Michelle Obama for VP? Sounds like a winner to me, given the other “choices”

While many in the white elitist media continue to push for fellow white elitist Elizabeth Warren as Joe Biden’s running mate, others are pointing out that it would be a mistake for him to pick someone who has her own agenda that runs counter to his own. Warren certainly does have an agenda—her own megalomania, and who wishes more than anything to be able  to sneak in the back door, having failed to get in through the front door on her own merits. One supporter of her claim to the second spot insists that she is the only potential nominee who “stands out.” Well, he’s right about that—but not in a “positive” way. Warren’s “sexism” attacks on Michael Bloomberg and Bernie Sanders may have excited the media, but the electorate was clearly less impressed; even after “destroying” Bloomberg during one debate, Warren still finished no better than third in the subsequent primaries even in her own home state. If Warren were the VP nominee and she continued on this track, voters would see clearly enough that this election is about her, not Biden. It is very unlikely that she would attract more female voters, and more likely she would alienate male and swing voters. 

Look, it is one thing to attack a candidate’s positions, and it is quite another to have plenty of ammunition to attack a candidate’s character, That was the difference between Sanders and Warren in the eyes of most progressives; Sanders was the real deal, and Warren was just a fake, someone for whom being “progressive” means nothing more than being an “oppressed” woman who wanted to overturn the “patriarchal” system. Great with the “plans”? Note how she put her health care “plan” on the backburner after being forced to explain what exactly the “plan” was. Warren was such a hypocrite and pathological liar that for years she insisted that she was a “minority” when prospective employers could clearly see she was white—proof that white women could and did benefit from affirmative action more than real underrepresented minorities, and by “cheating” if necessary.

Let’s be real: If Biden wanted to attract the hardcore progressives to his campaign, the only logical choice is Sanders. Sanders likely would have beaten Donald Trump all by himself in 2016, and with him on the ticket Hillary Clinton would have easily have won in 2016, but she remains too vindictive and lacking in self-awareness to admit that even now. The problem Biden faces now is that he painted himself into a corner that he didn’t need to do, and seriously limited his choices.

So who else is out there? Pretty slim pickings if you ask me. Amy Klobuchar is clearly out; this was the candidate who was the only one to raise her hand when asked who would not support a progressive in the general election. The media can blame whoever they want for Kamala Harris’ campaign sinking like a stone, but the fact is she lacks something—I don’t know, charisma? Gretchen Whitmer? After all those scenes of “insurrection” in Michigan? Stacey Abrahms? People are actually serious about that? That’s all the Democrats need is a Sarah Palin-type on the ticket.

But there is another potential VP candidate who makes a lot more sense. The New York Post’s Michael Walsh tells us that Michelle Obama would be the “perfect” running mate for Biden, because she “checks all the boxes” for both the “moderate” and “progressive” wings of the party. He also suggests, cheekily, that after he wins the election, Biden could just step aside and claim illness so that she would step in as president to continue the Obama reign. But the truth of the matter is that Michelle Obama remains a popular figure among Democrats; she at least has some knowledge of the workings of the presidency, has at least some opinions about policy, has shown an interest in humanitarian causes, and being a lawyer she knows something about the law, unlike some other people we know. If Biden picked her as his running mate, that is something I could get “excited” about.

Even more men dying of the COVID-19 than women is an excuse for some to launch a "gendered" attack on them

Donald Trump is back at it again, this time blaming the World Health Organization for his failure to take the COVID-19 situation as seriously as it deserved, desperately trying to deflect attention away from the fact that according to the Worldometers’ statistics, the daily number of those people who are testing positive for the virus, have died and are in critical condition not only shows that the virus is far from peeking in this country, but is expanding at a faster rate. Meanwhile, the Fox News watchers in Michigan who are making clown shows of themselves protesting Gov. Grtetchen Whitmer’s “stay at home” order are apparently unaware that Michigan has the third most deaths from the virus in the country.

The last thing we need is for ignorant people to play politics with people’s lives. Unfortunately, that is what is feminists and gender activists are doing.  Of course that is hardly a shock the way the media is currently trumpeting Elizabeth Warren as Joe Biden’s running mate, having painted himself into that corner. Warren has the same character issues as Hillary Clinton does, which she has tried to fog over with claims of “sexism.” Clinton herself probably should have taken the advice of many by just “going away,” since it appears increasingly likely that she will have to give sworn testimony in a deposition concerning her email server, although some believe she will have an attack of “amnesia” rather than blatantly lie once more. Bernie Sanders is claiming that his campaign was damaged by negative media coverage, and if you look at the way he was treated in the media and the way Warren has been, it is clear that the coverage did have a “gendered” angle to it that Warren benefited from.

That new term being bandied about—“gendered”—is of course if you are a male can’t be anything good. What is worse is when it is used to soft-ball the health issues of men. I mentioned the distinguished British science journal The Lancet in my last post, which unfortunately sometimes devolves into gender social engineering which has more to do with opinion than science—to the point where a line is crossed between what is done in the name of “equality” and what is morally and ethically reprehensible. In the U.S. and throughout the world a significant majority of deaths from the COVID-19 are male; in some circles, this is a matter of “rejoicing” because it allegedly shows that women are “superior” for having two “X” chromosomes and thus their “superior” genes allow them allegedly greater disease fighting capacity. Does this mean this mean that the medical establishment should be more responsive to men’s “peculiar” medical needs during this pandemic, just as it is of women’s? Not according to this “editorial” in The Lancet, apparently written by an indignant gender activist, entitled “The Gendered Dimensions of COVID-19”:

SARS-CoV-2 does not discriminate, but without careful consideration, the global response to the COVID-19 pandemic might. Demographic data from small studies are already informing political decisions and clinical research strategies. Women and men are affected by COVID-19, but biology and gender norms are shaping the disease burden. The success of the global response—the ability of both women and men to survive and recover from the pandemic's effects—will depend on the quality of evidence informing the response and the extent to which data represent sex and gender differences.

Sounds “benevolent” enough so far, although I always wonder why some insist on the politically correct “women and men” when “men and women” rolls off the tongue so much better. Is it because we should insure that the health needs of women come first?

Global Health 50/50 tracks sex-disaggregated infection and mortality COVID-19 data from the 39 most-affected countries. Some countries, including the UK, the USA, Russia, and Brazil, have yet to report such data. From those that have, it is unclear whether women or men are more likely to become infected, but more men are dying from COVID-19. Adverse outcomes of COVID-19 seem to be associated with comorbidities, including hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and lung disease. These conditions are more prevalent in men and are linked to smoking and drinking alcohol—behaviours associated with masculine norms.

Misinformation drives so much of the “gendered” discussion. In fact, contrary to what is said here, many localities in the U.S., such as New York City, are reporting that as many 60 percent or more of the fatalities are male. But far more despicable and contemptible is the suggestion that we should not care all that much about men dying of the virus because of “behaviors associated with masculine norms.” A "sexist" view, anyone?

Women carry a different kind of burden from COVID-19. Inequities disproportionately affect their wellbeing and economic resilience during lockdowns. Households are under strain, but child care, elderly care, and housework typically fall on women. Concerns over increased domestic violence are growing. With health services overstretched and charities under-resourced, women's sexual and reproductive health services, as well as prenatal and postnatal care, are disrupted.

More men are dying, but women are the “real” victims because of “sexist” social mores that they have to “suffer” from. How does the author know that women are under “disproportionate” inequities? I bet this person is working and getting paid for doing “homework” like many women of the author’s privileged work status. But more contemptible is the suggestion that women are more in “danger” due to things that have nothing to do with dying of the virus. Men are dying from the virus in greater numbers, but women are the “true” victims just by the simple fact of staying home and taking it easy.

The European Association of Science Editors  and other organisations urge all involved in collecting COVID-19 data to follow guidelines (eg, CONSORT, STROBE) and include age and sex in demographic data. We echo this call and encourage a gender focus in all research efforts. Obscuring sex and gender differences in treatment and vaccine development could result in harm. Incomplete reporting compromises meta-analyses. Addressing the health needs of men and women equally will help societies recover and resist future human tragedies.

This paragraph sounds a bit out-of-place, as if it was either written by another person, or the author just wanted get personal “feelings” out-of-the-way. The author “encourages” demographic data to address the health needs of both sexes “equally.” But note that the editorial omits race as a data point; in the U.S. there is growing evidence that blacks and Hispanics are being infected and dying at much higher rates than whites—which just shows you how “gendered” views are so selfish in their vantage point that racism can clearly be ascertained, because white feminists can’t stand the “competition,” and any discussion of racism indicts them as well. Are white women receiving better health care than minority men (and women) in regard to the virus, not to mention health care generally? You can’t have that conversation, can you?

The fact that such a “distinguished” scientific journal would publish a feminist hit piece in the midst of a pandemic is just more evidence that at least in the “western” world, it has become “necessary” to build up women by tearing down men—or steering blame to minorities who supposedly benefit from “affirmative action,” when it is white women who have benefited from “affirmative action” policies in the name a phony form of “diversity”; when I see an office wall adorned with the faces of all the tenant’s employees and only one out of about 150 is a black person (a woman), it is not just a self-serving claim that an organization strives for “diversity,” but one of a very limited purpose.

None of this is surprising. In this “gendered” country, almost every advertisement or billboard concerning health needs feature women and/or girls. In office environments, “diversity” almost exclusively refers to women in the workforce, not underrepresented minorities. Claims of “sexism” seem most prevalent with females with over-active, easily “hurt” egos; people who work in so-called “low-skill” warehouse or production work don’t have time for that nonsense—unless of course they are looking for excuses to “explain” their bad behavior and why people don’t want to work with them. Most just want to get their hours in and go home—which is why the celebrity-driven “MeToo” movement doesn’t really resonate that much outside its own privileged bubble. 

It is a fair question to ask where one draws the line when it comes to anti-male attitudes. Fred Medinger, a psychotherapist, wrote in the  Baltimore Sun that he had observed “greeting” cards with such commentary as "Not all men are annoying. Some are dead," “Men have only two faults: Everything they say and everything they do" and "Women must be twice as good as men to be thought half as good. Fortunately this is not difficult." Dr. Anthony Synnott in Psychology Today wrote one of the rare articles in that publication that wasn’t about alleged misogyny, observing how cultural misandry is the accepted “norm”: “T-shirts say: ‘Women Rule. Men Drool’ and ‘Boys are smelly. Throw rocks at them.’ (An advocacy of violence which would be unconscionable were the sexes reversed.) ‘Dead Men Don't Rape.’ Nor do most living men, of course. ‘So many men. So little ammunition.’ ‘What do you call a man with half a brain? Gifted.’”

We can presume that most women are not into that kind of reverse sexism, or pretend that it is “nothing,” or we can be allowed to just feel pity for the sad people who compose such hate-filled drivel. The problem is that this kind of thing, even if it reflects the views of a small percentage of women, it has an outsized presence in the media, and an outsized effect on public policy. So much of it has to do building-up women and tearing down men. When I was in college a female student told me that men are only good for two things: “fixing cars and killing bugs.” Yet all she had to do was step outside and look all around her to see that men were good for somewhat more than that. Men don’t necessarily ask to be “liked” by such people and even have to live in the same room with them, but they do appreciate acknowledgement that the world would be a much less comfortable place for women to live in without them. 

