A Small Victory

Well, it’s not the complete repeal I’d prefer, but it’s an improvement:

In a significant scaling back of national security policy formed after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Senate on Tuesday approved legislation curtailing the federal government’s sweeping surveillance of American phone records, and President Obama signed the measure hours later.

The legislation signaled a cultural turning point for the nation, almost 14 years after the Sept. 11 attacks heralded the construction of a powerful national security apparatus. The shift against the security state began with the revelation by Edward J. Snowden, a former National Security Agency contractor, about the bulk collection of phone records. The backlash was aided by the growth of interconnected communication networks run by companies that have felt manhandled by government prying.

The storage of those records now shifts to the phone companies, and the government must petition a special federal court for permission to search them.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, for the first time, will be required to declassify some of its most significant decisions, and outside voices will be allowed to argue for privacy rights before the court in certain cases.

So a little more transparency, a small speedbump between the government and our meta-data. By itself, it’s a very tiny win against the gigantic surveillance state President Obama controls.

But the bigger win could be the political victory. The pro-police-state forces threw out their usual apocalyptic rhetoric while they tried to force the Senate to reauthorize the Patriot Act without even a debate. And, for the first time, it didn’t work. Rand Paul, many Democrats and enough Republicans weathered the storm and got some small changes. For the first time, someone in Congress had enough of a spine to call bullshit on their bullshit. And that could pay off down the road:

Senator Mike Lee, a Utah Republican, and Senator Leahy made it clear after passage that curtailing the phone sweeps might be only the beginning. The two are collaborating on legislation to undo a provision in the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 that allows the government to read the contents of email over six months old. House members and senators from both parties are already eyeing a section of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that they say has also been abused by the government.

Let’s hope they keep pushing. The surveillance state has legions of supporters. The pushback has begun. It won’t end until we have our basic civil liberties back. And that might take decades.

Baltimore Into the Abyss

Wow:

May was the most lethal month in [Baltimore] in more than 40 years; in per capita terms, it may have been the bloodiest month since recordkeeping began.

There were 43 victims of homicide in the city last month, the most since August 1972, when Baltimore ’s population, now 600,000, was about 900,000. In addition, there were 108 nonfatal shootings in May, nearly triple the number recorded the same month last year. Over the three-day Memorial Day weekend alone, the city recorded 32 shootings and nine homicides.

As Baltimore’s streets succumb to the wave of carnage, the police have simply withdrawn, by many accounts. Harassed, hooted at and openly hated in the wake of the arrest of Freddie Gray, whose death in custody triggered the rioting in April, uniformed officers seem to have decided not to do their jobs.

Arrests, already down from 2014 levels before the rioting, have plummeted by more than 50 percent since then. Community leaders in Sandtown — the area where Mr. Gray was arrested — say there is a deliberate effort on the police department’s part to vacate the streets and see how the community likes it.

On Fox News, one officer, his face and voice obscured, explained the cops’ “reasoning.” “After the protests, it seems like the citizens would appreciate a lack of police presence, and that’s exactly what they’re getting,” he said. He went on to blame the city’s leadership for not having officers’ backs and prosecutors for indicting the six police officers in whose custody Mr. Gray was fatally injured.

This is not unprecedented. Cops in New York engaged in a slowdown after the Eric Garner non-indictment and some subsequent comments by the Mayor.

First thing first: the blame for this surge of violence obviously belongs with the communities. When two cops were assassinated in December, I wrote the following:

I am not an anarchist. We can see around the world how thin the veneer of civilization is and how easily it is destroyed. Law and order are a huge improvement over the lack thereof, no matter how poorly they are enforced. It’s one thing to criticize police and demand reform and changes. It’s one thing to defend yourself if, for example, cops smash down your door in the middle of the night and you have no idea what’s going on. People can and should oppose aggressive policing and the intrusion of government into their lives. But the deliberate and cold-blooded murder of two policemen is an attack on civilization, on the idea of law and order.

