Daily Digest |  |
- Can defunding the police be squared with fear of insurrection?
- NeverTrumpers back radical DOJ nominee
- Speech police continues to intrude on sports [UPDATED]
- Swalwell Sues [with comment by Paul]
- A City In Crisis Braces For the Worst
| Can defunding the police be squared with fear of insurrection? Posted: 08 Mar 2021 08:36 AM PST (Paul Mirengoff) Like most cities, Washington, D.C. is plagued by an increase in homicides and other violent crimes. Nonetheless, the city council seems determined to keep cutting D.C.’s police force. Last year, the size of that force fell to around 3,500, well below the number once considered the minimum needed to enforce the law in the city. This year, some on the city council seek further cuts as they “reimagine” policing. But the storming of the Capitol on January 6 may cause a rethink about the reimagining. That, at least, is the hope of D.C. officials still interested in fighting crime. The city’s new acting police chief claims that the alleged growing and persistent threat of domestic terrorism warrants a strengthening of the police force. He says that a force of 4,000 officers is required “in light of the things we need to contend with now.” Actually, that’s the number of officers needed to deal with the things the D.C. police has always had to contend with. D.C’s mayor sought a force of 4,000 back in 2019, before the loose talk about an insurrection commenced. Domestic terrorism is not something the D.C. police force will have to contend with going forward. But by invoking the specter of it, the police chief hopes to force anti-police politicians to acknowledge that the city might need more police. The trap proved easy for at least one police defunder to avoid. Council member Charles Allen said that the January 6 event shouldn’t influence the size of the police force because it’s not likely to be replicated. Allen gets high marks for honestly to go with low marks for concern about public safety. Radical activist Christy Lopez, who led the DOJ’s investigation of the Ferguson, Missouri police force, took a shrewder approach to dealing with arguments based on January 6. She claimed that the policing failures of that day weren’t caused by lack of available officers or restrictions on what they could do. Instead, they were caused by lack of leadership, training, and — wait for it — “unconscious bias” that resulted in a failure to anticipate and prepare for “White terrorists.” Clever as she is, Lopez still didn’t explain how a shrinking police force will be able to cope with a rise in violent crime and future “White terrorism.” The reality is that a shrinking police force won’t be able to cope with traditional crime. The other reality is that D.C.’s left-wing politicians and activists don’t care.     |
| NeverTrumpers back radical DOJ nominee Posted: 08 Mar 2021 05:30 AM PST (Paul Mirengoff) There are two types of NeverTrumpers. The first type hates Trump, but that hatred doesn’t cause them to abandon long-held conservative principles. The second type’s hatred of Trump leads them to shift positions on matters of policy. Bret Stephens is an example of the first type, I think. Max Boot and Jennifer Rubin are extreme examples of the second. I had assumed that Bill Krisol and Mona Charen, both long-time stalwarts of the conservative movement, were in the first category. But after reading this article in the Washington Post, I’m not so sure. According to the Post, an organization whose founders and directors include Kristol and Charen is “spearheading” a campaign to confirm Vanita Gupta as associate attorney general. Gupta’s policy positions are radically leftist. It’s difficult to imagine that Kristol and Charen would be part of the charge to get Gupta confirmed if their positions on important policy matters hadn’t changed dramatically as a result of Trump’s ascent. Before turning to specifics, let’s look at the stated rationale of this campaign to confirm Gupta. It’s fraudulent. According to the Post, the ad states:
“Gupta has a record of building bridges across partisan divides”? Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, Gupta is a hyper-partisan operative. She has relentlessly attacked Republican nominees with whom she disagrees on policy. Take Brett Kavanaugh. Upon hearing that President Trump intended to nominate him for the Supreme Court, Gupta declared Kavanaugh, a judge on the prestigious D.C. Circuit, “unfit to serve on the Supreme Court.” She stated:
And so on. Are these the words of a bridge builder? Kavanaugh has, in fact, been willing to reject some of Trump’s positions. And Kavanaugh is less conservative than Justice Scalia. It always seemed to me that Kristol and Charen considered Scalia fit to serve on the Supreme Court. If anything, Gupta was more hysterical when Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett to the Court. Here is how she greeted that nomination. Here is her intemperate statement following Barrett’s confirmation. Gupta also slandered Eric Dreiband, Trump’s choice to head the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division. Eric had previously served as General Counsel of the EEOC, where he gained the respect of liberal attorneys. Three such liberals of my acquaintance spoke highly of Eric when I asked about him before he came to work at the firm I was with. Rick Seymour, a pioneer Title VII plaintiffs’ lawyer, wrote a glowing letter in support of Eric’s DOJ nomination. But Gupta raged against Eric’s nomination. Notwithstanding his excellent work enforcing civil rights laws at the EEOC, she called him “woefully unqualified to lead the Civil Rights Division.” In the same letter, she denounced him for “defending corporations accused of employment discrimination.” Apparently, Gupta’s bridge building doesn’t extend to lawyers who defend clients she disapproves of, or presumably to those clients. Gupta also falsely characterized the breadth of Eric’s experience with