CoVid Mission Shift

Doctors and scientists are not and should not act as if they are politicians.  Politicians are not and should not act as if they are doctors.  But that is exactly what is going on with CoVid, and it is a disaster.

Let me begin by saying that I believe CoVid is very real and very dangerous.  It is not the flu.  It may or may not have a death rate similar to the flu.  But its transmission is far different from the flu and it can and does kill, it can and does spread more easily than the flu, and its long term effects are unknown.  Even with a vaccine it will likely be with us forever.

That being said, the shut down hysteria is ridiculous and is based in politics far more than it is in science.

Let’s briefly review.  When the virus first arrived from China we knew nothing about it except that it seemed to spread easily and that it killed people.  People who were severely infected with the virus needed ICU care and ventilators.  We were concerned that there might not be enough beds or ventilators, so, the scientists suggested that we do something to “slow the spread.”

“Slow the spread” never meant eradicate the virus.  It meant try to keep the rate of spread slower than it was so that the hospitals would not be overloaded and we would not run out of ventilators.  A variety of measures were taken to slow the spread in the early spring.  There were major shutdowns. We even provided unemployment bonuses to encourage people not to come to work.  We watched the daily numbers on our TV screens.  We slowed the spread and the threat of overtaxing our resources was eliminated, in part because of the slower spread and in part because of the President’s efforts to join with industry and manufacture ventilators and other needed supplies.

Up to this point, things seemed to make sense given what we knew about the virus.  There were the expected attacks on the President – he acted too fast/too slow in shutting things down, closing entry from infected countries, etc, but for the most part we accomplished the goal.  We slowed the spread and the medical effects of the virus became manageable.

But then something happened.  We had a mission shift.  As people began to venture out, some still got the virus.  The Democrats said Trump was killing people.  The media became hysterical.  The virus was still here.  Somehow, we seemed to think that the “slow the spread” guidelines should have completely rid us of the virus. 

Democrats loved this – they could blame Trump that the virus is still here while at the same time attacking everything he has done.  Their candidate, Hidin’ Biden, could sit in his basement and read prepared critiques while pointing to numbers saying people are still dying.  This of course easily combines with the media’s love for, and talent in, creating hysteria.  As the disease continues to spread the idea of uncertainty is pushed; and, with uncertainty comes not only hysteria, but also a need to blame someone – the media and the Democrats point us to the perfect target – Trump. 

And, what a wonderful campaign tool to be used by a Party that needs to hide its candidate from public scrutiny.  Make Trump and other Republicans out to be unconcerned about the citizenry if they go outside to campaign.  Trump should not have rallies; he should not travel or make presidential appearances.  People should not be allowed to gather at places like conservative churches.  Presidential debates are being rescheduled (and I for one expect that Biden will find a CoVid reason to ultimately cancel).  We must have full mail in voting (which, unlike absentee mailed votes is fraught with the potential for abuse and fraud) because going outside to vote is too risky.  This at the same time as the Democrats have no problems with protestors and rioters gathering in large numbers to assert Progressive demands and attack traditional values as well as public property and private businesses. (New Mexico’s Governor said that door-to-door campaigning “is just a terrible idea in a CoVid world,” while asserting there is “no data linking political protests to outbreaks of the disease.”)  How convenient – Trump and conservative activities bad, Progressive activities good. 

And so we see a variety of ridiculous prohibitions put into place against the backdrop of fear and hysteria over the simple and always expected fact that CoVid is still with us.

How can a governor (NM) order breweries open but bars closed?  Either getting together in a room for a drink heightens the risk of CoVId or it does not.  But, it is a younger, more left leaning crowd that generally frequents breweries.  Why does Ohio require bars to close at 11 – does CoVid suddenly become more aggressive later in the evening?  Why can a professional soccer team in New Mexico continue to play while high school and college soccer are banned?  Why are crowded planes OK but theaters must stay closed?  Why is it OK for Dr. Fauci to remove his mask when sitting next to two other individuals in the baseball stands, but not OK for someone to not wear a mask when they are walking alone on an outside trail?  Why is it OK to gather with or without masks to assault federal property, but not ok to sing a song in church? 

These and many other similar questions suggest that the current shut downs along with the current distancing and mask wearing requirements are more about furthering one or another agenda than serving some medical or scientific purpose.  If masks are necessary to protect us, then orders to wear masks should be without exception.  If bars are a breeding ground for CoVid, then all bars should be fully closed.  The fact that rules that are allegedly to protect the public health are fraught with exceptions belies their stated purpose and strongly suggests a different and likely political purpose instead.

There is no way to fully prevent CoVid, to guarantee that no one will become infected.  That is the fact, and that is the problem.  The media has ginned people up to become hysterical over that fact.  The scientists, some of whom seem to enjoy the limelight, like to make predictions or tell us what they think we should do.  The politicians use data and recommendations selectively to make demands that have nothing to do with CoVid.  And, if the Democrats can, they will keep this going until the election. 

Dr. Fauci yesterday suggested goggles and face shields in addition to masks.  Really?  Are we all going to let them put us in hazmat suits before this is over?  A doctor suggests all sorts of things to prevent risks.  Our doctors tell us what to eat for our heart, our weight, etc.  Sometimes we follow their advice, sometimes we don’t.  Sometimes Leftist politicians try to make those decisions for us (for example, banning large soft drinks).  But we have never let our doctors, in conjunction with our politicians, put us in a bubble. 

A bubble is where we likely need to stay for the rest of our lives if we are to be protected with certainty from CoVid.  But that is also where we need to be if we are to be protected from life’s many dangers – auto accidents, flu, broken bones, being attacked, infecting a loved one with any number of diseases we might contract, etc. 

Until CoVid, we seemed capable of entering life’s ebb and flow based on our own assessments of our own individual circumstances and risks.  Yet, suddenly, our politicians seem to think they must pick and choose when and where we can go, with whom, and what we should wear.  And we let them.  And we fail to see that what they are really doing is putting into place rules and behaviors and laws that in the end have nothing to do with CoVid but with their own policies.  Things like guaranteed minimum wage, guaranteed income, general health care criteria, gun laws, tax bases, school programs, and many other items on political wish lists should not be attached in any way to CoVid.  Nor should efforts to modify or direct individual human behavior and individual choices and decisions about what activities are better or worse.  Efforts to usurp power to control individual behavior should not be allowed without appropriate Constitutional or legislative authority.

Here is what I think.  We need to understand that doctors give ADVICE which they think is in our best interests.  When the doctor is not our personal doctor we must add to that advice and weigh with it our knowledge of our own personal circumstances.  And, added to that and weighed with it is that no doctor or scientist is yet fully knowledgeable about CoVid or its possible effects. 

Doctors along with us need to remember that while they are likely more informed than us about medical issues and about CoVid, that does not make them actually better than us or give them a right to order or control our behavior.

We must also understand that the politicians are not our doctors.  They have their own agendas and the CoVid is simply something that they are using to further those agendas and their own quest for power. 

CoVid is a part of our world and we must learn to live with it, not hide from it.  We must take the precautions that fit our personal circumstances and which we all, as members of a society, can reasonably take as part of our concern for our fellows.  This generally includes a choice to social distance and wear a mask, wash our hands, and avoid others when we are not feeling well.  We can decide for ourselves what venues and gatherings are appropriate to attend or not attend.  We do not need a Big Brother to order our choices for us and we should not suggest that we cede our personal liberties to the State.

Uncertainty is a part of life, and CoVid is now a part of that uncertainty.  We must not let the doctors, the scientists, the politicians, or the media use that uncertainty to divert us from our own ability to act reasonably and make our own decisions.  There is no reason to be hysterical.  CoVid, its risks, and its unknowns are just another part of life’s many uncertainties, uncertainties that our freedoms allow and demand us to navigate on our own.  Seeking relief from those uncertainties by turning our freedom of choice over to others provides only the certainty that we will lose our freedom to be who we are.

 

 

Star Chamber Revisited

“This is a hearing.  I thought I was the one who was supposed to be heard.”

These words were spoken by Attorney General Barr several hours into his “testimony” at today’s House Judiciary Oversight Committee hearing where he was an invited and voluntary witness.  Nearly every Democrat, after making a statement or accusing AG Barr of a litany of bad acts, “reclaimed their time” and refused to allow him to answer or even comment.  Rather, they used their full time for their own speeches.

Such hearings are usually at least described as an opportunity for the committee members to gain information from their witness.  Hearings these days are often contentious, but the witness is usually allowed to answer questions and accusations.  Congress people have a limited time (usually 5 minutes) to question the witness and the witness is allowed to answer.  If a question is posed at the end of the allotted time, the Chair allows the witness to answer.

Not today.  Chairman Nadler even initially denied the witness’s request for a 5 minute break.  I felt like I was watching not the United States Government in action, but a hearing in the Star Chamber.  And it made me feel sickened and nauseous to see this behavior in the Congress of the United States of America.

One of my first published law review articles dealt with the First Amendment and specifically the free and open exchange of speech and press.  As part of the history leading up to the issues addressed, I researched the British Star Chamber, including looking at antique books containing English texts from the 13^th century.

Beginning with the Magna Carta in 1215, there was an increasingly intensified struggle in England for recognition by the crown of the fundamental freedoms of speech and press.  In 1275 a statute was enacted in England that provided for the imprisonment of anyone disseminating false “tales” resulting in discord between the king and the people.  The statute was rewritten several times through the 16^th century with re-enactments broadening the offense.  The Court of Star Chamber was created to administer the statute.

Star Chamber was a royal court and as such was not hampered by things such as rules of evidence or procedural safeguards. While originally designed to enforce law, it became synonymous with social and political oppression through the arbitrary use and abuse of the power it wielded. Amongst other things, the Star Chamber could inflict any punishment short of death.  It summoned juries before it when they rendered verdicts disagreeable to the government, and fined and imprisoned them. It spread terrorism among those who were called to do constitutional acts.  The Star Chamber’s tyranny was ultimately abolished in 1641. 

Honestly, as I watched the Democrats’ verbal tirades against Attorney General Barr, as I watched them refuse to let him speak, as I watched them use their time designed for questioning a witness to instead berate the entire Trump administration, often using a multitude of false statements, I couldn’t help but see a Star Chamber performing before my very eyes in 2020 America.

I really think every American should watch this performance.  Not because it is pleasant, but because you will see how the Democrats actually behave, despite their words to the contrary.  You will see them make or assert incorrect facts, use them to accuse the Attorney General of something, then refuse to let the AG speak.  You will see Chairman Nadler not allow the AG to finish an answer, a courtesy that most committee chairs afford to witnesses.  You will see the chairman refuse to take points of order about this.  You will see on the few occasions when the AG is allowed to answer and says something like “I will follow the law” that the Democrats assert that is not an “appropriate” answer and hence accuse him of failing to answer. 

Yes, this is America, but in this Democrat majority hearing it is apparently wrong for the Attorney General of the United States to say that he will follow the law.  Similarly, he is attacked for following the principles of federalism that govern our country and which place him in charge of enforcing federal law but leave Governors to address laws and issues of their individual states. 

Attorney General Barr was not really summoned to provide information.  The Democrats did not want to hear from him.  They summoned him because they do not like his policies – policies that are perfectly legitimate.  They summoned him because they do not like the President for whom he serves as AG.  They summoned him so they could have someone to throw their hateful campaign rhetoric at. 

Like the Star Chamber summoning juries whose verdicts they found disagreeable, AG Barr was summoned because his actions are to the Democrats disagreeable.  Actions like protecting federal property, enforcing federal law, calling violent riots out for what they are – not the peaceful protests that the Democrats would have us see. 

The Star Chamber fined and imprisoned those who disagreed with them.  I am sure that the Democrats would do that to Barr and many other Republicans if they could (and, indeed we have far too many instances of them using false information to go after and even imprison political rivals).  Today they did what they could in an effort to silence any dissent from their views and their agenda – they spent nearly 5 hours verbally attacking a good public servant.

Honestly, I have watched many Congressional hearings over the years beginning with Watergate.  They are often contentious.  But NEVER have I seen anything as appalling as this.  But this is what the Democrats have become.  They are not interested in hearing any view, any fact, any law, any statement whatsoever that contradicts their narrative and their agenda.  This is not an American approach to governing; it is that of an authoritarian dictatorship. 

The behavior of the Democrats should sicken every American.  I hope that many will watch this spectacle in its entirety.  I hope that before the November election that everyone gives serious thought to what giving the Democrats any more power would mean for this country. 

