Cori Bush: I deserve protection, but the little people don’t

The New Neo Posted on by

Cori Bush has trampled on the preferred Democratic narrative, stating her opinion in no uncertain terms in a CBS interview:

I’m going to make sure I have security because I know. I have had attempts on my life and I have too much work to do there, too many people that need help right now for me to allow that. So, if I end up spending $200,000, if I spend 10 more dollars on it – you know what? I get to be here to do the work. So suck it up and defunding the police has to happen, we need to defund the police and put that money into social safety nets.

Security is not for the little people, it’s for important ones like Cori who are doing important work. The CNN article I linked takes the “Republicans pounce” attitude, with observations such as this:

Democrats have spent the last few months insisting that the dangers of “defund the police” movement are overblown because their party’s elected officials don’t even talk about it anymore – that the only people talking about it are Republicans.

[Cori] Bush’s pronouncement on Thursday puts lie to that idea. And hands Republicans a clip that they can wedge into dozens of attack ads linking swing-district Democrats to a deeply unpopular policy coming out of the month of a Democratic member of Congress.

Actually, it’s not just that she’s in favor of defunding the police, although that’s certainly part of it. It’s that the whole quote – and I’m not sure how many people will actually see or hear it – is an almost textbook example of the sort of sentiment for which Leona Helmsley was excoriated long ago: “We don’t pay taxes; only the little people pay taxes” (a statement Helmsley denied ever having said, by the way).

But Cori Bush’s statement is far worse than Helmsley’s. Bush is a public servant, for starters. Her inflated self-importance and sense of entitlement is coupled with a contempt for those who would criticize her and a denial of their need for the same sort of protection. And all of this is couched in nasty and juvenile language like “suck it up.”

There was more to what Bush said:

“I have private security because my body is worth being on this earth right now. I have private security because [of] the white supremacist, racist narrative they drive into this country,” she said.

“My security is not to keep me safe from the people of St Louis … it is to keep me safe against the racist attempts on my life.”

Cori Bush has every right to hire security. And I don’t doubt that people have threatened her – as they’ve threatened so many people in government and elsewhere in these days of social media. No doubt some of the threats come from people who actually are racist, but it’s also highly possible to detest her, just for her policies and the things she says, without being a racist. But for her to protect herself as a Very Important Person and to deny others – including her constituents – the protection of the police is towering elitism and hypocrisy and disdain. The apocryphal Marie Antoinette quote “Let them eat cake!” can’t even begin to compare.

And not only that, but Cori Bush doesn’t think people should defend themselves, either, even in the absence of police. And they certainly shouldn’t defend themselves against a crowd of which she is part (the link is from August of 2020):

Bush, a nurse and pastor, was among the marchers who encountered the McCloskeys on June 28 when they entered Portland Place, a gated, private city street in the Central West End. The protesters were on their way to Mayor Lyda Krewson’s residence, and the unexpected confrontation with the McCloskeys, which was recorded, went viral.

So Cori Bush was in that crowd and in fact, according to the McCloskey’s, was the leader with a bullhorn:

“The Marxist liberal activist leading the mob through our neighborhood stood outside of our home with a bullhorn screaming ‘you can’t stop the revolution.’” Mark McCloskey said. “That Marxist revolutionary is now going to be the congresswoman for the 1st District of Missouri.”

The revolution.

In response, Bush said the following:

“They [the McCloskeys] just put a target on my back that was bigger than the one that I had,” Bush said. “They just made it really difficult for me to navigate, move around, simply because there are people who are looking at me — especially people who are white supremacists — as if I am a danger.”

So this is her modus operandi. Do something provocative, play the victim card (and in particular the victim of racism), and then accuse your critics of wishing for you to be attacked physically. It’s an extremely useful way to deflect criticism in this day and age, as Bush has learned (did she learn it from the master?).

[NOTE: Also, Bush said, “I have had attempts on my life.” If actual attempts have occurred in the past, I certainly can’t find anything about it in the news.]

The COVID variants will be used for propaganda

The New Neo Posted on by

The stage has been set for enormous fear around COVID. We’ve been conditioned to it and guided to it for almost a year and a half. At first it made some sense. The initial news and photos from China, and then from Italy and Spain, were horrendous and frightening and the death rates were climbing and climbing.

