newswars--2020-05-28--What the Failed 55-MPH Speed Limit Law Tells Us about COVID Lockdowns

During the oil crises of the 1970s , Congress attempted to lower gasoline consumption by mandating a lowered speed limit for vehicles on all highways .
But the efforts quickly evolved into a national campaign to increase traffic safety through lowered speed limits .
Government data showed that thousands of lives could be saved per year by enforcing lower speed limits .
Millions of American motorists , however , were unimpressed .
Widespread noncompliance resulted as many Americans concluded it was better to accept higher risk of death on highways—for themselves and for those around them—than to travel at reduced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the “ 55 Saves Lives ” slogan proved ineffective , and the national speed limit was repealed in 1995 .
The experience may be instructive today as many American policymakers insist that Americans must accept ongoing mass lockdowns and stay-at-home orders in the name of reducing deaths from COVID-19 .
Yet given that Americans have proven to be unwilling to reduce highway speeds—even in the face of the threat of traffic citations and deadly accidents—it is likely that they will soon be generally ignoring the lectures from “ experts ” and policymakers about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the name of safety .
A National Speed Limit In 1974 , Congress passed the National Maximum Speed Law ( NMSL ) .
The bill mandated that states lower maximum allowable highway speeds to 55 miles per hour in order to receive federal highway funds .
Most states up to that time had speed limits ranging from 60 mph to 70 mph .
The law was passed in the hope that lower speeds would lead to lower gasoline consumption in the midst of the oil crisis at the time .
Yet when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of oil crashed in the early 1980s , the national speed limit law remained .
By then , supporters of the law were claiming that a 55-mph speed limit was necessary as a safety measure and that it saved thousands of lives each year .
One 1977 public service announcement claimed that “ since 1974 , 55 has been the single biggest factor in reducing highway deaths , by 36,000 people .
One of them may be you.
” A 1978 announcement concluded , “ 55 mph .
It ’ s a law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reminded viewers : “ by 1975 , highway deaths were down by over 9,000 since 1973.…all of us , by slowing down , helped save more than 9,000 people.
” The goal was laudable .
Nowadays , more than 38,000 people die every year in crashes on US roadways .
An additional 4.4 million are injured seriously enough to require medical attention , and auto accidents are the leading cause of death in the US for people aged 1–54 .
Fatalities were even more common in the past .
In the early days @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled ( VMT ) were many times higher than they are now .
In 1925 , for instance , fatalities totaled 16.9 per 100 million VMT .
Twenty fifteen ’ s rate was 1.2 .
In 1974 , when the NMSL was passed , fatalities per 100 million VMT were nearly triple what they are today , totaling 3.5 .
On a per capita basis , fatalities were significantly higher in the past as well .
In 1974 , accident fatalities totaled 21.1 per 100,000 but were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the “ 55 Saves Lives ” campaign were happy to take credit for the decline in auto fatalities during the 1970s and 1980s .
A 1984 report from the National Research Council claimed that when traffic fatalities fell by 9,100 from 1973 to 1974 , the new speed limits could be credited with as many as 5,000 lives saved .
A 1980 report from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimated that 41,951 lives were saved by lower speed limits from 1974 to 1979 .
These claims likely overstate the role of speed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trend was already in place before 1974 , and the trend continued after the law ’ s repeal .
Nevertheless , many researchers claimed—rather plausibly—that ( all else being equal ) lowered speeds resulted in fewer fatalities .
As the World Health Organization ( WHO ) has concluded , “ Studies suggest that a 1 km/h decrease in traveling speed would lead to a 2–3 % reduction in road crashes.
” Moreover , when auto accidents do occur , they ’ re more likely to be fatal at higher speeds .
This all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ faster the speed at which one is traveling , the less time one has to react an unexpected event up ahead .
Impact at 80 miles per hour is more deadly than impact at 60 miles per hour .
The National Speed Limit Is Repealed In spite of all this , however , political opposition to the NMSL grew and noncompliance was widespread .
After all , the safety measures were not without cost , and ordinary people knew it .
For those who commuted long distances , time in the car could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 55 mph .
Given that long commute times have been shown to impact the health and quality of life of commuters , speeding up one ’ s commute is no mere luxury .
The effects of reduced speed limits on the cost of living could also be significant .
The reduced speeds applied to all commercial drivers as well , increasing the cost of shipping goods while raising prices and reducing employment in services that involved driving a large number of highway miles .
As with COVID-19-inspired regulations , regulations designed to achieve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ costs elsewhere .
People make calculations based on these realities .
Not surprisingly , then , American motorists overwhelmingly traveled at illegal speeds in excess of 55 miles per hour .
Many states with large rural areas—where speedy road travel was most economically valuable—found ways to minimize enforcement through measures such as reducing fines and not counting speeding tickets against driver ’ s license “ points.
” 1 By 1995 , political opposition was sufficient to lead to the total repeal of the National Maximum Speed Law .
At that point , most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ similar to what had existed before the adoption of the NMSL .
Americans were happy to drive at higher—and potentially more deadly—speeds with lessened risk of speeding tickets.2 As repeal drew near , a pro-repeal 1995 column in the Los Angeles Times compared the national speed limit to national alcohol prohibition and called the speed limit mandate the “ most-violated law in American history.
” Americans Accepted Higher Risk for Higher Speed Through it all , in spite of repeated efforts by government officials and safety activists to harangue motorists into slowing down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to accept higher risk of death in order to travel more quickly on highways .
This was especially true when it became that clear safety could be enhanced in other ways .
These included better safety features on the cars themselves and constructing safer highways .
Nonetheless , as fatality rates increased rapidly during the 1960s , Americans bought more cars and drove more miles .
But , overall , from the very beginning of the days of automobile driving , Americans had simply come to terms with the fact that driving fast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the fact remains that hundreds of thousands of Americans die in auto accidents every decade .
Decade after decade .
It is likely that this will prove instructive in the age of COVID-19 lockdowns as Americans are told to abandon in-person activities such as schooling , put off important medical treatments , and close their businesses because all these things might save lives .
Americans weren ’ t willing to slow down to reduce traffic deaths .
Will they be willing to live in isolation in the hope that they might help reduce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not .
If We Treated Traffic Deaths Like We Do COVID Deaths On the other hand , Americans might be more cautious about driving were government agencies and media to take an approach similar to what they have done with COVID-19 deaths .
Imagine a world where the media reports daily with above-the-fold headlines on total nationwide traffic deaths while framing those deaths as a problem to be solved through nationwide collective action and draconian government policies .
Imagine if the New York Times every year published a huge front-page article along the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : “ US Deaths Near 100,000 , An Incalculable Loss.
” This would mean an annual headline like “ Traffic Deaths Near 40,000 , an Incalculable Loss.
” The Times would then go on to list the tens of thousands of people killed each year in auto accidents because irresponsible people refused to slow down or just stay home rather than burdening the highways with unsafe amounts of traffic .
Dead mothers and children and grandfathers would be profiled and listed in large national publications illustrating the grievous burden of death imposed on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clickbait websites like The Drudge Report would post daily articles about the gruesome details of heinous deaths that had occurred on our nation ’ s roads the week before .
It ’ s possible that in the face of all that , many Americans might think twice about making “ nonessential ” road trips or errands .
After all , by staying out of your car and off the roads , “ the life you save may be your own.
” Or , as is now happening , the daily drumbeat of death @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will simply accept that we must daily assess the amount of risk we are willing to accept as a result of our activities .
In the days of “ 55 Saves Lives ” countless Americans were willing to flout the speed limit laws in order to take on greater risk of both traffic accidents and legal penalties .
The sanctimonious hectoring from safety officials and activists didn ’ t stop them .
Stay-at-home orders are likely to experience a similar fate .

During the oil crises of the 1970s, Congress attempted to lower gasoline consumption by mandating a lowered speed limit for vehicles on all highways.
But the efforts quickly evolved into a national campaign to increase traffic safety through lowered speed limits. Government data showed that thousands of lives could be saved per year by enforcing lower speed limits.
Millions of American motorists, however, were unimpressed. Widespread noncompliance resulted as many Americans concluded it was better to accept higher risk of death on highways—for themselves and for those around them—than to travel at reduced speeds. Government propaganda efforts such as the “55 Saves Lives” slogan proved ineffective, and the national speed limit was repealed in 1995.
The experience may be instructive today as many American policymakers insist that Americans must accept ongoing mass lockdowns and stay-at-home orders in the name of reducing deaths from COVID-19. Yet given that Americans have proven to be unwilling to reduce highway speeds—even in the face of the threat of traffic citations and deadly accidents—it is likely that they will soon be generally ignoring the lectures from “experts” and policymakers about the righteousness of destroying businesses and livelihoods in the name of safety.
A National Speed Limit
In 1974, Congress passed the National Maximum Speed Law (NMSL). The bill mandated that states lower maximum allowable highway speeds to 55 miles per hour in order to receive federal highway funds. Most states up to that time had speed limits ranging from 60 mph to 70 mph.
The law was passed in the hope that lower speeds would lead to lower gasoline consumption in the midst of the oil crisis at the time.
Yet when the oil crises ebbed and the price of oil crashed in the early 1980s, the national speed limit law remained.
By then, supporters of the law were claiming that a 55-mph speed limit was necessary as a safety measure and that it saved thousands of lives each year. One 1977 public service announcement claimed that “since 1974, 55 has been the single biggest factor in reducing highway deaths, by 36,000 people. One of them may be you.” A 1978 announcement concluded, “55 mph. It’s a law we can live with.” The narrator reminded viewers: “by 1975, highway deaths were down by over 9,000 since 1973.…all of us, by slowing down, helped save more than 9,000 people.”
The goal was laudable. Nowadays, more than 38,000 people die every year in crashes on US roadways. An additional 4.4 million are injured seriously enough to require medical attention, and auto accidents are the leading cause of death in the US for people aged 1–54.
Fatalities were even more common in the past. In the early days of mass automobile use—i.e., the 1920s—auto fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) were many times higher than they are now. In 1925, for instance, fatalities totaled 16.9 per 100 million VMT. Twenty fifteen’s rate was 1.2. In 1974, when the NMSL was passed, fatalities per 100 million VMT were nearly triple what they are today, totaling 3.5.
On a per capita basis, fatalities were significantly higher in the past as well. In 1974, accident fatalities totaled 21.1 per 100,000 but were only 11.6 by 2015.
Supporters of the “55 Saves Lives” campaign were happy to take credit for the decline in auto fatalities during the 1970s and 1980s. A 1984 report from the National Research Council claimed that when traffic fatalities fell by 9,100 from 1973 to 1974, the new speed limits could be credited with as many as 5,000 lives saved. A 1980 report from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimated that 41,951 lives were saved by lower speed limits from 1974 to 1979.
These claims likely overstate the role of speed reduction in declining fatalities. A downward trend was already in place before 1974, and the trend continued after the law’s repeal. Nevertheless, many researchers claimed—rather plausibly—that (all else being equal) lowered speeds resulted in fewer fatalities. As the World Health Organization (WHO) has concluded, “Studies suggest that a 1 km/h decrease in traveling speed would lead to a 2–3% reduction in road crashes.” Moreover, when auto accidents do occur, they’re more likely to be fatal at higher speeds. This all makes sense, of course. The faster the speed at which one is traveling, the less time one has to react an unexpected event up ahead. Impact at 80 miles per hour is more deadly than impact at 60 miles per hour.
The National Speed Limit Is Repealed
In spite of all this, however, political opposition to the NMSL grew and noncompliance was widespread.
After all, the safety measures were not without cost, and ordinary people knew it. For those who commuted long distances, time in the car could be significantly reduced by driving faster than 55 mph. Given that long commute times have been shown to impact the health and quality of life of commuters, speeding up one’s commute is no mere luxury. The effects of reduced speed limits on the cost of living could also be significant. The reduced speeds applied to all commercial drivers as well, increasing the cost of shipping goods while raising prices and reducing employment in services that involved driving a large number of highway miles. As with COVID-19-inspired regulations, regulations designed to achieve a smaller death toll on highways impose costs elsewhere. People make calculations based on these realities.
Not surprisingly, then, American motorists overwhelmingly traveled at illegal speeds in excess of 55 miles per hour. Many states with large rural areas—where speedy road travel was most economically valuable—found ways to minimize enforcement through measures such as reducing fines and not counting speeding tickets against driver’s license “points.”1
By 1995, political opposition was sufficient to lead to the total repeal of the National Maximum Speed Law. At that point, most states went back to speed limit laws similar to what had existed before the adoption of the NMSL. Americans were happy to drive at higher—and potentially more deadly—speeds with lessened risk of speeding tickets.2 As repeal drew near, a pro-repeal 1995 column in the Los Angeles Times compared the national speed limit to national alcohol prohibition and called the speed limit mandate the “most-violated law in American history.”
Americans Accepted Higher Risk for Higher Speed
Through it all, in spite of repeated efforts by government officials and safety activists to harangue motorists into slowing down, American motorists showed they were willing to accept higher risk of death in order to travel more quickly on highways. This was especially true when it became that clear safety could be enhanced in other ways. These included better safety features on the cars themselves and constructing safer highways. Nonetheless, as fatality rates increased rapidly during the 1960s, Americans bought more cars and drove more miles.
But, overall, from the very beginning of the days of automobile driving, Americans had simply come to terms with the fact that driving fast is a fairly risky activity. But the fact remains that hundreds of thousands of Americans die in auto accidents every decade. Decade after decade.
It is likely that this will prove instructive in the age of COVID-19 lockdowns as Americans are told to abandon in-person activities such as schooling, put off important medical treatments, and close their businesses because all these things might save lives.
Americans weren’t willing to slow down to reduce traffic deaths. Will they be willing to live in isolation in the hope that they might help reduce COVID-19 deaths? Experience suggests many will not.
If We Treated Traffic Deaths Like We Do COVID Deaths
On the other hand, Americans might be more cautious about driving were government agencies and media to take an approach similar to what they have done with COVID-19 deaths.
Imagine a world where the media reports daily with above-the-fold headlines on total nationwide traffic deaths while framing those deaths as a problem to be solved through nationwide collective action and draconian government policies. Imagine if the New York Times every year published a huge front-page article along the lines of this week’s headline: “US Deaths Near 100,000, An Incalculable Loss.” This would mean an annual headline like “Traffic Deaths Near 40,000, an Incalculable Loss.” The Times would then go on to list the tens of thousands of people killed each year in auto accidents because irresponsible people refused to slow down or just stay home rather than burdening the highways with unsafe amounts of traffic. Dead mothers and children and grandfathers would be profiled and listed in large national publications illustrating the grievous burden of death imposed on daily life by unnecessary driving. Fearmongering clickbait websites like The Drudge Report would post daily articles about the gruesome details of heinous deaths that had occurred on our nation’s roads the week before.
It’s possible that in the face of all that, many Americans might think twice about making “nonessential” road trips or errands. After all, by staying out of your car and off the roads, “the life you save may be your own.”
Or, as is now happening, the daily drumbeat of death may recede into the background and people will simply accept that we must daily assess the amount of risk we are willing to accept as a result of our activities.
In the days of “55 Saves Lives” countless Americans were willing to flout the speed limit laws in order to take on greater risk of both traffic accidents and legal penalties. The sanctimonious hectoring from safety officials and activists didn’t stop them. Stay-at-home orders are likely to experience a similar fate.


newswars--2020-05-28--The Hydroxychloroquine Controversy Is a Reminder That Prescription Laws Are a Government Racket

After President Trump declared that he uses hydroxychloroquine , the Food and Drug Administration ( FDA ) walked back its advice against the drug and seemingly all others as well .
“ The decision to take any drug , ” the head of the agency said , is “ between a patient and their doctor.
” The FDA has had two shining moments during the spread of the coronavirus .
At neither time did the agency do something so much as it undid something .
The first moment was March 13 , when the FDA dropped its onerous approval process @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still late to the game , but the move helped save face .
On Tuesday , there wasn ’ t much left to preserve after the FDA commissioner issued a statement essentially nullifying much of his own bureaucracy ’ s purpose for existing .
“ The decision to take any drug is ultimately a decision between a patient and their doctor , ” FDA commissioner Dr. Stephen Hahn said in an emailed statement to various news outlets , including the Hill and CNBC .
This came in response to President Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been taking hydroxychloroquine ( HCQ ) as a preventative measure against COVID-19 for “ a couple weeks.
” “ I think people should be allowed to , ” Trump said .
The FDA would say that , technically , people are allowed to use HCQ .
It ’ s just not government approved for anything other than malaria , lupus , and rheumatoid arthritis .
And although doctors may , and do , prescribe it for “ off-label ” treatments , a prescription—a government-mandated document that controls public access—is still required .
What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consequences , whether a prescription is written for HCQ or not ?
In Trump ’ s case , the president merely requested HCQ from his doctor .
It wasn ’ t even recommended to him .
Suppose no prescription were required and HCQ were over the counter .
Might Trump or anyone else consult their physician or a pharmacist anyway ?
All the prescription law can do is potentially weaken the doctor-patient relationship .
As the late Dr. Thomas Szasz observed in his book Our Right to Drugs , a “ colossal charade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ companies , and the government arises from this regulatory framework of prescription drug laws .
He wrote : The fact that our drug laws require people to secure a prescription for many of the drugs they want ( but can not get on the free market ) fosters a mutually degrading dishonesty between physicians and patients .
The FDA ’ s latest statement that taking “ any drug ” is a decision between doctors and patients contrasts sharply with the one it made a little over three weeks prior regarding HCQ .
On @ @ @ @ @ @ @ using HCQ “ for COVID-19 outside of the hospital setting or a clinical trial due to risk of heart rhythm problems.
” Although not a direct contradiction , the May 19 statement makes a substantial difference in the April 24 statement ’ s effect .
That ’ s because it ’ s reasonable to expect that the FDA will typically enforce its opinions through a perceived threat of coercion .
As investigative reporter James Bovard wrote in this space last month , the FDA has a history of using intimidation tactics to secure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ off-label ” drug treatments .
In 1991 , then FDA commissioner Dr. David Kessler told the Drug Information Association that the FDA would use seizures , injunctions , and prosecutions to enforce its ban on drug companies sharing “ off-label ” use information with doctors .
The ban was never formalized , but Kessler said : “ I would urge all members of the pharmaceutical industry to take a long and hard look at their promotional practices .
I do not expect companies to wait until this guidance becomes final to put @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Kessler would not be proud of the current FDA head , who concedes that “ ultimately ” doctors and patients have the decision-making power over drug use .
In 1992 , Kessler said quite the opposite : If members of our society were empowered to make their own decisions…then the whole rationale for the [ FDA ] would cease to exist .
At least Kessler was more consistent than Hahn is .
There ’ s no sign that Hahn will follow through his words that doctors and patients may decide how “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t be taken .
That ’ s too bad , because when the doctor-patient relationship isn ’ t interrupted by bureaucratic third parties or red tape , it is the strongest bulwark against drug and prescription abuses .
What benefit is a layer of FDA regulations that simply restrict everyone ’ s freedom for the sake of those who will circumnavigate the rules , anyway ?
The principle is more commonly accepted in the gun control debate , but it is the same in the prescription drug control debate .
Trump got it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allowed to decide for themselves .
His words clearly influenced the FDA ’ s messaging .
We can allow ourselves a little hope , but realistically , substantial reform towards more freedom in medicine may have to wait until a worse crisis demands it .

After President Trump declared that he uses hydroxychloroquine, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) walked back its advice against the drug and seemingly all others as well. “The decision to take any drug,” the head of the agency said, is “between a patient and their doctor.”
The FDA has had two shining moments during the spread of the coronavirus. At neither time did the agency do something so much as it undid something.
The first moment was March 13, when the FDA dropped its onerous approval process for coronavirus test kits. It was still late to the game, but the move helped save face.
On Tuesday, there wasn’t much left to preserve after the FDA commissioner issued a statement essentially nullifying much of his own bureaucracy’s purpose for existing.
“The decision to take any drug is ultimately a decision between a patient and their doctor,” FDA commissioner Dr. Stephen Hahn said in an emailed statement to various news outlets, including the Hill and CNBC.
This came in response to President Trump’s remarks that same day that he had been taking hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as a preventative measure against COVID-19 for “a couple weeks.”
“I think people should be allowed to,” Trump said.
The FDA would say that, technically, people are allowed to use HCQ. It’s just not government approved for anything other than malaria, lupus, and rheumatoid arthritis. And although doctors may, and do, prescribe it for “off-label” treatments, a prescription—a government-mandated document that controls public access—is still required.
What does it matter, beyond the legal consequences, whether a prescription is written for HCQ or not? In Trump’s case, the president merely requested HCQ from his doctor. It wasn’t even recommended to him. Suppose no prescription were required and HCQ were over the counter. Might Trump or anyone else consult their physician or a pharmacist anyway?
All the prescription law can do is potentially weaken the doctor-patient relationship.
As the late Dr. Thomas Szasz observed in his book Our Right to Drugs, a “colossal charade” between patients, doctors, insurance companies, and the government arises from this regulatory framework of prescription drug laws. He wrote:
The fact that our drug laws require people to secure a prescription for many of the drugs they want (but cannot get on the free market) fosters a mutually degrading dishonesty between physicians and patients.
The FDA’s latest statement that taking “any drug” is a decision between doctors and patients contrasts sharply with the one it made a little over three weeks prior regarding HCQ. On April 24, the agency cautioned against using HCQ “for COVID-19 outside of the hospital setting or a clinical trial due to risk of heart rhythm problems.”
Although not a direct contradiction, the May 19 statement makes a substantial difference in the April 24 statement’s effect. That’s because it’s reasonable to expect that the FDA will typically enforce its opinions through a perceived threat of coercion.
As investigative reporter James Bovard wrote in this space last month, the FDA has a history of using intimidation tactics to secure compliance with unfinalized prohibitions, including against “off-label” drug treatments.
In 1991, then FDA commissioner Dr. David Kessler told the Drug Information Association that the FDA would use seizures, injunctions, and prosecutions to enforce its ban on drug companies sharing “off-label” use information with doctors. The ban was never formalized, but Kessler said: “I would urge all members of the pharmaceutical industry to take a long and hard look at their promotional practices. I do not expect companies to wait until this guidance becomes final to put their advertising and promotional houses in order.”
Kessler would not be proud of the current FDA head, who concedes that “ultimately” doctors and patients have the decision-making power over drug use.
In 1992, Kessler said quite the opposite:
If members of our society were empowered to make their own decisions…then the whole rationale for the [FDA] would cease to exist.
At least Kessler was more consistent than Hahn is. There’s no sign that Hahn will follow through his words that doctors and patients may decide how “any drug” should or shouldn’t be taken.
That’s too bad, because when the doctor-patient relationship isn’t interrupted by bureaucratic third parties or red tape, it is the strongest bulwark against drug and prescription abuses.
What benefit is a layer of FDA regulations that simply restrict everyone’s freedom for the sake of those who will circumnavigate the rules, anyway? The principle is more commonly accepted in the gun control debate, but it is the same in the prescription drug control debate.
Trump got it right when he said people should be allowed to decide for themselves. His words clearly influenced the FDA’s messaging. We can allow ourselves a little hope, but realistically, substantial reform towards more freedom in medicine may have to wait until a worse crisis demands it.


newswars--2020-05-28--Politicians’ COVID Mania Ravages Maryland

Maryland politicians have destroyed more than four hundred thousand jobs in dictatorial responses purporting to thwart the coronavirus pandemic .
“ Nearly one in five Maryland workers have filed for unemployment ” compensation , theBaltimore Sun reported .
The situation is so bad that even the Washington Post recognized that Maryland ’ s COVID “ restrictions have crippled the economy and paralyzed daily life since mid-March.
” Shaky extrapolations of predicted infection rates sufficed to nullify limits on state and local government power .
On March 20 , Governor Larry Hogan , a Republican , ordered the shutdown of all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ later , Hogan issued a mandatory “ stay-at-home ” order for all Marylanders .
At that time , roughly a thousand Marylanders had tested positive for COVID and eighteen had died from the virus .
Despite the shutdown , Maryland has had over forty-eight thousand COVID cases and more than twenty-two hundred fatalities .
If the shutdown had been effective , the transmission rate should have plunged after the fourteen-day incubation period for coronavirus .
Didn ’ t happen .
The shutdown utterly failed to stop the pandemic but inflicted collateral damage that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and probably permanently blight thousands of lives .
From the beginning , Maryland ’ s response epitomized iron fist progressivism—one overreaching decree after another .
Piety repeatedly trumped safety .
For instance , on April 9 , Montgomery County ’ s chief health officer Travis Gayles decreed that any grocery store customer who failed to wear a mask would be fined $ 500 .
Gayles discouraged local residents from acquiring and wearing the most reliable protection , such as surgical masks or N95 masks , which the county said “ should be reserved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ followed up with a similar statewide mandate .
But some risks were too sacrosanct to reduce .
Hundreds of grocery workers nationwide have been infected by the coronavirus and at least thirty have died .
One of the biggest sources of contagion in grocery stores is ratty old recycling bags that customers drag along to tote their purchases home , which some states and cities have banned for the duration of the pandemic .
Montgomery County imposes a five-cent tax on each plastic grocery bag , despite one food workers ’ union calling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bag tax.
” A majority of county council members sponsored a bill to suspend the grocery bag tax to “ minimize risk , ” because “ the health and safety of all Montgomery County residents must come first.
” The Sierra Club protested that suspending the bag tax will leave “ the public with a false sense of security in encouraging single-use plastic shopping bags , ” which “ are difficult to clean.
” But that ’ s why they are called “ single-use ” bags .
The council quickly caved to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ damn about grocery workers by encouraging residents to wash reusable bags after each visit to the grocery store—which is as likely as hell freezing over .
When Hogan announced that anyone who violated his “ shelter-at-home ” order could face a $ 5,000 fine and a year in prison , he ludicrously declared , “ Every Marylander can be a hero , just by staying home.
” As of early May , Maryland police had arrested more than a hundred people for violating the order and responded to more than three thousand reports @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the percentage of Marylanders who turned into informants was higher than the rate in former East Germany .
Private parades are strictly prohibited during the lockdown .
But Montgomery County police conducted at least three police car parades in front of local hospitals to show their support for healthcare workers .
At the same time , the county police exploited the pandemic to justify refusing to provide any information on a brutal predawn , no-knock raid on March 12 in which Duncan Lemp , a 21-year-old libertarian-leaning gun rights activist was killed as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Potomac , Maryland .
When Lemp family members signaled their intention to attend a planned protest over their son ’ s killing at the police headquarters , a county prosecutor speedily threatened any family members who attended the protest with a $ 5,000 fine and jail for violating Hogan ’ s shelter-in-place order .
Politicians talked as if any large gathering of people would be tantamount to mass murder .
But there was a tacit exception for anything that trumpeted the majesty of the government .
A military jet flyover tribute to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Security Theater at its best .
The Montgomery County Police Department announced on Twitter : “ Please adhere to @ GovLarryHogan social distancing order and do not congregate at any hospitals in the County to view the flyover as we must keep the hospital areas clear for healthcare workers.
” Twitter user @ LibertyLockPod replied , “ The roar of the jets will give me strength while I cower indoors .
Thank you government !
” Another Twitter user groused , “ Some hospitals in Montgomery County are out of hand sanitizer , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to honor them.
” When the US Navy Blue Angels did a heavily publicized flyover of Suburban Hospital in Bethesda on May 2 , hundreds of people squeezed into the hospital parking lot and elsewhere to see the show , social distancing be damned .
At least one county council member joined the crowd in blatant violation of the governor ’ s “ shelter-in-place ” order , while a second council member stood near the throng .
But the media , except for the online Rockville Reports , ignored the high-profile hypocrisy .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ claiming that their decisions were based on “ science ” and “ data.
” But the data is available only to those authorized to enter the Inner Temple of Maryland Politics , apparently .
The online activist group Reopen Maryland complained that Hogan has provided no transparency about the process through which models were consulted and used in Maryland ’ s decision-making to justify state and county closures .
Reopen Maryland again calls upon the Governor to make his task force and recovery team minutes and records public .
Taxpayers deserve to know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made .
The state government denied a request for such information under Maryland ’ s Public Information Act .
Maryland is busy hiring a thousand “ contact tracers ” to track down anyone who might have interacted with anyone who tested positive for COVID .
Privacy will be no excuse for failing to disclose personal contacts .
However , at the same time , the Maryland Department of Health ordered local county health departments to cease disclosing which nursing homes have been ravaged by COVID outbreaks , claiming that such information “ ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violates privacy laws , ” as WJLA TV reported .
Most COVID fatalities statewide have occurred in nursing homes .
One would think that sons and daughters would have a legitimate interest in knowing where their parents faced the greatest risk of dying , but no such luck in the Free State .
Why the secrecy ?
Reopen Maryland requested and was denied “ information on whether…the state forced nursing homes to accept COVID-19 positive patients discharged from hospitals , as suggested by the Governor ’ s April 5 executive order and corresponding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Similar policies in New York and Pennsylvania contributed to thousands of nursing home deaths .
As elsewhere in the United States , Democrats are far more enthusiastic about perpetuating the lockdown than are Republicans .
On May 15 , Governor Hogan rescinded the statewide stay-at-home order .
That dictate never made any sense for much of the state .
Garrett County , for instance , has had only ten COVID cases and no fatalities , but its schools and businesses were shuttered at the command of Annapolis .
Media-favored experts shuddered at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million people from de facto house arrest .
Joshua Sharfstein , vice dean at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health , lamented , “ People wonder if it ’ s necessary , if it ’ s not necessary .
When people receive mixed messages , they ’ re not going to do what they need to protect themselves.
” Without Hogan ’ s dictate , every Marylander would presumably rush out into the street and hug everyone they saw .
Actually , Marylanders responded to the pandemic by voluntarily “ social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stay-at-home order .
Unacast , a company that created software to track social distancing via cell phone data , rated Maryland an “ A ” and one of the best in the nation .
Hogan ’ s announcement ending the state shutdown sparked a political pity party by Democratic officials in the Washington suburbs and Baltimore area .
“ All of us were taken aback by his announcement .
We were hung out to dry , ” whined Montgomery County executive Marc Elrich , who faced the burden of justifying perpetuating the lockdown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Elrich lamented that that “ makes it sound like it ’ s an arbitrary decision.… [ Hogan ] kind of ignited this rebellion against what we were doing.
” The Washington Post summarized Elrich ’ s response : “ Montgomery County rushed to create its own data dashboard last week , so elected leaders could justify to constituents why they remain stuck in a coronavirus shutdown.
” But county officials are apparently being slippery , relying on arbitrary selection and manipulation of data to justify perpetuating arbitrary power .
Maryland daily COVID @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent , and the hysteria is becoming harder to perpetuate every week .
Anne Arundel County struck bureaucratic gold when it declared that its pandemic emergency would continue until “ health equity ” was achieved—whatever the hell that means .
Most Maryland residents live in the Baltimore-Washington corridor , and most of the media coverage in that area has been both pro-panic and progovernment .
As a result , Maryland politicians may face few consequences for the destruction and pointless subjugation they imposed .
But the Great Pandemic Follies of 2020 may prove @ @ @ @ @ @ @ libertarians , and unregenerate cynics across the nation .

Maryland politicians have destroyed more than four hundred thousand jobs in dictatorial responses purporting to thwart the coronavirus pandemic.
“Nearly one in five Maryland workers have filed for unemployment” compensation, theBaltimore Sun reported. The situation is so bad that even the Washington Post recognized that Maryland’s COVID “restrictions have crippled the economy and paralyzed daily life since mid-March.”
Shaky extrapolations of predicted infection rates sufficed to nullify limits on state and local government power. On March 20, Governor Larry Hogan, a Republican, ordered the shutdown of all “nonessential” businesses. Ten days later, Hogan issued a mandatory “stay-at-home” order for all Marylanders. At that time, roughly a thousand Marylanders had tested positive for COVID and eighteen had died from the virus.
Despite the shutdown, Maryland has had over forty-eight thousand COVID cases and more than twenty-two hundred fatalities. If the shutdown had been effective, the transmission rate should have plunged after the fourteen-day incubation period for coronavirus. Didn’t happen. The shutdown utterly failed to stop the pandemic but inflicted collateral damage that will hobble the state for many years and probably permanently blight thousands of lives.
From the beginning, Maryland’s response epitomized iron fist progressivism—one overreaching decree after another. Piety repeatedly trumped safety.
For instance, on April 9, Montgomery County’s chief health officer Travis Gayles decreed that any grocery store customer who failed to wear a mask would be fined $500. Gayles discouraged local residents from acquiring and wearing the most reliable protection, such as surgical masks or N95 masks, which the county said “should be reserved for health care workers.” Hogan later followed up with a similar statewide mandate.
But some risks were too sacrosanct to reduce. Hundreds of grocery workers nationwide have been infected by the coronavirus and at least thirty have died. One of the biggest sources of contagion in grocery stores is ratty old recycling bags that customers drag along to tote their purchases home, which some states and cities have banned for the duration of the pandemic. Montgomery County imposes a five-cent tax on each plastic grocery bag, despite one food workers’ union calling for an “end to the disease-transmitting bag tax.” A majority of county council members sponsored a bill to suspend the grocery bag tax to “minimize risk,” because “the health and safety of all Montgomery County residents must come first.” The Sierra Club protested that suspending the bag tax will leave “the public with a false sense of security in encouraging single-use plastic shopping bags,” which “are difficult to clean.” But that’s why they are called “single-use” bags. The council quickly caved to the environmentalist demand but pretended to give a damn about grocery workers by encouraging residents to wash reusable bags after each visit to the grocery store—which is as likely as hell freezing over.
When Hogan announced that anyone who violated his “shelter-at-home” order could face a $5,000 fine and a year in prison, he ludicrously declared, “Every Marylander can be a hero, just by staying home.” As of early May, Maryland police had arrested more than a hundred people for violating the order and responded to more than three thousand reports of violations. It is unclear whether the percentage of Marylanders who turned into informants was higher than the rate in former East Germany.
Private parades are strictly prohibited during the lockdown. But Montgomery County police conducted at least three police car parades in front of local hospitals to show their support for healthcare workers. At the same time, the county police exploited the pandemic to justify refusing to provide any information on a brutal predawn, no-knock raid on March 12 in which Duncan Lemp, a 21-year-old libertarian-leaning gun rights activist was killed as he slept in his parents’ home in Potomac, Maryland. When Lemp family members signaled their intention to attend a planned protest over their son’s killing at the police headquarters, a county prosecutor speedily threatened any family members who attended the protest with a $5,000 fine and jail for violating Hogan’s shelter-in-place order.
Politicians talked as if any large gathering of people would be tantamount to mass murder. But there was a tacit exception for anything that trumpeted the majesty of the government.
A military jet flyover tribute to local hospitals in the Washington suburbs was Security Theater at its best. The Montgomery County Police Department announced on Twitter: “Please adhere to @GovLarryHogan social distancing order and do not congregate at any hospitals in the County to view the flyover as we must keep the hospital areas clear for healthcare workers.” Twitter user @LibertyLockPod replied, “The roar of the jets will give me strength while I cower indoors. Thank you government!” Another Twitter user groused, “Some hospitals in Montgomery County are out of hand sanitizer, supplying that would be a great way to honor them.”
When the US Navy Blue Angels did a heavily publicized flyover of Suburban Hospital in Bethesda on May 2, hundreds of people squeezed into the hospital parking lot and elsewhere to see the show, social distancing be damned. At least one county council member joined the crowd in blatant violation of the governor’s “shelter-in-place” order, while a second council member stood near the throng. But the media, except for the online Rockville Reports, ignored the high-profile hypocrisy.
Government officials justified the lockdown by endlessly claiming that their decisions were based on “science” and “data.” But the data is available only to those authorized to enter the Inner Temple of Maryland Politics, apparently. The online activist group Reopen Maryland complained that
Hogan has provided no transparency about the process through which models were consulted and used in Maryland’s decision-making to justify state and county closures. Reopen Maryland again calls upon the Governor to make his task force and recovery team minutes and records public. Taxpayers deserve to know how and why these destructive decisions were made.
The state government denied a request for such information under Maryland’s Public Information Act.
Maryland is busy hiring a thousand “contact tracers” to track down anyone who might have interacted with anyone who tested positive for COVID. Privacy will be no excuse for failing to disclose personal contacts. However, at the same time, the Maryland Department of Health ordered local county health departments to cease disclosing which nursing homes have been ravaged by COVID outbreaks, claiming that such information “‘serves no public health purpose’ and violates privacy laws,” as WJLA TV reported. Most COVID fatalities statewide have occurred in nursing homes. One would think that sons and daughters would have a legitimate interest in knowing where their parents faced the greatest risk of dying, but no such luck in the Free State.
Why the secrecy? Reopen Maryland requested and was denied “information on whether…the state forced nursing homes to accept COVID-19 positive patients discharged from hospitals, as suggested by the Governor’s April 5 executive order and corresponding directives from the Maryland Department of Health.” Similar policies in New York and Pennsylvania contributed to thousands of nursing home deaths.
As elsewhere in the United States, Democrats are far more enthusiastic about perpetuating the lockdown than are Republicans. On May 15, Governor Hogan rescinded the statewide stay-at-home order. That dictate never made any sense for much of the state. Garrett County, for instance, has had only ten COVID cases and no fatalities, but its schools and businesses were shuttered at the command of Annapolis.
Media-favored experts shuddered at Hogan’s premature release of 6 million people from de facto house arrest. Joshua Sharfstein, vice dean at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, lamented, “People wonder if it’s necessary, if it’s not necessary. When people receive mixed messages, they’re not going to do what they need to protect themselves.” Without Hogan’s dictate, every Marylander would presumably rush out into the street and hug everyone they saw. Actually, Marylanders responded to the pandemic by voluntarily “social distancing” even before Hogan’s stay-at-home order. Unacast, a company that created software to track social distancing via cell phone data, rated Maryland an “A” and one of the best in the nation.
Hogan’s announcement ending the state shutdown sparked a political pity party by Democratic officials in the Washington suburbs and Baltimore area. “All of us were taken aback by his announcement. We were hung out to dry,” whined Montgomery County executive Marc Elrich, who faced the burden of justifying perpetuating the lockdown for the million residents in his county. Elrich lamented that that “makes it sound like it’s an arbitrary decision.…[Hogan] kind of ignited this rebellion against what we were doing.”
The Washington Post summarized Elrich’s response: “Montgomery County rushed to create its own data dashboard last week, so elected leaders could justify to constituents why they remain stuck in a coronavirus shutdown.” But county officials are apparently being slippery, relying on arbitrary selection and manipulation of data to justify perpetuating arbitrary power. Maryland daily COVID fatalities have fallen by more than 50 percent, and the hysteria is becoming harder to perpetuate every week. Anne Arundel County struck bureaucratic gold when it declared that its pandemic emergency would continue until “health equity” was achieved—whatever the hell that means.
Most Maryland residents live in the Baltimore-Washington corridor, and most of the media coverage in that area has been both pro-panic and progovernment. As a result, Maryland politicians may face few consequences for the destruction and pointless subjugation they imposed. But the Great Pandemic Follies of 2020 may prove a fertile breeding ground for anarchists, libertarians, and unregenerate cynics across the nation.


