Raising awareness vs doing something

How about all these people trying to “raise awareness” actually DO something instead of “advocating” for someone else to do something?   Does anyone really think that there are more than 50 people in the USA who are not “aware” and need to have their “awareness raised”?  Stop “advocating” and do something positive yourself.  Go build a house for people with Habit for Humanity.  Go get a job and work and then donate the proceeds to the people who need it.  Go plant a garden (Mike Bloomberg says it is easy) and donate the food you grow to people who need it.  Go buy a gun and protect people. Go help clean up stores and property damaged by riots.  Go back to school, get an MD and help people in need with their medical needs.  Get a JD and represent these people in court.  Go to the police academy and become an officer so you can do it right. Get an accounting degree, engineering or something like that and use it to help. People need to get off their behinds and out from behind the keyboard, off instagram, Facebook, twitter etc, and actually do something instead of sitting around demanding someone else do something. 

Stop accepting that more horrendous incidents like “George Floyd” will happen, get out from behind the keyboard and do something. Stop senseless death like that by taking action, accepting the challenge and fixing things instead of expecting “someone else” to do so.

Silence is violence. Speech is violence

You are hearing a lot about “Silence is violence” from the left.  Likewise, you hear from some on the same people for years that “speech is violence.”

What is actually left?  You can’t speak and you can’t remain quiet.  This is the goal: to be able to attack anyone at any time for anything that might expose their attempts to destroy freedom.

Speech is speech and if you don’t like it, change the channel.  Only in a totalitarian society is silencing people encouraged.  Whether it be fascist, socialist, communist or some other authoritarian/totalitarian society, it is evil and immoral to silence people.

Fauci – inconvenient from a societal standpoint, from an economic standpoint

If you look at our history, we’ve been through some terrible ordeals. This is tough. People are suffering. People are dying. It’s inconvenient from a societal standpoint, from an economic standpoint to go through this, but this is going to be the answer to our problems.

April 1, 2020

So economic devastation, food insecurity and depression is merely “inconvenient”.

Got it.

Democrat party operative advocates politicizing covid

As he did with the 2008 crisis, former Democrat Congressman and Obama Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel says: “Let’s make sure this crisis doesn’t go to waste”:

“Never allow a good crisis go to waste. It’s an opportunity to do the things you once thought were impossible.”

… All of this is to say, again, that Washington needs to make sure this crisis doesn’t go to waste. 

( https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/03/25/lets-make-sure-this-crisis-doesnt-go-waste/ )

Later this year and next year, one must remember that again, Democrat Party operatives are advocating the politicization of the coronavirus “to do the things you once thought were impossible.”

Instead of advocating working together, the Democrat Party views this as a political opportunity. As a way to limit freedom and increase government control.

Later when you hear the charge that the Republican party was the one who politicized the virus and science remember that the WaPo, the oligarch who owns the Washington Post, Democrat operatives, Fauci, and the rest of the Washington insiders advocated to ignore the science and politicize the virus. No one in official Washington has condemned the politicization of science nor stated that we should work together. Instead, they too view this is an opportunity, not something to be fixed.

Beware the people trying to add more to government spending that is related to the virus, they are looters, just on a larger scale than those looting stores.

WHO, CDC, State emergency managers, hospital doctors and managers are no experts

I find it funny (in a dark way) that the same idiots at the WHO and CDC who were telling people in January that it wasn’t spreading person to person, who were urging the people of NYC in Feb and early/mid March to go out and mingle, urging Mardi Gras fun, urging Spring Break fun, urging people to not be racist by avoiding going out in early March, and who were telling us in February and March that masks and face coverings wouldn’t help are now are about to change the guidelines to tell everyone to wear them.  And that these are the same group of people who are running the CDC and WHO, and in charge of hospitals and hospital systems around the world and around the country, who are in charge of emergency management in every state, (a) weren’t smart enough to replenish supplies at all during 11 years after the H1N1 pandemic, (b) were too stupid to think that they might need to have extra masks, respirators and ventilators on hand when there were plenty of people out there who spent $20 on a box of N95, or N100 respirators at any point in the last 5 years.  These same “experts” who are now guiding everyone today and yet were too moronic to be able to think strategically for 4+ decades. 

The NY Times and it’s ilk, like Joe Biden, were also calling Trump racist and xenophobic for the late January 2020 travel ban.

Slowing the spread, Flattening the curve, not stopping the spread of covid-19/coronavirus

Today’s announcement about the 15 days to slow the spread is important. Note that this is NOT about stopping the spread. That ship sailed at the end of December 2019 or early January 2020 once it escaped (or was allowed to escape) from China.

Everyone (or some large percentage of a population) is going to get this at some point until there is herd immunity (60-70% of the population as a start) or a vaccine. The goal is to stop a short-term spike, not stop people from getting it.

Of course the same people from the WHO back in January who were saying it wasn’t being transmitted person-to-person are now advising the US government. The same people from NIH/CDC who were saying back in February that it didn’t pose a significant risk to the US population are advising them too. Ditto the same people saying masks don’t help, UNLESS you are a first responder.

If the closures were required in March [edit: and now April], what exactly will have changed by May, June or even September – no vaccine, no herd immunity, no double blind studies showing the efficacy of a treatment etc.   Perhaps widespread fast and accurate testing will allow people out, but so far the testing accuracy has been lacking.

Continuing it longer than 15 or 30 days will make no difference long term unless it continues for 12-24 months without testing and then quarantining people who test positive . Shutting everything down for 1 or 2 years is tantamount to suicide for the country and the world.

Some huge portion of the world population will get it eventually unless there is a vaccine. It is just a question of when.

Bucknell professor wishes death on rush limbaugh

A letter to Bucknell President Bravman:

Dear President Bravman,
I am completely disgusted to read that “A professor at Bucknell University tweeted out last week that he wished death on Rush Limbaugh,”(https://www.thecollegefix.com/professor-wishes-death-on-rush-limbaugh-attacks-republicans-on-social-media/ ) particularly after insinuating that a US House of Representatives member should be hanged last year.  
First as an alumni, seeing Bucknell’s name in the context of Michael Drexler wishing death on someone in a news article that is circulated worldwide is deeply disturbing.  Does anyone, let alone a professional, want to have their alma mater brought up in such a manner?  Does Bucknell have plans to prevent such events in the future?  Do professors have any standards that they must follow, like morality clauses in professional athlete contracts, so as to avoid painting the University in a bad light?  When you see patterns of public behavior of a person wishing death on people, there should be a concern on how it reflects upon the institution and professors should, frankly, have better judgement than to do so without the need of contract terms.
A second concern is, of course, about current students and faculty at Bucknell.  If someone is publicly wishing death to at least several people, I would be concerned about their stability as it relates to on-campus violence against people with whom Drexler disagrees whether they are students, faculty, administrators, or even alumni.  What is Bucknell doing in order to promote a safe campus environment that is open to viewpoints, particularly those that are anti-fascist, anti-communist, anti-socialist,  – in short anti-authoritarian – and pro-liberty?  I am concerned that someone wishing death on people and publicly calling Professor Riley (no relation) a “white supremacist skinhead” (from the article) might be temperamentally unfit to be educating students safely.  
I have to say that during my four years at Bucknell, not only did none of my professors ever wish death upon anyone or call students or other professors names, neither did the swim coaches, administrators, staff or anyone else with whom I interacted. The head swim coach (Dick Russell)  insisted that when we went to swim meets,  both home and away, we “look neat and clean” (nice shirt, (often) ties, no scruffiness) because we were “representing Bucknell”.  Professors today should have as much sense as he did.  Which leads to my next question.

How lax are the current hiring standards that Bucknell is hiring and promoting to tenured professor people who are immature and immorally evil that they would wish death on someone in a public forum where they are associated with Bucknell?  Does Bucknell do anything to promote tolerance among faculty members and promote mental health of faculty members who are advocating violence among sitting members of Congress, calling other faculty members vile names and wishing death on public figures?
Seeing some of the anti-free speech protests on campus recently makes me concerned about the direction the University has taken, but I do commend the school for standing up for free speech such as allowing Heather Mac Donald to speak last year.
A University should be about civil discourse, not vile names, threats and the like whether or not you disagree with someone or not.
Thanks,

Individual Rights and Today's Issue