America's Gun

There isn't a consensus on what exactly that firearm would be. I've learned more than I have ever cared to know about the AR-15 in the past month or so. The AR15 definitely qualifies since it was designed by an American, Eugene Stoner. Enough of them are out there in the US that any chance of an "assault rifle ban" would be really difficult. And that's even with a buyback.

I feel the same way I do about the AR15 that I do about Margaret Thatcher: I don't like either of them, but I respect what they are in relation to their respective country's culture. The AR15 is probably more symbolic toward US culture than Margaret Thatcher will ever be to Britain's.

It is a symbol of militarism since it was designed over 60 years ago for the US military, with variants  used by military forces worldwide. Part of its attraction is that it is the civilian version of the US military's weapon. And its deadliness is one of its attractive features. It is proven in combat and mass shootings.

The AR15 platform allows for it to be built in a myriad of different ways. It is also fairly easy to build with various kits being sold; from complete upper and lower receiver assemblies to the parts for making a ghost gun. Although, ghost gun means a firearm made "80%" lower receiver and parts. It is the AR15's ability to be built by anyone which should cause people to pause.

I personally would not want to invest the time and effort into making an actual ghost gun. Complete stripped lower receivers are also available, which is the lower receiver block without the parts. That allows someone to create their custom gun. It's easy to customise a completed lower receiver as well. Just look up a video on how to do that mod to your gun.

And there are the AR15 pistols as well, which I am mentioning since there is the debate as to how often these weapons are used in crime:

Mass shootings involving rifles like the AR-15 can produce dozens of victims at one time, and combined with extensive media coverage of these events, many people have been led to believe that such rifles pose a significant threat to public safety.
However, such shootings are extremely rare, and a look at the FBI data informs us that homicide with these types of rifles represents an extremely small fraction of overall homicide violence. Banning or confiscating such firearms from the civilian population would likely produce little to no reduction in violent crime rates in America.

Given the amount of variations on the AR15, there are a fair amount of pistol versions. One manufacturer lists barrel lengths from 8 inches to 20 inches for their upper receiver assembly. An interesting riff on all this since Orlando, Florida, authorities revised their initial description of one of the weapons used in the June 2016 attack at Pulse nightclub. After initially describing it as an “AR-15-type assault rifle,” police said it was a different type of firearm, the Sig Sauer MCX.

One the the variants of the MCX is the Rattler SBR (short barrelled rifle)[1]. While SBRs are NFA weapons, it's pretty easy to bang one up using the AR15 platform. I would also toss in that semi-auto pistols that accept high capacity magazines are banned in some places. Additionally, a submachinegun is a machinegun that fires pistol calibre ammunition. That means that submachineguns are basically pistols that can have a very high rate of fire.

But the main reason I would say that the AR15 is America's gun is that it will probably never be regulated despite the carnage it is capable of causing. Despite the deadly shooting in Las Vegas to the 20 toddlers killed at Sandy Hook, these weapons are more than freely available to anyone who wants one. You can buy an 80% receiver with no background check to build whatever version of an AR15 you want.

That means that anyone who is adept with metalworking tools, or just adept with tools if it's a polymer 80, can crank out a weapon intended for the battlefield.

That should cause you to pause and think no matter what your opinion of these weapons happens to be.

[1] Short barrelled rifles are another topic which I am not going to get into.

The Ultimate Slam Dunk argument against reparations

I am not a fan of reparations. And I have had enough "black history" to know that the "four hundred years of slavery" is sheer bullshit. Let's start with 1619 as being the beginning date and end with "Juneteenth" in 1865, even though those slaves had been legally free since the Emancipation Declaration in 1863. That's 246 years.

And 155 years ago. And no one is that old.

The years after emancipation saw blacks move from the South in the Great Migration. Blacks had businesses and did well. And some blacks moved west. Some of them even joined the US military.

Which is where this is going to.

Ever hear of the Buffalo Soldiers?

Several African-American regiments were raised during the Civil War as part of the Union Army (including the 54th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry and the many United States Colored Troops Regiments), the "Buffalo Soldiers" were established by Congress as the first peacetime all-black regiments in the regular U.S. Army. Buffalo Soldiers originally were members of the 10th Cavalry Regiment of the United States Army, formed on September 21, 1866, at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

The Buffalo Soldiers were a fairly significant part of the post-Civil War US Army. Buffalo Soldiers comprised 12% of the U.S. Army infantry force and 20% of the cavalry force during the time of the Indian Wars f(1866 to 1891).

And one that engaged in the ethnic cleansing of the first nations during the "Indian Wars".

Now, if you are going to call me racist because of one cop in a place I have never been, then I have to tell you that you are guilty of the ethnic cleansing of the US Native American from their land. You also engaged in the Imperialist Spanish American War and Pancho Villa's rebellion.

