hotair--2020-12-09--Okay, we probably need to talk about that Israeli general and the "galactic federation"

I can ’ t tell you how many people pinged me on social media over the past 24 hours regarding a story about supposed extraterrestrial revelations from an Israeli general .
( Why ?
Because , for better or worse , I ’ m the “ UFO guy ” around here . )
The story started with an article that appeared in Yediot Aharonot ( “ Seven Days ” ) , one of Israel ’ s larger newspapers , roughly a week ago .
It dealt with a new book that just came out from author Hagar Yani .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Horizon – conversations with Professor Haim Eshed.
” It features many of the thoughts and observations of Haim Eshed , a retired Israeli general who has held important government offices and is highly decorated .
Much of that information was left in the dust , however , when the newspaper featured a number of alleged quotes from Eshed , making spectacular claims about the presence of extraterrestrials engaging with the governments of the United States and Isreal as part of a “ galactic federation.
” The quotes go even further , making @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the aliens .
Breitbart has some of the high ( or low ) points from the interview .
Eshed claimed U.S. President Donald Trump was on the verge of revealing this secret before the “ Galactic Federation ” asked him to remain silent , as the aliens are worried that humanity is not ready to learn about their existence yet… Eshed has a bit more stature than most of the people who say things like , “ the UFOs have asked not to publish that they are here , humanity is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yediot Aharonot .
Eshed elaborated that President Trump was “ on the verge of revealing ” America and Israel ’ s years of interactions with “ the aliens in the Galactic Federation , ” but the aliens thought it would be better to “ let people calm down first ” because “ they don ’ t want to start mass hysteria.
” The article goes on to claim that Eshed told them that there is a “ signed contract ” or “ agreement ” between the aliens and the United States government .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ their exploration and scientific investigations .
There ’ s also a secret base “ in the depths of Mars ” where both aliens and American astronauts work together .
Oh , and we have a joint secret base with the aliens on the moon , too .
After getting hit with comments and questions about this report repeatedly , I did a bit more digging to see what ’ s really going on .
There are a couple of different camps weighing in and we should look at them all .
One friend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the right contacts inside the Israeli governments and other organizations over there and he pointed out that Eshed is being panned by some of his colleagues behind the scenes .
He was described using a Hebrew phrase , HaSheten Alah Lo Larosh , that roughly translates as “ the urine goes to his head.
” In other words , his own perception of his power and influence may have affected his thinking or that at his advanced age , he may not be in the best control of his faculties .
But if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we would need to completely ignore the other side of the argument .
The author of the aforementioned book , Hagar Yani , has taken to her Facebook page twice ( here and here ) to blast the newspaper over this article .
She seems to come very close to claiming that the reporter who published the article lied about Eshed ’ s quotes , or at least distorted and sensationalized them to a great degree .
This was done , she claims , just to sell more newspapers “ which will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had to rely on an English translation from a friend , but here ’ s part of her comments .
“ Love Raanan Shaked ’ s humorous columns and his witty writing but this time I just take off my hat .
How did he manage to turn Professor Haim Eshed , former head of the Israeli space program and a respectable , solid , restrained and humble man into some crazy alien prophet with delusional fire in his eyes ?
This creative journalistic wonder takes place in a 7-day article in which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Over the Horizon , ” his new book I edited and I ’ m even a signatory to .
None , beyond me .
After years of literary toil Satan assures you that people will finally be interested in you for the small price of selling your soul/self-respect .
What you forget to explain is that you will sell mostly the newspaper sheets and tomorrow they will be wrapped in fish and the greasy stains will remain solely on your reputation .
She goes on in a later post to proclaim that she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aliens and won ’ t be doing any interviews on the subject .
Make of that what you will .
The paper hasn ’ t issued a retraction and appears to be standing by the story .
So where does that leave us ?
We appear to have three possibilities to consider here and you can take your pick as to which is the most likely .
The first is that a distinguished and highly respected Israeli general has sadly reached the stage of life where he ’ s no longer playing with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ knowing the man personally , I suppose we can ’ t rule that out , but many of his colleagues seem to believe that ’ s not the case .
The second is that he never said any of the most extraordinary things from the interview and a newspaper editor is just trying to fluff up their web hits and sell more copies of their publication .
Again , can we ever eliminate that possibility entirely in the modern era ?
But Seven Days has a pretty good reputation and wide distribution .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for them .
And finally , there ’ s the third possibility .
That Eshed is still in full control of his faculties and he did say all of those things because he knows ( or at least believes ) that they are true .
Let ’ s just ponder that one for a moment .
As most of our regular readers know by now , you ’ d be hard-pressed to find anyone around here who loves a good extraterrestrial hypothesis as much as me .
But even with that disclaimer provided @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should have some questions .
If Eshed had simply said that he believes there are unidentified craft crossing our skies and they may not be of Earthly origin ( and he ’ s directly quoted in the book ’ s blurb saying precisely that ) , I ’ m fine with that .
I say the same thing myself on a regular basis .
If he went even further and claimed that an extraterrestrial species is present on our planet and may be interacting with human beings to some degree , well… as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we don ’ t have the evidence to say that yet .
We might have that evidence in the future , but we ’ re just not there yet .
( Or maybe everyone is wrong about this and it ’ s all just weather phenomena , drones , and seagulls . )
But when you get to the point where you ’ re saying that Donald Trump is taking regular meetings with aliens from the galactic federation and getting policy advice from them before scheduling our next set of astronauts for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Mars , I ’ m afraid you ’ re going to be getting some side-eye even from me .
Personally , at least for the time being , I ’ m going with a combination of possibilities one and two .
Eshed may have had an inopportune moment of less than optimal lucidity and embellished some of his theories a bit and the reporter covering the story blew it up from there because they knew it would go viral instantly .
Just in case I ’ m wrong , however , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three , I ’ d like to assure the members of the High Council of the Galactic Federation that I meant no offense or disrespect by any of this and I would like to apply for a press pass and an invitation to your next meeting to cover it .
Thanks in advance .
EDIT : The original article mentioned a source who did not with to be named because I hadn ’ t obtained permission to use their name .
I was later given permission and edited the article to include his @ @

I can’t tell you how many people pinged me on social media over the past 24 hours regarding a story about supposed extraterrestrial revelations from an Israeli general. (Why? Because, for better or worse, I’m the “UFO guy” around here.) The story started with an article that appeared in Yediot Aharonot (“Seven Days”), one of Israel’s larger newspapers, roughly a week ago. It dealt with a new book that just came out from author Hagar Yani. The book is called “The Universe Beyond the Horizon – conversations with Professor Haim Eshed.” It features many of the thoughts and observations of Haim Eshed, a retired Israeli general who has held important government offices and is highly decorated.
Much of that information was left in the dust, however, when the newspaper featured a number of alleged quotes from Eshed, making spectacular claims about the presence of extraterrestrials engaging with the governments of the United States and Isreal as part of a “galactic federation.” The quotes go even further, making claims about President Trump’s interactions with the aliens. Breitbart has some of the high (or low) points from the interview.
Eshed claimed U.S. President Donald Trump was on the verge of revealing this secret before the “Galactic Federation” asked him to remain silent, as the aliens are worried that humanity is not ready to learn about their existence yet… Eshed has a bit more stature than most of the people who say things like, “the UFOs have asked not to publish that they are here, humanity is not ready yet,” as he told Yediot Aharonot. Eshed elaborated that President Trump was “on the verge of revealing” America and Israel’s years of interactions with “the aliens in the Galactic Federation,” but the aliens thought it would be better to “let people calm down first” because “they don’t want to start mass hysteria.”
The article goes on to claim that Eshed told them that there is a “signed contract” or “agreement” between the aliens and the United States government. We’re supposedly helping them with their exploration and scientific investigations. There’s also a secret base “in the depths of Mars” where both aliens and American astronauts work together. Oh, and we have a joint secret base with the aliens on the moon, too.
After getting hit with comments and questions about this report repeatedly, I did a bit more digging to see what’s really going on. There are a couple of different camps weighing in and we should look at them all.
One friend, Jeff Dunetz, has plenty of the right contacts inside the Israeli governments and other organizations over there and he pointed out that Eshed is being panned by some of his colleagues behind the scenes. He was described using a Hebrew phrase, HaSheten Alah Lo Larosh, that roughly translates as “the urine goes to his head.” In other words, his own perception of his power and influence may have affected his thinking or that at his advanced age, he may not be in the best control of his faculties.
But if we’re to accept that assumption, we would need to completely ignore the other side of the argument. The author of the aforementioned book, Hagar Yani, has taken to her Facebook page twice (here and here) to blast the newspaper over this article. She seems to come very close to claiming that the reporter who published the article lied about Eshed’s quotes, or at least distorted and sensationalized them to a great degree. This was done, she claims, just to sell more newspapers “which will be wrapped around fish tomorrow.” I had to rely on an English translation from a friend, but here’s part of her comments.
“Love Raanan Shaked’s humorous columns and his witty writing but this time I just take off my hat. How did he manage to turn Professor Haim Eshed, former head of the Israeli space program and a respectable, solid, restrained and humble man into some crazy alien prophet with delusional fire in his eyes? This creative journalistic wonder takes place in a 7-day article in which the professor talks about “The Universe Over the Horizon,” his new book I edited and I’m even a signatory to. None, beyond me. After years of literary toil Satan assures you that people will finally be interested in you for the small price of selling your soul/self-respect. What you forget to explain is that you will sell mostly the newspaper sheets and tomorrow they will be wrapped in fish and the greasy stains will remain solely on your reputation.
She goes on in a later post to proclaim that she’s sick of being asked about aliens and won’t be doing any interviews on the subject. Make of that what you will. The paper hasn’t issued a retraction and appears to be standing by the story.
So where does that leave us? We appear to have three possibilities to consider here and you can take your pick as to which is the most likely. The first is that a distinguished and highly respected Israeli general has sadly reached the stage of life where he’s no longer playing with a full deck of cards. Not knowing the man personally, I suppose we can’t rule that out, but many of his colleagues seem to believe that’s not the case.
The second is that he never said any of the most extraordinary things from the interview and a newspaper editor is just trying to fluff up their web hits and sell more copies of their publication. Again, can we ever eliminate that possibility entirely in the modern era? But Seven Days has a pretty good reputation and wide distribution. It would be an incredible editorial lapse for them.
And finally, there’s the third possibility. That Eshed is still in full control of his faculties and he did say all of those things because he knows (or at least believes) that they are true. Let’s just ponder that one for a moment.
As most of our regular readers know by now, you’d be hard-pressed to find anyone around here who loves a good extraterrestrial hypothesis as much as me. But even with that disclaimer provided, let’s just say we should have some questions. If Eshed had simply said that he believes there are unidentified craft crossing our skies and they may not be of Earthly origin (and he’s directly quoted in the book’s blurb saying precisely that), I’m fine with that. I say the same thing myself on a regular basis.
If he went even further and claimed that an extraterrestrial species is present on our planet and may be interacting with human beings to some degree, well… as far as I’m concerned, we don’t have the evidence to say that yet. We might have that evidence in the future, but we’re just not there yet. (Or maybe everyone is wrong about this and it’s all just weather phenomena, drones, and seagulls.)
But when you get to the point where you’re saying that Donald Trump is taking regular meetings with aliens from the galactic federation and getting policy advice from them before scheduling our next set of astronauts for a flying saucer trip to our secret base on Mars, I’m afraid you’re going to be getting some side-eye even from me. Personally, at least for the time being, I’m going with a combination of possibilities one and two. Eshed may have had an inopportune moment of less than optimal lucidity and embellished some of his theories a bit and the reporter covering the story blew it up from there because they knew it would go viral instantly.
Just in case I’m wrong, however, and it turns out to be option number three, I’d like to assure the members of the High Council of the Galactic Federation that I meant no offense or disrespect by any of this and I would like to apply for a press pass and an invitation to your next meeting to cover it. Thanks in advance.
EDIT: The original article mentioned a source who did not with to be named because I hadn’t obtained permission to use their name. I was later given permission and edited the article to include his name.


