“But I’ve Never Used It!”

Back in February, WaPo published an opinion article by a dude by the name of Travis Meier who is a member of that informal group who hates math, particularly in its abstract form:

For most of us, the formula was one of many alphabet soup combinations crammed into our heads in high school long enough to pass a math test, then promptly forgotten. I’m queasy all over again just thinking about it. As a functioning adult in society, I have no use for imaginary numbers or the Pythagorean theorem. I’ve never needed to determine the height of a flagpole by measuring its shadow and the angle of the sun.

Only 22 percent of the nation’s workers use any math more advanced than fractions, and they typically occupy technical or skilled positions. That means more than three-fourths of the population spends painful years in school futzing with numbers when they could be learning something more useful.

I’m talking about applied logic. This branch of philosophy grows from the same mental tree as algebra and geometry but lacks the distracting foliage of numbers and formulas. Call it the art of thinking clearly. We need this urgently in this era of disinformation, in which politicians and media personalities play on our emotions and fears.

Sure. I’ve good friends who hated algebra. But does that justify not teaching it? Full disclosure: I didn’t find high school algebra all that hard. Don’t ask me about trig, I can feel my blood pressure going up just thinking about it. Geometry, fun. Proofs, satisfying. Calculus? College professors didn’t get that across to me, sad to say.

But let’s talk about what Meier doesn’t mention, and what I’ve not thought about until recently, eh? What are the benefits of studying something and doing badly?

  1. The wagon before the horse fallacy: Substituting applied logic for the more useful algebra just because many students don’t do well is to deny those that will do well the chance to learn it. What do you tell them when they find their way to college denied because the school failed to teach them?
  2. School doesn’t just teach facts, it should teach ways of thinking. That must include coping with hard subjects, and coping with failure. Think about it: Is there anything worth doing that is really damn easy? How many folks just get bored and walk away from easy things? But hard things? Oh, sure, folks can show me examples of people giving up on hard problems, but I can counter that they have had a poor education, or the problem happens to be impossible to solve. Hard problems require persistence, mental strategies for approaching learning, seeking other sources of education, and a few other skills that are learned by trying.
  3. Failure is a fact of life. High school should teach you that. How do you deal with it? It’s better to learn how to appropriately deal with failure in high school than on the job.
  4. Returning to algebra, failure teaches the student about their limits. It’s very useful to know that your mind doesn’t have the abstract turn to it required by algebra. It helps shape your approach to post high school activities.
  5. Math, such as algebra and other disciplines, is the real basis of much of society, such as civil engineering, physics, computer engineering, economics, heavens I could go on and on, is built on. By trying to teach algebra, we are implicitly communicating to the students that, no, building a tall structure isn’t a matter of simple power politics and, goodness, wizardry. No, it’s a matter of learning and thinking, and that idea that they can do it too makes society more cohesive.

I’m sure there’s more, but I’ll leave it at that. School teaches more than facts, more than systems of thought. It should teach us about limitations, coping strategies, and the general business of living as another limited human being.

The 2024 Senate Campaign: Updates

There should be a Roadrunner joke here, but it ran away.

How About That Vice President Debate, Hey?

I indulged in malpractice and didn’t watch.

Given Mr Trump’s age and apparent mental difficulties, the debate may be more meaningful for voters than is usual. After all, Vance might be called upon to fill an important role if Trump/Vance wins in November.

But for the Senate races? If you believe voters are more likely to practice Party-line voting, then it matters. If you think voters are willing to split their ballots, then maybe it doesn’t. And if you think independent voters are knowledgeable enough to realize Vance is way out of the mainstream on American values, then this may have not convinced them of the point – but, if Vance does have to take over, another way to foil him is for the Republicans to fall further out of control of the Senate.

But the most important group in this election is the independents, and Politico observes this:

… Walz had a commanding advantage with independents, 58 percent of whom sided with the Minnesota governor while 42 percent gave Vance the edge.

Walz’s strongest ratings came from younger people, particularly those ages 25-34, those with college degrees, and Black and Latino respondents — all key components of the Democratic coalition that powered President Joe Biden’s victory over Donald Trump in 2020.

Vance, meanwhile, performed best with people over the age of 55, white voters and those without a college degree.

Which, I think, is as one might expect. The oldsters, moi excluded, lean more towards Trump, while the youngsters lean towards Harris.

The fact that Walz managed to win what he was expected to win, but not more, suggests the debate was about average. And that may not affect Senate races at all.

Who is AtlasIntel?

I’ve not heard of them before, but FiveThirtyEight is giving them a heady rating of 2.7, so, at least historically, they’re nobody to sneeze at.

However, given the results they’ve posted over the last few days, subtract the rating, and I’d say they’re just another conservative pollster skewing their results to keep the customer happy.

How to evaluate them? Keep an eye on the divergence of their results from respectable pollsters’ average. If they drift towards other reputable pollsters, figure they are adjusting models and these are just outliers. No movement relative to other pollsters? Then a determination cannot conclusively be reached until after the election; they may be conservative and skewing, or their models and adjustments are just wrong, or the other pollsters may simply be off and AtlasIntel is ahead of the pack.

For what it’s worth, here’s their website. This sounds like Intimidate the rubes! jargon to me:

Nationally representative polls conducted by AtlasIntel using its proprietary data collection technology and post-stratification algorithms.

But maybe it means something – I am not an expert on polls, stats and probability. I’m just an obsolete software engineer casting an eye over the Senate races without wasting too much … time. Excuse me, gotta run.

And Into The Dust Storm

  • Starting a run of AtlasIntel (2.7) results, they believe that Rep Gallego (D-AZ) in Arizona has only a four point lead over Republican challenger and election-denier Kari Lake (R-AZ), 50%-46%. Note the link doesn’t appear to have Senate-level data; perhaps FiveThirtyEight made a mistake. A four point lead is at serious variance with other respectable pollsters, which range from 6 to 13 point leads. Four is probably on the edge of the margin of error, which might make Arizona Republicans feel a little better about picking Lake as their nominee. InsiderAdvantage (2.0), for comparison, gives Rep Gallego a more substantial 7 point lead, 50%-43%. And very respectable Emerson College (2.9) is having none of this tightening race claim in Arizona, giving Rep Gallego a 52%-41%.

    In the news, Laurie Roberts of azcentral notes the Republicans’ seem frantic to get the Green Party up on the debate stage for the Arizona Senate seat, which happens soon. The strategy seems to be splitting the vote on the left. The Republicans may like Kari Lake, but just about everyone else doesn’t think she has the right stuff, or so says Roberts.

  • AtlasIntel (2.7) is either measuring the wrong race or has a major insight into polling as it says former Rep Rogers (R-MI) is beating Rep Slotkin (D-MI) by a substantial margin, 49%-44%, in Michigan, and then round it up to six as well. This is at serious odds with other pollsters, some of whom give Slotkin a double digit lead.And one of those other pollsters is top-rated The New York Times/Siena College (3.0), which is according Rep Slotkin a five point lead, 47%-42%, among likely voters. This pollster has had its own divergences from the pack, not to mention from liberal commentators, but this poll seems entirely plausible. Mitchell Research & Communications (2.4), another respectable pollster, if new to me, is giving Rep Slotkin a 49%-44% lead, which is none too large, but respectable. RMG Research (2.3), which generally has been trending conservative, breaks the mold here: a 49%-43% lead for Rep Slotkin, or six points.

    Down at the other end of the scale is Trafalgar Group (0.7 – and that’s not a typo), known to be aligned with the Republican Party, giving Slotkin and Rogers a tie at 47% apiece. I think I’m mentioning them for the laughs.

  • AtlasIntel (2.7) doesn’t hesitate to knock sitting Senators down to size, either. In Nevada, after a run of polls that gave Senator Rosen (D-NV) such a large average lead over Republican Sam Brown (R-NV) that I stopped reporting the Nevada polls, AtlasIntel assesses the Senator a mere two point lead at 48%-46%. That strikes me as trying to haul a rogue dragon out of its cave with a mere silk thread, but we shall see. InsiderAdvantage (2.0) is giving Senator Rosen a lead of 49%-42% for comparison.
  • AtlasIntel (2.7) is giving Senator Casey (D-PA) a two point lead over David McCormick (R-PA) in Pennsylvania, 47%-45%, which is not as unbelievable as some of their results, but is still on the far right side of the spectrum. OnMessage (1.1), sponsored by Republican-aligned Sentinel Action Fund, gives the Senator a one point lead at 45%-44%, but this pollster/sponsor pairing is awful if you want plausible results. Another known Republican-partisan pollster is Trafalgar Group (a laughable 0.7 rating, but maybe they’ve gotten … better?). which is measuring the Senator’s lead at 47%-46%. I only mention them so my reader may get a feel for how much … gunk … is flooding the zone. And then there’s Patriot Polling (1.1), new to me, giving the Senator a 51%-48% lead. Let’s finish up old PA with Emerson College (2.9), even if it does seem to be running a little to the right, and its assessment of 47%-45%, which seems out of the general range of respectable ratings in Pennsylvania. About a month from now we’ll find out.
  • AtlasIntel (2.7) is still conceding Wisconsin Senator Baldwin (D-WI) a two point lead, 48%-47%, over Eric Hovde (R-WI?), but only because they’ve rounded their numbers up or down. This is another far right side of the spectrum scenario. The New York Times/Siena College (3.0) sees Senator Baldwin (D-WI) leading challenger Eric Hovde by a substantial margin, 50%-43%. The gap is even larger with observed right-leaning ActiVote (unrated), 54%-46%, but the implicit conclusion (54+46=100) that there are very few undecideds left in Wisconsin does concern me, especially when The New York Times/Siena College poll suggests 7% of the electorate is undecided. Add in the margin of error of ±4.9 points, and it’s hard to take them seriously. Finally, maybe just for laughs, Republican-aligned Trafalgar Group (0.7 – why do they bother?) also gives the Senator a two point lead of 48%-46%.

