Jump to content
Head Coach Openings 2024 ×
  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $2,716 of $3,600 target

Open Club  ·  46 members  ·  Free

OOB v2.0

Follow the Science? How COVID Authoritarians Get It Wrong


Muda69

Recommended Posts

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/02/15/968059128/fauci-awarded-1-million-israeli-prize-for-speaking-truth-to-power-amid-pandemic

Quote

America's top infectious disease official Dr. Anthony Fauci received a prestigious $1 million Israeli prize Monday, along with six other researchers who shared two additional $1 million prizes for their contributions to health and medicine.

The Dan David Prize, affiliated with Tel Aviv University, said it honored Fauci for his career in public health and "speaking truth to power" during the politicized COVID-19 crisis.

Fauci "is the consummate model of leadership and impact in public health," the awards committee said in a statement.

The award sets aside 10% of the prize money for academic scholarships in each winner's field. Fauci gets to determine the nature of the scholarships.

....

Umm, isn't it illegal or unconstitutional for an employee of the federal government to accept such a "prize"?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Muda69 said:

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/02/15/968059128/fauci-awarded-1-million-israeli-prize-for-speaking-truth-to-power-amid-pandemic

Umm, isn't it illegal or unconstitutional for an employee of the federal government to accept such a "prize"?

This is all I could find in 5 minutes of research.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43660.pdf

It’s a 10 pg. document, but here’s the gist:

The laws and regulations on the receipt of “gifts” by executive branch personnel provide, generally, that an employee may not solicit or accept a gift:
(1) if the gift is from a “prohibited source” or
(2) if the gift is given because of the employee’s official position.

A “prohibited source” under the regulations is one who seeks official action from the employee’s agency; one who does business or seeks to do business with the agency; one whose activities are regulated by the employee’s agency; one whose interests may be substantially affected by the performance or nonperformance of the employee’s official duties; or an organization a majority of whose members fit any of the above categories.

A gift is given “because of” the employee’s official position if it would not have been offered “had the employee not held the status, authority or duties associated with his Federal position.” Gifts that are “motivated by a family relationship or personal friendship” may therefore be accepted without limitation.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They Said Things Would be Much Worse in States without Lockdowns. They Were Wrong.

https://mises.org/wire/they-said-things-would-be-much-worse-states-without-lockdowns-they-were-wrong

Quote

Like nearly all US states, Georgia imposed a stay-at-home order in March 2020 in response to demands from public health officials claiming a stay-at-home order would lessen total deaths from covid-19.

But unlike most states, Georgia ended its stay-at-home order after only 5 weeks, and proceeded to lower other restrictions quickly.

The legacy media responded with furious opposition. For example, an article in The Atlantic declared the end of Georgia’s lockdown to be an “experiment in human sacrifice.” The Guardian approvingly quoted one Georgian who insisted the end of the stay-at-home order was “reckless, premature and dangerous.”

A few weeks later, other states began to end their stay-at-home orders and to end other restrictions as well. Florida was the largest among these states.

Shortly thereafter the Daily Beast declared the scaling back of restrictions in Georgia and Florida were “terrifyingly premature” And quoted one expert who insisted “If you lift the restriction too soon, a second wave will come, and the damage will be substantial both medically and economically. We don’t want to throw away the sacrifices we have made for weeks now."

All this hyperbole about human sacrifice and recklessness leads us to conclude that states which ended lockdowns quickly must have experienced far worse numbers of deaths from covid than states which maintained lockdowns longer. Indeed, when it came to lockdowns, we were told, the longer the better. Ideally, lockdowns shouldn’t be loosened up at all until everyone can be vaccinated.

But things didn’t turn out that way. Experts have scrambled to come up with explanations for why this is the case, but the fact remains some of the most strict states (i.e., New York and Massachusetts) have covid deaths at far worse rates than the “reckless” states like Georgia and Florida.

Moreover, with little to show for their lockdowns in terms of “public health” these states with extreme lockdowns also have some of the worst unemployment rates. This occurred in spite of the fact that experts insisted that a failure to impose lockdowns would doom a state’s economy to later economic disaster.

State-to-State Comparisons Aren’t Helping the Prolockdown Narrative

A year after stay-at-home order began, even the usual media outlets are being forced to recognize the outcome aren’t what was predicted. The Associated Press reported earlier this week:

California and Florida both have a COVID-19 case rate of around 8,900 per 100,000 residents since the pandemic began, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. And both rank in the middle among states for COVID-19 death rates — Florida was 27th as of Friday; California was 28th.

Connecticut and South Dakota are another example. Both rank among the 10 worst states for COVID-19 death rates. Yet Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont, a Democrat, imposed numerous statewide restrictions over the past year after an early surge in deaths, while South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, a Republican, issued no mandates as virus deaths soared in the fall. …

Like Florida, Missouri had no statewide mask mandate, ended business restrictions last June and has a cumulative COVID-19 death rate similar to California’s.

Even the LA Times was forced to admit this reality, although the Times insisted that when you consider the higher levels of poverty and “overcrowding” in California—translation: California is a filthy breeding ground for disease—California should have had far worse rates than Florida for covid deaths. Thus, the Times concludes “California better controlled the virus.”

The Times goes on to point to the fact Florida’s covid death rate, while similar, is nonetheless six percent higher than California’s, and this translates into 3,000 deaths that presumably wouldn’t have happened if Florida had adopted lockdown rules similar to California.

Btu the numbers don't stack up so well in favor of lockdowns if we use the Times's method to make other comparisons.  For example, New York’s total deaths-per-million rate is 67 percent higher than in Florida. Translated into raw numbers, that means if Florida were like New York, Florida would have experienced 54,000 deaths instead of the 33,000 that the CDC now attributes to covid in Florida. (New Jersey’s outcomes are even worse than New York’s.)

Similarly, if Florida were like Massachusetts in its outcomes, Florida would have experienced 54 percent more deaths.

Moreover, if the Times is going to claim overcrowding should translate into more death in California, we might also note that Florida fares worse than California in terms of median age and higher incidence of obesity. Yet we know  advanced age and obesity are major factors in covid hospitalizations and deaths. By these measures, Florida should be among the nation’s hot spots for covid deaths.

(According to the CDC, Florida and New York are evenly matched in terms of obesity, Florida has more obesity than Massachusetts, and Florida has the highest median age of them all.)

