Saturday, April 11, 2020

Coronavirus: Enlisting in the Seniors Brigade

Hiring Older Adults – Risky or Beneficial?
America’s older population needs to put to good use — and not put out to protective pasture as the country implodes. 

Article by Mark Coppenager in "The American Spectator":


About two million Brits enlisted in the Civil Defense Service in World War II, and nearly 2,400 of them lost their lives to enemy action. These were the fire wardens, the rescue party members, the messengers, and such who negotiated the burning rubble to minimize mayhem during the Blitz. Some tunneled deep into basements to free trapped souls, laboring for hours under precarious beams amidst flooding and gas leaks, even as German bombers passed overhead. Some were women, others Boy Scouts. But many were WWI veterans, too old for the draft, but ready to once again strap on “Tommy helmets” and head out into harm’s way, gray hair and sagging jowls notwithstanding.

Today, we’re under attack from COVID-19, but it’s not clear whether the bulk of the damage is being done by the “Heinkels” of infection or by the propagandistic broadcasts of “Axis Sally.” Be that as it may, I’d like to volunteer for a “seniors brigade,” to join in the war effort despite insistence that we elderly vulnerables hole up somewhere for the duration. Indeed, the definition of ‘duration’ seems to be linked to the safety of us “golden agers,” I being of the 71-year persuasion. Don’t shuttle us off to bunkers near Rye in East Essex or Bibury in the Cotswolds. Give us armbands displaying the crown and send us back into London, to Bethnal Green and Wapping and Regent’s Park. And whatever you do, don’t surrender to tyranny for our sake.

Look, I’m a little embarrassed to have made it through the Vietnam War stateside and safe. During that conflict, I was an infantry officer involved in various branch schools, drills, and “summer camps.” Meanwhile, people I knew from college were dying in Southeast Asia; for other casualties, I’d be mustered to play taps after rifle volleys in rural graveyards. Well, that war is over and done, and I’m retired from the Army Reserve. But I’d like to re-up, this time to join ranks, so to speak, with those old guys in England who asked no favors from the authorities when the nation’s well-being was in the balance. (Yes, of course, the folks who are really putting it on the line these days are the first responders and health care workers, but bear with me.)

Here’s the context: The damage to our economy and to our civil liberties is staggering. For sake of comparison, what if a foreign navy embargoed our ports, sabotaged our power grid, or grounded our airlines, driving the nation into depression and oppression?

Wouldn’t we mobilize the military to strike back while we ginned up recruitment? And might we even reinstitute the draft to meet the challenge, even forcing young men to put their lives on the line to protect our way of life (including devotion to our Constitution, which they swear to “support and defend … against all enemies, foreign and domestic”)?

What I’m suggesting is that old guys like myself need to step up and insist,

Look. We’ve lived generous lives, and, no, we’re not in a hurry to depart. We have a ton to contribute on many fronts and a number of things we hope to yet enjoy. (So does every age group.) But please don’t cashier our country to keep us going, especially if we’re already weakened by chronic disease. (And, to be frank, some of us have worked for decades at bringing on these maladies, whether through overeating or smoking.) We’d suggest that, just as many of us “Boomers” were willing to die to block the falling dominoes of Communism in the 60s and 70s, many are willing to die now to arrest the paralyzing and toxic overreach of governmentalism. Sure, don’t force us old codgers, or anybody for that matter, out onto the battlefield, but don’t keep us off it if we want to saddle up. We may be more susceptible to damage than the young’uns, but we’re not more infectious.
We’re not asking that the nation neglect or, in effect, euthanize “Keenagers” and the otherwise afflicted in order to keep the economy “high speed and low drag,” “hostile, agile, and mobile.” Just leave us alone if that’s our wish. We’re grownups. Let our grandkids play ball, and let us go cheer for them if we’re up to it. Let us gather over fast-food breakfast with our cronies and at church with our brothers and sisters in Christ. Let our younger neighbors open their shops for business, and let communities patronize them. And though we appreciate genuine expressions of tender affection, please don’t deploy maudlin, pious, and absurd slogans that start with “If just one life is in peril,” staging photo ops while writing yourself a blank check to take charge of whatever you desire.
Come on, this is a perilous world! We don’t shut down everything for the flu, even the double-dog flu. I don’t at all mean we should shame elderly people who “self-isolate,” especially those with pre-existing conditions. We should reserve our shame for anyone, young or old, who sneezes without covering and who barges right past those CDC flyers posted on pharmacy doors around town, the ones with the stop sign and the words, “DO NOT ENTER if you have: FEVER, COUGH, SHORTNESS OF BREATH.” What we do ask is that you quit shaming us “Old Timers” who don’t want to be coddled, acting as if we were so selfish and fragile as to insist that everything grind to a halt to keep us viable. Hey, we’re mortal, and we’d appreciate the option to die with our boots on rather than in the clutches of political nannies. (Actually, we’re immortal, for better or worse, and it may be that what’s driving part of the hysteria in some quarters is a lack of confidence that the beyond is congenial or even existent, if I may say so on this happy Easter weekend.)

Now for some qualifiers: Yes, of course, if we discover that a disease is particularly lethal for children (which COVID-19 is not), then we can reopen the conversation. It’s one thing for adults to offer up their lives for the good of the nation and quite another to ask our kids to do so. (In a real sense, the pro-abortion crowd does just this, but they’ll have to answer to their Maker for that.)

And, yes, if the local hospitals are filled to overflowing with old folks in peril from the virus, you might issue special, temporary, stay-at-home orders for the most vulnerable. But, to return to wartime imagery, a blackout order makes more sense in New York City than in Branson, Missouri. Of course, the military singles out individuals and groups to accommodate exigencies, e.g., survivorship exemptions, prompted by the tragedy of the Sullivan Brothers. But we create emergency rather than ameliorate it when we flout good sense in a hypochondriacal frenzy.

Back during my grad school days, I did some work through the National Endowment for the Humanities with the TARCA, the Tennessee Association for Retarded Children and Adults (now “The Arc Tennessee”). At a community meeting, a TARCA officer told of the story of a young man who “graduated” to a group home, from which he traveled each day by bus to a downtown job. When someone expressed concern that the fellow might lose his way in the city, the speaker granted that that was so, but that there was “dignity in risk.” So, too, you impute dignity to us septuagenarians, octogenarians, and nonagenarians by allowing us to risk exposure to this latest foe.

We Boomers could use a little respect. Our parents are called “the Greatest Generation,” and now we of the Not-the-Greatest-Generation are sidelined with a patronizing, “Have a seat over there gramps.” Would you grant us a little honor by allowing that we might be willing to depart this mortal coil sooner rather than later if it would help the country. It may be the Mississippi Delta rather than the Mekong Delta, but the danger can be real. Nevertheless, so can our determination to do our part to keep our nation free and strong, not only for ourselves, but also for those good people around the world who count on our remaining so.

https://spectator.org/coronavirus-enlisting-in-the-seniors-brigade/ 


Tennessee: Muslim Stabs Three Women to Death at Truck Stop, Motive Unclear

 
Article by Robert Spencer in "PJMedia":

Idris Abdus-Salaam, 33, a truck driver from Durham, North Carolina, on Tuesday pulled into the Pilot Travel Center on Strawberry Plains Pike in Knoxville, Tennessee, got out of his truck, pulled out a knife, and went on a stabbing spree. He stabbed three women to death and injured a fourth. When confronted by police, Abdus-Salaam refused to drop his weapon and was shot dead. According to Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI) spokeswoman Leslie Earhart, authorities are still trying to determine his motive. But will they miss an obvious clue that is right in front of their faces?

The three women Abdus-Salaam killed were all employees of the Pilot Travel Center. The fourth victim, who is in the hospital fighting to recover from the wounds Abdus-Salaam gave her, was a customer. If Abdus-Salaam knew any of them personally, the fact has not been reported. It may emerge that he did, but as of this writing, this looks like a random act of violence.

Predictably, investigators are pursuing the possibility that Abdus-Salaam was mentally ill. In this, they are following the lead of numerous authorities in the U.S. and Europe, who have ascribed incidents in which Muslims behaved violently to mental illness, often ignoring their jihad statements in order to do so. According to news reports, investigators found a notebook in his truck containing writings that suggested he was mentally ill, but none of these writings were released.

Abdus-Salaam may indeed have been mentally ill. However, if he was, his mother, Walidah Abdus-Salaam, was unaware of the fact – that is, if she is being honest. “He’s not a violent person,” she insisted. “The picture they painted is ugly.” She didn’t even believe her Idris was the one who went on the stabbing spree: “That is not my son. I don’t believe it, and I refuse to believe it until they can prove otherwise to me.” She said that there was no indication that Idris was suffering from any form of mental illness, “unless it developed recently and I’m not aware of it.”

However, the Knoxville News Sentinel reported that Walidah Abdus-Salaam said that her son was “a practicing Muslim,” although “his loved ones had no reason to believe he had become radicalized by any sort of religious fanaticism.”

That may be, but the very fact that he was a practicing Muslim ought to be followed up by investigators. The Islamic State issued this call in September 2014:

So O muwahhid, do not let this battle pass you by wherever you may be. You must strike the soldiers, patrons, and troops of the tawaghit. Strike their police, security, and intelligence members, as well as their treacherous agents. Destroy their beds. Embitter their lives for them and busy them with themselves. If you can kill a disbelieving American or European — especially the spiteful and filthy French — or an Australian, or a Canadian, or any other disbeliever from the disbelievers waging war, including the citizens of the countries that entered into a coalition against the Islamic State, then rely upon Allah, and kill him in any manner or way however it may be….If you are not able to find an IED or a bullet, then single out the disbelieving American, Frenchman, or any of their allies. Smash his head with a rock, or slaughter him with a knife, or run him over with your car, or throw him down from a high place, or choke him, or poison him….

Every practicing Muslim is not a terrorist, but every jihad terrorist is a practicing Muslim. Islamic jihad groups routinely explain and justify their activities on the basis of Islamic texts and teachings, and appeal to peaceful Muslims by claiming to be the authentic exponents of those texts and teachings. Numerous jihad terrorists have been nominal or non-practicing Muslims whose turn to jihad violence coincided with their becoming more devout in their observance of Islam – notably Boston Marathon bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev.

In fact, the correlation between a new, deepened Islamic religiosity and jihad activity was so strong that the FBI and other law enforcement and intelligence agencies used to consider a sudden turn toward devoutness in Islam to be an indication that someone bore watching for possible engagement in terrorism. The Obama administration scrapped this in 2011 when it scrubbed all counterterror materials of all mention of Islam and jihad, for reasons of political correctness.

But the investigators were right the first time. And so the TBI should now be asking: how long has Idris Abdus-Salaam been a practicing Muslim? How devout is he? Where does he go to mosque, and what is taught in that mosque? But these questions and other important related questions will almost certainly not be asked. To ask them would be “Islamophobic.” And so one thing is certain: Idris Abdus-Salaam may not have been a jihadi, but other Muslims who are indeed jihadis will slip through the cracks when they could have been caught before they attacked.

Lessons to Be Learned, but Likely Ignored




Article by davenji in "RedState":

The Wuhan virus has certainly had its day in the media sun.  Although we do not know many things until this is all over, we do know a few things now.  In no particular order, here are some things this writer has noticed.

1. China
No person has been more strident and consistent in his criticism of China than Donald Trump.  Although they have their detractors and apologists in Congress and the media, they are being exposed as self-aggrandizing liars and cheaters which is what Trump has been saying all along.  It is fine that some are calling on investigations of China and some demanding they pay for economic losses here.  They are great soundbites and they grab some headlines, but they are worthless.  Actions speak louder than congressional words.

2. Domestic Manufacturing
The response to the virus has proven Trump correct on another matter- the decline of the manufacturing sector in this country.  We cannot be a strictly isolationist country, but neither can we be a free trade advocate on steroids.  This pandemic proved one vital fact when it comes to “free trade:” in the face of a global emergency, it is every country for itself.  Especially when it comes to critical medical equipment and supplies, we must listen less to the global trade advocacy cabal.

3. Failures of the Regulatory State
Whether talking about the CDC, FDA or FEMA, a bloated bureaucracy  beholden to “experts” has proven a disaster.  Red tape and bureaucratic hurdles- mostly insisted upon by Democrats- was proven worthless when Trump ordered many of the roadblocks removed to speed up development of accurate tests, study the possible treatments, and get needed supplies where they were most needed the quickest.  It is amazing what American labs and companies can do when regulations go away or are relaxed.  The TSA will not allow more than 3.4 ounces of liquid, but will allow 12 ounces of sanitizer now.  And San Francisco, one of the first cities to ban plastic grocery bags, must have been stockpiling them better than New York stockpiled ventilators because plastic bags are back.

4. Open Borders
Another point proven by Trump: open border policies are an invitation to disaster.  It is not only the fiscal strain placed on governments through welfare programs and education, but the possibility of border-jumpers bringing disease into this country.  Who is to say that the next coronavirus will not emerge in Mexico or Honduras?  If for no other reason than health concerns and screenings, open borders make no sense.  Ask Italy, Spain- hell, all of Europe- how great open borders are now.

5. Democrat Authoritarianism
The actions of many Democrat state governors and mayors have unleashed their inner Mussolini.  Attempts to ban gun sales in California, Virginia, and New Jersey are one example.  The governor of Rhode Island using the National Guard and state police to track down out-of-state license plates is another example.  Using the threat of fines and jail against violators of “the lockdown” is a third example.  Comrade de Blasio threatened houses of worship with permanent shutdowns.  The hit parade marches on.

6. Democrat Dithering
Because de Blasio was too busy suing oil companies over climate change and Cuomo was too busy attracting failing “green energy” companies to the state, they let their supply of critical supplies become depleted and never replaced.  Gretchen Whitmer threatens doctors and pharmacists over chloroquine one week, and begs the government to send more the next week.  de Blasio and Cuomo, while accusing the President of being in denial, were encouraging people to celebrate Chinese New Year, go about their business, and ride the subways.

7. Home Schooling
No, there will not be a renewed interest in home schooling when this is all over.  It is possible now because there are likely one or two parents home to school their children.  BUT, all that liberal vitriol against home schooling is a little jaded now that they actually had to possibly engage in it to some degree.  Funny how when parents are actually involved in the schooling of their children they also actually start to take notice of what their kids are being taught and how.

8. Higher Education
Remote learning in college has now taken hold and has been proven it can work with success.  That makes fancy dormitories, dining halls, and student centers less “needed” for the college experience.  Could we see more of this in the future?  Could this be a means to drive down the cost of higher education and, by extension, student debt?

9. Surplus Goods
One thing is glaringly obvious: when Wuhan has receded, there are going to be a lot of ventilators, masks, and PPEs out there.  Will governors stock up on them when the cost drops, or will they sue oil companies and build solar panel factories that fail?

10. Abortion is Not Essential
Many states deemed abortion clinics “non-essential.”  And guess what?  Life went on.  When many other elective surgical and medical procedures- and abortion is in most cases an elective procedure- were being curtailed or stopped altogether, the Left wanted one left alone- abortion.  And with the closure of abortion centers in many states, the sale of wire hangars did not increase.

11. Phrases Sure to Enter the Lexicon
There are so many to choose from here.  Should we go with “flatten the curve?”  Most likely this will be used to describe anything that can be quantified in any manner.  Andrew Cuomo demanded 40,000 ventilators (yesterday, damn it) but when it was revealed they were sitting in a warehouse, they are “there” until coronavirus hit its “apex.”  With Joe Biden, we have not yet seen the “apex” of his senility.  Or how about “N95 mask?”  Most people never knew such a thing existed.  From now on whenever a Democrat talks, we should don our rhetorical “N95 mask.”

12. One Phrase Sure to Exit the Lexicon
This is, in my opinion, one of the greatest side effects of Wuhan virus: maybe we will hear less of something on social media “going viral.”

https://www.redstate.com/diary/davenj1/2020/04/11/lessons-to-be-learned-or-ignored/

Media’s Latest Strategy To Fight Trump: Remove Him From His Press Conferences



After failing to censor President Trump's press conferences, media are working on a new plan of pressuring him to remove himself from his press conferences.

For years, the media complained that President Donald Trump wasn’t holding enough press conferences. Now, as the media’s poor performance in his daily coronavirus press conferences is on worldwide display, they’re begging him to leave his own press conferences, and leave them alone to craft their anti-Trump storylines.

When March polls showed Trump receiving unusually high marks for his handling of the Coronavirus pandemic, and the media receiving their traditionally low marks for it, many journalists began pushing for censorship of the press conferences. While many outlets tried this approach, it obviously failed with viewers who turned to other outlets for the news they sought.

The media, however, continued to be mocked for the prevalence of silly and unserious questions from reporters who clearly think they come off better outside their echo chambers than they do:


In an attempt to regain control, the media have shifted to a new approach. Trump’s daily press conferences with updates on the Wuhan Coronavirus pandemic are actually bad for himyeah that’s the ticket!

The New York Times’ Jonathan Martin and Maggie Haberman, who would be known for their extreme anti-Trump posture and histrionic analysis if it weren’t shared by nearly everyone else in the White House press corps, laid out their case in a tendentious essay that the usual followers at many media outlets echoed throughout the day.

The article claims that “White House allies and Republican lawmakers” — not the embarrassed media — are deeply concerned by the briefings. Sen. Lindsay Graham, a South Carolina Republican known for nightly telling television audiences his senate committee will someday do things in response to horrific wrongdoing by the agencies they oversee, said Trump should drop the press conferences to once a week. Sniping also came in, reportedly, from Sen. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia and Representative Susan Brooks of Indiana.

Martin and Haberman emphasized that polling shows Trump trails governors and medical experts in surveys of who the public trusts. However, they noticeably failed to mention that the media trails far behind all of them, and is the only group underwater out of all the institutions and public leaders surveyed. Whereas Trump has a 22-point net approval rating in the poll they mentioned, the media’s net approval rating was negative 11 points, a 33-point difference. That very important and relevant fact was studiously hidden by Martin and Haberman from the public, as per usual.

Instead, the “journalists” highlight that Trump’s job approval has ticked down a bit. That’s true, and is due not to the president spending too much time at his press conferences, but at frustration that he’s following the media’s lead in focusing on the serious public health crisis at the expense of the traumatic costs of the shutdown. Those who virulently loathe him, such as those in the media, would not give Trump positive ratings even if their lives depended upon it. Others support him seemingly no matter what he does. But those outside those extremes are able to balance competing thoughts. They can approve of virus suppression attempts while not thinking it should go on perpetually, as the media are pushing for. They can support initial efforts while getting annoyed and losing patience with Trump bending the knee to Coronavirus concerns at the expense of all other concerns.

The Coronavirus pandemic has three major battle fronts: public health, economic, media. Whatever his flaws, Trump understands that all three battles must be waged. The deadly Coronavirus must be fought lest it overwhelm hospitals. The economic collapse must be fought lest the “cure be worse than the disease,” as he’s fond of saying. And the media — which are currently parroting Communist Chinese government propaganda, engaged in cartoonishly hostile postures, and showing opposition to any discussion of an exit strategy — must also be contended with strongly if the other two fronts are to have any chance of success.

It is rather absurd on its face to suggest that the president of the United States should not be managing his own press conferences no matter the situation. But in a situation that marries public health, economic, and media crises, it’s even more absurd. The media would like the federal government to continue focusing on the public health issue at the expense of the others. Seen that way, their push to remove Trump from his press conferences is understandable, since he keeps emphasizing media malfeasance and the economic shutdown, both barriers to the continued exclusive focus on the public health crisis.

There is no Republican in existence who handles media malfeasance as well as Trump. It is obvious that the media objective is to turn the handling of the Coronavirus pandemic into Trump’s “Katrina.” Trump doing press conferences is a major frustration in their ability to do that. That’s why the media are trying to pressure him to stop doing them.

For the average American, it is difficult to navigate the news, politics, and policy in an environment where so very many in the media are actively framing every event and data point through the lens of how it can be used to hurt Trump. Far too many in the news media are not focused on conveying information that is true or factual, and certainly not whether it is good for America or for its citizens. The simple calculus is to push the envelope as far as they think they can get away with in their goal to ensure Trump does not win re-election.

When the president and other leaders, along with tens of millions of regular Americans, are actively trying to figure out what’s best for the nation during a legitimate national emergency, one that is unprecedented and with fast-changing information, compounded by the full shut-down of a capitalist economy, it is an added burden on citizens to have to contend with a media in large part committed to misinformation, dishonesty and outright propaganda.

No, Trump should not abandon his daily press briefings because of media pressure. He should of course keep speaking to the American people who elected him. He should understand that the media pressure to keep him from focusing on reopening the American economy is of course a trap. 

Once the media get through emphasizing the likely apex of deaths in the coming days, Trump will need to fight the media’s pressure. He will need to do press conferences to keep corrupt and disingenuous media from telling falsehoods and spinning the news. He will need to do press conferences to provide leadership on the economic crisis the country faces. And he will need to do press conferences to communicate the nation’s plan for handling the next 18 months of a public health crisis.

The 3 Big Questions Nobody Is Answering



The 3 Big Questions Nobody Is Answering

Americans have abided by recommendations and orders. They've left their jobs to stay at home; they've practiced social distancing; in many places, they've donned masks. Pictured: A scene from 33rd St. in New York City on April 6. (Photo: Kena Betancur/Getty Images)

This week, according to members of the federal government, and state and local governments, Americans have begun to flatten the curve in the novel coronavirus outbreak. 

The excitement was muted—after all, trends can easily reverse—but real. Americans have abided by recommendations and orders. They’ve left their jobs to stay at home; they’ve practiced social distancing; in many places, they’ve donned masks. 

The result: a reduction in expected hospitalization and death. 

According to the University of Washington Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation model most oft cited by members of the Trump administration, the expected need for hospital beds at peak outbreak was revised down by over 120,000, the number of ventilators by nearly 13,000, and the number of overall deaths by August by nearly 12,000.

Here’s the problem: We still don’t know the answers to the key questions that will allow the economy to reopen.

First, what is the true coronavirus fatality rate? This question is important because it determines whether certain areas ought to be open or closed, whether we ought to pursue—Sweden style—a more liberalized society that presumes wide spread, or whether we ought to lock down further.

We’ve seen case fatality rates—the number of deaths divided by the number of identified COVID-19 cases—but both the numerator and the denominator are likely wrong. 

We don’t know how many people have actually died of the coronavirus. Some sources suggest the number has been overestimated, given that classification for cause of death, particularly among elderly patients, can be variable. Some sources suggest the number is dramatically underestimated, since many people are dying at home. 

Even more importantly, we have no clue how many Americans actually have the coronavirus. 

Some scientists suggest that the number of identified cases could be an order of magnitude lower than the number of people who have had the coronavirus and not been tested. That would mean that the fatality rate is actually far lower than suggested, even if the transmission rate is high.

Secondly, what are we expecting in terms of a second wave? The institute’s model simply cuts off in early August. It does not predict how many people will die in a second wave. 

This is the most important problem because experts maintain that the virus is seasonal, which means we are likely to see more serious spreading in the fall. And that means we will be faced with either renewed lockdowns for large swaths of the population, with wide-scale testing and contact tracing, or with the realization that we will have to isolate those who are most vulnerable and let everyone else work.

Which raises the third question: What exactly can we do? 

Are we capable of rolling out tens of millions of tests over the next few months—and compelling people to take tests regularly, since the virus is transmittable while carriers are asymptomatic? Can we create a contact tracing system for 330 million Americans—and are we willing to submit ourselves to one? 

One thing is certain: Things cannot continue as they have been. 

Americans are not going to stay home for months on end, and they certainly will not do so on the basis of ever-evolving models, especially as statistics roll in that look like the lower-end model estimates in terms of death and the upper-end estimates in terms of economic damage. 

We need transparency and honesty from our scientific experts—we need to know what they know, what they don’t, and when they hope to know what they don’t. 

We’re grown-ups, and we’re willing to follow their advice. But they need to start answering serious questions, or they will fall prey to the same lack of institutional faith to which all other American institutions seem deeply prone.


COPYRIGHT 2020 CREATORS.COM

The Coronavirus and...



The Coronavirus and 

the Collectivist Temptation


Alexis de Tocqueville is a timely read now more than ever before.  Tocqueville's most famous writing is probably Democracy in America, although his The Old Regime and the Revolution is as insightful — in some ways, a helpful and profound compliment to his analysis of American democracy.

In Democracy in America, Tocqueville marvels at the near anarchic reality of American life: "[n]othing is more striking to an European traveller in the United States than the absence of what we term the Government, or the Administration."  Tocqueville went on to explain that this didn't mean the absence of legal authority, but the method that predominated in America was diminutive authority placed in the hands of localities and their associates as extensively as possible.  "The second manner of diminishing the influence of authority does not consist in stripping society of any of its rights, nor in paralyzing its efforts [as is the first manner], but in distributing the exercise of its privileges in various hands, and in multiplying functionaries, to each of whom the degree of power necessary for him to perform his duty is entrusted."

The constitutional order that had been erected in America was a confederated union and not a unipolar or unitary nation-state of the like that began construction in the aftermath of the Civil War and the Great Depression.  As Tocqueville noted, the rule of the federal government "is ... the exception; the Government of the States is the rule."  The energy and spirit of American democracy and public life were centered on the townships, counties, and the state governments.

The diffused and diminutive form of governance that Tocqueville experienced in America was vastly different from the centralized apparatus he was accustomed to back in Europe.  Europe, Tocqueville reminds us, was centralized not because of the conquest of the revolution and spread of the Napoleonic Empire, but from the old monarchies and the old regime itself.
I once heard an orator, in the days when we had political assemblies, call administrative centralization 'that noble conquest of the Revolution which Europe envies us.'  I am willing to admit that centralization was a noble conquest, and that Europe envies us its possession; but I deny that it was a conquest of the Revolution.  It was, on the contrary, a feature of the old regime, and, I may add, the only one which outlived the Revolution, because it was the only one that was suited to the new condition of society created by the Revolution.

According to Tocqueville, the authoritarian and centralizing pivot of the French Revolution shouldn't have been a surprise.  The DNA of depending on central power for guidance and structure in life was what the French were always accustomed to.  The difference between the revolutionaries and the old regime was how the revolutionaries used force and murder to displace the central institutions of the old regime and quickly replace them with their own.
I reply that centralization was not abolished by the Revolution, because it was, in fact, its preliminary and precursor; and I may add, that when a nation abolishes aristocracy, centralization follows as a matter of course.  It is much harder to prevent its establishment than to hasten it.  Every thing tends toward unity of power, and it requires no small contrivance to maintain divisions of authority.

Although there was, at first glance, a sharp difference between the diffused and diminutive spirit of democracy in America and the centralizing and militant spirit of democracy in France, Tocqueville also saw the seeds of centralizing "royal prerogatives" in the American system.

First and foremost, while it is true that "[t]he attributes of the Federal Government were therefore carefully enumerated and all that was not included amongst them was declared to constitute a part of the privileges of the several Governments of the States," Tocqueville nevertheless saw the few enumerated and delegated powers given to the federal government as totalizing and supreme when, and if, enforced.  Moreover, as he noted about the presidency, "[i]f the existence of the Union were perpetually threatened, and if the chief interests were in daily connection with those of other powerful nations, the executive government would assume an increased importance in proportion to the measures expected of it, and those which it would carry into effect."  How prophetic, all things considered.

With the coronavirus pandemic upon us, we are now repeatedly told "we are at war."  Not only have a litany of journalists and commentators said as much, but the president himself declared it so.  The panic of the coronavirus has startled people into searching for the Caesar who will preside over the Leviathan to provide comfort, peace, and security.  The Union itself, we are constantly nagged, is threatened.  Here it is important to remember the prescient foresight of Michael Oakeshott: "the real spring of collectivism is not a love of liberty, but war.  The anticipation of war is the great incentive, and the conduct of war is the great collectivizing process."

Thomas Hobbes, the great political theorist of the modern state, said the movement toward a centralized government is the result of fear.  "Fear of oppression, disposes a man to anticipate, or to seek aid by society: for there is no other way by which a man can secure his life and liberty."  Even John Locke agreed with this sentiment in the Second Treatise: "[t]his [fear] makes him willing to quit a condition, which, however free, is full of fears and continual dangers."  Beyond there now being flagrant violations of basic constitutional rights, which are suspended in the name of a public health crisis, we ought to be reminded of the wisdom of Tocqueville: "when a nation abolishes aristocracy, centralization follows as a matter of course.  It is much harder to prevent its establishment than to hasten it.  Every thing tends toward unity of power, and it requires no small contrivance to maintain divisions of authority."

In the American case, we might substitute "aristocracy" with civil society.  In abolishing civil society, or at least what is left of it after nearly a century of assault and encroachment, absolute "centralization follows as a matter of course."  Civil society, in the United States, is the great buttress against the forces of collectivism.

We do not live in a failed state as some have suggested in response to America's handling of the virus.  We live in a rare country where the remnant of civil society still exerts some power, and because of this, the collectivists — whatever veil they wear — call for the ascendency and supremacy of a centralized administrative state to crush it once and for all.  What the American experience has shown is that we have not yet achieved the manifestation of this totalizing centralized administrative state despite nearly a century of slow growth toward this reality.  We lose the joy of civil society, the first and foremost manifestation of a free society, at our peril and submissive docility.

This centralized and administrative state now dreamt of is tasked with management and distribution of all goods and services.  The constitutional order and the rule of law are abrogated for the collectivist bureaucracy providing comfort, peace, and security in perpetuity for a now idle and hedonistic people.  The ultimate manifestation of such a state is, as Michael Oakeshott said, "a state [that is] a rationally regulated co-operative engagement, perhaps a solidarité commune of some sort, not devoid of law, but ruled by a sumptuary policy devised and enforced by administrators, agencies and regulatory commissions."  In other words, it is a bureaucratic and managerial — socialist — state.

The spirit of civil society and reliant township communitarianism and individualism still stand to avert the centralizing administration, which feeds and feeds and feeds on the energy of civil society and individual labor.  The "intermediate associations" that constitute the real heart of community and the American — indeed, human — spirit would be buried by the totalizing control of centralism, which always comes in the wake of collectivism.  If the Second World War or the Cold War, even the War on Terror, didn't reveal the spirit of collectivism, the coronavirus pandemic and resulting panic irrevocably have.  Americans have much soul-searching if this is what they truly want and forever break themselves off from the spirit of their forebears.




Spot Someone Not Wearing a Mask? Snitching on Your Neighbors? Now There’s an APP For That


Comrades, the ministry of coronavirus compliance is making it easy to be a good state citizen. If you spot a non-compliant citizen participating in life without adhering to the dictates of the state, there’s now mobile APP’s for quick snitching.

Comrade citizens are now able to take a picture of the non-compliant behavior (citizen spotted outdoors, not wearing a mask, unauthorized gatherings etc), upload the picture to the state ministry, and the state compliance division will dispatch local enforcement teams to correct the non-compliant behavior, or remove the citizen.


DESSERT SUN – Residents looking to report nonessential businesses, neighbors, unauthorized gatherings and essential businesses that aren’t complying with health orders can do so anonymously through Riverside County’s mobile app.
On Thursday, county officials said the app, RivCoMobile, has a coronavirus feature that will provide data to county health officials.
“Unfortunately, we’ve received numerous reports of violations throughout the county,” Riverside University Health System Dr. Geoffrey Leung said in a statement. “This data will allow us to map areas of noncompliance, where we anticipate there will be associated outbreaks of COVID-19 and a corresponding need for resources.” (more)


…Users will have to specify the address and type of violation in the report. The feature also includes the option to attach a photo… (link)


If you notice anyone not wearing a face mask, reporting them is as simple as taking their picture, uploading it to the mobile app, and the compliance officials will quickly respond.
Example:




Dr. Anthony Fauci: National Immunity ID Cards May Be Needed



This stuff is nuts.  People are seriously becoming unstable with this stuff.   In the latest batch of insanity apparently there is a movement toward a registration system where people will be designated as “immune” or “vaccinated”; and only with appropriate and verifiable registry ID’s will citizens be permitted to engage in society.

Literally this quote is in the article, yet the irony seems lost:

…”Immunity certificates are already being implemented by researchers in Germany”..

WASHINGTON DC – Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, revealed Friday the federal government is considering issuing Americans certificates of immunity from the coronavirus, as the Trump administration works to better identify those who have been infected and restart the U.S. economy in the coming weeks.
“You know, that’s possible,” Fauci told CNN’s “New Day,” when asked whether he could imagine a time when people across the country carry such forms of identification.
“I mean, it’s one of those things that we talk about when we want to make sure that we know who the vulnerable people are and not,” he said. “This is something that’s being discussed. I think it might actually have some merit, under certain circumstances.”
The proposal is contingent upon the widespread deployment of antibody tests which the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration are in the process of validating in the the U.S., Fauci said. “Within a period of a week or so, we’re going to have a rather large number of tests that are available” to the public, he added. (more)

French police turn back private jet from London as passengers tried to holiday in Cannes

France is on a pretty strict coronavirus lockdown - but that message seemed not to have filtered through to the group who tried to fly by private jet for a holiday in Cannes.

Local police met the jet, which had flown from London, at Marseille airport and refused entry to the 10 people on board.
All non-essential travel within France has been banned since March 17th and from April 6th anyone entering France needs to have an international travel certificate establishing that their journey is essential.
The group of seven men aged between 40 and 50 years old and three women aged between 23 and 25 years old were on board a private jet charted in London by a Croatian man claiming to work in the field of finance and real estate.
"They were coming for a holiday in Cannes and three helicopters were waiting for them on the tarmac," the head of the border police service of Marignane (Bouches-du-Rhône) told local media.
"But we notified them that they were not allowed to enter the national territory and they left four hours later."
A source close to the police told BFMTV that "they tried to make use of their connections, they made a few phone calls" before eventually returning to London on the jet, apart from one passenger who took a different private jet to Germany.

The group had arranged for three helicopters to collect them from the airport, the helicopters were also turned back and the pilots fined for non-essential travel.
The plane was halted on Saturday, but the incident was publicised by French police on Thursday, along with a warning that they will be paying particular attention to private jets in the coming days.
Anyone entering French territory now needs an attestation de déplacement internationale and people travelling with commercial carriers may be asked to present their certificate when boarding, as well as at the French border.
French citizens and their children are allowed back into the country, but foreigners are only allowed in under certain circumstances.
https://www.thelocal.fr/20200410/french-police-turn-back-private-jet-from-london-as-passengers-tried-to-holiday-in-cannes

The Surveillance State Thrives...


The Surveillance State Thrives 
During the Pandemic

Can we take government officials at their word that they'll eventually abandon their new powers?

maxphotostwo076157
(PHOTOPQR/LE PROGRES/MAXPPP) 

From cellphone tracking to drone eyes in the sky, perused health records, and GPS ankle bracelets, an epidemic of surveillance-state measures is spreading across the world. It's all done in the name of battling the spread of COVID-19, of course, since every crisis is used to justify incursions into our liberty. But long after the virus has done its worst and moved on, we're likely to be stuck with these invasions of our privacy—unless we push back, hard.

The rationales for surveillance are easy to understand, within certain limits. Public health authorities battling the pandemic want to know who is spreading the virus, which people they may have infected, and the movements of those potentially carrying the bug.

China, where the COVID-19 outbreak began, leveraged its already deeply intrusive system of social control to force people to install cellphone appsthat assigned them a code according to (allegedly) their perceived risk of spreading contagion. Permission to travel or enter public spaces depended on that code even as the software also tracked their whereabouts and shared data on users' phones with the authorities.

Democratic South Korea didn't go as far as China, but it still tracked people's cellphones and credit card usage. Officials also used surveillance cameras to monitor the movements of those suspected of being infected.

Emulating a Chinese tactic, Spanish authorities turned to aerial drones to detect unauthorized gatherings of people—already a cringe-worthy concept for those of us disinclined to ask permission to meet with friends. Loudspeakers on the drones then ordered violators to return home.

Here in the U.S., government officials joined with tech companies to paw through the location data that most of us share with cellphone apps. The idea is to determine if people are staying at home as ordered; if not, the information detects where we're clustering.

Privacy rules have also been relaxed to allow easier sharing of patients' medical records with government health officials.

And some government agencies are attaching GPS ankle monitors to COVID-19 patients and those suspected of exposure lest they go for a walk in the country or pick up groceries from a curbside.

In most cases, Big Brother-ish tactics have been sold as temporary measures intended to battle very real danger from the COVID-19 pandemic. The surveillance is intended to enforce social distancing and track carriers of the new coronavirus so we can end the health crisis and return to normal. But can we take government officials at their word that they'll eventually abandon their new powers?


"Government demands for new high-tech surveillance powers are all too familiar," warns Adam Schwartz, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). "This includes well-meaning proposals to use various forms of data about disease transmission among people. Even in the midst of a crisis, the public must carefully evaluate such government demands, because surveillance invades privacy, deters free speech, and unfairly burdens vulnerable groups."

"And," Schwartz adds, "new surveillance powers tend to stick around."
The EFF attorney isn't alone in his concerns.

"I think the effects of COVID-19 will be more drastic than the effects of the terrorist attacks of 9/11: not only with respect to surveillance, but across many aspects of our society," wrote security expert Bruce Schneier. "And while many things that would never be acceptable during normal time are reasonable things to do right now, we need to makes sure we can ratchet them back once the current pandemic is over."

Our ability or lack thereof to "ratchet them back" is the key point here for surveillance powers. That's because, as Schwartz suggests, governments tend to expand their reach in response to crises, but only to surrender part of that new authority as danger recedes.

"After each major crisis the size of government, though smaller than during the crisis, remained larger than it would have been had the pre-crisis rate of growth persisted during the interval occupied by the crisis," wrote economic historian Robert Higgs in his 1987 book Crisis and Leviathan. Tellingly, he coined the term "ratchet effect" to describe the phenomenon.

Ratcheting back extraordinary surveillance powers becomes even less likely if the crisis drags on—either because of circumstances or because it's convenient for those who like the power it conveys.

"COVID-19 will be here for the next 18 months or more," insists former Obama administration health policy adviser Ezekiel Emanuel. "We will not be able to return to normalcy until we find a vaccine or effective medications."

Historian Nicholas Mulder predicts—and hopes—that many policy changes to meet the pandemic will become permanent. "Crises have always granted reformist policymakers powers to bypass legislative gridlock and entrenched interests," he notes at Foreign Policy.

If surveillance powers continue to grow along with an ongoing crisis, you can only assume that the sophistication and intrusiveness of that surveillance will also grow.

Along those lines, the Canadian company Draganfly is touting a drone that "can, from a distance, determine fever, which is much different than determining just temperature, cough detection, respiratory rate, heart rate, and blood pressure." The goal is to remotely detect potential COVID-19 cases.

In the U.S., local public health authorities already scrape social media for information about foodborne illness to target and close suspect eateries. Albert Fox Cahn and John Veiszlemlein of the The Surveillance Technology Oversight Project say we should expect the same technique to eventually be applied to the pandemic.

The future looks very closely scrutinized, all for our own health. Unfortunately, our liberty and privacy will die slow and unpleasant deaths in the process. That is, unless we start to actively oppose efforts to monitor our activities.

China, the most pervasive surveillance state on the planet, has fueled as much innovation among those seeking to evade scrutiny as among those exercising it. People learned to install anti-spyware software on their phones or, more simply, to carry two devices—one for mandated apps and ID checks, and the other for unapproved uses.

If cellphones really do become tracking devices, we might even leave them at home when out and about and in need of privacy. The withdrawal would be tough at first, but we can console ourselves with the knowledge that public health authorities would be keenly aware of the location of our coffee tables, and not of us. We could even back away from posting every detail of our lives, including our health, on social media. As for drones… If only there was some technology appropriate for knocking flying objects out of the air, and available in a variety of shot sizes.

It would be best if government officials learned to back off and abandon truly temporary measures after the precipitating crises disappeared. But that's probably a lesson that they'll have to be taught rather forcefully.