RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.wsj.com/articles/tear-down-these-masks-11644019001?mod=opinion_lead_pos11

The adults who run a number of Virginia school boards have decided to wage legal warfare to maintain their ability to force children to cover their faces. The Washington Post’s Hannah Natanson and Rachel Weiner report:

An Arlington judge has issued a temporary restraining order barring enforcement of Gov. Glenn Youngkin’s mask-optional order for schools—a major victory for the seven school boards that sued to stop the order, and a sharp rebuke for the new governor.

The Post reporters outline the legal case made by the school boards:

The first part of the argument hinges on the fact that Virginia’s constitution specifies that school boards have the power to oversee the school systems in their localities. By declaring masks optional in school districts statewide, Youngkin is intruding on school boards’ constitutionally granted authority, the plaintiffs in both suits argue.
The second part centers on a piece of legislation passed last year that requires all school districts in Virginia to comply with federal health guidance to the “maximum extent practicable.” The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention currently recommends masking inside schools for all individuals over the age of 2, regardless of vaccination status. Because of those CDC guidelines, the plaintiffs argue, Youngkin’s order making masks optional is forcing school districts to break the law.
At a hearing in early February, Arlington District Court Judge Louise DiMatteo seemed unswayed by this argument, noting that no district complies with all of the CDC’s recommendations.

This column is also skeptical of the school boards’ argument, and is certain that their underlying policies are unsupported by the facts. There is no need for the school boards to agree with the governor on the questions of state law to recognize that they cannot prove clear public health benefits justifying the indefinite masking of children and the developmental harms that result.

No one can accuse the editors of the Atlantic magazine of being insufficiently hysterical about the risks of Covid during this pandemic. And even they had the good sense recently to publish medical scientists Margery Smelkinson, Leslie Bienen, and Jeanne Noble noting:

We reviewed a variety of studies—some conducted by the CDC itself, some cited by the CDC as evidence of masking effectiveness in a school setting, and others touted by media to the same end—to try to find evidence that would justify the CDC’s no-end-in-sight mask guidance for the very-low-risk pediatric population, particularly post-vaccination. We came up empty-handed.

https://www.city-journal.org/new-study-finds-covid-lockdowns-had-no-benefit

A new study from Johns Hopkins University’s Institute for Applied Economics supports what I and others have long maintained: lockdowns do not work, and their economic, social, educational, and psychological costs far outweigh any health benefits they might bring.

Early in the pandemic, epidemiological modelers predicted catastrophic casualties that could be averted only with stringent lockdown measures. In response, nearly every country around the world imposed lockdown measures by the end of March 2020. Yet little evidence existed to support such actions, and the modeling studies were fatally flawed. Now the Hopkins literature review and meta-analysis, by Professors Jonas Herby, Lars Jonung, and Steve Hanke, finds that lockdowns—“defined as the imposition of at least one compulsory, non-pharmaceutical intervention (NPI)” such as school and business closures and limitations on movement and travel—“had little to no effect on Covid-19 mortality.”

The authors reviewed thousands of studies and culled 34 that had reliable and sufficiently relevant data to review. The results were mixed: several studies found no statistically significant effect of lockdowns on mortality; other studies found a significant negative relationship between lockdowns and mortality; and others found a significant positive relationship between lockdowns and mortality—i.e., that lockdowns actually increased deaths from Covid-19.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18203/are-secret-puppeteers-still-directing-american

Over the years much has made about the lobbyists and advisors who prowl the corridors of power in Washington D.C. Many seek publicity profiles in the hope it will convince potential clients and countries that they have high-level “access.” Others cultivate their cable news appearances as pundits and commentators, relishing the limelight.

Yet what we have come to learn over time that the greater the media exposure, the less these individuals play a role in actually affecting the nation’s policies and politics.

Consider the role of Michael Podhorzer.

According to published reports, Mr. Podhorzer is a long time senior advisor to the president of the AFL-CIO, one of the most powerful labor federations in the nation. There are some 57 unions under its umbrella and they represent some 12.5 million people. His fellow Democrats are reputed to call him a “wizard” for his skill in leveraging technology on behalf of the union’s public policy agenda as well as their chosen candidates. Marry that communication technology with a field force of millions of union men and women and Mr. Podhorzer has a potent national weapon to wield in determining who will implement America’s foreign and domestic policies and who might even be trying to undermine our Constitution (here, here and here).

Until a recent Time magazine exposé, he was very much out of sight, and deliberately so, as he provided strategic direction to the union. According to the Time profile he was also a key member of a group that applied enormous organizational and computing power to the task of electing their preferred candidates.

Over time, it would become obvious that former President Donald J. Trump was not their preferred candidate.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/asked-your-pronouns-dont-answer-lgbtqia-sogie-gender-identity-nonbinary-transgender-trans-

A seemingly innocuous question masks a demand for conformity with a regressive set of ideas.

“What are your pronouns?” is a seemingly innocuous question that has become increasingly common. Pronouns are now frequently displayed prominently in social-media bios, email signatures and conference name tags. Vice President Kamala Harris features “she/her” pronouns in her Twitter bio, and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg includes “he/him” in his. Then there are the singular “they/them” pronouns used by “nonbinary” people who identify as neither male nor female, as well as a growing list of bespoke “neopronouns” such as “ze/zir” or “fae/faer,” and the even stranger “noun-self” neopronouns like “bun/bunself” which, according to the New York Times, are identities that can encompass animals and fantasy characters.

A recent survey of 40,000 “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and questioning (LGBTQ) youth” in the U.S. found that a full 25% use pronouns other than she/her and he/him exclusively. The Human Rights Campaign, which claims to be the “nation’s largest LGBTQ+ civil rights organization,” recently tweeted that we should all begin conversations with “Hi, my pronouns are _____. What are yours?” We are told that asking for, sharing and respecting pronouns is “inclusive” to trans and nonbinary people, and that failing to do so may even constitute violence and oppression.

https://americanmind.org/salvo/men-and-the-future-of-america/

Senator Josh Hawley has struck a powerful rhetorical blow against woke communism.

Senator Josh Hawley recently gave a much commented upon speech on the virtues of masculinity. It was a very fine speech; indeed, it may have been one of the most significant senatorial speeches of his generation.

Hawley understands that the traditional traits of masculinity—stoicism, competitiveness, conquest, achievement and aggression—are good and necessary for a self-governing society, as long as they are channeled into behaviors, such as productive work and providing for a family, that serve the common good. He also knows that if these natural traits are suppressed they get channeled into dysfunctional behaviors—crime, drugs, pornography, and the like.  

As good speeches do, his speech surprised his listeners. We no longer hear talk about manliness in public. The radical left, whom I call the “woke communists,” have forbidden it. The great virtue of Hawley’s speech is that he talked about this forbidden thing, and in doing so gave others permission to talk about it. Hawley knows—as the woke comms know—that politics is ultimately about what it means to live a good life, and therefore what it means to be a human being and what it means to be a man or a woman. The woke comms are determined to destroy traditional sex roles as part of their project to destroy America. Hawley’s speech on masculinity must be understood in this larger context.

If Senator Hawley chooses to give more speeches along these lines, I have some unsolicited advice: provide a comprehensive understanding of the woke comm regime, which he points to in his speech but does not fully develop. He needs to give concerned Americans a framework to order and understand the historic events unfolding around us: we need to see clearly and fully the principles that animate the woke comms, their objectives, and their strategies. What do they want and how they are going about getting it?

https://amgreatness.com/2022/02/03/johns-hopkins-university-study-confirms-lockdowns-did-nothing-to-prevent-covid-deaths/

A newly-released study from the prestigious Johns Hopkins University revealed that the sweeping lockdowns in response to the Chinese coronavirus had “little to no effect on COVID-19 mortality.”

According to the Washington Free Beacon, the study was conducted through an analysis of 24 different studies that all focused on government mandates ordering the closure of various aspects of everyday life, including school and business shutdowns, mask and vaccine mandates, and stay-at-home orders, among others.

The comprehensive review, conducted by Johns Hopkins’ Institute for Applied Economics, Global Health, and the Study of Business Enterprise, determined that these measures collectively reduced the rate of COVID fatalities in America and Europe by a mere 0.2 percent.

When the studies were narrowed down to individual types of lockdown measures, such as stay-at-home orders alone, the survey revealed that stay-at-home orders actually slightly increased the number of deaths during COVID.

“We find little to no evidence that mandated lockdowns in Europe and the United States had a noticeable effect on COVID-19 mortality rates,” the study concluded. “While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted.”

“In consequence,” the study concluded, “lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument.”

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2022/02/covid_the_after_times.html

The Covidian orthodoxy is beginning to crumble. Some governments have discovered that their approach did not improve anything. On the contrary, at least one study shows that the myriad restrictions on normal life have had the opposite effect. That confirm what many people said 18 months ago, when challenging the official dogma was considered an act of heresy.

Now what? There is going to be a clear delineation of human interactions in the aftermath when compared to the before times. It is almost impossible to expect otherwise.

Like many of you, I have learned things about people I thought I knew that were hard to believe. It has been quite the learning to curve to find out who would happily serve as an enforcer to push the state’s dictates, who would just as happily shut people out of society, celebrate their firing, or deny them healthcare for the sake of a making a political point. Once you have seen the true measure of a person, one who would support steps that harm friends and relatives and justify that support hesitation or regret, how can you see such people in the same light again?

You can’t trust them. You can’t discuss anything of substance with them. You can’t pretend that none of this happened. It is impossible to once again respect or like people whose inner tyrant rose to the surface so easily, and that will be among the lasting legacies of this sorry spectacle, one that should sadden us all. The friendships forever tarnished, the family ties that are irreparably broken, the neighbors you no longer recognize; for many people, those will be the most tangible results of their COVID experience.

There is no joy in saying “I told you so” as the narrative starts falling apart.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2022/02/chesa_boudin_is_starting_to_sweat.html

With a voter recall four months away, things aren’t going too well for San Francisco’s far-left District Attorney Chesa Boudin, whose office appears to now be a dumpster fire of controversies.

Thursday the news got out through court transcripts that a shouting match broke out in a courthouse, between Chesa’s staff and the lawyers of a witness, Magen Hayashi, who testified that Chesa’s D.A. office told her to withhold critical evidence that could exculpated an officer in a police brutality case. The D.A.’s investigation of the matter neglected to mention that the cop in question was answering a domestic violence call and didn’t just start beating the suspect for no good reason. The officer’s defense team thought that relevant, and apparently, Chesa’s staff were intimidating the witness.

According to the San Francisco Examiner:

“After the court exited the courtroom,” [Defense attorney Nicole] Pifari told the judge, attorneys for the DA’s office “started yelling at… began to yell at counsel for Ms. [Magen] Hayashi telling him to do his job.”

Pifari told the judge that one of the attorneys for the DA’s office “pointed at the witness and told her she was being accused of a crime. It’s intimidating a witness, it’s unprofessional, it’s very problematic that they’re trying to affect the testimony of this witness off the record. I have a real problem with what just happened. They were yelling at her attorney in open court.” It’s not clear what crime the attorney allegedly referred to.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/what-was-chuck-schumer-thinking/

“Chuck Schumer may turn out to be personally responsible for the collapse of the Democrats’ agenda to a degree we’ve never seen in the modern Congress.”

Four months ago, in marveling at the then still-ongoing slow-motion collapse of the Democrats’ legislative agenda around here, I suggested one factor in that mess that seemed particularly worthy of attention:

I think Senate Democrats must still be digesting the absolutely bizarre signed, written arrangement Schumer reached with Manchin back on July 28 — which laid out detailed if (sort of) nonbinding terms for Manchin’s engagement with the Democrats’ social-spending bill that both senators then kept secret from most other Senate Democrats for two months. I can’t think of a more imprudent and downright strange move by a party leader in the modern Congress. You have to imagine that every Democrat will now want Schumer’s signature on an individualized statement of terms on every issue that matters to him or her, since after all every Democrat is the essential 50th vote on every party-line bill. And you have to assume that every Democrat will now also wonder if Schumer has made such an agreement in secret with every other Democrat on every such bill. It’s nuts, but it’s also a kind of encapsulation of Schumer’s leadership style.