Via Kaiser Health News, a discouraging report by Lauren Weber and Anna Maria Barry-Jester: Over Half of States Have Rolled Back Public Health Powers in Pandemic. Excerpt:

Republican legislators in more than half of U.S. states, spurred on by voters angry about lockdowns and mask mandates, are taking away the powers state and local officials use to protect the public against infectious diseases.

A KHN review of hundreds of pieces of legislation found that, in all 50 states, legislators have proposed bills to curb such public health powers since the covid-19 pandemic began. While some governors vetoed bills that passed, at least 26 states pushed through laws that permanently weaken government authority to protect public health. In three additional states, an executive order, ballot initiative or state Supreme Court ruling limited long-held public health powers. More bills are pending in a handful of states whose legislatures are still in session.

On a plane returning from a four-day trip to Budapest and Slovakia, the Bishop of Rome took questions from the press.

As reported by the Catholic News Agency, he spoke of respect:

“Abortion is more than an issue. Abortion is murder. Abortion, without hinting: Whoever performs an abortion kills. You take any embryology textbook of those students that study in medical school. At the third week of conception, at the third, many times before the mother notices, all the organs are already there. All of them. Even the DNA. […]

“It’s a human life, period. This human life must be respected. This principle is so clear.” //

“To those who can’t understand it, I would ask two questions: Is it right, is it fair, to kill a human life to solve a problem? Scientifically, it is a human life. Second question: Is it right to hire a hitman to solve a problem? I said this publicly […] when I did, I said it to (Spanish radio station) COPE. I have wanted to repeat it. … Scientifically, it’s a human life. The textbooks teach us that. But is it right to take it out to solve a problem? This is why the Church is so strict on this issue because accepting this is kind of like accepting daily murder.”

in 1931, Hayek crititicized John Maynard Keynes's Treatise on Money (1930) in his "Reflections on the pure theory of Mr. J.M. Keynes"[124] and published his lectures at the LSE in book form as Prices and Production.[125] For Keynes, unemployment and idle resources are caused by a lack of effective demand, but for Hayek they stem from a previous unsustainable episode of easy money and artificially low interest rates.

Jill Lawrence
@JillDLawrence
My new column is probably the only #CaliforniaRecall piece today (or ever?) that quotes Patrick Henry: Telling the truth about Republicans and #COVID19 is a winner https://usatoday.com/story/opinion/2021/09/15/california-recall-covid-truths-fueled-democratic-win/8338737002/
via @usatoday @usatodayopinion #CaliforniaRecallElection #California

Timothy Sandefur
@TimothySandefur
This article begins with an untrue statement. It is not the constitutional role of politicians to “promote the general welfare.” It is the Constitution itself that “promotes the general welfare.” Politicians’ job is to obey the Constitution.
9:56 AM · Sep 15, 2021

Timothy Sandefur
@TimothySandefur
Replying to @TimothySandefur
Politicians ALWAYS say that what they’re doing—no matter how dumb, corrupt, futile, or illegal—will “promote the general welfare.” If that’s the limit on their power then there is NO limit to their power.

Thus the Constitution limits the ability of politicians to do things to you in the service of what they consider to be “the general welfare.”

“To provide for the general welfare, is an abstract proposition, which mankind differ in the explanation of, as much as they do on any political or moral proposition that can be proposed; the most opposite measures may be pursued by different parties, & both may profess that they

have in view the general welfare; & both sides may be honest in their professions, or both may have sinister views… It is as absurd to say, that the power of Congress is limited by these general expressions, "to provide for the common safety, & general welfare," as it would be

to say that it wd be limited, had the Constn said they should have power to lay taxes &c at will & pleasure. Were this authority given, it might be said that under it the legislature could not do injustice, or pursue any measures, but such as were calculated to promote the public

good & happiness. For every man, rulers as well as others, are bound by the immutable laws of God & reason always to will what is right. It is certainly right and fit, that the governors of every people shd provide for the common defence & general welfare; every govt, therefore,

good & happiness. For every man, rulers as well as others, are bound by the immutable laws of God & reason always to will what is right. It is certainly right and fit, that the governors of every people shd provide for the common defence & general welfare; every govt, therefore,

in the world, even the greatest despot, is limited in the exercise of his power. But however just this reasoning may be, it wd be found in practice a most pitiful restriction. The govt would always say their measures were designed & calculated to promote the public good, & there

being no judge between them and the people, the rulers themselves must, and would always, judge for themselves.”
https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_1s8.html

