We’ve reached the point that an obvious, relatively mild head cold that peters away over a weekend can keep a child out of school for days. Testing sites in Rhode Island are saying it can take up to 72 hours to get results from COVID tests. Pharmacies are a day out for appointments, with who-knows-how-long to get results after that.
All of this, by the way, filters down not only from the requirement to be tested, but also that the test must be the most-sensitive PCR variety. For the purposes of testing a child with symptoms to see whether COVID is the cause, the at-home tests should be more than adequate.
But we’re being ruled by a self-aggrandized bureaucracy, which doesn’t care about balancing needs and interests.
How much longer are we going to tolerate this?
[Open full post]
At least that’s how some health professionals are seeing it:
Dr. Omar Hamada on Dec. 1 said that the Omicron variant of COVID-19 may provide natural immunity without inducing severe illness, as the symptoms so far resemble more of a “mild, common cold” in South Africa.
In an interview with NTD’s “Capitol Report,” the emergency room doctor and former U.S. Army Special Forces lieutenant colonel said that even though “we’re seeing an uptick in [the] number of people affected, the severity of disease seems to be, at this point, minimal.”
“If the infectivity is greater, but the virulence or severity is less, this may be actually something good in terms of getting people immune to it without necessarily having to depend on a vaccine that’s not incredibly effective,” Hamada stated.
Bizarrely, however, the people in power will refuse to recognize its effects, either because they’ve got plans for their new power or because they’re basically zealots in a cult.
[Open full post]
Reactions to bad theater reviews have been a topic to which comic writers have returned for material over decades. Naturally, such reviews are much more personal than their analog in the movie or television market. The performer knows the person was out there in the audience watching him or her perform. Often, they circulate in the same communities. And, of course, actors have to keep repeating the performance if it’s a play, whereas movies are recorded and done and television shows at least have different episodes, so it’s easier to move on.
Susan McDonald’s Providence Journal review of this year’s take on A Christmas Carol at Trinity Repertory Company can only be described as mostly positive. She just felt the company tinkered a little too much with the story this time around, particularly when it came to wokeness:
… beginning with an opening monologue — inviting people to remember Native American tribes that once populated the state, mentioning slave trade connections and urging support for people of color — there is a layer being added to Dickens’ message of humanity and kindness that feels forced. …
What proves awkward [in the Fezziwig party scene], however, is an extended segment in which half the actors dance boisterously, stomping feet and banging brooms on the wooden stage, while the others mill about, watching. While wisely advocating diversity in the show, Wilson has created a moment that splits the cast along racial lines, with actors of color dancing and white actors looking on. It seems divisive instead of inclusive.
Faced with such comments from a reviewer who is obviously on the side of the production, both as theater and as a “progressive” statement, a company can take the criticism as an indication that it perhaps missed the mark in some ways or it can internally dismiss the reviewer as having been the one to have missed something.
Not a chance, in this case. Much of the attraction of being woke, as James Lindsay describes in a recent episode of his New Discourses podcast, is that it comes so readily to hand for grift. That includes the evasion of blame, responsibility, or self-reflection.
So, Trinity can’t just let McDonald’s review go. Wokism forces everything to be political and ideological, so sprinkling woke dust into a performance has to have the magical effect of making it beyond criticism on woke grounds. Thus, Trinity deploys, in an open letter, the chilling accusation that the review “contained a number of elements that were problematic from an equity, diversity, inclusion, and anti-racism perspective.” Any totalizing, oppressive movement has codewords to suggest that somebody is guilty of a thought crime, and “problematic” is one for the woke.
This isn’t just a vague, consequence-free observation. Apparently, the reviewer made multiple statements “that were in violation of the theater’s content guidelines, designed to protect our artists and staff from harm caused by unconscious bias.” It sounds as if Ms. McDonald must either issue a forced apology or perhaps be banned from the theater.
Theirs is not merely a thinned skinned reaction, the theater management assures the reader, oh no, not at all. McDonald is guilty, guilty, guilty — marked by the color of her skin:
The elements that we have taken issue with have nothing to do with the artistic quality of the production, but rather the lack of knowledge on the part of a white reviewer and a white editorial staff. Our historical moment demands that greater attention is paid to the subtext of the writing; that if a production is making a concerted effort to center BIPOC voices, that effort is respected; and that stereotyping is avoided.
Trinity Artistic Director Curt Columbus (a white man) and Interim Executive Director Jennifer Canole (a white woman) cast McDonald’s review into the metaphoric fire as “language… rooted in hate.” Her entire newspaper, they say, should “take this as an opportunity for growth and change,” regarding which the theater offers to act as guide.
The coded, threatening language of the open letter is chilling stuff, redolent of jackboot fascism, and Rhode Islanders should take the warning that an iconic theater has marked a new step into the community’s loss of freedom and rights. Trinity no longer sees its role as entertaining the public, but as instructing it in the rigid belief system of guilt and penance.
You can try to enjoy the performance if you want, whitey, but you’d best not express an opinion that proves your deep, intrinsic guilt! Direct your entertainment dollars accordingly.
[Open full post]
In the middle of the Sixteenth Century, St. Francis Xavier wrote to his friend, St. Ignatius of Loyola, of his experience ministering to Christians in India:
We have visited the villages of the new converts who accepted the Christian religion a few years ago. No Portuguese live here, the country is so utterly barren and poor. The native Christians have no priests. They know only that they are Christians. There is nobody to say Mass for them; nobody to teach them the Creed, the Our Father, the Hail Mary and the Commandments of God’s Law.
Children would not leave him alone with requests to teach them prayers. “If only someone could educate them in the Christian way of life, I have no doubt that they would make excellent Christians.” The letter closes with a lamentation that the intellectuals of Europe were not undertaking the mission of educating such as these, rather than digging ever more deeply into their books.
Times have changed.
For some years, I’ve been on the lookout for a sort of Post Testament. The Old Testament tells the history of Israel’s relationship with God, and the New Testament describes the coming of the Messiah and the activities of his first apostles. In our time, “new” is entirely relative; the book is two millennia old!
Where is the new New Testament, which I’d call the Post Testament out of deference to the Gospels? What is God’s story since the apostles were busy writing letters to new Christians about the faith? The available texts are far too numerous to canonize — official letters, catechisms, poetry, proclamations, stories, histories of saints, histories of nations, and on and on. The lack of some book summarizing the story contributes to the impression that the story of the God of Israel is done. How might we understand what He has been up to all these centuries?
The closest thing I’ve found is a relatively recent history by the non-Christian writer Tom Holland, Dominion. As he briefly summarizes on a recent episode of the Andrew Klavan podcast, his conclusion is that Christianity has essentially become the default belief system of the planet — the water in which modern society swims. Even the often-anti-Christian “woke” activists can be understood as a sect of the faith, except that, in contrast with Francis Xavier’s Indian students, they know not that they are Christians.
Moreover, rattling the cages of the Ivory Towers these days, as Francis Xavier fantasized about doing four-and-a-half centuries ago, would only shake loose more evangelists for the modern heresy.
Four-and-a-half centuries Before Christ, Malachi wrote the last book of the Old Testament, as compiled by the Roman Catholic Church. The short scripture has blistering words about the condition of Israel:
A son honors his father, and a servant fears his master;
If then I am a father, where is the honor due to me?
So says the Lord of hosts to you, O priests, who despise his name.
But you ask, “How have we despised your name?”
By offering polluted food on my altar!…
You[, the people,] have wearied the Lord with your words,
yet you say, “How have we wearied him?”
By your saying, “Every evildoer is good in the sight of the Lord,
And he is pleased with him”; or else, “Where is the just God?”
The pages of God’s calendar turn slowly, to human eyes, but they turn. From Malachi comes the promise, “Lo, I am sending my messenger to prepare the way before me.” Today, the second Sunday of Advent, as we approach Christmas and celebration of the Messiah’s birth, Catholic churches read from the Gospel According to Luke, in which John the Baptist calls the Jews of Jordan to “prepare the way of the Lord.”
The prophesied messenger comes and tells us to prepare. St. Francis Xavier from his mission calls on us to teach. As our subconsciously Christian civilization wearies the Lord with words of perverted justice to the point that many think His story has concluded, we should wonder why we wait to be called.
Featured image by Justin Katz.
[Open full post]
You’ve probably heard the mainstream media claim that we’re facing the Omicron variant (which may represent the merger of COVID with the common cold) because greedy, racist Westerners were refusing to share their vaccines with Africa. Drew Holden and Aaron Sibarium suggest in the Washington Free Beacon that this analysis is all wrong:
In fact, several African countries have sent back vaccines: The problem they face is one of demand, not supply. Five of the eight countries from which the Biden administration has suspended travel have pumped the brakes on new vaccine shipments, even as cases have increased, because the countries have more doses than health officials can administer.
Across the continent, vaccine hesitancy remains high. A recent survey that spans five West African countries found that 6 in 10 people were vaccine hesitant—compared with 13 percent or less in France, the United Kingdom, and other parts of Europe and 27 percent in the United States.
Mark Tapscott is right to ask why the U.S. and the West are always presented as the bad guy. Methinks there’s an agenda at play.
[Open full post]
Political observers in Rhode Island shouldn’t be surprised by this announcement from Rhode Island House Minority Leader Blake Filippi:
Representing the People of Charlestown, Block Island, South Kingstown and Westerly is the best job, one which I hope to continue in the years ahead.
I look forward to helping the Republican nominee for Governor, and all Republicans up and down the ballot, in 2022.
Being a legislator is a very different job from being governor, and he’s doing it well. He’s apparently enjoying it. And it isn’t necessarily a qualification, on its own, for becoming a chief executive. (Just look to the White House for evidence.)
One of the many challenges facing the Rhode Island right is that there are just too many open seats, so it’s too easy to go from nowhere to the highest-profile races on the ticket. People considering politics may only be ready to dip their toes in, but the incentives often push them all in. That’s an urge that should be resisted.
Republicans in the Ocean State should be deliberate in focusing on candidates as individuals. If they’re happy where they are, leave them be. Let them grow into the roles with which they’re comfortable and draw them into a network of support that may reduce the disincentive for others to enter the ring. Knowing that Filippi is available for support on the campaign trail and then once in office is preferable for potential contenders to thinking he’ll be a competitor.
To be sure, the disincentives are strong. Well might one ask why Filippi would want to run for governor, but the question could be much broader. Why would anybody want to run for governor in Rhode Island as a Republican?
That’s not a statement of impossibility, however. Donald Trump won 199,922 votes in Rhode Island last year, which was up from 180,543, which was already more than any Republican presidential candidate had earned since Ronald Reagan won the state in 1984 with more than 212,000 votes. Between Trump’s two campaigns, Gina Raimondo won the governor’s office with 198,122 votes, which was only slightly higher than Republican Don Carcieri’s reelection win of 197,306 in 2006. Both reelection totals were significantly higher than any governor races in the state since Democrat Bruce Sundlun’s 264,411-vote blowout in 1990.
In short, there is absolutely a path to the governor’s office for a Republican based only on the numbers, but the pain of achieving it would be immense. Why? Because Democrat activists and the statewide news media will make daily life absolutely toxic for anybody who attempts to build a conservative coalition. There is no reason a candidate for governor couldn’t appeal to both Trump fans and Trump haters, but activists and journalists will work incessantly to prevent it, amplifying the innate skepticism and hostility Republicans have long faced in the Ocean State.
So, Republicans shouldn’t worry about what they can’t control. If somebody worthwhile decides to run for governor, great, but their focus ought to be on reinforcing what they already have and building up an alternative political and media support structure. Unfortunately, the incentives and politics aren’t very good for that effort, either.
Featured image from the General Assembly’s website.
[Open full post]
When I became a vaccine supporter in the spring, my reasoning involved a balance of risks and of tradeoffs. Over several posts I won’t dig out of the archive right now, I concluded that the risks of the vaccines were extremely low and that they did improve outcomes versus COVID-19, even though the risks posed by the virus were also very low.
Most of all, I wrote, “it’s a lot harder to effectuate a political revolution when you and your allies are tangled up in restrictions, as unjust as those restrictions might be.” To be honest, I was already resigned until recently to getting a booster shot at some point in the future.
My attitude has changed. Rhode Island’s governor never withdrew the unjustifiable state of emergency. Joe Biden continues to attempt to impose an unconstitutional vaccine mandate. Governments are pressing for the unnecessary vaccination of children. Australia is locking people in quarantine camps and hunting down teenagers who escape them as if they carry the plague.
Now the news media is hyping (Dah, dah, dummm!) the Omicron Variant. Joe Biden is insisting that “we have to shut it down worldwide,” with details on how to do that presumably forthcoming. Scientific American is running headlines like, “How the Omicron Variant Got So Many Scary Mutations So Quickly.” (If you’re wondering, “scary” is not a technical, scientific term.) Researchers are withholding the data behind their mask endorsements, which then turn out to have shown the benefit to be marginal, if that.
And that’s not the only inexplicable distortion of data. The worst, in my view, is the apparently broad consensus that our rulers should pretend that naturally acquired immunity doesn’t exist. That effort over the past six months has proven that experts and decision-makers aren’t making every effort to be rational and balance public health with individual rights. Even their own studies show the obfuscation, such as the one illustrating that almost all of the people who’d had COVID and yet were not immune had been counted as “cases” mainly because the tests were so sensitive. Overly sensitive tests mean many people will be counted as infected who actually aren’t.
Looking into at-home tests recently, I concluded that a similar game is suppressing acceptance of their usefulness. Although not perfect, they’re very likely to identify infection as long as you’re really infected and really are good enough for most purposes.
A rational, scientific approach to a pandemic would take all these findings as evidence that it was wrong to count those people as “cases” at all and that it is unnecessary to have a top-down regime of government-organized testing, with the databasing and public reporting and contact tracing it entails. Of course, if we revised our numbers based on a more reasonable standard of infection, then we’d also have to revise down the scary hospitalization and death numbers, acknowledging that car crashes, brain tumors, and chronic diseases should not be counted as “COVID deaths.”
Therein lies the most disturbing development as vaccination has given us a little breathing space over the past nine months. We’re not seeing any grown-up, responsible reconsideration of authorities’ initial responses. We must conclude, then, that decisions are being made on political and CYA grounds, rather than based on experience and science. The likelihood is that we’ll be getting a long series of double-downs from here until something permits the experts and decision makers to exit gracefully, without risking blame for overreacting.
Actually, modify that last sentence to read, “until something forces” them to exit the madness, because that’s what it’s going to take. They will never find or choose an off ramp until they are forced to look for one, most likely because they are unable to deny that they have lost the public’s willingness to comply.
The marginal benefit of boosting vaccines against COVID-19, for those who aren’t at great risk, is less than the more-significant danger to our rights and way of life. Washing hands, being aware of symptoms, testing yourself when they arise, allowing those who wish to do so to be re-vaccinated, and generally using common sense and being a responsible adult are enough.
It’s time to move on.
Featured image by Justin Katz.
[Open full post]
Well, this is another indication of why the United States should exit the United Nations:
The United Nations approved a resolution targeting Israel and denying Judaism’s link to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem on Wednesday in a 129-11 vote.
The resolution referred to the Temple Mount exclusively by its Muslim name, al-Haram al-Sharif. The text is part of a campaign by the Palestinian Authority, the governing body in charge of autonomous Palestinian regions in Israel, according to The Jerusalem Post.
Next time you hear some progressive talking about “unceded territory,” ask him or her about the Temple Mount.
[Open full post]
An observer doesn’t have to be cynical to wonder why the Huffington Post published its extensive article warning of the RI Political Co-Op’s division of Ocean State progressives yesterday. After all, the article was fueled in large part by “a left-wing Rhode Island activist who requested anonymity to protect professional relationships.” Anonymous sourcing in a case like this implies purpose.
Perhaps it has something to do with the traction that co-op leaders Matt Brown and Cynthia Mendes, the group’s candidates for governor and lieutenant governor, respectively, are getting with the political theater of camping outside the State House in the name of helping the homeless. Patrick Anderson reports for The Providence Journal:
By Wednesday morning, the five-tent encampment remained on the marble and brick plaza in front of the capitol. Mendes and Brown were among six people associated with the Rhode Island Political Cooperative who slept outside in solidarity with those who have no place to live, and they expect the encampment to grow.
Although the state police told the protesters they couldn’t stay where they were, they did not arrest anyone or forcibly remove the tents.
Homelessness is a good issue for progressives, and it illustrates their built-in political advantage. Mendes can uncharitably insist that “the political establishment” believes that people should freeze to death, but it’s not true. Our state’s political insiders don’t care about a lot of things that they should, but nobody believes people should freeze on our streets.
However, homelessness is a complex problem with contributing causes that range from mental health to education to housing policy to the economy, which could be broken down into a whole series of subcategories. The dirty secret from which Brown and Mendes’s theater distracts is that homelessness is at the bottom of a mudslide that progressive policies exacerbated. The complexity of the issue helps them, in other words, by making it difficult to trace the results back to the poorly considered policies that began the human catastrophe.
Here are some high-level examples: Taxation draws money out of the economy, which is where we come up with solutions for helping one another organically. Regulations absorb decision-making into government, where the driving motivation is to appear active so as to win elections, rather than actually solve problems so as to prove value. The focus on people as representatives of identity groups binds them to their flaws while making actual solutions for helping individual human beings more difficult to see. Progressive social policy destroys the cultural underpinnings of healthy families and healthy lives.
Most essentially, however, the damaging quality is that progressives behave as if their expressions of concern directly imply solutions, as if to say, “just fix it.” Because they believe the solutions are obvious, there must be some evil group refusing to do what is needed. And because “just fix it” solutions tend to cover up problems, rather than resolve them, applying this approach to issue after issue piles up the side effects and consequences until… mudslide.
Look to San Francisco to see how this escalates to turn progressive-run cities into hellholes. Across all of society, implied-as-obvious solutions reduce incentive to avoid unhealthy outcomes while undermining incentive to pursue healthy behavior.
At some point, Brown and Mendes will declare victory, pack up their tents, and return to their comforts, but only theatrical challenges are that easy to solve.
Featured image by Matt Collamer on Unsplash.
[Open full post]
Sheesh! As Stephen Green suggests, getting this sort of information out to the public before an election seems like exactly the sort of thing that justify investing power in a news media:
Ablow was close to Hunter and also served as his onetime landlord, the book says. In February 2019, Ablow and Hunter discussed hosting a podcast together, with Hunter texting: “Dad is our first guest.”
Ablow responded: “Does he recall details tho, with the dementia and all.”
Hunter retorted: “Not much these days but since it’s all fake news anyway I don’t see the problem.”
Even now, after Biden is safely installed, the media won’t touch anything like this, despite having spent years promoting the proven hoax of Russian collusion in the Steele dossier.
[Open full post]