America Is Back?

Joe Biden says that America is back.

This is how The Washington Post Daily 202 reported about Biden's trip to the G-7 Summit in Europe.

President Biden carried two messages to Europe this week: A confident declaration that “America is back” and a fretful warning that the world’s democracies face internal and external threats unlike any since the Cold War.

This is how Politico reported on the same Biden message.

Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2021/06/09/bidens-message-as-he-lands-in-europe-americas-back-492720

America is back?

I am trying to figure out what objective facts support that statement.

Crude oil prices are up 95% in the last year.

Gasoline prices are up 56% over the last 12 months. That is the highest annual percentage increase since 1980. Most of the increase has come in 2021.

Source: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GASREGW/

What has Biden done about it? Cancelled the authorization for the Keystone pipeline and made it much more difficult to do any oil and gas exploration or drilling in the United States.

The consumer price index was up 5% for the 12 months ending May 31. However, prices were up 1.4% in just the last two months. That is an annualized rate of 8.4%.

Our southern border is being overrun by illegal immigrants.

Illegal border crossings have increased by 674% in the last year.

Source: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9670359/Illegal-crossings-rise-fourth-month-row.html

You can see the numbers yourself from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) website.

Compare 2020 vs. 2021.

The surge COINCIDENTALLY took place right when Biden took office.

Keep in mind these numbers also only show the illegal immigrants who were apprehended. Who knows how many more snuck into the country undetected?

The number of small businesses open in the United States has declined by 39% since January, 2020.

Source: https://tracktherecovery.org/

More troubling is the fact that the number of small businesses that have closed has increased over 10 percentage points since election day, November 3, 2020.

This is despite the fact that two rounds of stimulus payments were paid since that time.

Source: https://tracktherecovery.org/

Could it be that the stimulus payments and the enhanced unemployment benefits in those Biden and Democrat-driven bills have actually accelerated the demise of these small businesses because of the inability to find employees?

As of the end of April, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that there were a record 9.3 million job openings in the United States. This is the highest total since this statistic was first tracked beginning in 2000.

How is it that we have so many job openings but employers are now saying that they can't find anyone who wants to work?

The United States is facing a $3.1 trillion budget deficit for the 2021 fiscal year according to the most recent estimates.

However, Joe Biden has proposed a budget that would have $6 trillion in spending and produce a budget deficit of $3.7 trillion next year. Yes, that means that projected revenues in the budget only account for 38% of spending. The balance will be further federal debt and money printing.

The Biden budget also included the important change in language wherein all mothers are now to be described as "birthing people". 

Source: https://news.yahoo.com/biden-budget-proposal-replaces-mother-213406794.html

We are looking at $3.7 trillion deficit and the Biden OMB is spending time on "important" issues like this?

America is back?

Does it look like that to you?

If we are back, it seems like someone put the ship of state in reverse.

The Road Not Taken

In January 2020, just as we were beginning to learn about the pandemic in China, I predicted that it would be difficult to ever get credible numbers on cases in that country.

I wrote this on January 30, 2020 questioning the reliability of what we were told about the number of cases reported in China.

No one knows if this data is reliable. How many cases are there that are not being reported? How much can the Chinese be relied on to be completely truthful on what is the real story?

The key statistic that I want to keep my eye on are the reported deaths from the virus. Those numbers will undoubtedly tell us a lot more about the effects this virus will have on mankind.

The death rate from the flu is around 1 in 800 cases. More importantly, most people have had the flu and recovered, so it does not produce the fear that an unknown virus can cause.

So far, the death rate from the coronavirus is running at around 1 in every 50 cases (2%). Of course, that assumes the denominator (the number of total cases) is as accurate as the count on the deaths (which I assume is more accurate). That is a lot scarier than a normal case of the flu.

It is a year and a half later and there are still a lot of questions about the reliability of the numbers.

It is still difficult to get a reliable number of the total cases we have had in the United States.

The CDC reports that the official confirmed case count is that 33.2 million Americans have been infected with the virus.

However, this count only includes those that were tested.

How many others had the virus and were never tested?

