The Vaccine

The virus vaccine distribution has begun. The pecking order has been established and some folks have had their shots. I haven't paid a lot of attention so far. But I have been thinking about the vaccine. I know a lot of people will think me crazy (crazier?) for my thoughts on this. Like this how CoVid debacle, there is, for too many folks, only one way to think. I am hesitant to be vaccinated. First, I am loathe to get vaccinations. I'm not fearful of shots, not at all. I don't fear needles. I've been donating blood for more than 50 years and received my "100 gallon pin" from the Red Cross a few years ago. (I didn't know the Red Cross was counting. I wasn't.) But I have never had a regular flu shot and haven't had the flu in more than 30 years. The flu vaccines are not particularly effective, not if a 40% average rate of effectiveness is considered. And according to WebMD, that rate has varied, from a low of about 10% to a high of 60%. The flu vaccine also wears off. The flu virus is notorious for mutating. The medical profession doesn't really know what flu will hit from year to year and, well, how can a really effective vaccine be developed if we don't know what strain of the flu will come? I suppose some people will think 40% effectiveness is pretty good. I don't happen to think so. Too, how many vaccines have taken years and years to develop? Granted, much of the delay can be attributed to red tape/bureaucratic regulations. But my guess is that is just a fraction of the development time. It takes a lot of trial and error to develop a vaccine. Yet this CoVid vaccine seems to have come along pretty quickly, the Trump Administration's cutting of red tape notwithstanding. Its safety must be suspect, I would think, unless one is a bobble head, listening and believing everything the politicians, bureaucrats, and media spew. For that matter, that safety is being vouched for by the same people--politicians, bureaucrats, the media--who have deceived and lied to us for months and continue to do so. If that seems a bit harsh, then let's just say these people sure seem to change their minds a lot. I know they have been defended by statements such as, "We don't know yet. We're still finding out about the virus." Well, then, if that still applies, it doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the effectiveness of the vaccine. And now I'm supposed to trust these people? Remember, too, before the election the great skepticism being peddled by the Democrats about a vaccine. Now, it seems, they are much more on board. Which is it? Do they expect people to think the election made the vaccine more effective? Apparently they do and I'd guess the bobble heads will buy into it. I read early reports that the vaccine was "90% effective." That might be true, but I don't buy it. That's a real stretch, isn't it, "90% effective?" I'm not afraid of the virus. I do take it seriously, but it doesn't frighten me. Yep, I'm old, but I'm very healthy. I really fit none of the at-risk groups. As concerning to me is society's reaction to the vaccine. It frightens me. How will the bobble heads react to people who opt not to get the vaccine? Look how hysterical they've been so far on all things CoVid. Will businesses refuse to serve customers unless those customers provide proof of vaccination? Can goods and services be denied people who opt out of vaccinations? Can employers require them? I wouldn't like that, but could accept it if it's the businesses' choice, not something forced on them by Big Government. And that is what is most frightening? Can the federal government require innoculation? Will citizens have to carry around proof, a barcode for instance, or face fines or jail? Well, consider what they make citizens do now. Light bulbs. Flush toilets. Television sets. Shower heads. Cooking with transfats. Sizes of soft drinks/sugar sodas. Health insurance. Requiring a vaccination might not be such a big step, especially no with the bobble heads clamoring as they surely will. Speaking of the bobble heads. Why don't they just shut up and lock themselves in their houses? They achieved what they wanted. At the expense of other people's livelihoods (businesses, jobs, incomes) they have been made to feel "comfortable" that they won't die. And, no doubt, they are the ones complaining about the "greed" of those concerned about losing their businesses, jobs, etc. with the lockdowns. When thinking about "greed," maybe they should look in the mirror.

The Electrical College

For the record, yes, I'm kidding. Now that Joe Biden has been "elected" President, maybe we will forget about the Electoral College for a while. Maybe not. The Electoral College has been the object of a great deal of criticism, especially for the last sixty or more years. It is "undemocratic," "outmoded," and "just not fair." (No, I'm not going to get started on that word, "fair.") The election of Presidents was among the last of the issues settled by the Constitutional Convention in 1787. That's because there was a great deal of concern about how to choose such an important office holder. Of course there was a call for what we call today "a direct popular vote," what James Madison called "an immediate appointment of the people." But there were many other proposals, too. Some wanted state governors to pick the President. Others called for Congress or even just the Senate to choose. In the end, the Electoral College was adopted. It was a compromise, but it also addressed the concerns many of the Founding Fathers had. Now, there is a serious movement afoot to abolish the Electoral College. Some have called for a Constitutional amendment. I think that is unlikely to happen. A more serious threat is a movement called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. If I read this correctly, if adopted, the Electoral College would not be abolished. But states electors would be required to ignore the popular vote within their individual states and vote for whichever candidate had the most popular national votes. Since states, by the Constitution are permitted to select electors in their own ways, "Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the State legislature thereof might direct, a number of Electors....." state legistlatures, that is individual states, can enact the NPV. It would seem this would be fruitless--unless enough states to total 270 Electoral Votes agree to the NPV initiative. Then, in effect, the Electoral College would be emasculated. (Can I still use that term?) In 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016 Presidents were elected although their opponents had more popular votes nationwide. Plus, more than a dozen other times, Presidents won with a plurality, not a majority, of popular votes. (Lincoln was one of them, receiving just under 40% of the popular vote in 1860. Due to a three-way race in 1992, Bill Clinton got 43% of the popular vote.) The attacks on the Electoral College today are as vociferous as ever. We should tread carefully in considering this. The Electoral College is there for a purpose. Critics will point to "the will of the people," that is, that the Electoral College has proven in at least five elections to be "undemocratic." (No, I don't agree that "We aren't a democracy." Yes, we are. We just aren't a direct democracy. The US is an indirect republican or representative democracy. Those who claim otherwise overlook the opening three words of the Constitution. The Preamble reads, "We the people....." It could easily have said, as some of the Founders desired, "We the states..." or "We the Congress" or.....) The "general will" is a dangerous concept. Look at the French Revolution. (There he goes with that history stuff again.) The Electoral College is a safeguard against tyranny of the majority. And the US has been described as a government by the majority with minority rights. The US has a federal system. The states matter! If they don't, get rid of the US Senate. Do away with state legislatures and governors and use them merely in administrative functions. Look at early writings of this country. In united States, the "u" was not capitalized, but the "S" was. In sentences, it was "The united States are," different from today's "The United States is....." States mattered. Federalism allows for more local solutions for more local issues and problems. For instance, should the federal government be involved, that is, use tax dollars from citizens in, say, Nevada, to help clear the massive snowfall today in New England? Of course it shouldn't. In the same vein, issues and candidates will differ in places like New York City and the plains of Nebraska. Should the greater population of NYC elect a President who might ignore the problems of the Plains states? At least with the Electoral College, lip service has to be given to the smaller states' concerns. Eliminating the Electrical College would be a mistake.

Solving Problems--The Three Stooges Way?

An old Three Stooges (I know, I know.....) episode includes a scene in which the rowboat they are in is leaking and taking on water. So, they drill another hole in the boat to let out the accumulating water. Simple solution, right? Ha Ha Ha. That's one of the reasons they were the Three Stooges. It seems to me that Big Government (local, state, and, especially, federal) often, too often, resorts to Three Stooges solutions. As I read of the massive new CoVid bailout, approaching $1 trillion (another trillion on top of the $2-3 trillion from last spring), I thought of the Stooges. Here is a problem (a leaky boat?), largely created by government actions, and government now wants to solve it by creating another problem (drilling a hole that lets in more water?). The shutdowns and lockdowns have decimated the economy for a lot of people. Businesses, jobs, money, and even lives have been lost (not "saved"). It's not real surprise, is it, the Big Government solution is to throw more money, more of other people's money, to "fix" things. This isn't just about the CoVid response. It is what Big Government does. Besides, politicians might have to admit they were wrong, not relying on "the science," but on guesses. Trying to sort all of this out, I am reminded of an old cartoon, a philsophical one, whose caption read, "Sometmes I sits and thinks and sometimes I just sits." I normally don't watch television, especially sports. But the other night I caught the tail end of the MSU-Duke basketball game. What has stuck with me is not that MSU won, but the end of the game. From opposite sides of half court, the two coaches and their teams just waved "Good Game" at each other; there was no handshake line. No doubt that was due to CoVid restrictions. So, after two hours of pushing, bumping, and fouling each other, that is, touching!, these players didn't shake hands to help prevent the virus. Hmmm..... Maybe every little bit helps, but it seems to me to be another instance of "No thinking allowed." If shaking hands, presumably with players wearing masks, is prohibited, why are these guys playing in the first place? Of course we all know. There was a meme going around a couple of weeks ago, written by Dinesh D'Souza. He wrote that he is the same age as Barack Obama and has written a couple of dozen books. None of them are about himself. Yet Obama has written three, each about Obama. (Well, it remains unclear if he actually wrote them, but his name is there as the author.) D'Souza said something like "Obama is the president of his own fan club." I found that hilarious. In the same vein, I get e-mails where one guy frequently psychoanalyzed Don Trump. Now he's started in on John Kennedy. The same term is used to describe both, "narcissistic." Maybe I missed it, but I don't at all recall, not once, this guy labeling Obama "narcissistic." I still think a lot of people still don't "get it." Oh, Trump had and has his diehard supporters. But I still maintain his victory in '16 wasn't really about him. It was many people acting out their frustrations with "the system." Call it "The Swamp," "corporate welfare," "affirmative action," or what not. But they felt they were left out of things government was giving to others. Oh, most of these people were and are well-off, at least well-off enough. Eventually they rebelled at Big Government serving others, but not themselves. I'm not sure that is completely accurate, but that is their perception. And perception is reality. And these people were sick and tired of the government, for which they pay, taking care of others, but not them. They felt as if they were marginalized, even ignored; they had become people not worth caring about, at least not by their government. I am chuckling at some of the letters-to-the-editor in yesterday's newspaper. A couple of them talk about the election, how the attempts to "delegitimize" it are "harming" democracry. Wait a minute! What happened four years ago? Can you say "collusion?" Russian? Chinese? Ukrainian? Martian? One side went so far as to create false documents to bolster their accusations. Impeachment was based on this. Where were these letter writers then? Perhaps that was yet another instance of "But that's different." I'm reading a novel, The Washington Decree, by Jussi Adler-Olsen. He's a top-flight Danish crime novelist and his "Department Q" series is really good. Decree is different. It is centered in the US (written in 2007) and involves a takeover of rights/liberties by a President and his minions. I won't go into the story much, but how different Adler-Olsen describes Americans from the Americans of today. A sizable number resist the unconstitutional actions of the Executive--and they aren't all the militiamen. Today, though, the bobble heads reign supreme, blindly following the "diktats" of politicians and political bureaucrats, the least trusted groups in the country. I certainly don't want to see violence, but I would like to see Americans standing up for their rights/liberties.

Walter Williams

I received word yesterday that Walter Williams died. Dr. Williams was one of the foremost economists and social philosophers of our time. (I'm not sure, but he might bristle at being called a "social philosopher.") Some people have described Williams as a conservative. Others labeled him a libertarian. If I remember, he himself once said, "I just want to be left alone." That is, he didn't want Big Government to take care of him. Like me, Williams didn't like other people, through Big Government, to tell him what to do. Williams was absolutely brilliant and remember I don't toss around such an accolade haphazardly. He had the ability to make things, economics or whatnot, easier to see and understand. And he was witty, a very funny man who often used humor to make his points. Is it any wonder he was a great teacher? Professor Williams taught his last class, a 7:30 AM Economics course!, the day before he died. One of his former students once said he believed his professor would be teaching until the day he died. Indeed. He was known to many as an author, of countless articles and a few dozen books, and as a substitute radio host. If you've not had the pleasure of knowing Williams' thoughts, here is a list of some of them, in shorter quotations: https://www.inspiringquotes.us/author/3104-walter-e-williams He was also quite the courageous man, from his upbringing in poverty, through the discrimination he faced as a black man, and on to the opinions he held that flew in the face of conventional (and wrong) "black thinking" (that is, that of Jesse Jackson, Barack Obama, Al Sharpton, etc.) If you read from just that list of shorter quotations, you'll clearly see that. We can only guess at how much better off black Americans would be had they followed the teachings of Walter Willams (and Thomas Sowell) instead of the panderings of Jackson, Sharpton, and Obama. I mentioned to some folks that it would be great to sit down to have lunch or dinner with Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell. I think I'd just say "Hello" and then shut up to listen to these two great thinkers. Thank you, Walter Williams. Rest in peace.