Op-Eds du jour

Baron Samedi

Russian Bot 762X54R
Joined
Feb 14, 2007
Messages
28,979
Reaction score
2,305
Points
113
Age
52
Location
Framingham
The Democratic Party exists to co-opt and kill authentic change movements

US Democrats are united in grief over the killing of George Floyd, kneeling together with Black Lives Matter protesters to show their solidarity. But when the curtains fall, the show is just that, and no real change occurs.

ESTRAGON: Well, shall we go?

VLADIMIR: Yes, let’s go.

[They do not move.]

Curtain.

So ends both acts of the Samuel Beckett play Waiting for Godot. One of the two main characters suggests leaving, the other agrees, followed by the stage direction that both remain motionless until curtain.

This is also the entire role of the Democratic Party. To enthusiastically agree with American support for movements calling for real changes which benefit ordinary people, while making no actual moves to provide no such changes. The actors read the lines, but remain motionless.

Barack Obama made a whole political career out of this. People elected him because he promised hope and change, then for eight years whenever hopeful people demanded changes he’d say “Yes, we all need to get together and have a conversation about that”, express sympathy and give a moving speech, and then nothing would happen. The actors remain motionless, and Godot never comes.

Democratic Party leaders are currently under fire for staging a ridiculous performative display of sympathy for George Floyd by kneeling for eight minutes while wearing Kente cloth, a traditional African textile. The streets of America are filled with protesters demanding a total overhaul of the nation’s entire approach to policing. The Democratic Party’s response is to put on a children’s play using black culture as a prop, and advance a toothless reform bill whose approach we’ve already established is worthless which will actually increase funding to police departments.

Meanwhile it’s blue states with Democratic governors and cities with Democratic mayors where the bulk of the police brutality people are objecting to is occurring. The Democrats are going out of their way to spin police brutality as the result of Trump’s presidency, but facts in evidence say America’s violent and increasingly militarized police force would be a problem if every seat in every office in America were blue.

I don’t know what will happen with these protests. I don’t know if the demonstrators will get anything like the changes they are pushing for, or if their movement will be stopped in its tracks. What I do know is that if it is stopped, it will be because of Democrats and their allies.

Bloodthirsty Senator Tom Cotton recently took a break from torturing small animals in his basement to write an incendiary op-ed for The New York Times explaining to the American public why using the military to quash these protests is something that they should want. We later learned that The New York Times op-ed team had actually come up with the idea and pitched it to the senator, not the other way around, and that it was the Times itself which came up with the inflammatory headline “Send In the Troops”.

https://twitter.com/PatrickCoffee/s...25-democratic-party-kill-authentic-movements/

The op-ed understandably received severe public backlash which resulted in a senior staff member’s resignation. But if these protests end it won’t be because tyrants in the Republican Party like Donald Trump and Tom Cotton succeeded in making the case for beating them into silence with the US military. It will be because liberal manipulators succeeded in co-opting and stagnating its momentum.

Watch them. Watch Democrats and their allied media and corporate institutions try to sell the public a bunch of words and a smattering of feeble, impotent legislation to mollify the masses, without ever giving the people the real changes that they actually need. It remains to be seen if they will succeed in doing this, but they are already working on it. That is their whole entire purpose. It’s much easier to control a populace with false promises and empty words than with brute force, and the manipulators know it. That is the Democratic Party’s role.

It is true that there’s a difference between Democrats and Republicans, in the same sense that there’s a difference between the jab and the cross in boxing. The jab is often used to keep an opponent at bay and set up the more damaging cross, but they’re both wielded by the same boxer, and they’re both punching you in the face.

Don’t let them disguise that jab as anything other than what it is. Don’t let them keep you at bay with a bunch of impotent performances and word magic. If they have it their way they’ll keep that jab in your face all night until the knockout punch leaves you staring up at the arena lights like it always does, wondering what the hell happened and why Godot never came.

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/491325-democratic-party-kill-authentic-movements/
 

johnlocke

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
9,905
Reaction score
1,972
Points
113
Age
48
Location
Salisbury, NH
This a very important article that all that get their news from the main stream media need to read.

The writer leans left but his analysis is mostly spot on about the horrific things going on in the media business, he focuses on the left outlets in this one.

"The leaders of this new movement are replacing traditional liberal beliefs about tolerance, free inquiry, and even racial harmony with ideas so toxic and unattractive that they eschew debate, moving straight to shaming, threats, and intimidation. They are counting on the guilt-ridden, self-flagellating nature of traditional American progressives, who will not stand up for themselves, and will walk to the Razor voluntarily.
They’ve conned organization after organization into empowering panels to search out thoughtcrime, and it’s established now that anything can be an offense, from a UCLA professor placed under investigation for*reading Martin Luther King’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” out loud*to a data scientist*fired* from a research firm*for — get this —*retweeting*an academic study*suggesting nonviolent protests may be more politically effective*than violent ones!

Now, this madness is coming for journalism. Beginning on Friday, June 5th, a series of controversies rocked the media. By my count, at least eight news organizations dealt with internal uprisings (it was likely more). Most involved groups of reporters and staffers demanding the firing or reprimand of colleagues who’d made politically “problematic” editorial or social media decisions."

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-n...MNVT9rUaIt-RQfeTTXPoMNtyQZ_Z2aa8dP4QgTG4fNheE




Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
 

Baron Samedi

Russian Bot 762X54R
Joined
Feb 14, 2007
Messages
28,979
Reaction score
2,305
Points
113
Age
52
Location
Framingham
This a very important article that all that get their news from the main stream media need to read.

The writer leans left but his analysis is mostly spot on about the horrific things going on in the media business, he focuses on the left outlets in this one.

"The leaders of this new movement are replacing traditional liberal beliefs about tolerance, free inquiry, and even racial harmony with ideas so toxic and unattractive that they eschew debate, moving straight to shaming, threats, and intimidation. They are counting on the guilt-ridden, self-flagellating nature of traditional American progressives, who will not stand up for themselves, and will walk to the Razor voluntarily.
They’ve conned organization after organization into empowering panels to search out thoughtcrime, and it’s established now that anything can be an offense, from a UCLA professor placed under investigation for*reading Martin Luther King’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” out loud*to a data scientist*fired* from a research firm*for — get this —*retweeting*an academic study*suggesting nonviolent protests may be more politically effective*than violent ones!

Now, this madness is coming for journalism. Beginning on Friday, June 5th, a series of controversies rocked the media. By my count, at least eight news organizations dealt with internal uprisings (it was likely more). Most involved groups of reporters and staffers demanding the firing or reprimand of colleagues who’d made politically “problematic” editorial or social media decisions."

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-n...MNVT9rUaIt-RQfeTTXPoMNtyQZ_Z2aa8dP4QgTG4fNheE




Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

This is sort of like how the LGBTQ movement merged with the feminist movement, and now the trannies are slapping around women athletes like they're Russian mail order brides.
 

Baron Samedi

Russian Bot 762X54R
Joined
Feb 14, 2007
Messages
28,979
Reaction score
2,305
Points
113
Age
52
Location
Framingham
I'm putting this here instead of the Coronavirus thread because it is something worth remembering for the next crisis where the so called "experts" and pseudoscientists try to exploit the fear and gullibility of the people.

