Mediaboss Marketing

This pandemic has always been in our control. Its out of control because we failed to exercise control over it.

BOISE, Idaho This article originally appeared in theIdaho Press.

In Rexburg last December, a doctor named Russ McUne rolled up his sleeves and became the first Idahoan to receive the COVID-19 vaccine.

Some followed in his footsteps this year, but others have put off or resisted vaccinations as hospitals have struggled with staffing, available beds and the sheer amount of oxygen needed to save patients in their care.

This pandemic has always been in our control, said David Pate, a physician and retired CEO of St. Lukes Health System in Idaho. Its out of control because we failed to exercise control over it.

The greatest tragedy is those who made decisions based on misinformation, Pate said. Vaccines absolutely work, he said. The past year will end with Idaho at the bottom of the list nationwide for percentage of the population with a first dose and percentage fully vaccinated. The Gem State just narrowly deactivated Crisis Standards of Care in all health districts before the end of the year on Dec. 20.

This year was like a rollercoaster, said Nurse Practitioner Brad Bigford, but without extreme high points, just extreme low points.

September and October were really horrible, Bigford said. We sent more people to the hospital and emergency rooms and called 911 more times in the past six months than we did in the previous four years.

Fewer people were staying at home and masking in public this year in certain parts of Idaho, Bigford said, and more dangerous variants of the disease, like delta and omicron, were prevalent. In India, a delta-fueled surge in the spring peaked at over 400,000 new cases a day.

This year, Idaho had widespread vaccines available. Yet only 46% of Idahoans are fully vaccinated.

As the delta wave swept through the U.S., many Gem State residents had no protection against the virus.

Idaho had over 32,000 more cases this year than last year, as of Dec. 20. Almost 1,000 more Idahoans died of COVID-19 in 2021 than in 2020. Hospitalizations peaked at 793 on one day this year, higher than last years record of 496 in one day. Pediatric hospitalizations rose to 15 this year from a high of 10 last year.

Intensive care unit admissions peaked at 213 this year over 2020s high water mark of 126.

In Idaho, nearly all COVID-19 patients were unvaccinated, according to multiple news reports.

I think what is so disappointing is that here we are in 2021 and our knowledge of epidemiology, of viruses, of vaccines has never been greater, Pate said. Weve made such tremendous advances and yet we had so many unwilling to take advantage of that.

There is a variety of reasons why some have been unwilling, including distrust of the government.

Dr. Ted Epperly, an Idaho native and CEO of Family Medicine Residency of Idaho, said in a recent interview with the Idaho Capital Sun that, in a sense, the Intermountain West and Rocky Mountain West is the last frontier in the continental United States. In many cases, those who migrated here in the 1800s wanted to get away from government.

They wanted to be distanced and spaced, and they didnt want people telling them what to do, Epperly told the Capital Sun. So its been a perfect breeding ground, I think, for that kind of libertarian thinking.

Some individuals, however, have based current decisions during the pandemic on misinformation, Pate said.

We have great tools at our disposal, its just that so many people are not willing to avail themselves, Pate said. We certainly have to take that into consideration for our next pandemic planning, because there will be another pandemic.

But for now, the current pandemic does not seem to be abating. The omicron variant made up 73% of new infections as of Dec. 20.

Omicron has been spreading rapidly, likely due both to increased transmissibility and its ability to evade immunity, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Omicron wont be the last, Pate said. Its going to continue to pose a threat to all those who are susceptible, especially when they are indoors for prolonged periods of time, whether thats going to be at work, at school, at church, at events.

This article originally appeared in the Idaho Press. Read more at IdahoPress.com

See the latest news from around the Treasure Valley and the Gem State in our YouTube playlist:

See the rest here:
Year in Review: COVID-19 pandemic saw an uptick in Idaho - KTVB.com

As this Congressional session comes to an end, many people have been disappointed by the lack of action on important legislation. One of those is cannabis. Going forward, pro-cannabis legislators ultimately have choices to make. If comprehensive cannabis legislation is dead in this Congressand it isis any alternative palatable? Is the status quo of prohibition preferable to holding out hope for broad-based legislation at a later date?

