President Trump finally declares Antifa a terrorist organization.

The National Guard deployed in response to the riots. BBC/Getty.

President Donald Trump has finally declared Antifa a terrorist organization after the riots continued throughout the United States. BBC. Antifa has been accused of violence and destruction in the current riots and have been involved in much of the civil unrest the United States has experienced recently. They are also loosly organized and do not have a traditional leadership organization. It is unclear how exactly Antifa will be declared a terror group, though it will likely come from an executive order. A potential problem is that it's not possible to designated a domestic group terrorists, however Antifa is a international organization.

My Comment:

I think one of President Trump's biggest mistakes is not taking this action all the way back in 2017. Even then is was pretty obvious that Antifa was responsible for most of the political violence that has rocked the country. I think the riots would have still happened without Antifa but it would have been considerably less damaging. 

And I don't think there is any doubt that Antifa bears responsibility for this violence. It's very clear that this violence was organized. As I was watching the various clips and footage from the riots one thing that showed up a lot of times was entire pallets of bricks that someone had obviously delivered.

It's also clear that a lot of the violence and looting wasn't just coming from black Americans but from white people, many of whom did not live the areas they were attacking. Don't get me wrong, there were a lot of non-political or Black Lives Matter affiliated black people looting as well, but it was clear that there were a lot of white people using black block tactics.  

I have to say that Antifa's actions were incredibly racist. Though of course the African American community had their own bad actors and rioted, Antifa was essentially attacking them. They burned down black owned businesses and discredited the black communities demands on police reform. The biggest losers of these riots will be the law abiding people in the black community that have seen their livelihoods destroyed and communities devastating. 

And I know that some people will be making excuses for Antifa. They will be saying things like "how can is being opposed to fascists a bad thing" while ignoring the fact that Antifa defines pretty much everyone as fascists regardless of their political beliefs. Indeed, they label mainstream Republicans as milquetoast as President Trump, who is a fairly centrist, if populist, Republican. It's easy to justify violence against fascists if pretty much everyone to the right of Stalin is considered one. 

I don't buy the idea that Antifa can't be declared a terror organization because they are domestic. While it is true that a total domestic organization can't be declared a terror group, that's not what Antifa is. They have been active in Europe since the 1930's and have been participating in violent attacks that entire time. Though they don't have a central organization they boast international groups that are affiliated with them. 

What will happen though? I am not sure. I think it will take awhile for an investigation to occur. Though Antifa is loosely organized, it is organized and well funded. It will take awhile to build up a strong case against the members and leadership of the organization. 

I do think that much like the Unite the Right rally was for the Alt-Right, these massive riots are going to turn people against Antifa. People of all political stripes are sick and tired of these riots and even Black Lives Matter will likely distance themselves from them as they don't want to be blamed for the violence and destruction these riots have caused. I really think that after arrests are made that Antifa will be what the Alt-Right is today. A joke. 

CDC admits that the Coronavirus was spreading in the United States as early as mid-January.

Medics load someone sick with the virus into an ambulance in Kirkland, Washington. NBC News.

The Centers for Disease Control have admitted that the Coronavirus was spreading in the United States as early as mid-January. NBC News. The CDC reported the findings after having investigated early cases of respiratory illness and used DNA tests to confirm the cases. The first wave came from China and spread in mid-January and early February before being detected. A second wave came from Europe that hit California and the Northeastern states, such as New York. Any spread earlier than mid-January has not been confirmed. 

My Comment:

This report came yesterday but I wanted to write about anything at all that wasn't related to the current riots. Though a multi-paragraph rant might have been cathartic for me, I did start this blog to cover stories that other people aren't and this is one that has been overshadowed by current events. 

And I think it's an important admission. If the virus was already here and spreading then there wasn't much we could have done to prevent the virus from taking hold. If there was already community transmission in January, it was already too late to do the contact tracing and personal quarantine strategy that worked in South Korea, Taiwan, New Zealand and Australia. The various travel bans may have helped things out but even those were too late to stop the virus, they only bought us some time. 

I do wonder if the virus was here even earlier than that though. Just because the CDC didn't find any evidence that it was, doesn't mean that it wasn't. I have heard anecdotal reports that a lot of people were coming down with mysterious severe flus in as early as November but it's nothing that has been proven. 

If these reports are correct, and I have no doubt that the CDC got it right here, then China screwed over the world. It's not a question anymore, if they had immediately warned the world that they had a new respiratory virus we could have stopped the virus in its tracks. Instead, America has 100,000 dead and many more people got sick. We suffered huge economic damage and the lockdowns may even have contributed to the civil unrest we are suffering right now. In short, China has a lot to answer for. 

As for the virus itself, it's important to note that it's still around. Though the warmer weather seems to have slowed the virus in America, it's still ramping up in Brazil and Russia and isn't out of Eastern Europe yet either. Lifting the lockdowns doesn't seem to have had too bad of an effect here but I do worry that we might see a 2nd wave. I am glad that President Trump banned travel to Brazil as they have the potential to give it back to us once fall hits here. 

However, if a 2nd wave hits, I don't think it will be as bad as the first. For one thing there are so many people here that have had it that there won't be much of a fertile ground to spread into. Indeed, this news release shows that more people may be immune than we thought if those early cases were more widespread. We also have treatments now and we have a better idea of what works and what doesn't (ie don't send sick people to nursing homes). 

Regardless, the Coronavirus outbreak is still a huge story and it isn't one that needs to be relegated to the news media memory hole just yet. I will continue to write about it as warranted and let the rest of the world talk about the riots endlessly. 

Derek Chauvin arrested for his role in the George Floyd death

George Floyd. NBC News

Derek Chauvin has been arrested for his role in the death of George Floyd, who he was filmed with his knee on his neck as he died. NBC News. Chauvin has been charged with third degree murder, which would be the equivalent of manslaughter in many jurisdictions. The medical examiner report showed that Floyd died because of artery and heart disease, made worse by the stress of the arrest and drugs in his system, not because of trauma or strangulation. Floyd's death caused massive riots and was widely condemned across the political spectrum. 

My Comment:

I'm going to focus on the legal case for now, not the protests. I think that this is probably the right call. I know some people were and are calling for a higher charge of murder than 3rd degree, but I think that's all that can be proven here, and even that may be a little shaky. 

As I expected it Floyd didn't die directly from Chauvin's pressure on his neck. It certainly didn't help and I think the charges here are appropriate, but I thought it was pretty obvious that the man was suffering from medical issues beyond what was happening during the arrest. When he started coughing up blood my first thoughts were "he's having a heart attack". 

I think that even with his death being caused by his underlying health conditions and the fact that he had drugs in the system, the charges are warranted here. The 3rd degree murder statue reads, "Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years."

You can make a case that Chauvin caused Floyd's death by holding him the way he did and by not giving him medical attention when he was pretty clearly in medical distress. When he started coughing up blood he and the other officers should have known that he was in serious medical trouble and should have administered aid, or at the very least, stopped restraining him the way he was doing. 

And I don't think you can charge any higher than this as 1st degree and most 2nd degree murder charges in Minnesota require intent to kill and there isn't much in the way of evidence that Chauvin wanted to kill Floyd. He also didn't unintentionally kill Floyd while committing a felony, which would bump the crime up to 2nd degree murder, regardless of intent. 3rd degree murder is the right charge. 

Will it hold up in court? That's the big question and the answer for me at least is "I don't know". Without a complete investigation and with Chauvin not given a chance to defend himself yet I don't know if there is exculpatory evidence. I think if no new evidence surfaces I think there is a good chance that Chauvin will be convicted. For me personally, I would need to see some pretty exculpatory evidence that would clear Chauvin to not convict him of this charge. 

Complicating things is the apparent fact that Chauvin and Floyd worked together for years. It's possible the two men knew each other which could be the only think that could bump this up to 1st degree murder. If, for some reason, it could be proven that the two men had issues it might show that Chauvin had reason and intent to kill him. However, it's likely just a huge coincidence. 

Of course the elephant in the room is the riots. I think there is a vain hope that this charge will placate the mobs and stop the riots. I don't think it will as the riots were never about George Floyd in the first place. These people wanted to cause chaos and destruction and used Floyd's death as an excuse and this charge won't do much to quell the rioters. The legitimate protesters might be dissuaded but the rioters? They don't care at all. 

President Trump signs executive order targeting big tech censorship.

President Donald Trump. 

President Trump has signed an executive order targeting social media companies over the censorship policies. The Hill. The order mostly focuses on section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects tech companies from liability from what their users post and allows them to moderate them as long as they are acting in "good faith". However, the President argues that the tech companies, by censoring, fact checking and even editing posts, are acting as publishers and are not entitled to their 230 protections. The order also orders federal agencies to review their spending on social media. It also says that people will be allowed to report tech companies to determine if they are using unfair or deceptive business practices via the Federal Trade Commissions.   

My Comment:

This action is long overdue. Anyone who is seriously arguing that the major tech companies aren't hopelessly biased against conservative, or even non-woke left, is either lying to you or lying to themselves. The President himself had his posts edited, his account temporarily deleted and had "fact checks" on his opinions. Moderation on Twitter and Facebook disproportionately target right wing voices while left wing voices are amplified. 

This is, of course, a major threat to both free speech and free elections. Though people are right that the 1st amendment doesn't apply to private companies, it's also clear that free speech is under threat. It doesn't matter if the government doesn't censor you if you have no ability to have your voice heard. 

Let's take Alex Jones for an example. Regardless of your opinion on the man, it's clear that he has been basically banned from expressing his opinion and making a living. Though he still has his own website, his posts no longer can go "viral" greatly limiting his profits and his ability to reach an audience for his ideas. In short, the tech companies decided who was going to be a winner and who was going to be a loser and they decided Jones had to go because they didn't like the way he acted. And it has become very clear that Jones was merely the canary in the coal mine as now Twitter is moving against President Trump himself. 

The action of censoring President Trump's opinion on the issue of voter fraud shows that the tech companies are going to extend that policy to anyone that they don't like. It doesn't matter if you are someone like me that only has a few hundred followers, or someone like the President of the United States, the most powerful man in the world. If you say something they don't like they will ban you or "fact check" your post. And the fact check will have very little do with reality. With the most charitable take ever you could say that you can't prove that the mail in ballots won't lead to voter fraud as it's not in place yet. But more realistically, of course it will lead to voter fraud! 

Since voter fraud is a major issue in 2020 Twitter is basically censoring President Trump's position, and the position of millions of people in this country. You won't be able to argue that voter fraud is even a thing on Twitter without a fake news "fact check". And you know that the left won't be held to the same standards. If they post a story about "Russian interference", or President Trump's taxes they won't be fact checked at all. This is tipping the scales in favor of the Democrats in 2020 and should be illegal. 

Of course there are questions about how this will even work. It's almost certain that the issue will end up in court and who knows how the Supreme Court will rule. And it's possible that the congressional effort to fix section 230 will fail. This executive order might not change much in the long term. 

The media seems to think that this will hurt President Trump as it will force tech companies to moderate posts even more then they actually do now. While that would be true if they kept their anti-conservative censorship, the obvious work around is that they would have to abide by the spirit of section 230. If they simply changed their policies and stopped acting like a publisher they wouldn't have to moderate everyone's posts. Indeed, that's the whole point, trying to moderate everyone's post for anything that could cause liability and would either force a change in policy or would simply destroy the tech company in question after having to ban most of their usership. That would mean that Twitter either has to change or they will die to competitors like Gab and Parler, which do not censor posts based on their political content.   

Time will tell how it works out. It's unclear how the government will implement this order and it's unclear if it will survive judicial review. But I am glad that President Trump is finally doing something on this issue. I myself have been censored on Twitter due to political bias, having been shadowbanned and I even had to give the company my phone number simply because I was posting tweets in support of the President during his state of the union address. My sincere hope is that it works out and that the tech companies will stop their censorship policies. 

Soldier stops armed attacker at Fort Leavenworth Kansas by ramming him with his car.

Centennial bridge, where the attack occurred. USA Today.

A solider stopped an armed attacker at Fort Leavenworth Kansas by ramming him with his car. USA Today. The attacker, a 37 year old man who has not been identified, got out of his car and began shooting, injuring one person and hitting two other vehicles. The solider responded by hitting the man with his vehicle, injuring him and ending the attack. The suspect and the wounded man, a 30 year old who was also a solider, are in serious but stable condition and are expected to survive. No motive has been released for the attack.

My Comment:

I saw this story late last night and knew that it had to be a post, even if we don't have all that much information. This was a good example of heroism and bravery and the soldier who stopped this attack likely saved many lives. He acted quick enough that only one person was shot, which is a very good thing as that bridge looks like a pretty good killzone. 

I have always said that the most important factor in a mass shooting is how able and willing the potential victims are to resist. That's why I advocate CCW and other forms of carrying weapons. But this case shows that guns aren't the only way to stop a rampage killer in his tracks. You should use any weapon you have at hand to take the attacker out and that's exactly what this guy did. 

Vehicles are pretty good weapons when it comes down to it. They have a lot of mass and power and if you get hit with one you are going to be at the very least incapacitated, if not killed outright. Terrorists have known this for awhile and there have been several devastating terror attacks using vehicles as weapons, most notably the Nice attack in France. 

It is very good to see this tactic used for good for once though. Ramming this attacker saved many lives and allowed the suspect to captured successfully. Nobody died in this case and that's almost the best case scenario in these kinds of situation, with the obvious caveat that an innocent man still ended up being shot. 

I won't speculate too much on motive. Right now it could be anything. He could have been a terrorist, though the fact that Ramadan ended on Saturday makes that seem less likely. And it's possible that this was politically motivated as he seemed to be targeting a military base. But my guess is that it was just some psychopath out for fame, fame that he will likely be denied now. 

Either way, it's nice to write up a post with such a good outcome. Any day where some jackass tries to kill a bunch of people and he fails miserably because someone steps up and takes him down is a good one. This soldier is a hero in my book and I'm glad I got to write about him. 

Growing tensions between India and China over borders.

Indian Army military vehicles in the disputed region. The Guardian/AP.

Tensions are growing between India and China over a border dispute in the Himalayan Mountains. The Guardian. Thousands of PLA troops have deployed on the Chinese side of the border in the Ladakh region. India has responded by deploying several battalions of troops to the border as well. The moves come after two brawls earlier in the month were hundreds of Indian and Chinese troops fought each other, resulting in 100 injuries but no deaths. President Trump has offered to mediate the dispute but there is no indication that either side will take him up on the offer. China may be responding to Indian efforts to shore up airbases and roads in the region while China is doing the same on their side of the border. 

My Comment:

Border skirmishes between India and it's neighbors are nothing new. They have had a few skirmishes with Pakistan and China over the years and the brawls earlier in the month are nothing new. With the Himalayan borders a mess it's no surprise that all sides involved are trying to push their claims. Indeed, it seems that every couple of years or so we see skirmishes like we have seen in the last month. 

But this seems a little more serious than the typical border brawl. Both India and China are sending thousands of troops to the border and that means that this could get ugly. Though the risks of an outright war are slim there is a real possibility that there will be an actual skirmish where people could actually die. Things like a firefight, an artillery duel or even an air battle aren't outside the realm of possibilities. 

For it's party China has been saber rattling quite a bit. They have been threatening their neighbors, trying to push territorial claims and cracking down on Hong Kong. They are throwing their weight around quite a bit and it would not be surprising if the eventually get into a shooting war. 

This reaction in particular is likely due to the fact that India has been fortifying their borders lately. Prime Minster Modi is a nationalist and he is determined to keep India a strong country. I don't particularly blame the Chinese for fortifying their border in return.

However, I do think that China may be sensing that India is in a bad position right now. Not only are they dealing with a deadly Coronavirus outbreak, they also are getting affected by the massive locust plague that is affecting much of the world right now. And they also just had to deal with a major cyclone as well. 

In comparison, China is in a position of strength. Their outbreak is under control and they haven't had the locusts hit their territory yet. Though their economy had been hurt badly, that's about their only major problem right now compared to India. 

I do think it's possible that if India can't get their various plagues under control and starts to collapse under the weight of it, it's very possible that China could actually try to push their claims and send troops to take this territory. That's not likely since I sincerely doubt that the situation in India will get that bad, but it is something to keep an eye on.

This might be an opportunity for the United States. With a cold war with China apparently in the cards, we could use all the allies we could get. India could be a great one to have as they have a major army, nuclear weapons and a semi-decent navy. They could also pick up some of the manufacturing we are pulling out of China. In short, it makes sense to support them in this conflict if a conflict actually happens. 

Four Minneapolis cops fired after incident where a man died.

Screengrab from the Facebook video showing the death. CBS News/Facebook.

Four Minneapolis police officers have been fired after video showing the death of a man in their custody when viral. CBS News. The man, identified as George Floyd, was detained after being reported for a forgery. The police say he was sitting on his car and appeared intoxicated and when confronted he resisted arrest. A 10 minute video was released showing Floyd complaining about not being able to breath and having a bloody nose. The officers involved were also involved with an altercation with a crowd that had gathered that demanded the officers release Floyd. 

The video can be seen on facebook.

My Comment:

As expected as the Coronavirus fades from the news and an election looming the media is beginning to push racial cases in the media again. Just in the past 24 hours there has been this case, a case involving a confrontation between a white woman and a black man in New York City and old, well known, pictures of Jimmy Fallon in blackface have gone viral and I don't think it's organic in any of these cases. Without going into the merits of the other two cases, I don't think any of them would have gone viral if it wasn't an election year, especially after Joe Biden's comments on race went viral just last week. 

So what do I think about the video? I have mixed feelings. The police claim that Floyd was resisting arrest but I didn't see that in either of the two videos released. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, we don't have video of the takedown itself, but it is a point against the police officers. Without more information it's going to be hard to argue that this wasn't excessive force.

I also don't think it was wise for the police officer to keep his knee on the man's neck, even if he was resisting. There are other ways to control someone that don't involve putting pressure on someone's neck and doing so can in some cases result in death. I don't think it was too much to ask for the arresting officer to remove his knee from the man's neck when it was clear he was in medical distress. 

However, I don't think it is proven that the officers actions resulted in the man's death. Even in the other video that showed some of the leadup, he looked like he was in some medical distress. Much like the Eric Garner case back in the day, I think, at worse, the officers made a bad health situation worse. At best Floyd was a dead man regardless as he may have been having medical issues before the police confronted him. Autopsy results will likely give us better information as to why Floyd died and until then I'm not 100% which way this case will go. 

I also think that Floyd is ultimately responsible for this situation even if the cops acted illegally or incorrectly with this case. He was a suspect in a crime after all, so I have little sympathy for him. If it comes out that he wasn't actually a suspect or he didn't actually commit a crime then I would probably be MUCH more sympathetic but so far nobody has even argued that is the case. Until that happens I'm not going to feel bad about his death. 

Still, I think it is the right move to terminate the officers involved in this case. I don't think it was justified to continue to use the knee to detain him after it was clear he was in medical distress and especially after he had lost consciousness. They did the right thing in calling an ambulance but it was clear that he needed medical attention and they didn't give it to him immediately. The officer should have used a different technique to restrain him after it was clear that he was in medical trouble and the other officers should have stopped it from happening.

Should they be charged with his death? It's too soon to tell. If they can prove that the neck hold is what killed them then I think they might have a case for the officer that detained Floyd. It would be a miscarriage of justice to charge anyone else though and if it becomes clear that Floyd would have died regardless than I wouldn't support charges. Right now though I think it could go either way, though I think the case should be decided on the merits of the case, not the media circus surrounding it.  

