Who's Afraid Of Covid?

Spoiler: It's young people.

It's a Covid day, and this story from the Epoch Times (which I picked up through Zerohedge) is rather fascinating. The article is based off a YouGov poll that you can read about here. What the Epoch Times author did was to inquire into what lies behind the seemingly contra indicated results of the YouGov poll:

Why Young Adults Are The Most Scared Of COVID, Even Though They Are The Least At Risk

Back when I was in the waning years of my working life, we old timers (I was in my 50s then) were constantly being told that the Bureau would be hiring large numbers of "computer savvy young people" to lead the FBI into the brave new digital world of law enforcement. I was pretty unimpressed with these supposedly "computer savvy" youngsters--their savviness usually extended to using electronic gadgets like cell phones, but did not extend to critical analysis of the vast amounts of data made available on the internet. Nor was I able to see much interest in learning. It was old timers who seemed more interested in the implications of understanding how data is collected and used.

Sorry if I bored you with that, but it seems to play into the YouGov results. Here's what YouGov found:

Laurence Silberman's Blast At The Judicial Establishment

It would be difficult to briefly characterize Laurence Silberman's position in American politics and the judiciary. His career has been extraordinarily wide ranging and his public perception has varied just as widely over the decades. He is best known for his time on the federal bench in DC--since his appointment by Ronald Reagan--but by then he was already a veteran DC politician in the Executive Branch. Perhaps it would be safest to say that he is a long time GOP establishment figure, known for an explosive temper and a penchant for speaking his mind--characteristics that have sometimes led to the need for further explanations of his views and actions. 

Silberman has participated in a number of notable decisions, including during his time on the FISA Court of Review--reviewing FISC decisions. He has rarely shied away from controversy, which may be why he was never actually nominated for the SCOTUS, although his name was frequently brought up in that regard during Republican administrations. With all that said, he has long been regarded as a leading Republican judicial figure, although he has been in senior status since 2008--twelve years ago, already!

Silberman is back in the news. Fox carried the story yesterday, regarding Silberman's dissent in the decision of a three judge Appellate panel in DC in the defamation case of Tah v. Global Witness Publishing, Inc. Silberman.

Federal judge warns 'dangerous' media has 'very close to one-party control' in blistering libel case dissent

Judge Laurence Silberman calls New York Times, Washington Post 'virtually Democratic Party broadsheets'

Fox provides the essential background for the case:

Briefly Noted: Stimulate This!

If the Zhou Baiden regime doesn't want you to own guns, why are they giving you the money to buy guns? You'd need to be a liberal government bureaucrat to figure that one out--in other words, someone who doesn't have a clue about real people. We're from the government and we're hear to help you--Ha ha! Anyway, that seems to be what's going on, according to Forbes--and lots of anecdotal evidence: 

Americans Are Spending Their Stimulus Checks On Guns

Americans are looking forward to another round of stimulus checks and gun shops are looking forward to another round of stimulus stockpiling. 

As the House takes its final vote Wednesday on the $1.9 trillion stimulus bill, many Americans are looking forward to spending their $1,400 stimulus checks at the gun store. 

“Stimulus check equals gun money,” said Brandon Wexler, owner of Wex Gunworks in Delray Beach, Florida. ... 

... 

Al Tawil, owner of Towers Armory, a gun store and range in Oregon, Ohio, said that his weekly sales jumped by about 20% right after mid-April 2020, when many Americans received the first $1,200 stimulus payments from the federal government. He has every reason to believe it will happen again. 

“We’re expecting another big sale when the stimulus comes out,” he said. “They’ve got the extra money and people go indulge themselves with something they can’t normally afford. Some people want a car. Some people want a gun.”

Or both? Have gun, will travel? 

Instead of Covid relief, call it 2A Relief. If we can't have a fully employed citizenry, well ...

There are downsides to this generally excellent program, of course--it wouldn't be a government program if there weren't downsides. For some people it's drug money. (H/T Don Surber)

ADDENDUM: For everyone who's interested in that really weird video of Zhou supposedly talking to reporters, I recommend Andrea Widburg's account: It’s not possible that the White House is faking Biden press moments, is it? The answer seems to be, ... but, no, I won't toy with your intelligence. These are the people--politicians and press--who specialize in hoaxes.

UPDATED: Michael van der Veen Speaks--And How!

Perhaps many readers have already seen this CBS interview with Trump attorney Michael van der Veen. He doesn't give an inch to the liberal reporter, and when she attempts to diminish the significance of the House Dems falsifying evidence in a Senate trial, he totally unloads on her. I like the touch at the end when he identifies himself as "citizen"--watch for that. 

You may, like me, find his talk of "Left and Right" finding a "middle" to be hopelessly naive, but for the rest his righteous outrage was refreshing:

Trump defense attorney Michael van der Veen speaks with @LanaZak after the Senate's acquittal vote: "What happened at the Capitol on January 6 is absolutely horrific. But what happened at the Capitol during this trial was not too far away from that."

Watch the full interview: pic.twitter.com/ndjBZzJgNZ

— CBS News (@CBSNews) February 13, 2021

UPDATE: I'm not sure, but when van der Veen says that there were other examples of House Dem misconduct he may have been referring to the Raskin statements about Beutler's claims re the McCarthy phone call with POTUS. Jonathan Turley points out that Raskin claimed the Beutler statements were breaking news from "last night" that couldn't have been presented at the trial during the past few days. In fact, of course, Beutler's statement had been known for weeks:

The statement quoted Beutler as saying that she had previously discussed the call in public. Keep in mind Raskin just claimed that this was new evidence from “last night” and  the Senate needed to call witnesses on this “additional critical piece of corroborating evidence."