MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Top Virginia health official warns state lockdown could be ‘two-year affair’

Posted by M. C. on May 5, 2020

Real Virginians are bemoaning the close proximity to DC.

It looks like Virginia had the right idea in 1861. Virginia will be dead in 2021.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/top-virginia-health-official-warns-state-lockdown-could-be-two-year-affair

by Spencer Neale

Virginians hoping for a quick restart of normal life may be in for a rude awakening after the top health official in Virginia said the state could be in lockdown for the next two years.

During a Friday afternoon briefing on the coronavirus response, Virginia Health Commissioner Norman Oliver said Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam’s “Phase One” coronavirus response plan, which involves business closures and social distancing, could last for as long as two years.

“I, personally, think Phase One will be a two-year affair,” Oliver said. “There are a lot of people working on this, and I hope they prove me wrong, but I don’t see it happening in less than two years.”

A Virginia Department of Health representative immediately attempted to walk back Oliver’s comments, suggesting that Oliver meant the coronavirus will be with Virginians for two years and not that state-mandated lockdowns would continue that long.

But a proposal of what the commonwealth will look like as health officials worry about a second wave of the virus in the fall is yet to be seen. Northam’s “Phase One” plan requires “continued social distancing, continued teleworking [and] face coverings recommended in public.”

As millions file for unemployment across the country, the demand for citizens to stay indoors has led to a number of mass protests from Michigan to the Virginia State Capitol in Richmond.

Northam said the state is considering measures to track and quarantine individuals who are infected with the disease.

“We will get back to work by greatly increasing our testing, then tracing the contacts of people who test positive and isolating these individuals, not everyone in Virginia,” Northam said. “That is the key to moving forward.”

The Virginia Department of Health reported a spike in coronavirus cases in Virginia, with more than 700 new cases diagnosed on Friday alone.

Be seeing you

 

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Flu Infection Rates Nosedived End of January. CDC Data Being Withheld As Of Week 6.

Posted by M. C. on May 5, 2020

Typically Flu reporting season ends week 20. Where are all those flu cases going?

Is the prison lockdown knocking the rate down or is free government money turning those flu cases into COVID cash?

Why stop useful data if it would show the lockdown stopped the flu?

https://eriecountypa.gov/departments/health/data-statistics-and-maps/influenza/

This is data from 5 May. The CDC data shown on the graphs in the above link stops at week 6.

Click to access Annual-Comparisons-2013-2014-to-2019-2020-1.pdf

 

https://www.health.pa.gov/topics/disease/Flu/Pages/2019-20-Flu.aspx

Influenza activity has decreased significantly, so the Bureau of Epidemiology will stop updating this flu activity webpage and last posted report is for week 13 that ended on 28 March, 2020. The report will be updated when flu activity increases with the beginning of the next flu season.

The Pennsylvania Department of Health monitors influenza activity throughout the year but ramps up surveillance activities in the fall and winter. The official influenza surveillance season starts with the 40th week of the year (typically around the beginning of October) and ends on the 20th week of the following year (in May). For the 2019-2020 season, the influenza surveillance season began on Sept. 29, 2019, and will run through May 16, 2020.

Be seeing you

Are you a sucker for sales pitches?

Being Played

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Pentagon Mum on WMD Grant to Wuhan Lab-Connected Firm

Posted by M. C. on May 5, 2020

It’s disgusting hardworking US taxpayer dollars were sent to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. President Trump was absolutely correct to freeze that funding from the National Institute of Health …

The Pentagram is directly involved with the Wuhan lab yet they along with the CDC, WHO, NIH, NIAID, CIA, FIB and NSA were caught off guard.

This does not pass the smell test. Some or all had to know what was going on yet chose not raise the alarm.

Was this an experiment gone very bad?

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/05/04/pentagon-mum-on-wmd-grant-to-wuhan-lab-connected-firm/

by Kristina Wong

The Pentagon has stayed silent on why it gave a multimillion-dollar contract to a New York firm that sent U.S. taxpayer money to a lab in Wuhan, China, that is now the center of global scrutiny as the potential origin of the coronavirus.