    If you’re wondering about Mr Hovde’s dark innuendos concerning the Senator, Bill Lueders of The Bulwark has a response and some of his own innuendos regarding Mr Hovde. Take home paragraph:

    But Baldwin’s greatest advantage is that she is well liked and respected in Wisconsin and known to be a hard worker. In 2023, her campaign tallied, she “attended or hosted nearly 150 community events and meetings with constituents” in 44 of the state’s 72 counties. (It’s unclear how she was able to do this while spending as much time as possible hanging out in a pricey New York condo, all the while regulating entire industries.)

  • In Florida, Victory Insights (1.3 – yes, a bit paltry) gives Senator Scott (R-FL) a lead of 45%-44%, or a statistical dead heat, with former Rep Mucarsel-Powell (D-FL). If Victory Insights was highly rated I’d say Scott was in trouble. They also report that the state constitutional amendments on the ballot supporting abortion rights and marijuana legalization are highly popular. If so, those may push Mucarsel-Powell over the top. That is, if Scott and Mucarsel-Powell are still running a close race.

    Public Policy Polling (1.4), working for known Democrats-aligned Clean and Prosperous America, has a similar result for the Senate race, with Senator Scott leading 44%-43%. Given the poor pollster rating and the known bias of the sponsor, it’s difficult to give it much weight.Anchoring the other side of the quality and political spectrum, RMG Research (2.3, but take that with a grain of salt) gives Senator Scott a luxurious lead, 50%-44%. And, yes, the press release includes … was conducted online by Scott Rasmussen … I hope you like salt.

  • In Ohio, The New York Times/Siena College (3.0) is giving Senator Brown (D-OH) a small lead of 47%-43% over challenger Bernie Moreno (R-OH). The Senator needs to hoof it a bit more. Note that the previous Ohio update had RMG Research (2.3) giving Moreno a two point lead. A 5-6 point swing is unlikely, so I have to wonder about RMG Research. Again.
  • Texas Democratic partisans can continue to hope, as Public Policy Polling (1.4), working for known Democrats-aligned Clean and Prosperous America (CPA), see Senator Cruz’ (R-TX) lead down to two points, 45%-43%. Or they can conclude CPA is skewing the results of a weak pollster, depending on their level of cynicism. On the other end of this rope is unrated ActiVote, observed leaning rightwards, giving the Senator a larger lead of five points, 52%-48% (insert a song about “rounding” to a C&W tune here).

    RMG Research (2.3) is giving Senator Cruz a three point, 50%-47%, over Rep Allred. If RMG Research is skewing its data analysis, this race may be tighter than advertised.


    However, before indulging your cynical side, dear reader, consider this interview with Senator Cruz on right-wing cable news source Newsmax. It smacks of panic. Cruz may be wondering if the Republican message has become stale with Texas voters, by which I mean they may have come to realize it’s the message of grifters. Larger and larger applications of money may be insufficient to his needs.

  • In lightly polled Missouri there’s what I consider to be an anomalous polling result: observed right-leaning ActiVote (unrated) is giving Senator Hawley (R-MO) the lead, but it’s only 54%-46%, or 8 points. Add in the ±4.9 point margin of error (or average expected error as ActiVote calls it), and then adjust for the possible skew of an apparent Republican-aligned pollster, and this race may have suddenly tightened up tremendously, as I speculated might happen in my last entry concerning Missouri. Or it may not. We need a high quality pollster to visit Missouri, check out the restaurants, etc.
  • Speaking of, I’d sure love to have a good poll of Mississippi. Just sayin’.
  • Is this shock turning into farce? Last time I mentioned Nebraska’s Fischer (R-NE, incumbent) vs Osborn (I-NE) contest, I said it’s the biggest shock of this campaign. But now we’re approaching farce territory as The Bullfinch Group, which is unknown and unrated, has a poll, sponsored by The Independent Center, giving Mr Osborn a 47%-42% lead over Senator Fischer. The last respectable poll, from SurveyUSA (2.8), gave Osborn a one point lead, a shock in what Republicans should have considered a safe race. Now I’m to believe it’s a five point lead?

    I think it’s best to neither believe nor disbelieve, but wait for a better pollster to do a poll. The pollster is unknown, and it’s a good bet the sponsor would like to see this result. It’s best to recognize the ambiguity of the situation.


    That said, I have to say I was gobsmacked that Chris Hayes, handed the chance to comment on the race that’s surprising him the most by Stephen Colbert the night of the VP Debate, picked the Texas Senate race. Sure, it’s important. It’d be a solid blow to a Texas Republican Party riddled with corrupt, or at least weak-willed, members (see TX AG Ken Paxton). It’d suggest that Texas is wavering. But the same could be said for Senator Scott (R-FL).


    But the real surprise, if it holds together, is the Nebraska race. No one, besides Osborn and maybe his team, saw this coming. Nebraska Republicans losing their grip on one of their Nebraska seats, with an incumbency advantage on top of that, will rattle some teeth loose.

  • Only to be polite: Lake Research Partners (1.2) has Senator Cramer’s (R-ND) lead over Katrina Christiansen (D-ND) in North Dakota down to nine points, 49%-40%, in a poll I must have missed – it’s a bit old (Sept. 23-26). The verbiage on that report suggests it may have been sponsored by Christiansen, too. A more recent poll by WPA Intelligence (1.7) is much less encouraging, as Senator Cramer’s lead is 22 points at 51%-29%. Don’t take this entry too seriously, as I’m unconvinced Christiansen has a chance. Maybe a big pollster needs a vacation trip on the prairie to clarify the situation.

And The Monster Goes Swimming Down The Estuary

Anything to say? Bon Voyage? North Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming remain safe for Republicans? Don’t get sunburn?

Rules Have Consequences

I don’t normally republish Letters to the Editor of other publications, but this one is important enough to break that guideline. This is in WaPo, from a resident of Springfield, Ohio, which is the place cited by Mr. Trump and his running mate, Senator Vance (R-OH), claiming illegal immigrants have overrun the city and are eating cats and dogs, which has been called out as foul lies by the Mayor, who is Republican, and other officials. This is a partial quote:

Because Donald Trump and JD Vance have appropriated the town as a set for their racist falsehoods, Springfield lives under a pall of fear. The local Democratic Central Committee asked supporters to wave signs and flags outside their building during meetings because many members were afraid to attend. Children fear attending school because of bomb threats. A friend opted out of our regular game night because she does not want to be out after dark. Worried parents have insisted on taking their children home from a local university. And, of course, many of our Haitian neighbors are terrified to leave their homes.

You know who is not afraid to go out and about in Springfield? Proud BoysNeo-Nazis. People handing out Ku Klux Klan fliers. Some of these people paraded swastika flags and rifles during our jazz festival. Their presence, and a torrent of threats, forced local officials to cancel the annual CultureFest celebration of diverse food, arts and music. These far-right groups clearly feel as though they have not just permission, but encouragement, from the Republican candidates. It is unsettling to live in this menacing atmosphere.

This is what happens when the judgement of Party members is excluded from the election process. Vote the Party line! Who cares who the candidates are, this is for the Party! We’ll stop abortion, taxation, regulation! No more need to use your judgment for voting. Just tick the box as instructed.

The Party hierarchy becomes rife with incompetent, violent members, whose first motivation, as we already see in Michigan and elsewhere, is to defend their position in the Party and its associated perks, and often to find unsavory, at best, ways to move up the ladder of power. We’ve seen outright shrieks of illegal meeting! and I’m still Party Chair!, even after physical ejection following a vote that those in power have lost within the Party. How much longer before the Party members begin to hire in goons to regulate Party meetings?

This is all because merit, of which one facet is being civilized, kind, and adhering to the tenets of a liberal democracy, has been eliminated from the Republican Party evaluation metrics by the Gingrichian dictates. It gets in the way of winning, you see, and that’s all important.

For those who see similar tendencies in the Democratic Party, it’s well worth examining them and criticizing them. I’ve already called out their abrogation of one liberal democracy tenet, and it’s worth finding others and calling those out in honest fashion. No Party is immune in what amounts to our late Roman Empire corruption period. But right now it’s the Republican Party which is most afflicted with mendacity, incompetency, and calls for brutality incompatible with traditional American ideals.

Yes, I’ve discussed this ad nauseam, but it’s important to keep pounding these points home. They’ve gone from horrid predictions to terrifying reality.

Unanticipated Costs

You may have heard about dockworkers striking on the East and Gulf Coasts. The strike is about both wages/benefits and replacement of jobs by automation. On the latter subject, I thought this was interesting:

Geraldine Knatz, a former executive director of the Port of Los Angeles who is now a professor at the University of Southern California, notes that ports that introduced automation say they have experienced increased safety and more standardized performance. But her research shows that, in her words, “None of the U.S. terminals realized the level of benefits for reduced labor costs that they anticipated, and two overestimated the reduction in labor costs.” [WaPo]

I think there’ll be more successful automation of jobs that are difficult to do, such as reading radiographs, than for jobs that are not so difficult. Sure, there are scheduling advantages to automation, but often these jobs are full of unexpected events and interrupts that are better dealt with by humans that are immediately present than the rigid programming of automation.

The difficult jobs that are more likely to be taken over by automation are often isolated from such events, much like radiographs, and a human manager can stand by to help, such as when a radiograph occasionally slips out of the sensor range of the automaton.

Word Of The Day

Traduce:

to speak maliciously and falsely of; slander; defame:
to traduce someone’s character. [Dictionary.com]

I may have seen traduce once, or even twice, before, but I fear I was ignorant of its meaning until moments ago. Noted in “THE CYBER SLEUTH,” Geraldine Brooks, WaPo:

The next time a politician or a pundit traduces the IRS, or JD Vance suggests firing half the civil service and putting in “our people,” consider whether a system that filled out its ranks with a new batch of political loyalists every four years would have the expertise of these dedicated, lifelong civil servants.

Even In The Midst Of A Shitstorm

The far-right extremists must be feeling a bit desperate. The pollsters associated with the right are, from my observations, trying to skew their results such that swayable members of the electorate are convinced the herd is heading rightward; possibly even a well-rated pollster named AtlasIntel (2.7/3 by FiveThirtyEight) is issuing results that are not congruent with other respected pollsters, and are a fair approximation of far-right dreams.

And then there’s the response to Hurricane Helene. Erick Erickson is doing his damndest to scorn the Federal response in two posts, and I think he may be taken as an exemplar of what’s going on among the conspiracy theorists. First, from a come-on for his radio show:

The generation of government bureaucrats that followed witnessed their commitment firsthand and experienced the rise and fall of the Soviet Union. However, just like a third-generation business owner typically drives the business in the ground, this post-WWII third-generation government bureaucrat has taken for granted the competencies of their predecessors because that’s all they’ve ever known.

The lack of government competency in recent years has created a crisis-level deficit in institutional trust. The result is that a growing number of people are willfully falling for the latest conspiracy theory that tickles their ears.

It likens itself to a More in sorrow than anger message, but make no mistake: this is, in part, once again about weakening faith in government, the government that conservatives loath.

Right up until they need it. Right up until the conmen and grifters are caught out.

In his second post, Erickson goes for the Full of scorn position, attacking the bugaboo of the conservatives these days: President Biden.

Now, Joe Biden is at the beach.

People are dying in the mountains of North Carolina and Joe Biden can’t even be bothered to get off the beach and back to the White House. He claims he’s working the phones.

At times like this, it matters as much that Presidents look like they’re engaged, not just that they are engaged. Hanging out on the beach does not look very engaged.

For Democrats, this is a swing state with a Republican gubernatorial candidate in scandal. They could win it. But the President embracing the salt life as some people are just trying to stay alive is going to resonate. The pictures will matter. Yes, the optics matter.

Source: Wikipedia.

Ummmmm, no. Optics do matter to some small extent, sure, but it matters even more that the response be effective, now doesn’t it? Remember MISSION ACCOMPLISHED? Many may not, as that was more than twenty years ago, even as infamous as it turned out to be. Here’s then-President George W. Bush speaking under a big banner with the above message on it:

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all very much. Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. (Applause.) And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.

