George Rebane
Those whose policies cannot create wealth must champion policies that redistribute existing wealth.
So you think that if you get some flu-like symptoms, just go in and get tested for COVID-19, and then they’ll do the rest and take care of you. Hah! My east coast spy sent me the link (here) to a an unfolding saga of what is probably more prevalent than not across the country. Remember, if there’s a problem ANYWHERE, your first look-see should be the government, on which you can make book on being at fault or the cause. So enjoy, and don't touch anyone or anything or …; I think levitation is the best bet if you can do it.
[10mar20 update] Trump can’t bluff or bully the epidemic, so correctly argues Walter Russell Mead in the 10mar20 WSJ (here). And the hits Trump will take won’t really depend on how the fed responds to COVID-19. This is a complex nationwide problem affecting multiple fronts, it's a bona fide black swan. The feds have never responded to such things without big goof-ups here and there, and this time it will be the same, no matter who is in the White House. But today the TDS crowd, now fervently praying for death and destruction in this election year, has some well-oiled, built-in ammo with its lamestream to fire against the administration. As WRM says, “the media multitudes who loathe Mr. Trump will do everything they can to turn the epidemic into a Hurricane Katrina event. That would be easy to do even if the government’s response is near-flawless; epidemics are messy. There will almost certainly be heartbreaking tragedies that can plausibly be blamed on administration policies. There will be shortages of medical supplies. Some hospitals will be stretched past the breaking point. The bureaucracy and its leadership will inevitably fall short in many ways. In an election year when health care is a major political issue, every failure and problem in the coronavirus response will be politicized and publicized, putting the administration on the defensive as the economy falters and the virus spreads.” The coronavirus will indeed be President Trump’s greatest foe, one against which the best policies, let alone his standard repertoire of responses, will be inadequate in many (most?) eyes.
Democracy or Winner-take-all. The Dems are playing both sides of the street on this for their presidential candidates. In the primaries they want proportional allocation of delegates to the their July convention. However, in the November election for president, they want to do winner takes all the Electoral College votes, which disenfranchises the minorities in each state. Another case of ‘Do as I say, and not …’.
[12mar20 update] Bernie Sanders claims to have won the ideological battle because he convinced the young that capitalism is bad and socialism is good. And the young are the future. But what he and other collectivists have missed in the past is that the young age, gain realworld experience, and change their minds about socialism. Perhaps this time it will be different. But Bernie is headed for his political sunset, and he must hope that Bumblebrain Biden will pick up the gauntlet and carry it past goal line. Bernie’s departing line continues to be that his “democratic socialism” is not what the USSR had which was “autocratic communism”. According to Bernie and his guileless followers, the slogan to remember is “Real socialism hasn’t been tried!” David Harsanyi writes (here), “ leftists like Bernie like to act as if socialist ideology is incompatible with totalitarianism, when the opposite is true. The nationalization of industry and dispensing with property rights — necessary for any genuine socialism to occur — can’t be instituted without coercion and a centralized authoritarian effort. And even if the effort to redistribute property is first supported by the majority, as soon the state comes for your stuff — and it always does — the “democratic” part of the equation starts to dissipate.”
Today’s men beware of the women activists who claim to have been victims of sexual harassment and predation. It is apparently legal for people, especially employers, to ask whether someone is or has been involved in law suits of various kinds before entering into a relationship. Therefore it might be prudent for a man contemplating a relationship with a woman to find out whether he might be stepping into a snare. Given the number of websites that offer access to publicly available personal information databases, wouldn’t it be useful to have accessible a database on women who have publicly accused or sued men for sexual issues? Online dating services could even include that in their clients’ data sheets. In light of today’s greatly expanded definitions of sexual misconduct, what man would want to get involved with a woman who has a record publicly accusing men of such misconduct? Making such information readily available would both reduce future issues (real and imagined), and temper such gratuitous allegations in the future.
rebanesruminations.com 
Leave a comment