Author Archives: Dana Pico

Posted on by

Lies, damned lies, and statistics. Did Philadelphia Police lie about there being 'only' 499 murders in 2020?

On January 4, 2021, I posted the article, “Killadelphia reaches the milestone: I didn’t think they’d make it, but they did: 502 homicides in 2020.” That soon went out of date, because the Philadelphia Police Department changed the figure on their Current Crime Statistics page to 499 homicides in 2020. I couldn’t prove that they had initially reported 502 killings; it was something that I remembered, but in a truly rookie mistake, I failed to consider that the political powers that be, including Police Commissioner Danielle Outlaw — she is a political appointee of Mayor Jim Kenney (D-Philadelphia), not an officer who rose up in the ranks of the PPD, might not want that number to break 500, and the previous record of 500 set under Mayor Wilson Goode (D-Philadelphia) of the MOVE bombing fame during the crack cocaine wars of 1990.

Well, if I made that mistake, someone obviously smarter than me did not. In a Twitter thread started by Philly Crime Update, Sergeant Mark Fusetti, retired from the PPD’s Warrant Unit, wrote:

500 for the 3rd straight year is all but certain. And yes I’m counting the 499 of 2020 as 500 because it actually was

To which I replied:

When I checked https://phillypolice.com/crime-maps-stats/ on January 2, 2021, it said that there had been 502 homicides in 2020. The next day it was down to 499. Did they make a mistake and include January 1 killings, or did they move 3 homicides into 2021, so 2020 wouldn’t hit 500?

Sgt Fusetti responded:

A Deputy Comm made them change it. I’m told they were investigating him for it but he resigned for health reasons

Me again:

Not much of a surprise; I just wish I’d thought to screen capture it when it happened. The city’s shooting victims database shows three fatal shootings on January 1, 2021, times 0030, 0536 and 0538. https://data.phila.gov/visualizations/shooting-victims

A commenter styling himself Over Salted Pretzel — as though a Philly pretzel could ever have too much salt; usually they are undersalted — added:

The 2020 incident CSV file from here lists 500 criminal homicides: https://opendataphilly.org/dataset/crime-incidents

And then I got a tweet from NDJinPhilly with the screenshot I failed to get:

So, what really happened? Was the real number 502, and then someone — perhaps the Police Deputy Commissioner Sgt Fusetti mentioned — didn’t want the City of Brotherly Love to top the 1990 record, and make Mayor Kenney, District Attorney Larry Krasner, and Police Commissioner Danielle Outlaw look even worse than they already did, and ‘shifted’ the numbers in 2021, never imagining that 2021 would not only break the record, but blow it to pieces, with 562.

Or was the 499 number accurate, and someone made a misgoof and added the three homicides on New Year’s Day of 2021 into the 2020 numbers, which had to be corrected?

I don’t know the answer to that, and (probably) couldn’t prove it if I did. But whether falsification of data was involved or not, it’s too easy to believe that in the corrupt Philly government it could have happened.

As of 11:59 PM EDT on Monday, November 1st, the Philly Police have reported 447 homicides, in 305 days. That averages out to 1.4656 killings per day, or a projected 534.93 for the year. If that’s the final number, even if 499 for 2020 is accurate, the last three years will have seen 1,596 murders, or an average of 532 per year. Only Philadelphia Democrats could claim that such is a good record.

Posted on by

The Fed finally admits it: they don’t know what they are doing! Fighting Bidenflation by causing a recession

The Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors once again raises interest rates to try to fight inflation, but they’ve admitted what people who pay attention to economics already knew: the Board don’t really know what they are doing, or what effects their decisions will have. From The Wall Street Journal:

Fed Approves Fourth 0.75-Point Rate Rise, Hints at Smaller Hikes

Officials signal a possible slowdown in the pace of rate rises by acknowledging how increases influence the economy with a lag

by Nick Timiraos | All Soul’s Day, November 2, 2022 | 2:31 PM EDT

WASHINGTON—The Federal Reserve lifted interest rates by 0.75 percentage point to combat inflation and signaled plans to keep raising them, though possibly in smaller increments.

Members of the Fed’s rate-setting committee acknowledged Wednesday that it could take time for their rate increases this year to be reflected in the economy, and they indicated they might reduce the size of coming hikes. “In determining the pace of future increases in the target range, the committee will take into account the cumulative tightening of monetary policy, the lags with which monetary policy affects economic activity and inflation,” they said in a statement released at the conclusion of their two-day meeting.

Fed Chairman Jerome Powell, at a news conference Wednesday, said officials could consider approving a smaller 0.5-percentage-point increase in December or January, but they had made no decision yet. He added, however, “The question of when to moderate the pace of increases is now much less important than the question of how high to raise rates and how long to keep monetary policy restrictive.”

Officials are boosting interest rates at the fastest pace since the early 1980s to reduce inflation that is running near a 40-year high. They have raised rates by 0.75 point at four consecutive meetings, with the latest one taking the central bank’s benchmark federal-funds to a range between 3.75% and 4%.

If the Board of Governors recognize that it takes time for their increases to do what they project will happen, why go for such large increases? Stock prices fell following release of the interest rate hike, even though the 75 basis point increase had been widely anticipated. Had the Fed increased the rate by only 50 basis points, stocks would almost certainly have risen, which would lift the value of the retirement accounts for most people. As it is, the Fed made retirees and those close to retirement age poorer, at least on paper.

Thirty-year fixed mortgage rates topped 7% last week, as Freddie Mac reported the average was 7.08%, rising from 6.94% the previous week. The last time rates were above 7.00% was in April of 2002. At this point in 2021, the average rate was 3.14%.[1]As I previously noted, we bought a house last December, which was negotiated in November, and the interest rate would have been 2.75%. However, since we weren’t going to be living in the house … Continue reading So, while the increase in home prices has moderated, the cost of buying a house is increasing due to the interest rate hikes.

The Fed wants to rein in inflation, but do so without causing a steep recession. Yet the Board of Governors keeps making 75 basis point increases — four in a row now — when they admit that they do not know exactly what the effects on the economy will be and that we won’t be able to see, or measure, them for a year.

The last time inflation was at the rates we have seen for the last year was during Jimmy Carter’s stagflation of the late 1970s into 1980. Inflation was beaten then the hard way: with a steep and painful recession in 1981-82. And that’s what will happen again, regardless of what the Fed tries to do.

References

References
↑1 As I previously noted, we bought a house last December, which was negotiated in November, and the interest rate would have been 2.75%. However, since we weren’t going to be living in the house — it’s rental property for my sister-in-law — the rate became 3.75%.
Posted on by

Killadelphia: If your refuse to define the problem, then you can never find the solution!

I noted yesterday that the homicide problem in Philadelphia is not one of too few police, or even a ‘progressive’ District Attorney, but a problem of culture, in which some idiot thought that the best way to handle an argument was to just shoot the guy. Yeah, he “won” the argument, I suppose, but if he’s caught he might just spend the rest of his miserable life behind bars. The idiot who ‘settled’ his argument on Hallowe’en by shooting another man in the chest could, under Pennsylvania Title 18 §2502 be charged with Murder of the first degree, though third degree seems more probable. First degree murder is punishable by life in prison without the possibility of parole, or even a death sentence, though District Attorney Larry Krasner refuses to pursue capital sentences, while third degree murder, a first degree felony in the Keystone State, carries a sentence of ten to twenty years in prison.

So, about what were the two men arguing that is somehow worth ten to twenty years in the state penitentiary? Was the one man blocking access to the street as he was helping a lady move from the 2500 block of Carroll Street? Did the two men have a previous beef with each other?

The Philadelphia Shootings Victims Database details, in an awkward format, the people shot and killed in the City of Brotherly Love. There are times that I wonder if that awkwardness is deliberate, because you have to import the .csv file, and open it in Microsoft Excel, alter some of the column widths, and then hide data columns which are mostly meaningless. The data column for whether the victim is Latino or not is stupidly placed, and the fatality column is at the far right hand side. Someone more easily frustrated than me would have given up!

But one thing is obvious: the cultural problems which have led to the huge murder rate in Philly are not evenly spread among the residents of the city. The 2020 census as reported by The Philadelphia Inquirer shows just 38.3% of city residents as being non-Hispanic black, and in the October shootings chart above, all but one of the Latino victims listed are listed as white Latino, not black Latino. Black male Philadelphians have been the victims of shootings in 61.31% of the cases, and overall blacks have been the victims in 72.36% of shootings.

Non-Hispanic whites have been the victims in ‘only’ 5.53% of the cases in October, despite being 34.3% of the city’s population. There were no reported incidents of Asians being shot.

The shootings database reported 199 people shot in Philly in October of 2022; the same database, if you scroll farther down, shows 181 reported shooting victims for October of 2021. As we have previously noted, the number of homicides is slightly lower this year as opposed to last, but with the number of shootings being 9.94% higher in October alone, and 2.45% (2004 this year vis a vis 1954 through October in 2021) higher than 2021, I see that attempted murders — and I count every shooting as an attempted murder — have increased. The Philadelphia Police Department’s scoop-and-scoot policy of taking victims directly to the ER rather than waiting for an ambulance, even more experience in dealing with shooting victims by the hospitals’ emergency staff, and perhaps even lower shooting accuracy by the gang-bangers “cliques of young men affiliated with certain neighborhoods and families,”[1]We were reliably informed by The Philadelphia Inquirer that there are no gangs in the city, just “cliques of young men affiliated with certain neighborhoods and families,” who sometimes … Continue reading blasting away at their rivals.

The city’s elected leadership want to blame guns, as does the Inquirer and practically every other group around. But, last time I checked, guns were completely inanimate objects, and didn’t care who held them or carried them or owned them. If the problem was guns, we ought to see the shootings and killings rates closely match the demographic percentages in the city, and we should see the homicide rates in Philly fairly similar to the rates throughout Pennsylvania; we don’t.[2]As we have reported previously, Pennsylvania’s firearms control laws are pretty much uniform across the Commonwealth; state law prohibits municipalities from imposing restrictions which are … Continue reading

No one will address the real numbers, and no one will conclude that yes, this is primarily a cultural problem among the black and Hispanic communities of Philadelphia, because that would be raaaaacist.[3]The Editorial Board of The Philadelphia Inquirer managed to admit that people’s race determined how safe they feel, but had a not-so-subtle undertone that white people make places safer. I will … Continue reading I can say it because I’m retired, have no job from which I can be canceled, and no employer who can somehow be punished. But if the problem of homicides in our cities — more cities than just Philadelphia — cannot be honestly recognized for what it is, then that problem can never be addressed, never be solved.

References

References
↑1 We were reliably informed by The Philadelphia Inquirer that there are no gangs in the city, just “cliques of young men affiliated with certain neighborhoods and families,” who sometimes had “beefs” with other cliques, so we must replace the term “gang-bangers” with “cliques of young men” or “clique beefers”. District Attorney Larry Krasner and his office seem to prefer the term “rival street groups“
↑2 As we have reported previously, Pennsylvania’s firearms control laws are pretty much uniform across the Commonwealth; state law prohibits municipalities from imposing restrictions which are stricter than those provided for under state law. In 2020, there were 1,009 murders in the Keystone State, 499, or 49.45%, of which occurred in Philadelphia. According to the 2020 Census, Pennsylvania’s population was 13,002,700 while Philadelphia’s alone was 1,603,797, just 12.33% of Pennsylvania’s totals.

It got worse last year: with 562 homicides in Philly, out of 1027 total for Pennsylvania, 54.72% of all homicides in the Keystone State occurred in Philadelphia. Allegheny County, where Pittsburgh is located, was second, with 123 killings, 11.98% of the state’s total, but only 9.52% of Pennsylvania’s population.

The other 65 counties, with 78.11% of the state’s total population, had 33.30% of total murders.

↑3 The Editorial Board of The Philadelphia Inquirer managed to admit that people’s race determined how safe they feel, but had a not-so-subtle undertone that white people make places safer. I will confess to having thought that the Editorial Board were less concerned about how unsafe ‘black and brown’ Philadelphians feel than they were that white people felt too safe.
Posted on by

Killadelphia: the problem is the culture!

I suppose I wrote too soon! I noted yesterday morning that Philadelphia was seeing a real and noticeable decrease in the murder rate, with ‘just’ 441 people murdered through 11:59 PM EDT on October 30th. Sadly, Hallowe’en turned out to be deadly:

3 people killed in separate Philly shootings

A 27-year-old man was fatally wounded in a triple shooting around 8:15 p.m. in North Philadelphia that left two other victims in critical condition.

by Robert Moran | Hallowe’en, October 31, 2022

Three men were killed in separate shootings Monday evening in Philadelphia, police said.

Around 8:15 p.m. in North Philadelphia, three people were shot outside on the 200 block of West Ontario Street by an unknown attacker, police said.

A 27-year-old man shot multiple times in the body was transported by medics to Temple University Hospital, where he was pronounced dead at 8:45 p.m.

A 26-year-old man shot five times in the body was taken by police to Temple and was listed in extremely critical condition.

There’s more at the original, but the number killed is not three; as both Steve Keeley of Fox 29 News and the Philadelphia Police Department report, there were four murders on Hallowe’en night, bring the total dead to 445 for the year.

We’re far enough into the year, 304 days, that four killings yesterday moves the averages just a little. From 1.4554 per day, and a projected 531.2376 as of yesterday, the City of Brotherly Love is up to 1.4638 murders per day, which works out to 534.2928 projected homicides for 2022. I’m tempted to say, big deal, so what, just three more killings, right? It’s not like anyone really seems to care!

