Friday, May 1, 2020

American Thinker

Vice President Stacey Abrams?

The name and executive honorific combo has a poetic lilt to it.  It's also an appellation we're going to hear a lot more, as anticipation of whom Joe Biden will select as his running mate picks up.
The vice presidential pick is normally a perfunctory affair.  The position is, as John Nance Garner famously called it, hardly worth a bucket of tepid micturition.  Presiding over medal-producing pomp and heading useless task forces (the COVID-19 response team notwithstanding) is the veep's poor lot.
Not so under Joe Biden.  What's normally a ceremonial secondment for also-ran candidates transmutes into a royal road to the presidency.  Not since Harry Truman was knowingly picked by party bosses as Roosevelt's successor has an American political party had to grapple with a vice president guaranteed a promotion.
Should Biden beat Donald Trump in the fall — a big if, given his total absence from the campaign trail thanks to the chiropteran-caused coronavirus — he will be the oldest president ever elected, a hoary seventy-eight years.  There's more than a whisper's worth of conjecture he won't serve out his whole first term — hence the weight of significance upon Biden's pick.
But why Abrams?  Walter Shapiro describes the former Georgia House Minority Leader as having "obvious political talents."  Yet she's never won a political contest outside a state-level race where she faced no Republican challenger.  Her governorship bid was a failure; she gave a forgettable rejoinder to Trump's State of the Union address. 

Abrams has one distinguishing trait: she's a femme de lettres.  And while the Abrams oeuvre consists exclusively of dime-store curtain fic, a pol who can craft a euphonious sentence beats a credential-collecting lawyer or elected-office schemer any day.  Poets aren't legislators of the world, but they're vastly more interesting and empathetic than a cloying glad-hander who's been running for office since being elected primary school class president.
That said, literary appeal isn't a political asset — especially in a country with sixty million TikTok users.  With a dearth of viable political experience, Abrams's place on Biden's short list raises questions about the Democrats' strategy.  What's the appeal outside someone who can make Chris Hayes giggle during his katydid-hour MSNBC program?
Andrew Sullivan, who never makes bones about his Trump-hatred, doesn't buy the hype.  Abrams's lack of proven ability on a national stage makes her a "bad candidate for the job."  Even her poor-sport attitude after her gubernatorial loss leaves the Biden campaign vulnerable to a cynical Trump charge: that Democrats will once again refuse to accept defeat.  "The main problem is that she continues to claim that her loss in her only competitive election was a function of a rigged electoral process," Sullivan reasons.
Those weaknesses haven't stunted Abrams's ambition.  Politico reports that the nervy peach has been wheedling Democratic financiers and operatives to secure a place on the Biden ticket.  She is openly, and uncouthly, recommending herself in interviews.  Who dares wins, as the motto goes.
In a move of desperate ingratiation, Abrams even dismissed the sexual abuse accusation against her wished-for running mate, declaring, "[Biden] will make women proud."  When you're a Democrat, #MeToo means me, who?
The current conventional wisdom is that Biden needs a running mate who can reclaim the Rust Belt from Trump's working-man appeal.  He's also pledged to choose a female V.P. (not named Tara Reade), fulfilling the Democratic base's need for feel-good history-making.  The Midwest Karen duo of Senator Amy Klobuchar and Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer could check off both criteria.  But would either help galvanize the minority-heavy base that lifted Barack Obama into the presidency?
From that perspective, Abrams is underrated.  She's an evangelist for the Democratic Party's shared religion: identity politics.  In private conversation, she probably uses the phrase "wypipologist" unironically.  Being versed in the folkways of the left's identitarianism makes her popular among the progressive white base, who express piety in devotion to put-upon racial minorities.  Voting for Abrams earns shrift for the guilty liberal's conscience.
For all of Biden's failings, he's had little trouble locking in black support.  Where his campaign risks running aground is with young white voters, particularly the educated.  A Pew poll found that 54% of Millennial-aged whites are bothered by a pallid male septuagenarian as the Democratic nominee.  The discomfort increases a few points if the respondent extended his college experience earning a postgrad degree.
Biden can allay the complexion and chromosome concerns of his party's base.  He need only pick up his Bell System rotary phone — chances are, an eager caller from Atlanta waits on the other side.
Image: Barbara Jordan Forum 2012 via Flickr.


American Thinker

The FBI has disgraced itself

When I was an 8-year-old boy, I idolized and was inspired by the FBI.  I  wrote a letter to the director of the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover.  I described my aspiration to be an FBI agent, to fight crime with him, to help him bring justice to the United States of America.  A short time later, I received a short reply, signed (I have no doubt) by Director Hoover himself,  in which he encouraged me to follow my ideals, to diligently study and to prepare myself, inspired for a life as an honorable American. 
Over the years, my childhood idol has suffered revelations about his own rectitude, but nothing he has ever done even remotely approaches the disgraceful actions revealed today, committed by the great FBI that I idolized.  This week, we learned that an American hero, a loyal lifelong and proved courageous defender of our nation, was callously framed by a political conspiracy of the most senior FBI officials, seeking thereby to defame and destroy the newly elected president of the United States, Donald Trump.
Over the years, the FBI regrettably has shown itself to be self-serving and inept and has suffered several disgraceful scandals, but always committed by lesser men.  Today, the FBI, at the very top, has shown itself to actually be seditious, subverting the office of the president of the United States! 
On April 30, 2020, the 8-year-old boy in me has tears running down his face.  The FBI, from its current director, Christopher Wray, to its lowest janitor, has irretrievably disgraced itself and, most grievously, has destroyed forever the faith and confidence that Americans have granted to what once was the greatest law enforcement entity in the world. 
Will it ever again be an inspiration to 8-year-old American boys?


May 1, 2020 Democrat feminists excuse Democrat sexual predators...because they're Democrats By Ethel C. Fenig

American Thinker

Democrat feminists excuse Democrat sexual predators...because they're Democrats

Democrats, especially people who identify as women and also identify as Democrats and especially people who identify as women and identify as Democrats and also identify as feminist, seem to believe that it is perfectly fine for men who identify as Democrats to assault and sexually harass women or otherwise take advantage of them.  This is a decades-old line of Democratic thinking, as there are now senior citizen Democratic women who still swoon over noted Democratic, er...Lotharios such as Sen Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.).
Skipping through the decades to the present, there are the many Democratic women who not only excuse President Bill Clinton (D) despite all the solid proof of his sexual predatory behavior against women, but also defend him.  Most notable is his supposed injured wife, noted feminist Hillary Rodham Clinton, who dismissed the charges and allegations against her husband as "a vast right-wing conspiracy" in numerous public outings.  (What she thought in private might have been different.)  Incidentally, Hillary added Clinton to her name, not in 1975 when she married Bill, but years later to help her husband win re-election as governor of Arkansas.
Here's how Bill Clinton explained it to Bruck:
When she came to me and said she wanted to change, I could see in her eyes that she had made the decision to do it. And I said, "I do not want you resenting me. I would a lot rather lose the election than lose you." She said, "I'm not going anywhere." I said, "I know, but I don't want you to resent this for the rest of your life. You made this decision when you were a child. I like it. I approve of the decision. I don't care about it." And she said, "Look, Bill, we cannot—this is stupid! We shouldn't lose the election over this issue. We shouldn't run this risk. What if it's one per cent of the vote? What if it's two per cent? You might win or lose the election by two per cent."
That was, Bruck wrote in 1994, an essential moment in Hillary Rodham Clinton's transformation into a politician — the moment when "she surrendered the notion that she could do things in her unvarnished way; and she set about repackaging herself — changing her name, her appearance, and her public demeanor.
Well, okay, she's his wife.  But then there is another rabid Clinton-supporter, Nina Burleigh, who, "for the uninitiated, is the reporter who infamously said she would be 'happy to give [Bill Clinton] a blowjob just to thank him for keeping abortion legal.'  Burleigh formerly was the White House correspondent for Time Magazine and covered the Clinton White House."
Oh.  That's Democratic feminism for you.
Even the mother — so to speak — of modern feminism, Gloria Steinem, still defends former president Bill Clinton, despite all the proof of his sexual attacks against women. 
Gloria Steinem wrote an essay in 1998 which defended former US president Bill Clinton from accusations against sexual harassment.  Now that essay has come under scrutiny again, and the feminist has refused to apologise for what she wrote.  However, she does say that she wouldn't write the same thing again.
Her essay had been titled 'Feminists and the Clinton Question'.  Steinem refused to condemn Clinton over sexual harassment claims from former Arkansas state employee Paula Jones, who had sued him for summoning her to his hotel room.  Jones said that Clinton had touched her inappropriately an demanded that she perform oral sex on him. ...
"The problem at the time was, the sexual harassment law was in danger," Steinem said. "If Clinton had resigned, that would have endangered the law."
Oh, again.  That twisted logic is as clear as the face masks worn to protect ourselves against Wuhan coronavirus-2019.
And so you have the precedent for understanding the logic that Democratic women — and men — are now using to support Democratic presidential contender Joe Biden.  Biden, who notoriously gives the phrase "hands on politician" a whole new meaning, has been publicly pawing at and fondling women of all ages and backgrounds for years.
So it should come as no surprise that modern Democratic women, the same women who were so eager to believe the fantasy ramblings, with absolutely no proof, against Supreme Court nominee and now Supreme Court justice Brett Kavanaugh, by the obviously disturbed psychologist Christine Blasey Ford, now support Biden.  Tarana Burke, one of the core founders of the #MeToo movement opposing sexual misbehavior, particularly in the media and entertainment professions, nevertheless justified her support of Biden in a twisted twitter thread.  Outrageously stating that she didn't have "easy answers" (Oh? She wasn't that murky about Kavanaugh and others), she defines the present charges against Biden as a "zero-sum game where no one wins" (Why wouldn't women win against "outsized power dynamics"?), finally answering in her unease that "it hits at the heart of one of the most important elections of our lifetime."  So Biden "should 
demonstrate what it looks like to be both accountable and electable," and boom! all is forgiven.
Read her convoluted reasoning in its entirety.
I took a moment away from work and movement-related issues to be present where I was needed as my family was affected with COVID. But, I know many of you are wondering about my "take" on the Tara Reade story. 1/14
My stance has never wavered: survivors have a right to speak their truth and to be given the space to heal. 2/14
The inconvenient truth is that this story is impacting us differently because it hits at the heart of one of the most important elections of our lifetime. And I hate to disappoint you but I don't really have easy answers. 3/14
There are no perfect survivors. And no one, especially a presidential candidate, is beyond reproach. So where does that leave us? 4/14
In a just world, we'd have a transformative approach to dealing with claims of sexual violence where a survivor's story is given fair consideration and they are made whole by a process that supports both accountability and healing. 5/14
This is doubly important when outsized power dynamics are involved. But, we don't have that right now. 6/14
What we have now is a zero-sum game where absolutely no one wins, in part because most people weighing in at the moment don't actually care about transforming a culture of sexual violence. 7/14


American Thinker

Illinois's Governor Pritzker fails at math

On April 23, Illinois's Governor Pritzker proclaimed that "the projections are clear.  If we lifted the stay at home order tomorrow, we would see our deaths per day shoot into the thousands by the end of May, and that would last well into the summer."  When questioned on what projections those were, Pritzker refused access to the models.  Some simple math reveals why.
Pritzker provided no dates or numbers, so let us assume that "thousands" means at least 1,000 and "well into the summer" means at least August 6 (halfway through summer), 67 days from June 1.  He said "by the end of May," so tack on a few days for good measure and make it a nice round 70 days.  People will still be dying before the end of May and after "well into the summer," and 1,000 is not "thousands."  A minimum of 70,000 deaths divided by an (at the time) established 0.5% infection fatality rate (IFR) yields a minimum of 14 million infections with SARS-CoV-2.  But Illinois has only 12.6 million residents, and the number gets smaller every year.
What about those deaths during May and in late summer that we have yet to include?  A linear buildup through May would average another 15,000 deaths, and a similar decline in late summer would add another 15,000.  That is 100,000 total deaths from COVID-19, by Pritzker's projections, which means 20 million infections.  Illinois is 7.4 million people short.
Pritzker said "thousands," which means we should expect at least 2,000 per day, doubling that to 40 million infections, short by 27.4 million people.  Yale projected that there were close to 29.5 million illegal aliens in the United States.  Surely, not all of them are in Illinois.

Even if we give Pritzker the leeway of an unreasonable and unsupported 1% fatality rate, we still lack enough Illinois residents to realize his "projections," assuming an unreasonable 100% infection rate.  Pritzker proclaimed that Darren Bailey "made an enemy of science and reason," but science requires review of methods and data, which is even more necessary with Pritzker's blatantly unreasonable claims.  Pritzker has barred science, and he is most definitely not reasonable.
Pritzker is now facing multiple lawsuits, and his only defense is that he needs to ignore the plainly written law in order to save lives.  Using a more reasonable 0.1% IFR and still assuming an unreasonable 100% infection rate, that is 12,600 deaths from COVID-19 in Illinois.  Comparing to 25,755 deaths from heart disease, 23,885 deaths from cancer, 6,016 deaths from accidents (~1,000 in motor vehicles), 5,855 deaths from stroke, 2,683 deaths from drug overdose, 2,564 from influenza and pneumonia (ILI), 1,373 from shootings, about 1,000 from other murders, and about another 38,977 deaths from various other causes, stopping SARS-CoV-2 just doesn't seem all that important a crusade.  It's made even less important considering that a large portion of the 12,600 deaths will be stolen from heart disease, ILI, and other, and 2,355 of them have already occurred.
If saving lives were so important, Pritzker could save 1,000 deaths per year just by shutting down the roads.  He is a Democrat, so he believes in public transportation, right?
Nothing is ever quite so hilarious as buffoonish autocrats embarrassing themselves.  Of course, they embarrass the people whom they rule in the process.  From the McHenry County Blog to the Edgar County Watchdogs, people across Illinois have called Pritzker a "fat pig."  Citizens Against Government Waste named him Porker of the Month.  Making unreasonable, secret "projections" and belittling reporters for exposing his and his family's violations of his own orders, Pritzker sure loves his hogwash.  He might not be able to prove his lockdown necessary, but I am confident we can prove him a pig.
PS: Many people ponder about masks.  Those N-95 things stop 95% of particles sized about 10 microns.  SARS-CoV-2 is a hundred times smaller.  It's like a mouse scurrying through a forest.  Even if SARS-CoV-2 were 10 microns across, have you ever seen someone use an air hose to blow out an air filter?  Cough, cough.  Actually, breath, breath.  Doctors and nurses use masks to protect open wounds from their spittle and their open mouths from squirts of who-knows-what.  Despite the masks and sanitation, hospital-acquired infections still do in about 99,000 people per year.  That's almost 3.5% of all deaths.


Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *