Don’t know why.
It seems normal again, though.
What are those leftist DAs thinking?
You might think it’s rather simple: their goal is chaos and suffering, the better to demoralize people and make them amendable to more power grabs.
Perhaps. But I think it’s more complex than that.
I think those “progressive” prosecutors are true believers, and my experience with true believers on the left is that theory is all and reality can be talked away by theory. Suffering and crime is the result of their policies? No, don’t believe your lying eyes; believe us when we say it’s not what it seems.
And I don’t even think they perceive themselves as lying. They are that far into their immersive dedication to a theory of human behavior, crime, poverty, and societal rather than personal wrongdoing that it cannot be given up in this lifetime.
Part of this theory is that criminals are victims. Even if that is sometimes true – after all, many criminals have had hard lives and especially hard childhoods – it explains little because most people with hard lives don’t become criminals. Most poor people don’t become criminals. Because we know little about causes and because we have yet to be able to prevent crime except by locking people up who commit crimes, such efforts at releasing criminals in some supposed flow of kindly goodwill is doomed to only encourage criminal predation. Until we really can prevent crime, there is no alternative to locking criminals up in order to protect the innocent.
Those prosecutors don’t believe that. Race is part of their belief system: because black people are highly overrepresented in the criminal population, that must be because of racism. No need to prove it; it’s just an obvious fact to them, and their remedy is to pretend that allowing such criminals to roam free doesn’t hurt the black communities of inner cities more than it hurts anyone else.
You might disagree with me and say no, these prosecutors don’t really believe in what they’re doing. And maybe you’re correct. But I learned long ago that the capacity of a leftist to believe, believe, believe and to deny actual reality is vast.
Open thread 12/9/21
Hispanics continue to turn right
For years we’ve heard that the Hispanic vote is more naturally conservative rather than leftist, especially on social issues. But that group’s voting behavior didn’t seem to change.
Beginning with certain Texas border counties in the 2020 election, however, there is increasing evidence that, for whatever reason, this tide is turning:
The nation’s large and diverse group of Hispanic voters is showing signs of dividing its support between Democrats and Republicans more evenly than in recent elections, a new Wall Street Journal poll finds, a troubling development for the Democratic Party, which has long counted on outsize Hispanic support.
One year after giving Democratic House candidates more than 60% of their vote, according to polls at the time, the Journal survey found that Hispanic voters are evenly split in their choice for Congress. Asked which party they would back if the election were today, 37% of Hispanic voters said they would support the Republican congressional candidate and 37% said they would favor the Democrat, with 22% undecided.
Hispanic voters were also evenly divided when asked about a hypothetical rematch in 2024 of the last presidential contenders, with 44% saying they would back President Biden and 43% supporting former President Donald Trump. In 2020, Mr. Biden won 63% support among Hispanic voters, nearly 30 points more than Mr. Trump, according to AP VoteCast, a large survey of the presidential electorate.
The main issue appears to be economics, however, rather than social and values concerns.
[NOTE:The WSJ article is behind their paywall, so I can’t get to it.]
You may have noticed that I haven’t delved too deeply into the Jussie Smollet trial
That’s because it seems to me that his claims are ludicrous, and accounts I’ve read of the trial only confirm that (see for example this as well as this).
The jury will do what it will do. There seems no question that the verdict should be “guilty,” but that doesn’t mean that the verdict will be guilty.
I wonder why Smollet has decided to humiliate himself like this. It might be that he thinks taking the stand with a ridiculous story is less humiliating that admitting that he is guilty. Or he might just be a habitual liar who is so used to lying that he has trouble telling the difference at this point, and thinks other people will have the same difficulty. He may live in a bubble of supporters who reinforce this belief.
[NOTE: By the way, Legal Insurrection’s Andrew Branca continues to cover the Kim Potter “Taser taser taser!” trial. See this, plus there is usually a review at the end of each day.]
Another changer heard from
[Hat tip: commenters “Gothamite” and “Cornhead.”]
Here’s a change story from a lifelong leftist. One of the things his tale highlights is that changers often assume that the left adheres to certain principles and are stunned to discover that most on the left are interested far more in party loyalty, and that for them principles are almost infinitely flexible.
It can be a painful shock.
Excerpt:
You might be living through The Turn if you ever found yourself feeling like free speech should stay free even if it offended some group or individual but now can’t admit it at dinner with friends because you are afraid of being thought a bigot. You are living through The Turn if you have questions about public health policies—including the effects of lockdowns and school closures on the poor and most vulnerable in our society—but can’t ask them out loud because you know you’ll be labeled an anti-vaxxer. You are living through The Turn if you think that burning down towns and looting stores isn’t the best way to promote social justice, but feel you can’t say so because you know you’ll be called a white supremacist. You are living through The Turn if you seethed watching a terrorist organization attack the world’s only Jewish state, but seethed silently because your colleagues were all on Twitter and Facebook sharing celebrity memes about ending Israeli apartheid while having little interest in American kids dying on the streets because of failed policies. If you’ve felt yourself unable to speak your mind, if you have a queasy feeling that your friends might disown you if you shared your most intimately held concerns, if you are feeling a bit breathless and a bit hopeless and entirely unsure what on earth is going on, I am sorry to inform you that The Turn is upon you.
Open thread 12/8/21
Just as I expected, Ethan Crumbley fooled not only his parents but the school counselors
As I’ve written several times in previous comments, I’ve seen nothing about parental or school awareness of any prior mental problems for Ethan Crumbley, who IMHO may have been a sociopath who covered up his pathology very well, and only let it bleed out in various recent social media posts and drawings of which neither the parents nor the school were probably aware until just a few hours before the shootings. And even then, it seems that they only knew about the drawings and notes accompanying them, rather than the social media posts.
As far as previous bullying goes, commenter “Indigo Red” linked this YouTube video that is a very short interview with a student at the high school, and he mentions that Crumbley was bullied. But even this evidence of bullying is extremely weak, mainly because he also says he doesn’t even know Crumbley. He doesn’t appear to have any special knowledge at all, but may be repeating something a lot of people assume about school shooters but which is certainly not always true (see this for a discussion regarding Columbine, about which I’ve written quite a few posts).
There’s also this in support of my “sociopath” theory:
Sheriff Bouchard said investigators had determined no possible motive for the shooting, which he described as “absolutely brutally cold hearted.”…
“We know from physical evidence he shot through doors up and down more than one hallway,” the sheriff said on Wednesday…
The sheriff said the district had no record that the suspect had been bullied at school, and he did not believe specific students were targeted in the attack.
My sense of this kid is that he hid everything until he drew those pictures and wrote those social media posts, and then he denied the significance of the drawings and notes, made up a really good story, delivered it calmly, and conned his parents and the counselors.
Here’s his story, plus a description of his behavior that day. I think you’ll see how it was that he might have fooled all the adults, although I think the school should have had zero tolerance for the drawings and reacted by making sure he was watched for the rest of the day and then suspended from school pending a thorough psych evaluation (he might have fooled a shrink as well, of course) and search of his social media, which would have uncovered recent additional signs of unequivocal disturbance and violent tendencies [emphasis mine]:
The suspect in the deadly shooting at a Michigan high school reportedly told school guidance counselors that the alarming drawings his teacher discovered the morning of Tuesday’s massacre were for a video game he was designing, school officials said.
Hours before authorities allege 15-year-old sophomore Ethan Crumbley fired his father’s semi-automatic handgun in the hallway of Oxford High School, killing four and wounding seven, a teacher saw a note on his desk with a drawing of a semi-automatic handgun pointing at the words, “The thoughts won’t stop, help me,” prosecutors said.
Another section depicted a drawing of a bullet with the words “Blood everywhere” above it, and a drawing of a bleeding person who appeared to have been shot twice, according to prosecutors.
Crumbley reportedly told school guidance counselors that the “concerning” drawings were for a video game he was designing, and that he intended to pursue video game design as a career, Oxford Community Schools Superintendent Tim Throne said…
As they waited for the arrival of his parents — whom Throne notes “were difficult to reach” — Crumbley sat in the counselors’ office doing homework for 90 minutes while the staff “continued to observe, analyze and speak” with him.
“At no time did counselors believe the student might harm others based on his behavior, responses and demeanor, which appeared calm,” Throne said.
When his parents showed up, counselors “asked specific and probing questions regarding the potential for self-harm or harm to others,” according to Throne. The answers from Crumbley and his parents led the counselors to believe there was no threat of violence, to himself or to others, the superintendent said.
“The student’s parents never advised the school district that he had direct access to a firearm or that they had recently purchased a firearm for him,” Throne said.
But it’s my understanding that the school already knew that his parents were gun aficionados, because the day before, when he was found by the school to have done a cellphone search for ammunition, he informed them of this.
On Nov. 29, Mr. Throne wrote, a teacher saw Ethan Crumbley viewing images of bullets on his cellphone during class. A counselor and a staff member met with him, and he indicated that shooting sports were a family hobby, the letter said. The school tried to contact Ms. Crumbley but did not hear back right away. The next day, the parents confirmed their son’s account, the letter said.
Seems to me the school already knew, or at least the parents thought the school knew, and the school – and the prosecutor – are trying to pass the buck to the parents because they are deplorables. Maybe the leftist prosecutor can’t make the state of Michigan pass the gun-control legislation she would like to see, but she can selectively prosecute these people (in a manner never previously attempted in the US, as far as I can see) in order to strike fear into the heart of gun owners. Selective prosecution can accomplish what legislation can’t, right?
The prosecutor couldn’t care less about these facts, because for her it’s not about what the parents knew or their actual culpability, it’s about her political agenda regarding gun control and those who own guns. The Crumbleys are the perfect object lessons, because few people are going to champion them (just like Chauvin, their story isn’t likeable, at least not at this point, although that could change).
In the school systems with which I’m familiar, school counselors and administrators are required to take anything like those drawings very seriously, always, no matter what the previous demeanor of the student was. They are not to stay in school until a full evaluation is done, period.
And this answers another concern of mine:
All three Crumbleys are being held in isolation under suicide watch at the Oakland County Jail. They have pleaded not guilty.
[NOTE: See yesterday’s post which discusses the fact that the Crumbleys’ lawyer claims they did keep the gun locked, and that they were trying to turn themselves in.]
The 80th anniversary of Pearl Harbor
[NOTE: This is a somewhat-edited version of a previous post.]
Today is the eightieth anniversary of the December 7, 1941 Pearl Harbor attack. The generation that reacted to it by mobilizing and fighting World War II is on its last legs and almost gone. But they were the ones we still call “the Greatest.”
I was reminded of this a few years ago while watching one of those Oliver North “War Stories” TV shows about Pearl Harbor. It featured some of the elderly participants reminiscing about that long ago day. Before each one spoke, there was a photograph of him back in 1941: young, vibrant, handsome, full of life. Now they were ancient, and most only vaguely resembled their former selves. But they still transmitted great moral strength and a kind of Gary-Cooperesque stoicism and understated bravery as they told their stories.
On the 75th anniversary there were still quite a few WWII veterans alive:
The Department of Veterans Affairs doesn’t have data on veterans of individual battles, and an alumni association for the battle disbanded in 2011, at the 70th anniversary, when it believed just 8,000 of the 84,000 uniformed Americans on Oahu during the attack remained alive. Since 2011, roughly half of veterans of World War II who were alive then have died, according to VA projections, leaving fewer than 700,000 alive today. Roughly 400 American WWII veterans die each day.
Obviously the number of Pearl Harbor veterans alive has only gotten smaller since that was written—as it will every year until the number is zero. And then, we will still remember? In fact, do most of us remember Pearl Harbor now?
I’m not really sure what our younger generation today remembers, or wishes to remember – or through what strange leftist prism it will be taught to remember that day if it’s taught at all.
Here’s a post I published twelve years ago on Pearl Harbor Day. It focuses on FDR’s famous speech afterward, and the will and resolve he amply demonstrated.
Here is just a little bit of Roosevelt’s post-Pearl Harbor speech, in case we need reminding of what American resolve used to sound like:
No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.
“Righteous might.”
Here’s the speech itself:
The memorable phrase that began FDR’s address, “a date which will live in infamy,” wasn’t in Roosevelt’s earlier draft. That draft read “a date which will live in world history.” That sounds like a high school essay; Roosevelt crossed out “world history” and added “infamy” in his own hand. He also changed “simultaneously and deliberately attacked” to “suddenly and deliberately attacked.”
Wise choices.
The earliest sunset
[NOTE: This is a slightly edited repeat of an earlier post.]
The earliest sunset is not at the solstice, the shortest day of the year. It comes somewhat earlier (now, for example), and varies slightly depending on latitude. Here’s an explanation for the phenomenon:
The key to understanding the earliest sunset is not to focus on the time of sunset or sunrise. The key is to focus on what is called true solar noon – the time of day that the sun reaches its highest point, in its journey across your sky.
In early December, true solar noon comes nearly 10 minutes earlier by the clock than it does at the solstice around December 21. With true noon coming later on the solstice, so will the sunrise and sunset times…
The discrepancy occurs primarily because of the tilt of the Earth’s axis. A secondary but another contributing factor to this discrepancy between clock noon and sun noon comes from the Earth’s elliptical – oblong – orbit around the sun.
Read the whole thing.
For me, the earliest sunset days are the darkest days, because I’m not an “up with the lark” person. And the reversal to longer days (that is, to later sunsets) starts very soon where I live, which makes me happy.
Open thread 12/7/21
Oh, and about that gun the Crumbleys kept in an unlocked drawer…
…well, maybe not [emphasis added]:
During the arraignment, [the Crumbleys’] attorneys stressed their clients had fully intended to turn themselves in before authorities arrested them Saturday morning, and denied prosecutors’ assertions that their son had unrestricted access to the gun he’s accused of using….
Oakland County Prosecutor Karen McDonald has alleged that James Crumbley on November 26 bought the gun at a store in Oxford, and that the parents gave the weapon to their son as an early Christmas present.
During Saturday’s arraignment, McDonald said, “It’s … clear from the facts that (Ethan Crumbley) had total access to this weapon,” and that the parents “didn’t secure (the gun) and they allowed him free access to it.”James Crumbley shook his head as McDonald made both statements.
One of the parents’ attorneys, Shannon Smith, countered during the hearing that “the gun was actually locked.”
“When the prosecution is stating that this child had free access to a gun, that is just absolutely not true,” Smith said. “This court is going to see … there is far more going on than what this court has been made aware of.”
Sound familiar? We don’t know which version is true, but my guess is that it’s more likely to be the prosecutor who’s blowing smoke.
In addition [emphasis mine]:
At Saturday’s hearing, Crumbley attorney Smith said she and her colleagues “called the prosecutor’s office throughout the day (Friday) and never got a call back,” and that “we were going to make arrangements to have our clients turn themselves in.” Smith also claimed she didn’t know the precise time of Friday’s arraignment.
“They were scared; they were terrified; they were not at home; they were figuring out what to do, getting finances in order,” Smith said Saturday.
By night, the defense attorneys made plans with the Crumbleys to turn them in to authorities Saturday morning, Smith said.
“We did not announce it, because unlike the prosecution, we weren’t attempting to make this a media spectacle,” she said.
McDonald countered that “these defendants did not need my permission” to turn themselves in.
When I wrote my first post about the charging of these parents, I was highly suspicious of the prosecutor and wrote the reasons for that opinion of mine in some detail. Now it’s only gotten worse.
I’d love for McDonald to explain why the office never returned the defense attorneys’ calls on Friday. I have my own theory, which is that the prosecutor wanted to be able to portray the Crumbleys as fugitives.
[NOTE: Today I started to write a big long post tying together some of the threads of the Crumbley story, but it’s gotten quite late and I’ll probably do it tomorrow instead.]