Thursday, October 20, 2016

'Johnny B. Goode'

Tuesday was Chuck Berry's 90th birthday, and the dude's still rockin'.

From Tuesday morning's drive-time, "Johnny B. Goode," at the Sound L.A., "Chuck Berry Is Still Rockin'":

Chuck Berry, who turns 90 today, has announced a surprising treat for his fans.

The rock and roll pioneer will release a new album in 2017. Titled Chuck, it's a collection of mostly new, self-written material featuring the band that backed him on over 200 shows at the Blueberry Hill Club in St. Louis -- including his children Charles Berry Junior (on guitar) and Ingrid Berry (harmonica) along with Jimmy Marsala (Berry's bassist of 40 years), Robert Lohr (piano), and Keith Robinson (drums).

Berry says in a statement that he's dedicated the project to his wife of 68 years, Themetta Berry. "My darlin' I'm growing old! I've worked on this record for a long time. Now I can hang up my shoes!"

Charles Berry Junior adds, "These songs cover the spectrum from hard driving rockers to soulful thought provoking time capsules of a life's work."
 And flashback to 2008, "Never Ever Learned to Read or Write So Well..."

Book Review: Nancy Isenberg's, White Trash

This is a great book review, from Professor Jefferson Cowie, at Foreign Affairs, "The Great White Nope: Poor, Working Class, and Left Behind in America."

Here's the book, at Amazon, Nancy Isenberg, White Trash: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America.

And an excerpt from Professor Cowie's review:
Most Americans are optimistic about their futures—but poor and working-class whites are not. According to a recent analysis published by the Brookings Institution, poor Hispanics are almost a third more likely than their white counterparts to imagine a better future. And poor African Americans—who face far higher rates of incarceration and unemployment and who fall victim far more frequently to both violent crime and police brutality—are nearly three times as optimistic as poor whites. Carol Graham, the economist who oversaw the analysis, concluded that poor whites suffer less from direct material deprivation than from the intangible but profound problems of “unhappiness, stress, and lack of hope.” That might explain why the slogan of the Republican presidential candidate, Donald Trump—“Make America Great Again!”—sounds so good to so many of them.

A stunning U-turn in the fortunes of poor and working-class whites began in the 1970s, as deindustrialization, automation, globalization, and the growth of the high-technology and service sectors transformed the U.S. economy. In the decades since, many blue-collar jobs have vanished, wages have stagnated for less educated Americans, wealth has accumulated at the top of the economic food chain, and social mobility has become vastly harder to achieve. Technological and financial innovations have fostered economic and social vitality in urban centers on the coasts. But those changes have brought far fewer benefits to the formerly industrial South and Midwest. As economic decline has hollowed out civic life and the national political conversation has focused on other issues, many people in “flyover country” have sought solace in opioids and methamphetamine; some have lashed out by embracing white nationalist rage. As whites come closer to becoming a plurality in the United States (or a “white minority,” in more paranoid terms), many have become receptive to nativist or bigoted appeals and thinly veiled promises to protect their endangered racial privilege: think of Trump’s promise to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexican border and his invocation of an unspecified bygone era when the United States was “great,” which many white Trump supporters seem to understand as a reference to a time when they felt themselves to be more firmly at the center of civic and economic life.

Trump also loves to tell his audiences that they are victims of a “rigged” political system that empowers elites at their expense. On that count, the evidence supports him. Consider, for example, the findings of a widely cited 2014 study by the political scientists Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page, who researched public opinion on approximately 1,800 policy proposals (as captured by surveys taken between 1981 and 2002) and found that only those ideas endorsed by the wealthiest ten percent of Americans became law. This domination of politics by economic elites has produced the de facto disenfranchisement of everyone else—a burden experienced by the entire remaining 90 percent, of course, but perhaps felt most acutely by those who have fallen the furthest.

For poor and working-class white Americans, the profound shifts of the past few decades have proved literally lethal: beginning around 1999, life expectancy—which had been increasing dramatically for all Americans during the twentieth century—began to decrease for less educated middle-aged whites. Angus Deaton, the Nobel Prize–winning economist who discovered this trend along with his wife and collaborator, the economist Anne Case, speculated that this demographic group is “susceptible to despair” because they have “lost the narrative of their lives.”