Just before 5:45 p.m. in Southwest Philadelphia, a 47-year-old man was cleaning out a building on the 2500 block of Carroll Street when he was shot once in the chest by an unknown assailant, police said. The man, whose name was not released, was pronounced dead at the scene by medics.

NBC10 reported that the man, who lived in Darby, was working as a mover to help a woman. An argument erupted between the victim and an unidentified man before the fatal shooting.

I have to wonder: about what did someone argue with a man, not from the neighborhood, helping a lady move argue that was worth pulling a gun and killing him, and risking going to jail for the rest of his miserable life?

Kitchen in 2639 Carroll Street. Click to enlarge.

Carroll Street is not the worst neighborhood in Philly, but it’s hardly the best: a look through Google Maps shows a street of typical rowhomes, which have the look or some lower-end remodeling by one contractor sometime a couple of decades ago, fixing porch facias and second-story bay windows. SEveral of the homes show what were old porches now enclosed to create additional inside space. A rowhome at 2605 Carroll Street is listed as being a three-bedroom, one bathroom, 960 ft² home for sale for $180,000, and the photos show an interior which looks like a typical lower-priced flip: grey laminate floors, new paint and appliances throughout. Just down the street, at 2639 Carroll Street, is another rowhome being flipped, though the flipper put less money into it, for $125,000. Before the flipper got to it, the home sold for just $47,000 on July 22, 2020.

Maybe the orange kitchen cabinets aren’t helping get the place sold? 🙂

This is a cultural issue in Philadelphia. For whatever reason, the shooter felt the need, or the desire, to walk down Carroll Street while carrying a firearm. Then, for whatever reason they argued, the armed man thought it was serious enough to pull out his weapon and shoot the victim in the chest. Apparently little enough thought was given to just saying, “F(ornicate) you!” and walking away.

The Philadelphia Police Department is shorty hundreds of officers, but adding hundreds of police officers won’t solve the problem. More police officers might help in catching the bad guys who’ve already shot or killed someone, and perhaps, if ‘progressive’ District Attorney Larry Krasner could change his mind and start prosecuting criminals seriously, perhaps a few shootings and killings could be prevented by having the bad guys already locked up.

The problem is a culture, an attitude, a mindset that tells people that attempting to kill other people is a great solution to whatever problems they believe they have. The problem is an attitude that being a tough gang-banger is a real status symbol, proves your manhood, and is someone young girls want to f(ornicate). And the problem is a culture and an attitude that tells people it’s perfectly acceptable to use drugs, which creates the drug dealers who are responsible for much of the violence.

Posted on by

Neocon off the deep end!

As we have previously noted, the old ‘neo-conservatives‘ turned #NeverTrumpers like Bill Kristol, Max Boot, and Jennifer Rubin have shown themselves to be very much on the political left in the United States, moved to the Democrats due to their #TrumpDerangementSyndrome.

Crime has shown up as one of the major issues in the upcoming election, so naturally Mrs Rubin has made a silly claim trying to blame Republicans for crime, due to the rather odd attack on Paul Pelosi, husband of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, by a Canadian nudist hippie who somehow has morphed into an evil reich-wing extremist.

The tweet to the left is actually a screen capture; when someone like Mrs Rubin tweets something dumb — which is fairly frequently — I always assume that she might decide to delete it, but, alas! the internet is forever when there are [insert plural slang term for the anus here] like me around.

As we have reported previously, Pennsylvania’s firearms control laws are pretty much uniform across the Commonwealth; state law prohibits municipalities from imposing restrictions which are stricter than those provided for under state law. In 2020, there were 1,009 murders in the Keystone State, 499, or 49.45%, of which occurred in Philadelphia. According to the 2020 Census, Pennsylvania’s population was 13,002,700 while Philadelphia’s alone was 1,603,797, just 12.33% of Pennsylvania’s totals.

It got worse last year: with 562 homicides in Philly, out of 1027 total for Pennsylvania, 54.72% of all homicides in the Keystone State occurred in Philadelphia. Allegheny County, where Pittsburgh is located, was second, with 123 killings, 11.98% of the state’s total, but only 9.52% of Pennsylvania’s population.

The other 65 counties, with 78.11% of the state’s total population, had 33.30% of total murders.

Also see: Robert Stacy McCain: Dana Pico Schools Jen Rubin (But Trump Derangement Syndrome Is Incurable)

In 2020, Philadelphians gave 81.44% of their votes to Joe Biden. The Mayor, Jim Kenney, is a Democrat, as have been every Mayor since Harry Truman was President. The George Soros-sponsored District Attorney, let ’em loose Larry Krasner, is a Democrat, and won re-election in 2021, by a landslide. Philadelphia is by every possible measure, a heavily Democratic city.

It’s more than that. Those 65 counties other than Philadelphia and Allegheny? They gave 54.98% of their two-party votes — meaning: third party candidates excluded — to President Trump! It seems as though those evil, reich-wing Republicans whom Mrs Rubin claims are “inciting violence” are inciting it in heavily Democratic areas!

I’m far less familiar with our other murder capitals, like Baltimore (87.28% of vote in Baltimore City to Mr Biden) and St Louis (80.85% of vote in St Louis city to Mr Biden) and New Orleans (83.15% of Orleans Parish to Mr Biden) and Chicago (74.35% of vote in Cook County to Mr Biden), but it seems like most them are not exactly Republican strongholds.

It’s clear: Mrs Rubin somehow sees the assault on Mr Pelosi as somehow a far, far, far worse thing than the 441 murders in Philadelphia so far this year, or the 562 who were killed in 2021. I suppose I can only fault her partially for that, because that’s pretty much the way the Democrats as a whole see things.

 

Posted on by

If a private business did its accounting the way the Fed does, in which federal prison would the business’ chief financial officer serve his sentence?

While you sometimes see decent stories on economics in The New York Times and The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal is really the place to go.

Higher Interest Rates Fuel Losses at the Federal Reserve

The central bank is now paying out more in interest expenses than it earns in interest income

by Nick Timiraos | Hallowe’en, October 31, 2022 | 5:30 AM EDT

The Federal Reserve’s aggressive interest-rate rises to fight inflation are leading the central bank to do something it has never consistently done before: lose money.

The central bank’s operating losses have increased in recent weeks because the interest it is paying banks and money-market funds to keep money at the Fed now exceeds the income it earns on some $8.3 trillion in Treasury and mortgage-backed securities it accumulated during bond-buying stimulus programs over the past 14 years.

The paywall hits right here; aren’t you glad you have a writer shelling out his hard-earned money to subscribe for you?

Of course, that $8.3 trillion in Treasury and mortgage-backed securities it accumulated were accumulated via ‘quantitative easing,’ in which the Fed spent money it didn’t actually have, but, with no one to bounce the ‘checks’ — not that checks are written anymore; it’s all done with electronic funds transfers — the money was just ‘created.’

The losses don’t interfere with the Fed’s ability to conduct monetary policy, and they follow years in which the central bank earned profits of around $100 billion, which it sent to the U.S. Treasury. Those remittances reduced federal deficits, and as they end, the federal government could face marginally higher borrowing needs.

If the Fed runs sustained losses, it won’t have to turn to Congress, hat in hand. Instead, it will simply create an IOU on its balance sheet called a deferred asset. When the Fed runs a surplus again in future years, it would first pay off the IOU before sending surpluses to the Treasury.

And there you have it: unlike regular banks, which would have to borrow money from someone else, incur a real liability that they’d hope to be able to pay off in the future, our central bank simply creates “a deferred asset,” something that you or I or commercial banks can’t just do. If a If for some reason the Fed didn’t run a surplus again, the deferred assets would simply be deferred longer.

In accounting for real people, a deferred asset is something very different:

A deferred asset is an expenditure that is made in advance and has not yet been consumed. It arises from one of the following two situations:

  • Short Consumption Period: The expenditure is made in advance, and the item purchased is expected to be consumed within a few months. This deferred asset is recorded as a prepaid expense, so it initially appears in the balance sheet as a current asset.
  • Long Consumption Period: The expenditure is made in advance, and the item purchased is not expected to be fully consumed until a large number of reporting periods have passed. In this case, the deferred asset is more likely to be recorded as a long-term asset in the balance sheet.

In other words, a deferred asset in the real world is something completely opposite of what the Fed could do. In the real world, a deferred asset is created when an individual or business spends money it already has for something before that something is actually acquired. What the Fed would do is claim that money that it is spending that it does not have is an asset it will have in the future. A private business could take out a loan, based on anticipated future revenues, but to simply declare that the asset is there just doesn’t work.

If a private business did that, the Chief Financial Officer would go to jail.

The arrangement is akin to an institution facing a 100% tax rate and offsetting current losses with future income, said Seth Carpenter, chief global economist at Morgan Stanley.

The losses stem from some obscure monetary plumbing. The Fed’s $8.7 trillion asset portfolio is full of mostly interest-bearing assets—Treasury and mortgage securities—with an average yield of 2.3%. On the other side of the ledger—the liability side of the Fed’s balance sheet—are bank deposits held at the Fed known as reserves and overnight loans called reverse-repurchase agreements.

Before the 2008 financial crisis, the Fed kept its portfolio relatively small, at less than $1 trillion. Its main liability was the amount of currency in circulation. The Fed shifted reserves up and down in incremental amounts if it wanted to lower or raise short-term interest rates.

After the crisis, the Fed cut interest rates to zero and purchased large quantities of bonds to provide additional economic stimulus. Those purchases flooded the banking system with reserves. To maintain control over interest rates with a larger balance sheet, the Fed revamped the way it manages rates. The new system, which was already in use by many other central banks, controlled short-term rates by paying interest on bank reserves.

For the past decade, relatively low short-term interest rates meant the Fed earned more on its securities than it paid out as interest on reserves or other overnight loans. After covering its expenses, the Fed last year handed back about $107 billion to the government.

Did you understand all of that? Well, the WSJ commenters were almost all laughing at the article, with at least one CPA noting that this was the way to jail for a private corporation.

The United States gets away with this because the dollar is the world’s reserve currency, and our debts are all denominated in dollars. Five American territories and eleven independent nations use the dollar as their official currency. We can always pay our debts, because we control our own currency, and the ‘checks’ are all written on a ‘bank’ that doesn’t bounce them. But I’m old enough to remember when OPEC floated the trial balloon of requiring payment in euros rather than dollars, and the panic concern to which that led. In one way, the entire world’s economic system is being propped up by the United States Federal Reserve. But if we keep up with the acco9unting tricks, that could change.

Posted on by

Killadelphia: the numbers are slightly better!

I had previously speculated that it was possible that the City of Brotherly Love would have fewer homicides this year than last. The reason was simple: at the end of the Labor Day holiday weekend in 2021, the city was on a path fort 532 homicides, but then saw a huge spike in the rate of killings, and finished the year with 562 people pouring out their life’s blood in the city’s mean streets.

It’s Hallowe’en, almost two months past the Labor Day weekend, almost half of the way to the end of the year, and city homicides have fallen by 3.71%. At the current rate of murders, 1.4554 per day, Philly is on a pace for 531.2376 homicides, a horrible number, easily second-place all time, but still 31 fewer people killed than last year.

But if the numbers have improved slightly over last year, the city has still already reached 6th place on the all-time list, with 62 days left in the year. It should only be a few more days until Mayor Jim Kenney, District Attorney Larry Krasner, and Police Commissioner Danielle Outlaw top the high under former Mayor Frank Rizzo, and get into Mayor Wilson Goode — he of the MOVE bombing fame — territory. Given that Philly’s top three still have another year in office together, they could actually hold first, second, and third place, gold, silver, and bronze, when Mr Kenney, and I have to presume, Commissioner Outlaw, leave office at the end of 2024.

Posted on by

Fear is the mind-killer

Thanks to a tweet from William Teach, I found this article from Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker:

Put your masks back on, please

By Kathleen Parker | Friday, October 28, 2022 | 4:43 PM EDT

CAMDEN, S.C. — There is a tradition in my family of retreating to the woods when illness strikes.

One of my Revolutionary War forefathers, Tarleton Brown of Barnwell, S.C., had to abandon the siege of Augusta in 1781 when he contracted smallpox and returned home, such as it was.

The British, alas, had preceded him, reducing his family’s home to ash and leaving both his father and little brother dead. His mother and sister miraculously escaped both the king’s army and “the Indians,” as he put it in his 1862 memoir, “Memoirs of Tarleton Brown: A Captain of the Revolutionary Army” — a 28-page pamphlet published in New York and “Written by Himself.”

Now, why put it that way? “(T)he Indians” was the only part Miss Parker quoted directly, so she could have, if she doesn’t like the term “Indians”, used native Americans or indigenous Americans. Instead, she threw shade on a colonial American, one of her ancestors and a brave revolutionary soldier who risked his own life fighting for our independence, for using the term almost universally used in his time and culture.

Skipping over several paragraphs in which Miss Parker told us about what she called “The Covid Cottage,” an in-the-woods hut in which some of her family and she isolated when positive with the virus, she got to the parts I find important:

We’re not by a long shot. Despite our best efforts to thwart the virus that leads to covid — and despite my own adherence to best practices — it got me again.

That’s two vaccinations, two boosters, and now, two covids — appropriate for a Libra, I suppose.

If Miss Parker adhered to “best practices,” I assume that she was masked as well at the “packed art gallery” in which she believes she contracted the virus. Yet, with all of that, she still got the virus! Which leads me to ask: why does she believe that we should all mask up again, since her own “adherence to best practices” did not prevent her from contracting the virus again?

Her most telling line was:

But I’ll tell you what’s everywhere — covid-19, and it smells your fear.

Yup, she told the truth: she’s haunted by fear. But if the SARS-CoV-2 virus “smells (our) fear,” then the way to avoid it is to not be afraid of it! 🙂

I have no complaint about her article, in that she is asking people to start wearing masks again, rather than demanding that the government impose mask mandates; asking people to do something is very well within her freedom of speech and of the press. But while I agree with the sensible precautions of getting vaccinated, I will not succumb to mindless, mind-killing fear.

Posted on by

Brynn Tannehill and the American left love them some freedom of speech and of the press . . . for themselves. For conservatives? Not so much!

I will admit it: I had not heard of Brynn Tannehill before seeing this tweet from my good Twitter friend Robert Stacy McCain. Now I don’t know what Mr McCain tweeted to her that she found blockworthy — though blockworthy seems to have a pretty low threshold among many on the left — but, as I frequently do when I see something like that, I checked out the blocking author.

It didn’t take too much scrolling down to find this tweet in Miss Tannehill’s file. She is exercising her freedom of speech and of the press to tell us why other people ought not to have the same rights. That is, sadly, far too typical of the American left!

Why Elon Musk’s Idea of “Free Speech” Will Help Ruin America

Twitter without content moderation—and with Donald Trump and others reinvited—means that lies and disinformation will overwhelm the truth and the fascists will take over.

by Brynn Tannehill | Wednesday, October 26, 2022

After months of legal wrangling, Elon Musk’s bid to buy Twitter appears to be finally going through. Musk and the right see this as a great thing because it will restore “free speech” to Twitter. Any suggestion that the sort of “free speech” they envision can have highly undesirable consequences is met with howls of “Libs hate free speech” or other accusations of fascism. Similarly, warnings that unfettered free speech results in dangerous misinformation spreading are derided with “Sunlight is the best disinfectant” and the libertarian belief that in the marketplace of ideas, the best will always win out.

These theories will be tested quickly. It is being reported that after the sale is finalized, Musk plans on laying off nearly three-quarters of Twitter’s staff and that one of the first things to go will be any corporate attempt at content moderation and user security. Musk also plans on restoring the accounts of high-profile sources of disinformation and violent messaging who were previously banned, most notably former President Trump.

Well, of course it’s all about Donald Trump, who has been living rent-free in the heads of the left since before he was elected, and still now, after he’s been out of office for 21 months. We have often noted how some of the major organs of the credentialed media, including those who have so vigorously defended their own freedom of speech and of the press, have advocated censoring other people’s freedom of speech and of the press, all as the left scram that evil reich-wing Republicans are the fascists! That Miss Tannehill has previously accused Republicans of wanting to ban books only makes it more hypocritical, and more humorous.

OK, at this point, 9:41 PM EDT on Friday, October 28th, I need to make a serious correction. When I originally wrote this article, I made a huge, huge error: I failed to check the author’s biography, and did something silly like use the feminine honorifics and pronouns. Commenter 370H55V I/ME/MINE notified me of the error, and now I need to correct it. It turns out that Bryan Tannehill was a 1997 graduate of the United States Naval Academy, and began to ‘transition’ in 2010. I left the above part of my article in place, as written, but shall now correct the rest of it.

The pro-Musk arguments are complete nonsense, and there are innumerable historical and modern examples of why social media platforms with nearly unlimited freedom of speech produce horrors. The Supreme Court decided free speech isn’t absolute long ago, when Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes noted that you can’t shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater, for obvious reasons.

As happens so often among the anti-free speech crowd, Miss Mr Tannehill wholly missed the point. From Schneck v United States, 249 US 47 (1919), internal citations omitted:

But it is said, suppose that that was the tendency of this circular, it is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. Two of the strongest expressions are said to be quoted respectively from well-known public men. It well may be that the prohibition of laws abridging the freedom of speech is not confined to previous restraints, although to prevent them may have been the main purpose, as intimated in Patterson v. Colorado. We admit that in many places and in ordinary times the defendants in saying all that was said in the circular would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. Aikens v. Wisconsin. The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force. Gompers v. Buck’s Stove & Range Co. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.

The entire opinion is short, and can be easily read in just a couple of minutes, but what Miss Mr Tannehill and others have so often forgotten is that while Associate Justice Holmes — he was never Chief Justice of the United States, as Miss Mr Tannehill claimed, though he was once Chief Justice of the Massachusetts state Supreme Court — said that the First Amendment does not protect a man from the consequences of shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater and causing a panic and, presumably, a stampede for the exits, he never stated that the worry that someone might do such, without solid information about a specific, real, and credible threat justifies the law disallowing him from entering a theater in the first place. Miss Mr Tannehill and the like-minded left are basing their desire to shut down access to the most important organs of free speech these days to those they fear might shout “Fire!” in that crowded theater.