Erosion of trust: 10 things public health establishment got wrong about coronavirus

https://justthenews.com/politics-po...s-public-health-establishment-got-wrong-about

Excerpting the main part;

1. Threat level: On Jan. 21, the day the first COVID-19 case in the U.S. was confirmed, National Institutes of Allergies and Infectious Diseases director Anthony Fauci appeared on conservative Newsmax TV and said: “Obviously, you need to take it seriously and do the kind of things the CDC and the Department of Homeland Security is doing. But this is not a major threat to the people of the United States, and this is not something that the citizens of the United States right now should be worried about.”

By April 1, CDC Director Robert Redfield would be saying, “This is the greatest public health crisis that has hit this nation in more than 100 years.”

2. Masks: “Seriously people — STOP BUYING MASKS!” So tweeted Surgeon General Jerome Adams on Feb. 29. “They are NOT effective in preventing [the] general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can't get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!” The CDC initially said, “If you are sick, you should wear a facemask when you are around other people (e.g., sharing a room or vehicle) and before you enter a healthcare provider's office." But "if you are NOT sick," it added, "you do not need to wear a facemask unless you are caring for someone who is sick (and they are not able to wear a facemask).” That link now leads to the declaration with a subheading in large letters: “Cover your mouth and nose with a cloth face cover when around others.”
https://twitter.com/Surgeon_General...s-public-health-establishment-got-wrong-about

3. Asymptomatic transmission: Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove, head of WHO’s emerging diseases and zoonosis unit, said at a June 8 news briefing, “From the data we have, it still seems to be rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual,” adding, “It’s very rare.” She explained the importance of this for policy purposes. “What we really want to be focused on is following the symptomatic cases,” Van Kerkhove said. “If we actually followed all of the symptomatic cases, isolated those cases, followed the contacts and quarantined those contacts, we would drastically reduce” the outbreak.

After a backlash that “sent shock waves throughout the world”, according to a CNBC report [cnbc: who walks back comments]and sparked a “furious scientific debate,” according to The Washington Post,[WHO OFFICIAL’S WORDS SPARK CONFUSION, DEBATE], Kerhove executed a 180 within a day. “We don’t actually have that answer yet,” she said. “I wasn’t stating a policy of WHO or anything like that.”

4. Mortality rate: WHO’s initial mortality rate for COVID-19 was 3.4%, more than an order of magnitude higher than seasonal flu, which is usually pegged at about 0.1%. But recently the CDC put its “best guess” figure at 0.26%. That's still higher than the seasonal flu but far lower than the 0.67% death rate of the “Asian flu” of 1957-1958 (H2N2), which, according to the CDC, killed an estimated 223,000 Americans and 3 million worldwide adjusted to today’s populations. That pandemic led to no panic in the U.S., no suspensions of civil liberties, no worldwide recession.

5. Death toll models: The most influential prediction of COVID-19 deaths was British epidemiologist Neil Ferguson’s unpublished model forecasting as many as 2.2 million American deaths and 510,000 in the U.K. Around the globe, countries quickly locked down to prevent the disease from overwhelming their health care systems and exacting almost apocalyptic death tolls. As soon as they had, the Imperial College professor said the U.K. figure was actually closer to just 20,000 with the equivalent being 80,000 U.S. deaths. Defenders claim that if you read the fine print in Ferguson’s model, he technically allowed for that under an essentially perfect case scenario. But Ferguson walked back his alarmist projection on March 25, just two days after the U.K. locked down, and therefore long before the authoritarian measures could have had any impact. In yet another flip, Ferguson now says locking down a week earlier could have prevented half the actual U.K. deaths. He has published nothing to support that assertion.

6. Cause of death: Initially there were no tests for COVID-19, so it’s understandable that there might have been confusion, especially between coronavirus and flu that was in season at the same time. But after tests became available, both the WHO and the CDC issued advisories saying that no test was necessary to officially certify a death as COVID-19-caused. Then, Medicare began providing a 20% bonus for putting COVID-19 on the first line of the death certificate, which is quite important given that most U.S. coronavirus deaths are in persons over age 65. Ultimately, anything from lethal alcohol poisoning to homicide were being classified as coronavirus deaths. Moreover, it is inevitable that many of those dying with the virus actually died from something else, given that the vast majority of those dying with a positive COVID-19 test had at least one, and usually more, preexisting conditions, or co-morbidities, that could have been the direct cause of death. The CDC has found that only seven percent of American deaths attributed to COVID-19 didn’t have preexisting conditions, while in Italy a study found merely one percent didn’t.

7. Ventilators: New York City, we were told, was about to face a “bullet train” to use Andrew Cuomo’s awkward metaphor. That is, based on modeling by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, the city by early April would have more than 70,000 hospitalized with COVID-19. The actual number proved to be less than a fourth that.[NYT AVOIDS PREDICTED SURGE] Even today, the cumulative total is still about 16,000 cases shy. [NYC HEALTH]

With such huge numbers, Cuomo said there would be a tremendous shortage of ventilators. As many as 40,000 would be needed, he claimed, saying on April 2 that the state would run out of ventilators by within 6 days[NR Ventilator shortage that wasn ‘t] at the prevailing usage rate. President Trump disputed that, saying “I don’t believe you need 40,000 or 30,000 ventilators.” By April 6, Cuomo was conceding, “We’re OK, and we have some in reserve.” By the middle of the month, Cuomo was sending surplus ventilators to other states.

8. Surface Spread: Originally, on its “How Covid-19 Spreads” page, the CDC had “Spread from contact with contaminated surfaces and objects” under its own subheading, just below a similar subhead on “Person-to-person spread.” Now it’s tucked away under the subheading “The Virus May Be Spread in Other Ways.” The CDC could have admitted that its understanding of transmission mechanics has changed with new studies. Instead, it took a tip from a John Wayne character: “Never apologize, Mister; it’s a sign of weakness.” “Our transmission language has not changed,” CDC spokesman Benjamin Haynes told NPR. Narrowly speaking, he is right, but ... you be the judge.

9. Hydroxychlororquine: You can’t rush good science — a lesson for those speculating about a speedy and highly effective COVID-19 vaccine. That’s what we saw with HCL. President Trump gave the drug, used for treating malaria and autoimmune diseases, a boost, based on limited evidence that it might have been effective against SARS. Individual physicians told reporters that they “thought” the drug seemed effective, which doesn’t mean much given that the vast majority of COVID-19 patients recover in any case.

But whether because Trump was prematurely promoting the drug or because Trump is Trump, there seemed a concerted effort to disprove him. The highlight was when one of the world’s most respected medical journals, The Lancet, published a paper [LANCET HCLSTUDYleading to such headlines as “Hydroxychloroquine: Trump’s Covid-19 ‘cure' increases deaths, global study finds.” [The Guardian]

Within days three of the four authors published a retraction. Outside scientists had noted that the study claimed [Medicineuncensored.com]to have data that would have been almost impossible to gather during that time frame. The writers explained in their retraction that those figures came from a fourth author, who, tellingly, would not let them access the raw data. [Retractionwatch.com]Additionally, the New England Journal of Medicine also retracted a study [NEJM retraction]on COVID-19 and cardiovascular health since it also used data from the same company.

The latest: The drug doesn’t seem effective as a COVID-19 treatment, but there’s still hope [NBC: Hydroxychloroquine is not dead yet]it can be used as a prophylaxis.

10. Cruise ships: Ocean cruise liners go back to Noah’s Ark, but there’s talk they may not survive COVID-19. Or, perhaps, whatever new pathogen eventually emerges and throws the world into another panic. Carnival, the world’s largest cruise company, is bleeding out at a rate of $1 billion a month to maintain its fleet. That may not have been the case if there were just one narrative that everyone stuck to. Asked about cruises in a March 8 press conference, Fauci said, “If you are a healthy young person, there is no reason if you want to go on a cruise ship, go on a cruise ship. But the fact is that if you have … an individual who has an underlying condition, particularly an elderly person who has an underlying condition, I would recommend strongly that they do not go on a cruise ship.” Then, the U.S. State Department flipped the script with a warning starkly different in tone and emphasis:[State Dept. cruise ship advisory] “U.S. citizens, particularly travelers with underlying health conditions, should not travel by cruise ship.”
 

Dwight Schrute

Deplorable #63174288
Joined
Nov 15, 2007
Messages
41,099
Reaction score
4,443
Points
113
Age
53
Location
America?s Hometown
Great article.

The source though.

I don’t know how, but it’s just dripping with bias.

Some would consider those facts, but we all know it’s bias. Right?
 

johnlocke

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
9,905
Reaction score
1,972
Points
113
Age
48
Location
Salisbury, NH
"‘Seattle is fine,” tweeted Mayor Jenny Durkan on Friday, responding to President Trump’s criticism of the anarchist takeover in her city. “Don’t be so afraid of democracy,” she lectured the president. But who in Seattle voted to cede their neighborhood to armed vigilantes?

Early in June, while Seattle was rocked by protests that often turned ugly, Ms. Durkan canceled curfew, suspended use of tear gas, drew back the National Guard, and pledged no penalties for those arrested for protesting or previously violating curfew.

She then ordered Seattle police to evacuate on June 8 their precinct station house in the heart of the Capitol Hill neighborhood, effectively handing the roughly six-block area to demonstrators, who used police barricades to build a border wall and began screening people entering the area as men with AR-15s patrolled its streets. Welcome to the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone.

Local businesses closed. A park became a rally site with speakers haranguing the committed and curious. During the day, the neighborhood had the air of a community festival, but things get uglier at night.

On June 9 an unsigned manifesto appeared online. Occupiers demand shutting down the police department and courts: “This means 100% of funding, including existing pensions for Seattle Police.” They insist on “abolition of imprisonment” and “retrial of all People of Color currently serving a prison sentence for violent crime.” Felons in prison must have the right to vote. Their economic demands include rent control, “de-gentrification,” free college and the hiring of “black doctors and nurses specifically to help care for black patients.”

A speaker at Friday’s rally demanded whites in attendance “give $10 to one African American person from this autonomous zone.” This was a test: “If you find it’s hard for you to give $10 to people of color, to black people especially, you have to think real critically about, in the future, are you actually going to give up power and land and capital?” He closed by saying, “White people, I see you. I see every single one of you, and I remember your faces. You find that African American person and you give them $10.” (He helpfully added they could use cash or Venmo.)

Since the mayor ejected police from the area, protesters have created their own security force. It’s led by Raz Simone, a bejeweled rapper whose favorite instrument is an AK-47 with its distinctive curved magazine, though he also straps a handgun low on his hip as a backup and fashion accessory. Mr. Simone can be seen in a YouTube video handing an AR-15 from his Tesla’s trunk to a young man he’s deputized. Mr. Simone’s posse laughs and jumps out of the way as their newest recruit tries removing his loaded rifle’s magazine while raising his weapon. Another member of this People’s Constabulary swills a Corona.

Mr. Simone and his deputies are later seen taking up station near the Autonomous Zone’s perimeter. After consulting with nearby civilians, one of the crew tells his chief, “They want to know why the guns tonight.” Mr. Simone answers, “The energy is high right now . . . possible threats or whatever,” before adding, “A little bit of education as well.”

In a revealing podcast with his cousin, Mr. Simone says, “I’m naturally an alpha male. I’m a protector.” He’s not a warlord, he says, but someone who selected himself to replace the police. Incredulous, he says city officials are going along with it: “They’re treating me like I’m the f— mayor!” At a moment when protesters across the country are criticizing inadequate police training, this seems more than a little ironic.

Despite Mr. Simone’s presence, all is not peaceful in the zone after dark. For example, on Sunday night owners of an auto garage on the zone’s edge caught a man burglarizing the business and trying to set it on fire. The Capitol Hill Seattle blog reported that dozens of protesters rallied outside the building, pushed through its fence, and freed the thief. This despite the mayor’s request: “Demonstration participants who observe unsafe behavior, please hold those folks accountable.” Neither the police nor the fire department responded, either.

Seattle police chief Carmen Best told reporters that response times have tripled in the occupied precinct: “These are responses to emergency calls—rapes, robberies and all sorts of violent acts that have been occurring in the area that we’re not able to get to.”

Asked on CNN last week how long these few blocks could stay in their present condition, the mayor answered, “I don’t know. We could have the Summer of Love.” She tweeted that the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone “is not a lawless wasteland of anarchist insurrection” but “a peaceful expression of our community’s collective grief and their desire to build a better world.” Madam Mayor is delusional. The zone doesn’t resemble a New England town-hall meeting so much as “Lord of the Flies,” which, you’ll remember, ended badly."

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-coming-urban-exodus-11592435672?mod=opinion_featst_pos1

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
 

Dwight Schrute

Deplorable #63174288
Joined
Nov 15, 2007
Messages
41,099
Reaction score
4,443
Points
113
Age
53
Location
America?s Hometown
Glowing endorsement of the Democratic Party.

Think long and hard, if you need to, come November.

Seattle now. But it’s coming to a city near you real soon.
 

O_P_T

Why Be Normal
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Messages
21,755
Reaction score
2,532
Points
113
Age
61
Location
Windsor, CT
Not really an Op-Ed, but a response by the GOP candidate for Minnesota's 3rd Congressional district to his Dem opponent.

For the record, the Dem candidate, Dean Phillips, is white and Kendall Qualls is black.

There are links in the original.

America the Exceptional: My Response to Dean Phillips and his Vision of America as Systemically Racist

Kendall’s opponent, first-term Democratic Congressman Dean Phillips, has attempted to convey the Black-American experience and redefine America in the process. On June 22, Dean Phillips emailed his supporters and stated that “Racism is deeply ingrained…in our institutions, and in our everyday lives.” On June 23, he posted a message on Facebook to reiterate that message. He also created a “resource guide” on his website for “racial justice allyship” to “understand our nation’s” black experience and combat “systemic racism” in America.

Kendall Qualls, as a Black-American descended from slaves, takes umbrage with Dean’s characterization of America as a systemically racist country. In its place, Kendall offers a vision of hope because “America is an exceptional place full of exceptional people” with opportunity for all. Kendall’s full response to Dean is below.


Kendall Qualls – In response to my opponent, Dean Phillips, and his attempt to convey the Black experience and redefine America in the process, I’m going to tell you what it’s really like to be a Black man in America.

My opponent’s virtue signaling insults me, and it should insult you too. Dean Phillips got his degree in Urban Studies from an Ivy League School in the Northeast. I got my degree in Urban Studies from the streets of Harlem in New York City.

Yet, unlike him, I’m not going to lecture you on the evils of white people, or guilt you into believing that “white privilege” makes you personally responsible for slavery and the struggles Black people face today.

I’m not going to lecture you like he did by telling you “racism is deeply ingrained in our history, in our institutions, and in our everyday lives, and white people [like you] have benefited from it.” I’m not going to lecture you from a place of privilege as the third wealthiest member of the House of Representatives and tell you racial justice will only be achieved if you “forgo” your comfort and take the blame as a white person.

I’m also not going to sit idly by as statues topple, and they tell you our history needs to be erased or rewritten. Why? Because I don’t believe it.

Like you, I know the overwhelming majority of white people aren’t racist. But as a Black man I am going to tell you that if you look for racism in America you will find it. At the same time, if you look for opportunity in America you will find it tenfold.

I am also going to tell you that in spite of spending part of my childhood in a crime and drug-infested housing project in Harlem, in spite of spending the other part in a trailer park in rural Oklahoma, and in spite of having to work nights and weekends to put myself through school, I made it.

I made it because America is an exceptional place full of exceptional people. And there are millions more just like me who made it – white, black, brown, and everything in between.

However, my opponent and his progressive comrades across the nation are using the tragic death of George Floyd to fuel the flames of racism and create a smoke screen to cover up how they failed our cities, our country, and the Black community.

When I was in high school, I remember big city politicians and urban elites calling America racist because Black-Americans struggled in the inner cities. Not much has changed. Black-Americans still struggle, the same urban elites dominate the conversation, and yet they present no fundamental plan for change. Empty platitudes and a reading list for white people won’t solve the struggles in the Black community.

Those on the left tell us “we have to have the tough conversations” about race. I agree. Let’s have the “tough conversations” by looking at the real barriers to progress:

  • Progressive politicians and urban elites that want to shift accountability from the failed programs they’ve championed and benefited from the past 50 years.
  • The destruction of two-parent Black families through social programs that discourage marriage and result in generational welfare.
  • Policies that limit educational opportunities, prohibit school choice, and protect teachers’ unions, preventing prosperity in the process.
  • This story isn’t being told in the halls of Congress but, rest assured, I won’t be afraid to speak truth to power. I won’t be afraid to “have the hard conversations.”

This election is about our country’s direction. We must fight the ideology of destruction and those who promote the vision of America as a systemically racist country. We must fight those who enable and spread this vision, paving the way for mob rule in the process.

My opponent can independently fund his political campaign from his trust fund. In fact, he already has. Do I begrudge him for his wealth? No, because this is America and everyone has a right to pursue prosperity and happiness. But I do take umbrage of his characterization of America given all that this country has given me and my family.

I’m not afraid to tell you that life isn’t fair. Like all countries, America has its imperfections. But with faith and hard work, you have the freedom in this country to overcome your circumstances and build a better life. I’m proof of it. I want to protect the freedom that allowed my opponent’s family to prosper, allowed me and my family to improve our lot in life, and make sure that freedom is here so you and your family can prosper too.

Today, we have a unique opportunity to put forth a model for racial healing and economic prosperity for all. The truth is when Black Americans prosper, we all prosper. But we will not get there by destroying monuments to abolitionists, removing pictures of Abraham Lincoln from the Minnesota House Chamber, or defunding police in the communities that need it most.

Instead, we must take action – in Minnesota and across our nation. We must speak up, protect our history, and promote principled solutions to heal our nation.

If we don’t, who will?

Edit: Oh and if you want data on the lack of two parent families, look here

In 2018 the numbers were as follows:

American Indian: 53%
Asian: 15%
Black: 65%
Hispanic: 41%
White: 24%
2 or more races: 40%

Pop quiz, which ethnic groups are most likely to be poor and/or on welfare?
 

Baron Samedi

Russian Bot 762X54R
Joined
Feb 14, 2007
Messages
28,979
Reaction score
2,305
Points
113
Age
52
Location
Framingham
A Letter on Justice and Open Debate

July 7, 2020

Our cultural institutions are facing a moment of trial. Powerful protests for racial and social justice are leading to overdue demands for police reform, along with wider calls for greater equality and inclusion across our society, not least in higher education, journalism, philanthropy, and the arts. But this needed reckoning has also intensified a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity. As we applaud the first development, we also raise our voices against the second. The forces of illiberalism are gaining strength throughout the world and have a powerful ally in Donald Trump, who represents a real threat to democracy. But resistance must not be allowed to harden into its own brand of dogma or coercion—which right-wing demagogues are already exploiting. The democratic inclusion we want can be achieved only if we speak out against the intolerant climate that has set in on all sides.

The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted. While we have come to expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty. We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement.

This stifling atmosphere will ultimately harm the most vital causes of our time.

The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away. We refuse any false choice between justice and freedom, which cannot exist without each other. As writers we need a culture that leaves us room for experimentation, risk taking, and even mistakes. We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences.

If we won’t defend the very thing on which our work depends, we shouldn’t expect the public or the state to defend it for us.

Elliot Ackerman
Saladin Ambar, Rutgers University
Martin Amis
Anne Applebaum
Marie Arana, author
Margaret Atwood
John Banville
Mia Bay, historian
Louis Begley, writer
Roger Berkowitz, Bard College
Paul Berman, writer
Sheri Berman, Barnard College
Reginald Dwayne Betts, poet
Neil Blair, agent
David W. Blight, Yale University
Jennifer Finney Boylan, author
David Bromwich
David Brooks, columnist
Ian Buruma, Bard College
Lea Carpenter
Noam Chomsky, MIT (emeritus)
Nicholas A. Christakis, Yale University
Roger Cohen, writer
Ambassador Frances D. Cook, ret.
Drucilla Cornell, Founder, uBuntu Project
Kamel Daoud
Meghan Daum, writer
Gerald Early, Washington University-St. Louis
Jeffrey Eugenides, writer
Dexter Filkins
Federico Finchelstein, The New School
Caitlin Flanagan
Richard T. Ford, Stanford Law School
Kmele Foster
David Frum, journalist
Francis Fukuyama, Stanford University
Atul Gawande, Harvard University
Todd Gitlin, Columbia University
Kim Ghattas
Malcolm Gladwell
Michelle Goldberg, columnist
Rebecca Goldstein, writer
Anthony Grafton, Princeton University
David Greenberg, Rutgers University
Linda Greenhouse
Rinne B. Groff, playwright
Sarah Haider, activist
Jonathan Haidt, NYU-Stern
Roya Hakakian, writer
Shadi Hamid, Brookings Institution
Jeet Heer, The Nation
Katie Herzog, podcast host
Susannah Heschel, Dartmouth College
Adam Hochschild, author
Arlie Russell Hochschild, author
Eva Hoffman, writer
Coleman Hughes, writer/Manhattan Institute
Hussein Ibish, Arab Gulf States Institute
Michael Ignatieff
Zaid Jilani, journalist
Bill T. Jones, New York Live Arts
Wendy Kaminer, writer
Matthew Karp, Princeton University
Garry Kasparov, Renew Democracy Initiative
Daniel Kehlmann, writer
Randall Kennedy
Khaled Khalifa, writer
Parag Khanna, author
Laura Kipnis, Northwestern University
Frances Kissling, Center for Health, Ethics, Social Policy
Enrique Krauze, historian
Anthony Kronman, Yale University
Joy Ladin, Yeshiva University
Nicholas Lemann, Columbia University
Mark Lilla, Columbia University
Susie Linfield, New York University
Damon Linker, writer
Dahlia Lithwick, Slate
Steven Lukes, New York University
John R. MacArthur, publisher, writer
Susan Madrak, writer
Phoebe Maltz Bovy, writer
Greil Marcus
Wynton Marsalis, Jazz at Lincoln Center
Kati Marton, author
Debra Mashek, scholar
Deirdre McCloskey, University of Illinois at Chicago
John McWhorter, Columbia University
Uday Mehta, City University of New York
Andrew Moravcsik, Princeton University
Yascha Mounk, Persuasion
Samuel Moyn, Yale University
Meera Nanda, writer and teacher
Cary Nelson, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Olivia Nuzzi, New York Magazine
Mark Oppenheimer, Yale University
Dael Orlandersmith, writer/performer
George Packer
Nell Irvin Painter, Princeton University (emerita)
Greg Pardlo, Rutgers University – Camden
Orlando Patterson, Harvard University
Steven Pinker, Harvard University
Letty Cottin Pogrebin
Katha Pollitt, writer
Claire Bond Potter, The New School
Taufiq Rahim, New America Foundation
Zia Haider Rahman, writer
Jennifer Ratner-Rosenhagen, University of Wisconsin
Jonathan Rauch, Brookings Institution/The Atlantic
Neil Roberts, political theorist
Melvin Rogers, Brown University
Kat Rosenfield, writer
Loretta J. Ross, Smith College
J.K. Rowling
Salman Rushdie, New York University
Karim Sadjadpour, Carnegie Endowment
Daryl Michael Scott, Howard University
Diana Senechal, teacher and writer
Jennifer Senior, columnist
Judith Shulevitz, writer
Jesse Singal, journalist
Anne-Marie Slaughter
Andrew Solomon, writer
Deborah Solomon, critic and biographer
Allison Stanger, Middlebury College
Paul Starr, American Prospect/Princeton University
Wendell Steavenson, writer
Gloria Steinem, writer and activist
Nadine Strossen, New York Law School
Ronald S. Sullivan Jr., Harvard Law School
Kian Tajbakhsh, Columbia University
Zephyr Teachout, Fordham University
Cynthia Tucker, University of South Alabama
Adaner Usmani, Harvard University
Chloe Valdary
Lucía Martínez Valdivia, Reed College
Helen Vendler, Harvard University
Judy B. Walzer
Michael Walzer
Eric K. Washington, historian
Caroline Weber, historian
Randi Weingarten, American Federation of Teachers
Bari Weiss
Sean Wilentz, Princeton University
Garry Wills
Thomas Chatterton Williams, writer
Robert F. Worth, journalist and author
Molly Worthen, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Matthew Yglesias
Emily Yoffe, journalist
Cathy Young, journalist
Fareed Zakaria

https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/

While I don't agree with all of the above, especially the blame deflection stuff (I guess you have to throw in some anti-Trump stuff to get the leftists today to even read or listen, as a substitute for thought and reason), I agree with the essence of the letter.
 

Baron Samedi

Russian Bot 762X54R
Joined
Feb 14, 2007
Messages
28,979
Reaction score
2,305
Points
113
Age
52
Location
Framingham
This is 3 years old, but wow, this guy really nails it with today's college generation...they are not taught to be strong, or independent, they are talk to be fragile, to identify as victims, to be frightened of everything and turn to authority for safety, and to see people not as individuals but as "good or bad", good races, bad races, good gender, bad gender, and so on. It's a way of dehumanizing them, to see the world in superficial broad categories, and to see threats everywhere to be frightened of.

It's about the culture of victimology, that status is only really gained by being a victim, and to curry favor with authority as a victim.

We are fostering Americans to become fragile and encourage moral dependency.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gatn5ameRr8&t=1968s
 

foobahl

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 6, 2007
Messages
3,153
Reaction score
569
Points
113
Location
the only Henniker on earth
THE PALEOLIBERTARIAN
How 'Con. Inc.' sells out dissidents to the SPLC
Ilana Mercer tells of 'American conservatism capitulating to America-haters'
Ilana Mercer By Ilana Mercer
Published July 16, 2020 at 7:54pm
Share on Facebook
Tweet
P
Share
Email
Print
They're unwilling to defend true dissidents, but Beltway lite libertarians and Con Inkers are forever genuflecting to privileged legacy journalists, who can afford to voluntarily leave their rich gigs in "protest" of cancel culture.

The right hasn't shut up about the New Yorker's Andrew Sullivan, who is far less banal than the New York Times' Bari Weiss. Both belong to the "nothing new, more of the same" neoconservative tradition. Her resignation antics are a storm in a C-cup; his "defiant" departure is the fussy equivalent (just for gay men).

For a more meaningful scandal, to the right at least, consider the farce of a conservative news and opinion organization (founded by a dragon slayer of a broadcaster), which has published lacerating pieces condemning America's foremost hate group, yet has proceeded to purge writers, in compliance with the demands of said shakedown hate group.


American conservatism capitulating to America-haters? Negotiating with terrorists? Hypocrisy? Yes, yes and yes.

Prone is the natural position of the Establishment Republican, Con Inker, neoconservative, whatever his latest opportunistic, political permutation may be.

The news site is the Daily Caller. The hate group is the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).

The ransom demands issue from the illiterati of the SPLC, who regularly publish lists of – and hit pieces against – untouchable dissidents. They then proceed against us with all the vigor of a "money grabbing slander machine," to quote John Stossel, a veteran investigative journalist who has exposed this corrupt syndicate that lives off destroying people


For his part, economist Thomas DiLorenzo has skillfully pried apart the revenue-rich, "racial racketeering" of the Southern Poverty Law Center, showing it to be nothing more than a "hate group hedge fund."

Wrote the great leftist journalist Alexander Cockburn, in the New York Press, in 2007: "I've long regarded Morris Dees and his Southern Poverty Law Center as collectively one of the greatest frauds in American life. The reasons: a relentless fundraising machine devoted to terrifying mostly low-income contributors into unbolting ill-spared dollars year after year to an organization that now has an endowment of more than $100 million."

An organization that shakes down paupers and pensioners to support its "ritualized forms of defamation."

One would expect the Daily Caller, which has written against cancel culture and the Southern Poverty law Center, not to capitulate to such rot. But one would be wrong to expect principled positions from any Con Inc. org.

Opportunistic and prone are the only principles known to the D.C. media types. For they have no philosophy to speak of. Whatever political raiment he happens to be cloaked in – defeatism, hypocrisy and betrayal are the default positions of the D.C. "conservative" swamp dweller.


And so, July 7 saw Geoffrey Ingersoll, Daily Caller's editor in chief, assume the supine position in a Twitter exchange, which ceded the terms of debate to the Democrats and their most diabolical proxies.

The Twitter entity before which Mr. Ingersoll was kneeling metaphorically in contrition was an account called "Sleeping Giants." "They're the worst," attests Steve Bannon. They appear to be attached to a shakedown hub of cancel-culture activism. Illiteracy precludes any manifesto, but the constant nattering on a Twitter account has earned these cyberthugs a Wikipedia page.

To thrive, thugs need enablers. Enter Mr. Ingersoll.

First up on my Twitter feed, July 7, was a tweet from gutsy reporter Patrick Howley, founder of Big League Politics.

"Geoff Ingersoll, best known for ranting sexist slurs at @CassandraRules, … wants everyone to know he does NOT know Ilana Mercer

"Lol. Ilana is out of your league, pal"

Chimed in the clever and combative Cassandra Fairbanks of the "Gateway Pundit":

"I don't know [ilana], but if Geoff is denying knowing her to save his ass, she must be super interesting."


Cassandra quickly rendered her assessment of Mr. Ingersoll:

"I really really like a bunch of people at Daily Caller, but Geoff is probably the most dull and basic neocon bitch in any dc newsroom."

All the while, I'm thinking: How odd. I certainly know Mr. Ingersoll. But since I'm hoping against hope that this is not about the fabulous segment written about me by the aforementioned SPLC, the "hate group hedge fund," on Aug. 16, 2017, I keep it light.

So, I jest,


"Dear Patrick and Cassandra: What is this about? Thanks for spelling my name correctly. No idea why Mr. Ingersoll can't. He did in his correspondence with me. LOL."

Beneath Patrick's feisty throwdown is Mr. Ingersoll's nervous tweet to his tormentors, the "Sleeping Giants":

"… Illana [sic] Mercer? Never stepped foot in our offices. Who else? [Scott] Greer? He left BEFORE we found out."

Titled "The Daily Caller has a White Nationalist Problem," the SPLC's hit piece is an asinine collection of non sequiturs, easily refuted in a society that values reason. But that's no longer America.


And that's not the Con Inkers – the con artists formerly known as neoconservatives and Establishment Republicans before that, whose aim is to pacify the left and deceive the right.

In fact, what the SPLC wrote about me was high praise – all the more reason for the Daily Caller to keep my animated copy on its anemic op-ed page.

You see, since the firing of former opinion editor Robert Mariani, the Caller's op-ed page has been festooned by Israel First, neocon boilerplate. Retread rot, really. Its line-up of writers consists of unoriginal, Johnny-come-latelies to the America First position, which has been held by the dissident right for decades. We do it best.

Principles aside, any op-ed editor whose op-ed page is littered with such insipid fare should warm to the rave review given to me by the SPLC.


Alas, only cowards shove principles aside. For the Southern Poverty Law Center is "America's left-wing hate machine." Its members advocate "urban Marxism" and "Third World Communism." Why, "Weather Underground" terrorist William Ayers used to manage a website sponsored by the SPLC. "Tolerance.org" was its name.

In any event, my cordial correspondence with Mr. Ingersoll commenced on Dec. 7 of 2017. The Daily Caller had been featuring my weekly column for some time, under the editorial leadership of young Mariani, who liked to mix it up. Mariani had just been shown the door, and my column, "Flynn's Sin Was Lying To Liars, Not Colluding With Russians," had been rejected.

A POLITE MR. INGERSOLL EXPLAINED the new Daily Caller editorial policy. It would, seemingly, revolve around pacifying the Southern Poverty law Center:

"From: Geoffrey Ingersoll geoffrey@
Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2017 10:57 AM
To: ilanamercer@
Subject: Re: ILANA MERCER On Michael Flynn Injustice


"Hey, Ilana,

"Frankly, I love your copy, but we're going to hold on publishing you for a little while. I'll ping you when I want to start running again.

"Thing is Eric is the new guy fitting into this new role, and we're right in the middle of coming at SPLC [Southern Poverty Law Center] about their baseless smear, and I think it's in everyone's interest to hold off for the time being.

"Please let me know your thoughts,


"All the best,

"Geoffrey Ingersoll
Editor in Chief
The Daily Caller"

MY REPLY:

"From: Ilana Mercer ilanamercer@
Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2017 8:09 PM
To: geoffrey@
Subject: SPLC


"Dear Geoffrey,

"Thanks for explaining the shift toward my column at Daily Caller. I appreciate that.

"And thanks for asking for my thoughts. Here they are:

"I saw that [Southern Poverty Law Center] hit piece on me, Scott and DC. I was going to reply to it at the time. I should have.


"I am not a white nationalist. I am a hard-right libertarian individualist. I'm also an ex-Israeli, Jewish, daughter of a rabbi still residing in South African, etc. And, I'm wedded to reality. That, the SPLC can't forgive.

"The SPLC article is easily refuted. In my case, it frames colorful language as "raaaaacist." There is no argument in the SPLC article, just ad hominem. I'm more than capable of dealing a devastating blow to the 'writers.' The SPLC's text is impoverished, factually and logically.

"I refuted a 'Media Matters' attack, in 'One More Media Matters Con Man,' here. Picked to pieces, this man's case against me crumbles.

"I don't think this individual, dealt with above, renewed his attacks.


"The entire establishment is attacking the president on the same grounds as the SPLC. The president is lagging in the battle b/c he has not put up a person or persons to eloquently argue his platform, non-stop. Just playing defense and only barely won't cut it.

"If we lie low and allow the SPLC bullying (joined by mainstream pols and media), we lose the agenda of this presidency, as well as a spectrum of speech that won't easily be recovered.

"My column also seemed to be quite liked by DC readers, who, for the most, clearly do not see things through the SPLC prism.

"So, would you consider giving me the opportunity to refute the SPLC smear against Daily Caller and myself?


"Kind regards,
Ilana"

CAME MR. INGERSOLL'S RETORT:

"From: Geoffrey Ingersoll geoffrey@
Sent: Friday, December 8, 2017 6:33 AM
To: Ilana Mercer ilanamercer@
Subject: Re: SPLC

"Sure, but not right now. We're doing a series called "The New McCarthyism," perhaps as a part of that. Right now, we have Pollock dealing with the SPLC directly. Then we're going to post an oped he wrote that I already have as one in the series. After that, I'd be elated to get one from you.


"Primarily, I don't want SPLC to have any ammo when Pollock finally gets through to their board. If he does get through to them, and they check your byline, it would not help if you had recent posts there.

"This is just a temporary measure.

"Geoffrey Ingersoll
Editor in Chief
The Daily Caller"

POSTSCRIPT: I reached out again, once or twice, in an attempt to reinstate a column that has been limited in its reach for 20 years by all spectrum of conservatism and libertarianism. (Again, highest praise, really. In this context, I am reminded of Alexei Sayle, a scrupulously honest British comedian, perceptive about human nature, too. When asked what he does when he watches a really talented satirist performing, Sayle replied: "I go back stage and tell him he'll never make it.")


In response, an ever-cordial back-stabbing Mr. Ingersoll lied through his teeth:

"From: Geoffrey Ingersoll geoffrey@
Sent: Tuesday, January 9, 2018 5:43 AM
To: Ilana Mercer ilanamercer@
Subject: Re: Mercer column

"We're talking to SPLC today about removing Richard Pollock's name from their smear on us. I will keep you posted.

"Geoffrey Ingersoll
Editor in Chief
The Daily Caller"


That was on Jan. 9, 2018 at 5:43 a.m.

So, there you have it.

Geoffrey Ingersoll, Daily Caller's editor-in-chief (and a Marine), would sooner purge writers like me and the many who agree with me than stand up to the SPLC urban terrorists.

To his credit, Mr. Ingersoll was always respectful and cordial to me.


Against Mr. Ingersoll it must be said that he was utterly insincere. He told this columnist that her excising was "temporary."

While reassuring a dissident it had every intention of reinstating her, the Daily Caller, apparently, was, hypocritically, negotiating with the SPLC heisters for a reprieve, striking a Faustian deal with the devil.

Over the authentic, dissident right, Con Inkers and the left converge: We must be canceled.

POST-POSTSCRIPT: Here's to WND, The Unz Review, American Greatness, Cassandra Fairbanks, Patrick Howley and others like them who man-up.
 

BostonTim

IIWII
Joined
Apr 9, 2005
Messages
33,793
Reaction score
5,179
Points
113
Age
73
POST-POSTSCRIPT: Here's to WND, The Unz Review, American Greatness, Cassandra Fairbanks, Patrick Howley and others like them who man-up.

They're still trying to break WND. :coffee:


Cheers
 

foobahl

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 6, 2007
Messages
3,153
Reaction score
569
Points
113
Location
the only Henniker on earth
You’re Probably Gonna Get It…
July 13, 2020
At this site, I’ve never shied away from unpopular truths—in fact, I think that shining light upon them is vital to logical thought and solid investment returns. With that out of the way, I’m going to dive into the klusterfukety global government response to COVID-19. Oddly, despite science being fact-based, each country charted its own path—showing that the pandemic itself is a political adventure and science comes secondarily—if at all.

Let me start with a few disclaimers; I’m not a biologist, I am not a virologist and I don’t intend to dwell on the existing data, as most of what’s out there is buggy at best and often doctored for political reasons. Besides, I don’t think hard-data is important to the rest of this post. You see, I am a common-sense guy. In a world where governments have lost their collective minds, I feel I have something of an edge here.

If you read nothing else, read the following; had they stopped this thing in Wuhan, we would be right to use a containment approach to COVID-19. Instead, it’s everywhere and despite your personal opinions on the issue, it isn’t going away until most of us get it. There, I said it; you can hide in your basement, but you’re still probably going to get COVID-19. You can quarantine a whole nation; they’ll just get it next year. We are a global economy and this is now a global disease.


Whether you like it or not, the world is going for “herd immunity.” Unfortunately, there is no other viable option; there will be no vaccine, there will be no miracle cure and besides, the virus isn’t even all that dangerous if you are young and healthy. Simply put, COVID-19 won’t flame out until 50 to 80 percent of us get it (the precise number is open to debate).

For the past century, most people have accepted that from time to time they’ll get a cold or flu. It was considered a fact of life and an inconvenience. Somehow, in this age of fake news and social media, a disease that’s a bit worse than the annual flu, has taken on a persona that’s terrifying. I understand why that’s happened; the media and various “influencers” sell fear and astute politicians harness this fear for votes. Meanwhile, anyone with a dissenting voice is marginalized. Along the way, data has been tampered with and facts have become bastardized. Is anyone else disturbed that the Democrats and Republicans each support different miracle cures? Basic science hasn’t been this politicized since Galileo opined about celestial bodies.


Now, I don’t intend this post to be political; you can twist most data to prove almost any spectrum of facts. Rather, let me throw out a strawman; let’s assume COVID-19 led to almost certain death, do we have the ability to stop it? We could quarantine all of humanity for years, but COVID-19 would still be out there; it wouldn’t die out—there would always be new flare-ups as people got sloppy or ignored the rules. We tried an aggressive quarantine in America and did little more than “flatten the curve.” Unlike smallpox or polio, there will never be a vaccine (there has never been a COVID vaccine for a variety of reasons)—therefore, as soon as quarantine ends, we’d all begin to spread it again, as there will always be infected humans. Countries that hermetically sealed their borders would not be immune either—they’ve simply deferred infection. Eventually, there would be an accident—one single pathogen would undo years of work. You can quarantine a village in Africa and stop a disease like Ebola that strikes fast and often kills the host. You cannot stop the spread of something that tens of millions of global citizens unknowingly have, while lying dormant for up to three weeks.

I think it should be obvious that you cannot stop COVID from spreading, at best, you can slow it down so that hospitals do not become overwhelmed. Instead, governments are passing draconian and arbitrary laws that do little to slow the spread, yet destroy businesses and communities. If anything, this takes a biological crisis and turns it into an economic one.


I don’t have the answers here, I don’t have solutions, but I know one thing; putting your head in the sand and hoping COVID-19 goes away is foolish. It is time for everyone to accept the inevitable and figure out what that means for themselves and their countries. The current checker-board approach in the US where each state and even each county takes a different approach—is simply making a mess of things.

Here in Miami Beach; we have a 10pm curfew, we have fines and jail time for not wearing masks in public, bars are closed, restaurants can only have outdoor seating and the beach was closed last weekend. It is not clear what any of these measures actually accomplish if tens of thousands are marching around in protests without masks. Meanwhile, code compliance is sporadically and arbitrarily enforcing the curfew at various restaurants—giving rule-breakers a clear advantage. As I made my rounds at some of my favorite restaurants this week, owners finally broke down the brave façade; they confessed that they’re financially bleeding to death. Dozens of prominent restaurants have already shut their doors for good—some of these restaurants have been around for decades and survived multiple economic cycles. If the laws are consistent, you can manage your business—if the government changes the rules every few days to combat a bad cold, what are you supposed to do? We’ve opened, closed and changed the rules almost every week here. There is no clear goal, no clear agenda and no real purpose to these regulations; except to make it appear that the government is doing something—meanwhile, most residents in South Beach are defiantly not wearing masks; finding the whole process to be a ridiculous nuisance.

I think it is time for everyone globally to finally admit that COVID-19 is here, that we are powerless to stop its spread and that most of us are going to get it. The focus should be on protecting those who are elderly or compromised from a health standpoint. When you start from that framework, you can then think through the consequences and adapt policy appropriately. If you hope you can protect everyone from it, you’re going to postpone the inevitable, while destroying the economy. Once again, I don’t know what the right approach is, but I know that what’s being done today is asinine. It’s time for global leaders to wake up.

If you enjoyed this post, subscribe for more at http://adventuresincapitalism.com
 
OP
tehmackdaddy

tehmackdaddy

post tenebras lux
Joined
Nov 7, 2006
Messages
19,200
Reaction score
1,989
Points
113
Location
IN the world, but not OF the world
Why I am not a "pure" libertarian (though other examples not cited exist):

"SIX REASONS LIBERTARIANS SHOULD REJECT THE NON‐​AGGRESSION PRINCIPLE"
Apr 8th, 2013
A stringent application of the non‐​aggression principle has morally unacceptable implications.


Many libertarians believe that the whole of their political philosophy can be summed up in a single, simple principle. This principle–the “non‐​aggression principle” or “non‐​aggression axiom” (hereafter “NAP”)–holds that aggression against the person or property of others is always wrong, where aggression is defined narrowly in terms of the use or threat of physical violence.

From this principle, many libertarians believe, the rest of libertarianism can be deduced as a matter of mere logic. What is the proper libertarian stance on minimum wage laws? Aggression, and therefore wrong. What about anti‐​discrimination laws? Aggression, and therefore wrong. Public schools? Same answer. Public roads? Same answer. The libertarian armed with the NAP has little need for the close study of history, sociology, or empirical economics. With a little logic and a lot of faith in this basic axiom of morality, virtually any political problem can be neatly solved from the armchair.

