Flunking the Test

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

What is Your Identity?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Names We Call Things - Some Thoughts on Critical Thinking

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citizenship is a Commitment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sometimes a Mask is Not Just a Mask

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

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

A.      The virus is the apocalypse and everything must close

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transformation, Reality, and Dreams.

Joe Biden tweeted Sunday that if he gets elected, his administration “won’t just rebuild this nation — we’ll transform it,”

Seems like I’ve heard this nebulous sort of promise before.  Candidate Obama promised us “hope and change.”  The problem with such a chameleon-like phrase is that it leaves each of us to decide for ourselves what it means. 

Obama’s “hope and change” slogan sounded great.  Was it?  For some perhaps.  For others it meant the rise of identity politics that create more and more discord in our country.  To some it meant continuing to be left jobless and hopeless in the inner cities of America.  For some it meant the rise of the deep state and the ability to weaponize our federal agencies against political opponents.

And who was a part of that “hope and change” administration?  The man who now claims he will transform our country.  The man who spent his life as a political leader apparently making a country that he now suddenly decides must be “transformed.”

Transform it to what?  He says he will not just rebuild.  To rebuild presumes that something was unbuilt that needs to be rebuilt.  In this instance it means that he is with those protestors, progressives, and socialists who would unbuild – destroy – America as we know it so that it can then be rebuilt.  And, in the words of Joe (or his handlers), not just rebuilt, but transformed.  So, it will not be America as we know it.

What will it be?  A dictatorship commanded by those elites or intelligentsia who think they know better than we do what is good for us?  A socialist state which begins with a Utopian sort of dream where everyone will be happy but quickly devolves into horror for all but those in power who, by the way, are rarely the ones who were used to bring the destruction of the old regime about. 

Is this the transformation we are to look forward to with a Biden presidency?  Will he tell us?  Or will he, like Candidate Obama, use some words that have the potential of conjuring up positive visions in the mind of the hearer but which may not be the actual intent of those words at all?

Wake up.  Everyone who fell for the unsubstantiated and dreamlike promise of the Obama-Biden candidacy should see the truth underlying Biden’s campaign promise of “transformation.”  Repeat the words:  fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

Do not vote for the unstated destruction, then the rebuilding with transformation unless and until you are absolutely sure what those words mean.  Demand specifics.  What will be destroyed?  What will be rebuilt?  What will be transformed?  And how?

Do not assume you know what those words mean.  And do not assume that even if they do mean what you want them to that the promise is possible:  consider what must be given up to make it possible.  For example, let’s say you believe that transformation means a perfect world in which we all are happy and healthy and have all that we need and want.  The socialist or Utopian dream.  But what would you give up to have that dream?

In Episode 24 of the original Star Trek’s first season, the crew of the Enterprise end up on a planet where everything is perfect – health, happiness, love abound – it seems a true Utopia.  Seems, but is not.  Captain Kirk realizes that things are not as they seem, the crew is under the spell of some strange spores, and that strong emotions will counteract the effect of the spores.  Once everyone is freed from the spores and have left the planet, the following conversation ensues:

Dr. McCoy: Well, that's the second time man's been thrown out of paradise.

Captain Kirk: No, no, Bones, this time we walked out on our own. Maybe we weren't meant for paradise. Maybe we were meant to fight our way through, struggle, claw our way up, scratch for every inch of the way. Maybe we can't stroll to the music of the lute. We must march to the sound of drums.

In many ways this exemplifies the American spirit, something which needs America in its present (though always improving) form.  The American spirit is not a pretty Utopian creature.  It is the spirit of someone who is not dealt a perfect hand, who has missteps and misfortunes and is sometimes stepped upon, but gets up and moves forward. It is the spirit of someone who dreams beyond what is, who fights and struggles to make things better, always moving up, always improving, never perfect.   It is the spirit of someone who believes that he can, of someone who works hard for what he wants and needs and takes individual responsibility for his successes and his failures.  It is the spirit of someone who is real in a real world, someone who is not content to live statically strolling to the lute.

I can easily equate the spores in this Star Trek episode with the unrealistic dreams purveyed by those who would turn this country to socialism.  Socialism is nothing more than a dream of a perfect world.   Sometimes it is presented with specific images, sometimes with ambiguous words like “hope and change” or “transformation” that suggest your own dreams.  But those dreams are not real.  They are sold by those whose own dreams, not yours, are the goal.

These dreams require that one must give up the American spirit that allows one to be their own individual.  That Utopian dream has only the “music of the lute.”  It denies to us the other passions and emotions that make us human.  It requires us to suppress all that makes us each the individual that we are and instead bow to the behavior, thought, speech, and very being that the Utopian leaders, the spores, mandate.  No drums, just the lute – their lute.  No real emotion, just that which is approved.

Utopia is not freedom.  It is a cage.  And to achieve the socialist dream, to “transform” our current America to something different, relinquishment of individual control is necessary.  The leader of the Utopia will decide what thoughts, words, and, behavior is allowed.  There will be no dissent.  No contrary emotions allowed. 

And, be very clear, the class or identity group that is used to fight for socialism will not be the ruling class of the socialist state.  The workers may have been used by Lenin to destroy the old order and bring his Marxist socialism to power, but the new state was then "rebuilt" from the top down; the workers were not the ones who ruled its brutal Communist state for 75 years.  The workers in Venezuela similarly bought a Utopian dream, but that dream become a nightmare for them once their usefulness to those in power ended.  And, after Obama’s election, the voters who had bought his promise of “hope and change” and given him victory, languished in the same inner cities of crime, unemployment and hopelessness.

The American spirit is sometimes rough and hard and not pretty.  Its music is seldom that of the lute, but more often loud and sometimes discordant.  But it is also full of energy and hope and, perhaps more importantly, it is never static but always growing.   Think hard about whether that is really something that you want to destroy (unbuild), rebuild, and then transform.

We are not just pretty lute players.  We are also drummers and dancers and shouters and singers and inventors.  We don’t all have one idea, but we create new ideas and inspire new and diverse thoughts with our ability to speak and think and behave as the individuals that we are.

The current demonstrations are of course a product of this freedom.  And if they were simply about creating an even better place in which the American spirit can thrive, I would likely support them.  But, they are not; they are about destroying and then rebuilding America into something else, something that it is not.

And I am offended that a presidential candidate would use the already fomented discontent to essentially further urge a destruction of America to be replaced with some sort of unattainable Utopian dream.  A dream that by necessity must destroy the American spirit because individual thought does not work when your goal is to make everyone move in unison to the sound of your lute.  Perfection does not allow for dissent because any dissent is seen as an imperfection.

I am delighted to accept an imperfect world if it means I can be who I am, think what I think, experience all my emotions, and walk in unity with people who are not all like me but are each and everyone their own unique and diverse being.  I do not want that world “transformed.” 

The imperfect democratic republic in which we live is the best place for our full humanity to thrive.  The American spirit and the America in which it lives can and will always find ways to improve itself.  And anyone who believes that it should be destroyed and “transformed” either does not understand who and what this country and its people are or is willing to sacrifice them to achieve their own (not America’s) dream.  Like the crew of Star Trek, we need to banish the effect of the false dream and walk away, “on our own” from Biden and the Left’s “transformation.”

Different Agendas

These are photos of two very different sets of protestors confronting police.  The first is from a 1967 anti-war demonstration at the Pentagon, the second is from a BLM demonstration in NY in the past month.

Someone asked me why today’s protestors seem so “mean and angry.”

The woman in the lower photo certainly looks angrier than the young man in the top photo placing flowers in the guns of the police.  But is she?  Or is it a different kind of anger stemming from very different underlying motivations?

I am a “veteran” of anti-war protests of the 60s.  While my experience was mostly one of loud, rowdy, but mostly peaceful protests, that does not mean that there was not also some violence at some protests.   There were organizations that sometimes seemed more interested in creating violent situations than in having their voices heard in protest.  I can recall attending a couple meetings of the radical SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) and learning “guerrilla warfare” tactics that could be used for violence within a crowd.  (I did not participate in those protests). 

SDS was a Leftist or perhaps Socialist organization; its militant faction the Weathermen were inspired by other revolutionaries and believed that by creating or inflaming violent confrontations they could “bring the war home” meaning force the U.S. out of Vietnam in order to deal with a violent domestic revolution.  Whether their hopes for their revolution went beyond that or not, I don’t know.

Protesters of the 60s talked about peace and love, but they were also angry.  The anti-war protests channeled the anger that many had toward what they saw as a conflict that the U.S. should never have become involved in and should get out of as soon as possible.  The anger was at what the protesters saw as a misguided policy giving way to incorrect if not immoral actions of our government.  The hope was that the government would change course.  The protesters were passionate about their cause. 

Today’s protesters are also passionate.  Many of the protesters are peaceful and, not unlike SDS of the 60s, there are also more militant and violent groups.   But their focus is broader than one defined misstep and mistaken policy of their government.  The protests look, feel, and indeed are very different.

I suggest that the difference is the underlying agendas.  The vast majority of the anti-war protesters of the 60s wanted to end the war.  They may have had different reasons (pacifist; saw this war as unjust; didn’t think US role included this war; didn’t want to be drafted; pro-communist; just want to be with the cool kids; and many more) but the underlying agenda was to stop the war.  Not the government, but the government’s participation in this unjust war.  That was the underlying clear focus and the belief was that if that participation ended the country and the government would be better.

I would note that there were other protests during the 60s – civil rights, women’s rights are two that I was also acquainted with.  Like the anti-war protests of the time, these protests also had a very focused target with the underlying agenda of causing the government to correct that targeted wrong and hence move forward to be better for its correction.

At times the 60s protests might very well have sounded like and looked like an expression of hatred for the government generally, but in reality it was for most of the protestors a hatred for a particular policy or action of the government.  Stopping that action, not the entire government, was the agenda.  The anger was a constructive and positive movement forward. 

Not so the current protests.  Today’s protests, whether peaceful, or attempts to incite violence, or actually violent are not directed at one act of our government but at the entire government (the “system”).  While today’s protesters may speak of justice and a better America, their agenda in achieving that is not to correct misguided actions but to actually dismantle the entire structure of America and rebuild it as something else. 

This is classic Marxism. Any good Marxist or Socialist understands that a revolution which seeks to restructure a governmental system must involve violence.  And, like any good Marxist leader, the leaders of this revolution have created a coalition of victim groups and pitted them against the “system.”    Lenin, in engineering the Russian revolution, used the workers as the ones to press that revolution and destroy the existing system.  (Once it was destroyed, however, power was once again taken from the workers and returned to a new power group to build a new system from the top down.)

Today we do not have a worker class revolting against czars, but we do have identity groups fomented to “hate the system” and hence to tear it down.  While the protestors of the 60s still, for the most part, respected the “system,” today's protestors do not.  They don’t want to fix it, they want to destroy it.  Why?

When they were children, the 60s protestors were taught that America is a great country.  They were told of America’s strengths and weaknesses, of her achievements and her sins.  But, most importantly, they were taught that the American “system” provided a voice and a means of making corrections and improvements that would move America forward and to even more positive achievements.  They learned that this voice (and its accompanying responsibilities) belongs to them and that while our government through our Constitution protects and preserves that right, it does not own it.

Today’s protestors have not been taught how the “system” works for our and the country’s good.  Rather, they have been told that America is generally bad and its “system” is not good.  Rather than being taught that the Constitution protects rights that belong to each individual, they are taught that rights are something the government creates and then gives these rights to (or takes them away from) the individual.  The government, not the individual, owns the rights.   From there it is an easy step to convince those who do not have all that they want or that others have acquired or achieved that they are victims of the “system.”

So, while the 60s protestors respected the system because it protected their individual rights (including their right to protest), today’s protestors rebel against a system that they see as not providing what it should.  This is a big difference.  And the anger that is generated is also very different. 

If the perceived or desired “system” is one of large government that, rather than protecting individual rights, doles them out as it sees fit and thus, takes from the people their right to guide themselves, then it makes sense that one who feels that he or others are unfairly dealt with might want to overturn that “system.”  And, so, today’s protestors work not to correct a misstep of our current system, but to overturn it entirely.

The 60s protestors, and many similar protests from our history (women’s vote, civil rights, union and labor laws, women’s rights, LGBTQ rights, etc. ) have all had an agenda directed at correcting what was viewed by the protestors as a wrong action of government.  Working with the system and the right it gives people to conduct such protests, these groups worked and channeled their anger to better the existing system.

Today’s protestors do not have a similar narrowly focused agenda.  Theirs is not to correct a specific wrong, but to dismantle an entire system.  This is a revolution going on.  The anger it generates is destructive. 

The language and demands and future visions of the movement sound a lot like the pretty promises of Socialism.  The tactics are the same – create a victim group or groups and pit them against other groups that are labeled to signify the victimizers and the current system.  Step one – destroy the system.  Step 2- rebuild to the design of a new ruling class.  That is the agenda and it is very different from simply wanting to fix something within an otherwise functioning and good system.

So, the soldiers in the protests may have the same passion, but the anger is very different and is the product of a very different sort of war.  While the 60s protestors for the most part had a general respect for and wanted to correct and improve the “system”, today’s protestors have little respect for the “system” or any of its institutions.  Their anger is different, and their agenda is destructive. 

Today’s protestors are not interested in improvement of what exists.  They want to tear down America.   Their anger is that of a manipulated socialist revolutionary.  It is not directed at anything other than destruction.  And that is why today’s protests look and feel very different.