Is Peter Hotez winning the I-won't-debate debate?

Encountering his tweet this morning, I don't think so:

Joe Rogan wants a scientist to “debate” a vaccine denier. Turning him down was the right thing to do. ⁦@voxdotcom⁩ https://t.co/ouuuFuk1f4

— Prof Peter Hotez MD PhD (@PeterHotez) June 22, 2023

1. Hotez doesn't know how to reach us emotionally. The photograph overwhelms the text, and it's a dramatic, dignified presentation of Joe Rogan. The text is then read and absorbed under the influence of the photograph of the strong, serious man who is only asking for debate.

2. The text relies heavily on putting the word "debate" in scare quotes. It seems as though Hotez is making the scared-child argument that he doesn't have to debate — indeed, shouldn't debate — because what Rogan is calling a debate wouldn't really be a debate. My reaction is: Engage with Rogan over the terms of the debate so that it can be a real debate.

3. You won't even name your antagonist. He's just "a vaccine denier." First, say his name: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. He's a real person, and many of us feel drawn to him. Second, it's not accurate to call him a "vaccine denier." What does that even mean? He doesn't deny that vaccines exist and have an effect. He's concerned about side effects, inadequate testing, and corruption in the relationship between government and the pharmaceutical industry. Are you not concerned about these things? If not, I can call you a "denier." See how glib and infuriating that is?

Hillary Clinton "did everything from trying to learn to tango to making acorn soup," she says.

Touting her new TV show, "Gutsy" on that old TV show, "The View."

If I understood correctly, this show consists of her and Chelsea getting together with some other celebrity mother and daughter — e.g., Goldie Hawn and Kate Hudson — and all 4 of them getting "out of their comfort zone" by doing something they hadn't done before. How far out of your comfort zone is a particular dance when you have danced or a particular soup when you have made soup?

They do move on to the serious topic of the documents seized in the Mar-a-Lago raid. Hillary is sharp and substantive, avoiding the display of animus toward Trump. Asked if she thinks he will be indicted, she says: "I don't want to judge. I've been prejudged — wrongly — enough."

She wants to know how it was possible that these documents could have been moved to Mar-a-Lago, when they were in a category that, when she was Secretary of State, she would read in a secured room, supervised by a person who carried the document in a briefcase handcuffed to his wrist. I wrote "when they were" and not "if they were" only because that's how she spoke. 

"The globalist billionaire who funded the woke transformation of Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello paid for a similar overhaul of James Madison’s house..."

"[B]lindsided tourists are hammered by high-tech exhibits about Madison’s slaves and current racial conflicts, thanks to a $10 million grant from left-leaning philanthropist David M. Rubenstein.... Visitors to Montpelier get to see just three rooms in the sprawling mansion.... Outdoors and in the house’s huge basement, dozens of interactive stations seek to draw a direct line between slavery, the Constitution, and the problems of African Americans today. 'A one hour Critical Race Theory experience disguised as a tour,' groused Mike Lapolla of Tulsa, Okla., after visiting last August. Hurricane Katrina flooding, the Ferguson riots, incarceration, and more all trace back to slavery, according to a 10-minute multi-screen video. Another exhibit damns every one of the nation’s first 18 presidents — even those, like John Adams and Abraham Lincoln, who never owned slaves — for having benefited from slavery in some way. The only in-depth material about the Constitution itself appears in a display that pushes the claim, championed by the controversial 1619 Project, that racism was the driving force behind the entire American political system.... Even the children’s section of the gift shop leans far left, with titles like 'Antiracist Baby' by Ibram X. Kendi and 'She Persisted' by Chelsea Clinton."

From "Founding father James Madison sidelined by woke history in his own home" (NY Post).

Chelsea Clinton has an etiquette question.

Just found out one of my closest childhood friends didn’t receive the wedding present I sent because I foolishly sent it to her old address. And the new occupant just kept it?! What’s the etiquette here? Serious question.

— Chelsea Clinton (@ChelseaClinton) December 15, 2020

Question? I'd say questions. First of all, are you lying? This better not be a cover for not sending a present. How long ago was the wedding? Did you attend the wedding? How expensive was the present? Why are you accusing the new occupant of just keeping the present when you know there are thieves who steal items from doorsteps? Surely, the identity of the people you're accusing — or just asking about — could be easily uncovered. What's the etiquette about insinuating that random private citizens are thieves? How many people are in the category "my closest childhood friends" for you? Does the "childhood" part mean you're not really friends with them anymore? Did you even consider going to the wedding? Are you tweeting this now because you heard from the childhood friend and wanted to do something to vouch for your interest in her wedding? 

I read some of the replies over there and there are quite a few that say if a package from Chelsea Clinton arrived on their doorstep, they'd be so starstruck, they'd definitely keep it. It seems that Chelsea Clinton fans aren't big sticklers for legal procedure.

ADDED: In the discussion over there, Chelsea reveals that she did already send a new present to the old friend, so her "etiquette" question is only about what should be done — or thought — about the package keepers.