powerlineblog--2020-10-24--Why You Shouldn’t Vote Early [with comment by Paul]

What was the top search on Google over a 24-hour period yesterday ?
“ How can I change my vote ?
” Why do so many people want to change their votes ?
It happens every cycle , but maybe there are more this year because many are just now realizing that Joe Biden is a corrupt hack who has sold out the American people for foreign money .
I assume that most of those who now want to change their votes voted for Biden .
Interesting that the states where you can change your vote are swing states that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wisconsin and Minnesota .
Bud Grant , long-time coach of the Minnesota Vikings , used to say that you should never make a decision until you have to .
Who knows , something could happen that makes the decision moot , or obvious .
I think that is a sound principle .
We should wait until Election Day ( unless we will unavoidably be out of town ) , and then , in full possession of the facts , all vote at the same time .
Like we did in better times .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ seems sound and I certainly respect Coach Grant .
However , I have already voted , and am confident that nothing could happen that would make me wish I hadn ’ t voted for President Trump .

What was the top search on Google over a 24-hour period yesterday? “How can I change my vote?”
1. Folks, every year I'm stunned by how many people do search for "how do I change my vote". Top state right now is Iowa. Top metros are below. You can only change your vote in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. Some locals allow. But all are unlikely and have deadlines. https://t.co/rAAcdgSHP2 pic.twitter.com/XNRyJHEfi3 — Peoples_Pundit (@Peoples_Pundit) October 23, 2020
Why do so many people want to change their votes? It happens every cycle, but maybe there are more this year because many are just now realizing that Joe Biden is a corrupt hack who has sold out the American people for foreign money. I assume that most of those who now want to change their votes voted for Biden. Interesting that the states where you can change your vote are swing states that Republicans hope to win: Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota.
Bud Grant, long-time coach of the Minnesota Vikings, used to say that you should never make a decision until you have to. Who knows, something could happen that makes the decision moot, or obvious. I think that is a sound principle. We should wait until Election Day (unless we will unavoidably be out of town), and then, in full possession of the facts, all vote at the same time. Like we did in better times.
PAUL ADDS: John’s advice seems sound and I certainly respect Coach Grant. However, I have already voted, and am confident that nothing could happen that would make me wish I hadn’t voted for President Trump.


powerlineblog--2020-10-25--The Grinch Who Stole Thanksgiving

The Grinch Who Stole Thanksgiving

Governor Gavin Newsom ’ s Department of Health has issued an updated “ Guidance for Private Gatherings ” in time for Thanksgiving .
Basically , fun is illegal in California : So if you have three kids , you can invite two of them .
This would not work well in Minnesota .
We haven ’ t even gotten to Halloween yet , and where I live there are 8 inches of snow on the ground .
It ’ s time to get out the pitchforks .
So forget about going to your parents ’ house for Thanksgiving , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t expect a lot of conversation .
In some families , of course , this could be a plus .
Presumably you would wash your hands in a bathroom .
See item 2 above .
Shared items should not be used during a gathering .
As much as possible , any food or beverages at outdoor gatherings must be in single-serve disposable containers .
If providing single-serve containers is not possible , food and beverages must be served by a person who washes or sanitizes their hands frequently , and wears a face @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should not be used .
So no passing the mashed potatoes .
I really don ’ t understand the rationale for this one .
Briefly !
No lingering over Thanksgiving dinner .
Also : Hurry up and finish your turkey , Grandma .
In my family , banning singing is probably a good thing .
But physical exertion ?
Governor Newsom is taking a lot of abuse on Twitter , and deservedly so .
But frankly , the time has come for civil disobedience .
Also , voting for freedom .
Here in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate and House have promulgated a “ Contract to Open Minnesota.
” If Republicans keep their Senate majority and win a majority in the House , they have pledged to end the one-man rule our state has been laboring under , end the state of emergency , reopen the schools , and trust to individuals and local governments to look after public safety .
The effects of the shutdowns have been catastrophic , palpable and undeniable .
Their supposed benefits are hypothetical , speculative , and unsupported by data .
The time has @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Governor Gavin Newsom’s Department of Health has issued an updated “Guidance for Private Gatherings” in time for Thanksgiving. Basically, fun is illegal in California:
Gatherings that include more than 3 households are prohibited. This includes everyone present, including hosts and guests.
So if you have three kids, you can invite two of them.
All gatherings must be held outside. Attendees may go inside to use restrooms as long as the restrooms are frequently sanitized.
This would not work well in Minnesota. We haven’t even gotten to Halloween yet, and where I live there are 8 inches of snow on the ground.
Gatherings may occur in outdoor spaces that are covered by umbrellas, canopies, awnings, roofs, and other shade structures provided that at least three sides of the space (or 75%) are open to the outdoors.
It’s time to get out the pitchforks.
People at higher risk of severe illness or death from COVID-19 (such as older adults and people with chronic medical conditions) are strongly urged not to attend any gatherings.
So forget about going to your parents’ house for Thanksgiving, or having them over.
Seating must provide at least 6 feet of distance (in all directions—front-to-back and side-to-side) between different households.
So don’t expect a lot of conversation. In some families, of course, this could be a plus.
Everyone at a gathering should frequently wash their hands with soap and water, or use hand sanitizer if soap and water are not available. A place to wash hands or hand sanitizer must be available for participants to use.
Presumably you would wash your hands in a bathroom. See item 2 above.
Shared items should not be used during a gathering. As much as possible, any food or beverages at outdoor gatherings must be in single-serve disposable containers. If providing single-serve containers is not possible, food and beverages must be served by a person who washes or sanitizes their hands frequently, and wears a face covering. Self-serve items from communal containers should not be used.
So no passing the mashed potatoes. I really don’t understand the rationale for this one.
People at gatherings may remove their face coverings briefly to eat or drink as long as they stay at least 6 feet away from everyone outside their own household, and put their face covering back on as soon as they are done with the activity.
Briefly! No lingering over Thanksgiving dinner. Also:
Gatherings should be two hours or less. The longer the duration, the risk of transmission increases.
Hurry up and finish your turkey, Grandma.
Singing, chanting, shouting, and physical exertion significantly increases the risk of COVID-19 transmission because these activities increase the release of respiratory droplets and fine aerosols into the air.
In my family, banning singing is probably a good thing. But physical exertion?
Governor Newsom is taking a lot of abuse on Twitter, and deservedly so. But frankly, the time has come for civil disobedience. Also, voting for freedom. Here in Minnesota, Republican leadership in both the Senate and House have promulgated a “Contract to Open Minnesota.” If Republicans keep their Senate majority and win a majority in the House, they have pledged to end the one-man rule our state has been laboring under, end the state of emergency, reopen the schools, and trust to individuals and local governments to look after public safety.
The effects of the shutdowns have been catastrophic, palpable and undeniable. Their supposed benefits are hypothetical, speculative, and unsupported by data. The time has come to set our people free.


powerlineblog--2020-10-25--Joe Biden Inadvertently Tells the Truth

Joe Biden Inadvertently Tells the Truth

If you haven ’ t already seen it , this is worth a laugh .
Joe Biden brags about having @ @ @ @ @ ever .
A Freudian slip , no doubt : Better get Joe back into the @ @ @ @ @ The press and Big Tech will try to hold the fort until then .

If you haven’t already seen it, this is worth a laugh. Joe Biden brags about having the biggest voter fraud operation ever. A Freudian slip, no doubt:
Better get Joe back into the basement until November 3. The press and Big Tech will try to hold the fort until then.


powerlineblog--2020-10-25--The Plot Against the President: My rejected Amazon review

It is a tremendous disappointment that we have had no accounting for the greatest scandal by far in American political history .
What we have are a few excellent books about it and , now , a documentary based on one of the books .
Lee Smith is the author of The Plot Against the President : The True Story of How Congressman Devin Nunes Uncovered the Biggest Political Scandal in US History .
The book is an invaluable companion to Andrew McCarthy ’ s Ball of Collusion : The Plot to Rig an Election and Destroy a Presidency ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ McCarthy makes .
I wrote at length about McCarthy ’ s book in “ All the president ’ s men , Obama style ” and about Smith ’ s book in “ All the president ’ s men , take 2.
” Smith ’ s book elaborates on the theme to which I alluded in the heading of that post .
I urge all readers with an interest in this incredible scandal to read both books .
Smith ’ s book has now been adapted into a documentary film that was released last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Amazon Prime .
Having already racked up a 4.4 star ( out of 5 ) rating based on nearly 600 reviews , it is accessible here .
I watched the film on Amazon Prime last week .
I gave it a five-star rating and wrote the following review : This is a documentary based on one of the best books written about the Russia hoax .
It does a good job telling the story and giving it dramatic shape .
It may be the closest we come to the administration of justice in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by far .
Unlike just about everything that comes out of Hollywood , including documentaries , the story it tells is true .
When I sought to post my review , it was rejected with the following notice : “ We apologize but Amazon is not accepting reviews on this product from this account.
” I have written Amazon to ask why .
The film is directed and co-produced by Amanda Milius .
Her last name should ring a bell .
Her father is the great director , producer , and screenwriter John @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Alex Nitzberg at Just the News last week .
Nitzberg quotes her making a salient point that bears directly on the story told in the film : “ No matter what happens in the election … if you don ’ t punish these people they ’ re just gon na keep doing it.
” I found three of the several talking heads in the film to be out of place : Mike Cernovich , Kimberly Guilfoyle , and Jack Posobiec .
However , I appreciated the inclusion of the eminent historian Edward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ books is Coup d ’ État : A Practical Handbook .
He brings scholarly expertise to the theme of the film .
He knows what he is talking about .
It ’ s an important film .
As the truth has slowly emerged — as it was patiently extracted by Rep. Nunes and his staff — we may have become desensitized to the outrages implicit in each of the scandal ’ s several dimensions .
If so , the film will raise the temperature of your blood to boiling once again ( trailer @ @ @

