powerlineblog--2020-12-05--Mask Jacobinism Runs Rampant

Mask Jacobinism Runs Rampant

I have seen no evidence that mask mandates have any discernible impact on the rate of spread of the coronavirus , let alone on its ultimate impact , which is a completely different question .
Nevertheless , mask wearing has been adopted by a large segment of our society as the ultimate moral marker .
Those who don ’ t wear masks , many allege , are endangering public safety .
And informal Committees of Public Safety are all around us .
A case in point is the gala organized by the Young Republicans of New York , which took @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scheduled for a venue in New York , but moved to an undisclosed location in New Jersey due to threats of violence from a fascist group , Antifa .
The gathering was of modest size , apparently somewhat more than 100 .
This was the invitation : It seems to have been a good party .
A number of participants posted photos on social media , for example : When word got out , the reaction from the Left was insane .
OMG !
!
No masks !
!
New Jersey ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ post : The comments by liberals on Murphy ’ s post fall just short of demanding guillotines : They need to go to jail for endangering the health and welfare of all of us .
*** Real classy GOP – endangering the lives of New Jerseyans .
Thank you Governor for calling them out .
*** It is beyond the pale that anyone would willingly endanger people — anywhere !
Arrest and charge every single person who was there .
*** Matt Gaetz looks and sounds like an entitled frat bro .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virus numbers are higher than ever .
So irresponsible .
There is no evidence that anyone at the gala had COVID , or if so , that anyone contracted it there .
Given that COVID transmission is rampant all across the country , regardless of mask mandates and shutdowns , and that Democratic Party politicians disregard their own mask mandates on a daily basis , it is hard to understand the vituperation being directed against this particular party .
From a quick review , it isn ’ t even clear to me whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in New Jersey , which permits political events up to 150 people .
But that is a relatively minor point .
The totalitarian impulse has been loosed , and a dismaying number of Americans are on board with it .
Californians are now ordered to wear masks in their homes and cars , which is stupid on any interpretation of the data .
They also are forbidden to leave their homes to , for example , walk their dogs .
On the other hand , there are lots of exceptions .
For a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ podcast–you can go out .
In other words , peons stay home .
I grew up in a time when everyone took it for granted that America was a liberty-loving country .
If one kid tried to boss around another kid on a playground , the standard reply was : “ It ’ s a free country !
” I doubt that our children say that anymore .
We are divided 50/50 : half of us want America to be a free country , and half of us don ’ t .
How @ @ @ @ @ @ @ open question .

I have seen no evidence that mask mandates have any discernible impact on the rate of spread of the coronavirus, let alone on its ultimate impact, which is a completely different question. Nevertheless, mask wearing has been adopted by a large segment of our society as the ultimate moral marker. Those who don’t wear masks, many allege, are endangering public safety. And informal Committees of Public Safety are all around us.
A case in point is the gala organized by the Young Republicans of New York, which took place last night. It originally was scheduled for a venue in New York, but moved to an undisclosed location in New Jersey due to threats of violence from a fascist group, Antifa. The gathering was of modest size, apparently somewhat more than 100. This was the invitation:
It seems to have been a good party. A number of participants posted photos on social media, for example:
When word got out, the reaction from the Left was insane. OMG!! No masks!! New Jersey’s Governor Phil Murphy did this over-the-top Facebook post:
The comments by liberals on Murphy’s post fall just short of demanding guillotines:
They need to go to jail for endangering the health and welfare of all of us.
***
Real classy GOP – endangering the lives of New Jerseyans. Thank you Governor for calling them out.
***
It is beyond the pale that anyone would willingly endanger people — anywhere! Arrest and charge every single person who was there.
***
Matt Gaetz looks and sounds like an entitled frat bro. I hope the organizers are arrested. Our virus numbers are higher than ever. So irresponsible.
There is no evidence that anyone at the gala had COVID, or if so, that anyone contracted it there. Given that COVID transmission is rampant all across the country, regardless of mask mandates and shutdowns, and that Democratic Party politicians disregard their own mask mandates on a daily basis, it is hard to understand the vituperation being directed against this particular party. From a quick review, it isn’t even clear to me whether the gala violated any “law” in New Jersey, which permits political events up to 150 people.
But that is a relatively minor point. The totalitarian impulse has been loosed, and a dismaying number of Americans are on board with it. Californians are now ordered to wear masks in their homes and cars, which is stupid on any interpretation of the data. They also are forbidden to leave their homes to, for example, walk their dogs. On the other hand, there are lots of exceptions. For a “critical” activity–like participating in a podcast–you can go out. In other words, peons stay home.
I grew up in a time when everyone took it for granted that America was a liberty-loving country. If one kid tried to boss around another kid on a playground, the standard reply was: “It’s a free country!” I doubt that our children say that anymore. We are divided 50/50: half of us want America to be a free country, and half of us don’t. How we can manage to coexist is an open question.


powerlineblog--2020-12-04--Race: Asking the Right Questions, Avoiding the “Wrong” Answers

Robert Putnam , the Harvard political scientist who became famous 20 years ago for his “ bowling alone ” hypothesis about the erosion of social capital in the U.S. , is out with a new co-authored book ( with Shaylyn Romney Garrett ) on racial disparities , The Upswing .
Although a liberal , Putnam has not shrunk in the past from reporting data findings uncongenial to liberals , such as his careful work concluding that “ diversity ” and high rates of immigration actually lead to the erosion of social trust .
A long excerpt from the book appears @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the title “ Why Did Racial Progress Stall ?
“ , and it does not shrink from observing some uncongenial facts about racial progress ( and the lack of it in recent decades ) : In terms of material well-being , Black Americans were moving toward parity with white Americans well before the victories of the civil rights era .
What ’ s more , after the passage of civil rights legislation , those trends toward racial parity slowed , stopped and even reversed .
.
.
In measure after measure , positive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the decades before the civil rights revolution than in the decades after .
• The Black/white ratio of high school completion improved dramatically between the 1940s and the early 1970s , after which it slowed , never reaching parity .
College completion followed the same trajectory until 1970 , then sharply reversed .
• Income by race converged at the greatest rate between 1940 and 1970 .
However , as of 2018 , Black/white income disparities were almost exactly the same as they were in 1968 , 50 years earlier .
Even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Black middle class , Black Americans on the whole have experienced flat or downward mobility in recent decades .
• The racial gap in homeownership steadily narrowed between 1900 and 1970 , then stagnated , then reversed .
The racial wealth gap is now growing as Black homeownership plummets .
Social scientists such as the recently deceased Walter Williams , Thomas Sowell , Charles Murray , and others have pointed out these facts for decades now , and have been asking whether the Great Society social programs backfired .
This hypothesis remains forbidden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ wrong ” that you aren ’ t even allowed to ask it in polite liberal company , and sure enough , Putnam and his co-author propose that the cause of the halting of black progress after the mid-1960s is attributable to two possible causes far removed from any effects of the welfare state .
The first is “ white backlash , ” which is hardly new , though strangely neither Putnam nor the legions of other thinkers who make this charge ever demonstrate any significant contraction in social welfare programs , civil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” efforts to assist blacks and other minorities .
Nor do the proponents of “ white backlash ” ever entertain reasons why whites might have thought the Great Society made a cascade of mistakes .
The second explanation runs toward the bizarre .
Putnam and Garrett say the reversal of black progress owes to what they call “ a single meta-trend that we have come to call the “ I-we-I ” curve : An inverted U charting America ’ s gradual climb from self-centeredness to a sense of shared values , followed by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the next half century.
” I thought I ’ d heard of everything , but I ’ ve never heard of the “ I-we-I ” curve , though upon further exploration it appears to be nothing more original that another familiar idea usually applied more generally—namely , that modern times have over-encouraged hyper-individualism ( and hence selfishness ) .
You can find a conservative version of this argument in Patrick Deneen ’ s book Why Liberalism Failed .
I guess I ’ ll have to read the whole book as the Times excerpt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case that we can attribute the halt in black progress to increasing individualism .
There is something strange about the idea that black progress flourished relatively in the face of harsh legal barriers , socially sanctioned racism , and a meager share of public resources , but faltered when all three of those factors were finally and decisively changed .
And yet liberals accuse conservatives of “ epistemic closure .
”

Robert Putnam, the Harvard political scientist who became famous 20 years ago for his “bowling alone” hypothesis about the erosion of social capital in the U.S., is out with a new co-authored book (with Shaylyn Romney Garrett) on racial disparities, The Upswing. Although a liberal, Putnam has not shrunk in the past from reporting data findings uncongenial to liberals, such as his careful work concluding that “diversity” and high rates of immigration actually lead to the erosion of social trust.
A long excerpt from the book appears today in the New York Times under the title “Why Did Racial Progress Stall?“, and it does not shrink from observing some uncongenial facts about racial progress (and the lack of it in recent decades):
In terms of material well-being, Black Americans were moving toward parity with white Americans well before the victories of the civil rights era. What’s more, after the passage of civil rights legislation, those trends toward racial parity slowed, stopped and even reversed. . . In measure after measure, positive change for Black Americans was actually faster in the decades before the civil rights revolution than in the decades after.
Some examples:
The Black/white ratio of high school completion improved dramatically between the 1940s and the early 1970s, after which it slowed, never reaching parity. College completion followed the same trajectory until 1970, then sharply reversed.
Income by race converged at the greatest rate between 1940 and 1970. However, as of 2018, Black/white income disparities were almost exactly the same as they were in 1968, 50 years earlier. Even taking into account the emergence of the Black middle class, Black Americans on the whole have experienced flat or downward mobility in recent decades.
The racial gap in homeownership steadily narrowed between 1900 and 1970, then stagnated, then reversed. The racial wealth gap is now growing as Black homeownership plummets.
These data reveal a too-slow but unmistakable climb toward racial parity throughout most of the century that begins to flatline around 1970 — a picture quite unlike the hockey stick of historical shorthand.
Social scientists such as the recently deceased Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Charles Murray, and others have pointed out these facts for decades now, and have been asking whether the Great Society social programs backfired. This hypothesis remains forbidden to liberals still—it is an answer so “wrong” that you aren’t even allowed to ask it in polite liberal company, and sure enough, Putnam and his co-author propose that the cause of the halting of black progress after the mid-1960s is attributable to two possible causes far removed from any effects of the welfare state.
The first is “white backlash,” which is hardly new, though strangely neither Putnam nor the legions of other thinkers who make this charge ever demonstrate any significant contraction in social welfare programs, civil rights enforcement, or “affirmative action” efforts to assist blacks and other minorities. Nor do the proponents of “white backlash” ever entertain reasons why whites might have thought the Great Society made a cascade of mistakes.
The second explanation runs toward the bizarre. Putnam and Garrett say the reversal of black progress owes to what they call “a single meta-trend that we have come to call the “I-we-I” curve: An inverted U charting America’s gradual climb from self-centeredness to a sense of shared values, followed by a steep descent back into egoism over the next half century.”
I thought I’d heard of everything, but I’ve never heard of the “I-we-I” curve, though upon further exploration it appears to be nothing more original that another familiar idea usually applied more generally—namely, that modern times have over-encouraged hyper-individualism (and hence selfishness). You can find a conservative version of this argument in Patrick Deneen’s book Why Liberalism Failed.
I guess I’ll have to read the whole book as the Times excerpt doesn’t make much of a case that we can attribute the halt in black progress to increasing individualism. There is something strange about the idea that black progress flourished relatively in the face of harsh legal barriers, socially sanctioned racism, and a meager share of public resources, but faltered when all three of those factors were finally and decisively changed. And yet liberals accuse conservatives of “epistemic closure.”


powerlineblog--2020-12-04--The Higher Ed Meltdown Accelerates

The Higher Ed Meltdown Accelerates

In my Geek in Pictures post a couple days back I included this chart showing that the financial impact of COVID on colleges and universities has led to serious job cuts—back to the level last seen in 2008 , right before the last major economic crisis .
( Strangely , as you can see from the chart , the financial crisis in 2008-09 barely slowed the overall rise of university employment levels at all , unlike the current scene . )
Yesterday brought news of deepening cuts starting to take place among core faculty in the liberal arts .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in several liberal arts departments at the University of Colorado at Boulder by this tweet : You can read the interim dean ’ s long explanation of the move here if you want .
At the University of Vermont , meanwhile , the cuts look to go well beyond mere faculty positions .
Whole departments will be eliminated : The University of Vermont announced proposed cuts Wednesday to 12 majors and 11 minors in the College of Arts and Sciences .
University officials say the college has seen a 17 % reduction in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to 2016 .
Low enrollment is defined as 25 or fewer students or fewer than 5 graduates per year .
The university plans to eliminate geology , religion and classics departments .
Twelve out of 56 majors will go by the boards , including regional studies , romance languages and cultures , Latin , Greek , German , Russian and Italian .
You ’ ll notice that the cuts are all coming from the liberal arts .
Gee , I wonder why liberal arts enrollment is declining ?
It ’ s a complete @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it ’ s not as though the sciences are exempt from the political madness afflicting our universities .
Try out this article from the current issue of The Lancet , a formerly respected medical journal that has apparently been taken over by the Babylon Bee : Planetary health sees neoliberal capitalism as a key mediator of socioecological crises , a position that is echoed in much COVID-19 commentary .
In this Personal View , I set out an economic theory that emphasises some of the ways in which neoliberal capitalism ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID-19 .
Using the intersection of ecological , feminist , and Marxist economics , I develop an analysis of neoliberal capitalism as a specific historical form of the economy .
I identify the accumulation of exchange value as a central tendency of neoliberal capitalism and argue that this tendency creates barriers to the production of other forms of value .
I then analyse the implications of this tendency in the context of responses to COVID-19 .
I argue that resources and labour flow to the production of exchange value , at the expense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Consequently , the global capitalist economy has unprecedented productive capacity but uses little .
.
.
There ’ s more , but by now I expect most sensible people have stopped reading .
I am glad , though , they they got intersectionality in the abstract , because I was concerned when it was not included in the article title .

In my Geek in Pictures post a couple days back I included this chart showing that the financial impact of COVID on colleges and universities has led to serious job cuts—back to the level last seen in 2008, right before the last major economic crisis. (Strangely, as you can see from the chart, the financial crisis in 2008-09 barely slowed the overall rise of university employment levels at all, unlike the current scene.)
Yesterday brought news of deepening cuts starting to take place among core faculty in the liberal arts. I was alerted to drastic cuts just announced in several liberal arts departments at the University of Colorado at Boulder by this tweet:
You can read the interim dean’s long explanation of the move here if you want.
At the University of Vermont, meanwhile, the cuts look to go well beyond mere faculty positions. Whole departments will be eliminated:
The University of Vermont announced proposed cuts Wednesday to 12 majors and 11 minors in the College of Arts and Sciences. University officials say the college has seen a 17% reduction in enrollment in liberal arts classes from 2010 to 2016. Low enrollment is defined as 25 or fewer students or fewer than 5 graduates per year. The university plans to eliminate geology, religion and classics departments. Twelve out of 56 majors will go by the boards, including regional studies, romance languages and cultures, Latin, Greek, German, Russian and Italian.
You’ll notice that the cuts are all coming from the liberal arts. Gee, I wonder why liberal arts enrollment is declining? It’s a complete mystery. . .
To be fair, it’s not as though the sciences are exempt from the political madness afflicting our universities. Try out this article from the current issue of The Lancet, a formerly respected medical journal that has apparently been taken over by the Babylon Bee:
Neoliberal economics, planetary health, and the COVID-19 pandemic: a Marxist ecofeminist analysis Simon Mair, PhD Abstract Planetary health sees neoliberal capitalism as a key mediator of socioecological crises, a position that is echoed in much COVID-19 commentary. In this Personal View, I set out an economic theory that emphasises some of the ways in which neoliberal capitalism’s conceptualisation of value has mediated responses to COVID-19. Using the intersection of ecological, feminist, and Marxist economics, I develop an analysis of neoliberal capitalism as a specific historical form of the economy. I identify the accumulation of exchange value as a central tendency of neoliberal capitalism and argue that this tendency creates barriers to the production of other forms of value. I then analyse the implications of this tendency in the context of responses to COVID-19. I argue that resources and labour flow to the production of exchange value, at the expense of production of other value forms. Consequently, the global capitalist economy has unprecedented productive capacity but uses little . . .
There’s more, but by now I expect most sensible people have stopped reading. I am glad, though, they they got intersectionality in the abstract, because I was concerned when it was not included in the article title.


powerlineblog--2020-12-04--How Brexit will help Britain get vaccinated

I believe the UK is the first Western nation to approve a vaccine against the Wuhan coronavirus .
Apparently , it is also leading other European nations when it comes to efficiently purchasing that vaccine .
Why ?
John Fund suggests that the answer is Brexit .
Regarding purchasing of the vaccine , Fund quotes Hugo Fry , the British managing director of Sanofi , the world ’ s fifth-biggest drug maker .
According to Fry , the UK ’ s decoupling from the EU ’ s regulatory and purchasing bureaucracy enabled the “ nimble buying ” of hundreds of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ the UK was able to do [ the purchasing ] in a single deal [ that ] meant that it got its deal done before France and before Germany.
” Regarding approval of the vaccine , Fund quotes Ambrose Evans-Pritchard : The EU lacks anything like the UK ’ s Regulation 174 enabling fast-track action to fight pandemics , or chemical and nuclear attacks .
Bureaucracy and legalistic inertia will give the virus one last chance to cause maximum devastation on the Continent , and this slippage of several weeks will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eurozone economies already in trouble .
A German health minister says that EU countries decided not to pursue emergency approval of a vaccine .
Why ?
Apparently , to maintain the solidarity of the EU system bloc .
How many lives will be lost in the name of EU “ solidarity ” ?
A great many probably , but none in the UK .

I believe the UK is the first Western nation to approve a vaccine against the Wuhan coronavirus. Apparently, it is also leading other European nations when it comes to efficiently purchasing that vaccine.
Why? John Fund suggests that the answer is Brexit.
Regarding purchasing of the vaccine, Fund quotes Hugo Fry, the British managing director of Sanofi, the world’s fifth-biggest drug maker. According to Fry, the UK’s decoupling from the EU’s regulatory and purchasing bureaucracy enabled the “nimble buying” of hundreds of millions of doses. Thanks to Brexit, “the UK was able to do [the purchasing] in a single deal [that] meant that it got its deal done before France and before Germany.”
Regarding approval of the vaccine, Fund quotes Ambrose Evans-Pritchard:
The EU lacks anything like the UK’s Regulation 174 enabling fast-track action to fight pandemics, or chemical and nuclear attacks. Bureaucracy and legalistic inertia will give the virus one last chance to cause maximum devastation on the Continent, and this slippage of several weeks will have serious consequences for a clutch of eurozone economies already in trouble.
A German health minister says that EU countries decided not to pursue emergency approval of a vaccine. Why? Apparently, to maintain the solidarity of the EU system bloc.
How many lives will be lost in the name of EU “solidarity”? A great many probably, but none in the UK.


powerlineblog--2020-12-04--A Georgia state of mind revisited

A Georgia state of mind revisited

“ Arise and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.
” Winston Churchill “ Proclaim Liberty throughout @ @ @ @ @ the Inhabitants Thereof.
” Inscription on the Liberty Bell

“Arise and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.” Winston Churchill
“Proclaim Liberty throughout All the land unto All the Inhabitants Thereof.” Inscription on the Liberty Bell


powerlineblog--2020-12-05--More evidence that remote learning is failing

The Washington Post has reported on the serious adverse academic impact that online learning is having on students in Fairfax County , Virginia .
I discussed that reporting here .
Now , the Post has a similar article about what ’ s happening in Montgomery County , Maryland , where I live .
Even more than the report on Fairfax County did , this article focuses on the calamitous effects online education is having on “ low-income students ” and “ English learners.
” I welcome this slant .
If there ’ s anything that can trump the liberal impulse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic , it ’ s evidence that minority group members are suffering disproportionately .
In Montgomery County schools , this seems to be the case .
Indeed , the figures the Post cites are striking : Failure rates in math and English jumped as much as sixfold for some of the most vulnerable students in Maryland ’ s largest school system , according to data released as the pandemic ’ s toll becomes increasingly visible in schools across the country .
In but one stark example , more than 36 percent of ninth-graders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ period in English .
That compares with fewer than 6 percent last year , when the same students took English in eighth grade .
.
.
.
Nearly 45 percent of those with limited English proficiency failed the first marking period in ninth-grade math , for instance — a stunning figure given that only 8 percent of the same students failed math in the first marking period [ i.e.
, pre-pandemic ] last fall .
White and Asians are making out okay , according to the Post : What will the school system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rates among certain groups ?
According to the Post , it will “ mak [ e ] changes to grading practices , student supports and instructional guidance — adding flexibility with due dates , for example , and reducing the number of recommended assignments that are graded.
” In other words , it will lower standards .
Reading and math skills will continue to suffer , but the evidence will be obscured by grade inflation .
Is the County considering letting students return to school ?
There ’ s no indication of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even though the evidence from Europe fails to support fears that in-class learning carries appreciable health risks .
One interesting question is why the performance of low-income students and English learners has declined so sharply , while that of White and Asian students seems to be holding nearly steady .
The Post attributes this to kids in the former groups lacking “ oversight and support ” from parents who “ work jobs outside the home.
” Could be .
But in the affluent mostly White and Asian area of Montgomery County where I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I know work very hard at their jobs , and not necessarily at home .
The key may be that there are two parents .
The Post ’ s article doesn ’ t consider the possibility that a lower incidence of two-parent families among the groups in which students are suffering most from online learning might be the explanation .
Apparently , this question is considered out of bounds .
But , while the question is an interesting one , the key point is that online learning isn ’ t working .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that has harmed students , especially the ones who can least afford the setback .

The Washington Post has reported on the serious adverse academic impact that online learning is having on students in Fairfax County, Virginia. I discussed that reporting here.
Now, the Post has a similar article about what’s happening in Montgomery County, Maryland, where I live. Even more than the report on Fairfax County did, this article focuses on the calamitous effects online education is having on “low-income students” and “English learners.”
I welcome this slant. If there’s anything that can trump the liberal impulse to shut things down willy-nilly during the pandemic, it’s evidence that minority group members are suffering disproportionately.
In Montgomery County schools, this seems to be the case. Indeed, the figures the Post cites are striking:
Failure rates in math and English jumped as much as sixfold for some of the most vulnerable students in Maryland’s largest school system, according to data released as the pandemic’s toll becomes increasingly visible in schools across the country. In but one stark example, more than 36 percent of ninth-graders from low-income families failed the first marking period in English. That compares with fewer than 6 percent last year, when the same students took English in eighth grade. . . . Nearly 45 percent of those with limited English proficiency failed the first marking period in ninth-grade math, for instance — a stunning figure given that only 8 percent of the same students failed math in the first marking period [i.e., pre-pandemic] last fall.
White and Asians are making out okay, according to the Post:
Last year, less than 1 percent of that group failed the first marking period [pre-pandemic], and this year it was slightly more than 1 percent.
What will the school system do in response to the high failure rates among certain groups? According to the Post, it will “mak[e] changes to grading practices, student supports and instructional guidance — adding flexibility with due dates, for example, and reducing the number of recommended assignments that are graded.”
In other words, it will lower standards. Reading and math skills will continue to suffer, but the evidence will be obscured by grade inflation.
Is the County considering letting students return to school? There’s no indication of this in the Post’s article, even though the evidence from Europe fails to support fears that in-class learning carries appreciable health risks.
One interesting question is why the performance of low-income students and English learners has declined so sharply, while that of White and Asian students seems to be holding nearly steady. The Post attributes this to kids in the former groups lacking “oversight and support” from parents who “work jobs outside the home.”
Could be. But in the affluent mostly White and Asian area of Montgomery County where I live, both parents in the families I know work very hard at their jobs, and not necessarily at home.
The key may be that there are two parents. The Post’s article doesn’t consider the possibility that a lower incidence of two-parent families among the groups in which students are suffering most from online learning might be the explanation.
Apparently, this question is considered out of bounds.
But, while the question is an interesting one, the key point is that online learning isn’t working. It’s a failed and unnecessary experiment that has harmed students, especially the ones who can least afford the setback.


powerlineblog--2020-12-06--Rules Are For the Little People

Rules Are For the Little People

Every day , it seems , we see another story about governors and mayors ( all of them Democrats , seemingly ) who impose orders on the rest of us and then break them themselves .
This New York Post cover itemizes some of these instances , but by no means all : In California , a restaurant owner was shut down by order of Mayor Garcetti , only to find that she was in the wrong business–i.e.
, a small one .
The rules that are driving her out of business don ’ t apply to the movie industry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s case has become famous .
Even the Daily Mail has picked up on her story .
I wrote about Larvita here and here .
Larvita believes that the governor ’ s shutdown order is both unconstitutional and unwarranted .
She also points out that government is trying to prevent her from opening her business , a restaurant/bar called Havens Garden , while at the same time insisting that she pay her property taxes .
The state ’ s latest move is to cancel Havens Garden ’ s food and beverage licenses .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Center of the American Experiment : The current shutdown order in Minnesota closes all restaurants and bars , along with gyms and health clubs , even though the state ’ s own records indicate that , of sources of infection that can be tracked , restaurants and bars account for only 1.7 % , and gyms a small fraction of a percent .
By any normal standard , the governor ’ s order is arbitrary and capricious .
But years will probably go by before the courts rule definitively on the legality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ California and other states .
In the meantime , small business owners like Larvita McFarquhar and the restaurant owner in Los Angeles are being devastated , while those favored by government–generally , big business–are thriving .
It remains to be seen how long small business people and ordinary Americans will be willing to put up with this situation .

Every day, it seems, we see another story about governors and mayors (all of them Democrats, seemingly) who impose orders on the rest of us and then break them themselves. This New York Post cover itemizes some of these instances, but by no means all:
In California, a restaurant owner was shut down by order of Mayor Garcetti, only to find that she was in the wrong business–i.e., a small one. The rules that are driving her out of business don’t apply to the movie industry:
Watch this video, folks. Sound on. pic.twitter.com/Oo6LMdmE1p — Klavan Squarebeard, first of his name (@SpencerKlavan) December 4, 2020
In Minnesota, Larvita McFarquhar’s case has become famous. Even the Daily Mail has picked up on her story. I wrote about Larvita here and here. Larvita believes that the governor’s shutdown order is both unconstitutional and unwarranted. She also points out that government is trying to prevent her from opening her business, a restaurant/bar called Havens Garden, while at the same time insisting that she pay her property taxes. The state’s latest move is to cancel Havens Garden’s food and beverage licenses. This short video about Larvita was produced by Center of the American Experiment:
The current shutdown order in Minnesota closes all restaurants and bars, along with gyms and health clubs, even though the state’s own records indicate that, of sources of infection that can be tracked, restaurants and bars account for only 1.7%, and gyms a small fraction of a percent. By any normal standard, the governor’s order is arbitrary and capricious. But years will probably go by before the courts rule definitively on the legality of arbitrary one-man rule in Minnesota, California and other states. In the meantime, small business owners like Larvita McFarquhar and the restaurant owner in Los Angeles are being devastated, while those favored by government–generally, big business–are thriving. It remains to be seen how long small business people and ordinary Americans will be willing to put up with this situation.


powerlineblog--2020-12-05--Suicide of a City

Suicide of a City

Most American cities are poorly governed , but some–Portland , Seattle , Minneapolis–are so badly governed that one wonders whether they can survive .
Christopher Rufo documents the latest madness in Seattle : Obviously , a large percentage of crimes are committed by people who fall into one or more of those categories .
In fact : Under the proposed ordinance , courts would have to dismiss all so-called “ crimes of poverty ” — which , according to the city ’ s former public-safety advisor , would cover more than 90 percent of all misdemeanor cases citywide .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new class of “ untouchables , ” protected from consequences by the city ’ s powerbrokers .
This initiative , if adopted , would make Seattle unlivable : On a practical level , if this ordinance becomes law , it will effectively legalize an entire spectrum of misdemeanor crimes , including theft , assault , harassment , drug possession , property destruction , and indecent exposure .
Criminals must simply establish that they have an addiction , mental-health disorder , or low income in order to evade justice .
The impact of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Seattle Police Department reported 25,993 thefts , 8,442 assaults , 6,430 property offenses , 4,194 frauds , 3,910 trespasses , and 1,640 narcotics violations — representing 72 percent of all reported crimes .
If the ordinance passes , nearly all these crimes would be permitted under law .
This is not unintentional .
The “ crimes of poverty ” initiative has been tabled for the moment , but some members of Seattle ’ s City Council , at least , are pro-crime , viewing it , as Rufo writes , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The leftists who run some of America ’ s major cities seemingly have no idea how fragile a city can be .

Most American cities are poorly governed, but some–Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis–are so badly governed that one wonders whether they can survive. Christopher Rufo documents the latest madness in Seattle:
In October, the Seattle City Council floated legislation to provide an exemption from prosecution for misdemeanor crimes for any citizen who suffers from poverty, homelessness, addiction, or mental illness.
Obviously, a large percentage of crimes are committed by people who fall into one or more of those categories. In fact:
Under the proposed ordinance, courts would have to dismiss all so-called “crimes of poverty” — which, according to the city’s former public-safety advisor, would cover more than 90 percent of all misdemeanor cases citywide. In effect, the legislation would create a new class of “untouchables,” protected from consequences by the city’s powerbrokers.
This initiative, if adopted, would make Seattle unlivable:
On a practical level, if this ordinance becomes law, it will effectively legalize an entire spectrum of misdemeanor crimes, including theft, assault, harassment, drug possession, property destruction, and indecent exposure. Criminals must simply establish that they have an addiction, mental-health disorder, or low income in order to evade justice. The impact of this measure would be enormous. In 2019, the Seattle Police Department reported 25,993 thefts, 8,442 assaults, 6,430 property offenses, 4,194 frauds, 3,910 trespasses, and 1,640 narcotics violations — representing 72 percent of all reported crimes. If the ordinance passes, nearly all these crimes would be permitted under law.
This is not unintentional. The “crimes of poverty” initiative has been tabled for the moment, but some members of Seattle’s City Council, at least, are pro-crime, viewing it, as Rufo writes, as “an expression of social justice.” The leftists who run some of America’s major cities seemingly have no idea how fragile a city can be.


powerlineblog--2020-12-05--Who or What Killed the Liberal Arts?

Who or What Killed the Liberal Arts?

Mark Bauerlein of First Things and Emory University offers this Tweet of lament today that certainly fits with my own retrospective : To be sure , back in those days the liberal arts faculty tilted left , and occasionally quite radically left , but the liberal arts enterprise was more grounded in a body of serious , if mistaken , ideas that could be contested .
I ’ m not joking when I say I wish our universities actually still had classical Marxists on their faculties instead of postmodern nihilists .
At least Marxism was based on an accessible philosophical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have a rational argument with a Marxist .
Today ’ s postmodern academic leftists attack reason itself as a tool of power ( and “ white supremacy ” itself ) , thus justifying their essentially tyrannical desires and acts .
( The roots of all this is going to be the subject of this week ’ s Three Whisky Happy Hour podcast .
Tune in tomorrow ! )
And in response to my item yesterday about the cuts starting to happen to tenured faculty in the liberal arts at several universities , another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in political science from Butler University that make the rot explicit : The Butler University Department of Political Science invites applications for a tenure-track assistant professor with expertise in contemporary political theory .
The candidate should have a strong commitment to excellent , inclusive undergraduate teaching and an active scholarly agenda .
We are particularly interested in candidates whose scholarship and teaching engages critical , transnational , or global political theory beyond the conventional Western canon such as indigenous , decolonial , modernity/coloniality , Black , or Latin American political thought , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suitable for Core Curriculum Social Justice and Diversity designation .
The Department of Political Science at Butler University invites applications for a full-time non-tenure-track lecturer for a two-year appointment with possibility of renewal .
Applicants should have a strong commitment to excellent , inclusive undergraduate teaching .
We are particularly interested in candidates whose teaching and scholarship engages intersectional , abolitionist , or critical historical institutional perspectives on race/ethnicity/indigeneity , gender/sexuality , and politics in the United States and potentially beyond it .
The successful candidate will teach lower-level and upper-level undergraduate political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politics survey ) , will contribute to the Core Curriculum , and will help build an inclusive learning environment for our increasingly diverse student population .
This faculty member could choose to affiliate with the International Studies ; Peace and Conflict Studies ; Race , Gender , and Sexuality Studies ; and/or Science , Technology , and Environmental Studies interdisciplinary programs .
Like the news media , large parts of academia have chosen sides and don ’ t even pretend to be neutral any more .
And the side they ’ ve chosen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well .
Memo to parents of high school students interested possibly in studying political science in college : Scratch Butler University off your list of prospective colleges .

Mark Bauerlein of First Things and Emory University offers this Tweet of lament today that certainly fits with my own retrospective:
To be sure, back in those days the liberal arts faculty tilted left, and occasionally quite radically left, but the liberal arts enterprise was more grounded in a body of serious, if mistaken, ideas that could be contested. I’m not joking when I say I wish our universities actually still had classical Marxists on their faculties instead of postmodern nihilists. At least Marxism was based on an accessible philosophical and economic critique, and you could have a rational argument with a Marxist. Today’s postmodern academic leftists attack reason itself as a tool of power (and “white supremacy” itself), thus justifying their essentially tyrannical desires and acts. (The roots of all this is going to be the subject of this week’s Three Whisky Happy Hour podcast. Tune in tomorrow!)
And in response to my item yesterday about the cuts starting to happen to tenured faculty in the liberal arts at several universities, another reader passes along two current job ads in political science from Butler University that make the rot explicit:
The Butler University Department of Political Science invites applications for a tenure-track assistant professor with expertise in contemporary political theory. The candidate should have a strong commitment to excellent, inclusive undergraduate teaching and an active scholarly agenda. We are particularly interested in candidates whose scholarship and teaching engages critical, transnational, or global political theory beyond the conventional Western canon such as indigenous, decolonial, modernity/coloniality, Black, or Latin American political thought, and who can offer one or more courses suitable for Core Curriculum Social Justice and Diversity designation. The Department of Political Science at Butler University invites applications for a full-time non-tenure-track lecturer for a two-year appointment with possibility of renewal. Applicants should have a strong commitment to excellent, inclusive undergraduate teaching. We are particularly interested in candidates whose teaching and scholarship engages intersectional, abolitionist, or critical historical institutional perspectives on race/ethnicity/indigeneity, gender/sexuality, and politics in the United States and potentially beyond it. The successful candidate will teach lower-level and upper-level undergraduate political science courses (including an introductory American politics survey), will contribute to the Core Curriculum, and will help build an inclusive learning environment for our increasingly diverse student population. This faculty member could choose to affiliate with the International Studies; Peace and Conflict Studies; Race, Gender, and Sexuality Studies; and/or Science, Technology, and Environmental Studies interdisciplinary programs.
Like the news media, large parts of academia have chosen sides and don’t even pretend to be neutral any more. And the side they’ve chosen is not one that wishes the country well.
Memo to parents of high school students interested possibly in studying political science in college: Scratch Butler University off your list of prospective colleges.


powerlineblog--2020-12-05--How do you break your foot playing with a dog? The authorized version

While Joe Biden hobbled in the basement this week , I wondered how you break your foot playing with a @ @ @ @ @ m wondering if it ’ s better not to know ( or “ know ” @ @ @ @ @ shower , Biden chased after one of his dogs and tripped on a rug while @ @ @ @ @ s tail .
That ’ s the story reported by the New York Post ’ @ @ @ @ @ , picture that , or don ’ t , preferably the latter .
Once pictured @ @ @ @ @ t be unseen .
Cynics like Redstate ’ s Bonchie and the Federalist ’ s @ @ @ @ @ Ace aren ’ t buying it .
Where are the fact checkers when you need @ @ @ @ @ t be checking this one out .
That much I can tell you .

While Joe Biden hobbled in the basement this week, I wondered how you break your foot playing with a dog. Now I’m wondering if it’s better not to know (or “know”). Naked after a shower, Biden chased after one of his dogs and tripped on a rug while pulling on the dog’s tail. That’s the story reported by the New York Post’s Steven Nelson.
Well, picture that, or don’t, preferably the latter. Once pictured, some things can’t be unseen.
Cynics like Redstate’s Bonchie and the Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway and Mr. Ace aren’t buying it. Where are the fact checkers when you need them? They won’t be checking this one out. That much I can tell you.


powerlineblog--2020-12-05--The night the lights didn’t go out

The night the lights didn’t go out

I noted the presentation by Trump legal team volunteer Jacki Pick before the Georgia Senate Judiciary Committee here yesterday and followed it here with the citation of a “ fact check ” that presented the assertions of county officials assuring us that there was nothing to see .
Rich Lowry commented further with useful links and a reporter ’ s Twitter thread in “ About the suitcase video.
” In my initial post I directed readers to Andrea Widburg ’ s American Thinker column breaking down the video on which Pick relied .
This morning Andrea responds to the “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ column “ Democrats ’ defense of Georgia election fraud video doesn ’ t hold water.
” American Thinker editor Tom Lifson has also kindly passed along the comments posted by our old friend Neo in “ Suitcase-gate in Fulton County.
” Tom has sent along the tweet below as well .
I operate on the premise that , given sufficient information , intelligent readers should be able to sort this out on their own .
I remain skeptical , to say the least , but I don ’ t think we have sufficient @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or to dismiss the conspiracy theory operative in this case .

I noted the presentation by Trump legal team volunteer Jacki Pick before the Georgia Senate Judiciary Committee here yesterday and followed it here with the citation of a “fact check” that presented the assertions of county officials assuring us that there was nothing to see. Rich Lowry commented further with useful links and a reporter’s Twitter thread in “About the suitcase video.”
In my initial post I directed readers to Andrea Widburg’s American Thinker column breaking down the video on which Pick relied. This morning Andrea responds to the “fact check” in the American Thinker column “Democrats’ defense of Georgia election fraud video doesn’t hold water.” American Thinker editor Tom Lifson has also kindly passed along the comments posted by our old friend Neo in “Suitcase-gate in Fulton County.” Tom has sent along the tweet below as well.
Here's how you know Democrats' lying "fact check" is a bunch of garbage. Fulton County falsely reported it *sent the ballot counters* home on election night. Then how was ballot counting after that point caught on video 'normal'? Don't believe a single word they say. Period.🔻 pic.twitter.com/xoHIc3a1T4 — Kyle Becker (@kylenabecker) December 4, 2020
I operate on the premise that, given sufficient information, intelligent readers should be able to sort this out on their own. I remain skeptical, to say the least, but I don’t think we have sufficient information to sort this outon our own or to dismiss the conspiracy theory operative in this case.


powerlineblog--2020-12-06--Some fans allowed to attend some EPL matches

For the first time since March , fans were allowed to attend English Premier League matches today .
But not very many fans and not all EPL matches .
England is divided into three categories ( tiers ) for purposes of the pandemic , with tier 3 being the most seriously affected .
No EPL venue falls within tier 1 .
The 29 venues are equally divided between the other two tiers .
In tier 2 venues , 2,000 fans are now allowed to attend soccer matches .
In tier 3 venues , fans are still entirely barred .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 4,000 fans could attend .
All of London apparently falls in tier 2 .
Thus , 2,000 fans were allowed to see the home matches of Chelsea ( West London ) and West Ham ( East London ) .
However , in Burnley , about 30 miles from Manchester , no fans were allowed to attend the home team ’ s draw against Everton .
They didn ’ t miss much .
In London , as I understand it , the lucky 2,000 fans were selected randomly among season ticket holders who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had to agree to certain conditions , including staggered admissions , the taking of their temperature , and the wearing of a face mask at all times .
However , when the cameras panned the crowd at the London Stadium , where West Ham plays , compliance with the mask wearing requirement was not robust .
To be fair , it ’ s questionable whether mask wearing outdoors provides any extra protection against the virus .
I was surprised that at the West Ham match , the crowd was not more heavily dispersed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Billy Bonds stand , named after the legendary Hammers defender of ( mainly ) the 1970s .
The London Stadium is cavernous and the Hammers lost 1-3 to Manchester United .
Thus , I didn ’ t hear as much noise from the crowd as I expected .
Hammers fans did sing their trademark song “ I ’ m forever blowing bubbles ” with some gusto , however .
The Chelsea crowd made plenty of noise and the broadcast picked it .
One could really tell how much these fans missed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their team to a 3-1 victory over Leeds United .
Liverpool falls within tier 2 .
This means that 2,000 fans will be allowed into Goodison Park for Everton ’ s next home match , a week from today against mighty Chelsea .
If we don ’ t improve our play , there might be some booing of the home team by the end of the match .
I heard there was at some venues in England ’ s lower divisions this week .
I assume that booing poor play by the home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ missed for all of these months .

For the first time since March, fans were allowed to attend English Premier League matches today. But not very many fans and not all EPL matches.
England is divided into three categories (tiers) for purposes of the pandemic, with tier 3 being the most seriously affected. No EPL venue falls within tier 1. The 29 venues are equally divided between the other two tiers.
In tier 2 venues, 2,000 fans are now allowed to attend soccer matches. In tier 3 venues, fans are still entirely barred. If there were any stadiums within tier 1, 4,000 fans could attend.
All of London apparently falls in tier 2. Thus, 2,000 fans were allowed to see the home matches of Chelsea (West London) and West Ham (East London). However, in Burnley, about 30 miles from Manchester, no fans were allowed to attend the home team’s draw against Everton. They didn’t miss much.
In London, as I understand it, the lucky 2,000 fans were selected randomly among season ticket holders who were interested in attending. Everyone attending had to agree to certain conditions, including staggered admissions, the taking of their temperature, and the wearing of a face mask at all times.
However, when the cameras panned the crowd at the London Stadium, where West Ham plays, compliance with the mask wearing requirement was not robust. To be fair, it’s questionable whether mask wearing outdoors provides any extra protection against the virus.
I was surprised that at the West Ham match, the crowd was not more heavily dispersed. Fans seemed to be clustered disproportionately in the Billy Bonds stand, named after the legendary Hammers defender of (mainly) the 1970s.
The London Stadium is cavernous and the Hammers lost 1-3 to Manchester United. Thus, I didn’t hear as much noise from the crowd as I expected. Hammers fans did sing their trademark song “I’m forever blowing bubbles” with some gusto, however.
The Chelsea crowd made plenty of noise and the broadcast picked it. One could really tell how much these fans missed watching live football, as they roared their team to a 3-1 victory over Leeds United.
Liverpool falls within tier 2. This means that 2,000 fans will be allowed into Goodison Park for Everton’s next home match, a week from today against mighty Chelsea.
If we don’t improve our play, there might be some booing of the home team by the end of the match. I heard there was at some venues in England’s lower divisions this week. I assume that booing poor play by the home team is part of what fans have missed for all of these months.


powerlineblog--2020-12-06--The Washington Post’s beef with Neera Tanden

It ’ s not just conservatives and insulted Republican Senators who are unhappy that Joe Biden has selected Neera Tanden to run the Office of Management and Budget .
The Washington Post criticizes her from the left in populist terms : In her nine years helming Washington ’ s leading liberal think tank , Neera Tanden mingled with deep-pocketed donors who made their fortunes on Wall Street , in Silicon Valley and in other powerful sectors of corporate America .
Between 2014 and 2019 , CAP [ the Center for American Progress ] received at least $ 33 million in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , private foundations primarily funded by wealth earned on Wall Street and in other investment firms , and current or former executives at financial firms such as Bain Capital , Blackstone and Evercore , according to a Washington Post analysis of CAP ’ s donor disclosures and some of the foundations ’ public tax filings .
In the same time period , CAP received between $ 4.9 million and $ 13 million from Silicon Valley companies and foundations , including Facebook and founder Mark Zuckerberg ’ s philanthropic organization .
Nearly every quality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does the Federalist Society ) , and think tanks are a natural source of expertise for an administration .
The current OMB director , Russell Vought , served as vice president of Heritage Action for America , the Post notes .
This reality may aggravate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and ( these days ) Tucker Carlson .
But I doubt that it bothers the Washington Post .
If the Post has a problem with CAP ’ s sources of funding , it probably has more to do with foreign sources than with American corporate interests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accepted between $ 1.5 million and $ 3 million from the United Arab Emirates in recent years ( but stopped accepting its donations in 2019 ) .
The UAE is closely aligned with the U.S. , thanks to President Trump ’ s diplomacy and his hardline stance against Iran , of which the Post has often expressed disapproval .
More to the point , the UAE is very closely aligned with Saudi Arabia .
The Post has a massive ax to grind with the Saudis over the killing of its columnist , Jamal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Beth Reinhard articulate what is likely the Post ’ s only real grievance with Tanden in this passage : After Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi ’ s 2018 murder at the hands of Saudi officials , CAP put out a statement denouncing the “ heinous and reprehensible act ” but stopping short of demanding specific consequences to punish the kingdom .
.
.
.
[ In addition ] an unsigned essay in 2017 welcomed the ascension of Mohammed bin Salman as the new Saudi crown prince , saying he would usher in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ top ” and “ economic and social reforms .
This view of the new crown prince was widely shared .
Torbati and Reinhard don ’ t say , much less show , that it has turned out to be unsound .
There are good reasons why one might oppose Tanden ’ s nomination to head OMB .
CAP ’ s failure to demand “ specific consequences ” to punish Saudi Arabia for killing a Washington Post columnist isn ’ t one of them .

It’s not just conservatives and insulted Republican Senators who are unhappy that Joe Biden has selected Neera Tanden to run the Office of Management and Budget. The Washington Post criticizes her from the left in populist terms:
In her nine years helming Washington’s leading liberal think tank, Neera Tanden mingled with deep-pocketed donors who made their fortunes on Wall Street, in Silicon Valley and in other powerful sectors of corporate America. Between 2014 and 2019, CAP [the Center for American Progress] received at least $33 million in donations from firms in the financial sector, private foundations primarily funded by wealth earned on Wall Street and in other investment firms, and current or former executives at financial firms such as Bain Capital, Blackstone and Evercore, according to a Washington Post analysis of CAP’s donor disclosures and some of the foundations’ public tax filings. In the same time period, CAP received between $4.9 million and $13 million from Silicon Valley companies and foundations, including Facebook and founder Mark Zuckerberg’s philanthropic organization.
Nearly every quality think tank receives corporate donations (as does the Federalist Society), and think tanks are a natural source of expertise for an administration. The current OMB director, Russell Vought, served as vice president of Heritage Action for America, the Post notes.
This reality may aggravate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and (these days) Tucker Carlson. But I doubt that it bothers the Washington Post.
If the Post has a problem with CAP’s sources of funding, it probably has more to do with foreign sources than with American corporate interests. According to the Post, CAP accepted between $1.5 million and $3 million from the United Arab Emirates in recent years (but stopped accepting its donations in 2019).
The UAE is closely aligned with the U.S., thanks to President Trump’s diplomacy and his hardline stance against Iran, of which the Post has often expressed disapproval. More to the point, the UAE is very closely aligned with Saudi Arabia.
The Post has a massive ax to grind with the Saudis over the killing of its columnist, Jamal Khashoggi. Post reporters Yeganeh Torbati and Beth Reinhard articulate what is likely the Post’s only real grievance with Tanden in this passage:
After Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi’s 2018 murder at the hands of Saudi officials, CAP put out a statement denouncing the “heinous and reprehensible act” but stopping short of demanding specific consequences to punish the kingdom. . . . [In addition] an unsigned essay in 2017 welcomed the ascension of Mohammed bin Salman as the new Saudi crown prince, saying he would usher in a “long era of stability at the top” and “economic and social reforms.
This view of the new crown prince was widely shared. Torbati and Reinhard don’t say, much less show, that it has turned out to be unsound.
There are good reasons why one might oppose Tanden’s nomination to head OMB. CAP’s failure to demand “specific consequences” to punish Saudi Arabia for killing a Washington Post columnist isn’t one of them.


Apocalypse Now?

Did Joe Biden and the Democrats steal this year ’ s presidential election ?
Polls suggest that a great many Americans , including many Democrats , believe that they did .
I don ’ t know whether the election was stolen or not .
I will say this : the Democrats went to great lengths to commit , or enable , voter fraud .
To cite just a couple of examples , in a number of states , including my own , they used corrupt , collusive litigation to eliminate the minimal safeguards that prevented fraudulent mail-in votes from being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be witnessed .
Why would they do this ?
Obviously , they didn ’ t want those safeguards to stand in the way of fraud .
And in Philadelphia , Pittsburgh and Detroit , Democrats locked Republican poll watchers out of the buildings where mail-in votes were being evaluated and tabulated .
The Republicans had to get court orders just to be admitted to the premises , long after counting was under way .
Why would the Democrats lock out Republicans ?
Because they intended to count the votes honestly ?
Voter fraud @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time , and I think it was worse this year than ever .
Did fraud swing the election ?
Key questions remain unanswered , as far as I know .
In several pivotal states , ballot counting was shut down ( or allegedly shut down , in the case of Georgia ) in the middle of the night .
Then , when counting resumed , enormous numbers of ballots that were overwhelmingly in favor of Joe Biden–by margins that can ’ t possibly be right , not 60/40 but , say , 98/2–suddenly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Democrats offered any explanation for what happened , or any confirmation that these near-unanimous tranches of Biden votes actually existed ?
Not that I know of .
The bare facts are suspicious , to say the least .
More than 74 million Americans voted for President Trump , 12 million more votes than he received in 2016 , and more , by far , than any presidential candidate of either party has ever gotten .
And we are supposed to believe that Joe Biden , a mentally impaired senior citizen who didn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his basement , about whose candidacy virtually no one was enthusiastic outside his immediate family , smashed all records by getting 81 million Americans to vote for him , 12 million more than voted for Barack Obama in 2008 ?
Actual live Americans , voting legally , and only once ?
While millions of those same voters didn ’ t vote down-ballot , so that , apart from the presidential race , it was a good year for Republicans ?
I don ’ t believe it .
The cold reality is that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , eight days from now .
There is no way that the Trump campaign ’ s various legal challenges , whether meritorious or not , will be resolved in time to make a difference .
Which means that that Joe Biden will be inaugurated under a cloud .
Close to one-half of Americans will believe , likely correctly in my opinion , that he did not actually win the election .
Legal proceedings will continue , but perhaps more important , enterprising authors will write books about the election .
Some will argue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , others will try to defend Biden ’ s “ win.
” Book authors will have the advantage of time , but what they will not have is subpoena power .
They will not be able to compel production of documents or the testimony of witnesses , so their analyses will inevitably be speculative to a great degree .
The debate will go on , with partisans on both sides mostly believing what they want to believe .
So what will conservatives do ?
Two friends of mine who are not given to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that one might call apocalyptic .
Roger Kimball writes at American Greatness : As more and more “ anomalies ” surfaced , the Narrative had to shift again .
A couple of weeks ago , the line became , “ Maybe there was pretty widespread fraud—it ’ s a big country , after all—but it was not so serious as to alter the course of the election.
” I thought that an odd response because—speaking of “ after all ” —Biden ’ s margin of victory varied between thin and razor thin : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same in Georgia , 20,000 votes in Wisconsin .
Biden ’ s margin in Pennsylvania is 80,000 , but that , too , is thin when one considers that around midnight Trump was ahead by some 700,000 votes .
What happened ?
I think I know , but let ’ s check back in on the Narrative here next weekend .
Now the voice of the Narrative is saying , “ Maybe be there was widespread fraud , and maybe , just maybe , it affected the outcome in some places , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The electors meet on December 14 , and to persist with any challenge would be to disrupt the process , which is sacrosanct.
” What should conservatives do ?
If the legislative and legal powers being asked to scrutinize the election acquiesce in the Narrative and reject Donald Trump , I believe that the “ process ” they affirm will be that process through which the election was manipulated and then stolen .
It will be an affirmation of illegitimacy in the guise of principled face-saving .
The real goal—unstated but omnipresent—is to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump can ever again be elected .
They might just succeed in that .
The cost will be the further , perhaps fatal , undermining of our electoral system ’ s legitimacy .
*** The faith in fairness has been shattered beyond recovery and the assumption of anything like a shared consensus seems more and more like a naïve pretense when it isn ’ t just a cynical hustings gambit .
Roger Simon , meanwhile , writes in the Epoch Times : 2021 will be a year of massive civil disobedience in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ civil disobedience will manifest , I am not certain , but it will come .
*** [ T ] he seventy-four or so million Trump supporters who feel disenfranchised not only by the manipulations of the opposite party and their media friends but also by the considerable number of self-interested leaders in their own party who have betrayed them , are not likely to resort to violence like the Antifa sociopaths .
*** But if these same patriotic people , known as the “ deplorables , ” are violently opposed , all bets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a remote possibility , but disunion is starting to look like a practical alternative .
That is a big topic for ongoing discussion .
That strikes me as an optimistic hope .
A third commentator , Michael Barone , the dean of American political analysts , also writes about how conservatives may react to the presumed inauguration of Joe Biden : [ W ] e have — or had — a norm against delegitimizing election results .
In 1960 , Richard Nixon chose to observe that norm and not challenge results in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gore contested the results in Florida but conceded after the final court ruling and segued to issue advocacy .
Not so in 2016 .
In violation of longstanding norms , Obama administration intel and law-enforcement agencies spied on the opposition party campaign .
Officials proffered the dodgy Steele dossier before the FISA court without revealing it was paid for by Hillary Clinton ’ s campaign .
In violation of longstanding norms , Democrats refused to accept the result as legitimate .
“ I will not accede to this .
I will resist , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tanden ( President-elect Joe Biden ’ s choice to head the Office of Management and Budget ) five days after the election .
Democrats took to calling themselves “ the Resistance , ” suggesting the Trump administration was morally equivalent to the pro-Hitler Vichy regime in France .
Again and again , leading Democrats — Hillary Clinton , Rep. Jerrold Nadler , the late Rep. John Lewis , Joe Biden , Jimmy Carter — called Trump an “ illegitimate ” president .
For three years , Democrats advanced the Russia-collusion hoax without finding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discredited Steele dossier .
After that appalling record , Democrats are asking the rest of us to “ unify ” the country behind the mentally challenged Joe Biden .
It isn ’ t going to happen .
I don ’ t know whether civil disobedience to the Biden regime will be widespread , but I doubt it .
Nor will we # Resist by illegal or dishonest means , as the Democrats have done for the last four years through the insane Russia collusion fraud and many other means .
But within those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an inch .
For the sake of what is left of our country , we should # Resist the Biden administration and the Democrats every step of the way for the next four years .

Did Joe Biden and the Democrats steal this year’s presidential election? Polls suggest that a great many Americans, including many Democrats, believe that they did. I don’t know whether the election was stolen or not. I will say this: the Democrats went to great lengths to commit, or enable, voter fraud. To cite just a couple of examples, in a number of states, including my own, they used corrupt, collusive litigation to eliminate the minimal safeguards that prevented fraudulent mail-in votes from being submitted, like the requirement that signatures be witnessed. Why would they do this? Obviously, they didn’t want those safeguards to stand in the way of fraud.
And in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Detroit, Democrats locked Republican poll watchers out of the buildings where mail-in votes were being evaluated and tabulated. The Republicans had to get court orders just to be admitted to the premises, long after counting was under way. Why would the Democrats lock out Republicans? Because they intended to count the votes honestly?
Voter fraud has been a problem for a long time, and I think it was worse this year than ever. Did fraud swing the election? Key questions remain unanswered, as far as I know. In several pivotal states, ballot counting was shut down (or allegedly shut down, in the case of Georgia) in the middle of the night. Then, when counting resumed, enormous numbers of ballots that were overwhelmingly in favor of Joe Biden–by margins that can’t possibly be right, not 60/40 but, say, 98/2–suddenly turned up and were counted. Have the Democrats offered any explanation for what happened, or any confirmation that these near-unanimous tranches of Biden votes actually existed? Not that I know of.
The bare facts are suspicious, to say the least. More than 74 million Americans voted for President Trump, 12 million more votes than he received in 2016, and more, by far, than any presidential candidate of either party has ever gotten. And we are supposed to believe that Joe Biden, a mentally impaired senior citizen who didn’t campaign, who rarely left his basement, about whose candidacy virtually no one was enthusiastic outside his immediate family, smashed all records by getting 81 million Americans to vote for him, 12 million more than voted for Barack Obama in 2008? Actual live Americans, voting legally, and only once? While millions of those same voters didn’t vote down-ballot, so that, apart from the presidential race, it was a good year for Republicans? I don’t believe it.
The cold reality is that the Electoral College will meet on December 14, eight days from now. There is no way that the Trump campaign’s various legal challenges, whether meritorious or not, will be resolved in time to make a difference. Which means that that Joe Biden will be inaugurated under a cloud. Close to one-half of Americans will believe, likely correctly in my opinion, that he did not actually win the election. Legal proceedings will continue, but perhaps more important, enterprising authors will write books about the election. Some will argue that the Democrats stole the presidential race, others will try to defend Biden’s “win.” Book authors will have the advantage of time, but what they will not have is subpoena power. They will not be able to compel production of documents or the testimony of witnesses, so their analyses will inevitably be speculative to a great degree. The debate will go on, with partisans on both sides mostly believing what they want to believe.
So what will conservatives do? Two friends of mine who are not given to hyperbole see this emerging situation in terms that one might call apocalyptic. Roger Kimball writes at American Greatness:
As more and more “anomalies” surfaced, the Narrative had to shift again. A couple of weeks ago, the line became, “Maybe there was pretty widespread fraud—it’s a big country, after all—but it was not so serious as to alter the course of the election.” I thought that an odd response because—speaking of “after all”—Biden’s margin of victory varied between thin and razor thin: some 11,000 votes in Arizona, about the same in Georgia, 20,000 votes in Wisconsin. Biden’s margin in Pennsylvania is 80,000, but that, too, is thin when one considers that around midnight Trump was ahead by some 700,000 votes. What happened? I think I know, but let’s check back in on the Narrative here next weekend. Now the voice of the Narrative is saying, “Maybe be there was widespread fraud, and maybe, just maybe, it affected the outcome in some places, but it is too late now. The electors meet on December 14, and to persist with any challenge would be to disrupt the process, which is sacrosanct.”
What should conservatives do?
If the legislative and legal powers being asked to scrutinize the election acquiesce in the Narrative and reject Donald Trump, I believe that the “process” they affirm will be that process through which the election was manipulated and then stolen. It will be an affirmation of illegitimacy in the guise of principled face-saving. The real goal—unstated but omnipresent—is to make sure that no one like Donald Trump can ever again be elected. They might just succeed in that. The cost will be the further, perhaps fatal, undermining of our electoral system’s legitimacy.
***
The faith in fairness has been shattered beyond recovery and the assumption of anything like a shared consensus seems more and more like a naïve pretense when it isn’t just a cynical hustings gambit.
Roger Simon, meanwhile, writes in the Epoch Times:
2021 will be a year of massive civil disobedience in the United States of America. How this civil disobedience will manifest, I am not certain, but it will come.
***
[T]he seventy-four or so million Trump supporters who feel disenfranchised not only by the manipulations of the opposite party and their media friends but also by the considerable number of self-interested leaders in their own party who have betrayed them, are not likely to resort to violence like the Antifa sociopaths.
***
But if these same patriotic people, known as the “deplorables,” are violently opposed, all bets are off. Civil disobedience will morph into civil war.
I think civil war is a remote possibility, but disunion is starting to look like a practical alternative. That is a big topic for ongoing discussion.
[M]y guess is this new (and more genuine) “resistance” will take three forms: 1. Mass and growing demonstrations; 2. Non-payment of taxes, threatening to bankrupt the national treasury since most of these people are hard-working and employed; 3. A general movement of what we might call John Galt-ism, after the character in Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged.” Vast numbers of our citizens will simply check out and return to their own farms, or versions thereof, like the Roman emperor Cincinnatus was alleged to have done.
That strikes me as an optimistic hope.
A third commentator, Michael Barone, the dean of American political analysts, also writes about how conservatives may react to the presumed inauguration of Joe Biden:
[W]e have — or had — a norm against delegitimizing election results. In 1960, Richard Nixon chose to observe that norm and not challenge results in multiple states. In 2000, Al Gore contested the results in Florida but conceded after the final court ruling and segued to issue advocacy. Not so in 2016. In violation of longstanding norms, Obama administration intel and law-enforcement agencies spied on the opposition party campaign. Officials proffered the dodgy Steele dossier before the FISA court without revealing it was paid for by Hillary Clinton’s campaign. In violation of longstanding norms, Democrats refused to accept the result as legitimate. “I will not accede to this. I will resist,” tweeted liberal think tank head Neera Tanden (President-elect Joe Biden’s choice to head the Office of Management and Budget) five days after the election. Democrats took to calling themselves “the Resistance,” suggesting the Trump administration was morally equivalent to the pro-Hitler Vichy regime in France. Again and again, leading Democrats — Hillary Clinton, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, the late Rep. John Lewis, Joe Biden, Jimmy Carter — called Trump an “illegitimate” president. For three years, Democrats advanced the Russia-collusion hoax without finding or producing any evidence except for the discredited Steele dossier.
After that appalling record, Democrats are asking the rest of us to “unify” the country behind the mentally challenged Joe Biden. It isn’t going to happen.
Democrats who are dismayed that many Americans aren’t meekly accepting the legitimacy of the Biden presidency are in the process of learning a lesson taught a very long time ago. You reap what you sow.
I don’t know whether civil disobedience to the Biden regime will be widespread, but I doubt it. Nor will we #Resist by illegal or dishonest means, as the Democrats have done for the last four years through the insane Russia collusion fraud and many other means. But within those parameters, conservatives shouldn’t give an inch. For the sake of what is left of our country, we should #Resist the Biden administration and the Democrats every step of the way for the next four years.


powerlineblog--2020-12-06--Podcast: The Three Whisky Happy Hour: College Shop Talk

“ Lucretia ” and I had fully intended to work through our long-promised ( or is it that threatened ? )
and now thrice-postponed seminar on the philosophical roots of leftist snobbishness and condescension , but we got diverted—strange that this keeps happening—by some notable campus news stories from last week .
Naturally there were several stories of colleges disgracing themselves , capitulating to the student mob in the usual cowardly fashion ( Haverford , Smith ) , but one university ( yay Chicago ! )
showing how to tell the whiny mob to stuff it .
So we ended @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But wait—there ’ s more !
The financial unsustainability of higher education is starting to show up in significant layoffs at last : employment is higher education institutions is down more than 10 percent since COVID hit , taking total college employment to a level not seen since before the housing crisis of 2008 .
Several universities are now starting to shrink core tenured core faculty positions , and closing down some liberal arts departments .
But before you say “ good riddance , ” we note that the politicized departments of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t on the chopping block , and that we risk cutting down the tall trees and leaving the zoo animals unaffected .
We round off the episode with a visit to the local gun store , a few fond recollections of the late Walter Williams , and some of the usual bickering over whisky and stemware preferences , which caused me to debut the first in a series of campaign-style attack ads directed at “ Lucretia.
” Time to drink up !
( And yes , I did swap out the exit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , because it fit in an obscure way with the originally intended topic .
You ’ ll just have to suffer with it . )
You know what to do now : listen here , or over with our hosts at Ricochet .

“Lucretia” and I had fully intended to work through our long-promised (or is it that threatened?) and now thrice-postponed seminar on the philosophical roots of leftist snobbishness and condescension, but we got diverted—strange that this keeps happening—by some notable campus news stories from last week. Naturally there were several stories of colleges disgracing themselves, capitulating to the student mob in the usual cowardly fashion (Haverford, Smith), but one university (yay Chicago!) showing how to tell the whiny mob to stuff it. So we ended up talking shop about the whole scene.
But wait—there’s more! The financial unsustainability of higher education is starting to show up in significant layoffs at last: employment is higher education institutions is down more than 10 percent since COVID hit, taking total college employment to a level not seen since before the housing crisis of 2008. Several universities are now starting to shrink core tenured core faculty positions, and closing down some liberal arts departments. But before you say “good riddance,” we note that the politicized departments of “gender studies” and such aren’t on the chopping block, and that we risk cutting down the tall trees and leaving the zoo animals unaffected.
We round off the episode with a visit to the local gun store, a few fond recollections of the late Walter Williams, and some of the usual bickering over whisky and stemware preferences, which caused me to debut the first in a series of campaign-style attack ads directed at “Lucretia.” Time to drink up! (And yes, I did swap out the exit music for this week’s episode, because it fit in an obscure way with the originally intended topic. You’ll just have to suffer with it.)
You know what to do now: listen here, or over with our hosts at Ricochet.


powerlineblog--2020-12-06--Sunday morning coming down

Sunday morning coming down

I ’ ve learned a lot listening to John Pizzarelli and Jessica Molaskey on Radio Deluxe over the past several years .
The weekly show is carried locally on KBEM FM in the Twin Cities and other such stations around the country .
Both John and Jessica are great musicians in their own right .
We ’ ve seen John perform with his trio at the Dakota Jazz Club in Minneapolis several times .
Some day we ’ ll do it again , if we ’ re lucky , maybe with Jessica .
John ’ s father , Bucky Pizzarelli @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He played the seven-string guitar .
On the seven-string guitar , as I understand it , the seventh string is tuned to A an octave lower than the fifth string .
My point , and I do have one , is that John has followed in Bucky ’ s path playing the seven-string .
It ’ s a beautiful , full sound .
Bucky worked in studio bands at NBC and ABC .
Among other things , he played as a session man on approximately every pop recording produced in New York , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on My Mind , ” just for example .
“ I never realized how many records I made , ” he said in a 2011 documentary .
He died earlier this year at the age of 94 , followed by his wife a week later .
Dakota proprietor Lowell Pickett paired Bucky with jazz pianist Benny Green for what was billed as a one-off event at the time back in 2008 ( story here ) .
It turned out so well that they followed up with a few additional dates and returned to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ following year .
We felt lucky to there for the 2008 show too .
This is what they sounded like together on “ Easy to Remember.
” Jessica ’ s most recent disc is Portraits of Joni .
It has caught me up in its feeling and creativity every time I listen to it .
You can hear John accompanying Jessica on guitar in “ A Case of You.
” Most recently , John contributed as a producer and guitarist to James Taylor ’ s American Standard disc .
His own most recent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Centennial Reasons , a tribute to Nat “ King ” Cole .
This week John and Jessica celebrated the 15th anniversary of their radio show ( below ) .
I have added the song listing from the free weekly show email sent out to subscribers .
You can sign up for it here .
Past episodes are posted here .
I thought some readers might want to sample the anniversary edition of the show for a change of pace .
HOUR ONE Kurt Elling – Tight ( Nightmoves ) Ann Hampton Callaway – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bring Back Romance ) The Bill Charlap Trio – Cool ( Somewhere ) Jack Jones – Call Me Irresponsible ( Greatest Hits ) Liza Minnelli – Ring Them Bells ( Liza with a “ Z ” ) Dick Haymes – The More I See You ( Rain or Shine ) Keely Smith – On the Sunny Side of the Street ( Spotlight on Keely Smith ; Great Ladies of Song ) Margaret Whiting – All in Fun ( Margaret Whiting Sings the Jerome Kern Songbook ) Harry Allen & John Pizzarelli – Pennies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ John Pizzarelli Trio ) Maddie Pizzarelli – Pink Haus ( Pink Haus EP ) Dave Brubeck Quartet – Will You Still Be Mine ?
( Angel Eyes ) HOUR TWO Kenny Rankin – Blackbird ( live radio performance ) John Pizzarelli – Little Girl ( Our Love Is Here to Stay ) Jonathan & Darlene Edwards – I Love Paris ( Jonathan & Darlene ’ s Greatest Hits ) Ken Peplowski & John Pizzarelli – Goody Goody ( live radio performance ) Michael Feinstein – Where Do You Start ?
( The Michael @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I Want ( Wild for You ) Barbara Carroll – Old Friends ( Live at Birdland ) Dave Frishberg – Useless Waltz ( Classics ) Mary Cleere Haran – Sure Thing ( This Heart of Mine : Classic Movie Songs of the Forties ) John Pizzarelli & the Trio/Bucky Pizzarelli – Stompin ’ at the Savoy ( live radio performance ) Patrick Williams – New York State of Mind ( 10th Avenue )

I’ve learned a lot listening to John Pizzarelli and Jessica Molaskey on Radio Deluxe over the past several years. The weekly show is carried locally on KBEM FM in the Twin Cities and other such stations around the country.
Both John and Jessica are great musicians in their own right. We’ve seen John perform with his trio at the Dakota Jazz Club in Minneapolis several times. Some day we’ll do it again, if we’re lucky, maybe with Jessica.
John’s father, Bucky Pizzarelli, was a notable musician himself. He played the seven-string guitar. On the seven-string guitar, as I understand it, the seventh string is tuned to A an octave lower than the fifth string. My point, and I do have one, is that John has followed in Bucky’s path playing the seven-string. It’s a beautiful, full sound.
Bucky worked in studio bands at NBC and ABC. Among other things, he played as a session man on approximately every pop recording produced in New York, including Ray Charles’s “Georgia on My Mind,” just for example. “I never realized how many records I made,” he said in a 2011 documentary. He died earlier this year at the age of 94, followed by his wife a week later.
Dakota proprietor Lowell Pickett paired Bucky with jazz pianist Benny Green for what was billed as a one-off event at the time back in 2008 (story here). It turned out so well that they followed up with a few additional dates and returned to the Dakota for a live recording the following year. We felt lucky to there for the 2008 show too. This is what they sounded like together on “Easy to Remember.”
Jessica’s most recent disc is Portraits of Joni. It has caught me up in its feeling and creativity every time I listen to it. You can hear John accompanying Jessica on guitar in “A Case of You.”
John also unmistakably backs Jessica on “Marcie.”
Most recently, John contributed as a producer and guitarist to James Taylor’s American Standard disc. His own most recent disc — his twenty-fifth — is For Centennial Reasons, a tribute to Nat “King” Cole.
This week John and Jessica celebrated the 15th anniversary of their radio show (below). I have added the song listing from the free weekly show email sent out to subscribers. You can sign up for it here. Past episodes are posted here. I thought some readers might want to sample the anniversary edition of the show for a change of pace.
HOUR ONE
Kurt Elling – Tight (Nightmoves)
Ann Hampton Callaway – You Can’t Rush Spring (Bring Back Romance)
The Bill Charlap Trio – Cool (Somewhere)
Jack Jones – Call Me Irresponsible (Greatest Hits)
Liza Minnelli – Ring Them Bells (Liza with a “Z”)
Dick Haymes – The More I See You (Rain or Shine)
Keely Smith – On the Sunny Side of the Street (Spotlight on Keely Smith; Great Ladies of Song)
Margaret Whiting – All in Fun (Margaret Whiting Sings the Jerome Kern Songbook)
Harry Allen & John Pizzarelli – Pennies from Heaven (Harry Allen Meets the John Pizzarelli Trio)
Maddie Pizzarelli – Pink Haus (Pink Haus EP)
Dave Brubeck Quartet – Will You Still Be Mine? (Angel Eyes)
HOUR TWO
Kenny Rankin – Blackbird (live radio performance)
John Pizzarelli – Little Girl (Our Love Is Here to Stay)
Jonathan & Darlene Edwards – I Love Paris (Jonathan & Darlene’s Greatest Hits)
Ken Peplowski & John Pizzarelli – Goody Goody (live radio performance)
Michael Feinstein – Where Do You Start? (The Michael Feinstein Anthology)
Karrin Allyson – All I Want (Wild for You)
Barbara Carroll – Old Friends (Live at Birdland)
Dave Frishberg – Useless Waltz (Classics)
Mary Cleere Haran – Sure Thing (This Heart of Mine: Classic Movie Songs of the Forties)
John Pizzarelli & the Trio/Bucky Pizzarelli – Stompin’ at the Savoy (live radio performance)
Patrick Williams – New York State of Mind (10th Avenue)


powerlineblog--2020-12-07--“Joe (not really) from Scranton” flopped with the working class

Lisa Lerer of the New York Times , having looked at the county-by-county election results , concludes that Joe Biden failed to win back the working class for the Democrats .
In fact , he seems to have fared worse with blue-collar voters than “ Hillary from Chappaqua ” did .
The clearest way to understand the results of the 2020 election — and , perhaps , the shifting state of our politics — is through the education voting gap .
Voters with college degrees flocked to Mr. Biden , emerging as the crucial voting bloc in the suburbs .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Democratic Party .
.
.
.
One way to examine this trend county by county is to look at the number of voters who have white- or blue-collar jobs .
.
.
.
The results were striking .
Of the 265 counties most dominated by blue-collar workers — areas where at least 40 percent of employed adults have jobs in construction , the service industry or other nonprofessional fields — Mr. Biden won just 15 , according to data from researchers at the Economic Innovation Group , a bipartisan policy research group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in counties won by Mr. Biden was about 23 percent blue collar .
In counties won by President Trump , blue-collar workers made up an average of 31 percent of the work force .
The realignment Lerer describes has been in the works for some time .
However , Democrats hoped that Joe Biden would appeal more to blue=collar voters than Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton — both obvious elitists — did .
After all , as Lerer puts it , Biden “ built his political brand on being a scrappy kid from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another guy riding the train to work.
” Indeed , “ the rallying cry of his campaign in the final weeks was : ‘ This election is Scranton versus Park Avenue.
’ ” But the working class didn ’ t buy it .
According to Lerer , Biden fared worse than Clinton in 2016 and Obama in 2012 and 2008 in counties dominated by blue-collar workers .
Will Democrats be able to win back working class voters ?
Maybe , but I doubt it .
The Dems seem to be all in on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ massive turnoffs to blue-collar ( and many other ) voters .
They are also committed to mass amnesty for illegal immigrants and probably to trade policies and international agreements that will be easy targets for Republicans .
But one should also ask whether Republicans can make inroads among suburban and white collar voters .
I think they probably can without moderating too much on substance .
Portions of Donald Trump ’ s program , articulated by someone less nasty and off-putting , might well appeal to many well-educated suburbanites , especially in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s what is in store ) .
But it ’ s difficult to see the program Joe Biden ran on , which gave so much sway to his party ’ s leftist base and its Silicon Valley billionaires , appealing to blue-collar voters .
Nor is it easy to envisage the Democrats nominating another presidential candidate who can even pose as anything close to “ Joe from Scranton .
”

Lisa Lerer of the New York Times, having looked at the county-by-county election results, concludes that Joe Biden failed to win back the working class for the Democrats. In fact, he seems to have fared worse with blue-collar voters than “Hillary from Chappaqua” did.
Lerer writes:
The clearest way to understand the results of the 2020 election — and, perhaps, the shifting state of our politics — is through the education voting gap. Voters with college degrees flocked to Mr. Biden, emerging as the crucial voting bloc in the suburbs. Those without them continued their flight from the Democratic Party. . . . One way to examine this trend county by county is to look at the number of voters who have white- or blue-collar jobs. . . . The results were striking. Of the 265 counties most dominated by blue-collar workers — areas where at least 40 percent of employed adults have jobs in construction, the service industry or other nonprofessional fields — Mr. Biden won just 15, according to data from researchers at the Economic Innovation Group, a bipartisan policy research group. On average, the work force in counties won by Mr. Biden was about 23 percent blue collar. In counties won by President Trump, blue-collar workers made up an average of 31 percent of the work force.
The realignment Lerer describes has been in the works for some time. However, Democrats hoped that Joe Biden would appeal more to blue=collar voters than Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton — both obvious elitists — did. After all, as Lerer puts it, Biden “built his political brand on being a scrappy kid from Scranton, Pa., who became just another guy riding the train to work.” Indeed, “the rallying cry of his campaign in the final weeks was: ‘This election is Scranton versus Park Avenue.’”
But the working class didn’t buy it. According to Lerer, Biden fared worse than Clinton in 2016 and Obama in 2012 and 2008 in counties dominated by blue-collar workers.
Will Democrats be able to win back working class voters? Maybe, but I doubt it. The Dems seem to be all in on political correctness and identity politics — two massive turnoffs to blue-collar (and many other) voters. They are also committed to mass amnesty for illegal immigrants and probably to trade policies and international agreements that will be easy targets for Republicans.
But one should also ask whether Republicans can make inroads among suburban and white collar voters. I think they probably can without moderating too much on substance.
Portions of Donald Trump’s program, articulated by someone less nasty and off-putting, might well appeal to many well-educated suburbanites, especially in the context of rising crime rates (if that’s what is in store). But it’s difficult to see the program Joe Biden ran on, which gave so much sway to his party’s leftist base and its Silicon Valley billionaires, appealing to blue-collar voters. Nor is it easy to envisage the Democrats nominating another presidential candidate who can even pose as anything close to “Joe from Scranton.”