Hope For New York State

The Western Journal posted an article today describing what is happening in New York State as a result of the mismanagement and scandals surrounding Governor Cuomo.

The article reports:

Andrew Cuomo’s despicable rule in New York has never been seriously challenged. He won re-election to a third term by 23 points in 2018 — an election in which he arguably didn’t even try.

But, for the first time in his tenure at the helm of the Empire State, Cuomo appears to be facing a serious opponent — one that was, at least in part, of Cuomo’s own making.

After more than a half-dozen allegations of sexual misconduct, as well as accusations that his use (and subsequent cover-up) of nursing homes to house infectious COVID-19 patients last spring caused thousands of additional deaths, Cuomo is unusually vulnerable.

And Rep. Lee Zeldin, a Republican who represents New York’s 1st congressional district in the U.S. House of Representatives, smells blood in the water.

As Fox News reported last week, Zeldin is running for governor of New York in next year’s election, when Cuomo could be running for a fourth term.

There is an indication that New York State may be ready for a change in leadership. There is also an indication based on actual facts vs. trends on Twitter that Twitter may again represent opinions that are not universally shared.

The article notes:

But, one of the most important political lessons of 2020 was that Twitter is in no way representative of reality. Fox News reported that on his very first day of campaigning, Zeldin raised over $1 million. Clearly, reality is once again diverging from Twitter.

This is something to keep an eye on. The media will do everything it can to discredit Lee Zeldin and his campaign. It will be interesting to see if the voters of New York will believe the media or ask for change.

 

Hopefully The Cover-Up Is Unraveling

Yesterday Paul Mirengoff at Power Line Blog posted an article about the investigation into the nursing home deaths in New York State that were the result of placing elderly people who had tested positive for the coronavirus in nursing homes.

The article reports:

Janice Dean reports on the weather for Fox News. She lost both of her in-laws to the Wuhan coronavirus. Both contracted the disease at long-term care facilities, but her mother in-law died at a hospital.

New York apparently does not include cases like the mother-in-law’s in totaling up the nursing home death count. Thus, New York is under counting the number of deaths that arose at such facilities.

Dean has long wanted to testify about New York state’s disastrous response to the coronavirus in nursing homes. However, she was removed from the witness list for a hearing by the legislature on this subject.

Dean says a Republican New York Senator told her the Democrat majority was “uncomfortable having [her] as a witness.” Dean believes the majority was responding to pressure from Governor Cuomo or his associates. Cuomo’s office denies the charge.

The article continues:

Because of the way New York counts coronavirus deaths (see above), no one knows how many people died from the virus after contracting it at such facilities. The Cuomo administration refuses to provide such information even though it has been requested by both Republicans and Democrats in the state legislature. Clearly, Cuomo is trying to prevent a full assessment of the carnage that resulted from his policies.

Fortunately, as I discussed here, the Trump Justice Department has sent a letter to Governor Cuomo (among other governors) seeking this information. The letter asks for:

The number of Public Nursing Home residents, employees, other staff, guests, and visitors who died of COVID-19 including those who died in a Public Nursing Home or after being transferred to a hospital or other medical facility, hospice, home care, or any other location.

(Emphasis added)

The article concludes:

The DOJ requested this information, along with three other categories of information, in order to evaluate whether to initiate investigations under the federal Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA), which protects the civil rights of persons in state-run nursing homes, among others. I hope the DOJ will succeed where Janice Dean and New York state legislators from both parties have failed in prying loose information that should have made public months ago.

The Cuomo administration’s handling of the pandemic at long-term care facilities was scandalous. So are its efforts to cover up the consequences of the bungling. So are the efforts of the mainstream media — successful so far — to depict Cuomo as a hero of the pandemic.

The truth needs to come out. Hopefully it will.

The Science Is Not In Line With The Objections

Using fracking to get natural gas from the earth has been controversial. It shouldn’t be–there is no scientific evidence that it causes any more problems than conventional drilling. There have also been articles in various media pointing to the fact that much of the anti-fracking literature and media in the United States is sponsored by either Russia or Saudi Arabia. Both of those countries have a vested interest in preventing America from becoming energy independent.

Steven Hayward posted an article at Power Line today about fracking. The article was actually about the possibility that New York Governor Andrew Cuomo would run for President in 2020, but the article contained some interesting information about fracking.

The article reported:

The scientific case against all the anti-fracking claims of the environmental/Hollywood left continues to collapse more fully than an undercooked soufflé. The latest piece of evidence is a report from Resources for the Future, a centrist environmental group that is one of the oldest environmental organizations in the country, founded way back in 1947 by Fairfield Osborn, who was actually a Malthusian alarmist, thus making today’s RFF a curiosity in that is perhaps the only environmental organization that moved away from the left over its history.

RFF has conducted a thorough review of the academic literature on the health effects of unconventional oil and gas production (which mostly means fracking) and passes along these key findings:

  • We review 32 studies that cover health impacts such as birth outcomes, cancers, asthma, and other health effects, including migraines and hospitalization.
  • We find that though many epidemiological studies used robust statistical methods to estimate changes in health outcomes associated with unconventional oil and gas development, all had weaknesses and many had significant shortcomings.
  • Due to the nature of the data and research methodologies, the studies are unable to assess the mechanisms of any health impacts (i.e., whether a certain impact is caused by air pollution, stress, water pollution, or another burden).
  • Even where good evidence is offered for a link between unconventional oil and gas development and health, the causal factor(s) driving this association are unclear.
  • Though we do not see strong evidence of impacts in the literature, a lack of data or rigorous analysis does not rule out the potential for any effects.

I know that there have been reported instances of polluted water in areas where fracking was done. However, in many cases, water pollution goes back to the time in America when factories, tanneries, and other industries were not closely monitored. There is a strong possibility that much of the water pollution attributed to fracking is actually the result of prior manufacturing or tanning practices in those areas. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has designated certain areas in the U.S. as Superfund Sites. I am sure that there are many more that have not yet been designated. Water pollution is a problem in certain areas of America and has been for a long time before fracking came along. It is to our advantage to monitor the fracking industry carefully to make sure it does not add to our pollution problems. It is also to our advantage to do what we can to clean up the pollution problems caused by lax standards in the past.