Displaying posts published in

November 2022

Florida Counts Its Ballots in Hours, So Why Does Arizona Take Days? By Todd Carney

https://www.realclearflorida.com/articles/2022/11/14/florida_counts_its_ballots_in_hours_so_why_does_arizona_take_days_864565.html

As the saying goes, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result. If that’s true, then it is insane to expect Arizona to produce election results in a timely manner and free of controversy. Three months ago, Arizona’s administration of voting in the state primary election created chaos. Arizona let America down then, but many hoped that the state’s leaders would learn from that mistake and produce better results in November. No such luck: Arizona’s administration of the general election shows that its failed leadership has not learned anything.

Maricopa County, Arizona’s largest county, finds itself at the center of the voting controversy. Its voting administration is divided up between the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, the county recorder, and the secretary of state. The board handles the actual voting and counting of ballots, while the recorder’s office manages the registration and verification of voters. The secretary of state oversees voting in all Arizona counties.

On election day, 60 of Maricopa’s 223 voting locations faced problems with their voting machines. The machines would not accept votes, which may have caused some people to miss their chance to cast a ballot. Many felt that these problems disproportionately harmed Republicans because Republicans vote heavily in person on Election Day, while Democrats predominate in the use of mail-in voting.

In early returns on Election Night, the whole GOP statewide ticket started from a massive deficit, creating the illusion that these races were over. Days later, the vote counting continues, while Florida, a state with roughly three times as many people as Arizona, counted nearly all its ballots on Election Night. No matter who wins in Arizona, the losing side will likely feel cheated.

Everyone with a role in managing voting in Maricopa County contributed to this failure. Arizona’s secretary of state is Democrat Katie Hobbs, who is running for governor. Her office is overseeing the election that will determine whether she becomes the next governor. In 2018, Democrats wanted then Georgia secretary of state Brian Kemp to resign during his run for governor, and he ultimately did so as counting continued after the election. Hobbs refused to resign, yet she showed up to work for only 19 days in the six months leading up to the election. Hobbs should have been more dedicated to the office she held or else resigned it, especially considering the state’s disastrous primary.

The Other Imaginary Red Wave Despite ceaseless warnings on the left, Election Day came and went without right-wing violence. Heather Mac Donald

https://www.city-journal.org/the-other-imaginary-red-wave

Well, that was a dud. Not the abortive “red wave,” but the Democratic expectation (read: ill-disguised hope) that “election deniers” would disrupt polling places on Tuesday with violence and intimidation. In October, a national security bulletin had warned that poll workers were at physical risk from homegrown election terrorists. The Justice Department let it be known that it was monitoring threats against election employees. Illinois officials installed panic buttons and security locks in election offices. People using ballot drop-off boxes were said to be at risk of violent intimidation from crazed MAGA supporters. Michigan anticipated that right-wing poll watchers would disrupt ballot tabulation in Detroit. Election-deniers who had run for office and lost would allegedly refuse to concede defeat, putting “democracy,” in establishment parlance, at further risk. “We could be six days away from losing our rule of law,” warned historian Michael Beschloss, who wondered “whether our children will be arrested and conceivably killed.”

None of these predictions panned out. There was no electoral violence or intimidation. No one mobbed ballot boxes or election offices. As of this writing, political election-deniers who lost their races have accepted defeat.

We have been through this hysteria before. Predictions of right-wing violence are now a standard feature of Democratic rhetoric. In the lead-up to January 6, 2022 (the one-year anniversary of the 2021 Capitol riot), the media, politicians, and the Biden national-security apparatus warned that “domestic violent extremists” were likely to strike again. Washington, D.C., was reportedly on edge in anticipation of the MAGA rebels. As it turned out, January 6, 2022, was notable only for the maudlin theatrics of newly patriotic Democrats, who softly sang “God Bless America” in a candlelight vigil on the Capitol steps, as calm engulfed them.