newswars--2020-05-28--Beijing Overwhelmingly Passes Law to Crush Dissent In Hong Kong

China ’ s parliament on Thursday approved plans for the controversial national security bill for Hong Kong .
The National People ’ s Congress ( NPC ) voted overwhelmingly in favor of the proposal to draft the law , with 2,878 in favor and one against .
Six people abstained .
The vote approves the standing committee to draft legislation to punish secession , subversion of state power , terrorism and acts that endanger national security in Hong Kong .
Lawmakers in the Great Hall of the People erupted into sustained applause when the vote was tallied .
Critics , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long argued that such measures will erode the territory ’ s autonomy upheld in a “ one country , two systems ” formula since its return to Chinese rule in 1997 .
Beijing has asserted the law change will be tightly focuses and non-threatening .
Its plan includes outposts of mainland agencies to curb what Beijing calls interference by foreign countries .
In Hong Kong — as the People ’ s Congress voted — police squads were out in force and dozens of protesters chanted slogans in a shopping mall .
But there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disturbances that saw police make 360 arrests as thousands protested China ’ s moves that would also criminalize mocking of the Chinese national anthem .
Responding to the result of the vote , Chinese Premier Li Keqiang would benefit the territory ’ s long-term stability and prosperity .
He reaffirmed that “ One country-two systems ” is China ’ s national policy when asked if his country was abandoning it .
Meanwhile , the Commissioner ’ s Office of China ’ s foreign ministry said it was “ most barbaric ” that Washington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ revoking Hong Kong ’ s special status .
Earlier on Thursday , US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had said Hong Kong no longer qualified for its special status under US law , unnerving investors .
Hong Kong and US have a special trade agreement that grants the city-state economic privileges not enjoyed by China .
The arrangement had also provided China and the US with indirect access to each others ’ markets .
The Commissioner ’ s office said it rejected the US interpretation that Hong Kong was no longer autonomous .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ between China and Hong Kong , it said .
Jürgen Hardt , a foreign policy expert with Angela Merkel ’ s Conservative party in the Bundestag , told DW that the law “ is harming significantly the agreement between China and the United Kingdom concerning the status of Hong Kong ” Hardt said the fact that the Chinese government is increasing pressure on civil society showed that “ probably the Chinese government , the Communist party feel not as secure in their seats as we see them in their seats.
” Going forward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to find “ win-win options ” for both sides , but “ linking that to other questions.
” “ For us , fair relations also have to have in mind that business plans and not political decisions of a communistic party have to set the agenda of economic cooperation , ” Hardt added .
The planned EU-China summit in the autumn should be used by the EU-27 to speak with one voice and express a joint strategy .
Concerning China ’ s belt and road initiative , Hardt said that “ having a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good idea.
” But linking political questions with such an economic project is not what we can accept.
” Prominent Hong Kong pro-democracy activists Joshua Wong on Thursday called on the international community to stand up against Beijing ’ s legislative moves .
Japan ’ s foreign ministry said it was “ seriously concerned ” about the move .
On Tuesday , the EU had urged China to respect Hong Kong ’ s autonomy .
“ We attach great importance to the preservation of Hong Kong ’ s high degree of autonomy in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ commitments , ” said European Council President Charles Michel , who represents European governments .
EU foreign ministers are expected to discuss the development at their regular meeting on Friday .
Alex Jones breaks down the hypocrisy of the media stoking a race war after the Ahmaud Arbery shooting , while ignoring videos of a racist coward beating up elderly white people in his ‘ care .
’

China’s parliament on Thursday approved plans for the controversial national security bill for Hong Kong.
The National People’s Congress (NPC) voted overwhelmingly in favor of the proposal to draft the law, with 2,878 in favor and one against. Six people abstained.
The vote approves the standing committee to draft legislation to punish secession, subversion of state power, terrorism and acts that endanger national security in Hong Kong.
Lawmakers in the Great Hall of the People erupted into sustained applause when the vote was tallied.
Critics, including Hong Kong democracy advocates, have long argued that such measures will erode the territory’s autonomy upheld in a “one country, two systems” formula since its return to Chinese rule in 1997.
Beijing has asserted the law change will be tightly focuses and non-threatening. Its plan includes outposts of mainland agencies to curb what Beijing calls interference by foreign countries.
In Hong Kong — as the People’s Congress voted — police squads were out in force and dozens of protesters chanted slogans in a shopping mall. But there was no repeat of Wednesday’s disturbances that saw police make 360 arrests as thousands protested China’s moves that would also criminalize mocking of the Chinese national anthem.
China reacts
Responding to the result of the vote, Chinese Premier Li Keqiang would benefit the territory’s long-term stability and prosperity. He reaffirmed that “One country-two systems” is China’s national policy when asked if his country was abandoning it.
Meanwhile, the Commissioner’s Office of China’s foreign ministry said it was “most barbaric” that Washington has responded to the security bill by revoking Hong Kong’s special status.
Earlier on Thursday, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had said Hong Kong no longer qualified for its special status under US law, unnerving investors. Hong Kong and US have a special trade agreement that grants the city-state economic privileges not enjoyed by China. The arrangement had also provided China and the US with indirect access to each others’ markets.
The Commissioner’s office said it rejected the US interpretation that Hong Kong was no longer autonomous. The US should stopping meddling in affairs between China and Hong Kong, it said.
Chinese government ‘insecure’
Jürgen Hardt, a foreign policy expert with Angela Merkel’s Conservative party in the Bundestag, told DW that the law “is harming significantly the agreement between China and the United Kingdom concerning the status of Hong Kong”
Hardt said the fact that the Chinese government is increasing pressure on civil society showed that “probably the Chinese government, the Communist party feel not as secure in their seats as we see them in their seats.”
Going forward, the European Union and China needed to find “win-win options” for both sides, but “linking that to other questions.” “For us, fair relations also have to have in mind that business plans and not political decisions of a communistic party have to set the agenda of economic cooperation,” Hardt added.
The planned EU-China summit in the autumn should be used by the EU-27 to speak with one voice and express a joint strategy. Concerning China’s belt and road initiative, Hardt said that “having a landline between Europe and China is a good idea.” But linking political questions with such an economic project is not what we can accept.”
Condemnation
Prominent Hong Kong pro-democracy activists Joshua Wong on Thursday called on the international community to stand up against Beijing’s legislative moves.
Japan’s foreign ministry said it was “seriously concerned” about the move.
On Tuesday, the EU had urged China to respect Hong Kong’s autonomy.
“We attach great importance to the preservation of Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy in line with the Basic Law and international commitments,” said European Council President Charles Michel, who represents European governments.
EU foreign ministers are expected to discuss the development at their regular meeting on Friday.
Alex Jones breaks down the hypocrisy of the media stoking a race war after the Ahmaud Arbery shooting, while ignoring videos of a racist coward beating up elderly white people in his ‘care.’


newswars--2020-05-28--College Students Soon Welcomed Back to Campus by Virus-Testing Robots

A number of unique solutions have cropped up as colleges create measures by which to safely re-open their campuses while preventing further spread of the coronavirus .
Preliminary steps for many schools include the establishment of teams tasked with evaluating how best to bring students back to campus , such as Amherst College , which announced the creation of “ a student task force that will help us consider our options and come up with creative solutions to whatever challenges we face.
” Schools are still in the process of assembling plans for the fall semester , as colleges face @ @ @ @ @ @ @ classes and academic affairs , adjusting residential and student life activities , and addressing the possibility of the virus manifesting itself on campus .
Course scheduling is an area of high concern for college administrators .
The University of Texas is planning to begin the fall semester as scheduled and run classes until Thanksgiving break , after which students will not return to campus but instead “ participate in reading days and final exams remotely.
” This is in an effort to “ avoid the possibility of students becoming infected during the Thanksgiving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ classmates upon their return after Thanksgiving.
” Similarly , Syracuse University will end in-person classes following Thanksgiving .
The college has announced that in order to accelerate their schedule while maintaining academic requirements , “ some additional Friday classes and some classes being held on weekends ” may be necessary .
Michigan State University has not yet made a final decision , awaiting decisions from its own task force , but University President Samuel L. Stanley Jr. suggests , “ Large classes could be replaced by hybrid courses with smaller classroom groups staggered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lectures.
” “ At MSU there are a lot of general education classes which have class sizes of hundreds , and are often participatory classes where attendance drops throughout the year , with the exception of in-class exams , ” MSU student Sergei Kelley told Campus Reform .
“ Classes like that where the material is easy and where a large part of the grade is dependent on you just existing in the seat or hitting any response for iClicker questions should just be online.
” Courses that take place in person will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mitch Daniels has described some of the ways in which Purdue ’ s classrooms may change , including spacing students 10 feet apart and having faculty teach from behind a Plexiglass screen .
Physical adjustments may prove more noticeable in residential life ; dorm spaces and dining areas present a significant challenge for schools .
Boston University is considering separating students into groups that will interact within themselves but not with any others .
Pennsylvania State University is weighing options for the use of campus facilities that include implementing reservations or a take-out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ students who use the school libraries should expect interruption for deep cleaning of study areas and resources .
The University of California-San Diego has used the spring semester to explore the possibility of a program in which students self-test in hopes that “ this initial phase will provide us with the knowledge and insight to eventually scale up to where we could potentially test monthly the vast majority of the roughly 65,000 students , faculty and staff members on campus , ” according to UCSD Chancellor Pradeep Khosla .
As for fall planning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ specialized robots ” to facilitate on-campus testing of students , instructors , and staff , and “ students with roommates in high-density dorms might be tested more regularly.
” Instead of offering antibody and antigen testing that the public has become familiar with , the university will opt for the RT-PCR test , which is “ a test that detects the genetic material of the virus , ” according to BU professor of biomedical engineering Catherine Klapperich .
“ The test can take small amounts of that viral genome and amplify it until @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the test well .
The test well will light up if it ’ s there , ” explains Klapperich .
Enter robots , which “ do sample preparation and test setup really , really well .
And they do it with higher accuracy—and don ’ t get tired !
” Conducted via self-sampling , this approach is projected to serve the university well in mass surveillance testing efforts , although some in-person testing will most likely continue to be necessary .
President of Boston University Robert A .
Brown emphasized that the value @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incredibly highly valued on the other side of this ” in a recent virtual presentation to the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce .
“ We are going to have to be more flexible than we have ever been in the way we offer education.
” Alex Jones breaks down the hypocrisy of the media stoking a race war after the Ahmaud Arbery shooting , while ignoring videos of a racist coward beating up elderly white people in his ‘ care .
’

