An Effective Treatment for the Coronavirus

Now they tell us.

Apparently, hydroxychloroquine is an effective treatment of coronavirus. So says Yale professor Harvey Risch:

An Ivy League epidemiology professor is claiming that hydroxychloroquine — the drug that has been at the center of a politicized medical debate for the last several months — is "the key to defeating COVID-19," and that medical officials should be widely prescribing it to save the lives of thousands of coronavirus patients. 

Harvey Risch, a professor of epidemiology at Yale as well as the director of that school's Molecular Cancer Epidemiology Laboratory, argues in a Newsweek op-ed this week that "the data fully support" the wide use of hydroxychloroquine as an effective treatment of COVID-19. 

"When this inexpensive oral medication is given very early in the course of illness, before the virus has had time to multiply beyond control, it has shown to be highly effective," Risch argues in the column. 

If only the drug had not been politicized by… you know who. In truth, when Donald Trump touted the drug, he made it a political issue. Considering the fact that he has no qualifications to recommend or not any medication, he should have allowed someone who has such qualifications to present the story.

It’s all about a failed communications strategy. 

The Democratic Party Supports Anti-Jewish Genocide

Hopefully, we have heard the last of the Russian collusion narrative, the cudgel that sore-loser Democrats trotted out to beat down the Trump administration. Among its purposes, to sustain the Obama Middle East policy by continuing to support Iran and to undermine Israel.

Yes, indeed. While everyone is ranting about Russian collusion the Obama administration and its satraps were colluding with Iran to destroy Israel. Now, the Biden campaign has written up the Middle East plank to its campaign platform, and, would you believe, it is starkly opposed to Israel. It is also opposed to the reformists in the Gulf Arab states.

Naturally, it was happy to throw Jewish Democrats a bone. Most of them will support the Democratic Party, no matter what. That means, no matter how anti-Semitic it has become.

Bruce Abramson and Jeff Ballabon outlined the problems in Newsweek (via Maggie’s Farm). They begin by reminding us of one of the worst aspects of the Obama administration Israel policy. It involved compromising Israeli intelligence and sabotaging Israeli operations. As a contrast, recently someone attacked Iran’s nuclear installations, setting back their nuclear program. Most savvy observers believe that Israel was responsible. Obviously, under a Biden presidency, the Iranians would have been tipped off in advance.

Speaking of Jewish Democrats:

They know that much as they may have admired the Obama-Biden administration on other grounds, its "daylight" doctrine had been an unmitigated disaster for Israel. In a stark, stunning and explicit departure from decades of bipartisan U.S. policy promising "no daylight" and "no surprises" between the allies, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry revealed Israeli intelligence, sabotaged operations and engaged in stealthy diplomatic attacks on the Jewish state—culminating in the notorious UNSC 2334 declaration that the mere act of Jews living in Judea is criminal. The party's progressive base has made no secret of its desire to pocket 2334 and orient American policy in directions increasingly antagonistic towards Israel—and increasingly dangerous to Jewish life. The purported "pro-Israel" Democrats needed a pro-Israel platform for assurance.

Now that the Democratic National Committee has released its platform, the Iranians are cheering. They are doing so openly, because they know that American Jews are not smart enough to understand what is happening:

But the Democratic National Committee released a platform 180 degrees off from the spin. It's so pro-Iran that the National Iranian-American Council, the de facto Iranian regime lobby in Washington, immediately "applauded" the DNC "for its forward-leaning platform commitments on issues of importance to the Iranian-American community." It demonstrates that President Obama's curious preference for the supremacists running the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood, rather than our traditional regional allies, has become mainstream Democratic ideology.

That is to say, the Democratic Party has become the party of Anti-Semitism-- but at least it isn’t racist.

Compare to the Trump record:

Trump administration policies have brought the bloody Islamic Republic to its knees. The Democrats seek to restore its vitality by ending sanctions and re-entering President Obama's odious Iran deal. Every faction across Israel's notoriously fractious political spectrum agreed that this deal was an existential threat. Biden and the 2020 Democrats take the opposing view: Regime change is wrong; diplomacy and economic engagement can restrain the mullahs.

