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.

The Blame Game

Biden dismantled Trump’s Afghanistan withdrawal plan yet according to the White House, the dangerous failure in Afghanistan is Trump’s fault. 

This blame game shouldn’t surprise us.  After all:

·        Biden dismantled Trump’s border controls yet according to the White House, the border crisis is Trump’s fault.

·        Biden canceled Trump’s policies that led to energy independence, yet according to the White House, the huge rise in the cost of energy is Trump’s fault.

·        Biden’s economic policies that are a reversal of Trump’s have resulted in the highest inflation in years, yet according to the White House, the rise in inflation and consumer prices are Trump’s fault.

·        Biden denigrated Trump’s operation Warp Speed that gave us the Covid vaccine, then blames Trump for not enough vaccinated individuals.

·        Biden supports defunding the police, then blames Trump for rising crime in cities where police where defunded.

Indeed, as Biden creates crisis after crisis, asks the Taliban to be nice, and then leaves on vacation with undisclosed visitors, the White House continues to blame Trump for any and all problems that the country faces. 

And worse, the media goes along with it.  Remember the unforgiving and unending questions that the press would throw at Trump and his press secretary.  The press covering Biden can’t seem to ask a follow-up question – not even about his love for ice cream cones that is not that far from the typical topic of questions presented.

Does the American citizen get any in-depth coverage of the activity of this administration?  No.  Do we get any in-depth coverage of foreign affairs?  No.  Do we get full or in-depth coverage and statistics about Covid, the delta variation, and the effectiveness of mask mandates, vaccines, etc.? No. 

We are fed pablum.  Like babies (or senile presidents perhaps). 

And how many people really stop to ask the "why?" for the many conclusions that they are fed daily?  Or is it just easier to blame Trump and then sit back while the world falls apart around you?

Question 4 - Appearance or Substance? Talk or Action?

This is the 4^th in an intermittent series of questions to think about before casting your ballot in November.

Today I want to encourage everyone to really think about why they are voting for someone. 

Can you vote for someone you don’t like as a person if their policies benefit you and your country (or, can you vote for someone whose policies will likely hurt you/your country just because you like their personality/dislike the personality of their opponent?

This is a critical question this year.  First because the perceptions of the two men running for president differ at the superficial (likability) level.  Secondly, the reality of the actions that each will take as president are substantially different and would have significantly different consequences for this country and the individuals living within it.

I understand that many people do not like Donald Trump’s rough-hewn nature; they do not like his “tell it like it is” way of talking – no couching things in niceties, no euphemisms, no  politically correct terms, etc.  I also understand that many folks like Joe Biden’s “nice guy” image, his big smile, his ability to say what his audience likes to hear. 

I also know that some people object to Donald Trump, saying they cannot vote for him, because they claim to be offended by his “character flaws.”  I don’t believe this excuse because if one is going to be offended by the idea of character flaws  then they would certainly be equally offended by those of Joe Biden:  rape charges against him; verified unwanted touching and hair sniffing of innumerable women and young girls; verified use of his government position for personal and family gain; lying about when he met and began a relationship with his current wife; proven repeated acts of plagiarism to name just a few. 

So, what is it?  Many people say they want their president to act “presidential.”  But what does it really mean to be “presidential?”

We live in an age of appearances.  For many it seems to be all about playing the part, not about who you really are or what you really stand for.  Most of our presidents have been politicians before taking the office;  certainly that is true in the recent past.  Politicians have learned the rules of politi-speak, of how to sound like you are saying something when actually you say nothing, how to talk big but accomplish little.

Donald Trump entered this political world of appearances as an outsider.  He doesn’t fit the mold.  But does that mean that he is not presidential?

Personally, I am far more concerned with actions and accomplishments than with whether someone fits the mold of the stereotypical politician.   What someone does will tell me much more about both the individual’s character as well as what sort of a president he or she might be.  So, with that in mind, let’s look at some of the actions and accomplishments of likeable Joe and rough-hewn Trump.

● Prison Reform:  Biden talked about the need for it for 40+ years, but despite his political influence as senator and vice-president, nothing was done.  Trump got it done – maybe not everything that everyone would like, but a huge step forward.

● Veterans and the VA:  Biden talked about it, Trump got it done.

● Poor economic status and joblessness of minorities:  Biden talked about it, but it was Trump who raised the unemployment status of Blacks and other minorities to the lowest ever in the nation’s history while providing a positive job climate that raised minority economic status to heights not seen before.  While Biden continues to say he will do something, Trump says he will continue to act as he has, continuing to improve the situation.

