Ostrich or Bolshevik?

I find it difficult to understand how many Americans still support President Biden and his Leftist agenda.  I guess they must be either ostriches or Bolsheviks.

Ostriches, with their heads in the sand, are unaware of the obvious going on around them which include, but are certainly not limited to, the following examples: 

• Suppression of free speech –  Testifying at a House hearing yesterday our Attorney General acknowledged during questioning that he, the DOJ, and the President consulted only with the teacher’s union and then put forth the memo requested by the union that essentially condemns parents who speak up at a school board meeting in opposition to the union policies and especially to the teaching of the racist CRT. The idea that such concerned parents might be called domestic terrorists certainly has a chilling effect on their ability to speak out no matter how much the AG tries to talk his way around it.
• Intimidation and cancelling of ideas not aligned with the Left – Includes inconsistent application of laws, demands that people embrace – not just tolerate - ideas (including such things as gender fluidity or necessity of 2-year-olds wearing masks) that are not supported by science or other civil necessity.
• Loss of privacy – the White House, allegedly to prevent IRS fraud by the rich, wants to have access to bank accounts with any transaction of over $600. Most people who work and have paychecks deposited, or who pay a mortgage will have transactions of that amount on a monthly basis and hence have their personal financial transactions open for government inspection.
• Economic disasters – Job reports falling well below expectations, gas prices at a seven-year high, inflation at a 30-year high and continuing to rise, food prices up along with costs of housing, energy, and other essentials, interest rates likely to increase. The economy is failing, and the middle class are the ones who will suffer most from its failure.
• Supply chain problems – meanwhile the Secretary of Transportation is on leave since August and has not left a specified point person in charge.
• International standing – plummeting. The Afghanistan pullout was a complete embarrassment and a huge hit to America’s reputation. China outpacing us with development and successful test of a hypersonic missile (made in part using US technology).
• Military and law enforcement – Afghanistan. Disrespect for military and police; focus on inclusion and equity rather than readiness
• Coronavirus – Cases continue to rise. Mandates eviscerate the idea of personal choice when the science behind vaccine and covid is still being discovered. Meanwhile Biden policies and mandates result in firing of essential workers, leaving them without jobs, pensions, etc, and the people whom they serve without service.
• The border – Migrant encounters at the border are at a 21 year high. The Biden administration has effectively created open borders. Children are living in overcrowded cages and are flown around the country in the middle of the night. Drug and child trafficking are up. Single adult males account for about 2/3 of the crossings. Migrants are released into the interior with only a request that they return for a hearing. The President says he has been too busy to visit the border, yet he has taken any number of vacations.
• Corruption and lack of transparency – run rampant in this White House. Questions are not answered or are answered with falsehoods. Investigations of possible corruption or unethical behavior are suppressed. Even the Attorney General himself refused to have evaluated the ethics of his involvement in the threat to parents about opposing CRT at school boards despite his association via son-in-law with a firm that benefits significantly from schools using CRT.
• Biden and his administration – blame everyone else for the problems, refusing to take responsibility for anything. Biden ignores the idea of rule of law when he does such things as judge border agents guilty when accused of whipping illegal border crossers, even when the evidence shows it didn’t happen. The Administration becomes more and more authoritarian every day. And, like other authoritarian governments, while they make many rules to govern every aspect of citizen’s lives, those rules are not applied to themselves. Also, like most authoritarian governments, they are intent upon silencing any opposition to their policies and their power.

Or Bolshevik?  If you are aware of the above and the many other problematic and authoritarian activities of this administration, but continue to support Biden’s policies, then perhaps you are a Bolshevik. 

Bolshevism (from Bolshevik) is a revolutionary Marxist current of political thought and political regime associated with the formation of a rigidly centralized, cohesive and disciplined party of social revolution, focused on overthrowing the existing capitalist state system, seizing power and establishing the "dictatorship of the proletariat".  It originally referred to Russian communists, but now the term is used more generally for those who support such views and policies.

I find it hard not to characterize most of the activity of Biden and the Left as intent upon overthrowing and totally changing what we call America.  Thus, those who support such activity can easily be termed Bolsheviks.

Actually, Russian President Vladimir Putin put it well earlier this week in a speech to the International Valdai Discussion Group in Sochi.  Whatever else you may think of Putin, as former KGB he understands revolution, communism, and communist suppression.  Here are some of the more relevant parts of his speech:

The advocates of so-called ‘social progress’ believe they are introducing humanity to some kind of a new and better consciousness. Godspeed, hoist the flags as we say, go right ahead. The only thing that I want to say now is that their prescriptions are not new at all. It may come as a surprise to some people, but Russia has been there already. After the 1917 revolution, the Bolsheviks, relying on the dogmas of Marx and Engels, also said that they would change existing ways and customs and not just political and economic ones, but the very notion of human morality and the foundations of a healthy society. The destruction of age-old values, religion and relations between people, up to and including the total rejection of family (we had that, too), encouragement to inform on loved ones – all this was proclaimed progress and, by the way, was widely supported around the world back then and was quite fashionable, same as today. By the way, the Bolsheviks were absolutely intolerant of opinions other than theirs.

 

This, I believe, should call to mind some of what we are witnessing now. Looking at what is happening in a number of Western countries, we are amazed to see the domestic practices, which we, fortunately, have left, I hope, in the distant past. The fight for equality and against discrimination has turned into aggressive dogmatism bordering on absurdity, when the works of the great authors of the past – such as Shakespeare – are no longer taught at schools or universities, because their ideas are believed to be backward. The classics are declared backward and ignorant of the importance of gender or race. In Hollywood memos are distributed about proper storytelling and how many characters of what colour or gender should be in a movie. This is even worse than the agitprop department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

 

Countering acts of racism is a necessary and noble cause, but the new ‘cancel culture’ has turned it into ‘reverse discrimination’ that is, reverse racism. The obsessive emphasis on race is further dividing people, when the real fighters for civil rights dreamed precisely about erasing differences and refusing to divide people by skin colour. . . .

 

In a number of Western countries, the debate over men’s and women’s rights has turned into a perfect phantasmagoria. Look, beware of going where the Bolsheviks once planned to go – not only communalising chickens, but also communalising women. One more step and you will be there.

 

Zealots of these new approaches even go so far as to want to abolish these concepts altogether. Anyone who dares mention that men and women actually exist, which is a biological fact, risk being ostracised. “Parent number one” and “parent number two,” “'birthing parent” instead of “mother,” and “human milk” replacing “breastmilk” because it might upset the people who are unsure about their own gender. I repeat, this is nothing new; in the 1920s, the so-called Soviet Kulturtraegers also invented some newspeak believing they were creating a new consciousness and changing values that way. And, as I have already said, they made such a mess it still makes one shudder at times.

. . . .

Again, for us in Russia, these are not some speculative postulates, but lessons from our difficult and sometimes tragic history. The cost of ill-conceived social experiments is sometimes beyond estimation. Such actions can destroy not only the material, but also the spiritual foundations of human existence, leaving behind moral wreckage where nothing can be built to replace it for a long time.

I do encourage you to read the entire speech which can be found here:  LINK  

I wonder if in 1917 the Russian ostriches and Bolsheviks knew what they were in for in the “brave new world” they either were creating or allowing to happen via their indifference.  The Bolshevik dream gave them Stalin’s reign of terror and decades of living with hunger, hardship, and fear in the fully government-controlled society.  They lived without freedom until, even when communism fell, they found they had forgotten how to be free.

Our Bolsheviks actively work towards a complete reconfiguration of America.  But their touted new world is not a new idea and it is more frightening than enlightened.  Nonetheless, their actions and support for Leftist policy tells us this is what they indeed seek to create.

But our ostriches, with heads lost in the sand, are supporting this revolution as well.  If the ostriches would raise their heads and look around, they might see what is really happening and hopefully speak out against it.  Indifference is a vote and a win for the Left and ultimately for the tragedies and horrors that come with their new world order.

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. 

Let’s Be Clear About the Constitution

There is a lot of uncertainty about the coronavirus, and the everchanging statistics and projections that it produces.   Because there is no definitive “right answer” about what we should do, everyone has their own opinion about what we should or should not do. No one can really know what is correct.   That is fine.  What is not fine is that many people seem to have decided that, because there is uncertainty and no definitive answer,  they can simply create their own rules for themselves, disregarding their governors’ restrictions when they do not agree with those restrictions.  (Regarding the rule of law, see my previous post HERE).  

For some reason many seem to think that the Constitution provides them the right to make their own decisions to override legitimately imposed restrictions.  A common assertion at protests against pandemic orders is that the primary reason the Constitution was written was to restrain the government and that to constrain in any way the ability of the citizenry to individually choose how to interact in society is an unconstitutional attack on their “freedom.”  Similarly, there is the assertion that to impose limitations on behavior is some tyrannical form of unconstitutional oppression of individual rights and freedoms.

Nothing could be farther from the truth; such assertions reveal a complete misunderstanding the Constitution, the nature of the governors’ rights and obligations, and what is meant by freedom within our democratic republic. 

I am increasingly troubled by this widespread misunderstanding of our Constitution and our rights that has come to the surface during this pandemic.  Thus, I proceed here to provide a general overview to refresh our memories or to provide an introduction to further study.

First, the preamble to the constitution does not assert or imply that its purpose is to protect you from the government, or that you have the right to ignore laws you do not like, or do whatever you want.  Rather, it states, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Thus, the purposes, as stated within the document itself are:

               To form a more perfect Union;

               To establish Justice;

               To insure domestic Tranquility;

               To provide for the common defense;

               To promote the general Welfare;

               To secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

To let each of us do whatever we want without restraint is not included.

Now, looking at the document itself, it serves three main functions.  First, it creates a national government consisting of three branches (legislative, executive, judicial) and provides a system of checks and balances between the three.  Second, it divides power between the federal government and the states.  Third, it protects certain individual liberties of American citizens.

Elaborating slightly on these three functions, I would first note that the three branches of government are:  the executive power which is invested in the President; the legislative power which is given to Congress (House and Senate); and the judicial power which is vested in the Supreme Court and other federal courts created by Congress.  The system of checks and balances between these three branches avoids tyranny of any one branch.

Federalism addresses the second function of dividing power between the federal and state governments.  Powers not delegated to the federal government, nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people.  Those enumerated powers have been interpreted broadly, and, under the supremacy clause of the Constitution federal law is supreme over state law.   The Constitution also limits the powers of the states in relation to one another, such as limiting via the commerce clause the ability to regulate or tax commerce between states and prohibiting states via the privileges and immunities clause from discriminating against citizens of other states. 

The third function, protection of personal liberty of citizens, comes in part from the main body of the Constitution but more familiarly from the first ten amendments known as the Bill of Rights. These amendments were adopted shortly after the adoption of the Constitution itself, in response to states’ concerns about the Constitution’s lack of protections for individual rights.  The protections of these amendments were originally interpreted to apply only against the federal government, but the Supreme Court has since ruled that most of them were made applicable to the states by passage of the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause.  That Amendment also contains the equal protection clause, which protects citizens from discrimination by the states.

The Bill of Rights sets forth specific prohibitions on government power.  They are not a blanket grant to citizens to do what they please.  The bill of rights guarantees certain specific rights to the individual and the ninth amendment specifies that “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”  While the government may not generally infringe on these rights, they are not absolutely protected from all restriction. 

A law allegedly infringing on specific individual rights may be allowed if, after strict scrutiny, it is determined that the law or regulation is necessary to a compelling governmental interest, is narrowly tailored to achieve that compelling purpose, and is the least restrictive means to achieve the purpose.  Essentially, using this test, a constitutional right may be balanced against the government's interest against observance of that right. When such a regulation or its enforcement is challenged we see the operation of the three branches of government and their checks and balances come into play.

So, when a governor of a state enacts a rule which someone believes is unconstitutional, that regulation can be challenged and, using the above criteria may or may not be upheld.  There is nothing in the Constitution or elsewhere that says it is appropriate for an individual who disagrees with a regulation to simply disobey the rule.  That is nothing more than an act of anarchy.  And to assert that the Constitution gives one a right to be an anarchist is ridiculous, just as it is ridiculous for people to proclaim that it is their choice whether to go out or not rather than follow a governor’s stay at home or back to work orders. 

People who disagree with a governor’s orders or who agree with a violator of those orders are not “patriots” when they laud the violator.  These are often the same people who demand that sanctuary cities be penalized for not following the law or that or that sheriffs who do not enforce gun regulations be disciplined.  Yet here they are supporting disregard for or themselves disregarding legitimate pandemic orders.   True patriots would understand that you don’t just enforce laws with which you agree.  They would understand that the freedom we hold so dear in this country is not a freedom to do what ever one wants regardless of what the law requires.

These pandemic restrictions are not tyranny.  They are not destroying the Constitution.  They are simply controversial.  That controversy stems in part because there is so much uncertainty surrounding coronavirus and the many statistics and projections that it produces.  People are afraid of the unknown, so much uncertainty.  The fears are molded by such things as political positions, personal values, news sources and information about the virus and the economy, personal health and economic status, etc. 

With fear comes anger. With anger comes the desire to blame someone, because once you can blame someone for a problem then the problem is no longer really uncertain – it is under someone’s control.  Essentially, if we name the fear, we make it concrete and blamable.  Thus, perhaps, while the uncertainty of the virus itself cannot be removed, governors can be blamed for violating constitutional rights, thus creating a certainty that can be fixed. 

But such blame is false and cannot reverse the uncertainty of how to deal with a pandemic.  It cannot assuage fear.  It cannot provide a definitive answer to what is an uncertain future. It is based upon incomplete reading and faulty understanding of our Constitution and as such does not justify the behavior that it is being used to defend.

It’s fine to have an opinion about what one thinks is the best way to proceed in light of what we do and do not know about coronavirus.  We are going to disagree about that; that is perhaps the one certainty. But we cannot begin acting as if our individual opinions replace our rules of law, providing each of us with our own conflicting governing structures.

In the end, it doesn’t really matter whether we agree or disagree about what are the appropriate restrictions and back to work timelines in response to CoVid-19.  What matters is that the disagreement is shining a light on a far more serious disease that seems to be eroding the very core of our country: a serious lack of understanding of our Constitution and the governing principles that make our country the successful democracy that it is.  When we lose our understanding and respect for this core, we indeed lose our country.

  

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.   

Of People, Sacrifice, and Selfishness

I saw a headline that 3 out of 4 Americans say that coronavirus has changed their life.  Unless someone is a hermit, if we are all doing our part against this invisible enemy, shouldn’t that number be 4 out of 4?

The CDC asks us all to stay at home except for essential trips out, to limit group contacts, to practice social distancing.  Certainly that has to change one’s daily life to some extent, even if they have no other connection to the war against coronavirus.  Those people in essential jobs who do go out also must be experiencing differences in their workplaces as well as changes in their lives outside of work.

The CDC issued its 15-day guidelines last Monday.  These were guidelines that everyone in this country was asked to follow, the reason being that if we do so we have a good chance of really slowing the spread of the disease.  The more people that do not follow, the more likely that the epidemic will be worse, infect more people, and last longer.  

We should not have to wait for our governor or other authority figure to mandate compliance with these guidelines.  We should all, selflessly, be following them.  Those people who are part of the greatest generation, or close enough in age to them to have heard their stories of sacrifice, have some understanding of selfless sacrifice for the common good as a way to overcome a threat to a nation.  Apparently, that concept is lost on many others.

Here is some of the selfishness that I see in my community.  First, is the hoarding.  When shelves are restocked, people grab all they can – often enough of a product or food item to last them a year or more.  There is no consideration of their neighbor who might need just one of those items.   And, of course, the more available income one has, the more one can spend on hoarding, which often leaves those less financially able to do without. 

This hoarding also affects the truckers who are crucial to restocking the shelves.  In some places they and their loaded trucks need to be guarded by law enforcement.  This is nuts!   If people would limit themselves to what they need for 2 weeks, then we all could return to the stores in 2 week time periods to get what we need.  But sadly, some people are thinking only of themselves.

