Man shoots motorist during Black Lives Matter protest in Provo Utah.

The suspect drawing his gun. Social media screengrab.

A man shot and wounded a motorist during a Black Lives Matter protest in Provo Utah. KSL. The incident occurred when a motorist who was not involved in the protest or any counter-protest tried to turn where the rally was occurring. Protesters surrounded the vehicle and started to attack it while the suspect pulled out a gun and fired a shot, hitting the 60 year old driver. The driver then attempted to flee, scattering the protesters, while the attacker fired a 2nd shot, missing the driver. The gunman then holstered his firearm and then used it again to attack another vehicle by hitting its window with the gun. The driver has been hospitalized and is in stable condition. 

In the heart of Mormon country in Provo, Utah, Black Lives Matter rioters surround a car in the street before one of them pulls a gun and fires twice at the driver. pic.twitter.com/2d9idiP0iU

— Andy Ngô (@MrAndyNgo) June 30, 2020

My Comment:
This is a major escalation from Black Lives Matter. These people were already violent and have been attacking motorists for quite some time now. But now they have stepped up to attempted murder. The driver in this case was very lucky that he wasn't killed. So far in this round of protests there hasn't been that much open violence but I guess that has changed now.

It was pretty clear that these protesters were out of control before this incident even happened. Below is another incident of a car being attacked by them. It shows people climbing on their cars and trying to get inside. The driver, very wisely, didn't stop and didn't give them a chance to do what they did to the driver that got shot.

I think that it's pretty clear that the driver in the first video didn't do anything wrong. He wasn't moving anywhere near fast enough that the shooter could claim self defense or defense of others. Indeed, the rioters attacked the driver first and the shooter had no justification in trying to stop the driver even if he ran someone down.

I can't imagine people stopping for these protests now. Why would you? If you do it's possible that you will get shot or beaten. Much better to just keep going and if people get hurt it's on them. Let's make something clear though, I'm not advocating doing what James Alex Fields did and running down protesters at high speed. That's stupid in all but the most dire situations, but I do think it's important to not stop if people are trying to get into your car.

 I generally think that any protest that involves people on streets without a permit should be broken up as unlawful. The danger of people getting hit by cars is too strong even if the protesters are behaving themselves and not trying to murder innocent motorists. The chances of that happening are extremely small though as most cities have decided to let these rioters run wild.

Of course, this kind of outcome is expected when police aren't allowed to break up protests or even arrest the kind of people that are causing trouble. Eventually people are going to get killed and we seem to be getting closer and closer to that everyday.

My advice would be this. Do whatever you can to avoid areas where this kind of protest is happening. If it can't be avoided, don't stop your vehicle if at all possible. If you have to leave plenty of room between you and the next car so you at least have a chance to maneuver. If people are attacking you feel free to keep going. I'd avoid slamming the accelerator but leave as fast as you can as safely as you can, both for you and any rioters attacking you. Do whatever is necessary to keep yourself alive, but keep in mind that you might face prosecution if you kill or injure someone.

Couple defends their home after Black Lives Matter protesters break into their property.

The homeowners with their weapons. USA Today/AP

A couple used firearms to defend their home after Black Lives Matter protesters broke into their property. USA Today. The protesters were trying to reach the home of St. Louis mayor Lyda Krewson, who is accused of releasing the names of people wrote letters to her to "defund" the police. Krewson has since aplologized and deleted the videos but the protesters want her to resign. While trying to reach her house they broke into a private residence and confronted the home owners there. The home owners, a couple in their 60's, called the police and then retrieved their firearms as some of the protesters were also armed. 

My Comment:

Other than this fairly objective USA Today report the media is crucifying these two people. They are making a lot of hay out of the fact that they are white, upper class (the house is a mansion) and gun owners. Indeed, they are calling them Kyle and Karen (both common slurs for white people) and the people involved have been doxed. 

Speaking of doxing, I'm not sure that Mayor Krewson was thinking. Though these names and addresses are public records, releasing them was a bad move as it could result in harassment. It was a dumb move and Krewson did the right thing and deleted it. She never should have done it in the first place, even if I have almost zero sympathy for people trying to defund the police. 

But these two people? They had nothing to do with that. Indeed, they were the victims of a potential home invasion by armed people. Under Missouri law, which has very good gun rights, they had the right to open fire once these people entered their property. The fact that they didn't shows they were showing massive amounts of restraint. Opening fire probably wouldn't be the right move regardless as the protesters had guns too and the media would treat them even worse than they are now, but they were within their rights to do so. And they were obviously justified to point their weapons as the protesters as well.

And this was not a peaceful protest. Once they broke into private property they stopped being protesters and started being rioters. There is no excuse for what they did and to do so while armed was practically begging for one or more of them to get shot. 

I do have some criticism for the homeowners though. The woman seemed to lack trigger discipline which could have resulted in a negligent discharge. And both of them seemed to not be aware that they sometimes barrel swept each other. Given the extreme circumstances, I probably can forgive them for that, but they probably should spend a bit more time reviewing the basic gun safety rules. 

#1 Treat all guns as if they are always loaded. ...
#2 Never let the muzzle cover anything that you are not willing to destroy. ...
#3 Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on target and you have made the decision to shoot. ...
#4 Be sure of your target and what lies beyond it.

I think it's beyond time to start cracking down on these people. The people that trespassed on the homeowners property should be arrested for trespassing as soon as possible. They created a situation that could have very easily ended in bloodshed.

But I almost wonder if that is what they are going for here. I doubt that powers that be would be upset if a bunch of Black Lives Matter/Antifa types got ventilated. If that happens they would spin it as evil racists using dangerous assault weapons to murder innocent black people regardless of the actual circumstances. I wonder if BLM/Antifa realize that they are just pawns...

Finally, I do have to say that this is a good example of why gun ownership is so important. Who knows what these people would have done if this couple hadn't been armed. The police didn't arrive in time and the best case scenario was that more of their property would be destroyed. They already destroyed the gate, what would stop them from trying to burn down the property or beat up or even kill the homeowners? Those guns likely saved this couple from a very dangerous and scary situation.

Reddit bans thousands of subreddits including The_Donald, chapotraphouse and gendercritical

File photo of the Reddit offices. Reuters. 

Reddit has banned thousands of subreddits including popular subs like The_Donald, chapotraphouse and gendercritical. Reuters. Reddit claimed that the subreddits involved "promoted hate speech". President Trump's unofficial subreddit, The_Donald was banned, though it was largely abandoned last year when the site quarantined it. chapotraphouse, a subreddit for the eponymous left wing blog was also banned for breaking Reddit rules. Twitch, a video game streaming service, also suspended President Trump's channel. 

A full list of banned subreddits can be found here on WatchRedditDie

My Comment:

The mainstream media is making a big deal out of the fact that The_Donald was banned, but the truth of the matter is that the subreddit had been abandoned last year. The users created their own website as a backup plan and left for it after Reddit quarantined them. They can now be found on TheDonald.win. 

That doesn't mean what they did to The_Donald was ok though. Far from it, they banned the subreddit for "making threats" but the moderators always removed any threatening posts. Indeed, many other subreddits were trying to get The_Donald banned and were posing as Trump supporters when they made the threats themselves. Reddit set an impossible standard for them, which basically every other political subreddit on the site would not pass, and then held them accountable for something they couldn't control. 

chapotraphouse getting the ax isn't that surprising either. They needed left wing subs to "balance" out the bans on right wing ones and they fit the bill. From what I understand the users of chapotraphouse were causing Reddit problems with the Secret Service due to the regular threats against President Trump and the moderators failure to do anything about it. Despite that, I don't think the subreddit itself should have been banned even if the users and moderators should have been. I'm a free speech absolutist and even the absolute worst people on the internet deserve free speech. 

Gendercritical is the most notable ban for me. Though I never used the subreddit itself, from what I understand it was for people, most notably feminist women, who did not agree with the idea that transgender men are actually women. These women are called "TERF's" Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists, which I consider a slur. Banning them shows that it's really the lunatics running the asylum and I always thought that out of all the feminists out there they were the only ones that actually had good points. It's amazing that they would ban a subreddit that has a main argument that the vast majority of people actually agree with. 

The rest of the subreddits banned appear to be either chapotraphouse alts, right wing meme subs, or the occasional "racist" sub. Most of them appeared to be minor but it's clear that many of them shouldn't have been banned. 

More concerning is Reddit's new rules. They specifically say that you are allowed to be racist or bigoted against majority groups. Presumably this means white people, men (even though women are more common) or "cis" (ie non-transgender people). Of course this is pretty damn racist and bigoted itself, but it's very clear that if you are fully on board with the radical left you are fine unless you are bringing government heat on you like chapotraphouse.

They also seem to be pretty hypocritical as they left up a lot of creepy porn subreddits. After Tumblr banned porn, a lot of their worst users went to Reddit and the site now apparently has a real problem with pedophiles and other degenerates. But those subreddits are apparently fine under these new rules. 

I really think that Republicans screwed up in 2016-2018 when they didn't seem to realize that tech censorship is one of the biggest threats against them. They had an opportunity when they controlled both houses of congress, the presidency and, supposedly, the Supreme Court (yeah, Roberts has been very flaky lately but still) and didn't do anything to stop this. Sure, some Senators are tweeting about it right now but there is very little they can do to stop this kind of nonsense, when that wasn't true just a couple of years ago. 

The assault on our culture of free speech continues.https://t.co/pxLHO3dbTf

— Senator Ted Cruz (@SenTedCruz) June 29, 2020

 As for me, I only visit reddit for a couple of small subreddits that have, so far, avoided the eye of Sauron. They tend to be from Scott Alexander's online diaspora. Out of the main subreddits, the only one I visit is AskReddit. Reddit in general is terrible and not just because of it's insane moderation policies. It's just a terrible design for the website.

I do think that The_Donald did it right. When a website starts to bash it's own users like this it can be replaced. After all Reddit itself only became popular because Fark.com changed all it's rules and layouts and a mass exodus began. Though I think Twitter and Facebook are too big for this to happen, Reddit is not so big and if they keep screwing over their users to the point where only transgender radical feminists are allowed then they too will go the way of Fark.

Man arrested for opening fire at a Breonna Taylor protest, killing one, was a protester.

Police put up police tape after the shooting. Reuters/ABC News. 

A man who opened fire at a Breonna Taylor protest was a protester himself. ABC News. Steven Nelson Lopez was arrested for murder after he shot and killed a photographer and wounded another protester at a rally for Breonna Taylor, a woman who was shot and killed during a no-knock warrant. Lopez had previous attended the protests and had been arrested twice on rioting related charges. Police responded quickly and arrested Lopez but emergency medical personal were not able to save the photographer, Tyler Gerth. 

Fox News reports that Lopez had been asked by organizers of the protests multiple times to leave due to his behavior at previous events. Additional armed people were at the event and police are trying to determine if anyone else fired shots. A counter protest apparently occurred earlier in the day by “American Freedom Fighters" but they had broken up long before the shooting occurred. This is the 2nd time a shooting has occurred in Louisville Kentucky during a Breonna Talyor protest, last may seven people were injured at another rally. 

My Comment:

I decided to cover this story as many people online were blaming right-wing counter protesters for this shooting. The news media, outside of Fox News, is downplaying the fact that Lopez was a protester himself, and not a member of a right wing militia. 

The video above shows the shooting itself, though it's fairly confusing. You can clearly see Lopez pulling out and aiming a handgun, but why he did so is a mystery. It's also difficult to tell if he was the only one shooting, though I'd be surprised if there was a second shooter. And also say that if there was a right wing militia group there then Lopez wouldn't have been alive to be arrested by the police. They wouldn't screw around if they were getting shot at, Lopez would have been ventilated. 

I don't understand what the motive was in this case. There doesn't seem to be any reason for Lopez to pull out a gun and start firing. Without more context for the video it's hard to know if there was some event that caused Lopez to pull out his gun. 

However, it does seem clear that Lopez was a bad person. If his behavior was so reprehensible that even the protesters didn't want him around than it's clear he was a trouble maker. The two arrests for rioting related offenses don't speak to his character either. One does wonder why he was out on the streets if he had been arrested previously? Shouldn't he have been in jail awaiting trial? Given how lenient the justice system has been to rioters and how reluctant they have been in keeping people in jail during the Coronavirus outbreak it's possible he was out for bad reasons. Had he been kept in jail Taylor Gerth would still be alive. 

As for the Breonna Talyor case, I'm on record on being sympathetic. There is no reason why no-knock warrants should be a thing for all but the most violent criminals because this very reason. The chances of the police screwing up and getting the wrong house or the people there mistaking the cops for home intruders are too high. 

With no-knock warrants now being banned and the officer who fired the shots getting fired I do have to wonder why the protests are still ongoing. The protesters have gotten most of what they want and I seriously doubt actual charges are coming for the cops. I think it's beyond time for these people to go home. 

U.S. sees a surge of new Coronavirus cases in several states, with 45,000 new infections counted.

CNBC graphic showing the daily new cases. 

The United States has seen a surge of new Coronavirus cases in several states with 45,000 new infections recorded Friday. CNBC. The new numbers for last week increased by 41% compared to the previous week. Cases are growing 5% or more in 34 states. However deaths are still continuing to fall, though that metric usually lags behind infections. Young people are making up the majority of the new cases, but they could bring the disease home to older and more vulnerable people. Some states, including Texas, Washington and Arizona are rolling back reopening or not moving on to newer phases of the lockdown lift. 

My Comment:

First of all, I don't think this qualifies as the vaunted "second wave" of Coronavirus. The majority of the 34 states with large increases are states that weren't hit hard in the initial phase of the virus. States like New York and New Jersey, which already had severe outbreaks, are not seeing a massive increase in cases. California is the main exception, but that state is so large and diverse it's almost a nation into itself. I am thinking that this is still wave one for the majority of states hit. 

How serious is this? Probably not as serious as the media is making it out. A lot of the people testing positive are folks that will recover from the disease. It's mostly young people that are catching the virus and that's actually a good thing. Very few of them will die or require hospitalization and the more people that get it the closer we will get to herd immunity, which will protect the more vulnerable people that have yet to be exposed to the virus. These are the people out and about right now and it's not the worst thing in the world for them to be infected. 

I also think that testing is a major reason we are seeing so many cases. Many of the mild or asymptomatic cases that would have fallen through the cracks in the initial phase of the outbreak are now being caught. I worked with a few people that tested positive but did not show major symptoms and they are lumped in with the severely ill. When my company tested every employee there were of course a few that would not have been caught otherwise. This level is testing is a lot more common now than they were in the initial phase of the outbreak.

Another factor is antibody testing. My uncle recently got tested and confirmed that he had Coronavirus... a long time ago. His antibody test was positive but it was reported to the CDC like it was a new case. Without better information on how many of these cases are just antibody tests from earlier in the outbreak it's hard to tell how bad things actually are. It's unclear how much of a factor this is but it is clear that it is a factor. 

I also think that the Coronavirus is milder than it once was. There was my post awhile back about how in Italy the virus seems to have mutated to a less severe form and I think that's likely what is going on here. That would help explain why cases have exploded, but deaths have not. 

Were we right to lift the lockdowns? I don't think we had much of a choice. People were fed up with them and for good reason, they were doing massive economic damage. People need to be able to go outside and socialize. If we had waited too much longer the virus would no longer matter as the situation would be even more politically chaotic than it already is. 

I do think that the Black Lives Matter civil unrest and rioting is a major factor in why cases are increasing. Though it is unclear how much of an effect they had directly, as outdoor events seem less likely to spread the virus than indoor ones, I do think that it turned the virus into a joke. People couldn't take social distancing and mask wearing seriously when there were people out in the streets looting stores and burning down buildings. The left thought it was more important for the riots to happen and the right never bought into the lockdowns in the first place. Right now very few people take the virus seriously. 

Should we though? Though I think the media is pretty obviously overhyping the threat of the virus, it's also clear that people could be doing more to avoid the virus. Simple things like facemasks and avoiding large events would go a long way towards slowing the spread of the disease. And it's still very clear that older and vulnerable people need to keep extra vigilance to make sure that they don't get sick. I think there is a balance between completely blowing off the virus and tanking our economy in order to stop it but it just seems like we flipped from one extreme to the other. 

That being said, I do remain optimistic that the Coronavirus outbreak is closer to being finished then the media thinks. Like I said before, I believe that this is still the first wave of the virus spreading to virgin territory, not the 2nd wave of infections. If hard hit states like New York and New Jersey start seeing the numbers we are seeing in the West, then I might worry more. But for now, I'm generally expecting the virus to be on the way out by late summer, early fall. Fingers crossed at least... 

Mass stabbing in Scotland leaves three dead before police shoot and kill the attacker.

An armed police officer at the scene of the incident. BBC News/PA Media.

A mass stabbing in Scotland has left three people dead and the attacker shot and killed. BBC. The attack occurred in Glasgow in the stairwell of a hotel. An armed police officer shot and killed the suspect, while one of the responding officers was injured in the attack. At least four people were taken away in ambulances. The death toll is initial and may rise and no information on the suspect or his motives are available. 

Live updates for this attack are available from The Scotsman

My Comment:

Another mass stabbing in the UK, this time in Scotland. Earlier this week they had another mass stabbing, in Reading, that also left three people dead. In that post I said that more attacks like this are likely due to them being very easy to pull off and basically everyone, even in the UK, has access to knives. 

It looks like officers put this attacker down using violence. The Reading attacker they were able to capture but it doesn't look like this guy was able to be arrested. He had already stabbed one cop so I am guessing the armed officer had no other choice. Honestly, I'm not going to lose any sleep over a guy getting shot after he killed at least three people. 

I won't speculate too much on motive. Terrorism is obviously very likely but we shouldn't jump to conclusions. It could have been an Islamic terror attack but it also could have been for any number of other causes as well. And we can't rule out that this is just some random psycho trying to murder as many people as possible. It's not like mass stabbings are exclusively the domain of Islamic terrorists, as China knows all too well. 

I've always found mass stabbings to be more disturbing than mass shootings. Yes, the potential for deaths in a mass shooting is usually higher, but there is something fairly frightening about someone willing to kill someone in close range like this. Whatever the motive was in this case I have to say that it's a very disturbing incident. 

There hasn't been as many mass terror attacks/spree killings lately. There was the major one in Canada recently, but other than that and a few mass stabbings there hasn't been much. I think the Coronavirus has helped with this a lot, despite the obvious downsides of that situation. It's a lot harder to cause a mass casualty attack when everyone is at home. Plus, many of the drivers of mass attacks, such as Islamic terrorism, are not the threat they used to be. Still, whatever the motive in this case, it shows the threat from this kind of violence has not entirely disappeared. 

Supreme Court rules that asylum seekers cannot appeal a denial in federal court.

File photo of the Supreme Court. The National Review.

The US Supreme Court has ruled in a 7-2 decision that asylum seekers who have their cases denied can not appeal that ruling in federal court. National Review. The case, Dept. of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, involved a man from Sri Lanka who was beaten by unknown assailants and requested asylums. The man could not prove his case as he could not identify the attackers and could not prove he was still at risk. He filed a write of habeas corpus against the ruling, but the five conservative justices said that the request fell outside of the scope of habeas corpus. The court also ruled that people that are detained inside of the United States should be treated the same as people who are detained at the border. The ruling now means that asylum seekers that have their claims denied can be deported anywhere in the country. 

My Comment:

A fairly big win from the Supreme Court, which has been very disapointing lately. Not only have they failed to take up any gun cases since the New York City fiasco, they ruled that LGBT's are protected from discrimination and that DACA can't be overthrown in the short term. Argue about the merits of those cases all you want but you can't deny that it was not the way a 5-4 conservative court was supposed to rule. 

I think this is the right ruling. Thuraissigiam was denied asylum fairly. If he couldn't name his attackers then he wasn't entitled to asylum, which is supposed to be for people who are being persecuted, not every victim of a criminal attack. He might have been in danger in Sri Lanka but he couldn't prove it and I don't see why he should have moved in the front of the line over all the other people that have better claims or went through the immigration process. 

It's pretty stupid that if the ruling had gone the other way, it would mean that people could endlessly appeal their asylum requests and it would essentially mean that all anyone would have to do to stay in America would be to launch lawsuit after lawsuit. Eventually it would be easier to just let everyone in regardless of their claims and how valid they were. 

I do think there is a problem with false asylum claims. As I said before it's supposed to be because you are getting targeted for your race, ethnicity or politics, not just because you country is kinda crappy. Sure, countries like Sri Lanka or the Central American countries so many migrants have come from, have their problems, but until people start committing genocide those problems are their own. 

I've also thought that we probably have done enough for most migrants. We don't need to let everyone who applies into the country and we don't owe everyone in the world a free pass to America. I'm not saying we shouldn't help them, we should. But we should do it in a way that doesn't put a massive strain on US workers like many asylum seekers. 

I do think this will probably help President Trump a little, just like the previous rulings hurt him a little. One of the main reasons right wing people on the fence voted for Trump is his judicial appointments. The last few rulings shook the faith of people that don't like President Trump but voted for him for this reason. This might bring a few more of them back into the fold. Hopefully we will see more positive rulings from the Supreme Court soon. 

Editor's Note: I'm now on Parler!

I've joined yet another social network. Parler has been trending on Twitter due to that social networks constant censorship and bias. Parler is supposedly a free speech platform that is less biased towards conservatives. It's a lot like Gab in that respect but unlike Gab it seems like there are less of the far-right types. It's more respectable and already has big names that haven't been banned from Twitter yet, like some of the Trump family and Senator Rand Paul.

For the sake of reminder, here is a list of all the social media networks I currently have accounts on. Keep in my mind though, that I'm most active on Twitter and cross post most things I post there on Gab and now Parler.

Parler
Gab.
Twitter. 
Facebook (for blog posts links only)
MeWe. (for blog post links and occasional posts to the Google+ style groups)

If you are on any of those social media platforms, feel free to follow!

New York Times forces Scott Alexander, the writer of Slate Star Codex, to delete his blog.

The New York Times building. National Review/Reuters.

Slate Star Codex, a popular psychiatry blog, has been deleted after the New York Times said they would dox the write of the blog, Scott Alexander. National Review. Scott Alexander has written the blog for several years and it has had several influential and viral posts on topics as wide ranging as psychiatry, politics, and even fiction. He has remained anonymous with his last name being withheld to protect his job, where he works as a psychiatrist. However, the New York Times is going to write an article that will reveal his last name, despite the fact that Alexander has gotten death threats because of his blogging. The Times says that they have a policy to not protect people's identities, even though they have done so in the past for other people. 

The only post left on the blog is a post from Scott Alexander explaining the situation.

My Comment:

This situation is very sad as Slate Star Codex was one of my favorite blogs. It's one of the few I actually link to on my sidebar on this blog and I mostly haven't regretted it. Even though Scott's on the left, I find him to be a very good writer and have learned a lot of concepts from him. 

Slate Star Codex was all over the map in terms of topics but it's mostly a psychiatry blog. It's also part of the rationalist internet community, which focuses on making good arguments and is generally tolerant of other voices. It's spawned two Reddit communities, Slate Star Codex and The Motte, which are rare in that they allow people of any political stripe to comment as long as they follow the fairly strict rules for discussion. 

Supposedly this article was supposed to be positive on Scott and Slate Star Codex. He was one of the first people to correctly predict that the Coronavirus outbreak was going to be a serious threat and reportedly that's what the article was going to be about. 

But if the article was going to be so positive why revel his last name? The New York Times has no problem in keeping some people's name secret. How many Trump officials have they quoted anonymously? They have also kept Banksy, an artist, anonymous during the many reports they have done on him. They clearly could keep Scott Alexander's name out of the story if they wanted too. 

The reporters at the New York Times know that exposing Scott Alexander's last name will probably ruin his career. As Scott describes, he has patients across the political spectrum, many of which might drop him if they find out that he has a popular blog that's political in nature. His employers might just dump him as well to avoid the controversy. 

Why would the New York Times want to do this? In short, Scott is an ideological enemy. He's written a lot of stuff that the far left has a problem with and he tolerates people of other political beliefs. Indeed, he wrote one of the best articles explaining neoreaction, even though he also attacked the ideology in a follow up post. And he allows people from across the political spectrum to comment on his blog, including people from the far right. 

He also has been one of the few people on the left that is willing to examine leftists ideas and, if the data supports it, debunks them. He's had posts examining if there is racial bias in the criminal justice system, defending "nice guys" and cancel culture and his posts were highly critical of the modern leftist dogma. He even wrote a serious post examining if President Trump was racist and found that he wasn't, even though he didn't think anyone should vote for him. 

That's something that the New York Times won't tolerate. They don't want any people able to debunk their articles and counter their narratives. Scott Alexander is someone that can do that, even though he hasn't written too much that was political so if they can get rid of him they will. And Scott is a threat to them, as he is way more influential on both the right and left than they are likely to admit. 

This does make me worry a bit about my own chances of being canceled. My blog is nowhere near as influential and popular as Slate Star Codex, but I am active on social media. If I ever went viral with my semi-anonymous blog I am guessing the Times wouldn't have any trouble doxing me. Still, one of the reasons I started this blog is to cover stories that the mainstream media wouldn't cover, and this is one of them. They have become way too powerful and people need to speak out about what they are doing. 

NASCAR hate crime falls apart, "noose" found in black drivers garage was a door pull.

A screen grab showing where the door pull was. 

After making international news a story about a noose placed in a black driver's garage at a NASCAR event has shown to be false. Fox News. NASCAR driver Bubba Wallace's team found the noose near his garage and the story went viral after they claimed it was a hate crime. However, an FBI investigation found that the noose had been their since at least 2019 and that it was a door pull to open and close the garage doors. The incident was not targeting Wallace as his garage stall was determined by his performance in races and were not known in advance. Wallace has been active in Black Lives Matter and is partially responsible for getting Confederate flags banned from NASCAR events. The FBI will not press charges in this case. 

My Comment:

As expected this case has fallen apart very quickly. Even last night I was reading that it was likely that the event was a hoax and I had already seen video of these door pulls. I have always said that it's good to wait 24 to 48 hours for a story that sounds stupid to fall apart and this is one of them.

Generally speaking I mistrust all cases of alleged racism using nooses. I have always felt that nooses are something that the left and black activists think racists would use but in actuality I don't think they do. Indeed, when I heard the Jussie Smollett story back in the day I immediately thought it was garbage because the supposed attack used a noose. A real racist would have just killed him and a real racist would have tried to kill Bubba Wallace. 

Was this a deliberate hoax or just a misunderstanding? I am thinking it's likely to be the 2nd. I guess it's possible that one of Wallace's crew saw the noose and thought "hey this would be good for his publicity" and made a scene. But that just seems about as unrealistic as a real racist somehow getting access to the garage and using a noose to send a message to Wallace. This was just an incredibly stupid misunderstanding. 

How much blame does Bubba Wallace get here? I don't think it's all his fault. He wasn't the one that found the door pull, it was his team, and his team went straight to NASCAR. It's not really his fault if NASCAR and his team didn't question what they found, that's kind of on him. 

But I think Wallace deserves the blame for creating the environment in NASCAR where a door pull can be mistook for a noose. After all, he's a Black Lives Matter activist and he's responsible for getting rid of confederate flags. Everyone in NASCAR must now be on their toes or Wallace is going to tattle on them for any perceived slight. Had NASCAR found this and dismissed it and Wallace made a stink about it, it would have been even worse PR for them then they have already. 

I do think this is a pretty good example of how hysterical people are getting about race in this country. It's too the point where we have long run out of real racism to fight and now we are focusing on things that were pretty obviously not racist in the first place. I won't deny that there are a few real racists out there, but we are to the point where the cure has been way worse than the disease. 

NASCAR has really alienated their fanbase. It's no secret that NASCAR fans tend to be lower-class whites, mostly from the South. They are already furious with NASCAR for banning Confederate flags and for Wallace openly supporting Black Lives Matter, and now they have essentially slandered the entire sport by saying they were capable of an act of racism like this. I'm guessing the fans won't be all that forgiving for this stunt. 

President Trump suspends H-1B visas until next year

President Donald Trump at the Tulsa rally. Reuters.

President Donald Trump has suspended H-1B visas until next year. Reuters. H-1B visas allow skilled workers to enter the country and take jobs in America. In addition to the H-1B visa ban, L-1 visas, which allow international transfers within a company, and some H-2B visas, which are for seasonal workers, will be banned as well. Tech companies and the Chamber of Commerce oppose the change, saying it will hurt business. President Trump also extended the temporary ban on some immigration. In the short term the moves will have little effect as most US consulates are still closed for the pandemic. 

My Comment:

This is a good move for President Trump as his base absolutely hates the entire concept of H-1B visas. The last thing any of them want to see is a non-American taking a job that should have gone to an American.  And given the economic situation we are in right now it makes little sense to bring in new people when there are enough people here without jobs. 

In theory H-1B visas are supposed to be only used after companies have exhausted all American options for filling a job. In practice they are used to lower wages as the companies offer wages so low that Americans can't take them. This of course works out well for the company, as they have lower payroll costs, and for the immigrant, as they get a job and can live in the US for a time, but it screws over the American worker. 

This is why tech industries are going to be extremely angry about this. They tend to have many of these workers and they save a ton of money by not hiring Americans. This alone probably explains why the tech companies are so anti-Trump, this move is a threat to their bottom line. 

I do hope that this somehow becomes permanent. The H-1B system desperately needs reform. Though I do think there is an argument to be made that we might have some jobs we can't fill without immigrants, I don't think there are really that many of them and the real problem is that these companies aren't willing to pay what American workers are worth. Getting rid of H-1B visas would increase wages as companies would have to raise wages and benefits in order to attract workers. 

Though President Trump's base is going to be thrilled by this, it could anger some donors in the Republican Party. It's very rare for a Republican president to push back for American workers and it's because big business controls the purse strings. The fact that this is temporary might make this pill a little easier for them to swallow. 

However, like the article said, this won't have much of an immediate effect. Most consulates are closed due to the Coronavirus and immigration has essentially stopped. Though the pandemic has faded from the public consciousness, it still rages in many of the countries we get these workers from in the first place. Assuming that changes this order might have more relevance but in the short term at least it's not a big deal.  

Stabbing that left three dead in Reading England considered a terror incident

Police stand guard at the site of the attack in Reading England. NPR/AP.

A stabbing that left three people dead and several others injured is being treated as a terror attack. NPR. The attack took place in a public park in Reading England. The attacker used a 5 inch knife and killed the victims before being tackled by police. The suspect was 25 years old and a Libyan national. No one else is a suspect in the attack and the attacker is thought to have acted on his own. Terror attacks are not uncommon in the UK, but they usually happen in the London area. 

My Comment:

This attack happened yesterday, but I took the day off from blogging. I think though that this attack is significant enough that it deserves more coverage than it is getting. The news is, as usual, focusing on nonsense instead of actual news stories and covering the stories that the news either doesn't cover or downplay is a major reason why I started this blog in the first place. 

As far as mass stabbings go this was a bad one. Three people dead is quite a few for a mass stabbing, which usually have very few deaths, even though many people can get hurt. It also seems like police weren't available right away to stop the attacker. 

I do think it's utterly insane that the police took this guy alive. If the article is right and they tackled the guy then kudos for them, but that's an extreme risk to have to take. I know most UK police are unarmed and this attack shows why that's a bad idea. The cops that tackled the attacker could have easily been another victim of him. They got really lucky that they were able to tackle him without getting stabbed. 

This looks like another lone wolf attack, which seems to be the only kinds of terror attacks that happen anymore. The days of ISIS or al-Qaeda pulling off huge and complex terror attacks seem to be over. But since picking up a knife is something basically anyone can do, it's been replaced by mass stabbings like this one (or vehicle attacks). With the main terror organizations having been dismantled and the last major attack being the Easter Sri Lanka attacks last year, I'm guessing that most terror attacks in the future will be the same way, unless these groups reform. 

I am fairly disgusted by the censorship the UK has. I don't think they have any right to tell people that they can't share video or pictures of the attack on social media. The people of the UK deserve to know what is happening in their country and if that offends the sensibilities of social justice warriors than so be it. However, it doesn't seem that any video was taken of this event. 

Brazil crosses 1 million Coronavirus cases.

Brazilians bury a victim of the Coronavirus. BBC. 

Brazil has crossed 1 million Coronavirus cases with 49,000 deaths making them the second worst hit country in the world. BBC. A record number of new cases were announced today, but that was likely due to reporting problems. President Jair Bolsonaro has been criticized for not taking the virus seriously and not issuing a national lockdown. Bolsonaro has opposed lockdowns due to the economic damage they do, but several local officials and governors have issued lockdowns. 

My Comment:

As the pandemic fades from public consciousness, it's important to note that the virus is still raging in Brazil. In America the Coronavirus is pretty much an afterthought except when the media wants to use it as a hammer to attack President Trump.  

I have a couple of ideas as to why the virus is spreading so fast in Brazil. First of all, the weather might have something to do with it. It's winter in Brazil which seems to help the virus spread as people are spending more time in side. 

Population density has a lot to do with it as well. From what I understand most people in Brazil live in packed cities which is where the virus has done the most amount of damage. There is a huge difference between a small town, where a victim is likely only to spread the virus to their housemates and a big city where simply walking a block could potentially expose hundreds of people. 

I don't know how much blame Bolsonaro deserves for this. Bolsonaro did not issue a lockdown but I don't know how much that really helped the countries that did. America had a very long lockdown that devastated the economy but it hasn't seemed to stop the virus from spreading. It may have stopped the hospitals from being overwhelmed but other than that I don't think there was much accomplished. 

I do think that the media is unfairly blaming him, simply because he's right wing. The BBC was the most balanced article and even they spent a large portion of if attacking Bolsonaro. I think there is a good argument that Bolsonaro did the right thing, but he will never get any credit for it, just like President Trump will never get credit from the media for his accomplishments. 

Things will probably get worse in Brazil before they get better, but they will get better. I think that Brazil's hands off approach is likely to mean that they will reach herd immunity before anyone else. The same amount of people will likely die regardless but that means the economic damage will be a lot more limited. 

Piracy is becoming a major threat in the Gulf of Mexico.

Paramedics treat a victim of piracy. New York Time/EPA.

Piracy is becoming a major threat in the Gulf of Mexico as the US government has issued a new warning against attacks in the Bay of Campeche. New York Times. The attacks are mostly targeting the oil industry with Mexican tankers and oil platforms being targeted. Pirates steal more mundane personal items like phones and money, but have also stripped ships and platforms of more valuable equipment. Piracy has not been a long term issue in the Gulf of Mexico but has picked up dramatically since 2017. Since that year there have been 74 attacks recorded, with actual numbers much higher. In response to the attack Mexico has stepped up patrols in the region.

My Comments:

I always like writing about piracy as it always seems like something from a bygone era. Of course modern pirates are sadly all to common and the Gulf of Mexico is only one of several places where it is a serious problem. Both Somalia and Southeast Asia have major problems with piracy as well. 

This is a fairly serious national security threat for Mexico. They are reliant on their oil industry for much of their economy and these pirates make this a lot more difficult for them. Without the taxes the industry provides the country could collapse. 

I suspect the drug cartels are involved in this. The Times article didn't mention them but given how powerful and ubiquitous the cartels are I can't imagine that they wouldn't be involved. The Cartels have tried to move beyond just drug smuggling and piracy would just be another form of profit for them. 

I don't have a lot of confidence in Mexico's abilities in stopping piracy in the Gulf of Mexico. Though their efforts there have stepped up they have been remarkably incapable in stopping the cartels in any of their other efforts. I don't know why piracy would be any different. 

However, I do think that the international community can help out. Stopping piracy is something that pretty much every country agrees with and an international effort to wipe it out in Somalia was largely successful. If the US Navy and other non-Mexican forces showed up in the Bay of Campeche, I think the piracy would go away pretty quickly. But given the politics of the situation, I don't think that will happen anytime soon. 

Reports of Atlanta police calling out and refusing to take calls due to charges in the Rayshard Brooks case

Rayshard Brooks and Garrett Rolfe. Atlanta Journal Constitution. 

After officer Garrett Rolfe had been charged with felony murder for the death of Rayshard Brooks, many Atlanta Police officers have refused to work in protest. Atlanta Journal Constitution. Brooks was shot and killed after an attempt to arrest him over an OWI failed. Brooks stole an officers taser and shot it at Rolfe before getting shot and killed. The Atlanta Police Department claimed that they are having an unusual amount of callouts but their ability to respond to crime has not been effected. However, a union representative said that entire police zones will not have officers responding to anything besides helping other officers. Other police departments have received requests to assist Atalanta but most appear to be refusing, citing the charges against Rolfe as the reason why. 

My Comment:

Black Lives Matter had requested the dismantling of the police and it looks like it is going to be the case in Atlanta. From what I have seen from other sources, including some second hand information from an anonymous source who has contacts in Atlanta, out of the six zones only zones 2 and 4 have any officers. Everyone else has walked off the job. Things are so desperate that it sounds like jail officers are being put out onto the streets. 

The charges in this case are insane. Brooks tried to shoot a taser at an officer, which he stole from another police officer. Rolfe was almost hit by the taser and if he had been he would have been incapacitated and left at the mercy of Brooks, who may have killed him. Tasers are lethal force in Georgia, so lethal force was more than justified. Furthermore, the other officer, suffered a concussion in the case so he might not have been able to defend himself or Rolfe. 

But Officer Rolfe and Devin Brosnan have been charged, and Rolfe faces the death penalty. The prosecutor in this case, Paul Howard Jr. seems to be out of control. These charges aren't warranted, and he didn't notify the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI) that he was filing these charges even though the investigation is ongoing. He also lied about Brosnan becoming a state's witness. Plus he's up for reelection and has sexual harassment allegations against him.

So does Paul Howard Jr. just want to punish these officers or is he just surrendering to the mob. My guess is both. I don't think he believes that the police use of force was improper, he just wants to punish them, maybe because they are cops or maybe because they are white. And he wants to get reelected so he's pandering to the Black Lives Matter crowd. 

Under these kinds of circumstances, is it any wonder why cops are walking off the job? The prosecution of Rolfe and Brosnan means that it's open season on Atlanta police officers. Even if you try and kill them, if they fight back they are the ones that are going to prison or even executed for doing their jobs. You can't both ask people to risk their lives to keep the peace while at the same time execute them for a lawful shooting. 

How this will play out is a mystery for me. It sounds like we have some initial reports of looting and chaos but police are not going to put a stop to it tonight. I fear that there might be some violence as well. With no police the people of Atlanta are on their own, let's hope they were smart and bought guns. Of course, given who is in charge in Atalanta, I wouldn't be surprised if they get charges as well. Better a jury than a pallbearer though. 

It's sad that the police were put into this position. Ever since George Floyd died, they have been demonized to the point where they had to use the only leverage they had. Not doing their jobs. I think some people might be angry about that but you can't expect them to work under these conditions. Either they have protection when they have to use lethal force or they don't and if they don't they have no reason to work. If people don't like that then they should probably start telling Black Lives Matter that they are wrong about the police. 

President Trump signs executive order on police reform.

President Donald Trump.

President Donald Trump has signed an executive order on police reform in the wake of the George Floyd riots and protests. The Hill. The order will tie grants and federal funding to deescalation tactics and bans on chokeholds, except in cases of justified lethal force. It will also create a database so the federal government can track excessive force complaints. The move was praised as a first step but critics say it doesn't go far enough. Both the Republicans and the Democrats are working on police reform bills, but the Democrats bill is a non-starter in the Senate as it goes after qualified immunity, which protects police from lawsuits over good faith mistakes. The GOP bill includes things like more funding for body cameras and punishment for not using them, with a similar structure for banning chokeholds. 

My Comment:

This seems like a good compromise position that rejects the more radical voices on the left while at the same time might actually do something about the problem of police brutality. The executive order seems like it would be a major positive and it should be praised as a good first step, and the more rational people on the left seem to agree. 

I do think that chokeholds should probably be banned. Though any physical conflict can result in death, a chokehold has an unacceptable risk of death. I am glad that Trump's order does have an exception for situations where lethal force is justified. If a cop has to choke someone out to save his own life or the life of others than that shouldn't be a problem, it's just when they are just trying to restrain someone where it isn't justified. 

Creating a database seems like a good idea in principal as well. I'm not sure how much of a problem it actually is but in theory a cop with a bunch of brutality complaints can be fired or quit and then get a new job without a problem. If those complaints are valid then yes, I agree that should be changed. I do worry about false complaints though as most cops get a lot of them regardless of their actual behavior. 

Execution might be a bit difficult. There are thousands of police forces in this country and that's a lot of data to collect. And it will take a long time to put a system together and I am guessing by the time it is the whole situation will be nothing but a memory for most folks. Still, as a solution it's not a bad one and one very few people will have an objection too. 

I have long said that mob outrage leads to bad laws and I think if the Democrats get their way we will get a very bad law. Getting rid of qualified immunity is a terrible thing as it means that pretty much every police department would be flooded with nuisance lawsuits. Plus, almost nobody would want to be a cop if they could be sued by everyone they arrested. It's a non-starter and the Republicans will never go for it. 

The GOP bill seems like it's better all around as it actually seems very tightly focused. The fact that Tim Scott, a black man, is taking the lead on it should help as well. I'm agnostic on body cameras as the quality is often bad and misses a lot. Video in general is treated with more respect then it deserves as, without context, it can mislead people. 

Will this finally quell the riots and protests? I kinda doubt it. Black Lives Matter was never really about police reform in general, it's just racial grievance with police reform as a shield. But I think outside of the radicals people will probably be happy with this and move on to other things. At least I hope so, the last few weeks have been exhausting. 

Skrimish between India and China leaves at least three people dead.

File photo of a joint India/China conference room used for deescalation. Reuters.

A skirmish between China and India in the border region of Galwan Valley has left at least three Indian soldiers dead. Reuters. No shots were fired in the brawl but the casualties happened due to stones being thrown and batons being used, leading to the deaths, which included a Indian Colonel. Thousands of troops have been deployed to the disputed region and efforts to deescalate the situation have been ongoing. Conflict has been common in the region, often resulting in brawls, and even a brief war in 1962. However, this is the first clash that has resulted in a death since 1967. The Chinese may have suffered losses in the skirmish as well, but it is unclear if it included deaths or just injuries. Both countries blame the other for starting the conflict. 

My Comment:

This outcome is not surprising as tensions had been very high in the Galwan Valley for weeks now. They have already had several brawls in recent days and both sides have deployed thousands of troops. It seems the troops on the ground are itching for a fight and even though nobody got shot, now people have died. 

I'm not sure if this event was planned or if it was spontaneous. It's possible that the commanders in charge of the troops there didn't have strong enough control over them and that they started to brawl on their own. If so, that's a bad sign as it shows poor discipline from both sides. 

It's also possible that this was deliberately done in order to test the other side. Without any reason to trust either sides version of events, I won't say who started this, but it's very possible that each side wants to push their claims and send a message to the other side that they are not to be messed with. 

It's unclear if the deaths were intentional. When people are throwing rocks at each other or hitting each other with batons it's easy enough for someone to die. Though hitting someone with a rock or baton has a high chance of death, so it's not like they didn't know the risk. My guess is that this was a brawl that got out of control and fast. 

I do wonder how things didn't escalate after at least three people died. YOu would think that one side or the other would see their guys getting killed and would respond with heavier force, but that didn't happen. I'm guessing that they were under orders to not fire unless fired upon and since neither side fired all that happened was a brawl. 

Is this the first skirmish of a new border war between China and India? I kinda doubt it. Border skirmishes happen all the time in the region and the brief fight between India and Pakistan in 2019 didn't evolve into a war, despite that involving actual gunplay and air battles. My guess is that cooler heads will prevail here and no larger conflict will erupt. 

I do have to wonder what China is doing though. You would think that with the Coronavirus dragging their name through the mud they would want to avoid conflict at all costs. Pressing their claims against India now seems like a terrible idea when the country is so vulnerable. Of course their goal might just be to cause a little more chaos for their enemies and neighbors as North Korea's new hostility might be a Chinese effort as well. Time will tell what China is trying to do here and regardless of the outcome I don't think it's anything good. 

US Supreme Court declines hearing 10 gun rights cases.

File photo of the United States Supreme Court. Reuters.

In a major blow for gun rights, the United States Supreme Court has refused to hear 10 gun rights cases. Reuters. Two justices, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh, said they would have heard a New Jersey case about the state's may issue concealed carry law. Similar cases were dismissed from Maryland and Massachusetts. The court also refused to hear assault weapon ban cases from Illinois and Massachusetts. The refusal to hear gun rights cases come after ruling the courts first gun rights case in years moot last April. The court has a 5-4 conservative majority but despite two new pro-gun justices they have not ruled on any major cases. 

My Comment:

Very disturbing news from the Supreme Court. Not ruling against the City of New York in the previous case was already a huge blow. Not only did they encourage local governments to change their laws before the court can rule on them, they also didn't help defend the 2nd amendment. New York's law was clearly unconstitutional, and the court basically admitted it, but still refused to rule. 

These cases that the court refused are also pretty clearly unconstitutional. Carrying firearms is de-facto banned in New Jersey, Maryland and Massachusetts and the court has already ruled that you have a right to carry firearms. The court should have taken this case and ruled that "may issue/de-facto ban" states are way out of line. 

The court also should have ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in the Illinois and Massachusetts assault weapons ban cases. The court has already said that weapons that are in common use are protected by the 2nd amendment and the most common rifles sold in America these days are AR-15 derivatives, not counting the AK clones and the various other weapons that could be classified as assault weapons. The 2nd Amendment is clear on the issue and the court should have overturned it. 

I do have to say that it's extremely frustrating that the Supreme Court hasn't backed gun rights. I would have thought that the court's priority after Gorsuch and Kavanaugh would be gun rights but it appears that LGBT rights have taken the center stage. Regardless of the merits of the case it's pretty much beyond belief that the conservative court would take up that case before a gun rights one. 

One has to wonder why the court is acting the way it is. Part of it may be due to fear from the Democrats, who have threatened to stack the court if they took up gun rights cases. Chief Justice Roberts has long been more interested in keeping the Democrats happy than actually ruling in difficult or divisive cases. Some people think that after his Obamacare ruling that he has even been compromised by the Democrats despite supposedly being conservative, but I just think he's cowardly. 

I also wonder if the court isn't that united on gun rights. My guess is that the actual conservative justices would not risk such an important case if there was any doubt that they would lose. With Roberts being a loose cannon who can't be trusted my guess is that they didn't want to risk him siding with the liberal justices. 

With this being the case, it's pretty clear that in order to get the gun rights cases we need to overturn these stupid laws we will need at least one more conservative justice and that doesn't seem likely in the short term. If President Trump gets a 2nd term, which I think he will, we will probably be able to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who seems to only be alive out of spite for President Trump. But even then, given how cowardly the court has become, will we really get what we want?

All this comes after the argument for gun control is at it's weakest ever. The twin crises of Coronavirus and the George Floyd riots have caused gun sales to skyrocket and even liberals are buying guns these days. People have realized that when bad times hit, you can't always depend on the government to bail you out, you need to have a backup plan. 

Indeed, I think the argument for gun control is pretty much dead. A mass shooting or two could change things but for now at least people want to hold onto their guns. Which is why this is so frustrating. The winds are obviously changing on this issue but to the Supreme Court it's not even an issue. 

Atlanta police release footage of the Rayshard Brooks shooting.

Security footage showing Rayshard Brooks shooting a stolen taser at the cops. Screenshot. 

Atlanta police have released bodycam and security camera footage showing the Rayshard Brooks shooting which has resulted in another round of riots. Fox News. Officers confronted Brooks after he was discovered sleeping in his car at a Wendy's. The two officers interrogated Brooks and made him go through sobriety tests. His blood alcohol rate was at .108, while the legal limit is .08. After Brooks admitted he was driving and he failed his sobriety tests the officers involved tried to arrest him. Brooks then fought with the cops, stole one of the officers tasers and fired at officer Garrett Rolfe, who returned fire with his service weapon, killing Brooks. The incident resulted in another fresh round of riots and the Wendy's where the incident occurred was set on fire. 

An edited version of the encounter can be seen below:

My Comment:

I think this might be the case where people start to turn on Black Lives Matter. In the past couple of weeks, BLM has been venerated to the point where speaking out against them could cost you your job. Part of that is that the three main cases in this round of riots, Ahmaud Arbery, George Floyd and Breanna Taylor, were at least somewhat sympathetic and examples of the police screwing up. 

This case though? I struggle to see how they police did anything wrong here. Brooks was clearly in the wrong when he drove to Wendy's drunk, he was clearly wrong when he fought with the cops and he couldn't have been more wrong when he took a shot at officer Rolfe. I don't see how the police could have handled this any different. 

Clearly, the officers should have gone to Wendy's and arrest Brooks. He was driving drunk and passed out in the drive through. At the very least they needed to come to make sure he wasn't dying. And he was behind the wheel which means in Georgia he's guilty of an OWI. I guess Black Lives Matter could argue that drunk driving should be ok but I don't think that will play well for anyone who has lost someone to a drunk driver. 

And they were right to fight with Brooks when he started to fight them. Indeed, if anything, they should have used lethal force before he managed to steal the taser. Trying to disarm someone of their weapons justified lethal force, but the officers did everything they could to avoid it. Brooks was resisting arrest and successfully disarmed an officer, it's clear he was out of control. 

And when Brooks fired on the officers with the stolen taser? That justifies lethal force every-time. The shot almost hit Rolfe and if it it he would have been vulnerable of having his service pistol stolen, which would obviously put his life and the life of the other officer, Devin Brosnan, at risk. I have every reason to believe that Rolfe feared for his life and was legally justified in shooting Brooks. 

Black Lives Matter is making a big deal out of the fact that Brooks was shot in the back. In a similar case, the Walter Scott shooting, the officer involved was also disarmed of his taser and opened fire as the suspect was running away. He got 20 years for that but there is a huge difference. Walter Scott was just running away with the taser trailing behind him, so there wasn't a self-defense motive. In this case, Brooks was actually holding the taser and had just fired on the officers, which makes it way different than the Scott case. He was running away but he was also shooting at the officers, which makes shooting them in the back more than justified. 

Of course the rioters and arsonists don't care about any of this. They have a world view that won't be changed by facts and for them any killing of a black person by a police officer is wrong. I doubt it would have mattered if Brooks had a real gun and was shooting at the cops, to them the cops should have just laid down and died. 

I think the reaction to this is just shameful. Firing Officer Rolfe when he did everything right is disgusting. Burning down Wendy's is even worse as none of this was their fault. Even if the officers involved didn't do it right, which they did, all Wendy's did is call the cops because a drunk was blocking their drivethrough. Of course to Black Lives Matter, that's the same as pulling the trigger themselves. It's beyond stupid, a company is supposed to just tolerate someone ruining their business because of the color of his skin? 

Does this mean that the Black Lives Matter fever is going to break soon? I don't know. It does seem that conservative voices are more willing to speak out about this case, but it's going to depend on non-conservative moderates. If this is a line too far then them than we might actually make some progress. If not, then the current status quo, riots whenever a black person dies regardless of the actual circumstances, will continue. 

US troops are unprepared for small enemy drones in the Middle East.

A Marine launches a quadcopter drone. Task and Purpose/USMC.

American troops are unprepared for the threat of small enemy drones in the Middle East, according to a top Marine general. Task and Purpose. General Kenneth McKenzie, head of Centcom, said that the drones are a major threat. These are not the aircraft sized drones we usually think of, but smaller, off the shelf drones that cost as little as $1000 and can be easily modified to carry small explosives or surveillance equipment. American soldiers have come under attack by these drones, thought to be operated by ISIS, and Russia has taken heavy casualties from them in Syria. Their small size makes them very difficult to detect and destroy. 

My Comment:

I've said several times that these kinds of drone attacks are going to be more and more frequent. All you need is the cash to buy one and the technical know-how to rig up an explosive and you have a pretty effective way to drop bombs on your opponents. They won't be big bombs, probably the size of a hand grenade, but it's a very effective way to deliver ordinance. 

ISIS was the terror group that perfected this technique and they have used it to devastating effect. And it's one that can be easily adapted by almost anyone, and one that is fairly effective. I still remember seeing video of ISIS doing this and it was amazing how simple it was. Just a drone, a grenade and a contraption to drop it, and it's suddenly raining grenades. 

It's extremely hard to defend against these kinds of attacks as well. During the day the drones are hard to see and even harder to hit. Our higher tech anti-air weapons can't track something this small and even the Mark I eyeball has problems with it. And at night? Forget it, you won't see it coming. And you likely won't even know it was there until the explosive start dropping. 

So how could we defeat these things? I think it's either going to be electronic countermeasures or directed energy weapons. I am guessing a device could be made that jams the signals these drones use and that would stop these attacks cold. But that might also mean drowning out military signals that our troops need to communicate. It's not a perfect solution by a longshot but it's an option.

Further down the line we could have directed energy weapons to shoot these down. A laser or something similar could destroy these drones, if not directly, by jamming their signals just like the electric countermeasures. The problem there is you have to see it to hit it and these things are the size of birds. 

Of course, what scares me isn't that this technique could be used against US troops in the field, it's that terrorists could use these drones in terror attacks. It's fairly easy to pull off, low tech, and, most disturbingly, it seems like something you could get away with pretty fast if you wanted to launch the attack again and again. Just fly a drone over a crowded area, drop its payload, retrieve it and run, ready for the next attack. 

It makes me think that we will probably see restrictions on drone technology. Right now just about anyone can buy one of these drones and there doesn't appear to be any background checks or vetting going on. All it will take is for one terrorist to use these in a major attack and that will likely change...