It is a tremendous disappointment that we have had no accounting for the greatest scandal by far in American political history. What we have are a few excellent books about it and, now, a documentary based on one of the books.
Lee Smith is the author of The Plot Against the President: The True Story of How Congressman Devin Nunes Uncovered the Biggest Political Scandal in US History. The book is an invaluable companion to Andrew McCarthy’s Ball of Collusion: The Plot to Rig an Election and Destroy a Presidency; it adds to and amplifies the case McCarthy makes.
I wrote at length about McCarthy’s book in “All the president’s men, Obama style” and about Smith’s book in “All the president’s men, take 2.” Smith’s book elaborates on the theme to which I alluded in the heading of that post. I urge all readers with an interest in this incredible scandal to read both books.
Smith’s book has now been adapted into a documentary film that was released last week and made available for viewing on Amazon Prime. Having already racked up a 4.4 star (out of 5) rating based on nearly 600 reviews, it is accessible here.
I watched the film on Amazon Prime last week. I gave it a five-star rating and wrote the following review:
This is a documentary based on one of the best books written about the Russia hoax. It does a good job telling the story and giving it dramatic shape. It may be the closest we come to the administration of justice in the biggest scandal in American political history by far. Unlike just about everything that comes out of Hollywood, including documentaries, the story it tells is true.
When I sought to post my review, it was rejected with the following notice: “We apologize but Amazon is not accepting reviews on this product from this account.” I have written Amazon to ask why.
The film is directed and co-produced by Amanda Milius. Her last name should ring a bell. Her father is the great director, producer, and screenwriter John Milius. Amanda was briefly profiled here by Alex Nitzberg at Just the News last week. Nitzberg quotes her making a salient point that bears directly on the story told in the film: “No matter what happens in the election … if you don’t punish these people they’re just gonna keep doing it.”
I found three of the several talking heads in the film to be out of place: Mike Cernovich, Kimberly Guilfoyle, and Jack Posobiec. However, I appreciated the inclusion of the eminent historian Edward Luttwak. Among Luttwak’s many books is Coup d’État: A Practical Handbook. He brings scholarly expertise to the theme of the film. He knows what he is talking about.
It’s an important film. As the truth has slowly emerged — as it was patiently extracted by Rep. Nunes and his staff — we may have become desensitized to the outrages implicit in each of the scandal’s several dimensions. If so, the film will raise the temperature of your blood to boiling once again (trailer below).


My Lying Eyes

“ I can ’ t believe there aren ’ t any newspeople here , ” said Linda of Greene County , Pennsylvania , as she stood among hundreds of cars and pickup trucks idling in long parallel lines in a vast big-box-store parking lot Saturday , waiting to join the Interstate 70 Trump Train .
Indeed , although there were carloads of Trump supporters as far as one could see , and many more on the way from Ohio and West Virginia , and this enormous political event was happening less than two weeks before the presidential election , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was the only newsperson there .
It was the biggest political rally no one saw .
We see , for the most part , what the people who run news organizations want us to see .
And gatherings like it have been happening for months in some of the places President Trump needs most to win if he is to be reelected .
And , remarkably , the rallies are not the work of the Trump campaign .
The road rally in Washington , Pennsylvania , was organized and staged by local Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The same thing has been happening all around the country .
Voters understand what is at stake : The road rally that Byron covered included thousands of vehicles from Ohio , Pennsylvania and West Virginia , so energy loomed large as an issue : “ We ’ re a big oil and gas family , ” said Kristie from Washington .
“ We ’ re living the American dream because of the oil and gas industry.
” *** When I asked if people were connected to the energy industry , my favorite answer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who said , “ Yes , I am connected to the energy industry , because I ’ ve got electricity and gas in my house.
” Point made .
We all have a connection to the energy industry .
Some , of course , understand this better than others .
They feel so strongly about Trump because they know he has supported their industry while Obama and his vice president , Joe Biden , wanted to cripple and ultimately eliminate it .
They know Trump has not miraculously saved the energy industry in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he would .
Their calculus was much more basic : In 2016 , they voted for the candidate who would stop trying to kill the industry that supports 322,000 jobs in Pennsylvania , according to an energy industry estimate .
Now , they know a President Joe Biden would resume the green crusade to destroy the oil and gas business .
On Saturday , they were all very aware that just a few days before , in the last presidential debate , Biden had vowed to “ transition ” the United States @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more at the link .
An obvious question is , where are the thousands of people spontaneously turning out to support Joe Biden ?
To take just one example , where were the Biden boat parades ?
There weren ’ t any , of course .
On the contrary : when Biden and Kamala Harris made a joint appearance in Yuma , Arizona , not a single person showed up .
No one except a few puzzled reporters .
Contrast that with the throngs that greeted President Trump when he flew into Prescott @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thousands of people , most of whom probably had no hope of hearing him speak , turned out to show their support : It is worth remembering that political polls as news stories are a very recent phenomenon .
If you had not seen any news stories about polling , how much chance would you give Joe Biden of winning the election ?
And to what extent is the fact that Biden has a chance the result of news stories about polls showing him in the lead ?
We haven ’ t made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can get a VIP Live event set up for next week , we likely will make them then .
But for now , I will say that I am leaning toward going with my lying eyes .

Byron York describes “The big Trump rallies you don’t see.”
“I can’t believe there aren’t any newspeople here,” said Linda of Greene County, Pennsylvania, as she stood among hundreds of cars and pickup trucks idling in long parallel lines in a vast big-box-store parking lot Saturday, waiting to join the Interstate 70 Trump Train. Indeed, although there were carloads of Trump supporters as far as one could see, and many more on the way from Ohio and West Virginia, and this enormous political event was happening less than two weeks before the presidential election, as far as I could tell, I was the only newsperson there. It was the biggest political rally no one saw.
We see, for the most part, what the people who run news organizations want us to see.
And gatherings like it have been happening for months in some of the places President Trump needs most to win if he is to be reelected. And, remarkably, the rallies are not the work of the Trump campaign. The road rally in Washington, Pennsylvania, was organized and staged by local Trump supporters, linked together largely by Facebook…
The same thing has been happening all around the country. Voters understand what is at stake:
“We’re here because we believe he is the only way we’re going to have an economy in the future,” said Sherri from Claysville.
The road rally that Byron covered included thousands of vehicles from Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia, so energy loomed large as an issue:
“We’re a big oil and gas family,” said Kristie from Washington. “We’re living the American dream because of the oil and gas industry.”
***
When I asked if people were connected to the energy industry, my favorite answer came from Dan from Greene County, who said, “Yes, I am connected to the energy industry, because I’ve got electricity and gas in my house.” Point made. We all have a connection to the energy industry.
Some, of course, understand this better than others.
They feel so strongly about Trump because they know he has supported their industry while Obama and his vice president, Joe Biden, wanted to cripple and ultimately eliminate it. They know Trump has not miraculously saved the energy industry in Pennsylvania. They didn’t expect that he would. Their calculus was much more basic: In 2016, they voted for the candidate who would stop trying to kill the industry that supports 322,000 jobs in Pennsylvania, according to an energy industry estimate. Now, they know a President Joe Biden would resume the green crusade to destroy the oil and gas business. On Saturday, they were all very aware that just a few days before, in the last presidential debate, Biden had vowed to “transition” the United States away from oil and gas.
Much more at the link. An obvious question is, where are the thousands of people spontaneously turning out to support Joe Biden? To take just one example, where were the Biden boat parades? There weren’t any, of course. On the contrary: when Biden and Kamala Harris made a joint appearance in Yuma, Arizona, not a single person showed up. No one except a few puzzled reporters.
Contrast that with the throngs that greeted President Trump when he flew into Prescott, Arizona a few days ago. Thousands of people, most of whom probably had no hope of hearing him speak, turned out to show their support:
Just arriving in Prescott, what a crowd! I love Arizona!! pic.twitter.com/qssvOznppz — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 19, 2020
It is worth remembering that political polls as news stories are a very recent phenomenon. If you had not seen any news stories about polling, how much chance would you give Joe Biden of winning the election? And to what extent is the fact that Biden has a chance the result of news stories about polls showing him in the lead?
We haven’t made any official predictions yet; if we can get a VIP Live event set up for next week, we likely will make them then. But for now, I will say that I am leaning toward going with my lying eyes.


powerlineblog--2020-10-25--Craziest World Series game ever?

Craziest World Series game ever?

I watched my first World Series game in 1956 at a friend ’ s house and have watched at least part of almost every Series game since 1958 , when my parents broke down and bought a television set .
The best Series game I ’ ve ever seen was Game 6 in 1975 , between Boston and Cincinnati .
The most dramatic was Game 7 in 1960 , between Pittsburgh and the New York Yankees .
Yesterday ’ s Game 4 between Tampa Bay and the Los Angeles Dodgers doesn ’ t rival those two games , nor does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seen .
However , it might be the craziest World Series game I have ever watched .
I ’ ve cheered at the end of World Series games .
I ’ ve screamed at the end of World Series games .
I ’ ve cursed at the end of World Series games .
Last night was the first time I ’ ve laughed hysterically at the end of a World Series game .
All Game 4 ’ s are pivotal , but this one seemed especially so .
The Dodgers were up two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last night , and the Rays would need to win three straight .
The great Clayton Kershaw would be the Dodgers starter in one of them .
Current ace Walker Beuhler would be their starter in another .
Last night ’ s game featured at least a run in every inning except the second .
There was a lead change in the bottom of sixth , when the Rays scored three times to take a 5-4 lead .
The lead changed hands again in the top of the seventh , when the Dodgers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at 6-6 in the bottom of that inning , only to see the Dodgers regain the lead in the top of the eighth .
These changes in fortune were the result , in part , of poor relief pitching , as both managers tried to “ bullpen ” their way through the game .
I thought Tampa Bay ’ s manager , Kevin Cash , might have been guilty of over-managing .
He burned through two of his three best relief pitchers — Diego Castillo and Pete Fairbanks — in the middle innings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and only five from Ryan Thompson , a good middle reliever to whom Cash turned in the fourth inning .
After conceding at least one run to the Rays in every inning from the fourth on , Dodgers manager Dave Roberts finally got a shutdown inning in the eighth from the duo of Adam Kolarek and Brusdar Graterol .
However , Roberts pulled Graterol after only seven pitches and brought in veteran ace Kenley Jensen to pitch the ninth .
A standard move , to be fair .
Jensen isn ’ t nearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
His 91 mph cut fastball seemed out of place in a game where 95 mph looked like table stakes .
Even so , Jensen struck out the first batter he faced .
He took advantage of the fact that pinch hitter Yoshitomo Tsutsugo was more intent on tying the game with one swing than on reaching base to start a rally .
That ’ s the modern game in a nutshell .
The next batter , veteran Kevin Keirmaier did reach base on a single .
However , Joey Wendell lined out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Arozarena to the plate .
Arozarena , a Cuban refugee , was little more than a throw-in in a deal with the Cardinals last offseason that brought Jose Martinez ( since traded away ) to the Rays .
He barely played at all for the Cards in their 2019 ALCS encounter with the Washington Nationals .
However , this year Arozarena is enjoying one of the best postseasons I can remember anyone having .
He has nine home runs in 18 games , a .377 batting average , and an OPS of 1.289 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Dodgers decided to pitch to Arozarena , rather than put the winning run on base intentionally , but to pitch to him carefully .
The result was a walk .
Up stepped Brett Phillips , a career .202 hitter .
He was in the game only because Cash had used Ji-Man Choi to pinch hit for Mike Brosseau ( hero of the Rays victory over the New York Yankees ) and later inserted Phillips as a pinch runner for the rotund , though not unathletic , Choi .
With only a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it was up to Phillips to keep the Rays ’ hopes alive .
Then came what is surely the most bizarre World Series play I ’ ve ever seen .
Phillips dropped a single to center field .
Chris Taylor , playing out of position due to in-game maneuvering by Roberts , got to the ball quickly , but booted it away .
Arozarena tried take advantage of Taylor ’ s misplay and score all the way from first .
The play at the plate would have been close , I think .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a runaway freight train , tripped and fell about half down the third base line .
This was no ordinary fall .
It was accompanied by tumbling that would have made Cristiano Ronaldo proud .
Arozarena should have been an easy third out .
After midnight in the East , this four-hour affair should have been headed into extra innings .
But catcher Will Smith didn ’ t know Arozarena had fallen .
The throw home was on the money and , of course , in plenty of time , but slightly to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Smith thought he needed to make a sweep tag on Arozarena .
Thus , he tried to catch the ball and move his glove towards the third base side in one motion .
As a result , the ball bounced off of his glove towards first base .
Arozarena , having picked himself up , was able to score the winning run .
Three miscues on a single play in a World Series game between the two teams with the best records in baseball .
And on a play that decided the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 2020 World Series become an instant classic .
It figures to be a hardy perennial for future writers of “ This Day in Baseball History.
” Memo to MLB : Baseball can be truly exciting when batters are doing things other than striking out and hitting home runs .

I watched my first World Series game in 1956 at a friend’s house and have watched at least part of almost every Series game since 1958, when my parents broke down and bought a television set.
The best Series game I’ve ever seen was Game 6 in 1975, between Boston and Cincinnati. The most dramatic was Game 7 in 1960, between Pittsburgh and the New York Yankees.
Yesterday’s Game 4 between Tampa Bay and the Los Angeles Dodgers doesn’t rival those two games, nor does it match some others I’ve seen. However, it might be the craziest World Series game I have ever watched.
I’ve cheered at the end of World Series games. I’ve screamed at the end of World Series games. I’ve cursed at the end of World Series games.
Last night was the first time I’ve laughed hysterically at the end of a World Series game.
All Game 4’s are pivotal, but this one seemed especially so. The Dodgers were up two games to one. A Dodgers win last night, and the Rays would need to win three straight. The great Clayton Kershaw would be the Dodgers starter in one of them. Current ace Walker Beuhler would be their starter in another.
Last night’s game featured at least a run in every inning except the second. There was a lead change in the bottom of sixth, when the Rays scored three times to take a 5-4 lead. The lead changed hands again in the top of the seventh, when the Dodgers scored twice.
The Rays restored parity at 6-6 in the bottom of that inning, only to see the Dodgers regain the lead in the top of the eighth.
These changes in fortune were the result, in part, of poor relief pitching, as both managers tried to “bullpen” their way through the game. I thought Tampa Bay’s manager, Kevin Cash, might have been guilty of over-managing. He burned through two of his three best relief pitchers — Diego Castillo and Pete Fairbanks — in the middle innings, getting only 12 pitches from Fairbanks and only five from Ryan Thompson, a good middle reliever to whom Cash turned in the fourth inning.
After conceding at least one run to the Rays in every inning from the fourth on, Dodgers manager Dave Roberts finally got a shutdown inning in the eighth from the duo of Adam Kolarek and Brusdar Graterol. However, Roberts pulled Graterol after only seven pitches and brought in veteran ace Kenley Jensen to pitch the ninth. A standard move, to be fair.
Jensen isn’t nearly the pitcher he once was, though. His 91 mph cut fastball seemed out of place in a game where 95 mph looked like table stakes.
Even so, Jensen struck out the first batter he faced. He took advantage of the fact that pinch hitter Yoshitomo Tsutsugo was more intent on tying the game with one swing than on reaching base to start a rally. That’s the modern game in a nutshell.
The next batter, veteran Kevin Keirmaier did reach base on a single. However, Joey Wendell lined out to left field.
That brought Randy Arozarena to the plate. Arozarena, a Cuban refugee, was little more than a throw-in in a deal with the Cardinals last offseason that brought Jose Martinez (since traded away) to the Rays. He barely played at all for the Cards in their 2019 ALCS encounter with the Washington Nationals.
However, this year Arozarena is enjoying one of the best postseasons I can remember anyone having. He has nine home runs in 18 games, a .377 batting average, and an OPS of 1.289.
After a conference on the mound, the Dodgers decided to pitch to Arozarena, rather than put the winning run on base intentionally, but to pitch to him carefully. The result was a walk.
Up stepped Brett Phillips, a career .202 hitter. He was in the game only because Cash had used Ji-Man Choi to pinch hit for Mike Brosseau (hero of the Rays victory over the New York Yankees) and later inserted Phillips as a pinch runner for the rotund, though not unathletic, Choi.
With only a backup catcher remaining on the bench, it was up to Phillips to keep the Rays’ hopes alive.
Then came what is surely the most bizarre World Series play I’ve ever seen. Phillips dropped a single to center field. Chris Taylor, playing out of position due to in-game maneuvering by Roberts, got to the ball quickly, but booted it away.
Arozarena tried take advantage of Taylor’s misplay and score all the way from first. The play at the plate would have been close, I think. However, the Cuban, moving like a runaway freight train, tripped and fell about half down the third base line.
This was no ordinary fall. It was accompanied by tumbling that would have made Cristiano Ronaldo proud.
Arozarena should have been an easy third out. After midnight in the East, this four-hour affair should have been headed into extra innings. But catcher Will Smith didn’t know Arozarena had fallen.
The throw home was on the money and, of course, in plenty of time, but slightly to the first base side of the plate. Smith thought he needed to make a sweep tag on Arozarena. Thus, he tried to catch the ball and move his glove towards the third base side in one motion. As a result, the ball bounced off of his glove towards first base.
Arozarena, having picked himself up, was able to score the winning run.
Three miscues on a single play in a World Series game between the two teams with the best records in baseball. And on a play that decided the game.
Thus did Game 4 of the 2020 World Series become an instant classic. It figures to be a hardy perennial for future writers of “This Day in Baseball History.”
Memo to MLB: Baseball can be truly exciting when batters are doing things other than striking out and hitting home runs.


Polls? What Polls?

Joe Biden continues to lead in most national surveys , but today ’ s Rasmussen Reports finds President Trump with @ @ @ @ @ .
Rasmussen surveyed 1,500 likely voters .
At this point , registered voter polls are @ @ @ @ @ pollster that turns out to be “ right ” after Election Day will be the @ @ @ @ @ model .
Of course , one factor that polls can ’ t take into account @ @ @ @ @ a state where the race is close , voter fraud could tip the balance .
@ @ @ @ @ It doesn ’ t happen often , but it happens .
For example , there @ @ @ @ @ Norm Coleman beat Al Franken in Minnesota ’ s 2008 Senate election .
Franken ’ @ @ @ @ @ less than any rational estimate of his advantage in fraudulent votes .
All that said @ @ @ @ @ m going with my lying eyes .

Joe Biden continues to lead in most national surveys, but today’s Rasmussen Reports finds President Trump with a one-point lead, 48-47. Rasmussen surveyed 1,500 likely voters. At this point, registered voter polls are pretty much worthless. The pollster that turns out to be “right” after Election Day will be the one with the best turnout model.
Of course, one factor that polls can’t take into account is voter fraud. In a state where the race is close, voter fraud could tip the balance. Pennsylvania comes to mind. It doesn’t happen often, but it happens. For example, there is no serious doubt that Norm Coleman beat Al Franken in Minnesota’s 2008 Senate election. Franken’s 312-vote margin was much less than any rational estimate of his advantage in fraudulent votes.
All that said, for now I’m going with my lying eyes.


powerlineblog--2020-10-26--How would the 2016 election have played out under 2020 conditions?

