Why not just create a better product?

NOTE: At some point, before bed, I read through 50+ news sources and share my findings here. If you like it, share it. If you don’t, share it. Follow my blog now to support my work or to find new reasons to complain about it. My opinions are my own. All tips are welcome. And if you have not already, help spread the message that people should be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin.

Why not just create a better product?

If no one wants to buy your product, you have a few options.

  • Option A: Improve your product.
  • Option B: Stop selling your product and sell something else.
  • Option C: Cancel your competition so there is no other choice.

I think most sober minded individuals would choose options A or B. However, there are those who see Option C as the most logical step and more often than not, they lean left on the political spectrum. To see this illustrated to the fullest, watch the war on conservative content. Check out the video in the tweet below:

The Revolver gave a detailed analysis on this clip. Here is some of what they said:

Back to the transcript:

Stamos: One of the places you can see this is the fact that you know have competitors to Fox News on their Right — OANN, Newsmax — which are carried by all the major cable networks, who are trying to now outflank Fox on the right because the moment Fox introduced any kind of realism into their reporting, immediately a bunch of people chose to put themselves into a sealed ecosystem. And they can do that both on cable, they can do it online, and that becomes a huge challenge in figuring out, how do you bring those people back into the mainstream of fact-based reporting and try to get us all back into the same consensual reality.

Revolver commented:

Here we see Stamos ominously mention that OANN and Newsmax are carried by all major cable television providers (he erroneously refers to “providers” as “networks”). Despite his verbal slip, his intention is clear. CNN has been actively campaigning for weeks to have rival news networks deplatformed by cable providers. CNN would like Fox News banned in addition to OANN and Newsmax. Stamos is somewhat more conciliatory and thinks Fox News should be allowed to stay on the air, as long as they remain anti-Trump.

There is a lot more to the article and I would recommend you check it out. In a nutshell, these are reasons why they say the conservative outlets FOX, Newsmax and OANN should be deplatformed.

  1. They (Conservatives on YouTube) have the ability to reach audiences bigger than CNN.
  2. People have too much choice and that freedom is being abused by bad actors.
  3. Conservative outlets do not carry the same messaging as CNN and thus, operating outside of reality.
  4. Trump supporters are akin to Isis terrorists. As such, their communications should be limited in order to suppress radicalization.
  5. Although admitting that Americans have freedom of speech, they debated whether or not Verizon, AT&T, Comcast and the like should be enabling said speech.

It is this kind of thinking that makes me so concerned for our country. Why ban ideas? Why not bring all ideas into the sun, debate them and let the bad ideas fall away? When big tech bans Conservative content it does not do their side any favors. It places them in the uniform of a totalitarian dictator who is not content until the only dancing is to the music they play. When that happens, bigger rebellions are inevitable.

CNN and other media outlets are notabout business, they are about propaganda. At least, it seems so to me. If they were about business, they would add more Conservative voices to their line up. Check out the stats from this December 16, 2020 article.

  • FOX News Channel Smashes Records With Highest-Rated Year in Cable News History Across Total Day and Primetime Viewership
  • FNC Finishes 2020 as Most-Watched Basic Cable Network for Fifth Consecutive Year, Becomes First Cable News Network Ever to End Year with More Than Three Million Viewers in Primetime
  • FNC Remains the Number One Television Network in Weekday Primetime, Outpacing all Broadcast Networks in Total Viewers Beginning in 2Q’2020
  • “Hannity” Tops Cable News for Fourth Year in a Row with Total Viewers, Besting All-Time Record for Highest-Rated Year in Cable News History
  • “Tucker Carlson Tonight” Delivers its Highest-Rated Year Ever, Finishes as Most-Watched Cable News Program in 25-54 Demographic
  • Two Dozen FNC Programs Deliver Largest Audiences in Network History; FNC Telecasts Make up 41 of the Top 100 Cable Telecasts in 2020

And while many conservative viewers broke away from Fox News Channel over election reporting, Tucker Carlson Tonight is still the most watched cable news show in the history of cable news. Fox News losses is Newsmax’ gain. The thirst for conservative news makes similar outlets to Newsmax a coveted target for acquisition. So, why wouldn’t CNN, MSNBC and other mainstream outlets adjust their programming to be more competitive? Simply put, they have chosen option C and our country is worse off because of it.

Option C: Cancel your competition so there is no other choice.

Thanks for reading. More news soon. If you have not already, please subscribe. In the interim, are you listening to my podcast series – The Things I Think About? If you like my daily “Now What?” series, you will love my podcast. Umm… I hope. See for yourself.

Equity is not Equality. Equality is what I want.

NOTE: At some point, before bed, I read through 50+ news sources and share my findings here. If you like it, share it. If you don’t, share it. Follow my blog now to support my work or to find new reasons to complain about it. My opinions are my own. All tips are welcome. And if you have not already, help spread the message that people should be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin.

Equity is not Equality. Equality is what I want.

This article caught my eye today, “The Daily 202: Susan Rice plans to put racial equity at the heart of Biden’s agenda.” Here are some quotes from that article.

“I’ll be driving our efforts to ensure that matters of equity and justice are fully incorporated into all that we try to do,” said Susan E. Rice, chair of Biden’s Domestic Policy Council.

Further down in the article it read:

The new president will be laying out a “whole-of-government approach to advancing equity for people of color and a wide range of other underserved communities across the federal government,” said Rice, who will “coordinate the formulation and the implementation of policy to address all range of matters related to racial justice and equity, broadly defined.”

Biden has listed “racial justice or the lack thereof” alongside the coronavirus pandemic, the economic devastation stemming from it, and climate as “four core crises” he must confront upon taking office, Rice said.

The talk of equity sounds good yet, it doesn’t mean what most people think when they hear it. There has been a long running argument focused on equity vs equality that will only heat up during the Biden administration. However the crux of the argument could be summed up in two expressed viewpoints: Kamala Harris vs Ben Shapiro. (HT: Minnesota Republic)

Right before the 2020 election, Kamala Harris released a video on Twitter – “Equality vs Equity.” In the video Harris explains that “Equality suggests that everyone should get the same amount,” which she implies is unfair, and that “equitable treatment means that we all end up in the same place,” which is implied to be fair.

Ben Shapiro called that viewpoint communism.

The Minnesota Republic explains the argument further:

Shapiro explains that “if two people are in a room, and one person has five dollars and the other has one, that does not mean something unfair happened; there are thousands of potential reasons for that.” For example, person A could have worked more hours than person B, or person A could have invested well, and person B could have spent his money on something else that he wanted, and maybe person A recently provided a good or service worth five dollars and person B recently provided a good or service worth one dollar.

To Harris’s credit, this is an important issue to bring up, considering that no decent person cheers for inequality. If it is seen as an issue to many, then it is an issue worth investigating, but the simplicity of Harris’s analogy is hardly ever the case.

As Shapiro pointed out, there could be a thousand different reasons that the people in the hypothetical room have different amounts of money, and thus there could be a thousand different reasons why the two people in Harris’s analogy are in different spots. For example, what if the person farther up the mountain climbed a few extra hours the day before, or what if he is an extremely skilled and experienced climber? Although this is often the case, those in the Harris ideology camp tend to focus on race and sex as a driving factor in disparities.

If this were true and the only determinant of outcome, then, yes, that should be considered unfair. Shapiro, however, goes on to cite a statistic that now shows Asian women are earning more on average than white men. He goes on to ask sarcastically, “Is that because of inequity? Is that because the constitutional system of the United States is somehow geared against white men and on behalf of Asian women?” He makes a convincing argument that these disparities are not the explicit result of race or gender and that “decision making, in a free country, is the chief factor in how your life is going to go.”

I think Shapiro has the better argument and I will add to it. If the point to make the starting point equal for all, then that is an impossibility. How do you make the starting point the same for people who are less intelligent when they have to compete with geniuses like Dr. Gladys West? There are clear advantages in business to being good looking so how can the less attractive get the best jobs? And what of those who are less athletic than Lebron James or don’t have wealthy parents like Will and Jada? Most of all, what if the culture of a minority group is antithetical to group success? There is no way our government or any government can legislate for all of those variables and be fair to all because life itself is not fair.

Take a moment and think about your own family, specifically your siblings. You grew up in the same house with them, operated under the same rules and yet some of your siblings are more (or less) successful than you. Your parents’ authority was dictatorial (presumably) and they wielded more control over you growing up than the government and yet you and your siblings did not end up equally rich or equally poor. And for the sake of argument, I am talking to the audience in general and not specifically talking about you. But, I digress.

When I hear discussions about the need to do more for the sake of “equity,” I tend to think about the earlier Civil Rights era of the 60’s. Back then, the argument was more valid than now. How do I mean that? If your civil rights were violated, you had few allies to defend you. Nowadays, there are several government agencies in place, a plethora of civil rights attorneys and lawsuits settling in the millions and billions as a deterrent to modern enterprises. To prove that, scan through the data below.

GOVERNMENT OFFICES THAT DEFEND CIVIL RIGHTS

The U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights enforces several Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance from the Department of Education. | Click here for a list of laws they enforce

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity administers and enforces federal laws and establishes policies that make sure all Americans have equal access to the housing of their choice.

The U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Special Litigation Section enforces federal civil rights statutes related to conditions of institutional confinement, conduct of law enforcement agencies, access to reproductive health facilities and places of religious worship, and religious exercise of institutionalized persons.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights enforces federal civil rights laws in programs funded by the USDA, such as the Food Stamp Program, that address discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex (including gender identity and expression), religion, age, disability, sexual orientation, marital or familial status, political beliefs, parental status, protected genetic information, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission enforces various federal laws prohibiting discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age, or disability. Discrimination by employers with 15 or more employees is prohibited in all aspects of the hiring and employment process: job application, hiring, firing, promoting, training, wage earning, or any other terms, privileges, or conditions of employment. | Click here for a list of laws they enforce

LAWSUIT SETTLEMENTS

Taking legal action against civil rights offenders can be quite lucrative for the victors. Here are a few examples.

And if you ever needed a Civil Rights Attorney, the options are endless.

Wow! This was a lot longer than I planned. Let me sum up my thoughts here. Pursuing equity is akin to Don Quixote fighting his windmills; a fruitless effort that will not change anything in the end. However, it certainly feels heroic and righteous in the effort. The better pursuit is equality because that is more realistic in this unfair world.

Header image source: The problem with that equity vs. equality graphic you’re using

How do you fire someone who no longer works for you?

NOTE: At some point, before bed, I read through 50+ news sources and share my findings here. If you like it, share it. If you don’t, share it. Follow my blog now to support my work or to find new reasons to complain about it. My opinions are my own. All tips are welcome. And if you have not already, help spread the message that people should be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin.

How do you fire someone who no longer works for you?

How do you fire someone who no longer works for you? You impeach them. Essentially, that is what some are trying to do to President Trump. Is it constitutional? Some people do not think so. I think its vindictive and I think the efforts will spark a major backlash from American citizens. How will that manifest? I predict new political parties will form as old parties waiver, more opposing voices will be silenced and the fabric of our nation will be torn asunder; unless something changes and soon.

It seems to me that there are two major parties in the United States. A bi-partisan group who believe in the traditional rule of law (Democrats and Republicans: Unity Party #1) and a bi-partisan group that believes progress occurs when all opposition is silenced and united under their belief system. (Again, Democrats and Republicans: Unity Party #2). The more I notice the divide, the more cynical I am about our political system enduring in its latest incarnation.

The official narrative is that impeachment is necessary because President Trump allegedly incited the violence at the Capital. CNN reported things this way:

“The US Capitol is once again secured but four people are dead — including one woman who was shot — after supporters of President Donald Trump breached one of the most iconic American buildings, engulfing the nation’s capital in chaos after Trump urged his supporters to fight against the ceremonial counting of the electoral votes that will confirm President-elect Joe Biden’s win.”

However before and during the cries and attempts at impeachment, various news reports (and video footage) have surfaced disputing the narrative echoed ad nauseum in the mainstream.

I would think that after so many accounts (and I did not list them all) of contrary evidence proving President Trump did not incite his followers to storm the Capital would bring proceedings (which may not be constitutionally valid) to a halt until further investigation. Unfortunately, Washington operates under a different paradigm. The consensus for some is “I feel he should be punished. So, truth be damned.”

As a result, House Republicans and House Democrats (Unity Party #1) pushed forward with Impeachment. A list of the Republicans who supported President Trump’s impeachment can be found here, in case you’re curious. There were a few Democrats who voted against impeachment or simply voted – present. (Unity Party #2) The website “Heavy” talked about them here; again for the curious. (Umm… probably include these people too.)

Today, the Senate weighed in, although Harvard Law professor emeritus and lifelong Democrat Alan Dershowitz said that the Senate lacked legal authority to move ahead. Here’s a quote:

“But the case cannot come for trial in the Senate because the Senate has rules, and the rules would not allow the case to come to trial until – according to the majority leader – until 1 p.m. on Jan. 20, an hour after President Trump leaves office,” he told Sunday Morning Futures host Maria Bartiromo.

“And the Constitution specifically says, ‘The President shall be removed from office upon impeachment.’ It doesn’t say the former president. Congress has no power to impeach or try a private citizen, whether it be a private citizen named Donald Trump or named Barack Obama, or anyone else. The jurisdiction is limited to a sitting president, and so there won’t be a trial.”

Nevertheless, impeachment was introduced to the Senate floor and this happened. I quote Reuters:

Forty-five Senate Republicans backed a failed effort on Tuesday to halt former President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial, in a show of party unity that some cited as a clear sign he will not be convicted of inciting insurrection at the Capitol.

Republican Senator Rand Paul made a motion on the Senate floor that would have required the chamber to vote on whether Trump’s trial in February violates the U.S. Constitution.

The Democratic-led Senate blocked the motion in a 55-45 vote. But only five Republican lawmakers joined Democrats to reject the move, far short of the 17 Republicans who would need to vote to convict Trump on an impeachment charge that he incited the Jan. 6 Capitol assault that left five people dead.

“It’s one of the few times in Washington where a loss is actually a victory,” Paul later told reporters. “Forty-five votes means the impeachment trial is dead on arrival.”

Will that be enough to stop Unity Party #2? I hope so but, I doubt it. In closing, some people say that President Trump was so evil that he should not be allowed to run again in the future. Isn’t that for the American people to decide and not for elites to mandate? Just asking.

Russia, Russia, Russia was a lie and they knew it on day one.

This is bombshell today. Imagine if it was released umm… 4 years ago!!! To quote Just the News

“Four days before the FBI secured a surveillance warrant against him in fall 2016, Trump campaign adviser Carter Page repeatedly knocked down the key allegations at the heart of the Russia collusion investigation while talking to a government informant who was wearing a wire.

Page’s unwitting statements of innocence to informer Stefan Halper were never shared with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court before it approved four warrants authorizing a full year of surveillance of Page’s communications.

Page’s exculpatory statements were kept from the American people for four years until President Trump declassified them on his final day in office last week. They were obtained by Just the News.

“The core lie is that I met with these sanctioned Russian officials, several of which I never even met in my entire life, but they said that I met them in July,” an FBI transcript quotes Page as telling Halper during an Oct. 17, 2016 interaction at Halper’s farm in Northern Virginia.

Makes me wonder what else was held back from the American public or simply stalled indefinitely. One thing I do know, thanks to recently declassified papers, is that the FBI slow-walked investigations into the Clinton campaign and clearly showed her candidacy favoritism (to put it lightly).

