A Covid proposal

I heard this idea in Europe a while ago and when I ask people about it, I generally find most people agree with it.  So here is a Covid proposal that looks like it would work for everyone.

The government would do the following.

First, make sure that the supply of the covid vaccine was sufficient so that anyone who wanted to get vaccinated could do so.  This is critical so that everyone can choose to get vaccinated.

Then, announce that as of February 1, 2022, the following changes will be taking place:

1. If a person requires care (ie. hospitalization or ICU) for covid-19 and they are fully vaccinated, they will recieve care.

2. If a person requires care (ie. hospitalization or ICU) for covid-19 but they are not vaccinated, then:
   a. They will go to the end of the queue.  This means that if hospital beds are in use for other purposes (for example, a hip surgery), the person getting that surgery will not be bumped.  
   b. The covid-19 patient must wait for a bed to open.  
   c. If no beds are available, the patient will return home and will be under residence restriction.  They may not leave their residence under any circumstance, until they they recover.  In order to be allowed to leave their home, they must take a covid test and be negative.  This restriction will be enforced by the police and anyone violating it will immediately be arrested.

3. ALL covid restrictions are lifted.  Vaccine passports are removed.

4. Any business, school, or other public or essential service that attempts to continue applying restrictions are in violation of the law.  The owners/operators will be arrested, along with all employees who participate in restricting people.  Likewise, any mayor or other government official who chooses to disobey the law and apply restrictions anyways will be arrested.

5. Private citizens may choose to continue with precautionary measures, such as staying at home, if they wish.  No one will be forced to leave their home or prevented from wearing a mask if they choose to do so.



The reason why this works:

1. If a person is against getting vaccinated, they don't have to.  There is nothing to protest about "being forced" into getting vaccinated.   However, choosing to not get vaccinated means the person also must accept responsibility for that choice.  The responsibility is that they may not get treatment and may die as a result, if they do get covid.

2. If a person has gotten vaccinated, they can resume normal life now, since there are no restrictions any longer.

3. People who are scared of covid can stay at home and take other precautions.  However, society returns to normal life.  In other words, society does not remain shut down because a small minority of people are scared to open up.

4. Over 90% of hospitalizations and ICU covid patients are unvaccinated, and that rate is going up.  Also a result, health care systems would face no threat from being overburdened if they were only treating vaccinated people for covid, and could get back to normal.

5. It sends a CLEAR message to the average citizen about what they are supposed to do (namely, get vaccinated, or risk not getting treatment).


So this solution meets the needs of all:
- those who are afraid and want to continue with precautions
- those who refuse to get vaccinated, and
- those who have been vaccinated and would now like to get back to normal life again with no restrictions
- government officials who need to get the health care system back to normal

Fact checking the Covington Students incident

I've been busy and haven't posted in a while, but I've gotten many requests for my comments and thoughts on the Covington incident.

The main reaction I have to the event is disappointment with the way so many people did not bother to concern themselves with facts before passing judgement.

This event was a simple thing to judge: it was covered by an entire hour-long video of the whole thing, and showed everything that happened.  If someone wanted to know the truth about the incident, all they had to do was go on the internet and watch the video.

This wasn't a case where there was no video evidence and it was one person's word against another.  The whole thing was recorded and available for anyone to watch.

Yet, what happened?

There were thousands of angry reactions, people posting on the internet and exclaiming their anger at the Covington students and calling for punishment and even violence against them.

What is truly sad about those reactions is that they clearly show that the people reacting that way clearly did not watch the video.

Even though the whole incident was on recorded and could be watched, there were literally thousands of people who condemned the Covington students without watching the video.

That is what is truly disturbing about this incident.

In a democracy, people should always  be presumed innocent until proven guilty.  Every citizen within a democracy should assume that every other citizen in that democracy is innocent.

The problem with this event is that is showed how thousands of people rushed to judgement without giving the Covington students the presumption of innocence.   Even though the facts were freely available by watching the video, these people did not give those students a fair trial and just assumed guilt.

And that is the danger is all of this.  If we allow ourselves to go back to the ways of "guilty, until proven innocent", then we are reverting back to the way of thinking of the Dark Ages.  Mankind suffered for centuries, millions of innocent people were jailed, tortured, and murdered - all because the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" had not yet been established.

That premise is a KEY foundation of democracy, and really, of civilization.  Without it, society degrades to a point where events like the Inquistion or the Salem Witch Hunts occur, resulting the punishment of innocent people.

In a free and democratic society, it is always important to get the facts of what happened first; to assume innocence until clear evidence of guilt is shown.  This is especially true nowadays, because due to the internet, it is often entirely possible to watch an event directly and see what really happened.

It is becoming more and more important to do this; to resist the urge to assume and condemn someone without first seeing the evidence.  If we allow ourselves to make snap judgements of guilt without reviewing the facts, we will be creating a society that is less and less democratic, and much less free and fair to it's citizens.

And ultimately, sooner or later, it may be you who is being accused of doing something.  It will be you who will begging for a fair trial. 

And if you've fought for "guilty until proven innocent" and convinced people that way of thinking is right, you will not get a fair trial.  You will have your life destroyed as the result of a mere accusation, even though you are not guilty.

That is completely unfair.   And it is the hidden danger in this kind of thinking.  The effects of it can clearly be seen in this event with the Covington students.

LKvi

Colin Kaepernick is not a victim

For those of you who may not be familiar with this story, Colin Kaepernick was the NFL quarterback who started kneeling during the national anthem, and was a big supporter of the "Take a knee" movement.

After the end of the season, Kaepernick left his team, the San Franscisco 49ers, and became a free agent.  When the next season started, he was still unsigned: none of the 32 NFL teams signed him to a contract.  And to this day, he remains unsigned.

As a result, Kaepernick made a claim: he said that he was a being blacklisted by all the NFL teams, and that the reason he was out of football and no longer playing was because he stood up for black rights in America.  He described himself as a victim who was being discriminated against because of his beliefs in black rights.

Naturally, this drew a lot of attention from the media and activists, who joined his cause, attacking the NFL and saying that the fact no team had signed Kaepernick meant the whole league was full of racists and bigots.  His supporters said this was just another sign of how terrible America is today.

But wait: let's look at the facts.  Is this actually correct?

To start with, we need to consider how pro sports works today, and in particular, the NFL.  There are two key things to know.

First, the NFL has a history of players who were convicted felons, in big trouble with the law, and yet teams put up with it because they were great players.  Ray Rice is probably the most famous case of this; he beat his girlfriend in an elevator, on camera, to the horror of everyone.  Yet, even after the video went public and everyone saw it, he still played again in the NFL.

Why?

Because you have to win in the NFL.  Coaches and managers don't last that long in the NFL; in general, if a coach or manager can't win within 3 seasons, they are fired.  This is why NFL teams will tolerate a lot from players.  The NFL has sometimes been referred to as the "National Felon League", and has been repeatedly questioned about why it tolerates such poor public (and criminal) behavior from it's players.

The bottom line is: it's about winning.  If a player has problems, but a coach or manager feels that player will help the team win, that player will get signed.  Again, right or wrong, the NFL teams are about winning.

The second thing to know is that the NFL has a very high expectation on it's players: they need to do well all the time, or they lose their job.  There is a long history of expecting high performance from players, regardless of how well they were rated coming into the league.  Take a look at the careers of Tim Couch, Johnny Manziel, or Ryan Leaf - all players who were drafted high and who were expected to do well.  When they failed, they were cut, and all of them are out of football.

Also, another reason why the NFL doesn't tolerate failure in it's players is that the USA has a very strong college system, which produces great players all the time.  In the current season (2018), we see why.  Jared Goff has lead his team to an 7-0 start, and Patrick Mahones has his team at 7-1.  Mahones is in his first season as a starter, and Goff in in his second.  Both of them came out of the college system and were given a chance.

So if a player isn't performing well, they are cut because there is no shortage of other good players from the college system for a team to choose from.  In the NFL, it's extremely common to see a player start to play badly for a few games and then get cut from the team.

How does this apply to Kaepernick?

In 2015, as a starting quarterback, he went 2-6.

In 2016, as a starting quarterback, he went 1-10.

In other words, in his last 19 games as a starting quarterback, he won only 3 games.

Now, in the NFL, if you are a quarterback who only won 3 out of 19 games, your career is most likely over.  It's not like you can argue that you weren't given a fair chance, or that there were other circumstances to explain your bad play.

No manager or coach in the NFL is going to look at a quarterback with a record of 3-16 and be impressed.  There are quarterbacks who have had better records than that and who were cut and never played again. 

So Kaepernick's claim that he is a victim just doesn't hold up.  If he had won 16 out of his last 19 games (or even 10 of them), then there would be more reason to question why no NFL team wanted to sign him, given that he had a really good winning record.  But at 3-16, it's completely understandable that a team would not be interested in signing him.  Teams need to win more than 3 out of every 19 games.

Also, there is another very important fact that Kaepernick and his supporters don't like to mention.  At the time he left the 49ers, he still had one more year left on his contract.

Kaepernick was NOT cut from the 49ers: he chose to leave the team and terminate his contract by mutual agreement.  At this time, he stated that he did not like the coach's strategy and did not think he could do well with the new coach.

In other words, he QUIT his existing team, and decided to become a free agent so he could sign with a different team.  This was a horrifically foolish thing to do, given his recent record was 3-16.

When no team signed him, he began to play the victim card, saying that the NFL was racist and had essentially thrown him out of the league because of he took a stance for black rights in America.

But this just isn't true.

Kaepernick would have still been playing football if he didn't CHOOSE to walk away from his contract.  He could have played out his last year, and perhaps he would have won a bunch of games and gone something like 8-3, which would greatly improve his record.

Kaepernick likes to spin the situation like this: He was a player who stood up for his beliefs, and as a result, he was kicked out of the league, and the NFL then conspired to make sure no team ever signed him.

But the facts are this:
1) He was a bad quarterback who won only 3 of his last 19 games, and
2) He quit his contract: he was NOT cut or thrown out of football by the league.

In other words, it's his own fault that he is out of football.  The NFL has shown repeatedly that it will put up with a lot worse behavior than kneeling during the national anthem, as long as the player does well on the field and wins games.  If any NFL team felt that Kaepernick could have helped them win, they would have signed him as quick as they could.

But they didn't.  No team signed him.

But it's not because Colin Kaepernick stood up for minority rights.  It's because he's not a good football player.

The Strength of Democracy - Tolerance

Lately, the push for more and more control of free speech is increasing rapidly.  We see this in the new policies on twitter, facebook, and other social media.  We see this as activists protest lectures at universities and attack people they see as having views that oppose their own.  The irony is that although these people believe they are doing good for society, the reality is just the opposite: they are damaging our society greatly.

All the nations in the world these days that are considered to be a good place to live have one thing in common: they are democracies.  We notice that democratic countries are more civilized, more progressive, and more tolerant.  It's in these countries that we see gender equality, religious freedom, and respect among fellow citizens.

So naturally, the question arises: What is it about a democracy that makes it progressive?

 

The strength of democracy is that it allows varying and conflicting viewpoints to exist.  People with opinions that are in complete disagreement with one another are still able to live in the same society peacefully: democracy is not about the will of the majority imposing itself on to the minority - quite the opposite - it's strength comes from preserving that minority viewpoint.

As a result, democratic societies are able to find and take advantage of better ideas and ways of being.  Because we don't suppress viewpoints, ideas and concepts that are good for the society as a whole are able to be heard, considered, and then ultimately accepted by the majority.

For example, think about the concept of equal rights in England.  200 years ago, British society was a patriarchy; the household was run by the husband and his word was law within the family.  So how did things change into today's society in which women have equal rights, and such a concept would be considered outlandish?

It happened because the first women and men who supported the first of equal rights were able to speak out.  They were not dragged off into jail for presenting a viewpoint that opposed the common views of the day.  They were not punished for having an idea that was different than the socialtal norm of the day.

And over time, as more and more people heard the idea, the idea of equality began to spread until eventually it was adopted, and it is now commonplace today.

This example illustrates exactly why we, as a democratic society, cannot support the suppression of ideas or viewpoints, just because we don't agree with them.  Imagine how our society would be today if the first people to speak up for equal rights were beaten and jailed?  How would things be if Martin Luther King Jr was arrested and all his followers given the death penalty for expressing their ideas?

When someone protests against free speech, or calls for a person to be publicly attacked because of their viewpoints, that person need to be opposed.  They are trying to shut down the very thing that makes democracy strong: the tolerance of ideas that are different that the norm.

Anyone who wants to repress another person's right to feel, think, or act a certain way - is being a tyrant, and un-democratic.

But wait, you say.  So often we see this, but we also see how people say it is "necessary" or for a good cause.  People try to justify their behavior in repressing others by essentially saying it is for a "greater good".

Is that a realistic claim? 

No.

What history has shown us is this: in a society in which everyone is free to express themselves, good ideas and things that will benefit the society as a whole - end up getting adopted and accepted.  The free expression of ideas allows society to change - rapidly, and for the better.

Bad ideas, such as REAL hate speech - end up going nowhere.  Ever since WWII, there have been people who still speak out against the Jews.  But if you live in the USA, ask yourself this: how often does the topic of the extermination of the Jews ever come up in ordinary life?  We don't see it in movies, we don't see it in mainsteam media, we don't see it anywhere - because it's a ridiculous idea that the majority of society has rejected.

So allowing a few people to believe and speak out for such a dumb idea - ends up *causing no harm to society whatsoever.*

And that's the point: there is no need to censor "hate speech" or to "control ideas" - because bad ideas like race hate, repression of women, etc, will never be adopted by mainstream society anyways.

This is why when activists argue for control of speech and thought, they need to be opposed.  Those activists do not understand what they are really asking for: they would like one of the core fundamentals that makes democracy progressive and positive for humanity to be removed.

And for what?

These people are acting out of an irrational fear that somehow the entire society is going to go insane and decide to embrace something like race hatred.  That is never going to happen.  And the more loud these activists get, the more violence they use, only proves the point that they are wrong.

Free speech and tolerance is what makes democracy progressive.

Democracy's strength is that is accepts all viewpoints, all speech, all ideas - and the end result is that the best of those things can be heard, become popular, and eventually end up changing society for the better.

But for democracy to be strong, we must allow freedom of speech, no matter whether we personally agree with another person's viewpoints or not.

LKvi

Trump Derangement Syndrome is just identity politics

It's interesting to watch how the Republicans are reacting these days.  Trump recently gave a State of the Union address in which he announced a lot of positive things, but the Democrats did not applaud this at all.  They criticized and complained about everything.  Even the Black Committee did not applaud when it was announced that the unemployment rate for blacks was at a low.

The Republicans reacted with surprise and outrage: why weren't the Democrats and the majority of American citizens not happy?  Why wasn't the reaction one of approval and excitement?  After all, that's what a government is supposed to do.

Imagine for a moment if a government, "X", announced that in the past year:
* They had cut taxes
* Unemployment rates were down
* Companies were investing in the country and creating new jobs
* Crime was down

To any impartial person, this would seem great.  They would rate government "X" as doing an fantastic job, because those things are exactly what a government should be doing for it's citizens: creating opportunities for jobs, wealth, lowering taxes, making things safer, etc.

But to the Republican's surprise, the reaction wasn't positive - there wasn't an outpouring of support for Trump - there was no praise for these accomplishments.  So how did they react?  They came up with a new phrase: "Trump Derangement Syndrome".

And now, whenever there is a positive accomplishment, but someone (particularly the media) speak badly of it, the Republican's just say that person has Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Is it really that simple?  Are people really that stupid that they would hate Trump for no reason at all?

No.

And this is what's interesting about it, because it shows that Republicans just don't get it.

It doesn't matter if Donald Trump personally gave a million dollars to every single anti-Trump hater: it would not change their opinion of him.

In other words, it doesn't matter how well or poorly Trump does - he will NEVER be accepted and approved by many people in the country.

Why?

Because of identity politics.

During the presidential campaign, the Democrats did an excellent job of portraying Obama and Clinton as these two very likable characters.  Obama was a black man who came from a tough upbringing but believed in himself and persevered.  Clinton was all about women's liberation - she was the champion of women's rights and was going to be the first female president.  Her victory would be a victory for all women - for the first time in history, there would be a female president.

