Wednesday Potpourri

First, Andrew Sullivan must have been channeling Tom Wolfe when he wrote this portrait of Joe Biden entering the House of Representatives to give his State of the Union Speech.

He looks very old though. The first thought I had watching Biden enter the House was that he looks less like Biden than someone wearing a Biden Halloween mask. The features are all there in some kind of uncanny valley, buoyed by fillers and stretched by Botox into a mask that hovers somewhere between Jo[an] Rivers and John Kerry, the pure black raisin eyes peering from within the carved carapace of what was once a face. The Botox is so severe that he has the habit of looking and listening to someone without any measurable change of expression, as if frozen until he can prove that he is not a mannequin. That gives him the open-mouthed squint expression that makes him seem angry at something and yet clueless about why at the same time. 

Second, for those of you with a more scientific bent, psychiatrist Dr. Carole Lieberman offers an analysis via the Washington Times:

A psychiatrist who has worked with elderly dementia patients said President Biden exhibited signs of stimulant use to mask cognitive decline in his amped-up, aggressive State of the Union speech on Thursday.

Mr. Biden, 81, often raced through his remarks with the speed of an auctioneer, loudly shouting his words despite having a microphone in front of him.

Speed and volume of speech can be a sign of using Adderall or another amphetamine, said Dr. Carole Lieberman, a forensic psychiatrist based in Beverly Hills, California.

“If you look at how Joe Biden usually is — slow and stumbling — compared to how he was during the State of the Union — fiery and angry — these are signs that are typical for someone taking Adderall or any amphetamine,” she said.

Third, the media is abuzz about George Stephanopoulos’ Sunday interview with Rep. Nancy Mace. As you know, George chose to bring up the fact that Mace had been raped, and therefore, should not have been supporting Donald Trump who was not convicted of rape.

To that Joe Concha offers the proper retort:

… George Stephanopoulos worked for Bill Clinton and served as his attack dog. 

Clinton has been accused on multiple occasions of rape. He paid off Paula Jones hundreds of thousands of dollars for sexual harassment. Why didn't Stephanopoulos resign on the spot?

Good question. Is the answer forthcoming?

Fourth, and then there is the case of Tara Reade, who accused Joe Biden of sexually assaulting her. 

The New York Post has the story:

Reade waded into the feud by reiterating her accusations against Biden, 81, who has vehemently denied the claims.

“A reminder again @ejeancarroll that you know I was raped by Biden when I was his staffer and silenced by the media and yet you publicly support my rapist!” Reade posted.

“Sit down before you lecture other rape survivors. Hypocrisy surrounding you. @GStephanopoulos knows I exist as well and knows what Biden did. The morally bankrupt elite democrats [sic] know what Joe Biden is but still prop him up.”

Fifth, Victor Davis Hanson offers this summation of the current political wars, especially the Democratic pretense to be saving democracy:

The defense of those destroying democracy is that they are doing it to prevent others from doing what they would do, should they have been on the receiving end of exactly what they are now doing.

Sixth, by now you know that a certain group of New York firefighters booed New York’s Attorney General, Letitia James. She had embarrassed herself by hunting down Donald Trump,the better to punish him-- for, God knows what.

But then, one John Hodgens, a Chief of Department, declared that he would “hunt down” the offending firefighters, because we cannot have anyone disrespect Tish.

To which Alan Dershowitz replied:

Firefighters have an absolute constitutional right to boo the attorney general, and the government has no power to punish them for it. So, efforts to get the names of the booers is an effort by the government to kill free speech and is unconstitutional.

Sixth, writing in the Wall Street Journal Gerard Baker addressed the simple fact that Israel is being treated differently in the world media and on the political left.

One might say that after the Holocaust, when European Jews failed to defend themselves, the prospect of an armed Jewish state going to war shocked the delicate sensibility of those who imagined that Israel would naturally surrender to the superior power of the armies of Islam.

And, of course, nations around the world are trashing the Jewish state for doing what armies at war do. They are trying to exploit Jewish guilt.

Baker explained:

The insistent effort by some governments, officials and much of the media in the U.S. and Europe to get the Jewish state to relent against enemies that actively seek to destroy it gives rise to the suspicion that for too many of them, perhaps Israel doesn’t deserve the right to exist at all.

The basis for this calumny, from the lips of everyone from U.N. leaders to self-promoting Hollywood mavens, is that Israel has—either recklessly or, in the more repugnant description of some of its critics, out of genocidal intent—massacred tens of thousands of innocent civilians. The scale of the killing is deemed to delegitimize Israel’s war.

Aside from the fact that no one has been wailing about the dead civilians killed during World War II or during the Gulf War, the truth remains that the numbers of dead Gazan civilians are subject to doubt. As I and many others have pointed out, they have been provided by Hamas, and we have no reason to think that Hamas is honest:

To the terror group, the propaganda value of a dead Palestinian child is as great as that of an Israeli….

An intriguing statistical analysis by Abraham Wyner in Tablet magazine last week scrutinized the number published by Hamas and noted several statistical oddities, including an implausibly steady and consistent increase in the dead day by day and a curiously tiny number of civilian men among the casualties.

“Taken together Hamas is reporting not only that 70 percent of casualties are women and children, but also that 20 percent are fighters,” he notes. “This is not possible unless Israel is somehow not killing noncombatant men, or else Hamas is claiming that almost all the men in Gaza are Hamas fighters.”

Baker concludes that Israel seems to be the only nation that needs permission to defend itself. If some group had invaded the United States, gang raped women and massacred children, no one would have thought that retaliation was unwarranted.

Why does Israel always seem to be held to a different standard? To see the answer, to understand why Israel is usually portrayed as the blood-lusting warmonger, it might be helpful to reframe our original question. Instead of asking what Israel has to do to be allowed to defend itself, we might simply ask: What do Jews have to do to be allowed to defend themselves?

As of now, it’s not about being allowed to do anything. Joe Biden notwithstanding, the Israeli government is doing what it has to do. Naturally, the Biden administration, having financed Hamas and their Iranian supporters, is now trying to undermine the unity of the Israeli government.

Seventh, speaking of polls, consider this one, from Israel:

Channel 12 poll tonight in Israel: who would you like to see win the US election in November? Trump: 44% Biden: 30%

Apparently, they did not get the message that Trump is Hitler.

Eighth, the National Health Service in Great Britain has just banned the use of puberty blockers.

From its report:

We have concluded that there is not enough evidence to support the safety or clinical effectiveness of PSH to make the treatment routinely available at this time.

If you like, here is the Babylon Bee headline:

Millions Of British Kids Forced To Live Normal, Happy Lives After UK Bans Puberty Blockers 

Please subscribe to my Substack, for free or preferably for a fee.