And what about Georgia, that experiment in human sacrifice? Well, the CDC reports Georgia total deaths-per-million rate at 1,720. That’s worse than California’s rate of 1,400, but Georgia is still far and away better than New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts which have rates of 2,530, 2,690, and 2,400, respectively.

What About Economic Performance?

Meanwhile, it is likely that the economies of Florida and Georgia have suffered less. Although the Daily Beast assured us that the “damage will be substantial both medically and economically” if a state ends lockdowns “too soon,” we now find that the unemployment rates in Florida and Georgia are 4.8 and 5.1, respectively.

In California, the picture is quite different, where the unemployment rate now sits at 9 percent. New York doesn’t fare much better with an unemployment rate of 8.8 percent. New Jersey clocks in at 7.9 percent.

In other words, the dire predictions surrounding states that first canceled stay-at-home orders have been spectacularly wrong. Many lockdown enthusiasts will now do what the  LA Times did: quibble over small differences between Florida and California to show that California did a little bit better. New York, of course, will just be completely ignored.

As one doctor at US San Francisco admitted: “One might’ve expected that the Floridas of the world would’ve done tremendously worse than the Californias of the world…”  Places like Florida and Georgia were supposed to be overwhelmed by an absolute tsunami of death if they were “reckless” in ending covid restrictions. That’s didn’t happen. 

Yep, the lockdowns were mostly a farce, and exercise in government control over the populace.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everybody Except Teachers Unions Loves the CDC's Revised School Distancing Guidelines

https://reason.com/2021/03/19/everybody-except-teachers-unions-loves-the-cdcs-revised-school-distancing-guidelines/

Quote

As foreshadowed last week, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Friday morning shortened its recommended distance between K-12 students from six feet to three feet, a change that could hasten full-time schooling for millions of remote and hybrid learners.

"We don't really have the evidence that 6 feet is required in order to maintain low spread," CDC Community Interventions and Critical Populations Task Force leader Greta Massetti told the Associated Press.

The funny thing is, they didn't really have that evidence five weeks ago, either, yet that didn't prevent the CDC from issuing a global outlier of a school reopening guidance that, if followed to the letter, would have kept most American public schools half-open at best well into the fall.

The negative reaction to that teachers union–influenced February 12 document, not just from outspoken school-opening advocates such as Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis but also scientists, left-leaning media outlets, and some Democratic-run polities, undermined the CDC's credibility, and led directly to several school districts delaying or even reversing plans to reopen.

The new recommendations include bringing down plastic barriers ("We don't have a lot of evidence of their effectiveness," Massetti told the A.P.), maintaining six feet of distance in middle and high schools in high-spread communities, and having everyone wear masks.

The revision brings the CDC closer in line with the epidemiological and pediatric researchers, the global public health community, and the professed opinion last July of its current director, Rochelle Walensky. But one category of "stakeholder," unsurprisingly, isn't happy: teachers unions.

"They are compromising the one enduring public health missive that we've gotten from the beginning of this pandemic in order to squeeze more kids into schools," American Federation of Teachers (AFT) President Randi Weingarten told The Washington Post this week. "I think that is problematic until we have real evidence in these harder-to-open places about what the effect is."

Weingarten, a frequent guest of the Biden White House, has, like other union leaders, sought to portray herself as a tireless advocate for reopening while practically throwing up one objection after another when full-time schooling gets near.

Look, you need to have all the mitigation strategies in place before you can actually have a conversation about distancing. Teachers still want and need 6 feet, especially becausre many districts haven't been able to meet other guidelines  https://t.co/USO7eBVEbT

— Randi Weingarten (@rweingarten) March 17, 2021

 

On one hand, you can understand why the unions are so chippy. Having isolated themselves on the science of school spread, alienated parents with reckless accusations of racism, and leveraged their significant influence on Democratic politicians to help make the United States a world leader in shuttered schools, the guilds are coming under increasing public criticism. Including from leading New York mayoral candidate, Democrat Andrew Yang, who took aim at the city's United Federation of Teachers (UFT) in a Politico interview this week: "I will confess to being a parent that has been frustrated by how slow our schools have been to open, and I do believe that the UFT has been a significant reason why our schools have been slow to open."

(Retorted UFT President Michael Mulgrew, lamely: "The UFT was the leading force in New York City public schools opening and opening safely, protecting students and staff. Mr. Yang needs to do his homework.")

On the other hand, unions just received a no-strings-attached $200 billion gift from the federal government via an American Rescue Plan that spends most of its K-12 component on hiring, even at a time when schools have been closed and students have been exiting public schools.

Mulgrew, and the New York City Department of Education, illustrate how even policies that are labeled as "reopening" end up with a school experience as anything but. My NYC kindergartener, who is podding a few feet away from me as I type, attends a school of more than 800 kids, where—per city policy arduously negotiated by Mulgrew—the whole institution, already operating at half-time capacity because of the six-foot rule, will shut down if there are two concurrent positive cases of COVID-19.

Weingarten has repeatedly touted New York City (as opposed to, say, the state of Florida, where schools have been open five days a week since September) as a national model. Today's long-overdue CDC revision will hopefully instead make Gotham a stingy outlier in an increasingly vaccinated K-12 world that's accelerating toward full reopening. As New York magazine's Jonathan Chait put it this week, "Just Reopen the Schools Now."

The Department of Education on Wednesday said that a whopping $122 billion from the recently passed American Rescue Plan will be disbursed to public schools by the end of March. An additional $10 billion is being spent by the Department of Health and Human Services on school COVID testing by early April. The unions got their massive payday. Time to go to work.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dark web bursting with COVID-19 vaccines, vaccine passports

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/03/dark-web-bursting-with-covid-19-vaccines-vaccine-passports/

Quote

Tired of waiting to get your vaccine appointment? For just $500, you could get a COVID-19 vaccine dose tomorrow (overnight shipping not included). Too rich for your blood? How about a vaccination card for just $150?

Security researchers have seen a spike in listings on dark Web marketplaces in recent weeks. The sites are advertising everything from vaccine doses to falsified vaccine certifications and negative test results. Currently, more than 1,200 listings are offering a variety of vaccines, including Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, AstraZeneca, Sputnik, and Sinopharm.

....

