Welcome to the Commentary Magazine Daily podcast today is Friday April. First, two twenty and twenty two, in Podhoretz the Editor of Commentary magazine, inviting you, I think, we're five days away. Our palm beach live podcast in Florida commentary, DOT, Org, Slash, live podcast for more details and more information we are getting. A spectacular turnout will be a lot of people free to meet. You can meet us. You can meet your fellow commentary, listeners commentary, readers commentary, family, it's going to be a great event

commentary: dot Org, slash, live podcast and who will be there me and who else executive editor a Greenwald Waldheim Agent, You're right, Christine Rosen, hi, Christine Jan and Associate editor Noah Rothman Mahina also dancing or will be there too. Join us, I guy so much so much talk about. I don't even know where to start. So, let's start with the fact that the argument at what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander is a very big political truism, that right now, both Republicans and Democrats, are paying through the nose for their

closures and determinations that they need to break the rules and be incredibly agreed justly partisan, with the gerrymandering that takes place or be district redesigning the takes place after every census and all over the country, both democratic and republican maps, were new congressional districts and new local district state legislative districts are are being thrown out by judges like everywhere one by the Supreme Court yesterday by a court in New York state for what is literally, it almost hilariously rigged map the Supreme Court with a an effort to boost the number of,

minority heavy districts in a way that actually, the Supreme Court says, violates the Voting Rights ACT and North Carolina comes out against Republicans. I think Texas came out against Republicans like there are these. I think it's six seven states in which the maps drawn by state, ledge or or by whoever are being tossed by by judges. This is a very complicated, interesting issue, because there are a lot of people. judges shouldn't be involved in this at all, not nothin, not not the Wisconsin case cause. That's actually a federal voting rights case, that and that that is one area in which, for now, for sixty years

judiciary, is used as a lesson as an oversight mechanism for a piece of legislation ensuring that tub of not only voting right access, but also the distribution of voters in districts, particularly in in formerly segregated or Jim Crow States is not 'em. You know are, are not to and done unjustly, but in the case of New York State, for example, New York state literally passed to change the state constitution in an effort to. an gerrymandering by creating a a non partisan commission that would design these maps out was done twenty four team and then the state legislature, because of a conflict on the on the commission. Basically, It's true. It's one one maps, and I relatively and basically ended up with a with her a map that would have had twenty two democratic districts and former republican districts

in a state that is largely democratic, but not that largely democratic, so judge rule that was a violation of the state constitution and it seems a year if you but this will hear people saying well. This is almost certainly going to be overturned cause they found world judge and the Republicans you know what judge, hunting and went for world judge. It would find in their favour, but out into the more I read about this case, the board that seem like it's a patent violet, if the meaning of the state constitution and that these maps are to in the New York. Just don't just involve the Congress legislatures or the state legislatures, just pretty pretty bad. So I don't know what to make of this, except that, as I say for now for for twenty years web Leah, we have more and more like the last twelve, but even longer here's the idea, probably say Democrats, Gerrymander, Democrat, say Republicans gerrymander now and now, they're, both gerrymandering in order

prevent the other from you know, winning a unilateral victory and that that it and not to do so a form of unilateral disarmament, and so, instead there having these embarrassing reversals, and I just think it's an interesting example of what happens in a time of of of hyper polarization. Having said all that, and I'm going to repeat this,. I don't know there is a real issue with the idea that you two shirts just come in and say no, no, no, no, your map doesn't count. They're, not elected elected officials are elected and and the partisan gerrymandering is not in and of itself. You know and an illicit thing. This is part of what people vote in people to do so that's my spiel. Anybody have any thoughts about this yeah I mean it's just that's the way

You ve been powered Congress, empower power, the courts to adjudicate maps, Ashley, those that are not sufficiently compact or do not come the Vieira and have sufficient minority manure majority minority representation at Cetera self in one on amend. That then needs to be amended in Congress and in these judges have been empowered Thus, and it's not as though this is sort of an then especially this year, it's not an even you know both sides doing their best to upends these norms, and- and so we can keep blame you know, want both of them evenly. Democrats have been wildly in out out to perform publicans in the egregious maps they've been drawing the cook political report as of a month ago estimated. That Democrats would probably could expect four hundred five new seats out of the redistricting process alone

more than Republicans and the reversals that they've experienced in courts in places like Maryland and now New York and some others as have Wisconsin have reduced. that too, maybe one or two- and I was before New York actually now are probably closer to, even so near the ledge has dominated more by Democrats, making very egregious maps because they it's themselves that Republicans do this all the time. So now they have to do it that states that this is the logic that they've been convincing themselves of for the better part of the last decade, and so they acted on it and and you know it and, as a result, its it's funny how it is, I think, no is right that it's part of this. It's part of their over king rhetoric about. We need to save democracy from the other side, which wants to undermine democracy. So to save democracy, we have to undermine the process through Executive board,

This through you know, through this sort of gerrymandering- and I was struck by how you know most most voters- probably don't follow these gerrymander issues that kind of technical, especially when they get into the courts, but all you have to do too Blaine it to someone I cuz I had to do it. I did this with my kids. You show them the map that was drawn. You like immediately look at it go what like. Why is all that red in ways all this blue but the, but the the tone that a lot of the judges across the board have been using to describe what the Democrats have done recently is interesting to me, because it's quite shocking, you don't usually hear things like phrases like irrevocably taint. The It used to describe a map making process, but it certainly was in New York or extreme gerrymandering, which was used by the judge, I believe in Maryland. So these cases are actually so clear and so clearly violative of the idea that you should be drawing districts for some sensibility to to you know by partisanship that it's impossible to ignore, but again it does

go to this issue to to save democracy. We must undermine democratic process. Now the Supreme Court does so they're up different form. Of Jerry mattered right. There is the is gerrymandering that is designed to know was designed for the purpose of protecting individual congressmen and and protecting them in districts of them serve gone awry for them, so that you pack people into those districts that will help ensure the specific re it was specific, congressman, Jerry, racial gerrymandering, which is explicitly outlawed under the terms of the Voting Rights ACT and which courts are empowered to involve themselves in and then you have partisan

gerrymandering, which is the general effort to design a map that favors one party's position over the other by by packing by taking voters from the party that they don't like or aren't part of you know, whoever is in the majority and packing them into districts, and you know so that so that you you, you recognize that there have to. They are going to be two or three Republicans in your state who are going to get real. It so put as many republicans into that district and Extract Ne Ne, but by neighborhood extract the democratic voters from them and put them in another district, and then you can boost a district that might be close to fifty fifty or something like that. You can serve either creative new new district for somebody or you can basically have you. No demographic geographic mix that will over

We favor one party over the other, and that is what partisan gerrymandering is, and the Supreme Court ruled in twenty nineteen. That partisan redistricting is a political matter. not a judicial matter, not a matter for federal courts. Partisan gerrymandering is a political matter, not a judicial matter. There was a five to four decision. We wrote about it a lot and commentary actually, because at the idea was it's just not fair that you know when Republicans get in power. Democrats said Two thousand and ten, when they, when things were going well for them that they packed that they they switched a lot of people into these district Witcher. was hilarious because, of course, as Noah says, this is the way of the world part partisan, gerrymandering, one of the phase in which Democrats Maine in their majorities in the house over forty years was because they made judicious use

partisan gerrymandering to ensure that they would remain the majority. Paw in the house said those were know by over the course of three six Seventy eighty and ninety four different decades in which they controlled in many states controlled those those accessing so Parson gerrymandering was the hot topic among a democratic Google people in the twenty fifteen twenty sixteen and they really eager to make sure that there could be court, that the federal courts could then become the kind of them final arbiters and except for now, except for racial gerrymandering. The Supreme Court has ruled that they should not be and cannot be, but but then

in the case of New York. So they actually have this racial gerrymandering case in Wisconsin that the that the court ruled unfairly privileged like created a disproportionate number of minority seats and shoved everybody else into these and met this. This in its own way was a violation of voting Rights ACT, and then you have. The Courtney work which is ruling on the grounds of a violation, of the language of the state constitution, which had been amended on this very point. So I think what we have here is, like I say, is. It is an example of the distortive effects of projection and mirroring on american politics, which is they do it so we're going to do it, and but what's more

we, do it it's good when they do it, it's evil, and you know why, because we're but in their bad, so vocs in places like that were absolutely outraged by the partisan gerrymander in North Carolina after the twenty twenty census, because we're already outraged by the partisan gerrymander in North Carolina after the two thousand and ten census, which led to several courts ruling that it was. You know that that it was ill get. And now this is even worse and it's terrible, but I don't see any of the articles on the Maryland Jerry or the or the new and why cause Box likes when Democrats do well and it doesn't like, when Republicans too poorly and sell it from there.

aside from the act of his class and the very very online people, and he he I you have to wonder what the parties think the american Voting Public thinks when they look on this stuff, I mean- I, I think it greatly tributes to the lack of faith in institutions and the reason that everyone is skeptical of everything. I need to see your your your parties vigorously attempting to cheat while, and to claim the moral high ground is deeply disturbing. It mean I understand it's the way of the world, but but but there's a there's, a sort of turbocharged quality to it at the moment. That I think, is very bad, but in other words we cheat because they cheat. So in essence, it's like okay.

The baseball. If you're going to use pine tar, I'm going to use a spitball, you know if you're going to cork your bat, I'm gonna, you know cut holes in the ball, I mean it's it that that is and That is, that is the rule of competitive cheating, always right when you get right down to it when, when people are confronted with being accused of cheating in a competitive TED situation, they will, they will say they did at first or what are you talking about? Everybody knows buddy. Does this and now you're singling me out. This is terrible. Give you another example this just for the just for the hell of it because of inability to hold yourself ansible for your own behavior. By and ah we are now seeing. We have been being over the course of the last two or three weeks, Op Eds. Now

increasing in number that are claiming that Khatami Brown Jackson's hearing was uniquely abusive to the nominee when in house has a peace. Today there were pieces all last week of Jonathan Cape out. You don't her stamp. How abuse of this was that she had to sit there and take this injustice, there were policy injustices over whether or not she was too soft. On John on on on a child, terms and things like that, and then they also serve insulted. Her did this it's just terrible. It's horrible and Some of us are sitting there going. Are you effing kidding me? First of all, it was pretty gentle right. Here's one example. Ah Ben Sasse said he couldn't out for Qatar, Jus Brown Jackson. Notwithstanding the fact that she was winsome, then it was. Like all said. She was once

heart, how dare he use such a condescending term saying somewhat? What does she pretty? What does she pretty and and and and vapid like winsome? That's a word. You used to describe an accomplished jurist with incredible record and all of that, and then it turned out that he had described Brett Kavanaugh as some in twenty eight him. So he had used the word winsome to mean appealing are attractive or something like that and brings up only to say that there is this fascinating fact, which is that people see evil intent, in the other guys behavior, when they themselves have engaged in behavior. That is equally as bad. If not worse, no one on earth could claim, unless you believe, every word that was said against republican nominees, for

really Brett Kavanaugh that Katana you Brown Jackson's treatment was anything less than kid gloves, because she wasn't accused of raping a girl in a house thirty five years ago, there's another there's another feature work here. That does strike me as being a little bit new ITALY, or at least a little bit more blatantly stated on macro side, and that's it they're, not just its, not just partisan tit for tat. Like you know, every every republican claims are nominees are being abused in an index, the cabinet, was so egregious that that was correct and and Democrats claim democratically moment, so unfair they're. Treating this way this way when Kavanaugh was nominated. I remember very clearly the Democrats message wasn't just that he's a terrible gang rapist who drinks too much beer and you know gambles or whatever all the other implications they had opposed character. It was that this position is so

important in a lifelong appointment that the process must drag on and on including a thorough, F B. I investigation we need to the process has to save us from these monsters who the Republicans are nominating on, but when it's their nominee, the process has to be belong like come on. Let's go! Let's get this signed off on, we we we gave you this perfect candidate, so I dunno why you're even questioning her about her actual record in sentencing, for example, and I think those attacks on process, whether it's you know the gerrymandering process, the voting process, the the confirmation as that's what actually undermines the average person's faith in our institutions, working and functioning well and and the idea that we have to simply with blind trust, except that the Democrats want democracy to three I've and the other side wants to undermine industry. It is that is the motivating principle these, for the most part, is and among them the others go along with it because it gets them elect, victories and anomalies, and what not, but that is what really just

was me this idea that when it's a democratic nominee, the process should be efficient, smooth and uncritical when it's republican nominee, the process has to be completely taken over by partisanship in order to make sure that these monsters are about. The reaction to Ben Sasse is instructive, because there was a lot of frustration with him. After saying, oh, you said all these nice things about the nominee and he's not going to vote for her. You know that's just rank partisanship while yet it's facilitated. This is a free vote. You don't have to vote for this. money, because we reduce the threshold to majority vote to Collins, has already said she's gonna vote for this. money because she votes for every Supreme Court nominee seems like around mouth they might get a couple of other Republicans. Nobody else has to because this nominee will be confirmed with The majority vote as a result of first Democrats nuking the syllabus for judicial nominees below the Supreme Court bench and then Republicans following up

they said they would by using it for the rest of the of the bench. So this is this: is the state of affairs that you asked for you got it look at things are much worse than they used to be in this regard. That is absolutely true. You know Scalia passed with ninety eight votes without any. I didn't two abstentions. I think in nineteen. Eighty six- and you know our g and Elena Kagan and Stephen Briar, and you know all sailed through with enormous majorities, bipartisan majorities. That was the way of the world at the the only case before absorbed the president. I was Clarence Thomas aside from the date of denial of Bob Work, as the Clarence Thomas ended up getting a fifty two forty eight vote, but but

as as no as you point out, he actually got the sixty vote threshold to close debate. To get to the vote to the floor. That's what's been eliminated, the closer about to allow an up a programme of a majority vote, but the apart the nature of these nominations. You know Alito Roberts like they did it. First, Sorry, like I, I hate that kind of thing, but for the for for Democrats to complain that the processes become hyper. Partisan when they created the conditions under which you were supposed to oppose a a highly our five nominee because of their views. Then they can't complain. When it goes the other way it's they can

They are and they're doing it and there seemed to be in other seems to be an idea that you're you're not allowed to do it, because she is a woman and she is black, but of course, of being a woman, Didn't spare Amy Coney Barrett from being accused of being part of a christian cult that that that believed women were subordinate to men, stating thing to think about. Of a woman under the age of fifty, with seven children who had risen was ambition enough and had risen far enough in her career while having seven children, including a child. Have special leads, but to make it to be, a nominee of the Supreme Court suggests that whatever whatever ideas were being promulgated by her, you know by this group of Catholic, you know the serve. That is catholic I thought group that she was part of, did not somehow impede our own process to to express

ambition and go on and then the less I don't have any hours of that hearing were dedicated to that nonsense. She was away that didn't spare her Reich, Clarence, Thomas's black, it didn't spare him, and, and also the idea, that any accusation of Republican is We must say necessary to be investigated like it was, you know, and the Lindbergh baby kidnapping. That is now axiomatic What things are getting worse and things are going to get worse in this regard with Democrats, because they have. Convince themselves that any republican victory of any kind are going forward. Is a threat to democracy because of Trump and because, if you don't say the trump was evil now you are. Could you are? You are part of the process of destroying Ordem. proceed from within and by the way, if you want, save our democracy from within. Therefore parson german

He is now even more important, because maybe it's cheating, but it's cheating with a higher purpose, which ultimately is what gerrymandering is it's not the guardian. The guardian SAM Levine, said the GOP's two thousand and twenty two efforts of twenty twenty two redistricting efforts were an attempt to quote rig the twenty twenty two elections are a Berman said if republicans prevail and bring in the twenty twenty two elections will be more bold and twenty twenty four, especially trumps on the ballot sets Ma. Scott is a professor at the University of Denver, embracing mascot, embracing not our mossy Gaza sitting as about Tommy Trust, is almost got us the art they were about Tommy that wasn't no he's acting I get is a profoundly wrong, diverse and soon to be our sponsor. If we keep it up over, none that have not, after this said here and try sets Mascot University Denver

embracing nonpartisan redistricting will cost the Democrats some seats and quite They control the house and several state legislatures which an abdication of their responsibility as a as a governing vehicle as a party with several constituencies that they're beholden to they have no choice but to deliver what they want, which is in the Atlantic. Headline quote: why Democrats might need to play dirty to win but yeah, so that's so that so that's where we are, and they just been talking themselves up into this froth right a long time yet what's manifesting in really ridiculous over reach that they were clamoring for people, The democratic party is not well served by its commentary, class,

who is well served by the commentary on certain arab class, they actually literally attempted with the Supreme Court case, to change to in to interrupt await federal courts into the. At district in process, which is described in the constitution and four by the way for liberal justices, supported that effort. So that was that's ten years old, like the like the we're going to get the partisan gerrymander one for all that, I think part of the reason for that is that what they understand? What Democrats understand is that when it comes to a gaming, the system, if the if the solution to a parson gerrymander are the creation of these non party, The commission's right at the door be no

bipartisan commissions that have to sit down- and you know, agree and Drum drum maps together and a that may not work. So you end up sending it back to the state legit it's your, which then draws a twenty two to four map like a new New York that then gets thrown out or they're really good, at they're, really good at getting themselves appointed to things like missions and they're, really good at you know being part of the staff that you know that the working staff that's hired by such commissions to do the computer work to design these commissions and things like that and I think that they can work their magic through these through these unelected bodies and as opposed to two hundred and forty years, american tradition that say that this is among the things are not two hundred and forty years whatever it is, since the constitution was written. This is among the things that you judge your congressman for his and and and congresses. How is how these is? How is

It's one of the it's one of the things that elected officials do that they can be. They can be run against on the grounds that they are trying to skew the political. Some to their own naked advantage at an how successful it is hard to know, but it is. But there is a direct that, though, remedy for part of partisan gerrymandering is voting out people gerrymander parties. Only you know- and maybe it doesn't work very well, but there is a remedy: it's not that there is no remedy any way. Ah lemme a step back for a second and talk to you about our friends at fast growing trees, dot com spring and summer are seasons for finally getting outdoors for entertaining pool parties and barbecues. But if your yard looks like a plant cemetery you're not going to enjoy it as much so get your place. Looking like a resort easy with fast growing trees, dot com,

when it comes to caring for your plants, know how matters that's. Why fast growing trees, dot comes experts, curate thousands of plant varieties that will thrive in your specific climate location and needs no waiting? I'm so still messy hauling plants all plants all over town, because you order over the over the phone in your shipped are shipped door. Your door hundred one to two days, plus they're, growing and caradvice, is available. Twenty four slash, seven, whether you're looking for increased privacy shade, adding some natural beauty to your yard. Fast growing trees have person plants and the expertise to help you find them, even if you've never had a green. So I'm not like like you do one million home gardeners have already seen what fast growing trees dot com can do for them, plus with their thirty day alive and thrive, guarantee. You can trust everything will be healthy for years to come, so go to fast, growing, trees, dot, com, slash commentary right now and get fifteen percent off your entire order. Get fifteen percent off at fast growing, trees, dot, com, slash commentary, fast, growing, trees, dot, com, slash comments:

sorry and sorry one second. While I pulled this other one up, you know what I'm going to say. It's, the Ex chair, I'm sitting in my ex chair. I got that dynamic, variable lumbar supporting my back. If I feel hot, they really right now can turn on the Ella MAX temperature regulation and call myself off if I feel cold, which I don't right now can turn on that Ella MAX temperature regulation and heat myself up or can your current office chair give you massage, while you're working in my ex chair can heat cold back support, massage unbelievable to my that dynamic variable lumbar all these facilities. All these all these Google has all these wonderful features. Try try the exchequer for yourself risk free creations.

As take my advice once you realize how much better your checks should be a lever go back, I promise I'll go to exchequer commentary. Doc come now. That's a letter acts the word chair, commentary, dot, com or call one eight for four for it chair for one hundred dollars off your order, exchange a guarantee of complete comfort, and you can finance your purchase for as little thirty dollars a month, Xchair commentary dot com. So one other thing I was going to mention, as as we are increasingly I'm talking about Colbert right hospitalizations are now down to the always number they ve been since we started collecting data on hospitalizations from covered, so the armor on wave and maybe whatever the new sub omicron wave that is coming true, is not is having is

burn through or is now at its height there were, it's three thousand hospitalizations day. Now there are sixteen and and it's and it's open day by day, as is the death toll, as is the case number, and yet just and Fox at Bloomberg has published a peace and we should mass forever. I notice that, various committee and are art terrified that we, or you know, ending restrictions too soon, and we are now eighteen days away from the CDC issuing its new guy, on or issuing or changing or allowing same place the guidance on whether or not we should mask on public transport. There's an amazing piece that just came out last night in Vanity fair.

Katherine Eban, who is one of the people who has been doing investigative work on move on end, and particularly the Eco Health alliance, run by Peter Data, which is the which is the focus of this piece. Remember Peter Desert somebody who got tens of millions of dollars the federal government to study the issue of corona viruses, jumping from animals to humans and engage the Wu Han instead of virology as his partner in doing so that he also organized this letter to the Lancet, the british Medical Journal, early in twenty twenty and abusing anybody who would claim that there might have been that the that the virus was not of natural origin.

that just jumped to people he he arranged a letter which has now been retracted on the grounds that should have been the grounds at the time that term he had an obvious, his interest in that he was somebody who got money from both DARPA and the defense. Analysis. Research do whatever. That thing is called an from the National Institutes of Health to do gain a function, research, meaning research where you actually you actually make a virus worse in the in the lab and see what effect it will have in humans and twenty fourteen, the federal government put a halt to all gain of function, research and that halt was then partially lifted or partially redesigned and twenty seventeen anyway. This piece reveals the extent to which the idea

that. Something untoward may have happened in the war on lab was far more accepted in the community of people who, study these things than we have been led to believe and that in early Last year, a paper was submitted Francis Collins, At the end, I ate convened a discussion group about a paper that was in preparing meaning that have been accepted for publication but was not yet published. by another Veronica, just named Jeffrey Bloom that had raised questions about the will on lab. Ah, it can, in the paper, contains sensitive revelations about the end I ate and how it had done things, and so he sent it to Francis Collins, head of the can convened a discussion and at this discussion, the

She suddenly turns from the paper itself to ways in which the paper should be suppressed. Here's how we could suppress it We said evolutionary biologist, Christian Andersen, the meeting became contentious Anderson found the preprint deeply troubling and said one of the things he said was we can publish this because he would mean Sky Anderson would need security outside his house. because he was scared. If this came out that people would blame him and virologist like him and therefore they would come after him, so the paper shouldn't be published. An Anderson, so Anderson said he was a screen or at the pre prince server.

then offered to either entirely delete the preprint or revise it in a way. That would leave no record that this had been done so as as we are going on here. We now have evidence of an effort to suppress at the highest levels of the Aragon, government information, ex scholar information raising questions about about the year, but the origins of the virus and people in the hearing of family and friends of Anthony fetch him prancing counts. Both a war on this call saying killed this paper, I'm gonna go into the computer and delete the paper because I'm afraid the people are going to come to my house now, the guy said this Anderson said. Bloom's account was false

other person on the call said that it was accurate. So I hear we are. The virus is going away. Pierce to be going or turning endemic or whatever you want to call it and the real question, here is, thank God, for this p, some other things, because I just don't think we can let this lie. I mean there, is that there is. There is a conspiracy at work to prevent us from finding out. What the origins of this were- and it's obviously incredibly important that we find but the origins of this word, not least because we are right now trying to figure out our geopolitical strategy on the planet earth in the twenty first century. And if the chair, neither had a material role in creating it and in really em

and in refusing to Share- Let'S- let's say they released it on purpose, but in refusing to share information early enough, that would have allowed people to say start the process of the vaccine, ins or something like that- and you know a million more than a million deaths are on their head hair. This with the revelation a month two months ago about the suppression of the in efficacy of booster shots for adults under forty. I think it was fifty and also shocking. I mean denial of of of relevant vital information for Americans. Of these people have fed the very forces that that

You know that they complained about because of the conspiracy that you're talking about that is real. They have not had the kind of compliance with the measures that they that David Forest, but the big the kind of compliance if they wanted to see- and it's completely understandable, to be honest, let's shocking as well as at the end candy. Fair story is how so very early on immediately the narrative was locked in, and this is at a time when public leave out she and others you're saying well, there's only so much. We know we're trying to figure this out, there's a lot of uncertainty, so we have to you have to trust us about lockdown about masking about all these policies that we're recommending trust us, because at least we have some expertise in this. So

we're going to figure it out. Meanwhile, they had already decided. We definitely aren't gonna. Look at any aspect of this. How this started over here. We're not we're not going to talk even talk about it. In fact, we're going to we're going to have to have this become anathema in any sort of public debate. That is weird that's a weird kind of power, move that that if we weren't talking about people's I was being at stake, would be clear, your bureaucratic posturing, but we are unlikely to be surprised by, but in this case the certainty of the message and all the stuff that no gym eggs is written about it. For the magazine about the big lie that immediately

and then there's something wrong with the public health bureaucracy that immediately resorts to that sort of narrative, framing and suppression of information at a moment of crisis when what they should be doing is being honest, let me let me just quote: one passage from Catherine erodes peace. The effort to close the debate in favor of the natural origin hypothesis continues today. In February, the New York Times gave front page treatment to a set of prepare member prepense, that's what this Jeffrey Bloom thing was written by Michael WAR Bay at the university errs on a christian Andersen. That's one of the people on the call and sixteen co authors, including Gary another person. That call that I talked about claiming that a new analysis of public data from the who on a market and move on provided quote This positive evidence that the virus first leaped humans from animals sold there. Do you remember this? We talked about this on the podcast, this New York Times piece, but a number of top scientists bloom among the

question that assertion saying the preference while worthy relied on incomplete data and found no infected animal. Here's in lipkin an apple, Let me I'll just in Columbia University who favours the natural origin theory favours it, believes in the finding of this pre print. I dont think they offer proof. They provide evidence that more strongly supports the linked to the wild animal market. There the Wuhan Institute of Virology and that's the way I would have phrased it so remember they gave this New York Times as a kind of a Hasi all the you've been reading, these lunatics for months, Nicholas Wade and others who are coming up with this

how can they be theory? And now we're gonna use this report, as you use a GEO location in this and then the other thing to prove definitively that this positively that that the recovered via covered virus was a covered. Nineteen was of it was of natural origin, but it didn't prove that as the story said- and it was part as as we now New York allowing itself to be used as part of a desperate effort by the scientific, epidemiological establishment to evade scrutiny and to cast down on the increasing body of evidence. That says we better take a hard look at the origins of

because the story that we were told from the beginning, that somebody ate a bat doesn't quite make sense that from one person eating a bat in a worldwide, several million people have died and a million people in the United States may have died, and and just the media, have decided again because of all the everything that happened and Trump and Republicans being skeptical and vaccines kept. There's a man all of that and that once again we have here the idea that you know maybe you gotta play dirty like if they're gonna release reports where they get data with citizens- scientists working going to release a preprint that does not find what we say saved finds important, that we can Gulf

your times into saying that it is positive that it has natural origin, because we were fighting a fight now that has to do not with finding the truth, but with the politics of of covered, and you now serve this general pope. Bizarre politicization, of covert, which is, I think, maybe one of the more pics, you're in disturbing examples of I don't know of of of so breakdown in our lifetimes that this is something that we have a fight over its not nobody is. It suggests partisan politics here, it's it's the sun, the US we ve talked about link here. It's the public cannot handle the truth, they'll be at my

her step with with with pitchforks. If they know the truth, no one will get a vaccinated ever again if they, if they know the truth, about the new findings on booster shops, for this population. So by the way. I think it is worth noting that as we as we speak today with all that Americans aren't getting vaccinated, they're the blah blah blah blah blah. We are at a seventy seven percent of Americans. All Americans from birth, I believe, have gotten. It one shot, so we've actually reached the level. I think it's sixty six percent of of everybody over the age of five has been double vaccinated. I mean

Well, how that achievement, or that accomplishment has gone totally an an unremarked, because that there is a general desperate effort to say you need to keep getting vaccinated. Oh uh go get your fourth booster It's not that it's not going to have much effect, go do it anyway. I I really think you should. I mean it's fast legs, of course I've. I happily got all three probably get the fourth, I don't know I'm in a dilemma. I have diabetes I'm over sixty, so I should probably get out that I should protect myself, because I have cobbler Betty's, Everyone call it, but I, but I, I and I know that it says that it's really not particularly effective. I've also had covered in the last four months or five months. By the way, I'm not even sure I can get it because I had coven here's what's interesting. I had coven the last. You know I dunno the end of December right. Okay, so I had very few symptoms

which I tested, and I had it in them. Five days later I tested, I didn't, have any more, I I and if I hadn't tested, I wouldn't have known that. I had it to be completely honest, so now they're saying don't get the booster if you've had covert in the last. I think it's ex months or maybe four months are not quite sure, but you wait until some period of time after you got covered to get the fourth both forget the fort shot, but there probably millions upon millions of people who had called who had no symptoms who didn't test so May, They shouldn't get the shot like. I don't know if you're not supposed to get the shot when you had covered before and a lot of had it. According to these estimates, who never actually were diagnosed

using a pcr antigen test maybe putting themselves at some risk by getting the shots. When we don't- I don't know any of that and that the immunity question is. the fascinating because they're so there's still so much we don't know. I mean I have friends whose kids had covert like two months ago and got and retested and had it again I mean they should have A certain amount of immunities are vaccinated, kids, but they so big. They picked it up again, with probably a variant probably again mild symptoms are fine, but we don't really know how pretty the community is, and we certainly don't know what that means in terms of interaction with boots or shouts of and again I shall say, you're you're dilemma about the. Mister John, is the same. When the parents of younger children have, with regard to vaccination at all given the fact that both Madonna and Pfizer, you know have have mixed signals,

about whether it's even necessary, given children's natural immunity and and the the extraordinarily low risk of hospitalization and death. For for most, you know healthy young children or it's facts. It's just want to remind everyone bring to the table. The around this, though we've all talked about, but just to let everybody know that the of the I'm looking at about thirteen issues that Pew Research center. Tell us the top issue for voters. The coronavirus regular ranks last dead last. It is behind the size and scope of better government, which only we care about is behind issues of race, is behind climate change, is behind gun policy is behind. Crime is behind everything because this is experienced. The outbreak is an experience shared by residents of large metropolitan areas,

and that's it. But but you know what residents of working well Mary is make up like twenty percent of the population in the United States and in electoral tore electoral terms, they are baked into the cave. right, but I am very honoured- usually see that anybody it goes after accepting primaries. These numbers confused me because then do do these poles of like whether or not you should still have mitigation measures like Mask in place and majorities of Democrats say you should want Jordan. Will then can you have not rats? This is kept. This is a concern for Democrats exclusively, but all the credit Like I have an answer, a lot of democrats- that is three per cent go ahead. Sorry they want, they want basking forever and they want to not because of coven. They want to punish the people. On the other side,.

they. They, though I thought I mean they want them worse than this regime on their enemies, that they do that's absolutely part of it, but it's also a badge you might as well be wearing and our ban. That says your political affiliations. I think people ask by pollsters, whether people should be masked. If you are a liberal Democrat you or if you are a Democratic Europe where Europe of a woman, and that you say yes, but you don't mean it that's, I think. Ultimately, the problem with the is when you do that pole about what what is the most serious issue you have, incentive to lie about the about the importance of the virus, somehow like because there are other things you want men might want to say, but when you're asked questions specifically in the universe of the virus alone, that's when the partisan,

nature of the response the virus kicks in and there are things we're supposed to say right. There are things we're supposed to say to prove that you are a good person and a you know, a noble person and all that and that's sad, that's what this is. I think and and it's it's it's absolutely meaningless. That these people say that we should remain masked and their voices are amplified a billion fold by social media. there's the cdc still sitting there and it's going to wait till April nineteen to release people from the masking mandate on on on public. in everything we do meltdown. I mean there's an outside chance that they accept it. I don't think it's likely

but there is certainly in- and I don't sleep I the White House- will not allow that is. I think it's very plain. I will tell you this. The white I RON Klain, is not going to lie it. I I we've been saying this for two years. These are political. These are decisions that darn, just you know medical or epidemiological, or something like they are also political right at this makes Sean Patrick Maloney. The head of the Dccc has said. I don't ever want to hear about masking ever again. They are terrified of this. They know that this is poison for them with you know, with swing voters and and that we're not can I see it? It is that they should just do it now, so they get a little more credit for it, but they're not going to write but right. This is all political and the politics favour moving on from the pandemic in Toto their lot

well we're where's the constituency for this. These are the people who are closest to the ground. They would respond to political incentives. They are responding to belittle bonds and gives anything incentives favoured governmental, geisha policies. They would absolutely be embracing and endorsing him. I agree, but so so, Do it today, all by once do is change the subject. We keep hearing that like, oh now, he says the street or roadway. This is one thing where he won't have to make a gas leak thinking, just they can just free Americans from the mask, but he won't do it. Because They said they were not allowed to be examined as it's: it's not just airplanes where you have to ask its trains its bus. Yes, it's all about transportation, helping transport and most most of the UN. The jet setters fly to or three times a month at most, but most people don't fly with that kind of regularity, most people of Darfur,

at all. But will people use the train every day? It is a bus every day and the people who are making these regulations don't almost never very rarely. They certainly don't commute into that we're on public transportation, to the CDC offices, where they make these regulations and put these regulations in place. They don't see it, they don't have to see it and it's not for them anyway, the responsible once I'm going to be very interesting to see when they lift the restrictions, whether things change on outlook, I know I'm focused on New York, but New York does have the largest mass transit system in the United States before the pandemic, six and a half million, what's took the subways every day: six and a half million that numbers down a one poised at like ninety percent. Now I think it's down forty percent or fifty percent,

and I will be- I would be interested to see whether what when they lift the masking restrictions, when that number will pop up and is really important for the civil society of New York City, that that number right because one of the reasons that the subjects of gotten so unsafe and that they have gotten creepy and that they have got menacing and disturbing and seemingly dammit, it by a schizophrenic and psychopathic people is that they are somewhat empty and unless they stopping empty New York's ability to create to recreate its civil society that it lost because of the pandemic is going to be very, very much as this is gonna be a real world test of what how people have read I stood there lives because they don't want to spend forty five minutes in a mask on the subway. If they can avoid it, so they later I traveled to do something like that like people in L who won't you know, don't go to neighborhoods where they have to drive because of because of traffic,

so they will avoided the subway. Maybe they'll stop avoiding it. Maybe they'll go back to officers offices when they know that they can leave their house without a mass. They can get onto a subway that a mask and then go into their office building without a mask and go into their office without a mask. A seamless emasculate experience where you don't have to have a mask in your pocket and it'll be. I just think that something to watch for whether whether there is one of the things, That it has remained to prevent the return of ordinary life, particularly as the virus recedes in importance and send tragedy has is this but we won't know until until that actually happens.

Thank you very much for listening have a wonderful. We get again commentary dot. Org slash live podcast. If you want to join us next Wednesday April six impossible Florida for that live to take podcast of this very pod cast for a knowing Christine, John Podhoretz, keep the candle burning.