hotair--2020-05-21--Senate GOP to DoJ: Open fraud probe on Planned Parenthood over COVID-19 relief money

Did Planned Parenthood knowingly defraud the Small Business Administration by having 37 affiliates acquire $ 80 million in loans from the Paycheck Protection Program ?
A letter from 27 Senate Republicans to the Department of Justice lay out a case against the abortion chain , arguing that not only did the PPP disqualify Planned Parenthood from the program , the company complained publicly about the exclusion .
That makes a prima facie case for criminal fraud , they argue , in a letter first published by National Review ’ s Alexandra de Sanctis : The exclusion was part of Treasury @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tranche of the program , the letter points out , and was explicit in its limitations : The implementing interim final rule , issued by the SBA on April 15 , 2020 , explicitly stated that the SBA ’ s affiliation rules apply to the new Paycheck Protection Program , which excludes organizations like Planned Parenthood that employ its type of governance and affiliation structure and exceed the cap on total employees .
Trump administration officials were also quoted in public reports , explicitly clarifying that the SBA ’ s interim final rule @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Protection Program could go to Planned Parenthood .
Furthermore , the letter footnotes the public statements of both the Trump administration and Planned Parenthood citing these exclusion ’ s applicability to the nation ’ s largest abortion chain .
The White House hardly made it a secret , as The Daily Signal reported in late April : The Trump administration has acted to ensure that no funds from the new Paycheck Protection Program , set up to assist small businesses battered by COVID-19 , will go to Planned Parenthood .
“ President Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ money is used for saving jobs at small businesses , not getting the government into the business of funding abortion , ” a senior administration official told The Daily Signal .
“ While not all Americans share President Trump ’ s pro-life beliefs , there is broad bipartisan support for the idea that American taxpayers should not have to fund abortion , ” the official said Wednesday night .
A month before that , Planned Parenthood complained that the CARES Act in which PPP was authorized gave SBA “ broad discretion to exclude @ @ @ @ @ @ @ includes some much-needed health care resources and economic relief , the Trump administration and Republican Congressional leadership once again used this must-pass relief bill to advance their anti-abortion agenda .
The bill gives the Small Business Administration broad discretion to exclude Planned Parenthood affiliates and other non-profits serving people with low incomes and deny them benefits under the new small business loan program .
In addition , the bill attaches a new unnecessary Hyde Amendment provision , a harmful policy that prevents people with low incomes from accessing safe and legal abortion coverage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ providing coronavirus relief .
The letter doesn ’ t touch on another aspect of fraud in these loan applications , which is that these employees weren ’ t at risk in the first place .
The number of these affiliates that closed their doors in shutdown orders could be counted on one hand , and Planned Parenthood fought in court to get them classified as an essential service so they could reopen .
Unlike restaurants , salons , and other small businesses who were forced to close , these clinics remained open for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in place .
So what did that cash actually fund ?
The abortions themselves , of course , along with Planned Parenthood ’ s bottom line .
They raided a fund meant for small businesses who couldn ’ t keep payroll flowing because the government had forced them to close , and raid they did — averaging more than $ 2 million per affiliate when the average PPP loan was closer to $ 100,000 .
It ’ s a grotesque exploitation of an emergency fund in a national emergency .
Is it fraud @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but it is at the least fraud in a moral sense .
Will all of the same voices and media outlets that ( rightly ) scolded Steak Shack and Ruth ’ s Chris Steak House point their fingers publicly at Planned Parenthood for their own slimy acts here ?
Don ’ t hold your breath .

Did Planned Parenthood knowingly defraud the Small Business Administration by having 37 affiliates acquire $80 million in loans from the Paycheck Protection Program? A letter from 27 Senate Republicans to the Department of Justice lay out a case against the abortion chain, arguing that not only did the PPP disqualify Planned Parenthood from the program, the company complained publicly about the exclusion. That makes a prima facie case for criminal fraud, they argue, in a letter first published by National Review’s Alexandra de Sanctis:
According to this letter, a copy of which was provided exclusively to National Review, more than two dozen GOP senators want Barr to investigate and prosecute “those who would fraudulently steal millions of dollars in taxpayer funds during this pandemic.”
The exclusion was part of Treasury’s final rules on the first tranche of the program, the letter points out, and was explicit in its limitations:
The implementing interim final rule, issued by the SBA on April 15, 2020, explicitly stated that the SBA’s affiliation rules apply to the new Paycheck Protection Program, which excludes organizations like Planned Parenthood that employ its type of governance and affiliation structure and exceed the cap on total employees. Trump administration officials were also quoted in public reports, explicitly clarifying that the SBA’s interim final rule ensured that no funds from the Paycheck Protection Program could go to Planned Parenthood.
Furthermore, the letter footnotes the public statements of both the Trump administration and Planned Parenthood citing these exclusion’s applicability to the nation’s largest abortion chain. The White House hardly made it a secret, as The Daily Signal reported in late April:
The Trump administration has acted to ensure that no funds from the new Paycheck Protection Program, set up to assist small businesses battered by COVID-19, will go to Planned Parenthood. “President Trump is committed to ensuring Paycheck Protection Program money is used for saving jobs at small businesses, not getting the government into the business of funding abortion,” a senior administration official told The Daily Signal. “While not all Americans share President Trump’s pro-life beliefs, there is broad bipartisan support for the idea that American taxpayers should not have to fund abortion,” the official said Wednesday night.
A month before that, Planned Parenthood complained that the CARES Act in which PPP was authorized gave SBA “broad discretion to exclude” their affiliates:
While the legislation includes some much-needed health care resources and economic relief, the Trump administration and Republican Congressional leadership once again used this must-pass relief bill to advance their anti-abortion agenda. The bill gives the Small Business Administration broad discretion to exclude Planned Parenthood affiliates and other non-profits serving people with low incomes and deny them benefits under the new small business loan program. In addition, the bill attaches a new unnecessary Hyde Amendment provision, a harmful policy that prevents people with low incomes from accessing safe and legal abortion coverage, to a state stabilization fund for providing coronavirus relief.
The letter doesn’t touch on another aspect of fraud in these loan applications, which is that these employees weren’t at risk in the first place. The number of these affiliates that closed their doors in shutdown orders could be counted on one hand, and Planned Parenthood fought in court to get them classified as an essential service so they could reopen. Unlike restaurants, salons, and other small businesses who were forced to close, these clinics remained open for business and had their usual cash flow in place.
So what did that cash actually fund? The abortions themselves, of course, along with Planned Parenthood’s bottom line. They raided a fund meant for small businesses who couldn’t keep payroll flowing because the government had forced them to close, and raid they did — averaging more than $2 million per affiliate when the average PPP loan was closer to $100,000. It’s a grotesque exploitation of an emergency fund in a national emergency.
Is it fraud in a criminal sense? Perhaps, but it is at the least fraud in a moral sense. Will all of the same voices and media outlets that (rightly) scolded Steak Shack and Ruth’s Chris Steak House point their fingers publicly at Planned Parenthood for their own slimy acts here? Don’t hold your breath.


hotair--2020-05-21--Michigan AG: Trump is no longer welcome here after refusing to wear a mask -- and we might go after

Michigan AG: Trump is no longer welcome here after refusing to wear a mask -- and we might go after Ford for not making him wear one

How many Democratic politicians in Michigan are fighting with Trump right now ?
There ’ s Gretchen Whitmer , who might parlay the boost to her public profile from their feud into a VP nomination .
There ’ s Jocelyn Benson , the secretary of state , who fired back at Trump twice yesterday on Twitter after what he said about mail-in voting and ended up getting an MSNBC segment out of it .
Now here ’ s attorney general Dana Nessel getting in on the action , treating Trump ’ s refusal to wear a mask during part of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Michigan as grounds for … declaring him persona non grata ?
Bringing charges against Ford , possibly ?
Background : Both state law and Ford company policy require the wearing of masks at the plant he visited .
Ford execs say they did ask him to wear one , and he complied — initially .
But after his private chat with them ended and he had to make a speech and meet the press , he took it off .
Trump also claimed “ I had one [ a mask ] on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was not visible to reporters , but added , “ I didn ’ t want to give the press the pleasure of seeing it.
” … The Ford company later issued a statement saying : ″Bill Ford encouraged President Trump to wear a mask when he arrived .
He wore a mask during a private viewing of three Ford GTs from over the years .
The President later removed the mask for the remainder of the visit.
” When William Ford introduced Trump for a speech to factory workers after the tour , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he spoke .
Did he really wear a mask backstage before he spoke ?
Check this out — the photo the White House didn ’ t want us to see .
I don ’ t know .
Seems a little unmanly to me .
A little soft and … cuckish .
But I digress .
The AG was so eager to spar with him about this that she published an open letter to him yesterday reminding him that mask-wearing isn ’ t just good hygiene , it ’ s the law .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it left him in a no-win situation .
If he wore the mask he ’ d be bowing to Whitmer ’ s decree and adopting a symbol that some of his dimmer fans regard as a measure of “ social control ” or whatever .
If he didn ’ t wear the mask he ’ d be holding himself out above a law passed to protect the health of Michiganders , one which they themselves have to follow .
( Remember that most Americans , including majorities of both parties , are wearing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the time . )
How coordinated all of this is between Whitmer , Benson , Nessel , and Joe Biden , lord only knows .
Benson reacted opportunistically yesterday , seizing on an attack launched by Trump himself , but Nessel was clearly teeing up the mask issue .
Did she do it at Whitmer ’ s or Biden ’ s behest ?
Was she just trying to get in on the fun , eyeing the governor ’ s office down the road , maybe ?
Whatever the answer , watch her go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CNN following his visit .
The president has no right to infect others , she notes ( doesn ’ t she know he ’ s on “ the hydroxy ” ? )
, and insists that a “ very serious conversation ” will be had with Ford , as if Michigan state cops or Ford security guards were supposed to escort him off the property when he took the mask off .
In case her political preferences weren ’ t clear , she caps her performance with a spiel about how much she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Maddow segment in her near future .
By the way , Whitmer and Nessel won their lawsuit today against Republicans in the Michigan legislature , who had argued that a statewide one-size-fits-all stay-at-home order is illegal because it doesn ’ t take into account regional differences in terms of the severity of the coronavirus outbreak .
If the crisis affects all of the people of the state , said the judge , then the governor can act statewide .
Doesn ’ t matter much at this point , though : Whitmer is already @ @ @ @ @ @

