The dog…

The New Neo Posted on by

…has now returned to the line of duty:

President Donald Trump lauded the canine at Sunday’s press conference in which he offered vivid details of how the elite U.S. Army special operators took down one of the world’s most wanted terrorists.

“Our ‘K-9,’ as they call it, a beautiful dog, a talented dog, was injured and brought back,” the president said in his national address from the White House…

…[R]etired Marine Ron Aiello told the New York Times that the dog was either a Belgian Malinois or German Shepherd.

“If they’re leading the patrol, they want a dog that is not only an explosive detection dog but on command can be aggressive,” said Aiello. “On a mission like this you want a dog that can be aggressive when necessary.”

I recently watched a demonstration of how dogs are trained to attack on command, using special padded sleeves that the trainers wear to protect themselves. Dogs are truly amazing creatures.

The right way to sing

The New Neo Posted on by

I’m an extremely mediocre singer with no technique at all, although I once took a short series of voice lessons during which my teacher managed to say that my singing voice was “not unpleasant.” Faint praise, indeed.

So I have no way of evaluating the helpfulness of the vocal techniques outlined in this piece, which describes how modern methods of singing have added strain to singers’ voices and how to sing in order to reduce that strain.

What I want to write about is the singer Adele. The article says:

Voice specialists liken the physical toll on singers and stage performers to what athletes endure. Surgery to the professional singer’s vocal cords is what ligament reconstruction has become to the football player’s knee. Dusty theatres, stuffy airplane cabins, erratic eating and sleeping patterns, the stress of living off stingy contracts – all affect the vocal cords. Add to it the occupational hazard, at least in opera and classical music, of taking on roles that require you to sing above your natural range, and the cords become extremely susceptible to injury…

The rise in vocal injuries is linked to a change in what we consider good singing. Across all genres, it has become normal to believe that louder is better. (One reason that Adele is such a big star is because her voice is so big.) As a result, singers are pushing their cords like never before, which leads to vocal breakdown…

…the emotionally charged, full-throated, operatic singing style Verdi and Wagner made popular in the late 19th century – and that Puccini amped up even further in the early 20th century – [has] infiltrated all singing genres and public performances. With each passing decade, the style grew more extreme.

So apparently a combination of straining for emotion as well as volume has damaged vocal cords, and this is what happened to Adele and many others.

I don’t know about the many others (especially the opera singers), because I’m not familiar with them. But I have noticed something about Adele and certain other pop singers, which is that even as an amateur who knows next to nothing about voices, I hear tremendous strain and artificiality in their voices all the time. But to my ear it doesn’t depend on volume at all. The goal seems to be to express emotion, particularly suffering and sorrow, although at times it might be passion, and I hear it as a squeeze or a grind in the voice in addition to a tendency to slide from note to note rather than to be crisp.

Diction is affected, too. The words are somewhat slurred, and the effect is of someone slightly tipsy or under the influence of some drug or other, or just awakened from sleep or about to go to sleep. To me, they all sound rather the same and quite repetitive. How this is accomplished vocally I have no idea, but I figure that if it sounds like stress even to me, it most likely is stress.

Left vs. right: the rules of the game

The New Neo Posted on by

Commenter “mhjhnsn” writes, in the thread about the Democrats’ reaction to the killing of Baghdadi:

…[W]hat this really says to me is that there is NOTHING that Trump can do to mollify, even for only a day, those who hate him, and this is a fight to the death. Those who think Trump is intemperate and that he should tone it down (people like me, often) need to think hard on that.

They will offer no quarter, no compromise. Think on that, because it is not how we products of American democracy and give-and-take politics tend to view things and we need to recognize reality for what it is–like it or not..

Whether “fight to the death” is literal or metaphorical, the idea is that this is a fight of great intensity in which the left plays only to win. Rule of law, or any mutually-agreed-on process that protects both sides because both sides know that one day one group is in power and the next day the other group may be – that’s over, if in fact it ever existed (the perception certainly was that it existed).

Actually, the far left never played by those rules. But much of the Democratic Party and the vast majority of Americans did, and that give-and-take was operating when I was growing up. But the far left has taken over what was once a group that contained a large number of moderates who are now either pushed way to the side or who are nonexistent in the Democratic Party. Now that the left is fully in the driver’s seat all bets are off, and they aim to (and expect to) be permanently in power, and are determined to do whatever it takes to get to that end.

Thus, the unending Resistance war on Trump. Events such as the killing of Baghdadi can no longer be allowed to have a bipartisan unifying effect.

Much of the anger of the right at NeverTrumpers and others who have issues with Trump related to style, including his style of combat, need to (in the words of the commenter) “recognize reality for what it is – like it or not.” It’s a sad and sorrowful realization, but as time goes on it increasingly seems to be an inevitable realization.

And then there’s the reaction to al-Baghdadi’s death

The New Neo Posted on by

Lindsey Graham says “This is a moment where President Trump’s worst critics should say, ‘Well done, Mr. President.'”

That Lindsey Graham, always making with the jokes.

Because obviously that’s not going to happen. And as proof, we have: Trump went into “irresponsible” detail when he described the raid, Pelosi’s complaint that Trump told the Russians but not her and her Congressional band of leakers and carpers, Richard Engel saying the Kurds are still pissed, criticism of the situation room photo, and my own (and perhaps everyone’s) personal favorite:

There are many ways to describe a terror leader in a headline. But the Washington Post is getting ripped this morning for referring to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in a headline as an “austere religious scholar.”

This headline was no accident, nor was it rushed. In fact, the original WaPo headline was “Islamic State’s terrorist-in-chief” and they changed to “austere religious scholar.” That shows a certain amount of contemplation. They got so much flak for the “religious scholar” designation that now they’ve settled on “extremist leader of Islamic State,” a still-tepid description for a man so vile and sadistic.

It makes one wonder what the present-day editors of the WaPo would make of Hitler’s death if they had to report it all over again:

“Animal-loving vegetarian with ambitious plans dies tragically”

Or Stalin’s:

“Former seminary student who became leader of a great nation is deeply mourned”

ADDENDUM:

I wasn’t far off from what was the actual NY Times headline for Stalin’s obit, which read, “Stalin Rose From Czarist Oppression to Transform Russia Into Mighty Socialist State.” [Hat tip: Ed Driscoll at Instapundit.]

Wow. That seems to be a real Times headline and not a parody site.

ISIS head al-Baghdadi reported killed

The New Neo Posted on by

Trump approved the raid by US special forces about a week ago:

A U.S. Army official briefed on the results of the operation told Newsweek that Baghdadi was killed in the raid, and the Defense Department told the White House they have “high confidence” that the high-value target killed was Baghdadi, but further verification is pending DNA and biometric testing. The senior Pentagon official said there was a brief firefight when U.S. forces entered the compound in Idlib’s Barisha village and that Baghdadi then killed himself by detonating a suicide vest. Family members were present. According to Pentagon sources, no children were harmed in the raid but two Baghdadi wives were killed after detonating their own explosive vests.

Did they wear the vests all the time, just in case?

The operation occurred in northern Syria near Turkey, and the Kurds were involved:

Kurdish fighters appeared Sunday to be claiming a role in the operation that is believed to have killed Islamic State group leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi…

SDF commander in chief Gen. Mazloum Kobani appeared to hail the raid early Sunday, claiming “a successful & historical operation due to joint intelligence work with the United States of America.”

What’s all this “appeared” business? Why so tentative, NBC?

Oh, and of course there’s the obligatory “al-Baghdadi didn’t really matter” article at CNN.

Was this raid related to the withdrawal announced just a short while ago that got so much criticism? Was that some sort of head fake and setup to this? There’s this, for example:

“Our sources from inside Syria have confirmed to the Iraqi intelligence team tasked with pursuing Baghdadi that he has been killed alongside his personal bodyguard in Idlib, after his hiding place was discovered when he tried to get his family out of Idlib towards the Turkish border,” said one of the sources.

Trump is going to be speaking at 9 AM, presumably about al-Baghdadi.

UPDATE 9:30 AM

According to Trump, al-Baghdadi was chased by dogs and died in a tunnel, “whimpering, crying, and screaming all the way…He had dragged three of his children” into the tunnel, who were killed by his suicide vest. He was identified positively.

US forces got “highly sensitive material” in the raid.

“We will continue to pursue the remaining ISIS terrorists to their brutal end.”

Trump mentions some of the brutal murders ISIS committed and then publicized.

He thanks Russia, Syria, Turkey, Iraq, and the Kurds, who all participated – and of course, our military. And he emphasizes shame aspects of al-Baghdadi’s death: “He died like a dog. He died like a coward.”

Trump points out that they were very careful not to allow any leaks, and that only a relatively small number of people knew about the raid.

Are you exceptionally likeable?

The New Neo Posted on by

I already know that I’m not.

Some people like me exceptionally well. But I think most people find me a trifle odd.

Maybe not just a trifle.

And now I know why. I don’t fit this profile at all, and what’s more I don’t think I find people who do fit it all that exceptionally likeable. The article describes exceptionally likeable people as having the nine characteristics I put in quotes in the following list:

(1) “They don’t talk a lot.” They listen instead.

Well, I listen too. But when I get going, I talk a lot.

(2) “They don’t blame.”

But I see nothing wrong – and a lot right, actually – in blaming where blame is due. Use it sparingly, but don’t be afraid to use it. That doesn’t preclude taking responsibility for what I’ve done, because the two aren’t mutually exclusive.

(3) “They don’t try to impress.”

I think I conform to this one, at least.

(4) “They don’t interrupt.”

Oops! I’ve been accused of this, but I usually err only in my zeal to show that I understand, or because I honestly think the person has finished talking when he or she has only paused to think. It also has to do with regional and ethnic differences in conversational rhythms. New Yorkers are not sensitive about being interrupted; they consider it part of conversational enthusiasm.

(5) “They don’t complain.”

I don’t complain much (or at least, as much as I might), because I’ve learned that people don’t like those who grouse. But whenever someone else apologizes for complaining to me, I tell them I’m perfectly fine with their doing it. Because I am perfectly fine with it, up to a point, and few of my friends ever go past that point. If friends can’t listen to complaints, they’re just fair weather friends in my book.

(6) “They aren’t controlling.”

I think I’m okay on this one.

(7) “They don’t criticize.”

I”m usually very careful to couch criticism in very polite terms, if I do it at all. But with those near and dear to me I certainly will criticize if it’s called for, and sometimes it is called for. Intimacy requires some criticism, unless one is involved with a saint.

(8) “They don’t preach.”

I think I’m okay here, too. I do discourse a bit, though.

(9) “They don’t dwell on the past.”

Depends on the meaning of “dwell.” I don’t bring up the past transgressions of anyone unless and until there’s a repeat in the present and the person acts like it’s the first time it ever happened. But I do ruminate internally on the past quite a bit, as most introspective and contemplative people do. After all, it’s only human, as Robert Burns said in 1785 to a field mouse whose nest he’d disrupted with his plow:

But Mousie, thou art no thy-lane,
In proving foresight may be vain:
The best laid schemes o’ Mice an’ Men
Gang aft agley,
An’ lea’e us nought but grief an’ pain,
For promis’d joy!

Still, thou art blest, compar’d wi’ me!
The present only toucheth thee:
But Och! I backward cast my e’e,
On prospects drear!
An’ forward tho’ I canna see,
I guess an’ fear!

Puberty blockers and the gender transition of children

The New Neo Posted on by

Recently a Texas jury ruled against a father who is trying to stop his estranged wife from “transitioning” their 7-year-old son to becoming a female.

Of course, in the language of the left, that son isn’t a son at all but a daughter right from the get-go – despite male genitalia, chromosomes, and (according to the father) an ordinary identification as a male child, who only identifies as female when around the mother. In a society that encourages transitioning at an age so young, as ours increasingly is, we’re sometimes (maybe often) going to get a ruling like this.

I’ve written before about some of the violations committed on very young children in the name of gender fluidity and transgender rights (here and here, for example). Fortunately, in the Texas case the governor and AG of Texas have ordered an investigation into the situation:

Top Texas Republicans have directed the state’s child welfare agency to investigate whether a mother who supports her 7-year-old child’s gender transition is committing “child abuse” — a move that has alarmed an already fearful community of parents of transgender children.

Gov. Greg Abbott declared via tweet Wednesday that two state agencies, the Department of Family and Protective Services and the Texas Attorney General’s Office, are looking into a dispute between divorced North Texas parents who disagree on whether their child should continue the process of transitioning from male to female, a path that could culminate, when the child is years older, in medical interventions.

In a letter Thursday to the state’s child welfare agency, First Assistant Attorney General Jeff Mateer declared that the child — who identifies as a girl, according to testimony from a counselor and pediatrician — is “in immediate and irrevocable danger.”

“We ask that you open an investigation into this matter as soon as possible and act pursuant to your emergency powers to protect the boy in question [from] permanent and potentially irreversible harm by his mother,” Mateer wrote, repeatedly referring to the 7-year-old as a boy. Mateer’s nomination to the federal bench was withdrawn in 2017 after revelations that he had called transgender children part of “Satan’s plan.”

A spokesman for DFPS said the agency’s “review of the allegations is already underway.”

The case’s path to public discourse began with the child’s father, Jeff Younger, whose blog has generated a maelstrom of right-wing outrage, including from U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, who called the child “a pawn in a left-wing political agenda.” Younger, who also appeared at a rally at the Capitol this spring, does not agree with his ex-wife that his child is transgender. In blog posts, he has claimed his child could face “chemical castration.”

In reality, experts say, the transition process for prepubescent children does not involve medical intervention; instead, it consists of social affirmations like allowing children to wear the clothes they like, employ the names and pronouns they prefer, and paint their nails if they choose. During puberty, a transgender child might, with the consultation of a doctor, begin to take puberty blockers, reversible drugs that can stop puberty and the gender markers that come with it, like a deepening voice, the development of breasts or starting a period. Later on, experts say, transgender young adults might explore the option of surgery.

That last paragraph is purposely misleading and very carefully framed. For example:

—“the transition process for prepubescent children does not involve medical intervention.” I don’t see that anyone here is alleging that it does involve “medical intervention” (meaning drugs and/or surgery, I suppose) at this point, for a 7-year-old. But this child could indeed face medical intervention and ultimately even infertility if the present course continues.

—“During puberty, a transgender child might, with the consultation of a doctor, begin to take puberty blockers, reversible drugs that can stop puberty and the gender markers that come with it…” But the drugs must be taken very early in puberty or they don’t work as intended:

For most children, puberty begins around ages 10 to 11, though some start earlier. The effect of pubertal blockers depends on when a child begins to take the medication. GnRH analogue treatment can begin at the start of puberty to delay secondary sex characteristics. In slightly later stages of puberty, the treatment could be used to stop menstruation or erections or to prevent further development of undesired secondary sex characteristics.

And it’s a little-discussed fact that male-to-female surgical transition (“bottom” surgery) is much more difficult later on if puberty blockers have been used with a biologically male child, because there often isn’t enough penile tissue to make a functioning vagina due to the fact that the normal growth of the penis has been blocked.

Puberty blockers are hardly innocuous drugs for other reasons, too. For example, puberty blockers may:

—slow your physical growth and affect your height
—decrease your bone density (making your bones more likely to break in the future)

There’s also this, to which I alluded earlier:

We know that blockers vastly increase the likelihood that the child will remain on a medical pathway. In real life, it is the ‘online’ wisdom about desistance that is correct: ‘children’s GD/GV persists after puberty in only 10-30 percent of all cases’. As the GIDS team reported in 2016, these figures change if we provide puberty blockers:

“Persistence was strongly correlated with the commencement of physical interventions such as the hypothalamic blocker (t=.395, p=.007) and no patient within the sample desisted after having started on the hypothalamic blocker…”

In this report, every one of the patients on the blocker persisted while 90.3% of those not on the blocker desisted. Either clinicians have semi divine powers of insight or the blocker itself strongly affected the outcome for the child. This drug is not the neutral reversible intervention that was claimed because “it freezes youngsters in a prolonged childhood, secluding them from certain aspects of reality and isolating them from peer groups.”

If puberty blockers have been used and a child goes on to transition without going through a puberty matching his/her biological sex, the result is infertility. And for a child born male such as the child in Texas, there is as yet no way to harvest and store fertile sperm from a child who has never undergone puberty, so there is no recourse for the infertility.

The dangerous nature of this approach is being whitewashed for the public for political purposes.

The plot against Flynn and the meaning of “pretext”

The New Neo Posted on by

As soon as I heard that Sidney Powell was on the Flynn appeal I figured she’d sink her formidable teeth into it.

And she has:

Powell’s most explosive charge is that the FBI falsified the Form 302 that recorded the content of its agents’ interview with Flynn in order to set him up for prosecution…

“Those changes added an unequivocal statement that “FLYNN stated he did not”—in response to whether Mr. Flynn had asked Kislyak to vote in a certain manner or slow down the UN vote. This is a deceptive manipulation because, as the notes of the agents show, Mr. Flynn was not even sure he had spoken to Russia/Kislyak on this issue. He had talked to dozens of countries. Exs. 9, 10, 11.

Second, they added: “or if KISLYAK described any Russian response to a request by FLYNN.” That question and answer do not appear in the notes, yet it was made into a criminal offense.”…

Many of the juicy tidbits come from texts between Peter Strzok and his illicit lover, Andrew McCabe’s Special Counsel Lisa Page. These texts have dribbled out over a considerable period of time, and I take it that at least some of the ones quoted here are new. For example:

“As news of the “salacious and unverified” allegations of the ‘Steele dossier’ dominated the media, Strzok wrote to Page: ‘Sitting with Bill watching CNN. A TON more out. . . We’re discussing whether, now that this is out, we can use it as a pretext to go interview some people.'”

Please read the whole thing.

And here we thought we’d seen a great many Strzok/Page texts. Well, we had, but not quite enough of them. It was always suspected (on the right, anyway) that some very important ones had been successfully deleted and/or were kept from public knowledge. And it continues to amaze me that the plotters – with their background and supposed knowledge in the field known as “intelligence” – carried on their business through text and email; how sloppy and reckless of them! They must have thought it impossible that any of this would come to light, or that it would matter if it did.

The word “pretext” in particular caught me eye. Was Strzok really saying what I thought he was saying, which was a candid admission that the leaks were used in order to start the investigation but were a fake reason to start it, a mere excuse? Yes, that’s the meaning of the word “pretext“: “a purpose or motive alleged or an appearance assumed in order to cloak the real intention or state of affairs.”

Doesn’t that just about say it all?

[NOTE: Powell appears to have a source within the DOJ or FBI giving her information and documents, which would explain some of these new revelations.

I began this post by saying I figured Powell would be a smart and aggressive advocate for Flynn. That’s because I’ve seen her speak before, and she immediately impressed me with the depth and breadth of her knowledge on the issue of government misdeeds of the legal variety. The first time I ever saw her, I wrote this:

…[L]ast night I happened across Mark Levin’s show on Fox, and saw an interview with Sidney Powell, an attorney who wrote Licensed to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice.

Please note her book’s date of publication: May 1, 2014. Therefore, it had to have been written some time before that—and certainly long before the FBI and the DOJ were engaged in investigating Donald Trump and his aides and acquaintances.

Powell herself immediately got my attention in a way that few speakers do. She was calm and logical, and presented a case so distressing—in particular about Andrew Weissmann, Mueller’s right-hand man, but hardly limited to him—that I was riveted for the entire interview…

Powell’s been talking about this for quite some time, too.]

Aldi saves money, but I still don’t like it

The New Neo Posted on by

I love to save money, so when I recently went to an Aldi market for the first time I expected it to become a new favorite. But I was surprised to find that I didn’t much like it.

In fact, I didn’t like it at all, and I doubt I’ll return. I guess I’m not as much of a cheapskate as I thought I was.

It’s inexpensive all right, but for me the main drawback was the lack of selection. It’s not just my imagination, either:

With five or six super-wide aisles, Aldi only stocks around 1,400 items — compared to around 40,000 at traditional supermarkets and more than 100,000 at Walmart supercenters.

Some people apparently like that:

For time-strapped shoppers like Youngpeter, Aldi’s simple layouts and limited selection save her time. “I’m a busy mom. I don’t have time to navigate a huge grocery store with kids begging to get out and go home,” she said. “I can get in and out of an Aldi in no time. I’m not sifting through 50 different varieties of salsa.”

But how much time does it take to go to the salsa aisle and get the one you like, the one you always get (disclosure: I don’t ordinarily get salsa)? Granted, I don’t have kids begging and crying to go home, but if I remember correctly, when I did my kid loved the grocery store and riding around in the cart looking at stuff was entertainment.

Have you been to an Aldi? What do you think?

Corrupt Democratic Congresswomen: Katie Hill

The New Neo Posted on by

With the increase in the number of women in Congress we’re getting an increase in revelations about corrupt women in Congress. And if the allegations against Ilhan Omar and Katie Hill were mounted against a Republican man, we would never hear the end of it. But with Democratic women, not so much.

I’ve written about Omar before, so I won’t go into all that again in this post. As for Hill, to me the salient point is that the woman with whom Hill was allegedly involved was a staffer, which is a no-no. Here’s how Hill is approaching her defense (she is being investigated by the House on possible ethics violations):

Hill sent a letter to her constituents Wednesday night admitting to a relationship “despite my better judgment” with a campaign staffer and apologized.

“I am saddened that the deeply personal matter of my divorce has been brought into public view, even the false allegations of a relationship with my congressional staffer, which I have publicly denied, and I am fully and proactively cooperating with the Ethics Committee,” Hill wrote. “This smear campaign will not get in the way of the work I am doing every day to move our district and our country forward. I am truly grateful for the outpouring of support I have received from colleagues and constituents alike, and I know we will get through this together.”

In a statement, the Ethics Committee said the fact that it was investigating the allegations “does not itself indicate that any violation has occurred, or reflect any judgment on behalf of the Committee,” said Reps. Ted Deutch and Kenny Marchant in a statement Wednesday evening. Deutch and Marchant are the chairman and ranking member of the committee respectively.

So she erred, but it was against her “better judgment.” See, she’s got good judgment; she just went against it for a moment. But let’s emphasize her good judgment even as she admits to transgressions.

And even though one of the allegations is absolutely true and she has admitted to it, it’s a “smear campaign” that she will “get through.” A victim, that’s what Katie Hill is.

And I will go out on a limb and predict that the Ethics Committee will only give her the mildest slap on the wrist, almost a love tap.

Personally, I don’t care about Katie Hill’s sex life or her messy divorce. I’ll leave that between Hill and her soon-to-be ex-huband. I do care that her dalliance was with a staffer. I do care about her weaselly apology. And that would be true for me about a man or woman of either party.

The dueling investigations race: is it to the swift?

The New Neo Posted on by

It’s a race:

The race is on to see who will survive—the duly-elected president of the United States or a modern-day Praetorian Guard comprised of former law enforcement and intelligence officials tasked with taking down that president.

As Barr gets closer to the key people involved in concocting the phony Trump-Russia collusion hoax—which included the use of powerful surveillance tools and government informants—House Democrats are escalating efforts in their attempt to impeach Trump before Barr’s department starts issuing indictments. If Trump goes down before Barr and U.S. Attorney John Durham, his point man on the investigation, can complete their work, that investigation could be completely discredited if not halted altogether as the by-product of an illegitimate presidency…

The outcome of the multiple lines of inquiry into the conduct of the modern-day Praetorian Guard likely will be very bad news for dozens of Democratic officials, including Joe Biden, who was involved in Brennan’s Situation Room briefings in 2016 about alleged “collusion” right up until Election Day. House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) has been an integral part of the collusion hoax since its inception, which is why he is working overtime on his “impeachment inquiry” before he himself is implicated.

House Republicans stormed one outpost of the Praetorian Guard on Wednesday when they breached Schiff’s secret impeachment lair and refused to leave. That move, condemned by the news media and faux “conservative” websites such as the Washington Examiner, which compared the rebellious Republicans to Antifa terrorists, represented a true republican offensive against the Guard.

It’s a race, but although speed is important, I think there are a lot of other factors that might be even more important.

The base of each side will probably be unmoved by anything that’s revealed, and the MSM will energetically work on every possible front and with every story it reports to favor the Democrats’ playbook and influence whoever might remain persuadable. The MSM is handicapped by its own squandering of the trust that was once invested in it, and yet it is advantaged by its wide reach and insistent and unified voice.

But even with all that propaganda advantage, there’s a limit to how many people you can fool how much of the time. It seems to me that all but the most fervent of the Democratic base are well aware that the MSM is not an objective player, and are also quite aware that Trump has been under attack from the opposition from day one and even earlier. So, for example, saying that Barr and Durham are part of a Trump coverup and that whatever report they issue is corrupt and illegitimate will not fly if the only argument mounted for that point of view is that their reports were issued after the impeachment inquiry.

While it is true that the Democrats are working quickly, it also seems that the release of the Horowitz report is imminent. Of course, we’ve heard that before, and the pace is slower than expected – and often the result is disappointing as well, after all the anticipation. We’re now hearing that the Barr probe has turned criminal, which raises expectations strongly on the right (although such expectations have been dashed many times before).

The Democrats’ proceedings in their “inquiry” are so unusual in terms of process that it may be that the public smells a rat already. Just as they’ve lost trust in the MSM, they may have lost trust in the inquiry and Schiff may have overplayed his hand from the outset:

A memo by the Republican National Committee (RNC) that contains internal GOP polling data shows the American public, even Democrat voters, are turning against the Democrat Party’s “impeachment inquiry” into President Donald Trump. The memo, obtained exclusively by Breitbart News, shows independent voters nationwide en masse oppose impeachment—with 54 percent opposed and only 34 percent in favor. “We have seen public polling drastically under sample Independent voters, which is one of the many reasons for so much incorrect public data over the past month,” the memo explains regarding the disparity between internal GOP numbers and public polling from news organizations and polling institutions.

What’s more, internal RNC polling data, according to this memo, shows Democrats have lost support among their own base significantly in just the past week.

Polling; what can you say other than that pollsters have lost credibility, too?

And then there’s this: how many people actually pay attention to the details of what comes out? Political junkies do, of course. But is everyone else just following the headlines?