Posted on by

Fear is the career killer

A libertarian styling herself Freckled Liberty on Twitter has been adamantly opposed to taking the COVID-19 vaccine, and mocking, daily, Joe Biden’s statement, “We are looking at a winter of severe illness and death for the unvaccinated — for themselves, their families and the hospitals they’ll soon overwhelm.” She has been counting down, every day, ‘day 88 of unmasked and unvaxxed “winter of severe illness and death’: still not vaxxed, still not masked, still not ill, still not dead. 💃🏼”

Now it seems that her friends and family won’t attend her wedding ceremony, because they’re just too scared. If her friends and family are vaccinated, and can obviously choose to wear N95 masks if they feel the need, there’s just no need to be fearful, but after almost two years of fear messaging, it seems that a lot of people have internalized it. From The New York Times:

    As Offices Open and Mask Mandates Drop, Some Anxieties Set In

    Using local guidelines, many companies are loosening Covid safety rules, leaving workers to navigate masking and social distancing on their own.

    By Emma Goldberg and Lananh Nguyen | Friday, March 18, 2022

    Employers are embracing a workplace atmosphere reminiscent of prepandemic times — elevators jammed, snack tables brimming, face coverings optional — even as a new subvariant of the Omicron coronavirus spurs concerns about health and safety. Across the country, office occupancy has hit a pandemic high, 40 percent, reached just once before in early December, at the same time that indoor mask mandates drop.

    Also see: William Teach: NY Times Is Super Excited By Things We’ll Keep In Post Pandemic Life

    After several false starts in calling workers back, company leaders now seem eager to press forward. A flurry of return-to-office plans have rolled out in recent weeks, with businesses including American Express, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and Microsoft calling some workers back to their desks. Many of those companies followed state and local governments in easing Covid-19 restrictions, arguing that ending mask mandates could make workplaces more pleasant. But some workers, especially those with compromised immunity or unvaccinated children, feel uncomfortable with the rush back to open floor plans.

    “Masks have created a real psychological barrier to getting back to office culture,” said Kathryn Wylde, head of the Partnership for New York City, a business group. “As long as things are going in a positive direction with Covid, I think the relaxation of mandates will work for the vast majority of people. As soon as we see a reversal, I think we’ve got trouble.”

    The Partnership’s January survey of New York City employers found that 38 percent expected to have more than half of their workers back in the office on an average weekday by late March. As employees come back, they’re facing a patchwork of Covid safety protocols. Just one-quarter of U.S. workers are covered by vaccine mandates in the workplace, according to Gallup data from last month.

    This has left many workers to navigate masking on their own, making Covid safety measures a matter of office etiquette rather than protocol. Some have negotiated new remote work arrangements with their bosses as rules have eased, or even left their companies in search of jobs at workplaces that made them feel safer.

It would seem obvious: if a worker is afraid that he will contract the virus, he can voluntarily get vaccinated, as most people are, for free, and he can continue to wear a face mask, even an N-95 mask.

That palpable fear seems almost measurable, given that 38% of NYC employers anticipate having more than half of their office workers at heir desks by the end of March, when that number should be 100% anticipate having 100% of their workers back. If, as the Times stated, just a quarter of workers were covered by vaccine mandates on their jobs, such still doesn’t mean that most workers aren’t vaccinated. From USA Facts:

  • In New York (state), 17,370,136 people or 89% of the state has received at least one dose.
  • Overall, 14,759,477 people or 76% of New York’s population are considered fully vaccinated.
  • Additionally, 6,556,874 people or 34% of New York’s population have received a booster dose.

From the more sensible New York Post:

    When it comes to masking, New Yorkers still choose fear over facts

    By Heather Mac Donald | Saturday, March 19, 2022 | 8:08 AM EDT | Updated: Sunday, March 20, 2022 | 2:45 AM EDT

    Just when you thought the abyss between red-state and blue-state sensibilities could not grow wider comes post-pandemic America to reveal further cleavage.

    Residents of my 34-story Manhattan apartment building are still wearing masks in the elevators, halls and lobby, even though the building’s internally imposed mask mandate has been lifted. At least half of my neighbors in Yorkville wear masks outdoors, even though Gov. Hochul suspended the indoor mask mandate for New York City weeks ago.

    It has always been the case, no matter the rate of indoor transmission, that inhaling a large enough viral dose outdoors to become infected is almost impossible. One might have imagined that even progressives would be ready to say: “Enough of this! We’ll take our chances. Let’s get back to normal life!” But it turns out that many people have a seemingly inexhaustible appetite for fear and risk aversion, especially when linked to control.

    COVID metrics are, from a blue-state perspective, depressingly low when even the New York Times has given up on frontpage crisis-mongering. For weeks, the Times has buried its COVID stories deep in the paper, if it prints them at all, because there is only good news to report. Currently, an average of five people per day are hospitalized with or from COVID in New York City, out of a pre-pandemic population of 8.5 million. That is essentially zero risk. Deaths with or from COVID are too negligible to mention.

We already know that:

  • Vaccination does not prevent a person from contracting or spreading the virus;
  • Vaccination does seem to lessen the severity of the disease if one does contract the virus; and
  • The cloth masks that most people wear do not prevent the transmission of the virus.

It would appear that New Yorkers have learned the first lesson, but not the second or third.

But at some point there will be some obvious results: workers who cower in fear, whether in a masked-up cubicle in the office, or working remotely over Zoom and the internet, are going to get left behind. They will miss out on ‘networking,’ they will miss out on sales and new clients, and they will miss out on promotions. What office business would promote a worker who won’t come in to the office? What business would promote a masked-up employee over one who isn’t hiding his face? What office business can return to normal if its employees refuse to return to normalcy?

Fear, Frank Herbert wrote, is the mind killer, but in business, fear is the career killer.

Posted on by

The New York Times tells us that “America Has a Free Speech Problem”, without noting that they are part of the problem

In 1971, President Richard Nixon sought a restraining order to prevent The New York Times and The Washington Post from printing more of the so-called “Pentagon Papers,” technically the Report of the Office of the Secretary of Defense Vietnam Task Force, a classified history and assessment of American policy and operations in the Vietnam war. The Times and the Post fought the injunctions in court, the Times winning in New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971). The Times was all about the First Amendment and Freedom of the Press.

So, the Times is all for Freedom of Speech and of the Press, right? Friday saw this from the Editorial Board:

    America Has a Free Speech Problem

    by The Editorial Board | Friday, March 18, 2022

    For all the tolerance and enlightenment that modern society claims, Americans are losing hold of a fundamental right as citizens of a free country: the right to speak their minds and voice their opinions in public without fear of being shamed or shunned.

    This social silencing, this depluralizing of America, has been evident for years, but dealing with it stirs yet more fear. It feels like a third rail, dangerous. For a strong nation and open society, that is dangerous.

    How has this happened? In large part, it’s because the political left and the right are caught in a destructive loop of condemnation and recrimination around cancel culture. Many on the left refuse to acknowledge that cancel culture exists at all, believing that those who complain about it are offering cover for bigots to peddle hate speech. Many on the right, for all their braying about cancel culture, have embraced an even more extreme version of censoriousness as a bulwark against a rapidly changing society, with laws that would ban books, stifle teachers and discourage open discussion in classrooms.

    Many Americans are understandably confused, then, about what they can say and where they can say it. People should be able to put forward viewpoints, ask questions and make mistakes and take unpopular but good-faith positions on issues that society is still working through — all without fearing cancellation.

There’s a lot more from the original, but either the Editorial Board have a very short memory, or they are hypocrites.

    Free Speech Is Killing Us

    Noxious language online is causing real-world violence. What can we do about it?

    By Andrew Marantz[1]Andrew Marantz (@AndrewMarantz) is a staff writer for The New Yorker. This essay is adapted from his forthcoming book, “Antisocial: Online Extremists, Techno-Utopians, and the Hijacking of the … Continue reading | October 4, 2019 | 6:01 AM EDT

    There has never been a bright line between word and deed. Yet for years, the founders of Facebook and Twitter and 4chan and Reddit — along with the consumers obsessed with these products, and the investors who stood to profit from them — tried to pretend that the noxious speech prevalent on those platforms wouldn’t metastasize into physical violence. In the early years of this decade, back when people associated social media with Barack Obama or the Arab Spring, Twitter executives referred to their company as “the free-speech wing of the free-speech party.” Sticks and stones and assault rifles could hurt us, but the internet was surely only a force for progress.

    No one believes that anymore. Not after the social-media-fueled campaigns of Narendra Modi and Rodrigo Duterte and Donald Trump; not after the murder of Heather Heyer in Charlottesville, Va.; not after the massacres in a synagogue in Pittsburgh, two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, and a Walmart in a majority-Hispanic part of El Paso. The Christchurch shooter, like so many of his ilk, had spent years on social media trying to advance the cause of white power. But these posts, he eventually decided, were not enough; now it was “time to make a real life effort post.” He murdered 52 people.

That the editors of the Times considered this an important article is demonstrated by the title graphic, a bit more ornate than is typical. It was spread full sized across the screen, taking up both the width and depth of my fairly large-sized monitor. This was a can’t-not-notice display, something the editors use to grab your attention.

A couple more paragraphs down, and Mr Marantz said this:

    The question is where this leaves us. Noxious speech is causing tangible harm. Yet this fact implies a question so uncomfortable that many of us go to great lengths to avoid asking it. Namely, what should we — the government, private companies or individual citizens — be doing about it?

Mr Marantz’ article continued with several suggestions, which boiled down to one thing: the government should set up some sort of approved publication space to tell us the truth. What a great idea!

Mr Marantz’s OpEd piece followed, eleven months after, Chad Malloy’s[2]Chad Malloy is a male who believes that he is really a woman, and goes by the made-up name of ‘Parker Malloy.’ article claiming that a restriction on speech actually promotes freedom of speech:

    How Twitter’s Ban on ‘Deadnaming’ Promotes Free Speech

    Trans people are less likely to speak up if they know they’re going to be constantly told they don’t exist.

    by Parker Malloy[3]While The First Street Journal’s Stylebook states that the pronouns and name appropriate to a person’s sex at birth are to be used, we do not change direct quotes, and in The New York … Continue reading | November 29, 2018

    In September, Twitter announced changes to its “hateful conduct” policy, violations of which can get users temporarily or permanently barred from the site. The updates, an entry on Twitter’s blog explained, would expand its existing rules “to include content that dehumanizes others based on their membership in an identifiable group, even when the material does not include a direct target.” A little more than a month later, the company quietly rolled out the update, expanding the conduct page from 374 to 1,226 words, which went largely unnoticed until this past week.

    While much of the basic framework stayed the same, the latest version leaves much less up for interpretation. Its ban on “repeated and/or non-consensual slurs, epithets, racist and sexist tropes, or other content that degrades someone” was expanded to read: “We prohibit targeting individuals with repeated slurs, tropes or other content that intends to dehumanize, degrade or reinforce negative or harmful stereotypes about a protected category. This includes targeted misgendering or deadnaming of transgender individuals.”

    The final sentence, paired with the fact that the site appeared poised to actually enforce its rules, sent a rumble through certain vocal corners of the internet. To trans people, it represented a recognition that our identity is an accepted fact and that to suggest otherwise is a slur. But to many on the right, it reeked of censorship and “political correctness.”

    Twitter is already putting the policy into effect. Last week, it booted Meghan Murphy, a Canadian feminist who runs the website Feminist Current. Ms. Murphy hasn’t exactly supported trans people — especially trans women. She regularly calls trans women “he” and “him,” as she did referring to the journalist and trans woman Shon Faye in a 2017 article. In the run-up to her suspension, Ms. Murphy tweeted that “men aren’t women.” While this is a seeming innocuous phrase when considered without context, the “men” she was referring to were trans women.

There’s more at the original.

The policy to which Mr Malloy referred would apply to this site as well, as we do not lie here: males are males and females are females, and the sexes simply cannot be changed.

That, however, is not my point in this article. My point is that the Times very deliberately published OpEd pieces calling freedom of speech sometimes harmful — sometimes meaning when conservative opinions are expressed — and celebrating the silencing of some speech. Were I to submit this article to the Times, or any other organ of the credentialed media, for publication, it would be disallowed because I referred to Mr Malloy as Mr Malloy, while the stylebooks used by almost all organs of the credentialed media insist on using the honorifics, pronouns and names preferred by the ‘transgendered’ rather than doing something really radical and telling the truth.

Back to the editorial first cited:

    However you define cancel culture, Americans know it exists and feel its burden. In a new national poll commissioned by Times Opinion and Siena College, only 34 percent of Americans said they believed that all Americans enjoyed freedom of speech completely. The poll found that 84 percent of adults said it is a “very serious” or “somewhat serious” problem that some Americans do not speak freely in everyday situations because of fear of retaliation or harsh criticism.

    This poll and other recent surveys from the Pew Research Center and the Knight Foundation reveal a crisis of confidence around one of America’s most basic values. Freedom of speech and expression is vital to human beings’ search for truth and knowledge about our world. A society that values freedom of speech can benefit from the full diversity of its people and their ideas. At the individual level, human beings cannot flourish without the confidence to take risks, pursue ideas and express thoughts that others might reject.

    Most important, freedom of speech is the bedrock of democratic self-government. If people feel free to express their views in their communities, the democratic process can respond to and resolve competing ideas. Ideas that go unchallenged by opposing views risk becoming weak and brittle rather than being strengthened by tough scrutiny. When speech is stifled or when dissenters are shut out of public discourse, a society also loses its ability to resolve conflict, and it faces the risk of political violence.

Also see: William Teach: NY Times Is Suddenly Very Concerned Over Loss Of Free Speech

Really? Tell me more, please! As we previously noted, The Philadelphia Inquirer, in one of its first stories on Will Thomas, the male University of Pennsylvania swimmer who now claims to be female, calls himself “Lia,’ and swims for Penn’s women’s team, deleted all of the comments from readers noting that Mr Thomas is male, not female, documenting some of those deleted comments with screen captures. The Inquirer had previously closed comments on most articles but left them open on sports stories, and Mr Thomas’ swimming victories are sports stories.

Oops! I guess that didn’t work for them!

The Times’ Editorial Board can tell us all they want how they support freedom of speech and of the press, but the truth is that they support their freedom of speech and their freedom of the press. Editors and publishers in general absolutely hate the fact that the rise of the internet took away their ‘gatekeeping’ function, and now anybody can publish whatever he wishes, without having to first be approved by someone else.

References

References
↑1 Andrew Marantz (@AndrewMarantz) is a staff writer for The New Yorker. This essay is adapted from his forthcoming book, “Antisocial: Online Extremists, Techno-Utopians, and the Hijacking of the American Conversation.”
↑2 Chad Malloy is a male who believes that he is really a woman, and goes by the made-up name of ‘Parker Malloy.’
↑3 While The First Street Journal’s Stylebook states that the pronouns and name appropriate to a person’s sex at birth are to be used, we do not change direct quotes, and in The New York Times’ original Mr Malloy is referred to by his false name.
Posted on by

Show me the money!

Jerry Maguire was a 1996 film starring Tom Cruise and Cuba Gooding, Jr, which made memorable the phrase, “Show me the money!” Now Moderna is shouting the same thing.

    Moderna seeks FDA authorization for 4th dose of COVID-19 shot

    Drugmaker Moderna has asked the Food and Drug Administration to authorize a fourth shot of its COVID-19 vaccine as a booster dose for all adults.

    by Zeke Miller, The Associated Press | Friday, March 18, 2022 | 8:29 AM EDT

    WASHINGTON — Drugmaker Moderna asked the Food and Drug Administration on Thursday to authorize a fourth shot of its COVID-19 vaccine as a booster dose for all adults.

    The request is broader than rival pharmaceutical company Pfizer’s request earlier this week for the regulator to approve a booster shot for all seniors.

    In a press release, the company said its request for approval for all adults was made “to provide flexibility” to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and medical providers to determine the “appropriate use” of a second booster dose of the mRNA vaccine, “including for those at higher risk of COVID-19 due to age or comorbidities.”

    U.S. officials have been laying the groundwork to deliver additional booster doses to shore up the vaccines’ protection against serious disease and death from COVID-19. The White House has been sounding the alarm that it needs Congress to “urgently” approve more funding for the federal government to secure more doses of the COVID-19 vaccines, either for additional booster shots or variant-specific immunizations.

And there you have it: those ‘free’ COVID-19 vaccine shots were all paid for by someone, and, as we all know, it was the federal government. The vaccine manufacturers, naturally, want in on the government’s distribution of electrons distributed from government accounts cash, and Moderna one-upped Pfizer. But while Moderna went straight to the boosters for everyone in their application, Pfizer’s Chief Executive Officer laid the groundwork for his company to do the same:

    Pfizer’s CEO says a fourth COVID-19 vaccine dose is probably necessary for everyone

    The Pfizer executive said a fourth dose would provide long-term protection. But not all public health experts agree it’s necessary for everyone.

    by Jason Laughlin | Monday, March 14, 2022

    Another round of shots will be needed to provide more long-lasting protection against COVID-19, vaccine-maker Pfizer’s chief executive said in a weekend interview, but opinions vary on who really needs that fourth dose.

    “Right now, the way that we have seen, it is necessary, a fourth booster,” said Albert Bourla, Pfizer’s CEO, in an interview Sunday on CBS’s Face the Nation, explaining that another dose could protect against future variants and waning immunity, which is why people who are fully vaccinated and boosted have been getting mild cases of COVID.

In other words, “Show me the money!”

    Some health experts have questioned whether it is realistic or necessary to have a vaccine that prevents even mild illness — when from the start the main goal of the vaccine has been to prevent serious cases and hospitalizations.

    Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, and a member of the FDA Vaccine Advisory Committee, has said people who have had the existing vaccine series likely won’t have to worry about serious illness and death from COVID for years, even if they skip additional shots. Preventing serious illness and death should be the goal of the country’s vaccination program, he said, not staving off COVID entirely.

It’s simple: if the CEOs can keep “staving off COVID entirely” as the goal, it will mean more revenue for their company. More, it’s risk-free money! 42 U.S. Code § 300aa–22 states that “No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine after October 1, 1988, if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings.” The law continues to require that the vaccines covered must have proper paperwork — meaning: documents warning patients that side effects can occur — and that manufacturers must use proper care of the production cycle to remain immune, or, in other words, do not deviate from proper procedures.

What vaccine producer wouldn’t love this?

Then there’s the third problem for the vaccine producers:

    Millions still haven’t gotten COVID shots. What does that mean for the future of the vaccination effort?

    The slowdown raises questions about how long resources should be spent on outreach and whether the strategies of the last year are still effective in persuading the unvaccinated.

    by Justine McDaniel and Erin McCarthy | Friday, March 18, 2022

    It’s 2 p.m. on a Wednesday in Chester, and nurses Susan Pollock and Carol Von Colln are inside a Delaware County vaccine clinic doing what they spend a lot of time doing these days: waiting.

    Last spring, Americans were in a frenzied rush to get the COVID-19 vaccine; this spring, business has slowed to a crawl. Now, whenever someone walks in, “we’re ready to throw a party,” Von Colln said.

    That day, they vaccinated eight people in six hours.

    It’s a scene playing out across the region and the United States as the number of shots being given each day is at an all-time low — even though a third of Americans are still unvaccinated.

It was the subtitle that got to me, “The slowdown raises questions about how long resources should be spent on outreach and whether the strategies of the last year are still effective in persuading the unvaccinated.” “Persuading the unvaccinated”? No, the “strategies of the last year” were primarily to try to force people to take the vaccines, by threatening them with the loss of their jobs if they declined vaccinations, and imposing requirements for people to show their vaccination records to enter some public spaces. President Biden said, “The rule is now simple: get vaccinated or wear a mask until you do.” Of course, the mask mandates that existed took no distinction between those who were vaccinated and those who were not.

Full disclosure: I have been vaccinated myself, a choice I took freely, and I believe that others should take the same decision I did. While no vaccine is 100% without risk, the benefits of being vaccinated outweigh the risks. But I respect the right, and yes, “right” is precisely the word I mean to use, of other people to choose whether or not to take the vaccine. That’s a right that the left, and neoconservatives like Bill Kristol, don’t seem to want you to have.

Remember: the left are pro-choice on exactly one thing!

There’s a lot more at the original, but it shows why the CEOs of Pfizer and Moderna want another booster: almost all of those who have thus far chosen not to get vaccinated are unlikely to change their minds, so more money from the government to those producers depends upon getting those who have taken three shots so far to get a fourth.

Posted on by

A Philadelphia crook is laying on a slab in the morgue Updated! Play stupid games, win stupid prizes

As we noted yesterday, Philadelphians have been applying for concealed carry permits in droves, due to the city being unable to protect them from the bad guys. Now, another Philadelphian has protected his property:

    West Philadelphia resident fatally shoots trespasser who tried breaking into car

    A West Philadelphia resident on Wednesday night shot and killed a trespasser who had thrown a brick through the resident’s car

    by Rodrigo Torrejón | St Patrick’s Day, March 17, 2022 | 7:49 AM EDT

    A West Philadelphia resident on Wednesday night shot and killed a trespasser who had thrown a brick through the resident’s car, according to reports.

    Shortly after 10:30 p.m. Wednesday, police responded to a call of gunshots on the 4400 block of Fairmount Avenue, 6ABC reported. When officers arrived, they found a 23-year-old man lying on the 700 block of 44th Street, with multiple gunshot wounds.

    The man, whose name was not released, was taken to Penn Presbyterian Medical Center, where he was pronounced dead soon after.

    Police said that the 23-year-old had scaled a fence and trespassed onto the Fairmount Avenue property, into an enclosed rear yard and threw a brick into the driver side window of a Alfa Romeo SUV, 6ABC reported. After hearing the noise, the 49-year-old homeowner, whose name was also not released, came out to confront the man and shot at least three times.

The legal punishment for vandalism is not death; the legal punishment for stealing a car is not death. But sometimes the legal punishment for stupidity is death! When you break into someone’s property — and climbing a fence into someone’s “enclosed rear yard” definitely constitutes breaking into someone’s property — bad things can happen to you. As Robert Stacy McCain would put it, ‘play stupid games, win stupid prizes.’

From 6ABC News:

    Before receiving word of gunshots, (Chief Inspector Scott) Small said police got several calls about a man wearing a mask trespassing on the rear or properties in the area and one call about a man breaking into a vehicle.

    “We believe these calls are related to the shooting,” Small said.

And the money line:

    The 23-year-old is known by police and his last known address is two blocks from where he was shot, Small said.

“Is known by police,” huh? That’s the euphemism for “he was a frequent crook we’ve arrested several times.”

Also see: Robert Stacy McCain: Crazy people are dangerous.

This leads to the obvious question: why wasn’t the 23-year-old frequent flyer already behind bars? Did the police not have enough evidence to get him convicted of something in their previous encounters with him? Did the cops let the guy go with just a warning a couple of times? Did Larry Krasner, who has been Philadelphia’s District Attorney since the deceased was 19 years old, decline to prosecute, or offer the criminal lenient plea bargains which kept him from being locked up for a long sentence, or kept him out of jail completely? There’s some obvious speculation here, but one thing is certain: Philadelphia’s criminal justice system did this guy no favors! Had he been behind bars last night, he wouldn’t have been happy, but he’d at least have been able to look forward to getting out of jail sometime, and getting on with his life.

Instead, he’s lying on a slab in the morgue right now.

I’ve said it before: former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani showed us the way. When he was in charge, New York City strictly enforced the law against the entry-level crooks, giving them an early look at the inside of the penitentiary, giving them early incentive to straighten up and fly right before they got themselves into really serious trouble. It didn’t always work: some of them continued with a life of crime after every stint behind bars, but at least while they were locked up, they weren’t out on the streets preying on innocent civilians.

Well, this guy won’t be breaking into people’s back yards, won’t be smashing car windows, and won’t be stealing laptops or whatever else was left in those cars. Instead, he’ll be pushing up daisies somewhere. This is what “social justice” and “racial justice” law enforcement gets us: criminals out on the streets, and some criminals in early graves.

Updated: Friday, March 18, 2022:

The Inquirer story has been updated to note that the deceased is named Nijer James-Murphy, and that the unnamed homeowner is a good guy:

    While the District Attorney’s Office will determine if the shooting is a justifiable homicide, preliminarily, it appears the homeowner acted in self-defense, (Philadelphia Homicide Capt. Jason) Smith said.

    “He has a valid permit, his gun is registered to him, he has no priors, he called the police, he turned the gun over, and he is cooperating. He’s done all the things that a good, outstanding citizen should do,” he said.

Well, that settles it: Mr Krasner, sponsored by George Soros, and thoroughly eaten up with ‘social justice’ and ‘racial justice’ and a hatred for the police, would seem likely to want to charge the homeowner with something. After all, the deceased is listed as a black male in the city’s shooting victims database. The question is: where would the District Attorney find twelve honest citizens, twelve people in the city without criminal records, to serve on a jury which would convict a man defending his property in his enclosed backyard from a thug like Mr James-Murphy?

Let’s face it: the city ought to throw the homeowner a parade!

Posted on by

Shockingly enough, Philly is seeing a huge surge in license-to-carry applications That's kind of what happens when law enforcement doesn't actually enforce the law

As of 11:59 PM EDT on the Ides of March, Philadelphia had seen 103 homicides, one more than on the same day in murder record-shattering 2021. That’s actually an improvement; the city was nine murders ahead of last year as recently as March 7th. All of which makes this article from Philadelphia magazine a surprise to absolutely no one:

License-to-Carry Applications Have Skyrocketed In Philly — Even More Than You’d Think

“When I saw how high the numbers were, I had to call our stats department to make sure they were right,” a Philadelphia Police Department representative told us.

by Victor Fiorillo | Wednesday, March 16, 2022 | 8:00 AM EDT

It didn’t surprise me a bit to learn that license-to-carry applications in Philadelphia have risen over the past year. First, you have the constant reports of shootings, carjackings and other violent crimes in the city. Second, the Philadelphia Police Department made it dramatically easier to apply for a license to carry, starting in January 2021. But I wasn’t exactly ready for just how big this increase has been. And neither was the Philadelphia Police Department, it seems.

“When I saw how high the numbers were, I had to call our stats department to make sure they were right,” police department spokesperson Jasmine Reilly told me after I requested the data.

From 2017 through 2020, the number of license-to-carry applications in Philadelphia held about steady, ranging between 11,049 and 11,814 applications each year. But in 2021, 70,789 people applied for licenses to carry guns.

In other words, license-to-carry applications more than sextupled last year. And in January of this year, the number of applications continued its upward trajectory. (The Pennsylvania State Police publish an annual report showing the number of licenses issued in the counties surrounding Philadelphia as well as in the rest of the state, but a spokesperson for PSP says that data isn’t yet available for 2021.)

There’s a lot more at the original.

The rate of increase of applications for concealed carry permits might have surprised some, but that they have increased dramatically can’t stun anyone. Since Mayor Jim Kenney, a Democrat — and the last Republican Mayor of Philadelphia left office when Harry Truman was still President — took office in January of 2016, killings in the city have risen from 277 to 315 to 353 to 356 to 499 to last years 562; the number of annual homicides has more than doubled since Mr Kenney took office. The George Soros-sponsored District Attorney Larry Krasner, also a Democrat, took office in 2018, and the homicide rate jumped 59.21% in his four years.

In March alone, while ‘only’ 19 people have been murdered, 73 people have been shot in the city; the gang-bangers are really kind of lousy shots. But while the wounded but not killed can take some solace that they are still alive, that’s only so much comfort.

The cited article goes through some of the steps required to obtain a concealed carry permit, and then we get to this:

Of course, just because you’re denied doesn’t mean you’re not carrying, and carrying without a license is generally a first-degree misdemeanor, punishable by up to five years in prison. But that charge can be upgraded to a felony depending on the circumstances.

“I have a pistol on me at all times,” one local resident who says he was denied a carry license told me. “You’ve got to be crazy not to, the way things are going.”

The leadership of the city continually complain that the state legislature isn’t doing enough in the way of passing gun control legislation, or allowing the city to pass its own, stricter ordinances, but that really doesn’t matter: District Attorney Krasner doesn’t really enforce the gun control legislation that is on the books:

The urgency of Philadelphia’s crisis of fatal and non-fatal shootings will not be met by looking away from shootings. As noted above, City Council has led a valuable “100 Shooter Review,” a title that makes clear what we already know: that shootings are the primary issue. Our efforts must be focused on preventing shootings and holding people who commit shootings accountable, and we should not accept arrests for gun possession as a substitute.[1]100 Shooting Review Committee Report, page 30 of the document, page 32 of the .pdf file.

This is very much in line with Mr Krasner’s statement:

This office believes that reform is necessary to focus on the most serious and most violent crime, so that people can be properly held accountable for doing things that are violent, that are vicious, and that tear apart society. We cannot continue to waste resources and time on things that matter less than the truly terrible crisis that we are facing.

Really? Perhaps, just perhaps, if law enforcement, from the police through the prosecutor, would treat the crimes that “matter less” than homicide seriously, people like the cretin who gunned down Hyram Hill would have been behind bars Monday morning, not out robbing someone, and not putting nine bullets into an apparently innocent victim.

It was then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R-New York) who showed everyone the way. Under his Administration, and (mostly under that of his successor, Michael Bloomberg, New York went after the small-time criminals, using the theory that if you prosecuted and punished the ‘entry-level’ bad guys, maybe they’d get scared enough seeing the inside of the penitentiary early that they’d straighten out. Murder, after all, isn’t normally an entry-level crime. Even if it doesn’t set them on a better path, criminals in jail aren’t out on the streets, committing other crimes.

Since Mr Krasner, the social justice and racial justice warrior that he is, does not like putting away criminals, is it any wonder that the citizens of Philadelphia think that they are on their own, that they have to protect themselves, because the city will not?

Pennsylvania law says you can be denied a license to carry if you’re judged to be an “individual whose character and reputation is such that the individual would be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety.” There’s a lot of subjectivity in there, and an appeals process does exist for those who are denied.

The gun-carrying resident I spoke with didn’t bother appealing. He has a history of minor drug violations, a DUI, and various summary and misdemeanor offenses and says he’s more concerned about his personal safety than whether the police say he’s allowed to carry a gun.

“It’s not like they are going to protect me,” he argues.

Of course, the gang-bangers out there shooting people don’t bother with getting concealed carry permits. It’s shocking, I know, but it seems that criminals don’t obey the law!

There’s a lot more at the original, and unlike the Philadelphia Inquirer articles I frequently cite, this one isn’t behind a paywall; it’s worth a read.

References

References
↑1 100 Shooting Review Committee Report, page 30 of the document, page 32 of the .pdf file.
Posted on by

Big Brother is watching you!

Fortunately, what my, sadly late, best friend used to call the Lexington Herald-Liberal, which refuses to publish mugshots of criminal suspects, even when those suspects are previously convicted felons, did publish a photo of what these license plate readers look like. This will enable the bad guys to spot them and then destroy them.

    Lexington to get cameras that read, track license plates. Here’s how they will be used

    by Beth Musgrave | Tuesday, March 15, 2022 | 5:00 PM EDT

    Web capture of photo from the Lexington Herald-Leader. Click to enlarge.

    There will soon be additional video cameras on Lexington streets.

    The city recently partnered with Flock Safety and the National Police Foundation for a one-year pilot study using 25 fixed cameras that automatically read license plates in areas experiencing high crime.

    The cameras are expected to be installed sometime in April. It’s not clear where those cameras will be located.

Normally, I avoid photos from the Herald-Leader, but this one is germane to the article; this is the photo used by the newspaper to show everybody what these devices look like, and I include it as documentary evidence that the paper did publish the photo of what the license plate readers look like. Don’t think that the bad guys won’t spot them. Personally, I hope that the bad guys do spot them, and destroy every last one of them.

Further down:

    Lowe said the cameras will take six or seven images of a vehicle. The license plate will automatically be checked if it is on various lists including Amber alerts for kidnapped children, stolen vehicles or vehicles associated with a violent offenses. If the reader finds a vehicle on that list, law enforcement will be notified.

    Sometimes police also get information from witnesses about cars or trucks leaving a scene. Police can use the cameras to try to find that vehicle, he said.

Lexington Assistant Police Chief Eric Lowe stated that he did not believe that the data gathered could be used for such things as people trying to get access to the data through an Open Records Act request to track someone such as an ex-spouse, but, of course, he doesn’t actually know that, since it hasn’t been tested in a Kentucky court. Nor can he know, now, what changes will be made in the future as far as use of the data gathered will be.

We can’t know, in advance, just what changes will be made to the allowable use of the data, but we know from long experience that whenever the government adds a citizen surveillance method, the uses for it continually expand.

Posted on by

Six West Point Cadets overdose on cocaine and fentanyl on Spring Break

My younger daughter in Basic Combat Training, Fort Jackson, SC, Fall of 2010, in the center.

When my younger daughter was in Advanced Individual Training for her Military Occupational Specialty, MOS, as a 25U, Signal Support Systems Specialist, at Fort Gordon, Georgia, in the fall and winter of 2010, AIT was interrupted for a ten-day break for Christmas. When she got home, she told us that every soldier was warned that they’d be tested for drug use upon their return to Ft Gordon, and that one guy had said, “F(ornicate) it,” he was going to get high while he was on the break. I guess that he wanted out of the Army, because they had only two weeks left in AIT.

And yup, he lit up the scoreboard when he got back, and I don’t know if he received a dishonorable discharge or not, but that kind of thing follows you for the rest of your life.

That was what came to my mind when I heard about several West Point cadets overdosing on fentanyl-laced cocaine over their spring break. From Le*gal In*sur*rec*tion:

Florida Man Recently Arrested in Connection to Overdoses of Six West Point Cadets

Wilton Manors police have named a suspect arrested as 21-year-old Axel Giovany Casseus.

Posted by Leslie Eastman | Monday, March 14, 2022 | 1:00 PM EDT

Late last week, I reported that six West Point cadets on spring break in Florida overdosed on fentanyl-laced cocaine.

There has been an arrest made in connection to this horrific incident.

Florida cops have arrested an alleged drug dealer they say sold the fentanyl-laced cocaine to several West Point cadets who overdosed during a spring break trip this week.

Axel Giovany Casseus, 21, was jailed Saturday in lieu of $50,000 bail, Local10 News reported.

After identifying Casseus, an undercover police officer was successfully able to purchase 43 grams of cocaine from him for $1,000, according to an arrest report, the network reported.

While in custody, Casseus admitted to selling drugs to the West Point cadets and his phone contained correspondence with them, authorities said.

Casseus faces felony charges as two of the six cadets remain in critical condition.

There’s more at the original.

At least two of the cadets who overdosed were members of the Black Knights football team, which might be why the story made the newspapers in the first place.

While I’m happy that Mr Casseus was caught, and I hope that, if he is found guilty, he spends a long, long, long time in prison, my main concern is that United States Military Academy cadets bought and used cocaine in the first place. West Point cadets are supposed to be some of our best and brightest, in an academy which puts them through rigorous and demanding coursework, and teaches honor above everything.

One would think that some of our best and brightest would have been bright enough to figure out that they might just have to pee in the cup when they returned from spring break. One would think that they would have been told that would happen, but even if they weren’t, West Point cadets should have been smart enough to figure it out on their own.

The cadet honor code is simple: “A Cadet will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.” These six cadets failed to show much honor in buying and using drugs. The cost to educate a cadet at the Military Academy is over $225,000 over four years, and while the stories do not tell us in which years the overdosed cadets are, they just pissed away $60,000 for every year they were enrolled.

More, they took slots over other deserving candidates, ones which we can hope would not have used drugs.

They have to be gone, of course. The Army cannot tolerate officers who use drugs, officers who may well have to discharge enlisted personnel who fail a whizz quiz. They should be fined for the costs the government incurred in providing their education.

Le*gal In*sur*rec*tion reported that not all six of the cadets were using drugs:

Not all of the cadets were using drugs. Two overdosed while “performing life-saving measures.”

That’s hopeful, but it’s still a potential honor code violation, if they knew that the cadets who were using drugs were doing so, and failed to try to stop them.

I would expect that, after this ‘incident,’ every cadet returning from spring break will wind up peeing in the cup; the Academy would be foolish not to do this. And I have to wonder: were these the only drug-using cadets, or are there more?

Posted on by

The Patricians are just different from us! CNN's disgraced and fired President to get $10 million payoff to keep his mouth shut

The Patricians just aren’t like you and me. If you get canned for some reason — I’m retired now, so I’m beyond the ability of anyone to fire — you might, might! be able able to get a few hundred bucks a week in unemployment benefits. If you are terminated for cause, such as an inappropriate sexual relationship with a subordinate, something which could expose your company to a sexual harassment claim, you might not be able to get even unemployment compensation.

But life is different for the elites. From Le*gal In*sur*rec*tion:

Former CNN Chief Jeff Zucker to Get $10 Million Settlement, Agrees Not to Sue

“if WarnerMedia keeps their side of the deal, in the next week to 10 days, Zucker will receive a one-time payment of around $10 million”

Posted by Mike LaChance | Thursday, March 10, 2022 | 1:00 PM EST

CNN’s former president Jeff Zucker is getting a major golden parachute from his former employer, with the agreement not to sue them.

It’s a pretty good deal for a man who basically destroyed the network’s ratings and brand.

FOX News reports:

Ex-CNN chief Jeff Zucker to receive roughly $10 million from WarnerMedia, won’t sue: report

Former CNN boss Jeff Zucker has reportedly agreed to a deal with CNN parent company WarnerMedia over his swift exit from the network that will award him roughly $10 million in exchange for not suing after being forced to resign last month.

“Details of the confidential package are obviously being kept close to the vest, but sources tell us Zucker made the decision several weeks ago to accept what had been put on the table by his old bosses at the time of his cable news exit. What we do know is that, if WarnerMedia keeps their side of the deal, in the next week to 10 days, Zucker will receive a one-time payment of around $10 million,” Deadline’s Dominic Patten and Ted Johnson wrote, citing “sources.”

It seems that Mr Zucker’s girlfriend, who was not initially fired forced to resign, but quit a couple of weeks later, is also getting a golden parachute of a cool million.

As we have noted previously, Mr Zucker had a net worth of $60 million, plus an annual base salary of $6.3 million, before any bonuses — and how he could ever qualify for a bonus the way CNN’s ratings tanked is beyond me, but he certainly did get them — and Miss Gollust wasn’t exactly living paycheck-to-paycheck herself, with an estimated net worth of $5 million.

It seems that CNN has some dirty laundry the network wants desperately to keep out of the public’s sight. Given that the relationship between the two has been reported, by multiple sources, as an “open secret,” it has to be asked why CNN forced them out over that, rather than the ratings disaster the network had become.

Remember: the excuse for the resignation given was that Mr Zucker and Miss Gollust, both of whom are divorced, failed to report the relationship. But the head of human resources for CNN, Lisa Greene, is also an Executive Vice President, as was Miss Gollust, and the idea that someone who hobnobs with the network’s top brass didn’t know the “open secret” everyone else did is pretty difficult to swallow.

So, what does Mr Zucker know that CNN is so desperate to keep quiet?

Posted on by

I had no idea that Larry Krasner was Lou Anna Red Corn’s mentor!

It is a story reminiscent of something I’d find in The Philadelphia Inquirer: a lenient prosecutor letting a killer off easy.

    Xavier Hardin, mugshot from Fayette County Detention Center, dated June 15, 2021, and is a public record.

    Lexington man who committed deadly Fayette Mall shooting reaches plea deal. Here’s why

    by Jeremy Chisenhall | Friday, March 11, 2022 | 12:19 PM EST | Updated: 1:06 PM EST

    The man who shot and killed a 17 year old inside Fayette Mall in 2020 has reached an agreement with prosecutors to accept a conviction for manslaughter instead of murder, according to court records.

    Xavier Hardin, 21, pleaded guilty to manslaughter, assault and wanton endangerment charges in the killing of Kenneth Bottoms Jr., after reaching a plea agreement earlier this week, according to court records. Hardin, who was 19 at the time of the incident, also injured two bystanders when he fired shots inside the mall on Aug. 23, 2020.

    Fayette Commonwealth’s Attorney Lou Anna Red Corn said Hardin’s plea agreement was reached through mediation and Bottoms’ family was in agreement with the plea deal. The plea agreement accounted “for the facts of the case,” Red Corn said, which included that “both the defendant and Kenneth were carrying handguns that day at the mall.”

    “There were video recordings of their encounter, and the defendant raised a claim of self-protection,” Red Corn said. “Regardless of the defendant’s claim, he injured innocent persons and put others in harm’s way when (he) started shooting. This is another tragic example of why teens should not be carrying guns in the first place.”

There’s more at the original here.

Messrs Hardin and Bottoms had a long-standing dislike for each other, a “beef” as Lexington Herald-Leader reporter put it. In Fayette Mall, Mr Harin is shown on surveillance video looking over his shoulders, as though worried he was being followed. Eventually Mr Bottoms and three men with him confronted Mr Hardin, and an argument ensued. One of Mr Bottoms’ friends tried to pull him away from the confrontation, but failed.

    One witness testified to police that Bottoms spit on Hardin during the argument, according to court records. Another noted hearing expletives. Another said they heard Hardin ask, “You don’t think I’ll pull it out?”

    As the argument intensified, bystanders started to flee, according to the video. Hardin then pulled a gun out of his waistband and fired.

In other words, Mr Hardin was not defending himself from a deadly assault, but pulled out his weapon and fired. Though Mr Bottoms was also armed, there’s nothing in the story to indicate that Mr Bottoms pulled out his gun.

According to the Fayette County Detention Center, Mr Hardin’s charges are:

  • KRS §507.030: Manslaughter, First Degree, a Class B felony with a sentence of no less than ten years and no more than twenty.
  • KRS §508.060: Wanton Endangerment, First Degree: Class D felony, with a sentence of one to five years in prison
  • KRS §508.020: Assault, Second Degree, Class C felony, penalty at least five years to a maximum of ten years in prison
  • KRS §508.030: Assault, Fourth Degree, Class A Misdemeanor, penalty imprisonment for up to 12 months.
    Hardin is scheduled to be sentenced in May. He faces a maximum of 23 years in prison if his sentences are run consecutively, based on the sentencing recommendations made by prosecutors in the plea agreement. Prosecutors didn’t make a recommendation on whether or not Hardin’s sentences should run consecutively or at the same time.

    If a judge decides to run all his sentences at the same time, he would have to serve at least eight and a half years, based on the prosecutors’ recommendations. He’s required by to serve at least 85 percent of the sentence given to him for his manslaughter conviction because it is a violent offense.

Of course, since Mr Hardin has been locked up since at least May 15, 2021, he has already served 301 days. The jail records are not clear; he was also arrested on August 24, 2020, the day after the murder, and if he was locked up since then, that would be an additional 200 days. He could serve as little as 7 years and 8 months, if locked up since May 15, 2021, or 7 years and one month if he has credit since August 24, 2020. Mr Hardin, who is 21 years old, could get out of prison when he’s still in his twenties!

Had Miss Red Corn not accepted a plea bargain arrangement, had charged him with murder, taken it to trial and gotten him convicted, he could be locked up for the rest of his miserable life, which would protect the citizens of Fayette County. The most we can expect, if the judge decides to run the sentences consecutively, is that he’d get out of jail at age 44, a prison-hardened criminal, and while Mr Bottoms is still stone-cold graveyard dead.

Miss Red Corn has a history of giving killers lenient plea bargains. That’s great for murderers; it’s not so great for the citizens of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.