1st Female President

If Biden is elected, then the United States will have its first female president. The only question is whether it will be Sen. Kamala Harris or Dr. Jill Biden. The latter seems to me all too ready to reprise the role played by Edith Wilson, Woodrow Wilson’s wife, after his (Woodrow’s) 1919 stroke.

Writing ruthlessly

PBS correspondent Yamiche Alcindor apparently does not believe that there are anarchists participating in the protests.  See link here on Foxnews.com.

At least for now (2-June-2020, 6:55 pm), I found it here.  The rebuttals are also in the Twitter link.

The Other McCain weblog quotes Arthur Koestler, “”One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up.”

Excellent advice for Ms. Alcindor.

 

Do Police Precincts Have Destruction Plans Like Embassies?

Extensive videotape of Minneapolis riots and invasion of 3rd precinct here.   You know, like fall of US Embassy in Saigon and attack in Iran.

  1. Shredding of files
  2. Securing side arms, rifles
  3. Chemicals, eg tear gas
  4. Computers and their hard drives

Looks like all cops pulled out with all of their patrol cars.  Was anything important left?  My guess is yes.

  1.  Always always some stuff gets overlooked.
  2.  Perhaps the precinct has an evacuation plan, but doubt there were any drills or refresher courses because such evens are, fortunately, rare.

Limited Choice Fallacy at USAToday

‘Draconian’? ‘House arrest’? Coronavirus lockdowns prompt raft of lawsuits against states

Apparently you can only believe ‘public health’ experts during the lockdown.  Opposing lockdowns mean you are anti-science.

“The cases test where the lines are safely drawn, as governors balance protecting public health against individual liberties. ”  Presupposes the outcome.  The plaintiffs says  that governors have not appropriately balanced the two competing goods.

To me the cases are about unfair treatments: churches closed but liquor stores open.  I expect a lot of the churches are willing to implement restrictions during services, eg, distancing and masks.  Nope.  “The eventual rulings could redefine the balance between state police powers and constitutional rights that advocates contend are too important to sacrifice even temporarily. “[my emphasis]

Failing to accept lockdown rules means you deny health science is text limited choice fallacy.  “Edward Richards, a law professor at Louisiana State University who has a master’s degree in public health for disease control, said health restrictions have been held paramount since the threat of yellow fever hung over the Constitutional Convention. But he said businesses have always been skeptical and political leaders now openly question the legitimacy of health science.”  [my emphasis].  The writer fails to acknowledge a middle ground, that lockdowns must be applied fairly.

More here: ““The legal picture doesn’t give us a real portrayal of the long-term ambivalent support toward public health,” Richards said. “We’ve never had the governmental authorities starting with the president actively undermining the public’s trust in public health, actively questioning whether the diseases are actually serious.” [my emphases].  Translation: accept lockdown, peasants!

Fortunately the writer acknowledges at least 1 constitutional right trumps lockdowns.  ““We do not uphold an injunction against state action lightly, much less during a public health crisis like the one our nation is experiencing now,” Judge Karen Nelson Moore wrote for the 6th Circuit, favoring flexibility for governors and legislatures to balance rights. “Affording flexibility, however, is not the same as abdicating responsibility, especially when well-established constitutional rights are at stake, as the right to abortion most assuredly is.”” The constitutional right referred to in this paragraph is abortion.

The writer also discusses the successful pushback from some gun shops, though only the plaintiffs, not the judges’ decisions, are quoted.

Another limited choice quote (2 paragraphs):

Dr. Irwin Redlener, co-director of the National Center for Disaster Preparedness at Columbia University, said the country needs leadership to explain why lifting shutdown orders would be dangerous before developing tools to ensure public health.
“Opening stores before we have ability to do on-site daily testing is just playing Russian roulette with our families,” said Redlener, a clinical professor of health management. “We don’t want to take a step or many steps backwards where economic or political interests can override the public’s health.”

my emphases.  The limited choice is that public health comes first ‘economic or political interests’ cannot be allowed to override.  Such an issue may be debated.  I regret to see hardline ‘public health uber alles’ cited.

Pritzker [Gov. of Illinois] told reporters May 12 that more people would be hospitalized and would die if people don’t follow science in reopening gradually.

I would love to see the ‘science’ on the reopening schedules, ie, the regression lines, the two-way tables, etc.  Are governors making reasonable decisions?  Likely.  Is there hard science to define the Phase 1-4 unlockings?  I very much doubt it.

 

Lockdown over 21-May-2020

How do I know? Because while out running errands I saw 1 guy without a mask. I also saw numerous cyclists, which is nothing amazing, except 4 (!) were not wearing helmets. Not only is the lockdown being flouted, all previous regs are also now being ignored.