“When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent,”  Dr.  Anthony Fauci, director of the US  National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and public face of the federal government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, told the New York Times in December. “Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, ‘I can nudge this up a bit,’ so I went to 80, 85.”

If you’re startled by Fauci’s admission that he lies to the public depending on what polls say, you shouldn’t be. It’s not the first time.

In March, he told CBS’s 60 Minutes “there’s no reason to be walking around with a mask.” Months later, as mask mandates became the political establishment’s preferred “we gotta order people to do things” measure, he claimed he’d previously been lying so that people wouldn’t rush out and buy up masks needed by medical personnel.

In that case, he seems to have been lying ABOUT lying — scientific evidence for the efficacy of masks in preventing viral transmission still looks inconclusive at best — but the obvious motive was the same. Anthony Fauci, like most politicians and bureaucrats, is perfectly willing to lie to you if he thinks lying to you will get you to do as he demands.

In the Times interview, though, Fauci  points his finger at a real problem, probably not realizing that that finger points right back in his direction: “We need to have some humility here. We really don’t know what the real number is.”

Nearly a year into the pandemic, there’s still a lot we (including Dr. Fauci) don’t know about it and about how to get through it. But instead of having some humility about that, Fauci alternates between two approaches:

Approach One: Feign certainty, and use that certainty as an excuse to order you around.

Approach Two: Admit uncertainty, and use that uncertainty as an excuse to order you around.

Fauci’s far from alone in those approaches. Demands for authority, whatever the cost to those upon whom it’s inflicted, are the sacraments of the Cult of the Omnipotent State.

The US Food and Drug Administration held up approval of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine for seven months after Phase I trials had demonstrated that vaccine’s basic safety. Their uncertainty (and, more importantly, their authority) trumped your health.

Months after killing thousands with his order that nursing homes full of vulnerable seniors accept COVID-19 patients, New York governor Andrew Cuomo is back, threatening million-dollar fines on hospitals that administer vaccines to people not on a government-approved list rather than throw away vaccine which will expire if it isn’t used. What he lacks in competence, he tries to make up for with unshakable certainty of his right to run your life.

COVID-19 is certainly a terrible disease and has killed many Americans.

Fauci et al.’s cravings for authority and demands for obedience are likewise terrible diseases — diseases which have undoubtedly increased the COVID-19 death toll.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

• “Yes, Dr. Fauci, You DO Need to Have Some Humility Here,” by Thomas L. Knapp, OpEdNews, 01/05/21
• “Yes, Dr. Fauci, You DO Need to Have Some Humility Here,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Anchorage, Alaska Press, 01/05/21
• “Yes, Dr. Fauci, you do need to have some humility here,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Exton, Pennsylvania Mainline Media News, 01/05/21
• “Yes, Dr. Fauci, you do need to have some humility here,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Richmond, North Carolina Observer, 01/05/21
• “Yes, Dr. Fauci, you do need to have some humility here,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Pottstown, Pennsylvania Mercury, 01/05/21
• “Yes, Dr. Fauci, You DO Need to Have Some Humility Here,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Hopkinsville, Kentucky New Era, 01/06/21
• “Yes, Fauci, you do need some humility,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Madill, Oklahoma Record, 01/06/21
• “Yes, Dr. Fauci, You DO Need to Have Some Humility Here,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Ventura County, California Citizens Journal, 01/06/21
• “How about a little humility?” by Thomas L. Knapp, Orangeburg, South Carolina Times and Democrat, 01/11/21
• “Dr. Fauci should have some humility too,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Kingsport, Tennessee Times News [web and print editions], 01/11/21

“Military leaders are worried about the shrinking pool of young people who qualify for military service,” Gina Harkins reports at Military.com. “More than 70% of young Americans remain unable to join the military due to obesity, education problems, or crime and drug records.”

Mission: Readiness, a group of retired military officers, wants the US Department of Defense to create an “advisory committee on military recruitment,” with a view toward getting the next generation in shape so that they’re qualified, as the old saying goes, to “travel to exotic, distant lands; meet exciting, unusual people; and kill them.”

I’ve got a better idea: Instead of trying to trim fat off America’s adolescents, trim fat off the US Armed Forces.

The US military employs nearly 1.4 million active duty personnel and about 850,000 reservists.

The latest National Defense Authorization Act — vetoed by President Trump but looking likely as I write this to be passed over his objection — calls for $740 billion ($2,300 for every man, woman, and child in the country) in theoretically “defense”-related spending next year.

The US, which is separated by oceans from all credible potential enemies and hasn’t fought anything resembling a defensive war in 75 years, boasts the third largest (after India and China, far more populous countries with real adversaries on their borders), and far and away the most expensive, military apparatus on Earth.

While the US defense budget and the armed forces’ staffing levels could probably be cut by 90% without significantly degrading actual national defense capabilities, I understand the impulse to moderation.

So how about a 50% cut in military spending and active duty troop levels over five years, with an upward bump in reservist numbers to a full million?

That would leave the US with 700,000 active duty personnel (still the world’s fifth largest military), and still the world’s number one military big spender (about twice as much as China, three times as much as Saudi Arabia, and nearly five times as much as Russia or India).

With 2 million Americans reaching military age each year and some veterans re-enlisting, the Pentagon would have little problem finding the skinny, literate, non-criminal people it needs to fill its ranks.

Yes, some US arms manufacturers would take big hits to their lavish corporate welfare paychecks, but they could retool — every American taxpayer would be better off by about $1,250, meaning fatter markets for products that don’t kill people.

It’s time to put the Pentagon on a diet.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

The Hill reports that US House Republicans, who made a show earlier this year of opposing remote and proxy voting in Congress, are warming to the latter practice.

US Representative Paul Mitchell (R-MI) gave his proxy to US Representative Abigail Spanberger (D-VA)  in early December, declaring by tweet that “I will not risk my family’s health in order to vote on key items.”

Fast food cooks and grocery store cashiers don’t get to assign their work to proxies. They show up each day or lose their jobs, risking their health with every shift. Apparently Mitchell doesn’t consider his job as important as flipping burgers or bagging beer and bagels. But he still wants to collect that paycheck while someone else covers for him.

OK, fair enough. But if proxy voting is an acceptable practice for members of Congress, why not extend it to the selection of those members?

American politicians love to crow about the beauty of “our representative democracy.” That’s a fun fable from the get-go.

Not all Americans are allowed to vote for their supposed representatives.

Of those who are allowed to vote, it’s not unusual for less than half to actually  do so.

And once those who choose to vote have voted, a single plurality or majority winner, who seldom receives the votes of as many as 25% of his or her supposed constituents, claims to “represent” 100% of those constituents whether they like it or not.

And now, that winner can just farm out his or her “representation” duties to others with a proxy, then go play golf or sit at home and binge the new season of Amazon’s latest.

Why not allow each supposedly “represented” American to choose a proxy that sticks, instead of casting a “vote” that may or may not result in real representation?

Increase the size of the US House of Representatives to a maximum of 1,000 votes. That’s votes, not members. Passage of a bill requires 501 votes (a majority). Overriding a veto requires 667 votes (2/3).

Based on current population as calculated on some kind of schedule (every two years, perhaps), any constitutionally qualified candidate who holds the proxies of at least 1/1000th of the population becomes a member of the House with at least one of those thousand votes. If the candidate receives more proxies than the required 1/1000th minimum, his or her vote is weighted accordingly.

Constituents can withdraw or re-assign their proxies on the first of each month. Constituents who choose not to assign their proxies at all are “represented” as an absence of votes on the House floor. It takes 501 votes to pass a bill. If there are only enough assigned proxies to empower 500 votes, nothing can be passed.

It would take a constitutional amendment, and getting 2/3 of both Houses of Congress and 3/4 of the state legislatures to give up Congress’s fake “representation” claims in favor of real representation is a long shot. But if proxy voting is good enough for our “representatives,” it’s good enough for the rest of us too.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY