Up next we have the Washington Post, which sent Fauci's underlings a request for comment on the Great Barrington Declaration.
The message didn't make it to Fauci in time for the story though, which ran on the 16th. By the time his chief of staff got it on the 18th it was already out.
Keep in mind that Fauci was away for an unspecified reason on 10/16 that was redacted from the emails.
Fauci reemerges on the 18th though to request intel on the task force meeting he missed from Collins.
Collins replies that the GBD did not come up, and Atlas was away too. This prompts Fauci to relay Birx's disdain for Atlas.
Collins chimes in again on 10/20, not so much on the GBD itself but to relay gossip about Sunetra Gupta's ex-husband.
There's another gap in the email chain after 10/20, but in the meantime Fauci appears to have tasked his chief of staff Greg Folkers with assembling a list of talking points against the Great Barrington Declaration.
Folkers replies on 11/2/20 with the list for the task "as discussed."
But it is not a list of scientific papers to counter the GBD group's arguments. Instead, it is a list of even more political op-eds attacking the GBD.
Which op-eds did Fauci use to make his case? I have the answer and will reveal in the coming days.
But most are not even from credentialed scientists, and the few that are come from ideological lockdowners who all happened to agree w Fauci before the GBD.
Stay tuned for more!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
10 things to listen for in tomorrow's SCOTUS hearing on tariffs:
1. Will the DOJ try to argue that tariffs are not taxes, but regulatory "surcharges" under the international commerce clause out of the hope that this gives them more leeway under delegation of congressional power?
2. Will Roberts accept a "tariffs are not taxes, they're regulations" argument from Trump in light of his (in)famous Obamacare tax argument from Sebelius?
3. Will Kagan clarify her position on when the nondelegation doctrine applies by suggesting that tariffs fit that constitutional test, whereas other cases where she rejected it did not?
In 2016 the @AAUP launched a campaign urging colleges to ban conservative students from recording professors in the classroom.
I FOIA'd emails of Hank Reichman, their VP at the time & author of the policy. It revealed he was working with a Marxist group to secretly record free-market economics faculty at a conference he disliked.
The AAUP has always been a coven of left wing partisan hacks and hypocrites.
@AAUP For those who asked, here is the policy recommendation adopted by Reichman's committee.
@AAUP There are several FOIA'd emails, but here I'll share some of the main documents. Here is the Marxist student group coordinating behind the scenes with Reichman to promote their recordings of economics professors at the conference.
A bibliometric tour of Carl Schmitt, attesting that his alleged "importance" is a very recent phenomenon of only the last ~30 years. 🧵
First we start with English Ngram, which shows Schmitt had a negligible amount of citations until the 1990s.
What about other language groups though? Here's French, where Schmitt had a slightly earlier rise no-thanks to Derrida and a few other postmodernist oddballs started engaging with him. But also, a very recent phenomenon that's almost entirely in the 1990s-2000s...and then drops.
Spanish is interesting because it has a slow, steady uptake - albeit at very modest citation levels - in the 1930s-70s. But it too only really spikes in the 1990s-200s, and then declines a bit like French.
🧵Steve Miran is a pending nominee to the Federal Reserve Board. In addition to his fringe views on dollar devaluation, he has a long history of making basic errors about economics.
The first example comes from a bizarre speech he gave after Liberation Day back in April.
Miran declared - without any evidence - that the entire economics profession is "wrong" to oppose tariffs.
Miran then proceeded to mischaracterize "trade models" by falsely claiming that they do not account for trade deficits, or assume they will self-correct.
In reality, economists since Adam Smith in 1776 have been pointing out the fallacy of Miran's thinking:
So.,,Who wants to break it to Michael Brendan Dougherty that this misquotation of Disraeli is from a speech he gave in support of the protectionist Corn Laws, which in turn were a contributing cause of the Irish famine? 🧵
The actual quote was not from 1843, but rather a speech by Disraeli in 1845 where he attacked Richard Cobden and the free traders over their push to repeal the Corn Laws.
It also referred to *protection* as the "expedient," not "free trade."
Disraeli would maintain his protectionist stance even as the Irish famine worsened.
In a later speech, he (in)famously denounced PM Robert Peel as a "political pedlar" who sold out his party to free trade by repealing the Corn Laws as a famine relief measure with Whig votes.