The Long Version

Retired broadcast journalist. Blogging helps scratch the itch. Recovering exRepublican – Sober and still Conservative.

Archive for the ‘News’ Category

Case vs Infection – The COVID Con

leave a comment »

Every state in the union is enforcing some sort of lockdown or restriction of its people due to “extremely high case counts” for COVID-19.

I have explained many times in social media posts and discussions with people I know how the case count alone is a meaningless metric and basing government policy decisions on this statistic alone is an example of profound ignorance at best and malicious intent at worst.

Jon Rappaport, an investigative journalist who has written articles on politics, health, media, culture and art for LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, Village Voice, Nexus, CBS Healthwatch, and reported on major television news networks over the past 30 years, has decided to take a deep dive into the COVID-19 data, the way its been reported by the media, and the confusion surrounding the pandemic since it was first announced.

Here are some of his findings as posted on his personal website, where he clearly cites credible sources including official sources such as the CDC, WHO, and NIH.

The lockdowns are based on high levels of COVID cases.

“We have so many new cases, we have to lock down.”

This claim is based on the diagnostic PCR test.

The more tests you do, the more positive results come up. A positive result is taken to mean: the person is infected with the virus.

But overwhelmingly, these so-called “infected” people have no symptoms. They are healthy. Nevertheless, each one is called a “COVID case.” This is absurd.

A case should mean the person has clinical symptoms; he is sick.

These people aren’t sick, and there is no indication they will get sick.

So…expand testing, test millions of people, obtain results claiming “infection,” call all these healthy people “cases,” and order lock downs.

IS THE PCR TEST DECEPTIVE?

You need one piece of background here.

The PCR test is run in “cycles.” Each cycle is a quantum leap in amplifying or magnifying the original tiny, tiny piece of material taken from the patient’s swab sample. It’s like blowing up a small photo to an amazing size.

The question is: how many cycles should the PCR test be run at? This is vital issue, because the number of cycles changes the result.

July 16, 2020, podcast, “This Week in Virology” [1]: Tony Fauci makes a point of saying the PCR COVID test is useless and misleading when the test is run at “35 cycles or higher.” A positive result, indicating infection, cannot be accepted or believed.

Here, in techno-speak, is an excerpt from Fauci’s key quote (starting at about the 4-minute mark [1]): “…If you get [perform the test at] a cycle threshold of 35 or more…the chances of it being replication-competent [aka accurate] are miniscule…you almost never can culture virus [detect a true positive result] from a 37 threshold cycle…even 36…”

Too many cycles, and the test will turn up all sorts of irrelevant material that will be wrongly interpreted as relevant.

That’s called a false positive.

What Fauci failed to say on the video is: the FDA, which authorizes the test for public use, recommends the test should be run up to 40 cycles. Not 35.

Therefore, all labs in the US that follow the FDA guideline are knowingly or unknowingly participating in fraud. Fraud on a monstrous level, because…

Millions of Americans are being told they are infected with the virus on the basis of a false positive result, and…

The total number of COVID cases in America—which is based on the test—is a gross falsity.

The lockdowns and other restraining measures are based on these fraudulent case numbers.

Let me back up and run that by you again. Fauci says the test is useless when it’s run at 35 cycles or higher. The FDA says run the test up to 40 cycles, in order to determine whether the virus is there. 

See the problem?

On December 3, Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida and the Florida state Department of Health announced that they are requiring labs to report number of PCR test cycles in all COVID tests. Rappaport continues:

COVID testing labs never tell doctors or patients how the PCR test is run.

This means the number of cycles is a secret.

A cycle is a step up in amplification of the tissue sample taken from the patient.

As even Tony Fauci has asserted, tests run at 35 cycles or above are useless. They’re also misleading. The results tend to be positive, meaning the patient is “infected with the virus.” But this is false.

However, as I’ve also reported, the CDC and the FDA recommend that the test should be run at up to 40 cycles.[2] [3] This is a direct hustle. It ensures false positives and higher COVID case numbers—used as justification for lockdowns.

Now, the state of Florida is doing something unheard of. It’s demanding that labs report the “cycle threshold” for every test they run.

Here is the relevant wording in a release from the Florida governor, Ron DeSantis, and the state Department of Health, dated December 3, 2020 [4]:

“Cycle threshold (CT) values and their reference ranges, as applicable, must be reported by laboratories to FDOH via electronic laboratory reporting or by fax immediately.”

“If your laboratory is not currently reporting CT values and their reference ranges, the lab should begin reporting this information to FDOH within seven days of the date of this memorandum.”

We can assume there is only one reason for this order. The Florida governor and the Department of Health are aware that tests run at 35 cycles or higher are useless and misleading, and they want to stop this crime.

Imagine what happens if the trend of “new COVID cases” in Florida soon takes a sudden dip and keeps on falling—because labs are finally telling the truth. Because their deceptive test results are being rejected. The con will be exposed.

And imagine other states following Florida’s example.

People can’t make good choices for themselves, their families, or their communities if they are uninformed or misinformed. The politicization of COVID, the use of it to restrict the freedoms of American citizens, and the division it has and is creating is, in my opinion, being done with malicious intent by powers within America and beyond our borders who wish for global dominance and rule and see the United States as the one obstacle in their path.

Standing for truth isn’t always easy or popular, in fact it’s more often neither, but we are beyond the time for complacence. It’s time to choose where you’ll stand, but do so on verifiable trusted sources of information.

Hint: It isn’t in the established media of old.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_Vy6fgaBPE

[2] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/12/03/lockdowns-are-based-on-fraud-open-letter-to-people-who-want-freedom/ 

[3] https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download

[4] https://www.flhealthsource.gov/files/Laboratory-Reporting-CT-Values-12032020.pdf

Jon Rappaport Blog

Written by DCL

December 10, 2020 at 11:14 am

Posted in Health, News

Tagged with , , ,

The Great Reset

leave a comment »

 

by Justin Haskins

On Nov. 3, Joe Biden could be elected the next president of the United States, but most Americans still do not know the truth about Biden’s radical ideology.

Despite having sold himself as a “moderate” Democrat for decades, Biden has consistently shown that his views on globalism and America’s place in the world are far from mainstream.

This argument is best proven by examining Biden’s close ties to the World Economic Forum, which is now pushing for a remarkably troubling “Great Reset” of capitalism, and the many statements Biden has made over the past several years echoing Great Reset ideology.

The Great Reset movement has been widely adopted by numerous world leaders, including the head of the United Nations, Prince Charles, the International Monetary Fund, international trade unions, and CEOs of major corporations.

Using the COVID-19 pandemic and climate change as the justifications for a fundamental transformation of the world’s economy, the Great Reset movement aims to destroy modern capitalism and replace it with a system that embraces numerous left-wing social programs, such as basic income systems and the Green New Deal, as well as force all corporations around the world to adopt leftist social justice causes.

In an article published on the World Economic Forum’s website, WEF founder and Executive Chairman Klaus Schwab — who is spearheading much of the Great Reset movement globally — wrote that “the world must act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions.”

“Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed,” Schwab also wrote. “In short, we need a ‘Great Reset’ of capitalism.”

Schwab and other supporters of the Great Reset blame many of the world’s problems on the perceived failure of the existing “social contract” and what they call “shareholder capitalism” — the current economic system in much of the Western world.

