Loose Ends (178)

What do the Danes know that we don’t?

Denmark bans COVID vaccine for youth under 18

“Children and adolescents only very rarely become seriously ill from COVID-19 with the omicron variant. Therefore, from July 1, 2022, it will no longer be possible for children and adolescents under the age of 18 to get the 1st [shot], and from September 1, 2022, it will no longer be possible to get the 2nd [shot],” reads a government statement. [translated from Danish]

I haven’t been properly keeping up with our friends at Kite and Key Media (though not to worry—I am planning to have Troy Senik, the voiceover man for KKM, on the Power Line podcast soon to talk about his forthcoming biography of the last sensible Democratic president, Grover Cleveland), and as long-time readers know, for many years I produced an annual report on environmental trends in the United States, most of which are positive. This good news, naturally, infuriates environmentalists, who aren’t happy unless the world is coming to an end, and can’t take Yes for an answer. In any case, the latest KKM video out yesterday tells this story with their usual succinct skill:

I’ve long understood that the Letters to the Editor of the Wall Street Journal are one of the most read items in the paper every day (partly because the WSJ doesn’t have an obituary section I suppose). Anyway, there’s one really great one today:

Mr. Soros advocates deploying mental-health professionals instead of police in crisis situations. Mr. Soros should lead by example and replace his private security personnel with social workers. If someone attempts to attack him, the social workers could sit with the assailant and discuss the root causes.

David Westrich, Teaneck, N.J.

In re: Scott’s post yesterday about Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey going off on Ilhan Omar, her worship issued this reply:

To paraphrase the great Ron Burgundy, you stay classy Ilhan. Meanwhile, pass the popcorn.

Finally, if you are an NY Times reader (I do it so you don’t have to), the Times Magazine ran a long feature article last Sunday about our friends at the Claremont Institute. Or should I say the “embattled” Claremont Institute, since that’s what it seems like these days whenever they come up in the media, which is often. It was a surprisingly even-handed article. You might even say it was fair.

Sample for non-Times subscribers:

The Claremont Institute is not a conventional think tank — comparatively small, its main outlets consist of two politics-and-ideas publications and several fellowship programs, including Publius and Lincoln, that have attracted rising stars on the right. Yet Claremont’s reach is extensive: Claremont scholars have collaborated with Ron DeSantis and helped shape the views of Clarence Thomas, Tom Cotton and the conservative activist Christopher Rufo, and the institute received the National Humanities Medal from President Trump in 2019. . .

Convinced by Lincoln’s argument that “public sentiment is everything,” Claremont was devoted primarily to shaping opinions. “The most successful thing that the Claremont Institute has done is this educational effort,” [Matt] Continetti told me. “Trump did fill his administration, maybe not with Claremont personnel, but with Claremont alumni.” . . .

When I asked [Claremont president Ryan] Williams what Claremont’s ideal future would look like, he cited the deconstruction of the administrative state. He told me recently that the June Supreme Court ruling constraining the E.P.A. is “a step in the right direction,” and he would like to see “Congress get back into the act of legislating” instead of delegating rule making to bureaucracy, a “long-term and complicated process involving legislators learning rules that they haven’t used in 30 years.” Prudence, he added, dictated that change should be incremental. “Though I can anticipate your next question, which is, You guys talk like counterrevolutionaries,” Williams said. “One of the goals of the more polemical stuff is to wake up our fellow conservatives.”

Exit question: what does it say about the current state of things that the Claremont Institute gets better treatment from the New York Times than from The Bulwark?

Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.