Monthly Archives: February 2026

“Our Democracy”

Posted on by
Reply

Jack Butler, a deputy editor at The Wall Street Journal‘s Free Expression, had a good piece on Progressive-Democratic Party politicians’ defense of our democracy. The TL;DR of it (it really isn’t that long; it’s a good read in its own right) is this:

Party politicians and the Left generally aren’t talking about our nation’s republican democracy or our democracy in the lazy phrasing too often fallen onto; they’re talking about our democracy, and the rest of us can join them or go hang. This is illustrated by the remarks of Party’s ex-President Joe Biden:

In a 2022 speech, President Biden agreed with a federal judge’s assessment that “Trump and the extreme MAGA Republicans” are a “clear and present danger” to “our democracy” and called on Americans to “unite behind the single purpose of defending our democracy, regardless of your ideology.”

This is Party’s attitude toward American citizens: you’re either with us, or you’re separate from us, and we’ll simply ignore you while we take care of our version of the nation of the United States.

Sending a Message, Or…?

Posted on by
Reply

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rick Crawford (R, AR) is worried about a proliferation of People’s Republic of China hidden biolabs throughout the US. One of his points of concern regarded the apparent occasionally sloppy setup and operation of the labs.

“Why would you have some illicit labs set up in an Airbnb, except for, maybe, you’re trying to create some sort of, you know, patient zero scenario, that you might infect someone, that you might create another COVID-like scenario.”
Crawford said the alleged handling of dangerous pathogens appeared careless at best, and possibly deliberate. “Why would you do it in such a slipshod way, if it wasn’t almost deliberately to try to maybe attract attention? Are they trying to send a message to us?”

Sending us a message about how easy it is for the PRC to reach out and infectiously touch us is certainly one possibility.

Another possibility, though, is that these are the biolabs we were supposed to find and to be distracted from noticing the other, more serious biolabs with the more serious and disruptive, if not lethal, pathogens.

Constitutionally Questionable

Posted on by
Reply

The subheadline lays out the problem:

Refusal of older officeholders to cede stage to younger faces is prompting fresh calls for a limit on how long they can serve

Statutory limits on how long Congressmen and -women can serve in Congress are constitutionally highly questionable. Here’s what Article I, Sections 2 (on Representatives) and 3 (on Senators) of our Constitution says about eligibility to serve in Congress:

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

And

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

Our Constitution places a floor on age, but it places no ceiling on age, nor does it place any limit on the length of service or number of terms an individual may serve. In many venues, it’s possible for lower jurisdictions to tighten standards of higher jurisdictions, but with our Constitution, such efforts have been routinely disallowed under the Supremacy Clause, which unequivocally states, along with Marbury v Madison, that our Constitution is our supreme law, and Congressional statutes are subordinate to it. It’s most likely that imposing an upper age limit would require an Amendment to our Constitution.

In any event, limiting by age for how long a congressman might serve is a decidedly suboptimal solution to this perceived problem. A much better solution is the term limit that was used in our erstwhile Articles of Confederation. That document’s Article V limited a Congressional delegate to three terms out of six, with no bar on serving further in subsequent six term runs.

The Articles were written for a unicameral Congress, but it’s easily adaptable to our present bicameral Congress. This also would require an Amendment to our Constitution, but it would be a better one that makes medical improvements to the abilities of aging citizens irrelevant.

Bad Logic

Posted on by
Reply

Arizona passed a law five years ago that essentially banned forceable DEI training. An ASU professor brought suit to clarify that the law also

gives public employees an “implied private right of action” to stop such coercion, which in his case was ASU training on how to “critique whiteness.”

A State district court agreed with the professor and ruled accordingly. An Arizona appellate court

“astonishingly” construed lawmakers’ silence on enforcement as confirmation that individuals cannot sue….

The euphemism quotes are from the professor’s lawyers in their reaction to the ruling and as they prepare to appeal to the State’s supreme court.

The lawyers—and any high school student who didn’t sleep through his logic class—are right to be astonished. The appellate court’s “argument” (my euphemism quotes this time) that saying nothing means cannot sue is textbook logic failure. The lawmakers’ silence means nothing other than that they said nothing. The appellate court’s claim otherwise is the court’s putting words into the lawmakers’ mouths the judges have no way of knowing belong there—unless the judges are claiming heretofore unheard of powers of mind reading.

No, and Yes

Posted on by
Reply

NIH director Dr Jay Bhattacharya:

As far as the NIH, we’ve paused every single project that even is anywhere within the vicinity of something that could be gain of function, and the White House is working on a policy…(that) will make it so that it never happens again.
Nowhere in the United States Government will we invest in a project that poses a risk of catastrophic harm to the American people ever again[.]

No. We should continue, and perhaps accelerate, gain of function research across a variety of viruses, and not only those living in animals. We don’t necessarily need the research for our own biological weapons, and such research needs to be done within the most stringent safety protocols. The reasons we should do the research are two, primarily: one is that our enemies are conducting such research; the canonical example being the People’s Republic of China with its efforts that include its lab leak (from incompetent safety execution more than from proximate enmity) of the Wuhan Virus. We need our own gain of function research in order to be better positioned to counter deliberate spreads of successfully weaponized viruses. The need for this is demonstrated by PRC agents recently caught smuggling into our nation a variety of biologic weapons that would poison our nation’s food supply when released.

The other reason is the need to anticipate, understand, and produce effective responses when the inevitable event of another pandemic occurs and threatens national and global economies as well as national and global populations. A short list of examples of this includes the costly and deadly outbreaks of plague, smallpox, Spanish Flu, and the recent Wuhan Virus. All of these were far worse than they could have been had effective remedies been available or more quickly available due to ongoing gain of function research. That gain of function research technologies and methods didn’t exist for most of those cataclysms doesn’t alter the fact that such technologies and methods would have been beneficial then. We have the basics of such technologies and methods today.

I think I can tell you that the appetite for lockdowns in this administration is basically zero. So I don’t think we would have the same kind of approach. …
…
We saw during COVID every single person’s life was affected in some, mostly for the worse. ” …I’ll tell you under my watch, I will never advocate and the NIH will not be advocating for lockdowns ever again.

Yes. The lockdowns not only harmed our economy and isolated adult Americans far too much, they severely damaged our children and not only by losing years of education that still have not been recovered. They also severely damaged our children’s social development, that damage came at ages where our children are their most vulnerable, and in far too many cases the damage will be life-long.