Why Evolution is True is a blog written by Jerry Coyne, centered on evolution and biology but also dealing with diverse topics like politics, culture, and cats.
This comedy video, starring Barack Obama and Larry David, shows that the ex-President is a natural actor and comedian. (I’ve added a Facebook post below that also shows Obama’s comedic talents.) Here the Calm Man interacts with the Neurotic Man. As for the tan-suit thing, Wikipedia has whoe article on “Barack Obama and tan suit controversy,” which includes this:
On August 28, 2014, President Barack Obama held a press conference about the situation regarding ISIS in Syria, and how the U.S. military was planning to respond to it. At the conference, Obama said that the U.S. had yet to develop a plan regarding the removal of ISIS, and talked extensively about his concerns in the region. During the conference he wore a tan suit, which until that point was uncommon for Obama.
Although it is common for men to wear light-colored suits in Washington during the summer due to the city’s heat and humidity, it was seen by conservative commentator and Fox Business Network host Lou Dobbs as “shocking to a lot of people”.[6] The controversy was seen in the context of the slow news season before the run-up to the 2014 election campaign. The suit received mixed reviews from a sartorial perspective.
At the time, the unusual attention given to a male leader’s fashion choices was contrasted with that of his 2008 Democratic rival Hillary Clinton’s “regular experience” as a woman in politics.
This bit gives a fictitious backstory about the Obama Tan Suit Incident, showing that it was all Larry David’s fault when he interacts with a mango smoothie. This could have been right out of “Curb Your Enthusiasm“:
Here’s Obama in an actual tan suit worn when he was President:
President Barack Obama meets with John F. Tefft, U.S. Ambassador to Russia, in the Oval Office, Aug. 28, 2014. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza). Wikimedia Commons, Public Domain
Merilee found this video of Barack being funny at other times.
Merilee found this video of Barack being funny at other times.
This week’s Real Time with Bill Maher comedy-and-news bit takes up Rand Paul’s jihad against Anthony Fauci, which includes Paul’s publishing Fauci’s personal diary, which showed Fauci basking in his celebrity.
Maher concludes that Fauci is, at the same time, “an esteemed, dedicated public servant” and a “vain, flawed bureaucrat”. As Maher notes, Fauci got some stuff wrong, but was not deliberately lying; as Maher says, “science is complicated.” And I agree with Maher that “we should not call people criminals for just the part they got wrong.”
Yes, Fauci did pressure scientists to publish a “wet market” conclusion about the origin of covid, but its origin is irrelevant to how the pandemic should have been handled. But Fauci nevertheless fell prey, as did Trump, to the addiction to worship that comes with fame. In fact, Maher plays a game, giving quotes from either Trump or Fauci’s diary and asking the viewer to decide “who said it.” Maher gets a dig at “progressives,” noting that Julia Roberts called Fauci “Jesus with a Petri dixh.”
But in the end Maher concludes that Fauci put in a lot of service to the country, but was not a criminal, even though the adulation he received might have made him more dogmatic. It’s sad that Fauci became seduced by celebrity, but he’s human and that’s a human tendency.
Bill Maher’s back after his summer vacation, and his latest “new rule” bit starts in with some hard criticism of the “far far Left”—the progressives—for being close to Communists, and the Democratic Socialists of America for using Communist jargon. I’ve talked before about the DSA’s platform, which includes abolishing the Senate and ditching the President and Supreme Court. as well as getting rid of the police and jails. But some of them go further, advocating seizing private property and “seizing the means of production”—straight out of Marx.
Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-NY) — Co-leading the initiative
Rep. Adam Gray (D-CA) — Co-leading the initiative
Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ)
Rep. Susie Lee (D-NV)
Rep. Don Davis (D-NC)
Rep. Vicente Gonzalez Jr. (D-TX)
Rep. Laura Gillen (D-NY)
Rep. Janelle Bynum (D-OR)
Rep. Kristin McDonald Rivet (D-MI)
Rep. Maggie Goodlander (D-NH)
Jessica Killin (candidate)
Marlene Galán Woods (candidate)
Bobby Pulido (candidate)
The pledge is not some kind of right-wing manifesto, but a reasonable centrist Democratic view. I’m appalled that more Democrats in Congress wouldn’t sign it.
Oh, and my favorite Democratic curmudgeon, James Carville, appears with a quote about the “progressives”:
“There’s just some shit that I can’t be in the same tent with. . I”m done. I’m not in that fucking political party.”
Members and acolytes of the Democratic Socialists of America are making inroads into the Democratic Party, so it’s useful to see what they stand for. They may not enact all these pledges, but they will try. Click on the screenshot below to see their recently published program.