Here is the link to video of today’s hearing.   LINK

 

The Court of the Star Chamber by Cecil Doughty

Clear as Mud

I recently read an op-ed column that began: “It is clear we have real racial problems in this country….”

Now, as a writer myself I understand that sometimes we begin with phrases like this, often called “throat clearing” phrases, that are simply a way to get us started.  But, that being said, my immediate reaction to this was “No, it is not clear and by the way, do we really have real racial problems in this country?” 

My next thought is, “No, I don’t think so.”  What we do have is a lot of people who don’t have the life that they would like to have and/or who are jealous of some of the lives of others.   We have people who like to blame others for their own discontent.  Those things are, of course, part of human nature.

But what we also have are people who use the discontent of others to agitate and create anger and hate which they then use not to remedy the discontented but to further their own gain.  Indeed, this is the classic tactic of Marxism and Socialism and even of community organizing. Rather than encouraging self-examination or reminding that life is not fair, they will encourage seeing individual dissatisfactions as resulting from a larger, group oppression of some sort. 

Find a common dissatisfaction, find someone to blame, agitate the dissatisfied to attack the one who has been assigned the blame.  The result may improve the lives of the dissatisfied temporarily, but its real goal is to make the dissatisfied indebted to the agitator.

The Democrats have become masters at this.  They create identity groups and then use them until they are no longer useful.  We had the pussy-hat marches a couple of years ago, we had the many LGBTQ protests and demands.  Now we have the BLM organization, pushed by progressives and other Leftists who, seeing an opportunity in George Floyd’s death, have fomented anti-white, anti-law enforcement, anti-rule of law and Constitution, anti-American sentiment, leading to the devastation of many cities in this country.  Their goal is not to end racism but to end the presidency of Donald Trump and to push this country ever closer to a complete restructuring into socialism.

This is not racism.  This is not a racial problem.  This is a political problem created by very skillful politicians.  Now before you come to send me to a reeducation camp, I am not saying that racism does not exist.  It does, it always has, and it always will.  It is human nature to be wary of those different from us, whether in behavior or skin color or dress or any number of things.  Sometimes that wariness will cross the line and become racist.  But that does not mean that the country has a racial problem. 

It does mean that we have fallen into the divisive tribalism of identity politics.  And, if the agitated identity group is a particular race, then that group will see its oppression as racist.  And if their blame target is a governmental system, then they will assert that the system is racist.  But that does not make it so. 

Racism is not just being aware that someone is in some way different from oneself.  Racism is “the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another.”  There was a time in this country, as well as in much of the world, when Black people were considered in some way less than human or at least inferior enough to justify slave-holding.  There was a time when Blacks could not mix with Whites in any way, not even at the drinking fountain. 

In large part due to our form of democracy and our Constitution we were able to move through and forward from those times.  We acknowledged the errors and did what we could to make the way forward better.  We passed civil rights legislation.  We created things like affirmative action.  We integrated schools.  Some people did better with these new opportunities than did others.

But one group who has always found something to their own advantage in Black issues is the Democrats.  As the civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s presented Blacks with opportunities to move forward, the Democrats also saw an opportunity to create a permanent underclass of supportive voters. 

By creating entitlements and encouraging Blacks to become permanently dependent on those entitlements the Democrats were able to keep them “in their place.”  That is, entitlement dependence has a way of destroying motivation and independence.  It becomes necessary to keep the benefactor in power so as not to lose one’s benefits.  And, coexistent with this loss of self is the belief that one is somehow “less than” and not able to do as well as others.  One comes to accept one’s fate as somehow second class.

With that second class feeling comes discontent.  Discontent that is ripe to be agitated into anger and a belief that one has been and is being discriminated against.  And that, I think, is what we are really seeing when we say that “it is clear we have racial problems.”

But that is not a racial problem.  Those who have been enticed into becoming an underclass are now grouped into an identity class and directed toward a target to blame for their discontent.  That target is “racism”, now asserted to be systemic and hence anything or anyone associated with or supportive of traditional American institutions.

This is false racism, and it is a problem.  Those who are against the traditional American system of government are using the cover of racism to further their own anti-American agenda.  “Racism” is the smoke screen; it is the weapon that is being aimed at America.  But America, while it does have racists, is not itself racist.  And, if anyone would read its history and the words of its founders (before those books are all burned along with the statues), they would see that this country’s founding ideals were not racist.  Even if the racism that accompanied the acceptance of slavery was once a part of the system, it is not now. 

I think the better statement would be, “It is clear we have a real anti-American problem within this country.”  That is, we have a significant group who do not believe in or support our form of government and our Constitution.  Their goal is to entirely dismantle it, in essence destroy the soul that is America, and then remake it into something else.  The “racial problems” are asserted and then encouraged; they are a part of the identity politics which are a key tool in the attacks designed to deconstruct America.

So, while there may be individual acts of racism against which we should all speak out, the bigger and more pervasive problem is the misuse of a manufactured and false “institutionalized” racism to attack America.  And, in a way, that is the real racism – the methods used by Democrats to first create a dependent underclass and then to agitate that group into an identity political battalion being used to further the Left’s quest for power and domination.

 

Democrat Dreams, American Nightmare

Recently I have been going through old blog posts in an attempt to organize them by primary topic.  The interesting thing is that when I read posts from 2017 their theme and argument are almost identical to those I write currently:  the destructive nature of identity politics; the rise of socialism; the lack of deep, independent, and objective thought and its companion lack of education; the Constitution and basic American principles; fact vs. narrative; the First Amendment; Freedom vs. entitlements; political hatred and attacks; the press and propaganda; etc.

The immediate context in which these appear may change, but the basic issues are the same.  It’s like when a couple keeps having the same arguments over and over and at some point someone suggests why don’t you just say Argument A, or B, or C and be done with it.  Really, I could just repost and repost by topic.

But what is so troubling about this is that I can’t help but wonder when will everyone wake up?  And when they do will it be too late?  That is, many people either did not see or chose not to see what I was writing about in 2017.  Their blindness continues today.  I have written about being blinded by hatred.  Is that it?  Is it disbelief?  Or is it just really good propaganda?

Once I have gone through the posts from the start of this blog, I will post an index by key topics (this takes time, so don’t expect it immediately).  Once that is posted, I encourage everyone to read an entire topic group.  It is indeed frightening that 3 ½ years ago I began pointing out the very same things that I write about today.

It’s interesting that a key tactic used by Democrats is the fomenting of hysteria.   By now we should understand that the Democrats and other Trump haters will suggest some fictional scenario, then begin to state the hypothetical as if it were a fact, and then foment hysteria about what was once just a fiction in someone’s head. 

The most obvious examples are the Russian Investigation begun with the hypothetical “what if Trump colluded with Russia to win the election?”  and the impeachment which began with the hypothetical “what if instead of the typical conversation between leaders about the possible wrongdoing by a former government official or his son, it was an abuse of power?”  The hysteria of these two suggestions led to years of investigation based upon often false and manufactured evidence and cost the taxpayers millions of dollars. 

The Democrats and their symbiotic partner the media become hysterical about “what ifs” as they treat them as fact and then wail about the horrors of Trump having done the parade of horribles that they have created.  The intent, of course, is to turn the country against the President, thus furthering the agenda of the Democrats. 

One of the current fears that the Democrats are mongering is that we are in imminent danger of having storm troopers roaming our streets and the President enforcing law and order through martial law nationwide.  Where does this come from?  It seems to have begun when the President legitimately sent Federal troops to protect Federal buildings being vandalized and attacked by rioters in Portland.  This is not only his right to do, but also his duty to protect the People’s Federal property.  It is not the act of some authoritarian dictator.  Yet that is what the Democrats would have us believe.

In Albuquerque, NM, where crime statistics compete with Chicago (fewer murders but far more overall violent crimes including assault and rape as well as murder), the President is sending additional Federal investigators to help those already there as well as local law enforcement to participate in Operation Legend which investigates major crimes and gang violence.  These federal agents are not “storm troopers.”  While officers on the ground for the most part welcome the help, many Democrat politicians including the city’s mayor, have pronounced their skepticism that these are not really storm troopers along with their belief that the President actually intends to create another Portland (no matter that Portland’s current situation was created by violent agitators and their Democrat supporters). 

This is consistent with the typical rhetoric we regularly get from Democrats around the country.  They suggest that Trump will become a dictator, then turn that suggestion into the assertion that his intention is to do so.  This argument in one form or another has been with us since Trump’s election.  He was going to ruin every one of their identity groups’ lives.  The Blacks would be sent back to slavery or worse.  But, instead, Trump gave them the best economic outlook they have ever had in this country.  Women’s rights, Hispanic rights, LGBTQ rights, and all the others have not suffered the horrible consequences that the Democrats predicted; instead, at best things remain for them the same, but for most their lives and their future possibilities have improved, even if currently stalled by CoVid.

No matter.  Another election is coming, and hysteria must be fomented once again, this time not with the hope of removing Trump from office before the end of his first term, but from keeping him from being re-elected.  So, the fear mongers go into overdrive.  And, they are of course helped by the uncomfortable uncertainty that prevails due to CoVid, exacerbated by the media that spends at least half its time hyping the many statistics of CoVid, especially those  that are potentially frightening – deaths, rising positives, availability of a variety of equipment, the dangers of leaving your house.   People are already in fear of this unknown enemy and the Democrats would love to have people become as hysterical as possible and then blame their discomfort on Trump. 

Here are a few simplified examples of how a speculation or suggestion develops into a rhetorical assertion:

• What if Trump were to declare martial law → Trump intends to declare martial law → Do not vote for Trump, he will impose martial law. 
• What if Trump’s “law and order” is really a cover-up for the fact that he doesn’t care about people and only cares about himself and so wants to put all of the rest of us under martial law → Trump intends to impose martial law across the country → living under Trump’s martial law will be no different than living in Nazi Germany → Trump doesn’t care about the people or the Constitution, but just wants to be a dictator → Don’t vote for Trump or this most horrible of horribles will come to pass. (I can’t help but wonder sometimes if the Democrats are not seeing themselves in these hypotheticals they develop.)
• Trump says he wants to insure against voter fraud, but what if it is all a ploy to steal the election → we must ignore the statistics about mail in voter fraud so that Trump does not steal the election → No matter what happens in the election Trump will not accept the results unless he wins → We either have to steal the election back from him or violently remove him → No one vote for him so that it is clear to him that he has lost and we will not need to forcefully remove him.
• What if Trump is using CoVid for his own evil purposes and gain → He refuses to make a national mandate and plan that will protect us→ Trump is using CoVid against us and he is destroying us → Trump is a murderer → Do not vote for this murderer.  (Notably, it’s interesting that the fear of dictator Trump seems to conflict with the CoVid argument that Trump should have usurped the power of governors to run their own states and made some all-encompassing mandate for the entire country – but the Democrats are not interested in being consistent, just in creating enough hysteria to make you more receptive to their agenda.)

All of the above, and many more that you hear daily, begin with a “what if” dreamt up in the mind of some Democrat or one of their symbiotic partners   They begin with a hypothetical that incorporates some aspect of some facts of a current situation, then morph into assertions of supposed fact that too many people believe.   

The assertions may sound believable because they do incorporate some aspect of a current factual situation, but they are not representative of reality.  And, as noted above at the start of this post, too many people ignore reality for some reason.  That ignorance is the real dream come true for the Democrats, for those who would continue to divide us and mislead us until they have led us over the cliff and into the true and ugly reality of Socialism.  And that will be the real nightmare for America.

 

 

Flunking the Test

Today I want to talk about CoVid testing – something that I think for the most part is nothing more than a distraction.

First, let’s clarify that there are two types of tests:  antibody and viral.  We can dismiss the antibody test fairly quickly.  It is a test for past infection; it does not establish that one currently does or does not have CoVid.  According to the CDC, “A positive test result shows you may have antibodies from an infection with the virus that causes COVID-19. However, there is a chance a positive result means that you have antibodies from an infection with a virus from the same family of viruses (called coronaviruses), such as the one that causes the common cold.” 

The antibody test does nothing to establish current numbers and does not establish that one definitely is immune from getting the virus (perhaps again).  If you want to have an antibody test for some personal reason, go ahead.  This is not the testing I am discussing today.

The viral test is the test that is used to provide the many numbers and statistics that parade across our media screens and papers daily.  According to the CDC, “Viral tests check samples from your respiratory system, such as a swab from the inside of your nose, to tell you if you currently have an infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19.”