But over time the statistics have become clearer, although still not totally clear. We’ve grown to understand more about how the disease has been used to shape minds and accustom people to governmental restraints. And the death toll, although sad, has not been as high as the predictions. We’ve grown to distrust many of the medical authorities, as well as the press and the government in general, more and more.

COVID has been used to tear the fabric of the country apart and turn us against each other. It also was used to justify relaxing voting laws and increase distrust in the voting results and perhaps to facilitate fraud.

Once the vaccine began to be disseminated it was a relief. The original supposition was that if a great many people were vaccinated – say, 70% – we’d be able to open the country up entirely and go back to our previous existence or something akin to it, even though a lot of businesses would have failed and a lot of people would have suffered in the meantime. We threw off our masks with happy relief and hoped to never have to use them again.

Not everyone, of course. Some remained afraid, or some were unable to be vaccinated for medical reasons and still felt the need for extra protection. But most vaccinated people were ready to go about their business.

Then the variants began, and the drumming up of fear around them. Fear seems to have escalated even more around the latest one, Delta. Now that deaths are still low, the news seems mostly about cases. We really are not sure whether Delta will ultimately prove to be just a small blip or something more, but ignorance and fear is what the propagandists depend on to drum up fear.

In that way every new variant can be used to stir up fear, to blame the unvaccinated (falsely defined as the right), and to justify more Draconian measures of restriction of liberty as well as more government doles. More small businesses can go bankrupt, more large companies can get the spoils, Amazon will remain happy, local stores will be deserted, and people will have gotten used to being told what to do and what not to do.

And more variants will probably keep coming, so it can continue and continue. In particular, if that happens, the election of 2022 can be done by mail, too, with all the opportunities that affords.

The latest installment in the killing of Ashli Babbitt

The New Neo Posted on by

The wheels of justice are grinding very very slow.

Here’s some recent news:

Questions linger over the shooting, especially whether the officer who fired the fatal shot warned Babbitt to stop before he opened fire as she attempted to breach a barricaded door inside the Capitol Building.

The officer’s lawyer insists his client not only issued such a command, but did so loudly and clearly. However, in an interview with RealClearInvestigations, Babbitt family attorney Terry Roberts said he has gathered evidence indicating the officer, a plainclothes police lieutenant, remained silent. Far from warning Babbitt he would shoot, Roberts said the officer “ambushed” her from the side where she could not see he had taken up position in a hall doorway and had trained his weapon on her.

“It’s not debatable,” said Roberts. “There was no warning.”

It’s certainly debatable as far as the public is concerned, because we haven’t seen the many surveillance videos that undoubtedly exist.

More:

More than six months after the shooting, the U.S. Capitol Police still refuse to release the name of the officer. But several sources have identified him as Lt. Michael L. Byrd, a 53-year-old veteran of the force who was serving as commander of the House Chamber Section of the Capitol Police on Jan. 6. He has not returned to duty and remains on paid administrative leave. Attempts to reach Byrd were unsuccessful.

(I already wrote about Byrd in this post.)

Babbitt’s family is planning a wrongful death suit, and Roberts is their lawyer. He adds this:

Roberts said he has interviewed several witnesses who were standing outside the Speaker’s Lobby with Babbitt, and that they’ll testify they did not hear the officer issue “any kind of warning.”

He also said video recordings his investigators have analyzed reveal that other police who were in the hallway with the officer did not react as expected before he fired. He said they seemed to be caught unaware as he opened fire. Roberts said he has lined up expert witnesses, including ex-cops and use-of-force experts, who will testify that the officers behind him in the Speaker’s Lobby would have taken cover or crouched and pulled their own weapons if they heard the lieutenant give repeated warnings he was going to shoot. Instead, Roberts said, they appeared to be casually standing or walking around in the lobby in the seconds leading up to the shooting.

“Those other officers were within earshot. If he’s yelling, they certainly aren’t showing any reaction to it,” he said. “If he was giving any kind of warning, why didn’t they react?” Roberts added that no warnings can be heard coming from the officer in any videos taken at the scene.

The officer’s lawyer, Mark Schamel, insists his client issued verbal commands and warnings to Babbitt. “He was screaming, ‘Stay back! Stay back! Don’t come in here!” Schamel said.

Schamel said witness statements back him up. He explained the lieutenant’s commands were not picked up on video recordings because the footage was shot on the other side of the doors where dozens of rioters were shouting and banging and drowning out his words. And he said his client could not be seen yelling out the instructions because his mouth was covered by a mask he wore as part of COVID-19 protections.

