Covid 19 - The "real" story

 

 

Yep, let’s go ahead and say it.  Right out front, I want to get this straight.  It’s a real disease and people are really dying from it.  Everything else you hear about it should get a healthy dose of skepticism.  I don’t know any more about this disease than the idiots on the morning news and I don’t even have someone writing copy for me.  Does that mean you should trust what I tell you?  I guess you will have to decide for yourself – how’s that for a unique perspective? 

I am totally convinced that it’s a real virus that came out of a chemical warfare laboratory in China.  Was it released intentionally or accidentally?  I have no idea.  It certainly has been a huge economic boom for China, but I have no way of knowing whether it was an accidental effect or intentionally planned.  I suspect we have a better chance of knowing for sure about the Kennedy assassination than we do this story.  For now, the jury is still out.

I have tried to get some real facts about the epidemic, but they just aren’t available.  General tendencies can be gleaned from the chaff but not enough info to really get the big picture.  This morning on the “news” they said yesterday was the biggest new case number in the history of the disease.  Reading the fine print below the numbers you see that the “yesterday” they refer to was nearly two weeks ago and that’s today’s tv news. 

What do we know?  Well, the latest variant is much less deadly than the previous versions so that’s good news.  On the other hand, it is much more contagious.  Oh well.  The vaccines, all of them, drastically improve your chance of not getting really sick if you catch the virus.  If you do catch it and survive, you have less chance of catching it again. 

Let’s talk about masks.  Let me say that I have a different outlook because I just can’t do the mask thing.  I have an unrelated disease which won’t allow me to breathe through a mask.  I say that just for perspective.  “They” said in the earliest days of the disease that the masks keep you from spreading the disease but do very little to protect you from catching it.  There has been lots of opinions by everybody including the guy who cuts my grass but very little hard info about effectiveness.  I encourage everyone to wear masks if you have any chance of having been exposed.  That is for my protection, not yours.  I have had all three injections.  I don’t think I got the chip, but would they tell you?  😉 

What a joke, huh?  These folks that are worried about the mythical tracking chip are carrying around a cellphone all the time that no one doubts can be tracked and they are worried about an injected chip?  My dog has one, and she doesn’t complain. 

One thing we have learned for certain is that when it wants to, our government can do many amazing things that I doubt were intended by the founding fathers.  Have you noticed that the current administration has quietly taken credit for all the things the previous administration did to fight the disease?  I mean like developing vaccines and getting them distributed and developing treatments?  The serious downside is there is no such thing as “temporary emergency” powers when it comes to government.  Our current government is using these extraordinary powers for things that help public health, but once established these powers never go away.  There will be nothing stopping them from using them for what ever they wish in the future. 

I was going to say something about “social media” but I think I’ll save that for another day. 

Opinions expressed here are just opinions – exactly like everything the media publishes except that I admit it. 

 

That’s the way I see it.  How about you?

 

Is it time for a peace pipe?

 I see that it is Native American month, or something like that.  Now I have a Cherokee ancestor so I am sympathetic, but let's reason a bit.  We seem to be all bound up over what we think was done wrong in the past, although we weren't there.  Let me say that again.  WE WEREN'T THERE.  Should we learn from the past?  Absolutely!  Just be careful what you learn.  You are judging a situation that you know nothing about when you try to see a past that was very different from the world you know today.  Just a century ago hardly anyone had electricity, or running water, or telephone.  Long range communication took weeks, or months, not seconds. 

Let's talk about the Indian thing.  Let's assume for a moment that your outrage is justified.  Let me ask what other solution do you offer?  If your ancestors stepped off a primitive ship into the new world, what would you have them do?  The natives would not have wanted them taking their land, now would they?  I doubt they would have wanted to sell.  Do you think your ancestors should have stayed wherever they came from?  I'm not offering answers, this is not a multiple choice.  I am asking the question.  

Did you know that the whole Trail of Tears started because they found gold on the Indian land in Georgia?  Yep, that isn't talked about too often, is it?

I don't believe that there would be a United States without the treatment of the native people that occurred, although I am open to alternative theories.  I feel that the world is a better place because the US is here but that is simply my subjective opinion.  I am open to other ideas if you have realistic justification for them.

Now we all know the ends don't justify the means, or at least that's what we have been taught; but maybe sometimes they do.  There's a subject for thought.  When something good comes from an evil deed is it good or bad??   Hmmm, maybe we need to re-evaluate that good or bad thing.  To me, the past is neither good or bad - it's just the past.    Maybe there is not absolute.  Is it always wrong to kill?  I'll bet you can think of some exceptions. 

Maybe it’s time for something different

 

 

There is a lot of “news” lately about the race problem.  You would think it was something brand new, but in fact I can remember the exact same thing for the last 60 years at least.  One definition of insanity is taking the same actions repeatedly and expecting different results.  Sound familiar? 

