Press "Enter" to skip to content

155 search results for “Unlock Your Potential With Real Tableau TCA-C01 Exam Dumps 🐕 Open website ➠ www.pdfvce.com 🠰 and search for ▶ TCA-C01 ◀ for free download 😕TCA-C01 Test Duration”

George Floyd’s Murder Is Not About ‘Systemic Racism’ and It’s Not Emblematic of a Larger-Scale Problem

George Floyd’s Murder Is Not About ‘Systemic Racism’ and It’s Not Emblematic of a Larger-Scale Problem

By John R Guardiano on June 3, 2020

The facts and the data tell a far different story than what the media is feeding us.

As I’ve explained here at ResCon1, groupthink is a real problem in contemporary America. We’ve seen it with the cult-like following behind mask-wearing allegedly to stop the spread of the coronavirus.

And now we see it with the universal declaration, trumpeted throughout the media and in the popular culture, that the murder of George Floyd is an obvious instance of racism—and emblematic of the “systemic racism” that supposedly pervades U.S. law enforcement and American society more generally.

In truth, racism is less of a problem today in American than in all of human history. No country in the history of the world, moreover, has done more for blacks and other minorities than the United States of America.

And, despite the best efforts of left-wing, “progressive” journalists to show otherwise, there simply is no data to support the notion that there is “systemic racism” in law enforcement.

Quite the opposite: as Jason Riley reports in the Wall Street Journal : 

In 2016, [Harvard economist Roland] Fryer released a study of racial differences in police use of deadly force.

To the surprise of the author, as well as many in the media and on the left who take racist law enforcement as a given, he found no evidence of bias in police shootings.

His conclusions have been echoed by researchers at the University of Maryland and Michigan State University, who in a paper released last year wrote:

“We didn’t find evidence for anti-Black or anti-Hispanic disparity in police use of force across all shootings, and, if anything, found anti-White disparities when controlling for race-specific crime.

Adds talk radio host Larry Elder in an interview with Fox News host Sean Hannity (June 2, 2020):

According to the CDC, in the last 45 years, killings of black by the police has declined [by] 75 percent.

Last year there were nine unarmed black people killed; 19 unarmed white people. Name the unarmed white people who were killed.

You can’t because the media gives you the impression that this is something that happens all the time [and only to black people].

Obama said this ought not be normal. Mr. former President, it’s not normal; it is rare. Cops rarely kill anybody, let alone an unarmed black person.

And the idea that this happens all the time is why some of these young people are out there in the streets. And it is simply false. Isn’t that good news? It’s not true!

What most left-wing “progressives” gloss over or refuse to forthrightly acknowledge is that, as Riley explains, “racial disparities in police shootings [stem] primary from racial disparities in criminal behavior.”

“Why are the Minneapolis police in black neighborhoods?” asks Heather Mac Donald.

Because that’s where violent crime is happening, including shootings of two-year-olds and lethal beatings of 75-year-olds.

Just as during the Obama years, the discussion of the allegedly oppressive police is being conducted in the complete absence of any recognition of street crime and the breakdown of the black family that drives it.

The murder of George Floyd was an abomination, but it is not a racial or racist abomination. Instead, it is a rare law enforcement problem that affects a small number of police officers, white and black.

It was only last year, after all, in Minneapolis of all places, that a black Somalian-American police officer, Mohamed Noor, was convicted of third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter for wrongly killing an unarmed white woman while on patrol in 2017.

Acording to the New York Times, the woman “was unarmed, wearing pajamas, and holding nothing but a glittery cellphone.” Yet she was killed by this black police officer. However, nowhere in this Times article on the case does the word “racism” appear.

Racism? So why is racism being seized upon now in the murder of George Floyd?

In part because all Americans of goodwill are understandably sensitive to the legacy of slavery, Jim Crow, and racial discrimination, and how that legacy might have ramifications even today.

But there are less benign reasons as well.

Anti-American anarchists and far-left extremists seek to use the cudgel of race and racism, real and imagined, to attack and destroy America.

These are the people affiliated with Antifa and foreign intelligence services who have hijacked otherwise peaceful protests and used them as vehicles for arson, looting, rioting, and lawlessness.

Politics. There also are nonviolent “progressives” eager to exploit Floyd’s murder for rank political reasons. They see in his death an opportunity to push for sweeping legislative changes that will “fundamentally transform” America along statist lines.

The racist narrative, albeit false, is politically useful to these left-wing activists; so they push it with unrestrained gusto.

We the people, however, should not be fooled. While racism certainly exists and should be called out and acted against whenever it rears its ugly head, it is a far cry from the most significant problem that we face today.

And it is far cry from the most significant problem that blacks and other minorities face today.

What’s worse? Subpar schools and a lack of educational choice and opportunity in too many poor black neighborhoods. The breakdown of the family and the absence of fathers in too many homes, black and white.

Black-on-black crime that results in the senseless death of too many young black men and innocent children. And a relative lack of jobs and economic opportunity in too many of our nation’s disadvantaged communities. 

But all of this has very little to do with racism and a lot do with economics, sociology, and public policy. 

In truth, we Americans should take pride in what our nation has done for blacks and other minorities. And we should be grateful for our police, of all hues, colors and ethnicities, who put their lives on the line every day to protect us from the barbarians at the proverbial gate.

The thin blue line, remember, is neither black nor white. It’s blue, and it includes Americans of every race, color and creed.

Feature photo credit: LAist.com.

Biden Emerges from the Primary Race with Big Political Advantages, But His Age and Record Are Looming Problems

Biden Emerges from the Primary Race with Big Political Advantages, But His Age and Record Are Looming Problems

By John R Guardiano on March 12, 2020

Biden won big Tuesday night (March 10). Thus the pundits who wrongly insisted after Super Tuesday (March 3) that it was a two-man race between him and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders now acknowledge, belatedly, that Biden is the Democrats’ 2020 presidential nominee.

The Democratic primary results might also mean that Biden is the prohibitive favorite to win the White House. Consider:

First, Biden is not Hillary. He does appreciably better with working class whites, white ethnics, and black male voters than Hillary. These are voters whom Hillary under-performed with against Trump as compared to past Democratic presidential nominees.

Biden’s relative success with these voters spells real trouble for Donald Trump, especially in Michigan and Pennsylvania, which he barely won in 2016.

Biden doesn’t have to win a majority of the white working class or white ethnics. Instead, he simply has to do better with these voters than Hillary and keep Trump’s margins down.

Biden, likewise, doesn’t necessarily have to win a greater share of the black vote.

Instead, he simply has to get more black Democrats to the polls versus staying home from indifference or apathy. All indications are that, for Biden, this will be a mission easily accomplished.

Second, Democratic voters are seriously motivated to vote against Trump, whom they despise. In the March 3 Virginia Primary, for instance, a record 1.3 million voters cast ballots, and voter turnout was up by 69 percent over 2016, reports the Washington Post.

In the nine Super Tuesday states, the Post notes, voter turnout grew by an average of 33 percent, according to Edison Media Research.

These are astounding numbers; and they spell real political trouble for the President, who again, won a very narrow, fluke victory in 2016.

Trump won in part because some Democratic voters were indifferent to Hillary and thus didn’t bother to vote. In 2020, with Biden as their nominee, it appears that these formerly indifferent Democratic voters intend to turn out and make their voices heard.

Third, although Biden is in no way a “moderate” or centrist Democrat, he nonetheless is being portrayed that way because of the contrast between him and self-avowed “democratic socialist” Bernie Sanders, and this helps Biden politically.

Most voters are not liberals, leftists or socialists; and centrist or independent voters are the ones up for grabs, politically.

Indeed, these are the voters Biden needs to win to unseat Trump; and, by being described incessantly in the media as a “moderate” or centrist, Biden already has a built-in advantage with these voters.

Trump will try to disabuse moderate or centrist voters of this misperception by pointing to Biden’s long and very liberal record as a senator, and his current left-wing views as a 2020 presidential candidate; but after months of conditioning by the media, that may prove to be a long, uphill slog. 

Fourth, Biden’s age is a real and worrisome problem for the Democrats. This is obvious to anyone with eyes to see, and to any honest political observer. Biden often misspeaks, flubs his words, and rambles incoherently in ways that suggest senility or dementia.

Biden also is prone to sudden bouts of intense energy and apparent anger followed by rambling incoherence.

This is not surprising given his advanced age. Should he win the election, after all, Biden would be 78 years old on inauguration day. He would be the oldest person ever elected president and the oldest serving president in our nation’s history.

The question is whether Biden can hold it together and avoid a major faux pas between now and Nov. 3, 2020, without giving voters real reason to think that he simply isn’t up to the job.

At the very least, there will be much greater weight and scrutiny given to Biden’s vice presidential pick, since may voters will correctly perceive that there is a strong likelihood that person will become president within the next four years.

Fifth, Trump needs a second-term agenda, especially if the economy slows or goes into a recession because of the twin shocks of the coronavirus and Saudi-Russian oil war.

Trump has had many praiseworthy achievements as president: corporate tax reform, record low unemployment, a strong and robust economy, two superb Supreme Court appointments, a phase one trade deal with China, and a concerted effort, against incredible partisan odds, to enforce the rule of law at the nation’s southern border.

Elections, though, are about the future, and voters will want to know what Trump plans to do in a second term. Unfortunately, Trump has said little about this and has offered up no new agenda. That will have to change if he intends to serve four more years.

The bottom line: Biden looks very strong coming out of this primary contest and has some real political advantages over Trump. His age and political record, though, are real liabilities; and Trump and the Republicans have yet to really go after him.

Moreover, a lot certainly can and will happen, politically, between now and election day. Who, after all, would have predicted the coronavirus? And these future happenings and events will affect the trajectory of the race and whom the nation chooses as its next president. Stay tuned.

Feature photo credit: The New Yorker.

Sanders Crushes It in Nevada and Is Poised to Steamroll His Way to the Democratic Nomination

Sanders Crushes It in Nevada and Is Poised to Steamroll His Way to the Democratic Nomination

By John R Guardiano on February 23, 2020

Bernie Sanders’ was expected to win the Nevada Caucuses, but did even better than expected, crushing Joe Biden by a more than two-to-one margin, thus making it exceedingly unlikely that he (Sanders) can be stopped as he steamrolls his way to the Democratic Party’s 2020 presidential nomination.

“The basic takeaway here is that it’s Bernie’s nomination to lose,” says FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver. “Bernie Sanders in all likelihood is the nominee unless it gets taken from him at the convention,” adds former Obama campaign manager David Plouffe.

The Bulwark’s Bill Kristol casts a dissenting note, arguing that there’s still plenty of time and ability to deny Sanders the nomination.

Sanders, he observes, has won just 43 of 101 delegates chosen so far and about 30 percent of the popular vote. Ninety-seven percent of the delegates, Kristol explains, have not yet been chosen.

That’s true, but Kristol’s theoretical possibilities ignore the practical realities, which make it all but impossible for Sanders to lose the nomination. For starters, as the primary race advances, Sanders is getting stronger, not weaker; and his opponents are getting correspondingly weaker, not stronger.

Biden’s Fall. Before losing in Iowa and New Hampshire, for instance, Biden had been expected to win Nevada. “A Real Clear Politics polling average has [him] in the lead in both Nevada and South Carolina,” reported CNBC Feb. 4.

But losing creates new political dynamics and electoral facts on the ground; and so it was with Biden, who lost badly to Sanders across most major demographic groups in Nevada—Latinos, young voters, the college educated, union members, and progressives.

Even 22 percent of self-styled “moderates” voted for Sanders versus 25 percent for Biden.

Sanders’ broad-based electoral appeal bodes well for him in Texas, Florida, and California—big delegate-rich states with large and diverse populations and burgeoning numbers of Hispanic voters. (Sanders won more than half of all Hispanic/Latino voters in Nevada.)

Biden did win the black vote in Nevada, 39-27 percent over Sanders; but that’s a weak performance, relatively speaking, when compared to how, say, Hillary Clinton did in Nevada four years ago. Clinton, reports the Washington Post’s David Weigel,

won 76 percent of the black vote in Nevada, to just 22 percent for Sanders. The senator from Vermont actually increased his share of black support this year despite the divided field, to 27 percent.

“Biden’s black voter advantage [also] keeps shrinking… [and] that constituency is not rallying around Biden like it used to, or like he needs it to,” Weigel notes.

This is an ominous development for Biden, who needs a very strong showing among black voters in South Carolina and other Southern states if he is to have any chance of stopping Sanders. Biden desperately needs black voters because, as Weigel observes,

he’s struggling with white voters… Biden won just 14 percent of Nevada’s white voters, running behind former South Bend, Ind., mayor Pete Buttigieg and tying Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).

