Man Killed in Philadelphia Carjacking

Posted on | February 8, 2022 | Comments Off on Man Killed in Philadelphia Carjacking

Dana Pico has kept the spotlight on “Killadelphia,” and notes that the erstwhile “City of Brotherly Love” has now become “Carjackadelphia,” with an astonishing increase in such crimes:

Already this year, police say there have been 140 carjackings in the city — double the year-to-date total from 2021, and seven times the pace reported at the beginning of 2020.
The total number of carjackings last year — 840 — was by far the highest annual total since at least 2017, police statistics show.

A seven-fold increase in carjackings, a phenomenon for which neither public officials nor the journalists at the Philadelphia Inquirer can offer any explanation. Meanwhile, the criminals are emboldened in the Democrat-controlled city, and no one’s life is safe:

A Philadelphia grandfather and military veteran was gunned down Sunday night during a carjacking outside his mother’s house in Rhawnhurst.
According to the Philadelphia Police Department, 60-year-old George Briscella was visiting his mother at her house on the 2100 block of Afton Street around 8 p.m.
Video surveillance footage shows Briscella walking towards a 2020 Toyota Rav4 parked in the driveway when three unknown suspects approach him a minute later.
Soon after, police say three shots were fired from an AR-15 style rifle and one hit Briscella on the right side of the abdomen. He was taken to Jefferson-Torresdale Hospital where he died.
The Rav4 was last spotted heading towards Large Street and has a temporary license plate tag of last 514-67PD.
Philadelphia Police Homicide Detective Jason Smith called the deadly carjacking “a crime of opportunity.”
Investigators believe the three suspects could be linked to other carjackings.
“Total disregard for human life, a great human life,” Tony Briscella said of his father’s killing.
“This didn’t need to happen in a city that we all grew up in and loved, and it continues to deteriorate.”

Note that there is no description of the suspects, and apparently police have not provided the public with still images from the surveillance video to assist in the identification of these murderous carjackers, but it is probably safe to assume that the suspects are not Republican voters.

Dana Pico remarks that the Philadelphia Inquirer seek to blame this deadly surge of violent crime on firearms, rather than the turn-’em-loose policy of Philadelphia’s Democratic DA Larry Krasner, who has refused to prosecute and incarcerate criminals (because “social justice”).

Let us therefore ask, “Where are these guns coming from?”

Three men have been charged for illegally trafficking guns in Philadelphia.
Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro announced the charges against 24-year-old Bryan Johnson, 21-year-old Dajuan Coffee and 23-year-old Quadir Burley on Friday.
Authorities say Johnson, who at the time had no criminal record, purchased 19 different firearms across Bucks, Montgomery, Philadelphia, and Lehigh counties.
According to investigators, he transferred the weapons to Coffee and Burley, who then trafficked them to others.
Both Coffey and Burley were not legally able to purchase guns.
“The majority of these straw purchases were made at gun dealers with electronic records of sale, making it easier for law enforcement to track straw purchasers and trace crime guns thanks to our Track + Trace Initiative,” Shapiro said in a statement.

Probably not Republican voters, I guess. And the reason that the state attorney general’s office has taken charge of apprehending and prosecuting gun traffickers in Philadelphia is because the city’s DA won’t do a damned thing to put them behind bars (because “social justice”). And here’s a story from last July in suburban Montgomery County:

Three Philadelphia men are under arrest for allegedly trafficking dozens of guns around the Delaware Valley.
Investigators say Tyron Gresham, 24, illegally purchased and resold 37 firearms dating back to December 2019.
Of the 37 firearms purchased by Gresham, 17 were purchased in Bucks County, 16 in Philadelphia and four in Montgomery County.
Nasim Smalls, 24, and Aaron Walker, 29, allegedly helped in the sales of the guns.
“The three recovered guns of the 37 purchased by Gresham shows just how far and wide the impact of gun trafficking and straw purchases can be. These guns travel quickly from the original purchaser to a criminal, who very soon uses it in illegal activity,” said Montgomery County District Attorney Kevin Steele.
Police have only recovered three of those weapons: two in Philadelphia and one in Michigan from a car stolen out of New York.

Did I mention that Joe Biden got 81.4% of the vote in Philadelphia? Because it should be obvious that the reason Larry Krasner won’t send criminals to prison is because these criminals are Democratic voters.

That’s what “social justice” actually means: Vote Democrat, and you can literally get away with murder. Nevertheless, with the midterm elections approaching and the electorate concerned about the frightening increase in violent crime committed by Democratic voters, the federal Department of Justice has been cracking down on illegal firearms trafficking:

Man Indicted for Allegedly
Straw Purchasing 27 Handguns
From Stores in the Chicago Suburbs
— Feb. 3, 2022

South Carolina Couple Charged with Illegally Trafficking Firearms into New Jersey
— Nov. 5, 2021

Two Men Indicted for Firearms Trafficking
— Oct. 28, 2021

9 Defendants Indicted In Interstate
Gun Trafficking Scheme
— Aug. 4, 2021

Three People Charged in Interstate
Gun Trafficking Conspiracy
— May 19, 2021

Three Charged in Florida to Connecticut
Gun Trafficking Scheme
— March 28, 2021

Virginia Man Arrested for Gun Trafficking
in South Jersey
— March 25, 2021

Having skimmed through those Justice Department press releases, I’m willing to hazard a guess that the number of Republican voters arrested in these federal gun-trafficking cases was exactly zero.

Isn’t America’s crime problem actually a political problem?

Category: Crime, Democrats, Pennsylvania

In The Mailbox: 02.07.22

Posted on | February 8, 2022 | Comments Off on In The Mailbox: 02.07.22

— compiled by Wombat-socho

Things ought to be back to normal on the blogging front since I’ll be in Reno from now until the 18th. This is subject to change, of course, depending on how my district manager feels about her staffing levels.
Silicon Valley delenda est. (Now more than ever.)

Apropos of the current lawsuit

OVER THE TRANSOM
357 Magnum: The Looming Food Crisis
EBL: Hey, Joe Rogan – It Was A Big Mistake To Apologize To The Woke Mob, also, What’s The Over/Under On Brian Stelter Staying At CNN?
Twitchy: “Are They Children?”, also, Ted Lieu Goes For Gold In The Gaslighting Olympics
Louder With Crowder: The Commercial Featuring An NBA Star That NBC Won’t Show You, also, Russell Brand Mocks CNN’s Brian Stelter For All His Misinformation
Vox Popoli: I Told You Joe Rogan Was Soft, Still Pushing The Killshot, and Why The GOP Must Die
Gab News: Now On Gab – Kyle Rittenhouse, The Canadian Trucker Convoy, and the American Freedom Convoy

RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
Adam Piggott: What’s Your Conspiracy? also, Slow Truck To Nowhere
American Conservative: Safety Third, also, Onward Christian Soldiers
American Greatness: Time Is Running Out For The COVID Coverups, also, Rumble Offers Joe Rogan $100 Million To Ditch Spotify & Move To Their Platform
American Thinker: Why Ivermectin Was Disappeared, also, Has The U.S. Government Declared War On Its Citizens?
Animal Magnetism: Goodbye, Blue Monday
Babalu Blog: Cuba’s Apartheid Tourism Industry Hit Hard By 91.7% Decline In Visitors, also, Tons Of Food Spoils In Cuba Thanks To Inefficient Government Farm Control
BattleSwarm: Scenes From The Trucker Revolution, also, The Silence Of The PIIGS
Behind The Black: Pushback – Huge Increase In Homeschooling In Virginia, Russian Soyuz-2 Rocket Launches Milsat, and Astronomers Organize Lobbying Group To Block Satellite Constellations
Cafe Hayek: Putting Kids Last, also, Once Again, Being Worthwhile To Incur Does Not Turn Costs Into Benefits
CDR Salamander: Gaming Out WWIII On Midrats, also, The FORD’s Helmets-Only Football Practice
Da Tech Guy: My 1969 Pilots Go All In – Wombat’s Senators Hardest Hit, I’m Old Enough To Remember…, and Report From Louisiana – Random Thoughts
Don Surber: Sarah Palin Has The Goods On The NYT, Chris Wallace Gets Trumpenfreude, and The Press Rides In To Rescue Stacey Abrams
First Street Journal: The Truth Shall Set You Free…From Your Job, also, Carjackadelphia
Gates Of Vienna: Those Who Tell The Truth About Islam Must Die, The VVD Is A Criminal Organization, and We’re On To You, Commissar Trudeau
The Geller Report: Facebook Loses $322 Million Overnight – Zuckerberg Loses Another $2 Billion In Net Worth, Cowboys Join Alberta Trucker Blockade, and DeSantis, Republican AGs To Launch Probe Into GoFundMe
Hogewash: Team Kimberlin Post Of The Day, Beginning To Follow Some Science, and Multi-Messenger Astronomy
Hollywood In Toto: Joe Rogan Is Suddenly Doing Everything Wrong, Adam Carolla – VP Harris Is “A S***show”
The Lid: Biden Makes Huge Concession To Get Iran Back To Nuke Deal, also, Horrendous Genocide Games Ratings Damage NBC, Advertisers
Legal Insurrection: New Documentary To Focus On Famously Woke (And Now Broke) Hampshire College, GoFundMe Backs Off Seizing $9 Million In Donations To Truckers After Elon Musk Calls GFM Thieves, and GOP Senators Question Qualifications Of “Woke” Fed Nominee, Get Accused Of Racism
Nebraska Energy Observer: Random Observations, also, Sunday Miscellany
Outkick: America First, In Foreign Policy & The Olympics (By Hershel Walker), Dolphins Hiring 49ers OC Mike McDaniel As Head Coach?, and Coca-Cola Remains Silent On Uyghur Genocide, Sponsors Beijing Olympics
Power Line: Crisis For The Climate Models?, Trudeau Vs. Reality, and The Lonesome Death Of Amir Locke
Shark Tank: DeSantis Says NGOs Should Be Held Accountable For Smuggling Illegals, also, Loomer Outraises Webster For Second Straight Quarter
Shot In The Dark: It Was Twenty Years Ago…Saturday, also, For It Before Against It
STUMP: Mortality Nuggets
The Political Hat: Unwoke Black History Month
This Ain’t Hell: Another Six Accounted For, Navy IDs SEAL Candidate Killed During “Hell Week”, and F-35 Crash Video
Transterrestrial Musings: From The Truckistan Hellscape, SSTO Hype, and A Lesson From Kari Lake
Victory Girls: Biden – Let’s Wag The Dog In Ukraine, Palin Vs. NYT – She Deserves To Win, and Joe Rogan Attacked Again, And It Was All Planned Out
Volokh Conspiracy: Learning The Lessons Of The Horrific Beijing Olympics, also, “The Trouble With Court-Packing”
Weasel Zippers: Despite Buying $1.2 Billion In COVID Tests From Chicoms, Biden Insists We’re Only Buying American, Chris Wallace Thinks CNN Tricked Him, and Bad Orange Woman Insists Biden Is Not Pro-Lockdown, But…
The Federalist: NCAA Touts Female Achievements While Erasing Them, How Green Energy Fantasies Have Brought The World To The Brink Of War, and Angry, Defiant Stacey Abrams Is The “New Normal”
Mark Steyn: Ten Cents A Dance – Doris Day & Love Me Or Leave Me, Of Conspiracies, Constitutions, & Commies, and The Cavalry Rides Into Covidstan

Amazon Warehouse Deals

Category: Linkagery

Rule 5 Sunday: SUNshine Girl

Posted on | February 7, 2022 | Comments Off on Rule 5 Sunday: SUNshine Girl

— compiled by Wombat-socho

Things have been hopping in Canada lately, what with the Mother Of All Honking going on in Ottawa, so it seemed appropriate to post one of the Ottawa Sun’s SUNshine girls, the relatively decorous Canadian version of the UK Sun’s Page Three girls. Today’s example is Shaelynn, a blue-eyed Pisces who likes Cadillacs.
Ceterum autem censeo Silicon Valley esse delendam.

Ninety Miles From Tyranny: Hot Pick of the Late Night, The 90 Miles Mystery Box Episode #1617, Morning Mistress, and Girls With Guns.

Animal Magnetism: Rule Five Happy Society Friday, and the Saturday Gingermageddon.

EBL: The Ides Of March, Julie London, Reacher, Allison Gollust, Em Beihold, Year Of The Tiger, Civilization: Romance & Reality, and MAGA Mutiny.

A View From The Beach: Ana de Armas Has Some Serious Fans, Michael Avenatti Screwed the Pooch, Friday Political Frolic, Fish Pic Friday – Ray Cwik, Tattoo Thursday, Salt of the Earth?, Wednesday Wetness, The Hard Way, The Monday Morning Stimulus, Rando Celebrity News, Maryland, My Maryland, Palm Sunday and Hef’s Widow Destroys His Precious Legacy

Thanks to everyone for the luscious links!

Amazon Warehouse Deals

Visit Amazon’s Intimate Apparel Shop
Shop Sex & Sensuality Gifts

Category: Rule 5

FMJRA 2.0: Burning For You

Posted on | February 6, 2022 | Comments Off on FMJRA 2.0: Burning For You

— compiled by Wombat-socho

Not a good week for the home team: split two games with Montreal and then got swept in a two-game series by the White Sox. Things don’t look much better this week, as I have a three-game series at Seattle, which just traded for Dick Allen who’ll hit cleanup behind Pete Rose. FML.
Ceterum autem censeo Silicon Valley esse delendam.

We’re not going to finish above .500 this season, are we? *ducks*

Rule 5 Sunday: Evangeline Lilly
Animal Magnetism
Proof Positive
A View From The Beach
EBL
Ninety Miles From Tyranny

‘Liberal Creationism,’ Revisited
357 Magnum
EBL

FMJRA 2.0: There Ain’t Nothing Wrong With The Radio
A View From The Beach
EBL

Yes, Black Lives Matters Was a Scam
The Political Hat
A View From The Beach
EBL
‘Air Biden’: Midnight Flights Bring Illegals From Border, and It’s ‘Racist’ to Notice
357 Magnum
EBL

The Joy of Schadenfreude as Nick Wright Cries the Tears of Unfathomable Sadness
357 Magnum
EBL

‘Running Gun Battle’ in Florida Town Leaves One Dead, Four Wounded
EBL

In The Mailbox: 01.31.22
A View From The Beach
EBL

I (Still) Hate Illinois Nazis
Hogewash
EBL

Malignant Dwarf Jeff Zucker Forced to Resign From CNN Over Sleazy Sex Affair
First Street Journal
357 Magnum
EBL

On The Road
357 Magnum
EBL

‘Complicit in Oppression’
EBL

Crime Is a People Problem, Which Is Why You Can’t Expect Democrats to Solve It
357 Magnum
EBL

In The Mailbox: 02.03.22
Proof Positive
357 Magnum
A View From The Beach
EBL

Carjacker Had ‘Ghost Gun,’ Five Outstanding Warrants, Felony Record
EBL

Somebody Tell Nick Wright That Patrick Mahomes Will Never Be the GOAT
EBL

What Does ‘White Supremacy’ Mean?
EBL

In The Mailbox: 02.04.22
Proof Positive
357 Magnum
A View From The Beach
EBL

Top linkers for the week ending February 4:

EBL (18)
357 Magnum (8)
A View From The Beach (6)

Amazon Warehouse Deals

Category: FMJRA Award

‘The Dismantling of Race-Conscious Admissions Would Deal Another Blow to Equity in Science’

Posted on | February 6, 2022 | Comments Off on ‘The Dismantling of Race-Conscious Admissions Would Deal Another Blow to Equity in Science’

Former UNC Chancellor H. Holden Thorp

Professor Reynolds linked this with the flippant dismissal, “White guy says there are too many Asians.” And perhaps that’s sufficient rebuttal, considering the actual stakes involved in the current situation (see, “Supreme Court can end racial preferences with Harvard and UNC admissions cases,” Mike Gonzalez, Fox News, Jan. 31). It is in fact the case that “affirmative action” (or, as it is now called in academic codespeak, “diversity”) has the effect of discriminating against Asian-Americans in admissions to elite universities, in order to enable those institutions to fulfill their self-imposed quotas of so-called “underrepresented minorities.” In other words, despite the actual discrimination that Asians have experienced historically (and even to this day), because of their extraordinary scholastic success, they are treated unfairly in the admissions process in comparison to black and Hispanic students. Exactly how is this justifiable? “Diversity” is the all-purpose explanation, but it is self-evident that numerical quotas as being used in this process — why else would black students be exactly 14% of the Harvard freshman class, year after year after year? — and that such a racial quota system makes a mockery of the meritocratic ideal that these institutions claim to represent. As much as I would like to ignore this, especially because I’m not awed by the prestige of Harvard, the argument made by H. Holden Thorp deserves close scrutiny.

Who exactly is H. Holden Thorp, you ask? Since August 2019, he has been editor-in-chief of Science magazine. A North Carolina native and chemist by profession, he was something of a youthful prodigy. In his 20s, he was awarded a $500,000 grant from the Packard Foundation, and subsequently made fortune by establishing biotech and pharmaceutical companies. As a member of the faculty of the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, he advanced to the top of that institution:

He became the dean of the College of Arts and Sciences in 2007, after a nationwide search. One year later, he was named chancellor of the University after being nominated by Erskine Bowles, president of the University of North Carolina System, and unanimously chosen by the Board of Governors.
In 2013, Thorp resigned the position of Chancellor amid allegations of widespread academic fraud, which were later outlined in Wainstein Report. The Wainstein Report describes the findings of an independent investigation conducted by former federal prosecutor Kenneth Wainstein. It describes abuses spanning over 18 years, which included “no-show” classes that had little to no faculty oversight. Approximately half of the enrollees in these classes were athletes.

I’m not sure how much personal responsibility Thorp bore for the “widespread academic fraud” at UNC, since the “abuses” predated his chancellorship by several years, but he did resign as a result, so there’s that. So now let’s see his opinions on affirmative action:

As science struggles to correct systemic racism in the laboratory and throughout academia . . .

(How did “science” get roped into these “struggles”? But never mind . . .)

. . . in the United States, external forces press on, making it even more difficult to achieve equity on all fronts — including among scientists. . . .

(What is “equity,” and why must it be achieved “on all fronts”? Or are these just slogans tossed around for the sake of virtue-signalling?)

The latest example is the decision by the US Supreme Court to hear cases brought against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina (UNC) at Chapel Hill challenging their right to use race as a factor in undergraduate admissions. . . .

(If we consult the previous sentence, we see that this decision by the court is being categorized as one of those “external forces” which allegedly make it “difficult to achieve equity.” In other words, merely by agreeing to hear the case, the court has impeded “equity.” The logic of this assertion escapes me, but I’m not a scandal-tainted former UNC chancellor, so perhaps it’s just over my head.)

It is sometimes easy for scientists to let colleagues in other disciplines engage in a debate like this, but the dismantling of race-conscious admissions would deal another blow to equity in science.

