There’s an inside term in political journalism that everyone needs to learn: “Put a lid on the day.”
No, that doesn’t refer to thinking “Oh, put a lid on it” every time Nancy Pelosi opens her mouth. It’s what a campaign team tells the media to let them know that there will be no more comments, appearances or events involving the candidate for the rest of the day. And the media are hearing it a lot these days from the Biden campaign, and very early in the day, which worries them since they are the unofficial PR arm of the campaign.
For instance, Tuesday morning before 9 a.m., Biden’s aides told the media they were “putting a lid on the day.” So 42 days away from the election, while President Trump is jetting around the country, giving 90-minute campaign speeches and addressing the UN in between dealing with major policy issues, Biden is declaring the day over before most people even get to work.
In the linked article from David Marcus of the Federalist, he goes to some lengths to say he has tried hard not to accept rumors or assumptions about Biden’s mental or physical health. I’ve also tried not to get into that kind of personal speculation. Maybe it is some brilliant "lay-low strategy" they're following. But when the candidate not only seems incapable of remaining coherent even with a Teleprompter in front of him, and his campaign day ends at 9 a.m., you have to start wondering if Biden is capable of handling the most demanding job in the world.
It’s obvious that his supporters in the media are starting to panic. I hate giving the leftist magazine the Nation any clicks, but just to prove I’m not making this up, one of their writers just published a screed insisting that there’s nothing to be learned from presidential debates so we should cancel them all, “permanently.”
Translation: I’m saying “permanently” because I don’t want to admit that I’m scared out of my wits about this particular candidate in these particular debates, but I’ll write another screed arguing the opposite in four years.
If Biden is capable of being President, then he should at least be capable of working past the end of the “Today” show. If he’s not, and the Democrats know it, then they are attempting to pull a shameful scam on the American people, and one that’s cruelly unfair to Biden as well. As for all the claims that there should be no debates because Joe Biden is just too honest and pure to lower himself to debate Trump, my response to that is “Put a lid on it.”
The Democrats, having previously bet on voters really wanting fewer police, more riots, endless lockdowns and mandatory mask-wearing from here to eternity, are now betting the farm that voters really want the Senate to sit around for the next 3-1/2 months and not fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court. To paraphrase the knight in the Indiana Jones movie, “They chose…poorly.”
A new Marquette University Law School poll found that 67% of Americans believe the Senate should move ahead with the SCOTUS replacement. Only 32% think they should hold off. Among Independents, who are the vital swing voters both parties hope to attract, 71% said to go ahead and fill the seat.
Speaking of being on the wrong side of history (and common sense), a new USA Today/Ipsos poll found that 64% of Americans believe protesters and counter-protesters are overwhelming America’s cities. Interestingly, only 48% of Democrats agree that cities are under siege.
Fifty percent of Americans say they believe theft and vandalism have gotten worse in their own communities, 68% think vandalism has gotten worse nationwide (only 68%?), 63% think assaults on police have gotten worse nationwide, and more people believe assaults on police have gotten worse over the past six months than assaults by police.
The poll also found that 54% of Americans think people should own firearms to protect themselves from violent protesters, and 56% agree that when necessary, federal law enforcement officers should be sent in to restore law and order. Democrats were much less likely to agree with both of those positions.
I don’t claim to know everything about politics, but I can tell you that when heading into a major election, telling over half of Americans that they’re wrong on the most important personal safety issue of the age is not the hill I’d want to be standing on.
MORE ON KYLE
For those following the story of young Kyle Rittenhouse, charged with murder for shooting protesters in Kenosha, last night, Tucker Carlson aired never-before-seen footage of that night that could bolster the defense’s claim that he acted in self-defense. Warning, this footage is brutal and hard to watch.
Interesting piece on President Trump’s recent Middle East peace deals.
It explains what these agreements mean for the region, and for entertainment value, quotes various Democrats and media figures as they try to explain why peace in the Middle East is a bad thing if Trump does it. Also, it includes Joe Biden’s plan for peace in the Middle East, which boils down to, “I’ll keep doing what Trump did, only better than Trump.” Kind of like all his positions except for the clearly insane ones.
MORE ON THE WOMAN SUSPECTED OF MAILING RICIN TO THE WHITE HOUSE
Meet the woman arrested on suspicion of mailing deadly ricin to the White House, as well as five other envelopes to police in Texas. You probably won’t be too surprised. Her mug shot definitely looks like someone who’s stayed up for a lot of nights, watching too much Rachel Maddow.
SOME THOUGHTS ABOUT THE WILDFIRES AND CLIMATE CHANGE
I don’t want to be accused of being a “climate denier” (I do believe there is a climate) or of being so anti-science that I disagree with Nancy Pelosi when she warns us, “Mother Earth is angry.” But if we’re ever going to get the terrible wildfires in California under control, it’s necessary to look at real facts and not simply accept overheated claims that “manmade climate change” is entirely to blame for the fires – something that even Gov. Gavin Newsom recently admitted wasn’t true.
Toward that end, I thought I’d point you to a couple of recent reports that look at real statistics and history of both wildfires and weather trends to see if the environmental left’s claims about droughts, temperature and forest fires (pardon the expression) hold water.
First, check out this report from the Foundation for Economic Education.
It asks the provocative question, if global climate changes are to blame for California’s fires, why aren’t other places with forests on fire? Texas, for instance, has more forest acreage than California and a hotter climate, but it’s not burning down. California's winds get blamed, but those have been blowing for millennia. Maybe, as the article points out, it’s because 95% of Texas’ land is privately owned by people who practice wise management policies like controlled burns to remove dead vegetation that turns into kindling, something that California’s environmentalists won’t allow.
"Well, then, how do you explain why the number of wildfires and the acreage on fire are both at record levels?"
Answer: they aren’t. 2020 is on track to be a very bad year, but not as bad as 2017.
“Still, that was the all-time record year for forest fires!” Only because the records being cited start in 1960. In 1930, about five times more acreage burned as in 2017, and the annual average from 1926-‘52 was several times higher. Forest fires have been with us since before there even were humans in North America, but in recent decades, we learned how to control them. Only California has made those methods illegal.
Ironically, one thing that’s also illegal in California is arson, but that hasn’t seemed to stop anyone from doing it.
Of course, pointing all this out doesn’t mean that there is no climate change going on. But the climate is always changing. The big questions are, is it due to humans and is it catastrophic? It’s now conventional wisdom that the answer to both is a big “YES!” and if you disagree, you’re a science-denying lunkhead.
So to check that out, a researcher for the Global Warming Policy Foundation examined data mostly from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) “to analyse trends in temperature, precipitation, droughts, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, sea-level rise and wildfires. In particular, it takes account of the widely varying regional climates.” The goal was to determine the state of the climate in 2019.
Here’s what the data shows, quoted directly from the report’s summary:
• “Average temperatures have risen by 0.15°F/decade since 1895, with the increase most marked in winter.
• There has been little or no rise in temperatures since the mid 1990s.
• Summers were hotter in the 1930s than in any recent years.
• Heatwaves were considerably more intense in decades up to 1960 than anything seen since.
• Cold spells are much less severe than they used to be.
• Central and Eastern regions have become wetter, with a consequent drastic reduction in drought. In the west, there has been little long-term change.
• While the climate has become wetter in much of the country, evidence shows that floods are not getting worse.
• Hurricanes are not becoming either more frequent or powerful.
• Tornadoes are now less common than they used to be, particularly the stronger ones.
• Sea-level rise is currently no higher than around the mid-20th century.
• Wildfires now burn only a fraction of the acreage they did prior to the Second World War.
In short, the US climate is in most ways less extreme than it used to be. Temperatures are less extreme at both ends of the scale, storms less severe and droughts far less damaging. While it is now slightly warmer, this appears to have been largely beneficial.”
I’m sure many people will attack the report, the writer and the foundation that funded it. But I’ll be waiting to see if they produce any evidence that he or NOAA got their weather data wrong.