First, freedom of speech has caused untold death and suffering when used to disseminate hate or spread disinformation. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was a fabricated antisemitic text that purported to expose a global baby-murdering Jewish plot bent on world domination. Mein Kampf was Hitler’s autobiography, which blamed Germany’s post–World War I woes on a global Jewish conspiracy. Both were readily available in the Weimar Republic, which had no First Amendment per se but guaranteed freedom of speech. They were key contributors to the fall of German democracy, the rise of the Third Reich, and the Holocaust itself.

Godwin’s law, also known as Godwin’s rule of Hitler analogies, “is a statement maintaining that if any online discussion continues long enough, someone will almost certainly compare someone else to Hitler. Typically, the comment likens someone to Hitler or calls that person a Nazi, and the individual described in that way is often a participant in the discussion. The law is thought to apply to conversations about any conceivable topic.” Miss Mr Tannehill leapt to that in just four paragraphs!

In modern times, lack of moderation on social media sites has repeatedly contributed to mass murder. The Christchurch, New Zealand, shooter killed 51 Muslims at two mosques after being radicalized on YouTube, 4Chan, and 8Chan. The shooter who killed 11 Jews at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh had been radicalized on the social media site Gab, which advertised itself as the “free speech” alternative to Twitter. Dylann Roof killed nine people at the historically Black Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina, in 2015, after he self-radicalized online. Investigations revealed that Google searches steered him further and further into extremist propaganda and hate.

Conservatives might just as well have stated that the free dissemination of the unfortunate death of George Floyd during a legitimate arrest helped lead to 2020’s summer of hate riots under Antifa and #BlackLivesMatter, though I suspect that Miss Mr Tannehill might disagree with that. If the freedom of speech and of the press are to be restricted because they might lead to harm, it has to be remembered: the speech that will be limited depends upon who is doing the limiting. Had President Trump been the horrible fascist that the left told us he was, he might have just suppressed the freedom of speech and of the press of the left. Oddly enough, the proposal for having Nina Jankowicz to lead a Ministry of Truth “Disinformation Governance Board” under the Department of Fatherland Homeland Security never occurred under President Trump; that was a (quickly trashed) idea of the Biden Administration. Washington Post writer Taylor Lorenz was aghast that it had been torpedoed:

But within hours of news of her appointment, Jankowicz was thrust into the spotlight by the very forces she dedicated her career to combating. The board itself and DHS received criticism for both its somewhat ominous name and scant details of specific mission (Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said it “could have done a better job of communicating what it is and what it isn’t”), but Jankowicz was on the receiving end of the harshest attacks, with her role mischaracterized as she became a primary target on the right-wing Internet. She has been subject to an unrelenting barrage of harassment and abuse while unchecked misrepresentations of her work continue to go viral.

Of course, Miss Lorenz being appalled that the “Disinformation Governance Board” was a flopped idea, was somewhat hypocritical, given that Miss Lorenz had been most recently famous for her investigation and doxing of Chaya Raichik, a Brooklyn-based real estate saleswoman and creator of the Twitter site that the left hate, Libs of TikTok. Freedom of speech is for the left, not the right.

There’s a lot more at Miss Mr Tannehill’s original, trying to tell us all about the horrors that freedom of speech has caused, and telling us that the “libertarian fairy tale” of the “free market of ideas”, that “truth will inevitably conquer demonstrably false narratives” but then she he concludes with a strange paragraph:

As far as the free market goes, people forget that the usual result of completely unregulated markets is monopolies. Ideas within social media are no different. “Free speech” competitors to Twitter such as Gab, Parler, Truth Social, and GETTR (which exert little to no moderation) are uniformly conservative monocultures full of the worst kinds of misinformation and hate outside of 4Chan and Kiwifarms. Parler’s former CEO has begged liberals to join the site and even offered people $20,000 to do so, without any success. Musk himself has made it clear that he plans to follow down the path of Parler and Truth Social, posting a meme of himself, Donald Trump (owner of Truth Social), and Ye (formerly Kanye West and now owner of Parler) as the Three Musketeers.

It’s also true that Gab and Parler and the rest are simply not very large; begun to compete with Twitter, they can’t hold a candle to Twitter’s success. However good or bad they are, they are not winners in the competition for customers. Liberal Twitter has been winning, in part because conservatives like Mr McCain, and me, have been using Twitter because it allows a far more widespread dissemination of what we want to say.

The problem with the oh-so-noble left is that they just can’t handle the truth! Allowing, gasp! conservatives to speak freely on Twitter might just challenge the left’s thinking, and that simply cannot be allowed.