Does Mandatory Mask Enforcement Violate The American Disability Act?

images

Months ago, I wrote about the potential of a type of immuno discrimination or pandemic passport. The flip side to that danger is whether the mandatory enforcement of the masks is actually a violation of the American Disability Act. That issue came to mind this week after officials in Edmonton (Canada) came under fire for issuing exemption cards for citizens under the exemptions in the city’s mandatory mask bylaw. The question is whether barring people with medical reasons for not wearing masks might violate federal law.  The answer is that there is a basis for employees and customers to ask for “reasonable accommodations” but that likely does not include the right to go maskless as long as the government can maintain that the risk of spreading the virus is a public emergency.

Edmonton began offering the cards at seven recreation centers without requiring proof of the condition and even allowing residents to take more than one card for family members who may also be exempt. Almost 2000 people have secured cards.  The city insists that requiring proof from a doctor would be too cumbersome to obtain for citizens and too cumbersome for the city to confirm.

Putting aside the logistics, the story raises a more fundamental question. It is accepted that some people have medical reasons for not wearing masks.  So what is a store to do?  We have seen videos of people upset (and in some cases hysterical) over being turned away after claiming medical necessity.

 

Many stores simply bar those without masks. In states like Michigan, the government mandates that “no business, including local and state government offices open to the public, may provide service to a customer or allow a customer to enter its premises, unless the customer is wearing a face covering as required by this order.”However, what about the ADA?

There are a variety of legitimate medical reasons for declining a mask including respiratory disabilities like asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), or cystic fibrosis. There are also conditions like post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety, autism and other conditions that could be barriers.

Under Executive Order 2020-147 the federal government exempts those who “cannot medically tolerate a face covering.”  Some states have the same exception.  Thus, there is a disconnect for those with medical conditions in being exempted but still barred from stores.

The ADA generally prohibits the exclusion of individuals based on a disability absent a showing that the exclusion is needed for safe operations. There are a couple of arguments that a store can make to refuse to make exceptions.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Justice Department have stated that there no clear obligation to make the type of “reasonable accommodations” required under the Act. The EEOC issued a statement “[i]f a particular accommodation poses an undue hardship, employers and employees should work together to determine if there may be an alternative that could be provided that does not pose such problems.”

Yet, the EEOC also declares “an employer may not exclude an employee from the workplace solely because the employee has a medical condition that puts the employee at a higher risk for severe illness due to COVID-19.”

Reasonable accommodations due not include “undue burdens.” Moreover, even when a disability can be established as covered under the ADA, it cannot be a “direct threat” (of a substantial risk to others).

The EEOC states “[a]n employer does not have to provide a particular reasonable accommodation if it poses an ‘undue hardship,’ which means “significant difficulty or expense.” In some instances, an accommodation that would not have posed an undue hardship prior to the pandemic may pose one now.”

When it comes to masks, the EEOC states:

  • An employer may require employees to wear protective gear (e.g., masks and gloves) and observe infection control practices (e.g., regular hand washing and social distancing protocols).

  • However, where an employee with a disability needs a related reasonable accommodation under the ADA (e.g., non-latex gloves, modified face masks for interpreters or others who communicate with an employee who uses lip reading, or gowns designed for individuals who use wheelchairs), or a religious accommodation under Title VII (such as modified equipment due to religious garb), the employer should discuss the request and provide the modification or an alternative if feasible and not an undue hardship on the operation of the employer’s business under the ADA or Title VII.

That all seems to suggest that you can require masks from employees (and presumably customers) but you have to still take reasonable accommodations.

In a statement published on the ADA website, the Justice Department has specifically called out official looking cards claiming ADA exemptions as invalid: “These postings were not issued by the Department and are not endorsed by the Department. The Department urges the public not to rely on the information contained in these postings.”

Thus, the ADA claim has been overstated by many. Yet, the question is what a store should do when presented with a card or proof of a medical condition.  Such a person can still spread Covid-19. Yet, these people also need to eat and obtain essentials.

The question is whether reasonable alternatives are already available in such cases for ADA-covered individuals who can use alternative coverings like oxygen masks or having home delivery. Indeed, stores can facilitate such remote shopping options.

There is also the added element of self-protection. Those with medical conditions linked to breathing problems are among the most vulnerable to the virus.  They not only present a risk to others but to themselves in going around maskless.

I do not agree with some that this is a clearly frivolous concern.  There are people who cannot wear masks and thus cannot gain entry to stores with essential supplies.  However, in a pandemic, the exceptions under the ADA loom the largest. This strikes me as an area where reasonable alternatives can be reasonable accommodations.

 

467 thoughts on “Does Mandatory Mask Enforcement Violate The American Disability Act?”

  1. Commit–

    It occurred to me that in lieu of using the term ‘race’ which you think not valid you could use the term you have already recommended as scientifically sound: sub-species.

    I have a feeling, though, that if you start grouping people by ‘sub-species’ your proposal will be as well received as (D) Congressman Hank Johnson’s use of the term ‘abnormally small people’ as a PC substitute for ‘midget’.

    Which sub-species will qualify for affirmative action? Sounds good! Go for it, Commit!”

    1. “in lieu of using the term ‘race’ … you could use the term you have already recommended as scientifically sound: sub-species”

      Nope. The term “sub-species” has a specific biological definition (see the link I gave earlier), and races are not sub-species.
      The only human sub-species that’s currently alive on earth is H. sapiens sapiens. Every person alive belongs to this sub-species of H. sapiens.

      1. Actually, the use of the term sub-species used in the the link you sent earlier fits fairly closely to what we have known as race in the past. I lean more toward variety, but sub-species will do. That term would almost certainly apply to Neandertal and Denisovan sub-species whose genes have introgressed with ours but who are morphologically very different. The Pygmies might fit as well. Mayr, who is a famous expert on evolution said a sub-species is “an aggregate of phenotypically similar populations of a species inhabiting a geographic subdivision of the range of that species and differing taxonomically from other populations of that species.” That fits rather well with what we have used to describe race.

        It is fitting with your secretarial nature that you would turn more to words than to underlying reality to deal with the issue. Words aside, and you can argue them forever like a scholastic philosopher–angels on pins, etc–you can address the fact that there are large populations of humanity with different genetic backgrounds and different physical features that would lead any taxonomist to categorize them as different in important respects. There is no reason for you to know this, but experts in the field have for the last few years been sending out warnings to the academic community that they better prepare ways of dealing with it because it soon will no longer be possible to ignore.. The evidence is mounting rapidly.

        1. “inhabiting a geographic subdivision of the range of that species”

          According to you, what is the “geographic subdivision” inhabited by each race?

          “What we traditionally called races are ‘interbreeding populations that are phylogenetically distinguishable from, but reproductively compatible with, other such groups.”

          So you’re claiming that there are exactly 4 phylogenetically distinguishable groups of humans? If so, please say how you came up with that number.

          According to you, what race are Australian aborigines and why? How about NZ Maori?

          “Sub-Saharan Africans ‘interbreed’ while isolated on their continent”

          But “Black” and “Sub-Saharan African” aren’t synonyms. Plenty of Blacks globally don’t live in sub-Saharan Africa, and not all people living in sub-Saharan Africa are Black. Also, you say “isolated on their continent” while ignoring others on the continent of Africa who are not sub-Saharan, and who are not isolated from those who are sub-Saharan.

          1. Commmit–So you’re claiming that there are exactly 4 phylogenetically distinguishable groups of humans? If so, please say how you came up with that number.

            NOPE– I didn’t say that. What I said is that that the distinctions are getting even more refined and distinct. The categorizations can go down to the family level. Recently a researcher in Cambridge wondered if there was a correspondence between surnames and relationship. He got in touch with some lord with the same last name and got a sample. They were related. More research confirmed that surnames often are a predictor of genetic relationship even when the individuals have no reason to suspect so. Broadly speaking we can recognize very large groups such as Asian that share common characteristics with each other but not with, say, Europeans. But within that large group one can get much more granular and see distinctions between Japanese and Vietnamese and others. The same is true in Europe and the rest of the world. In fact, the greatest variety in human genetic differences exists in Africa which makes sense because our species has been there longer.

            You are entirely correct in saying that there are many possible categories and means of making distinctions, and there will be more. However that is no reason to talk your way out of seeing the most commonly recognized differences.

            Your last paragraph is typical silly word play. “Black and Sub-Saharan aren’t synonyms.” No kidding, Watson! But you knew what I meant and what Cavalli-Sforza meant when he used the term. Your secretarial phase is smarter than your Seth phase.

            1. I’d still like you to answer my other questions:
              According to you, what is the “geographic subdivision” inhabited by each race?
              According to you, what race are Australian aborigines and why? How about NZ Maori?
              According to you, what race are Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, and Kamala Harris, and what are you basing your judgment on?

              “we can recognize very large groups such as Asian that share common characteristics with each other but not with, say, Europeans”

              Please name some of the characteristics that you believe Asians share with each other but not with Europeans, so we can test your claim.

              You said “What we traditionally called races are ‘interbreeding populations that are phylogenetically distinguishable from, but reproductively compatible with, other such groups.” As you noted, people of Japanese vs. Vietnamese ancestry are genetically distinguishable. That implies that you’d call Japanese and Vietnamese “races.” Do you, and if not, then why are you saying “What we traditionally called races are ‘interbreeding populations that are phylogenetically distinguishable from, but reproductively compatible with, other such groups.”

              Just to be clear: I’m not saying that there aren’t genetic distinctions between some groups of people. What I’m saying is that these genetic distinctions don’t let you sort people into “Caucasian, Black, Asian, or American Indian.” The genetic differences sort people into much more numerous and smaller groups. And you might then take a bunch of those smaller groups and call them all “Asian” (for example), but not because they all share some genetic feature that’s absent from all of the smaller groups that aren’t Asian. You group them into “Asian” because you have a preexisting social construct called “Asian.”

              If I’m wrong about that, name a genetic feature of all Asian groups that’s absent from all non-Asian groups.

              As for your snide comments, don’t. We’re having a generally civil, productive discussion, and that undermines it.

              1. Commit–“genetic distinctions don’t let you sort people into “Caucasian, Black, Asian, or American Indian.”

                Then why are they Caucasian, Black, Asian or American Indian?

                I thought maybe genetics had something to do with it.

                People don’t paint their children black. They come out that way. Genetics.

                How do you tell them apart?

                1. “Then why are they Caucasian, Black, Asian or American Indian?”

                  Gosh, because we’re capable of sorting on the basis of things other than genetics, like geographic location, saying that people are Asian if their ancestors from a few centuries ago lived in Asia. That there’s genetic variation doesn’t imply that you can sort into races based solely on genetics.

                  “People don’t paint their children black. They come out that way. Genetics.”

                  But different people can have the same skin color, and you’d call them different races. The skin color is genetic. The racial categorization is not.

                  When you said “I could surely demonstrate whether he was Caucasian, Black, Asian, or American Indian,” I interpreted that as you listing what you considered to be all of the human races. I take it that I misinterpreted, as you’ve since said “I have never said there are just 4 races.” So please list all of the human races (however you interpret the word “race”), so I can understand what you’re referring to when you talk about human races.

                  My sense is that you’re not going to be able to. Why? Because you’re using “race” in inconsistent ways. For ex., in response to the question “which race has the ‘ability to hold one’s breath for long times to free dive deeply into the ocean’?,” you cited the Bajau people, but you also say that Asians are a race, when the Bajau are a proper subset of Asians. And despite my question clearly asking about a “race,” you then waffled on whether the Bajau are a race.

                  You claim that races are essentially equivalent to subspecies; however, when scientists classify a polytypic species into subspecies, they do list all of the subspecies, and those are non-intersecting (unlike Bajau and Asian), where the union of the subspecies is the entire species. If you cannot do this for “races,” then races aren’t subspecies. Also, although subspecies are capable of interbreeding, they generally don’t, due to geographic isolation and/or sexual selection of mates. That clearly isn’t the case for human races. People of different races aren’t geographically isolated (which may be why you chose not to answer the question “According to you, what is the ‘geographic subdivision’ inhabited by each race?”) and often mate with each other. This is one of the reasons I said that there’s a single extant human subspecies (H. sapiens sapiens). But mostly I said that because that’s what human biologists have concluded, and it would be foolish to reject their expertise.

                  “For you there are no human subspecies because you don’t like the word.”

                  Bullsh*t. H. sapiens idaltu is another human subspecies, as are Neanderthals, if biologists decide that they’re better classified as a subspecies, H. sapiens neanderthalensis, than as a distinct species, H. neanderthalensis. I have no problem with the word subspecies; you project a dislike onto me that isn’t mine. I simply defer to biologists’ expertise about human subspecies. You apparently don’t.

                  What you call races probably corresponds better to what biologists call “ecotypes.” You call this word precision “secretarial,” but it’s actually scientific and a feature of research. That you confuse research and secretarial work implies that you have a weak understanding of the actual work of scientific research. You claim that my language specificity isn’t part of “actually grappling with the underlying idea and trying to understand what is really going on,” when it’s the reverse: defining constructs is very much a part of doing research, and it arises out of grappling with the underlying ideas and for the purpose of advancing our understandings.

                    1. Kurtz, these videos are ugly and reflect the ugliness seen on the left and many that call themselves democrats. Some of those posting on this blog aren’t much different from the people we are looking at.

                  1. Allan, it’s so sad and tragic that the countless good hearted Democratic party rank and file people in this country have been taken in by this BLM extortion operation and decades of snivel rights foolishness beforehand. They need to wake up before their last dollar is picked out of their pocket by these scoundrels or they end up walloped bloody and unconscious by the BLM mob, like that poor kid in the rusty old truck. Or “pimp-slapped” into submission like they did his chubby blonde wife.

                    Democratic voters will have a choice. vote for Biden is a vote for BLM. They own him. And a vote for billlionaire donors like Soros, tom STeyer, and mikey bloomberg. the true string pullers of the Dem party. a vote for international finance.

                    but a vote for Trump is a vote for law and order. and the nation of the United States, our great country. for all his faults, he clearly is for America.

                    Take your sides people– but know, the wheel of karma will find you eventually

                    1. Kurtz, there is only one sane vote in this contest and that is for Trump. The JFK democrats are gone. Today JFK would be almost as despised as Trump and he wasn’t a hotshot president.

                      We need a smaller government, much smaller but that is not where we are headed.

                    2. Every decent American, including those who have been peacefully protesting in Portland, is disgusted by mob BS like this but there are nasty f….s on both sides and more are dead at the hands of right wingers than the left in modern America. What you call “snivel rights” were hard fought battles to win equal treatment before the law, the ballot box, and public accommodations for millions of Americans who had neither prior. Your ignorance is appalling and racist. I am old enough and lived in the deep south and experienced it and fought against it in limited and non-heroic manner. You should STF up about that which you know so little.

                      By the way, Trump obviously – what is wrong with you that you can’t see this – cares about no one or thing other than himself, and certainly not America. Nor is he the champion of working Americans, but the champion of the rich who he rewarded handsomely with the 2017 tax cut. Wake up.

                    3. “Every decent American, including those who have been peacefully protesting in Portland, is disgusted by mob BS like this”

                      Apparently not as the police have been told to stand down. Where were the police during this violence? That tells us about the communit and how permissive they are with regard to violence. A community that believes in law and order would have stopped this starting day 1. You sound just like the bystanders who are tearing up the streets. Ask them what happened in front of their eyes. ‘I uh uh didn’t uh see anything…uh we are uh peaceful’.

                    4. “but there are nasty f….s on both sides and more are dead at the hands of right wingers than the left in modern America.”

                      If that is true you should be able to demonstrate it easily.

                      The alt-right marched in Charlottesville 4 years ago. The came with sheilds and guns, they were pummeled by leftists counter protestors.

                      These alt-right groups were the closets thing that exists on the right spectrum to antifa – and one person died of a heart attack scared to death by some terror sticken disturbed kid driving into a crowd as they pummeled has car with bats.

                      That is the only example of even close to actual political violence by the so called right.

                      it is correct to note that the carnage today is NOT as bad as after Rodney King or the 60’s summer of rage.

                      But pretending there is some parity with the right is complete nonsense.

                      In may you saw those on the right protest – with guns, they went to state capitals. Nothing got burned, nothing looted, No on so much as stubbed their toe.

                      I am worried that the time will come when the response to the current lawlessness of the left will be violence from the rest of us.
                      But that has not occured YET, and if and when it actually does it will be justified.

                      WE are slowly seeing counter protests. These are non-violently pushing Antifa amd BLM protests out of where they are destroying things.

                      Ideas matter – you do nto seem to get that. There is no moral foundation for the left – so violence is easier. Those on the left are younger and do not grasp the consequences. People with kids and a family will REACT to violence with violence, but they will not typically initiate it.

                      The left accepts “by any means necescary” the rest of us do not.

                      Ideas have consequences – one of those is there is no partiy between modern violence on the left and right.

                    5. There is no right to public accomodation. Pretending there is as a nonsensical and enforceable infringement on the property rights of others. Nor was there ever a need to create the monstrosity of public accomodation law. Jim Crow like everything else you noted with Government forced discrimination. The long history of civil rights – going back to reconstruction has been about using the constitution to thwart PUBLIC laws compelling discrimination – Jim Crow laws, Discrimination by public schools, discriminatory zoning laws, discriminatory minimum wage laws.

                      Leftists constantly blame those engaged in free exchange for the evils done by government.

                    6. “YOUR ignorance is appalling and racist.

                      I am old enough and lived in the deep south and experienced it and fought against it in limited and non-heroic manner.

                      You should STF up about that which you know so little.”

                      Every word you said to Kurtz is true – when I say it ti YOU

                    7. “By the way, Trump obviously – what is wrong with you that you can’t see this – cares about no one or thing other than himself, and certainly not America.”

                      If you have a specific complaint make it.
                      Who knows we might agree.

                      Trump is far from perfect. He is also the best president in the 21st century – but that is a pretty low bar.

                      “Nor is he the champion of working Americans, but the champion of the rich who he rewarded handsomely with the 2017 tax cut. Wake up.”

                      I do not expect a president to be “champion” of anyone. I expect him to follow the constitution.
                      Trump acts uncounstitutionally far less than any president in a long time.

                      You act as if stealing taxes from anyone is a right of government.

                      My wealth is mine BY RIGHT – as is that of anyone else. Government is not entitled to the wealth of others.

                      The grocery store must persuade me to exchange my wealth for groceries, they can not send men with guns to take what they want.

                      To the extent government is may take anyone’s wealth, it must justify that use of force.
                      Atleast 90% of taxes are not justified.

                      Further “working Americans” pay very little of the cost of government.

                      You are unbeleivably ignorant in your ranting.

                      You claim to be old enough to have lived in the deep south and fought against racism.

                      That means you are not an uneducated child, ignorant of the failures of government.

                      That means that you are old enough to know that just as the racist mess of our cities is the consequence of decades of misrule by democrats, that the racism in the south occured during centuries of misrule by democrats.

                      You are also old enough to know that prosperity for all and high taxes do not go together.

                      “Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism, but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice; all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things. All governments which thwart this natural course, which force things into another channel, or which endeavour to arrest the progress of society at a particular point, are unnatural, and to support themselves are obliged to be oppressive and tyrannical. ”

                      Adam Smith

                    8. “Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden on Tuesday called for the arrest of violent protesters…….

                      “I think we do need to hold those who violate the law accountable,” Biden said. “We should never let what’s done in a march for equal rights overcome what the reason for the march is. And that’s what these folks are doing. And they should be arrested — found, arrested and tried.”…”

                      https://nypost.com/2020/07/28/biden-violent-protesters-should-be-arrested-and-tried/

                    9. “I think we do need to hold those who violate the law accountable,” Biden said. “We should never let what’s done in a march for equal rights overcome what the reason for the march is. And that’s what these folks are doing. And they should be arrested — found, arrested and tried.”…”

                      So why is that not happening ?

                      It is pretty trivial to end the violence – arrest those engaged in violence. Quit bailing them our in minutes, prosecute the charges against them.

                      Instead you are allowing them to wage war on the police.

                      In my state is you shove a police officer – that is aggravated assault and you could be sent to prison for over a decade.
                      And my state is in the north east not deep south.

                      If you are present at a protest that turns violent – LEAVE, especially if you are ordered to.

                      If you do not, you are a rioter, not a protestor, and your merely presence subjects you to arrest.

                      I am not interested in Biden mouthing words that he is impotent to do anything about.

                      If the left wishes to be taken credibly – ALL democrats need to not merely speak out, but to encourage and support the steps necescary to bring this to an end.

                      Those are not at all difficult.

                    10. By the Book: good luck convincing any of these three. They will find a way to dismiss that FBI Director Wray testified before Congress that “a majority of the domestic terrorism cases that we’ve investigated are motivated by some version of what you might call white supremacist violence” and that the shootings by white supremacists in El Paso, TX, in Gilroy, CA, in Pittsburgh, PA, … together resulted in deaths of dozens. And of course Wray was also counting investigations that didn’t result in deaths, like Cesar Sayoc’s failed bombing attempts.

                    11. “ By the Book: good luck convincing … “

                      Needs to be Committed remains blind to current events and basic knowledge.

                      “white supremacist violence” is a nice catch all phrase. but it means little when it comes to the violence behind such people. White supremacists can come from the left or the right or anywhere else. Richard Spencer’s views ( a prominent white supremacist leader) are far more leftward thinking than right wing. What you are trying to do is race bait and use despicable people as a tool. Considering who you are and what you stand for that seems to be the natural thing for you to do.

                      Throughout a lot of democrat cities we see BLM and Antifa rioting in the streets without any attempt of the leftist mayors to stop such violence. The police stand down while destruction and the death rate rise. That is a leftist and democrat problem that causes harm and problems to the entire society.

                      Needs to be Committed seems to be OK with all the violence, but that is expected for she Needs to be Committed.

                    12. “By the Book: good luck convincing any of these three. They will find a way to dismiss that FBI Director Wray testified before Congress that “a majority of the domestic terrorism cases that we’ve investigated are motivated by some version of what you might call white supremacist violence” and that the shootings by white supremacists in El Paso, TX, in Gilroy, CA, in Pittsburgh, PA, … together resulted in deaths of dozens. :”

                      Of course you will not convince anyone – you are DISHONEST.
                      You know that the El Passo killer was an eco terrorist and/or a nut case. Actually read his manifesto – it is as nuts as that of Ted Kazynsky and atleast as left leaning.

                      As of 2020 the FBI has declared no known motive for the Gilroy shooter.
                      Bowers was a typical nut job loan wolf mass shooter. Near certain mentally disturbed.

                      Maybe he was anti-semitic, maybe just nuts. Does not matter much – the list of current democratic anti-semites is huge.

                      I find it odd that you associate antisemitism with republicans – given that the state of israel owes its existance to several republican presidents. Eisenhower and Nixon notably, and Trump has been the most Jewish friendly president in decades.
                      But again why let facts get in the way.

                      Sayoc BTW was juiced up on steroids but more notably made bombs that did not and count not work – intentionally.

                      Those bombing the police right now (or in the 60’s) are on the left and their bombs actually explode.

                      “And of course Wray was also counting investigations that didn’t result in deaths, like Cesar Sayoc’s failed bombing attempts.”
                      Yes, the FBI has had a bug up its ass over harmless people for decades.

                      How well did Ruby Ridge go ? Waco ? the Multiple conficts with the Bundy’s ?
                      I am not defending Randy Weaver or David Koresch or Cliven Bundy.

                      But the government response to them was criminal.
                      At Waco the FBI murdered 82 people.
                      Further Waco triggered Timothy McVeigh into the OKC bombing.

                      Why are you selling the FBI ?
                      One of the good things about the FBI investigation into Trump is that Conservatives are starting to grasp that the FBI is untrustworthy.

                      Whether it is MLK, and Hoover, or the long string of FBI misadventures with purported white supremecists that resulted in carnage and murder, the FBI has been a disaster – long before Crossfire Huricane.
                      What of Richard Jewel – did they get that right ? What of the anthrax killer ?

                      Do we need a long list of the failures of the FBI ?

                    13. John relies on the lame and limp pretense that the Democratic Party and Republican Party of Reconstruction times are the same as those of today. Worth a smirk but not a response.

                      John says I should have learned from the past, and I did. The now unbelievable racism which the south of my youth was ruled under was only reversed by the benevolent power of the federal government through federal legislation, much as slavery was ended. I learned that.

                      If 90% of taxes are not justified, John is saying he is in favor of the “punishment” and force required for that other 10%..

                      CTHD, I am not trying to convince the 3 – though Kurtz is an original enough thinker to surprise on occasion. His completely off the wall animosity toward you is not explainable, but then who cares to try.

                    14. “John relies on the lame and limp pretense that the Democratic Party and Republican Party of Reconstruction times are the same as those of today. Worth a smirk but not a response.”

