Muda69

Nursing Homes Account for 42 Percent of America's COVID-19 Fatalities https://reason.com/2020/05/27/nursing-homes-account-for-42-percent-of-americas-covid-19-fatalities/

The Spread of the Debt Virus https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/05/national-debt-washington-postponing-frightening-choices/

It's also better to look good than to be good:

I wouldn't want to immediately drive a car that has essentially sat for seven years. Any gasoline in the tank needs to be drained and refilled, the oil and filter need to be replaced. The battery needs replacement. The tires need to be thoroughly inspected, sitting on (probably) concrete in one position for seven years may have caused them to go out of round. Is the state of Indiana going to pay for these services? Should they?

The Hydroxychloroquine Controversy Is a Reminder That Prescription Laws Are a Government Racket https://mises.org/wire/hydroxychloroquine-controversy-reminder-prescription-laws-are-government-racket The FDA's latest statement that taking “any drug” is a decision between doctors and patients contrasts sharply with the one it made a little over three weeks prior regarding HCQ. On April 24, the agency cautioned against using HCQ “for COVID-19 outside of the hospital setting or a clinical trial due to risk of heart rhythm problems.” Although not a direct contradiction, the May 19 statement makes a substantial difference in the April 24 statement’s effect. That’s because it’s reasonable to expect that the FDA will typically enforce its opinions through a perceived threat of coercion. As investigative reporter James Bovard wrote in this space last month, the FDA has a history of using intimidation tactics to secure compliance with unfinalized prohibitions, including against “off-label” drug treatments. In 1991, then FDA commissioner Dr. David Kessler told the Drug Information Association that the FDA would use seizures, injunctions, and prosecutions to enforce its ban on drug companies sharing “off-label” use information with doctors. The ban was never formalized, but Kessler said: “I would urge all members of the pharmaceutical industry to take a long and hard look at their promotional practices. I do not expect companies to wait until this guidance becomes final to put their advertising and promotional houses in order.” Kessler would not be proud of the current FDA head, who concedes that “ultimately” doctors and patients have the decision-making power over drug use. In 1992, Kessler said quite the opposite: At least Kessler was more consistent than Hahn is. There’s no sign that Hahn will follow through his words that doctors and patients may decide how “any drug” should or shouldn’t be taken. That’s too bad, because when the doctor-patient relationship isn’t interrupted by bureaucratic third parties or red tape, it is the strongest bulwark against drug and prescription abuses. What benefit is a layer of FDA regulations that simply restrict everyone’s freedom for the sake of those who will circumnavigate the rules, anyway? The principle is more commonly accepted in the gun control debate, but it is the same in the prescription drug control debate. Trump got it right when he said people should be allowed to decide for themselves. His words clearly influenced the FDA’s messaging. We can allow ourselves a little hope, but realistically, substantial reform towards more freedom in medicine may have to wait until a worse crisis demands it.

Another happy update: Indiana Returns Land Rover Seized 7 Years Ago in Landmark Asset Forfeiture Case https://reason.com/2020/05/27/indiana-returns-land-rover-seized-7-years-ago-in-landmark-asset-forfeiture-case/ Sickening that the Indiana Attorney General is still pursuing this. A complete waste of taxpayers's dollars and the time of Indiana state attorneys. As one of the comments to this update states: Also I wonder if the State kept up on the regularly scheduled maintenance of Mr. Timb's vehicles in the 7 YEARS it took them to return it?

An coronavirus pandemic related story: John Kraskinski slammed as 'sellout' over 'Some Good News' deal with CBS https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/john-kraskinski-slammed-selling-some-good-new\ You create something, then you can sell it if you wish. It's called capitalism, the American Way.

NY Times on Memorial Day Weekend: US Military celebrates white supremacism https://www.foxnews.com/media/ny-times-memorial-day-weekend-us-military-celebrates-white-supremacism This travesty is obviously Mr. Trump's fault. He should have ordered this bases renamed the day he first took office.

I prefer: https://duckduckgo.com/

Joe Biden's 'Bold' Thinking Shredded Civil Liberties and Destroyed Lives https://reason.com/video/joe-bidens-bold-thinking-shredded-civil-liberties-and-destroyed-lives/

Detassling corn for $ or going to a "voluntary" summer workout.

Why Those COVID-19 Models Aren't Real Science https://mises.org/wire/why-those-covid-19-models-arent-real-science

And to get back on topic: Why Does Trump Want To Stop People From Voting by Mail? https://reason.com/2020/05/21/why-does-trump-want-to-stop-people-from-voting-by-mail/

You fellows do know it's Anakin Skywalker, not Anikan? Sorry, the SW geek in me just couldn't keep letting that slide.

A completely on point breakdown of the entire situation: The New York Times Recoils at the Predictable Consequences of the Mandatory COVID-19 Precautions It Supports https://reason.com/2020/05/20/the-new-york-times-recoils-at-the-predictable-consequences-of-the-mandatory-covid-19-precautions-it-supports/ Contrast that with photographs across social media showing crowds of sun-seekers packed into parks in wealthy, whiter areas of the city, lounging undisturbed as police officers hand out masks…. Without a significant course correction, the [police] department's role in the pandemic may look more and more like stop-and-frisk, the policing tactic that led to the harassment of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, most of them black and Hispanic, while rarely touching white New Yorkers. [Mayor Bill] de Blasio has scoffed at the comparison, though it's not clear why. The "course correction" suggested by the Times—a "public health corps" consisting of "specially trained civilians" who would "fan out across the neighborhoods and parks, helping with pedestrian traffic control and politely encouraging New Yorkers entering parks to protect one another by wearing masks and keeping their distance"—presents problems of its own. While those specially trained civilians presumably would be less likely than police officers to tackle, beat, and tase people for perceived violations of COVID-19 precautions, the potential for violence would still exist. What would a member of this public health corps do if a parkgoer says he intends to keep his distance from other people but is not willing to wear a mask, since he (correctly) views the risk of virus transmission in an uncrowded, open-air environment as negligible? (Fun fact: In New York, a masked person who "congregates" in a public place with "other persons so masked" is guilty of loitering, a violation punishable by up to 15 days in jail.) The Times says "the Police Department would play only a minimal role in this approach." But if cops serve as a backstop in responding to recalcitrant pedestrians, we are back to a situation in which social distancing rules are enforced by blatantly violating them through the physical contact and close proximity required to arrest, book, and jail people (which puts them in an environment where the risk of catching COVID-19 is especially high). We also have to allow for the possibility that disputes between social distancing encouragers (who may not be as polite as they are supposed to be) and uncooperative targets (some of whom will be indignant and perhaps belligerent) will escalate into physical altercations. That danger is by no means theoretical. The Times cannot have it both ways. If COVID-19 precautions are mandatory, they must at some point be legally enforced, with all the risks that entails, including violence and racial discrimination. The public health payoff might justify those risks in certain contexts—if a dense crowd happens to gather in Central Park, for instance, or if subway riders refuse to wear masks (although that was the situation in the video that the Times cites as evidence of overkill). But the risks cannot be eliminated if voluntary compliance is less than perfect, as it always will be. Police officers charged with enforcing mask-wearing and social distancing requirements have to constantly weigh the costs of forcible intervention against the likely benefits. As the Times notes, it is not a task they welcome. "This situation is untenable," says Patrick Lynch, president of the New York City Police Benevolent Association. "The NYPD needs to get cops out of the social distancing enforcement business altogether." But that effectively means mandates will become recommendations. And while most people probably will follow those recommendations, out of concern for their own welfare if not out of consideration for others, some won't. The Times can't will away that tradeoff by pretending it does not exist.

Ignorance is voting for a member of the uni-party, for practically any office, especially POTUS.

I thought Joe Biden is the Democratic front runner for the POTUS nomination, and Mr. Yang dropped out? So Mr. Yang's plan to pay for all the new federal spending is to Tax The Rich and institute a VAT. VAT's are a terrible idea for the American economy: https://www.cato.org/publications/congressional-testimony/case-against-valueadded-tax https://www.heritage.org/taxes/report/how-value-added-tax-would-harm-the-us-economy https://www.marketwatch.com/story/vat-is-a-bad-idea-on-many-levels-2010-05-04 https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2015/03/30/why-the-vat-may-seem-good-in-theory-but-is-bad-in-reality/ https://fee.org/articles/value-added-taxes-make-it-easier-to-raise-taxes-thats-why-governments-love-them/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/11/value-added-tax-vat-rand-paul-ted-cruz/

Exactly. It's something like socialists just don't seem to think or care about. And how will it be payed for? Taxing 'the rich'? Just printing more money, aka Modern Monetary Theory?

Socialism FTW. And your children and grandchildren will be paying for it.

Biden 2020 strategy gives Trump this massive opportunity https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/biden-2020-strategy-gives-trump-opportunity-ben-shapiro

A career politician. Another reason not to vote for Mr. Biden.

v v

Neither individual is fit for the White House. Vote third party, or don't vote at all. Who currently has your vote for POTUS, UW?