Lord Ratner

The same place it went after Chauvin. These cases are not the cause, they are the symptom. The disease is manifesting everywhere, with Virginia being the most clear infection. I wasn't sure if the disease had gotten bad enough to trigger a strong enough response, but it seems like the progressives are doubling down, so maybe there's hope?

They are not enemies. Merely sheep in wolves' clothing.

Southwest has a bigger presence. There's always been a question at American as to whether or not Phoenix has a long-term future for AA. Considering how weak our footprint is in the west, I don't think it's going anywhere anytime soon, but we certainly don't treat it like it has a future of growth. That being said, they decided to make Charlotte a megabase, so anything is possible. If you want to fly something other than the 737, then your decision is made for you.

They don't. The problem is they don't believe it in the first place. The current system has been set up perfectly so that each side inherently does not believe the other side. This is the problem with making a broad derogatory judgement about the other "side." If you simply disagree with someone, it's not hard to find common ground. But no one wants to have common ground with someone who is evil or stupid. And unfortunately it's not just Democrats now. It blows my mind how many captains I fly with honestly believe that liberal voters hate success, or hate white people, or hate America. Make no mistake, I believe the highest level of political activists, media personalities, and in many cases elected politicians on the left do in fact hate America as it is today and are indeed Marxist at heart. But to think that Insanity infects the average Democratic voter is nuts.

Shack

Hang on, are you implying that healthy military aged people face a significant threat from COVID? The easy way to backup that claim would be to post the number of deaths in the military from COVID. We can operate under the assumption that all of them were unvaccinated, since that's the most likely scenario.

I'm not in anymore, but my opinion was always that if you're not willing to fly under allowable circumstances, then you're not allowed to fly at all. If you don't trust yourself to fly to the training standard, which are the regulatory minimums, what else aren't you comfortable with that you might encounter? Every once in awhile in the kc-135 someone would say that they won't do a 50 flap landing. They'd gotten so complacent with 40 flap landings that they somehow convinced themselves it was unsafe to do the landing the plane was designed for. Eventually 50 flap landings were added as a required currency item, but it was always a fun conversation with someone asking them why they weren't skilled enough Pilots to fly the plane in accordance with SOP.

Yeah we definitely disagree on the importance of the capitol. The BLM riots resulted in hundreds if not thousands of people's lives being ruined, and a few dozen being ended. The capital riots did substantially less damage, and overwhelmingly to the idiots who perpetrated it. I consider the government to be for the protection of the people, so if I have to choose between the the livelihoods of regular citizens in every major city, and the building that failed so spectacularly over the last few years to protect their interests, it's an easy choice for me. And while I get the argument that things are worse when they come from the president, I guess you and I also disagree on the sanctity of the presidency. In my lifetime every president has failed to live up to the standard we should expect. Whether it was Bill Clinton defiling an intern in the oval office, or Obama planting the seeds that have brought us to this new world of chaotic racial division, or everything Trump did publicly, I viewed Trump as merely the outward expression of the political disease that has infected Washington for a long time. And I think that's why they hated him so much. He looked the way they acted, and that was a threat to the very good deal they were all operating under for a long time. I also push back on the notion that the BLM riots didn't originate from a president. Those riots didn't start in 2020, they started in Ferguson years before (with another outright lie supported still to this day by the left), and we're well aware of who the president was at that time. He also had a funny way of not quite endorsing yet casually supporting a notion that was patently false and led people to riot. Very Trumpian of him. Like you said, it's very tribal now. I think liberals have had a very rosy view on political discourse because at the end of the day, until Trump no one was calling them evil for their mainstream beliefs on a national scale. Now the same bitter hate the conservatives have watched for a couple decades is going both directions. Part of me thinks that's a very bad thing for all of us, but maybe that's what it's going to take for both sides to realize that no one wins in this arms race of dishonorable behavior. And on a political level, Virginia proves that the Democrats have violated the only constant rule in American society. Don't fuck with my kids.

Completely disagree. The first consideration: Where do you live? Work there. I have friends at Delta (I'm AA) and I crush them on earnings and hours flown. But I work the system. What type of person are you? If you are the I just fly my schedule type, then go Delta and move to a Delta base. If you are the I live in the loopholes type, then you want the airline with the most problems. That's AA 😂🤣. Like someone above said, the particulars of the loopholes don't matter, you won't be able to appreciate them anyways. But by this point in your life (and especially after being in the military) you should know which type of person you are. But in either case, if DFW is where you are staying, American and Southwest are your options (or cargo, if you can do that lifestyle). We have pilots from nearly every airline living in our Airpark in DFW. I don't know a single one that wouldn't transfer to American if they could take their seniority with them.

Thanks for responding, and I agree with the desire for better choices. I won't be holding my breath. I think a fairly large disconnect right now between Republican voters and Democratic voters is summed up nicely above. You can't see how Republicans aren't as horrified as you are about the occurrences on January 6th. But the truth of the matter is the Republicans have been horrified for quite some time, and January 6th was just the ultimate instance of what-about-ism. Democrats danced gleefully, rationalized, or at the very least looked the other way while dozens of cities in the US burned over the overt lie that police were massacring unarmed black people. A whole lot of well-intentioned but foolishly gullible liberals, and a whole second cohort of people who just wanted to burn something down, destroyed the livelihoods of small business owners, looted bigger businesses, and literally set fire to government buildings. Crickets. Major political figures, including the vice president, made statements that implied these rioters were in fact heroes. Go ahead and dig around now, it is almost impossible to find any prominent liberal figures who made unqualified condemnations of the riots. "Yeah, stealing is bad, but....." So by the time January 6th happened, for a lot of people like me who have no sympathy for Donald Trump losing the election that was absolutely his to lose, and no sympathy for the fools who bought into his narrative and stormed the capital, it doesn't jive that I'm supposed to lose my mind over what happened simply because it's the first instance of unjustified rioting that you or the Democrats are upset about. Welcome to the party. I've said this for 5 years, and in 5 years I've been proven wildly correct. Donald Trump was the response from conservatives to a political system that had become cartoonishly dishonest. And the imbalance in Washington and the media that covers it created an environment where conservatives were regularly characterized as evil, bigoted, backwoods, stupid, ignorant, racist, sexist, imperialist, redneck, hyper religious, anti immigrant deplorables. Objectively good men like George W Bush, Mitt Romney, and (after Trump was elected) Brett Kavanaugh were treated like reincarnations of Hitler. Kavanaugh was openly accused of being a gang rapist on the basis of zero evidence and quite a bit of counter evidence, so if you want to know where the final straw was from the conservative side, that was it for a lot of us. Now, and what I can only interpret as a tragedy for the country, the right has seemingly decided that if you can't beat them join them. The left doesn't seem particularly fond of their own medicine, and maybe with some time that will be what's needed for us to find a better way. But really this is just a long way of saying we agree on January 6th, but you've been ignoring all of the January 6ths that came before, and since I am not particularly fond of anything that has come out of Washington DC for many, many years, I don't see why I should be more upset that people vandalized the capital over when people vandalized the true lifeblood of this country, small business and entrepreneurialship (the icons of individual liberty and freedom) all while attacking the rule of law, another institution that sets us apart in the world.

You guys are giving Biden too much credit for making decisions. His approval rating is at historical lows. After today's election in virginia, assuming the Republican wins, I wouldn't anticipate much mandating of anything through the next election cycle.

Your points are all non-sequiturs. Drawing parallels between a literal military campaign and a vaccine policy is absurd. By that (lack of) logic, everything is readiness. I know a lot of shitty commanders who agree with you. Second, COVID, the illness, is not a readiness issue. "Sweeping through the ranks" ≠ incapacitating military personnel. If we weren't testing everything with a pulse, something never before done, you wouldn't even notice a disease "sweeping through the ranks" unless people were dropping like flies. That happened in the nursing homes. Not in the military. Now, the government policies surrounding vaccination have absolutely become a readiness issue. But that has little connection to the actual mechanics of the disease at this point, since the vaccines do not effectively limit COVID spread. More importantly, and to your last callous and unimpressive statement, none of this is about the vaccine. This is about a society that is increasingly bullied and manipulated by politicians, bureaucrats, and "elites" who think they know best, and who get caught repeatedly lying and distorting in order to scare their "subjects" into compliance, while flagrantly violating their own mandates. Those subjects are too busy maintaining the functions of modern society to research every claim and dictate of the anointed leaders, so after catching them in overt lies over and over, they've just decided to say "let's go, Brandon" and take every subsequent claim as a lie. Five years ago they decided to elect their own liar when civility and coexistence failed. So now we have a bunch of people who think a largely safe vaccine is a threat to their family's health. But by all means, keep calling them whiners while simultaneously whining about their lack of conformity. That'll fix things. Freedom is good as long as you're only free to do the things I agree with, right?

My only modification to what you said would be to ensure that members can quit without repercussion. I think in matters of wide social disagreement, tie goes to freedom. So members unwilling to participate in the military mandate should be allowed to leave. Of course, if they have any bonuses or other financial obligations they would also be required to pay those back. Covid isn't a threat to military readiness, and the numbers bear that out. Old and fat. Everybody has an anecdotal story about a military member who got sick, but it does not represent a wide scale threat to operations. And as with all things human nature, the choice isn't between readiness issues stemming from a lack of vaccination and a mandate that eliminates COVID hospitalizations and deaths. The choice is between readiness issues stemming from a lack of vaccination vs readiness issues stemming from a minority rebellion to a poorly-justified mandate. A similar false choice was presented with masks and lockdowns. Universal compliance was never a realistic option.

People committed to a position they didn't personally verify based on the assurances of experts (if the word has any meaning left), then called the people who challenged their position idiots, paranoid, viscously uncaring, and hysterical. Now reality is quite obviously different than it was portrayed, and they look a bit stupid in retrospect. That's a frustrating position to be in. I've been hearing a lot of "well you couldn't have known that at the time so really my position made more sense." Sure, except we knew about the susceptibility of old and fat people, the impact of good ventilation, the nearly-perfect immunity of young children, the airborne nature of covid spread, the Wuhan lab connection, and the rapidly mutating nature of coronaviruses back in May of last year. Couple that with a general understanding of basic human nature and it was not at all "shooting in the dark" to take the positions that deviated from the "expert" consensus. But as with everything these days, being wrong is never an option for politicians and bureaucrats, so we will be gaslit into believing that the skeptics were just lucky guessers and they were gambling with people's lives.

You're missing the point, and getting the relationships backwards. I'm not inherently against ads being selected for you based on browsing history and consumer profile. That was the original genius of Google. The problem is that once infinite scrolling became a thing, and thus infinite ads, the model changed. Now the *content* is modified in order keep you on the site, keep you scrolling, and keep more ads on your screen. And yes, those ads are also customized for you. This forum doesn't change which topics show up based on your previous activity, or activity from other unrelated sites. This forum is not continually tweaked, automatically, to measure which topics result in the longest engagement time for *you specifically* and then provide that type of content at a higher priority to you. They just aren't the same, and to conflate the two is to miss the real threat. Web forums have been around a long time. Algorithm-based social media has not, and it coincides perfectly with the rise in tensions. The privacy concerns are also important, but not related to the topic at hand. I don't like the direction we're going with cancel culture and an overall lack of grace. But what we're talking about here is the distortion of reality through selective exposure. The intent has always been there, but the tools have not. Learning algorithms and computers have changed the game. Politicians and media figures were simply not interesting enough to a wide enough range of people in order to engage everyone enough to warp the public consciousness. But now these algorithms can customize messages to millions of people simultaneously, each receiving content designed specifically for them, while never even realizing that there are a plethora of opposing views and facts. Even this in and of itself wouldn't necessarily be a problem if there were good intentions. But there aren't good intentions, there are only monetary intentions. This isn't even a Democrat vs Republican thing, because if it was Facebook/Twitter/YouTube wouldn't allow the overwhelming proliferation of conservative news sources on their platforms. Even though most of the executives working at these tech companies have a deep hatred for conservative ideology, they allow the content to stream largely unfettered because more engagement means more advertising means more money. This is not healthy. I do not blame the social media companies, just because they are steering the ship doesn't change the fact that the ship didn't exist until very recently. But just as pure libertarianism is impractical upon meeting reality, the solution is probably legislative. There are just some types of power that should not be wielded by anyone. It's not a new concept, the power to censor was the fear du jour when our country was founded. Right now everybody is focused on who gets to control the content, but I think the real problem is the algorithm. And it's something we can address without treading deeply on the liberties of the involved companies. Yes, they will make less money, because making more money is how we got into this mess. But it is a very targeted approach that will not stifle innovation or brew resentment amongst the very people we are trying to help, unlike banning individuals such as Trump or Alex Jones. So my "simple" solution is that you cannot tailor content on your service using data collected from other services. It is reasonable that someone who has spent years on Twitter would understand that the content they see on to Twitter is tailored for them. It is not logical for that person to assume that their Google searches are also being influenced by what they did on Twitter. This would greatly increase the chances of randomly bumping into content you are not familiar or aligned with, just like how you randomly bump into people at work, in your neighborhood, on vacation, and at school that you don't already agree with from your previous relationships. I think.

While I agree with jazz dude initially, the problem is that companies like Facebook are making money through advertising before and after the links that a user posts. And the very act of users posting links to other news sources is what keeps eyeballs on the Facebook newsfeed. If users were no longer allowed to post links to other sources then other Facebook users would be less likely to spend as much time on facebook, meaning Facebook would not be able to advertise as much. So while it is not a direct relationship, Facebook is very much making money off of those links. I don't know what sort of payment model is required for Facebook to continue this arrangement, but it's not accurate to compare it to a web board like base ops, because fundamentally Facebook models themselves around making money on those exact interactions. As far as influence goes, I'm afraid I don't have a great answer for that either. We're clearly now in a middle ground between the government's constitutional obligation to defend free speech in a private organizations constitutionally protected right to run their business as they see fit. Honestly I don't find Facebook as comparable in this dilemma as I do the government. Too many elected and unelected officials have been using the social media companies to do what they cannot. If this trend continues, I suspect the only solution would be to subject the social media companies to the same constitutional obligations that the government is subject to. And then we have the third problem of personalization and tracking. It is problematic that every individual user experiences a different internet based on an algorithmic encapsulation of all of their previous browsing behavior. It's creating a social problem, while at the same time making social media companies billions in profits. I think we probably need legislation that bans tracking users across websites and domains. If Facebook wants to track users actions on facebook, and adjust their Facebook experience accordingly, I have no issue with that. But what you do on Facebook should not translate to what you see on a Google search, or an Amazon product search, or what advertisements appear on CNN. These algorithms are ultimately tuned for one purpose, to keep your eyeballs where they are. The second and third order effects are a rapid increase in conspiracy theory and distrust/hatred of neighbors with opposing viewpoints. I'm not sure the live-and-let-live philosophy of individual liberty can survive in a society where profitable algorithms and self-serving media/political figures prevent us from knowing and loving our neighbors with different views. It's healthy and normal that you cannot control who you bump into in the broader world. It exposes you to a diversity of experiences and ideas. These algorithms are having the exact opposite effect, while the internet is more and more becoming a part of the public space. I think it is probably in our best interests to maintain some element of unpredictable encounters if we don't want that split into multiple societies with myopic views.

Yup. But one effect of the fed meddling has been to split the stock market and real estate from the rest of the economy, which gets hit even harder when things go to hell, while stocks and real estate recovery quickly and skyrocket. Wanna guess where all the politicians' wealth is tied up?

Agreed entirely if we are talking about the last 30 years and not the pandemic era. The only reason we didn't see incredible deflation is because the fed stupidly targets 2% inflation, and in failing to achieve it for most of the past few decades, felt perfectly comfortable printing trillions and keeping interest rates pegged at zero. Even before the pandemic we were running out of destitute countries to shift our simple manufacturing to, and the number of jobs for robots to replace humans in were dwindling. Sure, AI offers some new productivity gains, but probably not on par with the past. Couple that with the government incentivizing the displaced workers to remain unemployed rather than transfer their effort to new industries, the spectacular deflationary forces of the 90s-today seemed like they were already on the wane at the exact moment the inflationary pressure went into overdrive. The 5.3% inflation that our government reluctantly admits is not transitory is probably closer to 10%. That's pretty f'n huge. Once they finally have to raise the interest rates I expect the stock market and housing prices to eat sh*t in epic fashion since both are married to fed policy at this point, but neither is considered in CPI calculations. Rent, on the other hand is, and that's spiking right now. And ultimately, the best analysis I've seen to date is here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamny/2021/10/24/theres-no-supply-chain-shortage-or-inflation-theres-just-central-planning/amp/ The fed policy goal of full employment is exactly the type of tampering we don't need. The pandemic just kicked their meddling into overdrive.

I'm not seeing how any of that is deflationary. With the number of dollars in the system stable (and in all likelihood, increasing), your examples all decrease the supply of good and services. So the same number of dollars chasing fewer goods = inflation. And let's be real, the govt is going to give even more money to those unemployed workers. Remember that currency is just a standardized way of exchanging human effort. Increasing productivity and decreasing input costs will be deflationary. More human effort available to be bought with the same number of dollars means a dollar buys more human effort. Also shredding dollars makes them more valuable. The biggest catastrophe of covid is that the governments of the world removed a spectacular amount of human effort from the economy, while at the same time increasing the number of dollars at unprecedented rates. I'm sure we'll make up for a little bit of it by further automating some of the jobs that can't be filled right now, but it's not going to make up for the fact that the labor force participation rate is very low and has not recovered. Right now deflation seems very unlikely, but stagflation is certainly looking more probable. If the Democrats find a way to pass this $3T bill, it's only going to get worse.

Deflation? How?

Considering how much money we've spent, it's been a huge frustration since about May 2020 that the govt hasn't been running a huge series of studies and tests to get meaningful data on COVID. Seems like most information is coming from other countries. Also, I'm not particularly concerned with case rate. As with most diseases, severe hospitalization and death is the important metric. Regarding the flu, it's always been dangerous for seniors to get influenza, so that fits with the rates you posted. And very young kids as well. COVID is worse, but COVID is also very new. The susceptible population is currently adjusting (dying) to the "new normal." COVID-19 just happens to skip over kids entirely. Lucky for us really.

On global warming you are simply incorrect. The models from the late 90s and early 2000s all had to be massively revised to fit the data, and the data itself had to be revised to fit the temperature record. Far too much to go into here, but suffice it to say that a model is not measured by how well it matches the past, but by how well it predicts the future. The ipcc has only recently gotten to some predictions that are remotely feasible, and those predictions have been revised downward so much that the once catastrophic threat of global warming is now largely going to be a matter of human migration. So in other words, no change from the last 300,000 years. But that's not really the point anyways, the point is that if you are going to portray CO2 based climate change is the greatest threat facing humanity, then being against nuclear power is an impossible to reconcile position. And as you said, the Democrats have been 100% against nuclear. It took a while for me to realize why, but it's the anti-human strain of environmentalism that has taken over the cause. That's also another conversation, right now we're just going to stick with the gas-lighting inconsistencies. As I said, this problem is not limited to liberals. I have been rather vocal about criticizing Trump's many character flaws. And it drives me nuts when conservatives defend him as a family man, or somehow a good person. He's not. But in the same breath, anybody arguing that his administration's policies were somehow equal to his character is simply being disingenuous. And even today I have yet to find a liberal who decries Trump as the most dangerous president in US history who can list off any meaningful policy positions that were outside of the standard conservative worldview. On inflation, I never made an argument that the liberals caused it. These are usual political discussions. The point is the outright denial that it exists. Or that, now that we admit it exists, that it's somehow a good thing. Your last paragraph is spot on. The average voter simply doesn't have the bandwidth to give a shit about issues that aren't affecting their daily life. Somehow the political class figured out a way to turn politics into team sports, so instead of voting for the two or three issues that affect you and your family directly during that specific election, now the voters will actively vote against their interests in order to support the team. This is why we see the same states vote the same way every election now, when 40 years ago presidents would routinely win the vast majority of the electoral college. It's troubling, and I don't have a great answer. But people like you need to spend more time talking to liberals just like people like me need to spend more time talking to conservatives. And convincing them to talk to each other more. There was a great balance with all of this in the past, because politicians have always tried to divide us, but social media changed everything, making it possible to isolate yourself from opposing views and thus caricature the opposition in ways that were never feasible.

Thanks for the analysis. Interesting to get another take. I think what you're missing-- no, missing isn't fair because you got a taste of it from your nurse friend-- what you underestimate is the scale. This wasn't just people having an opinion and disagreeing with you. Or calling you an idiot. This was a coordinated campaign to suppress "wrongthink" by the media-political class. - the efficacy of masks - COVID not being high-risk for healthy adults under 50 - the Wuhan lab-leak theory - the (potential) efficacy of ivermectin and remdesivir - the president of the United States - the (now inescapably true) Hunter Biden story The social media platforms literally declared certain speech verboten. Yeah, they are private companies, but they did it to the cheering of elected Democrats. Now there are hearings where elected Democrats are *outraged* that they aren't blocking more. Democrats, the once-champions of free speech, are now openly (and sometimes violently) against free speech, unless of course you agree with them. And guys like you, without intending to, have fallen right into the trap of well-it-must-be-true-if-the-trumpeters-hate-it. And yes, conservatives have fallen into this trap many times as well. But the pandemic has been overwhelmingly slanted in one direction, with only one side arguing for the *clear* violation of personal liberties while actively misrepresenting the evidence and proudly suppressing opposing (and scientifically supported) views. What's the quote? First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me. Everyone seems to have forgotten the ideals behind the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, because they live fat, dumb, and happy little lives free from the horrors of the previous 300,000 years of human existence. Turns out The Matrix was right, and humans can't handle a system where they are (overwhelmingly) free from struggle and misery, so they must create it from nothing. And in our profound lack of persecution we have forgotten what persecution feels like, making us much too comfortable with persecuting those who don't please our delicate sentiments. Of course, the celebrities who have found themselves "cancelled" have become remarkably supportive of free-speech and civil discourse after a career of tarring and feathering conservatives as backwoods, inbred, hateful, racists/sexists/homophobes. Now we have graduated to compelled action *of your children.* The vaccine technology that didn't exist until last year for a disease that primarily kills people hanging on to life by a thread is going to be mandatory for 5 year olds? And you're a domestic terror threat if you go yell at your local school board. You know, like the Boston marathon bombers or Timothy McVeigh. And all this is after being told that the concepts of male and female are actually super complicated and how dare you say otherwise. And actually if you're white you are *necessarily* racist. Under 20 unarmed black men killed by the police represents the greatest threat in America (to say nothing of the 6000/year young black men killed in gang violence). Protests where businesses and literal government buildings are burned to the ground *aren't* riots. The completely wrong predictions of 30 years of global warming models should be ignored because global warming is the single greatest threat to humanity (behind the 20 unarmed black men killed by the police), but don't you dare support nuclear power, which would eliminate carbon emissions entirely from power-generation. And Joe Biden definitely isn't going senile, even though you can look up any video of him from 10 or 20 years ago. And yeah, he definitely got hurt falling in the shower (which is the most old-man shit in the world to do) because he was... wrestling his dog. In the shower. And Hunter Biden, not an artist, but selling paintings for $500k, not a Ukrainian energy executive, but on the board of a Ukrainian energy company, not a Chinese lawyer or lobbyist, but representing a Chinese company, yeah that's all totally kosher but OMG did you see how corrupt the Trump family was? I mean Jared Kushner only negotiated the most meaningful peace agreements in the middle east in decades, and none of the Trump kids were caught doing drugs with (underage?) prostitutes or illegally possessing firearms and throwing them in dumpsters... Oh yeah and that totally fabricated golden showers blackmail tape (literally paid for by the Clinton campaign), and the FBI agents who knowingly lied to the FISA courts, and the House Intelligence Committee representatives and ex-Obama administration pundits who *swore* on TV that there was evidence proving Trump was a Russian catspaw? Oops. Don't forget the border. No crisis there at all. No way the incredible, record-setting surge in illegal crossings had anything to do with the Biden Administration immediately undoing the Trump-era policies and openly advocating for a path to citizenship for any and all illegals. Don't worry about that because there's no inflation! In fact, government deficit spending will actually help *reduce* inflation. What's another 5 trillion? You want to know why your seemingly intelligent conservative friends are losing their minds? Look around.

It's not red-pilled. He just took the effort to look at the data (which has pointed towards his conclusions for over a year now) rather than trust the cherry-picked misrepresentations pushed by a large swath of the media and political class. Neg usually has insightful posts. I'm more interested in his analysis as to *why* his conclusions based on easily-accessed data aren't shared by the politicians and authority figures pushing for mandates. I'm also wondering how many liberal-minded people will make the connection between misrepresentation of COVID-19 statistics and the misrepresentation of "racial equity" statistics.

Kinda fun finding out how many people are simply concerned with the authority to control others in a society, isn't it? Compliance is the only discernable goal.