Category Archives: culture

A Misapprehension

Posted on by
1

The headline suggests it.

How Science Lost America’s Trust and Surrendered Health Policy to Skeptics

Science hasn’t lost our trust, not by a long shot. What—who, really—has lost our trust is government bureaucrats who happen to have science degrees. The misapprehensions begin early in the article.

The rise of Robert F Kennedy, Jr, from fringe figure to the prospective head of US health policy was fueled by skepticism and distrust of the medical establishment—views that went viral in the Covid-19 pandemic.

No, it wasn’t. It was fueled by distrust of the government’s bureaucrats who held medical degrees.

People once dismissed for their disbelief in conventional medicine are now celebrating a new champion in Washington. Scientists, meanwhile, are trying to figure how they could have managed the pandemic without setting off a populist movement they say threatens longstanding public-health measures.

Some did have a disbelief in conventional medicine. However, what most of us began to disbelieve was not conventional medicine but the non-conventional positions of those medical degree-holding bureaucrats in our medicine-centered agencies and their naked power grabs via their diktats of how us average Americans must during—and after—the Wuhan Virus situation, with their credibility further damaged by their manufactured hysteria about the severity of a virus whose lethality was a small fraction of one percent except for the slice of our population already afflicted with severe comorbidities or who were very old.

Those bureaucrats’ contemptuous dismissal of us and their equally contemptuous dismissal of a range of paliatives and alternative cures—many of which actually did, and do, work, and many more of which, if not effective, also did no harm. We insisted on following actual science, while those bureaucrats pursued their personal power, and in some cases, their pocketbooks.

Those bureaucrats also too often dismissed research that supported those alternative treatments and with equal disdain research that called into question the risks of the Wuhan Virus vaccines on offer. Many (most?) of those researches were, in fact, highly questionable. Some were quite sound, though, and the bureaucrats’ shotgun dismissal of all of them—generally without explanation, holding us average Americans as too grindingly stupid or ignorant to understand—further damaged their credibility.

Nor did those degreed bureaucrats care a farthing about our children—the portion of our population uniquely immune to the virus. Lock them out of school these Know Betters demanded, then required, isolate them from their peers, friends, adults other than their parents—even from their grandparents, uncles, and aunts. We’re seeing now the damaging outcomes of that isolation in lost education and especially in their inability to get along with each other.

No, we trust science. We insist that government bureaucrats trust science, as well, and until they demonstrate that they do, those bureaucrats are demonstrating that they cannot be trusted by us.

More Free Speech Leftist-Style

Posted on by
Reply

As if we don’t need another example of Leftist censorship version of free speech, Ezra Klein, of the text [of our Constitution] is confusing because it was written more than a hundred years ago infamy, provides us with another.

New York Times columnist Ezra Klein slammed Democrats over their stubborn denials that US cities are plagued with rising crime, out-of-control migration, and skyrocketing prices….

To this point, Klein is right to decry the Progressive-Democratic Party’s foolishness.

As reported by the New York Post (the article is behind a paywall, but the tabloid’s subscription cost isn’t worth the candle), though, Klein couldn’t stop there, and he expressed a core tenet of Party:

And this idea that “The economy is actually good,” or “Crime is actually down, this is all just Fox News,” shut the f–k up with that[.]

Because speech of which Klein personally disapproves—even if he’s correct in its thrust—cannot be allowed. Free speech is only what he, or his Leftist cronies, say it is. It’s certainly not what that old-young Constitution of ours says it is. Of course, I have it on similarly good authority that [our Constitution] has no binding power on anything, anyway, so there’s that.

Duplicity

Posted on by
Reply

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, NY) on ending the filibuster:

Over the coming weeks, the Senate will once again consider how to perfect this union and confront the historic challenges facing our democracy. We hope our Republican colleagues change course and work with us. But if they do not, the Senate will debate and consider changes to Senate rules [eliminating the filibuster]….

And

In a session with reporters at the Democratic National Convention, Schumer (D-NY) suggested that—should Democrats win the White House, Senate, and House in November—he would seek to end the filibuster for purposes of passing voting rights and abortion legislation.

These are deliberate moves to pass legislation unilaterally, in complete absence even of any pretense of bipartisanship.

Soon-to-be Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, NY) today:

The only way to get things done in the Senate is through bipartisan legislation while maintaining our principles—and the next two years will be no different.

Only because, despite Schumer’s efforts, the filibuster remains intact. Nevertheless, his meaning is plain. He’ll have his caucus being just as knee-jerk obstructionist of any Republican initiative as he always has had, now with the added fillip of knee-jerk obstructionism regarding anything Trumpian, just as he had done during the prior Trump administration.

Assuming the Republicans are able to retain their majority in the House, he’ll also have able functional allies—if unintended—in the Republicans’ Chaos Caucus.

“Gatekeepers of Political Discourse”

Posted on by
Reply

That’s how even The Wall Street Journal terms the press. This, as it notices the decreasing control influence the press has on what us average Americans are allowed to know about the political doings of our politicians.

A new media landscape has emerged. The traditional gatekeepers of political discourse—TV networks and newspapers—are shrinking in influence as Americans turn to many more outlets for information.

This comes especially in the wake of the last eight-ish years of naked bias by the press, a period wherein The New York Times has openly announced that there can no longer be objectivity in news reporting, newspapers must take sides, and a major broadcast news anchor announced that there are not two sides to every story; there can be only one side to many. In furtherance of those decisions, the press actively proselytizes on its news pages for its chosen candidates and party while actively suppressing stories that provide different information or that show their denigrated party and candidates in a good light. The press also suppresses stories that cast its chosen party/candidate in a negative light.

Beyond politics, the press actively spikes writing that contradicts its settlement of climate “science,” with the Los Angeles Times saying that it would no longer publish letters to the editor that disputed the LAT‘s determination of the proper discussion.

It’s no wonder that us average Americans no longer take the press seriously and are moving away from it toward other sources—including straight from the horse’s mouth in the podcasts that are becoming ubiquitous, and on some social media outlets like X, Truth Social, even the dangerous TikTok. If we can’t entirely trust these alternative outlets, we can at least hear what the candidates—and other guests—are saying, without the gatekeepers’ censorship filter.

“Firsts”

Posted on by
Reply

Earlier, it was Barack Obama becoming the US’ first black President and Michelle Obama becoming the first black First Lady. Then it was Melania Trump becoming the first immigrant/naturalized American First Lady (when the Left and the press were willing to take notice of her at all). Then it was Kamala Harris becoming the first black and woman Vice President. Then it was Harris with the potential to become the first black woman President. Now it’s Usha Vance who will become America’s first Indian-American and first Hindu First Lady.

All of that is manufactured by our press and by the Left’s and Progressive-Democratic Party politicians’ fixation on identity politics.

It’s time for the Left and for Party to leave off from their sexist and racist othering of our people through their intrinsically segregationist identity politics sewage. The only time race and sex will cease to matter is when all of us stop artificially making it matter.

The only thing to say about the Obamas, Trump, Harris, and Vance in this regard is that they are Americans assuming, or having had the potential of assuming, those positions and responsibilities. And we’ve had only Americans in those positions since our inception.

Full stop.