Women in other cultures have been frequently portrayed as oppressed even more by males, usually ignoring the fact that poverty knows no gender, and males are expected to give their lives for “causes” they are forced to believe in, especially religious or tribal in nature. Noah Berlatsky The Atlantic writes that “Perhaps most hideously, men through history have been subject to genocidal, or gendercidal, violence targeted at them specifically because they are men…gendercide can be directed against men is much less discussed. One of the worst recent examples of this was in the Balkans war, where, according to genocide researcher Adam Jones, ‘All of the largest atrocities... target[ed] males almost exclusively, and for the most part battle-age" males.’ Similarly, in Rwanda according to Judy El-Bushra  (as quoted by Jones) ‘it was principally the men of the targeted populations who lost their lives or fled to other countries in fear. ... This targeting of men for slaughter was not confined to adults: boys were similarly decimated, raising the possibility that the demographic imbalance will continue for generations. Large numbers of women also lost their lives; however, mutilation and rape were the principal strategies used against women, and these did not necessarily result in death.’” Anthony Synnott also points out that black female authors like Alice Walker and Terry McMillian have found success feeding the misandric and racial stereotypes held of black males by society in general, without acknowledging that black women are not exactly “angels” themselves.

Speaking of “angels,” gender activists like to portray themselves as such, while men are “destroyers” of life. Yet for every Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr. and many others who gave their lives for a moral cause, you are hard pressed to find a female of equal stature. As I wrote about before, women can harbor and be the cause of some very morally reprehensible things just from the comfort of their easy lives, like heiress Cordelia Scaife May. Scaife May—ostensibly an “environmentalist,” held racist views and funded during her lifetime and afterwards racist anti-immigrant hate groups which wouldn’t have survived without the hundreds of millions of dollars her “foundation” flooded them with.

The conversation can get more insane and confusing. In The Guardian,  Arwa Mahdawi complains about how in the “MeToo” world men are more reluctant to deal with women in the workplace, for fear that something they might say or do is can be interpreted as a gendered offense.  Oh, but “most men are perfectly aware of the difference between a friendly hug and a creepy hug. They are perfectly aware of what constitutes harassment and what doesn’t.” Oh really?  Amanda Rose in Psychology Today tells women to “beware” of men she calls “benevolent sexists”: “The guy who opens the door, takes her coat, and gets her a drink could be an undercover benevolent sexist. The main difference between hostile and benevolent sexists is that benevolent sexists view women more positively than do hostile sexists. In fact, benevolent sexists see themselves as holding women in very high regard…

…The problem is that the network of beliefs held by benevolent sexists conflicts with gender equality…Benevolent sexism has three main components. Idealized romanticism is the idea that, despite a man’s worldly accomplishments, he cannot feel complete without the love of his woman. The idea of complementary gender roles is that women are kinder, more sensitive, more thoughtful, and more caring than men, which makes them ideal wives and mothers. Third, protective paternalism stems from the first two components and suggests that, as the fairer sex, women should be cherished, protected, provided for, and put on a pedestal.” 

And men should know perfectly well what does or doesn’t offend women? In this world it is damned if you do, and damned if you don’t. But when belittling men because they are dying of the COVID-19 in greater numbers for the “gendered” political rationalization that men can’t be “victims,” just “victimizers,” just shows you how women really do not have any claim to moral superiority. They are as weak as men in that regard; hypocrisy is not a “virtue” any gender should “strive” for.

Trump has the "total authority" to stick his lack of real leadership up his fundament

Donald Trump’s claim that he can overrule the executive orders of governors to lockdown their states should be taken for what it clearly is: a crass, cynical and selfish move to save what he thinks is the most important issue facing America—his own political skin, meaning that he thinks that human life can be sacrificed in the service of his reelection, and doing whatever is necessary to keep “his” economic numbers looking “great.” With the number of unemployed piling up, Trump clearly believes that it is better for his reelection chances if people would simply be agreeable to follow his wishes and go to work in a building that is a fire hazard, taking no heed to the possibility that it might burn down—and naturally if it does, you won’t hold Trump personally responsible for it. His immigration policies might excite his racist base, but for the rest of the population Trump seems to believe that his unethical, immoral and in some cases criminal behavior can all be “forgiven” as long as the economy stays “great,” which the COVID-19 is having the bad manners of interfering with. 

