As a fan of irony (and wrinkly, for you nasty youngsters), there was no question but that I had to write about Gawker’s follow-up post to the critically important question of whether Donald Trump’s hair was a weave.  What makes this too deliciously ironic to pass up?  It is the quintessence of both sides of the Gawker Dilemma.

On the one hand, Gawker has demonstrated that its position in the media is to be trivial, unserious, salacious and . . . no, that covers it. If those who hate Gawker for being Gawker, and ripped it a new asshole for airing content that millions of people want to see, and millions feel is “inappropriate” because they conflate their sensibilities with law, needed validation, you just handed it to them on a silver platter. Because Trump’s hair matters?

We all laugh at his hair. We’ve been laughing at his hair for a long time. But it’s just funny. We can all see his hair without you, Gawker. If this is what you call investigative reporting, then you’re the joke your haters claim you are. Was that what you were trying to prove, that you are the asshole of journalism? Well done, then.

But then came the letter. Continue reading →

David Cohen* makes an emotional argument for why it’s time to repeal the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.  It opens curiously, with an appeal to authority.

I teach the Constitution for a living.

Except he doesn’t exactly teach the Constitution for a living. Rather, according to his own description, he “explores the intersection of constitutional law and gender, emphasizing sex segregation, masculinity, and violence against abortion providers.”

This doesn’t mean he isn’t knowledgeable about the Constitution, but starting with a misrepresentation is troubling.  Obviously, he says this to establish his bona fides to make the argument that follows. Is being a lawprof with an agenda inadequate? Perhaps, as there is no necessary nexus between advocate and legal competency, but claiming to be something you are not does little to establish knowledge except to those unaware of the deception. That makes this false assertion divisive.

I revere the document when it is used to further social justice and make our country a more inclusive one.

Continue reading →

At a time when government seeks nothing more than to infiltrate our digital world without any impediment, a group that will stand up and fight against the government where individuals cannot is critical.  The Electronic Frontier Foundation, the EFF, is such a group.

Its motto is “defending your rights in a digital world.” This is certainly a digital world, and we could certainly use someone defending our rights. Like any cause group, we may not always agree with its positions, but we can appreciate that it exists and resists the government’s efforts.

Which makes this all the more sad, because the significance is two-fold. The first is that groups are great, but their efforts are in the hands of the person entrusted with the protection of our rights. The second is the need to believe that the group stands for the cause it claims to stand for, and its mission is embraced by those who serve in the group’s name.   Continue reading →

In response to the mass murder in Orlando, muskets were eliminated from the performance of Hamilton at the Tony awards.  Whether this made a difference or was merely an opportune gesture of support is unclear. But whoever made the decision was entitled to do so. That muskets were part of the birth of a nation, that Hamilton was killed by a gun shot by Aaron Burr in a duel, however, is historical fact. Optics can’t change history, even if feelings are at risk.

The New York Times has been a desperate supporter of gun control, and after every tragedy where a gun is used, promotes its position. Like the Hamilton folks, it’s entitled to its position. That the editorial board is sincere in its belief that guns are an epidemic that must be stopped is beyond question. Having discussed this with some folks there, I know them to be sincere and passionate, all with the best of intentions.

But to reach the overarching goal of limiting, if not eradicating guns, there is a willingness to turn a blind eye to reason and law. Worse still, they are prepared to sacrifice other rights to curtail the hated Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The sacrifice of rights that aren’t on the front burner for those that are has become a fairly common theme at a time when critical thought has given way to the strongest feeling of the moment. Continue reading →

The official reason for Oakland Police Chief Sean Whent’s resignation was “personal reasons.”  Personal? Well, that’s an understatement.

At this morning’s press conference announcing the departure of Oakland Police Chief Sean Whent, Mayor Libby Schaaf and City Administrator Sabrina Landreth told a room full of reporters that Whent was resigning for “personal reasons.” The mayor said it had nothing to do with a scandal involving rookie police officers who sexually exploited a minor, or the suspicious death of a police officer’s wife and his subsequent suicide.

“I’m extremely angry about the alleged misconduct in this department,” Schaaf said.

In the scheme of things that are expected of a mayor, extreme anger doesn’t make the list. How about competent management? How about knowing what’s going on within your administration? How about not having your cops on the public dole engaging in crime, in a protection scheme, and with a 17-year-old girl?

Celeste Guap was a prostitute in East Oakland, who was saved by a cop when her pimp chased her down the street. Good cop? Bad cop. Continue reading →

New York Governor Andy Cuomo was the darling of the social justice warriors when, by executive fiat, he imposed affirmative consent on the state college campuses.  That he did so in lieu of law, by executive order, disturbed them not in the least. Cuomo issued another executive order, and this time it’s gotten their panties in a twist. What’s different?

Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo of New York ordered agencies under his control on Sunday to divest themselves of companies and organizations aligned with a Palestinian-backed boycott movement against Israel.

Wading into a delicate international issue, Mr. Cuomo set executive-branch and other state entities in opposition to the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, or B.D.S., which has grown in popularity in some quarters of the United States and elsewhere, alarming Jewish leaders who fear its toll on Israel’s international image and economy.

The B.D.S. movement is relatively unknown outside of academia. It’s one of the generic irrational choices made by SJWs, wrapped up under the category of “justice,” because the clueless but deeply passionate, for reasons unknown, have decided that their team should be on the side of the Palestinians and against Israel.  As with almost all SJW ideas of justice, it’s all passion, no thought. Continue reading →

Note: Yes, another twitter post, but it’s not my fault (of course it is; no one makes me write about something I don’t want to write about, but since everyone makes excuses about how their volitional acts these days aren’t their fault, why not me?).

The New York Times Washington Deputy Bureau Chief, Jonathan Weisman, explains his decision to leave the twitters, and his 35,000 followers, behind.

The beginning of my end with Twitter came with both a frowny face emoticon from Ari Isaacman Bevacqua, one of The Times’s audience development experts, and a boilerplate email from Twitter:

“We reviewed the account and content reported and are unable to take action given that we could not determine a clear violation of the Twitter Rules (https://twitter.com/rules) surrounding abusive behavior.”

Continue reading →

It’s painful to pass up an opportunity to slam the Drug Enforcement Agency for overreach, for impropriety, for ignoring the constitutional rights of Americans.  But then, how can it be blamed when mindless newspaper editorials cry sad tears? How can the DEA be blamed for doing what the law allows?  Damn, this hurts.

Christopher Moraff writes about the DEA’s latest dive into people’s private lives.

The DEA has claimed for years that under federal law it has the authority to access [Oregon’s] Prescription Drug Monitor Program database using only an “administrative subpoena.” These are unilaterally issued orders that do not require a showing of probable cause before a court, like what’s required to obtain a warrant.

Oregon has fought the DEA’s efforts, and won in the district court.  Continue reading →

A “situation” happens, cops are called and they arrive at the scene.  At that moment, they have to figure out why they’re there, what is happening, who is at fault.  Sure, some instances are pretty obvious, such as one body lying dead on the ground, but the majority of calls are for less significant offenses, more amorphous situations.

This puts a huge amount of discretion and burden on the cop’s plate. He can do two things. The first is engage in the heavy burden of thinking. The second is the far easier task of assumption, going with whatever strikes the cop as the more likely scenario. The former involves investigation and, god forbid, effort. The latter only requires prejudice and the idiot’s love of “common sense,” the knee-jerk adoption of belief without reason.

Gatney Yaw learned this at a gas station in South Houston.

He didn’t want to talk and drive, he said, but just as he was about to finish the call, someone came over to his window and started asking him about money, as KTRK first reported this week. He tried to shoo the person away—but before the woman would leave, another woman came around to his passenger window and sneakily grabbed Yaw’s keys out of the ignition while he wasn’t looking, he said. Yaw got out of the car, chasing the woman, who started essentially playing monkey-in-the-middle with Yaw’s keys with two other people. One of them put the keys in her purse, and Yaw grabbed her, trying to pull her purse away. Continue reading →

No matter how many times agenda-driven lawprofs cried that the First Amendment didn’t protect speech that made people sad, and mean curmudgeon lawyers replied bullshit, there was little question that eventually, the vague laws enacted to protect feelings from harsh words would reach the courts and their constitutionality would be determined.  That happened in North Carolina, where the state’s cyberbullying law was considered in State v. Bishop.

As was the case in New York, the North Carolina Supreme Court held that the law failed.

As one would expect, the facts are nasty and reflect the sort of hateful conduct that makes one wonder what is wrong with people.

During the 2011-2012 school year, defendant and Dillion Price were students at Southern Alamance High School. Starting in the fall of 2011, some of Price’s classmates began to post negative pictures and comments about Price on Facebook, including on Price’s own Facebook page. In September 2011, a male classmate posted on Facebook a screenshot of a sexually themed text message Price had inadvertently sent him. Below that post, several individuals commented, including Price and defendant. Price accused the posting student of altering or falsifying the screenshot and threatened to fight him over the matter; defendant commented that the text was “excessively homoerotic” and accused others of being “defensive” and “pathetic for taking the [I]nternet so seriously.”

Continue reading →