Susan Rice is the first female President?

Former acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell said that, based on President Joe Biden’s initial executive actions, he believes someone else is actually setting the agenda — Susan Rice.

Grenell raised eyebrows earlier this month when he first said he believes that Rice, who was President Obama’s UN ambassador and national security adviser and is now serving as Biden’s domestic policy director, is calling the shots in the current administration.

Read more here.

Umm… How is this not racism?

Cornell University is mandating flu shots for students, but not if you’re Black. I quote Campus Reform:

Students at Cornell University can use their status as a “person of color” to be exempt from the university’s flu vaccine requirement.

“Students who identify as Black, Indigenous, or as a Person of Color (BIPOC) may have personal concerns about fulfilling the Compact requirements based on historical injustices and current events,” explains Cornell Health’s vaccine requirement FAQ.

The article goes on to say:

“We recognize that, due to longstanding systemic racism and health inequities in this country, individuals from some marginalized communities may have concerns about needing to agree to such requirements,” explains the page. “For example, historically, the bodies of Black, Indigenous, and other People of Color (BIPOC) have been mistreated, and used by people in power, sometimes for profit or medical gain.”

Hmm… I think they are making the suggestion that black people may see a mandatory flu shot as being the same as the Tuskeegee experiment. If anyone cares, my feelings of this, if you are going to exclude one group from a mandate then exclude all. Giving preferential treatment to any group over another, no matter now well intentioned, can end badly for all concerned.

And since we are on race, let me point out a poignant statement that Bill Maher said recently. I’m not a fan of his but, every blue moon he makes some valid points. Here are a few quotes from this Daily Beast article.

“So, am I wrong to not want to see race all the time? Because that’s how I was brought up. Like that’s what a good liberal does, is you don’t see race. And now, they switched it all around and I’m bad because I don’t see it all the time. Is ubiquity even effective? To make people aware of this issue at every turn?” said Maher.

Further down in the article he said:

“I’m so sympathetic to the cause, but don’t gaslight me, you know?” argued Maher. “And this is what I hear privately from my Black friends: I don’t want to be the focal point. I just want to blend in. I want to have a beer like you. Don’t look at me like I have to make a speech about it, or you have to make a speech about it.

“Is the picture of America that’s presented by the radicals, I would say—Black Lives Matter, some of them, the anti-racists—of America 2021, is it an accurate picture? Because sometimes I’m like, ‘Are they talking about 2021?’” pondered Maher.

Ice Cream and Bagels

Greg Gutfeld roasted the mainstream media and most notably CNN on Monday, for their sycophantic coverage of President Joe Biden and his administration. The Post Millennial reports:

“This weekend, we learned two important things from the white house and they’re enabled us media. Joe’s favorite flavor of ice cream.”

Fox cut to a clip of Jen Psaki, White House Press Secretary, speaking on a livestream for the administration. Psaki said, “When I was in Wilmington before the president was inaugurated, I did ask him for my four year old niece Sariah, and was very curious about what the super ice cream wasn’t his favorite ice cream is chocolate chip.”Gutfeld responded: “Amazing. And we also learned what Hunter Biden had for breakfast bagels. Let’s hope he ate them. Can’t wait for the daily report on regularity. I hope they’re both getting enough fiber, but isn’t it adorable? How fast?”

The difference in Presidential coverage is striking and undeniable. The video clip is worth a look.

Then and always… The Troller-in-Chief

Say what you will, no one can troll the media like Donald Trump. Case in point, he recently created “The Office of the Former President” from which will be responsible for his “correspondence, public statements, appearances and official activities.”

Could this be a jab at the “Office of the President Elect” desk that Joe Biden set up before starting his administration? Could be. Probably. Yeah, I think it is. One thing for certain, he won’t be announcing that he’s the head of the new MAGA Patriot Party. Too bad. I wouldn’t mind seeing a viable 3rd party shaking things up right about now.

Thanks for reading this far. More news and commentary tomorrow.

Week One: Buyers Remorse Sets In

image

NOTE: At some point, before bed, I read through 50+ news sources and share my findings here. If you like it, share it. If you don’t, share it. Follow my blog now to support my work or to find new reasons to complain about it. My opinions are my own. All tips are welcome. And if you have not already, help spread the message that people should be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin.

Wikipedia describes “buyer’s remorse” as “the sense of regret after having made a purchase. It is frequently associated with the purchase of an expensive item such as a vehicle or real estate.” I would add voting decisions to the list of frequent associations as well. Why? There is a difference between Presidential Candidate Joe Biden and President Joe Biden and those who supported him are beginning to realize this. But to be fair, it did not begin the first week after the election.

Last year, there was a lot (and I mean a lot) of early voting but around the October 25 – 31, 2020 timeframe there was a spike in a particular Google search. What were people searching on? “Can I change my vote?Click here to see the data for yourself. (Or, look below.)

So, what was going on around that time? 2 things: There had just been a Presidential debate between Biden and Trump and there was the heavily censored story about Hunter Biden’s “laptop from hell.” At the time, there were several on social media repudiating the trend as normal. Countering that supposition was Nick Flor, media professor at the University of New Mexico who tweeted this.

But I digress, recent examples of buyer’s remorse include several union members. Prior to being elected, United Association, The Building Trades and Laborers’ International Union of North America all sang praises of Joe Biden. Now, I imagine the tone of their union meetings would have changed to something like this.

The website Black Tea News cited a couple more regrets. Here are some quotes from an article discussing them.

Author and renowned feminists Naomi Wolf was surprised to find out Biden was open to more lockdowns, after he already won the election. But if she had known, she would have never voted for him. Perhaps Dr. Wolf was too busy to notice, but Biden said repeatedly that he was in favor of locking down the country, enforcing mask mandates, and so on. He presented no new ideas on how to defeat the pandemic; he only repurposed measures the Trump Administration already put in place.

Biden, who once blamed literally every Covid-19 death on President Donald Trump, is now saying there’s nothing we can do to change the trajectory in the next several months.

Candidate Joe Biden catered heavily to the black community when campaigning. However, after he was elected, a slightly different tone emerged. (Click here to listen to the change in tone for yourself.)

The Bourbon Street Chronicle posted an article stating how “New Mexico Leaders Say Biden Energy Bans Will Destroy The State’s Economy.” Here’s a quote on that.

New Mexico leaders are concerned that Biden’s war on the energy business will destroy the state’s economy, where education, jobs, and public programs depend on industry funding.

Joe Biden (reportedly) won New Mexico with 54.29% of the vote versus 43.50% for Trump.

“During his inauguration, President Biden spoke about bringing our nation together. Eliminating wells on public land will cost thousands of New Mexicans their jobs and destroy the remnants of our state’s economy, “Carlsbad Mayor Dale Janway told The Associated Press on Friday. “How does that bring us together? Environmental efforts should be fair and well researched, not jerky mandates that only hurt an already impoverished state.”

To be fair, some of the buyer’s remorse was founded on the hope of what Biden would do and not stated facts. Case in point, he was asked repeatedly about whether or not he would pack the Supreme Court but refused to answer. Some speculated that this was because if voters knew where he stood on the issue then, they would not vote for him. I understand the strategy but do not agree with it. I would not want to pay $100 for what I thought would be a steak dinner only to find out that I paid for a McDonald’s Happy Meal. The same mindset may have been in play for other policies that we have learned about this week.

Case in point, I like how “MichiganMoon” expressed his views in a certain online forum about all the Biden policy announcements. He (presumably a he) said this:

“He (Biden) waited to announce these controversial policies that could have made him shed voters:

More troops to Syria, because we haven’t created enough power vacuums in the Muslim world (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria).

$15 national minimum wage, which some rural areas can’t support (his own economist says it will cost 1.3 million jobs).

$15,000 for new home buyers, the 2008 housing bubble was created by Clinton and W Bush pushing people who can’t afford houses into houses.

Biological men allowed to play in women’s sports.

Increased gas taxes.

A reduction in the 401K tax benefit for families making above ~$80K.

Blasting people who don’t wear masks and then both Biden and Kamala being caught violating Biden’s own executive order on masks not less than 7 hours from it being issued.

Reversal on insulin prices.

Reversal on deportations of illegal immigrants and stopping more construction of more wall. Etc…

Maybe those policies are good in your mind, but the point is, we had to vote for Joe to find out where Joe stood on those as they weren’t announced before the election, but were ready to go once he won.”

It was that last sentence that stood out to me the most. Whether you loved or hated President Trump, he said what he meant and followed up on his promises. (Whether that is good or bad is debatable.)

If someone hates me, I rather they come out and say it so I know where we stand. Its the people who say one thing and do another that I disdain. I don’t like being surprised when it comes to people I vote for. I suspect most people do not. Time will tell what the Biden supporters were really voting for and like them, those who did not support Joe Biden for President, might be just as remorseful as those who did.

Thanks for reading this far. More news tomorrow. By the way, what did you think of my latest podcast? I would love to hear your thoughts.

The cure was worse than the disease.

NOTE: At some point, before bed, I read through 50+ news sources and share my findings here. If you like it, share it. If you don’t, share it. Follow my blog now to support my work or to find new reasons to complain about it. My opinions are my own. All tips are welcome. And if you have not already, help spread the message that people should be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin.

The cure was worse than the disease.

The website revolver released a study that said Covid-19 lockdowns were 10+ times more deadly than the pandemic itself. And they are not the only ones to note this. Academic research out of Canada says roughly the same thing. Here’s a quote:

“Dr. Ari Joffe, a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases at the Stollery Children’s Hospital in Edmonton, Canada, has authored a peer-reviewed paper that substantiates popular claims that lockdowns have consequences. He is also a Clinical Professor in the Department of Pediatrics at University of Alberta in Canada.

Joffe has authored a peer-review academic paper titled COVID-19: Rethinking the Lockdown Groupthink that finds the repercussion harms caused by the COVID lockdowns are ten-times greater than any benefit that can be perceived.

“Initial data falsely suggested that the infection fatality rate was up to 2-3 percent, that over 80 percent of the population would be infected, and modelling suggested repeated lockdowns would be necessary,” Joffe said in an interview.

“But emerging data showed that the median infection fatality rate is 0.23%, that the median infection fatality rate in people under 70 years old is 0.05%, and that the high-risk group is older people especially those with severe co-morbidities,” Joffe continued.”

One of the places that were lockdowns were initiated almost tyrannically was in New York where Governor Andrew Cuomo threatened huge fines for churches holding drive-in services or even arrest. Thousands of restaurants and other businesses failed as Cuomo kept the state in strict lockdown mode deep into the summer. Now his tune has changed.

So, what happened? Could it be the mass migration of 2,600 people a week leaving NYC taking with them all their tax money? Or could it be that now that there is a new administration, the crisis is over? The cynical side of me leans towards the latter. The more realist side of me leans towards the former. But maybe there is room for both viewpoints?

Back in August, 2020, an academic study found no link between strict lockdowns and coronavirus mortality rates. And there were others which basically said the same thing:

A study posted May 2020 said, “Full lockdown policies in Western Europe countries have no evident impacts on the COVID-19 epidemic.”

One more that was commented on by the Daily Mail back in July 2020 said,

“Lockdowns have not had a big impact on coronavirus death rates around the world, scientists have claimed, and the health of nations beforehand was more important. Dozens of countries have been forced to tell people to stay home and close shops in a bid to stop the Covid-19 pandemic since it broke out in January.

But now a study has claimed the drastic measures don’t even work. They found that whether a country was locked down or not was ‘not associated’ with death rate.”

And while there are others, I will stop my research examples with the latest one being from the “European Journal of Clinical Investigation” and dated January 21, 2021. Here is the bottomline from their research conducted on 8 countries.

We find no clear, significant beneficial effect of mrNPIs on case growth in any country….In none of the 8 countries and in none out of the 16 comparisons (against Sweden or South Korea) were the effects of mrNPIs significantly negative (beneficial). The point estimates were positive (point in the direction of mrNPIs resulting in increased daily growth in cases).

Can I paraphrase that? The harsher the lockdowns the more dire the outcomes from said lockdowns. If you want (or need) more data to validate these facts, I cannot recommend enough this book – Unreported Truths about COVID-19 and Lockdowns by Alex Berensen. You might not be familiar with it because it was once banned by Amazon. But I digress.

If there were several studies last year proving that lockdowns made things worse, why did it continue? Willful ignorance? This is where the cynical side of me kicks in. Now that Biden is in office, the narrative around Covid seems to be changing. Last week, Newsweek published a story about an academic study proving lockdowns did not work.

NPR reported on January 21, 2021, “Current, Deadly U.S. Coronavirus Surge Has Peaked, Researchers Say.” Here’s a quote:

The devastating fall and winter wave of coronavirus infections that is causing so much misery across the U.S. appears to have finally peaked, according to several researchers who are closely tracking the virus.

While another surge remains possible, especially with new, more infectious variants on the horizon, the number of new daily infections in the current wave appears to have hit a high in the past week or two and has been steadily declining in most states since, the researchers say.

“Yes, we have peaked in terms of cases,” says Ali Mokdad, who has been tracking the pandemic at the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. “We are coming down, slowly. This is very good news — very good news.”

Some major cities are loosening restrictions on indoor dining like Chicago and Baltimore. I find Chicago’s reopening especially ironic. Like Cuomo, Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot was adamant about lockdowns continuing for seemingly, an indefinite period of time.

Some people complain about how conspiracy theories spread online about Covid-19 and they want to censor free speech for the greater good of the country. (I’m looking at you Fauci.) Yet, when there are academic studies galore proving lockdowns don’t work and the press censors them and suddenly they are now being shared at the dawn of a new administration… well, something does not pass the smell test. And when people, thankfully I am not the only one, see that something more is happening, conspiracy theories take root and flourish. Does this mean that every theory is validated simply because its being censored? Most definitely not! However, the more they are silenced, the more likely they are to be believed.

For example, project warp speed produced a vaccine in record time. Some people believe that it is not quite ready for prime time, which is why so many US health care workers are refusing to take it and front line workers and nursing home staff. Add to that concern that the elderly are possibly more susceptible to harmful side effects than others and high profile deaths certainly do not do much to quell those concerns.

That being said, am I proposing that no one should get vaccinated for Covid-19? No. I am not a medical professional and cannot make that determination. What I am saying however, is that it should not be forced upon the public when there is so much push back from the medical community that is being censored. When there are studies proving the benefit of preventative measures, a vaccination shot may not even be necessary. Yet, it is consistently being pushed (and resisted).

And if there is a cure why wouldn’t that squelch all talk about vaccines? Doesn’t that seem strange? (The research cited in the tweet below was from April 2020 yet, it did not make the mainstream news.) Sigh.

Does being pro-prevention mean anti-vax? I don’t think it does, or should. I mean, I think the focus all along should have been on prevention measures that work. (Not excluding vaccines but also, not making them the sole solution. I mean once injected, if something goes wrong, what then?) Sure, in the beginning, no one knew what to do so being extra careful made sense. However, once we were able to prove lockdowns were ineffective, we should have moved on to something else. Likewise, if there are meds and means to prevent getting coronavirus that are provably sufficient we should focus on that. It just seems logical to me and when it does not seem too logical to the powers that be, I have to wonder if something more is going on.

I’ll stop rambling now. Can you tell I’m in a mood? Hit reply and let me know.