The End of the Indians

Going for the win-win…

Well, it’s official, as of 2022, the Cleveland Indians baseball team is changing their name to the Cleveland Guardians and we here at The Objective Observer are fully supportive and applaud this change. While one may take issue with the lame name chosen, the Guardians, or decry the abomination of the new logo design, a Hermes inspired winged baseball, what one cannot deny or bemoan is that this change was long overdue.

Honestly, it’s about time we all stop being so blatantly culturally insensitive to the suffering of an entire population of people. It is the duty of our enlightened generation to end the offensive depiction of indigenous people in sport team names and logos. Why this has taken so long is anyone’s guess. It has been apparent for generations that the lionization of indigenous people is just downright offensive to the ancestors of settlers who were kidnapped, raped and murdered on the western plains by Native Americans. Obviously.

And yet, here we are just starting to right this deeply hurtful wrong hundreds of years later. The ancestors of settlers killed by Native Americans have suffered for decades while the sports community glorified and idolized the persecutors of their forefathers. And it never made any sense. This is a group of people that were enemies of the United States, a group of people that we defeated in many battles and wars. It’s akin to naming a sports team the Cleveland Redcoats or the Cleveland SS. It just makes absolutely no sense at all. Why on earth the sports community continues to embrace enemies of the state is simply beyond comprehension.

Therefore, while we are ecstatic to see the end of this lionization of the enemy, we do, however, take issue with how the Cleveland Indians chose to go about the change. There was a far easier and more straight forward approach that wouldn’t have even required a name change and been way more badass in terms of a new mascot and logo. All they had to do was change the mascot and logo to Kali, the Hindu goddess of death and problem solved.

Kali – Hindu goddess of death

Not only is a logo depicting the severed heads and extremities of your enemies far better than a stupid winged baseball but this would have also shown religious tolerance. And the whole Indians name now has a completely different context. So…win-win.

On Biden’s Watch 02/01

This post is part of the series On Biden’s Watch.

February 2021

February 1st, 2021

February 2nd, 2021

February 3rd, 2021

February 4th, 2021

February 5th, 2021

February 6th, 2021

February 7th, 2021

February 8th, 2021

February 9th, 2021

February 10th, 2021

February 11th, 2021

February 12th, 2021

February 13th, 2021

February 14th, 2021

February 15th, 2021

February 16th, 2021

February 17th, 2021

February 18th, 2021

February 19th, 2021

February 20th, 2021

February 21st, 2021

February 22nd, 2021

February 23rd, 2021

February 24th, 2021

February 25th, 2021

February 26th, 2021

February 27th, 2021

February 28th, 2021


We Now Have the Most Politicized Supreme Court in History

On Monday Chief Justice Roberts’ “Do Nothing Court” once again decided to, well, do nothing once again. This time the Supreme Court chose to “do nothing” when it came to the 2020 Presidential election. The particular cases in question involved Pennsylvania absentee election ballots. A United States Supreme Court ruling on these cases would not have changed the outcome of the 2020 Presidential election race, but it is beyond unfortunate that the United States Supreme Court did not rule in these cases and instead chose to once again “do nothing” as with a similar case involving Texas. The reason is that this simply sows yet more populism, more distrust of government, more distrust of the election system and disenfranchises all voters, not just those who voted for Trump. But, before we get to all that, let’s review the specifics of the cases.

The United States Constitution in Article II, Section 1, which deals with the the election of the President and Vice President states:

“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress:”

In plain English, this means that each state’s legislature gets to create their own rules around Presidential elections, what specific times voting will occur, where polling locations are located, how electors are apportioned, rules around absentee voting, rules around early voting, voter verification, electronic or paper ballots, when recounts occur, how recounts occur, etc. And, perhaps surprisingly, election rules vary quite a bit between states.

Now, what happened in Pennsylvania is that the state legislature changed some election regulations in the runup to the 2020 Presidential election. Democrats, not happy with the stated deadline for county boards of elections to receive mail-in ballots by 8 p.m. on Election Day sued and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court instead extended the deadline for mail-in ballots to three days after Election Day. It’s important to note here that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is not a legislative body. The Pennsylvania secretary of state also removed/ignored the state law mandating that all applications for absentee or mail-in ballots for non-disabled and non-military voters be signed by the applicant. Again, important to note here that the Pennsylvania secretary of state is not a legislative entity and, in fact, isn’t even an elected official.

These actions prompted Republicans to sue the acting Pennsylvania secretary of state before the United States Supreme Court. The issue being whether or not the actions of the secretary of state and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court violated the Constitution because the legislature did not make the rules. But, the United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case claiming that the issues in the case were “moot”, presumably because the election is over and there were not enough votes in question to change the outcome. However, the Supreme Court could have agreed to hear the case under the exception phrased “capable of repetition, yet evading review”. In fact, this is exactly how Roe v. Wade came about since Jane Roe’s appeal was moot because she had already given birth and thus would not be affected by the ruling and as such lacked standing to assert the rights of other pregnant women.

And Pennsylvania is not the only state in which these sorts of shenanigans occurred. In Georgia, state law prohibits the counting of absentee ballots until after the polls open on Election Day but Georgia’s State Election Board allowed processing of ballots up to three weeks before Election Day. In Michigan, state law requires that all absentee ballot requests be requested by the voter through a specific application process requiring a signature but the Michigan secretary of state created a website where people could request an absentee ballot without a signature. In Wisconsin, state law prohibits the use of unmanned drop boxes for ballots, however, the Wisconsin Elections Commission and other local officials used unmanned drop boxes. And this list probably isn’t even comprehensive in terms of how non-legislative entities and in some cases single, unelected officials changed election rules in what would appear to be a clear violation of the Constitution.

Now, again, none of this would change the outcome of the 2020 Presidential election. But, that does not mean that the United States Supreme Court should not rule in whether or not these actions were constitutional. In fact, this would have been the exact right time to make a ruling on this topic because it wouldn’t have changed the outcome of the election. This is essentially what Justice Thomas, Justice Alito and Justice Gorsuch argue in their dissents.

So why were the cases not heard? Why would the United States Supreme Court refuse to hear cases involving election integrity and the constitutionality of last minute election rule changes by non-legislative entities and single, unelected officials? Well, it is because Chief Justice Roberts is so concerned over the political optics of hearing the cases that he once again chose to “do nothing”. As we pointed out in Silence, any time there is even the hint that a case or ruling from the United States Supreme Court could be politized, Roberts drops it like it’s hot. However, in doing so, Roberts has actually made the United States Supreme Court more politicized, not less politicized. Let us explain.

