If you don't want to use that union, we should like to borrow it for a while

Workers are like a family and are always looking out for each other. I've written positively about labor unions for years, and have fought against so-called "right-to-work" laws.

But the pandemic brings out the worst in bad unions, and quite frankly, some of these unions should be kicked out of the labor movement. Many folks have urged the AFL-CIO to oust police unions that defend racist violence and death squads. It's also been noted that some labor leaders marched in support of the disastrous Vietnam War - defying their own membership, many of whom were as antiwar as anyone else.

Some leaders of some other unions are not allies of workers. They're bullies. At a time when workers need a voice, these unions have instead stood with corporate masters and weaponized the ongoing crisis. This would have been a perfect time to demand higher wages or repeal of "right-to-work" laws, but instead they've doubled down on the house arrest regime that's been cheered by Big Business and has ruined small business.

How do stay-at-home orders save jobs? They don't. Even if a workplace doesn't close, potential customers have been forbidden or discouraged from visiting it unless it's for goods or services deemed essential. Instead of fighting for better wages and encouraging workplaces to provide better conditions, some unions have instead blockaded livelihoods. This is at odds with what unions are intended to do. The AFL-CIO's constitution even says unions may be expelled if they advance "authoritarianism, totalitarianism, terrorism and other forces that suppress individual liberties and freedom of association."

How did things get to be this way? You might think unions would not be part of America's failed political class, but are all of them much different from other organizations? We know how corruptible businesses, governments, schools, and even some religious bodies are. Human nature is what it is, so I guess we shouldn't expect every organization to be perfect. But since when do unions try to prevent workers from doing their jobs and getting paid?

These rogue unions should have to forfeit their monopoly bargaining power. After all, they don't even use this power. In workplaces organized under these unions, workers should be able to form a new union. Although unions are stronger in numbers, it only takes one person to officially declare themselves a union.

There's evil out there. I'm not a philosopher, so I can't really explain why. Malicious people get into positions of power in our once-great institutions. Bad unions are merged at the trough with bad corporations and bad governments. Good unions - sadly - are often on their own.

Ebola quarantine criticized (a blast from the past)

Didn't believe me when I said full lockdowns and other extreme measures used to be absent from any pandemic protocols?

In 2014, the world was dealing with the deadly Ebola virus pandemic. Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York (a Democrat) and then-Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey (a Republican) issued quarantines for people who had been in contact with infected patients.

These quarantines were pretty short, and they affected only a few people. They were nothing even close to the frenzy we've seen this year. But some blasted the Ebola quarantines as much too strict. Criticism came from the Obama administration, Dr. Anthony Fauci, socialist activists, and others. A quarantined medical worker said, "This is an extreme that is really unacceptable, and I feel like my basic human rights have been violated."

That was considered "extreme" only 6 years ago!

Fauci recommended only monitoring - no quarantine.

When Florida ordered only monitoring, some infectious disease experts said even that was too strict.

How did the approach to pandemics change so much in only 6 years? Why do people put up with it, when they didn't put up with anything even close to it in 2014? I don't know about Zoom, but we certainly had YouTube in 2014, so they can't say it's because we didn't have it then. Many public officials double down on their coronavirus policies even as the caseload shrinks as immunity builds. At the end of the year when there's just a handful of cases, will we all have the doors to our homes welded shut?

Americans face political identity crisis

Sometimes it's easy to forget there's a presidential election coming up in November. I can't believe it's only August now.

And I've never seen such a political identity crisis among the American public. The Democrats probably had this one sewn up, but I think they've blown it with their pandemic response - not as if the Republicans are any better. I'm on several online forums opposing lockdowns, and I can't even count the number of people who say they're lifelong Denocrats - even liberals - who are abandoning the party because of this. Some even say they're voting for Donald Trump.

I'm strongly inclined to vote Libertarian this year, but I can't say I blame anyone for abandoning the Democrats. The Democrats deserve it.

Americans' identity crisis doesn't just involve party affiliation but also ideological labels. Because of this fiasco, some who considered themselves to be on the left no longer do. In addition to equality, peace. and economic security, one of the main reasons for voting for more liberal candidates is protection of civil liberties. America's more liberal politicians would be considered on the right in many countries, but they've been marketed as progressives or at least moderates. Their pandemic policies have proven them to be anything but. No pandemic playbook supported these policies before. Their practices would have been considered outside the mainstream of both the Democratic and Republican parties 30 years ago.

Both major parties are guilty to an extent, but it's pretty bad that the rank-and-file left and right seem to agree that the nation's best governor for dealing with the pandemic is a Republican. But they also agree the best country for dealing with it is one that has one of the more progressive governments. Guess what, Democrats? The real left just isn't all that into you.

The modern Democrats have pulled off one of the biggest bait-and-switches in the history of politics - second only to the Republican noise machine we've covered for decades. People voted for progressive principles, but for months now, the politicians they voted for have been thumbing their noses at us. Who's laughing? Not us. In many cases, not even these politicians. Their personal babysitters and the media are the ones accepting payoffs from foreign dictatorships.

I've spent 30 years exposing what I call the right-wing media. I no longer think the media is right-wing or left-wing. Their motivation is money - much of it from overseas ruling parties like that of China - and they gin up fear to make a buck.

That damn sure isn't liberal.

Not a great choice, Joe

This is why...

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/11/joe-biden-vp-pick-wall-street-executives-are-happy-about-kamala-harris.html

Do people think I'm going to endorse a "centrist" candidate with Wall Street support? It is to laugh!

We already had one Wall Street party. Why did we need two?

Following the herd

The populist consensus against full lockdowns to fight coronavirus is backed by science. Scientific journals know it, but they're refusing to publish scientific findings, solely because of their implications.

Herd immunity is the idea that once an infection reaches a certain number of people, its spread is significantly limited. Vaccines rely on herd immunity. But there's some out there who think people should catch coronavirus on purpose to artificially speed up the process, as no vaccine is available yet. I'm not a fan of this approach, because it would amass its own death toll.

But what if it's already happened? We don't get a choice to reverse it once it's already occurred.

Many have said that in order for coronavirus to reach herd immunity, it would have to infect 60 to 70% of people. Folks act like this number is etched in stone, and that no new discoveries can change it. However, the number of new cases in a county, state, or country usually drops precipitously when about 15% are infected. In some high-density communities, it's higher, because it spreads faster there, but it appears lower in other places.

This is clear. Areas like New York City that were hard hit in April now have few cases. When cases in Arizona and Florida peaked, I predicted the same would happen there - and now it is. These areas are now doing much better than many places that have never had many cases. Also keep in mind that, because of the inexcusable testing gaps, the number of actual infections in the U.S. is perhaps 10 times the number of known cases.

Of course it's herd immunity, and anyone who's been paying attention knows it. We didn't choose it. It simply happened. Are we supposed to deny herd immunity is even real just because the threshold is lower than what we believed in March?

Scientists certainly know it now. But why is the herd immunity limit lower than we thought? That's because older estimates didn't account for things like T-cells from other coronaviruses providing some immunity, people having different amounts of exposure to possibly infected individuals, age differences, and whether people have underlying conditions.

Findings containing new estimates have been submitted to scientific journals. Publishers of these journals know the studies have just as much merit as anything else, but they won't publish the findings. Why? One journal was quoted as saying: "Given the implications for public health, it is appropriate to hold claims around the herd immunity threshold to a very high evidence bar, as these would be interpreted to justify relaxation of interventions, potentially placing people at risk."

In other words, they don't want people to know about the lower threshold, because it might encourage them to purposely get infected. They don't even want public officials to know, because it might coax them to lift some restrictions that are still in place. These publications know the findings are valid, but they don't trust public officials or the masses with this knowledge.

Why shouldn't some restrictions be lifted in places where herd immunity has significantly reduced cases? And how can a journal act like herd immunity can be reversed once it's already happened?

To not publish valid scientific findings is dishonest and Orwellian. It also represents a complete breakdown of trust. But why should a scientific journal try to reinforce only the beliefs that already exist? Science is supposed to be about progress and new discoveries - not working backwards from a conclusion. I don't believe some of the same scientific ideas I once did, because newer science replaced them.

Rewriting science is as bad as the media rewriting history to favor their goofy economic and military theories.

A person bubbled at Kroger

Today at Kroger, a young woman who works there bubbled.

Before anyone asks, compliance with mask orders isn't exactly stellar, and it's already been proven that bubbling is eminently possible even behind masks.

Have no fear, the August ish is here!

To the shock and awe of many, the August issue of The Last Word is now published, as this zine bips along like it's been doing for 27 years!

This edition talks about my visit to the Gum Wall in Greenville, Ohio; George Washington's pirate adventures; Care Bears drinking glasses getting broken; a student getting caught bringing Pepsi to school when his Thermos leaked; and a whole lotta ruined toilets!

So point your pooper here...

https://www.scribd.com/document/471175333/The-Last-Word-8-2020

If that doesn't work, bop over here...

http://bunkerblast.info/lastword/lw2008.pdf