One thing is pretty obvious: if he gave such a warning, there was no reason to suppose that Ashli Babbitt would or could have heard it.

And this is interesting as well:

“I’m not sure how he was justified shooting her when there was a SWAT team right behind her,” added a veteran Capitol officer, referring to three heavily armed USCP officers who had positioned themselves between the doors and the mob. “They saw no immediate threat.” The officer spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter. A Capitol Police spokeswoman would not say if the officer’s actions were consistent with use-of-force policies, which are not publicly available. In a statement released earlier this month, however, USCP noted that it is “increasing its use-of-force … training.”

I’m going to hazard a guess and say it was inconsistent with their use-of-force guidelines, because if it had been consistent I think we would have heard a lot more about that.

The Capitol Police is not a force trained in riot-control techniques. That was abundantly clear on January 6th, and seems to be a glaring error because – especially in the wake of the leftist riots of 2020 – it is clear that a riot is a definite possibility. It doesn’t take a giant amount of prescience to realize that. But apparently no one did:

“This is not meant pejoratively but just as a fact, but the [Capitol Police] is far from being some kind of elite law enforcement body,” the inspector general said, speaking on condition of anonymity. “Its principal function is to assist tourists, maintain decorum in a tourist environment, and help out members of Congress and their staffs.”

That would explain why so many of the January 6th demonstrators were indeed treated like tourists and ushered into the Capitol. And then the vast majority of them behaved like tourists. But they’re being treated like criminals.

The article goes on to discuss the violations of trigger discipline by the shooter that are visible in the videos, for example:

“His trigger finger shouldn’t be inside the trigger guard and the gun shouldn’t be pointed at other officers. He’s even pointing it in the direction of a member of Congress,” the fellow officer said, referring to Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.), a former professional mixed-martial-arts fighter who had joined the scrum in front of the chamber doors.

“I can’t tell you how many officers have contacted me to say that what that guy did doesn’t pass muster,” Roberts said in an extensive interview. “No one has come forward to say this was justified homicide, not even the Justice Department.”

I’m going to assume that we’ll learn more as this lawsuit progresses.

Looking back: how Obama used race in a way that’s become very familiar

The New Neo Posted on by

I was searching for something on the blog yesterday and accidentally came across an old post of mine about Obama that I started reading out of curiosity. I decided to re-post it today, because it demonstrates how Obama introduced so many of the ideas about race that have become prominent and commonplace in public discourse now, but which back then were more unusual to those who weren’t immersed in the academy.

The original post appeared almost exactly eight years ago, and it was entitled, “Obama: those who think I’m exceeding my authority as president and becoming a tyrant…”. And then the first sentence in the body of the post was this:

…are racists calling me uppity.

What follows here is the rest of that original post from eight years ago, plus an added new paragraph at the end. Continue reading →

Scientists must not be questioned or challenged by those on the right

The New Neo Posted on by

[Hat tip: Ace.]

It’s come to this:

A scientific journal article authored by Professor Peter Hotez, a frequent guest on corporate media networks, called to “extend federal hate-crime protections” for scientists facing criticism from alleged “far-right extremists,” including National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci.

Here’s a link to Hotez’s article so you can read it yourself. A few quotes:

A band of ultraconservative members of the US Congress and other public officials with far-right leanings are waging organized and seemingly well-coordinated attacks against prominent US biological scientists. In parallel, conservative news outlets repeatedly and purposefully promote disinformation designed to portray key American scientists as enemies. As a consequence, many of us receive threats via email and on social media, while some are stalked at home, to create an unprecedented culture of antiscience intimidation.

Note the use of the word “attacks.” But what he mentions is criticism, disagreement, and some of the cancel culture and doxxing techniques pioneered by the left and only sometimes (and far less frequently) used by the far right. As far as I know, no one has actually been attacked, nor does he allege that anyone has. And if someone is really being stalked there are already laws about that, and remedies.

On the other hand, portraying a scientist as an enemy is perfectly legal. Also, this particular guy certainly does seem to be the enemy of freedom of thought and freedom of expression, by the evidence of the essay. The left says that words are violence and I suppose this guy agrees.

More from Hotez:

Over the spring and summer of 2021, four major incidents stand out. First, Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Green (R-GA) introduced house bill 2316. The “Fire Fauci Act” called for halting payment of Dr. Anthony Fauci’s salary as Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and auditing his digital correspondence and financial transactions. Green’s follow-up press conference on 21 June 2021 included 13 Republican House supporters or co-sponsors, possibly the largest congressional delegation in modern times to single out and attempt to humiliate a prominent American scientist.

Also in June, the Republicans organized a House Select Subcommittee on the origins of COVID-19 with the presumption that it was ignited by gain-of-function genetic engineering research from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Despite evidence pointing to spillover from a viral infection in bats to additional mammals and ultimately humans accounting for previous coronavirus epidemics, the hearings took on a sinister tone, pointing fingers at virologists both in the US and China. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), stated that Dr. Fauci was “afraid of something” and falsely claimed that he was covering up the engineering of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus.

He seems to think that if his august self says something is a false claim that makes it so. But here he is the one ignoring a host of evidence that contradicts what he’s saying about the possible lab origins of COVID. This form of argument seems – among other things – unworthy of an actual scientist.

There’s much more in his essay. He goes on to overtly discuss politics and makes it clear that he stands firmly in the camp of the Democrats. Hortez makes analogies such as this: “under Stalin, the study of genetics and relativity physics were treated as dangerous western theories, and potentially in conflict with official social philosophies of state.” That’s an interesting analogy, since it is actually he who is the one advocating that no disagreement be allowed with the Approved State Science in the US at this time – the science with which he is allied.

More:

In summary, the aggression against science and scientists in America arises from three sources: 1) Far-right members of the US Congress, 2) the conservative news outlets and 3) a group of thought leaders who provide intellectual underpinnings to fuel the first two elements …

For researchers working in the pandemic response to continue to do so effectively, we seek help in halting the aggression. This is essential not only for our personal safety or national security, but also the reality that attacking science and scientists will both promote illness and cause loss of life.

There it is again – criticism as dangerous aggression that must be stopped, with the pandemic used as an excuse for such suppression. Again, if someone is actually violating a law by death threats and illegal stalking activities, there are already laws that can be activated against that person. But Hotez wants more:

We should look at expanded protection mechanisms for scientists currently targeted by far-right extremism in the United States. Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY) has introduced a bill known as the Scientific Integrity Act of 2021 (H.R. 849) to protect US Government scientists from political interference, but this needs to be extended for scientists at private research universities and institutes. Still another possibility is to extend federal hate-crime protections.

One of the interesting things about this article, in addition to Hotez’s anti-free-speech tendencies, is his idea that anti-science and anti-vax sentiment comes only from the right, which it certainly does not.

And what hate crimes is he talking about? Perhaps he’s thinking of laws in Canada and Europe that criminalize hate speech? Such laws don’t exist in the US – yet. Hate crimes in the US must involve an actual crime other than mere speech.

He closes with this (again with the “aggression”):

We must take steps to protect our scientists and take swift and positive action to counter the growing wave of far-right antiscience aggression. Not taking action is a tacit endorsement, and a guarantee that the integrity and productivity of science in the United States will be eroded or lose ground.

I would say the integrity and productivity of science in the US has already lost ground – particularly its integrity, in part due to thinking such as Hotez’s. And here I once thought that scientists welcomed discussion, criticism, and dissent, and relished the opportunity to prove their cases with facts and logic. I guess I’m behind the times.

The eviction moratorium: Biden pretends the courts don’t matter and he can do what he wants

The New Neo Posted on by

Ah, but it’s Trump who’s the tyrannical authoritarian.

Not good old Joe.

From Jonathan Turley:

I was astonished by the remarks of President Joe Biden on his support for extending the eviction moratorium, which was found to be unconstitutional by lower courts. It was later preserved by a divided Supreme Court despite the view of a majority that it was unconstitutional. It was saved from being struck down merely by the fact that it was expiring. President Biden acknowledged that his legal experts overwhelmingly told him that any extension would violate the Constitution. However, he then said it was worth extending the moratorium because it would take time for a court to intervene and, in the interim, they could rush out money to renters despite the lack of constitutional authority to do so.

In other words: we can get away with it for now.

Turley goes on to point out that “Kavanaugh made clear in his opinion that he would vote against any extension as unconstitutional.” But as SCOTUS has now learned, a pre-emptive warning like that doesn’t work very well because it’s a toothless threat – it has to be followed through on later if the other branches of government decide to ignore it. Then there’s always another Joe’s (Stalin, that is, although the story may be apocryphal) question: How many divisions does the Pope have?” In this case, how many divisions does SCOTUS have?

More from Turley:

President Biden’s position not only dismisses constitutional protections but disregards his own presidential obligations…

Yet, imagine if a Republican president announced that he was told that an order on drilling or subsidizing a religious organization was unconstitutional but would use litigation to get the money out before a court could intervene. The hue and cry in the media and from law schools would be deafening.

Biden came to office declaring a return to the “rule of law” but has actually racked up an impressive array of court losses. Now he is treating a presumptively unconstitutional act as a purely tactical consideration to allow the spending of federal funds. That is not exactly what he pledged before he declared “so help me God” on January 20th.

Not exactly. Actually, not at all. But my guess is that most Democratic voters don’t care about that sort of little detail, if they consider the cause just and the president is a Democrat.

Children and the Delta variant

The New Neo Posted on by

One of the few – very few – blessings connected with COVID so far has been that for the most part children have not had bad cases, and very few deaths. Our children and grandchildren are precious beyond description, and we would do almost anything to protect them if we could.

At present children under twelve are unvaccinated for two reasons. The first is the general mildness of the illness in children, and the second is that the vaccine is relatively untested in children. Those two things change the risk/benefit ratio for vaccination for young children, at least for now.

But lately the Delta variant has reared its ugly head. As commenter TommyJay states:

The latest push seems to be that children are much more at risk with Delta. At risk of infection. or risk being spreaders, or risk of getting really sick? Would you trust their answer if they gave one?

An example of what he’s talking about can be seen in this NBC News article, for example, which is headlined in a large font: “As delta variant spreads, medical experts warn of risk to young children.” That headline alone is enough to frighten a parent or grandparent.

The subtitle goes like this: “A Covid vaccine has not yet been authorized for children under the age of 12, putting them among the unvaccinated who are at risk of infection.” That’s certainly true, although obvious and not necessarily all that meaningful if the infections tend to be similar to the infections caused in children by the previous variants.

In the second paragraph of the article it says: “As of July 8, more than 4 million children had been diagnosed with Covid-19, representing 14.2 percent of all cases, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics.” Is that different than the percentage of cases in children prior to Delta? And of course, one would expect the percentage of children among cases to go up compared to pre-vaccine times, because children represent a large percentage of the unvaccinated and the unvaccinated are apparently more vulnerable.

The article goes on to say:

At least 335 children, ages 17 and younger, have died from Covid-19, according to the latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, although serious complications in kids remain extremely rare. But increasing cases among children, including severe ones, are expected as the delta variant spreads and with no Covid vaccine authorized for children under the age of 12.

That paragraph fails to mention that of the children who died, virtually all had significant pre-existing conditions.

More:

“Last year, for example, you would have to give a child a really high infectious dose to make them sick, but with the virus that’s more contagious, even what would be an insignificant exposure could get them sick,” said Dr. Carlos Oliveira, a pediatric infectious diseases doctor and assistant professor of pediatrics at the Yale School of Medicine.

I’d love to know on what that statement is based. I’d also like to know what Dr. Oliveira means by “sick” – does he mean an asymptomatic positive test or sick enough to feel sick? The article doesn’t say.

Children have gotten COVID right from the start of the pandemic, mostly with mild symptoms. For example, take a look at this article which studies cases in the spring and summer of 2020, way before there was any vaccine. The title is: “Continued proportional age shift of confirmed positive COVID-19 incidence over time to children and young adults: Washington State March—August 2020.” Here’s an excerpt from the abstract:

After the peak (March 22, 2020), incidence declined in older age groups and increased among age 0–19 and 20–39 age groups from 20% to 40% of total cases by April 19 and 50% by May 3. During this time testing expanded with more testing among older age groups and less testing among younger age groups while case positivity shifted young. Percent positive cases age 0-19/20-39 years through August 2020 increased to a consistent average of 60% [age 0–19 increased to 19% (N = 10257), age 20–39 increased to 42% (N = 30215)].

If Washington cases are any indication, that’s an even higher percentage of young children among diagnosed COVID cases than we are seeing now.

Back to that NBC article, which finally comes out with this:

Still, there is no evidence that children are more susceptible to the delta variant of the virus than others who are unvaccinated or that it causes more severe illness.

Dr. Sean O’Leary, vice chair of the committee on infectious diseases for the American Academy of Pediatrics, said “it is more contagious in kids just like it’s more contagious in other unvaccinated individuals, but it’s not more contagious in kids than other unvaccinated individuals.”

None of this really deals with whether this variant causes more serious cases in children than other variants do. Apparently the answer is that they don’t know:

Dr. Jennifer Lighter, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at NYU Langone Health, said the delta variant, while it is “certainly more contagious,” doesn’t appear to be more dangerous to children than other variants…Versalovic also said, “We have no firm evidence that the disease severity in children and adolescents is any different with the delta variant.”

They have “no firm evidence.” Do they have any evidence of it? Isn’t that something we need to know? Surely they have some figures that bear on that, such as the ratio of hospitalized cases in children vs. diagnosed cases in children, pre-Delta and post-Delta. But I’ve been unable to find any such figures.

This really doesn’t engender a lot more trust in medical authorities than we had a few months ago, and most of us feel less trust than we did pre-COVID. TommyJay’s final question was, “Would you trust their answer if they gave one?”

Open thread 8/4/21

The New Neo Posted on by

The world’s most charming dancer in a short excerpt from her most exquisite role, Giselle.

She’s a peasant who has a weak heart. She thinks she’s just met the love of her life. But he’s actually a nobleman in peasant disguise, and he’s going to betray her.

But that hasn’t happened yet. So she’s dancing in all her innocence, transported by joy:

If you want to see the whole film, it’s here. The director got a little carried away at times with fancy camera angles, but it’s a precious and wonderful filmed record.

Biden says Governor Cuomo should resign

The New Neo Posted on by

[Hat tip: commenter “TJ.”]

That was quick:

“I think he should resign,” Biden said of his longtime Democratic ally.

Biden spoke hours after Cuomo proclaimed his innocence and issued a counter-report with photos of Biden and other elected officials hugging women.

“Look, I’m not going to flyspeck this. I’m sure there are some embraces that were totally innocent. But apparently the attorney general decided there were things that weren’t,” Biden said when a reporter asked about Cuomo using his own conduct as a defense.

Due process, anyone?

Boy, the Democrats must really want to be rid of Cuomo. If he resigns, it also eliminates the messy process of trying to impeach him, and the whole issue (as well as the nursing home issue) goes away.

And then of course there’s this:

Biden himself has faced allegations of making women feel uncomfortable with unwanted touching and he has denied a sexual assault allegation from former Senate aide Tara Reade.

Maybe Kamala should demand that Biden resign.

The linked article has also said that Harris is one of the few higher-ups who hasn’t demanded that Cuomo resign. Of course, her own sexual/political history vis a vis Willie Brown is what one might call interesting, but I’ve never heard that she’s been accused of sexual harassment by anyone.

Regarding Cuomo, I think the fat lady is singing scales in the wings.

Objectifying men; objectifying women

The New Neo Posted on by

I found this at Instapundit:

It indicates that although gaping at and admiring male athletes’ bodies is perfectly okay, doing the same to women athletes’ bodies isn’t. That’s in line with the left’s new puritanism. But it’s also a denial of the sexual reality of human beings, which is that we are attracted to the way beautiful bodies look (depending, of course, on the standards of beauty in a particular society). And another part of that reality is that men are more visual creatures than women. To try to stop this impulse, even in the relatively harmless form it takes here, is to discourage sexuality itself, which is not a purely lofty and entirely spiritual impulse, although in its highest form (love) it partakes of those things.

This doesn’t mean that women are immune to the way men look. It matters, but it’s usually not definitive (not that it’s all that matters when men evaluate women, either). I remember, for example, being asked out by an extraordinarily handsome man in college. I spent the entire date listening to him talk and thinking over and over, “Please say something witty or funny or interesting so I can go out with you again!” He never did, and that was the end of that attraction for me. On the other hand, when I met my husband-to-be I was immediately smitten with two things at once: the way he looked and how entertainingly funny he was. He turned out to have many other sterling characteristics of the non-physical variety, but it certainly didn’t hurt that he looked good.

There’s no need to apologize for it. We’re not all attracted to the same thing or even the same looks, but for most of us – male or female or whatever other sexes are listed these days – looks enter into it. That’s reality, folks. But the left wants to alter reality as it suits them. Be careful what you wish for; it may have unintended consequences.

NOTE: In the comments at that Instapundit link, I found this ad, which I’d never seen before but which amuses me greatly. I don’t know how old it is: