Displaying posts published in

March 2021

The Wisdom in Knowing What We Don’t Know Peter Arnold

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2021/03/the-wisdom-in-knowing-what-we-dont-know/

“The truth about much regarding the COVID-19 epidemic is that there is no knowledge. We do know what the virus does, and how it kills people. But why isn’t the virus killing entire families, as did the Spanish Flu of a century ago.We do not know how many the virus has killed. Yes, we see running tallies of deaths, but how many, especially the elderly, have died with it, not from it? There are not enough forensic pathologists in the world to have done post-mortem examinations to confirm COVID-19 as the prime cause of death.”

Regrettably, there is little knowledge — read that ‘verifiable facts’ — about treating COVID-19, about preventing its spread, about the facts of herd immunity, about its mutation potential, about any form of treatment, the efficacy of the vaccines and many other open questions. This has left experts, world-wide,  to respond in ignorance to the demands of the media for comment. I have seen some appallingly wrong (as it turned out) opinion pieces by experts.

In January, the respected scientific journal Nature asked more than 100 SARS-CoV-2 immunologists, infectious-disease researchers and virologists if it could be eradicated. Almost 90 per cent thought it would become endemic — circulating in pockets of the global population for many years.

I read through that Nature article carefully. As has been the norm at this stage of COVID-19 ignorance, it is highly speculative.

Critical Race Fragility The Left has denounced the “war on woke,” but it is afraid to defend the principles of critical race theory in public debate.Christopher F. Rufo

https://www.city-journal.org/the-left-wont-debate-critical-race-theory

The critical race theorists are feeling the heat. Over the past decade, they have had remarkable success in perpetuating the concepts of systemic racism, unconscious bias, white privilege, and white fragility in American institutions, beginning with universities and moving on to schools, government agencies, and multinational corporations. Their campaign began mostly without opposition, as most conservatives were either ignorant of what was happening or dismissed it as a campus fad.

That changed last year. The intellectual movements around the so-called Intellectual Dark Web, Quillette magazine, and the 1776 Unites coalition of dissident black scholars had laid down a theoretical case against critical race theory (CRT). President Trump elevated the debate into the mainstream, denouncing CRT by name at the National Archives, signing an executive order banning CRT-based training programs from the federal government, and sparring on the topic during a televised presidential debate. Since then, investigative journalists, including me, have reported on the negative impact of CRT in government, schools, and corporations; states such as New Hampshire, Arkansas, Iowa, West Virginia, and Oklahoma have introduced legislation seeking to ban CRT programs that promote the concepts of race essentialism, collective guilt, and race-based harassment in public institutions.

This shift in momentum against the new racial orthodoxy, which has now grown beyond America’s borders to England, France, Italy, Hungary, and Brazil, has rattled the American Left. Their first argument against this change is that conservatives are using state power to “cancel wokeness.” New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg recently followed this line, attacking my work “leading the conservative charge against critical race theory,” declaring that the Right wants to ban critical race theory because it is afraid to debate it. This is false, of course. For more than a year, prominent black intellectuals, including John McWhorter, Glenn Loury, Wilfred Reilly, and Coleman Hughes have challenged the critical race theorists to debate—and none has accepted. After Goldberg published her column, I called her bluff even further, challenging to “debate any prominent critical race theorist on the floor of the New York Times.” Predictably, none responded, catching the New York Times in a fib and further exposing the critical race theorists’ refusal to submit their ideas to public scrutiny.

 “Lucky: How Joe Biden Barely Won the Presidency” 

http://www.newsmax.com/politics/presidential-campaign-election-basement/2021/03/02/id/1012223/?ns_mail_uid=

A new book chronicles how President Joe Biden won the 2020 election, despite being his own biggest liability, the New York Post reported Tuesday.

The book “Lucky: How Joe Biden Barely Won the Presidency” will be released April 6, marveling at the winning campaign strategy of “you put your dumb uncle in the basement.”

The book, written by NBC News’ Jonathan Allen and The Hill’s Amie Parnes, notes even former President Barack Obama was reluctant to endorse his former vice president, fearing he would be a “tragicomic caricature of an aging politician having his last hurrah,” so he has to be shielded from harming his own campaign.

Third time was a charm for Biden, as the “stars aligned” the authors wrote.

Also, perspectives from inside former President Donald Trump’s White House and campaign detail the conversations between 2016 campaign manager Kellyanne Conway and President Trump.

“I think if we lose to him, we are pathetic,” Conway told Trump, the book claims.

The authors also wrote the 2017 book “Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton’s Doomed Campaign,” detailing the anger of Clinton on election night.

A source familiar with Trump campaign polling said the COVID-19 pandemic turned the election against the president.

“Until the COVID thing came, we were winning four hundred electoral votes,” the source told the authors, per the Post.

Not only did it damage the president, but it shielded Biden from having to leave his basement, the book noted.

“They used coronavirus as an excuse to keep him in the basement, and it was smart,” according to a Trump adviser in the book. “Biden was able to hide his biggest weakness, which is himself. And he did it with an excuse that sounded responsible.”

Even one Biden aide saw their candidate’s shortcomings.

“I cringed the entire time. He looked like he didn’t know what he was doing,” the book’s source said.

 

Iran has already beaten Biden Pulling defeat from the jaws of defeat: Dominic Green

https://spectator.us/topic/iran-already-beaten-biden-syria-strike/

The Biden administration is trying to set some rules in its negotiations about negotiations with Iran. But the first rule of the Middle East is that there are no rules. There are only balances of force and fear. And this is why Iran will defeat the US in Syria just as it has already defeated the US in Iraq.

Like a tourist in a foreign restaurant, the administration knows just enough of the local lingo to order the wrong thing. After years in the region, American strategists have absorbed the crude calculus of force: to be taken seriously, they reason, we have to respond to the rocket attack on an airbase in northern Iraq earlier this month, which killed a military contractor and wounded a US serviceman.

The US has also absorbed the calculus of fear. Much as America’s politicians and generals pretend otherwise, the US was defeated in Iraq years ago. The winner was Iran and its Shia allies.

Why didn’t the US retaliate for an attack on Americans in Iraq by hitting Iran’s proxies in Iraq? Because of fear. The US is afraid of further attacks on its remaining forces in Iraq. It’s afraid of losing what little influence it still has over the Iraqi government. And it’s afraid of returning Iraq to civil war.

The US is right to fear and avoid all these outcomes. The US would be even righter if it avoided Iraq entirely, instead of leaving 2,500 servicemen there as sitting ducks. But a tough guy like Joe Biden isn’t going to tell the American people that the US has been thoroughly defeated in Iraq by Iranian IEDs, Sunni self-detonators and its own imperial vanity.

Woke Excess Causes Minority Voters To Flee the Democratic Party The cultural views of elite white liberals are not popular with many minorities. Robby Soave

https://reason.com/2021/03/03/woke-excess-democratic-party-trump-political-correctness/

While the Democratic Party pulled off a complete (albeit narrow) victory over Donald Trump and the Republican Party in 2020, they lost ground with nonwhite voters—despite significantly raising the salience of racial justice issues during the campaign.

According to progressive pollster David Shor, it’s time to face the facts: The cultural views of very highly-educated, very left-leaning white people are toxic for many nonwhite voters who would otherwise support the Democratic Party.

“I don’t think a lot of people expected Donald Trump’s GOP to have a much more diverse support base than Mitt Romney’s did in 2012,” Shor told New York magazine in a recent interview. “But that’s what happened.”

Shor pointed to two specific associations—socialism and the “defund the police” movement—that appear to have tarnished the Democratic Party in the eyes of minority voters. The former is an unsurprising finding, and something I’ve written on previously: Socialism is generally not popular with Hispanic voters, who associate it with the kind of political oppression experienced by people in Venezuela and Cuba.

But the latter is also noteworthy, given that “defund the police” is a mantra recited by progressive activists who purport to represent the wishes of racial minorities. These activists claim, for instance, that the role of police in society is to defend or legitimize America’s white supremacist culture. In other words, activists want to defund the police because they think doing so is a necessary component of antiracist organizing.

The trouble is that many racial minorities don’t actually share that view.

“We raised the salience of an ideologically charged issue that millions of nonwhite voters disagreed with us on,” said Shor. “And then, as a result, these conservative Hispanic voters who’d been voting for us despite their ideological inclinations started voting more like conservative whites.”

America’s Lost Generation The scientific consensus is clear: children should be in school. But an estimated 18 million kids haven’t set foot inside. Why? Robby Soave

https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/americas-lost-generation

Nothing — not the botched vaccine rollout; not the forced small business closures; not the fact that we’ve watched until the end of Netflix — deserves more of our collective outrage than the fact that thousands of American public schools remain closed a year into this pandemic.

Over the past 12 months, an estimated 18 million American kids haven’t set foot inside of a classroom or have just started coming back for one day a week. That’s about one-third of all public school students, which number about 50 million. What’s most enraging is that this was entirely avoidable. The country’s teachers unions are committing a generational crime against the nations’ young. 

When President Joe Biden was inaugurated on January 20, he pledged that in-person education would resume for most children within his first 100 days as president. To support school reopening efforts, the president asked Congress to allocate $130 billion in new funding for protective equipment, better ventilation, more space inside classrooms, and whatever else educators need.

Fast forward to today. The White House has all but given up on the goal of reopening schools. Last month, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, clarified that the president would consider the goal met if more than half of all schools were open for in-person instruction at least one day a week. To say that one-day-a-week in-person instruction is a reopening of schools is to lie.

The Cancellation Of Dr. Seuss Should Disturb You, Because You’re Next America is entering its very own Mao-like Cultural Revolution. The iconoclasm of the left’s culture war isn’t a side effect, it’s the point. John Daniel Davidson

https://thefederalist.com/2021/03/03/the-cancellation-of-dr-seuss-should-disturb-you-because-youre-next/

Dr. Seuss has been cancelled. Some of his work has been deemed racist, and we can’t have that. On Tuesday, the entity that oversees the estate of Theodor Seuss Geisel announced it would no longer publish six of Geisel’s books because they “portray people in ways that are hurtful and wrong.”

Among the works now deemed unfit for children are Geisel’s first book under the pen name Dr. Seuss, “And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street,” published in 1937, and the much-beloved, “If I Ran the Zoo,” published in 1950. The former depicts a “Chinaman” character and the latter shows two men from “the African island of Yerka” in native garb.

There’s not much point in quibbling over whether these and other such illustrations in the condemned Dr. Seuss books are in fact racist or bigoted, or whether Geisel held racist or xenophobic views. By all accounts he was a liberal-minded and tolerant man who hated Nazis and, as a political cartoonist, mocked the antisemitism that was all-too-common in America during World War II.

He was also a man of his era. Later in life, he regretted some of his political work during the war that stereotyped Japanese Americans, which, as jarring as it might seem today, nevertheless reflected attitudes that were commonplace at the time.

But context and nuance don’t factor into the inexorable logic of the woke left, which flattens and refashions the past into a weapon for the culture wars of the present. What’s important to understand is that this isn’t simply about banning six Dr. Seuss books. All of Geisel’s work is, in the judgment of left-wing academia, an exercise in “White supremacy, paternalism, conformity, and assimilation.” It might be easy for conservatives to laugh that off as nonsense, but they shouldn’t, because this isn’t really even about Geisel.

The Left Is Carrying Out a Cultural Revolution

Lockdowns: Which ‘Experts’ Were Right? A year later it’s clear that most media and government experts were dead wrong. by David Catron

https://spectator.org/covid-lockdowns-experts/

It has now been nearly a year since “public health experts” began appearing on television talk shows insisting that, to survive COVID-19, the nation would have to pursue unprecedented mitigation policies. They told us that our salvation required draconian measures such as school closures, stay-at-home orders, and business lockdowns. Moreover, we were advised not to expect a fast return to our normal lives. In early April 2020, for example, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel solemnly assured us, “We will not be able to return to normalcy until we find a vaccine…. We need to prepare ourselves for this to last 18 months or so and for the toll that it will take.”

The good doctor didn’t mention that, for a man of his means, “the toll that it will take” would be negligible even as it disrupted the education of millions of children, rendered their parents unemployed, and wreaked social and psychological havoc throughout society. The sainted Dr. Anthony Fauci echoed Dr. Zeke: “I know it’s difficult … this is inconvenient from an economic and a personal standpoint, but we just have to do it.” Not coincidentally, Fauci is the highest-paid bureaucrat in Washington. But not all public health experts accepted the cost-benefit analyses offered by Drs. Emanuel and Fauci.

Among the first actual epidemiologists who advised that more information was needed before draconian mitigation measures could be scientifically justified was Dr. John P. A. Ioannidis of the Stanford University School of Medicine. Dr. Ioannidis questioned the reasoning used by people like Emanuel and Fauci in an essay published in STAT, where he wrote that the precipitous response to the pandemic was “a once-in-a-century evidence fiasco” and that decisions of monumental significance were being made without truly dependable data concerning how many people had been infected:

The data collected so far on how many people are infected and how the epidemic is evolving are utterly unreliable. Given the limited testing to date, some deaths and probably the vast majority of infections due to SARS-CoV-2 are being missed.… In the absence of data, prepare-for-the-worst reasoning leads to extreme measures of social distancing and lockdowns. Unfortunately, we do not know if these measures work.… [w]e don’t know how long social distancing measures and lockdowns can be maintained without major consequences to the economy, society, and mental health.

Alyssa Lappen on Clarence Thomas *****

Alyssa A. Lappen
5.0 out of 5 stars Profile in Courage

Reviewed in the United States on February 27, 2021

After reading Saturday evening that Amazon had removed this documentary from its rental streaming library, and next from its inventory of DVDs available for purchase, I immediately rented it from Vudu.

By censoring this film, Amazon proved Clarence Thomas correct and, moreover, guaranteed the film’s unrivaled success on other platforms.

I remember the Clarence Thomas hearings. I was then a senior editor at Working Woman.

This is a phenomenal report, regardless of your standing on the political spectrum, and it is a testament to human strength and the true tenor of courage.

Exceedingly well-documented, it tells of Thomas’ rise from an impoverished backwater in rural Georgia, with the help of his loving, wise, no-nonsense grandparents, illiterate though they were.

Through a grueling educational process he learned he had no choice but to achieve 100 percent 100 percent of the time.

Europe Divided Over Covid Passports by Soeren Kern

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/17131/europe-covid-passports

Tourism-dependent countries, including Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Portugal and Spain, are urging other EU states to adopt Covid passports, which would be modeled on the “green passport” system implemented by Israel.

“We know that in Israel they’ve made statements about anybody who tries to forge [a certificate] will face criminal proceedings and possibly be imprisoned. So, they really think that this is a risk that could happen.” — Professor Carsten Maple, cyber security expert, Alan Turing Institute.

“In consultation with other EU member states, we are in favor of a digital green passport, similar to the one in #Israel. This should offer the possibility to prove on the mobile phone that one has been tested, vaccinated or recovered. Our goal: to avoid a permanent lockdown & finally to enable freedom to travel within the EU as well as to visit events or restaurants.” — Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz.

Greece is pressing the EU to move quickly…. But would these certificates only be required for international travel or could they be needed for getting a job, attending a football match, or buying some milk? — Professor Melinda Mills, lead author of the Royal Society report on Covid passports.

“Yet making freedom conditional on facing the needle… takes us perilously close to the concept of compulsory vaccination… hardly likely to reassure anyone whose fear of the vaccine is bound up with a fear of an authoritarian state.” — Gaby Hinsliff, columnist, Guardian.

European leaders are considering a proposal to introduce a common EU-wide Coronavirus vaccination passport. The so-called Covid passports would permit those who have been vaccinated to travel freely within the European Union without the need for quarantining and testing.

The leaders of several European countries heavily dependent on tourism are pushing for Covid passports to be implemented with immediate effect. Others say that it is far too early to consider such a move, especially because the EU’s Coronavirus vaccine rollout has been dogged by delays and questions about the efficacy of certain vaccines, particularly in light of the virus’s new mutant strains.