Mask Bans

There are mask mandates, and there are mask mandates. In lieu of government action (and hopefully, government will butt out this time), local businesses are implementing their own mask requirements in this post-Wuhan Virus world: they’re saying no masks allowed in our stores. In this brave, new post-Virus world, masks have become tools of disguise during robberies far, far more than they are (questionable, it turns out) means of protecting against viruses.

Naturally, the Whiner Community is whining.

Critics say the bans jeopardize the health of immunocompromised people, violate civil liberties, and foster discriminatory enforcement.

Cue the Disabilities Act lawsuits and other such inane frivolities. Maybe it needn’t be so difficult to sanction lawyers who bring frivolous lawsuits into courts.

And, yes, these would be frivolous on the part of the fee seekers and the Whiners looking to squeeze some bucks for themselves with their frivolous plaints. Many of those stores are offering separate hours for the immunocompromised, just like big box stores and grocery stores did for the especially challenged geezer community during that Wuhan Virus Situation. This is a nonproblem that’s already been long solved.

Why Should She Go?

The knee jerk “boss must go” cry whenever someone in the organization that boss leads screws up is…silly. See for instance, the hue and cry that Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle must resign or be fired over the security failure that allowed an assassin wannabe to take his shots at former President and current Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump, narrowly missing killing him.

It’s not even known how the lapse occurred, but let’s go ahead and get rid of the lady in charge.

Sometimes, such failures are the boss’ fault. Sometimes the failure can be laid off to the organizational culture the boss fostered, or the lackadaisical attitude toward training or equipage, or to an emphasis on DEI claptrap at the expense of effective performance.

Often, though—more often, I claim—it’s a matter of one or more of the following:

  • bad luck (luck gets a vote right alongside the opposition)
  • sound procedure poorly, or mistakenly, executed
  • sound training, but an individual(s) executed his training poorly
  • sound Standardization/Evaluation procedures, but an individual(s) fell through the cracks
  • poor training procedures and/or poor Stan/Eval procedures, in which case the supervisors of those sections and those supervisors’ immediate supervisors need to be looked at
  • poor operational oversight of individuals in the course of their performance—look at those supervisors and their immediate superiors
  • poor communication with external agencies involved in the action—what caused that (who caused that should come second in that part of the post mortem)

It’s an even more extensive list than that.

So: do the investigation, here of the Trump assassination attempt, of the protection procedures, and of the execution associated, thoroughly. Then decide what corrective action to take, and take it.

Blame, fire, investigate is a suboptimal order of events.

Law Enforcement Progressive-Democrat Style

Here’s yet another example of the Left’s and their Progressive-Democratic Party’s contempt for law in the US and for us average Americans:

The City of Sacramento, California’s, legal department threatened to fine a popular retail store for public nuisance over numerous calls to police after thieves stole from its Land Park location multiple times, according to a [Sacramento Bee] report.

Stop troubling our police department with all these nuisance calls regarding repeated thefts by folks who know they’ll go unpunished. The poor, unfortunate thieves are more important to the Left than are the people and businesses being stolen from.

This lawless attitude of Party is on the ballot this November. Us voters need to vote accordingly.

Bad Analogy

Kat Rosenfeld, writing for The Free Press and attempting to defend Alec Baldwin and his negligence on the set of his movie Rust, looked to lay off the hue and cry over his shooting two people, killing one, with an “unloaded” gun, and Baldwin’s trial for that, on the man’s status as an old, white, rich and famous man.

Then she used a wholly inapt analogy in her attempt to excuse his negligence. She likened Baldwin’s mishandling (my term here, not Rosenfeld’s) of the revolver that was handed to him to a party-goer being handed a lit stick of supposedly fake dynamite, the party-goer then passing the stick back to the one who’d handed it to him, and then the stick—real dynamite, it turns out—detonates.

It’s a bad analogy: there was no way for the two individuals to ascertain whether the supposedly fake dynamite was, in fact, fake.

There was, however, opportunity—and obligation—for Baldwin to ascertain whether the revolver he’d just been handed was, in fact, loaded only with blanks and that no live rounds were in the cylinder.

It doesn’t matter that the man who’d handed the revolver to Baldwin had himself just checked the firearm for live rounds when he’d picked it up to hand to Baldwin. It doesn’t matter whether the man had then told Baldwin it had no live rounds or whether Baldwin had witnessed the other man’s check. It is every firearm handler’s obligation to personally check the firearm for live rounds. It’s no insult to the one who just did the check before handing the firearm over; the receiving man must check for himself that the firearm has no live rounds.

Full stop.

It’s easy enough, too, to flip the cylinder out and check. It’s easy enough, further, to dump the loaded rounds into the palm of a hand, or onto a nearby shelf, or even onto the ground, and inspect the rounds so ejected to see whether they’re all blanks or if one or more live rounds have gotten into the mix.

Baldwin chose—negligently—not to do so. And from his negligence, a woman was killed and a man severely injured because Baldwin pointed the revolver he’d just been handed at them—also negligently, since the scene being filmed wasn’t ready for him to do that; he was just playing around—and he squeezed the trigger. That the trigger squeeze at that point may have been unintended by Baldwin is just another act of his negligence.

It was a tragic but accidental death, Rosenfeld insisted. Nobody is arguing otherwise. The accidental nature of the killing and wounding, though, in no way alters the fact of Baldwin’s atrocious negligence in mishandling the revolver in his hand. It’s Baldwin’s negligence that led to the tragic but accidental death and the nearly as tragic and just as accidental wounding, and Baldwin’s negligence is what has led to his felony trial, not any “get the celebrity” nonsense nor any gross authoritarianism.

Cognitive Fitness Tests for Presidents

The Wall Street Journal spent a lot of electrons on the utility of cognitive tests for Presidents and other government officials. The TL;DR version is that cognitive tests are only initial screens for cognitive ability; they cannot diagnose, only point at areas for more in depth examination.

That’s fine. Then don’t stop there for government officials as critical to our nation’s safety as Presidents and Vice Presidents, and House and Senate leadership and Supreme Court Justices.

Do the cognitive testing as a matter of course, and then do the follow-up, in depth, examinations also as a matter of course.

The importance of such in depth examinations is clearly illustrated by the obvious mental decline in our current President. Has his decline progressed to the point that he’s no longer capable in that office? We the People need to know, and sooner is better. And we need to know for future elections to high office.