Wherever there exists a market for a good or service there will be those willing to provide it. For a cost  of course.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Teachers Unions Hate School-Opening Science Now That They Can't Influence It

https://reason.com/2021/03/23/teachers-unions-hate-school-opening-science-now-that-they-cant-influence-it/

Quote

They got their vaccines, they got their $200 billion federal stimulus, they got $122 billion of that stimulus fast-tracked, plus an additional $12 billion out the door for coronavirus testing, but now the teachers unions that have been the single biggest obstacle to reopening K-12 classrooms in Democrat-run cities and states have come up with yet another reason to stay home from school: They do not much care for the dominant global scientific view that 3 feet is enough distance between students during the COVID-19 pandemic.

"We are not convinced that the evidence supports changing physical distancing requirements at this time," American Federation of Teachers (AFT) President Randi Weingarten declared in a letter Tuesday to Education Secretary Miguel Cardona and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Rochelle Walensky, in response to the CDC last Friday revising its school-distancing guidelines from 6 feet to 3.

Among the institutions that do not share Weingarten's lack of conviction: The American Academy of Pediatrics, the World Health Organization, UNICEF, Walensky herself (prior to joining the Biden administration), most of the 50 states, the vast majority of school districts in the industrialized world, plus one of the research teams whose work the CDC had erroneously sourced when formulating guidance for the agency's controversial February 12 recommendation to keep the 6-foot rule intact. Opined those latter scientists at the time: "No science supports mandating 6 feet of distance with children wearing masks. A 6-foot distance between students creates space constraints for schools to open in entirety. There is data supporting at least 3-foot distancing."

The 6-foot rule allowed teachers unions—whose Biden-friendly leadership directly influenced the February 12 guidance—to remain in favor of school reopening on paper, while sadly shaking their heads when it came time to, you know, open schools. This dance, about as subtle as an elephant mating ritual, has nonetheless been treated credulously by the media and Democratic political class.

So it is that Weingarten got feted in a New York Times profile ("She spends 15 hours per day on the phone, she says—with local labor leaders, mayors, the White House, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention—trying to figure out how to reopen the three-quarters of school systems that remain fully or partly closed") in the same week that she tried to make Washington, D.C., school reopening contingent on a ludicrously strict security-theater standard of shutting down schools automatically for 24 hours after just one positive COVID test so that the entire building could be scrubbed down. Science!

It's important to stress that now a slim majority of K-12 students (51.2 percent) in the United States are attending school five days a week, according to the tracking site burbio. In fact, there's only a handful of states under 50 percent; they just tend to be populous, and heavily Democratic—California, Oregon, New Mexico, Maryland, Hawaii, Washington, Nevada, Massachusetts, and New Jersey, in order of percentage closedness.

This disparity of openness has some implications worth pondering. First, it illustrates what the Brookings Institution was palpably alarmed at discovering last summer: "In reality, there is no relationship—visually or statistically—between school districts' reopening decisions and their county's new COVID-19 cases per capita. In contrast, there is a strong relationship—visually and statistically—between districts' reopening decisions and the county-level support for Trump in the 2016 election."

More to the point, the reality of kids going every day to school—not just in defiant red states like Florida and the Dakotas, but at Catholic and other private schools smack-dab in the middle of otherwise-shuttered big blue cities—provides a data-rich controlled experiment for those who have been stoking fears of snotty-nosed superspreaders.

"Our concern," Weingarten writes in her letter, "is that the [CDC's] cited studies do not identify the baseline mitigation strategies needed to support 3 feet of physical distancing. Moreover, they were not conducted in our nation's highest-density and least-resourced schools, which have poor ventilation, crowding and other structural challenges."

To which, at this late date, one might counter-ask: Where, precisely, have the structural challenges been so daunting that they led to significant school-site spread? Which dense districts in Florida, which Catholic schools in Chicago, which poorly ventilated schools in which countries in Europe? Surely the datasets must be vast!

Weingarten cites for her argument this recent paper in the Institute for New Economic Thinking, and, well, click on the link if you are persuaded by such analytical terms as "rush to reopen," or such unironic formulations as "it is important to adopt the precautionary principle." There are people who have been following this stuff closely; do catch up.

The great science writer John Tierney has a long, well-worth-reading piece this week in City Journal titled "Death and Lockdowns," in which, after running very exhaustively through the numbers, and observing that the stories they tell are hardly black and white, nonetheless concludes that: "The lockdown proponents are recklessly staying the course, still insisting that lockdowns work. The burden of proof rests with those imposing such a dangerous policy, and they haven't met it. There's still no proof that lockdowns save any lives—let alone enough to compensate for the lives they end."

Emphasis mine, in order to emphasize that Tierney's right. The precautionary principle was for March 2020, not March 2021; by now we know a lot more about the booga-booga behind the closet door.

Weingarten saves the most brazen bit of her letter for last. Even after dragging their feet on reopening, leveraging parental anger into gobs of federal cash (don't forget the extra $69 billion from 2020 COVID relief bills), all while bewildered families leave the public school system in droves, teachers unions still have the stones to plead a lack of resources:

 

What is the expected timeline for implementation of these changes? Many school systems are just returning to in-person instruction right now, after significant planning—for bus routes, staggered schedules, etc.—based on 6 feet of physical distancing. Even with the significant investment of American Rescue Plan money, districts lack the human resources and institutional planning ability to make changes like this quickly. Is this something that can be implemented in the fall, or perhaps the summer?

If public school districts in the United States lack the human resources and planning ability to do what their private school counterparts have long managed, then maybe it's time to recognize that those monopoly systems no longer deserve automatic taxpayer funding. You could fill a football stadium with the most effective libertarian education reformers on the planet, and their exertions combined would pale in comparison to how much, in one short year, teachers unions have turned normal people away from public schools.

Like vulture capitalists squeezing the last drops of value out of newspaper companies, teachers unions are shaking down the public for one last big payday. Only in this case, millions of kids are suffering as a result. When Randi Weingarten uses "science" in a sentence, the appropriate response is a laugh track—and getting taxpayer money far, far away from people like her.

Agreed.  When will the general public come to realize that the primary concern of public sector teachers unions is NOT the welfare of the children their members purport to teach, it is to protect at virtually all costs their members jobs, salaries and benefits.  That is the primary purpose of any labor union.

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Time for Americans to Take Back Power from Teachers’ Unions

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/03/time-for-americans-to-take-back-power-from-teachers-unions/

Quote

Tuesday was supposed to be a big day for a lot of kids in Oakland — they were supposed to be going back to school. Some of them were to be going to school for the first time. Unfortunately, it’s not going to happen.