On Friday, Breitbart News first reported that Rep. Guy Reschenthaler (R-PA) had sent a letter to Defense Secretary Mark Esper inquiring about the 2017 contract, which gave $6.5 million to EcoHealth Alliance, which funded work on bat coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

The grant was specifically for “understanding the risk of bat-borne zoonotic disease emergence in Western Asia.” The last Pentagon payment was just over a month ago, in the amount of $1,509,531 for a project to be completed in October 2022.

Reschenthaler wrote Esper on Thursday asking if any portion of the multimillion-dollar grant to EcoHealth Alliance went to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and if so, what he is doing to ensure that American money is no longer going to the lab.

“What is the DOD doing to ensure American dollars can no longer be utilized by the Wuhan Institute of Virology or another research laboratory in the [People’s Republic of China]?” Reschenthaler wrote Esper.

Breitbart News on Friday sent an email query to the chief Pentagon spokesman for a comment on the letter but has yet to receive a response.

Reschenthaler sent the letter to Esper a week after the Trump administration terminated National Institute of Health (NIH) funding for an EcoHealth Alliance project that collaborated with the Wuhan Institute of Virology on bat coronaviruses.

The congressman said in a statement last week:

It’s disgusting hardworking US taxpayer dollars were sent to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. President Trump was absolutely correct to freeze that funding from the National Institute of Health …

To learn a $6.5 million Department of Defense grant was awarded to the same organization that sent US taxpayer dollars to the WIV, EcoHealth Alliance, is deeply concerning. I sent this letter to the DOD because we must get to the bottom of whether DOD grant funding was also sent to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the potential epicenter of the COVID-19 outbreak. Given the Chinese Communist Party’s cover-up of the origins and global threat posed by COVID-19, it is critical we ensure taxpayer dollars are not being used to support their activities.

On Saturday, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence said the Intelligence Community is “rigorously” examining emerging information and intelligence to determine whether the coronavirus outbreak began through contact with infected animals or was the result of an accident at a laboratory in Wuhan.

 

Reschenthaler’s letter to Esper noted, “similarities between EcoHealth Alliance’s NIH research and the description of the 2017 DOD grant” and asked Esper a series of questions:

Has any portion of DOD funding granted to EcoHealth Alliance or any other DOD grant recipient been given to or used in collaboration with the Wuhan Institute of Virology or any research laboratory in the People’s Republic of China (PRC)?

If no, what, if any, steps is DOD taking to determine whether department grant funding was utilized by the Wuhan Institute of Virology or another research laboratory in the PRC?

If yes, what is the DOD doing to ensure American dollars can no longer be utilized by the Wuhan Institute of Virology or another research laboratory in the PRC?

Reschenthaler, in the conclusion of his letter to Esper, noted that he is concerned U.S. taxpayer dollars may have been connected to this Wuhan lab and wants to be sure taxpayer funds were not misused.

“Given the Chinese Communist Party’s cover up of the global threat posed by COVID-19, it is critical we ensure taxpayer dollars are not being used to support their activities,” he wrote. “I appreciate your commitment to our national security, our servicemembers, and their families.”

Be seeing you

sandoz

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Kissing the Carter Doctrine Goodbye (Shouldn’t Be This Hard) | The American Conservative

Posted by M. C. on May 5, 2020

Should you be curious about why 9/11 happened, tracing U.S. efforts to implement the Carter Doctrine would be a good place to begin your inquiry.

By adhering to the Carter Doctrine, the United States has sown chaos across much of the region while inadvertently promoting radical Islamist terror. Should you be curious about why 9/11 happened, tracing U.S. efforts to implement the Carter Doctrine would be a good place to begin your inquiry.    

More war—that’s the answer. I’m guessing that by now President Carter himself might be having second thoughts. 

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/kissing-the-carter-doctrine-goodbye-shouldnt-be-this-hard/

It has produced bloodshed, grief, and instability, but our esteemed foreign policy elite just cant let go.

(L-R) Pres. Carter and Saudi Arabia’s Prince Fahd at arrival ceremony on South Lawn of White House in 1977. (Photo by Mark Meyer/The LIFE Images Collection via Getty Images/Getty Images)

Writing in Foreign Policy, three distinguished members of the foreign policy establishment—Hal Brands of Johns Hopkins, Steven Cook of the Council on Foreign Relations, and Ken Pollack of the American Enterprise Institute—have issued a warning: Don’t look now, but President Trump appears intent on repudiating the Carter Doctrine. If he does, all the great successes achieved by U.S. policy in the Persian Gulf over the past several decades will be lost. This, they want you to believe, would be a terrible thing.

There is an alternative view and it goes like this: Dating from January 1980, the Carter Doctrine was a catastrophic error. Leading directly to the progressive militarization of U.S. policy in the Gulf, it has produced bloodshed, grief, and instability. Pursuant to the terms of the Carter Doctrine, the United States has spent trillions and sustained tens of thousands of casualties. We killed even more. By adhering to the Carter Doctrine, the United States has sown chaos across much of the region while inadvertently promoting radical Islamist terror. Should you be curious about why 9/11 happened, tracing U.S. efforts to implement the Carter Doctrine would be a good place to begin your inquiry.

You won’t hear any of that from the triumvirate of Brands, Cook, and Pollack. Theirs is a good news story —at least until Trump started screwing things up. Acting in accordance with the Carter Doctrine, they write, “the United States established and upheld the basic rules of conduct in the region.” Making that claim with a straight face requires ignoring a) U.S. support for Saddam Hussein during Iraq’s war of aggression against Iran, which began the very year of the Carter Doctrine’s promulgation; b) the vicious U.S. sanctions imposed on Iraq throughout the 1990s, punishing not Saddam, but the Iraqi people, c) the Axis of Evil cynically devised to create a fictitious rationale for attacking nations without any involvement in 9/11, d) the flagrantly illegal and reckless U.S. invasion of Iraq dating from 2003; e) the rise of ISIS and various Al Qaeda offshoots as a direct consequence of that failed war; and f) the embrace of assassination as an instrument of statecraft.

Brands, Cook, and Pollack do not explain how these actions accord with “basic rules of conduct,” merely conceding that the George W. Bush administration “botched the reconstruction of Iraq” as if the Iraq War were a really nifty idea that inexplicably didn’t turn out well.

A more accurate description of U.S. policy in the Gulf from the 1980s through the first decade of the twenty-first century would be this: Washington devised rules and then disregarded them whenever they proved inconvenient. More often than not, havoc resulted.

Brands, Cook, and Pollack correctly note that various initiatives undertaken under the aegis of the Carter Doctrine have ultimately redounded to the benefit of the Islamic Republic of Iran. But if Iran is a problem, they have a solution. Kick some ass.

They urge Trump to respond to “further acts of Iranian aggression”—it’s always the other side that commits aggression—“with strikes against Revolutionary Guard facilities, warships, ballistic missile sites, command and control nodes, or other valuable regime assets.” Brands, Cook, and Pollack want the United States “to strike hard enough to demonstrate both to Iran and to the world that it will not back down from a fight, and that if Iran chooses to escalate, so too will America.”

More war—that’s the answer. I’m guessing that by now President Carter himself might be having second thoughts.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Tomgram: Mandy Smithberger, Bailing Out the War State | TomDispatch

Posted by M. C. on May 5, 2020

In fact, continuing to prioritize the U.S. military will only further weaken the country’s public health system. As a start, simply to call up doctors and nurses in the military reserves, as even Secretary of Defense Mark Esper has pointed out, would hurt the broader civilian response to the pandemic. After all, in their civilian lives many of them now work at domestic hospitals and medical centers deluged by Covid-19 patients.

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176696/tomgram%3A_mandy_smithberger%2C_bailing_out_the_war_state/#more

Posted by Mandy Smithberger

In this century, the war-fighting performance of the U.S. military has proven woeful indeed and both the Pentagon high command and key Trump administration officials have evidently been incapable of drawing obvious conclusions from that fact. Or think of it another way: even the president who can’t tell Lysol from a helpful prescription drug has noticed that something is truly wrong with America’s war in Afghanistan. This should have long been obvious. After all, almost 19 years after the U.S. invaded that country on a mission to destroy the Taliban, as well as al-Qaeda, and “liberate” Afghans, thousands of American troops, advisers, and contractors (though officially being drawn down) remain there, along with striking amounts of U.S. air power. And, of course, Washington is still embroiled in a conflict with the Taliban, which now controls ever more of the Afghan countryside, as well as other insurgent groups, including a spinoff of the Islamic State. (Meanwhile, spin-offs from the original al-Qaeda operate across significant parts of the Greater Middle East and Africa.)

Now, add into that equation the Covid-19 pandemic. It’s clear that the coronavirus is spreading from Iran into poverty-stricken Afghanistan via hundreds of thousands of Afghans heading home from that country into crowded cities lacking the most basic health care or even hot water and soap for hand-washing. In other words, as I’ve written elsewhere, the U.S. military is now certain to find itself embroiled in pandemic wars that could make events on the Covid-19-ridden aircraft carrier USS Roosevelt look like next to nothing. Stranger yet, the “very stable genius” who often seems to grasp so little has, NBC News reports, grasped this and has been pushing his national security team daily “to pull all U.S. troops out of Afghanistan amid concerns about a major coronavirus outbreak in the war-torn country.” By now, you probably have some sense of what it might be like to have Donald Trump push you daily.

Yet hand it to the Pentagon and crew: they haven’t agreed to his request. Instead, his “military advisers” have reportedly pointed out to him, in true Trumpian fashion (via an analogy from hell), that “if the U.S. pulls troops out of Afghanistan because of the coronavirus, by that standard the Pentagon would also have to withdraw from places like Italy.” Gasp!

Now, don’t misunderstand me: this country’s top military figures and national-security types may be hopeless when it comes to waging war successfully in the twenty-first century, but they’re by no means hopeless. They couldn’t be more skilled or more successful when it comes to getting themselves and the rest of the military-industrial complex funded at levels that are historically mind-boggling. As TomDispatch regular and director of the Center for Defense Information at the Project On Government Oversight Mandy Smithberger points out so strikingly today, their skill in making use of this pandemic moment to ensure that funding flows ever more quickly and copiously into the complex is beyond compare. If America’s forever wars were funding ones, the winners would be instantly obvious. Tom

Beware the Pentagon’s Pandemic Profiteers
Hasn’t the Military-Industrial Complex Taken Enough of Our Money?
By Mandy Smithberger

At this moment of unprecedented crisis, you might think that those not overcome by the economic and mortal consequences of the coronavirus would be asking, “What can we do to help?” A few companies have indeed pivoted to making masks and ventilators for an overwhelmed medical establishment. Unfortunately, when it comes to the top officials of the Pentagon and the CEOs running a large part of the arms industry, examples abound of them asking what they can do to help themselves.

It’s important to grasp just how staggeringly well the defense industry has done in these last nearly 19 years since 9/11. Its companies (filled with ex-military and defense officials) have received trillions of dollars in government contracts, which they’ve largely used to feather their own nests. Data compiled by the New York Times showed that the chief executive officers of the top five military-industrial contractors received nearly $90 million in compensation in 2017. An investigation that same year by the Providence Journal discovered that, from 2005 to the first half of 2017, the top five defense contractors spent more than $114 billion repurchasing their own company stocks and so boosting their value at the expense of new investment.

To put this in perspective in the midst of a pandemic, the co-directors of the Costs of War Project at Brown University recently pointed out that allocations for the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Institutes of Health for 2020 amounted to less than 1% of what the U.S. government has spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan alone since 9/11. While just about every imaginable government agency and industry has been impacted by the still-spreading coronavirus, the role of the defense industry and the military in responding to it has, in truth, been limited indeed. The highly publicized use of military hospital ships in New York City and Los Angeles, for example, not only had relatively little impact on the crises in those cities but came to serve as a symbol of just how dysfunctional the military response has truly been.

 

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Hard talk with Václav Klaus: “The people should say NO to all of it.” – Claudio Grass, Precious Metal Advisory In Switzerland

Posted by M. C. on May 5, 2020

Those of us in the ex-communist countries were used to living in a world of something like “Universal Basic Income”. We wanted to get rid of communism because of principles like this. These principles destroyed the motivation to work, which proved to be ruinous.  

It’s quite simple. The people should say “NO” to all of it. Otherwise, what lies ahead is a real-life approximation of the dystopian “Brave New World” of Aldous Huxley.

https://claudiograss.ch/2020/05/hard-talk-with-vaclav-klaus-the-people-should-say-no-to-all-of-it/

As we get deeper into this crisis and we get used to our “new normal”, it’s easy to focus on the daily corona-horror stories in the media or the latest shocking unemployment numbers, and lose track of the bigger picture and of what is really, fundamentally important. Even as the lockdown measures begin to get phased out, the scale of the economic damage is unimaginable and the idea of returning to “business as usual” is no longer tenable. The last couple of months have had a severe impact not just on the economy, but on our societies and geopolitical reality too. These changes are most likely irreversible and we as citizens and as investors will have to be prepared to deal with this massive shift and all that it entails for a long time.

Amid the panic, the distractions and the hyperbole that are prevalent these days, my own daily task has been an effort to separate the signals from the noise. In order to do so, I’ve also reached out to the few people whose views and insights I have long found invaluable and who have prioritized critical thought and kept their principles intact throughout this crisis. Straight talk and direct answers are very hard to come by these days from most Western leaders and institutional figures, this is why I turned to Former President of the Czech Republic, Prof. Ing. Václav Klaus, who has long been a voice of reason and whose unique perspective is even more important now. In the interview that follows, he shares his views on the current crisis and on what’s to come, in a succinct and resolute way and with a directness that is as rare and as it is essential in times like these.

Claudio Grass (CG): The magnitude and the global scale of the lockdown and shutdown measures we’ve seen during this corona-crisis are unprecedented. How do you evaluate the response compared to the threat itself? Do you believe it is justified? 

Václav Klaus (VK): I don‘t pretend to be an expert in epidemiology, but my background in economics and statistics tells me that the threat is smaller than the consequences „organized“ by governments all over the world as a reaction to this pandemic. I would add unnecessary consequences. The authorities reacted in an exorbitant way, in a moment of fear. This is partly the result of the current „online democracy“.

CG: The “emergency measures” and the restrictions that have been imposed on civilians’ basic rights have served as a reminder of the true extent of the state’s powers. Do you find this worrying and do you see a risk that these new, extraordinary powers might not be as easy to roll back once the crisis is over? 

VK: The restrictions on basic civil rights that were introduced so swiftly and so easily demonstrate the power of the modern state, with all its new, “smart“ technologies and drastically expanded enforcement capabilities. Economists often talk about the so-called “ratchet effect”, or the limited ability of existing processes and dynamics to be reversed and to return to normal once a specific event has radically altered them. It is true of prices, of productivity and it is also true of social and political systems. Therefore, I am afraid it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to return to the pre-corona days.

CG: On an economic level, what is your assessment of the impact of the shutdown measures? 

VK: Most, if not all, of the circulating quantitative estimates and forecasts, are wrong. The “experts” should first say how long the quarantine restrictions will last and when the economic shutdown will be fully lifted. Their economic forecasts depend on the length of the quarantine period. They should announce explicitly when they plan to end it. Until this is established and known, the current forecasts are economically meaningless.

CG: The monetary and fiscal interventions that we’ve seen so far are as extreme and as shocking as the shutdown policies themselves. Do you think they’ll be enough to keep the economy afloat though, or is a deep and long recession simply inevitable? 

VK: The monetary and fiscal measures – unacceptable for the true democrats – may have positive short-term effects, but they will destabilize the economy and public finances for a very long period of time. They could lead to very high inflation.

CG:  Trillions upon trillions are being injected into the system, while wild ideas like the Universal Basic Income have become mainstream. Apart from the obvious monetary and economic risks of these policies, do you also foresee political and social implications? 

VK: Those of us in the ex-communist countries were used to living in a world of something like “Universal Basic Income”. We wanted to get rid of communism because of principles like this. These principles destroyed the motivation to work, which proved to be ruinous.

CG: Within just a few weeks we have witnessed an abrupt and absolute turn towards centralization. The free market has been brought to its knees, individual voluntary exchanges, productivity and the very right to work and to create were all suspended and replaced with central planning. Do you think this approach has any chance of being sustainable? 

VK: I would not call it “central planning” yet. I prefer Walter Eucken’s term (used for the description of the German economy in Hitler’s time), “centrally administrated economy”. It is not planning in its original meaning. It is the very heavy and visible hand of the government at work, instead of the “invisible hand” of the market.

CG: The corona-crisis has also had some very serious geopolitical ramifications, especially vis-à-vis China. What are the main changes that you expect to see going forward in this arena? 

VK: We shouldn’t use this situation for the introduction of new dangerous foreign relations policies and to strengthen the demonization of countries such as China and Russia. To my great regret, however, we see this is already happening.

CG: What about the future of the EU? Do you think this crisis has further weakened it and what is your outlook for the bloc? 

VK: The EU will – unfortunately, in my view – survive the corona-crisis. Its exponents will use it to further weaken nation-states. They are on the defensive now, but they will reemerge again in full strength very soon. I wish I’ll be proven wrong, but I do believe they’ll use this crisis to their advantage and I fear they’ll do so successfully.

CG: Citizens, investors and savers everywhere are justifiably scared, if not of the virus itself then certainly of financial ruin. In your view, what can we do to take back at least some control of our own future? 

VK: It’s quite simple. The people should say “NO” to all of it. Otherwise, what lies ahead is a real-life approximation of the dystopian “Brave New World” of Aldous Huxley.

Claudio Grass, Hünenberg See, Schweiz

This article has been published in the Newsroom of pro aurum, the leading precious metals company in Europe with an independent subsidiary in Switzerland.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Be seeing you

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Why Are Blacks Democrats? | Intellectual Takeout

Posted by M. C. on May 5, 2020

Despite their almost unanimous endorsement of civil rights legislation and dutiful support for every extension of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Republicans, particularly black Republicans, turn off black voters.

This dislike of Republicans may now be part of American black ethnic identity.

https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/why-are-blacks-democrats/

By Paul Gottfried

The fate of Karen Whitsett, a black Democratic representative to the Michigan House of Representatives, who was censured by her fellow black Democrats from Detroit, for developing good relations with President Trump, speaks volumes. It tells us, if any further proof were required, how deeply American blacks hate the Republican Party and any black person who does not share this loathing completely.

Although Ben Carson may be the famous success story produced by a poor black family in Detroit, this distinguished surgeon and cabinet official was denied the privilege of having a school in his old neighborhood named after him. Carson’s sin is having served in a Republican administration.

In 2014, Tim Scott became the first black Senator from South Carolina since Reconstruction. But since Scott was a Republican, he won only 10 percent of the black vote in his state, while carrying 88 percent of the white vote. After Scott’s victory, South Carolina black Democratic Congressmen James Clyburn immediately denounced him as a race traitor who was against “the interests and aspirations of 95 percent of blacks.” In an optimistic moment, Scott predicted that Trump would increase his share of the black vote in this year’s election by 50 percent.

That share, according to Scott, would rise from 9 percent to 14 percent; and this was to be considered a vindication for a Republican president who (before COVID-19 hit) had improved the job prospects of blacks more than any other president, including his black Democratic predecessor Barack Obama. The Hill reports that an “overwhelming majority of blacks will vote for any Democrat against Trump” and put black hostility against Trump at 85 percent, which is actually saying the same thing as Scott, albeit in a less positive way.

The black vote normally goes at a rate of 90 percent or more to Democratic candidates for any office. Not even Obama won a significantly higher percentage of the black vote than other Democratic presidential candidates. Although Obama turned out black voters in higher numbers in his presidential bid than John Kerry or Al Gore, he won the black vote against his Republican opponent by only a few points more than other recent Democratic presidential candidates.

In 2008, three black Republican candidates, including the Pittsburgh Steelers legend Lynn Swann, lost their races for the governorship, with the black vote going heavily against them. If Swann had won, he would have been the first black governor of Pennsylvania. But black voters turned against their onetime sports hero because of his Republican affiliation. Apparently voting for Swann or another highly qualified black Republican gubernatorial candidate running that year, Kenneth Blackwell in Ohio, was not deemed a racial breakthrough. The problem in both cases was the black politician belonged to a national party that blacks abhor.

The intensity of this hatred has remained for me a mystery. I still recall a black girlfriend of my daughter at the University of Michigan who went into a rage because the school had dared to invite as a speaker President George H.W. Bush. This friend considered this unsettling invitation to be an act of disrespect against her race. Curiously, the same black student was a fundamentalist Christian and fierce opponent of abortion, yet she ritualistically voted for the Democrats because she considered the Republicans a living reproach against blacks.

I won’t go into the usual GOP song and dance about all the civil rights legislation that the Republicans supported at a higher percentage than Democrats or that Republicans had once freed black slaves. What is hard for me to figure out is why this hatred has developed and grown more intense over time.

The idea that I used to hear from academic colleagues, that blacks became Democrats because the Republican Party allied itself with segregationists in the 1960s, is totally false. Blacks switched parties in 1936, when they voted 76 percent for FDR. In 1932, blacks still voted in even larger numbers for Hoover.

Well into the 1960s, both Southern blacks and white segregationists were Democrats, but when Southern whites began moving into the GOP, blacks stayed with the Democratic Party. Blacks stayed there even after Republicans sponsored and supported civil rights laws. The only Republican presidential candidate whom blacks voted for in respectable numbers since 1936 was Eisenhower in 1952, when the Democratic ticket featured a strong segregationist, John Sparkman of Alabama, as vice-presidential candidate. That year a Republican candidate, who was the Allied war commander in World War II, won 37 percent of the black vote nationwide.

I believe it is less the case that blacks hate Republicans because they are loyal Democrats than that they are Democrats because they loathe Republicans. Black leaders who are allied with the Democrats will accuse Republicans of nasty racist intentions and find willing black listeners, whom they can drive to the polls by attacking Republicans as anti-black. Strangely enough, most black voters, as Red State correctly points out, identify themselves as conservative or moderate. Black voters almost always support in primaries the presidential candidates of the Democratic National Committee leadership and their own Democratic leaders. Their choice of Biden this year was no exception; their preference for Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton in 2008 was.

In recent years, black Democrats James Clyburn, John Lewis, Elijah Cummings, and Maxine Waters have complained that the Republicans insist on voter identification in order to keep blacks from the polls. Whether this charge is correct (and it may be), it is hard to blame Republicans for wanting to limit black turnout on election day. Despite their almost unanimous endorsement of civil rights legislation and dutiful support for every extension of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Republicans, particularly black Republicans, turn off black voters.

This dislike of Republicans may now be part of American black ethnic identity. The GOP may have to deal with this likely possibility and give up shedding crocodile tears over “black victims” of Democratic politicians in inner cities. That message seems incapable of convincing its intended audience.

Be seeing you

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

CD19 & Political Correctness – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on May 5, 2020

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/05/walter-e-block/cd19-political-correctness/

By

Suppose there were a deadly virus that disproportionately attacked Jewish people, akin to Tay-Sachs disease, but was contagious via the air through sneezing, or via direct human to human touch, or indirectly, via cardboard or metal. What would the proper procedure be to reduce its spread? Would it be to quarantine everyone, given that this sickness affected virtually only members of the Jewish faith? Of course not; it would be to isolate and protect Jews alone.

Suppose there were another virus that disproportionately attacked black people, similar to sickle cell anemia, with the same characteristics. Again, the policy to limit the spread of this disease would be to isolate, for their own benefit, African-Americans and only them.

If this were the case, thank God it is not, there would be cries to the heavens about Anti-Semitism, or anti-black racism. Would our society support the implementation of this partial isolation strategy? Probably not, given the power that the scourge of political correctness now enjoys.

Ditto for a communicable malady that could only or disproportionately afflict women (breast cancer) or men (erectile dis-function). The way to stop this would be again to isolate the victims, not virtually everyone.  Charges of sexism would abound, particularly if females were the ones dis-accommodated by seclusion.

Why does it make sense to approach these issues from the point of microeconomics, focusing, only, on the victims, and not macroeconomics, taking virtually everyone out of circulation? That is because there is more than one way to die, and if the labor force is almost entirely depleted, starvation, death by exposure, will ensue. We want to minimize total unnecessary deaths, not only those that emanate from Covid-19.

These are of course made up examples. But there is a real one out there: the corona virus. It disproportionately attacks the elderly.

The evidence in this regard is stark. In South Korea, for example, the recent death rate on the part of those afflicted with this dread disease aged 80 and over was 10.4%, and for those in their 70s, 5.35%. It was a mere 1.51% for patients 60 to 69, and 0.37% for the 50-somethings. Those 29 and younger registered no deaths whatsoever.

A similar result ensued in China. Eighty-plus: a death rate of 18% of patients; 70-79: 9/8%; 60-69: 4.6%, 50-59: 1.3%, 40-49: .4%, 30-39: .19%, 20-29: .09%, 10-19: .02%, and 0-9, less than .01%. An unknown percentage of fatalities from the corona virus was attributed to patients with weakened immune systems due to heart conditions, diabetes, emphysema, asthma and other such afflictions.

Young people, with a cut off point of 60 years old, are almost guaranteed not to perish if they contract the corona virus at least in small doses, assuming they have no such other medical difficulties. If they are allowed out of isolation, and contract the disease, the better for the overall human race at very little risk to themselves, herd immunity and all that.

But no. This antidote will be summarily dismissed by the forces of political correctness on the ground of, wait for it, ageism! It would appear that the social justice warriors place a higher value on their “principles” than on life itself.

The sooner the rest of us awake from our doldrums, and become willing to engage in a bit of medically required age discrimination, the soon the threat of this horrid infectious will be wrestled to the ground.

I abstract from the normative question of whether compulsory quarantines are required, or justified, and focus, only, on the positive question of which is the policy most likely to reduce deaths, other things equal. If this phenomenon afflicted farmyard animals, the rancher would certainly implement this strategy.

Sources:

SKorea

China

China, Kora, Spain, Italy

Be seeing you

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Arrest the Governor – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on May 5, 2020

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/05/david-hathaway/arrest-the-governor/

By

Let’s go ahead and live the fantasy. Imagine a county sheriff holding a press conference and swearing out a complaint. Imagine him waving it in front of the cameras. Imagine him saying that the next stop was the governor’s mansion to put handcuffs on the big cheese himself. He would never get past the governor’s state police security detail, but it would definitely make the news.  Here is the summary and wording of the relevant statute taken from DOJ’s own website:

DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW

SUMMARY

Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

For the purpose of Section 242, acts under “color of law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official’s lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim. The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.

TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

End quote. The bold emphasis on the heading and on the lower section and the italics were not added by me for enhanced effect. It is a direct block-and-paste from the DOJ website. Wow, it seems like DOJ really means business about this freedom thing. Somebody should dust this one off and test it out.

Be seeing you

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Selected Gems By Thomas Sowell

Posted by M. C. on May 4, 2020

sowell

https://www.azquotes.com/author/13901-Thomas_Sowell

It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.

 

Racism is not dead, but it is on life support — kept alive by politicians, race hustlers and people who get a sense of superiority by denouncing others as ‘racists’

 

What do you call it when someone steals someone else’s money secretly? Theft. What do you call it when someone takes someone else’s money openly by force? Robbery. What do you call it when a politician takes someone else’s money in taxes and gives it to someone who is more likely to vote for him? Social Justice.

 

It is bad enough that so many people believe things without any evidence. What is worse is that some people have no conception of evidence and regard facts as just someone else’s opinion.

 

I have never understood why it is “greed” to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else’s money.

 

If you believe in equal rights, then what do “women’s rights,” “gay rights,” etc., mean? Either they are redundant or they are violations of the principle of equal rights for all.

 

In the long run, the greatest weapon of mass destruction is stupidity.

 

Politics is the art of making your selfish desires seem like the national interest.

 

What the welfare system and other kinds of governmental programs are doing is paying people to fail. In so far as they fail, they receive the money; in so far as they succeed, even to a
moderate extent, the money is taken away.

 

A recently reprinted memoir by Frederick Douglass has footnotes explaining what words like ‘arraigned,’ ‘curried’ and ‘exculpate’ meant, and explaining who Job was. In other words, this man who was born a slave and never went to school educated himself to the point where his words now have to be explained to today’s expensively under-educated generation.

 

‘Fair’ is one of the most dangerous concepts in politics. Since no two people are likely to agree on what is ‘fair,’ this means that there must be some third party with power – the government – to impose its will. The road to despotism is paved with ‘fairness’.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »