"The more zealous the attacks, the greater the risk he turns his campaign ATM against them. They're already struggling to catch up with Sanders in national support and campaign dollars. Turning their focus toward Bloomberg only complicates that task. There's another risk, at least for the moderates: Weakening the one who may be best poised to stop Sanders, a democratic socialist, if they fail themselves.... By not competing in the four early states, Bloomberg has gone basically unchallenged, allowing him to define himself without interference or really any debate. This has made him a top-tier candidate and the only one with the certain cash to run to the end."
Axios summarizes.
It's crazy that Bloomberg has achieved such status in the race without exposing his candidate skills to the people. We have no idea what impression he will make on a debate stage, which will be crucial for challenging Trump. Bloomberg has stood back and watched so many of the Democratic candidates drop out, candidates who had to try to stand out in a debate and couldn't make it in a heavy crowd. Now, the crowd has thinned out, and everyone left is running out of money. And here's Mike, with endless money and still waiting to go on stage.
Will he even be in the next debate, which is this Wednesday? The DNC changed the qualification rules to help Bloomberg. They got rid of the requirement of a number of donors. But he needs some number of polls putting him over 10%, and the latest info I can find, here, says he's still one short. It's funny, because I was just checking for new polls at Real Clear Politics, and there hasn't been anything new since last Friday and no new national poll since last Wednesday. The most recent national poll surveyed people from 2/9 to 2/11. That seems odd, doesn't it? Are polls being held back? I remember before the Iowa caucus, the Des Moines Register held back its poll.
I wonder if the Democrats aren't getting themselves into terrible trouble over Mike Bloomberg. I like listening to "Morning Joe" on my car radio as I drive back home after my sunrise run. This is a 5 minute drive and about all I can tolerate, but it's good for giving me a sense of what Democrats are freaking out about at the moment. Today, they were tormenting themselves over Mike Bloomberg. He's got race-and-gender problems, but so did Trump. He's a billionaire, but so is Trump. If Trump did it, shouldn't that mean Bloomberg can do it?
I don't think they've faced up to why Trump was able to do what he did. Without first giving Trump credit, they're in no position to say so then Mike can do it too. It sounded to me as though they think of Trump as evidence that weird magic things happen. So, why not Mike? At the very least, they should recognize that Trump had a powerful skill in knocking down rivals on the debate stage, and Bloomberg has yet to set foot on the stage. It's crazy to forsake all others for Bloomberg.
१७ फेब्रुवारी, २०२०
I enjoyed Arthur Gunn — born in Kathmandu — singing "Girl From North Country" on "American Idol."
The set is the Milwaukee Art Museum. I don't know if they ever mentioned where they were, but it's an unmistakably distinctive building.
"Arthur Gunn" is a stage name, adopted somewhere along the line, after his family moved to Wichita, Kansas. He has a little trouble keeping his eyes from rolling back in his head, but responds well to the advice to keep his eyes open, and is even better with his second song, "Who'll Stop the Rain?" CORRECTION: That is, “have You Ever Seen the Rain?” AND: Despite the title of the video, there right spelling of the last name is Gunn, so I’ve fixed that.
First, don't take the Lord's name in vain. And second, I think it's great, Bloomberg doing musical theater.
Jesus Christ pic.twitter.com/k7XjjkfPze— Barstool News Network (@BarstoolNewsN) February 16, 2020
It's positively Trumpian. Remember this (video from the 2005 Emmys):
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 20, 2018
There's also this:
Mike Bloomberg as Mary Poppins pic.twitter.com/BeYshVZk4X— Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) February 17, 2020
Is that any less presidential than this?
"President Donald Trump's campaign manager deleted a tweet featuring a dramatic photo of Air Force One at the Daytona 500 after users pointed out that..."
"... the shot was from President George W. Bush's visit to the NASCAR race in 2004, not from Trump's visit on Sunday."
CNN reports.
I'm going to use my old tag "the Air Force 1 photo op." The "the" is confusing here. The tag was created to cover what was easily recognized at the time as the Air Force 1 photo op. Do you remember it?
Here's my one post on the subject, from May 9, 2009, linking to the CS Monitor article, "Aide resigns over Air Force One fiasco -- Biden not involved"
Anyway, what can we say about the use of Air Force One to show off the glory of the United States presidency? Whether Brad Parscale tweeted the right photograph or not is a piddling matter, but the use of the plane for visual messaging — as opposed to mere transportation — deserves some attention, and I just want the analysis to be the same whoever the President is.
It's got to be so unpleasant for anti-Trumpsters to see the man showing up at the big NASCAR event. This sort of attack must be irresistible (but I've got to assume they'd stress the charisma and unifying power of a Democratic politician who ventures into NASCAR territory):
ADDED: When is the last time anybody won the presidency without winning Florida? You have to go back to Clinton in 1992 and, before that, Kennedy in 1960.
CNN reports.
I'm going to use my old tag "the Air Force 1 photo op." The "the" is confusing here. The tag was created to cover what was easily recognized at the time as the Air Force 1 photo op. Do you remember it?
Here's my one post on the subject, from May 9, 2009, linking to the CS Monitor article, "Aide resigns over Air Force One fiasco -- Biden not involved"
"Once news broke that an Air Force One jet buzzed Lower Manhattan for a photo op, do you think Obama aides checked to see where Vice President Biden was?"Why bring up Biden like that? I have to infer that he was the butt of jokes at the time. But who remembers that now?
Anyway, what can we say about the use of Air Force One to show off the glory of the United States presidency? Whether Brad Parscale tweeted the right photograph or not is a piddling matter, but the use of the plane for visual messaging — as opposed to mere transportation — deserves some attention, and I just want the analysis to be the same whoever the President is.
It's got to be so unpleasant for anti-Trumpsters to see the man showing up at the big NASCAR event. This sort of attack must be irresistible (but I've got to assume they'd stress the charisma and unifying power of a Democratic politician who ventures into NASCAR territory):
Using the official apparatus of government for what appears to be a political event https://t.co/GWNm8io8O1— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) February 16, 2020
ADDED: When is the last time anybody won the presidency without winning Florida? You have to go back to Clinton in 1992 and, before that, Kennedy in 1960.
१६ फेब्रुवारी, २०२०
At the Snow Mist Café...
... you can talk all night.
This morning the sunrise caused a mist to rise up from the snow on the lake.
A bit earlier...
... a dog walk on the ice.
And here's a picture of the moon in the sunrise...
"It’s one thing to deplore eugenics on ideological, political, moral grounds. It’s quite another to conclude that it wouldn’t work in practice. Of course it would."
"It works for cows, horses, pigs, dogs & roses. Why on earth wouldn’t it work for humans? Facts ignore ideology."
Tweeted Richard Dawkins at 1:26 a.m., and I think that's why "eugenics" is trending on Twitter this morning. He followed up, an hour ago, with this: "For those determined to miss the point, I deplore the idea of a eugenic policy. I simply said deploring it doesn’t mean it wouldn’t work. Just as we breed cows to yield more milk, we could breed humans to run faster or jump higher. But heaven forbid that we should do it."
Here's #eugenics — in case you want to see what people are saying right now. It's a slog to get through all the many people who are saying I see eugenics is trending. I'll just cherry-pick some good substantive stuff (which sounds kind of eugenics-y!):
"The thing about people who believe in eugenics is that they always believe themselves to be the superior kind of human. No-one ever thinks that it could make *people like them* obsolete..." (Joanne Harris).
"I mean, the biggest problem with Richard Dawkins take on eugenics is that he'd probably consider his own traits to be superior and then the world would be full of insufferable assholes" (Nick Jack Pappas).
"While Richard Dawkins is a noted biologist, his science on eugenics is bad. We turned magnificent wolves into pure breed dogs with severe genetic defects causing joint and heart problems and cancer. In fact, many Cavalier spaniels develop mitral valve and neurological disorders"/"Eugenics does not create superior species. We turned mighty buffalo herds roaming the plains into factory farmed cows, the independent stallion into the pony, and the wild boar into the pig. We weaken the gene pool selecting for traits desirable for us but not for the subject" (Eugene Gu MD).
"All of Dawkins’ tweets make more sense if you add '... Mr Bond' at the end of them" (Ned Hartley).
Tweeted Richard Dawkins at 1:26 a.m., and I think that's why "eugenics" is trending on Twitter this morning. He followed up, an hour ago, with this: "For those determined to miss the point, I deplore the idea of a eugenic policy. I simply said deploring it doesn’t mean it wouldn’t work. Just as we breed cows to yield more milk, we could breed humans to run faster or jump higher. But heaven forbid that we should do it."
