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.

 

 

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.

Why Cautious Reopening is the Right Choice

No one can be certain about anything when it comes to corona virus – the term Novel Virus is certainly appropriate since, the adjective “novel” based on the on Latin novellus refers to something that is not only new, but also original, fresh, and unique.  We are still learning about this virus, probably will be for several more months if not years, and thus, cannot be certain that decisions we make based on what is known at a given moment will, in retrospect when we know more, have been the best actions to take.

Nonetheless, when the virus first arrived on our shores, we saw that it spread easily and quickly, infecting large numbers, and that the consequences of infection could, at least in some people, be highly severe if not deadly.  So, to avoid completely overloading our healthcare facilities we shut down our economy.  People were encouraged if not ordered to stay home and, by shutting down they had no place to go anyway.

It worked.  We flattened the curve.  We did not overload the healthcare system.  The shutdown was never thought of as a means to destroy the virus – it could not do that – but simply a way to make more manageable the care of those infected.  We now can take care of the virus at its current rate of spread.  The reason for the shutdown no longer exists.

That does not mean that we can just run out and completely overnight return to normal.  The opening needs to be cautious.  The shutdown, never intended to completely eliminate the virus, did accomplish its goal of slowing the spread.  And we can continue to keep it from returning to its initial overwhelming spread if we open with precautions.

To be clear, people will continue to get the virus regardless of what we do.  And yes, the more that people are together the more chance of becoming infected.  But we can take reasonable precautions that can minimize the virus’s potential devastation.

We need to open for many reasons.  Small businesses need to restart if they are to avoid facing certain bankruptcy and closing.  People need to get out of often suffocating and sometimes dangerous home situations.  Individuals need to return to work for income as well as for their own self-respect. 

A measured reopening means things like social distancing, limited and slowly increasing occupancies, and masks.  Yes, masks.  These little pieces of cloth seem to have become of mammoth significance in the reopening debate.

As an aside, masks alone will not prevent the virus.  An individual virus can easily penetrate a mask.  But the virus attaches itself to droplets (spread by cough, spit, talking, etc.) which are larger, and the individual virus molecules themselves group together as a larger unit.  A mask won’t stop everything, but it can help and perhaps stop that one that would otherwise get you or that one that you are expelling that would infect someone else.  And, of course, you and others will be in a position to be assaulted by more of those molecules the longer time that you and they spend in the presence of a person or people who are infected and the longer you spend in one place or in a place with inadequate ventilation and air circulation.

Cautious reopening should be a simple and reasonable concept to put into practice.  But, of course, in our currently politically divided nation it cannot.  Instead, the commonsense reopening has become a politically charged weapon, seized upon by both sides of the political aisle.

The Left would keep everything closed indefinitely.  They claim they are advocating this to save lives.  It may do so.  But what it will also do is tank our economy and, since economy is often an issue high on voters’ minds, the Left sees a poor economy as helpful to their political chances in November.  Closure also will require more huge CARES Act type bills that will in many ways further a leftist or socialist agenda in the long term:  make people comfortable with the idea of depending upon government rather than themselves; creating a larger tax burden that then leaves people with less money and therefore more need of government support – the cycle can go on forever; and, providing incentives for unemployment creates an unemployed class dependent upon a government that will continue to provide for them.  Creating underclasses dependent on another's political power is selfish and in the end careless of those others one claims to be helping.

The Right demands immediate and complete reopening with no limitations on the individual’s right to decide for him or herself whether to social distance, whether to wear masks, whether to open their shop for limited or full occupancy.  Conservatism and patriotism never before included the concept of needlessly endangering your neighbor and fellow citizen just to prove a political point that you have individual rights that you believe someone else is threatening.  Yet this has become a rallying cry for the Right, perhaps because they see the Left’s use of this virus as a way to promote a Socialist agenda and therefore the Right chooses to promote the precise opposite position as a defense, allowing that to become more important than any thought of one's neighbor.

There is a middle ground between these two positions, but, like everything else in our charged political environment, it is hard to get people to go there.  It seems easier to simply throw criticism, hatred, and of course more investigations, at the other side.  Yet all that proves is that no one anymore seems to have that basic American value of caring about their neighbor and their country as a whole.

We need to put politics aside.  We need to accept that we do not know everything about this virus and that whatever we do may be proven to have been the wrong thing when we have more knowledge.  In the meantime, we need to do the reasonable and responsible thing.  Slowly move forward in reopening.  Take reasonable precautions – social distancing, limited occupancies, avoiding large gatherings for any sort of extended time, and, yes, mask wearing.  Let’s see how it goes.  As we see that socially conscious Americans can do this, we can move forward – increase occupancies, increase gatherings, and yes, maybe less mask wearing. 

We need to join in support for, and individual participation in, a cautious reopening of our country.  We are one country and one people and, without politics to urge us otherwise, we can do this. 

Rules, Choices, Consequences - updated

We live in a country governed by the rule of law.  That law comes from many sources – the Federal Constitution, state constitutions, legislatures, regulations, city ordinances, executive orders, etc., and even restrictions imposed by state governors during a health pandemic emergency.  These are the rules that govern our behavior in our society. 

Basically, the rule of law provides that a society and the individuals within that society will be consistently governed by a set of legal codes and processes.  Our “rule of law” is based in our Constitutional form of government.  Countries not governed by a rule of law include a variety of authoritarian regimes as well as those devolved into anarchy.  Aristotle proclaimed, "It is more proper that law should govern than any one of the citizens."

When someone does not like or does not wish to obey a particular rule they are faced with choices, three of which immediately come to mind:  obey, challenge, disobey.  Each of these choices comes with consequences attached; those consequences should be part of one’s consideration in making the choice.

If one chooses to obey a rule they do not agree with, the consequences are twofold.  First, they will not be penalized for failure to obey the rule and secondly, they will likely have to change their behavior or desired behavior in some way to do or not do something they had wanted to and otherwise would or would not have done. 

The second possible choice is to challenge the rule using our judicial system.  That challenge might be based on such things as whether or not it is constitutional or an abuse of discretion or power, whether it is duplicative or ambiguous or unfair in its application, etc.  One might also ask for an exemption to a particular rule based on their own personal circumstances.  Such challenges of course take time; one will not get immediate gratification, but must instead wait for a ruling and perhaps a challenge to that ruling and also must understand that in the end the ruling may not be the one they hoped for.  But that is how a country governed by the rule of law (rather than personal or mob demand) operates.

The third choice that one can make when faced with a law they do not like is to disobey that law and simply do what they want.  Murderers do this.  Illegal border crossers do this.  Jay walkers do this.  Anyone who makes this choice on any level should also be prepared to face the consequences which may include criminal penalties including fines, jail or, in some cases death.  Sometimes people making this choice will determine that it is necessary to disobey and take the consequences in order to make a broader social justice point – for example participants in lunch counter sit ins during the civil rights movement.

In our current pandemic times we have many examples of people choosing to disobey their governor’s restrictions.  They often claim they are justified in doing so, asserting that any restrictions on their “rights” are unconstitutional.  First, that shows an appalling lack of understanding of our Constitution.  But, even if that were a reasonable argument, the thing to do is to challenge those restrictions that they argue to be illegal in a court of law.  Some individuals in some states have done so (for example churches seeking permission for drive-in services) and have either obtained exemptions or seen modifications to the rules.  Others have not won their arguments against the rules.

As an aside here, I will note that the governors do indeed have the authority to impose reasonable restrictions during a time of health emergency.  One has the right to challenge the reasonableness of a particular restriction.  If one does so, one must be willing to accept the decision of the court or courts to which they bring their appeal.  That is how the rule of law works.

What we see, however, is an alarming refusal to follow the rule of law when it comes to such health emergency restrictions.  I happen to believe that governors are doing the best they can with data that changes daily and with concern for both their state’s people and its economy.  People who think they know better than their governor probably do not; at a minimum they do not have access to all of the daily information that governors receive.  I suspect they have not taken the time to understand the purpose behind those restrictions which they do not like.  And yes, some governors are probably getting some things wrong, but blanket refusal to acknowledge their very power to issue restrictions, along with blanket disobedience of those restrictions is a frightening disavowal of our very system of government.

In the end, what I see is too many people who, like young not yet socialized children, refuse to not only follow reasonable rules but also refuse to take personal responsibility for their disobedience.  Let’s take for example the Texas salon owner who was sentenced to a week in jail for failure to follow her governor’s restrictions.  Here was a woman who made a choice and should have been willing to accept the consequences of her choice which included criminal penalty including jail.  She was happy to choose to disobey, but seemingly unwilling to accept the consequences of that choice, believing that her personal reasons were enough to allow her to break the rule and open her salon.

Rather than make her choice and accept the consequences, the woman, like a small child, did what she wanted.  Before being jailed or even arrested, she was given a cease and desist order – which she tore up.  This is the point at which she might have instead requested an exception based on her personal circumstances if she really believed those circumstances warranted the rule not being applied to her.

Once charged for opening, in court she was given the option of taking “this opportunity to acknowledge that your own actions were selfish, putting your own interest ahead of those in the community in which you live” and then being given a fine only.  She refused and instead made excuses:  she wasn’t selfish but needed the money, ostensibly to feed her family (essentially asserting that herself was more important than society and the public good).  She refused to close her salon and told the judge to go ahead and send her to jail.

Her behavior is not unlike a small child who defiantly refuses to follow rules.  But what may be worse are the other adults in her community and beyond who are acting like parents who excuse their children’s bad behavior.  Rather than perhaps helping her with her personal circumstances, they are making the excuses of why she “needed” to disobey the rule.  Some are even offering to take the blame or even the punishment for her.  They have raised several hundred thousand dollars for her because of her failure to comply.   In essence they are justifying her illegal behavior.  

This really is simply another example of avoiding personal responsibility and of others excusing that avoidance.  When we can do whatever we want, obey only those rules that we choose to or which are agreeable to us, when rather than accept personal responsibility for what we do we instead make emotional excuses that are accepted by others who then excuse us, when this becomes the norm then we no longer have a nation governed by the rule of law. 

ADDED NOTE:  Once the rule of law was followed, the Texas Supreme Court just now ordered the woman freed and the governor banned jail as penalty for failure to comply with this rule.  Following the rule of law indeed provided a remedy for this woman.  

This disobedience and excuse is not new with the current pandemic; rather, the fact that people are having their lives and routines disrupted for the public good has revealed the extent of the self-centeredness that exists in this country.  That self-interest abundantly extends to a belief that one only need follow those rules which they choose.  With this absorbing self-interest comes a lack of patience and hence too many believe there is no need to question via our judicial system – just disobey and get whatever immediate gratification is sought. 

Sure, we see the daily stories of those who act selflessly to serve others during this pandemic.  But that goodness seems to be outnumbered and overwhelmed by those who cannot think beyond themselves and their immediate desires.  This has been a part of our society for some time; it is just more visible now.  And it should give us all pause as we consider what happens if we allow ourselves to become a nation where personal responsibility is excused by self-interested narrative, allowing individual citizens to make their own rules so that the rule of law is no longer the governing principle in our society.

This should not be political, but NPCs help to make it so

The coronavirus pandemic is not a political issue and I wish people would stop treating it that way.  I happen to think that our President has for the most part done and is doing a good job handling this complex problem.  I also happen to think that my state governor, a progressive Democrat, is doing an outstanding job.  This is not a political issue and we do not need political rhetoric clouding things up.    

This pandemic and its effects are complex.  This is not a simple issue with a right and wrong answer.  It is a new issue that this country, this world, has never faced before.  No one has all the answers, and everyone is learning as we go along.  Learning is a key word here.  Everyone who wants to spout an opinion on this issue should take some time to educate him or herself about it first.  That means facts, not anecdotal evidence from one satisfied or dissatisfied person or business owner or victim of the virus.  And not following in the approach that so many currently take to newsworthy issues which is to simply spout the rhetoric of one or the other political parties.

There is a term NPC which originally referred to a non-playable character in a video game; that is, a character with whom other players can interact but which can only repeat programmed lines – it cannot think for itself.  The term has come to be used for those political minions who similarly do not think for themselves but only repeat programmed phrases – that is, they spout the party line without thought.

NPCs have been around for a while.   Now they spout their party’s politically correct phrases and positions about the coronavirus pandemic.  I used to see NPCs as primarily a Democrat phenomenon.  They would stick to their programmed dialog even when simple common sense proved it to be ridiculous.  For example, during the Kavanaugh hearings the Democrat NPCs all asserted that “women must always be believed when they claim sexual assault, even if there is no evidence to confirm their story and even evidence to contradict it.”  Now, with a seemingly credible allegation against Biden, the program has been changed to “all women must be believed, but only if they are accusing a Republican; when they accuse a Democrat we can dismiss their claim post haste.”

But now I cannot help but see the assault of NPCs and their programmed views coming from every political persuasion.   The Democrats and Anti-Trumpers first assert their same tired complaints:  President Trump is destroying the country, he does not know what he is doing, and, more specific to the virus – he is killing people.  They also assert that everything he does violates and/or destroys the Constitution and our government.  He acted too late.  He acted too early.  He should not let the governors decide.  He cannot make any national orders.  He must make national orders.  And, of course, he must be investigated.  Don’t ask the folks making these assertions to explain or support them – they cannot.  The only truth underlying them is that they either don’t like the President or don’t like his policies, or both.

But we also have the Republican NPCs.  Their current mantra is “Open Now!”  They have supplementary statements that they assert in support of this demand:  Closing businesses violates our rights; people have the right to choose; shut down orders violate the Constitution, not opening now will destroy the Constitution, the economy, and our country.  Do they have the science or the economics or the legal scholarship to prove any of that?  Of course not.  Sure, closing down and staying home orders do interfere with some rights or at least some activities, but they do so and are allowable for the public good.  These Republican NPCs have apparently conveniently forgotten that part of civics class – it seems to not be a part of their programmed lines. (They have also forgotten their old mantra of “we don’t need anything from the government” as they hold out their hands for stimulus and other benefits).

All these programmed assertions do nothing more than to prove some sort of ignorance, or at least an inability or disinclination to think things through.  For example, one cannot end with “just open up and let people choose whether to stay home, wear masks, etc.”   This reveals so much about what the asserter does not know.  First, the point of staying home, wearing masks, is to keep those who are asymptomatic from spreading the disease to others (and, if they bothered to look at facts they would know that huge percentages of us are asymptomatic, which is why we need things like sufficient testing and other data before opening up).  They would also understand that even if one is free to stay home, that might be a difficult choice if opening up means one has to choose between returning to a job or losing it by staying home.  These NPCs often claim they are demanding opening now for the workers, but would that really help those workers?  They claim decisions about what to open/close are unfair, but they do not have the details upon which these decisions were made; such assertions are just part of their politically programmed speech.

We have a pandemic involving a virus for which there is no treatment or cure and no vaccine.  It threatens the Public health of everyone in the country.   We have experts who update data and projections daily as they determine and regularly revise, based on new information, the best way to handle this public health crisis.  In order to flatten the curve – which was necessary so as not to overload healthcare and thus make the effects of the pandemic far worse – stay at home orders and business closures were put into place.  Of course these affected the economy and now those same experts are recommending a safe, data-driven and measured re-opening of business.  They provide clear criteria and a wealth of data to help each Governor make decisions and a reopening plan for his or her state.

NPCs are not interested in facts or data.  Here, by the way, is the link to a cite that provides a wealth of data, updated daily, about the corona virus, including state by state statistics and projections.  LINK.  Interestingly, when I shared this with a social media discussion about the virus populated mostly with NPC-type statements, the entire conversation was suddenly deleted.  Perhaps no one is really interested in facts. 

Generally, in this country we of late seem to suffer from a wealth of people who think they are experts on everything or at least anything about which they have an opinion.   Yet they do not educate themselves about that which they are opining.  Many of them are actually NPCs.   They are often wrong or incomplete in their statements and often insufferable in their thinking or lack thereof.  But annoying as it can be, such false belief in one’s own knowledge is usually not harmful; certainly not deadly.  Not so when we look at the coronavirus. 

Those false experts who are demanding anything and everything from opening fully now to never opening again, from asserting we must have more and more money forever to compensate those possibly injured by the virus or its economic effects  to those who would deny any and all financial aid, from those who see every well thought out cautionary and temporary restriction as the end of our Constitution and our life as we know it to those who assert that now is the time that mandates a complete restructuring of our government, all of these programmed assertions spoken without thought or support are dangerous.

We need to get the solution to this problem right.  We need to intelligently balance the health dangers with the economy.  This requires understanding and thought.  It cannot be done by NPCs.  Yet it is the voices of the NPCs who are at times drowning out those reasoned expert voices that we need.

There are those in this country who take the time to educate themselves about the science of the disease, who take the time to look at and understand facts, and to think for themselves.  These are the people who are looking at data, who are looking at various measured guidelines for reopening, who are understanding that it is a delicate balance between protecting the people from this serious health risk and from keeping the economy in a position where it can return to “normal” without too much hurt and delay when the time is right.

These people stand in stark contrast to the NPCs who simply spout politically driven opinions and demands about the virus and the economy.  Their leaders of course are trying to capitalize politically in any way possible from this pandemic and its effects on both health and economy.  Their leaders will use it to push their agendas and to trash those of their opponents as well as the opponents themselves.  The NPCs are their necessary minions.

NPCs and self-proclaimed experts (often one and the same) need to simply shut up until they are willing to actually think.   We all need to use our brains and our common sense to understand what is going on, to accept reasonable restrictions and inconveniences, and support all of our leaders as they do their best to get this right.  What we do not need to accept, and indeed should ignore, are the politically driven NPCs and their unhelpful and potentially dangerous comments.