hotair--2020-12-09--Wow: A Newsmax show won the "key demo" over a Fox program on Monday night

We got feedback this morning regarding our Headline item on this story stressing that this was one program during one hour on one day .
Which is true , and fair enough .
But one could dismiss Monday night ’ s win by the 4-7 Redskins — sorry , the Washington Football Team — over the undefeated Steelers the same way .
It was one game on one day .
It proves nothing .
Which , again , is true .
It “ proves ” nothing .
It suggests , though , that maybe Washington is a little stronger and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ records might lead you to believe .
Newsmax TV has notched a ratings win over Fox News Channel for the very first time .
The win , fueled by conservative viewers who are disappointed by the election results , happened Monday evening .
In the key 25- to 54-year-old demographic prized by advertisers , “ Greg Kelly Reports ” on Newsmax out-rated “ The Story with Martha MacCallum ” on Fox .
The margin was narrow — Kelly averaged 229,000 viewers in the demo and MacCallum averaged 203,000 — but it is still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ We ’ re here to stay , ” Newsmax CEO Christopher Ruddy said Tuesday evening .
“ The ratings are showing that.
” In a sense , Kelly versus MacCallum is an unfair fight .
Kelly is Newsmax ’ s best-known polemicist , the guy who ’ s benefited the most from the surge in righty interest in the network .
MacCallum is the last “ news ” hour of Fox ’ s day before the network ’ s own mega-rated team of polemicists takes to the air .
If you ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 7 p.m. hour and you just can ’ t wait until Tucker comes on , it ’ s no contest : Kelly will deliver more than MacCallum .
Which makes me wonder if Fox isn ’ t going to have to switch to an alternate-reality polemicist of its own at 7 to claw back some of those Kelly viewers .
It ’ s not Fox ’ s A-team of commentators — Carlson , Hannity , Ingraham — who are under threat from Newsmax , in other words .
It ’ s the news @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Brian Stelter , who wrote the piece quoted above , notes that Howie Carr ’ s daytime show finished not terribly far behind his competition at Fox , Neil Cavuto , in the 4 p.m. hour on Monday , a few hours before Kelly topped MacCallum .
Cavuto scored 148,000 viewers in the 25-54 group while Carr scored 101,000 .
Once again , a “ news vs. polemics ” match-up served Newsmax well .
When “ The Five , ” a more polemical show , came on at 5 p.m. , Fox won @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scored 303,000 in the demo versus 120,000 for the Newsmax show airing against it .
People don ’ t watch these networks for news , they watch them for rants , assurance that their political enemies are conniving scum .
As awareness of Newsmax grows on the right ( with Trump ’ s help ) , it may be that that channel ’ s daytime ranters will start gnawing away at Fox ’ s ratings .
How many grandmas and grandpas watching Cavuto at 4 p.m. even know that Newsmax exists right now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , tune in , and get an hour of Carr assuring them that Democrats are destroying America instead of Cavuto talking about the stock market or whatever ?
Fox daytime isn ’ t feeling pressure just from the right , though .
It ’ s feeling it from the left too : The big caveat to all this is that Fox primetime continues to lay waste to everything in its path , scoring the biggest ratings in the network ’ s history in the 25-54 demographic during November .
It ’ s the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ link , battling disaffection among Trumpy populists who resent the network for having first called Arizona for Joe Biden on election night and later having called the entire race for the Democrat .
Combine that with surging interest in election-related hard news among non-righties who are more apt to tune to CNN or MSNBC for information and you end up with all of Fox ’ s daytime competitors having something to boast about lately at the network ’ s expense .
Which makes me wonder if Fox will start to deemphasize , if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hard news programming .
If Newsmax continues to make gains by going all-in on propaganda , consumer pressure on Fox to follow suit will increase .
There ’ s little risk in pushing occasional unpleasant truths on your audience like “ no , really , Joe Biden won the election ” when you have a de facto monopoly on right-wing cable news programming .
When you lose that monopoly , you have a decision to make .
If Chris Wallace and Bret Baier think the past year has been trying , just wait @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this that occasionally requires a reality check is just how *few* viewers are at stake in all this , relatively speaking .
Look again at those “ Kelly vs. MacCallum ” numbers .
Not even 500,000 viewers aged 25-54 between them — in a country of 330 million people , at a moment when the public ’ s interest in news is unusually high .
Even Tucker ’ s audience on a good night accounts for something like six or seven percent of the total votes that Trump got in this year ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ punch above their weight because the wider media , not to mention the farking president , amplifies their influence .
But in terms of the total number of eyeballs it attracts , partisan media of all stripes is a cozy niche .
I ’ ll leave you with this scene from Trump ’ s rally in Georgia on Saturday night .

We got feedback this morning regarding our Headline item on this story stressing that this was one program during one hour on one day. Which is true, and fair enough.
But one could dismiss Monday night’s win by the 4-7 Redskins — sorry, the Washington Football Team — over the undefeated Steelers the same way. It was one game on one day. It proves nothing. Which, again, is true. It “proves” nothing.
It suggests, though, that maybe Washington is a little stronger and Pittsburgh a little weaker than their respective records might lead you to believe.
Newsmax TV has notched a ratings win over Fox News Channel for the very first time. The win, fueled by conservative viewers who are disappointed by the election results, happened Monday evening. In the key 25- to 54-year-old demographic prized by advertisers, “Greg Kelly Reports” on Newsmax out-rated “The Story with Martha MacCallum” on Fox. The margin was narrow — Kelly averaged 229,000 viewers in the demo and MacCallum averaged 203,000 — but it is still a milestone in the cable news industry… “We’re here to stay,” Newsmax CEO Christopher Ruddy said Tuesday evening. “The ratings are showing that.”
In a sense, Kelly versus MacCallum is an unfair fight. Kelly is Newsmax’s best-known polemicist, the guy who’s benefited the most from the surge in righty interest in the network. MacCallum is the last “news” hour of Fox’s day before the network’s own mega-rated team of polemicists takes to the air. If you’re looking for red meat during the 7 p.m. hour and you just can’t wait until Tucker comes on, it’s no contest: Kelly will deliver more than MacCallum. Which makes me wonder if Fox isn’t going to have to switch to an alternate-reality polemicist of its own at 7 to claw back some of those Kelly viewers.
It’s not Fox’s A-team of commentators — Carlson, Hannity, Ingraham — who are under threat from Newsmax, in other words. It’s the news side that might be at risk. Brian Stelter, who wrote the piece quoted above, notes that Howie Carr’s daytime show finished not terribly far behind his competition at Fox, Neil Cavuto, in the 4 p.m. hour on Monday, a few hours before Kelly topped MacCallum. Cavuto scored 148,000 viewers in the 25-54 group while Carr scored 101,000. Once again, a “news vs. polemics” match-up served Newsmax well. When “The Five,” a more polemical show, came on at 5 p.m., Fox won the hour going away. Its program scored 303,000 in the demo versus 120,000 for the Newsmax show airing against it.
People don’t watch these networks for news, they watch them for rants, assurance that their political enemies are conniving scum. As awareness of Newsmax grows on the right (with Trump’s help), it may be that that channel’s daytime ranters will start gnawing away at Fox’s ratings. How many grandmas and grandpas watching Cavuto at 4 p.m. even know that Newsmax exists right now? What happens when they find out, tune in, and get an hour of Carr assuring them that Democrats are destroying America instead of Cavuto talking about the stock market or whatever?
Fox daytime isn’t feeling pressure just from the right, though. It’s feeling it from the left too:
Between Nov. 4 and Sunday, CNN has averaged 1.73 million viewers, more than double a year ago, the Nielsen company said. Fox News Channel had 1.56 million and MSNBC had 1.53 million… Fox News seems hurt by a common phenomenon in election years: networks whose audience is dominated by fans of one particular candidate — Trump in this case — see some depressed viewers slip away when that candidate loses. That’s most apparent during daylight hours, when Fox has been down 10 percent compared to a year ago, Nielsen said.
The big caveat to all this is that Fox primetime continues to lay waste to everything in its path, scoring the biggest ratings in the network’s history in the 25-54 demographic during November. It’s the daytime crew that’s the weak link, battling disaffection among Trumpy populists who resent the network for having first called Arizona for Joe Biden on election night and later having called the entire race for the Democrat. Combine that with surging interest in election-related hard news among non-righties who are more apt to tune to CNN or MSNBC for information and you end up with all of Fox’s daytime competitors having something to boast about lately at the network’s expense.
Which makes me wonder if Fox will start to deemphasize, if not outright rid itself of, respectable hard news programming. If Newsmax continues to make gains by going all-in on propaganda, consumer pressure on Fox to follow suit will increase. There’s little risk in pushing occasional unpleasant truths on your audience like “no, really, Joe Biden won the election” when you have a de facto monopoly on right-wing cable news programming. When you lose that monopoly, you have a decision to make. If Chris Wallace and Bret Baier think the past year has been trying, just wait.
The crazy thing about all of this that occasionally requires a reality check is just how *few* viewers are at stake in all this, relatively speaking. Look again at those “Kelly vs. MacCallum” numbers. Not even 500,000 viewers aged 25-54 between them — in a country of 330 million people, at a moment when the public’s interest in news is unusually high. Even Tucker’s audience on a good night accounts for something like six or seven percent of the total votes that Trump got in this year’s election. All of these people punch above their weight because the wider media, not to mention the farking president, amplifies their influence. But in terms of the total number of eyeballs it attracts, partisan media of all stripes is a cozy niche.
I’ll leave you with this scene from Trump’s rally in Georgia on Saturday night.
Fox News journalists are getting the most abuse from the crowd lining up for Trump’s rally in Valdosta, Georgia. Cries of “we trusted you” and “traitors”. pic.twitter.com/Av1uHvrXdQ — Sarah Gough (@sarahgoughy) December 5, 2020
Update: Edited for clarity.


hotair--2020-12-09--NYC "autonomous zone" bar owner is back after being arrested

When Danny Presti , the owner of Mac ’ s Public House , was ordered to shut down his business in response to rising COVID numbers in New York City , his response was not what the Governor or the Mayor were expecting .
Presti kept on operating the pub in defiance of the executive orders .
In response , the state fined him $ 1,000 and moved to suspend his liquor license .
Danny upped the ante by declaring he wouldn ’ t pay the fine and putting up a sign in the bar ’ s window declaring it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” and kept right on serving his customers .
This led to an attempt to arrest him by New York Sheriff ’ s deputies over the weekend .
That ’ s when things took a turn for the worse .
Presti attempted to flee the scene rather than be subject to arrest .
In the process , he allegedly rammed his vehicle into sheriff ’ s sergeant Kenneth Matos , breaking both of his ankles .
( Presti ’ s attorney is disputing the extent of the sergeant ’ s injuries , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his medical condition is a mystery . )
Presti was eventually taken into custody , but now he ’ s been released on bail .
Apparently , the bail reform laws don ’ t apply if you try to run down a law enforcement officer .
Now he ’ s back at his bar and finding a tide of financial support flooding into his coffers from his supporters in the community .
( New York Post ) The Staten Island bar owner who allegedly drove into a sheriff returned to his watering hole @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — and said he ’ s happy for the financial backing he ’ s received from supporters online .
“ It ’ s great and once we sort through this , the goal for the page is also to help get small business back on open , ” Danny Presti told The Post as he walked into Mac ’ s Public House ahead of the 9:30 p.m. interview .
A GoFundMe page organized by Presti to help support his bar raised over $ 92,000 by Monday night .
This entire adventure has quickly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mess that shouldn ’ t be generating this type of public support .
I ’ ll confess that I was initially an admirer of Danny Presti when he declared that the spurious shutdown orders from the state and municipal government were killing his business and costing his workers their jobs .
He decided to fight back to make a point for the local business community and he did it the only way he knew how .
But I had assumed that this would turn into a court case similar to ones we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ judge to decide if the government had overstepped its bounds .
If that ’ s how it had played out , I would have been fine with it .
But the moment Presti made the decision to resist arrest and ( allegedly ) ram into a law enforcement officer with his Jeep , he stepped well over the line and engaged in unacceptable criminal behavior .
He had literally dared the Governor to send someone down to pry his liquor license off of the mirror behind his bar and arrest him .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over the weekend .
But the proper course of action at that point would have been to go along with the Sheriff ’ s Deputies to be booked and certainly be immediately released .
He could then have called his attorney and prepared to fight the matter out in court .
No matter how chaotic all of this pandemic melodrama becomes , we simply can ’ t endorse someone assaulting law enforcement officers , despite how noble their cause might seem .
If we do that , we ’ re no better than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the streets , causing injury , property damage and mayhem .
Presti may be claiming that this was an accident and not an intentional act of vehicular assault , but that ’ s not the point .
The officer wouldn ’ t have been hit by the vehicle if Danny wasn ’ t attempting to flee and avoid arrest .
And that puts him in the wrong .
Looking for a fight with the state and municipal governments over their inconsistent shutdown orders and other executive actions is perfectly fine .
But that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a judge and it doesn ’ t involve fisticuffs or the bumpers of Jeeps .
The nearly $ 100K that ’ s been raised for Danny should have been going to help pay his employees and keep his business afloat .
Now it ’ s probably going to be burned up on his legal defense and the bar will wind up remaining closed anyway .
So when viewed in that light , nothing positive has really been accomplished here .

When Danny Presti, the owner of Mac’s Public House, was ordered to shut down his business in response to rising COVID numbers in New York City, his response was not what the Governor or the Mayor were expecting. Presti kept on operating the pub in defiance of the executive orders. In response, the state fined him $1,000 and moved to suspend his liquor license. Danny upped the ante by declaring he wouldn’t pay the fine and putting up a sign in the bar’s window declaring it to be “an autonomous zone,” and kept right on serving his customers. This led to an attempt to arrest him by New York Sheriff’s deputies over the weekend.
That’s when things took a turn for the worse. Presti attempted to flee the scene rather than be subject to arrest. In the process, he allegedly rammed his vehicle into sheriff’s sergeant Kenneth Matos, breaking both of his ankles. (Presti’s attorney is disputing the extent of the sergeant’s injuries, but how he would know the details of his medical condition is a mystery.) Presti was eventually taken into custody, but now he’s been released on bail. Apparently, the bail reform laws don’t apply if you try to run down a law enforcement officer. Now he’s back at his bar and finding a tide of financial support flooding into his coffers from his supporters in the community. (New York Post)
The Staten Island bar owner who allegedly drove into a sheriff returned to his watering hole Monday night for another Fox News interview — and said he’s happy for the financial backing he’s received from supporters online. “It’s great and once we sort through this, the goal for the page is also to help get small business back on open,” Danny Presti told The Post as he walked into Mac’s Public House ahead of the 9:30 p.m. interview. A GoFundMe page organized by Presti to help support his bar raised over $92,000 by Monday night.
This entire adventure has quickly spiraled out of control into a misguided mess that shouldn’t be generating this type of public support. I’ll confess that I was initially an admirer of Danny Presti when he declared that the spurious shutdown orders from the state and municipal government were killing his business and costing his workers their jobs. He decided to fight back to make a point for the local business community and he did it the only way he knew how. But I had assumed that this would turn into a court case similar to ones we’ve seen in California and allow a judge to decide if the government had overstepped its bounds.
If that’s how it had played out, I would have been fine with it. But the moment Presti made the decision to resist arrest and (allegedly) ram into a law enforcement officer with his Jeep, he stepped well over the line and engaged in unacceptable criminal behavior. He had literally dared the Governor to send someone down to pry his liquor license off of the mirror behind his bar and arrest him. And that’s precisely what was happening over the weekend. But the proper course of action at that point would have been to go along with the Sheriff’s Deputies to be booked and certainly be immediately released. He could then have called his attorney and prepared to fight the matter out in court.
No matter how chaotic all of this pandemic melodrama becomes, we simply can’t endorse someone assaulting law enforcement officers, despite how noble their cause might seem. If we do that, we’re no better than the Antifa mobs that have been flooding the streets, causing injury, property damage and mayhem. Presti may be claiming that this was an accident and not an intentional act of vehicular assault, but that’s not the point. The officer wouldn’t have been hit by the vehicle if Danny wasn’t attempting to flee and avoid arrest. And that puts him in the wrong.
Looking for a fight with the state and municipal governments over their inconsistent shutdown orders and other executive actions is perfectly fine. But that fight needs to happen in front of a judge and it doesn’t involve fisticuffs or the bumpers of Jeeps. The nearly $100K that’s been raised for Danny should have been going to help pay his employees and keep his business afloat. Now it’s probably going to be burned up on his legal defense and the bar will wind up remaining closed anyway. So when viewed in that light, nothing positive has really been accomplished here.


hotair--2020-12-09--McCarthy wonders: Why haven't we kicked Swalwell out of Congress -- based on his own standards?

To be fair , this is a bit of an extreme suggestion .
But also to be fair , there ’ s more evidence that a hostile foreign power ’ s intelligence service got to Eric Swalwell than there is that one got to Swalwell ’ s bete noire Donald Trump , too .
Laura Ingraham dedicated the first third of her show last night exploring Swalwell ’ s apparent compromise by a Chinese spy and his arguably hypocritical rhetoric on Russiagate ever since .
Kevin McCarthy comes on at about the 13:30 mark , who answers Ingraham ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the House Intelligence Committee .
The House Minority Leader one-ups Ingraham by asking why Swalwell hasn ’ t been kicked out of Congress altogether : If you didn ’ t read John ’ s post last night on the Axios scoop regarding Swalwell and Fang Fang , be sure to do so .
At the very least , Swalwell seemed pretty lax about vetting his contacts , but he did promptly act after the FBI gave him a “ defensive briefing ” regarding Fang Fang in 2015 .
That ’ s more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 , as the Senate Judiciary Committee concluded in August after reviewing the bureau ’ s internal documents : According to these declassified documents and communications , in 2015 FBI leadership sought to give the Clinton campaign a defensive briefing before an FBI field office could pursue a FISA warrant related to a threat posed to the Clinton campaign by a foreign government .
But in 2016 when there was a similar counterintelligence threat to the Trump campaign , FBI leadership failed to give a defensive briefing to the Trump campaign , opting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and relentlessly pursue FISA warrants targeting the Trump campaign .
… “ When it came to the Trump campaign , there were four counterintelligence investigations opened against Trump campaign associates .
Not one time was President Trump defensively briefed about the FBI ’ s concerns .
“ Even more egregious , when the FBI gave a generic briefing to the Trump campaign about foreign influence , not only did they fail to mention the specific concerns about Trump associates , they sent an FBI agent into the briefing to monitor President Trump and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the issue of kicking Swalwell out of Congress belongs to Congress , or the voters in Swalwell ’ s district .
McCarthy could move to expel Swalwell rather than appear on Ingraham ’ s show if he took that option seriously .
( He won ’ t , because it ’ s not a serious suggestion . )
In two years , Swalwell ’ s D+20 district will get the chance to make that decision .
Unless another Democrat decides to challenge him , though , don ’ t bet on Swalwell making @ @ @ @ @ @ @ committee assignments is much better , however .
McCarthy correctly wonders why Swalwell and similarly compromised Dianne Feinstein remain on intel oversight committees in Congress .
Not only is there a question about the potential for extortion or leaks , but also of judgment on China in the future .
It is now in the best interests of both members to downplay China ’ s risks as a way to minimize their own compromises ; Ingraham plays a montage of Swalwell clips that suggest he ’ s already been doing that defensively for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in both chambers remove compromised members from Intel assignments ?
It ’ s not as if they don ’ t have other members who can handle the task .
Finally , this episode shows Swalwell ’ s hypocrisy in bold , capital letters .
Some might even call his Trump-Russia obsession a case of projection .

To be fair, this is a bit of an extreme suggestion. But also to be fair, there’s more evidence that a hostile foreign power’s intelligence service got to Eric Swalwell than there is that one got to Swalwell’s bete noire Donald Trump, too. Laura Ingraham dedicated the first third of her show last night exploring Swalwell’s apparent compromise by a Chinese spy and his arguably hypocritical rhetoric on Russiagate ever since.
Kevin McCarthy comes on at about the 13:30 mark, who answers Ingraham’s question about whether Swalwell should be removed from the House Intelligence Committee. The House Minority Leader one-ups Ingraham by asking why Swalwell hasn’t been kicked out of Congress altogether:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0umNvwrYB8U
If you didn’t read John’s post last night on the Axios scoop regarding Swalwell and Fang Fang, be sure to do so. At the very least, Swalwell seemed pretty lax about vetting his contacts, but he did promptly act after the FBI gave him a “defensive briefing” regarding Fang Fang in 2015. That’s more than the FBI did for Trump in 2016, as the Senate Judiciary Committee concluded in August after reviewing the bureau’s internal documents:
According to these declassified documents and communications, in 2015 FBI leadership sought to give the Clinton campaign a defensive briefing before an FBI field office could pursue a FISA warrant related to a threat posed to the Clinton campaign by a foreign government. But in 2016 when there was a similar counterintelligence threat to the Trump campaign, FBI leadership failed to give a defensive briefing to the Trump campaign, opting instead to open the Crossfire Hurricane investigation and relentlessly pursue FISA warrants targeting the Trump campaign. … “When it came to the Trump campaign, there were four counterintelligence investigations opened against Trump campaign associates. Not one time was President Trump defensively briefed about the FBI’s concerns. “Even more egregious, when the FBI gave a generic briefing to the Trump campaign about foreign influence, not only did they fail to mention the specific concerns about Trump associates, they sent an FBI agent into the briefing to monitor President Trump and General Flynn.”
At any rate, the issue of kicking Swalwell out of Congress belongs to Congress, or the voters in Swalwell’s district. McCarthy could move to expel Swalwell rather than appear on Ingraham’s show if he took that option seriously. (He won’t, because it’s not a serious suggestion.) In two years, Swalwell’s D+20 district will get the chance to make that decision. Unless another Democrat decides to challenge him, though, don’t bet on Swalwell making an early exit.
The question about committee assignments is much better, however. McCarthy correctly wonders why Swalwell and similarly compromised Dianne Feinstein remain on intel oversight committees in Congress. Not only is there a question about the potential for extortion or leaks, but also of judgment on China in the future. It is now in the best interests of both members to downplay China’s risks as a way to minimize their own compromises; Ingraham plays a montage of Swalwell clips that suggest he’s already been doing that defensively for a while. Shouldn’t Democrats in both chambers remove compromised members from Intel assignments? It’s not as if they don’t have other members who can handle the task.
Finally, this episode shows Swalwell’s hypocrisy in bold, capital letters. Some might even call his Trump-Russia obsession a case of projection.


hotair--2020-12-09--Judge blasts Los Angeles over outdoor-dining shutdown -- but there's a catch

“ The issue here is , ” Judge James Chalifant declared yesterday , “ is shutting down outdoor dining going to help in any significant way , or is it just something to do ?
” After warning earlier that the county had better show a rational basis for its closure of outdoor dining , Chalifant ruled that it mostly appeared to be the latter .
He ordered a three-week limit on the ban and told state officials they had until the day after Christmas to come up with a full risk-benefit analysis that includes the risks to business owners @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There ’ s just one problem with this order , and that ’ s … Gavin Newsom : A judge has limited Los Angeles County ’ s outdoor dining ban to three weeks , even as a state order will keep the restrictions in place past Christmas , according to a ruling issued Tuesday .
At a court hearing , the latest to address a pair of challenges to the ban , L.A. County Superior Court Judge James Chalfant said county public health officials must conduct a risk-benefit analysis if they want to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ date , Dec. 16 .
“ The county should be prevented from continuing the restaurant closure order indefinitely.
” Chalfant said in the decision .
The county health department imposed a three-week ban as coronavirus cases began to soar .
It went into effect Nov. 25 , but was superseded late Sunday by a sweeping regional stay-at-home order that banned all in-person restaurant dining across most of California .
Triggered when available intensive care unit capacity in a given region falls below 15 % , the state order will last for at least @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Melugin tweeted out a copy of the order yesterday afternoon .
In it , Chalifant scolds Los Angeles County for having no factual basis for the order : “ The department ’ s own data provide no support for the planned shutdown of outdoor restaurant operations , ” Chalifant ruled .
Of the 204 non-residential locations where three or more confirmed COVID-19 cases has been identified , “ fewer than 10 % are restaurants.
” The percentage is even lower among the full list of locations — “ fewer than 5 % .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ employing a “ syllogism ” instead of a rational basis for forming policy , especially concerning outdoor activities , which Chalifant notes that the CDC describes as only a “ moderate risk.
” Furthermore , Chalifant ruled that health officials have to use a balance of interests that include business owners in making these decisions in the future .
“ By failing to weigh the benefits of an outdoor dining restriction against its costs , ” Chalifant wrote , “ the County acted arbitrarily and its decision lacks a rational relationship to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t extend that to the statewide order , so his ruling will have no immediate impact .
Also perhaps unfortunately but certainly understandably , Chalifant doesn ’ t want to make himself the Health Department , either .
He ’ s not enjoining the ban outright because Chalifant feels — correctly — that those decisions belong to competent authorities rather than the judiciary .
He does , however , want competent authorities to act in a competent manner .
Chalifant is giving the county three weeks to clean up its act , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ restrictions on outdoor dining ( or another legal challenge enjoins those ) , Los Angeles County will have to prove that a ban on outdoor dining is both necessary and factually based , plus doesn ’ t do more harm than good by creating economic devastation that has public-health consequences of its own .
It ’ s the kind of analysis that counties and states should do before imposing lockdowns and shutdowns in the first instance .
Perhaps by Boxing Day , independent restaurant owners like Angela Marsden and their employees might get @ @ @ @ @

“The issue here is,” Judge James Chalifant declared yesterday, “is shutting down outdoor dining going to help in any significant way, or is it just something to do?” After warning earlier that the county had better show a rational basis for its closure of outdoor dining, Chalifant ruled that it mostly appeared to be the latter. He ordered a three-week limit on the ban and told state officials they had until the day after Christmas to come up with a full risk-benefit analysis that includes the risks to business owners, employees, and their well-being.
There’s just one problem with this order, and that’s … Gavin Newsom:
A judge has limited Los Angeles County’s outdoor dining ban to three weeks, even as a state order will keep the restrictions in place past Christmas, according to a ruling issued Tuesday. At a court hearing, the latest to address a pair of challenges to the ban, L.A. County Superior Court Judge James Chalfant said county public health officials must conduct a risk-benefit analysis if they want to extend the ban past its current end date, Dec. 16. “The county should be prevented from continuing the restaurant closure order indefinitely.” Chalfant said in the decision. The county health department imposed a three-week ban as coronavirus cases began to soar. It went into effect Nov. 25, but was superseded late Sunday by a sweeping regional stay-at-home order that banned all in-person restaurant dining across most of California. Triggered when available intensive care unit capacity in a given region falls below 15%, the state order will last for at least three weeks.
Fox LA reporter Bill Melugin tweeted out a copy of the order yesterday afternoon. In it, Chalifant scolds Los Angeles County for having no factual basis for the order:
BREAKING: Judge James Chalfant issues tentative decision in the CRA/Mark Geragos' lawsuit vs L.A. County re: outdoor dining ban. Judge GRANTS a preliminary injunction, writing that the County "acted arbitrarily" and "failed to perform the required risk-benefit analysis." @FOXLA pic.twitter.com/3W3sOZ8ey0 — Bill Melugin (@BillFOXLA) December 8, 2020
“The department’s own data provide no support for the planned shutdown of outdoor restaurant operations,” Chalifant ruled. Of the 204 non-residential locations where three or more confirmed COVID-19 cases has been identified, “fewer than 10% are restaurants.” The percentage is even lower among the full list of locations — “fewer than 5%.” Chalifant scolds county health officials for employing a “syllogism” instead of a rational basis for forming policy, especially concerning outdoor activities, which Chalifant notes that the CDC describes as only a “moderate risk.”
Furthermore, Chalifant ruled that health officials have to use a balance of interests that include business owners in making these decisions in the future. “By failing to weigh the benefits of an outdoor dining restriction against its costs,” Chalifant wrote, “the County acted arbitrarily and its decision lacks a rational relationship to a legitimate end.”
Unfortunately, Chalifant can’t extend that to the statewide order, so his ruling will have no immediate impact. Also perhaps unfortunately but certainly understandably, Chalifant doesn’t want to make himself the Health Department, either. He’s not enjoining the ban outright because Chalifant feels — correctly — that those decisions belong to competent authorities rather than the judiciary. He does, however, want competent authorities to act in a competent manner.
Chalifant is giving the county three weeks to clean up its act, essentially. Once the state loosens its restrictions on outdoor dining (or another legal challenge enjoins those), Los Angeles County will have to prove that a ban on outdoor dining is both necessary and factually based, plus doesn’t do more harm than good by creating economic devastation that has public-health consequences of its own. It’s the kind of analysis that counties and states should do before imposing lockdowns and shutdowns in the first instance. Perhaps by Boxing Day, independent restaurant owners like Angela Marsden and their employees might get a belated Christmas gift.


hotair--2020-12-10--New Yorker to Senate Dems: Let's face it, Feinstein's mental acuity has deteriorated too badly to le

New Yorker to Senate Dems: Let's face it, Feinstein's mental acuity has deteriorated too badly to let her continue

Yikes .
Either Dianne Feinstein alienated progressive staff on Capitol Hill more than we realized with her hug of Lindsey Graham , or Gavin Newsom might need to make two Senate appointments this year .
In a stinging report , New Yorker ’ s Jane Mayer hints that Feinstein has begun struggling with dementia , although that word never gets uttered .
Instead , as one “ well informed Senate source ” told Mayer , it ’ s been like taking the keys to the car away from Grandma .
Or like Groundhog Day , but not in any comedic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Feinstein ’ s situation describe her as seriously struggling , and say it has been evident for several years .
Speaking on background , and with respect for her accomplished career , they say her short-term memory has grown so poor that she often forgets she has been briefed on a topic , accusing her staff of failing to do so just after they have .
They describe Feinstein as forgetting what she has said and getting upset when she can ’ t keep up .
One aide to another senator described what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in which Feinstein ’ s staff tried to steer her through a proposed piece of legislation that she protested was “ just words ” which “ make no sense.
” Feinstein ’ s staff has said that sometimes she seems herself , and other times unreachable .
“ The staff is in such a bad position , ” a former Senate aide who still has business in Congress said .
“ They have to defend her and make her seem normal.
” Feinstein has always been known as a difficult taskmaster .
She @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a job in her office , “ I don ’ t get ulcers—I give them.
” A stickler for detail , she demanded to see every page going out of her office with her name on it .
But with her diminishing capacity , this has become increasingly difficult .
The former Senate staffer who still works with Congress declared , “ It ’ s been a disaster.
” As the ranking Democrat , Feinstein ordinarily would be expected to run the Party ’ s strategy on issues of major national importance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the committee has been hamstrung and disorganized .
“ Other members were constantly trying to go around her because , as chair , she didn ’ t want to do anything , and she also didn ’ t want them doing anything , ” the former Senate staffer said .
A current aide to a different Democratic senator observed sadly , “ She ’ s an incredibly effective human being , but there ’ s definitely been deterioration in the last year .
She ’ s in a very different mode now.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chuck Schumer is well aware of the problem .
He tried to “ embed ” one of his staff in the Senate Judiciary confirmation process for now-Justice Amy Coney Barrett , but Feinstein ’ s leadership reportedly derailed Democrats ’ strategy — at least in the narrative supplied by Mayer ’ s sources .
That seems like an awful lot to pin on Feinstein alone ; none of the Democrats on the panel did an effective job against Barrett , and Feinstein was far from the worst .
( That honor goes to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as runner-up . )
In a real sense , Schumer ’ s more to blame for Barrett ’ s confirmation than anyone else still in his caucus for his part in the 2013 “ nuclear option ” that set the precedent Mitch McConnell used to get three Supreme Court nominees confirmed by simple majorities .
However , if the following is true , it ’ s a real problem for Schumer — and a bit heartbreaking no matter which side of the aisle one stands : Schumer had several serious and painful talks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Overtures were also made to enlist the help of Feinstein ’ s husband , Richard Blum .
Feinstein , meanwhile , was surprised and upset by Schumer ’ s message .
He had wanted her to step aside on her own terms , with her dignity intact , but “ she wasn ’ t really all that aware of the extent to which she ’ d been compromised , ” one well-informed Senate source told me .
“ It was hurtful and distressing to have it pointed out.
” Compounding the problem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conversations soon after they talked , so Schumer had to confront her again .
“ It was like Groundhog Day , but with the pain fresh each time.
” Anyone who has tried to take the car keys away from an elderly relative knows how hard it can be , he said , adding that , in this case , “ It wasn ’ t just about a car .
It was about the U.S. Senate.
” Yikes , indeed .
That might explain why Lindsey Graham was so deferential to Feinstein when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after the hug .
If Feinstein is that bad off ( or even close ) , Graham might have felt the need to shield her from attacks from which she might not have been able to defend herself .
Or — alternately — this might be a cruel whisper campaign to force Feinstein out of her seat , and that prompted Graham ’ s defense .
No one ’ s going on the record to make these claims , and it comes at a very odd time .
If this was a real @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before the Barrett hearing , especially since Mayer ’ s sources say it ’ s been getting bad for a year ?
This has the hallmark of a smear job intending to bully someone into a retreat .
Progressives want a scalp over their losses on Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh , and Schumer ’ s not going to surrender his .
Both scenarios have their cruelty , and the worst might be if both are simultaneously true .
Assuming that Mayer ’ s sources are on the level … what now ?
Feinstein @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she will be 91 years old .
Either Senate Democrats would have to convince her to resign or start some sort of proceedings to remove her .
However , as Mayer points out , the Senate is now at its aggregate oldest , which means there won ’ t be many who want to set that kind of precedent .
Plus , speaking of precedent , Mayer points out that Robert Byrd and Strom Thurmond rather famously outlived their own mental acuities while in the Senate without much angst , as long as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In a more evenly divided Senate with minority rights eroded , though , the problems become more acute .
Senate Democrats might just need to carry Feinstein for another four years and hope she fades into the background .

Yikes. Either Dianne Feinstein alienated progressive staff on Capitol Hill more than we realized with her hug of Lindsey Graham, or Gavin Newsom might need to make two Senate appointments this year. In a stinging report, New Yorker’s Jane Mayer hints that Feinstein has begun struggling with dementia, although that word never gets uttered.
Instead, as one “well informed Senate source” told Mayer, it’s been like taking the keys to the car away from Grandma. Or like Groundhog Day, but not in any comedic sense:
But many others familiar with Feinstein’s situation describe her as seriously struggling, and say it has been evident for several years. Speaking on background, and with respect for her accomplished career, they say her short-term memory has grown so poor that she often forgets she has been briefed on a topic, accusing her staff of failing to do so just after they have. They describe Feinstein as forgetting what she has said and getting upset when she can’t keep up. One aide to another senator described what he called a “Kabuki” meeting in which Feinstein’s staff tried to steer her through a proposed piece of legislation that she protested was “just words” which “make no sense.” Feinstein’s staff has said that sometimes she seems herself, and other times unreachable. “The staff is in such a bad position,” a former Senate aide who still has business in Congress said. “They have to defend her and make her seem normal.” Feinstein has always been known as a difficult taskmaster. She is said to have told someone applying for a job in her office, “I don’t get ulcers—I give them.” A stickler for detail, she demanded to see every page going out of her office with her name on it. But with her diminishing capacity, this has become increasingly difficult. The former Senate staffer who still works with Congress declared, “It’s been a disaster.” As the ranking Democrat, Feinstein ordinarily would be expected to run the Party’s strategy on issues of major national importance, including judicial nominations. Instead, the committee has been hamstrung and disorganized. “Other members were constantly trying to go around her because, as chair, she didn’t want to do anything, and she also didn’t want them doing anything,” the former Senate staffer said. A current aide to a different Democratic senator observed sadly, “She’s an incredibly effective human being, but there’s definitely been deterioration in the last year. She’s in a very different mode now.”
According to Mayer’s sources, Chuck Schumer is well aware of the problem. He tried to “embed” one of his staff in the Senate Judiciary confirmation process for now-Justice Amy Coney Barrett, but Feinstein’s leadership reportedly derailed Democrats’ strategy — at least in the narrative supplied by Mayer’s sources. That seems like an awful lot to pin on Feinstein alone; none of the Democrats on the panel did an effective job against Barrett, and Feinstein was far from the worst. (That honor goes to Maizie Hirono, with perhaps Sheldon Whitehouse as runner-up.) In a real sense, Schumer’s more to blame for Barrett’s confirmation than anyone else still in his caucus for his part in the 2013 “nuclear option” that set the precedent Mitch McConnell used to get three Supreme Court nominees confirmed by simple majorities.
However, if the following is true, it’s a real problem for Schumer — and a bit heartbreaking no matter which side of the aisle one stands:
Schumer had several serious and painful talks with Feinstein, according to well-informed sources. Overtures were also made to enlist the help of Feinstein’s husband, Richard Blum. Feinstein, meanwhile, was surprised and upset by Schumer’s message. He had wanted her to step aside on her own terms, with her dignity intact, but “she wasn’t really all that aware of the extent to which she’d been compromised,” one well-informed Senate source told me. “It was hurtful and distressing to have it pointed out.” Compounding the problem, Feinstein seemed to forget about the conversations soon after they talked, so Schumer had to confront her again. “It was like Groundhog Day, but with the pain fresh each time.” Anyone who has tried to take the car keys away from an elderly relative knows how hard it can be, he said, adding that, in this case, “It wasn’t just about a car. It was about the U.S. Senate.”
Yikes, indeed. That might explain why Lindsey Graham was so deferential to Feinstein when her allies started tearing her to pieces after the hug. If Feinstein is that bad off (or even close), Graham might have felt the need to shield her from attacks from which she might not have been able to defend herself.
Or — alternately — this might be a cruel whisper campaign to force Feinstein out of her seat, and that prompted Graham’s defense. No one’s going on the record to make these claims, and it comes at a very odd time. If this was a real issue, why not deal with it before the Barrett hearing, especially since Mayer’s sources say it’s been getting bad for a year? This has the hallmark of a smear job intending to bully someone into a retreat. Progressives want a scalp over their losses on Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh, and Schumer’s not going to surrender his. Both scenarios have their cruelty, and the worst might be if both are simultaneously true.
Assuming that Mayer’s sources are on the level … what now? Feinstein has her seat until 2024, when she will be 91 years old. Either Senate Democrats would have to convince her to resign or start some sort of proceedings to remove her. However, as Mayer points out, the Senate is now at its aggregate oldest, which means there won’t be many who want to set that kind of precedent. Plus, speaking of precedent, Mayer points out that Robert Byrd and Strom Thurmond rather famously outlived their own mental acuities while in the Senate without much angst, as long as they could cast votes for their parties. In a more evenly divided Senate with minority rights eroded, though, the problems become more acute. Senate Democrats might just need to carry Feinstein for another four years and hope she fades into the background.


hotair--2020-12-10--US developing tech to allow soldiers to read minds

We only recently learned that the Chinese have been experimenting with gene editing to help them create a new generation of “ super soldiers.
” Not to be outdone , the United States has been working on its own upgrades to the Americans who serve in uniform .
But rather than editing their DNA , we ’ re apparently looking at brain implants that will allow our soldiers to read each other ’ s minds .
Sure , that sounds like something out of a dystopian science-fiction novel , but it ’ s apparently not .
Using a concept similar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Neuralink company , Artificial Intelligence combined with some sort of neural-scanning implant and a smartphone would eventually allow warfighters in the theater of combat to communicate with each other instantly over significant distances .
But will they be able to read the enemy ’ s mind as well ?
( The Debrief ) Groundbreaking research into decoding signals from the brain presents the possibility that soldiers may be able to communicate telepathically with their colleagues in the future .
The research was funded by the US Army Research Office over the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ included separating brain signals that inform behavior from signals that do not .
Assuming this works , the significant outcomes of this technology concerning the US Army are that it would potentially give American soldiers an edge in communication during times of high-tension and warfare .
The development of human-brain interfaces is a long-running area of interest in the technology industry .
The most recent example of this came as Elon Musk demonstrated that an operative brain-computer interface would allow “ human-AI symbiosis ” from his startup company Neuralink .
The latest iteration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on display during Neuralink ’ s 2019 event in that it is fully wireless and charges using induction .
The idea of tapping into the electrical signals produced by the human brain and making use of them for external purposes really isn ’ t new .
There were working prototypes of electric wheelchairs controlled by the user ’ s mind more than a decade ago .
But as the linked article points out , now they ’ re attempting something that ’ s a lot more complicated .
Apparently , the brain waves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to both identify and translate .
Examples would include things like the commands your brain sends to your hand to allow you to push or pull a joystick , as in the aforementioned wheelchair experiments .
But the rest of the brain ’ s activity , specifically thoughts and “ emotional conditions , ” are more ethereal and complicated .
Teaching an AI program to interpret those types of signals presents significant challenges .
Even if this works , we still wouldn ’ t be talking about actual telepathy , where the soldiers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brains .
Basically , the implant would pick up one person ’ s brain waves and feed them to a computer ( possibly a cellphone in your pocket ) .
The algorithm would interpret the information and transmit it instantly to someone else ’ s phone , which would then broadcast the information to the neural implant of the second person .
Or perhaps even a large number of people ?
A commander could hypothetically broadcast his orders to all of his troops scattered over a large area without making a sound or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the enemy .
Keep in mind that our military and intelligence agencies have shown an interest in the hidden powers of the human mind for a very long time .
Declassified government documents revealed that the CIA was working on training people to spy on adversaries around the world through a process known as remote viewing in a program dubbed Operation Stargate .
Their official line is that the project was abandoned in the seventies after it failed to produce results , but some former agents contend that it ’ s continued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there were the supposed telepaths that were featured in the movie The Men Who Stare at Goats .
( Based on a true story . )
Looking at the question with this historical perspective , training a battalion of mind-reading cyborgs probably isn ’ t all that much of a leap for our military .
But that doesn ’ t mean that we shouldn ’ t be alarmed about it .
This is some seriously creepy technology and it could lead to all manner of disasters in the wrong hands .
You probably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ steal your credit card number and your password .
Imagine what will happen when they can literally read your mind .

We only recently learned that the Chinese have been experimenting with gene editing to help them create a new generation of “super soldiers.” Not to be outdone, the United States has been working on its own upgrades to the Americans who serve in uniform. But rather than editing their DNA, we’re apparently looking at brain implants that will allow our soldiers to read each other’s minds. Sure, that sounds like something out of a dystopian science-fiction novel, but it’s apparently not. Using a concept similar to the one developed by Elon Musk’s Neuralink company, Artificial Intelligence combined with some sort of neural-scanning implant and a smartphone would eventually allow warfighters in the theater of combat to communicate with each other instantly over significant distances. But will they be able to read the enemy’s mind as well? (The Debrief)
Groundbreaking research into decoding signals from the brain presents the possibility that soldiers may be able to communicate telepathically with their colleagues in the future. The research was funded by the US Army Research Office over the past five years, yielding results that included separating brain signals that inform behavior from signals that do not. Assuming this works, the significant outcomes of this technology concerning the US Army are that it would potentially give American soldiers an edge in communication during times of high-tension and warfare. The development of human-brain interfaces is a long-running area of interest in the technology industry. The most recent example of this came as Elon Musk demonstrated that an operative brain-computer interface would allow “human-AI symbiosis” from his startup company Neuralink. The latest iteration is different from the prototype version put on display during Neuralink’s 2019 event in that it is fully wireless and charges using induction.
The idea of tapping into the electrical signals produced by the human brain and making use of them for external purposes really isn’t new. There were working prototypes of electric wheelchairs controlled by the user’s mind more than a decade ago. But as the linked article points out, now they’re attempting something that’s a lot more complicated.
Apparently, the brain waves that control basic motor functions are easier to both identify and translate. Examples would include things like the commands your brain sends to your hand to allow you to push or pull a joystick, as in the aforementioned wheelchair experiments. But the rest of the brain’s activity, specifically thoughts and “emotional conditions,” are more ethereal and complicated. Teaching an AI program to interpret those types of signals presents significant challenges.
Even if this works, we still wouldn’t be talking about actual telepathy, where the soldiers tap directly into each other’s brains. Basically, the implant would pick up one person’s brain waves and feed them to a computer (possibly a cellphone in your pocket). The algorithm would interpret the information and transmit it instantly to someone else’s phone, which would then broadcast the information to the neural implant of the second person. Or perhaps even a large number of people? A commander could hypothetically broadcast his orders to all of his troops scattered over a large area without making a sound or using radio equipment that could be intercepted by the enemy.
Keep in mind that our military and intelligence agencies have shown an interest in the hidden powers of the human mind for a very long time. Declassified government documents revealed that the CIA was working on training people to spy on adversaries around the world through a process known as remote viewing in a program dubbed Operation Stargate. Their official line is that the project was abandoned in the seventies after it failed to produce results, but some former agents contend that it’s continued to the present day. And then there were the supposed telepaths that were featured in the movie The Men Who Stare at Goats. (Based on a true story.)
Looking at the question with this historical perspective, training a battalion of mind-reading cyborgs probably isn’t all that much of a leap for our military. But that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t be alarmed about it. This is some seriously creepy technology and it could lead to all manner of disasters in the wrong hands. You probably think it’s bad when hackers steal your credit card number and your password. Imagine what will happen when they can literally read your mind.


hotair--2020-12-10--First nonprescription at-home coronavirus test has been approved

Here ’ s some good news .
The first at-home test for the coronavirus that does not require a prescription has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration ( FDA ) .
LapCorp ’ s Pixel COVID-19 Test Home Collection Kit is intended for people 18 years of age and older .
The test kit allows the user to collect a nasal swab sample at home and send it to LabCorp for testing .
The method of transmittal of the test ’ s result is determined on the urgency of the need for action or not .
The customer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health care provider for a positive result or a result deemed invalid .
A test that receives a negative result will be relayed via email or an online portal .
The test kit can be purchased in a store or online .
This home sample collection kit can be purchased online or in a store without a prescription .
It is intended to enable users to access information about their COVID-19 infection status that could aid with determining if self-isolation ( quarantine ) is appropriate and to assist with health care decisions after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ This is the first kit for consumers to self-collect a nasal sample for COVID-19 in their home that does not require a prescription , ” said Jeff Shuren , M.D.
, J.D.
, director of FDA ’ s Center for Devices and Radiological Health .
“ While many home collection kits can be prescribed with a simple online questionnaire , this newly authorized direct-to-consumer collection kit removes that step from the process , allowing anyone to collect their sample and send it to the lab for processing.
” About a month ago @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authorization ( EUA ) for the first at-home test for coronavirus that provides rapid results .
According to the FDA website , “ the Lucira COVID-19 All-In-One Test Kit is a molecular ( real-time loop mediated amplification reaction ) single use test that is intended to detect the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 that causes COVID-19.
” It is available for people ages 14 and older and it does require a prescription .
“ The FDA continues to demonstrate its unprecedented speed in response to the pandemic .
While COVID-19 diagnostic tests have been authorized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first that can be fully self-administered and provide results at home .
This new testing option is an important diagnostic advancement to address the pandemic and reduce the public burden of disease transmission , ” said FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn , M.D .
“ Today ’ s action underscores the FDA ’ s ongoing commitment to expand access to COVID-19 testing.
” The Lucira COVID-19 All-In-One Test Kit test has been authorized for home use with self-collected nasal swab samples in individuals age 14 and older who are suspected of COVID-19 by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also authorized for use in point-of-care ( POC ) settings ( e.g.
, doctor ’ s offices , hospitals , urgent care centers and emergency rooms ) for all ages but samples must be collected by a healthcare provider when the test is used at the POC to test individuals younger than 14 years old .
The test is currently authorized for prescription use only .
At-home test results should be monitored and tracked .
The prescribing health care providers must report test results to relevant public health authorities , according to local @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lucira Health , the test manufacturer has developed box labeling and instructions to assist with reporting .
Earlier this month , another at-home test was approved by the FDA – a COVID-19 and flu combination test , but it is not yet available .
In order to receive this test , a person must be experiencing symptoms and a doctor ’ s prescription is required .
Quest Diagnostics will then mail the test to the patient so that they can swab their nose and mail the sample back.If a person doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on their own , they can go to a drive-thru testing site .
The test costs $ 130 according to the Quest Diagnostics website .

Here’s some good news. The first at-home test for the coronavirus that does not require a prescription has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). LapCorp’s Pixel COVID-19 Test Home Collection Kit is intended for people 18 years of age and older.
The test kit allows the user to collect a nasal swab sample at home and send it to LabCorp for testing. The method of transmittal of the test’s result is determined on the urgency of the need for action or not. The customer will receive a phone call from a health care provider for a positive result or a result deemed invalid. A test that receives a negative result will be relayed via email or an online portal. The test kit can be purchased in a store or online.
From the FDA’s press release:
This home sample collection kit can be purchased online or in a store without a prescription. It is intended to enable users to access information about their COVID-19 infection status that could aid with determining if self-isolation (quarantine) is appropriate and to assist with health care decisions after discussion with a health care professional. “This is the first kit for consumers to self-collect a nasal sample for COVID-19 in their home that does not require a prescription,” said Jeff Shuren, M.D., J.D., director of FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health. “While many home collection kits can be prescribed with a simple online questionnaire, this newly authorized direct-to-consumer collection kit removes that step from the process, allowing anyone to collect their sample and send it to the lab for processing.”
About a month ago, the FDA issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the first at-home test for coronavirus that provides rapid results. According to the FDA website, “the Lucira COVID-19 All-In-One Test Kit is a molecular (real-time loop mediated amplification reaction) single use test that is intended to detect the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 that causes COVID-19.” It is available for people ages 14 and older and it does require a prescription.
“The FDA continues to demonstrate its unprecedented speed in response to the pandemic. While COVID-19 diagnostic tests have been authorized for at-home collection, this is the first that can be fully self-administered and provide results at home. This new testing option is an important diagnostic advancement to address the pandemic and reduce the public burden of disease transmission,” said FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, M.D. “Today’s action underscores the FDA’s ongoing commitment to expand access to COVID-19 testing.” The Lucira COVID-19 All-In-One Test Kit test has been authorized for home use with self-collected nasal swab samples in individuals age 14 and older who are suspected of COVID-19 by their health care provider. It is also authorized for use in point-of-care (POC) settings (e.g., doctor’s offices, hospitals, urgent care centers and emergency rooms) for all ages but samples must be collected by a healthcare provider when the test is used at the POC to test individuals younger than 14 years old. The test is currently authorized for prescription use only.
At-home test results should be monitored and tracked. The prescribing health care providers must report test results to relevant public health authorities, according to local, state, and federal requirements. Lucira Health, the test manufacturer has developed box labeling and instructions to assist with reporting.
Earlier this month, another at-home test was approved by the FDA – a COVID-19 and flu combination test, but it is not yet available. In order to receive this test, a person must be experiencing symptoms and a doctor’s prescription is required. Quest Diagnostics will then mail the test to the patient so that they can swab their nose and mail the sample back.If a person doesn’t feel comfortable collecting a sample at home on their own, they can go to a drive-thru testing site. The test costs $130 according to the Quest Diagnostics website.


hotair--2020-12-10--One step away: FDA advisory panel approves Pfizer vaccine, clearing way for final approval

A hopeful moment during one of the darker stretches in modern American history .
According to the Times , full authorization by the FDA for emergency use should come on Saturday .
The vaccines will roll out to people by Sunday .
Someone should really take a moment to explain that to Joe Biden ’ s transition team , by the way , because they ’ re under the impression that full authorization was granted today .
Aren ’ t they supposed to be the guys with all the Washington know-how , who grasp the finer points of scientific bureaucracy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ today , is the day .
I know , we ’ re all impatient : The F.D.A.
’ s vaccine advisory panel , composed of independent scientific experts , infectious disease doctors and statisticians , voted in favor of emergency authorization for people 16 and older .
Although the F.D.A .
does not have to follow the advice of its advisory panel , it usually does… The initial shipment of 6.4 million doses will leave warehouses within 24 hours of being cleared by the F.D.A.
, according to federal officials .
About half @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country , and the other half will be reserved for the initial recipients to receive their second dose about three weeks later… More than 100 F.D.A .
employees have worked nearly round the clock to review the application Pfizer submitted on Nov. 20 , compressing months of analysis into weeks as they pored over thousands of pages of clinical trial and manufacturing data .
The FDA took heat lately for supposedly dragging its feet on the approval process , as it ’ s been more than a week since the UK okayed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a scientist at Johns Hopkins , wrote a piece last week claiming that his research term could have reviewed the Pfizer data in a matter of hours .
What on earth was taking so long at a moment when 3,000 people are dying every day ?
The FDA had an answer for that at an event held last week , though : Stat confirmed that : “ The FDA takes the raw data that companies provide and reanalyzes them , often picking apart statistical calculations made by manufacturers .
Among regulators the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ check on the data produced by pharmaceutical manufacturers.
” The agency ’ s decision to slow down the trial process in October and require two months of safety data was also controversial — and angered Trump , who recognized that it would mean no EUA before the election — but one can understand why they ’ d want to be absolutely sure that this product is safe .
They ’ re rolling it out to 300 million people potentially .
A mistake about the vaccine ’ s safety would mean a public health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Compressing a regulatory process that normally takes months into weeks without cutting any corners is a real achievement .
Hundreds of thousands of lives may be saved because of how the vaccine will truncate the pandemic in 2021 .
As for 2020 : This is the worst week of the pandemic to date and every indication is that next week will be worse .
But more help is coming : The FDA ’ s advisory panel is set to meet next week to discuss approval for Moderna ’ s vaccine .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , though .
The FDA will monitor recipients of the vaccine , of course , not just for side effects but to answer important questions like how long immunity lasts and whether someone who ’ s vaccinated but infected can spread the disease to others .
The knotty questions about who should have priority in receiving the vaccine will continue too .
Should teachers get it in order to ensure that schools stay open or is that unfair considering transmission is lower in schools than it is in many other places of business @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , knowing that they ’ re at little risk of a severe case but that they may have outsized cultural influence in convincing the average joe to get vaccinated ?
It ’ s nice to think about those questions for once in addition to the usual “ How many people are going to die tomorrow ?
” ones .
Next year will be better .
Hang on .

A hopeful moment during one of the darker stretches in modern American history. According to the Times, full authorization by the FDA for emergency use should come on Saturday. The vaccines will roll out to people by Sunday.
Someone should really take a moment to explain that to Joe Biden’s transition team, by the way, because they’re under the impression that full authorization was granted today.
Aren’t they supposed to be the guys with all the Washington know-how, who grasp the finer points of scientific bureaucracy unlike Team Trump?
The FDA has not yet approved the vaccine. A panel has. This statement is wrong pic.twitter.com/CC53mryp63 — Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) December 10, 2020
Saturday, not today, is the day. I know, we’re all impatient:
The F.D.A.’s vaccine advisory panel, composed of independent scientific experts, infectious disease doctors and statisticians, voted in favor of emergency authorization for people 16 and older. Although the F.D.A. does not have to follow the advice of its advisory panel, it usually does… The initial shipment of 6.4 million doses will leave warehouses within 24 hours of being cleared by the F.D.A., according to federal officials. About half of those doses will be sent across the country, and the other half will be reserved for the initial recipients to receive their second dose about three weeks later… More than 100 F.D.A. employees have worked nearly round the clock to review the application Pfizer submitted on Nov. 20, compressing months of analysis into weeks as they pored over thousands of pages of clinical trial and manufacturing data.
The FDA took heat lately for supposedly dragging its feet on the approval process, as it’s been more than a week since the UK okayed the same vaccine. Marty Makary, a scientist at Johns Hopkins, wrote a piece last week claiming that his research term could have reviewed the Pfizer data in a matter of hours. What on earth was taking so long at a moment when 3,000 people are dying every day? The FDA had an answer for that at an event held last week, though:
“Among all global regulators, we are the ones that actually don’t just look at the company’s tables. We actually get down and dirty and we look at the actual adverse event reports, the bad spelling errors that are made by physicians sometimes, et cetera,” he said at the event.
Stat confirmed that: “The FDA takes the raw data that companies provide and reanalyzes them, often picking apart statistical calculations made by manufacturers. Among regulators the world over, there is no similar direct check on the data produced by pharmaceutical manufacturers.” The agency’s decision to slow down the trial process in October and require two months of safety data was also controversial — and angered Trump, who recognized that it would mean no EUA before the election — but one can understand why they’d want to be absolutely sure that this product is safe. They’re rolling it out to 300 million people potentially. A mistake about the vaccine’s safety would mean a public health calamity on top of a raging pandemic.
Compressing a regulatory process that normally takes months into weeks without cutting any corners is a real achievement. Hundreds of thousands of lives may be saved because of how the vaccine will truncate the pandemic in 2021. As for 2020:
US COVID-19 death toll as of this evening, per Johns Hopkins University: 291,754 US battle deaths during WWII, per the VA: 291,557 https://t.co/Zhku65i7Ji — John Haltiwanger (@jchaltiwanger) December 10, 2020
Our daily update is published. States reported 1.9 million tests, 214k cases, and 3,067 deaths. There are 107k people currently hospitalized with COVID-19, a new all-time record. pic.twitter.com/ReYTBJoQgF — The COVID Tracking Project (@COVID19Tracking) December 11, 2020
This is the worst week of the pandemic to date and every indication is that next week will be worse. But more help is coming: The FDA’s advisory panel is set to meet next week to discuss approval for Moderna’s vaccine.
The process isn’t over for Pfizer, though. The FDA will monitor recipients of the vaccine, of course, not just for side effects but to answer important questions like how long immunity lasts and whether someone who’s vaccinated but infected can spread the disease to others. The knotty questions about who should have priority in receiving the vaccine will continue too. Should teachers get it in order to ensure that schools stay open or is that unfair considering transmission is lower in schools than it is in many other places of business? Should we give pro athletes priority, knowing that they’re at little risk of a severe case but that they may have outsized cultural influence in convincing the average joe to get vaccinated?
It’s nice to think about those questions for once in addition to the usual “How many people are going to die tomorrow?” ones. Next year will be better. Hang on.


hotair--2020-12-10--LA Times editor to Feinstein: Be "selfless" so Newsom doesn't have to choose between a Black or Lati

LA Times editor to Feinstein: Be "selfless" so Newsom doesn't have to choose between a Black or Latino replacement for Harris

“ Selfless , ” in this case , means “ get out of our way so we can indulge our identity-politics wishes.
” This plea from LA Times editor Erika Smith coincidentally comes at the same time as today ’ s big New Yorker piece about Dianne Feinstein ’ s alleged mental-acuity decline .
One has to wonder whether this might be motivating the Capitol Hill sources who talked with Jane Mayer , too .
The problem , as Smith sees it , is that Gavin Newsom has to pick someone to fill out Kamala Harris ’ remaining Senate term @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fight between the two key ethnic demographics of the Democratic Party in California .
Black party leaders see the Harris seat as theirs , while Latino leaders have grown tired of waiting for their turn at California ’ s Senate representation .
Rather than questioning the assumptions underlying these arguments , Smith proposes that Feinstein resign in order to make Newsom ’ s life easier : So what ’ s a governor who loves to talk about equity to do when faced with this phalanx of qualified candidates of color ?
Here ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him out by urging Dianne Feinstein to step down early — preferably before the next Congress — so that California will have two open seats in the U.S. Senate instead of just one .
While it ’ s not the easiest solution to Newsom ’ s political problem , it is the right solution .
Representation does matter , and the more I listen to Black and Latino leaders demand it on behalf of a state that is becoming more diverse every year , the less I understand why our senior senator is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ahem .
Could the answer be that the people of California elected her to that office for a six-year term ?
It ’ s not as if they didn ’ t have a choice in 2018 , including a demographic choice .
Feinstein ’ s main opponent was fellow Democrat Kevin de León , who lost by a little over eight points in the general election .
( California has an all-in primary , and the two Democrats got the most votes in it . )
Smith gripes that she never understood Feinstein @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back to the Senate , but … so what ?
Voters clearly did , and chose her over de León .
Smith argues that Feinstein doesn ’ t represent the values of the state of California , but again , 53 % of voters certainly thought she did two years ago and sent her back for another six-year term .
Feinstein doesn ’ t appear to be that far out of the mainstream as Smith thinks , regardless of the upheavals of this year .
That ’ s why we have elections — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and not newspaper editors or the stewards of “ progress.
” Smith also cites Feinstein ’ s alleged mental-acuity issues and then makes her plea .
If she wants to be seen as an ally to “ communities of color , ” Feinstein has to surrender to them : Given all of this , it would make perfect sense for Feinstein to be selfless and retire early with California ’ s gratitude for a distinguished career .
Now is absolutely the time to be an ally to communities of color and let @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this state .
For to adequately address the many long-standing , race-based disparities in everything from healthcare to housing , California needs a Black senator and a Latino senator .
Or maybe they just need a governor with the intestinal fortitude to make a decision .
After that , Democrats can basically choose their senator in California , thanks to the overwhelming registration advantage they have .
If one group ends up on the losing end this time , they can push forward in 2024 to win Feinstein ’ s seat at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , convincing voters to support that candidate .
That ’ s how democracy is supposed to work , even in California .
One has to wonder if all the talk about Feinstein ’ s mental acuity isn ’ t an attempt to shame her into retirement so that California Democrats don ’ t have to endure an identity-politics food fight .
However , the lack of pushback against Mayer ’ s article today seems to suggest that the concerns about Feinstein might be at least somewhat legit .
Maybe Smith — and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after all .

“Selfless,” in this case, means “get out of our way so we can indulge our identity-politics wishes.” This plea from LA Times editor Erika Smith coincidentally comes at the same time as today’s big New Yorker piece about Dianne Feinstein’s alleged mental-acuity decline. One has to wonder whether this might be motivating the Capitol Hill sources who talked with Jane Mayer, too.
The headline speaks volumes:
Should California’s next U.S. senator be Black or Latino? There’s a third option
The problem, as Smith sees it, is that Gavin Newsom has to pick someone to fill out Kamala Harris’ remaining Senate term. The opening has created a food fight between the two key ethnic demographics of the Democratic Party in California. Black party leaders see the Harris seat as theirs, while Latino leaders have grown tired of waiting for their turn at California’s Senate representation.
Rather than questioning the assumptions underlying these arguments, Smith proposes that Feinstein resign in order to make Newsom’s life easier:
So what’s a governor who loves to talk about equity to do when faced with this phalanx of qualified candidates of color? Here’s a thought: We should help him out by urging Dianne Feinstein to step down early — preferably before the next Congress — so that California will have two open seats in the U.S. Senate instead of just one. While it’s not the easiest solution to Newsom’s political problem, it is the right solution. Representation does matter, and the more I listen to Black and Latino leaders demand it on behalf of a state that is becoming more diverse every year, the less I understand why our senior senator is still in office, blocking progress.
Ahem. Could the answer be that the people of California elected her to that office for a six-year term? It’s not as if they didn’t have a choice in 2018, including a demographic choice. Feinstein’s main opponent was fellow Democrat Kevin de León, who lost by a little over eight points in the general election. (California has an all-in primary, and the two Democrats got the most votes in it.)
Smith gripes that she never understood Feinstein’s argument for wanting to go back to the Senate, but … so what? Voters clearly did, and chose her over de León. Smith argues that Feinstein doesn’t represent the values of the state of California, but again, 53% of voters certainly thought she did two years ago and sent her back for another six-year term. Feinstein doesn’t appear to be that far out of the mainstream as Smith thinks, regardless of the upheavals of this year. That’s why we have elections — so voters get to make that choice, and not newspaper editors or the stewards of “progress.”
Smith also cites Feinstein’s alleged mental-acuity issues and then makes her plea. If she wants to be seen as an ally to “communities of color,” Feinstein has to surrender to them:
Given all of this, it would make perfect sense for Feinstein to be selfless and retire early with California’s gratitude for a distinguished career. Now is absolutely the time to be an ally to communities of color and let another younger lawmaker represent the evolving values of this state. For to adequately address the many long-standing, race-based disparities in everything from healthcare to housing, California needs a Black senator and a Latino senator.
Or maybe they just need a governor with the intestinal fortitude to make a decision. After that, Democrats can basically choose their senator in California, thanks to the overwhelming registration advantage they have. If one group ends up on the losing end this time, they can push forward in 2024 to win Feinstein’s seat at that time by, y’know, convincing voters to support that candidate. That’s how democracy is supposed to work, even in California.
One has to wonder if all the talk about Feinstein’s mental acuity isn’t an attempt to shame her into retirement so that California Democrats don’t have to endure an identity-politics food fight. However, the lack of pushback against Mayer’s article today seems to suggest that the concerns about Feinstein might be at least somewhat legit. Maybe Smith — and the pusillanimous Newsom — will get their wish after all.