[First published 2020/9/10]
As I reported recently, some people are not satisfied with non-violent protests. (They say that Whites take no notice of them.)
Looting, destroying property.
We were brought up to believe that destroying property was wrong, no matter whose property it was. But now, the Looting and Pillaging front proposes the principle that some looting is OK. What are we to think?
I think--and I do not know the answer to every question, though I pretend I do on the Internet--that we've got to consider the property as a resource. If you destroy a restaurant, you do hurt the proprietor, even if he is a policeman who is as likely to shoot you on sight as to bring you your check. But more, you hurt the dozens of people working there: cooks, waiters, etc. Your call.
Wearing a Mask.
People have been studying this issue, and there is absolutely no doubt: (1) places where people wear masks have lower infection rates than places where people do not wear masks. (2) Places where some people wear masks do better than places where no people wear masks.
Of course, a mask is no protection if a huge number of people are crowded in a room together. It's worse if the crowding continues for a long time. In situations like that, it almost doesn't matter whether you wear a mask or not, but I'm not going to go along with that. Wear a mask, but get out of that room.
Sending your kid to School.
This is a real tough one. I think it depends on the school. Some schools hide behind the privacy issue, and refuse to test, and sometimes refuse to tell you whether there have been infections. Other schools are completely open.
If (1) it's a small school, and/or (2) they try to hold many of the classes outdoors, and/or (3) half the kids are staying home, and following along remotely, and (4) the sessions are short, and (5) the classrooms are aggressively ventilated,
then there's a good chance that Junior will be safe, especially if people in your area hardly ever leave town. But there are some jokers who want to attend every game, every gathering, every rally, every anniversary, in short every opportunity to collect a virus or two from buddies they haven't seen for a long time. If there are such jokers in your environment, I say keep your kids at home. Stupidity is an aggravating factor for disease control. Braveness has nothing to do with it.
If the safety precautions are being followed, I have to admit that, even if kids are with their teacher for a quarter of the time they would have, before the virus, they could end up learning a lot. Many teachers I know have been frustrated at being separated from "their" kids! It's a funny thing. Some teachers don't mind teaching over the Internet, especially High School teachers, but it's kind of hard on kids who don't have as much access to technology. Other teachers hate remote teaching with a passion, including most elementary teachers.
Many parents are looking at this from the point of view of child care. They can't work, with the kids at home. This is a slightly separate issue, but the present administration (and the State Governments, who are not encouraged to be creative by Headquarters) are not trying to think of novel ways of solving this problem. For instance, every family has a couple of other families that they trust, with whom they can make a pact saying that none of them are going to indulge in risky behavior. If that is done, one of the parents can supervise a sort of camp, say at a playground, or a clubhouse, or a church basement, where the kids are allowed to play quietly. Of course, there are some little people who will go crazy at the sight of their buddies, but . . . what can you do? This is America, and we have to recognize that some people are going to make things suck! This is what Elizabeth Warren has been saying: nobody has taken child care seriously. It is unfair to dump the child-care task on the schools, because schools have people trained for teaching; child-care is only an incidental skill that they learn in order to get the teaching done. They're quite professional about it, but . . . there you are.
Vote by Mail vs. Vote in Person.
This is a tough call. I have decided to vote in person, because we live in a small town, and I doubt whether the lines are going to be very long. I have other reasons for doing it, but that's my choice.
Many people have already voted, especially in states where they have early voting, such as Arizona and California, and I believe, Colorado. Those people are beyond being confused by the President's asking people to vote twice, which in Pennsylvania means you go to jail. (We didn't make it a law forbidding a president from requesting the population to perform a felony, because nobody thought a president would do such a thing. I mean, we don't have a law forbidding presidents to ride motorbikes without a helmet, either.)
I have run out of ideas.
What I notice a lot is that many of my friends are on the brink of panic about the elections, and the antics of the White House, and other sectors of the administration.
You have to realize that Mr. Trump comes from a Reality TV background (though nominally he's suppose to be a cross between a hotelier and a real-estate guy). He mainly wants to be on TV all the time, therefore he dreams up some drama every day, like the Kardashians. Ignore it, but make sure you vote. Just start a new hobby. In eight weeks, our agony will be over.
Arch
No comments:
Post a Comment