I know scores of people who have told me that they had something that resembled Covid (fever, cough congestion, tiredness, loss of taste and smell) but were never tested. A fair number of those were in late 2019 or early 2020 before we even knew Covid was here.

The CDC  estimates that only 1 in 4 Covid infections has been officially reported.

It puts the estimated number of total infections at 115 million (thru March 31).

Source: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burden.html

That would be slightly more than 1/3 of the population of the United States.

Through March 31, 2020, there had been about 551,000 reported Covid deaths.

That works out to an IFR (infection fatality rate) of about 0.5%.

That is 1/4 of what the early reports were coming out of China.

However, it is also 5x what we typically see in annual deaths from the flu. Covid is clearly much more deadly than the seasonal flu.

Shortly after the lockdowns were instituted in March, 2020, I stated that I was most interested in seeing what the excess overall deaths were from Covid.

I said this because it was clear from the beginning how much the death burden was skewed to the elderly.

The question in my mind was how many of these deaths would have resulted from other causes anyway and whether locking down the under 65 population made sense considering the enormous economic and social costs that would result.

This is what I wrote on March 23, 2020 (about halfway through the 15 days to slow the spread campaign).

It seems to me that the excess mortality number is the most important data point in all of this. It is especially important as the President and others have to look more critically this week at the trade-off between our public health and our economic health.

Perhaps total deaths is not a number that we have routinely collected or monitored on a daily basis across the United States. It probably is a number than gets reported from death certificates in the various states on a monthly basis to the CDC.

Even if we have the number on a daily basis it probably lags a couple days compared to deaths because of the lag in getting the death certificate signed and filed.

However, I am a numbers guy. I think President Trump is one as well.

If I was sitting in his chair I would be demanding to see the total death numbers across the United States every day and compare it to the numbers that were projected before all of this started in order to determine the excess mortality number from Covid-19 in real time.

We need better data than what I am seeing. I would also not want to get this number a year from now and find out we destroyed the economy by not having the right data when we needed it.

Is is over a year later and we now have those numbers.

Did we make the right call in locking down the economy and our schools?

Here is summary of 2020 deaths versus 2019 deaths per CDC data.

This analysis breaks out reported Covid deaths in 2020 and then subtracts that number from total deaths in 2020 to get a number for non-Covid deaths in 2020. Each of these numbers is then compared to 2019 totals.

Credit: https://twitter.com/COVIDData3/status/1397763443621572610/photo/1

The first thing that is interesting in looking at the data is that total deaths for children 0-4 was actually lower in 2020 than in 2019 even in the middle of a pandemic.

Why is this?

Is it due to the fact that Covid is less fatal to children than the flu that essentially disappeared in 2020?

Is it due to the fact that parents kept a closer eye on their children during the lockdown.?

Consider as well that this decline occurred even though children were not going to the doctor for well child visits and getting vaccines for other diseases for a good portion of the year.

Overall there were 533,458 more deaths in 2020 than there were in 2019 (+18.7%).

However, only 384,179 of these deaths during the year were attributed to Covid. For context, there were 3,388,140 deaths from all causes during 2020. Therefore, 89% of the deaths during 2020 were for something other than Covid. 

That means that there were also 150,000 other excess deaths attributed to something else than Covid.

We also know that the Covid death total is probably overstated. How many listed as Covid deaths died with Covid rather than from Covid? 

For example, Alameda County in California recently revised its Covid death totals down by 25% due to this reason. Counting a motorcycle accident death as a Covid death when the decedent tested positive post-mortem is not a Covid death nor should a pancreatic cancer death count in someone who was given one month to live before they tested positive for Covid.

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/health/california-county-cuts-covid-death-toll?yptr=yahoo

If you reduced the national Covid death totals by a similar percentage to what Alameda County did, the 533,000 excess deaths during the year would split about 288,000 Covid and 245,000 non-Covid.

This also makes Covid with a IFR that is still higher than the flu but no where near what we were led to believe the mortality was from Covid in March, 2020.

Speaking of mortality, here is another interesting chart that shows the mortality statistics for the United Kingdom since the beginning of the pandemic.

Credit: https://twitter.com/OutsideAllan/status/1401932302347812864/photo/1

One interesting stat in this chart is to look at the last two columns that show the probability of death by age group comparing all causes vs. with Covid.

The odds that an 80-84 year old dying from any cause in the UK since Covid began was 1 in 13. It is 1 in 61 with Covid.

The odds that a 10-14 year old would die from any cause was 1 in 11,187. The odds with Covid---1 in 392,785.

Tell me how it is justified to approve a vaccine for emergency use for children considering these numbers.

This is an emergency for children of these ages? 

In addition, what about the 150,000-250,000 non-Covid excess deaths in 2020 in the United States?

What was the cause?

It is particularly interesting in that these non-Covid excess deaths are particularly prevalent in those in the age 15-44 age groups.

The most obvious answer is that non-Covid excess deaths in these age groups are lockdown related.

Suicides? Drug abuse? Delayed treatments for cancers and other serious conditions?

For example, Dartmouth College had three suicides among its freshman class this year.

Three! These students were the cream of the crop. Why?

Source: https://www.vnews.com/Dartmouth-students-respond-to-deaths-of-classmates-40583109

What is the societal cost of the deaths of so many young people during 2020---not due to the virus but our public health response to the virus?

It is clear now that in addition to the economic cost of the lockdowns there was also a huge human cost in populations that were not very vulnerable to the virus.

There was another alternative.

Sweden chose a different public health response. It elected to protect the elderly and vulnerable populations as much as they could but to allow the rest of the population to carry on as normally as possible.

Where is Sweden on its excess deaths count?

Here is a graph showing excess deaths in Sweden since 2017 compared to baseline deaths.

Sweden's excess deaths increased by about 10% in April-May, 2020 and by about 5% in late 2020 and early 2021. However, in other periods over the last 18 months, Sweden has had lower than expected deaths.

Here is a closer look at deaths in Sweden comparing the 2017/18 flu season with 2020/21. For context, in the 2017/18 flu season Sweden only had excess mortality that year that was half of Europe.

Sweden has not had more deaths per million this flu season than it had in 2017/18.

Credit: https://twitter.com/TTBikeFit/status/1402945028008329217

Here is a comparison of excess deaths in Sweden versus the United States and United Kingdom.

Dr. Anthony Fauci and others said that Sweden was making a colossal mistake in its approach to Covid.

What would one say today?

There was another road that could have been taken. 

It was a road far less traveled in 2020.

Who made the colossal mistake?

“The Road Not Taken"

by Robert Frost

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,

And sorry I could not travel both

And be one traveler, long I stood

And looked down one as far as I could

To where it bent in the undergrowth;

Then took the other, as just as fair,

And having perhaps the better claim,

Because it was grassy and wanted wear;

Though as for that the passing there

Had worn them really about the same,

And both that morning equally lay

In leaves no step had trodden black.

Oh, I kept the first for another day!

Yet knowing how way leads on to way,

I doubted if I should ever come back.

I shall be telling this with a sigh

Somewhere ages and ages hence:

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—

I took the one less traveled by,

And that has made all the difference.”

Why Do They Have To Mislead Us?

 You may have seen or heard headlines like this late last week.

The CDC was out with a study on Thursday that seemed to claim that we were seeing a "troubling" increase in hospitalizations of teenagers for Covid.

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky called the data "troubling" during a press conference on Thursday.

"In the month leading up to the recommendations of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines for teens and adolescents 12 and older, CDC observed troubling data regarding the hospitalizations of adolescents with COVID-19," she said. "More concerning were the number of adolescents admitted to the hospital who required treatment in the intensive care unit with mechanical ventilation."

Walensky said the report's findings "force us to redouble our motivation to get our adolescents and young adults vaccinated."

Let's take a step back and look at this "troubling" increase in context.

This is the most recent CDC data on hospitalizations from Covid.

The top line shows total overall hospitalizations per 100,000 population.

The bottom line shows the rate for those in the 12-17 age group.

  

Source: https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/covidnet/covid19_3.html

There was an increase in hospitalizations in teens in the March/April period but this also occurred in the overall population.

Vaccinations for those ages 12+ (Pfizer vax only) were not authorized until May 12. By that time the hospital rate for teens was already heading down.

What is even more interesting in looking at the underlying data accompanying the CDC study are the details surrounding the hospitalizations. Bear in mind the CDC only looked at detailed data in selected counties in 14 states between January 1-March 31, 2021 for its study.

There were 376 hospitalizations of children age 12-17 in the study.

However, only 204 were admitted to the hospital with Covid symptoms. The remaining 172 (46%) were admitted to the hospital for something else and must have tested positive for Covid in the hospital.

Source: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7023e1.htm?s_cid=mm7023e1_w

Of the 172 who were admitted to the hospital for other reasons, 76 were psychiatric admissions for medical care.

That is an astounding number which says a lot about the effects the lockdowns and school closures have had on teenagers. It is over 3 times the number of hospitalizations for trauma in this age group.

Source: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7023e1.htm?s_cid=mm7023e1_w

In addition, 71% of the teenagers admitted with Covid symptoms had more than one underlying medical condition. 36% were obese. 31% had some form of chronic lung disease.

Source: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7023e1.htm?s_cid=mm7023e1_w

This seems to suggest that those that were admitted to the hospital with Covid had other significant underlying health conditions. Healthy teenagers are not being hospitalized with Covid.

It is true that the Covid symptom cases resulted in more ICU admissions.

However, more of those admitted for non-Covid symptoms ended up on mechanical ventilation than did those with Covid symptoms.

Interestingly, those admitted with Covid symptoms had shorter average hospital stays (2.4 days) than those who had no symptoms at admission (3.2 days).

Source: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7023e1.htm?s_cid=mm7023e1_w

It is important to also note that there was not one death reported that was associated with these hospitalizations.

Looking at all of this data in context, does this look "deeply concerning" or "troubling"?

Would it be fair to say that the CDC statements with regard to the underlying data is misleading?

Why was it done?

It was clearly done to scare parents (and the teenagers themselves) in an attempt to increase vaccinations in this age group with a vaccine that is only available to them under the an emergency use authorization.

It is also interesting that at the same time that the CDC in the United States was stating that  hospitalizations of adolescents with Covid was "deeply concerning" and "troubling" the European CDC came out with a similar report in which it said this.

Hospitalisation remains a very rare outcome for adolescents,with no indication of increases in either hospitalisation rates or the proportion hospitalised among this group

One of the most important ethical considerations in medicine is that patients should always be given the ability to have informed consent when considering any medical intervention.

This is what the American Medical Association has to say about informed consent.

Every medical intervention has benefits...and risks.

There is little doubt that the CDC and our government has worked very hard to inform people of the risks involving Covid-19 and the benefits of the vaccines.

However, they have done little to put the risks of Covid in context, especially for the young.

They have also worked hard to diminish any risks associated with the vaccines.

Is the information being provided on the subject of Covid and the vaccines such that it can be stated that "well-considered decisions about care" are being made?

For example, take a look at the myocarditis/pericarditis cases reported to the VAERS website (vaccine adverse events) by age from the Covid vaccine.

Source: https://www.openvaers.com/covid-data/myocarditis-pericarditis

Looking at how skewed these cases are to the young does it raise any question in your mind about increased risks to teenagers and younger children from the vaccine?

Bear in mind that 12-15 year olds were only first authorized to have the vaccine as of May 12. These numbers in VAERS as of May 28 are almost exclusively those in the age 16-18 age group.

Let's look at the benefit/risk equation.

I calculate that approximately 4 million in the 16-18 age group have had at least one dose of the vaccine.

139 adverse events specifically have been reported for myo/pericarditis thus far in VAERS for those between 6-18 years of age. Almost all of these are in the 16-18  age group.

That is a rate of about 3.5 per 100,000.

What is the highest rate of hospitalizations we have had this year per 100,000 from Covid among 5-17 years olds?

1.3 per 100,000 (the week of January 9, 2021).

Perhaps the hospital rate would be higher if we had the numbers just for 16-18 year olds. However, this data should clearly show that there is a substantial question about the advisability of aggressively promoting the use of an emergency use vaccine on teenagers and children.

Does the risk of the vaccine justify the benefit?

What justification is there for the Director of the CDC to use misleading data to promote vaccinating teenagers?

What justification is there for Governors and others to be offering million dollar prizes, free college, ice cream and other incentives for those who agree to be vaccinated?

When was it ever necessary to do anything like this to convince people to take the small pox vaccine, polio vaccine or other vaccines? These vaccines were also APPROVED. They were not authorized only for emergency use.

Shouldn't the benefits be self-evident?

Why do they have to mislead?

If they are willing to mislead about this, what more have we been misled about?

Fauci: Good Doctor or Fraud?

I became critical of Dr. Anthony Fauci about a month into the pandemic in a blog post titled "Two-Faced Fauci?".

In that post I summarized troubling examples of Fauci that belied his public persona as the objective, non-political medical-trained scientist giving us straightforward unvarnished truth.

I followed up with another blog post about Fauci in July titled "Does The Substance Match The Style" after Fauci agreed to a cover story in InStyle magazine that was nothing more than a puff piece extolling how great Fauci was. 

He was "The Good Doctor".

I had a very wise boss and mentor who advised me early in my career to always be on the look out for what he referred to as "the articulate incompetent".

These are the people who look good and sound great. They usually attended the best schools and know how to ingratiate themselves to the people who count. However, when you really considered what they  said or did, there was nothing there. 

In the corporate world these people could quickly impress others and be persuasive in their presentations. However, there was no substance to back up the style. This fact eluded most people and articulate incompetents could inflict major damage on an organization because they had people doing the wrong things for the wrong reasons.

Anthony Fauci seems to me to be an articulate incompetent.

On the other hand, you have the inarticulate competent.

This is a person who may lack polish and who is not traveling in the right social circles in the organization. They may be rough around the edges and might say and do things that make others uncomfortable from time to time. They undoubtedly did not get an advanced degree from the "right" school. Their experience usually centers around common sense and real world experience. People tend to discount what they say due to how they say it and how they act. What they lack in style they make up in substance when all is said and done.

Donald Trump might be considered an inarticulate competent.

In the last few days we are finding a whole lot more about Dr. Fauci and what he was doing behind the scenes during the beginning stages of the pandemic thanks to a FOIA release of his emails that became public this week.

Interestingly, the emails seem to answer my questions about whether there were two faces of Fauci.

For example, this email chain apparently shows that Fauci seems to be gravely concerned about revelations that the virus may have been man-made and have come from a lab in Wuhan, China.

Fauci received this email that was sent at 10;32pm on January 31, 2020 from Scripps virus researcher Kristian Anderson telling Fauci that the virus "genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory" and "some of the features (potentially) look engineered".

Source: https://twitter.com/Surabees/status/1400082639453831171/photo/2

This would clearly be troubling news for Fauci in that he had been involved in funding that went to the Wuhan lab.

It would be even more troubling if it was "gain of function" research that meant that virologists were doing work to create a lethal virus in the lab and it escaped or was purposely released by the Chinese when the money trail leads back to Fauci.

Note this email that same night (12:29am) that was sent to Hugh Auchincloss who was Fauci's second in command at the NIAID. Note that it references an attachment involving "gain of function".

Fauci was clearly burning the midnight oil that night.

Why?

Source: https://twitter.com/justin_hart/status/1399928120447098886/photo/1

This is apparently the pdf article that Fauci attached to the email which was co-authored by the head of the Wuhan lab doing the work on bat viruses (Dr. Zhengli-Li Shi) and UNC-Chapel Hill researcher Ralph Baric who was doing most of the gain of function research on these viruses in the United States until it was shut down in 2013 because it was deemed too dangerous. I first referenced the work of Baric in these pages on January 26, 2020.

Note the disclaimer that was added to this abstract in March, 2020 that there was no evidence that Covid-19 was engineered.

Fauci repeated this narrative that there was no evidence the virus came from the Wuhan lab. A narrative that very possibly that he had a hand in creating.

Fauci stated repeatedly in April and May, 2020 there was "no evidence" that Covid came from the Wuhan lab.

Fauci even contradicted the President of the United States when he was standing right beside him in April, 2020 after Donald Trump suggested that it might have come from the Chinese lab.

No evidence?

What about that email from Kristian Anderson to Fauci in January?

I would suggest anyone interested in the question of whether the virus mutated naturally from bats to humans, was bio-engineered, or escaped from that Wuhan lab somehow, should read this Vanity Fair article by Katherine Eban. It is LONG (11,000 words) but well worth the read.

The full truth is still not known.

However, the article seems to make clear that there was a concerted effort within the United States government bureaucracy to see to it that no one should even look for the truth.

Was Dr. Fauci involved in that effort? I don't know.

However, it is clear that he has been far from forthcoming on this subject as well as many others.

For example, here is Dr. Fauci corresponding with actress Morgan Fairchild (interesting he has time for this) on February 27, 2020 that there is nothing to be done right now to help the effort to fight the pandemic because the risk is low, there are few cases in the U.S. and the cases are well isolated.

Source: https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/1400153499183296521/photo/1

I found this email particularly interesting because in April Fauci was on various media outlets claiming that he had advised President Trump to shutdown the country the third week of February. He claimed Trump did not listen to him or other top officials.

This is from an article on April 12, 2020 reporting on Fauci's appearance with CNN's Jake Tapper on its Sunday show, State of the Union.

Do you find it a little inconsistent that Fauci is telling Morgan Fairchild on February 27, 2020 that the risk is low, and since there are few cases, there is nothing that needs to be done right now. However, he later told us that at the same time he was supposedly pounding on Trump's desk to shutdown the country?

Two-faced? You decide.

One final interesting email is one that Fauci wrote to Sylvia Burwell on February 5, 2020. Burwell was Secretary of HHS under Obama and is currently President of American University in D.C.

 

It appears that Burwell had inquired of Fauci whether should should wear a mask for a trip she was about to embark on.

Notice Fauci's response.

"The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out the virus, which is small enough to pass through the material."

Source: https://twitter.com/thechrisbuskirk/status/1400192844124524546/photo/1

Fauci also received an email from a staffer on March 31 summarizing the latest science on the effectiveness of mask usage in combating a virus in a community setting.

He was told that nine very diverse RCT's (the gold standard in science research according to Fauci) led to one bottom line result.

No difference in ILI/URI or flu rates when masks are used.

Source: https://twitter.com/andrewbostom/status/1400424950981447686/photo/1

Despite this, on April 3, 2020 (3 days after receiving the latest science on face masks) Fauci told the American people they should wear face masks to stifle the spread of Covid!

Source: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/what-dr-fauci-wants-you-to-know-about-face-masks-and-staying-home-as-virus-spreads

Of course, he later told everyone to wear two masks.

What is Fauci saying now about this?

He always likes to defend himself by saying that "the science changed."

It changed in 3 days?

Even today Fauci is saying that students in communities with lower rates of vaccination may have to wear masks in the Fall.

It remains to be seen what type of "science" he is relying on to say this?

From the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic there have been a total of 309 deaths in the 0-17 age group.

During the same time period, there were 45,513 deaths for these ages for all causes.

There are approximately 80 million children in the USA under the age of 18.

Source: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm#AgeAndSex

Does Fauci even consider the risk/benefit equation in all of this?

Regarding the masks? Regarding vaccinating children?

Fauci even admitted recently that requiring students to get vaccinated to attend school was debatable.

Fauci has continually been lauded by the media for his leadership during Covid.

Trump was continually castigated.

A year later, who had a better perspective on Covid?

You now can fully see the very real risks of following an "Articulate Incompetent".

I wrote this in that April 12, 2020 blog post about Fauci and my suspicions about his actions.

What this looks like to me is another life-long government bureaucrat trying to cover his rear end as the advice and the expert opinions he shared look increasingly suspect.

As this crisis passes and people look for those to cast blame, I believe that the public health bureaucrats should be first on the list.

One of the great tragedies of Donald Trump not serving another term is that I am positive that Tony Fauci would have been fired before Inauguration Day.

That is truly unfortunate.

However, the end of Fauci's power and influence looks to me to be nearing an end.

I thought that before the email release. I believe it more today.

It cannot come soon enough.

Is Liberalism A Mental Disorder?

In looking at the proposals and policy positions of hard core liberals I find it hard to understand what they are thinking.

In so many ways it seems that there is no connection to reality.

Defunding the police is going to make us safer?

Paying people not to work is good for them and our society?

Almost all problems in the United States are the result of white privilege?

We should allow biological males to compete with females in sporting events based on how they "identify" themselves rather than based on the genetic material in their bodies?

Attempting to ban the most efficient and cost-effective energy sources (the sources of which the United States leads the world) based on unproven models and theories about global warming?

Prosecuting and penalizing people for harming sea turtle eggs but arguing that we need to allow abortions up to and through the birth of a human being?

Welcoming hordes of illegal aliens along our southern border but doing nothing for people who risked their lives to support our troops in Afghanistan?

Scott Adams says that Democrats are human motivation deniers.

That is one way to look at it.

There is a big difference between theory and reality when it comes to human beings.

Most liberal ideas are well meaning and well intentioned. In a theoretical laboratory these ideas make a lot of sense.  I think that is why so many academics are liberal. The ideas make such great sense in the classroom or a textbook. The world would be such a great place if they did work. 

Unfortunately, in the real world these ideas must face reality. A reality where human beings make decisions based on incentives or disincentives relative to their own self-interest.  A reality where unintended consequences often have much greater effects than the intended consequences.

Radio commentator Michael Savage wrote a book titled "Liberalism Is A Mental Disorder" about 15 years ago.

His thesis is that the difference between what one believes and what reality and nature are is a measure of mental illness.

For example, consider the phenomenon of white millennial women dominating the Black Lives Matter protests a year ago and their avid support of defunding the police that I wrote about last year. 

How many young, white women do you see in this picture supporting BLM's calls to defund the police?

How many Blacks do you see in that picture?

This is what I wrote on all of this last July.

The biggest mystery to me regarding white millennial women who are supporting the Black Lives Matter movement so fervently is trying to figure out how they can be in favor of "Defunding the Police". 

Who do these young women think is going to bear the highest cost in our society if we defund the police? Does it cross their mind that a reduction in police presence might negatively affect them?

 

That is an example of a huge  difference in "beliefs" and "reality" that Savage points to in questioning mental fitness.

How do you explain it?

I used to think that Savage was merely using hyperbole when he compared liberalism with mental illness. It seemed a little bit over the top. I believed he was just doing it to get ratings and sell books.

The events of recent years has made me start to question whether there might be some truth in what he says.

This was reinforced recently with this survey from Pew Research that is interesting to consider.

That is a pretty big difference between those who consider themselves liberal versus those who identify as conservatives when it comes to a medical opinion of their mental health condition.

More troubling was the breakdown of this survey of young women under age 30.

56% of white liberal women aged 18-29 have been told they have a mental condition by a doctor or other healthcare provider.

The entire events of last summer make more sense when you see this survey data.

It should be noted that this survey was done in March, 2020 before BLM was even in the headlines.

Scott Adams asks another interesting question on Twitter.

All of this is not to say that there aren't Conservatives who have mental illness challenges. Look no further than those who are convinced that Joe Biden is in Hollywood acting as if he were President because he has been locked out of The White House and the Pentagon by the military. 

You also have those on the Right who believe that Trump is going to be miraculously reinstalled as President sometime this summer based on some far-fetched conspiracy theory.

There could not be a wider gulf between beliefs and reality here as well.

Psychiatrist Lyle Rossiter, Jr., M.D. has written a book on the subject that attempts to answer the questions of how the liberal mind works with an in-depth examination of the psychological reasons behind it all.

I haven't read the book but it offers an interesting perspective that might be worth considering from someone who has treated mental disorders for over 40 years.

This is an excerpt from the book cover.

Is liberalism a mental disorder?

I don't know.

The fact that this question has even been asked is troubling in itself.

Of course, the more we see support for proposals that make no rational sense and do nothing to advance the best interests of our society, our security, our safety, our economy, our nation, our families, or our individual freedoms, the more rational it becomes to ask the question.