A deal between the school district and the teachers’ union had provided for reopening all of Oakland’s elementary schools, but, in spite of the deal, more than half of teachers are declining to return to the classroom, and so most of Oakland’s schools will not reopen as scheduled. Out of 50 pre-K and elementary schools covered by the agreement, only 21 — fewer than half — will reopen.

A substantial number of teachers — almost a fifth — have indicated that they do not intend to return to school as required in mid April. While acknowledging the damage this is doing to children — isolation, depression, and other mental-health issues — Oakland School Board Director Shanthi Gonzales pleaded powerlessness, telling the San Francisco Chronicle, “I wish more teachers were volunteering.” That is what you get when the school district works for the teachers and not the other way around: schools in which the interests of children and their families take a distant second place to the desires of the public-sector unions that dominate Democratic politics around the country and run the show practically unopposed in California.

 

This isn’t bare-knuckle labor politics — it’s political child abuse.

The Centers for Disease Control has said that schools can be safely reopened while maintaining social distancing of as little as three feet. And, as we all know, the pronouncements of the CDC are the gold standard for our progressive friends — right up until they run into the demands of an important Democratic constituency, at which point, they become trash. American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten says she’s “not convinced” by the CDC’s advice. Weingarten, a lawyer by education and a union goon by profession, is, to say the least, not very well prepared to critically review the CDC’s public-health findings.

We have been through a great deal in the past year, with the schools and other institutions taking extraordinary measures that were generally, even when we disagreed, understandable. But 100 million Americans have now received at least one dose of one of the COVID-19 vaccines, and the research overwhelmingly finds that elementary-school education is a relatively low-risk proposition — and that every additional unnecessary delay in the return of ordinary education does real and lasting damage to children, especially to those whose families do not have the resources to adequately pick up the slack. A great many people have worked throughout this terrible episode, many at some considerable personal risk, and not only doctors, nurses, and ambulance drivers but also grocery clerks, warehouse workers, and taxi drivers. They have kept the country running while unionized teachers in Oakland and elsewhere have turned up their noses at the children they are supposed to be serving and looked instead to their own two-point agenda: (1) not going to work; (2) getting paid.

Randi Weingarten exercises more real practical political power than any senator or cabinet secretary, and her power is exercised exclusively in the interest of public-sector workers and the Democratic Party, which they effectively control. Perhaps it is time for Americans to take back some of that power.

Yep.  The logical thing it to make public-sector labor unions illegal, as even the leftist-demigod FDR supported.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Muda69 said:

Time for Americans to Take Back Power from Teachers’ Unions

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/03/time-for-americans-to-take-back-power-from-teachers-unions/

Yep.  The logical thing it to make public-sector labor unions illegal, as even the leftist-demigod FDR supported.

I don’t think you necessarily have to go that far. But it should be illegal for a public sector union to strike. Eliminating the tool of a work stoppage, coupled with the Janus decision by SCOTUS in 2018, pulls a lot of the teeth a public sector union might otherwise have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Take A Stand Against The Mask Mandates

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/take-a-stand-against-the-mask-mandates/

Quote

Don’t just let it slip beneath your nose. Go maskless. Face the day. The shopping and other errands may not get done, but you’ll achieve even more with your time. Take yourself and others out of the comfort zone just a bit. You just might save America.

Even as states loosen or lift their mask mandates, private companies are holding fast to them. This juke move is causing too many conservatives and libertarians on the right to falter. Whereas in the former case, imposing masks on people was a violation of their rights, dignity, and the fundamental norms of civilization, the latter is seen as merely the exercise of property rights.

These free-market fundamentalists excuse the face covering mandates when handed down from a corporate office, because it’s not a government one. This intellectual cowardice undermines the very first premise of the free market, the indispensable cohesion and trust that must exist within a social order.

It should be obvious how mass masking tears at the fabric of society, to say nothing of the psychological effects on future generations. There can be no compromise on this matter, but some businesses are trying to find one. They require employees to mask up while allowing customers to go mask-free, thus creating or exaggerating a class divide between lower wage workers and wealthier consumers that will not be good for anyone’s safety in the long run.

The mask mania is not going to go away on its own. Yes, there are anecdotally more folks defying the de facto oxygen rationing. The huddled masses yearning to breathe free are poking their noses out from under the muzzles. But this can’t be the standard symbol of protest forever.

Thankfully, some people are drawing a line in the sand like Terry White.

White, a 65-year-old woman, went maskless into a Galveston, Texas, Bank of America branch last week. She stood in line on her designated floor marker, exhibiting no symptoms of any kind, at least six feet apart from all others.

Her story ends with her becoming a tragic hero. That is the type that Aristotle described as someone who brings out our sense of pity for their blunder while also arousing fear in us that we too would suffer the same fate if we were in a similar place.

B. of A. ordered her to wear a mask or leave, then called the cops when she refused, even though she only wanted to close her account.

Bodycam footage, which has gone viral internationally, shows White mocking the police officer’s warning that she risked being arrested for not leaving the property. By the time the officer pulled out his handcuffs, she turned for the exits, but by the officer’s discretion, she was too late.

The officer shoved her to the ground, where he proceeded to break several bones in her foot and spill her personal belongings across the floor. Then customers mocked White, and none of them showed her any sympathy.

Why not just put on the dang mask? There are certainly many valid criticisms of this woman. That goes to the essence of being a tragic hero. But any conservative, libertarian, or other right-wing person who chooses denunciation over approbation is part of the problem in this country.

It’s time to face down the enforcers of these ridiculous rules. Patriots, get ready to leave your comfort zone and leave the mask at home in the trash. Hold your head high with pride in yourself and your country as you walk into that grocery store, bowling alley, bank, or restaurant.

Now, the point of this is not to be rude or invite physical conflict. Obviously. As the late Rep. John Lewis put it, “Never, ever be afraid to make some noise and get in good trouble, necessary trouble.”

It’s all about good trouble. And it’s actually not that big of a deal, especially after the first couple times. That’s why it’s useful to set aside at least a couple hours for this intention. Run your errands as you would. Give the hostess, doorman, greeter, or whomever your full attention when they ask, “Um, do you have a mask?”

“No,” is a good enough reply. Resist the urge to give a speech or an excuse like having a medical condition.

It’s then likely you’ll be asked to leave or told that they cannot serve you. From here, be as polite and as reserved as you were when you walked in. You can say a little more, because at this point the other person is all done parroting the scripted lines given to them.

I appreciate the fact that you have that policy. I want to give you my business, and I would love to be a returning customer. That’s why I’m asking you to please weigh those things and let me pay for your services without forcing me to wear a mask.