As far as the issue of race goes, it wouldn't change my opinion either way. If this was a white, Hispanic or Asian man that died in the custody of a black police officer, I'd still stay the cops should be fired while at the same time having little sympathy for the person who died. I don't think there is any evidence that the police acted out of racial malice. However, if evidence shows that the officers have a history of racism then I might change my mind. Nothing like that has emerged so far so as far as I am concerned this isn't a racial issue at all, just a policing one. 

Of course, I'm not the one that decides whether something will be perceived as a racial issue or not. Given that people are already protesting/rioting about this case it's clear that the media narrative is set. This is unfortunate as it will likely cause an increase of actual racism on both sides as well as a general increase of racial tensions. Even pointing out that there is a difference between bad policing, which this case looks like, and racist policing, which we have no evidence of, is a dangerous thing to do. 

I will say that at least in this case there is more evidence of police wrongdoing than in many of the others. This kind of makes me think that this case will fade pretty quickly. This is happened in the past as the Walter Scott case, where the police officer involved very unambiguously broke the law when he shot (you can't shoot a fleeing felon even if they disarm you of your taser). That case too quickly faded from the news and if the autopsy shows that this cop caused Floyd's death than it will likely disappear as well. The media gets way more clicks for cases that are controversial, like the Ahmaud Araby case, not when it's pretty unambiguous that the cops screwed up, even with the racial angle. 

US issues travel ban for Brazil due to the Coronavirus outbreak.

Jair Bolsonaro. Palácio do Planalto.

President Trump has issued a travel ban to Brazil, moving the date up as new cases in Brazil have outpaced the United States. Reuters. Brazil has overtaken Russia as the 2nd worst affected country after the United States. The travel ban will be a blow to Jair Bolsonaro, who is a close ally to President Trump. Bolsonaro has been criticized for his response to the virus. US citizens in Brazil will be the only people allowed to enter the United States from Brazil. 

My Comment:

Fairly big news from Brazil. The United States and Brazil are close allies and both President Trump and President Bolsonaro are close friends and ideological allies. This will indeed be a big blow to Bolsonaro who is already getting attacked in the media for his response to the virus. 

But I think this is a necessary move. The virus is in retreat here in America and the biggest threat may be a 2nd wave from external countries like Brazil. The last thing we need is for this virus to come back after we have beaten it back because some Brazilian entered the country. 

Why is Brazil having so many problems with the virus? Contrary to media opinion I don't think it's all Jair Bolsonaro's leadership. While I do think that he didn't take the virus as seriously as he should, the virus was always going to be a problem for the hugely dense and populated South American country. Brazil has a ton of people all packed in close together so it's little wonder that the virus is spreading like wildfire there. 

I do wonder if the weather might be playing a role. Coronavirus seems to spread better in winter than in summer and seems to be fading in the Northern Hemisphere (with Russia being an obvious exception) while at the same time expanding in South America. Australia and New Zealand have gotten their outbreaks under control but it is flu season for South America and Africa. That may mean that things will get worse in countries like Brazil as the weather changes. 

I have thought for awhile that SARS 2 would follow the same pattern as SARS in that it would be very bad in March, peak in April and start to fade in May. In the Northern Hemisphere this seems to be the case but SARS never really became widespread in South America. My guess is that things will get worse there before it gets better and that if there is going to be a 2nd wave in the United States it will be because of the virus spreading out of places like Brazil. My hope is that this won't happen and that we will remain virus free in the summer and fall months, but time will tell. This travel ban will help reduce these chances... 

Massive locust swarms reach India.

File photo of locusts. RT/Reuters. 

The massive swarm of locusts which have already devastated Africa and the Middle East have reached India. RT.  India, which is already having trouble dealing with the fallout from the Coronavirus pandemic and the Super Cyclone Amphan, could face food shortages due to the insect invasion. The swarms fell upon Jaipur, with three million residents, and are continuing to travel. The locust outbreak is the worst in 26 years for India. 

#LocustAttack in Jaipur...
We are doomed!
Food Shortage incoming... pic.twitter.com/o6SsfBbuby

— Shivani Jain (@She_Vaani) May 25, 2020

Locust swarms in Jaipur this morning. #MondayMorning pic.twitter.com/g5PpCQtb7k

— Rakesh Goswami (@DrRakeshGoswami) May 25, 2020

My Comment:
I've already covered the locust swarm's effect on the Middle East and Africa so I won't have too much more to add here. Everything that is true in those regions is also true in India. These locusts will eat crops, cause food shortages and generally devastate the economy at a time they are already vulnerable.

 However, no disrespect intended, but I think India is the most important country hit by these locusts so far. India has a huge population, is a major economy and is a center of trade. If it gets hit by starvation and food shortages it could cause a ripple effect with the rest of the world.

I think under normal circumstances India could handle a locust invasion. It would be tough but they could deal with it. But they are also dealing with the aftermath of Super Cyclone Amphan. It did around $13 billion in damage and killed 118 people, though much of that ended up hitting Bangladesh as well.

Of course the elephant in the room is the Coronavirus. As of today India has more than 130,000 confirmed cases of the disease and more than 4000 deaths with the virus still spreading. This has already caused major damage to the economy, especially with the lockdown and will limit how well India can respond to the disease.

In short a bad situation in India has gotten much worse. The last thing they need is a bunch of locusts eating all their crops and making life miserable. Seeing the tweets about the situation on twitter and you can tell the Indian people are very concerned about what could happen...

President Trump endorses Jeff Session's primary opponent as feud becomes more public.

Jeff Sessions DOJ photo.

President Trump has endorsed Jeff Session's primary opponent Tommy Tuberville as the feud between the two men explodes. NBC News. President Trump said that Sessions was not mentally qualified to be the Attorney General and that was a disaster at the post. Trump blames Sessions for recusing himself, which led to the Mueller Russia investigation and indirectly led to his impeachment. For his part Sessions defended himself saying that his recusal protected President Trump and eventually led to his exoneration. Sessions and Tuberville were the top two candidates of the 1st primary vote and will face each other on July 14 in a runoff election to win the right to face Doug Jones, the senator that won Session's seat in 2017.

.@realdonaldtrump Look, I know your anger, but recusal was required by law. I did my duty & you're damn fortunate I did. It protected the rule of law & resulted in your exoneration. Your personal feelings don't dictate who Alabama picks as their senator, the people of Alabama do. https://t.co/QQKHNAgmiE

— Jeff Sessions (@jeffsessions) May 23, 2020

My Comment:
This spat was not unexpected. President Trump has made it very clear that he considers Jeff Sessions to be the worst mistake of his presidency and with good reason. If Sessions had not recused himself the Russia investigation likely would never have happened and even if it did Sessions could have run a tighter ship so much of the nonsense that happened, like the prosecution of Michael Flynn and even the impeachment itself, probably would not have happened.