The primary problem we have with policing in the United States is not a bunch of evil cops running around. It is a political leadership that has given them a million laws to enforce, authorized an aggressive war on voluntary behavior, shoved assault weapons and tanks into their hands and chipped away at accountability. The system is failing the police as thoroughly as it is failing the rest of us.

I was mocked a bit for my line on attacking civilization, but look at what’s going on in Baltimore right now. Most people are good. Most people — even in the worst part of Baltimore — won’t run around killing and stealing. But you only need a small fraction to be bad for the system to collapse. And now that it has … I’m not sure the genie can be put back in the bottle. This may be the final nail in Baltimore’s coffin.

All that having been said, the idea that the police slowdown was justified by the actions of Baltimore’s Mayor and the prosecution of the six cops is ridiculous. It’s another sign of a police leadership and union leadership that are increasingly isolated from reality. The cops and their union reps have come to expect unwavering and absolute loyalty from political leadership and get extremely agitated when they don’t get it (the link includes an interview with FOP head Jim Pasco. Among other things, he says that people who videotape cops should get 15 years in prison).

After the Freddie Gray incident, the Baltimore cops have been saying that the prosecution is making them “hesitant” and shows that they are being “thrown under the bus” by the mayor and the prosecutor. Balko:

So because a prosecutor has charged the six cops who illegally arrested a man and gave him a “rough ride” in the back of a police van that resulted in his death, all Baltimore cops are now afraid to use force. How does this follow? It would be logical if they were now hesitant to give rough rides — and that of a course would be a good thing. But what happen to Gray shouldn’t impact conscientious Baltimore cops in the slightest. There’s no connection between employing extra-judicial punishment by roughing a suspect up after he’s been arrested and cuffed, and using force to stop a violent person from harming innocent people. To argue that accountability in the former will lead to hesitation in the latter is to argue that we can’t have any accountability for any killing by a police officer, because it may cause other officers to hesitate before shooting people.

We rely on police to keep us from the abyss. But it does not follow that they are unaccountable or that if they truss up a man, throw him in the back of the van and rough ride him around the city until his neck shatters, we should ignore that. To pull back from a city that so desperately needs law and order because of the Freddie Gray indictment or a few nasty words from a mayor is ridiculous. And it illustrates just how badly policing has gone wrong.

Not that there isn’t enough blame to throw the mayor’s way. A competent mayor would be able to condemn the cops who killed Freddie Gray, go forward with the prosecution and still keep the cops on the streets. Balancing the anger of the citizens, the need for reform and temper of the union is the mayor’s job. It’s tough but it’s what they’re elected to do. Even de Blasio’s comments only resulted in cops slowing down “broken windows” arrests. And while murders are up a bit in New York in 2015 (123 through May 28, compared to 107 last year), overall crime is actually down slightly. There has not been nearly the surge in violence we’ve seen in Baltimore. Think about that: Rawlings-Blake is making Bill Fricking de Blasio look competent.

Science Sunday: Chocolate Caper

A few weeks ago, the internet lit up with stories that eating chocolate could help you lose weight. This week, the other shoe dropped: the story was bullshit:

I am Johannes Bohannon, Ph.D. Well, actually my name is John, and I’m a journalist. I do have a Ph.D., but it’s in the molecular biology of bacteria, not humans. The Institute of Diet and Health? That’s nothing more than a website.

Other than those fibs, the study was 100 percent authentic. My colleagues and I recruited actual human subjects in Germany. We ran an actual clinical trial, with subjects randomly assigned to different diet regimes. And the statistically significant benefits of chocolate that we reported are based on the actual data. It was, in fact, a fairly typical study for the field of diet research. Which is to say: It was terrible science. The results are meaningless, and the health claims that the media blasted out to millions of people around the world are utterly unfounded.

