Marc Caputo
@MarcACaputo
The plot thickens

Remember when Matt Gaetz alleged someone tried to shake down his dad for $25m, promising lenient federal treatment in the sex-crimes investigation of the Rep?

A man named Stephen Alford just got indicted for it

w/@joshgerstein

far too many Republicans are content to sit behind their Maginot Line of judicial appointments and constitutional arguments, believing that the next war will be like the last. Meanwhile, Biden and his leftwing cohorts have realized that they can just go around those defenses by manipulating private businesses into doing what they want. Whether we are talking about vaccine mandates or Critical Race Theory, the strategy is the same.

Things can’t stop at just fighting the government. Every legal tool available, from lawsuits to boycotts to executive orders, must be wielded by state-level Republicans to stop this onslaught because once the door is opened on this stuff, it will never be closed. Big corporations are not your friend. Treat them accordingly.

We are at the precipice when it comes to individual rights in this country. Are Republican politicians content to watch the freedom of their constituents melt away under a misguided facade of libertarianism or do they engage on all fronts? Unfortunately, I don’t have an answer to that question.

The media frames the climate crisis as if there were no solutions or action to be taken. //

• Yes, the climate news is bad, but there's action to be taken.
  Our hopelessness comes from a media system that doesn't place the blame on corporations to protect their bottom line.
  We have to change our media diet if we want to feel less hopeless about climate change.
  P.E. Moskowitz is an author, runs Mental Hellth, a newsletter about capitalism and psychology, and is a contributing opinion writer for Insider. //

The climate crisis news is constant: Wildfires start earlier and earlier in the year in California, extreme weather floods places not built to handle extreme weather, the Arctic is melting, and the world keeps getting hotter — all with no sign of stopping. And now the UN has said we can't avoid many of the worst impacts of global warming, no matter how hard we try.

Given the overwhelming negativity, it makes sense that people are either in denial about the magnitude of the problem, or end up feeling hopeless, defeated, and without recourse. The media spent the last few decades simply convincing people the issue was real. But that war has been won: Only 10% percent of Americans don't believe in the climate crisis at this point.

Now, we face a new problem: None of us know what to do.

While a large majority of Americans agree we need to act on the climate crisis, no one seems to know exactly what we should do, except push our government to do more. 40% of people who believe in climate change feel "helpless" about it.

But this helplessness is not an inevitable result of the severity of the crisis — severe as it may be. Instead, it's a conditioned response to a world in which the most powerful politicians and corporations want to cast the issue as too difficult and overly complex. To protect their bottom line, those in power want to obfuscate what should be an obvious truth: We can only stop global warming if we end fossil fuel extraction. And we can only do that through direct action, protest, and political revolt.

This should be a lesson to American leftists — and Americans in general — that when you engage in smear campaigns and political messaging without verifying the credibility of the information, it’s not just American voters who are listening. And if your message is finding common ground with Communists seeking to shirk blame for unleashing a plague on the world, perhaps it’s time to rethink your allegiance to the message. As Christina Pushaw, DeSantis’ press secretary, told Dunleavy, “Believing Rebekah Jones’s conspiracy theory means you believe that thousands of public health employees from all 67 counties, many of whom are Democrats, conspired to manipulate COVID numbers to help DeSantis politically. This is outlandish and nonsensical, but countless Americans believe it, and the CCP benefits.”

Charles W. Cooke had the definitive takedown of Ms. Jones in May.

Jones’s central claim is nothing less dramatic than that she has uncovered a massive conspiracy in the third most populous state in the nation, and that, having done so, she has been ruthlessly persecuted by the governor and his “Gestapo.” Specifically, Jones claims that, while she was working at the FDOH last year, she was instructed by her superiors to alter the “raw” data so that Florida’s COVID response would look better, and that, having refused, she was fired. Were this charge true, it would reflect one of the most breathtaking political scandals in all of American history.

But it’s not true. Indeed, it’s nonsense from start to finish. Jones isn’t a martyr; she’s a myth-peddler. She isn’t a scientist; she’s a fabulist. She’s not a whistleblower; she’s a good old-fashioned confidence trickster. And, like any confidence trickster, she understands her marks better than they understand themselves.

Mike Rowe
August 8 at 5:41 PM ·

Off the Wall

Here’s a delightful headline, followed by a charming article, written by a guy named Jonathan V. Last. I don’t think he likes me. Strap in. It's a doozy.

MIKE ROWE'S DIRTY LIES

The voice of the working class goes anti-anti-anti-vaxx.

Mike Rowe—the famous real man, dirty-jobbing, tough guy—is trying to pioneer a new lane in political discourse: anti-anti-anti-vaxx. In a Facebook post this week, Rowe decided to answer a question from one of his fans. The gentleman asked why, since Rowe had gotten a COVID vaccine, he had not used his platform to urge others to do so. Rowe’s response is worth reading in full, because it is either an example of despicable dishonesty or breathtaking stupidity.

Hi Jonathan

Along with “despicable dishonesty and breathtaking stupidity,” I’d like to offer a few additional options for you readers to consider. How about, “a refreshingly honest take on a controversial issue,” or “a thoughtful series of observations wrapped in a patina of common sense,” or maybe, “a brilliant blending of facts and inconvenient truths that leave the skeptical reader with much to consider.”

As you surely know, tens of millions of Americans are not even remotely persuaded by our current cadre of elected officials and health care experts. Obviously, the same was true when Trump was in office. Can you imagine the resistance to a vaccine today, if Donald Trump told Americans to simply “get the jab and trust the science?” It seems to me, if you want to persuade the unvaccinated to reconsider their hesitancy, you must first put yourself in their shoes, and acknowledge a few of the reasons for their skepticism.

Also, I’m puzzled by your sub-head. If “anti-vaxx” means I’m against vaccines, “anti-anti-vaxx” would mean I’m for vaccines, right? So, wouldn’t “anti-anti-anti-vaxx” mean I’m against vaccines? If so, you’re fundamentally mistaken. As I wrote in the very first paragraph, “Vaccines have saved more lives than any other advancement in the long history of medicine, and to your point, I got the shots the minute I was eligible.” I was careful to include that early on. You were careful to omit it. Understandable, given your headline, but not very fair, in my opinion.

JL: Rowe begins his explanation by saying, “I’m not a doctor, Steve, and even though I occasionally play one on TV, I’m not inclined to dispense medical advice to the people on this page.” And you know what? That’s fair enough. If Rowe doesn’t feel comfortable telling others what to do when it comes to public health, that’s reasonable. Except that two paragraphs later he starts asking questions about public health.

MR: Not to nitpick but asking questions about public health is very different than telling others what to do. Don’t you think?

JL: Rowe says the following: The fact is, millions of reasonable Americans have every right to feel confused and skeptical. Those people you refer to, Steve – the ones now telling us that we can “get back to normal just as soon as everyone is vaccinated” – those are the same people who said, “two weeks to flatten the curve!” Those are the same people who told us that masks were “useless” before they told us they were “critical.” Those are the same people who told us that a return to normalcy would occur just as soon as “the most vulnerable” among us were vaccinated. Then, just as soon as “half the population” was vaccinated. Then, just as soon as we achieved “herd immunity.” Those are the same people who told us they wouldn’t trust any vaccine developed under the last administration. Now, those very same people are belittling the skeptics.”

For a guy who makes his living pretending to be concerned with grubby details, this is a wildly, irresponsibly generalized set of charges. For starters, who are “those people”? No links here. No names. Just a vague, faceless assertion so he can’t be called out on facts.

MR: It was the original poster, Jonathan, not me, who said that we can “all get back to normal when everyone gets the shot.” He didn’t attribute that sentiment to any one individual, because he didn’t have to. It’s a widely held belief currently embraced by millions of Americans who affirmatively support a vaccine mandate. Check it out. https://53eig.ht/37sBWip

Obviously, I could have provided specific examples of people in power who favored lockdowns but went on to violate their own mandates, but I didn’t do that because those people are no longer the point. The point I was trying to make, is that half the country has lost faith in our most important institutions. We have a massive credibility problem, exacerbated by powerful people who not only moved the goalposts time and time again, but championed the same restrictions they chose to ignore. In my view, this steady drip of hypocrisy helped foster a deep level of mistrust among millions of unvaccinated Americans. If you really need specific examples, just google “COVID-political-hypocrites.” Those are the people to whom I refer, and they are legion.

JL: But the individual characterizations he makes of what “those people” supposedly said are at best misleading and at worst, patently untrue. Let’s go one by one.

“Two weeks to flatten the curve!” The idea of flattening the curve comes from late March 2020, when COVID was starting to run wild in the United States for the first time. The curve in question was the rate of new infections and the curve needed to be flattened because it’s increase was so steep that it was nearly an asymptote. The country faced a shortage of PPE and doctors hadn’t yet come up with best practices for treating patients. Had the rate of infection continued its geometric increase, not only would a higher percentage of COVID patients have died due to lack of adequate resources to care for them, but more non-COVID patients would have died because the healthcare system would have been overrun. The idea of “flattening the curve” was never about beating COVID, but about buying the healthcare system enough time to be able to treat patients optimally. And you know what? We flattened the fucking curve, Mike. And because of that, we saved a lot of lives.

MR: I agree. In just a few weeks, we flattened the curve, and we saved lives as a result. But what did our leaders do next? Did they say, “Good job! The curve is flat! Now let’s get back to work!” No. They extended the lockdowns and offered no benchmark as to when the restrictions would be lifted. To this day, we have no criteria as to how many deaths or how many infections or how many hospitalizations are acceptable. They could have told us the truth a year ago, which was more along the lines of, “Two weeks to flatten the curve, and then, an undetermined amount of time to keep it that way.” But they didn’t do that. They simply shut us down, ratcheted up the fear, and told us to trust the science. In short, they treated us like children, and that hurt their credibility.

JL: “The same people who told us that masks were ‘useless’.” Again, it’s hard to find details about “those people” but I assume Rowe is talking about Anthony Fauci’s comments to CBS News on March 8, 2020 where he said the following: There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And, often, there are unintended consequences — people keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face.

MR: You’re correct, Fauci’s contradictions were on my mind when I wrote that. So too, were his more recent comments regarding the lab leak, gain of function, and lots of other remarks that are now seen by millions of people as demonstrably false. https://bit.ly/3jvXznE But again, I didn’t mention his name, because Fauci is not going to be part of the solution. His credibility is shot, and nothing he says will convince the skeptics to rethink their skepticism. (Earlier today, he slammed the Sturgis Bike Rally as a potential super-spreader event, while saying nothing about Obama’s birthday bash, and Lollapalooza. That’s the real problem. His slip is showing, and that’s made him unpersuasive to millions.

JL: Let’s stipulate that much of the medical establishment was slow to understand that the primary transmission mechanism for COVID was aerosolization. But the point here is that even Anthony Fauci, in this big gotcha moment, didn’t say that masks were “useless.” He used a heavily lawyered construct—no reason to be walking around with a mask—which was true. Also, Fauci allowed that masks might block “a droplet” while warning that it wasn’t the “perfect protection” some people thought. Again: Both factually correct. Was Fauci perfectly and fully transparent here? No. But neither was he saying what Rowe says.

MR: Again, I didn’t accuse Fauci of anything. I didn’t even mention his name. But the fact remains, we have tens of millions of highly skeptical, vaccine-hesitant Americans who no longer trust him. I don’t have to prove or justify their skepticism – it’s real, and the numbers prove it. Forty percent of the country is unvaccinated. Honest question, Jonathan - do you really think those Americans will be persuaded to think differently about the vaccine, when guys like you rush to defend men like Fauci and his “heavily lawyered constructs?"

JL: One more thing: By June, Fauci was admitting that he soft-peddled masks in early March because he was trying to keep people from hoarding them at a moment when the public wasn’t in danger and didn’t need them, but front-line workers were and front-line workers desperately did. Maybe you’re okay with the noble lie and maybe you’re not. But the fact is that people were hoarding them at the time. And if this episode discredited Fauci for you for all time, then there are myriad other health officials who can and have verified the vaccines’ efficacy.

MR: No, I’m not okay with a noble lie, or an ignoble one. Neither are millions of other people, who would prefer to hear the truth. Toward that end, I’m not comfortable telling people the vaccines are “perfectly safe” when the FDA has yet to approve them. As I said, “there is risk in everything, and I find it unpersuasive to pretend otherwise.” As for the vaccine’s efficacy, I could not have been clearer. My exact words on the matter – which you also omitted - were these.

“At this point, I’m afraid the government has but one course of sensible action - get the FDA on board, stat, and then, provide an honest, daily breakdown of just how quickly the virus is spreading among the unvaccinated, versus the vaccinated. No more threats, no more judgments, no more politics, no more celebrity-driven PSA’s, no more ham-fisted attempts at public shaming. Just a steady flow of verifiable data that definitively proves that the vast, undeniable, overwhelming majority of people who get this disease are unvaccinated.”

JL: And of course, if this episode discredited Fauci for you, then I assume that Donald Trump has also been discredited for you because of how he liked “playing down” COVID.

MR: Of course. Donald Trump should have apologized for that, and a few other things as well. Doing so might have made him more credible in the eyes of his many detractors. But Donald Trump, as you may have noticed, is no longer the president. And those now skeptical of the vaccine, are not limited to his former supporters. Far from it. Vaccine hesitancy is alive in well in every major city, particularly among minority populations.

JL: “A return to normalcy would occur just as soon as ‘the most vulnerable’ among us were vaccinated.” I’d like to see a cite for this.

MR: It’s the sentiment, Jonathan. It doesn’t matter who said it. I recall very clearly, a recurring talking point that revolved around “protecting the most vulnerable,” so the rest of us – (the less vulnerable) – could get back to work. If I was trying to build a case against specific individuals, I’d call people out. But that’s not what I’m trying to do. I’m trying to remind people that there’s never been a declarative statement about the metrics and circumstances that would allow us all to return to work, school, and play. And that’s a problem.

JL: The most high-profile example I can find making “back to normal predictions” is President Joe Biden who went in the opposite direction. On February 16, 2021, Biden said: “As my mother would say, with the grace of God and the goodwill of the neighbors, that by next Christmas I think we’ll be in a very different circumstance, God willing, than we are today. A year from now, I think that there’ll be significantly fewer people having to be socially distanced, having to wear a mask.” At the time, people lost their minds over this estimate because it was so pessimistic. But on February 16, we were still only getting 2.3 million doses administered per day and the government hadn’t yet solved the logistics problem left to it by the previous administration. And by the by, Biden’s pessimistic estimate is looking pretty dead-on right now, isn’t it?

MR: Beats me. I don’t have a crystal ball, and neither does the President. But I am starting to believe that COVID is likely here to stay, in some way, shape or variant. We’re going to have to learn to live with it, and I’m of the belief that doing so will be a lot easier if more people are vaccinated. I could be wrong, but that’s why I wrote what I wrote. I’m pro-vaccine, but anti-mandate. I’m also of the belief that half the country doesn’t trust anything Joe Biden says. You can blame the president for this, or you can call me a liar, or you can blame half the country for being unreasonably skeptical, but either way, this administration – just like the last one - has a massive, self-inflicted, credibility problem. I think it’s okay to acknowledge that. In fact, I think it’s critical that we do, if we hope to make a more persuasive case to those who believe they’ve been lied to.

JL: “Then, just as soon as ‘half the population’ was vaccinated.” Again, I have no idea who “those people” are. The medical and scientific establishments were exceedingly careful in not hanging numbers on what percentage of the population was needed to hit “herd immunity.” Most guesstimates put it in the mid-60s, but just about everyone involved was careful to acknowledge that they were dealing with too many unknowns to be making more than guesstimates.

MR: You’re right – there were lots of guesstimates being thrown around, but I think you’re mistaken about the care that people took to make sure those guesstimates were not taken at face value. The airwaves were filled with various experts and journalists talking with great certainty about the way everything would change when herd immunity was reached. I don’t blame them for being wrong – only for sounding certain. From the start of this mess, politicians, experts, and journalists have all been very long on certainty, and very short on humility. That too, has made them all less credible in the eyes of many.

JL: “Then, just as soon as we achieved ‘herd immunity’.” You know who pushed the idea of “herd immunity” over and over? The COVID deniers and anti-vaxxers. Those people. Those people who wanted to hold “chickenpox parties” for COVID instead of trying to mitigate the spread. Those people who kept insisting that no measures were needed to combat COVID because herd immunity would save us. Those people who declared we should just follow Sweden’s example and fast-forward to herd immunity. Those people whose medical advice in March of 2020 was “Get it. Get immunity. Feel better. The herd triumphs.” Mike Rowe is taking irresponsible bullshit from the bad guys and ascribing it to the good guys in an attempt to discredit them.

MR: Good guys? Bad guys? How shall I respond? With links to Nancy Pelosi, encouraging people to celebrate the Chinese New Year, cheek to jowl? Or Gavin Newsom, dining mask-less with his pals? Or Laurie Lightfoot, getting a haircut when no one else was allowed to? But what’s the point? This is the problem, Jonathan. You’re stuck in a gunfight. White hats and black hats and nothing in between. The point of my post, which you’re working very hard to ignore, is to acknowledge the undeniable fact that millions of Americans see the country exactly as you do - Good Guys vs. Bad Guys. And guess what? No one sees themselves as the Bad Guy. In the words of Dave Mason, “There ain't no good guy, there ain't no bad guy. There's only you and me and we just disagree.”

JL: “Those are the same people who told us they wouldn’t trust ANY vaccine developed under the last administration.” I’m sure you can find five people on Twitter who said something like it. Maybe even a guest on MSNBC. But show me serious people in the media, in medicine, in research, in politics—anywhere—who said such a thing?

MR: I’m talking here about the millions of Americans who would fundamentally distrust any vaccine recommended by Donald Trump if he were still in office today. If you don’t want to acknowledge that those people exist, please revisit the above quote from Dave Mason. Better yet, listen to it. https://bit.ly/3Cp9IU1 It might cheer you up.

JL: Maybe he’s talking about Kamala Harris? But she said something very different than what Rowe charges. Here’s what she said on September 6: “I would not trust Donald Trump. It would have to be a credible source of information that talks about the efficacy and the reliability of whatever he’s talking about. I will not take his word for it.” This is the big gotcha?

MR: No, Jonathan, I wasn’t talking about Harris, and no, it’s not a big “gotcha.” (But, for the record, she did say very clearly on 10/7/21 at the VP debate “If Donald Trump tells us to take it, I’m not taking it.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dAjCeMuXR0)

Again, I didn’t call her out by name, because it no longer matters if Kamala Harris should have trusted Donald Trump two years ago. What matters now, is that she and Trump and so many others have made themselves fundamentally unpersuasive to many millions of people. The issue at hand is how to persuade vaccine-hesitant Americans to reconsider their hesitancy. I propose we first acknowledge the reasons they distrust those in power and tell them the truth. You seem determined to dismiss their concerns and tell them their mistrust in our institutions is unjustified. With respect, I don’t think that’s going to work.

JL: And for his part, even in the fall of 2020, Joe Biden was worried that Trump’s mismanagement of the pandemic was going to make people reluctant to take a future vaccine. Here’s what he said: Why do we think, God willing, when we get a vaccine—that is good, works—why do we think the public is gonna line up to be willing to take the injection? We’ve lost so much confidence, the American people, in what’s said . . .Joe Biden was doing exactly the opposite of what Rowe says “those people” did. He was trying to argue against distrust of vaccines developed under Operation Warp Speed.

MR: That’s pretty rich, Jonathan. If Biden really wanted to champion vaccines in the Fall of 2020, he could have said, “My fellow Americans, I am praying that President Trump succeeds in his efforts to create a safe and effective vaccine in record time. I fully support his efforts to do so, and I am personally committed to doing all I can fight this disease, no matter what it means for my own future in politics.”

But he didn’t say that, Jonathan. Instead, he blamed Trump for creating a massive lack of trust among the American people. I get that. Trump failed badly at getting half the country to trust him. But can’t you see why the other half now sees President Biden in the exact same way?

JL: The reality is that our problem has been the exact opposite. The people who maintained over and over that COVID-19 wasn’t real, that it was an exaggeration, that it was a media conspiracy to hurt the Orange God King—many of those people now won’t take the vaccine because it has been administered by the new administration.

MR: How then, do you explain this, from the CDC. “Black and Hispanic people remain less likely than their White counterparts to have received a vaccine, leaving them at increased risk, particularly as the variant spreads.” https://bit.ly/2VA9Cs7 Weird, right? Did all those Black and Hispanic folks worship the Orange God King too?

JL: If Mike Rowe doesn’t want to encourage people to get vaccinated, that’s his right. That’s his privilege. But to go out in public and misrepresent recent history in an attempt to discredit vaccines is reprehensible.

MR: What’s reprehensible, and cowardly, is your attempt to mischaracterize what I wrote, and deliberately misinform your readers. If I really wanted to discourage people from getting vaccinated, why would I admit to getting vaccinated myself? And why would I write the passage you deliberately omitted? Here it is again, lest your readers forget it. “Vaccines have saved more lives than any other advancement in the long history of medicine, and to your point, I got the shots the minute I was eligible. – Mike Rowe.

JL: Rowe says he wants people to make their own decisions. Great. I celebrate everyone’s choices. But they should make them without Mike Rowe lying to them about the real things which happened in the real world.

MR: I’m happy to let the readers make up their own minds about who’s telling the truth. But let’s be clear about what you’ve done with your little slice of the Internet. You have ignored the point of my original post, omitted key passages regarding my actual position on vaccines, written a damning and fallacious headline, and picked a fight with a guy who just reminded six million people that the overwhelming majority of Americans currently hospitalized with COVID have not been vaccinated. Oh yeah, AND told them that he got the shot as soon as he was able. That was the point of my post, Jonathan.

What was the point of yours?

Mike

74K Likes
7.5K Comments
10K Shares

Mike Rowe
August 5 at 10:53 AM ·

Off the Wall

Mike – I read several months ago that you got the vaccine. I’m glad. But I’m also curious. You have a lot of people on this page who respect your opinion - many of whom I’d wager are unvaccinated. Have you encouraged them to follow your example? If not, what are you waiting for? As you surely know, Delta is raging. The sooner we’re all vaccinated, the sooner we can get back to normal!

Steve Manchin

Hi Steve

The short answer is no - I have not publicly encouraged anyone to get vaccinated. In fact, I have recently declined to participate in several PSA's designed to persuade people to get the jab. That’s not because I’m opposed to vaccines, obviously. Vaccines have saved more lives than any other advancement in the long history of medicine, and to your point, I got the shots the minute I was eligible. But I’m not a doctor, Steve, and even though I occasionally play one on TV, I’m not inclined to dispense medical advice to the people on this page.

True, I did appear in a few PSA’s early on, back when they assured us that locking down was essential to keeping our hospitals from being overrun. “Two weeks to flatten the curve!” Remember that one? That of course, turned out to be untrue, and I regret my role in helping perpetuate that particular falsehood. I also regret what I said during the first Zoom show to air in primetime. It was an episode of After the Catch, where I discussed the lockdowns with a few crab-boat captains. At one point, I looked into the camera lens on my computer and said, with uncharacteristic earnestness, “For the first time in a long time, it appears we’re all in the same boat.”

Well, I was wrong about that, too. We were not in the same boat, not then or now. We were in the same storm, but our boats were very different. Some prospered during the lockdowns and rode out the gale in yachts and pleasure crafts. Others floundered and weathered the storm in rowboats and dinghies. Some had no boat at all and hung on for dear life to whatever flotsam and jetsam they could find. Point is, I said some things I regret back then, and spoke too broadly to too many. Thus, the only thing I’ll say now regarding the vaccine, is that there is risk in everything we do, and there is risk in everything we don’t do. Thus, there is risk in getting vaccinated, and there is risk in not getting vaccinated. Obviously, I made my decision, but again, I’m not a doctor. Thus, I am not equipped to answer questions like, “But Mike, if the vaccine is so safe, why hasn’t the FDA approved it? Or, “But Mike, if the vaccine is so effective, why is the government now treating us all as if we’re unvaccinated?”

These are fair and reasonable questions, and I have no logical reply. Here in California if you’re inside, you must now wear a mask, vaccinated or not. What kind of message does that send?Yes, we have a new variant, and from what I’ve read, it’s highly contagious, but far less virulent – especially if you’re vaccinated. According to the CDC, just one 1 in 27,000 vaccinated people have contracted it. That means if you’re vaccinated, you’re more likely to get struck by lightning than contract COVID. And yet, people are once again calling for more lockdowns, more restrictions, and more compliance from those who already got their shots.

The fact is, millions of reasonable Americans have every right to feel confused and skeptical. Those people you refer to, Steve – the ones now telling us that we can “get back to normal just as soon as everyone is vaccinated” – those are the same people who said, “two weeks to flatten the curve!” Those are the same people who told us that masks were “useless” before they told us they were “critical.” Those are the same people who told us that a return to normalcy would occur just as soon as “the most vulnerable” among us were vaccinated. Then, just as soon as “half the population” was vaccinated. Then, just as soon as we achieved “herd immunity.” Those are the same people who told us they wouldn’t trust ANY vaccine developed under the last administration. Now, those very same people are belittling the skeptics!

If this were a Peanuts cartoon, those people would be Lucy, pulling away the football at the last moment while a nation full of Charlie Browns land flat on their collective back, over and over and over again. Those people you refer to - elected officials, journalists, and most disturbingly, more than a few medical experts - have moved the goalposts time and time again, while ignoring the same rules and restrictions they demand we all live by. They’re always certain, usually wrong, incapable of shame, and utterly void of humility. Is it any wonder millions find them unpersuasive?

I’m sorry, Steve, but even if I were an actual doctor, I wouldn’t know what to say to the skeptics on this page. But as a fake one, I’ll say this. Every single American who wants the vaccine has had the opportunity to get it – for free. Those who have declined will not be persuaded by the likes of me. At this point, I’m afraid the the government has but one course of sensible action - get the FDA on board, stat, and then, provide an honest, daily breakdown of just how quickly the virus is spreading among the unvaccinated, versus the vaccinated. No more threats, no more judgments, no more politics, no more celebrity-driven PSA’s, no more ham-fisted attempts at public shaming. Just a steady flow of verifiable data that definitively proves that the vast, undeniable, overwhelming majority of people who get this disease are unvaccinated.

In other words, give us the facts, admit your mistakes, try on a bit of humility, and stop treating the unvaccinated like the enemy.

Mike

PS Dirty Jobs, as the attached photo should prove, is coming back. New episodes probably start in October. The doctor will see you then...

93K Likes
11K Comments
42K Shares

It’s summer, and that means a fresh wave of stories about COVID-19 in Florida.

Last year, the press fixated on the state’s rising case and hospitalization rates, blaming them on Gov. Ron DeSantis’ decisions to eschew government mask mandates and allow businesses to reopen, children to attend school, and residents to recreate without excessive restraints.

DeSantis was often unfavorably compared with New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, whose iron-fisted restrictions were considered the epitome of enlightened governance.

Enthusiasm for Cuomo has waned, but heaping scorn on DeSantis is still in vogue. Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson has dubbed DeSantis “public enemy number one,” first in line among “cynical and irresponsible Republican politicians [who] have created an environment that is killing Americans.”

So what’s really going on in Florida? Is DeSantis a cynical and irresponsible killer? Here are the facts.

In more normal times, one might be asking themselves how the CDC and the media keep making all these mistakes? It should be fairly obvious that simply being honest about who is most at risk (age and comorbidities) and then targeting those populations for vaccination is the smart move instead of carpet bombing people with fear and hysterics that only breed distrust.

But we don’t live in normal times. Rather, the panic is the point, and when you start things with that point of view, it all begins to make a lot more sense.

You see, Democrats and their media allies recognize that the 2022 electoral landscape is looking apocalyptic for them. //

The panic they are stoking isn’t meant to earn them new voters. Instead, it’s meant to justify a continuation of emergency orders in a variety of states, many of which include key swing districts that will be decided in 2022.

If the COVID crisis simply doesn’t end, then neither do all the changes to the voting system that allowed mass mail-in voting, drive-thru precincts, and ballot harvesting in 2020 under the guise of an existential emergency. Judges will once again override state laws and the DOJ will use COVID to argue that election integrity laws that return things to normal amount to disenfranchisement. Further, Democrats are acutely aware that Republicans typically vote in person. What better way to suppress that vote than to create enough panic that in-person voting is limited in many key areas?

We have some candidates who have great name recognition but appear to have little else, and other candidates who have great substance and policy expertise, but less name recognition. A debate allows the better-known candidates to prove their substance (or reinforce their lack of it), and gives the lesser-known candidates a platform that can reach more California citizens. Finally, it is an opportunity for the citizen to see all the candidates in a new and different light.

As for the cause of this ongoing problem, Mayor Kriseman would be wise to not bring up the issue. One of the primary reasons behind these algae blooms is the infusion of large amounts of human waste. The St. Petersburg water treatment has been an ongoing source of problems — problems which predate the DeSantis administration, but directly involve decisions by Kriseman. //

A sewage report issued about the city’s capacity and handling of its wastewater, detailed in The Tampa Bay Times, looked into the matter of 200 million gallons of sewage released into neighborhoods and waterways. The main cause cited was the closure of a major water reclamation facility, and the decision to forestall the expansion of other water facilities to handle a flooding emergency. This gamble, rooted in money-saving efforts, proved disastrous as the region was hit with a hurricane and a tropical storm, leading to excessive flooding.

“(St. Petersburg’s) leadership has had a culture of being willfully and negligently indifferent toward known problems in its wastewater treatment system that ultimately lead to some of the largest wastewater discharges in State history.” — Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission report

Many media pundits will reflexively view the recent Supreme Court decision to strike down the California rule mandating that nonprofit groups disclose their top donors as a victory for conservatives such as Charles Koch. While the Koch-associated group Americans for Prosperity (AFP) served as the lead plaintiff to challenge the law, this 6-3 ruling by the justices should also be viewed as a loss for Vice President Harris.

It was Harris, the former California attorney general, who first interpreted the state's regulations on charities to mandate that nonprofit 501(c)(3) organizations report all gifts greater than $5,000 via the IRS Schedule B donor list.

Ostensibly, Harris was simply guarding against nonprofit lawbreaking, self-dealing or conflicts of interest. But her rule was the equivalent of asking everyone to send her their checking account statements, just in case someone was laundering money. As a law enforcement officer, she had the right to subpoena IRS records, but hers appeared to be a fishing expedition in search of so-called dark money, the allegedly nefarious influence-machine of the right.

The Supreme Court's ruling shouldn't be associated with Harris just because she issued the original requirement on nonprofits. She also was the first to strictly enforce the law, and she persisted in defending it even after an initial court ruling against it. //

It's worth mentioning what Harris had to overlook in order to persist in defending her interpretation of California's charity law. She had to ignore a key precedent from the 1958 Supreme Court ruling that overturned Alabama's Jim Crow requirement that the NAACP disclose donor information. At the time, this was practically an invitation to lynching. Harris had to overlook the fact that the district court cited "threats, protests, boycotts, reprisals and harassment directed at those individuals publicly associated with AFP." She also had to minimize the fact that "inadvertent" disclosures of donor information already had occurred, and that information leaks often occur (see the recent disclosure of the tax returns of some of America's wealthiest businessmen).

It's hard to see Harris's interpretation of the California law as anything more than a partisan political play that was unnecessary to her role in law enforcement and potentially motivated by the Democratic hysteria about conservative dark money - even as the political left relies on complex organizations to funnel funds to its own causes. //

Let's stop judging an organization's public positions based on who their private supporters might be. That's as true for the American Civil Liberties Union, which supported the Koch position in the case, as it is for AFP. Both deserve to have their arguments judged on the merits, not based on the sources of their money.

Zimbabwe is one of the African countries that hopes renewable energy technologies will help to address their energy problems. About 42% of Zimbabwe’s households are connected to the electricity grid.

The country has huge and diverse renewable energy potential. Its sustainable energy portfolio could include solar, hydro, biomass and, to a limited extent, wind and geothermal. //

For policy makers, non-governmental organisations, the private sector and some researchers, it’s a given that renewable energy technologies are the answer. They could meet Zimbabwe’s growing energy demand and achieve universal access sustainably. At face value this is appealing – but the devil is in the details.

My research looked into how renewable energy technologies are understood and how they could alleviate energy poverty in Zimbabwe.

I found that they’re only one piece of the puzzle and other pieces are habitually missing. No matter how well designed and efficient technologies are, their effectiveness is linked to the country’s political economy.

Socio-economic and political factors keep conventional energy out of reach of the poor. My study shows that they can do the same with renewable energy. These factors may even worsen inequality. Adding renewable energy technologies into the existing energy sector structures is like pouring new wine into old wine skins. //

The politics of energy and technological dependency: China has become a source of finance for large-scale energy projects in Zimbabwe. This is true for both coal-based and renewable energy generation.

What’s seldom acknowledged is the skewed nature of this relationship. China has global dominance in renewable energy technologies. For example, the Chinese solar PV cell and module makers quickly dominated global sales. And the country’s wind turbine producers are poised for significant exports. //

Energy as a tool of accumulation: For China, energy poverty in Zimbabwe is an opportunity for its economic growth. The unequal distribution of economic power keeps Zimbabwe energy poor. Accumulation is happening at one pole and energy poverty at another. //

Renewable energy technologies would work if, somehow, they did more for the poor than for the powerful. But in reality, the opposite is true.

First, the private partners (independent power producers) aren’t ordinary citizens, but the economically powerful and politically connected.

Second, the flawed nature of the tendering system cannot be overstated. It’s normally associated with corruption and political interference.

What’s more, this elite group tends to benefit from the state’s intervention.

Congressman and Wounded Vet Dan Crenshaw has always riled up conservatives.

But this latest video that has almost a million views at the time this article is written takes the cake for the most badass commercial I have ever seen. In the video, Dan Crenshaw skydives into locations to pick up his “team” to save Texas.

https://youtu.be/Wd6b_8OlwXU

The Democratic messaging group Future Majority in May released a deck identifying areas where Republicans hold an advantage:

Of the issues polled, “defunding the police,” “open borders” and “reparations for slavery” were by far the biggest turnoffs for both independents and voters in general.
Republicans bested Democrats on jobs and the economy, gun rights, and “keeping you and your family safe.”
The poll, Future Majority wrote in its report on the findings, “shows voters, especially Independents, believe Democrats overspend.” //

Of course, Republicans could screw all this up, whether it’s by folding to Democrats on policy or focusing on issues that don’t move the needle such as making everything about the 2020 election. If the GOP is going to win in 2022, they have to remain laser-focused on the issues that win elections. The time to worry about investigations and other issues like that is after retaking power because if they don’t, they won’t be able to move on any of that stuff anyway.

Last week, Schilling explained the group in more detail to Buck Sexton.

“It hit me about a year and a half ago that everyone in D.C. has a special interest arm that’s fighting for them, that’s getting the bad guys unelected and getting their allies elected — except for the American family,” Schilling told Sexton. You have, Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Tech, you know you get all these “bigs” but there’s no big family.

“So we wanted to found the Big Family an NRA style membership organization to get families active and engaged in politics. So, if you’re opposing school choice or if you’re fighting for critical race schools or any of this crazy stuff, we’re going to come after you just as you know the NRA puts gun owners after you, we’re going to come after you. We’re going to get you unelected for hurting our kids,” Schilling continued.

The fireworks display at the RNC last August caused more than $42,000 in damage to federal property.
The RNC has reimbursed the federal government for damage on the Washington Monument's grounds.
Trump's unprecedented use of the White House and National Mall for the convention drew criticism from ethics experts.

The controversial fireworks display celebrating former President Donald Trump at the Republican National Convention last August caused more than $42,000 in damage to the National Mall, according to Department of Interior documents obtained by the Democratic group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics.

The National Park Service wrote in a February letter to the Republican National Committee that turf on the grounds of the Washington Monument was damaged by a forklift operator "who drove at a high rate of speed" and scorched by fireworks, while "extensive compaction damage" was caused by "improper setup and security/setup/takedown vehicles." A water fountain was also damaged by a dumpster truck.

The RNC has reimbursed the federal government for the damages related to the show, which included fireworks spelling out "TRUMP 2020." The RNC also paid the government more than $177,000 in labor costs for almost 4,000 hours of work by NPS employees on the fireworks show.

When have Democrats EVER given up something truly important to them in order to seal a compromise with their Republican political opponents? It simply never happens!

Compromise and fair dealings are possible between willing parties who share moral values and deal honestly with one another – at least in the non-political realm. For example, compromise on price in commercial transactions is legitimate. //

Whether through barter or monetary exchange, transactions are possible between all kinds of people regardless of “race, color, creed,” etc. The system works well for tangible commodities; compromise is the underlying concept that makes such transactions possible (at some point, both parties have to agree to the exchange). However, in matters of morality and truth, there can be no compromise.

The Left have hijacked the basic concept of compromise in the political realm by inserting the “free radical” (and malarkey) of “moral equivalence” into the equation. Moral equivalence is the Marxist claim that two radically different people/nations/political-ideological systems are taking the same actions and should be judged and treated the same way. The problem is that the concepts of good and evil are purposely not considered. Moral equivalence (also referred to as moral relativity) is a cancer on the body politic. //

Where do you compromise with the pro-abortion crowd in the Democrat Party? At the number of weeks at which a pregnancy can be legally terminated? On what the definition of “health of the mother” means in allowing an abortion? On whether parents have any say in their minor daughter’s decision? No moral equivalence exists in this situation, and those supporting abortion never discuss the moral dilemma involved in ending the life of a human being – mainly because they suppress what their consciences scream at them about the barbarism of abortion.

The bottom line is this: to suggest compromise with such people is to sanction abortion. There is no other way to put it. At what price do conservatives compromise their souls to agree with this evil and immoral practice? //

What’s the bipartisan compromise that enhances conservative principles and morals on any of those topics? We are not going to see anything from the Left other than a demand that we ignore our principles and concerns, and when we “compromise,” we inch American culture leftward just as the Left have planned and executed since the days of Woodrow Wilson and his “progressive amendments”.

Conservatives must remember that, at times, it is easy to believe that the item we think we desire (compromise and the elusive comity that we expect from the Left when we do compromise with them) is worth more than it actually is and underestimate the value of our own positions. //

“Compromise” has been a losing strategy for us for decades. Compromise with the Left has gotten us into the deep hole in which we find the nation today. It’s the reason we’ve been losing the culture war and why the Left have taken over most of our political and cultural institutions. We need to fight back and DEFEAT the Left politically at every turn – on every subject while defending our core moral principles – and forget about the fool’s gold that is “compromise.” It’s our only hope if we wish to preserve the Republic.

Despite the fact that disgraced Florida data tech Rebekah Jones was discredited multiple times last year over her claim that she was “fired” for refusing to “manipulate” the state’s coronavirus dashboard in a way that would make Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) look even better, Jones has continued to be lovingly embraced by an MSM who treats her like a martyr for supposedly being willing to lose her job by speaking Truth to Power. //

But though much has been written about and speculated on regarding Jones’ massive deception campaign over the last year, Charles C.W. Cooke did some more digging and wrote what may be the most definitive, receipt-filled investigative piece on Jones to date this week, thoroughly nuking her most explosive claims and documenting how viciously retaliating after rejection is one of Jones’ most notorious hallmarks. //

Charles C. W. Cooke
@charlescwcooke
Replying to @charlescwcooke
Rebekah Jones is not an epidemiologist. She’s not a data analyst. She's not a whistleblower. She's a fabulist, who has an uncanny ability to convince online types that something dodgy happened in FL. It didn’t. If you believe her, you’re the mark.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/05/rebekah-jones-the-covid-whistleblower-who-wasnt/

https://nypost.com/2021/05/13/how-rebekah-jones-peddled-lies-about-florida-covid-19-deaths/

Stephen L. Miller
@redsteeze
Rebekah Jones was promoted and propped up by our media for the same reasons as Michael Avenatti - It doesn't matter how credible they are - only that they say the right things and have the right opponents. It's absolute malfeasance that this continues without consequences.

“They asked us for language and we gave them language when they asked us for it,” Weingarten said. Yeah, no, that’s not normal. It’s normal to get stakeholder opinion. It isn’t normal for an administration to ask for language and then take it “nearly verbatim.” The fact that she doesn’t see the issue with it means it’s something they’ve likely been doing for a while and they’ve had outsized influence except in the “last administration.”