Just as important is the fact that the Democratic Party, in its lust to support Iran and to work to destroy Israel, is taking aim at Israeli and American allies in the region-- the Gulf Arab states. Note well, the authors emphasize the fact that while Iran imposes strict shariah law, these Muslim states have been moving toward significant cultural reform. Naturally, the Democratic Party cannot tolerate that. So, we have the pathetic spectacle of feminists lining up to support a party that wants to validate the rule of the mullahs, one of the most misogynist regimes on the planet:

Next up, the Gulf Arabs: A new generation of leaders have recently expanded women's rights, confronted Islamism, acted to curb terrorism, deepened ties to the U.S. and moved towards ending the Arab/Israeli conflict. Biden and the 2020 Democrats prefer to "reset" those warm relations in order to keep America's traditional Gulf allies at arms length.

The Democratic platform does propose a small American troop presence, the better to do what the Obama administration failed to do. That is, to end the ISIS caliphate. Did anyone notice that before Obama there was no caliphate. After Obama there was no caliphate. During Obama there was a caliphate. Seriously, do you trust Joe Biden to stop the return of the caliphate?

The authors argue that the presence of American troops will ultimately serve merely to inhibit the actions of Israeli troops, troops that have been destroying Iranian bases in Syria:

Beyond merely calling to strengthen the genocidal Iranian regime while weakening reformers seeking to integrate Israel into the broader region, the platform also advocates a "small, finite and focused" U.S. troop presence nonetheless capable of training the Iraqi military and Syrian militias, stabilizing both countries, securing the Kurds and preventing a resurgence of the ISIS caliphate. Left unsaid is that such a presence does little more than dare belligerents to attack Americans while constraining Israeli freedom of action.

The Democratic Party sees no difference between Israel and the terrorists of the Palestinian Authority. It believes in paying off people who have committed terrorist acts. When will these fools learn that the best approach to terrorism is to starve the beast, to declare that the terrorists have forfeited all rights, except the right to surrender:

It baldly equates America's loyal, liberal, democratic ally Israel with a corrupt, genocidal and profoundly anti-American terror organization that wreaks havoc on Jewish lives and perpetuates the squalid misery of Arabs under its yoke. It equates Jewish homeownership in disputed areas—to which Israel possesses by far the best historical and legal claims—not with Arab homeownership in those same disputed areas, but with Arab terror.

Having thus undermined Israel's right to exist, the platform calls for an unconditional commitment to restore Palestinian Authority (PA) funding that the U.S. has withheld until the PA ends its program of paying for murder, popularly known as "pay-for-slay." The PA's response to this American demand has been utter rejectionism; billionaire terror-chief Mahmoud Abbas insists on his right to use American money to fund terror.

As it happens, one is somewhat surprised to read the following in a mainstream publication like Newsweek.

With this Israel plank in its platform, Joe Biden and the 2020 Democrats have effectively adopted the terrorists' creed, excusing, justifying and encouraging the murder of Jews, denying history and law, and promoting the continued rise of global anti-Semitism. While the platform committee may have allowed the purportedly "pro-Israel" operatives to remove the word "occupation" from the text, its substance reaffirms the Democrats' commitment to the unspeakably anti-Semitic and anti-American notion of "judenrein" territory—the ethnic cleansing of Jews from their historic homeland. Selected details and linguistic niceties cannot spin away the platform's substantive anti-Jewish reality.

It is both telling and terrifying that purportedly "pro-Israel" Democrats have cast this disastrous platform as a victory. The platform's avoidance of the term "occupation" and its mild critique of BDS are smokescreens intended to let pro-Israel voters convince themselves that they're not voting for anti-Jewish genocide.

Surely, the Squad is smiling.

America vs. China: the State of Play

Most people are not very concerned about the state of play in the clash of Western and Chinese civilizations. After all, we have more diversity, more social justice warriors, more bureaucrats and more lawyers. How could we not win?

Besides, the Chinese are evil. Don’t you know it? I’m sure you do. And in the final battle between good and evil, good will always win.

And then we have our ace of trumps: we have higher self-esteem. When it comes to filling ourselves with unearned praise, we are world champions. We might not be willing to spend what it takes to compete in the world of high tech, but we feel good about ourselves.

Anyway, David Goldman sheds the light of reason on the current competition. He has far better information than I do about many of the high tech developments, so his is a voice worth heeding.

As opposed to our government, which is trying to manufacture diversity, the big, bad Chinese government is investing in technology, roughly as we used to do. In truth, Goldman says, the Chinese got the idea from us:

We face a strategic rival that wants to play America’s winning hand in the Cold War, through massive support for dual-use technologies, guided by a Communist legislature that includes more than 100 billionaires. And this strategy is hardly a secret; Huawei’s plan to seize the control points of the Fourth Industrial Revolution is promulgated in streaming video on the company’s website.

The state of play-- China leads in 5G broadband:

China already leads in 5G broadband, building three times as many network towers as America on a per capita basis. Americans tend to think of broadband as a consumer technology and 5G as a faster way to download videos. China views 5G as the enabler of a Fourth Industrial Revolution, just as railroads launched the First Industrial Revolution. (The second and third were powered by electricity and computing, respectively.) Made possible by 5G are game-changing technologies like self-programming industrial robots, remote robotic surgery, autonomous vehicles, and smartphones that do medical diagnostics and upload data to the cloud in real time—not to mention deadly drone swarms and other military applications.

China leads in artificial intelligence:

China has become the world leader in artificial intelligence, not because its computer scientists are smarter than Microsoft’s , but because China has a huge advantage in data—the fuel that powers the AI engine. In medical technology, which may become the biggest growth industry of the 21st century, it commands a vast database of digitized patient medical histories and DNA. Soon it will have real-time readings on the vital signs of hundreds of millions of its own people, and, if Huawei’s plans mature, hundreds of millions of people outside China as well.

America’s tech companies have given up on hardware: 

Washington is falling behind because it abandoned the defense driver for innovation that won the Cold War. The digital age would still be struggling to be born were it not for America’s tech companies, but for the past 20 years they’ve shifted to capital-light software, letting Asia make the hardware. China subsidizes capital-intensive industry the way the U.S. subsidizes stadiums. This shortsightedness now threatens America’s standing as the world’s leading military power and largest economy.

But, we are puffed up with self-esteem, so we feel better even though we are losing:

There’s a world of difference between winning and making yourself feel better while losing. It’s time for the U.S. to face up to the magnitude of the Chinese challenge and abandon some self-consoling myths—such as the tired notion that China steals technology because it can’t innovate. China can innovate, and already it is ahead in 5G broadband, quantum cryptography and key applications of AI. Homegrown innovation, not intellectual property theft, should be America’s biggest tech worry.

Will the Chinese banking system collapse? Goldman says No:

Further, China’s banks won’t collapse anytime soon. Growing countries with a high national savings rate and a current-account surplus don’t have unmanageable financial crises. China’s economy will show positive growth this year while U.S. and European economies shrink.

But then there is the matter of semiconductors. As of now the leading manufacturers of chips are South Korea and Taiwan. The leading American producer, Intel, has recently suggested that it might offshore its chip manufacturing facilities.

So, we can inhibit Huawei’s access to chips, but not for very long:

Restricting China’s access to technology—for example, computer chips built by foreign foundries using American equipment—will slow China only temporarily. Huawei may not be able to fabricate chips in Taiwan, but it can hire anyone who’ll work for it, and about 10% of Taiwan’s chip engineers are now working in mainland China to build up Beijing’s domestic semiconductor industry. The U.S. still leads in chip-making equipment, but American machines are neither indispensable nor the most advanced in the key area of lithography.

But, we are fight back with tariffs. Nothing wrong with tariffs, especially when used in order to right a lopsided trade relationships. But, are the tariffs hurting China? Apparently, not:

Placing tariffs on Chinese exports to the U.S. hasn’t hurt China much, either. Total Chinese exports to the U.S. now amount to less than 3% of Chinese GDP. Exports have fallen to 18% of China’s GDP, from a 2006 high of 36%, as domestic consumption has risen. In fact, per capita domestic consumption has risen ninefold in the past 30 years.

Financial sanctions against China have backfired. The Trump administration’s threat to kick Chinese companies off U.S. exchanges only threw them into Xi Jinping’s briar patch—that is, Hong Kong, where secondary listings have drawn tens of billions of dollars into the local market.

Anyway, we are up in arms about the treatment of the Uighur minority within China, We have called the Chinese Nazis over and over again. We are going to crack down to defend the Uighurs. The world's Muslim leaders have nothing to say about it, but we want to occupy the moral high ground on this one. Apparently, it’s a lot of smoke blowing:

Denouncing human-rights abuses, like the brutal treatment of the Uighur minority in Xinjiang province, doesn’t impress Beijing. The Chinese empire has been exterminating what it sees as “unruly barbarians” on its borders for thousands of years, and it won’t change its methods now.

Surely, China has a responsibility for the current coronavirus pandemic, but the more salient issue is: what can we do about it. Should we wag our moral fingers at them or should we set out to become more competitive in science an technology:

Whatever opprobrium China deserves for the Covid-19 pandemic, wagging fingers won’t get anyone anywhere. The U.S. needs to play offense, not defense. That means a return to the policies that won the Cold War and made American innovation the envy of the world: Reagan-era funding levels for basic research, Manhattan Project priority for critical technologies like quantum computing and missile defense, a national program for 5G build-out, and a science education program on the model of the post-Sputnik National Defense Education Act of 1958.

In truth, America is not worrying about science and engineering and technology. It is consuming itself over diversity. And it is hard at work defunding the police. Do you really imagine that engineering diversity is more important than engineering semiconductor chips? But, if all else fails, we will sue.

I bet that that is keeping them up at night in Beijing.

The American Media Self-Deconstructs

We Americans pride ourselves on our free press. And yet, our press increasingly seems to be the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party. It seems to believe that it is not doing its job if it is not harassing and bullying Donald Trump. It makes up stories, compliments itself for making up stories, wins awards for making up stories and, when it is caught in the lies, declares that it is purveying a higher truth.

With a couple of conspicuous exceptions the press has long long since discarded with the requirement to present facts objectively. Anything that does not fit its ideological framework is denounced as hate speech and is condemned. After the mob at the New York Times chased Bari Weiss from the paper, for being Jewish, 280 staffers from the news division at the Wall Street Journal wrote a letter complaining that the editorial side of the paper was publishing information they found offensive. One is confident that the Journal will not take the bait, but, as a symptom of what the millennial woke generation, a generation that has suffered nonstop indoctrination in its school years, will be bringing to the table-- I defy you to feel optimistic. People who do not know enough to debate issues will do their best to make sure that only one point of view is presented.

As for the profitability of newspapers, it has long since vanished. Daniel Greenfield analyzes the situation (via Maggie’s Farm):

McClatchy had bought Knight Ridder for $4.4 billion to create the second largest news company. After going into Chapter 11 bankruptcy, McClatchy was won in an auction by a hedge fund, which also owns the National Enquirer, in a secret bidding which started with $30 million cash and $270 million in debt.

None of this says anything good about the future of its D.C. bureau, or the Miami Herald, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, the Sacramento Bee, the Kansas City Star, and other hollowed out husks of major urban papers carrying huge loads of pension debt and even bigger loads of radical left-wing politics.

Earlier this year, Warren Buffett had dumped 30 newspapers that he had bought for $344 million for $140 million. The Newseum, a $450 million media museum, backed by Gannett, was sold off last year.

Gannett, the biggest newspaper chain in the country, lost $80 million in the first quarter of the year even after a merger in which it slashed jobs at some of the hundreds of newspapers which it controls.

The bottom line is not looking very good.

The jobs situation is no better:

Over 20,000 media jobs have been wiped out in the previous two years and it’s just getting started.

Advertisers are fleeing, as are subscribers:

There’s too much content chasing too few advertisers and subscribers. The internet took away the death grip that local papers had on certain kinds of advertising and made other kinds irrelevant. And people have a lot more options for breakfast reading material than just subscribing to the local rag.

As though the economics were not bad enough, the media has been radicalized:

The media radicalized even as it became more economically vulnerable, alienating print subscribers who tend to be older and more conservative. Papers have been chasing digital subscribers, who are more likely to be younger and leftist, but that’s only a viable strategy for a handful of national papers, the New York Times and the Washington Post, which embraced a radical agenda and a vow to bring down Trump.

You have to wonder how these papers will maintain their subscription bases after Trump. Of course the Post is a pet project of the world’s richest man, so it will not soon be going out of business. As for more local papers, the story is different.

The Times and the Post can drive conversation, dominate the news cycle with an anti-Trump conspiracy theory, or turn historical revisionism like the 1619 Project into a curriculum, a TV show, and a movie. But that’s not a realistic option for the Sacramento Bee or the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Advertisers will flock to the Times and the Post because they have affluent readers and drive the conversation. But local papers will go on bleeding older and more conservative readers while the hedge funds that own them slash jobs, eliminate entire papers, and eventually give up on the whole media venture as a bad idea.

Online media sources are not doing much better:

And it’s not just the dead tree media that’s in trouble. Digital darlings like the Huffington Post, Vice and Vox have been cutting jobs because clickbait doesn’t win over subscribers who will pay for content. Network television and cable news are on their last legs as cable subscribers cut the cord and content providers set up their own Netflix rivals. What happens to NBC News or CNN in a marketplace defined by Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, Peacock, HBO Max, CBS All Access, and whatever other platforms will pop up?

So, the media is being transformed into a socialist enterprise, a political action movement that is pushing an agenda.

What we think of as the media, a series of private companies reporting the news to customers willing to pay for their services, is evolving into a political movement that views its platforms as a public service.

Surely, the new agenda rejects free markets. Despairing of competing in the marketplace it aspires to become either a government function or the property of tech tycoons. These latter, as I have often noted, are buying protection. They will let their media do whatever it pleases as long as it leaves them alone:

The transformation of the media from for-profits to non-profits sheds any commitment to the marketplace, to a community of readers who pay for its services, and instead puts it at the service of dot com tycoons who want to invest in left-wing causes. The experience of reading or watching the media’s content also changes from information to indoctrination. As is the case with so many of the dot com giants which finance the media and on whose platforms the media depends, the reader and the viewer are no longer consumers, they are the product that is being sold to the media’s political backers.

From information to indoctrination-- it is impossible to dispute the point. The alternative is a government owned and government run media. This will appeal especially to those who are allergic to the free market.

The end result is State News, a product that closely resembles the government news networks in China or Russia, but which is still distributed across a variety of organizations and which is controlled by social media narratives coordinated across social networks rather than by a central government agency.

And you were worrying about Communist Party control of the Chinese media.

Wish Fulfillment or Bad Habits

Consider this a gloss on my prior post about the wife who is frustrated because her husband does not turn out the bathroom light. Several commenters wrote in with suggestions about motion sensor light switches. Apparently, they turn on when you walk into the room and turn themselves off after you leave. Surely, they will solve the problem, without very much therapy.

Anyway, the problem raised an interesting psycho issue, one that I avoided yesterday. So, here it is for today. According to therapy culture principles, and according to Freud and a bevy of other therapists, the man who is not turning the lights out is enacting some hostile feelings toward his wife. These feelings might be a replay of feelings he had toward his mother, his aunt, or his sister. 

If that is the case, proper therapy would require him to get in touch with his hostility-- manifestly misogynistic-- and then to resolve the feelings by gaining insight and awareness into the true cause, the true object and whatever. How would he do this? He would recollect his past ill feelings toward a woman, he would narrate his hostility, make it a part of his life story, feel guilty about what a bad man he is and do proper penance for his sins. Proper penance would mean doing the laundry for a month, voting for Hillary Clinton or burning down a federal court house.

Anyway, the key is that the man’s bad behavior would be rendered meaningful by being placed within a life historical narrative. Some therapists would then want to weave the new story into some pagan myth or legend. The man would then know why he feels such hostility toward his wife.

As you can see, such was not my approach. I took a different tack, one that did not require us to accuse him of anything or even to lay a guilt trip on him. I was assuming that the action did not express any dark, repressed hostility to his wife. I was assuming that it was a bad habit. And thus, that if we can find a way to break the habit, perhaps by installing motion sensors in the bathroom, the man will not automatically find another way to express his hostility. The reason is, he does not feel especially hostile toward his wife, and will not feel thusly unless we manage to persuade him that he is.

You can find a variant of this theme in Malcolm Gladwell’s book, Talking to Strangers. In it Gladwell argues cogently that suicidal behavior is not merely an expression of suicidal intention. This means, if a suicidal individual does not find a way to kill himself, perhaps because, as happened in the case of the Golden Gate Bridge, construction workers have put up netting that makes it far more difficult to jump into the bay, he will not necessarily find an alternative way to kill himself. He might as well give up on the idea of suicide. Statistically, such appears to be the case with bridge jumpers in San Francisco.

Freudian theory declares that unconscious wishes will necessarily express themselves, whether we like it or not, whether we choose to or not. We might decide not to express something, but it will express itself through other means-- through symptoms, through slips of the tongue, through bad behavior. 

Now, the new theory suggests that we have more of a choice about what we choose to express. It suggests that even a wish to commit suicide can be rejected if the means are not readily available. By Gladwell’s theory, the suicidal individual enters into a dialogue with reality. (or perhaps with God) And he is capable of not acting on his impulse if reality seems to be saying No to him.

Turning Out the Lights

From our extensive study of advice columns we have come away with the impression that American marriages are being destroyed by issues surrounding household chores. If this does not wipe some of that optimism off your face, nothing will. There is no more division of household labor-- a certain ideological crusade put an end to it-- so no one knows who is supposed to do what. Given how easily certain spouses are triggered, certain other spouses take every occasion to get a rise out of them.

Anyway, we welcome the addition of a new advice column, by Elizabeth Bernstein of the Wall Street Journal. If you must write in to an advice columnist, she will surely be vastly superior to Ask Polly or even Carolyn Hax.

In order to provide an amuse bouche for her new column, Bernstein offered up a letter and a response as an addendum to her weekly Bonds column.

Check it out:

Dear Bonds,

My husband leaves the lights on in the bathroom when he leaves. Every. Time. Is it acceptable, after having asked nicely for him to remember to turn them off (for 19 years), to smack him in the head with my slipper?

—Lit in L.A.

You do not even want to imagine what certain other columnists would say. Bernstein shows herself to be sane and sensible.

Dear Lit,

Put down your weapon. As satisfying as it might be in the moment, smacking your husband is not going to help you achieve your goal, which is to be heard. After all, your real irritation isn’t the light being left on, it’s feeling that someone you love is ignoring something that matters to you.

It’s time for a chat. (Notice I said “chat” and not “talk.” Chats are light and breezy. Talks are what you do with your lawyer.) Wait until you’re both relaxed. Then say, “Hey, I’m just curious: Why don’t you ever turn off the bathroom light?” Let your husband explain himself. Maybe he’ll have a good answer—his hands are wet and he doesn’t want to muck up the wall. (I know, I’m stretching here.) Chances are he’ll have no excuse—he just doesn’t notice that the light is on. Once you’ve given him a chance to speak, calmly explain that it is a big deal to you, which is why you keep bringing it up. Tell him why it matters—you’re the one in charge of the electric bill, or you’re tired of changing the lightbulb or every time you see that light burning for no reason, you hear your dad’s voice, admonishing you for leaving your childhood bedroom light on. Explain that when he leaves the light on, after you’ve asked a million times, it makes you feel like he doesn’t care. And then say: “Sweetie,”—or whatever term of endearment you use when you’re really happy with him—“would you please try harder on this?”

Now for the tough part. You are going to try your best not to bring up that light again. Because you’ve said your piece and been heard. And when you stop nagging, your husband is going to try harder to turn it off. (Trust me on this.) If and when he forgets, you can knock it off yourself in a fraction of the time it takes to get mad and bicker. Remember: There is a whole lot of power to be had in deciding not to let something small bother you, especially these days. Now, take that slipper, if you can find it, and use it to pat yourself on the back for a job well done.

The important point is to defuse the conflict. And that Bernstein does, admirably. 

For my part I am not so sure that he doesn’t care. For all I know he might like agitating her. Or he might be getting back at her for some other reason, having to do with household chores. 

And, yes, she is entirely correct to suggest that the woman in question should drop the issue, and stop nagging. What wonderful advice.

If I might make another suggestion, I would like to know whether you can go to the hardware store and buy a light switch that turns itself off after a certain period of time. Television sets do it. Computers do it. It must be possible to connect a timer to a light switch.

If such a self-extinguishing light switch exists, wife should buy one, have it installed and send her husband the bill. That will solve everyone's problems.

New Jersey Governor Murphy Fathered Two Dogs

Now we see. As you probably know, New Jersey is leading the nation in per capita coronavirus deaths. New York is slightly behind. 

And naturally, Dr. Anthony Fauci has declared that New York State, which sent recovering coronavirus patients into nursing homes, where they infected the elderly and the infirm, got it right.

You being to wonder about Dr. Fauci.

But, then, if you look at the twitter account of New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy, you discover, that he fathered two dogs. Say what? Did we read it correctly? Apparently, the governor fathered four children, for which we offer him lavish praise, but fathering two dogs-- what are we to think of that?

Governor Phil Murphy

@GovMurphy

56th Governor of the great State of New Jersey. Proud husband of

@FirstLadyNJ

and father of 4 humans and 2 dogs. Proud to lead

@NJGov

alongside

@LtGovOliver

.

New Jersey, USANJ.GovJoined January 2018

157 Following