I’m torn here, as I’m strongly pro-mask.
But also strongly anti-Karen.
How many Democratic politicians in Michigan are fighting with Trump right now? There’s Gretchen Whitmer, who might parlay the boost to her public profile from their feud into a VP nomination. There’s Jocelyn Benson, the secretary of state, who fired back at Trump twice yesterday on Twitter after what he said about mail-in voting and ended up getting an MSNBC segment out of it. Now here’s attorney general Dana Nessel getting in on the action, treating Trump’s refusal to wear a mask during part of his visit today to a Ford plant in Michigan as grounds for … declaring him persona non grata? Bringing charges against Ford, possibly?
What?
Background: Both state law and Ford company policy require the wearing of masks at the plant he visited. Ford execs say they did ask him to wear one, and he complied — initially. But after his private chat with them ended and he had to make a speech and meet the press, he took it off.
Trump also claimed “I had one [a mask] on before,” in an area that was not visible to reporters, but added, “I didn’t want to give the press the pleasure of seeing it.”… The Ford company later issued a statement saying: ″Bill Ford encouraged President Trump to wear a mask when he arrived. He wore a mask during a private viewing of three Ford GTs from over the years. The President later removed the mask for the remainder of the visit.” When William Ford introduced Trump for a speech to factory workers after the tour, the company chairman wore a mask as he spoke. Trump did not.
Did he really wear a mask backstage before he spoke? Check this out — the photo the White House didn’t want us to see.
Trump wore a mask and the media still flipped out. pic.twitter.com/M96QlxLesb — Caleb Hull (I'm With the CCP Don't Ban Me) (@CalebJHull) May 21, 2020
I don’t know. Seems a little unmanly to me. A little soft and … cuckish.
But I digress. The AG was so eager to spar with him about this that she published an open letter to him yesterday reminding him that mask-wearing isn’t just good hygiene, it’s the law.
That was clever politics by Nessel in how it left him in a no-win situation. If he wore the mask he’d be bowing to Whitmer’s decree and adopting a symbol that some of his dimmer fans regard as a measure of “social control” or whatever. If he didn’t wear the mask he’d be holding himself out above a law passed to protect the health of Michiganders, one which they themselves have to follow. (Remember that most Americans, including majorities of both parties, are wearing masks now around other people most of the time.) How coordinated all of this is between Whitmer, Benson, Nessel, and Joe Biden, lord only knows. Benson reacted opportunistically yesterday, seizing on an attack launched by Trump himself, but Nessel was clearly teeing up the mask issue. Did she do it at Whitmer’s or Biden’s behest? Was she just trying to get in on the fun, eyeing the governor’s office down the road, maybe?
Whatever the answer, watch her go off below on Trump and Ford on CNN following his visit. The president has no right to infect others, she notes (doesn’t she know he’s on “the hydroxy”?), and insists that a “very serious conversation” will be had with Ford, as if Michigan state cops or Ford security guards were supposed to escort him off the property when he took the mask off. In case her political preferences weren’t clear, she caps her performance with a spiel about how much she dislikes Trump. I smell a Rachel Maddow segment in her near future.
By the way, Whitmer and Nessel won their lawsuit today against Republicans in the Michigan legislature, who had argued that a statewide one-size-fits-all stay-at-home order is illegal because it doesn’t take into account regional differences in terms of the severity of the coronavirus outbreak. If the crisis affects all of the people of the state, said the judge, then the governor can act statewide. Doesn’t matter much at this point, though: Whitmer is already moving to open Michigan up.


hotair--2020-05-21--DC Appeals Court orders Judge Sullivan to respond to Flynn's request for a dismissal (Update)

Tuesday of this week Michael Flynn ’ s attorney Sidney Powell filed a writ of mandamus with the DC Circuit Court of Appeals seeking to have his case dismissed by Judge Emmet Sullivan .
Today the DC Circuit responded by demanding that Judge Sullivan respond to Flynn ’ s request for a dismissal within 10 days : A federal appeals court on Thursday directed the judge hearing the case against former national security adviser Michael Flynn to respond to a petition by Flynn for the charges against him to be thrown out .
Flynn ’ s attorney earlier this week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the D.C .
Circuit Court of Appeals seeking that the prosecution against Flynn be dismissed as the Justice Department has requested , and for Judge Emmet Sullivan to be taken off the case .
The order issued Thursday directs Sullivan to file a response by June 1 , and invited the government to respond “ in its discretion within the same 10-day period.
” Writs of mandamus are extraordinary remedies , which are appropriate when there has been a “ usurpation of judicial power ” that is “ clear and indisputable.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heard by three judges from the DC Circuit Court .
So what does all of this mean ?
Well , Undercover Huber suggests the court of appeals is forcing Judge Sullivan to show his hand rather than wait for his hand-picked retired judge ( who has already offered an opinion on the merits ) to make arguments on his behalf .
So it looks like Judge Sullivan is going to have to make his own case for refusing to dismiss the case against Flynn at which point the Court will then decide if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continue or order him to dismiss the case .
Jonathan Turley notes out that the order requires that Judge Sullivan respond , it ’ s not inviting him or suggesting he could ask for outside help .
The Washington Post reports that Judge Sullivan reacted to the order saying , “ Obviously the court is taking the issue very seriously , as it should.
” I guess we ’ ll have an idea in 10 days what Sullivan has to say in defense of his own refusal to dismiss the case .
Update @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a long thread on this development .
He argues that the DC Circuit had a lot of options in this case and wound up taking the most drastic one available by ordering Judge Sullivan to personally explain his refusal to dismiss the case .

Tuesday of this week Michael Flynn’s attorney Sidney Powell filed a writ of mandamus with the DC Circuit Court of Appeals seeking to have his case dismissed by Judge Emmet Sullivan. Today the DC Circuit responded by demanding that Judge Sullivan respond to Flynn’s request for a dismissal within 10 days:
A federal appeals court on Thursday directed the judge hearing the case against former national security adviser Michael Flynn to respond to a petition by Flynn for the charges against him to be thrown out. Flynn’s attorney earlier this week had filed an emergency writ of mandamus to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals seeking that the prosecution against Flynn be dismissed as the Justice Department has requested, and for Judge Emmet Sullivan to be taken off the case. The order issued Thursday directs Sullivan to file a response by June 1, and invited the government to respond “in its discretion within the same 10-day period.” Writs of mandamus are extraordinary remedies, which are appropriate when there has been a “usurpation of judicial power” that is “clear and indisputable.”
Judge Sullivan’s response will be heard by three judges from the DC Circuit Court. So what does all of this mean? Well, Undercover Huber suggests the court of appeals is forcing Judge Sullivan to show his hand rather than wait for his hand-picked retired judge (who has already offered an opinion on the merits) to make arguments on his behalf.
That is going to force Judge Sullivan to put his cards on the table. Because he hasn’t actually denied the DOJ’s motion to dismiss. He’s just left it sitting there & invited “amici” to argue against it. That suggests he doesn’t agree, but doesn’t *say* it. Now he’ll have to say — Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) May 21, 2020
The Court specifically invited the DOJ to respond to the Writ as well. Barr joining Powell’s side in arguing to dismiss the case will make it much more powerful than on its own, if he takes that opportunity (which I suspect he will) pic.twitter.com/RExQzYzZkg — Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) May 21, 2020
So it looks like Judge Sullivan is going to have to make his own case for refusing to dismiss the case against Flynn at which point the Court will then decide if they are going to allow him to continue or order him to dismiss the case. Jonathan Turley notes out that the order requires that Judge Sullivan respond, it’s not inviting him or suggesting he could ask for outside help.
Note the interesting language: "it is ORDERED…that within ten days … the district judge file a response addressing petitioner’s request…" This is not discretionary language. Compare: “The government is invited to respond in its discretion within the same ten-day period.” — Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) May 21, 2020
The Washington Post reports that Judge Sullivan reacted to the order saying, “Obviously the court is taking the issue very seriously, as it should.” I guess we’ll have an idea in 10 days what Sullivan has to say in defense of his own refusal to dismiss the case.
Update: Appellate lawyer John Reeves has offered a long thread on this development. He argues that the DC Circuit had a lot of options in this case and wound up taking the most drastic one available by ordering Judge Sullivan to personally explain his refusal to dismiss the case.
2) The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure govern the filing and disposition of writs in the federal appellate courts. #appellatetwitter pic.twitter.com/Yw2ShBlE78 — John M. Reeves (@reeveslawstl) May 21, 2020
4) Rule 21(b)(1) allows the DC Circuit to deny the writ petition outright, without asking for a response. This is what happens with the vast majority of writ petitions. #appellatetwitter pic.twitter.com/R9gJjnhQmk — John M. Reeves (@reeveslawstl) May 21, 2020
6) By obtaining an order for a response, @SidneyPowell1 has already cleared a huge hurdle. #appellatetwitter — John M. Reeves (@reeveslawstl) May 21, 2020
8) Rule 21(b)(4) states that the appellate court "may invite or order the trial-court judge to address the petition or may invite an amicus curiae to do so." #appellatetwitter pic.twitter.com/E9zQK1IsoR — John M. Reeves (@reeveslawstl) May 21, 2020
10) Even if it wants to hear from the trial judge, the appellate court can simply "invite"–that is, request, or ask–the trial judge to respond. It does not have to ORDER the judge to respond. #appellatetwitter pic.twitter.com/ZNLFavvlXT — John M. Reeves (@reeveslawstl) May 21, 2020
12) This is what the DC Circuit did in the Fokker case–the main case @SidneyPowell1 relies upon in her writ. See the highlighted portion of the fourth image below. #appellatetwitter pic.twitter.com/qpNILgkP7B — John M. Reeves (@reeveslawstl) May 21, 2020
14) The DC Circuit, in ordering Judge Sullivan to respond to @SidneyPowell1 's writ petition, could have easily appointed a lawyer as amicus to do so. #appellatetwitter pic.twitter.com/QKWiYj6VHs — John M. Reeves (@reeveslawstl) May 21, 2020
16) Had the DC Circuit appointed amicus, that lawyer's job would have been to present legal arguments defending Judge Sullivan's refusal to grant the DOJ's dismissal motion, NOT legal arguments purporting to show why the DOJ's motion should not be granted. #appelatetwitter — John M. Reeves (@reeveslawstl) May 21, 2020
18) Instead, the DC Circuit ordered Judge Sullivan to PERSONALLY respond and defend his actions, without an amicus attorney to do it for him. #appellatetwitter pic.twitter.com/ess2zmL1JN — John M. Reeves (@reeveslawstl) May 21, 2020
20) The DC Circuit is thus making Judge Sullivan–a lifetime federal judge–publicly and directly explain to them his actions. #appellatetwitter pic.twitter.com/2soNvhbZ8D — John M. Reeves (@reeveslawstl) May 21, 2020


hotair--2020-05-21--Poll: Strong majorities in both parties say they're wearing masks around other people most of the ti

