20 thoughts on “News/Politics 3-11-21

  1. Every direction one turns and with every issue, it’s clear that these folks in Congress have no interest in serving the interests of the American people.


    “The House of Representatives on Wednesday passed the updated version of President Joe Biden’s $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief package.

    The vote was 220-211, with all Democrats voting for the bill except for Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine) and all Republicans voting against it.

    The House passed a version of the bill late last month, followed by the Senate on March 4. The upper chamber removed the $15 federal minimum wage hike and changed other provisions, such as decreasing weekly supplemental unemployment aid by $100 to $300 a week. No Republicans supported the package in either vote.

    Biden plans on signing the bill on Friday and “hitting the road” in the near future to try to convince Americans the package was a good idea, according to the White House. Press secretary Jen Psaki during a press conference in Washington called it “the most progressive bill in American history.”

    Democrats utilized a budget process to ram the package through Congress with no bipartisan support, drawing criticism from the GOP.

    “I rise in opposition to the partisan $1.9 trillion spending bill before us today. It’s shameful Democrats have disregarded their obligation to provide real COVID relief to the American people and are instead attempting to use this process to jam through partisan agenda items. This bill is not targeted, timely, or tied to COVID. We need to focus on solving the critical issues at hand: getting vaccines to Americans, providing relief to our local businesses, restaurants, and entertainment venues, and supporting those who have been seriously impacted by this pandemic. Only 9 percent of this massive $1.9 trillion package goes to fighting COVID-19. And outside of stimulus payments, nearly half won’t even be spent this year,” Rep. Ann Wagner (R-Mo.) told colleagues on the House floor on Wednesday.”

    Liked by 3 people

  2. They know what is going on…


    “What do frontline health care workers and first responders know about COVID-19 vaccines that politicians and their public health advisers don’t?

    According to a January analysis by Gallup, 51 percent of health care workers and first responders polled in December were unconvinced of the merits of getting vaccinated, even if the vaccine “was free, available, FDA approved and 90% effective.”

    Gallup found these results especially concerning since those at highest risk of exposure to COVID-19—the professionals required to meet America’s health, safety, and critical economic needs whom the National Academies of Engineering, Science and Medicine define as “Tier 1A workers”—were the likeliest to refuse vaccination (34 percent).

    The frontline workers proved to be as defiant as Gallup’s survey of their intentions anticipated. In California, over half of Tehama County’s hospital workers at St. Elizabeth Community Hospital, an estimated 50 percent of frontline workers in Riverside County, and 20 percent to 40 percent in L.A. County refused the vaccine, according to a report in the Los Angeles Times.

    In Georgia, according to an estimate in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, only 30 percent of health care workers have been inoculated. In Ohio, Gov. Mike DeWine reported that 60 percent of nursing-home workers refused the vaccine. In Texas, the Texas Tribune reported in February that home-health and assisted-living agencies may not be able to service their clients because so many caregivers are refusing to be vaccinated. A CDC survey of skilled-nursing facilities published in early February found that fewer than 40 percent of staff took at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine.

    Outside the United States, frontline workers are likewise skeptical. On March 2, Reuters reported that at most half of the nursing staff in Switzerland’s medical sector, only 30 percent of the staff at Germany’s BeneVit Group care-home operator, and about half of the health workers in French care homes were willing to be vaccinated.

    PBS on the same day reported that since “India started administering the second vaccine dose two weeks ago, half of the frontline workers and nearly 40 percent of health care workers have not shown up.” In Canada, CTV provided an anecdotal report that many long-term-care workers in Montreal are “flat-out refusing” to be inoculated.

    For health care workers around the world, their dilemma is who to believe. Their government employers and the pharmaceutical companies, who insist the vaccines’ benefits far outweigh the risks? Or their own eyes?”


  3. Personal anecdote on Tychicus’ report:
    Three daughters in heath care:
    the oldest, an RN, has refused the vaccine based on not enough info on long term ramifications
    the CNA got hers
    the assisted living worker got one and had an anaphylactic shock response so was told to not take the second.


  4. On a reflective note, World Magazine’s “Sift” msg emailed to readers today:

    ~ One year ago today, the World Health Organization declared a global pandemic. Soon after, my husband and I sat down with our two teenage daughters (and a bonus foster teen at the time) and talked about the significance of what we were about to experience. We did not know what the year would bring, but we knew we were going to live through something historic. “You are going to tell your grandchildren about this,” I told the girls.

    Today is a good day to reflect on that history and our role in it. I feel immensely thankful that God has kept my family in good health and comfort when so many others have suffered great loss. … ~

    ++++ And from AP: About 10 percent of the U.S. population is fully vaccinated against COVID-19

    Liked by 1 person

  5. If you didn’t vote for Trump, you did this.

    So enjoy……

    And thanks for sticking all of us with the bill for years of Dem mismanagement.

    “Your Tax Dollars Are Bailing Out San Francisco and New York in the Name of COVID Relief”

    “will erase the majority of San Francisco’s projected $650 million budget deficit over the next two years””


    “People have criticized the Democrats’ COVID relief bill since it contains pork. Did you know it includes a financial bailout for San Francisco and the state of New York?

    Why would they include this in a COVID relief bill? Who benefits from this?

    Trisha Thadani reports at the San Francisco Chronicle:

    S.F’s budget will be saved from painful cuts thanks to federal stimulus. What about in the next one?

    The federal stimulus package likely to be signed by President Biden this week will erase the majority of San Francisco’s projected $650 million budget deficit over the next two years, saving City Hall from having to make painful service cuts and layoffs — for now.

    While the federal stimulus is a boon for the economy in the short term, it will not solve all of the city’s financial woes. San Francisco’s ultimate recovery heavily depends on how quickly parts of the local economy bounce back, from tourists visiting the city to employees returning to downtown offices.”

    Liked by 1 person

  6. You are specifically asked those questions before they administer the shot (and even before that, when you sign up for it online).

    I’d refer you back to Cheryl’s excellent comment on all of this from a few days ago

    That said, no one should ever be “forced” to take a vaccine. There will be always exceptions and people who really should not take a particular vaccine.


  7. Call it…….

    They’re dead.

    A self inflicted death, for sure….


    ““Every young writer, I imagine,” wrote Ross Douthat, “has their first intellectual magazine, whose essays and articles are devoured all the more greedily for being slightly over one’s head. Mine was First Things.” That journal played an important role for me, too, especially theologically, but among political magazines National Review was the first one that really captivated me. During high school study hall, one could get a pass to go to the library. As a freshman, I would go down there and read various periodicals, starting with the newest issue of William F. Buckley’s magazine. The late eighties were still the time of the founder’s presence and the glory of Ronald Reagan who had declared “I got my job through National Review.” I kept reading it even through periods of mild college liberalism and have subscribed for many years to the print edition and enjoyed NRO’s blog, The Corner. I’ve even written a few pieces for the magazine over the years, something I have been proud enough to include in my writer’s bio.

    Yet, like a great many conservatives I know, my love for the magazine has pretty much evaporated. I don’t look at The Corner anymore unless something is linked to it. Alas, too often I regret what I read. Though the print edition is still coming, I didn’t renew it myself. Somebody must have gifted it to me, a fact for which I am not very grateful.

    What’s wrong with NR? ”


    “It was during the Trump era, however, that NR really lost its way. I was initially NeverTrump, but it was the magazine’s “Against Trump” issue that started me on the path to thinking that he might be worth supporting. I didn’t do it in 2016—just barely. Out of despair induced in part by NRO predictions of how badly he was going to be beaten, I thought there was no point. When he won, I began to question the objectivity of NR’s predictions. When Mr. Trump began to actually do many of the things the “movement” talked about, I noticed that NR’s editors kept their distance. It seemed less a matter of his performance than of his not having gotten his job through them—in fact, against their advice.

    They seemed to become suckers for every accusation against him. The Russian Collusion story? They had to take it seriously even long after it proved to be nonsense. The Covington Catholic story based on edited video? Several of the editors jumped on that one, too, writing horrifying pieces about that bad Sandmann kid and his classmates that, like “Russian collusion,” turned out to be much ado about bad behavior by other people. While other writers in conservative media had already identified the disastrous character of Andrew Cuomo’s handling of COVID-19 in April 2020, NR writers were still writing as if he were a decisive, successful leader on the issue. Many also contributed support for lockdowns. Writers bashed Hungary and Poland despite the fact that these countries are fighting off the kind of woke progressivism that NR supposedly opposes.

    Even after parting ways with the most fervent and obsessive anti-Trumpers, Jonah Goldberg and David French, the magazine still seemed to be operating in a kind of fantasyland in which a Trump loss would probably be very good for the country—or at least not that bad. Sure, there were a few pro-Trump writers, but most of the regulars—Ramesh Ponnoru, Jay Nordlinger, Michael Brendan Dougherty, Rick Brookhiser, Rob Long, Ross Douthat, Kevin Williamson—were all anti-Trump. There was a curious disconnect in much of their writing. Sure, the Democrats are getting crazy, but what could go wrong? Writer Dan McLaughlin wrote an endless Hamlet-like piece about why it was actually sensible to vote for Mr. Trump but how he wasn’t doing it because of… well, it wasn’t exactly clear why. There was often the hint that really what we need is to get rid of Mr. Trump and get back to some pristine version of “conservatism” that didn’t include him or any of the populist concerns that he brought to the fore. Mr. Trump was ruled out-of-court for not being Buckleyite, while the people at Buckley’s magazine ignored their founder’s own rule of supporting the most viable rightward-leaning candidate.

    Post-Trump, of course, we live in a country where public intellectuals talk about using counterinsurgency measures against conservatives; Democrats are attempting to censor television channels that do not preach their gospel; executive orders command that bathrooms and locker rooms for women be open to men who believe they are women; Attorney General nominee Merrick Garland argues that attacking federal buildings at night, as Antifa has done, is not domestic terrorism and refuses to say whether illegally entering the country is a crime; and executive orders reverse rules that kept China out of our power grid and forbade critical race theory.

    That little list is just off the top of my head. If I thought for a few minutes more, I could probably get a few more paragraphs of apocalyptic news. NR’s Alfred E. Neuman 2020 political stance seems even more ridiculous and destructive now than it did during the election season. What could go wrong? We’re not even one hundred days in, and that question has been answered many times over.”


    “Most conservatives would rather be governed by the first 2000 names in the phone book than the staff at Bill Buckley’s magazine. National Review seems collectively incapable of seeing that it is no longer standing athwart history but is instead mostly athwart rank-and-file conservatives, even those of us who like Roger Scruton. Small intellectual magazines always depend on donors who believe that they will be influential with the right people. But to be influential, they have to have some popular base. At 50,000 subscriptions, The Weekly Standard’s funders decided that they were no longer worth bankrolling. NR had about 170,000 subscriptions a decade ago and is down to about 75,000 subscriptions now.

    I don’t see any sign of recovery. Rich Lowry tweets articles from The Weekly Standard’s online successor The Bulwark. The magazine keeps hammering away at Donald Trump, claiming falsely that he wanted Republican officials to “throw the election to him.” Their writers seem more bothered by his claims of election malfeasance than they are by the policies and personnel of the Biden administration. And they keep accepting media falsehoods—such as the one that Officer Brian Sicknick was killed by a fire extinguisher on January 6—without investigating them. While Andrew McCarthy did finally write an article about the phony story, he initially said that Sicknick was “murdered” in the course of his urging a conviction of Mr. Trump in the second impeachment case. Meanwhile, there was never any editorial about, or deep-dive into, the story of Parler being forced off-line by a joint effort by big tech’s giants.

    NR is more liberal echo than conservative choice these days.

    It would be great if another generation discovered an intellectual and lively conservatism in National Review as I once did. But absent radical surgery to recover their position athwart history—and I think it will require replacing most of the staff—new generations will only find the magazine in the history books.”


  8. That said … It’s always a risk vs benefit equation. As Cheryl noted, in this particular equation the benefits (I’d agree) far outweigh whatever outlier risks there could be. Those who oppose vaccinations on some kind of principle(?), I realize, will probably never be persuaded, but that’s fine, they should always be able to opt out.

    Liked by 3 people

  9. It’s sad that they cant give credit where it’s due, to Trump.



  10. Yep.



  11. Yet another inconvenient truth.



  12. Tychicus, 4:57, what turns a person dying into a “victim” and not just someone who has died? I’ve always wondered that. The people who die from Covid aren’t victims, and neither are the people who die from the shot; no one has tracked down and murdered those in either category.


  13. Their death was because of Covid or the vaccine, therefore, they are victims of one of those 2 things. They are the cause of death.

    I’m a little surprised you need that explained.


  14. “Victim” implies malicious intent, and diseases and inoculations aren’t rational beings. I’m a little surprised you can’t just give a statement without telling people how surprised you are.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.