Most everyone has that one bad ex. That ex boyfriend/girlfriend where the relationship ended so horribly that you find yourself judging every new relationship based upon that individual. The minute you spot any characteristic that reminds you of that awful, horrible person, you end the relationship immediately. However, when you do this, you are actually still being controlled by that old, awful, horrible ex. You are allowing your life to be defined and shaped by the person you hate the most. This is exactly how the United States Supreme Court has been politicized. By looking at the merits of each case based solely upon the political optics, the United States Supreme Court has become more politicized than ever before.

Chief Justice Roberts’ political calculation was that if the United States Supreme Court heard the case then this would just add fuel to the proverbial fire of Trump’s relentless “fraud” and “the election was stolen” narrative. Which is probably true (the fuel not the narrative). But, in not hearing the case the United States Supreme Court has actually solidified the perception in many voters eyes that the election was, in fact, stolen. Anyone objective about the matter and with half a brain can see that there were many actions taken in the runup to the 2020 Presidential election that are questionable at best and obviously unconstitutional at worst. Not addressing those issues leaves voters confused and erodes voter confidence.

And it is not just Trump voters that have been disenfranchised. Actually, all voters have been disenfranchised. If the United States Supreme Court thinks that this is a “one time”, “extraordinary” occurrence, it is dead wrong. What the United States Supreme Court has done is actually set the precedent that it is OK for non-legislative entities to arbitrarily change election rules and regulations. That precedent is now set in stone. This only means that these non-legislative entities and single, unelected officials are going to do more of it the next time, not less. It’s human nature. It’s the nature of power.

The United States Supreme Court is supposed to be the ordinary citizen’s last line of defense against the tyranny of evil men/women. Read, those in power. Insanely, Robert’s “do nothing court” has chosen to completely abdicate this responsibility and instead enable the tyranny. Perhaps we need to change the name to Roberts’ “Cowardly Court”. This is only going to encourage increased populism and, as we have pointed out in Burn it Down, that tends to end badly.

Chief Justice Roberts, we take back our apology. You are a pussy, a political hack, a coward and someone that is doing real damage to our American institutions and America itself. You, sir, are a complete and utter disgrace.

Burn It Down

Populism, Radicalism and the Spectrum of Political Ideology

A week or so ago, Antifa and Black Lives Matter protestors marched through the District of Columbia (D.C.) chanting “Burn it down”. While this may come as a bit of a surprise, we here at The Objective Observer actually kind of, sort of agree with them, in a figurative sense, not a literal sense. To understand this position, it is important that one understand the underlying motivations behind the populous movements within the United States and the reality of divergent political ideologies.

Populism is defined as support and concern for ordinary people. Populism ascends within countries when ordinary people feel that the bureaucracy and institutions of government no longer serve the needs of ordinary people but instead only serve the wealthy and the powerful. Quite simply stated, populism is the enemy of those in power as, throughout history, populist revolutions are what tend to overthrow the status quo, often quite violently.

Now, we must mention that populism tends to get a bad rap. Since violent populist revolutions are what tend to overthrow governments by, well, violence, it is easy for populism to be declared an evil thing. However, populism is simply the reaction of ordinary people to institutions and power structures that have failed them, institutions and power structures that have become corrupt and benefit only the wealthy and the powerful. And make no mistake, populism has taken hold in America in a number of forms.

The most obvious, current populous movement is that of former President Trump. As we explained in Why Trump is Hated it was Trump’s populist agenda in seeking to curtail and shrink the power and influence of the federal government along with his similarly populist nationalistic attitudes that earned him the everlasting enmity of power factions within the federal government and elsewhere. In short, those individuals benefiting from the corrupt institutions and power structures of the federal government were simply not going to take it lightly when someone with populist leanings threatens their power, influence and wealth. In effect, former President Trump threatened to “drain the swamp” or, in other words replace the current institutions and trappings of governmental power with a system and institutions that better served the needs of “the people”.

However, former President Trump’s supporters are not the only populist movement within the United States. Consider that Antifa positions itself as being anti-fascist and anti-racist, if there is any real central “platform” to speak of considering how decentralized and autonomous the groups are that make up the movement. But the truth is that Antifa’s members are, by and large, anti-authoritarian, anti-capitalist, and anti-state; espousing ideologies of anarchism, communism, Marxism, social democracy, and socialism. At its core, Antifa is a left-wing populous movement that has lost faith in the current institutions and trappings of governmental power, seeking to “burn it down” and replace the system with institutions that better serve the needs of “the people”.

Black Lives Matter (BLM) is another left-wing, decentralized, populist movement. BLM is also strongly anti-racist, anti-authoritarian and believe that the institutions of the United States, and specifically the police, have failed to protect blacks in America from racism, incarceration and violence. In fact, BLM believes that the very power structure currently in place within the United States institutionalizes racism and thus BLM seeks to “burn it down” in order to replace the system with institutions that better serve the needs of “the people”.

So, if populism is the enemy of the establishment, then why have those in power not taken similar measures to utterly destroy Antifa and BLM as the ones employed against former President Trump? Three reasons. First, the establishment does not consider Antifa and BLM a true threat because those organizations hold no real power, unlike former President Trump. Second, the establishment fails to properly classify Antifa and BLM correctly as populist movements and instead tends to only focus on these organizations’ stated anti-fascist and anti-racist agendas; attitudes with which people empathize. Third, and perhaps most importantly, the establishment incorrectly thinks that the political spectrum is linear.

Unfortunately, this isn’t how things actually work. The actual political spectrum is a circle where the radical left and the radical right meet one another in espousing a radical, populist ideology.

While this may seem odd and unintuitive because if viewed from a linear perspective where the radical left and the radical right appear to be polar opposites, the reality is that at some point these two groups end up having more and more in common with one another to the point where their common traits and goals dwarf their respective differences. Specifically, the radical right and radical left conjoin over being populist movements that are anti-establishment, anti-status quo and have a tendency to effect change through violence. The exact details of “what comes next” fades away in the face of the overwhelming desire to change “the system”.

When the radicalism on both the right and the left reaches critical mass, this is where unholy alliances are made and governments fall due to a simple, burning desire to have something else, anything else, than the current institutions and established power structures that are seen as unfair and untrustworthy to the vast majority of the population. Think American Revolution, the French revolution, Stalin and, well, we’re sure you can think up a few more on your own. All were populist movements that violently overthrew the existing, corrupt power structures and institutions of their day.

The scary part of all of this is that it almost becomes inevitable. As the establishment witnesses the rise of populism, what does the establishment do? The establishment seeks to hold on to power of course. And the establishment does this by glomming on to even more power, being more authoritative and wielding their influence in even grander fashion. Again, this can be seen in the end of the British Empire, the end of the French monarchy and the end of the Russian Czars among other examples. The instinctive reaction of the establishment is to increase their levels of power, influence and control in a vain attempt to “crush” the burgeoning populist movement. Inevitably, this simply leads to more populism and more rebellion.

America is likely already too far down this inevitable spiral of doom to pull out of it. We see this today with King Biden flexing the power of the federal government to sign a ridiculous number of executive orders that seek to make the federal government even more powerful and more influential, usurping power and influence from state and local governments. This is why we mock the current administration as a monarchy with King Biden sitting on the throne. Of course, King Biden does this in the name of “equity”, what the monarchy believes is the antidote to a populist disease. But it is equity by force, equity in name only and equity that can only be brought about by the federal government exerting even greater influence and power over the subjugated populace. Ultimately, this is the classic, instinctive reaction to populism that inevitably breeds more populism.

It is interesting that former President Trump, while he preached populism, he did not preach radical, utterly destroy the current institutions and power structures kind of populism. Did Trump seek to unwind decades of continued growth in the power and influence of the federal government? Absolutely. And for this he earned the eternal enmity of the establishment. But he sought to work against the system from within the system. And we applaud him for that. One might hypothesize that he saw what was coming and sought to avert disaster. Saw that D.C. had become far too powerful, corrupt, influential and intrusive in the daily lives of Americans. The system needed to be singed a bit. But Antifa and BLM, these movements have already demonstrated their violent tendencies and they make no bones about clearly stating their true intentions, “Burn it down”. Not figuratively, but literally. People should pay more attention.

For our part, we’re objective about the matter, above all else. Nothing we say or do will change the trajectory of what is to come. Thus, we are content to sit back and watch it all burn to the ground. Or not.


This Again?

Well, the subject of reparations is back apparently. Haven’t really seen much discussion on this topic in almost 20 years so we decided to dig out an old article from around 2003, dust it off and update it for the present. In doing so, we were reminded just how sensitive this topic is and just how potentially offensive the stance taken in that original article might be. Oh well. Too bad.

First, please recognize that nobody here at The Objective Observer belongs to any of the 5% of present day American whites that are connected to historical American slave ownership. Nor is anyone here at The Objective Observer part of any black or Native American family that historically owned black slaves. We want to be clear on this because reparations is one of those issues that defies objectivity. Everyone has a stake in it because everyone’s tax dollars will go towards reparations. So we want to ensure that everyone is clear on any potential, perceived conflicts of interest that we may possess.

In order to avoid any potential conflicts of interest, we want to stay away from the subject of whether or not reparations should be paid. Blacks have some legitimate gripes. There are some very decent, logical arguments in favor of reparations. However, there are equally legitimate, logical arguments against paying reparations. Those issues and arguments are old hat and have been bantered around ad nauseam. Instead, we want to explore the issue surrounding the fair price of reparations if the powers at be decide that reparations should indeed be paid. This is solely a financial discussion. We are not discussing slavery in general, which was unquestionably awful, wrong and a blight upon the history of the United States. Just because slavery had existed for thousands and thousands of years and American slavery only existed for a brief time, that does not excuse it.

Now, we want to caution any readers out there. People avoid the reparations debate because they lack the backbone and intestinal fortitude to discuss the issues rationally and logically. People are generally cowards that do not want to offend people. We personally do not care about offending people. Facts are facts, issues are issues, let’s all take a look at them logically and rationally and come to a conclusion. So, prepare to be offended. We make no apologies for the statements made here, if you want to discuss any opinions or arguments made in this piece, use the Contact form or leave a comment. If you are the kind of person that does not react well to being offended, then we strongly recommend that you do not read the rest of this piece.

There are two fundamental issues that we see with the reparations debate. First, everyone looks at the issue from a racial perspective, which clouds everyone’s thinking and reasoning. Second, everyone looks at reparations in an isolated historical perspective. That perspective is that blacks were once slaves and now they are not, so they should be compensated for being slaves. However, a couple hundred years have passed since blacks were considered property and thus, if we are to be objective, we must look at the entirety of what has gone on in this country and the world and apply what we find to the debate regarding reparations. To look solely at a few particular events and ignore everything else is not fair to either side in the reparations debate.

To point, reparations involves taking tax money from the general fund of running the country and to use a portion of that money to compensate certain individuals for being considered property, being denied the ability to acquire and amass property themselves and pass those holdings on to descendants. Now, what this leads to are a couple of interesting logical exercises. First, the basis of reparations is that blacks were harmed economically from the inability to acquire and amass property. Therefore, if this is the basis of reparations, then in order to assign a value to those reparations we must also look at how blacks have been helped economically by the federal government. In addition, we must take into account taxes related to death, inheritance and property ownership. And, well there are a few other things…

First up is welfare. Welfare, like reparations, is the redistribution of wealth among United States citizens. Between 1965 and 2000, welfare spending has cost taxpayers $8.2 trillion dollars. Now, since blacks represent approximately 13% of US citizens, we will take 10% of this $8.2 trillion dollar number, which is $820 billion dollars. Let’s keep the math simple and err on the side of blacks. This $820 billion dollars represents what the federal government has already paid out to underprivileged and economically destitute blacks between 1965 and 2000. Again, this is money that was taken from tax payers and redistributed to poor and economically challenged individuals, of which blacks, that were denied the ability to own property, are likely to fall into. Therefore, any value assigned to reparations should subtract $820 billion dollars off the top as money already paid. And this is being very nice. If truth be told, this $820 billion number should be much higher because the percentage of whites versus blacks on welfare does not hold true to the national averages among whites and blacks in the population. But, in an effort to bend over backwards to be fair, we will go with national population averages. So, $820 billion off the top of the value of reparations.

Second, we must also look at whether blacks economic status was actually improved by slavery. This may seem offensive to some, but if the argument is going to be made that slavery hurt the economic welfare of blacks, then it is only fair to look for data that might show that blacks in this country were in fact aided by slavery. If we look at the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita, a good indicator of overall standard of living, for the United States, we get the following:

YearGDP per capita (US $)

Now, if we look at the GDP per capita of the second richest country in Africa, South Africa (data on Nigeria is sparse), we get the following:

YearNominal GDP (in billions US$ PPP)

Now, the facts are irrefutable and the conclusions, while obviously offensive are inescapable. The GDP per capita of the United States is over 4 times that of the second richest country in Africa in terms of pure GDP. Thus, the inescapable conclusion is that those blacks that were previously slaves in Africa and brought to the United States are roughly 4 times better off economically from blacks that remained in Africa. And again, to be fair, we should really use the average GDP per capita of countries in Africa which is a tenth that of the United States, but we are bending over backwards to be fair to all sides here, so, for the sake of argument, we will assume that all slaves brought to the United States would have grown up in one of the richest countries in Africa. In fact, there is no country in Africa where the GBP per capita is over a third of the United States GDP per capita. What this means is that whatever economic advantage being brought to America afforded blacks should be deducted from the total amount of reparations.

We are absolutely certain that there are some people out there that are blowing blood vessels right about now. “How dare you insinuate that blacks were actually helped economically by slavery!!” Well, we are not insinuating that at all. We are actually stating this as a fact, and it is a fact that cannot be refuted or denied. The facts are clear on this issue, blacks were helped economically by being brought to the United States. It may be offensive or politically incorrect to say this, but that does not make the statement any less true. And it certainly is offensive to say so, but if some people are going to point to the economic effects of slavery as an argument for reparations, then an objective observer cannot simply ignore the positive economic effects of slavery. It would simply be unfair and not objective to do so.

Along this same line, slave owners completely provided for the needs of their black slaves including food, shelter and clothing. Thus, it would be reasonable to deduct these costs from the total value of reparations because these are costs that would otherwise have had to been paid by blacks. Again, if we are going to focus on the negative economic impact to blacks, then we must also take into account other, positive economic factors. Yes, blacks were denied the right to own and amass property, but they also did not have any expenses. Therefore, basing reparations solely on what was denied and not taking into account what was given is simply unfair.

Now, the last item that must be taken into account is death, inheritance and property taxes. The logic here is that if blacks had been allowed to acquire and amass property, then they would have had to pay taxes on that property, including death and inheritance taxes. Therefore, we also need to deduct allowances for death and inheritance taxes as well as property taxes from the total value of reparations.

Now, we are not going to add up all of the values of what should be deducted from reparations. We have $820 billion off the top of reparations due to current paid reparations, a la welfare. We also have the fact that blacks in the United States are 3 to 4 times better off than if they had remained in Africa. Finally, there needs to be allowances for food, shelter and clothing provided free-of-charge to blacks as well as allowances for death, inheritance and property taxes. At the end of the day, it is quite possible that blacks actually owe the United States billions or trillions of dollars for the positive economic impact of slavery, not that the United States owes blacks billions or trillions of dollars in reparations.

This is quite possibly the single most offensive piece that we have ever written. We make no apologies for that. This piece came out this way because of fundamental flaws in arguments made by Randall Robinson, Kamala Harris and others in the pro-reparations movement. They claim economic hardship from the effects of slavery, but the facts clearly show that slavery actually helped, not hurt the economics of blacks brought to America. If the facts came out a different way, we would say so, but they do not. To us, it is a simple case of some morons inflating weak ideas hoping that the evidence to refute those weak ideas was so incredibly offensive that no one would stand up and call them on it. Too bad for them, they did not count on The Objective Observer where, frankly, we don’t give a damn.

Green Energy Inequity

Green Energy Reeks of White Privilege

The bitterly cold temperatures and winter weather in Texas have recently put the reliability of “green energy” into the spotlight.

But the unreliability of green energy has been known for years

Note that the last article is over 7 years old. The fact that green energy is unreliable is nothing new. When the wind doesn’t blow, windmills are useless. When the sun doesn’t shine, solar panels are useless. This is not a matter of debate. Glad that people are suddenly now paying attention but, as is typically the case, even with this renewed “revelation”, everyone is actually still missing the point. And that point is that green energy smacks of “white privilege”. Whether or not you believe in white privilege or how much you believe green energy unreliability contributed to Texas’ electrical grid failure, if we use the same arguments others use to brand things as white privilege, then there is absolutely no denying that green energy does; in fact, meet the definition of white privilege to the letter. Doubt us? Read on.

It has been well understood for years that minorities, and in particular blacks, suffer disproportionately during weather events of extreme heat or cold. Consider this report from the CDC in 2014 where this is stated multiple times:

“Adjustment for region and urbanization decreased the risk of heat-related mortality among Hispanic persons and increased the risk of cold-related mortality among non-Hispanic black persons, compared with non-Hispanic white persons.

“Subpopulations at risk for cold-related mortality are similar to those at risk for heat-related mortality: older adults, infants, males, black persons, and persons with preexisting chronic medical conditions (2,11,15,16,23–27,29).”

Non-Hispanic black persons had higher rates of heat-related and cold-related mortality than other race and ethnicity groups during 2006–2010 (Table 3). For heat-related mortality, the rate for non-Hispanic black persons was about 2.5 times that for non-Hispanic white persons and about 2 times as high as that for Hispanic persons. The age-adjusted cold-related death rate for non-Hispanic black persons was 5.8 deaths per million compared with 4.1 for non-Hispanic white persons and 2.1 for Hispanic persons.”

“Adjustment for region and urbanization level increased the risk of heat-related mortality for counties in the lower three income quartiles compared with counties in the highest income quartile. In contrast to the impact of adjustment on heat-related mortality, adjustment for region and urbanization level slightly increased the risk of cold-related mortality for non-Hispanic black persons compared with non-Hispanic white persons (from 1.35 to 1.73).”

“This study found, as studies for earlier time periods have reported, that older persons, males, and non-Hispanic black persons had higher weather-related mortality rates than other ages, females, and other race and ethnicity subgroups. This study also found that weather related death rates were 2 to 7 times as high in low-income counties as in high-income counties;”

“Age-adjusted weather-related death rates for males were higher than those for females, and age-adjusted death rates for heat-related and cold-related mortality were higher for non-Hispanic black than non-Hispanic white or Hispanic persons.

This is not the only study to make such a conclusion, there are many.

“In the United States, people of color are found to be particularly more vulnerable to heatwaves, extreme weather events, environmental degradation, and subsequent labor market dislocations.”

If we are to follow the science, then there is no question that weather events of extreme heat or cold disproportionately kill blacks rather than whites. But why is this? Well, yet another study that makes the same conclusions provides an answer:

“Heat-related mortality in four US cities was reduced with increasing central AC prevalence, and substantially higher effects of heat on mortality were observed among Blacks compared with Whites. A large proportion of the disparity in heat-related mortality may be due to differences in central AC prevalence. Room-unit AC prevalence showed little effect on heat-related mortality and no consistent pat-tern of disparities by race.

Several previous studies showed both Black race and lack of AC as indicating vulnerability to heat-related health effects. Heat-related mortality associations were higher in areas with lower AC prevalence, even after adjusting for latitude. Access to AC has been recommended as a key component of efforts to prevent heat-related deaths.”

But what does this have to do with green energy? Well, obviously electricity is required to power the vast majority of heating and cooling systems within houses. Furnaces might run on natural gas, but you still need electricity for them to work. Same goes for air conditioning, you need electricity. Proper temperature regulation, critical to keeping people alive during extreme heat and cold events, depends directly on electrical energy supply.

Now consider that white households are generally more affluent than black households and other minorities.

Figure 1. White families have more wealth than Black, Hispanic, and other or multiple race families in the 2019 SCF. See accessible link for data.

What this means is that whites are better able to cope with electricity outages caused by unreliable green energy. Wealthy white households are able to afford expensive luxuries such as backup power generators to power their furnaces and AC units. Wealthier white households are also more likely to have better insulation and weatherproofing in their homes. In addition, wealthy white households have better mobility in the event of an extreme hot or cold weather event, they can simply hop on a plane to their second home in Florida if the whether becomes too cold, or jaunt on over to the Hamptons for vacation if the whether becomes too hot. In short, the unreliability of green energy is a risk and a luxury that whites can afford. Thus, the ability to cope with unreliable green energy is a benefit that whites unconsciously enjoy. And that is the very definition of “white privilege”.

Fact Check

Who Fact Checks the Fact Checkers?

Fact checking seems to be all the rage these days. Ever since former President Trump took office, fact checking seems to have grown exponentially into its own cottage industry. Ostensibly, this is a good thing that provides truth to the American public and dispels misinformation. However, what if the fact checks themselves are actually inaccurate? What if the fact checks are simply propaganda and misinformation? What happens then? What fair, impartial, objective observer can we find to fact check the fact checks? Oh wait, duh, that’s us here at The Objective Observer!

Well, let’s pilot this out. We will take CNN’s recent “fact check” of Trump’s defense lawyers.

Defense team misleadingly omits Trump remarks defending violence

We rate the fact check on this: Reaching. False. Misleading. Cherry Picking.

First, this is fact check is reaching a bit. CNN had to reach far, far back into the way back machine before President Trump was even President in order to find a few times where former President Trump appeared to approve of or endorse violence. But there can be little question that Trump’s consistent and repeated calls for “law and order” far outweigh statements contrary to this message. The CNN fact check cherry picks a few times, many taken out of context, where Trump said something “aggressive”. The fact that CNN willfully misleads in a number of cases demonstrates just how few times Trump has ever wavered from his “law and order” message. And, in the few cases where he does say something that “advocates violence” it is actually in the name of preserving “law and order”.

CNN rules that the following were omitted examples of Trump endorsing violence:

  • praised a Republican congressman for assaulting a journalist; Misleading. The linked story clearly says that Trump’s comment was a “joke”.
  • urged police officers not to worry about injuring the heads of suspects they are arresting; Misleading. Again, it is clear from Trump’s actual words that he made an off color joke punning how criminals are treated by police versus those criminals’ actions. “Like, don’t hit their head, and they just killed somebody — don’t hit their head,” Trump continued. “I said, you can take the hand away, okay?”
  • said he would like to punch a protester in the face; Somewhat true. Trump said “I’d like to punch him in the face,” about a man attempting to disrupt his rally. However, also false and misleading as Trump was not “defending violence”, he was clearly simply expressing his current feelings at the time.
  • urged supporters to “knock the crap out of” any protester they saw holding a tomato; Mostly true. Then candidate Trump said “If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you?”. It should be noted that throwing a tomato with the intent to hit someone is assault, a violent act. Many states have self defense laws.
  • said a kidnapping plot against Michigan Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer might not be an actual “problem”; Lacks context, willfully misleading. Trumps words were “I’m the one, it was our people that helped her out with her problem. I mean, we’ll have to see if it’s a problem. Right? People are entitled to say maybe it was a problem, maybe it wasn’t,” he added. “It was our people — my people, our people that helped her out. And then she blamed me for it. She blamed me and it was our people that helped her.” The matter was still under investigation, no one had been convicted and therefore, yes, people are still entitled to due process and the assumption of innocent until proven guilty. They are entitled to say that they were not doing what they were accused of doing.
  • approvingly told a fake story about an early 20th century US general who massacred Muslim terrorists with bullets dipped in the blood of pigs; Mostly true. Then candidate Trump did tell such a story. Technically, the story has never been proven to be false. The “proof” is simply that the story did not appear in the general’s memoirs. However, we doubt he would include such a thing even if it were true. One might reasonably interpret Trump’s remarks as an parable or allegory such as “Chicken Little”. There is little question that the story of “Chicken Little” is fake but people generally are not accused of telling a “fake story” for referencing it.
  • said it was a “beautiful sight” when the authorities tossed a journalist to the ground during unrest in Minneapolis; Questionable. It is unclear to what exactly Trump is referring to, his exact words being. “They were touching arms and they had big strong arms like these guys right over here. They were big, strong guys, that’s all right, and they were like together. And then you saw the first line, then you saw the second line, then you saw a third line, then you saw the fourth line and then they said march. They never halted. Just walked right through, cleaned everything out, and Minneapolis was cured. They were cured. They grab them, they grab them, they grab them. They were grabbing them left and right. Sometimes they grab, they grab one guy, I’m a reporter, I’m a reporter. Get out of here. They threw him aside like he was a little a bag of popcorn. But no — but I mean, honestly, when you watch the crap that we’ve all had to take so long. When you see that, it’s actually — you don’t want to do that, but when you see it, it’s actually a beautiful sight, it’s a beautiful sight. And they had the same thing on some other streets and the whole thing was gone and I haven’t heard of any real problem in Minneapolis, since that happened.” It is much more likely that Trump was referring to the police action to retake the streets as the “beautiful site” as can be read when he talks about “the same thing on some other streets”
  • mocked a reporter who got shot with a rubber bullet; True. But, come on, honestly, that was kind of funny…
  • and applauded the Trump supporters who surrounded a Joe Biden campaign bus on the highway, an incident that prompted an FBI investigation. Lacks context willfully misleading. Trump tweeted out “I LOVE TEXAS” to a video that only showed trucks with Trump flags following the bus. The trucks were following the Biden bus and the FBI investigated at the prompting of Democrats and nothing ever came of it. Even the USA Today‘s fact-checker said that claim was “missing context” because the Trump Train people were just having fun escorting the bus, not threatening it.

Trump’s lawyer falsely claims Trump’s first two tweets during the Capitol attack urged calm

The fact check is rated: Questionable.

The fact check states:

“Trump’s “stay peaceful” tweet at 2:38 p.m. and “no violence” tweet at 3:13 p.m. were his second and third tweeted messages after the Capitol was breached, not his first. Trump’s first tweet was at 2:24 p.m.”

The accuracy of the fact check versus Trump’s lawyers claims rests on the exact timing and definition of the words “incursion of the Capitol”. If by “incursion of the Capitol”, Trump’s lawyers meant when rioters crossed Statutory Hall, then Trump’s lawyers are correct and truthful as this occurred at 2:33 PM.

No, the media wasn’t lying that there was hacking during the 2016 election

We rate this fact check: False, intentionally being obtuse.

The fact is regarding Trump’s defense lawyers stating:

“The entire Democratic Party and national news media spent the last four years repeating without any evidence that the 2016 election had been hacked.”

The fact check then goes into a diatribe about Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee being “hacked”. The fact check is being intentionally obtuse about Trump’s defense lawyer using the worked “hacked” when in it is clear in the full context that the lawyer is referring to the broad Russia collusion hoax which was in fact repeated without evidence by the national news media. The Mueller report found “no evidence”.

Castor falsely claims rioters didn’t attend Trump’s DC speech

We rate this fact check: False.

Mr. Castor’s attributed statements in the fact check were:

“Given the timeline of events, the criminals at the Capitol weren’t there at the Ellipse to even hear the President’s words,” Castor said. “They were more than a mile away, engaged in their pre-planned assault on this very building.” “This was a pre-planned assault,” Castor said, “make no mistake.” He also claimed this assertion was “confirmed by the FBI, Department of Justice and even the House managers.”

The fact check then says:

“It’s false that none of the accused Capitol rioters attended Trump’s speech beforehand. And Castor is exaggerating the known facts about whether the assault was pre-planned.”

We rate the first part of this fact check as false because Mr. Castor never stated that “none” of the rioters attended Trump’s speech beforehand. It is not correct put words into people’s mouths. We rate the second part of this fact check as false because by the fact check’s own statement:

“The Justice Department and FBI have accused some rioters of planning the attacks before coming to Washington, and top prosecutors have said more charges along those lines are expected.”

Thus, Mr. Castor’s plain words, free of subjective interpretation, are all entirely true.

No, Georgia did not see a ‘dramatic drop’ in ballot rejection rates

We rate this fact check: Irrelevant, misleading

The fact check states:

“Castor argued Trump’s use of the word ‘find’ was ‘solely related to his concerns with the inexplicable dramatic drop in Georgia’s ballot rejection rates.'”

The intent of Trump’s use of the word “find” aside, Georgia did not experience a “dramatic drop” in ballot rejection rates, according to data from the Georgia Secretary of State’s office.

We rate this fact check irrelevant because Mr. Castor was not arguing about whether the rejection rates claim was true or false but only arguing about the context of the word “find” in relation to former President Trump’s opinion that there was an “inexplicable dramatic drop in Georgia’s ballot rejection rates.“. The truth or falsehood of rejection rates in Georgia is irrelevant to the argument being made. We further rate this fact check misleading because, the fact check glosses over the fact that, in context, Trump was obviously not trying to illegally “steal” the election via this phone call, as has been widely reported in the media. In context, it is clear that the use of “find” is related to Trump’s belief that if a full and accurate accounting of the votes that Georgia would “find” that many legitimate votes were actually illegitimate. Again, this makes no claims whether Trump’s beliefs were true or even reasonable, this simply explains the true context of the word “find” within the conversation.

Trump lawyers misleadingly use Biden comment on peaceful protest

We rate this fact check as: Questionable. Cherry picking.

The fact states:

“But the Trump defense team itself clearly did selectively edit its video presentations. For example, moments before this Castor complaint, he had played a video that showed then-candidate Joe Biden saying, of last year’s racial justice protests, “The vast majority of — of the protests have been peaceful.” The video then cut immediately to footage of rioting, suggesting that Biden’s claim was wrong.

This video cut was misleading. Biden was correct when he said that the vast majority of racial justice protests in 2020 were peaceful; he was not describing riots as peaceful. Biden has repeatedly condemned rioting.

We rate this fact check as questionable because exactly what protests in what cities are being referred to is unknown. Furthermore, the definition of the word “vast” is subjective. In addition, there is no clear factual information to support the claim that “the vast majority of racial justice protests in 2020 were peaceful”. There is no database that catalogs all such protests and whether or not those protests were peaceful or not peaceful. Thus, the claim that the vast majority of protests were peaceful is subject to debate. Finally, we rate this fact check as “cherry picking” because no similar analysis was performed on the House managers’ use of selectively editing video.

Trump lawyers falsely claim trial violated due process

We rate this fact check as: Mostly true.

The fact check states:

“The due process clause applies to this impeachment hearing and it’s been severely and extremely violated,” he said.

This is false. An impeachment inquiry is a political process, not a criminal case, therefore the constitutional rights of criminal defendants, such as due process, do not apply.

We rate this fact check as mostly true as it is true that impeachment is a political process and thus due process technically does not apply. However, we also stipulate that most Americans agree in basic fairness and that in an undertaking so historically significant as the impeachment of a President or former President that Americans would generally expect there to at least be a semblance of due process, a full discovery of the facts involved in the case. This basic fairness has, in fact, been severely and extremely violated.


OK, so what is the point of all this? Well, the point is that “fact checks” are really nothing more than opinion. Far from being objective “facts about facts”, they are really not free from bias and thus nothing more than opinions about facts. We have clearly demonstrated that CNN’s “fact check” of the Trump defense team is mostly false or at the very least misleading. CNN’s “fact check” is clearly full of bias. As further evidence of this bias it is telling that CNN chose to “fact check” Trump’s defense team and yet no similar CNN “fact check” exists of the House managers’ obvious misstatements and misleading “facts”. This “bias by omission” is actually perhaps even more concerning. True journalism would require equal treatment of both sides and yet CNN only chose to “fact check” one side. This does not survive scrutiny as being objective and unbiased and further does not rise to the level of journalistic integrity that news organizations ought to strive for.

At the end of the day, an objective observer might very well also question the objectivity of the analysis performed here about CNN’s analysis of facts stated by Trump’s defense team. Who fact checks the fact checkers of the fact checkers? And hence, where does it all end? At the end of the day, it boils down to who each individual trusts to deliver fair, unbiased, objective analysis or opinion. People are going to gravitate to whoever delivers opinions that fit their predetermined positions and thus, the entire “fact check” industry is actually rather pointless because nobody just states the facts any longer.

Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics

King Biden Just Used His First Letter

The media coverage regarding King Biden‘s vaccine rollout has been rather positive. Various publications have gushed over how COVID-19 vaccine distribution has been “ramping up” or “accelerating”. Unlike former President Trump’s vaccine rollout, which was widely panned by the media because former President Trump’s lofty goal of having 20 million vaccinated by the end of 2020 took 3 weeks longer than expected. Now, however, it is nothing but sunshine and rainbows; universal, glowing admiration for King Biden‘s vaccine distribution:

Now sure, King Biden had a bit of a rocky start with his monarchy initially saying that the previous administration had left “no plan”, only to have this almost immediately refuted by Dr. Fauci. And then there was the original goal of 100 million doses in 100 days, which was exceedingly underwhelming considering that on the last day Trump was in office the seven day average for total doses administered was already 959,072 per day. Achieving a mere 100 million doses in 100 days then amounted to an uncontested layup. But, King Biden revised the goal to 150 million doses in 100 days and all has been peachy keen since. There is even a website designed to track progress towards that, arguably, still mild, goal. And this website is very forgiving to King Biden clearly stating:

“Use this graphic to follow whether the country is on track to reach the administration’s goal. Note that total vaccinations given — as in first and second shots, both shots counting individually — are what’s being counted. This is not the same as full vaccinations, which are first and second shots counted as one. Biden specifically mentioned shots in arms in his statements about the goal.