No capitalism and NO BILLS!
But what if you want a different house from the one that the government gives you? Too bad! But who’s gonna pay for all those free houses, medicine, and transportation? I suspect they’ll just say “tax the rich,” the common DSA answer. But there’s not enough money there to begin to pay for all the stuff promised above.
And no more law enforcement. Eventually, everyone will be law-abiding!
There’s this of course; a major plank of the DSA is the elimination of Israel (and, not said explicitly) and of Jews as well. Invoking the “right of return” of all descendants of Arabs who fled Israel in 1948 would lead to the elimination of Israel. Not a word about the actual genocide of Hamas and the terrorism of the Palestinian Authority.
. . and here goes the separation of powers carefully confected by the Founders:
This comes pretty close to Communism:
And some cant:
To achieve this future, our class must organize. The Democratic Socialists of America is building a party whose goal is a democratic society of the working class. Our enemies are not just individual bosses, but the entire global system of capital; not just this or that cop, judge, or president, but the entire anti-democratic structure of our society. We are workers fighting to transform society: to win the battle for democracy, draft a new constitution, and create a democratic socialist republic.
DSA has written this program for ending capitalist oligarchy and creating a real democracy. Some of these demands may be won under our current system, but we know complete victory will require building a new society from the ground up. We push these demands to their furthest extent today, so we can fight for their fullest realization in a socialist future. Join us.
But is that real democracy. What if people don’t want to run the big corporations or get rid of capitalism?
I don’t usually quote the conservative op-eds of the WSJ, but a new editorial-board op-ed describes the unconstitutionality of the DSA program:
The left has long targeted the Electoral College because it thwarts the ability of the most populous states to dominate presidential elections. But in its latest manifesto, “Workers Deserve More,” the DSA says it wants to “replace the President and Supreme Court with an executive and judiciary chosen by and subordinate to Congress.” It also wants to “abolish the Senate.” James Madison, call your office.
It’s important to understand how radical this is, essentially blowing up the Constitution’s separation of powers. Letting Congress choose the President means adopting the parliamentary system that prevails in Britain. It would essentially remove the presidential veto power that the Founders designed as a check on the legislative passions of the day.
Ditto for ending an independent judiciary, which is a check against legislative and executive violation of individual rights. Third World dictators seek to make the judiciary subservient to the ruling party for this reason, as they did in Venezuela, and as Mexico’s Morena party is now attempting to do.
The left loathes the Senate because it is also a restraint on temporary majorities. The Senate’s design, with two Members from each state, gives an equal voice to small and large states. This prevents dominance by California, New York and Texas. And it buttresses the federalist principles at the core of the Constitution’s design, which preserves certain powers to the states as a check on Washington, D.C.’s commandments.
The Senate’s six-year terms are another check on momentary House majorities elected every two years. The Founders’ original design that Senators be elected by state legislatures has given way to direct election. But the 60-vote filibuster rule has developed as an alternative check on radical change by narrow majorities.
Article V of the Constitution says “no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.” This means the Senate couldn’t be abolished without the consent of every state, assuming the DSA doesn’t ignore the Constitution, as some on the left might want to do.
. . . . The common denominator in all of these DSA proposals is eliminating barriers to rapid, radical change. The socialists want a single-branch legislature that can sweep into power in a single election, dominate the President, and neuter the judiciary as a check on that power. With those checks gone, they can impose their agenda that will be nearly impossible to undo.
The job of Republicans now, and Democrats who have the guts, is to educate the country about this agenda. Not by doing what President Trump does and call them “communists.” That general attack won’t resonate with young people who don’t know what communism is.
Well, read the platform and get yourself educated. Sadly, young people may still learn what communism is, but they also have to study history to see how it worked out. They can’t do that on their phones.
Here’s a 2½-minute video of Secretary of State Marco Rubio talking about socialism, communism, and his vision of America. It’s a bit Ayn Rand-ish, and I ignored the bit about God. (I don’t know the narrator, but it appears to be a “media personality” named Jillian Michaels, a woman of conservative views.
Rubio is speaking about “radical leftism” and its goal of “social justice” that, he thinks, is really acting out a mindset of “poisonous resentment cloaked in the language of equality and justice and liberation. . . “.
Have a listen and tell me that part of this doesn’t resonate with you; and forget it’s Marco Rubio speaking and just listen to the message. Of course I’ll get labeled an “alt-righter” for posting this, but I don’t care. I sent the video to several of my center-left friends, and in general they liked it (except for the God part).
I’m writing this to blow off steam, and also pose a question to readers: “Why were Democrats so enthusiastic about Kamala Harris’s candidacy for President.?” Sure, she was the default candidate and Democrats had to vote for her if they didn’t want the abysmal Trump, but why the outpouring of enthusiasm for someone who seemed palpably unqualified for the Presidency? Whence the “great joy” that Harris brought to some Democrats? Why the “Kamala is brat” memes, with “brat” meaning “confidently rebellious, unapologetically bold, and playfully defiant.”
I want to blow off stem because yesterday I had an “animated discussion” with a good friend about Harris, with my point being that Democrats can’t afford to get really enthusiastic over a lame candidate. He told me that Harris wasn’t lame, that he was enthusiastic over her, and that she lost largely because she was a woman. Then it was off to the races. (Upshot: we’re still friends, but agreed to differ.)
Confession: I voted for neither Harris nor Trump. In Illinois, Harris was sure to get the electoral votes, but I couldn’t stand Trump. Harris, on the other hand, made me queasy. So I wrote in “Gretchen Whitmer.” If I had to go back, I may well have written in “Pete Buttigieg”, who would be a great candidate in 2028 but people consider him unelectable because he’s gay. (I don’t believe that, by the way. If Americans can elect a black person President, they can elect a gay one. After all, voters elected a sexual assaulter who advocated grabbing women by the genitals, who was married three times, and who paid off a pornstar to keep her mouth shut after having sex with her. Next to that, being gay a godly position.)
Why couldn’t I stand Harris? For several reasons. First, she lacked gravitas, or even the ability to string together words in a meaningful sentence. I don’t know how many times the phrase “word salad” was used to characterize her speeches and interviews. Have a gander, and this is typical. (Don’t forget that Harris avoided interviews and speeches during her candidacy.)
She was long on metaphors like the coconut-tree meme and “I can imagine what can be, unburdened by what has been,” and, even for NPR she was short on specifics in her “60 minutes” interview. You’l remember that her words in that piece were edited by CBS to remove some of the salad. That interview, below, is just another word salad.
I could not vote for a President who could not outline their views clearly.
I didn’t disdain Harris because she was a woman; after all, I had no compunction about voting for Hillary Clinton in 2016, and don’t give a hoot about about a candidate’s sex, race, or sexual orientation. What I want is someone who can lead the country. And if you can’t articulate your views, or establish a policy platform, and if you gaslight the American public about “what has been,” you won’t get my vote.
Though averring she was going to distinguish herself from Biden, Harris proffered only a continuation of Biden’s policies—policies on immigration, on economics, and on foreign issues. She was not particularly pro-Israel, and was insistent that the IDF not go into Rafah (“I’ve looked at the maps,” she said). He campaign focused more on serving up word salad and attacking Trump than on advancing her own policies.
Her past: she was not a particularly good Vice-President, though I realize that the Veep has to make their own jobs. Nevertheless, she was assigned to deal with immigration issues and didn’t do squat. She took the “right” positions on issues like women’s and LGBTQ rights as California’s attorney general as Senator, so I can’t say she was “Trumpish” in any way. My worries are that she went along to get along, wasn’t particularly smart or reflective, was too progressive, and, since she couldn’t put two words together, could not lead in the sense of persuading Americans to go along with her.
Given all this, I was baffled at the outpouring of Demorcratic enthusiasm for her. They not only urged others to vote for her (which was fine), but also extolled her as some kind of iconic Democratic figure (which was not fine). We can’t afford, as liberals, to distort someone’s views and image to win elections. Rather, we have to find good, solid candidates. Harris was not one. The American public was not fooled by her promises to bring change, nor were they heartened by her incoherence in the few public speeches and interviews she gave. People weren’t fooled, and she lost.
Our job as liberals (and for me as a left-centrist) is to find candidates who have the potential to be leaders, and can articulate a vision. I think Pete Buttigieg is one, but can’t think of others, though of course both Clinton and Obama emerged at the last minute to win the Presidency. Please put below the candidates you’re enthusiastic for now.
In his column in today’s NYT (archived here), Thomas Edsall mentions three issues that the Democrats must be “normies” about if they’re to win (“normies” means adhering to the majority Democratic view, not the “progressive” view. A quote:
Even now, according to a new survey by the left-leaning group Data for Progress, the Democratic Party has a net negative rating of minus 29 percentage points among swing voters, worse than the minus 25 for the Republican Party. Democrats seeking to restore their party’s credibility with the electorate as a whole, but especially among those crucial swing voters, might consider adding three planks — on immigration, urban disorder and transgender issues — to the 2028 Democratic platform.
Why? Because it is these three issues that serve to reinforce the perception that Democrats are willing to sacrifice the interests of the working and middle classes in favor of special interest constituencies.
I am more than a little queasy making these suggestions, but I think the Democratic Party needs to perform a kind of brutal surgery on itself.
And here are the three issues and what Democrat has to believe about them if they’re to win (bolding is mine):
On immigration, I would suggest — with plenty of room for amendment — the following:
Democrats will firmly enforce laws on illegal immigration, including tough border enforcement and deportation of unauthorized immigrants who commit crimes.
Unauthorized immigrants with no criminal record who have been in this country for at least five years, along with Dreamers, should be offered green cards with a path toward citizenship. More recent arrivals should be deported.
On crime:
The Democratic Party supports aggressive prosecution of those accused of violent crime, those who engage in crowdsourced “teen takeovers” of stores, as well as all forms of child abuse.
The party backs restoration of bail requirements in the case of felonies, lifetime sentences for offenders convicted of multiple violent crimes, tough enforcement of child support laws and the death penalty if supported by the voters in a state and endorsed by a jury.
Transgender and gender dysphoria:
There are two sexes: men and women.
A man can claim an identify as a woman, and the same in reverse for a woman. They have every right to do so. Their claim should be respected and they should be protected from any form of discrimination for their choice.
Their claim does not, however, alter their biological sex.
Consequently, it is legitimate in areas such as sports where a transgender person would have a competitive advantage over non-trans people to bar such participation. Similarly, a claim to a sexual identity does not give a trans woman the right to incarceration in a woman’s prison.
Finally, the debate over gender affirming surgery and hormone treatments is fraught with contradictory assertions. For now, because there are credible scientific claims of irreversible harms, such treatments for those under 18 should be barred pending further study.
This is the best of the many pieces I’ve read about what Democrats need to do to start winning.
I agree with all these positions, save that I don’t think the death penalty is justifiable, nor do I think it will turn voters off so long as you advocate for the possibility of life sentences without parole.
The problem with Democrats is that they’ve been gaslighting us: pretending that crime is down, that something close to open borders is okay, and that trans rights always trump women’s rights—that biological men are identical to women in all respects. Voters are not taken in by these positions, and all three of the critical issues Edsall mentions are ones that Democrats tell us are not problematic.
The next President does need to hew to something like Edsall’s program. Edsall doesn’t mention Israel, which is the thorn on the rose, and it’s possible that no Democrat can be elected who doesn’t criticize Israel for overreacting in Lebanon and Gaza. Could I vote for someone like that? I suppose I could—if they have the other virtues.
I have tried not to be joyful over the illness and death of my political opponents (or of anybody I don’t like), or to rejoice at their deaths. Yes, I wish Donald Trump was gone, but not via some horrible illness. After all, these are human beings and have feelings as well as families who (by and large) love them, and those people will suffer, too. Further, as a determinist, I realize that these people couldn’t have done other than what they did. That doesn’t mean I excuse their doings, for I am so constituted as to excoriate them, and excoriation (and reward) can change people’s behavior.
But I’ve heard many people wish not just for Trump’s death, but for a painful, agonizing death. This is a staple for all Republicans on certain odious websites, one of which celebrated Mitch McConnell’s illness
The only optimistic news I’ve seen is that Mitch McConnell, one of the architects of the conservative dominance of the Supreme Court, may be dying.
. . . . So maybe a slow, miserable death…but not too painful, since his mind is probably mostly gone. We’ve got time to get some champagne and caviar before his demise! The most generous thing I can say is that I wish he’d retired to the happy bosom of his family and a life of relaxation a decade or two ago. As it is, he overstayed his tenure, and to what end? The poisoning of his beloved Republican party.
Now McConnell is still sitting in the Senate, and it’s fine to wish him gone, and even to say that you’re not very sad if he dies. But to wish for a “painful agonizing death”? I’m sure that if by some magic had the power to inflict that, they wouldn’t think twice.
These are the same kind of people who applauded Luigi Mangione for killing Brian Thompson, which is an even more odious behavior.
Now you can explain why people’s death have removed a deleterious element from society, as Hitchens did for Jerry Falwell, but I see that as different from wishing them to die or suffer while they’re still alive.
But you may feel differently. Let’s take some polls!
Is it okay to wish for the death of your political/ideological opponents, or of people you don't like
Is it okay to wish for a "painful and agonizing death", or other forms of physical suffering, on your political/ideological opponents or people you dislike?