On its face, the NAP’s prohibition of aggression falls nicely in line with common sense. After all, who doesn’t think it’s wrong to steal someone else’s property, to club some innocent person over the head, or to force others to labor for one’s own private benefit? And if it’s wrong for us to do these things as individuals, why would it be any less wrong for us to do it as a group – as a club, a gang, or…a state?

But the NAP’s plausibility is superficial. It is, of course, common sense to think that aggression is a bad thing. But it is far from common sense to think that its badness is absolute, such that the wrongness of aggression always trumps any other possible consideration of justice or political morality. There is a vast difference between a strong but defeasible presumption against the justice of aggression, and an absolute, universal prohibition. As Bryan Caplan has said, if you can’t think of counterexamples to the latter, you’re not trying hard enough. But I’m here to help.

In the remainder of this essay, I want to present six reasons why libertarians should reject the NAP. None of them are original to me. Each is logically independent of the others. Taken together, I think, they make a fairly overwhelming case.

1) Prohibits All Pollution – As I noted in my last post, Rothbard himself recognized that industrial pollution violates the NAP and must therefore be prohibited. But Rothbard did not draw the full implications of his principle. Not just industrial pollution, but personal pollution produced by driving, burning wood in one’s fireplace, smoking, etc., runs afoul of NAP. The NAP implies that all of these activities must be prohibited, no matter how beneficial they may be in other respects, and no matter how essential they are to daily life in the modern industrialized world. And this is deeply implausible.

2) Prohibits Small Harms for Large Benefits – The NAP prohibits all pollution because its prohibition on aggression is absolute. No amount of aggression, no matter how small, is morally permissible. And no amount of offsetting benefits can change this fact. But suppose, to borrow a thought from Hume, that I could prevent the destruction of the whole world by lightly scratching your finger? Or, to take a perhaps more plausible example, suppose that by imposing a very, very small tax on billionaires, I could provide life‐​saving vaccination for tens of thousands of desperately poor children? Even if we grant that taxation is aggression, and that aggression is generally wrong, is it really so obvious that the relatively minor aggression involved in these examples is wrong, given the tremendous benefit it produces?

3) All‐​or‐​Nothing Attitude Toward Risk – The NAP clearly implies that it’s wrong for me to shoot you in the head. But, to borrow an example from David Friedman, what if I merely run the risk of shooting you by putting one bullet in a six‐​shot revolver, spinning the cylinder, aiming it at your head, and squeezing the trigger? What if it is not one bullet but five? Of course, almost everything we do imposes some risk of harm on innocent persons. We run this risk when we drive on the highway (what if we suffer a heart attack, or become distracted), or when we fly airplanes over populated areas. Most of us think that some of these risks are justifiable, while others are not, and that the difference between them has something to do with the size and likelihood of the risked harm, the importance of the risky activity, and the availability and cost of less risky activities. But considerations like this carry zero weight in the NAP’s absolute prohibition on aggression. That principle seems compatible with only two possible rules: either all risks are permissible (because they are not really aggression until they actually result in a harm), or none are (because they are). And neither of these seems sensible.

4) No Prohibition of Fraud – Libertarians usually say that violence may legitimately be used to prevent either force or fraud. But according to NAP, the only legitimate use of force is to prevent or punish the initiatory use of physical violence by others. And fraud is not physical violence. If I tell you that the painting you want to buy is a genuine Renoir, and it’s not, I have not physically aggressed against you. But if you buy it, find out it’s a fake, and then send the police (or your protective agency) over to my house to get your money back, then you are aggressing against me. So not only does a prohibition on fraud not follow from the NAP, it is not even compatible with it, since the use of force to prohibit fraud itself constitutes the initiation of physical violence.

5) Parasitic on a Theory of Property – Even if the NAP is correct, it cannot serve as a fundamental principle of libertarian ethics, because its meaning and normative force are entirely parasitic on an underlying theory of property. Suppose A is walking across an empty field, when B jumps out of the bushes and clubs A on the head. It certainly looks like B is aggressing against A in this case. But on the libertarian view, whether this is so depends entirely on the relevant property rights – specifically, who owns the field. If it’s B’s field, and A was crossing it without B’s consent, then A was the one who was actually aggressing against B. Thus, “aggression,” on the libertarian view, doesn’t really mean physical violence at all. It means “violation of property rights.” But if this is true, then the NAP’s focus on “aggression” and “violence” is at best superfluous, and at worst misleading. It is the enforcement of property rights, not the prohibition of aggression, that is fundamental to libertarianism.

6) What About the Children??? – It’s one thing to say that aggression against others is wrong. It’s quite another to say that it’s the only thing that’s wrong – or the only wrong that is properly subject to prevention or rectification by force. But taken to its consistent extreme, as Murray Rothbard took it, the NAP implies that there is nothing wrong with allowing your three year‐​old son to starve to death, so long as you do not forcibly prevent him from obtaining food on his own. Or, at least, it implies that it would be wrong for others to, say, trespass on your property in order to give the child you’re deliberately starving a piece of bread. This, I think, is a fairly devastating reductio of the view that positive duties may never be coercively enforced. That it was Rothbard himself who presented the reductio, without, apparently, realizing the absurdity into which he had walked, rather boggles the mind.

Link
 

johnlocke

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
9,905
Reaction score
1,972
Points
113
Age
48
Location
Salisbury, NH
Why I am not a "pure" libertarian (though other examples not cited exist):

Excellent breakdown of logical consequences of the immoral NAP. Honestly most Libertarians are on the right path but keep stumbling over the rocks that are an in your face reminder that one must have a coherent and cohesive rational philosophy from metaphysics, epistemology, ethics then to to politics. Most Libertarians just rest on the NAP as a political principle with little depth behind it and it's a floating abstraction that allows for just about anything and everything regardless of the individual rights being violated.

Posted this somewhat related topic elsewhere yesterday on why I won't be voting for Jorgenson.

I haven't kept a running tally on things I find objectionable coming from Libertarian presidential candidate Jo Jorgensen's campaign but there are a number of them. To the point that that she will, in no way, unless something drastic changes, get my vote.

As a Libertarian she shares some of my political thoughts but just like a good many of her brethren she lacks a comprehensive and cohesive philosophical base which makes them effectively drive all over the road.

And don't tell me the Non-Aggression Principle is some wonderful peace loving alternative to a philosophy of reason. It it is quite the opposite with the logical consequences being precisely the opposite of it's supposed goal.

Support for BLM, essentially ending our military might as a mostly just nation, support for the rioters in this country against federal officers etc.

I mean the Libertarian Party is anarchistic by nature. Their greatest thinkers have always advocated it.

They so despise the concept of the state that they even supported the PLO's assaults on the free country of Israel in it's day.

No thank you.
 

foobahl

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 6, 2007
Messages
3,153
Reaction score
569
Points
113
Location
the only Henniker on earth
Highly recommend going over to the burning platform for the Monday editorial. It is too long to copy and I can't find a link. here is one paragraph, the editorial is very long but well worth the read:

What difference does it make that the Federal government and the Federal Reserve created a combined $6 trillion out of thin air since March to supposedly help the average family, which equates to about $46,000 for every household in the country, but the average household received maybe $2,000 to $3,000 depending on their situation? A curious person might wonder where the other $5 trillion went. How about Wall Street banks, hedge funds, connected mega-corporations, and billionaire oligarchs as the recipients.
 
Top