Salt Lake City Police Shot a Teen During a Mental Health Wellness Check

Salt Lake City shooting

The Salt Lake City Police Department is facing another use-of-force controversy after shooting a distressed 13-year-old with mental health issues. (SLCPD)

According to a statement from the SLCPD, the teen’s mother called 911 on September 4 to report that her son “was having a mental health issue and may be violent.” The teen’s mother provided additional information in the statement, saying that while her son did not like law enforcement, she believed police officers were the only ones she could call for help. When officers arrived, the teen’s mother indicated that she wanted her son to go to a hospital to receive assistance.

After receiving information from the teen’s mother, officers staged themselves around the home and knocked. Police body camera footage from the incident, available here, show the moments leading up to the shooting.

Officers pursued the teen, who fled from the house. After catching up with him, an officer shouts at the teen to “get on the ground.” The teen continues to walk down the sidewalk. A few moments later, another command to “get on the ground” is issued just before an officer shoots the teen.

The shot teen is lays down on the sidewalk and tells the officers, “I don’t feel good. Tell my mom I love her,” while the officers shout at the teen to show his hands.

The shooting begins after 17:55 (content warning)

The statement says that officers handcuffed the teen and rendered aid “until medical professionals arrived and took over.” The teen was later transported to a hospital.

The teen sustained injuries in his shoulder, ankles, and stomach.

The SLCPD statement also notes that all new officers receive a 40-hour course on mental health and policing.

“Topics include an overview of mental health conditions, medications, treatments, procedures and community resources,” the statement reads. “Site visits and interactions with those who experience mental health issues help build officers’ understanding and increase the likelihood of a positive outcome by utilizing available resources.”

According to the SLCPD’s use-of-force policy, officers are supposed to take into account a subject’s “mental state or capacity” prior to using force.

The shooting will be investigated internally and by a civilian review board, and the department will not be commenting on the shooting any further.

The SLCPD is also facing criticism for an officer’s decision to command a police dog to bite a man who was already on his knees and had his hands raised in the air. The department will now suspend its use of police dogs.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/368dqUs
via IFTTT

Failed Efforts to Get RBG and Breyer during the Obama Administration

President Trump was able to appoint two Justices in his first two years. He inherited the first vacancy after Justice Scalia died. But he had to work the second vacancy.  His administration took specific steps to help Justice Kennedy off the Court, and open the seat for Justice Kavanaugh.

President Obama was also able to appoint two Justices in his first two years. In 2009, Justice Souter resigned. He never liked Washington, D.C. And in 2010, Justice Stevens resigned in light of concerns over his health. Between 2010 and 2014, the Democrats controlled the Senate. During this period, there were many public calls for Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer to step down.

Now, the New York Times reports that there were also private overtures to open up those two seats.

First, we learn that Senator Pat Leahy tried to use his personal relationship with Ginsburg to nudge her to retire. The timing of this meeting was unclear, but it happened “several years” before 2013.

Several senior White House staff members say they heard word that Senator Leahy had gingerly approached the subject with her several years before the Obama lunch in [2013].

He was then the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which oversees Supreme Court nominations; he also had a warm relationship with Justice Ginsburg, a bond forged over their shared enjoyment of opera and visits to the Kennedy Center. Asked through a spokesman for comment, Mr. Leahy did not respond.

But Leahy’s efforts failed:

One of the former Obama administration staff members who heard discussion of the roundabout outreach by Mr. Leahy was Rob Nabors, who served in a series of White House policy and legislative affairs positions under Mr. Obama from 2009 to 2014. But Mr. Nabors said he recalled hearing that “it wasn’t clear that the message was entirely transmitted effectively, or that it was received in the manner it was delivered.”

Come on. RBG understood the conversation. She knew what Leahy was trying to convey. She wasn’t interested.

Second, in 2013, President Obama asked his White House counsel to set up a meeting with RBG.

When Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined President Barack Obama for lunch in his private dining room in July 2013, the White House sought to keep the event quiet — the meeting called for discretion.

Mr. Obama had asked his White House counsel, Kathryn Ruemmler, to set up the lunch so he could build a closer rapport with the justice, according to two people briefed on the conversation.

Obama was too tactful to outright ask her to step down. Instead, he hinted that the Democrats may lose the Senate in 2014.

Treading cautiously, he did not directly bring up the subject of retirement to Justice Ginsburg, at 80 the Supreme Court’s oldest member and a two-time cancer patient.

He did, however, raise the looming 2014 midterm elections and how Democrats might lose control of the Senate. Implicit in that conversation was the concern motivating his lunch invitation — the possibility that if the Senate flipped, he would lose a chance to appoint a younger, liberal judge who could hold on to the seat for decades.

Ginsburg was smart enough to read the polls. She didn’t need to be reminded about the politics.

But the effort did not work, just as an earlier attempt by Senator Patrick Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who was then Judiciary Committee chairman, had failed. Justice Ginsburg left Mr. Obama with the clear impression that she was committed to continuing her work on the court, according to those briefed.

Keep in mind how RBG fawned over Obama at the State of the Union addresses. It was a public spectacle. Nina Totenberg recounted how RBG attended Obama’s first State of the Union ten days after a cancer procedure.

She was still in considerable post-operative pain when she was released from the hospital, but less than 10 days later, she pulled herself together to attend President Obama’s first State of the Union speech

For her to rebuff Obama was serious. But we know that Ginsburg wanted to be replaced by a female President. Query: if Hillary Clinton was the winner of the 2008 election, would RBG have stepped down?

Fun fact: Ginsburg never attended a single State of the Union address by a Republican President. Not for W or for Trump. She always had scheduling conflicts.

Third, we learn that the Obama White House never discussed aloud trying to get Ginsburg to step down.

Robert Bauer, who served as Mr. Obama’s White House counsel for part of his first term, said he recalled no discussions then of having Mr. Obama try to nudge Justice Ginsburg to step aside. …

Neil Eggleston, who became White House counsel in April 2014, said that he did not remember anyone proposing that another attempt to ease Justice Ginsburg toward resignation would do any good.

“I think it is largely not done,” he said. “Suggesting that to a Supreme Court justice — she is as smart as anyone; she doesn’t need the president to tell her how old she is and what her timelines are.”

In hindsight, the Obama staffers regret not making the statement more explicit:

While Mr. Obama’s own talk with the justice was tactful, changing conditions should have made his implicit agenda clear, according to the two people briefed about the meeting, who spoke only on condition of anonymity given the sensitivity of the topic. Democrats were worried about the prospect of losing the Senate. And the president had invited no other justices to lunch.

Eventually Obama gave up:

But the failure of that conversation convinced the Obama team that it was pointless to try to talk to her of departure. The next summer, when another Supreme Court term closed without a retirement announcement from her, the administration did not try again.

Fourth, we learn that RBG conveyed her disapproval of those who urged her to resign:

She was clearly annoyed at any public suggestions that she step down. In 2014, Erwin Chemerinsky, now dean of the law school at the University of California at Berkeley, wrote articles, appearing in The Los Angeles Times and Politico, declaring that for the long-term good of progressive values, Justice Ginsburg should step aside to make way for a younger Obama appointee.

“It was certainly conveyed to me that she was not pleased with those who were suggesting that she retire,” Mr. Chemerinsky said.

In case you are curious, I have not heard a word from Chief Justice Roberts about my frequent calls for him to step down.

Fifth, Walter Dellinger tried to pull an Arthur Goldberg on the most famous Arthur Goldberg clerk:

Given his previous tenure as chief counsel to the Judiciary Committee, Justice Stephen Breyer might have been a more pragmatic target of overtures. Walter Dellinger, a former solicitor general, mentioned to the White House counsel’s office during the Obama administration a plan he conceived to motivate Justice Breyer, a known Francophile, to start a next chapter.

“My suggestion was that the president have Breyer to lunch and say to him, ‘I believe historians will someday say the three greatest American ambassadors to France were Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and Stephen G. Breyer,'” recalled Mr. Dellinger, who recently joined Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s campaign team.

A friend joked that Breyer would have preferred to be the French ambassador to the United States. Think of all the foreign emoluments! And he wouldn’t even have to move.

Dellinger’s ploy did not work.

Although it is not clear how, word of Mr. Dellinger’s idea made its way to Justice Breyer.

Mr. Dellinger said that when he ran into Justice Breyer at a holiday party not long after Mr. Trump was elected, the justice pulled him aside. “So Walter,” he asked, “do you still want to ship me off to France?” Mr. Dellinger, who sensed the justice was ribbing him, responded, “Mr. Justice, I hear Paris isn’t what it used to be.”

Now, Dellinger has to admit that Breyer’s presence these last few years were important.

Mr. Dellinger added that he now thought Justice Breyer was correct to resist the idea, saying “he has made a tremendous contribution in the ensuing years.” Justice Breyer’s office declined to comment.

If Obama had swapped Breyer for Merrick Garland, would anyone have really noticed?

For what it’s worth, President Trump was able to open up a Fifth Circuit vacancy by offering Judge Prado the ambassadorship to Argentina.

Finally, the Times recounts how the Trump administration greased the skids for Justice Kennedy’s retirement:

President Trump’s first White House counsel, Donald McGahn II, the primary architect of the administration’s success in reshaping the judiciary, helped ease the way for Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement in 2018, which allowed Mr. Trump and a Republican-controlled Senate to lock down his seat for another generation.

Mr. McGahn sought to make the justice comfortable with the process by which a successor would be chosen, according to people briefed on their conversations, by seeking his advice on potential picks for lower-court vacancies and recommending that Mr. Trump nominate one of his former clerks, Neil Gorsuch, to fill an earlier vacancy. (Brett Kavanaugh, whom Mr. McGahn recommended to fill Justice Kennedy’s seat, was also one of his clerks.)

As much as I grouse about Justice Kavanaugh, his candidacy may have been the final push to get AMK to retire. Don McGahn can never get enough credit for opening up the Kennedy seat.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/335dum2
via IFTTT

Salt Lake City Police Shot a Teen During a Mental Health Wellness Check

Salt Lake City shooting

The Salt Lake City Police Department is facing another use-of-force controversy after shooting a distressed 13-year-old with mental health issues. (SLCPD)

According to a statement from the SLCPD, the teen’s mother called 911 on September 4 to report that her son “was having a mental health issue and may be violent.” The teen’s mother provided additional information in the statement, saying that while her son did not like law enforcement, she believed police officers were the only ones she could call for help. When officers arrived, the teen’s mother indicated that she wanted her son to go to a hospital to receive assistance.

After receiving information from the teen’s mother, officers staged themselves around the home and knocked. Police body camera footage from the incident, available here, show the moments leading up to the shooting.

Officers pursued the teen, who fled from the house. After catching up with him, an officer shouts at the teen to “get on the ground.” The teen continues to walk down the sidewalk. A few moments later, another command to “get on the ground” is issued just before an officer shoots the teen.

The shot teen is lays down on the sidewalk and tells the officers, “I don’t feel good. Tell my mom I love her,” while the officers shout at the teen to show his hands.

The shooting begins after 17:55 (content warning)

The statement says that officers handcuffed the teen and rendered aid “until medical professionals arrived and took over.” The teen was later transported to a hospital.

