This is bizarre.
I've noticed indigenous "land acknowledgements" lately, something like, "We hereby acknowledge that this campus resides on stolen land," blah, blah...
Professor Reges ain't taking it.
At the F.I.R.E., "University of Washington: Professor created ‘toxic environment’ by deviating from university-approved language about Native American land."
Price hikes are not going down, despite what all the leftist Biden shills on TV tell you. (Or Biden's media cronies at the Washington Post. Gawd, that newspaper is a jock.)
At NYT, "Consumer prices popped again in December as policymakers await an elusive peak":
Inflation closed out 2021 on a high note, troubling news for the Biden White House and for economic policymakers as rapid price gains erode consumer confidence and cast a shadow of uncertainty over the economy’s future. The Consumer Price Index climbed 7 percent in the year through December, and 5.5 percent after stripping out volatile prices such as food and fuel. The last time the main inflation index eclipsed 7 percent was 1982. Policymakers have spent months waiting for inflation to fade, hoping supply chain problems might ease, allowing companies to catch up with booming consumer demand. Instead, continued waves of virus have locked down factories, and shipping routes have struggled to work through extended backlogs as consumers continue to buy goods from overseas at a rapid clip. What will happen next might be the biggest economic policy question of 2022...
More at Memeorandum.
From yesterday, during testimony at the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
At NYT, "Fauci Says Senator Rand Paul Is Fueling Threats Against Him."
Folks were slamming Senator Paul on Twitter yesterday. Mean-spirited, though MAGA trolls where cheering.
WATCH:
At Amazon, Alex Berenson, Pandemia: How Coronavirus Hysteria Took Over Our Government, Rights, and Lives.
Folks on the right are pissed off, dang.
Here's Ms. Tomi:
A publishing (power) house, that is.
Bari Weiss, "Welcome to Year Two":
A year ago today, I was on a plane from Los Angeles to Miami writing my first Substack column. A few months before, I had resigned from the New York Times with no plan. (Tip: If you are going to resign from your job in a viral fashion, probably best to set up your Substack beforehand.) I had no idea what to expect or if anyone would keep reading me. Here I was, leaving the biggest perch I’d ever had in my career, heading off into the wilderness of something called . . . a newsletter. What happened next exceeded my wildest expectations. And none of it could have happened without your support. Today I want to step back and give you a sense of what we’ve started building here and the enormous impact it’s had on the culture. I want to announce what year two has in store. And I want to share how we’re going to offer more to the paying subscribers whose commitment to our work has allowed it to flourish...
RTWT.
More here, "Our Favorite Essays of 2021."
Of course, this assumes Republicans win the majority. It's a safe bet, but things can happens between now and November. Hold your cards close to your vest.
This was the big debate yesterday, over Rochelle Walinsky's comments.
At WSJ, "Now She Tells Us":
Amid a mounting pile of unfulfilled Biden promises on Covid, from his pledge to shut down the virus to his assurance of abundant testing, the president’s favorite experts are suddenly sharing relevant facts that were too inconvenient to emphasize during his predecessor’s administration. Last week this column noted that two years, $4 trillion of federal debt and millions of isolated children too late, White House Covid czar Dr. Anthony Fauci has discovered the massive costs of pandemic restrictions. Now we have Dr. Rochelle Walensky, head of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, implicitly making the case for a strategy she once disparaged. On Friday, ABC’s “Good Morning America” program touted research showing that Covid vaccines are highly effective in preventing severe illness and then asked the CDC director: “Given that, is it time to start rethinking how we’re living with this virus, that it’s probably here to stay?” Dr. Walensky responded:The overwhelming number of deaths, over 75%, occurred in people who had at least 4 comorbidities. So really these are people who were unwell to begin with and yes, really encouraging news in the context of Omicron.Dr. Walensky seems to have been trying to make the point that the vast majority of people do not face as great a risk as one would think from listening to Covid-era apocalyptic forecasts from people like her. Sure, it may be hard to forget her unscientific March 2021 declaration at a White House briefing:I’m going to reflect on the recurring feeling I have of impending doom.Then there was her decision that the threat could somehow be addressed by issuing an unconstitutional ban on evictions. But if Dr. Walensky has since gotten a hold of herself and is now trying to enhance understanding of the threats people face, that would be progress. Her CDC website notes that close to 95% of death certificates listing Covid as a cause also mention other causes along with Covid and states:For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 4.0 additional conditions or causes per death.Unfortunately, in her Friday ABC interview, Dr. Walensky’s phrasing of the “encouraging news” about modest risk for many Americans sparked an online backlash as some interpreted the remarks as callous toward those at high risk. Kamau Bell of HBO and CNN tweeted, “I counted up my comorbidities. Now I can let my family know that if I die from COVID it is ‘encouraging.’ ” On Sunday Dr. Walensky tweeted:We must protect people with comorbidities from severe #COVID19. I went into medicine – HIV specifically – and public health to protect our most at-risk. CDC is taking steps to protect those at highest risk, incl. those w/ chronic health conditions, disabilities & older adults.Fair enough, but this recognition that some face great risk from Covid while others face much lower risk has been obvious from the start. In response, a group of accomplished and wise scientists crafted the Great Barrington Declaration in 2020 to promote a ”focused protection” strategy—taking great care to shield those at high risk while allowing the vast majority who are at low risk to continue working, learning and doing all the things that sustain life. This sensible prioritization sounds very much like what Dr. Walensky is suggesting in her Sunday tweet...
Here's Lisa Boothe:
Why can’t the CDC answer how many people have died from COVID versus with COVID? It’s criminal they won’t. My thoughts below 👇 pic.twitter.com/0WYb58FmNn
— Lisa Boothe (@LisaMarieBoothe) January 10, 2022
And for the full context, see Allahpundit, at Hot Air, "Here's what the CDC chief actually told ABC about COVID deaths and comorbidities."
This is quite funny.
At Yahoo, "Voting Rights Groups Skipping Biden's Speech in Georgia Over Inaction."
And on Twitter:
Stacy Abrams is skipping Biden's speech in Georgia due to a scheduling conflict.
The scheduling conflict:
An utterly astonishing football game, especially for all the intrigue.
At Bro Bible, "Chargers Fans Rip HC Brandon Staley to Shreds For Calling Timeout When It Appeared the Raiders Were Playing For Tie":
The Las Vegas Raiders seemed like they were getting ready to play for a tie that would have sent both the Chargers and the Raiders to the playoffs, but Chargers head coach Brandon Staley had other ideas, and it appeared to cost him. With the Raiders facing a 3rd-and-4 on the 40-yard line with 38 seconds left to go in the game, the Chargers decided to call a timeout for whatever reason. The Raiders would run the ball on the next play for a first down which led to a game-winning field goal moments later...
Check the link for all the Twitter reactions.
More, at Sports Illustrated, "Justin Herbert's Sideline Quote Goes Viral in Final Minute vs. Raiders," and "NFL Twitter Goes Wild as Raiders and Chargers Flirt With Chaotic Tie."
And watch: "Chargers vs. Raiders Week 18 Highlights -- NFL 2021."
Following-up, "Ted Cruz Walks Back January 6th 'Terrorist' Comments in Heated Exchange with Tucker Carlson (VIDEO)."
From Amanda Carpenter, at the Bulwark, "Ted Cruz’s Humiliation Isn’t the Worst Part":
By now, you’ve heard about the clip of Ted Cruz groveling for Tucker Carlson’s approval on Fox News. Every last member of the punditocracy has taken a turn dunking on the Texas senator whom everyone loves to hate. Hope they enjoyed it. Because once you really understand what Cruz is apologizing for, it’s not all that funny. The worst part of that interview wasn’t Cruz’s abject humiliation, but his radicalization. And yes, that’s saying something considering that Cruz was one of the leaders of the charge to object to the Electoral College count on January 6, 2021. At issue is Cruz’s use of the phrase “violent terrorist attack” when talking about Jan. 6th protesters who assaulted police. For this, last Thursday Carlson accused Cruz of “repeating the talking points Merrick Garland has prepared.” Burn. Lord knows, the worst thing a potential 2024 GOP presidential contender could do is be on message with the Biden administration about Jan. 6th. It’s worth remembering that when Cruz was coming up in Republican politics, being tough on crime was a good message. He likely clings to the notion that the typical GOP voter wants to “back the blue” and that a successful politician should be consistent in denouncing criminals on the left and the right. Hah. That’s just not true of Carlson’s Trump-obsessed, conspiracy-driven viewers. And the fact that Carlson created a three-part series titled “Patriot Purge” that describes Jan. 6th as a government “setup” and jailed rioters as “political prisoners” should have been a clue. Carlson said the attack could be called a “riot” but “it was not a violent terrorist attack. Sorry.” He went on:So why are you telling us that it was, Ted Cruz? And why are none of your Republican friends who are supposed to be representing us and all the people have been arrested during this purge saying anything? What the hell’s going on here? You’re making us think maybe the Republican Party is as worthless as we suspected it was. That can’t be true. Reassure us, please. Ted Cruz?Cruz decided to come on Carlson’s broadcast the next evening, so he could help make clear how eager he is to represent the people arrested during the “purge.” Right out of the gate, Cruz was all concessions and backpedaling. His phrasing, he said, was “sloppy” and “dumb,” and he claimed that he only meant the word “terrorist” to refer to “the limited number of people who engaged in violent attacks against police officers.”I’ve drawn a distinction. I wasn’t saying that the thousands of peaceful protesters supporting Donald Trump are somehow terrorists. I wasn’t saying the millions of patriots across the country supporting President Trump are terrorists, and that’s what a lot of people have misunderstood.He thought that distinction would be acceptable. Nope...
More.
From Amanda Carpenter, at the Bulwark, "What It Means to Be a Republican in 2022":
What does it mean to be a Republican in the year 2022? Being hated. Yes, by the left—but more importantly, also by members of your own party. Here in the bad, red place, hardly anyone gets along. Especially after January 6th. Why? Consider this a simple question: Whom does Donald Trump actually like? In the old days, all a Republican had to do to make Trump happy was kiss his ass with some cheap flattery. Say he’s the biggest, strongest, handsomest, smartest, richest dude in history and that would be enough. But today, being on Trump’s good side requires accepting his 2020 election lie and endorsing his various schemes to overturn the results. And if you’re not gonna do that? Then GTFO. Trump doesn’t want you around. As long as Trump is in charge, your future in the GOP is dead. Just ask Mike Pence. Pence spent four years as vice president gazing adoringly into Trump’s profile and swooning over his broad shoulders only to be cast out when he refused to block Joe Biden’s certification as president. Trump told Pence, “I don’t want to be your friend anymore if you don’t do this.” When Pence didn’t, he was promptly sentenced to death, political and otherwise, by Trump’s troops who chanted “Hang Mike Pence” as they marauded the halls of Congress. Trump told ABC’s Jonathan Karl that his supporters wanted to hang Mike Pence “because it’s common sense, Jon.” Trump recently described Pence as “mortally wounded.” Likewise, after Attorney General William Barr told a reporter there was no widespread fraud in the 2020 election, Trump fumed at him: “You must really hate Trump.” Similarly, Georgia Governor Brian Kemp and Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger lost any goodwill they might have felt from the former president when they informed him they could not “find” enough votes for him to win that state. Ditto Arizona Governor Doug Ducey. Heck, the number of Trump’s own cabinet officials whom the former president can’t stand—and who can’t stand him in return—is remarkable. Because here’s the rub: To the former president, being “Trump’s friend” means never saying no to him. Even when it comes to acting on lies that caused an insurrection. It’s the friendship of the mob boss: Do what he tells you and there won’t be any trouble. Which explains a lot of the behind-the-scenes grumbling in Republican politics. The guys paying protection money never actually like the mob boss...
This is your ultimate nightmare.
At CBS 2 Los Angeles, "Train Slams Into Downed Single-Engine Plane on Pacoima Tracks."
Frightening cell phone video of first responders pulling a pilot to safety seconds before a train slams into the plane that crashed onto the tracks near Whiteman Airport in Pacoima. @CBSLA #BreakingNow #news #crash #kcal 📸 Luis Jimenez https://t.co/NWGu2HhBUM @composerluis pic.twitter.com/D4VhNPGYID
— JASMINE VIEL (@jasmineviel) January 10, 2022
Foothill Division Officers displayed heroism and quick action by saving the life of a pilot who made an emergency landing on the railroad tracks at San Fernando Rd. and Osborne St., just before an oncoming train collided with the aircraft. pic.twitter.com/DDxtGGIIMo
— LAPD HQ (@LAPDHQ) January 10, 2022
Things are completely breaking up for the Democrats. Quite simply, people are fed up.
At WSJ, "Omicron Makes Biden’s Vaccine Mandates Obsolete":
Federal courts considering the Biden administration’s vaccination mandates—including the Supreme Court at Friday’s oral argument—have focused on administrative-law issues. The decrees raise constitutional issues as well. But there’s a simpler reason the justices should stay these mandates: the rise of the Omicron variant. It would be irrational, legally indefensible and contrary to the public interest for government to mandate vaccines absent any evidence that the vaccines are effective in stopping the spread of the pathogen they target. Yet that’s exactly what’s happening here. Both mandates—from the Health and Human Services Department for healthcare workers and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration for large employers in many other industries—were issued Nov. 5. At that time, the Delta variant represented almost all U.S. Covid-19 cases, and both agencies appropriately considered Delta at length and in detail, finding that the vaccines remained effective against it. Those findings are now obsolete. As of Jan. 1, Omicron represented more than 95% of U.S. Covid cases, according to estimates from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Because some of Omicron’s 50 mutations are known to evade antibody protection, because more than 30 of those mutations are to the spike protein used as an immunogen by the existing vaccines, and because there have been mass Omicron outbreaks in heavily vaccinated populations, scientists are highly uncertain the existing vaccines can stop it from spreading. As the CDC put it on Dec. 20, “we don’t yet know . . . how well available vaccines and medications work against it.” The Supreme Court held in Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) that the right to refuse medical treatment could be overcome when society needs to curb the spread of a contagious epidemic. At Friday’s oral argument, all the justices acknowledged that the federal mandates rest on this rationale. But mandating a vaccine to stop the spread of a disease requires evidence that the vaccines will prevent infection or transmission (rather than efficacy against severe outcomes like hospitalization or death). As the World Health Organization puts it, “if mandatory vaccination is considered necessary to interrupt transmission chains and prevent harm to others, there should be sufficient evidence that the vaccine is efficacious in preventing serious infection and/or transmission.” For Omicron, there is as yet no such evidence. The little data we have suggest the opposite. One preprint study found that after 30 days the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines no longer had any statistically significant positive effect against Omicron infection, and after 90 days, their effect went negative—i.e., vaccinated people were more susceptible to Omicron infection. Confirming this negative efficacy finding, data from Denmark and the Canadian province of Ontario indicate that vaccinated people have higher rates of Omicron infection than unvaccinated people. Meantime, it has long been known that vaccinated people with breakthrough infections are highly contagious, and preliminary data from all over the world indicate that this is true of Omicron as well. As CDC Director Rochelle Walensky put it last summer, the viral load in the noses and throats of vaccinated people infected with Delta is “indistinguishable” from that of unvaccinated people, and “what [the vaccines] can’t do anymore is prevent transmission.” There is some early evidence that boosters may reduce Omicron infections, but the effect appears to wane quickly, and we don’t know if repeated boosters would be an effective response to the surge of Omicron. That depends among other things on the severity of disease Omicron causes, another great unknown. According to the CDC, the overwhelming majority of symptomatic U.S. Omicron cases have been mild. The best policy might be to let Omicron run its course while protecting the most vulnerable, naturally immunizing the vast majority against Covid through infection by a relatively benign strain. As Sir Andrew Pollard, head of the U.K.’s Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, said in a recent interview, “We can’t vaccinate the planet every four or six months. It’s not sustainable or affordable.” In any event, the vaccine mandates before the court don’t require boosters. They define “fully vaccinated” as two doses of Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech or one dose of Johnson & Johnson. Even if boosters would help, the mandates would leave tens or hundreds of thousands of unboosted employees on the job, who have zero or negative protection against Omicron infection, and who would be highly contagious if they become infected. In other words, there is no scientific basis for believing these mandates will curb the spread of the disease.Still more.