I went for a walk in my neighborhood.  People are out walking in groups crunched together on our narrow sidewalks.  These are not family groups who are already together in the same household.  These are friends and neighbors grouped together.  Apparently they don’t understand that any one of them could be an asymptomatic carrier, transmitting the virus to those they are with who could then transmit it to others and they to others.  This is how the virus spreads and what the guidelines and social distancing stop.  It’s a simple concept so I have to wonder if it is not about their lack of understanding, but their lack of care and concern for others.

When non-essential businesses stay open they are not only putting their employees and customers at risk, they are furthering the possibility of community spread to others, including the most vulnerable.  More importantly, they are setting a bad example by encouraging behavior that contradicts the CDC 15 day guidelines. 

I understand that it is devastating for a business, especially a small business to close and lose revenue.  But, in many cases businesses can compensate somewhat by having curbside services as well as increasing on-line commerce.  Even when that is not possible, even when it really hurts, if we don’t all pull together and fully follow the 15 day guidelines, then we are only creating the likelihood that this epidemic will be worse and last longer than it otherwise would. 

Some small businesses understand this.  They know they will take a hit (though the government is now working hard to make that hit far less than it might be).  When one of the Indian Pueblo’s Tribal leaders decided to voluntarily close their casino and other businesses, he stated that it would hurt their bottom line deeply and possibly permanently, but there was no question in his mind that everyone, including him, has a duty to our neighbors and that he would always put people above profits.  Unfortunately, not every business sees it this way and sadly, the bottom line for those that encourage people to come out and patronize them despite the current CDC guidelines is that they are telling us that to them, profits are more important than people. 

Then there are people who just can’t handle giving up their regular routines or pleasures.  The college kids on spring break who say things like “I won’t get it or if I do, so what, I don’t care” show us an ugly and selfish side of humanity:  thinking only of oneself and not others whom their behavior might adversely affect.  It reflects a stunning lack of social consciousness.  And that lack is especially startling when it so frequently comes from those who are always proclaiming the need for things like social justice, concern for those less fortunate, and flat line equality.

But it’s is not just young people.  Senior citizens are often just as reluctant to give up some regularly scheduled social gathering or to alter their routine in any way.  Like some of the young, these elderly do not seem to think that the guidelines should apply to them.  Such thinking is not only ignorant, it is also selfish; there is no excuse for such selfish disregard of guidelines that are for the good of all the people in this nation.

I also want to address the obsessive focus of some on the virus tests.  I understand that people want certainty and that a test confirms that one does or does not have the virus, but only at the moment of the test.  Testing does not lessen the spread or prevent one from getting the virus.  And demanding a test when the current medical and CDC guidelines do not show that one is indicated in a particular individual’s case simply slows down the administration and results for those for whom a test is medically indicated.  The mobile test sites in my area have lines that are miles long.  My guess is that many of these folks are there only seeking some sort of selfish certainty and not because a test for them is medically indicated.

I understand that all of us prefer certainty to uncertainty.  But we must accept that there is no certainty with this virus.  We don’t know how long it will be with us; we don’t know exactly how much our behavior can flatten the curve; we don’t know when or if there will be a cure.  It does no one any good to whine about this or complain that the government isn’t telling us.  Indeed, this administration and its team of experts are being enormously transparent about the information they do have.  They hold daily briefings, as well as other meetings that are live streamed.  I’ve been watching the daily morning news conferences and yesterday I also watched the teleconference with state governors.  Anyone else could do the same.

It is from the experts that we all should be getting our information.  There is, of course, all the false or inaccurate information, the fear mongering, the conspiracy theories, the anti or pro government rhetoric, all sorts of theories and cures and predictions put forth by people who have no actual facts or expertise in the area.  None of this serves to help the situation.  Things like whether or not to call this virus that came to the world from China the Chinese virus in the same way we have named other pandemics or diseases after countries or places of their origin (e.g. Spanish flu, West Nile virus, German Measles, Japanese Encephalitis, Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, to name just a few).  Don’t we have more important things to focus on while saving this sniping for after we have won our war against this virus?

While I am proud of the 3 out of 4 who are sacrificing in some way as they follow the guidelines, even if it is simply learning how to chill out alone at home, I am also disheartened by the rest of my countrymen who seem to be presenting a lack of concern, a lot of selfishness, and an inability to sacrifice for the common good.  One out of 4, it can be inferred from that poll, are more selfish than selfless. 

Everyone needs to read the CDC guidelines and educate themselves on the reasoning behind them – why it is so important that everyone – 4 out of 4 – take them seriously and follow them so as to limit to the greatest extent possible this deadly pandemic for which we currently have no vaccine or cure.

When this is all over and we can go out without limitation again, I hope that we all reflect upon what we have learned about ourselves and our neighbors, about this country and its resilience and whether or not we really can all come together for the common good.  We will remember our actions and those of others, for it is actions that speak louder than words.  We will remember whose actions said what.  And we will have the opportunity to take further action to express our feelings about who did what; for example we can go out of our way to patronize businesses that shut down before they were forced to, while remembering differently those that put profit or self-interest above their fellow humankind. 

This is a great opportunity for us all to raise our often-professed social consciousness or patriotism to a new level.  This is an opportunity to us all to realize what it is like to work together for a common good.  As Yoda of Star Wars says, “Do.  Or do not.  There is no try.” The sacrifices we are all asked to make are simple.  As Rosy the Riveter said in WWII– “We can do it!”  So let’s make that number who DO follow the guidelines and alter their behavior a full 4 out of 4 so we can defeat this virus as soon as possible.

We’re All in This Together – Except When We’re Not

COVID-19 is a virus that threatens every person in this country and potentially every person in the world.  While not a visible army, we can very much consider ourselves under attack and the leaders of every country are under an obligation to do the best they can to protect their people.

I happen to think that our President is doing a fantastic job.  He has assembled a team of experts to advise him, led by the very competent Vice President.  President Trump has coordinated and brought together the resources that are available to him, has brought private industry and their innovation and resources into the mix, he has gotten our Congress to begin to work bipartisanly for the good of the people instead of themselves.  The President has acted decisively and quickly and in so doing has likely lessened at least somewhat the spread and effects of the epidemic in this country.  He continues to act as he daily consults with his experts and the new information that they daily gain about the virus.

The President is working for the people of the country.  Many of those people are also working selflessly for their fellow Americans.  And those that are not a part of critical services, those that have been asked to social distance and not go out for non-essential reasons can and should also do their part for America against this invisible enemy.  Many are; sadly, some are not.

This virus can be asymptomatic – a person can have the virus and be able to infect others without feeling any symptoms themselves.  We should all consider ourselves carriers, and the best way to lessen the spread of the virus is for us all, then, to avoid going out in public where we, or our touch on tables, door handles, etc., can possibly spread the virus to others.  To go out, when we do not have to, is to put our fellow Americans at risk.

Yet too many seem to believe that it is about them, not others.  They are not sick, so why not go out.  They think they are healthy and won’t get sick, so why not go out.  There is no concern for the less healthy others who might indeed get sick or die from the virus that they might spread.  The part that most Americans are being asked to play is nothing like the burdens that Americans have suffered together in times of war (ask your parents/grandparents about the second world war!).  We are simply being asked to stay in and away from others as much as possible.  Not a big sacrifice, yet still some are not willing to take it.

For some, it is just a matter of changing their usual social behaviors.  For others – small business people for example, it may be a bigger sacrifice as they close their doors for 2 or 3 weeks, lay off their employees, and lose revenue.  Yes, that is a big deal.  Yet the President and Congress are passing and have passed a series of bills that will in large part alleviate the losses.  This President will forget no one, and we Americans need to trust that he and Congress together will keep us whole.

So, we the people can and should all pull together and each of us do our part for the good of our neighbors and our country.  We need to put self-interest and self-centeredness aside and begin thinking of the many others with whom we are in this together.

