phoenixvoice
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Wow. My respect for Sarah Palin just revived from the coma it has been in for years. Pardoning Julian Assange is a movement that has the potential of aligning people who are usually at odds. That makes it valuable on more than one level.
Shane article:
I agree wholeheartedly. Where I am, the parking lots of Walmart Supercenters and Frys grocery stores have been populated with solar powered “mall cop” devices to watch us all and play recorded messages. We are barraged both indoors and out with puerile messages about covering our faces, what to do if we sneeze, and washing our hands. However, I suppose Shane doesn’t realize how he diminishes the power of his argument by revealing his own ignorance: Covid can be spread by people who are infected but have no symptoms. Contagion during incubation is common to many illnesses. As far as Covid goes, my mother passed Covid to myself and my partner. My father was with my mother 24/7 when she became infected with Covid, her incubation, cared for her during her convalescence, etc. He never fell ill. Last month he tested positive for antibodies to Covid. So, he *did* become infected. Was he ever contagious? We’ll never know.The problem? The powers that be often justify infantilizing the populace *because* they exhibit ignorance of key points of fact.
That doesn’t mean that infantilizing the populace will fix said ignorance, but this ignorance does contribute to the behavior of TPTB.
Wow. Biden spoke well and coherently 13 years ago. I was not aware.
A couple months back a left-leaning friend was defending his lack of good speech currently to me by explaining that Biden had to overcome stuttering, had a speech impediment, and his verbal gaffes were due to that. This video belies that assertion. Biden may have a speech impediment, but when his mind was sound he spoke well. (It is difficult to become a politician — or tv reality host — without being able to speak clearly and intelligibly.)
The fact that the “president elect” of the USA often does not speak coherently in public, well…yet another symptom of “empire in distress/decline.” Many of Trump’s characteristics are symptomatic of the same.
Hold on folks…this wild ride is just getting started.
The best ethical ways to get a handle on the population?
1. Free, effective birth control available to all.
2. A cultural mythos that promotes choosing when to have children, rather than allowing nature to take its course.
3. Social security or something akin to it so that old age care is guaranteed and not dependent upon whether or not one has children or how many children one has.
4. A cultural mythos that supports anyone who doesn’t want to have children — so that childlessness is a viable choice that is not frowned on.
5. Closely examine any anti poverty measures that inadvertently “pay” people to have children. For example, an impoverished parent will often be eligible for Medicaid, while an impoverished adult with no dependents is not eligible for Medicaid. Same goes for food stamps. Parents should be supported in their decisions to raise children — society’s future depends on it — but if our population needs to be curbed ethically, we also need to be supportive of individuals who choose not to procreate. Too often in capitalism there is belief that society must allow the poor to suffer in order to incentivize them to better their position…all the while perpetuating a system that makes it very difficult for the poor to better their situation regardless of how much effort they put into their own betterment. Raising children in this situation is even more hellish, so we have all sorts of programs designed to mitigate the suffering somewhat for adults with dependent children. What we really need is to change the system that relies on poverty to prop itself up…at the very least, we can provide help to all who are impoverished and not just to parents.(This list is not exhaustive…I welcome additions.)
@ Dr D – something to think about
“So when you set up a fully-Soviet, centrally-planned, rapacious, monopolistic, competition-free, oligarchic system, you get Soviet, starvation, hardship, impoverished, polarized, totally unworking, nation-crippling results. Congratulations: you have arrived where you were heading.”Lenin told the USSR before his death that although their goal was “socialism,” what they had achieved a few years after the Russian Revolution was “state capitalism.” State capitalism is where the (major) business owners have been replaced by “the state” or a political party (i.e. the former USSR’s Communist Party or CCP.) Once Stalin ascended to power, he told the people of the USSR that they had achieved “socialism” — the USSR economy had not changed significantly in the interim years — this was doublespeak on the part of Stalin.