The important thing to note here is that they did not fake their results. What they did was use an analysis method that is used by a lot of junk science studies in the arena of health:

Here’s a dirty little science secret: If you measure a large number of things about a small number of people, you are almost guaranteed to get a “statistically significant” result. Our study included 18 different measurements—weight, cholesterol, sodium, blood protein levels, sleep quality, well-being, etc.—from 15 people. (One subject was dropped.) That study design is a recipe for false positives.

Think of the measurements as lottery tickets. Each one has a small chance of paying off in the form of a “significant” result that we can spin a story around and sell to the media. The more tickets you buy, the more likely you are to win. We didn’t know exactly what would pan out—the headline could have been that chocolate improves sleep or lowers blood pressure—but we knew our chances of getting at least one “statistically significant” result were pretty good.

Whenever you hear that phrase, it means that some result has a small p value. The letter p seems to have totemic power, but it’s just a way to gauge the signal-to-noise ratio in the data. The conventional cutoff for being “significant” is 0.05, which means that there is just a 5 percent chance that your result is a random fluctuation. The more lottery tickets, the better your chances of getting a false positive. So how many tickets do you need to buy?

P(winning) = 1 – (1 – p)n

With our 18 measurements, we had a 60% chance of getting some“significant” result with p < 0.05. (The measurements weren’t independent, so it could be even higher.) The game was stacked in our favor.

It’s called p-hacking—fiddling with your experimental design and data to push p under 0.05—and it’s a big problem. Most scientists are honest and do it unconsciously. They get negative results, convince themselves they goofed, and repeat the experiment until it “works.” Or they drop “outlier” data points.

You can see this p-hacking illustrated by XKCD here. A similar hack is sometimes referred to as the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy. The idea is that if you run 100 tests, you will very likely find that one of those tests shows a signal that has a 1% chance of being a coincidence. In fact, as Nate Silver pointed out in his book, if you don’t find that about one in a hundred tests produces a spurious 99% result, you’re doing your statistics wrong.

One of the most infamous was a study in the early 90’s showing that high-tension power lines caused leukemia. Their results was statistically significant. But they tested 800 medical conditions. They were bound to come up with something just by chance.

That’s not to say statistics are useless. It’s to say that they have a context. When you’re testing one specific hypothesis, such as testing if vaccines cause autism, then they are useful. But they can be very deceptive when used in this scattershot approach.

Another illustration is DNA testing. Police in many areas have been doing blind DNA searches of databases to identify suspects in cold cases. When they find their suspect, they claim that the likelihood of a false match is literally one in a million. But these databases have hundreds of thousands of names in them. If you had a specific suspect and other reasons to suspect him, that one in a million stat would mean something. But in a blind search, your odds of finding a match by sheer coincidence is more like one in three.

Bohannon uses the lottery illustration and it’s a perfect one. The odds of any particular person winning the lottery are something like one in tens of millions. But someone is going to beat those odds. Someone always does.

Science — particularly when it comes to health — is littered with these sort of studies: blind searches that find something that then get touted in the media. Vox illustrates it here (point #2). There are statistically significant studies showing both that milk causes and prevents cancer. When you take them all into account, the net risk is basically zero. Of course Vox is in a bit of a glass house, having frequently touted such studies when convenient.

RIP Beau Biden

Breaking news that Beau Biden, the Vice President’s 46-year-old son has died of brain cancer. I’ve taken my shot at the Veep, but this is terrible news. Joe is no stranger to tragedy, having lost his daughter and first wife to a car accident. RIP and thoughts and prayers for the Biden family.

Friday Quick Hits

A few stories I haven’t gotten time for full blog posts on:

  • I kind of like Bernie Sanders as a candidate. Not because I agree with him on anything — I don’t. And not because I’d vote for him — I wouldn’t. I like him out there because at least he’s honest about what he thinks. I prefer an honest socialist over whatever dumbed down pap Clinton is selling while pretending to be our friend. This week, someone dug up a 1972 article he wrote about how men fantasize about abusing women and women fantasize about being raped. The conservative critics are right: this would be a *huge* deal is a Republican had written it. On the other hand, it was written 43 years ago and is so incoherent, I have to believe that Sanders wrote it on a roll of toilet paper while writhing on a bathroom floor in the midst of a bad LSD trip.
  • Texas has been on the receiving end of some terrible rains and floods recently. The cause, according to the media, is global warming. This was the same global warming that was causing droughts three years ago. Look, I accept that global warming is real, but this is getting ridiculous. Not everything is a result of global warming. I’m pretty sure we had weather before global warming. And I’m pretty sure we’ll continue to have it after global warming is solved. Maybe global warming will make torrential rains more likely, but if so it will mean something like a few extra floods a decade.
  • Nebraska became the first red state to abolish the death penalty, overriding the governor’s veto. While I’m not quite anti-capital punishment, I’m fine with this. The death penalty isn’t worth the trouble and expense. And Nebraska hasn’t executed anyone in 18 years anyway.
  • Dennis Hastert is being prosecuted for structuring and lying to investigators as he was paying hush money to someone. You can read Ken White about how these charges are basically made up. It’s likely being pursued because the statute of limitations has run out on what he did do. Illegal leaks indicate he sexually abused a student while he was a wrestling coach. I deplore the fed’s tendency to make up crimes. That doesn’t change Haster’s status as a scumbag if these allegations are true.
  • This week’s must-read is from Laura Kipnis a liberal feminist professor who found herself at the center of a Title IX inquisition because she had the temerity to question the narrative the sexual paranoia our college campuses are caving into.

FIFA Under Fire

About damned time:

Hours after Swiss authorities arrived unannounced at a Zurich hotel and arrested top FIFA officials early Wednesday morning, the Justice Department and prosecutors for the Eastern District of New York forcefully declared that their investigation had only just begun and pledged to rid the international soccer organization of systemic corruption.

“These individuals and organizations engaged in bribery to decide who would televise games, where the games would be held, and who would run the organization overseeing organized soccer worldwide,” said Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch, who supervised the investigation from its earliest stages, when she was the United States attorney for the Eastern District of New York. “They did this over and over, year after year, tournament after tournament.”

Soccer officials treated FIFA business decisions as chits to be traded for personal wealth, United States officials said. Whether through convoluted financial deals or old-fashioned briefcases full of cash, people were expected to pay for access to FIFA’s river of money and publicity. The federal indictment lists 47 counts, including bribery, fraud and money laundering.

FIFA is one of the most corrupt organizations in the world. It’s not just the bribery, which has amounted to tens of millions of dollars. It’s the way they persuaded Brazil to burn billions of dollars building stadiums that are now useless (FIFA made an estimated $4 billion off the 2014 World Cup. Brazil invested over $15 billion in hosting it). It’s the way they look the other way as Qatar builds a World Cup on bribery, slavery and thousands of dead workers. If you missed it, here is John Oliver on the subject:

I’m going to make a confession: I really like international soccer. Last year’s World Cup was thrilling for the United States and I’m looking forward to 2018. But the organization that controls this sport is horrifying. They make American sports leagues — who extract billions in free stadiums from bankrupt cities based on economic nonsense — look like angels.

This is just beginning. This organization is thoroughly corrupt. I’m glad to see some justice may finally be done to them.

The Minimum Wage Follies

Ten days ago, LA made a historically dumb decision to raise its minimum wage to $15 an hour. The usual chorus of Leftists emerged to claim that the contention that raising the minimum wage destroys low-wage jobs — a premise that was accepted by most economists until about two years ago — has been “debunked” as a myth (it hasn’t and it won’t be because the Law of Supply and Demand isn’t magically suspended for low-wage labor).

Some of the biggest supporters of the minimum wage hike were labor unions. You may wonder why labor unions would support hiking the minimum wage since most labor members don’t make minimum wage. The reason is that many union wages are pegged to the minimum wage and are set to automatically rise if the minimum wage does. It further gives them leverage in negotiations. If the minimum wage if $30,000 a year, it gives them an argument for larger starting union salaries. And since, in California, most labor arbitration is done by former union lawyers, it’s a nice racket. So their support has nothing to do with how much they care about the poor masses. It’s about cynically playing on sympathy for those masses to leverage their own pay hikes.

The unions have been at the forefront of claiming that the idea that minimum wage hikes destroy jobs is a myth. Well, guess what folks: they are perfectly aware of what a higher minimum wage will do. Why else would they want this:

Labor leaders, who were among the strongest supporters of the citywide minimum wage increase approved last week by the Los Angeles City Council, are advocating last-minute changes to the law that could create an exemption for companies with unionized workforces.

The push to include an exception to the mandated wage increase for companies that let their employees collectively bargain was the latest unexpected detour as the city nears approval of its landmark legislation to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2020.

For much of the past eight months, labor activists have argued against special considerations for business owners, such as restaurateurs, who said they would have trouble complying with the mandated pay increase.

But Rusty Hicks, who heads the county Federation of Labor and helps lead the Raise the Wage coalition, said Tuesday night that companies with workers represented by unions should have leeway to negotiate a wage below that mandated by the law.

So here’s how this two-step works:

1) the unions advocate for a higher minimum wage.

2) the raising of the minimum wage either triggers pay hikes for union members or gives them a leg up in negotiations.

3) However, they allow exceptions for industries that might have to lay people off … as long as those industries are unionized.

4) Industries that can’t pay the minimum wage either leave or … become unionized.

The net result? More money for unions, more union members, less jobs and higher prices for everyone else. And liberals wonder why we are so cynical about Big Labor.

Memorial Day

Just a reminder of why today is a holiday. It’s not to barbecue:

Over a million men and women have sacrificed their lives to keep this nation free. Take some time off today to acknowledge the sacrifice they made for you, for me, for everyone. There are children who will never see their fathers again, parents who will never see their children again, parts of families and communities ripped out, never to be replaced.

They went with songs to the battle, they were young.
Straight of limb, true of eye, steady and aglow.
They were staunch to the end against odds uncounted,
They fell with their faces to the foe.

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning,
We will remember them.

They mingle not with their laughing comrades again;
They sit no more at familiar tables of home;
They have no lot in our labour of the day-time;
They sleep beyond England’s foam.

-Laurence Binyon, Ode of Remembrance

Science Sunday: Gene Editing

Genetic engineering has been with us for about forty years. During that time, it has helped us develop more effective drugs, drought- and disease-resistant crops, and a barrage of genetic tests that can measure your risk for such things as breast cancer. It has also sparked a lot of opposition from those who fear its power as well as luddite hatred from anti-GMO types who have successfully slowed the implementation of such as things as “the golden rice” and therefore condemned thousands of children to unnecessary blindness.

Things took another step a couple of weeks ago, however, when researchers in China used the new CRISPR technology to modify the genes of non-viable human embryos. Does this mean we are on the verge of a real-life Gattaca? Should we be worried about this?

Francis Collins, the NIH Director, makes the case against allowing this kind of research:

It’s also very hard to identify the need for this kind of embryo manipulation for human purposes. If you’re talking about genetic disease, we have pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, which gives couples at risk for genetic disease a chance to avoid that risk without any manipulation of the germline.

Last, there are deep concerns of a philosophical sort, about what it means for human beings to intentionally manipulate their own genomes. If applied broadly and widely, does that result in us being changed into something other than homo sapiens? I don’t think we even have to go to that one to say this is something we shouldn’t do. The safety arguments and lack of medical need trump [these concerns].

Collins gets one thing very wrong in that paragraph: his claim that pre-implantation diagnosis is enough for couples screening for genetic disease. We looked into this when we were doing fertility treatments (Hal 11000 Beta came about the old-fashioned way after fertility failed). Our doctor told us that the diagnosis tech is shaky at best. And with some disorders — such as Down’s — the errors can occur in some cells but not others. So the idea that there is no “need” for this — even assuming we have to show a need to the likes of Collins — is a bit of a reach.1

But Collins hits most of the points probably going through your head: that this kind of research would be unethical, that messing with the human genome is a dangerous road, etc.

The counterpoint is given by Ramez Naan at Marginal Revolution in two posts (here and here).

[Banning this research] is a mistake, for several reasons.

1. The technology isn’t as mature as reported. Most responses to it are over-reactions.

2. Parents are likely to use genetic technologies in the best interests of their children.

3. Using gene editing to create ‘superhumans’ will be tremendously harder, riskier, and less likely to be embraced by parents than using it to prevent disease.

4. A ban on research funding or clinical application will only worsen safety, inequality, and other concerns expressed about the research.

Part 1 I didn’t find terribly interesting. He’s right that CRISPR can’t create viable genetically modified embryos. But the ethical issues remain. Someday, we probably will have that power.

His other points are much more germane. He points out the human genome, like almost everything in the human body, has many moving parts. There is no single gene for high intelligence or good looks. You would have to make massive changes to many parts of someone’s DNA to, say, make them taller. This is why short parents can have tall kids and vice versa — the genetics are far more complex than, say, hair color.

Manipulating IQ, height, or personality is thus likely to involve making a very large number of genetic changes. Even then, genetic changes are likely to produce a moderate rather than overwhelming impact.

Conversely, for those unlucky enough to be conceived with the wrong genes, a single genetic change could prevent Cystic Fibrosis, or dramatically reduce the odds of Alzheimer’s disease, breast cancer or ovarian cancer, or cut the risk of heart disease by 30-40%.

Reducing disease is orders of magnitude easier and safer than augmenting abilities.

That addressed Collins’ major point. There is a medical need for this sort of technology; a big one. One that could be filled very easily and at low risk.

Now, it’s possible we could one day have the technology to modify more complex things like height or intelligence. But that technology is decades away at this point, even assuming it is possible at all. It would require an understanding of genetics, and possibly even more importantly, epigenetics, that is a quantum leap beyond where we are now. It’s something to worry about, but not if its means blocking technology that could cure Cystic Fibrosis.

Naam’s third point is that parents are risk-averse. This plays on the first point. Parents might, in theory, want to give their child a genetic leg up. But the best they might face is a possibility of increasing their child’s IQ by ten points at the potential risk of unknown disorders or complications. While I agree with him, it’s certain that some parents will embrace these risks, especially as the technology matures.

Naam’s final point is basically that this is going to happen. And once it does, there is no putting the genie back in the bottle. If we ban it here, it will pop up in China. If we get China to ban it, it will pop up in India. If we get India to ban it, it will pop up in South Africa.

This is not something we can unlearn. It’s something we have to deal with. At this stage, given the crudeness of the technology, I am more than happy for the NIH to ban research into genetically engineering humans. But that’s kicking the can down the road. At some point, we will have to decide what we will and will not allow and who gets to decide what risks are and are not worth it.

We have, however, been here before. In the 1970’s, there were efforts to ban the very genetic engineering that has been so beneficial to us and brought us to this point. Supporters of the ban included James Watson, one of the discoverers of DNA’s structure, and Al Gore, supposed science luminary (Watson later admitted he was wrong). They failed, barely. And as it turned out, it was for the best. As P.J. O’Rourke noted twenty years ago in All the Trouble in the World:

Biotechnologists could still come up with something awful by accident, not to mention on purpose. Nature does it all the time. Nature is forever inventing things like the bubonic plague, although whether intentionally or not is a question too deep for this state college graduate. But, in the meantime, we’ve got a four-billion-dollar biotech industry that produces cheap insulin, accurate tests for everything from pregnancy to colon cancer, new vaccines, the diagnostic process that keeps the nation’s blood supply freed of AIDS and hepatitis, and hundreds of other products, with thousands more on the horizon — a small price to pay for an occasional giant sheep.

Nature is forever editing the human genome. The possibility of humans tampering with their own genetics is frightening and I think we should take the potential risks seriously. But, given history, it is much more likely to result in the ability to cut the risk of cancer than to produce a race of Uma Thurman clones.

Genetic engineering did play one role in Hal’s birth. Thanks to a new genetic screening technique, we were able to test Hal at ten weeks for potential trisomies with 99% accuracy.</sup

Hillary Clinton Strangles A Puppy

So, over the last few weeks, we’ve been finding out some stuff about the Clintons. We’ve found out that foreign countries and people with business before government donated millions to the Clinton Foundation. We found out that she and Bill are getting six-figure speaking fees to the tune of tens of millions, including from people with business before the government. We’ve found out that, as a Senator, she worked her influence for Corning in exchange for a campaign contribution. We’ve found out that, until it went to hell, she and her staff were flogging Libya as her big achievement that would vault her into the White House.

The response to all this from the media and her supporters has been a collective shrug. In fact, Vox wrote a bizarre article claiming that the problem is that the media are just mad because Hillary doesn’t “need” them (Vox apparently being under the impression that the candidates need the media as their publicity hacks, not that the media’s job to vet them and hold them accountable. That’s not surprising coming from the creator of Journolist.)

I’ve been trying to imagine what would make the media and the Left Wing turn on Clinton and … I really can’t come up with anything. She has strong ties to Wall Street. They don’t care. She opposes marijuana legalization, supports an aggressive foreign policy and cheers for NSA surveillance. They don’t care. The last Clinton Administration created Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the Defense of Marriage Act, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Crime Bill that massively expanded police militarization and put hundreds of thousands in jail. They don’t care. Actually, they claim that this is unfair because she was just the First Lady. This is about ten seconds before they claim that her time as First Lady and her active role in her husband’s Administration counts as “experience”.

Watch this as a group of voters struggle to come up with any accomplishments they can credit to Mrs. Clinton:

What would it take for them to turn on Hillary? I don’t think there is anything. If video emerged tomorrow of Hillary Clinton strangling puppies with her bare hands, the response would be:

  • A think-piece from Vox about how puppy strangling isn’t as bad as it seems.
  • Rachel Maddow would do a bit about how Republicans have done much worse and “strangling” is an extreme word to make slowly euthanizing stray dogs sounds worse than it is.
  • Comment boards would fill up with comments saying, “Another faux Republican scandal. PUPPYGHAZI!!!”
  • Several pieces at Daily Kos about how this is really all Republicans’ fault for opposing subsidized birth control for dogs.
  • Numerous outlets claiming the focus on puppies is sexist.
  • A deep analysis at LGF “proving” that the video is a fake.
  • A think piece from Salon claiming the dogs had it coming.
  • A CNN report, to be retracted in December 2016, about how the Republican candidates all strangled kittens.
  • A statement from Debbie Wasserman Schultz that Republicans wanted to “drag us back” to the era before spaying and neutering.
  • Ultimately, a uniform consensus that the dog strangling doesn’t matter because Clinton is good on the most important issues (despite, at present, Clinton having no position on most of the important issues. Check out her website and see if you can find a section on policy).

Like so much that the Left believes in right now — “living wage”, single payer healthcare, gun control — Clinton’s ascendancy has become religion. She is going to be President no matter what the rest of us say. We had a black President. Now we’re going to have a woman. It’s her turn. End of story.

Boy … if the GOP gets their shit together and beats Clinton next year, it’s going to get really ugly.