity, with active discrimination against and punishment of people (of any ethnicity) who have political views which deviate, however slightly, from ‘progressive-left-socialist’ views. When political views become an important criterion for admission, hiring, firing, and promotion, even when political views are irrelevant to the task at hand, then IMO things have gone badly sideways. I think such discrimination should be illegal, and individuals should have legal standing to recover damages when they are discriminated against for their political views.
.
A fair question to ask the left today is one that was asked long ago: “Have you left no sense of decency?” As far as I can tell, they have none.