Learn more:
The Conscience of the Constitution
https://www.cato.org/books/conscience-constitution

For $58, you too can get a sweatshirt and make a campaign contribution to someone who is being pretty quiet on the state and local tax (SALT) deductions for the rich that the Democrats want to bring back. For the low, low price of $27, you can have a tote bag to shop at Whole Foods just like AOC without using harmful plastic bags and you can support a politician who isn’t saying much about a House bill that actually may not tax the highest income earners like she’s promising.

If the campaign had seen the blowup over the “Tax The Rich” rich and decided to capitalize on this, that would be one thing. But this was apparently premeditated. The items currently on sale with the slogan on them were built into the site before the Met Gala even happened.

The socialist queen of the House turns out to be a really good capitalist, doesn’t she? //

FrankJNatoli • 3 minutes ago

Not being "rich", I have always been employed by someone "rich", never by someone "poor".
For many reasons, one of them selfish, I therefore like the "rich".
I don't want the "rich" taxed, thus having their income seized by the government.
I want the "rich" to have the opportunity to transfer their wealth to Frank.
Apparently none of AOC's constituents see it that way.

By rewriting America’s history and 'recontextualizing' her founding documents, Biden’s National Archives is seeking to undermine our country's founders. //

Words matter, and few words have mattered more in the history of the United States than those contained within the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, and other founding-era documents stewarded by the National Archives.

Protecting and celebrating the most important works in U.S. history isn’t only important because the Constitution and Bill of Rights, as well as other documents in the National Archives, are still legally binding, but also because they tell a story of who we are as a nation and what it means to be American. Today leftists, including many officials in the Biden administration, are actively working to rewrite that story, and to undermine every part of America’s exceptional past. //

Since the National Archives contains more than 100 million records, there are bound to be some that are offensive. But rather than identify prominent documents that are indeed offensive as such, the Archives chose to issue a “Harmful Language” warning across the board, knowing full well the documents read most often on its website and in its halls are founding-era materials like the Constitution.

You might be tempted to chalk up the Archives’ warning label to pure laziness. Being woke and accurate is hard when you’re in charge of maintaining millions of records, I’m sure. But it’s worth noting that the warning label emerged from the National Archives’ radical Task Force on Racism, which has developed dozens of other plans meant to give the impression that America’s history is full of racism, hatred, and violence, rather than highlight the nation’s incredible achievements.

In a 105-page report issued by the task force in April 2021, the National Archives suggested it, like the United States, is full of “structural racism,” including “a Rotunda in our flagship building that lauds wealthy White men in the nation’s founding while marginalizing BIPOC [black, indigenous, people of color], women, and other communities.” Since the report’s release in April, Archivist of the United States David Ferriero has “accepted the recommendations in full.” //

Additionally, the Archives will transform its famous Rotunda to “create a more inclusive and historically accurate tribute to the nation’s founding.” Its “Reimagine the Rotunda” plan includes “contemporary views on the men who framed the founding documents and their participation in and positions on slavery,” new sculptures, and a “recontextualizing” of the murals now in the Rotunda.

Here’s the thing with denials. It’s typically useful when giving one to actually deny the activity you are being accused of. Instead of Milley doing that in this statement, we see a flurry of qualifiers and weasel language //

What don’t we see? Any reassurance that he did follow the proper chain of command by notifying the president of his actions. Milley also does not claim that he didn’t tell the Chinese what Woodward says he told the Chinese. In other words, this denial isn’t a denial at all. Rather, it’s confirmation that he did do what he was accused of.

So where does that leave us? It leaves us with ridiculous arguments over whether Milley was justified or not in doing what he did. I maintain that there can be no justification for quite literally pledging to commit treason, no matter how much you hate or distrust the president. If Milley was concerned about an unlawful order, he was within his rights to refuse it, resign, and go public. That he didn’t do that only undercuts his claims of justification. //

It’s clear that Milley was a delusional man run amok. He had convinced himself he was standing against a coming revolution when all he was really doing was violating the constitutional order to feed his own ego. Further, it’s fairly obvious that his talks with Nancy Pelosi were to ingratiate himself so he could keep his job in the next administration. There’s a reason Milley is pushing critical race theory in the military. He’s a political actor concerned with staying in power, not with actually helping keep the military in a condition where it can perform its legal role.

After years of learning lessons the hard way, I can say confidently that with the help of three simple principles, my husband and I have learned how to keep the peace and build our wealth as a team.

The 3 rules we follow to keep the peace

1. Honesty
   Yes, honesty is the foundation of good relationships in general, but when it comes to money, it becomes more nuanced than choosing not to message an ex behind your partner's back. When two people are trying to share money, the struggle usually stems from good, but opposing, best intentions. //

2. Mutual respect
   Once, in the heat of a nasty battle over whether we should buy a mattress secondhand, I called my husband "Scrooge McDuck." While it was a spiteful and silly dig, it also summarizes how I felt about his frugal tendencies. He, on the other hand, felt I had the financial acumen of a 7-year-old in a candy shop with $100 to burn. //

This is why the most important change we made in our approach to sharing finances was recognizing that our spender/saver dynamic didn't need to be a battle of opposites, but could instead be a balance of strengths.

Being a saver means my husband is always wary of potential financial hardships. //

But being a spender means I am open to taking financial risks that on his own, my husband would have been too scared to take. By pushing him to sell our house at the top of the market, I made us $120,000 //

3. Humility
   But mutual respect requires more than recognizing what the other person has to offer. It also means recognizing that one financial style isn't necessarily superior to another.

What to know about switching

• First, we’ll check your credit.
• You can keep the same wireless number. If you do, we’ll credit any remaining balance on your AT&T PREPAIDSM account to your new wireless account.
• You won't get a refund for any monthly rate plan or package you already paid.
  • We can’t refund unused AT&T PREPAID cards.
  • If you’re bringing your own device, it must be compatible with our network.
  • If you’re getting a new device, it may have to be on an installment plan.
  • A service-change fee may apply.
  • You may have to pay a security deposit if you’re a business customer.

Ready to switch? Visit an AT&T store.

AT&T UNLIMITED ELITE®
$50 /mo. per line (with 4+ lines on account)
when you get 4 lines
Here’s what you’ll get:

• Unlimited talk, text, & high-speed data that can’t slow down based on how much you use
• 40GB Hotspot data per line per month
• Unlimited talk, text and data in Mexico & Canada

Data-only plans for tablets and more. Add to any unlimited plan for $20/mo.

“Now the nation no longer lacks what it has long needed, a slender book that lucidly explains the intensity of conservatism’s disagreements with progressivism. For the many Americans who are puzzled and dismayed by the heatedness of political argument today, the message of Timothy Sandefur’s The Conscience of the Constitution: The Declaration of Independence and the Right to Liberty is this: The temperature of today’s politics is commensurate to the stakes of today’s argument.”
—George Will, The Washington Post

Now in paperback, this book provides a dramatic new challenge to the status quo of constitutional law and argues a vital truth: our Constitution was written not to empower democracy, but to secure liberty. Yet the overemphasis on democracy by today’s legal community has helped expand the scope of government power at the expense of individual rights. Now, more than ever, the Declaration of Independence should be the framework for interpreting our fundamental law. It is the conscience of the Constitution.