anti-discrimination laws. And she neglected to note that she did not have experience with the full range of these laws when she took over the Civil Rights Division during the Obama administration — the very charge she leveled at Trump’s nominee. This is not a bridge builder. This a character assassin. I wonder whether Gupta supported any standalone Trump nominee. I’m not aware of one. Leftists like Chai Feldblum and others who were on bipartisan slates don’t count. Now let’s turn to Gupta’s substantive views. They can be found on the webpage of her organization, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, which she runs. They are also clear from public statements and from her record when she was in charge of the Civil Rights Division. Sen. Tom Cotton has reviewed Gupta’s record. He points out that she favors decriminalizing all narcotics, including fentanyl. He also found statements in which Gupta called for decreasing funding of the police and shrinking its responsibilities. Last summer, she declared:
When I knew Bill Kristol, he didn’t favor decriminalizing all narcotics and decreasing police funding. It was with Kristol’s kind encouragement that I wrote an article for the Weekly Standard opposing lenient sentencing legislation (with the Weekly Standard out of business, the article is accessible at the Washington Examiner). Gupta wants more leniency for felons than that provided by the legislation I denounced in my article. In fact, even with the leniency Congress granted, Gupta still considers our criminal justice system “a stain on our democracy.” Check out her beyond-wokey criminal law “vision” here. Do Kristol and Charen believe that opposing the nomination of someone who takes the extreme positions Gupta does constitutes “playing politics”? Based on the pro-Gupta ad they are backing, it appears they do. Gupta supports race-based preferences for Black college applicants, at the expense of White and Asian-American applicants. That’s clear from her praise of the decision against the Asian-American plaintiffs in the Harvard case. Are Kristol and Charen on board now with these kinds of egregious racial preferences? Gupta is a leader in the crusade to allow biological men into women’s rest rooms, locker rooms, and showers. She filed the Obama Justice Department’s lawsuit against North Carolina for resisting this crusade. There’s plenty more to Gupta’s radicalism. I may have occasion to discuss some of it as the Senate takes up her nomination this week. In the meantime, I suggest that the support for Gupta of the organization Kristol and Charen head shows either ignorance of what the nominee stands for or an abandonment by both of important views they held before Trump obtained power. It’s possible to favor the confirmation of a presidential nominee with whom one disagrees on important policy matters — the theory being that a president should be served by officials of his choosing. But it’s odd, and probably unprecedented, to launch an ad campaign for such a nominee. And it’s disingenuous to claim that this particular nominee is a bridge builder and that conservative opposition to her confirmation is just “playing politics.” Unfortunately, this seems to be where their anti-Trump sentiments have led Bill Kristol and Mona Charen.   |
| Speech police continues to intrude on sports [UPDATED] Posted: 07 Mar 2021 06:28 PM PST (Paul Mirengoff) Two recent examples are worth noting. First, Creighton University’s excellent basketball coach, Greg McDermott, is suspended from coaching his highly-ranked team as it bids for glory this month. McDermott’s suspension stems from a comment he made to his team after a very disappointing loss. Calling for unity, McDermott said:
Perhaps McDermott meant to say “reservation,” not “plantation.” That would have been more in accord with common usage. But it too would have been politically incorrect. McDermott recognized the inappropriateness (mild in my view) of saying “plantation.” He says he offered to resign, but his players didn’t want him to. He therefore coached the team’s next game, before being suspended by the school. The Creighton players work with McDermott on a daily basis. They know whether he’s a racist. Evidently, they don’t think he is. The team’s star, Marcus Zegarowski, who is mixed-race I believe, has spoken up on behalf of his coach. The player stated:
This should be the end of the matter. Come on Creighton. Let the man coach his team. The second case involves tweets by American soccer star Paul Arriola from 2012, when he was a teenager. Arriola, now 26, plays for Swansea City, on loan from DC United. He also appears regularly for the U.S. national team. Cardiff City is the arch rival of Swansea City. Both Welsh teams play in England’s second tier and both are battling for promotion to the Premier League this season. Apparently, a Cardiff City fan decided to dig into Arriola’s Twitter history. He found four offensive tweets from 2012. According to the Washington Post:
Arriola has apologized profusely for these tweets. Fortunately, it seems he won’t be “cancelled.” Swansea City says it supports him and his decision to apologize. The U.S. Soccer Federation says “it’s important Paul recognized and acknowledged that those expressions, though made long ago, are not acceptable.” DC United apparently plans to let Arriola off with nothing more than “bias training,” which it will give to all members of its organization. It’s unfortunate that Arriola and others will have to endure this, but United operates in D.C., so the team must have felt it had to do something. It really didn’t. After all, it’s not like Arriola is up for a job enforcing America’s civil rights laws. All the Arriola incident really demonstrates is how vicious British soccer fans can be. Soccer hooligans have been priced and policed pretty much out of committing thuggery in Britain, but they can still scour the internet in the hope of harming opposition players. My favorite