But there is another group I would like to address, and that is those who continue to see this as a political goldmine.  First, let me say that I am impressed in the last few days with the bipartisanship that has surfaced in Washington as the Congress and the White House seem to be, for the most part working together.  While realistically I suspect this will not continue once we have won the current war against the virus, I would like to hope that at least  a small part of it will in some way remain and evolve into something both positive and permanent.

But then there are others.  At a time when we need to be working together, I read about a Democrat PAC that plans to spend five million on ads attacking President Trump’s handling of the epidemic even as we are in the middle of the crisis.   When people are already balking or not understanding the need to follow the CDC/White House guidelines which are clearly necessary to attack and slow this virus, why would a group choose to try to make people question the President’s actions that include issuing those guidelines?

This most recent PAC is not alone in its actions.  There are other PACs taking similar actions.  Biden and Sanders have not held back in their attacks on how the President is handling the crisis. And of course the Press, even at the daily White House press briefings, latches onto and furthers these attacks.

There will be plenty of time to attack the President and his actions once this crisis is over.  It will be over a lot sooner if we let the President and his experts continue their thus far effective strategies rather than trying to convince the American people that he is incompetent or doesn’t care about this or them, or whatever lies they are trying to spread.

On NPR this morning they were focusing on problems with testing from weeks ago and letting people complain about the incompetence of the system as if it were today.  To be clear, doctors and experts have emphatically stated that problems with testing at the beginning were not the fault of Trump or the CDC, but of a system in place that did not work for this sort of epidemic.  Since then, the President has revamped the system and partnered with private industry to create quicker and faster tests and make them available to all who need them.  Let’s applaud that rather than whine about a problem that has already been handled.

And, as to those tests, not every single American needs one and if every American demands the certainty of knowing they do/do not have the virus they will only clog the system.  People who need tests can get them.  Let the system work.

The Press often attacks because they get information today that was not given yesterday or perhaps conflicts with earlier information.  Well, the information that we have about the virus is evolving hourly as the experts have more data to analyze and more cases to review.  Trump’s team is doing this, informing him, and hence he has new and sometimes different information to provide.  This is not a bad thing.

But then, if you are Donald Trump, too often in the eyes of the Press you are damned if you do and damned if you don’t.  For example, he was criticized for his early decisive action to stop incoming flights from China.  There is no dispute that this early decisive action greatly reduced the threat in our country.  When he could no longer be criticized for closing the borders, he was then criticized for not doing it soon enough.  Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.  And certainly not helpful in a time of crisis.

Then there are the repeated attacks because the President (and others) call this the Chinese Virus.  Hey, it came from China.  If it came from America it would be an American virus.  Those are facts.  Calling the virus Chinese is not racist, even if there were no other reason for doing so.  But, besides it being a factual statement, it counters a propaganda campaign waged by China that it was American soldiers who brought the virus to China.  It emphasizes the falsity of that Chinese propaganda.  That is not racist and attempts to make it so are simply attempts to divide the country when we should be trying to bring everyone together with the common goal of defeating this viral enemy.

When a country is under attack, when it is at war, it is a time for the people to pull together for the common good and the good of their country.  They become less self-centered and more concerned with the greater good.  Most Americans are doing this now.  But there are those who are not in this together with the rest of us, who simply see this crisis as an opportunity to further their own selfish interests.  While I hope the American people can and will recognize this, that task becomes harder when one of those who is not pulling together but instead participates in the sowing of seeds of dissention is the Press.  We get our information from the Press and its ability to objectively approach and report news is crucial to our ability to understand a crisis and each do our part to help resolve it.

There are those who have been trying to pull this country apart for several years now.  Their continuing such actions in a time of crisis should prove to all that they do not care about our country or any of us, its people, but instead only care about their own agendas and their own power.  They can only hurt us.

But, to the many Americans who do believe that we are all in this together, who are doing their part in our war against the Coronavirus, I applaud you for your sacrifices, be they great or small.  Thank you for understanding the war we are in, for listening to our leaders and experts, for following the guidelines, even as they evolve, and for protecting not only yourself but your neighbors as well.  If we all pull together we will beat this thing sooner rather than later, so let’s just ignore those disrupters who are not in this with us.