(I’m at loss to explain why “equity in science” is so doggone vital as to require “race-conscious admissions” to achieve it.)

The Supreme Court has protected affirmative action in the past, but the Court’s current majority of conservative justices could mean the end of the program. This is no time for the scientific community to stay silent. It is a crucial moment for science to mobilize against this latest assault on diversity.

(OMG! An “assault on diversity”! We must “mobilize”!)

For more than 50 years in the United States, colleges and universities have been using multiple criteria to select undergraduates, recognizing that a diverse student body is essential for the university to achieve its mission.

(Why? Historically black universities don’t have “diverse” student bodies; does Thorp mean to imply that, e.g., Howard fails to achieve the mission of a university?)

I asked Peter Henry, the WR Berkley Professor of Economics and Finance at New York University, about the economic data on the matter. “Affirmative action corrects a market failure,” he said. “Talent is broadly distributed across the US population, but opportunity is not.”

(If any population group is underrepresented in a university’s student body, this is a “market failure”? Why? Where is it enshrined in law — much less in the principles of economics — that everything in life, including university attendance, must be equally distributed among every group, so that the freshman class at Harvard or UNC is a demographic mirror of the population? By the way, how many heterosexual males are in the theater program at Harvard? If straight guys are “underrepresented” in student theater — as is generally the case, based on my personal observation — would they qualify for affirmative action? But never mind, back to “science” . . .)

The process [i.e., “race-conscious admissions”] gives deserving students a chance that they might not otherwise have, adding excellence to the higher education system.

(The key word here is “deserving.” What Thorp is saying is that, merely by being black or Hispanic, some students deserve this “chance” more than others, but the logic of this assertion evades me. Exactly how is it that admitting students with lower scores, simply because they check the correct racial box, is “adding excellence”? If there were no measurable differences in academic performance, these racial quotas would not be necessary. What the students suing Harvard and UNC claim is that, despite their superior qualifications, they were denied admission simply because they’re Asian, and Asian students are “overrepresented.” Thorp does not explain why a Korean-American student is less capable of “adding excellence” than a Puerto Rican student, and I’d like to see someone back him into a corner to demand such an explanation, but I’m not going to hold my breath.)

It also acknowledges that not all students have an equal opportunity to excel at objective measures like standardized tests and grades, and it levels the playing field by giving students and universities the chance to spotlight other important attributes and factors in the admissions process. . . .

(What does that even mean? Why don’t “all students have an equal opportunity to excel at objective measures like standardized tests and grades”? It’s not a difference in opportunity, but rather a difference in ability, that “objective measures” are intended to determine. You can talk all you want about “root causes,” nature-vs.-nuture and all that — very interesting as a research project — but at the point where an elite university is deciding which 17-year-olds qualify for acceptance, the “objective measures” must trump everything else, if the process is to be both fair and meritocratic.)

I know something about this struggle because I was one of the chancellors of UNC who oversaw the admissions policies in question. When the Supreme Court took up the case of Abigail Fisher versus the University of Texas at Austin, I submitted an amicus brief prepared by UNC’s law dean and general counsel. Fisher, a white student, challenged the university’s consideration of race in its undergraduate admission process. Denied admission in 2008, she argued that the use of race in this manner violated her constitutional right to equal protection. In the brief, it was shown convincingly that students chosen for admission based on a range of criteria, including race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic background, fared better than those chosen solely on the basis of standardized test scores and high school grades.

(Oh? This amicus brief was conclusive proof that the “range of criteria” approach to admissions produced better results than reliance on test scores and grades? I’m not familiar with that document, but I’m suspicious of Thorp’s assertion that UNC’s law dean so conclusively settled the argument in favor of a racial quota system.)

This commitment to providing access to higher education has now landed UNC in the courts.
All of this is bad for science. Failure to enroll a diverse undergraduate population has already excluded outstanding people from science, and limiting affirmative action will only make matters worse.

(Who are these “outstanding people” who have been “excluded . . . from science”? Does Thorp have a list of their names or is this just a theoretical assumption about the effects of allegedly inadequate efforts “to enroll a diverse undergraduate population”?)

But much more insidious are the messages these fights continue to send. It’s bad enough that science faculty haven’t continually updated their methods of teaching to ones known to be more inclusive. Likewise for universities and their processes for faculty hiring, promotion, and tenure that sustain inequity. Now, on top of all that, the highest court in the United States is going to engage in a highly public debate over whether many of the country’s potential future students of science can enter the scientific community, continuing the perpetual message of exclusion.

(How “insidious” that the Supreme Court will “engage in a highly public debate” about — checks notes — the claim that Asian students are victims of systemic discrimination in the admissions process at elite universities.)

The cases currently before the court involve claims that Asian Americans are penalized for their race in admissions decisions at Harvard and UNC. As Jennifer Lee, Professor of Sociology at Columbia University, points out in the Editor’s Blog this week, this misrepresents Asian American sentiment: 70% of Asian Americans support affirmative action, and fewer than 10% have reported being passed over for college admissions. As Lee notes, the cases before the court will not address real anti-Asian bias on college campuses.

(He’s citing a sociology professor who in turn is citing a poll, because that’s how arguments about civil rights should be settled — science!)

What can scientists do to counteract all of this? Study the data showing that talent is broadly distributed and then use this evidence to help fight exclusive practices. It’s also important to emphasize that grades and standardized test scores alone are insufficient selection criteria. But more importantly, show up this go-round. Students deserve to see science faculty rise up alongside colleagues in the humanities to support affirmative action. That will be a powerful message of welcome.

Also, be sure that your varsity athletes get credit for no-show classes, because that’s how H. Holden Thorp did it, back at good ol’ UNC.

Category: Education, Racism, Supreme Court

Have You Heard of ‘The CROWN Act’?

Posted on | February 6, 2022 | Comments Off on Have You Heard of ‘The CROWN Act’?

Friday, I wrote about the “Is Professionalism a Racist Construct?” seminar that Washington University in St. Louis did last week, but I hadn’t watched the full hour-long video and — oh, boy! — is it chock full of craziness. After a half-hour, they begin talking about The CROWN Act, and go on about it for 10 minutes. What is The CROWN Act?

In June 2019, California made headlines for becoming the first state to outlaw the racial discrimination of individuals based on their natural hairstyles. The bill, SB 188, passed the state Senate in April and passed in a unanimous vote by California’s state assembly on June 27, 2019. The law, also known as the CROWN Act (Create a Respectful and Open Workplace for Natural Hair), states, “In a society in which hair has historically been one of many determining factors of a person’s race, and whether they were a second class citizen, hair today remains a proxy for race. Therefore, hair discrimination targeting hairstyles associated with race is racial discrimination.”

Now, on the one hand, everybody agrees that racial discrimination is bad and wrong — except when you’re discriminating against Asians in the Ivy League, and then Democrats are perfectly OK with it. But on the other hand, is this specific legislation necessary? Is it wise? Does this need to be enforced by the federal government?

At the federal level, the Crown Act passed in the House of Representatives last September, but it stalled in the Senate. State-specific legislation has been quite successful, though. So far, twelve states have passed the Crown Act or variations on it, including California, New York, New Jersey, Virginia, Colorado, Washington, Maryland, Connecticut, New Mexico, Delaware, Nebraska, and Nevada. More than ten cities have passed the Crown Act in states where it has not yet become law, and at least 17 states have completed the filing or pre-filing steps that could soon lead to official legislation.

This is just pure 100% craziness, and the fact that it started in California — land of legalized larceny and homeless junkies defecating on the sidewalk — ought to be sufficient argument against it. There is an unfortunate tendency, among a certain type of bien-pensant white person, to condescend to black people in a patronizing way, like an indulgent parent attempting to placate a spoiled child. As bad as this approach is when dealing with actual children, it’s utter madness when dealing with adults, and a formula for disaster.

What is going on with The CROWN Act seems to be a largely symbolic gesture, giving white Democrats a chance to vote for something that they can point to as evidence of their anti-racist bona fides, but in the process creating a law that is likely to be mischievous in its effects. Can someone point me to an example of how this law is being enforced? Is this just another way to create business for tort lawyers filing flimsy lawsuits?

The fact that four university deans would spend 10 minutes of a video seminar talking about this law only deepens my suspicion that it’s a bad idea, and that the states which have enacted it will have cause to regret it. I mean, whenever California Democrats and elite academia agree on anything, it’s invariably a bad idea. There is a difference between disapproval and legal prohibition; not everything we dislike, or which we believe to be socially harmful, needs to be prohibited by law. And novelty is scarcely a recommendation for legislative action. The fact that it is impossible to find any precedent for The CROWN Act — really, who ever heard of any law like this? — is the strongest argument against it.

The rush to ram this crazy thing through state legislatures, and even to make it a federal statute, should be resisted long enough to see what effect it will have in those states that have already enacted it. Perhaps I’m wrong, and The CROWN Act will be harmless or even beneficial, but I don’t think so. If this is a good idea, it would be the first good idea California Democrats have had in recent memory.

Category: Racism

GUILTY! GUILTY! GUILTY!

Posted on | February 5, 2022 | Comments Off on GUILTY! GUILTY! GUILTY!

Last July, Michael Avenatti was sentenced to two-and-a-half years in prison for his attempt to extort money from Nike, and now the creepy porn lawyer has again been convicted of felony charges:

Attorney-turned-criminal Michael Avenatti was convicted Friday of swiping nearly $300,000 in book-advance money from his then-client Stormy Daniels.
The now-twice-convicted felon — and one-time rising star — now faces a maximum of 22 years in prison for his conviction on wire fraud and aggravated identity theft charges.
The jury started deliberating Wednesday. He’s scheduled to be sentenced on May 24.
After the verdict, Avenatti made a brief statement to reporters outside of the courthouse in lower Manhattan as rain poured down.
“I’m very disappointed in the jury’s verdict. I am looking forward to a full adjudication of all of the issues on appeal,” he said.
His conviction marks another black eye for the already tarnished attorney, who rose to national fame during the Trump administration as a vocal foe of the president while he was representing Daniels.
Avenatti was a darling of the left during his time as Daniels’ attorney, who relished in sparring with former President Donald Trump and his supporters on social media and cable news.
He even floated running for president against Trump in 2020, as he was reportedly dubbed “the savior of the republic.”
Throughout the trial, prosecutors painted Avenatti, 50, as a calculating thief who stole two book-advance payments from Daniels in 2018 that totaled nearly $300,000.

A thief, a swindler, a liar and a liberal media darling.

Brian Stelter to Michael Avenatti: “And looking ahead to 2020, one reason I’m taking you seriously as a contender is because of your presence on cable news.”pic.twitter.com/lp9qrZ7ner

— Jerry Dunleavy (@JerryDunleavy) February 4, 2022

(Hat-tip: Ed Driscoll at Instapundit.)

Category: Crime

In The Mailbox: 02.04.22

Posted on | February 5, 2022 | Comments Off on In The Mailbox: 02.04.22

— compiled by Wombat-socho

Well, I gave it my best shot, but I didn’t make it home early enough to do two of these and get fully caught up. Which I suppose is just as well since then you would have six link posts this week…anyway, since I have to be back in the tax mines on Sunday (and I already have four clients lined up) I’m just going to spend one night in my own bed before heading back up US-95 to Reno. Might be a book post tomorrow along with the FMJRA. Might wait until next Saturday. We’ll see.
Ceterum autem censeo Silicon Valley esse delendam.