                      Democrats are the party of:
                      Slavery,
                      The Civil War,
                      Jim Crow,
                      Lynching
                      Separate but equal.
                      the KKK up until 2010 democrats had a former KKK grand cyclops in the senate
                      the 1924 Democratic convention was called the KlanBake convention.
                      80 percent of Republicans supported the Civil Rights Act, whereas only 63 percent of Democrats supported the law

                      You tried to sell “the great society ” earlier – yet both the great society and its new deal predecessor made things worse for blacks.

                      Democrats today are more racist than ever – while engaged in racial pandering, they still look down on minorities.

                      Large parts of the social safety net you rant about rest on the premise that minorities are not able to take care of themselves.
                      Talk about racism

                      “John says I should have learned from the past, and I did. The now unbelievable racism which the south of my youth was ruled under was only reversed by the benevolent power of the federal government through federal legislation, much as slavery was ended. I learned that.”
                      Government ended racism – and socialism actually worked, and I have swamp land to sell you, that you will really like.

                      “If 90% of taxes are not justified, John is saying he is in favor of the “punishment” and force required for that other 10%..”
                      If you would state something honestly – it would be possible to occasionally agree with you.

                      The citizen’s of a country are obligated to pay for the legitimate governance of that country.

                      Lincoln fought the civil war with total federal state and local taxes never exceeding 8% of GDP.

                      I have no problem paying for the minimal national defense we actually require, for reasonable policing and a working courts system.
                      For jails and prisons necessary for those few who will not obey justifiable laws.

                      These are all justifiable costs associated with paying to secure our freedom.

                      “CTHD, I am not trying to convince”

                      Anyone – you are not making arguments.

              2. According to you, what race are Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, and Kamala Harris, and what are you basing your judgment on?

                I think they are mixed race. That’s what they tell us, at least, and I have no further interest in their genes.

              3. Commit– One thing complicating the issue of classification is the fact that classifications are for our convenience and are set to handle a particular situation. We can classify humanity into four major races and that will suit many occasions, but it will not cover every contingency such as the Aborigine population or the Polynesian. Then it is little more than a judgment call, subject to revision and amendment, whether these other groups will be called a race or something else. Whatever they are, that is what they are no matter what we call them from time to time or how we arrange the boxes putting different people into different boxes.

                Ultimately, it can be classified in layers down to just one individual. Every individual is genetically unique. One of a kind. Same with a herd of cows. We look and think ‘cows’ and they are all alike. For our purposes that is more than sufficient. But each cow is genetically unique. There was an interesting criminal case in the Phoenix area a few years ago that relied on this. The body of a murdered woman was found near a tree outside of town. The police had a suspect but he denied every having been there. Parts of a tree were found in the back of his truck and the genetic test showed that those parts came from that one unique tree in the desert. No other tree in the world shared exactly that genetic signature. That proved his truck, and by extension he, had been there contrary to his denials.

                Working up from one person when you start grouping people by shared characteristics you can expand the population enormously knowing there will always be differences between individuals and larger groups. But there will also be similarities. For a long while the largest groups were four races. That is no longer a convenient number, there are subdivisions, but generally it gives us a model we can manage. It will never be ‘perfect’ since every individual in whatever grouping will be unique.

                I have an idea how the Aborigines would be classified, at least on current information, but it is too involved to get into here.

                The Maori probably are easier. They are Polynesian. It is known from genetics that their ancestors originally came from Taiwan and migrated south and intermingled with Papuans, probably violently but also with an exchange of genes. Those two ancestral groups contributed most to the Polynesians. I don’t remember if the now extinct Denisovans contributed to Polynesian but it seems likely. Their genes spread widely.

                One interesting recent discovery is the presence of Polynesian genes in some South American Indian tribes. It is near certain now that at some point long ago the Polynesians and Indians met and exchanged genes. Really a remarkable discovery that is. Another curious thing about the American Indians is that European type genes were found in skeletal remains predating Columbus. It appears now that they began as a Eurasian people traveling east picking up more Asian genes and then crossing at Beringia, or along the coast to settle and expand in the Americas carrying both recognizable European and Asian genes in the total genetic package. Are they a separate race? Don’t know. Don’t really care. It is a somewhat arbitrary label. They are what they are and they are identifiable by their genetic structure.

        2. “It is fitting with your secretarial nature that you would turn more to words than to underlying reality to deal with the issue.”

          Young, this is the second time you referred to CTHD in this fashion and I think it is one of the most apt descriptions of her. She has shown an ability to recall information in sentences but put together the sentences have very little meaning. I have had a lot of secretaries that can write and recall things that are important but the reason they are secretaries is that they are unable to adequately utilize all the information they are able to remember.

          You are a smart guy with a wide berth of knowledge. What type of lawyer were you?

          1. ” I have had a lot of secretaries that can write and recall things that are important but the reason they are secretaries is that they are unable to adequately utilize all the information they are able to remember.”

            I think that is what I began to recognize in her. They are great qualities in a secretary. Not so helpful when it comes to actually understanding. It shows up in a number of ways with her. For one thing, it seems much more important to her just how something is expressed, rejecting equivalent expressions, than actually grappling with the underlying idea and trying to understand what is really going on. Its as if she is more concerned with a dictionary and thesaurus than with reality. Well, also preserving political correctness, the leftist Weltanschauung, which is the actual world for her and she is not internally capable of looking through that screen.

            1. Young, why should I continue the discussion when you’re talking about me this way? If you want me to discuss this topic with you, don’t act like an assh*le.

              For the record, I’ve never been a secretary. I have conducted and published qualitative research, working in part with transcript data from interviews and group discussions. In that research, I have to attend to the language people are using with a level of precision that’s not typical for talking. And just because *you* think two expressions are equivalent, that doesn’t imply that someone else interprets them that way. If I were researching *your* language use, I’d focus on the meaning for *you*. But that’s not what what we’re doing here. I suspect that you’ve never published any research, so you interpret my language use in a way that makes sense to you given what you do have experience with: secretaries. Maybe if you had more experience with this kind of qualitative research, you’d understand. FWIW, this kind of research is relevant to the legal profession, given the amount of talk involved in legal practice and the existence of a legal linguistic register (if you’re not familiar with the concept of linguistic registers, you can look that up).

              1. “And just because *you* think two expressions are equivalent, that doesn’t imply that someone else interprets them that way. ”

                Maybe that type of acuity should have been used by you when you discussed the Flynn case and how Flynn interpreted the questions asked. Flynn didn’t lie. The expressions within the questions may have been interpreted differently. Even the interregators felt Flynn was being honest. Your ideology got into the way of whatever critical thinking skills you possess.

          2. Allan wrote: “I have had a lot of secretaries that can write and recall things that are important but the reason they are secretaries is that they are unable to adequately utilize all the information they are able to remember.”

            Allan reveals his true nature, yet again.

            1. “Allan reveals his true nature, yet again.”

              What does it reveal? Shallow statements are the responses we get from Anonymous the Stupid.

            2. How so ?

              We are not equal.

              If you do not grasp that – you are not living in reality.

              We can not each play the cello like YoYo Ma

              We can not sing like Adele,

              We can not play basketball like Micheal Jordan.

              We are not equal.
              We are not equally talented.
              We are not equally intelligent
              We are not equally hardworking.

              Regardless the economic or political system – our natural differences will inherently result in different outcomes.

              The best we can hope for is that government bars those with more advantages are not able to use force to multiply them.
              and that government itself will not become another instrument of our inequality.

      2. Commit–

        Here is what the link you gave earlier says about sub-species:

        “Virtually all modern definitions of subspecies follow the spirit of these original definitions, with the general view being that subspecies are groups of actually or potentially interbreeding populations that are phylogenetically distinguishable from, but reproductively compatible with, other such groups”

        What we traditionally called races are “interbreeding populations that are phylogenetically distinguishable from, but reproductively compatible with, other such groups.” By that definition every major race category on Earth fits as a sub-species. Sub-Saharan Africans ‘interbreed’ while isolated on their continent. They are distinguishable from other variants of humanity–even a child can see the difference–and they are reproductively compatible with other types of humans. The same describes every other major human classification.

        Your citations do not support what you think they support. Quite the opposite, in fact. The problem you likely have is confirmation bias. You can’t see evidence that controverts your beliefs or, most likely, your wants in this case.

      3. So because you have mangled the meaning of the term race everyone else must use something else ?

        Have you actuall read 1984 ?

        1. John,

          I am not sure if your comment was meant for me. But it is a fair question. No, I don’t think everyone else must use a different term for race. Everyone knows what it means and that it is determined by biology and genetics.

          However, in discussions with some people we get expressions like this: “Race is a social construct and has no basis in biology.” As a matter of fact, if we generalize that expression and say “Race is an X and has no basis in biology.” the statement is false for all manifestations of X.

          As a term, ‘race’ is so loaded with history and arguments and problems that it may almost be impossible to use it in a serious way in court or other formal arena.

          To get around that argumentative road block I looked for a way to address the same issue but from a scientific approach using normal taxonomy that we use for every other species. We are animals. We should not discard sorting methods that work for every other species on the planet just because we do not want to talk about ourselves honestly.

          One thing I hit on that was used in biology and that seems to correspond closely to ‘race’ is ‘sub-species’. I am not wed to the term. There may be sound reasons for not using it in that way, but I haven’t seen them yet.

          If I were to participate in a frontal legal assault on our atrocious contortions in race politics and law, I would try to sidestep the baggage that comes with saying ‘race’ and use a cognate expression that flanks the arguments and gets behind them.

          1. Young, no one here said “Race is a social construct and has no basis in biology.”

            You tried to pull this same garbage when you falsely claimed about me that “they tell us [as Commit has done here] that race isn’t real, only a ‘social construct’ with no basis in reality.” You still haven’t responded to my response to you there calling you out on that:
            https://jonathanturley.org/2020/08/16/mueller-aide-weissmann-calls-on-doj-attorneys-not-to-help-on-investigations/comment-page-3/#comment-1990741

            Nor did you respond to your mistakes here:
            https://jonathanturley.org/2020/08/16/mueller-aide-weissmann-calls-on-doj-attorneys-not-to-help-on-investigations/comment-page-3/#comment-1990678

            “One thing I hit on that was used in biology and that seems to correspond closely to ‘race’ is ‘sub-species’. I am not wed to the term. There may be sound reasons for not using it in that way, but I haven’t seen them yet.”

            They’ve been presented to you, so If you haven’t seen them, it’s because you’re ignoring them:
            a) Biologists disagree with you that races are subspecies.
            b) You yourself have consistently run away from naming all of the races that you believe are subspecies, whereas biologists name all of the subspecies for a species.
            c) “Ecotype” is a better biological match than “subspecies.”

            1. CTDHD,

              I am less interested in your criticism’s of Young than your own thoughts – especially those that you wish to incorporate into law.

              I do not care much whetehr the biological label for race is subspecies of ecotype.

              I beleive that biology has already defined race and the never layer of difference smaller than sub-species.

              Regardless, I expect biology like all science to narrowly define terms.

              I am interested in what YOU mean when you say the country is racist, the police are systemically racist, …

              I just listened to Biden’s convention speech.

              I was mildly impressed – in a 25 minute speech Biden did not do anything to enhance the perception of him as demented.

              Beyond that it was an unimpressive speech. It was the typical democratic oratory of decades – vote for me and everyone will fart strawberries. Things will be better than they are magically.

              But I am not asking about Biden – but about you.

              I do not care what the biological definition of race is.

              What I want to know is what is Racism to you and what do you seek to do about it, and how do you seek to do that ?

              What I want to know is whether you think racism is less of more of a problem today than in 1968 ?

              1. Allan and several others have questioned whether Commit has lived up to her claim of honesty. This might help.

                COMMIT on August 21 at 12:39
                “Young, no one here said “Race is a social construct and has no basis in biology.”

                COMMIT on August 12, 11:41 pm
                “Race is social construct, not a biological one.”

                Both found in the post on mandatory mask use.

                Judge for yourself.

                1. Young:
                  So once again, you’ve taken something I wrote and misunderstood it, and then projected your misunderstanding onto me.

                  “not a biological [construct]” (what I actually said) does NOT mean “has no basis in biology” (your substitution). Of course race has a basis in biology! It’s biology that determines ALL of our physical features, including the ones that people attend to in assessing race. Duh. But “biological constructs” are constructs that biologists define. Biologists don’t define race. Race has a basis in biology but is not a biological construct.

                  So just as you misunderstood “social construct” earlier, falsely claiming that “they tell us [as Commit has done here] that race isn’t real, only a ‘social construct’ with no basis in reality,” when social constructs DO have a basis in reality, you’re now demonstrating that you’ve misunderstood what “biological construct” means. Stop projecting your misunderstandings onto me.

                    1. No, Young, you copied and pasted what I said and also what YOU said, and then you pretended that they were synonymous, when they aren’t. That dishonesty is on YOU.

                      While you continue to run away from the fact that biologists don’t consider races to be subspecies.
                      While you continue to run away from listing the races you believe to be subspecies.

                      YOU, not me, are the one who wrote “Race is a social construct and has no basis in biology.” I didn’t say that, and I didn’t imply that. I only quoted it, pointing out that no one but YOU said it.

                    2. BTW, Young, if you were actually aiming for a sincere discussion, you’d accept that you misinterpreted what I actually said. You’d say something like “I misunderstood, thanks for clarifying.” But it’s clear that you’re not trying to have a sincere exchange here. You’d rather continue to misinterpret what I wrote, because it’s more comfortable for you than dealing with what I actually said and what I meant by it.

                      And I won’t be surprised if you again mischaracterize this attention to the meaning of “biological contrast” as “secretarial” instead of recognizing it for what it is: attention to how biologists themselves (not secretaries) define something or not. That’s a research matter, not a secretarial matter.

                    3. Sorry, that should have been “biological construct,” not “biological contrast.”

                    4. John wrote:

                      “As several noted In Biden’s acceptance he repeated the LIE that Trump praised nazi’s and the KKK at Charlottesville.”

                      Trump did praise Nazi’s and other alt-right protesters in CHarlottesville. There were no “very fine people” on their side as the event was both advertised and attended by Nazis, KKK, and white supremacists who ended up marching while chanting “Jews will not replace us”. There were no grandmothers, housewives, and normal citizens taking part in this event.

                      Here’s a poster for it:

                      https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/zhkMfg_s-4r70MsSUz8fYafW3Qg=/0x0:520×681/1120×0/filters:focal(0x0:520×681):format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/16194207/791.jpg

                      Another:

                      https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/4pnoNp2KgCFn0l797u6hh_TFTzU=/0x0:802×852/1120×0/filters:focal(0x0:802×852):format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/16194132/Screen_Shot_2019_04_26_at_11.47.41_AM.png

                    5. Btb, your logic betrays your lack of logic.

                      If ” There were no “very fine people” on their side as the event was both advertised ” Is true then there were no fine people on the left because of the same advertisements.

                    6. The POINT which you keep ducking – while asserting OTHER fallacious claims is that the claim that Trump’s remark is racist is obviously FALSE.

                      Trump correctly noted in the extended interview there were many bad people there, He specifically called the person who drove into a crowd a murderer.

                      There was some clergy there early on – and though they crossed into the parade space – which was illegal, they were otherwise “good people” and welcome.

                      At the same time all those you are mailigning – whether they deserve your insults or not, were marched down a gauntlet of violent counter protestors, and but for the presence of an assortment of armed militias they would have been beaten and probably murdered.

                      These are the “very fine people” on YOUR side. These are the same Antifa hotheads who football kicked the head of a guy who it turns out was trying to protect a trans women from attackers FORM THE LEFT.

                      There are the same “very fine people” who are destorying portland.

                      It will take years for businesses in downtown portland to recover.

                      Absolutely those protesting the statue removal – many of whom were alt-right – came expecting violence.

                      But they did not initiate violence – Your hero’s did.

                    7. “This protest was over the removal of a statute of Robert E. Lee.”

                      I don’t think Lee wanted memorials to him nor did he wish fame or profit off of his name. I believe he wanted the nation to heal and regarding the bitterness of many Confederate soldiers post war he told them: “Dismiss from your mind all sectional feeling, and bring [your children] up to be Americans.”

                      I don’t know whether or not the Statue of Lee belonged where it was but I wish the leftists would heed his words. They are a disgrace on our nation and the soldiers that lost their lives in the Civil War. They are ignorant of history and their beliefs are those of the great murderers of the 20th century.

                    8. I personally liked Maron’s remarks.

                      The statutes stay. Out past stays. For good or evil, it is OUR past.

                      We should celebrate Lee AND we should criticise Lee. But we should not forget him.

                    9. Poster links not working – don’t know why. Try these links:

                      https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/zhkMfg_s-4r70MsSUz8fYafW3Qg=/0x0:520×681/1120×0/filters:focal(0x0:520×681):format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/16194207/791.jpg

                      https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/4pnoNp2KgCFn0l797u6hh_TFTzU=/0x0:802×852/1120×0/filters:focal(0x0:802×852):format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/16194132/Screen_Shot_2019_04_26_at_11.47.41_AM.png

                    10. John Say, I hope you saw those posters. I’d be happy to hear you defend them as coming from “very fine people”. If you didn’t, they are here.

                      https://www.vox.com/2019/4/26/18517980/trump-unite-the-right-racism-defense-charlottesville

                      Enjoy.

                      PS I did not question anyone’s right to march and protest nor did I defend Antifa as your deflections pretend. I posted simply to correct your mistaken impression that there were “very fine people” at the Nazi rally in Charlottesville chanting “Jews will not replace us” by torch light.

                    11. “John Say, I hope you saw those posters. I’d be happy to hear you defend them as coming from “very fine people”. ”

                      Why ?

                      A few of the fallacies in your claim.

                      ignoratio elench
                      Hasty generalization
                      Relevance fallacy
                      non sequitur
                      false dilema

                      AGAIN read Trump’s actual remarks.

                      NO ONE claims that everyone at this rally was a “very fine person”

                      And with even the limited context of the whole sentence you selectively edit that is clear.

                      Antifa and other violent counter protestors were present – does that mean that the ministers who also counter protested were evil people ?

                      I would further note that all these “evil white supremecists, nazi’s and KKK” – did NOT start the violence – the counter protestors did.

                      If you are part of the “punch a nazi” crowd – you are the problem.

                      Violence is justified in response to actual violence. Not the free speech of those you do not like.

                      What I find hillarious is that Those who think that it is OK to reign violence down on the alt-right – absent actual violence on their part – they are FASCISTS.

                      There is no difference between AntiFa and Musollini’s brown shirts.

                      The left is what they hate the most.

                    12. John avoids the posters and the point, which was never “everyone there were fine people”. He knows that but also knowing hardly anyone reads his drivel, figures he can get away with pettifogging and pretend deconstructions and avoid facing the proof of his folly.

                    13. “John avoids the posters and the point, which was never “everyone there were fine people”. ”
                      This is not about “the poster”.

                      This is first and foremost about what Trump ACTUALLY said IN CONTEXT, and whether it was Racist.

                      It is ALSO about Biden repeating a debunked Lie.
                      As well as others here like you continuing to repeat that LIE.

                      People who repeat LIEs over and over have a name LIARS.
                      People who make false moral accusations are IMMORAL.

                      Trump said OVER AND OVER that there were alot of bad people at Charlottesville.
                      Producing a picture with a KKK hood, or a Nazi symbol gets you no where.
                      Just like producing Bat swinging counter protestors accomplishes nothing either.

                      We can trade posters and pictures forever – it will not alter the fact that Trump’s remarks were neither racist, nor false.

                      “He knows that”
                      More mind reading.

                      “but also knowing hardly anyone reads his drivel,”
                      More mind reading – and yet, you continue to read my posts pretty much disproving your own claim.

                      “figures he can get away with pettifogging and pretend deconstructions and avoid facing the proof of his folly.”

                      Use real meaningful words.

                      If I have made a factual error – point the actual error out.

                      When you resort to meaningless claims like “pettifogging and pretend deconstructions” – all you are doing is admitting that you can not falsify what should be trivially falsifiable if it were wrong.

                      Slandering an argument is not disproving it, it is just another fallacy.

                      FACTS – not “pettifogging and pretend deconstructions”

                  1. You said in a recent post that you did not say “Race is a social construct”.

                    You provided a comment and timestamp that he states clearly says exactly that.

                    This is not a debate about what you meant – at this point.
                    It is a debate about what you said.

                    I do not think Young is making a claim that is altered by context, the claim is simple – you say you did not say 5 words, he says you did.

                    We can debate how context alters what you meant after we resolve the debate over what you said.

                    As I have said repeatedly – Trust is important – critical.

                    If We elect Trump – for good and evil I have a pretty good idea what he will do as president.

                    The good news about Biden’s speech is that he weakened slightly the claims he is demented.
                    The bad news is that he offered nothing but magic. Biden was magically going to make everything work better.
                    On a few of the specifics, he muffed things. He talked about responding agressively to Covid – telling us all he would do things Trump has already done, or that took care of themselves, or that do not matter. Aparently C19 will go away when Biden does the same thing as Trump because “orange man bad”.

                    Regardless, the point is I have no clue what Biden would do, and no reason to trust him.

                    So tell us why we should trust you ?

                    Did you say “race is a social construct” on Aug 12 as Young claims you did ? I am pretty sure he is right.

                    This is important – not merely whether you actually said that, but also as to whether you can be trusted.

                    I do not care if you changed your mind – if you can explian why.

                    I do not care if context matters – if you can explain why.

                    But I do care if I can trust you.

          2. “I am not sure if your comment was meant for me.”
            Threading seems to get screwed up here sometimes.
            I am generally supportive of your argument.

            “But it is a fair question. No, I don’t think everyone else must use a different term for race. Everyone knows what it means and that it is determined by biology and genetics.”

            If you are writing fiction or poetry – use whatever defintions you wish. If you are trying to determine the laws of science or nature – single precise definitions are critical.

            If you are trying to develop “policy” – if you are seeking to use FORCE on others via government – precise definitions are critical.

            We should not be deploying police – men with guns over differences in definitions.

            All human communication does not require absolute precision in language. At the same time defintions, words, language matter.
            80% of us think in words. All of us communicate in words. If we make the meaning of words into preferences we have litterally created the tower of babble and we can neither think nor communicate.

            “Race is a social construct and has no basis in biology.”
            Whenever anyone says anything is a “social construct” – my hackles are up.
            Frankly whenever anyone adds the word “social” to anything, I assume they are getting ready to lie.

            I do not doubt that the biological concept of race is frequently warped in “social” contexts – as are many other things.
            I do not beleive biology is destiny.

            At the same time even weak “social constructs” are extremely difficult to overcome.

            But I will go further regarding “racism” – whether it is a “social construct” or not, it is ancient.

            Every creature in existance has for 100’s of millions of years prefered those most closely related to it.

            Even in humans it is only in the past 10,000 years that we have ventured outside our own clan. Much less race.

            I would further note that as the left succeeds in destroying the non-genetic bonds between us, we will see the genetic ones strengthen.

            The left is more likely to create greater racism than to end it.

            1. John, yes the left is apparently working hard to promote racism.

              I reluctantly have to agree with many other posters. Commit is not honest. Notice above that she denies saying race is a social construct with no basis in biology. She said it but I am not going to look for it. Why bother with a rogue?

                1. Thanks for confirming that, and see the counter evidence I just provided to your false claim.

                  Meanwhile, you’re STILL pretending that you understand this better than biologists do, and you’re STILL running away from actually listing what you believe is a complete list of human races.

              1. “Notice above that she denies saying race is a social construct with no basis in biology. She said it but I am not going to look for it. Why bother with a rogue?”

                “Anonymous” (and I’m guessing that this is Young): You’re not going to look for it because you’d discover that I didn’t say it, and then you’d have to own up to your false claim. You’d rather pretend that I said it than deal with the truth.

                And it’s not hard to see who said “Race is a social construct and has no basis in biology.” Use a text search for it on this page, and you’ll find that you’re the only one who said it.

                Are you someone who never learned how to carry out a text search? Use Command-f (Macs) / Ctrl-f (Windows). Now you know.

                And if you think it’s on another page, then use a site-specific Google search. Maybe you don’t know how to do that either. Here’s an example:

                If you put the following into Google search: [“Race is a social construct and has no basis in biology.” site:jonathanturley.org], nothing comes up, because they haven’t yet indexed this page again yet, where YOU said it. Then you can try [“Race” “social construct” “no basis” “biology” site:jonathanturley.org], and you’ll see that the only page with those terms is https://jonathanturley.org/2020/08/16/mueller-aide-weissmann-calls-on-doj-attorneys-not-to-help-on-investigations/comment-page-3/ Then you just do a text search on THAT page for the phrase “social construct” and you’ll find that there are only 3 comments with that phrase: from you, me, and John, and only yours and mine also include the phrase “no basis.” And you’ll see that what I actually said is: “I didn’t say / didn’t imply / don’t believe that social constructs have ‘no basis in reality.’ So why on earth are you pretending that I said that? It’s dishonest and counterproductive.”

                But you’re either too lazy to look or too unskilled with searches to find it easily. And you’d rather going believing something false than learn the truth.

                1. Commit: “You’re not going to look for it because you’d discover that I didn’t say it, and then you’d have to own up to your false claim. You’d rather pretend that I said it than deal with the truth.”

                  Look again. I posted your comments above. You did say it.

                  Here it is again:

                  Allan and several others have questioned whether Commit has lived up to her claim of honesty. This might help.

                  COMMIT on August 21 at 12:39
                  “Young, no one here said “Race is a social construct and has no basis in biology.”

                  COMMIT on August 12, 11:41 pm
                  “Race is social construct, not a biological one.”

                  Both found in the post on mandatory mask use.

                  Judge for yourself.

                  1. Young:

                    “You did say it.”

                    No, I did NOT say “Race is a social construct and has no basis in biology

                    As I just pointed out to you in my 2:23pm comment, “Race is social construct, not a biological one.” (my actual claim) and “Race is a social construct and has no basis in biology” (your substitution) do not mean the same thing. It’s your mistake to think they’re synonymous, and it tells us you don’t understand what “biological construct” actually means. Read my 2:23pm comment.

                    1. The more important issue is that it this just confirms that we can not trust CTDHD.

                      How can you have a conversation on substance when the meaning of words is infinitely variable.

                2. CTDHD;

                  I have little problem beleiving you said Race is a social construct, but ultimately I do not care what specific left wing nut said some stupid thing that most of you beleive.

                  I do care about your position – I espectially care because you make it clear that whatever the subject you are fully prepared to use the power of government to impose your wishes on others.

                  If you were a total complete idiot – racist, sexist, homophobic, hateful hating hater, and you were going to abide by the constitutions limits on the power of government – I would not care much what you beleived – even if you were president.

                  We have easily survived actually racist presidents in the past.

                  In fact if I could trust that you would follow the constitution – as it was written, without trying to mangle it by fluid interpretation – I probably would not vote at all. There would be no need to, Government would be unable to constitutionally violate my or anyone else’s rights.

                  But you will not agree to that, and the courts refuse to hold you to that. Therefore it is important for me to know what you – or atleast those you would elect beleive on a variety of issues – especically those things you are prepared to impose by force on all of us.

                  Regardless, I do not care much about your fight with whoever over what you did or did not say.

                  But I am very much interested in what you do beleive and are willing to impose on the rest of us by force.

          3. Young, why do you think there is a need to subdivide? Why should we be so preoccupied with race? Why should the census ask about race? The only common use that might be helpful is to physicians but even there race is faulty as location may be more descriptive. We are beginning to use genes more commonly and genes tell physicians a lot more than race. Our genetic differences aren’t all that great or predictive.

            1. Allan — It isn’t our choice to subdivide or be preoccupied with race. One hears nothing but race and racism from the left. It is their biggest thing at the moment, and they enforce their bias through law and accusation. Look how many of the primary posts on this blog deal with race or its consequences. It is not avoidable.

              1. Their arguments focus almost exclusively on color and not meaningful things that affect our entire lives. Why a rich educated black family require affirmative action for their rich children is beyond my ability to understand. It’s not even based on need.

  2. COMMIT– Eric Holder says we should have an honest discussion about race:

    This continues our discussion below in which you assert that “Race is social construct, not a biological one” and you link to a Scientific American article for support of that contention.

    You should have read your article more closely. It says that one can still open “a study on genetics in a major scientific journal and find categories like “white” and “black” being used as biological variables.”

    That sounds ‘biological’ to me.

    The same article says:

    “modern genetics research is operating in a paradox, which is that race is understood to be a useful tool to elucidate human genetic diversity, but on the other hand, race is also understood to be a poorly defined marker of that diversity and an imprecise proxy for the relationship between ancestry and genetics.”

    That, too, demonstrates a clear biological connection between the concept of ‘race’ and underlying biology.

    It is clear from the article that people are trying to get away from an uncomfortable term, ‘race’, but can’t truly escape it so they still use it.

    Sometimes proxies for race are used, like ‘ethnic group’, but the same underlying biological and genetic facts that make the word useful remain.

    I have seen liberals use the term ‘social construct’ for obfuscation before. When a discussion on race becomes uncomfortable it becomes a ‘social construct’ but when it is profitable in gaining benefits then suddenly ‘race’ jumps into life again as a well-muscled category.

    As a social construct liberals want us to believe that race is artificially created by culture, like Protestant and Catholic. However, if I were to exhume an unknown soldier from the Thirty Years War and check his DNA I could not tell you if he were Catholic or Protestant, but I could surely demonstrate whether he was Caucasian, Black, Asian, or American Indian. The resolution of genetics is so refined now that I could also likely identify whether he was German, English or French and, possibly, even his family, hair type, eye color, and so on.

    Race is old fashioned because it uses a broad stroke of categories and now refinements can go into much greater detail. Nonetheless, the major categories of race retain basic legitimacy. We can dispense with the old word ‘brimstone’ and use ‘sulfur’ instead, but the underlying reality of the element remains the same and it is unavoidable.

    Even before genetics confirmed the general view it was usually possible to identify the race of human remains by morphology. Police departments did it all of the time when trying to identify a victim whose remains had deteriorated. The classifications are legitimate and won’t go away because of verbal smoke screens.

    Races arose from generally accepted evolutionary principles. Any homogeneous population will diverge into distinct groups when divided and separated. The genetic diversion will speed up substantially when the separated populations are subjected to different environmental pressures. People high in the Himalayas and high in the Andes will change to enable survival in thinner air although evolution found two solutions to the problem; those in the Himalayas adapt with different genes than those in the Andes.

    Separated long enoug the adaptations will become so morphologically distinct that even a child can tell the difference and we have identified those groups by race or by variety.

    You said you didn’t know what a variety was. Think of varieties of roses or varieties of onions in the grocery store and you will see you already know. More precisely this:

    “The difference between variety and species is – species is the basic unit of classification and it defines an individual organism. Species share similar traits and produce similar offspring. Whereas, variety is a taxonomic rank lower than species.”

    To the later question that you dodged to some extent, Neandertals are of our species if the generally accepted definition of species is used, that is a distinct group with which we can interbreed and produce viable offspring and that has already happened with modern humans and Neandertals. If you are European or Asian you probably have Neandertal ancestry–less likely if you are African.

    That takes me back to my original question to you. Do you believe that intelligence is evenly distributed across the various races (or varieties or ethnic groups) of Mankind?

    Why do you believe whatever it is you do believe? Your thoughts, not a citation to another quasi-political ‘science’ article.

    1. There it is above. Don’t use the traditional term used in United N College Fund when discussing race or you will go into ‘moderation’.

    2. “I could surely demonstrate whether he was Caucasian, Black, Asian, or American Indian”

      But we don’t generally base racial designations on genetic analysis. As a simple example, if someone’s biogeographical ancestry shows 95% European ancestry and 5% African ancestry, can you say for certain what race that person would self-identify as, and what race others would identify the person as? Would you be surprised if some of them self-identify and are identified by others as Black?

      According to you, what race are Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, and Kamala Harris, and what are you basing your judgment on?

      “Think of varieties of roses or varieties of onions in the grocery store and you will see you already know.”

      Onions and roses are plants, and I haven’t encountered that word used with animals, though an animal species sometimes has multiple breeds.
      There are dozens of different varieties of roses. “Varieties” of humans certainly wouldn’t correspond to the small number of races — blond, blue-eyed whites; brown-haired, brown-eyed whites; red-haired, green-eyed whites; brown-haired, blue-eyed whites; … would all be different “varieties” even though they’re the same race. For all I know, extremely tall or extremely short people would also be different “varieties” of humans.

      “Do you believe that intelligence is evenly distributed across the various races … of Mankind?”
      (I cut out “varieties or ethnic groups,” as those words aren’t synonyms for “races.”

      Yes, as I haven’t seen any good evidence to the contrary. I also don’t think we have a great way of measuring intelligence (yeah, there are IQ tests, but do they really asses everything that’s important to capture in the concept of “intelligence”? defining intelligence as what’s measured by an IQ test is backwards).

      1. Commit– “But we don’t generally base racial designations on genetic analysis.”

        We didn’t because we did not have the tools. We had to rely on the same taxonomy we use for other forms of life. Now, however, it most certainly is possible to identify race by DNA analysis. Often these days the results are mixed in the US. I am a small part American Indian. However people clearly can use genealogy and genetics to learn their ancestry, including race, and that (along with practically everything else) has been deemed racist.

        How someone self identifies is not a particularly useful way to identify a genetic category. Rachel Dolezal and Elizabeth Warren are examples and I have read there is a furor in NOW because some Caucasian woman has decided to ‘identify’ as Asian so she can qualify for some position in the organization.

        In any event, genetics can be very precise in identifying a person’s racial heritage and, often, even his nationality. Probably it is the best way now.

        What is not often mentioned these days is genetic distance. If a population is separated in two there will be random genetic drift apart even in the absence of changes in environmental challenges. Of course it accelerates when conditions are different. This happens to every living thing.

        Years ago the prominent scientist, Cavalli-Sfoza and his team decided to study the entire human population based on genetic distance and they spent years on their research eventually producing an article in the publication for the National Academy of Sciences and then a book, ‘History and Geography of Human Genes.”

        One comment startled me. Based only on genetic distance, all of humanity can be divided into two distinct groups, Sub-Saharan Africans in one group and Everyone Else in the other group. The genetic distance between Africans and Australian Aborigines was double the genetic distance between Aborigines and Asians and that distance was itself double the distance between Asians and Europeans. The latter two are quite close.

        Researchers have known of these actual differences for a very long time.

        As for intellectual attributes we assume that something of the sort exists because we suspect we are smarter than homo erectus and much smarter than our near cousins, chimpanzees. Whatever that attribute may be, it has emerged from evolution.

        Reacting to environmental pressure, evolution has guided the species into its many forms. Between groups practically everything has varied, susceptibility to disease, hair, dentition, brain size, skin color, bone density, ability to survive at high altitudes, ability to hold one’s breath for long times to free dive deeply into the ocean. If every human characteristic varies to some degree from one identified group to another, only supernatural intervention could hold what we call intelligence the same across the board. It never has with other primates and there is no reason for us to be exempt from ordinary evolution.

        Given that the natural trend favors differences in everything else, I wondered if you had a specific reason or biological process that would assure us that intelligence, alone, must remain the same across the planet. It would be an exception to the rule and needs to be explained and justified.

        Your comment about varieties is a snap back to your secretarial, word-mincing instincts. Varieties of dogs and cats are called breeds because we breed them. Varieties of tigers which we do not breed are called sub-species. Variety is a more encompassing term. Google variety of cat and variety of tiger and you will get the results I described. Why waste your time with nit-picking like that? It was easy enough to understand. Don’t sound like Seth.

        1. “We didn’t [base racial designations on genetic analysis] because we did not have the tools.”

          We still don’t, despite having tools. I don’t know anyone who looks at me and asks for a genetic analysis before judging my race.

          “Based only on genetic distance, all of humanity can be divided into two distinct groups”

          So why are you saying that there are 4 races? Why not just 2?

          “Between groups practically everything has varied …”

          a) Presenting a short list of things doesn’t come anywhere close to evidence that it’s “practically everything.” Numerous things? Sure. But “practically everything”? No.
          b) The variations you’re talking about aren’t between races. The groups you’re talking about are smaller and more numerous. For example, according to you, which race has the “ability to hold one’s breath for long times to free dive deeply into the ocean”?

          “If every human characteristic varies to some degree from one identified group to another, only supernatural intervention could hold what we call intelligence the same across the board.”

          Again, you haven’t come anywhere close to showing that your “if” clause is true. And you’re ignoring that evolution would select for intelligence across groups (unlike breathing at a high altitude, or holding one’s breath for a long time, which aren’t evolutionarily important for all groups, or skin pigmentation, where the selection pressures lead to different results in different locations). And you’ve presented no evidence that the claim is true of races, which is what you asked me about.

          “Why waste your time with nit-picking like that?”

          As you pointed out, there’s a reason we use “breeds.” “Breeds” and “sub-species” aren’t synonyms, but you’re just grouping them together as examples of “varieties.” OK, now that you’ve explained what you meant, I can use the word “varieties.” But that doesn’t imply that humans have sub-species simply because there’s variation, any more than Felis catus has sub-species, even though there are a lot of breeds. H. sapiens sapiens is the only extant human sub-species.

          1. Commit–“We still don’t, despite having tools. I don’t know anyone who looks at me and asks for a genetic analysis before judging my race.”

            No, they probably don’t. Like most of the rest of humanity they have a pretty good idea looking at you. The general races are obvious even to children.

            1. there used to be serious work on defining human populations as races. here is about the last book I know of that took it seriously

              https://archive.org/details/Race_John_R_Baker

              the concept is all around us both in common social interaction, in politics, culture, everything. it still has both a biological ie heritable dimension and it certainly does have social dimensions

              and if you are interested in evolutionary psychology, then, you understand– our forms of social organization themselves are emergent from biological imperatives, ie, evolution, reproduction, and resource competition.

              as the poem by Nabokov said: “cells interlinked within cells interlinked”

              1. Kurtz, That is the other live rail nobody wants to touch, the fact that some of our behavior evolves from biological imperatives.

                1. Young, mr Book here keeps on recommending the work of one evolutionary psychologist whose name i forget.

                  Yete, usually, when they veer into politics, they usually make the wrong conclusions about policy.

                  There are a few names in evopsych who are well published, but not well known outside their fields, who have somehow made all the RIGHT conclusions for politics– to spare them negative attention that they will not like, I will not provide their names. but they are out there. my list of those active within the past 20 years in some area of genetics, behavior, psychology, or evopsych, is well over 20, and if you changed the parameters, you could get over 100 very fast

                  then there is Asia. I am not sure about the names there but generally, taboos here in this area, are not shared there.
                  This cuts both ways. sometimes they are up to a lot of mischief and sometimes they are measuring and analyzing useful things that could never be touched in “The West”

                  one of my bosom buddies from university was a Korean national here for parts of his academic work who did his PhD in use of IQ testing as a selection device in employment

                  In America, the topic is immediately considered “racist” and illicit.

                  today, he is the COO of a major tech manufacturer there whose name we all know, again, doesn’t matter his name nor his current employer, I would never expose him to the negative attention of my fellow Americans who have their heads up their backsides, but it gives you an idea of how utterly different social attitudes there are compared to here. Show me ANY major executive in America whose doctoral work was in IQ testing. See, over there, they think intelligence is good and they want more of it.

                  In America, we think intelligence is bad, and somehow racist, and therefore a form of white privilege that we must abjure.

                  When Don Trump said he would rather have migrants from Norway than Haiti, he said what we all think in our heads. And yet, Orange man bad!
                  Only in “the West” is all that is good now bad, and all that was bad now good.

                  Ask yourself: how long can we last if we stay on this trajectory?

                  1. Kurtz– Thank you for the Baker recommendation. I ordered his book. Like you I have avoided naming some researchers here because I don’t want them to be crucified for ‘wrongthink’.

                    You might like Cochran’s “The 10,000 Year Explosion” and Wade’s “A Troublesome Inheritance”, though it is likely you have already read both.

                    Everyone has read “The Bell Curve”.

                    Trump is right on immigration. It annoys me that the invertebrate Republicans didn’t get rid of the ‘diversity lottery’ when they had the chance.

          2. “So why are you saying that there are 4 races? Why not just 2? ”
            ****
            I have never said there are just 4 races. You keep wanting me to say that. As more information is developed we could probably classify more of them.

          3. For example, according to you, which race has the “ability to hold one’s breath for long times to free dive deeply into the ocean”?
            ***
            Here is an article about them.

            https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-43823885

            It would be up to a taxonomist to decide whether they are sufficiently different to be classed as a race or sub-species but they are truly remarkably different.

            With this ability they likely are more different from many other humans than some recognized dog breeds differ.

          4. H. sapiens sapiens is the only extant human sub-species.
            ***

            Given the information you provided in your citation I cannot see any reason to think you are correct. What your citation described as a subspecies parallels what we have previously seen in human genetic differences. Human variation is so wide that when a white instructor told a black, South African adult class that Pygmies were human too they all laughed. They didn’t believe it.

            For you there are no human subspecies because you don’t like the word.

            If Neandertal and Denisovan are sub-species do you think they differ morphologically far outside the variation we can already see between a Pygmy and an Englishman? Probably not.

            1. taxonomy is a matter of judgment. it is convenient to think as species as having certain characteristics such as the ability of the divergent types to mate and produce fertile young, but there are well known different species that can cross breed without a total loss of fertility. wolves and dogs and coyotes for example. I am sure there are many examples, really.

              I can accept that homo sapiens includes all the observable different human types from australian bushmen to norweigians. there’s many valid reasons to have come to that common understanding. the matter was being argued back when Darwin was alive. now i think it’s fair to say

              that is not to say that the differences between human population types may not be profound. we know that all domestic dogs, are one species, but they come in profoundly different types. so, a small DNA difference, can still yield very serious phenotype and behavioral differences.

              back in 2004 they decided that humans shared 1/4 of our dna with rats and mice.

              they say the number for chimps is 99%

              between humans then, that last 1% range, may be very, very consequential in its “diversity”

            2. Biological taxonomy is not my strong suit. I have a suspicion that if you poll systematic biologists you would not find many who would say that any subset of humanity is a subspecies according to the analyses systematic biologists commonly use.

              1. Absurd– No, you likely would not find a biologist saying races could also be called a sub-species. They would be terrified. You can’t even say All Lives Matter anymore. Apparently only black ones count. However, if you look at the definition of sub- species given in this thread several times, from Ernst Myer I think, it is hard to look at that definition and not think it applies to what we call races.

                As I said, I am not wedded to that idea. If I saw a biological reason for saying it does not fit I would accept it. Political reasons don’t move me on scientific issues.

                At the moment it seems we visibly have greater differences between a Pygmy and an Englishman than exist between acknowledged different sub-species in the animal kingdom. No reason why we should have different rules than the other animals on this issue.

                  1. The problem with your thesis is that you wouldn’t have seen them using the term ‘subspecies’ 50 years ago, either. Zoologists and botanists don’t just wing it in composing these taxonomies, though there are disputes among them.

                1. And yet you continue to refuse to list what you believe is a complete list of races and a complete list of human subspecies.

                  According to you, are Pygmies a separate subspecies?
                  According to you, are Englishmen a separate subspecies?

                  You’re a coward to make claims like “we visibly have greater differences between a Pygmy and an Englishman than exist between acknowledged different sub-species in the animal kingdom” but then run away from answering the above questions. And if you’re *not* claiming that they’re separate subspecies, then pretending that your comparison tells you something about subspecies is dishonest.

                  “No reason why we should have different rules than the other animals on this issue.”

                  We don’t. You simply refuse to deal honestly with how biologists actually reason about these issues. You quote Mayr (“an aggregate of phenotypically similar populations of a species inhabiting a geographic subdivision of the range of that species and differing taxonomically from other populations of that species”), but then you insist that “geographic subdivision” doesn’t refer to a current geographic subdivision but a historic one from tens of thousands of years ago (your claim: “when the definition refers to a geographic subdivision it refers to the geographic subdivision within which the various racial characteristics evolved in response to local evolutionary pressures” — https://jonathanturley.org/2020/08/16/mueller-aide-weissmann-calls-on-doj-attorneys-not-to-help-on-investigations/comment-page-3/#comment-1990655). And that simply isn’t how biologists determine whether there are extant subspecies. Biologists look at current geographic ranges, and they even specify percentages of geographic separation (e.g., “The standard level for defining a subspecies is based on the ‘75% rule’ (Amadon 1949, Mayr 1969). Stated simply, to be a valid sub-species, 75% of a population effectively must lie outside 99% of the range of other populations for a given defining character or set of characters,” http://vmpincel.ou.edu/patten/Auk2002.pdf). You also ignore that in other animal species, if there’s a huge amount of interbreeding among groups that differ morphologically, biologists don’t consider them distinct subspecies, because subspecies are effectively reproductively isolated (whether through differences in geographic range or selection of mates) even though they’re capable of interbreeding. According to you, domestic dogs breeds are distinct subspecies because they differ so much morphologically. But biologists consider all domestic dogs to be a single subspecies, Canus lupus familiaris.

                  You say “No reason why we should have different rules than the other animals on this issue,” but in fact you’re choosing different rules than other animals. Which is why biologists — who understand this better than you do — disagree with your conclusions.

                  1. “And yet you continue to refuse to list what you believe is a complete list of races and a complete list of human subspecies.”

                    Beat that straw man to death.

                    Young’s failure to provide you some list does not change anything.

                    I doubt that he could list or you and he would agree on a list of all fish either.

          5. “Based only on genetic distance, all of humanity can be divided into two distinct groups”

            So why are you saying that there are 4 races? Why not just 2?

            *****

            Cavalli-Sforza was measuring only genetic distance. Often genetic distance only reflects random changes over time without phenotypic changes associated with race or variety. Its like looking at a clock. One can estimate how long populations have been separated by measuring the random drift. The measurements weren’t of race or intelligence or whatever.

            The information was interesting. Africans had the oldest DNA and their genetic clocks reflected that. For those people who left Africa and then began to separate their genetic distances would in part measure the time/distance from their separation.

            That is why the age of the Australians was interesting. It suggests an earlier exodus and migration before the one that gave rise to Europeans, Asians and American Indians though I am not up to date on that issue.

    3. some of this is just nomenklature. back in the old days when anthropology was more what is now called “physical anthropology,” race was a valid and meaningful term. then came the Third Reich and out the door that went. However, if you’re interested in physical types of various populations, a more recent work is John Baker’s book race. but now for the most party, anthropology is rather more like sociology, politicized and far less useful than it used to be.

      now, those scientists who are aggressively studying race– particularly, for example, in the area of genetics and medicine– the prefer term “population” “human populations” etc

      I just pulled an article that appears to explore the changes in this terminology over the years. i have not read the article past 3 paras, but it appears to tell the tale

      https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/65890/aa.2003.105.1.65.pdf?sequence=1

      1. I could see that ‘population’ or its equivalent could also be used. Similar to my thought of using subspecies for the same. The point is to find terms that make it possible to investigate or study without bringing the activist furies down on your department.

  3. This continues our discussion below in which you assert that “Race is social construct, not a biological one” and you link to a Scientific American article for support of that contention.

    You should have read your article more closely. It says that one can still open “a study on genetics in a major scientific journal and find categories like “white” and “black” being used as biological variables.”

    That sounds ‘biological’ to me.

    The same article says:

    “modern genetics research is operating in a paradox, which is that race is understood to be a useful tool to elucidate human genetic diversity, but on the other hand, race is also understood to be a poorly defined marker of that diversity and an imprecise proxy for the relationship between ancestry and genetics.”

    That, too, demonstrates a clear biological connection between the concept of ‘race’ and underlying biology.

    It is clear from the article that people are trying to get away from an uncomfortable term, ‘race’, but can’t truly escape it so they still use it.

    1. The above is the beginning of a longer comment which is awaiting moderation. I will change a word and see if it can get through.

      Contrary to Eric Holder’s desire that we have this discussion, it appears that it may not be possible.

      1. I suppose it’s jejune to point out that ‘a conversation about race’ never means anything resembling a conversation. There’s actually less and less space for an exchange of views in the common life.

        1. What Eric Holder means about an ‘honest conversation about race’ is anything but honest. What he wants is more race-based indoctrination sessions and he is getting them in business and universities these days. I can see from comments on this and other sites that this approach is actually irritating a lot of people and making them less receptive to engaging with some other races.

          By the way, Black Lives Matter people now say that looting luxury stores is reparations to which they are entitled.

    2. “It says that one can still open ‘a study on genetics in a major scientific journal and find categories like “white” and “black” being used as biological variables.’”

      Biologists sometimes use social constructs as variables. Race isn’t the only example; SES is another.

      1. In one sense all of our labels are social constructs. We make them and use them in language to try to get a handle on reality. No word fully comprehends the underlying reality. Your point was that the word ‘race’ has no relationship to biology and then you cited an article that expressly said more than once that it does, completely undoing your point.

        Now you try to dodge by saying “Biologists sometimes use social constructs as variables. Race isn’t the only example; ” So now you admit that ‘race’ is used to comprehend biological variables. Not at all what you claimed at the outset. I never said it was the only one; you said it never was; your article agrees with my position and now, apparently, you do to.

        I do not think your are attempting to address the issue seriously.

    3. Race as a social construct is BUNK.

      It is another left attempt to muddy the meaning of words.

      To the extent that “social constructs” are real – which for the most part they either are not or are nothing more than pseudo scientific names for preferences, they are not the business of government.

      1. it’s not wholly bunk. there are a lot of social dimensions to race. none the least of which, race inherently emerges from the social activity we call “reproduction”

        social factors like culture, physical proximity, religion, economics all have genetic effects as they operate over time

        likewise race can be defined in some contexts according to biological criteria, such as by haplogroup types; or physical criteria like skin tone and skeletal characteristics (see this a lot in criminal forensics);
        race can also be defined in law (one drop rule) (national legal definitions of Ius Sanguinis — such as requirements for a Jewish grandparent to be naturalized as an israeli, or whatever the standard is)
        and they can also arise in expedient, local social circumstances like “who sits at the white table and the black table versus the mexican table in the cafeteria in jails in California”

        the word is a very useful word, and very plastic and flexible,.there is no reason to over-react to the political correctness trends by throwing out the baby with the bathwater and calling all discussions of “social construct” about race, “bunk”

        I would agree the matter is politicized and has degrees of lysenkoism operating from one department to another, but social aspects are some of the most intriguing ones for race

        1. You are using a bizarre definition of social – or at the very least not the one used by those claiming race is a social construct.

          Absolutely human reproduction normally requires two. As does the reproduction of most multi-cellular life. Most of us do not consider Corn a social creature.

          Regardless, the “social construct” claim essentially means that your race is chosen by others.

          Racism – like myriads of other forms of discrimination is a choice. If fact choose and discriminate mean essentially the same thing.

          Legislating individual choices even bad choices is a horrible concept. In most instances it is unenforceable.

          If I consistently choose asians over blacks but never openly state that preference, how are you to enforce the law ?

          Making laws that are not obeyed undermines the rule of law.

          We will always have some bad laws. We want the elimination of bad laws to occur through the normal process. It is a sign of a dysfunctional government when that occurs through protests, civil disobedience and even riots. What we are seeing in our cities right now is the consequence of a widespread belief that the law need not be obeyed if it is perceived to be wrong.

          Regardless, when the law is broadly disregarded, rule of law is significantly eroded.

  4. OT: New State memos disclose relentless pressure by Hunter Biden-connected Ukrainian firm
    Key Senate chairman vows subpoena after documents provided to Just the News under FOIA, but not Senate investigators.

    The Ukrainian natural gas firm that appointed Vice President Joe Biden’s son Hunter to a lucrative board seat relentlessly pressured the State Department throughout the 2016 election in an effort to get corruption allegations against it dropped and its badly damaged reputation rehabilitated, newly released government memos show. …

    For instance, they show far more contact between Burisma and the U.S. embassy in Kiev than was acknowledged by witnesses during President Trump’s impeachment proceedings earlier this year. …

    On Jan. 13, 2017, seven days before Trump took office, Kent received a notification from Herbst that his Atlantic Council group had received and accepted a large donation from Burisma, which was now celebrating its success in getting the corruption probes shut down….

    Johnson said even before the release of the new memos this week, his committee already had plenty of evidence to show that Joe Biden engaged in a prohibited conflict of interest as vice president by continuing to oversee U.S.-Ukraine policy while his son worked for and was enriched by Burisma….

    https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/new-memos-disclose-relentless-pressure-hunter-biden?utm_source=daily-newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter

    1. (CNN)A newly unearthed letter from 2016 shows that Republican senators pushed for reforms to Ukraine’s prosecutor general’s office and judiciary, echoing calls then-Vice President Joe Biden made at the time.

      CNN’s KFile found a February 2016 bipartisan letter signed by several Republican senators that urged then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to “press ahead with urgent reforms to the Prosecutor General’s office and judiciary.”

      The letter shows that addressing corruption in Ukraine’s Prosecutor General’s office had bipartisan support in the US and further undercuts a baseless attack made by President Donald Trump and his allies that Biden pressured the Ukrainian government to fire then Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin to stop investigations into a Ukrainian natural gas company that his son, Hunter Biden, sat on the board of. There is no evidence of wrongdoing by either Joe or Hunter Biden, nor is it clear whether Hunter was under investigation at all….

      The 2016 letter, sent by members of the Senate Ukraine Caucus, was signed by Republican Sens. Rob Portman, Mark Kirk and Ron Johnson, as well as Democratic Sens. Dick Durbin, Jeanne Shaheen, Chris Murphy, Sherrod Brown, and Richard Blumenthal and focused on longstanding issues of corruption in Ukraine and urged reforms of the government.

      Ukraine’s legislature voted to fire Shokin in March 2016, a month after the letter was sent.”

      https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/10/03/politics/gop-senators-echoed-biden-on-ukraine-reforms-kfile/index.html

      1. Yes, there are a lot of opinion. What you are doing is choosing the opinion you like and drawing a conclusion based on the selected opinions.

        I am looking at a wide range of facts some that lead to Joe Biden and some that lead to other people. Nothing you have copied changes what was said in the above article. That article points in a direction that requires not opinion and constant blame of other people but explanation of the facts written in the article.You can’t and won’t deal with that.

        If you don’t deal with the facts presented then you are just putting another band-aid on the problem.

        1. Typical of leftists – what people have said is more important than facts – except when it is not.

          It is pretty trivial to find clips of just about every significant democrat supporting the policies that Trump is implimenting.

          Yet, Trump is a racist for doing what Pelosi, Schumer, Biden, Obama supported.

          Instead of fixating on who said what when.

          Why don’t we look for the Truth.

          More is coming out regarding the Biden’s and Ukraine.

          Few are paying attention, but it is damning.

          The State department was very concerned about VP Biden and Hunter Biden from the begining.
          There is a great deal of correspondence about how horribly bad an idea Hunter’s involvement in Ukraine was.

          There is a growing body of evidence that Hunter was put on the board to crush the investigation from the start – and that this was clearly understood and documented. And that VP Biden knew this.

          There is increasing evidence that Joe knew of Burisma corruption from the beging.
          And that firing Shokin was about Burisma.

          1. No, there is not new reputable information on this except from Guiliani and Trump – remember, he was the guy who tried to extort the Ukrainian president using congressionally appropriated funds – and the sleaze merchants with Russian loyalties and zombies like John who promote what they want to believe and pay no attention to facts or experts.

            1. “No, there is not new reputable information on this except from Guiliani and Trump ”
              If you beleive that you are not paying any attention.

              There is an actual investigation taking place in Ukraine. Biden was initially noted as a target, but not named, he has subsequently been named.

              Evidence from that investigation is getting released.

              This is not coming through Gulliani – though I have no problem with Guilliani.

              “remember, he was the guy who tried to extort the Ukrainian president using congressionally appropriated funds”
              That was Biden.

              “and the sleaze merchants with Russian loyalties”
              You mean the guy who cleaned up NY, restored it from squalor to a world jewel who brough crime down 600%,
              Who managed 9/11 incredibly well.
              Who prosecuted the Mob.

              That Guiliani ?

              “John who promote what they want to believe and pay no attention to facts”
              Wrong – facts are critical.
              “or experts.”
              Not so much.

              Besides what is your idea of an expert on Biden’s corruption in the Ukraine ?

            2. BTB,

              As noted before there is substantial addtional information.

              This article cites several memo’s and emails obtained through FOIA requests doccumenting the relentless campaign of Hunter Biden, The Atlantic Council, Burisma Holdings, Democratic Lobbying Firm Blue Star Strategies, extensively lobbying the State Department to intervene in the Ukraine. It also documents the resistance within much of the state department to doing so, and with many people in the State department noting how obviously innappropriate it was for Hunter Biden to be involved.

              It is arguable based on this documents that the State Department properly resisted outside pressure,

              It is NIT even close to arguable that there is no basis for an investigation.

              I would further note that these documents were provided to the Southeastern Foundation in a FOIA request.
              But they WERE NOT provided to the Senate which subpeonad all documents from the state department regarding Burisma.

              https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/new-memos-disclose-relentless-pressure-hunter-biden

              There is plenty to investigate. The only question is whether the Biden’s corruption is illegal or just disgusting.

          2. “Yet, Trump is a racist for doing what Pelosi, Schumer, Biden, Obama supported.”

            Of the one’s you mention Trump is the only honest one. He is a promoter and engages in a lot of puffery. He makes errors but has corrected most of them. Did a few lies slip through? Probably, but compared to the others mentioned he is a Saint.

            Who looks after the American people? Trump favoring working people and families along with minorities. He also looks out for business interests unless those business interests are sending jobs away from America or being taken by illegals.

            The other one’s you mention are just the opposite.

      2. So ?

        I am not republican so why should it bother me that some republicans got sucked in by Biden ?

        It is pretty much universally understood that Ukraine was just about the most corrupt western nation.

        The sole source of the claims that Shokin was corrupt is the Biden/FBI team, Everyone else complaining about the Ukrainian prosecutor was getting there information from Biden.

        Regardless Biden/Ukraine is not going away.

        There is information that has recently come out that Hunter was hired specifically to thwart investigations into Burisma.

        Jerry Naddler was notified a few months ago that there are several DOJ investigations into Ujraine that are ongoing.
        These were started under normal processes, do not involve Guiliani or Trump.

        https://nypost.com/2020/05/20/joe-bidens-phone-calls-with-former-ukraine-president-poroshenko-released/

        Frankly there is already way more than enough to stink to high heaven.

        The Bidens MIGHT not have violated any laws. But they were inarguably profiting off VP Biden, and they were inarguably behaving in ways that most of us would see as corrupt.

        1. Those wanting Shokin gone were the IMF, the EU, the State Department, the Ukranian Parliament, Senators including Johnson and Portman, and a GOP Congressman from Pennsylvania who was assigned FBI to the Ukraine in the period in question. In depth articles on this have been done by the WSJ, Bloomberg, the NYTs, and WaPo aand the only people still believing Biden was protecting Burisma are the same kind who were and are stupid enough to be conned by the transparent grifter Trump, like John.

          It figures.

          https://www.theintell.com/news/20190926/us-rep-brian-fitzpatrick-was-fbi-agent-in-ukraine-heres-what-he-said-about-trump-ukraine-controversy

          1. “Those wanting Shokin gone were the IMF, the EU, the State Department, the Ukranian Parliament, Senators including Johnson and Portman, and a GOP Congressman from Pennsylvania who was assigned FBI to the Ukraine in the period in question. ”

            All as a result of claims made by a Biden run group in the FBI.

            Regardless, this should be trivial. If Shokin was actually corrupt – you should have evidence.

            What is the Evidence the IMF had ? State had ? …..

            No one has provided evidence of any ties between Shokin and oligarchs, and no self dealing. Nothing.

            “the only people still believing Biden was protecting Burisma are the same kind who were and are stupid enough to be conned by the transparent grifter Trump, like John.”

            Or people who make decisions based on evidence. There has always been problematic issues.
            The appointment of Hunter always smelled bad – but it increasingly looks bad.

            You referenced State – yet there are myriads of emails for state to the VP’s office pleading with them to get Hunter out of Burisma, and for Biden to stay away from Burisma.

            And more of these are showing up with time.

            We now have Joe Biden on Tape with Kerry advocating FOR BURISMA.

            Nor is this unique, Joe Biden has been using his office to benefit relatives for his entire carreer.

            We can debate whether he did so legally or not.
            But he inarguably did so.

            You have falsely ranted that Trump was engaged in self dealing as president.

            Why would you want someone who has a long history of self dealing ?

      3. Just to be clear – we are past the point where anyone can beleive that VP Biden was not involved in protecting Burisma.

    2. Unfortunately no one is paying attention.

      And God forbid that we should admit that we impeached Trump for actually doing his job.

  5. Does anyone realize a virus is microscopic particles? Your mask is like a barn door to a fly. If your breathe get out of your mask so does the virus.
    Unless you’re wearing a plastic bag over your head the virus is free. Build up your immune system’s like we have throughout history by exposure to the world. Hiding out weakens your immune system. Be free.

    1. Do you realize that “[exhaled] viral particles are known to be encapsulated in globs of mucus, saliva, and water, and the fate/behavior of globs in the environment depends on the size of the globs. Bigger globs fall faster than they evaporate so that they splash down nearby in the form of droplets … Smaller globs evaporate faster in the form of aerosols, and linger in the air, and drift farther away than the droplets do” (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7293495/), so that focusing on the size of the *virus particles* is not key to understanding how masks can be effective with *globs, droplets, and aerosols* that contain virus particles?

      Be informed.
      There’s growing evidence about how masks work.

      The U.S. has the 10th largest deaths per capita in the entire world.

      People are dying unnecessarily. People are ending up with longterm health problems unnecessarily. Wearing a mask is such a small thing to do to help reduce infections. It’s truly sad that so many people balk at doing it.

        1. I have no reason to take your word for it, Young
          You can convince me by presenting evidence of someone saying “Sieg Heil Mein Furer!” about being required to wear clothing in public.
          I doubt you’ll present any actual evidence, but it’s fine by me if you surprise me by doing it.

          1. I am surprised you don’t recognize it as mockery of those who are always prepared to submit to ‘authority’. It’s disapproval; not approval. We don’t admire people who say things like that. Democrats do, however. Quite the totalitarian streak in that party lately.

            1. Instead of Further they tend to say obey the ‘science’ these days but they seldom have a solid grasp of actual science. But obey we must according to them.

            2. Yes, I understand that giving a Nazi salute is generally expressing disapproval — unless you’re a Neo-Nazi.
              I also understand that you have no actual evidence of someone giving a Nazi salute in response to having to wear some clothing in public.

              “Instead of Further [sic] they tend to say obey the ‘science’ these days”

              Science isn’t Nazism, and science isn’t the reason for public decency laws about clothing.

              1. The Nazis were as convinced they were scientific as the Democrats are today.

                Read Lifton’s ‘The Nazi Doctors’ and in the earlier chapters you will likely be surprised at how their scientific medical principles seem closely to match what we hear from Democrats these days.

                You really are too literal in your thinking you know. You could make a good secretary.

                I am curious, what are the reasons for public decency laws about clothing? If it has to do with morals are all those strange jungle natives who run around nearly naked actually immoral? Were the early Christians right about them after all? Or does it come down to taste? If it is that then Michelle Obama should be in jail.

                Next time you add a ‘sic’ quoting me, send it to my spell checker.

                1. Young– breaking news:

                  According to the Washington Examiner, the Wisconsin Natural Resources Secretary Preston Cole has told his employees they must wear masks at all meetings, even when they are virtual and the employee is home alone.

                  I wish I had made that up.

                  1. “Also, wear your mask, even if you are home, to participate in a virtual meeting that involves being seen — such as on Zoom or another video-conferencing platform — by non-DNR staff,” Cole told his employees. “Set the safety example which shows you as a DNR public service employee care about the safety and health of others.”

                    https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2020/08/10/dnr-tells-staff-wear-masks-zoom-calls-even-when-they-home/3335232001/

                    1. It sets an example showing that DNR is staffed with robotic morons just following orders. Wait! Think I have heard that expression somewhere before.

                    2. So you think a link to leftists engaged in stupid virtue signaling is beneficial HOW ?

                  2. Honest, if I hadn’t seen it myself I would have thought it not true. But I did see it and had to laugh because the alternative was to cry knowing that common sense has been discarded for PC.

                  3. Honest– Yes, I saw that. Another sterling example of Democrats demanding obedience even when it is patently absurd. Jawohl main Furher! It really is apt. Remember that little Hogg creature from Florida, kind of a male Greta? He actually began wearing an armband and doing a sort of straight-arm salute until someone filled the little twerp in on recent history. Those instincts slumber uneasily just beneath the skin on leftists.

                2. Nazi doctors I had to read in a university class and I was fully sick of it by the time we were done. There are numerous anecdotes in there which are totally fabricated and not fact checked in the slightest bit. In my view it was permeated by the sort of latent anti-German hate that goes with a lot of supposed history surrounding the war.

                  German medicine of that era, had its obvious excesses and evils. That is true and no denying it as a conclusion.

                  Nonetheless, it was also the pinnacle of medical technology at the time, and the US was hot as a cat on a tin roof to scoop up German academics in “Operation Paperclip” by the hundreds and not just rocket scientists like Werner Von Braud. And for good reason.

                  Now here is a book that takes a contemporary look at genetics, and genetic medicine, and the difficult ethical questions that attend to it. If you are really interested in the subject as it stands now. This is a serious and credible work. Oddly, I got this book from university too. some classes sure are better than others.

                  https://www.amazon.com/Backdoor-Eugenics-Troy-Duster/dp/0415946743

                  Finally, we can quit wasting our energy hating the nazis now because there is a much more important group of fanatical and racist doctors out there playing with genetics and that is the doctors and biological engineers of the CCP. Who very well may be responsible for the COVID one way or another., And COVID will probably not be the last frankenstein they unleash on humanity. CRISPR technology is very, very dangerous.

                  1. Kurtz– Have a look at “The Plutonium Files”. We did radiation experiments on unsuspecting Americans, including pregnant women, that would have gotten doctors hanged at Nuremberg.

                    1. considering the atrocities of all large nations who prevail in wars through history, including the 20th, it is tempting to conclude that the sine qua non of every “war crimes prosecution” comes down to one thing and one thing only: YOU GUYS LOST

                      this is an erosion of the Westphalian order, in which the choice to wage war or not was a sovereign choice, and in itself, war was not considered illegal.

                      WWI changed that, and WWII even more so. some of the principle remains, but a lot less.

                      See, Carl Schmitt, “Nomos of the Earth”

                3. “Nazis were … convinced they were scientific”

                  Which doesn’t change the fact that science isn’t Nazism.

                  “You really are too literal in your thinking you know”

                  I resort to literalness with a-h*les. It’s not my default.

                  If you want to know “the reasons for public decency laws about clothing,” you’ll have to ask someone who wrote them or voted for them. I’m not that person. I’ve lived and traveled in countries where views about what is/isn’t “decent” are quite different than here.

                  1. Commit– “science isn’t Nazism.”
                    **
                    No, it isn’t, but you miss the point. Nazis and Communists and socialists use what they call science to justify authoritarian control of people. The fact that their science is often fragile or simply stupid concerns them not at all. Can’t let actual error interfere with the program of ordering everyone about.

                    I have a question for you. Do you think that all races have equal intellectual ability and that science rather than belief supports your opinion. BytheBook has already said some are born with inherent disabilities. What is your opinion?

                    1. Race is social construct, not a biological one: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-construct-scientists-argue/

                      Ignoring race, some people are more intelligent than others, a combination of genetics and nurturing. By I don’t see any defensible scientific way to group the global population by race to answer your question.

                      “use what they call science”

                      People use all sorts of arguments to advance their goals. Science can be misused just like other domains — and it can be misused throughout the political spectrum.

                    2. “Race is social construct, not a biological one”

                      Then I declare racism does not exist – because we can wish all social constructs away.
                      So the left tells me all the time.

                      And 2 + 2 = 5.

                    3. Race is social construct, not a biological one:

                      They can run a profile of your DNA and apportion your pedigree accordingly. But, go ahead, pretend the emperor’s new outfit is just da bomb.

                  2. Commit– About that a-h*les thing. That is my default so feel free to be literal. Just expect not to get the joke or allusion some of the time.

                    1. What neanderthals ?

                      We wished them away, along with math – that is racist,
                      And science.
                      And economics.
                      And …

                      I choose to be a black MTF trangendered disabled person.
                      That is my identity because I choose it.

                      Anyone claiming I am wrong, is racist, and sexist, and all those other ism’s.

                      Anyone claiming I have white privilege has disrepected my right to my chosen identity.

                      And BTW I am owed reparations. Because I choose to be Black, I choose to be the descendent of Slaves,
                      and I am pretty sure my great great great grandfather was lynched for lookin funny at a white woman.

                    2. H. neanderthalensis / H. sapiens neanderthalensis are a human species or subspecies (there’s some scientific debate about whether they should be classified as a species vs. subspecies): https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/are-neanderthals-same-species-as-us.html

                      Neanderthals are not a race, and I have no idea what you mean by “variety.” Did you mean subspecies?
                      The concepts of species and subspecies are biological constructs, not social constructs.
                      Here’s a good overview: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK542546/

                    3. Race:

                      In biological taxonomy, race is an informal rank in the taxonomic hierarchy, below the level of subspecies. It has been used as a higher rank than strain, with several strains making up one race.[1][2] Various definitions exist. Races may be genetically distinct populations of individuals within the same species,[3] or they may be defined in other ways, e.g. geographically, or physiologically.[4] Genetic isolation between races is not complete, but genetic differences may have accumulated that are not (yet) sufficient to separate species.[5] The term is recognized by some, but not governed by any of the formal codes of biological nomenclature.

                  3. “Which doesn’t change the fact that science isn’t Nazism.”
                    Nor is Science progressivism – SO WHAT ?

                    Both Nazi’s and progressives falsely wrap themselves in science.

                    “I resort to literalness with a-h*les. It’s not my default.”

                    No your default is whatever is needed to make your case. Regardless of truth.

                    You are litteral beyond what the text will support in miniscule excepts from a much longer quote trying to draw literal meaning at odds with context,

                    And then in cases where precision matters you are incredibly imprecise.

                    “If you want to know “the reasons for public decency laws about clothing,” you’ll have to ask someone who wrote them or voted for them. I’m not that person. I’ve lived and traveled in countries where views about what is/isn’t “decent” are quite different than here.”

                    Then do not use something you do not even appear to agree with as a counter example.

                    If you do not see laws about clothing as justified, then they are not an argument for masks.

                  1. Both Hitler and his principal physician (the rotten hypochondriac employed several) had notoriously bad hygiene.

              2. Cthd,

                Hey Commie/Nazi Scum, please just show the rest of us in the USC, (United States Constitution) , just Where in the Hell the Fed, State, Local govt or you might they/you have the authority to tell us to wear a mask, shut down the the economy, ( A National Security Threat by your Demesitc Terrorist), & we need an internal passport to travel like my son has now.

                That authority does not exist with them or you.

                1. Yes, Oky1, I should definitely choose to debate someone who refers to me as “Commie/Nazi Scum.” That’s going to be soooo productive. I especially enjoyed your choice to say “please” right after calling me “Commie/Nazi Scum.” Because it’s important to be polite to the person you’re insulting. 😉

                  1. As I thought, you can’t answer a basic question you were asked about the USC & it’s very limited authority, instead you just keep push Marxist/Fascist authoritarian type play.

                    You might to look out your window, your commie/nazi friends continue to draw blood in your treasonous sedition against the US govt.

                    ie; You take those white/ black guys that had lost their sons recwently to your type crap, they are not your side.

                    1. LOL that you think won’t answer implies can’t answer.

                      LO that you think I’m going to cooperate with someone who calls me “Commie/Nazi Scum,” and laughing even more that you refer to my ridiculing you as a “Marxist/Fascist authoritarian type play.”

                      The only responses you’ll get from me are continued ridicule (or walking away, as I don’t want to waste too much time on this nonsense). Because that’s all that someone who calls me “Commie/Nazi Scum” and projects all sorts of other nonsense onto me deserves.

                    2. “I especially enjoyed your choice to say “please” right after calling me “Commie/Nazi Scum.” Because it’s important to be polite to the person you’re insulting. ”

                      You really should try to stop supporting people like the Evil Dr Fauci/Bill Gates that as a “matter of public record” have been harming/ki.lling people for decades & are now in the thick of their latest bio-weapon (Wuhan China Flu) attack against the people of the world.

                      WW2 Nuremberg type laws are still on the books around the world/US against cooking up “Gain of Function Bio-Weapons”.

                      So it’s good you’re moving along, you might try China or North Korea & see if they’ll take you & your friends & masks.

                    3. CTHD, oky is an ignorant hating jack ass who gets his news from infowars. That would be the guy who thought Sandy Hook was staged. Oky is not worth anyone’s time.

                    4. PS Actually, the infowars idiot had to pretend in court that he temporarily lost his mind when he accused – over an extended period of time – Sandy Hook parents of being part of a conspiracy. That’s who Oky listens to.

                    5. And yet Alex Jones has been right more than Anderson Cooper.

                      And Alex Jones really is bat $h!t crazy.

                    6. “Broadcaster and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones said it was a “form of psychosis” that caused him to believe certain events — like the Sandy Hook massacre — were staged.

                      On December 14, 2012, 20 children and six adults were killed by 20-year-old Adam Lanza in Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.
                      Jones, who founded InfoWars.com and hosted a three-hour news-talk radio program which he said was carried on more than 160 stations, had repeatedly suggested in the past that the Sandy Hook shooting was a “giant hoax” carried out by crisis actors on behalf of people who oppose the Second Amendment.
                      InfoWars has also suggested the September 11 attacks were an inside job orchestrated by the US government.

                      This week, Jones acknowledged the shooting was real during a sworn deposition he made as part of a defamation case brought against him by Sandy Hook victims’ families.
                      “And I, myself, have almost had like a form of psychosis back in the past where I basically thought everything was staged, even though I’ve now learned a lot of times things aren’t staged,” he said. “So I think as a pundit, someone giving an opinion, that, you know, my opinions have been wrong, but they were never wrong consciously to hurt people.”

                      https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/30/us/alex-jones-psychosis-sandy-hook/index.html

                      Meanwhile, a Sandy Hook parent had to go into hiding after multiple threats on his life by the kind of people – like Oky – who believe what this charlatan says.

                    7. BTB,

                      ROTFLOLAO! 🙂

                      You’re using a Qatar/Saudi/ & other American hating scum that runs CNN to attack Conspiracy Analyst Alex Jones/Infowars over the Sandy Hook issue.

                      That’s very rich!

                      I remember that case a bit, there was at the time many very odd Irregularities in that case.

                      But whatever you do don’t mention the Big Pharma SSRI type Dope CNN, etc., promote all the time that most all mass killers have been on, most all except the Islamic Nut Jobs.

                      Anyway, your weak against infowars.

                      BTW: Who are Connecut’s Senators & their connection to the lawfirm that’s been dragging those Sandy Hook Dead Kids threw the streets for years & for political gains??? Lawfare much???

              3. Nazi salutes are a response to orders.

                Those of us using them against you are using sarcasm and satire.

                You do not seem to be familiar with that.

                They are a deprecator response to those who perceive they are entitled to ORDER others arround.

                They are a humorous comparison between authoritarians like you and Nazi.

                They are not a literal claim that you are a Nazi.

                But they are a claim that you act as entitled to force others to comply with your will as actual Nazi’s.

                The shoe fits.

                1. John you must be really butt hurt from getting trashed by CTHD to be approvingly mind reading Oky’s calling her Commie/Nazi Scum.

                  Pathetic

                  1. “John you must be really butt hurt from getting trashed by CTHD to be approvingly mind reading Oky’s calling her Commie/Nazi Scum.

                    Pathetic”

                    CTDHD has trashed herself – not me. Your not paying attention.
                    When even Obama will not back her up that is real trouble.

                    My response was to CTDHD – not Oky.

      1. Cthd,

        If you people would get out of your bubble & start listening to legitimate news outfits like Infowars.com/show, Zerohedge, etc…
        That allows actual doctors explain to you whats going on you’d know that mask are making people sick & are of no use in stopping viruses, but you people just wish to remain ignorant I guess.

      2. Needs to be Committed would probably advocate a rule that bathing suits not be higher than so many inches from the knee. She would be running around the beach yelling incarcerate, incarcerate.

      3. In Canada women are free to go topless.

        What does your claim have to do with anything ?

        Another red herring

        Do you have arguments that are not fallacies ?

        If you do not wish to wear clothing in public – I do not care.

  6. “….In a recently published study, the researchers unveiled a simple method to evaluate the effectiveness of various types of masks, analyzing more than a dozen different facial coverings ranging from hospital-grade N95 respirators to bandanas. Of the 14 masks and other coverings tested, the study found that some easily accessible cotton cloth masks are about as effective as standard surgical masks, while popular alternatives such as neck gaiters made of thin, stretchy material may be worse than not wearing a mask at all.

    “You can really see the mask is doing something,” said one of the study’s co-authors, Warren S. Warren, a professor of physics, chemistry, radiology and biomedical engineering at Duke. “There’s a lot of controversy and people say, ‘Well, masks don’t do anything.’ Well, the answer is some don’t, but most do.”

    Using a simple contraption that harnesses the power of a laser, which can be easily purchased online for less than $200, and a cell phone camera, Fischer created a device that allowed his team to track individual particles released from a person’s mouth when they are speaking. The rest of the setup includes a box that can be made out of cardboard and a lens.

    “It’s very straightforward, doesn’t take much resources,” Fischer said in a video produced by Duke. “Any research lab has these things lying around.”

    Testing the face coverings was equally uncomplicated, according to the study published Friday in Science Advances, a peer-reviewed journal.

    Speakers said the same phrase into the box without a mask and then repeated the process while wearing one. Each face covering was tested 10 times. Inside the device, the airborne particles passed through a sheet of light created by the laser hitting the lens and produced visible flashes that were recorded by the phone’s camera.

    “Even very small particles can do this kind of [light] scattering,” Warren said. “We were able to use the scattering, and then tracking individual particles from frame to frame in the movie, to actually count the number of particles that got emitted.”

    A fitted N95 mask, which is used most commonly by hospital workers, was the most effective, Warren said, noting that the mask allowed “no droplets at all” to come out. Meanwhile, a breathable neck gaiter, well-liked by runners for its lightweight fabric, ranked worse than the no-mask control group. The gaiter tested by the researchers was described in the study as a “neck fleece” made out of a polyester spandex material, Warren said.

    “These neck gaiters are extremely common in a lot of places because they’re very convenient to wear,” he said. “But the exact reason why they’re so convenient, which is that they don’t restrict air, is the reason why they’re not doing much of a job helping people.”

    A number of prominent activewear companies make neck gaiters, and they are generally not designed for medical use. In April, for example, Buff, a company known for multifunctional head and neckwear, issued a public statement emphasizing that its products are not scientifically proven by the CDC and the World Health Organization to be a useful form of protection during the pandemic.

    “Buff performance head and neckwear are not intended to be used as medical-grade face masks or as a replacement for N95 respirators as effective measures to prevent disease, illness, or the spread of viruses,” the statement said.

    Another neck gaiter manufacturer, however, cautioned against writing off every variation of the face covering based solely on the Duke study’s findings.

    “All gaiters are not created equal,” Chris Bernat, co-founder of South Carolina-based Vapor Apparel, said. “There’s a segment of this category that’s of a much higher quality that’s engineered to be layered.”

    AD
    Although the study did not provide detailed specifics about the material of the neck gaiter that was tested, Bernat raised doubts about the material’s quality. “Chances are it was a promotional quality, like a lower-quality fabric, and based on that I’m sure it didn’t perform well,” said Bernat, who has been making neck gaiters for more than a decade.

    The high droplet count observed in the study could be linked to the porous fabric of the neck gaiter that was tested breaking up bigger particles into many little ones that are more likely to hang around in the air longer, Fischer said in the video. This effect makes wearing some gaiters possibly “counterproductive,” he added.

    “It’s not the case that any mask is better than nothing,” he said. “There are some masks that actually hurt rather than do good.”

    Other types of face coverings that may fall into that category are bandanas and knitted masks, the study found. An N95 mask with an exhalation valve also failed to measure up.

    “Those relief valves are fantastic if what you want to do is protect yourself from the outside world because air doesn’t come in through them,” Warren said. “If what you’re trying to do in this pandemic is protect the outside world from you, it completely defeats the purpose.”

    Warren encouraged people to assess their face coverings with another basic test.

    “If you can see through it when you put it up to a light and you can blow through it easily, it probably is not protecting anybody.”

    Still, he stressed that people without access to medical-grade masks shouldn’t worry.

    “We’re not as a society going to be having everybody wear disposable N95 face masks,” he said. “It’s not affordable, and it’s not reasonable.” The researchers specifically made note of the effectiveness of common cotton cloth masks, finding that several of the ones tested performed about as well as surgical masks, which come in second to the N95. Experts with the WHO have recommended that fabric masks should ideally have three layers….”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/wellness/mask-test-duke-covid/2020/08/10/4f2bb888-db18-11ea-b205-ff838e15a9a6_story.html

    1. You continue to sell the same nonsense.

      I have only the slightest interest in laboratory testing.

      We live in the real world – not a laboratory.

      Real world testing is NOT that hard to do.

      And it is important because it addresses several failures of your lab tests.

      In the real world masks are worn by humans, who do not behave anywhere near perfectly.

      A mask that is 100% effective in a lab may be completely useless – unless it is used perfectly by nearly everyone.

      I was in a grocery store yesterday – about half the people were wearing masks, About half of those did not have their nose covered.

      Beyond that many people fidget with their mask, every time you touch the mask and then touch your face, your eyes, etc. you risk infecting yourself.

      You are not testing that in a lab.

      Just to be clear – labs are important. They are just not proof.

      The world is working on vaccines right now – these are first tested in labs – not even on animals. but in test tubes, and then animals, and then small numbers of humans.

      But ulitmately large scale tests in the real world are absolutely necescary – because you just can not know either the actual effectivness or safety in a lab.

      1. “Real world testing is NOT that hard to do. ”

        The pandemic is real world testing.
        In populations where masks are worn the spread of the virus is much reduced.
        But more important than that the outcomes of the disease are much better.
        Studies have shown that masks result in milder cases and lower case fatality.
        Masks reduce the dosage of virus particles people are exposed to.
        Exposure to smaller doses means the immune system can fight off the virus.

        https://youtu.be/yRwlxZ-BTaY

        1. “The pandemic is real world testing.”
          Yes, but not of the same quality done for HCQ, much less the double blind type that Faucci wants (except when he doesnt)

          “In populations where masks are worn the spread of the virus is much reduced.”
          Data

          “But more important than that the outcomes of the disease are much better.”
          Data

          “Studies have shown that masks result in milder cases and lower case fatality.”
          Data

          “Masks reduce the dosage of virus particles people are exposed to.
          Exposure to smaller doses means the immune system can fight off the virus.”
          Data

          To be clear – I do not dispute that some of your claims are POSSIBLE.

          In fact most are PROBABLE.

          But actual data matters if you are using force.

          There are several countries that do not wear masks that are doing well relative to the US and Europe.
          Though data collection standards accross the globe are highly inconsistent.

          In the US they are not consistent between states.

          Milder cases and lower fatality are reasons to CHOOSE to wear a mask – not to FORCE someone.

          I would be happy to see the data that you are claiming – among other reasons because the actual numbers matter.

          AS I have noted – unless you get the R0 below 1.0 – mass adoption of masks or other measures – even if having the positive effects you claim, still is NOT net beneficial.

          Unless you get R0 below 1.0 you INCREASE the risk to the most vulnerable.

          Even if the benefits you claim are correct – and you could justify the use of force.

          The “scientific” choice would be to FORCE those with health issues to mask – or just forceably quarantine them all.
          And FORCE everyone else not to. That will burn through the virus the fastest with the least total deaths.

    2. Your expert – PRof. Warran – and I would laud his tests, but he and you fail to understand that labs are not the real world.

      Warren claims N95 masks are near 100% effective – yet We KNOW that in hospitals with Full PPE – not just fitted n95 masks but face sheilds and gloves and …

      That given a long enough period of use nearly all hospital workers test positive for antibodies.

      With the best equipment and the people most inclined to use it properly – near 100% effective equipment is NOT sufficient to prevent infection.

      That does not prove masks are a bad idea.

      But it significantly undermines any claim that they should be manditory for ordinary people.

    3. You constantly forget that you are dealing with a virus with an R-0 of 2.4.

      And that regardless of when the level of effectiveness of the measures you are trying to force on people,
      They are PER EXPOSURE.

      If Social Distancing reduces the probability of infection by 75% – that is by 75% for each exposure.
      Over a sufficient number of exposures – you WILL get infected – even if you SD is perfectly applied – with enough exposures everyone is infected.

      The same is true of masks.

      The good news for you is that numerous measures combined increase effectiveness.
      The bad news is that even combined in the real world humans just do not use these tools perfectly – or even close.

      Are you going to fine people 10,000 for touching their face with a mask on ?

      Regardless the key point is that all your measures combined in the real world with real world conditions and failures. MUST reduce R0 below 1.0 and keep it there – for atleast a full month – probably more like two,

      If you can not manage that – then the effect is merely to delay the inevitable.

      Worse still the longer you draw things out and the better that you protect ordinary people – the worse you will make this for the “most vulnerable”

      No where EVER have we stopped the Flu using measures like this – and the Flu is about 1/2 as contageous. C19 is atleast 4 times as hard to stop.

    4. Finally – you can piss and moan about “herd immunity”.

      But the fact is that no matter how effective your “public safety measures” are – until you have entirely eradicated the virus they still accomplish nothing but buying time.

      There were 9,125 new positive tests in the last 14 days in NY, the actual new cases are likely 10-20 times that.

      And NY is generally considered past this.

      If we have reduce those numbers of new cases through various public health measures.
      If as you claim only 25% of NYC is “immune”.

      Then the moment we relax those public health measures – cases will shoot up again.

      I do not beleive that – but if you beleive the arguments you make YOU DO.

      In your world – masks etc must continue to be practiced – not until the virus is under control – but until it is gone.

      I would further note – that this is a real world test of “herd immunity”.

      If people start to return to their normal lives and the new cases does not increase – we are very close to “herd immunity”.
      If however we return to normal and new cases spike – we are not near herd immuntiy.

      This is true no matter what the level of infection is.

      I would further note – this is all MATH – and logic. And it is immutable.

      1. “Buying time” is otherwise known as staying alive, or the winning strategy of successful animal species.

        Libertarians wouldn’t understand.

        1. It’s a cold virus, not Ebola, or the Black Plague.

          Our immune systems work remarkable well, as long as you have no pre-existing conditions that have diminished your immune system.

          Herd immunity is how all flu and cold viruses are eventually contained within the population.

          Masks are useless, and in many cases make things worse.

          Which is why Fauci clearly stated on 60 Minutes that “People should not be wearing masks” back in late March.

          Fauci changed his story once he was told to get with the narrative. But the cat was already out of the bag.

          A vaccine is nothing more than a pipe dream. That’s because cold and flu viruses mutate, and it is why getting a flu shot is essentially useless.

          This entire Corona canard is a scam.

          1. Post a video of yourself huffing Covid from a super spreader. Until then, you’re all batter, no clam.

            1. I don’t wear a mask, don’t practice social distancing, and completely ignored the stay at home, BS.

              Yet, I’m very healthy, and I never get sick. That’s because I take 5000 IU’s of vitamin D3, 4500 milligrams of vitamin C, and 30 milligrams of Zinc, every day, to keep my immune system working at maximum capacity. And I have done so for years.

              Fauci himself has promoted vitamin C and D in the past to prevent getting sick. But he’s been strangely silent about that since the scamdemic began.

              What does that tell you Buggy Wugs?

              (Not that I expect you to be able to figure that out).

              1. Well, your supplementation profile is *okay*, but leaving out herbal helpers that would tie together the isolated compounds is your loss, Rhodesy. Of course I’m thinking of echinacea and astragulus here, you clueless f*&k.

                Good health is balance not individual chemicals. With that, your individual energetic tendencies play a large part (whether you’re an excessive constitution or deficient or a combination of the two).

                But keep trying, you’re on the right path for a beginner.

                Your mask rebellion and ignorance of broad spectrum public health measures? They just prove your an a&*hole.

                And yes. GFY.

            2. So you would eat the snot of someone with a cold or the Flu ?

              That appears to be your standard.

              Aparently in Bug world anything short of absolute safety requires stomping on all liberty.

          2. “It’s a cold virus,”

            Nope. It’s not a cold virus. It’s a coronavirus, not a rhinovirus. Those two aren’t the same thing.

            “This entire Corona canard is a scam.”

            No doubt you’ll tell that to the families of all the people who’ve lost loved ones to it and volunteer to spend time with people who are ill with it.

            1. How many people have you known who died of cancer?

              How many decades has the AMA, Big Pharma, FDA, consortium been falsely claiming that they were “close” to “beating cancer”?

              Always follow the money. If you knew how to, you’d know that this is a complete and total scam.

              1. Several family members have died of cancer, including my mom. And I know that it’s not contagious. I was able to take care of my mom before she died without having to worry that I might contract her rare sarcoma from her, or that I might be fine but pass her sarcoma along to someone else.

                It’s a dishonest comparison Rhodes.

                And given that you can’t even bring yourself to admit that your “It’s a cold virus” claim is false, I don’t expect you to be honest.

                1. Commit– I think that some cancers are contagious, those in which a virus plays a role in its development. Interesting observation– the number of premature births has dropped dramatically during social distancing. Possibly some premature births are caused by infectious agents that normally have little impact.

                    1. Of what ? Not what you claimed.

                      They are not the success of experts. They are the success of markets top meet our needs.

                2. With Rhodes and John Say on this board I think we’ll have a cure for cancer right here in no time.

                  Follow the idiocy.

                  1. Just because you want something NOW, does not mean you can have it NOW.

                    Cancer will be cured – eventually.

                    But just like C19 – it is not going away because we want it to, or because government decrees that it should.

                    It is highly likely that when the next C19 comes arround we will be better prepared – not because we will religiously mask.

                    But because we will have learned how to do anti-virals and vaccines better.

                    But look at what worked well and why.

                    Both the left and right fretted over our dependence on China for ppe, for masks, for ….

                    Yet we saw massive shifts in demand and in a very short period free markets shifted and provided whatever we needed.

                    We were told the US could not manafacture things, and yet we met the demand for TP, hand sanitizer, Ventalators, and masks.
                    And we found new ways of working and getting food.

                    And govenrment had little to do with any of this.

                    Not Trump, not govenors, Just free people.

                3. CTDHD Dead is dead.

                  about 600,000 People per year die of Cancer. That is nearly 1700 a day.

                  That is more Cancer deaths during the pandemic than C19 deaths. And It is more Cancer deaths every day for the past 3 months.

                  You get concern from being alive.

                  Regardless, we do little about cancer – because there is little we can do. Like C19.

                  There are no cancer shutdowns. no daily press briefings.

                    1. “John you idiot – no cancer is highly contagious like covid-19 is and most not contagious at all.”

                      An analogy is by definition something that does not match in every detail.

                      Cancer is not highly contagious.

                      And yet far more people die of it every year and we do not lock the country down.

                      There are many things we could actually do that would likely decrease cancers.
                      But they would also harm our standard of living – and possibly even increase other deaths – so we do not do them.

                      The analogy is fine.

                      We have responded appropriately to cancer.
                      Not to C19.

                4. Those “commited to honest discussion fo not accuse everyone the disagree with or every one offering an anology the do not like as dishonest.

                  This is much what you did with Flynn.

                  In CTDHD world any utterences that do not exactly comport with YOU perception of reality – are lies.

                  Anyone making an argument you disagree with is lying.

                  You lob moral accusations like hand grenades at the least provocation – yet you can not see actual lies from those you support.

                5. Covid is a Corona Virus, between 19% and 40% of all colds are corona viruses.

                  Covid is close enough to other colds that it appears that a recent corona virus cold provides immunity to Covid

                  Calling C19 a Cold is accurate.

                  If you are young it is a mild cold
                  If you are older it is a very serious cold, possibly even deadly.

                  It is still a form of cold.

                  It is accurate to call C19 a Cold.

            2. Needs to be Commited writes: “Nope. It’s not a cold virus.”

              “How and When They Strike

              Cold viruses have a lot in common, but each type has its own style, too.

              Rhinovirus. This bunch is most active in early fall, spring, and summer. They cause 10%-40% of colds. You’ll feel plenty miserable when you catch one, but the good news is they rarely make you seriously sick.

              Coronavirus. These tend to do their dirty work in the winter and early spring. The coronavirus is the cause of about 20% of colds. There are more than 30 kinds, but only three or four affect people.

              RSV and parainfluenza. These viruses cause 20% of colds. They sometimes lead to severe infections, like pneumonia, in young children.”

              https://www.webmd.com/cold-and-flu/cold-guide/common_cold_causes

                1. My mistake. I’d be happy to correct what I wrote. SARS-CoV-2 is not a cold virus, though some other coronaviruses can cause colds. SARS-CoV-2 (the virus) instead causes COVID-19 (the illness). In one of the links from that page, WebMD distinguishes among “Cold vs. Flu vs. Allergies vs. COVID-19”: https://www.webmd.com/lung/coronavirus

                  1. “common cold”

                    An imprecise term used to describe a set of symptoms one gets from various viruses. Coronavirus is one of the viruses that causes it.

                    “SARS-CoV-2 is not a cold virus” WE know it as a far more dangerous disease but does that mean that in some people it doesn’t present with the same set of symptoms?

                    From NEJM Journal Watch: “COVID-19 Can Look Like the Common Cold, Researchers Say”

                    No need to make a big thing about this because the important thing is not that Covid -19 can act like a cold rather that it can kill people and has killed many.

                    That is the problem with your arguments with John. You are very imprecise making statements that are confusing to others but seemingly more confusing to yourself. You target the most unimportant features of the discussion and derail the important ones because you have an objective, to incarcerate an innocent man who if with a change in details was not innocent the infraction still would not justify incarceration. At the same time you make no mention of the intentional lies of all those other people that surround the issue where their lies were carefully planned and in many cases they appear to be colluding with one another.

                    1. The 1918 Flu is a FLU
                      C19 is a COLD.

                      C19 is a REALLY bad cold.
                      But it does not compare to the Spanish Flu

                      C19 compares in mortality to the 1967 Flu that happened during Woodstock.

                  2. Every single thing that WebMd claims that C19 can cause:

                    It does NOT most of the time.
                    all other corona Viruses can cause.

                    The distinction between C19 and other cold/Corona Viruses is exactly the same as the distinction between the 2009 H1N1 outbreak and the 1918 H1N1 outbreak.

                    That diference is how Fatal is this particular virus.

                    C19 is unique – Every virus is unique.

                    C19 sometimes leads to pnuemonia – common colds sometimes lead to Pnuemonia.

                    Rhodes calling C19 a cold is accurate – just as calling the 1918 H1N1 outbreak the Flu is accurate.

            3. Wikipedia
              “The common cold is a viral infection of the upper respiratory tract. The most commonly implicated virus is a rhinovirus (30–80%), a type of picornavirus with 99 known serotypes.[29][30] Other commonly implicated viruses include human coronaviruses (≈ 15%),[31][32] influenza viruses (10–15%),[33] adenoviruses (5%),[33] human respiratory syncytial virus (orthopneumovirus), enteroviruses other than rhinoviruses, human parainfluenza viruses, and human metapneumovirus.[34] Frequently more than one virus is present.[35] In total, more than 200 viral types are associated with colds.[3]”

              You have once again erred – you said you would correct yourself when you make mistakes.

              How about it ?

              There are some studies that are indicating that some people who had some colds in the past couple of years are immune to COVID.

              All Corona viruses are similar enough that it is possible that an infection by one would significantly increase immunity to another – atleast for a short period.

              There is also a DOJ study that found that the Flu vaccine INCREASED the risk of Covid by 30%.
              The study might be flawed, or it is possible that Flu infections increase immunity to Covid – and Flu is not even a closely related virus.

              Regardless there are strong indications that 50-80% of people are either immune or resistant to C19 infections.

              We do not know why. There are many theories and probably a little truth to each.

              We know that C19 is inordinantely biased towards unhealthy people.
              We know that it is biased by skin color – which likely means Vitamin D is a factor in resistance.
              There are indications that it has blood type preferences.
              We know that population density is a significant factor.

              In the 2017-2018 Flu season 80,000 people died.

          3. Left wing nuts are incapable of grasping this.

            The 1918 Spanish flu did not infect 100% of the world, it did not infect 25% of the world.

            No vaccine, and yet most people did not get it.

            They did not social distance, where masks, there were no shutdowns.

            Nor respiratory virus has ever infected more than about 25% of a population.

            Why ? I can make very good guesses, but I can not know.
            What I can know with a high probability – is that it is highly unlikely that some new Virus will be radically different that prior similar viruses.

            Nowhere has C19 infected more than 25% of a population.
            Maybe everyone else is immune. Maybe magic.
            Does not matter. within a range no more that 25% will ultimately be infected.
            The percent may be lower in less dense places.
            It may be lower for a bunch of other not well known reasons.
            But there is no evidence it will be higher anywhere.

            Herd immunity is NOT 80% of people infected.
            It is about 80% immune – for whatever reason.

            I am not prepared to asset that masks are useless.
            I am prepared to assert that anyone claiming to know for sure is full of bull.
            I am further prepared to assert that even if they are effective – absent reducing the transmission rate below 1.0,
            their net effect – even if the reduce spread – will be NEGATIVE, not positive.

            It is hard for lefties to understand that actions that appear to be good, are often bad.

            They should read Bastiat – that which is seen and that which is not seen.

            1. “I have offered a huge generalization.”

              That was the problem, the use of a generalization with the word never. ” that is why I don’t like the word never. It closes the world so you see only what you expect to see.” I fully understand what you are saying but it confuses the issue because with the use of such words it causes a generalization to be not that much different than a stated fact.

              Your statement about the maximum number of people infected from a viral illness with respiratory spread makes me wonder. Pre vaccination how many got the measles? I presume most if not almost everyone.

              1. “That was the problem, the use of a generalization with the word never. ” that is why I don’t like the word never. It closes the world so you see only what you expect to see.” I fully understand what you are saying but it confuses the issue because with the use of such words it causes a generalization to be not that much different than a stated fact.”

                It is not a problem, I have already argued this – you keep coming back.

                Of you can not discredit a massive generalization such as I have offered, that is a big deal. That should be the easiest type of claim in the world to discredit. If you can not that is extremely meaningful – it should slap you upside the head. While it does not means the claim is not refutable, but it does lean heavily towards it is are the very most a small over generalization.

                It is like playing poker as if you have five of a kind ace high – a completely unbeatable hand.
                Maybe I only have an ace high royal flush.

                Is the difference meaningfull ? Unless you have something better than an ace high royal flush – no.

                Am I “bluffing” with my “over generalization” – maybe, maybe not. I do not know for sure. There might actually be one counter example.
                But if there is it is so rare that even that makes my case.

                Your bothered by never. Is the argument that much weaker if instead of never it is a once in 1000 years ?

                “Your statement about the maximum number of people infected from a viral illness with respiratory spread makes me wonder. Pre vaccination how many got the measles? I presume most if not almost everyone.”

                Do not know, can not find data.

                There is a beleif that Small Pox wiped out 90% of native americans priot to the arrival of the pilgrims.
                But the is no confirmation of that.

                I just tripped over a recent medical study completed in Jan 2019 that found that Except for the Flu and one other rare respiratory virus that all other respiratory viruses actually behave much as C19 does – with an extremely strong single curve age gradient and with 70% of “infected” people being asympomatic.

                There is building body of evidence that Coronavirus colds within the past 3 year create TCell immunity against C19.

                We are also seeing throughout Europe and pretty much every contry that imposed a lockdown a “2nd wave” that is ongoing now.
                I can not get daily deaths accross the world so it is hard to say if that is an artifact of increased testing.

                There is a growing list of countries with a 2 hump pattern – but so far NOT sweden.

                There is also evidence of a 2 hump pattern similar to the US – where C19 initially hit large population centers on major international travel routes HARD, and they later spiked in other areas of the same country.
                There does not seem to be evidence of a “2nd wave” hitting the same place that it hit the first time arround.

                So accross the world places that had major spikes in C19 and those have faded so far appear to be in no danger of a 2nd wave.
                But areas of the same country that were no hit or not hir hard initially are seeing cases spike much later.

                This also confirms my argument that policy has had zero impact on C19. All the lockdowns etc are at best slowing its spread through a country. It is still going to procede through the entire county. The impact may be lower in less population dense areas and the death rates may be lower in places where overall health is higher and the elderly are better protected.

                But if you live someplace where C19 has passed through and faded and you did not get it, you are probably very safe right now.

                But if you live someplace that has NOT had many infections then it is still coming for you.

                1. “It is not a problem, I have already argued this – you keep coming back.”

                  John, you think it not a problem but you keep it alive. Your logic in the following sentences fail and your analogy is lacking.

                  Regarding measles, also with respiratory transmission, I think is far higher than the numbers you have for sale. In fact I think the number is most if not almost all become infected.

                  1. “John, you think it not a problem but you keep it alive. Your logic in the following sentences fail and your analogy is lacking.”
                    IF it were a problem – you would be able to find a counter trivially.
                    If the analogy were lacking – you would be able to find a counter trivially.

                    “Regarding measles, also with respiratory transmission, I think is far higher than the numbers you have for sale. In fact I think the number is most if not almost all become infected.”

                    Nope – measles is absolutely far more contageous than C19.

                    And it is true that in a household 9 of 10 people who are not “immune” will get it.

                    But global Measles infections are about 20M/year Today mostly in Africa.
                    There are 1.3B people in Africa. There is far more than 20M people in Africa that are infectable.

                    I was very specific that I was only interested in population groups of atleast 1000.

                    You can not make national predictions based on behavior in a building with 10 people.

                    You can begin to with a cruse ship.

                    If Measless – which is as much as 10 times as contagious as C19 does not infect more than 30% of the population – why would C19 ?

                    1. “IF it were a problem”

                      John, it is not a problem for me but seems to be a problem for you in two ways. firstly you made too bigger deal over my comment which is valid.

                      Secondly if you make a specific statement that is a known fact and combine it with the word “never” it can be believable but can it be believable when combined with a generalization?

                      “If Measless – which is as much as 10 times as contagious as C19 does not infect more than 30% of the population – why would C19 ?

                      Pre vaccination I believe measles infected far more than 30% of the population which is the outside limit you provided.

                    2. “John, it is not a problem for me but seems to be a problem for you”
                      Nope

                      “firstly you made too bigger deal over my comment which is valid.”
                      If that were true you would have found a counter.

                      “Pre vaccination I believe measles infected far more than 30% of the population which is the outside limit you provided.”

                      You think there is massive measles vaccinations in Africa ?

                      Regardless – I beleive is not much of a counter.

                    3. >>”“firstly you made too bigger deal over my comment which is valid.”
                      >If that were true you would have found a counter.”

                      A counter to what? That a specific fact has more weight than a generalization?

                      Measles was not a counter.

                      “You think there is massive measles vaccinations in Africa ?”

                      I wouldn’t consider Africa. If you don’t know the % that had measles in the US pre vaccination then I don’t expect you to know the % that had measles in Africa.

                      You threw out a 30% number. I would have to look things over but I think that was a separate issue for me at the time and was considering the cause that everyone didnt get Covid. The only question is whether your number of 30% held true for the measles in pre vaccination times. I think not.

                    4. “A counter to what? That a specific fact has more weight than a generalization?”

                      An incredibly narrow analogy is not applicable as a purported counter to a generalization.
                      It has less weight – specifically because it is too specific.

                      Regardless as noted you are making a catagory error.

                      Attribute A for Item 1 is equal to Attribute A on Item 2.

                      Is inapplicable as a counter to for all humans, for most attributes they are not all equal.

                      Of course there are atleast two humans with equal weight, or with equal hair color.

                    5. “An incredibly narrow analogy is not applicable as a purported counter to a generalization.”

                      My comment had to do with your use of the word “never” based on a generalization instead of a specific.

                      “Is inapplicable as a counter ”

                      Though in the same reply I don’t recall that I related the generalization to the 30% if that is what you are referring to.

                      I think my explanations in multiple replies have said just that and my statement 5 words written by Thomas Jefferson invovled a completely different subject matter.

                      Start again from the statement that began it all. All men are created equal but their outcomes are not the same. as it related to my discussion with Young. This is the substance if not the exact quote.

                    6. Your analogy was likely an attempt to disprove never.

                      But an inapplicable analogy disproves nothing.

                    7. “Your analogy was likely an attempt to disprove never.”

                      You are wrong. I didn’t like the connection of never to a generalization as opposed to a fact.

                      The use of salt and sugar was to demonstrate that being equal requires a definer.

                      Who would know better what I said than myself?

                      Do you accept the CDC statement on the measles?

                    8. I understand you do not like “never”, that is a preference.

                      The salt/sugar bags were an analogy. Because the analogy was catagorically different from what was being analogized too, what you were trying to demonstrate is lost. ‘

                      I do not care what the CDC said regarding measles. I specifically confined my generalization to populations of thousands.
                      Behavior in a home or very small group is not the same as in a large group. There are many significantly different factors.

                      I am not aware of Measles infectiing more than 30% of a large population. Maybe it has – though I doubt it, i beleive measles has a higher mortality than C19.

                    9. “I understand you do not like “never”, that is a preference.”

                      John I didn’t comment on statements of fact leading to the word never. I commented on generalizations, not fact, leading to the word never.

                    10. “I understand you do not like “never”, that is a preference.”

                      John, I understand you Like “never”, even when dealing with generalizations instead of facts. That is a preference. 🙂

                    11. John, I understand you Like “never”, even when dealing with generalizations ”
                      True.

                      A claim that is made so strong that it would be easily refuted if false MIGHT not be absolutely true, but if it is that hard to refute is certainly generally true.

                      “instead of facts.”
                      There is no “instead”. If you have facts that actually refute the generalization – raise them.
                      You tried this sugar salt thing, as well as Measles and thus far neither has proved sufficiently well established to overcome a feneralization.

                      “That is a preference. ”

                      It is, and yet you are arguing about it.

                    12. “There is no “instead”. If you have facts that actually refute the generalization – raise them.”

                      One need not refute a generalization which is something that is frequently obtained by inference based on limited exploration of the facts. It is not proven to be true or false in any specific instance. That is why one ought not use a generalization with the words never or always. Facts are proven to be true. Generalizations can have outliers.

                      Logically one would not want to accept never or always when using a generalization. I will let you have the last word on this specific item becaue it is clear you are wrong and nothing else need be said. You either accept what is proper and logical or you don’t. If you wish me to consider your generalizations to carry the same weight as facts then I have to question whether or not your facts are true.

                    13. “That is why one ought not use a generalization with the words never or always.”
                      Still a preference.

                      “Facts are proven to be true.”
                      Generally I would agree, but an awful lot of “facts” offered by those on the left are not proven to be true, often they are not even possible.

                      “Generalizations can have outliers.”
                      Sometimes they do, sometimes they do not.

                      There are times to qualify and argument or generalization, and times not to.

                      I will further note AGAIN, that even if an absolute generalization can be refuted – It would not surprise me if you work long enough and hard enough you can find a respiratory virus that infected over 30% of several 1000 people.

                      But the mere fact that it is so rare that you have to look long and hard makes my argument.

                      If I state some generalization in absolute Terms and BTB or CTDHD spend hours finding the 1 in 100000 times that it is not true – I will be happy – they will have learned that the generalization is true 99,999 out of 100000.

                      If I have to apologize for an over generalization in order for them to work real hard to find that rare exception – I will count that is a win.
                      If they have to work really really hard to refute some absolute generalization that I make – there is a fair chance they will learn that it is a pretty good generalization.

                      Alternatively If I argue that X is usually true – they will here X is rarely true, and they will never bother to check it out.

                      Put simply I WANT those who disagree with me to be inspired to work HARD to prove I am wrong.
                      I want it because that is how they will learn.
                      I also want it because if they are actually successful – not merely at turning an absolute generalization into a simple generaliztion – but if the actually refute something I assert – then I will learn something.

                      I very very rarely learn anything from those on the left – because I have heard and falsified most of their arguments long ago.

                      But unlike BTB and CTDHD and others on the left – my mind is open. When actual facts are inconsistent with my ideology, oppinions, etc.
                      I revise the ideology and oppinions. That is how I became libertarian. I was raised a barry gold water conservative, became an Alan Derschowitz liberal in College and grew ever more libertarian since. Why ? Because it is the only ideology that is consistent with the facts.

                    14. >>”“That is why one ought not use a generalization with the words never or always.”
                      >Still a preference.”

                      John,one can be wrong. That is a preference as well.

                      “If I have to apologize for an over generalization in order for them to work real hard to find that rare exception – I will count that is a win.”

                      It’s not a win or a loss. It is just that when you treat a generalization as a fact you diminish your facts.

                      I have no problems with generalizations so you need not go to so much trouble explaining them.

                    15. “John,one can be wrong. That is a preference as well.”

                      It could be, but few people chose to be wrong.
                      Regardless all that you have established is that you do not like always or never in the context of a generalization.
                      OK, we disagree.

                      ” It is just that when you treat a generalization as a fact you diminish your facts.”
                      A generalization is a factual claim. It is a claim that there is perceivable pattern – that is a claim of fact.

                    16. “you have established is that you do not like always or never in the context of a generalization.
                      OK, we disagree.”

                      John, that was my point many many posts ago. You can now have the last word.

                    17. “Logically one would not want to accept never or always when using a generalization. ”

                      False – science is ALWAYS striving to state a rule in the strongest language possible.

                      The goal of science is not to find the mushy generalizations about the universe – but to establish immutable rules.

                      WE would greatly prefer there was no exceptions to Newton’s laws, But for the moment Einstein appears to have laws that do not have the same flaws.

                      Regardless the rules of logic do not dictate avoiding never or always. They expect you will get it right.
                      The avoidance of never or always when appropriate is as much an error as their use when they are not.

                    18. “>>“Logically one would not want to accept never or always when using a generalization. ”

                      >False – science is ALWAYS striving to state a rule in the strongest language possible.”

                      That science strives to do so doesn’t mean one should add the words never or always to a generalization in the fashion under discussion.

                      You can do as you please and at the same time diminish your facts to the level of a generalization. That is not a problem for me. It is a problem for you.

                    19. “That science strives to do so doesn’t mean one should add the words never or always to a generalization in the fashion under discussion.”
                      You have so many qualifiers it is hard to know where to start.

                      The objective of science is to state absolutely if possible the cleanest simplest rules that actually work.

                      A hypothesis – which is pretty much exactly what the genaralization you are pissing over is, is made in the strongest clearest most absolute form possible. The hypothesis is usually an absolute generalization based on observations – and possibly limited testing of the facts in the real world.

                      AFTER a hypothesis – the very thing you are attacking – a very strong generalization, is made, THEN we go about testing it – deliberately trying to prove it wrong.

                      If errors are discovered the hypotheis is revised or rejected.

                      Your attacks on my strong generalization constitute TESTING. Thus far your measles example has not provided a basis for me to revise the hypothesis.

                      Regardless, this is quite literally exactly the way science is supposed to be done.

                      Once again your assertion that generalizations should not have always or never is a preference.

                      And arguably an erroneous one. Our objective – not just in science is to find patterns. Weak patterns and strong patterns.

                      To the extent possible we should prefer strong patterns as those provide the most guidance and information – so long as they are not at odds with the evidence.

                      “You can do as you please”
                      Yes, and I will.

                      I can respect your intelligence and criticism, and still sometimes reject your advice.
                      This is one of those times.

                      You were not the audience for the specific generalization I made, though I do not mind your criticism. Whatever I offer must stand up to criticism regardless of where it is from.

                      The fundimental point of my argument was that We should NOT be betting – our lives, our economy, etc that C19 behaves radically different from other respiratory viruses.

                      And the evidence thus far is that it does not. It is not identical to the flu – it is unlikely that any two respiratory viruses are identical.

                      But we have NEVER stopped a respiratory virus by social distancing, or masks, or lockdowns, or any of the measures we have taken.

                      The flu has a much lower spread rate – that means it would be exponentially easier to stop the flu using the measures being used against C19, and yet we have never tried that.

                      But we are being told by the media, by the left, that we MUST do what we have never tried before to stop a virus that is twice as contageous as the Flu. We must do what likely would not work against the flu, to stop something that is likely 4 times harder to stop than the flu.

                      WE are also pretending that C19 could infect 100% of people – or 80-90%, and that some magic we have done has stopped it.
                      That in NYC 75% of people were saved from C19 by the good policies of Cuomo and De Blassio. When what should be self evident is that just like everywhere else in the world – C19 infected about as many people as is could and stopped.

                      I have little doubt that if you took one of the 75% of New Yorkers who was NOT infected and laddle the virus down their throats that they likely will be infected. At the same time most of the 75% have have not been infected probably can not be infected absent exposure much more serious than what has infected the 25% that have caught C19.

                      This is speculation on my part – but so is the claim that 80-90% of people will but for magical policies get infected.

                      The difference is that my speculation conforms well to historical patterns. and the 80-90% speculation does not

                      and at the same time diminish your facts to the level of a generalization. That is not a problem for me. It is a problem for you.

                    20. “Your attacks on my strong generalization constitute TESTING. Thus far your measles example has not provided a basis for me to revise the hypothesis.”

                      John, I don’t disagree with most of what you say but I believe far more than 30% were infected by measles pre vaccination. To me that is important because I am not convinced that there is something special outside of immunity in 70% of the population that prevents then from being infected with a virus.

                      Covid-19 is a Corona Virus. Viruses have similarities and features that permit us to fight the virus with our antibody system. Perhaps previous infections with the Corona Virus provided partial or complete immunity to a large number of people. We can’t prove that because we can’t measure things in the body that we don’t know exist so perhaps a totally unique virus could hit close to 100% of the population.

                      I don’t have firm data on the number of children that developed measles but my bet is that the number is higher than the 30% you mention. Many childhood diseases spread fast infecting large numbers. That occurs after their natural immunity is gone so perhaps they have virgin immune systems that permit the rapid spread. Take note that adults didn’t frequently have the measles or childhood illnesses especially when their immune systems were intact. i suggest that means they were infected earlier in life.

                      Why do I find this so important? I believe that if the so called 70% don’t catch a virus that it may be because they are already immune. Even infections by different virus groups might offer some immunity. In due time I believe it will be possible to artificially create a totally new virus where there is no immunity (or one can develop spontaneously) and that will be able to infect far more than the 30% you set as an absolute maximum.

                      Another question about your 30% rule: I wonder what percent of the Indian population developed small pox.

                    21. “The salt/sugar bags were an analogy.”

                      John, the question then comes to what they were an analogy to? The phrase “All men are created equal” led to your comment about the word equal.

                      The definition of equal is “of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as another” —Merriam Webster

                      That is the basis for my explaining that equal requires a definer.

                    22. Your analogy is bad because of WHAT is being compared, not the defintion of equal.

                      That is essentially what a catagory error is.

                      All men, and two bags of white cystals are radically different.

                      Further the DOI construct of equality – as in all men are created equal, is clearly not about weight, texture, color.

                      Conversely my observation that all men are NOT equal is supported by your analogy – Sugar may be equal in weight and color to Salt.
                      But we do not salt our tea or sugar our meat. They are clearly not equal. Just as I am not Micheal Jordan.

                    23. “Your analogy is bad because of WHAT is being compared, not the defintion of equal.”

                      My non-analogy is good because it demonstrates equal requires definers.

                      “Further the DOI construct of equality – as in all men are created equal, is clearly not about weight, texture, color.”

                      Neither was my comment that seemed to start this series of postings.

                      I see nothing wrong in the CONTEXT of my discussion with Young in stating: All men are created equal but do not have equal outcomes. (from memory). Once again I advise you to complain to Tom, Thomas Jefferson.

                    24. “My non-analogy is good because it demonstrates equal requires definers.”
                      I am pretty sure you called it an analogy.

                      Regardless, if it isn’t it is just a tangent.

                    25. “Regardless, if it isn’t it is just a tangent.”

                      John, explain how in context with my discussion with Young that my statement, from memory, All men are created equal but their outcomes aren’t, takes what I said in a tangential direction. It is only then that one can know what you are talking about.

                    26. “I do not care what the CDC said regarding measles. … Behavior in a home or very small group is not the same as in a large group.”

                      John, you couldn’t find a citation for what percent of the population contracted measles. I provide you with a citation from the CDC. “Nearly everyone in the U.S. got measles before there was a vaccine”

                      They didn’t say 30% or 50% They didn’t even say 75% rather they said “nearly everyone”. Do you have a better source?

                    27. I provide you with a citation from the CDC. “Nearly everyone in the U.S. got measles before there was a vaccine”

                      I have no information on the breadth of measles prior to a vaccine – and I doubt the CDC does. I do not consider their naked assertion to be a clear statement of fact that I need refute.

                      Is there a measles pandemic in the history books where 95% of the world was infected by measles and nearly 2% of the world died ?

                      The data I did provide effectively refutes this claim.

                      GLOBALLY 20M people a year get measles – mostly in africa.

                      There are with near certainty far more than 60M people in africa that are no immune to measles

                      In the US the Measles vaccine is 97% effective. Vacination rates run from 85% to 92%.

                      Do the math – in the US alone there are more than 46M people – about 15% of the population that have no immunity to Measles – either because they were not vaccinated or because the vaccine did not provide immunity.

                      As best as I can tell african measles vaccine rates are just barely over 50% – that means 600M people are purportedly not immune.

                      Even the US had 1250 cases last year and we were declared Measles free in 2000.

                    28. John, you can rely on your questionable data. Questionable data should not be used in conjunction with the words never or always. (that had nothing to do with All men are created equal). Registration of disease is far from accurate in Africa and I am not concerned with Africa, my concern was with the US.

                      I’ll accept that measles affected over 30% not no more than 30%. I don’t need to worry about the rest in this discussion so maybe the CDC’s number “almost all” was 50%. That is still greater than 30%.

                      It’s an important difference in numbers for one has to ask themselves why wouldn’t all get infected by a virus if it had high infectivity. In adults that might mean prior infections provided protection. In a child that is much less likely.

                    29. “John, you can rely on your questionable data.”
                      What is questionable about it ?
                      AGAIN if what I say is wrong it is easily refuted – yet you have not.

                      You offered a statement by CDC that was more off the cuff and did not offer data to back it up.

                      “Questionable data”
                      Generalizations are not “questionable data”

                      You conflate a deliberate lack of precision with a lack of truth.

                      “should not be used in conjunction with the words never or always.”
                      Because you say so ?

                      Again you are offering a preference as if it is a fact.

                      In fact you are making a broad generalization that my generalization is bad because it uses specific words – you are doing a veriation of what you are accusing me of.

                      “(that had nothing to do with All men are created equal).”
                      That is a clearly broad generalization that is clearly false as written.

                      “Registration of disease is far from accurate in Africa”
                      True but the error rate necescary for you to be right or me to be wrong is unlikely.

                      “and I am not concerned with Africa, my concern was with the US.”
                      Then offer actual data – not the same unsupported generalizations you are accusing me of.

                      “I’ll accept that measles affected over 30% not no more than 30%.”
                      You can accept whatever you want but absent data it is WEAKER than my claim.

                      ” I don’t need to worry about the rest in this discussion so maybe the CDC’s number “almost all” was 50%. That is still greater than 30%.”

                      Again you are trying to take out a generalizationt that should be easy to do if false – and your refutation amounts to maybe once it is probable that it might have been 50 not 30.

                      Maybe, once, probably do not refute a generalization.

                      “It’s an important difference in numbers for one has to ask themselves why wouldn’t all get infected by a virus if it had high infectivity. In adults that might mean prior infections provided protection. In a child that is much less likely.”

                      The explanation only matters when you have established that you have an actual counter example.
                      You have not reached that yet.

                      I will be ecstatic if after weeks of arguing you finally prove that at some point in time the Measles actually infected more than 30% of people.

                      I will be forced to admit that I am not holding 5 aces, just a royal flush.

                    30. ““Questionable data” Generalizations are not “questionable data”

                      John, you have started an entirely new discussion so I will respond to your new argument that I believe totally distorts the context of my reply.

                      Where did I say ‘generalizations are questionable data’? You linked one discussion with another and continue to do so without showing where your linkage is correct. I brought this up more subtly earlier. I even broke the three discussions apart in separate responses to stop such linkage.

                      My statement of questionable data wasn’t intended to comment on generalizations rather it had to do with your statement involving the max % that could be infected. I brought up measles because I feel confident that measles is a respiratory virus that in the US infected more than 30%. I brought up the comment from the CDC because you said you couldn’t find anything on the subject. To date that is the best documented answer we have.

                      I am confident that if adequately searched we would find higher than 30% were infected with the measles virus. That places your statement of fact in doubt. That is why I don’t like never or always. I don’t have the same problem with your generalization of 30% because it is a reasonably helpful generalization though I don’t think measles should be included. (Take note why I thought that to be important. That could be an explanation as to why many adults didn’t get infected with Covid-19)

                      I will not respond to the rest for it is repetitious and gets us nowhere.

                    31. “““Questionable data” Generalizations are not “questionable data”

                      John, you have started an entirely new discussion so I will respond to your new argument that I believe totally distorts the context of my reply.

                      Where did I say ‘generalizations are questionable data’? ”

                      You didn’t, you misused “questionable data” as a claim against generalizations.

                      You introduced something new I did not.

                      You are free to question my data – you have not done that well on that front so far.

                      Regardless, you made another category error.

                    32. “You didn’t, you misused “questionable data” as a claim against generalizations.”

                      John, you are welcome to generalize away. I understand that facts and generalization are supposed to have little perceiveble differences to the observer. When you generalize and say it doesn’t rain here, I will still consider an umbrella.

                    33. “I wouldn’t consider Africa. If you don’t know the % that had measles in the US pre vaccination then I don’t expect you to know the % that had measles in Africa.”

                      20M people have measles world wide in a year most in Affrica. The fact that we do not know the pre vacination numbers in the US does not change the fact that there are about 1.3B people in africa. Most have not been vacintated. Most are not otherwise immune.

                      But lets work the other way.

                      If there are 20M cases in the world – lets assume they are ALL in africa – that would be the worst possibility for my argument.
                      If my 30% claim is correct, that means that there must be LESS THANT 60M unvaccinated people in Africa who have never been infected
                      I can’t off the top of my head prove that is wrong – but it is completely implausible.

                      “You threw out a 30% number.”
                      Nope, I observed that there is no respiratory virus/epidemic that I am aware of in the past 100+ years that exceeded 30% of the population.

                      I beleive the Spanish flu was about 27%

                      I did not pull that number out of my ass. Nor did I check EVERY SINGLE respiratory virus epidemic ever.

                      AS I noted in my poker analogy – I am hinting that my hand has 5 aces. It is possible that I am bluffing.
                      Maybe all I have is an Ace high royal flush.

                      It is not necescary for my generalization to be absolutely true in ever possible instance ever.
                      it merely needs to be sufficiently close to correct that the probability of being wrong in the instance of C19 is incredibly low.

                      You are a very smart person, but in numerous instances you get twisted by probabalistic logic.

                      In manufacturing they strive for a 6sigma error rate 99.9999% error free.

                      That means that if you grab an item off the end of an assembly line you have a 1 in a million chance it is defective.
                      That is not the same as perfect – but it is pretty dam close.

                      A scientific claim that is wrong 1 in a million times – is wrong.
                      At the same time a scientific claim that is wrong one in a million times is intriguing and very useful.

                      Newton’s laws are WRONG. And yet 99.9999% of everything that humans do relies on them.
                      The structure of every single building ever built was calculated using Newton’s laws – which we know are wrong.
                      Even all current space travel is calculated using Newton’s laws.

                      WE only have to reject newton when we are dealing with particle accelorators and the few things in the human world that travel at near the speed of light.

                      My point is I can be wrong in my generalization – and still fundimentally right in my argument.

                      I asked you for a single counter. But it would actually take dozens to completely undermine the usefulness of the generalization.

                      BTW we do this all the time. The overwhelming majority of “expert” recomendations regarding Covid are just the recomendations the experts have for colds and flu combined with the assumption that C19 is unlikely to be radically different.

                      But one of the problems is that in a few ways – it is. A spread rate of 2.4 (aparently the “official” number is a range – 2.0-3.5),
                      is sufficiently higher than cold or flu that techniques that would work on cold’s or flu probably do not work for C19.

                      We have NEVER stopped the cold or Flu using the measures we are using against C19.
                      And it is not likely they would work. And C19 is almost an order of magnitude harder to stop.

                      “The only question is whether your number of 30% held true for the measles in pre vaccination times. I think not.”

                      Do you beleive that something like 99% of africa is vaccinated ?
                      I think not.

        2. You are in your cabin in the forest where food is plentiful. The problem is the forest has wild animals that can kill you.

          Your solution is “buying time” and wait until the wild animals in the forest disappear while you starve to death.

            1. Thanks John.

              By the way I sent a note to Darren that you will probably read. Do you have any suggestions? Sometimes WordPress blocks replies and that is what is happening.

              1. I have no suggestions and no ideas what is going on.

                I have seen several “replies” that were clearly directed at me, but were actually replies to your or others post.

                I do not know if this was an error on the part of the poster or a WP anomally.

        3. ““Buying time” is otherwise known as staying alive, or the winning strategy of successful animal species.”

          Nope, the math is simple – unless you can bring R0 below 1.0 for about 2 months, you accomplish nothing.
          You increase the cost, and you increase the harm to the most vulnerable.

          The faster this goes through the easier it is to protect those less healthy.
          The longer it takes the more likely C19 gets to the most vulnerable.

          If you actually want to save lives – you need to get through this as fast as possible and to agressively protect the must vulnerable during that time.

          Progressives wouldn’t understand.

          They confuse feelings for facts.
          They think viruses respond to their commands.
          They think that “public safety emergency” means time to F’k with people.
          They do not give $h!t about doing good, only about being perceived as virtuous.

        1. Young,
          Temperature is also a factor for influenza. I’d also hazard that folks being outside more and thus getting more vitamin D might play a role, too.

    5. Btb, all this is interesting but the question that needs to be answered is what one expects from a mask.?

      I do not wear a mask when outside and distanced from others.
      I do not go into a place that is crowded and the air is not sufficiently ventillated.
      I tell you these things to be transparent.

      The question based on your WP article should be whether or not people should be wearing shields instead of masks, masks instead of shields or both.

      The virus can travel through the mask or around the shield.

      1. Given that masks are not correctly viewed as absolute protection, but a means to limit the spread of the virus, I think the obvious practice should be to wear one of the better types, which by that study does not require specialized or hard to obtain masks. I don’t know anything about shields, except they are also recommended in certain situations. Your practices are sound from what I know.

        1. Btb, take a look at what you wrote. There was nothing wrong with your opinion or your suggestion.

          Take note you didn’t advocate the passage of laws to fine or incarcerate those that don’t agree with your opinion. Can the government pass a law to do those things? Yes. But should those laws be onerous? One has to evaluate the circumstances so that government doesn’t step too far and I think you will agree with that. What is ‘too far’ is the question that different people will argue over.

          The way to make that determination is to look at science and consider how people react, but most of all recognize that the rule of law makes the law pertain to things you don’t like as well as things you like. If masks are deemed necessary or one will be arrested (not good in general) then it has to go for all people even those that are protesting on your behalf. That would also mean that one doesn’t pick and choose which stores remain open and which must stay shut. The law needs to be for everyone made in the least intrusive fashion to satisfy a specific aim that, in this case, is *necessary* for the health and safety of the people.

          1. I have not advocated for punishments for specific groups for failure to wear masks, and like all laws I favor them being applied sensibly but equally.

            1. I didn’t say you did. So far there is a wide berth of opinion that can be considered reasonable even if the interpretatioon of science is pointing in a way that accepts viruses do what viruses do.

              1. No, there is not a wide birth of opinion on recommended practices to combat the virus. Successful humans do not typically consider fools with experts when choosing a course in difficult times. People like John are welcome to pick their favorite color and upcoming rapper, but no one with any sense cares about his medical recommendations.

                1. John is quite smart and logical. He can run rings around you but you don’t see that because of your affliction, a perfect example of the Dunning -Kruger effect. Different countries have handled things differently so the expertise widely varies. This doesn’t mean I agree with everything John says, I don’t agree with everything he says though I can see his logic. In your case I see a very closed mind that is incapable of learning and incapable of critical thinking.

                  I’m not trying to be insulting. That is who you are. You are likely to be as nice a guy as the rest and likely to do your job as well as evereyone else. We don’t require genius in every part of our lives and this blog is essentially meaningless so you can make a fool out of yourself if you wish or you can garner a reputation of credibility and insight.

                  Try arguing the opposite position. When you can do that well you can argue the position you believe in. So far you have yet to create arguments to bolster your side that I think are good. I can think of many solutions to virtually all the problems that the left is concerned with, but solutions are not what is being searched for. The left is looking for power and you are the type of raw meat they gobble up to provide them with energy.

                  1. Says the guy who is a walking example of the “Dunning – Kruger effect”. And I’m sure you are accused of it on a regular basis in your real life…, hence you coming on this blog and accusing others of it.

                    1. Bug, look at your postings and how little intellect they demonstrate. Listen to your loud bluster. Yep. Dunning – Kruger effect is written all over you.

                    1. Bugs, when your statement came in the email it looked like you agreed with the portrayal of you: “John is quite smart and logical. He can run rings around you but you don’t see that because of your affliction, a perfect example of the Dunning -Kruger effect.”

                      Thanks for making things easy and your agreement regarding your mental deficiency.

                  2. The problem with BTB and others on the left is that they are immoral.

                    I appreciate your compliments – but it does not honestly matter whether I am smart of stupid.

                    Each of us is free to live our lives as we choose – so long as we do not use force or inflict actual harm on others.

                    We can F’up our own lives – if you freedom does not include the freedom to make mistakes, it is not freedom,.

                    Morality does not exist without liberty – free will.

                    If you violate the free will of others without justification – you enslave them a little bit more. You are immoral.

                    While BTB and CTDHD are wrong on the facts and wrong on their accusations – it would not matter if they were right.

                    When you wish to use force – Govenrment to take away the free will of another – you must meet high standards of justification in order to be able to act morally.

                    Just as you can not kill anyone because you want to, you can not infringe on their other liberties either.

                    You and I have a debate over what constitutes sufficient justification – but those on the left do not accept that the use of force against another must ALWAYS be justified.

                    It is not enough to claim that something is a good idea.
                    It is not enough to be elected to a position of power.
                    It is not enough to have the support of a majority.

                    To use force against others to get your way – you must PROVE that your use will actually result in the greatest good.
                    And even that is not sufficient, but it is necescary.

                    That does not prevent you from persuading others to do as you wish.

                    I choose to wear a mask in public.
                    I choose to avoid people as much as possible.
                    I choose many things that BTB and CTDHD think should be law.

                    But the fact that I agree they are good choices for me – does not mean I can impose them by force on others.

                    Sweden is used as an example here.

                    The swedes did close schools – breifly.
                    Swedes have social distances, and worn masks and followed most of our CDC guidelines – but they have done so voluntarily.
                    Some people have chosen not to, but most have.
                    Further swedes individually adapted their behavior as C19 worked through their nation.

                    There was no lock down, there was no end to the lock down.

                    The swedes individually CHOOSE when to relax social distancing and mask wearing.

                    And as they did so things did not spike – but if they had people would have changed their behavior on their own.

                    No swedes are marchin on their capital with guns demanding an end to lockdowns.

                    Swedes are also not rioting or looting because their have pent up anxieties.

                    Everything that occurred in sweden as by choice.

                    To a large extent Sweden was no different from anywhere else – except that they let people make choices themselves – and mostly they made good choices.

                    1. “You and I have a debate over what constitutes sufficient justification – but those on the left do not accept that the use of force against another must ALWAYS be justified.”

                      Those on the left have mindsets of slaves and totalitarian rule. They think of themselves as the leaders and the rest of their movement as slaves to their ideas. They are perfect for a Stalinist revolution. Their only problem is that after the revolution their heads will be the first on the chopping block.

                  3. Here is an MSM article that cites NUMEROUS experts who are now seriously exploring exactly the things i have been talking about regarding C19.

                    Regardless of whether you call it herd immunity or something else it is clear C19 never infects more than about 1/3 of a relatively contained population.

                    There are innumerable variables which we only have educated guesses, but it is still pretty clear MUST exist – because C19 ALWAYS follows approximately a logistics curve but does not ALWAYS infect 25% of the population. Regardless, Princess Diamoncd probably give us an upper limit.

                    Absolutely my claims about natural resistance or immunity are educated guesses – regardless C19 has never infected more than 1/3 of any population, and that can not be accidental. We do not need to know EXACTLY why some pattern exists to accept that it is likely near immutable.

                    I have offered specific explanations – and there is evidence that they are likely correct, But it does not matter if I am right.

                    Maybe there is a gene that makes only 1/3 of us susceptible. Maybe it is cosmic rays. It does not matter what the explanation is.

                    Only atmost 1/3 of us will get C19 that is about as close to an immutable fact as we ever get in nature.
                    We can count on it with near certainty.

                    It is also near certain that C19 will NOT infect 100% of the infectable population.
                    i.e. SOME people who could get C19 manage to avoid C19.

                    That is also important. It means that even if we have little control over the total number who get infected.
                    We do have some control over which people among the infectable people get this – or more important which DO NOT.

                    Trying to protect everyone is not merely impossible, it is actually A BAD idea. There is no evidence that we can succeed.
                    But the harder we try to protect EVERYONE the more likely it is that C19 will infect those who are weakest.

                    Rather than fixating on protecting EVERYONE we should be focusing on protecting those most likely to die.

                    Recent data has come out that NY’s Nursing home deaths are vastly higher than reported.

                    In NY if a person gets C19 in a nursing home and it sent to a hospital they are reported as a hospital death.

                    It is likely that 50% of all NY deaths were NH deaths.

                    There are other reasons this is likely correct – as it tends to be True elsewhere – Sweden. Italy, Maine

                    C19 deaths skew RADICALLY by age. While most diseases – including the flu have an age mortality curve,
                    Few are so clear and extreme as C19.

                    The Flu kills BOTH the young and the old. C19 does not. It is a single curve not a complex on that increases exponentially with age.
                    Further nearly all deaths – young or old involve OTHER comorbidities.

                    C19 just plain does not kill healthy people. It does not even appear to impact them much.

                    Therefore we can EASILY identify those we should protect.
                    If you are not among those with some meaningful risk of death or serious illness – we should be doing NOTHING.
                    We can not force you to NOT mask, but the more healthy people that get C19 the fewer people will DIE.

                    The left can not seem to grasp that

                    One of the things that is disturbing – that this article Ducks, is that much of what I am saying has actually been KNOWN before C19 struck.

                    While the C19 mortaily curve is pretty unique – most diseases hit BOTH the young and the old,

                    It is STILL well known that in an epidemic you focus on the Vulnerable. Not Everyone.

                    We have NEVER in history had any consequential impact on a respiratory virus except through a vaccine.

                    It is likely that SOMEDAY we will. I think we have learned ALOT from C19,
                    It is pretty compelling at this point that we can develop vaccines much faster than initially claimed.

                    In reality that has been known for a long time and is true of much more than vaccines.
                    The time and cost of bringing any drug or treatment to market is inversely proportional to the degree to which we are paranoid about its safety.

                    If you accept that there should be any regulation of drugs at all – beyond holding drug makers accountable when they harm people,
                    then the amount of testing should be proportional to the size of the population taking the drug and inversely proportional to myriads of other factors – such as otherwise terminal illness. or severe debilitation. It should be clear that we should move fast on treatments that MIGHT help for people who will die or be miserable without treatment.

                    The same BTW is try of C19. I have been following HCQ for sometime.
                    I am not convinced that it is effective.
                    I am absolutely convinced that the fight against it is criminally immoral.

                    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/covid-spread-cant-only-be-explained-by-whos-being-bad/ar-BB17VlsC

                    1. John Say – during the Renaissance, when the plague would hit, people with money (kings, princes, wealthy merchants) would literally leave their rat-infested cities and take their show on the road for several months, hence their survival. Some of us, who are at high risk are avoiding places where we could get it. That doesn’t mean we are immune, only that we are not putting ourselves at risk.

                    2. Paul, how true. When any “plague” would hit NYC in colonial times those that were well off enough also travelled far and wide. They would even go from the Wall Street area to the countryside in Harlem about 10 miles away. Now this same group goes from Manhattan to the Hamptons 90 miles away and some finding that no longer suitable go to Florida and elsewhere. Unlike the former years they now carry the “plague” with them all over the world.

                    3. Paul – I do not object to anything that you do to protect yourself – wise, unwise, I do not care.

                      As to your argument – 75% of New Yorkers are not holed up in their Adirondack cottages trying to save themselves from Covid.

                      Covid has nearly stopped in large parts of the country and large parts of the world.

                      It has done so – whether people are wearing masks, whether they are locked down, whether they are social distancing.

                      Is it possible that these “policies” alter the overall outcome – maybe, it is even likely that they alter the outcome for those few individuals who isolate themselves the most. But it is highly unlikely that they have a significant impact on the overall outcome.

                      Why ? Because there is no discernable global patter correlating to policy conformance.

                      And for a significant effect there would have to be.

                      Let me offer 3 hypotheticals.

                      1). No one masks.
                      2) Everyone masks.
                      3). 50% of people mask.

                      I will bet you there is no significant different in the total number of actual infections between these 3 scenarious.

                      That said Scenario 2 will likely result (all other things being equal) in the highest number of deaths. Because it will protract the epidemic and the longer the epidemic lasts the more likely the least healthy will be infected.

                      Scenario 3 will produce the least number of deaths – so long as those who masked are the least healthy and those who did not are the most healthy.

                      Further regardless of what group masks in scenario 3 – those who masked will have a better outcome that those who do not.

                      The only way Scenario 2 produces a better outcome than 1 and 3 is if the Transmission rate is reduced below 1.0.
                      And that is unlikely.

                    4. John, without careful and exacting definitions of the word “infect” I would be cautious using the word NEVER in the fashion used: “has never infected more than 1/3 of any population”. The point, however, that you are trying to make is a reasonable jumping off point.

                      “i.e. SOME people who could get C19 manage to avoid C19.”

                      And some might get C19 and no one might be the wiser with our present knowledge. Those same people could transmit the virus without our ability to prove they were ever carriers. We cannot assume that our present knowledge provides us proof of who has or hasn’t been infected. What we actually deal with are probabilities.

                      “Recent data has come out that NY’s Nursing home deaths are vastly higher than reported.”

                      Likely all death numbers are inflated, but actual NH deaths continue to top the list. There is no doubt that at the onset of any catastrophe one should be analyzing who is at most risk. In this case it seems the elderly and the sick were the vast majority of the group. There are those that fit into the gray area. To me that means voluntary actions in isolating the sick and voluntary provisions of extra protection to those in the gray area. The rest can voluntarily do as they wish.

                      In other words voluntary was key but the low risk groups do not have the right or freedom to increase the risks of the groups more at risk. Rights go both ways not just one.

                      Of course attention had to be paid so the health sector would not be overburdened. It was only overburdened in limited areas for limited amounts of time. Additional focus was necessary to those services vital to the nation.

                      All of the above pertains to any epidemic. Viruses will do what they do and they do not change how they react based on leftist nonsense.

                    5. What definition of “infect” will result in Any physical population group having greater than 1/3 infected ?

                      When we start to get very detailed – definitions matter.

                      When we are trying to decide if masks reduce R0 to 1.68 or 1.4 – precise definitions matter.

                      But I am deliberately making a sweeping and broad argument/generalization. Because that is both a powerful argument and an easily observable one.

                      We have been having a spit ball contest over accuracy and precision.

                      Accuracy and precision ARE NOT required 100% of the time. It is important to know when they matter and when they do not.

                      If you are accusing someone of a crime or of a moral failure – they are critical.

                      If you are trying to determine a large macro trend – they are not.

                      Finding some country that had 40% infections – would undermine the precision of my generalization – NOT the point.

                      It is entirely possible that exhaustive data analysis with mutliple regressions might find some small benefit from some government policies.
                      But it is not possible that any future benefit wheedled out of the data, will overcome the obvious cost.

                    6. “What definition of “infect” will result in Any physical population group having greater than 1/3 infected ?”

                      John, you are making the assumption that we always know when a person has been infected.

                    7. “John, you are making the assumption that we always know when a person has been infected.”

                      No I am not. Please cite ANY measure that has claimed that the infection rate by any standard is over 1/3 in any group of atleast 1000 ?

                      The entire point of the breadth and lack of specificity of my assertion is that – while there are LOTS of claims of LESS, There are no claims of MORE.

                      BTW I do not think ANY respiratory virus EVER has “infected” more than 1/3 of a population.

                      There is no reason to expect that C19 will be the magic exception.

                      A great deal of the point is that though in the real world every credible broad generalization might have very rare exceptions – but the rule is still meaningful. C19 MIGHT be the magic exception. That is highly unlikely.

                    8. “No I am not. Please cite ANY measure that has claimed that the infection rate by any standard is over 1/3 in any group of atleast 1000 ?”

                      John, much of this is definitional and that leaves out the unknown factors that I do not like to exclude and that is why I don’t like the word never. It closes the world so you see only what you expect to see. Lets create a theoretical possibility. A person gets infection but the disease is not detected and the patient produces antibodies that work but aren’t detectable using present methodology. How would you know he was or wasn’t infected?

                    9. ““No I am not. Please cite ANY measure that has claimed that the infection rate by any standard is over 1/3 in any group of atleast 1000 ?”

                      John, much of this is definitional and that leaves out the unknown factors that I do not like to exclude and that is why I don’t like the word never. ”

                      I have offered a huge generalization. One that should be trivial to refute if false.

                      You say it is definition – but I allow most any meaningful definition.

                      “Lets create a theoretical possibility. A person gets infection but the disease is not detected and the patient produces antibodies that work but aren’t detectable using present methodology. How would you know he was or wasn’t infected?”

                      I wouldn’t and do not care. While my generalization leaves open any meaningful defintion – it does preclude meaningless ones.

                      If it is impossible to tell the difference between a few people who were infected and recovered and people who were never infected – then that difference is not meaningful.

                      What we have no means at all to know – is ONLY hypothetical.

                      I would note that the claim I am making for C19 is also true of every other respiratory virus.

                      By whatever definitions you want – we have never had a flu or cold or … infect more than 1/3 of any large population.

                      If you wish to hypothesize that 70% of us are infected by the flu, colds, … never show symptomps, and do not develop detectable anti bodies. While I am dubious of that – it does nor really alter my claim.

                      Regardless, there is little point in arguing this further.

                      I have made my generalization.

                      I am not interested in a protracted discussion of infected by undetectable asymptomatic people.

                      Nor am I specifically interested in a debate with you. Whatever nits you might pick, we are not significantly at odds on anything that flows from this generalization.

                      The C19 panic porn purveyors are the targets of this generalization.

                2. “No, there is not a wide birth of opinion on recommended practices to combat the virus.”
                  Actually there is a great deal of competing information,
                  And competing scientific oppinion on the effectiveness of different measures

                  “Successful humans do not typically consider fools with experts when choosing a course in difficult times.”
                  Then why are we listening to people who have told us one thing at one moment and another at another ?

                  Regardless – you are free to listen to whoever you please.

                  You are free to call me or those I favor whatever you please.

                  What you are not free to do is to use FORCE to compel that anyone else follow your preferences – absent at the bere minimum real world proof that what you seek to do is effective.

                  And you do not have that. There is at this time no PROOF that any measure is effective.

                  You say the US has done the worst in the world. Lets assume that is true. The US has followed ALOT of the recomendations of your experts – and still done worse than countries that have done little or nothing – atleast if we are to trust the statistics you rely on.

                  Currently India is doing incredibly well. They are relying on wisespread propholactic use of HCQ,

                  Yet your experts claim that is inneffective and dangerous.

                  My point is not that India or HCQ are effective.

                  It is that Contra your claims there IS very wide divergence on C19 and there is not much evidence that what YOUR prefered experts are pushing is effective.

                  India may be doing well because of HCQ, it may be doing well because of proximity to the equator. It may be doing well because of much lower incidence of obseity. It may be doing well because Indian health statistics are kept using different standards than the US.

                  But what is true REGARLESS is that you are wrong that there are well established and proven answers – there are NOT.

                  1. You say the US has done the worst in the world.

                    You can never figure out if it’s mendacity or innumeracy which lies behind statements like these.

                  1. There isn’t – I have not claimed there was not.

                    But too many people think that laws are enforced by magic.

                    I am not as an example entirely happy with the behavior of police.

                    BUT police are the ENFORCEMENT arm of government.

                    When people do not obey the law – police – men with guns, come.

                    When they refuse to cooperate with the police – FORCE will be used.
                    It may not be pretty.

                    The police did not make the law – WE DID.
                    It is their job to enforce it – whether they agree with the law or not.

                    It is our job not to make laws we do not wish enforced.

                    When a law is broken – you do not send a social worker.

            2. “I have not advocated for punishments for specific groups for failure to wear masks, and like all laws I favor them being applied sensibly but equally.”

              When you ask for law, you ask for punishment. PERIOD.

              and like all laws they are NOT applied sensibly but equally.
              That is a given.

              Regardless, WHENEVER you make a law – no matter how minor, you should always remember that it is possible, even likely that eventually someone will be killed for failing to follow that law.

              NYC made a law against selling loose cigarettes. Eric Garner refused to follow that law, and it cost him his life.

              Law is FORCE, it is ALWAYS punishment.

              Law is not a good idea we hope everyone will follow. It is a demand for compliance backed up by men with guns.

        2. “Given that masks are not correctly viewed as absolute protection, but a means to limit the spread of the virus, ”

          Limiting the spread is ONLY of value if you can reduce the spread rate below 1.0.
          If you can not accomplish that you actually make things worse.

          You increase the risk to the unhealthy – because they are going to be more heavily impacted if the virus is drawn out.
          And you decrease the risk to the healthy.

          That is pretty close to the opposite of what you want.

          “I think the obvious practice should be to wear one of the better types”
          What is obvious to you is not obvious to everyone.
          And in the real world things that are obvious sometimes prove false.

          Regardless, no one is precluding you from making your own choices.
          I have ZERO argument with anyone who chooses to wear the best mask they can.

          ” I don’t know anything about shields, except they are also recommended in certain situations. Your practices are sound from what I know.”

          There are TWO independent goals.

          One is the reduce the spread rate in the GP below 1.0. That requires a number of measures – no single measure we have is close to able to do that. I would note we have NEVER done that with the Flu or most colds which are HALF as infectuous as C19.
          Further, if you can not reduce the spread rate below 1.0 – then any societal measures are NEGATIVE – as they increase the risk to the unhealthy and the prolong the duration. ‘

          The other is to reduce your risk as an individual. That is NOT accomplished by wearing a mask.
          It is accomplished by a wholistic approach to reduce your specific risks of infection below that of everyone else.

          You are not targeting that sub 1.0 spread rate, you are targetting Better than the average.

          If you actually wanted to mandate C19 policy – you would MANDATE that those at high risk be heavily protected and those not be UNPROTECTED and get this over as quickly as possible.

          That is NOT what i propose. But if you are willing to use FORCE, that is the best acheivable outcome using force.

    6. Thanks for the info, BtB. Someone I spoke with recently suggested using a mask with a pocket, where it was easy to place another piece of folded fabric inside, as increasing the layers can increase the filtering (the mask I made for myself has four layers, and I can still breathe through it). And here’s a segment I recalled from a few months ago about adding an overlayer of pantyhose, which helps masks fit more tightly without hindering breathing:
      https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/04/22/840146830/adding-a-nylon-stocking-layer-could-boost-protection-from-cloth-masks-study-find

      1. I suspect no mask you can breathe through is going to be dense enough to stop a virus. Many viruses are not filterable, meaning even a typical laboratory filter used to catch bacteria will let a virus pass through. However, viruses can be teeming in droplets exhaled, sneezed or coughed from an infected person and a decent mask can stop most of those. Taken together, it is likely a mask is protecting others from your exhalations to some degree because a lot can be caught in them. Surgeons wear masks to protect their patients from them rather than the other way around. All in all, I wear a mask in the grocery store, but not on a hiking path or bike or at home.

          1. The goal is trivially explainable – to reduce the R0 – Transmission rate below 1.0.
            That goal can be accomplished through combinations of measures.

            But unless you can reach that goal and sustain it for a month possibly two, then you accomplish nothing beyond more harm to the less healthy.

            You can link all the sites you want – the math is pretty simple.

            The problem is that sustainably reducing the transmission rate below 1.0 is NOT easy.

            If N95 masks in the real world are as effective as they are in a lab – which is highly unlikely,

            For a single exposure they reduce the transmission rate to .7 But for multiple exposures the transmission rate increases rapidly.

            If the real world effectiveness is only .5 – the transmission rate would still be 1.2.

            As I have noted before – in hospitals using the best PPE available, with a .97 reduction in transmissions after sufficient time almost everyone ends up testing positive.

            It is really really hard to lower the transmission rate of a Virus with a rate of 2.4 below 1.0.

            Stoping the flu would be far easier – and we have never succeeded at that

      2. Many N95 masks come with suck a “pocket”.

        The mask is cloth and can be washed. The pocket is for a replaceable carbon filter that is the primary impediment to the virus.

  7. The more important problem is that it violates the constitution.

    If you want to wear a mask – wear a mask.

    In the event there was clear and compelling evidence that masks were beneficial – and the current evidence is not clear and compelling.
    It still would be immoral to force people to wear them.

    1. Public safety in an emergency is always justification to curb your precious rights to be a free spirit and to do it your way.

      Cue Born Free.

      1. “Public safety in an emergency is always justification to curb your precious rights to be a free spirit and to do it your way.”

        Nope – what you are saying is what Tyrants have said from the begining of time.

        Public Safety is ALWAYS the justification for tyrany.

        And as always it is never clear that you know what you are doing.

        It is highly probable that masks are atleast minimally effective. But the actual probability and the actual effectiveness are NOT KNOWN.

        We could certainly know those better than we do – but you are not interested in knowing the truth – petty tyrants do not care about the truth,
        They care about imposing their will on others by force.

        To infringe on the freedom of another by force it is NECESSCARY to prove that infringement will not merely have a positive benefit – but a significant one. You have not done so.

        The use of force without justification is immoral – it is no different from rape – one person imposing their will on another by force.
        We should all just lie back passively and try to enjoy it. After all it is purportedly for some greater good.

        You have fought me over C19 before – and you REMAIN WRONG.

        The UK possibly more than any other country in the world did exactly what the experts demanded – and it has had just about the worst outcome or any significant country in the developed world.

        Sweden has done precisely the opposite of what you have dictated – and C19 appears to be close to over in Sweden.
        There is no 2nd wave and people have been relaxing the measures they take over the past month.

        You have claimed that the US red states had a 2nd wave – yet again new positive tests are solidly trending down, and throughout this “2nd wave” the trend in deaths has remained FLAT. You wanted to debate twaddle with me over these two weeks ago, but time has past – and no clear upward trend in deaths. Pretty close to flat for something like 11 weeks.

        On point after point you have been WRONG. You “experts” have been no better than blind men throwing darts after being spun arround 5 times.

        And you demand the power to piss on the rights of others because of a “public safety emergency”

        RIGHT – find actual evident that “the experts” have been consistently right about anything regarding C19.
        Find actual evidence that they have even been consistent.

    2. John, I welcome your energy and conviction. However, I have to disagree on a couple points.

      First of all. The mask orders are not unconstitutional. This is a misunderstanding.

      The states have emergency powers which relate to public health, just as the Crown did before them, and such general police powers devolved upon the states.

      There is a pandemic, however less bad it is than it was predicted, it can surge back, it has harmed many people and lead to whatever, 150,000 excess deaths, and you are in la la land if you think masks are completely ineffective. Feel free to write another book about this if you like but I am sick of hearing all this feckless liberterian schtick out of you.

      Understand, the states have every right to mandate a modest public health measure based on expert scientific recommendation by epidemiologists
      All along the states have been exercising exceptional powers to follow and suppress veneral diseases, for example. Take a look into that subject if you want to understand how serious the powers to protect public health can be, and how they can be fully exercised in a summary police manner without judicial interference. If you are ignorant of this, then go inform yourself and quit spouting your uninformed opinion as if it is some high falutin genius.

      ———————————————————————

      Now, second of all, back to your tiresome liberterian schtick which is out of sync with what’s needed in these emergent circumstances.
      in case you lack the imagination to understand we are in a low intensity conflict and where it may be headed:

      The states also have general police powers to quell riots. Indeed, the failure to restrict the BLM demonstrations was an object example of the unfair exercise of police powers in favor of one group at the expense of others. And society has been harmed by BLM riots, not only due to the arson and looting and violence, but also due to COVID spread.,

      At this time, the last thing any smart person would do now is want the states to be restricted to some liberterian shrinking weiner idea of castrating the police with lofty interpretation of “the constitution” that would strip their powers

      Because the police having more power is exactly what is needed now, they just need to use it.

      We need to kick Devil in the mouth with organized violence of extreme vigor now, lead by the police,
      and then lock him up enchained like Loki to cause no more trouble until Judgment day.

      Liberterians need to understand when we enter into a situation of anarchist induced collapse of law and order, only strongly organized counterforces of government can restore law and order. There will be no Rothbardian “anarchocapitalist private security teams” saving the day. It will most likely be local county or state police forces which finally step up and quell the rioters with organized force. When it happens we must applaud it and stand by their side and ready to support further strong measures.

      Liberterians since they are by their own lofty notions, just a bunch of isolated individuals, are useless in such a struggle. But at least realize it is in your duty to stay out of the way and let law and order regain its proper place. Because mobs of anarchists and the like will always eat isolated individuals up from breakfast. Whereas organized communities with a sense of purpose and willingness to use legitimate and effective force will secure their own existence. it is in the community that our future lies, in the community of productive and orderly citizens united to secure law and order, that our fate lies, not as a bunch of cowboys or caricatured “individuals” from one of Ayn Rand’s dated and laborious novels.

      1. Reading what i wrote, I realize i should have added, that the essential flaw in liberterian critiques of emergency powers, is that they fail to address precisely what can and must be done in emergencies to secure publio safety and order. Which is, in the mind of a liberterian, some sort of scary broad based rules that “restrict freedom.”

        Now i have a lot of doubts about the contradictory statements Fauci has put out, the messed up politicized science, and the screwy excesses of the COVID scare. It seems to have a lot of dimension of fakery about it, though I have no doubt there is a real pathogen at work and personally welcome mask use to suppress the spread. But there are a lot of bogus politicizations happening for sure

        But don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. I dont want people with measels running around, They better stay home and if they go out I welcome their arrest.

        Same thing is true of a thousand other communicable diseases which may be out there besides the boogeyman COVID.

        Guess what, I am also for compelled vaccination. Provided of course, the medicine and science is genuine. I have zero problem with legally compulsory vaccination for stuff like MMR for example.

        Again: do not throw the baby out with the bathwater. do not sway into excessive liberterian notions that will bind our hands at the very moment we need them free.
        This is cutting one’s nose off to spite the face.

        Call me a fascist if you want and I know you will be tempted to do so John, but the state can and will have a role in revitalizing our society from its current decadent state. I am more interested in sustainable community survival and prosperity– the good of society, to put it differntly– than I am in any enlightenment bromides which are perpetually misused by the parasites of society against us. Eventually, we will make it happen. And if we have to do a lot more than forcing people to wear masks, whatever it may be, we’re gonna do that too. When it arises, as needed. Necessity will be the guide and not shibboleths from the long dead hands of Tom Paine or Massa Jeff.

        1. “Necessity will be the guide and not shibboleths from the long dead hands of Tom Paine or Massa Jeff.”
          I’m sorry, I just had to copy that sentence and repost it. Just because it sounds awesome. Not sure of the exact meaning although I have a good idea. Kind of poetic there, Kurtz. Rock on.

        2. Kurtz,
          I completely disagree. I do not know what has gotten into you lately.

          “enlightenment bromides which are perpetually misused by the parasites of society against us.”

          They are not and they do not. No crazy critical theory prof, BLM protester, Antifa member, or even any milquetoast liberal is quoting the best ofThomas Jefferson or Thomas Paine in any positive light to support their ideologies.

          1. Hmmm. I made an assumption I shouldn’t have.

            “enlightenment bromides which are perpetually misused by the parasites of society against us.”

            Who do you mean, Mr. Kurtz, when you say ‘against us’? Who is ‘us’?

          2. The enlightenment was not about Bromides.

            It was about philosophy. Specifically the philosophy that became the foundation of our government.

            Just as it is not possible to understand the constitution without the declaration of independence,

            The declaration is just the philosophy of the enlightenment summarized.

      2. “First of all. The mask orders are not unconstitutional. This is a misunderstanding.”

        Using the constitution as written as conservatives properly seek to do, any federal mask mandate would be unconstitutional.

        A state mask mandate would be unconstitutional under the priviledges and immunities clause of the 14th amendment using the same as written and as understood by those who wrote it.

        I have no problem agreement with you that they are constitutional as the constitution is interpreted today.

        But as the constitution is interpreted today – anything could be constitutional tomorow depending on whether John Roberts has indigestion or not.

        There are consequences to unarmored constitutional interpretation.

        BTW I am not philosophically committed to originalism.

        But any means of reading the the constitution and the law that is not both timeless and certain – understandable by all, is to a significant degree lawless.

        The constitution and law must means the same today as the day they are written – because that is the only way each of us can be sure about the lawfulness of our actions.

        But that does not mean the constitution and law are unchangeable – if we conclude they are wrong – we litterally change the constitution.
        And we can trust that in a decade that change will mean the same as it does today.

      3. “Understand, the states have every right to mandate a modest public health measure based on expert scientific recommendation by epidemiologists”

        That is nowhere in the constitution – or to my knowledge any constitution.

        It is also a very stupid standard. Experts – regardless of the subject are constantly wrong.

        We see that with C19. The left wants to lambaste Trump – but the fact is there is no evidence that following the advice of any expert would have produed a better outcome.

        The least that should be required to use force over others is the assurance of a better outcome.

        FDR demonstrated that the “experts” can not run an economy – why do you think they can run a pandemic ?

        If FDR is not enough for you – every statist government everywhere – the USSR, the PRC has failed to manage the economy.

        Do you think that Pandemics are easier to manage than the economy ?

        Further why just health science experts ?

        The point of Basiats “the seen and the unseen” is that every problem cascades accross many domains.

        The experts on epidemiology do not have the skills or knowledge to grasp or even care about the effect of their choices in other domains.

        One of the most important attributes of free markets is that they integrate ALL our values proportionate to their importance into decisions.

        That is something that experts can not possibly do.

        “All along the states have been exercising exceptional powers to follow and suppress veneral diseases, for example.”

        You make this shallow argument constantly. It is no better made by you than the left.

        I am not specifically familiar with the data on VD, but in other areas there is no evidence ever that government fixating on any problem changed the existing trend line for that problem.

        Improvements of all kinds accross the board occur because our standard of living has risen sufficiently that we can afford them.

        We did not move from wood, to coal, to oil, to gas, to electric because they were cheaper. We moved because each was cleaner than its predecessor., and rising standard of living made possible the expression of that value.

        We see the same changes occur as the standard of living of a nation rises – as we have seen in other nations that reached hugher standards of living earlier. Safety as an example improves independent of government regulation.

        Specifically in the area of health starting in developed countries in the mid 19th century life expectance doubled over a very short period.
        And it did so before government because seriously involved in health.

        Less developed nations had the same dramatic improvement – merely delayed about a century as the same changes occured.
        And again if government public health existed in these countries it was infantile.

        Today much of the world has a life expectance very close to the wealthiest countries in the world. Despite vast differences in public healthcare or just healthcare.

        It takes very modest and inexpensive changes to raise life expectance from 40 to 75, But radical and expensive ones to get from 75 to 78.

        Why would i want to read a byunch of public health experts congratulating themselves on accomplishments that they had little to do with.

        There is no reason to beleive government is any better at managing health, than the economy, than climate than ….

        “If you are ignorant of this, then go inform yourself and quit spouting your uninformed opinion as if it is some high falutin genius.”

        My oppinion is far more informed than you credit.

        The difference between us is that unlike you I grasp what Adam Smith noted more than two centuries ago.

        “Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism, but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice; all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things. All governments which thwart this natural course, which force things into another channel, or which endeavour to arrest the progress of society at a particular point, are unnatural, and to support themselves are obliged to be oppressive and tyrannical.”

        It does not matter what the subject matter is. The incredible standards of living of the modern era, were NOT brought about by technology, or science but by the modern elevation of individual liberty.

        All the things you note are important, but they are not causes.

        would sugest reading Coase

        https://www.amazon.com/dp/1137351438/?tag=mh0b-20&hvadid=77790499075405&hvqmt=e&hvbmt=be&hvdev=c&ref=pd_sl_1j78365xcd_e

        It is an amazing book. China’s post Mao explosive growth was NOT planned. It all occured AT THE MARGINS, and it all occured because the Chinese govenrment looked the otherway until they had no choice but to accept.
        The book ends in 2013, But Coase predicts modern China – including its more recent slow failures.

        You like those on the left place too much faith in experts – especially government experts – the worst kind.
        And have no faith that as their standard of living rises – people will solve the problems that are important to them on their own.

  8. It is August 12, 2020 and Michael Flynn is still a political prisoner. Judge Sullivan, dismiss the charges now. Free Michael Flynn.

    1. Flynn isn’t in prison.

      And Sullivan is appropriately waiting for a ruling on the writ of mandamus from the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard oral arguments yesterday.

      1. He is still at risk of losing his liberty as a consequence of an investigation that violated his civil rights.

        Over an offense that you continue to claim -not based on the facts – most of which we now have which exonerate him, But based on this bizarre claim that Flynn most have lied because everyone said he did.

  9. Kamala Harris will NEVER be eligible to be U.S. president.

    Kamala Harris’ parents were foreign citizens at the time of her birth.

    – A mere “citizen” could only have been President at the time of the adoption of the Constitution – not after.

    – The U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, requires the President to be a “natural born citizen,” which, by definition in the Law of Nations, requires “parents who are citizens” at the time of birth of the candidate and that he be “…born of a father who is a citizen;…”

    – Ben Franklin thanked Charles Dumas for copies of the Law of Nations which “…has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting,…”

    – The Jay/Washington letter of July, 1787, raised the presidential requirement from citizen to “natural born citizen” to place a “strong check” against foreign allegiances by the commander-in-chief.

    – Every American President before Obama had two parents who were American citizens.

    – The Constitution is not a dictionary and does not define words or phrases like “natural born citizen” as a dictionary, while the Law of Nations, 1758, did.

    ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    Law of Nations, Vattel, 1758

    Book 1, Ch. 19

    § 212. Citizens and natives.

    “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

    ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    Ben Franklin letter December 9, 1775, thanking Charles Dumas for 3 copies of the Law of Nations:

    “…I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author…”

    ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    To George Washington from John Jay, 25 July 1787

    From John Jay

    New York 25 July 1787

    Dear Sir

    I was this morning honored with your Excellency’s Favor of the 22d

    Inst: & immediately delivered the Letter it enclosed to Commodore

    Jones, who being detained by Business, did not go in the french Packet,

    which sailed Yesterday.

    Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to

    provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the

    administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief

    of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen.

    Mrs Jay is obliged by your attention, and assures You of her perfect

    Esteem & Regard—with similar Sentiments the most cordial and sincere

    I remain Dear Sir Your faithful Friend & Servt

    John Jay

      1. If Kamala Harris IS a “natural born citizen,” who IS NOT?

        Why is “natural born citizen” in the Constitution as a requirement to be a candidate for the office of president?

        1. Melania Trump isn’t a natural born citizen.
          Ilhan Omar isn’t a natural born citizen.
          Lots of people in the U.S. aren’t natural born citizens.
          And lots of other people in the U.S. *are* natural born citizens.
          Kamala Harris is among those who are natural born citizens.
          And no one gives a f*ck what your bizarre beliefs about it are, George, as your bizarre beliefs about it have no effect on reality.

          That said, I wish Biden had picked a better V.P. Harris isn’t honest enough. But Biden/Harris are still a much better choice than Trump/Pence.

          1. If Kamala Harris IS a “natural born citizen,” who IS NOT?

            Why is “natural born citizen” in the Constitution as a requirement to be a candidate for the office of president?

            1. “And no one gives a f*ck what your bizarre beliefs about it are…”

              – CommitToHonestDiscussion
              _______________________

              Judging from this reaction, someone does.

                1. I believe that about 25% of George’s comments are actually thought provoking challenges to the usual thinking, and i welcome them as such.

                  It would be higher than that, except he has a pattern whereby he is usually repeating the same four or five points over and over again

                  In this he is a consistent projector of his themes, but for us here daily sometimes we skip over them without remarks.

                  I just want George to know, I appreciate his contributions. Just as I do some of the other valued partners in dialogue with whom i may or may not agree at any time such as John Say or Anon-Book or Seth-Peter or Bug-Elvis. I do not even mention those I tend to agree with more often, you know who you are and keep up the good work

                  We should aim for a lively and interesting conversation, or else why bother?

            2. “…as your bizarre beliefs about it have no effect on reality.”

              – CommitToHonestDiscussion
              _______________________

              Judging from this reaction, they had a profound effect on something and someone we know.

              1. He more likely stabbed them both, cut them into little parts, and methodically placed their body parts in the freezer

          2. Kamala is who the Dem elitists wanted from the beginning. She’s the perfect candidate for the Donor class.

            Biden had zero to do with that choice. But Biden is now nothing more than a puppet with Dementia.

            Nonetheless, the Harris pick is another nail in Biden’s coffin. The DNC may have to jettison Joe before November.

    1. Was India targeted by China the way the U.S. was?

      Have you researched the airline flight patterns out of Wuhan?

      Have the statistics from India been certified by a credible agency?

      1. Interestingly, China released “China Flu, 2020” on the world, with emphasis on the U.S., extended the subjugation of Hong Kong, agitated Japan (Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga said that Tokyo remains “gravely concerned”), then commenced kinetic military action on India.

  10. KAMALA PICKED AS BIDEN VP–

    https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/08/11/us/biden-vs-trump

    YOU HEARD MR KURTZ PREDICT IT FIRST– not weeks but MONTHS ago

    how could a nobody Trumper out in flyover ever make a call like that?

    well, i admit i missed it the first pass because i had previously predicted she would win the field and she didnt

    Instead she is in line to take over for Joe when that 25th amendment thingee kicks in, assuming he wins, and the cognitive decline continues.

    So look closely at this candidate because if Joe wins she has a more than usual chance of taking over

    1. oh i forgot to explain my method. I watch the big donors to the Democrats, certain locations. This gives a picture of who pays the piper to call the tune

      some strong money that’s backed Hillary, came out early for Kamala. That’s all there was too it. you have to know the networks folks, and watch that FEC data over time and get the picture.

      Now as to the other front runners for VP, I will tell you what aced them out very easily: looks.

      Notice something funny about Huma Abedin and Kamala Harris. Both are modestly attractive brunettes. I know some may disagree, but bear with me. There was another rising star named Tusli Gabbard, another brunette. She had Hillary backing, then she lost it. now she’s been shoved aside.

      There are other attractive brunette women in the Democrat top tier. One Arab, one mixed east Indian/black (kamala) and one mixed white/Indian (Tulsi).
      If you want to see other rising stars in the wings, look for that particular look brunette, wavy hair, light tone but not pure white.
      There are some others out there but I won’t name names.

      Now this may be coincidental, or, actually, it may be marketing. They are looking over a pool of capable rising lady politicians for that light but not white, brunette with wavy hair look.
      It is a seller and if you look at demographic studies for “Complexion of America” you will notice that such things have been analyzed by advertising geeks for quite some time.

      https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1996-03-20-9603200112-story.html

      from 1996, about the “New Betty Crocker” — a mixed race. yet light skin toned brunette

      “But on Tuesday, General Mills Co. unveiled a new, multicultural image of Crocker that company officials said represents, for the first time, the diverse cross-section of the real-life cooks who use their products.

      Timed to coincide with the corporate symbol’s 75th anniversary, the newest Crocker makeover–the result of a computer-generated amalgam of 75 diverse women–was designed to illustrate the changing demographics and faces of American women.

      And that she does. The new Betty is a radical departure from the blue-eyed, motherly looking Crocker of old.

      She appears to be younger and darker, and features a broad smile, a stylish hairdo, contemporary clothing and accessories, and facial accents that could be interpreted as Caucasian, Hispanic, Asian or Native American.

      “People’s impressions of Betty Crocker will be determined by their environments and backgrounds,” said General Mills spokeswoman Cindy Guettle, of the eighth Crocker makeover, which will begin appearing on products in late spring. “She’s got a bit of all the women across America today in her.”

      That includes women like Elaine Birks, a 32-year-old single African-American financial adviser who operates a catering business in her spare time in Minneapolis. And women like Waiyee Kennedy, a 33-year-old Chinese-American legal secretary in Utica, N.Y., and Christine O’Neill, a 48-year-old Art Institute of Chicago executive and mother of two.

      Birks entered herself in the contest that would help redefine the new image because, “Betty needed to come into the 1990s, just like everybody else has.”

      And in the ’90s, after decades of cultural and social changes, not all women resemble General Mills’ previous incarnations of Betty Crocker.

      If anything, they are starting to look less and less like the Betty that used to be on cookbooks.

      Census figures show that the country is undergoing significant demographic shifts, and that by the year 2050, only about half of the nation’s population will be non-Hispanic whites.

      The predominant minority group will be Hispanics, who will see their numbers more than double in the next 55 years, according to the Census Bureau.

      The numbers of blacks, currently at 12 percent, will rise slightly, and Asians, currently at 3.3 percent, will also see a dramatic increase in their numbers.

      “The new Betty Crocker reflects the complexity and diversity of American society right now,” said Peter Stearns, dean of Carnegie Melon University’s school of humanities and sciences.

      1. Who else has a light skin tone, wavy brunette, decent looks? let’s throw a few names after all.

        the obnoxious AOC

        who else?

        Susan Rice

        ————- one could go on and on

        there are some whites who fit the bill too. Gretchen Whitmer

        Asian: Tammy Duckworth, probably has black hair but she colors it brown.
        a little weaker in the looks department then these others too, but again, light tone, wavy brunette

        Klobuchar is a white brunette, but not pretty

        Among Republicans– michelle bachman is close to type, but white
        Melania, darker tone white, into tanning, light brunette, super hot
        Pinay Michelle Malkin actually is closer to the favored democrat type now. Philippinas often have mixed spanish-chinese-polynesion ancestry which yields precisely the light tone mixed race that advertisers love these days. No offense to Malkin, a very smart and brave lady.

        back to Democrats

        notice that Liz Warren and Kirsten Gillibrand are the white nordic look.
        that probably lost it for them right there, since they are representative of the hated white race’s more rare type
        (i dont hate the white race but the “kingmakers” obviously do)

        now, nobody wants to talk about looks in public on the Democrat side, nor prolly Republicans either
        but I guarantee you in private they do. I do not speculate, I merely report.

        1. Mr Kurtz, this is funny.

          I worked in casting. Not the independent casting, but the Big Time studio casting at a major 4 player studio.

          Anyway, I was at my cubicle, and the asst across the way was laughing to himself on mute of a 3 way call with director producer and VP of casting, and I looked at him and said ‘What gives?’ With hand gestures and mouthing words.

          He mouthed the words back, “Pick up, on mute.”

          So, I 4 wayed in from my desk cubicle on mute, and Lol, the producer director and VP of casting were all talking about Tit Size. Yep, Boob Size was the No. 1 Agenda on who the leading lady was going to be in the movie.

          I looked at my co-worker and started shaking my head. And he was laughing.

          And it went a lil something like this:

          We think Scarlett Johansen has really nice brest, at least a good double D, but Anne Hathway is definitely a runner up. Did you see the movie where she was top less?

          Yeah, I saw it. I think I prefer her boobs to Scarlett Jo, bc they’re more round and full.

          Well, we could always have both of them do breast comparison on the two options, but its all about what the male audience out there wants to pay to see, like which lady will bring in more male audience.

          😉

          And there you have it. Supporting and lead ladies getting picked not On Talent, but Boob Size.

          Mr. KURTZ reminded me of this anecdotal incident.

          1. WW33 confirms that “central casting” are very invested in aesthetics, whether you agree with their tastes or not

            They are often making their selections based on marketing studies such as I shared regarding the remake of the “Betty Crocker” image in 1996 from a blonde white woman to a brunette with light skin tone of indefinite racial mixture.

            This was purely a marketing decision. White self described ‘racialists” sometimes see such thing and think it’s anti-white. It actually isn’t. It is based on some kind of marketing stuff that actually sells.

            At the tippy top of our American society, the truth is, they only see green.

            I’ll give you another quasi famous tv lady that has the look, and I recently found out, she is actually a big leftist. I used to like her sort of, not now. Padma Lakshmi

    2. First, Kamala Harris attacked Joe Biden’s racist policies (did she forget?).
      Next, she ends her pathetic run at President.
      Then, 3 months after ending her own campaign, she reluctantly endorses Biden.
      After that, Biden gets accused of sexual assault, so he vows to choose a woman as his VP.
      And now, Sleepy Joe announces Phony Kamala as his running mate.

      – President Trump