A number of unique solutions have cropped up as colleges create measures by which to safely re-open their campuses while preventing further spread of the coronavirus.
Preliminary steps for many schools include the establishment of teams tasked with evaluating how best to bring students back to campus, such as Amherst College, which announced the creation of “a student task force that will help us consider our options and come up with creative solutions to whatever challenges we face.”
Schools are still in the process of assembling plans for the fall semester, as colleges face a variety of challenges which include accommodating classes and academic affairs, adjusting residential and student life activities, and addressing the possibility of the virus manifesting itself on campus.
Course scheduling is an area of high concern for college administrators.
The University of Texas is planning to begin the fall semester as scheduled and run classes until Thanksgiving break, after which students will not return to campus but instead “participate in reading days and final exams remotely.” This is in an effort to “avoid the possibility of students becoming infected during the Thanksgiving break and then spreading the virus to classmates upon their return after Thanksgiving.”
Similarly, Syracuse University will end in-person classes following Thanksgiving. The college has announced that in order to accelerate their schedule while maintaining academic requirements, “some additional Friday classes and some classes being held on weekends” may be necessary.
Michigan State University has not yet made a final decision, awaiting decisions from its own task force, but University President Samuel L. Stanley Jr. suggests, “Large classes could be replaced by hybrid courses with smaller classroom groups staggered through the week, augmented by online lectures.”
“At MSU there are a lot of general education classes which have class sizes of hundreds, and are often participatory classes where attendance drops throughout the year, with the exception of in-class exams,” MSU student Sergei Kelley told Campus Reform. “Classes like that where the material is easy and where a large part of the grade is dependent on you just existing in the seat or hitting any response for iClicker questions should just be online.”
Courses that take place in person will look different post-pandemic.
Purdue University president Mitch Daniels has described some of the ways in which Purdue’s classrooms may change, including spacing students 10 feet apart and having faculty teach from behind a Plexiglass screen.
Physical adjustments may prove more noticeable in residential life; dorm spaces and dining areas present a significant challenge for schools.
Boston University is considering separating students into groups that will interact within themselves but not with any others. Pennsylvania State University is weighing options for the use of campus facilities that include implementing reservations or a take-out system in dining halls. Additionally, students who use the school libraries should expect interruption for deep cleaning of study areas and resources.
The University of California-San Diego has used the spring semester to explore the possibility of a program in which students self-test in hopes that “this initial phase will provide us with the knowledge and insight to eventually scale up to where we could potentially test monthly the vast majority of the roughly 65,000 students, faculty and staff members on campus,” according to UCSD Chancellor Pradeep Khosla.
As for fall planning, Boston University intends to utilize “specialized robots” to facilitate on-campus testing of students, instructors, and staff, and “students with roommates in high-density dorms might be tested more regularly.”
Instead of offering antibody and antigen testing that the public has become familiar with, the university will opt for the RT-PCR test, which is “a test that detects the genetic material of the virus,” according to BU professor of biomedical engineering Catherine Klapperich. “The test can take small amounts of that viral genome and amplify it until a lot of it is present in the test well. The test well will light up if it’s there,” explains Klapperich.
Enter robots, which “do sample preparation and test setup really, really well. And they do it with higher accuracy—and don’t get tired!”
Conducted via self-sampling, this approach is projected to serve the university well in mass surveillance testing efforts, although some in-person testing will most likely continue to be necessary.
President of Boston University Robert A. Brown emphasized that the value of a residential education will be “incredibly highly valued on the other side of this” in a recent virtual presentation to the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce.
“We are going to have to be more flexible than we have ever been in the way we offer education.”
Alex Jones breaks down the hypocrisy of the media stoking a race war after the Ahmaud Arbery shooting, while ignoring videos of a racist coward beating up elderly white people in his ‘care.’


newswars--2020-05-28--Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey Stands by Decision to ‘Fact-Check’ Trump

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey has defended his platform ’ s decision to fact-check US President Donald Trump for the first time ever over his comments on the upcoming election .
A spat erupted between Twitter and Donald Trump , one of the platform ’ s most prolific users , after Twitter said that two of his posts could be misleading .
The President accused the social media giant of harbouring an anti-conservative bias , a sentiment that was fuelled by unearthed anti-Trump tweets from Twitter ’ s head of site integrity .
Dorsey , who co-founded Twitter in 2006 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a fact-check warning on two of Trump ’ s tweets because they may “ mislead people into thinking they don ’ t need to register to get a ballot.
” Trump in the tweets accused the Democrat governor of California , without evidence , of sending vote-by-mail ballots to “ anyone living on the state , no matter who they are or how they got there ” and warned of rampant voter fraud in the November election .
The tweets were tagged with a fact-check label that redirects to reporting by media and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The President in response accused Twitter of suppressing free speech and interfering in the election .
He also threatened to “ strongly regulate ” or shut down social media platforms outright .
The controversy is likely to raise further questions as to whether Twitter is willing to continue to append the label to other presidential tweets that have been considered false by third parties .
Donald Trump has recently doubled down on unsupported claims that former Rep. Joe Scarborough was involved in the 2001 death of his staffer , which was ruled accidental @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not fact-check these tweets , because they did not violate its policies , and would not remove them despite a request from the staffer ’ s widower .
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg , whose platform refuses to fact-check political speech and leaves it up to the media , challenged Twitter ’ s misinformation policy .
“ We have a different policy than , I think , Twitter on this , ” he said in a Fox News interview on Wednesday .
“ I just believe strongly that Facebook shouldn ’ t be the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say online.
” Referencing Zuckerberg ’ s remark , Dorsey tweeted that fact-checking politicians “ does not make us an ‘ arbiter of truth ’ .
” He added : “ Our intention is to connect the dots of conflicting statements and show the information in dispute so people can judge for themselves .
More transparency from us is critical so folks can clearly see the why behind our actions.
” Twitter has come under fire among conservatives over its perceived bias against Donald Trump .
One argument that fuelled that sentiment was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which Twitter ’ s head of site integrity , Yoel Roth , posted in 2016 and 2017 .
The tweets referred to Trump as a “ racist tangerine ” and to his administration as “ Nazis in the White House.
” Twitter , however , stood by Roth and explained that he was not the person who decided to fact-check Trump .
“ No one person at Twitter is responsible for our policies , ” the company said in a statement to several news outlets .
“ It ’ s unfortunate to see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dorsey tweeted : “ Fact check : there is someone ultimately accountable for our actions as a company , and that ’ s me .
Please leave our employees out of this .
We ’ ll continue to point out incorrect or disputed information about elections globally .
And we will admit to and own any mistakes we make.
” Alex Jones breaks down the hypocrisy of the media stoking a race war after the Ahmaud Arbery shooting , while ignoring videos of a racist coward beating up elderly white people in his @ @ @ @

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey has defended his platform’s decision to fact-check US President Donald Trump for the first time ever over his comments on the upcoming election.
A spat erupted between Twitter and Donald Trump, one of the platform’s most prolific users, after Twitter said that two of his posts could be misleading.
The President accused the social media giant of harbouring an anti-conservative bias, a sentiment that was fuelled by unearthed anti-Trump tweets from Twitter’s head of site integrity.
Dorsey, who co-founded Twitter in 2006, wrote that the site chose to put a fact-check warning on two of Trump’s tweets because they may “mislead people into thinking they don’t need to register to get a ballot.”
What happened to Trump’s tweets?
Trump in the tweets accused the Democrat governor of California, without evidence, of sending vote-by-mail ballots to “anyone living on the state, no matter who they are or how they got there” and warned of rampant voter fraud in the November election.
The tweets were tagged with a fact-check label that redirects to reporting by media and journalists debunking Trump’s claim. The President in response accused Twitter of suppressing free speech and interfering in the election. He also threatened to “strongly regulate” or shut down social media platforms outright.
The controversy is likely to raise further questions as to whether Twitter is willing to continue to append the label to other presidential tweets that have been considered false by third parties.
Donald Trump has recently doubled down on unsupported claims that former Rep. Joe Scarborough was involved in the 2001 death of his staffer, which was ruled accidental by authorities. Twitter said it would not fact-check these tweets, because they did not violate its policies, and would not remove them despite a request from the staffer’s widower.
A rebuke from Facebook
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, whose platform refuses to fact-check political speech and leaves it up to the media, challenged Twitter’s misinformation policy.
“We have a different policy than, I think, Twitter on this,” he said in a Fox News interview on Wednesday. “I just believe strongly that Facebook shouldn’t be the arbiter of truth of everything that people say online.”
Referencing Zuckerberg’s remark, Dorsey tweeted that fact-checking politicians “does not make us an ‘arbiter of truth’.”
He added: “Our intention is to connect the dots of conflicting statements and show the information in dispute so people can judge for themselves. More transparency from us is critical so folks can clearly see the why behind our actions.”
This does not make us an “arbiter of truth.” Our intention is to connect the dots of conflicting statements and show the information in dispute so people can judge for themselves. More transparency from us is critical so folks can clearly see the why behind our actions. — jack (@jack) May 28, 2020
Lacking integrity?
Twitter has come under fire among conservatives over its perceived bias against Donald Trump. One argument that fuelled that sentiment was a series of derogatory tweets about Republicans which Twitter’s head of site integrity, Yoel Roth, posted in 2016 and 2017.
The tweets referred to Trump as a “racist tangerine” and to his administration as “Nazis in the White House.”
This person is the “head of site integrity” at Twitter pic.twitter.com/hyZcl5VIe0 — Jon Levine (@LevineJonathan) May 27, 2020
Twitter, however, stood by Roth and explained that he was not the person who decided to fact-check Trump. “No one person at Twitter is responsible for our policies,” the company said in a statement to several news outlets. “It’s unfortunate to see individual employees targeted for company decisions.”
Dorsey tweeted: “Fact check: there is someone ultimately accountable for our actions as a company, and that’s me. Please leave our employees out of this. We’ll continue to point out incorrect or disputed information about elections globally. And we will admit to and own any mistakes we make.”
Alex Jones breaks down the hypocrisy of the media stoking a race war after the Ahmaud Arbery shooting, while ignoring videos of a racist coward beating up elderly white people in his ‘care.’


newswars--2020-05-28--Pentagon to Brief Trump on Pre-Election Afghanistan Exit

Multiple reports now indicate President Trump wants to pull all American troops out of Afghanistan by the November election , following a shaky historic ceasefire and truce deal with the Taliban , lately showing signs of actually holding , given a key prisoner swap successfully taking effect in the past days considered integral to the agreement .
Trump tweeted on the matter Wednesday morning , again invoking what made his foreign policy attractive on the 2016 campaign trail of rejecting the neocon idea of being the ‘ globe ’ s police force ’ – instead putting America first .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , not the fighting force that we are , in Afghanistan .
After 19 years , it is time for them to police their own Country , ” the president said on Twitter .
Given his prior promises to his base and to the country , if Trump is to actually deliver on what past administrations have failed at ( a final exit from the Afghan quagmire ) , it could give him a huge boost ahead of November .
He made similar comments the day prior , on Tuesday .
“ We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yeah , I think that ’ s enough… We can always go back if we want to , ” he told a White House news conference .
“ We want to bring our soldiers back home , ” he emphasized .
“ We are not meant to be a police force , we ’ re meant to be a fighting force , ” Trump said .
During the press conference he was asked whether the Thanksgiving holiday on Nov. 26 would be a suitable target .
Trump responded : “ No .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as ( is ) reasonable .
Over a period of time but as soon as reasonable.
” But The New York Times reports Trump could be eyeing an earlier , ambitious withdrawal date of at least before November 3rd , election day : Senior military officials are set to brief President Trump in the coming days on options for pulling all American troops out of Afghanistan , with one possible timeline for withdrawing forces before the presidential election , according to officials with knowledge of the plans .
The proposal for a complete @ @ @ @ @ @ @ military commanders that such a timeline may be Mr. Trump ’ s preferred option because it may help bolster his campaign .
But they plan to propose , and to advocate , a slower withdrawal schedule , officials said .
But of course , like with similar ‘ timetables ’ drawn up before , it will be much easier said than done , given the generals are already reportedly pushing the idea that a ‘ quick ’ exit would doom the shaky truce between the US , Taliban , and Afghan national government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same discussion could be happening once we reach the full twenty year anniversary of America ’ s longest — and frankly largely ‘ forgotten ’ war .
Alex Jones breaks down the hypocrisy of the media stoking a race war after the Ahmaud Arbery shooting , while ignoring videos of a racist coward beating up elderly white people in his ‘ care .
’

Multiple reports now indicate President Trump wants to pull all American troops out of Afghanistan by the November election, following a shaky historic ceasefire and truce deal with the Taliban, lately showing signs of actually holding, given a key prisoner swap successfully taking effect in the past days considered integral to the agreement.
Trump tweeted on the matter Wednesday morning, again invoking what made his foreign policy attractive on the 2016 campaign trail of rejecting the neocon idea of being the ‘globe’s police force’ – instead putting America first.
“We are acting as a police force, not the fighting force that we are, in Afghanistan. After 19 years, it is time for them to police their own Country,” the president said on Twitter.
We are acting as a police force, not the fighting force that we are, in Afghanistan. After 19 years, it is time for them to police their own Country. Bring our soldiers back home but closely watch what is going on and strike with a thunder like never before, if necessary! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 27, 2020 Visit our store now before the sale ends!
Given his prior promises to his base and to the country, if Trump is to actually deliver on what past administrations have failed at (a final exit from the Afghan quagmire), it could give him a huge boost ahead of November.
He made similar comments the day prior, on Tuesday. “We’re there 19 years and, yeah, I think that’s enough… We can always go back if we want to,” he told a White House news conference. “We want to bring our soldiers back home,” he emphasized.
“We are not meant to be a police force, we’re meant to be a fighting force,” Trump said.
During the press conference he was asked whether the Thanksgiving holiday on Nov. 26 would be a suitable target. Trump responded: “No. I have no target. But as soon as (is) reasonable. Over a period of time but as soon as reasonable.”
But The New York Times reports Trump could be eyeing an earlier, ambitious withdrawal date of at least before November 3rd, election day:
Senior military officials are set to brief President Trump in the coming days on options for pulling all American troops out of Afghanistan, with one possible timeline for withdrawing forces before the presidential election, according to officials with knowledge of the plans.
The proposal for a complete withdrawal by November reflects an understanding among military commanders that such a timeline may be Mr. Trump’s preferred option because it may help bolster his campaign.
But they plan to propose, and to advocate, a slower withdrawal schedule, officials said.
But of course, like with similar ‘timetables’ drawn up before, it will be much easier said than done, given the generals are already reportedly pushing the idea that a ‘quick’ exit would doom the shaky truce between the US, Taliban, and Afghan national government in Kabul.
Very likely, the same discussion could be happening once we reach the full twenty year anniversary of America’s longest — and frankly largely ‘forgotten’ war.
Alex Jones breaks down the hypocrisy of the media stoking a race war after the Ahmaud Arbery shooting, while ignoring videos of a racist coward beating up elderly white people in his ‘care.’


newswars--2020-05-29--Rioter: ‘We’re Gonna Start Coming to the Suburbs’

A man interviewed on camera during last night ’ s chaos in Minneapolis warned that rioters are planning on “ coming to the suburbs ” if they don ’ t get what they want .
The twin cities were once again rocked by a night of absolute bedlam as more stores were looted and rioters set fire to the 3rd police precinct building , prompting cops to flee the scene .
“ It ’ s real bogus , they got ta hit it right , otherwise this is what ’ s gon na happen , ain ’ t nothing left @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the suburbs , when we come to the government center , then what y ’ all gon na do ?
” the mask-wearing African American asks .
“ You see what I ’ m saying , so eh that ’ s just what ’ s gon na happen , you know – f**k the police , ” he adds .
President Trump has promised to bring in the National Guard if local authorities are incapable of handling the violence , something that is pretty much self-evident at this point .
As we highlighted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country and becoming more violent , the media is still describing the carnage as a legitimate “ protest.
” My voice is being silenced by free speech-hating Silicon Valley behemoths who want me disappeared forever .
It is CRUCIAL that you support me .
Please sign up for the free newsletter here .
Donate to me on SubscribeStar here .
Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown .

A man interviewed on camera during last night’s chaos in Minneapolis warned that rioters are planning on “coming to the suburbs” if they don’t get what they want.
The twin cities were once again rocked by a night of absolute bedlam as more stores were looted and rioters set fire to the 3rd police precinct building, prompting cops to flee the scene.
Alex Jones is live breaking down this story and how Communist China is making its move to destabilize America:
“It’s real bogus, they gotta hit it right, otherwise this is what’s gonna happen, ain’t nothing left here so when we start coming to the suburbs, when we come to the government center, then what y’all gonna do?” the mask-wearing African American asks.
“You see what I’m saying, so eh that’s just what’s gonna happen, you know – f**k the police,” he adds.
President Trump has promised to bring in the National Guard if local authorities are incapable of handling the violence, something that is pretty much self-evident at this point.
As we highlighted earlier, despite the riots spreading across the country and becoming more violent, the media is still describing the carnage as a legitimate “protest.”
SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:
Follow on Twitter: Follow @PrisonPlanet
———————————————————————————————————————
My voice is being silenced by free speech-hating Silicon Valley behemoths who want me disappeared forever. It is CRUCIAL that you support me.
Please sign up for the free newsletter here. Donate to me on SubscribeStar here.
Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.
———————————————————————————————————————


newswars--2020-05-29--Black Business Owner Who Invested Life Savings Into Looted Bar: “I Don’t Know What I’m Gonna Do”

A black business owner who invested his life savings into what is now a looted and destroyed sports bar cried on camera as he lamented , “ I don ’ t know what I ’ m gon na do.
” A news report describes how the Minneapolis bar owner was attempting to clean up when thugs tried to break in again during filming and loot his safe .
“ I don ’ t know what I ’ m gon na do , I worked so hard to get here , so hard , ” the owner says as he cries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rioters are burning down their own community and destroying the lives of other black people , supposedly in pursuit of justice .
In reality , they ’ ve trashed their own neighborhood and made it highly unlikely that any new businesses will want to set up shop to serve the community there ever again .
Some business owners placed signs that said “ minority owned ” in an attempt to deter looters , but that obviously didn ’ t work for this bar owner .
My voice is being silenced by free speech-hating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forever .
It is CRUCIAL that you support me .
Please sign up for the free newsletter here .
Donate to me on SubscribeStar here .
Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown .

A black business owner who invested his life savings into what is now a looted and destroyed sports bar cried on camera as he lamented, “I don’t know what I’m gonna do.”
A news report describes how the Minneapolis bar owner was attempting to clean up when thugs tried to break in again during filming and loot his safe.
“I don’t know what I’m gonna do, I worked so hard to get here, so hard,” the owner says as he cries.
#MinneapolisRiot This isn’t even protesting anymore. Swear people go too far pic.twitter.com/gNCjWwzOmz — kreeche (@FatherKee) May 29, 2020
The clip once again emphasizes how rioters are burning down their own community and destroying the lives of other black people, supposedly in pursuit of justice.
In reality, they’ve trashed their own neighborhood and made it highly unlikely that any new businesses will want to set up shop to serve the community there ever again.
Some business owners placed signs that said “minority owned” in an attempt to deter looters, but that obviously didn’t work for this bar owner.
The angel of death is coming for white Americans. Be sure to signal extra hard, shitlibs, so he passes over you. pic.twitter.com/K23xMjDBtU — Counter-Currents (@NewRightAmerica) May 28, 2020
SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:
Follow on Twitter: Follow @PrisonPlanet
———————————————————————————————————————
My voice is being silenced by free speech-hating Silicon Valley behemoths who want me disappeared forever. It is CRUCIAL that you support me.
Please sign up for the free newsletter here. Donate to me on SubscribeStar here.
Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.
———————————————————————————————————————


newswars--2020-05-29--MSNBC Reporter Claims “Protests” Aren’t “Unruly” as Building Literally Burns Behind Him

The media ’ s bias in attempting to portray last night ’ s chaotic riots as a legitimate “ protest ” came to the fore when an MSNBC reporter said the demonstrations were not “ unruly , ” even as a building ferociously burned behind him .
Minneapolis was hit by its worst night of riots yet as what President Trump later described as “ thugs ” set a police precinct on fire as cops were forced to flee .
The violent unrest spread to numerous other cities across the country .
What began as a protest has clearly turned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in modern American history , although you wouldn ’ t know it by watching MSNBC .
“ I want to be clear on how I characterize this , ” said reporter Ali Velshi while describing events on the ground .
“ This is mostly a protest .
It is not generally speaking unruly.
” He said this while a building was being literally consumed by fire right behind him and after a night of absolute bedlam .
One wonders what would have to happen for the riots to be considered “ unruly ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the White House have to be reduced to a smoldering rubble for MSNBC to acknowledge that this is a riot and not a protest ?
My voice is being silenced by free speech-hating Silicon Valley behemoths who want me disappeared forever .
It is CRUCIAL that you support me .
Please sign up for the free newsletter here .
Donate to me on SubscribeStar here .
Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown .

The media’s bias in attempting to portray last night’s chaotic riots as a legitimate “protest” came to the fore when an MSNBC reporter said the demonstrations were not “unruly,” even as a building ferociously burned behind him.
Minneapolis was hit by its worst night of riots yet as what President Trump later described as “thugs” set a police precinct on fire as cops were forced to flee. The violent unrest spread to numerous other cities across the country.
What began as a protest has clearly turned into one of the most violent riots in modern American history, although you wouldn’t know it by watching MSNBC.
Why you shouldn’t let liberals anywhere near the levers of power, in 12 seconds: pic.twitter.com/RclcSOypb3 — Will Chamberlain (@willchamberlain) May 29, 2020
“I want to be clear on how I characterize this,” said reporter Ali Velshi while describing events on the ground. “This is mostly a protest. It is not generally speaking unruly.”
He said this while a building was being literally consumed by fire right behind him and after a night of absolute bedlam.
One wonders what would have to happen for the riots to be considered “unruly” in the eyes of Velshi.
Would the White House have to be reduced to a smoldering rubble for MSNBC to acknowledge that this is a riot and not a protest?
SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:
Follow on Twitter: Follow @PrisonPlanet
———————————————————————————————————————
My voice is being silenced by free speech-hating Silicon Valley behemoths who want me disappeared forever. It is CRUCIAL that you support me.
Please sign up for the free newsletter here. Donate to me on SubscribeStar here.
Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.
———————————————————————————————————————


newswars--2020-05-29--Rules Dictate Employees Can Be Fired For Not Wearing A Face Mask

New rules put into place to allow businesses to re-open mandate that employees must wear face masks , and can be disciplined or even fired for refusing to do so .
Bloomberg law noted last week that face coverings are being mandated as a “ term of employment , ” and can only be avoided in very limited circumstances .
Anyone refusing to go along with the rules means “ In essence , they ’ re saying ‘ I really don ’ t want to work here .
That really is like someone coming in and saying ‘ I don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said Katherine Dudley Helms , an Ogletree Deakins attorney who represents employers .
Employers have a “ basic right to devise and enforce nondiscriminatory work rules , including those pertaining to clothing , ” said Fordham University School of Law professor James Brudney .
The report notes that this was the case before the coronavirus outbreak , given that an employer can mandate that employees cover tattoos , or adhere to a dress code .
The new mandates simply insert face masks into the equation as part of the dress code .
Workers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ covering out of political conviction would still probably lose in court , ” said attorney Mark Frost , noting that employers are within their rights to terminate workers for any reason , as long as it doesn ’ t break the law .
In addition , there is an increased eagerness to punish people seen not wearing masks .
Last month , a local Colorado media outlet ran an undercover sting on their nearby Home Depot store following reports that employees were flouting mandatory face mask orders .
On Twitter , CBS Denver @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was based off tipsters who reported violations of Gov .
Polis ’ executive order , which expires May 17 .
Footage of a man being dragged off a bus by police in Philadelphia because he was not wearing a face mask went viral recently .
This is now the new normal .
Inform on and punish those who choose not to follow the rules .
Early on during the outbreak , it was universally noted by virologists and doctors that face masks are largely ineffectual against the spread of the virus .
Even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ National Institutes of Infections , admitted “ There ’ s no reason to be walking around with a mask.
” The US Surgeon General also advised the public not to wear masks : However , once the CDC applied pressure… And Fauci now wears a mask at every press briefing , admitting that it is a ‘ symbol ’ of following the ‘ rules ’ : In addition to all of this , there are currently more than one thousand US patents that cover the N95 , 3M ’ s medical mask .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ are certain government approved companies allowed a monopoly on production ?

New rules put into place to allow businesses to re-open mandate that employees must wear face masks, and can be disciplined or even fired for refusing to do so.
Bloomberg law noted last week that face coverings are being mandated as a “term of employment,” and can only be avoided in very limited circumstances.
Anyone refusing to go along with the rules means “In essence, they’re saying ‘I really don’t want to work here. That really is like someone coming in and saying ‘I don’t like your rules.’” said Katherine Dudley Helms, an Ogletree Deakins attorney who represents employers.
Employers have a “basic right to devise and enforce nondiscriminatory work rules, including those pertaining to clothing,” said Fordham University School of Law professor James Brudney.
The report notes that this was the case before the coronavirus outbreak, given that an employer can mandate that employees cover tattoos, or adhere to a dress code. The new mandates simply insert face masks into the equation as part of the dress code.
Workers “who refuse to wear a face covering out of political conviction would still probably lose in court,” said attorney Mark Frost, noting that employers are within their rights to terminate workers for any reason, as long as it doesn’t break the law.
In addition, there is an increased eagerness to punish people seen not wearing masks.
Last month, a local Colorado media outlet ran an undercover sting on their nearby Home Depot store following reports that employees were flouting mandatory face mask orders.
On Twitter, CBS Denver news director Tim Wieland announced their investigation was based off tipsters who reported violations of Gov. Polis’ executive order, which expires May 17.
Our investigative tips email is filled with people reporting on essential workers ignoring Colorado’s mask order. So reporter @KatiWeis set out to learn who’s not wearing them, and why. https://t.co/4fTrSsBL1I — Tim Wieland (@CBS4Tim) April 29, 2020
Footage of a man being dragged off a bus by police in Philadelphia because he was not wearing a face mask went viral recently.
This is now the new normal. Inform on and punish those who choose not to follow the rules.
do riders know that they might be pulled off a SEPTA bus by 10 cops for not having a mask? pic.twitter.com/NnHXJC02E8 — Philly Transit Riders Union (@phillyTRU) April 10, 2020
Early on during the outbreak, it was universally noted by virologists and doctors that face masks are largely ineffectual against the spread of the virus.
Even Dr. Anthony Fauci, head of the National Institutes of Infections, admitted “There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask.”

The US Surgeon General also advised the public not to wear masks:
Seriously people- STOP BUYING MASKS! They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!
https://t.co/UxZRwxxKL9 — U.S. Surgeon General (@Surgeon_General) February 29, 2020
However, once the CDC applied pressure…
There remains scant evidence wearing a mask- especially improperly- provides much benefit to a healthy wearer. However emerging data suggests facial coverings may prevent asymptomatic disease transmission to others. We always follow and react to the data – @CDCgov is studying — U.S. Surgeon General (@Surgeon_General) April 2, 2020
And Fauci now wears a mask at every press briefing, admitting that it is a ‘symbol’ of following the ‘rules’:
3 types of mask wearers. – Older people who are genuinely at risk (fair enough). – People who have been so terrorised by media coverage, they think COVID is literally everywhere outside. – People who want to feel smug in their obedience & to broadcast they are better than you. — Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) May 5, 2020
In addition to all of this, there are currently more than one thousand US patents that cover the N95, 3M’s medical mask. If masks are now mandatory, why are certain government approved companies allowed a monopoly on production?