Heather Mac Donald on the Tyre Nichols beating and racism

The New Neo Posted on by

Heather Mac Donald has written a great deal about the racial aspect of alleged police brutality cases, and here she weighs in on the Tyre Nichols beating:

Five Memphis officers responded to what was initially reported as a car driving the wrong way down a street. The officers’ tactics during the stop of driver Tyre Nichols, captured on video, were an abomination: while shouting contradictory commands, the officers immediately escalated their use of force without apparent cause.

It was Nichols who tried to deescalate the chaos — a responsibility usually put on officers, not on suspects. The cops struggled without coordination to cuff him, while delivering gratuitous kicks, punches to the face and baton strikes. None of the officers’ actions conform to police training; virtually everything on view in the videos violates sound stop and arrest techniques. Nichols repeatedly collapsed and received only belated and listless medical attention at the scene. Three days later he died in hospital…

Had the officers been white, their race would have led every report on the incident. But since all were black, such reticence bought time until a new racism reporting protocol could be developed…

“It’s time to move to a more nuanced discussion of the way police violence endangers black lives,” Jones wrote on the CNN website last Friday. “It is the race of the victim who is brutalized, not the race of the violent cop — that is most relevant in determining whether racial bias is a factor in police violence.”

In other words: anything bad that happens to blacks is a function of racism, determined solely by the race of the victim, not by the intentions or identity of the perpetrator.

The rest of the race industry quickly coalesced around Jones’s?lopsided definition of racism, from which whiteness has been provisionally suspended (to be restored the next time a white cop is caught on videotape using force against a black suspect).

One almost has to admire the extraordinary flexibility of the charge of racism these days. Is there any obstacle it cannot overcome, any river too broad, any mountain too high? Apparently not; it is capable of meeting all challenges, including this one. The key is, as Mac Donald indicates, the definition of the phenomenon. Once that is made broad enough, all else follows.

What percentage of Americans think that way? Nearly 100% of the MSM, or at least they pretend to. Likewise the left. But what of the rest, which still constitutes the majority? I doubt many people buy this – if they are over 45. The younger generation has had it drummed into them repeatedly, and it is the mark of a virtuous person to believe it.

[NOTE: By the way, so far the rumors that Kyre Nichols had a relationship with the ex of one of the offices who beat him are unsubstantiated.]

It turns out that masks are mostly a symbolic talisman

The New Neo Posted on by

Something like wearing garlic around your neck:

In the community, mask-wearing “probably makes little to no difference” in either influenza-like or COVID-like illness (0.95) or “laboratory-confirmed” infections of either virus (1.01). While the confirmed-infections finding had a much wider confidence interval, the team called both these results “moderate-certainty evidence.”

Researchers had more trouble determining the effect of respirators such as N95s — which the CDC only recommended two years into the pandemic — versus surgical masks. Five studies (four healthcare and one household), with a total of 16,000 participants, found a risk ratio of 0.70 for “clinical respiratory illness” but deemed it “very low-certainty evidence,” with a wide confidence interval. The RR was 0.82 for influenza-like illness, deemed “low-certainty” with a smaller confidence interval.

They were more confident in results for respirators versus surgical masks on lab-confirmed influenza: RR of 1.10 among the 8,400 participants in those trials, and no difference when the household trial was excluded.

It’s all quite technical, and you can find the actual study at this link. I haven’t read it yet.

A few caveats: meta-analyses have some possible negatives:

Two main criticisms of meta-analysis are that it combines different types of studies (“mixing apples and oranges”), and that the summary effect may ignore important differences between studies. Meta-analysis should be avoided if studies are too heterogeneous to be comparable, as the metaanalytical results may be meaningless and true effects may be obscured. However, meta-analyses, by their very nature, address broader questions than individual studies. Therefore, it can be said that a meta-analysis is similar to asking a question about fruits, for which both apples and oranges can contribute valuable information.

The phrase “garbage in, garbage out” means that if a meta-analysis includes low-quality studies, its results will be biased and incorrect. Meta-analysis includes a set of criteria for determining which studies to analyze. Hence, meta-analysis should be based on stricter criteria regarding the quality of studies to be included. When the available studies are flawed, a meta-analysis may employ sensitivity analyses to identify the influence of study biases.

Much more at the link.

That said, my personal opinion at this point – and I believe it’s been my opinion for most of the pandemic – is that masks might give a tiny tiny edge but that’s all. I have always been against mask mandates, but I’ve also never mocked those who wear them. I can’t remember when I jettisoned mine, but it was a long long time ago except for places like the select doctors’ offices where they are mandatory (they were not required last April in Los Angeles, however, at the office of my eye surgeon). I know people who are immune-compromised, cannot be vaccinated, and who probably would be at unusually grave risk from contracting COVID, and when they go to the market or any indoor space of that nature they continue to wear masks. I understand why they might want that tiny edge and why they might believe – or at least hope – that masks still offer it.

Neo’s true confessions

The New Neo Posted on by

Regular readers here know I don’t usually go in for personal revelations. It’s not that my life is absent from my own blog, but I ordinarily cite something only as a jumping-off place for some of my thoughts and reflections. And there’s an awful lot I leave out.

One of the big things I left out – as readers here have also learned recently – has been a long-term and deep relationship with Gerard Vanderleun. Some people here have surprised me by saying that they suspected something of the sort; others are a bit gobsmacked. I would have thought the latter group would be enormous and the former nonexistent, probably because on the surface we seemed so very different, almost opposites? And in real rather than virtual life, we were very different, but for each of us our online presentation was not the whole story of who we would be if you were to meet us in actuality, and in real life the differences were not as acute although they certainly existed.

Gerard had a very strong presence, as you might imagine. When he walked into a room you couldn’t really ignore that fact that he was there. And he could be wildly, wildly amusing and playful – the extrovert and life of the party when “on.” Not me, as you might imagine, although I can offer a few laughs myself in a pinch.

But life isn’t lived at parties, and there’s a lot of downtime. We always had something to talk about, and we respected each others’ minds. I can’t possibly describe our relationship except for bits and pieces, and probably will go on to tell a few anecdotes. But that’s just the iceberg’s tip.

But in the interests of the personal confessional, I’ll link to Gerard’s post called “Attack of the Food Eroder — or — “The Ninja Nibbler of the Night”, and add that the Food Eroder, c’est moi.

Ilhan Omar gets a taste of the Democrats’ own medicine

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s what happened:

The vote to yank Omar (D-Minn.) from the powerful panel after a heated floor debate broke along party lines, with 218 Republicans voting to strip her of the assignment and 211 Democrats backing their colleague. One Republican, David Joyce of Ohio, voted present.

GOPers cited six statements that Omar, 40, made while in office that “under the totality of the circumstances, disqualify her from serving on the Committee of Foreign Affairs,” said Rep. Michael Guest (R-Miss.).

“All members, both Republicans and Democrats alike who seek to serve on Foreign Affairs, should be held to the highest standard of conduct due to the international sensitivity and national security concerns under the jurisdiction of this committee,” Guest said…

“When you push power, power pushes back,” Omar said in her final statement before the vote, adding: “My voice will get louder and stronger, and my leadership will be celebrated around the world.”

“Around the world.” Interesting emphasis, for a House member.

Omar also said recently, “I wasn’t aware of the fact that there are tropes about Jews and money.” Excuse me? Excuse me? I guess she prefers to be thought of as a fool rather than a knave.

Posting later in the day

The New Neo Posted on by

You may have noticed that the timing of my posts has shifted to later in the day. That’s mostly because I’m on the west coast, and should be here for about the next two weeks.

It’s also, of course, because I’ve been distracted by grief and also by all the tasks at hand connected with Gerard’s death. His family is doing a lot of that, but there are certain things he delegated to me – such as tending to his blog for a while – and that’s part of what is going on right now. Actually, having extra tasks as well as writing my own posts isn’t such a bad thing, because routine is somewhat distracting and can even function as comforting for a while.

There is still a very surrealistic quality to what happened. Gerard was such a vibrant and vital force that it seems exceptionally strange that he could have died. When I type that thought out and look at it, it seems an absurd thing to say. After all, everybody dies. He almost died eleven years ago, and I was present. And yet…his departure from this earth seems nearly impossible. It takes a lot of getting used to.

Consider COVID vaccines and myocarditis

The New Neo Posted on by

I’ve written before on the incidence of myocarditis after vaccination. It’s rare, although troublesome. Please see this, this, this, and this, and that’s just a sampler of what I’ve written rather than an exhaustive list.

So I’ll not repeat myself here; I’ll just suggest you read the links. What I want to say here is something different. From the start of the COVID phenomenon I’ve been reporting on things and crunching the numbers, and one thing I’ve noticed (both in the official releases and in the people who don’t trust them) is a great deal of failure to acknowledge the fact that all diseases and all vaccines can cause rare and troublesome reactions. That’s part of the risks of life, disease, and vaccination.

For example, if you do a search for articles on non-COVID vaccines and myocarditis, you will learn that there’s always been such a risk even with more conventional vaccines. Take a look at this article reporting on myocarditis following smallpox vaccination (there are plenty of other articles in that vein), or DPT shots. There are more articles, way too many to analyze here.

But it’s illustrative of something I noticed early on, which is that all phenomena relating to COVID have been treated as somehow uniquely awful. And yet the evidence is that they are not uniquely awful. The distrust engendered by the lies and exaggerations told by the CDC and government around COVID has resulted in a backlash that in my opinion is also an exaggeration, although an understandable one.

