I think that Cory Franklin is being a bit hard on Dr. Anthony Fauci in his piece at sp!ked rehashing the six-foot social distancing recommendation:

It speaks volumes that no one from either the CDC or the WHO has come forward to refute Fauci’s claim that the six-foot separation recommendation arose out of thin air. The scientific papers from the start of the pandemic include references to those older studies and are in plain sight.

This is all too typical of the Covid-19 response. The ‘science’ that was presented to us was nothing of the sort. It was simply the consensus view of certain experts, given a rubber stamp of authority by key scientific institutions. All too often, that narrow view was wrong. This unscientific approach resulted in economically destructive lockdowns, disastrous school closures and a lethal inattention to the dangers of inadequate indoor ventilation.

Fauci and his collaborators at CDC and WHO certainly bear significant responsibility for each of those debacles. We can’t let him get away with trying to whitewash his legacy.

or, more specifically, singling Dr. Fauci out for criticism doesn’t cast a wide enough net. Why was the Centers for Disease Controls test for COVID-19 so badly flawed? Why didn’t they use the German test? Why did it take the FDA so long to approve tests made by private companies? Why was our pandemic response so politicized so quickly? The list of questions is legion.

In my view a dispassionate consideration of the U. S. pandemic response would call into question the entire structure of the federal public health apparatus, how they are managed and by whom, how physicians are selected and educated, and the very concept of technocracy.

Let’s start with the last matter first. In theory technocracy means that experts rule. In practice it means that, if you have expertise or even credentials in one area it makes you an authority on areas that are only tangentially related or even completely unrelated to your area of expertise. Adding increasing specialization aggravates the matter to impracticality if not outright impossibility. It is possible to be an expert in medicine, epidemiology, public policy, public health management, and being a political apparatchik in a federal agency but it is vanishingly unlikely. In practice a genuine expert in epidemiology is unlikely to be a good manager or good bureaucrat, etc. but highly likely that the expertise will be parlayed into some general expertise but that’s not technocracy.

Furthermore, having the highest grades as an undergraduate pre-med, the highest scores on your MCATs, and graduating from medical school does not mean that you automatically possess the personal skills to be a good manager or good politician. I would also point out that the qualities that some are complaining about in Dr. Fauci, e.g. overstating his own knowledge and “arrogance” are precisely the qualities inculcated into physicians 60 years ago which is when Dr. Fauci attended medical school. So I think he should be cut some slack.

I have no opinion on the six-foot social distancing rule. In the final analysis I think that most of the measures put in place, particularly early on, in reaction to COVID-19 fit the “politician’s syllogism” pretty well:

1. We must do something.
2. This is something.
3. Therefore we must do this.

I would also point out that the decision to lock down schools unfolded precisely as I predicted. It wasn’t made scientifically, maybe not even logically, and it certainly didn’t put the good of the students as the highest priority.

In an article in the Washington Post Ariana Eunjung Cha reports on an unexpected phenomenon—a spate of “unusual cancers”:

ROCK HILL, S.C. — Kashyap Patel looked forward to his team’s Friday lunches. All the doctors from his oncology practice would gather in the open-air courtyard under the shadow of a tall magnolia tree and catch up. The atmosphere tended to the lighthearted and optimistic. But that week, he was distressed.

It was 2021, a year into the coronavirus pandemic, and as he slid into a chair, Patel shared that he’d just seen a patient in his 40s with cholangiocarcinoma, a rare and lethal cancer of the bile ducts that typically strikes people in their 70s and 80s. Initially, there was silence, and then one colleague after another said they’d recently treated patients who had similar diagnoses. Within a year of that meeting, the office had recorded seven such cases.

“I’ve been in practice 23 years and have never seen anything like this,” Patel, CEO of Carolina Blood and Cancer Care Associates, later recalled. Asutosh Gor, another oncologist, agreed: “We were all shaken.”

This observation is, apparently, not limited to this single oncologist’s practice but is being reported commonly. The typical explanations are a) delay of care during the pandemic or b) COVID-19 itself promotes the development of cancer. There’s actually some small evidence for the latter:

David Tuveson, director of the Cancer Center at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory and former president of the American Association for Cancer Research, said there’s no evidence the coronavirus directly transforms cells to make them cancerous. But that may not be the full story.

Tuveson said a number of small and early studies — many of which have been published within the past nine months — suggests that coronavirus infection can induce an inflammatory cascade and other responses that, in theory, could exacerbate the growth of cancer cells.

He has wondered whether it could be more akin to an environmental stressor — like tobacco, alcohol, asbestos or microplastics.

“Covid wrecks the body, and that’s where cancers can start,” Tuveson said, explaining how autopsy studies of people who died of covid-19 showed prematurely aged tissue.

I suspect that we will learn that the second explanation is correct but there are other possibilities as well. For example, perhaps going out of doors less frequently and the concomitant reduction in Vitamin D might have something to do with it. I’m sure there are other possibilities.

Read the whole thing. It’s an interesting article.

In a piece at The National Interest Anne Pierce argues that it is an urgent priority for NATO to “stop Russia”:

Why is swift, pathbreaking action imperative? For moral reasons. Will NATO really allow Russia’s genocidal campaign to continue on in the heart of Europe? Does “never again” mean anything? For existential reasons. Russia threatens not just Ukraine, but democracies across Europe and beyond. Are NATO countries willing to risk their security and way of life for a temporary reprieve? For peace and stability. Russia brings war, mayhem and trauma everywhere it goes. Would NATO gamble on an elusive compromise with Russia when Putin always uses purported “peace processes” to buy time and cover for more war and aggression? To save what is left of the post-World War II world order. The emboldened Russia-China-Iran axis seeks a new world order dominated by authoritarians. Will NATO miss the chance to send the axis an unambiguous signal and setback by acting decisively against Russia?

Most of the article is devoted to arguing why it should be an urgent necessity and in doing so she quotes the Latvian president, Estonian prime minister, and Lithuanian foreign minister.

I wish she had devoted more of her article to explaining how NATO would accomplish that. The Baltic countries spend between 2 and 3% of their GDPs on defense, a sharp increase since 2022. That’s less than we spend (as a proportion of GDP) and considerably less than the Russians spend. Furthermore, Germany’s, Poland’s, and even the U. S.’s imports from Kyrgyzstan have spiked since 2022. That looks tremendously like using Kyrgyzstan as a pass-through for Russian imports.

Adding insult to injury NATO is pretty tapped out on munitions—it’s sending as much as it can to Ukraine and is unable to keep up with Ukrainian demand. Short of a nuclear strike against Russia I see little way of NATO’s “stopping Russia”.

Janis Paige, star of film, the Broadway stage, and television, has died at 101. Her Hollywood career began when she was spotted by a Warner’s exec while she was working at the Hollywood Canteen. Her first movie role was in 1944. She played notable roles in Hollywood Canteen, Romance on the High Seas, and Silk Stockings, playing other roles in several more forgettable movie. The studio really didn’t know what to do with her—they said as much. When she lost her studio contract in 1951 it was just the start of her career. She originated the role of Babe in Pajama Game on Broadway, playing in more than 1,000 performances. She also originated the female lead in Here’s Love and replaced Angela Lansbury in Mame, playing the role for two years. She had her own television series, It’s Always Jan. An incredibly talented performer.

With Ms. Paige’s passing the living history of the golden age of the Hollywood studios comes even closer to coming to a close.

I wonder if you’ll find Jake Klein’s history of the Ritz cracker at the Foundation for Economic Education as entertaining as I did? Here’s a sample:

When you last visited the supermarket, you likely walked past a box you’ve seen many times before. The Ritz Cracker has been a staple on American store shelves for 90 years, yet today the snack is often looked down upon; its mass-produced, corporate, and carb-heavy nature has fallen out of favor in an era preferring craft-made, local, and gluten-free foods.

But the Ritz Cracker is worth taking a second look at. There’s more to this simple snack than you might think.

