#jazz shaw

[gettothedancing]

Los Angeles progressives angry over being "tricked" into supporting conservative sheriff

And he was indeed a member of the Democratic Party, receiving the endorsement and support of liberals across the board.

He’s been a regular guest on Fox News where he has dismissed the notion of widespread police brutality, instead focusing on getting rid of the few bad apples that turn up while giving officers the tools they need to do their jobs. He’s also evoked images of Donald Trump on social media, referring to his liberal critics as “trolls” and “elites.”

He’s publicly criticized elected Democratic officials, including Mayor Garcetti, more than he has praised them. He’s described the mayor as “inept” for his failure to handle the homelessness crisis. If you’re familiar with LA’s ultraliberal District Attorney George Gascon, you might not be all that surprised that Villanueva has joined in the calls to have Gascon removed from office.

The move that may have broken the camel’s back came when the Sheriff called for changes that would allow many more Angelinos to have concealed carry permits. One of his campaign consultants described this as a strategy of “running against the woke left.”

Villanueva may turn out to be crazy like a fox, however. As in many other cities, Los Angeles has seen a sustained surge in shootings and violent crime, along with the neverending issues caused by homeless encampments. Even the Democrats are growing alarmed over these developments. That’s probably how a former cop (and former Republican) is on the verge of being the next mayor of New York City. It’s just possible that the more moderate Democrats in Los Angeles will stick with the guy who is trying to clean up the mess while he attracts a lot of crossover votes from whatever conservatives are left in the area. He’s up for election again in 2022 so we won’t have to wait all that long to find out.

[arcticdementor]

"Safe streets worker" (replacing police) gunned down in Baltimore

Stop the killing, whatever it takes

During the course of the madness that promoted “defunding” or abolishing the police, there was an emphasis placed on replacing police in some circumstances with “community safety” workers who would supposedly act as unarmed “violence interrupters” and reduce the number of lethal use of force incidents by police officers. In Baltimore, Maryland’s violent gang territories, an existing organization known as the “Safe Streets Program” gained a lot of attention and municipal support in this effort. The goal of the program is to deploy former gang members (or “former”) into areas controlled by the gangs to negotiate nonviolent resolutions to conflicts. Unfortunately, as we’ve seen with other proposed “violence interruption” programs in major cities, sending someone with a clipboard out to resolve a beef between gang members isn’t always effective. That was sadly this case this week when one of Baltimore’s Safe Streets workers was shot to death along with several other people on the East side of Charm City.

…

Just to be clear, I am not an opponent of the Safe Streets Program and this murder was particularly appalling, even in a city where murders are literally a daily occurrence. Tragically, the murder rate in Baltimore is still higher than what you see in Kabul, Afghanistan during any given week. If they can find people who are able and willing to go out there and talk some of the gang bangers back off the edge instead of settling their beef with illegal firearms, God bless them. They need to be willing to try anything at this point.

…

But this killing also underscores the fact that violent crime, particularly when we’re talking about gang violence, sometimes requires a legal, violent response. The Baltimore Police have been cut down in numbers and in a type of retreat ever since the Freddie Gray riots. The city’s government has spent more time trying to prosecute its own cops than the gangs that have largely retaken control of the streets in many parts of Baltimore. When law enforcement is viewed as being weakened or ineffectual, the gangs move in to fill the power vacuum.

Further, while I applaud the efforts of the Safe Streets Program, it also serves as an unpleasant reminder of the bizarre nature of the crime problem in Baltimore and how the city government chooses to address it. We’re at the point where a municipally-endorsed program is actually negotiating with the gangs in an effort to convince them to stop killing people right and left. This is an absolutely dystopian situation. Lawful citizens expect the government to keep them safe and law enforcement is supposed to not only deter, but investigate violent crime and bring suspects in for prosecution. When did we reach the point where the government has to send out negotiators to try to convince them to behave like decent human beings rather than murderous animals?

[natonaika]

American conservative commentator warns Finland against “poking Russian bear”

Finland has decided to "up the ante and inform Russia that if they want to apply to join NATO, they will darned well do so, and they don't need Putin's permission to do it," Jazz Shaw, weekend editor at the American conservative blog, HotAir, writes. "The confusing part about this is why [Finnish President Sauli] Niinistö would decide to roll this sort of grenade into the room just when Putin is acting more and more excitable," Shaw wonders. Considering its long border with Russia, putting Finland on the “front lines of any potential conflict,” the country has the "best of both worlds," he argues. Finland enjoys trade advantages as a NATO partner, yet is not under the same mutual military obligations that full members are, Shaw explains. "Why start rattling Putin's cage," he asks. "Perhaps someone could quietly pass a note to Finland's president suggesting that he might want to slow his roll a bit until things settle down," Shaw quips.

[arcticdementor]

Poll: Democrats see Trump supporters, unvaccinated as more dangerous than Taliban, China

Priorities

Just how badly divided are the politically active people in the United States today? According to the latest numbers generated by Scott Rasmussen (not affiliated with Rasmussen Reports), it’s fairly grim out there. Given how much the political landscape seems to be shifting, this is a particularly interesting survey. People who are largely content and not worried about the future tend to be less politically active and engaged, but knowing what has the voters either riled up or alarmed can be a useful measuring stick heading into a midterm cycle, and these numbers will likely alarm the Democrats. The leading question was fairly simple, asking people what the biggest threat to the United States is today. The partisan divide in the answers couldn’t be more stark. In the opinion of Democrats, supporters of former President Donald Trump are the greatest threat facing the nation, and it’s a solid, majority opinion among members of Joe Biden’s party. Coming in a close second are their fellow Americans who are unvaccinated. Both of those categories beat out the threats of the Taliban, China, and Russia.

…

So what do Republicans think are the greatest threats facing our country? If you guessed “the Democrats” or “Biden voters” you might be close, at least for second place, but it’s a lot more specific than simple party registration or candidate preference. Republicans ranked the biggest threats as follows:

Taliban (66%)

Defund the Police Activists (62%)

China (58%)

That didn’t come as much of a surprise to me. It’s not a matter of thinking that everyone who votes with the Democrats or supports various liberal policies are a “threat” or somehow an “enemy of the people.” I’ve always seen them as simply people with a different point of view. Heck, I’m married to a liberal, feminist Democrat and we’ve seemed to get along okay. But the people who are out there trying to abolish the police or significantly tear them down are a different matter. They actually do present a unique, significant danger to the safety and welfare of all Americans and the basic fabric of our society. Also, previous polls have shown that rising crime rates are among the greatest concerns cited by voters. Those voters no doubt line up neatly with the survey respondents who picked Defund the Police Activists as a top concern.

[arcticdementor]

Philly residents would like a word about this violent crime spike

Getting bad out there

The City of Brotherly Love has been a lot less loving over the past year or more, particularly out in the streets. While still coming nowhere near the disastrous conditions in Baltimore and Chicago, Philadelphia has seen a spike in violent crime after experiencing more than a decade of steady declines in violence. This has been particularly alarming on the city’s south side in the First Police District.

This week, the Philadelphia PD scheduled a town hall so residents could come with their questions, offer suggestions and find out what was being done to address the problem. And they showed up in force, giving the police officials who hosted the meeting an earful. (CBS Philadelphia)

…

This year, things are off to an even worse start. The city recorded 30 homicides in the first 21 days of the year, continuing to average more than one killing per day. Other violent crimes, including rape and assault, were up across the board as well.

As we discussed earlier this month, the burden of addressing this violent crime epidemic falls on the shoulders of Mayor Jim Kenney. He was elected in 2016 on a platform of RESISTing Donald Trump, raising soda taxes, setting up supervised, public drug injection sites and getting the police under control. But rather than improving things, residents have seen the murder rate in the city climb significantly under Kenney’s tenure, going from 277 in 2016 to 356 last year.

And what has the Mayor done in response? Well, he held a gun turn-in event that produced a whopping total of six firearms of dubious quality that most self-respecting gang bangers wouldn’t be seen with in public. But Mayor Kenney wanted this job and he got it. Now it’s time to do the right thing.

[arcticdementor]

The thing is, you can’t have it both ways. If you’re going to blame Donald Trump’s rhetoric on immigration for shootings targeting minorities, you can’t simply turn around and ignore this. We have Democratic presidential candidates, “squad” activists, cable news anchors and editorials from major newspapers constantly demonizing ICE, calling for it to be abolished and blaming all manner of human misery on immigration enforcement offices who are simply upholding the law. How can you observe all of this in context and not blame their rhetoric for the fact that people are shooting up or trying to bomb ICE offices and last night came within inches of murdering someone? The answer is that you can’t, at least if you want to label yourself as an unbiased observer of events.

Jazz Shaw

[arcticdementor]

Dem warns SCOTUS a pro-Second Amendment ruling will lead to court packing

You've been warned

We recently looked at the case of New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. City of New York. That’s the one where the plaintiffs have sued the city over a recently enacted law making it nearly impossible to legally transport a properly registered firearm in the city unless going to or from an approved shooting range. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal, but now the City has voluntarily dropped the transportation restrictions and is asking SCOTUS to dismiss the appeal since there’s no longer a need for it in their opinion. (The plaintiffs need to learn to take yes for an answer.)

The court has asked both sides to submit briefs on this request and will consider them one week before the start of the next session. Now a new voice has weighed in on the subject. Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (Rhode Island) has filed his own brief with the court. But he’s doing much more than offering a friendly opinion on the merits. He’s warning the Supreme Court that they need to drop the case because if they don’t and they wind up issuing a ruling favorable to the plaintiffs and dismantling more of New York City’s gun laws, that will trigger an effort to pack the courts.

…

I should first repeat for the umpteenth time that I’m not a lawyer, nor do I play one on television. But does it strike anyone else rather odd that this legal brief doesn’t actually have much to do with the merits of the case? And if you’re trying to curry the court’s favor and get them to see things your way, do you usually open up your missive by insulting the justices?

Whitehouse comes out of the gate implying that the Supreme Court is currently sick or “not well,” as he put it. He follows up the insult with a threat, saying that America would need to “restructure” the court in order to heal it. Perhaps most laughable of all is the way he frames the threat as a need to “reduce the influence of politics.” What he’s actually threatening to do is the most politically driven and drastic action imaginable in this scenario. He might as well have said, decide the case the way liberals and Democrats want or we’ll come back and stack a bunch of blatantly liberal justices on your bench to overrule you.

…

Dick Durbin, Kirsten Gillibrand, Richard Blumenthal, and Mazie Hirono all signed on to the letter that Whitehouse submitted, so we’ve got some presidential primary action going on here as well. It would be interesting to see if this backfires on Whitehouse entirely. As I mentioned in the previous article (linked above), we’ve seen how often this Supreme Court has taken every opportunity presented to dodge divisive, complex cases, particularly when it comes to Second Amendment issues. This motion by the defendants offers them the perfect opportunity to do that once again. But after getting a nasty poison pen letter like this from Whitehouse, I wonder if the conservatives on the court will stiffen their backs and insist on hearing the appeal anyway.

[arcticdementor]

Kevin Poulsen is the symptom, not the disease

Facebook is not to be trusted with your data

By now you’ve likely heard about Kevin Poulsen, the Daily Beast writer who tracked down the guy who created the “drunk Nancy Pelosi” video. He turned out to be an African-American forklift operator from New York, and Poulsen plastered his name and face all over their page. This led to some significant backlash almost immediately. (Daily Caller)

…

But is Poulsen really the heart of the problem? The doxxing victim should probably attempt to sue both the reporter and the Daily Beast for damages, but that doesn’t answer the question of how Poulsen achieved his scoop in the first place. He points out in the original article that “a Facebook official, confirming a Daily Beast investigation, said the video was first posted on Politics WatchDog directly from [the user’s] personal Facebook account.”

Excuse me, but… what? A reporter from the Daily Beast can just pick up the phone, call up Facebook, and have an official there reveal one of their user’s personal information? How does that work? One might expect that they wouldn’t be doing that for anyone other than a law enforcement official with a warrant.

Facebook has long been seen to abuse people’s personal data, but they’re generally just selling it off in bulk so it can be used for targeted advertising purposes. This casual outing of one of their users so somebody from the Daily Beast can dox them is taking things to an entirely new level. I’m not saying that people shouldn’t be upset with Paulsen. The guy did something reprehensible. But we should be saving some of our venom for Facebook and demanding answers as to what their actual policy is when it comes to protecting the personal data of their users.