Small, Inspiring Victories, Part 2

 

Like most of you, I found myself in the doldrums about our current state of affairs in this country. So a few days ago I wrote a post on the importance of appreciating those positive decisions, events, and victories that are happening, so that we might be uplifted and energized. For at least one more week, I decided to list some more “victories” so that we can also celebrate our progress.

To begin, I proudly present our Sheriff Grady Judd in Polk County, Florida:

The six-month-long undercover investigation aptly named ‘Swipe Left for Meth’ began when the sheriff’s office received a tip through Crime Stoppers.

As Polk Sheriff Grady Judd explained Thursday during a press conference, investigators made undercover profiles on three different dating apps: Grindr, Scruff and Taimi.

Detectives said they ‘found it relatively easy to strike up conversations with those who were selling methamphetamine, cocaine, Ecstasy, LSD, Fentanyl, and marijuana in Polk County.’ It was clear these individuals were primarily using these apps to sell drugs, not to find a date, the sheriff’s office added.

Fourteen firearms were seized during the arrests. You can be certain that these people will not be freed through a lawless district attorney and they will be duly prosecuted. Take that, DA Bragg!

*     *     *

On Sunday, January 23, there was a protest rally in front of the Lincoln Memorial against government mandates. From the article:

The organizers said they would be protesting mandates, not vaccines themselves. ‘Since the vaccines do not stop people from getting sick, why should we impose them as a requirement to keep one’s job or to enjoy the freedoms that we have always enjoyed such as eating at a restaurant, going to a concert, or attending school or the university?’ said Louisa Clary, an organizer, in an email.

This kind of protest is laudable and powerful, as we continue to fight against government overreach.

*     *     *

Governor Glenn Youngkin is already beginning his efforts to stop the “progressive mandates and control of schools” in Virginia:

New Gov. Glenn Youngkin is off to a fast start in Virginia, pushing back as his campaign promised against the coercion of progressive mandates and control of schools. One of his early moves seems especially notable and promising: Recasting the state’s ‘diversity, equity and inclusion’ office to substitute ‘opportunity’ for ‘equity.’

At a general level this change is largely symbolic because what matters is how the office will operate in practice. But the symbolism still matters because it represents a major fault line in American culture and politics.

The seeds of a victory in taking back our schools have been planted; now the governor will need to ensure that there is follow-through on his intentions.

*     *     *

Truck drivers in Canada have been protesting vaccine mandates by forming a potentially record-breaking convoy this past couple of weeks:

The Freedom Convoy left from Vancouver for Ottawa on Sunday to protest the federal government’s vaccine mandates for cross-border truckers, which took effect on Jan. 15. The Canadian Trucking Alliance estimates that roughly 15% of truckers in the country are not fully vaccinated, or about 16,000 truck drivers.

The Prime Minister was not happy:

[He] said participants of the protest are a ‘small fringe minority who are on the way to Ottawa who are holding unacceptable views.

‘What we are hearing from some people associated with this convoy is completely unacceptable,’ he continued.

Crowds in Canada have cheered them on their journey, and they plan to reach Ottawa on Sunday to protest. They set a powerful example for pushing back.

*     *     *

And finally, voters in San Francisco have the opportunity to remove three school board members for government overreach regarding the pandemic:

San Francisco voters will decide in February whether to recall three members of the city’s school board. The Department of Elections announced Monday that supporters gathered enough signatures to put the continued employment of board president Gabriela López, vice president Faauuga Moliga and member Alison Collins on the ballot.

The drive to oust three of the board’s seven elected members grew out of frustration over schools remaining closed for over a year while neighboring counties and private schools resumed in-person instruction, and the board’s coinciding effort to rename 44 schools, a decision it later reversed after a judge ordered it to do so.

Parents were also upset by the board’s vote to end merit-based admissions at academically-rigorous Lowell High School.

The recall election will be on February 15. Let’s hope the greater public turns out in order to stop these authoritarian and undemocratic board members.

*     *     *

What “victories” have you heard about? You don’t have to provide a link; just share your stories with us! We can celebrate together!

Published in Domestic Policy
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 18 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Bishop Wash Member
    Bishop Wash
    @BishopWash

    Susan Quinn: Detectives said they ‘found it relatively easy to strike up conversations with those who were selling methamphetamine, cocaine, Ecstasy, LSD, Fentanyl, and marijuana in Polk County.’ It was clear these individuals were primarily using these apps to sell drugs, not to find a date, the sheriff’s office added.

    My wife started watching dogs, using the Rover app, about three years ago. While looking at the rates of other sitters, to make her competitive, I found one way out of range. That sitter was charging over $120, while most everyone else was $20-40. I wondered if it was a front for prostitution.

    • #1
  2. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Bishop Wash (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn: Detectives said they ‘found it relatively easy to strike up conversations with those who were selling methamphetamine, cocaine, Ecstasy, LSD, Fentanyl, and marijuana in Polk County.’ It was clear these individuals were primarily using these apps to sell drugs, not to find a date, the sheriff’s office added.

    My wife started watching dogs, using the Rover app, about three years ago. While looking at the rates of other sitters, to make her competitive, I found one way out of range. That sitter was charging over $120, while most everyone else was $20-40. I wondered if it was a front for prostitution.

    Sounds pretty suspicious to me. Maybe the person was a bookie and needed a courier!

    • #2
  3. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot) Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot)
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Susan Quinn:

    On Sunday, January 23, there was a protest rally in front of the Lincoln Memorial against government mandates. From the article:

    The organizers said they would be protesting mandates, not vaccines themselves. ‘Since the vaccines do not stop people from getting sick, why should we impose them as a requirement to keep one’s job or to enjoy the freedoms that we have always enjoyed such as eating at a restaurant, going to a concert, or attending school or the university?’ said Louisa Clary, an organizer, in an email.

    It is disappointing to me that anyone would consider this to be a convincing argument.  I should be used to it by now, but it still bothers me.  Oh, well.

    • #3
  4. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    People think that they can play their little games in Polk County and break the rules.

    Grady Judd ain’t playing, and he knows the rules.

    • #4
  5. Bishop Wash Member
    Bishop Wash
    @BishopWash

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn:

    On Sunday, January 23, there was a protest rally in front of the Lincoln Memorial against government mandates. From the article:

    The organizers said they would be protesting mandates, not vaccines themselves. ‘Since the vaccines do not stop people from getting sick, why should we impose them as a requirement to keep one’s job or to enjoy the freedoms that we have always enjoyed such as eating at a restaurant, going to a concert, or attending school or the university?’ said Louisa Clary, an organizer, in an email.

    It is disappointing to me that anyone would consider this to be a convincing argument. I should be used to it by now, but it still bothers me. Oh, well.

    Why? Joe said that if you got the shot you wouldn’t get Covid. Then based on that, he pushed for mandating people get the shot or lose freedoms. The first part of Joe’s equation is now false so why should the second part continue?

    • #5
  6. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot) Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot)
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Bishop Wash (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn:

    On Sunday, January 23, there was a protest rally in front of the Lincoln Memorial against government mandates. From the article:

    The organizers said they would be protesting mandates, not vaccines themselves. ‘Since the vaccines do not stop people from getting sick, why should we impose them as a requirement to keep one’s job or to enjoy the freedoms that we have always enjoyed such as eating at a restaurant, going to a concert, or attending school or the university?’ said Louisa Clary, an organizer, in an email.

    It is disappointing to me that anyone would consider this to be a convincing argument. I should be used to it by now, but it still bothers me. Oh, well.

    Why? Joe said that if you got the shot you wouldn’t get Covid. Then based on that, he pushed for mandating people get the shot or lose freedoms. The first part of Joe’s equation is now false so why should the second part continue?

    It should be obvious with 10 seconds of thought, at most.  I think that you can see the flaw, if you just consider the claim made on the merits, putting politics out of your mind for a moment.

    Give it a try.

    • #6
  7. Bishop Wash Member
    Bishop Wash
    @BishopWash

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Bishop Wash (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn:

    On Sunday, January 23, there was a protest rally in front of the Lincoln Memorial against government mandates. From the article:

    The organizers said they would be protesting mandates, not vaccines themselves. ‘Since the vaccines do not stop people from getting sick, why should we impose them as a requirement to keep one’s job or to enjoy the freedoms that we have always enjoyed such as eating at a restaurant, going to a concert, or attending school or the university?’ said Louisa Clary, an organizer, in an email.

    It is disappointing to me that anyone would consider this to be a convincing argument. I should be used to it by now, but it still bothers me. Oh, well.

    Why? Joe said that if you got the shot you wouldn’t get Covid. Then based on that, he pushed for mandating people get the shot or lose freedoms. The first part of Joe’s equation is now false so why should the second part continue?

    It should be obvious with 10 seconds of thought, at most. I think that you can see the flaw, if you just consider the claim made on the merits, putting politics out of your mind for a moment.

    Give it a try.

    I think I get it. The mandates shouldn’t stand or fall on the useful of the shot. Even if the shot worked, the government shouldn’t have the power to force people to get it.

    • #7
  8. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot) Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot)
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Bishop Wash (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Bishop Wash (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn:

    On Sunday, January 23, there was a protest rally in front of the Lincoln Memorial against government mandates. From the article:

    The organizers said they would be protesting mandates, not vaccines themselves. ‘Since the vaccines do not stop people from getting sick, why should we impose them as a requirement to keep one’s job or to enjoy the freedoms that we have always enjoyed such as eating at a restaurant, going to a concert, or attending school or the university?’ said Louisa Clary, an organizer, in an email.

    It is disappointing to me that anyone would consider this to be a convincing argument. I should be used to it by now, but it still bothers me. Oh, well.

    Why? Joe said that if you got the shot you wouldn’t get Covid. Then based on that, he pushed for mandating people get the shot or lose freedoms. The first part of Joe’s equation is now false so why should the second part continue?

    It should be obvious with 10 seconds of thought, at most. I think that you can see the flaw, if you just consider the claim made on the merits, putting politics out of your mind for a moment.

    Give it a try.

    I think I get it. The mandates shouldn’t stand or fall on the useful of the shot. Even if the shot worked, the government shouldn’t have the power to force people to get it.

    I do hope that you are joking.

    I guess that I’ll explain, as it’s been a while.  The argument presented is: “Since the vaccines do not stop people from getting sick, why should we impose them as a requirement . . .”

    This argument assumes that there can be no reason to impose a vaccination requirement unless the vaccine is 100% effective.  A reduction of risk, apparently, is useless unless it reduces the risk to zero.  That is plainly irrational.

    • #8
  9. Rodin Member
    Rodin
    @Rodin

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    I guess that I’ll explain, as it’s been a while.  The argument presented is: “Since the vaccines do not stop people from getting sick, why should we impose them as a requirement . . .”

    This argument assumes that there can be no reason to impose a vaccination requirement unless the vaccine is 100% effective.  A reduction of risk, apparently, is useless unless it reduces the risk to zero.  That is plainly irrational.

    The paramount question is whether “informed consent” is to be ignored? As the vaccine is neither 100% effective nor free of risk, that is a prima facie reason for honoring “informed consent”. The burden should not be on the individual to articulate a reason not to be jabbed.

    • #9
  10. Basil Fawlty Member
    Basil Fawlty
    @BasilFawlty

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):
    This argument assumes that there can be no reason to impose a vaccination requirement unless the vaccine is 100% effective.  A reduction of risk, apparently, is useless unless it reduces the risk to zero.  That is plainly irrational.

    Is there a percentage of effectiveness for a vaccine below which the government shouldn’t require you to take it?

    • #10
  11. Franco Member
    Franco
    @Franco

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    I guess that I’ll explain, as it’s been a while.  The argument presented is: “Since the vaccines do not stop people from getting sick, why should we impose them as a requirement . . .”

    This argument assumes that there can be no reason to impose a vaccination requirement unless the vaccine is 100% effective.  A reduction of risk, apparently, is useless unless it reduces the risk to zero.  That is plainly irrational.

    In addition to Rodin’s comment, I’d like to add that “vaccines” are commonly expected to work near 100% . So either these people are trying to redefine the word, or they are lying.

    By your understanding and rationality, people could be mandated to take cold medicine, anti-cholesterol pills, or anything that some officious jerk like Fauci decides.

    But crucially, the fact that one can still get the disease after being vaccinated shows that vaccination is only  helpful in keeping one’s symptoms in check once contracted, but not helpful in controlling the spread. The only people the spread will effect negatively are the unvaccinated – not the vaccinated.

    Therefore there’s no argument that someone who is unvaxed can damage someone who is vaccinated any more than another vaccinated person can damage them.

    Thus, there is no rationale for mandating people to get the vaccination. The only rationale is for the good of their own health. Which is unprecedented and could be applied to a thousand conditions and lifestyles. 

     

     

    • #11
  12. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    This argument assumes that there can be no reason to impose a vaccination requirement unless the vaccine is 100% effective.  A reduction of risk, apparently, is useless unless it reduces the risk to zero.  That is plainly irrational.

    And I would agree with mandating Theraflu for the common cold.  Just for the public good.  This doesn’t just mitigate symptoms of illness for the sick, and it would allow employees to function better at work, which increases corporate productivity and leads to higher salaries for users and coworkers alike, ultimately benefiting their families as well.

    And this is not because I just invested in GSK. 

    • #12
  13. iWe Coolidge
    iWe
    @iWe

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn:

    On Sunday, January 23, there was a protest rally in front of the Lincoln Memorial against government mandates. From the article:

    The organizers said they would be protesting mandates, not vaccines themselves. ‘Since the vaccines do not stop people from getting sick, why should we impose them as a requirement to keep one’s job or to enjoy the freedoms that we have always enjoyed such as eating at a restaurant, going to a concert, or attending school or the university?’ said Louisa Clary, an organizer, in an email.

    It is disappointing to me that anyone would consider this to be a convincing argument. I should be used to it by now, but it still bothers me. Oh, well.

    It seems to me that Freedom is never a bad argument, at least in principle?

    • #13
  14. God-LovingWoman Coolidge
    God-LovingWoman
    @GodLovingWoman

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    This argument assumes that there can be no reason to impose a vaccination requirement unless the vaccine is 100% effective. A reduction of risk, apparently, is useless unless it reduces the risk to zero. That is plainly irrational.

    And I would agree with mandating Theraflu for the common cold. Just for the public good. This doesn’t just mitigate symptoms of illness for the sick, and it would allow employees to function better at work, which increases corporate productivity and leads to higher salaries for users and coworkers alike, ultimately benefiting their families as well.

    And this is not because I just invested in GSK.

    You’re a funny guy.

    • #14
  15. Chuck Thatcher
    Chuck
    @Chuckles

    Bishop Wash (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Bishop Wash (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn:

    On Sunday, January 23, there was a protest rally in front of the Lincoln Memorial against government mandates. From the article:

    The organizers said they would be protesting mandates, not vaccines themselves. ‘Since the vaccines do not stop people from getting sick, why should we impose them as a requirement to keep one’s job or to enjoy the freedoms that we have always enjoyed such as eating at a restaurant, going to a concert, or attending school or the university?’ said Louisa Clary, an organizer, in an email.

    It is disappointing to me that anyone would consider this to be a convincing argument. I should be used to it by now, but it still bothers me. Oh, well.

    Why? Joe said that if you got the shot you wouldn’t get Covid. Then based on that, he pushed for mandating people get the shot or lose freedoms. The first part of Joe’s equation is now false so why should the second part continue?

    It should be obvious with 10 seconds of thought, at most. I think that you can see the flaw, if you just consider the claim made on the merits, putting politics out of your mind for a moment.

    Give it a try.

    I think I get it. The mandates shouldn’t stand or fall on the useful of the shot. Even if the shot worked, the government shouldn’t have the power to force people to get it.

    Change the word “shouldn’t” (in both places) to “doesn’t” and “government” to Federal government, and this will be exactly correct.  

    • #15
  16. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    iWe (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn:

    On Sunday, January 23, there was a protest rally in front of the Lincoln Memorial against government mandates. From the article:

    The organizers said they would be protesting mandates, not vaccines themselves. ‘Since the vaccines do not stop people from getting sick, why should we impose them as a requirement to keep one’s job or to enjoy the freedoms that we have always enjoyed such as eating at a restaurant, going to a concert, or attending school or the university?’ said Louisa Clary, an organizer, in an email.

    It is disappointing to me that anyone would consider this to be a convincing argument. I should be used to it by now, but it still bothers me. Oh, well.

    It seems to me that Freedom is never a bad argument, at least in principle?

    Even for practical purposes.

    We have to balance freedom with the common good.  Sometimes we limit freedom for the common good, but we should try to do as little of that limiting as possible.  There are practical reasons as well as principled reasons. 

    One of the practical reasons is that putting limits on freedom gets to be habit-forming, and that leads to other problems down the road, which you can read about in history books.  

    • #16
  17. Chuck Thatcher
    Chuck
    @Chuckles

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    iWe (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn:

    On Sunday, January 23, there was a protest rally in front of the Lincoln Memorial against government mandates. From the article:

    The organizers said they would be protesting mandates, not vaccines themselves. ‘Since the vaccines do not stop people from getting sick, why should we impose them as a requirement to keep one’s job or to enjoy the freedoms that we have always enjoyed such as eating at a restaurant, going to a concert, or attending school or the university?’ said Louisa Clary, an organizer, in an email.

    It is disappointing to me that anyone would consider this to be a convincing argument. I should be used to it by now, but it still bothers me. Oh, well.

    It seems to me that Freedom is never a bad argument, at least in principle?

    Even for practical purposes.

    We have to balance freedom with the common good. Sometimes we limit freedom for the common good, but we should try to do as little of that limiting as possible. There are practical reasons as well as principled reasons.

    One of the practical reasons is that putting limits on freedom gets to be habit-forming, and that leads to other problems down the road, which you can read about in history books.

    One thing when a significant majority of the people choose to limit their own freedoms, quite another when one man chooses to do it for everybody else.

    • #17
  18. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Chuck (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    iWe (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn:

    On Sunday, January 23, there was a protest rally in front of the Lincoln Memorial against government mandates. From the article:

    The organizers said they would be protesting mandates, not vaccines themselves. ‘Since the vaccines do not stop people from getting sick, why should we impose them as a requirement to keep one’s job or to enjoy the freedoms that we have always enjoyed such as eating at a restaurant, going to a concert, or attending school or the university?’ said Louisa Clary, an organizer, in an email.

    It is disappointing to me that anyone would consider this to be a convincing argument. I should be used to it by now, but it still bothers me. Oh, well.

    It seems to me that Freedom is never a bad argument, at least in principle?

    Even for practical purposes.

    We have to balance freedom with the common good. Sometimes we limit freedom for the common good, but we should try to do as little of that limiting as possible. There are practical reasons as well as principled reasons.

    One of the practical reasons is that putting limits on freedom gets to be habit-forming, and that leads to other problems down the road, which you can read about in history books.

    One thing when a significant majority of the people choose to limit their own freedoms, quite another when one man chooses to do it for everybody else.

    True, but even when there is a significant majority you have to be careful, because somebody (or some group) has to manage the actions on behalf of that significant majority, and that somebody can easily develop conflicts of interest. 

    • #18
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.