Harvey’s Introduction
I don’t know this guy, but his commentary on our presidential election is amazing. You must watch it
Author: cynicadmin Page 15 of 21
Harvey’s Introduction
Dan Henninger is one of the best writers on the WSJ editorial staff. In this insightful article he lays out how Conservatives and Liberals take an entirely different approach to thinking about the purpose of the Court. The left wants it to decide based on their policy preferences; the right based on the law. I’m sure my characterization of these views would be challenged by the left, but they would be wrong.
Harvey’s Introduction
Two Harvard professors – one from the left and one from the right -Cass R. Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule, wrote a defense of the Administrative State in Law and the Leviathan. Many Constitutional scholars have long argued that the administrative state has become too much of a legislative body and too divorced from both the people it affects and the public who votes. As the Supreme Court has found, in some cases, this has gone too far. In my opinion, the Court has deferred much to much to Administrative Agencies. Mr. White wrote this review of the book taking on directly the Sunstein/Vermeule argument. For those interested in this subject, its an interesting review and you might even want to understand the argument better by reading the book.
Harvey’s Introduction
I found this email from a friend interesting. It purports to be an open letter to all Democrats from a Democrat. I cannot verify that assertion of authorship as true. I did not write this, but I wish I did. It needs to be shared. It addresses some of the questions about who to vote for as president next month and is in the form of a series of questions.
Harvey’s Introduction
This declaration, by thousands of eminent scientists, point out that our focus on reducing the direct effects of Covid 19 – hospitalizations and deaths from the disease – have enormous negative unintended consequences. They outline a much better policy regime. As Joe Biden continually says “Follow the Science”. Our government, with the notable exception of the President, have been following the wrong science. The experts charged with leading the health care response had one criterion at the outset – reduce hospitalizations, followed by a second after the first was reached – defeat the virus. Apparently, they were not charged with considering the health and economic effects of their focus. My guess is they did so because they and the media could measure their results against these criteria and there was no effective way of measuring the negative effects of their draconian policies. The consequences have been enormous. For Heaven’s sake its time to stop this idiocy.
Harvey’s Introduction
At the beginning of the pandemic our health experts were concerned that the number of hospitalizations would overwhelm our health care system and people could die by the millions. Remember, the expert models showed a possible death toll of 2 to 3 million people in this country. So, we shut down the economy, threw millions of people out of work to avoid that tragedy. It became clear relatively early on that the hospitalizations would not reach the anticipated numbers and virtually no hospitals were overwhelmed. The question then became, when could we open up again and let people resume more elements of a normal life. It also became clear that the death rate varied enormously by age and co-morbidities, So, how do we balance all that we know to protect the most vulnerable and open up the economy as much as possible. Since the beginning of the pandemic, there have been two schools of thought on this issue. One was we have to defeat the virus before we open the economy. Joe Biden is the leading political proponent of this position, with many of the Democrat led states agreeing. Incidentally, none of them have ever defined what they mean by the word “defeat”. In any event, those states had a longer and deeper lockdown than other states, largely Republican led. Enough time has passed so that we can begin to understand whether the pain of a longer and deeper lockdown was worth it. The authors here studied the issue and have written a preliminary analysis.
Harvey’s Introduction
An interesting take on the reported Covid 19 data. One general point: If you are healthy and have no co-morbitities, the chances of you’re dying is a rounding error of zero. You can have the virus and you may pass it on but you are generally very safe.
Harvey’s Introduction
Mr. Philipson points ought that the concern over whether people choose or don’t choose to take the vaccine is misplaced. The question is whether the right people take it.
Harvey’s Introduction
FDR is today celebrated as an outstanding president who brought us out of the depression in much the same way that President Obama is lauded today for leading us out of a severe recession. There plaudits are not deserved. Roosevelt’s policy extended and deepened the depression and Obama’s was the worst recovery in almost a century. Yet, Democrats never seem to learn and Biden’s economic plan is likely to be even worse, if it passes and if he is elected.
Harvey’s Introduction
This is well written history of controversial Supreme Court nominations similar to Merrick Garland and Amy Coney Barrett. I enjoyed the history lesson.