Please note that you can leave a comment on any of our posts at our Facebook page.  Subscribers can also comment at length at our Angel's Corner Forum.

JANUARY 11,  2022

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – OVERNIGHT:

DID INTERNATIONAL POLITICS DEFEAT SCIENCE? – FROM THE TELEGRAPH:   Leading British and US scientists thought it was likely that Covid accidentally leaked from a laboratory but were concerned that further debate would harm science in China, emails show.  An email from Sir Jeremy Farrar, director of the Wellcome Trust, on February 2 2020 said that “a likely explanation” was that Covid had rapidly evolved from a Sars-like virus inside human tissue in a low-security lab.  The email, to Dr Anthony Fauci and Dr Francis Collins of the US National Institutes of Health, went on to say that such evolution may have “accidentally created a virus primed for rapid transmission between humans”.  But a leading scientist told Sir Jeremy that “further debate would do unnecessary harm to science in general and science in China in particular”. Dr Collins, the former director of the US National Institutes of Health, warned it could damage “international harmony”.  Viscount Ridley, co-author of Viral: the search for the origin of Covid, said: “These emails show a lamentable lack of openness and transparency among Western scientists who appear to have been more interested in shutting down a hypothesis they thought was very plausible, for political reasons.”  This requires a major congressional investigation, something we won't get with the Democrats in control.  If this year's midterms work out the way we hope they will, maybe then we can start to learn the truth.  Scientists should stay out of politics, and be protected from politics.  President Eisenhower, in his farewell address to the nation – the famous "industrial-military complex" speech – warned of the impact of federal grants on scientific results.  He was talking about the interaction of science with government and politics.  His words were ignored. 

January 11, 2022       Permalink

WE'RE MORE LIBERAL...BUT REPUBLICANS ARE ALSO WINNING MORE – OVERNIGHT:  A well-thought-out survey gives us an unusual view of the American electorate.  Nothing simplistic here.  From studyfinds: 

NEW YORK — Americans are generally much more liberal than they were 50 years ago, with public views taking a decidedly liberal slant in the 1990s, a new study finds. Despite that shift, researchers from New York University note these changes in public sentiment aren’t translating into today’s politics.

Why? While the average American may be more liberal today when it comes to topics such as gender, sexuality, race, and personal liberty than in the 1970s, views on polarizing issues like gun control, taxes, and abortion have largely remained the same. Study authors state these polarizing issues still sway voting decisions in a major way.

“America is a more liberal country now than it was 50 years ago,” says study author and NYU sociologist Michael Hout in a university release. “But its politics do not reflect this because polarizing attitudes and behaviors changed less than either values or lifestyles.”

Using data from the General Social Survey (GSS), researchers assessed nearly 300 distinct variables (attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors) among respondents. Study authors collected this data between 1972 and 2018, placing respondents into 32 different groups depending on their age. The groups spaced Americans out by age, representing a gap of two to three years for each group. This included Americans born as early as 1882, as well as people born as late as 2000.

According to the analysis, each generation is just a little more liberal than their predecessors. More specifically, researchers deemed about 62 percent of the variables to slant more liberal among modern day Americans in comparison to older age groups. Conversely, only five percent of the variables shifted to a more conservative stance over time.

COMMENT:  Read the whole thing.  Fundamentally, what the study author is saying makes sense.  On individual issues, people might become more liberal.  But on an overall view of life, they maintain traditional, moderate values.  Also, the definition of "liberal" can vary considerably.  Before the Vietnam era, a liberal was usually in favor of social programs at home, but was fiercely anti-Communist and pro-defense abroad.  Today, the label "liberal" is often misassigned to lightweight Marxists who know they'll get further if they simply call themselves liberal, rather than socialist. 

Given the views of the majority today, I'd imagine we'll see many voters in November who support some historically liberal programs, but who'll pull the Republican lever because they're outraged at what "liberalism" has become within the Democratic Party.  In addition, Republicans are getting far better at communicating with longtime liberal groups, like American Hispanics, and it's showing in much of the polling. 

January 11,  2022     Permalink

JANUARY 10,  2022

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – OVERNIGHT: 

SOME TURBULENCE FOR ERIC ADAMS – FROM BREITBART:   The New York State Republican Party, naturalized American citizens, and a Democrat city councilman have filed a lawsuit against New York City Mayor Eric Adams (D) over a new policy that gives voting rights to nearly a million foreign nationals.  As Breitbart News has chronicled, Democrats on the 51-member New York City Council approved a plan last month that allows more than 800,000 foreign nationals with green cards, visas, and work permits the opportunity to vote in citywide elections so long as they have resided in the city for at least 30 consecutive days.  Adams approved the plan this week, allowing it to become New York City policy.  Now, the New York State Republican Party and others have filed a lawsuit to prevent the policy from going into effect, arguing that the state’s constitution makes it explicitly clear that voting rights are reserved only for American citizens and not foreign nationals.  “We vowed to use every legal tool in our arsenal to block this unconstitutional and un-American law, and that’s exactly what we’re doing,” New York Republican Chairman Nick Langworthy said in a statement.  Mayor Adams previously had said he harbored concerns about this policy.  Then, in the first week of his mayoralty, he flipped, damaging his position with moderates who'd hope he would lead New York away from the kooky left.  He may still, but this episode has been disappointing.  The mayor must, very quickly, establish an independent image for himself, especially if he wants eventually to run for governor or even try for national office.

January 10, 2022       Permalink 

IT'S OBVIOUS THESE IRANIANS ARE MISUNDERSTOOD – OVERNIGHT:  Yes, they speak harshly, but we sophisticates understand.  When will we develop compassion for downtrodden opponents?  From PJ Media: 

Old Joe Biden’s handlers are desperate to revive Barack Obama’s Iran nuclear deal, as Biden State Department wonk Ned Price has made clear: “We are prepared, as we have said, to lift sanctions that are inconsistent with the JCPOA,” that is, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which is the official name of the agreement Donald Trump quite rightly called the worst in history. Meanwhile, as Biden’s handlers do everything they can to be conciliatory toward Iran, the Islamic regime in Tehran is more belligerent than ever. Ned Price and his colleagues would be wise to ponder whether there is a connection between those two stances, but they won’t.

Price elaborated: “We’re prepared to lift sanctions inconsistent with the JCPOA, as long as Iran places itself back within the strict confines, the strict nuclear confines of the JCPOA in terms of the stringent verification and monitoring, in terms of the other restrictions that the JCPOA places on Iran’s nuclear program.” Last Tuesday, the deputy commander-in-chief of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, Admiral Ali Fadavi, made it clear how interested Iran is in returning to any kind of “strict confines,” real or imagined.

Fadavi referred to the 2016 incident when the Iranians seized two U.S. Navy riverine command boats that had strayed (inadvertently, the Obama administration insisted) into Iranian waters and displayed the American sailors they had captured as if they were prisoners of war. “When we captured the Americans in the Farsi Island,” Fadavi said, according to the Middle East Media Research Institute, “the Americans felt superior in the first 20 minutes. They felt like a superpower, so they launched planes from their aircraft carriers. Had the Americans shot a single bullet towards Farsi Island, which is our land, we would have attacked their aircraft carrier as well as a large number of vessels in that area.”

Fadavi crowed that the Obama administration was extremely accommodating: “However, the Americans realized very soon that they were the accused, that they were the criminals on death row, and that they are at risk of being targeted by the full force of the IRGC. So they acted quickly.”

Clearly the Obama team was trying to smooth over the situation, and Fadavi saw this as a sign of submission: “They replaced the person communicating with us from the aircraft carrier with a woman who spoke Persian. Two out of every three words she said was ‘fine,’ which translated into ‘I am obeying your orders.’ They did very quickly what we asked them to do.”

COMMENT:  There are reports that the sides in the Iran nuclear talks are approaching an agreement.  I have no idea if it's true.  If it is, I have no doubt that Republicans in Congress will study the deal with a high-powered microscope.  I expect they'll be horrified.  A good scream will be had by all.

January 10, 2022       Permalink