With all of this fantastic coverage by the objective mainstream media, whose journalistic integrity is obviously beyond reproach, it was with great surprise then when King Biden recently came out with extremely harsh words and blame for his predecessor over COVID-19 vaccine procurement and distribution.

Hmm…curious. So we here at The Objective Observer decided to take two seconds and have a closer look at the vaccine distribution numbers from the CDC. What we found is that either the media is purposefully misleading the public or the media is incapable of doing basic, trivial data analysis.

The graph below is from the CDC website tracking vaccine doses administered within the United States. The column highlighted in gray denotes the last day of the Trump administration. Now, nine days after Trump left office, one can see a drop off in the seven day average of total doses administered (red line) that spans four consecutive days but overall the trend seems positive and even seems like it is indeed “accelerating”, the slope of the line increases somewhat.

We have confirmed that this is the graph that is the basis for the NBC News vaccine tracking King Biden‘s stated goal of 150 million does in 100 days. How? We spent several days checking both websites and the seven day average stated by both websites were identical each day, except for that one odd day when the NBC News website stated a seven day average that was 10,000 doses above the CDC’s, but we’ll chalk that up to a “clerical” error.

However, switching to “People Receiving Dose 1” and “Daily Count” paints a completely different picture:

Here we see that the number of people receiving their first does of a COVID-19 vaccine has leveled off. This means that the pace of people receiving their first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine decelerated. If daily first doses remain at their current plateau of under one million then we will be well into next year before all Americans even have their first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine.

The difference between the two graphs is solely the people receiving their second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, shown below.

As one can see from the graph, during the Trump administration’s first days of even being able to administer a second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, initially, the Trump administration actually did a slightly better job at accelerating the distribution of second doses than King Biden. But, remember that there is a 3-4 week delay between doses so King Biden benefitted from there being far more people that were even eligible to receive a second dose versus Trump. Given that Trump held back half of the vaccine doses in order to ensure that people received their second dose, a policy King Biden reversed upon taking office and that the entire “acceleration” of vaccine distribution is due to these second shots…one has to wonder exactly when this short term “boost” is going to come to an end.

The only objective conclusion that one can draw from this rather trivial data analysis exercise is that vaccine distribution under King Biden is in real trouble. First time vaccine distribution has effectively stalled and the rosy numbers being reported by the media are simply an aftereffect of King Biden benefiting from those individuals who were already given their first dose under Trump and Trump’s decision to hold back vaccine doses to ensure people received their second shot. We can’t help but wonder whether King Biden might have spent his time better working on COVID-19 vaccine distribution rather than signing a record breaking number of executive orders and allowing the Senate kangaroo court to engage in a literal show trial.

But, the media’s misleading of the public does not stop there. It seems that most media outlets wish to provide COVID-19 vaccination numbers in terms of total doses administered. By that measure, the United States topped 44 million doses administered as of the last day of vetted results when this article was written. That’s not horrible, a little over 14% of the population.

However, if one takes the time to look a bit closer, those individuals that are fully inoculated number less than 25% of that figure, just over 10 million, or about 3% of the population. Not so good. That…that is horrible. At that rate, doing some rough math of 7 million second doses administered from January 20th until February 7th (18 days) indicates that, optimistically, fully inoculating all Americans would take about 1,100 days, or just over 3 years. And that’s just the current population, it does not account for illegal immigrants flooding over the border during that time. Yeah, King Biden had better get his sorry ass moving, and quick.

Now, it has been widely reported that former President Trump left a note for King Biden within the resolute desk as per custom. And there has been widespread speculation about the contents of that letter. Well, we here at The Objective Observer have a theory that former President Trump actually left three letters in the Resolute desk along with a note reading “If you get into trouble, open these numbered letters in order.”. King Biden just opened the first letter and it read “blame your predecessor”. We can’t be certain what the second letter might contain, but if we are right, the third letter most assuredly states “write three letters”.

Fakes, Lies and Video Tape

House Impeachment Managers Should Face Expulsion

There has been a ton of media coverage regarding the words and deeds of Trump’s impeachment defense team. Much of this coverage has centered around what the defense team did wrong or incorrectly or the invalidity of their arguments. Shockingly however, there really hasn’t been much coverage regarding the House managers fabrication of evidence, lying and purposefully manipulating video evidence in a willful attempt to mislead Senators. Those are all serious, serious issues. Lying to the Senate, especially about something as important as a Presidential impeachment, is not something that people should simply get a pass on.

Now, House managers cannot be impeached. The Constitution’s impeachment clause only applies to the Executive and Judicial branches. But some form of punishment must be forthcoming. It cannot be allowed to stand that House managers are allowed to outright lie, intentionally ignore context and manipulate evidence in formal impeachment proceedings before the Senate. It’s absurd that there would not, at the very least, be censure although a more appropriate punishment would be expulsion. The evidence is overwhelming. Raskin’s doctored tweet from the New York Times article aside, it was never presented as evidence against Trump on the floor of the Senate, there are plenty of other instances where evidence was outright fabricated and lies were told to intentionally mislead Senators. Let’s do the list:

  • Lying about the text of a tweet – Eric Swalwell lied about a tweet from January 6th stating, repeatedly, that the tweet read “cavalry” (armed militia) when the tweet clearly read Calvary (a public display of Christ’s crucifixion). The House managers used this as evidence that Trump knew there would be armed insurrection at the Capitol. If not drummed out of office for blatantly and purposefully lying to the Senate, he should be expelled for being illiterate.
  • Fabrication of evidence in the same tweet – House managers fabricated the blue checkmark next to Jennifer Lynn Lawrence’s account. Blue check marks are “verified” accounts and thus have greater authority behind their words, often representing organizations or persons of authority within organizations. Again, House managers used this as evidence that Trump knew there would be armed insurrection at the Capitol. They doctored the evidence.
  • Lying about a phone call – House managers lied about a purported phone conversation between President Trump and Senators Mike Lee and Tommy Tuberville. Mike Lee stated: “Statements attributed to me moments ago by the impeachment managers, statements relating to the contents of the conversations between phone calls involving Trump and Senator Tuberville, were not made by me, were not accurate,”. The statements were withdrawn but David Cicilline still lied on the floor of the Senate and Representative Raskin subsequently and inexplicably defended the lie after Senator Mike Lee himself said the statements were untrue.
  • The Charlottesville “very fine people” lie – House managers used words out of context to support their outright lie that President Trump supported and encouraged white nationalist groups like The Proud Boys. The full context of Trump’s remarks makes it crystal clear that he emphatically called out and condemned white nationalist and Neo-Nazi groups. Specifically condemned them. Biased and journalistically corrupt media organizations doing this is one thing, but to present such a blatant lie intentionally to mislead Senators on the floor of the Senate?
  • Lied about the Georgia phone call – House managers clearly, intentionally took President Trump’s words out of context in his call with the Georgia secretary of state in claiming that Trump demanded that the secretary of state ‘find’ just over 11,000 votes. The House managers told the Senators that this was evidence of Trump attempting to forcefully subvert the election. In the full context of that entire phone call, however, it is clear that Trump is stating his belief that if Georgia were to recount the ballots through legal means that they would “find” inadmissible ballots. Trump was under the mistaken belief at that time that Georgia rejection rates had declined dramatically from previous elections. But House managers specifically twisted the words to lie to and mislead Senators about the true nature of the phone call. They did this purposefully and they did this willfully.
  • “You have to get your people to fight” lie – This one is probably the worst of the bunch. House managers manipulated video to selectively take out of context Trump’s words from his January 6th, 2021 rally to claim that Trump ordered his supporters to go fight at the Capitol. As House managers claimed, “He told them”, meaning that Trump told the rioters to storm the Capitol. But, the full context of the speech makes clear that Trump is referring to primarying lawmakers, not physically combatting them. The attempted deception here is simply not something that can be allowed on the hallowed floor of the Senate.

Now, these are just a few of the cases where House impeachment managers fabricated evidence, lied and sought to intentionally mislead Senators. The list doesn’t even include the misleading testimony regarding the Biden bus which was never “run off the road” or Rep. Madeleine Dean’s blatant falsehood “[Trump] had a pattern and practice of praising and encouraging supporters of violence — never condemning it,”. Digging into the entirety of the 12+ hours of the House managers’ tortured testimony is simply too much work and this article would drag on for an eternity. But someone, someone, should take the time. The media telling these lies is one thing but there should be a higher standard from our elected representatives, especially in the halls of Congress.

If a lawyer in a court of law engaged in even one or two of these things, they would be disbarred. Therefore, the only sensible, adequate punishment for the House managers is expulsion from the House of Representatives. Faking evidence, lying and intentionally misleading Senators can never, ever be tolerated. How can the American people be expected to have faith in their institutions of government if this flagrant betrayal of trust is allowed to go unpunished? The American people were lied to. Not expelling the House managers immediately only proves, unequivocally, that the second impeachment of Trump was nothing more than the very definition of a show trial.

Look, none of this is a statement about Trump’s culpability in the January 6th Capitol Hill riot or even whether or not he should or should not have been convicted in the impeachment trial. Everyone can have different opinions on that. But what we should all agree on is that nobody, nobody, should be able to take to the floor of the Senate, present fabricated evidence, lie and intentionally attempt to mislead Senators of the United Sates of America with impunity. There must be, must be, some sort of repercussions and consequences for such actions. And if we can’t all agree on that, this republic is truly lost.

Psaki Simps

The Greatest Love Story Never Told

Today is Valentine’s Day so we here at The Objective Observer thought that we would take a break from overly political or technical articles and instead celebrate love, true love. And not just true love, but the greatest love story of all time. But achieving this end would be no small feat. Should we write about true life love stories only? Fictional love stories? Should we write about only existing love stories documented by others or a true love story that has never been told? If we sought a true life, epic love story that had never been told, how could we possibly hope to compete with stories the likes of Megan Mullally and Nick Offerman in a book literally titled The Greatest Love Story Ever Told? Not to mention such epic, timeless love stories as Romeo and Juliet, Pride and Prejudice, Jane Eyre, Wuthering Heights, Gone with the Wind, The Time Traveler’s Wife, The Notebook, Doctor Zhivago, Titanic, The Princess Bride, Star Wars, Fifty Shades of Grey and, of course, Twilight

Sorry…sorry…excuse us. Sorry, sometimes our own jokes make us collectively throw up in our mouths a little bit. We’re good. We’re good now, we’re back. Twilight…hurl.

In any case, we clearly had our work cut out for us. But after weeks upon weeks of racking our brains, we finally, finally, hit upon the greatest, true, real life, untold love story of all time. It was so obvious, a love more boundless than the the borders of the United States, more powerful than a monarch, more plentiful than carbon dioxide molecules in the atmosphere, more nuanced than gender identity, more equitable than a $15 per hour minimum wage, more dramatic than erasing women, more urgent than COVID-19 vaccination, more hyperbolic than hatred for Trump, more bountiful than dark money and more certain than science. Of course, of course, we are talking about the media’s love affair with Queen Psaki.

Let’s be honest, the media’s love affair with Queen Psaki has all the elements of any truly great, epic literary romance:

  • Love at first sight – Clearly, the media was enamored with Queen Psaki from her very first press conference.
  • Being saved/rescued – Like when the media came to Queen Psaki‘s defense over wearing a hat emblazoned with the emblem of a hammer and sickle
  • Turmoil and conflict – Like the media struggling with and ultimately abandoning all sense of journalistic integrity and objectivity
  • Significant differences – Like the media being on the side of uncovering the truth while Queen Psaki obscures it
  • Relationship transcends life and death – Such as the media and Queen Psaki transcending a pandemic
  • Love triangles – Alternate love interests for both, the media’s other potential love, truth and Queen Psaki‘s, her husband
  • The members in the relationship engage in societal rituals of fun and romance – Press conferences
  • The romance requires sacrifice – The media has sacrificed so, so much
  • The romance and relationship is denied – For obviously this is forbidden love

The media’s love affair with Queen Psaki is all the more remarkable given the outright hostility of the media to previous White House Press Secretaries such as Sean SpicerSarah Huckabee Sanders, and Kayleigh McEnany. We are so overjoyed, in particular, for the media in finding their true and forever love. After having been rejected by so many in the past we feared that they had become too bitter and angry to ever again attempt to court and find unconditional love.

Thus, we here at The Objective Observer on this Valentine’s Day are inspired, filled with optimism and feel privileged to witness this epic, illicit love affair between the media and Queen Psaki. A truly remarkable romantic tale that should uplift all Americans during this long dark winter. On this Valentine’s Day, make time to appreciate this love that transcends time and space and will live forever as an inspiration to all true lovers whose cruel circumstance harshly and unjustly keeps them apart, keeps them from expressing their true, innocent and pure love for one another…

Sorry…sorry…>hork<…just a…>hork<…just a little bit more…vomit. >gulp< It burns…it burns!