As Democrats took control of the House, Senate, and White House in 2021, hopes were up. Many legalization supporters believed the time had arrived to advance this issue to the finish line. However, one year into the new Congress, reality should have finally set in: the math is still not favorable in Congress to pass comprehensive cannabis legalization and an alternative is likely necessary.

The reality that is holding Congress back from passing federal cannabis legalization is a simple one that often undermines complex, multi-faceted policy changes that have deep divisions within the legislative branch: there is not a sufficient coalition of House members and a filibuster-proof majority of senators who agree on comprehensive legalization. That result is often frustrating or bewildering for supporters of reform for two reasons. First, they look at national polling and see not just a majority, but a supermajority of Americans who support full-scale cannabis reform. Second, there are majorities of House and Senate members who would say yes to the basic question: Should cannabis be legalized nationally?

The latter, however, is the wrong question to ask. Often, in a legislative body, the issue is not whether a law should be reformed, but how that law should be reformed. And theres the rub for federal legalization legislation. Liberals and progressives in the Democratic Party cannot agree with moderate and libertarian Republicans on what cannabis reform should look like, even if majorities agree that the law should be changed. And as pro-cannabis reform members from both sides dig their heels in on the importance of provisions that are close to their heart (and the heart of their base), it makes assembling that coalition impossible.

Here are the fault lines

Liberal Democrats and especially the partys most progressive members are unwilling to support legislation that does not incorporate significant social equity and racial justice provisions into it. Their argument is a straightforward and convincing one: the War on Drugs was waged on the backs of Black Americans, Latinos, and indigenous populations, and reform should not proceed without a significant effort to right the wrongs of the past.

Moderate Republicans and libertarian members of the party see the issue from a market perspective. They believe government should get out of the way and let cannabis be treated as an agricultural commodity in which the business community and the free marketrather than government prohibitionshould prevail. (It should be noted that most pro-cannabis Democrats and Republicans do agree on some restorative justice such as pardons and record expungement for non-violent cannabis offenders.)

However, as legislation is drafted, any bill that does not include extensive provisions to advance social equity and racial justice is a non-starter for some key Democrats as well as within those communities hit hardest by the drug war. This situation played out most recently in efforts to include the SAFE Banking Act in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). That effort to include an amendment to expand access to financial institutions for the cannabis industry ultimately failed in the Senate as senators like Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) preferred their own, comprehensive legislation. The stripping of SAFE Banking from the NDAA happened even as some in the cannabis advocacy community argued that SAFE Banking would help minority business owners in the industry.

When the SAFE Banking Act passed the House as a standalone bill in 2021, it garnered the votes of 106 Republicans, demonstrating that the GOP can deliver votes on cannabis legislation that makes it easier for markets and businesses to operate. However, months later, Sen. Booker announced his outright opposition to SAFE Banking if the comprehensive MORE Act or his (and Leader Schumers and Sen. Ron Wydens [D-Ore.]) Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act did not pass.

It is here that the division over cannabis reform is most obvious. While SAFE Banking garnered the votes of more than half of the House GOP Conference, the MORE Act (which passed the House in December 2020) received only five Republican votes. Since the legislation was reintroduced in the 117th Congress it has, to date, garnered only one Republican co-sponsor.

It is clear that as a legalization bill shifts away from a pro-business direction, the number of Republican supporters plummets. And while in a Democratic-controlled House, leadership can muster the votes to pass something like the MORE Act, the requirement to beat a filibuster in the Senate makes passage of more social equity and racial justice-oriented comprehensive legislation an impossibility. It is not clear if Democrats can even keep all 50 of their Democratic members in line for such a vote, and it is a certainty that they cannot attract the 10 or more Republicans necessary to clear the 60-vote hurdle. And more moderate legislation that could attract more Republicans will likely lose the more progressive members of the Senate Democratic Caucus.