If you look at the Ritz Cracker, you’ll see its round shape with a scalloped edge and seven tiny, evenly distributed holes. The golden-brown color achieved during baking is akin to a light toast. The taste is buttery with a hint of salt, and its thin flaky layers allow it to pleasantly crumble on your tongue with little effort. Despite its buttery flavor, the Ritz Cracker is actually vegan, featuring a simple ingredient list of flour, vegetable oil, sugar, salt, and leavening. The Ritz Cracker’s design and flavor are so classic it’s now taken for granted as the almost platonic ideal of a cracker. But to truly understand the Ritz, you have to look deeper than what you can see or taste.

Where did this simple yet classic cracker come from? It was a product of the Great Depression.

I would go farther than Mr. Klein in analogizing that story to capitalism itself. In a command economy the Ritz cracker would not have been developed at all.

I generally avoid dipping my toe into the politics of other countries for the simple reason that I don’t believe that foreigners understand the context well enough to form an intelligent opinion. However, I did want to ask one question about the results of Mexico’s election, given its historic nature.

Given the high levels of corruption and violence which her predecessor and sponsor, AMLO, struggled with, how likely do you think it is that the newly-elected president will be able to pursue her stated goals effectively?

Mexico has the highest homicide rate of any major country in the world, indeed, all of the ten countries with the highest homicide rates are located in the northern half of the Western Hemisphere.

I think that Harlan Ullman asks a lot of the right questions in his reaction at The Hill to Sen. Wicker’s report:

Is the U.S. military as unprepared as Wicker alleges? And is spending more money the solution?

After all, if history is a guide, over the past decade and despite increases in defense spending, the size of the active-duty military has declined. How then is the spiral of spending more and getting less going to be reversed?

The Wicker plan would add $55 billion to the 2025 defense budget and grow annual defense spending to 5 percent of GDP during the next five to seven years. The Navy would expand to 357 ships over the next decade and the Air Force would add another 340 aircraft by decade’s end. The plan specifies 19 key areas for more defense spending.

An examination of the Wicker Plan shows three crucial components are missing in action.

First, there is no overarching military strategy provided as the foundation for this buildup. Second, no evidence has been presented to show that this larger force is affordable, would be more effective than the current force or would reverse this spending/force size mismatch. Third, given the failure to man the current force, the report is silent on how sufficient people can be recruited and retained in this larger military.

By default, Wicker must assume that the current National Defense Strategy remains in place. That strategy aims to compete and deter, and if war arises, to defeat or prevail over enemies headed by China and Russia.

But how to compete is not defined. And if the aim is to deter, where have China or Russia (or the Houthis and Hamas) been deterred? Also, as the main powers have admitted, thermonuclear war cannot be fought and cannot be won.

I don’t believe that increased defense spending alone will solve the problems with our military. IMO the role of the military needs to be re-examined and followed with single-minded intensity and we must decide, as I have said elsewhere, what kind of country we want to be.

Here are some eye-opening statistics from an analysis by Hannah Schmidt at Illinois Policy:

CPS is spending $29,028 per student this school year. That includes all the district’s expenditures, such as operational spending, debt servicing and capital expenditures. CPS’ spending per student is the second highest among Illinois’ 10 largest school districts, which average nearly $22,400.

Yet CPS and CTU think the district needs more money, and they are willing to sacrifice teacher time in classrooms to demand more, even as reading and math proficiency is extremely low in district schools.

Just this month, hundreds of CTU members left their classrooms – while still being paid – to lobby lawmakers in Springfield for an additional $1.1 billion in district funding. They didn’t get it and CPS faces a $400 million deficit as CTU is making pricey demands

Adding a bit of fuel to the fire are these observations by Judge Glock from a piece at City Journal:

According to the group Truth in Accounting, Chicago continues to live up to its moniker “Second City” in at least one respect: it has the second-worst debt load of any big city in America—about $43,000 per taxpayer, or almost $40 billion in total. The first is New York City, but Chicago residents also have to deal with Illinois’ debts, which total $42,000 per taxpayer, third worst in the nation. Thus, a family moving to Chicago suddenly becomes the inheritor of almost $85,000 in liabilities. By this metric, Chicago is no longer second but has by far the worst debt burden of any major city.

Chicago’s accumulating debt might be bearable if the city had low taxes and therefore room to raise them and pay down some of the liabilities. But taxes in the Windy City already rank among the nation’s harshest. According to a national study, Chicago’s combined city and state taxes would eat up over 12 percent of a U.S. median family income. The only large cities with higher proportionate taxes are Rust Belt towns with much smaller populations, such as Detroit and Newark. Chicago imposes the highest sales tax of any major city (10.25 percent) and punishing property taxes, too.

and

Unfortunately for Johnson, even if he wanted to constrain spending and corral expenses, he has few options. In the past three years, 40 percent to 44 percent of all local budget went to the “fixed costs” of bond interest charges and pensions. Chicago is in a league of its own here. The next closest big-city competitor was Dallas, with just over 30 percent going to fixed costs.

Chicago is extremely limited in how much it can actually derive more revenue by raising taxes. State law puts it in a strait-jacket and not only do we have the highest sales and property taxes of any major city but taxpayers rejected amending the state constitution to impose a graduated income tax. This is tragically comical:

Johnson admitted that property taxes were “painfully high” and in his campaign said that he wouldn’t raise them, instead vowing to “make the suburbs, airlines & ultra-rich pay their fair share.” He wanted to quadruple the transfer levy on expensive property, what he called a “mansion tax,” and impose a transaction tax on Chicago’s tottering finance industry. Much of Johnson’s tax plan either is impossible under existing law or serves more of a punitive than a fund-raising purpose. Illinois governor J. B. Pritzker, no anti-taxer, already said that he would block the financial transfer tax, and voters soundly rejected Johnson’s mansion tax.

Guess who one of those who would end up paying the “mansion tax” would be? I’ll give you three guesses and the first two don’t count.

I don’t object to paying for value. Or to help the less fortunate. But that’s not what’s happening.

The editors of the Wall Street Journal, in reaction to a report from Sen. Roger Wicker, calls for greatly increased defense spending:

Rebuilding U.S. defenses is cheaper than defeat or pre-emptive surrender. “Behind all the numbers,” as Reagan put it selling his defense increase in 1983, “lies America’s ability to prevent the greatest of human tragedies and preserve our free way of life in a sometimes dangerous world.” The choice is whether to rebuild the military to restore our lost deterrence or face defeat in the war that may be coming.

Here’s the basis for their demand:

For all the talking points that America spends more than its competitors, U.S. defense spending is slipping below 3% of the economy, heading toward 1930s territory. Beijing is spending far more than advertised on a military force clearly designed to defeat the U.S. in the Pacific. China’s real defense spending may approach $700 billion annually, by one recent estimate. Beijing pays its soldiers a fraction of what the U.S. pays its troops, so it can focus on buying ships and missiles. Its doctrine of close civilian and military cooperation is a force multiplier, especially in ship building and technology.

Meanwhile, the U.S. is still living off Ronald Reagan’s military buildup from the 1980s, and everything from fighters to the nuclear triad is wearing out at the same time. The Air Force needs to purchase 340 more aircraft above its current plans over the next five years to avoid what the Wicker paper rightly describes as a “death spiral,” with nearly 1,000 aircraft retirements planned over the next five years. The U.S. Navy will have to produce three attack submarines a year to deter Chinese aggression in the Taiwan Strait and grow the fleet from the oldest and smallest in 80 years.

The report suggests $7 billion to $10 billion annually for a decade to deepen munitions stocks that include antiship missiles, air-defense interceptors, torpedoes and cruise-missile rocket engines. The Pentagon has for years purchased some missiles at the minimum number needed to keep production lines open. The wars in Ukraine and Israel have exposed the inadequacy of the U.S. industrial base.

Also urgent: Hardening U.S. Pacific bases and a missile defense for Guam and American bases in Japan. Ditto for building a pre-positioned arsenal in Taiwan on the model of U.S. weapons stored in Israel, and quickly expanding an archipelago of Pacific bases the U.S. last needed in World War II.

My question is to what end? What they’re describing does not sound like U. S. defense to me but like a continuation of the flawed objective of primacy in ever theater we have been following for decades without. What’s the flaw, you may ask? It hasn’t made us a bit more secure.

My follow-up question would be how do they plan to pay for everything the Biden Administration wants to spend money on and the sort of rearmament they’re talking about at the same time? And how will we accomplish any of it without the industrial production to back it up?