RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://issuesinsights.com/2022/11/15/wait-this-is-the-inflation-news-everyone-is-celebrating/

The moment the government’s inflation number came out last Thursday, the stock market rocketed upward. President Joe Biden took a victory lap. It was less than expected! Inflation is cooling off!

Sounds wonderful. Except that prices rose in October by almost 8% year-over-year. That’s four times faster than the Federal Reserve Bank’s 2% target rate. And it marks the 20th consecutive month since inflation has been above the Fed’s target.

It also comes on top of previous record-level price hikes.

When prices started shooting up last year, the White House said it was no big deal because of the “base effect.” They said that prices seemed to be climbing rapidly in 2021 only because the COVID lockdowns had knocked prices down the year before. Since the base was low, the year-over-year comparisons made inflation seem higher than it really was.

“Over the next few months, as the base effects’ months drift further into the past, this distortionary characteristic of the price data should fade,” the White House said in a report in June 2021.

Except, that didn’t happen. Prices kept climbing even as those “base effect” months passed on by. And we are still seeing historically high price increases on top of historically high increases.

October’s year-over-year price spike of 7.7% is on top of the 6.2% increase in October 2021. In other words, prices last month were 14.4% higher than they were two years ago. Ask yourself, has your income increased by more than 14.4% over the past two years?

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/3733409-silver-linings-to-the-gops-midterm-shortfall/

Are there any silver linings to the disappointing midterm elections for Republicans? Yes, at least three: President Biden wants to run again, Donald Trump has been dethroned and the GOP cannot be blamed for the recession that looms over 2023. Put together, the results might oddly have given the GOP better odds of winning in 2024 than if the much-anticipated “red wave” had materialized.

Does this sound absurdly Pollyannish? Maybe, but it is also true.

First, Biden seems to think the midterms were a positive referendum on his performance. In his follow-up press conference, he exulted that “we lost fewer seats in the House of Representatives than any Democratic President’s first midterm election in the last 40 years.”

He rattled off his many supposed accomplishments, including: “creating” 10 million new jobs, “taking on powerful interests to lower…energy bills” and making “historic investments” to encourage building new semiconductor factories. All that “while lowering the federal deficit in the two years by $1.7 trillion….No administration has ever cut the deficit that much.”

The report card is dishonest. But give Biden credit for convincing voters that the economy was actually in tatters when he took over (it was growing at 6 percent, thanks to large stimulus spending and because it was in great shape before COVID-19 hit), that he engineered a dramatic drop in the federal deficit (actually, he pumped it way up before by law it began to recede) and that he somehow drove oil companies to lower prices, while in fact he recklessly drew down our Strategic Petroleum Reserves.

https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2022/11/28/bodies-politic/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=top-of-nav&utm_content=hero-module

Confronting biological reality on the campaign trail

In May, John Fetterman was on his way to a Democratic-primary campaign event in Pennsylvania when it became clear to his wife that he needed urgent medical attention. Later, doctors confirmed that Fetterman had suffered a stroke — a life-threatening condition in which the blood supply to the brain is temporarily blocked or reduced.

According to the CDC, strokes can “cause lasting brain damage, long-term disability, or even death.” Annually, about 700,000 people in the United States have strokes. For any of them, it would be uncontroversial to recommend that they not pressure themselves with high-stakes performance in the months that follow. But Fetterman’s campaign and the entire Democratic apparatus — and perhaps the candidate himself — had a strong incentive to prioritize his political career instead.

Whether a person is fit to return to work after a stroke depends on both the degree of damage and the nature of the work. Given the objectively grave diagnosis, as well as the responsibility of the office of senator, it was reasonable for voters to demand necessary assurances. But Fetterman refused to release his medical records, instead offering a one-page doctor’s letter saying he “has no work restrictions and can work full duty in public office.” He maintained a conspicuously low profile.

In early October, Fetterman gave an interview to NBC reporter Dasha Burns using closed captioning to compensate for his problems with auditory processing. Burns observed that during their small talk before the closed captioning was turned on, “it wasn’t clear that he could understand what we were saying.” For this, she was attacked by Fetterman’s wife as an “ableist.” The American Association of People with Disabilities likewise complained that coverage of the Burns interview was “riddled with ableism.” A disability activist, Charis Hill, told BuzzFeed News that “the way Burns handled that interview will only worsen attitudes and violence towards disabled people.”

The Center for Disability Rights defines “ableism” as “a set of beliefs or practices that devalue and discriminate against people with physical, intellectual, or psychiatric disabilities and often rests on the assumption that disabled people need to be ‘fixed’ in one form or another.” Insofar as disability-rights advocates focus their efforts on fighting unfair discrimination — for instance, how assisted suicide targets those with disabilities — this is a noble cause. But in the context of employment, not every disability can be adequately adjusted for in every situation.

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.)

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.