I'm trying to decide — not that anyone will ever really know for sure — if Donald Trump really thinks he won the election or if he just thinks protesting it has its advantages. He seems to be raking in money from Trump supporters who want to help prove the election was stolen and don't realize that a majority of what they're giving is actually going to pay down Trump's enormous campaign debts. So there's an advantage to not conceding. Another may be to position himself as true-president-in-exile in the minds of his supporters, the better to exploit them for whatever he sees as his future.
I dunno. Kevin Drum says "[Republicans] want to enter the Biden presidency with their base riled up about a stolen election. Maybe Lindsey Graham will start up an endless Senate investigation to keep it fresh in everyone's mind. This provides Republicans with a great excuse to obstruct everything Biden tries to do, and two years from now it gives them a great foundation to turn out their base and win back the House." And he may be right.
In other news, the drug maker Pfizer has announced that "an early analysis" of its coronavirus vaccine suggests it could be more than 90% effective against COVID-19. It strikes me that if you read the full announcement — or even the sentence before this one — there's a lot of optimism there about something that isn't proven yet. Further down in the New York Times story is stuff like…
The data released by Pfizer Monday was delivered in a news release, not a peer-reviewed medical journal. It is not conclusive evidence that the vaccine is safe and effective, and the initial finding of more than 90 percent efficacy could change as the trial goes on.
A cure? Maybe. I'm taking the wait-'n'-see approach before unfurling any optimism. Actually, my plan is to not to think anything about this or any other vaccine until my wise physician says, "I think you ought to take this." That's when I'll start considering taking whatever he recommends.
Lastly: In an opposite-of-slow news day, it's amazing that the press found as much room as it did for this headline…
McDonald's to launch its fried chicken sandwich in the U.S. next year
That was on every news site I went near this morning and while they all wrote about the threat to McDonald's posed by the chicken sandwiches of Chick-Fil-A and Popeye's, no one noted that McDonald's came out with a chicken sandwich a few years ago, reacting just to competition from Chick-Fil-A. I reviewed it here back in 2008…
Lately, McDonald's has introduced its Southern-Style Chicken Sandwich — a breaded filet served on a (sorta) buttered bun with dill pickle chips. In other words, it's precise imitation of the Chick Fil-A specialty. It's not as pretty good as the original but it ain't bad at all. It also, by the way, is nowhere near as thick as the above photo and advertising promos would indicate. But if size doesn't matter to you, you might be happy with one.
I guess it didn't go because it quietly disappeared from menus. I believe that one had the chicken deep-fried in the same vat as McDonald's french fries, whereas for the new one they're installing pressure cookers in their restaurants. I find it hard to believe that McDonald's could improve on anything cooked in the vat with their french fries. Even those paper hats the employees all wear would taste mighty good fried alongside those fries.