Right now, Biden is still favored to win in South Carolina; but his margin for victory keeps shrinking as he badly loses these early caucuses and primaries and appears increasingly to be a weak and unattractive candidate in the eyes of prospective voters.

Moreover, even if Biden wins South Carolina and other Southern states, Sanders will still gain a respectable share of the delegates there.

That’s because the Democrats award their delegates proportionately, provided a candidate wins at least 15 percent of the vote, which Sanders is doing and no doubt will continue to do.

The bottom line: as the Bloomberg campaign’s Kevin Shelley told Axios’ Mike Allen: “according to his (Shelley’s) models, if the current field remains on Super Tuesday (March 3), Sanders would win about 30% of the vote—and 45% of the delegates.”

That’s a plurality, not a majority; and, according to party rules, only a candidate with a majority of the delegates can win the nomination.

But will the party establishment really deny Sanders the nomination if he arrives at the convention with 40-45 percent of the delegates? No way. Again, while this may be theoretically possible, it is practically impossible.

To deny Sanders the nomination after he has won far more delegates than any other candidate, and after he has won big and important states such as California, Texas, Florida, and New York, would be to invite an open revolt among the Sandernistas.

Such a move would split the Democratic Party, render it asunder, and destroy whatever prospects it had to defeat Donald Trump.

So if, as now appears inevitable, Sanders wins these big states and at least 40-45 percent of the delegates overall, then he will be, without question, the party’s nominee.

Also-Rans. What about Bloomberg, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and Warren? Might they stop Sanders? No, and for the reasons we’ve already explained here at ResCon1.

Warren rendered Bloomberg Democratic roadkill at the Las Vegas debate. The party’s base will never tolerate a Bloomberg nomination. In their eyes, he has three strikes against him. First, he’s a plutocrat; second, he’s a misogynist; and third, he’s a racist (in their eyes).

Buttigieg has demonstrated no ability to win black votes, and this is a real problem, since African Americans are a core Democratic Party constituency. A Democrat simply cannot win the party’s nomination without them.

Warren is a great debater, but she finished fourth in Nevada, with a dismal 9.6 percent of the vote. That’s less than the 12 percent she was expected to get according to the last poll conducted before the Nevada Caucuses. So much for any post-debate bounce.

Again, Warren’s great debating skills don’t correspond with political popularity. She’d have to overcome Buttigieg and Biden before she can have any hope of competing with Sanders. That ain’t gonna happen.

And the situation is even worse for Amy Klobuchar, who could not parlay a strong showing in New Hampshire into a respectable showing in Nevada. Indeed, her sixth-place finish gives her a ticket to nowhere.

That leaves Sanders, and maybe Biden, as the nominee. But Biden, as we’ve seen, is on a clear glide path to defeat. If he doesn’t win decisively in South Carolina, he’s finished.

In short, Biden is the walking dead, and Sanders is the Democratic ghost that won’t die, and this is unlikely to change.

Feature photo credit: New York Times.

George W. Bush’s Character and Devotion to Duty Stand in Sharp Contrast To Trump’s Zeal for Self-Aggrandizement

George W. Bush’s Character and Devotion to Duty Stand in Sharp Contrast To Trump’s Zeal for Self-Aggrandizement

By John R Guardiano on April 6, 2020

Like us, Yuval Levin notes with interest Matthew Mosk’s piece on George W. Bush’s prescient push, back in 2005-06, to prepare the nation to confront a pandemic. However, unlike us, he doesn’t believe that Bush’s effort is best understood as a rebuke to the presidents (most notably Trump) who have followed him.

Instead, argues Levin, 

I think it is better understood as a story about the immense array of problems and threats that every president has to face, and the enormous difficulty, indeed near-impossibility, of being prepared for freak events.

The fact is that many of us involved in the Bush-era effort wondered why we were doing it, and whether it was a good use of time and energy.

Fran Townsend, who was Bush’s chief Homeland Security advisor, has this to say in that ABC story about her first reaction when Bush approached her about pandemic preparedness:

“My reaction was — I’m buried. I’m dealing with counterterrorism. Hurricane season. Wildfires. I’m like, ‘What?’” Townsend said. “He said to me, ‘It may not happen on our watch, but the nation needs the plan.’”

I have to admit that a lot of us more junior folks involved in the effort had the same sense.

The work was very intensely driven by Bush himself. He had read John Barry’s then-new book The Great Influenza, about the 1918 Spanish Flu, and was focused on the challenges an outbreak like that would pose to a modern government, and on the sorts of hard decisions he as president would face if it came.

Character Counts. But isn’t that exactly the point? Bush was substantively and intellectually engaged in a way that Trump is not. Bush was sober-minded and conscientious in a way that Trump is not. He took seriously his responsibilities as president in a way that Trump does not.

Bush recognized that, as president, he was the custodian of an institution that has a deep and praiseworthy historical pedigree and a profound sense of moral purpose.

Trump recognizes only that, as president, he is able to command the daily news cycle and show up simultaneously on all of the cable news channels. The only morality that he recognizes is that which aggrandizes his own inflated ego, and history is utterly foreign to him.

Levin acknowledges

that attitude, that sense of profound personal responsibility for decision-making in a crisis, is one of the things that stands out most to me about Bush, particularly now in retrospect. It was enormously impressive.

Yet, he refrains from drawing the obvious conclusion, which is: we need presidents—and political leaders more generally—who are more like Bush than Trump.

We need presidents with a sense of history, intellectual curiosity, and engagement with the wider world. Most important, we need presidents more devoted to duty than to self-aggrandizement. 

Levin surely recognizes this. Yet, he writes:

I think a more reasonable reading of the evidence is that it’s practically impossible to guess correctly about what sudden emergency our government will need to be prepared for, and it makes sense to gird for the unexpected and build as much all-purpose mobilization capacity as reasonably possible.

More than anything, it’s a lesson in how difficult and daunting the president’s job, regardless of who occupies the office, really is.

Devotion to Duty. This is silly. Of course the president’s job is challenging and difficult. But no one expects the president to “guess correctly about what sudden emergency our government will need to be prepared for.” That’s a red herring.

What we do expect, and should expect, is that the president is sufficiently engaged such that he is alert to potential dangers that threaten the health and safety of the American people; and that he acts to confront those threats. 

That’s what Bush did after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and in the Global War on Terror more generally. And it is why he insisted that his administration prepare for a pandemic—despite everything else that was going on at the time, including Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, the response to Hurricane Katrina, dealing with the California wildfires, et al.

Moreover, with regard to the coronavirus, no great powers of clairvoyance were required. As Business Insider’s John Haltiwanger and Sonam Sheth reported March 31, 2020:

A series of media reports over the last several weeks revealed that Trump ignored multiple warnings about the prospect of a devastating pandemic that would overwhelm the country’s healthcare system and later publicly downplayed the virus after it reached the U.S


US intelligence officials were warning Trump about a pandemic as early as January, the Washington Post reported, as more information emerged on the respiratory virus spreading in China.

The president was receiving the briefings at the same time that he publicly downplayed the risk of the virus.

By the end of January and beginning of February, a majority of the intelligence contained in Trump’s daily briefings was about the coronavirus, the report said.

“The system was blinking red,” one US official with access to the intelligence told The Post. “Donald Trump may not have been expecting this, but a lot of other people in the government were—they just couldn’t get him to do anything about it.”

My point, though, isn’t that Trump failed to anticipate and confront the coronavirus in a timely manner which would have saved many American lives. That much is obviously true. But failure, as Levin rightly points out, is inevitable—and, I would add, forgivable.

But what is utterly unforgivable is failing to do your job well and conscientiously, so that you can minimize the likelihood of failure.

Indeed, Trump’s sin isn’t that he failed; it’s that he never adequately tried because of character defects and intellectual deficiencies that render him incapable of fulfilling his duties as president.

George W. Bush wasn’t a genius, and no president need be a genius. But he cared deeply about his obligations as president; and he put the nation’s welfare above his own political self-interest.

Bush paid a heavy political price for his unwavering devotion to duty. History, though, will view him much more kindly as a result. And make no mistake: we need more like him in the Oval Office.

Feature photo credit: USA Herald.

The Ground Truth about Sending American and NATO Troops to Ukraine

The Ground Truth about Sending American and NATO Troops to Ukraine

By John R Guardiano on February 19, 2022

Ruling out American and NATO troop deployments to Ukraine has made war there more likely.

One of the biggest obstacles to deterring Russian Dictator Vladimir Putin from invading Ukraine has been the American and NATO phobia of deploying “boots on the ground”—that is, combat soldiers who can advise and reinforce the Ukrainian military in Ukraine.

President Biden, in fact, expressly has ruled out such a deployment. And American politicians, left and right, Democrats and Republicans, unanimously have echoed Biden’s insistence that American combat troops will not and must not deploy to Ukraine.

Their obvious concern is that this would pit American troops against Russian troops and result in “World War III” or even a nuclear war. This concern is superficially understandable, but seriously misplaced.

Deterrence Not War. The point of such a deployment, of course, is not to wage a war against Russia; it is to deter or prevent Russia from waging a war against Ukraine. And it is difficult to see how you do this without a credible threat of destroying invading Russian military units should Putin seek to attack Ukraine.

The threat of economic sanctions almost certainly is not enough.

As we have observed, Putin is dismissive of economic sanctions and for good reason: America and NATO are unwilling to inflict the type of serious economic sanctions that would cripple the Russian economy, because this also would hurt the West Europeans, who depend on Russian fuel exports.

What about a potential war with Russia? Does anyone seriously believe Putin would launch a war against Ukraine if that meant a war against the United States military and allied NATO militaries?

Putin may be covetous of Ukraine, but he is not stupid or reckless. He knows full well that the Russian military is no match for NATO. His invading forces would be destroyed and would suffer heavy casualties in any face-off with NATO in Ukraine—provided NATO is forward-deployed, positioned, and prepared for this contingency.

Historical Precedent. Putin remembers that Russian military units were decimated by American military units in Syria during the Trump presidency in 2018, and it wasn’t even close.

Recall as well the experience of West Berlin at the height of the Cold War in 1950s and early 1960s. The Soviets then often intimated that they intended to use military force to dislodge American and NATO forces from Berlin; yet they never did so. Why?

Because even then, with a comparatively much greater military force than they now have relatively speaking, the Russians were not suicidal. They dared not to attack an ensconced and prepared American and NATO military force.

As retired Army Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg explained to Fox News’ Martha MacCallum:

Putin has said repeatedly [that] he has no intention of engaging NATO. He knows it’s  a suicidal event if he does so. In fact, he knows, it’s the end of Russia if he does that. So he’s not going to get anywhere close to NATO.

Ukraine Today. True, Ukraine is not a member of NATO; however, the 2004 Budapest Memorandum obligates the United States to support Ukraine in the event that its sovereignty or territorial integrity is threatened.

Moreover, as Putin himself acknowledges, his designs extend well beyond Ukraine.

Putin seeks to expel NATO from all of Eastern Europe. And, as the geography of the region clearly demonstrates, he will have a much greater ability to achieve this if he can draw in closer to Poland, Romania, Moldova, Hungary, and Slovakia, first by subjugating Ukraine.

In other words, if America and NATO don’t stop Putin in Ukraine, they almost certainly will have a more difficult time doing so in the rest of Eastern Europe.

The bottom line: no one wants a war in Ukraine. But the way to stop a war from happening is to deter Putin. And the way to deter Putin is to make it militarily suicidal for him to attack Ukraine.

This, in turn, requires that American and NATO policymakers abandon their phobia about deploying “boots on the ground”—that is, combat soldiers who can advise and reinforce the Ukrainian military in Ukraine.

American and NATO failure to realize this geo-strategic truth has made a war in Ukraine far more likely, far more dangerous, and far more costly to our collective security.

Feature photo credit: The geography of Europe shows that if Russia takes Ukraine, all of Eastern Europe is at heightened risk of Russian subjugation. Map courtesy of ZCTrading via EBay.

Unmasking the Lies About Masks

Unmasking the Lies About Masks

By John R Guardiano on October 4, 2020

Our elites tell us ad nauseam that masks will stop the spread of COVID. There’s only one problem: they’re wrong, and Sweden shows why.

Now that President Trump has contracted the coronavirus, our elites have renewed their heavy-handed push to try and shame everyone into wearing a mask.

Of course, the efficacy of masks is always assumed and never questioned or challenged. But in truth, the scientific evidence for the efficacy of masks is utterly lacking.