The teen sustained injuries in his shoulder, ankles, and stomach.

The SLCPD statement also notes that all new officers receive a 40-hour course on mental health and policing.

“Topics include an overview of mental health conditions, medications, treatments, procedures and community resources,” the statement reads. “Site visits and interactions with those who experience mental health issues help build officers’ understanding and increase the likelihood of a positive outcome by utilizing available resources.”

According to the SLCPD’s use-of-force policy, officers are supposed to take into account a subject’s “mental state or capacity” prior to using force.

The shooting will be investigated internally and by a civilian review board, and the department will not be commenting on the shooting any further.

The SLCPD is also facing criticism for an officer’s decision to command a police dog to bite a man who was already on his knees and had his hands raised in the air. The department will now suspend its use of police dogs.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/368dqUs
via IFTTT

Failed Efforts to Get RBG and Breyer during the Obama Administration

President Trump was able to appoint two Justices in his first two years. He inherited the first vacancy after Justice Scalia died. But he had to work the second vacancy.  His administration took specific steps to help Justice Kennedy off the Court, and open the seat for Justice Kavanaugh.

President Obama was also able to appoint two Justices in his first two years. In 2009, Justice Souter resigned. He never liked Washington, D.C. And in 2010, Justice Stevens resigned in light of concerns over his health. Between 2010 and 2014, the Democrats controlled the Senate. During this period, there were many public calls for Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer to step down.

Now, the New York Times reports that there were also private overtures to open up those two seats.

First, we learn that Senator Pat Leahy tried to use his personal relationship with Ginsburg to nudge her to retire. The timing of this meeting was unclear, but it happened “several years” before 2013.

Several senior White House staff members say they heard word that Senator Leahy had gingerly approached the subject with her several years before the Obama lunch in [2013].

He was then the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which oversees Supreme Court nominations; he also had a warm relationship with Justice Ginsburg, a bond forged over their shared enjoyment of opera and visits to the Kennedy Center. Asked through a spokesman for comment, Mr. Leahy did not respond.

But Leahy’s efforts failed:

One of the former Obama administration staff members who heard discussion of the roundabout outreach by Mr. Leahy was Rob Nabors, who served in a series of White House policy and legislative affairs positions under Mr. Obama from 2009 to 2014. But Mr. Nabors said he recalled hearing that “it wasn’t clear that the message was entirely transmitted effectively, or that it was received in the manner it was delivered.”

Come on. RBG understood the conversation. She knew what Leahy was trying to convey. She wasn’t interested.

Second, in 2013, President Obama asked his White House counsel to set up a meeting with RBG.

When Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined President Barack Obama for lunch in his private dining room in July 2013, the White House sought to keep the event quiet — the meeting called for discretion.

Mr. Obama had asked his White House counsel, Kathryn Ruemmler, to set up the lunch so he could build a closer rapport with the justice, according to two people briefed on the conversation.

Obama was too tactful to outright ask her to step down. Instead, he hinted that the Democrats may lose the Senate in 2014.

Treading cautiously, he did not directly bring up the subject of retirement to Justice Ginsburg, at 80 the Supreme Court’s oldest member and a two-time cancer patient.

He did, however, raise the looming 2014 midterm elections and how Democrats might lose control of the Senate. Implicit in that conversation was the concern motivating his lunch invitation — the possibility that if the Senate flipped, he would lose a chance to appoint a younger, liberal judge who could hold on to the seat for decades.

Ginsburg was smart enough to read the polls. She didn’t need to be reminded about the politics.

But the effort did not work, just as an earlier attempt by Senator Patrick Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who was then Judiciary Committee chairman, had failed. Justice Ginsburg left Mr. Obama with the clear impression that she was committed to continuing her work on the court, according to those briefed.

Keep in mind how RBG fawned over Obama at the State of the Union addresses. It was a public spectacle. Nina Totenberg recounted how RBG attended Obama’s first State of the Union ten days after a cancer procedure.

She was still in considerable post-operative pain when she was released from the hospital, but less than 10 days later, she pulled herself together to attend President Obama’s first State of the Union speech

For her to rebuff Obama was serious. But we know that Ginsburg wanted to be replaced by a female President. Query: if Hillary Clinton was the winner of the 2008 election, would RBG have stepped down?

Fun fact: Ginsburg never attended a single State of the Union address by a Republican President. Not for W or for Trump. She always had scheduling conflicts.

Third, we learn that the Obama White House never discussed aloud trying to get Ginsburg to step down.

Robert Bauer, who served as Mr. Obama’s White House counsel for part of his first term, said he recalled no discussions then of having Mr. Obama try to nudge Justice Ginsburg to step aside. …

Neil Eggleston, who became White House counsel in April 2014, said that he did not remember anyone proposing that another attempt to ease Justice Ginsburg toward resignation would do any good.

“I think it is largely not done,” he said. “Suggesting that to a Supreme Court justice — she is as smart as anyone; she doesn’t need the president to tell her how old she is and what her timelines are.”

In hindsight, the Obama staffers regret not making the statement more explicit:

While Mr. Obama’s own talk with the justice was tactful, changing conditions should have made his implicit agenda clear, according to the two people briefed about the meeting, who spoke only on condition of anonymity given the sensitivity of the topic. Democrats were worried about the prospect of losing the Senate. And the president had invited no other justices to lunch.

Eventually Obama gave up:

But the failure of that conversation convinced the Obama team that it was pointless to try to talk to her of departure. The next summer, when another Supreme Court term closed without a retirement announcement from her, the administration did not try again.

