The 2020 Pulitzers are out. Not only did I not win (again), but there seems to be a theme in who did, and it’s well represented in the Prize for Commentary.
Hannah-Jones won for the New York Times’ 1619 Project, which has not only had an enormous influence on the discussion of American History, but has given rise to a mass reinvention of the history curriculum in American public education. Continue reading
Ed. Note: Greg Prickett is former police officer and supervisor who went to law school, hung out a shingle, and now practices criminal defense and family law in Fort Worth, Texas. While he was a police officer, he was a police firearms instructor, and routinely taught armed tactics to other officers.
There are certain things that police officers can do that will never raise a question about their actions, and certain things that will always cause questions to be asked. One of the latter is shooting someone with a bean bag when they are standing with their hands up, and another is shooting someone in a moving vehicle.
Either of these cause grief for the department and, in most cases, both are prohibited by policy, except for very limited exceptions. The death of Michael Ramos at the hands of Austin Police on April 24, 2020 is already causing the department grief. Continue reading
Even the last of the trailing indicators, can’t avoid facing the one thing, the only thing, that is known with absolute certainty now.
This is collateral damage that Democrats — who have spent the last few years championing the #MeToo movement — should be loath to incur. Democrats who subject Ms. Reade’s allegations to a level of scrutiny not widely applied to accusers in similar circumstances — such as Christine Blasey-Ford, who famously came forward during the confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court to allege that he had sexually accosted her in high school — also open up past and future cases to reproachful disregard. Conservatives, like my colleague Bret Stephens, can see the plain gulf between how Democrats have approached sexual assault in politically advantageous cases versus Ms. Reade’s, and the evident hypocrisy threatens to discredit the entire enterprise.
If I were to take to social media to explain how to perform brain surgery, there’s a fair chance no one would care. You see, I’m not a brain surgeon. I’m not even a physician. There is no reason in the world why anyone would think that I have a clue what I was talking about. So while I might spew utter nonsense, no one would care because it’s coming from me. Wise choice.
Why then would anyone care what Candace Owens, who was coincidentally born the same year as my daughter, has to say about COVID-19? And yet, when she twitted about it, it was deemed to be of sufficient importance that it got her kicked out.
The Supreme Court’s crazy foray into technology, the “teleconference” for oral argument, is a mere day away, and it can’t come soon enough for advocates of cameras in the courtroom. On the one hand, there’s the question of how this telephone tag will play out for the advocates doing the arguing. Experience ranges from “tastes like chicken” to “it’s awful,” based on the level of truthiness of the critic.
But there’s the “other hand,” that SCOTUS will allow us groundlings who can’t spend our days waiting on line for a seat in the courtroom to hear oral argument live. It’s not as good as livestreaming, but it’s real life in real time. For the first time, anyone who wants to listen can do so. Mind you, transcripts are available, but they require reading which, apparently, is more work than most otherwise passionate people are willing to put in. Or there are the post-argument reviews by pundits, which vary in accuracy from views that confirm the bias of the passionate to views that are totally garbage. Continue reading
Since the notion of lockdown was floated, people have been sending me links to the myriad measures taken to prevent the spread of coronavirus, from blockading interstate highways to prevent travelers from one state to enter another and bring their diseased bodies with them, to arresting people in parks for existing with their children. Under any other circumstances, these might be outrageous violations of constitutional rights.
Indeed, they may well be under these circumstances as well, but Inter arma enim silent lēgēs. It’s not that this is a war, or that we’re fighting an “invisible enemy,” but that we were in extremis and are constrained to take extreme action to prevent massive harm. We let go of things that would otherwise demand action because survival matters more at the moment. It’s not a principled view of rights, but then, dead people have no rights. Continue reading
Up to now, the denials have come from Biden surrogates, even as the Tara Reade allegations have finally, after about a month of being largely ignored or sloughed off, moved from marginalized to mainstream. Today, Joe Biden will be arraigned in the Court of Public Opinion, where TV Judge Joe Scarborough will take his plea on Morning Joe.
How do you please, Mr. Biden? Guilty or not guilty?
Not guilty, your honor.
Fine. Let’s schedule discovery, motions and aim for a trial date in November.
The Palmer, Alaska school board voted to ban* a number of books, classic books, wonderful books, and as everyone knows, book banning is bad.
A list of books deemed too controversial to be taught in electives including poetry, journalism, creative writing and American literature was presented at a Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District board meeting on April 22. The list cited “sexually explicit material” and “‘anti-white’ messaging” in “I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings,” Maya Angelou’s seminal memoir, and raised concerns about language and sexual references in “The Great Gatsby,” the landmark 1925 novel by F. Scott Fitzgerald.
The other books on the list — “Invisible Man” by Ralph Ellison, “Catch-22” by Joseph Heller and “The Things They Carried” by Tim O’Brien — were judged to be inappropriate because they contained mentions of rape, incest, racial slurs, profanity and misogyny.
District of South Dakota Chief Judge Roberto Lange has, finally, taken one hole out of play.
In a sharp rebuke to the practice, Chief Judge Roberto Lange of the U.S. Federal Court for the District of South Dakota said that the process of involuntary catheterization is a violation of the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, which protects citizens from unreasonable police searches and seizures. Lange declined to dismiss the case brought by six individuals who sued the cities of Pierre, Wagner and Sisseton, as well as various law enforcement officers who oversaw forced catheterizations.
Apparently, it’s a crime under South Dakota law to ingest drugs, and cops used forced catheterization to obtain evidence. This isn’t a novel problem, and an outrageous physical intrusion that’s been going on for quite some time, often with judicial approval of an act tantamount to rape. Continue reading
Given Joe Biden’s dotage, his choice for vice president is kind of a big deal. There is not an insignificant possibility that whomever he chooses will end up in the oval after a lovely funeral. And it’s a somewhat different concern than Mike Pence, as it would be impossible to install someone more vulgar, amoral and ignorant than Trump, so the bar was far lower.
But then, Joe Biden did something telling and tellingly foolish. He announced that his VP would be a woman. Obviously, this was done to pander to the woke of his party, since he could fulfill his promise by selecting Candace Owens. That’s about as far as identity takes you. Continue reading
