powerlineblog--2020-12-07--The opioid epidemic is getting worse

The opioid epidemic is getting worse

With the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic dominating the news , we don ’ t hear much these days about the opioid crisis .
But that doesn ’ t mean it has gone away .
In fact , opioid-related deaths are on the rise .
In Washington , D.C. , there were 282 fatal overdoses by the end of August , the latest month for which data is available .
That ’ s one more than in all of 2019 .
2020 looks like it will be the deadliest year yet in D.C. for opioid-related deaths .
The same trend exists nationwide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than 40 states have reported an increase in opioid fatalities this year .
What is behind the surge ?
It ’ s tempting to blame it on the coronavirus pandemic .
Maybe the lockdowns are leading to an increase in despair which , in turn , is causing more overdoses .
Maybe people are abstaining from treatment , or being prevented from seeking it , because of the virus and the lockdowns .
Maybe social isolation means more people overdosing alone and therefore not getting emergency assistance .
None of these possibilities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s a fact that the surge in deaths from opioids predates the pandemic .
By the end of March , the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had found a 16 percent increase in the number of drug overdose deaths compared to the first three months of 2019 .
Another possible explanation for the spike in overdoses is that people are using more potent forms of opioids than in the past few years .
The Post suggests that this may be the case in Washington , D.C. A third possibility is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the past .
Many drug dealers have been released from prison thanks to various forms of leniency , and policing has become more passive in many parts of the country .
Naturally , the Post doesn ’ t consider this as a possible explanation .
Neither , apparently , does the District of Columbia government .
It seems to be responding to the crisis by calling for less law enforcement .
The city council has approved granting criminal immunity to people reporting drug overdoses , even if they were also using , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ naloxone , an overdose reversal drug .
These moves probably make sense .
However , the city council has also voted to decriminalize drug paraphernalia .
This makes little sense in the midst of rising overdoses .
Robert Contee , a D.C. police official and possible replacement for the outgoing police chief , notes that residents frequently complain about unsafely discarded paraphernalia .
He also says that criminal penalties help police limit the drug supply .
Contee has testified : In any case , this much is clear : ( 1 ) A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agreement that the nation faced an opioid crisis and ( 2 ) Since then , the situation has gotten worse .

With the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic dominating the news, we don’t hear much these days about the opioid crisis. But that doesn’t mean it has gone away.
In fact, opioid-related deaths are on the rise. In Washington, D.C., there were 282 fatal overdoses by the end of August, the latest month for which data is available. That’s one more than in all of 2019. 2020 looks like it will be the deadliest year yet in D.C. for opioid-related deaths.
The same trend exists nationwide. According to the Washington Post, more than 40 states have reported an increase in opioid fatalities this year.
What is behind the surge? It’s tempting to blame it on the coronavirus pandemic. Maybe the lockdowns are leading to an increase in despair which, in turn, is causing more overdoses. Maybe people are abstaining from treatment, or being prevented from seeking it, because of the virus and the lockdowns. Maybe social isolation means more people overdosing alone and therefore not getting emergency assistance.
None of these possibilities should be discounted. Nonetheless, it’s a fact that the surge in deaths from opioids predates the pandemic. By the end of March, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had found a 16 percent increase in the number of drug overdose deaths compared to the first three months of 2019.
Another possible explanation for the spike in overdoses is that people are using more potent forms of opioids than in the past few years. The Post suggests that this may be the case in Washington, D.C.
A third possibility is that law enforcement is more lax now than in the past. Many drug dealers have been released from prison thanks to various forms of leniency, and policing has become more passive in many parts of the country.
Naturally, the Post doesn’t consider this as a possible explanation.
Neither, apparently, does the District of Columbia government. It seems to be responding to the crisis by calling for less law enforcement.
The city council has approved granting criminal immunity to people reporting drug overdoses, even if they were also using, and to those who attempt to administer naloxone, an overdose reversal drug. These moves probably make sense.
However, the city council has also voted to decriminalize drug paraphernalia. This makes little sense in the midst of rising overdoses.
Robert Contee, a D.C. police official and possible replacement for the outgoing police chief, notes that residents frequently complain about unsafely discarded paraphernalia. He also says that criminal penalties help police limit the drug supply. Contee has testified:
A needle or syringe may be an important and necessary piece of evidence for limiting drug distribution and trafficking, as well as for identifying and tracking the spread of new types of synthetic drugs.
In any case, this much is clear: (1) A few years ago, there was broad agreement that the nation faced an opioid crisis and (2) Since then, the situation has gotten worse.


Loose Ends (119)

There are a bunch of stray stories and curious data points right now that deserve brief notice here .
• What in the world is a “ violence interrupter ” ?
If you thought that might be a euphemism for a law enforcement officer—or maybe a prison guard—you ’ d be wrong .
Here ’ s what Wikipedia says it is : “ Violence interruption is a community-based approach to reducing communal and interpersonal violence that treats violence as a public health problem .
Individuals providing violence interruption services are known as violence interrupters.
” Lots of “ violence interrupters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other such individuals who have “ street cred.
” I ’ m guessing this is what the “ defund the police ” people have in mind as an alternative to Officer Murphy on the beat .
Well , if so it ’ s not working very well : A violence interrupter with the D.C. Attorney General ’ s Office is charged in a 2017 homicide , the Metropolitan Police Department said .
.
.
Police executing a D.C. Superior Court warrant arrested 39-year-old Cotey Wynn of Southeast D.C. Friday , D.C. police said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while armed .
Wynn was under Pretrial Services Agency ’ s supervision when he was arrested , police said .
[ In other words , he was out on no-bail for some previous offense . ]
His arrest history includes felony murder , first-degree murder , possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine and distribution of a controlled substance .
Wynn is an employee and violence interrupter with the attorney general ’ s Cure the Streets program .
Sounds like Wynn ’ s experience made him the model employee for the program !
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ up to a new application of the “ it takes a thief ” theory .
• We ’ re always pleased when we ’ re ahead of the major media on a story , so our item the other day on how colleges and universities are shrinking employment , closing down whole departments , and—gasp !
—terminating tenured faculty finds its echo today in the Wall Street Journal .
But the Journal story goes further then I did in suggesting that the ancient structure of university governance ( basically , the inmates run @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an end : Hit by Covid-19 , Colleges Do the Unthinkable and Cut Tenure … Schools employed about 150,000 fewer workers in September than they did a year earlier , before the pandemic , according to the Labor Department .
That is a decline of nearly 10 % .
Along the way , they are changing the centuries-old higher education power structure .
The changes upset the “ shared governance ” model for running universities that has roots in Medieval Europe .
It holds that a board of trustees has final say on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ delegates academic issues to administrators and faculty who share power .
.
.
Except for an elite tier of top schools , colleges and universities across the nation have been dogged by falling enrollment for several years .
Presidents say their efforts to downsize their institutions in light of falling revenue have been hamstrung by faculty who refuse to sign off on cuts to academic programs with few students and professors with light course loads .
Faculty say they are trying to preserve academic excellence while maintaining the educational mission and liberal arts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contend that resources are wasted by administrators whose ranks have increased at faster rates than professors .
[ Analysis : True ! ]
This year , the pandemic accelerated financial problems as well as tensions between administrators and faculty .
Fall enrollment for freshman and international students fell 16 % and 43 % , respectively , according to the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center and a survey of 700 schools conducted by 10 higher education associations .
Chaser : in the latest podcast , Lucretia and I discuss how online school is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , especially the ones liberals say they care the most about , and why this would likely have long-lasting ill effects .
The Washington Post agrees : Thank your local teachers union for this state of affairs .
• Art Carden of the very excellent American Institute for Economic Research put together this fine five-minute recollection of Walter Williams .
Worth your time :

There are a bunch of stray stories and curious data points right now that deserve brief notice here.
• What in the world is a “violence interrupter”? If you thought that might be a euphemism for a law enforcement officer—or maybe a prison guard—you’d be wrong. Here’s what Wikipedia says it is: “Violence interruption is a community-based approach to reducing communal and interpersonal violence that treats violence as a public health problem. Individuals providing violence interruption services are known as violence interrupters.”
Lots of “violence interrupters” appear to be ex-gang members and other such individuals who have “street cred.” I’m guessing this is what the “defund the police” people have in mind as an alternative to Officer Murphy on the beat. Well, if so it’s not working very well:
DC Violence Interrupter Charged in 2017 Homicide A violence interrupter with the D.C. Attorney General’s Office is charged in a 2017 homicide, the Metropolitan Police Department said. . . Police executing a D.C. Superior Court warrant arrested 39-year-old Cotey Wynn of Southeast D.C. Friday, D.C. police said. He is charged with second-degree murder while armed. Wynn was under Pretrial Services Agency’s supervision when he was arrested, police said. [In other words, he was out on no-bail for some previous offense.] His arrest history includes felony murder, first-degree murder, possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine and distribution of a controlled substance. Wynn is an employee and violence interrupter with the attorney general’s Cure the Streets program.
Sounds like Wynn’s experience made him the model employee for the program! Or maybe you can just chalk this up to a new application of the “it takes a thief” theory.
• We’re always pleased when we’re ahead of the major media on a story, so our item the other day on how colleges and universities are shrinking employment, closing down whole departments, and—gasp!—terminating tenured faculty finds its echo today in the Wall Street Journal. But the Journal story goes further then I did in suggesting that the ancient structure of university governance (basically, the inmates run the asylum) may be coming to an end:
Hit by Covid-19, Colleges Do the Unthinkable and Cut Tenure … Schools employed about 150,000 fewer workers in September than they did a year earlier, before the pandemic, according to the Labor Department. That is a decline of nearly 10%. Along the way, they are changing the centuries-old higher education power structure. The changes upset the “shared governance” model for running universities that has roots in Medieval Europe. It holds that a board of trustees has final say on how a school is run but largely delegates academic issues to administrators and faculty who share power. . . Except for an elite tier of top schools, colleges and universities across the nation have been dogged by falling enrollment for several years. Presidents say their efforts to downsize their institutions in light of falling revenue have been hamstrung by faculty who refuse to sign off on cuts to academic programs with few students and professors with light course loads. Faculty say they are trying to preserve academic excellence while maintaining the educational mission and liberal arts core of their institutions. Faculty also contend that resources are wasted by administrators whose ranks have increased at faster rates than professors. [Analysis: True!] This year, the pandemic accelerated financial problems as well as tensions between administrators and faculty. Fall enrollment for freshman and international students fell 16% and 43%, respectively, according to the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center and a survey of 700 schools conducted by 10 higher education associations.
Chaser: in the latest podcast, Lucretia and I discuss how online school is not working for a lot of K-12 students, especially the ones liberals say they care the most about, and why this would likely have long-lasting ill effects. The Washington Post agrees:
‘A lost generation’: Surge of research reveals students sliding backward, most vulnerable worst affected After the U.S. education system fractured into Zoom screens last spring, experts feared millions of children would fall behind. Hard evidence now shows they were right. A flood of new data — on the national, state and district levels — finds students began this academic year behind. Most of the research concludes students of color and those in high-poverty communities fell further behind their peers, exacerbating long-standing gaps in American education.
A study being released this week by McKinsey & Co. estimates that the shift to remote school in the spring set White students back by one to three months in math, while students of color lost three to five months. As the coronavirus pandemic persists through this academic year, McKinsey said, losses will escalate.
Thank your local teachers union for this state of affairs.
• Art Carden of the very excellent American Institute for Economic Research put together this fine five-minute recollection of Walter Williams. Worth your time:


powerlineblog--2020-12-07--The return of the “yid army”

The return of the “yid army”

As I discussed here , this weekend fans returned in small numbers ( 2,000 ) to some English Premier League soccer matches .
Tottenham Hotspur was among the EPL teams to welcome fans .
And what a welcome !
Spurs defeated their hated rival Arsenal 2-0 in the North London Derby .
Spurs are heavily supported by London Jews .
They always have been , to the point that many Spurs fans call themselves the “ Yid Army.
” And , sure enough , within minutes of fans being seated , the chant of “ Yid Army ” rang through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scolds only a little more time to react .
Jonathan Goldstein , chairman of something called the Jewish Leadership Council , said this : In light of the Black Lives Matter movement — which has created a benchmark by which race issues are addressed within sport — and in the light of the adoption of the [ International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance ’ s ] definition [ of anti-Semitism ] , you can not think of a better time for Spurs to be able to turn to their fans and say : ‘ We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ using this word.
’ In light of the Black Lives Matter movement , I can ’ t think of a better time to respond : “ f*** off ” to the sort of hyper-sensitivity Goldstein is advocating .
There ’ s no reason for Jews to mimic whiny members of other minority groups .
As explained in this article in The Athletic : Tottenham fans chose to use the word [ yid ] themselves , about themselves , they did so to make it their own and , the theory went , to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It was about pride in Spurs ’ Jewish heritage but also disarming the antisemitism they faced at grounds around the country .
Spurs fans speak of the empowering feeling of using it as the ultimate riposte to abuse .
This is their right .
The death of George Floyd and the rise of a movement around it has no bearing on how Spurs fans want to respond to anti-Semitism or how they should brand themselves .
Fortunately , it appears that Spurs owner Daniel Levy has no immediate plans to reconsider the club @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” word .
The first name is the same , but apparently Levy is no Daniel Snyder .

As I discussed here, this weekend fans returned in small numbers (2,000) to some English Premier League soccer matches. Tottenham Hotspur was among the EPL teams to welcome fans. And what a welcome! Spurs defeated their hated rival Arsenal 2-0 in the North London Derby.
Spurs are heavily supported by London Jews. They always have been, to the point that many Spurs fans call themselves the “Yid Army.”
And, sure enough, within minutes of fans being seated, the chant of “Yid Army” rang through Tottenham Hotspur Stadium.
It took the scolds only a little more time to react. Jonathan Goldstein, chairman of something called the Jewish Leadership Council, said this:
In light of the Black Lives Matter movement — which has created a benchmark by which race issues are addressed within sport — and in the light of the adoption of the [International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s] definition [of anti-Semitism], you cannot think of a better time for Spurs to be able to turn to their fans and say: ‘We think it is now time to stop using this word.’
In light of the Black Lives Matter movement, I can’t think of a better time to respond: “f*** off” to the sort of hyper-sensitivity Goldstein is advocating. There’s no reason for Jews to mimic whiny members of other minority groups.
As explained in this article in The Athletic:
Tottenham fans chose to use the word [yid] themselves, about themselves, they did so to make it their own and, the theory went, to rob it of its hateful force. It was about pride in Spurs’ Jewish heritage but also disarming the antisemitism they faced at grounds around the country. Spurs fans speak of the empowering feeling of using it as the ultimate riposte to abuse.
This is their right. The death of George Floyd and the rise of a movement around it has no bearing on how Spurs fans want to respond to anti-Semitism or how they should brand themselves.
Fortunately, it appears that Spurs owner Daniel Levy has no immediate plans to reconsider the club’s stance on the “Y” word. The first name is the same, but apparently Levy is no Daniel Snyder.


powerlineblog--2020-12-07--One “permanent revolution” deserves another

There ’ s a cottage industry of liberal analysts who write about the alleged descent of conservatism and/or the Republican Party .
Typically , these commentators yearn for the days when “ responsible ” conservatives like Dwight Eisenhower , or Mitt Romney , or ( in some cases ) even Ronald Reagan were the face of the Republican Party .
We are expected to overlook the fact that these figures were viciously attacked by liberals in their time .
I ’ m not aware of any corresponding tendency among conservative scholars or pundits .
Many of us regret the Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of John Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey .
However , we don ’ t obsess over , or try to analyze , it .
We take the Democrats as we find them and , to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld , we go to war ( figuratively in this case ) against the opposition we have .
The latest example of a liberal critique of Republicans appeared in Sunday ’ s Washington Post .
The author is Geoffrey Kabaservice of the Niskanen Center .
He has written a book called “ Rule and Ruin : The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Republican Party , from Eisenhower to the Tea Party.
” As you can tell from that title , and as Kabaservice says at the beginning of the article , he wrote much of the book before the rise of Donald Trump .
But Trump fits his thesis of “ downfall and destruction ” as , undoubtedly , will the next wave of Republican leaders .
Perhaps Kabaservice should have produced his book in loose leaf notebook form .
The title of Kabaservice ’ s article in the Post is “ The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with the Tea Party and Trump , conservatism “ has reached the point that it is .
.
.an endless , all-encompassing .
.
.struggle against established authority .
.
.
” He argues that “ the tea party-Trump tribe .
.
.has no fixed principles other than smashing a nebulous ‘ deep state , ’ forcing all institutions of society to bend to its will , and waging never-ending war against the Democrats.
” Kabaservice ignores obvious “ fixed principles ” of Trump ’ s brand of conservatism .
They include @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are considered unnecessary and oppressive ; to cut , or at least control , non-defense spending ; to lower taxes ; to sharply curtail , if not eliminate , illegal immigration ; to improve America ’ s trade deals ; to appoint judges who are reasonably wedded to the Constitution as written and originally understood ; and to disengage from foreign wars .
Kabaservice also ignores the extent to which conservatives are reacting to the downfall of moderation in the Democratic Party .
This is a common failing of liberals who undertake to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ liberal consensus is a fixed concept that roughly corresponds to the way things ought to be .
In this telling , conservatives are restless revolutionaries , right-wing Trotskyites , bent on attacking and , if possible , destroying “ established authority ” ( to use Kabaservice ’ s term ) .
In reality , conservatives to a considerable extent are reacting to a rapidly evolving opposition .
At the heart of Trumpism is resentment over two malignant growths in liberalism — political correctness and identity politics .
Conservatives ( and not just Trumpists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of these tendencies , left-liberals answer to Kabaservice ’ s description of the so-called Tea Party-Trump “ tribe.
” Left-liberals are engaged in an endless , all-encompassing struggle — a “ permanent revolution ” — to remake existing institutions and bend them to their will .
They have marched through America ’ s colleges and universities , bending them to the absurd demands of wokeness and America bashing .
They are working their way through corporate American .
They are “ reimagining ” policing and trying to curtail religious freedom .
Trumpism is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to what Kabaservice acknowledges are “ the real problems of non-college-educated Americans in rural regions and postindustrial towns , communities that have been destroyed by job losses , family dysfunction , and epidemics of drug and alcohol addiction.
” Kabaservice doesn ’ t explain why these problems shouldn ’ t give rise to major grievances against “ the established order ” and a political movement that articulates these grievances .
Instead , he complains that the Tea Party and the Trumpists were/are “ rooted in fact-free conspiracy theories about the treachery of Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the livelihoods and traditions of ‘ real Americans ’ for their own benefit.
” There are some in these movements who allege an outright conspiracy .
But no conspiracy theory is required to press the movements ’ essential grievance .
Mass illegal immigration benefits one class of Americans ( upscale consumers ) and harms another class ( workers who must compete with cheap labor ) .
Certain trade deals help many consumers at the expense of many who work in manufacturing .
There ’ s nothing abnormal about one political faction siding with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of public policies , while another faction sides with the beneficiaries of the same policies .
In fact , that ’ s roughly the story ( or at least one story ) of American political history .
Kabaservice concludes that , as a matter of political realism , the Republican Party can not carry on forever as advocates for “ a permanent revolution.
” But it can do so as long as its opponents are carrying out a revolution of their own , or are widely perceived as doing so .
As I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the opposition one has .

There’s a cottage industry of liberal analysts who write about the alleged descent of conservatism and/or the Republican Party. Typically, these commentators yearn for the days when “responsible” conservatives like Dwight Eisenhower, or Mitt Romney, or (in some cases) even Ronald Reagan were the face of the Republican Party. We are expected to overlook the fact that these figures were viciously attacked by liberals in their time.
I’m not aware of any corresponding tendency among conservative scholars or pundits. Many of us regret the Democratic Party’s rejection of the liberalism of John Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey. However, we don’t obsess over, or try to analyze, it.
We take the Democrats as we find them and, to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, we go to war (figuratively in this case) against the opposition we have.
The latest example of a liberal critique of Republicans appeared in Sunday’s Washington Post. The author is Geoffrey Kabaservice of the Niskanen Center. He has written a book called “Rule and Ruin: The Downfall of the Moderation and the Destruction of the Republican Party, from Eisenhower to the Tea Party.”
As you can tell from that title, and as Kabaservice says at the beginning of the article, he wrote much of the book before the rise of Donald Trump. But Trump fits his thesis of “downfall and destruction” as, undoubtedly, will the next wave of Republican leaders. Perhaps Kabaservice should have produced his book in loose leaf notebook form.
The title of Kabaservice’s article in the Post is “The forever grievance.” The theme is that, with the Tea Party and Trump, conservatism “has reached the point that it is. . .an endless, all-encompassing. . .struggle against established authority. . .” He argues that “the tea party-Trump tribe. . .has no fixed principles other than smashing a nebulous ‘deep state,’ forcing all institutions of society to bend to its will, and waging never-ending war against the Democrats.”
Kabaservice ignores obvious “fixed principles” of Trump’s brand of conservatism. They include the desire to eliminate government regulations that are considered unnecessary and oppressive; to cut, or at least control, non-defense spending; to lower taxes; to sharply curtail, if not eliminate, illegal immigration; to improve America’s trade deals; to appoint judges who are reasonably wedded to the Constitution as written and originally understood; and to disengage from foreign wars.
Kabaservice also ignores the extent to which conservatives are reacting to the downfall of moderation in the Democratic Party. This is a common failing of liberals who undertake to analyze conservatives. They assume that the liberal consensus is a fixed concept that roughly corresponds to the way things ought to be. In this telling, conservatives are restless revolutionaries, right-wing Trotskyites, bent on attacking and, if possible, destroying “established authority” (to use Kabaservice’s term).
In reality, conservatives to a considerable extent are reacting to a rapidly evolving opposition. At the heart of Trumpism is resentment over two malignant growths in liberalism — political correctness and identity politics. Conservatives (and not just Trumpists) believe that, with the ascent of these tendencies, left-liberals answer to Kabaservice’s description of the so-called Tea Party-Trump “tribe.”
Left-liberals are engaged in an endless, all-encompassing struggle — a “permanent revolution” — to remake existing institutions and bend them to their will. They have marched through America’s colleges and universities, bending them to the absurd demands of wokeness and America bashing. They are working their way through corporate American. They are “reimagining” policing and trying to curtail religious freedom.
Trumpism is also, in part, a reaction to what Kabaservice acknowledges are “the real problems of non-college-educated Americans in rural regions and postindustrial towns, communities that have been destroyed by job losses, family dysfunction, and epidemics of drug and alcohol addiction.” Kabaservice doesn’t explain why these problems shouldn’t give rise to major grievances against “the established order” and a political movement that articulates these grievances.
Instead, he complains that the Tea Party and the Trumpists were/are “rooted in fact-free conspiracy theories about the treachery of Democrats and elites who allegedly plotted to destroy the livelihoods and traditions of ‘real Americans’ for their own benefit.”
There are some in these movements who allege an outright conspiracy. But no conspiracy theory is required to press the movements’ essential grievance. Mass illegal immigration benefits one class of Americans (upscale consumers) and harms another class (workers who must compete with cheap labor). Certain trade deals help many consumers at the expense of many who work in manufacturing.
There’s nothing abnormal about one political faction siding with a class aggrieved economically by a set of public policies, while another faction sides with the beneficiaries of the same policies. In fact, that’s roughly the story (or at least one story) of American political history.
Kabaservice concludes that, as a matter of political realism, the Republican Party cannot carry on forever as advocates for “a permanent revolution.” But it can do so as long as its opponents are carrying out a revolution of their own, or are widely perceived as doing so.
As I said, one goes to war against the opposition one has.


Loeffler versus Warnock

If you read mainstream media accounts of last night ’ s the debate between Kelly Loeffler and Raphael Warnock , such as this one from the AP , you will get the impression that Loeffler flunked the catechism test .
The catechism in issue recites the victory of Joe Biden over President Trump in the election .
Loeffler declined to recite it and stood her ground .
It is harder to ferret out from the media reports how Loeffler may have edged Warnock .
Alana Goodman helps out in the Washington Free Beacon story “ Warnock Silent on Court Packing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : “ GOP ’ s Loeffler blasts ‘ radical liberal ’ Raphael Warnock.
” Mainstream media reports to the contrary notwithstanding , I think Loeffler had the better of it in this close encounter with the gentleman who faithfully represents the true face of the Democratic Party today .
You can judge for yourself ( video below ) .
The catechistic question is posed to Loeffler at the top of the show by the Atlanta Journal Constitution reporter Greg Bluestein and by Warnock himself during the debate .
By contrast with Loeffler , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his scheduled debate with Pajama Boy Jon Ossoff .
Perdue must calculate that few voters watch these events , that they are unfailingly “ rigged ” to favor the Democratic candidate ( to borrow from the catechistic question posed by Bluestein ) , that the risks therefore outweigh the benefits , or that Warnock will drag Ossoff down with him .
Whatever , I assess it a miscalculation .

If you read mainstream media accounts of last night’s the debate between Kelly Loeffler and Raphael Warnock, such as this one from the AP, you will get the impression that Loeffler flunked the catechism test. The catechism in issue recites the victory of Joe Biden over President Trump in the election. Loeffler declined to recite it and stood her ground.
It is harder to ferret out from the media reports how Loeffler may have edged Warnock. Alana Goodman helps out in the Washington Free Beacon story “Warnock Silent on Court Packing, Marxism in Heated Debate.” Subhead: “GOP’s Loeffler blasts ‘radical liberal’ Raphael Warnock.”
Mainstream media reports to the contrary notwithstanding, I think Loeffler had the better of it in this close encounter with the gentleman who faithfully represents the true face of the Democratic Party today. You can judge for yourself (video below). The catechistic question is posed to Loeffler at the top of the show by the Atlanta Journal Constitution reporter Greg Bluestein and by Warnock himself during the debate.
By contrast with Loeffler, Senator Perdue was a no-show yesterday in his scheduled debate with Pajama Boy Jon Ossoff. Perdue must calculate that few voters watch these events, that they are unfailingly “rigged” to favor the Democratic candidate (to borrow from the catechistic question posed by Bluestein), that the risks therefore outweigh the benefits, or that Warnock will drag Ossoff down with him. Whatever, I assess it a miscalculation.


Ambassador Coons?

Sen. Chris Coons hoped to become Secretary of State in the Biden administration .
Instead , his old boss has given him a far less appealing job — “ ambassador ” to Senate Republicans .
Politico has the story .
It notes that Coons “ has spent a decade developing relationships with Senate Republicans across the spectrum.
” “ Those partnerships , ” it says , “ will be more important than ever as Biden faces the real possibility of at least two years of a GOP Senate majority and a Republican Party still led by an antagonistic former President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nice guy .
More importantly , he has access to Biden , which makes him someone with whom Republicans can talk when they want to know where the president stands .
But Senate Republicans need to keep in mind that Coons is not their friend .
He ’ s an unreconstructed leftist .
His rating from the American Conservative Union for the 115th Congress was below 10 percent .
This put him in the ACU ’ s “ coalition of the radical left.
” Senate Republicans should also remember that Coons is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stops to promote the groundless accusation that Brett Kavanaugh , his law school friend , committed rape .
It was Coons who brought baseless , politically motivated claims of sexual misconduct to the FBI ’ s attention .
It was Coons who persuaded Sen. Jeff Flake to pressure Republican leadership into stopping the confirmation process while the bogus claims were investigated .
It was Coons who claimed , absurdly , that the burden of proof was on Kavanaugh to prove that allegations never raised for many decades were false .
And Coons , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dems , voted against confirming Kavanaugh even after the FBI found no merit in the allegations against Kavanaugh .
Coons viewed Flake as the functional equivalent of John McCain , with whom Biden used to work .
Flake was happy to serve in that capacity and Coons was eager to cast him in the role — even though it meant that Coons ’ old friend endured a degrading public trial on the worst kind of slanderous accusations .
Flake is no longer in the Senate .
However , McCain ’ s old amigo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , immediately after the election several GOP senators , including Graham , privately called Coons to let him know they needed to work together .
Graham says : Of course Coons has the confidence of Biden .
Why wouldn ’ t he ?
He ’ s a party loyalist who has carried gallons of water for Biden .
But Coons shouldn ’ t have the confidence of any Republican Senator .
They should view him not as an ambassador .
That ’ s too honorable .
They should view him ( in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Biden ’ s access lobbyist .