In this battle, we have fought for the cause of liberty, and for the peace of the world. Our nation and our coalition are proud of this accomplishment — yet, it is you, the members of the United States military, who achieved it. Your courage, your willingness to face danger for your country and for each other, made this day possible. Because of you, our nation is more secure. Because of you, the tyrant has fallen, and Iraq is free. [whitehouse.gov]

That speech was given May 1, 2003; the war continued onwards for a number of years, victory ever questionable, leading eventually to the American dishonor at Abu Ghraib. The optics were great, right up until the rift between desire and reality became gapingly apparent. Nowadays, Republicans acknowledge the Administration of George W. Bush only because there is no other choice that doesn’t make them a laughingstock. Bush demonstrated the mistake of letting Marketing and Branding run a country, rather than being a tool in the toolbox.

The greatest lesson here was to put forth the best effort, and once that’s done go out and advertise it. Biden says he’s working the phones? That’s what he should be doing.

Erickson’s problem? Well, I suspect his herd of conservatives, in the face of Robinson of North Carolina, Gaetz, Greene, and, of course, Trump, is dispersing. Not to mention, and as he references, the disaster of the response to Hurricane Katrina, and the press coverage of same, was one big step down the path of disaster and incompetence for a far-right that likes to fantasize that it has all the answers and God on its side. It had to sting when Bush and his incompetent minions blundered mightily in its response to Hurricane Katrina, drawing the wrath of American independents.

But as I was saying, there’s a shitstorm and the responses to it. Professor Richardson is countering the right-wing punditocracy with this message:

Today, almost a hundred years later, the destruction from Hurricane Helene continues to mount. At least 128 people have died in six states, and many more remain unaccounted for. Roads remain closed, and power is still off for more than 2 million people. In remarks to reporters today, President Joe Biden called the damage “stunning” and explained that the federal government is providing all the support it can. He noted that federal help was on the ground before the storm and when asked if there were more the government could be doing, answered no and explained that the administration had “preplanned a significant amount of it, even though they…hadn’t asked for it yet.” …

And yet, the hurricane has become the latest topic of disinformation for MAGA Republicans. Social media today is full of accounts claiming that the federal government is not responding to the crisis in western North Carolina because it prefers to spend money in Ukraine and on undocumented immigrants. Newsmax host Todd Starnes claimed that FEMA’s “top priority is not disaster relief” but to push diversity, equity and inclusion. “So, unless you’ve got your preferred pronouns spraypainted on the side of your submerged house—you won’t get a penny from Uncle Sam. Western North Carolina is just too Conservative and too Caucasian for FEMA to care.” The House Judiciary Committee posted that “Joe Biden was at the beach.”

These posts echo Russian disinformation, and Trump was on board with it. Touring Valdosta, Georgia, today, as a private citizen where people are still without power amidst the devastation, Trump said he had spoken to Elon Musk to get his Starlink satellites into North Carolina; FEMA has already provided 40 of the systems to North Carolina. He claimed that Georgia governor Brian Kemp is “having a hard time getting the president on the phone. They’re being very non-responsive.”

Sadly for Mr Trump…

Kemp himself told reporters that Biden had called yesterday. “And he just said, ‘Hey, what do you need?’” Kemp told him, “We got what we need, we’ll work through the federal process. He offered that if there’s other things that we need just to call him directly, which I appreciate that.” South Carolina governor Henry McMaster, a Republican, called it “a great team effort…the federal government is helping us well, they’re embedded with us. There is no asset out there that we haven’t already accessed.”

And there are more examples, in Professor Richardson’s post, of Republican elected officials expressing positive sentiments towards President Biden and Federal agencies helping in a time of need.

This is known as Don’t bite the hand that feeds you.

That’s a serious point, isn’t it? The folks who are on the spot, who know what’s going on and are responsible, are telling quite a differing tale compared to that of pundits, social influencers, and candidates for office: all members of a category that benefits from conservative anger, whether or not it’s justified. They just go out and generate it, and collect their paychecks afterwards.

It’s just like Alex Jones and his bizarrely popular and shameful theories about the Sandy Hook massacre. Money money money money. God doesn’t figure into it, and I say that as skeptic and agnostic.

There is a certainly role for evaluation of the emergency response, what is often called a post-mortem. But it’s ghoulish and dishonest to disregard the best information in favor of trying to stir up conservatives who may end up paying a very high price if they buy into the false information and bad evaluations dispensed by the pundits. If you’re a conservative, it’s Kemp who is being honest, not Trump, not Erickson.

They just want power.