If someone ignited a stink stick match around me, I'd invoke "castle doctrine" to the gendarmes when I explained why I had to shoot them.

No trash chutes?

"Gee, officer, I have no idea where my cow-orker went. I think something about lunch? but I wasn't paying particular attention because of my throbbing headache."

Your daily reminder that "China is asshoe".

As I wrote elsewhere once the real scale of this tragedy starts being felt there'll be a lot of anger and the CCP's insufferable high handedness will pour gasoline on the fire.

https://twitter.com/wretchardthecat/status/1255975490856398849

In a baffling and bone-headed move, Joe Biden has appointed scandal-plagued Chris Dodd to chair the committee searching for his VP candidate, a candidate he promised would be a woman.

Dodd, a vocal, at least, champion of respecting women, was involved in the waitress sandwich incident with "Liberal Lion of the Senate," Ted Kennedy.

So, a person credibly accused of sexual harassment/assault is in charge of finding a woman to run as Joe Biden's vice president, a candidate credibly accused of sexual harassment/assault.

Is anyone on the Biden campaign aware of optics?

Hi

> Is anyone on the Biden campaign
> aware of optics?

That's what we asked of the Obama team after his veep selection.

This will be fine.

To be fair to Obama he was looking at Hillary forcing her way in as his VP, so Obama was looking at a very short presidential term. Picking Biden (who almost no one wanted as president) was an act of self preservation.

Hi

From the article, some observations:

Hezbollah was behind a bombing in Istanbul in May 2011 that wounded eight Turkish civilians in an assassination attempt on the Israeli consul to Turkey, Moshe Kimchi.

His surname is Kimchi? shouldn't he be the consul to South Korea?

Check the article, particularly the dude's picture. I'd recommend he get a hair cut, or stop sticking body parts into electrical outlets.

So, a person credibly accused of sexual harassment/assault is in charge of finding a woman to run as Joe Biden's vice president, a candidate credibly accused of sexual harassment/assault.

Lion of the Senate so that "make me a sammich" thing never happened. Pinkie swears.

Oh.

Newsom baffled a state that encourages illegal immigration isn’t obeying his ‘stay at home’ order

https://genesiustimes.com/newsom-baffled-a-state-that-encourages-illegal-immigration-isnt-obeying-his-stay-at-home-order/

I see the Supreme Court has bitch-slapped the state of Georgia for trying to copyright their own legal codes.

To be fair to Obama he was looking at Hillary forcing her way in as his VP, so Obama was looking at a very short presidential term. Picking Biden (who almost no one wanted as president) was an act of self preservation. ~ Ben at May 4, 2020 9:01 AM

Obama chose Biden because Joe gave his campaign a Washington insider / operator. Obama needed that because he was still an undistinguished freshman senator and lacked a record (or understanding) of the operational skills necessary in DC dealings. Biden, despite his many mis-steps, was then a powerful senator with a great deal of influence in the Democratic Party.

Joe spent many years on (and a few stints as the chairman of) the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, so he added foreign policy gravitas to the campaign of a freshman senator unversed in world affairs - this despite the fact that Robert Gates dismissed Biden's expertise as "wrong" on every issue.

Hillary had no foreign policy bona fides and an undistinguished record as a second-term senator. Her only influence over the party was in fundraising, which she and Bill had raised to an art form. Other than identity politics (which the African-American Obama had covered), she added nothing to his campaign.

Biden did bring that Washington insider feel to the Obama campaign. But as I recall things he really didn't bring anything else to the ticket. Biden was always a goof. The hair sniffing, inappropriate touching, random comments, etc isn't a new thing with him. It is who he has been all his life.

As you say Conan, Hillary really didn't bring anything to the ticket either. But as you mention she had a firm control over fundraising. That is how she was going to force her way into the VP slot after she lost the nomination. In the end she had to make due with Secretary of State. Foreign policy wasn't something Obama cared much about. Hillary was very interested in such things. So from Obama's position is was a good deal in order to keep peace within the party.

Back to current politics, Biden's main draw is 'electability'. Which draws strong parallels to both John McCain and Mitt Romney. In my honest opinion Bernie Sanders had a much better chance of getting elected. But as someone who is only somewhat related to the party I can understand the DNC's desire for someone (almost anyone) other than Sanders.

Absolutely astonishing -- New York Times not only rejects role of media, but calls for an investigation done by 'an unbiased, apolitical panel, put together by the DNC.'

https://twitter.com/ByronYork/status/1256918646485639170

#COVID19 DHS intel report @CBSNews “We assess the Chinese Government intentionally concealed the severity of COVID-19 from the international community in early January while it stockpiled medical supplies by both increasing imports and decreasing exports.” First reported AP

https://twitter.com/CBS_Herridge/status/1257304105506213888

In my honest opinion Bernie Sanders had a much better chance of getting elected. But as someone who is only somewhat related to the party I can understand the DNC's desire for someone (almost anyone) other than Sanders. ~ Ben at May 4, 2020 11:44 AM

I would agree that the Dems should opt for a candidate who stands for something, even socialism, over one who stands for whatever will get him elected.

One of Bernie's big drawbacks, from the party perspective, however, is that he is not a Democrat. He only caucuses with them. He is not beholden to the party, even though he needs its help to attain the White House.

Give the party faithful an honest vote in choosing the nominee - whatever the outcome - no super delegates, no hedging the outcome. If that means they end up with their own version of Donald Trump, so be it. Own it and accept that sometimes the voters just need to scratch a populist itch.

"Carter was the latest beneficiary of the American electorate’s occasional need to scratch a populist itch...." ~ Mark Bowden (Guests of the Ayatollah)

The only way to get the party faithful to abandon bad ideas is to let those ideas compete in the general election. Sometimes a Jimmy Carter or a Donald Trump has to come along so the electorate can see that "burn it all down" is not a viable political philosophy.

As long as the Bernie Bros feel that the nomination keeps getting stolen from them, they won't realize his ideas won't work in the real world and won't sell to the majority of the electorate. The DNC blocking Bernie from winning the nomination is not going to make the Sandernistas go away.

Agreed Conan. Without getting an honest chance at the nomination there is no reason for the Bernie Bros to support the eventual nominee.

The dangers of manspreading:

https://twitter.com/GPrime85/status/1257131186268319750

On the importance of being part of an Ivy league university:

https://twitter.com/dumbandawful/status/1256334231799652353

Amanda Hess explained, in an article, the "Credibility Bookcase" phenomenon on the news.

Of course, there's a chance that many of the more academic interviewees simply have bookcases everywhere in their houses and they're not about to go to any effort to avoid having them within sight of the camera.

Even so, remind ME to do just that so I don't end up in the Twitter thread that's included.

(Besides, an awful lot of my books are too thin - or aged - for the titles to show up properly on TV.)

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/01/arts/quarantine-bookcase-coronavirus.html

Liked Twitter thread linked in the article, Lenona. Comparing my own bookshelf to the ones shown on the tweets, I would have high bookcase credibility. Unfortunately, my bookshelves are too low to be a backdrop, the highest one being only about 4' tall. They were purchased two houses ago and sized to fit the dimensions of that house, not to impress people on Twitter.

New evidence says the origins of the 1918 Influenza outbreak are traceable to a China, not Kansas.

Interesting piece on the 1918 influenza, Conan.

As for bookshelves, mine are tall but most of what would show would be fantasy novels. I still have all my college text books. But they are big and heavy. Since the shelves aren't bolted to the wall they go on the bottom and fluff novels go on the top. Hence they wouldn't show in the feed. It is also a bit odd that I've kept them all these years. I don't actually refer back to them, simple internet searches typically being faster to reference. Even so mentally I'm not willing to discard them.

"in this country credibility looks like a white man in a dark suit" - yeah, that's the New York Times alrighty.

The statement isn't that outdated, Gog.

While the men in question weren't wearing suits, a radio host pointed out, this morning, that under no circumstances would a crowd of armed, loud black men have been allowed to storm any state house in the country - or even walk quietly inside with their rifles, he might have added.

You don't remember the black guy with the AK-47 at all the TEA party rallies, Lenona? He got kinda famous because most of the news media cropped him down to a T-shirt so no one could see his skin when they reported on it.

I admit I never heard of him.

Maybe that's because one or two black TEA members aren't that newsworthy when surrounded by their white allies - and chances are, many white men carry guns at many TEA rallies?

And maybe there WERE a few black men among the armed protestors - but they must have been hard to spot. Either that or they were too cautious to push inside.

(I can easily imagine that even an unarmed crowd of angry black men would not be allowed inside a state house.)

"The statement isn't that outdated, Gog."

I'm sure it's not outdated as much as it is needlessly divisive, but it is the NYT and that's their thing.

Lenona, TEA party crowds were not generally armed. In fact just about the only people who showed up openly carrying were black. A fact that most news media worked hard to hide.

As for what you can imagine, come back to us when you get in touch with reality. Your dreams and figments aren't persuasive.

Got a source for that, Ben? Why didn't you post it right away?

Not to mention that one armed man outdoors is not the equivalent of a crowd of armed men storming inside a state house, so I'm not sure why you raised the issue of the one man in the first place.

Why didn't I post a source? Because they are easy to find.

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/kyle-drennen/2009/08/18/msnbc-obamacare-protesters-racist-including-black-gun-owner

I just put "armed black guy at tea party rally" into duck duck and that was the first line. It isn't hard to find multiple other examples. Not like this is an isolated incident.

Why did I bring this up? Because you went all racist and started projecting figments of your imagination and random dreams to justify your racism. I don't like anyone raiding government offices. I can understand their frustration, but this isn't what I consider an appropriate solution. That they are white is irrelevant. You have no proof things would have been different if they were black or asian or any other persuasion.

Now if you want to find proof you will be sorely disappointed. In the US a black person (male or female) is less likely to be shot by the police than a white person doing the exact same thing. Those are the stats. Facing up to reality or keep playing in your imagination is your choice.

I'm afraid I don't know the correct, SHORT key phrases to search on for that last claim (I tried searching just now) so I'd appreciate it if you'd provide that too. Especially regarding the factor of "doing the exact same thing." (I found a few articles saying that white officers are no more likely to fire than black officers, but that's not the issue.)

And if others here have made a similar claim, there haven't been many - and Amy likely wasn't one of them, or I'd have remembered that.

Here is a place to start Lenona.

https://theconversation.com/a-new-look-at-racial-disparities-in-police-use-of-deadly-force-98681

I put "are blacks more likely to get shot than whites" into duck and it was on the first page.

So, are blacks more likely to get shot by the police than whites? Yes. No question about it. But that doesn't prove racism. Black are also much more likely to commit crimes and more specifically violent crimes. Once you control for the different rates of violent crime you find that whites are more likely to be shot than blacks. And the biggest thing you can do to lower your risk of getting shot by the police is to not engage in violent crime or appear to be engaging in violent crime.

And if you want to claim 'Blacks don't commit more crimes than whites. That is all racism!' then you are wrong. There is no honest debate on the issue. Depending on the class of crime some crimes blacks do offend at a lower rate than whites. For murder, robbery, gambling, and illegal weapon possession black offend well above their population percentages. For rape, burglary, arson and many others blacks offend at the same rate as their population percentages. For DUI blacks actually offend at about half of the rate their population would suggest.

The whole 'black commit crimes at the same rates as other ethnicities' argument is false. If racism by police was driving the high homicide rates it would also drive high rape rates. Especially given the social history of black-white rape in this country. You also wouldn't see the high rate of black murder victims. Instead you find the black murder victim rate tracks strongly with the black murder rate.

If you want raw numbers search for "FBI table 43"

End of the day Lenona the news is not informative on such subjects. They want to sell adds so they often encourage your preconceived biases. As CBS recently showed they aren't above falsifying things. Or you can go back to Dan Rather and the 'False but true' bit he did. You need to deal with actual statistics and not one off stories.

You left out the part about "a white person doing the exact same thing."

At any rate, even if a whole CROWD of black armed men wouldn't have been shot on sight for trying to enter the Capitol, what, again, are the chances they would ever have gotten inside without being arrested, at least?