It seems that for the last sixty years, at least, black people have been treated differently from other people.  I have no way to know if that’s true or not, so let’s assume it is.  For all this time we have tried things like giving people who claim to be black priority on getting into good colleges.  We have given special priorities to black businesses on government contract bids.  Here in Jacksonville, we just moved all the covid 19 vaccination sites into black neighborhoods.  We gave special loan rates for mortgages for black people, allowing them to buy houses that they couldn’t afford.  We have let black people get away with nuisance noise levels from their radios, and we have allowed obscenities in public from them.  We have let them wear their pants around their knees and we allowed them to go through school without learning to speak intelligible English.  We have let them burn cities and rob businesses because somehow they have been mistreated.   In the black neighborhoods, we generally let them do whatever they want because it is impossible to enforce laws when the local citizens won’t cooperate with law enforcement. 

We elected one of these folks president, and somehow they still don’t think they have a fair chance to advance. 

Now I’m no expert, I’m not even a liberal, but I think it is high time we changed our approach.  How could it be any worse than what we have been doing? 

In attempting to clarify the problem, consider this.  Ever since the sixties (and possibly before) a sizable number of people of African descent have joined the mainstream of America and left the ghettos.  They dress like ordinary people and they talk like ordinary people.  They work at the same jobs as all other working people and earn the same income.  They live in the same neighborhoods as everyone else and they exhibit civilized manners.  Now there isn’t really a definition of “black” when it comes to people, but the people I speak of have dark complexions and usually black curly hair.  That’s about all they have in common with the black rioters.  Don’t misunderstand, most of the rioters are white liberals.  THEY aren’t black by any definition that I know of.  

But I digress.  The fact is that a large number of folks of African descent have simply merged with mainstream society.  Not “white society” because there is no such thing that I am aware of.  It would probably be illegal if it existed like a “United White College Fund”.  Or a “NAAWP”. 

Now that is probably humorous, but maybe there is a kernel of useful ideas in here.  Here is my suggestion.  Get rid of all racial stuff.  No black groups, no racial block on applications or drivers licenses, and no special or different treatment for anybody.  How’s that for a wild and crazy idea?  Maybe if we stopped talking about this problem it would resolve itself.  Making it the hot topic for the news certainly hasn’t fixed anything has it? 

 

That’s the way I see it.  What do you think?

 

In 1962 I joined the Air Force and went to San Antonio for boot camp.  I learned a few things during that time that are still relevant.  The instructors told me I was welcome to believe anything I wanted, and to say anything I wanted so long as I was not in uniform.  Once I put on the uniform I gave up those rights because in uniform I represented the United States of America and anything I said or any action I took would be attributed to the United States.  Those are the rules that prevent military members from campaigning in uniform for any political party, candidate or cause. 

The point here, is you must consider how your actions will be perceived.  If you drive like an idiot in a Mercedes, the perception is all Mercedes drivers are idiots.   If you have a religious bumper sticker on the back of your car and you just cut someone off, all members of that religion are assholes. 

The NFL has sullied its reputation by not taking decisive action to stop the public disrespect to the flag of our country which can only be construed as disrespect to those who have fought to defend her.  I have waited to see them take action to stop this insult and although the people in charge of the teams and the league have not condoned this action, they have not stopped it either.  When you put on the uniform of a professional sports team, your actions reflect on that team.  Sporting events are supposed to be entertainment.  If a sport fails to separate itself from politics it is no longer entertainment.  Regretfully, I will no longer be supporting the NFL in any way, including watching the games on television.  

Last week, NASCAR decided to jump on the racial bandwagon in several ways including an insulting rendition of the National Anthem by someone who had apparently never heard it.  Then they dedicated race cars to the obviously racist BLM organization.  I've watched their races since the fifties and attended some of them, notably in Darlington and Daytona.  I won't be watching any more. 

If you agree with the stance of these organizations then by all means support them.  If not, consider voting with your pocketbook.  That is the American way.  

Three guests check into a hotel room. The manager says the bill is $30, so each guest pays $10. Later the manager realizes the bill should only have been $25. To rectify this, he gives the bellhop $5 as five one-dollar bills to return to the guests.
On the way to the guests' room to refund the money, the bellhop realizes that he cannot equally divide the five one-dollar bills among the three guests. As the guests aren't aware of the total of the revised bill, the bellhop decides to just give each guest $1 back and keep $2 as a tip for himself, and proceeds to do so.
As each guest got $1 back, each guest only paid $9, bringing the total paid to $27. The bellhop kept $2, which when added to the $27, comes to $29. So if the guests originally handed over $30, what happened to the remaining $1?

 Perhaps you are already aware of that story, it dates back to the 1930s at least.  How about this one:

In Florida during the Covid 19 outbreak 1,500,000 people have been tested for the virus.  In Jacksonville 75,000 have been tested.  Jacksonville is the third largest metropolitan area in Florida so we should have tested 1/3 as many people which would have been 500,000.  Obviously we aren't testing nearly enough people.

  The problem we face today is in large part the lack of understanding of mathematics on the part of the public at large as well as the news media who are trying to find something inflammatory to say.  

 

New Edit:  I realized belatedly that there are some people who didn't get this, so I am going to re-visit the issue and explain it.   The facts I list in the first two sentences and the first part of the third one in the story about Jacksonville are accurate.  The conclusion in the second half of the third sentence is just as ridiculous as the hotel story.  The fact that Jacksonville is the third largest metropolitan area has no bearing on the problem discussed.  Factually, it would have said that Jacksonville has about 4% of the population of Florida as a whole and therefore should have vaccinated 4% of 1,500,000 or 60,000 people.  We actually were well ahead of the state as a whole. 

Silly season again?

It’s Silly Season early this year

Can you believe that the Democrats have dozens of candidates for President this year?  Isn’t this exactly what the Republicans did 3 years ago?  I am looking forward with great interest to the events upcoming from this party.  Here’s the Rolling Stone link on the subject.  https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/2020-democrat-candidates-771735/  

I wrote on this subject in October of 2016 http://sep-11-2001.blogspot.com/ and I am not especially happy to report that my words proved prophetic.  Here’s what seems to be happening this year.  Joe Biden appears to be the front runner, although he is certainly not a shoo in at this point.  Nobody seems to be talking about the fact that he will be 78 when he takes office if he should be elected.  Now, your friendly neighborhood scribe is 75 and that’s too old to be president. 

Outside of being too old, Biden isn’t a terrible candidate -especially if you look at the other choices.  I am not going into them individually at this point, I will just point out what I tried to last silly season.  I think it is the job of the political parties to provide a candidate for President.  He doesn’t have to be a wonderful candidate, just an acceptable candidate.  Two people should wind up with the nominations and they should both be acceptable candidates.  There will be differences, but they are generally minor ones.  Nobody who wants to make basic changes to the government or to society is an acceptable candidate.  Yes, I know there are some people who would like to overthrow the government and force changes on society – but those people are too small a minority to elect a president. 

Let me emphasize this, to make meaningful changes you must FIRST get elected.  Promising things that there is no way to pay for like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren just won’t work because there are too many people who understand that somebody would have to pay for all this free stuff.  In a future blog I will address the student loan situation because I think it is drastically misunderstood. 

 Also on this vein, I think we should beware of single issue candidates.  Far too often splinter candidates get fixated on one minor issue like student loans, abortion, or minimum wage.  If you choose one narrow issue as all important (such as “save the whales”} you run the risk of electing someone for the really wrong reasons.  We really need to elect a candidate that has a realistic grasp of the entire world situation as well as the US economic situation.  A few months ago I would have said there was a 90% chance that the Democratic nominee would be our next President.  Now it appears that the DNC is in just as much disarray as the RNC was last election.  I don’t see some outsider in the wings with the public support and the money to swoop in and carry the election so at this point my prediction is that whoever the Republicans nominate will be the next president.  

And, that’s the way I see it.

For my European Friends

At the request of some European friends I am going to try and explain the US government.  Let’s start with the original US government, the articles of Confederation.  My European friends may find this constitution very similar to the current EU.  The Confederation was formed in 1781 during the revolutionary war and it was the government that signed the peace treaty in 1783. 

It didn’t take long for it to become obvious that the national government didn’t have enough power to operate as a government because the 13 sovereign colonies were not at all sure they wanted to give up their own authority.  The second continental congress convened in 1787 (I think) and wrote a new and much more federal constitution which brought much more power to the central government at the expense of the state governments.  In order to get it accepted, in 1791 the first 10 amendments were added which we call the “bill of rights”.  That substantially limited the role of the federal government.   

 I am going to use the British government for comparison as if it was still a sovereign government (as it will be again in the near future).  The model seems to be similar for most European governments.  Practically speaking, the House of Commons IS the UK government and the members represent about 100000 people each.  The Prime Minister is the leader of the majority party in the House of Commons.  If there is no party with a clear majority, then whoever can put together a coalition becomes the prime minister.  Since there are currently 11 parties who have seats in Parliament that can and does happen. 

No party other than the Democrats and Republicans hold seats in either house of the US government. 

It would appear that since the prime minister is also the leader of the majority party in the UK he has considerable power to make laws and run the government.  Theoretically, the sovereign has overall power but I am under the impression she doesn’t actually wield any real power. 

The US system is more different than I realized.  For instance, the President is the head of the government and he is elected directly by the public.  The two houses of congress, commonly called the house and the senate exercise approximately equal powers.  Generally it requires agreement between both houses and the President for a bill to become law.  Members of the House represent approximately 733,000 people and are directly elected by those constituents.  Members of the Senate represent the states and are elected by the states at large.  That is, all citizens of a state vote for both Senators.  (Each state has two senators) Senators are elected for staggered 6 year terms with 1/3 of them elected every two years.  That plan was to provide stability to the government.  Members of the House of Representatives are elected every 2 years in hopes of making them responsible to public wishes. 

The function of the third arm of the government, the Supreme Court is to compare laws made to the constitution.

 The US Constitution provides very specific guidelines as to what powers are held by the Federal Government and which are NOT.  Probably the most important of these guidelines says in essence that the Federal Government has ONLY those powers specifically granted to it and all other powers are maintained by state and local governments and the populace.   (10^th amendment) 

That’s about it, I will add that to this day the biggest difference in political opinion has to do with the authority granted to the federal government.  There are those who want it to take a smaller role (conservatives) and those who want a larger role (liberals). 

Anyway, that’s how I see it.