RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-covid-commission-americans-can-trust-11624823367?mod=opinion_lead_pos6

Mr. Kulldorff, a biostatistician and epidemiologist, is a professor at Harvard Medical School. Dr. Bhattacharya, a physician and economist, is a professor at Stanford Medical School.

The pandemic is on its way out, but how many Americans think the U.S. approach succeeded? More than 600,000 Americans died from Covid, and lockdowns have left extensive collateral damage. Trust in science has eroded, and the damage won’t be limited to epidemiology, virology and public health. Scientists in other fields will unfortunately also have to deal with the fallout, including oncologists, physicists, computer scientists, environmental engineers and even economists.

The first step to restoring the public’s trust in scientific experts is an honest and comprehensive evaluation of the nation’s pandemic response. Sens. Bob Menendez (D., N.J.) and Susan Collins (R., Maine) have introduced a bill that would establish a Covid commission to examine the origins of the virus, the early response to the epidemic, and equity issues in the disease’s impact. Private foundations are also in the process of planning such a commission.

For a commission to be credible, it needs to be broad in both scope and membership. Members can’t have conflicts of interest. If the public perceives the commission is a whitewash, distrust in the scientific community will erode further. A commission must consider four major areas of the U.S. pandemic strategy:

• Public-health measures, including the closing of schools, businesses, sports, religious services and cultural events; other forms of physical distancing; protection of nursing homes; masks; testing; contact tracing; case counts; cause-of-death audits; decreased medical care; Cares Act payments to hospitals, and much more.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/battle-over-critical-race-theory-11624810791?mod=opinion_lead_pos5

Critical race theory is the latest battleground in the culture war. Since the murder of George Floyd last year, critical race theory’s key concepts, including “systemic racism,” “white privilege,” and “white fragility,” have become ubiquitous in America’s elite institutions. Progressive politicians have sought to implement “antiracist” policies to reduce racial disparities, such as minorities-only income programs and racially segregated vaccine distribution.

The ideology has sparked an immense backlash. As Americans have sought to understand critical race theory, they have discovered that it has divided Americans into racial categories of “oppressor” and “oppressed” and promotes radical concepts such as “spirit murder” (what public schools supposedly do to black children) and “abolishing whiteness” (a purported precondition for social justice). In the classroom, critical race theory-inspired lessons have often devolved into race-based struggle sessions, with public schools forcing children to rank themselves according to a racial hierarchy, subjecting white teachers to “antiracist therapy,” and encouraging parents to become “white traitors.”

Alarmed state legislators have pushed back. In recent months, lawmakers in 24 states have introduced, and six have enacted, legislation banning public schools from promoting critical race theory’s core concepts, including race essentialism, collective guilt and racial superiority. Parent groups around the country have mobilized to oppose critical race theory in the classroom, arguing that it cultivates shame in white students and fatalism in minority students. According to a recent YouGov survey, of the 64% of Americans who have heard about critical race theory, 58% view it unfavorably, including 72% of political independents.

That’s a major liability for the political left. Sensing that they are losing control of the narrative on race, left-leaning media outlets have launched a furious counterattack. Liberal pundits at the New York Times, Washington Post, MSNBC and elsewhere have begun spinning a new mythology that presents critical race theory as a benign academic concept, casts its detractors as right-wing extremists driven by racial resentment, and portrays legislation against critical race theory as an attempt to ban teaching about the history of slavery and racism. All three charges are false.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/robert-spencer/2021/06/27/boston-pro-palestinian-thugs-spit-at-and-curse-pro-israel-activist-n1457621

On Thursday, a group of pro-Palestinian activists surrounded Dexter Van Zile of the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis (CAMERA) at a Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) rally at the University of Massachusetts in Boston. The pro-jihad protesters tried to intimidate Van Zile physically, poking their fingers in his face, shouting at him, shoving him, spitting at him, and calling him a “bitch,” “Nazi,” and “f**king pig.” Then they no doubt went away believing themselves to be on the side of righteousness. It was a small incident that reveals many of the big problems facing America today, thanks to the American Left.

Just before Van Zile was surrounded and menaced, a speaker at the pro-Palestinian rally told the crowd: “Uh, Dexter Van Zile over here is in the crowd, he’s a rabid Zionist with this group called CAMERA.” After the crowd booed and hooted, the speaker went on to explain how “Zionist racist fascists… under the guise of journalism, write only to smear and muckrake on our righteous movement.” He called upon the crowd to start chanting “Zionists, go home,” which they dutifully did, turning toward Van Zile to do so. Van Zile was surrounded, abused, and reviled shortly thereafter, even as one of the pro-jihad activists repeatedly tried to convince his companions not to do so, saying over and over again: “They will use this against us. They will use this against us. They will use this against us.”

Well, yes. And here we are. Because in the first place, no one in the crowd was saying that Van Zile should be left alone for any reason other than that surrounding him, yelling at him, and spitting on him would make the demonstrators look bad. No one reminded them of the American tradition of free discourse and Voltaire’s old adage, now completely forgotten, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” The American Left has now replaced that idea, which is at the foundation of any free society, with “If I disapprove of what you say, I will revile you, slander you, and physically menace until you are too afraid to stand up against me.”

https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2021/06/from-plato-to-black-lives-matter-rafe-champion/

I see now more clearly than ever before that even our greatest troubles spring from something that is as admirable and sound as it is dangerous—from our impatience to better the lot of our fellows.    —Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies

The equal opportunity movement of modern times is valuable, but the shift from equal opportunity to affirmative action is practically irresistible for people who are impatient to better the lot of their fellows. The shift may appear to be modest, but it has converted the equal opportunity and anti-racist movement into a vehicle of racism, intolerance, division and destruction.

I suggest that some aspects of Plato’s thought have poisoned the well of Western thought, and the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement can be seen as one of the consequences. How do we get from the works of the greatest philosopher of all time, the Divine Philosopher, to a movement that has triggered a deadly rampage of looting and arson with almost overwhelming approval among progressive left-wing people around the world?

This essay appears in June’s Quadrant.
Subscribers read it weeks ago

Western philosophy has been described as footnotes to Plato, and among the footnotes is The Open Society and Its Enemies, with Karl Popper’s critique of Plato’s later works, especially Republic and Laws. Popper found at last four elements of totalitarian thought in Plato. First is “racialism”, or “race thinking” as Jacques Barzun called it. Second is the concept of collective justice that Plato proposed to replace individual justice. Third is revolutionary canvas-cleaning to sweep away everything old and start again. Fourth is fake news, which Plato dignified with the title of noble lies.

Noble lies

Starting with the last of the four, a noble lie can be defined as a myth or untruth knowingly propagated by an elite to maintain social harmony or to advance an agenda. 

What is the empirical basis for BLM, the evidence that the deaths of blacks at the hands of the police are symptoms of racism?

https://amgreatness.com/2021/06/25/rep-marjorie-taylor-greene-calls-for-release-of-january-6-surveillance-footage/

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) sent a letter to top government officials seeking answers about the January 6 investigation and conditions in a D.C. jail specifically used to house Capitol defendants. Greene requests the release of at least 14,000 hours of surveillance footage captured by USCP security system on January 6 as well as the identity of the officer who shot and killed Ashli Babbitt, an unarmed female veteran Trump supporter. “It is abundantly clear that there is a two-track justice system in the United States,” Greene wrote. Her letter can be found below:  

https://amgreatness.com/2021/06/26/derek-chauvin-scapegoat/

EXCERPT

Back in March, I wrote wondering whether Chauvin could get a fair trial in Hennepin County. I didn’t think so and laid out the reasons. Chauvin’s conviction a month later on all charges—unintentional second-degree murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter—strengthened my skepticism. Chauvin, a nearly 20-year police veteran who was cited for bravery multiple times (he also racked up at least 17 civilian complaints), may have used excessive force trying to subdue Floyd, who had serious cardiac problems, was high on fentanyl and other substances, and was probably in a state of excited delirium while he was resisting arrest. But was Chauvin guilty of second- or third-degree murder? 

As I said at the time, it didn’t matter. George Floyd’s death was the catalyst that lit a holocaust. All across America, cities were burning. Derek Chauvin was the victim offered up to the gods in expiation. The ritual he was subjected to was less a legal trial than a sort of pagan sacrifice. 

The expected penalty for the charges Chauvin was convicted of is 11-12 years. Peter Cahill, the judge in the case, said that “prosecutors had proven there were aggravating factors in the case that called for a tougher sentence.” What were those “aggravating factors”? You or I might think the explosive situation in Minneapolis and other “progressive” redoubts was part of the story. Judge Cahill cited Chauvin’s callousness and disregard for Floyd. Similarly, after sentencing Chauvin, Judge Cahill insisted that his harsh sentence was “not based on public opinion. I am not basing it on any attempt to send any messages. The job of a trial judge is to apply the law to specific facts.” Indeed it is. How did Judge Cahill do? 

One friend, a lawyer who is knowledgeable about the case, told me that while he thought the prosecution mounted a strong case, it was also a battle between David and Goliath and David lost. Chauvin and his one attorney were totally outgunned by the prosecution. The verdict was a foregone conclusion. 

Another friend touched on what seems to me to be an essential point. Yes, the sentence was grotesquely disproportionate, he said, but remember: Chauvin, although charged only in the Floyd death, is also being sentenced “for all the ones who got away”: Darren Wilson in the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, the police officers involved in the arrest and death of Freddie Gray in Baltimore, Officer Daniel Pantaleo who was implicated in the death of Eric Garner in New York, etc. In every case, the media attack on the police was ferocious. But also in every case juries or other authorities found that the deaths were justifiable homicides.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/06/time_to_finally_have_that_national_conversation_on_race.html

Not all that long ago, then–attorney general Eric Holder said white people were too cowardly to have a national discussion about race.  Many white dudes spoke up to indicate our willingness to participate in such a discussion, but Eric must have been joking, because he never made any serious effort to get it going.

Since then, we’ve seen any number of indications that black people want such a discussion.  The thing is that we know in advance how it will go: they will say we’re white racist moh-fohs, that it’s hopeless because white racism is stitched into the very fabric of space-time, no justice no peace, white priv, etc.

Now black basketball sports talker Jalen Rose says roundballer Kevin Love is a token white selection to the Olympic squad.  Nobody’s going to disagree with Jalen out loud for fear of being called racist (even if he’s right, which he is), but what about when a less qualified black person gets a job ahead of a better qualified white person, or when better qualified Asians are turned away from Harvard/Stanford/Yale in favor of unqualified or less qualified blacks?

It’s called affirmative action, and if it’s wrong applied to basketball, then it’s wrong everywhere else.  Can we now start talking about token blacks?

Perhaps something useful could come of this.  We could use this topic to start that long overdue national discussion about race.  But a few stipulations would have to apply: no epithets, no invented facts, no riots, no attempts to shame whites, no stomping out with hurt feelings.  We can revile the abomination of Jim Crow so long as we also revile his relative, the abominable Jon Crow, AKA political correctness.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/06/new_york_democrats_realize_their_politics_dont_appeal_to_minorities.html

New York Democrats trying to figure out why minorities are rejecting all those marvelous progressive policies that White leftists are imposing upon them. Shocked by Eric Adams’s successful race to be the Republican candidate for mayor, the New York Times’s Lisa Lerer examined the fact that progressives – that is, the hard leftists among the Democrats – aren’t winning over minorities.

Lerer’s analysis begins with Adams explicitly denouncing the policies that leftists from DeBlasio to AOC are promoting:

In a contest that centered on crime and public safety, Eric Adams, who emerged as the leading Democrat, focused much of his message on denouncing progressive slogans and policies that he said threatened the lives of “Black and brown babies” and were being pushed by “a lot of young, white, affluent people.” A retired police captain and Brooklyn’s borough president, he rejected calls to defund the Police Department and pledged to expand its reach in the city.

Black and brown voters in Brooklyn and the Bronx flocked to his candidacy, awarding Mr. Adams with sizable leading margins in neighborhoods from Eastchester to East New York. 

Adams’s success is not anomalous, writes Lerer. Instead, it points to

a disconnect between progressive activists and the rank-and-file Black and Latino voters who they [i.e., progressive activists] say have the most to gain from their agenda. As liberal activists orient their policies to combat white supremacy and call for racial justice, progressives are finding that many voters of color seem to think about the issues quite a bit differently.

https://www.newsmax.com/sallypipes/american-progressivism-united-kingdom/2021/06/23/id/1026186/

Fresh off their successful defense of Obamacare before the U.S. Supreme Court, Democrats are looking to expand government control over the country’s healthcare system.

Lawmakers in the House and Senate have requested information on how to create a new public health insurance option. Senate Democrats led by Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., want to lower the Medicare eligibility age to 60 as part of a $6 trillion budget reconciliation package. And Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., is looking to levy price controls on prescription drugs.

They’d be wise to take stock of the latest data chronicling the performance of the government-dominated healthcare systems in the United Kingdom and Canada. For years, Britons and Canadians have struggled to gain timely access to high-quality care. In the wake of the pandemic, things have only gotten worse.

More than 5.1 million English patients were waiting for hospital care in April of this year, according to the National Health Service. That’s nearly one in every ten residents of England. And it’s the highest total since the NHS began keeping track in August 2007.

In many cases, these delays stretch on for months, or even years. More than 385,000 NHS patients have waited more than a year for care. Over 2,700 have been waiting for more than two years.

In Northern Ireland, the situation is worse, with some patients waiting more than seven years for specialty care.

And the waits are likely to grow. This month, the United Kingdom’s Health Secretary estimated that 12 million people were in need of elective surgery. There’s quite a lot of ground to make up. Last year, there were 1.6 million fewer operations in England and Wales than would’ve been expected in a normal year.

Fixing the wait crisis could cost 40 billion pounds, over four years, according to estimates from the British government.

Instead of holding itself to higher standards, the NHS seems poised to move the goalposts. Since 2004, the agency has set a goal of seeing 95% of emergency-room patients in four hours or fewer. Having frequently failed to meet that target, the NHS recently announced it would abandon the policy altogether.

Canadian patients face similar waits. In 2019, 4.8 million Canadians — well over 12% of the country — didn’t have a regular doctor. That same year, patients typically waited more than 20 weeks for specialist care following referral by a general practitioner, according to the Fraser Institute, a Canadian think tank.

Say the wrong thing in America today, and the forces of “progressivism” will have your head on a pike. That recently happened to Daniel Elder, a composer of choral music. He offered the opinion that arson was not a good tactic for social change and has paid dearly for that bit of heresy.

Quillette has an excellent interview with Elder.

His publisher drafted an apology for him, but Elder declined to sign on. In the interview, he observes, “Someone that arouses the attention of the online mob rarely escapes punishment by prostrating. Stand and face your executioner.”

Elder has stopped writing music and explains that he is hoping for changes in America that will restore the artistic environment. He says, “There are some principles vital to the healthy artistic environment that I have seen under increasing threat—polluted by intolerance and groupthink. This [is] why I’ve claimed I do not currently compose music: I’m waiting for [a] healthy environment of free thought to return, since it’s necessary for deeply communicative art. I’ve chosen to look at my loss as a temporary sacrifice in the interest of helping [bring about] change. And in that changed field, I may thrive again, more than ever. As more people take a stand, I have faith this change is coming … sooner or later.”

Let us hope so. In the meantime, I wonder if anything can be done to help this young man.