By all means, talk about the President’s vaccine mandate if you want, or anything else ethics-related. I wish I had time to do a deep dive into the legality of such a move, and I wish the news media was competent enough to do one for me. I do like the question offered on several blogs about how Biden thinks that he can mandate vaccinations when he is on record saying that he can’t mandate masks.
37 thoughts on “Open Forum!”
The totalitarian horde of the extreme political left is hell bent on federalizing everything and forcing 100% compliance to their will across the board and they will stop at nothing to achieve their goals. These anti-Americans will force businesses to be their proxy in crushing your individual rights, this is a hallmark of totalitarianism, more specifically fascism, and it is happening right now!
The extreme political left has been actively trying to control everything about the COVID narrative and the media is a willing government proxy. They have been actively demonizing any COVID treatments that become public and they have their media proxy publish propaganda lies about such treatments to gin up public hysteria towards the treatments. As far as the extreme political left and their Pravda like media lapdogs, the vaccine is the ONLY valid medical treatment related to COVID and yet there are people that have had the COVID vaccines that are dying from COVID, I have a fully vaccinated friend that just died less than two weeks ago from COVID!
You will be assimilated, resistance is futile.
Do you find value in the United States Constitution?
Do you think you have a human right to choose your own medical treatments?
When it comes to COVID vaccines; is it ethical to extort, intimidate & persecute others if they do not assimilate to the will of the extreme political left?
Wait. Wasn’t the Texas abortion statute using private citizen enforcement un-American according to the Dear Leader just last week? And didn’t SCOTUS just say a fumigation regulation didn’t empower the CDC to ban evictions? Now a work safety regime is being used to make people get a shot that Kamala Harris said she doesn’t trust because it was developed during the Trump administration’s tenure? (I’m sure she’d channel Harry Reid and cackle and giggle and guffaw and then say, “We won, didn’t we?”
And these are the people who said Trump was lawless?
Here is a link to the best article I have come across on Ivermectin, the FDA, and includes information on the upcoming oral prophylactic for covid. It isn’t perfect. I found one flaw but still, worth the read.
Has there ever been a previous pathology where government health agencies/hospitals have prevented doctors from treating patients with medicine whose safety and efficacy is well documented?
Since when have doctors been fired for doing so? Since when has there been such a massive effort to prohibit access to and denounce the efficacy of any treatment other than a supposed vaccine?
As I listened to President Biden extolling the virtues of vaccination, I had an a-ha moment. If you were to replace ‘vaccines’ with ‘firearms’ & ‘COVID’ with ‘violence,’ the same script can be used to promote carrying a firearm for protection. Had this only been reality, individual freedoms would suddenly become a consideration. Almost no one would consider forcing people to carry a firearm to protect themselves from a potentially fatal outcome. I don’t know if anyone else made this connection, but I’d love for someone more eloquent than I to make this argument. Perhaps a CCP with reciprocity across the United States would be a great incentive.
No-one would consider it nowadays, but in the days of state militias it was required for every able-bodied man to own and maintain a working firearm.
On a similar note; read this from Alan Dershowitz…
How to mess with Texas’ anti-abortion bounty? Apply it to gun sales
Personally I’m not too sure that Dershowitz’s argument holds much water here because the 2nd Amendment specifically enumerates that “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”; the constitution has absolutely nothing that specifically enumerates protecting a woman’s right to kill another completely defenseless human being with an abortion.
I think Dershowitz is grasping at ideas to try and shut down the anti-abortion activists with “threats”.
It was applied to guns.
Remember the lawsuits against gun manufacturers attempting to hold them liable for gun violence.
Yup I remember, I also remember they didn’t work.
They mostly didn’t work as legitimate lawsuits, but they did work as a method of draining the assets of firearms manufacturers as they had to repeatedly defend against the nuisance suits from the anti-gun crowd. Thankfully, Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which the democrats, including Joe, continue to lie about and try to repeal.
Unfortunately, Texas, in a too clever by half move with their new abortion bill, ceded the high ground and handed the dems a “what about…” gift by creating a ridiculous mechanism to harass unfavored businesses with frivolous lawsuits.
If the vaccine works, then the unvaccinated pose no danger to the vaccinated, and no one vaccinated needs to worry about the unvaccinated. If the vaccines don’t work, then there is no purpose in taking them.
Fascism is alive and well in the United States, and the media is cheering it on like a teenage pep squad high on cocaine.
Null Pointer wrote, “If the vaccine works, then the unvaccinated pose no danger to the vaccinated, and no one vaccinated needs to worry about the unvaccinated. If the vaccines don’t work, then there is no purpose in taking them.”
I understand your argument.
For the purpose of argument only…
From what I’ve heard; the vaccine is purported to be much like the flu vaccine in that it doesn’t actually prevent people from getting or transmitting the flu, it makes the flu they might get a lot less effective at making the people really bad sick.
Also for the purpose of argument, the other point being made is that the unvaccinated are getting sick in droves and clogging up the hospitals, taking up bed space that should be reserved for those that are more worthy. I don’t know how accurate this is. (The taking up bed space part, not the worthiness part.)
The media also claim that hospitals are so busy treating Ivermectin overdoses that gunshot victims are dying in droves. The media lies.
The hospitals are not now, nor were they at any point during this pandemic, over run and running out of bed space. That is a complete fabrication invented by the media to spread fear and panic in order to make people malleable. It is nonsense. There is not one shred of evidence that has ever been presented to support the claim.
There are multiple treatments for Covid that have been proven safe and effective when given early on during covid infection. Protease inhibitors, monoclonal antibody treatments, and corticosteroids all decrease hospitalization rates drastically. The government and media are actively sabotaging the use of those treatments.
The government and media do not give a shaved hair off a rats behind about people’s health or well being. They care about power and control.
It has also been shown that the people who are hospitalized with covid are the morbidly obese, the very elderly, and people with 2 or more serious comorbidities. Those who are under 60 years of age, who are of average weight and generally healthy do not, 99% of the time, end up in the hospital. The media actively hides this fact by cherry-picking stories of the 1 in a couple million people who are young and healthy who get seriously ill to publicize. They want to spread fear, panic and hatred. Nothing more.
“The hospitals are not now, nor were they at any point during this pandemic, over run and running out of bed space. That is a complete fabrication invented by the media to spread fear and panic in order to make people malleable. It is nonsense. There is not one shred of evidence that has ever been presented to support the claim.”
I presume this is true in various locations all across the USA.
What say you?
The hospitals, overall, are not overrun, but ICU space is full of virus patients at many of them.
We have a close relative who’s an ICU nurse at a large hospital in an Atlanta suburban county. According to her, very few vaccinated patients are showing up in those departments, but all the patients in her department have had at least one significant co-morbidity, most often (as NP mentions) gross obesity. They’ve had a number over 400#, and a recent 600# patient. For whatever reasons, the patients also skew disproportionately black and Hispanic. Word is that this is typical in the metro area.
Thank you W Reese.
One thing the China virus has revealed is just how sloppy, slothful, endomorphically unhealthy, a huge percentage of our populace is. These people were already clogging up the healthcare system and in an expensive way. Put down those cheese toes and take a walk.
Hospitals aren’t full, but ICU beds might be full in some locations. Most hospitals have very few ICU beds to begin with, and of those ICU beds most are reserved for specific purposes. Here is the breakdown of hospital bed totals and ICU bed totals categorized by ICU bed type. I pulled these from the 2019 AHA Annual Survey on the American Hospital Association website :
Total Staffed Beds in All U.S. Hospitals
Staffed Beds in Community 1 Hospitals
Intensive Care Beds 3 in Community Hospitals (FY2019 data to be updated 2/21)
Medical-Surgical Intensive Care 4 Beds in Community Hospitals
Cardiac Intensive Care 5 Beds in Community Hospitals
Neonatal Intensive Care 6 Beds in Community Hospitals
Pediatric Intensive Care 7 Beds in Community Hospitals
Burn Care 8 Beds in Community Hospitals
Other Intensive Care 9 Beds in Community Hospitals
As you can see, most ICU beds are reserved for surgical, cardiac, and neonatal patients. Additional beds are reserved specifically for burn and pediatric patients. The number of beds available for non-specific critical care patients is minuscule. 7,419 out of 919,559. That is less than 1% of total hospital beds.
