Tag Archives: culture

Two Examples of Progressive-Democrats’ Assault on Free Speech

Posted on by
Reply

California doesn’t want anyone to contradict the State’s preferred narrative regarding the Wuhan Virus—not even medical experts.

Disagreement with the “contemporary scientific consensus” on COVID-19 issues could be deemed “unprofessional conduct” for California doctors.
…
The bill, which was cowritten by five other California Assembly and Senate members, goes beyond regulating how California doctors can treat their own patients. It opens their statements about COVID—public or private—to review by the Medical Board of California and the Osteopathic Medical Board of California, with possible sanctions to follow.

This bill doesn’t care about disagreeing science. Medical opinion doesn’t matter unless it’s the State’s opinion. There is no Truth but Truth, and State is its name.

Illinois is joining the assault.

“Though the Illinois State Police respects the rights of citizens to express their opinions in a lawful manner, there is great concern with any event that is designed to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic,” ISP Division of Patrol Colonel Margaret McGreal said in a statement. “Traffic backups are a major contributing cause to traffic crashes which lead to property damage, personal injury, and even death. A planned event designed to impede normal traffic flow is dangerous to the innocent motoring public.”

There might be a problem—which the State government will define to be illegal after the fact, or will define preemptively, as convenient—so truckers shouldn’t speak up with their convoy protest. And they’re not even honking their horns.

What Should our Courts Look Like?

Posted on by
Reply

President Joe Biden (D) said in his speech Friday announcing his selection of DC Circuit Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson as his nominee for the Supreme Court that “it’s time our courts looked like America.”

Nothing could be less accurate or more Extreme Left.

Our Article III courts—and our State and local courts, as well—are not, and were not, designed to reflect the demographics of our nation. That’s the role of the political arms of our governments, Federal, State, and local. Those political arms are populated by men and women elected by their fellow citizens to be Representatives, Senators, President of our nation, and analogously at the State and local levels. Those are the folks who should look like the demographics of our nation and their State and district constituents. And they do—that’s what our elections achieve, however clumsily.

Our courts were set up, instead, to be independent of those political arms, independent of demographics. The judges and Justices appointed to those courts were given lifetime appointments explicitly to keep them independent of politics. Our courts were created and the judges/Justices are appointed to them for the sole purpose of applying our Constitution and any statutes before them in any particular case as they were written.

Doing that requires no particular demographic on the bench nor any pattern of demographics. It requires only that they honor our Constitution, which holds that legislation is the sole province of the Congress, and that they honor their oaths of office, which hold them to upholding and defending our Constitution and to treat all men and women before them equally under law, without favor or preference of any sort—including demographic.

Being a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences is irrelevant to the role of a judge or Justice. Being a black is irrelevant to the role of a judge or Justice. Being a woman is irrelevant to the role of a judge or Justice. Being an American citizen applying the text of the Constitution and the statute(s) as they are written is the role, the only role, of a judge or Justice.

Applying gender or race, or religion, is simply bigotry. Selecting a person for judge or Justice because of gender or race, or religion, is simply bigotry.

Full stop.

Ending Secret Laboratories

Posted on by
Reply

Dr Marty Makary, Islet Transplant Surgery Chief and Professor of Surgery at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, wants to do away with them, and he wants to start with the CDC’s. I think he doesn’t go far enough.

Despite housing treasure troves of critical COVID data on vaccines and on natural immunity, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has only been releasing slivers of data that support its own scientific dogma.

And, closing his op-ed,

The CDC has a pattern of hoarding data in order to cherry-pick the findings it likes and then publish them in its own journal, called MMWR [Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report].

The CDC’s—CDC Director Rochelle Walensky’s—rationale for this utter dishonesty is that us average Americans are just too grindingly stupid to understand the data if they were released for our perusal. Here’s Kristen Nordlund, CDC Health Communication Specialist [Aside: be sure to crook your pinky finger when you read that. Most such positions are “Press Secretary.” Nordlund’s title is an indication of just how self-importantly precious the CDC is, in addition to the agency’s fundamental dishonesty]:

Another reason is fear that the information might be misinterpreted[.]

Makary also says,

If I were advising President Joe Biden [D], I would tell him that the CDC needs to restore the public trust by making all CDC data available in real-time for researchers around the country to access and to study.

The problem in the CDC’s case is that the dishonesty extends far beyond the agency’s laboratories and personages making the editorial [sic] decisions on what information to withhold from a dull and uncomprehending populace. I often call for a broad removal of an organization’s top management, sometimes extending the call into middle management.

It isn’t possible for the CDC to have trust in it restored, even with that broad personnel turnover. All of the data in the CDC’s databases need to be released immediately, certainly. However, merely releasing the data would leave the dishonest bureaucrats managing the agency and doing the “work” in it in place. The CDC’s cancer of dishonesty has broadly metastasized far beyond Stage IV. The dishonesty is terminal, and the CDC needs to be disbanded altogether—not merely have its budget zeroed out; the Center must be completely removed from the Federal government—and all of its personnel returned to the private sector, not reassigned elsewhere in government.

If the nation truly needs a medical agency for managing the (medical) diseases extant in our nation or that enter it, such a facility must be built anew, from the ground up.

Works for Me

Posted on by
Reply

Russian-supporting (emplaced?) rebel leaders (they’re not separatists) in the Russian occupied Donbas region of Ukraine are encouraging “civilians” to evacuate the area in the face of Russian-supported shelling of civilian villages. And to go east, to Russia.

That’s not necessarily a bad idea. The bulk of those Donbas civilians are Russians who are either immigrants, legal aliens, illegal aliens, or nominal citizens of Ukraine. A significant fraction of those folks still favors Russia over their host nation. Such an evacuation, were it actually to occur, would take some of the teeth out of one of Putin’s rationalizations for invading Ukraine—Anschluss­.

Slander

Posted on by
Reply

Former Alaska Governor and Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin lost her slander suit against The New York Times (after the presiding judge telegraphed to the jury, while it was deliberating, that he’d set aside the jury verdict, but that’s for a story about judicial malfeasance). The Wall Street Journal‘s article centered its reporting on the premise that Palin had failed to pass the high bar reserved for celebrities and other public figures: she had to show actual malice in order to have a case, and she didn’t succeed in the judge’s opinion.

But case brings up a larger matter regarding the malice standard itself.

There’s no reason at all why some Americans should be prevented by that high bar from defending themselves against slander, while other Americans are not so prevented. The 14th Amendment to our Constitution is quite clear on this: No State shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The courts’ and the Court’s differential treatment of groups of Americans based solely on their social or political standing plainly violates that equal treatment clause.