Posted on by

Andy Beshear will try to issue another odious mask mandate any day now

I told you so!

Governor Andy Beshear (D-KY) hasn’t tried to make masks mandatory again, but today’s “recommendations” certainly set the table for that.

The Governor’s new “recommendations” are:

  • All unvaccinated Kentuckians should wear masks indoors when not in their homes
  • Kentuckians at higher risk due to pre-existing conditions should wear masks indoors when not in their homes
  • Vaccinated Kentuckians in jobs with significant public exposure should consider wearing a mask at work
  • All unvaccinated Kentuckians, when eligible, should be vaccinated immediately

Mr Beshear is like any other American: under our First Amendment, he has the freedom of speech, and can recommend anything he wishes. But I do not trust him, nor do I trust the state Supreme Court and how they may rule on the Governor’s legal attempts to invalidate the restrictions on his emergency powers under KRS 39A passed by the General Assembly last February, and it’s all too easy to see Mr Beshear trying to turn his recommendations into orders.

Kentucky reporting new cases of COVID-19 at levels not seen since March

By Alex Acquisto | July 22, 2021 | 1:38 PM | Updated: 2:06 PM EDT

Kentucky is poised to report its fourth consecutive week of rising COVID-19 cases, the overwhelming majority of which are driven by unvaccinated people, Gov. Andy Beshear said Thursday.

“We believe that on Monday we are going to be in another week of increasing cases,” the governor said from the state Capitol. Cases began rising again in late June after two months of consecutive decline.

In Kentucky, where roughly half the state is at least partially vaccinated, over 95% of the more than 61,000 new coronavirus cases from March 1 to July 21 were among unvaccinated people, the governor announced. Likewise, 92% of the 3,100 coronavirus-related hospitalizations and 89% of the 447 people who died of coronavirus were either unvaccinated or only partially vaccinated.

OK, let’s stop right there. The vaccines didn’t even become available to people under 70 until the beginning of March, so when March and April are included, those numbers are wholly skewed. I’m in my upper sixties, and I was not able to get my first dose until April Fool’s Day, and my second until Cinco de Mayo. I would not have been considered “fully vaccinated” until 14 days after my second dose, which meant May 19th.

So, when the Governor tells us that “over 95% of the more than 61,000 new coronavirus cases from March 1 to July 21 were among unvaccinated people,” he is using a time frame in which most Kentuckians had the opportunity to be vaccinated. The percentage of the Commonwealth’s population which could have been vaccinated, especially “fully vaccinated,” during March and April was pretty small.

Note what the Herald-Leader had reported just two days earlier:

About one-fifth of the new COVID-19 cases in Lexington in July occurred in vaccinated people, according to new data from the Lexington-Fayette County Health Department.

Those so-called “breakthrough” cases had accounted for less than 1 percent of Lexington’s reported infections until the last few weeks. In May, less than 10 percent of the month’s cases were breakthrough infections. In June, that number increased to almost 15 percent.

This month, about 19.5 percent of all cases have been in people fully vaccinated against COVID-19, according to the health department.

Note, the report is that 19.5% were among people fully vaccinated. One wonders what the infection rate was for those who were only partially vaccinated.

The vaccines are supposed to help those who do contract the virus anyway by resulting in far less serious symptoms. If someone has been vaccinated, and he doesn’t feel sick, there’s really no reason for him to be tested, so, though we can’t prove a negative, it stands to reason that a smaller percentage of vaccinated than unvaccinated people get tested for COVID-19. It could well be that the percentage of vaccinated people who are infected with COVID anyway is significantly higher than anyone knows.

And why would a fully vaccinated person get tested unless it was absolutely necessary? From CNBC:

If a vaccinated person tests positive for Covid, through routine workplace testing, for example, “we don’t just let them go about their business and forget about the fact that they tested positive,” says Dr. Peter Katona, professor of medicine and public health at UCLA and chair of the Infection Control Working Group.

“With the understanding that you’re less of a problem than an unvaccinated [person], it doesn’t mean you let up on your protocol,” he says.

The most important thing to do after testing positive would be to isolate, meaning you stay away from people who are not sick, including others who are vaccinated, and monitor for Covid-related symptoms, Gonsenhauser says.

“You are going to have to isolate just as though you were not vaccinated for 10 days from the first symptoms that you recognize or from the time of your test…keeping yourself from being around other people until that period is up,” Gonsenhauser says.

You should avoid visiting any private or public areas or traveling during that 10-day period, according to the CDC.

In other words, if you are fully vaccinated and are not sick, getting tested can mean only one thing: more restrictions on your life!

And here comes what I said was coming:

The more contagious Delta variant is driving an increase in cases and the statewide positivity rate, which rose above 6% on Wednesday for the first time since late February. On Tuesday, the state reported 1,054 new cases of the virus — the highest single-day increase since March 11, Beshear said. On Wednesday, the state reported 963 new cases.

For the first time since he lifted the statewide mask mandate and repealed capacity restrictions in early June, Beshear said on Thursday that he will not shy away from reinstituting those rules if the spread of the virus continues to gain momentum.

“We’re not going to be afraid to make the tough decision if it’s merited,” he said, again noting that the solution to stemming spread is for more people to get vaccinated.

It is, I believe, the wiser choice for people to go ahead and get vaccinated; not only have I said that before, but my freely disclosed choice on the matter months ago ought to stand as testimony to that. And if someone believes that he ought to wear a face mask, I absolutely support his right to choose to do that.

But I am absolutely opposed to the government trying to mandate vaccination, or facemasks, or any of the restrictions on our individual rights that so many states imposed previously. COVID-19 may be deadly in a small percentage of cases, but it has already dealt a near-mortal blow to our rights as free people and as Americans.

Posted on by

Neoconservatives want to fight for American-style freedom and democracy everywhere, but don’t seem to want Americans to have individual rights

If someone was asked to put names to a list of neoconservatives in the United States, Irving Kristol, Nathan Glazer, and Norman Podhoretz might come to mind. Irving Kristol was an editor and publisher who served as the managing editor of Commentary magazine, founded the now-defunct magazine The Public Interest, and was described by Jonah Goldberg as the “godfather of neoconservatism.” His son, William Kristol, founded the magazine The Weekly Standard, which quickly took hold to challenge National Review for primacy among conservative opinion journals.

The Weekly Standard failed because, as a fervent #NeverTrumper, Mr Kristol guided the journal into being all-Never Trump, all the time, while National Review, with plenty of Never Trumpers in its fold, still tried to allow pro-Trump articles in its pages and on its website. Mr Kristol (probably) realized that yes, Donald Trump was a factor in Republican politics, and yes, some conservatives really did like his views and his style, but The Weekly Standard was never going to tolerate the views of the riff-raff to pollute its pages and website!

We have already noted how neo-conservative Max Boot of The Washington Post wants to make vaccinations against COVID-19 mandatory. The Post’s other neocon, Jennifer Rubin, while I have not seen anything from her yet urging making vaccination mandatory, certainly wants to do everything that can be done to stifle opposing views. The Post also supports “vaccine passports.”

Now comes the younger Mr Kristol, who, like so many others, wants to force you to be vaccinated. Not trusting Mr Kristol not to delete that tweet, this is a screenshot of it, but the hyperlink will take you to the original. If it’s difficult to see, you can click on it to enlarge it.

Mr Kristol and the neoconservatives, frequently fairly liberal when it comes to domestic and social issues, very much wanted to spread the ideas of American-style freedom and democracy around the world. But I have to ask: when so many of them are now opposed to individual liberty and individual rights, just what does their commitment to American-style freedom and democracy mean? One of the most basic freedoms of all, the right to decide what you will put into your own body, is a freedom they would deny people who have decided differently than they have.

Full disclosure: I have been vaccinated myself, a choice I made freely, and I believe that others should take the same decision I did. While no vaccine is 100% without risk, the benefits of being vaccinated outweigh the risks. But I respect the right, and yes, “right” is precisely the word I mean to use, of other people to choose whether or not to take the vaccine. That’s a right that the neoconservatives don’t seem to want you to have.
____________________________________
Related Article:

Posted on by

The Lexington Herald-Leader does not know how to win friends and influence people

In October of 1936, Dale Carnegie published the self-help book How to Win Friends and Influence People. In 2011, it was number 19 on Time Magazine’s list of the 100 most influential books. It is a book that Dr David Shafran has apparently not read.

    ‘Selfish or stupid.’ Rejecting COVID vaccine puts healthcare workers in real danger.

    By David Safran[1]At least as of 2:36 PM, the Herald-Leader spelled the author’s name ‘Safran’ at the beginning of the article, and ‘Shafran’ at the end. | July 21, 2021 | 10:42 AM | Updated: 11:04 AM EDT

    “If you can get the vaccine, and decide not to, then you’ve made your choice: Don’t ask for sympathy or money when you get sick”. Conservative columnist Bret Stephens offered that comment in the NY Times on July 19 as an alternative when referring to President Biden’s ill-received comment about people “killing America” by not getting the vaccine.

    Sounds great, and I agree to a point. But unfortunately, thanks to a federal regulation with the acronym EMTALA, which stands for Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, the comment, like our president’s, is empty. The law was passed in 1986 with overwhelming bipartisan support and signed into law by President Reagan. It basically states if the hospital receives payments from Medicare, a person had a right to be seen, or from the other point of view, a doctor is forced to see and take care of a patient, whether or not they could pay the bills. Physicians learned to call EMTALA the Anti-Patient Dumping Act, as they could no longer refuse to see uninsured patients, or more likely “dump them” on a bigger hospital. Private hospitals got around the law by closing their emergency rooms.

    Now, with the environment of healthcare completely different, I would like to rename EMTALA the People’s Inherent right to Selfishness and Stupidity Act. As we are seeing in this country, when it comes to Covid, unvaccinated Americans are either for the most part selfish or stupid.

There’s more at the original, and even more in the last paragraph, but I ended my copying at the most important point. Dr Shafran specifically, and the Lexington Herald-Leader editorially, and Governor Andy Beshear (D-KY) generally speaking, are all trying to persuade Kentuckians who have not yet chosen to be vaccinated to go ahead and take one of the freely available COVID-19 vaccines. But perhaps, just perhaps, calling the people they are (purportedly) trying to persuade “stupid or selfish” might not be a method of which Mr Carnegie would have approved.

Of course, while Dr Shafran was very explicit in expressing his beliefs, Herald-Leader columnist Linda Blackford couldn’t contain her snarkiness:

    The political divide is no help, of course. Tuesday morning, (Louisville Courier-Journal) reporter Olivia Kraus noted that House Education Chair Regina Huff had deleted a tweet in which she compared Dr. Anthony Fauci’s vaccine advocacy to the Jonestown massacre. We used to be a nation of science. Now (as the world burns down around us) we let conservative news shows convince us that the vaccine is depositing microchips into our arms so Google can figure out what you had for breakfast, as though it didn’t already know this from your phone. One in five Americans believe the microchips, according to a new poll by The Economist and YouGov.com.

Mr Carnegie could sell ice water to Eskimos; I have my doubts that Dr Shafran or Mrs Blackford could sell ice water in Hell.

If you want to influence people, to persuade people to your position, the first thing you need to do is not be an [insert slang term for the rectum here.] You don’t need to be Max Boot, saying that the President should order people to get vaccinated, and that those who refuse should be cut off from all social life. You don’t need to be Jen Psaki, saying that the Biden Administration is working with Facebook to censor “misinformation,” or that if you are banned from one social media site, you should be banned from all. The American people don’t take well to censorship.

What you need to do is identify with people, to show them your concern and your respect for their thoughts, feelings and beliefs. You need to demonstrate an attitude that they’ve won if they bought what you are selling, not that you’ve won if they do. And you must show that you respect their choices, and their right to take those choices, even if you disagree with their decisions.

References

References
↑1 At least as of 2:36 PM, the Herald-Leader spelled the author’s name ‘Safran’ at the beginning of the article, and ‘Shafran’ at the end.
Posted on by

Nothing is private anymore.

I will admit to some surprise that The Washington Post referred to homosexuals as “queer,” so much so that I made a screen capture of it before it got changed! You can click on the image to enlarge it.

The story is two-fold. It details how Monsignor Jeffrey Burrill resigned as General Secretary of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops “impending media reports alleging possible improper behavior.” But it also details how nothing remains private anymore.

    Top U.S. Catholic Church official resigns after cellphone data used to track him on Grindr and to gay bars

    By Michelle Boorstein, Marisa Iati and Annys Shin | July 20, 2021 | 5:11 PM EDT

    The top administrator of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops resigned after a Catholic media site told the conference it had access to cellphone data that appeared to show he was a regular user of Grindr, the queer dating app, and frequented gay bars.

    Some privacy experts said that they couldn’t recall other instances of phone data being de-anonymized and reported publicly, but that it’s not illegal and will likely happen more as people come to understand what data is available about others.

    Monsignor Jeffrey Burrill has since last fall been the general secretary of the USCCB, a position that coordinates all administrative work and planning for the conference, which is the country’s network for Catholic bishops. As a priest, he takes a vow of celibacy. Catholic teaching opposes sexual activity outside heterosexual marriage.

I am not in the least upset that an actively homosexual priest has lost his job. However, this story makes two very important points:

  1. What was done to ‘out’ Monsignor Burrill was not illegal; and
  2. If you are dumb enough to engage in activity you would not want revealed, don’t be stupid enough to use your Smart Phone to do it.

Duhhh!

    The National Catholic Reporter was the first to report Tuesday morning that Burrill had resigned, citing a memo from Archbishop José Gomez, the USCCB president, to other bishops. The Tuesday memo said it was “with sadness” that Gomez announced Burrill’s resignation, saying the day before, the USCCB staff learned of “impending media reports alleging possible improper behavior.”

    Burrill is a priest from the La Crosse, Wis., diocese and was a parish priest and a professor before joining the administrative staff of the USCCB in 2016. Some USCCB staff and former staff said they were reeling and shocked.

Reeling and shocked? Yeah, I’m guessing: not so much. We have previously noted that a whole lot of priests are homosexual:

    Of course, many factors influence a person’s decision to join the clergy; it’s not like sexuality alone determines vocations. But it’s dishonest to dismiss sexuality’s influence given that we know there is a disproportionate number of gay priests, despite the church’s hostility toward LGBTQ identity. As a gay priest told Frontline in a February 2014 episode, “I cannot understand this schizophrenic attitude of the hierarchy against gays when a lot of priests are gay.”

    So how many gay priests actually exist? While there’s a glut of homoerotic writings from priests going back to the Middle Ages, obtaining an accurate count is tough. But most surveys (which, due to the sensitivity of the subject, admittedly suffer from limited samples and other design issues) find between 15 percent and 50 percent of U.S. priests are gay, which is much greater than the 3.8 percent of people who identify as LGBTQ in the general population.[1]The Centers for Disease Control conducted the National Health Institute Survey in 2013, and found that only 1.6% of the population are homosexual, with another 0.7% bisexual, and another 1,1% … Continue reading

    In the last half century there’s also been an increased “gaying of the priesthood” in the West. Throughout the 1970s, several hundred men left the priesthood each year, many of them for marriage. As straight priests left the church for domestic bliss, the proportion of remaining priests who were gay grew. In a survey of several thousand priests in the U.S., the Los Angeles Times found that 28 percent of priests between the ages of 46 and 55 reported that they were gay. This statistic was higher than the percentages found in other age brackets and reflected the outflow of straight priests throughout the 1970s and ’80s.

    The high number of gay priests also became evident in the 1980s, when the priesthood was hit hard by the AIDS crisis that was afflicting the gay community. The Kansas City Star estimated that at least 300 U.S. priests suffered AIDS-related deaths between the mid-1980s and 1999. The Star concluded that priests were about twice as likely as other adult men to die from AIDS.

So, no, when I am told that the Catholic bishops and their staff are “reeling and shocked” that one of their own is homosexual, and actively seeking sex, I look at that statement with a jaundiced eye.

Father Burrill was a Monsignor, a now honorary title granted by the Pope to a diocesan priest, normally upon the recommendation of his local bishop. Pope Francis suspended the practice of granting the title, except to members of the Vatican’s diplomatic corps, because he thought it led to clerical careerism. Father Burrill would have to have been a well-known priest of some standing for his local ordinary to submit his name to Rome for the honorific. But a priest frequenting homosexual bars would be found out.

    It wasn’t clear who had collected the information about Burrill. USCCB spokespeople declined to answer questions Tuesday about what it knew about the information-gathering and what its leadership feels about it, except to say the USCCB wasn’t involved. They also declined to comment on whether they knew if Burrill’s alleged actions were tracked on a private or church-owned phone.

No, the last thing the bishops want is someone looking into the sexual activity of a purportedly celibate priesthood!

    The resignation stemmed from reporting in the Pillar, an online newsletter that reports on the Catholic Church. Tuesday afternoon, after Burrill’s resignation became public, the Pillar reported that it had obtained information based on the data Grindr collects from its users, and hired an independent firm to authenticate it.

    “A mobile device correlated to Burrill emitted app data signals from the location-based hookup app Grindr on a near-daily basis during parts of 2018, 2019, and 2020 — at both his USCCB office and his USCCB-owned residence, as well as during USCCB meetings and events in other cities,” the Pillar reported.

There’s a lot more at the original, primarily concerning how Msgr Burrill’s activities were discovered and documented. One thing is obvious: someone was targeting the USCCB, at least in general, if not Msgr Burrill specifically.

The Post concluded:

    The report comes the same week as The Post and other organizations reported that military-grade spyware normally leased to governments for tracking terrorists and criminals was used in attempted and successful hacks of 37 smartphones belonging to journalists, human rights activists, business executives and others, revealing new concerns and issues around technology and privacy and democracy.

This time, the data mining caught a misbehaving Catholic priest, but it’s as obvious as can be: if you are using technology to do something you shouldn’t be doing, you are vulnerable to getting caught; all that it takes is for someone who knows what he’s doing to look.

References

References
↑1 The Centers for Disease Control conducted the National Health Institute Survey in 2013, and found that only 1.6% of the population are homosexual, with another 0.7% bisexual, and another 1,1% either stating that they were ‘something else’ or declining to respond. This does not support the article’s contention that 3.8% of the population are homosexual.
Posted on by

Murder in the Gateway City

A commenter on The Other McCain asked me about the homicide rate in St Louis; we had been discussing the homicides in Philadelphia and Chicago. Why, I’m glad he asked! The Gateway City has had 103 murders so far in 2021, and, unlike other cities, the SLPD divides them up by race. Five whites, two Hispanics, and one Asian have been victims, while 95 blacks — 77 males and 18 females — have been murdered there. With a population of 294,890, and a projected 189 murders, this would give the city a homicide rate of 64.07 per 100,000.

But, as I like to do the math — and we all know that math is raaaaacist, so I must denounce myself in advance — 77 homicides of black males in 199 days works out to an estimated 141 homicides for the entire year. With an, again, guesstimated, black male population of 67,060, that works out to a black male homicide rate of 210.26 per 100,000 population.

Now, if you are a white male, estimated population 67,234, there will be 5.5 murder victims this year; I’ll round up to 6. They are facing a murder rate of 8.92 per 100,000 population.

Now, if the problem is just the availability of guns, and the white-to-black population ration in St Louis is very close, 46.53% to 46.41%, why would black males be 23.57 times more likely to be murdered there?

Posted on by

It’s being set up again!

As we have previously noted, the nation is being set up, through the spreading of fear, for another imposition of the illegal and unconstitutional COVID-19 restrictions.

And now comes Governor Andy Beshear (D-KY), one of the worst of the COVID tyrants:

    As Delta variant spreads, Beshear recommends return to indoor masking for some

    By Alex Acquisto | July 19, 2021 | 5:07 PM | Updated: July 19, 2021 | 6:01 PM EDT

    Fully-vaccinated Kentuckians who work in jobs with “significant public exposure” should consider wearing a mask again in indoor public spaces, Gov. Andy Beshear recommended on Monday, citing rising case numbers and escalating spread of the Delta variant of COVID-19.

    The governor is also recommending a return to masking in indoor public settings for fully-vaccinated Kentuckians at high-risk of severe coronavirus infection because of pre-existing health conditions. High-exposure jobs include retail and hospitality businesses, as well as any job that requires contact with many different people.

    “The more people you come in contact with, the more exposure you are likely to have, so we believe at this point it is a smart idea,” Beshear said.

    The new recommendations, which apply to both vaccinated and unvaccinated people, are necessary because “we are seeing more cases among vaccinated Kentuckians because of the Delta variant,” Beshear said.

There’s more at the original, but the most important word in that article is “necessary.” The Governor argued, after his attorney’s presentation to the state Supreme Court:

    After the court hearing, Beshear told reporters that a governor’s emergency powers certainly “have to be large enough with a one-in-every-hundred year pandemic that creates the deadliest year in our history, it has to be significant and strong enough to do what’s necessary there.”

    “You look back at different things that this legislature has tried to do in the midst of this pandemic and they would have not had the courage to step up and mandate masks, which we know from the experts is absolutely necessary,” he said. “We would have looked like the Dakotas and not what we looked like here in Kentucky.”

Mr Beshear believes that he just has to have these powers, because they are necessary, regardless of the General Assembly putting restrictions on them.

Oral arguments were made to the Court on June 10th, which was 5½ weeks ago, and the Court has not yet issued its ruling. The last time this issue came before the state Supreme Court, prior to the last legislative session, which changed the laws, the Court took from September 17th until November 12th, to issue its decision, 56 days, an even 8 weeks, so, if the Court uses the same timetable, it wouldn’t issue its decision until Thursday, August 5th.

Of course, the Governor has only issued recommendations, and not tried to impose another executive order. I would like to think that this is because he has already been notified by the justices that they aren’t going to come down on his side, and he knows that the General Assembly would never approve an extension of a mask order, but the state Supreme Court has a decidedly liberal leaning:

    The last three years in Kentucky should provide an equal awakening concerning the Kentucky Supreme Court. Over and over in the past three years, the state’s highest court has upended legislation after legislation passed by the General Assembly, often appearing to seek legal justification after it had decided what it wanted to do.

    To name a handful, regardless of the policy merits of the 2018 pension reform bill, the Court invalidated the law based on a procedure that has been used by the General Assembly for decades. The Court threw out Medical Review Panels, blocked Marsy’s Law[1]Hyperlink added by editor; not included in cited article., and perhaps the most head-scratching of all, had three justices dissent in the case that ultimately upheld Kentucky’s right-to-work law.

    Brian T. Fitzpatrick, a professor at Vanderbilt Law School who studies methods of selecting judges, looked at the ideological makeup of state Supreme Courts compared to the electorate they serve in a 2017 study. Kentucky, he found, is entirely out of whack. The commonwealth had the eighth highest liberal skew in the country, versus the federal electorate in the state, during his studied period.

Well, the Kentucky Supreme Court was certainly out of tune with the electorate in Kentucky. On November 3, 2020, the voters in the Commonwealth rewarded Republican state legislative candidates, who had campaigned against the Governor’s restrictions, with 14 additional seats in the state House of Representatives, giving the GOP a 75-25 seat advantage,[2]Don’t scream, “Gerrymandering!” because when the House districts were redistricted following the 2010 census, Democrats controlled the state House. and 2 additional seats, out of 17 up for election, in the state Senate, for a 38-10 GOP margin.

The state Supreme Court has long been a friend of Mr Beshear’s, particularly when it came to the then-Attorney General filing lawsuit after lawsuit to frustrate Governor Matt Bevin (R-KY). And while I would like to think that the Governor has already been clued in to his legal position failing, it’s just as possible — and perhaps even more possible — that the state Supremes have come down in his favor, and he’s just setting the table to change recommendations into requirements.

References

References
↑1 Hyperlink added by editor; not included in cited article.
↑2 Don’t scream, “Gerrymandering!” because when the House districts were redistricted following the 2010 census, Democrats controlled the state House.
Posted on by

How is this justice? How is this right? A crime victim faces a more serious penalty than the criminal

My good friend — OK, OK, I’ve never actually met him, but still — Robert Stacy McCain noted my “Hold my beer” remark concerning Philadelphia’s higher murder rate than Chicago’s. One of Mr McCain’s internal links was to a Fox News story, Philadelphia police keep getting shot at while responding to shootings.

    Philadelphia police are facing difficulties — from uncooperative victims to suspects shooting at officers — as the city deals with another weekend of violence.

    Officers have found it difficult to provide assistance in recent weeks when responding to incidents across the city. The city surpassed 300 homicides for the year as of Friday, highlighting the strain the Philadelphia Police Department under to handle the high level of crime in its city.

    An unknown suspect started shooting in the direction of police as officers loaded a 19-year-old with a gunshot wound in his chest into a police car a few weeks ago, setting off a difficult July.

    Three teens shot at officers responding to reports of a shooting Sunday night. The officers did not return fire, but the teens were injured: An 18-year-old was shot once in the leg, a 17-year-old was shot once in the wrist and a 16-year-old was shot in the buttocks, FOX 29 reported.

    All three victims were taken to a nearby hospital for treatment.

One would think that perps shooting at Philadelphia Police officers would be a big story, right? It is, I suppose, always possible that The Philadelphia Inquirer, to which I subscribe and whose website I check every day, did report that story, a story of criminal suspects shooting at the Philadelphia Police, but if the newspaper did, I missed it. Site searches for “shooting at police“, “shot at police” and “fired at responding officers” did not return any stories. Since this occurred last night, I suppose that it’s possible that the Inquirer will have something on it later today.

But it was an internal link to the Fox News story that really caught my attemtion:

    Carjacking victim in Wisconsin who shot suspect, 13, charged with recklessly endangering safety

    Kenosha police say a 13-year-old attempted to carjack a vehicle but the owner opened fire

    by Danielle Wallace | July 19, 2021

    Wisconsin authorities said Sunday that a 13-year-old female carjacking suspect, as well as a driver who shot at the girl attempting to make a getaway, will both face criminal charges.

    The shooting happened around 5:30 p.m. Friday, after Kenosha Police say a person left a vehicle running and unattended at a gas station at 50th Street and Sheridan Road. A female juvenile allegedly stole the car and was driving away when the owner fired shots at the car, striking the girl, police said.

    The girl, who has not been named by authorities, was transported to Children’s Hospital. She remained hospitalized as of Sunday, the Kenosha Police Department said in an update shared on Twitter, also announcing the 13-year-old will have charges referred to juvenile court.

    The adult who shot her remained in custody as of Sunday on a single charge of first degree recklessly endangering safety. Police did not disclose whether that individual was male or female.[1]As noted in our Stylebook, The First Street Journal does not use the silly formulation “he or she.” In English, properly understood, the masculine subsumes the feminine. This means that, in cases … Continue reading

Given that he was not charged with illegal possession of a firearm, a crime the police just love to levy, I assume here that he had his weapon legally.

So, a 13-year-old juvenile delinquent committed a crime, and will be put into the juvenile justice system, where I’m pretty sure that her wrist will hurt from a very severe slap! At 13, she is too young, under state law, to be tried as an adult. Regardless of how severe that wrist slap is, as a juvenile her record will be sealed, and she’ll have no criminal record following her as an adult.

Meanwhile, the victim of her crime is being charged under §941.30(1), “First-degree recklessly endangering safety. Whoever recklessly endangers another’s safety under circumstances which show utter disregard for human life is guilty of a Class F felony.” A Class F felony in Wisconsin is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000, a state prison sentence of up to 12 years, or both.

In other words, the crime victim faces a far more serious punishment than the criminal!

The Kenosha Police referring the charge does not mean that the prosecutor will not drop the charges, but he’s already spent at least two days locked up; he is already being punished for being a crime victim. Unless the prosecution drops the charges immediately, he’ll wind up having to pay an attorney.

How is this justice? How is this right? This victim was defending his property and himself, yet he’s the one facing the more serious penalty! He could wind up with a felony record, something which would follow him for the rest of his life, a possibly impoverishing fine — the story does not tell us the economic status of the victim — and up to a dozen years in the state penitentiary, when he ought to get a medal for taking a criminal off the streets, albeit temporarily.

References

References
↑1 As noted in our Stylebook, The First Street Journal does not use the silly formulation “he or she.” In English, properly understood, the masculine subsumes the feminine. This means that, in cases in which the sex of the person to whom a pronoun refers is unknown, the masculine is properly used, and does not indicate that that person is male, nor is it biased in favor of such an assumption. The feminine pronouns, on the other hand, do specify that the person to whom they refer is female, and not male. The victim is referred to, properly, by the masculine pronouns in this article, and this does not imply that the victim is male.
Posted on by

Wir müssen Ihre Dokumente sehen! Max Boot wants to see your papers!

What is fascism? The term is bandied about so much, but it does actually mean something. From the Encyclopedia Britannica:

Fascism

Robert Soucy
Professor Emeritus of History, Oberlin College. American historian specializing in French fascist movements (1924-39), European fascism, and 20th-century European intellectual history; French fascist intellectuals…

Fascism, political ideology and mass movement that dominated many parts of central, southern, and eastern Europe between 1919 and 1945 and that also had adherents in western Europe, the United States, South Africa, Japan, Latin America, and the Middle East. Europe’s first fascist leader, Benito Mussolini, took the name of his party from the Latin word fasces, which referred to a bundle of elm or birch rods (usually containing an ax) used as a symbol of penal authority in ancient Rome. Although fascist parties and movements differed significantly from one another, they had many characteristics in common, including extreme militaristic nationalism, contempt for electoral democracy and political and cultural liberalism, a belief in natural social hierarchy and the rule of elites, and the desire to create a Volksgemeinschaft (German: “people’s community”), in which individual interests would be subordinated to the good of the nation.

Max Boot, the Washington Post columnist and well-known neo-conservative, has stated, explicitly, that he believed Donald Trump was a fascist, and Mr Boot is educated enough to know just what fascist means:

Might we then conclude that the distinguished Mr Boot believes that individual interests should not be subordinated to the good of the nation? Well, if we did conclude that, we would be wrong.

Stop pleading with anti-vaxxers and start mandating vaccinations

by Max Boot | July 19, 2021 | 2:53 PM EDT

It’s time to get serious about coronavirus vaccinations. Stop pleading and start mandating.

For the past six months, President Biden, joined by every public health authority in the land, has been begging Americans to get vaccinated. The “pretty, please” approach isn’t working. According to The Post’s covid-19 tracker, in the past week, daily reported covid-19 cases rose 66 percent, covid-related hospitalizations rose 28 percent, and daily reported covid-19 deaths rose 20 percent. With the delta variant spreading across the country, every single state has seen an increase in cases over the past seven days.

This is a preventable tragedy. Over 99 percent of covid-19 deaths in June were among the unvaccinated. Yet even as evidence grows that vaccines are safe and effective, resistance to them is also growing. A recent Post-ABC News poll found that 29 percent of Americans said they were unlikely to get vaccinated — up from 24 percent three months earlier. Only 59 percent of adults are fully vaccinated.

Translation: “individual interests would be subordinated to the good of the nation.”

Persuasion, something one would think an OpEd columnist would favor, does not seem to be something Mr Boot accepts, at least not if some people don’t agree with him:

This is madness. Stop making reasonable appeals to those who will not listen to reason. (According to an Economist/YouGov poll, a majority of those who refuse to get vaccinated say vaccines are being used by the government to implant microchips.) It’s a waste of time. Start mandating that anyone who wants to travel on an airplane, train or bus, attend a concert or movie, eat at a restaurant, shop at a store, work in an office or visit any other indoor space show proof of vaccination or a negative coronavirus test.

We must show proof of vaccination or a negative test? Wir müssen Ihre Dokumente sehen!

Boy, it sure is a good thing Mr Boot does not use the term “fascist” loosely or often!

One would think that the son of Russian Jews, who fled oppression in the Soviet Union in 1976, when the iron-fisted Leonid Ilyich Brezhnev ruled, would understand the need for individual liberty. but, again, if one thought that, he would be wrong.

For months, Republicans have been caterwauling about vaccine passports, even obscenely comparing them to the Holocaust. All this sturm und drang obscures the fact there has been far too little use made of vaccine passports. I downloaded a New York state app on my iPhone months ago to verify that I’m vaccinated, but I’ve never once had to show it. Instead, many stores have signs saying that vaccinated people don’t need to wear masks — but they don’t verify vaccination. That provides no incentive to get your shots. Los Angeles County is also treating vaccinated and unvaccinated alike by again requiring masks for everyone. Why not just mandate proof of vaccination or a negative test

If New York state provides an app to certify that someone has had the vaccines, and Mr Boot has voluntarily chosen to use that, hey, that’s great, and an exercise of his individual liberty.

Sturm und drang, huh? The expression refers to an artistic movement in the late 18th century, characterized by the expression of emotional unrest and a rejection of neoclassical literary norms. To use this expression, the esteemed Mr Boot is telling us just what he thinks of individual thought.

Or at least it would if the distinguished columnist for The Washington Post actually understood the meaning of the term he used, a fact not in evidence.

In the United States, the authority of state governments to mandate vaccinations is clear — it goes all the way back to a 1905 Supreme Court case that upheld a Massachusetts law requiring vaccinations for smallpox. More recently, governors have used their public health powers to mandate mask-wearing and social distancing to fight covid-19. They ought to now take the logical next step and mandate vaccinations for the use of indoor spaces outside the home.

Except, of course, the public have rebelled. In the Bluegrass State, Governor Andy Beshear’s (D-KY) mask mandate was so hated that when Republican candidates ran on the platform of ending his dictatorial powers in November of 2020, the voters rewarded GOP candidates with 14 additional seats, increasing the Republicans’ state House majority to 75-25.[1]The state House districts were set, following the 2010 census, by a House which was then controlled by Democrats. Mr Boot has been all about democracy, in his condemnation of President Trump and his vociferous insistence on supporting Joe Biden, but it seems that when the will of the people isn’t what he thinks it should be, democracy isn’t that great a thing anymore.

The distinguished Mr Boot suggested that President Biden should mandate vaccinations (not just negative COVID-19 tests) for:

  • Airline travel;
  • Amtrak travel;
  • All federal employees;
  • Everyone who enters a federal building (which would include a post office)[2]We have a post office box because the United States Postal Service will not deliver to our house. I have no idea how many people living out in the sticks as we do have the same problem, but Mr Boot … Continue reading; and
  • Order all military personnel to be vaccinated.

Mr Boot wants President Biden to use his authority to order people to get vaccinated, but he said that it was President Trump who was the fascist! And remember: it isn’t a term he uses loosely, or often!

Granted, there are limits to the United States’ ability to mandate vaccines because many red-state governors are unlikely to go along. But even Republicans want to fly on airplanes and visit blue states such as California, Hawaii, Nevada and New York. Vaccine mandates will prove controversial, to put it mildly, but, like seat belt laws, drunken driving laws and motorcycle helmet laws, they will save lives. We should not grant an unreasonable minority the power to endanger public health.

Good heavens! You know, people can get to California, Nevada and New York without flying. It’s not that long a drive for me to get to New York or New Jersey or Virginia. Perhaps Mr Boot thinks that the state police in those blue states should stop all travelers at the border, and demand to see their papers. Sound far fetched? In March of 2020, then Governor Gina Raimondo (D-CN) ordered the Rhode Island State Police to pull over drivers with New York plates so that National Guard officials can collect contact information and inform them of a mandatory, 14-day quarantine. She also ordered the state’s National Guard to go door-to-door in coastal communities to find out whether any of the home’s residents have recently arrived from New York and inform them of the quarantine order.

Ve need to see your papers!

For a man who does not use the term “fascist” loosely, or often, the esteemed Mr Boot sure seems unable to recognize just how much he wants to subject the rights of the individual to the police power of the state. Or, perhaps he actually does recognize it, but just doesn’t care, not as long as that police power is being used for something he thinks good.

References

References
↑1 The state House districts were set, following the 2010 census, by a House which was then controlled by Democrats.
↑2 We have a post office box because the United States Postal Service will not deliver to our house. I have no idea how many people living out in the sticks as we do have the same problem, but Mr Boot would require us to be vaccinated just to receive our mail.
Posted on by

Will other bishops and priests have this kind of courage?

Among all of the talk about denying the Eucharist to (purportedly) Catholic politicians who support abortion, I have very, very rarely heard of it actually being done. From the Catholic News Agency:

    Diocese responds after state senator says he was denied Communion

    By Kate Scanlon | July 19, 2021 | 2:30 PM EDT

    Washington, DC: After a New Mexico state senator said he was denied Communion this weekend because of a political matter, his diocese responded that it had privately warned him he should not approach for Communion, due to his obstinate support for a pro-abortion bill.

    In a tweet on Saturday, July 17, New Mexico state Sen. Joe Cervantes (D) wrote he “was denied communion last night by the Catholic bishop here in Las Cruces and based on my political office.”

    “My new parish priest has indicated he will do the same after the last was run off,” Cervantes added. “Please pray for church authorities as Catholicism transitions under Pope Francis.” The senator represents New Mexico’s 31st district, around Las Cruces.

    In response, Christopher Velasquez, director of communications for the Diocese of Las Cruces, told CNA on Monday that it is “unfortunate that a pastoral issue with a member of the local church be publicized.”

Mr Velasquez stated that Senator Cervantes was notified, several times, by both the Most Reverend Peter Baldacchino, Bishop of Las Cruces, and his local diocesan pastor, that if he voted for Senate Bill 10, which Mr Cervantes cosponsored, repealed a 1969 state law criminalizing abortions, he should not present himself to receive the ERucharist. That law has not been enforced since the odious Roe v Wade decision, but if the Supreme Court ever overruled Roe v Wade, the New Mexico law could come back into effect. The Bishop, Mr Valasquez said, had not received any reply from Senator Cervantes. The article did not specify whether Mr Cervantes had responded to his diocesan pastor.

It’s good to see a Bishop with the courage of his convictions and his faith. If only more bishops and priests would show the same mettle.