Thoughts On A Sunday

It looks like we’ve made it through our Covid-19 Thanksgiving, celebrating with our self-isolated family members at the younger WP Sister’s place. While our Thanksgiving celebration was a shadow of what we usually experience, something I think most people have also experienced this year, we made the best of it. Traffic was lighter than we usually see, something also not unexpected, since not as many people were traveling this year. Even Black Friday didn’t see nearly as many people flooding the stores for deals, yet again not unexpected.

I have to admit the news about Covid-19 has been sounding dire, making it sound like people were dropping in the streets. Yes, it has been “spreading like wildfire”, but one thing I’ve noticed is that neither the number of hospitalizations or deaths has tracked the increase in positive cases, a promising statistic.

Tomorrow, reality will reimpose itself. It will be time to go back to work, to experience another Monday, something most of us dread in the best of times.


Turning to the election results, Roger Kimball asks some very important questions that need to be asked, questions the Democrats are trying very hard to quash, to make go away. They don’t want any inquiries about voting irregularities, the so-called “unsubstantiated accusations” line the media keeps shoving down our throats. (To me, “unsubstantiated accusations” equates to “uninvestigated allegations”.)

Inquiring minds want to know, how is it possible that voter turnout in just those key cities in just those key states was so high: often 90 percent or more? How is it possible that Joe Biden, who barely campaigned, garnered more votes in just those spots than even Barack Obama had done? How is it possible that, as everyone was getting tucked into bed on the night of November 3, Donald Trump had notable leads in almost all of those states and then, suddenly, all at once, in the wee hours, floods of votes poured in and—wouldn’t you know it—they were overwhelmingly, sometimes exclusively, for Biden? And what about those voting machines from Dominion: are we confident that they are secure?

If the situation were reversed, the Democrats would be screaming “Vote fraud! Vote fraud! VOTE FRAUD!!!” at the top of their lungs, the media would be pushing hard for the investigation of every allegation 24/7, and there would be investigations. But because the fraud helped them win and was committed on their behalf (if not by them directly), it has to be quashed, stamped out, eliminated in its entirety. No investigation of any allegation, even those which have the math to back them up, will be allowed if the Democrats get their way. The media will keep selling the lie that there was no fraud of any kind.


I was reminded of this quote from C.S. Lewis over in the comments in today’s DBD.

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

It seems the “moral busybodies” – our Progressive ‘betters’ – will be doing everything they can to make our lives a living hell with constantly shifting rules and definitions of right and wrong, pushing social justice causes that have nothing to do with actual justice, creating entire classes of untermenschen at whim or at need to help support their belief in their own superiority over the rest of us.


It seems our political class is finding out there are Constitutional limits on their power regarding public health.

I’ve heard the argument made that public health trumps all, but “public health” can be used as an excuse to restrict or even eliminate one Right after another, all in the name of the pubic good. We’ve seen that on a small scale when restrictions on public gatherings have been placed on religious institutions but not social justice groups, including those who protest...and riot, and loot, and burn. Too bad for them (and good for us) that the US Supreme Court disagrees with them.

When the Supreme Court blocked New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo's restrictions on religious services this week, it was the first time the justices had enforced constitutional limits on government responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. The decision predictably provoked hyperbolic reactions from critics who seem to think politicians should be free to do whatever they consider appropriate during a public health crisis.

Describing the Court's emergency injunction in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo as "the first major decision from the Trump-packed court," New York Times columnist Paul Krugman warned that "it will kill people." He added: "The bad logic is obvious. Suppose I adhere to a religion whose rituals include dumping neurotoxins into public reservoirs. Does the principle of religious freedom give me the right to do that?" Krugman averred that "freedom of belief" does not include "the right to hurt other people in tangible ways—which large gatherings in a pandemic definitely do."

There are several problems with Krugman's gloss on the case, starting with his understanding of the constitutional right at stake. The Court was applying the First Amendment's ban on laws "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion, which includes conduct as well as belief. Krugman, of course, is right that the Free Exercise Clause is not a license for "dumping neurotoxins into public reservoirs"—or, to take a more familiar example, conducting human sacrifices. But it is hard to take seriously his suggestion that holding a religious service during the COVID-19 pandemic, regardless of the safeguards observed, is tantamount to poisoning millions of people's drinking water.


Cuomo's restrictions on religious gatherings were much more onerous than the rules for myriad secular activities that pose similar risks of virus transmission. That point was crucial because the Court has held that laws are presumptively unconstitutional when they discriminate against religion. At the same time, it has said the Free Exercise Clause does not require religious exemptions from neutral, generally applicable laws, which obviously would include statutes that prohibit mass poisoning or murder.

Indeed. By Krugman’s and other critics’ reasoning, actions up to and including those taken by Kodos The Executioner would be appropriate if it ‘protected’ public health.

I stopped listening to Krugman years ago once I realized his Nobel Prize in Economics had gone to his head and that he had lost any reasoning ability whatsoever. He isn’t even any good in economics any more, particularly in light of his prediction of economic collapse after Trump’s election win in 2016 was proven to be so wrong on so many levels. Why would anyone listen to him on this topic?


Now for some relevant and much more useful information: Do not let moose lick your car.

It apparently has to do with moose liking the road salt that is deposited on the body panels of cars and trucks since it gives them easy access to the salt.

...it is also against the law that prohibits people to feed or disturb wildlife in national parks, with violators facing fines of up to $25,000.

So if a moose licks the salt from your car or truck, you are in fact violating Canadian law and could be fined for allowing them to do so. Somehow, I find it difficult believing the RCMP or local police departments would issue citations because a moose decided to partake of the road salt deposited on your car. At least, I’d like to believe they wouldn’t do so.


And that’s the news from Lake Winnipesaukee, where we’re experiencing a bout of good weather before the heavy rains arrive late Monday, partaking of Thanksgiving leftovers, and girding our loins for a return to work on Monday.