Scott Johnson 💣 Rand rules

• They Don’t Embarrass Easy
• Rand rules
• A Voice of Sanity
• Thomas Sowell in Full
• Variants and variations

They Don’t Embarrass Easy Posted: 26 Jan 2021 03:39 PM PST (John Hinderaker) The sinister role that teachers’ unions play in our society has come clearly into focus, as our children’s lives have been devastated by needless school closures across the country. These closures–still in effect in most places, despite all scientific evidence that they are both unnecessary and harmful–largely reflect the power of the teachers’ unions. They evidently want to get paid, without ever entering a classroom again. This video was produced by the Chicago Teachers Union. I won’t say it is the dumbest thing I have ever seen; competition for that honor is steep. But it is a contender. As noted in this post’s title, these people don’t embarrass easy: Six of our rank-and-file dance teachers come together to use their art form as a voice to express their desire to feel safe amidst CPS' teacher return policy. They stand in solidarity with all educators at risk, because no one should have to choose between life and livelihood. pic.twitter.com/gajXH9PReE — ChicagoTeachersUnion (@CTULocal1) January 23, 2021 Are they seriously unaware that many millions of people have kept working right through the Wuhan epidemic? And that many millions more have returned to work in recent months? Maybe so. I am not sure they understand that most people work in the Summer. I am tired of hearing about how heroic teachers are. At this point, I would rather have my children taught by clerks at Total Wine stores than by members of teachers’ unions. At least the Total Wine clerks will show up. A footnote: Spate of suicides among Las Vegas students prompts schools to reopen. Because shutting down the schools is so very, very safe.

Rand rules Posted: 26 Jan 2021 02:04 PM PST (Scott Johnson) Chief Justice John Roberts will not preside over the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump: the text of the Constitution only requires the Chief Justice to preside over the trial of “the President.” The text of the Constitution only requires the Chief Justice to preside over a Senate impeachment trial of “the President.” Trump is no longer “the President.” Roberts’s presence is therefore not called for. Will private citizen Trump be the first private citizen to be convicted and removed from the office he no longer holds? This raises the constitutional question related to Roberts’s decision to pursue other interests during the Senate trial. I briefly reviewed the constitutional argument over the weekend in “Roberts rules.” Today Senator Rand Paul raised the issue by a point of order. On Majority Leader Schumer’s motion to table Paul’s motion, 45 Republican Senators voted against. Voting against expressed their view that Paul’s motion was meritorious. While Paul’s motion was insufficient to dismiss or halt the proceedings, the 45 Senators are more than necessary to acquit Trump when the time comes, as it will. Politico hedges its reading of the tea leaves and vaguely holds out hope that some of the 45 Senators may change their minds upon hearing the evidence. Senator Paul, however, kayoes this glimmer of hope: “If you voted that it was unconstitutional, how in the world would you ever vote to convict somebody for this?” Paul told reporters. “This vote indicates it’s over. The trial is all over.” It’s all over but the shouting, that is.

A Voice of Sanity Posted: 26 Jan 2021 01:48 PM PST (John Hinderaker) Tulsi Gabbard has left the House of Representatives and turned into something of a gadfly vis-a-vis her Democratic Party. On the roll of possible presidential contenders, she is far from the bottom of my list, notwithstanding that on bread and butter issues she has been a traditional Democrat. In this video, she warns against the current effort by Democrats like John Brennan to infringe our constitutional rights. Gabbard has become a powerful voice for civil liberties:

Thomas Sowell in Full Posted: 26 Jan 2021 10:41 AM PST (Steven Hayward) Jason Riley of the Manhattan Institute has completed his biography of Thomas Sowell, and Maverick: A Biography of Thomas Sowell will appear in May (though by all means pre-order it now). In the meantime, it really is worth finding a spare hour to take in this documentary about Sowell based on Jason’s book, from our friends at Free to Choose media:

Variants and variations Posted: 26 Jan 2021 10:11 AM PST (Paul Mirengoff) Since the onset of the current pandemic about a year ago, I have referred to the disease causing the havoc as the “Wuhan coronavirus.” Doing so has two virtues. It identifies the culprit as a virus and it states where the virus originates. “COVID” does neither. At first, the mainstream media seemed to be okay with “Wuhan coronavirus.” But then came the “memo.” To say “Wuhan” or “China” in connection with the virus was racist and xenophobic. Hence, the shift to COVID-19 and, soon thereafter, to COVID. But now, as the virus mutates, the media has no qualms about saying “British variant” and, more recently, “South African variant.” Why not instead just say “variant 1” and “variant 2”? Ari Fleischer calls out the Washington Post on this: Wait a minute…After months of being told it was racist to refer to COVID as a ‘Chinese virus’ the WP refers to its new strains as ‘British and South African variants.’ So you can use the name of the nation where it comes from, so long as that nation is not China. Got it. The Post’s line has been that calling this virus the “China virus” represents a “dangerous attitude.” The paper quoted an alleged expert — a lecturer in Asian American and Asian diaspora studies — who called it “racist” to say “China virus.” But it is no more racist to say “China virus” than it is to say “British variant.” In both cases, the idea is to identify the origin of the virus, not to disparage a racial group. One could argue that there is this difference — saying “China virus” might lead to violence against Chinese Americans. However, I doubt that any evidence supports a claim of linguistically induced violence. If the mainstream media is solicitous of Chinese Americans, it should come down against the discrimination inflicted on them by colleges and universities in admissions. The evidence of that discrimination is overwhelming. My view is that the media probably backed away from “China virus” and “Wuhan virus” to cover for China, not to protect Chinese Americans from violence. The Red Chinese government objected to the words “China virus” and the American media kowtowed. In addition, I believe the media was influenced by the fact that Donald Trump liked to say “China virus.” The media, following Joe Biden’s lead, wanted to portray Trump’s attitude towards the virus as “xenophobic.” Hence, its outcry against words associating the virus with its country (or region) of origin. No such imperatives apply when it comes to labeling variants of the virus that come from other parts of the world. Thus, the media is fine with the kind of language that has always been used to describe diseases that originate outside the U.S., except during the Trump presidency when it came to China.