“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.” – Originator unknown, though often attributed to Albert Einstein
“If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again. Then quit. No use being a damn fool about it.” – Thomas Sowell, concerning the “War on Drugs.”
“If what you’re doing doesn’t work do something else.” – Michael Emerling
We humans have a tendency to “routinize” our affairs. There are quite a lot of aspects of the average person’s life that can be reduced to a script of sorts. Doing so can reduce the wear and tear on the brain. Why, after all, should you repeatedly reanalyze a given situation for which you already have an adequate program of action? Yet there may come a time when it is not merely advisable but imperative to vary one’s methods.
Liberty’s Torch is primarily a politics / public policy blog. Yes, now and then we do write about other things, but the bulk of our emissions here are oriented toward politics and government. We enjoy it; it’s our “groove.” Yet it has occasionally occurred to me that we’ve been doing this stuff for quite a long time without achieving anything of consequence. That suggests that it might be time to change our methods.
There are a lot of people who absolutely resist the notion that they should change their methods. These folks are commonplace in political discourse, both on the Left and in the Right. They’re often motivated by a conviction of religious intensity, whether about argumentative tactics or their positions on various issues. And they often do themselves – and others –damage with their rigidity.
(I include myself in the above, by the way. Yea verily, Certified Galactic Intellects can be bullheaded, too. When I get “locked in,” it can take quite an impact to get my attention.)
Up to here, I’ve probably told you nothing you didn’t already know. That may be about to change.
Many people understand the COVID-19 fear and weaponization will continue until the political leftists promoting the narrative have exhausted its usefulness. To support that opinion a Vanderbilt University medical director for the National Foundation for Infections Disease tells CBS news: “that it would be best to give up the idea of life going “back to normal,” and instead embrace a “new normal” where our lives revolve around COVID-19.”
( VIA CBS ) “We’ve been told that this virus will disappear. But it will not,” Dr. William Schaffner, a professor at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine and medical director of the National Foundation For Infectious Diseases, tells CBS News.
“We need to control it. We need to diminish its impact. But it’s going to be around hassling us for the foreseeable future. And by that I mean — years.”
[…] Schaffner says it would be best to give up the idea of going “back to normal,” and instead settle in for the “new normal” where COVID continues shaping our lives. ( read more )
This is beyond incredible. This…person is claiming that a virus no more dangerous than influenza – the statistics are easily accessible – is a reason to give up on the resumption of normal American life! Mind you, no one has ever claimed that “this virus will disappear.” Viruses don’t do that, any more than the common cold, itself a coronavirus, might be expected to “disappear.” And this Schaffner creature surely knows all of that. But even so, he’s going to get:
- More respect and attention than his lunacy deserves;
- Attention from the Usurper Regime as a potential “backup weapon” to the odious Anthony Fauci.
Remember that the media are entirely aligned with the Usurper Regime, and are ready to support it in any way it might request of them. Thus we can expect the media to go about assembling “confirming prognoses” from other quasi-experts, and proclaiming with ever more authority the end of life as Americans knew it before the arrival of the Kung Flu. Some of those quasi-experts will enter the Regime as pet spokesmen for why we should all stay home, eschew all contact with other humans, wash our hands every quarter hour, and wear two masks while ordering our necessities from Amazon.
These people are wholly invested in their own significance. They will say whatever will grab the most attention, especially from the political elite. Some of it is moved by envy; an equal or larger portion arises from the hope of political elevation and financial gain. Whatever the driving force, it is entirely despicable.
With regard to the unprecedented phenomenon of militant transgender activism, Paula Bolyard has something to say:
We’ve regressed so far as a society that no one bats an eye when a delusional man who believes himself to be a woman is being put forth as a nominee for a vaunted position in government by the president of the United States. And we’re all just supposed to play along with this fantasy and act as if it’s completely normal. It’s not.
Shockingly, the position [“Dr.” “Rachel”] Levine is under consideration for is the assistant secretary of Health and Human Services. A man who denies science, believing he can overcome what every cell in his body screams—that he’s a male, packed full of XY chromosomes—is going to be in charge of directing health policy for the entire nation. What kind of mass delusion are we under that we just sit back and pretend this is good for us—for our nation, for our children, and for our health?
This “Dr.” Levine person is on record as encouraging the administration of puberty-blocking drugs to pre-teen children. And if their parents should object? That’s no never-you-mind, says “Dr.” Levine; parents should not be allowed to interfere with a child’s decision to “transition.”
(I don’t think I have to ask “Dr.” Levine’s position on abortion for minors, do you, Gentle Reader?)
Time was, the first rule of medicine was Primum non nocere: “First, do no harm.” Perhaps abortion and euthanasia have put that era behind us, just as “Dr.” Schaffner avers that the Chinese Lung Rot has put American normality behind us. But if Levine should get his way, a lot of pre-teen kids are going to suffer irreparably.
Up to now we’ve been arguing about such matters, as if logic and evidence would carry the day. But were that the case, we’d already have prevailed in those (and other) policy disputes. Ergo, argument on rational grounds is not the answer; it’s time for a change of methods.
The first step is to ask a critical question: On what basis are Schaffner and Levine are deemed “experts” who deserve our respectful attention? Yes, they have medical degrees, but so do a great many who argue against them. We must look further:
- Schaffner is affiliated with a prestigious university and the “National Foundation For Infectious Diseases;”
- Levine served as the Pennsylvania physician general from 2015 to 2017 and as Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Health from 2017 to 2021.
So, in Levine’s case, government posts; in Schaffner’s, affiliation with a quasi-governmental institution with an impressive title. Those connections are apparently enough to provide those two with “cred,” which is amplified by the media’s decision to give them time and space.
Well, we can’t do much about the media…but what about those positions and affiliations? Has anyone thought to look into what Levine and Schaffner have actually achieved, or how? Could their “cred” be undermined in that fashion? What about the governmental offices and the NFID? Is there an avenue of attack against them? What have they done that’s worthy of respect?
Investigation of Anthony Fauci’s record has seriously undermined his “cred,” especially when joined to his many flip-flops on policy as the Wuhan Virus “pandemic” has dragged on. (At this point his tag line really should be “Seldom right but always certain.”) If it’s worked to cast doubt on Fauci’s “expert” status, why wouldn’t it work for other pseudo-experts trotted forth to terrorize us into submission?
Just a morsel of Sunday morning food for thought. Oh, by the way, in case you weren’t aware, it’s Laetare Sunday, on which Catholics are reminded to rejoice for the approach of Easter and the miracle of the Resurrection. So rejoice a bit; it’s “on the program.” I plan to do my rejoicing a little later. With wine, of course.