March 2021 Archives

The global pandemic lock-down is starting to look like one of the worst public health decisions in history. A year ago everyone was scared and no one knew what would happen -- but time has now revealed which leaders made good choices and which didn't. It's not random.

Even some Florida Democrats are wondering whether Gov. Ron DeSantis' widely panned COVID response might turn out to be right, Axios Tampa Bay's Ben Montgomery and Selene San Felice write.

More than 32,000 Floridians have died, a number the state's leaders rarely acknowledge. But the death rate is no worse than the national average -- and better than some states with tighter restrictions.

The L.A. Times compared Florida and California:

"California imposed myriad restrictions that battered the economy ... Florida adopted a more laissez-faire approach decried by public health experts -- allowing indoor restaurant dining, leaving masks optional."

On Sunday's front page, the N.Y. Times explored the positives -- from the sizzling real-estate market to Florida's low unemployment rate -- of an early reopening: "Much of the state has a boomtown feel."

Florida's unemployment rate is 5.1%, compared to 9.3% in California, 8.7% in New York and 6.9% in Texas, The Times notes.

The bottom line: "Despite their differing approaches," AP reports, "California and Florida have experienced almost identical outcomes in COVID-19 case rates."

Glenn Greenwald explains how media outlets "independently confirm" each others' falsehoods. It is shocking that an entire industry could so utterly humiliate itself so quickly. What American institutions are actually excellent these days?

All of this prompted the obvious question: how could MSNBC and CBS News have both purported to "independently confirm" a CNN bombshell that was completely false? The reason this matters is because the term "independently confirm" significantly bolsters the credibility of the initial report because it makes it appear that other credible-to-some news organizations have conducted their own investigation and found more evidence that proves it is true. That is the purpose of the exercise: to bolster the credibility of the story in the minds of the public.

But what actually happens is as deceitful as it is obvious. When a news outlet such as NBC News claims to have "independently corroborated" a report from another corporate outlet, they often do not mean that they searched for and acquired corroborating evidence for it. What they mean is much more tawdry: they called, or were called by, the same anonymous sources that fed CNN the false story in the first place, and were fed the same false story. And just as CNN did -- repeated what they were told (almost certainly by Democratic Congressional members and/or their staff) without independently investigating it, because they knew any anti-Trump story would please their partisan audience -- NBC News pretended they had obtained "independent confirmation" when all they had done was speak to the same sources that fed CNN.

This episode is so worth recalling not only because it is one of the most stunning and pathetic media humiliations of the Trump era -- though it is that -- but also because the shoddy tactic that drove it is still in full use by the same media outlets. We just saw proof of that again with a major Washington Post "correction" -- which should be called a retraction -- of one of the most-discussed news stories of the last six months: the Post's claims about what Trump said when he called a Georgia election official while he was still contesting the 2020 election results.

I've written about class recently, and Astral Codex Ten has pulled together a bunch of class-related suggestions for the Republicans that are very intriguing.

Trump didn't win on a platform of capitalism and liberty and whatever. He won on a platform of being anti-establishment. But which establishment? Not rich people. Trump is rich, lots of his Cabinet picks were rich, practically the first thing he did was cut taxes on the rich. Some people thought that contradicted his anti-establishment message, but those people were wrong. Powerful people? Getting warmer, but Mike Pence is a powerful person and Trump wasn't against Mike Pence. Smart people? Now you're burning hot.

Trump stood against the upper class. He might define them as: people who live in nice apartments in Manhattan or SF or DC and laugh under their breath if anybody comes from Akron or Tampa. Who eat Thai food and Ethiopian food and anything fusion, think they would gain 200 lbs if they ever stepped in a McDonalds, and won't even speak the name Chick-Fil-A. Who usually go to Ivy League colleges, though Amherst or Berkeley is acceptable if absolutely necessary. Who conspicuously love Broadway (especially Hamilton), LGBT, education, "expertise", mass transit, and foreign anything. They conspicuously hate NASCAR, wrestling, football, "fast food", SUVs, FOX, guns, the South, evangelicals, and reality TV. Who would never get married before age 25 and have cutesy pins about how cats are better than children. Who get jobs in journalism, academia, government, consulting, or anything else with no time-card where you never have to use your hands. Who all have exactly the same political and aesthetic opinions on everything, and think the noblest and most important task imaginable is to gatekeep information in ways that force everyone else to share those opinions too.

The parties are realigning. It's political musical chairs, and some people who are used to sitting in thrones may get stuck with footstools. How can you tell who is most likely to be left without a good seat? Check who is angriest. Then assume that no matter what they say they're mad about, they're actually upset and frightened at the prospect of losing status and power.