What’s really behind vaccine refusal

News stories claim that many have not yet been vaccinated for SARS-CoV2 because 1) they can’t get an appointment or 2) Fox News is telling them not to.  Wrong on both counts.  Many are not getting vaccinated because these vaccines are still an experimental product until they are fully licensed, they know that their chances of getting COVID are low, the vaccines will likely not fully prevent one from transmitting the virus, and for some, they already had COVID.  But one of the biggest reasons is also that Japanese data shows that the lipid nanoparticles and spike protein are making it into parts of the body far from the injection site instead of staying put.  Yes, I know the study was a high dosage in rodents and yes, I know it is a small amount.  But it’s enough to cause inflammation of lymph nodes in some women, observed during mammography.  What’s the effect?  We don’t know, because not enough time has passed.  Some reproductive effects don’t show up for years.  So thank you, but I’ll wait for a licensed inactivated intact viral particle vaccine for COVID, if I ever take one.  And I haven’t watched Fox News in years.

Rebrand every decade, at least

I started this blog in 2010 after my daughter was born. My idea was to summarize a few important news stories not getting enough attention.  Now it is 2021 and there are plenty of news aggregator sites that do that.  But as I listen to podcasts and read some of those news stories, I often think, “It’s a shame this person doesn’t have at least one conservative friend so that they would be aware of more opposing viewpoints.”  Especially in cities like Seattle and San Francisco, there either are too few conservatives to speak up, or they’re too afraid to speak up for fear of getting run out of town.  So if you need to hear the viewpoint of One Conservative Friend (patent pending) that isn’t a ridiculous caricature, you’ve come to the right place.

Post-Election Musings Part II

Now that the election results have shown that there is definitely an anti-status quo mindset among much of the electorate, what's the next step?  I mentioned in my last post that there seems to also be some cognitive dissonance going on with people that will vote down taxes, but will also vote for the same people that want to raise taxes.  Some might argue that people just want something for nothing. There are probably a few votes that can be explained that way, but not many.  People know on one hand that high taxes hurt family budgets.  However, they also seem to think that voting to cut government programs, no matter how wasteful, inefficient and demanding of ever higher levels of taxation they are, isn't "nice," and so they vote for people that are going to keep these programs running and either raise taxes or run deficits to pay for them.  In order to change this, conservatives need to tailor their message to this reaction.  They need to communicate this message (more effectively than I will here):

1.  The taxpayers, which includes your neighbors, family and friends, already give the government huge amounts of money.  It isn't "nice" of you to vote for people that want to be more generous with their money. 
2.   Government agencies with "nice" names often don't do what their names imply.  The Department of Education has little to do with the successful education of children.  The EPA does little to protect the environment.  These are mainly political organizations for implementing controversial policies without a public vote.
3.  It isn't "nice" to give people just enough public money and/or services to maintain them as the "working poor", when those people might get out of poverty if that money were left in the private sector.
4.  If we don't make serious and immediate government cuts, the level of taxation and restrictions on freedom that will be required in the future will ensure that the lifestyles of our children and grandchildren won't be "nice."

Post-Election Musings

I haven't posted much in the last couple months, and I would love to tell you that I was hard at work on election campaigns, but that depends on your perspective.  I did a little sign-waving and wrote some checks to candidates, but that's about all I could do in terms of "traditional" campaigning as the mother of as small child that needs a lot of my personal attention (and rightfully so).  What I also did is talk to my co-workers and some friends (that aren't already conservative) about how they were voting and why (and how I could change their minds if need be).  I found that while most of them were willing (and did) vote to repeal recent tax hikes and reject new ones, they also voted for the same elected officials (all Democrats) that gave them those tax hikes and supported new levels of taxation!  I am still trying to understand why this happens.  Why vote for someone today that you are going to have to overrule tomorrow? This will require some more thought and (I hope) it will lead to some interesting discussions.

The New Question on Rights

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/os-mike-thomas-quran-burn-090910-20100908,0,5042689.column

Executive Summary:
If no one in the media had given Terry Jones the time of day, would this be a story?  Aren't the media a little to blame as well if anything truly violent happens?  Yes, the press is free to do as they wish, but shouldn't they exercise a little better judgement, just like Terry Jones?

Analysis:
In reading some of the commentary on the Koran burning scheduled for Saturday, I am noticing a trend among some of the recent news stories, especially those touching on religion.  Where the US media is busy having a debate on whether or not someone has the religious freedom to do X, Y or Z, this is not the correct question to be asking.  Of course Terry Moran has the freedom to burn Korans (or at least he does in the US), just like Muslims have the freedom (and private property rights) to build a mosque near/at Ground Zero, where so many find it so objectionable.  That isn't the question.  The question is---should they be doing this?  Why are so many "adults" having problems acting appropriately when they do have the right to do something, but should personally restrain themselves from exercising that right, at least at that time and in that way?

New Democrat Strategy: Political Scapegoats Needed

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/09/09/wisconsins_rail_dream_is_a_spending_nightmare_107012.html

Executive Summary:

The outgoing, retiring, Democrat governor of Wisconsin wants a high speed rail line from Milwaukee to Madison so badly that he is rushing to spend $300 million on it before he leaves office.  He apparently hopes that the next governor will feel obligated to continue the project and spend at least another $800 million on it to complete the line, and then millions per year in operating costs.

This rail line will go on a thoroughfare that is currently mostly free of auto traffic and is already served by bus lines.  Backers say that they want this line to extend to Minneapolis and other cities in the future.  Both Republican candidates to replace the governor have pledged to stop the project, even if the state has to repay federal funding and spend more money to take out what has been installed.  The Democrat candidate for governor would continue the project as planned.

Analysis:
Wow.  This is a new low point in politics, and unfortunately, as I see it, a new strategy for Democrats.  Many of the far left Democrats know that their policies are unpopular with the country at large, even among other Democrats.  They have finally learned that lesson from the past, from Jimmy Carter's administration to Hillarycare in the 90s.  The new strategy seems to be to 1) get someone that is not seeking re-election (for retirement or other reasons) to take the huge political hit to start the ball rolling on a very, very unpopular project, law or entitlement and then 2) get another Democrat that is more "moderate" elected, ostensibly to pick up the pieces, maybe trim off a few of the really unpopular parts to stave off a revolution, and entrench the rest as much as possible into daily life (i.e. do whatever you can to get people dependent on it).  This is essentially what I argued is the strategy with President Obama's first term (see earlier post), but it is showing up in other areas of public service now.  This is not a good sign.  How do we fight this?

My take on the Tea Party

Now that most of the primary elections are over, we know that Democrat incumbents will be facing a variety of Republican opponents---some viewed as the "tea party" candidate, and some viewed as more "establishment" Republicans.  Of course, I welcome the chance to vote for just about any Republican, in the hope that they can reverse much of the damage that has been done largely by the Democrats in the last 2 years and over the last 75 years.  However, even though I am quite conservative and agree with much of what tea party candidates say, I worry about one thing when I see them---that this is where all the Ron Paul supporters went.  I attended the 2008 GOP convention in my state and witnessed the Ron Paul supporters, which were Libertarian if they were anything, trying to force Ron Paul on the Republican delegates as the nominee.  When they didn't get that, they tried to stuff a bunch of antiwar statements on to the GOP platform.  They were smart enough to figure out that having an "R" rather than an "L" by Ron Paul's name would significantly help him in the general election, even if he didn't deserve it.

Ron Paul, I'm sure, is a nice guy, and I probably would agree with him on many things.  But where I think the feds should be doing less, spending less, and returning to first principles, he and his followers think that the feds shouldn't really be doing anything, including pretty clear-cut cases for national defense.  They also waste a great deal of time focusing on things like eliminating the Federal Reserve and the Department of Education.  True, I might agree with them philosophically, but can we please put it pretty low down on the priority list?  Can we please go after the "low hanging fruit" first that just about every American agrees on, like repealing or starving this monstrosity that is the new healthcare bill?

I'm not saying don't vote for the tea party Republican if you have one in your race---far from it.  Please do.  The Democrats must lose the election for their highly unpopular, incredibly reckless behavior.  But when those tea partiers get to office, don't be so "mavericky" that your first priority is to introduce a bill to eliminate the Federal Reserve.  We can debate that after we have fixed the far, far, far more egregious and universally unpopular things first.