● Peace in the Middle East:  Biden may have talked about it, Trump just negotiated an historic peace accord between Arab nations and Israel.

● Trade:  Trade deals, including those supported by Biden, were hurting our small businesses, our farmers, and Americans generally.  Trump renegotiated trade deals that are favorable to the U.S.

● Foreign policy:  Biden as part of the Obama administration spoke from a position of apology and weakness whereas Trump speaks from a position of strength.  Trump is fully funding our military and is actually ending the years of foreign wars and bringing our troops home.  He also opened relations with North Korea and likely averted nuclear conflict there.  Meanwhile, Joe Biden was and is using foreign relationships for his own and his family’s personal and financial gain.

● Middle East:  Biden opposed the mission that killed Osama Bin Laden.  Trump sent successful missions against Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and Qasem Soleimani.  The Trump administration has effectively eliminated ISIS.  

● American Embassy in Israel:  Biden talked about moving it to the capital, Jerusalem.  Trump actually moved the embassy to Jerusalem, leading the way for some other nations to do the same.

● Health care:  Biden of course was part of the Obama-Biden healthcare plan that resulted in Obamacare.  The mandates (taxes) under that plan were untenable for many.  Penalties required those who did not want insurance to pay anyway, often outrageous amounts for insurance they did not want or need.  People lost the ability to choose or keep their doctors (despite promises to the contrary).   Biden has said he favors national healthcare and has also said he doesn’t, but it seems clear that he is likely to support at a minimum an Obamacare type plan, a plan administered by government bureaucracy.  President Trump has managed to remove some of the most burdensome parts of Obamacare and expand options and quality of affordable healthcare.  He indicates a desire to do more to provide more affordable choice to Americans.

● Prescription Drugs:  Biden talked about problems of cost and availability.  Trump has reduced the cost of prescription drugs, made them more available, and has given terminal patients the Right to Try Act.

● Immigration:  Obama-Biden actually did put kids in cages but did not even-handedly enforce immigration laws.  Trump enforces the laws on the books (his duty as president), is clear about the distinctions between legal and illegal immigration, has taken many actions (including the wall) to reduce illegal border activity such as child and drug trafficking, and is working to improve access to immigration based on merit.

● Black colleges:  Biden talks about the importance of Black education.  Trump restored funding to Black colleges. 

● Race relations:  Biden believes in identity politics and their divisive effect.   Like many on the Left he likes to make promises and even throw money at minorities, but he rarely shows respect for them as individuals.  Trump’s policies do not pick winner and loser identity groups; instead they equally apply to all Americans. 

This list could go on and on.   I suspect that since the media is more concerned with providing superficial pictures of a likable Biden and an unlikable Trump that some of the above may come as a surprise. 

There are indeed many more that suggest how busy our President is and how much he has gotten done for this country and its people in just 3 ½ years.  His actions have angered some, but, not being a typical politician, he is not in it to be liked, he does not play political games, he just gets things done.  He has kept just about all of his campaign promises. 

Beyond actions, the policies supported by each candidate and his party are important and, in this election year, if not polar opposites, they certainly reflect vastly different views of this country and what it will become.

President Trump’s actions suggest that he believes in the capitalist system, he believes in America and its Constitution, and is generally a conservative.  He supports policies that provide equal opportunity to all Americans, he believes in individual responsibility and choice, he is pro-life, he believes in small government and follows the Constitutional limits on the federal government respecting the rights of the states and their governors to make decisions about such things as using the national guard to quell riots or mandating masks. 

Joe Biden’s actions in the past have suggested that he believes in big government and is willing to accept significant government control over the lives of the populace.  He believes less in individual responsibility and choice and more in government regulation and direction over individual lives.  Like many on the Left he believes that he knows what is good for you and that you should simply leave it up to government to both provide for you and decide what you should say, believe, and think. 

If not a socialist, many of Biden’s handlers are.  There is little doubt that what he now has referred to as the Harris administration will heavily lean socialist.

In a capitalist democratic republic, one is free to make their own choices and to become the person they were meant to be.  In a socialist world, the government makes the choices and the individual will only become the person that they are allowed to be.  It is a significant difference.

So, back to today’s question.  It is unlikely that you are ever going to actually meet Joe Biden or Donald Trump, let alone sit down with them as friends.  So why does it matter whether you like one or dislike one as a person?  Shouldn’t it be more important to look at the actions of each, not what they say or how they charm you?  Wouldn’t it be better to make your choice based on the America that each foresees for your future? 

Joe Biden is a charming talker.   But in 40 plus years of public service he has done little to better the life of Americans or to further the stature of America itself. 

Donald Trump does what he says he is going to do.  In the process he may not be the likable charmer that most politicians are.  But he is direct and honest, whether you like what he says or how he says it.  And his actions in the short time he has been in office have done enormous good for the country and its people. 

As I have said previously, I am not registered with any party, but as an independent thinker and voter I truly believe that this may be one of the most important elections of our lifetime.  So, for me it is about substance, not superficial appearance when I consider what makes someone “presidential.”  

Superficial Appearance or Substance.  While for many Joe Biden may win the superficiality contest, when I look at the substance the scale tips heavily in favor of President Trump.  He has my vote for another 4 years.

 

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. 

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.   

Don’t Fall for It, Part 3

“Russian Collusion” didn’t work.  “He’s a Racist” isn’t working.  So, now the media, spokes-machine for the anti-Trumpers and the Left, is pushing a “coming recession” as a way to keep President Trump from being re-elected.  Don’t fall for it.

The Democrats and their handmaiden the mainstream media love to float theories about President Trump and his administration that have no, or at best very weak, factual support.  They repeat their subversive allegations and accusations over and over, both directly (“Trump is a racist”) and more subtly in a way that presents as a fact that supports their message something that has not yet been proven  (for example, “Trump’s racist statement”  when there is no evidence other than the media’s biased interpretation that the statement being referred to is indeed racist).  The Left seems to subscribe to the theory that if you repeat something enough times, then the people will believe that it is true.

This repetition of an unproven and often false narrative is a key tool of propaganda as well as useful in brainwashing.  The media selectively presents facts in a way that make them sound as if they are proof of the narrative they are promoting.  They love to characterize opinion as fact and then use that “fact” to condemn the President. 

This is really not that different from what conspiracy theorists do.  “A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful actors, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable.”  One seeking a conspiracy, or simply a narrative that condemns the President, will re-interpret objective evidence in a way that omits any fact or rational interpretation that counters the proposed narrative.  When there is no actual evidence to support the conspiracy or the narrative, what does exist will be re-interpreted as evidence of the truth of the narrative so that the conspiracy or the narrative “becomes a matter of faith rather than proof.”

And isn’t that just what we see happening among the Democrats and the media.  They have a narrative that the President is some sort of Russian agent, a racist, etc. and they will continue to ignore actual facts and instead continue to repeat their narrative.   They don't give up their belief in Russian collusion despite a thorough investigation to the contrary.  It has become a matter of faith rather than fact.

Similarly, the Left continues to put forth the now clearly debunked narrative that after Charlottesville the President said the Nazis were good people even though the actual tape of his statement shows that while he did indicate that there were good people on both sides who were there simply to protest about the Robert E. Lee statue, he then continued with the following words that persist in being completely omitted from the Left’s narrative:  “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists because they should be condemned totally.”

But more insidious even than such outright omissions that fully change the reality of a situation is the Left’s use of basic persuasive and propaganda techniques to subtly present as true fact something for which there is no evidence or no proof.  How many times do we hear a statement about Trump begin “Trump’s racist words…” or “Trump’s offensive statement…” or “Trump’s disruptive act…”, etc.  The speaker is stating as facts that words or statements or actions are as negatively labeled.  Yet, that is nothing more than the speaker’s opinion, it is not a proven fact. 

Likewise, we hear over and over that the President’s purpose in enforcing immigration laws and putting an end to illegal immigration is one of promoting white supremacy.  There is no actual proof of that; it is simply the assumption of those whose hateful narrative about the President includes labeling him as a white supremacist. Yet, if the negative labels are repeated often enough it is likely that they become accepted as the fact that is necessary to prove the speaker’s narrative.

Now, I do not know if there will be some sort of economic collapse if the President is re-elected.  Actually, I believe it is much more likely that our booming economy will go bust if a Democrat becomes president.  But, that is my opinion, just as the Left’s new economic anti-Trump rhetoric is nothing more than their latest theory – their new narrative in their war on Trump. 

Like other conspiracy theorists, the Left’s narrative is more a matter of faith than of proof.  You do not have to join their cult.  Demand proof.  Listen carefully to their words.  Ask questions.  Find the full story – the full, complete, and actual narrative, not the fictional presentation of those who have their own agenda.  Do not simply fall for what they tell you, no matter how many times they repeat it.