If I am guilty, then you are guilty.

So, get in line because you ain't getting your payout until the Native Americans get their more than well deserved reparations. Native American women are disappearing while you are chanting "Black Lives Matter". Their sacred water is being polluted. Yet no one is bending a knee for the Native Americans.

Missouri has a "stand your ground law" (Or Cingeworthy, but understandable Part II)

In Missouri, you also have a right to protect yourself if you’re in imminent threat of deadly harm if you have a legal right to be in a location. Missouri allows you to defend yourself with the use of deadly force if you’re under imminent threat of deadly force, without a duty to retreat in public. Even more so if you are at your home.

Now, wouldn't a mob of defiant and destructive trespassers on their property count as a threat of  deadly harm given that Patricia and Mark McCloskey were at their home in a gated community and that gate had been destroyed?

Missouri's has a Castle Doctrine law and these guns were lawfully possessed.  The law states, in subsection 3,  that deadly force cannot be used unless “[s]uch force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter private property that is owned or leased by an individual.” However, no lethal force was used here. It was threatened.

Last I checked: trespassing was a crime in most jurisdictions. That means the protesters are shit out of luck the moment they crossed the gate and violated the country code (sarcasm).

It sounds pretty cut and dried that the McCloskeys have a defence there. While Missouri's law may be an affirmative defence, the McCloskeys were in their home. They were also facing off a mob. I would add that a person who is deemed to be the aggressor in a confrontation that turns deadly is not eligible to raise a “stand your ground” defence.

I'm not a fan of these laws. I would also add that Black Lives Matter should have placed their efforts in trying to repeal these laws.

On the other hand, it would have been ironic had Stand Your Ground been used to protect someone who had shot defiant Black Lives Matter protesters. But that is lost on the people who are virtue signalling in these protests.

Cringworthy, but understandable

Article 12 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen states:.

The security of the rights of man and of the citizen requires public military forces. These forces are, therefore, established for the good of all and not for the personal advantage of those to whom they shall be intrusted.

What that means in regard to any civilised and functional society is that the government has an obligation to provide public order through a force created for that purpose: e.g., the police. That is not a privilege, Lisa Bender, it is a right. It is also the obligation of ANY governmental body. The inability to provide for public order is one of the definitions of a failed state.

A friend's picture of her view of Dilworth Plaza.

People have been arming themselves in order to provide for the lack of public security currently given by the state. Not only are firearms being snapped up, but so are tear gas grenades! The people who don't understand this phenomenon are blissfully away from where the destruction happens: not across the street from it.

I am not surprised to see Patricia and Mark McCloskey defending their St. Louis home. Yes, it may be expensive (although a house like that would be infinitely more expensive on the coasts), but the cost isn't the issue. It is their home; whether it is a humble shack or a palatial mansion.

I would add that they may have appeared cringeworthy, but they were acting in defence of their home. There are less drastic methods of mob control: for example tear gas grenades are available in some jurisdictions. People have already begun to arm themselves in self-defence because of the lack of a public force to provide order, or that force is being overworked.

Violent protests are counterproductive if one wishes to see a change in how that force is used. While people may not come out and say they support the police, they know that force is a necessity for public order. I would also add that getting rid of the public force will mean that there will ultimately be a private substitute.

Patricia and Mark McCloskey were the first, but they are far from the last. People shouldn't be laughing since this is serious.

Tyranny, or failed state?

I'm taking part of one of my posts and posting it here since Minneapolis City Council president Lisa Bender told CNN something along the lines of expecting help from the police "comes from a place of privilege."

No, Lisa, it doesn't come from a place of privilege at all.

And your statement comes from sheer ignorance since you have just shown that the Minneapolis city government is a failed state.

A failed state is a political body that has disintegrated to a point where basic conditions and responsibilities of a sovereign government no longer function properly (see also fragile state and state collapse). A state can also fail if the government loses its legitimacy even if it is performing its functions properly. For a stable state it is necessary for the government to enjoy both effectiveness and legitimacy. Likewise, when a nation weakens and its standard of living declines, it introduces the possibility of total governmental collapse. The Fund for Peace characterizes a failed state as having the following characteristics:

• Loss of control of its territory, or of the monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force therein
• Erosion of legitimate authority to make collective decisions
• Inability to provide public services
• Inability to interact with other states as a full member of the international community

Common characteristics of a failing state include a central government so weak or ineffective that it has an inability to raise taxes or other support, and has little practical control over much of its territory and hence there is a non-provision of public services. When this happens, widespread corruption and criminality, the intervention of state and non-state actors, the appearance of refugees and the involuntary movement of populations, sharp economic decline, and foreign military intervention can occur.

Bad move, Lisa, you shouldn't say things like that if you want to keep your job! You are saying that you have a failed state.

And that is in no way a privilege.

Anyway, one thing the riots demonstrated was that there was another possibility for why a someone would need an assault rifle, which is the exact opposite of “tyrannical government”.  That is when your country has become a failed state.

Failure to keep public order, or intentionally dismantling the the organisations which keep public order are exactly that. And it's a shit time to start saying things like defund, dismantle, or abolish the police after a riot has destroyed your city.

Anyway, not only have US cities been trashed, but the sales of assault rifles have gone through the roof. People who you normally wouldn't consider owning one are out trying to buy one.

Rudyard Kipling said something about keeping your head when others are losing theirs being a sign of leadership. The past few weeks were a time for cool heads, not virtue signalling.

Especially if the signalling sends the wrong messages.

Why I think Donald Trump will get another four years!

I remember driving through Western Pennsylvania a few days after the 2016 election. It was obvious why Trump won then. The Dems didn't bother to reassess what happened and are now set to fuck up even worse than in 2016.

First off, running Joe Biden who was a train wreck to begin with, but continues to show WHY he is correct when he tells people to vote for the other guy. Biden lost the election when he told the UAW Worker in Detroit he didn't need an assault rifle among other things, but it gets us to.

The Riots, while the Dems would like to pin everything on Trump. The "Trump is Bad" strategy was a loser in 2016: it's even worse in 2020. Toss in the riots happened in Democratically controlled areas for the most part. Nixon won as the law and order candidate in 1968. Trump will win because the Dems are the party of disorganisation.

The fall out from the riots. Loads of people bought guns. Assault rifles vanished from the marketplace both brick and mortar as well as internet. Gun control, firearms regulation, gun violence prevention, or whatever you want to call it is going to be a dead letter for some time as armed bands troop around left and right: literally.

Let's add in the talk of defunding or disbanding the police, which is one of the worst imaginable cases of branding an idea that anyone could have come up with at this time. Armed groups from all sides of the political spectrum are walking the streets: what could go wrong here? Police reorganisation might have made more sense.

But it doesn't matter since Biden has made it clear that he's not on board.
Let's not forget the Covid-19 thing, which was another disaster. It was something that pointed out the need to "medicare for all", universal basic income, or just good leadership.

In fact, the past few months have been an advertisement for why the Democrats are on the wrong track and running the wrong candidate. But I am not expecting much change. Especially when the candidate who is running is one who really isn't going to change a thing.

Casey Jones is driving the train full speed ahead high on cocaine, And there might even be speed involved.

A militarised police is nothing new...outside the United States

The term "Gendarme" may connote the quaint French Policeman like the one in this picture.

Not really, the French Gendarmerie Nationale is one of France's two national police forces. Unlike the Police Nationale, the Gendarmerie Nationale is a branch of the French Armed Forces placed under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of the Interior with additional duties to the Ministry of Defense.

To try and analogise this to US law enfocement, the Police Nationale would be something like a combination of large city police forces and the FBI. The Gendarmerie would be more like the State Police forces, patrolling the smaller cities, towns, and countryside. But unlike the State Police forces there are two different branches: the Departmentale and the Mobile. The Departmental being like the state police forces.

The mobile being an internal army, quite literally. main responsibilities are:

• crowd and riot control 
• general security in support of the Departmental Gendarmerie 
• military and defense missions missions that require large amounts of personnel (e.g., counter-terrorism patrols)

Nearly 20% of the Mobile Gendarmerie squadrons are permanently deployed on a rotational basis in the French overseas territories. Other units deploy occasionally abroad alongside French troops engaged in military operations (called external operations or OPEX).

Let's toss in the the Gendarmerie Nationale also has the Groupe d'intervention de la Gendarmerie nationale (GIGN), an elite law enforcement and special operations unit numbering about 400 personnel. Its missions include counter-terrorism, hostage rescue, surveillance of national threats, protection of government officials and targeting of organized crime. GIGN is one of the world's top Special Forces groups, which is something that would make people who get upset about armed police to go apoplectic and die.

And the Gendarmerie Nationale's history goes back to the Maréchaussée of the middle ages. Maréchaussée, or Marshalcy.  During the middle ages there were two Grand Officers of the Kingdom of France with police responsibilities: The Marshal of France and the Constable of France. The military policing responsibilities of the Marshal of France were delegated to the Marshal's provost, whose force was known as the Marshalcy because its authority ultimately derived from the Marshal. The Marshalcy dates back to the Hundred Years War, and some historians trace it back to the early twelfth century. Another organisation, the Constabulary (French: Connétablie), was under the command of the Constable of France. The constabulary was regularised as a military body in 1337.

Gendarme means Man at Arms. So the Gendarmes were the "men at arms" of the Middle Ages. The term was more specific than just men who had weapons, but were government officials.

Also, France's Gendarmerie has been highly influential on other national police forces, mostly in civil law and former French Colonies.

Armed gunman? Call in the social worker!

Seriously! What the fuck is with people? Do they think that some "community based solution will work in this type of situation?

The Police and Military are necessary whether people like it or not.

I may accept that "Assault Rifles"are necessary, but

don't think that has totally changed my opinion on firearms regulation.

if anything I still believe that there should be strict laws to prevent these weapons from falling into the wrong hands. Do you really want Antifa or the Black Lives matters crew to have their hands on guns?

On the other hand, the moment that shit like "violence is justified" and "defund the police" get mentioned then it's time that people are allowed to defend themselves. Minneapolis just voted to defund the police: other cities may follow that insane path.

And the assault rifle has been proven in the battlefield, the music concert, the school house, the night club, etc.

Let the "gun violence prevention advocates" ponder that one as people stock up on firearms. I know that the minimum bad effect of all this is that guns will be a worse problem than before. The GVP crowd should have been calling to stop the violence instead of condoning it.

There are ways to address out of control cops in the system, but the fact is that the incidents which led to this were not non-violent and the plaintiffs would have lost. But that is no reason to defund the police.

I almost bought an AR

I guess the H&K MR556 or SIG516 are AR-15 variants.

So, number one deterrent was price. The SIG is the less expensive of the two, but still in the four figure range. We are talking a price of US$ 1400+. Ouch. Toss in that I am leaning toward the H&K compared to the Sig.

And that's the price if you can find one.

Assault Rifles and guns in general are a hot commodity these days. For good reason given the chaos of the past week. Some people have seen it on TV. Other people have lived it.

And people want to protect themselves. And what better way than with a weapon that was designed for the battlefield and proven in mass shootings across the country. Las Vegas was a good advertisement. The chaos of the past week are the perfect advertisement for a weapon like this.

I may not like it, but it is hard to say that people shouldn't be able to own these weapons when the cities are under siege. That makes me different from a lot of people on the left, but I am also much more pragmatic than a lot of people on the left.

Those are the ones who are moaning about the militarisation of the police, like this article in the Guardian. But it misses something that this post is pointing out. Civilians can buy the 5.56 Assault Rifle with no problem. Shouldn't the cops be as well armed as the civilians if they are going to keep the peace?

Toss in there is a movement to defund the police:

Defunding, said activist Jeralynn Blueford, is the logical response from leaders in this moment of unprecedented unrest. “If police had been serious about reform and policy change, then guess what? People would not be this angry.”

What The Fuck? Serious What the Fuck?

We have seen chaos and looting in US cities over the past week. Gun stores have lines that wrap around the block as people scramble to buy weapons to defend their homes.

While I support keeping guns out of the hands of people like criminals and the looters, it is thoroughly insane to prevent the law abiding to their safety. And for the most part I am sceptical of firearms for home defence, I can get why some people would want them.

It's the image in this Tommy Gun ad from the days when they were freely available.  The ability to protect your home against marauding bands of evil doers.

And the do gooders (I can't really say the left since there are some of us who get what needs to be done) who would defund the police and try to make assault rifles illegal. The argument that "no one needs one of these in a civilian world" rings hollow these days.

The chaos of the past week ISN'T the civilian world and toleration of those who are destroying US cities is wrong. It's turning the "silence is consent" argument back at them. Even worse, it's not silence, but outright appeasement.

Black Lives Matters lost any relevance the moment the fires and violence broke out. They could have salvaged their effort if they stood down and denounced the violence. But allowing violence on either side is wrong.

I don't really like that I have to accept that assault rifles are an undeniable fact of US life, but there needs to be some feeling of safety and security until people stand down: especially the rioters and looters. Violence isn't the answer. Especially if you are not the body authorised by law to keep the peace. Breaking the law really isn't the answer.

There are options other than violence and chaos, however, there is a misguided belief that is what is necessary. That is costing the Black Lives Matters its legitimacy even amongst the people it claims to represent.

Because the people buying guns aren't just white.

If it's tourist season: does that mean we can shoot them?

I find the above bumper sticker amusing since I have lived in a lot of places which are dependent on tourism (tourist traps?). Nothing like inviting in a bunch of people from California to see your house and say "we don't have anything that old,"

Or watching people come and gawk at the place you buy your groceries. Although, I do have to admit to doing some "supermarket tourism". it is fun to see what  is on sale.

I've jokingly thought, "should I go to where these people live and act the way they do?"

But the reason I am saying this is that some people have distance from where the rioting is taking place and don't understand the scope of the looting and destruction. In particular, the destruction of people's homes or potential homes. the destruction of where people live.

While the people who are missing the scope of the destruction might dismiss the fire in the Starbucks at Philadelphia's Dilworth Plaza since it was just a building. There were cylinders of compressed gas which could have gone off. Not to mention the Starbucks was across from an apartment building.

There was another fire at 17th and Walnut in Philadelphia that lasted through the night. This was an apartment building which again might be dismissed because of the location. One the other hand, fire claimed an 189 affordable housing unit in Minneapolis.

How would the people who are neglecting the scope of the violence react if it were their home and nieghbourhoods being destroyed.

Let's not forget that some of the destruction has moved from what I would consider "strategic areas" which might make sense, if this could make sense, to the deprived areas that the people who claim that "black lives matter" also claim they want to help.

Raiding a supermarket in a deprived area only ensures that it will remain a food desert. Likewise the economic destruction will cripple any recovery made from the riots of the 60s.

Are these well meaning fools causing the Detroitification of US cities? While the do-gooders claim to care about black welfare, they will instead condemn poor city dwellers to an underclass existence.

The problem is that the peaceful protests should have ended the moment the destruction began. The fact that people are having this discussion shows that the destruction changed the dialogue for the worse. Economic power also brings political power.

The movement could have continued in a constructive manner, but it has now been overwhelmed by other concerns.

Reality versus gun rights

It's really fun watching people defend the rioters and looters in the current situation. I'm going to use Pennsylvania law, but there is Title 18, Article F, Chapter 55: Riot, Disorderly Conduct and Related Offenses, which means that the destruction and looting caused by the rioters is illegal.

No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Trashing stores and stealing the contents is not a political act, but a criminal one.

Let's add in that not only is it a criminal act, but it is actual violence. As I said to one person being able to understand the rioters would also mean that you understand why people are protesting the Covid-19 lockdowns with guns. As they say, they may not agree with the method, but they understand the frustration.

Actually, I find the armed protesters less of a threat than I do an out of control mob who are actually engaged in violent acts. Arson is a major cause of loss of life and injury in commercial properties. Strangely, the people who somehow find that the rioting and looting are justified have an issue with people exercising their right to self-defence.

Rioting, looting, arson, and the other illegal acts mentioned in Title 18, the crimes code, and specifically Title 18, Article F, Chapter 55, are just that crimes and illegal. On the other hand someone does have the right to self-defence if they have a reasonable belief that are in danger of death or serious bodily injury. Which happens to be a very real threat if you are in the sights of rioters.

One person said, "couldn't you get out of their way, or leave town?" Is that a fair question if you get the lockdown order and AREN'T allowed to leave? Someone in that situation is pretty much stuck.

Which gets to the gun rights type's question: "shouldn't the person be allowed to defend themselves?" To which "Fuck, yeah!" seems to be the most sensible answer. And if the best weapon happens to be something semi-auto that can accept a large capacity magazine: then they should indeed be allowed to have such a weapon.

Which is why I titled this the way I did.

The person who somehow feels that the violence is "justified" or "understandable" should also be able to accept that people have a right to protect themselves. And the right which is lawful is the one of self-protection.

Not rioting.

Or as Donald Trump said: “when the looting starts, the shooting starts."

While I don't like Trump or the underlying events which led to the protests, the movement to violence has changed the game to a no win situation. And the people who are going to be the big losers are the ones the protests were supposed to help.

Likewise, I have made it clear that I don't support "gun rights" or believe it to be a real thing, but if people are going to condone violence, then they need to accept that the cycle of violence will continue.

And isn't ending the violence what the protests were trying to do?

 You can condemn the violence, yet still support the underlying cause. If anything, it makes far more sense to condemn the violence instead of allowing the cycle of violence to keep rolling on.

Who was the President of the US on the 13th of July 2013?

Wasn't it Barack Obama?

The post originally asked about the 9th of August 2014 is the date when Michael Brown was fatally shot by 28-year-old white Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson in the city of Ferguson, Missouri. That was the event that led to the "Black Lives Matter" movement. BLM was actually started on 13 July 2013.

Still, Barack Obama was president. And he had been president for 7 years when the Michael Brown incident happened: not George W. Bush or Donald Trump.

It seems there was the usual rioting following that incident. Let's toss in that it seems that like school shootings, the usual drill is: black youth is harmed by police, riots occur, then fuck all happens, only to repeat.

There were also riots in Baltimore after the 2015 shooting of Freddie Gray. Again: black youth is harmed by police, riots occur, then fuck all happens, only to repeat.

My point is that rioting has been used as a tool even during what should have been a racially positive period. But have the results been ever really been positive? Why would I need to be asking all this if there had been positive results.

If anything, the rioting and violence have led to a continuation of the problem. If not making the situation much worse.

I need to add in for good measure that black leaders endorsed Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden during the 2016 and 2020 primaries. Both Clinton and Biden have a horrid record on race relations.

A riot may be the language of the unheard, but temper tantrums also don't get a positive response.