Fourth, we learn that RBG conveyed her disapproval of those who urged her to resign:

She was clearly annoyed at any public suggestions that she step down. In 2014, Erwin Chemerinsky, now dean of the law school at the University of California at Berkeley, wrote articles, appearing in The Los Angeles Times and Politico, declaring that for the long-term good of progressive values, Justice Ginsburg should step aside to make way for a younger Obama appointee.

“It was certainly conveyed to me that she was not pleased with those who were suggesting that she retire,” Mr. Chemerinsky said.

In case you are curious, I have not heard a word from Chief Justice Roberts about my frequent calls for him to step down.

Fifth, Walter Dellinger tried to pull an Arthur Goldberg on the most famous Arthur Goldberg clerk:

Given his previous tenure as chief counsel to the Judiciary Committee, Justice Stephen Breyer might have been a more pragmatic target of overtures. Walter Dellinger, a former solicitor general, mentioned to the White House counsel’s office during the Obama administration a plan he conceived to motivate Justice Breyer, a known Francophile, to start a next chapter.

“My suggestion was that the president have Breyer to lunch and say to him, ‘I believe historians will someday say the three greatest American ambassadors to France were Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and Stephen G. Breyer,'” recalled Mr. Dellinger, who recently joined Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s campaign team.

A friend joked that Breyer would have preferred to be the French ambassador to the United States. Think of all the foreign emoluments! And he wouldn’t even have to move.

Dellinger’s ploy did not work.

Although it is not clear how, word of Mr. Dellinger’s idea made its way to Justice Breyer.

Mr. Dellinger said that when he ran into Justice Breyer at a holiday party not long after Mr. Trump was elected, the justice pulled him aside. “So Walter,” he asked, “do you still want to ship me off to France?” Mr. Dellinger, who sensed the justice was ribbing him, responded, “Mr. Justice, I hear Paris isn’t what it used to be.”

Now, Dellinger has to admit that Breyer’s presence these last few years were important.

Mr. Dellinger added that he now thought Justice Breyer was correct to resist the idea, saying “he has made a tremendous contribution in the ensuing years.” Justice Breyer’s office declined to comment.

If Obama had swapped Breyer for Merrick Garland, would anyone have really noticed?

For what it’s worth, President Trump was able to open up a Fifth Circuit vacancy by offering Judge Prado the ambassadorship to Argentina.

Finally, the Times recounts how the Trump administration greased the skids for Justice Kennedy’s retirement:

President Trump’s first White House counsel, Donald McGahn II, the primary architect of the administration’s success in reshaping the judiciary, helped ease the way for Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement in 2018, which allowed Mr. Trump and a Republican-controlled Senate to lock down his seat for another generation.

Mr. McGahn sought to make the justice comfortable with the process by which a successor would be chosen, according to people briefed on their conversations, by seeking his advice on potential picks for lower-court vacancies and recommending that Mr. Trump nominate one of his former clerks, Neil Gorsuch, to fill an earlier vacancy. (Brett Kavanaugh, whom Mr. McGahn recommended to fill Justice Kennedy’s seat, was also one of his clerks.)

As much as I grouse about Justice Kavanaugh, his candidacy may have been the final push to get AMK to retire. Don McGahn can never get enough credit for opening up the Kennedy seat.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/335dum2
via IFTTT

Dianne Feinstein’s Husband Caught Up In Latest University Admissions Scandal

Dianne Feinstein’s Husband Caught Up In Latest University Admissions Scandal

Tyler Durden

Fri, 09/25/2020 – 17:20

Wealthy actresses and financiers aren’t the only ones bending the rules of the American college admissions system – a system that has long been skewed toward preserving the status of the elite, even as these same schools help promulgate the crypto-Marxist ideology undergirding BLM and the DSA.

Richard Blum, the husband of California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, has been caught up in the latest scandal over members of ‘the elite’ leveraging their ‘connections’ to grease the wheels of the admissions process for students than lower-than-average test scores for schools like UC Berkeley and other members of the California university system, according to a local TV report which cited a new report from the state.

Despite a policy barring members of the university system’s board of regents from intervening in the admissions process on behalf of friends and family, Blum reportedly wrote letters to the admissions office at Berkley and other schools – letters that often helped students get off wait lists, or otherwise secure a spot.

When confronted by the San Francisco Chronicle about the allegations, Blum stood his ground, insisting that he’s been writing letters of recommendation on behalf of friends and family for years, and that “nobody every told me it was wrong.” The policy barring members of the board from interfering in admissions has reportedly been in place since before Blum joined the board 18 years ago.

Blum was named in a report published this week by the state’s auditors office as somebody who might have abused his power to influence admissions at California’s coveted state university system.

Regents Chair John Pérez issued a statement Thursday saying the “UC Board of Regents takes these matters very seriously, and any violations will be promptly and appropriately addressed.”

He said that UC’s ethics and audit compliance office is reviewing the information “to determine whether the alleged conduct violates” the regents policy, in place since 1996.

Feinstein’s office declined to comment.

The audit examined admissions policies and practices over the six academic years from 2013-2014 to 2018-2019 at four of the UC’s nine campuses — UCLA, UC Berkeley, UC San Diego and UC Santa Barbara.

It was requested last year by state Assemblywoman Tasha Boerner Horvath in response to the national college admissions scandal, which embroiled prestigious universities nationwide, athletic coaches and dozens of wealthy parents.

But Blum didn’t solely write letters of recommendation for “friends and family”. Blum allegedly intervened on behalf of a student whose family was friends with a member of the Board of Regents, the child of a major political donor and an applicant who babysat for a colleague of a former admissions director, according to the California State Auditor report.