Trump, on the other hand...  Yuck.  He was portrayed as a typical insensitive, arrogant, priviledged white male snob who never had to work a single day in his life.

And Trump, wasn't sensitive about this.  He openly said that he didn't care about being politically correct or "presidental" - and he showed it.  Trump constantly make insensitive remarks during the campaign and insulted other candidates.  What Trump didn't understand was that while what he was saying was true, the way he said it made him come across as a boorish brute and played into that image of him that the Democrats were trying to create.

And the Democrats seized on this.  They showed campaign ads where Trump was being this way -- all of which was done to build up the clear public image of Trump as a moronic bully, and Obama/Clinton as these two nice people.

Although the Democrats lost the election, they won the identity politics battle.

Most people who hate Trump with a passion do so because of how they identify Trump: he's a moron, a bully, a mysogenist, etc.  In other words, most anti-Trumpers don't hate Trump because of what he's done as President, they hate him because of the image they have of him.

And that's what the Republicans don't get.

Yes, it's true that Trump has hired tons of women and minorities, he's honored the Jews at the wall in Isreal, he's had great success at getting taxes cut, etc. - but none of that matters.

Once a person identifies someone in a certain way, it is very, very difficult to get them to change their opinion.

Consider a religion for moment that uses God and the devil.  Suppose you are talking with a follower of this religion: it means they strongly believe that God is good and the devil is bad.

Now imagine trying to convince this person that God is actually evil and the devil is actually good.  

That would be nearly impossible to do!

And that's what the Republicans are up against.  There are so many anti-Trumpers who have the identity image that Obama/Clinton are good, and Trump is bad - it is going to be nearly impossible to change their minds, NO MATTER WHAT TRUMP ACTUALLY DOES.

It's strange to see how so many Republicans don't understand this.  Even Donald Trump Jr expressed his disbelief that people aren't happy.

So if you're a Republican like these ones, just understand that you're in an impossible situation and that these anti-Trumpers will continue to hate no matter what happens.  They have an image of Trump as being so bad, and they aren't about to change that, because that's what they associate Trump as.

Now, if you're on the other side - you hate Trump because you see him as bad and Obama as good - consider the recent developments.  The FISA memo shows that there was a huge political corruption during the campaign, in which the FBI was used for political purposes - something that should never happen in a democracy - and the people involved in it - were the "good" people - Obama and Clinton.

So, objectively, it's simple.  Trump is not as horrically bad as the image of him portrays, and likewise, Clinton/Obama are not these perfectly "good" people either.

Those are just identities that have been built up for them.

The truth lies in the middle: once we move past identity politics, then we can evaluate a person accurately.

This is why identity politics is such a bad thing: it creates images of politicians that are not real, and prevents them from being judged based on MERIT and ACHEIVEMENT - which is the actual basis for objective evaluation.

Republicans are now ignoring this; they are asking the public to judge Trump objectively, based on how he's doing as President.  And they need to recognise, that is just not going to happen with people who have identified Trump as a tyrant.

LKvi

Why silence is not complicity

Recently, we're starting to see more and more slogans that attack people who are "silent".  These slogans say things like "if you don't say you're against violence, you're a criminal".

Another example of this is Seattle Seahawks player Richard Sherman, who said "anyone who doesn't speak up and say they are in favor of black rights is a racist by default".

Or: "if you're silent about women's rights, you're complicit with the abusers."

These types of slogans are not good.

The problem with this kind of attitude is that it assumes the worst about people.  It says that, by default, all people are terrible, and in order to show that they are not, they need to speak up and prove it.

In other words, these types of slogans make everyone guilty until proven innocent.  That's the exact opposite of democracy and freedom.  In order for a society to be truly free, each citizen should, by default, assume that everyone else are GOOD, not bad.  We should be presumed to be innocent, not guilty.  That is one of the cores of democracy: that you give the other person the benefit of the doubt and assume that, by default, they are innocent and good.

This also means that that an average person should not have to speak up by default.

Why not?

Because most people (99%+) believe in equality, oppose the idea of violence, want peace, etc.  As the fathers of the Constitution said, "we hold these truths to be self-evident".  It shouldn't be a requirement of people to speak up and state what we all feel.

Think of it this way: suppose that you saw someone standing on the corner of the street market and yelling this: "I am against oppression.  I am against violence.  I am against abuse of women.  I am against racism."

And this person went on and on, yelling out what they were against.

How would that make you feel?

Most likely you'd be thinking "Why doesn't that fool be quiet?  Everyone feels that way, it's no big deal."

And that's the point: most people are good and decent already - they oppose human cruelty, oppression, etc.  They shouldn't have to "speak out" and say it; instead, we as a society should already assume that they feel that way and give them respect.

This is why slogans that say that silence or inaction implies approval are wrong.  Someone who is out beating up blacks - is a racist.  Someone who is hitting a woman - is an abuser.  Someone who is just living their life - is innocent - regardless if they express their opposition to racism or violence or not.

What a person actually does is what matters.

The real irony of it is that the people who use those slogans - THEY are the ones creating hate and suspicion.   They are the ones who are ruining society, because they are going around and saying that we, as a society, should assume everyone is guilty first, and need to be proven innocent.

In other words, we should assume the WORST about our fellow humans beings, and everyone has to PROVE that they are not a terrible person (racist, sexist, etc.)

That is a terrible attitude to have towards fellow human beings.

By default, everyone is a racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-freedom, oppressive Nazi?

No.

It's the other way around: by default, most people are hard-working, decent, and worthy of respect.

To be clear: the "if you don't speak, you are, by default, guilty" attitude is, quite frankly, completely bollocks.  It's an attitude that most of us find totally reprehensible.  It's negative, anti-freedom, anti-human, cynical, and anti-democratic.

And as this article shows, people certainly ARE willing to speak up: but don't be suprised if what we are speaking against - is YOU and your awful attitude towards humanity.

LKvi

TakeAKnee is just another Yellow Ribbon

A few years ago, in the country of Canada, there was a protest of sorts.  It was about violence against women, and to show that someone was against it, they bought a yellow ribbon and wore it.

In other words, if you opposed the violence, you bought a ribbon, and then...  nothing. 

That was it.  You did nothing else.  No need to actually do anything, like volunteer at a shelter to help a victim, or donate money to a charity that provides support, or do some self-examination into your own anger issues, etc.

So the "Yellow Ribbon" campaign was a sham; it gave people the feeling that they were "doing something" about violence, when in fact, they weren't really doing anything at all.  It padded people's egos, letting them thinking they were doing good for society, without actually having to do anything.

Now we see the TakeAKnee movement in the States, where pro atheletes are refusing to stand while the national anthem is sung.

It's the same thing.

If a pro athelete really feels passionate about the plight of African-Americans, there are many things they are do about it, like:

* Volunteering at a shelter
* Donating to support charities that help poor African-Americans
* Taking a million dollars of their own money and building a playground or a park in a poor neighbourhood
* Being a celebrity spokesperson for a support center
* Calling on government to increase funding for youth places like the Boys and Girls Club of America
* Choosing to be a mentor for a youth group

That would be real action.  That would create real change.

But that's not what's happening, is it?  These players are taking a knee, but then doing nothing else; nothing that would actually help the situation.

In fact, what these atheletes are doing is taking the easy way out.  It's really, really easy to kneel during the anthem, especially when you see your other teammates doing it.  But then, on their drive back to their huge luxury mansion, what happens if they pass through a poor neighbourhood?  

They roll up the windows and keep driving.

If these players really truly cared, they would show it through REAL action - they would be doing charitable acts to help the less fortunate.

Taking a knee does nothing.  Why?  Because it's like the Yellow Ribbon campaign: it's stating the obvious.  99.99999999% of people oppose racism: having a campaign to say "you should oppose racism" is pointless because it's pointing out the obvious that most people already agree with.

Instead, if these players truly care, they would band together and announce they are all volunteering at a shelter, or they are starting a charity to raise money for the less fortunate, or doing some other kind of true charitable work that would help.

Yes, it would be harder because it would be work for the players, but it would be real change, unlike taking a knee, which is, in the end, just another yellow ribbon.

LKvi