Again, more than likely this isn’t getting you anywhere at first glance. They may even say they’re calling the cops at this juncture, despite your neighborly demeanor.

Killing them with kindness is the approach here. How far that goes depends on the situation and people involved, but any new anti-masker will benefit from the experience. In an ideal scenario, you’re being gracious and loud enough for bystanders to take notice of what’s going on.

In a short period of time, encounters like these will become easier to do. The adrenaline rush will subside, and the new skills and strengths gained might be shared with friends and family who would also like to fight the mask man.

Asking normal people to essentially pull stunts like this may be futile. But the threats to individual liberty today are also highly disruptive of normal social functions that bond communities together. No great institution in America today is going to save us, so it’s up to those willing to set an example.

Spring is upon us, but don’t become a sunshine patriot. Challenge yourself and those around you in a safe and responsible manner, and if enough others do the same, that will be the last of the mask mandates, private or public.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The CDC vs. the Constitution

https://reason.com/2021/04/01/the-cdc-vs-the-constitution/

Quote

Since last summer, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have used an obscure federal regulation to impose a nationwide moratorium on a huge chunk of residential evictions. This is constitutionally dubious, to say the least. But the CDC just extended it through June.

The moratorium's proponents argue that federal authority over interstate commerce permits this move. But the Interstate Commerce Clause isn't a plenary power over all areas of life simply because everything, at a certain point, can be linked to commercial activity. The Tenth Amendment makes clear that all powers not expressly delegated to the federal government are left to the states. Still, the Commerce Clause has been used to justify a myriad of regulations that involve no commerce "among the several states," and in some cases no "commerce" at all. Notable examples include prohibiting cannabis grown in your backyard for personal medical use, or stopping the control of a rodent population that has no commercial value and lives only in southwest Utah.

Courts since the 1930s have often validated federal overreach under cover of the Commerce Clause. But in United States v. Lopez (1995), the U.S. Supreme Court held that gun-free school zones had nothing to do with interstate commerce. The Clause, it cautioned, does not invite a court to "pile inference upon inference in a manner that would…convert congressional authority…to a general police power of the sort retained by the states."

At the time, Lopez seemed to be a game-changer. But officials have found creative new ways to keep an impossibly broad Commerce Clause alive, and the Court has sometimes approved such schemes, as in the medical marijuana case Raich v. Gonzalez (2005). But in NFIB v. Sebelius (2012), even as Chief Justice John Roberts saved Obamacare's individual mandate, he also joined a majority of justices in holding that the Commerce Clause is not so broad as to justify forcing people to engage in a commercial activity.

The CDC eviction moratorium is especially egregious because it's not even a statute; it's an edict. Moreover, the regulation the CDC is relying on could be interpreted to permit any measures the agency "deem[s] reasonably necessary" to prevent the spread of communicable disease if it believes local responses "are insufficient to prevent the spread." Taken to an extreme, that provision could justify the regulation of every aspect of life, all to "prevent the spread" of the common cold. Although the regulation's language likely limits the agency to actions like those the rule actually lists—"inspection, fumigation, disinfection"—if it is extended to an eviction moratorium then there is no logical limit to what it could cover, essentially enabling the CDC to rule by decree. The Framers could not possibly have intended this result.

As Lopez teaches, it would take more than a few inferences to conclude that the landlord-tenant relationship is anything other than local (not interstate) activity. Those who disagree ought to heed District Judge J. Campbell Barker, who in a recent ruling against the CDC remarked that the "federal government cannot say that it has ever before invoked its power over interstate commerce to impose a residential eviction moratorium."

Meanwhile, a majority of states imposed eviction moratoriums of some kind during the pandemic, though some have lapsed. Whether or not they are wise policy, they certainly do a far better job of accounting for local economic conditions than the CDC's one-size-fits-all approach could ever do. Constitutional defects aside, the CDC rule simply isn't necessary.

Agreed.  Federal government overreach at it's most egregious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vermont Is Prioritizing 'BIPOC' Households for Vaccines. That's Almost Certainly Unconstitutional.

https://reason.com/2021/04/02/vermont-is-prioritizing-bipoc-households-for-vaccines-thats-almost-certainly-unconstitutional/

Quote

Vermont is prioritizing people of color for vaccine eligibility over the state's white residents, provoking no small amount of controversy and constitutional concerns.

On Thursday, Vermont Gov. Phil Scott (R) announced on Twitter that anyone aged 16 or older who identities as black, indigenous, or a person of color (BIPOC), or lives in a household with someone who does, can get a COVID-19 vaccine.

If you or anyone in your household identifies as Black, Indigenous, or a person of color (BIPOC), including anyone with Abenaki or other First Nations heritage, all household members who are 16 years or older can sign up to get a vaccine! Get yours at ⤵️ https://t.co/hVgb9rzQPn

— Governor Phil Scott (@GovPhilScott) April 1, 2021

That would seem to disadvantage the state residents who are white and don't live with anyone identifying as BIPOC. The state currently restricts vaccine eligibility for those people to those 50 years and older, unless they qualify for a vaccine by virtue of being a health care worker, employed in public safety, having a high-risk health condition, or being a parent or caregiver of someone with a high-risk health condition.

Mark Levine, the state's health commissioner, told VTDigger that people of color are being prioritized for the vaccine because of their higher rates of COVID-19 and lower rates of vaccination.

All Vermonters 16 or older, white or not, should be able to register for a vaccine appointment by April 19, said Levine.

Some 34 percent of Vermont's population has received at least one vaccine dose, making it the ninth most vaccinated state in the country. It ranks middle of the pack in how many of its allocated vaccines it's actually administered.

The prioritization of vaccine eligibility along explicitly racial lines is unconstitutional, argues Cato Institute legal expert Walter Olson in a December 2020 op-ed for The Detriot News written in response to the Department of Veterans Affairs opening up vaccines to black, Asian, Native American, and Hispanic veterans.

"This runs into the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which says citizens of all races are entitled to the equal protection of the laws. The Supreme Court has long interpreted this to mean that the government may ordinarily not dole out valuable benefits, or impose harms, based on a citizen's race," writes Olson.

It's true that people of color are more likely to be frontline workers or have health conditions that make them more at risk of COVID-19 complications and death. However, directing vaccines to those higher-risk people can, and should, still be done through race-neutral categorization, says Olson.

"Many sensible priority rules do incidentally protect relatively more minority persons — and that's fine, so long as the decision is based on the neutral grounds rather than being a pretext aimed at getting results based on race," he writes.

All these problems identified with the V.A.'s policy would also apply to Vermont's vaccination racial preferences.

In November, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted to prioritize essential workers over the elderly for vaccine distribution, in part, on the grounds that the elderly skew white, reports The Washington Free Beacon.

The fact that we have COVID-19 vaccines that are both safe and effective is a true miracle of modern medicine. Getting them in as many arms as possible should be public policy goal number one. That is only undermined when public health officials at any level of government start creating arbitrary, likely unconstitutional categories for who can get a vaccine next.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That 60 Minutes Story on Ron DeSantis and Florida's Vaccine Rollout Is Wildly Flawed

https://reason.com/2021/04/05/60-minutes-ron-desantis-vaccines-florida-publix-sharyn-alfonsi/

Quote

60 Minutes story on Florida's vaccine rollout accused Ron DeSantis, the state's Republican governor, of making a corrupt deal with Publix to distribute the vaccine. CBS reporter Sharyn Alfonsi noted that the grocery chain donated $100,000 to DeSantis' election campaign and suggested the lucrative vaccination contract was a "pay-to-play" scheme.

It's an accusation that doesn't really stand up to scrutiny: For one thing, Publix—like many large corporations—gives money to both Republicans and Democrats. But more importantly, the decision to have Publix coordinate vaccination was not even made by the governor's office. According to Jared Moskowitz, director of the Florida Division of Emergency Management, it was his offices that recommended Publix. Moskowitz, a Democrat, has said that Publix was the best store for the job, since it has more than 800 locations across the state.

Indeed, when Alfonsi cornered DeSantis at a press conference and asked him about Publix, he gave a lengthy explanation that largely undercut her claims. He pointed out, for instance, that it wasn't true that Publix got the vaccines first: CVS and Walgreens had already been contracted to coordinate vaccination for long-term care facilities. Here's a transcript of what the governor said:

 

So, first of all, when we did, the first pharmacies that had it were CVS and Walgreens. And they had a long term care mission. So they were going to the long term care facilities. They got vaccines in the middle of December, they started going to the long term care facilities the third week of December to do LTCs. So that was their mission. That was very important. And we trusted them to do that. As we got into January, we wanted to expand the distribution points. So yes, you had the counties, you had some drive through sites, you had hospitals that were doing a lot, but we wanted to get it into communities more. So we reached out to other retail pharmacies—Publix, Walmart—obviously CVS and Walgreens had to finish that mission. And we said, we're going to use you as soon as you're done with that. For the Publix, they were the first one to raise their hand, say they were ready to go.

Remarkably, CBS cut this portion of DeSantis' response. In fact, the 60 Minutes story reduced his two-minute answer to just a few seconds. The Daily Wire has a full breakdown of the sizable gap between what DeSantis actually said and what CBS included, and it's telling. This was not a case of a journalist condensing the essence of what a source told her: Alfonsi blatantly ignored the part of the governor's statement that clashed with her narrative, and instead included a brief comment that made it sound like he became combative with her for no reason.

The rest of the story is also quite flawed. It maligned DeSantis for "breaking with CDC guidelines" and prioritizing vaccination for the elderly instead of "teachers and essential workers." Since the elderly are at the highest risk of dying from COVID-19, this prioritization makes absolute sense, irrespective of the CDC's warped views on the subject.

CBS also implied that there's something sinister and unique about a Republican administration having "privatized" the vaccine rollout. (Corporations +profits = scary.) But private entities are aiding with vaccine distribution elsewhere as well: In the District of Columbia, CVS has partnered with the city's Democratic mayor to vaccinate all sorts of people.

The mainstream media seems intent on peddling a false narrative that Florida's approach to the pandemic has been uniquely bad. As Zeynep Tufecki explained in a recent article, this is an example of how "polarization has eaten a lot of our brains":

Lots of people are angry, very angry with Florida, and willing to quickly believe the worst. In reality, it's… middling. Compared with the rest of the country, Florida's record is neither stellar nor terrible. How much of this is its middling guidelines, how much of this is the weather advantage, how much of this just luck? It's not yet fully clear.…

But the polarized climate means that Andrew Cuomo—who is implicated in a large number of terrible policies—can sell a book about his pandemic leadership for $4 million dollars (even before the pandemic was over!) while people are readily willing to believe that Florida—which, from what I can tell, actually has one of the better reporting systems—must be lying and covering up its terrible numbers.

60 Minutes' report is another example of this weird fixation. Moreover, it's misleadingly clipped to deprive viewers of DeSantis' plausible explanation of the alleged controversy. No wonder that so many people—and Republicans, especially—distrust the media.

Yep, yet another left-wing MSM hit piece.  They hate Mr. DeSantis and the state of Florida for their personal freedom-based and rational approach to this pandemic.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Progressive Surprised To Learn He Can Still Wear Mask Even Without Government Forcing Him To: https://babylonbee.com/news/progressives-worried-that-without-mask-mandate-theyll-have-to-take-responsibility-for-their-own-decisions

Quote

As Texas removed its mask mandate this week, many progressives were shocked to learn that they could still wear masks. Having been led to believe that the end of the mask mandate would mean all masks everywhere would disappear like all those people in Infinity War, he was surprised to find that his mask hadn't yet been dusted from existence.

"It's so weird -- I can still wear 2, 3, or even 4 masks at once. Bizarre!" said Austin progressive activist Frank Miles as the sun rose and his mask was still firmly in place on his face, exactly as it had been all night. "I don't know what to think about this! Sometimes I just sit around and wait for a notification to pop up on my phone with the latest government advisory on how many masks I should wear, if I should get the vaccine, and whether I should wear pants."

Progressives across the state, however, began to grow worried that they would now have to start to make their own decisions about their health. What's worse, they would have to take responsibility for their actions when it comes to where they go, whether or not they mask, and whether or not they social distance.

"If the government doesn't force me to wear a mask, how will I ever make my own decisions about what's best for me and my health? Oh no!" said one woman as she looked outside and saw children playing. "Children! Having fun! I'm staying inside today!"

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The FDA's Decision To Pause J&J Vaccination Will Kill People

https://reason.com/2021/04/13/the-fdas-decision-to-pause-jj-vaccination-will-kill-people/

Quote

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a statement today "recommending a pause in the use" of Johnson & Johnson's COVID-19 vaccine. The agencies took this step "out of an abundance of caution" based on six cases of a rare blood clot disorder in people who had been inoculated with the one-dose vaccine. There have been six cases out of 6.8 million people who have already been inoculated with the vaccine. The blood clot incidents all occurred in women between the ages of 18 and 48. Those odds amount to one in 1.13 million, which is comparable to your annual chances of being struck by lightning (1 in 1.22 million).

For comparison, a November 2020 meta-analysis in The Lancet found that more than one in five very ill hospitalized and post-mortem* COVID-19 patients experienced venous thromboembolism—that is, blood clots in their veins. A 2010 study in the Journal of American Preventive Medicine reported that the annual incidence of thromboembolism between the ages of 15 and 44 was about 1.5 cases per 1,000 people. In addition, the risk of blood clots from taking oral contraceptives is about 1 in 1,000 annually.

A March 2021 study in Science reports that more than 70 percent of new COVID-19 infections have been driven by Americans between the ages of 20 and 49. The faster that people in that age group get vaccinated, the less likely it is that other Americans who remain unvaccinated or immunocompromised will become infected.

Unfortunately, many states have declared that they are following the pause recommendation from these federal agencies. Officials in the Biden White House have declared that the pause in the rollout of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine "will not have a significant impact on our vaccination plan." The New York Times notes, however, that instead of being able to deliver enough doses by the end of May to cover 260 million Americans, the pause will result in only enough for health authorities to fully vaccinate 230 million.

Before the Johnson & Johnson pause was announced, the good news has been that COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among Americans had been steadily dropping. Interestingly, some public health experts apparently believe that the pause will increase Americans' confidence in the COVID-19 vaccines. For example, FDA Vaccine Advisory Committee member Dr. Paul Offit tells Forbes that the pause "should be largely reassuring" because it shows the agencies are "still looking" to determine possible side effects even after the vaccine was approved.

Offit's optimism seems dubious given that public confidence in the Oxford/AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine plunged according to a YouGov poll, after various European governments paused its distribution in March over reports of similarly rare anomalous post-vaccination blood clotting incidents. The good news is that public confidence in the safety of the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines remained steady among Europeans.

By focusing on the not-yet-proven, very low risk of blood clots versus the known risks of the increased misery, hospitalizations, and deaths that the Johnson & Johnson vaccine would have prevented, our overly cautious public health bureaucrats will likely cause more sickness and deaths among Americans than would otherwise have occurred.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Team Blue Should End Its Unhealthy Obsession With COVID-19 Panic Porn

https://reason.com/2021/04/19/team-blue-should-end-its-unhealthy-obsession-with-covid-19-panic-porn/

Quote

A month and a half ago, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) lifted all statewide COVID-19 restrictions, prompting widespread panic from many Democrats—including President Joe Biden—as well as unofficial members of Team Blue within the mainstream media and public health establishment. Liberals confidently predicted that the masks were coming off way too soon, and COVID-19 would swiftly make a comeback in the Lone Star State.

Well, nope: COVID-19 deaths and cases continue to fall in Texas, even without a mask mandate or capacity restrictions on businesses. The same is broadly true of Florida, which relaxed its restrictions all the way back in September and has managed to weather the pandemic more successfully than super locked down states like New York and California.

This is good news! It's more evidence that warmer weather does make it harder to spread COVID-19—in large part because the heat and sunshine allow people to socialize outdoors, where there is a significantly lower risk of transmission. It also shows that the vaccines are working. Fully vaccinated people are essentially immune from serious disease or death, and according to the latest data, they are very unlikely to carry or transmit COVID-19 at all. The message to the unvaccinated should be: Go get vaccinated. The message to the vaccinated should be: Rejoice! You can go back to normal life.

But the frustrating truth of the matter is that Team Blue doesn't want to hear this. Many people—predominantly liberals—who claim to Follow the Science and Trust the Experts no matter what are nevertheless captivated by pandemic panic porn. By asserting, for instance, that social distancing and masks should be mandatory even for the vaccinated, they bizarrely fixate on the minuscule risk of post-vaccination infection.

Fully vaxxed! #HousePfizer and I don't leave home without my mask, my undermask, and the will to make it fashion. Now let's beat this bastard covid-19, people!! ????????❤️ pic.twitter.com/et7iVZ1s6W

— Joy-Ann Pro-Democracy & Masks Reid ???? (@JoyAnnReid) April 18, 2021

 

Masks have been an important tool in slowing the course of the pandemic. There's a strong case to be made that the unvaccinated should still wear them when they gather in large numbers in indoor spaces. But there's never been a particularly good reason to require masks outdoors, and that's doubly true for the vaccinated. Could a vaccinated person suffer a breakthrough infection, and then spread the disease during outdoor contact to an unvaccinated person who gets very sick or dies? Yes, it's theoretically possible, but we're starting to get into hit-by-lightning chances here. In no other context would we accept that this level of safety is insufficient.

On his show over the weekend, HBO's Bill Maher delivered a terrific monologue on the subject of COVID-19 paranoia among Team Blue. Maher referenced a fascinating December 2020 survey result from Gallup that found Democrats wildly overestimated the odds that someone who contracts the virus will need to be hospitalized. Some 41 percent of Democrats thought the hospitalization rate was higher than 50 percent—in reality, it's between 1 and 5 percent.

Screen-Shot-2021-04-19-at-12.02.16-AM.pn

"If the right-wing media bubble has to own things like climate change denial, shouldn't liberal media have to answer for how did your audience wind up believing such a bunch of crap about COVID?" asked Maher.

Whenever I tweet that post-vaccination outdoor masking is unnecessary, I am inundated with hostile feedback from liberals who stridently assert that the performance is important because it sends the right message and puts other people at ease. Well, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) probably puts some people at ease, too—but it shouldn't, because removing our shoes and belts before we get on a plane doesn't make us any safer at all. The TSA is a massive waste of time, money, and energy, and the American people have put up with it for more than 20 years. If we don't want pandemic restrictions to become the new airport security, there needs to be pushback: Get vaccinated, and then get back to normal.

 

I don't want politics mixed in with my medical decisions. And when all of our news sources for Covid information have an agenda to spin us, you wind up with a badly misinformed population. #BreakingNews #ScaredStraight pic.twitter.com/xnPZOafziI

— Bill Maher (@billmaher) April 17, 2021

Agreed.  Stop listening to and watching the covid-19 panic porn.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michigan Moving To Make 'Emergency' COVID-19 Mandates Permanent

https://reason.com/2021/04/16/michigan-moving-to-make-emergency-covid-19-mandates-permanent/?itm_source=parsely-api

Quote

Almost every state instituted emergency rules to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic. This included statewide mask mandates, limits on gatherings, school shutdowns, and more. Michigan has had and continues to have some of the most severe restrictions across the country.