During the previous year, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Homeland Security had issued regular warnings about election-denying terrorism. The summer of 2021, August 2021, September 2021—all provoked a satisfying increase in alerts and in precautionary barricades and bollards. And still, the right-wing terrorists did not strike. However loathsome and despicable the mob violence of January 6, 2021, it has proved to be a one-off perpetrated by ill-informed hotheads who got lamentably carried away during one very particular historical moment. (The Paul Pelosi attack is one possible exception to this no-repetition rule.)

The “Stochastic Terror” Lie The Left’s latest gambit for suppressing speech is built on preposterous grounds. Christopher Rufo

https://www.city-journal.org/stochastic-terrorism-is-about-suppressing-free-speech

I browsed the news recently only to discover that, according to a popular science magazine, I was responsible for the attempted murder of Paul Pelosi, husband to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

In an opinion piece for Scientific American, writer Bryn Nelson insinuated that my factual reporting on Drag Queen Story Hour was an example of “stochastic terrorism,” which he defines as “ideologically driven hate speech” that increases the likelihood of unpredictable acts of violence. On the night of the attack, Nelson argued, I had appeared on Tucker Carlson Tonight to discuss my reporting, and, hours later, the alleged attacker, David DePape, radicalized by “QAnon” conspiracy theories about “Democratic, Satan-worshipping pedophiles,” broke into the Pelosi residence and attacked Paul Pelosi with a hammer.

This is a bizarre claim that, for a magazine supposedly dedicated to “science,” hardly meets a scientific standard of cause and effect. There is no evidence that DePape watched or was motivated by Tucker Carlson’s program; moreover, nothing in my reporting on Drag Queen Story Hour encourages violence or mentions Nancy Pelosi, QAnon, or Satan-worshipping pedophiles. My appearance on Tucker Carlson Tonight and DePape’s attack against Paul Pelosi are, in reality, two unrelated incidents in a large and complex universe. And Nelson, a microbiologist specializing in human excrement, is full of it.

But Nelson isn’t trying to prove anything in a scientific sense. Under the concept of “stochastic terrorism,” logic, evidence, and causality are irrelevant. Any incident of violence can be politicized and attributed to any ideological opponent, regardless of facts.

The scheme works like this: left-wing media, activists, and officials designate a subject of discourse, such as Drag Queen Story Hour, off-limits; they treat any reporting on that subject as an expression of “hate speech”; and finally, if an incident of violence emerges that is related, even tangentially, to that subject, they assign guilt to their political opponents and call for the suppression of speech. The statistical concept of “stochasticity,” which means “randomly determined,” functions as a catch-all: the activists don’t have to prove causality—they simply assert it with a sophisticated turn of phrase and a vague appeal to probability.

MICHELLE OBAMA’S NEW BOOK

Some people I know, upset by Biden, keep floating the possibility of a run for the White House by former FLOTUS Michelle Obama. So I was interested in the fact that she has a new book.

Is it a stab at foreign policy, or national economics, or education, or homeland security and defense, or national culture, or race relations?

Nah! It’s about her mighty and inspirational struggles with menopause! Yikes!

Read all about! It gave me a hot flash!…..rsk

“Michelle Obama has never been one to hold back.

Ahead of the Nov. 15 release of her book The Light We Carry, the former first lady, 58, opened up to People about the ins and outs of aging, body image and how she’s dealing with menopause — including her experience with hormone replacement therapy.

“There is not a lot of conversation about menopause,” Obama explained. “I’m going through it, and I know all of my friends are going through it. And the information is sparse.”

“I’ve had to work with hormones, and that’s new information that we’re learning,” she added. “Before there were studies that said that hormones were bad. That’s all we heard. Now we’re finding out research is showing that those studies weren’t fully complete and that there are benefits to hormone replacement therapy. You’re trying to sort through the information and the studies and the misinformation. So I’m right there.”

Obama admits that she’s been spared from having major mood swings, a common side effect of menopause, and that her new fitness routine focuses more on flexibility than building muscle. And she’s OK with that.