I understand that the viral test provides a wealth of statistics to the scientists and researchers who want to learn more about the virus’s spread, but beyond that I really don’t understand the point of taking one and I definitely don’t understand the ongoing hysteria about availability of tests or everyone’s desire to get tested.

Let’s step back a minute and use a personal example.  When I feel sick with something that might be a flu type illness, I treat myself at home.  I do not rush to find out if it really is the flu.  Of course, if I became so ill that I needed to go to a doctor or hospital, they would likely test me to discover if it was really the flu or something else so that they could properly treat me.  Otherwise, I would do self-care and keep myself away from others so as to try not to spread to others whatever was making me sick.

In a similar vein, what is the point of getting a CoVid test if I either do not feel sick (and there is no indication I have been exposed) or even if I do feel sick, but not so sick as to require a doctor?  If I found out for sure it was CoVid, I would just continue to treat myself at home – there is no cure or validated treatment for mild cases of CoVid.  Actually, there is less reason in such a circumstance to get a CoVid test than to get a flu test – there are actually treatments for the flu.

And, if one does get a CoVid test and it is negative, what does that prove?  Getting a negative test proves only that one does not have CoVid at that very moment of the test. In the next hour, depending on what that person does, whom he comes in contact with, etc., the person could become infected and a new test would be positive.    As the CDC states, “The test result only means that you did not have COVID-19 at the time of testing. You may test negative if the sample was collected early in your infection and test positive later during your illness. You could also be exposed to COVID-19 after the test and get infected then. This means you could still spread the virus. If you develop symptoms later, you may need another test to determine if you are infected with the virus that causes COVID-19.”  So, unless one is   being tested constantly, one cannot be sure one is not ill, either with a very mild or asymptomatic case.

Of course, if one becomes so ill with symptoms that are consistent with CoVid that they feel they need a doctor, they should contact the doctor.  If one is that sick, they should be contacting the doctor no matter what, and at that point the doctor would likely order some tests, one of which would likely be for CoVid. 

When we have flu season, we don’t all run around being tested.  The vaccine is not fully effective, and some people cannot or choose not to take it.  People get sick and treat themselves at home.  We are all careful during flu season – washing our hands more, distancing ourselves from sick people or from other people if we are sick.  If we are sick enough to need medical treatment and/or a hospital, then we will be tested.

So how is CoVid any different?  Why all the hysteria, the long lines at the testing sites?  I submit that it is simply a distraction.   First, it provides some certainty, even if only for the moment of the test.  CoVid is proving that humans do not deal well with uncertainty and so they are seeking for something that will quell that, if even for only a moment.  It distracts them from accepting the fact that life is not predictable and that there is no one that will ever have all the answers or be able to remove all uncertainties from their existence. 

More importantly, the test results provide all sorts of statistics that allow the politicians ever more figures to selectively use to further their political agenda within the guise of CoVid.  One can find a statistic to “prove” any position – open/close, school/no school, masks/no masks, the way a particular leader is handling things is good/bad, etc.  Politicians can, and readily do, use statistics selectively to justify their actions – actions that often usurp an individual’s right to make their own choices.

This disease, the science behind it, its spread, are all very complex and our knowledge about it grows and changes daily.  The smartest thing that people can do is the same thing they do when there are other serious outbreaks:  avoid places where they might be infected, avoid those who are ill, wash their hands, and, in the case of a disease spread through the air, wear a mask.  With that, people can assess their own risk factors just as they do during flu season.   Everyone does not need a test, not even when they feel ill, anymore than everyone needs a test during flu season or a measles or tuberculosis outbreak. 

Testing is sometimes necessary, and in those instances a test should be done.  Those instances usually involve a sickness serious enough that a doctor is already involved. 

The problem with the testing is that it seems to imply that if we test enough then everything will be fine.  It will not.  Testing does not cure the disease.  What it does is keep people focused on that so that they perhaps forget that uncertainty is a part of life and instead will continue to look to their politicians to fix everything. 

 

What is Your Identity?

Recently when I checked out at my grocers I had my typical conversation with the bagger and the checker.  I have been going to this grocer for years, and these two have worked there for years.  In the course of weekly trips to stock my pantry we have had short conversations in which we have learned a bit about one another – our families, our ups, our downs, our hometowns, our sports teams, our likes and dislikes, etc.  We are not really friends.  I refer to them as the tall, good bagger and the checker from the Midwest.  They probably refer to me as something like the old lady who always buys Vernors and potato chips.  I think we all enjoy our brief conversations.  Before and after I enter their checkout space, I sometimes hear them have similar type conversations or joking with one another.

The bagger is Black.  The checker is what one might refer to as a Redneck.  I am an old white lady.  Somehow these external identifying characteristics have never interfered with our jovial and caring interactions.

Until, that is, the Left made it impossible to ignore the dehumanizing and superficial characteristics of identity politics.  About halfway through our most recent interaction, into my mind came the currently unavoidable disruptive voice of identity politics.  I wondered if the Black bagger was thinking of me as some “Karen” type racist or some sort of white supremacist.  I wondered how the Redneck and the Black really felt about one another.  Did the Redneck have a confederate flag tucked away somewhere?  Was the Black man an active supporter of BLM and its lists of demands against Whites?  These and other such thoughts crept into my brain, making me for the first time ever self-conscious as we conducted our banter.  That is, it interfered with our ability to relate to one another as the human beings that we are.

And then I reminded myself that is exactly what we are – individual human beings, each with our own story.  We are not one-dimensional representatives of Left-defined identity groups.  But, then, why would anyone want us to see one another as if we were? I see two possible reasons.

First, it is possible that the Left, who would define us all one-dimensionally based upon the identity group into which they place us, actually see people this way.  Perhaps, because they live in their own one-dimensional worlds, not ever really interacting with those unlike them, they are only able to see others by external and superficial characteristics which they then use as definitions of the entire person of anyone possessing those characteristics. 

The second possible reason is more sinister: dividing people into one-dimensional identify groups serves a deeper purpose of which many Leftists are fully aware.  If you can get people to accept that they are defined by one characteristic only, then create the perception of their identity placement as victimhood,  and then set various defined identity groups against one another, you have a good breeding ground for fomenting some sort of Socialist revolution. 

I think both reasons are valid explanations.  I also think that both are toxic to society and to humanity.  Somehow the Left has managed to convince us that it is OK to define people not as people but as one-dimensional members of one or another identity group.  At the same time they have encouraged the rise of the victim status and its codependent partner – hate for some other identity group.   

People, more and more afraid to speak their own individual minds, thus become more and more defined by the identity group into which someone else places them.  As everyone more and more goes to their own separate corner, it becomes harder and harder to join together as complex individuals each with individual characteristics yet all a part of one human race.

As these divisive techniques and results of identity politics more frequently creep into my brain, I will try to remember the innocent and very human interactions between the Bagger, the Checker, and Me.  Not defined by external or superficial characteristics.  Defined by stories of each’s family and individual history and experiences.  Unique to each of us.  Not one of a group but one of a kind.

These are the interactions that a healthy society has and that it needs.  They used to be fairly common.  But now, overshadowed by the hateful specter of identity politics, they become more and more rare. If we are to save ourselves – both individualy and as a part of humanity – and if we are to save our society and its freedoms, we must cast off any identity that is not uniquely our own and we must see only the full and unique identity of others.  We must stop defining and being defined by group labels.  To the Left that pushes them more and more forcefully upon us we must just say NO.

The Names We Call Things - Some Thoughts on Critical Thinking

Often the Left asserts that the Right, and especially White Conservatives, has been “indoctrinated” with such things as White Supremacy, racial bias and hatred, etc.

In similar fashion the Right often asserts that the Left has been "brainwashed" – to hate Trump and his supporters, to hate America, to embrace Socialism, etc.

In most cases such name calling is the result of someone being faced with a viewpoint that is contrary to their own.  Why does a simple difference of view, stark as it might be, almost immediately devolve into name calling and the hatred that follows?

I submit that this almost knee-jerk reaction is a defensive one resulting from lack of critical thought.  Let me explain.

When one has thought through and chosen to accept a position, rather than simply adopting without thought that of another, the thinker will be certain in their position.  The thinker will know it can be defended.  The thinker will likely also be curious to hear the views of others about the viewpoint that he has formulated. He will always be ready to further assess both his view as well as that of others.

Those who are secure in their positions are not defensive about them.  But, if one, without thought, has merely put on the cloak of another and called it his own, then if attacked he is unable to defend that position and so becomes both fearful and defensive.  He cannot rationally discuss the underlying aspects of the position, so instead of engaging in such a discussion he simply throws negative names and labels at the one holding a differing view in an attempt to drive them away.  

Taken advantage of by those who sincerely promote their viewpoint (whether for the general good or for their own), many simply adopt a view that superficially sounds good to them.  But when challenged, they are left without ability to reasonably respond, discuss, and understand something different or challenging to their adopted view.  They can only react to what they see as and attack and, without understanding of their position they resort to name-calling as their only defense.  And, it is they, the name-callers, who are the ones who in some way have indeed been indoctrinated or brainwashed.

Now, the interesting question is which came first, the indoctrination/brainwashing, or the inability to think critically? 

From the moment anyone is born they face some sort of indoctrination.  Indoctrination is defined as “the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.”  Of course, there are some things that children must be taught as a basic means of survival – don’t touch a hot stove, don’t eat household cleaners, etc.  Others as a basic matter of civilization.  Relieve yourself in the bathroom, not the living room.  Parents will also teach their children the value system that they believe is good and best for their children.  Some of this early teaching will likely fall into what might be termed a mild form of brainwashing – “the process of pressuring someone into adopting radically different beliefs by using systematic and often forcible means.”

But, good parenting, and good schooling will teach the growing child the additional and crucial piece of humanity called critical thinking – “the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgment.”  It is this piece that allows the individual to assess the information provided to him and to reach his own judgments - judgments that will determine whom he will be as an individual. 

Note, I do not suggest that children should be left to their own devices without any rules.  Of course some "indoctrination" into the family culture and requirements is necessary just as larger groups and the greater society must be taught certain rules and cultural norms that maintain the civility and civilization of that society.  But indoctrination must be balanced with critical thinking.

Sadly, too many parents and too many educators do not want those they are raising to question; rather they look for blind acceptance of what they offer.  They want the individuals in their care to be and become the individuals whom they would have them be rather than the individuals whom they are or are capable of becoming.  This is not only unfair to each individual; it is also unfair and harmful to humanity as a whole.

Too many individuals hold beliefs and values that are not truly their own; they do not have the strength of a person that has been taught to critically evaluate information and has indeed done so in regard to their own beliefs.  It is only then that they have both the strength and courage to fully engage peacefully and productively with others, some with the same and some with differing or even opposing beliefs and values.

And, without the strength of their own convictions, the uncritical thinkers become open fodder for those who would make one or another particular viewpoint the dominant if not only viewpoint in society.  Such a goal is not for the benefit of the un-thinkers; they are simply used by those who promote a goal for their own end – usually their own power to demand that all think as they do.

It is difficult to raise or teach critical thinkers.  It means teaching them to question everything and that includes the one raising or teaching them.  Most people don’t like being challenged and yet that is an essential part of teaching another to be a critical thinker.  Not easy, but essential.  If someone is not taught the importance of asking “why?” then one is being left to the control of others, a control that usually does not end well for the controlled. 

When critical thinking is not a working skill, others will easily take advantage of that fact.  It is only then that indoctrination and brainwashing on a grander scale becomes possible.  And, when that brainwashing or indoctrination is political, we no longer are able to have reasonable policy discussions, we are no longer able to reach across the aisle and compromise for a greater good.  And we devolve to name-calling and hatred.

Critical thinking – both teaching it and doing it – takes courage.  But it also imbues each and everyone of us the strength to be the individual that we are meant to be, not the useful tool of someone else who would think for us.  And if we would use our critical thinking, rather than simply calling names at those with different views we could perhaps have discussions instead.    With a sharing and a critical, curious, and open-minded examination of both our views, perhaps we can understand both.  We can understand if, where, how we may have similar goals as well as accepting where we cannot.

We are all capable of thinking critically, we are just not often encouraged to do so.  Hence, I challenge everyone rather than accepting political policies, to ask “why?” And again, and again, keep asking why to every answer you get until you just can go not further.  Ask what supports a point, who conducted a study, are there different studies, are there additional facts, etc.  Assess the answers.  How well do they support the policy asserted?  What questions do you still have about that policy?  Is it truly a policy that you wish to adopt and defend?

