Connect with us


It really doesn’t matter



If you look back over the past three years, we’ve had a series of epic sociocultural strikes against COVID: lockdowns, masks, vaccines, schools. Each tends to pit broadly similar groups against each other, albeit with some key variations. But whatever you make of those fights, the public debate had really huge and immediate repercussions in the real world. This is what is so strange and mysterious about the intensity of the Lab Leak Discourse. It doesn’t really matter. Or rather, in the real world, there are virtually no consequences for either side being “right” or “winning.” I was talking to someone today who said how incredibly important this is. But after a little thought, I thought, why? Now it is much better for people to think that up is up and not up is down. And there are probably important side effects of misunderstanding whichever way is “wrong”. But it’s not clear in any direct sense that this has any real impact on anything.

I’m not the kind of person who says it doesn’t matter, so why are we even talking about it. COVID is one of the biggest disasters in modern world history. It is worth finding out every detail of how this happened. So maybe I’m exaggerating a bit in my first paragraph. It matters, like many things, but without any drastic changes in how we do things. This is the key. Intensity has nothing to do with someone doing something really differently the day after the issue (if it ever will) is definitely resolved, except maybe one side giving high five and making several buoys.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


US Representative from California. shows what often drought-stricken state does with storm water –



Recent severe storms in California have resulted in catastrophic flood problem in parts of the state:

Days after the last major storm passed, rising water levels continue to trigger evacuation orders and flood warnings across Central California, with more rain forecast early next week.

In Porterville, residents of two neighborhoods along the flooded Tule River have been ordered to evacuate, with about 5 miles of river between them under evacuation warning.

High water from nearby Success Lake upstream has already flooded dozens of homes in the area. Melting snow from the mountains feeds cold flood water that was waist-deep on Wednesday in some homes near a fault in the Tula River.

Naturally, in a state that often has a lot of draft problems, there is a way to store excess fresh water for future use, right? Well, apparently not.

Instead, it appears that some government officials are simply dumping large amounts of overflowing fresh water into the ocean. Republican House Rep. Kevin Keely shared this video:

Looks like they might want to bring it back later this year.

But Gavin Newsom is definitely laser-focused on what’s going on in Florida!

Newsom and the leftist progists in California have rather confusing “priorities.” But they will blame floods or droughts on “climate change” and stay on that wrong path.

The only “plan” Californian liberals have is to blame climate change and use it as an excuse to bleed taxpayers to spend more on their shenanigans to solve another non-existent problem.


What are the chances that at some point in the summer or sometime later this year they actually want all that fresh water back? It will be too late.


Editor’s Note: The title has been updated to note that Mr. Keely is now a US Representative, not a Californian. state representative, as originally stated. Thanks to those who made this reminder.



The mask worn by California. State Rep. Kevin Keely in the Assembly Hall is a BIG tribute to the governor. Newsome’s hypocrisy

RedState’s Jennifer Van Laar urges Newsom OUT in heartbreaking topic for California blizzard victims


Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy Twitchy’s conservative reporting on the radical left and the awakened media? Support our work so we can continue to bring you the truth. Join Twitchy VIP and use promo code SAVEAMERICA to get 40% off your VIP membership!


Continue Reading


DeSantis, who blamed diversity initiatives for the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank, has been pushing for a repeal of banking rules under renewed scrutiny.




Since the closure of Silicon Valley Bank, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has pointed the finger at several culprits, including the company’s diversity initiatives and federal regulators, which he says are “always blowing” to prevent a financial crisis.

But DeSantis’ comments make no mention of his own report on banking regulations. As a member of Congress, DeSantis has openly advocated the deregulation of small and medium-sized financial institutions. in 2018 he voted in favor of a bill that eventually became legislation to loosen oversight of mid-sized banks such as Silicon Valley Bank.

The 2018 law signed into law by then-President Donald Trump is under scrutiny amid the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank, a startup lender whose recent collapse rocked the venture capital world and sent chills through the country’s financial system. , which was passed with bipartisan support, repealed the rules known as the Dodd-Frank Act passed by Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama after the 2008 financial crisis, including some for small and medium-sized institutions.

Among the many provisions of the 75-page law was a measure supported by regional banks. raised the asset threshold to tighten oversight by federal banking regulators from $50 billion to $250 billion. According to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, this would affect the Silicon Valley bank, which had total assets of $209 billion at the end of 2022.

DeSantis had little to say publicly about the 2018 law, one of his last major votes as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives before he resigned to run for governor, but a year earlier he had repeatedly bragged about the Republican vote to repeal Dodd— Frank. in an interview with Fox Business Network.

During one such speech in June 2017, DeSantis strongly advocated easing restrictions on banks that were lower in the financial food chain.

“You know, the Dodd-Frank article, I think, would be very good for the economy as it would get away from too big to fail and would really take the burden off a lot of our small and medium financial institutions that have just been bludgeoned. Dodd. “Frank,” DeSantis said.

DeSantis’ office declined to comment on his 2018 vote. Speaking in an interview with Fox News on Sunday, DeSantis pointed the finger elsewhere, saying, “We have a huge federal bureaucracy and yet they never seem to be able to be there when we need them to be able to prevent something like this from happening.” .

Sunday’s statements are “self-supporting,” DeSantis spokesman Brian Griffin said Monday.

The 2018 vote is the latest example of DeSantis’ congressional record rife with potential headaches for the Florida Republican as he considers launching a presidential campaign. KFile CNN previously reported that DeSantis called for the privatization of Medicare and Social Security, a stance both Trump and Democrats have seized on that DeSantis has since abandoned. DeSantis also once supported a hawkish approach to arming Ukraine and confronting Russia, but has recently backed Trump in statements criticizing US involvement in a foreign conflict.

DeSantis is not alone among the 2024 contenders supporting a Dodd-Frank rollback. Beyond Trump, who successfully urged Congress to loosen banking regulations, potential candidates Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina, former Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming, and current governor of South Dakota. Christy Noem voted by law 2018

The 2018 law gave the Federal Reserve the flexibility to apply stricter rules to certain banks with at least $100 million in assets, and banks that exceeded that threshold were still subject to “periodic” stress tests under the 2018 law. But the increase in the extended regulation standard to $250 billion was seen as a big win for midsize banks, spurred in part by SVB CEO Greg Becker.

As Becker wrote in a 2015 congressional testimony before a Senate committee, these stricter rules “will stifle our ability to lend to our clients without any meaningful corresponding risk reduction.”

But DeSantis’ past calls for a more liberal approach to the financial industry are also at odds with his more last moves punish banks and cut ties with financial institutions that consider factors such as the environment and the public good in their investment and lending strategies, a business structure known as environmental, social and governance or ESG. DeSantis on Sunday blamed progressive corporate politics for the decline of Silicon Valley Bank.

“They are so concerned about (diversity, fairness and inclusion), politics and other things. I think it really took their focus away from the main mission,” DeSantis told Fox.

The comments echoed a report published over the weekend by another news organization in Rupert Murdoch’s media empire, the New York Post, which published an article describing the diversity of the bank. and efforts to include. Asked what DeSantis meant in his comment, his office declined to elaborate. Former FDIC Chair Sheila Bair, a Republican nominee by President George W. Bush, scoffed at the accusation during an interview with CNN This Morning on Tuesday.

“Let’s not politicize this,” Baer said. “It’s not very helpful.”

DeSantis’ criticism makes no mention of Florida’s financial ties to the SVB. As of June last year, $1.7 billion had been invested in Florida’s pension system. funds under management SVB Capital, the investment arm of the financial group Silicon Valley Bank. That figure has doubled since DeSantis became governor. DeSantis is one of three trustees of the State Administrative Council, the body that oversees the state’s pension funds.

While the state has a significant stake in the SVB-related business, its direct impact on the bank was less than $25 million of the $177 billion in government pension investment, according to a state council spokesman.

DeSantis’ quest to unravel Dodd-Frank began during his successful first run for Florida’s congressional seat. in 2012when he ran as a Tea Party Conservative whose platform called for a repetition of the Dodd-Frank and Sarbanes-Oxley Act, a bill that passed by an overwhelming majority in 2002, when the House and Senate lost only three votes after the Enron and WorldCom accounting scandals.

After the victory, DeSantis helped found the conservative Freedom House caucus and worked with other conservatives to make repealing Dodd-Frank a priority. Early on, DeSantis focused on repealing the rules for public banks, and repeatedly voted for legislation to repeal much of the law.

But by 2017, when Trump was re-elected, Republicans in the House of Representatives responded to the president’s broader calls to repeal parts of Dodd-Frank. Passing Financial Choice Law. In addition to relaxing many banking rules, it would also abolish the Orderly Liquidation Authority, which allows the federal government to intervene if the bank is on the verge of collapse. DeSantis voted in favor of the bill.

Four days after its passage, DeSantis appeared on Fox Business’s “Morning with Mary” arguing that the bill would free up lending for small businesses. DeSantis argued, “Dodd-Frank is really hurting small and medium-sized institutions.”

He lamented that it was unlikely that the Senate would pass the House bill. Instead, the Republican-controlled Senate passed its own bill in 2018 with the support of 17 Democrats and sent it to the House of Representatives. The Senate bill did not repeal the Orderly Liquidation Act, but included fewer provisions for midsize banks.

DeSantis voted for him and Trump signed him.

Continue Reading


Texas Judge Questions Safety of FDA-Approved Abortion Drug



A comment

AMARILLO, Texas. — A federal judge who could overturn access to a key abortion drug seemed open to an argument on Wednesday that the drug was not properly tested and may not be safe, says the Food and Drug Administration and presenters healthcare organizations.

While an anti-abortion group contesting the drug has acknowledged that there is no precedent for a court to suspend a long-approved drug, U.S. District Judge Matthew Kaczmarik has questioned mifepristone’s compliance with the stringent federal standards required for prescribing to patients in the United States. .

He asked the group’s lawyer if the court could unilaterally revoke the FDA’s approval for the drug, and contacted attorneys for both sides about whether the pills should be banned from mailing due to 19th century law which prohibits the submission of articles “for any obscene or immoral use” through the Postal Service.

At the end of the four-hour hearing, Kaczmarik said he would make his decision as soon as possible, which could lead to disruption of access to mifepristone even in states where abortion is legal and protected by law. His decision is likely to be appealed to the conservative US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and the case could eventually go to the Supreme Court.

Medical abortion, which accounts for more than half of all abortions in the United States, has become increasingly controversial since the Supreme Court’s conservative majority rejected it. Row vs Calf in June, abolishing the constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy.

In a two-stage medical abortion, the patient first takes one tablet of mifepristone, which terminates the pregnancy, then takes a second drug, misoprostol, to expel the embryo or fetus. While misoprostol is widely used by itself for abortions around the world – and many U.S. abortion providers say they will do the same if mifepristone is withdrawn from sale – studies show it is less effective than the two-step regimen. , and usually causes more cramping and bleeding.

The abortion pill actually consists of two pills – mifepristone and misoprostol. Here’s how it works. (Video: Washington Post)

The lawsuit was filed by the conservative legal group, the Alliance for Freedom, on behalf of anti-abortion medical organizations and four doctors who claim to have treated patients with mifepristone. The complaint accuses the FDA of approving an “unsafe drug regimen” without sufficient scrutiny and objects to recent moves to make it easier to get the drug.

Public health professionals and lawyers condemned the lawsuit as unsupported by scientific evidence and said it could overturn the FDA’s overall drug approval process. The agency has repeatedly stated that the two-stage medical abortion protocol is a safe and effective alternative to surgical abortion.

The plaintiffs have asked Kaczmarik to issue a preliminary injunction ordering the FDA to withdraw or suspend its approval of mifepristone.

Justice Department lawyers object to the court’s questioning the FDA’s technical expertise and called the request for an injunction “extraordinary and unprecedented.” The lawsuit, the government said in court documents, is based on false claims that the drug causes serious complications and “does not recognize that the alternatives to mifepristone – surgical abortion or pregnancy maintenance – also have a complication rate, with birth rates significantly higher than mifepristone”.

A court in Texas held a March 15 hearing in a lawsuit filed by anti-abortion groups challenging the FDA’s approval of the widely used abortion pill mifepristone (Video: The Washington Post)

Wednesday’s hearing was the first time Kaczmarik spoke directly with DOJ lawyers representing the FDA; the company that manufactures and distributes the drug; and an anti-abortion group challenging the drug.

The judge left his toughest questions to state attorneys. He expressed skepticism about what he described as an accelerated government approval process for mifepristone and questioned the safety of a more recent FDA decision to allow the drug to be dispensed by mail rather than in person by a doctor. Kaczmarik noted that the accelerated process is commonly used for drugs that treat life-threatening diseases such as HIV and cancer. In response, Justice Department lawyers opposed accusations that the approval process was flawed and said there was strong evidence that the pill was safe even if it was not administered by a doctor.

It took more than four years for the abortion pill to receive FDA approval in 2000.

Kaczmarik approached Eric Baptist, a lawyer at Alliance Defending Freedom, asking if he could come up with a “counterpart where the courts intervene in this way” so many years after the drug was approved.

“No, I can’t,” Baptiste said. He then noted that people had been trying for years to challenge the approval of the drug internally through the FDA.

Kaczmarik also reached out to Baptist for advice on how a potential solution could be implemented, asking if the conservative group thinks a judge can unilaterally direct the FDA to withdraw its approval or has the power to just start the process.

According to Baptiste, the court may “at its own discretion” order the FDA to withdraw.

Kaczmarik could issue a broad ruling directing the government to withdraw approval of the drug, or a narrower resolution, such as requiring the FDA to reintroduce restrictions on the distribution of mifepristone.

It is unusual for the FDA to order a drug from the market for safety reasons. The multi-step process can take years because the manufacturer, if they disagree with the agency, has the right to present their case and can request a hearing.

At the hearing, Kaczmarik also questioned whether anti-abortion groups and individual doctors challenging the drug have sufficient legal grounds or standing to file a lawsuit. The Department of Justice described as speculative doctors’ claims that they were directly harmed because they treated patients who claimed they had complications from their medications.

Much of Wednesday’s hearing focused on federal regulations and FDA processes. He didn’t delve into the legality of abortion or when life begins.

During the hearing, lawyers for the anti-abortion group argued that the FDA’s decision to allow mail-order abortion pills violated a 150-year-old law. The Comstock Act, they say, prohibits the mailing of any drugs used “to produce abortions.”

These arguments seem to have resonated with Kaczmarik, who asked government lawyers if there was “any dispute” that the law prohibits mail-order abortion drugs.

The Justice Department argued that modern interpretation of the law has never prevented abortion pills from being mailed, partly because the drugs have other uses and because abortion remains legal in many cases.

Minutes before the adjournment of the hearing, Kaczmarik requested confirmation that the plaintiffs also did not contest the FDA’s approval of misoprostol.

“Right,” Baptiste said, adding that misoprostol has a number of approved uses beyond abortion. At the same time, he argued that a decision based on Comstock’s Law may also affect misoprostol.

Jenny Ma, senior adviser for the Center for Reproductive Rights, said in a recent interview that if Kaczmarik invokes the law in his decision, he could ban all forms of medical abortion by mail, including the two-stage regimen with mifepristone and the misoprostol-only alternative.

Even if access to misoprostol is not restricted, some providers say they will only do surgical abortions if mifepristone is taken off the market. Service providers said either scenario would lead to widespread upheaval as they attempt to introduce new procedures that some clinic owners fear could create legal hurdles.

Some stockpiled mifepristone pending a decision, hoping that they would still be allowed to distribute the pills they already have, regardless of Kaczmarik’s decision. Organizations that ship abortion drugs to clients in the US from overseas will not be directly affected by the judge’s decision.

Kachmarik, candidate for President Donald Trump draws criticism from abortion rights advocates due to his longtime anti-abortion views. Previously, he was a lawyer for the conservative legal organization First Liberty.

A devout Christian, Kaczmarik usually begins a trial in the courtroom by saying: “Let’s pray.” Wednesday’s hearing also opened in this way.

The scheduling of the hearing itself became a source of controversy after the judge deliberately delayed public notice and asked the parties’ lawyers to remain silent about the scheduled hearing, steps he said he took to try to minimize disruptions, security threats and protests. Kaczmarik said he could wait until late Tuesday to announce the hearing, which would normally be published in court records shortly after the call.

After The Washington Post informed lawyers of the judge’s directive, a coalition of media organizations criticized the decision, and on Monday the judge officially released a notice of the hearing.

Marimov reported from Washington. Laurie McGinley of Washington contributed to this report.

Continue Reading


Copyright © 2023 News Forest Media.