Surely some progressives (perhaps rightly) worry that moderate legislation with the vague promise to do better for communities of color at a later date is likely an empty promisethose communities have lost that hand of poker on other issues in the past. At the same time, the status quo means there will be more cannabis arrests every year that disproportionately impact communities of color. Could something that offers a bit to both sides be possible? Perhaps combining federal decriminalization, seed funding for state level record expungement, a presidential promise to pardon past offenders at the bill signing, and SAFE Banking could be seen as a step in the right direction? Would piecemeal legislation under a Democratic Congress be better than rolling the dice in a (likely) Republican Congress in 2023, knowing the hostility of Republican leadership to legalization? The latter is the central question legalization advocates must ask themselves and answer.

Ultimately, cannabis reform supporters inside and outside of Congress need a reality check about the state of play of current cannabis reform proposals, and what additional complications the future may offer. Regardless of the chosen path forward, there will be naysayers, holdouts, resistance, and anger. There will be accusations of bloated government or not doing enough to reverse the effects of the drug war. That is standard for an interest group environment on a passionate issue in a deliberative body. However, in the end, Congress has a choice between doing nothing and letting prohibition win the day and allowing all of the consequences of that to remain. Or doing something short of perfect, that addresses some of the real harms that drug prohibition has created in this country.

Read more from the original source:
The numbers for drug reform in Congress dont add up - Brookings Institution

Libertarians believe that every person has the right to arm themselvesin self-defense.

The right to self defense is one of our most fundamental rights. Few people will argue against that. However, some believe that people should not be allowed to arm themselves. Libertarians strongly disagree.

Imagine a small person, walking home after a late shift at work. Imagine that person is attacked by someone twice theirsize. The victim fights back but is unable to defend themselves against the much larger attacker.

Now imagine if the victim was armed. With the help of a gun, the victim hasa chance at self defense against the much larger attacker.

Gun rights are important for everyone, but especially those that are physically weaker.

Banning guns would not curb violence or deathsit will just change the nature of violence and deaths. It would result in violent criminals having more power to perpetrate violence against innocent people. Violent criminals will be emboldened if they know that average Americans are unable to defend themselves.

And banning guns would mean people who should be free to go about their business, for example traveling home from work after dark, will live in greater fear. It will mean that people who live in more dangerous areas (and who are typically poorer) have fewer options to defend themselves and their families.

Libertarians support peoplesrights to defend themselves and to arm themselves. We see it as immoral for government to try to prevent someone from doing so.

Follow this link:
Gun Ownership | Libertarian Party

A rather innocuous tweet was reportedly censored by Twitter for "glorifying violence" by opining that Kyle Rittenhouse did nothing wrong.

The reprimand from Twitter was sent to the account for the Libertarian Party of Kentucky after they tweeted on Nov. 3. The tweet read, "Watching this trial, it's ever more obvious that Kyle Rittenhouse did nothing wrong."

The company said that the tweet had been in violation of their terms of service against glorifying violence and asked the account manager to delete the tweet before the account could be unlocked.

"We prohibit content that condones or celebrates acts of violence that could promote imitation of the act. We also prohibit the glorification of mass murders or genocides when protected categories have been the primary target or victims," their message read.

The Libertarian account later tweeted vaguely about their suspension.

"Hey we are back after our comments about a certain Illinois teenager and how that legal process is going," the account tweeted on Monday.

"Still BS,wonder if Twitter will apologize after said teenager is not convicted," they mused.

The account for the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire posted a screenshot of the demand from Twitter next to a tweet from a Democratic member of Congress calling Rittenhouse a "white supremacist domestic terrorist."

Twitter did not respond to a request for comment by the time of publication.

Big tech companies and social media platforms have been under fire over accusations that they selectively enforce their rules against those on the right while leaving similar offenses from the left untouched.

In one recent example Twitter suspended the account of a Republican congressman for referring to a transgender woman serving in the Biden administration as a man.

Kyle Rittenhouse breaks down in tears on witness standwww.youtube.com

See the original post here:
Twitter locked Libertarian party account over a tweet ...

Libertarian: Biden Deepens Supply-Chain Woes

President Biden seems to be doing his best to prolong our economic woes,grumbles Kristin Tate at The Hill. With the holidays around the corner, Americans are experiencing inflated prices, goods shortages and long shipping times. Yet Team Biden is poised to hike prices and cause more empty shelves by requiring jab proof to cross the US-Canada border, when 20 percent of Canadas truckers are unvaxxed. This will further ensnare the arrival of both raw materials and finished goods into the country. More: Biden may close a major natural gas pipeline from the Great White North because of climate change concerns, hitting US consumers with rising fuel costs. Everyday concerns of Americans struggling to pay their bills or fill their cars with gasoline are being dismissed.

From theRight: Latinx = Electoral Poison

Progressives insistence on the word Latinx alienates Hispanics,warns Alex Perez at Spectator World. In a new Politico poll, only 2 percent of Hispanics refer to themselves as Latinx, so the push to normalize the term shows progressives have little interest in learning about the groups they hope to assimilate into their increasingly fractured political coalition. While progressives are quick to submit to these language shifts due to their white guilt and conformism, they fail to understand that this bureaucratic impulse does not comport with the sensibilities of working-class Hispanics. Indeed, 40 percent of Hispanics are offended by the term and 30 percent are less likely to vote for a politician who uses it. Beware: With Hispanics already shifting to the right, Democrats cant risk using a term that will alienate the demographic. In short, Latinx is toxic.

Education beat: Systemic Racism vs. . . . Asians

What the NAACP calls systemic racism looks an awful lot like what Asian-Americans are experiencing these days, especially in education,rails The Wall Street Journals Bill McGurn. E.g.: San Franciscos school board replaced competitive admissions with a lottery at the crown jewel of its public-school system, Lowell High, to reduce the number of Asian kids there, critics say. When a judge ruled that the board didnt give proper public notice for the switch, the superintendent claimed it would be logistically impossible to reverse course. Translation: Even when Asian-Americans win, the system ensures they still lose. How ironic that the same board that invoked pervasive systemic racism to ditch Lowells merit-based admissions is now using the system to ensure fewer Asian-Americans get in.

Peanut gallery: If Baldwin Fired in Anger . . .

Legal experts are speculating that rageaholic Alec Baldwin deliberately fired his gun in anger at Rustdirector of photography Halyna Hutchins, reports Debra Heine at American Greatness. They cite several previous incidents in which the actor had been provoked into a rage, including multiple incidents with reporters. One lawyer suggests that Baldwin did not appreciate being ordered around by a young, female cinematographer. If he indeed fired in anger, even thinking the gun unloaded, then a charge of criminally negligent homicide is definitely within the realm of possibility, Hutchins concludes.

Pandemic journal: De Blasios Vax Overreach

Mayor Bill de Blasios decision to expand vaccine mandates to young children is too hasty, unnecessarily coercive and impractical,declares Reasons Liz Wolfe. Parents must vaccinate 5- to 11-year-olds if they want to bring the kids to any indoor restaurant, fitness center or entertainment venue or have them join such extracurriculars as sports, orchestra and dance those same ones they took an involuntary, collective hiatus from for much of 2020. This keeps families with unvaccinated little ones from participating in normal city life. Itll also hit tourism, since most countries havent OKd COVID jabs for kids. And for what? Fewer than 700 COVID deaths have been reported among kids nationwide, with just 146 among kids 5 to 11. Blas is creating a new underclass composed, oddly, of the tiny humans threatened least by the virus.

Compiled by The Post Editorial Board

Read the rest here:
Biden worsens supply-chain mess and other commentary - New York Post