But what makes the Great Lakes State truly unique now is that it wants to make its emergency rules for businesses permanent.

State bureaucrats are moving to impose permanent regulations that would mandate the following and more on all Michigan businesses: mask wearing whenever employees are within six feet of someone else, daily health screenings, extensive record keeping, and keeping a "COVID-19 safety coordinator" on-site. Retail stores, personal care services, and other businesses open to the public would have to become the mask police: They would be required to make all customers wear masks, vaccinated or not.

Many of these rules are based on mandates put in place last spring by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. As such, many are based on outdated scientific knowledge about how COVID-19 spreads. For instance, employers must "increase facility cleaning and disinfection" and "prohibit workers from using other workers' phones, desks, offices or other work tools and equipment." These rules were dreamed up when public health experts thought the virus could easily spread via surface contact. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently said there's a one in 10,000 chance of getting infected from touching a contaminated surface.

The rules make no accommodations for vaccinations. The word vaccine doesn't even appear in the rules. This means that even if a movie theater or bowling alley has fully vaccinated its entire staff and is in a community with no cases, masks are mandated at all times.

Other mandates in the proposed rules may be impossible for businesses to comply with. Sports stadiums must, for instance, "establish safe exit procedures for patrons," such as dismissing attendees by section. Would the Detroit Lions need to prevent people from individually leaving Ford Field early during a blowout loss (a common occurrence)? That may be illegal

So how can this be? Aren't there limits on the state's power? Yes, but Michigan's executive offices have fought them every step of the way.

Whitmer put in place orders last spring under a state law that requires the legislature to approve the continuation of emergency powers after 28 days. Initially, Michigan lawmakers approved their continuation for another 22 days. But even after the legislative approval expired, Whitmer continued issuing emergency orders. She claimed a 1945 law aimed at controlling local riots enabled her to maintain unilateral control over the state's pandemic response for however long she alone determined was necessary. The Mackinac Center Legal Foundation filed a lawsuit on behalf of three medical providers who had been shut down, and a patient who had been denied care, and the Michigan Supreme Court eventually ruled that the governor had acted illegally and could not extend these emergency orders indefinitely.

Whitmer, nevertheless, maintained unilateral control. She merely switched to using a law that authorizes the director of her state health department to limit gatherings during a pandemic to reinstitute most of the mandates the Michigan Supreme Court had just invalidated. Other state departments, such as the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration (MIOSHA), followed suit with their own emergency rules that mirrored the governor's original orders.

The permanent rules being discussed are being put out by MIOSHA. As part of the rule-making process, they have to submit a "regulatory impact statement." In it, they cite only one state with permanent COVID-19 rules—Virginia. But that may be incorrect, as Virginia's workplace regulators say their rules are "temporary standards."

In 2020, MIOSHA went after gas stations for employees wearing face coverings inadequately, roofers who were not social distancing, and forklift drivers working outside and not wearing masks. It has issued dubious fines for transgressions, including to the city of Port Huron, even though the inspector admitted he didn't see any unmasked workers, but simply had a "general feeling" that masks "were not being taken seriously." The agency can fine or put companies out of business or even put people in jail. The permanent rules being discussed would comprise a different process with different punishments, but this shows the extent to which the agency has gone after those violating regulatory mandates.

What can lawmakers and the public do? Not much. The legislature can slow down the implementation of these rules, but not stop them. MIOSHA must hold a public hearing and receive comments from the public, but it doesn't have to take those comments into consideration. Barring a successful lawsuit, if the governor and her department want these permanent rules put in place, they will be in effect indefinitely until the law is changed or until a different governor changes them.

Ultimately, one person can control the lives of all 10 million Michigan residents to an enormous extent not only during a declared state of emergency, but potentially for years going forward.

If that doesn't show the dangers of the administrative state, I don't know what does.

Agreed.  Our family was planning a summer vacation to norther Michigan in a few months.  Those plans may change to not include Michigan if these overly restrictive regulations on businesses become permanent.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Michigan Moving To Make 'Emergency' COVID-19 Mandates Permanent

https://reason.com/2021/04/16/michigan-moving-to-make-emergency-covid-19-mandates-permanent/?itm_source=parsely-api

Agreed.  Our family was planning a summer vacation to norther Michigan in a few months.  Those plans may change to not include Michigan if these overly restrictive regulations on businesses become permanent.

 

Do you get the feeling that “big government’s” response to the pandemic is morphing into an excuse or justification for more intrusion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Bobref said:

Do you get the feeling that “big government’s” response to the pandemic is morphing into an excuse or justification for more intrusion?

Ok, I have had that feeling for over a year now.  Government is always looking a reason to clamp down on individual liberty.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Ok, I have had that feeling for over a year now.  Government is always looking a reason to clamp down on individual liberty.

I feel the electorate’s repudiation of Trump has emboldened those who were already inclined in that direction.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Bobref said:

I feel the electorate’s repudiation of Trump has emboldened those who were already inclined in that direction.

Errr...just when have you ever had any doubt that the LEFT  wanted to slam down HARD on individual liberty (and freedom)? 

I, personally, have some slim modest preference for Freedom...but what the Hell do I know?  

I suppose the Gulag has free food...at least - frozen mastodon meat notwithstanding (see Alexander Solzhenitsyn). 

Makes me wish I'd never read Solzhenitsyn - at least I could be blissfully ignorant of the horrors ahead in our current path.

But heck, what's several 100 million corpses in the pursuit of "ultimate human perfection" (read "personal political power") to the Left (see Mousey-Tongue and Stalin)?

Let's all just get along.

Some of us ACTUALLY want to.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Errr....apologies Bob.  I needed to "express" myself.

Just horrified, TRULY, of the historic death toll I anticipate from the current LEFT (and just what they are prepared to do)....not Liberals...I'm actually a Classical Liberal.

Edited by Lysander
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Lysander said:

Errr....apologies Bob.  I needed to "express" myself.

Just horrified, TRULY, of the historic death toll I anticipate from the current LEFT (and just what they are prepared to do)....not Liberals...I'm actually a Classical Liberal.

No apology necessary. We are basically of like mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...