Month: September 2020

About a week ago I came upon a piece titled, “Are Lockdowns Effective?” What follows is the first paragraph of that essay:

“I suppose that the obvious answer to this question depends on what one is measuring. If one is measuring the number of and the spread of the Wuhan virus infections, then I guess the answer has to be ‘yes.’ After all if people are locked down in their homes, and are not out living their usual lives in the community, then logic would dictate that these individuals are not exposed to others, then therefore there would be less chance of them becoming infected . . . at least for a while.”

The author sounds knowledgeable and informed, and I was going along with his shtick until a read an interesting piece on 9/2/20 in the Wall Street Journal. The title of this article was: “The Failed Experiment of Covid Lockdowns,” and it was written by Donald Luskin, the chief investment officer of TrendMacro, an analytic firm. (So far Mr. Luskin may be better credentialed than the author of that first piece.) His firm compared the timing and the intensity of lockdowns in each state as well as in Washington, D.C. It gathered its data not by the mandates put in place by government officials, but by observing what people actually did as measured by highly detailed anonymized cellphone tracking data provided by Google and others and tabulated by the University of Maryland’s Transportation Institute. (Sounds much more scientific than in the first piece from a week ago.)

The surprising results of this highly scientific study were as follows:

-Lockdowns correlated with a greater spread of the virus.

-The states with the harshest lockdowns had the heaviest caseloads.

-When everything was analyzed such as population density, age, ethnicity,    prevalence of nursing homes, general health, or temperature the only factor  that seemed to make a demonstrable difference was the intensity of mass-transit use.

-There was a tendency for states that opened up the most to have the lightest   caseloads.

Really !

In summary:

The surprise conclusions were that lockdowns probably didn’t help contain the spread of the virus, and opening up didn’t hurt. “This defies common sense.” . . . “In theory a quarantine should help control the spread of an infectious disease, evidently not so in practice.”

“ . . . heavy lockdowns were no more effective than light ones, and opening up a lot was no more harmful than opening up a little.”

Really!

FYI: Sweden and the U.S. (#11 & #10) both have 577 deaths per million population per worldometers.info. Sweden never went into full lockdown. Is this another piece of hard to data that appears to negate the benefit of lockdowns?

Wow, these findings seem to go against a certain presidential candidate who says that if cases go up, he will institute total lockdowns . . . “I will follow the science.” 

Really! 

Is this an apparent oxymoron spoken by a moron? 

The other day when I was in my car, probably going to Costco, one of my all time favorite songs came on the radio. No, I no longer have Sirius XM, and no, this song was not by ZZ-Top or Queen. It was “Sweet Child of Mine.” No, not by Sheryl Crow, but by Guns and Roses (GNR). A group made up of Axl Rose and some really bizarre dudes. (GNR is one of the few things that I like that has come out of L.A.) After the song was over, my mind wandered to something that I had recently read about ‘Guns,’ but not Roses.

 In March when Covid and its consequent lockdowns, etc began, FBI background checks soared to a new record of 3.7 million. In June after the protests, etc. related to George Floyd, background checks soared to another new record of 3.9 million. In July after BLM induced rioting and looting, another surge in background checks to 3.6 million, the third highest month ever. Remember, these background checks, are related vis-a-vis to gun sales. Whether or not all of these background checks resulted in actual gun sales is irrelevant as all of these millions were now new potential gun owners.

A lot of these people are ordinary citizens – ordinary citizens who now feel that they should own a gun. Who do you think these new gun owners are going to be voting for? Sweet Child of Mine, obviously D.T., not Basement Joe who wants to take their Guns away.

The other amazing stat comes from some of the battleground states in the Midwest which are critical for Trump to win in November. This is something that I had never thought about before . . . deer hunting license sales. I would probably agree that most of these deer hunters are pro-gun and thus pro-Trump to start with However, for every deer hunter there are family members, friends, etc. and this adds up to quite a large number of votes. I would go out on a limb and say that most of these deer hunters are not answering calls from pollsters. 

Anyway, these numbers are huge!

Wisconsin: >600,000

Pennsylvania: 750,000

Michigan: 700,000

These deer hunters are not limited to these few battleground states. For example, West Virginia: 250,000.

As I have alluded to before, this is another relatively small group of voters who probably are not phone survey takers, but come November, will be voting for you-know-who.

BTW: I just googled and listened to GNR’s “Sweet Child of Mine” again . . . awesome!

In 2020 we are all due for some good news. 

Covid . . . bad news. Shutdowns . . .  bad news. Economic devastation for many . . . bad news. Protests . . . bad news. Riots and destruction of private property . . . bad news. Et cetera!

Good news? Is there any? Well, I am happy to say that today, I finally read some good news, some very good news, some very good news about the NBA. Yes, that same NBA that sided with China in the struggle for freedom in Hong Kong.

A headline from the Daily Wire:

Get Woke, Go Broke: NBA Ratings ‘Cratering’

Ratings for the NBA have dropped significantly as the professional sports league becomes increasingly “woke.”

In addition to obstacles presented by the coronavirus, a report from City Journal outlined the staggering ratings hit of the NBA because of its left-wing activism, most recently wearing social justice-themed warmups and jerseys and even postponing playoff games over the police shooting of Jacob Blake.

As part of a racial justice initiative, NBA players have also been allowed to display a “social justice” word or phrase, selected from an approved list, on the back of their jerseys instead of their last names.

The approved list includes “Anti-Racist,” “Ally,” “Say Her Name,” “I Can’t Breathe,” “Enough,” “Black Lives Matter,” and “How Many More.”

“TV ratings, mediocre after the season restarted, are down collectively by 40 percent on the TNT network, and 20 percent on ESPN, since their peak nearly a decade ago.”

The report noted that the NBA’s “network TV premium broadcasts ratings on ABC are off by 45 percent,” which “a former public relations executive for the NBA describes as a ‘cratering’ of viewership,” per The Athletic.

“The lockdown will cost the NBA at least $1 billion in revenue, and an MLB study earlier this year projected a potential revenue decline of $4 billion from the shortened season,” City Journal noted. “And the poor TV ratings suggest that many sports viewers have missed watching NBA games less than the league might have anticipated.”

I understand that many of the  individual NBA players probably have opinions on what is happening. However, I, as a “fan” do not have to buy what the league is selling when they are forcing it down my throat. My not watching the NBA has nothing to do with whether the players are black, white, or yellow. When I sit down to watch sports, I am interested in sports, and not in political propaganda.

Although I will probably be criticized as being a schadenfreude concerning my view that the tanking NBA is “good news,” . . . my response – “sticks and stones, etc! 

Whoopee!”

Back in March Bill deBlasio, the mayor of New York City went to his YMCA gym in Brooklyn to exercise on the day that Governor Cuomo was closing all gyms at 8pm that night, and Bill was issuing a stay-at-home order on that very day. Granted it was a “legal” visit as gyms in New York were still okay, and I have no problem with him going to workout. What I do have a problem with, however, is his answer to the question of why he went to exercise when so many other things including schools were shut down.

He said. “I have to stay healthy so I can make the decisions for the people of this city.” (In other words, “I went to the gym, because I am sooo important … because I’m me.”)   

From the Chicago Tribune on April 7,2020:

“In case you haven’t figured it out yet, there are two sets of rules—one for the ruling class and one for the peons

Mayor Lightfoot defended getting a haircut amid the coronavirus outbreak, saying she’s the face of the city and the woman who cut her hair wore a mask.

‘I take my personal hygiene very seriously. As I said, I felt like I needed to have a haircut. I’m not able to do that myself, so I got a haircut. You want to talk more about that?’

So, the mayor “take[s] her personal hygiene very seriously.” Does this hack not think that the other 1.49 million other women who live in Chicago might also take their “personal hygiene very seriously?”

But you see, that is not important. Because Lightfoot is ‘important’! “

(In other words, “I got my haircut in defiance of the state mandate because I am sooo very important . . . because I’m me.”)

But the winner of the hypocrisy sweepstakes has to be Nancy Pelosi who was caught on camera inside a beauty salon and not wearing a mask.

Pelosi went to the salon on 8/31/20 for a blow-out. Salon owner Erica Kious told Fox News that Pelosi’s assistant had set up the appointment with an independent stylist who rents chairs in her salon.

San Francisco salons were closed for months as part of Mayor London Breed’s emergency coronavirus regulations. They were allowed to reopen for outdoor service on 9/1/20.

Now from my point of view, going to a hair salon when no one else in San Francisco can is clearly very hypocritical. (In other words,it sounds like she is saying, “I went to the hair salon in defiance of the mandates in San Francsco, because I am sooo important . . . because I am me!”)

What’s even worse with this story is Pelosi’s response when asked about the incident.

Pelosi noted that the appointment was made ahead of time, and said the stylist could have and should have said they were not open. 

Duh! Everybody in the Bay Area knew hair salons were not open.

Pelosi then further displayed what a lowlife she is by saying the following:

“It was clearly a setup. I take responsibility for falling for a setup by a neighborhood salon that I’ve gone to for years.And that’s, that’s really what it is.” (Despite willfully disobeying the diktat by the San Francisco mayor, she is trying to blame someone else.)

Pelosi, the powerful California Democrat then said, “ I think that they owe, that this salon, owes me an apology for setting me up,” (Now that’s more than just chutzpah – it’s unmitigated gall.)

The owner of the salon Erica Kious, responded, that Pelosi visiting, “was a slap in the face,” adding, “that she feels that she can just go and get her stuff done while no one else can go in, and I can’t work.”

Today I read an extremely interesting and disturbing piece on POWERLINE entitled “Who Killed George Floyd.” 

 “At 7:30 p.m. on May 31, 2020, prosecutors “met” online with Dr. Andrew Baker, Chief Medical Examiner of Hennepin County, to discuss Floyd’s toxicology report.

To their undoubted dismay, Dr. Baker, the chief medical examiner, had to concede that at 11 ng/mL, Floyd had “a fatal level of fentanyl under normal circumstances.” He also conceded that the fentanyl overdose “can cause pulmonary edema,” a frothy fluid build-up in the lungs that was evidenced by the finding at autopsy that Floyd’s lungs weighed two to three times normal weight.

This is consistent with Officer Kueng’s observation at the scene that Floyd was foaming at the mouth and, as found at autopsy, that his lungs were “diffusely congested and edematous.”

In other words, like a drowned man, Floyd’s lungs were filled with fluid. And that was the obvious and inescapable reason why Floyd kept shouting over and over again that he couldn’t breathe even when he was upright and mobile.

The memorandum ends with Dr. Baker’s devastating conclusion that “if Floyd had been found dead in his home (or anywhere else) and there were no other contributing factors he [Dr. Baker] would conclude that it was an overdose death.”

Since I cannot vouch for the veracity of what’s in this article, I can just report what it says. My response to this POWERLINE  article is: “Say it isn’t so.”

I am not a conspiracy theorist, however why was this memo not released by the prosecution until 8/25/20? (The reported online meeting with D. Baker was on  5/31/20!)

Furthermore, now with this delayed release by the prosecution almost three months later, I doubt that there is anyplace where Derek Chauvin and the other officers could ever expect to receive a fair trial, and this could happen right here in the U.S. . . . “Say it isn’t so.”

I was in a quandary whether to call this “the chutzpah award” or “the hutzpah award,” or “the chutzpa award,” but realistically the spelling is irrelevant. The winner this year is . . . California Governor Gavin Newsom … hands down. Granted California has multiple problems, including the highest poverty rate of any state, high taxes, syringes and human waste on the streets of some of its largest cities, and the costliest and least reliable power in the nation. However the Chutzpah Award goes to Gavin Newsom for him suggesting that “we need an investigation into why the recent power outages have occurred!”  OMG! A second grader could probably answer that question . . . the recent power outages occurred because there is not enough fossil fuel providing  power in California. When the sun goes down, or when there is a paucity of sun for what ever reason, it should be pretty obvious that solar and wind are not the answer. 

From the Wall Street Journal: 

It is interesting that municipalities of Los Angeles and Sacramento were spared power outages.The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power get 48% of its power from coal or gas. The Sacramento Municipal Utility District gets 54% from gas. Compare that to the 15-17% for the private utilities, PG&E and Southern California Edison. (WSJ asks whether or not these private utilities are more important easily bullied by the greenies?) 

Keep in mind that California accounts for only a measly 0.1% of global emissions . . . so why do we have to have blackouts? If anyone can explain to me the logic of imposing blackouts on many innocent citizens because of an unrealistic Sacramento reliance on sun & wind, I am listening! 

I propose that we need an investigation!