The audit examined admissions policies and practices over the six academic years from 2013-2014 to 2018-2019 at four of the system’s nine campuses schools: UCLA, UC Berkeley, UC San Diego and UC Santa Barbara.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2GdTcxK Tyler Durden

The Gathering Super Tantrum

The Gathering Super Tantrum

Tyler Durden

Fri, 09/25/2020 – 17:00

Authored by Robert Gore via Straight Line Logic blog,

It’s time for a divorce.

Russiagate, impeachment, the coronavirus power grab, riots, overhyped Trump “scandals” that came and went, and nonstop venom, vitriol, and vituperation come together under this label: the Continuing Tantrum. The presidential election is less than two months away, and we’re being promised the tantrum to end all tantrums, a Super Tantrum, if the harpy and the dotard don’t win.

Children don’t have a shadowy cabal and mainstream political, business, and media figures encouraging (and funding) their tantrums. Unlike Continuing Tantrum partisans, children who tantrum can be spanked or put in time out, they don’t burn down cities or launch coups, and some of them grow up.

The cabal and its useful idiots are giving the rest of us a “your money or your life” proposition.

We either elect Harris/Biden or the cabal launches a coup and their thugs destroy the country. Hillary Clinton already has told Biden not to concede under any circumstances. It’s a regime-change operation similar to those the cabal has waged around the globe for decades. BLM and Antifa are kissing cousins to the US’s cat’s-paw Islamic extremists and Ukrainian neo-nazis. Fomenting violence and chaos, they’re the violent cover for their sponsors’ intrigues. Order won’t emerge from their chaos, unless your idea of order is Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Libya, and Ukraine.

It’s all laid out in the Transition Integrity Project (TIP), a blueprint of how the cabal intends to install Harris/Biden regardless of the actual election results. Couched in the plausible deniability language of war-gaming and projections, every one of its scenarios—other than a clear Harris win—leads to a constitutional bonfire fueled by street violence, court battles, legislative legerdemain, media propaganda, and possible military intervention. Its authors are circumspect, but one man’s war-gaming and projections are another man’s call to action and instruction manual.

The TIP has about the same chance as a poker player drawing to an inside straight. Trump may deserve to be the fifth white male on Mr. Rushmore if for no other reason than he forced the cabal out of the shadows. He has exposed the unholy alliance of scheming bureaucrats, political figureheads, intelligence operatives, military brass, contractors, second-rate academics, media moguls, and Hollywood airheads that presume to rule us. “The Deep State” was a fringe term when Trump became president, now it’s part of the vernacular. With exposure comes ridicule and scorn; it’s nowhere near as smart or competent as once supposed. Russiagate and the impeachment were maladroit melodramas manipulated by mendacious mediocrities.

The cabal places great store in narrative management. Back in the 1960s and 1970s allegations were first voiced, mostly from the fringe, that the FBI and CIA had infiltrated the mainstream media. There were also complaints, always dismissed, about the media’s liberal bias. Trump derangement syndrome has put the liberal bias on full display, nobody even pretends it doesn’t exist. As for intelligence agency infiltration, the owner of the Washington Post has a huge contract from the CIA and television and cable networks hire ex-spooks as commentators.

Narrative management was easy when there were only three television networks and a few “papers of record.” Now it’s much harder to suppress the truth. The intelligence agencies and their media mouthpieces are subject to constant scrutiny from the alternative media. Once it opens people’s eyes, they stay open; regular AM readers don’t return to mainstream lies.

While the cabal protects its own—the most powerful perpetrators of Russiagate and the impeachment attempted coups may escape punishment—the official and media cover afforded cabal skullduggery is nowhere near as effective as it was for, say, the Kennedy assassinations. Back in the media’s halcyon days, it took a decade before any significant number of people started waking up to the truth about the assassinations. Now we see Plot Holes exposed in real time.

Cable networks broke the television networks’ oligopoly and the information dam began springing leaks. Leaks became gushers with the advent of the Internet and sites devoted to independent investigative journalism, scathing commentary, and non-mainstream news aggregation. The cabal tries buying off the rebels, and if that doesn’t work it deplatforms or demonetizes them. Nevertheless, the rebel alliance continues to find ways to circumvent the Empire. New sites and social media alternatives spring up like weeds and bought-off sites like the Drudge Report see precipitous declines in viewership.

The gathering Super Tantrum, given added impetus by the Supreme Court situation, advertises itself as righteous revolution, but it would be the cabal deposing an outsider and installing chosen insiders. A real revolution overthrows insiders, so call this another attempted coup. Give into your kids’ tantrums and you’ll suffer rule by screams. The cabal thinks it can turn violence on for regime-change and off once it’s successful. That’s wishful thinking. Violence is a race to the bottom and the most bloodthirsty win. Coups often devour their sponsors—you get someone to do the dirty work and you become the dirty work.

Parents who cave in to their children’s tantrums ruin any chance they’ll grow into productive, happy adults. If the Super Tantrum steals the election, the America experiment is over. The Harris Democrats will rejigger the rules so they’ll never lose and America will become a one-party banana republic featuring permanent bio-totalitarianism.

California, New York, and Illinois are previews of coming attractions. They increasingly look like collectivist third-world dumps: the favored few ultra-rich, vanishing middle classes, masses of poor, and rampant crime, corruption, squalor, and seething unrest. And this before their underfunded pensions and welfare systems’ inevitable collapse.

If the Super Tantrum coup succeeds, millions of Trump supporters will know they’ve been robbed and see the writing on the wall for what remains of their freedom and way of life. They’ll be angry, and most of them have firearms. There’s no telling how they’ll respond, but probably not with the restraint to which they responded to the riots or the docility to which they responded to coronavirus totalitarianism. They may launch a righteous revolution of their own, or at least a guerrilla war. The US government hasn’t hadn’t much luck with guerrilla wars the last few decades. A once great nation would become ungovernable and unlivable, especially in the urban hellholes.

To paraphrase divorce decrees, the factions can no longer live in comity, a separation is necessary. That conclusion doesn’t have to be universally embraced. It won’t be embraced by those few who disparage the deplorable productive but dimly realize they’re the golden geese. It will be embraced by people fed up with the garbage. Judging by the numbers of refugees fleeing collectivist states, it already has. They’re taking their outdated fondness for families, livable towns and cities, law and order, property and contract rights, voluntary exchange, hard work, deferred gratification, saving, fiscal sobriety, limited government, individual rights, civility, decency, God, guns, and other cherished hallmarks of their civilization with them.

Once they leave, all the children will have are their tantrums.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3czcsS4 Tyler Durden

2 Charged In Veterans’ Home COVID-19 Outbreak That Left 76 Dead

2 Charged In Veterans’ Home COVID-19 Outbreak That Left 76 Dead

Tyler Durden

Fri, 09/25/2020 – 16:40

One of the biggest contributing factors to the virus’s lethality during the early days of the US coronavirus outbreak was the fact that several states, particularly New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts, failed to secure nursing homes and other facilities where large numbers of vulnerable patients were treated.

And as federal prosecutors look into policies like the disastrous decision to require hospitals to return COVID-19 positive patients to the long-term care facilities where they lived, a policy adopted in NY and several other states, Massachusetts prosecutors are getting a jump on the scape-goating by prosecuting the top administrator and chief doctor of a state-run veterans home that was simply overwhelmed by the virus during the early days of the outbreak.

According to the New York Times, Bennett Walsh, 50, and Dr. David Clinton, 71, were indicted Thursday by a state grand jury on charges related to their work at the facility, the Holyoke Soldiers’ Home in the city of Holyoke. All told, 76 staff and patients died at the home (mostly patients) which housed poor veterans from wars dating back to WWII.

Each man was indicted on five counts for two charges; the specific charges were for caretakers who “wantonly or recklessly” permit or cause bodily injury and abuse, neglect or mistreatment of an older or disabled person.

Lawyers for Mr. Walsh and Dr. Clinton, of Springfield and South Hadley, Mass., could not immediately be reached.

As staff members called out en masse and the coronavirus spread like wildfire through the home, the administrators made some desperate decisions that led to patients being crowded into new wards, with COVID-positive, and non-positive, patients mingling without any protection.

The state a few weeks ago released a lengthy report detailing everything that went wrong at the home. But for those that didn’t read it, the NYT has a quick recap.

Investigators focused on the events of late March, when staff members combined two dementia wards with infected veterans and healthy residents, “increasing the exposure of asymptomatic veterans to the virus,” the attorney general’s office said.

Because of staffing shortages, the facility consolidated the units, which had a total of 42 residents who had different Covid-19 statuses, the office said. Residents who were positive or symptomatic were placed six in a room that typically held four veterans, it said.

Residents believed to be asymptomatic were placed in nine beds in the dining room, where they were “a few feet apart from each other” and next to the room where the infected patients were, it said.

One employee of the facility  told investigators that the decision to merge wards was “the most insane thing I ever saw in my entire life,” according to a report released months later.

“The residents in the consolidated unit were allegedly mingling together, regardless of Covid-19 status,” the office said, adding that this decision was reckless from an infection-control perspective, and placed the asymptomatic veterans at “an increased risk of contracting Covid-19.”

Employee described the decision to combine the wards in horrifying terms. Even patients believed to be asymptomatic were crowded in rooms with only a few feet of space between them, and not far from the infected patients.

One employee of the facility told investigators that the decision to merge wards was “the most insane thing I ever saw in my entire life,” according to a report released months later.

“The residents in the consolidated unit were allegedly mingling together, regardless of Covid-19 status,” the office said, adding that this decision was reckless from an infection-control perspective, and placed the asymptomatic veterans at “an increased risk of contracting Covid-19.”

[…]

In June, investigators released a 174-page report that depicted a facility in chaos, excoriated the decision to combine crowded wards and described conditions in nightmarish terms. In addition to cataloging a series of errors in protecting residents, the report quoted people who worked at the facility, including one who said it “felt like it was moving the concentration camp, we were moving these unknowing veterans off to die.”

Though deaths in the US have turned higher over the past week or so, the virus’s mortality rate has fallen significantly since the spring, as younger people bear the brunt of it. But we’d certainly like to know what the state was doing – if anything – to ensure homes like the veterans home in Holyoke had enough resources to protect their residents.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2HyG7zB Tyler Durden

USC Marshall Business School Dean E-Mail on the Greg Patton / “Neige” Controversy

Here’s the e-mail, just circulated this morning (I’ve confirmed this):

Dear Colleagues,

I have now attended department meetings at all seven of our academic units. Every meeting involved hard but important discussions, and I thank you for your willingness to freely and openly express your opinions and concerns.

A number of themes emerged that we will work on together in the months ahead. But one issue that stands in the way is the email I sent to our first-year full-time MBA students announcing that Professor Greg Patton was stepping aside from his GSBA 542 three-week course. I felt compelled to immediately address the genuine and serious concerns expressed by a number of student groups and individual students, including some enrolled in GSBA 542 who said they would stop attending the remaining two weeks of class. I will always respect and support students who come forward with concerns and will take them seriously, as I did in this case.

However, many of you have read that note as suggesting that I had prejudged the case. As I said when asked about this in the department meetings, this was not my intention. Nor was it my intent to cast aspersions on specific Mandarin words or on Mandarin generally. But I can see how reasonable people could draw a different conclusion in both cases from my email [see the original email below -EV]. I can only offer my sincere apologies that I left that impression, as I believed Professor Patton when he said he did not intend to do his students any harm and I have apologized to him as well.

