Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News

Drudge Retort

Menu

Subscriptions

Drudge Retort RSS feed RSS Feed

Links

Recent Comments

Recent comments from all news stories on this site. Users must follow the site's moderation policy. Personal attacks, profanity, abusive conduct and expressions of prejudice are not allowed. If you want to retrieve a comment of yours that was recently deleted, visit your user page and click the Moderation link.

The EO:

www.whitehouse.gov

First of all, *gag* to the tacky newsletter sign up pop up ad that says "Welcome to the Golden Age!"

Reading this, there are some real gems of idiocy that only a s*&^ for brains like RFK could say with a straight face.

For instance:

it is the policy of my Administration that Federal programs and funding should support maximal parental choice over childhood vaccines, consistent with the Federal Government's constitutional and statutory obligations and the fundamental principles of personal autonomy and informed consent.

Existing case law affirms the power of state and local governments to enforce vaccination mandates for the public good. The Jacobson decision, IIRC, is well over a century old.

The Gold Standard Childhood Vaccine Recommendations also recognize that the combined measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccine should be administered in three separate single-disease shots once such products are domestically available and that, to the maximum extent feasible, all childhood immunizations should be administered at separate medical visits.

So here they are meddling in markets, forcing companies to produce products they don't want to produce.

Also, the last part all but guarantees that overall vaccination rates across the board are likely to fall. Expecting constant visits ensures all won't be administered and spacing them out removes synergistic effects of co-injections that are designed into the schedule. This is anything but "gold standard science" driven. It's bulls*&^ driven.

Section 4 opens a free for all for the stupidest, least capable parents among us to ensure their little spawns have every chance to become typhoid Marys.

I hope states counter this with new laws that state any parent whose unvaccinated child causes death or serious illness to another child by transmitting a preventable disease should be criminally charged. You want "freedom"? Fine. You should also get the consequences of your negligence.

#15 Oh?

First Amendment.


click image above for a larger view

But you do you, Clown.

I am going to post this here again

Reminder of how we got here
1. Piggy unilaterally pulled out of the JCPOA despite Iran abiding by it
2. Piggy attacked them last summer without warning, declaration or justification-during negotiations.
3. Piggy agreed to a ceasefire with Iran last summer.
4. Piggy attacked Iran AGAIN, during negotiations, without warning, declaration or justification despite Iran abiding by the ceasefire.
5. Piggy launched the current war with a cowardly sneak attack that murdered their leader and infants.
6. Piggy launched this unjust, unjustifiable, illegal, immoral attack because Israel recognized a target of opportunity-the Iranian leader at home during peacetime.
7. Piggy murdered Iran's negotiators and moderates in the Iranian leadership.
8. Piggy bragged about murdering Iran's leadership-despite this being a war crime.
9. Piggy has threatened to murder Iran's negotiators.
10. Piggy signed a MOU to stop the fighting.
11. Piggy immediately breached the MoU.
12. Piggy has attacked unarmed commercial vessels traversing the strait
13. Piggy has regularly threated to end Iranian civilization
14. Piggy flounders between outrageous threats and actions-seizing the Strait and charging a toll, giving Saudi Arabia nuclear technology and immediately TACOing because the corrupt gulf dictators tell him no.

None of the above even touches on the evil acts of our ally Israel

America is the bad guy

We deserve to suffer.

In light of the above undeniable facts, I ask again

Why?

Flock, Mass Surveillance, and the Collapse of Crime


Joshua Reed Eakle says that "in America we believe that liberty is more important than security." Do we? This isn't a statement I find meaningful. We clearly don't maximize liberty in every possible situation, but rather usually consider tradeoffs. Most of us would be happy for the police to detain us for a few minutes in order not to be hacked to death. And nobody says get rid of jails because, even if we are sure most people there are guilty, some innocent person is surely being locked up somewhere, and we must always choose liberty over safety. What is relevant is what kind and how much liberty and security we're talking about.

That is to say that there's no way to avoid cost-benefit analysis in situations like this. They pretend this is about larger principles, but it seems that anti-Flock advocates are going based on their own mood affiliation, which has a bias toward the status quo and against new forms of technology. We barely register large, multiyear drops in the murder rate, even though they cumulatively represent thousands of lives saved. At the same time, a couple dozen stalking cases facilitated by Flock will become national news, and while regular victims of crime are collapsed into unanimated numbers, those victimized in a novel way get the complexities of their inner emotional lives put on full display. When we're dealing with status quo problems, we express harms in terms of statistics, while moral panics are written about in the language of poetry.


www.richardhanania.com

If crime creates poverty (people stop investing in self, and community), wouldn't having 0 crime be the goal for the most liberty?

Drudge Retort

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy