Episode 304: Un-locking Down / Judging Amy / Twitter Blockage
So intelligent she doesn’t need notes Yet another YouTube video was create of some guy claiming to be a doctor and claiming that lockdowns should not be the way we deal with this virus. But this is not just another crank. The nomination hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett went on last week and they demonstrated the stark difference between how Democrats and Republicans view the role of the courts. When Facebook and Twitter block posting of an article, there’s clearly something going wrong with social media (and clearly it’s an article worth reading). Mentioned links: WHO official: Stop using lockdowns as primary virus control method Twitter changes guidelines following Post censorship controversy Getting some shopping done? If you're going to shop at Amazon, please consider clicking on my affiliate link. Thanks! On Apple devices, you can subscribe to the podcast via iTunes. If you're on Android, listen with Google Podcasts. Stitcher Radio is another possibility for both Apple and Android devices. If you do download Stitcher to your phone, please use the promo code “ConsiderThis” to let them know where you heard about it. Browser-based options are the Blubrry Network and Player.fm. And if you have some other podcatcher or RSS reader, click here to get the direct feed and paste it wherever you need it. I would love it if you would spread the word about the podcast! Click the Facebook, Twitter, and other icons (or all of them!) at the bottom of this post to recommend "Consider This!" to your social media audience. Show transcript If you’ve tried to tweet or write a Facebook post or create a YouTube video these past months trying to get you thoughts out about how lockdown aren’t useful for stemming the tide of COVID-19, you’ve often found your opinion slapped down because of “misinformation” or “false news” or something like that. It’s been something of a badge of honor to get that particular action taken against you. Good thing we live in a country with free speech. Now I’ve been on the record that I would not have wanted to be anyone in power having to make that decision; to lockdown or not. There was too much we didn’t know at the start of this to be sure that leaving the status quo would be OK. Nope, don’t put me in that position; I’ll just snipe from the bleachers. After a while, though, there were a number of people deciding that these lockdown were, in some cases, a cure worse than the literal disease. Shutting down the economy and losing jobs was a major hit to the poor and the not-so-poor. Even now major store and restaurant chains, to say nothing of the local shops and eateries, are declaring bankruptcy to either reshuffle debt or go out of business altogether. Those disagreeing with this course of action saw this and said, and have been saying, stay home if you’re sick, quarantine the vulnerable, but let those who wish out of lockdown and keep the economy from crashing. But that was not the conventional wisdom. And now some other guy with a degree in front of his name (as if that means anything) has come out with another one of those videos telling all world leaders to “stop using lockdown as your primary control method”. Who is this crank? It’s Dr. David Nabarro, the World Health Organization’s Special Envoy on COVID-19; y’know, just another guy. OK, so what I hear people saying in objection to the way I’m characterizing this is, “We’ve learned a lot about this virus in the past 7 months, you can’t blame him for not knowing.” I understand that, but two things. One, a lot of other people (and not just little guys sniping from the bleachers) have been saying this for months and I just can’t believe all of them just got lucky making that prediction. And two, what will we see now in states and cities that are still on lockdown whose governors and mayors have said they were “following the science”? The science now says to open up, so keep track of those places that either remain or move back to lockdown and we’ll see how much science is in their decision-making. Of course, so much damage has been done already, it’s rather pointless at this point. But do we really think it took 7 months to figure this out? I’ve been listening to some of the confirmation hearings for Amy Coney Barrett and I have to say, I like a lot of this new season of “Judging Amy” but I have some issues with some of the writing. During opening statements and then the questioning of Amy Coney Barrett during her confirmation hearings, it really showed how Democrats had the talking points all lined up. They said the same things over and over. Senator after Senator had examples of people who have benefited from the Affordable Care Act, many times with big pictures on easels behind them. The clear idea is that they are openly worried that, with Barrett on the Supreme Court, that the ACA would get overturned or picked apart. There were a few other cases that got brought up but they were clearly upset that Barrett might not vote like Ginsburg to uphold this specific piece of legislation. This is precisely the misuse of the court that Democrats have been perpetrating for decades. They pay lip service to the (proper) view that the Supreme Court is to only apply the law – compare a law to the Constitution to see if it lines up with those principles – but what they are really interested in is having what has been called a “super-legislature” where Democrats can change the law whenever they want. If the ACA, or some part of it, is unconstitutional, applying the law means to honestly declare it so. What Democrats want is to ignore the Constitution and have the judiciary to defend and protect, not the Constitution, but their legislation, regardless of whether or not it tramples our rights. Republicans want law treated as what it is; a legal document that means precisely what it says. Democrats do not care about constitutionality; they just want a particular outcome by whatever means necessary. Regarding the courts and how they are to be properly used, this is a major difference between the two parties. I am so glad that we are replacing one Justice who was decidedly partisan with one who will hold up a law against the Constitution and do a fair comparison. For Democrats, upholding the Constitution is what they consider “radical”. Keep that in mind. I’ve posted a video in the show notes about two actual scandals that hit this week. The first, by itself, is bad enough but the second is arguably worse. The New York Post was given data from a hard drive containing emails to and from Hunter Biden which allegedly show that Joe Biden actually did know about Hunter’s dealings in the Ukraine, contrary to his previous statements. Further, Hunter sold access to Joe while he was VP as part of these dealings. There’s more to this to unpack, and that video does a great job of doing it, but I want to focus more on what happened in reaction to that. During the day of October 15th, both Twitter and Facebook blocked references to this story. You could post it on Facebook but it reduced its distribution. Twitter blocked it entirely. In fact if you tried to post the link to that story you could also have your account suspended. Just ask Kayleigh McEnany, the President’s press secretary; it happened to her and many others. Further, they suspended the account of the NY Post itself! And all this before their armies of fact checkers had even started their work. They did it preemptively! Twitter argued that its terms of service said you couldn’t post any content that was hacked or stolen. Ah so no stories with leaked aka stolen information, huh? Like, a hypothetical story about Trump’s leaked tax returns? Or a hypothetical story about how Trump called vets “losers” that was (hypothetically) denied by everyone who was there? Or so many media hit pieces with entirely anonymous sources? Hypothetically? The mask has slipped, and social media platforms are showing that they’re not just platforms for free speech; they are more and more becoming partisan publishers working for one side of the aisle in this election. Never mind Russia buying a couple ads on Facebook; look at Facebook itself for election interference. And actually Republicans are calling for an investigation into this. Hope we’ll be able to tweet about it. And finally, Bruce Springsteen says that if Donald Trump wins re-election, he’ll move to Australia. Yeah, we’ve heard this song before. If he does, he’ll be the first celebrity to follow through. If he doesn’t, he’ll just be the latest in a long line of celebs that like to say politically correct stuff just to appeal to voters of a particular persuasion. Those voters don’t really expect him to do it; just saying it, just voicing the intention, is all they need. Yes, Bruce may have been born in the USA, but baby, he was born to run. The post Episode 304: Un-locking Down / Judging Amy / Twitter Blockage appeared first on Consider This!.