Tag Archives: responsibilities

Borderline….

Posted on by
Reply

According to Johns Hopkins’ CSSE data, the US has suffered 116,000 deaths from the Wuhan Virus as of 16 June. That’s not the whole story, though, and the raw number overstates the case along one critical dimension.

The US death toll from [Wuhan Virus] in nursing homes and other long-term-care facilities has topped 50,000….

That’s 43% of all our virus fatalities occurring in those old folks homes.

Those same CSSE data indicate that the US has some 2,100,000 cases—of which 250,000 have occurred in those facilities. That’s 12% of all our virus infections concentrated in those old folks homes, and a 20% fatality rate for our old folks, given infection in our old folks homes. Which compares with a 3% fatality rate outside those facilities.

Unfortunately (or conveniently, depending on perspective), many States don’t disaggregate cases effectively, so that old folks home death rate actually maybe be understated to some degree.

New York, for example, doesn’t include cases in which nursing-home residents died in a hospital….

Some States—New York and New Jersey come to mind—badly exacerbated this death toll concentration and infection disportionality by actually requiring nursing homes and the like to accept into their midst Wuhan Virus-infected patients simply because those facilities had empty beds.

Borderline? It’s right next door to criminal.

Troops in Germany

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump has said he intends to reduce the number of American soldiers in Germany.

Germany, he said, is not meeting its commitment to spend 2% of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on defense as required by the NATO alliance. Member nations had pledged to reach the 2% threshold by 2024. Germany has said it hopes to reach the target by 2031.

Which is a cynical commitment by Germany, since there will be several generations of German governments over the intervening 11 years.

But here’s the kicker, from Emily Haber, Germany’s Ambassador to the US:

US troops…are not there to defend Germany. They are there to defend the trans-Atlantic security. They are also there to project American power in Africa, in Asia[.]

If that’s true—or if it’s the case that Germany is dictating to us our purpose in keeping troops stationed there (not so outlandish; Germany is, after all a sovereign nation, not a post-war occupied one)—there’s even less reason to keep troops stationed there.

We can defend trans-Atlantic security much more efficiently from any of a number of other European, and Atlantic, nations. We can project power “in Africa” much more efficiently from any of a number of other European, African, Western Asian nations. We can project power “in Asia” much more efficiently from any of a number of Pacific nations.

And we would be doing those power projections much more securely than by putting all of our security eggs in a single German basket.

We also can fulfill our own NATO commitments much more effectively and overtly with those German-stationed troops redeployed to northern and eastern European nations, nations who still care about their own and their mutual defense, nations who still remember an existence under Soviet Russian occupation.

In the end, as I wrote earlier, Germany’s angst has nothing to do with defense—about which the nation seems to have little interest—and has much to do with the potential loss of all of those millions of American dollars spent on the German economy by tens of thousands of American military family members and by the soldiers themselves.

Were Germany interested in anything else, it would meet its voluntarily entered into commitment of 2% of its GDP for defense without any of its…delays.

Affirmative Action in California

Posted on by
Reply

The good citizens of California banned discrimination on the basis of race and sex when they voted up Proposition 209 nearly 25 years ago. That proposition barred affirmative action programs.

Those citizens of a generation ago understood that affirmative action programs, by their deliberate use of race and sex as selection criteria, are fundamentally racist and sexist.

Here we have the California Assembly affirmatively supporting just that racism and sexism.

California Legislative Black Caucus Chair Dr Shirley Weber, primary sponsor of ACA 5, which is designed to rescind Prop 209 and to that end puts the matter on the November ballot, said this about her bill, claiming that the current political and social environment is

forcing Californians to acknowledge the deep-seated inequality and far-reaching institutional failures that show that your race and gender still matters[.]

However, rather than addressing the root causes of “inequality” (carefully undefined, that—inequality of outcome? of initial opportunity? of…?—of whatever seems convenient to the politician, apparently) and of “institutional failures,” the California Assembly has chosen to expand those failures, to strengthen the prejudice, by reverting to those inherently bigoted programs.

My irony alarm is sounding.

And the Assembly as a whole is proud of its bigotry.

Irredeemable, Deplorable

Posted on by
Reply

That’s not the Progressive-Democrat Hillary Clinton. This time it’s the Progressive-Democratic Party’s Presidential candidate Joe Biden.

Do we really think this is as good as we can be as a nation? I don’t think the vast majority of people think that. There are probably anywhere from 10 to 15 percent of the people out there who are just not very good people, but that’s not who we are.

Ten to fifteen per cent of us Americans just aren’t very good. Between thirty-three million and fifty million of us Americans are just beneath contempt.

Biden’s contempt for Americans generally is an expansion of his contempt for, his outright bigotry toward, black Americans, which he exposed when he said to a black interviewer,

I tell you if you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black[.]

This is the second Party campaign in a row where the Progressive-Democrats demonstrate such utter contempt for Americans.

This is the Party that wants to rule over the United States.

What kind of government can we expect from a ruling organization that so hates the subjects over whom it would rule?

Which Lives Matter?

Posted on by
Reply

For the Black Lives Matter group, lives do not matter equally: black lives matter more than blue lives, white lives, Asian lives, Hispanic lives—black lives are first among All Lives.

Not even all black lives matter to BLM.

Not David Patrick Underwood’s, a Federal contractor who was murdered guarding a Federal building in Oakland during the current spate of rioting. Not David Dorn’s, a retired St Louis police captain murdered while guarding a friend’s small business during the current spate of rioting. BLM is silent on these snuffed black lives.

Not the lives of millions of black men, women, and children killed by black thugs. BLM is silent on these snuffed black lives.

Not the neighborhood businesses owned or operated by blacks, not the neighborhood businesses employing blacks. BLM is silent on these badly damaged black lives.

Not the neighborhood businesses that are the only places millions of blacks can go to shop—for necessities like food or for nice-to-haves like haircuts or hair styling. BLM is silent on these badly damaged black lives.

BLM doesn’t care about other minorities’ welfare, either; certainly not the neighborhood businesses similarly situated by and for Hispanics, Asians, women.

BLM isn’t even an efficiently racist organization—its members just indiscriminately [sic] hate anyone not in the BLM movement.

Nestride Yumga is clear on this, as she wrote in her WSJ op-ed:

[T]he Black Lives Matter movement throws racial antagonism into this equation to create an even bigger problem by turning Americans against each other, tearing down our cities, and bringing shame and disgrace to our great country.
They don’t organize nationwide protests for other issues that seriously affect our communities. They don’t protest the police department for letting homicides go unsolved. They don’t protest Congress or the Federal Reserve for access to capital. They don’t protest the school system for failing African-American children.
…
This movement’s agenda is to make sure we feel oppressed and depressed, so that we hate ourselves more and despise our fellow Americans.
The person who makes you believe you’re oppressed also limits how far you can go. If African-Americans are oppressed, it is by the people who tell us we are….

The stench of racism is oppressive no matter from whom it vents.