Sen. Chris Coons hoped to become Secretary of State in the Biden administration. Instead, his old boss has given him a far less appealing job — “ambassador” to Senate Republicans.
Politico has the story. It notes that Coons “has spent a decade developing relationships with Senate Republicans across the spectrum.” “Those partnerships,” it says, “will be more important than ever as Biden faces the real possibility of at least two years of a GOP Senate majority and a Republican Party still led by an antagonistic former President Donald Trump.”
Coons might be a nice guy. More importantly, he has access to Biden, which makes him someone with whom Republicans can talk when they want to know where the president stands.
But Senate Republicans need to keep in mind that Coons is not their friend. He’s an unreconstructed leftist. His rating from the American Conservative Union for the 115th Congress was below 10 percent. This put him in the ACU’s “coalition of the radical left.”
Senate Republicans should also remember that Coons is a snake. He pulled out all the stops to promote the groundless accusation that Brett Kavanaugh, his law school friend, committed rape.
It was Coons who brought baseless, politically motivated claims of sexual misconduct to the FBI’s attention. It was Coons who persuaded Sen. Jeff Flake to pressure Republican leadership into stopping the confirmation process while the bogus claims were investigated.
It was Coons who claimed, absurdly, that the burden of proof was on Kavanaugh to prove that allegations never raised for many decades were false. And Coons, in lock step with all other Senate Dems, voted against confirming Kavanaugh even after the FBI found no merit in the allegations against Kavanaugh.
Coons viewed Flake as the functional equivalent of John McCain, with whom Biden used to work. Flake was happy to serve in that capacity and Coons was eager to cast him in the role — even though it meant that Coons’ old friend endured a degrading public trial on the worst kind of slanderous accusations.
Flake is no longer in the Senate. However, McCain’s old amigo Lindsey Graham is.
According to Politico, immediately after the election several GOP senators, including Graham, privately called Coons to let him know they needed to work together. Graham says:
[Coons] is going to be one of the most influential people in the Senate, because of his relationship with [Biden] and his relationship with his colleagues. He’s in a very pivotal role. He tries to do deals, he has the confidence of Biden.
Of course Coons has the confidence of Biden. Why wouldn’t he? He’s a party loyalist who has carried gallons of water for Biden.
But Coons shouldn’t have the confidence of any Republican Senator. They should view him not as an ambassador. That’s too honorable. They should view him (in the words of one of my friends) as Biden’s access lobbyist.


powerlineblog--2020-12-08--The Teachers’ Unions Are Evil

The Teachers’ Unions Are Evil

I won ’ t say that those who run America ’ s teachers ’ unions hate children .
I will only say that they act as though they hate children .
The teachers ’ unions are the number one obstacle to education reform , by far .
They stand in the way of school choice , school safety , and virtually any attempt to improve teacher quality or reform schools in any way .
They feed off of , and promote , incompetence and lack of accountability .
No one harms America ’ s youth as much as the teachers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The latest case in point is the unions ’ insistence that our schools remain closed down , even though 1 ) scientific opinion is unanimous that schools pose little Covid risk , 2 ) schools in Europe are open , and the CDC says that our schools should re-open as well , and 3 ) our students and their parents are suffering horribly as a result of this year ’ s ongoing school closures .
Many students , especially low-income minorities , have lost a year of education and likely will never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the teachers ’ unions , schools will not reopen any time soon , and the damage to an entire generation will be incalculable .
That is the context in which the Chicago Teachers Union tweeted this astonishingly stupid claim : Many local teachers ’ unions are run by left-wing extremists , which largely explains why our children are being indoctrinated in leftism .
But this particular claim is stupid almost beyond belief .
The data unequivocally show that minority students , specifically blacks , have suffered the most from the unions ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percentage of low-income minority students have abandoned education altogether as a result of those shutdowns , and of those who , at least , are participating , a great many are doing poorly .
Thus , for instance , 40 % of all grades in the St. Paul , Minnesota public schools are Fs .
And those are the kids who showed up to take the tests .
“ Distance learning ” is a bad joke .
So how on earth is it “ racist ” to want to allow minority kids back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time when avowed racists , prominent Democratic Party politicians , barred black kids from entering schools .
Now that role is being played by the teachers ’ unions .
The union ’ s “ sexism ” claim is mystifying .
Girls generally do better in school than boys , and undoubtedly more girls than boys would welcome a return to the classroom .
The union ’ s references to “ sexism ” and “ misogyny ” appear to be unconscious reflexes like that of Dr. Strangelove , whose arm can ’ t resist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ teacher ’ s union tweet was so obviously dumb that the union had to delete it .
But make no mistake : America ’ s teachers ’ unions are a force for evil .
They are incredibly left-wing , and they willingly sacrifice the interests of students to those of fat cat union bosses and Democratic Party politicians at every opportunity , as the current shutdowns exemplify .
Public sector unions only recently became legal , and in my opinion , that was a mistake .
But of all the government unions , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the most destructive .

I won’t say that those who run America’s teachers’ unions hate children. I will only say that they act as though they hate children. The teachers’ unions are the number one obstacle to education reform, by far. They stand in the way of school choice, school safety, and virtually any attempt to improve teacher quality or reform schools in any way. They feed off of, and promote, incompetence and lack of accountability. No one harms America’s youth as much as the teachers’ unions, not even drug dealers.
The latest case in point is the unions’ insistence that our schools remain closed down, even though 1) scientific opinion is unanimous that schools pose little Covid risk, 2) schools in Europe are open, and the CDC says that our schools should re-open as well, and 3) our students and their parents are suffering horribly as a result of this year’s ongoing school closures. Many students, especially low-income minorities, have lost a year of education and likely will never catch up. If it is up to the teachers’ unions, schools will not reopen any time soon, and the damage to an entire generation will be incalculable.
That is the context in which the Chicago Teachers Union tweeted this astonishingly stupid claim:
Many local teachers’ unions are run by left-wing extremists, which largely explains why our children are being indoctrinated in leftism. But this particular claim is stupid almost beyond belief. The data unequivocally show that minority students, specifically blacks, have suffered the most from the unions’ shutdowns. In fact, a large percentage of low-income minority students have abandoned education altogether as a result of those shutdowns, and of those who, at least, are participating, a great many are doing poorly. Thus, for instance, 40% of all grades in the St. Paul, Minnesota public schools are Fs. And those are the kids who showed up to take the tests. “Distance learning” is a bad joke.
So how on earth is it “racist” to want to allow minority kids back in the classroom? There was a time when avowed racists, prominent Democratic Party politicians, barred black kids from entering schools. Now that role is being played by the teachers’ unions.
The union’s “sexism” claim is mystifying. Girls generally do better in school than boys, and undoubtedly more girls than boys would welcome a return to the classroom. The union’s references to “sexism” and “misogyny” appear to be unconscious reflexes like that of Dr. Strangelove, whose arm can’t resist periodically giving a Nazi salute.
This teacher’s union tweet was so obviously dumb that the union had to delete it. But make no mistake: America’s teachers’ unions are a force for evil. They are incredibly left-wing, and they willingly sacrifice the interests of students to those of fat cat union bosses and Democratic Party politicians at every opportunity, as the current shutdowns exemplify.
Public sector unions only recently became legal, and in my opinion, that was a mistake. But of all the government unions, the teachers’ unions are by far the most destructive.


powerlineblog--2020-12-08--Texas Throws a Hail Mary

Texas Throws a Hail Mary

Yesterday the State of Texas filed pleadings in the U.S. Supreme Court alleging that the electoral processes followed by Pennsylvania , Georgia , Michigan and Wisconsin in this year ’ s election were unconstitutional and the results in those states should be negated .
Because this is a lawsuit between states , the Supreme Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction .
Texas ’ s pleadings are embedded below .
The Texas motion and supporting brief are well-drafted and make a plausible case–importantly , one that , if accepted , does not require extensive fact-finding into alleged voter fraud .
Reduced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 ) that under the Constitution ’ s Electors Clause , state legislatures have plenary authority over appointment of each state ’ s electors ; 2 ) that in each of the defendant states , non-legislative actors ( e.g.
, the Secretary of State ) unconstitutionally changed the rules governing this year ’ s election without legislative approval or ratification ; 3 ) that these changes favored some voters over others , in violation of the Equal Protection Clause ; and 4 ) in each state , the number of ballots that were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ procedures exceeds the margin of Joe Biden ’ s alleged victory .
So far , so good .
What does Texas want the Supreme Court to do ?
A .
Declare that Defendant States Pennsylvania , Georgia , Michigan , and Wisconsin administered the 2020 presidential election in violation of the Electors Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution .
B .
Declare that any electoral college votes cast by such presidential electors appointed in Defendant States Pennsylvania , Georgia , Michigan , and Wisconsin are in violation of the Electors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. Constitution and can not be counted .
C. Enjoin Defendant States ’ use of the 2020 election results for the Office of President to appoint presidential electors to the Electoral College .
D. Enjoin Defendant States ’ use of the 2020 election results for the Office of President to appoint presidential electors to the Electoral College and authorize , pursuant to the Court ’ s remedial authority , the Defendant States to conduct a special election to appoint presidential electors .
E. If any of Defendant States have already appointed presidential electors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election results , direct such States ’ legislatures , pursuant to 3 U.S.C .
§ 2 and U.S. CONST .
art .
II , § 1 , cl .
2 , to appoint a new set of presidential electors in a manner that does not violate the Electors Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment , or to appoint no presidential electors at all .
F. Enjoin the Defendant States from certifying presidential electors or otherwise meeting for purposes of the electoral college pursuant to 3 U.S.C .
§ 5 , 3 U.S.C .
§ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ order of this Court .
Texas argues that there is time for the Court to act : None of the looming election deadlines are constitutional , and they all are within this Court ’ s power to enjoin .
Indeed , if this Court vacated a State ’ s appointment of presidential electors , those electors could not vote on December 14 , 2020 ; if the Court vacated their vote after the fact , the House of Representatives could not count those votes on January 6 , 2021 .
Moreover , any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ January 6 , 2020 .
Indeed , even the swearing in of the next President on January 20 , 2021 , will not moot this case because review could outlast even the selection of the next President… .
Based on a quick review , Texas ’ s lawsuit strikes me as plausible from a legal standpoint .
It avoids the morass of fact-finding on numerous claims of fraud and irregularity ( although there are considerable allegations along these lines in the pleadings ) that can not possibly be carried out by any court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a workable time frame .
Does that mean the case will succeed ?
No .
It may very well be subject to legal infirmities that the defendant states will soon point out .
And the likelihood that the Supreme Court will seriously entertain the idea of overturning the apparent result of the election is far-fetched .
Still , Texas ’ s lawsuit represents the most credible and practical challenge to Joe Biden ’ s tainted victory that I have seen .

Yesterday the State of Texas filed pleadings in the U.S. Supreme Court alleging that the electoral processes followed by Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin in this year’s election were unconstitutional and the results in those states should be negated. Because this is a lawsuit between states, the Supreme Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction. Texas’s pleadings are embedded below.
The Texas motion and supporting brief are well-drafted and make a plausible case–importantly, one that, if accepted, does not require extensive fact-finding into alleged voter fraud. Reduced to its essentials, the motion alleges 1) that under the Constitution’s Electors Clause, state legislatures have plenary authority over appointment of each state’s electors; 2) that in each of the defendant states, non-legislative actors (e.g., the Secretary of State) unconstitutionally changed the rules governing this year’s election without legislative approval or ratification; 3) that these changes favored some voters over others, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause; and 4) in each state, the number of ballots that were counted pursuant to unconstitutional changes in election procedures exceeds the margin of Joe Biden’s alleged victory.
So far, so good. What does Texas want the Supreme Court to do?
A. Declare that Defendant States Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin administered the 2020 presidential election in violation of the Electors Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. B. Declare that any electoral college votes cast by such presidential electors appointed in Defendant States Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin are in violation of the Electors Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and cannot be counted. C. Enjoin Defendant States’ use of the 2020 election results for the Office of President to appoint presidential electors to the Electoral College. D. Enjoin Defendant States’ use of the 2020 election results for the Office of President to appoint presidential electors to the Electoral College and authorize, pursuant to the Court’s remedial authority, the Defendant States to conduct a special election to appoint presidential electors. E. If any of Defendant States have already appointed presidential electors to the Electoral College using the 2020 election results, direct such States’ legislatures, pursuant to 3 U.S.C. § 2 and U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 2, to appoint a new set of presidential electors in a manner that does not violate the Electors Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment, or to appoint no presidential electors at all. F. Enjoin the Defendant States from certifying presidential electors or otherwise meeting for purposes of the electoral college pursuant to 3 U.S.C. § 5, 3 U.S.C. § 7, or applicable law pending further order of this Court.
Texas argues that there is time for the Court to act:
None of the looming election deadlines are constitutional, and they all are within this Court’s power to enjoin. Indeed, if this Court vacated a State’s appointment of presidential electors, those electors could not vote on December 14, 2020; if the Court vacated their vote after the fact, the House of Representatives could not count those votes on January 6, 2021. Moreover, any remedial action can be complete well before January 6, 2020. Indeed, even the swearing in of the next President on January 20, 2021, will not moot this case because review could outlast even the selection of the next President….
Based on a quick review, Texas’s lawsuit strikes me as plausible from a legal standpoint. It avoids the morass of fact-finding on numerous claims of fraud and irregularity (although there are considerable allegations along these lines in the pleadings) that cannot possibly be carried out by any court, let alone an appellate court, in a workable time frame. Does that mean the case will succeed? No. It may very well be subject to legal infirmities that the defendant states will soon point out. And the likelihood that the Supreme Court will seriously entertain the idea of overturning the apparent result of the election is far-fetched.
Still, Texas’s lawsuit represents the most credible and practical challenge to Joe Biden’s tainted victory that I have seen.


powerlineblog--2020-12-08--Biden’s pick to head DOD faces resistance from libs

Joe Biden reportedly has selected retired Army general Lloyd Austin to be Secretary of Defense .
Austin checks two important boxes for Biden .
He ’ s Black and Biden knows him .
However , the nomination puts left-liberals in a box .
U.S. law makes military officers ineligible to be defense secretary until they ’ ve been retired for seven years .
Austin has been retired for only four years .
Ordinarily , a law like this wouldn ’ t matter to Democrats .
After all , two retired generals — George C. Marshall and James Mattis — received @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to serve as Secretary Defense in spite of recent military service .
Why not a third ?
The problem is that some Democrats made a big show of opposing the Mattis nomination .
Seventeen Senate Dems did .
In the House , a whopping 150 Democrats did .
Their goal , I believe , was to strike a blow against President Trump — the same goal that caused Senate Dems to obstruct so many good Trump nominees .
Because Mattis ’ record was exemplary and , indeed , heroic , the only ground @ @ @ @ @ @ @ retired military officers heading the DOD so soon after retiring .
So Democrats seized on that .
Clearly , it would be hypocritical for these Democrats now to be okay with another recently retired general becoming Secretary of Defense .
On the other hand , hypocrisy is not known to bother Democrats and left-liberals .
What , then , has been the response to word of Austin ’ s nomination ?
The New York Times features an op-ed on the subject .
It states flatly that Austin should not be Secretary of Defense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ More importantly , three Democratic Senators — Jack Reed , Kristen Gillebrand , and Richard Blumenthal — already say they won ’ t support a waiver for Austin .
This doesn ’ t make it impossible for a waiver to be approved .
In theory , Republicans and Democrats could combine in sufficient numbers in both chambers of Congress to make a waiver happen .
I doubt , however , that Republicans will be inclined to do so .
If Biden chooses to create a predicament over Austin , I don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to charges of hypocrisy , Republicans can argue that the waivers for Marshall and Mattis were granted under special circumstances — Marshall during Korean War and Mattis during the war against ISIS ( don ’ t expect Republicans to argue that the Mattis case was special because Trump needed a steadying influence ) .
Or they can argue that two “ warrior ” DOD secretaries in such a short period of time would be too much .
Either argument would provide a fig leaf .
For what it ’ s worth , my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rule ” is best honored in the breach .
I see no reason why a former military officer should be ineligible to run the Defense Department for that long .
There is no such requirement for presidents , even though the president is commander-in-chief of the military .
Nor do we require Secretary of States to be out of the foreign service for seven years , even though that culture , and the personal ties it creates , can easily have undue influence on the thinking of a Secretary of State who marinated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be able to rely on the U.S. president to nominate a Secretary of Defense who will not , by virtue of ties to the military , jeopardize civilian rule .
After all , the president is the civilian who rules the most in our system .
He is not likely to nominate a Defense Secretary who will be a threat to the system .
And if a president does make that mistake , the Senate can refuse to confirm the nominee on those grounds .
The key questions in the case of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) is Austin a good candidate for the job and ( 2 ) whom will Biden select if he Austin is rejected .
It may be that the latter question is already influencing some of the opposition voiced to Austin .

Joe Biden reportedly has selected retired Army general Lloyd Austin to be Secretary of Defense. Austin checks two important boxes for Biden. He’s Black and Biden knows him.
However, the nomination puts left-liberals in a box. U.S. law makes military officers ineligible to be defense secretary until they’ve been retired for seven years. Austin has been retired for only four years.
Ordinarily, a law like this wouldn’t matter to Democrats. After all, two retired generals — George C. Marshall and James Mattis — received waivers from Congress and thus were able to serve as Secretary Defense in spite of recent military service. Why not a third?
The problem is that some Democrats made a big show of opposing the Mattis nomination. Seventeen Senate Dems did. In the House, a whopping 150 Democrats did.
Their goal, I believe, was to strike a blow against President Trump — the same goal that caused Senate Dems to obstruct so many good Trump nominees. Because Mattis’ record was exemplary and, indeed, heroic, the only ground for opposing him was the law against retired military officers heading the DOD so soon after retiring. So Democrats seized on that.
Clearly, it would be hypocritical for these Democrats now to be okay with another recently retired general becoming Secretary of Defense. On the other hand, hypocrisy is not known to bother Democrats and left-liberals.
What, then, has been the response to word of Austin’s nomination? The New York Times features an op-ed on the subject. It states flatly that Austin should not be Secretary of Defense due to his recent military service.
More importantly, three Democratic Senators — Jack Reed, Kristen Gillebrand, and Richard Blumenthal — already say they won’t support a waiver for Austin. [Correction: Reed and Gillebrand have said in the past they wouldn’t support future waivers, but haven’t said they won’t oppose one for Austin. However, Elizabeth Warren now says she won’t support this one.]
This doesn’t make it impossible for a waiver to be approved. In theory, Republicans and Democrats could combine in sufficient numbers in both chambers of Congress to make a waiver happen.
I doubt, however, that Republicans will be inclined to do so. If Biden chooses to create a predicament over Austin, I don’t see Republicans bailing him out.
As to charges of hypocrisy, Republicans can argue that the waivers for Marshall and Mattis were granted under special circumstances — Marshall during Korean War and Mattis during the war against ISIS (don’t expect Republicans to argue that the Mattis case was special because Trump needed a steadying influence). Or they can argue that two “warrior” DOD secretaries in such a short period of time would be too much. Either argument would provide a fig leaf.
For what it’s worth, my view is that the “seven year rule” is best honored in the breach. I see no reason why a former military officer should be ineligible to run the Defense Department for that long.
There is no such requirement for presidents, even though the president is commander-in-chief of the military. Nor do we require Secretary of States to be out of the foreign service for seven years, even though that culture, and the personal ties it creates, can easily have undue influence on the thinking of a Secretary of State who marinated in it.
Moreover, we should be able to rely on the U.S. president to nominate a Secretary of Defense who will not, by virtue of ties to the military, jeopardize civilian rule. After all, the president is the civilian who rules the most in our system. He is not likely to nominate a Defense Secretary who will be a threat to the system. And if a president does make that mistake, the Senate can refuse to confirm the nominee on those grounds.
The key questions in the case of the Austin nomination should be: (1) is Austin a good candidate for the job and (2) whom will Biden select if he Austin is rejected. It may be that the latter question is already influencing some of the opposition voiced to Austin.


powerlineblog--2020-12-08--Fact checking the GA “fact” “check”

Fact checking the GA “fact” “check”

We have followed the strange doings described by Jacki Pick before a Georgia Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last week in @ @ @ @ @ and here .
In the second and third of these posts I linked to a @ @ @ @ @ by Lead Stories .
The limitations of this “ fact check ” are to a @ @ @ @ @ face .
Mollie Hemingway has now delivered a devastating critique of the “ fact ” @ @ @ @ @ Federalist column “ No , The Georgia Vote-Counting Video Was Not ‘ Debunked.
’ Not @ @ @ @ @ this NOTE to her column : “ In a Kafka-esque twist , Facebook is now @ @ @ @ @ this story critical of Lead Stories.
” Her column concludes with a screenshot of the @ @ @ @ @ still there .
I took the screenshot below myself at the Federalist ’ s Facebook @ @ @ @

We have followed the strange doings described by Jacki Pick before a Georgia Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last week in posts here, here, and here. In the second and third of these posts I linked to a “fact check” performed by Lead Stories. The limitations of this “fact check” are to a significant extent apparent on its face.
Mollie Hemingway has now delivered a devastating critique of the “fact” “check” in the Federalist column “No, The Georgia Vote-Counting Video Was Not ‘Debunked.’ Not Even Close.” Hemingway appends this NOTE to her column: “In a Kafka-esque twist, Facebook is now using Lead Stories to censor this story critical of Lead Stories.” Her column concludes with a screenshot of the notice.
The notice is still there. I took the screenshot below myself at the Federalist’s Facebook page this morning.


powerlineblog--2020-12-08--Coronavirus in one state (135)

Coronavirus in one state (135)

Governor Walz is talking faster and faster about less and less .
Yesterday he appeared at the regularly scheduled press briefing with Minnesota Department of Health Commissioner Jan Malcolm and Infectious Disease Division Director Kris Ehresmann ( video below ) .
They announced a shift in the recommended quarantine guidelines consistent with last week ’ s revised CDC guidance .
Walz contributed approximately nothing to the discussion .
He loves to hear himself talk .
My impression from listening in yesterday is that we are on the other side of the current wave of the epidemic .
Fatalities reported over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 12/5 , 43 in long-term care facilities and other congregate care settings ) , 64 ( 12/6 , 38 LTC residents ) , and 21 ( 12/7 , 8 LTC residents ) .
As I understand their remarks , new cases also seem to have moderated .
Before declaring progress , however , they await the dreaded Thanksgiving effect on case numbers that they anticipate in the data this week .
Just to give you some idea of the typical age distribution of fatalities during every phase of the epidemic in Minnesota , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ data for one of the worst days reported in the past two weeks ( November 28 ) .
The data are provided alphabetically by county .
The median age of death has remained stuck at 83 since the start of this series .
At about 20:00 of the video below Walz paid tribute to South Korea ’ s success in suppressing the spread of the epidemic .
What did they do right and we do wrong ?
Walz didn ’ t say , but toward the end of his remarks he decried the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States .
President Trump apparently gets no credit for the “ light at the end of the tunnel ” that Walz and his crew otherwise tout .

Governor Walz is talking faster and faster about less and less. Yesterday he appeared at the regularly scheduled press briefing with Minnesota Department of Health Commissioner Jan Malcolm and Infectious Disease Division Director Kris Ehresmann (video below). They announced a shift in the recommended quarantine guidelines consistent with last week’s revised CDC guidance. Walz contributed approximately nothing to the discussion. He loves to hear himself talk.
My impression from listening in yesterday is that we are on the other side of the current wave of the epidemic. Fatalities reported over the past three days numbered 75 (12/5, 43 in long-term care facilities and other congregate care settings), 64 (12/6, 38 LTC residents), and 21 (12/7, 8 LTC residents). As I understand their remarks, new cases also seem to have moderated. Before declaring progress, however, they await the dreaded Thanksgiving effect on case numbers that they anticipate in the data this week.
Just to give you some idea of the typical age distribution of fatalities during every phase of the epidemic in Minnesota, I took a partial screenshot of the data for one of the worst days reported in the past two weeks (November 28). The data are provided alphabetically by county. The median age of death has remained stuck at 83 since the start of this series.
At about 20:00 of the video below Walz paid tribute to South Korea’s success in suppressing the spread of the epidemic. What did they do right and we do wrong? Walz didn’t say, but toward the end of his remarks he decried the absence of national leadership in the United States. President Trump apparently gets no credit for the “light at the end of the tunnel” that Walz and his crew otherwise tout.


powerlineblog--2020-12-09--MMT Gets a WWF-Style Smackdown

MMT Gets a WWF-Style Smackdown

The hottest thing among leftist political economists is “ Modern Monetary Theory ” ( MMT ) , which holds that a sovereign government can borrow and spend all the money it wants because it can ’ t actually default on its own currency .
This warmed-over Keynesianism wouldn ’ t get anywhere except in a time of unusually low interest rates and very low inflation .
One of the leading advocates of MMT is Stephanie Kelton of Stony Brook University , the author of The Deficit Myth : Modern Monetary Theory and the Birth of the People ’ s Economy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suspect anything called “ the people ’ s economy , ” just as every “ people ’ s republic ” of the last century has been a leftist dictatorship .
Funny how that always seems to happen when someone uses “ people ’ s ” in this fashion .
Kelton does for economics what Howard Zinn does for American history , and this parallel may not be coincidence .
MMT , like Keynesianism back in the New Deal era , is a convenient theory for politicians who want to spend lots of money @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I believe , both Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders , but it is not clear how much pull she has with Biden ’ s inner circle .
One question I ’ ve been wanting to ask an MMT advocate since the beginning is : if we can borrow all the money we want without limit and without consequence , why raise taxes on anyone , as Democrats always want to do ?
For that matter , why tax anyone at all , if you can borrow ( print ) all the money you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Journal of Economic Literature , a mainstream academic journal , has a scathing review of Kelton ’ s book by Alberto Bisin of New York University , whom I ’ ve never heard of before , but I note he earned his Ph.D from the University of Chicago , which is a promising sign .
He thinks Kelton ’ s book is mostly rhetoric and very little rigor .
Some samples : The book should be seen as a rhetorical exercise .
Indeed , it is the core of MMT that appears as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is interesting , but not a theory in any meaningful sense I can make of the word .
The T in MMT is more like a collection of interrelated statements floating in fluid arguments .
Never is its logical structure expressed in a direct , clear way , from head to toe .
.
.

The hottest thing among leftist political economists is “Modern Monetary Theory” (MMT), which holds that a sovereign government can borrow and spend all the money it wants because it can’t actually default on its own currency. This warmed-over Keynesianism wouldn’t get anywhere except in a time of unusually low interest rates and very low inflation.
One of the leading advocates of MMT is Stephanie Kelton of Stony Brook University, the author of The Deficit Myth: Modern Monetary Theory and the Birth of the People’s Economy. You’d be right to suspect anything called “the people’s economy,” just as every “people’s republic” of the last century has been a leftist dictatorship. Funny how that always seems to happen when someone uses “people’s” in this fashion. Kelton does for economics what Howard Zinn does for American history, and this parallel may not be coincidence.
MMT, like Keynesianism back in the New Deal era, is a convenient theory for politicians who want to spend lots of money. Kelton was an adviser to, I believe, both Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, but it is not clear how much pull she has with Biden’s inner circle. One question I’ve been wanting to ask an MMT advocate since the beginning is: if we can borrow all the money we want without limit and without consequence, why raise taxes on anyone, as Democrats always want to do? For that matter, why tax anyone at all, if you can borrow (print) all the money you want?
The latest issue of the Journal of Economic Literature, a mainstream academic journal, has a scathing review of Kelton’s book by Alberto Bisin of New York University, whom I’ve never heard of before, but I note he earned his Ph.D from the University of Chicago, which is a promising sign. He thinks Kelton’s book is mostly rhetoric and very little rigor. Some samples:
The book should be seen as a rhetorical exercise. Indeed, it is the core of MMT that appears as merely a rhetorical exercise. As such it is interesting, but not a theory in any meaningful sense I can make of the word. The T in MMT is more like a collection of interrelated statements floating in fluid arguments. Never is its logical structure expressed in a direct, clear way, from head to toe. . .


powerlineblog--2020-12-09--Blacks are wary of covid vaccine.  Why is that?

The Washington Post reports that African-Americans are less willing than Whites and Hispanics to be vaccinated against the Wuhan coronavirus .
It cites a Pew Research study finding that fewer than half of American Blacks express willingness to be vaccinated .
By contrast , 63 percent of Latinos and 61 percent Whites say they are agreeable to taking the vaccine .
Blacks are resisting the vaccine even though , according to the Post , they are nearly three times as likely as Whites to die from the coronavirus .
Community activists are desperately trying to overcome this resistance .
Why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vaccinated ?
The Post cites a “ trust gap.
” Many Blacks don ’ t trust the vaccine .
Apparently , they fear that the government is out to get them and that the vaccine will be a means of harming Blacks .
What is the source of this mistrust ?
According to the Post , some of it stems from the Tuskegee Study , in which federal health officials conducted a secret , abusive , and deadly experiment on Black men to study the progression of syphilis .
But the Tuskegee experiment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s absurd to suspect that something like this would be undertaken today , much less to believe it would be conducted in the midst of a pandemic in which Blacks can transmit a potentially deadly virus to Whites .
I doubt that the Tuskegee experiment is the main driver of the “ trust gap.
” More likely , the main driver is current claims that Whites are out to damage Blacks .
These claims come from radical Black preachers , for example .
Some tell parishioners that Whites are the devil .
Who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ devil ?
These types of claims also come from Black politicians like Trayon Martin , the D.C. council member who says Jews are manipulating the climate .
And , of course , radical Black preachers have the prestige that comes with being taken seriously , even today , by mainstream Black politicians like Barack Obama .
And what about BLM ?
One of its core claims is that , as a systemic matter , White police officers are out to kill Black men because of their race .
If you think the police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you not suspect that the public health service is too ?
To the extent that Blacks disproportionately are unwilling to be vaccinated due to not trusting “ Whitey , ” Black activists and other leftists are reaping what they have sown .

The Washington Post reports that African-Americans are less willing than Whites and Hispanics to be vaccinated against the Wuhan coronavirus. It cites a Pew Research study finding that fewer than half of American Blacks express willingness to be vaccinated. By contrast, 63 percent of Latinos and 61 percent Whites say they are agreeable to taking the vaccine.
Blacks are resisting the vaccine even though, according to the Post, they are nearly three times as likely as Whites to die from the coronavirus. Community activists are desperately trying to overcome this resistance.
Why are so many Blacks unwilling to be vaccinated? The Post cites a “trust gap.” Many Blacks don’t trust the vaccine. Apparently, they fear that the government is out to get them and that the vaccine will be a means of harming Blacks.
What is the source of this mistrust? According to the Post, some of it stems from the Tuskegee Study, in which federal health officials conducted a secret, abusive, and deadly experiment on Black men to study the progression of syphilis.
But the Tuskegee experiment occurred in the 1930s. It’s absurd to suspect that something like this would be undertaken today, much less to believe it would be conducted in the midst of a pandemic in which Blacks can transmit a potentially deadly virus to Whites.
I doubt that the Tuskegee experiment is the main driver of the “trust gap.” More likely, the main driver is current claims that Whites are out to damage Blacks.
These claims come from radical Black preachers, for example. Some tell parishioners that Whites are the devil. Who would take a vaccine promoted by the devil?
These types of claims also come from Black politicians like Trayon Martin, the D.C. council member who says Jews are manipulating the climate. And, of course, radical Black preachers have the prestige that comes with being taken seriously, even today, by mainstream Black politicians like Barack Obama.
And what about BLM? One of its core claims is that, as a systemic matter, White police officers are out to kill Black men because of their race.
If you think the police force is into genocide, why would you not suspect that the public health service is too?
To the extent that Blacks disproportionately are unwilling to be vaccinated due to not trusting “Whitey,” Black activists and other leftists are reaping what they have sown.


powerlineblog--2020-12-09--A Christmas Diversity Grinch

A Christmas Diversity Grinch

In St. Anthony , Minnesota , a St. Paul suburb , at least four families whose homes displayed Christmas lights received this letter from a neighbor : The letter is classic Woke-Speak .
It is way too stupid to be taken seriously , but nevertheless , here goes : You hear this a lot .
But how are our times unprecedented ?
Because of COVID ?
How about the Spanish Flu ?
The Hong Kong Flu ?
The Asian Flu ?
AIDS ?
Not to mention the really serious diseases that ravaged prior generations , like smallpox and polio .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ relatively mild virus is causing an absurd level of hysteria .
Why are Christmas lights , as opposed to virtually anything else you see in a suburban neighborhood ( Harris/Biden signs ? )
a “ reminder of divisions ?
” And what is the “ systemic bias ” against those who don ’ t celebrate Christmas ?
That ’ s a new one .
I have yet to see on a job application , “ Do you celebrate Christmas ?
” As for those who can ’ t afford to put up Christmas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in St. Anthony they most likely enjoy seeing festive decorations on other houses .
The idea that putting up Christmas lights somehow fails to “ respect the dignity ” of anyone is insane .
I am guessing that whoever wrote this has no intention of learning from the differences , ideas and opinions of those who put up Christmas lights .
WHAT institutional inequities ?
What on God ’ s green Earth is this liberal talking about ?
Welcoming of all people except Christians who choose to celebrate Christmas , apparently .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the liberal ’ s letter was delivered : Is that offensive , or what ?
For whatever reason , liberals now feel emboldened to reveal the full insanity of their creed , and demand that the rest of us go along with it .
Somehow , I don ’ t think that is going to happen .
Merry Christmas !

In St. Anthony, Minnesota, a St. Paul suburb, at least four families whose homes displayed Christmas lights received this letter from a neighbor:
The letter is classic Woke-Speak. It is way too stupid to be taken seriously, but nevertheless, here goes:
I couldn’t help but notice your Christmas lights display. During these unprecedented times…
You hear this a lot. But how are our times unprecedented? Because of COVID? How about the Spanish Flu? The Hong Kong Flu? The Asian Flu? AIDS? Not to mention the really serious diseases that ravaged prior generations, like smallpox and polio. What is unprecedented is that such a relatively mild virus is causing an absurd level of hysteria.
…we have all experienced challenges which casual words just don’t describe what we’re feeling [sic].
I haven’t.
The idea of twinkling, colorful lights are [sic] a reminder of divisions that continue to run through our society, a reminder of systemic biases against our neighbors who don’t celebrate Christmas or who can’t afford to put up lights of their own.
Why are Christmas lights, as opposed to virtually anything else you see in a suburban neighborhood (Harris/Biden signs?) a “reminder of divisions?” And what is the “systemic bias” against those who don’t celebrate Christmas? That’s a new one. I have yet to see on a job application, “Do you celebrate Christmas?” As for those who can’t afford to put up Christmas lights, to the extent they exist in St. Anthony they most likely enjoy seeing festive decorations on other houses.
We must do the work of educating ourselves about the harmful impact an outward facing display like yours can have. I challenge you to respect the dignity of all people…
The idea that putting up Christmas lights somehow fails to “respect the dignity” of anyone is insane.
…while striving to learn from differences, ideas, and opinions of our neighbors.
I am guessing that whoever wrote this has no intention of learning from the differences, ideas and opinions of those who put up Christmas lights.
We must come together collectively and challenge these institutional inequities;
WHAT institutional inequities? What on God’s green Earth is this liberal talking about?
St. Anthony is a community welcoming of all people and we must demand better for ourselves.
Welcoming of all people except Christians who choose to celebrate Christmas, apparently.
This is one of the houses to which the liberal’s letter was delivered:
Is that offensive, or what?
For whatever reason, liberals now feel emboldened to reveal the full insanity of their creed, and demand that the rest of us go along with it. Somehow, I don’t think that is going to happen. Merry Christmas!


powerlineblog--2020-12-09--Is Iran headed for a revolution?

Is Iran headed for a revolution?

In the mid-1980s , I asked a retired French diplomat whether he thought the Iranian regime would be overthrown within the next ten to fifteen years .
It seemed plausible to me that the mullahs , who seemed to be ruining the country , would lose power by the end of the century .
The retired French diplomat had grown up in Iran , served France there among other countries , and maintained strong connections with and affection for Iranians .
He knew the country and its people as well as anyone I was likely to encounter .
His view @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the regime in the foreseeable future .
He told me that Iranians tend to be passive followers , and therefore not prone to rebel .
He attributed the 1979 revolution to lack of resolve by the Shah and lack of support from the U.S .
The mullahs , he was sure , would be more resolute , and thus would likely retain power for years .
More than 40 years after the revolution and at least 35 years after my conversation with the retired diplomat , the mullahs are still in power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that their days are numbered .
They might well be .
Whether passive or not by nature , Iranians are protesting in fairly large numbers .
And even the retired French diplomat didn ’ t say the regime would hold power forever .
Ray Takeyh , an Iranian-American , is a senior fellow for Middle East studies at the Council on Foreign Relations .
An expert on Iran , he assisted Dennis Ross when Ross was senior Iran advisor at the U.S. State Department under former president Obama .
Writing in the New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cracks in the Iranian regime that he thinks might well lead to its demise sooner rather than later .
He sees in the assassination of nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakzhirzadeh a clear sign that the Islamic Republic might be on its way out : First , it has often been suggested that no matter how unpopular the Islamist regime has become over the years , it is firmly in control of the country given its overlapping and omniscient intelligence services .
Now , this widely accepted truism has to be called into question .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ nuclear installations have been sabotaged , its scientists killed and its secrets stolen .
Moreover , the country has been rocked by a series of demonstrations that its intelligence organs did not anticipate .
To say the least , the Islamic Republic today suffers from persistent intelligence failure , an ominous sign for a regime that rules through fear .
Takeyh ’ s next observation is more ominous : The second worrisome aspect for the Iranian regime has to be the probable collaboration of its own elites with a foreign power .
These @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many in the system were so disenchanted with Islamist rule that they were willing to provide critical information to an adversary .
A regime is in trouble not only when its populace grows disenchanted but when important segments of its elite give up on the system .
If those who are the chief beneficiaries of the system don ’ t believe in it , then who does ?
The Islamic Republic has long suffered from brain drain as its best and brightest have often chosen to leave the country , but now , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stayed behind are starting to crack .
This is how regimes fall .
Takeyh cites the demise of the Shah : In retrospect , all this is eerily similar to the predicament of the Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi , whose monarchy collapsed in 1979 .
During the 1970s , the signs of discontent in Iran were all too visible .
A cooling economy , a disaffected public and large-scale migration out the country .
But the façade of authoritarian stability was most visibly disrupted by the advent of urban guerrilla movements .
.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iran was coming undone , many Americans assured themselves that the shah could always rely on his secret police , the SAVAK .
The organization had spies and informers everywhere and was thought to know all and act with ruthless efficiency .
In the aftermath of the revolution , we have come to know that SAVAK was just another ham-fisted organization that was too often blind to all that was happening in Iran .
Far from being in control of the situation , they did not even recognize the gravity of the crisis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SAVAK that could not handle the spat of terrorism that afflicted Iran and yet no one called into question its famed reliability until it was too late .
Takeyh acknowledges that Iran ’ s current leaders are “ made of tougher stuff than the Shah and his generals ” and that therefore “ The Islamic Republic may endure.
” That ’ s probably how I would bet .
But maybe I ’ m unduly influenced by the words of that retired French diplomat all those years ago .

In the mid-1980s, I asked a retired French diplomat whether he thought the Iranian regime would be overthrown within the next ten to fifteen years. It seemed plausible to me that the mullahs, who seemed to be ruining the country, would lose power by the end of the century.
The retired French diplomat had grown up in Iran, served France there among other countries, and maintained strong connections with and affection for Iranians. He knew the country and its people as well as anyone I was likely to encounter.
His view was that there would be no overthrow of the regime in the foreseeable future. He told me that Iranians tend to be passive followers, and therefore not prone to rebel.
He attributed the 1979 revolution to lack of resolve by the Shah and lack of support from the U.S. The mullahs, he was sure, would be more resolute, and thus would likely retain power for years.
More than 40 years after the revolution and at least 35 years after my conversation with the retired diplomat, the mullahs are still in power. There is talk, however, that their days are numbered.
They might well be. Whether passive or not by nature, Iranians are protesting in fairly large numbers. And even the retired French diplomat didn’t say the regime would hold power forever.
Ray Takeyh, an Iranian-American, is a senior fellow for Middle East studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. An expert on Iran, he assisted Dennis Ross when Ross was senior Iran advisor at the U.S. State Department under former president Obama.
Writing in the New York Daily News, Takeyh detects large cracks in the Iranian regime that he thinks might well lead to its demise sooner rather than later. He sees in the assassination of nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakzhirzadeh a clear sign that the Islamic Republic might be on its way out:
First, it has often been suggested that no matter how unpopular the Islamist regime has become over the years, it is firmly in control of the country given its overlapping and omniscient intelligence services. Now, this widely accepted truism has to be called into question. In recent years, Iran’s nuclear installations have been sabotaged, its scientists killed and its secrets stolen. Moreover, the country has been rocked by a series of demonstrations that its intelligence organs did not anticipate. To say the least, the Islamic Republic today suffers from persistent intelligence failure, an ominous sign for a regime that rules through fear.
Takeyh’s next observation is more ominous:
The second worrisome aspect for the Iranian regime has to be the probable collaboration of its own elites with a foreign power. These killings could not have taken place unless many in the system were so disenchanted with Islamist rule that they were willing to provide critical information to an adversary. A regime is in trouble not only when its populace grows disenchanted but when important segments of its elite give up on the system. If those who are the chief beneficiaries of the system don’t believe in it, then who does? The Islamic Republic has long suffered from brain drain as its best and brightest have often chosen to leave the country, but now, it seems, even those who have stayed behind are starting to crack.
This is how regimes fall.
Takeyh cites the demise of the Shah:
In retrospect, all this is eerily similar to the predicament of the Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, whose monarchy collapsed in 1979. During the 1970s, the signs of discontent in Iran were all too visible. A cooling economy, a disaffected public and large-scale migration out the country. But the façade of authoritarian stability was most visibly disrupted by the advent of urban guerrilla movements. . . . In the 1970s, as Iran was coming undone, many Americans assured themselves that the shah could always rely on his secret police, the SAVAK. The organization had spies and informers everywhere and was thought to know all and act with ruthless efficiency. In the aftermath of the revolution, we have come to know that SAVAK was just another ham-fisted organization that was too often blind to all that was happening in Iran. Far from being in control of the situation, they did not even recognize the gravity of the crisis they were facing. It was the SAVAK that could not handle the spat of terrorism that afflicted Iran and yet no one called into question its famed reliability until it was too late.
Takeyh acknowledges that Iran’s current leaders are “made of tougher stuff than the Shah and his generals” and that therefore “The Islamic Republic may endure.” That’s probably how I would bet. But maybe I’m unduly influenced by the words of that retired French diplomat all those years ago.


powerlineblog--2020-12-08--Today’s Free Comic Relief from the Left

Today’s Free Comic Relief from the Left

In the Annals of Ridiculous Headlines and Fake News , this one may be the all time winner : Dan Rather Creates Graphic Novel To Unite Us In March 2019 , First Second Books launched a new line of political graphic novels , World Citizen Comics , to bring in names such as Dan Rather , Seth Abramson , Jennifer L. Pozner , and more .
Legendary news anchor Dan Rather provides a voice of reason and explores what it means to be a true patriot .
Brought to life in stunning color by artist Tim Foley , What Unites @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this country , from the freedoms that define us , to the values that have transformed us , to the institutions that sustain us .
Rather ’ s vast experience and his unique perspective shed light on who we were and who we are today , allowing us to see a possible future , where we are one country – united .
Now , if you ’ ve stopped laughing , get ready to giggle more , because the Biden Administration-in-Waiting seems to take this idea seriously : The Biden administration plans to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with conservatives , said Louisiana Congressman Cedric Richmond , a senior adviser and director of the Office of Public Engagement for the president-elect .
“ Right now I ’ m trying to set up the office and I ’ m actually looking at establishing a position that reaches out to conservatives — because it ’ s about moving forward .
We can not stay where we are , ” Richmond said during the Wall Street Journal ’ s CEO Council on Monday night .
I ’ m guessing this “ position ” will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Truth and Reconciliation ” camps the left wants to set up .
Just think of it as having a Max Boot-heel in the face for the next four years .
Cue Admiral Ackbar : “ It ’ s a trap !
” This New Republic headline is funny just because it is : Meanwhile , Georgia State University offers the following pronoun choices ( and this is not a parody ) : Why Movie Car Chases Always Crash Through Fruit Stands Of all the car-chase clichés , none is more durable than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the one : Our sideburned hero is powersliding his ’ 71 Coronet through the old city of Marrakesh in pursuit of some baddies in a Hilux , when BLAMMO—he turns a corner and runs sideways through a vendor ’ s cart , turning pomegranates into compost .
.
.
the exploding fruit cart is celluloid gold : Its contents are cheap , it makes a big mess , and it doesn ’ t bitch about reshoots .

In the Annals of Ridiculous Headlines and Fake News, this one may be the all time winner:
Dan Rather Creates Graphic Novel To Unite Us In March 2019, First Second Books launched a new line of political graphic novels, World Citizen Comics, to bring in names such as Dan Rather, Seth Abramson, Jennifer L. Pozner, and more. Legendary news anchor Dan Rather provides a voice of reason and explores what it means to be a true patriot. Brought to life in stunning color by artist Tim Foley, What Unites Us takes apart the building blocks of this country, from the freedoms that define us, to the values that have transformed us, to the institutions that sustain us. Rather’s vast experience and his unique perspective shed light on who we were and who we are today, allowing us to see a possible future, where we are one country – united.
Now, if you’ve stopped laughing, get ready to giggle more, because the Biden Administration-in-Waiting seems to take this idea seriously:
Biden Administration Will Create Position to Reach Conservatives The Biden administration plans to create a position to find common ground with conservatives, said Louisiana Congressman Cedric Richmond, a senior adviser and director of the Office of Public Engagement for the president-elect. “Right now I’m trying to set up the office and I’m actually looking at establishing a position that reaches out to conservatives — because it’s about moving forward. We cannot stay where we are,” Richmond said during the Wall Street Journal’s CEO Council on Monday night.
I’m guessing this “position” will actually be the camp guard for the “Truth and Reconciliation” camps the left wants to set up. Just think of it as having a Max Boot-heel in the face for the next four years. Cue Admiral Ackbar: “It’s a trap!”
This New Republic headline is funny just because it is:
Meanwhile, Georgia State University offers the following pronoun choices (and this is not a parody):
Finally, some useful news:


The China Factor

On Monday evening , Tucker Carlson ’ s opening monologue related to a speech given by a Chinese academic named Di Dongsheng .
Di is the Vice Dean of the School of International Relations at Renmin University and the Vice Director and Secretary of the Center for Foreign Strategic Studies of China .
Carlson ’ s monologue is lightly re-worked as an op-ed here .
Di ’ s lecture , to a Chinese audience , discussed Chinese-American relations .
Tucker quoted some passages that are rather explosive : The Trump administration is in a trade war with us , so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump administration ?
Why , between 1992 and 2016 , did China and the U.S. , used to be able to settle all kinds of issues ?
No mater what kind of crises we encountered … things were solved in no time … We fixed everything in two months .
What is the reason ?
I ’ m going to throw out something maybe a little bit explosive here .
It ’ s just because we have people at the top .
At the top of America ’ s core inner circle of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ old friends .
But Trump has been a problem for the CCP : Since the 1970s , Wall Street had a very strong influence on the domestic and foreign affairs of the United States , so we had a channel to rely on .
But the problem is that after 2008 , the status of Wall Street has declined , and more importantly , after 2016 , Wall Street can ’ t fix Trump .
… So during the U.S.-China trade war they [ Wall Street ] tried to help .
And I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. side told me that they tried to help , but they couldn ’ t do much .
Di ’ s speech is interesting , even apart from the passages that arguably have explosive implications for U.S. politics , and he doesn ’ t regard the US-China coupling as entirely in China ’ s favor .
The Chinese government reportedly has banned the video of the speech from social media in China , but it is still available on YouTube : Does Di ’ s speech have the significance that Tucker Carlson attributes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as close to a smoking gun as we have ever seen ” ?
It certainly is one more piece of evidence , but in truth , evidence of China ’ s undue influence in the U.S. , whether we are talking about politicians , universities , media or Wall Street , has been plentiful for a while .
This is one more area where history will record that Donald Trump was right .
Speaking of politicians , the revelation that Congressman Eric Swalwell , a member of the House Intelligence Committee , had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Chinese spy who fled the U.S. shortly after the FBI briefed Swalwell , offers a lurid counterpoint to Di ’ s academic lecture .

On Monday evening, Tucker Carlson’s opening monologue related to a speech given by a Chinese academic named Di Dongsheng. Di is the Vice Dean of the School of International Relations at Renmin University and the Vice Director and Secretary of the Center for Foreign Strategic Studies of China. Carlson’s monologue is lightly re-worked as an op-ed here.
Di’s lecture, to a Chinese audience, discussed Chinese-American relations. Tucker quoted some passages that are rather explosive:
The Trump administration is in a trade war with us, so why can’t we fix the Trump administration? Why, between 1992 and 2016, did China and the U.S., used to be able to settle all kinds of issues? No mater what kind of crises we encountered … things were solved in no time … We fixed everything in two months. What is the reason? I’m going to throw out something maybe a little bit explosive here. It’s just because we have people at the top. At the top of America’s core inner circle of power and influence, we have our old friends.
But Trump has been a problem for the CCP:
Since the 1970s, Wall Street had a very strong influence on the domestic and foreign affairs of the United States, so we had a channel to rely on. But the problem is that after 2008, the status of Wall Street has declined, and more importantly, after 2016, Wall Street can’t fix Trump. … So during the U.S.-China trade war they [Wall Street] tried to help. And I know that, my friends on the U.S. side told me that they tried to help, but they couldn’t do much.
Di’s speech is interesting, even apart from the passages that arguably have explosive implications for U.S. politics, and he doesn’t regard the US-China coupling as entirely in China’s favor. The Chinese government reportedly has banned the video of the speech from social media in China, but it is still available on YouTube:
Does Di’s speech have the significance that Tucker Carlson attributes to it, calling the speech “as close to a smoking gun as we have ever seen”? It certainly is one more piece of evidence, but in truth, evidence of China’s undue influence in the U.S., whether we are talking about politicians, universities, media or Wall Street, has been plentiful for a while. This is one more area where history will record that Donald Trump was right.
Speaking of politicians, the revelation that Congressman Eric Swalwell, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, had a close and likely romantic relationship with a Chinese spy who fled the U.S. shortly after the FBI briefed Swalwell, offers a lurid counterpoint to Di’s academic lecture.