story of over-the-top fans trying to get hated opponents into trouble involves Everton, I’m sorry to say. Tommy Smith was a star defender for Liverpool in the 1960s and 70s. Late in his career, he played for Swansea City. Smith’s style of play was, shall we say, uncompromising. Everton fans despised him. By the end of his career, Smith had serious knee problems and eventually applied for and received disability payments from the government. The story goes that when he came back for an old-timers’ event, Everton fans spotted him kicking the ball around. One (or maybe more) reported him to the government in the hope of ending Smith’s payments. The attempt was unsuccessful, according to the version I’ve heard. Trying to terminate Smith’s disability benefits seems pretty low. But at least there was an allegation, perhaps credible, of defrauding the government. In Arriola’s case, the offense was a less serious one — insensitive tweeting as a teenager. UPDATE: The suspension of coach McDermott has been lifted. He will coach Creighton in the Big East and NCAA tournaments.   |
| Swalwell Sues [with comment by Paul] Posted: 07 Mar 2021 05:20 PM PST (John Hinderaker) The Democrats intend to ride the mini-riot at the Capitol on January 6 for all it is worth. One aspect of their strategy is lawsuits by people like Eric Swalwell. Swalwell has sued President Trump, Donald Trump, Jr., Rudy Giuliani and Congressman Mo Brooks for, among other things, intentional infliction of emotional distress. Is there any chance the rest of us can sue Swalwell for the emotional distress he has caused us? I suppose not. Swalwell’s complaint goes on and on, for 65 pages. It recites all of the Democratic Party’s talking points about the election and its aftermath. It isn’t worth critiquing in detail, but here are a few observations. Swalwell’s complaint is weirdly pseudo-religious, referring repeatedly to “sacraments” and the “sacredness” of the U.S. Capitol. I am not sure that is what the Founders had in mind. It begins:
This is Swalwell’s real grievance:
Just like Hillary Clinton, the FBI, the CIA, the Washington Post and the New York Times in 2016.
There is a great deal of evidence, Swalwell just prefers not to mention it. As I have said before, we probably will never know whether the Democrats stole the 2020 election, but we know for sure that they tried hard to steal it. By his own account, Swalwell cowered in fear before the “insurrection” led by the guy with a fur hat and horns:
I suppose it is too politically incorrect, even for me, to suggest that “hand-to-hand combat” between the detestable Eric Swalwell and the guy with the horns and the nipple tattoos would be worth the price of admission. Swalwell continues:
No word on whether he texted the Chinese spy Fang Fang. The complaint goes on and on. In my opinion, President Trump did some dumb things following the election along with others that were not at all dumb. He did not, however, incite a riot on January 6, as Swalwell’s complaint confirms. The most incendiary language he can quote from Trump’s speech is:
That is weak tea, obviously. Swalwell apparently overlooked the part where Trump said, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun!” Now that is a real incitement to violence. But wait–that wasn’t Donald Trump, it was Barack Obama. The salient point, if there is one, is that the Democrats intend not just to defeat Donald Trump but to spend the rest of Trump’s life persecuting him. Attorneys General in states like New York are insistently demanding his tax returns, his accountant reportedly is under severe pressure to turn state’s evidence, and ridiculous lawsuits like Swalwell’s will continue to provide talking points for those who hate Trump, for years to come. The Democrats want Trump to be like Hector, not just killed in battle but dragged around the city walls behind a chariot. Repeatedly. So that no one who is not a member of the club will ever be so bold as to seek the presidency again. Spill secrets to a Chinese spy as a member of the House Intelligence Committee? No problem! Stand up for the interests of working Americans? Call out the FBI. PAUL ADDS: I hope the case will be dismissed, but only after Swalwell, having put his emotional state at issue, submits to an examination by a mental health professional of the defendants’ choosing.   |
| A City In Crisis Braces For the Worst Posted: 07 Mar 2021 02:58 PM PST (John Hinderaker) Scott has written about the trial of Derek Chauvin, in which jury selection is scheduled to start on Monday, and the fact that the Hennepin County Government Center has been turned into a bunker surrounded by barbed wire. This video shows what he was talking about: Meanwhile, the city has sent a letter to local businesses advising them on preparing for the trial:
What are “permanent security gates”? I don’t know. But if they are permanent, I take it they are not just for the Chauvin trial.
In other words, your shop or restaurant may be burned down. It seems a bit ironic: the FBI keeps trying to tell us that any day now, QAnon (or somebody on the right) is going to stage an “armed insurrection” in Washington. Of course nothing of the sort has happened, or will. But buildings have been burned down, businesses have been looted, people have been shot and killed and many other people’s lives have been devastated. Just not by conservatives. The city’s letter also suggests that businesses consider hiring private security. Presumably this is due in part to the fact that in the wake of the Minneapolis’s City Council’s vote to seek to defund the police department, many officers have left and the force is now well below its former size. One wonders how many businesses are left in downtown Minneapolis, and how many will be left a year from now.   |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Power LinePower Line. To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States | |
No comments:
Post a Comment