As the driving force behind the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), “the granddaddy of libertarian think tanks,” Leonard Read faced decades of “what would markets do to solve this problem” challenges when pointing out any of the many inadequacies of government’s coercive organization of society. Since those challenges still haunt believers in liberty, it is worth considering his answer, which runs from what we don’t know to what we do. And his justifiably famous “I, Pencil,” is right in the middle of things.

The beginning of Read’s answer came in “I Don’t Know,” in his The Free Market and Its Enemy (1965), which deals with how to successfully advocate for “the free market and its miraculous performances” in the face of such challenges:

Skeptics of the free market are forever asking, “Well, how would the free market attend to mail delivery? Education? Or, whatever?”

[Unfortunately] a person can no more explain how the free market would attend to mail delivery than his great-grandfather could have explained how television could ever emerge from free market forces!

Answer honestly: I don’t know; I never will know; no one will ever know.

In other words, Read recognized that the attempt to answer the inherently unanswerable was futile. But there was a better way, using what is, in fact, knowable. And that is where “I, pencil,” which reveals the large number of market miracles that go into even something as simple as a pencil, comes in: //

However, the innumerable market miracles all around us, none of which any of us could have correctly predicted in advance, provide us with overwhelming proof of the power of liberty. Free men and women can do not only great but unimaginable things when they own themselves and can make whatever peaceful arrangements they voluntarily choose.

There is also a useful contrast between freedom, challenged to prove itself in advance before many will even consider it, and government, unable to prove itself in action despite the power to force us to follow its lead. No government representative or bureaucrat can meet the burden of proof demanded of freedom.

And unlike defenders of self-ownership and the market behavior that arises from it, which has produced uncountable successes without theft, there is no massive list of dramatic life-improving “success stories” created by government. But that is unsurprising. As Read put it, “How can frustration be manipulated into harmony and increased production? Can any interference with peaceful, willing exchange, regardless of who does the interfering, do other than wreak havoc?”

According to the National Poison Data System (NPDS), which collects information from the nation's 55 poison control centers, there was a 245% jump in reported exposure cases from July to August — from 133 to 459. //

The NPDS says 1,143 ivermectin exposure cases were reported between Jan. 1 and Aug. 31. That marks an increase of 163% over the same period last year. [700 cases previous year] //

In Mississippi, which has one of the lowest rates of vaccination against the coronavirus, the state Department of Health issued an alert about the surge in calls to poison control in August. The department said that at least 70% of recent calls to the state poison control center were related to people who ingested a version of the drug meant for livestock. ///

70% of the 2% of calls about ivermectin, not 70% of all the calls. https://sfgate.com/news/amp/Health-Dept-Stop-taking-livestock-medicine-to-16405982.php

Yesterday, I wrote on a viral claim involving ivermectin, spread by blue checkmarks across the left, that asserted an Oklahoma hospital was so overwhelmed with overdoses from the animal variant that they were turning away gun-shot victims. That turned out to be so false that the hospital changed its internet homepage with a correction of the disinformation, noting that they did not have a single patient admitted currently that had overdosed on ivermectin.

But as I said when I opened this article, we are apparently going to keep doing this. Another ivermectin hoax has now been exposed, this time over a widely spread claim that Mississippi’s poison control was deluged with ivermectin overdoses representing 70% of total calls.

https://msdh.ms.gov/msdhsite/_static/resources/15400.pdf //

Amy
@AmyA1A
The AP reported that 70% of recent calls to the Mississippi Poison Control Center were from people who had ingested ivermectin to try to treat COVID-19.

The correction acknowledges that it was actually only 2%.

https://sfgate.com/news/amp/Health-Dept-Stop-taking-livestock-medicine-to-16405982.php?__twitter_impression=true
9:53 PM · Sep 5, 2021

Here’s the full correction per the Associated Press which was pushed out to SF Gate.

In an article published Aug. 23, 2021, about people taking livestock medicine to try to treat coronavirus, The Associated Press erroneously reported based on information provided by the Mississippi Department of Health that 70% of recent calls to the Mississippi Poison Control Center were from people who had ingested ivermectin to try to treat COVID-19. State Epidemiologist Dr. Paul Byers said Wednesday the number of calls to poison control about ivermectin was about 2%. He said of the calls that were about ivermectin, 70% were by people who had ingested the veterinary version of the medicine.

So instead of it being 70% of calls being about ivermectin, the actual number was…2%. And of that 2%, 70% of those calls were about the animal variant. In other words, instead of talking about possibly hundreds or thousands of animal variant ivermectin overdose calls, the number is actually infinitesimal, representing only 1.4% of calls.

Nations are coming to grips with their overdependence on renewables //

Over the last decade, energy experts repeatedly assured policymakers around the world that increasing the use of renewables, while shutting down nuclear plants, would make energy supplies more secure, while lowering prices. To make their case, experts pointed to radical declines in the price of solar panels, wind turbines, natural gas, and lithium batteries. //

But the heavy reliance on renewables in Europe and the United States has made electricity supply more vulnerable to a single commodity’s volatility. Today’s electricity grids mean that high gas prices cause energy price spikes and a return to the dirtiest forms of electricity production, including diesel and coal.

The return to coal was most dramatic in Germany. Electricity from wind was 20% lower in Germany in the first half of 2021 than the first half of 2020, resulting in a 24% higher use of fossil fuels and 28% greater emissions from electricity. Coal was the number one source of energy for electricity in Germany in the first half of 2021, comprising 27% of total electricity.

In her opening statement (which I will provide in full at the end of the post), Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) had zero you-know-whats to give when offering her brutal assessment of the Bureau’s (as well as the coaches’ and Team USA officials’) behavior in the case, saying: “Every single person in authority who turned a blind eye to these young athletes’ allegations is complicit in Nassar’s crime, and each one of them should be considered a predator.”

To say that the FBI has lost its way would involve taking a trip to someplace far on the other side of understatement. The Bureau now functions more like a highly politicized domestic attack dog than a security agency. The FBI had already been involved with concocting and “investigating” the bogus Trump/Russia collusion leftist fantasy for a year when it finally got around to documenting the very real allegations of sexual assault against Nassar. //

We never seem to stop finding out reasons why James Comey — who was head of the FBI when all of this was happening — should be in jail. As of this writing, he is still a much-revered darling of the same people who tell us to “believe all women” in cases of sexual abuse. //

Nassar was raping Maroney when she was 15 years old. Just when you think that the story can’t possibly get any worse, Maroney reveals that the FBI falsified her report.

That the FBI couldn’t be bothered to investigate a serial predator who was attacking the most vulnerable among us is reason enough to start casting a wide net for people within the Bureau who need to be locked up.

The Jan. 8 call, especially, to such a high level person in China is going rogue by Milley. Milley doesn’t have the right to conduct foreign policy. It just means that we have to add Mark Esper to the people who may have acted improperly and need to answer up here. It isn’t the responsibility of the Secretary of Defense to conduct foreign policy.

But there’s also another problem here. Esper wasn’t even Secretary of Defense on Jan. 8 — he was fired in November 2020 and replaced by Christopher Miller. So whose authority was Milley operating under? It wasn’t from Trump or Esper.

It also means that if this story is true, they lose their crazy story/excuse about this being about the election and Jan. 6. Then it had nothing at all to do with that but with trying to operate around Trump, without any of that alleged “justification.”

Now, we can’t leave out that Woodward may just be adding a lot of spin into this to help sell his book.

But it’s clear that Mark Milley, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and now Mark Esper need to be questioned by Congress as to what was going on here, because if these reports are true, it surely does look like people were trying to subvert the president of the United States.