The university’s Office for Equity, Equal Opportunity and Title IX (EEO-TIX) looked into this matter and concluded that the concerns expressed by students were sincere, but that Professor Patton’s actions did not violate the university’s policy. They have also communicated this to the professor and he allowed me to share their conclusion with you.

To be clear, Professor Patton was never suspended nor did his status at Marshall change. He is currently teaching in Marshall’s EMBA program and he will continue his regular teaching schedule next semester.

More generally, this incident has led many faculty to question whether they will be supported if they “make an honest mistake” in the classroom. Faculty are at the heart of all great business schools and every member of my leadership team will always do everything we can to support you and to ensure you thrive in both your research and teaching missions. We fully support our students and staff as well.

In order for our faculty and students to flourish in the classroom, it is essential that everyone feels free to express their views openly and to learn from each other from a perspective of mutual trust and respect. This can be challenging in today’s charged environment, but we must all strive to find the right balance.

During my very brief tenure as dean, I have seen you all rise admirably to the challenge of giving our students the best possible education in a remote environment. But working from home has made it impossible for me to get to know you, and for you to get to know me. It has created stresses that we have never before experienced. This has been a very tough episode for all of us. But I very much look forward to moving beyond it to work with you to elevate Marshall to new heights. I believe the future is very bright.

Sincerely,

Geoff Garrett

Dean

Here, for perspective, is the original email from the Dean:

Last Thursday in your GSBA-542 classes, Professor Greg Patton repeated several times a Chinese word that sounds very similar to a vile racial slur in English. Understandably, this caused great pain and upset among students, and for that I am deeply sorry. It is simply unacceptable for faculty to use words in class that can marginalize, hurt and harm the psychological safety of our students. We must and we will do better.

Professor Marion Philadelphia, Chair of the Department of Business Communications, will take over teaching the remainder of GSBA-542, beginning tomorrow, Tuesday August 25.

Over the coming weeks and months, I have no higher priority than to work with Vice Dean Sharoni Little, Vice Dean Suh-Pyng Ku and the other members of the Marshall leadership team to identify and redress bias, microaggressions, inequities and all forms of systemic racism associated with anyone’s identity throughout our school. We each must grow and learn always to engage respectfully with one another while fostering and exemplifying the knowledge and skills needed to lead and shape our diverse and global world—such as courage, empathy, compassion, advocacy, collaboration, and integrity.

I am deeply saddened by this disturbing episode that has caused such anguish and trauma. What happened cannot be undone. But please know that Sharoni, Suh-Pyng and I along with the entire Full-Time MBA Program team are here to support each of you. We welcome the opportunity to have conversations with any of you individually.

Sincerely,

Geoff Garrett

Dean

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2G6SCll
via IFTTT

Federal Prosecutors Argue COVID-19 Is Just ‘One More Way to Perish in Prison’

elderly-inmate

Federal prosecutors unsuccessfully tried to argue this week that an 80-year-old inmate serving a life sentence for marijuana offenses shouldn’t be released because COVID-19 is just “one more way to perish in prison.”

U.S. District Judge Donald Graham disagreed and ordered Atilano Dominguez, who was 27 years into his life sentence, to be released from federal prison on Tuesday, over the objections of the Miami U.S. Attorney’s Office and the Bureau of Prisons (BOP). The U.S. government opposed his petition for compassionate release on the grounds that Dominguez, who’s mostly confined to a wheelchair due to advanced arthritis in both knees, was a recidivism risk and that his life sentence was imposed with the knowledge that he could die of any number of illnesses in prison.

Dominguez was one of thousands of federal inmates who applied for compassionate release—a policy allows elderly and terminally ill inmates to go home ahead of schedule—in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. In late March, Attorney General William Barr directed the BOP to use compassionate release, home confinement, and other measures to get elderly and at-risk inmates out of federal prison. Despite the release of more than 7,000 thousand inmates, though, the rollout of Barr’s directive has been maddeningly inconsistent for inmates and families.

Dominguez was sentenced in 1994 to life in prison on two charges of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana and possession with intent to distribute marijuana. His sentence was upgraded to a mandatory life sentence after prosecutors filed a draconian “three strikes” enhancement against him based on previous cocaine offenses. Graham wrote in his order releasing Dominguez that the judge at Dominguez’s original sentencing noted it was probably “too severe,” but there was nothing the judge could do because of the mandatory sentence.

Dominguez’ advanced age and long list of serious medical conditions—including diabetes, hypertension, and congestive heart failure—certainly fit the qualifying conditions for inmates at risk for COVID-19. But federal prosecutors said those were not “extraordinary and compelling reasons” to grant him relief, because he was expected to die in prison anyway.

“The government does not contest that the Defendant’s age and medical condition render him vulnerable to serious consequences if he were to contract the illness,” the Miami U.S. Attorney’s Office argued in a motion opposing Dominguez’s petition. “However, the Defendant’s sentence of life imprisonment always contemplated that the Defendant could perish in prison. The existence of one more way to perish in prison, specifically COVID-19 in addition to heart disease, cancer, stroke, aneurysms and myriad other ailments that afflict the aged, does not alter the appropriateness of the Defendant’s incarceration.”

Before 2018, that would have been the end of the line for Dominguez. There used to be no judicial review available for inmates applying for compassionate release, leaving inmates at the mercy of an arbitrary, inscrutable, and cruel prison bureaucracy. Justice Department records obtained by the criminal justice advocacy group FAMM in 2018 showed that at least 81 federal inmates had died since 2014 while waiting for the government to review their applications. 

However, after the passage of the FIRST STEP Act in 2018, federal inmates can now take their pleas to a judge if the BOP rejects their applications.

Graham ruled in Dominguez’s favor, finding that “there is no authority that persons sentenced to life imprisonment are somehow precluded from being granted compassionate release or are subject to a higher standard of proof.” He was also not convinced by the argument that an 80-year-old quadruple bypass survivor with arthritic knees was a significant safety risk to the community.

For criminal justice groups, cases like this boil down to basic human decency. “Title 9 of the U.S. Attorney’s Manual governs criminal proceedings, and there is no provision there that requires you to be an asshole,” FAMM president Kevin Ring says.

Ring is not the only one. Earlier this year, a federal judge harshly rebuked the U.S. Attorney’s Office in San Francisco for pressuring defendants into plea deals that would waive their rights to compassionate release under the FIRST STEP Act, calling the practice “appalling cruel.”

Reason reported last year on the case of Steve Brittner, a former federal inmate who was diagnosed with metastatic brain cancer. Federal prosecutors opposed his compassionate release petition because they said his life expectancy exceeded his release date. In essence, Brittner wasn’t dying fast enough to qualify.

Then there’s Angela Beck, who suffered a year of potentially fatal medical neglect waiting for a breast cancer diagnosis and treatment. A federal judge granted Beck’s petition for compassionate release, finding that the neglect Beck suffered “likely reached the level of a constitutional violation,” and that if she remained in BOP custody she would face “a substantial likelihood of substandard medical care for her life-threatening disease.”

So far, there have been 124 federal inmate deaths and two BOP staff deaths due to COVID-19. The first inmate to die was a drug offender.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2EzptyL
via IFTTT

USC Marshall Business School Dean E-Mail on the Greg Patton / “Neige” Controversy

Here’s the e-mail, just circulated this morning (I’ve confirmed this):

Dear Colleagues,

I have now attended department meetings at all seven of our academic units. Every meeting involved hard but important discussions, and I thank you for your willingness to freely and openly express your opinions and concerns.

A number of themes emerged that we will work on together in the months ahead. But one issue that stands in the way is the email I sent to our first-year full-time MBA students announcing that Professor Greg Patton was stepping aside from his GSBA 542 three-week course. I felt compelled to immediately address the genuine and serious concerns expressed by a number of student groups and individual students, including some enrolled in GSBA 542 who said they would stop attending the remaining two weeks of class. I will always respect and support students who come forward with concerns and will take them seriously, as I did in this case.

However, many of you have read that note as suggesting that I had prejudged the case. As I said when asked about this in the department meetings, this was not my intention. Nor was it my intent to cast aspersions on specific Mandarin words or on Mandarin generally. But I can see how reasonable people could draw a different conclusion in both cases from my email [see the original email below -EV]. I can only offer my sincere apologies that I left that impression, as I believed Professor Patton when he said he did not intend to do his students any harm and I have apologized to him as well.

The university’s Office for Equity, Equal Opportunity and Title IX (EEO-TIX) looked into this matter and concluded that the concerns expressed by students were sincere, but that Professor Patton’s actions did not violate the university’s policy. They have also communicated this to the professor and he allowed me to share their conclusion with you.

To be clear, Professor Patton was never suspended nor did his status at Marshall change. He is currently teaching in Marshall’s EMBA program and he will continue his regular teaching schedule next semester.

More generally, this incident has led many faculty to question whether they will be supported if they “make an honest mistake” in the classroom. Faculty are at the heart of all great business schools and every member of my leadership team will always do everything we can to support you and to ensure you thrive in both your research and teaching missions. We fully support our students and staff as well.

In order for our faculty and students to flourish in the classroom, it is essential that everyone feels free to express their views openly and to learn from each other from a perspective of mutual trust and respect. This can be challenging in today’s charged environment, but we must all strive to find the right balance.

During my very brief tenure as dean, I have seen you all rise admirably to the challenge of giving our students the best possible education in a remote environment. But working from home has made it impossible for me to get to know you, and for you to get to know me. It has created stresses that we have never before experienced. This has been a very tough episode for all of us. But I very much look forward to moving beyond it to work with you to elevate Marshall to new heights. I believe the future is very bright.

Sincerely,

Geoff Garrett

Dean

Here, for perspective, is the original email from the Dean:

Last Thursday in your GSBA-542 classes, Professor Greg Patton repeated several times a Chinese word that sounds very similar to a vile racial slur in English. Understandably, this caused great pain and upset among students, and for that I am deeply sorry. It is simply unacceptable for faculty to use words in class that can marginalize, hurt and harm the psychological safety of our students. We must and we will do better.

Professor Marion Philadelphia, Chair of the Department of Business Communications, will take over teaching the remainder of GSBA-542, beginning tomorrow, Tuesday August 25.

Over the coming weeks and months, I have no higher priority than to work with Vice Dean Sharoni Little, Vice Dean Suh-Pyng Ku and the other members of the Marshall leadership team to identify and redress bias, microaggressions, inequities and all forms of systemic racism associated with anyone’s identity throughout our school. We each must grow and learn always to engage respectfully with one another while fostering and exemplifying the knowledge and skills needed to lead and shape our diverse and global world—such as courage, empathy, compassion, advocacy, collaboration, and integrity.

I am deeply saddened by this disturbing episode that has caused such anguish and trauma. What happened cannot be undone. But please know that Sharoni, Suh-Pyng and I along with the entire Full-Time MBA Program team are here to support each of you. We welcome the opportunity to have conversations with any of you individually.

Sincerely,

Geoff Garrett

Dean

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2G6SCll
via IFTTT