Nancy Isenberg’s White Trash aims to uncover the historical roots of this social calamity and explain its political effects. It’s an ambitious book that doesn’t quite succeed but that is nonetheless frequently revelatory...
Keep reading.

University of Toronto Threatens to 'Silence' Professor Jordan Peterson Over Mandatory Gender-Neutral Pronouns 'Zie' or 'Hir'

Professor Peterson refuses to utter these completely insane "gender neutral" pronouns.

From Kelsey Harkness, at the Daily Signal, "University Threatens to ‘Silence’ Professor Protesting Genderless Pronouns."

Wednesday, October 19, 2016

Bestselling Item: Bluedio T2s Turbine Bluetooth Wireless Headphones [BUMPED]

At Amazon, Bluedio T2s Turbine Bluetooth Wireless Stereo Headphones with Mic, 57mm Drivers/Rotary Folding, Blue.

Marine Le Pen Interview

This woman is absolutely phenomenal.

I admire her more than any other world leader short of Benjamin Netanyahu.

At Foreign Affairs, "France’s Next Revolution? A Conversation With Marine Le Pen":

As the youngest daughter of Jean-Marie Le Pen, the founder of the right-wing French political party the National Front, Marine Le Pen grew up in politics, starting to campaign with her father at 13. Trained as a lawyer, she won her first election in 1998, as a regional councilor, and in 2011, she succeeded her father as party leader. She soon distanced herself from his more extreme positions, and eventually—after he reiterated his claim that the Holocaust was a “detail” of history—she expelled him from its ranks. These days, in the wake of the European migrant crisis, the terrorist attacks in Paris and Nice, and the Brexit vote, Le Pen’s nationalist, Euroskeptical, anti-immigrant message is selling well. Recent polls show her as a leading candidate for the presidency in 2017, with respondents preferring her two to one over the Socialist incumbent, Fran├žois Hollande. Le Pen spoke with Foreign Affairs’ deputy managing editor Stuart Reid in Paris in September.

Antiestablishment parties, including the National Front, are gaining ground across Europe. How come?

I believe that all people aspire to be free. For too long, the people of the countries in the European Union, and perhaps Americans as well, have had a sense that political leaders are not defending their interests but defending special interests instead. There is a form of revolt on the part of the people against a system that is no longer serving them but rather serving itself.

Are there common factors behind Donald Trump’s success in the United States and yours here in France?

Yes. I see particular commonalities in the rise of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. Both reject a system that appears to be very selfish, even egocentric, and that has set aside the people’s aspirations. I draw a parallel between the two, because they are both success stories. Even though Bernie Sanders didn’t win, his emergence wasn’t predicted. In many countries, there is this current of being attached to the nation and rejecting untamed globalization, which is seen as a form of totalitarianism. It’s being imposed at all costs, a war against everybody for the benefit of a few.

When asked recently who you supported in the U.S. election, you said, “Anyone but Hillary.” So do you support Trump?

I was quite clear: in my view, anyone would be better than Hillary Clinton. I aim to become president of the French Republic, so I am concerned exclusively with the interests of France. I cannot put myself in an American’s shoes and determine whether the domestic policies proposed by one or another candidate suit me. What interests me are the consequences of the political choices made by Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump for France’s situation, economically and in terms of security.

So I would note that Clinton supports TTIP [the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership]. Trump opposes it. I oppose it as well. I would also note that Clinton is a bringer of war in the world, leaving behind her Iraq, Libya, and Syria. This has had extremely destabilizing consequences for my country in terms of the rise of Islamic fundamentalism and the enormous waves of migration now overwhelming the European Union. Trump wants the United States to return to its natural state. Clinton pushes for the extraterritorial application of American law, which is an unacceptable weapon for people who wish to remain independent. All of this tells me that between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, it’s Donald Trump’s policies that are more favorable to France’s interests right now.

The unemployment rate in France now stands at around ten percent, the second highest among the G-7 members. What are the roots of France’s economic malaise, and what solutions do you propose?

These days, everyone is proposing the National Front’s solutions. We recorded a nice ideological victory when I heard [Arnaud] Montebourg [a former economy minister in Hollande’s Socialist government] pleading for “made in France,” which is one of the major pillars of the National Front.

The unemployment rate is much higher than that because there are a bunch of statistical shenanigans going on—involving internships, early retirement, part-time work—that keep a number of French from being counted in the unemployment statistics.