Under “shareholder capitalism,” individuals can buy shares of companies, which are then expected to produce goods and services they can sell to customers for a profit. (Sounds terrible, I know!)

Although Biden, to my knowledge, has never been asked directly about whether he supports the Great Reset, he has made numerous comments echoing similar talking points. For example, in July, Biden called for the end of the “era of shareholder capitalism.”

Additionally, just like the World Economic Forum and supporters of the Great Reset, Biden has said government should use the coronavirus pandemic as a justification to “rewrite the social contract” of the United States.

Biden’s “Build Back Better” plans also come straight out of the Great Reset movement’s playbook. For many years, supporters of the Great Reset at the World Economic Forum and elsewhere have talked about “building back better” by dramatically expanding the power of government, pursuing costly “green” infrastructure plans, and substantially increasing the authority of international institutions.

Biden’s proposals would do just that, and the “Build Back Better” name is just too similar to what others affiliated with the Great Reset movement and/or the World Economic Forum have said to be a mere coincidence.

For example, in 2016, a development specialist at the World Bank, discussing climate change-related natural disasters, wrote for the WEF, “The pressure for governments now is not to wait until a disaster strikes to ‘build back better.’ Instead, the urgent need is to build better now, and to thoroughly assess current risks to industrial infrastructure.”

In May 2020, the World Economic Forum posted to its website an article titled “‘Building Back Better’ — Here’s How We Can Navigate the Risks We Face After COVID-19,” in which the writer argued, “We have looked at ways to ‘build back better’ and it’s very clear that investing in greener economies is going to be a huge part of recovery efforts.”

On July 13, 2020, less than a week after Biden called for an “end to the era of shareholder capitalism” while promoting his own “Build Back Better” plan, the World Economic Forum published a piece titled “To Build Back Better, We Must Reinvent Capitalism. Here’s How.”

And these examples are just the tip of the iceberg. There are many others showing the WEF using the “build back better” slogan prior to and following Biden’s release of his Build Back Better policy proposals.

Biden also has close ties to numerous Great Reset advocates and leaders at the World Economic Forum, where Biden has on multiple occasions delivered keynote addresses.

Former Secretary of State John Kerry — the co-chair of Joe Biden’s climate change “Unity Taskforce” and a man many believe could serve in Biden’s administration — has publicly backed the Great Reset and called for reforms to the American “social contract.”

South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who has been named to Biden’s transition team, is a member of the WEF’s Forum of Young Global LeadersButtigieg’s climate policy adviser, David Victor, is affiliated with the World Economic Forum and authored in June 2020 a lengthy article for Yale University titled “Building Back Better: Why Europe Must Lead a Global Green Recovery.”

Further, Biden has close relationships with at least three World Economic Forum board members who support, to varying degrees, the Great Reset platform: Al Gore, David Rubenstein, and Laurence Fink, the chairman and CEO of BlackRock, whom many Democratic donors have reportedly pushed to be Biden’s choice for treasury secretary.

Additionally, WEF board member and Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff is a longtime supporter of Kamala Harris, Biden’s 2020 running mate.

More evidence of Biden’s intimate relationship with Great Reset advocates can be found in the launch of the Biden Institute, which is based at the University of Delaware. In 2017, when the Biden Institute first started, Biden said he wanted to model some of the new organization’s activities after the World Economic Forum, and he even met with the WEF’s leader and the world’s biggest advocate of the Great Reset, Klaus Schwab, to help develop a plan for the future of the Institute.

Taken together, Biden’s policy plans, campaign messaging, and connections with key Great Reset figures seem to point toward a very troubling conclusion: Joe Biden is likely an advocate of the radical Great Reset, a proposal that, if enacted, would completely overhaul the world’s economy in favor of more collectivism and the centralization of power in the hands of international elites.

That might sound unbelievable, but when there’s smoke, there’s almost always fire.

Justin Haskins (Jhaskins@heartland.org) is editor-in-chief of StoppingSocialism.com and the editorial director of The Heartland Institute.

This article was originally posted by TheBlaze.com

Written by DCL

October 26, 2020 at 3:27 pm

The Left’s Game Plan for November 3, 2020

leave a comment »

Election 2020You may or may not be familiar with something called the Transition Integrity Project.

You should be.

It is an alliance of Never-Trumpers and Democratic Party operatives who formed a group to war game the 2020 election.

According to The National Pulse, it was founded by Nils Gilman, a professor of the history of the intelligentsia at the University of California at Berkeley, and Rosa Brooks, a former Obama Pentagon official and the daughter of former Democratic Socialists of America co-chair Barbara Ehrenreich.

Members of the group include John Podesta, Bill Clinton, Donna Brazile, Jennifer Granholm, David Frum, Bill Kristol, Max Boot, Michael Steele, members of the Lincoln Project, and other high level political operatives.

You get the picture.

This group created a set of scenarios forecasting instability during the November election and titled it “Preventing a Disrupted Presidential Election and Transition.” If you were wondering why all the talk and concern over peaceful transition of power, you can look to this group and this document as the match that started that fire.

To me it reads like a conspiracy theorists manifesto, but it’s obviously written to appear benign, non-partisan, civil, and “for the greater good” and maybe it is. That’s for you to decide.

Some things to consider regarding the cast of characters who put this together. The founder Gilman isn’t what I’d call a tolerant guy. His Twitter feed is full of hate for anyone ideologically opposed to him. He tweeted this about Michael Anton just a few weeks ago. “Michael Anton is the Robert Brasillach of our times and deserves the same fate.”

For those unfamiliar with Anton or Brasilliach, Michael Anton is a former Deputy National Security Advisor and speech writer for Trump and Brasilliach is a French intellectual who was shot by firing squad in 1944 by French resistance forces for his advocacy of Nazi collaboration and anti-Semitism.

Again, you get the picture.

Anton recently wrote an essay titled “The Coming Coup,” which warned of plans for a “color revolution” in the U.S. where elections are overridden by mobs and plotted by Deep-Staters connected to George Soros, who invented the color revolutions elsewhere. Do a search for Color Revolutions if you’re unfamiliar with that term.

The target in Anton’s piece is the Transition Integrity Project and rather than argue or defend his project, Gilman suggested the killing of his critics.
I think everyone should read Preventing a Disrupted Presidential Election and Transition regardless your political affiliations and decide for yourself what it means.

I make note of the makeup of the participants in its creation and the fact that not one is a Trump supporter for a reason. This isn’t an objective paper. This is anti-Trump and anti-Republican. They use the term non-partisan because “Republicans” were involved, but there is no pretense of non-bias.
After reading it, it became clear to me this was a playbook containing all the play calls needed for any given scenario on November 3, who would call the plays, and how they would be executed.

I don’t want to give anything away here. I want you to take the time to read this.

Whether you come away with the same conclusions I have or the complete opposite. Whether you agree with their position and proposed actions or they chill you to the bone. This is information people need to know about prior to what I believe is the most pivotal election in our lifetime.

You can read or download the full document HERE

Written by DCL

October 10, 2020 at 10:07 am

Election Day Chaos and Confusion. Just Part of the Plan?

leave a comment »

Empty envelopes of opened vote-by-mail ballots for the presidential primary are stacked on a table at King County Elections in Renton, Washington on March 10, 2020. (Photo by Jason Redmond / AFP) (Photo by JASON REDMOND/AFP via Getty Images)You’re going to see a flood of news stories from the major news sources in the coming days and weeks leading up to November 3rd, mourning the problem of uncounted mail-in ballots with not so subtle implications any such problem on November 3rd will be due to a massive effort to rig the election for Trump.

What they won’t tell you in their misleading headlines or stories is WHY the ballots are not counted. Politico has already published such a story about the Florida primaries. No mention of the actual legal reasons ballots were not counted. I see this as a precursor to more stories that will, by implication as opposed to direct evidence, lead you to believe something malicious and illegal is happening when, in fact, the opposite is far more likely to be true.

Election law governs how we vote, when we vote, and how ballots are counted. The states handle their own elections and Congress determines the rules for federal elections. Mail-in voting tends to have a greater number of illegitimate ballots due to mistakes on the ballot, no signature, mismatched signatures, or missing deadlines. This isn’t anything new. States who’ve had mail-in voting for some time all go through this every election, but you never heard the media claiming mass voter fraud because of it.

Election law is not a suggestion. It’s the law.

In the Florida primary the ballots were thrown out mostly because they arrived late and/or weren’t signed. Throwing out illegal ballots isn’t voter suppression and mail-in voting isn’t fraud nor is it rigged. But rules matter and must be followed to avoid those potential problems.

Of course the problem of late ballots due to people mailing them too late or an overwhelmed postal service, led the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to effectively say, to Hell with Congress, we’ll write our own law! Which they effectively did with their ruling on September 17th. The polling shows a very close race in Pennsylvania and no Democrat has won the presidency without winning Pennsylvania since Harry S. Truman in 1948. I’m sure this had no bearing on the heavy Democrat majority on the court. Nah, no way…

Pennsylvania’s highest court gave the Democratic Party a series of victories Thursday, including one allowing repairs to glitches and gray areas in the battleground state’s fledgling mail-in voting law and another that kicked the Green Party’s presidential candidate off the November ballot.

The state Supreme Court, which has a 5-2 Democratic majority, granted the Democratic Party’s request to order a three-day extension of Pennsylvania’s Election Day deadline to count mailed-in ballots. And it ruled that the Green Party’s candidate for president did not strictly follow procedures for getting on the ballot in November and cannot appear on it. ~  KDKA – CBS Affiliate in Pittsburgh

PROBLEM: the judicial branch doesn’t have the authority to do that.

Federal elections are controlled by congress NOT the courts. No wonder the Penn Supreme’d ruling sent seismic waves through the country. Pennsylvania is a swing state and that ruling makes those judges look like fixers rather than objective jurists.

The Democrats are sowing the seeds of mischief in the upcoming election. You don’t even have to be a super rational or logical thinker to see how their actions and attempts to completely change this election and how votes are cast and counted weeks before it happens to see this.

The longer Democrats can delay the announcement of a clear winner, the better their chances to pull off a heist. Why do I use that term? Simple observation. Trump rallies and appearances are attended by thousands. Thousands more line their streets to welcome his motorcades. Biden appearances aren’t even being covered because they don’t want people seeing the empty rooms and lack of “in-person” support. It’s crazy how stark this indicator is.

The Democrats own internal polling is not showing Biden with a lead. The current public polls showing him leading by 2 or 3 points means Biden will lose by 8 or more points in all of those states if we go by previous election trends and statistics. Particularly the 2016 race where Clinton was supposedly running away with it in the polls.

The charades and mirages being played and set up by the DNC, Biden, and the powers that want him in office, are almost too numerous to count and they are following strategies that have been used before, just not in this country. Look into the term “Color Revolution” and see how it has been used to shape the politics of other nations and regimes. Elements in the US government are pretty good at it.

The talk began in June, with zero evidence to back it up, that Trump would not leave office if he lost the election.  Joe Biden said the military will “escort Trump from the White House with great dispatch.”  Al Gore, the global warming monster, concurred. This is all done to set the table and put you in a state of mind to accept those attempting, in effect, a coup attempt, as heroes for election integrity.

A little more background. There was a story intentionally leaked over the summer about a meeting of 100 high level Democrats, Never Trump Republicans, and others in the ruling class of community organizers who met play out a war games type exercise regarding outcome scenarios for the November 3rd election.  One such scenario suggested a definitive Donald Trump victory.  John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign manager, suggested that Biden refuse to concede and then pressure states that Trump won to only send Democrats to the Electoral College vote. The Democrats would rely on the military to handle the rest.

Think that’s a stretch? Don’t. In 2016 Democrats and Hollywood leftists tried getting Republican electors to cast their votes for Clinton. That’s mild compared to where the DNC has devolved since then.

The exercise determined “technocratic solutions, courts, and reliance on elites observing norms are not the answer here.”  It then says if Trump wins it will be “a street fight, not a legal battle.”  Now do you understand why Democrats have been so slow to condemn the riots, fires, looting, and assaults in the streets? If that leaked report is true and there is sufficient evidence to believe it is, they’re basically telling you they will increase the riots everywhere across the country.  No more working through democratic principles, the Constitution or, legal system.  There are powerful people building an army of loser arsonists to set the entire nation on fire. You think you’ve been spared because your town hasn’t seen the destruction of the major population centers and Democrat strongholds you’ll be spared again? Not this time.

And then there was this… Over the summer, two former Army officers, wrote an open letter to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs asking him to send the 82nd Airborne Division to the White House and drag President Trump from the Oval Office at exactly 12:01 PM, January 20, 2021.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff outranks all other commissioned officers but is prohibited by law from having operational command authority over the armed forces.  So, these two idiots, that should have had been court martialed by now, asked the CJCS to break military law which would have resulted in a court marshal as well, all because they suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome.

This is just the beginning. The Democrats know Biden and his VP selection couldn’t be any worse. Why they chose a dementia ridden career politician and a woman who has more than her fair share of baggage, both political and personal, is anyone’s guess. But the closer we get to the election, the more desperate they will become. You know that saying about a cornered wild animal?

If Trump is actually inaugurated for a second term, it will be a miracle in my opinion, regardless the actual outcome of the election which I believe will be a runaway blow out for Trump based on observation alone. Have you seen the crowds lining the streets and trying to get into his events? Now compare that to those rare glimpses into anything Biden does publicly. I mean, it’s startling the lack of enthusiasm and support wherever Biden goes in public. It doesn’t take a clairvoyant to read those tea leaves.

We’re in for a blockbuster, action packed storyline filled with twists and turns, villains and heroes, and an explosive ending.

Get out the popcorn.

Written by DCL

September 18, 2020 at 6:45 pm

The COVID-19 Narrative and Journalistic Malpractice

leave a comment »

Truth or LiesFor four months we have been watching a media smokescreen and misinformation campaign.

I was originally going to make this a Facebook post, but then I decided it would probably get removed by some self-righteous, virtue signaling, social justice warrior patrolling the feeds so I moved it to the blog.

Americans Doubt News CoverageThe media has done nothing but tell us how everything that has gone wrong or is bad regarding COVID-19 since day one is Donald Trump’s fault. They show us death counts, infection rates, compare us to other cherry picked countries, and not to mention selective data mining, and have shaped and perpetuated a narrative that kept the nation captive and ignorant.

However, as usual, a casual review of ALL the data as well as putting ALL the data into proper context, will render a very different story. 

The true story.

Listening to ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, and every other left of center news network (even FOX), will lead you to believe we are number one in every terrible category that has anything to do with this virus. We are also told that President Trump is ignoring the problem. But that’s how cherry picking works.

If we look at the top 20 nations for “observed case-fatality ratio” you’ll find the U.S. at number 12 with Great Britain #1 by a mile. In the U.S. the number of confirmed cases with the number of U.S. has Case Fatality Rate of 3.4%confirmed deaths is at 3.4%. Great Britain is at 15.2%… EVEN with all the admitted mistakes in record keeping from all the states, EVEN including deaths from shootings and car crashes that were counted as COVID deaths, we are at 3.4%. But that’s just not good enough for the media nor it’s desired narrative. Because that puts the U.S. in the company of countries like Bolivia, Columbia, and Guatemala. A country of our resources and wealth shouldn’t hanging with “THOSE” countries they say and being “12th worst in the world” is nothing to brag about.

Except, we’re not 12th worst in the world…IF you don’t cherry pick data. When you look at how America’s CFR compares to other similarly developed countries you see a much different picture. The U.S. actually has a lower CFR than Japan. What? How is this possible? Japan has been lauded by our news media as a shining example. But if the U.S. is doing better than Japan why are we so bad in the media’s eyes? Hmmmm?

When we look at TOTAL CFR (case fatality rates) the U.S. isn’t anywhere near the top of the list nor is it in 12th place. When we compare all cases and deaths worldwide the U.S. comes in at number 56… Of course we’d rather be dead last on that list, but 56 spots from the top should at least suggest that we are far from the incompetence the media portrays day after day.

The media would also have you believe we are the absolute worst when it comes to testing for COVID. Except we have tested over 53,000,000 people and our per capita test numbers are only behind the tiny countries of Luxembourg, Bahrain, and Israel. Bet you haven’t heard that report before.

How did we get to such a high number of tests in such a short amount of time and why haven’t we done more? That’s a great question. But you’ll have to ask the CDC why it made testing in the early phase of the disease so difficult to do. Like only allowing people who had traveled to China to be tested. In the beginning of this mess, testing or developing tests by private companies, universities, etc, was literally blocked by the CDC and FDA which was reported in the Wall Street Journal. Then, when the CDC finally started shipping tests to the states, many of them were defective.

Testing ONLY improved when the White House removed some of the regulatory road blocks that kept private labs, medical facilities, and universities from developing their own tests and testing methods. Once private industry jumped on board to help with the testing, the tests got better and the results more accurate. Gee, imagine that? Government screwing things up while private industry makes them better. Hmmmm, again… No mention of this problem nor the solution by your “free press.”

Then we moved into the Mask Era. Every day the Trump administration was pounded for not mandating masks as if a President can simply make laws by Royal edict… Can you imagine the 

Rep Eric Swalwell tweets Stop Wearing Face Masks

attacks if Trump had actually done that? He’s already a dictator for…doing…something Pelosi and Schumer don’t like. I think…

However, let’s go back to March when the media was reporting this: “U.S. Health Officials say Americans shouldn’t wear masks to prevent Coronavirus – Here are 3 other reasons not to wear them.” Democrat Congressman and Deputy Assistant Impeachment Cheerleader Eric Swalwell even tweeted, “Stop wearing face masks. #Coronavirus” on March 4, 2020.

65% of Americans wear a mask in publicYet here we are after a complete 180, creating another angry and divisive issue for people to fight about. A recent Pew Research poll showed 65% of Americans wear one when in public places and that poll was done BEFORE Trump went public with his support of wearing masks and the media was hounding Trump to force mask wearing because according to them no one was. Wrong again newsies.

But the biggest club the media has chosen to bash the president with, is Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). During a March press conference, President Trump made the horrific (in the minds of Dems) and now famous or infamous (depending which color voting sticker you wear) statement suggesting HCQ could be helpful in treating COVID-19. You’d think he had just told Americans to drink poison and bleach! Oh wait, the media did say that… And for the next week we were told Trump isn’t a doctor and he doesn’t know anything and he’s trying to kill people.

CNN went so far as to find a story in Nigeria about Chloroquine poisonings and blamed THAT on Trump. All it takes is the arch enemy of the Democrat arm of the media saying something positive about anything and the media is immediately against it.

The FDA, which had previously given the green light to HCQ for some COVID patients, suddenly gave it the red light citing a study that claimed there were dangerous side effects like blindness and heart attacks. The media went on a blitz telling the public they could die of heart attacks or go blind if they listened to Trump! But then, the study the FDA was pointing to was retracted by the authors citing bad data and unverifiable records. I’m sure you remember the media coming out immediately with a retraction and apology for scaring the bejeebers out of everyone. No? Oh, that’s because they didn’t say anything about it.

Hydroxychloroquine studyThen in July a newer study published in the International Journal of Infectious Disease, came out saying HCQ DID help to “significantly lower the death rate” in COVID patients. Even a Yale Epidemiologist wrote about the positive benefits of HCQ in treating COVID-19 in Newsweek magazine. Dr. Harvey Risch published a study showing the drug is effective for treating the virus.

Now, these doctors who have come out and spoken the truth from studies and their own experience treating COVID-19 are being threatened, fired, black listed, and called quacks. Thousands of doctors worldwide have prescribed this medication in a protocol with Zinc and other medicines with success, yet the media and certain people in our government at the federal and state levels are doing all they can to silence this debate. Why?

It’s a 65 year-old drug that is used for many illnesses, but mainly Lupus and Rheumatism. It is derived from a natural medicine called Quinine, which comes from a tree bark. It has been proven safe and used safely for decades in this country. So why the pushback?

Imagine how different this conversation would be if ANY Democrat had come out in support of this treatment rather than Donald Trump. You know it would be like night and day. There would likely be a push to make it an over-the-counter medication as soon as possible. But, unfortunately for people who do get the virus, the wrong person said something good about it.

HCQ is cheap and plentiful and it’s been around so long it doesn’t have a patent. And maybe that has something to do with this whole controversy. No one makes any real money on this drug. Any pharmaceutical company can produce it. There is no exclusivity. No big bucks. Not that money is a motivator or anything…

You may also remember the “COVID Parties” being thrown all over college campuses in those “evil” Republican states like Alabama.Covid Parties? CNN took the lead reporting how college students in “Republican States” were throwing parties to see who would get COVID first. They were even betting on it! With real money!!!! But then a Journalistic Icon decided to dig into the story. No, not the New York Times. Wired magazine connected the loose ends (or wires as it were) and they found “no credible evidence” of COVID parties taking place. Their headline read “COVID Parties are not a thing.” None of the other media reports were true. CNN had failed again.

This is just a small sampling of the kind of media reports droning away day after day on TV and the web. Yet, day after day they are exposed as inaccurate or blatantly false. Truth no longer appears to be the standard of quality journalism, at least on the national stage.

The standard now is political and the standard bearer looks a lot like the Democrat party.

Written by DCL

August 1, 2020 at 6:49 pm

A Life of Liberty Or A Life of Lockdown?

leave a comment »

Lockdown ProtestersDeath is part of life.

SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19 or Coronavirus or whatever name you give it, is NEVER going away.

So what do we do? Dig holes and bury ourselves forever?

The last known case of Smallpox was in Samalia in 1977. It is the ONLY disease to be considered eradicated by science, but there are some who say it could come back. Think about that. In the history of mankind we have managed to eliminate only one infectious disease. We have vaccines for diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough, polio, measles, mumps, rubella, the flu, and many others. All of these diseases still exist. All of these diseases still infect millions of people every year and all of these diseases still take precious lives away from families.

Yet, in our 244 years as a nation, we have never, in our public health history, done what we are doing now. We have never shut down all economic activity for any length of time. We have never forced people, on a national scale, to stay in their homes with legal consequences if they leave. We have never arrested our citizens for exercising their God given and constitutionally mandated rights to make a legal living. Never at any time in our history have we completely ignored the Constitution of the United States, because of a disease, with such a broad and sweeping decree.

Yet every day, with continued testing, this virus is proving to be much much less than the angel of death some politicians and news media continue to tell us it is.

Initially the concern was for hospitals and the belief that the infection would spread so rapidly and be so deadly that our health care system would be overrun and unable to cope with the massive numbers. Of course, that never happened nationwide and only a handful of major cities saw overcrowded hospitals. A majority of people who test positive — more than 80 percent in some states — are never hospitalized. A fact our national media still refuses to acknowledge or report. For some bizarre reason, the news media continues to cling to the doomsday prophets and their computer-generated pandemic models.

Testing continues to prove the panic peddlers wrong. One of the first large-scale antibody tests was conducted in Heinsberg, Germany, where 14% of the population had antibodies to the virus. By comparing the estimated number of uncounted infections with recorded deaths, the study suggested that coronavirus’ death rate is as low as 0.37% compared to a 3.4% case fatality rate estimated by the WHO and 0.1% for seasonal influenza. Researchers from Columbia University recently estimated that only 1 in 12 cases of COVID-19 in the U.S. are documented, which they said would translate to an infection fatality rate of about 0.6%, as reported by The Washington Post.

Every day that you get out of bed and walk out of your house you are at risk of dying. That’s life.

The fact is you are at a higher risk of dying from getting in your car to go wait in line at Costco than you are of dying from catching this virus in that Costco line. We’ve got to stop being paralyzed by fear and and we’ve got to get the country back to work and people back to productive lives. We cannot continue to remain stagnant as a nation or we won’t be a nation for much longer.

It’s probably too late to save us from all of the damage this unnecessarily broad shutdown has caused to our nation’s economy. 1 of every 4 workers in America has filed for unemployment benefits. The grand total of unemployed Americans from this pandemic is a whopping 38.6 million as of May 21, 2020. Georgia’s early move to start easing stay-at-home restrictions nearly a month ago has done little to stem the state’s flood of unemployment claims — illustrating how hard it is to bring jobs back while consumers are still afraid to go outside. Not to mention the idiotic decision to pay people more to NOT work than they can make at their regular jobs. It has become abundantly clear our elected officials had no clue what they were creating with their reactionary policies, based solely on “predictive models” from the beginning. This leaves me to wonder if we will ever learn the folly of relying solely on predictive data for real time decision making. Has the Global Warming debate taught us nothing on this front?

The economic damage and the unintended consequences of this lockdown are even more poignant when considering this survey data gathered by the Census Bureau.

Nearly half of Americans say that either their incomes have declined or they live with another adult who has lost pay through a job loss or reduced hours, the Census Bureau said in survey data released Wednesday.

More than one-fifth of Americans said they had little or no confidence in their ability to pay the next month’s rent or mortgage on time, the survey found.

We see the commercials of companies sharing their sympathies with those hit hardest by the lockdown and suggesting they’re willing to help. But how sympathetic and how helpful will they really be when it’s all said and done and we are back to whatever “normal” will be when everything reopens? Economic reality says they can’t just forgive every debt, although, the Democrats will surely fly in on their magic carpets to shout for “debt forgiveness for everyone!” Of course we never considered Democrats to be economically literate in the first place, but it will make for good political theater.

The bottom line: We Overreacted. We took this lockdown way too far and in the process we created new factions and tribes engaged in meme wars on social media and in some cases real wars of words with shouting matches in stores, real violence in the streets, and sadly, people actually killing each other. The talking heads on TV and their ever willing partners in politics tell us everyday how terrible and deadly and dangerous the virus is seemingly ignoring the real data to continue peddling their panic driven narrative.

All this has done is create more division.

We have the Virtue Signaling Masked Avengers vs the Defiant Un-masked Horde. The Stay at Home Shamers vs the Stick it Up Your @#$% Openers. The Predictive Modeling Doomsday Prophets vs the 99.9% Survival Rate Evangelists. We’ve seen a church burned to the ground by “pro-quarantine fascists” who were determined to teach those church-going, lockdown-defying Christians a lesson, scrawling on the pavement the words “Bet you stay home now you hypokrites.” They can’t spell but they can light a match. This is where we are in 2020.

Yet in the midst of all of this noise and anger is great kindness and compassion being expressed by the vast majority of Americans toward their neighbors and those in their communities. It is times like this when we realize how vulnerable we really are and how important it is to have those neighborly friendships and bonds, how important our family ties become, and how precious and fragile liberty and freedom can be. Yes, there is a lot of negative energy swirling in the winds of COVID-19, but I believe the positive will once again, as it did in 2001 and 9/11, overcome and subdue the anger and pain. That’s what I hope we’ll see in the “new normal.”

There is one thing we all need to take a good hard look at and that’s how and who we choose as our leaders. We, the voters, must share some blame in all of this. The people we have put and continue to put into office at all levels have failed us. The vast majority of them have proven themselves to be anything BUT public servants. We have put people in office who have, time and time again, shown us with their actions while contradicting their own words where their loyalties really lie and it isn’t with us. Self-service is the norm in DC and in too many state and local governments in this country. That has to change.

First we MUST make sure our elections have integrity, checks and balances, and transparency. Ballots should be cast in person. If we can stand in line at Costco and the liquor store we can stand in line at the polls. If we need to extend the time to vote due to large turnout then do it. We’re a large nation with millions of people. If it takes several days to give everyone the chance to enter a polling station then that’s what we do. We can not allow our elections to be changed and manipulated by the whims of those who rule us or they will rule us forever.

Perhaps, just perhaps, this experience will lead to a political Renaissance where true public servants come to the fore who are there to serve for a limited time and then let someone else have a turn. Wouldn’t that be amazing? Perhaps our younger generations will see the flaws that got us here and realize only free and unfettered elections without restriction or party interference will bring the change that’s needed. One can only hope.

And one final question; when will our leaders learn the lesson of one size does not fit all? Maybe after the Renaissance…

Open the country and let people begin to work on salvaging their lives and moving forward through the risks and dangers life always has and always will present. Let the chips fall where they may.

Life is hard and there is a reason for that, but that is a topic for another post.

If that sounds harsh and callous so be it.

Written by DCL

May 24, 2020 at 11:21 am

Posted in Health, News

Same Destination, Multiple Paths?

leave a comment »

Same Destination, Many Paths

A blog post by John Pavlovitz titled “I’m Not the Radical Left, I’m the Humane Middle” popped up in my social media. The headline grabbed my attention so I clicked.

It’s a nice, flowery, feel good post. It says the kind of things that make our brains produce a good dose of endorphins, serotonin, dopamine, and oxytocin. The neurochemicals that make us happy and feel good.

So what’s wrong with that you ask?

Nothing, unless the flowers are covering the weeds. I’m not saying the article is an overt attempt to mislead or misinform. I’m sure the author earnestly believes in everything he wrote and how and why he came to his positions and opinions. But I don’t think he truly resides in the “Humane Middle” as he calls it. I don’t think he owns that real estate. I think he sits in the section of the bell curve the majority of us populate, if not more toward one side than the middle.

I believe Mr. Pavlovitz is an ideological leftist. I believe he is doing what ideological leftists do. He’s making a case to convince us and probably more importantly, those who share his worldview, their position IS the middle, the perfect balance, the ultimate destination, and if you aren’t just like them you’re simply “indoctrinated into a white nationalistic religion of malice.” Those are his words.

I don’t have a problem with people whose ideology is on the left side of the spectrum. If I was to pass one on the street I’d consider them with kindness and respect just like any other person walking that street. When I see people out and about I don’t see them as ideologues or members of a political party.

They’re just people. Like me.

I was taught to “Love my neighbor as myself” and I try to live that way. What I find problematic with folks of a leftist ideological persuasion is they don’t seem to be satisfied just having their own ideas, opinions, and beliefs and simply expressing them. In my experience, those on the left, and more so the activist left, aren’t happy until you accept and adopt their ideas, opinions, and beliefs as your own and they won’t hesitate to apply social pressure, even force, to get you there. Because, from my experience and interaction with political liberals, they’re right and you need to come to grips with that and change. PERIOD.

They are so convinced they know better than you how to live your life, they are going to do everything they can to live it for you and it’s all wrapped in the name of compassion, love, and humanity. They’re kind and tolerant until you refute their doctrine. Do that and you’ll see another side and it won’t be smiling.

Mr. Pavlovitz took an inventory of his positions. It’s a nice list that resembles what one might think Utopia is made of. He believes his list is “the list” everyone should have because, again, he’s in the middle. If your list isn’t like his, you’re the problem. You’re the extreme.

So, I decided to go ahead and do the same inventory to see how extreme I am, but I’m going to also explain the what and why of each point, how I got there and what makes me believe the way I do. That’s something Mr. Pavlovitz doesn’t do and I wish he did. But I believe if he got into the nuts and bolts of each item on his list he’d soon find himself well beyond the middle and it would ruin the entire thesis. How do I come to this conclusion? Read his other writings…

So let’s compare Mr. Pavlovitz’ “extremism screening list” with mine.

John: I believe in full LGBTQ rights.
Me: I believe in basic human rights. I don’t subscribe to the idea that different groups of people have different rights or more rights or less rights than any other. I believe every human being has a right to life, liberty (freedom to choose their life path), and the pursuit of personal happiness under the rule of law. I believe in equality of opportunity, not outcomes.

John: I believe we should protect the planet.
Me: I believe we should be responsible stewards of the planet and all it provides. I’m certain we have very different ideas about what that means and how that can and should be achieved. We probably agree that people have and do exploit this planet’s resources and far too much is wasted and misused.

John: I believe everyone deserves healthcare.
Me: I believe everyone should have access to healthcare. I do not subscribe to government run healthcare. There are better and far more efficient alternatives and they must be made available in the marketplace preferably at the community level. Health-share programs are providing a glimpse into how that might work. A public safety net for those who are truly unable to afford or provide for their own healthcare is a must but not how we currently fund and operate it. For any system like this to work it requires a high level of integrity and honesty amongst the populace. That’s just one reason our current system is broken. 

John: I believe all religions are equally valid.
Me: Valid is an interesting term to use here. Validity doesn’t necessarily equate goodness for humanity. I believe any religion that teaches love and respect for all people, service to others, self-restraint, self-reliance, chastity, temperance, charity, humility, kindness, patience, diligence, et al, brings good to all humanity and has value. Religions that violate free agency and seek to control adherents have no value in my opinion.

John: I believe the world is bigger than America.
Me: Yep, the world is big. But at this point in our development as human beings, national borders are still a reality and necessity. Until we stop dividing ourselves into tribes with hard ideological segments that’s not going to change. The wide spectrum of cultural and ideological differences in this big world require them. I am an American. I love my country. I will protect and defend my country from any who would harm it or the way of life we enjoy. I do not have ill will toward any other nation or people. I will make my country the best I can within my sphere of influence. I believe our constitution is an inspired document containing principles that, when followed, lead to greater happiness and prosperity for all people. We, as a nation and a people, aren’t doing that right now which has lead to the place where John is feeling squeezed.

John: I believe “pro-life” means to treasure all of it.
Me: I believe in the sanctity of human life at any and all stages of development. While I believe life is sacred, I believe the choices of those who willingly and knowingly take a life should have grave consequences up to and including paying for their crime with their own in certain cases and in accordance with our laws. I believe life begins in the womb. Once that life is created I believe we have a moral obligation to assure that human being has all the rights available to any of us and should be protected. I believe there are exceptions with regard to when an abortion is the right decision, which John appears to be couching, but those circumstances should be rare and few. 

John: I believe whiteness isn’t superior and it is not a baseline of humanity.
Me: This one tells me how far to one end of the spectrum John really is. I don’t know ANYONE, nor can I say I have ever met ANYONE who believes “whiteness” is superior. Do those people exist? Yes, we know they do because they’ve told us so. However, those who share John’s views would have you believe white supremacy is a massive problem by scale. It’s not. But they have convinced themselves that the election of Donald Trump is proof that half the people in this nation are white supremacists. Hence the need to make that statement in his list. NO SKIN COLOR is supreme. Such a radical view is a tiny minority in this country. See point one.

John: I believe we are all one interdependent community.
Me: Ideally yes, but language barriers, cultural differences, religious beliefs, and our propensity to judge each other makes harmony on a large scale sometimes difficult, but not impossible.

John: I believe people and places are made better by diversity.
Me: I believe if we lived by the golden rule, it wouldn’t matter what mix of ethnicity, culture, ideology, lifestyle, et al existed in our communities, places of employment, cities, states, or countries. We can and should be able to get along and work for the common good of everyone. Live and let live. However, diversity for diversity’s sake is a mistake and is counter productive. It creates an environment of preferential treatment which goes against human nature and the concept of fairness. This conclusion comes from people with much higher credentials, more academic placards, and greater influence than I.

John: I believe people shouldn’t be forced to abide by anyone else’s religion.
Me: No one should be forced to believe or live any religious tenet. I don’t believe anyone is. I believe this is an extreme Left view and is patently false. Just because religion and religious belief is around you and you are exposed to it doesn’t mean you are being forced to abide by it. In fact, we are seeing converse examples of this extreme view as the Left attempts to force people of faith to abandon or hide their religious beliefs so as not to “impose” upon those who don’t share them. They tend to twist the concept of separation of church and state into something none of the framers of our constitution ever said or imagined. Numerous court cases in recent memory validate this trend by secularists in society.

John: I believe non-American human beings have as much value as American ones.
Me: I absolutely agree. Until they come to America, break our laws, and/or threaten American lives in any way. Then they, by choice, devalue themselves and we must uphold and sustain our laws to protect our rights as citizens and the privileges citizenship has in our country. Others are welcome to come and enjoy the fruits of this nation. All I ask is that they do it legally, contribute while here, and be inclusive and welcoming to those unfamiliar with their unique cultures and ways and vice versa. I’ve lived in another country for an extended period of time. The non-Americans seem to understand this better than most Americans and expect the same behavior from us while living as guests in their countries.

John: I believe generosity is greater than greed, compassion better than contempt, and kindness superior to derision.
Me: All true. Now how do we get large scale adoption and practice of these important traits?

John: I believe there is enough in this world for everyone: enough food, enough money, enough room, enough care – if we unleash our creativity and unclench our fists.
Me: I believe there is tooI see this every day. I see people helping people, sharing their abundance, teaching principles of self-reliance which creates a “can do” attitude and magnifies self-confidence, but that’s not what gets the headlines. The headlines scream the opposite incessantly which leads many people to think that’s the norm. It’s not. But that’s how people tend to see it and for Liberals it seems to really spike the emotions. They seem to see the world only as reported on TV or in their Twitter feed. With emotions revved to maximum capacity the finger pointing begins and since they see themselves as “knowing better than you” they blame you, the ones who see the world differently and believe differently (more diversely), than they do. That almost seems contradictory to what they publicly say though doesn’t it? We agree on this point, but he seems to not see the forest for the trees.

Bottom line: Anyone can create a list of platitudes without explanation or detail to provide context or reveal intent and make it sound amazing, wonderful, and woke. But doing so doesn’t place you in a position of neutrality to say “see, I’m the middle. I’m in the place where everyone should strive to go.” I’m sorry but you don’t get to determine where the center is. Neither do I. That, in and of itself, is a journey of discovery and I believe always becomes self-evident at some point.

Frankly I’ve always seen those in the middle, the centrists, the moderates, to be little more than fence sitters. People with their finger in the air waiting for the popular winds of change push them toward a decision, or to take a position, or make a stand. If that is where you plant your flag, I’m sorry, but to me that’s just wishy washy and indecisive. Besides, walking or sitting in the middle of the road tends to get one run over.

When we dig down to find that bottom line, I believe Mr. Pavlovitz is trying to get to a place we all want to exist. One that is full of kindness, love, abundance, and void of envy, hatred, and poverty. The perceived difference for me and conservatives like me, is Mr. Pavlovitz and liberals like him think their way of getting there is the only way and if you’re not doing it their way, well, you’re just not educated enough or have the intellect to see how life really works. In fact, you may be relegated to something white and undesirable, measured only by how you vote or don’t…

Mr. Pavlovitz appears sanctimonious to some extent. But to him and those who share his views, I’m certain I’m the sanctimonious one.

Or maybe I’m just a “bitter, ignorant cretin, Trump-asslicking loser” as articulated by singer/songwriter Richard Marx on Twitter when I disagreed with one of his angry hostile profanity laced political tweets about the president. In fairness I started the feud. I’m not proud of the tweet that started it and in hindsight wish I hadn’t reacted the way I did. See what happens when we assume “we’re” right and “they’re” wrong?

I really do believe I want what Mr. Pavlovitz wants and what Mr. Marx (the singer not Karl) wants and what everyone in the giant middle section of the bell curve probably want too.

I sincerely do.

If our political, social, and ideological positions didn’t get in the way, we’d likely be a lot closer than we are.

Written by DCL

October 23, 2019 at 3:31 pm

Posted in Humanity, News, Politics

CBS News Reporter Confirms: News Media Has Leftwing Bias

leave a comment »

Lara Logan CBS NewsLara Logan may not be a household name in the world of journalism, but she has been a part of some well-known international news stories over the past decade.

Logan, who is from South Africa, began her news career there in Durban in 1990 and has worked for Reuters, ABC, NBC, and CBS as a freelance reporter internationally. In 2002 Logan was offered a correspondent position with CBS News where she spent most of her time on battlefields reporting in war zones around the world. Logan also made regular appearances on CBS 60 Minutes.

But Logan is perhaps best known for what happened to her off camera than on. In 2011 she was in Egypt covering the Egyptian revolution when she and her camera crew were arrested and detained by Egyptian police. They were later released but as they moved back into the streets a large group of Egyptian males encountered them and began to make lurid comments about Logan. Soon the crowd became aggressive and Logan was taken by the mob and sexually assaulted. She would later say she believed she was going to be killed. She spent several days in a US hospital upon her arrival from Egypt.

With nearly 30 years of journalistic experience at major news networks around the world, Logan is a prime candidate to speak on the subject of bias in the news industry. She sat down with retired Navy Seal Mike Ritland and was interviewed for Mike’s podcast “Mike Drop.” Logan had interviewed Ritland 6 years earlier for a segment on 60 Minutes. Now Logan was on the side being questioned.

Ritland has been a harsh critic of the American news media, calling it “absurdly left-leaning” and that “Democrat biases were a huge —-ing problem” and a disaster for the country. “I agree with that. That’s true,” Logan replied. She also implied it wasn’t just an American problem. “The media everywhere is mostly liberal, not just the U.S.,” she said. In the U.S., Logan says there are only a small number of news organizations that don’t march to the Leftist drumbeat. She cited Fox News and Breitbart as two examples.

In the podcast with Ritland, Logan talks about her experience in newsrooms.

“Visually, anyone who’s ever been to Israel and been to the Wailing Wall has seen that the women have this tiny little spot in front of the wall to pray, and the rest of the wall is for the men. To me, that’s a great representation of the American media, is that in this tiny little corner where the women pray you’ve got Breitbart and Fox News and a few others, and from there on, you have CBS, ABC, NBC, Huffington Post, Politico, whatever, right? All of them. And that’s a problem for me, because even if it was reversed, if it was vastly mostly on the right, that would also be a problem for me.”

“My experience has been that the more opinions you have, the more ways that you look at everything in life — everything in life is complicated, everything is gray, right? Nothing is black and white.”

“This is the problem that I have. There’s one Fox, and there’s many, many, many more organizations on the left. … The problem is the weight of all these organizations on one side of the political spectrum. When you turn on your computer, or you walk past the TV, or you see a newspaper headline in the grocery store If they’re all saying the same thing, the weight of that convinces you that it’s true. You don’t question it, because everyone is saying it. Unless you seek out Breitbart on your computer, you’re probably not even going to know what the other side is saying.”

She wonders how people can know what’s accurate and what’s not when so many news outlets are saying the exact same thing, in many cases word for word.

“How do you know you’re being lied to? How do you know you’re being manipulated? How do you know there’s something not right with the coverage?” she asked.

“When they simplify it all, there’s no gray. It’s all one way. Well, life isn’t like that. If it doesn’t match real life, it’s probably not. Something’s wrong. For example, all the coverage on Trump all the time is negative. … That’s a distortion of the way things go in real life.”

Logan continued, “Although the media has historically always been left-leaning, we’ve abandoned our pretense, or at least the effort, to be objective today. We’ve become political activists, and some could argue propagandists, and there’s some merit to that.”

Another major problem she sees is the use of anonymous sources, particularly in the government. “That’s not journalism, it’s horse shit,” she said. “Responsibility for fake news begins with us.”

At the end of the three hour and forty-nine minute interview, Logan said something that in itself is very revealing of the state of our free press in America. She said, “This interview is professional suicide for me.” A sad, but likely all too true, sentiment in the era of Trump and the news media.

Here is the full video of the interview from the Mike Drop podcast.

Written by DCL

February 19, 2019 at 10:45 am

Don’t Be Evil – Google’s Hypocrisy

leave a comment »

Larry Page as Dr EvilHas Google become something it once told us never to be?

Anti-trust regulators say Google unfairly and illegally used its dominance in search to promote its own products over those of competitors paying for ads and placement in its search engine.

Then there’s the company’s repeatedly defensive and dishonest responses to charges that its specially equipped street-view cars collected private internet communications — including emails, photographs, passwords, chat messages, and postings on websites and social networks.

Next we learn of Google’s plan to work with China to develop a search engine that will censor websites and search terms on human rights, religion, protests, and democracy. Something called Project Dragonfly, which brings us to the multi-billion dollar question, is Google testing this censorship technology in the U.S. for political and corporate gain?

Political conservatives would quickly say yes, from experience.

Google’s internal culture has been laid bare by James Damore’s lawsuit alleging employment discrimination. The picture we get is a corporate culture of lockstep ideological uniformity, enforced by censorship, badgering, and blacklisting. Damore provides, in his evidence, a note from a Google manager in 2015, addressed to “hostile voices.”

I will never, ever hire/transfer you onto my team. Ever. I don’t care if you are perfect fit or technically excellent or whatever. I will actively not work with you, even to the point where your team or product is impacted by this decision. I’ll communicate why to your manager if it comes up. You’re being blacklisted by people at companies outside of Google. You might not have been aware of this, but people know, people talk. There are always social consequences.

In other words , “you will think and act like us or you will be turned into a pariah.” How open-minded and free-thinking.

But the laundry list goes on…

  • There’s the ill-conceived launch of Google-Buzz which made all of your contacts in Gmail viewable to the public. A huge privacy issue that ticked off pretty much everyone.
  • Google’s tendency to buy up companies and sunset them without any notice, even if they are turning a profit like Jetpac and Picnik, leaving company employees looking for work.
  • Is Android an open platform? That may be more lip-service than reality. In a lawsuit by Skyhook Wireless, Google was accused of forcing Motorola to cancel a deal with Skyhook to provide location-based services for Motorola phones because Google wanted them to use their location services instead. Big boot squashing little company…
  • Then there’s the time Google got caught “tricking” Apple’s Safari browser into letting Google monitor Apple users’ web-surfing behavior.

But perhaps the biggest reason Google has become what it told us never to be is their total lack of respect for your privacy. Google built its reputation and empire on the idea that it would always put users first and build its products on the premise that they would always function in the user’s best interest, not their own, hence the motto “Don’t Be Evil.” Google built a lucrative company on a reputation and model of mutual respect. That was reversed in 2012 when Google announced their new privacy policy and the “cross-pollination” with regard to your private information being pulled and shared through multiple Google products and services. Bottom line: everything they told us prior to this change was a load of crap.

Google began as a unique and superior search engine that was very much a model of free enterprise and free market principles. But as the phrase “Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely” reminds us, those who grow into a position of control and dominance too often take their advantage to extremes, whether by intent or by losing control of the giant they’ve created.

Still millions of people use Google products every day either due to ignorance or because convenience and ease of use has chipped away at our resistance to losing our privacy online.

Google, it seems, has become one of two things. The modern technological version of Frankenstein’s monster or something much worse. Either way, growing public opinion suggests Google has become something it once told us never to be.

Evil.

Note: I will continue to add article links to this post as Google does more evil stuff.

townhall.com – John Stossel discusses censorship by Google and social media giants.

How Google Tracks Your Personal Information – An insider’s account of the dark side of search engine marketing

Written by DCL

November 19, 2018 at 10:05 am

Posted in News, News Media

Tagged with ,

No. Socialized Medicine Is Not the Answer

leave a comment »

Socialized medicineWhenever I see people arguing about universal healthcare aka single-payer system aka socialized medicine, I always see the same rationale when it comes to why it would work here when it has been less than ideal in every other country where it is used. “Because we (America) can do it better! We can do it right.”

That’s a fallacy.

No different than this idea that we can somehow make Socialism work as a political governing ideology. No, we can’t. No one has and no one will.

Socialized medicine will fail here just as we see it failing, or at best providing benefits well below what we’ve come to expect from American medicine. Why?

Human nature.

People lack appreciation and/or respect for things they get for free. If I have to provide examples here, you’ve never been in a public park restroom. People don’t value what they don’t pay for. When there’s no skin in the game they don’t care. When you take competition from a marketplace and replace it with guaranteed free services it creates expectations from which an entitlement mentality forms.

It is well documented in single-payer systems where doctors and nurses deal with more self-entitled people coming into their facility demanding healthcare because, “my tax dollars pay your salary.” It’s demoralizing for medical professionals. Quality of care suffers. People become objects to be slowly dragged through the system (often waiting long periods of time between treatments or to begin them) to milk as much money from the government as it can.

When you try to take the profit motive out of business and give government the reins to that business, all you really do is transfer the motive away from the business to customer relationship required to maintain customer loyalty to that business, to “how can I get more government money from this person?” To combat this the government with its deep pockets of taxpayer dollars, will pour more money into a broken system. It will pass more regulations to make things “fair.” Due to the fact that tax dollars are NOT unlimited, the government must, at some point, pick and choose what it deems a “necessary” operation or treatment to save on costs. In one example out of Canada a dental patient was in need of a root canal. The government said no, it was an “unnecessary tooth” and would only pay to have the tooth removed. “Necessity” is subjective.

Our healthcare system became the best in the world because of our innovation which is spurred by competition. Argue till you’re blue in the face, but if you take away competition, innovation will slow or even die with it because innovation is risky and expensive. Who will invest in new treatments, drugs, or surgical procedures, if government price-fixing doesn’t provide a way for the risk taker to get a return on investment?

The problem isn’t our medical system. The problem is with our politicians who always manage to get their grubby fingers into the private sector. They’re in bed with the insurance industry, big Pharma, and the large healthcare conglomerates. The mutual back-scratching is endless. Regulations have largely catered to these big businesses, not to patients or doctors. I believe one step to take would be to remove as many federal regulations as possible. Allow insurance to be sold across state lines. Make it a true competitive marketplace. Insurance shouldn’t be tied to employment. That doesn’t mean employers can’t use it as a benefit to entice high quality workers but it shouldn’t be incentivized with tax perks. We should be allowed to shop for our healthcare just as we would a car or home. Enough with these hospital “networks” that only take such and such insurance.

Free market forces are incredible regulators and balancers when allowed to function properly and under the watchful eye of honest ethical leadership. Does that mean there will be winners and losers? Yes. But that’s life. Those who provide the best care and service for the best price will win and prosper. Those who don’t will lose and go out of business. Family doctors and practices will return to communities rather than reside only with large, exclusive, medical conglomerates. Family practitioners and general physicians would be salaried in a single-payer system with less control over their pay and though many argue their pay would not go down that simply isn’t feasible unless the number of doctors and nurses is curtailed or reduced. Over-specialization in medicine, which is one reason costs are so high in the U.S, will self-moderate based on market forces.

The truly needy who can’t afford care can, and should, be provided with care. There must always be a safety net. There is no reason we can’t create one that actually works within the private sector.

I don’t claim to know all the answers, nor do I believe government can’t have a role in our healthcare system, but it should be one of oversight and enforcement of laws to make sure the care providers and companies in the medical industry are operating fairly and ethically. Government enforces the rules and laws deemed necessary by the people it governs. That is one thing it can and should do well. Government should not be paying individual bills or managing the private sector. That is not its function and it has proven over and over again how poorly government manages anything business related.

We can get our healthcare system back to where it is healthy and functions to help all Americans afford and have access to proper healthcare. We don’t need to follow in Canada or Great Britain’s footsteps.

Written by DCL

November 9, 2018 at 3:33 pm