It's hard to overstate how big of a mistake this was. Session's decision to recuse himself made it so much harder for President Trump to get anything done in the first two years of his presidency and likely cost the GOP the house in 2018.  It leashed President Trump until this year, when the impeachment drama failed and the Coronavirus made everyone focus on it instead of President Trump.

And even if he hadn't recused himself, I don't think Sessions was a good attorney general. He did not have the right focus at all. Instead of focusing on corruption in the FBI he was going after legal pot dealers. And even on immigration he didn't do much. Indeed, I struggle to think of any accomplishments for Jeff Sessions when he was attorney general, well no positive ones anyways.

 I don't buy Sessions argument that doing things "by the book" was the right thing to do. Sure President Trump was exonerated eventually but it took more than three years of his presidency. Had Sessions just stood up for himself and said "i'm not recusing myself, see you in court" and then declassified everything we wouldn't be in this situation regardless. Sure the media would have pitched a fit but in the end it wouldn't matter.

I do kind of wish that President Trump had held his tongue a bit longer though. As bad as Sessions was as Attorney General, he was a decent senator back in the day. Whether that is still true is up for debate but I can't imagine that he'd be much worse than Doug Jones. There supposedly still a chance that Sessions could beat Tuberville in July and if that happens it could mean that Alabama voters won't vote against Jones, leaving what is supposed to be a very safe seat for Republicans in the hands of the Democrats.

However, I think the fact that Trump is speaking out now is evidence that Tuberville is going to win in July. He already beat Sessions once in the primary as he was #2 after Tuberville. And I doubt that many people will still vote for Sessions after President Trump publicly endorsed Tuberville.

But then again the Alabama GOP is a strange beast. Back in the 2017 special election, President Trump endorsed Luther Strange, a moderate who nevertheless voted with President Trump. Instead, the Alabama voters went with Roy Moore who was, rather unfairly, destroyed by a sex scandal and was controversial even beforehand. It's possible that the Alabama GOP voters (helped by a few Democrats crossing over to screw the President) could pick Sessions instead.

Either way, it's clear that the Alabama Senate race is going to be one to watch. If Doug Jones hangs onto the seat than GOP's control of the Senate could be at risk, either now or in 2022. It should be a safe seat but this Jeff Sessions nonsense, much like the Roy Moore nonsense before it, jeopardizes everything.

Joe Biden says if black people vote for Trump then "you ain't black", walks it back.

Joe Biden. Politico/Getty.

While on a Black radio show Joe Biden said that "If you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black.". Politico. The remarks were made on the popular Breakfast Club show to co-host Charlamange tha God. Charlamange was challenging Biden after a Biden aide cut the interview short and Biden responded with the comment. The remark started a wave of controversy for the gaffe prone candidate as both Republicans and Democrats condemned what he said. Biden has walked back the statement saying he was "too cavalier" and apologized. 

My Comment:

Joe Biden finally emerges from his Coronavirus exile and this is what he comes up with? The man has always been a gaffe machine but this was pretty dumb even for him. President Trump has been working hard to peel away black voters from the Democrats and this could potentially take a few more away. 

Were the remarks themselves that offensive? I personally felt no offense but I can see how people could. After all, Joe Biden isn't the king of black people, he doesn't get to decide who they support or how they define themselves. His remarks would have been more acceptable if they came from another black person, not a geriatric white man, but regardless it's dumb to expect an entire race of people to vote one way for unexplained reasons. 

Would the statement alone hurt Biden? Probably not. I bet there are even some black people that would agree with him, as the woke black left has little use for anyone opposed to their cause. And Biden has been very popular with blacks for some reason, probably for being the Vice President of the first black president, Barack Obama. 

But I think the context of the statement makes it way worse. His aide was cutting him off from a popular black news show and he didn't handle it well. The host had more questions and wanted to continue talking to him and this is what Biden came up with? Not "sure, I'd love to come back, your community has been neglected and I want to change that" but "if you don't vote for me you aren't black?" Who says that? This seems like politician 101 stuff, not a mistake a man who has been in politics for most of his life would make. 

I wonder if this is another example of Joe Biden's cognitive decline. Though Biden was always a gaffe machine he's never been this bad. He's always saying stupid things but he seems more confused and agitated than normal. And though there is something to be said for being confrontational to your political enemies, like President Trump has done successfully, attacking your own supporters isn't going to help anyone. I can't imagine that the Joe Biden of 2008 that ran with Barack Obama would have said this out loud. 

So, does Joe Biden really feel entitled to the black community's vote? I think he does and I think the Democratic Party does. Are they though? I doubt it. I have always thought that the best thing blacks could do for themselves is vote Republican in strong enough numbers that both parties would be forced to try and cater to their needs. Right now neither party does much of that as the Republicans have written them off and the Democrats take them for granted. I don't see why Biden would be any different. 

I do think that President Trump gets a bad rap among black people despite his presidency being fairly good for them. Black employment was up before the Coronavirus and Trump signed a crime bill that was seen as favorable to the black community. And he got a lot of credit for the $1200 Coronavirus stimulus checks that went out. Trump does make his own gaffes but I think there is an argument to be made that blacks should consider voting for Trump over Biden as Trump seems to actually be getting things done for the black community and is reaching out to them while it seems that Biden takes them for granted. 

Arrest made in viral video that showed a 75 year old man being brutally beaten in a nursing home.

A screen capture of the attack. Twitter. 

An arrest has been made after a video showing a 75 year old man being brutally beaten in a nursing home went viral. Fox News. The video shows a 20 year old man, who was also a patient at the same facility in Michigan, punching the man dozens of times. Detroit police say the attack happened on the 15th of May. The 20 year old has not been identified but was arrested and the 75 year old was brought to the hospital and treated for non-critical injuries. The video caused massive outrage on social media and many people tried to contact police in Michigan to ensure the case was looked into. Even President Trump weighed in on the brutal attack. 

Is this even possible to believe? Can this be for real? Where is this nursing home, how is the victim doing?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 22, 2020

 My Comment:
I'm going to post the video below but I have to say that it is very violent and has bad language and you probably shouldn't watch it if you are sensitive to such things.

This is a nursing home. Please someone explain why this is happening and unreported. pic.twitter.com/Dzs8QYykIv

— James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) May 21, 2020

I think this is one of the few times where the internet mob actually did some good. Had this video not gone viral the attacker in this case would be out there free and possibly doing this to other people. Instead of ruining a random persons life, in this case it seems like the mob could have saved someone.

The actions in the video are disgusting to say the least. The 75 year old is in no condition to defend himself and is no match for the much younger and stronger 20 year old. And it seems to have been done for no reason. The audio isn't clear but it sounds like the incident happened because the 20 year old was upset about a bed of all things. I am glad that this guy is off the streets.

I also wonder if there is a racial angle to this. After all the victim was white and the attacker was black and we just had a huge racial news story in the Ahmaud Arabery case. However, we probably shouldn't assume motivation here as I didn't hear anything that indicated that racism was a motive. Indeed, my guess is that this guy was just a psychopath that wanted to beat someone up who was weaker than him.

I do think that this incident, and the horrible decision that many governors made to house Coronavirus patients in nursing homes, just shows how poorly we treat older people in this country. Though many nursing homes have dedicated staff and help their patients, we need to do more to protect some of our most vulnerable citizens.

Yesterday I said I was thankful for stupid terrorists and today I am going to say that I am thankful for stupid criminals. This case never would have been solved and the 75 year old would have never gotten justice if the 20 year old hadn't been a total moron who recorded himself and presumably shared it to social media or sent it to someone who did. Beating someone senseless who has no ability to defend himself is already a terrible idea. But filming yourself doing so? Absolute stupidity and I am glad that this guy took himself off the streets so effectively.

Shooting at Texas Naval Air Station in Corpus Christi determined to be terrorism.

The entrance to the Corpus Christi Naval Air Station. NBC News/Corpus Christi Caller-Times.

A shooting attack at a Corpus Christi Naval Air Station in Texas that wounded one person has been determined to be terror related. NBC News. The attacker opened fire at the base and was shot and killed by security forces there. Law enforcement has identified the shooter as Adam Alsahli, who lived in Corpus Christi. In addition to confirming that the case was terror related, the FBI said that there is an additional person of interest at large. 

My Comment:

This story isn't getting much coverage. Some of that is due to the fact that the attacker didn't accomplish much. He only wounded one person before he was shot and killed and that person is expected to recover. When the body count is low these stories tend to get ignored by the media. 

But the fact that this appears to be terrorism related should make it a big story. The failed attack on the Curtis Culwell center was also a failure but it was a huge news story even before it was revealed the FBI was involved with it. But this story? I had to search for it as it wasn't a top story anywhere I looked. 

The FBI didn't say what kind of terrorism this was but given the guys name I am going to say that it was likely Islamic terrorism. It's unclear though if this was a major plot or a lone wolf attacker who came up with his own plan. My guess is that he, at the very least, he had contact with one of the major terror groups, like ISIS or al-Qaeda. 

He wasn't a very good terrorist though. Attacking a military base seems like a very bad idea as this was the predictable outcome. Trying to attack the gatehouse of a base is about the least likely way to succeed in a terror attack. Doing so was never going to work and once again I am thankful for stupid terrorists. 

Terrorism has been an afterthought lately and it's clear that the risk is a lot lower, even though this attack proves that it is still a threat. The destruction of ISIS and al-Qaeda is a major factor but I think the Coronavirus outbreak is part of it as well. The lockdowns left a lot fewer opportunities to commit terror attacks and even terrorists were afraid of the virus. 

Still, as the lockdowns lift I wouldn't be surprised if we see some more Islamic terrorism. Indeed, it's Ramadan right now (until the 23rd of May) and that has always been a bloody time in the 2010's. I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't another terror attack soon, though it will likely turn out the same way as this one did. 

A few thoughts on face masks.

Stock photo of a face mask. 

As you probably know one of the main ways Americans are dealing with the Coronavirus outbreak is the use of face masks. Of course that isn't without controversy. The way the CDC and WHO dealt with face masks was pretty shameful. Face masks were first denounced as being ineffective while at the same time bashing anyone who was using them as denying them to critical healthcare workers. 

Eventually the CDC at least changed their tune to the point where a lot of local governments and businesses now mandate the use of face masks. 

This has caused a major pushback. A major part of it was the hypocrisy of mandating face masks after bashing them for months. When the so called experts flip-flop so hard it's very hard to trust them. Is it any wonder why people don't listen to the experts now? 

But there are other reasons why people dislike face masks. For one thing they are very uncomfortable. I know from personal experience that they hurt your ears after awhile and make it more difficult to breath comfortably. Some people also experience anxiety and panic attacks from wearing them. I also think there is a large contingent of people that are sick and tired of the government mandating everything. Many of these people refuse to wear masks just on principle alone.  

Is it the right move? I don't think so. I think the main way the Coronavirus spreads is through coughing and breathing. Wearing a face mask if you are infected is a good way to ensure that you won't spread the disease to others. Since the virus doesn't show symptoms in a lot of people or only mild symptoms, wearing a mask is about the only way you can be sure that you won't be spreading the virus to others. It also provides some limited protection from the virus if someone else is walking around with the disease. 

Do I agree with local and state governments mandating wearing masks? No. Like I said, not everyone is comfortable wearing masks. And there are many situations where wearing a mask is just dumb. If you are alone outside there is no reason to wear one and even if you are with people outside the chances of you spreading it are very low compared to if you are inside. 

Do I agree with businesses requiring it for workers and customers? I think this is a lot more defensible. Especially if you are working in a field where you are at high risk. I know my company mandates it and for good reason, we have had a major outbreak at work and we need to take as many steps as possible to keep everyone safe. I think mandating it for workers makes more sense than doing it for customers though as their exposure will be limited by the fact that they won't spend all that much time in the store. 

Regardless, I do think it's stupid that the issue is getting politicized. People should judge for themselves whether the risk is worth it or not. But having Democrats demand usage pushed the scales of judgement off to the point where Democrats are wearing them in situations where they don't need them and Republicans aren't wearing them when they really should be. 

Personally, I will be wearing them at work for the foreseeable future and will likely do so when I go out to shop as well. I won't be wearing it to take the garbage out or other simple things, but if I visit my family, I will be sure to wear one no matter what. It's not a political question for me, it's just about keeping people safe. 

The United States is sending aid to Russia in return for their help earlier in the pandemic.

Russian health care workers. AP.

The United States is sending Russia 200 ventilators in return for help Russia offered earlier in the Coronavirus pandemic. Reuters.  Russia initially offered the United States a planeload of protective equipment with the understanding that America would help them if needed. At that stage of the outbreak the virus was out of control in the United States but not a problem in Russia. However, the tables have now turned with Russia having the 2nd most after America and their cases expanding rapidly. Even their Prime Minster, Mikhail Mishutin, had the virus, along with three other senior officials, but he has recovered. 50 ventilators are on their way now and another 150 will be sent soon. 

My Comment:

There are people that have a problem with us helping out Russia and to them I say Russia already helped us. Their planeload of supplies helped, though we didn't need the ventilators in the end, we did at least use the PPE they provided. It's time to return the favor. I could see not sending them ventilators if we needed them ourselves but it's clear that we can spare them as new cases decline in the United States. 

And it's not like we don't have an interest in helping the Russians deal with the Coronavirus. Even ignoring the politics of the situation, the virus is out of control in Russia. the worse things get there the worse they could get globally as Russians travel and bring the virus with them. These supplies won't help that much but they will help and that's in our best interests. 

Of course the politics of the situation is important too and this is at least a symbolic gesture of better relations between the two states. Tensions with Russia have been high and this move will likely cool things off. I've always thought it was better to work with the Russians instead of treating them like our number one enemy. 

Indeed, I think we should be doing whatever we can to get Russia on our side against China. After all China is the bigger threat and they are the ones that were responsible for this outbreak. Russia could be a useful ally against China and letting them cozy up to China would be a major mistake. 

It's probably pretty obvious as to why Russia is having so many problems with the Coronavirus. Russians tend to live in crowded apartments and are not healthy due to problems with drinking and various other problems. Russia is getting so many cases now since their outbreak started later than everyone else. The onset of Summer might help things but until that happens Russia is going to have a lot of problems with the virus. The good news so far is that they have had relatively few deaths but that might not last long, given how new many of the cases are. 

It is good that Russia's Prime Minster Mishtun is ok. I wrote about him testing positive back in April and it appears he has recovered. That isn't too surprising as he was getting top notch healthcare and wasn't that old but it's still positive news. And it also seems that Vladimir Putin himself has so far avoided the disease. Hopefully that continues as instability in Russia is not a good thing for anyone... 

The Supreme Court could take up new gun rights cases.

Armed men in Michigan protesting the states Coronavirus shutdown. CNBC/Getty.

The Supreme Court may take up new gun rights cases after refusing to rule on the latest case that made it to the Court. CNBC. 10 cases are being considered and all of them have been considered in the past which signals that the court is interested in hearing them. The renewed interest comes after the Supreme Court ruled a New York City gun rights case moot after the city removed the law in question. Three justices disagreed with that ruling, Alito, Gorsuch and Thomas while a forth, Kavanaugh agreed with it but urged the court to take up more gun rights cases. Three cases could be significant as two of them deal with the "may issue" system for carry permits in Maryland and New Jersey. The third deals with a Massachusetts "assault weapons" ban and standard capacity magazine ban. With Alito, Gorsuch, Thomas and Kavanaugh being firmly in the pro-gun camp, any court cases will likely come down to Chief Justice Roberts, who ruled in favor of the gun rights camp in DC v Heller and McDonald v Chicago, but has also refused to hear any new cases until the New York law came up. 

A full list of the cases being considered can be found here. 

My Comment:

I'm on record on saying the Supreme Court made the wrong decision with the  NYSRPA v NYC case. It was clear that the city of New York was shooting for the case to be made moot so their bad behavior wouldn't be ruled on and the court played right into their hands. It's a strategy that we will likely see again and again, and not just in gun rights cases. All New York City has to do is wait until the Supreme Court is less favorable to gun rights to reimplement their law. 

But I am glad to see that the Court at least considering to take up new gun rights cases. Despite the victories in DC v Heller and McDonald v Chicago, it's clear that the lower courts didn't really get the fact that yes the 2nd Amendment is to be respected. It's been long overdue that we have had a case that instructs these judges that they really are supposed to acknowledge that the 2nd amendment exists. 

It seems likely that if a case is taken up it will be the cases dealing with carry permits. In Maryland and New Jersey, for example, though there is a system for concealed carry, they have a de facto ban on the practice as permits are rarely handed out. This leaves law abiding citizens no way to exercise their 2nd amendment right to bear arms. 

If one of those cases are taken up I think that it will be a 5-4 ruling in favor of gun rights. Roberts is a bit squishy on everything but even he will have to admit that if there is a de facto ban on carrying guns than people can't actually exercise the right to bear arms. The liberal justices are unlikely to ever vote against their party on the issue so I think there is just enough to pass.

I'm a lot less confident on the magazine bans and "assault weapons" bans. The court has ruled in the pass that there can be restrictions on weapons if they are not in common use. In US v Miller, the court upheld the National Firearms Act saying that fully automatic weapons and short barreled shotguns and rifles could be regulated. And the courts haven't been overturning assault weapons bans. 

This makes me think that a 5-4 decision is not inevitable on the "assault weapons" issue. Roberts isn't reliable enough and it's possible that he would rule in the other direction, which would be a huge defeat for gun rights. Of course if that is the case I doubt the case would even be heard, so I think if we do see it on the docket it means that the five conservative justices have likely came to an agreement.  

Still, I am happy if we get any kind of positive ruling at all. Gun rights has been a hot button issue but it should not be. The right to keep and bear arms isn't a right granted by the government, it's a natural right and it's fairly disgusting to me that there are people that seriously argue that everyone should be disarmed. 

I do think that the gun control movement has been dealt a savage blow by the Coronavirus pandemic. Millions of people bought guns for the first time, to the point where many of the stores are sold out of popular guns like AR-15's. Many of those people also found for the first time how awful the gun laws are in blue states and will be less likely to support new gun control laws now that they have skin in the game. It would be nice to have a good Supreme Court decision to help finish off the movement. 

Justin Amash ends his 2020 third party presidential run.

Representative Justin Amash. Politico/AP.

Representative Justin Amash has announced that he will not seek the Libertarian Party's 2020 nomination for President of the United States. Politico. The representative from Michigan formed an exploratory committee last April. Amash blamed the Coronavirus for his inability to campaign and raise funds, also blaming "media bias" for his campaign not being able to gain any traction. Amash famously left the Republican Party over disagreements with President Trump and was seen as trying to siphon votes away from him to ensure Joe Biden won the Presidency. But many pundits said that Amash was more likely to take away voters from Joe Biden. 

My Comment:

Before I say anything else, I do have to say that Amash is right about one thing. The Coronavirus has completely disrupted the 2020 election leadup to the point where no major candidates are actively campaigning, despite the fact that the primary race is still technically going on. 

However, I also have to note that Justin Amash is not the only one dealing with that problem. Neither President Trump or former Vice President Biden are on the campaign trail either so it's not like Amash had a unique problem here. 

I think the real problem for Amash is that nobody on either side likes him. The vast majority of Republicans love President Trump and absolutely despise Amash for supporting the impeachment fiasco. Democrats hate him because he isn't a Democrat. That leaves who exactly to support him in a 2020 race? 

Indeed, when Amash announced I wondered who he was trying to appeal to. His only qualification seemed to have been his anti-Trump bona fides. He doesn't support President Trump's America First platform which is popular among Republicans and he isn't a social justice warrior that makes him persona non-grata with the Democrats. Even the never-Trump brigade, as few of them that remain, want neocons, not a libertarian leaning Tea Party member. 

The only people I saw voting for Amash were the Libertarians who already exist. There aren't that many of them and their ideas are getting less and less popular on both the left and the right. The left in this country is not so much falling down the slippery slope when it comes to things like rights, they are jumping off the cliff at full speed. And I think a lot of people on the right, myself included, have realized libertarian ideals don't work in the real world when there are bad actors out there like the Democratic Party. The free market won't solve problems when there are leftist monopolies with a stranglehold on the news and technology. 

Indeed, the left has done a very good job of purging many of my libertarian beliefs. I used to be in favor of police reform but then Black Lives Matter and Antifa showed up and convinced me that if anything the police should have more freedom to hunt them down. I used to think that freedom of speech should be absolute to the point where tech companies could ban whoever they would want but then the left used that as a cudgel to silence anyone who disagreed with them. Indeed, I have a hard time taking the Libertarians seriously as they somehow believe that they won't be lined up against the wall and shot along with all the Republicans if the left in this country gains total control. 

This is a fairly huge blow for the Libertarian Party. They had hoped having a well known name like Justin Amash out there might give them a small chance at getting federal funding. Their candidates in the past have been a joke, with Gary Johnson being a pot smoking hippie that didn't know what Aleppo was when the Syria conflict was raging. Amash might have brought them some more credibility with a "serious" candidate, if only in comparison to the clown car that is the 2020 race. With Amash out and no other real candidate showing up I expect that the Libertarian Party will do worse in 2020 than they did in 2016. 

With Amash out of the race and no other real third party candidates out there I do think that this race will come down to just President Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden. The Libertarians and the Green Party will put forth candidates but nobody will take them seriously. And I think there will be fewer people that will vote third party in general. Both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were unknown factors in 2016 but both Trump and Biden are known and the question for the voters is going to be "do we want the pre-Trump or post-Trump status quo?"

As for Amash himself, I think this is the end of his political career. I can't see him winning his congressional district back. Indeed, I think there is a decent chance that he comes in third in his own race as both the Democrats and the Republicans are putting up candidates to oppose him. The only question is how bad he will lose by and if he drags down the GOP candidate with him, giving a safe GOP seat to the Democrats. Without even knowing who the candidates are yet (Michigan's primary is in August) it's too early to speculate what will happen. 

The news industry sees layoffs as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic.

The Hill/Vice.

Vice News becomes the latest news group to layoff employees. The Hill. 55 employees were laid off in the United States and 100 were laid off globally. Vice's union complained about the layoffs saying that it shouldn't have been done during the pandemic. Several other major news groups have laid off employees as well including Buzzfeed and GQ. The layoffs are due in part to advertisers pulling up to 50% of their ads due to the Coronavirus pandemic.

My Comment:

There is no doubt in my mind that the Coronavirus has hurt pretty much every outlet that needs ads to survive. Indeed, if I needed them to keep this blog open I'd be in trouble, but thankfully I do not. Internet advertisement as a model has been in trouble for awhile now. 

The are other factors for that besides the virus pandemic though. For one, many people have adblockers installed that prevent ads from being shown, which cuts the number of people that ever even see ads. Advertisers also don't like having their products associated with controversial and unpopular content, which is what these news networks specialized in. Vice especially is focused on "out there" news and often posts stories for shock value, it's no wonder advertisers don't want to run ads there. 

But the pandemic is the straw that's breaking the camels back. So many companies are trimming their advertising budget as there is little point in advertising when your store is closed. Sure, some are able to sell products online but if you are in an industry that is closed, like travel for example, you aren't going to be spending money on advertisement. As businesses open up they might start buying ads again but it's too late for these news outlets. 

However, I do think one of the major problems is that the media is over-saturated right now, especially with lefty sites like Vice, Buzzfeed and GQ. There are so many of these outlets and so little intellectual diversity in them it's little surprise that they are cannibalizing each other's audiences. These outlets are indistinguishable from each other as they all write about the same topics in the same style with the same goal. 

Which is too bad because Vice wasn't always like this. Back in the day they were doing real journalism about weird topics. They weren't just a cookie cutter outlet and you could see some real interesting stuff there. Not so much anymore. 

I personally am not sad to see these outlets firing people. There needs to be change in the news industry and the sooner that happens the better. We don't need 10 billion liberal outlets spouting off the same crap and the five or six right wing ones having next to no influence. It would be so much better if we had better choices in news even if that means we have fewer choices. 

China threatens to interfere with 2020 elections if GOP senators don't drop efforts to hold China accountable for Coronavirus.

China has threatened to interfere with 2020 elections if GOP Senators don't drop efforts to hold China accountable for the Coronavirus outbreak. Global Times. China is targeting at least four members of Congress, including Josh Hawley and Tom Cotton, and will put them on a sanctions list. The Senators are preparing a bill to allow American citizens to sue the Chinese government over damages inflicted by the Coronavirus outbreak. Missouri's Attorney General, Eric Schmitt and Mississippi's Attorney General Lynn Fitch, are both suing the Chinese government as well and have been targeted by China.  China says that states like Mississippi and Missouri could be targeted with tariffs on their exports and may use Chinese owned companies to pressure lawmakers there.

My Comment:

A quick note on the source. The Global Times is a state funded entity and as such you can know that this article is pretty much the official position of the Chinese government. I usually don't link to government outlets like this due to obvious bias, but in this case I will do so as the information inside of it is critical and is generally not available anywhere else. You would think that China threatening to interfere with out elections would be a bigger story but apparently the US media doesn't care. 

And it's clear that the Chinese government is trying to interfere with our elections. They want the GOP members that are interested in punishing China out of office and don't mind threatening the economy of the various states they are in if it means getting what they want. They will likely trash the economy of those states at the very least. 

I also won't be surprised if China doesn't pull out all of the stops against the United States and any politician, Republican or Democrat is under threat. My guess is that China will fund the opponents of these candidates through illegal means and will use their allies in the media to bash any candidate that is critical of them. 

I do think that China is largely responsible for the Coronavirus outbreak. I do think it is more likely than not that the virus escaped from one of their labs and even if it wasn't from a lab it's clear that China was lying about the severity and spread of the disease. Had China been more competent and told the truth thousands of Americans would still be alive right now. It's possible that the virus would have made it out of China if they told the truth and stopped travel right away but we would have had months more time to prepare a defense and we likely would have been able to use the track and trace method to stop the virus in their tracks. 

However, I don't know if China will be held accountable. President Trump is fairly tough on China but even he can only do so much. Opening up the country to lawsuits is mostly a meaningless measure as there is no way to enforce anything. It's a symbolic gesture at best and though I appreciate it I doubt China will actually pay for what they have done.