There are a number of reasons for [the high unemployment]. The first is completely free trade, which puts us in an unfair competition with countries that engage in social and environmental dumping, leaving us with no means of protecting ourselves and our strategic companies, unlike in the United States. And in terms of social dumping, the Posted Workers Directive [an EU directive on the free movement of labor] is bringing low-wage employees to France.

The second is the monetary dumping we suffer. The euro—the fact of not having our own money—puts us in an extremely difficult economic situation. The IMF has just said that the euro was overvalued by six percent in France and undervalued by 15 percent in Germany. That’s a gap of 21 percentage points with our main competitor in Europe.

It also has to do with the disappearance of a strategic state. Our very Gaullist state, which supported our industrial champions, has been totally abandoned. France is a country of engineers. It is a country of researchers. But it’s true that it is not a country of businesspeople. And so quite often in history, our big industrial champions were able to develop only thanks to the strategic state. In abandoning this, we are depriving ourselves of a very important lever for development.


Many credit the European Union for preserving the peace since World War II. Why are they wrong?

Because it’s not the European Union that has kept the peace; it’s the peace that has made the European Union possible. This argument has been rehashed repeatedly, and it makes no sense. Regardless, the peace hasn’t been perfect in the European Union, with Kosovo and Ukraine at its doorstep. It’s not so simple.

In fact, the European Union has progressively transformed itself into a sort of European Soviet Union that decides everything, that imposes its views, that shuts down the democratic process. You only have to hear [European Commission President Jean-Claude] Juncker, who said, “There can be no democratic choice against European treaties.” That formulation says everything. We didn’t fight to become a free and independent people during World War I and World War II so that we could no longer be free today just because some of our leaders made that decision for us.

What do you make of Germany’s leadership in recent years?

It was written into the creation of the euro. In reality, the euro is a currency created by Germany, for Germany. It’s a suit that fits only Germany. Gradually, [Chancellor Angela] Merkel sensed that she was the leader of the European Union. She imposed her views. She imposed them in economic matters, but she also imposed them by agreeing to welcome one million migrants to Germany, knowing very well that Germany would sort them out. It would keep the best and let the rest go to other countries in the European Union. There are no longer any internal borders between our countries, which is absolutely unacceptable. The model imposed by Merkel surely works for Germans, but it is killing Germany’s neighbors. I am the anti-Merkel.

What do you think of the state of relations between France and the United States, and what should they be?

Today, French leaders submit so easily to the demands of Merkel and Obama. France has forgotten to defend its interests, including its commercial and industrial ones, in the face of American demands. I am for independence. I am for a France that remains equidistant between the two great powers, Russia and the United States, being neither submissive nor hostile. I want us to once again become a leader for the nonaligned countries, as was said during the de Gaulle era. We have the right to defend our interests, just as the United States has the right to defend its interests, Germany has the right to defend its interests, and Russia has the right to defend its interests...
Still more.

Final Debate Unlikely to Change Minds

Well, yeah, the respective coalitions are pretty well locked in, but still ... perhaps there's a few undecideds out there.

At WSJ, "Voter Support for Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Reverts to January Levels":
After all of this year’s election turmoil—the noisy clashes over Donald Trump’s comments on immigrants and women, the  Hillary Clinton email and family foundation controversies—public views of the two candidates have wound up right where they started in January.

Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton are no more liked or disliked than when the year started, nor have more people come to view the prospect of their election with optimism, Wall Street Journal/NBC News polling finds. And in a head-to-head matchup, Mrs. Clinton’s 10-point lead of today is exactly where it stood in January.

Those numbers suggest that while tonight’s debate may produce dramatic moments and big headlines, it is unlikely to change the trajectory of the race. The 2016 election might seem turbulent, with its battle of personalities, hacked emails and late-night tweets. But underneath, there has been more stability than volatility...
Actually, I suspect WSJ/NBC oversampled Democrats in their polling, but the truth will be in the results on November 8th. I'm ready.

Keep reading.

Deal of the Day: Save Big on Select Fiesta Kitchenware

At Amazon, Fiesta 6134M7RO Multi 11-pc Cutlery Set w/ Oak Block.

Plus, Sound Intone I65 Headphones with Microphone and Volume Control for Travel, Work, Sport , Foldable Headset for Iphone and Android Devices (White/gold).

Also, Levi's Men's 501 Original-Fit Jean.

BONUS: Kim R. Holmes, The Closing of the Liberal Mind: How Groupthink and Intolerance Define the Left.

The Case for Trump

From VDH.

Lindsey Pelas on Instagram

At WWTDD, "Lindsey Pelas and Her Ta-Tas Rule Instagram."

Go right to the source here.

Baseball's Booming Television Ratings

Baseball's doing great!

The NFL not so much, lol.

I'm a Bible-Thumping Etiquette Teacher for Trump


I love this.

From Diann Catlin, at USA Today:
I first encountered Donald Trump during the Republican Party primary debates. Night after night as he took on his opponents with vitriol and poorly chosen words, I would tell my husband, “I will NEVER vote for this man. He is simply Rude with a capital R.” I actually loved the night Sen. Marco Rubio dished it back, giving Trump a dose of boys-will-be-boys, and me a dose of front-seat boyish braggadocio.

I am not a reality TV viewer, and having never heard him utter “You’re fired,” I simply began listening to Trump relative to the key issues Americans face. Of course we need to secure the borders, and of course we need to improve job growth in America. We must lower our debt and we certainly must value the life of the unborn child. When I listened to the Trump children (who definitely would have seen their father in both good and bad times) speak of him with respectful reverence, I had to question my early summation of Trump.

Over the years earning a living as an etiquette teacher, I have met and corrected brash and character-challenged individuals. When I decided to vote for Trump, many of my friends said: “You, an etiquette consultant, can vote for someone so uncivil?” The more I encountered Trump in various televised interviews, the more I realized if his prickly corners were carved away, his strength on the issues would surface. I read his list of possible Supreme Court nominees and recalled how Obama’s liberal appointees had voted. I realized judgeship appointments would be crucial in the next years, and that Hillary Clinton would be appointing “Obamaesque” lawyers who would tilt the court even farther left.

I have taught the Bible, God’s Word, verse by verse for over 30 years. I like God’s ways. I know that he creates life in a mother’s womb. I know that he wants words of edification to come from our lips. I also know that he wants discerning believers to take part in government. Honestly, I find it embarrassing when evangelicals do not vote. To use as an excuse against voting that Trump is rude or worldly does not hold water, because God has always used imperfect people for his glory.

When God used David, whom he called a man after his own heart, he used a human David who not only committed adultery but murder. God uses people like Trump and like me who are sinners but whose specific issues, like the life of the unborn child, align with his word.

I kept weighing all I was seeing because deciding not to vote was not an option. One thing I know is that Barack Obama is as far from aligning with Christian values as any president we have ever had. And with 30 years of public service doing little for the issues Christians value, Clinton is simply more of Obama...
Keep reading.

Pre-Debate Handshakes Go Out the Window

This was the first thing I noticed at the last debate. The atmosphere was so tense you could cut it with a knife.

At NYT, "At Previous Debates, Melania Trump and Bill Clinton Shook Hands. Not Anymore":
This intensely antagonistic election has shattered another quaint campaign ritual: the handshakes between opposing candidates’ family members before a debate.

At previous debates, former President Bill Clinton has shaken the hand of Melania Trump — and sometimes the hands of the children of Donald J. Trump — as part of the predebate protocol.

It provides the audience in the room, and the people watching at home, with a moment of graciousness and a touch of celebrity.

But for the final debate, Hillary Clinton’s campaign wants a different setup, according to two people with direct knowledge of the situation who requested anonymity to speak candidly about debate negotiations.

That’s because at the previous debate, on Oct. 9 in St. Louis, the Trump campaign had an elaborate plan to parade three women who accused Mr. Clinton of sexual assault and rape into the family seating area and force Mr. Clinton to shake their hands as he crossed the room.

Had the Trump campaign succeeded, Mr. Clinton would have come face-to-face with the women on national television, a potentially humiliating and excruciating encounter. However, the Commission on Presidential Debates intervened, and the women — Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey — never came close to Mr. Clinton.

But the Clinton side is not taking any chances at the final presidential debate, on Wednesday night in Las Vegas, and has apparently gained approval of a different protocol for the entry of the candidates’ spouses and families into the debate hall.

The new arrangement calls for the candidates’ spouses to enter the hall closer to their seats, rather than crossing the room, and each other’s paths.

That would avoid any potential for confrontations, given Mr. Trump’s penchant for dramatic stunts.

On Tuesday, an aide to Mrs. Clinton declined to comment on the change, and aides to Mr. Trump did not respond to an email seeking comment.

It is possible, of course, that further negotiations could result in a different arrangement, if both sides agree, by the time the debate begins at 9 p.m. Eastern.

But the unease over how the candidates’ families interact echoes that of the candidates themselves. At the debate in St. Louis, in a striking departure from tradition, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump did not shake hands at the start, though they did at the conclusion of the 90 minutes.

The Clinton campaign is bracing for other possible Trump surprises at the debate, which seem more likely as the Republican nominee slips further in the polls...

Iraqi and Kurdish Forces Push Closer to Mosul (VIDEO)

Holly Williams reports, for CBS News This Morning:

Also, at LAT, "Iraqi forces face Islamic State snipers, rockets and suicide bombers during Mosul offensive."

Allie Silva, Playboy's Miss October 2016 (VIDEO)

At Playboy, "Meet Miss October 2016 Allie Silva."

Polls Spell Trouble for Donald Trump?

WaPo was out with a 15 state survey yesterday which showed Hillary Clinton with multiple paths to an Electoral College victory. Not so much for Donald Trump, apparently, although I'm not that impressed.

Still, even the Los Angeles Times poll, the huge national outlier, is showing Trump's possibly fatal vulnerabilities.

See, "Even lots of Donald Trump's supporters are starting to think he'll lose the election":
Add another item to Donald Trump’s list of problems: More and more, his own supporters no longer think he can win, the USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times Daybreak poll has found.

As the two presidential nominees prepare for their final debate Wednesday in Las Vegas, the share of Americans who expect a Hillary Clinton victory is at the highest level since the poll began in July. Among Trump supporters, the share who think he will lose has grown significantly over the last month. That’s contributing to an election that increasingly seems headed to a lopsided finish.

The Daybreak poll asks people whom they plan to vote for and which candidate they expect will win. The question of voter expectations has often, although not always, proved to be a more reliable forecaster of election outcomes than asking voters their candidate preference.

Trump still has many fervent supporters who predict he will win, but, particularly among his voters who are college-educated or in higher-income brackets, expectations for a victory have dimmed.

Their optimism has faded as Trump’s standing in the race against Clinton has declined from a high point in mid-September. The Daybreak poll continues to show a small Trump lead, within the survey’s margin of error, while the other major surveys show Clinton ahead. But the surveys all agree on the trend of declining Trump support.

The descent started after the first presidential debate. Despite what some analysts predicted, the public airing of a videotape in which Trump could be heard boasting that he could get away with assaulting women because of his celebrity did not trigger a meltdown of his poll standing.

In the last few days, his support has shown signs of stabilizing at a lower level. That could mean Trump’s backing has reached a floor, although the evidence is not yet definitive.

In the polling averages, Trump receives support from about 41% of voters in a two-way matchup with Clinton and is a couple of percentage points lower in polls that include third-party candidates. That puts him in the range of lopsided losers including former Vice President Walter F. Mondale, who got 41% and lost 49 states to President Reagan in 1984, and Sen. Barry Goldwater, who took 38% against President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964’s Democratic landslide.

The country’s partisan division has hardened since those contests, and many more states align solidly with one party or the other. As a result, as the electoral map shows, even a Republican candidate with historically low levels of support can count on winning about 20 states with just short of 160 electoral votes and probably a few more than that. Clinton holds leads in states with 279 electoral votes — more than the 270 needed to win the White House — while five states remain too close to predict.

The decline in Trump’s standing, albeit small, has been enough to bolster Clinton’s edge in the largest of those toss-up states, Florida, where she has led in 10 consecutive polls over the last two weeks. Polling averages show her ahead by about 4 points there. Trump’s decline has also been enough to put at least one traditionally Republican state, Arizona, into the toss-up category.

The declining share of Trump voters who expect a victory could pose further problems for him. Expectations matter to campaign operatives, who try strenuously to project confidence about winning out of concern that voter beliefs about a loss can become self-fulfilling.
Keep reading.

