Betsy DeVos is cold-blooded. That much we can say. She's also no smarter than she was when she was misnamed to her position.
She was quoted the other day as justifying the re-opening of schools, post-virus, as noting that only .02% of the students are going to die. That's 14,000 or so.
Okay, which 14,000? Is she going to choose them? How cold is it that someone can actually justify exposing kids to a virus that might kill them, but shrugging it off because you won't be able to tell until some of them really are dead?
This loss is acceptable somehow? Don't you want to shake her and yell, What's the matter with you?
Besides, how can she be so sure? Do we need to accept that number? How can she be so confident that that will be just that number? Kids that close to each other will be incredibly exposed. They'll be cooped up with each other, breathing each other's air, for the whole day, five days a week. What actuarial did she consult?
And what about the teachers? Aren't they even more susceptible to the virus? They're supposed to just report without complaining? When they get sick, will there be enough substitute teachers--remember, not under contract--who will be willing to step in and expose themselves? I'm guessing not. Then what?
And the bus drivers? If not under contract, would you be the martyr and drive a bus every single day? If not, where will they get the subs to do that? And barring that, how do the kids get to school?
Now let's talk about lunchtime, where the kids all sit together in the lunchroom with a perfect right to sit with their friends and go from table to table. What a breeding ground. With six feet of spacing, how does anybody expect the kids to eat? Do they take the food back to classrooms to which they're assigned?
We're all aware of DeVos's stupidity and simple-mindedness. In her confirmation hearings for the job of Secretary of Education, DeVos couldn't tell the difference between student testing for competency or for growth; she didn't know the background or the effects of the Individuals with Disability in Education Act (IDEA); and she made some useless crack about having guns in Wyoming schools to defend against grizzly bears.
DeVos was obviously put in her position because 45 knew that with Republicans in control of the Senate, he'd get away with a plan to ruin public schools--which is well underway and will destroy them if 45 gets another term. She's a rich placeholder to execute a pathetic, destructive plan.
She has the Republican mentality. It's the same one that the Lieutenant Governor of Texas, the totally crazed Dan Patrick, had when he said that the elderly should consider exposing themselves to Covid-19 and dying so there are fewer of us to re-start the economy. (In Texas, presently, age has nothing do do with the extra thousands who have been exposed to terrible leadership as well as the virus.)
To Republicans, people are merely things. Unless they're related or are good friends, they are not to be considered seriously as having lives that are worth much, except for the richest of them to make money off of. People are just statistics.
She dodged a reporter on CNN who tried to ask her about the risk factor. All she did was repeat herself: Go back to school. Go back to school. Go back to school.
We have the worst possible president at the worst possible time, and supported by the worst possible Secretary of Education: Cold-blooded and clueless. It's a nightmare, an embarrassment, and a tragedy.
There are a number of templates out there, but I have just one: No state should open its public school doors until and unless it has accomplished the goal of getting the spread of virus below 1.0%. That means that eventually, it will disappear.
Don't worry, the kids want to go back to school. They want to dive back into school life. They want to see their friends. The parents see that and want it for them. The parents also want to go back to work--the not-so-hidden agenda behind all this, all for lowering the unemployment numbers so 45 can brag about it--but not at the price listed.
What will happen, and quickly, is that they will be called to come pick up their kid because (s)he's been tested positive for the virus. Then their brief sojourn back at work will end, and everybody loses because the parents, who themselves didn't have the virus, will get it from their kids.
But nobody wants to intentionally expose kids to this virus. Nobody but Republicans and others who don't get it. As we get closer to the opening date, we'll see how many Republican parents--or Republicans who hear from parents--really want to send their kids to school. We'll see what kind of backwards tap dance they do. It's big macho stuff in mid-July. But in another month, we'll see who's serious and who just talks a good game.
Fourteen thousand. At least. That doesn't include teachers and administrators and support staff. They will be exposed as much, if not more. Already written off. Think about that. All for caring about education.
Disgusting. Valueless. Despicable. But at least the advocates can't talk about abortion anymore. Or, they will, but the hypocrisy will be obvious and ridiculously easy to call out.
Be well. Be careful. Wear a mask outside. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
Monday, July 13, 2020
Saturday, July 11, 2020
Reopen the Schools? You Have to Be Kidding. Denial Won't Work.
Time grinds us all into the same shape eventually. And it's getting to be time for school once again. We have a problem, of course. There is no real solution except the one nobody's willing to do.
45 and his willing shrew, Betsy DeVos, insist that schools reopen as if nothing has happened, as if the virus won't matter. They've been throwing around threats of the withholding of federal funding if districts don't do as they say.
Oh, that'll work. Typical Republican ploy: Do it, or no bucks. Look what it did with No Child Left Behind. Uh-uh. Didn't work. Either.
Reopening the schools would be a disaster. First, there is no plan. Of course, they're going to leave it up to individual districts to solve their own problems.
Second, the Center for Disease Control has distributed guidelines for school re-opening and won't back away from 45's suggestion that they be re-examined. That means that the situation is serious enough, and reality has, finally, reached someone within the administration. Science is science. The virus still rules.
Third, re-opening means extra money for extra resources. The only entity that can come up with the money is the federal government. Threats to withhold funding work against that. It's time to replenish businesses that have had to shut down, anyhow, and Republicans typically are having a tough time facing that with their ridiculous notion that people will stop working if you help them too much.
The New York Times insists that schools reopen, too. But they, too, stretch credulity. They recommend that schools look into having classes in tents and other outdoor facilities. Where, on the football field? Oh, that'll provide plenty of challenges. Unless, of course, the season is cancelled. I can think of several states in which that won't be possible--already stupid with what they would call 'tradition'.
The Times acknowledges that weather might be an issue. Oh, yeah? Can we envision, for a moment, January tent-school in northern Wisconsin, not to mention Minnesota or North Dakota? Shall the students take notes with mittens on? Is this a sufficient challenge for their toughness?
I quote Michael J. Fox in Back to the Future: This is nuts. The rural schools, in particular, lack resources to begin with. And they're going to do this happy dance and provide makeshift classrooms for what, six or eight or ten kids at a time?
Yes, we, and the kids, are losing time. Yes, keeping them home hinders the overall economy because either parents will have to stay home or child care, always short on supply, will have to be provided. But the cause of all this is, conveniently, being ignored: US.
Millions of people, in all age groups, here have ignored common sense guidelines: Wash your hands. Wear masks outside all the time. Stay six feet away from each other all the time. Here, in Milwaukee, I have seen the latter two violated again and again from my perch on my porch above the sidewalk.
What do I do, yell at them as they walk past? Become the ogre of the neighborhood, the mockery of dozens? "Hey, you should see this guy on his porch--he actually told me to wear a mask. What an idiot! He must be bored."
Not bored, scared. Scared for you and scared about you. Milwaukee is about to introduce a requirement that people wear masks outside--citywide, with fines awarded for violations. I agree. The virus is back and raging. Wisconsin's rates, once manageable, have doubled in the past month. It's the only way to get a new handle on this.
And we're going to start school in this situation? There is no worse time to do it than now. Maybe the rate will be lowered by the time late August comes around. But time's a-wasting. It waits for no one.
If this is true in Milwaukee, it must be true in Miami. And Houston. And Phoenix. To name just three where the virus has roared through and is causing a near-panic.
Anyone who ignores this puts kids, and teachers, at severe risk. Many will get sick. Some will DIE. As valuable as education is--and 30 years in the classroom have only underlined this--this isn't worth it.
The underlying problem must be fixed, first. Once that's done, plenty of good things can happen. Kids adjust. They can catch up fast. They'll get the situation. They know, too, that they're losing time.
But not if they also know they can get sick and can't stop it. YOU consider a history lecture under those circumstances; YOU think about paying attention. That will hinder their learning. The point of opening school will be lost.
If I were a kid with any sense of awareness--it's acquired plenty early, if you remember--I'd be plenty ticked off by now. After all, the adults, the people I'm supposed to look up to--especially 45 and his main helper, who are both clueless clods--have failed me. They've put me in an impossible situation. There's no way to know if I'm going to get sick, or if I do, how sick I'll get. That's ridiculous. It doesn't even take a teenager to figure that out.
And what of the principals and superintendents, who are supposed to soldier along unaffected? They know what's going to happen. They know. And they can't stop it. They'll be going to an execution they have to witness, where nobody's guilty of doing anything wrong.
The hospitals, now filling up, will be overloaded. So will the courts, which will have too many cases of parents suing the districts for making their kids attend, especially if they are forced to go to the hospital--or die.
It's not like a normal school year, when the flu season descends. Kids can always get flu shots. But there is no shot for this, there is no cure. There is only prevention, and it looks like nobody's school district is all that interested in that. They are, of course, but it will take courage to say no. It will take courage, now, to tell everyone the obvious thing, which is to stay home until the adults get their heads on straight and calm this thing down again.
Let me repeat: This will be a disaster. Cooler heads must prevail. Nothing less than a national shutdown is necessary to avoid the tragedy of a virus overrunning the country. If we can't imagine doing it for ourselves for some ungodly reason, we must do it for the kids. Denial won't work.
Be well. Be careful. Wear a mask. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
45 and his willing shrew, Betsy DeVos, insist that schools reopen as if nothing has happened, as if the virus won't matter. They've been throwing around threats of the withholding of federal funding if districts don't do as they say.
Oh, that'll work. Typical Republican ploy: Do it, or no bucks. Look what it did with No Child Left Behind. Uh-uh. Didn't work. Either.
Reopening the schools would be a disaster. First, there is no plan. Of course, they're going to leave it up to individual districts to solve their own problems.
Second, the Center for Disease Control has distributed guidelines for school re-opening and won't back away from 45's suggestion that they be re-examined. That means that the situation is serious enough, and reality has, finally, reached someone within the administration. Science is science. The virus still rules.
Third, re-opening means extra money for extra resources. The only entity that can come up with the money is the federal government. Threats to withhold funding work against that. It's time to replenish businesses that have had to shut down, anyhow, and Republicans typically are having a tough time facing that with their ridiculous notion that people will stop working if you help them too much.
The New York Times insists that schools reopen, too. But they, too, stretch credulity. They recommend that schools look into having classes in tents and other outdoor facilities. Where, on the football field? Oh, that'll provide plenty of challenges. Unless, of course, the season is cancelled. I can think of several states in which that won't be possible--already stupid with what they would call 'tradition'.
The Times acknowledges that weather might be an issue. Oh, yeah? Can we envision, for a moment, January tent-school in northern Wisconsin, not to mention Minnesota or North Dakota? Shall the students take notes with mittens on? Is this a sufficient challenge for their toughness?
I quote Michael J. Fox in Back to the Future: This is nuts. The rural schools, in particular, lack resources to begin with. And they're going to do this happy dance and provide makeshift classrooms for what, six or eight or ten kids at a time?
Yes, we, and the kids, are losing time. Yes, keeping them home hinders the overall economy because either parents will have to stay home or child care, always short on supply, will have to be provided. But the cause of all this is, conveniently, being ignored: US.
Millions of people, in all age groups, here have ignored common sense guidelines: Wash your hands. Wear masks outside all the time. Stay six feet away from each other all the time. Here, in Milwaukee, I have seen the latter two violated again and again from my perch on my porch above the sidewalk.
What do I do, yell at them as they walk past? Become the ogre of the neighborhood, the mockery of dozens? "Hey, you should see this guy on his porch--he actually told me to wear a mask. What an idiot! He must be bored."
Not bored, scared. Scared for you and scared about you. Milwaukee is about to introduce a requirement that people wear masks outside--citywide, with fines awarded for violations. I agree. The virus is back and raging. Wisconsin's rates, once manageable, have doubled in the past month. It's the only way to get a new handle on this.
And we're going to start school in this situation? There is no worse time to do it than now. Maybe the rate will be lowered by the time late August comes around. But time's a-wasting. It waits for no one.
If this is true in Milwaukee, it must be true in Miami. And Houston. And Phoenix. To name just three where the virus has roared through and is causing a near-panic.
Anyone who ignores this puts kids, and teachers, at severe risk. Many will get sick. Some will DIE. As valuable as education is--and 30 years in the classroom have only underlined this--this isn't worth it.
The underlying problem must be fixed, first. Once that's done, plenty of good things can happen. Kids adjust. They can catch up fast. They'll get the situation. They know, too, that they're losing time.
But not if they also know they can get sick and can't stop it. YOU consider a history lecture under those circumstances; YOU think about paying attention. That will hinder their learning. The point of opening school will be lost.
If I were a kid with any sense of awareness--it's acquired plenty early, if you remember--I'd be plenty ticked off by now. After all, the adults, the people I'm supposed to look up to--especially 45 and his main helper, who are both clueless clods--have failed me. They've put me in an impossible situation. There's no way to know if I'm going to get sick, or if I do, how sick I'll get. That's ridiculous. It doesn't even take a teenager to figure that out.
And what of the principals and superintendents, who are supposed to soldier along unaffected? They know what's going to happen. They know. And they can't stop it. They'll be going to an execution they have to witness, where nobody's guilty of doing anything wrong.
The hospitals, now filling up, will be overloaded. So will the courts, which will have too many cases of parents suing the districts for making their kids attend, especially if they are forced to go to the hospital--or die.
It's not like a normal school year, when the flu season descends. Kids can always get flu shots. But there is no shot for this, there is no cure. There is only prevention, and it looks like nobody's school district is all that interested in that. They are, of course, but it will take courage to say no. It will take courage, now, to tell everyone the obvious thing, which is to stay home until the adults get their heads on straight and calm this thing down again.
Let me repeat: This will be a disaster. Cooler heads must prevail. Nothing less than a national shutdown is necessary to avoid the tragedy of a virus overrunning the country. If we can't imagine doing it for ourselves for some ungodly reason, we must do it for the kids. Denial won't work.
Be well. Be careful. Wear a mask. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
Friday, July 10, 2020
Neil Gorsuch: He Might Really Mean It
Wow. Does Neil Gorsuch really mean it when he calls himself an originalist? You mean, it isn't a disingenuous term that covers up knee-jerk conservatism--or something someone else might call conservatism?
There's reason to think so. Gorsuch has become the unconventional conservative on the court. His independence is bracing, at least so far. And I like it.
He threw 45's suspected dependent, self-serving appointment to the Court right back in his face yesterday when he supported the 7-2 majority in telling 45 that he can't refuse a subpoena, regardless of his position as president. 45, who has no respect for any law, not even the Constitution, figured he would sail through.
He didn't. Brett Kavanaugh, another 45 appointee, wouldn't let him do that, either. It was a boilerplate decision that any self-respecting president wouldn't even take on. That two justices voted to support 45's ridiculous notion of a "unitary presidency" shows how radical they have become, or perhaps were always.
But the checks and balances of the system, again under strain, have held, at least for now. Those wishing an immediate display of justice, to put 45's tax returns under scrutiny, will get frustrated again. In that way, maybe 45 got away with running out the clock.
But it doesn't matter all that much. First of all, he's trailing in the polls by a mile, though that can always change. But it looks as if he's going to get beat. Second, if he has that much to hide, his tax frauds will eventually be tried in court, and he's likely to go to jail. That he does so before or after his presidency is largely irrelevant to the larger issue of whether he stands to be accountable or not. The joke of impeachment notwithstanding, he still will.
Gorsuch also crossed over to join with the Court's progressive wing yesterday when he said--and, in fact wrote the opinion, heavy stuff that he's not the least bit afraid to take on--that Native Americans still claim ownership of a significant bunch of real estate in Oklahoma, that jursidiction belongs to the federal government, not the state. To do that, he had to go back to the original agreement which allowed it.
Legal practice has allowed a slippery slope of jurisdictional transference to take place over the years, but Gorsuch said that didn't matter. What does the original agreement say? Has there been any legislative, substantive change in it? Shouldn't we respect that first?
What this means is that adherence to originalism can cut both ways. It may be more beneficial to the body politic to rely on it, as long as the reliance is genuine and not a facade for a prearranged agenda--which I think 45 has been counting on all along.
It means, too, that Gorsuch sees himself as a vehicle for what he believes is a higher concept of judicial reasoning. That may be a bit haughty and lofty, but you know where he is. And what he wants--at least, what it looks like he wants--is to get people to pay attention to what he thinks the Constitution has always meant, not something he's made up for the sake of convenience.
I don't think he sees himself as lofty. If he's good to his goals, he's really being quite modest. He's letting the law take over. He's saying that the law is bigger than he is, than anyone could possibly be.
Want to change anything? Get whatever legislature going that's relevant to do so. Maybe it's been a while since things have been reconsidered. Well, then, maybe legislators should wake up. Maybe legislatures should dispose with being so damn ideological and get some things passed. But, he says, I'm not going to legislate from the bench.
I'm going with whatever legislation has been passed, the words used in whatever year, he's apparently saying. Not relevant anymore? Fine. Pass another law that works.
So far, that's the way it looks. I might not like everything he's done (I don't) but it's rare that anyone who studies the Court thoroughly likes everything anyone has done in the long run, which is how most justices should be considered. If a Supreme Court never creates at least a little bit of frustration, it isn't doing its job.
It means, too, that conceptually, Gorsuch cannot be bandied about as a knee-jerk anything. This will have a positive affect on how the Court is viewed--as more of an independent group of arbiters, not an automatic checkbox of attitudes. No, no: Look at the original meaning of whatever's being considered. Gorsuch is likely to be there.
Where you might not agree is with the very original meaning that he's gleaned from a situation. That's entirely possible. But it's going to be interesting as we go, because that's what seems to be guiding him. He might be easy to read, but he won't be anybody's cat's-paw.
Sure, I'd like the progressives to win all the decisions. Who wouldn't? They won't, though, and perhaps for now, this is all we can hope for. But if Gorsuch really is that independent, all will not be lost, and all is not, at least for the moment.
Neil Gorsuch is refreshing. He may unstick the commentary from a xeroxed set of reactions to a new consideration of what the law is and should be in our ever-flowing democracy. I don't see anything wrong with that. It feels a little like an iceberg cracking.
Be well. Be careful. Wear a mask. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
There's reason to think so. Gorsuch has become the unconventional conservative on the court. His independence is bracing, at least so far. And I like it.
He threw 45's suspected dependent, self-serving appointment to the Court right back in his face yesterday when he supported the 7-2 majority in telling 45 that he can't refuse a subpoena, regardless of his position as president. 45, who has no respect for any law, not even the Constitution, figured he would sail through.
He didn't. Brett Kavanaugh, another 45 appointee, wouldn't let him do that, either. It was a boilerplate decision that any self-respecting president wouldn't even take on. That two justices voted to support 45's ridiculous notion of a "unitary presidency" shows how radical they have become, or perhaps were always.
But the checks and balances of the system, again under strain, have held, at least for now. Those wishing an immediate display of justice, to put 45's tax returns under scrutiny, will get frustrated again. In that way, maybe 45 got away with running out the clock.
But it doesn't matter all that much. First of all, he's trailing in the polls by a mile, though that can always change. But it looks as if he's going to get beat. Second, if he has that much to hide, his tax frauds will eventually be tried in court, and he's likely to go to jail. That he does so before or after his presidency is largely irrelevant to the larger issue of whether he stands to be accountable or not. The joke of impeachment notwithstanding, he still will.
Gorsuch also crossed over to join with the Court's progressive wing yesterday when he said--and, in fact wrote the opinion, heavy stuff that he's not the least bit afraid to take on--that Native Americans still claim ownership of a significant bunch of real estate in Oklahoma, that jursidiction belongs to the federal government, not the state. To do that, he had to go back to the original agreement which allowed it.
Legal practice has allowed a slippery slope of jurisdictional transference to take place over the years, but Gorsuch said that didn't matter. What does the original agreement say? Has there been any legislative, substantive change in it? Shouldn't we respect that first?
What this means is that adherence to originalism can cut both ways. It may be more beneficial to the body politic to rely on it, as long as the reliance is genuine and not a facade for a prearranged agenda--which I think 45 has been counting on all along.
It means, too, that Gorsuch sees himself as a vehicle for what he believes is a higher concept of judicial reasoning. That may be a bit haughty and lofty, but you know where he is. And what he wants--at least, what it looks like he wants--is to get people to pay attention to what he thinks the Constitution has always meant, not something he's made up for the sake of convenience.
I don't think he sees himself as lofty. If he's good to his goals, he's really being quite modest. He's letting the law take over. He's saying that the law is bigger than he is, than anyone could possibly be.
Want to change anything? Get whatever legislature going that's relevant to do so. Maybe it's been a while since things have been reconsidered. Well, then, maybe legislators should wake up. Maybe legislatures should dispose with being so damn ideological and get some things passed. But, he says, I'm not going to legislate from the bench.
I'm going with whatever legislation has been passed, the words used in whatever year, he's apparently saying. Not relevant anymore? Fine. Pass another law that works.
So far, that's the way it looks. I might not like everything he's done (I don't) but it's rare that anyone who studies the Court thoroughly likes everything anyone has done in the long run, which is how most justices should be considered. If a Supreme Court never creates at least a little bit of frustration, it isn't doing its job.
It means, too, that conceptually, Gorsuch cannot be bandied about as a knee-jerk anything. This will have a positive affect on how the Court is viewed--as more of an independent group of arbiters, not an automatic checkbox of attitudes. No, no: Look at the original meaning of whatever's being considered. Gorsuch is likely to be there.
Where you might not agree is with the very original meaning that he's gleaned from a situation. That's entirely possible. But it's going to be interesting as we go, because that's what seems to be guiding him. He might be easy to read, but he won't be anybody's cat's-paw.
Sure, I'd like the progressives to win all the decisions. Who wouldn't? They won't, though, and perhaps for now, this is all we can hope for. But if Gorsuch really is that independent, all will not be lost, and all is not, at least for the moment.
Neil Gorsuch is refreshing. He may unstick the commentary from a xeroxed set of reactions to a new consideration of what the law is and should be in our ever-flowing democracy. I don't see anything wrong with that. It feels a little like an iceberg cracking.
Be well. Be careful. Wear a mask. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
Wednesday, July 8, 2020
What Is Patriotism, Anyway? How Much Should It Matter?
I'll give Tucker Carlson this: He's consistent.
He was critical of Senator Tammy Duckworth the other day, perhaps in possible anticipation of her being named Joe Biden's running mate. He said she criticized the U.S. so much that she wasn't being patriotic. Now he's saying she's a coward and a moron. Nice.
The issue was whether any statue of George Washington should be taken down because he owned slaves. Duckworth was noncommittal, saying that it was worth a discussion.
This drove Carlson into a tizzy. The very idea that Duckworth wouldn't absolutely reject the notion was, to him, unpatriotic.
Not a bad way to slide that in right around July 4, when patriotism is carted out and worshipped. And the general attitude fits Fox News very well: If we're going to Keep America Great Again, being critical of it just won't do.
If you just keep saying that America is great, that will do for the present moment. We'll move along in the superficial assumption that all is well. But you and I both know that isn't so.
Now, I happen to disagree with Duckworth, but not with the vehemence of Carlson. I think the father of our country should be off-limits. That was a different time in our history, and after all, he founded our country, not betray it. Besides, he arranged to have the slaves freed upon his wife's death, which is cheesy, true, but at least a glimpse of soul was evident. But okay, let's have the conversation.
We have serious problems, said Michael Douglas's presidential character in "The American President." That film was made in 1995. A quarter-century later, we probably have more problems, or perhaps they have become larger, than they already were.
Is it wrong to point them out? Is it less than patriotic? Is this undiscussible? Should we just wave the flag, say the country's fine, warts and all, and move on?
I don't think so. The basic, won't-go-away problem, is that the country was founded on a pair of documents that didn't live up to their expectations. The Declaration of Independence, the adaption of which we celebrate each July 4, made a bold declaration of the equality of people, and that government should support and even guarantee it.
That statement was hypocritical the moment it hit that page. What would become some four million slaves wouldn't see anything close to equality for nearly another ninety years, not to mention Natives, women and later Asians. Slavery was left alone in the Declaration, with a version to mention its unfairness rejected by some state delegations.
It's vital, then, that we see the Declaration for what it was: A hope and a goal conceptually, but a separation from colonial rule in fact. That's all it was, as momentous as it turned out to be. Capitalizing on the opportunity, the British offered escaped slave men their freedom via service. A considerable number took them up on it. Others, and sometimes their families, escaped to British Canada.
Some of the Natives also helped the British, which is reasonable seeing as how the Americans kept impinging on their land--an inclination they certainly weren't ready to reconsider. In fact, the Declaration even mentioned the "merciless Indian savages," forgetting for the moment that the colonists were pretty merciless themselves.
So during the Revolution, patriotism was fiercely stated and ferociously defended with human lives, mostly by white men against other white men who came to restore order. They, too, came in the name of patriotism, though directed at the British Empire. Since both were patriots, patriotism is a point of view, not an absolute.
The Constitution arranged for a new structure of government for the country, but with several damaging caveats so that enough states would approve in unanimity. Again, slavery was guaranteed with weasel words designed to mention it but not define it, since everybody knew what it was and where it existed. Natives were "not taxed," putting them in kind of a netherland to be dealt with later, residents but not citizens. The one who were left would finally become citizens in 1924--never mind how long they'd been here--even after women could finally vote.
All this is true. Merely stating it might get me accused of being unpatriotic by Tucker Carlson. But the Constitution, again, is given a bit too much credit at times. It created a structure for another try at self-government, the Articles of Confederation being woefully inadequate. It put boundaries to buttress power from getting carried away, boundaries respected by all presidents except the one we presently have. But it points out a truth we've taken for granted for too long: That these boundaries are subject to specific acts by opposing institutions, which, if they are not applied, puts the whole document at risk. As we have seen, 45 doesn't care about that.
You don't think so? Consider impeachment. 45 was unquestionably guilty of jeopardizing our foreign policy, which is his specific Constitutional responsibility. But politics, and undeserved fear, got in the way, and Republican Senators (except one) refused to step outside of their dictated boundaries and use common sense. Now, to be perfectly honest, impeachment has lost its swagger. It is a dead letter. It has to be fixed, perhaps by an amendment requiring 60 Senate votes, or even 51, not 67.
Try the Electoral College. Twice in this century already, the winner of the popular vote didn't become president. In a country with this many citizens, this is the basest unfairness. Never mind the two disastrous presidents it has led to--which the country did not deserve--there has to be a change in the Constitution to remove it.
Is it unpatriotic to think so, much less say so? I don't think so. Do I love my country less because I think this? Absurd. I want to make it better. It's my country. I get to look at it with a critical eye. I don't have to accept someone's snake oil.
We have, at times, come down on people pretty hard for saying unorthodox things. Way back in the 1790s, the Federalist Party in Congress passed an absurd set of laws called the Alien and Sedition Acts, because they were jumpy that another revolution was about to begin, inspired by anti-British (and thus anti-Federalist) speeches given by French visitors. People were arrested, for instance, for saying that the president should be shot in his ass (The case was dismissed.). The laws were later declared unconstitutional.
But the Sedition Act of 1917, designed to thwart criticism of the president, Congress, and other representative institutions, is still on the books. Back then, it was enforced against someone passing out literature in New York City, trying to keep men from enlisting for the draft. The Supreme Court backed it up.
The flyer in question said that "democracy cannot be shot into a country," a notion later proven through the disastrous Treaty of Versailles. But the war was on in 1917, and the Wilson Administration created its own Committee on Public Information, with which this flyer seriously disagreed. Paranoia won the day.
We got enough people over to Europe to defeat the Central Powers. There was never much doubt about that. The importance of the flyer was blown way out of proportion by oppressive government--our own. The notion that it could get in the way of a nationwide recruitment program was ridiculous. It wasn't preventing anyone physically from signing up, it just advised them not to do it. And it didn't advocate burning draft cards.
Am I a non-patriot for saying so? Is the threat of strangling the First Amendment more important than fighting a war overseas? I think such discussion should happen. I think my country would do well to have it.
Tucker Carlson, you can tell your faithful on Fox News that criticism of the country is unpatriotic, but it doesn't hold up. The country was created because of criticism, and resistance was organized when it was ignored. It's our birthright. And it's our duty to change government that takes away people's rights. Where does it say that? In the Declaration of Independence.
Be well. Be careful. Wear a mask. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
He was critical of Senator Tammy Duckworth the other day, perhaps in possible anticipation of her being named Joe Biden's running mate. He said she criticized the U.S. so much that she wasn't being patriotic. Now he's saying she's a coward and a moron. Nice.
The issue was whether any statue of George Washington should be taken down because he owned slaves. Duckworth was noncommittal, saying that it was worth a discussion.
This drove Carlson into a tizzy. The very idea that Duckworth wouldn't absolutely reject the notion was, to him, unpatriotic.
Not a bad way to slide that in right around July 4, when patriotism is carted out and worshipped. And the general attitude fits Fox News very well: If we're going to Keep America Great Again, being critical of it just won't do.
If you just keep saying that America is great, that will do for the present moment. We'll move along in the superficial assumption that all is well. But you and I both know that isn't so.
Now, I happen to disagree with Duckworth, but not with the vehemence of Carlson. I think the father of our country should be off-limits. That was a different time in our history, and after all, he founded our country, not betray it. Besides, he arranged to have the slaves freed upon his wife's death, which is cheesy, true, but at least a glimpse of soul was evident. But okay, let's have the conversation.
We have serious problems, said Michael Douglas's presidential character in "The American President." That film was made in 1995. A quarter-century later, we probably have more problems, or perhaps they have become larger, than they already were.
Is it wrong to point them out? Is it less than patriotic? Is this undiscussible? Should we just wave the flag, say the country's fine, warts and all, and move on?
I don't think so. The basic, won't-go-away problem, is that the country was founded on a pair of documents that didn't live up to their expectations. The Declaration of Independence, the adaption of which we celebrate each July 4, made a bold declaration of the equality of people, and that government should support and even guarantee it.
That statement was hypocritical the moment it hit that page. What would become some four million slaves wouldn't see anything close to equality for nearly another ninety years, not to mention Natives, women and later Asians. Slavery was left alone in the Declaration, with a version to mention its unfairness rejected by some state delegations.
It's vital, then, that we see the Declaration for what it was: A hope and a goal conceptually, but a separation from colonial rule in fact. That's all it was, as momentous as it turned out to be. Capitalizing on the opportunity, the British offered escaped slave men their freedom via service. A considerable number took them up on it. Others, and sometimes their families, escaped to British Canada.
Some of the Natives also helped the British, which is reasonable seeing as how the Americans kept impinging on their land--an inclination they certainly weren't ready to reconsider. In fact, the Declaration even mentioned the "merciless Indian savages," forgetting for the moment that the colonists were pretty merciless themselves.
So during the Revolution, patriotism was fiercely stated and ferociously defended with human lives, mostly by white men against other white men who came to restore order. They, too, came in the name of patriotism, though directed at the British Empire. Since both were patriots, patriotism is a point of view, not an absolute.
The Constitution arranged for a new structure of government for the country, but with several damaging caveats so that enough states would approve in unanimity. Again, slavery was guaranteed with weasel words designed to mention it but not define it, since everybody knew what it was and where it existed. Natives were "not taxed," putting them in kind of a netherland to be dealt with later, residents but not citizens. The one who were left would finally become citizens in 1924--never mind how long they'd been here--even after women could finally vote.
All this is true. Merely stating it might get me accused of being unpatriotic by Tucker Carlson. But the Constitution, again, is given a bit too much credit at times. It created a structure for another try at self-government, the Articles of Confederation being woefully inadequate. It put boundaries to buttress power from getting carried away, boundaries respected by all presidents except the one we presently have. But it points out a truth we've taken for granted for too long: That these boundaries are subject to specific acts by opposing institutions, which, if they are not applied, puts the whole document at risk. As we have seen, 45 doesn't care about that.
You don't think so? Consider impeachment. 45 was unquestionably guilty of jeopardizing our foreign policy, which is his specific Constitutional responsibility. But politics, and undeserved fear, got in the way, and Republican Senators (except one) refused to step outside of their dictated boundaries and use common sense. Now, to be perfectly honest, impeachment has lost its swagger. It is a dead letter. It has to be fixed, perhaps by an amendment requiring 60 Senate votes, or even 51, not 67.
Try the Electoral College. Twice in this century already, the winner of the popular vote didn't become president. In a country with this many citizens, this is the basest unfairness. Never mind the two disastrous presidents it has led to--which the country did not deserve--there has to be a change in the Constitution to remove it.
Is it unpatriotic to think so, much less say so? I don't think so. Do I love my country less because I think this? Absurd. I want to make it better. It's my country. I get to look at it with a critical eye. I don't have to accept someone's snake oil.
We have, at times, come down on people pretty hard for saying unorthodox things. Way back in the 1790s, the Federalist Party in Congress passed an absurd set of laws called the Alien and Sedition Acts, because they were jumpy that another revolution was about to begin, inspired by anti-British (and thus anti-Federalist) speeches given by French visitors. People were arrested, for instance, for saying that the president should be shot in his ass (The case was dismissed.). The laws were later declared unconstitutional.
But the Sedition Act of 1917, designed to thwart criticism of the president, Congress, and other representative institutions, is still on the books. Back then, it was enforced against someone passing out literature in New York City, trying to keep men from enlisting for the draft. The Supreme Court backed it up.
The flyer in question said that "democracy cannot be shot into a country," a notion later proven through the disastrous Treaty of Versailles. But the war was on in 1917, and the Wilson Administration created its own Committee on Public Information, with which this flyer seriously disagreed. Paranoia won the day.
We got enough people over to Europe to defeat the Central Powers. There was never much doubt about that. The importance of the flyer was blown way out of proportion by oppressive government--our own. The notion that it could get in the way of a nationwide recruitment program was ridiculous. It wasn't preventing anyone physically from signing up, it just advised them not to do it. And it didn't advocate burning draft cards.
Am I a non-patriot for saying so? Is the threat of strangling the First Amendment more important than fighting a war overseas? I think such discussion should happen. I think my country would do well to have it.
Tucker Carlson, you can tell your faithful on Fox News that criticism of the country is unpatriotic, but it doesn't hold up. The country was created because of criticism, and resistance was organized when it was ignored. It's our birthright. And it's our duty to change government that takes away people's rights. Where does it say that? In the Declaration of Independence.
Be well. Be careful. Wear a mask. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
Monday, July 6, 2020
In My Kitchen Without A Clue: No, They Weren't Taught That Way
45 finally blundered his way into my kitchen. I've been trying to ignore his blitherings, but I can't let this one go.
The other day at Mount Rushmore, he tried to say that kids were taught to hate their country. Of course he'd say that.
He thinks he can say it because some of them tore down statues. They did it because the connection of some of that history is old, tired, and yes, pretty bad.
Some of those statues were of Confederate soldiers. By implication, they celebrate a bad part of our history: the cause for which they fought. And no, it wasn't states' rights, which are a part of our Constitution and, until it's amended (not likely), always will be: the 10th Amendment, which says that states can govern themselves beyond what the national government's stated powers are. The word we have for that is "federalism," and the degree to which it exists, or ought to, is an ongoing debate.
No, the war was about slavery and whether the nation would go on, together, without it. Lincoln could have let the Confederates go and have their own country, you know. There's nothing that made him take on the Confederate Army and Navy. But he wanted to save the whole country, as is, so he had to call out the federal troops. And away we went.
Some time after that war ended, Southern states decided to preserve their "lost cause," justifying it partly by creating statues celebrating the main figures who fought to preserve the South's way of life, which mainly included making sure that a race of individuals were subservient to another. A whole bunch of us are still pretty convinced that that's not a bad idea, and all kinds of trouble has conspired because of it.
But 45 didn't mean that. He just meant that if you tear down a statue, you hate our history. Well, he's got a point there. You can hate part of our history, to be sure, and hating that part of our history is, in some parts, a sign of sanity and a willingness to move forward.
But nobody told them to hate it. They didn't have to. They concluded that on their own. That's the idea of education--that you take in the relevant facts and make up your own mind.
Defending those statues takes a bigger and bigger reach now. The Civil War was fought in 1861-65, over a century and a half ago. Clinging to that part of our history and all that that means is preserving a thought pattern that an overwhelming majority said we didn't want. The Congress and the states voted upon constitutional amendments to remove the meaning from the previously stated parts of the Constitution that referred to the status of slavery, preserving it as part of electing Congress and, implicitly, the president (that latter part of which remains: the Electoral College, the potentially goofy effects we have witnessed twice in this century, already).
The states most affected weren't there to debate those issues, but they had taken themselves out of the discussion by seceding from the Union. Too bad, so sad. So upon being driven back into the Union, they decided, with help from the Supreme Court and a horrible compromise to end Reconstruction, to create rules to get around the Constitutional changes that were made and put the freedmen into a box they couldn't get out of called Jim Crow. And they stayed there, too, far into the next century.
All this is documented. All this is included into any history book you want to open. Nobody said to hate the country. Nobody said to hate our history. I can guarantee you that no history teacher worth their salaries told any kids to hate their history. I sure didn't. But neither did I back away from the bad spots. I called it as it was. And some of it hasn't been nice. I owed it to the kids to do so.
But 45 doesn't want you to really look at our history, either. He wants you to retain the same thought patterns that created the problems that have recently reared their ugly heads again: To ignore race, and discrimination, and prejudice, which remain parts of our culture we have to work on. If that were not so, George Floyd and several other people would still be alive.
He just wants you to take his word for it, as if he ever opened a history book with serious intent himself--which, I also guarantee, he didn't. If that were so, he would open other bits of information that he clearly hasn't--for instance, the notion that Russians paid Afghans to kill our soldiers. He ignored it because he has some kind of business deal he wants to complete with the Russian government, so the Russian government can hold him hostage to just about any kind of hijinks they wish to perform, such as playing with our election and killing our people.
The word is that he's reacting to what the commentators at Fox News are doing. That tells me two things: That he doesn't have a mind of his own, that he can't put anything together unless someone helps him do it--in this case, probably Stephen Miller; and that he has to check his back to make sure whoever's watching that nonsense agrees with him.
That doesn't make him strong. That makes him weak. That response to the cow bell doesn't give me much solace. That doesn't make the nation secure. That puts it at risk. That risk will build upon his re-election.
An attitude of endless attack upon our own citizens leaves us divided and wondering how we can exist within the same borders. And we're stuck with each other, now that other countries are closing their own borders to us because of the horrible way 45 and his assistants have handled the coronavirus.
But you can be sure that your history teachers didn't tell their students to hate their country. They did, for the most part (excepting a young member of my department who once told his students that God won World War II, which is nonsense--our production did), tell things like they were and are. I wonder what they're saying today, other than "you can see we have some problems we told you about that are catching up with us." They will have to speak, though, as if the whole country matters--something 45 refuses to say or affirm.
That is, if they can get back into their classrooms. 45 has arranged to keep them out through last spring because of his horrible handling of the virus. The virus will pass someday, though. And when it does, the reporting of what he has done to ruin us will emerge into full view, regardless of what he wants to happen. He wants everybody to agree with him and attacks everyone who doesn't. That will work with a few people in the short run, but it never does in the long run. He can't control that.
He doesn't understand the degree to which he will be cast as a shadow upon our history. He won't stop that, either. He can't get into every history classroom. The truth shows up, eventually, and his mark upon history will be awful. Deep inside, he already knows that. Deep inside, he knows it's beginning to slip away.
He's going to have to try to grease the skids to get him back into office this time. He'll fight with every legal or quasi-legal trick he can find. That, too, will get him into the history books as the only president who didn't step down from defeat with style and a sense of the constitutional process and culture. But you know he already has assured us of that, and the majority of the U.S. Senate chickened out instead of getting rid of him.
So hang on tight. Someone who trashes our history by maintaining the worst parts of it will assuredly trash us in the present.
Be well. Be careful. Wear a mask. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
The word is that he's reacting to what the commentators at Fox News are doing. That tells me two things: That he doesn't have a mind of his own, that he can't put anything together unless someone helps him do it--in this case, probably Stephen Miller; and that he has to check his back to make sure whoever's watching that nonsense agrees with him.
That doesn't make him strong. That makes him weak. That response to the cow bell doesn't give me much solace. That doesn't make the nation secure. That puts it at risk. That risk will build upon his re-election.
An attitude of endless attack upon our own citizens leaves us divided and wondering how we can exist within the same borders. And we're stuck with each other, now that other countries are closing their own borders to us because of the horrible way 45 and his assistants have handled the coronavirus.
But you can be sure that your history teachers didn't tell their students to hate their country. They did, for the most part (excepting a young member of my department who once told his students that God won World War II, which is nonsense--our production did), tell things like they were and are. I wonder what they're saying today, other than "you can see we have some problems we told you about that are catching up with us." They will have to speak, though, as if the whole country matters--something 45 refuses to say or affirm.
That is, if they can get back into their classrooms. 45 has arranged to keep them out through last spring because of his horrible handling of the virus. The virus will pass someday, though. And when it does, the reporting of what he has done to ruin us will emerge into full view, regardless of what he wants to happen. He wants everybody to agree with him and attacks everyone who doesn't. That will work with a few people in the short run, but it never does in the long run. He can't control that.
He doesn't understand the degree to which he will be cast as a shadow upon our history. He won't stop that, either. He can't get into every history classroom. The truth shows up, eventually, and his mark upon history will be awful. Deep inside, he already knows that. Deep inside, he knows it's beginning to slip away.
He's going to have to try to grease the skids to get him back into office this time. He'll fight with every legal or quasi-legal trick he can find. That, too, will get him into the history books as the only president who didn't step down from defeat with style and a sense of the constitutional process and culture. But you know he already has assured us of that, and the majority of the U.S. Senate chickened out instead of getting rid of him.
So hang on tight. Someone who trashes our history by maintaining the worst parts of it will assuredly trash us in the present.
Be well. Be careful. Wear a mask. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
Friday, July 3, 2020
The Regular Crowd Down the Street--One Responsible, One Not
It's getting to be regular, like they always were. Happy hour has returned.
The place is just half a block from the back alley of my apartment building. It's the easiest, most unencumbered way back into civilization. The front way has a security door and a different key to open it, so why use it? The back door is the way out to the parking lot where my car is, anyhow.
At five or six o'clock on weekdays, now, they are there--at least six, up to a dozen, people drinking at happy hour. They're outside, I'm guessing, because of the pandemic, and someone told them that being outside is better than being inside.
But that alone doesn't make them immune. They're standing right next to each other. Not a single one of them has ever worn a mask. The summer air is hanging closer now with the humidity. Some are now familiar, at a glance.
Here's a perfect example of the denial that has overtaken so many of us. I'm not gonna get it, and if I get it, how bad could it be?
The age grouping varies. Obviously, they're younger than I am, but some aren't younger by all that much. They've been around. They should have understood by now.
I don't want any of them to die. I don't want any of them to get sick, either, but I'm wondering how close to the edge they're getting.
I see them gather when I go out for my daily walk, which is about that time. I steer away from them, not walking amongst them. I go out on the street to maintain my distancing. Only thing I can do.
They seem to be having a great time. I must say I miss that. I can strike up a conversation with damn near anybody, and that gathering, as most bars are, is ripe for the kind of conversation that can get you through lonely times like this one.
So it's tempting, because I haven't had a good face-to-face conversation in a while. But not that tempting. Science is science. Enter stage Clint Eastwood: A man's got to know his limitations.
These people miss it, too, which is why they're there. But like thousands of others, they're risking their noses to save their faces. They can't stand waiting until the coast is a bit clearer. So it never clears.
The risk is obvious, and getting more dangerous by the day. Looks like there's another surge about to begin. Goody gumdrops.
There are several restaurants along the way with bistro dining. The tables have been separated to cooperate with social distancing. The people, though, sit easily within spreading distance, without masks; six at at time in some places. So what is being accomplished, besides scratching another itch? I miss restaurants, too, but not so much as to get sick from them. Order out if you have to, but don't arrange another way to catch the virus. The odds are better outside, but not foolproof.
The governor of Texas, who believes business must be business like a good, indoctrinated Republican, tried to make people happy by opening up bars and other establishments so that the economy of that state wouldn't tank. The state is now being overrun. Now he's making people wear masks in public, or risk a $250 fine.
The number of new cases of the virus in Texas are setting records daily. Lots of people will now stay indoors. And the economy will tank. He had to cancel advancing the re-opening. He gave in to anxious people who were losing money and got some through a federal government which may have to re-gear and give them more. But nobody knows where that's coming from. Or when.
In Wisconsin, the state supreme court has tied our governor's hands by overruling his safe-at-home, gradual re-opening, and now we're trapped. Now the governor can't do anything. He called it right: It's now the Wild West. All he can say is what he's saying: It's July 4 now, and you'd better be careful out there. I know you want to get together, but you really shouldn't. You are risking big, big trouble.
That sounds like a parent confronting a child who's dating at 14. And the message will go about that far. The people at that bar aren't acting like adults, either: That's why the bar's there, so they can have an hour or two where they don't have to do that. But now irresponsibility won't disappear into the air as it always used to, catching up with only the perpetrators: It will spread to others, whether they like it or not.
But all is not lost. A bit farther down the street, right around the corner on Downer Avenue, is a hardware store. Been there for ages, like the grocer and the movie house. But it has a sign on it, right at eye-level which can't be missed. To summarize: If you walk in here without a mask, we will not service you.
Seems to me that that's the right approach, both specifically and in general: If the state supreme court wants to protect business because that's the way America should run, then businesses have been allowed, and should take the liberty, to protect themselves. Anybody who lives so irresponsibly as to put others at risk inside a store, where people are merely working and are literally trapped against the vicissitudes of the public, can take their business elsewhere.
We're not shutting our doors, it's saying, but if you're a stupid jerk, we'd rather not deal with you. We're free, yes, and just as free to stop this crap from coming in here.
That way, business can continue to function. That way, greater shutdowns might not happen, voluntary or not. But they have to do it, or they will cut their own throats this time, and there will be fewer with empathy for them. And there will be far more trouble with shortages.
If the business community takes that up and unites in a temporary collusion (not all are bad things, you know) to protect the public from itself, that might get others to wake up, grow up, and stop or slow down what appears to be a new surge. You can't make money if people are home sick. Simple as that.
Most of us managed to get to this July 4th, alive and safe. Let's be smart about getting to the next one, too.
Be well. Be careful. Wear a mask. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
The place is just half a block from the back alley of my apartment building. It's the easiest, most unencumbered way back into civilization. The front way has a security door and a different key to open it, so why use it? The back door is the way out to the parking lot where my car is, anyhow.
At five or six o'clock on weekdays, now, they are there--at least six, up to a dozen, people drinking at happy hour. They're outside, I'm guessing, because of the pandemic, and someone told them that being outside is better than being inside.
But that alone doesn't make them immune. They're standing right next to each other. Not a single one of them has ever worn a mask. The summer air is hanging closer now with the humidity. Some are now familiar, at a glance.
Here's a perfect example of the denial that has overtaken so many of us. I'm not gonna get it, and if I get it, how bad could it be?
The age grouping varies. Obviously, they're younger than I am, but some aren't younger by all that much. They've been around. They should have understood by now.
I don't want any of them to die. I don't want any of them to get sick, either, but I'm wondering how close to the edge they're getting.
I see them gather when I go out for my daily walk, which is about that time. I steer away from them, not walking amongst them. I go out on the street to maintain my distancing. Only thing I can do.
They seem to be having a great time. I must say I miss that. I can strike up a conversation with damn near anybody, and that gathering, as most bars are, is ripe for the kind of conversation that can get you through lonely times like this one.
So it's tempting, because I haven't had a good face-to-face conversation in a while. But not that tempting. Science is science. Enter stage Clint Eastwood: A man's got to know his limitations.
These people miss it, too, which is why they're there. But like thousands of others, they're risking their noses to save their faces. They can't stand waiting until the coast is a bit clearer. So it never clears.
The risk is obvious, and getting more dangerous by the day. Looks like there's another surge about to begin. Goody gumdrops.
There are several restaurants along the way with bistro dining. The tables have been separated to cooperate with social distancing. The people, though, sit easily within spreading distance, without masks; six at at time in some places. So what is being accomplished, besides scratching another itch? I miss restaurants, too, but not so much as to get sick from them. Order out if you have to, but don't arrange another way to catch the virus. The odds are better outside, but not foolproof.
The governor of Texas, who believes business must be business like a good, indoctrinated Republican, tried to make people happy by opening up bars and other establishments so that the economy of that state wouldn't tank. The state is now being overrun. Now he's making people wear masks in public, or risk a $250 fine.
The number of new cases of the virus in Texas are setting records daily. Lots of people will now stay indoors. And the economy will tank. He had to cancel advancing the re-opening. He gave in to anxious people who were losing money and got some through a federal government which may have to re-gear and give them more. But nobody knows where that's coming from. Or when.
In Wisconsin, the state supreme court has tied our governor's hands by overruling his safe-at-home, gradual re-opening, and now we're trapped. Now the governor can't do anything. He called it right: It's now the Wild West. All he can say is what he's saying: It's July 4 now, and you'd better be careful out there. I know you want to get together, but you really shouldn't. You are risking big, big trouble.
That sounds like a parent confronting a child who's dating at 14. And the message will go about that far. The people at that bar aren't acting like adults, either: That's why the bar's there, so they can have an hour or two where they don't have to do that. But now irresponsibility won't disappear into the air as it always used to, catching up with only the perpetrators: It will spread to others, whether they like it or not.
But all is not lost. A bit farther down the street, right around the corner on Downer Avenue, is a hardware store. Been there for ages, like the grocer and the movie house. But it has a sign on it, right at eye-level which can't be missed. To summarize: If you walk in here without a mask, we will not service you.
Seems to me that that's the right approach, both specifically and in general: If the state supreme court wants to protect business because that's the way America should run, then businesses have been allowed, and should take the liberty, to protect themselves. Anybody who lives so irresponsibly as to put others at risk inside a store, where people are merely working and are literally trapped against the vicissitudes of the public, can take their business elsewhere.
We're not shutting our doors, it's saying, but if you're a stupid jerk, we'd rather not deal with you. We're free, yes, and just as free to stop this crap from coming in here.
That way, business can continue to function. That way, greater shutdowns might not happen, voluntary or not. But they have to do it, or they will cut their own throats this time, and there will be fewer with empathy for them. And there will be far more trouble with shortages.
If the business community takes that up and unites in a temporary collusion (not all are bad things, you know) to protect the public from itself, that might get others to wake up, grow up, and stop or slow down what appears to be a new surge. You can't make money if people are home sick. Simple as that.
Most of us managed to get to this July 4th, alive and safe. Let's be smart about getting to the next one, too.
Be well. Be careful. Wear a mask. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
Wednesday, July 1, 2020
The Future of America--Found in a Hospital Trip
I found the future of America. I really like it. So will you.
I found it in a hospital. I got a heart scare a couple of weeks ago and went to check it out.
The company in charge of sending phone calls for the ' reminder' got it wrong, so I nearly didn't have the appointment I was supposed to have. Everyone rolled with it; they weren't surprised. "How are you?" asked Sarah (all names have been changed) the med-tech assigned to give me an EKG. "I'm a bit confused, but otherwise okay," I replied.
She turned toward me as she led me backstage. "Welcome to my world," she trolled.
She was thorough but friendly. She asked me about my original surgery. I had forgotten the name of the surgeon, but between the two of us, we deciphered it as McAlester. I remembered that he said he was a Navy surgeon. "He must have been in residence that day," Sarah said. "We have to do that, you know."
But she stared off a second in admiration. "Dr. McAlester," she said, in half-wonder. "He had magic hands. He saved a lot of lives."
Like mine, that day. He said I was 99% plugged at the junction of my two main arteries. "You had weeks, if not days, left," he told me at the debriefing a couple of weeks later. Beth said he had retired. I know he won't see this, but I wish him well.
Sarah delivered me into the competent hands of Yousef, a native of Morocco and a practicing Muslim. He prepped me for the 'stress test,' which was done chemically this time, without a treadmill, so as not to have my breathing labored by my anti-virus mask.
"I'm from Marrakech," he said. "A beautiful city. You should go. Marrakech and Rabat." I made a note to add them to a bucket list that's only growing, since the EU won't let me visit now. But he was very friendly, and eager to discuss the similarities between Islam and Christianity, perhaps because his wife is Christian. Muslims don't trash Jesus; he's an important part of the big picture. "It's all much the same," he said. I agreed, and offered that crazies in both religions give them a bad name.
He guided me through the entire process, though he didn't need to do so. "I'll make you a fresh pot of coffee," he said. "You'll probably get a headache from the drugs because of the expansion of the arteries. The only way to relieve it is with caffeine." He kindly did so, bringing me a filled styrofoam cup and six graham crackers. After three hours of all this, they hit the spot.
Others had come and go. Beatrice, a Black nurse practitioner, chatted with me through our masks for a while on how ridiculous everybody who wouldn't wear a mask was being. "It's so simple," she said. "We could get this down to a decent level."
The doctor, a diminutive lady--we'll call her Dr. H--a trusted colleague of my main cardiac physician who had been in turn a trusted colleague of Dr. McAlester, stopped by for just a moment. She was obviously quite busy, and disrupted a bit from the change in my schedule. She had planned this testing much earlier in the day. Her name is long and South Asian--Indian or Bangladeshi or Sri Lankan or Pakistani--and quite difficult to spell. But she's easy to take. Her manner is nothing but helpful. She did say hello and checked in to see if the process was moving along.
Very briefly, Carrie, another nurse's practitioner, a blond woman who couldn't have been 35, came in to put a stethoscope on me. She stood out from the others, though, because she was the only white person in the group besides Sarah.
I couldn't help but marvel at that. This is the America that's to come, I told myself as I drove home. And not only is there nothing to fear, there's every reason to celebrate and embrace it. These are all Americans, some from other lands, but glad to be here. And they want to help. Not a pretentious bone in any of their bodies, either. It felt good to be amongst them.
But 45 wants to limit their access, all filled with himself and some long-forgotten attitude about America First. These people put America first, not him. They make sure sick people get taken care of. They have to put it on the line for all of us daily. They make me proud to live in this country. He sure doesn't.
Yousef took me to a contraption which revolves around me, taking pictures, he said, after the stress. Then I was slid into a hyperbaric chamber--just for a minute, he said. And it was, in fact, just for a minute, about which I was happy because things like that give me the creeps. Then he withdrew me, took some more pictures, and re-inserted me inside the chamber. This time he did not tell me how long I'd be in there, but somehow I knew it would only be for another minute. And it was. I trusted him, believed in him, found no reason to doubt him.
Yousef took me to the lobby. Again, he didn't have to; I could have found it myself. "Good to talk to you," he said. "Yes," I said. "I hope we have the chance to talk again." We probably won't, of course. There would be no reason, outside of another, unwanted visit, to interact again in any other way. But you never know; we could run into each other at Whole Foods or something.
I hoped so. He was different than I, and I different than him. Yet, we had enough in common to become friends: we showed interest in exploring each other's religions, we were in this excellent health care facility, we were both Americans.
Well, maybe not: Maybe he wasn't a citizen yet. I didn't ask. But it didn't matter. I knew he loved it here, knew because he so willingly interacted with me, someone he might not ever see again. He was as American as I was, here all of four years. He knew I wanted to understand better, so he opened up willingly, quickly, as if he was parched for it.
We need to get rid of the one who tries to make us afraid of that. It's ridiculous. It's unnecessary. It hurts this country.
I held my hands prayerfully as I stepped away, and bowed my head slightly. "Namaste," I said as I left, a respectful greeting on the Indian subcontinent. "Adios" didn't seem appropriate; it felt a bit too flip, like maybe this was a Western and I was John Wayne.
I wanted to say something more than just 'so long,' though. It was a gesture of a deeper thanks that I hope he absorbed. Then, as I always do, I said, "Be well," as I pointed at him, something I do when an interaction is more than casual.
He might easily forget me by today. There are always more to treat. But I'm not likely to forget him, or them. The visit had tired me out, but I also felt better in a way.
The call came back two days later: I'm all right after all. That is, if I keep taking good care of myself. Kind of like the country, about to pass another birthday.
Be well. Be careful. Wear a mask. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
I found it in a hospital. I got a heart scare a couple of weeks ago and went to check it out.
The company in charge of sending phone calls for the ' reminder' got it wrong, so I nearly didn't have the appointment I was supposed to have. Everyone rolled with it; they weren't surprised. "How are you?" asked Sarah (all names have been changed) the med-tech assigned to give me an EKG. "I'm a bit confused, but otherwise okay," I replied.
She turned toward me as she led me backstage. "Welcome to my world," she trolled.
She was thorough but friendly. She asked me about my original surgery. I had forgotten the name of the surgeon, but between the two of us, we deciphered it as McAlester. I remembered that he said he was a Navy surgeon. "He must have been in residence that day," Sarah said. "We have to do that, you know."
But she stared off a second in admiration. "Dr. McAlester," she said, in half-wonder. "He had magic hands. He saved a lot of lives."
Like mine, that day. He said I was 99% plugged at the junction of my two main arteries. "You had weeks, if not days, left," he told me at the debriefing a couple of weeks later. Beth said he had retired. I know he won't see this, but I wish him well.
Sarah delivered me into the competent hands of Yousef, a native of Morocco and a practicing Muslim. He prepped me for the 'stress test,' which was done chemically this time, without a treadmill, so as not to have my breathing labored by my anti-virus mask.
"I'm from Marrakech," he said. "A beautiful city. You should go. Marrakech and Rabat." I made a note to add them to a bucket list that's only growing, since the EU won't let me visit now. But he was very friendly, and eager to discuss the similarities between Islam and Christianity, perhaps because his wife is Christian. Muslims don't trash Jesus; he's an important part of the big picture. "It's all much the same," he said. I agreed, and offered that crazies in both religions give them a bad name.
He guided me through the entire process, though he didn't need to do so. "I'll make you a fresh pot of coffee," he said. "You'll probably get a headache from the drugs because of the expansion of the arteries. The only way to relieve it is with caffeine." He kindly did so, bringing me a filled styrofoam cup and six graham crackers. After three hours of all this, they hit the spot.
Others had come and go. Beatrice, a Black nurse practitioner, chatted with me through our masks for a while on how ridiculous everybody who wouldn't wear a mask was being. "It's so simple," she said. "We could get this down to a decent level."
The doctor, a diminutive lady--we'll call her Dr. H--a trusted colleague of my main cardiac physician who had been in turn a trusted colleague of Dr. McAlester, stopped by for just a moment. She was obviously quite busy, and disrupted a bit from the change in my schedule. She had planned this testing much earlier in the day. Her name is long and South Asian--Indian or Bangladeshi or Sri Lankan or Pakistani--and quite difficult to spell. But she's easy to take. Her manner is nothing but helpful. She did say hello and checked in to see if the process was moving along.
Very briefly, Carrie, another nurse's practitioner, a blond woman who couldn't have been 35, came in to put a stethoscope on me. She stood out from the others, though, because she was the only white person in the group besides Sarah.
I couldn't help but marvel at that. This is the America that's to come, I told myself as I drove home. And not only is there nothing to fear, there's every reason to celebrate and embrace it. These are all Americans, some from other lands, but glad to be here. And they want to help. Not a pretentious bone in any of their bodies, either. It felt good to be amongst them.
But 45 wants to limit their access, all filled with himself and some long-forgotten attitude about America First. These people put America first, not him. They make sure sick people get taken care of. They have to put it on the line for all of us daily. They make me proud to live in this country. He sure doesn't.
Yousef took me to a contraption which revolves around me, taking pictures, he said, after the stress. Then I was slid into a hyperbaric chamber--just for a minute, he said. And it was, in fact, just for a minute, about which I was happy because things like that give me the creeps. Then he withdrew me, took some more pictures, and re-inserted me inside the chamber. This time he did not tell me how long I'd be in there, but somehow I knew it would only be for another minute. And it was. I trusted him, believed in him, found no reason to doubt him.
Yousef took me to the lobby. Again, he didn't have to; I could have found it myself. "Good to talk to you," he said. "Yes," I said. "I hope we have the chance to talk again." We probably won't, of course. There would be no reason, outside of another, unwanted visit, to interact again in any other way. But you never know; we could run into each other at Whole Foods or something.
I hoped so. He was different than I, and I different than him. Yet, we had enough in common to become friends: we showed interest in exploring each other's religions, we were in this excellent health care facility, we were both Americans.
Well, maybe not: Maybe he wasn't a citizen yet. I didn't ask. But it didn't matter. I knew he loved it here, knew because he so willingly interacted with me, someone he might not ever see again. He was as American as I was, here all of four years. He knew I wanted to understand better, so he opened up willingly, quickly, as if he was parched for it.
We need to get rid of the one who tries to make us afraid of that. It's ridiculous. It's unnecessary. It hurts this country.
I held my hands prayerfully as I stepped away, and bowed my head slightly. "Namaste," I said as I left, a respectful greeting on the Indian subcontinent. "Adios" didn't seem appropriate; it felt a bit too flip, like maybe this was a Western and I was John Wayne.
I wanted to say something more than just 'so long,' though. It was a gesture of a deeper thanks that I hope he absorbed. Then, as I always do, I said, "Be well," as I pointed at him, something I do when an interaction is more than casual.
He might easily forget me by today. There are always more to treat. But I'm not likely to forget him, or them. The visit had tired me out, but I also felt better in a way.
The call came back two days later: I'm all right after all. That is, if I keep taking good care of myself. Kind of like the country, about to pass another birthday.
Be well. Be careful. Wear a mask. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
