phoenixvoice
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Repentance (Kunstler)
I attend a very liberal church. It could be described as “woke.” Of course, it is very different when one voluntarily attends a place striving to overcome social biases vs. being a wage-slave and having it presented as a condition of employment. I understand that at my church, overcoming biases is an extension of traditional views of “Christian love.” However, what the folks at my well-intentioned church often fail to understand is that a their zeal to overcome certain biases needs to be coupled with broad strokes that bring disparate groups together. The church’s principles embody this idea, but people are imperfect and while they are busy accepting, understanding, and embracing specific sets of “traditionally marginalized” others (people of color, LGBTQI, etc.) they struggle to understand the “conservative uncle at Thanksgiving dinner” and don’t realize that this is where they most need to bring their “anti-bias” skills to bear. This frustrates me…for I see the economic pain shared in so many eyes, no matter their ethnicity nor sexual orientation, and see efforts such as “The Poor People’s Campaign” as an opportunity to bring disparate groups under one banner. It doesn’t matter our political stripes and gripes, whether we willingly mask or push against masking…most of us are adversely affected by the corruption and corrupting influences (“profit is king”) of the “really existing” economic system.And yet, at my church so full of well-intentioned people, working towards justice…they are mostly blinded to the ideas of “economic justice.” They are myopic to it, and while they organize food and clothing drives, and donate to charities benefitting the poor…they lack understanding that clothes and food — while needed — only address immediate needs, and do nothing to address the system that created the need. Charities — while helping many — do not (usually) address systemic problems either and can inadvertently (and perversely) perpetuate systemic problems as they strive to maintain (or grow) their own presence.
Regarding the electrical grid failures in Texas, I see no point in placing all of the blame in either the electrical generation companies nor the governing body that regulates them. Both “the Left” and “the Right” are able to see the collusion that occurs between the regulators and the companies that they regulate. Sure, the terms used differ ( “regulatory capture” vs. “crony capitalism,”) but the process and effect are identical. On the left I hear calls to double-down on regulation. On the right I hear calls to remove regulation and to allow the invisible hand of the market to fix the problem. Look, both more regulation and less regulation have already been tried out and failed. Our current “really existing” politico-economic system incentivizes major corporations to have practices that are not in the best interest of the mass of the people, and incentivizes government officials to collude with these corporations. Both the major corporations and the government are working to control the flow of information to the mass of people, and to disseminate corporate and political propaganda.
Currently, individuals, households, employees, small businesses, towns, cities, and counties have very little power as compared to the major corporations and federal government(s). We need a change that involves disempowering the current highly concentrated power centers and that makes power in our communities and nations and states more diffuse. What “-isms” we use to call such a change are not so important as that it happen. Personally, I prefer non-violent methods…not just because I like pacifism, because the results of a movement are also a product of the currents inside of a movement — a violent movement will codify violence into any change it brings about.
The framers of the US Constitution used what they called “checks and balances” to attempt to craft a functional government that would not trample the rights of the people. We have over 200 years of experience with this system. Sometimes it has served us well, and in some ways it has been undermined. The idea of “checks and balances” is valid — since power is going to be vested into a body, make sure there are counter-powers to ensure that the powers of that body do not become outsized. Perhaps the idea of “checks and balances” may be applied to areas in our societies/economies/polities to bring down concentrated power and craft systems where power is held more diffusely.
An obstacle to such a technology is that it has less room for major corporations to extract profit all along the way. This method of electrical generation would require no mining, no long pipelines (perhaps some short pipelines,) no byproduct that can be made into cheap plastic, no lithium batteries requiring replacement every 10 years, no nuclear waste requiring a permanent babysitter service. It might even be adaptable to inland areas with large salt deposits — near inland “salt lakes” or dry ancient seas.
A municipal electric utility might opt for including this method of electrical generation, as there is no profit motive.
I understand that wood burning may be prohibited in some areas — but that IS my point. As a people, resiliency is not one of our values. Our economic system does not value resiliency, nor does it value the principles of conservation. When a system denies the possibility of resiliency to the people, it forces the people to be in a dependent position. When people are dependent, it is easy to extract “rent” from them. And we find ourselves in a neofeudal distopia.
@Kultsommer
It is often helpful to get below the surface of emotionally charged terms, such as “socialism,” and examine the details of how a proposed system would work before vetoing it out of hand.As a thought experiment, get rid of all preconceived ideas of “capitalism” or “socialism,” look at they types of power generation, storage, etc. that are available — or could be available (even a few of Tesla’s powerwalls) — and come up with a system that can reliably deliver power to the people of Texas, even when the weather gives them a deep freeze. Then, take a historical survey of all systems used throughout the world to supply power — Texas’ current system, small municipal power systems, whatever is used in in Russia, in China, in Europe, in other US states, anywhere throughout the world, and so forth, and from the historical record determine which system(s) (or combination of systems) can deliver the power that Texas needs reliably and at a cost to those who need it that they can bear to pay.
The word “socialism” and the name “Karl Marx” have been deliberately equated with tyranny and failed systems AND at the same time used to describe functional systems that don’t bring economic elites the control and profit that they wish to extract. This way, someone like you will see the appellation “socialism” and automatically fail to drill down and examine the actual workings of the system being described, fail to evaluate whether the system is functional and meets up to your standards. Is a small municipal power system “socialism (= tyranny)”? Or is a small municipal power system an expression of “republican democracy” where residents of the city vote for city councilors who vote together to determine the guidance of the city’s power system, and hire its managers and employees?
Personally, I am opposed to “tyranny” in all its flavors. When corporate executives make all of the decisions about the electrical grid in a state and the people have little to no influence through their elected representatives over something that they need in order to survive a weather event that everyone knew would eventually befall them…that is tyranny. Just like when the East India Company was granted the power in the 1770s to be the only seller of tea (through a tax system) in the American Colonies, and since tea was a basic commodity many in Boston rebelled. And electricity during freezing weather is a lot more important to people’s well-being than tea.
Yup. Lithium batteries in large quantities are bad news. “When will they ever learn, when will they ever learn?”
I liked the salt water battery idea for homes. Non-toxic. But it appears the company has gone out of business, although the batteries can be obtained second hand.
When are we going to learn that our technologies must not pollute the planet? When are we going to learn to work with biological systems rather than at odds with them, rather than trying to be their “master?” When are we going to learn that coming up with one dominant (planet wide) solution to a problem — say, battery powered powered cars for locomoting individuals and small groups — does not build resiliency? Resilient systems are built with multiple ways to solve problems, with reserves, with fallback methods and options, with an understanding that a solution for one clime may not be the solution for another clime. Live near a forest? A wood frame house with wood siding and shingles may be a good option. Live in a desert? Consider adobe and cement (aircrete is interesting) and bricks.
Trying this week to convince my ex and the father of my three kids to allow our 13 year old “gifted” daughter to go back to in-person school when the schools reopen for 4th quarter. Last year she was a “straight A” student. She hates online school. She has an F, two Ds, and a C in her core classes…and this despite the fact that the school district, in an effort not to penalize students with problems accessing technology, created a weird grading system for homework/classwork where 50% credit is given for assignments that are not turned in — in a system designed so no one can fail, she is still managing to fail one class.
My gratitude all around to Raul, John Day, etc., which has helped me to have a clear head regarding Covid-19…and to understand that the risk to a healthy child is minimal.
@Dr D…I find the energy crises in TX to be mostly a problem of resiliency. It isn’t profitable to build resilient systems, and so it isn’t done until and unless enough lives are devastated for people to pressure that resiliency to be put into place. If pipelines are susceptible to freezing, then natural gas fired plants should have capacity for enough on site storage to supply sufficient electricity for a few days. If turbines are susceptible to freezing as well as lack of wind, then compensatory systems must be put in place for when that happens. Personally, I detest noisy, smelly gasoline generators, but am intrigued by the progress made in non-toxic salt water batteries as a means of storing energy for home use. And, I don’t find it unreasonable for a home to have a fireplace or wood stove as a back up to typical home heating systems…for most folks being without electricity is an inconvenience, but with adequate heat during winter they’ll be alright.
Resiliency ideally occurs at all levels — not just on the level of the electrical grid. I “lean left” and I do believe that problems should be tackled on community levels, and individuals not left completely to fend for themselves…but individuals and households also share responsibility for their own resiliency, and should have enough forethought to be able to get through a day in the dead of winter without power (or, in Phoenix, through the heat of an afternoon at 115 degrees.). If an individual cannot do this alone, then that person should have a plan of where to go to wait it out and how to get there, or be cooperatively involved with a group that does such planning.
I am agnostic as to whether or not mask wearing can turn droplets into aerosols. However, when mask wearing became the norm in Maricopa County in AZ (most populous county, home of Phoenix,) due to local city and county regulations, infection levels dropped two weeks afterwards.
It troubles me greatly when statements are made that generalize cherry picked facts to support an opinion. I find this happening in the political sphere frequently. (Trump’s second impeachment is full of this sort of thing).
Now, did mask wearing cause this change in number of daily Covid infections? Without more data it is impossible to know clearly, perhaps folks just took social distancing in general more seriously? However, *this* data suggests that masks help curb the spread. Other data may be contradictory or neutral. By examining all of the data systematically we begin to approach “what is real.”
Yes.
And let’s manufacture in a big way again with workers cooperatives so that economic power is distributed throughout our economy, rather than closely held by a relatively small number of players at the top of business and government.
Mr House –
So true! You have me grinning.One of the challenges the non-elites face is how to respond in concert to this situation where so few control the wealth and power of the world and return some power to themselves. To do this, the non-elites need to be able to communicate with one another, need to be able to agree on who and what is the problem exactly. “Wealthy billionaires and their funded lackeys in government” is a viable start. “Bill Gates wants to chip you,” “Count Dracula,” and “the boogeyman” are too ephemeral for the focus required. However…remembering a conversation with a friend last week who thought of Bill Gates as “that nice guy with the foundation” — I suppose “Bill Gates wants to chip you” will help dislodge the “nice guy” viewpoint from at least a subset of the population, which helps us get to the problem of wealthy billionaires and their lackeys.
The Microsoft company has made some beneficial contributions to mankind…but that doesn’t mean that Bill Gates (one man) should have more wealth and power and influence than the government representing the 112 million people of South Africa.
The last time I looked at the annual deaths in the US was back in November. It was trending significantly higher than 2019, however, the the 2019 annual death was apparently a bit lower than average. Hence, it was difficult to draw definitive conclusions one way or the other.
I have friends and clients living in a local retirement community. Those who passed in the prior week are listed in the community’s weekly newsletter. It was brought to my attention last week that while this community of several thousand usually has 1-3 deaths per week. Now, they have 7 or more deaths per week. Last week, there were 10 deaths. These numbers are *not* manipulated, not reported to a news agency, and only displayed in aggregate on the state’s Covid dashboard.
This past week, residents were given access to the first dose of the Moderna vaccine, and all those I interact with were vaccinated. It will be interesting to see what happens to the death rate there in the next few months.
“ Okay, the election’s stolen and it was. The lower levels from the county chair to the Chief of the Supreme court know for a fact that it was the safest, most legit election ever because everyone refused to look, to recount, or to move any evidence into a courtroom. Any courtroom.”
Exactly.
Well said, Dr D
CNN spot
Okay, so you’re saying that you will combat extremism by preventing extremist voices. Chicken and egg.CNN is supposing that echo chambers *cause* extremism…sure, echo chambers can fan discontent into extremism, but the root causes are disenchantment with the status quo: economic disparity, lack of meaningful work, dissolution of family, cultural, and community bonds, the emphasis in capitalism of always needing products to find fulfillment, poverty, a dearth of opportunity, difficulty in obtaining basic healthcare, unhealthy foods, lack of connection with the natural world, etc., etc.
Propaganda cannot fix social ills. Prozac can’t either.
Regarding food insecurity in the US, I’m always wondering how these terms are being explicitly defined. My household probably falls into the statistic of “food insecure” because we have been on food stamps and utilizing food banks for 8 years. (My ex lost his job due to alcoholism back then…with the ensuing chaos and trauma for myself and the children, I have chosen to prioritize my children’s well-being and my own psychological healing over pursuit of a “normal” income…as a result, my income is very low, our lives are stable, and I have learned to manage PTSD.) *Because* of food stamps and food banks we have plenty of food, and I am even able to accommodate for picky eaters (not uncommon when kids have been through a lot of emotional trauma.)
To suggest that my household ever goes hungry is a lie, but it is true that without the support of food stamps and food pantries the risk is there.
@Dr D
After seeing Covid sweep through my own household and that of my sister and parents, yes, I agree that most folks can shrug Covid off. Out of 14 people, only one had a case that was bad enough to not be shrugged off, and my partner’s case wasn’t bad enough to go to a hospital — it was just odd for him to have intermittent fevers and exhaustion for 9 days straight.For me, the greatest unknown is not whether or not the CDC’s model about community immunity is accurate or not, but rather how the immunity for Covid plays out over the ensuing months and years. If I get it once, am I likely to get it again? If I get it again, will it be about the same as the first time, not as bad, or worse? Is my immunity over time benefitted by encountering it often in the community — continually boosting my immunity whilst I am unaware? (Maybe I should wear ill-fitting masks at the grocery store on purpose to keep up my immunity!) If I get it again and it is very mild will I be contagious? I still have vulnerable people in my circle who have not had it, and while I may be able to handle Covid easily, I am willing to undergo minor inconvenience to prevent transmission to those who are vulnerable. Of course…it is my understanding that we lack the data to answer any of these questions definitively. I am now 3 months post-Covid and I ponder these questions regularly, trying to decide how best to conduct myself in light of Covid.
I know 4 people who have been vaccinated against Covid. 2 are middle-aged, two are in their 80s. I know the woman in her 80s best, and asked her about it. She had minor pain in the arm that received the injection the next day. I am curious how this will play out.
The Pissarro piece reminds me of looking out a rain-spattered window…all the lines are in distinct, but I know what I’m looking at.
I prefer a pool of free expression with all of the chaos and cacophony it generates over a clearly stated, top-down corporate/government controlled “official narrative” every day of the week. 😉
And how many people answer the AUDIT questions truthfully? My ex, in the midst of raging alcoholism, would have lied through his teeth. He believes in telling people what they want to hear or ought to hear. (He even explains this to our kids — explaining why he just told lies to medical personnel on their behalf. Who are now teens, are perplexed by this logic, and then tell me about it later because it makes no sense to them.)
“He was 15” That explains the devotion of the portrait. I see it in my teen children. He loved his mother and thought the world of her.
@ John Day — I hadn’t seen anything indicating Covid in US prior to Dec 2019. Sounds like something worth looking at — do you have links?
About Jimmy Dore…
Anyone who watches his program with some regularity can see that Dore is authentic. He gets emotional over issues, and can barely contain his emotion. Carried away with emotion he sometimes overstates or exaggerates and uses expletives…(which is why I don’t watch him as much as I might…can’t confuse my teens about the appropriateness of expletives in the home.)@ Mr house
WaPo article: Yikes! What a terrible bit of propaganda
I was raised Mormon, left that faith, but find that I retain some of what I was taught as a child. There is a quote from the founder of the Mormon faith that is very applicable to this situation: “I teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves.“. (It is a very “American” grown faith, in some ways.)
It isn’t the government’s job to tell us all what do. It *is* the government’s job to collate relevant information, disseminate the information, make recommendations, etc. Fund research? Yes. Tell us the results of the research? Yes. The media tell us the results as well, which helps promote honesty in government officials. Mask mandates? In some situations, yes. Remove your liberty for violating a mask mandate? No. And if the government can’t do eminent domain without due compensation to the current property owners the government also shouldn’t be able to shut down someone’s business during a pandemic without due compensation. (There are many forms this compensation could take, however, any such compensation should do its best to ensure that when the business is allowed to operate normally again that it is in an essentially equal or better position than when it was shut down/restricted.).
It is the public’s job to regulate itself. Government guidance exists for those who want the easy way out — they are too busy to look at the information and use it to inform their daily activities and prefer to simply follow a preset code of rules. This is not a bad thing, it is practical. There is a simplicity in top down models — ask any parent. But the best models are unique to those involved and take time to develop, incorporating the minutiae of the personalities, strengths, weaknesses, and vulnerabilities of the people involved.
In an indoor public space I don’t have the time or care to have a conversation with all present about their medical vulnerabilities and those of the individuals with whom the interact with regularly. Much more practical to just wear a mask.
With those I live with, whether or not I can have those conversations speaks to the quality of the relationships and our communication skills. It is not always easy. I should know. It is how I caught Covid. (!)
@ Mr House
First Twitter video — spot on, and I am heartened to live in a world with this man in it. We need this kind of energy to push back against what is going on. And he is right, this is bigger than Democrats and Republicans.2nd Twitter video — I disagree with this woman and the argument that she makes. Indoor public mask wearing *does not* directly compare with compulsory kidney harvesting. This is where emotion starts carrying people away. Indoor public mask wearing during a pandemic (at least for me) falls under the category of “civil society” — that set of general rules (lateral rules, not top down rules) that people generally follow to show a minimum of respect to others. The biggest detriment to wearing masks that I find is that it is much more difficult to read facial expressions. The biggest advantage to wearing them in cold weather is that they work like a scarf but stay in place much more securely.
It would be helpful for this woman to realize that what she (likely) actually fears is an erosion of her personal liberties. This erosion has been going on for a long time and is accelerating through this pandemic. Her fear of personal liberty erosion is justified — but using indoor public mask wearing during a pandemic is a very poor way to articulate her angst. A lot of people see mask wearing during a pandemic like I do, and wore masks when it was a request, and not a mandate. Mask wearing indoors seems like common sense, like a logical concession for civil society. When we listen to her, she sounds a little crazy. The guy in the first video communicated his concerns much more effectively — clearly stated that he just wants to be able to live his life and continue his livelihood. This desire resonates very broadly.
@ mr roboto
Thx for article. In my county, the first wave of Covid peaked right after the mask mandates went into effect. They have remained, and we have had no lockdowns after the initial few weeks. Numbers are climbing…but hospitals are not overwhelmed. Covid is serious for some — and it is still difficult to predict in advance who will be seriously affected. (How many people actually know that they are low in vitamin D?)It has been very nice for the past two months to rely on my own acquired immunity to Covid and not worry about how well my mask actually fits. The mask is there because I have no desire to explain to all I come in contact with that I’m currently immune, I beat Covid. With family, close friends, and long-time clients I ditch the damn mask.
It is my view that “to mask or not to mask” has simply become a focal point for pent-up social unrest and frustration. We know that we are endlessly surveilled by our government and Big Tech. Both are interested in social control, including steering how we spend our incomes. Standards of living are declining. We lack a coherent movement to express and give definition to the public’s brewing rage. So that rage pops out in odd ways. “Woke” people censor those who think differently, the “woke” seemingly incapable of seeing the irony of their behavior. People fuss about public mask wearing when a few neighbors are struggling with a strange new illness. BLM protests align with *some* of the real problems people are facing, which sparks huge protests, and also property destruction and some violence because the emotional undercurrent is tremendous and some do not find adequate catharsis in non-violent protest. (At the same time, law enforcement is also exacerbating the issue by displaying the same behavior that contributed to the emotion driving the protests.). All the while, the wealthy and elected “steerers” are doing all they can to personally enrich themselves from all that transpires.
The image with the facts about Gaddafi really illustrates the point. Why was Gaddafi assassinated and Libya plunged into lawlessness? Because the “steerers” are desperately terrified of the masses learning that the economic pie could be sliced differently, that the masses could get a larger slice. Today’s “steerers” are as narcissistic and ego-driven as the French social “steerers” were in 1789. The French Revolution was a bloodbath. I hope we can avoid that path while still effecting change.
(BTW, please don’t assume that the masses getting a larger slice of the economic pie must mean an autocratic, top-down government that confiscates property, profits, and/or income and redistributes wealth. I abhor unilateral top-down control. I explore lateral and bottom-up ways to generate and initially distribute wealth that tends toward wealth and resource-control being well-dispersed.)
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.
