There’s now a “movement” to eliminate the use of black targets in law enforcement training because of claims that “young black men are 3X more likely to be shot by trained shooters than their white peers” and a “study by University of Illinois researchers that concluded shooters were more likely to fire at a black target.” (H/T, guns.com)
Correlation is not the same thing as causation, so statistically, there are two questions that should examined concerning that “3X more likely” claim—if it is true. First, young black men are a small subset of the population, but, as a group, they appear to be more likely that average to be involved in crime. How much more likely? 3X? More? If more likely, one is led to wonder why they would be shot less frequently than their share of dangerous interactions with police (or armed victims) would suggest. Second, how much more likely than average are young black men to be shot at (including being missed) by untrained shooters? It could be that one reason young black men are only 3X more likely to be shot by trained shooters is that training reduces the probability of an unjustified shooting.
Both of those factors may come into play. Or neither.
The Daily Caller reports that David Duke has endorsed Keith Ellison for Democratic National Committee Chairman.
Politico has a post up about how some bureaucrats and former bureaucrats are upset with Congress reviewing and repealing regulations under the Congressional Review Act of 1996. Toward the end of the post it has a quote from one of the regulators that shows his upside-down view of the constitution.
“I believe there’s a good chance that, in a legal challenge, that a court will overturn Congress’ actions here as an unconstitutional usurpation of the executive branch’s powers,” he said.
Uh, no. The ability of the bureaucrats to regulate does not generally flow from the President’s powers under Article II. It’s is generally derived from Congress delegating it’s Article I powers to the Executive Branch. What Congress can delegate, it can take back.
Sarah Hoyt is a legal immigrant from Portugal and has an essay comparing immigration to marriage over at According to Hoyt.
It is the right of everyone who is already an American and whose futures will essentially be “married” to those of the new immigrants to ask “how will your contribution or lack thereof affect my descendants/the descendants of the people I care about?”
This is neither racism, nor discrimination, but self-preservation. Anyone who says otherwise is trying to push you into a forced marriage.
Read the whole thing.
While Senator Elizabeth Warren was speaking in opposition to Senator Jeff Sessions’ nomination to be Attorney General, her remarks became sufficiently personal the Majority Leader McConnell interrupted on a point of order and asked that chair to rule on whether she was in violation of Senate Rule XIX which states:
No Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator.
The chair ruled that she was, and she must now be silent in the chamber until the Sessions nomination has been voted on.
The footprint of Trump Derangement Disorder is expanding.
Lena Dunham says that worry about Donald Trump has caused her to lose weigh. She seems to think that might be a bad thing.