“I find that I cannot push myself as hard as I used to. That doesn’t work out for me; that when I tear a muscle or pull something and then I’m out. The recovery time is not the same,” she said. “You wind up balancing between staying fit enough and being kind enough on your body to stay in the game.”

Tragically Trump Will Trump rest on his considerable laurels and ride out gracefully to Mar-a-Lago? Or will he choose the tragic hero path? By Victor Davis Hanson

https://amgreatness.com/2022/11/13/tragically-trump/

“Yet for a variety of reasons, both personal and civic, their characters not only should not be altered, but could not be, even if the tragic hero wished to change, given his megalomania and absolutist views of the human experience. In the classical tragic sense, Trump likely will end in one of two fashions, both not particularly good: either spectacular but unacknowledged accomplishments followed by ostracism when he is out of office and no longer useful, or, less likely, a single term due to the eventual embarrassment of his beneficiaries, as if his utility is no longer worth the wages of his perceived crudity.”   —The Case for Trump (2019)

After the midterms, the Republican Party and half of the conservative movement are now furious with Donald Trump. Their writs are many—even though the party establishment shares much of the blame. More importantly still, American elections have radically shifted to mail-in/early/absentee voting rendering Election Day a minor event. The predictable result is that any close race undecided on Election Day in subsequent days usually is won by the Democrats. 

On the eve of the midterm, Trump gratuitously attacked Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who was up for reelection, while all but announcing he would run for president. 

That preview could have waited until the elections had passed. The pizzazz may have galvanized some Trump-haters to go to the polls. It might even have alienated perhaps a few thousand DeSantis Republicans who were not thus inclined to vote for Trump-stamped candidates. 

Trump’s frantic fundraising efforts had amassed a huge sum in his PAC, geared to his future primary fights. But many felt he was far too parsimonious in spreading his largess to his own cash-strapped and outspent MAGA candidates. That stinginess might have helped contribute to their defeats in close House and Senate elections. 

Those earlier rumblings were only amplified after the unexpectedly anemic Republican midterm performance. Trump sent out a disjointed, almost unhinged letter damning DeSantis as disloyal, without gratitude (to Trump), mediocre, and overrated. 

The indictment was ill-timed to DeSantis’ landslide victory over Charlie Crist. DeSantis’ long Florida coattails fueled the only red tsunami of the entire evening. If Trump thought he would employ the battering-ram tactics of his first presidential debate of 2020, then he should remember they failed (in contrast to his effective second debate against Biden). And in reaction, DeSantis’ rope-a-dope silence is effectively designed to let Trump punch his way out and down to the low 30s in approval.

Trump further blamed some of the losses of his endorsed candidates on either their own shortcomings and lack of loyalty, or the bad advice from those who had persuaded him to back losers. New Hampshire U.S. Senate candidate Don Bolduc was deemed insufficiently denialist and so, according to Trump, was crushed in the New Hampshire race. 

Former First Lady Melania Trump, of all people, was reportedly to blame for convincing the ex-president to back Mehmet Oz in the Pennsylvania U.S. Senate race. 

Yet Oz turned out to be a tireless worker and a rookie but solid candidate. Still, he was easily outspent—and was fatally injured by the balloting blowback against the mediocre Trump-supported gubernatorial candidate Doug Mastriano. The latter’s wipeout injured Oz and Republican congressional candidates once thought likely to win. 

Worse still, Trump highlighted his self-obsession over party concerns by weirdly celebrating the loss of fellow Republican senatorial candidate Joe O’Dea of Colorado. His RINO crime was spurning Trump’s support. Stranger still, Trump attacked popular Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin for supposedly having a “Chinese”-sounding name.

But these were sins of commission. There were also those of omission. Trump had not issued an ecumenical call to head to Georgia, to forget intramural squabbles, and to rally money and time on behalf of Herschel Walker—Trump’s own endorsed candidate. 

TikTok Time Is Running Out by Peter Schweizer

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/19111/tiktok-ban

The Biden administration rolled back its predecessor’s efforts to ban TikTok and is currently in negotiations with the company through the government’s Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). According to published reports, a draft agreement would require exclusive US storage for all TikTok data, monitoring of TikTok’s powerful content recommendation algorithms, and create an oversight board comprised of cyber-security experts. The terms of the draft agreement would not require ByteDance to sell TikTok, as the Trump administration previously demanded.

The danger of this approach is obvious – that the app and all the collected data remain under the ownership of a Chinese company which, according to Chinese law, is required to provide this data to the Communist government upon request, at any time.

The draft agreement, which has not been announced or made public, has not satisfied TikTok’s critics. FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr, a longtime critic of TikTok, renewed his call earlier this month for the US government to ban the app from Apple’s and Google’s app stores over the national security risks posed by its ties to China.

[T]he app circulated false information about the COVID-19 virus during the pandemic and [technology experts] believe China could potentially do so again as part of broader propaganda efforts to influence public discourse within the US.

At a time when an invasion of Taiwan by Communist China looms ever larger, why worry about TikTok?

Targeted at American teens, TikTok is a mobile app for sharing short videos, owned by a Chinese company called ByteDance. After five short years on the market, it has more than one billion users worldwide. The app has lived under deep suspicion for much of that time, as American cyber-security and counter-intelligence experts have warned about its enormous reach and direct connections to the Chinese Communist Party.

America’s Great Political Unraveling By J.B. Shurk

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/11/americas_great_political_unraveling.html

What’s worse—how much of a joke America’s “elections” are or the contempt with which election officials treat voters who have the nerve to demand answers on election night? Days of mail-in ballot counting have turned Republican Senate leads into Democrat Senate victories, while control of the House is still up for grabs; but the praetorian news pundits who defend the Deep State’s virtue as if they were protecting the disputed honor of a blushing bride still find it more appalling that voters could question the legitimacy of America’s elections than the reality that vote-counters have turned elections into long-term, unbelievable affairs.

It takes an awful long time to track down all those rascally elusive ballots temporarily lost in the mail. Perhaps any unused leftovers can just be scooped up and used again for the Democrats in two years—whatever might move this whole farce along more quickly in the future.

This debauched civic ritual has become so dirty that there’s not enough soap to wash off the stench. In states where voter identification rules are somewhat enforced and mail-in and absentee ballots are reserved for exceptional cases, Republicans won overwhelmingly. In states where anonymous, unsecured mail-in ballots are the new norm, Republicans got trounced.

In 2010, when Republicans absolutely “shellacked” Obama-Marxists in the midterms, conservatives won around two and a half million more votes and picked up a landslide sixty-three additional House seats. In 2022, Republicans have won six million more votes than the Democrats across the country yet will be lucky to grab an additional nine seats.

Amazingly, Republicans managed to win decisively, while still losing every toss-up election but one. You must be a card-carrying member of the Expert Class not to understand what’s going on here. In America, elections are dead. We have COVID-19-induced ballot hunts now, where paid political operatives are rewarded for finding and filling out as many as they can.

Election Hangover: My Democracy Doesn’t Feel Saved at All By Stephen Kruiser

https://pjmedia.com/columns/stephen-kruiser/2022/11/13/election-hangover-my-democracy-doesnt-feel-saved-at-all-n1645150

Other than in the last few Morning Briefings of the week, I tried to abstain from any hot takes on the election, the state of democracy, or whether we are all, in fact, sims.

At the beginning of the month, I wrote that I did believe that democracy is being threatened, but the threat is coming from the left. I also issued the following disclaimer, which is necessary every time I opine on this topic:

I am well aware that we don’t live in a democracy, so don’t sprain your wrists scrolling to the comments to correct me. Democracy is, however, the word that those other guys use in this false narrative, so, for simplicity’s sake, it’s what I’ll use in this column.

As I write this on a beautiful Sunday afternoon here in my beloved desert, I’ve had three-and-a-half solid days of post-election rumination. (Wednesday was a bit hazy after my election night deep dive into the potato vodka, so it doesn’t count.) Now that I have the benefit of a little perspective, I have to honestly say that my democracy is less than impressed with the saving it got last week.

In fact, one might even say it’s on life support.

There’s time to correct this situation, but we must be ever cognizant of the fact that the Democrats are always trying to sneak someone into the room to pull the plug.

Democracy Dies in Climate Panic Democracy and climate are at odds. by Tim Graham

https://www.frontpagemag.com/democracy-dies-in-climate-panic/

The United Nations is one of the most sacred political cows in the liberal media. This is especially true when they convene the global elites on the perils of “climate change.” The latest confab in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, began with the usual appeal to fear and panic from U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, formerly known as the Socialist Party prime minister of Portugal.

“Our planet is fast approaching tipping points that will make climate chaos irreversible,” Guterres warned. “We are on a highway to climate hell with our foot still on the accelerator.” If that AC/DC song echo wasn’t strong enough, he added, “It is either a climate solidarity pact, or a collective suicide pact.”

Journalists consider anyone who questions this my-way-or-hell viewpoint as not only a “denier” of science but an enemy of the people. Their standard practice is to sound like U.N. publicists.

NPR’s comically titled newscast “All Things Considered” ran a U.N.-boosting story on Nov. 7 that they headlined “U.N. climate conference opens with alarming warnings about the global climate.” There was no dissent allowed from the “highway to climate hell” talk.

Anchor Elissa Nadworny helpfully asked reporter Ruth Sherlock what the U.N. hoped to accomplish. Sherlock touted “developing” countries demanding “loss and damage” money, insisting “wealthier countries that are responsible for most of the carbon dioxide emissions should pay reparations to emerge economies.”

Conservatives are calling this the “Sharm el-Sheikh-down.”

How the War on Nitrous Oxide Threatens Global Food Supply But stopping global warming’s more important, right? Right? by Calvin Beisner

https://www.frontpagemag.com/how-the-war-on-nitrous-oxide-threatens-global-food-supply/

An extremely dangerous trend in public policy is growing around the world: demanding reduced emissions, mainly from agriculture, of nitrous oxide (N2O) because it contributes to global warming. Indeed, we’re told, every molecule of nitrous oxide in the atmosphere has 230 times the warming potential of every molecule of carbon dioxide-and governments all over the world concluded long ago, rightly or wrongly, that we must cut carbon dioxide emissions to reduce global warming. Clearly, then, it is even more important that we cut nitrous oxide emissions.

What’s dangerous about this? Nitrous oxide is a critical input of agricultural production. Reducing its use will seriously reduce food production, harming the world’s poor. But, if global warming is even more dangerous than reduced food production (which it is not, but for the moment we’ll assume it is for the sake of argument), surely, we must go ahead and take this step. Life is full of tradeoffs, after all.

Not so fast. Things aren’t quite that simple.

I want to begin with a thought experiment. Imagine that you have two cans of paint, A and B. Like all paint, their content is a mixture of clear liquid, through which light passes unimpeded, plus some color pigment. The concentration of the pigment determines how intense the color is, that is, how much light it absorbs so it doesn’t pass through the clear liquid. In can A, 230 out of every 1,000 molecules of paint are pigment. In can B, 1 out of every 1,000 molecules is pigment. It follows obviously that a coating of paint from can A will absorb 230 times as much light as a coating of the same thickness of paint from can B.

Now imagine that you apply 10 coats of paint from can A to a sheet of clear glass, and 23 coats of paint from can B to another sheet of clear glass. Which will block more sunlight? The sheet with paint from can A, because 230 times 10 is more than 23 times 1. Now imagine that instead you apply 10 coats of paint from can A to a sheet of glass, and 30,000 coats of paint from can B to another sheet. Now which will block more sunlight? Obviously, the sheet with paint from can B, because 30,000 times 1-30,000-is 13 times more than 230 times 10-2,300.