Sunday, December 06, 2020
Leftist Politicians’ Hypocrisy Demonstrates Shallowness of ‘Party of Science’
States around the country are heading into the second wave of pandemic lockdowns, but many Americans may not be so keen on complying this time around.
Progressives and Democrats are apparently the most eager to shut everything down to stop the spread of the coronavirus, even though this policy stance ignores what science is telling us—namely, that full lockdowns are not as effective as a targeted approach.
However, the personal behavior of political leaders in the “party of science” suggests that they either don’t take their own proposals seriously or that lockdowns are for the “masses” and not very important people like themselves.
No wonder so many Americans are in a populist mood.
In the opening days of the COVID-19 outbreak, extreme measures may have been justified to bend the curve of cases and preserve the American health care system.
Certainly, government at all levels can and should provide assistance in beating this pandemic—streamlining the process of approving rapid self-testing kits would be a huge boon in coming months—but it is now too often being wielded like a blunt instrument by overzealous politicians.
And far too many of those politicians have demonstrated that the draconian and often absurd rules they want to foist on Americans don’t really apply to themselves.
Leave it to the California governor to be the most ridiculous pandemic lockdown hypocrite.
Gov. Gavin Newsom, a California Democrat, was rather infamously caught dining with a group of friends, advisers, and—perhaps most importantly—a powerful lobbyist at The French Laundry, one of the country’s most expensive and exclusive high-end restaurants. Newsom’s dinner party came just hours after he urged families not to travel and gather for the holidays.
And remember, California’s rules for Thanksgiving were so strict as to be absurd. Californians were told that all gatherings must be outside, that restrooms could only be used if frequently sanitized, and that gatherings should be two hours or less, and that every guest must be seated 6 feet apart.
Oh, and no singing.
Do Newsom and his fellow French Laundry diners appear to be 6 feet apart or outside here?
“Party of science” hypocrisy appears to be at its worst in the Golden State, where a virtual one-party lock on government power means politicians pay little price for bad behavior.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was caught going to a hair salon when San Francisco had banned the practice.
Her excuse was that it was a setup to make her look bad.
Mission accomplished, I guess.
“Cases are spiking, in part because we’re letting our guard (and masks) down with family & friends,” San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo tweeted just before Thanksgiving. “Let’s cancel the big gatherings this year and focus on keeping each other safe.”
Liccardo then proceeded to have a gathering of eight people, comprising several households.
Of course, it’s not just California politicians who’ve been hypocrites during the pandemic.
There have been countless other examples around the country of politicians and public officials who have been zealous about shutting everything down for our own good, but finding ways to personally skirt the rules.
District of Columbia Mayor Muriel Bowser went to an Election Day party in Delaware despite the state being put on a high-risk travel advisory, a trip she called “necessary.”
The message from all these activities is clear: The political class has deemed swamp slithering more important than whatever silly little business, family matter, or religious gathering you think is essential.
It’s understandable that these politicians wish to go about their lives, but how can they justify this when Americans have been entirely barred from, say, going to funerals and activities they deem absolutely necessary?
Unfortunately, it’s not just politicians betraying public trust with blatant double standards.
Public health officials have made pronouncements that lockdowns are necessary, and people shouldn’t gather, then ignore those guidelines for political movements they sympathize with.
Much of the legacy media seems in on the game too, of course. The almost ridiculous difference in coverage between rallies for President Donald Trump and Joe Biden street parties was beyond laughable.
One was an example of a superspreader event, the other a wonderful expression of democracy. For those paying attention, is this kind of one-sided coverage really a surprise?
These individual cases of hypocrisy might be no more than a mockable trifle in normal circumstances. But when you put them all together, they are examples of a larger phenomenon taking place in the United States and the West in general. People are losing faith in once trusted institutions and look upon them with hostile suspicion.
This crisis of the elite has been simmering for quite a while, the pandemic merely brought it more clearly out into the open.
The result is that people are less likely to take politicians, the media, and “experts” seriously.
Yes, the people are revolting, and they have a very good reason to be. Perhaps we should be using common sense and actual science to aid individuals and civil society in clamping down on the second COVID-19 wave instead of rushing back into a total lockdown.
A licence for black crime
In the city of Seattle, the radicals never sleep, never let up. It’s why there’s a real danger they will win in the end and why they must be fought at every turn.
Their latest guilt-laden idiocy is to propose eliminating misdemeanor crimes for the “underclass.” Anyone who can prove they’re a victim of society receives a “get out of jail free” card.
The woke Seattle city council members refer to misdemeanors as “crimes of poverty” and want judges to throw them out.
City Journal:
This is the latest and most brazen effort in the city’s campaign to establish what might be called a “reverse hierarchy of oppression.” The underlying theory is that society has condemned the lower class to a life of poverty and stigma, which leads to addiction, madness, and indigence. The poor, in the logic of Seattle’s progressive elites, are thus forced to commit crimes—including violent crimes—to secure their very existence. Therefore, as society is the perpetrator of this inequality, the crimes of the poor must be forgiven. The crimes are transformed into an expression of social justice.
Christopher Rufo refers to the underclass as “the new untouchables.” Just what crimes would be untouchable?
On a practical level, if this ordinance becomes law, it will effectively legalize an entire spectrum of misdemeanor crimes, including theft, assault, harassment, drug possession, property destruction, and indecent exposure. Criminals must simply establish that they have an addiction, mental-health disorder, or low income in order to evade justice.
The impact of this measure would be enormous. In 2019, the Seattle Police Department reported 25,993 thefts, 8,442 assaults, 6,430 property offenses, 4,194 frauds, 3,910 trespasses, and 1,640 narcotics violations—representing 72 percent of all reported crimes. If the ordinance passes, nearly all these crimes would be permitted under law.
The law would make Seattle the safest city in the industrialized world — on paper. Otherwise, not so much.
I marvel at the reasoning behind this proposed law. “Poverty made me do it” is better than the devil interceding with humanity to force people to do wrong.
The problem is that most poor people are not addicted, are not mentally ill, are not homeless, and the overwhelming majority are law-abiding citizens. If some poor people are “forced” to commit crimes to survive, how come others aren’t? Why are the majority of poor people perfectly capable of living their lives without extracting “social justice” from the rest of society?
The consequence of this measure is predictable. By dramatically reducing penalties for theft, assault, drug crime, and property crime, the city would effectively announce, “crime pays here.” With at least 90 percent of the jail population able to claim dispensation for indigence, addiction, and mental illness, the city’s criminal class could operate with impunity. Seattle’s downtown, already besieged by tent encampments and an addiction-fueled crime boom, would become a free-for-all.
Fortunately, an alert watchdog group in Seattle flagged the legislation and the Seattle Times ran an editorial against it. People were rightly appalled. But the legislation is not dead. The councilwoman pushing the scheme, Lisa Herbold, tried ramming the law through the regular budget process. Stymied there, she will now take it to the Budget Committee where it will have another life.
Someone should drive a stake through this bill once and for all.
UK Issues Landmark Ruling Protecting Kids from Life-Altering Hormone Replacement Therapy
A High Court in the U.K. issued a landmark judgment this week that will protect children 16 years of age and younger from receiving potentially harmful hormone replacement therapy. The High Court ruled that treatments often used to aid gender “transitions”—like puberty blockers and other sex-change hormones—are too experimental and are no longer able to be administered to 16-year-olds or younger without permission from the court.
This is an incredible ruling for those who have been spreading the word for years about the dangers of transitioning.
The ruling against Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust, which operates the U.K.’s sole “gender-identity development service,” is a good sign that the U.K. is finally waking up to the harm puberty blockers do to young people. The judges made their decision due to a number of factors, including the testimony of one of the claimants in the case, Keira Bell.
Bell was referred to Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust and prescribed puberty blockers at age 16. Now 23, Bell testified in October that after receiving hormone replacement therapy and a mastectomy at the behest of the clinic, she began to regret her transition. A mother of a 16-year-old girl with autism who had been waiting for gender dysphoria treatment was also a claimant in the lawsuit.
The court also ruled that clinicians would need to involve the court in potential cases where the clinic is unsure if it is appropriate for a 16- or 17-year-old to receive puberty blockers or hormones.
In a statement, Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust said they were “disappointed” and that “that the outcome is likely to cause anxiety for patients and their families.
A group called Transgender Trend, which tracks transgender-related news, intervened in this case and, in a post, said the judgement rendered “reflected some of the concerns we raised.”
The group said, “In our intervention, we submitted evidence that the [gender-identity development service] operates within a core illogicality: a belief that biological sex is irrelevant to being a boy or being a girl, while providing a service that is predicated on the existence of, and ability to define, a ‘boy body’ and a ‘girl body’ that children might move between through medication and subsequent surgery. This is of course an impossibility, but it is an outcome that children are led to believe is possible.”
Bell’s lawyer made a strong case to the High Court in October that children and teenagers were unable to understand the effects of hormone replacement therapy, and said clinics should only be able to prescribe said therapy with a court order due to the “lifelong medical, psychological, and emotional implications” of taking the treatment.
In an e-mail, Ryan Anderson, William E. Simon Senior Research Fellow and author of “When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Movement,” praised the High Court’s decision, saying:
Children who suffer from gender dysphoria deserve real therapy aimed at helping them feel comfortable with their own bodies. Adults should never encourage a child to reject their body, nor interfere with their natural pubertal development. Blocking puberty and administering cross-sex hormones to a minor is not only an experimental set of medical procedures but is a profound violation of medical ethics. American courts and legislators should follow the U.K.’s lead and prohibit these unethical experimental procedures from being performed on minors.
This is an incredible ruling in a controversial case many lawmakers in the U.S. have been following. In fact, informed and motivated by Bell’s story, Rep. Doug LaMalfa, R-Calif., introduced legislation in August that would prohibit these procedures from being performed on minors in this country.
The existence of HR 8012, as a result of Bell’s powerful story, is an important move forward in the United States’ ability to protect children from being forced to take puberty blockers or other hormones without proper education and that may have irreversible effects and produce irreparable harm.
For years, the U.K. has been zealously embracing transgender ideology while demonstrating a laissez-faire attitude towards the harmful effects of hormone replacement therapy. This ruling puts the brakes on that hazardous approach and protects children and their bodies.
***************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com TONGUE-TIED)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://john-ray.blogspot.com (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)
*****************************************
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
/>
Kristina Pimenova, once said to be the most beautiful girl in the world. Note blue eyes and blonde hair
Bliss: What every woman wants: to feel safe and secure in the arms of her man. Robert Irwin and Rorie Buckey. See 
No comments:
Post a Comment