Capitalism is very unstable — there are economic downturns every 4-7 years on average. Another unstable feature of capitalism is how it vacillates constantly between being a competitive playing field of small and/or innovative players and a non-competitive field of monopolist or oligopolist players. Markets tend to distribute goods and services efficiently when both the buyers and the sellers are all on more-or-less equal footing — i.e. buyers all have adequate means to purchase what they need and to supply many of their wants, and sellers do not have so many resources that they can manipulate the buyers (i.e. advertising campaigns that misrepresent their products/services, monopolies that restrict competition, buying up all the patents of products that could potentially be better than their own, etc.) However, over time capitalism tends to naturally accrue profit and resources into the hands of the few. (Piketty proved this a few years ago.) Minor wealth/income inequality is not a problem in an economic system nor in a society, but when wealth/income inequality becomes very large, markets become inefficient at distributing goods and services — the price of scarce items gets bid up so that many who need/want them are unable to get them, and simply go without. While this is not critical for some items — such as art pieces of famous masters — it is socially catastrophic for others — such as when the epipen price is so high that people who are highly allergic and ought to carry one around do not have the financial resources to do so. Or when the wealthy are buying up all the milk to give their cats, and impoverished families do not have the means to buy milk for their children.
The reason why governments that fully support capitalism “interfere” with the market is because without some sort of regulation it became apparent during the Great Depression that there was a real probability that the impoverished folks might rise up and overthrow the entire system. Instead, in the US, FDR gave us The New Deal — which was a way to appease the masses who were in economic pain — and a way to save capitalism from being upended in revolution, and maintain the economic power of those who had that power in the existing system. In Germany during the same time period, economic pain led to the rise of Hitler.
In my view, without government intervention, unregulated private capitalism will give us, “… starvation, hardship, impoverished, polarized, totally unworking, nation-crippling results….” Although the USSR failed, the People’s Republic of China has not. In fact, this system is currently ascending in world power. Do I lionize China? Certainly not — but to ignore its economic success is to put one’s head in the sand.
What is really needed is a system that is free of monopoly, free of oligopoly, free of top-down control, includes enough competition and wealth/income inequality to give people incentives and goals, as well as enough shared prosperity that we meet in marketplaces more or less as equals. Scarce items need to be allocated in some fashion to those who need them most, not merely to those who have access to the most wealth. We need a system that prioritizes the needs of local economies that serve local folks — because it is when we meet face-to-face that we have compassion for one another and our better natures tend to be activated. We need a system that doesn’t throw local economies under the bus to serve some far away goal or need.
Often, those who praise capitalism like to place it in the context of a small town, where transactions are face to face, where business owners care about the livelihood and well-being of their employees and customers. (I understand that desire — I run a small business, I have had an employee at times — I paid her when I couldn’t pay myself. I work directly with my clients.) Perhaps what needs to be praised is that local, face-to-face economy that prioritizes human relationship along with economic relationship. Although capitalism may have been birthed in this small-town setting, it has never stayed there. Due to capitalism (granted, there are other social drivers as well,) we have mega-cities, mega-corporations, and mega-nationstates. The face-to-face transactions that capitalism started with are in today’s economy often either non-existent, or the faces on the “sellers end” are low-end employees who have little to no power given to them to actually act on any compassion they may have for the buyer. This is by design — having compassion for buyers does not lead to the greatest level of profit being extracted from the transaction for the seller’s organization.
Rather than fight over whether the economic titans in capitalism should be private (such as has been the case in most cases in the Western-dominated world) or dominated by a political party (i.e. The Communist Party in the former USSR or current CCP,) I’d rather participate in discussion of what sort of system could achieve better results than capitalism. We have some passing familiarity with alternative economic systems — feudalism, slavery, tribal, etc. Can we take what we’ve learned from capitalism — take its best parts — and incorporate it with new ideas so that our economy does a better job serving ALL people involved and encourages wise stewardship of the Earth and its resources?
I’m really curious about the long lines reported at food banks throughout the US. I have had an income well below the federal poverty line for eight years (my ex successfully hid his income from the commissioner overseeing child support hearings…it’s a long story.) I’ve gotten food from a foodbank regularly (about once per month) and have been on food stamps for 8 years. I’m familiar with the lines of the local foodbank — rarely, you can walk right in, register, get food and be out in 15 minutes, but usually it takes a little over an hour and I have to plan accordingly. During the pandemic, I’ve had many more experiences of the former (15 minutes or so) and I think the absolutely longest I’ve waited from first arrival to leaving was 30 minutes. From my end, it is difficult to ascertain the exact reason why — although I’m sure the food bank knows how many people it is serving, the information is not readily available. The volunteers have been replaced with National Guard, and we don’t get to go around and select our food during the pandemic, it is delivered to the car pre-selected. However, I suspect that either the local food bank traffic has been reduced somewhat, or possibly stayed about the same or slightly increased, and the lower wait times are due to increased efficiency because choosing food has been taken out of the picture.
This is a hyper-local observation, so I’m not sure how it relates to the larger picture — perhaps many of the usual recipients were older folks who have been scared to go out? Maybe they are getting their food through some other manner now, some sort of delivery? Perhaps, because I live in Arizona where lockdowns have always been pretty light-handed, and right now the only Covid rule in affect that affects most everyone are the local mask mandates for stores, and some school districts that are doing online only learning, the economic downturn is less steep here? Perhaps the numbers seeking food at the local food bank will increase markedly if unemployment runs out at the end of December?
Not sure what it means, but I find it curious.
Every day when I read TAE and the comments, I am heartened to know that there are thinking people out there beyond my partner and I who are digging through media chaff to figure out what is *really* going on, and thoughtfully responding.
Today, I want to share something that I found uplifting — The City of Phoenix’s current Climate Action Plan. https://www.phoenix.gov/oep/climate
The US federal government is largely ignoring climate issues. Cities grapple with it “on the ground.” It gives me hope to live in a city that is pledging to uphold the Paris Climate Accords, and making plans to do so. The plans are practical — and even for those who doubt man-made climate change — and wise. Yes, we need to manage the city’s waste, we need to manage water use and sourcing, increasing electric trains will also ease road congestion, and adding tree canopies will help reduce “the urban heat island effect” that plagues the city. Switching to LED bulbs for street lamps isn’t just “more green” — it is saving the city money by reducing it’s electrical bill.
Is the plan comprehensive enough to meet climate goals in 2050? Oh, probably not. More goals will need to be made — and, more importantly, met. Today, it is heartening to know that instead of putting their collective heads in the sand, the people in my city’s government are at least looking up and forward and addressing the problem.
Perfect, no. Practical? Yes. It is a reasonable starting place.
There is a massive problem with unilateral lockdowns this late in the game…it doesn’t take individual situations into account.
I service computers and peripherals for a living, have my own company doing this. I have a few clients at a local retirement community. The rules at the retirement community are less strict than they used to be for their independent living residents — an attestation form must be filled out by each visitor, residents can have two adult visitors at a time, up to twice a week. The retirement community checks the attestation form and takes temperatures, ensures the visitor has a mask on, but doesn’t cross-check to ensure that each resident only has two visits per week.
For Thanksgiving, my household and my sister’s household met at my parents’ home. Why not? Back in September/October my sister’s household came down with Covid-19. They don’t take the virus seriously and didn’t get tested, but my parents were visiting several times just before anyone had symptoms and as the first couple of member’s of my sister’s household fell sick. My parents were living with me at the time, and didn’t think to take any precautions at my home afterwards, etc. When my mother fell ill, she tested positive (PCR) for Covid-19. The following week my partner and I also developed symptoms, and tested positive for Covid-19. We are all fine, my kids never tested positive, my father never tested positive, never had symptoms, but tested positive for antibodies to Covid-19. So, why not get together? Immunity definitely lasts 3 months, probably lasts 6 months or more. My parents and my partner and I realize that after the new year we will need to start being careful again, and by next March take great precautions again, as my children live half time with a girl with cerebral palsy. This will be complicated by my sister’s family’s attitude that Covid-19 is “absolutely no big deal”…it may not be for their household of seven, but as a household with close contact with someone immunocompromised, I cannot share her cavalier attitude. However, at the moment there is no danger, so why act like there is danger?
The next day I needed to fill out an attestation form to visit a client at the retirement community. I was supposed to answer the question about whether I had been in close contact with a group of more than 10 people in the past 14 days. I knew that if I answered in the affirmative, I would be denied entrance to the facility. I also knew that the entire group of people at my Thanksgiving gathering (with the possible exception of my own children, who have not been tested yet for Covid-19 antibodies,) including myself, are immune right now and that whether or not we congregated all together was irrelevant, since my parents watch my sister’s children three days a week and my household and my parents get together 2 – 4 times per month. The question presumes that the “more than 10” people congregating together don’t already congregate communally in smaller groupings.
(I live in Arizona — no laws here about not meeting with others.)
Rules with no exceptions are fertile breeding grounds for ridiculous decisions and ridiculous behaviors. They cause both injustice and incentives for flouting the rules.
I understand the concern about people not congregating unnecessarily when there is widespread virus spread. (My kids’ schools have reverted back to online learning.) The “harm reduction model” is probably the best one to use.
Response to: Finding the Truth behind the American Hologram (CoIC)
“Now can you imagine the outrage when they are told they have to drastically reduce their living standards to prevent catastrophic climate change…”I find this to be a false flag. Perhaps the top 5% of households by income in the wealthiest nation states who would experience this “outrage.” Why? Because they are the households that do the larger share of polluting with their lifestyles and who own and benefit from shares in the large corporations raking in profit from the current system. For the rest of the human population of the planet, that would not be the case. How do I make this assertion? Mostly from my own life’s efforts to reduce my own carbon footprint, and seeing how easy it is do in many areas. And from an understanding of how the current economic system functions.
We live in a society that has decided that it is preferable to go out and purchase something new and ready made or as a kit rather than craft it from items already on hand, already available. This is one of the factors that drives our consumption. People have lost the understanding that the creativity involved in using what one already has on hand, the process of crafting something unique is very fulfilling process of learning and growth. It doesn’t matter whether the “items on hand” are fall leaves or plastic yogurt cups, humans have an innate creativity that our consumptive society has blunted into choosing products to define oneself. Re-using and repurposing items is simply a different habit, it doesn’t reduce quality of life — in fact, it may enhance quality of life.
Another example can be in transportation or appliance use. Building brand new electric cars is a large expenditure of natural resources, involves destroying native environments where the lithium is being extracted, and oil in the plastics for the parts. Alternatively, we could keep the cars we already have running well, make parts for them, and engineer new cars that are designed to be repaired and upgraded, so that cars are not designed to be junked after 5 or 10 years, but rather used for a few decades. The same could be done for our appliances. “Quality of life” is not diminished by repairing and upgrading existing products rather than endlessly junking old ones for new.
Single-use plastics are rampant. Does quality of life diminish when we use paper or other simple compostables for disposable items and in other areas increase our use of reusable items? Yes, there might be a few more people with jobs washing dishes in our restaurants, but that is a vast improvement over oceans polluted with plastic. Do the items we purchase really need to be packaged in clear plastic, or any plastic at all? Humankind existed without disposable plastics for millennia — is our quality of life truly bettered in a significant way by using disposable plastics, rather than using either older methods (beeswax infused cloth, or a rubber seal with a glass lid and metal enclosure) or a reusable newer method (a flat, thin silicone disk or silicone seal with lid and metal enclosure) rather than plastic wrap to cover a food dish in the refrigerator?
Of course, the economy I’m describing here is one that would not be pushing for endless consumption. Without endless consumption, we cannot fulfill capitalism’s need for endless expansion of the economy. Without endless consumption, we cannot fuel a monetary system that grows by creating new debt for every dollar (or other form of currency) created. The greatest beneficiaries of the current economic system are those who sit towards the top of that pyramid. And, yes, those who currently sit at the top of the economic system would experience an enormous shake up in their lives as they found themselves without the economic power they currently enjoy. That is why it is so difficult to change our current system, and move towards significant carbon reduction. To do so would require a different economic model, with different outcomes, no need for endless growth, different economic priorities. And a shift in priorities would disempower those currently in power.
But, please, don’t try to tell me that we are stuck with this mess because the majority of the people are too addicted to Walmart, Amazon, and Dollar Tree to change their spending priorities. Advertising has been driving the priorities of “the consumers” for a very long time, and advertising is paid for by those who profit from it, and profit from the behaviors it engenders. Advertising (a flavor of corporate propaganda) could be used in a widespread way to encourage behaviors that reduce consumption. But what economic titan in the current system would fund that type of widespread advertisement?
In the past hundred years or so our chemists and physicists have found myriads of ways for us to manipulate carbon molecules into a plethora of uses. Do we really suppose that if we re-purposed those minds to manipulating other types of molecules, ones that have a less deleterious effect on our planet, that this wouldn’t work? Do we have recourse of action to address climate change and eventually reverse it? I believe that, yes, there is cause for hope. But not with the economic and political status quo. I could make a call to revolution — but I don’t have to, because the seeds of destruction of the current status quo are already all around us. Yes, it would be wise to voluntarily go down the path of creating a new economic system that is not based on endless growth on a finite planet — some humans are pioneering this route — but, unfortunately, history shows that very often change does not happen in a smooth, linear fashion. Change often comes about with large disruptions and violence, because people with power are usually loathe to lose that power. Yes, the people in power right now would experience “outrage” with a migration to an economic system that sees themselves with diminished power. The rest of humanity, however, might breathe a collective sigh of relief.
Another point about the high false positive rate of PCR testing … if the false positive rate is so high after 40 or so cycles ( and I’m quite curious at how many cycles yields that 97% rate) is the converse also true? That a negative test after 40 cycles is, say, 97% certain to be not infected by the virus? Not all PCR tests are done to determine positivity for Covid, but rather to determine negativity for the virus. I have a friend in her 80s with her husband in a care facility. State law says that she cannot visit her husband without a negative Covid test within the prior 48 hours. As a result, she has a PCR test for Covid twice every week. (ironically, her husband already had Covid an survived without too much trouble.). If our goal is to determine who DOESNT have the virus, running dozens of cycles for a PCR test may yield extremely accurate results about who cannot transmit the virus.
And is it such a bad thing to be quarantined? I found that friends and neighbors were willing to pick up groceries, get propane for my parents, and pick up meds from the pharmacy. Yes, it was inconvenient, but learning that I could depend on my community was both humbling and empowering. Perhaps quarantine for anyone who *might* be Covid positive — but not “lockdowns” for all — is a way to rebuild our frayed communities? If the most accurate test we have for diagnosing Covid is better at identifying who is NOT carrying the virus, rather than who IS carrying the virus, perhaps we could just flow with that until we develop a test that does the reverse and create public habits and policies around the information we have available, rather than about what we wish we had and wish we knew.
MrMoto — appreciation to you for pointing out that we don’t know whether any particular vaccine is helpful, harmful, etc. I get so tired of so many people stating logical fallacies and then having large swaths of people accept what is stated as fact. I was stressing to my children when picked them up from their dad’s yesterday that the biggest problem with Covid is that we simply still lack so much information about it.
Regarding PCR testing,I find it misleading how many articles stress the “97% false positive“ narrative without bothering to include how many cycles leads to that rate, as well as some statistics on how many PCR test positive results were actually achieved at or past that threshold. In my own experience with my own household, PCR testing came back positive only on those who had (or soon after testing) developed symptoms. All other PCR tests came back negative — including follow up testing on those who had been sick with COVID after symptoms had resolved. It seems that the problem, if any, is not with the test itself, but simply that we need a protocol that determines how many cycles to run. Presto! Large false positive problem effectively eliminated. Why are none of the articles saying this? The only plausible answer I can see is this: cui bono? One group benefits from as many COVID cases as possible being discovered; the other group benefits from casting doubt on all COVID cases, and on the pandemic itself. Who doesn’t benefit from either dominant narrative? Most of us — who really just want expanded and accurate information about COVID so that we can make wise decisions regarding our own safety and the safety of those we love.
Dr. D:
Regarding the efficacy of the PCR test as a diagnostic tool, I respectfully disagree. Sure, I can read the concerns of many that deactivated (“dead”) virus particles are being detected and causing “false positives” — but that this is a widespread or major problem disagrees with my personal experience regarding myself and my household members.
My mother had Covid symptoms at the end of September. She and my father were tested, using PCR. She came back positive; he came back negative. My father never showed symptoms, and never retested. He had an antibody test last week, but they haven’t received the results yet. We are curious what they may reveal, especially since he had direct contact with her throughout her illness and confinement.
Within two days of my mother’s positive Covid diagnosis, I, my partner, and my three children submitted to PCR testing. We all tested negative. 8 days after my mother’s positive test, my partner began showing symptoms, and underwent PCR testing — he came up as positive. On day 9 I had no symptoms, but went in again for PCR testing — I was positive for Covid. On day 10 I began showing clear symptoms of Covid. On day 13 I took the children to be retested with PCR — they came back as negative.
I missed several medical appointments during Covid quarantine and isolation — for one appointment I found out that I now couldn’t go to the appointment until I had a negative Covid test. My health insurance *only* covers the cost for super-sensitive PCR testing and I didn’t want to shell out over $200 for the less sensitive rapid test. I was very concerned — I didn’t want to delay this visit any longer, it was for a thumb injury that might require surgery — I had heard that PCR testing can give a positive result for quite a while after recovery from Covid, and I did not want to have this medical appointment delayed any further.
On day 20 (from my mother’s positive PCR Covid test, 10 days after my symptom onset) the children, myself, and my partner again went for PCR testing. ALL FIVE OF US TESTED NEGATIVE.
As I diagnostic test, for the seven people in my household, the PCR test was very effective. It caught my Covid positivity a day before symptom onset. It indicated Covid positivity for those showing Covid symptoms. It returned a negative value after Covid symptoms had abated for the two that had been sick with positive Covid tests. There were no “false positives.”
Does this mean that PCR testing never gives false positives? Of course not. However, no medical test is perfect. We want tests that give very few false positives or negatives, so that we can make wise decisions both personally and socially. It seems ridiculous to vilify a medical test simply because it is not “perfect.” It gives us needed information, and it gives us that information with a high level of accuracy — which is what we need.
My household is all recovered here — with (so far) no indication of long-term effects. My Covid case and my mother’s case were mild. My partner’s was moderate — no hospitalization or trouble breathing, but he had intermittent fevers for 9 days.
It is very difficult to protect vulnerable populations from Covid. Why? Because they are intermingled with the general, low covid risk population and it is financially and socially impossible to separate the vulnerable from the low-risk populations without empowering individuals and families to make granular decisions on a case by case basis, and for the individuals to receive financial support (such as: per rules of pandemic unemployment insurance). And the elites don’t want to give that much financial power to “the little people.”
Case in point: A family with a father with a medical condition that affects immune system, mother, two elementary school age children. Father is able to work from home. Children are now doing remote school, and mother has taken on the full time job of caring for the children. Mother is no longer able to work outside the home. (Real-life case — I teach these kids piano through Zoom. Fortunately for this family, father’s income is sufficient. But what about families where income from one adult simply isn’t sufficient to keep the family afloat?)
Case in point: My parents came to live with myself, partner, children. All of our activities then need to be cautious so we don’t get/spread the virus. This affects how we work, how we shop, our recreational activities.
Case in point: Grandparents visit family regularly. Family does not take great care…family members get sick, and grandmother falls ill with covid.
Case in point: Teen girl has condition that makes her vulnerable to covid. 3 step-siblings live 50% in her home and 50% in another home. Now, both households need to take great care in how they work, shop, and recreational activities.
These are just situations that I am personally involved in — and I am just one person. “Lockdowns” don’t affect these situations — people will autonomously adjust their behavior (or not — and unwittingly spread covid), and that adjusted behavior (or covid spread) will be reflected economically. Many families are taking risks they should not take — sending kids to in-person school because they must work outside the home to support the family, even though they come in regular contact with vulnerable individuals.
The only compassionate way to respond is to let people choose their own level of risk, and then give them access to the means to support themselves financially. But our economic/political systems are not compassionate, and they do not operate in a way to empower individuals to make their own choices. Propagandizing and influencing is what our systems do well.
While surveys and polls have their uses, I try not to form my entire perspective around them, because their is large disparity in individuals and granular situations. And, surveys are never fully impartial, always influenced by the survey writers and interpreters.
Case in point: government responses to Covid-19 are causing widespread mental suffering.
First off, the *cause* of mental suffering is not so clear cut. For myself, government restrictions (like mask wearing) didn’t bother me at all. The general angst about getting and catching an unknown virus bothered me. Being in public with others not wearing masks, or having them not worn properly bothered me. The fact that when my mother, then my partner and then myself got Covid that I couldn’t find a doctor willing to prescribe HCQ (even tho it is legal in my state) bothered me. (We eventually found a willing doctor.) I miss church and its choir practice…but the decision to do no in-person activities for my church was decided by the church’s elected board, minister, and staff, and was not dictated by government.
Second, while there have been detrimental effects from the Pandemic, not all effects have been detrimental. A survey can be written in such a way to deliberately capture certain effects and to ignore others. For me, ever since the pandemic started I have gotten 7 to 9 hours of sleep nearly every night — simply because there are fewer expectations that I go places, and because I no longer need to ferry 3 kids to and from 3 different schools half of every week. My life is calmer. Transitioning some work to Zoom means that after an initial drop in income, my current income is right on track with what it was pre-pandemic. A friend who lives in a retirement community has been very bothered by that community’s response, has failed to get management to see his perspective…but rather than stew in it, he and his wife are simply moving out and are excited for the move
Yes, there are negative effects of the pandemic. And positive ones. But life is not static, never has been. What is more important to consider is resilience and whether or not individuals have access to the tools that help them to have resilience.
I understand the scientific analyses that cloth masks are too porous, and especially can’t stop aerosolized particles. However, in my state (Arizona) Covid cases were increasing week over week throughout May and June. The end of June mask laws were enacted in the most populous cities, and in cities with the most covid transmission. Exactly two weeks after the ban went into effect, the peak of infections was reached, and the numbers of new cases each day began decreasing. Deaths peaked about 4 weeks after the mask laws went into effect. Now…this doesn’t tell us that masks magically block covid, however, this happened in other states as well. I don’t know If it means that most covid particles are large enough to be blocked by masks, or that mask laws cause most people to be more cautious, or something else is at play that I haven’t thought of. However, if mask laws in areas where virus transmission is high helps contain the spread of covid (even if it isn’t the masks themselves, but changes in behavior as a result of the signal that “this is serious,”) then that is very valuable public policy. And, it is much more practical public policy that economic shut downs.
As a woman who was raised in a religious, politically conservative family, who left that religion and has migrated to the left, the Politico bit about Amy Barrett resonates. I, too, retain the belief from my youth that raising children is very important work. I have three. But my life has been very different. My ex was verbally and emotionally abusive and the marriage erupted in flames when the oldest kids were about 8 years due to my ex’s alcoholism, etc. For a very long time now, I have put my kids first and earning an income second. My kids know that they are loved…and the income I raise them on is well below the Federal Poverty Limit. I am resourceful and run my own business, which allows me to set my own hours and make a higher dollar per hour return on my time than I would working for someone else. The child support I receive is minimal (~$40/month) because my ex lies to everyone about his income (including the IRS) and the Commissioner was too lazy to look at the documentation of my ex’s income that I provided, too lazy to notice the many times my ex perjured himself in child support hearings.
I am curious how Judge Barrett would see women like me — sharing her values about family and children, but not as lucky in finding a partner that also embraced those values. (My ex turned out to be a fraud in that area — professing those values, but not putting them into practice.) Because it’s nice to say, sure, the ideal is an equal partnership to parent children, but how does a society in a strict constructionist view of the Constitution support parents of any gender who find themselves raising children alone or in an unequal partnership? Currently, such parents are given a bitter pill to swallow — skimp on parenting, skimp on money-earning, and/or submit to an abusive partnership. (There may be other variations of this as well, but these are the ones that most come to mind for me.)
This article succinctly represents CRT’s strengths and flaws: https://frenchpress.thedispatch.com/p/on-the-use-and-abuse-of-critical
Joel Fisher is incorrect. Trump wrote a book called “The America We Deserve” in 2000. I read it many years ago. In it, he was outlining platform for his own presidential bid. I read it because In was metamorposizing from conservatively liberal at the time. I don’t remember a lot of specifics, but I believe he was supporting some flavor of Medicare for All at the time.
I appreciate reference to the article growing-numbers-of-us-attorneys-general-are-out-to-undermine-the-law. I had heard the name Bill Ayers, but didn’t really know who he is. I looked him up. What a remarkable life, spent trying to improve the lot of others, full of personal setbacks and successes, and growth and dedication to pacifism and admirable ideals. The article is a perfect example of “right-baiting” — an article of fact nuggets woven together with confabulation designed to inflame the emotions of the reader against a particular group of people. There are those on the Left engaged in the exact same thing, engaging in left-baiting, screaming RussiaRussia and so forth.
I am all too familiar with the fallout that this type of writing causes. In my own life my ex’s attorney used these tactics two years ago, smearing me in legal pleadings, and attempting to remove our three children from me completely. There was no truth to the allegations, and with the help of friends, family, and unwitting credit card issuers I won the case.
Perhaps this is why I have a hard time reading this type of writing — long before there was any evidence that RussiaRussia was false, I didn’t believe a shred of it.
And so I find myself asking the question…to heal this fractured nations others need to calm their inflamed emotions and speak with those whom their media has branded as “the enemy”…and how may this happen?
I always wonder when folks rail against mail in ballots if these same folks have ever voted by mail in ballot and know how that system works. In Arizona I’ve been on the permanent mail in voter list for more than a decade…because as a work at home mother, going to the polls on a specific day just isn’t always feasible.
In AZ, mail in ballots are identical to the usual ballots, must be completed in black pen, are read optically and can be checked by a real person visually. The ballot is placed in a provided envelope, and on the back of the envelope is a place for the voter to sign. This way, the voter’s signature can be verified against the signature in the registry, but the ballot is not directly tied to the signature, just as would be with in-person voting.
Like any system, if we think about it long enough, we can come up with a way to corrupt it. I worked one year in AZ as a poll worker…and the in-person voting system also may be corrupted. Possibility of corruption doesn’t mean corruption is happening or not. There were stories of corruption around in-person voting locally around the 2016 election. Probably no system is incorruptible, but we can make our systems more difficult to corrupt — but we have to balance the desire for incorruptibility with the purpose of the system, which is to be broadly available to the public. Without easy access to all eligible voters, our system has failed in its purpose from the get-go. If our system is not perfect, we can erect checks to help test for corruption (such as exit polls), and that can trigger, for example, manual recounts, and ensure we have ballots that can actually be recounted (i.e. with no possibility of “dangling chads.”)
I live in Phoenix, AZ. I know six people personally who have been positively diagnosed with covid-19. I am aware of several others who tested positive that are known by people I know. My attorney is one if them — her illness delayed a deadline in my case for a month. Her entire office came down with it. She is in her 40s, healthy, and survived. She already survived cancer and told me that being sick with covid-19 was worse than cancer treatments.
I do not yet know anyone personally who has died from covid-19, but I have many friends who are the age of my parents and older, so I expect that to happen. I do know people personally who know people who have died.
My children live half-time with their father, his girlfriend, and her daughter who is immunocompromised. Myself, my partner, and my children are trying to minimize our risk of getting the virus so that we don’t pass it onto that girl (she gets hospitalized from colds and would be unlikely to survive covid-19.) It is very frustrating to go to the grocery or hardware store and be faced with people who wear masks carelessly or loosely, allowing their breath in every direction. I don’t want the girl to die; I don’t want my children to have to deal with the emotional fallout from bringing the virus to her.
As a people we need to face the fact that we actually know very little about this virus. Yes, most people will survive it — but we do not yet know at what cost — we do not know what the long-term effects may be. We do not know if antibodies to covid-19 can be maintained by the human body over a long period of time. We don’t like to have so many unknowns — as a people we are unaccustomed to having such large unknowns. We live in an age of science where computers aid us in perfect calculations and help us to assess risk, where disease causes and cures can be targeted with great accuracy, where a GPS helps guide us to an unfamiliar address. This virus defies our expectations, and places us back into a world with risks we cannot accurately measure. This is very uncomfortable.
We don’t like the discomfort, and so to dispel it we tend to jump into one camp or another: “This is terrifying! Stay home! See no one! Wait for a vaccine!” Or: “This is not materially different from the flu! Get over it already! Masks are for sissies!” We tend to fall into polarized camps, and send nasty thoughts to those in the opposite camps.
But reality is not black or white, and neither camp has a full picture of the truth…because we are like the blind men (humans) in the room with an elephant…is the elephant like a snake or like a tree? The seeing (hu)man knows that all of the assessments by the blind are true, but none of their assertions paint an accurate picture of reality. We are the blind when it comes to covid-19. We don’t even have full assessments yet to even begin drawing an accurate picture of covid-19. We accomplish nothing useful when we argue for one view or another of covid-19 based on one set of data while ignoring other sets of data. Seeming contradictions of data on the virus will eventually be collated and help us to better understand what we face. We honor each other as humans when we listen to each other, let the scientists and others do their jobs to collect and collate the data, and learn from our disparate assessments, rather than arguing. We can also respect each other’s fears and do what we can to accommodate these fears in an uncertain time — wearing a mask correctly, honoring quarantine, etc. We do not know what challenges others face — and we cannot measure the value of a grandparent to a grandchild, or the value of an immunocompromised teen to those who know and love her.