Total Number of All U.S. Hospitals
With a little over 1 non-specific ICU bed per hospital, filling up these beds would not be all that surprising. All it takes is about 1 covid patient per hospital.
These non-specific beds may not be the only ones they are using, of course. Perhaps they are also using the surgical and cardiac ICU beds for these patients. I sincerely doubt ALL of those beds are being used for that purpose, but let’s see what that breaks down to. Cardiac beds, surgical beds, and non specific beds add up to 78,242 ICU beds out of 919,559 total hospital beds. That is still only 8% of total hospital beds. Around 12 beds per hospital. Again, not a whole lot of beds to fill up.
The media is not exactly making these numbers clear. The article you linked never comes out and says how many ICU beds are available, how many are being used by covid patients, and how many are filled by non-covid patients. It says there are 80 covid patients in the hospital and the ICU is turning them away, but doesn’t specify how many of those patients even need an ICU bed. People go to the emergency room for the sniffles all the time. Are they lumping ER visits in with ICU patients? Who knows? The lack of specificity and the general doom tone of the article imply they want to frighten people, not educate them. The only specific numbers they give are that covid patients need 6 day stays versus 4 day stays for non-covid patients. Then they go scaremongering by proclaiming that covid patients have 50% longer stays. 2 days is 50% longer, but it sounds a whole lot scarier when you make the number big like that! Propaganda.
What kind of patients are the non-covid patients? Breast augmentations? Nose lifts? Kidney transplants? Heart attacks?They don’t say.
Cherry-picking one hospital with a temporary ICU bed shortage does not prove that ICU beds in general are full, and certainly doesn’t prove that hospitals are overrun. Perhaps one take away from this is that hospitals need more ICU beds in general.
Another take away is that instead of demonizing and persecuting the non-vaccinated, the medical system should try treating them early with treatments they find acceptable. Protease inhibitors, corticosteroids and monoclonal antibody treatments. The media should spend less time engaging in 2 minute hate sessions, and more time educating the public on the alternative treatments that would keep them from needing hospitalization. They would have to stop pretending that there are no other viable treatments first, of course. At this point, the media’s credibility is so shot that suggesting these other treatments might backfire and cause people to shun them.
The media and the government have created all the distrust and divisiveness, not the unvaccinated.
Even were the vaccine some wonder drug, the government has no right to force treatment on people. This has been litigated time and time again regarding the mentally ill. If you cannot force a violent paranoid schizophrenic with a penchant for lunging at people with a knife to take antipsychotics, why can you force an innocent person minding their own business to inject themselves with DNA altering drugs that do not even immunize against the virus. Forcing treatments on people who do not want them is illegal. Utilizing private businesses to force government mandates on people is fascism. The government and media are not going to stop at vaccines. Why not force all the fat people to lose weight? Why not lock all the sickly and old in internment camps for their own safety? This is a tactic to warp the US system of government, not to help people.
Great reply; thanks NP.
I agree with almost your entire response but what incentive do hospitals have for fear mongering?
A hospital mouthpiece can present their capacity situation how ever they want.
Dr. McCullough makes the same point you do regarding alternative RX instead of exclusively depending on the vaccine and ICU after the patient is already circling the drain.
The science is not settled on whether or not the mRNA injections alter DNA.
In general, the difference between an ICU bed and a regular hospital bed is the “intensive care” part. It’s a staffing issue more than anything. Most hospitals have a somewhat flexible ICU capacity that can be scaled up as needed, by increasing staffing to convert “regular” beds to ICU purposes. ICU beds are expensive to operate, it makes the most sense for hospitals to maintain only the capacity that they need at any given moment, rather than pay nurses to “intensively care” for empty beds. So when the local news tells you that the county hospital’s ICU capacity is over 90% used, keep in mind that that’s probably not too far off from the hospital’s normal utilization target.
And yet, we are now seeing hospitals firing nursing staff (amid an already acute nursing shortage that’s been going on for years) for refusing the vaccine, even though many, perhaps most, hospital personnel have already contracted COVID over the last 18 months and thus already have superior immunity than they would get from the vaccine anyway. If we were really at the point of hospitals collapsing under the weight of COVID patients, I cannot imagine that they would be firing significant numbers of their employees over vaccination status. At the very least, they would be accepting documented immunity from prior infections as equivalent to vaccination, rather than dismissing essential personnel…
Your second paragraph is a dead giveaway the health care system is not in danger of overload.
With doctors being fired by hospital honchos for administering alternative treatments, there is likely a financial incentive for hospitals to maintain the flow of covid patients for as long as possible.
Regarding your comment about “somewhat flexible ICU capacity”
There isn’t much flexibility until nurses are trained up in the use of ventilators and obviously more ventilators must be obtained, which Trump proved is doable.
Beginning at the 14:20 mark of the Dr McCullough testimony below, he offers up two huge studies that show an 85% reduction in hospitalizations for people over 50 who receive early treatment with a combination of the 4-6 proven meds.
That is not an accurate characterization of the flu vaccine. The flu vaccine contains either inactivated or attenuated virus and immunizes against the specific strains of the virus included in the vaccine for a given year. In a given year there are more circulating strains of the flu virus than are included in the vaccine. The flu virus does not immunize against strains of the virus that are not included in the vaccine. There is some evidence that non-included virus strains are sometimes somewhat protected against because they sometimes contain similar protein structures to the strains that are included. Not all flu viruses are similar enough for that protection to occur. The flu vaccine does provide immunity to the strains it immunizes against until those strains mutate to no longer have the original protein structures that were immunized against. At that point they no longer provide any sort of protection.
If the current covid coronavirus vaccines do not immunize against covid, then they are not vaccines. This is made obvious by the recent changes to the CDC definitions for vaccines.
Up until September 1, 2021 the CDC defined a vaccine thusly:
Vaccine: A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease.
After September 1, 2021 the CDC changed the definition to read thusly:
Vaccine: A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.
Immunity was removed from the definition specifically so that they could categorize the covid “vaccines” as vaccines. If you have to change the definition to make something fit then it doesn’t fit the definition and isn’t what it says it is.
The covid vaccine is not a vaccine. If they would rather change the definitions than admit the truth, then why should anyone believe them when they say that the “vaccine” is safe or effective?
They’re using corporations now to get around limits on government power. How long will it be before they have enough power to ditch the corporations? Anyone see the irony in the Democrats, who’ve whined for decades about the power of Big Business trampling all over the little person, resort to using Big Business to do just that to their opponents?
They’ve been so successful using their compliant media allies to control information (speech), that we should have expected that they would move on to coercing not-so-willing businesses to be their cat’s paws. I’m only surprised that they didn’t use “interstate commerce” for this one…they’ve bastardized that concept for just about every other intrusion.
A.M. Golden wrote, “They’re using corporations now to get around limits on government power. How long will it be before they have enough power to ditch the corporations?”
Not going to happen when the corporations are literally part of the power base and are part of the civilian enforcers that don’t have to follow the Constitution, so unless the Constitution is literally suspended they won’t ditch the corporations.
Okay, I give up. Is that Parliament doing a rap video?
HA! I thought the same thing. 😉
Biden trying to mandate the vaccine through an administrative rule seems far fetched to me. Admin law is weird though, so who knows? This could be held up in court for awhile as well.
If this brilliant testimony by Dr Peter McCullough does not get your knickers in a twist, nothing will.
The primary thrust of the testimony revolves around the total black out of available treatments for newly DX covid + individuals while they self-quarantine for two weeks after which many end up in the hospital and die.
Ultimately, this plandemic boils down to profits and increased government control.
Ethical protest? It seems as irreverent as kneeling during the anthem… But it’s far better than constructing and driving a killdozer around the city that passed laws seemingly to target you as an individual.
On another matter…
Posted without comment:
Let’s have some fun!
The Ethics of “Fantasy Island”
I don’t watch remakes or reboots. The recent reboot of “Fantasy Island” led me to go searching for the original show starring Ricardo Montalban. As with any show I spend any time with these days, though, my mind starts going round and round with ethical issues that pop up.
Fantasy Island is located somewhere in the South Pacific and operates mainly as a luxury vacation resort. However, for more money, and the amount varies based on the whims of the proprietor, a guest can indulge in a fantasy for the weekend. Want to win a million dollars? Want to be a sports hero? A rock star? Escape from a murderer stalking you? Mr. Roarke, whose rule is law here, is an enigmatic host who either has supernatural abilities of his own or channels supernatural elements of the island to grant these requests.
He seems to be able to appear and disappear quickly, has senses that work differently from normal people (it’s hinted that he has the ability to see a woman who has taken an invisibility potion, for instance) and occasionally looks like he’s hypnotizing guests. It’s strongly implied that he’s long lived, possessing items belonging to historical figures and speaking of some as if he knew them personally. He converses easily with mermaids and other mythical beings who know him by name. He even combats Satan a couple of times and claims to have done it in the past. By and large, Roarke gives every appearance of being a compassionate man who shows kindness to downtrodden people, especially children, and a paternal concern for his employees.
His assistant, Tattoo, is a French little person who spends much of his time drooling over beautiful island women and coming up with get-rich-quick schemes.
Fantasy Island is a sovereign island that is not a possession or territory belonging to any other power. The laws of other countries do not apply here. But legal does not mean ethical. Consequently, caveat emptor is the rule of the day on Fantasy Island. Mr. Roarke may or may not take the wording of a fantasy literally, a guest may end up in real physical danger and, often, there is a lesson learned that would be better worked out with a therapist (and for far less money). Nevertheless, Roarke will usually give some manner of general warning and is known to intervene personally if things get too dicey.
* Would you be comfortable going on a vacation to a place where the deck could be stacked against you because another visitor is having a fantasy? Episodes include people who want to be rich, women who want to win beauty pageants and athletes competing in tournaments being held on the island. If you knew that there was a chance your competitor at the blackjack table or on the baseball field paid for a fantasy that would allow him or her to win, how would that affect your choice of vacation spots? Why would any outside organization bring its players to a Fantasy Island-sponsored event? To be fair, very often, the fantasy-goer decides the contest isn’t worth it or hands over the winning trophy to a competitor anyway due to the lesson learned while on the island, but it doesn’t happen all the time.
* How much control does Roarke have over events on the island and/or during a fantasy? Roarke often claims that, once a fantasy begin, it must play itself out. On occasion, though, he will encourage a guest to either drop a fantasy ahead of time or offer an out midway if a real threat emerges. He claims he cannot interfere, yet, quite often, he shows up in the nick of time before permanent damage is done. Roarke either is or is not in complete control of what happens on the island. If he is, it would appear he has no problem lying to his guests about it. If he is not, then he regularly puts his guests into situations in which the fantasies only work out by virtue of moral luck.
* It is not unusual for the family members of fantasy-goers to think the visit is just for a vacation. Though Roarke encourages honesty, he does not seem to require that his guests tell relatives the real reasons for being here, even if the fantasies involved are potentially dangerous or financially ruinous. Then again, there are times when he informs a spouse or relative of the nature of the fantasy without the consent of the guest. Additionally, sometimes family members have competing fantasies that are kept secret from the others. Roarke has been known to grant children fantasies without the knowledge and consent of their parents. He also influences fantasies in certain directions by inviting a guest’s friends, co-workers, former spouses or even rivals to the island to participate.
* Roarke is the only law on this island as he points out occasionally. It is not unheard of for him to tell outside law enforcement or other officials that they have no jurisdiction here. Yet, the position of Lord Mayor is an elected one which Roarke claims he wins unanimously each time. Is this the same position as that of Chief Magistrate which Roarke also claims to be? The resort also appears to be the island’s primary, if not only, source of employment. Does this mean that Roarke’s constituents are all people who work for him? How much authority does Roarke have over the island? Isn’t it a big conflict of interest to have one person be not only the sole executive and judicial branch of the government, but also its primary, if not sole, employer? To be fair, there appear to be other businesses on the island that are not part of the resort, but there is also some evidence to indicate that Roarke has a certain amount of control over them, too. Perhaps, they are allowed on the island only if they agree to be used for fantasies, as well?
* These other businesses include strip joints, burlesque houses, gambling parlours and other non-family-friendly fare that, while they may be legal on FI, tend to attract lowlifes that sometimes become involved in someone’s fantasy, either deliberately or accidentally (again, depending on how much power you believe Roarke has here). Do these folks have the right to vote? I can’t imagine they would all vote unanimously to keep Roarke.
* There are areas of the island where it looks like semi-autonomous communities exist, like an Old West town or a 15th century Transylvanian village. The people living there have been described as either other guests on fantasies or even long-term residents. They all know about Roarke. Is it ethical to make someone’s home part of a stranger’s fantasy? Would you want your home constantly disrupted by people pretending to be gunslingers or vampire hunters? Is this just part of the price for being able to live on the island?
* Roarke is inconsistent with regards to how he interprets a fantasy. In one episode, he tells two female “Gone with the Wind” fans, after they’ve already arrived, that he can’t really make them Scarlett O’Hara because she was a fictional character. He does send them back to the Civil-War-era South so they can be actual Southern belles (albeit with all of the hardships of the Civil War and little of the glamor since they apparently forgot that “Gone with the Wind” contains a war). Yet, when a man wants to be a knight along the lines of King Arthur, Roarke claims he can’t send him back to early England and instead gives him a helmet belonging to the very fictional Don Quixote, allowing him to run about on the present-day Fantasy Island on a horse. For some reason, guests generally seem to be okay with this bait-and-switch routine. If a guest does express dissatisfaction with how a fantasy is going, however, Roarke will remind him or her of the exact words used when the fantasy was requested, even though he surely understood what the guest meant.
* While Roarke might give vague warnings about danger, it is rare that he goes into specifics. How far does the ethical requirement of transparency go? The dangers of wanting to be a high-stakes gambler or a Wild West outlaw should be self-evident, but Roarke often allows fantasy-goers to be put in real physical peril without being explicit about the risks involved.
* Additionally, it often seems that someone with a relatively harmless fantasy learns a lesson in a way that is well out of proportion with the fantasy for which the guest has paid. A plain-looking woman wants to be a sex goddess for the weekend. Clearly, she just wants to be fawned over by men for a couple of days. Roarke tells her that men often look at sex goddesses differently than other women and she may not like what that entails. “So I’ll be stared at on the streets by men”, she quips, which is what she wants and believes she is getting. Instead, three goons trick her into coming with them to another island where they hold her captive, expecting her to provide them what they assume she gives to other men. Did Roarke know these guys were on the island? Did he allow her to be kidnapped so that she would learn to appreciate her looks as is? Terrible lesson for someone who just wanted to be noticed by men for a short time.
* In fact, a shocking number of criminals manage to make their way to the island without Roarke’s permission or apparent knowledge. Does Roarke know this and just lets them stay in case they are useful for a fantasy? Is security that lax on an island where tourist dollars are probably important? Does it matter at all if Roarke has the power to prevent lasting physical harm? Even if he does keep a guest from dying, people who’ve been kidnapped or stalked by a killer may experience trauma that requires months or years of therapy.
* Speaking of lax security, there is a type of police force on the island. Yet, whenever a guest is threatened, there appear to be no extraordinary measures taken for protection. It’s not unusual for an at-risk guest to be left alone in a bungalow with no security guards nearby when the inevitable attack occurs. That Roarke may be in control of the situation doesn’t mean his guests get what they pay for when coming to the island and even if he shows up at the last minute to stop an attack, as mentioned above, it doesn’t mean there aren’t long-term consequences as a result.
* What are Roarke’s responsibilities to the residents of the island and other guests when a visitor’s fantasy starts becoming dangerous? In one episode, Jack the Ripper accidentally stumbles on a portal that leads him from a London street straight into Roarke’s office. Though Tattoo alerts the native employees to return to the hotel at once, there is no evidence that guests are warned. In fact, even after the employees are called back, some visitors are outside and within earshot of an attempted attack during broad daylight!
* While there is something to be said for a guest making a lame-brained decision here and there, Roarke seems to take most contingencies into consideration. Yet, unexpected events do occur without Roarke’s anticipation (or, at least, he claims they do). In one episode, a WWII German POW camp commandant shows up unexpectedly and captures a group of veterans, holding them in a replica of the camp that somehow got built seemingly without Roarke’s knowledge. That the fantasies still manage to work out with no one seriously injured or killed is really just moral luck if it turns out Roarke is not completely in control of how the fantasy goes.
* More than once, Roarke actually uses a visitor’s fantasy to achieve his own desired outcome, such as the capture of a criminal. Once again, moral luck comes into play here as Roarke doesn’t appear to be able to control every decision or every action a fantasy might involve. In one episode, Roarke (who claims the right to turn down fantasies) allows a woman a date with a charming man that Roarke considers so dangerous that he doesn’t allow him to live on the island. Though Roarke explains this, he also offers no details and admits he doesn’t have any evidence. This isn’t enough to dissuade the guest who ends up being kidnapped (with apparently no security around to prevent it) and taken to another island with other kidnapped women where the creep is engaged in sex trafficking. Roarke shows up at the end with a security force to arrest the guy since he now has proof. Do the ends justify the means with Roarke? Apparently, for him, everything will work out since all the women have been freed, they will testify against their kidnapper and they are all invited to Fantasy Island for more pleasant experiences. It’s very fortunate that no customers of this fictional Epstein showed up while the fantasy-goer was being held captive and she didn’t end up being violated for the sin of just wanting to have a nice date with a good-looking man she fancied.
* As was common on ’70s TV, fixating on beautiful women is a trope that happens often on Fantasy Island. Tattoo spends a great deal of time lusting after the native girls who work at the resort. Since Tattoo is an assistant of Roarke’s, his constant attempts to seduce what are his co-workers and who are, in most cases, his subordinates would be considered sexual harassment. Of course, Roarke is the only authority on the island, it would appear, so who is going to sue him?
The biggest mystery is how Fantasy Island continues to exist without being invaded if it truly is as remarkable as it seems.
This tweet speaks for itself.
It is almost as if the Biden administration is just daring people to revolt.
We’re going to protect vaccinated people from unvaccinated people by making the unvaccinated people take the same vaccine that’s apparently not protecting the vaccinated people from the unvaccinated people already (if it isn’t failing, then why do the vaccinated people need additional “protection”?)… This is such colossally stupid messaging, it has to be intentional. They’ve used every other division they could exploit to get people at each other’s throats: men vs. women, black vs. white, religious vs. secular, left vs. right, young vs. old, etc, but apparently that hasn’t been enough to actually start the violence they seem to want (thus justifying a governmental power grab), so they’re trying to turn vaccinated people against the unvaccinated. This is intentional chaos-sowing. I see no other explanation.
This is likely to backfire on the Democrats – there’s now a sudden emergence of a unique category – vaccinated people who are now joining the anti-vaccine camp in response to this bullying, authoritarian bullshit. I think Biden may have created millions of new Republican voters for 2022 with his little speech.
Just a reminder; the people who tell us walls don’t work for keeping random foreigners from crossing our southern border, are busy putting heavy fencing back up around the Capitol to protect against American citizens on a rally scheduled for Sept. 18th.