Month: August 2020

Categories
Politics

Snow, Rain, and Gloom of Night

I’ve done my share of grumbling about the postal service. There was the mail carrier at my long-time home in Florida who consistently put my mail in neighbors’ boxes and neighbors’ mail in my box or occasionally left packages on the wrong porches. Part of the daily mailbox run was walking to the neighbors’ houses delivering the misplaced envelopes and parcels to the proper boxes and porches.

When I moved into a condo the last 18 months of my life in Florida, all of the mailboxes were together by the swimming pool. During the entire 18 months I lived there, I received mail for every previous resident of that condo; and when I got tired of writing on each envelope, I just started dropping them into the outgoing mail slot, figuring that would be enough to let the delivery person know they didn’t belong there. Nope. It worked for a while, then the new carrier started putting the envelopes right back into my box. You found this in outgoing mail. What should that tell you?

Then there was the time just a few months ago, after I had made my epic move right smack in the middle of a pandemic and was dependent on online ordering to get the things I needed for my new condo. I had ordered a pad to go under one of the rugs I bought. The company shipped the pad via USPS, and one morning I found a colored slip of paper in my mailbox (also the kind where all of the boxes are together), saying “Sorry we missed you. We attempted to deliver a package, will try again.” Mind you, this is a set of drive-by mailboxes; my little cubicle is possibly 3 inches high by maybe 10-12 inches wide and about that deep. You could probably have looked at that package at the post office and figured out that it wasn’t going to fit in any mailbox on the planet. And what do you mean you’re sorry you missed me? Were you really expecting to find me in that little box? Did you ring the bell and I didn’t come to the door? I was speechless; well, maybe not really speechless, but nothing I said would be decent to repeat here. The next day, I received a second note saying they were sorry to have missed me again.

After that, I left a response in the box, which I also won’t repeat here, because now that the post office is in so much trouble, I have to admit I’ve been feeling pretty guilty about that one. (I didn’t use any curse words, so at least there’s that.)

I’ve often told my children that the world we currently live in is so much different from the world in which I spent my youth that it’s almost as if I’ve moved to another planet. It would be easier to name the things that have stayed the same than the things that have changed, but high on that short list of things which have remained constant throughout my life is the six-day-every-week mail delivery. Except for holidays, there’s rarely been a day in my life when I have not checked the mailbox and anticipated what treasures I might find. Before email and Zoom, I fondly remember getting letters. Those were exciting, almost exotic! I come from a huge family, spread out over the entire United States and into northern Mexico, so we received many letters from aunts and uncles and grandparents. I can still remember the thrill of seeing a Mexico postmark, knowing it was news from my Uncle Lavee and his family.

The “mailman” was one of our favorite people–and powerful! He could rouse sleeping dogs into full attack mode (still can), make little children feel special with his friendly smile, bring joy to homes with news from distant loved ones, and deliver needed commodities to homebound neighbors. The importance of this job is caricatured in one of my favorite Cheers characters: the pompous know-it-all Cliff Clavin, who is rarely seen in anything but his blue postal uniform and who sees being a postal carrier as only slightly below knighthood.

Operating under the unofficial motto “Neither snow nor rain nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds,” those blue-uniformed men (and later women) made their way to my mailbox every day–some days pretty late during heavy volume times like Christmas. Oh, remember the Christmas cards! And we knew that, if we just did our part by getting our packages to the post office on time, the post office would work overtime to do its part by delivering them to their destinations in time for Santa’s arrival.

Mail-in voting in the form of “absentee ballots” dates back to the Civil War, when it was allowed for military personnel. Absentee ballots have been used continuously since that time for military voters as well as citizens unable to go to physical polling places. My former in-laws voted absentee because of my mother-in-law’s disability. In more recent years, five states have moved to voting almost completely by mail: Hawaii, Utah, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington. And an increasing number of other states are either making efforts to change to a mail-in system or are offering mail-in ballots as an option for all voters. My former state, Florida, has for a number of years been strongly encouraging mail-in voting. I opted for it several elections ago, because I found I could vote more effectively at home where I had access to information about the less familiar items on the ballot, which don’t receive the same level of hype as presidential candidates.

Never in my wildest dreams could I have imagined the post office–the post office!–becoming the epicenter of a political battle and a tool in the hands of a power-hungry president hoping to become a dictator. I’m not sure I could tell you the names of three Postmasters General during my life, but now Louis DeJoy is one of the first names mentioned on the nightly news. What is supposed to be a completely a-political government agency, like the Justice Department, is–like the Justice Department–being used by an unscrupulous political party as its personal accomplice.

Together, Donald Trump and his henchman Louis DeJoy have moved quickly to cripple the postal service ahead of the upcoming election, because Trump has been building hysteria over the long-standing practice of absentee or mail-in voting (same thing!). Trump knows the more people who vote the smaller the percentage likely to vote for him, so he has worked feverishly to suppress voting, including getting himself a new Postmaster General who, like his Attorney General William Barr, will be willing to forget that he’s supposed to be working for the American Public and not acting as the president’s personal hit man.

Mail collection boxes have been removed from the streets or left in place but locked so as to render them useless. Sorting machines have been removed from distribution centers. They have also cut overtime and limited post office hours, causing massive delivery delays. Although public outcry caused DeJoy to stop short of completing some of the changes and to reverse others, enough damage has already been done to cast doubt on whether the USPS is ready to deliver the ballots for this November in time for everyone’s vote to be counted. These are the kinds of things that, if we were reading about their happening in another country, we’d be shocked and outraged. But since the last four years have numbed our ability to be shocked, now it’s just another news cycle. Who’s the shithole country now?

Much of the current controversy centers on the USPS’s financial stability. In Postmaster General Louis DeJoy’s opening remarks to the Board of Governors on August 7, 2020, he said:

“That said, I am a realist, and am keenly aware of the magnitude of the financial challenges we face. Our financial position is dire, stemming from substantial declines in mail volume, a broken business model and a management strategy that has not adequately addressed these issues. As a result, the Postal Service has experienced over a decade of financial losses, with FY 2019 approaching $9 billion and 2020 closing in on $11 billion in losses. Without dramatic change, there is no end in sight, and we face an impending liquidity crisis.”

These are legitimate concerns, and if an overhaul is in order, it would not be the first time in our history that the postal service has been reorganized to keep up with current demands. Electronic communication has reduced many people’s reliance on letters delivered to physical mailboxes. Many packages are delivered by rival private for-profit businesses such as UPS and FedEx. For many people, checks have been replaced by direct deposit, wire transfers, and electronic transfer services such as PayPal and Venmo. Yet many do still rely on the postal service for those services, and for all of us it is still a vital part of our staying connected and receiving the goods and commodities we need.

More importantly, if an overhaul is genuinely needed for the reasons Mr. DeJoy mentions, doesn’t it seem a tad coincidental that massive restructuring would be started less than three months before an election, and especially an election which because of health concerns will depend more heavily than usual on mail-in voting? Doesn’t it also seem a bit odd that those high-speed sorting machines which were already there and already paid for would be disassembled and pushed into a corner–to accomplish what? One doesn’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to see what’s happening here. 

Many are calling for privatizing mail delivery, or breaking up the government agency’s monopoly and allowing private companies to compete. We already do that with package delivery, so why not letters and other services also? I don’t know what the future of the United States Postal Service will look like, but I believe it’s important for every citizen to understand what it is now and the history which has led it to this point.

This is a collection of facts about the postal service, in no particular order, which many people in my age range already know. However, it’s a good review for all of us and a fact check for younger people who may be hearing conflicting arguments about the value of this American institution.

So let’s sort out the FACTS:

  1. The U. S. Postal Service is a department of the U. S. Government.
  2. The postal service is NOT a private business. UPS, FedEx, DHL, and that shiny fleet of blue Amazon vans are private delivery services.
  3. Government services are not expected to turn a profit; they are supported by our tax dollars and by our payment for services.
  4. Private delivery services (such as UPS and FedEx) are for-profit businesses.
  5. If a government service is in the red, it means that it needs more funding or better management or both. That is the job of Congress and of the Board of Governors appointed to run the USPS.
  6. The responsibility “to establish Post offices and post roads” is among the powers accorded to Congress by Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution.
  7. As a government agency, the postal service is not intended to turn a profit. Private businesses are for-profit organizations; government agencies are public services, funded by tax payers.
  8. Also included in Congress’s list of powers in Article I, Section 8 are, among others, coining money, protecting copyrights and patents, raising and supporting armies, providing and maintaining a navy, and organizing and managing the militia. I haven’t heard anyone complaining that the mint, the copyright office, the army, or the navy isn’t turning a profit. We may debate over the appropriate amount of military funding, but we don’t expect a return on our investment–other than, of course, our safety.
  9. The centralized postal service has been in continuous operation since 1775 when the Second Continental Congress ordered the United States Post Office (USPO). This was the first national mail service; before that time, mail delivery had been handled by individual colonies and communities.
  10. Journalists led the push for a national mail service, which they believed was necessitated by the urgency of connecting the colonies and sharing news of national importance as the revolution was brewing.
  11. Benjamin Franklin was appointed the first Postmaster General.
  12. After the Revolution, George Washington created the U.S. Post Office Department (USPOD) in 1792, based on Article I, Section 8 of the new constitution.
  13. From 1792 until 1971, the Postmaster General was a member of the President’s cabinet.
  14. On August 12, 1970, following unrest among postal employees which led to a major strike over low wages and poor working conditions, President Nixon signed the Postal Reorganization Act.
  15. That act replaced the cabinet-level post office department with a new federal agency, the United States Postal Service (USPS), effective July 1, 1971.
  16. The new agency is described as a corporation-like independent agency with an official monopoly on the delivery of mail in the United States. The key word in that sentence is “like.” The USPS is a government agency, not a for-profit corporation.
  17. The first paragraph of the 1970 Postal Reorganization Act clearly describes the structure and responsibilities of the USPS:

“The United States Postal Service shall be operated as a basic and fundamental service provided to the people by the Government of the United States, authorized by the Constitution, created by Act of Congress, and supported by the people. The Postal Service shall have as its basic function the obligation to provide postal services to bind the Nation together through the personal, educational, literary, and business correspondence of the people. It shall provide prompt, reliable, and efficient services to patrons in all areas and shall render postal services to all communities.”

18. The governing body of the USPS is the Board of Governors, comprised of up to nine governors; they elect the Postmaster General.

19. Interesting side fact: The first postage stamps were issued in 1847. Before that time, letters were sent C.O.D., with the receiver picking up the letter and paying for its delivery. According to sources, some people resisted the change to having senders pay in advance. Some felt it was an insult to the receiver, suggesting the receiver was too poor or too cheap to pay for his/her own mail.

20. Things the USPS delivers besides letters and junk mail: medications, Social Security checks, income tax refunds, absentee ballots, plants and animals to farmers. There’s one I didn’t know: Farmers receive baby chicks by mail. I read one account of a woman who received a box of 500 newly hatched chicks, of which only 25 were alive because their delivery had been delayed by the antics of Trump and DeJoy.

The next time you grumble about the postal service, as we all will, here are a few other facts to remember.

  1. The USPS employs 469,934 of our fellow citizens, 40% of whom are minorities.
  2. Those 469,934 public servants help to deliver 472.1 million pieces of mail every day.
  3. Sometimes they put things in the wrong boxes, lose a few things, run late, or leave ridiculous notes. Sometimes the barista at Starbucks serves you a cappuccino when you asked for a frappuccino or an iced cold brew when you ordered a hot coffee. Sometimes your restaurant chef sends out a well-done steak when you specifically said medium rare. Sometimes your server neglects to refill your water glass. Sometimes your English professor gives you a B on that brilliant essay when it clearly deserved an A (right!). Mistakes happen in all professions, and most of them are not fatal. Any agency that can process and deliver 470,000 pieces of mail every day, six days a week, at affordable prices, to all neighborhoods, deserves our gratitude and admiration.

The postal service is a treasured American institution which we must not allow to be destroyed by political partisanship or by unethical power mongers. We should all heed the words of James Madison in Federalist No. 42:

“The power of establishing post roads must, in every view, be a harmless power, and may, perhaps, by judicious management, become productive of great public conveniency. Nothing which tends to facilitate the intercourse between the States can be deemed unworthy of the public care.”

Today’s reality is that high-level officials are using this constitutional power to do harm and to serve their own political ambitions. Therefore, those of us who benefit from it must accept our responsibility to care for it. If every one of us would just do the simple act of buying a sheet of stamps, we could infuse the USPS with millions of operating dollars. We the people must step up and save the institutions we treasure. That is the true definition of “conservative.”

Categories
Coronavirus, COVID-19 Politics

Bread Crumbs, Q Drops, and Code 17

Many years ago, home alone on a Saturday morning and in search of entertainment, I  came across a movie called Capricorn One, about an elaborate hoax to fake a Mars landing. Kidnapped flight crew, secret sound stages, special effects, and a desperate escape through the desert–it has all the makings of a thriller. This movie was my Intro to Conspiracy Theories/Conspiracy Theories 101 class. Because it had never before occurred to me that perpetrating such a grand hoax could be possible–let alone that anyone would have reason to do such a thing–I admit I was intrigued for weeks. It raised questions about the moon landing and everything else I had ever read about NASA, space exploration, and the integrity of our government and its agencies.

To be clear, when I say “intrigued,” I do not mean I ever believed the notion of grand hoaxes perpetrated by NASA or questioned the legitimacy of our country’s advances into space travel. I mean I was intellectually curious: curious to know why anyone would propose such an idea, curious to understand what kind of mind questions verifiable scientific fact, curious to know whether such a hoax could be pulled off.

That film was produced in 1977, so obviously conspiracy theories are not a 21st-century phenomenon, and they were not even a 20th-century phenomenon. It does seem, however, that conspiracy theories have proliferated and gained traction more in the last decade than in all the other decades of my life.

Q Anon is one of the hot groups right now chasing some wild theories about the inner workings of our government. Recently, after hearing the name mentioned so often, I realized I didn’t have a clear understanding of who or what this group is, beyond the obvious, that it’s pretty crazy. So I found some articles in reputable publications (I refuse to visit Q Anon sites) and educated myself. If, like me, you’re not quite sure what Q Anon is or whether you should rush out to sign up, here’s a little of what I learned.

The core belief of those who identify as Q Anon followers is that the United States is governed by a “deep state” made up of Satan-worshiping pedophiles. Although that would certainly explain a lot about what’s happening right now, we’ve advanced from Conspiracy Theories 101 into the post-doctoral courses: Conspiracy Theory Meets Twilight Zone. An August 20 New York Times article adds, “Members of this group [also] kill and eat their victims in order to extract a life-extending chemical from their blood.” So for the sake of brevity, let’s call them the SWPCs (Satan-worshiping pedophilic cannibals).

It’s pretty hard to imagine such far-fetched stuff going mainstream, but it has done just that. The same NYT article says social media platforms have been flooded with misinformation propagated by this umbrella “for a sprawling set of internet conspiracy theories that allege, falsely, that the world is run by a cabal of Satan-worshiping pedophiles who are plotting against Mr. Trump while operating a global child sex-trafficking ring.” It’s also known as a “big-tent” conspiracy theory, so it’s an equal-opportunity clearing house for all types of wackos.

And that brings us to the least shocking fact of all: Donald Trump is at the center of this madness. In fact, Donald Trump is the hero they are trying to rescue from the grips of the deep-state SWPCs; or, as ABC News puts it, he is their “crusading savior.”

Most of the people I hang out with, when Q Anon is mentioned, will respond with either a furrowed brow and a “Huh??” or an eye roll and a “Pffft.” The scary thing, however, is that since I’m rather selective, as I imagine you are, about the people I hang out with, my circle is probably not an accurate sampling of the population at large. The list believed to be part of the SWPC Clique include, but is not limited to, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, George Soros, Oprah Winfrey, Tom Hanks, Ellen DeGeneres, Pope Francis, and the Dalai Lama (New York Times 8/20).

Various sources estimate the number of Q Anon followers–that is, the ones who actually believe Tom Hanks and Barack Obama worship Satan and eat children–in the hundreds of thousands to the millions. So while your immediate circle of friends may not include any QAnon types, that person behind you in the grocery store checkout line, the person ringing up your groceries, that sweet old couple next-door, your hair stylist, your dentist (I’ve always suspected they’re aliens), the people in the house down the street that you tell your kids to stay away from, or even the slightly odd person sitting on the pew beside you (pre-COVID of course) scrolling on their phone during the minister’s sermon. If the estimates are accurate, we’re all sure to encounter a few.

So what is it that these followers are following? “Q” is allegedly a high-ranking intelligence officer who has infiltrated the deep state in order to expose and destroy it. The person first started posting on an Internet message board in October 2017 under the name Q Clearance Patriot, later shortened to just “Q.” Q is the Department of Energy’s designation for Top Secret Restricted Data, National Security Information, and Secret Restricted Data–meant to suggest that this person has access to all of the most highly classified information possessed by the United States intelligence community.

No one knows who this person is (that’s the Anon part), but he or she sends out coded information as marching orders to the faithful. Q posts these coded messages on Internet boards; the posts are called “bread crumbs” or “Q drops.” There are even Q drop apps which collect all of the crumbs and notify the user when a new one arrives, for the highly organized wacko. The number 17 is important, because Q is the 17th letter of the alphabet and also one DT has used several times, which makes it an obvious choice for use in coded messages. Are you with me so far? Am I with me so far? This is deeply disturbing territory we’re in here.

It’s not certain whether Q is a single individual, a group, or an identity that morphs over time; but all who follow believe they are engaged in a global war against an evil cabal, which will “soon culminate in ‘The Storm’ — an appointed time when Mr. Trump would finally unmask the cabal, punish its members for their crimes and restore America to greatness” (New York Times 8/20). Hmm, does this mean MAGA is also code?

This Storm thing reminds me of “The Rapture,” something I was taught as a child in church, not exactly a conspiracy theory, but with some similarities. The story goes that Jesus will some day, when least expected, sneak up on us and beam up all of his favorites, then rain down death and destruction on all the poor saps left behind.

But back to the SWPCs and those faithful soldiers helping Donald Trump win the war against them, this is stuff that Rod Serling and Stephen King might be proud to have written; but as real-life politics, one must wonder just who the hell believes it. And more importantly, why? What does anyone gain by accepting weird fiction as reality?

In elementary school, I read the tall tales of Paul Bunyan and Babe the Blue Ox. Throughout my school years, we read about the deities of various countries, most notably Greece and Rome. There was a whole horde of gods and goddesses in each of the mythologies, created by pre-scientific people as explanations for natural phenomena for which there were so far no more sophisticated explanations. Those myths survived science to become literature that captures our imaginations with epic tales of intrigue, personal rivalries, sex, and war.

After President Kennedy was assassinated, conspiracy theories abounded, because humans always crave explanations when tragedy strikes; we need something that makes sense of a senseless act. According to some theories, he was still alive but gravely wounded. I met someone who told me she had heard first-hand from a family member that the wing of the Dallas hospital in which Kennedy had “allegedly” died was closed for months afterward, suggesting he was still there. I even heard that Jackie married Aristotle Onassis only because he owned a private island where she could keep her invalid husband. And then of course, there was the whole string of theories about who really shot him and why.

The thing that makes tall tales, epic stories of mythology, a faked Mars landing, and a dead president who wasn’t really dead relatively harmless is that they are either clearly fiction or they’re isolated theories confined to small groups or to individuals. What Donald Trump and the modern Republican Party have done for conspiracy theories is to take them mainstream. The number of followers is huge and growing daily.

Just this week, Marjorie Taylor Greene won a Georgia primary for a seat in Congress; and most pundits think she has a strong chance at winning in the general election. So Q Anon goes to Congress. It doesn’t get much more mainstream than that. These people will make the Tea Party look like a tea party.

Second on the not-at-all-shocking list is that Donald Trump likes these people because they like him. When asked at a White House briefing what he thinks of them, he responded, “I’ve heard these are people that love our country. So I don’t know really anything about it other than they do supposedly like me.” Well, then, they’re okay. DT’s sole criterion for a person or group’s legitimacy is how much they like him. His buddy Vlad calls him frequently, Kim Jong Un writes him beautiful letters, and Q Anon peeps like him. What else is there to know? Meanwhile, he spins his own conspiracies that Barack Obama and Kamala Harris are not natural citizens and–this morning’s gem–that Joe Biden was not born in Scranton, Pennsylvania.

There is just one word of caution which I think should be mentioned here. Like the term “fake news,” which was coined to name a specific type of information of which all should be wary but now is the aspersion cast at anything unfavorable to our own biases, “conspiracy theory” can also lose its meaning if used indiscriminately.

There’s a difference between an alternate theory and a conspiracy theory. Alternate theories are often breakthroughs that lead us to “think outside the box,” to open our minds to possibilities. Conspiracy theories have no redeeming value. When a thinking person questions the accuracy or legitimacy of a mainstream opinion and decides to challenge it, that person does some research and presents their alternate theory grounded in the factual evidence which led to the theory. That theorist will make a logical argument to explain and defend the validity of their conclusion. A conspiracy theorist can make no such argument because conspiracy theories are never based on fact.

By definition, a conspiracy theory can’t have factual evidence to support it. Brittanica.com defines the term as “an attempt to explain harmful or tragic events as the result of the actions of a small, powerful group. Such explanations reject the accepted narrative surrounding those events; indeed, the official version may be seen as further proof of the conspiracy.” Such theories, then, seem to be the concoctions of suspicious minds, not the conclusions of rational thought.

In science, a theory is

“a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts. The theory of gravitation, for instance, explains why apples fall from trees and astronauts float in space. . . . A theory not only explains known facts; it also allows scientists to make predictions of what they should observe if a theory is true. Scientific theories are testable. New evidence should be compatible with a theory. If it isn’t, the theory is refined or rejected.” (American Museum of Natural History website)

Conspiracy theories are closer to paranoia–“suspicion and mistrust of people or their actions without evidence or justification”–than to scientific theory (definition from online dictionary). Isn’t it interesting that many of the same people who call wearing a mask to prevent the spread of disease “living in fear” see watching message boards for coded messages about Satan-worshiping pedophilic cannibals perfectly reasonable. They ain’t afraid of nothin’.

My favorite Friday night TV show in the early 1960s was The Twilight Zone, though I often slept lightly after watching it. At the beginning of each episode, Rod Serling, the writer of the series, looked into the camera and laid the premise for what was to come. His introduction changed slightly over the years, but this is one version which seems eerily relevant today:

“You unlock this door with the key of imagination. Beyond it is another dimension: a dimension of sound, a dimension of sight, a dimension of mind. You’re moving into a land of both shadow and substance, of things and ideas. You’ve just crossed over into… the Twilight Zone.”

Most days over the last four years, and most intensely since January of this year, I’ve felt we crossed that line and are deep into the Zone. I don’t recall Rod Serling telling viewers how to get out of the Twilight Zone; but I fervently hope we can find the map, because I’ve had enough of living in a world where everything feels surreal, where I don’t even recognize my native country, where citizens are divided into warring tribes, and where we have a president who fans the flames of division. Enough.

Vote on November 3 like your life depends on it. (It does.)

Categories
Coronavirus, COVID-19 Politics

Apocalypse 2020

Someone recently asked me why the United States leads the world in coronavirus infections and deaths yet comes in last for implementing effective measures to control and eliminate the virus and get our lives back to some level of normalcy. Other countries are enjoying restaurant dining, socializing, shopping, and other pleasures which until March 2020 we all took for granted. Other countries also will have their schools open for business as usual this fall. Many of those same countries currently have travel bans against U.S. citizens because we are seen as a public safety risk. An August 9 Newsweek article places Americans at the top of the list of “at-risk travelers to Europe.” Now that’s humbling. So the question “What did these other countries do that we didn’t?” is one we’re compelled to consider.

From what I’m reading, I’d say there are two main answers: (1) Other countries have a centralized plan for fighting the virus and protecting citizens’ health; and (2) the United States is and always has been ruggedly individualistic in our attitude toward the social structure, whereas many other countries live by a more collectivist philosophy. Professor Michael Baker, epidemiologist at the University of Otago in New Zealand, sums up the qualities which have determined success in countries where the virus is under control: a combination of “good science and great leadership.” Sadly, the United States has had neither.

As for great leadership, countries which have seen significant decreases in their rates of infection and death have instituted nationwide policies. Italy, for example, flattened their initial curve by giving shelter-in-place orders for the entire country. Before our U.S. quarantine began, we saw images of Italians holed up in their homes, but it wasn’t just residents of scattered regions here and there; it was the whole of Italy. France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Spain, Belgium, Switzerland, Croatia, Austria, Greece, the Netherlands, Denmark, and many others also issued nationwide stay-at-home orders. Germany had already made face masks mandatory by the end of April. Norway and Denmark are cited in a July 11 New York Times article as “good examples” of countries that were able to reopen schools within only a month after closing them, and “neither country has seen an increase in cases.”

By contrast, the United States has struggled because of the leadership vacuum at the national level, which has forced state and local officials to make policies for those in their own jurisdictions, knowing how easily their directives can be circumvented when other states or counties are still open. New York’s Governor Andrew Cuomo agonized early on over how many restrictions he should place on New Yorkers because those who didn’t wish to comply could simply go elsewhere, then bring back whatever infection they picked up, potentially exacerbating the problem. I spoke to my doctor last week about her experience during this crisis, and she heartily agreed that her job would be infinitely easier if our country had a top-down strategy that would keep everyone “on the same page.”

At the risk of sounding overly crass, I appreciate this analogy I’ve seen often: “Having some states lock down and some states not lock down is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool.” Exactly!

Anthropologist Wade Davis, in an August 6 article published in Rolling Stone, says this about COVID’s effect on our country:

“In a dark season of pestilence, COVID has reduced to tatters the illusion of American exceptionalism. At the height of the crisis, with more than 2,000 dying each day, Americans found themselves members of a failed state, ruled by a dysfunctional and incompetent government largely responsible for death rates that added a tragic coda to America’s claim to supremacy in the world.”

So not only has our current leadership failed to stop COVID-19’s spread in this country, the systemic weakness has destroyed our standing in the world.

According to an Associated Press article on August 9, New Zealand, on that date, was marking its 100th day of no new reported cases. The country is not only completely back to normal but is daring to use the term “stamped out” in regard to the coronavirus within their borders. In late March, 100 people tested positive; so Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern imposed a strict lockdown nationwide which immediately stopped the spread.

The article says, “From early on, New Zealand pursued a bold strategy of eliminating the virus rather than just suppressing its spread.” Because of Prime Minister Ardern’s philosophy “Go hard and go early,” the total infections for that country are just under 1500, and the death toll is just 22. On July 29, Reuters reported the U.S. is experiencing one death every minute; at that rate, the U.S. death toll every 22 minutes is equal to New Zealand’s for the last five months.

Italy, as of August 9, reports just 150-300 new cases per day nationwide, down from their high of 6500 per day on March 21. By contrast, the United States is currently seeing 54,000 new cases per day–more than 8 times the number Italy had on its highest day. And we are close to setting a world record of 5,000,000 confirmed infections. I can think of so many other ways I’d like to see my country set a world record! Italy’s success in reducing new infections can be attributed to their strict ten-week nationwide lockdown.

Also in Italy’s favor is their acceptance of science, something more and more Americans view with skepticism. According to the same Newsweek article, Italians blame Donald Trump and other politicians for undercutting medical professionals who they say should have “been allowed to operate” but instead “were not allowed to proceed unchecked.” We’re seeing the devastating long-term effects of anti-science and anti-intellectualism that have marked much of American thought for decades.

Whereas other countries accept the findings and advice of their medical experts, some Americans applaud Donald Trump’s harassment of Dr. Anthony Fauci, a top infectious disease expert, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases since 1984, and public health adviser to six presidents. In addition to, or because of, Trump’s ignorant tweets, Dr. Fauci has had to hire security to protect himself and his family because he has received death threats and his three daughters have been harassed. NPR quotes Dr. Fauci:

“I wouldn’t have imagined in my wildest dreams that people who object to things that are pure public health principles are so set against it, and don’t like what you and I say, namely in the word of science, that they actually threaten you. I mean, that to me is just strange.”

I can think of a more accurate term than “strange,” but I’ll try to keep this family friendly.

Andy Slavitt, former acting administration of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services under President Obama, is quoted in a July 27 Huffpost article: The U.S. can “virtually eliminate” the coronavirus “any time we decide to.” He says the process could be done in four to six weeks if we just “throw the kitchen sink at COVID-19.” He has issued a 38-tweet thread listing the steps to be followed and says that, if we followed that plan, “the light at the end of the tunnel would be blinding.”

These are the six steps he suggests would not eliminate the virus in 4-6 weeks but would reduce it to “embers”:

  1. Universal mask wearing;
  2. Keeping bars, restaurants, churches, and transit (all hot spots) closed;
  3. Prohibiting interstate travel;
  4. Prohibiting travel into the country;
  5. Having hotels set up to allow people to isolate from their families at no cost; and
  6. Mandating a 90% lockdown, instead of the 50% lockdown we had in March and April.

So why are we stuck in neutral, spinning our wheels?

Benjamin Fearnow, in his August 9 Newsweek article, says Europeans are shocked by American citizens’ behavior during this crisis. They are questioning whether we care about our own people’s health.

“Public health experts and everyday residents said they ‘always saw America as a model’ for the world, but the pandemic has exposed a country with horrendous infrastructure and no coherent public health system.”

With so much death and destruction surrounding us and evidence that the keys to stopping the spread of COVID-19, as other countries have done, are mostly simple measures, the question every reasonable person has to ask is “Why on earth are we prolonging our suffering and sacrificing our fellow citizens’ lives instead of doing the things we need to do to stop it?” The answer to that question lies in my second point: Americans’ fierce individualism. Fearnow, in the same Newsweek article, cites several European doctors who say “Americans’ individualist spirit has backfired and led the country to the top of both infection and death toll lists.”

Malcolm X, minister and 1960s civil rights activist, said “When ‘I’ is replaced with ‘we’ even illness becomes wellness.” Cultures in which group well-being is more important than individual well-being understand those words; Americans are sadly not among that group.

Kara Alaimo, Ph.D., in an article on prsa.org, explains:

“Individualistic cultures stress the importance of the individual, while collectivist societies place greater importance on the group that one belongs to. In collectivist societies, such as China and South Korea, people tend to grow up with members of their extended family, who share resources like their salaries. By contrast, in individualistic societies, such as the U.S., U.K. and Australia, people see their identities as distinct from those of others.”

Ava Rosenbaum, in an October 31, 2018, article published in The Brown Political Review, says:

“The United States has one of the most individualistic cultures in the world. Americans are more likely to prioritize themselves over a group and they value independence and autonomy.”

Anthropologist Wade Davis says in his August 6 article:

“More than any other country, the United States,” during the years following World War II “lionized the individual at the expense of community and family. It was the sociological equivalent of splitting the atom. What was gained in terms of mobility and personal freedom came at the expense of common purpose.” In summing up the effects on family life, he says, “Only six percent of American homes had grandparents living beneath the same roof as grandchildren; elders were abandoned to retirement homes.”

In countries like Japan, multigenerational households are the norm; here, they are increasingly rare. According to Davis, economic disparities and other factors which strain a nation can be “mitigated or even muted” by the “elements that reinforce social solidarity — religious faith, the strength and comfort of family, the pride of tradition, fidelity to the land, a spirit of place.” Sadly, America shows less evidence of social solidarity today than at almost any other time in our history. Politicization of issues which concern all of us and which should call us to seek common ground only further polarize us, because our concern for our individual “freedoms” is far greater than our concern for the group safety, welfare, and survival.

One need look no further than our national love of guns and resistance to nationalized health care to find abundant evidence of our unconcern for group welfare. Davis points out:

“The American cult of the individual denies not just community but the very idea of society. No one owes anything to anyone. All must be prepared to fight for everything: education, shelter, food, medical care. What every prosperous and successful democracy deems to be fundamental rights — universal health care, equal access to quality public education, a social safety net for the weak, elderly, and infirmed — America dismisses as socialist indulgences, as if so many signs of weakness.”

Even the shooting of 346 students and teachers on school grounds is insufficient to persuade hard-core gun lovers to sacrifice a little of their personal “freedom” for the greater good.

Paul DeVries, in a May 22 opinion piece published on the japantimes website, contrasts Japan’s success in fighting the virus with America’s failure. For one thing, he says, Americans are less likely to practice safety measures when they themselves don’t have symptoms or have not tested positive, because doing so “requires people to endure discomfort for the sake of the collective good.” We all know that’s something Americans are not very good at.

DeVries attributes Japan’s having daily infection numbers in the single digits to characteristics of their national ethos: “Three of the motivating factors that induce Japanese nationals to adhere are courtesy, obligation and shame.” Americans can be courteous, though recent events may have caused us to think otherwise; and we do have a sense of obligation, though it all-too-often extends only our own narrow circles instead of to the nation as a whole.

Where Americans differ drastically from the Japanese is in our ability to feel shame, and there has never been a more glaring example than our current “president,” who shamelessly takes no responsibility for failure, has never uttered an apology, and despite his appeal among certain Christian groups has admitted to never asking God to forgive him. DeVries tells a story to illustrate the effect of shame on the Japanese people’s behavior.

When in late January the Japanese government began repatriating its citizens from Wuhan, China, officials requested that evacuees undergo testing and two weeks of self-quarantine. All but two complied, and the government lacked the legal ability to issue a mandate. No problem. The two resisters’ families stepped in, and they quickly changed their minds. “The irresistible force of liberty, it proved, was no match for that of Japanese collectivism.” Shame is not always a bad thing, when it compels individuals to act in the best interest of the whole.

One of the sadder manifestations of Americans’ stubborn individualism is the tendency, when confronted with scientific facts which can’t logically be disputed, to look for ways to deny and circumvent the facts. All too many have accepted Donald Trump’s claim that the coronavirus is a hoax, while others have accepted all manner of conspiracy theories meant to relieve them of any responsibility to inconvenience themselves by following safe practices. I’ve even heard that the Democrats produced the whole thing just to defeat Trump in November. Yes, of course we killed 160,000 of our friends and family members just to get rid of an elected official whom we can vote not to re-elect. As desperately as our country needs to rid of this national menace to our democracy, even the evil “demon-crats” wouldn’t kill 160,000 people.

However, that brings me to another favorite end-run around accepting facts and making inconvenient adjustments to our individual lifestyles. On June 19, the New York Times published an article titled “Is the Coronavirus Death Tally Inflated? Here’s Why Experts Say No.” Authors Amy Schoenfeld Walker, Lisa Waananen Jones, and Lazaro Gamio begin by citing New York’s Governor Andrew Cuomo and Donald Trump as two people who have questioned the accuracy of publicly reported death counts. They quote Robert Anderson, head of the mortality statistics branch of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics: “Everything is so politically charged, people are looking for excuses to question the data.” The article goes on to detail the methods by which cause of death is determined and the collective numbers are reported as evidence that doctors and scientists are being highly responsible in their work and their reporting.

In an April 16 article published in Rolling Stone, author EJ Dickson cites a couple of others who have helped to spread the inflated death toll theory. One is David Icke, “who is most notable for his endorsement of the idea that the world is controlled by a cabal of ‘reptilian elites,’ or lizard people.” Another is far-right Candace Owens who tweeted on April 6: “Turns out everyone is only dying of Coronavirus now. Gee. I wonder why.” Wink, wink. Dickson further cites Montana physician Dr. Annie Bukacek who, in a video widely circulated on social media, claims, “Based on inaccurate, incomplete data, people are being terrorized by fearmongers into relinquishing … freedoms.” Even though Dr. Annie appears in the video decked out in her white lab coat and flaunting her stethoscope, further searching reveals the channel that published the video is a religious organization, not a medical one. Remember what I said in my last post about checking the credentials and credibility of your sources?

In fairness, I know from personal experience that death records are not always accurate. When my mother passed away in 2011, my sister and I were irate when we read that the doctor had attributed her death to a condition she never had. We demanded a correction and were told that death certificates cannot be altered (no matter how inaccurate). We persisted and got an addendum with a cause of death that was closer to the truth. So yes, I agree death certificates are not always correct.

But my question is why are we looking for excuses to ignore an obvious problem and to abdicate our responsibility to the whole of the society which has given us life and livelihood? Why is taking simple precautions such an infringement on our “freedoms” that we’d rather let thousands more people die than wear a mask at the grocery store or limit our social contacts for a while longer?

Other evidence shows that some deaths which have been caused by COVID have been attributed to other causes on death records, so the inaccuracies cut both ways. But again, my question is “So what?” What percentage of those 160,000+ deaths would have to be legit to make it worth slightly inconveniencing myself for a few months? In Japan, people wear face masks during flu season, even though no medical evidence has shown face masks to be effective against the spread of influenza. In America, some refuse to wear face masks even though there is abundant medical evidence that universal mask wearing could significantly reduce the spread of COVID. What’s the difference? It’s as simple as “we” versus “I.”

One last American problem worth mentioning here is something I’d call weird religion. I’m not an expert on world religions, but America is the only country I’m familiar with that has the brand of weird religion that has recently gained a voice in national affairs. Among the “Don’t tread on my freedoms” folks are those who believe “God will get you if you tread on my freedoms.” Creating a false dilemma between faith and fear (they’re not mutually exclusive);  creating an equally false dilemma between God and science; proclaiming that God will take care of us, so we don’t have to take care of ourselves; and advising anyone with a problem to “just pray about it” have led to responses too inane to warrant serious discussion. But just for kicks, here’s an example.

State representative Nino Vitale of Ohio won’t wear a mask because “This is the greatest nation on earth founded on Judeo-Christian Principles. One of those principles is that we are all created in the image and likeness of God. That image is seen the most by our face. I will not wear a mask.” Really?

I recently lost brain cells watching a video in which multiple speakers expressed their disdain for mask wearing on the grounds that it interferes with their God-created respiratory system and therefore is an affront to God.

But for balance, let’s look at this statement by Clare Johnson, who says she wears a mask in public because of her faith in God: “Mask-wearing is an exercise in the spiritual practice of love of neighbor. I wear my mask as a sign of my love and care for others, especially those who are most at risk. Jesus tells us that when we care for ‘the least of these,’ we are really serving him. I believe that by caring for the most vulnerable among us, I am following Christ’s example.” That’s the kind of Christian I’d like to hear from more often.

No matter how you stir this pot, the fact is the United States of America leads the world in COVID-19 deaths and has no coherent plan for taking control of this deadly virus. Other countries have, through “good science and great leadership,” limited the number of deaths and returned to a somewhat normal version of life. As Andy Slavitt says, we can “virtually eliminate” the coronavirus “any time we decide to.” What’s the solution to ending COVID? We have to want to.

So wear the damn mask.

Categories
Politics

Demon Sperm, Hydroxychloroquine, and Demonized MDs

In case you may have been vacationing on Mars these last few months and haven’t quite caught up on the news here at home, we’re in the midst of a pandemic and the United States of America is losing badly in its fight against a disease called COVID-19. Our White House squatter, Donald Trump, has botched the government’s response to the point that finding a way out of the mess we’re in seems depressingly out of reach.

Part of the problem is there’s so much conflicting information and disinformation being circulated, and Americans don’t seem to be doing a good job of sorting through the deluge of facts and opinions and deciding which ones to believe. And who can blame them? It’s hard to know, especially since we had never heard of COVID-19 until 2019, so we lack the advantage of prior experience as we strive to understand and respond in ways that will help keep us alive and healthy.

I’m not an infectious disease expert, but I do have some knowledge of critical thinking processes. For me, step one is establishing my basic premise, which is that my medical expertise is zero; therefore, any opinions I form or actions I take will have to be based on what I learn from people who have more expertise than I do, which in this case just means they know something. But since even experts often disagree, deciding which ones have greater credibility is a challenge and requires sharpening those critical thinking skills I mentioned.

Adding to the confusion, often experts disagree not only with other experts but also with their own previous positions. Many people, when they see that a recognized expert has changed a previously held position throw up their hands and exclaim “See, this is all a hoax!” They then dismiss everything the person has ever said and label him/her a fraud. But let’s think about that. Does a professional’s changing their mind diminish their credibility, or might it enhance our confidence in them? Many people would never admit to having changed their minds because they fear looking foolish, so they’ll double down on disproven ideas for the sake of saving face. One who admits having been influenced by newly discovered information should be applauded for having the honesty and courage to accept and act on new ideas.

In George Washington’s time, “medical theory of the day recommended that bleeding be administered in conjunction with emetics to produce vomiting and purges such as calomel (mercury). The idea was to debilitate the body to the point where the disease had nothing left on which to work” (encyclopedia.com). President Washington was bled, with his consent and at his request four times during the illness that preceded his death. Bleeding, or bloodletting, was sometimes done by leeches (yeah, the creepy-crawlies) and sometimes by making small incisions in the body. Joseph Kennedy–patriarch of the Kennedy clan that included a President, a Presidential candidate, and a long-serving Senator–ordered a lobotomy done on his then 23-year-old daughter Rosemary to “fix” the behavioral problems caused by her “mental retardation.” The results were not good, and Rosemary lived the last 63 years of her life in an institution.

Doctors today would face malpractice suits and have their licenses revoked for such treatments, but doctors in the 1700s and early 1900s were not committing malpractice; they were simply acting on the best research available to them.

Even in my own lifetime, much has changed. Castor oil and enemas were my mother’s go-to home remedies for pretty much whatever ailed us; I did not use those treatments on my children. When my children were babies, everything they touched was supposed to be sterilized: yep, in a pan of boiling water. By the time my grandchildren were born, washing things in hot water or running them through a dishwasher cycle was deemed sufficient. When I was a child, the treatment for a fever was to wrap up tight in flannel pjs and several blankets to “sweat it out.” When my children were feverish, I was instructed to remove clothing and blankets to allow excess body heat to escape.

Today’s medical science progresses by the day, not the year; therefore, theory and practice can change quickly, making it even more crucial that we learn to be discerning about whom and what we choose to believe.

Scientific research is a complex, time-consuming process for which most of us lack knowledge, skill, or patience. I think most of us would do well if we simply follow this checklist: (1) Who said it? (2) Who published the information and what is the date? (3) What are the person and the publisher’s biases? (4) What supporting evidence does the writer or speaker offer as the basis for their positions? And does that evidence pass the “smell” test?

That’s enough for my limited attention span, so let’s talk about those four questions.

First, who said it? Personal credibility is everything. What do you know about the writer or speaker? Do they have a reputation for honesty and integrity? Are they known for their expertise in the medical field? No one in the world is an expert on everything, though I’ve known a few who purport to be. Some people have a way of speaking that says “You have just heard the final word on this subject. There is no need to look further or check out my answer. I reside among the sages of the ages and I’m always right on every subject.” Remind you of anyone you know? I could name a few, but I won’t digress. The point is, some people can sway you to believe them simply by the confidence and authority with which they speak. Don’t be swayed. Look them up. See what else they believe or have done or what credentials they possess.

When a doctor stands on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court building, wearing her white coat and surrounded by her medical colleagues in their white coats, and makes this statement, it might seem to carry authority.

“This virus has a cure. It is called hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and Zithromax. I know you people want to talk about a mask. Hello? You don’t need masks. There is a cure. I know they don’t want to open schools. No, you don’t need people to be locked down. There is prevention and there is a cure.”

Wow! In just nine short sentences, she has contradicted everything the experts have been telling us for months: We don’t need masks, there is a cure and its name is hydroxychloroquine, and we don’t need to practice social distancing. There’s a choice to make here. We can believe this doctor, because she is after all a doctor, and doctors don’t lie to us, right? She has the credentials, so I should assume she knows more than I do. But still, she’s going against Dr. Fauci, Dr. Birx, the CDC, and the WHO; so shouldn’t I at least check her out a little further?

Google, who is Dr. Stella Immanuel?

One of Google’s responses, from an article in The Daily Beast:

“Immanuel, a pediatrician and a religious minister, has a history of making bizarre claims about medical topics and other issues. She has often claimed that gynecological problems like cysts and endometriosis are in fact caused by people having sex in their dreams with demons and witches.”

Oh. Well, in that case, I may as well call my neighbor of years ago who had a tradition of rewarding himself for surviving another work week by drinking himself into a stupor every Friday night. Though he did provide some neighborhood entertainment, no one would have gone to him for information, even when he was sober.

So now it’s Dr. Fauci vs. Dr. Immanuel. Dr. Fauci’s education, experience, and high honors could be an entire article on their own, so I’ll sum them up with this link: https://www.niaid.nih.gov/about/director. Among other things, he has directed the National Institutes of Health and served under six presidents from both parties, and she believes medical conditions can be caused by dream sex with demons. I’ve made my choice: I’m with him. Yet the “president” praises her and goes on Tweet rants against him.

Choices are not always this clear cut, however, even for me. Maybe my local doctor is a skilled, ethical professional who tells me something which does not agree with mainstream positions. I’m still going to go with the guy who has the  broader scope of experience and access to more relevant data and therefore the wider lens through which to view the situation. At the very least, I won’t discount what the higher-ranking expert says based on one bit of information even from another person I respect.

Next is the publisher and currency of the information. Just as individuals have reputations, so do publishers. It’s unfair to paint any group with a single brush stroke, including “the media.” Certain media outlets are known for adhering to journalistic ethics and standards, and some are not. Know which are which. Look up the publication if you’re not sure. Then look at the date on the material. If it was published in March of this year, it’s highly doubtful that it’s still relevant. We’ve lived ten years since March 2020. Whatever the date, keep looking to see whether you find newer information.

Third is the question of bias. And don’t say they don’t have any biases; we all have them, so having a bias is not always bad. I’m pretty biased toward my own children and grandchildren. My grandchildren are definitely cuter and smarter than yours. That bias is harmless enough, because you’d say the same thing to me. Media biases are a bit more problematic. When CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News present a story, we expect them to give different slants on the story determined by their corporate biases. Fox News is well known for supporting Donald Trump, whereas MSNBC is equally well known for disdaining him. CNN falls somewhere between the other two, though it’s moved far closer to MSNBC. It helps to know that. It also helps to bear those attitudes in mind when we hear stories from them about COVID-19. Fox News will echo Trump’s latest bluster: it’s a hoax, it will magically go away, or whatever. CNN and MSNBC will present the stories as they have researched the facts, though with a heavy dose of personal opinion from the anchors and guests.

Viewers must also beware of confirmation bias: the tendency to believe information because it agrees with our own biases and not believe information, regardless of how credible the source, because it forces us to question our previous ideas. Jean-Paul Sartre, 20th-century French philosopher and writer, in his 1957 book Existentialism and Human Emotion, defends the premise “Existence precedes essence,” by which he means each of us chooses our own existence and shapes our own reality strictly through the choices we make. Sartre doesn’t use the term “confirmation bias,” but he suggests it repeatedly by arguing that humans do not help themselves by seeking advice or direction from others because they will always interpret what they find to suit themselves. Confirmation bias indeed, and it applies to our choice of news and information sources as much as to anything else.

Fourth, we need to examine the evidence presented as proof of the writer or speaker’s claim. No matter how well credentialed a person is, their word is not enough. My mother’s favorite saying, “Because I said so,” is not a convincing scientific argument. Actually, it wasn’t very convincing for my mom either, but that’s a subject to take up with Oprah. Never accept any information based on the word of one person. If they can’t cite evidence, they aren’t worth listening to.

Always ask “Where did you get this? What is your source?” Any responsible person will willingly refer you to their sources. If they don’t have any, disregard whatever they say–even if they have a string of letters after their name or an impressive title. When Donald Trump speaks into a microphone “This will go away. It’s going to go away,” without offering any evidence of how it’s going to go away or what anyone is doing to make it go away, pay no attention to that person behind the mic–even though he’s the “president.” Or especially because he’s the “president.” The higher the office the greater the duty to speak responsibly. No one’s word stands alone as proof.

And since all evidence is not equally credible, it’s important to weigh the evidence presented. What is the source? Is it current? What is the bias? Is it politically motivated? Motive is key when examining evidence. When it becomes clear that information is being presented in an attempt to gain political advantage, that is a red flag. Even if the information is factual, the part that’s relevant to public health has to be looked at separately, apart from the political spin. When Donald Trump says over and over “It will go away,” it should be clear to anyone with normal intelligence that he’s working on getting himself re-elected, not on protecting your health and mine.

Rarely is one piece of evidence a sufficient basis for an important decision. The legal terms “preponderance of evidence” and “beyond reasonable doubt” suggest that evidence needs to be weighty enough to persuade reasonable people that a wrong has been done, and typically, Exhibit A all by itself is not enough to do that.

This week, I was out exploring walking paths around my new home and came to a place where I saw a possible route that was on the other side of the road from where I was standing. Trying to decide whether I should cross over, I looked around and observed there were no vehicles in sight. Based on that bit of evidence alone, it should have been perfectly safe to cross the road. It was a fact, not fake news, confirmed by my own observation–a primary source. What could possibly go wrong?

Well, there were a few other pertinent facts: (1) I was close to a sharp curve in the road, so I couldn’t see more than maybe 20 feet beyond where I was standing; (2) it’s a main road, heavily traveled; (3) I’d estimate the average speed of the vehicles I see go past me is maybe 50-70 miles per hour; (4) I do not move at 50-70 miles per hour; (5) therefore, because of the speed difference and the limited visibility, by the time I could see a vehicle coming toward me, it’s highly unlikely I could get out of its path; (6) because of the limited visibility, by the time a driver could see me, it would be difficult to avoid hitting me. The preponderance (weight) of evidence was not sufficient to remove reasonable doubt that crossing the road at that particular place was safe, in spite of the initial fact that I saw no cars coming.

Americans are an independent lot; our rugged individualism, though prized by many, is actually one of the main obstacles right now to our conquering this crisis. Lots of people are fond of saying “I’m entitled to my own opinion.” I would say yes and no to that. Yes, I am entitled to think for myself, but no I am not entitled to follow my own inclinations when my actions may negatively impact others. Citizens of more collectivist societies understand that principle, and those are the countries which currently have COVID under control, while we’re in the midst of a raging forest fire.

An opinion is not just whatever thought pops into my head or what I read in an Internet meme or some isolated article from a marginal “news” outlet or what I feel in a given moment. An opinion is a carefully considered interpretation of facts. Two or more people may look at the same facts and reach different conclusions, but opinions to be valid must begin with facts (not just one fact), not feeling and not hearsay.

We’re in dangerous times. What you and I do today will determine whether some people will live to see tomorrow and will shape the lives of those who do survive this crisis for years to come. Making a few sacrifices now seems a small price to pay for a healthier future. I saw a clever meme today on social media: a picture of two dogs with talk bubbles over their heads. One dog asks “Why are humans wearing muzzles?” The other dog replies “Because they couldn’t sit and stay.” Surely we can be better than this.

Don’t believe everything you hear and wear the damn mask.

Categories
Palestine Politics

Where My Nose Begins

I grew up in the age of folksy sayings; there was a catchy aphorism for just about anything a child could think of. A couple of my mother’s favorites were “Pretty is as pretty does” and “God helps those who help themselves.” Obviously, expressing universal truths in pithy sayings was effective, because I remember many of them–along with the lessons they taught me–now that I am many years past childhood.

One such saying which is replaying in my head repeatedly these days is “Your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins.” Swinging one’s arm is a common act, for a variety of reasons; and it’s one in which the government and our fellow citizens would typically have no say. However, if the arc of my swing intersects with part of another person’s body, that person’s right not to be assaulted must be given equal weight with my right to swing my arm, and that person’s right will limit my right. Seems logical.

If there were a word counter that could calculate the number of times a particular word is spoken in our country, I’d bet “rights” would be thousands ahead of the next most common. But what’s sad about that thought is that most of the time when an American is talking about rights, it’s about their own personal rights and those of their “tribe”; equal weight is not given to those outside their sphere.

There’s a very large, very loud contingent of Americans who adamantly claim their right to own firearms–any number and any type they choose–because Second Amendment (Don’t get me started!). Not only does that claim ignore the language and limits stated and implied in the amendment itself, but it callously ignores the “noses” of others whose rights should be given equal consideration. My grandchildren have the right to feel secure in their schools; they have the right to go to school each day without having to fear that they may leave in a body bag; they have the right for active shooter drills not to be part of their required curriculum. Limiting a few of the gun lovers’ rights would help to insure our children’s rights, but many are too self-centered to see it that way.

Did early settlers in the American South have the right to build large farms to support their families and make strong communities? Of course they did. Did they have the right to travel across the ocean and kidnap fellow human beings and force them to do the hard work of the plantation with no share in the profits? Well, no. Did early European settlers have the right to come to this continent and establish communities in harmony with the native inhabitants? I would say yes. Did they have the right to kill many of those natives and drive the rest onto reservations so that they could have the whole place to themselves? Well, no.

If I may digress for a moment from examples within our own country, did displaced Jewish people have the right to return to their land of origin and establish themselves as a nation? I believe they did. Do they have the right to bulldoze homes and communities of those natives who have been there continuously since antiquity? Do they have the right to displace these people from their ancestral lands? Do they have the right to bulldoze Bedouin villages, home to people who want nothing more than to live in peace and enjoy simple lives, to operate schools in which children can be educated? Do they have the right to establish their own nation by destroying another one? NO, they do not.

Humans are the cruelest breed.

To return to my main subject, the banner under which the conservative movement has marched over the last several decades is Right to Life, or the hoped-for revoking of Roe v Wade. Yet when these same advocates of protection for the unborn are confronted with the right of immigrant children in detention centers to be released from the cruel circumstances in which they’re being held and returned to their parents, the only response is “Meh! They wouldn’t be there if their parents hadn’t tried to enter the country.” When confronted with the fact that “Black lives matter,” their response is “All lives matter,” even though their attitudes toward many other groups belie that statement.

It’s enough to make one think unborn lives are not really their concern after all. Could it be that advocating for the rights of embryonic humans is a smokescreen? Could it be that they’re using an emotional appeal to gain more support for their “conservative” agenda? Could it be that they’re really just pulling at some people’s heartstrings in order to gain more power for themselves and their party? I wouldn’t go so far as to assign motives to people I don’t know, but I think those questions are worth considering.

I’ve often quoted Thomas Paine, writer of many influential pamphlets during the American Revolutionary period, because I think he had the most clear-eyed view on human rights that I’ve read. In Paine’s 1792 book “Rights of Man,” he opines that all humans have two categories of rights: natural rights and civil rights.

This is his definition of natural rights:

“Natural rights are those which appertain to man in right of his existence. Of this kind are all the intellectual rights, or rights of the mind, and also all those rights of acting as an individual for his own comfort and happiness, which are not injurious to the natural rights of others.”

In the previous paragraph, he has discussed the Genesis account of creation, not as a religious sectarian, which Payne was not, but as a philosopher explaining the origin of this category of human rights. Our natural rights, according to Thomas Paine, were given to us at our individual creation, and every human receives exactly the same endowment. Thomas Jefferson expresses the same idea in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” We all know by now the problems with those words; but taken at face value, they echo Paine’s statement of natural rights and equality of all humans.

It’s also worth noting that, even in this initial statement, Paine includes the caveat “which are not injurious to the natural rights of others.” Even our God-given rights, according to the great thinkers, have limits; and that limit is “where my nose begins.” At no point in history have humans ever been recognized as having unlimited personal rights, although our actions certainly speak louder than those words–to use another familiar folksy saying from my youth.

Paine goes on to explain the concept of civil rights:

“Civil rights are those which appertain to man in right of his being a member of society. Every civil right has for its foundation some natural right pre-existing in the individual, but to the enjoyment of which his individual power is not, in all cases, sufficiently competent. Of this kind are all those which relate to security and protection.”

Thomas Jefferson put it this way: “To secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

The purpose of government, then, according to both Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson, is to protect our natural rights. As Paine says, security and protection are the benefits we gain from being part of a civil body, since we are individually not always capable of protecting ourselves and insuring our own security. I think I feel another old saying coming on: “There is strength in numbers.”

Paine goes on to add another caveat: “It follows, then, that the power produced from the aggregate of natural rights, imperfect in power in the individual, cannot be applied to invade the natural rights which are retained in the individual, and in which the power to execute is as perfect as the right itself.” In other words, if I can execute one of my natural rights on my own–and my exercise of that right is “not injurious to others,” the government does not have the authority to invade that particular right.

Thomas Jefferson lists our natural, or “unalienable” rights, as “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” He actually uses the words “among these,” meaning that these are just three examples, not a comprehensive list.

Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau–among others–called this concept of natural and civil rights, and the relationship between the two, the social contract. Individuals who wish to enjoy the security and protection of a civil body enter into a contract with that body. I believe the most important thing to remember here is that a contract is an agreement between two parties which is binding on both parties. In other words, we each have a responsibility in the forming and maintaining of that “more perfect union” that the writers of our Constitution envisioned.

So what does all of this mean to us right now? If you’re one of those who believe you have a right to go wherever you want without a mask, I would say you’re wrong. You have a right to be maskless any time you are alone or in the open air with no one else less than six feet away from you, but you do not have the right to refuse wearing a mask in a public place where other members of our civil body will be in close proximity. I would also say you do not have the right to discount the information given by people who know more about the subject of disease than you or I know. Those experts do their part to uphold the social contract by sharing their expertise with the rest of us, and my ignorant opinion is not equal to their scientific research. The same principle applies to following social distancing guidelines and limiting our number of contacts. Wait, I’m thinking of another not-so-old saying: “You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.”

America is leading the world in COVID infections and deaths. That’s not the way we’re supposed to be the leaders of the free world! We are a civil body, and what affects one of us affects us all. There is no “God-given” right–not in any of our governing documents, not in any religious text, and not in common-sense thinking–to ignore medical guidelines meant to protect the whole civil body. It just doesn’t exist, and if it did, it would be superseded by the greater good of keeping the whole body alive and healthy.

It’s not about you. Or me. So here’s my final wise saying, not so very old but it will be by the time this is over: “Wear the damn mask!” Oh, yeah, and for God’s sake put it over your nose.