RUTHFULLY YOURS

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.