02 November 2020

Videos of the day -- Democrats at work

Bill Maher's last monologue before the election:

It has been estimated that Trump's rallies have caused thirty thousand covid-19 cases and seven hundred deaths, so Maher isn't far off the mark here.

(No, I don't know what "anal bleaching" is, and if you do know, please refrain from explaining.)

Taylor Swift is encouraging young people to vote:

It matters.  She reaches millions of people who ignore the conventional political media.

Speaking of music, one of Trump's rallies yesterday had an intriguingly appropriate choice of theme music (found via Hackwhackers).

Finally, a reminder that Mayor Pete is still a guy to watch:

Few politicians are so eloquent and persuasive (and intelligent), and few Democrats could get applause from a Fox audience for liberal positions.  2020 wasn't his year, but it wouldn't surprise me if he does become president someday.


Blogger Lady M said...

Wow - that Taylor Swift video is powerful. I hope it is doing a world of good.

02 November, 2020 06:15  
Blogger Sixpence Notthewiser said...

Maher irritates me sometimes but he’s right. Also, Cheeto DGAF about his followers. They’re all props for his vanity.
I think Taylor Swift has surprised more than one person with her social awareness. Good for her. And I like Pete. People tell me he’d had few possibilities to go up politically in Indiana, so I hope when Uncle Joe gets the presidency, Pete will be in the cabinet.


02 November, 2020 06:16  
Blogger Infidel753 said...

Lady M: Artists tend to be good at that kind of thing. And a lot of people pay attention to her.

Sixpence: I hope Buttigieg gets a cabinet spot. The country needs to make good use of his abilities.

02 November, 2020 06:37  
Blogger Mike said...

"No, I don't know what "anal bleaching" is..."
Are you sure? It's not that big a thing. I could send you an email with pictures.

02 November, 2020 10:16  
Blogger yellowdoggranny said...

loved them...thanks..

02 November, 2020 11:00  
Blogger rjnerd said...

Don't send an economist to do an epidemiologists job. I read the Stanford paper, and the analysis looked off to me, so I sent it off to a professor of epi&stats that I know. You can read her response (layperson version) at https://hermancainmedal.com/stanford-economics-dept-paper-concerning-cases-transmitted-during-trump-rallies/

The answer from her, the effect is real, but the numbers are wrong. There new technique was actually an old well known epi technique, but used incorrectly.

This is the same sort of basic errors that the economists (again) made on the analysis of the effects of Sturgis, which led to ridicule and dismissal. There are cases directly traced to attending the event, so the idea is real, but it got dismissed when looked at in detail.

I don't want this to happen again. If they had done things right, they would still come up with a number that would show things as dangerous, but wouldn't be dismissed out of hand by the first right winger that managed a passing grade in epi 102.

02 November, 2020 13:42  

Post a Comment

<< Home