2020, The Year of Lies.....

I clipped this from "Townhall.com", I thought they were a pretty good listing of fabrications from the media and government.  The Cartoons come from my assorted stash or folder in my computer.

As we bid a grateful adieu to one of the absolute worst years in modern history, trying to encapsulate 2020 in just one phrase may be difficult considering ALL the things that went tragically wrong. Was it the year of COVID-19, when basic civil liberties were sacrificed at the altar of potentially saving “just one life” from a virus with a 99.87% survival rate? Was it the year Black Lives Matter used a blatant lie to defund the police and take over America’s streets? Or maybe it was the year a presidential election was stolen right from under our noses. Sadly, if you’re a freedom-loving, right-of-center conservative, 2020 was a year of all those things and more. But to sum it up in one phrase, 2020 was a ‘year of lies,’ of lies upon lies upon lies. 

That’s right, the only way we could tell if our overlords were lying to us in 2020 was if their mouths were moving. And it wasn’t about just one thing, it was about almost everything, from COVID-19 to systemic police racism to a fair and clean election to almost every narrative the mainstream media tried to spin. Below, in no particular order, are my top seven myths of 2020.

Lockdowns are worth it...

Please note the care with which I phrased the above. I’m not saying lockdowns don’t work, at least temporarily. Theoretically, if every human being on the planet had somehow magically been able to lock themselves away for a month, then maybe the virus could have been smothered before it got a foothold. Sure, millions more would have died from the lockdowns, but we’d have ‘stopped’ COVID-19. Island nations like New Zealand and even Australia have been able to fight off the virus so far with strict containment measures and border control. For a while, even parts of Europe were able to stave it off. Of course, we all know what eventually happened in Germany, Italy, the U.K., Spain, California, and countless other places that used destructive lockdowns to delay the inevitable. It may be a hard pill to swallow, but lockdowns aren’t worth it, not even a little.

Mandatory Masking Works.....

As anyone who reads this column knows, to call masks one of my primary pet peeves is a dramatic understatement. My sheer, unadulterated hatred of the damned things knows no bounds, and neither does my disgust at the tragic fact that our overlords have caused the majority of the public to believe mandatory masking policies stop the spread despite the ever-increasing loads of data that consistently show otherwise. For more than enough evidence, you need simply read Alex Berenson’s new book, or just read my many past entries on the topic. I’ll also point you to this recent Heritage Foundation article that manages to toe the line between proving unequivocally that mandatory masking policies are useless while still deftly trying to keep themselves in favor with Big Tech by contending that masking itself ‘works.’ It doesn’t, but fine, whatever. If YOU want to believe masks work, wear one, wear two, wear EIGHT ... and leave me the hell alone. I can accept that compromise.

Asymptomatic Spread is a major  driver of Covid-19 transmission...

I’m just going to go ahead and get a bit melodramatic and call the idea of widespread asymptomatic spread being a major driver of the transmission of COVID-19 one of the most destructive myths in all of human history. Why? Because the specter of otherwise normal-looking people going about their lives (people who aren’t sneezing, coughing, and sniffling all over the place, mind you) being able to literally KILL anyone they encounter by infecting them without knowing they even had the virus has formed the basis for every destructive non-pharmaceutical intervention our overlords have tried, from lockdowns to mandatory masking. Thankfully, the lie is slowly being disproved. Will our overlords change their approach to fit the emerging science? Nah, because ‘science’ is only real to them when it fits their narrative.

"Health Officials" should make Public Policy decisions...

If there ever was a time when the saying ‘When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail’ is completely apropos, it’s now. Health officials may not know anything about operating a business, running a school, keeping an economy from collapsing, or preventing deaths from despair, but they sure do know (or think they know) how to stop the spread of COVID-19 (i.e. the ONLY kind of death that matters in 2020, apparently). Nevermind that none of their measures have actually WORKED to stop the spread of COVID-19, they’ve got a ‘Dr.’ in front of their name, so they must be listened to and obeyed. If something like this happens again, hopefully after I’m long dead, I hope society remembers that health officials should never, EVER be allowed to exert the kind of influence they’ve been able to exert in 2020

Systemic Police Racism Exist

Remember when a drug-addled black man died while in police custody from what turned out to be a heart attack (granted, leaning on his neck was still a BAD idea) and Black Lives Matter burned down the streets of America’s major cities? Remember when Rayshard Brooks was shot after stealing a taser, running, then shooting that taser back at police, and the POLICE WERE CHARGED? Remember when we were told that police were basically racist Bull Connor-types just looking for people of color to take down just for the fun of it? Remember when the powers-that-be told us that police murdered black men at an astonishingly high rate? Well, it’s all a big, giant lie. As researcher Heather Mac Donald proves in this devastating column, systemic police racism is a myth and a destructive one at that. Now, when can law-abiding people get their cities back?

The Presidential Election was Fair and Clean

Sure, not everything alleged by Lin Wood and Sidney Powell turned out to be provable in court, at least to the satisfaction of a sitting judge. We never saw a Kraken, a baby Kraken, or even a Kraken egg. But does anyone who voted for Trump really think no shenanigans took place whatsoever in this election? You may or may not agree, but my theory has always been that they got us with ‘death by a thousand cuts.’ It was truly the perfect storm, and most of it was done well before the election. Use the coronavirus pandemic as an excuse to mail out millions of unsolicited mail-in ballots, then purposefully weaken every working method to weed out fraudulent ones. No need to get all picky about matching signatures or worry that some returned ballots may not be attached to a real voter - count them all! Democracy is at stake! And since far more left-leaning people would have no qualms about cheating (obviously), Biden ‘won.’ No Kraken required. 

We Are all in this Together

Ah, the do-gooder mantra all those ‘stay-at-home’ Zoom-experts love to quote. Except, we’re NOT ‘all in this together,’ not by a long shot. If you’re fortunate enough to run or be in a business unaffected by the ongoing and coming economic turmoil or have a job you can work from home, you are in no way ‘in it together’ with struggling restaurant & gym owners, some of whom have lost their businesses, or ‘essential’ workers who grind it out every day in grocery stores and supermarkets. The irony of people virtually unaffected by our disastrous response happily making the ‘rules’ for everyone else, then declaring “we’re all in this together” from the comfort of their Zoom rooms is rich beyond imagination.

There you go, my seven top myths of 2020. You will doubtless think of others I missed or weren’t able to include. But even if you don’t agree with all of what’s here, we can certainly all agree on one thing, the fact that we’re all happy 2020 has finally come to an end!

The Ethics of reopening the economy.

I snagged this from SSG,  This pertains to what is going on here right now with the "Karens" that want 100% safety and must remain inside before the economy restarts and others that want it to start sooner.  The tug of war between those that champion safety above all else and those that champion freedom and risk above all else for the soul of the nation continues.  My Governor looks really tired, he has started opening the state and there has been a lot of protest here in Atlanta against it, mostly from the democrats and the "Karens" that want 100% guarantees and there are no such things.  And I saw him in the interview and he really looks tired.  If things works well, he will be hailed a hero, but if it fails, he will be the goat.

The heated debate on when and how to re-open America’s economy is often portrayed as a conflict between “safety versus economics.”  Those on the side of economics point out that there will be much bigger consequences to remaining closed than admitted by safety advocates.  Those who consider themselves to be on the side of safety warn that re-opening poses unacceptable risks because it can lead to new virus hotspots, which can lead to more deaths.
This is a bad frame for this discussion.  Safety does not exist.  As the United Nations points out in a new study of the economic consequences of these lockdowns, it is likely that hundreds of thousands of children will die from starvation from the predicted economic collapse.  All roads lead to death.  Such safety as we can have comes coupled with economic collapse, harms centered on the poorest people, and starvation.  Alternatively, you can reduce the stress of the economic collapse on the poorest, but you have to accept an increased danger to others.  The ethical discussion should not be about “safety.”  It should be about proportionality and a fair distribution of risks.  This piece will explore a model for making the decision in an ethical way.  It does not endorse either course.
Because all of the options entail highly undesirable consequences, the ethical model that is most relevant comes from the ethics of war. If you want to explore the model carefully in the context of war, the standard work is Michael Walzer’s Just and Unjust Wars. I am going to write today on how to apply the military ethic to the current crisis.
Let me give a brief example of the model for the sake of clarity.  Consider a wartime decision like bombing a arms factory run by a totalitarian enemy that employs unfree labor in round-the-clock shifts.  If you blow up the factory, you kill innocent workers but save whomever would have been killed by the arms your enemy would have employed against your own people.  If you refrain from blowing up the factory, you save innocent lives among the workers, but put your own people at additional risk of death.  Both decisions probably kill innocent people, so it is similar to the choice we face today.
In military ethics, there are two considerations that tell you whether or not it is an acceptable decision to bomb the factory. The first is whether the action is discriminate, and the second is whether the action is proportionate. An action is discriminate if and only if the harm you are causing to innocents is neither your end nor the means to your end.  There is an easy test for this:  if by miracle the harm did not occur as a result of your action, would you be satisfied with the result?  If you bomb the factory and by miracle all the workers survive and only the equipment was destroyed, you would in fact be satisfied with the result.  Thus, the bombing is discriminate.
A forbidden alternative would be to poison the workers, so that they could not operate the equipment.  Then, if the harm did not occur to the innocents, you would not be satisfied with the outcome.  This direct targeting of innocents fails the test.
Fortunately in the current crisis the options we are considering are all discriminate.  No one is actively trying to cause deaths among the elderly by re-opening, nor the starvation of children by keeping the economy restricted.  This is important to note, because whichever choice is made we are likely to hear voices from those who favored a different option declaring that political leaders “have blood on their hands” because of their decisions.  That is unfair.  There is no option of avoiding blood.  All of these choices are discriminate, even though they have unfortunate consequences.
So the second consideration is proportionality.  In the military example, it is satisfied:  you will probably kill some number of one shift of workers, but you will save the lives of everyone who would likely have been killed by the arms you kept from being made.  In the current crisis, proportionality is going to be the key consideration.  Steps will need to be taken to try to minimize the harms done by whatever choice is made.  The choice should be made based on ensuring that the harm done is proportionate to the good achieved.  If we risk an extra ten thousand American deaths by re-opening, might we save a hundred thousand children?  That would be proportionate.  If the math cuts the other way, then the other choice is the proportionate one.
That is as far as military ethics carries us.  There are a few other things about the current case that are different from the military model.  In wartime ethics, for instance, it is perfectly ordinary to favor the victory of your own nation.  This is moral in war in part because the other nations are actively trying to harm you.  There is an argument that China has behaved in a vicious way by hiding the virus, destroying scientific research, disappearing doctors who tried to give warnings, and allowing the spread to the rest of the world.  The Chinese leadership can be treated as an enemy.  Nations other than China, however, are in this with us.  It may not be moral to pursue the survival of ten thousand Americans over a hundred thousand African or Asian children.  They are not our enemies, and it is not fair to them to put them at greater risk to protect our own.
There are also considerations of justice as related to poverty.  Both here and abroad, the poor are necessarily more exposed to harms from economic closure, and they are also more likely to be forced into ‘essential work’ that requires them to expose themselves to the virus even during the lockdowns.  As a result, the lockdowns actively harm the poor while sheltering the relatively well-off, and also unfairly force the poor to assume extra risks that the relatively rich do not run.
It is also true that the poor have less access to healthcare resources.  Increased economic activity may impose an unfair burden on them by exposing them to more people who may be sick.  Whoever is performing these duties, because they are running enhanced risks for the benefit of everyone, their access to necessary healthcare resources becomes a public concern central to making an ethical choice.  How we address that concern is open to interpretation, but that we address it is crucial because we need these things done.
These non-military factors seem to me to incline toward re-opening as much as possible, taking whatever safety precautions are reasonable.  The proportionality requirement from military ethics may or may not, depending on how many additional deaths are likely from re-opening.  Whether the numbers can be kept proportionate is a question for medical experts, but that is the question we need to ask them to make the best decision we can.