Michael Ramirez has a comment about a recent Senate vote. (And, boy, he does these things fast.)
Need a hint about what Mr. Ramirez is talking about? (I don't blame you for not following
the news, it's depressing and awful.) The Federalist has a biased article
but (guess what) it's absolutely true:
Democrats Blocked Police Reform Because Suffering Helps Them
After Democrats blocked a vote on his policing reform bill, Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) accused them of wanting to keep policing and racial issues unresolved at Americans’ expense for Democrats’ political benefit.
“Today we lost, I lost, the vote on a piece of legislation that would’ve led to systemic change in the relationship between the communities of color and the law enforcement community. We would’ve broken this concept in this nation that somehow, some way you have to either be for law enforcement or for communities of color. That is a binary choice. It’s just not true,” Scott said.
NH: I looked and (predictably) our state's senators followed most other Democrats in making sure there would be no progress in producing a bipartisan reform bill that Trump might sign. (You can check to see how your hacks voted here.)
At Reason, Matt Welch points out that
Journalists Abandoning ‘Objectivity’ for ‘Moral Clarity’ Really Just Want To Call People Immoral.
(Gosh, isn't that why we have social media?) After citing a number of examples of such "journalists":
For non-journalists, understanding this rapidly spreading sentiment (and the repetitive, in-group jargon that comes with it) is a key to basic media literacy. The institutional stuff you read, watch, and listen to will increasingly be shaped by people whose moral warning systems are on ever-higher alert to make sure valued "platforms" remain unsullied—and unmanipulated—by barbarians.
"Cotton's views should be known, but not amplified and normalized within the prized real estate that is the op-ed page of the New York Times," wrote influential Washington Post media columnist Margaret Sullivan earlier this month. "What if we framed coverage with this question at the forefront: What journalism best serves the real interests of American citizens? Make decisions with that in mind, and at least some of the knotty problems get smoothed out."
There is an obvious paradox at the heart of this project, one that is all the more glaring for passing undetected under the noses of its most prominent practitioners. In replacing their decidedly strawman version of the "objectivity" ideal with a more courageous "moral clarity," journalists are trading the unattainable for the unknowable, and consciously elevating narrative "truths" over verified facts.
I really hope the WSJ hangs on to those old-fashioned verified facts in its coverage.
At National Review, Jack Butler has advice concerning the
Emancipation Memorial: Don’t Tear It Down. It's about halfway between the Capitol and old RFK Stadium.
In a quiet, tree-lined area about a mile from the U.S. Capitol building, a statue has stood since 1876. Unveiled eleven years after Abraham Lincoln’s death, it depicts the 16th president holding the Emancipation Proclamation as a freed slave kneels below, his bonds being severed. Congress originally named the site of the statue, called the Freedman’s Memorial on the plaque affixed to it, Lincoln Square, making it “the first site to bear the name of the martyred president,” according to the National Park Service. It is also known as the Emancipation Memorial.
Lincoln Park’s typical quiet was broken on Tuesday by an increasingly familiar sight: a crowd seeking a statue to tear down. The more such groups deviate further from anything resembling legitimate protest against the unjust death of George Floyd, the more one questions their historical literacy. Indeed, it seems clear at this point that any old-looking statue will do: Figures of everyone from the Union general and racially progressive president Ulysses S. Grant to the abolitionist Hans Christian Heg have gotten the treatment. But if the protesters knew anything about the history and a character of the Emancipation Memorial, they would abandon their stated promise to tear the statue down.
Jack (I call him Jack, feel I got to know him from his days on Jonah Goldberg's podcast) illuminates some history for the illiterate activists. Which they won't read.
And finally, our LFOD Google News Alert rang for a Mashed article:
The states that drink the most spirits in the U.S.
This latest survey shows the amount of hard liquor each state is drinking. While the numbers compiled by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism don't reflect the most current trends, as they only track alcohol consumption up through 2018, it's nonetheless always "fun" to see how your state stacks up, isn't it? Well, if you're dying to know the top booze-consuming state in the union, we won't keep you in suspense any longer. Drumroll please... and the award goes to the hard-drinking, "live free or die" state of New Hampshire!
Well, I'd like to boast of course. But follow that link to the NIAAA site. The document there is (I am not making this up) "Surveillance Report #115".
Surveillance? Great Orwellian title. Are they peeking in your windows to see what you're tippling? Going through your trash hunting for empties? Naw.
[The Alcohol Epidemiologic Data System (AEDS)] makes every effort to obtain alcoholic beverage sales data from all States and the District of Columbia. AEDS prefers sales data to production and shipments data from beverage industry sources because sales data more accurately reflect actual alcoholic beverage consumption levels.
Oh. They're not looking at consumption directly. They look at sales.
And any Granite Stater that's happened into the state liquor outlet parking lots (uh, for some reason), especially the ones on major highways, and bothered to look at the license plates knows the issue. A lot of people from other states buy booze here.
No sales tax, baby. (Although the state gets its cut, don't worry.)