As Buffett once said, "I really have only two jobs. One is to attract and keep outstanding managers to run our various operations." //

We look for three things when we hire people. We look for intelligence, we look for initiative or energy, and we look for integrity. //

Take a hint as to which of the three Buffett prioritizes first. In his own words, "If they don't have [integrity], the first two will kill you, because if you're going to get someone without integrity, you want them lazy and dumb."

Without integrity, intelligence, drive, energy will only get you so far. Hiring without it is also a big business risk. //

Psychologist and best-selling author Henry Cloud wrote the book on why integrity matters and sheds good light on the topic. In Integrity: The Courage to Meet the Demands of Reality, he says, "Who a person is will ultimately determine if their brains, talents, competencies, energy, effort, deal-making abilities, and opportunities will succeed." //

1. Be accessible
   A person of integrity keeps the lines of communication open with everyone in the organization. He or she gives access for others to express concerns or raise questions that can be addressed in a timely fashion. He or she knows that open and honest communication is not only the ethical thing to do; it's what builds trust and increases value so work gets done efficiently, and without barriers, bureaucracy, or politics.

2. Be your word
   Do you practice what you preach? Follow through on your promises or commitments? Leaders walking the talk deliver on "doing the right thing" and set a good example. //

3. Be true to yourself
   How would you feel if, every day, you said what you meant, stayed true to yourself, and behaved in accordance with this? Imagine the self-respect you'd feel. Being true to yourself is far less stressful than being someone you are not.

Switch to AT&T PREPAID
Here’s what to know. Make sure that:

• Your current AT&T wireless account has been active for at least 30 days
• Your account isn’t past due
• Your current wireless bill isn’t combined with another service, like DIRECTV or AT&T Internet
• Your current line isn’t on a business account

Good to know:

• You can’t switch to AT&T PREPAID during the 2 days before or the 4 days after your bill period ends. That’s when we calculate your usage for the month.
• AT&T PREPAID accounts can’t be tax exempt.

AT&T PREPAID 5GB - $30/mo

• 5GB of high-speed data
  ** After allotted high-speed data is used, data speeds slow to a maximum of 128Kbps for the rest of the term.
• Rollover Data® Unused high-speed data rolls over to next month.
• Mobile hotspot Turn your phone into a hotspot. Uses plan data allotment.
• Family Plan
  Add more lines and watch the price per line go down.

AT&T PREPAID 15GB - $40/mo

• 15GB of high-speed data
• Rollover Data® Unused high-speed data rolls over to next month.
• Mobile hotspot Turn your phone into a hotspot. Uses plan data allotment.

Alasdair Munro
@apsmunro
·
Sep 16, 2021
The best data by far on #LongCovid is out from the ONS

For kids, the news is incredibly reassuring - parents minds should be put to rest

Rates of common symptoms after #COVID19 at 12 w for kids are extremely low (0% to 1.7%) compared to controls

https://ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/technicalarticleupdatedestimatesoftheprevalenceofpostacutesymptomsamongpeoplewithcoronaviruscovid19intheuk/26april2020to1august2021

Previous ONS statistics have been widely misused, and difficult to interpret due to unavailable methods

This is all put to bed now. Excellent, transparent comparisons with a suitable control group.

Importantly, it includes COVID cases which would be missed by NHS testing

One statistic stands out

At both 4 and 12 weeks, MORE children aged 2 - 11y in the control group were experiencing symptoms than in those who tested positive for #COVID19

Rates of continuous symptoms going on for 12w were also extremely low for kids aged 2 - 16y who had tested positive for #COVID19 (only around 1%)

This was generally low across the study (3% of COVID +ve vs 0.5% of controls) ///

Prediction: COVID will become the next Chickenpox -- get it when you are young to gain immunity will end the scourge

To provide for the general welfare, is an abstract proposition, which mankind differ in the explanation of, as much as they do on any political or moral proposition that can be proposed; the most opposite measures may be pursued by different parties, and both may profess, that they have in view the general welfare; and both sides may be honest in their professions, or both may have sinister views. Those who advocate this new constitution declare, they are influenced by a regard to the general welfare; those who oppose it, declare they are moved by the same principle; and I have no doubt but a number on both sides are honest in their professions; and yet nothing is more certain than this, that to adopt this constitution, and not to adopt it, cannot both of them be promotive of the general welfare.

It is as absurd to say, that the power of Congress is limited by these general expressions, "to provide for the common safety, and general welfare," as it would be to say, that it would be limited, had the constitution said they should have power to lay taxes, &c. at will and pleasure. Were this authority given, it might be said, that under it the legislature could not do injustice, or pursue any measures, but such as were calculated to promote the public good, and happiness. For every man, rulers as well as others, are bound by the immutable laws of God and reason, always to will what is right. It is certainly right and fit, that the governors of every people should provide for the common defence and general welfare; every government, therefore, in the world, even the greatest despot, is limited in the exercise of his power. But however just this reasoning may be, it would be found, in practice, a most pitiful restriction. The government would always say, their measures were designed and calculated to promote the public good; and there being no judge between them and the people, the rulers themselves must, and would always, judge for themselves.

All of a sudden, the conservative project is not a conservative one, so much as a counter-revolutionary one. //

This is the text of the Bradley Prize acceptance speech the author gave on Sept. 13.

Update: One hospital has denied Dr. Jason McElyea’s claim that ivermectin overdoses are causing emergency room backlogs and delays in medical care in rural Oklahoma, and Rolling Stone has been unable to independently verify any such cases as of the time of this update.

The National Poison Data System states there were 459 reported cases of ivermectin overdose in the United States in August. Oklahoma-specific ivermectin overdose figures are not available, but the count is unlikely to be a significant factor in hospital bed availability in a state that, per the CDC, currently has a 7-day average of 1,528 Covid-19 hospitalizations. The doctor is affiliated with a medical staffing group that serves multiple hospitals in Oklahoma. Following widespread publication of his statements, one hospital that the doctor’s group serves, NHS Sequoyah, said its ER has not treated any ivermectin overdoses and that it has not had to turn away anyone seeking care. This and other hospitals that the doctor’s group serves did not respond to requests for comment and the doctor has not responded to requests for further comment. We will update if we receive more information. //

The rise in people using ivermectin, an anti-parasitic drug usually reserved for deworming horses or livestock, as a treatment or preventative for Covid-19 has emergency rooms “so backed up that gunshot victims were having hard times getting” access to health facilities, an emergency room doctor in Oklahoma said.

This week, Dr. Jason McElyea told KFOR the overdoses are causing backlogs in rural hospitals, leaving both beds and ambulance services scarce.

“The ERs are so backed up that gunshot victims were having hard times getting to facilities where they can get definitive care and be treated,” McElyea said.

“All of their ambulances are stuck at the hospital waiting for a bed to open so they can take the patient in and they don’t have any, that’s it,” said McElyea. “If there’s no ambulance to take the call, there’s no ambulance to come to the call.” ///

https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/1434356350457290755

Set 1000Mbps full-duplex, enter:

  ifconfig <interface-name> <IP_address> media 1000baseTX mediaopt full-duplex

For example, set interface em0 with IP 10.10.1.2 to 100Mbps full duplex, enter:

   ifconfig em0 10.10.1.2 media 100baseTX mediaopt full-duplex

If the interface is currently forced to 100 full duplex, in order to change to half duplex you must type the following command:

  ifconfig em0 10.10.1.2 media 100baseTX -mediaopt full-duplex

The -mediaopt option disable the specified media options (full-duplex) on the interface i.e. go back to half duplex.

Solar Panels Will Create 50 Times More Waste & Cost 4 Times More Than Predicted, New Harvard Business Review Study Finds //

Three years ago I published a long article at Forbes arguing that solar panels weren’t clean but in fact produced 300 times more toxic waste than high-level nuclear waste. But in contrast to nuclear waste, which is safely stored and never hurts anyone, solar panel waste risks exposing poor trash-pickers in sub-Saharan Africa. The reason was because it was so much cheaper to make new solar panels from raw materials than to recycle them, and would remain that way, given labor and energy costs. //

A major new study of the economics of solar, published in Harvard Business Review (HBR), finds that the waste produced by solar panels will make electricity from solar panels four times more expensive than the world’s leading energy analysts thought. “The economics of solar,” write Atalay Atasu and Luk N. Van Wassenhove of INSEAD, one of Europe’s leading business schools, and Serasu Duran of the University of Calgary, will “darken quickly as the industry sinks under the weight of its own trash." //

The solar industry, and even supposedly neutral energy agencies, grossly underestimated how much waste solar panels would produce. The HBR authors, all of whom are business school professors, looked at the economics from the point of view of the customer, and past trends, and calculated that customers would replace panels far sooner than every 30 years, as the industry assumes.

“If early replacements occur as predicted by our statistical model,” they write, solar panels “can produce 50 times more waste in just four years than [International Renewable Energy Agency] IRENA anticipates.” //

The HBR authors found that the price of panels, the amount solar panel owners are paid by the local electric company, and sunlight-to-electricity efficiency determined how quickly people replaced their panels.

“Alarming as they are,” they write, “these stats may not do full justice to the crisis, as our analysis is restricted to residential installations. With commercial and industrial panels added to the picture, the scale of replacements could be much, much larger.”

Beyond the shocking nature of the finding itself is what it says about the integrity and credibility of IRENA, the International Renewable Energy Agency. It is an intergovernmental organization like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, funded by taxpayers from the developed nations of Europe, North America, and Asia, and expected to provide objective information. Instead, it employed unrealistic assumptions to produce results more supportive of solar panels.

IRENA acted like an industry association rather than as a public interest one. IRENA, noted the HBR reporters, “describes a billion-dollar opportunity for recapture of valuable materials rather than a dire threat.” IRENA almost certainly knew better. For decades, consumers in Germany, California, Japan and other major member nations of IRENA, have been replacing solar panels just 10 or 15 years old. But IRENA hadn’t even modeled solar panel replacements in those time frames. //

It’s now clear that China made solar appear cheap with coal, subsidies, and forced labor. And in the U.S., we pay one-quarter of solar’s costs through taxes and often much more in subsidies at the state and local level.

And none of this even addresses the biggest threat facing solar power today, which are revelations that perhaps both key raw materials and the panels themselves are being made by forced labor in Xinjiang province in China.

The subsidies that China gave solar panel makers had a purpose beyond bankrupting solar companies in the U.S. and Europe. The subsidies also enticed solar panel makers to participate in the repression of the Uyghur Muslim population, including using tactics that the US and German governments have called “genocide.”

The documents do show that Facebook is trying to do away with whitelisting. They indicated the company sought to eliminate complete immunity for “high severity” violations of its rules in the first half of 2021. However, it appears that by March, the company was experiencing challenges in that regard.

The documents also indicated that there are no plans to just treat high-profile users the same as the rest of the unwashed masses. One of the memos noted that the company does not “have systems built out to do that extra diligence for all integrity actions that can occur for a VIP.” Facebook seems to be trying not to take steps that could anger influential individuals using its platform. //

There are two motivators here: Politics and profit.

In general, Facebook tends to favor content created for a left-leaning audience. Its fact-checkers are decidedly partisan and tend to focus primarily on squashing right-leaning posts. It suspended Trump for two years under the guise of trying to eliminate incitements to violence. But the reality is that the company engages in this censorious activity because they have an agenda to serve.

Additionally, Facebook doesn’t want to risk angering the rich and famous individuals using its platform because they could decide to use a different social media company. They don’t want to lose those clicks and advertising dollars. In essence, this wouldn’t be as big an issue if they were honest about it. But, that’s not the world we live in now, is it?

POOR PEOPLE'S MOVEMENTS: WHY THEY SUCCEED, HOW THEY FAIL

Author: Frances Fox Piven | Richard Cloward