Through the lens of the Brown-Jackson confirmation hearing.

A very good example of the double standard inherent in our lives is the very fresh in our minds hearing of soon to be new Justice Kentaji Brown-Jackson. Certainly, she is qualified. She seemed to know constitutional law (I expect they all bone up - I cannot say Sotomayor knew constitutional law well during her hearing). She has led an interesting and hard-working life as a student, lawyer and judge. I am not sure when having a great family became a qualification for a Justice, but the Democrats and even a few Republicans acted like it was with her. It is normal to introduce a family, some gratuitous comments to be made, but this was over the top hero-worship.

The double standard racing through our society came with dramatic swiftness in the opening statements by the Senators. More than a few of the Republicans pointedly told the judge about the outrages of the Kavanaugh hearing (who - I speculate - no doubt heard and approved when it happened), but promised her that they would not behave like that. Well, bully for those fair-minded Republicans, not that it does them any good. 

They kept their word.  In fact, even Cruz, Hawley and Blackburn, the three toughest questioners of Brown-Jackson, were unfailingly polite too her. It certainly did not do them any good, as Democrats and even a few Republican Senators found even intellectual challenges of her outrageous. I'm not surprised at the Democrats as they have shown themselves utterly shamelessly in the past few years and seek to win even at the demise of all values. Hence, AOC's demand that Justice Thomas resign this week because his wife turns out to have (gasp) opinions. 

The Democrats do not have such scruples and have had the better of the battle in terms of harassing the nominees, over time. The Democrats reflexively attackeded every important Trump nominee, judicial or otherwise. The Republicans have not done the same, objecting in mass to a few of the worst, but, as with Obama, letting him have his cabinet. If you don't believe me, count yourself - the vote for every nominee is online for all three of them. The Democrats are driven to "take" the Supreme Court. Why aren't the Republicans? 

Of course, it did not start with Kavanaugh, though he was the most egregious example, one that still makes me see read and look dimly on the future of our country. The most famous previous example is probably Bork, from which the term "borking" derives. Personally, I would not have voted for Bork either, but, that doesn't mean I approve of the attacks on him from the left. It wasn't just because he was a critic of the court or that he had fired the special prosecutor against Nixon, Archibald Cox (as Bork explained, his two superiors quit rather than do it, but, since someone had to stay and run the DOJ, asked that he stay and do it). Let me give you an example of the attacks on Bork, this from Ted Kennedy, a Sen. whose own personal behavior could have started the MeToo movement way before Weinberg:

"Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is--and is often the only--protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy. . . The damage that President Reagan will do through this nomination, if it is not rejected by the Senate, could live on far beyond the end of his presidential term. President Reagan is still our president. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of IranGate, reach into the muck of Watergate and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice."

Robert Bork's America | C-SPAN.org. Kennedy's speech starts at 51:42, the quoted portion at 27:36. 

To say Kennedy's attack was merely dramatic or oration is not to understand demagoguery. To hear it from the mouth of Kennedy and not to retch from the hypocrisy, is only a partisan reaction. I admit that I was barely coming out of my own political coma induced by being raised liberal at the time and did not let myself find it as unfair and offensive as I knew in my heart it was. I was stil partisan. It was during a fairly long period of time when I was coming to grips with the fact that a lot of things I believed, was raised believing, were wrong.

Since Bork, the major attacks have come from the left against Republican nominees. The Republicans did filibuster Abe Fortas for Chief Justice (he was already an associate, before that LBJ's personal attorney and friend), but the issues concerning him were real conflict of interests. E.g., he received, for the time, extraordinary payment for speeches by a group of friends and businessmen it was feared might create a conflict. In fact, today Justices are limited in their earnings and cannot earn money from speeches. Later he resigned his associate position because of a scandal.  

The next major attack on a Republican Supreme Court candidate by the Democrats came in 1992 when Justice Clarence Thomas was nominated. His hearing seemed to be going fine. His opening statement, which I have written about before about 5 years ago (David's blog: What's a pluffer? (deisenberg.blogspot.com)), was touching. But, it would turn quite ugly. In light of Kavanaugh, it seems almost quaint now, laughable. But it wasn't at the time. Accused by a former employee, Anita Hill, who even remained friends with Thomas after she was no longer worked for him, the details seem incredibly mundane (no unwanted touching, insults, threats, anything like that - there was a joke about a porno star and another about a pubic hair, and the like; some women thought he might want to date them - When did that become harassment?).

Miguel Estrada was nominated in 2001. Twenty-eight months later, he withdrew his nomination, having been successfully filibustered by the Democrats. Their reasoning - and I will give them the benefit of the doubt it wasn't because they were prejudiced against Hispanics - they were fearful he'd eventually be nominated to the Supreme Court and because he was Hispanic, too difficult to defeat then. Their excuse was he didn't have any judicial experience. But, he had clerked for a Court of Appeals and a Supreme Court Justice, and had been an Assistant Solicitor General and Assistant U.S. Attorney General. Besides, you know how Supreme Court justices out of 115 so far have not been judges before? 42 of them, or 36% - that is, for those of you who do not do decimals, more than 1 in 3.  Even if the Democrats had wanted to argue that no one had been without judicial experience since 1972 - the proof of the hypocrisy and double standard came when the Democrats heartily praised and voted for Elena Kagan, who also had no judicial experience. It was really about his having been conservative.

In Brown-Jackson's hearing the saga of Janice Rogers Brown ("JRB"), another black judge, this one from California, was brought up. Democrats didn't care at all that she was black when George W. Bush nominated her in 2003. Somehow confirming a black woman wasn't seen by Ds as historical then, as they now say about Brown-Jackson.  Joe Biden, before he became politically beholden to blacks in order to win the 2020 nomination, had said when JRB was being considered for the Supreme Court that she would probably be filibustered. Leaving out the procedural complication, her nomination languished for nearly two years, twice sent by the Judiciary Committee to get a vote, before she finally got on, rescued by the "Gang of 14," 7 Democrats and 7 Republicans who wanted to stop the craziness. Of course, they couldn't stop anything.  

I will leave aside Harriet Miers, who Supreme Court nomination was torpedoed by conservatives as well. Actually, she has quite an impressive career, if you want to bother to take a look.  In my opinion, her problem wasn't being unqualified. You could make that argument about more than one Supreme Court Justice when they took the bench, even celebrated ones like Chief Justice Warren and Hugo Black. And it is true that she had never been a judge, but, as shown above, neither had a good many of them, including very celebrated ones. I felt at the time of Miers nomination, and haven't changed my mind, is that it was very unclear how she felt about abortion, and that is often the subtext for every Supreme Court nomination since Roe v. Wade (1973). It made both sides uncomfortable. 

Samuel Alito was next considered after Miers withdrew. This was only 2006, long before the craziness of the Democrat attacks on Trump. Yet the same extreme partisanship was already showing. Alito, a highly qualified candidate, was only sent out of the judiciary committee with a party-line vote. It was the first time since 1916. Alito was confirmed 58-42, only 4 Democrats voting for him, and only one Republican against (Lincoln Chafee, who, was in all but name a Democrat; he later switched and actually became a D). The attacks on Alito, trying to make him out as a bigot, were so severe that when Senator Graham pointed out that the Democrats were trying to make him look like a bigot and apologized to him, Alito's wife finally broke down in tears. 

Why is it that Sam Alito's wife was reduced to tears during the hearing, Kavanaugh's family got death threats and Kenaji Brown-Jackson gets told how wonderful her mommy, daddy and big brother are. They do seem impressive (it's not like they have been vetted, of course, but assume they are). But so were the families of other Supreme Court Justices and no Justice was infantilized like this before. Why? We know why. The narrative. Nothing else matters. It's all about identity and the end of merit, all about power politics. Black support won South Carolina for Biden in the primaries, well, then a black women must be VP, even if she appears to be completely incompetent (though, if the president can be, why not the VP?) And a black women must be on the Supreme Court. At least, I would say, this one is technically qualified. 

The Republicans did not verbally assault KBJ the way the Democrats did Bork, Thomas, Alito and now Kavanaugh. They are proud of that, as you can tell from their opening statement. But, to hear Republican Senators Ben Sasse and Tom Tillis join the chorus of those criticizing the Republicans who just asked her respectful questions and to explain herself as "jackassery"* or the like is just dumb. Aren't they concerned that a grade school kid is taught the difference between men and women and that she can't? Aren't they concerned that she sits on a private school board where the kids are taught some version of CRT and that she says she is not even aware of it - claims she believed that it was only taught in law school? Aren't they concerned when Ted Cruz shows how she always lightly sentenced those convicted of possessing and down-loading child porn (and don't say all federal judges do that, because they all don't and she, apparently, always did)? 

*It was my impression and it seems the general impression based on commentary I've read since the hearing that Sen. Sasse was talking about Cruz when he made that comment. He could have been talking about the Democrats or everyone who has misbehaved, but he certainly hasn't come forward to say he was misunderstood. I am suddenly reminded that during Jeff Sessions confirmation hearing for Attorney General, Sasse dumped a Dr. Pepper on Cruz. Accidental, he said. Or was it?

Want to see Democrats get excited or angry about a nominee who goes easy on distributers and collectors of child porn? Just let a Republican nominee have the same record. For crying out loud, when Democrats couldn't find anything in the record of Justice Gorsuch during his nomination hearing, they feigned outrage about his interpretation of one statute in a personal injury case. A personal injury case!!! How does that even begin to compare? But, somehow, all the Democrats thought it didn't matter when it is just necessary to have a black female on the court.

The fawning over Brown-Jackson set new heights. I have watched the hearings of every single nominated Supreme Court Justice since they began televising them on C-Span and have never seen the likes of this. Why is Sam Alito's wife reduced to tears and Kenaji Brown-Jackson gets told how wonderful her mommy and daddy and big brother's just keen too. They are interesting. We don't know of any bad sides of course, but what we heard was impressive, even inspiring. But so were the families of other Supreme Court Justices and no one was infantilized like this before. Why? We know why. The narrative. Nothing else matters. It's all about identity and the end of merit, all about power politics.

Black support won South Carolina for Biden in the primaries, well, then a black women must be VP, even if she appears to be completely incompetent (though, if the president can be, why not the VP?) And a black women must be on the Supreme Court. At least, I would say, this one is qualified. I don't want anyone who sits on the board of a school that promotes teaching children "social justice" (meaning, of course, no actual justice) on the Court, but qualified, yes. Certainly both sides are nicer to judges on their own side, but the obsequious glorification by Corey Booker and others did over this judge was sickeningly sweet. We can only be happy that in his sanctimonious obsequiousness, he came out with this beaut:

“I cannot tell you how happy I am. Today, we should rejoice because President Biden nominated someone that we’ve heard to be the 116th associate judge of the supreme court who is extraordinarily talented and who also happens to be a black woman — something we’ve never seen before.”

I know what he meant, but it is funny the way he put it and unintentionally insulting if you read it a different way. And, no, whatever Brown-Jackson may be, Biden could care if she was extraordinarily talented. He said what his criteria was - Black and female (although, ironically, how could he know for sure). That's part of the problem. It's the same thing as the AMA and ABA saying that merit no longer is the goal, but the left's version of "equity" (meaning equal outcomes - which is about as Marxist as you can get). It is the same as the NFL demanding the teams put a minority or a woman on their coaching staff, regardless of qualifications. It's really the same thing as Seattle telling its minority school kids they don't have to learn math and English to graduate. Only identity matters, the country, the minorities themselves, be damned, if necessary.

At the end of the day, Republicans should not vote for Democrat nominees, period, but in particular, for the Supreme Court. 

This is why. Because the Democrats demonstrated during the Trump years (and before) that they will take no prisoners, consider no values or traditions, or qualities of any nominee. They will use any excuse that gets the media excited to destroy their adversaries. Though the Kavanaugh hearing alone, which any number of people still describe to me as the most vile thing they have ever seen in politics, is enough to know this, they should also consider the non-stop virulent attacks on Trump - the Russia hoax, the dark state in the FBI and other agencies, the two phony impeachments (one after he was no longer in office) which are a stain on our government and make me wonder if we are forever lost, and even now the January 6th commission and prosecutions, which seek to use the one right wing temper tantrum as a bludgeon against Trump and is nothing more than a kangaroo committee of which Pelosi refused to allow the most gifted Republican arguers, but only Trump haters, if they were Republicans. 

It's not that I want that the Republicans should become more like the Democrats. They shouldn't pretend that things that aren't true are true, try to go outside or ridiculously bend the rules to bury opponents (and I call them out on it when they do), etc., but they should call it out relentlessly and remind them that if this is the D's policy, they will do everything in their power to thwart them, to have the American people punish them. 

Believe me, I used to think treating Garland as they did was perfectly legal but a mistake. Now seeing Garland, who tries to turn parents of school kids into terrorists while keeping a blind eye far away from Antifa, is goose-stepping his way through his job, I couldn't be happier he was kept off the bench. When I see the tactics the Ds took against Kavanaugh - having screaming protesters in the room while they relentlessly interrupted the chairman in concert, and sought to turn an only lightly right leaning judge (as was said and he has proved since the hearing), or the fascist majority leader threatening justices in front of the courthouse, I have no doubt that that their nomination must be attacked on every rational front and repeatedly. The Rs should block them at every turn. But, they should say what they are doing and why, so the American people know:

"Judge, you are qualified. But, the Democrats don't let Republican nominees on the bench if they can help it and we have to do the same. We would ignore it if you were pro-life or didn't seem to have social justice sympathies, but, that is not the case. Blame them."

Sad, all so sad. As I have said before, I do realize that anyone reading this would see me as a conservative or Republican.  I am still that sweet little moderate hoping Ds come to their senses and realize the progressive path of destruction is not the true one and many of the real insurrectionists were the ones hiding and fleeing the building on January 6th. Wake up, Dr. Jones. Wake up! (1) Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom 4K - Wake up Dr. Jones. No he's mine - Harrison Ford - Bing video.

Good luck to me. My wishes are rarely fulfilled politically.

How to build another paper tiger: Biden's imitation of Obama fails Ukraine and us again.

Let's get something straight right off the bat. The invasion of Ukraine by Russia is directly tied to Biden's election. If you can't see that -

- Putin took Crimea as easy as if he ordered it online during Obama's terms. We did nothing but sanction. Nothing changed.  

- Putin did nothing further while Trump was in office and arming Ukraine.

- Even the diplomats who testified against Trump (ridiculously ineffectively - the only evidence by any witness with personal knowledge was that he did not want a quid pro quo, despite the D rhetoric to the contrary), admitted that he had done far more than Obama did for Ukraine.

- Biden and Obama did nothing or at best very little for Ukraine. The only time a Democrat thought Ukraine had any importance or we should be helping them was when they thought they could use their vulnerability to impeach and convict Trump.

- After 4 years of cooling his heels after Crimea became Russian again. Putin waited until we elected the weakest, most ineffective leader in our history, and then ordered his troops to the Ukraine border just a month and a half after Biden took office. 

- Emboldened by Biden's humiliating and fatal (for many thousands) handling of our withdrawal from Afghanistan, our kowtowing to Iran for an agreement and our immediate about face of ships last April in the Black Sea when Russia started its build up (U.S. cancels warships deployment to Black Sea -Turkish diplomatic sources | Reuters, in case you can't believe it), Putin was encouraged.

- that Biden's idiotic canceling of the last phase of the Keystone Pipeline, the refusal to issue new leases to American companies to drill (they have made it clear, they are not drilling where there is no oil - the excuse that they have undrilled leases is always made and are reluctant to drill while the anti-oil forces are in power) enriched Russia and enabled them to act. 

How right was Trump (yes, I know, you have been taught to hate him) when he castigated the European Union for buying from Russia while the U.S. paid for their defense (Trump blasts Germany over gas pipeline deal with Russia - Bing video, in case you've been persuaded it is not true)? Now they know it and are hastily looking elsewhere for energy, after admitting they are now powerless.

Tell me, President Biden, what is wrong with our provoking Russia, a country we do work with, but which is absolutely our enemy? Why is it we can't give planes to Ukraine ourselves when Poland hands them over to us for this purpose, while Russia doesn't seem the least bit concerned about provoking us by:

-Backing our enemy Iran?

-Backing our enemy China (people who think China aren't our enemy, just wait)?

-Going into Syria and supporting Assad (immediately after Putin had a private meeting with Obama-look it up)?

-Intervening in our election in 2016?

-Marching troops into and taking Crimea?

-Actually attacking Ukraine?

-Threatening the use of nuclear weapons and actually putting them on alert?

-Repeatedly threatening other countries, our allies and ourselves, that it is an act of war to help Ukraine?

What is with your administration telling the world that Russia might in fact use nukes if we intervene? Must we show our fear of them this blatantly?

Forget Russia for a moment. If pro-Putin assassination squads from semi-autonomous Chechnya can try to kill Zelensky, why can't we intervene? If Belarus, an independent country can aid Putin in destroying its near neighbor, why can't we and Europe intervene on Ukraine's side? 

What is wrong with us? We still hope for Russia's aid in making another bad deal with Iran, this one worse than the first though we know we can't trust Russia as far as we can throw it. For goodness sakes, they cheat in sports so badly they aren't even allowed to officially enter teams under their name in international competition. They lie over and over about how they were just having war games in Belarus and were leaving, before they attack. They agree to exit routes for refugees and then murder those on them. But we still trust them? Why?

Teddy Roosevelt said many times in different ways that if we forgot about how to fight, we would find that we lost our vitality and nerve.  I consider myself very lucky I was born into a time where my possible combat years landed between Vietnam and Iraq.  I was ready to when I was about 20 and thought it was going to happen (Iran had our hostages and China invaded Vietnam). Some people wants to go to war, but it's not me or anyone I know. Few people want it to be their kids or grand kids either. We have so much, we have it so easy. But, that doesn't mean he was wrong. We did become very soft, especially as our military power grew. At least, those who were elected or appointed to lead our country seem to have become so. John McCain, vilified by both left and right, asked if Obama had turned around Roosevelt's statement about speaking softly and carrying a big stick, by talking tough and carrying a twig?

Pacifists (and I was raised to be one) understand that it doesn't mean that no one is going to threaten or attack you. At some point you should realize the truth of the Latin saying: Si vis pacem, para bellum - if you want peace, prepare for war. And if you rattle sabers and don't do anything when your bluff is taken, like Obama when Assad used chemical weapons or Biden does when he threatens severe consequences if Russia does this or that, well, what enemy except the very weakest is going to worry about you doing anything? Did we learn nothing from Munich? From Syria?

Biden has now put us in a position where any country opposed to us possessing nuclear weapons (China, North Korea, usually Pakistan, sometimes India) might just make a threat, empty or not, of using them, rightly expecting we will shy away. 

I am sure the sanctions are hurting Russia. They hurt Iran too, but they didn't work. When Obama sanctioned those individuals around Putin, it did not stop him from annexing Crimea. The U.S. and other countries have been sanctioning the USSR or now Russia since 1948, with little to show for it. Sanctions haven't stopped Iran, Venezuela, North Korea and some other countries has not worked. It has on a few, Libya (at least partly) and South Africa, for example. 

Most of my friends, with one exception I can think of, on all sides of the political spectrum, are against getting militarily involved, even though all of them sympathize with Ukraine and approve of the sanctions. Most though know the sanctions strong enough. They aren't. I understand why we don't want boots on the ground, but I do think we should provide the no-fly zone that Ukraine requests. 

Why? Because we got them in this mess when we asked them to give up their nuclear weapons and missiles, always suggesting that we would have their back. 

Why? Because we are much more likely to fight a third World War if we don't do something now. Our credibility is gone. And that is what stops wars.

My argument to my friends: The sanctions are nice, but obviously not significant enough. If we were going to do them, we should have gone all in from the beginning. No oil, no trade, no sports, no banks, total isolation - not half measures. Have fun with your friends China and Iran. We shouldn't be just stopping suspending them from SWIFT, but making sure they understand - every day in Ukraine means another YEAR without SWIFT. Every day in Ukraine means another year without buying Russian oil. And so forth.

Biden and before him Obama have done everything possible to make sure Putin knows that America will make all the signs of helping Ukraine he wants and sanction away, but when it comes down to it, if he decides to murder each and every last person in Ukraine, we apparently aren't going to do what's necessary thing to stop him. Putin knows this as it is a redux of 2014. You think I make that up. Here's the first and last paragraphs of an April 25, 2014 article by Jules Witcover:

"Sen. John McCain, who endlessly enjoys twisting the tail of what he suggests is a paper tiger in the White House, has altered the old Teddy Roosevelt axiom. He accuses President Obama of talking tough but carrying a big "twig."

* * * 

But Mr. Obama's delay in imposing further economic and financial hardship on the oligarchy that rules Russia under Mr. Putin only encourages the view that the American president is an insufficiently decisive and resolute leader whose bark is worse than his bite. His almost plaintive yearning to achieve his foreign-policy objectives through diplomacy, which apparently much impressed the Nobel Peace Prize judges in 2009, only earns him the derisive taunts of Mr. McCain and other hard-line critics.

* * * 

But America's longtime role as leader of collective action to secure independence and peace among nations is also at stake in Mr. Putin's brazen and calculated effort to revert to military power politics in his own backyard. Mr. Obama needs to address both aspirations with a greater appearance of toughness and clarity if he is to turn aside the barbs of critics like Mr. McCain who demand that he speak softly and carry a big stick."

Paper tiger in the oval office? [Commentary] – Baltimore Sun

Remind you of anything? Who was Obama's point person in Ukraine? Joe Biden (read the article if you don't remember). 

How many Ukrainians must die first before we say enough is enough? Why applaud Zelensky's speech if we aren't going to do anything for him? We went all-in to Kuwait with much less at stake, but with almost the entire country thinking that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Putin is not insane. He is not going to lose Russia by using a nuclear weapon. He is a murderous bully though and needs to be confronted. Unfortunately, we only have a paper tiger right now to confront the Russian Bear.

So, what science, exactly?

 So, what science are we talking about?

A few people have said to me in the past two years, more so lately - Why can't we just follow the science? And I have read or heard about others saying the same. It is always associated with the idea that we have to wear masks or get vaccinated, etc. So many say it, I have to presume it's a mantra on one of the left-wing media outlets, or maybe all of them. Sometimes I respond - What science? This they do not seem to understand. I have to presume that they are substituting their favorite media outlets' opinions for science. And those media outlets - and the government, are just lying to them OR incompetent. Since the science they are advocating is never based on actual scientific studies, I feel it is fair to compare it to what we used to call Soviet science or pseudo-science.

But even if they are following what the commentators on CNN, MSNBC or other pro-government (right now, with a Democrat in power) outlets, at least by now they should realize, they have been lied to for two years now or they just don't know what they are talking about. CNN has at least come out of its slumber, with its main medical correspondent referring to cloth masks as basically ornamental. So, why did people keep wearing them? I can't help but notice those who watch CNN/MSNBC or other mainstream media were more prone to saying - follow the science (even though they could not refer to any science) and blindly following the rules.

Let's break it up into masks and vaccines.

Masks: Only a few days ago a good friend told me that masks were still necessary and helped prevent the disease. I have, from the beginning, believed masks do a little something in terms of virus protection (almost any barrier would) but not very much. And the downside is devastating socially. When I think of the little children going to school with masks over their faces, becoming habituated to a restricted life, I want to scream. Yet many teachers seem to think it is a good thing. Is it just that they live in a liberal echo chamber?

I think the actual science supports my instincts. In November 2020, the Annals of Internal Medicine published a Danish a randomized controlled study, Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation to Other Public Health Measures to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Danish Mask Wearers. Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation to Other Public Health Measures to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Danish Mask Wearers: A Randomized Controlled Trial: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 174, No 3 (acpjournals.org). I give the full name and link because media articles almost never do and you should read it yourself.  The study (all scientific studies) are hard to read and I constantly have to stop to check definitions and the like. But, the conclusion isn't hard to understand. Unless you can't bear to read anything that bursts your bubble. Then don't read:

"The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did not reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers by more than 50% in a community with modest infection rates, some degree of social distancing, and uncommon general mask use. The data were compatible with lesser degrees of self-protection."

Hmm. Naturally, it was criticized, but mostly ignored by the media and politicians who had their own agenda. You would think it would have given pause to some, but, it went against the narrative. And nowadays, the narrative is everything.

A more recent study from Stanford University was initially used to ballyhoo its supposed conclusions that masks were effective. It was a large study. There is still a page from the university website claiming that it proves the opposite of what it actually showed. It really showed less than 10% effectiveness of cloth masks and not even 12% for surgical masks. Not surprisingly, despite Stanford's salute the (Biden) flag approach, the mask rats started jumping ship. Even the medical correspondent for CNN, which is mostly a propaganda organ for the left, Dr. Leano Wen, shocked viewers by saying cloth masks are little more than decoration. Michael Osterholm, a longtime viral expert said much the same thing. Biden's spokesperson said, well, we are going to follow our own experts. Dr. Wen also said just this month: “I’m not saying — I don’t think anyone really is saying — that no one should ever wear masks but rather that the responsibility should shift from a government mandate imposed from the state or the local district on the school rather it should shift to an individual responsibility by the family who can still decide if that their child can wear a mask if needed.” Who would say never? If a disease is deadly enough (especially to children) and prevalent enough, I might go along. But, it should be incredibly rare and it should be a family or personal decision.

Some politicians still feeling powerful by making others wear masks have been caught maskless themselves or otherwise violated their own restrictions:

AOC, 

SF Mayor London Breed, 

D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, 

Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, 

Austin, Texas Mayor Steve Adler, 

Calif. Gov. Gavin Newson, 

L.A. Mayor Eric Garcietti (best excuse yet - he held his breath), 

San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo, 

Calif. Sen. Diane Feinstein, 

Masker-in-Chief Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, 

Denver Mayor Daniel Hancock, 

NY former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, 

NYC Mayor Eric Adams (when he was Brooklyn Borough president) and Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot. 

This is just a list of well-known ones. 

The hypocrisy of these people knows no bounds. Now, even in some D controlled areas, after the Stanford study, though I don't know it was the cause, have dropped mask mandates. In some of the worst areas they have kept it up on school children, likely only to appease the powerful and reprehensible school unions, who care about as much for children as most BLM leaders care about black people - not at all. But, it's bad for kids. Even the increasingly woke American Medical Association published a study showing it was physically harming children - Experimental Assessment of Carbon Dioxide Content in Inhaled Air With or Without Face Masks in Healthy Children: A Randomized Clinical Trial | Pediatrics | JAMA Pediatrics | JAMA Network.

Since I started writing this post, most states that had mandates have ended them. Sadly, I know people who think the masks still do something and you can still see them on otherwise healthy people (so it appears) in stores. Some schools have kept them on for the children for no known reason - even after they have ended them for everyone else. This seems like cruelty or a gross exercise of power on those who cannot fight back. 

The idea that the policies concerning masks were scientific is nonsense. Fauci, who has basically declared himself identical with science (which should pretty much disqualify him as someone to be listened to) stated in an email to a traveler in February 2020 - 

"Masks are really for infected people to prevent them from spreading infection to people who are not infected rather than protecting uninfected people from acquiring infection.

The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through material. It might, however, provide some slight benefit in keep out gross droplets if someone coughs or sneezes on you."

"I do not recommend that you wear a mask, particularly since you are going to a very low risk location."

He later took it back when the CDC policy changed, claiming he wanted the masks to go to the health professionals. But, what he earlier said was actually true. There was no new science - the facts didn't change. Masks weren't irrelevant, then necessary, then irrelevant again. Now, many professionals seem to agree that they don't work. So, why are people still wearing them? I get angry every time I see employees forced to wear them in businesses for no reason, or simply because the owners fear someone will complain. 

The absurdities with masks are there for everyone to see. Even some pro-mask people recognize that it is just insane to have a roomful of diners at a restaurant - could be a hundred people, with the poor schmucks walking to their seats having to be masked until the magical moment they too sit. Just today there was a news piece about the unvaccinated New York Nets player who can play away games, but is banned from playing home games even though - ready for this - he can sit in the stands with all the fans and the visiting players don't have to be vaccinated. I mean, seriously, what kind of bizarre pseudo-magic is this based on? You do not ever have had to have taken a bio class in high school to know it certainly isn't science. Did you see the Super Bowl? I didn't, but I did see a few minutes of the pre-game show where a band was half masked in a stadium with tens of thousands of unmasked people? Why in the world would some of them wear masks?

Vaccines: To start with, I am vaccinated. I got the original (2 doses for the Pfizer vaccine) and then at my doctor's recommendation the booster about 8 months after the original because I have a form of Leukemia and it's considered a co-morbidity (although, as long as I treat something like every 5-15 years, it will not kill me). I thought about not getting it, angry at the mandates and the bullying and politicization from Biden & Co. But I realized that this was possibly cutting my nose to spite my face, and in the end decided to do what was best for me health wise - or what I thought was best for me. 

The norm for testing vaccines is not months, as these vaccines were created and approved for emergency use, but years. It might be that the people who refused to get them were right in the long run. We will see, and we may not be very happy if it doesn't turn out like we thought. Yes, the idea that the vaccine was some kind of death plot by the government to thin the herd was insane, but so is the idea that the vaccines couldn't possibly be bad for you. We know people who died. I have met people who have others in their family who died within days of receiving the vaccine and others who were hospitalized. At some point, for healthy people, perhaps under 70, certainly under 60, once the health industry knew better how to treat patients, and many people had the anti-bodies from actually having Covid, the need for a vaccine clearly declined. 

Personally, just from what I have observed from the sample of people I know who got it, those who were unvaccinated were much more likely to be hospitalized and I the believe the vaccine saved lives overall. That is obviously very important. Last year we had a visitor in my household who unbeknownst to him when he arrived, had Covid, likely the Delta variant. We were all vaccinated in the house and two of the three of us had the disease 8 months prior. I was in a car with him for 2 1/2 hours and did not catch it. His wife slept next to him, had never had the virus, and did not get it. Was it the vaccine? I can't be sure, but I believe it helped. Believed while acknowledging, I could be wrong. 

When Omicron came around though, the lies and lack of knowledge of the CDC and other groups became obvious. Remember, when these vaccines came out, they were telling us that they were 90 some odd percent effective in preventing us from getting the disease (the Johnson & Johnson vaccine somewhat less). Now, they only claim that only about hospitalization. We have seen countries like Israel, highly vaccinated, get record setting numbers of cases. The vaccine was not stopping it.  As more and more got it here, it seemed pretty obvious. And it appears that it is not effective against Omicron (although, again, possibly so in helping prevent hospitalizations or death).

General comments:

I don't like to beat a dead horse until it is dead at least 3 times, but I know that I can't go on forever and will stop. What I do want add to is just  some general facts and opinion:

We all know this is a novel disease that is hard to figure out. Every time you think you do, something different happens somewhere. But, there is also outright lying and ridiculous pressure and bullying going on. Dr. Robert Redfield, former head of the CDC stated: "“I was threatened and ostracized because I proposed another hypothesis. I expected it from politicians. I didn’t expect it from science." Well, you should expect it from the Soviet style science - that is, political non-science - that is going around. 

One of the discoverers of Omicron variant in South Africa, Dr. Angelique Coetzee, recently stated: “I was told not to publicly state that it was a mild illness,” she said. “I have been asked to refrain from making such statements and to say that it is a serious illness. I declined.”

Dr. Michael Yeardon, a 32 year Pfizer veteran, now retired, has been excoriated for his warnings about the vaccine. He claims that there are 8 lies that have been circulated by the government and companies:

1. Covid-19 is very deadly. Rather, it is 99% survivable by those without co-morbidities.

2. PCR tests are effective at detecting Covid. The PCR tests used are specifically calibrated to detect even the tiniest fragment of any coronavirus, artificially boosting the number.

3. Masks work. They were never designed to filter breath and breath particles. They were designed for use in hospitals so that doctors and nurses do not get blood and other bodily fluids in and around their mouths and noses.

4. Lockdowns can slow down the spread of Covid. He didn't say it, but I'll note that a John Hopkins U. study recently found that the difference of lockdowns 

5. Asymptomatic individuals can spread the virus. He says it is not true. They had symptoms that were mild and not being addressed. 

6. There are no proper treatments. That's a big topic. The FDA has even now approved several monoclonal antibody treatments for emergency use (that is, not yet formally approved) but there is more and more evidence that the much maligned Ivermectin may in fact be an effective treatment. It is at least debatable. But, as with other incidents we know the censorious tech giants like twitter and so forth have banned people over it.

7. Natural immunity is ineffective. How long did it take the CDC to even acknowledge the fact that natural immunity from having Covid was better than a vaccine? Last year they claimed the vaccine was better. But, only late this January, they acknowledged that natural immunity was much better. Did the world change? No, they are just pushing the vaccine.

8. Covid-19 vaccines are safe to use. Does anyone have any doubt that the vaccines did kill some people? I'm not saying a lot, but certainly some. Nowhere near as many as the disease, but some. I do not know anyone personally who had more than a mild flu-like reaction (usually less than a day, but my own booster reaction lasted a few days) but I do know people who had friends or relatives die very soon (hours, a few days) after it. Dr. Yeardon says that 1000s have died - I don't doubt it - and perhaps millions have been adversely affected? Would they have been better without the vaccine? Some. But, often they were forced to do so. I honestly do not know whether they are more effective than they are unsafe on balance. I just know the mandates are not science based. 

The federal government has been at least temporarily blocked from certain mandates and has even given up on some (the Osha vaccine mandate requiring workers at companies of 100 or more people). It should be blocked from all. The one Supreme Court case from early in the 20th century indicated that vaccines were an aspect of the state's police powers. They should really keep out of the medical business period except for the rare occasions when only the federal government, because of its financial power, is necessary to do certain things. It should be rare and limited.

I certainly don't see how the CDC gets out of this pandemic with any kind of reputation for science. Their predictions have been laughable and their prophylactic measures, enforced by this administration often ridiculous. Do you remember Spring 2021. The CDC predicted that Covid would become worse than ever in the following months. What happened in reality? For several months it pretty much disappeared from the states. It did come back, as we knew it would, but their prediction was nonsense. Hence, when mid-December last year the CDC, announced that we would face 15000 deaths a week from Omicron by January 8th 2022 - what happened? It ended up being a tiny fraction of that number, at its peak a little more than a fifth as many. 

In January, the CDC admitted that its Covid hospitalization counts for the nation were about a 40% overstatement! FOURTY PERCENT.

And, indeed, we also know that in fact so many of our statistics were faked. Recently New York State, certainly a liberal pro-mandate state, admitted that there was a 42% overstatement of hospitalizations for Covid-19, 51% in NYC. That's because they counted anyone who came in with it, whatever the reason they appeared, in their statistics. NJ admitted to over 50% and Texas to 30-40%. 

Stop believing what they are telling you. Are there conspiracy theories out there? Of course. Always are. But you cannot believe government generally (I fall for it all the time too, because you want to believe). Stop thinking that we shouldn't treat the unvaccinated. Did you want to stop treating AIDS patients because they had homosexual sex (maybe you did, but you shouldn't).  Stop thinking you are following science because your media tells you so.

And then, take a long hard look at any supposed science your government or media tells you is settled. It's an automatic non-starter.

That's all, folks.