The problem is that Trump has lied and denied and misinformed us about the nature of the COVID-19 issue and what should be done so often that no one should take anything he says on the matter at face value. Maybe he can’t be blamed for everything that is wrong with this country, but his narcissistic focus on himself condemns him as unfit for his office.  This is a man who is so lacking in self-awareness and empathy that he not only refuses to acknowledge any mistakes, but is equally reluctant to “fix” those mistakes if it reflects poorly on his decision-making, or lack thereof. 

Trump is a man who is apparently so thin-skinned that he will like a dog follow anyone who feeds him and shelters him from his self-made harm. He has taken on as  “advisors” anyone on Fox News  who only care, like Trump, about their own skins and maintaining a stranglehold on public policy no matter how destructive it is. George W. Bush didn’t watch Fox News constantly for “advise” on policy like Trump does. How about some news that isn’t “fake”: Fox News has so tied itself to Trump, and vice versa, that if Trump is defeated in November they will both go down in that stinking ship together. Fox News has so discarded all credibility as a purveyor of real, factual news—in fact it has become what one analyst says is 10 percent news and 90 percent opinion—that it has become little more than a 24/7 Trump campaign advertisement, save for the hour that Chris Wallace hosts. It is simply worthless as a hard news outlet, dealing almost exclusively in liberal conspiracy theories, and because Trump himself thinks that if you do not “love” him, you must be “destroyed,” like a spoiled, pampered, thoughtless child he is eager to be so misled. Trump has never once shown than he is willing to do what is right out of simple human decency—only what Fox News most flagrantly bigoted far-right commentators tell him what he must do to maintain the allegiance of the most dark-minded elements in America.

Trump is now using his alleged press updates to mostly whine about non-Fox News coverage, as usual claiming that they are delivering news about the COVID-19 that is “totally fake.” More than 25,000 people have died in this country from the virus; is that “fake” news? Every day Worldometers.info counts 2,000 more new deaths in the U.S.; is that “fake” news? At the current rate, we should see one million infected and 60,000 dead in this country by the end of the month—with no vaccine yet on the horizon; the question is can it be said now with even the slightest confidence at what future date will it be safe to lift the various state restrictions? Who should we trust to make that determination—state governors or Trump? It is frankly insane to trust Trump to make that decision; sure, his faithful base will believe anything he says, as will corporate executives eager to refill their pockets at any price, and the “ordinary” uninformed who believe the story that the virus is just some made-up thing to hurt Trump politically. But Trump’s “base” has no right to tell the vast majority of the people in this country to lay down for someone as inhuman as Trump.

States like Washington and California took measures to prevent the spread of the virus before others did, and despite being nearer to the source of virus the result is that the pandemic has been largely contained in those states. Yet some conservative media outlets are providing Trump with the notion that social distancing doesn’t help prevent the spread of the virus, so why even do it? Just go about your daily workaday life and it won’t make any difference on the number of people who are infected, and maybe even die. But according to a study published by the British science journal Lancet on March 30, 

The world is currently experiencing the early stages of a global pandemic. Although China has succeeded in containing the disease spread for 2 months, such containment is unlikely to be achievable in most countries. Thus, much of the world will experience very large community epidemics of COVID-19 over the coming weeks and months. 

A price was paid for a slow reaction to problem. On March 25, the U.S. had a little less than 52,000 confirmed cases of the virus; today as noted, it has over 600,000 cases and only a small percentage of cases have been “cured.” Partisan politics in this country shouldn’t be playing a role in how to stop the virus. Trump claims that he has “total authority” to tell states what they can and cannot do in absence of any prior national guidance. States in the northeast and on the West Coast have their own plans, and are basically telling Trump that he has the “total authority” to stick his own outrageous lack of leadership that has led to so many deaths right up his fundament.

Life without sports

March has come and gone. Typically it is one of the few months on the calendar that I care much about because it is “March Madness” month, and I always enjoy listening to radio broadcasts of the NCAA tournament. This year, No.2 ranked and in-state Gonzaga was again looking like it was heading to the Final Four, and Wisconsin managed to finish as the second-seed entering the Big Ten tournament and possibly make a run into the Sweet Sixteen. But along came the virus, and after mulling over the tournament being played in empty arenas, the NCAA called the whole thing off under pressure. Although Kansas was No.1 in the final poll, it is probably jumping the gun to assume that it is the “national champion,” especially when past history reminds us that unbeaten (and supposedly unbeatable) Kentucky was stopped by Wisconsin in the Final Four a few years ago.

Meanwhile, the NBA is still mulling over continuing the season, which would have been of interest to me had Milwaukee not started losing games and threw away their chance to join the 70-win club. Last year the Bucks won 10 of their first 11 playoff games before getting blown away by eventual champion Toronto, and I’m thinking that this season they just had a run of good luck that just ran out. I’m not much of an NBA fan anymore; the problem is that the NBA just got too “big,” with too little real talent to go around. I remember a time when every team had at least one superstar player; today, the best players all “buddy” together to play for a handful of teams. 

The Major League Baseball season is also on hold, although I’ve read that the highest paid players are still receiving about $4,800 every day for not playing. As a kid I was fascinated by baseball statistics, but you grow up eventually and leave childish things aside. Baseball hasn’t really interested me for a while; I think it has something to do with having grown up in Wisconsin and being a Brewer fan, the world of free agency—where the best players no longer hang around the same team to be the “face” of the franchise that you root for year-in and year-out—controls the play-worthiness of the team, and you kind of lose faith, especially if you root for a “hometown” team which hasn’t been to the playoffs since 2001 (that is, if you are a Seattle Mariners fan). Ever since Robin Yount retired I just don’t really care that much about the Brewers, or any MLB team; Ryan Braun would have unretired my fandom, but he hasn’t been the same player since that PED thing. 

The fact of the matter is that other than the NCAA tournament, I don’t really feel that I missed much. Yeah, it would have been interesting to see if Tiger Woods could repeat as Masters champion, but now in April after a month of no sports, I wonder how many people (outside the media and game announcers) actually feel that they’ve lost something “important,” that they can’t do without. What if this virus lockdown continues for a year? Is it possible that even diehard fans would just shrug their shoulders and go about their workaday business without giving it much thought? It is “possible,” isn’t it? I mean, movie theaters have been closed for a while, and there is always television to fill that void.

Well, maybe to a point, because television can’t fill the void of my favorite “season”: the NFL football season, where there is certainly at least one intriguing story line—Tom Brady playing for a new team, Tampa Bay. Of course as a Packer fan I am curious to see if last season’s 13-3 run to the NFC Championship Game was a fluke, or if the Aaron Rodgers/Matt LaFleur tag-team can actually “jell” enough to improve on that record. But the Brady story line—and how the Patriots move on without him—certainly is fascinating for even the casual fan who wants to see how the divorce between Brady and the Patriots works out for both parties. 

So that is where it stands with me. The absence of the NCAA tournament and NFL football would leave a void because of story lines left unanswered and because there are teams and players I just care about more. But is it possible that even that could fade into irrelevance if given time? That’s something else sports fanatics can blame Trump for because of his botching of the virus situation. We are told that even if the coronavirus fades this summer, it will likely make a resurgence in the fall, and with that the possibility of cancelling the NFL season. Just maybe people will care enough about their football to “punt” Trump this November.