Great WalkAway story:
And here’s another fascinating political change story. I would say “from an unlikely source,” but after reading a good many of these stories, I’ve noticed that a not insignificant number of them are from people who don’t fit the stereotypical demographic of the right.
I suppose neither do I, although not as dramatically.
But this is pretty funny, especially the Biden parts:
On October 17th, the New York Times published an op-ed celebrating the 25th anniversary of the Million Man March that neglected to mention the anti-Semitic history of its organizer, Louis Farrakhan. In response, former Times editorial board member Bari Weiss tweeted that the institution had adopted “a worldview in which Jew hate does not count.” The author of the Times op-ed, Howard University professor Natalie Hopkinson, replied that “ppl who have become white”—that is, Jews like Weiss—“should not be lecturing Black ppl about oppression.”
Jews can be all things to all Jew-haters: outsider “people of color” when necessary, insider privileged whites when necessary. But the common denominator in these categorizations is that the hate against them does not die. It just takes on different guises. And of course, Farrakhan has always been a spreader of the poison.
Professor Hopkinson is a professor at a traditionally black university, so she’s shaping woke minds in one of the oldest hatreds in the book, under the guise of “anti-racism.” Sweetly Orwellism, is it not?
Dr. Natalie Hopkinson is an assistant professor in the doctoral program in Howard University’s Department of Communication, Culture and Media studies, and a fellow of the Interactivity Foundation. Her work explores questions about the arts, cultural identity and place; postcolonial history, gender, and media. She has been a columnist at the Huffington Post and was formerly a staff writer, editor and media/culture critic at the Washington Post and The Root. She earned an M.A. and Ph.D. at the University of Maryland-College Park and her B.A. in political science from Howard University.
From the Quillette article:
For much of the last century, the liberal position on race in America was that we should eliminate discrimination and prejudice, treat everyone as an individual, and award opportunities on the basis of merit. Some groups, like Jews, Asian Americans, and other minority immigrant groups have flourished under this system, but black Americans continue to be represented in fractions of their societal proportions in many elite settings. In response, the progressive view has evolved. Today it holds that treating everyone the same without regard to race is actually racist because it fails to consider the impact of historic and systemic discrimination. In this way, systemic racism is preserved by judging members of historically marginalized groups as less worthy according to ostensibly race-neutral criteria (for instance, test scores).
The writing of Ibram X. Kendi—professor, Atlantic columnist, and bestselling author of How To Be An Antiracist—provides the intellectual framework for the contemporary antiracist movement. Kendi argues that:
“The most threatening racist movement is not the alt-right’s unlikely drive for a White ethnostate but the regular American’s drive for a “race-neutral” one… there are ideas that express hierarchy and inequality. There are policies that create equity and inequity. The other aspect of it that is troubling is that there’s no such thing as a ‘not racist.’ There is only racist and antiracist.”
Instead of “equality,” progressives like Kendi favor “equity,” a system under which jobs and opportunities are apportioned among different groups in shares mirroring their representation in larger society. In his book, Kendi is clear about how this must be achieved: “The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination.”
It’s a neat Orwellian trick to substitute “equity” for “equality.” Most people are not into parsing words that carefully, and the words sound so much alike that one can be forgiven for thinking they refer to the same thing. But they most definitely do not. The first corresponds roughly to equality of opportunity and the second to equality of outcome along racial categories.
I’ve written about Kendi before, in particular in this post. His book How To Be An Antiracist presently has about 13,000 reviews, 87% five star and 8% four star. It is ranked number 140 in books (it’s been out for well over a year and I’m virtually sure it has been ranked much higher in the past). Kendi is influencing a lot of people to think this way, and it is a profoundly racist way to think.
[NOTE: And right on schedule, we have a “Jews for Trump” car parade in New York being the target of rock-throwing and other attacks.
Not that the plan would ever be implemented. But it’s a very good idea, and it might actually make for a more fair vote count. From commenter “David”:
Since ballots can still be received 3 days after the election date, can we have a moratorium on counting any votes in PA until all the ballots have been received?
ADDENDUM: Until this year, I had no idea that some states allow you to change your vote. This could actually end up being meaningful:
The laws allow residents in seven states who have already voted for select candidates by mail to change their minds, usually within a specific time frame after the first ballot has been cast. In some states, voters can resubmit ballots several times.
The seven states are Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and New Hampshire. The procedure varies in each, and in Minnesota the deadline to do this has passed (14 days before the election). It often involves requests by mail. In Wisconsin, there are only a couple of days left (deadline is October 29).
Our election process has been purposely degraded and been made vulnerable to massive fraud and/or locking in votes early (before too many harmful revelations come out) under the banner of voter inclusiveness.
Bringing this to their attention might start a few “interesting” discussions:
A professor at the University of California-Berkeley is pushing the idea for the creation of a commission after Election Day that will target President Donald Trump and all of those who “enabled” him.
Robert Reich, a UC Berkeley professor of public policy and a former labor secretary in the Clinton administration made his argument for a “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” this weekend on Twitter as he lamented when “this nightmare,” referring to Trump’s presidency would be over.
The committee, as suggested by Reich, would “erase Trump’s lies, comfort those who have been harmed by his hatefulness, and name every official, politician, executive, and media mogul whose greed and cowardice enabled this catastrophe.”
His idea of blacklisting Trump supporters and launching a massive censorship campaign sparked plenty of supportive responses on the left. But Reich later slammed critics in another post, claiming they were “responding to this tweet as if it’s a radical, undemocratic idea.”
Not the least bit radical – no sir, of course not. How could anyone think such a thing?
And as far as “democratic” goes – well, I suppose it would be “democratic” (in the purest sense of the word) as well as “Democratic” to do this if over 50% of Americans agreed with it. And, who knows? Perhaps they do, thanks to the relentless leftist indoctrination in education and the leftist media propaganda to which we’ve been subjected for many years. But if the majority of Americans do believe it, that’s just another example of the brilliance of the Founders in setting the US up as a republic rather than as a democracy in which tyranny can easily take over through a simple majority.
The Democrats are doing their best to fix that little design flaw. They think such a governmental structure was a big big mistake, because they perceive it as having kept them from taking over completely.
[NOTE: I would imagine that some on the left will point out that in 2016, Trump supporters did something a bit equivalent by yelling “Lock her up!” about Hillary Clinton at some of his rallies. However, that was in reference to a very specific charge regarding the emails and classified information, not any sort of general cry to criminalize supporting Obama or boycotting anyone who had been part of his administration. Nor has the Trump administration pursued Hillary in any way except to criticize her.
Imprisoning former elected or appointed government officials (especially those high up in a previous administration of the opposing party) is always fraught with danger because of the banana republic and/or totalitarian implications. Best to use the tool only reluctantly and sparingly as well as very very specifically.]
* As I strongly suspected might happen, Latin scholars have come to my rescue. They’ve told me that the word “senectus” is incorrect and instead it should be “senectute.”
I’m going to make some generalizations in this post, of course. But I know a lot of Biden voters, and I’m writing about what I’ve observed.
As commenter “physicsguy” says:
Every Biden voter I know is only motivated by the goal of getting Trump out. That’s it. Harris and Biden’s qualifications, what they will do etc. NEVER enters into their thoughts. They want Trump GONE! In some very strange way that I can’t fathom, Trump represents an existential threat to their psyche.
And as commenter “kolnai” writes:
They’re probably also motivated by their assessment, which they will only admit in hushed tones to fellow partisans, that Biden will be President Potemkin.
I find it difficult to believe that anyone believes Biden will be wearing the pants in the relationship between the left and the American people. His insistence on his own independence from said left – “I beat them” – while proudly adopting the leftiest of them all as his running mate rings hollower than his proverbial foghorn.
I believe the first is the real motivation, the deepest and most basic motivation: get rid of Trump. And I believe the second is the excuse: Biden doesn’t matter because he’s not going to be in charge anyway.
The first is voiced loudly. The second is almost never voiced – perhaps not even in the silent internal voice. But I believe it’s the justification many Biden voters use for attempting to elect an obviously woefully inadequate (at best) Biden.
So, if “Trump represents an existential threat to their psyche” is the real reason, why is that the case? I don’t think it works the same for everyone, but I actually think it is surprisingly similar and that one really can generalize about it.
I was speaking recently with a friend who I think exemplifies this basic reaction. She’s not a leftist. She’s relatively well-informed politically, she’ a lifelong Democrat although not doctrinaire, and she’s intelligent. What she expressed was a personal revulsion that she could not explain adequately – and this is a person who is ordinarily highly articulate and even well-versed in the language of describing thoughts and emotions and how they go together.
But in the case of Trump she was reduced to saying that he disgusts her. When pressed, she added “the way he talks” and seemed to be referring to his insults. And yet this particular woman is not a fragile flower, and is a rather blunt person herself. So it remained mysterious to me.
Finally she added, “He embarrasses me. It embarrasses me that he’s the president of the United States.”
When she said that, I thought “Bingo! That’s the essence of it.” Something about Trump – or perhaps many things about Trump – are simply repugnant to a lot of people. Many are women, but there are plenty of men in the group as well.
Plus, Biden – and Obama as his surrogate (or is it the other way around?) – plays on people’s desire for less discord (these are quotes from Obama’s recent Pennsylvania speech):
And with Joe and Kamala at the helm, you’re not going to have to think about the crazy things they said every day. And that’s worth a lot. You’re not going to have to argue about them every day.
It just won’t be so exhausting. You might be able to have a Thanksgiving dinner without having an argument.
[Trump’s tweets and demeanor] embolden other people to be cruel and divisive and racist, and it frays the fabric of our society, and it affects how our children see things. And it affects the ways that our families get along. It affects how the world looks at America. That behavior matters. Character matters.
See how he touches on the same points that I’ve mentioned – included affecting “how the world looks at America”? For many people, this is on a visceral level.
…that this sort of thing translates into black votes for Trump:
Morning Reader Data Points:
National Daily Black Likely Voter Job Approval For @POTUS – October 19-23, 2020
Mon 10/19 – 25%
Tue 10/20 – 24%
Wed 10/21 – 31%
Thu 10/22 – 37%
Fri 10/23 – 46%— Rasmussen Reports (@Rasmussen_Poll) October 23, 2020
I find that last figure hard to believe – not that it’s not warranted, but just that it’s a huge jump.
But as I said, it this amounts to any kind of significant increase in votes for Trump from the black community, that would be enormous news.
They’ve certainly set it up that way:
Today the PA Supreme Court ruled that county clerks could not reject absentee and mail-in ballots where the voter signatures didn’t match. Politico reports:
“The Pennsylvania state Supreme Court ruled Friday that ballots in the state cannot be rejected because of signature comparisons, backing up guidance issued by the state’s chief elections officer heading into Pennsylvania’s first presidential election with no-excuse mail voting.
“’We conclude that the Election Code does not authorize or require county election boards to reject absentee or mail-in ballots during the canvassing process based on an analysis of a voter’s signature,’ the state Supreme Court wrote in an opinion signed by six of the seven justices, including five Democrats and one Republican.”
The decision seems to be based on the fact that the state Election Code doesn’t have a requirement about this, so one can’t suddenly be added.
And SCOTUS has already ruled that Pennsylvania can allow ballots to to arrive up to three days after Election Day and with no postmark. That already seemed like a perfect setup for fraud. And now this. And in one of the most important swing states of all.
That is no accident, I believe.
COVID news has become so politicized that it’s even harder than usual to sort out the wheat from the chaff. But I’ll try.
The latest news is that the estimate of potential life lost from COVID in the US so far is about 2.5 million years:
Elledge essentially quantified the absence left behind by COVID-19 and drew his results from data on life expectancy and mortality from the Social Security Administration and US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Findings were posted this week in medRxiv ahead of peer review.
“This is an astounding cost and surprising given the apparent public misperception that COVID-19 is a disease that disproportionately impacts the elderly and is somehow of less concern to the rest of society,” Elledge wrote.
I don’t see what’s “astounding” about any of it. Obviously, some young people have died and their life expectancies are high. And even people of 70 or more have average life expectancies that are more than zero. So if you have about 220K deaths, you’re going to have millions of years of life lost.
What’s more, of course, we have a case of at least partial “garbage in, garbage out” having to do with how COVID deaths are counted. If you look at the CDC charts, you’ll see that COVID deaths are defined as deaths involving COVID. We have no real idea of how many of those deaths were really from COVID as opposed to with COVID, but it’s almost certainly not all of them.
Way down at the bottom of the NY Post article you also have this caveat:
However, there are possible sources of error in the data. For example, life expectancies vary across ethnicities in the US population and this factor was not fully accounted for in the analysis.
Lacking statistics on comorbidities also create a source of error in the data. Health issues like obesity, chronic kidney disease and diabetes can result in shorter life expectancies and since the analysis could not fully take this into account, some of the calculations may be “artificially increased.”
That makes perfect sense. But these statistics will be used to scare people – for political purposes – anyway. Now we can blame Trump not just for 200K+ dead people, but for millions of productive years gone!
Here’s some perspective from the past – specifically, the H1N1 pandemic of 2009, when Obama was president and Biden vice president:
By applying the age-group mortality data from the European study to the estimated deaths, the researchers calculate that the pandemic took a toll [in the US] of between 334,000 and 1,973,000 years of life lost (YLL).
I don’t recall hearing much about that. Do you? And from the same article, more history (the figures apply to the US):
–The 1968 pandemic, with 86,000 deaths and victims averaging 62.2 years old, caused 1,693,000 YLL.
–The 1957 pandemic, with 150,600 deaths and a mean age of 64.6, caused 2,698,000 YLL.
–The 1918 pandemic, with an estimated 1,272,300 deaths and a mean age of only 27.2, exacted a toll of 63,718,000 YLL.
–An average flu season dominated by influenza A/H3N2—which generally causes more severe epidemics than other strains—causes 47,800 deaths and 594,000 YLL, with a mean age of 75.7.
So there you have it – and of course, all of it is estimates. Not only that, but those years of life lost are among smaller US populations than now, so they had greater impact.
And I will add that, but for COVID and its politicization, I believe that Trump would be winning this election easily. Now, with COVID, I just don’t know. But I do know that the opposition has made the propagandist most of the tragedies resulting from this pandemic.