Poll: Strong majorities in both parties say they're wearing masks around other people most of the time

Intriguing data from HuffPost that raises the question : Is there really a culture war over masks ?
There ’ s a divide over mask-wearing between Democrats and Republicans , no doubt .
And there ’ s a lingering gender divide , with men notably less likely to wear masks for fear that they ’ ll be seen as weak if they don ’ t boldly spray their plague germs into the faces of old ladies at the grocery store .
But the divides aren ’ t as sharp as you might think from activist political media , where mask-wearing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both parties say mask-wearing is more a matter of public health than a personal choice , although Democrats ( 76/20 ) are more likely to say so than Republicans ( 51/42 ) .
Women in both parties are more likely than men to say they always wear a mask when around others , but large majorities of both sexes say they view wearing a mask as an act of respect towards those around them rather than as a sign of weakness .
Although there is one particular group that ’ s a little @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Most Republican men are thinking clearly about this despite dopey , reckless agitation against mask-wearing from some precincts of populist media .
There ’ s no culture war over masks .
Yet .
Quinnipiac asked about masks in its poll yesterday too .
Republicans don ’ t like mandates of any sort and so it ’ s no surprise that a majority oppose mandatory mask-wearing , but 40 percent is a surprisingly large minority in favor .
And note that Republicans and white men ( a core Republican constituency ) are the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ masks .
Majorities of all three partisan groups said that most people they see nowadays are wearing masks .
And 67 percent overall said Trump should wear a mask when he ’ s out in public , although most Republicans opposed that idea .
What does mask-wearing get us ?
The evidence is mostly circumstantial but here ’ s an interesting comparison from Cuomo ’ s latest numbers on antibody testing .
The sort of public and private employees in NYC whom you ’ d most expect to wear masks because they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actually have lower rates of infection than the general public .
If you want to disregard the numbers for health-care workers on grounds that some are wearing full PPE , not just masks , fair enough .
But it ’ s mind-boggling that transit workers are less likely to have had COVID-19 than the average New Yorker is .
Best guess as to why : Transit workers are hyperattentive to hygiene precisely because they ’ re higher-risk , which means more frequent hand-washing — and mask-wearing .
Here ’ s another interesting number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ culture war ” over masks exists largely on websites and not in reality : Nate Silver made a smart point about how the trendline there matches up with the recent decline in deaths from COVID-19 nationally .
“ This timing is interesting insofar as the US data started to look like it was getting a little better as of early May , at least to my eye , ” he wrote .
“ And if you had a big inflection point in mask-wearing in mid-April , that ’ s when you might expect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rough estimate , it takes three weeks to a month for an infection to progress to death ; the last day the U.S. topped 2,000 deaths in a day was May 7 .
It does seem that something improved around mid-April , then , coincidentally around the time that mask-wearing became a majority proposition in the graph above .
And remember that the recent model on mask-wearing from Berkeley postulated that it takes a high level of buy-in on wearing masks to dramatically reduce deaths .
It can ’ t be done piecemeal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that some sort of critical mass was finally reached in the middle of last month to drive deaths down .
As masks become even more commonplace , hopefully there ’ s even more progress to come .
Anyway , it ’ s time to rebrand the whole practice .
Masks — the choice of champions .

Intriguing data from HuffPost that raises the question: Is there really a culture war over masks?
There’s a divide over mask-wearing between Democrats and Republicans, no doubt. And there’s a lingering gender divide, with men notably less likely to wear masks for fear that they’ll be seen as weak if they don’t boldly spray their plague germs into the faces of old ladies at the grocery store. But the divides aren’t as sharp as you might think from activist political media, where mask-wearing is socialism or whatever.
Encouraging results here:
Majorities in both parties say mask-wearing is more a matter of public health than a personal choice, although Democrats (76/20) are more likely to say so than Republicans (51/42). Women in both parties are more likely than men to say they always wear a mask when around others, but large majorities of both sexes say they view wearing a mask as an act of respect towards those around them rather than as a sign of weakness.
Although there is one particular group that’s a little more stubborn about that than everyone else:
Twenty percent of Republican men also say they consider wearing a face mask in public near others to be a sign of weakness, compared to just 6% of Republican women (and similarly single-digit shares of Democrats across gender) who say the same. Even within that group, however, it’s still the minority position. By contrast, a 62% majority of GOP men say mask-wearing shows respect, and more than half say they consider it a matter of public health.
Most Republican men are thinking clearly about this despite dopey, reckless agitation against mask-wearing from some precincts of populist media. There’s no culture war over masks. Yet.
Quinnipiac asked about masks in its poll yesterday too. Republicans don’t like mandates of any sort and so it’s no surprise that a majority oppose mandatory mask-wearing, but 40 percent is a surprisingly large minority in favor. And note that Republicans and white men (a core Republican constituency) are the only demographic groups listed to oppose mandating masks.
Majorities of all three partisan groups said that most people they see nowadays are wearing masks. And 67 percent overall said Trump should wear a mask when he’s out in public, although most Republicans opposed that idea.
Trump: Here’s my mask right here pic.twitter.com/d5VhVsDS3S — Acyn (@Acyn) May 21, 2020
What does mask-wearing get us? The evidence is mostly circumstantial but here’s an interesting comparison from Cuomo’s latest numbers on antibody testing. The sort of public and private employees in NYC whom you’d most expect to wear masks because they’re at the greatest risk of infection actually have lower rates of infection than the general public.
#COVID19 Very interesting sero-survey data from New York Frontline healthcare workers, first responders and essential workers all have lower percentage tested positive for #coronavirus antibodies vs. general public PPE works… and more evidence supports #Masks4All? pic.twitter.com/Jms0Qqg7Wo — Andy Biotech (@AndyBiotech) May 21, 2020
If you want to disregard the numbers for health-care workers on grounds that some are wearing full PPE, not just masks, fair enough. But it’s mind-boggling that transit workers are less likely to have had COVID-19 than the average New Yorker is. Best guess as to why: Transit workers are hyperattentive to hygiene precisely because they’re higher-risk, which means more frequent hand-washing — and mask-wearing.
Here’s another interesting number, once again confirming that the “culture war” over masks exists largely on websites and not in reality:
On April 1st, 27% of Americans said they had worn a mask or other face covering in the last 7 days. Today, it's up to 83%. (Data: @USCDornsife) pic.twitter.com/bimJiDI7YA — Alexander Podkul (@apodkul) May 20, 2020
Nate Silver made a smart point about how the trendline there matches up with the recent decline in deaths from COVID-19 nationally. “This timing is interesting insofar as the US data started to look like it was getting a little better as of early May, at least to my eye,” he wrote. “And if you had a big inflection point in mask-wearing in mid-April, that’s when you might expect to see the effects.” As a rough estimate, it takes three weeks to a month for an infection to progress to death; the last day the U.S. topped 2,000 deaths in a day was May 7. It does seem that something improved around mid-April, then, coincidentally around the time that mask-wearing became a majority proposition in the graph above. And remember that the recent model on mask-wearing from Berkeley postulated that it takes a high level of buy-in on wearing masks to dramatically reduce deaths. It can’t be done piecemeal. So maybe Silver’s right that some sort of critical mass was finally reached in the middle of last month to drive deaths down. As masks become even more commonplace, hopefully there’s even more progress to come.
Anyway, it’s time to rebrand the whole practice. Masks — the choice of champions.


hotair--2020-05-21--Bernie Sanders' campaign asks delegates to sign a document promising they won't behave like Bernie B

Bernie Sanders' campaign asks delegates to sign a document promising they won't behave like Bernie Bros

Almost exactly four years ago there were some problems in the Democratic Party as frustrated Bernie Sanders supporters lashed out at representatives of the establishment .
At an event in Nevada , Sen. Barbara Boxer was booed and one of Bernie ’ s delegates was more explicit about how he felt about Hillary Clinton .
Concerned that we could see a repeat of some of that behavior in 2020 , the Sanders campaign is now asking delegates to sign a document which says they can be removed from their positions if they stir up too much trouble : The move @ @ @ @ @ @ @ removed as a delegate , has the effect of blunting one of the most powerful if divisive tools of Sanders ’ s movement — its unrestrained online presence and tendency to stoke controversy through other media , which has at times spiraled into abuse of his opponents , perceived and real… Key parts of the five-page orders appeared designed to prevent unflattering news reports about disagreements in the party .
“ Social media postings have the potential to generate media coverage , ” the document warned , before instructing delegates how to address @ @ @ @ @ @ @ member of the media contacts you about a posting of any kind : do not respond , ” it said .
Instead , it continues , contact the Sanders press office .
“ Before tweeting or posting from your personal social media accounts , ask yourself these questions : If this appeared on the front page of The New York Times , would it compromise Bernie Sanders ’ s message , credibility , or reputation ?
Could it potentially risk your standing as a delegate ?
When re-tweeting or sharing information from others @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” the social media policy said… “ Some of the intent and some of the wording was really not agreeable to some of our Colorado delegation , ” said Lori Boydston , a Sanders delegate from Colorado .
She said that a committee discussed changes they proposed to the Sanders campaign , which the campaign accepted .
“ All is good , ” she added .
The five page agreement sent to delegates is here .
A few highlights of what the Bernie Bros were told : • Do your best to avoid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in an adversarial conversation , be respectful when addressing opposing viewpoints or commenting on the opposition .
• Refrain from making negative statements about other candidates , party leaders , Campaigns , Campaign staffers , supporters , news organizations or journalists .
In addition , the delegates have to sign a page with a long series of affirmative statements : • I will engage with other delegates , superdelegates , party leadership , and elected officials with respect and a spirit of cooperativeness , even if I disagree with them .
• I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opinions on someone if they are not interested in engaging .
In short , don ’ t act like Bernie Bros and especially don ’ t act like Bernie Bros did four years ago .
I think it would have been simpler to point out what the campaign is afraid will happen again .
The Nevada protest mentioned above is one example .
This walkout in July of 2016 is another .
This made news and involved delegates speaking directly to the media .
Also not helpful was this irate Bernie delegate who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” The good for Sanders ’ camp is it won ’ t take much in the way of self-control for 2020 to be an improvement over 2016 .

Almost exactly four years ago there were some problems in the Democratic Party as frustrated Bernie Sanders supporters lashed out at representatives of the establishment. At an event in Nevada, Sen. Barbara Boxer was booed and one of Bernie’s delegates was more explicit about how he felt about Hillary Clinton.
One of the Bernie delegates in the CD3 room just yelled "F— Hillary and F— the DNC" in his speech. — Megan Messerly (@meganmesserly) May 15, 2016
Concerned that we could see a repeat of some of that behavior in 2020, the Sanders campaign is now asking delegates to sign a document which says they can be removed from their positions if they stir up too much trouble:
The move, which carried a threat of being removed as a delegate, has the effect of blunting one of the most powerful if divisive tools of Sanders’s movement — its unrestrained online presence and tendency to stoke controversy through other media, which has at times spiraled into abuse of his opponents, perceived and real… Key parts of the five-page orders appeared designed to prevent unflattering news reports about disagreements in the party. “Social media postings have the potential to generate media coverage,” the document warned, before instructing delegates how to address a press inquiry. “If a member of the media contacts you about a posting of any kind: do not respond,” it said. Instead, it continues, contact the Sanders press office. “Before tweeting or posting from your personal social media accounts, ask yourself these questions: If this appeared on the front page of The New York Times, would it compromise Bernie Sanders’s message, credibility, or reputation? Could it potentially risk your standing as a delegate? When re-tweeting or sharing information from others, are you applying necessary skepticism?” the social media policy said… “Some of the intent and some of the wording was really not agreeable to some of our Colorado delegation,” said Lori Boydston, a Sanders delegate from Colorado. She said that a committee discussed changes they proposed to the Sanders campaign, which the campaign accepted. “All is good,” she added.
The five page agreement sent to delegates is here. A few highlights of what the Bernie Bros were told:
Do your best to avoid online arguments or confrontations. If engaging in an adversarial conversation, be respectful when addressing opposing viewpoints or commenting on the opposition.
Refrain from making negative statements about other candidates, party leaders, Campaigns, Campaign staffers, supporters, news organizations or journalists.
In addition, the delegates have to sign a page with a long series of affirmative statements:
I will engage with other delegates, superdelegates, party leadership, and elected officials with respect and a spirit of cooperativeness, even if I disagree with them.
I will listen, and not force my opinions on someone if they are not interested in engaging.
In short, don’t act like Bernie Bros and especially don’t act like Bernie Bros did four years ago. I think it would have been simpler to point out what the campaign is afraid will happen again. The Nevada protest mentioned above is one example. This walkout in July of 2016 is another. This made news and involved delegates speaking directly to the media.
Also not helpful was this irate Bernie delegate who called Clinton a “second-rate corporate sellout.”
The good for Sanders’ camp is it won’t take much in the way of self-control for 2020 to be an improvement over 2016.


hotair--2020-05-21--Today's hot topics on #TEMS: Fuller big house, Harris' grouse, Biden's BDS joust, credit douse, and

Today's hot topics on #TEMS: Fuller big house, Harris' grouse, Biden's BDS joust, credit douse, and more!

Today on The Ed Morrissey Show ( 4 pm ET ) , we have another great lineup for the news of the day !
The show will be streamed on Hot Air ’ s Facebook page and embedded here and on the show page for those who are not on Facebook .
Join us as we welcome : • Duane “ Generalissimo ” Patterson brings us up to date on the week ’ s top stories and gives us a preview of tomorrow ’ s Hugh Hewitt show .
Did Joe Biden declare war on the BDS-supporting progressives in his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Full House to the big house ?
We ’ ll talk about Tim Walz ’ attempts to keep MN churches from reopening , and we ’ ll also discuss a Senate Democrats resolution on COVID-19 priority that you won ’ t believe .
• Are we entering a vicious cycle on debt ?
A new spike in missed payments makes today ’ s jobless numbers even more worrisome .
Peter Grandich joins us to discuss the debt bomb that might go off soon , and to discuss his new approach to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its dynamic chatroom can be seen on the permanent TEMS page .
Be sure to join us , and don ’ t forget to keep up with the debate on my Facebook page , too !
How can Republicans and conservatives keep winning after 2016 ?
Find out in GOING RED , published in April from Crown Forum !

Today on The Ed Morrissey Show (4 pm ET), we have another great lineup for the news of the day! The show will be streamed on Hot Air’s Facebook page and embedded here and on the show page for those who are not on Facebook.
Join us as we welcome:
Duane “Generalissimo” Patterson brings us up to date on the week’s top stories and gives us a preview of tomorrow’s Hugh Hewitt show. Did Joe Biden declare war on the BDS-supporting progressives in his party? Will Aunt Becky really go from Full House to the big house? We’ll talk about Tim Walz’ attempts to keep MN churches from reopening, and we’ll also discuss a Senate Democrats resolution on COVID-19 priority that you won’t believe.
Are we entering a vicious cycle on debt? A new spike in missed payments makes today’s jobless numbers even more worrisome. Peter Grandich joins us to discuss the debt bomb that might go off soon, and to discuss his new approach to the markets.
The Ed Morrissey Show and its dynamic chatroom can be seen on the permanent TEMS page. Be sure to join us, and don’t forget to keep up with the debate on my Facebook page, too!
How can Republicans and conservatives keep winning after 2016? Find out in GOING RED, published in April from Crown Forum!


hotair--2020-05-21--Kamala Harris, Senate Dems: The Senate should focus its pandemic response on declaring "Wuhan virus"

Kamala Harris, Senate Dems: The Senate should focus its pandemic response on declaring "Wuhan virus" term raaaaaacist, or something

It ’ s good to know that our elected leaders have focused on the truly vital issues in the midst of the China-originated global pandemic .
Senate Democrats , led by Kamala Harris , demonstrated their grasp of constituent priorities in a national crisis by introducing a resolution last week to put the Senate on record that anyone who calls the outbreak “ Wuhan virus ” or “ Chinese virus ” is a raaaaacist .
Normal naming conventions are apparently a bigger problem than the origin or impact of the virus itself , it seems .
Whereas the elected officials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sens .
Kamala Harris ( D-Calif. ) , Tammy Duckworth ( D-Ill. ) , and Mazie Hirono ( D-Hawaii ) introduced a resolution last week condemning anti-Asian racism and the use of the terms “ Wuhan virus ” , “ Chinese virus , ” or “ Kung flu ” in referring to the coronavirus or COVID-19 .
“ Whereas the use of anti-Asian terminology and rhetoric related to COVID–19 , such as the ‘ ’ Chinese Virus ’ ’ , ‘ ‘ Wuhan Virus ’ ’ , and ‘ Kung-flu ’ , have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stated .
“ After Donald Trump repeatedly used his platform to try to racialize this disease , we continue to see a spike in rhetoric and actions against the Asian American community because of misguided fears surrounding the COVID-19 outbreak , ” Duckworth said in a statement .
This argument is tiresome enough even in a vacuum .
Diseases routinely get named for the region or geography from which they emerge .
Just to use some well-known examples , Ebola got its name from the West African river where the hemorrhagic fever is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ human populations .
Lyme Disease gets its name from the town of Old Lyme , Connecticut .
The West Nile virus got its name after being discovered guess where in 1937 , and Zika — the scourge that erupted in another Olympic year four years ago — got its name from the Zika Forest in Uganda sixty years earlier .
Plenty of other examples come to mind , including MERS seven years ago — Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome .
Therefore , there is nothing unusual about calling this the Wuhan virus , since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Chinese virus ” is more far accurate than “ Spanish Flu , ” the widely accepted casual term for the 1918 influenza epidemic , the usage of which no one had ever claimed was motivated by racism or bigotry .
It ’ s also more specifically accurate than MERS , for that matter , which originated in Jordan .
“ Kung Flu ” is an attempt at levity , perhaps not in the best taste given the circumstances , but is far more accurately assigned to the gallows-humor category than racism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Wuhan virus ” is dumb and demagogic enough .
Having at this particular time , when millions of Americans are losing jobs because of the China-originated virus and the economy is collapsing , is simply perverse .
Perhaps someone should let Senate Democrats know that the stigma from long-established naming conventions isn ’ t anyone ’ s highest priority at the moment .
Putting food on the table and getting back into public life far outstrip this issue , to the extent it ’ s even an issue at all .
Right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ colleagues in the lower chamber aren ’ t even bothering to show up for work , which might be a bigger problem than Trump ’ s reference to a “ Chinese virus ” several weeks ago .
Especially since Trump stopped using the term anyway , as Mairead McArdle noted last night at National Review : President Trump briefly referred to the coronavirus as the “ Chinese virus , ” defending his use of the term by saying “ it comes from China , ” but later backed away from the phrase after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Asian Americans .
“ Look , everyone knows it came out of China , but I decided we shouldn ’ t make any more of a big deal out of it , ” Trump said in early March .
This is nothing more than an excuse to call Trump a racist for following scientific naming conventions that go back more than century , at least .
Smearing Trump and millions of Americans who use those terms is apparently the highest priority for Senate Democrats , which is certainly revealing , but not in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has to wonder why they ’ re so focused on diverting attention away from the origins of COVID-19 .
Tom Cotton ’ s certainly curious about that : Does this report from NBC explain it ?
The Chinese have pushed out 90,000 tweets since the start of April from 200 diplomatic and state-run media accounts as part of an offensive in the COVID-19 information war , according to data collected by the Hamilton 2.0 dashboard of the Alliance for Securing Democracy , a tool that aggregates accounts connected to the Chinese government .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the alliance , based in Washington , D.C. , has been tracking China ’ s increasing social media output for months .
According to Schafer ’ s analysis , Twitter output from China ’ s official sites has almost doubled since January , and the number of diplomatic Twitter accounts has tripled , to 135 , up from just 40 accounts this time last year .
Many tweets are in English or Mandarin , but the diplomatic accounts are often in the language of an embassy ’ s host country .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suckered by the propaganda .
Maybe Senate Democrats need to spend less time on Twitter and more time focused on the real crisis at hand .

It’s good to know that our elected leaders have focused on the truly vital issues in the midst of the China-originated global pandemic. Senate Democrats, led by Kamala Harris, demonstrated their grasp of constituent priorities in a national crisis by introducing a resolution last week to put the Senate on record that anyone who calls the outbreak “Wuhan virus” or “Chinese virus” is a raaaaacist. Normal naming conventions are apparently a bigger problem than the origin or impact of the virus itself, it seems.
Whereas the elected officials in Washington are self-identifying as morons …
Sens. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), and Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) introduced a resolution last week condemning anti-Asian racism and the use of the terms “Wuhan virus”, “Chinese virus,” or “Kung flu” in referring to the coronavirus or COVID-19. “Whereas the use of anti-Asian terminology and rhetoric related to COVID–19, such as the ‘’Chinese Virus’’, ‘‘Wuhan Virus’’, and ‘Kung-flu’, have perpetuated anti-Asian stigma,” the resolution stated. “After Donald Trump repeatedly used his platform to try to racialize this disease, we continue to see a spike in rhetoric and actions against the Asian American community because of misguided fears surrounding the COVID-19 outbreak,” Duckworth said in a statement.
This argument is tiresome enough even in a vacuum. Diseases routinely get named for the region or geography from which they emerge. Just to use some well-known examples, Ebola got its name from the West African river where the hemorrhagic fever is thought to have first crossed over to human populations. Lyme Disease gets its name from the town of Old Lyme, Connecticut. The West Nile virus got its name after being discovered guess where in 1937, and Zika — the scourge that erupted in another Olympic year four years ago — got its name from the Zika Forest in Uganda sixty years earlier. Plenty of other examples come to mind, including MERS seven years ago — Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome.
Therefore, there is nothing unusual about calling this the Wuhan virus, since it has almost certainly originated in Wuhan. “Chinese virus” is more far accurate than “Spanish Flu,” the widely accepted casual term for the 1918 influenza epidemic, the usage of which no one had ever claimed was motivated by racism or bigotry. It’s also more specifically accurate than MERS, for that matter, which originated in Jordan. “Kung Flu” is an attempt at levity, perhaps not in the best taste given the circumstances, but is far more accurately assigned to the gallows-humor category than racism.
Having this fight at all over “Wuhan virus” is dumb and demagogic enough. Having at this particular time, when millions of Americans are losing jobs because of the China-originated virus and the economy is collapsing, is simply perverse. Perhaps someone should let Senate Democrats know that the stigma from long-established naming conventions isn’t anyone’s highest priority at the moment. Putting food on the table and getting back into public life far outstrip this issue, to the extent it’s even an issue at all. Right now, Harris et al‘s colleagues in the lower chamber aren’t even bothering to show up for work, which might be a bigger problem than Trump’s reference to a “Chinese virus” several weeks ago.
Especially since Trump stopped using the term anyway, as Mairead McArdle noted last night at National Review:
President Trump briefly referred to the coronavirus as the “Chinese virus,” defending his use of the term by saying “it comes from China,” but later backed away from the phrase after reports of an uptick in violence against Asian Americans. “Look, everyone knows it came out of China, but I decided we shouldn’t make any more of a big deal out of it,” Trump said in early March.
This is nothing more than an excuse to call Trump a racist for following scientific naming conventions that go back more than century, at least. Smearing Trump and millions of Americans who use those terms is apparently the highest priority for Senate Democrats, which is certainly revealing, but not in the way Senate Democrats intend. One has to wonder why they’re so focused on diverting attention away from the origins of COVID-19. Tom Cotton’s certainly curious about that:
It's understandable why the murderous Chinese Communist Party doesn't want the Wuhan virus to be linked to China. But it's mind-boggling that Senate Democrats are participating in China's propaganda. — Tom Cotton (@TomCottonAR) May 21, 2020
Does this report from NBC explain it?
The Chinese have pushed out 90,000 tweets since the start of April from 200 diplomatic and state-run media accounts as part of an offensive in the COVID-19 information war, according to data collected by the Hamilton 2.0 dashboard of the Alliance for Securing Democracy, a tool that aggregates accounts connected to the Chinese government. Bret Schafer, the digital disinformation fellow at the alliance, based in Washington, D.C., has been tracking China’s increasing social media output for months. According to Schafer’s analysis, Twitter output from China’s official sites has almost doubled since January, and the number of diplomatic Twitter accounts has tripled, to 135, up from just 40 accounts this time last year. Many tweets are in English or Mandarin, but the diplomatic accounts are often in the language of an embassy’s host country.
It certainly seems like someone’s getting suckered by the propaganda. Maybe Senate Democrats need to spend less time on Twitter and more time focused on the real crisis at hand.


hotair--2020-05-21--GQ piece on the pro-life movement labels George Wallace a Republican (Update)

Norma McCorvey aka Jane Roe , made a deathbed confession that , contrary to what she had claimed for 20 years , she was never really a pro-life Christian .
She claimed she had gone along with what she was told to say because she was receiving money from pro-lifers , about half a million dollars over 20 years .
As Allahpundit noted here , there ’ s still some cause for doubt about whether her conversion was always an act , but it ’ s clear that in the end she was pro-choice .
This revelation prompted a piece @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Movement Was Always Built on Lies.
” Author Laura Bassett used the news about McCorvey to argue that the entire pro-life movement was a lie which only took off because of Republican racism .
Exhibit A in her argument , literally the first thing Bassett pointed to as support for her thesis , was segregationist George Wallace [ emphasis added ] : Before Roe , Republicans and white evangelicals generally supported abortion rights , much in the way libertarians do now , because to them it meant fewer mothers and children dependent on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meanwhile , had their own racist reasons .
George Wallace , the the longtime Republican governor of Alabama , four-time presidential candidate and outspoken segregationist who is often compared to Donald Trump , backed the legalization of abortion in the late 1960s because he claimed black women were “ breeding children as a cash crop ” and taking advantage of social welfare programs .
Wallace was famous for saying , “ Segregation now .
Segregation tomorrow .
And segregation forever.
” So there ’ s no doubt about what he believed about black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Wallace was not a longtime Republican governor of Alabama he was a longtime Democratic governor of Alabama .
Oops !
Here ’ s the corrected paragraph : There is a correction at the bottom of the piece as well : “ Correction 5/21 : An earlier version of this piece misstated that George Wallace was a Republican .
We regret the error.
” Bassett also tweeted about the correction , though it appears the tweet has now been deleted : But even her correction is misleading .
It ’ s true that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the American Independent Party but that was in 1968 , not in the 70s .
He then ran for President in 1972 and 1976 as a Democrat .
How did Bassett miss that ?
This is just like the idea that conservatives in Dallas somehow killed Kennedy , when it was actually a longtime communist who was responsible .
It is striking how the mistakes always seem to happen in one direction .
Update : Joe Biden was apparently a fan of fellow Democrat George Wallace as late as 1987 .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Joe Biden is a Democrat .

Norma McCorvey aka Jane Roe, made a deathbed confession that, contrary to what she had claimed for 20 years, she was never really a pro-life Christian. She claimed she had gone along with what she was told to say because she was receiving money from pro-lifers, about half a million dollars over 20 years. As Allahpundit noted here, there’s still some cause for doubt about whether her conversion was always an act, but it’s clear that in the end she was pro-choice.
This revelation prompted a piece at GQ titled, “The Anti-Abortion Movement Was Always Built on Lies.” Author Laura Bassett used the news about McCorvey to argue that the entire pro-life movement was a lie which only took off because of Republican racism. Exhibit A in her argument, literally the first thing Bassett pointed to as support for her thesis, was segregationist George Wallace [emphasis added]:
Before Roe, Republicans and white evangelicals generally supported abortion rights, much in the way libertarians do now, because to them it meant fewer mothers and children dependent on the government for support. Segregationists, meanwhile, had their own racist reasons. George Wallace, the the longtime Republican governor of Alabama, four-time presidential candidate and outspoken segregationist who is often compared to Donald Trump, backed the legalization of abortion in the late 1960s because he claimed black women were “breeding children as a cash crop” and taking advantage of social welfare programs.
Wallace was famous for saying, “Segregation now. Segregation tomorrow. And segregation forever.” So there’s no doubt about what he believed about black people and abortion. The problem is that Wallace was not a longtime Republican governor of Alabama he was a longtime Democratic governor of Alabama. Oops! Here’s the corrected paragraph:
George Wallace, the longtime governor of Alabama, a Democrat who would later join the far-right American Independent Party, four-time presidential candidate, and outspoken segregationist who is often compared to Donald Trump, backed the legalization of abortion in the late 1960s because he claimed black women were “breeding children as a cash crop” and taking advantage of social welfare programs.
There is a correction at the bottom of the piece as well: “Correction 5/21: An earlier version of this piece misstated that George Wallace was a Republican. We regret the error.” Bassett also tweeted about the correction, though it appears the tweet has now been deleted:
But even her correction is misleading. It’s true that Wallace did run for President as part of the American Independent Party but that was in 1968, not in the 70s. He then ran for President in 1972 and 1976 as a Democrat. How did Bassett miss that?
It's a measure of the spread of a particular narrative of historical whitewashing of the Democratic Party that this specific error keeps happening over & over & over again, even when a man who bragged about getting an award from Wallace is the Democratic POTUS nominee in 2020. https://t.co/8ANilLVSXG — Dan McLaughlin (@baseballcrank) May 21, 2020
This is just like the idea that conservatives in Dallas somehow killed Kennedy, when it was actually a longtime communist who was responsible. It is striking how the mistakes always seem to happen in one direction.
Update: Joe Biden was apparently a fan of fellow Democrat George Wallace as late as 1987.
“Joseph Biden of Delaware, for example, tells Southerners that the lower half of his state is culturally part of Dixie; he reminds them that former Alabama Gov. George Wallace praised him as one of the outstanding young politicians of America.” – Detroit Free Press, May 1, 1987 pic.twitter.com/9QLNE1z56T — Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) July 18, 2019
In case anyone from GQ is reading this, Joe Biden is a Democrat.


hotair--2020-05-21--Biden blasts BDS, progressives: Stop targeting Israel -- and "letting Palestinians off the hook for

Biden blasts BDS, progressives: Stop targeting Israel -- and "letting Palestinians off the hook for their choices"

Hoo boy .
Perhaps Team Biden just assumed that The Squad and its progressive followers would never bother to read Joe Biden ’ s campaign website , but this is as near a declaration of internecine war as we might find within Democrats this cycle .
Progressive pundit Jordan Ulh uncovered this nugget on Biden ’ s support for Israel — and opposition to the Boycott Divest Sanction ( BDS ) movement targeting the US ally : Biden does call for re-engagement with the Palestinian Authority and criticizes Donald Trump for cutting ties to it , so it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s no mistaking his priorities in the US-Israel relationship , though , emphasis mine : • Work with the Israeli and Palestinian leadership , and support peacebuilding efforts in the region .
Biden will urge Israel and the Palestinian Authority to take steps to keep the prospect of a negotiated two-state outcome alive and take no actions to undercut future direct negotiations between the parties .
• Reverse the Trump Administration ’ s destructive cutoff of diplomatic ties with the Palestinian Authority ( PA ) and cancellation of assistance programs that support Israeli-Palestinian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ humanitarian aid for the Palestinian people in the West Bank and Gaza , consistent with the requirements of the Taylor Force Act to withhold certain assistance to the PA unless it is taking measures to end acts of violence against Israeli and U.S. citizens , including terminating payments to individuals engaged in acts of terrorism .
• Urge Arab states to move beyond quiet talks and take bolder steps toward normalization with Israel .
• Firmly reject the BDS movement , which singles out Israel — home to millions of Jews — and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ letting Palestinians off the hook for their choices .
That is a direct slap at Democrats ’ leading next-generation figures , especially Reps. Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar , but also Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as well .
Tlaib and Omar have enthusiastically supported the BDS movement , with Tlaib especially accusing those who oppose BDS as being disloyal to the US .
Omar tried to pass a BDS-supporting resolution in the House last summer , in fact , which Ocasio-Cortez defended as the last peaceful resort for opposing Israel while she opposed a competing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Israel-friendly resolution passed 398-17 , with AOC , Omar , and Tlaib opposing .
Tlaib was hardly gracious about it during the debate : Omar , as well as Democrat Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan , have been openly supportive of the BDS movement and critical of the resolution .
Tlaib tweeted earlier this month that the resolution is “ unconstitutional ” and aims to “ silence ” opposition to Israel ’ s policies .
The movement is a non-violent activist campaign that aims to put economic and political pressure on Israel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ calling for an end to Israeli occupation of the West Bank .
The emergence of a BDS caucus among House Democrats isn ’ t an accident or coincidence , though .
It comes from an increased strain of anti-Israel sentiment among hard-Left progressives , the Bernie Sanders wing of the party .
AOC in particular has claimed to represent those progressives in the party when it comes to uniting behind Biden in the election .
She has already expressed some reservations about Biden ’ s commitment to the progressive agenda ; this won @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with that wing if she ignores this language on Biden ’ s platform .
This will make for some interesting viewing over the next few days , now that it has come to light .
Will Biden stick to his principles , or will he change his position to pander to progressives and avoid a party split ?
I know which way I ’ m betting , and I know which way Jeff Dunetz is betting , too .

Hoo boy. Perhaps Team Biden just assumed that The Squad and its progressive followers would never bother to read Joe Biden’s campaign website, but this is as near a declaration of internecine war as we might find within Democrats this cycle. Progressive pundit Jordan Ulh uncovered this nugget on Biden’s support for Israel — and opposition to the Boycott Divest Sanction (BDS) movement targeting the US ally:
I really don't know what to say about this. Holy shit. pic.twitter.com/wNAaUIqttn — jordan (@JordanUhl) May 20, 2020
Biden does call for re-engagement with the Palestinian Authority and criticizes Donald Trump for cutting ties to it, so it’s not exactly a shunning. There’s no mistaking his priorities in the US-Israel relationship, though, emphasis mine:
Work with the Israeli and Palestinian leadership, and support peacebuilding efforts in the region. Biden will urge Israel and the Palestinian Authority to take steps to keep the prospect of a negotiated two-state outcome alive and take no actions to undercut future direct negotiations between the parties.
Reverse the Trump Administration’s destructive cutoff of diplomatic ties with the Palestinian Authority (PA) and cancellation of assistance programs that support Israeli-Palestinian security cooperation, economic development, and humanitarian aid for the Palestinian people in the West Bank and Gaza, consistent with the requirements of the Taylor Force Act to withhold certain assistance to the PA unless it is taking measures to end acts of violence against Israeli and U.S. citizens, including terminating payments to individuals engaged in acts of terrorism.
Urge Arab states to move beyond quiet talks and take bolder steps toward normalization with Israel.
Firmly reject the BDS movement, which singles out Israel — home to millions of Jews — and too often veers into anti-Semitism, while letting Palestinians off the hook for their choices.
That is a direct slap at Democrats’ leading next-generation figures, especially Reps. Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar, but also Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as well. Tlaib and Omar have enthusiastically supported the BDS movement, with Tlaib especially accusing those who oppose BDS as being disloyal to the US. Omar tried to pass a BDS-supporting resolution in the House last summer, in fact, which Ocasio-Cortez defended as the last peaceful resort for opposing Israel while she opposed a competing resolution criticizing BDS and supporting Israel:
Let me translate this: AOC just said that a non-binding resolution stating the House's opposition to the anti-semitic BDS movement will "force" people into terrorism. Among other things a stunning indictment of the anti-Israel movement — a Kinsleyan gaffe. https://t.co/Ypt2iik7bs — Noah Pollak (@NoahPollak) July 24, 2019
The Israel-friendly resolution passed 398-17, with AOC, Omar, and Tlaib opposing. Tlaib was hardly gracious about it during the debate:
Omar, as well as Democrat Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, have been openly supportive of the BDS movement and critical of the resolution. Tlaib tweeted earlier this month that the resolution is “unconstitutional” and aims to “silence” opposition to Israel’s policies. The movement is a non-violent activist campaign that aims to put economic and political pressure on Israel over its actions toward Palestinians, including calling for an end to Israeli occupation of the West Bank.
The emergence of a BDS caucus among House Democrats isn’t an accident or coincidence, though. It comes from an increased strain of anti-Israel sentiment among hard-Left progressives, the Bernie Sanders wing of the party. AOC in particular has claimed to represent those progressives in the party when it comes to uniting behind Biden in the election. She has already expressed some reservations about Biden’s commitment to the progressive agenda; this won’t help her retain her credibility with that wing if she ignores this language on Biden’s platform.
This will make for some interesting viewing over the next few days, now that it has come to light. Will Biden stick to his principles, or will he change his position to pander to progressives and avoid a party split? I know which way I’m betting, and I know which way Jeff Dunetz is betting, too.


hotair--2020-05-21--Antibody testing in Sweden finds just 7.3% infected in Stockholm

I should clarify the headline .
Antibody testing found 7.3 percent infected in Stockholm *as of mid-April .
* We ’ re now six weeks removed from that , which explains why the country ’ s chief epidemiologist is estimating that more like 20 percent of the city ’ s population has now been exposed .
Is that estimate sound , though ?
The disease spreads exponentially so six weeks really could be enough to have it more than double across the population .
But exponential growth assumes people are carrying on business as usual , taking no precautions to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what the Swedes are doing .
They ’ re practicing voluntary social distancing , limiting large gatherings , and mandating distance-learning for older students .
Elementary schools and businesses are open , but naturally you ’ re not required to visit bars and restaurants and risk infection .
I don ’ t entirely follow the reasoning here : Just 7.3 % of Stockholm ’ s inhabitants had developed Covid-19 antibodies by the end of April , according to a study , raising concerns that the country ’ s light-touch approach to the coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sweden ’ s state epidemiologist , Anders Tegnell , said the Stockholm antibodies figure was “ a bit lower than we ’ d thought ” , but added that it reflected the situation some weeks ago and he believed that by now “ a little more than 20 % ” of the capital ’ s population had probably contracted the virus .
However , the public health agency had previously said it expected about 25 % to have been infected by 1 May and Tom Britton , a maths professor who helped develop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the study was surprising .
“ It means either the calculations made by the agency and myself are quite wrong , which is possible , but if that ’ s the case it ’ s surprising they are so wrong , ” he told the newspaper Dagens Nyheter .
“ Or more people have been infected than developed antibodies.
” Tegnell clarified that the antibody results reflect prevalence in Stockholm as of mid-April , not the end of April , since it takes a couple of weeks to produce antibodies after you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mid-April wouldn ’ t have been positive yet when the antibody tests were conducted in late April , in other words .
So if I have the timeline correct : 1 .
Originally they projected 25 percent to have been infected by the end of April 2 .
Antibody tests as of mid-April showed only 7.3 percent infected 3 .
Tegnell estimates that 20+ percent are infected now , three weeks into May That seems like a bad miss in modeling , as Britton acknowledges .
But it ’ s in line with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has consistently found lower-than-expected prevalence in hard-hit countries .
Recall that recent antibody testing in Spain showed infections there were far fewer than modelers had projected early on in the epidemic , when the country was overwhelmed with COVID cases .
*If* Tegnell ’ s right that prevalence has jumped from 7.3 percent to 20+ percent in six weeks , though , then the logic of exponential growth suggests that the country ( or at least Stockholm ) is still on track towards herd immunity .
But that ’ s not how other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ results : Why is it a long way off if Tegnell ’ s model of exponential growth is correct , though ?
Is Olsen suggesting that maybe prevalence in Stockholm *hasn ’ t* grown very much beyond 7.3 percent in mid-April ?
I ask because the Sweden news reminded me of how flat New York City ’ s rate of prevalence was across three rounds of antibody testing in April and May , from 21.2 percent in round one to 24.7 percent in round two to 19.9 percent in round three .
Granted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between NYC and Stockholm : New York is locked down and Stockholm isn ’ t , so we ’ d expect prevalence to increase more quickly in Stockholm lately .
But again , the Swedes are social-distancing voluntarily to limit the spread .
So how do we square Tegnell ’ s and Olsen ’ s assessments ?
Is Tegnell overestimating how many people in Stockholm have been infected by now , in which case herd immunity might still be far away , or is Olsen underestimating it , in which case it might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lot in plotting a viable strategy , as Sweden had the highest per-capita death toll in all of Europe over the past week .
If that ’ s as bad as things get before herd immunity starts to set it , maybe it ’ s a price worth paying .
If instead Sweden has many months of that to come , hoo boy .
There ’ s progress on other fronts lately , though , per Reuters : “ The number of COVID-19 patients in intensive care in Sweden has fallen by a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and health authorities say the outbreak is slowing.
” Is that an early sign of herd immunity or a byproduct of increased social distancing — or , maybe , just weather effects from spring turning towards summer ?
One last thing I don ’ t understand about Sweden .
Why aren ’ t they testing more ?
Reuters notes that tests are reserved mainly for hospitalized patients and health-care workers , and that capacity is currently running at less than a third of the 100,000 per week the government ’ s aiming at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tests per capita , at a rate less than half of the U.S .
Even if you ’ re taking a laissez faire approach to managing the epidemic , as the Swedish government is , logically you should want to be able to detect small outbreaks as they get going so that you can intervene to protect vulnerable people ( the elderly and infirm ) who are at risk from them .
But if the answer to that is “ Why test if you ’ re striving for herd immunity ?
” , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Why should Sweden have a goal of 100,000 tests per week ?
Just let the COVID chips fall as they may .
Speaking of testing in the U.S. , here ’ s an ominous report from The Atlantic that ’ s worth flagging .
The good news is that testing here has increased dramatically over the past month .
The bad news is that the powers that be may be conflating two very different types of tests : The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is conflating the results of two different @ @ @ @ @ @ @ important metrics and providing the country with an inaccurate picture of the state of the pandemic .
We ’ ve learned that the CDC is making , at best , a debilitating mistake : combining test results that diagnose current coronavirus infections with test results that measure whether someone has ever had the virus .
The upshot is that the government ’ s disease-fighting agency is overstating the country ’ s ability to test people who are sick with COVID-19 .
The agency confirmed to The Atlantic on Wednesday that it is mixing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , even though the two tests reveal different information and are used for different reasons .
Several states—including Pennsylvania , the site of one of the country ’ s largest outbreaks , as well as Texas , Georgia , and Vermont—are blending the data in the same way… “ You ’ ve got to be kidding me , ” Ashish Jha , the K. T. Li Professor of Global Health at Harvard and the director of the Harvard Global Health Institute , told us when we described what the CDC was doing .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ mistake ?
This is a mess.
” In other words , the CDC ’ s numbers reflect both PCR tests ( the nose/throat swab that confirms if you ’ re infected now ) and antibody tests ( blood tests that confirm if you ’ ve been infected previously and recovered ) .
There ’ s no way to tell how many people are actively infected when you blend the numbers that way , and thus no way to tell whether the outbreak is currently growing or shrinking .
It ’ s suspicious that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since folding the number of antibody tests into the number of PCR tests smells like a quick and easy way for a state to artificially boost its testing numbers in response to criticism that it ’ s not testing enough .
This could also help explain why the positivity rate in the U.S. has dropped so dramatically lately .
We ( or at least some states ) may not be testing many more people for active infections .
We may just be inflating the total number of daily tests with an inapposite form @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exactly did the CDC become such a garbage agency ?

I should clarify the headline. Antibody testing found 7.3 percent infected in Stockholm *as of mid-April.* We’re now six weeks removed from that, which explains why the country’s chief epidemiologist is estimating that more like 20 percent of the city’s population has now been exposed.
Is that estimate sound, though?
The disease spreads exponentially so six weeks really could be enough to have it more than double across the population. But exponential growth assumes people are carrying on business as usual, taking no precautions to limit infection. That’s not what the Swedes are doing. They’re practicing voluntary social distancing, limiting large gatherings, and mandating distance-learning for older students. Elementary schools and businesses are open, but naturally you’re not required to visit bars and restaurants and risk infection.
I don’t entirely follow the reasoning here:
Just 7.3% of Stockholm’s inhabitants had developed Covid-19 antibodies by the end of April, according to a study, raising concerns that the country’s light-touch approach to the coronavirus may not be building up broad immunity… Sweden’s state epidemiologist, Anders Tegnell, said the Stockholm antibodies figure was “a bit lower than we’d thought”, but added that it reflected the situation some weeks ago and he believed that by now “a little more than 20%” of the capital’s population had probably contracted the virus. However, the public health agency had previously said it expected about 25% to have been infected by 1 May and Tom Britton, a maths professor who helped develop its forecasting model, said the figure from the study was surprising. “It means either the calculations made by the agency and myself are quite wrong, which is possible, but if that’s the case it’s surprising they are so wrong,” he told the newspaper Dagens Nyheter. “Or more people have been infected than developed antibodies.”
Tegnell clarified that the antibody results reflect prevalence in Stockholm as of mid-April, not the end of April, since it takes a couple of weeks to produce antibodies after you’re infected. Anyone infected after mid-April wouldn’t have been positive yet when the antibody tests were conducted in late April, in other words. So if I have the timeline correct:
1. Originally they projected 25 percent to have been infected by the end of April
2. Antibody tests as of mid-April showed only 7.3 percent infected
3. Tegnell estimates that 20+ percent are infected now, three weeks into May
That seems like a bad miss in modeling, as Britton acknowledges. But it’s in line with antibody testing all over Europe, which has consistently found lower-than-expected prevalence in hard-hit countries. Recall that recent antibody testing in Spain showed infections there were far fewer than modelers had projected early on in the epidemic, when the country was overwhelmed with COVID cases.
*If* Tegnell’s right that prevalence has jumped from 7.3 percent to 20+ percent in six weeks, though, then the logic of exponential growth suggests that the country (or at least Stockholm) is still on track towards herd immunity. But that’s not how other Swedish epidemiologists are interpreting the new antibody results:
Bjorn Olsen, Professor of Infectious Medicine at Uppsala University, is among dozen academics who have criticised Sweden’s pandemic response and labelled herd immunity a “dangerous and unrealistic” approach to dealing with COVID-19. “I think herd immunity is a long way off, if we ever reach it,” he told Reuters after the release of the antibody findings.
Why is it a long way off if Tegnell’s model of exponential growth is correct, though? Is Olsen suggesting that maybe prevalence in Stockholm *hasn’t* grown very much beyond 7.3 percent in mid-April? I ask because the Sweden news reminded me of how flat New York City’s rate of prevalence was across three rounds of antibody testing in April and May, from 21.2 percent in round one to 24.7 percent in round two to 19.9 percent in round three. Granted, there’s a meaningful difference between NYC and Stockholm: New York is locked down and Stockholm isn’t, so we’d expect prevalence to increase more quickly in Stockholm lately. But again, the Swedes are social-distancing voluntarily to limit the spread.
So how do we square Tegnell’s and Olsen’s assessments? Is Tegnell overestimating how many people in Stockholm have been infected by now, in which case herd immunity might still be far away, or is Olsen underestimating it, in which case it might not be? The answer matters a lot in plotting a viable strategy, as Sweden had the highest per-capita death toll in all of Europe over the past week. If that’s as bad as things get before herd immunity starts to set it, maybe it’s a price worth paying. If instead Sweden has many months of that to come, hoo boy. There’s progress on other fronts lately, though, per Reuters: “The number of COVID-19 patients in intensive care in Sweden has fallen by a third from the peak in late April and health authorities say the outbreak is slowing.” Is that an early sign of herd immunity or a byproduct of increased social distancing — or, maybe, just weather effects from spring turning towards summer?
One last thing I don’t understand about Sweden. Why aren’t they testing more? Reuters notes that tests are reserved mainly for hospitalized patients and health-care workers, and that capacity is currently running at less than a third of the 100,000 per week the government’s aiming at. Sweden is currently 58th worldwide in tests per capita, at a rate less than half of the U.S. Even if you’re taking a laissez faire approach to managing the epidemic, as the Swedish government is, logically you should want to be able to detect small outbreaks as they get going so that you can intervene to protect vulnerable people (the elderly and infirm) who are at risk from them. But if the answer to that is “Why test if you’re striving for herd immunity?”, then why bother testing anyone at all? Why should Sweden have a goal of 100,000 tests per week? Just let the COVID chips fall as they may.
Speaking of testing in the U.S., here’s an ominous report from The Atlantic that’s worth flagging. The good news is that testing here has increased dramatically over the past month. The bad news is that the powers that be may be conflating two very different types of tests:
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is conflating the results of two different types of coronavirus tests, distorting several important metrics and providing the country with an inaccurate picture of the state of the pandemic. We’ve learned that the CDC is making, at best, a debilitating mistake: combining test results that diagnose current coronavirus infections with test results that measure whether someone has ever had the virus. The upshot is that the government’s disease-fighting agency is overstating the country’s ability to test people who are sick with COVID-19. The agency confirmed to The Atlantic on Wednesday that it is mixing the results of viral and antibody tests, even though the two tests reveal different information and are used for different reasons. Several states—including Pennsylvania, the site of one of the country’s largest outbreaks, as well as Texas, Georgia, and Vermont—are blending the data in the same way… “You’ve got to be kidding me,” Ashish Jha, the K. T. Li Professor of Global Health at Harvard and the director of the Harvard Global Health Institute, told us when we described what the CDC was doing. “How could the CDC make that mistake? This is a mess.”
In other words, the CDC’s numbers reflect both PCR tests (the nose/throat swab that confirms if you’re infected now) and antibody tests (blood tests that confirm if you’ve been infected previously and recovered). There’s no way to tell how many people are actively infected when you blend the numbers that way, and thus no way to tell whether the outbreak is currently growing or shrinking. It’s suspicious that some states are doing it as well since folding the number of antibody tests into the number of PCR tests smells like a quick and easy way for a state to artificially boost its testing numbers in response to criticism that it’s not testing enough. This could also help explain why the positivity rate in the U.S. has dropped so dramatically lately. We (or at least some states) may not be testing many more people for active infections. We may just be inflating the total number of daily tests with an inapposite form of testing.
Exit question: When exactly did the CDC become such a garbage agency?


hotair--2020-05-21--Uh-oh! Peloton is problematic again and this time the problem is racism

Peloton is problematic again .
But this time the problem isn ’ t the company ’ s creepy ads , it ’ s the racial overtones of their instructors .
Tuesday , writer David Kaufman wrote a piece for NBC in which he said he enjoyed having the bike during the lockdown but had become concerned about some of the things the instructors were saying to the audience of riders .
The subhead of the article really captures the tone of his piece : “ The company wants to be # woke .
But if I hear one more all-white @ @ @ @ @ @ @ black vernacular to encourage riders , I ’ ll scream.
” He ’ ll scream , people .
This is serious .
The “ gender problem ” is a reference to Peloton ’ s Christmas ad which was released last December .
It showed a perfectly fit wife receiving one of the company ’ s bikes for Christmas .
But something about the ad seemed off .
The wife seemed afraid and eager to get her husband ’ s approval .
The creep factor was so strong that , as Allahpundit put it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a commercial length version of a Lifetime movie .
In fact , Ryan Reynolds ’ gin company made a follow-up commercial with the same actress which played like the final scene of the aforementioned Lifetime movie .
She had left the terrible relationship with her controlling husband ( or perhaps shot him during a third act home invasion , since that ’ s what usually happens in Lifetime movies ) and now , having escaped the patriarchy , she was trying to recover her equilibrium with her girlfriends .
In any case , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gender problems to racial problems .
He argues that the price of the bike ( over $ 2k plus monthly subscription fees ) means most of the people riding these bikes are upper-middle-class white people .
He writes , “ this upper middle class ‘ whiteness ’ informs everything I ’ ve experienced about Peloton ’ s almost cultish community.
” So what has he experienced ?
Musical segregation , for starters : Black instructors offer rides filled with typically “ Black ” music ( rap , Caribbean or hip-hop ) while white @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” music ( rock , pop and heavy metal ) — though the thought that white people don ’ t work out to rap or hip-hop music and Black people don ’ t use rock or pop music to fuel their sessions in 2020 is laughable… And , when Black music does appear , outside of hip-hop or rap used in regular playlists by instructors , it ’ s often part of a more specialized class category , such as the “ Groove Ride.
” The “ Groove Ride ” does sound deeply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There ’ s also cultural appropriation going on : I do get that people are dying from a pandemic and that ’ s a serious thing .
I ’ m not sure what that has to do with instructors saying “ go gurl !
” in a spin classes .
Are the deaths from COVID-19 any less tragic if they don ’ t say “ go gurl ” ?
But Kaufman isn ’ t done .
Because he also has a problem with Peloton ’ s black instructors [ emphasis added ] : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in which African American instructors — particularly African American male instructors — engage their mostly white audiences with a type of contrived “ brother from another mother ” banter that almost feels as if they ’ re trying to make those riders “ Black by association.
” It ’ s clearly playing into a certain kind of white fantasy , like when suburban white kids think they ’ re ‘ hood because they can quote Jay-Z or fleece-wearing tech bros imagine themselves players because they worship Kobe and can afford front-row Lakers seats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coaches ’ banter , but real brothers would destroy them for fronting — which is why I suspect they ’ d be less inclined to perform this way if more Peloton riders were actually Black .
I find this paragraph uncomfortable to read because of how unintentionally revealing it is about the author .
Who is Kaufman mad at here ?
His complaint is directed at black instructors who he says are “ fronting ” by being too chummy with their white audience .
Is that really a bad thing ?
Something we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concern is that this friendliness with paying customers will play into a white fantasy that involves appropriating black culture like…Kobe Bryant and the NBA ?
I think there are a lot of white NBA fans out there who didn ’ t know this was a problem .
Also , why use Kobe as an example when Kobe just died ( and had been retired for several years before that ) ?
Wasn ’ t Kaufman complaining about tone-deafness a minute ago ?
It ’ s like Kaufman is working out some old personal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a few decades .
He didn ’ t get front row seats to the 2002 playoffs or something .
Damn you , Jack Nicholson !
All of this feels like the definition of first world problems .
Maybe write an email to the company if you don ’ t like the music selection but the rest of it feels like woke one-upmanship .
On the left , you get socially rewarded for finding problems with everything these days , even your over-priced stationary bike .

Peloton is problematic again. But this time the problem isn’t the company’s creepy ads, it’s the racial overtones of their instructors.
Tuesday, writer David Kaufman wrote a piece for NBC in which he said he enjoyed having the bike during the lockdown but had become concerned about some of the things the instructors were saying to the audience of riders. The subhead of the article really captures the tone of his piece: “The company wants to be #woke. But if I hear one more all-white 1980s playlist while a white coach uses black vernacular to encourage riders, I’ll scream.”
He’ll scream, people. This is serious.
The more I use my Peloton bicycle, the more I don’t feel so good about the company behind it. Because just as their now-infamous holiday-season ad last year convinced many people that the company had an unacknowledged gender problem, their video and music programming suggests to me — as an African American — that they also have an unrecognized race problem.
The “gender problem” is a reference to Peloton’s Christmas ad which was released last December. It showed a perfectly fit wife receiving one of the company’s bikes for Christmas. But something about the ad seemed off. The wife seemed afraid and eager to get her husband’s approval. The creep factor was so strong that, as Allahpundit put it at the time, it felt like a commercial length version of a Lifetime movie. In fact, Ryan Reynolds’ gin company made a follow-up commercial with the same actress which played like the final scene of the aforementioned Lifetime movie. She had left the terrible relationship with her controlling husband (or perhaps shot him during a third act home invasion, since that’s what usually happens in Lifetime movies) and now, having escaped the patriarchy, she was trying to recover her equilibrium with her girlfriends.
In any case, Kaufman says we’ve gone from gender problems to racial problems. He argues that the price of the bike (over $2k plus monthly subscription fees) means most of the people riding these bikes are upper-middle-class white people. He writes, “this upper middle class ‘whiteness’ informs everything I’ve experienced about Peloton’s almost cultish community.” So what has he experienced? Musical segregation, for starters:
Black instructors offer rides filled with typically “Black” music (rap, Caribbean or hip-hop) while white instructors offer ones with mostly “white” music (rock, pop and heavy metal) — though the thought that white people don’t work out to rap or hip-hop music and Black people don’t use rock or pop music to fuel their sessions in 2020 is laughable… And, when Black music does appear, outside of hip-hop or rap used in regular playlists by instructors, it’s often part of a more specialized class category, such as the “Groove Ride.”
The “Groove Ride” does sound deeply problematic, but it gets worse. There’s also cultural appropriation going on:
Also curious — and curiously concerning — are the ways in which white Peloton instructors take on the affect of typical African American cultural tropes, using phrases like “go gurl,”or “yassss b—-es” to whip their riders into a frenzy. Yes, I realize that Black-inflected drag culture is now mainstream thanks to “Pose” and “RuPaul’s Drag Race” and that digital culture can often transcend traditional notions of race, but absent actual Black people, this type of cultural appropriation and tone-deafness feels woefully out of touch at a time when class and race-based inequalities are literally killing thousands.
I do get that people are dying from a pandemic and that’s a serious thing. I’m not sure what that has to do with instructors saying “go gurl!” in a spin classes. Are the deaths from COVID-19 any less tragic if they don’t say “go gurl”? But Kaufman isn’t done. Because he also has a problem with Peloton’s black instructors [emphasis added]:
What also concerns me is the way in which African American instructors — particularly African American male instructors — engage their mostly white audiences with a type of contrived “brother from another mother” banter that almost feels as if they’re trying to make those riders “Black by association.” It’s clearly playing into a certain kind of white fantasy, like when suburban white kids think they’re ‘hood because they can quote Jay-Z or fleece-wearing tech bros imagine themselves players because they worship Kobe and can afford front-row Lakers seats. White folks might fall for those coaches’ banter, but real brothers would destroy them for fronting — which is why I suspect they’d be less inclined to perform this way if more Peloton riders were actually Black.
I find this paragraph uncomfortable to read because of how unintentionally revealing it is about the author. Who is Kaufman mad at here? His complaint is directed at black instructors who he says are “fronting” by being too chummy with their white audience. Is that really a bad thing? Something we need to discourage?
But his real concern is that this friendliness with paying customers will play into a white fantasy that involves appropriating black culture like…Kobe Bryant and the NBA? I think there are a lot of white NBA fans out there who didn’t know this was a problem. Also, why use Kobe as an example when Kobe just died (and had been retired for several years before that)? Wasn’t Kaufman complaining about tone-deafness a minute ago? It’s like Kaufman is working out some old personal grievance he has had locked away for a few decades. He didn’t get front row seats to the 2002 playoffs or something. Damn you, Jack Nicholson!
All of this feels like the definition of first world problems. Maybe write an email to the company if you don’t like the music selection but the rest of it feels like woke one-upmanship. On the left, you get socially rewarded for finding problems with everything these days, even your over-priced stationary bike.