These consequences were actually foretold by some in the Civil Rights Movement, including the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. It is common on social media to see people quoting King’s statement that a riot is a “language of the unheard.” But in the same remarks from which this popular quote is drawn, King also stated that “riots are socially destructive and self-defeating.”

In February 1968, nine months before Richard Nixon’s election, King warned that increased rioting would lead to a “right-wing takeover.” He pointed to segregationist George Wallace’s presidential bid, saying, “Every time a riot develops, it helps George Wallace.”

“They’ll throw us into concentration camps,” he told supporters of the Poor People’s Campaign. “The Wallaces and [followers of the John Birch Society] will take over. The sick people and the fascists will be strengthened. They’ll cordon off the ghetto, and issue passes for us to get in and out. We cannot stand two more summers like last summer without leading inevitably to a rightwing takeover and a fascist state that will destroy the soul of the nation.”

it's time for a new tactic since the old one hasn't worked in 50 odd years. And King was correct about how things would turn out if rioting is the tactic of choice.

There are going to be a lot of people buying guns. Maybe even voting Trump.

I get the outrage at what happened to George Floyd, but I also happen to be from Detroit and have lived in Large metropolitan areas on the East Coast.

Get where I am coming from? Or do you think that White Flight is just because people don't like blacks?

While Detroit's becoming the lost city was mostly due to economic reasons, its riotous past didn't help matters. Likewise, visit Newark or Baltimore if you want to get that this isn't "whitesplainin'", but fucking common sense.

I mean you shouldn't need me saying this stuff if you were in anyway aware what has been going on for a while now.

If your rage has led to to believe that rioting is somehow justified, or in anyway a brilliant idea, then you need to get it through your thick skull that white people are going to tool up to protect themselves too. They point to the Italians in  Baltimore's Little Italy and the Korean shopkeepers in LA who protected their businesses with guns during the riots. Toss in that the whippl also don't decide that the US urban lifestyle isn't attractive as they thought and head for the burbs.

And where are you left? In a dead city.

Banks were a target of the rioting, which is also dumb since who the fuck are you expecting to invest in your neighbourhood to help it revive? Not to mention people are afraid of coming to your business. Or starting a business if it is going to be destroyed.

The exact mechanisms through which the riots affected economic activity over a long period of time are difficult to identify, but a large number of potentially reinforcing channels exist. Property risk might seem higher in central city neighborhoods than before the riots, causing insurance premiums to rise; taxes for income redistribution or more police and fire protection might increase, and municipal bonds may be more difficult to place; retail outlets might close; businesses and employment opportunities might relocate; middle and higher income households might move away; burned out buildings might be an eyesore; and so on. These damaging aspects of riots, the authors find, apparently outweighed outside assistance directed toward the riot areas in the wake of the disturbances.

Source: https://www.nber.org/digest/sep04/w10243.html

What gets me here are the people on the "left" who are somehow justifying this shit. Some them also support Biden, but do you think these riots are going to change Biden from being the Dem nominee. Especially after black "leaders" have endorsed him. Biden and Trump are pretty much the same on the race issue, if you also haven't figured that one out.

You may be your own worst enemy here.

Sometimes the cycle of violence needs to stop with you. After all, it's not called a cycle of violence for nothing. A cycle is "any complete round or series of occurrences that repeats or is repeated". The law of self-defence states that one use the MINIMUM amount of force necessary to stop the threat. Destroying a city is excessive.

Not to mention that violence just isn't productive in the long run. Which is where the question of violent instigators comes in. This would be a super way to make sure that the "Law and Order" Crowd win the election and wouldn't be anything new according to Teaching Tolerance.

Yet for many decades, the instigators and participants in race riots were usually white, not black, and the purpose of the rioting was to assert white domination rather than to express black anger and frustration. During Reconstruction and for a while thereafter, race riots often occurred during elections, as white mobs sought to intimidate the newly enfranchised black voters and to regain power from politicians who would give Blacks an equal opportunity in post–Civil War society. Riots in Memphis, Tenn.; New Orleans, La.; Charleston, S.C.; and Eufaula, Ala., led to dozens of African-American deaths.

 The bottom line is who will really end up benefiting from the violence of the last few days? It's already changed the dialogue from police brutality to senseless violence of the rioters.

This isn't whitesplainin' since I would think that any truly "woke" black person would already have sussed this (and if they haven't they ain't really woke, but fast asleep). And there isn't a whole lot I can do but try and connect the dots for you.

Because there won't be any progress unless black leaders can take control of the situation. And that means weeding out the violent instigators: especially if they are white. It also means renouncing violence and those who advocate it. I would also add setting straight the people who somehow find the mayhem of the past few days justified.

I am of the opinion that Martin Luther King, Jr., Sam Cooke, Malcolm X, and Fred Hampton were killed because they knew what I am saying. That the issue isn't race, but unifying the underclass. They also figured out that violence wasn't the answer, but a major part of the problem.

And what needs to be done are things this white boy can't do for you: especially if you are going to think in terms of race: not unity.

Face masks, symbolism, and Covid-19

Someone said that Trump Derangement Syndrome would be exemplified if Trump came up with a cure for SARS-CoV2. People with it wouldn't take the cure because "Trump".

Likewise, people laughed at Trump's suggestion that they wear a scarf for protection against the coronavirus. The same people now wear scarves, or face masks.



OK, masks really aren't that effective at protecting you from SARS-Cov2. The virus is small enough it can travel through the pores of pretty much anything except something like an N95 mask. Toss in that it needs to be worn properly to offer any protection: cover the face, not touched, and cleaned every day.

Most of the masks being sold come with disclaimers that they are not medical-grade. Sellers can't make medical or health claim that the masks offer protection unless they are medical grade.

Lots of debate about the utility of wearing masks among the science crowd. And watch the video before making fun of people who aren't wearing masks. WHO said that they aren't helpful. CDC "recommends" them. It reminds me of this interaction from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:

BARMAN: You really think the world's going to end?
(Ford nods yes) Shouldn't we lie down or put a bag over our heads or something?
FORD: If you want.
BARMAN: Will it help?
FORD: Not really.

The reality is that there isn't a vaccine, and there probably won't be one out there anytime soon. There has been research on a coronavirus vaccine since the 2002-04 SARS outbreak. The optimistic timeframe is that there will be a vaccine available in another 12-18 months. There is also talk about "Social Distancing" lasting until the end of 2022.

And a cure. Just say "hydroxychloroquine", the medicine Trump has a fixation on. But it's a good example of the search for a "cure". It is indeed a drug that has gotten a lot of scrutiny in the medical world. Like the other cures out there, there is a lot of disagreement about its efficacy for treating SARS-CoV2. In other words, there also isn't a cure out there either.

The upshot of all this is that unless you are indoors, the masks are superfluous. Indoors, the masks are helpful, but don't kid yourself about getting protection from one. The symbolism is that you are doing something. I feel the same way Ford does about all this. But I don't have a Sub-Etha Sens-O-Matic to hitch a ride with.

So, I go with the flow since I have the luxury to do so. But I understand the frustrations of those who don't. You have my sympathy.

"Creepy Joe" Biden's basement campaign

I didn't think the Democrats could come up with a worse candidate than Hillary Clinton.

And then they made Joe Biden the "presumptive nominee".

Hillary needed to be roped off to keep her away from the public. Joe Biden needs to be stuck in a basement to keep him from the public.

Biden's campaign knows this is a good strategy. Their basic campaign strategy is to have Biden "stay alive" and hope Trump Derangement Syndrome delivers him the presidency. That's because even Biden will tell you to examine his record and if you don't like what you see, then you should vote for the other guy!

Biden does best as Max Headroom, the virtual candidate who spouts nonsense. He has to do interviews with friendly media. Even Rachel Maddow was pleading for Biden to show himself a while back. Covid-19 provides the perfect reason for being in the basement. Or so it would seem.

There are better reasons why Joe Biden is Hidin' Biden, and Covid-19 isn't one of them. The record of misconduct with women which is a reverse Brett Kavanaugh (Blasey Ford was the first women to complain about Kavanaugh. Tara Reade is one of many women who have complained about Biden.). The Dems will try and sweep this under the carpet, but it only makes the #metoo a hollow slogan if they run Biden.

Biden being the "presumptive nominee" stinks given that his record is out there for examination. Nathan J. Robinson's Democrats, You Do NOT Want To Nominate Joe Biden is out there in more than enough forms to not be ignored.



There is more than enough material out there on why making Biden the nominee was a mistake. The basement campaign may seem like the answer, but running something that has been stuck away in an attic or basement really isn't the answer.

Anyway, don't blame anybody or anything other than the Democratic establishment if the result is another four years of Donald Trump.

Why Tara Reade's allegations against Joe Biden matter: even if you want to wish them away.

Joe Biden should not be the "presumptive" nominee, let alone the actual nominee. He has run at least two previous campaigns which he lost (1988 and 2008). His campaign was considered dead until Barack Obama made a few phone calls which resulted in the opposition pulling out. Sanders ended up putting his campaign in limbo, although some die hards plan on voting for him if they can in upcoming primaries.

But Biden's ascendency has made it even more obvious that the primary process is a sham. An otherwise dead candidacy has become the "presumptive nominee" while someone who ran a couple of the most popular campaigns ever is shut out of the process. Not that this should come as a surprise for anyone who is a true progressive since the Democratic Party has long held a disdain for anyone who is truly progressive.

Saying that Biden is like FDR is a total joke since the candidate politically most like FDR, Sanders, was shut out of the race. FDR had to fight to get what little of his New Deal agenda he could past the establishment Democrats of the 1930s and 1940s. But all that is not as salient as to WHY Biden should not be the nominee.

There are loads of reasons Biden should not be the nominee, and Tara Reade is only one of many examples of Biden's issues with "unwanted attention" to women. It is not nothing anyone familiar with Biden didn't know: as this clip from John Stewart's Daily Show from 24 February 2015 shows.

It's one thing to try and write off Tara Reade, but Reade is in no way the first unlike Christine Blasey Ford, Brett Kavanaugh's accuser. These accusations against Biden are nothing new. If anything, they are so prevalent that wilful ignorance by Biden supporters makes their #metoo hypocrisy nauseating.

Although, one can accept Biden's being as bad, if not worse than Trump, yet also be willing to vote for Biden by showing their Trump Derangment Syndrome. The simple explanation is that "Trump is bad" works for them.

Not that there aren't alternatives. Sticking by Biden is where the hypocrisy is most annoying given his history with this issue.

I Demexited in 2016. Although, I registered Democrat again to vote for Sanders in the hope that might make a difference (so much for your argument for "Closed Primaries"). True, registering as a Democrat was a waste. I will again vote Green this year since it gets harder and harder to vote for a duopoly candidate.

But don't blame those of us who are willing to vote Third Party if your candidate loses. The writing is on the wall for Joe Biden. It has been since the failed effort at impeachment made it clear that Biden was as corrupt as Trump (still crickets from Burisma in regard to my job application). Biden is a loser. Biden is even more of a loser in light of the current situation with Covid 19 (I felt a need to be more specific since Biden is a loser in general).

And don't blame anybody but yourselves when Trump is reelected.

Joe Headroom Biden

People can be really nasty, only the other day I heard someone say: "he's nothing but a robot, covered in makeup, talks a lot of nonsense..What a way to talk about the future president of America!"



Seriously, hidin' Joe Biden is doing a virtual campaign in a manner that reminds me of Max Headroom. Headroom was a fictional artificial intelligence (AI) character, known for his wit and stuttering, electronically altered voice. Loads of nonsequiturs thrown in for good measure.

Jeezus! That does sound like Biden!

I have to wonder why the Democrats are bothering to run a campaign because it seems that we are being steered toward another four years of Donald Trump.

Vote Biden, Get Kinnock.

I could give so much material to the Trump Campaign (still haven't heard back from Burisma despite my qualifications). On the other hand, Joe's use of Neil Kinnock deserves this picture from Spitting Image.

.

The real question about ending the Covid-19 Lockdowns.

The issue is really more like can we afford to wait until there is a vaccine or treatment. Especially if the time we need to wait is until the end of 2022.

The optimistic predictions on a vaccine are that it won't be available until 12-18 months. But that's optimistic since there has been research into a coronavirus vaccine since the 2002-04 SARS outbreak. I'm not going to get into issues surrounding developing a vaccine since that is way more than a blog post.

Likewise treatments aren't out there. While Trump can take a hit for his musing: he is expressing the frustrations anyone with any familiarity of this feel now.

Herd immunity is controversial since some people feel it relates to immunisation. The real issue is getting enough people infected with the virus to render it "harmless". That raises the issue that quite a few people who are infected could be asymptomatic (I've heard it could be 50-90%). Toss in that 80% of those we do know have been infected don't require hospitalisation to get better according to the WHO.

The whole reason behind "flattening the curve" is to make sure that the health system isn't overburdened. But that also raises issues.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 43,000 healthcare jobs were lost in March 2020, and the job losses in healthcare have increased as shutdowns persist through the pandemic. The HealthLandscape and American Academy of Family Physicians issued a report estimating by June 2020, 60,000 family medical practices will close or scale back, affecting 800,000 workers. Source

That means the US health care system LOST personnel as the pandemic was gearing up. Add in the hypocrisy of Andrew Cuomo who was wrecking New York's health care system until he decided to become the media darling for how he is handling the problem.

The Anti-lockdown protestors would be better served by pointing out they were  being prevented from working. Even more useful would have been for them to ask those "health care" counterprotestors why they weren't working or resting if they are so overworked. Knowing that the health system made cutbacks during the "crisis" is much better ammunition than 5.56.

So, we need good and accurate information as the debate rages as to how and when the lockdown should end. But saying "who would you kill?" isn't really valid since people will die in this pandemic. The question is at this point is timing since there isn't the vaccine, treatment, or immunity out there.

Also, lockdowns prevent addressing the real issues which are being raised by the pandemic. That's ironic since the pandemic is putting them into the spotlight. But it's easier to call the protestors "covidiots" and dismiss them than it is to have a conversation.

And now is the time for conversation and cooperation.