Do Masks Work?

The real question , of course , is whether mask mandates work .
And experience shows that they don ’ t .
In state after state and country after country , it is impossible to see any positive impact on case , hospitalization , or fatality statistics when mask mandates go into effect .
Our political leaders blame that fact on us .
Whiny governors like Minnesota ’ s Tim Walz suggest that since his mask mandate hasn ’ t had the intended effect , the rest of us must be letting him down by failing to wear our masks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ indicates that compliance with mask mandates is well over 90 % across the country , and still there is little or no evidence that they make any difference .
So the question is squarely posed : do masks work , or don ’ t they ?
The Mayo Clinic wrote just before Thanksgiving that its research had confirmed the value of mask wearing : “ Mayo Clinic research confirms critical role of masks in preventing COVID-19 infection.
” A bold claim !
But what did that research consist of ?
The researchers set @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from one of the mannequins a stream of 2 micron polystyrene particles , the same size as typical “ respiratory droplets.
” They measured how many of those polystyrene particles reached the second mannequin under various conditions : one mannequin masked , both masked , neither masked , at 3 feet and 6 feet .
The smallest number of polystyrene particles got through when both mannequins wore masks , and it didn ’ t matter what kind of masks were used .
In fact , with both mannequins masked , at a 6-foot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the polystyrene particles got through to the second mannequin .
Sounds impressive , right ?
But this same experiment found that simply by being six feet apart , with no masks in sight , the number of particles that were received by the second mannequin was reduced by 97 % .
( At three feet , the European “ social distancing ” standard , it was reduced by 87 % . )
Further , the experiment was set up so that the first mannequin expelled the particles from its mouth in what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ straight at the second mannequin .
Check out this video : Do you know anyone who exhales like that , through the mouth with considerable energy ?
I don ’ t .
Further , as the video shows , even when wearing a mask the particles float around the first mannequin ’ s head–much as , I think , they would if a person exhales normally , downward through the nose .
Mayo ’ s experiment convinces me that if someone with COVID is standing a few feet away from you and sneezes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good if he were wearing a mask .
Then , too , it would be good if he covered his mouth when he sneezes .
Would that produce a droplet pattern much different from wearing a mask ?
This experiment helps to explain , I think , why at the same time , public health officials exhort us to wear masks , while , in instance after instance , mask mandates make no perceptible difference in the spread of the coronavirus .
Mask mania is driven by the human need to believe that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ along with the more modern need to believe that our government is “ doing something.
” It is beyond the pale to ask whether there is , in fact , much that any government can do about respiratory viruses .
Government ’ s current campaign against the coronavirus reminds me of the Ford administration ’ s anti-inflation campaign of the 1970s .
President Ford urged Americans to wear “ WIN ” buttons , standing for “ Whip Inflation Now.
” How any citizen not a member of the Federal Reserve was going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s guess .
Wearing a mask , in my opinion , is only slightly more effective than wearing a WIN button , and is done mostly for the same reasons , i.e .
1 ) obedience to authority , and 2 ) virtue signaling , although that term was not known in 1974 .
There is one major exception to the above comments , one important thing that government can do to limit the damage done by a disease like COVID : produce a vaccine .
Or , more realistically , get out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how to produce a vaccine .
This , President Trump seems to have done brilliantly .
Multiple anti-COVID vaccines are now being distributed , cutting the previous record time by 80 % .
The facts about how President Trump achieved this are beginning to come out ; suffice it to say that it is his last major gift to the American people .
Not the most important , but in all likelihood the last .
And the most knowledgeable people–allegedly most knowledgeable–assured us that it couldn ’ t be done .
Michael Ramirez @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : I plan on getting the vaccine , and after I do , I will throw away my mask .
If anyone says , “ Hey , where ’ s your mask , buddy ?
” I will tell him to get stuffed .
There is no remotely plausible scientific reason to wear a mask if you have had COVID or been vaccinated against it .
And yet , many are saying that even after most Americans have either had the Wuhan flu or been vaccinated against it , mask wearing will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sign of virtue , and , in some jurisdictions , even mandated .
That could be true .
If so , it will tell us unequivocally what mask wearing was about all along .

The real question, of course, is whether mask mandates work. And experience shows that they don’t. In state after state and country after country, it is impossible to see any positive impact on case, hospitalization, or fatality statistics when mask mandates go into effect.
Our political leaders blame that fact on us. Whiny governors like Minnesota’s Tim Walz suggest that since his mask mandate hasn’t had the intended effect, the rest of us must be letting him down by failing to wear our masks. But the best evidence we have indicates that compliance with mask mandates is well over 90% across the country, and still there is little or no evidence that they make any difference. So the question is squarely posed: do masks work, or don’t they?
The Mayo Clinic wrote just before Thanksgiving that its research had confirmed the value of mask wearing: “Mayo Clinic research confirms critical role of masks in preventing COVID-19 infection.” A bold claim! But what did that research consist of?
The researchers set up a pair of mannequins and expelled from one of the mannequins a stream of 2 micron polystyrene particles, the same size as typical “respiratory droplets.” They measured how many of those polystyrene particles reached the second mannequin under various conditions: one mannequin masked, both masked, neither masked, at 3 feet and 6 feet. The smallest number of polystyrene particles got through when both mannequins wore masks, and it didn’t matter what kind of masks were used. In fact, with both mannequins masked, at a 6-foot distance fewer than 1/2 of 1% of the polystyrene particles got through to the second mannequin.
Sounds impressive, right? But this same experiment found that simply by being six feet apart, with no masks in sight, the number of particles that were received by the second mannequin was reduced by 97%. (At three feet, the European “social distancing” standard, it was reduced by 87%.) Further, the experiment was set up so that the first mannequin expelled the particles from its mouth in what appears to be a vigorous manner, straight at the second mannequin. Check out this video:
Do you know anyone who exhales like that, through the mouth with considerable energy? I don’t. Further, as the video shows, even when wearing a mask the particles float around the first mannequin’s head–much as, I think, they would if a person exhales normally, downward through the nose.
Mayo’s experiment convinces me that if someone with COVID is standing a few feet away from you and sneezes directly at you, it would be good if he were wearing a mask. Then, too, it would be good if he covered his mouth when he sneezes. Would that produce a droplet pattern much different from wearing a mask?
This experiment helps to explain, I think, why at the same time, public health officials exhort us to wear masks, while, in instance after instance, mask mandates make no perceptible difference in the spread of the coronavirus. Mask mania is driven by the human need to believe that we are “doing something,” along with the more modern need to believe that our government is “doing something.” It is beyond the pale to ask whether there is, in fact, much that any government can do about respiratory viruses.
Government’s current campaign against the coronavirus reminds me of the Ford administration’s anti-inflation campaign of the 1970s. President Ford urged Americans to wear “WIN” buttons, standing for “Whip Inflation Now.” How any citizen not a member of the Federal Reserve was going to “whip inflation” was anyone’s guess. Wearing a mask, in my opinion, is only slightly more effective than wearing a WIN button, and is done mostly for the same reasons, i.e. 1) obedience to authority, and 2) virtue signaling, although that term was not known in 1974.
There is one major exception to the above comments, one important thing that government can do to limit the damage done by a disease like COVID: produce a vaccine. Or, more realistically, get out of the way of those who know how to produce a vaccine. This, President Trump seems to have done brilliantly. Multiple anti-COVID vaccines are now being distributed, cutting the previous record time by 80%. The facts about how President Trump achieved this are beginning to come out; suffice it to say that it is his last major gift to the American people. Not the most important, but in all likelihood the last.
And the most knowledgeable people–allegedly most knowledgeable–assured us that it couldn’t be done. Michael Ramirez makes the point. Click to enlarge:
I plan on getting the vaccine, and after I do, I will throw away my mask. If anyone says, “Hey, where’s your mask, buddy?” I will tell him to get stuffed. There is no remotely plausible scientific reason to wear a mask if you have had COVID or been vaccinated against it.
And yet, many are saying that even after most Americans have either had the Wuhan flu or been vaccinated against it, mask wearing will be common, will be viewed as a sign of virtue, and, in some jurisdictions, even mandated. That could be true. If so, it will tell us unequivocally what mask wearing was about all along.


powerlineblog--2020-12-16--Buttigieg to be nominated for Secretary of Transportation

President-elect Biden has selected Pete Buttigieg to be Secretary of Transportation .
Reportedly , Buttigieg had been considered for the post of U.S. ambassador to China .
Fortunately , that won ’ t happen .
The Chinese will be deprived of a good laugh .
Biden must have felt he had to give Buttigieg something .
The former South Bend mayor is now America ’ s highest profile openly gay politician .
Buttigieg proved his popularity by making a fairly substantial bid for the Democratic nomination .
In fact , he outpolled Biden in Iowa and New Hampshire .
( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that far . )
It ’ s also possible that Biden promised Buttigieg a Cabinet-level job in exchange for his endorsement .
If so , heading the Transportation Department is probably at the low end of what Buttigieg hoped to receive from Biden .
Traditionally , it ’ s rather a nothing job .
The four most recent Senate confirmed Secretaries are Elaine Chao , Anthony Foxx , Ray La Hood , and Mary Peters .
Why did Buttigieg accept the position ?
Mainly , I think , because he has nowhere else @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he could win a race for governor or Senator in Indiana , or even a seat in the U.S. House .
If Buttigieg wants to gain national office one day — and he surely does — he needs to park himself in a place where he ’ s not invisible and , in the process , pick up a credential more substantial than mayor of a small city .
It ’ s also possible that the Secretary of Transportation will have a fairly high profile in a Biden-Harris administration .
Chris Cillizza @ @ @ @ @ @ @ America ’ s infrastructure a key goal of his presidency .
If Biden can get Congress to appropriate the money for this , Buttigieg would have a chance to shine ( or fail ) .
Kamala Harris may secretly be hoping that Buttigieg doesn ’ t get that chance .
Cillizza also speculates that , as a Cabinet member , Buttigieg will have the opportunity go on television frequently , thereby becoming “ one of the best-known public faces of the administration.
” Buttigieg will get these opportunities , says Cillizza , because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That , Buttigieg is .
But the idea of having the Transportation Secretary speak for the administration on issues of major importance seems odd .
Maybe the administration will decide to boost Buttigieg anyway , but probably not if Kamala Harris has any say in the matter .

President-elect Biden has selected Pete Buttigieg to be Secretary of Transportation. Reportedly, Buttigieg had been considered for the post of U.S. ambassador to China. Fortunately, that won’t happen. The Chinese will be deprived of a good laugh.
Biden must have felt he had to give Buttigieg something. The former South Bend mayor is now America’s highest profile openly gay politician. Buttigieg proved his popularity by making a fairly substantial bid for the Democratic nomination. In fact, he outpolled Biden in Iowa and New Hampshire. (Kamala Harris didn’t even make it that far.) It’s also possible that Biden promised Buttigieg a Cabinet-level job in exchange for his endorsement.
If so, heading the Transportation Department is probably at the low end of what Buttigieg hoped to receive from Biden. Traditionally, it’s rather a nothing job. The four most recent Senate confirmed Secretaries are Elaine Chao, Anthony Foxx, Ray La Hood, and Mary Peters.
Why did Buttigieg accept the position? Mainly, I think, because he has nowhere else to go. It’s unlikely that he could win a race for governor or Senator in Indiana, or even a seat in the U.S. House. If Buttigieg wants to gain national office one day — and he surely does — he needs to park himself in a place where he’s not invisible and, in the process, pick up a credential more substantial than mayor of a small city.
It’s also possible that the Secretary of Transportation will have a fairly high profile in a Biden-Harris administration. Chris Cillizza points out that Biden has made rebuilding America’s infrastructure a key goal of his presidency.
If Biden can get Congress to appropriate the money for this, Buttigieg would have a chance to shine (or fail). Kamala Harris may secretly be hoping that Buttigieg doesn’t get that chance.
Cillizza also speculates that, as a Cabinet member, Buttigieg will have the opportunity go on television frequently, thereby becoming “one of the best-known public faces of the administration.” Buttigieg will get these opportunities, says Cillizza, because he’s good on TV.
That, Buttigieg is. But the idea of having the Transportation Secretary speak for the administration on issues of major importance seems odd. Maybe the administration will decide to boost Buttigieg anyway, but probably not if Kamala Harris has any say in the matter.


powerlineblog--2020-12-16--Why the “blue slip” deserves a pink slip

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell did a bang up job getting President Trump ’ s Supreme Court and court of appeals nominees confirmed .
When it comes to district court judges , things haven ’ t gone nearly as well for Trump , as a Power Line reader and distinguished alumnus of Dartmouth explains .
Accounts of President Trump ’ s largely successful efforts to reform the federal judiciary overlook an ugly secret : The White House has been blocked from nominating any judicial candidates in many Blue States , and forced to nominate many left-of-center candidates , including former Obama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Why ?
Because Senate Republicans allow a single Democratic Senator to veto the President ’ s nominees with the infamous “ Blue Slip.
” Unless Senate Republicans act , on January 20 , 2021 , they will give President Biden almost 50 judgeships to fill which could have been filled by Republicans – many such judgeships were vacant for the last four years .
Why has the White House been forced into Faustian bargains ?
Because the Senate “ Blue Slip ” custom allows a single senator from the nominee ’ s home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Blue Slip ” procedure is not a law or even a Senate rule ; it is merely a Senate custom , in the past sporadically followed , pursuant to which the Senate Judiciary Committee will not consider a nominee unless the nominee ’ s home-state Senators return a blue slip of paper allowing the nomination to proceed .
That ’ s right , a single Democratic Senator can veto a qualified nominee simply because the nominee is a Republican .
Indeed , while the Senate has confirmed almost 120 of President Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vast majority have been from states with two Republican Senators where the Blue Slip is not an issue .
Most of the remaining 47 federal district court vacancies are in states with Democratic Senators who can single-handedly veto candidates .
For this reason , Trump ’ s progress has stalled .
Moreover , the White House has been forced to nominate left-wing candidates .
For example , 2 of the 4 federal district court judges nominated by the White House for trial court vacancies in the Eastern District of New York were nominated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The White House had to horse trade with New York ’ s two Democratic Senators – allowing the Democrats to fill some judgeships with their left-leaning nominees — to prevent them from vetoing Trump ’ s other nominees to New York vacancies .
The White House has been forced to nominate left-wing judges even though Senate Republicans have the majority necessary to confirm Trump ’ s qualified nominees regardless of Democratic resistance .
Traditionally , the “ Blue Slip ” veto was rarely used , and used only to block unqualified nominees .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ weaponized the Blue Slip to force the White House to nominate left-wing judges , or simply to block any nominee and leave seats vacant in the hope Trump would lose the 2020 election .
California , Washington State , New Jersey , New York , Massachusetts , and other blue states have many open judgeships that have sat vacant for years as Democratic Senators from such states prevent the White House advancing nominees .
There currently are 47 vacancies .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell rightly has prided Republicans for largely eliminating the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ due to misuse by Senate Democrats .
Noting that Senate Democrats eliminated the filibuster for judicial nominees under Obama , McConnell correctly argues the Senate should not let a lone Senator veto an appellate court nominee through the Blue Slip if the Senate will not allow 41 Senators to filibuster a nominee .
The same logic applies with equal force to trial court nominees , but McConnell and Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Lindsey Graham refuse to eliminate trial court Blue Slips .
Why does the Blue Slip persist ?
The Blue Slip has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they favor for federal judgeships from their home states .
This gives the Senators a plum they can award to supporters .
Setting aside whether patronage is a legitimate way to select judges , Republicans are crazy if they believe Democrats will not eliminate the Blue Slip for judges as soon as Democrats again control the White House and Senate .
After the Democrats ’ shoddy – indeed unprincipled and outrageous — treatment of then Judge Kavanaugh , one would have thought Senate Republicans would have eliminated the Blue Slip , realizing some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican nominees .
Alas , they have not .

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell did a bang up job getting President Trump’s Supreme Court and court of appeals nominees confirmed. When it comes to district court judges, things haven’t gone nearly as well for Trump, as a Power Line reader and distinguished alumnus of Dartmouth explains.
Accounts of President Trump’s largely successful efforts to reform the federal judiciary overlook an ugly secret: The White House has been blocked from nominating any judicial candidates in many Blue States, and forced to nominate many left-of-center candidates, including former Obama nominees, in other Blue States.
Why? Because Senate Republicans allow a single Democratic Senator to veto the President’s nominees with the infamous “Blue Slip.” Unless Senate Republicans act, on January 20, 2021, they will give President Biden almost 50 judgeships to fill which could have been filled by Republicans – many such judgeships were vacant for the last four years.
Why has the White House been forced into Faustian bargains? Because the Senate “Blue Slip” custom allows a single senator from the nominee’s home state to block his nomination.
The “Blue Slip” procedure is not a law or even a Senate rule; it is merely a Senate custom, in the past sporadically followed, pursuant to which the Senate Judiciary Committee will not consider a nominee unless the nominee’s home-state Senators return a blue slip of paper allowing the nomination to proceed. That’s right, a single Democratic Senator can veto a qualified nominee simply because the nominee is a Republican.
Indeed, while the Senate has confirmed almost 120 of President Trump’s trial court nominees, the vast majority have been from states with two Republican Senators where the Blue Slip is not an issue. Most of the remaining 47 federal district court vacancies are in states with Democratic Senators who can single-handedly veto candidates. For this reason, Trump’s progress has stalled.
Moreover, the White House has been forced to nominate left-wing candidates. For example, 2 of the 4 federal district court judges nominated by the White House for trial court vacancies in the Eastern District of New York were nominated by Obama during the previous administration. The White House had to horse trade with New York’s two Democratic Senators – allowing the Democrats to fill some judgeships with their left-leaning nominees — to prevent them from vetoing Trump’s other nominees to New York vacancies.
The White House has been forced to nominate left-wing judges even though Senate Republicans have the majority necessary to confirm Trump’s qualified nominees regardless of Democratic resistance. Traditionally, the “Blue Slip” veto was rarely used, and used only to block unqualified nominees.
During the Trump Administration, Senate Democrats weaponized the Blue Slip to force the White House to nominate left-wing judges, or simply to block any nominee and leave seats vacant in the hope Trump would lose the 2020 election. California, Washington State, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, and other blue states have many open judgeships that have sat vacant for years as Democratic Senators from such states prevent the White House advancing nominees. There currently are 47 vacancies.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell rightly has prided Republicans for largely eliminating the Blue Slip requirement for federal appellate judges due to misuse by Senate Democrats. Noting that Senate Democrats eliminated the filibuster for judicial nominees under Obama, McConnell correctly argues the Senate should not let a lone Senator veto an appellate court nominee through the Blue Slip if the Senate will not allow 41 Senators to filibuster a nominee.
The same logic applies with equal force to trial court nominees, but McConnell and Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Lindsey Graham refuse to eliminate trial court Blue Slips.
Why does the Blue Slip persist? The Blue Slip has allowed Senators great influence in advancing those they favor for federal judgeships from their home states. This gives the Senators a plum they can award to supporters.
Setting aside whether patronage is a legitimate way to select judges, Republicans are crazy if they believe Democrats will not eliminate the Blue Slip for judges as soon as Democrats again control the White House and Senate. After the Democrats’ shoddy – indeed unprincipled and outrageous — treatment of then Judge Kavanaugh, one would have thought Senate Republicans would have eliminated the Blue Slip, realizing some Democrats will stop at nothing to block Republican nominees. Alas, they have not.


powerlineblog--2020-12-16--And now, the Dan Rather Medals

And now, the Dan Rather Medals

The University of Texas School of Journalism and Media has just announced the Dan Rather Medals for News and Guts .
The medals are to “ be awarded to professional and collegiate journalists who go the extra yard — overcoming obstacles like stonewalling and harassment — to get the story that tells truth to power.
” You obviously get no credit for avoiding clichés .
Unlike the Walter Duranty Prize for Journalistic Mendacity formerly conferred by the New Criterion and PJ Media , the University of Texas School of Journalism and Media intends no irony or humor with the Dan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Duranty Prize team also awarded the Rather , “ a new award for lifetime achievement in mendacious journalism.
” Suffice it to say that this is not the spirit of the Dan Rather Medals .
I wish we could be considered for one of the medals in light of our contribution to Rather ’ s early retirement from CBS News and our subsequent exposure of Truth — the 2015 film that turned the authors of Rathergate into heroes fit for a medal — as a fount of lies , but the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The left simply does not give up in its efforts to rewrite history .
The efforts are are unrelenting .
Memories are short .
And the left has highly effective tools of persuasion at its disposal , such as naming an award in honor of one of its disgraced votaries or conferring such honors on leftist fraudsters , as has become something of a tradition with the Pulitzer Prizes .

The Moody College of Communications at the University of Texas (Austin) has just announced the Dan Rather Medals for News and Guts. The medals are to “be awarded to professional and collegiate journalists who go the extra yard — overcoming obstacles like stonewalling and harassment — to get the story that tells truth to power.” You obviously get no credit for avoiding clichés.
Unlike the Walter Duranty Prize for Journalistic Mendacity formerly conferred by the New Criterion and PJ Media, the Moody College of Communications intends no irony or humor with the Dan Rather Medals. In 2014, however, the Duranty Prize team also awarded the Rather, “a new award for lifetime achievement in mendacious journalism.” Suffice it to say that this is not the spirit of the Dan Rather Medals.
I wish we could be considered for one of the medals in light of our contribution to Rather’s early retirement from CBS News and our subsequent exposure of Truth — the 2015 film that turned the authors of Rathergate into heroes fit for a medal — as a fount of lies, but the first awards cover work published in 2020.
The left simply does not give up in its efforts to rewrite history. The efforts are are unrelenting. Memories are short. And the left has highly effective tools of persuasion at its disposal, such as naming an award in honor of one of its disgraced votaries or conferring such honors on leftist fraudsters, as has become something of a tradition with the Pulitzer Prizes.


powerlineblog--2020-12-16--Civil War on the Left (76): Biffing Biden

I ’ m really thinking I should rename this series “ Biden Agonistes , ” because no sooner do the progressive identitarians take down Mary Nichols to be head of the EPA than Black Lives Matter comes along and oppose Mayor Pete to be Secretary of Transportation : Leaders of the Black Lives Matter movement have come out against President-elect Joe Biden ’ s decision to nominate former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg for Secretary of Transportation , recalling his struggles with minority voters .
.
.
In a statement Tuesday , South Bend-based Black Lives Matter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ W ] e urge the rejection of our former mayor Pete Buttigieg , Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti , former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel , and Rhode Island , Governor Gina Raimondo for Transportation Secretary or any other cabinet position.
” .
.
.
ABC ’ s Beatrice-Elizabeth Peterson noted that Black Lives Matter leaders have sought a meeting with Biden for more than a month but have not received an invitation .
Meanwhile , AOC has finally declared open war on the Democrats ’ congressional leadership : Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ( D. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to replace House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D. , Calif. ) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer ( D. , N.Y. ) , in an interview with The Intercept aired on Wednesday .
The remarks represent Ocasio-Cortez ’ s most direct challenge to current Democratic congressional leadership , and come a month after Michigan representative Elissa Slotkin vowed not to support Pelosi for another term as House Speaker .
.
.
“ I do think that we need new leadership in the Democratic Party , ” Ocasio-Cortez said on The Intercept ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meanwhile , has said attacks on “ defund the police ” and “ socialism ” amount to “ racial resentment ” attacks .
She really is the gift that keeps on giving .
Excuse me while I run to Costco to buy another 55-gallon barrel of popcorn .

I’m really thinking I should rename this series “Biden Agonistes,” because no sooner do the progressive identitarians take down Mary Nichols to be head of the EPA than Black Lives Matter comes along and oppose Mayor Pete to be Secretary of Transportation:
Black Lives Matter Opposes Pete Buttigieg for Transportation Secretary Leaders of the Black Lives Matter movement have come out against President-elect Joe Biden’s decision to nominate former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg for Secretary of Transportation, recalling his struggles with minority voters. . . In a statement Tuesday, South Bend-based Black Lives Matter leader Jordan Geiger said: “[W]e urge the rejection of our former mayor Pete Buttigieg, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, and Rhode Island, Governor Gina Raimondo for Transportation Secretary or any other cabinet position.” . . . ABC’s Beatrice-Elizabeth Peterson noted that Black Lives Matter leaders have sought a meeting with Biden for more than a month but have not received an invitation.
Meanwhile, AOC has finally declared open war on the Democrats’ congressional leadership:
Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.) called for new leadership to replace House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.), in an interview with The Intercept aired on Wednesday. The remarks represent Ocasio-Cortez’s most direct challenge to current Democratic congressional leadership, and come a month after Michigan representative Elissa Slotkin vowed not to support Pelosi for another term as House Speaker. . . “I do think that we need new leadership in the Democratic Party,” Ocasio-Cortez said on The Intercept’s podcast Intercepted. . . Ocasio-Cortez, meanwhile, has said attacks on “defund the police” and “socialism” amount to “racial resentment” attacks.
She really is the gift that keeps on giving. Excuse me while I run to Costco to buy another 55-gallon barrel of popcorn.


powerlineblog--2020-12-16--A “Meg Whitman” type at the Commerce Department?  No thanks.

I had to chuckle at this line from an article in Axios : There ’ s no need for a strategy .
We are convinced that Biden will address Trump-voter issues .
He will address all of them — from China and Iran , to immigration and policing , to judicial nominees , guns , and religious freedom .
He will address them in ways we hate .
The Axios article is called “ Biden eyes last-minute Republican pick ” for his cabinet .
It used to be customary for presidents to appoint a token member of the other party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Trump declined to do so .
However , Gary Cohn , his first director of the National Economic Council , was a registered Democrat .
And Cohn ’ s post was far more consequential than Secretary of Commerce — the position Biden reportedly is thinking about filling with a Republican .
Axios suggests that Biden might nominate a “ Meg Whitman type ” to lead the Commerce Department .
Whitman backed Hillary Clinton in 2016 and called Trump a demagogue .
If Biden and his advisers think that putting a Meg Whitman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ favorably disposed to Trump , in the Cabinet will create political capital , they are dreaming .
If they think it will convince more than a handful of Trump ’ s 74 million voters that Biden will address their issues in a remotely satisfactory way , they are hallucinating .
STEVE adds : I was once seated at a small dinner with Meg Whitman back in 2011 , right after she had lost the California governor ’ s race to Jerry Brown after spending something like $ 150 million of her own money @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t get her message out.
” I was gobsmacked , but too polite to say the obvious : anyone who spent $ 150 million and “ couldn ’ t get their message out ” probably didn ’ t have a message .
So she ’ s probably perfect for a Biden cabinet .
Does anyone actually care about the Dept .
of Commerce anyway ?
The next day I spotted her in an airport flying commercial all the way across the country .
My goodness—she spent so much she couldn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @

I had to chuckle at this line from an article in Axios:
While Biden again promised Monday night to be a “president for all Americans,” his team hasn’t decided on a strategy to convince some of the 74 million Trump voters he will address their issues.
There’s no need for a strategy. We are convinced that Biden will address Trump-voter issues.
He will address all of them — from China and Iran, to immigration and policing, to judicial nominees, guns, and religious freedom. He will address them in ways we hate.
The Axios article is called “Biden eyes last-minute Republican pick” for his cabinet. It used to be customary for presidents to appoint a token member of the other party to lead a Cabinet level department.
President Trump declined to do so. However, Gary Cohn, his first director of the National Economic Council, was a registered Democrat. And Cohn’s post was far more consequential than Secretary of Commerce — the position Biden reportedly is thinking about filling with a Republican.
Axios suggests that Biden might nominate a “Meg Whitman type” to lead the Commerce Department. Whitman backed Hillary Clinton in 2016 and called Trump a demagogue.
If Biden and his advisers think that putting a Meg Whitman type, or even a Republican more favorably disposed to Trump, in the Cabinet will create political capital, they are dreaming. If they think it will convince more than a handful of Trump’s 74 million voters that Biden will address their issues in a remotely satisfactory way, they are hallucinating.
STEVE adds: I was once seated at a small dinner with Meg Whitman back in 2011, right after she had lost the California governor’s race to Jerry Brown after spending something like $150 million of her own money. She bemoaned that she “couldn’t get her message out.” I was gobsmacked, but too polite to say the obvious: anyone who spent $150 million and “couldn’t get their message out” probably didn’t have a message. So she’s probably perfect for a Biden cabinet. Does anyone actually care about the Dept. of Commerce anyway?
The next day I spotted her in an airport flying commercial all the way across the country. My goodness—she spent so much she couldn’t afford to fly private any more.


powerlineblog--2020-12-16--Dept. of That’s Easy For You To Say

Dept. of That’s Easy For You To Say

Last week Joe Biden introduced his nominee for Secretary of HHS as “ Xavier Bakaria.
” I noted that howler here .
Yesterday Biden emerged from his basement to campaign for the Democratic candidates in the January 5 Georgia Senate runoffs .
Holding another one of the drive-in rallies that served him so well in the 19th-century style presidential campaign he ran , Biden urged those in attendance to “ Honk for your next United States Senator Jon Orsoff !
” At least he was close this time and he apparently got Warnock ’ s name right .
Biden appeared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pullman Yard in Atlanta ’ s Kirkwood neighborhood .
Greg Bluestein ’ s Atlanta Journal Constitution report on the rally is here .
The AJC also posted a traffic tick-tock here .
The text of Biden ’ s speech is posted here .
I was curious about the size of the crowd for the rally .
I can ’ t find an estimate in any of the many stores on the event in Bluestein ’ s story or in the stories in the New York Times , the New York Post , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If any of our readers has a handle on the crowd size , please email us at [ email protected ] UPDATE : A reader answers the call : “ I live three miles from Kirkwood and didn ’ t even know Biden was here .
Traffic was not impacted that I could tell .
Traffic at the Target and Lowe ’ s a mile away was busy though .
”

Last week Joe Biden introduced his nominee for Secretary of HHS as “Xavier Bakaria.” I noted that howler here. Yesterday Biden emerged from his basement to campaign for the Democratic candidates in the January 5 Georgia Senate runoffs.
Holding another one of the drive-in rallies that served him so well in the 19th-century style presidential campaign he ran, Biden urged those in attendance to “Honk for your next United States Senator Jon Orsoff!” At least he was close this time and he apparently got Warnock’s name right.
Who is Jon Orsoff? pic.twitter.com/5zMSBVO05Y — The First (@TheFirstonTV) December 15, 2020
Biden appeared for the rally in at the Pratt Pullman Yard in Atlanta’s Kirkwood neighborhood. Greg Bluestein’s Atlanta Journal Constitution report on the rally is here. The AJC also posted a traffic tick-tock here. The text of Biden’s speech is posted here.
I was curious about the size of the crowd for the rally. I can’t find an estimate in any of the many stores on the event in Bluestein’s story or in the stories in the New York Times, the New York Post, the Wall Street Journal, or Politico. If any of our readers has a handle on the crowd size, please email us at [email protected].
UPDATE: A reader answers the call: “I live three miles from Kirkwood and didn’t even know Biden was here. Traffic was not impacted that I could tell. Traffic at the Target and Lowe’s a mile away was busy though.”


powerlineblog--2020-12-16--Coronavirus in one state (139)

Coronavirus in one state (139)

We have passed the peak of the current wave of the epidemic in Minnesota , North Dakota , South Dakota , Wisconsin , and Iowa .
The surge was regional in nature and has receded regionally regardless of the varying approaches taken by the authorities in these states .
That ’ s the way it appears to me ( tweet below ) .
One would never have a clue that this might be the case from the regular Minnesota Department of Health briefings .
I have posted the audio of yesterday ’ s briefing below .
Kevin Roche observes in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The press lets [ Walz et al . ]
act like the [ current shutdown ] orders had anything to do with the change in cases .
All you have to do is look at the curve.
” All the numbers have moved in the right direction .
There is no evidence of a Thanksgiving surge .
Yet Governor Walz continues to insist on micromanaging our lives .
While the current shutdown regime expires Friday , the subjects of Governor Walz have looked longingly to him for a restoration of responsibility for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not to be .
Per Blois Olson ’ s Morning Take email update , Walz will announce at a 1:15 p.m. press conference this afternoon : • Indoor drinking and dining will remain closed at least through January 11 .
Restaurants may resume outdoor dining limited to 50 percent of capacity , or 100 customers .
• Fitness studios and gyms will be allowed to reopen at a quarter of their capacity subject to a 100 person limit .
Patrons must wear masks and maintain 12 feet of social distancing .
Fitness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Family gatherings will be allowed with one other household , up to 10 people , and up to two other households outside .
• Outdoor entertainment venues can open subject to a 25 percent capacity limit with a 100 person maximum .
Walz ’ s spokesman lets on that Walz will “ prioritize [ ] in-person learning for elementary students [ . ]
” It has taken a back seat so far , to the detriment of al the minority communities to which he professes devotion in the current politically correct terms .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ fill in the details and lay down the law .
Whatever the details , Walz continues to exercise minute control of the “ dials ” of our lives ( as he calls them ) and the press continues its utterly servile performance .

We have passed the peak of the current wave of the epidemic in Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wisconsin, and Iowa. The surge was regional in nature and has receded regionally regardless of the varying approaches taken by the authorities in these states. That’s the way it appears to me (tweet below).
It has now been 4 weeks since "cases" peaked in the northern Great Plains states; they have now fallen nearly 50% since mid-November despite mild restrictions and limited mask mandates: pic.twitter.com/WCpsDFpo8c — PLC (@Humble_Analysis) December 16, 2020
One would never have a clue that this might be the case from the regular Minnesota Department of Health briefings. I have posted the audio of yesterday’s briefing below. Kevin Roche observes in our email correspondence this morning: “The press lets [Walz et al.] act like the [current shutdown] orders had anything to do with the change in cases. All you have to do is look at the curve.”
All the numbers have moved in the right direction. There is no evidence of a Thanksgiving surge. Yet Governor Walz continues to insist on micromanaging our lives. While the current shutdown regime expires Friday, the subjects of Governor Walz have looked longingly to him for a restoration of responsibility for the management of our own lives.
It is not to be. Per Blois Olson’s Morning Take email update, Walz will announce at a 1:15 p.m. press conference this afternoon:
• Indoor drinking and dining will remain closed at least through January 11. Restaurants may resume outdoor dining limited to 50 percent of capacity, or 100 customers.
• Fitness studios and gyms will be allowed to reopen at a quarter of their capacity subject to a 100 person limit. Patrons must wear masks and maintain 12 feet of social distancing. Fitness classes can resume January 4.
• Family gatherings will be allowed with one other household, up to 10 people, and up to two other households outside.
• Outdoor entertainment venues can open subject to a 25 percent capacity limit with a 100 person maximum.
• Youth sports teams can resume practices on January 4.
Walz’s spokesman lets on that Walz will “prioritize[] in-person learning for elementary students[.]” It has taken a back seat so far, to the detriment of al the minority communities to which he professes devotion in the current politically correct terms.
A new executive order will of course fill in the details and lay down the law. Whatever the details, Walz continues to exercise minute control of the “dials” of our lives (as he calls them) and the press continues its utterly servile performance.


powerlineblog--2020-12-17--Coronavirus in one state (140)

Coronavirus in one state (140)

Yesterday Governor Walz rolled out E.O .
20-103 — that ’ s the 103rd executive order of 2020 — to give citizens their marching orders for the immediate future .
If you seek to enjoy a beer outdoors here in the coldest months of the year , as of Saturday you ’ re golden .
If you seek to celebrate Christmas with your family , not so much .
The whole thing reeks of the madness of the Central American dictator Esposito in Woody Allen ’ s Bananas ( below ) .
Silence !
Walz rolled out his order early @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( video below ) .
The illusion of management of the epidemic persists .
He claims that Minnesota has achieved a steeper reduction ( in new cases , I assume ) than surrounding states .
I don ’ t think so .
He reassures Minnesotans : “ Wanting to be with your family over the holiday does not make you a bad person.
” However , it may subject you to criminal penalties .
Upon conclusion of his Power Point presentation Walz broke for a bill signing and press conference ( video below @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lighten the financial harms inflicted by the current rules .
He treated the signing like a major civil rights bill , signing with multiple pens .
This press conference is worth watching in part .
Jabs at South Dakota become a motif , but that is the least of it .
At 4:30 Tom Hauser asks Walz about the catastrophic effects of the shutdown regime on the hospitality industry .
The concession to opening outdoors is implicitly mocked .
Walz is thrown off for a few seconds .
Walz searches in the grim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way out .
“ I live in Minnesota too , ” Walz says with obvious annoyance .
“ People don ’ t want to eat outside a lot of times [ in December and January ] .
” Silence !
At about 22:30 Hauser asks whether Wisconsin hasn ’ t seen a decrease in new cases comparable to Minnesota ’ s without the stringent shutdown regime .
There is essentially no answer to this beyond question the assertion that they think the shutdown is “ contributing.
” Minnesota Department of Health Commissioner Jan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vaguely to limitations imposed by Wisconsin localities .
Walz is then finally asked about the lack of public pressure on tribal casinos to conform to his orders .
I asked this question in writing two or three weeks ago and have followed up again this week .
The answer to my question stated that they have no authority over the tribal casinos and that Walz ’ s order ( E.O .
20-99 ) specifically exempts them .
I knew that .
My question was how they have asked them to conform .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they are “ having a lot of conversations on this.
” He refers to his respect for tribal sovereignty .
The question remains unanswered .
Tom Hauser accordingly follows up at about 35:00 .
“ We do talk to them [ i.e.
, the tribes ] , ” Walz asserts .
“ We encourage them to do it [ what ? ]
, ” he adds .
“ They ’ ve done a pretty good job , ” he concludes .
Silence !

Yesterday Governor Walz rolled out E.O. 20-103 — that’s the 103rd executive order of 2020 — to give citizens their marching orders for the immediate future. If you seek to enjoy a beer outdoors here in the coldest months of the year, as of Saturday you’re golden. If you seek to celebrate Christmas with your family, not so much. The whole thing reeks of the madness of the Central American dictator Esposito in Woody Allen’s Bananas (below). Silence!
Walz rolled out his order early yesterday afternoon with a Power Point presentation (video below). The illusion of management of the epidemic persists. He claims that Minnesota has achieved a steeper reduction (in new cases, I assume) than surrounding states. I don’t think so. He reassures Minnesotans: “Wanting to be with your family over the holiday does not make you a bad person.” However, it may subject you to criminal penalties.
Upon conclusion of his Power Point presentation Walz broke for a bill signing and press conference (video below). The bill is intended to lighten the financial harms inflicted by the current rules. He treated the signing like a major civil rights bill, signing with multiple pens.
This press conference is worth watching in part. Jabs at South Dakota become a motif, but that is the least of it. At 4:30 Tom Hauser asks Walz about the catastrophic effects of the shutdown regime on the hospitality industry. The concession to opening outdoors is implicitly mocked. Walz is thrown off for a few seconds. Walz searches in the grim recesses of his mind for a face-saving way out. “I live in Minnesota too,” Walz says with obvious annoyance. “People don’t want to eat outside a lot of times [in December and January].” Silence!
At about 22:30 Hauser asks whether Wisconsin hasn’t seen a decrease in new cases comparable to Minnesota’s without the stringent shutdown regime. There is essentially no answer to this beyond question the assertion that they think the shutdown is “contributing.” Minnesota Department of Health Commissioner Jan Malcolm then takes the lectern and refers vaguely to limitations imposed by Wisconsin localities.
Walz is then finally asked about the lack of public pressure on tribal casinos to conform to his orders. I asked this question in writing two or three weeks ago and have followed up again this week. The answer to my question stated that they have no authority over the tribal casinos and that Walz’s order (E.O. 20-99) specifically exempts them. I knew that. My question was how they have asked them to conform.
In response to this question Walz asserts that they are “having a lot of conversations on this.” He refers to his respect for tribal sovereignty. The question remains unanswered. Tom Hauser accordingly follows up at about 35:00. “We do talk to them [i.e., the tribes],” Walz asserts. “We encourage them to do it [what?],” he adds. “They’ve done a pretty good job,” he concludes. Silence!


powerlineblog--2020-12-17--Ninth Circuit to Nevada: You can’t treat churches worse than casinos

Today , the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth ruled that a church is entitled to preliminary relief against an order by Nevada ’ s governor that treats the church worse in terms of coronavirus restrictions than numerous secular entities such as casinos , bowling alleys , retail restaurants , and arcades .
The decision , by a panel of the court , was unanimous .
The church , Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley , had been losing on this issue in court .
In fact , the Supreme Court denied Calvary Chapel relief in a 5-4 decision during the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s November decision in Roman Catholic Diocese v. Cuomo turned the tide .
The Supreme Court ’ s decision in Roman Catholic Diocese compels us to reverse the district court .
Just like the New York restrictions , the Directive treats numerous secular activities and entities significantly better than religious worship services .
Casinos , bowling alleys , retail businesses , restaurants , arcades , and other similar secular entities are limited to 50 % of fire-code capacity , yet houses of worship are limited to fifty people regardless of their fire-code @ @ @ @ @ @ @ restrictions in the Directive , although not identical to New York ’ s , require attendance limitations that create the same “ disparate treatment ” of religion .
Ed Whelan observes that the panel ’ s ruling virtually guarantees that Calvary Chapel and other houses of worship will benefit from any further relaxation of the limit on Nevada casinos .
The point is important because I assume that Nevada ’ s desire to keep money flowing into its casinos outweighs its ambivalence ( if not hostility ) towards Christian churches .
Ed also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ninth Circuit panel — Milan D. Smith Jr. ( who wrote the opinion ) , Danny J. Boggs ( visiting from the Sixth Circuit ) , and Mark J. Bennett — were appointed by Republican presidents — George W. Bush , Ronald Reagan , and Donald Trump , respectively .
Would some of the liberal judges on the Ninth Circuit have voted against the church , notwithstanding the Supreme Court ’ s decision in the New York case ?
I hope not , but who knows ?

Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth ruled that a church is entitled to preliminary relief against an order by Nevada’s governor that treats the church worse in terms of coronavirus restrictions than numerous secular entities such as casinos, bowling alleys, retail restaurants, and arcades. The decision, by a panel of the court, was unanimous.
The church, Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley, had been losing on this issue in court. In fact, the Supreme Court denied Calvary Chapel relief in a 5-4 decision during the summer. However, the Supreme Court’s November decision in Roman Catholic Diocese v. Cuomo turned the tide.
The panel stated:
The Supreme Court’s decision in Roman Catholic Diocese compels us to reverse the district court. Just like the New York restrictions, the Directive treats numerous secular activities and entities significantly better than religious worship services. Casinos, bowling alleys, retail businesses, restaurants, arcades, and other similar secular entities are limited to 50% of fire-code capacity, yet houses of worship are limited to fifty people regardless of their fire-code capacities. As a result, the restrictions in the Directive, although not identical to New York’s, require attendance limitations that create the same “disparate treatment” of religion.
Ed Whelan observes that the panel’s ruling virtually guarantees that Calvary Chapel and other houses of worship will benefit from any further relaxation of the limit on Nevada casinos. The point is important because I assume that Nevada’s desire to keep money flowing into its casinos outweighs its ambivalence (if not hostility) towards Christian churches.
Ed also notes that all three members of the Ninth Circuit panel — Milan D. Smith Jr. (who wrote the opinion), Danny J. Boggs (visiting from the Sixth Circuit), and Mark J. Bennett — were appointed by Republican presidents — George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and Donald Trump, respectively. Would some of the liberal judges on the Ninth Circuit have voted against the church, notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s decision in the New York case? I hope not, but who knows?


AOC goes three-for-three

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is awful when it comes to public policy .
However , as a pundit , she ’ s not bad .
Ocasio-Cortez went three-for-three in a podcast interview with the Intercept .
First , she said that Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer have to go .
Ocasio-Cortez also said she is “ not ready ” to become Speaker of the House .
She added , “ I know that I couldn ’ t do that job.
” We rate this pair of statements TRUE .
In addition , Ocasio-Cortez told the Intercept that there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” ready to take over from Pelosi .
The Hill calls this “ an indirect jab at House Democratic Caucus Chairman Hakeem Jeffries , a fellow New York Democrat and a Congressional Black Caucus member.
” Whether it is or it isn ’ t , we rate Ocasio-Cortez ’ s statement TRUE .
That ’ s a trifecta for Ocasio-Cortez .
A betting man could have made good money wagering on that .
Speaking of betting , a friend with lots of experience in New York politics tells me that , if given @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he would take them .
She might , indeed , take that plunge .
It ’ s clear from the interview with the Intercept that she ’ s disillusioned with the House .
As I understand it , the Senate is clubbier and more insular than the House .
However , it ’ s a more exclusive club , so Ocasio-Cortez might be happier there , at least for a while .
Taking down Chuck Schumer seems like a longshot to me , though .

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is awful when it comes to public policy. However, as a pundit, she’s not bad.
Ocasio-Cortez went three-for-three in a podcast interview with the Intercept. First, she said that Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer have to go.
We rate this statement TRUE.
Ocasio-Cortez also said she is “not ready” to become Speaker of the House. She added, “I know that I couldn’t do that job.”
We rate this pair of statements TRUE.
In addition, Ocasio-Cortez told the Intercept that there is no “next generation of leadership” ready to take over from Pelosi. The Hill calls this “an indirect jab at House Democratic Caucus Chairman Hakeem Jeffries, a fellow New York Democrat and a Congressional Black Caucus member.”
Whether it is or it isn’t, we rate Ocasio-Cortez’s statement TRUE.
That’s a trifecta for Ocasio-Cortez. A betting man could have made good money wagering on that.
Speaking of betting, a friend with lots of experience in New York politics tells me that, if given even odds on Ocasio-Cortez running against Schumer, he would take them.
She might, indeed, take that plunge. It’s clear from the interview with the Intercept that she’s disillusioned with the House.
As I understand it, the Senate is clubbier and more insular than the House. However, it’s a more exclusive club, so Ocasio-Cortez might be happier there, at least for a while. Taking down Chuck Schumer seems like a longshot to me, though.


Rebellion Brewing [Updated]

Every time I think that Minnesota ’ s Tim Walz must be the dumbest governor in America , I remind myself of two words : Gretchen Whitmer .
Still , Walz is definitely a contender .
Today he announced his most recent turning of the “ dials ” of his subjects ’ lives .
Gyms will reopen on a very limited basis , a tribute to the political clout of Bahram Akradi , the founder and CEO of Lifetime Fitness , who organized a campaign on behalf of gyms and health clubs .
Bars and restaurants are to remain shut @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they can have outdoor dining on a very limited basis .
Then we have family gatherings .
They are still mostly illegal , but , with Christmas impending , there has been a slight relaxation in Walz ’ s dictatorial regime : Indoor social gatherings are strongly discouraged ; however , indoor social gatherings involving not more than two households , up to a maximum of 10 people , are permitted as long as members of different households maintain at least six feet of separation from each other and adhere to additional precautions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Minnesota website ( https : //staysafemn.gov/ ) .
Outdoor social gatherings involving not more than three households , up to a maximum of 15 people , are permitted as long as members of different households maintain at least six feet of separation from each other , and participants adhere to additional precautions for social gatherings on the Stay Safe Minnesota website ( https : //staysafemn.gov/ ) .
I have four kids , all of whom will be in town for Christmas .
Under Walz ’ s shutdown order , we can only host @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , indoors .
And , of course , we have to stay six feet away from each other , so I suppose that means separate tables .
If we are willing to have Christmas dinner outdoors , we can host two of our four children , again , apparently , at three separate tables .
The other two will have to drive through McDonalds , I guess .
To understand how insane Governor Walz ’ s order is , you might need to live in Minnesota .
The forecast for December 24 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 10 degrees and a low of 3 degrees .
That is Fahrenheit , not Celsius .
Christmas Day will be balmy , with a high of 22 and a low of 10 , with a chance of snow .
The idea that anyone will have dinner on Christmas or Christmas Eve outdoors under these conditions is a sick joke–a sick joke that is perpetrated by the governor of the State of Minnesota , who glories in his ability to perpetrate such absurdities .
Likewise , the idea that it is viable for restaurants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Minnesota in December and January is ridiculous .
What we are seeing in Minnesota , and elsewhere around the country , is not a sane approach to public policy , but rather the manifestation of a proto-fascist urge to exercise total control over everyone ’ s life .
In this regard , Tim Walz is certainly among the worst , but he is not alone .
The sad reality is that millions of Americans have happily dispensed with just about every known freedom–you can ’ t leave your house without government permission @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virus that is dangerous to the elderly whose health is already severely compromised , but not noticed by most under the age of 70 who contract it .
Home of the brave , indeed .
Happily , some are now fighting back .
Here in Minnesota , quite a few restaurants and bars defied the “ law ” –i.e.
, what I think is an arbitrary , capricious and unconstitutional one-man edict by our governor–and opened their doors for business today .
It remains to be seen how many will follow .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , like Larvita McFarquhar , are now being threatened with jail time .
The proto-fascists will do anything to retain control over the most intimate details of your life .
The time has come to rebel .
If a medium-strength respiratory virus can rob us of every known freedom , the republic is doomed .
Let ’ s not let it happen .
Finally , I should add that neither I nor any member of my family has any intention of complying with Dim Tim Walz ’ s “ emergency ” order .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ his .
In a totalitarian state , of course , everything is the government ’ s business .
But we are not there yet .
Not quite .

Every time I think that Minnesota’s Tim Walz must be the dumbest governor in America, I remind myself of two words: Gretchen Whitmer. Still, Walz is definitely a contender. Today he announced his most recent turning of the “dials” of his subjects’ lives. Gyms will reopen on a very limited basis, a tribute to the political clout of Bahram Akradi, the founder and CEO of Lifetime Fitness, who organized a campaign on behalf of gyms and health clubs. Bars and restaurants are to remain shut down indefinitely for indoor dining, but they can have outdoor dining on a very limited basis.
Then we have family gatherings. They are still mostly illegal, but, with Christmas impending, there has been a slight relaxation in Walz’s dictatorial regime:
Indoor social gatherings are strongly discouraged; however, indoor social gatherings involving not more than two households, up to a maximum of 10 people, are permitted as long as members of different households maintain at least six feet of separation from each other and adhere to additional precautions for social gatherings on the Stay Safe Minnesota website (https://staysafemn.gov/). Outdoor social gatherings involving not more than three households, up to a maximum of 15 people, are permitted as long as members of different households maintain at least six feet of separation from each other, and participants adhere to additional precautions for social gatherings on the Stay Safe Minnesota website (https://staysafemn.gov/).
I have four kids, all of whom will be in town for Christmas. Under Walz’s shutdown order, we can only host one of the four for Christmas dinner, indoors. And, of course, we have to stay six feet away from each other, so I suppose that means separate tables. If we are willing to have Christmas dinner outdoors, we can host two of our four children, again, apparently, at three separate tables. The other two will have to drive through McDonalds, I guess.
To understand how insane Governor Walz’s order is, you might need to live in Minnesota. The forecast for December 24, Christmas Eve, shows a high of 10 degrees and a low of 3 degrees. That is Fahrenheit, not Celsius. Christmas Day will be balmy, with a high of 22 and a low of 10, with a chance of snow.
The idea that anyone will have dinner on Christmas or Christmas Eve outdoors under these conditions is a sick joke–a sick joke that is perpetrated by the governor of the State of Minnesota, who glories in his ability to perpetrate such absurdities. Likewise, the idea that it is viable for restaurants to stay in business via outdoor service in Minnesota in December and January is ridiculous.
What we are seeing in Minnesota, and elsewhere around the country, is not a sane approach to public policy, but rather the manifestation of a proto-fascist urge to exercise total control over everyone’s life. In this regard, Tim Walz is certainly among the worst, but he is not alone. The sad reality is that millions of Americans have happily dispensed with just about every known freedom–you can’t leave your house without government permission!–in hopes of avoiding a respiratory virus that is dangerous to the elderly whose health is already severely compromised, but not noticed by most under the age of 70 who contract it. Home of the brave, indeed.
Happily, some are now fighting back. Here in Minnesota, quite a few restaurants and bars defied the “law”–i.e., what I think is an arbitrary, capricious and unconstitutional one-man edict by our governor–and opened their doors for business today. It remains to be seen how many will follow. The brave restaurant owners who led the way, like Larvita McFarquhar, are now being threatened with jail time. The proto-fascists will do anything to retain control over the most intimate details of your life.
The time has come to rebel. If a medium-strength respiratory virus can rob us of every known freedom, the republic is doomed. Let’s not let it happen.
Finally, I should add that neither I nor any member of my family has any intention of complying with Dim Tim Walz’s “emergency” order. Christmas dinner is our business, not his. In a totalitarian state, of course, everything is the government’s business. But we are not there yet. Not quite.
UPDATE: Seen on social media:


powerlineblog--2020-12-17--Videos of the Week: JP on CA & FD on 1619

J.P. Sears is up with his mocking tribute to Gov .
Gavin Gruesom ’ s shutdown orders , and you @ @ @ @ @ YouTube takes it down : And then our friends at Reason TV have done this @ @ @ @ @ and why Frederick Douglass is superior to the 1619 Project as a guide for understanding @ @ @ @ @ didn ’ t already know this .
Still , nice to have :

J.P. Sears is up with his mocking tribute to Gov. Gavin Gruesom’s shutdown orders, and you better watch this quick before YouTube takes it down:
And then our friends at Reason TV have done this succinct five-minute video about how and why Frederick Douglass is superior to the 1619 Project as a guide for understanding America. As if you didn’t already know this. Still, nice to have:


powerlineblog--2020-12-17--Are shutdowns leading to youth suicide?

Are shutdowns leading to youth suicide?

They are , according to this article in the Washington Post .
And why wouldn ’ t they be ?
As a result of shutdowns and lockdowns , teenagers are not going to school , not playing sports , and not hanging out with friends .
That ’ s a formula for depression and , in too many cases , suicide .
The Post ’ s article , which appears in the sports page , focuses on the denial of opportunities to participate in sports : For many teens who have been restricted from playing sports , the pandemic not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exercise , competition and potential college scholarships but also has deprived those young athletes of the identity and social circles provided by sports .
The mental health benefits that athletics can give students have been a driving force for thousands of parents who have protested the shutdown of sports in their communities across the country , with many often fearing the worst if their kids aren ’ t able to play .
It ’ s not surprising , therefore , that , according to the Post “ suicides among teen athletes have rocked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in March.
” Surveys support the view that pandemic-related restrictions are severely harming the mental health of teenagers : A survey of high school athletes conducted by the University of Wisconsin this summer found that approximately 68 percent of the 3,243 teens polled have reported feelings of anxiety and depression at levels that typically require medical intervention — nearly 40 percent higher than past studies .
The study , which also found that physical activity levels were 50 percent lower for kids than before the pandemic , was labeled “ striking and concerning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ researcher of the study at Wisconsin , Tim McGuine , said in an interview in August that “ the greatest risk [ to student-athletes ] is not covid-19 .
It ’ s suicide and drug use.
” I would amend that last statement slightly .
In my view , covid-19 poses very little risk to student athletes .
The likelihood that a healthy teenager will die from this virus is almost zero .
The likelihood that a healthy parent or coach — typically people in their 30s and 40s — will die from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sports outings is also small .
Older parents and parents with conditions that put them at risk can hold their kids out of sports .
At risk coaches can opt out .
Liberals like to talk about “ the kids , ” as in “ we ’ re doing it for the kids.
” But the liberals ’ response to the coronavirus , given the effects of that response on young peoples ’ mental health , shows these claims to be self-righteous posturing .
I ’ m not sure for whom they are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ maybe for the teachers ’ unions — but it ’ s certainly not for the kids .

They are, according to this article in the Washington Post. And why wouldn’t they be? As a result of shutdowns and lockdowns, teenagers are not going to school, not playing sports, and not hanging out with friends. That’s a formula for depression and, in too many cases, suicide.
The Post’s article, which appears in the sports page, focuses on the denial of opportunities to participate in sports:
For many teens who have been restricted from playing sports, the pandemic not only has stripped away the opportunity for exercise, competition and potential college scholarships but also has deprived those young athletes of the identity and social circles provided by sports. The mental health benefits that athletics can give students have been a driving force for thousands of parents who have protested the shutdown of sports in their communities across the country, with many often fearing the worst if their kids aren’t able to play.
It’s not surprising, therefore, that, according to the Post “suicides among teen athletes have rocked several youth programs since the pandemic began in March.”
Surveys support the view that pandemic-related restrictions are severely harming the mental health of teenagers:
A survey of high school athletes conducted by the University of Wisconsin this summer found that approximately 68 percent of the 3,243 teens polled have reported feelings of anxiety and depression at levels that typically require medical intervention — nearly 40 percent higher than past studies. The study, which also found that physical activity levels were 50 percent lower for kids than before the pandemic, was labeled “striking and concerning” by one researcher. The lead researcher of the study at Wisconsin, Tim McGuine, said in an interview in August that “the greatest risk [to student-athletes] is not covid-19. It’s suicide and drug use.”
(Emphasis added)
I would amend that last statement slightly. In my view, covid-19 poses very little risk to student athletes. The likelihood that a healthy teenager will die from this virus is almost zero. The likelihood that a healthy parent or coach — typically people in their 30s and 40s — will die from the transmission of the virus due to sports outings is also small. Older parents and parents with conditions that put them at risk can hold their kids out of sports. At risk coaches can opt out.
Liberals like to talk about “the kids,” as in “we’re doing it for the kids.” But the liberals’ response to the coronavirus, given the effects of that response on young peoples’ mental health, shows these claims to be self-righteous posturing. I’m not sure for whom they are locking down schools and youth sports — maybe for the teachers’ unions — but it’s certainly not for the kids.


powerlineblog--2020-12-17--What’s the RX for Dr. Jill

What’s the RX for Dr. Jill

The great thing about the “ Dr .
Jill Biden ” issue is that it means the Bidens and the media will double down on this pathetic pretension and remind a large swath of the population the condescending elitism at the heart of liberalism today .
This , at the same time liberalism is agonizing over the need to overthrow the whole idea of meritocracy , which is the invention of an older liberalism , because our conventions of meritocracy ( things like test scores , academic performance in difficult fields , etc ) are not kind to liberalism ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Take , for example , this hilarious Tweet thread : Time was when everyone understood that Ed.D degrees were substantively weak , and largely grew as part of a racket for teachers and administrators to get higher salaries and puff up their resumes .
Even magazine , which you ’ d think you could rely upon to puff up the egos of politicians , once understood this : When comedian Bill Cosby received his Doctor of Education degree from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst on a fine May day in 1977 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The press took photos as Cosby , wearing his academic robes and later smoking a congratulatory cigar , received his diploma from the chancellor of the university .
Now a disgruntled former professor at the university is calling for a second ceremony .
“ I think it would be wonderful if Cosby staged a media event similar to the one that took place when he earned his doctorate , ” says Reginald G. Damerell .
“ Only this time he would give back the degree to show that he finally realizes it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bill Cosby would raise consciousness about how lousy schools of education are.
” In his new book , Education ’ s Smoking Gun ( Freundlich Books , $ 17.95 ) , Damerell , 64 , claims that Cosby ’ s Ed.D.—like many an advanced education doctorate—is a sham .
“ Everybody knows Cosby , ” says Damerell , a U .
Mass .
associate professor for 12 years before he left in 1982 .
“ He just happens to illustrate the point .
He earned his degree much as a lot of other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ situation.
” Cosby ’ s 242-page doctoral dissertation discussed ways that teachers could use his Fat Albert and the Cosby Kids animated TV shows as educational tools .
“ Cosby could have given up show business and spent six years at the school and not know any more than he did anyhow , ” Damerell says .
“ Unlike chemistry , education has no body of knowledge , so it doesn ’ t matter how long you spend on it.
” Damerell claims that Cosby ’ s degree typifies the empty schooling given @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thousands of badly educated teachers are undermining elementary and high school instruction across the country .
Holding a copy of Cosby ’ s dissertation , Damerell says , “ A dissertation is supposed to be a contribution to human knowledge .
This isn ’ t .
And I would say that 99 percent of [ education ] dissertations aren ’ t either.
” It appears that Dr. Jill Biden ’ s dissertation is only half as long as Cosby ’ s , at 129 pages , according to Kyle Smith .
who has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have all the fun .
( Kyle is getting the full two-minute hate drill run against him yesterday and today for his act of against the good Doctor Jill . )
seems to understand the shallowness of graduate programs in education : The problem is that education master ’ s programs generally don ’ t produce better teachers .
While programs vary greatly , and some stand above the rest , the teachers I interviewed told me that they had spent too much time on theory and not enough on practical teaching skills @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the classroom and using out-of-date pedagogy ; and many programs simply weren ’ t rigorous .
Decades of research back up their critiques .
Laura Lozito , a social-studies teacher who works with Chirico , would have liked to get an advanced degree in history .
But when she compared syllabi , she quickly realized that a master ’ s in education would entail less reading and writing , and would cover material she was already familiar with from her undergrad courses .
Her schedule couldn ’ t bear the workload of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ master ’ s in adolescent education .
.
.
Marguerite Roza , an education-finance expert , got an inkling of that fact when she published a paper arguing that states should end the “ master ’ s bump.
” The money going toward degree-based pay raises—nearly $ 15 billion nationwide in the 2007–08 school year—was a waste , she argued .
She authored that paper from her perch at the time at the University of Washington ’ s College of Education—the very sort of institution that was benefitting from the arrangement .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a week , Roza said , when she heard from the dean of the college , Patricia Wasley .
Wasley told Roza she had been inundated by calls from deans of other education programs across the country , according to Roza .
They were asking that she censure Roza or even make her retract the paper .
, a former magazine , used to know this : Ms. Angelou was a civil rights activist , a Tony-nominated actress , a memoirist of some gifts , and the inaugural poet for the first presidential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ms. Angelou , who never went to college , was not “ Dr .
Angelou.
” “ Dr .
Angelou , ” which was repeated by many media outlets after she died , was willed by Ms. Angelou herself : Her website referred to her as “ Dr .
Angelou ” and her Twitter handle was the unambiguous @ DrMayaAngelou .
Wake Forest University , where she taught for many years , colluded in this ruse , referring to her in its obituary as “ civil rights activist and professor Dr. Maya Angelou.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ask why it went along with this misdirection , a spokesman told me , “ That was her choice , to be called that.
” Her resume , her choice I guess .
Just like Dr. Jill .
The once got this too , offering this story back in 2009 : Hi , I ’ m Jill .
Jill Biden .
But please , call me Dr. Biden Amy Sullivan , a religion writer for Time magazine , said she smiled when she heard the vice president ’ s wife announced as Dr. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the day after President Obama ’ s inauguration .
“ Ordinarily when someone goes by doctor and they are a PhD , not an MD , I find it a little bit obnoxious , ” Sullivan said .
“ But it makes me smile because it ’ s a reminder that she ’ s her own person .
She wasn ’ t there as an appendage ; she was there as a professional in her own right.
” Newspapers , including The Times , generally do not use the honorific “ Dr. ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ medical degree .
“ My feeling is if you can ’ t heal the sick , we don ’ t call you doctor , ” said Bill Walsh , copy desk chief for the Washington Post ’ s A section and the author of two language books .
But you can rely that the media will throw out their style guides and past usages to reaffirm Dr. Jill in her requirements for self-esteem .
P.S .
The Europeans seem to take these matters very seriously .
Also from the piece : The more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I want Mrs. Biden to go by “ Dr .
Biden.
” It will help the ongoing deflation of academic pretension .
Take two bromides and call me in the morning .

The great thing about the “Dr. Jill Biden” issue is that it means the Bidens and the media will double down on this pathetic pretension and remind a large swath of the population the condescending elitism at the heart of liberalism today. This, at the same time liberalism is agonizing over the need to overthrow the whole idea of meritocracy, which is the invention of an older liberalism, because our conventions of meritocracy (things like test scores, academic performance in difficult fields, etc) are not kind to liberalism’s favored victim groups just now.
Take, for example, this hilarious Tweet thread:
Time was when everyone understood that Ed.D degrees were substantively weak, and largely grew as part of a racket for teachers and administrators to get higher salaries and puff up their resumes. Even People magazine, which you’d think you could rely upon to puff up the egos of politicians, once understood this:
When comedian Bill Cosby received his Doctor of Education degree from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst on a fine May day in 1977, he was the star of the commencement. The press took photos as Cosby, wearing his academic robes and later smoking a congratulatory cigar, received his diploma from the chancellor of the university. Now a disgruntled former professor at the university is calling for a second ceremony. “I think it would be wonderful if Cosby staged a media event similar to the one that took place when he earned his doctorate,” says Reginald G. Damerell. “Only this time he would give back the degree to show that he finally realizes it stands for nothing. I hope that Bill Cosby would raise consciousness about how lousy schools of education are.”
In his new book, Education’s Smoking Gun (Freundlich Books, $17.95), Damerell, 64, claims that Cosby’s Ed.D.—like many an advanced education doctorate—is a sham. “Everybody knows Cosby,” says Damerell, a U. Mass. associate professor for 12 years before he left in 1982. “He just happens to illustrate the point. He earned his degree much as a lot of other people do. It was a ridiculous situation.” Cosby’s 242-page doctoral dissertation discussed ways that teachers could use his Fat Albert and the Cosby Kids animated TV shows as educational tools. “Cosby could have given up show business and spent six years at the school and not know any more than he did anyhow,” Damerell says. “Unlike chemistry, education has no body of knowledge, so it doesn’t matter how long you spend on it.” Damerell claims that Cosby’s degree typifies the empty schooling given many education majors. He says that thousands of badly educated teachers are undermining elementary and high school instruction across the country. Holding a copy of Cosby’s dissertation, Damerell says, “A dissertation is supposed to be a contribution to human knowledge. This isn’t. And I would say that 99 percent of [education] dissertations aren’t either.” It appears that Dr. Jill Biden’s dissertation is only half as long as Cosby’s, at 129 pages, according to Kyle Smith. who has decided that Joseph Epstein shouldn’t have all the fun. (Kyle is getting the full two-minute hate drill run against him yesterday and today for his act of lese majeste against the good Doctor Jill.) The Washington Monthly seems to understand the shallowness of graduate programs in education: Master’s of None The problem is that education master’s programs generally don’t produce better teachers. While programs vary greatly, and some stand above the rest, the teachers I interviewed told me that they had spent too much time on theory and not enough on practical teaching skills; professors were too far removed from the classroom and using out-of-date pedagogy; and many programs simply weren’t rigorous. Decades of research back up their critiques. . . Laura Lozito, a social-studies teacher who works with Chirico, would have liked to get an advanced degree in history. But when she compared syllabi, she quickly realized that a master’s in education would entail less reading and writing, and would cover material she was already familiar with from her undergrad courses. Her schedule couldn’t bear the workload of the history degree, so she chose a master’s in adolescent education . . . Marguerite Roza, an education-finance expert, got an inkling of that fact [that ed degree programs are bunk] when she published a paper arguing that states should end the “master’s bump.” The money going toward degree-based pay raises—nearly $15 billion nationwide in the 2007–08 school year—was a waste, she argued. She authored that paper from her perch at the time at the University of Washington’s College of Education—the very sort of institution that was benefitting from the arrangement. The paper had been out for less than a week, Roza said, when she heard from the dean of the college, Patricia Wasley. Wasley told Roza she had been inundated by calls from deans of other education programs across the country, according to Roza. They were asking that she censure Roza or even make her retract the paper. The New Republic, a former magazine, used to know this:
Why Do People Call Ms. Maya Angelou “Dr. Maya Angelou”? Ms. Angelou was a civil rights activist, a Tony-nominated actress, a memoirist of some gifts, and the inaugural poet for the first presidential election in which I voted. But Ms. Angelou, who never went to college, was not “Dr. Angelou.” “Dr. Angelou,” which was repeated by many media outlets after she died, was willed by Ms. Angelou herself: Her website referred to her as “Dr. Angelou” and her Twitter handle was the unambiguous @DrMayaAngelou. Wake Forest University, where she taught for many years, colluded in this ruse, referring to her in its obituary as “civil rights activist and professor Dr. Maya Angelou.” When I called the school to ask why it went along with this misdirection, a spokesman told me, “That was her choice, to be called that.”
Her resume, her choice I guess. Just like Dr. Jill.
The Los Angeles Times once got this too, offering this story back in 2009:
Hi, I’m Jill. Jill Biden. But please, call me Dr. Biden Amy Sullivan, a religion writer for Time magazine, said she smiled when she heard the vice president’s wife announced as Dr. Jill Biden during the national prayer service the day after President Obama’s inauguration. “Ordinarily when someone goes by doctor and they are a PhD, not an MD, I find it a little bit obnoxious,” Sullivan said. “But it makes me smile because it’s a reminder that she’s her own person. She wasn’t there as an appendage; she was there as a professional in her own right.” Newspapers, including The Times, generally do not use the honorific “Dr.” unless the person in question has a medical degree. “My feeling is if you can’t heal the sick, we don’t call you doctor,” said Bill Walsh, copy desk chief for the Washington Post’s A section and the author of two language books.
But you can rely that the media will throw out their style guides and past usages to reaffirm Dr. Jill in her requirements for self-esteem.
P.S. The Europeans seem to take these matters very seriously. Also from the LA Times piece:
Last year, according to the Post, at least seven Americans (with degrees from places like Cornell and Caltech) were investigated for the crime of “title fraud” for calling themselves doctor on business cards, resumes and websites. Only people who have earned advanced degrees in Germany or other European Union countries may legally call themselves that.
The more I think it about, the more I want Mrs. Biden to go by “Dr. Biden.” It will help the ongoing deflation of academic pretension. Take two bromides and call me in the morning.


powerlineblog--2020-12-17--Biden weighs “competing questions” on whom to pick for Attorney General

President-elect Biden still hasn ’ t named a nominee for Attorney General .
According to this report from CNN , the two leading contenders are Judge Merrick Garland and outgoing Senator Doug Jones .
Sally Yates , whom I expected to be the frontrunner , and Deval ( “ just words ” ) Patrick reportedly may still be in contention , but seem to be on the outside looking in .
Until I read the CNN article , I couldn ’ t understand why Jones is a serious contender for the AG job .
Okay , he once led a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing .
This hardly qualifies him to be the Attorney General of the United States .
And if the goal is to satisfy the Black base , why not nominate a Black ?
But the CNN article describes Jones as being close personally to Biden .
CNN ’ s reporters don ’ t elaborate on the relationship between the two .
However , personal closeness would explain why Jones is at or near the top of Biden ’ s list .
Given the way the Biden family enriched @ @ @ @ @ @ @ especially during Joe Biden ’ s time as vice president , and given the ongoing DOJ investigation of Hunter Biden , the new president could use a “ wing man ” Attorney General .
If Jones fits the bill , he has a good shot at the job .
The case for Merrick Garland is different .
He is , or passes for , a traditional liberal , rather than a modern leftist .
Therefore , Garland would be a relatively non-controversial nominee , though his selection wouldn ’ t please the far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Senate and enable the media to portray Biden ’ s presidency as “ moderate.
” At the same time , Biden could pacify the far left , and largely ensure that his DOJ won ’ t be moderate , by nominating hard leftists and identity politics heroes for key positions below the AG level .
However , Garland ’ s strength is also his weakness in terms of Biden ’ s needs .
To the extent Garland actually is an independent-minded man of the center-left , he can ’ t be counted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from investigations for corruption .
This , I take it , is what CNN means when it says that Biden ’ s search for an AG is “ complicated by competing questions.
” CNN says that Biden is expected to select his Attorney General nominee before Christmas .
The selection will be a nice present for the nominee and for one or more factions of the Democratic party .
For the rest of us , it will , at least , be interesting .

President-elect Biden still hasn’t named a nominee for Attorney General. According to this report from CNN, the two leading contenders are Judge Merrick Garland and outgoing Senator Doug Jones. Sally Yates, whom I expected to be the frontrunner, and Deval ( “just words”) Patrick reportedly may still be in contention, but seem to be on the outside looking in.
Until I read the CNN article, I couldn’t understand why Jones is a serious contender for the AG job. Okay, he once led a successful case against KKK members responsible for the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing. This hardly qualifies him to be the Attorney General of the United States. And if the goal is to satisfy the Black base, why not nominate a Black?
But the CNN article describes Jones as being close personally to Biden. CNN’s reporters don’t elaborate on the relationship between the two. However, personal closeness would explain why Jones is at or near the top of Biden’s list.
Given the way the Biden family enriched itself through dealings with foreign entities, especially during Joe Biden’s time as vice president, and given the ongoing DOJ investigation of Hunter Biden, the new president could use a “wing man” Attorney General. If Jones fits the bill, he has a good shot at the job.
The case for Merrick Garland is different. He is, or passes for, a traditional liberal, rather than a modern leftist. Therefore, Garland would be a relatively non-controversial nominee, though his selection wouldn’t please the far left.
Garland would likely sail through the Senate and enable the media to portray Biden’s presidency as “moderate.” At the same time, Biden could pacify the far left, and largely ensure that his DOJ won’t be moderate, by nominating hard leftists and identity politics heroes for key positions below the AG level.
However, Garland’s strength is also his weakness in terms of Biden’s needs. To the extent Garland actually is an independent-minded man of the center-left, he can’t be counted on to protect Biden and his family from investigations for corruption. This, I take it, is what CNN means when it says that Biden’s search for an AG is “complicated by competing questions.”
CNN says that Biden is expected to select his Attorney General nominee before Christmas. The selection will be a nice present for the nominee and for one or more factions of the Democratic party. For the rest of us, it will, at least, be interesting.