hotair--2020-07-10--Hoo boy: My executive order on DACA will include a "road to citizenship," says Trump

You know it ’ s a bad screw-up by POTUS when Ted Cruz is scrambling to dunk on it .
Replete with a “ swamp ” jab , no less .
Cruz is highly loyal to Trump but he ’ s more highly loyal to his own presidential ambitions , and those ambitions require out-populist-ing the Cottons and Hawleys in 2024 .
If that means seizing an easy opportunity to get to Trump ’ s right on the ultimate populist issue of immigration then that ’ s what it means .
Here ’ s the clip from Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the hell is he talking about ?
He said “ road to citizenship ” twice .
“ Not even the Obama administration thought it had the authority to give DACA recipients a path to citizenship , ” notes Gabe Malor , correctly .
Did he mean a path to legal status ?
Or is he talking about some sort of grand bargain he ’ s planning to propose to Democrats in which DACA enrollees will be given a path to citizenship legislatively in exchange for Trump getting some goodies ?
He can ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ measuring the drapes .
They have no incentive to make a deal with him now .
And Trump would have to be insane to pursue any form of amnesty — especially one involving citizenship — this close to the election knowing how it ’ s destined to royally piss off the Coulter/Carlson nationalist wing of the party .
Don ’ t get me wrong , amnesty for DACA members is very popular among the general public .
But it ’ s not so salient an issue at this point that taking an interest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s electoral problems the way , say , a better COVID response would .
If anything , it ’ ll deepen his problems by giving righty populists a reason to distrust him , even if what he ’ s trying to say here is “ path to legal status.
” What is he thinking ?
Malor ’ s theory is as good as any I ’ ve got : “ In light of Trump ’ s word salad on DACA , I think we can ’ t discount the possibility that he was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to hear .
This is , after all , only his second interview with a Spanish-language TV journalist ( it was Diaz-Balart last time too ) .
” Is that it ?
Was he attuned to the fact that he was being interviewed by Noticias Telemundo and figured he ’ d play to his audience by ad libbing a little light “ road to citizenship ” talk ?
Time for another cognitive test , I think .

You know it’s a bad screw-up by POTUS when Ted Cruz is scrambling to dunk on it. Replete with a “swamp” jab, no less.
Cruz is highly loyal to Trump but he’s more highly loyal to his own presidential ambitions, and those ambitions require out-populist-ing the Cottons and Hawleys in 2024. If that means seizing an easy opportunity to get to Trump’s right on the ultimate populist issue of immigration then that’s what it means.
Here’s the clip from Trump’s upcoming interview with Noticias Telemundo. What the hell is he talking about?
BREAKING: President Trump tells Telemundo’s @jdbalart he will sign an executive order on immigration that will include DACA in the coming weeks. #mtpdaily Trump: “One of the aspects of the bill is going to be DACA. We are going to have a road to citizenship.” pic.twitter.com/M926cty8A1 — Meet the Press (@MeetThePress) July 10, 2020
He said “road to citizenship” twice. “Not even the Obama administration thought it had the authority to give DACA recipients a path to citizenship,” notes Gabe Malor, correctly.
Did he mean a path to legal status? Or is he talking about some sort of grand bargain he’s planning to propose to Democrats in which DACA enrollees will be given a path to citizenship legislatively in exchange for Trump getting some goodies?
He can’t mean that. Democrats are already measuring the drapes. They have no incentive to make a deal with him now. And Trump would have to be insane to pursue any form of amnesty — especially one involving citizenship — this close to the election knowing how it’s destined to royally piss off the Coulter/Carlson nationalist wing of the party.
Don’t get me wrong, amnesty for DACA members is very popular among the general public. But it’s not so salient an issue at this point that taking an interest in it might meaningfully ease Trump’s electoral problems the way, say, a better COVID response would. If anything, it’ll deepen his problems by giving righty populists a reason to distrust him, even if what he’s trying to say here is “path to legal status.”
What is he thinking? Malor’s theory is as good as any I’ve got: “In light of Trump’s word salad on DACA, I think we can’t discount the possibility that he was just saying things he thought Diaz-Balart wanted to hear. This is, after all, only his second interview with a Spanish-language TV journalist (it was Diaz-Balart last time too).” Is that it? Was he attuned to the fact that he was being interviewed by Noticias Telemundo and figured he’d play to his audience by ad libbing a little light “road to citizenship” talk? Time for another cognitive test, I think.


hotair--2020-07-10--A journalist wrote a book about breathing and it's surprisingly compelling

Okay , this is a little weird and not at all political but I found it really interesting .
Joe Rogan just interviewed a journalist named James Nestor who spent several years writing a book about breathing .
The book is called “ Breath : The New Science of a Lost Art ” and if you ’ re like me your first thought is probably something like ‘ How did he turn that into a book and why would anyone read it.
’ But after watching one clip from the interview , I was hooked .
In this clip , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to his main topic : crooked teeth .
In looking at the human airway , Nestor said he was told by anthropologists he spoke to that prior to about 500 years ago , most human skulls showed straight teeth , even though no one had access to braces .
That ’ s true , he says , even if you go back 5,000 years to the early days of written history .
The reason , according to the anthropologists is that our mouths have become smaller .
And that may be because of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or ten thousand years ago , it would have been normal for people to be chewing up to 4 hours a day .
But thanks to mills and processing our diet has become softer and our jaws seem to be becoming smaller and weaker .
One result is crowded and crooked teeth .
Nestor then talked about using a device recommended to him by a doctor which expanded his upper palate over the course of a year .
Nestor used the removable device every night for a year and , at the end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his skull show that he widened his mouth , added bone to his face and actually changed his appearance .
He also believes this is one reason he hasn ’ t had pneumonia , something which he ’ d had every year prior to this .
If you ’ ve never heard of anything like this , it probably sounds pretty weird , but it happens that my wife had a similar device when she had braces as a kid .
And a few years ago my daughter had the same device as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ teeth .
She now has a perfect smile but getting there ( without pulling any teeth ) required widening her palate over the course of about a year .
In addition to narrower mouths , human jaws also tend to be smaller now .
“ If you were to measure a skull and you were to draw one line from it ’ s ear to its nose and another line perpendicular to that almost every single ancient skull would be above that line , very powerful jaw , ” Nestor said .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of modern skulls are below it .
They are behind it.
” Here ’ s this one segment of the interview about crooked teeth and jaws .
Of course that 13 minute is just a small portion of the interview which is nearly 2 hours long .
I haven ’ t watched all of it but the first 20 minutes is about the health impacts of breathing through your nose vs. your mouth .
And it turns out Joe Rogan knows something about this first hand because he had a deviated septum and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ until he had surgery when he was 40 .
It ’ s an interesting discussion that ties in free divers , Jiu-Jitsu master Rickson Gracie as well as a guy named Swami Rama who could cause his own heart to beat 300 times per minute merely by concentrating .
Here ’ s the full interview .
I ’ m intrigued enough that I ’ m thinking I ’ m going to read the book this weekend .

Okay, this is a little weird and not at all political but I found it really interesting. Joe Rogan just interviewed a journalist named James Nestor who spent several years writing a book about breathing. The book is called “Breath: The New Science of a Lost Art” and if you’re like me your first thought is probably something like ‘How did he turn that into a book and why would anyone read it.’ But after watching one clip from the interview, I was hooked.
In this clip, Nestor talks about a sort of sideline to his main topic: crooked teeth. In looking at the human airway, Nestor said he was told by anthropologists he spoke to that prior to about 500 years ago, most human skulls showed straight teeth, even though no one had access to braces. That’s true, he says, even if you go back 5,000 years to the early days of written history. The reason, according to the anthropologists is that our mouths have become smaller.
And that may be because of the change in our diet. Five or ten thousand years ago, it would have been normal for people to be chewing up to 4 hours a day. But thanks to mills and processing our diet has become softer and our jaws seem to be becoming smaller and weaker. One result is crowded and crooked teeth.
Nestor then talked about using a device recommended to him by a doctor which expanded his upper palate over the course of a year. Nestor used the removable device every night for a year and, at the end of that time, medical scans of his skull show that he widened his mouth, added bone to his face and actually changed his appearance. He also believes this is one reason he hasn’t had pneumonia, something which he’d had every year prior to this.
If you’ve never heard of anything like this, it probably sounds pretty weird, but it happens that my wife had a similar device when she had braces as a kid. And a few years ago my daughter had the same device as part of her treatment to straighten her teeth. She now has a perfect smile but getting there (without pulling any teeth) required widening her palate over the course of about a year.
In addition to narrower mouths, human jaws also tend to be smaller now. “If you were to measure a skull and you were to draw one line from it’s ear to its nose and another line perpendicular to that almost every single ancient skull would be above that line, very powerful jaw,” Nestor said. He continued, “Now, 90 percent of modern skulls are below it. They are behind it.”
Here’s this one segment of the interview about crooked teeth and jaws.
Of course that 13 minute is just a small portion of the interview which is nearly 2 hours long. I haven’t watched all of it but the first 20 minutes is about the health impacts of breathing through your nose vs. your mouth. And it turns out Joe Rogan knows something about this first hand because he had a deviated septum and couldn’t breath through his nose until he had surgery when he was 40. It’s an interesting discussion that ties in free divers, Jiu-Jitsu master Rickson Gracie as well as a guy named Swami Rama who could cause his own heart to beat 300 times per minute merely by concentrating. Here’s the full interview. I’m intrigued enough that I’m thinking I’m going to read the book this weekend.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5o9b2RVC2E


hotair--2020-07-10--Today's hot topics on Relevant Radio®: Nationalism, patriotism, the Constitution, and "1968 on stero

Today's hot topics on Relevant Radio®: Nationalism, patriotism, the Constitution, and "1968 on steroids"

Once again , I get to step outside the box and guest host for Sheila Liaugminas ’ A Closer Look @ @ @ @ @ ET today !
The Catholic talk-radio network is heard nationwide on the air , as @ @ @ @ @ their free mobile app that plays live and podcast shows .
• Are we able @ @ @ @ @ as Benjamin Franklin warned ?
Where does patriotism end and nationalism begin , and are @ @ @ @ @ dangerous ?
Professor Randall Smith joins us to discuss the questions that hang over our @ @ @ @ @ we prepare for a national election .
• Can St. Benedict teach us how to @ @ @ @ @ Elizabeth Scalia , known as The Anchoress , says 2020 feels “ like 1968 on @ @ @ @ @ monastic pioneer advise us in these troubled times ?
We will also take your calls @ @ @ @ @ also listen on the Relevant Radio® app no matter where you are in the world @ @ @ @ @ .
I ’ ll look forward to talking with you !

Once again, I get to step outside the box and guest host for Sheila Liaugminas’ A Closer Look on Relevant Radio® from 6-7 ET today! The Catholic talk-radio network is heard nationwide on the air, as well as online and through their free mobile app that plays live and podcast shows.
Today’s Relevant Radio® show includes:
Are we able to keep this republic, as Benjamin Franklin warned? Where does patriotism end and nationalism begin, and are all forms of the latter dangerous? Professor Randall Smith joins us to discuss the questions that hang over our public life, especially as we prepare for a national election.
Can St. Benedict teach us how to ethically engage on line? Elizabeth Scalia, known as The Anchoress, says 2020 feels “like 1968 on steroids.” What would the monastic pioneer advise us in these troubled times?
We will also take your calls at 1-888-914-9149. You can also listen on the Relevant Radio® app no matter where you are in the world, so download it now. I’ll look forward to talking with you!


hotair--2020-07-10--Michigan Dem warns her party: The polls showing Biden with a big lead over Trump are wrong

I knew there ’ d be plenty of poll truthers this summer and fall .
I just didn ’ t expect a Democratic congresswoman to be one of them .
Part of what she says to Politico reporter Tim Alberta is common sense .
Namely , if the polls could underestimate Trump ’ s support in 2016 , they can do it again .
Most pollsters are more attentive this year to making sure that white voters without a college degree are properly represented in their samples , as that ’ s the group that was undercounted in polling four @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over the top .
Now that polling outfits are looking for them , they ’ re less likely to be undercounted again .
But no one knows how many casual voters in that group who typically don ’ t turn out to vote will go to the polls for Trump this November .
There may be more of them out there who didn ’ t show up in 2016 but are planning to do so in the fall .
Although , to believe that , you ’ d have to explain why they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against Sleepy Joe Biden amid a pandemic that ’ s going terribly for the U.S. if they weren ’ t motivated to turn out against the deeply disliked Hillary Clinton when Trump was a fresh-faced outsider .
Another reason for what she says is Democratic fear of complacency .
Every time a new poll drops showing Biden up 10 points , two groups of people scream .
One is Republican activists ( led by the president himself ) , who holler , “ Suppression poll !
They ’ re trying to demoralize us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The other is Democratic activists , who holler , “ Complacency poll !
They ’ re trying to convince us that the race is in the bag so that we stay home !
” I think that ’ s partly what ’ s driving Elissa Slotkin ’ s suspicions here .
She ’ s understandably spooked that her home state of Michigan , which was supposed to be safely blue in 2016 , might have another surprise waiting for Democrats .
And she has special reason to fear it , as her home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
She was one of the purple-district Dems who swept to victory in the blue wave two years ago .
Then she turned around and voted to impeach last year , pissing off the Republican majority in her district .
She ’ s sending a signal here to Democrats in her district : I need every vote on Election Day to survive .
Assume nothing based on the polls .
Anyway .
Is she right ?
“ I think they ’ re inaccurate , ” she [ says of the polls ] without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thing .
When I started to run and I had to hire a pollster , I interviewed a bunch of different folks and I decided to do what we do sometimes at the Pentagon , which is to take a ‘ bad cop ’ approach to the interview .
… It was five or six folks that I interviewed , and I said , ‘ You got something wrong .
You screwed up in 2016 .
What did you get wrong ?
And how are you going to fix it ?
” Only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he got it wrong .
That was the person—Al Quinlan of GQR , a large Washington-based firm—she hired .
“ He told me that they fundamentally undercounted the Trump vote ; that the Trump voter is not a voter in every single election , that they come out for Trump , so they ’ re hard to count , ” she explains .
“ On a survey , if someone says , ‘ I ’ m not sure I ’ m going to vote , ’ you don ’ t usually continue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ didn ’ t have any desire to be on those poll calls ; they didn ’ t have the 20 minutes to talk to somebody .
They didn ’ t want to do it .
And so , they were fundamentally undercounted.
” Slotkin , ever the intel analyst—identifying trends , compiling a report , presenting a conclusion—tells me , with a high degree of confidence , “ I believe that same thing is happening right now.
” Alberta points to the last month of the campaign in Michigan in 2016 as evidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ missed .
Trump averaged 41 percent over that period , he tweeted earlier today , and ended up with 47.3 percent on Election Day .
A big miss !
Which is true , but… Pay attention to the dates , and remember that the “ Access Hollywood ” tape dropped on October 8 followed by a barrage of sexual-misconduct allegations against Trump and then the Comey letter about reopening the Emailgate probe on October 28 .
Throughout the first two and a half weeks of October , Trump was getting creamed .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shrink .
By November 1 , the 10-point leads she enjoyed at the start of October had been cut in half .
One poll published the final week had her lead down to four .
Then Trafalgar published its bombshell results on the eve of Election Day showing Trump up two .
What we ’ re seeing in that table is a lead evaporate as late deciders swung solidly behind the upstart outsider candidate : It ’ s not that the Michigan polls were wildly off .
They detected the trend towards Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ picked up his final surge into the lead .
Ultimately the polling average was within four points of the final result .
And , as Donovan noted in a separate tweet , most of the polls you see in that table were conducted by local outfits , not big national firms that are well respected for their track records .
Prestige pollsters simply didn ’ t think Michigan was in play in 2016 so they didn ’ t waste resources on polling it .
That same mistake isn ’ t being repeated this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New York Times , Fox News , Monmouth , and Quinnipiac have all polled Michigan since February .
The most recent poll , the NYT ’ s , had Biden up 11 .
Long story short , although it ’ s true that pollsters underestimated the share of Trump ’ s base that would turn out in 2016 , it may be nothing more than a late break towards an intriguing outsider by undecideds in the final weeks of the campaign that accounts for the big miss in Michigan and other Rust Belt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deciders break for him again this November , confounding the numbers a second time , but there ’ s no obvious reason to think so given the problems bedeviling the country and the weaker degree of animosity Biden inspires in people relative to Clinton .
Besides , says Nate Silver , even if Trump outperforms his polling again this year , he ’ d have to outperform it by a lot — a lot — in light of how things currently stand in order to actually win the election .
Biden would win @ @ @ @ @ @ @ four states Silver identifies .
And , Silver added , if there is a big polling miss , there ’ s no reason to think it would necessarily benefit Trump .
In their zeal to make sure Trump ’ s base is fully represented in samples this time , pollsters may be overestimating how many of them are actually prepared to turn out for him .
If Biden leads by four narrowly on the night before Election Day , he could lose narrowly — or win by eight .
Right now he leads @ @ @ @ @ @ @ points , which is probably outside the margin of a polling miss .
…but I don ’ t know .
After 2016 , who wants to bet against Trafalgar ?
Here ’ s the president last night on “ Hannity ” boasting that he ’ d taken a cognitive test at some point at Walter Reed hospital and “ aced ” it .
That was … news to most of the country , and raised a bunch of questions .
Why did doctors feel obliged to give him a cognitive test ?
Is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Doesn ’ t he do his physicals at the White House , typically ?
Does this have anything to do with that mysterious impromptu visit he made to Walter Reed last November ?
Presumably not , as he says he took the test “ very recently.
” The Times is looking for answers and isn ’ t getting any .
But Joe Biden ’ s now looking forward to debating him : “ I can hardly wait to deal with what he refers to himself as — a stable genius .
”

I knew there’d be plenty of poll truthers this summer and fall.
I just didn’t expect a Democratic congresswoman to be one of them.
Part of what she says to Politico reporter Tim Alberta is common sense. Namely, if the polls could underestimate Trump’s support in 2016, they can do it again. Most pollsters are more attentive this year to making sure that white voters without a college degree are properly represented in their samples, as that’s the group that was undercounted in polling four years ago and ended up putting Trump over the top. Now that polling outfits are looking for them, they’re less likely to be undercounted again. But no one knows how many casual voters in that group who typically don’t turn out to vote will go to the polls for Trump this November. There may be more of them out there who didn’t show up in 2016 but are planning to do so in the fall.
Although, to believe that, you’d have to explain why they’d be motivated to turn out against Sleepy Joe Biden amid a pandemic that’s going terribly for the U.S. if they weren’t motivated to turn out against the deeply disliked Hillary Clinton when Trump was a fresh-faced outsider.
Another reason for what she says is Democratic fear of complacency. Every time a new poll drops showing Biden up 10 points, two groups of people scream. One is Republican activists (led by the president himself), who holler, “Suppression poll! They’re trying to demoralize us so that we stay home!” The other is Democratic activists, who holler, “Complacency poll! They’re trying to convince us that the race is in the bag so that we stay home!” I think that’s partly what’s driving Elissa Slotkin’s suspicions here. She’s understandably spooked that her home state of Michigan, which was supposed to be safely blue in 2016, might have another surprise waiting for Democrats. And she has special reason to fear it, as her home district leans slightly Republican (R+4). She was one of the purple-district Dems who swept to victory in the blue wave two years ago. Then she turned around and voted to impeach last year, pissing off the Republican majority in her district. She’s sending a signal here to Democrats in her district: I need every vote on Election Day to survive. Assume nothing based on the polls.
Anyway. Is she right?
“I think they’re inaccurate,” she [says of the polls] without hesitation. “Here’s the thing. When I started to run and I had to hire a pollster, I interviewed a bunch of different folks and I decided to do what we do sometimes at the Pentagon, which is to take a ‘bad cop’ approach to the interview. … It was five or six folks that I interviewed, and I said, ‘You got something wrong. You screwed up in 2016. What did you get wrong? And how are you going to fix it?” Only one pollster, Slotkin says, admitted that he got it wrong. That was the person—Al Quinlan of GQR, a large Washington-based firm—she hired. “He told me that they fundamentally undercounted the Trump vote; that the Trump voter is not a voter in every single election, that they come out for Trump, so they’re hard to count,” she explains. “On a survey, if someone says, ‘I’m not sure I’m going to vote,’ you don’t usually continue the conversation. And some of them didn’t have any desire to be on those poll calls; they didn’t have the 20 minutes to talk to somebody. They didn’t want to do it. And so, they were fundamentally undercounted.” Slotkin, ever the intel analyst—identifying trends, compiling a report, presenting a conclusion—tells me, with a high degree of confidence, “I believe that same thing is happening right now.”
Alberta points to the last month of the campaign in Michigan in 2016 as evidence of just how badly the polls there missed. Trump averaged 41 percent over that period, he tweeted earlier today, and ended up with 47.3 percent on Election Day. A big miss! Which is true, but…
Pay attention to the dates, and remember that the “Access Hollywood” tape dropped on October 8 followed by a barrage of sexual-misconduct allegations against Trump and then the Comey letter about reopening the Emailgate probe on October 28. Throughout the first two and a half weeks of October, Trump was getting creamed. But then Clinton’s lead began to shrink. By November 1, the 10-point leads she enjoyed at the start of October had been cut in half. One poll published the final week had her lead down to four. Then Trafalgar published its bombshell results on the eve of Election Day showing Trump up two. What we’re seeing in that table is a lead evaporate as late deciders swung solidly behind the upstart outsider candidate:
There’s also the fact that the avg actually nailed her share, and in all three of the states you cite there was bigly evidence of a late shift toward Trump: https://t.co/haRBdtWukD https://t.co/q5vAq3ljEz — Liam Donovan (@LPDonovan) July 10, 2020
It’s not that the Michigan polls were wildly off. They detected the trend towards Trump at the end, although only Trafalgar picked up his final surge into the lead. Ultimately the polling average was within four points of the final result. And, as Donovan noted in a separate tweet, most of the polls you see in that table were conducted by local outfits, not big national firms that are well respected for their track records. Prestige pollsters simply didn’t think Michigan was in play in 2016 so they didn’t waste resources on polling it. That same mistake isn’t being repeated this year, needless to say. The New York Times, Fox News, Monmouth, and Quinnipiac have all polled Michigan since February. The most recent poll, the NYT’s, had Biden up 11.
Long story short, although it’s true that pollsters underestimated the share of Trump’s base that would turn out in 2016, it may be nothing more than a late break towards an intriguing outsider by undecideds in the final weeks of the campaign that accounts for the big miss in Michigan and other Rust Belt states. It could happen that late deciders break for him again this November, confounding the numbers a second time, but there’s no obvious reason to think so given the problems bedeviling the country and the weaker degree of animosity Biden inspires in people relative to Clinton. Besides, says Nate Silver, even if Trump outperforms his polling again this year, he’d have to outperform it by a lot — a lot — in light of how things currently stand in order to actually win the election.
If polls underestimated Trump to the same extent they did in 2016 (by ~3-ish points in the average swing state) then Biden would still win MI, WI, PA and FL in an election held today, and AZ, NC, OH and GA would be toss-ups. https://t.co/pJFdwArSHY — Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) July 10, 2020
Biden would win the election handily if he took the four states Silver identifies. And, Silver added, if there is a big polling miss, there’s no reason to think it would necessarily benefit Trump. In their zeal to make sure Trump’s base is fully represented in samples this time, pollsters may be overestimating how many of them are actually prepared to turn out for him. If Biden leads by four narrowly on the night before Election Day, he could lose narrowly — or win by eight. Right now he leads in Michigan by an average of 7.5 points, which is probably outside the margin of a polling miss.
…but I don’t know. After 2016, who wants to bet against Trafalgar?
Here’s the president last night on “Hannity” boasting that he’d taken a cognitive test at some point at Walter Reed hospital and “aced” it. That was … news to most of the country, and raised a bunch of questions. Why did doctors feel obliged to give him a cognitive test? Is that routinely part of his physical? Doesn’t he do his physicals at the White House, typically? Does this have anything to do with that mysterious impromptu visit he made to Walter Reed last November? Presumably not, as he says he took the test “very recently.” The Times is looking for answers and isn’t getting any. But Joe Biden’s now looking forward to debating him: “I can hardly wait to deal with what he refers to himself as — a stable genius.”


hotair--2020-07-10--A Wisconsin man drove his truck into a motorcyclist saying he wanted to kill a white person

According to police in Fond du Lac , Wisconsin , on July 3 they received calls of an accident .
When they arrived the found 55-year-old Phillip Thiessen , who had been out for a ride on his Harley , dead in the street .
The driver of the truck that killed Thiessen , 27-year-old Daniel Navarro was uninjured and told police at the scene that he ’ d swerved into oncoming traffic on purpose .
Under questioning later Navarro gave police his reason for the crash : “ Navarro said that if President Donald Trump and white people are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ living in , he has no choice and that people are going to have to die , ” [ County Sheriff Ryan ] Waldschmidt said .
According to the criminal complaint , Navarro told police he had been a target of racism , because he is Mexican .
“ People drive by his house and rev their engines and squeal their tires to try to upset him and that people make racist comments toward him , all because he is Hispanic , ” said Waldschmidt… Police say Navarro recognized the motorcycle as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Navarro said that , in Wisconsin , only white people drive Harleys and that he believes people who drive Harley-Davidson motorcycles are typically “ white racists.
” “ He chose a motorcycle instead of a car , because he wanted the driver to die , and not just be injured or paralyzed , ” Waldschmidt said .
Navarro wasn ’ t intoxicated when this happened but there ’ s some evidence that he may have underlying mental problems .
No one is directly claiming that ( that I ’ ve seen ) but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about why he has a hatred for white people : During interviews with detectives , Navarro said he believed he had been intentionally contaminated with a chemical sterilizer on his jacket by an employment supervisor in Ripon approximately a year and a half ago .
He went on to say , according to the complaint , that a friend poisoned him a year and a half ago , that he is still being poisoned by a neighbor and that he could hear one of his neighbors making racist comments through the walls of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those who are poisoning him , giving him acid , and making racist comments are all Caucasian and targeting Navarro because he is Mexican .
When people are hearing things through the walls that sounds like paranoid schizophrenia to me .
There ’ s also this : Phillip Thiessen , the victim , served four years in the Marines and then worked as a police officer in Fairfax , Virginia for 26 years ( which happens to be next door to where I grew up ) .
After retiring from that job , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ job working for the Wisconsin Department of Justice investigating internet crimes against children .
He had retired from that job in 2018 at which point he moved back to his hometown of Fond du Lac so he could be near his family .
He was a volunteer at a local food panty .
All in all , someone who devoted his life to serving his country and his community .
Here ’ s a photo of him riding his Harley .
Navarro is facing first degree murder charges and , because of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being treated as a hate crime .
Given that Navarro has basically confessed to everything it ’ s not clear if there will be much of a trial .
I guess we ’ ll have to wait and see if undiagnosed mental issues are raised by his defense .
Even if that is the case , those mental issues seem to have a very particular bent , one that just happens to line up with a lot of what we ’ re hearing in the media for the last few months .
Navarro @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through the walls but he seems to have been tuned in to something .
This is where the national media would normally step in to discuss the “ climate of hate ” that motivated this violence , at least that ’ s what would have happened if the racial identities of perpetrator and victim had been other than they are .
As it is , this story seems to be mostly limited to local news coverage .

According to police in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, on July 3 they received calls of an accident. When they arrived the found 55-year-old Phillip Thiessen, who had been out for a ride on his Harley, dead in the street. The driver of the truck that killed Thiessen, 27-year-old Daniel Navarro was uninjured and told police at the scene that he’d swerved into oncoming traffic on purpose. Under questioning later Navarro gave police his reason for the crash:
“Navarro said that if President Donald Trump and white people are going to create the world we are living in, he has no choice and that people are going to have to die,” [County Sheriff Ryan] Waldschmidt said. According to the criminal complaint, Navarro told police he had been a target of racism, because he is Mexican. “People drive by his house and rev their engines and squeal their tires to try to upset him and that people make racist comments toward him, all because he is Hispanic,” said Waldschmidt… Police say Navarro recognized the motorcycle as a Harley-Davidson motorcycle. According to investigators, Navarro said that, in Wisconsin, only white people drive Harleys and that he believes people who drive Harley-Davidson motorcycles are typically “white racists.” “He chose a motorcycle instead of a car, because he wanted the driver to die, and not just be injured or paralyzed,” Waldschmidt said.
Navarro wasn’t intoxicated when this happened but there’s some evidence that he may have underlying mental problems. No one is directly claiming that (that I’ve seen) but here’s what Navarro told police about why he has a hatred for white people:
During interviews with detectives, Navarro said he believed he had been intentionally contaminated with a chemical sterilizer on his jacket by an employment supervisor in Ripon approximately a year and a half ago. He went on to say, according to the complaint, that a friend poisoned him a year and a half ago, that he is still being poisoned by a neighbor and that he could hear one of his neighbors making racist comments through the walls of this residence. Navarro told detectives that those who are poisoning him, giving him acid, and making racist comments are all Caucasian and targeting Navarro because he is Mexican.
When people are hearing things through the walls that sounds like paranoid schizophrenia to me. There’s also this:
Navarro was charged in 2019 with disorderly conduct in connection to a domestic violence incident. The charge dismissed by the court. At the time officers attempted to have Navarro placed on a 72-hour mental health hold, but the request was denied, according to court records.
Phillip Thiessen, the victim, served four years in the Marines and then worked as a police officer in Fairfax, Virginia for 26 years (which happens to be next door to where I grew up). After retiring from that job, Thiessen returned to Wisconsin he got a job working for the Wisconsin Department of Justice investigating internet crimes against children. He had retired from that job in 2018 at which point he moved back to his hometown of Fond du Lac so he could be near his family. He was a volunteer at a local food panty. All in all, someone who devoted his life to serving his country and his community. Here’s a photo of him riding his Harley.
Navarro is facing first degree murder charges and, because of the racial animus involved, the case is being treated as a hate crime. Given that Navarro has basically confessed to everything it’s not clear if there will be much of a trial. I guess we’ll have to wait and see if undiagnosed mental issues are raised by his defense.
Even if that is the case, those mental issues seem to have a very particular bent, one that just happens to line up with a lot of what we’re hearing in the media for the last few months. Navarro may not have been hearing his neighbors through the walls but he seems to have been tuned in to something. This is where the national media would normally step in to discuss the “climate of hate” that motivated this violence, at least that’s what would have happened if the racial identities of perpetrator and victim had been other than they are. As it is, this story seems to be mostly limited to local news coverage.


hotair--2020-07-10--Peak 2020: Co-founder of cancel-culture activist group wants you to cancel the partner who canceled

Peak 2020: Co-founder of cancel-culture activist group wants you to cancel the partner who canceled her, or something

For a cultural impulse that supposedly doesn ’ t really exist , Nandini Jammi seems eager to claim her credit for it .
The putative co-founder of Sleeping Giants brags about all of the successes her group has had into pressuring advertisers to abandon websites they dislike , which is as good a demonstration of cancel culture as one could cite .
For instance , Jammi brags about forcing sponsors away from Breitbart and “ put [ ting ] Bill O ’ Reilly out of a job ” : Sleeping Giants quickly became popular because we brought good news everyday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Breitbart or some other horror show .
Best of all , anyone could participate .
Together , we built a community of 400,000+ followers , who helped us lose Breitbart 90 % of its ad revenues , put Bill O ’ Reilly out of a job and deplatform hate figures like Alex Jones and Milo Yiannopoulos .
Behind that magical flow of daily wins ?
I was working behind the scenes to identify which advertisers needed an extra push .
I was creating actions for our Facebook community : first testing email addresses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our followers to send .
This became a core tactic that helped us move fast .
To be clear , there ’ s nothing illegal or even nefarious about commercial boycotts over politics .
( Conservatives have often attempted to use the same tactic . )
Social media tends to make boycott campaigns more successful than others in the past , mainly because advertisers wildly overestimate the impact of small social-media trends on the vast majority of Americans who couldn ’ t care less what people are saying on Twitter or Facebook .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ especially in these cases , is that while the demands might be targeted , the impact isn ’ t .
Those boycott campaigns convinced some advertisers to get out of the political market altogether , a trend that impacted platforms across the political spectrum for a while .
However , no one has industrialized cancel culture like Sleeping Giants has , and as “ deplatforming ” and firings are key parts of cancel culture , it ’ s clear it exists — and Jammi wants credit for making it toxic .
She didn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brag , though .
Jammi wants her partner in Sleeping Giants canceled for essentially canceling her as a partner , accusing “ my white , male co-founder ” Matt Rivitz of sexism and gaslighting : When Matt and I came out in July 2018 on the front page of the business section of the New York Times , I believed it was as equal partners .
It was through Matt ’ s subsequent media appearances I realized he considered me an optional part of the story .
In the weeks after we went @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Sleeping Giants and went on to take interviews with Pod Save America , Kara Swisher and AdWeek .
In AdWeek , I ended up portrayed as “ one of the individuals who helps him run the accounts.
” Without my knowledge , my story was being defined by someone else — a white man who could use his platform to exclude me , diminish me , or disappear me entirely .
He never once invited me to join him .
I never had any idea he was doing any of these interviews @ @ @ @ @ @ @ final straw came in June of last year , when Rivitz accepted an advertising award and didn ’ t mention it to her until later : In June , I saw Matt posting from France on Instagram .
“ Are you in…Europe ?
” I asked .
He said yes , I ’ m speaking at Cannes .
Days later , he sent me a DM of him accepting a Cannes Gold Lion , the ad industry ’ s biggest award [ . ]
I went into a downward spiral when I realized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What have I been spending every single day working on ?
Did anyone know I existed ?
That I was working on this too ?
Why didn ’ t he ever mention this to me ?
I felt humiliated .
I spent the week unable to eat , sleep , or function — I had put on my personal website that I ’ m “ founding organizer ” of Sleeping Giants .
Would people think I was lying about my involvement ?
Quite the drama , eh ?
Jammi continues in this vein @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rivitz , complete with screen grabs .
These mainly confirm that both of the people involved are every bit as unpleasant as the work they do .
At the end , Jammi announces that she is starting a separate effort to continue that work , which seems to be the point of airing out all this dirty laundry and canceling Rivitz … competition .
Rivitz paints a different picture of the relationship for The Daily Beast : “ Hey guys , I co-run @ slpng_giants with Matt .
Sadly I could not join @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pick up our award , ” she wrote .
“ WoC are rarely seen or heard in tech and marketing , but we deserve a seat at the table too.
” Jammi also commented sarcastically on Rivitz ’ s Instagram page , “ Incredible how much you ’ ve achieved all by yourself !
” After the posts , Rivitz called her to reprimand her for airing their private grievances in public , Jammi said .
She said Rivitz accused her of wanting to hog the spotlight and being involved in Sleeping Giants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said she asked for access to the inbox repeatedly over months .
Rivitz said that in one instance he refused to give her the password after a thread she tweeted on Dec. 8 , 2019 , in which she wrote , “ I let myself be gaslighted by a progressive male activist who made me question my worth and the value I bring to our movement.
” Rivitz thought it was obvious who she meant .
“ It became clear that we had an expanding gulf of trust after Nandini ’ s public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Rivitz said .
“ Right or wrong , this resulted in my reluctance to share the email account password.
” Yikes .
Even the Beatles were more discreet about their break-up than these two .
So where exactly is the sexism and racism implied in Jammi ’ s citation of Rivitz being her “ white male co-founder ” ?
Apparently her identity as neither is evidence enough that the “ gaslighting ” is motivated by racism and sexism .
That logic sounds very familiar , as it is the same used by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shut down people who disagree with them or rebut their arguments .
It ’ s not at all surprising — and in fact all too predictable — that their campaigns based on “ feelings ” over facts would eventually eat itself in spectacular ways .
Is there a lesson to be learned from this ?
Maybe just that modern-day Robespierres will eventually suffer Robespierre ’ s fate , at least in a character-assassination sense .
And perhaps another : if you partner with awful people on awful projects , don ’ t come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out to be awful to yourself .

For a cultural impulse that supposedly doesn’t really exist, Nandini Jammi seems eager to claim her credit for it. The putative co-founder of Sleeping Giants brags about all of the successes her group has had into pressuring advertisers to abandon websites they dislike, which is as good a demonstration of cancel culture as one could cite. For instance, Jammi brags about forcing sponsors away from Breitbart and “put[ting] Bill O’Reilly out of a job”:
Sleeping Giants quickly became popular because we brought good news everyday. Each day, advertisers would drop Breitbart or some other horror show. Best of all, anyone could participate. Together, we built a community of 400,000+ followers, who helped us lose Breitbart 90% of its ad revenues, put Bill O’Reilly out of a job and deplatform hate figures like Alex Jones and Milo Yiannopoulos. Behind that magical flow of daily wins? I was working behind the scenes to identify which advertisers needed an extra push. I was creating actions for our Facebook community: first testing email addresses privately, then writing email templates for our followers to send. This became a core tactic that helped us move fast.
To be clear, there’s nothing illegal or even nefarious about commercial boycotts over politics. (Conservatives have often attempted to use the same tactic.) Social media tends to make boycott campaigns more successful than others in the past, mainly because advertisers wildly overestimate the impact of small social-media trends on the vast majority of Americans who couldn’t care less what people are saying on Twitter or Facebook. The biggest problem with them, and especially in these cases, is that while the demands might be targeted, the impact isn’t. Those boycott campaigns convinced some advertisers to get out of the political market altogether, a trend that impacted platforms across the political spectrum for a while.
However, no one has industrialized cancel culture like Sleeping Giants has, and as “deplatforming” and firings are key parts of cancel culture, it’s clear it exists — and Jammi wants credit for making it toxic. She didn’t write this essay just to brag, though. Jammi wants her partner in Sleeping Giants canceled for essentially canceling her as a partner, accusing “my white, male co-founder” Matt Rivitz of sexism and gaslighting:
When Matt and I came out in July 2018 on the front page of the business section of the New York Times, I believed it was as equal partners. It was through Matt’s subsequent media appearances I realized he considered me an optional part of the story. In the weeks after we went public, he positioned himself as Founder of Sleeping Giants and went on to take interviews with Pod Save America, Kara Swisher and AdWeek. In AdWeek, I ended up portrayed as “one of the individuals who helps him run the accounts.” Without my knowledge, my story was being defined by someone else — a white man who could use his platform to exclude me, diminish me, or disappear me entirely. He never once invited me to join him. I never had any idea he was doing any of these interviews until it was too late.
The final straw came in June of last year, when Rivitz accepted an advertising award and didn’t mention it to her until later:
In June, I saw Matt posting from France on Instagram. “Are you in…Europe?” I asked. He said yes, I’m speaking at Cannes. Days later, he sent me a DM of him accepting a Cannes Gold Lion, the ad industry’s biggest award[.] I went into a downward spiral when I realized what a big deal this was: What have I been spending every single day working on? Did anyone know I existed? That I was working on this too? Why didn’t he ever mention this to me? I felt humiliated. I spent the week unable to eat, sleep, or function — I had put on my personal website that I’m “founding organizer” of Sleeping Giants. Would people think I was lying about my involvement?
Quite the drama, eh? Jammi continues in this vein to unroll unpleasant interactions between herself and Rivitz, complete with screen grabs. These mainly confirm that both of the people involved are every bit as unpleasant as the work they do. At the end, Jammi announces that she is starting a separate effort to continue that work, which seems to be the point of airing out all this dirty laundry and canceling Rivitz … competition.
Rivitz paints a different picture of the relationship for The Daily Beast:
“Hey guys, I co-run @slpng_giants with Matt. Sadly I could not join him at #CannesLions last week to pick up our award,” she wrote. “WoC are rarely seen or heard in tech and marketing, but we deserve a seat at the table too.” Jammi also commented sarcastically on Rivitz’s Instagram page, “Incredible how much you’ve achieved all by yourself!” After the posts, Rivitz called her to reprimand her for airing their private grievances in public, Jammi said. She said Rivitz accused her of wanting to hog the spotlight and being involved in Sleeping Giants for the wrong reasons. … Jammi said she asked for access to the inbox repeatedly over months. Rivitz said that in one instance he refused to give her the password after a thread she tweeted on Dec. 8, 2019, in which she wrote, “I let myself be gaslighted by a progressive male activist who made me question my worth and the value I bring to our movement.” Rivitz thought it was obvious who she meant. “It became clear that we had an expanding gulf of trust after Nandini’s public attacks on me on social media,” Rivitz said. “Right or wrong, this resulted in my reluctance to share the email account password.”
Yikes. Even the Beatles were more discreet about their break-up than these two.
So where exactly is the sexism and racism implied in Jammi’s citation of Rivitz being her “white male co-founder”? Apparently her identity as neither is evidence enough that the “gaslighting” is motivated by racism and sexism. That logic sounds very familiar, as it is the same used by many others who use cancel-culture tactics to shut down people who disagree with them or rebut their arguments. It’s not at all surprising — and in fact all too predictable — that their campaigns based on “feelings” over facts would eventually eat itself in spectacular ways.
Is there a lesson to be learned from this? Maybe just that modern-day Robespierres will eventually suffer Robespierre’s fate, at least in a character-assassination sense. And perhaps another: if you partner with awful people on awful projects, don’t come crying to us when the outcome turns out to be awful to yourself.


hotair--2020-07-10--Trump, Fauci starting to take (light) jabs at each other; <span color='red'>Update: Not speaking?</s

Trump, Fauci starting to take (light) jabs at each other; Update: Not speaking?

These are love taps by Trump standards , scarcely worth of the term “ jabs.
” But it ’ s clear enough from the tone that there ’ s some tension here and there probably has been for awhile .
It ’ s neither surprising nor particularly interesting that POTUS would resent a deputy who ’ s more trusted than he is and who undermines his plans to reopen the economy every time he says something worrisome about the virus .
What ’ s surprising and interesting is Fauci ’ s willingness to push back .
I wonder if there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , first here ’ s Trump last night on “ Hannity ” .
Yesterday Fauci singled out Florida as a state that probably should been more mindful of the federal guidelines — Trump ’ s guidelines — in judging when it was safe to reopen .
What do you make of that , said Hannity ?
The president : He ’ s right about that .
Fauci was singing a different tune about masks in early March , when the virus was quietly spreading in cities like New York .
He later explained @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worried there wouldn ’ t be masks available for doctors and nurses if the public made a run on them , but who knows how much lower the scale of the spread would have been if masking of the public had begun sooner — even if it had come at the expense of medical professionals ?
On the other hand , there are plenty of Americans who won ’ t wear masks now .
How many would have instantly masked up in March if Fauci had recommended it ?
In any case , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mixed messages ” about masks early on from authorities weren ’ t helpful .
Today he did an interview with the Financial Times and used it as an opportunity to hit back .
First he offered this thought on the president having claimed recently that 99 percent of infections are “ totally harmless ” : Lotta bite in that “ obviously.
” The FT article is paywalled , but according to Newsweek , Fauci let out “ a small laugh when asked if he thought Trump was wrong for making such a statement.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ hasn ’ t been on TV as much lately .
Reply : In an interview with the Financial Times published Friday , Fauci acknowledged that he won ’ t water down the truth and indicated that may be why his public appearances on behalf of the administration have decreased at a time when the president has sounded an optimistic tone about the crisis .
“ I have a reputation , as you probably have figured out , of speaking the truth at all times and not sugar-coating things .
And that may be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t been on television very much lately , ” said Fauci , who serves as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases .
That ’ s a tactful way of saying “ Trump ’ s silencing me because he ’ s afraid I ’ ll blow up his reopening effort.
” Which , according to a WaPo story two weeks ago , is … sort of true .
It ’ s not that the White House objects to him telling the truth about the danger from the virus , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ television interviewers often try to goad Fauci into criticizing the president or the administration ’ s approach , and that Fauci is not always good about ‘ staying on message ' ” — which , ah , may amount to the same thing .
But yes , per WaPo , reportedly the White House did block several TV appearances Fauci had wanted to do for fear of him straying off-message .
I wonder if they ’ ll start blocking him again after they read what he said to the Financial Times .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Fauci venting his frustration with Trump for trying to bottle him up ?
Or is it part of a wider effort by the feds ’ scientific team to assert itself as the White House falsely assures a nervous public that everything ’ s basically fine and it ’ s time to learn to live with 60,000 new cases per day ?
I ask because the Post just got its hands on an embarrassing email sent by a top HHS aide to the CDC a few weeks ago scolding the agency for “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ report on … the risks of COVID-19 to pregnant women .
It “ reads in a way to frighten women , ” said the advisor , “ as if the President and his administration can ’ t fix this and it is getting worse.
” I don ’ t know .
Maybe they should be frightened ?
And if they should , we should probably let them know so that they can take proper precautions .
That ’ s not the first time the White House has tried to suppress CDC guidance .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to shelve the agency ’ s detailed guidelines on how to reopen businesses safely for fear that the burden of having to follow those guidelines might slow down Trump ’ s big reopening effort .
We ’ re reliving that again this week , with Trump tweeting a few days ago that the CDC ’ s guidelines on reopening school this fall were too “ tough ” and that he ’ d be meeting with them about it .
Clearly , per today ’ s WaPo piece , there are people inside the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they feel that the White House is subordinating sound public health advice to Trump ’ s agenda of reopening everything ASAP .
( One White House advisor told the Post that “ There is a view the CDC is staffed with ‘ deep state ’ Democrats that are trying to tweak the administration.
” ) Now suddenly here ’ s Fauci also pushing back on Trump ’ s reopening-geared message that the virus is no big deal to 99 percent of people who contract it .
Maybe the scientists on the federal team @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alarming at this point to keep quiet while the White House pushes disinformation .
It reminds me of this Pro Publica story from May about the COVID disaster in New York City back in March , when de Blasio waited and waited and waited to make a decision about whether to close schools as the virus spread .
The city ’ s health department ended up so frustrated that it contemplated a sort of mutiny : “ Several top officials developed a plan to have one of the department ’ s most senior @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him by going live on television and expressing the urgent need to close schools and issue more serious restrictions immediately.
” That ’ s more dramatic than what Fauci and the CDC leakers are up to right now , but it ’ s not dissimilar .
They ’ re going to keep warning the public about the urgency of flattening the curve in hot-spot states , it seems , and let the political chips fall where they may .
I wonder , in fact , how many of Fauci ’ s interviews this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the White House .
Are they signing off on all of these or has he gone rogue ?
Update : This ’ ll help those terrible ratings on handling the pandemic rebound , no doubt .

These are love taps by Trump standards, scarcely worth of the term “jabs.” But it’s clear enough from the tone that there’s some tension here and there probably has been for awhile.
It’s neither surprising nor particularly interesting that POTUS would resent a deputy who’s more trusted than he is and who undermines his plans to reopen the economy every time he says something worrisome about the virus. What’s surprising and interesting is Fauci’s willingness to push back.
I wonder if there’s a strategy there.
Anyway, first here’s Trump last night on “Hannity”. Yesterday Fauci singled out Florida as a state that probably should been more mindful of the federal guidelines — Trump’s guidelines — in judging when it was safe to reopen. What do you make of that, said Hannity? The president:
“First of all, the mortality rate, and Dr. Fauci is a nice man but he’s made a lot of mistakes,” Trump said, mentioning the China travel ban, that had tens of thousands of exceptions. “But a lot of them said ‘Don’t wear a mask, don’t wear a mask.’ Now they are saying ‘wear a mask.’ A lot of mistakes were made, a lot of mistakes. Let me just make one statement, we do testing like nobody’s ever done testing. And when we test, the more you test, the more cases you find.”
He’s right about that. Fauci was singing a different tune about masks in early March, when the virus was quietly spreading in cities like New York. He later explained that that’s because the feds worried there wouldn’t be masks available for doctors and nurses if the public made a run on them, but who knows how much lower the scale of the spread would have been if masking of the public had begun sooner — even if it had come at the expense of medical professionals?
On the other hand, there are plenty of Americans who won’t wear masks now. How many would have instantly masked up in March if Fauci had recommended it? In any case, he’s acknowledged that the “mixed messages” about masks early on from authorities weren’t helpful.
Today he did an interview with the Financial Times and used it as an opportunity to hit back. First he offered this thought on the president having claimed recently that 99 percent of infections are “totally harmless”:
Fauci on Trump’s 99% harmless claim: “I’m trying to figure out where the president got that number. What I think happened is that someone told him that the general mortality is about 1%. And he interpreted, therefore, that 99% is not a problem, when that’s obviously not the case” https://t.co/JMy9LeLOPC — Jeremy Diamond (@JDiamond1) July 10, 2020
Lotta bite in that “obviously.” The FT article is paywalled, but according to Newsweek, Fauci let out “a small laugh when asked if he thought Trump was wrong for making such a statement.”
He was also asked why he hasn’t been on TV as much lately. Reply:
In an interview with the Financial Times published Friday, Fauci acknowledged that he won’t water down the truth and indicated that may be why his public appearances on behalf of the administration have decreased at a time when the president has sounded an optimistic tone about the crisis. “I have a reputation, as you probably have figured out, of speaking the truth at all times and not sugar-coating things. And that may be one of the reasons why I haven’t been on television very much lately,” said Fauci, who serves as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
That’s a tactful way of saying “Trump’s silencing me because he’s afraid I’ll blow up his reopening effort.” Which, according to a WaPo story two weeks ago, is … sort of true. It’s not that the White House objects to him telling the truth about the danger from the virus, it seems, it’s that “television interviewers often try to goad Fauci into criticizing the president or the administration’s approach, and that Fauci is not always good about ‘staying on message'” — which, ah, may amount to the same thing. But yes, per WaPo, reportedly the White House did block several TV appearances Fauci had wanted to do for fear of him straying off-message.
I wonder if they’ll start blocking him again after they read what he said to the Financial Times.
Question: Is this just a case of Fauci venting his frustration with Trump for trying to bottle him up? Or is it part of a wider effort by the feds’ scientific team to assert itself as the White House falsely assures a nervous public that everything’s basically fine and it’s time to learn to live with 60,000 new cases per day? I ask because the Post just got its hands on an embarrassing email sent by a top HHS aide to the CDC a few weeks ago scolding the agency for “undermining the president” by issuing a report on … the risks of COVID-19 to pregnant women. It “reads in a way to frighten women,” said the advisor, “as if the President and his administration can’t fix this and it is getting worse.”
I don’t know. Maybe they should be frightened? And if they should, we should probably let them know so that they can take proper precautions.
That’s not the first time the White House has tried to suppress CDC guidance. There was an effort in early May to shelve the agency’s detailed guidelines on how to reopen businesses safely for fear that the burden of having to follow those guidelines might slow down Trump’s big reopening effort. We’re reliving that again this week, with Trump tweeting a few days ago that the CDC’s guidelines on reopening school this fall were too “tough” and that he’d be meeting with them about it. Clearly, per today’s WaPo piece, there are people inside the agency who are willing to leak when they feel that the White House is subordinating sound public health advice to Trump’s agenda of reopening everything ASAP. (One White House advisor told the Post that “There is a view the CDC is staffed with ‘deep state’ Democrats that are trying to tweak the administration.”) Now suddenly here’s Fauci also pushing back on Trump’s reopening-geared message that the virus is no big deal to 99 percent of people who contract it.
Maybe the scientists on the federal team have decided that the crisis is too alarming at this point to keep quiet while the White House pushes disinformation. It reminds me of this Pro Publica story from May about the COVID disaster in New York City back in March, when de Blasio waited and waited and waited to make a decision about whether to close schools as the virus spread. The city’s health department ended up so frustrated that it contemplated a sort of mutiny: “Several top officials developed a plan to have one of the department’s most senior leaders effectively dare the mayor to fire him by going live on television and expressing the urgent need to close schools and issue more serious restrictions immediately.” That’s more dramatic than what Fauci and the CDC leakers are up to right now, but it’s not dissimilar. They’re going to keep warning the public about the urgency of flattening the curve in hot-spot states, it seems, and let the political chips fall where they may. I wonder, in fact, how many of Fauci’s interviews this week were actually approved in advance by the White House. Are they signing off on all of these or has he gone rogue?
Update: This’ll help those terrible ratings on handling the pandemic rebound, no doubt.


hotair--2020-07-10--Hong Kong doctor who fled to U.S. describes Chinese cover-up of coronavirus

Fox News has an exclusive interview with Dr. Li-Meng Yan , a virologist from Hong Kong who says she was one of the first doctors in the world to begin investigating the coronavirus outbreak .
Her investigation began on December 31 , the day word of a cluster of pneumonia cases in Wuhan first appeared in Chinese media .
Dr. Yan ’ s boss told her to look into it so she began asking questions from a network of doctor friends in China .
Right away she learned from a member of the Chinese CDC that there was evidence of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is something that China would officially deny was the case for several more weeks .
Dr. Yan continued to investigate but by mid-January she said the tone had changed .
Her friends in China were saying they couldn ’ t talk about it anymore .
When Dr. Yan made a 2nd report to her bosses in Hong Kong , they told her to be very careful .
She said she reported her findings to her supervisor again on Jan. 16 but that ’ s when he allegedly told her “ to keep silent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he warned me before , ‘ Don ’ t touch the red line , ' ” Yan said referring to the government .
“ We will get in trouble and we ’ ll be disappeared.
” Dr. Yan decided to share her concerns with a Chinese blogger based in the U.S. That was published on January 19th but it was only in Chinese .
Dr. Yan notes that within 4 hours there was a response from the Chinese government which suddenly announced there were 198 cases rather than 62 .
She says that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evidence of person-to-person transmission .
Three days later , Wuhan was locked down .
The blogger Dr. Yan had spoken to warned her that she might need to relocate to avoid trouble with Chinese authorities .
She decided to fly to America but when her husband , who was also a doctor , found out , he was angry .
Yan told Fox News she begged her husband to go with her , and says while her spouse , a reputable scientist himself , had initially been supportive of her research , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ He was totally pissed off , ” she said .
“ He blamed me , tried to ruin my confidence… He said they will kill all of us . '
” Shocked and hurt , Yan made the decision to leave without him .
Dr. Yan left the country on April 28 .
Her husband refused to go with her .
When she got to customs in America , she told them she was there to tell the truth about China ’ s coronavirus response and spent time talking with the FBI @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her plane had landed , police were sent to her hometown to harass her family .
Then in mid-May , before she had spoken to any English language media outlets , people she believes were working for the Chinese government began attacking her on social media and set up a fake Facebook profile for her .
Yan says the account was used to “ tell people that I ’ m kidnapped in the U.S. , [ that ] I tried to lie to people , even that I have a mental disorder.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now that she has spoken out ( in English ) .
The interview ends with a warning from Dr. Yan that this virus is eventually going to make its way to everyone and that herd immunity is a long way off .
Here ’ s the full interview .

Fox News has an exclusive interview with Dr. Li-Meng Yan, a virologist from Hong Kong who says she was one of the first doctors in the world to begin investigating the coronavirus outbreak. Her investigation began on December 31, the day word of a cluster of pneumonia cases in Wuhan first appeared in Chinese media.
Dr. Yan’s boss told her to look into it so she began asking questions from a network of doctor friends in China. Right away she learned from a member of the Chinese CDC that there was evidence of person-to-person transmission of the virus. This is something that China would officially deny was the case for several more weeks. Dr. Yan continued to investigate but by mid-January she said the tone had changed. Her friends in China were saying they couldn’t talk about it anymore. When Dr. Yan made a 2nd report to her bosses in Hong Kong, they told her to be very careful.
She said she reported her findings to her supervisor again on Jan. 16 but that’s when he allegedly told her “to keep silent, and be careful.” “As he warned me before, ‘Don’t touch the red line,'” Yan said referring to the government. “We will get in trouble and we’ll be disappeared.”
Dr. Yan decided to share her concerns with a Chinese blogger based in the U.S. That was published on January 19th but it was only in Chinese. Dr. Yan notes that within 4 hours there was a response from the Chinese government which suddenly announced there were 198 cases rather than 62. She says that was also when China admitted there was evidence of person-to-person transmission. Three days later, Wuhan was locked down.
The blogger Dr. Yan had spoken to warned her that she might need to relocate to avoid trouble with Chinese authorities. She decided to fly to America but when her husband, who was also a doctor, found out, he was angry.
Yan told Fox News she begged her husband to go with her, and says while her spouse, a reputable scientist himself, had initially been supportive of her research, he suddenly had a change of heart. “He was totally pissed off,” she said. “He blamed me, tried to ruin my confidence… He said they will kill all of us.'” Shocked and hurt, Yan made the decision to leave without him.
Dr. Yan left the country on April 28. Her husband refused to go with her. When she got to customs in America, she told them she was there to tell the truth about China’s coronavirus response and spent time talking with the FBI. But she says that even before her plane had landed, police were sent to her hometown to harass her family.
Then in mid-May, before she had spoken to any English language media outlets, people she believes were working for the Chinese government began attacking her on social media and set up a fake Facebook profile for her. Yan says the account was used to “tell people that I’m kidnapped in the U.S., [that] I tried to lie to people, even that I have a mental disorder.” She expects things will only get worse now that she has spoken out (in English).
The interview ends with a warning from Dr. Yan that this virus is eventually going to make its way to everyone and that herd immunity is a long way off. Here’s the full interview.


hotair--2020-07-10--The poll that explains everything

The poll that explains everything

I bet these numbers are getting attention today at the White House , for good reason .
Purely and simply , either the trend in the graph below reverses before November and the president has a fighting chance at a second term or it doesn ’ t and he doesn ’ t .
He can ’ t get reelected if he ’ s rating this badly on the country ’ s biggest concern .
Every other poll we ’ ve looked at over the past few weeks is noise by comparison .
Sixty-seven percent disapproval of how he ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it ’ s meaningful in that it shows Trump losing parts of his own base on the issue .
He ’ s not “ supposed ” to poll below 40 percent in approval metrics , as that ’ s the share of the electorate that ’ s stuck with him through thick and thin over the course of his presidency .
If he ’ s at 33 percent , it means there ’ s been a crack in the granite foundation of his base .
ABC has numbers on that as well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a college degree has slipped from 57/42 on his handling of the epidemic last month to 50/49 now .
Here ’ s another data point that likely explains part of the decline , although probably not all of it : As case counts flare nationally , especially in southern states , the press and some portion of the public have concluded that it ’ s due to states reopening too early .
Which isn ’ t entirely fair : It ’ s logical that more commerce would produce more cases , especially with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ indoor spaces like bars to celebrate the end of quarantine .
But there ’ s no hard proof that early reopening has driven this .
California didn ’ t reopen early , yet it has one of the worst outbreaks in the country at the moment .
The Black Lives Matter protests may have driven the surge there and in other hot spots , or at least compounded a problem that was created by reopening .
But as the graph shows , the public ’ s sense that reopening came too soon is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ biggest cheerleader for reopening early , he ’ s destined to be blamed for that misjudgment .
Still , that doesn ’ t explain everything , as disapproval of his handling of the virus has grown more than the share of people who think the country reopened too early has .
Some of the deterioration must be due to his own performance .
I think it ’ s probably no more complicated than the fact that his major contribution over the past month to the effort to cope with rising cases and hospitalizations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is all some sort of mirage created by increased testing .
If he had a plan for containment and was scrambling to implement it and case counts were rising anyway , I think voters would reward him for the effort and reserve judgment to see if the plan worked .
Instead , despite the public ’ s growing belief that businesses reopened too quickly , he ’ s already moved on to demanding that schools reopen quickly as well .
Here ’ s the fateful question for November .
Is there still time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in him by changing course or is this all baked in now ?
Or is it silly to imagine him changing course in the first place ?
I don ’ t know .
Voters ’ memories are short .
Trump ’ s entire strategy for reelection is to keep the economy improving steadily through October even if it ’ s nowhere near all the way back to where it was in February by Election Day .
It ’ s trends that voters look to , not absolute performance .
If COVID burns out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and remains burned out in the northeast after the mass bloodletting there this past spring , Trump could point to those trends and say , “ We ’ ve beaten it .
The worst is behind us and the vaccine is coming soon.
” That might give him a shot at an upset .
But for that to happen , scientists would need to be wildly mistaken about the likelihood of a second wave this fall .
They seem confident that we ’ ll see one .
If we do , it may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to hit the market between now and then to save Trump .
Here ’ s another fateful question .
Is public opinion about his handling of the virus bleeding over into unrelated issues ?
This bit from Amy Walter ’ s new piece on swing voters ’ dislike of “ cancel culture ” is worth quoting : Even so , warns one GOP strategist I spoke with this week , there is real concern among suburban voters about where this so-called ‘ cancel culture ’ or what we called in the old-days , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ person points out , they are also wary of how far this reckoning will go .
Over the last week or so , they ’ ve raised the question of “ where does it end ?
” They cringe at reports of statues of Christopher Columbus being tossed into a lake and are upset to read of another public figure fired for a controversial Facebook post that they put up years ago .
However , the challenge for Trump in being able to exploit these concerns is that these voters “ are mostly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ he makes everything worse.
” As a messenger , this person said , Trump has “ zero credibility ” with these suburbanites .
I bring that up because ABC found in this same poll that voters are now more likely to disapprove of the Confederate flag than they were five years ago .
In 2015 they split 13/28 when asked if they have a positive view of it or not .
Today it ’ s 5/43 .
Maybe that has nothing to do with Trump , that it ’ s just a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ views as younger people age in and older people age out of the electorate .
But then I thought of this Gallup poll a few weeks ago showing that , for the first time ever , more Americans want immigration to the U.S. to increase rather than decrease .
That feels like a backlash to Trump himself given his strong support for decreasing immigration .
There may be a similar “ Trump effect ” coloring other issues as he embraces them , in which his unpopularity due to his handling of COVID or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perceptions of issues with which he ’ s identified .
If that ’ s true then his crusade in defense of monuments to the Founding Fathers may not do much to rally public opinion in the suburbs , or may even discourage some people in the center from championing the cause themselves because they don ’ t want to be seen as partnering with him .
In that case , the urgency with which he needs to turn things around on the pandemic is even greater than we thought .

I bet these numbers are getting attention today at the White House, for good reason.
Purely and simply, either the trend in the graph below reverses before November and the president has a fighting chance at a second term or it doesn’t and he doesn’t. He can’t get reelected if he’s rating this badly on the country’s biggest concern.
Every other poll we’ve looked at over the past few weeks is noise by comparison.
BREAKING: Approval of Pres. Trump's oversight of the COVID-19 crisis reaches new low in @ABC News/Ipsos polling, with 67% of Americans disapproving of his efforts. https://t.co/kNltxMCnbv pic.twitter.com/KQcgsTGZw9 — ABC News (@ABC) July 10, 2020
Sixty-seven percent disapproval of how he’s handling COVID isn’t just garish, it’s meaningful in that it shows Trump losing parts of his own base on the issue. He’s not “supposed” to poll below 40 percent in approval metrics, as that’s the share of the electorate that’s stuck with him through thick and thin over the course of his presidency. If he’s at 33 percent, it means there’s been a crack in the granite foundation of his base. ABC has numbers on that as well:
Trump’s approval [on handling the coronavirus] among independents lands at 26% in the survey, a sharp drop from 40% in mid-June, the last time the question was asked. Trump’s disapproval among independents has risen to 73%, up from 59% in the June poll. Within his own party, Republicans are less inclined to back him in the newest poll, with only 78% approving of the president’s handling of the coronavirus, compared to 90% in mid-June. His disapproval of 22% in the new poll is a more than two-fold increase from last month.
Even his base of whites without a college degree has slipped from 57/42 on his handling of the epidemic last month to 50/49 now. Here’s another data point that likely explains part of the decline, although probably not all of it:
NEW: A majority of Americans believe the push to reopen the economy is moving too quickly, new @ABC News/Ipsos poll finds. https://t.co/70p4kBIa0j pic.twitter.com/9qBYrD2RMF — ABC News (@ABC) July 10, 2020
As case counts flare nationally, especially in southern states, the press and some portion of the public have concluded that it’s due to states reopening too early. Which isn’t entirely fair: It’s logical that more commerce would produce more cases, especially with twentysomething morons celebrating reopening by cramming into indoor spaces like bars to celebrate the end of quarantine. But there’s no hard proof that early reopening has driven this. California didn’t reopen early, yet it has one of the worst outbreaks in the country at the moment. The Black Lives Matter protests may have driven the surge there and in other hot spots, or at least compounded a problem that was created by reopening.
But as the graph shows, the public’s sense that reopening came too soon is growing. And because Trump was the biggest cheerleader for reopening early, he’s destined to be blamed for that misjudgment.
Still, that doesn’t explain everything, as disapproval of his handling of the virus has grown more than the share of people who think the country reopened too early has. Some of the deterioration must be due to his own performance. I think it’s probably no more complicated than the fact that his major contribution over the past month to the effort to cope with rising cases and hospitalizations has been to insist repeatedly that this is all some sort of mirage created by increased testing. If he had a plan for containment and was scrambling to implement it and case counts were rising anyway, I think voters would reward him for the effort and reserve judgment to see if the plan worked.
Instead, despite the public’s growing belief that businesses reopened too quickly, he’s already moved on to demanding that schools reopen quickly as well.
Here’s the fateful question for November. Is there still time to undo voters’ loss of confidence in him by changing course or is this all baked in now? Or is it silly to imagine him changing course in the first place?
I mean, if Trump tomorrow suddenly woke up with [Obama/Romney/insert politician here]'s temperament, said "we screwed up and I'll make this right", actually followed through and did it—then maybe the public *might* give him *some* credit. But, sorry, that ain't going to happen. — Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) July 10, 2020
^^ Nor is it clear that the new cohort of cases is really priced into Trump's polling numbers yet. There actually haven't been that many polls over the past couple of weeks and these things can take a while to sink in. — Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) July 10, 2020
I don’t know. Voters’ memories are short. Trump’s entire strategy for reelection is to keep the economy improving steadily through October even if it’s nowhere near all the way back to where it was in February by Election Day. It’s trends that voters look to, not absolute performance. If COVID burns out in the south and California by September and remains burned out in the northeast after the mass bloodletting there this past spring, Trump could point to those trends and say, “We’ve beaten it. The worst is behind us and the vaccine is coming soon.” That might give him a shot at an upset.
But for that to happen, scientists would need to be wildly mistaken about the likelihood of a second wave this fall. They seem confident that we’ll see one. If we do, it may take nothing short of a miracle drug to hit the market between now and then to save Trump.
Here’s another fateful question. Is public opinion about his handling of the virus bleeding over into unrelated issues? This bit from Amy Walter’s new piece on swing voters’ dislike of “cancel culture” is worth quoting:
Even so, warns one GOP strategist I spoke with this week, there is real concern among suburban voters about where this so-called ‘cancel culture’ or what we called in the old-days, PCism, is headed… But, this person points out, they are also wary of how far this reckoning will go. Over the last week or so, they’ve raised the question of “where does it end?” They cringe at reports of statues of Christopher Columbus being tossed into a lake and are upset to read of another public figure fired for a controversial Facebook post that they put up years ago. However, the challenge for Trump in being able to exploit these concerns is that these voters “are mostly done with him” and think that “he makes everything worse.” As a messenger, this person said, Trump has “zero credibility” with these suburbanites.
I bring that up because ABC found in this same poll that voters are now more likely to disapprove of the Confederate flag than they were five years ago. In 2015 they split 13/28 when asked if they have a positive view of it or not. Today it’s 5/43. Maybe that has nothing to do with Trump, that it’s just a natural evolution of the country’s views as younger people age in and older people age out of the electorate. But then I thought of this Gallup poll a few weeks ago showing that, for the first time ever, more Americans want immigration to the U.S. to increase rather than decrease. That feels like a backlash to Trump himself given his strong support for decreasing immigration. There may be a similar “Trump effect” coloring other issues as he embraces them, in which his unpopularity due to his handling of COVID or just his general Trumpiness is now drving perceptions of issues with which he’s identified. If that’s true then his crusade in defense of monuments to the Founding Fathers may not do much to rally public opinion in the suburbs, or may even discourage some people in the center from championing the cause themselves because they don’t want to be seen as partnering with him. In that case, the urgency with which he needs to turn things around on the pandemic is even greater than we thought.


hotair--2020-07-10--When did you first notice the left's 'epistemic breach'?

Author Jesse Singal made a statement last night about the moment he first noticed what he calls an “ epistemic breach ” on the left .
In context , he means the moment when it became obvious that people on the left could maintain opinions that were verifiably false by simply opening their eyes .
For Singal , the moment he noticed it was the Covington kids : The ‘ Yes but HE HARASSED that MAN ’ part never did happen .
In fact it was the high school kids who were harassed at length by the Black Hebrew Israelites @ @ @ @ @ @ @ admit they had made a really egregious mistake .
In many cases it was a professional mistake because the people recirculating and adding to these claims were journalists on Twitter .
But that was only 18 months ago .
For me this kind of breach with reality really became clear much earlier , during the Trayvon Martin case in 2012 .
In that case it was clear who had done the shooting from the start but almost every other detail seemed to exist apart from the facts .
Remember when NBC News edited @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as if Zimmerman had been racially profiling Martin ?
Two NBC producers were eventually fired over that error .
Remember when ABC News claimed there were no injuries to the back of Zimmerman ’ s head and then retracted that after an enhanced video showed they ’ d been wrong ?
Remember when Rachel Jeantel told a reporter she believed Martin threw the first punch in the confrontation that led to his death ?
( Most people never heard about that . )
Remember when Ta-Nehisi Coates claimed he could hear a racial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ call ?
Coates later wrote a major story for the Atlantic claiming that all of the pushback ( to correct reported errors ) was because President Obama was black .
The point is there were a lot of things the media got badly wrong about that story some of which were corrected , but a lot of people still insist on believing the first version .
The same was true of the shooting of Michael Brown .
Once again , you had a lot of instant myths crop up , some of which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t shoot ” ) are still with us .
I still remember the piece in which Vox ’ s Ezra Klein explained the moment in Officer Darren Wilson ’ s story when “ every bullshit detector in me went off .
” He was referring to Wilson ’ s claim that Mike Brown paused during his assault on Wilson to hand the bag of stolen cigarillos to his friend Dorian Johnson .
Just one problem with his BS detectors .
The story matched what Dorian Johnson said happened .
Rather than admit he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the story , Klein published a second story the same day in which ( many paragraphs later ) he admits “ Johnson does semi-corroborate a key moment in Wilson ’ s account.
” Again , as with the Covington kids , most news outlets did eventually admit error in the initial coverage but it was too late .
A lot of people preferred the initial stories about Mike Brown ’ s death and didn ’ t want to hear the revised ( factual ) versions .
These aren ’ t the only examples @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would probably add to this the left ’ s reaction to the dozens of incidents in which far left protesters shouted down speakers on college campuses in the last five years .
In particular , the takeover of Evergreen State College and the clear evidence of extremism and indeed racism from the students ( who told white students not to speak ) .
But none of that seemed to matter to people on the left who dismissed the whole thing as much ado about nothing .
And by the way , have your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thing as cancel culture ?
You could easily go back farther .
What about Sarah Palin ’ s connection to the Tucson shooting , something editors at the NY Times still believed fairly recently .
How about the fake memos about George W. Bush ’ s military service which got made into a movie called “ Truth.
” So getting back to the original question , when did you first notice the epistemic breach on the left , i.e .
the moment where it was clear the verifiable facts didn ’ t matter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media outlet and progressive ?
There are lots of examples to choose from .

Author Jesse Singal made a statement last night about the moment he first noticed what he calls an “epistemic breach” on the left. In context, he means the moment when it became obvious that people on the left could maintain opinions that were verifiably false by simply opening their eyes. For Singal, the moment he noticed it was the Covington kids:
1/There's definitely a major epistemic breach opening up on the left and honestly Covington was what really revealed it to me in its full gravity for the first time. I vividly remember being like, "Okay, at XX:XX in the video you can literally SEE the protestor approach the kids, — Jesse Singal (@jessesingal) July 10, 2020
3/ like I was not watching the same video as people who were in the same Warren/Sanders political camp as me, no matter how many times you carefully walked them through exactly what it showed. The video didn't matter. When the video doesn't matter, shit's going south! — Jesse Singal (@jessesingal) July 10, 2020
The ‘Yes but HE HARASSED that MAN’ part never did happen. In fact it was the high school kids who were harassed at length by the Black Hebrew Israelites. It took days for some to admit they had made a really egregious mistake. In many cases it was a professional mistake because the people recirculating and adding to these claims were journalists on Twitter.
But that was only 18 months ago.
For me this kind of breach with reality really became clear much earlier, during the Trayvon Martin case in 2012. In that case it was clear who had done the shooting from the start but almost every other detail seemed to exist apart from the facts. Remember when NBC News edited the 911 call to make it sound as if Zimmerman had been racially profiling Martin? Two NBC producers were eventually fired over that error. Remember when ABC News claimed there were no injuries to the back of Zimmerman’s head and then retracted that after an enhanced video showed they’d been wrong? Remember when Rachel Jeantel told a reporter she believed Martin threw the first punch in the confrontation that led to his death? (Most people never heard about that.) Remember when Ta-Nehisi Coates claimed he could hear a racial slur in the audio of the same call? Coates later wrote a major story for the Atlantic claiming that all of the pushback (to correct reported errors) was because President Obama was black.
The point is there were a lot of things the media got badly wrong about that story some of which were corrected, but a lot of people still insist on believing the first version.
The same was true of the shooting of Michael Brown. Once again, you had a lot of instant myths crop up, some of which (“hands up, don’t shoot”) are still with us. I still remember the piece in which Vox’s Ezra Klein explained the moment in Officer Darren Wilson’s story when “every bullshit detector in me went off .” He was referring to Wilson’s claim that Mike Brown paused during his assault on Wilson to hand the bag of stolen cigarillos to his friend Dorian Johnson. Just one problem with his BS detectors. The story matched what Dorian Johnson said happened. Rather than admit he was wrong and issue a correction to the story, Klein published a second story the same day in which (many paragraphs later) he admits “Johnson does semi-corroborate a key moment in Wilson’s account.”
Again, as with the Covington kids, most news outlets did eventually admit error in the initial coverage but it was too late. A lot of people preferred the initial stories about Mike Brown’s death and didn’t want to hear the revised (factual) versions.
These aren’t the only examples but they are significant ones. I would probably add to this the left’s reaction to the dozens of incidents in which far left protesters shouted down speakers on college campuses in the last five years. In particular, the takeover of Evergreen State College and the clear evidence of extremism and indeed racism from the students (who told white students not to speak). But none of that seemed to matter to people on the left who dismissed the whole thing as much ado about nothing. And by the way, have your heard that there’s no such thing as cancel culture?
You could easily go back farther. What about Sarah Palin’s connection to the Tucson shooting, something editors at the NY Times still believed fairly recently. How about the fake memos about George W. Bush’s military service which got made into a movie called “Truth.”
So getting back to the original question, when did you first notice the epistemic breach on the left, i.e. the moment where it was clear the verifiable facts didn’t matter to the opinions being spouted by every media outlet and progressive? There are lots of examples to choose from.