Tag Archives: responsibilities

Typical

Posted on by
Reply

The Progressive-Democrat Jamaal Bowman now says his fellow Progressive-Democrat Kyrsten Sinema is a traitor for her continued verbal support for the Senate’s filibuster.

John Lewis is a hero, you [Sinema] are a traitor to his legacy, your constituents and our democracy.

This is typical of the Progressive-Democrat Party: either you support Party, or you’re a traitor, and separately, you’re also a racist.

Bowman’s rant brings to mind a couple of quotes. I’ll leave it as an exercise for the student to name the source(s).

It is thus necessary that the individual should finally come to realise that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existence of the nation, that the position of the individual is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole.

In every revolution, it has been the rule to brand political opponents as enemies…and so to justify completely depriving them of legal protection and property.

The…government will regard its first and supreme task to restore to the…people unity of mind and will. It will preserve and defend the foundations on which the strength of our nation rests…. In place of our turbulent instincts, it will make national discipline govern our life.

It is nonsense to suppose that a people wants to rule itself. It always comes to such ideas only when it is badly ruled.

Each activity and each need of the individual will be regulated by the party as the representative of the general good. There will be no licence, no free space in which the individual belongs to himself. The decisive factor is that the State, through the Party, is supreme.

And finally:

I will tolerate no opposition. We recognise only subordination—authority downwards and responsibility upwards.

Walensky Fails

Posted on by
Reply

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky was asked on Bret Baier’s Fox News Sunday episode last Sunday,

Do you know how many of the 836,000 deaths in the U.S. linked to COVID are from COVID or how many are with COVID, but they had other comorbidities? Do you have that breakdown?

Walensky proceeded to weasel-word her answer and segued to the only talking point she could remember, that everyone must get vaccinated and boosted and get their children vaccinated, too, as soon as they’re eligible. Only toward the end of her off-topic response did she reveal her larger failure:

Yes, of course, with Omicron we’re following that very carefully….

And then she said she didn’t have even those data for the Omicron variant—they take “weeks” to gather….

However.

Why hasn’t she been following this matter, collecting these data, since the Wuhan Virus first arrived? Walensky has, or her staff has—or should have—2 years of these data, for the first Wuhan Virus (which, in truth, is Robert Redfield’s failure); a year or more for the Delta variant, which is on her watch; and more than “weeks” for the Omicron variant.

Beyond Baier’s simplified question, of sort-of necessity in a single segment of several in his program, however, there are four mortality categories of interest, and those four should be of interest to CDC:

  • Those for whom the virus was the sole cause of death
  • Those with comorbidities for whom the virus was the primary cause of death, but the comorbidities were contributing factors
  • Those with comorbidities for whom the comorbidities were the primary cause of death, but the virus was a contributing factor
  • Those with comorbidities for whom the comorbidities were the sole cause of death, and the virus was merely present.

The CDC is ignoring all of that.

Trespassing and Protesting

Posted on by
Reply

Michael Taube is on the right track with his opprobrium of trespass on the private property of protest targets in the pursuit of those protests, and he’s correct in his opprobrium of those who do the trespassing.

But as is typical of Leftists (Taube was a speechwriter for former Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who for all his Canadian-level conservatism was quite a bit to the Left), he insists that control from the center is the answer.

Unfortunately, neither Canada nor most US states have a clear legal distinction when it comes to protesting outside a person’s home or dwelling. Both countries need laws protecting the right to live and raise a family in a peaceful environment.

No, the “countries” should not have such laws. At least in the US, police powers reside in the States. Our Federal government already has too many police power-based laws, and we see the outcomes in the FBI’s misbehaviors, and in DoJ’s gun-running efforts (in the name of the greater good, no less).

American States, at least, already have trespass laws; although they may well need to strengthen sanctions on conviction. In any event, the Federal government needs to butt out.

Union Failure

Posted on by
Reply

The Chicago Teachers Union has decided—carefully at the last minute—to not report for work for in-person teaching. They’ve decided to reimpose remote “learning” protocols out of their fear (or so they claim) of the Omicron variant of the Wuhan Virus. And this time it’s not just union management making the decision, it’s the rank and file:

The vote was approved by 73% of the union’s members, calling for no in-class learning until “cases substantially subside” or union leaders approve an agreement for safety protocols with the district.

School district leaders—even Mayor Lori Lightfoot—are terming the CTU’s job action a “walkout” and an “illegal work stoppage.” They’re right, and the CTU needs to be decertified and the teachers who won’t teach fired for cause (which would deny them unemployment benefits, even in Illinois). Let these…persons…refuse to work on someone else’s payroll. Allocate the funds presently sent to the schools closed by this union job action instead be used for vouchers for the parents to use to send their children to other schools and to generate additional voucher and charter schools in the city.

But the CTU’s misbehavior goes far beyond this. During and after the last bout of “remote learning,” it became clear that the practice severely damages children’s social development and their mental health. With this knowledge widespread, it’s now clear that the CTU is actively engaging in child abuse, and the union managers, along with the business that is the CTU, should be prosecuted accordingly.

There’s no excuse for this.

Child Abuse

Posted on by
2

Now the New Orleans government is requiring children as young as five years old to get vaccinated, whether they need it or not, whether their parents want it for their children or not.

Mayor LaToya Cantrell said she is implementing the policy “to keep the omicron variant at bay,” amid surging cases in Orleans Parish.

And

“The vaccine mandate will expand to include children ages 5-11,” she said. “We will require proof of vaccination or negative tests at bars and restaurants and other locations for everyone ages 5 and older.”

(I’m not aware that patrons as young as five years are allowed in New Orleans bars, but that’s another story.)

And, she orders:

Starting in January, you MUST ensure that your children are getting vaccinated!

This too closely approaches child abuse. There is virtually no risk to children—or from them to others—from the Wuhan Virus, especially from the mildest of all the variants, Omicron. It’s also true that the risk of dangerous side effects from the vaccines against the virus seems very small.

However.

We have more than two years of empirical data from a sample size that is the population of children on Earth with which to assess the level of risk to children from a Wuhan Virus infection. We have a much smaller set of data, collected over a much shorter period of time, with which to assess any risk to children of serious side effect from any of the virus vaccines.

Stipulate, though, that the vaccines’ serious side effect risk really is quite small. The comparison of interest is not whether the vaccines have an absolute level of risk in isolation of other factors or risks. The proper comparison is the level of risk to a child from being unvaccinated compared with the risk to the child of serious side effect from the vaccine.

If the two levels of risk are comparable—and they seem to be, even with the so-far assessed optimistic side effect risk—then the risk from the vaccine is not worth the risk to a child from going unvaccinated.

Forcing that second risk onto the child is too risky, to the point of abuse.