[lex24]

I love you Lex and I look forward to our next lunch in whatever decade but back in the Covid dark ages on T Dome a bunch of guys argued that shutting down was wrong. One guy whom I admire even offered to die because he was, “Old and fat.” Well we opened up and holy moly a surge ensued. I wouldn’t hold my breath on a viable vaccine being delivered quickly so everybody including our loud mouth deniers like Miss Jennings please just wear a GD mask.

I do Phogge.  I don’t agree with her comments as they relate to masks.  I truly can’t understand why it’s even an issue. Even if I was skeptical of its importance  (and I am not) I’d wear a mask. Because from a risk benefit standpoint it’s a no brainer.

---

Just noticed that KWJ posted a follow-up on Instagram (see below). Umm, I'm not sure she made the situation any better for herself...

https://www.instagram.com/p/CE2JSRhllw9/

WTF does a truce mean when it comes to mask wearing? Either you think people should wear them or you don't. There is no truce. Or to paraphrase Yoda, "Do or do not, there is no tr[uce]."

Judas Priest.  Her post was about more than just masks.  She just wanted to tamp down the rhetoric.

But that’s impossible these days. So it’s not enough to suggest that she’s wrong. She’s now a bad person. Etc. etc. etc. What a bunch of horseshit

1. I didn't call her a bad person, I said her take was stupid and incoherent. Please don't put words in my mouth. 

2. Calling someone's viewpoint "a bunch of horseshit" is, IMHO, both rhetorically hollow and not exactly ideal in what is typically a family friendly forum.

3. If you can genuinely explain to me what a truce looks like as a coherent concept when the debate is over whether we should be required to wear masks in public/indoor settings, I'd genuinely welcome it. To me, the issue seems to have become intractable precisely because there is no easy way to reach a compromise.

More broadly: Yes, I do think social media will be the downfall of our society. But since almost everyone keeps at it no matter how lonely and angry anti-social media makes them, how rational can we really say we are, anyway?

1.  You are right. I was talking in generalities.  Not specifically “to” you in relation to your comment. 
2. Again, you are right.  On both points. My apology.
3. Truce to me was not regarding the masks, but the overall “discussion.” If you read her entire message there is more to it than masks.  The Truce that I seek is in being able to discuss the issues surrounding “reopening” in a manner that isn’t couched in absolutism - and that recognizes the very many factors at play here.  Which is why I focused on her comment relative to the negative impact of the divisiveness this has caused.

[lex24]

I love you Lex and I look forward to our next lunch in whatever decade but back in the Covid dark ages on T Dome a bunch of guys argued that shutting down was wrong. One guy whom I admire even offered to die because he was, “Old and fat.” Well we opened up and holy moly a surge ensued. I wouldn’t hold my breath on a viable vaccine being delivered quickly so everybody including our loud mouth deniers like Miss Jennings please just wear a GD mask.

I do Phogge.  I don’t agree with her comments as they relate to masks.  I truly can’t understand why it’s even an issue. Even if I was skeptical of its importance  (and I am not) I’d wear a mask. Because from a risk benefit standpoint it’s a no brainer.

---

Just noticed that KWJ posted a follow-up on Instagram (see below). Umm, I'm not sure she made the situation any better for herself...

https://www.instagram.com/p/CE2JSRhllw9/

WTF does a truce mean when it comes to mask wearing? Either you think people should wear them or you don't. There is no truce. Or to paraphrase Yoda, "Do or do not, there is no tr[uce]."

Judas Priest.  Her post was about more than just masks.  She just wanted to tamp down the rhetoric.

But that’s impossible these days. So it’s not enough to suggest that she’s wrong. She’s now a bad person. Etc. etc. etc. What a bunch of horseshit

1. I didn't call her a bad person, I said her take was stupid and incoherent. Please don't put words in my mouth. 

2. Calling someone's viewpoint "a bunch of horseshit" is, IMHO, both rhetorically hollow and not exactly ideal in what is typically a family friendly forum.

3. If you can genuinely explain to me what a truce looks like as a coherent concept when the debate is over whether we should be required to wear masks in public/indoor settings, I'd genuinely welcome it. To me, the issue seems to have become intractable precisely because there is no easy way to reach a compromise.

More broadly: Yes, I do think social media will be the downfall of our society. But since almost everyone keeps at it no matter how lonely and angry anti-social media makes them, how rational can we really say we are, anyway?

1.  You are right. I was talking in generalities.  Not specifically “to” you in relation to your comment. 
2. Again, you are right.  On both points. My apology.
3. Truce to me was not regarding the masks, but the overall “discussion.” If you read her entire message there is more to it than masks.  The Truce that I seek is in being able to discuss the issues surrounding “reopening” in a manner that isn’t couched in absolutism - and that recognizes the very many factors at play here.  Which is why I focused on her comment relative to the negative impact of the divisiveness this has caused.

[oldalum]

I'm struck by how often people in general refer to their "Constitutional rights" to justify what they are doing, but don't really understand what those rights are and aren't, and when it is not clear. Maybe we could use some better instruction in high school about the constitution? OTOH, I took Professor Horn's (in-)famous class on Con Law at Stanford in the '70s and I don't think I learned enough about constitutional rights.

[oldalum]

I'm struck by how often people in general refer to their "Constitutional rights" to justify what they are doing, but don't really understand what those rights are and aren't, and when it is not clear. Maybe we could use some better instruction in high school about the constitution? OTOH, I took Professor Horn's (in-)famous class on Con Law at Stanford in the '70s and I don't think I learned enough about constitutional rights.

[FarmBoy]

Thank you for posting more of the context. It's always valuable to understand more of someone's thought process before confidently disregarding their opinions. In this case, the more fulsome post does just that. She wants to open up society? Then wear a mask. "Restrictive and arbitrarily selective rules"? Sure, there's been some uncertainty and changes as we learn more, but most of the new rules are hardly arbitrary (though clearly some individuals enforce or enact them with error). She wouldn't want to hurt any vulnerable people? Then wear a mask.

Sadly, most of this appears to be regurgitation from anti-mask propaganda rather than something she come up with on her own.

I do stand up for her right to make her opinion known, even as a non-expert in the field, just like I would respect athletes commenting on race relations or Hong Kong or any other topic. I just wish that as a representative of Stanford she would know better on this particular topic.

Frankly, I have to applaud her for stating her beliefs and opinions, very openly and publicly, knowing that many will disagree. It takes a lot of courage to take a stand, especially when said stands violate the accepted norms of the masses. Many here have called her "stupid", probably without even looking at the context of what she wrote and did. Here's that context from her Instagram page:

"This is going to be a long post & it’s going to upset some people. My intention is NEVER to hurt or disrespect. Please know that. I am working my way through these curious times that have me questioning everything. I am wanting to lead & stand for my beliefs WITHOUT upsetting people but, per usual when one takes a stand, this is unlikely. If this hurts or upsets you, I am sorry. I am working through my thoughts & my way throughout the madness of 2020. I am wanting to be a light, an encourager of the strength + resilience within each of us and I aspire to be someone whom empowers others to take ownership of all sides of their lives. There is freedom & deep satisfaction in living this way. I want this for everyone. 

Here we go ....

I had a little exercise in being brave yesterday & I’m still a bit edgy about it.

I went shopping without a mask on ??? & this is why ... I read a quote the other day that shook me - -

THIS HAS NOT BEEN ENFORCED, IT’S BEEN CONSENTED TO.

This statement woke me up & the truth of it has had me obsessing on the matter of how I can mindfully & compassionately stand up for my rights & for the freedoms our constitution has granted us all WITHOUT being reckless or putting anyone else in danger.

We are all endlessly complaining about the restrictive & arbitrarily selective rules that we are being strongly “suggested” to follow & yet we are all consenting; Not much of a fight, just a lot of complaining & strongly disagreeing with this manipulation, but we keep consenting. It’s maddening. It has crushed our society, people’s livelihoods, our children’s spirits, & the fabric of our world. We have become a country & a world estranged from each other & it is more deeply unhealthy than any virus could ever be.

I know people are getting sick & many have gone to Heaven. I have lived through a lot of loss in my family, in my life. I cherish life. I would never downplay the impact of a single loss of life. That is it’s own conversation & my heart goes out to all those suffering poor health, the loss of a loved one and the fear that the reaction to & media coverage of COVID-19 has created in your days.

Cont. in comments ....

I believe we can protect the vulnerable while opening up society. I am so willing to support the vulnerable. My family has vulnerable humans within it. I have some friends who are vulnerable and I would do anything for any of them. 

Mostly, I want to empower people to start/continue to live healthy lives. Eat well and eat real food. Prioritize sleep. Move and get your heart working every day. Pay attention to your breath and perhaps start a breath work protocol to work and strengthen your lungs. Get outside. Think good thoughts. KNOW your immune system is designed to support you through any illness - we must work support our entire system. I want people to stop living in fear and start living in a way that strengthens themselves body, mind and spirit.

Things won’t open up and freedoms won’t come back unless we are willing to push back and stand up for them. I am willing to fight for the freedoms I have been guaranteed by my constitution. I don’t want to fight anyone in the process of this and I’d rather not make anyone uncomfortable or upset. If that happens I pray for understanding and I pray that I have the capacity to handle it with grace.

I am praying for the world every day. I see so much unity and so many blessings daily but the scary part truly scares me and I hope we can better come together to address the issues and challenges at hand. I want what you want. Health, happiness, safety and security for all. I’m at my limit for how it is “ensured” to us. Basically this quote sums it up:

I PREFER DANGEROUS FREEDOM TO PEACEFUL SLAVERY. - Thomas Jefferson ??

♥️ & ? to all."

And she continued:

"The conversation I am having with myself (and the point of this post) has to do with FREEDOM and how I, as an individual, can fight for it.

And so yesterday I took a step. It was incredibly uncomfortable (shockingly so) and I was tempted to just say F it many times and put my mask on. I didn’t. It was hard. I feel a bit braver for having chosen to live the discomfort.

Within 60 seconds of me walking into the store a woman made a snarky comment and then went and turned me in to a store employee. The employee seemed to say that it was within my rights to do as I was doing and everyone carried on. I was rattled. The woman was pissed. She seemed to hover around me as I shopped, shooting me angry looks & angry vibes but we all went on our way. I gave people their space and tried really hard to be cool. I’m not cool by nature and so this was doubly hard. 

Ugh. I do not want to be compelled to do things I do not believe in because it makes others feel better. That’s actually THE ONE reason why I would do such a thing - to make others feel comfortable - but this is so much bigger than being a security blanket for others or being PC.

This has become a very complex situation with a very a complex set of problems - I believe that only a simple solution can solve this and simple choices by each of us will walk us toward the solution. Individually we can respectfully stand up for our beliefs while supporting and being mindful of the most vulnerable around us. We all have personal responsibility within this situation and whether we are vulnerable or not, we all must carry on in a way that supports our wellbeing. I want to give people space to respond to these times in a way that serves them best and I want the same consideration. Violence and vitriol are not acceptable."

[FarmBoy]

Thank you for posting more of the context. It's always valuable to understand more of someone's thought process before confidently disregarding their opinions. In this case, the more fulsome post does just that. She wants to open up society? Then wear a mask. "Restrictive and arbitrarily selective rules"? Sure, there's been some uncertainty and changes as we learn more, but most of the new rules are hardly arbitrary (though clearly some individuals enforce or enact them with error). She wouldn't want to hurt any vulnerable people? Then wear a mask.

Sadly, most of this appears to be regurgitation from anti-mask propaganda rather than something she come up with on her own.

I do stand up for her right to make her opinion known, even as a non-expert in the field, just like I would respect athletes commenting on race relations or Hong Kong or any other topic. I just wish that as a representative of Stanford she would know better on this particular topic.

Frankly, I have to applaud her for stating her beliefs and opinions, very openly and publicly, knowing that many will disagree. It takes a lot of courage to take a stand, especially when said stands violate the accepted norms of the masses. Many here have called her "stupid", probably without even looking at the context of what she wrote and did. Here's that context from her Instagram page:

"This is going to be a long post & it’s going to upset some people. My intention is NEVER to hurt or disrespect. Please know that. I am working my way through these curious times that have me questioning everything. I am wanting to lead & stand for my beliefs WITHOUT upsetting people but, per usual when one takes a stand, this is unlikely. If this hurts or upsets you, I am sorry. I am working through my thoughts & my way throughout the madness of 2020. I am wanting to be a light, an encourager of the strength + resilience within each of us and I aspire to be someone whom empowers others to take ownership of all sides of their lives. There is freedom & deep satisfaction in living this way. I want this for everyone. 

Here we go ....

I had a little exercise in being brave yesterday & I’m still a bit edgy about it.

I went shopping without a mask on ??? & this is why ... I read a quote the other day that shook me - -

THIS HAS NOT BEEN ENFORCED, IT’S BEEN CONSENTED TO.

This statement woke me up & the truth of it has had me obsessing on the matter of how I can mindfully & compassionately stand up for my rights & for the freedoms our constitution has granted us all WITHOUT being reckless or putting anyone else in danger.

We are all endlessly complaining about the restrictive & arbitrarily selective rules that we are being strongly “suggested” to follow & yet we are all consenting; Not much of a fight, just a lot of complaining & strongly disagreeing with this manipulation, but we keep consenting. It’s maddening. It has crushed our society, people’s livelihoods, our children’s spirits, & the fabric of our world. We have become a country & a world estranged from each other & it is more deeply unhealthy than any virus could ever be.

I know people are getting sick & many have gone to Heaven. I have lived through a lot of loss in my family, in my life. I cherish life. I would never downplay the impact of a single loss of life. That is it’s own conversation & my heart goes out to all those suffering poor health, the loss of a loved one and the fear that the reaction to & media coverage of COVID-19 has created in your days.

Cont. in comments ....

I believe we can protect the vulnerable while opening up society. I am so willing to support the vulnerable. My family has vulnerable humans within it. I have some friends who are vulnerable and I would do anything for any of them. 

Mostly, I want to empower people to start/continue to live healthy lives. Eat well and eat real food. Prioritize sleep. Move and get your heart working every day. Pay attention to your breath and perhaps start a breath work protocol to work and strengthen your lungs. Get outside. Think good thoughts. KNOW your immune system is designed to support you through any illness - we must work support our entire system. I want people to stop living in fear and start living in a way that strengthens themselves body, mind and spirit.

Things won’t open up and freedoms won’t come back unless we are willing to push back and stand up for them. I am willing to fight for the freedoms I have been guaranteed by my constitution. I don’t want to fight anyone in the process of this and I’d rather not make anyone uncomfortable or upset. If that happens I pray for understanding and I pray that I have the capacity to handle it with grace.

I am praying for the world every day. I see so much unity and so many blessings daily but the scary part truly scares me and I hope we can better come together to address the issues and challenges at hand. I want what you want. Health, happiness, safety and security for all. I’m at my limit for how it is “ensured” to us. Basically this quote sums it up:

I PREFER DANGEROUS FREEDOM TO PEACEFUL SLAVERY. - Thomas Jefferson ??

♥️ & ? to all."

And she continued:

"The conversation I am having with myself (and the point of this post) has to do with FREEDOM and how I, as an individual, can fight for it.

And so yesterday I took a step. It was incredibly uncomfortable (shockingly so) and I was tempted to just say F it many times and put my mask on. I didn’t. It was hard. I feel a bit braver for having chosen to live the discomfort.

Within 60 seconds of me walking into the store a woman made a snarky comment and then went and turned me in to a store employee. The employee seemed to say that it was within my rights to do as I was doing and everyone carried on. I was rattled. The woman was pissed. She seemed to hover around me as I shopped, shooting me angry looks & angry vibes but we all went on our way. I gave people their space and tried really hard to be cool. I’m not cool by nature and so this was doubly hard. 

Ugh. I do not want to be compelled to do things I do not believe in because it makes others feel better. That’s actually THE ONE reason why I would do such a thing - to make others feel comfortable - but this is so much bigger than being a security blanket for others or being PC.

This has become a very complex situation with a very a complex set of problems - I believe that only a simple solution can solve this and simple choices by each of us will walk us toward the solution. Individually we can respectfully stand up for our beliefs while supporting and being mindful of the most vulnerable around us. We all have personal responsibility within this situation and whether we are vulnerable or not, we all must carry on in a way that supports our wellbeing. I want to give people space to respond to these times in a way that serves them best and I want the same consideration. Violence and vitriol are not acceptable."

[Goose]

I think the situation in most areas is that mask wearing indoors while shopping is mandatory, but that it is also not enforced. Our society would like it to be true that all Americans would always "do the right thing" without being coerced. Our political class is so completely afraid of actually forcing people to follow a given standard of behavior that they basically won't do it.

The problem is that "the right thing" is not universally agreed upon and never will be. In order to have a society where individuals have the maximum freedom possible, we all have agreed to surrender some freedom to our government. In some cases, a plan has to be adopted and followed in order to protect society. We all stop at red lights. Nothing particularly significant about red, but we have traffic laws so we don't kill each other. Mask regulations are similar. The exact benefits of mask wearing have not yet been quantified. However, the plan is to wear them.

Unfortunately, there will always be people who just don't want to follow the agreed upon plan. Those people forget that they gave their government the power to require and enforce certain behavior when necessary subject to the existing laws. Equally unfortunately, our government at all levels has forgotten (or ignored) their responsibility to require and enforce that behavior. As a result, we are unable to govern ourselves in many situations. Social media merely provides a venue for people to pretend they are not subject to the laws. Our leaders chose not to disabuse them of that notion.

[Goose]

I think the situation in most areas is that mask wearing indoors while shopping is mandatory, but that it is also not enforced. Our society would like it to be true that all Americans would always "do the right thing" without being coerced. Our political class is so completely afraid of actually forcing people to follow a given standard of behavior that they basically won't do it.

The problem is that "the right thing" is not universally agreed upon and never will be. In order to have a society where individuals have the maximum freedom possible, we all have agreed to surrender some freedom to our government. In some cases, a plan has to be adopted and followed in order to protect society. We all stop at red lights. Nothing particularly significant about red, but we have traffic laws so we don't kill each other. Mask regulations are similar. The exact benefits of mask wearing have not yet been quantified. However, the plan is to wear them.

Unfortunately, there will always be people who just don't want to follow the agreed upon plan. Those people forget that they gave their government the power to require and enforce certain behavior when necessary subject to the existing laws. Equally unfortunately, our government at all levels has forgotten (or ignored) their responsibility to require and enforce that behavior. As a result, we are unable to govern ourselves in many situations. Social media merely provides a venue for people to pretend they are not subject to the laws. Our leaders chose not to disabuse them of that notion.

[lex24]

I'm struck by how often people in general refer to their "Constitutional rights" to justify what they are doing, but don't really understand what those rights are and aren't, and when it is not clear. Maybe we could use some better instruction in high school about the constitution? OTOH, I took Professor Horn's (in-)famous class on Con Law at Stanford in the '70s and I don't think I learned enough about constitutional rights.

Civics and American History.  So much depends on the teachers kids get.  Mine went to a very good public high school. Civics was a joke. US History not much better. Further, when I went to UCB two survey US History courses were  required. The first leading up to the Civil War. Second to the then present. I had the pleasure of two terrific profs. Charles Sellers and Leon Litwack.  Litwack was well known on campus for a tremendous multimedia (this was 77 so we’ve are talking still shots, some video, with a music overlay) on Vietnam. But his writings are mostly on Post civil war, reconstruction, with an emphasis on the African American Post slavery experienced I took his Reconstruction course. Brilliant professor.

We suffer as a society when we don’t understand our system and have little to no knowledge of our history

[lex24]

I'm struck by how often people in general refer to their "Constitutional rights" to justify what they are doing, but don't really understand what those rights are and aren't, and when it is not clear. Maybe we could use some better instruction in high school about the constitution? OTOH, I took Professor Horn's (in-)famous class on Con Law at Stanford in the '70s and I don't think I learned enough about constitutional rights.

Civics and American History.  So much depends on the teachers kids get.  Mine went to a very good public high school. Civics was a joke. US History not much better. Further, when I went to UCB two survey US History courses were  required. The first leading up to the Civil War. Second to the then present. I had the pleasure of two terrific profs. Charles Sellers and Leon Litwack.  Litwack was well known on campus for a tremendous multimedia (this was 77 so we’ve are talking still shots, some video, with a music overlay) on Vietnam. But his writings are mostly on Post civil war, reconstruction, with an emphasis on the African American Post slavery experienced I took his Reconstruction course. Brilliant professor.

We suffer as a society when we don’t understand our system and have little to no knowledge of our history

[2006alum]

1.  You are right. I was talking in generalities.  Not specifically “to” you in relation to your comment. 
2. Again, you are right.  On both points. My apology.
3. Truce to me was not regarding the masks, but the overall “discussion.” If you read her entire message there is more to it than masks.  The Truce that I seek is in being able to discuss the issues surrounding “reopening” in a manner that isn’t couched in absolutism - and that recognizes the very many factors at play here.  Which is why I focused on her comment relative to the negative impact of the divisiveness this has caused.

Thanks for this. Re: 3, if you haven't already, you might enjoy the views of Zeynep Tufekci, who has had, IMHO, one of the most measured, thoughtful, and balanced responses to the pandemic. She advocated mask wearing (even cloth) way back in mid-March, and has been one of the most urgent in emphasizing that shaming beachgoers and others who engage in (relatively) low risk, outdoor activities, even in partial crowds, is counterproductive. There was a great profile on her in the NY Times last month, her twitter feed usually has lots of interesting observations, and she's a regular writer for the Atlantic. She, and of all people, Nate Silver, are two of the ones I've found are very thoughtful about questioning status quo approaches (on both sides) and emphasizing a more measured, compromise-based approach.

[2006alum]

1.  You are right. I was talking in generalities.  Not specifically “to” you in relation to your comment. 
2. Again, you are right.  On both points. My apology.
3. Truce to me was not regarding the masks, but the overall “discussion.” If you read her entire message there is more to it than masks.  The Truce that I seek is in being able to discuss the issues surrounding “reopening” in a manner that isn’t couched in absolutism - and that recognizes the very many factors at play here.  Which is why I focused on her comment relative to the negative impact of the divisiveness this has caused.

Thanks for this. Re: 3, if you haven't already, you might enjoy the views of Zeynep Tufekci, who has had, IMHO, one of the most measured, thoughtful, and balanced responses to the pandemic. She advocated mask wearing (even cloth) way back in mid-March, and has been one of the most urgent in emphasizing that shaming beachgoers and others who engage in (relatively) low risk, outdoor activities, even in partial crowds, is counterproductive. There was a great profile on her in the NY Times last month, her twitter feed usually has lots of interesting observations, and she's a regular writer for the Atlantic. She, and of all people, Nate Silver, are two of the ones I've found are very thoughtful about questioning status quo approaches (on both sides) and emphasizing a more measured, compromise-based approach.

[Phogge]

About freedom... those who flaunt the orders and recommendations are trampling on the freedom of others. The civilian’s first duty in WW2 was basically, “Loose lips sink ships.” Would some of these “freedom lovers” advocate talking about their work at North American Aviation, Kaiser Shipyards and Browning during trips to a bar or at the Friday night poker game?

Sometimes the times govern our freedom. The Chron today reported that the Sturgis rally may have caused as many as 400,000 infections. Freedom? More like medieval superstition.

[Phogge]

About freedom... those who flaunt the orders and recommendations are trampling on the freedom of others. The civilian’s first duty in WW2 was basically, “Loose lips sink ships.” Would some of these “freedom lovers” advocate talking about their work at North American Aviation, Kaiser Shipyards and Browning during trips to a bar or at the Friday night poker game?

Sometimes the times govern our freedom. The Chron today reported that the Sturgis rally may have caused as many as 400,000 infections. Freedom? More like medieval superstition.

[Papa John]

For me, as I read through the first part of her post, I was able to disagree agreeably with KWJ's assumptions, because she was trying to adopt the trascendental/self-reliant approach of Ralph Waldo Emerson. I don't agree with everything that RWE wrote, but at least KWJ was making an effort to  engage in a dialogue, not unlike conversations I've had with libertarian friends with whom I happen to disagree strongly. And the few times that I've met up with them, I've insisted that we both wear masks and keep our distance, and they oblige.

However, what set me off--Phogge already alluded to this--is when KWJ quoted Thomas Jefferson: "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery" (Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem for Mick and Phogge and anyone else who took Latin). Putting aside TJ's hypocrisy as a slaveowner, one's comparing government-mandated mask-wearing in the midst of a public health crisis to monarchy is...ludicrous, to put it as mildly as possible. But some folks will stick to their philosophical ways no matter the circumstances, so argumentum ad absurdum is pointless.

[Papa John]

For me, as I read through the first part of her post, I was able to disagree agreeably with KWJ's assumptions, because she was trying to adopt the trascendental/self-reliant approach of Ralph Waldo Emerson. I don't agree with everything that RWE wrote, but at least KWJ was making an effort to  engage in a dialogue, not unlike conversations I've had with libertarian friends with whom I happen to disagree strongly. And the few times that I've met up with them, I've insisted that we both wear masks and keep our distance, and they oblige.

However, what set me off--Phogge already alluded to this--is when KWJ quoted Thomas Jefferson: "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery" (Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem for Mick and Phogge and anyone else who took Latin). Putting aside TJ's hypocrisy as a slaveowner, one's comparing government-mandated mask-wearing in the midst of a public health crisis to monarchy is...ludicrous, to put it as mildly as possible. But some folks will stick to their philosophical ways no matter the circumstances, so argumentum ad absurdum is pointless.

[Phogge]

OMG Papa, thank you for the reference. And remember... Furem fur cognoscit et lupum lupus.

[Phogge]

OMG Papa, thank you for the reference. And remember... Furem fur cognoscit et lupum lupus.

[Papa John]

Thanks for the sage words of advice, Phogge. Here are mine: Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit.

[Papa John]

Thanks for the sage words of advice, Phogge. Here are mine: Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit.

[qwerty49]

You two sound like Doc Holliday and Johnny Ringo.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwEIkXMfL1E

[qwerty49]

You two sound like Doc Holliday and Johnny Ringo.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwEIkXMfL1E

[gailtate]

You're now national news. For all the wrong reasons. "Brave"? Hardly. What you are is stupid. I don't care where you went to college. 
https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/An-O...553446.php

[gailtate]

You're now national news. For all the wrong reasons. "Brave"? Hardly. What you are is stupid. I don't care where you went to college. 
https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/An-O...553446.php

[slide]

Lex -- fwiw, I think Judas Priest was overrated.

:)

[slide]

Lex -- fwiw, I think Judas Priest was overrated.

:)

[BostonCard]

Is there any reason this needed its own thread?  Does anyone object if I merge this with the other Walsh/mask thread?

BC

[BostonCard]

Is there any reason this needed its own thread?  Does anyone object if I merge this with the other Walsh/mask thread?

BC

[cardcrimson]

Thank you for posting more of the context. It's always valuable to understand more of someone's thought process before confidently disregarding their opinions. In this case, the more fulsome post does just that. She wants to open up society? Then wear a mask. "Restrictive and arbitrarily selective rules"? Sure, there's been some uncertainty and changes as we learn more, but most of the new rules are hardly arbitrary (though clearly some individuals enforce or enact them with error). She wouldn't want to hurt any vulnerable people? Then wear a mask.

You're welcome. Context is always important, isn't it. Sadly it's all too often ignored as we as a society search for a sound bite to attack, from one side or the other.

Regarding the new rules and their arbitrariness, I'm puzzled by the latest rules in CA. For six months, we were told that hospital bed occupancy, and in particular ICU bed occupancy, were the most important metrics to track how we were doing. Oddly, the new metrics measured so counties can reopen now completely ignore hospital bed occupancy rates and instead now focus on the significantly tightened the daily new case rate metric. Many counties that were on the cusp of further openings under the old metrics, are now a long way away. 

Arbitrary? Who knows. Sure doesn't seem to make a lot of sense unless science is the motivation, political science.

[cardcrimson]

Thank you for posting more of the context. It's always valuable to understand more of someone's thought process before confidently disregarding their opinions. In this case, the more fulsome post does just that. She wants to open up society? Then wear a mask. "Restrictive and arbitrarily selective rules"? Sure, there's been some uncertainty and changes as we learn more, but most of the new rules are hardly arbitrary (though clearly some individuals enforce or enact them with error). She wouldn't want to hurt any vulnerable people? Then wear a mask.

You're welcome. Context is always important, isn't it. Sadly it's all too often ignored as we as a society search for a sound bite to attack, from one side or the other.

Regarding the new rules and their arbitrariness, I'm puzzled by the latest rules in CA. For six months, we were told that hospital bed occupancy, and in particular ICU bed occupancy, were the most important metrics to track how we were doing. Oddly, the new metrics measured so counties can reopen now completely ignore hospital bed occupancy rates and instead now focus on the significantly tightened the daily new case rate metric. Many counties that were on the cusp of further openings under the old metrics, are now a long way away. 

Arbitrary? Who knows. Sure doesn't seem to make a lot of sense unless science is the motivation, political science.

[BobK]

Interesting as my county just opened and one basis was low ICU.

[BobK]

Interesting as my county just opened and one basis was low ICU.

[2006alum]

Is there any reason this needed its own thread?  Does anyone object if I merge this with the other Walsh/mask thread?

BC

Nope. Nope.

[2006alum]

Is there any reason this needed its own thread?  Does anyone object if I merge this with the other Walsh/mask thread?

BC

Nope. Nope.

[jonnyss]

public health always involves the compromise of individual freedom. not ok to poop in a reservoir. not ok to leave standing water on your property breeding mosquitoes. not ok to work as a chef without washing your hands. to be more prosaic, not ok to smoke in (many) public places, not ok to drive without a seat belt. that said, it did take a few years for folks to get used to smoking prohibitions and the seat belt mandate.

epidemics up the ante. not ok to sleep around without a condom if you have hiv. not ok to socialize freely (speaking of masks) if you have active pulmonary tuberculosis. 

kerri seems to be of the "why should i have to wear a seat belt?!" and "why should i have to smoke outside?!" school.

[jonnyss]

public health always involves the compromise of individual freedom. not ok to poop in a reservoir. not ok to leave standing water on your property breeding mosquitoes. not ok to work as a chef without washing your hands. to be more prosaic, not ok to smoke in (many) public places, not ok to drive without a seat belt. that said, it did take a few years for folks to get used to smoking prohibitions and the seat belt mandate.

epidemics up the ante. not ok to sleep around without a condom if you have hiv. not ok to socialize freely (speaking of masks) if you have active pulmonary tuberculosis. 

kerri seems to be of the "why should i have to wear a seat belt?!" and "why should i have to smoke outside?!" school.

[BostonCard]

Is there any reason this needed its own thread?  Does anyone object if I merge this with the other Walsh/mask thread?

BC

Nope. Nope.

Done, Gail's thread has been merged here, in case anyone is looking for it.

BC

[BostonCard]

Is there any reason this needed its own thread?  Does anyone object if I merge this with the other Walsh/mask thread?

BC

Nope. Nope.

Done, Gail's thread has been merged here, in case anyone is looking for it.

BC

[Mick]

I'm struck by how often people in general refer to their "Constitutional rights" to justify what they are doing, but don't really understand what those rights are and aren't, and when it is not clear. Maybe we could use some better instruction in high school about the constitution? OTOH, I took Professor Horn's (in-)famous class on Con Law at Stanford in the '70s and I don't think I learned enough about constitutional rights.

Civics and American History.  So much depends on the teachers kids get.  Mine went to a very good public high school. Civics was a joke. US History not much better. Further, when I went to UCB two survey US History courses were  required. The first leading up to the Civil War. Second to the then present. I had the pleasure of two terrific profs. Charles Sellers and Leon Litwack.  Litwack was well known on campus for a tremendous multimedia (this was 77 so we’ve are talking still shots, some video, with a music overlay) on Vietnam. But his writings are mostly on Post civil war, reconstruction, with an emphasis on the African American Post slavery experienced  I took his Reconstruction course.  Brilliant professor.

We suffer as a society when we don’t understand our system and have little to no knowledge of our history

I liked Cuomo's comment "Where does it say that protests have to be peaceful?"  Right there in the Constitution, buddy, 1A: 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[Mick]

I'm struck by how often people in general refer to their "Constitutional rights" to justify what they are doing, but don't really understand what those rights are and aren't, and when it is not clear. Maybe we could use some better instruction in high school about the constitution? OTOH, I took Professor Horn's (in-)famous class on Con Law at Stanford in the '70s and I don't think I learned enough about constitutional rights.

Civics and American History.  So much depends on the teachers kids get.  Mine went to a very good public high school. Civics was a joke. US History not much better. Further, when I went to UCB two survey US History courses were  required. The first leading up to the Civil War. Second to the then present. I had the pleasure of two terrific profs. Charles Sellers and Leon Litwack.  Litwack was well known on campus for a tremendous multimedia (this was 77 so we’ve are talking still shots, some video, with a music overlay) on Vietnam. But his writings are mostly on Post civil war, reconstruction, with an emphasis on the African American Post slavery experienced  I took his Reconstruction course.  Brilliant professor.

We suffer as a society when we don’t understand our system and have little to no knowledge of our history

I liked Cuomo's comment "Where does it say that protests have to be peaceful?"  Right there in the Constitution, buddy, 1A: 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.