The case that Joe Biden will defeat President Trump rests mainly on the polls .
The case that Trump will win rests at least in part on the fact that the polls got the 2016 race wrong .
But differences in the ground rules of the two elections suggest that Hillary Clinton might have defeated Trump in 2016 under this year ’ s conditions .
First , consider all of the early voting this year .
In 2016 , it is thought that Trump made up ground on Clinton in the closing weeks and days of the campaign , especially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Michigan , and Wisconsin , all of which went to Trump by very small margins .
This year , making up ground in the final weeks and days ( if Trump is able to ) may be considerably less helpful than it was four years ago because a much higher percentage of the vote will be cast early .
Thus , to the extent that Trump ’ s narrow victories four years ago in the Pennsylvania , Michigan , and Wisconsin were a function of a late surge , he may not be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or all of these key states this year even if he ’ s as popular on election day 2020 as on election day 2016 .
Next , consider the opportunities for voting fraud this year .
The 2016 election was held largely in the traditional way .
This year , voting by mail is far more prevalent .
This creates many more opportunities to manipulate the outcome .
If these same opportunities had existed in 2016 , the Democrats might have stolen some or all of the key states for Hillary .
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidates .
Four years ago , the vote of Jill Stein , the Green Party candidate , exceeded Trump ’ s margin in victory in Pennsylvania , Michigan , and Wisconsin .
( However , the vote of Gary Johnson , the Libertarian Party candidate exceeded Stein ’ s in all three states . )
This year , the Green Party apparently isn ’ t on the ballot in any of these three states .
( The Libertarian Party is , but with a different , less prominent candidate . )
The absence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ help Biden if the race is extremely close .
In any case , the other two factors — early voting and voting by mail — are potentially significant , in my view .
They raise the real possibility that the same voting preference patterns displayed by the electorates of Pennsylvania , Michigan , and Wisconsin four years ago might produce Democratic victories in some or all of these states this time around .

The case that Joe Biden will defeat President Trump rests mainly on the polls. The case that Trump will win rests at least in part on the fact that the polls got the 2016 race wrong.
But differences in the ground rules of the two elections suggest that Hillary Clinton might have defeated Trump in 2016 under this year’s conditions.
First, consider all of the early voting this year. In 2016, it is thought that Trump made up ground on Clinton in the closing weeks and days of the campaign, especially in the key states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, all of which went to Trump by very small margins.
This year, making up ground in the final weeks and days (if Trump is able to) may be considerably less helpful than it was four years ago because a much higher percentage of the vote will be cast early. Thus, to the extent that Trump’s narrow victories four years ago in the Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin were a function of a late surge, he may not be able to pull out wins in some or all of these key states this year even if he’s as popular on election day 2020 as on election day 2016.
Next, consider the opportunities for voting fraud this year. The 2016 election was held largely in the traditional way. This year, voting by mail is far more prevalent. This creates many more opportunities to manipulate the outcome.
If these same opportunities had existed in 2016, the Democrats might have stolen some or all of the key states for Hillary.
There is also the matter of third party candidates. Four years ago, the vote of Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, exceeded Trump’s margin in victory in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. (However, the vote of Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party candidate exceeded Stein’s in all three states.)
This year, the Green Party apparently isn’t on the ballot in any of these three states. (The Libertarian Party is, but with a different, less prominent candidate.) The absence of a visible far left alternative might help Biden if the race is extremely close.
In any case, the other two factors — early voting and voting by mail — are potentially significant, in my view. They raise the real possibility that the same voting preference patterns displayed by the electorates of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin four years ago might produce Democratic victories in some or all of these states this time around.


powerlineblog--2020-10-26--Polls:  Biden has substantial lead in three key states

President Trump ’ s victory in 2016 was based on his wins in Pennsylvania , Michigan , and Wisconsin .
How does this year ’ s race stand in these three states ?
If you take polls seriously , it doesn ’ t look good for Trump in any of them .
In Pennsylvania , every poll taken since late August shows Joe Biden in the lead .
The late August poll that didn ’ t show this had the two candidates tied .
The current RCP poll average gives Biden a 5.3 point lead .
In Michigan , Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even more substantial — 8.1 points .
There is one poll from this month that has Trump ahead .
It ’ s by the Trafalgar Group , the outfit that predicted Trump ’ s victory in Michigan four years ago .
As I understand it , Trafalgar tries to take “ shy Trump voters ” into account .
However , even its poll has Trump up by only 1 point .
In Wisconsin , the story is similar .
Biden leads by 5.4 points in the RCP average .
There is a very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the Center for American Greatness that has the two candidates tied , and a Trafalgar Group poll puts Biden ’ s lead at only 2 points .
But Fox News has Biden up by 5 points and just about every other polling organization finds the former vice president ’ s lead to be larger than that .
I ’ m not aware of other states that are likely to make up for electors Trump loses in Pennsylvania , Michigan , or Wisconsin .
Thus , unless the polls are way off , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reelected .

President Trump’s victory in 2016 was based on his wins in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. How does this year’s race stand in these three states?
If you take polls seriously, it doesn’t look good for Trump in any of them.
In Pennsylvania, every poll taken since late August shows Joe Biden in the lead. The late August poll that didn’t show this had the two candidates tied. The current RCP poll average gives Biden a 5.3 point lead.
In Michigan, Biden’s RCP poll average lead is even more substantial — 8.1 points. There is one poll from this month that has Trump ahead. It’s by the Trafalgar Group, the outfit that predicted Trump’s victory in Michigan four years ago.
As I understand it, Trafalgar tries to take “shy Trump voters” into account. However, even its poll has Trump up by only 1 point.
In Wisconsin, the story is similar. Biden leads by 5.4 points in the RCP average.
There is a very recent poll from Susquehanna Polling and Research for the Center for American Greatness that has the two candidates tied, and a Trafalgar Group poll puts Biden’s lead at only 2 points. But Fox News has Biden up by 5 points and just about every other polling organization finds the former vice president’s lead to be larger than that.
I’m not aware of other states that are likely to make up for electors Trump loses in Pennsylvania, Michigan, or Wisconsin. Thus, unless the polls are way off, the odds are solidly against Trump being reelected.


powerlineblog--2020-10-26--Today is the day

Today is the day

Judge Amy Coney Barrett is to be confirmed as an associate justice of the Supreme Court later today .
We @ @ @ @ @ think she will make a great contribution to the Court .
President Trump himself has @ @ @ @ @ the federal judiciary with the quality of his nominations to the bench .
Senate Majority @ @ @ @ @ would like to say our beloved Cocaine Mitch — has shepherded the nominations through confirmation @ @ @ @ @ Lindsey Graham also deserves our gratitude .
“ Patrick McMurphy ” marks the event in @ @ @ @ @ Flew Over the Cuckoo ’ s Nest , indeed .
It ’ s a beautiful @ @ @ @ @ filing this under Laughter Is the Best Medicine .

Judge Amy Coney Barrett is to be confirmed as an associate justice of the Supreme Court later today. We support her confirmation. We think she will make a great contribution to the Court.
President Trump himself has made a great contribution to the federal judiciary with the quality of his nominations to the bench. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell — I would like to say our beloved Cocaine Mitch — has shepherded the nominations through confirmation. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham also deserves our gratitude.
“Patrick McMurphy” marks the event in the tweet below. One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, indeed. It’s a beautiful thing. I’m filing this under Laughter Is the Best Medicine.


powerlineblog--2020-10-26--A lid too far

A lid too far

Joe Biden didn ’ t conduct any in-person campaigning yesterday , nine days out from the election .
The Biden @ @ @ @ @ on his activities yesterday at 11:30 a.m.
He ’ s resting up .
He ’ @ @ @ @ @ .
He ’ s giving President Trump a chance to overtake him .
I should @ @ @ @ @ s a lid too far , but that ’ s clearly not the way his @ @ @ @ @ By contrast with Trump ’ s rallies , Biden ’ s events are not exactly @ @ @ @ @ , it ’ s not just by contrast with Trump ’ s rallies .
Biden @ @ @ @ @ are embarrassing judged solely on their own terms .
With his daily lids Biden is @ @ @ @ @ his mental incapacity , as in the video below .
Biden ’ s mental incapacity @ @ @ @ @ hiding in plain sight .
He ’ s got half a mind to be president @

Joe Biden didn’t conduct any in-person campaigning yesterday, nine days out from the election. The Biden campaign called a so-called lid on his activities yesterday at 11:30 a.m. He’s resting up. He’s sitting on a lead. He’s giving President Trump a chance to overtake him. I should like to think it’s a lid too far, but that’s clearly not the way his campaign team sees it.
By contrast with Trump’s rallies, Biden’s events are not exactly high energy affairs. Okay, it’s not just by contrast with Trump’s rallies. Biden’s in-person campaign events are embarrassing judged solely on their own terms.
With his daily lids Biden is also minimizing the display of his mental incapacity, as in the video below. Biden’s mental incapacity seems to me the scandal hiding in plain sight. He’s got half a mind to be president.
Via Joe Tacopino/New York Post.
Joe Biden confuses President Trump with George W. Bush: “because of who I’m running against…George, ah, George” pic.twitter.com/ujAni2Q7Gh — Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) October 26, 2020
UPDATE: The Washington Post awards the Guest video Four Pinocchios. I award the Post Four Flems. See “Four more years of George Lopez?”


Justice Barrett!

It ’ s all done .
She ’ s Justice Barrett now .
As Paul has already noted , Democrats have themselves to blame in their expedient decision under Harry Reid to eliminate the filibuster for appellate court nominees—a move determined by entirely short-term considerations of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals that kept blocking overreaching executive branch initiatives from President Obama .
I wonder if this bitter experience will give Democrats pause about abolishing the legislative filibuster and packing the Supreme Court .
Justice Barrett is a constitutional originalist , which is to Democrats like holy water , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Actually a pretty good analogy since in embracing the “ living Constitution , ” liberals want to suck the lifeblood out of the written Constitution , and its underlying principles .
For example , check out the dumbest tweet of the day : Here you can simply apply Hayward ’ s First Law of Liberal Polemics : when you ’ re about to lose an argument , call your opponent a racist .
P.S .
“ We are all originalists now ” —Justice Elena Kagan .
I ’ ll look forward to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impeachment from the Court .

It’s all done. She’s Justice Barrett now. As Paul has already noted, Democrats have themselves to blame in their expedient decision under Harry Reid to eliminate the filibuster for appellate court nominees—a move determined by entirely short-term considerations of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals that kept blocking overreaching executive branch initiatives from President Obama.
I wonder if this bitter experience will give Democrats pause about abolishing the legislative filibuster and packing the Supreme Court.
Justice Barrett is a constitutional originalist, which is to Democrats like holy water, a cross, and garlic to a vampire. Actually a pretty good analogy since in embracing the “living Constitution,” liberals want to suck the lifeblood out of the written Constitution, and its underlying principles. For example, check out the dumbest tweet of the day:
Here you can simply apply Hayward’s First Law of Liberal Polemics: when you’re about to lose an argument, call your opponent a racist.
P.S. “We are all originalists now”—Justice Elena Kagan. I’ll look forward to Sen. Markey moving for Kagan’s impeachment from the Court.
P.P.S. It’s Hillary Clinton’s birthday today. A great day to confirm Justice Barrett.


powerlineblog--2020-10-27--Election: Let’s Get Ready to Rummmble!

Election: Let’s Get Ready to Rummmble!

So here ’ s a special bonus open to all Power Line readers : Tomorrow from 12:50 – 2 pm , Pacific Time , I ’ ll be doing a dialogue about the election on Zoom with political scientist Thomas Mann , who was one of the earliest carriers of the Trump Derangement Syndrome , the out-of-control pandemic on the left .
I ’ ve actually known Tom for 40 years , having met him when I was a precocious undergraduate .
And yet somehow he still looks younger than me .
We ’ re going to kick around—I hope—the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the moment , come what may next Tuesday .
Anyway , if you want to tune in to listen , and throw in a question , you ’ ll find the Zoom link below .
Here ’ s the advert for the event : And here ’ s the Zoom link ( n.b .
: the reason for the odd time is that we need to fit into the law school ’ s daily class schedule , and this event is co-sponsored by the Federalist Society at Berkeley Law ) : P.S .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that you get access to if you sigh up to be a Power Line VIP member .
Just sayin .

So here’s a special bonus open to all Power Line readers: Tomorrow from 12:50 – 2 pm, Pacific Time, I’ll be doing a dialogue about the election on Zoom with political scientist Thomas Mann, who was one of the earliest carriers of the Trump Derangement Syndrome, the out-of-control pandemic on the left. I’ve actually known Tom for 40 years, having met him when I was a precocious undergraduate. And yet somehow he still looks younger than me.
We’re going to kick around—I hope—the serious long-term issues facing both parties at the moment, come what may next Tuesday. Anyway, if you want to tune in to listen, and throw in a question, you’ll find the Zoom link below.
Here’s the advert for the event:
And here’s the Zoom link (n.b.: the reason for the odd time is that we need to fit into the law school’s daily class schedule, and this event is co-sponsored by the Federalist Society at Berkeley Law):
https://berkeley.zoom.us/j/98134760457
[Note: This Zoom session is set up in “Meeting” format rather than “Webinar” format, which means you will be visible on the group view tab unless you turn off your camera, which you on the control ribbon at the bottom of the Zoom screen that you access by moving your cursor down; in any case everyone should mute their mics.]
P.S. This is the kind of live event that you get access to if you sign up to be a Power Line VIP member. Just sayin.


powerlineblog--2020-10-27--Chuck Schumer reaps what he sowed

Chuck Schumer reaps what he sowed

The Senate has voted to confirm Amy Coney Barrett as a Supreme Court Justice .
She will be sworn in tonight , probably around the time I finish writing this post .
It ’ s remarkable to me how quickly Mitch McConnell was able to drive this nomination through .
I ’ m also surprised that only one Republican Senator ( the embattled Susan Collins ) voted against confirming Judge Barrett .
President Trump is said by some to be a divisive influence within the Republican Party .
Yet , GOP Senators and House members have been extraordinarily united during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
During today ’ s proceedings , Chuck Schumer lashed out at Republicans for hypocrisy in judicial confirmations .
He cited the case of Merrick Garland , whom President Obama nominated in 2016 .
Judge Garland wasn ’ t confirmed .
The GOP controlled Senate didn ’ t even give him a hearing .
Maybe Garland should have received a hearing out of courtesy .
However , the hearing would have been a waste of time .
Garland did not have the votes to be confirmed .
Amy Coney Barrett has the votes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these two election-year nominees .
Why is it , though , that these days Supreme Court nominees likely can ’ t get the votes needed for confirmation if the opposing party controls the Senate ?
The answer has lots to do with the efforts of Chuck Schumer .
Prior to [ Shumer ’ s ] arrival in the Senate , senators were generally reluctant to openly oppose judicial nominees on ideological grounds , but Schumer worked to change that .
He enthusiastically supported a blockade of Bush appellate nominees and rejected President Bush @ @ @ @ @ @ @ schedule .
Once Republicans retook the Senate , Schumer pushed for the repeated filibusters of President Bush ’ s nominees and , even after the “ Gang of 14 ” deal , continued in his attempts to use this obstructionist tactic .
Schumer led an unsuccessful effort to filibuster confirmation of Justice Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court .
Afterwards , in a 2007 speech to the American Constitution Society , he proclaimed he should have done even more to block Alito ’ s confirmation , and argued that the Senate should not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Supreme Court should any more vacancies arise .
In his view , senators should seek to prevent judicial confirmations that might tilt the balance of the Court in a way they do not like , including by simply refusing to confirm them – something he would conveniently forget in 2016 .
Senator Schumer did not think both parties should have recourse to the same tools of obstruction , however .
When Senate Republicans started filibustering some of President Obama ’ s appellate nominees he eagerly joined then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republicans had ( at that point ) not blocked any more Obama nominees than Democrats had blocked Bush nominees ( five each ) .
No matter .
The filibuster was gone , and three of Obama ’ s five blocked nominees were confirmed ( all to the D.C .
Circuit ) .
During the closed session , Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell ( R. , Ky. ) rebuked Schumer for his short memory : “ I hope our colleague from New York is happy with what he has built .
I hope he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gotten the Senate.
” There is no question that McConnell upped the ante over the past four years .
One might say he hit back twice as hard .
Nonetheless , if Schumer is unhappy , he should consider his role in getting the Senate to this point .
Because of the power it exerts over our politics and our lives , and because Justices tend to divide along party lines in the big cases , the Supreme Court invites hypocrisy from both sides of the aisle over the manner in which nominees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power .
But with the possible exception of Joe Biden , there is no bigger hypocrite than Chuck Schumer when it comes to the confirmation process .

The Senate has voted to confirm Amy Coney Barrett as a Supreme Court Justice. She will be sworn in tonight, probably around the time I finish writing this post.
It’s remarkable to me how quickly Mitch McConnell was able to drive this nomination through. I’m also surprised that only one Republican Senator (the embattled Susan Collins) voted against confirming Judge Barrett.
President Trump is said by some to be a divisive influence within the Republican Party. Yet, GOP Senators and House members have been extraordinarily united during the past three and a half years.
During today’s proceedings, Chuck Schumer lashed out at Republicans for hypocrisy in judicial confirmations. He cited the case of Merrick Garland, whom President Obama nominated in 2016. Judge Garland wasn’t confirmed. The GOP controlled Senate didn’t even give him a hearing.
Maybe Garland should have received a hearing out of courtesy. However, the hearing would have been a waste of time. Garland did not have the votes to be confirmed.
Amy Coney Barrett has the votes. That’s the difference between these two election-year nominees.
Why is it, though, that these days Supreme Court nominees likely can’t get the votes needed for confirmation if the opposing party controls the Senate? The answer has lots to do with the efforts of Chuck Schumer.
Jonathan Adler provides the history:
Prior to [Shumer’s] arrival in the Senate, senators were generally reluctant to openly oppose judicial nominees on ideological grounds, but Schumer worked to change that. He enthusiastically supported a blockade of Bush appellate nominees and rejected President Bush’s appeal for a presumptive confirmation schedule. Once Republicans retook the Senate, Schumer pushed for the repeated filibusters of President Bush’s nominees and, even after the “Gang of 14” deal, continued in his attempts to use this obstructionist tactic. Schumer led an unsuccessful effort to filibuster confirmation of Justice Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. Afterwards, in a 2007 speech to the American Constitution Society, he proclaimed he should have done even more to block Alito’s confirmation, and argued that the Senate should not confirm any additional Bush nominees to the Supreme Court should any more vacancies arise. In his view, senators should seek to prevent judicial confirmations that might tilt the balance of the Court in a way they do not like, including by simply refusing to confirm them – something he would conveniently forget in 2016. Senator Schumer did not think both parties should have recourse to the same tools of obstruction, however. When Senate Republicans started filibustering some of President Obama’s appellate nominees he eagerly joined then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s decision to go nuclear, even though Republicans had (at that point) not blocked any more Obama nominees than Democrats had blocked Bush nominees (five each). No matter. The filibuster was gone, and three of Obama’s five blocked nominees were confirmed (all to the D.C. Circuit). During the closed session, Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) rebuked Schumer for his short memory: “I hope our colleague from New York is happy with what he has built. I hope he is happy with where his ingenuity has gotten the Senate.” There is no question that McConnell upped the ante over the past four years. One might say he hit back twice as hard. Nonetheless, if Schumer is unhappy, he should consider his role in getting the Senate to this point.
(Emphasis added)
Because of the power it exerts over our politics and our lives, and because Justices tend to divide along party lines in the big cases, the Supreme Court invites hypocrisy from both sides of the aisle over the manner in which nominees gain the ability to exert such awesome power. But with the possible exception of Joe Biden, there is no bigger hypocrite than Chuck Schumer when it comes to the confirmation process.


powerlineblog--2020-10-26--The Shocking Bias and Incompetence of Our Public Schools

With an election impending , the public schools are teaching our children about the issues and the candidates .
One of their primary tools is Scholastic Magazine , which I think is read by millions of school children and is the basis for instruction in countless classrooms .
A friend alerted me to the fact that the current issue includes profiles of President Trump and Joe Biden and describes their positions on several issues .
This is what our children are being told about President ’ s Trump ’ s position on “ Racial Justice ” : The long history @ @ @ @ @ @ @ America is a major focus of this election .
This past spring , in the wake of police killings of Black Americans , huge protests erupted across the country in support of the Black Lives Matter movement .
Meanwhile , the coronavirus pandemic has seriously underscored the widespread problem of racial inequality in the United States .
Data show that people of color are contracting and dying of the virus at the highest rates , largely because of the wealth gap that exists between white people and people of color .
Many Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end to police violence and other injustices toward Black people in this country .
That ’ s the preface .
This is an issue , according to Scholastic Magazine , on which there is only one possible perspective .
As well he should !
This is outrageous .
What was happening in Portland was not “ rallies.
” It was rioting , arson , crime and violence .
The idea that the presence of federal officers “ sparked violence ” is a far-left trope that is totally at odds with the facts .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , any federal involvement .
“ Many people.
” The most dishonest trick of the left-wing journalist .
This is a lie .
It is intended to poison young minds against the president , his party and his supporters .
I am not sure what exactly Trump has said about such research , but every well-informed person knows that black people are more likely to be stopped , arrested and shot because they commit more crimes , per capita , than other ethnic groups .
This fact is not disputed , but needless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t mention it .
Scholastic ends by acknowledging that Trump ’ s economy has produced record low unemployment for “ Black and Latinx people.
” Now , how about Joe Biden ?
Scholastic begins with the same preface that is quoted above .
Like , affirmative action ?
That 50-year-old policy has conveniently been forgotten .
Then follows a claim that in the 1980s and 90s , Biden supported “ legislation that hurt Black Americans ” by being “ tough on crime.
” Actually , such legislation helped blacks , the principal victims @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t something Scholastic Magazine , or the public school system , wants our kids to know .
It continues : It is ?
That is a highly controversial claim , at best .
Academic research suggests that it has much more to do with cultural values and family formation , or lack thereof .
And of course there is no mention of other races , like Asian-Americans , who on average substantially outearn both blacks and whites .
In other words : tell your parents to vote for Joe Biden !
What our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the election is identical to the propaganda being put out by the Biden campaign .
Our public schools are so incompetent , and so ridiculously biased , that they are a threat to the Republic .
I think voters should seriously consider abolishing them altogether .
Whatever private arrangements would arise in the resulting vacuum could only be an improvement .

With an election impending, the public schools are teaching our children about the issues and the candidates. One of their primary tools is Scholastic Magazine, which I think is read by millions of school children and is the basis for instruction in countless classrooms. A friend alerted me to the fact that the current issue includes profiles of President Trump and Joe Biden and describes their positions on several issues.
This is what our children are being told about President’s Trump’s position on “Racial Justice”:
The long history of unjust treatment of Black people in America is a major focus of this election. This past spring, in the wake of police killings of Black Americans, huge protests erupted across the country in support of the Black Lives Matter movement. Meanwhile, the coronavirus pandemic has seriously underscored the widespread problem of racial inequality in the United States. Data show that people of color are contracting and dying of the virus at the highest rates, largely because of the wealth gap that exists between white people and people of color. Many Americans of all races are now demanding an end to police violence and other injustices toward Black people in this country.
That’s the preface. This is an issue, according to Scholastic Magazine, on which there is only one possible perspective.
In June, President Trump signed an executive order encouraging police departments to change how they train officers and use force. But overall, he has defended law enforcement…
As well he should!
…opposed protesters’ calls for reforms, and taken an aggressive stance against the largely peaceful demonstrations.
“Largely peaceful,” the Democrats’ weasel phrase.
In July, for instance, he sent federal police to Portland, Oregon, to break up rallies there. Local officials say those officers illegally detained protesters and sparked violence.
This is outrageous. What was happening in Portland was not “rallies.” It was rioting, arson, crime and violence. The idea that the presence of federal officers “sparked violence” is a far-left trope that is totally at odds with the facts. The violence long preceded, and succeeded, any federal involvement.
Many people see the president’s response to the protests as part of a pattern of racism.
“Many people.” The most dishonest trick of the left-wing journalist.
He has repeatedly made racist statements and at times shown support for people who promote white supremacy.
This is a lie. It is intended to poison young minds against the president, his party and his supporters.
He has also largely refused to acknowledge the role racism plays in America. For example, he has dismissed research showing that Black people are more likely than white people to be stopped, arrested, and killed by the police.
I am not sure what exactly Trump has said about such research, but every well-informed person knows that black people are more likely to be stopped, arrested and shot because they commit more crimes, per capita, than other ethnic groups. This fact is not disputed, but needless to say, Scholastic Magazine doesn’t mention it.
Scholastic ends by acknowledging that Trump’s economy has produced record low unemployment for “Black and Latinx people.”
Now, how about Joe Biden? Scholastic begins with the same preface that is quoted above.
Joe Biden has said racism is a problem that needs urgent attention in the U.S. He acknowledges that inequality between Black people and white people is the result of long-standing laws and policies.
Like, affirmative action? That 50-year-old policy has conveniently been forgotten.
Then follows a claim that in the 1980s and 90s, Biden supported “legislation that hurt Black Americans” by being “tough on crime.” Actually, such legislation helped blacks, the principal victims of crime. But that isn’t something Scholastic Magazine, or the public school system, wants our kids to know. It continues:
Last year, Biden expressed regret for criminal justice laws he championed in the Senate that have contributed to racial injustice. Going forward, he says that he is committed to rooting out racism in the criminal justice system, from policing practices to sentencing laws. As president, he says he would enact polices to close the racial wealth gap, which is a direct result of centuries of racist laws, policies, and practices.
It is? That is a highly controversial claim, at best. Academic research suggests that it has much more to do with cultural values and family formation, or lack thereof. And of course there is no mention of other races, like Asian-Americans, who on average substantially outearn both blacks and whites.
For example, he has pledged to expand access to high-quality education, business opportunities, health care, and housing for Black Americans. He has also called for the U.S. government to increase investigations into claims bias and brutality against Black people in police departments nationwide, so that patterns of discrimination can be exposed and fixed.
In other words: tell your parents to vote for Joe Biden! What our public schools are telling our kids about the election is identical to the propaganda being put out by the Biden campaign.
Our public schools are so incompetent, and so ridiculously biased, that they are a threat to the Republic. I think voters should seriously consider abolishing them altogether. Whatever private arrangements would arise in the resulting vacuum could only be an improvement.


powerlineblog--2020-10-27--Four more years of George Lopez?

Four more years of George Lopez?

The Washington Post has run one of its putative fact checks on Joe Biden ’ s confusion of George Bush with President Trump in the video I posted here yesterday .
I have reposted the video at the bottom .
The Post fact check by Meg Kelly runs under the headline “ No , Biden did not confuse George W. Bush and Donald Trump.
” Kelly first finds that Biden might have been referring to George Lopez , one of his interlocutors in the interview from which the video was clipped .
Then Kelly implicitly asserts that Biden was indeed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tweeter Steve Guest “ Four Pinocchios for his efforts , ” as she puts it .
Borrowing my evaluation of the fact-checking site Snopes in my own case , I award the Washington Post a very phlegmy Four Flems .
The Post is working overtime as the media arm of the DNC and the Biden campaign .
We have gone somewhere beyond farce .
It ’ s an area we call The Twilight Zone .
Mollie Hemingway concisely responded to the Post in two tweets below .
And came back again with one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here is the video evaluated by the Post .

The Washington Post has run one of its putative fact checks on Joe Biden’s confusion of George Bush with President Trump in the video I posted here yesterday. I have reposted the video at the bottom. The Post fact check by Meg Kelly runs under the headline “No, Biden did not confuse George W. Bush and Donald Trump.”
Kelly first finds that Biden might have been referring to George Lopez, one of his interlocutors in the interview from which the video was clipped. Then Kelly implicitly asserts that Biden was indeed referring to George Lopez, awarding RNC tweeter Steve Guest “Four Pinocchios for his efforts,” as she puts it.
Borrowing my evaluation of the fact-checking site Snopes in my own case, I award the Washington Post a very phlegmy Four Flems. The Post is working overtime as the media arm of the DNC and the Biden campaign. We have gone somewhere beyond farce. It’s an area we call The Twilight Zone.
Mollie Hemingway concisely responded to the Post in two tweets below.
Maybe he was referring to George Clinton! pic.twitter.com/Aq0WTf1UhK — Mollie (@MZHemingway) October 26, 2020
And came back again with one more.
I mean, seems far worse to say Biden thinks he's facing "four more years of George [Lopez]" instead of the relatively minor confusion of referencing the previous GOP president instead of the current one, but, then again, I don't run Biden's Rapid Response. — Mollie (@MZHemingway) October 27, 2020
Submitted for your consideration, here is the video evaluated by the Post.


powerlineblog--2020-10-27--Podcast: The Three Whisky Happy Hour, with Guest Drinker Henry Olsen

Better late than never ( and I heard from several listeners wondering what happened to the usual weekend wrap-up ) , “ Lucretia ” and I team up to review what ’ s going on in the news along with drinking to the confirmation of Justice Barrett , but are most interested in thinking a bit about what is “ metaphysically ” wrong with the election scene , with poll after poll showing a solid Biden lead against lots of sense perception—and several historical examples—that argues for a different outcome .
And so this became a crossover episode of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down Henry Olsen , who I abuse for starting a competing podcast ( ahem ) , and for his corrupt views about European “ football.
” We did our best to refrain from too many # MeToobin jokes , but Chelsea Handler ’ s stunning echo of Joe Biden ( “ if you don ’ t vote for me , you ain ’ t black ” ) that we play right at the beginning is pretty revealing of the bedrock identity assumptions of the left these days .
Talk about losing your grip @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here or download from our hosts at Ricochet , or your favorite podcast platform .

Better late than never (and I heard from several listeners wondering what happened to the usual weekend wrap-up), “Lucretia” and I team up to review what’s going on in the news along with drinking to the confirmation of Justice Barrett, but are most interested in thinking a bit about what is “metaphysically” wrong with the election scene, with poll after poll showing a solid Biden lead against lots of sense perception—and several historical examples—that argues for a different outcome. And so this became a crossover episode of the podcast, since I decided to pin down Henry Olsen, who I abuse for starting a competing podcast (ahem), and for his corrupt views about European “football.”
We did our best to refrain from too many #MeToobin jokes, but Chelsea Handler’s stunning echo of Joe Biden (“if you don’t vote for me, you ain’t black”) that we play right at the beginning is pretty revealing of the bedrock identity assumptions of the left these days. Talk about losing your grip.
You know the rest: listen here or download from our hosts at Ricochet, or your favorite podcast platform.


powerlineblog--2020-10-27--Despite Democrats’ hysteria, public favored Amy Barrett’s confirmation

Democrats want to portray the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett as a raw power play that was antithetical to our democracy .
Yet , public opinion polls tell us that , had Justice Barrett ’ s nomination been put to a vote by the American people , she would have been confirmed by a margin comparable to or greater than the one provided by the Senate .
The Senate confirmed Barrett by a vote of 52-48 .
A Gallup poll found that , by a split of 51-46 , the public favored confirming her .
A Morning Consult poll put @ @ @ @ @ @ @ survey by Morning Consult , taken shortly after the nomination was announced , found that only 37 percent favored confirming Barrett .
It seems , then , that the more the public learned , the more it liked the idea of her serving on the Supreme Court .
Even Democrats warmed somewhat to Barrett .
In the initial Morning Consult poll , only 14 percent of them favored her confirmation .
In the final poll , her support among Dems had more than doubled — to 32 percent .
Among Senate Democrats her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What accounts for the public ’ s approval of confirming a very conservative Supreme Court nominee ?
To begin with , I think many people still hold the old-fashioned presumption that a president ’ s nominee to the Court should be confirmed , and that is this true regardless of when in the president ’ s term the nomination is made .
In Barrett ’ s case , moreover , the nominee made a very good impression .
She is attractive , well credentialed , and has a great family .
She was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her Senate hearing .
These two factors — the general presumption and Barrett ’ s personal qualities — may be sufficient to explain the favorable poll results .
But is there an ideological/jurisprudential component , as well ?
Quite possibly .
I doubt the public is interested in the finer points of Barrett ’ s originalism , but the general notion that the Constitution shouldn ’ t be interpreted expansively might well command at least plurality support .
Apparently , most Americans understand that Barrett ’ s addition will make the Court more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Morning Consult said they believe this will happen .
It ’ s not clear , however , what level of support she enjoyed within this subgroup .
Nor can we say whether those in the subgroup who supported her confirmation did so because , or in spite , of the direction in which she would push the Court .
I think we can say , though , that the Senate Democrats ’ attacks on Barrett fell flat .
The claim that Barrett will provide the vote that kills Obamacare didn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Nor did the more plausible ( though still highly speculative ) claim that she will be the vote that overturns Roe v. Wade .
At a minimum , the public opinion polls on Amy Coney Barrett suggest that ( 1 ) her confirmation is no affront to democracy ( 2 ) conservatism sells better if accompanied by an attractive , kind face , and ( 3 ) whatever the outcome of next week ’ s election , America doesn ’ t favor the hard left turn the Democrats have in mind for @ @ @

Democrats want to portray the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett as a raw power play that was antithetical to our democracy. Yet, public opinion polls tell us that, had Justice Barrett’s nomination been put to a vote by the American people, she would have been confirmed by a margin comparable to or greater than the one provided by the Senate.
The Senate confirmed Barrett by a vote of 52-48. A Gallup poll found that, by a split of 51-46, the public favored confirming her. A Morning Consult poll put the split at 51-28.
An earlier survey by Morning Consult, taken shortly after the nomination was announced, found that only 37 percent favored confirming Barrett. It seems, then, that the more the public learned, the more it liked the idea of her serving on the Supreme Court.
Even Democrats warmed somewhat to Barrett. In the initial Morning Consult poll, only 14 percent of them favored her confirmation. In the final poll, her support among Dems had more than doubled — to 32 percent.
Among Senate Democrats her level of support was 0 percent.
What accounts for the public’s approval of confirming a very conservative Supreme Court nominee? To begin with, I think many people still hold the old-fashioned presumption that a president’s nominee to the Court should be confirmed, and that is this true regardless of when in the president’s term the nomination is made.
In Barrett’s case, moreover, the nominee made a very good impression. She is attractive, well credentialed, and has a great family. She was patient, poised, and articulate during her Senate hearing.
These two factors — the general presumption and Barrett’s personal qualities — may be sufficient to explain the favorable poll results. But is there an ideological/jurisprudential component, as well?
Quite possibly. I doubt the public is interested in the finer points of Barrett’s originalism, but the general notion that the Constitution shouldn’t be interpreted expansively might well command at least plurality support.
Apparently, most Americans understand that Barrett’s addition will make the Court more conservative. 54 percent of those survey by Morning Consult said they believe this will happen.
It’s not clear, however, what level of support she enjoyed within this subgroup. Nor can we say whether those in the subgroup who supported her confirmation did so because, or in spite, of the direction in which she would push the Court.
I think we can say, though, that the Senate Democrats’ attacks on Barrett fell flat. The claim that Barrett will provide the vote that kills Obamacare didn’t seem to move the needle against her. Nor did the more plausible (though still highly speculative) claim that she will be the vote that overturns Roe v. Wade.
At a minimum, the public opinion polls on Amy Coney Barrett suggest that (1) her confirmation is no affront to democracy (2) conservatism sells better if accompanied by an attractive, kind face, and (3) whatever the outcome of next week’s election, America doesn’t favor the hard left turn the Democrats have in mind for the country.


powerlineblog--2020-10-27--When the lid was lifted

When the lid was lifted

Yesterday the Biden campaign declared yet another so-called lid on his campaign appearances .
After President Trump mocked him — for “ wav [ ing ] a white flag on life , ” while speaking with reporters at one of his three Pennsylvania rallies — the Biden campaign briefly lifted the lid .
Biden made an unscheduled appearance outside his basement across the border in Chester , Pennsylvania , less than 20 miles from home .
You can ’ t be too careful .
C-SPAN has posted its video of the whole thing here .
Biden gave prepared remarks criticizing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the epidemic at about 18:00 of the video .
He invited press questions at about 23:00 of the video .
In response to a question about his “ light public schedule , ” Biden stated : “ We ’ re constantly — there has not been a day that hasn ’ t been a 12-hour day yet.
” If true , that must include a lot of time in the basement .
Biden ’ s appearance made for a pathetic contrast with Trump ’ s three rallies , but he held it together @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he didn ’ t have to field a single question about the material on the hard drive of Hunter ’ s laptop .
Amazing how that works .

Yesterday the Biden campaign declared yet another so-called lid on his campaign appearances. After President Trump mocked him — for “wav[ing ] a white flag on life,” while speaking with reporters at one of his three Pennsylvania rallies — the Biden campaign briefly lifted the lid.
Biden made an unscheduled appearance outside his basement across the border in Chester, Pennsylvania, less than 20 miles from home. You can’t be too careful. C-SPAN has posted its video of the whole thing here.
Biden gave prepared remarks criticizing the Trump administration’s response to the epidemic at about 18:00 of the video. He invited press questions at about 23:00 of the video.
In response to a question about his “light public schedule,” Biden stated: “We’re constantly — there has not been a day that hasn’t been a 12-hour day yet.” If true, that must include a lot of time in the basement.
Biden’s appearance made for a pathetic contrast with Trump’s three rallies, but he held it together for 28 minutes. It probably helped that he didn’t have to field a single question about the material on the hard drive of Hunter’s laptop. Amazing how that works.


powerlineblog--2020-10-27--Coronavirus in one state (118) [With Comment by John]

Following the data presented in this series and tuning in to the Minnesota Department of Health press briefings , I have found this astounding fact : virtually all deaths attributed to COVID-19 have occurred among decedents with one of seven serious underlying health conditions such as chronic lung disease , severe obesity , and diabetes ( see , e.g.
, Walz executive order 20-55 paragraph 2 ) .
In Minnesota , the share of COVID-19 decedents with serious underlying health conditions has hovered around 98 percent .
We know this only due to Tom Hauser ’ s occasional questions asking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Last week , several months since the last update , he asked for the current number .
Infectious Disease Director Kris Ehresmann didn ’ t have it handy .
As she fumbled for the number , however , I understood Ehresmann emphatically to state that the percentage was now less than 50 .
That is what I reported in part 116 .
Over the weekend Ehresmann updated Hauser off-line .
Hauser disseminated the data via Twitter ( below ) .
Ehresmann ’ s representation to the contrary notwithstanding , the 98 percent number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the recording of the October 21 briefing .
This is what Ehresmann said ( at about 1:00:00 to the end of the recording per my transcription ) : “ I can tell you this in the broadest sense so that everyone can hear this .
In the broadest sense in the very earliest days of the pandemic nearly all of our deaths had underlying health conditions and over time we ’ ve actually seen that decrease…rather than having all the deaths have underlying conditions we ’ ve had more deaths in individuals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ baloney .
Lost in the public health blather to which we are subjected on a daily basis is this critical fact .
Those with one of the serious underlying health conditions need to be told at every opportunity that they are at risk and advised to protect themselves .
Instead the blather about masks continues .
Yesterday Governor Walz made a rare appearance along with Commissioner Malcolm and Ehresmann to amplify the warnings that have served served us so poorly .
Asked if they had any data supporting their insistence that Minnesotans are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ et al .
hemmed and hawed .
They have nothing .
I have embedded the audio below , as usual .
Kevin Roche has posted an unusually lengthy response to yesterday ’ s briefing here .
Kevin concludes with a plea for candor : How about some honesty–try this– No one knows why or how this virus spreads so easily or what the pattern of spread is due to .
We can try our best to minimize spread but we aren ’ t going to be very successful .
We are really lucky @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a pathogen .
And , as our Swedish brethren , and there are still lots of Swedish descendants in Minnesota , have taught us , controlling infection is one thing , but overall public health is more important .
We have to keep kids in real school , we need to keep people getting health care , we can ’ t let businesses fail and jobs disappear .
And most importantly , my friends , we can ’ t let ourselves succumb to hysteria and terror .
We need to help each other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be strong , we need to accept that we can ’ t control everything that happens in life .
We will survive .
As Kevin puts it : “ You will never hear that from the IB.
” For those who haven ’ t been following this series , I.B .
is short for Incompetent Blowhard , as Kevin refers to Governor Walz .
JOHN adds : My organization is running a social media campaign to mobilize support for ending the madness .
Here are a couple of our ads : They @ @ @ @ @

Following the data presented in this series and tuning in to the Minnesota Department of Health press briefings, I have found this astounding fact: virtually all deaths attributed to COVID-19 have occurred among decedents with one of seven serious underlying health conditions such as chronic lung disease, severe obesity, and diabetes (see, e.g., Walz executive order 20-55 paragraph 2). In Minnesota, the share of COVID-19 decedents with serious underlying health conditions has hovered around 98 percent.
We know this only due to Tom Hauser’s occasional questions asking for the number at the briefings. Last week, several months since the last update, he asked for the current number. Infectious Disease Director Kris Ehresmann didn’t have it handy. As she fumbled for the number, however, I understood Ehresmann emphatically to state that the percentage was now less than 50. That is what I reported in part 116.
Over the weekend Ehresmann updated Hauser off-line. Hauser disseminated the data via Twitter (below). Ehresmann’s representation to the contrary notwithstanding, the 98 percent number remains essentially unchanged.
As I recall, MDH’s Kris Ehresmann stated in response to Tom’s question last week that more than half of decedents now had no significant underlying conditions. In reality, nothing has changed since Tom last asked the question months ago. https://t.co/xG4dMiCoZ1 — Scott Johnson (@scottwjohnson) October 25, 2020
I went back to the recording of the October 21 briefing. This is what Ehresmann said (at about 1:00:00 to the end of the recording per my transcription): “I can tell you this in the broadest sense so that everyone can hear this. In the broadest sense in the very earliest days of the pandemic nearly all of our deaths had underlying health conditions and over time we’ve actually seen that decrease…rather than having all the deaths have underlying conditions we’ve had more deaths in individuals without an underlying condition…” Absolute unadulterated baloney.
Lost in the public health blather to which we are subjected on a daily basis is this critical fact. Those with one of the serious underlying health conditions need to be told at every opportunity that they are at risk and advised to protect themselves.
Instead the blather about masks continues. Yesterday Governor Walz made a rare appearance along with Commissioner Malcolm and Ehresmann to amplify the warnings that have served served us so poorly. Asked if they had any data supporting their insistence that Minnesotans are noncompliant with the mask guidance, Walz et al. hemmed and hawed. They have nothing. I have embedded the audio below, as usual.
Kevin Roche has posted an unusually lengthy response to yesterday’s briefing here. Kevin concludes with a plea for candor:
How about some honesty–try this– No one knows why or how this virus spreads so easily or what the pattern of spread is due to. We can try our best to minimize spread but we aren’t going to be very successful. We are really lucky that this isn’t that lethal a pathogen. And, as our Swedish brethren, and there are still lots of Swedish descendants in Minnesota, have taught us, controlling infection is one thing, but overall public health is more important. We have to keep kids in real school, we need to keep people getting health care, we can’t let businesses fail and jobs disappear. And most importantly, my friends, we can’t let ourselves succumb to hysteria and terror. We need to help each other as best we can, we need to be strong, we need to accept that we can’t control everything that happens in life. We will survive.
As Kevin puts it: “You will never hear that from the IB.” For those who haven’t been following this series, I.B. is short for Incompetent Blowhard, as Kevin refers to Governor Walz.
JOHN adds: My organization is running a social media campaign to mobilize support for ending the madness. Here are a couple of our ads:
They link to this post.


powerlineblog--2020-10-28--How Corrupt Are American Universities?

How Corrupt Are American Universities?

The Department of Education has completed an investigation into American universities ’ compliance with federal law relating to reporting of foreign gifts and contracts .
As you might expect , our universities believe that laws are for the little guys : American Universities failed to report $ 6.5 billion in foreign gifts and contracts , an investigation by the Department of Education found .
Federal law requires schools to disclose substantial foreign gifts and contracts to the Department of Education ( DOE ) twice a year .
Many have for years failed to do so , while others severely underreported @ @ @ @ @ @ @ financial disclosures poured in as the department opened investigations into 12 elite universities .
Universities reported receiving a total of more than $ 19.6 billion in foreign gifts and contracts from 2014 to 2020 , including nearly $ 1.5 billion from China , almost $ 3.1 billion from Qatar , and more than $ 1.1 billion from Saudi Arabia , according to historical DOE data and most recent figures posted on its new online reporting portal .
You can imagine who some of the worst lawbreakers were .
The Left corrupts everything it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but wholly taken over , higher education in America .
So no one should be surprised at the corruption implied by illegally undisclosed billions in foreign cash .
In the last few weeks , we have learned that Joe Biden sold whatever influence he had as Vice President to the Communist Chinese and others for many millions of dollars .
The Chinese Communist Party has spread billions of dollars among many American politicians and institutions , considering such spending to be a wise investment .
With hindsight , it seems clear that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been especially eager to use their bought and paid for influence to suppress news about their imprisonment of more than one million Uighers in concentration camps .
If you don ’ t know much about the largest imprisonment and murder of a religious minority since the Third Reich , you can thank America ’ s liberal , pro-China press–how much money has changed hands there has yet to be revealed–and , of course , businesses like the National Basketball Association .
More on that to come .

The Department of Education has completed an investigation into American universities’ compliance with federal law relating to reporting of foreign gifts and contracts. As you might expect, our universities believe that laws are for the little guys:
American Universities failed to report $6.5 billion in foreign gifts and contracts, an investigation by the Department of Education found. Federal law requires schools to disclose substantial foreign gifts and contracts to the Department of Education (DOE) twice a year. Many have for years failed to do so, while others severely underreported the income. The deluge of the financial disclosures poured in as the department opened investigations into 12 elite universities. Universities reported receiving a total of more than $19.6 billion in foreign gifts and contracts from 2014 to 2020, including nearly $1.5 billion from China, almost $3.1 billion from Qatar, and more than $1.1 billion from Saudi Arabia, according to historical DOE data and most recent figures posted on its new online reporting portal.
You can imagine who some of the worst lawbreakers were.
Carnegie Mellon University reported receiving almost $1.61 billion in foreign gifts and contracts, the most of any university. Harvard tops the list in terms of total funds received from China, reporting nearly $116 million.
The Left corrupts everything it touches. It has not just touched, but wholly taken over, higher education in America. So no one should be surprised at the corruption implied by illegally undisclosed billions in foreign cash.
In the last few weeks, we have learned that Joe Biden sold whatever influence he had as Vice President to the Communist Chinese and others for many millions of dollars. The Chinese Communist Party has spread billions of dollars among many American politicians and institutions, considering such spending to be a wise investment. With hindsight, it seems clear that they are right.
The Chinese Communists have been especially eager to use their bought and paid for influence to suppress news about their imprisonment of more than one million Uighers in concentration camps. If you don’t know much about the largest imprisonment and murder of a religious minority since the Third Reich, you can thank America’s liberal, pro-China press–how much money has changed hands there has yet to be revealed–and, of course, businesses like the National Basketball Association. More on that to come.