June 2021 – ResCon1

The media suggest that it’s all about “racism” and “white supremacy.” In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.

The 14 Republican congressmen who voted against making Juneteenth a national holiday ought to be recognized as profiles in political courage. They took a principled stand to make a legitimate and much-needed point that will be ignored and dismissed by progressive critics eager to demonize anyone who disagrees with them as a “racist” and a “white supremacist.”

The legitimate and much-needed point: that by calling Juneteenth “National Independence Day,” we detract from the longstanding July 4 Independence Day holiday and create, in effect, two independence days: one for caucasians and non-blacks (July 4) and one for blacks (June 19).

Thus we risk aggravating racial tensions and racial divisions when, instead, we should aspire to do the exact opposite: bring Americans together as one people and one nation.

Founding Principles. All Americans, after all, are heirs to the Declaration of Independence and the independent republic that the Declaration established or at least initiated.

That’s why, during the Civil Rights movement of the 1960’s, Martin Luther King Jr. famously appealed to the Declaration of Independence, as well as as the Constitution of the United States.

In his 1963 “I Have a Dream” speech, King declared:

When the architects of our great republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir.

This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the inalienable rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

True enough, as King noted:

It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given its colored people a bad check, a check that has come back marked “insufficient funds.”

But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation.

So we have come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and security of justice.

Similarly, as President Obama famously declared in his 2004 keynote address to the Democratic National Convention:

There is not a black America and a white America and Latino America and Asian America; there’s the United States of America.

Political Courage. For this reason, thoughtful GOP congressmen, such as Chip Roy (Texas) and Thomas Massie (Kentucky) urged Democrats in Congress to change the name of Juneteenth from “National Independence Day” to something more fitting and appropriate, such as “National Emancipation Day,” “National Freedom Day,” or “National Liberation Day.”

“I fully support creating a holiday to celebrate the abolition of slavery, a dark portion of our nation’s history,” Massie explained. But “I think this day is misnamed.” Why “push Americans to pick one of these two days as their independence day based on their racial identity?” he asked.

“As a country,” Roy said, “we must stop dividing ourselves by race and unite in our common pursuit of the ideals set forth in our Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal.”

Democrats refused to change the name of Juneteenth; and so, 14 Republican congressmen cast a protest vote to make an important political point. This, obviously, doesn’t make them “racists” or “white supremacists.” Instead, it makes them principled and courageous.

As for Juneteenth, despite being inappropriately named, the holiday need not divide us. In fact, quite the opposite: all Americans, obviously, can celebrate the triumph of America’s founding principles brought about by the end of slavery and the emancipation of African Americans.

It’s just that, by misnaming the holiday, Congress has made the task of racial reconciliation and national unity more difficult. Fortunately for us and for posterity, 14 brave Republican congressmen have drawn attention to Congress’ error through a rare act of political courage.

Good on them.

Feature photo credit: GOP Congressman Thomas Massie (R-Kentucky) is a profile in courage for voting against Juneteenth even though he supports a federal holiday commemorating the end of slavery in America, courtesy of Mediaite.

After more than a year of mask mandates and mask fetishization, the results of Uncle Sam’s latest scientific experiment are in. Masks failed.

Now that mask mandates have been lifted just about everywhere in the United States save for airlines, trains, buses, and other forms of public transportation, it’s a good time to revisit whether masks ever made much sense, did any good, or caused any harm.

The rationale for masks was always weak to begin with. Masks failed to stop the spread of the influenza virus during the 1918 pandemic and they fared no better in the subsequent decades. The New York Times reports that, according two Nancy Leung, an epidemiologist at the University of Hong Kong:

There has been no clear evidence from randomized controlled trials—the gold standard in scientific research—that masking reduced transmission of influenza viruses in a community.

The evidence for the efficacy of masks to stop or slow the spread of the coronavirus is also sorely lacking.

“There are several case studies of Covid-19 outbreaks in confined spaces despite good mask adherence, reports Connor Harris in the City Journal. Marine Corps recruits in 2020, for instance, suffered an outbreak of COIVD despite wearing cloth masks almost constantly.

Michigan v. Texas. When Texas rescinded its mask mandate March 10, 2021, COVID cases fell by 17 percent two weeks later. In Michigan, meanwhile, where masks continued to be required, COVID cases spiked by 133 percent during that same two-week period, reports Philip Klein.

Michigan did not (mostly) lift its mask requirement until June 1—almost three months later than Texas. Yet, comparative data does not show that Michigan benefited as a result.

Indeed, the incidence of COVID cases, hospitalizations, and deaths either roughly corresponds with the difference in population between these two states or is clearly in Texas’s favor.

Texas’ population is about three times that of Michigan, and the state has had 2.9 times as many COVID cases and 2.5 times as many COVID deaths. As of June 5, Texas is averaging about twice as many COVID hospitalizations and 3.1 times as many COVID cases in the preceding two-week period.

As Michael Betrus reports at Rational Ground:

California issued a statewide mask mandate in June 2020. Rhode Island issued its mandate back in May 2020, as did neighboring Connecticut in April 2020. What else do these states have in common?

They were among leaders in COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths long after implementing their mandates. Were they infected by nearby states? New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Oregon, and many counties in Nevada and Arizona also had mask mandates.

Florida did not have a statewide mask mandate. Nor did Montana, South Dakota, Wyoming, Iowa, Missouri, or Oklahoma. Other states like North Dakota, Arizona, and Indiana issued short-term mask mandates.

These states fared no worse and in most cases fared far better than states with mask mandates. Why would this be, if face masks work?

“It would be an overstatement to say that cloth and surgical masks are unambiguously ineffective or harmful,” Harris writes. “But neither is there a firm case that they provide any meaningful benefit.”

The harmful effects of masks are typically ignored or downplayed; but these harmful effects are real and should give us serious pause when, during the next pandemic, government officials try to enforce new mask mandates—especially on children, who are less able to cope with mask-induced problems.

Face rashes, headaches, bacterial infections, dental problems (cavities and gingivitis), and fiber inhalation are all problems, Harris notes, associated with masks during this pandemic.

“Potential harms to children,” he adds, “deserve special mention.

Two Italian professors of plastic surgery, for instance, have hypothesized that the pressure of elastic ear straps may give children permanently protruding ears.

Some child development researchers also worr y that widespread mask-wearing may hamper children’s linguistic and emotional development.

There may even be ways by which masks might worsen Covid-19 itself. The basic reason is simple: germs caught by a mask do not simply disappear.

The evidence for these is spotty or speculative but concerning enough to merit attention. In any case, the evidence justifying mask mandates is often equally speculative.

Children. One thing that is not speculative is the educational and social damage that masks inflict on children. Non-verbal communication involving facial expressions—especially in the classroom—is one of the primary ways that teachers communicate with their students.

Social interaction between and among students, likewise, is integral to a child’s development. Yet, masks induce in children social isolation.

They signal, clearly, that social interaction is risky because it can result in contraction of the coronavirus. But the data has shown all along that children are at extraordinarily low risk of getting COVID and at even less risk of suffering serious ailments even if they do.

In short, if we are, indeed, to “follow the science,” then we must abandon the fetishization of masks. They never made much sense to begin with; they demonstrably did not do any good; and they actually inflicted serious harm on people, especially children. Good riddance.

Feature photo credit: Americans, free at last of the onerous and counterproductive mask mandate, celebrate their newfound freedom and independence, courtesy of MedPage Today.