The studies that purport to show masks work often conflate mask use with other practices (such as social distancing) that do work to conclude, erroneously and illogically, that masks are the independent variable which resulted in stopping or slowing the spread of COVID.

Or they point to other countries (such as Hong Kong, Taiwan, and the Czech Republic), where mask use reportedly is widespread and the coronavirus relatively contained, and conclude (erroneously and prematurely) that masks are the reason for these countries’ success.

But this assumption is a leap of faith. Association, after all, does not equal causation. In truth, as I’ve observed here at ResCon1:

there are too many other potential explanatory factors at work to explain why some countries and regions have been better able to avert or avoid the coronavirus.

Mask wearing populations may be more fastidious and disciplined about social distancing, which is effective at stopping the spread of the coronavirus.

Or they may suffer fewer medical complications and co-morbidities. Maybe they’re a younger demographic.

Sweden. Moreover, how do the mask zealots explain the relative success of Sweden and other Nordic countries, where masks are almost universally shunned?

As the New York Times reported last week from Stockholm, facemasks in Sweden are “nowhere to be seen.” Yet Sweden increasingly is seen as an exemplary model of how to manage a viral pandemic.

The Swedes made a critical mistake early-on by rationing care for nursing-home patients and failing to protect their more vulnerable elderly population.

However, Swedish leaders learned from their mistake and have since done a good job at containing the spread of the virus—and they have done so without economic lockdowns and mandatory mask orders.

“As I write this on 20 September 2020,” concedes Richard Smith in the BMJ Opinion Journal,

the difference in the number of cases in Sweden and most of the rest of Europe is striking. Most countries in Europe have a rapid rise in cases, whereas Sweden does not. Spain, which had one of the most severe lockdowns, has one of the steepest increases.

Adds the Medical Xpress:

Public health officials [in Sweden] argue that masks are not effective enough at limiting the spread of the virus to warrant mass use, insisting it is more important to respect social distancing and handwashing recommendations…

Sweden’s public health officials say they see no reason to change their strategy given the seemingly positive trend—including their stance on masks.

State epidemiologist Anders Tegnell of the Public Health Agency insists scientific studies have not proven that masks are effective in limiting the spread of the virus, suggesting they can do more harm than good if used sloppily.

“There are at least three heavyweight reports—from the World Health Organization, the (EU health agency) ECDC and The Lancet report that the WHO cites—which all state that the scientific evidence is weak. We haven’t carried out our own assessment,” he recently told reporters…

“Several countries that introduced masks are now seeing big resurgences [in COVID infections],” he said on August 14, 2020.

Politically Taintned Science. Why do Swedish public health officials have such a strikingly different view on the efficacy of masks than their American counterparts?

A big reason is that Swedish public health officials are much less politicized and tainted by political concerns. Recall that social distancing was a public health imperative in the United States—until it wasn’t because of the “Black Lives Matter” protests.

“Swedish health authorities,” explains Dr. Greg Ganske in the Des Moines Register, “are very independent and largely shielded from politics. They pride themselves on ‘following the science’ and are highly respected by the population.”

In the United States, by contrast, too many public health officials follow the political herd and say what is politically expedient, not what is scientifically necessary and warranted.

As a result, we get a lot of glib commands to “wear a mask!”—as if doing so is a self-evident truth that must be obeyed rather than a highly dubious edict that doesn’t pass scientific muster. President Trump, after all, was indifferent to masks, and look at what has happened to him!

But partisan political concerns and a desire to thump Trump in the court of public opinion should not sway or influence public health guidance. Follow the science, not the politically motivated herd.

Scrupulously social distance; avoid crowds (especially indoors); wash your hands; and practice good hygiene. And don’t worry about wearing a mask—and don’t worry about whether your fellow shoppers or neighbors are wearing a mask!

The science simply doesn’t show that masks work. Just ask the Swedes.

Feature photo credit: Washington Post.

The West Needs to Focus on Winning in Ukraine

The West Needs to Focus on Winning in Ukraine

By John R Guardiano on March 20, 2022

A failure to defeat Putin in Ukraine will cause a worse war in the years ahead for America and NATO.

The commentariat to the contrary notwithstanding, the big risk right now is not that the war in Ukraine “escalates” and becomes “World War III.” The big risk is that weak-kneed Western leaders pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky into accepting a compromise “peace deal” with Putin.

This would be a grave mistake. The West should aim to discredit Putin; defeat Russia; drive Russian forces from Ukraine, Belarus, and Georgia; and force a new Russian leader to respect international law and the territorial integrity of Russia’s neighbors.

Otherwise, Putin will pocket whatever concessions he can gain at the negotiating table and lay low for a bit before planning his next military assault. The result will not be a genuine peace, but a worse and more dangerous war in the years ahead.

Fortunately, the Ukrainians can win. In fact, they are now winning. Russia is losing and on the defensive, both militarily and economically.

“Ukrainian forces have defeated the initial Russian campaign of this war,” concludes the Institute for the Study of War.

“U.S. officials estimate that 75 percent of Russia’s combat-ready force is deployed in Ukraine. If the estimates of 25,000-30,000 casualties are accurate, it means around a third of their main combat troops are out of action after less than a month of war,” AllahPundit reports.

The Russian economy, meanwhile, is reeling from the effects of Western sanctions. “Russian social media channels are flooded with pictures of empty shelves in supermarkets and videos of people scrambling to buy bags of sugar and grains, the Financial Times reports.

“The ruble has fallen through the floor,” Jeff Jeff Schott told the Washington Post.

Interest rates are high. Inflation is soaring. Imported goods are basically hard to find and are not being restocked because nobody is selling to Russia for fear that they will not get paid—or only paid in rubles.

“All 4 major international oilfield servicing firms,” adds Dmitri Alperovitch, “have now left Russia: Halliburton, Schlumberger, Baker Hughes and Weatherford International.”

“Russia,” he explains, “will struggle with exploration and servicing of fields without them. China cannot substitute for that lost expertise and technology.”

Thus there is real doubt about how long Russia—and specifically, the Putin regime—can hold out against the combined effects of a Ukrainian military counteroffensive and crippling Western economic sanctions.

Yet, the American and NATO response, both substantively and rhetorically, has been weak, belated, and subpar.

Rhetorically, the emphasis continues to be not on winning in Ukraine, but on preventing a larger-scale conflict that might engulf all of Europe and conceivably cause “World War III.”

And substantively, the Ukrainians still complains—more than three weeks into the fight—that they do not have all of the military equipment that they need and have requested to protect their country from Russia’s horrific military assault.

“The air defense systems [that we were] promised four days ago… are not coming; they have’t been negotiated yet,” Ukrainian Parliamentarian Oleksandra Ustinova told Fox News Saturday.

Winning. “We’re too slow in almost every step we take,” Senator Ben Sasse (R-Nebraska) said on Fox News Sunday.

Zelensky needs to win,” he adds.

The Ukrainian freedom fighters need to win. We don’t need them just to lose more slowly. We need them to win. And to win they need to kill Russians. And to kill Russians they need more weapons…

They need more Javelins; they need more ammo; they need more Stingers;  they need more SAMs; they need more airplanes; they need more of everything.

And they’re fighting not just for their kids and their future; they’re fighting for the free world.

Exactly.

A Putin-Russian win in Ukraine would be a disaster for the free world. It would embolden Putin, who then would turn to subjugating Moldova and the Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania).

It would encourage Putin imitators on the world stage; and it would signal to China, North Korea, and Iran that the West can be rolled and should be pushed, prodded and provoked.

That’s the real risk: that a Putin-Russia win ignites a less stable and more dangerous world in which anti-Wester leaders and anti-Western powers gain the initiative and gain the upper hand.

For this reason, let us hear no more talk from American and NATO leaders about their fear of a military escalation that results in World War III. Instead, let us hear about their plan to ensure Ukraine wins, Russia loses, and Putin backs down, disgraced and defeated.

Feature photo credit: Screenshot of Senator Ben Sasse (R-Nebraska), courtesy of Fox News Sunday.

To Save Ukraine, Call Out Germany

To Save Ukraine, Call Out Germany

By John R Guardiano on January 23, 2022

German-Russian collusion was a problem in the 1930s and it is a problem today.

One would think that, after starting two world wars and planning and executing the genocide of European Jews and the mass murder of millions of non-Jews, Germany would feel a sense of moral obligation toward the Ukrainians and East Europeans now threatened by Russian military imperialism.

But alas, one would be wrong. Germany, in fact, has been working to appease Putin’s Russia:

In truth, Germany has a soft spot for Russia and is especially soft on Russian military imperialism and tyranny.

This Germanic weakness dates back to at least the 1930s, with the signing of the notorious 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, in which Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany sanctioned each other’s imperialist ambitions.

This axis of evil, if you will, resulted in Russian and German military invasions of Poland, Finland, parts of Romania, and the Baltic States: Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. With the exception of Finland, these countries then were enslaved for decades by the Nazis and the Communists.

Germany Today. Of course, Germany today is not the same country that it was when Adolf Hitler ruled. It is a free and democratic country. And while Russia is not free, it is a far cry from the Soviet totalitarian state that it was under Joseph Stalin.

Still, for countries as for people, old habits die hard. Russia still harbors a desire to subsume Ukraine and to dominate its neighbors. Germany, meanwhile, maintains a disconcerting moral indifference to the plight of other European countries.

Shame Germany. What should the United States and other freedom-loving countries like Great Britain do? Simple: call out and shame Germany. Call a spade a spade. Tell it like it is. Be publicly frank and blunt.

Let every nation know: Germany is actively facilitating the Russian military conquest of Ukraine. Germany cares more about Russian oil and gas than it does about the the sovereignty and territorial integrity of other European countries.

Germany is not a good or reliable ally. Germany is morally obtuse and indifferent.

Redeployment. And then immediately announce plans to redeploy all 34,000 U.S. military troops from Germany into Poland and the Baltic states, where they are most needed, most welcome, and will do the most geo-strategic good.

Then and only then might we avert a Russian military invasion of Ukraine.

Feature photo credit: from Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, a photo by the Associated Press:  “(Left to right:) German diplomat Friedrich Gaus, German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop, Sovet leader Joseph Stalin, and Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov in the Kremlin on August 23, 1939.”

What the Korean War Can Teach Us about Ending Russia’s War on Ukraine

What the Korean War Can Teach Us about Ending Russia’s War on Ukraine

By John R Guardiano on August 5, 2023

In Ukraine, President Biden is drawing exactly the wrong lessons from President Truman’s mishandling of the Korean War in 1951.

Opponents of American aid to Ukraine often tout the Korean War as a model for ending the war in Ukraine. The United States, it is argued, wisely refrained from “escalating” in Korea, instead signing an armistice that ended the conflict, thus allowing for a cold but endurable peace.

The Communists retained control of North Korea, but failed to achieve their objective of conquering all of Korea.

In the same way, argue the opponents of American aid to Ukraine, Russia should be allowed to retain control of Crimea, the Donbas, and other parts of southeastern Ukraine nominally or firmly in its control.

This will allow a free, sovereign, and independent Ukraine to coexist alongside Russian-occupied Ukraine—just as free, sovereign, and independent South Korea has coexisted for decades alongside Communist North Korea.

Then and only then, they insist, can the war end and peace be realized or achieved.

In fact, the Korean War is instructive to American policymakers, but not in the ways that opponents of American aid to Ukraine think.

The Korean War is an example of American self-deterrence that needlessly prolonged the war and the horrific human cost of that war. The United States eschewed a relatively quick victory for a bloody and prolonged stalemate or tie.

For this reason, the Korean War is a cautionary tale of what America should not do when aiding and abetting a country fighting for its survival against a tyrannical foe.

For starters, the war dragged on for three long, inconclusive, and interminable years in which American casualties mounted. Why? Because U.S. President Harry Truman refused to pursue victory out of a misguided fear of “escalation” and “World War III.”

Truman and Biden. Most historians today laud Truman’s caution and restraint in Korea—just as most observers today laud Biden’s caution and restraint in Ukraine. But Truman was wrong then and Biden is wrong today.

Truman is seen as wise because he is juxtaposed against U.S. Gen. Douglas MacArthur, who failed to anticipate the Chinese intervention in Korea, and whose insubordination and bellicosity subsequently resulted in his dismissal by Truman.

Biden, likewise, is seen as wise because he is juxtaposed against Russian dictator Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Putin and his henchmen often intimate that he might use nuclear weapons. Zelensky, meanwhile, is constantly beseeching Biden to send Ukraine more and more advanced weapons.

For this reason, Biden is often seen as wiser and more sober-minded than Putin and Zelensky. Truman, too, is typically remembered as more rational and level-headed than MacArthur.

Limited or Total War? But the choice between a prolonged war of indecision on the one hand and a global nuclear conflagration on the other hand is a silly and fallacious choice that did not exist then and does not exist now.

“Between the extremes of Truman’s restraint and the possibility of global war,” write Rep. Michael Gallagher (R-Wisconsin) and Aaron MacLean, “numerous options existed.

Truman’s decision to renounce nuclear threats and to restrict combat operations to Korea and its airspace prolonged the war and, paradoxically, extended the period in which it could have escalated.

In truth, shortly after MacArthur had been relieved of his command by Truman on Apr. 11, 1951, the United States was well on its way to routing the Chinese and North Koreans, reuniting the Korean peninsula, and ending the war with Korea wholly free and intact.

However, Truman and his military appointees on the Joint Chiefs of Staff put the kibosh on Lieutenant General James Van Fleet’s May 28, 1951, request “for a major offensive into North Korea to complete the destruction of the Chinese Armies,” reports Robert B. Bruce in Army History magazine (Winter 2012).

Instead of military victory, the United States pursued a negotiated solution in Korea and thus gave Communist forces a sanctuary in North Korea. As a result, the war dragged on for two more long years and at a horrific human cost.

In Ukraine, Biden, too, has called for a negotiated solution, while deliberately withholding from Ukraine advanced weapons—including, for instance, long-range precision artillery, tanks, jets, and aircraft, which would allow the Ukrainians to more quickly and aggressively attack Russian positions and drive Russian forces out of Ukraine.

Biden also has refused to use U.S. air and naval forces to safeguard the shipment of Ukrainian grain through the Black Sea. The reason: he fears “escalation” and “World War III.”

But in truth, Russia is exhausted militarily and is in no position to “escalate” its war on Ukraine.

Sure, Russia has nuclear weapons, but the use of tactical or battlefield nukes serves no military purpose and gives Russia no battlefield edge other than shock value.

Korea 1951. And the same was true of Chinese and North Korean forces in June 1951. They were exhausted, militarily, and did not even possess nuclear weapons. Russia, a North Korean ally and supporter, did have nuclear weapons, but in numbers dwarfed by the United States.

Moreover, although Russian leader Joseph Stalin conceived of the Korean War as a way to expand Communist influence and control, internationally, Russia was not directly involved in the Korean War and had no intention of becoming involved, as its focus was on Europe.

Ironically, as Gallagher and MacLean note, the Korean War ended only when former World War II Supreme Allied Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower was elected president (in 1952) and “contemplated and discussed the possibility of escalation, even approving the development of war plans that involved the use of nuclear weapons.”

Then, too, Stalin died on Mar. 5, 1953. This was significant because Stalin was the foremost obstacle to peace in Korea. He had “insisted that the war continue despite the misgivings of Chinese and North Korean leaders,” writes Mark Kramer.

Putin, likewise, is the foremost obstacle to peace in Ukraine. Thus his death, resulting in regime change in Russia, certainly would greatly enhance the prospects of a peace agreement.

The bottom line: President Truman’s mismanagement of the Korean War 72 years ago does, indeed, hold lessons for President Biden as he manages the war in Ukraine today. But those lessons teach Biden what not to do.

Unfortunately, our president is drawing the exact opposite conclusion and the result is a needlessly prolonged war of indecision at a horrific human cost to innocent Ukrainians.

One of the chief lessons of the Korean War is that the fear of “escalation” against a weak and exhausted military enemy is a catastrophic mistake. In truth, the risk of “escalation” rises if the war is allowed to drag on and the enemy is permitted to regroup.

Ditto “World War III”. That was not a realistic concern in 1951 and it is not a realistic concern today, in 2023. However, by allowing the North Korean regime to survive, Truman increased the risk of World War III significantly in the intervening decades.

Likewise, in Ukraine. If Russia is not clearly and explicitly defeated, militarily, and expelled from all of Ukraine, it will regroup and resume its fight in Ukraine at a later date when it is better prepared. “World War III” then becomes more likely.

In short, there is no substitute for victory and there is no reason not to pursue victory. That was true in Korea 1951 and it is true in Ukraine 2023.

Feature photo credit: President Biden (L), courtesy of the Associated Press and President Harry S. Truman (R), courtesy of Harry S. Truman Library and Museum, published in NPR.

The Questions No One Dares to Ask About ‘Systemic Racism’ and ‘Police Reform’

The Questions No One Dares to Ask About ‘Systemic Racism’ and ‘Police Reform’

By John R Guardiano on June 14, 2020

Before we rush forward to enact new legislative “reforms” we should step back to ask important and searching questions.

Excuse me, but may I ask a question? Or rather, a series of questions?

Oh, I know that no one today has much time for questions: because the loudest voices, in our newsrooms and out in the streets, are too busy telling us what the answers must be.

And, unlike the activists, the politicians, the pundits, the sports stars, and assorted other know-it-alls, I don’t pretend to have all the answers. However, I do have some pertinent—and perhaps unwelcome and inconvenient—questions to ask.

May I?

Thank you. I won’t take much of your time. I promise.

Federalism

1. Should the federal government micromanage state and local police departments and law enforcement agencies?

2. Does federalism matter, and might federalism help us determine which reforms work and which ones don’t?

Legislating Police Practices

3. Do we have a problem with specific police practices, such as chokeholds and no-knock warrants?

Or, instead, do we have a problem with specific police officers, such as Derek Chauvin, who misuse and misapply those practices?

4. Did Officer Chauvin kill George Floyd with a choke hold or by pressing his knee into his neck?

5. If the problem is specific police officers such as Chauvin, then why focus on stopping certain practices? Why not focus on recruiting better officers, training them better, and screening out bad officers?

6. Rather than ban or proscribe certain police practices, might we do well, instead, to train officers to use better, less dangerous, and more effective practices by which to subdue and control suspects?

7. Will legislation designed to outlaw or ban specific police practices actually end police brutality or make much of a difference? Or will bad police officers still find ways to commit egregious acts of wrongdoing?

8. Fox News host Sean Hannity has promoted non-lethal weapons that will “incapacitate violent or threatening subjects” without killing them.

Hannity says non-lethal weapons in the hands of the police are a way to balance the need for robust and proactive policing while simultaneously averting the excessive use of police force and wrongful deaths.

Does Hannity have a point, and should not the use of non-lethal weapons rank high on the police reform agenda?

‘Systemic Racism’

9. Is our problem “systemic racism” or human nature and human frailty?

If the latter, is it possible to legislate or change human nature and human frailty? Or will we still inevitably have incidents of police brutality and excessive police use of force?

10. If our problem is “systemic racism,” then why did the police kill more unarmed white suspects in 2019 (nineteen) than unarmed black suspects (nine)?

Why did unarmed black victims of police shootings represent just 0.1 percent of all African-Americans killed in 2019?

11. If our problem is “systemic racism,” then why is a police officer “18.5 times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a police officer”?

12. Does “systemic racism” explain why the vast majority of African Americans are killed by other African Americans, and why, overwhelmingly, the victims of black crime are innocent African Americans?

13. An increasing number of police officers are black, Hispanic, Asian and other minorities, as are big-city police chiefs. Many departments—including the New York City and Los Angeles police departments—are majority minority.

Are these police officers and departments, too, plagued by “systemic racism”?

14. If, indeed, the police are statistically more inclined to police or confront African Americans, and sometimes on specious grounds, is this necessarily because of racism? Or might disparities in criminal conduct among different racial and ethnic groups have something to do with it?

15. Is there any other country than the United States of America where blacks have achieved more and enjoyed greater opportunity and more equitable treatment?

16. In the past 20 years, America has elected and reelected a black man as President of the United States, had two black secretaries of state, two black national security advisers, and at least a dozen black, Hispanic, Asian, and Indian governors, lieutenant governors, and senators.

Does this not refute the notion that ours is a country imbued with “systemic racism”?

‘Black Lives Matter’

17. If the protesters really believe that “black lives matter,” then why do they show little or no concern and passion for the lives of black teenagers and children murdered by black criminals in the inner city?

18. Why are there no “take-a-knee” protests and high-profile, high-vis funerals for black police officers killed by violent thugs?

19. We hear much about the historical legacy of racism and how it haunts law enforcement, and American society more generally, even today. Okay, but has anything changed for the better in the past 50 or 60 years, and can we also acknowledge this history and its relevance to the current debate?

20. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are considered landmark legislative achievements on the road to racial equality.

Ditto the 24th Amendment to the Constitution (also ratified in 1964), which prohibits poll taxes or any other tax that infringes upon a citizen’s right to vote.

The Fair Housing Act of 1968, likewise, prohibits racial discrimination in the sale, rental and financing of housing.  Did this and similar legislation, as well as the 24th Amendment, achieve anything substantive and long-lasting?

21. America across the board—in government, corporations, public and private agencies—has instituted affirmative action programs to assist disadvantaged blacks.

Federal, state, and local governments, likewise, have spent trillions of dollars over a period of decades to assist disadvantaged Americans, black and white.

Is this evidence of a country that doesn’t believe “black lives matter”?

22. Polls consistently show that Americans are far less racist today than they were 50 or 60 years ago. Do these polls reflect reality, or are people lying to pollsters about how they really feel?

‘Militarization of the Police’

23. Is there any evidence that the so-called militarization of the police has resulted in more killings and bad community relations?

What if better armed police actually have had the opposite effect? Will policymakers and pundits then call for increased “militarization of the police”?

24. When the police receive equipment from the U.S. military, is this equipment assigned to every police officer within a law enforcement agency, or just specialized units such as SWAT teams?

25. Within police departments, is there a role for SWAT teams and should these teams be heavily armed and equipped?

26. Does the so-called “militarization of the police,” especially during introductory induction training, contribute to any shared sense of camaraderie, pride, and esprit de corps among cops? And, if so, might this help promote professionalism and good conduct?

27. Counterinsurgency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan emphasized protecting the indigenous population and exerciseing real restraint in the use of force.

Are there useful lessons here for our police? And, if so, doesn’t greater “militarization of the police”—meaning greater DoD-police cooperation and training—make sense?

‘Defund the Police’

28. Former NYPD Police Commissioner Ray Kelly notes that about 95 percent of all police budgets are for personnel costs. So would not “defunding the police,” or reducing police budgets, mean fewer police and less of a police presence on the streets?

29. Given that blacks in the inner cities are the most victimized by violent crime, would not “defunding the police,” or reducing police budgets, hurt them the most?

30. Heather Mac Donald observes that “the most urgent requests [for a proactive police presence] come from the law-abiding residents of high-crime neighborhoods”; and that she’s seen these requests “time and again in the dozens of police-community meetings [that she has] attended.”

Moreover, she writes, “the percentage of black respondents in a 2015 Roper poll who wanted more police in their community was twice as high as the percentage of white respondents who wanted more police.”

Do these black citizens matter, and should their concerns be listened to and heeded?

31. Incidents involving the mentally ill, the psychologically maladjusted, domestic disputes, spousal abuse, juvenile delinquency, and drug addicts can be dangerous, with the threat of violence ever-present.

Given the clear possibility (and sometimes likelihood) of violence, then, does it really make sense to have unarmed social workers and not police officers deal with these type incidents? What happens if social workers who respond to these type incidents are killed as a result?

‘Qualified Immunity’

House Democrats have unveiled a bill that would abolish “qualified immunity” for police officers—on the grounds that this “undermines police accountability and encourages bad behavior.”

But qualified immunity is rarely invoked and revoking it is a recipe for police inaction, according to Ray Kelly, former head of the New York City Police Department.

32. Who’s right: House Democrats or Ray Kelly?

33. What is the greater risk or danger: that police will withdraw from the streets and cities because they fear lawsuits, or that police will respond too aggressively and with excessive force because they need not fear a lawsuit?

34. What does the data tell us?

Honest, Good-Faith Debate

33. Is there any evidence that the so-called reforms being pushed will actually save black lives? What if the so-called reforms will do the opposite?

34. Can we discuss these issues fairly, honestly and dispassionately? Or must we, instead, dispense with fairness, honesty and dispassion because “this time’s different”?

Excuse me? “Am I done?” you ask? Yes, well, I understand that I have exceeded my time and perhaps overstayed my welcome. I have many other questions, and perhaps I can ask those at another time.

But with all due respect, it seems to me that before we legislatively chisel the protesters’ preferred answers into the legal equivalent of Mount Rushmore, we ought to ask some important and searching questions.

I offer these up only as a starting point. We have, dare I say, a lot more to think about. 

Feature photo credit: Refinery29.com.

Can't find what you're looking for? Try refining your search: