I haven’t read it yet, but here it is.
I deeply admire Sowell and his work, and I know a lot of you feel the same way.
McConnell’s plans for the 2022 Senate races
[NOTE: Let’s just assume for the sake of this post that the 2022 election will be basically fair, although I realize that might not be the case.]
McConnell said some interesting things yesterday. The first is that, if there is a SCOTUS opening during the last year of Biden’s term – as there was during Obama’s last term after the death of Scalia – and if the GOP has won the Senate in 2022 and McConnell has become majority leader (a rather large “if”), then McConnell will do the same as he did with Obama’s Garland nomination, which is to block a vote on it.
That will no doubt get Democrats’ blood boiling. McConnell explained it this way:
I think in the middle of a presidential election, if you have a Senate of the opposite party of the president, you have to go back to the 1880s to find the last time a vacancy was filled. So I think it’s highly unlikely. In fact, no, I don’t think either party if it controlled, if it were different from the president, would confirm a Supreme Court nominee in the middle of an election. What was different in 2020 was we were of the same party as the president.
Of course, in order for that scenario to occur, one of the things that must happen is that the GOP needs to get a Senate majority. This is difficult but not impossible. McConnell has a plan for that, too:
[In] 2010 and 2012…[the Republican Party] nominated four or five candidates by [the Senate Leadership Fund] being passive in primaries that simply could not appeal to a general election audience. There’s no question that in order to win, you have to, in most states that are going to determine who’s in the majority next time, you have to appeal to a general election audience. And some of the candidates who filed in these primaries clearly aren’t. I’ll be keeping an eye on that. Hopefully, we won’t have to intervene. But if we do, we will.
Now, that’s something that might make a lot of conservatives’ blood boil. It also might put McConnell in conflict with Trump-supported candidates at times.
Or maybe not. The problem is that nominating RINOs isn’t usually helpful but in certain states it may be the only way to win (Maine is a good example), and that some losses in 2010 (see see this, for example) and 2012 occurred in races that probably could have been won by more conventional GOP candidates as opposed to the more extreme and/or eccentric ones that actually won the primaries.
I’m not going to rehash all those old arguments, except to say they were heated. I think that who to support in each race should be decided on a case-by-case basis. If a candidate isn’t conservative enough, he or she runs the risk of losing the support of the base, and runs the risk of voting with the Democrats on important issues. If a candidate is too conservative (in certain states, anyway) or too extreme or too eccentric for the state in question, then he or she will probably lose in the general even after winning the primary.
The importance of taking control of Congress can’t be overemphasized. The Democrats have moved so far to the left, and have so many plans to make their power permanent, that it is of the utmost importance to block them. A Republican Congress doesn’t solve a host of other problems, to be sure. But it is necessary as a step in making the left’s task at least somewhat harder.
Jon Stewart tells a small part of the COVID lab origin story
Here’s Jon Stewart appearing on the Colbert Show, talking about the lab origins of COVID. Watching him reminds me that, politics aside, I often found him to be very funny:
But notice what Stewart leaves out. It’s no accident that he only speaks of the part of the COVID origin story that is now deemed acceptable by the MSM and the Democrats. It’s the part that says that science has now determined the disease was very likely to have originated in the Wuhan lab.
What’s left out? Let’s see:
(1) This information was known almost from the start.
(2) People on the right – and that includes Trump – were saying it over a year ago.
(3) Some reputable scientists were even saying it back then, and writing scientific papers showing their reasons, and these papers were being refused and the information suppressed in general.
(4) The Democrats and the MSM and the left (I realize that’s redundant) were actively “debunking” this “misinformation,” labeling anyone who suggested it to be a dangerous scientifically ignorant far-right conspiracy-minded lunatic.
(5) They fostered those thoughts about the “debunking” until very recently, when the word got out that it was okay to come out now with the long-suppressed truth.
I have some questions for Jon Stewart:
(1) What convinced you now that this was true?
(2) What about the fact that this information about the location of the lab was known shortly after the pandemic began in China?
(3) What did you say about Trump and others on the right over a year ago when they were voicing the lab origin possibility/probability?
(4) When do you think this information was learned?
(5) Why was it suppressed earlier?
(6) What do you say now about this sequence of events? Does it trouble you? Make you reconsider anything about your politics?
[ADDENDUM: From the former CDC head.]
Testing
Some of the blog posts aren’t showing, so this post is a test.
UPDATE 12:59 PM: I think I fixed it! We’ll see. If it continues to work now, the reason I was able to fix it is that something similar happened several years ago. Back then, it had to do with a glitchy link to a video that was making everything between that video and the previous video (which had occurred many posts earlier) disappear.
This time I changed the code for the video in today’s open thread (the post below this one) and voila! The old posts reappeared.
We’ll see if it recurs or not. Let me know if it’s working for you now.
Open thread 6/15/21
Biden is on display for the world to see
When Donald Trump was campaigning for the GOP nomination in 2016, and then after he was elected, one of the reasons I was apprehensive is that I thought he might be a loose cannon braggart who had a very good chance of being outmaneuvered when he was dealing with other world leaders. I was happy to note, fairly early on in his term, that I’d been wrong, and that for the most part he was extremely effective.
On the other hand, Joe Biden is so noticeably incompetent on the most basic level that I think it’s glaringly obvious that he’s not up to being part of any international negotiations or even appearances. That’s true of him domestically as well, but the vulnerability feels especially dangerous on a world stage.
And yet it seems that the people who voted for him – and whether you think Biden really won or not, there were plenty of people who voted for him, including nearly everyone I know – are either ignorant of that fact or have chosen to ignore it in order to attempt to get rid of Trump and in their relief at having done so.
I’ve become more and more and more cynical over the years about people’s political decision-making, but the calculation Biden’s supporters made and continue to make challenges me to become even more cynical than I already am.
What could possibly go wrong?:
As I wrote, Biden got confused during a G7 meeting with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and the other world leaders, and Johnson had to correct him. Then the PM waved twice to shut down what he was saying, while the other leaders laughed — and Biden looked confused, in an embarrassing display.
As my colleague Bonchie reported, Biden gave a horrible, solo press conference. He talked about getting “in trouble with staff” if he didn’t call from pre-approved list of reporters, got combative when asked a question, and gave just the weirdest response ever. He also seemed weak when asked why he wasn’t doing a joint press conference with Vladimir Putin and said he wasn’t looking to get into conflict with Russia.
But, Biden also showed how confused he really is when he confused Syria and Libya — not just once, but three times. This was just really bad and a terrible thing to show on the world stage.
Biden said we can “work together with Russia for example in Libya,” that they should be providing “vital assistance” to a population that is in real trouble. Biden clearly started to get lost in what he was trying to say and looked despairingly at his notes, using filler words as he tried to read the notes.
“Russia has engaged in activities which we believe are contrary to international norms.” He said Russia has bitten off some big problems they’re going to have trouble dealing with such as the rebuilding of “Syria, Libya, they’re there.” He finished by saying he hopes they can find an accommodation [with Russia] that can save the lives of the people in Libya.
And then there’s this:
MUST WATCH: Australian news anchors make fun of Joe Biden and the way American "news" media gushes over him. pic.twitter.com/y4xioqCOB4
— djcalligraphy ™ (@DJcalligraphy) June 13, 2021
But the European papers are for the most part controlled by the same mendacious leftist sycophants that write for ours, so Emperor Biden’s clothing will continue to be described in glowing terms.
As I said, it’s hard to get cynical enough.
The Babylon Bee…
…gets the last laugh over The New York Times – for now.
Big update here. The @nytimes has responded to our demand letter by removing defamatory statements about us from their article. Here's their email to our counsel notifying us of the correction. https://t.co/lv0eYo6NzK pic.twitter.com/OLi5KzMzej
— Seth Dillon (@SethDillon) June 14, 2021
The Times has been out to get the Bee for a while now, publishing unconsciously funny statements such as that description of the Bee: a “far-right information site” that “frequently trafficked in misinformation under the guise of satire.”
Ha, ha! That’s a good one, Times, and it cries out for the responsive observation that the Times is a far-left information site that frequently traffics in misinformation under the guise of news.
When the Bee threatened to sue for defamation, the Times finally decided that its campaign against the satire site wasn’t worth the trouble, and has decided to remove the offending language in the article to which the Bee had objected.
In Israel, a group of strange bedfellows get together and finally oust Netanyahu
Parliamentary systems mean that sometimes coalition governments can form that are composed of various parties that didn’t get all that much popular support. As long as the most popular party fails to get a majority or create a majority coalition, it can happen that much weaker parties can manage to do it. That’s how eight parties that are united in hatred of long-time (12 years) prime minister Netanyahu managed to finally oust him by the slimmest of margins:
The new government passed at 8:55 with the support of 60 MKs, while 59 opposed it. Ra’am (United Arab List) MK Saeed Alharomi abstained…
Earlier on Monday, [new Prime Minister Naftali] Bennett defiantly presented his new government’s ministers and guidelines in an address at the Knesset plenum, while MKs who will be in the opposition heckled him constantly…
Netanyahu would remain in power if the prospective new coalition’s razor-thin majority were to lose the support of even one MK in a vote of confidence in the Knesset.
Netanyahu isn’t going gentle into that good night:
“I will fight daily against this terrible, dangerous left-wing government in order to topple it,” Netanyahu said at the conclusion of his lengthy speech in the Knesset plenum. “With God’s help, it will happen a lot earlier than you think it will.”
In comments warning Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah that he is not going anywhere, he declared in English: “We’ll be back soon!”
Netanyahu spoke for more than half an hour, well beyond the 15 minutes allotted to him, rattling off a lengthy list of accomplishments in office, slamming Bennett, and vowing to lead a combative opposition. He labeled Bennett’s Yamina party and the New Hope party as “fake right” and accused them of betraying the will of the voters in joining a government with centrist, left-wing and Arab parties.
Netanyahu asserted that Bennett will not and cannot counter the existential threat posed by Iran….
“Bennett does not have the international standing, he doesn’t have the credibility, he doesn’t have the capabilities, he doesn’t have the knowledge and he doesn’t have the governmental support to allow him a real defense [against Iran],” Netanyahu continued. “Among all the differences between us and the incoming government, this is the most important and most fateful difference to the future of Israel.”…
“Even in Iran they understand this — it’s no surprise that they are celebrating today,” he continued. “They are celebrating because they understand that starting today there will be a weak and unstable government that will align with the dictates of the international community.”
That last part of my quote from Netanyahu’s speech – “starting today there will be a weak and unstable government that will align with the dictates of the international community” – reminds me of the situation in the US, as well. It’s an invitation to all enemies to take advantage. Bennett paid lip service to standing strong against the Iran deal, but the government he heads is weak and divided and the US has now returned to the Iran-friendly ways of Obama.
In the recent election, Netanyahu’s Likud Party had won 30 seats in the Knesset but couldn’t cobble together a majority to form a coalition government. This is Bennett’s present coalition: “Yesh Atid (17 seats), Blue and White (8), Yisrael Beytenu (7), Labor (7), Yamina (6 of its 7 MKs), New Hope (6), Meretz (6) and Ra’am (4).”
Yamina is the party Bennett heads.
[NOTE: As I’ve written before, Israeli politics is remarkably complex and I am far from an expert on it. But the present situation both in the US and in Israel seems ominous.]
Open thread 6/14/21
“I got the lead because I combined a little bit of John Lennon and a little bit of Bob Dylan”:
RIP to the wonderful, transcendent Carla Fracci
The news of the death of Italian ballet dancer Carla Fracci on May 27th has made me sad.
Fracci didn’t have the perfect physique, she didn’t have the most solid technique or the highest extensions or the most spectacular turns or the most perfectly arched feet. Yet she was perfect in what she did, which was to create a picture of the Romantic ballerina in motion. No one was at all like her and no one ever will be again – an old ballet print come to sparkling and ever-so-charming life. I was fortunate enough to have seen her in person many times, and it was always a treat – an enthralling artistic experience.
Fracci’s greatest roles, in my opinion, were Giselle and La Sylphide. Here’s a TV performance of the latter. You can see her other-worldly lightness even here; in person it was far more astounding:
And here’s a tribute video with clips from many ballets:
Here’s a bit about Fracci’s beginnings:
Born as Carolina, Fracci was born on 20 August 1936, in Milan, to a tram driver father and a mother who worked at a factory…In 1946, her mother brought her and her sister to a La Scala Theatre Ballet School entrance exam, which ended up being disastrous for Fracci. While her body type was deemed unsuitable for ballet, she was pretty enough to be the last of 35 students accepted. She described the early days at the school as “a crashing bore and a terrible chore.” However, after she was cast as the mandolin in The Sleeping Beauty, performing alongside Margot Fonteyn, she changed her mind about ballet training and “started working very hard to catch up for the lost time.”
She caught up quite spectacularly. RIP Carla Fracci, and thank you.
[NOTE: I’ve written about Fracci many times before. Some of the older posts may contain videos that no longer work, however.]
Why George W. Bush didn’t support Trump in 2020
Jack Cashill asks why – considering the threat that the left represented in the 2020 election and Trump’s obvious successes in his first term – former president George W. Bush couldn’t bring himself to support Trump, or at least not to actively speak against him. Cashill believes that if Bush had come to Trump’s aid, Trump probably would have been re-elected.
Whether that is true or not we’ll never know. Cashill also doesn’t answer the question of why, although he does write:
As the weeks counted down to the November 2020 election, he was the Achilles sulking in his tent. The Achilles of legend, however, refused finally to see his own men slaughtered and joined the battle. Bush never left the tent. In betraying Team GOP, Bush, in effect, betrayed Team USA. From reading Dovere, one gets the sense he did not much care. Bush had a new team now, Team World.
After the events of January 6, 2021, Bush joined his new teammates for an end zone dance. Dovere reports, “Clinton, Bush, and Obama released coordinated statements decrying what happened.” Coordinated? Had the three released coordinated statements decrying the summer of mayhem the left inflicted on America, one might forgive Bush his complicity here, but they did no such thing.
The last the reader sees of George W. in the Dovere book is at the 2021 Inauguration of Joe Biden, an event at which he seems much too comfortable. Reports Dovere, “Bush leaned in to make a joke to Obama, and they both started laughing.” It gets worse.
I think I know what motivated Bush, though. It has three elements. The first is that Bush isn’t a conservative; he’s always had some leanings towards what, for want of a better word, I’ll call internationalism. So he probably disliked Trump’s trade policies. The second is that Bush also was not much of a verbal puncher during his term or after; he remained quite silent during Obama’s term, for example. I believe he’s old school enough to detest Trump’s general style and his verbal pugnaciousness in particular. That combativeness had turned personal in the 2016 campaign (and even earlier), when Trump not only attacked Jeb Bush quite viciously, but attacked George W. in various ways that must have stung so badly that it made it impossible in Bush’s mind to ever bury the hatchet.
I wrote about the situation back in October of 2015, in a piece I did for the online version of the now-defunct Weekly Standard. Old links to the article don’t work, but I preserved it in my own records. It was titled “An Old Animus,” and here are some quotes from it:
It’s no secret that Donald Trump has contempt for Jeb Bush, some of it well-earned. And Trump’s recent remarks pointing out that “the World Trade Center came down” during George Bush’s “reign” have been rightly seen as a way to needle and flummox brother Jeb…
But this was hardly an isolated incident of attack on George W from Trump. In fact, it’s one of
the milder things that Trump has said about the 43rd president over the course of many years, beginning long before either Trump or Jeb Bush were presidential candidates. Trump may have changed his mind on some things, such as single payer health care. When asked his opinion of people, he sometimes speaks in generalities, often saying “I like him/her a lot.” But one topic on which he’s been the soul of consistency and specificity since at least 2007 (and perhaps earlier) has been his extremely low opinion of George W. Bush…Trump’s criticism of Bush not only goes back many years, but it has often followed the leftist template rather than the pattern on the right. And although it’s Jeb he’s running against this go-round, the evidence is that there’s a rift between Trump and the Bush family that goes back to the 1980s, when George H. W. Bush the elder was president:
“Trump is open about his animosity toward [the Bushes]; he characterizes his relationship with former president Bill Clinton, for instance, as far closer. He lashed out at former president George W. Bush over the war in Iraq during his tenure. He turned on Bush’s father when he raised taxes during his term as president, despite pledging not to do so.”
The WaPo piece says that during their interview with Trump in August of 2015, “He found 33 ways to skewer the [Bush] family – about one put-down per minute.” One of those put-downs of George W. Bush was still another jibe far more typical of leftist taunts than of the right:
“He didn’t seem smart. I’d watch him in interviews and I’d look at people and ask, ‘Do you think he understands the question?’”
But the sharpest of Trump’s attacks on GW had occurred much earlier, in a series of interviews in 2007 and 2008, when neither Trump nor Jeb Bush was a candidate. For example, in a 2008 interview with Wolf Blitzer, Trump advocated Bush’s impeachment while adding how much he likes Nancy Pelosi:
“BLITZER: [What do you think of] Nancy Pelosi, the speaker?
TRUMP: Well, you know, when she first got in and was named speaker, I met her. And I’m very impressed by her. I think she’s a very impressive person. I like her a lot. But I was surprised that she didn’t do more in terms of Bush and going after Bush. It was almost – it just seemed like she was going to really look to impeach Bush and get him out of office, which, personally, I think would have been a wonderful thing.
BLITZER: Impeaching him?
TRUMP: Absolutely, for the war, for the war.”
In the same interview, Trump repeated the familiar “Bush lied about WMDs” mantra, and when Blitzer questioned whether he actually believed that, Trump repeated it:
“TRUMP:”Bush got us into this horrible war with lies, by lying, by saying they had weapons of mass destruction, by saying all sorts of things that turned out not to be true.
BLITZER: Their argument is, they weren’t lying, that that was the intelligence that he was presented, and it was not as if he was just lying about it.
TRUMP: I don’t believe that.
BLITZER: You believe that it was a deliberate lie?
TRUMP: I don’t believe it. The fact is that he lied.”
Later in the interview, Trump said that Bush was “is probably the worst president in the history
of the United States.”
That’s an awful lot to swallow; Ted Cruz managed to get past a lot of insults from Trump (including some to Cruz’s family), but what Trump said about Bush was considerably worse.
For the sake of the republic, it would have been good if Bush could have done stopped being a NeverTrumper in 2020. But I doubt most people could do it under the same circumstances, and at any rate, certainly Bush couldn’t or wouldn’t.
I don’t really think it mattered, though. I don’t think a Trump endorsement from Bush would have changed the results. If fraud occurred, for example, it would not have changed that. And I doubt there are many people following the lead of George W. Bush anymore, and so I doubt his endorsement or lack thereof had a chance of making a difference with a significant number of voters.
Biden snubs Britain, and Harris has a bad week
A lot of people who voted for Biden/Harris figured they’d somehow improve our supposedly damaged reputation and relationships with Europe and other foreign countries, returning us to the glory days of European adoration of the erudite, elegant, and Europe-friendly Obama.
Well, not quite. There’s “Biden opens European tour with slap at Brits.” And then there’s Kamala’s dreadful Latin American jaunt and non-treatment of the border crisis.
I always found it puzzling that anyone would expect anything better from two people of such towering mediocrity combined with arrogance – not a great combination – committed to a leftist agenda. But expect it many people did, and now these two are our president and vice-president.