Here's #eugenics — in case you want to see what people are saying right now. It's a slog to get through all the many people who are saying I see eugenics is trending. I'll just cherry-pick some good substantive stuff (which sounds kind of eugenics-y!):
"The thing about people who believe in eugenics is that they always believe themselves to be the superior kind of human. No-one ever thinks that it could make *people like them* obsolete..." (Joanne Harris).
"I mean, the biggest problem with Richard Dawkins take on eugenics is that he'd probably consider his own traits to be superior and then the world would be full of insufferable assholes" (Nick Jack Pappas).
"While Richard Dawkins is a noted biologist, his science on eugenics is bad. We turned magnificent wolves into pure breed dogs with severe genetic defects causing joint and heart problems and cancer. In fact, many Cavalier spaniels develop mitral valve and neurological disorders"/"Eugenics does not create superior species. We turned mighty buffalo herds roaming the plains into factory farmed cows, the independent stallion into the pony, and the wild boar into the pig. We weaken the gene pool selecting for traits desirable for us but not for the subject" (Eugene Gu MD).
"All of Dawkins’ tweets make more sense if you add '... Mr Bond' at the end of them" (Ned Hartley).
"Why not indict McCabe on felony false-statements charges? That is the question being pressed by incensed Trump supporters."
"After all, the constitutional guarantee of equal justice under the law is supposed to mean that McCabe gets the same quality of justice afforded to the sad sacks pursued with unseemly zeal by McCabe’s FBI and Robert Mueller’s prosecutors. George Papadopoulos was convicted of making a trivial false statement about the date of a meeting. Roger Stone was convicted of obstruction long after the special counsel knew there was no Trump–Russia conspiracy, even though his meanderings did not impede the investigation in any meaningful way. And in the case of Michael Flynn’s false-statements conviction, as McCabe himself acknowledged to the House Intelligence Committee, even the agents who interviewed him did not believe he intentionally misled them.... "
From "Why Wasn’t Andrew McCabe Charged?" by Andrew McCarthy (National Review).
From "Why Wasn’t Andrew McCabe Charged?" by Andrew McCarthy (National Review).
"At 6:30 a.m. on Jan. 31, Hailey Moore and Dr. Kristopher Hansen stood in the dark at the Mesa Arch trailhead inside Canyonlands National Park near Moab, Utah."
"The half-mile to the arch was snow-covered and wound past prickly bushes, boulders, frozen puddles, cactuses and dead-but-still-standing trees. Ms. Moore, 40, and Dr. Hansen, 38, were eloping, with no guests.... Their only companions were Jess and Austin Drawhorn, a married team of photographers... The Drawhorns, who were dressed like backcountry hikers, wore headlamps and handed the bride and groom metal cleats to pull over their shoes...."
From "An Unexpected Path Leads to a Fresh Start/An elopement in Moab, Utah, provided a wedding site as big as all outdoors for Hailey Moore and Kristopher Hansen" (NYT).
Nice. The only thing missing was the absence of the photographers.
ADDED: Overheard at Meadhouse: "I like the way he's using her..."/"I know! Chest as a lectern!" Speaking of us, here's the story of our wedding, which included the absence of photographers.
From "An Unexpected Path Leads to a Fresh Start/An elopement in Moab, Utah, provided a wedding site as big as all outdoors for Hailey Moore and Kristopher Hansen" (NYT).
Nice. The only thing missing was the absence of the photographers.
ADDED: Overheard at Meadhouse: "I like the way he's using her..."/"I know! Chest as a lectern!" Speaking of us, here's the story of our wedding, which included the absence of photographers.
"The only outrage here is that a man who has lived a long life had to have his child consulted about whether he can 'have' contraception."
"Well, that and the urge to 'dry heave' simply because you've learned he's sexually active. There is a reason the elderly are fed up with the way they are treated. This was disturbing on multiple levels. None of them the ones the author intended."
That's the top-rated comment (among lots of other similar comments) on the NYT column "Having ‘The Talk’ With My 80-Something Dad/I was not prepared for the phone call from my father’s skilled nursing facility asking for permission to provide him contraceptives" by Stacey Zapalac.
"Contraceptives" is the wrong word. We're talking about condoms to protect from STDs.
The headline is also confusing for using the term "the talk" — especially with an illustration indicating that the father is black. I'm used to seeing the term "the talk" referring to black parents explaining to their child how to interact with the police.
Anyway, I don't think I've ever read a NYT column that got such a severe takedown in the comments. I read the column and went to the comments looking for this attack and was satisfied to see it.
From the column: "I always knew my dad was a needy man.... ... I informed the social worker my father was not to be given protection or conjugal visit privileges until I had an opportunity to discuss this matter with him.... [I]t is... cringeworthy to hear your father wants to be sexually active and that I need to have a conversation with him about safe sex."
What a terrible attitude! How ignorant it is about the feelings of older people. And what an invasion of privacy to tell this story in the NYT. I can't understand why the NYT published it — to see it lambasted?
That's the top-rated comment (among lots of other similar comments) on the NYT column "Having ‘The Talk’ With My 80-Something Dad/I was not prepared for the phone call from my father’s skilled nursing facility asking for permission to provide him contraceptives" by Stacey Zapalac.
"Contraceptives" is the wrong word. We're talking about condoms to protect from STDs.
The headline is also confusing for using the term "the talk" — especially with an illustration indicating that the father is black. I'm used to seeing the term "the talk" referring to black parents explaining to their child how to interact with the police.
Anyway, I don't think I've ever read a NYT column that got such a severe takedown in the comments. I read the column and went to the comments looking for this attack and was satisfied to see it.
From the column: "I always knew my dad was a needy man.... ... I informed the social worker my father was not to be given protection or conjugal visit privileges until I had an opportunity to discuss this matter with him.... [I]t is... cringeworthy to hear your father wants to be sexually active and that I need to have a conversation with him about safe sex."
What a terrible attitude! How ignorant it is about the feelings of older people. And what an invasion of privacy to tell this story in the NYT. I can't understand why the NYT published it — to see it lambasted?
I've got to thank George Conway for his "There is no one to stop Trump now" WaPo column.
I've never given a damn about George Conway and his predictable anti-Trumpism, and, in fact, I have yet to read "There is no one to stop Trump now." But I'm delighted with his column, because I read the title and said "What's that song? Nothing's Gonna Stop Us Now?" And 2 seconds later, I had my memory refreshed: "Oh! It's Starship!" And I was mesmerized by this trip back to 1986 (replete with stuff from the romcom "Mannequin"):
It's a festival of 80s hair — wet and dry. The notion that nothing is going to stop women who are mannequins is... interesting. I've never seen the movie, but in the video, the love of a man brings mannequins to life. One of the women is Grace Slick and one is so good looking that I thought Grace Slick should have had the clout to demand that in her videos there can be no woman who is better looking than she is.
Researching the underlying movie, "Mannequin," I see that other woman is Kim Cattrall (familiar to me only as Samantha on "Sex and the City"). I guess the movie came first and Grace was going along with a package deal. I see: "At the time, [the song] made the 47 year old Grace Slick the oldest woman to have a number-one single in the United States, surpassed only by Cher, who was 52 when her song 'Believe' reached #1 in early 1999."
Imagine the thrill of achievement to be in a place where you are surpassed only by Cher.
Imagine the thrill of achievement to be George Conway.... Wait. Let me skim this thing so I can get out of this post quickly now that I've had my 80s-retrospective fun.
I thought this column was going to be about how the Democrats have no one who can stop Trump from getting reelected. I was surprised to think Conway would concede that. He didn't. Now, I will go back to my original position of never reading Conway columns.
It's a festival of 80s hair — wet and dry. The notion that nothing is going to stop women who are mannequins is... interesting. I've never seen the movie, but in the video, the love of a man brings mannequins to life. One of the women is Grace Slick and one is so good looking that I thought Grace Slick should have had the clout to demand that in her videos there can be no woman who is better looking than she is.
Researching the underlying movie, "Mannequin," I see that other woman is Kim Cattrall (familiar to me only as Samantha on "Sex and the City"). I guess the movie came first and Grace was going along with a package deal. I see: "At the time, [the song] made the 47 year old Grace Slick the oldest woman to have a number-one single in the United States, surpassed only by Cher, who was 52 when her song 'Believe' reached #1 in early 1999."
Imagine the thrill of achievement to be in a place where you are surpassed only by Cher.
Imagine the thrill of achievement to be George Conway.... Wait. Let me skim this thing so I can get out of this post quickly now that I've had my 80s-retrospective fun.
When the subject of Attorney General William P. Barr comes up these days, it’s hard not to think of John S. McCain. Not the late senator, mind you, but the USS John S. McCain, the naval destroyer named after his father and grandfather.That's hilariously nonsensical. Of all the things I find hard not to think about when I think about Bill Barr, the USS John S. McCain is nowhere on the list. Anyway, that turns out to be about how the ship was once kept out of Trump's line of sight, not because Trump demanded it, but "[a]nticipating Trump’s narcissistic whims and desires." So, you get it, that's what Barr must be doing.
I thought this column was going to be about how the Democrats have no one who can stop Trump from getting reelected. I was surprised to think Conway would concede that. He didn't. Now, I will go back to my original position of never reading Conway columns.
Trump's performative religion, as interpreted by Joe Rogan.
Watch the whole thing... there are many interesting leaps of speculation. What's more likely — that Trump is sincerely religious or that Trump is "banging" Paula White?
१५ फेब्रुवारी, २०२०
"I imagine girls will drift back into not participating in competitive sports, which is the way it was when I was in high school. What's the point anyway?"
"The inability to win is just one more reason to say no to athletic competition. Yes, decades of encouragement will fail, but on the positive side, there will be no mean rejecting of transgenders. As we noncompetitive softies like to say: Everybody wins."
I wrote, over on Facebook, in a discussion thread started by my son John, who linked to an NBC story, "Girls sue to block participation of transgender athletes/The families of three female high school runners filed a federal suit seeking to block trans athletes in Connecticut from participating in girls sports."
One of the participants in the discussion pointed to his own essay, "The Discriminatory Costs of Preserving Women’s-Only Sports." Excerpt:
Today, the pressure to be empathetic toward transgenders is so great that I believe women, known for our empathy and our desire to appear compassionate, will let go of competitive sports and return to the inclinations that dominated back in the days when I went to high school. It's a trade-off, a trade-off between the potential for athletic victory and the feeling of being kind and inclusive. The latter is something quite valuable and within the reach of all women. The former is a dream, and it's only a dream for an elite few among women.
UPDATE: More discussion here.
I wrote, over on Facebook, in a discussion thread started by my son John, who linked to an NBC story, "Girls sue to block participation of transgender athletes/The families of three female high school runners filed a federal suit seeking to block trans athletes in Connecticut from participating in girls sports."
One of the participants in the discussion pointed to his own essay, "The Discriminatory Costs of Preserving Women’s-Only Sports." Excerpt:
The past half century will be looked back on as the golden era of women's sport, where segregated categories gave women a chance to compete on a playing field that excludes men, transgender people and intersex people.... Eliminating gender restrictions would make sport... would have a crushing effect on women athletes, especially those who currently compete to earn a salary or a scholarship. In a gender-free meritocracy, almost every scholarship would go to men.... “Traditional” womens-only sport is at a confounding impasse: eliminate the restrictions to compete in an act of “inclusion as highest value” OR accept the necessity of discrimination in an attempt to protect the status quo.I remember the pre-Title IX days. I never considered participating in any sport or regarded any female athlete as an inspiration. My friends didn't do competitive sports. We hated gym class, and we were only interested in doing some simple calisthenics for the purpose of looking good. The gym teachers seemed to regard us as a worthless bunch, and I think they were vaguely amused, not terribly upset with our lack of competitive spirit.
Today, the pressure to be empathetic toward transgenders is so great that I believe women, known for our empathy and our desire to appear compassionate, will let go of competitive sports and return to the inclinations that dominated back in the days when I went to high school. It's a trade-off, a trade-off between the potential for athletic victory and the feeling of being kind and inclusive. The latter is something quite valuable and within the reach of all women. The former is a dream, and it's only a dream for an elite few among women.
UPDATE: More discussion here.
Find your thrill on Bloombergery Hill.
The fine print says:
Sources close to Bloomberg campaign tell DRUDGE REPORT that candidate is considering Hillary Clinton as running mate, after their polling found the Bloomberg-Clinton combination would be formidable force... MOREI think this is dull news. Of course, Bloomberg is "considering" all the possible running mates. He'd have to announce his choice during the primaries and have her out there running with him for it to mean anything. Does anyone picture that happening?
DRUDGE has learned that Bloomberg himself would go as far as to change his official residence from New York to homes he owns in Colorado or Florida, since the electoral college makes it hard for a POTUS and VPOTUS from the same state... Developing...
It would be wildly distracting, but I don't see it helping Bloomberg. He needs to establish himself as presidential. And she'd be taking a step down from where she was last time. Why would that work? Why would she do it? Why would he do it? Makes little sense except as a Saturday internet diversion.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
पोस्ट (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