Daina Ramey Berry, The Price for Their Pound of Flesh

Out January 24, 2017, at Amazon, The Price for Their Pound of Flesh: The Value of the Enslaved, from Womb to Grave, in the Building of a Nation.

And see her op-ed at the New York Times, "Nat Turner’s Skull and My Student’s Purse of Skin."

7-Year-Old Girl Tells the World That Down Syndrome Is 'Not Scary'

ABC 7 Los Angeles' Leanne Suter tweeted this beautiful story.

Also, on YouTube.

Voting for Jill Stein?

Not me, but I gotta say her attacks on Hillary Clinton are epic.

At Vox, "I’m voting for Jill Stein. It’s a moral choice. It reflects who I am as a person."

Tuesday, October 18, 2016

More on Hitler and Nazi Germany

I mentioned I was surprised by the publication of a major new Hitler biography, Volker Ullrich's, Hitler: Ascent, 1889-1939.

Mainly that's because there's been so much first rate research on the Nazi leader that I'm surprised historians came up with anything new.

When I was finishing grad school, Ian Kershaw published a two-volume biography that reviewers at the time said was unlikely to be surpassed. See, Hitler: 1889-1936 Hubris, and Hitler: 1936-1945 Nemesis. (I don't think I need to read too much more beyond Kershaw's work, but that's me.)

Then there's the famous biography from Joachim Fest, Hitler.

And also John Toland's bestseller, Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography.

Not to mention, Alan Bullock's Hitler: A Study in Tyranny.

I also linked Michael Burleigh the other day. See his masterful work, The Third Reich: A New History.

I'm interested in reading Richard Evans' work on the Nazi regime, in three volumes, The Coming of the Third Reich; The Third Reich in Power; and The Third Reich at War.

I was interested as well in Timothy Snyder's recent book, Black Earth: The Holocaust as History and Warning, but he argues the Holocaust is analogous to the threat of global climate change, which even reviewers thought wacky. He's lost me on that. I think I'll pass.

Hillary's Hacked Emails Present Grim Picture of the Woman Who's Supposed to Be Our Savior

This is awesome.

I'm surprised USA Today even published this letter.

See, "Don’t blame the hackers, blame the perpetrators: Your Say":
Let me start by saying both candidates are horrid and flawed. I cannot believe, as Americans, this is the best we can do to represent both parties in an election. Be that as it may, I agree with your comment saying that “if you fear something will become public, don’t do it” in the editorial “What WikiLeaks hack says about Clinton.” However, to bemoan the Russian government as seeking to damage democracy is going a bit far. I am not a Donald Trump fan but I am thankful that Russia (or whoever) hacked these emails and has exposed Hillary Clinton as the sneaky, conniving, lying person she is. Just as I am glad The New York Times exposed Trump.

People do not regret their crimes unless they’re caught, and this is what it’s all about. The Democratic National Committee and Clinton’s staff got caught and they’re embarrassed by it. If this is influencing the election by exposing the ever elusive truth, then I am all for it.

We all know we can’t get the truth from our news media. It’s a shame it has to come from another country. That is why this election is so contentious this year. Americans are tired of Washington and career politicians like the Clintons. This has allowed a candidate like Trump to become the voice of Americans. And his supporters will ignore anything thrown at them and stand by his side. If anything, it strengthens their resolve.

Maybe if the news media would do an honest job of reporting the truth, other parties/countries wouldn’t have to step in and do it for us. The American public has been duped by both candidates and the news media.

Doug Burns
Arcanum, Ohio

Four Killed as Drunk Driver Plunges Truck Off Coronado Bridge in San Diego (VIDEO)

This was over the weekend in San Diego.

Man, what a horrible killing.

At the San Diego Union-Tribune, "Driver in Coronado bridge crash is aviation electrician."

And at ABC News 10 San Diego:

Republican Party on the Verge of Extinction?

Well, if they lose their grassroots voter base they'll go instinct, although I'm not sure we're there yet. When Republicans lose competitiveness in congressional races, perhaps we'll be at a tipping point. But as long at the party can field candidates in those "down ballot" races everyone keeps talking about, they'll survive.

Presidential elections may well be another story, however, especially after this year.

An interesting piece at NYT:

The Leftist Media's Big 'Rape Culture' Lie

At the Other McCain, "The Big Lie: ‘Rape Culture,’ the UVA Hoax and the Democrat-Media Complex."