I realize that most people will not do this.  They will simply accept what sounds good and move on.  But we really must address many of the currently proposed policies more critically, assessing not only the policy itself but its ramifications and consequences, for if we do not question now, we may be giving up our opportunity to ever do so.   With critical thinking perhaps we could replace the names “indoctrinated” and “brainwashed” with “open-minded,” “tolerant,” and “understanding.”  It is those words that are necessary for a truly strong and free society.

Citizenship is a Commitment

Yesterday I read that more than 25,000 university professors signed a petition dismissing “citizenship” as nothing more than an artificial distinction between Americans and foreigners.  I disagree.

Let’s start by looking at the oath that non-U.S. born individuals take when they become naturalized American citizens:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.

This is something that these new citizens work hard for and take very seriously.  The oath is something that we also assume is something inherent in natural born citizens (though perhaps it is something to consider requiring when one reaches the age of consent – but more on that later).

Citizens confirm their allegiance to their country – in the case of naturalized citizens it is their chosen country.  This oath distinguishes them from others who may be in our country as visitors, guests, or illegal aliens and who, unlike citizens, do not give full allegiance to our country and may not be willing to stand for its laws and its Constitution.

This is, indeed, what citizenship is about.  It is a key part in defining a country, something which is made up of those who together believe in that country and its ideals and will defend it and its principles against those others, whether inside or outside its boundaries, who would attack it.  A non-citizen, even if not averse to those principles, does not have the same commitment to the country; the distinction is not artificial, but real.

While arguing that there is no difference between citizens and others might be useful for one seeking open borders, it is disingenuous at best.  These professors argue that “the artificial distinction between foreign and domestic students . . . undermines the pursuit of both knowledge and justice.”  This statement just makes no sense.  We allow foreign students to study in this country on a variety of visas.  That they are not citizens does not deny that pursuit.

The professors object to the new Immigration order that ends student visas for foreigners who pay for online-only classes.  Actually, if a student is studying online only, there is no reason for that student to be present at the site of the institution providing the education.  Foreign students can study from their homelands just as easily as from this country.  There is no undermining of their pursuit of knowledge.  If they have other reasons for coming to this country, they can pursue the appropriate visas.  But, whether in the country as a foreigner or outside of it as an online student, they are not citizens and do not hold the same allegiances to the same country as do American citizens.

One final thought.  The citizenship oath contains promises that a defined country generally assumes and expects of all of its citizens.  In this country, for it to remain a country, it is presumed and essential that the citizenry agree that our system, our laws, our Constitution be supported and defended.  Given the number of individuals – not just extremists but mainstream leaders and politicians – who currently advocate for the dismantling of one or more parts of our government, I wonder how many of our natural born citizens would be willing to take this oath today. 

Perhaps it is time that we ask every citizen, not just those who are naturalized, to take this oath, to confirm that it is their choice and desire to be a citizen of this country.  We could ask that upon reaching adulthood and thus having the ability to make their own decisions, that those who were born here make a free choice as to whether they choose to be a citizen of this country with all that such citizenship entails – both rights and responsibilities.  Especially it should be clear that being a citizen requires a commitment to the principles, the laws, and the Constitution of the country.  

When I was baptized as a child, I had no choice in the matter.  Later, when I was able to think for myself, I chose to be confirmed into my church.  Others who had been baptized did not make the same choice.  In a way, this is not unlike being born into a particular country’s citizenship.  One did not choose that country just as one did not choose to be baptized.  Later, when one is able to think for oneself, one can then choose to what country he or she would like to commit oneself and give one’s allegiance to, just as I freely chose my church.  

One could and should express one's free choice that this will be their country and they will work to support and make it better - for it, not against it.  This is how we, together as one citizenry, work to ever improve the country that we call our own.

Before making the commitment to citizenship, those who choose to become naturalized I suspect give it deep and serious thought and with full commitment make their oath.  It is unfortunate that we seem to have so many natural born citizens here who do not do the same.

Sometimes a Mask is Not Just a Mask

CoVid.  Here is what we know:  it is an easily transmittable, airborne virus that has no cure and no vaccine and unknown long term effects; it can kill you or you can have it and be completely asymptomatic.   Given that bottom line you can assess its risk to you in any given situation in the same way that you assess other risks that you face every day.   And we do face many other deadly risks every day.  So why the obsession and continuing hysteria about CoVid?  I suggest that it is not really much about CoVid at all, but a lot about using CoVid as a political football. 

Marco Rubio correctly states that having a rational response to the virus “will be hard to achieve as long as we have a heavily politicized narrative that demands you to pick one of two views.”  He defines these as:

A.      The virus is the apocalypse and everything must close

B.     The virus is being exaggerated and will go away on its own.

Certainly these are decent descriptions of the two narratives, neither of which, by the way, is factually accurate.  But let’s consider the reasons behind these two narratives and what each represents.

From the very first notice we got of the virus and that it had reached our shores, the Democrats, never ones to let a crisis go to waste, saw it as something to be used against President Trump and his supporters. 

In January, our economy was at record levels, Black and minority unemployment at its lowest ever, new businesses and industry were thriving, things were looking pretty good.  I suspect that the possibility that this might end caused some anti-Trumpers to salivate. 

The President stopped travelers entering from China, then Europe, then elsewhere.  His opponents first attacked that move as racist, then complained that he had not done it soon enough.  Democrats began their calls for investigations or even another impeachment for the early handling of the virus. 

CoVid was indeed scary.  No one knew much about it except that it could be deadly, especially for older people or people with underlying conditions.   Those seriously affected would need ventilators and hospital beds and we would need a seemingly endless supply of masks for medical personnel.  We wanted to test everyone.  We needed to avoid a surge of the virus so large that it would overtax our resources. 

So, while the administration went to work ramping up the manufacture of needed supplies (many of which had been allowed to deplete during prior administrations) and setting up military field hospitals (many of which have gone unused), people were urged and/or ordered to stay at home in order to  “flatten the curve.”

The President had daily briefings with his CoVid team during which the doctors and other officials could inform the public of the actual facts about the virus – facts that properly evolved daily as more information was constantly being acquired.  The Democrats objected to these briefings, asserting that they should not be covered or carried live by the media (apparently they did not want the people to be informed from the sources, but only to hear their edited and often misleading takes on the briefings).

The stimulus proposals that had been and continue to be put forth by Democrats contained many items that went well beyond what was necessary to deal with the short term effect of a closed economy and were actually part of their Leftist/Socialist wishlist.  That’s not to say that the Republicans didn’t also see these stimulus measures as a way to gain favor with small businesses and other key members of their base.

As things seemingly came under control and active cases began to level off, there were calls to open back up.  Complete closure could not continue.  It was devastating to the economy as well as to the psyche of many.  So we began a slow opening – too slow for some, too fast for others.  Each governor determined the rules for their state (this is their power and right under our system of government).  Here is where I suggest it really became far too political. 

The hit CoVid took on the economy erased the incredible numbers that the Trump administration had achieved.  So, is it really surprising that many Democrat states maintained far more shut down restrictions than those of their Republican counterparts?  Surely at least in the back of their minds was the thought that if we can keep the economy down and unemployment up it will hurt Trump in the upcoming election.  At the same time, Trump and the Republicans wanted to get things moving again and were perhaps more willing to throw some caution to the wind in order to revitalize the economy.  Both were looking somewhat at the science, but also at the politics of the situation.

The governors’ restrictions quickly became both ridiculous and hypocritical.  Science often did not seem to match what was and was not allowed.  The New Mexico governor said breweries (where beer is both brewed and then served in a bar-like atmosphere) could open, but bars could not, nor could the VFW halls which serve beer.  She noted that it was a different kind of clientele at the breweries (could she mean good hipster Democrats vs bad redneck Republicans?). 

The height of hypocrisy came when those governors who had begun mandating or at least encouraging masks cheered on protestors who gathered and said nothing about nor enforced the mask requirements.  In New York the virus contact tracers are not even allowed to ask about protest attendance.   At the same time as the protests were applauded for gathering large groups, Trump’s rally was condemned because it gathered people together.  This has nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics.

When the rules are applied to some but not to others, one can’t help but wonder if the rules are really necessary.  Statements of the dire nature of the threat and hence the need for dire restrictions does not match the fact that many restrictions are not enforced or are simply excused for the favored groups.  This credibility gap is sure to make one wonder about why one should believe any call for any regulations.  And, in our current climate it is not surprising that people should begin to suspect political motivation.

Then we have the reporting about the virus itself.  We now have much more data available, but sadly what that means is that only pieces of that data will be put forward depending on one’s political agenda.  If one wants to keep the country and its economy suffering you can surely find numbers that will support a demand for another complete shut down along with its damage to the economy and hopefully your political opponents.  If you want to see the country fast tracked to normal then you can find data that supports that as well.  Not only can data be found to support varying views, all data is subject to interpretation, and political interpretations are now the flavor du jour.

Not many people have the time or the education to fully read and then assess the data.  They rely on the news media for their information.  The news media seems to enjoy sustaining as much hysteria as possible.  It is probably good for its ratings.  It is also generally good for the Democrats whose political views the media tends to support.

Masks seem to have become the epicenter of all of this.  As we learned more about the virus, data more and more showed that the spread of the virus was in most instances via droplets spread through the air and not from surfaces.  Studies also began to teach how far the droplets could generally travel – somewhere around 6 feet in normal situations (more in other types of situations where a greater force is used in expelling air).  It also became apparent that the more time spent together and the larger the crowd, the more that one’s risk of being infected became.

The science clearly supports the fact that wearing a mask inhibits the possible spread of the disease by the wearer.  Wearing masks is done not for the wearer but for those with whom the wearer comes into contact.  The protection is not absolute, but it is significant.  One would think that just as one does other considerate gestures for his fellow man, one would wear a mask.

But, this is not about health and masks and civil behavior.  Mask wearing has become the representative of how much one will allow government to mandate certain behavior, of whether one is for or against big government, and probably a fairly good predictor of how one will vote in November.  For some reason the health requirement of wearing a mask is seen by some as a complete abolishment of all their rights.  They think that if government can tell them to wear a mask then government can tell them everything, including what to think.  And, when many Democrat leaders waive any suggestion of masks for BLM and other anti-government protestors, it is easy to see that political motivation has overtaken health concerns, even those that have scientific support.

This is a political battle that has become completely disconnected from the CoVid threat.  With that in mind, with their disconnect from science, governors have lost any credibility or authority to impose or enforce regulations.  In New Mexico, one city mayor simply called his prohibited 4^th of July parade a protest since the Governor had banned parades but endorsed and allowed protests.

With their credibility gone, the Governors (and some of the medical professionals) need to stop calling winners and losers in regard to what can and cannot open and what people can and cannot do.  We all know the risk.  Bottom line is we could die.  That’s the science and if we are given the actual science without the hyped and conflicting narratives, each of us individually can decide what in our life is worth taking that risk.

As to masks, I do believe we should wear them when in public just as we should all make the effort to social distance when possible.  I don’t think it is unreasonable for there to be, for the common good, some sort of mask requirement.   It is not fair to open everything, tell me it is my decision to take the risk, but then to make that risk greater than it should be by eliminating even the suggestion of masks.  That is, if a theater is open to full capacity, I can decide whether or not to go.  But, if no one there will be wearing a mask, it becomes unreasonably unsafe for me to be there and so, by removing even the suggestion of mask requirements I am actually denied more rights than those who would go maskless.

If we can assume that our fellow citizens will act responsibly – including wearing a mask not for their protection but for the protection of others – then we can indeed open back up and people will go where they choose depending on their individual risk assessments.  This is no different than when I make a decision to drive:  I understand that others on the road are expected to follow certain driving regulations that they may not like but that exist for the common good.  I of course know that some few will not, but I expect that most will and with that I am free to drive or not based on my assessment of the risk to me.  But, if I know that there are no driving regulations or that they will never be enforced or that a significant number of other drivers will refuse to follow those regulations, then my risk assessment and my freedom to drive is vastly diminished.   It is no different with masks.

But, it’s really not about any of this at all.  It’s about making a political statement.  That is what CoVid has become – nothing more than a political tool, a set of statistics to throw back and forth, a mask with which to stake one’s righteous political claim.   And, while we play these political games, the reality is that the apocalypse is not here, but CoVid is, and some people are in fact dying.