The standard answer to what I just said is that no research can be trusted, but once you get to that point you are free to believe whatever you wish, and no research-based argument can dissuade you. Therefore it’s beyond the realm of factual debate and into the realm of a belief system.

And yes, you can always find some medical authority who is saying whatever it is you happen to believe. That doesn’t make it so. I’m an equal-opportunity skeptic, but I also think that anecdotal evidence is less trustworthy and meaningful than scientific studies, although I don’t reify the latter.

I am also very very tired of people ascribing every negative event that occurs after a COVID shot to the shot itself. When well over half of America is vaccinated, and a far higher percentage of the elderly and the already-infirm are vaccinated, then adverse events will be occurring on a regular basis. But even before we had COVID shots, some people died suddenly – even young people. And even before we had COVID shots, some people had cases of cancer that killed them so fast they’d barely had time to be diagnosed.

What I’m asking for – and probably won’t get much of – is some sort of realistic and moderate response to all of this. It’s what I’ve tried to present from the start, as best I can. I plan to keep trying.

But I was under the impression that “objectivity in the MSM” was already an oxymoron

The New Neo Posted on by

From Jonathan Turley:

We previously discussed the movement in journalism schools to get rid of principles of objectivity in journalism. Advocacy journalism is the new touchstone in the media even as polls show that trust in the media is plummeting. Now, former executive editor for The Washington Post Leonard Downie Jr. and former CBS News President Andrew Heyward have released the results of their interviews with over 75 media leaders and concluded that objectivity is now considered reactionary and even harmful. Emilio Garcia-Ruiz, editor-in-chief at the San Francisco Chronicle said it plainly: “Objectivity has got to go.”

Notably, while Bob Woodword and others have finally admitted that the Russian collusion coverage lacked objectivity and resulted in false reporting, media figures are pushing even harder against objectivity as a core value in journalism.

It is to laugh, as they say. A “core value”? Perhaps a core pretense, but not an actual value. That’s been true at least since Watergate, when advocacy journalism and speaking truth to power and reporters as iconoclastic (mostly anti-right) heroes took hold, and shaped later generation “journalists.” The change in nomenclature from reporter to journalist is not coincidental, either, and there was a concomitant change from the up-from-the-ranks hard-as-nails reporter to the English major graduate school journalist.

More from the Turley article:

Now the leaders of media companies are joining this self-destructive movement. They are not speaking of columnists or cable hosts who routinely share opinions. They are speaking of actual journalists, the people who are relied upon to report the news.

Saying that “Objectivity has got to go” is, of course, liberating. You can dispense with the necessities of neutrality and balance. You can cater to your “base” like columnists and opinion writers. Sharing the opposing view is now dismissed as “bothsidesism.” Done…

Downie echoes such views and declares “What we found has convinced us that truth-seeking news media must move beyond whatever ‘objectivity’ once meant to produce more trustworthy news.”

Really? Being less objective will make the news more trustworthy?

It’s all part of what’s been going on in academia for decades, as a result of a combination of post-modernism and hubris. After all, objectivity is, among other things, supposed to help counter the tendency of those in power (and the press does have power) towards the hubris of thinking their own beliefs and goals are the same as the truth. That’s all gone, with a few nearly-extinct individuals such as Glenn Greenwald hanging around as living fossils.

Expensive eggs

The New Neo Posted on by

Eggs used to be a great choice for an inexpensive meal. I happen to like them, too. Scrambled, over easy, deviled, egg salad sandwiches, you name it.

Eggs still cost less than meat these days. Or than scallops, one of my personal favorites which even in New England now range between twenty and thirty dollars per pound for the good stuff, the never-ever-frozen sea scallops. I buy a half pound now and then and make the whole thing stretch by cutting them in half.

But eggs? Eggs? What’s up with that? This article purports to explain:

Part of this is just the overall inflation we’ve experienced…

Egg prices were just $1.79 a little over a year ago, in December 2021. Were the corporations just more generous then? Did they suddenly become extra greedy all of a sudden?

Of course not. [Those who offer this] absurd conspiracy theory [are] ultimately motivated by the blind ideological hatred these types have for business.

The real reason for high egg prices, as is usually the case, has its roots in the basic economics of supply and demand. Unfortunately, an avian flu has wiped out more than 43 million egg-laying hens since February 2022, according to the US Department of Agriculture. That’s resulted in a 29% decrease in the US egg stock, aka the supply.

So, inflation plus reduced supply.

Speaking of which, because I’m here on the west coast where things are more expensive, yesterday I hit an all-time high for a grocery trip. I’d say that in general, groceries are about ten to 20 percent higher here than at home.

And I didn’t even buy eggs.