Briefly Noted: A Humor Break

Two especially humorous items today.

First: Progs who just don't get it. 

WHO advisory board member: I'm a progressive Dem who was called a 'right-wing nut' over Wuhan lab leak theory

Jamie Metzl slammed Peter Daszak's 2020 Lancet letter condemning lab leak theory as 'scientific propaganda'

Jamie Metzl sounds for all the world like a prototypical prog. If you don't believe me, check him out at Wikipdedia or at his profile page. Whatever else those pages suggest to you, he's probably a natively very smart guy. He's a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council and previously worked for Zhou Baiden and the Clinton Admin. With that background, you have to wonder: Exactly what about the Progressivism doesn't he get?

Obviously there's a disconnect somewhere, because he went and got himself labeled as a "right wing conspiracy theorist." You can imagine the amount of heartburn he--a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council and a member of WHO's advisory board--is suffering! It's to the point that he actually appeared on Fox and Friends, seemingly the only platform willing to grant him an audience. And he still doesn't seem to understand what hit him--as if pleading his case on Fox will somehow restore him to the good graces of World Progressivism.

Here's how he responds to a question about Peter Daszak's orchestration of the Lancet statement, the statement that, 'Hey, that Covid thing was totally not engineered in a lab--are you crazy?' That's the statement that's now being revealed as complete bullsh*t, basically coerced from scientists who were on the government grant take. 

The clueless Metzl went on Fox to protest his Prog credentials jproceeds to congratulate his right wing hosts on defending science against the progressive Left and generally getting the whole story absolutely correct. Then Metzl goes on to compound matters by naively claiming that science--as practiced in the 21st century--isn't about politics:

Q: [Daszak] didn't want the gain of function narrative gettin' legs!"

A: Yes, so there's a lot there. 

The small number of people who were raising this issue early last year were labeled conspiracy theorists—I know because I was one of them!

And yes there were some people who were called right-wing nuts. But I’m not a right-wing nut. I’m actually a progressive Democrat.

And so for me the question isn't, 'Is this a right wing or left wing thing?' It's just, 'Let's look at the data and just be honest.'

And you're absolutely right: That Lancet letter published in February of last year was an outrage. Because without sufficient data the authors of that letter declared that [Covid] is very, very likely of natural origin and called anybody--like me--who was raising possible alternatives a conspiracy theorist.

And one of the reasons that I've called for Richard Horton, the editor-in-chief of the Lancet, to step down is because I feel that letter, it was not data-driven science—it was scientific propaganda and thuggery.

And Peter Daszak, you correctly point out, manipulated that process behind the scenes, hiding the fact that a number of the signatories were on his payroll and in many other ways. So that's why we need data-driven science.

This guy has just totally excommunicated himself. He's a prog heretic to be cast out into the outer darkness, because he failed to understand that Progressivism is NOT about data-driven science--that's simply a narrative, a talking point. The Progressive cause is about so much more than truth that it needs to be surrounded by a bodyguard of lies.

So, onward.

For this one I'll just provide a link to Steve Hayward's post this morning: When “Fake News” Is Actually Fake.

Hayward's post comes in two parts. The first is about an item that appeared in the NYT and was later retracted--it's so funny I won't attempt to describe it.

The second part concerns that journalist who assured Kama Sutra that she (the "journalist") had voted for her (Kama Sutra). Problem: The journalist, or "journalist"--I'm honestly not sure which is correct--one Maria Fernanda who said she was with Univision, has been disavowed by the company.

Hayward works this episode over for all it's worth, then concludes:

My question is: never mind whether she works for Univision or not—how can you tell she isn’t just like every other White House reporter, who secretly slobbers over Biden and Harris? In other words, how can you tell a fake reporter from a “real” reporter these days? I think Fernanda’s real offense here is that she said out loud what everyone in the room knows to be true about the press corps. If she hadn’t slobbered over Harris, I suspect Univision might have kept silent about it.

Masterful.