Tag: Covid

North Carolina’s Dr. Ralph Baric, Virologist

North Carolina’s Dr. Ralph Baric is praised for his cutting-edge SARS-CoV-2 research, but not without controversy.

North Carolina’s Research Triangle is home to world-class institutions. The Triangle gets its name from Research Triangle Park and three Tier 1 research universities—Duke University, North Carolina State University and University of North Carolina Chapel Hill. Thus, it is not surprising to find North Carolina scientists on the forefront of coronavirus research and pharmaceutical development.

One such person is Dr. Ralph Baric, distinguished researcher and professor at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Recognition for his contributions to coronavirus research and vaccine development abound. Among his accolades in 2021 are the O. Max Gardner Award which recognizes faculty within the UNC System that make “the greatest contribution to the welfare of the human race,” and the News & Observer Tar Heel of the Year award given to North Carolina residents who have made lasting contributions to their community and state.

Acknowledgement of individuals in any cutting-edge endeavor never comes without controversy. In today’s hyper reaction and response to the corona virus pandemic, Dr. Baric’s virus engineering is especially controversial. Dismissing concern about his work as conspiracy theory does not help, since it detracts from the immense complexity of such work. Some of the arguments are worth repeating.

The Lab-Leak Debate

In its September 2021 issue, the Atlantic carried an article about a proposal presented by Peter Daszak, President the EcoHealth Alliance, to DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) in 2018, describing a $14.2 million project to defuse the threat of bat-borne coronaviruses. Here is an excerpt from The Lab-Leak Debate Just Got Even Messier, the Atlantic, 09/26/21.

The document seems almost tailor-made to buttress one specific theory of a laboratory origin: that SARS-CoV-2 wasn’t simply brought into a lab by scientists and then released by accident, but rather pieced together in a deliberate fashion. In fact, the work described in the proposal fits so well into that narrative of a “gain-of-function experiment gone wrong” that some wondered if it might be too good to be true.

Central figures in the coronavirus-origins debate were involved. Among Daszak’s listed partners on the grant were Ralph Baric of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, an American virologist known for doing coronavirus gain-of-function studies in his lab, and Shi Zhengli, the renowned virus hunter from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Risks vs. Benefits of Virus Engineering

In June 2021, MIT Technology Review discussed the risks of bat-virus engineering that need to be weighed against the urgency of emerging pandemics. The article quoted Dr. Ralph Baric’s assessment of risk vs. benefit. Here is an excerpt from Inside the risky bat-virus engineering that links America to Wuhan, Technology Review, 06/29/21

His 2015 paper, “A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence,” was a tour de force, utilizing bleeding-edge genetic technology to alert the civilized world to a looming danger on its periphery. It also revived concerns about gain-of-function experiments, which Baric had known it would.

In the paper, he spelled out the extra precautions he’d taken and held up the research as a test case. “The potential to prepare for and mitigate future outbreaks must be weighed against the risk of creating more dangerous pathogens,” he wrote. “Scientific review panels may deem similar studies building chimeric viruses based on circulating strains too risky to pursue.”

The NIH decided the risk was worth it. In a potentially fateful decision, it funded work similar to Baric’s at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which soon used its own reverse-genetics technology to make numerous coronavirus chimeras.

Quest for the Universal Remedy

As arguments pro and con COVID-19 vaccines rage, scientists on the fore front of vaccine development will inevitably receive both accolades and criticism. Again, dismissing all con arguments as conspiracy, anti-science, or anti-vaxxer is unhelpful. More rational and helpful would be to acknowledge that, as human beings, none of us produces perfect solutions, free from human limitations and frailties. Picking a best balance between risk and rewards is perhaps the best any of us can do.

The MIT Technology Review article quoted earlier mentions Dr. Baric’s efforts to develop “universal drugs and vaccines against the full spectrum of SARS-like viruses.” A breakthrough came with his collaborative work in 2013 with Dr. Shi Zhengli, the virology at China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Shi had detected the genome of a new virus, called SHC014, that was one of the two closest relatives to the original SARS virus, but her team had not been able to culture it in the lab.

Baric had developed a way around that problem—a technique for “reverse genetics” in coronaviruses. Not only did it allow him to bring an actual virus to life from its genetic code, but he could mix and match parts of multiple viruses. He wanted to take the “spike” gene from SHC014 and move it into a genetic copy of the SARS virus he already had in his lab. The spike molecule is what lets a coronavirus open a cell and get inside it.

The resulting chimera would demonstrate whether the spike of SHC014 would attach to human cells. If it could, then it could help him with his long-term project of developing universal drugs and vaccines against the full spectrum of SARS-like viruses that he increasingly considered sources of potential pandemics.

From Splicing to Vaccination

Dr. Baric holds Patent number 9884895 Methods and compositions for chimeric coronavirus spike proteins, among his many other scientific papents. As the inventor of this product (with Drs. Sudhakar Agnihothram and Boyd Yount), Dr. Baric can claim a major contribution to the development of COVID-19 vaccines.

Risks Necessitate Free and Informed Choices

Identification and manipulation of viral spike proteins entail serious risk. But so is being exposed to the coronavirus without the choice of protection via a vaccine.

Researchers in the life sciences are the primary line of defense against organisms that harms us. Polio and smallpox are no longer the scourges they once were. Hopefully, soon SARS-CoV-2 will also be tamed in a collaborative approach that allows for rational and free assessments of risks and benefits.

Mandates v. the survival of our Republic

U.S. workers, many of whom worked to provide us with goods and services at the height of the pandemic, are now being threatened with termination if they refuse to abide by vaccine mandates. Not all are quietly acquiescing.

Yes, we have a pandemic. It does not matter whether the pandemic originated from some spliced bug engineered with the help of the U.S. Chief Medical Advisor or not. We still need to deal with the bug. How we deal with it, though, has become a determinant whether our nation remains a free Republic or a restrictive Fascist state.

To elucidate, a free Republic is what our Founding Fathers envisioned – a nation ruled by a government that abides by the will of its people. A Fascist state is ruled by the will of the unholy alliance of government and corporations. And socialism? Questionable whether socialism is taking hold in the U.S. For starters, true socialism views all citizens as responsible for one another, not one group solely responsible for another group.

Now, back to the subject at hand, mandates.

On September 9, 2021, President Joe Biden directed the U.S. Department of Labor to draft a rule to require all businesses with 100 or more employees to mandate that their employees receive the COVID-19 injection or undergo a weekly COVID-19 test.

On November 4, 2021, Biden and the Department of Labor announced the mandate, including heavy fines for employers that do not comply with the injection or testing mandates.

Big corporations, including pharmaceutical corporations, have been reaping government largess for the last couple of decades. Cheap money courtesy of the Fed has allowed corporations to gobble up small and nascent businesses – their competition – creating the kleptocracy we now have. Big Pharma has joined Big Data in their alliance with Big Government, while we the average Janes and Joes of America lose our individual freedoms, our economic power, and our will to fight back.

The Pushback

But that is not the end of the story. It might be that this nation is still the land of the free and the brave. It might be that some are drawing their line in the sand issuing the same warning as the Revolutionaries did back in 1775,

DON’T TREAD ON ME

Yes, we have a pandemic. Yes, our hearts break when we lose a loved one to COVID-19. But some states like Florida and Texas are not willing to let our Republic die too. Citizens of those states, and brave souls in more repressive states such as California and New York, are willing to let nature and natural immunity take their course. They are willing to take chances on behalf of the survival of our Republic.

Pockets of resistance to decrees from above have been popping up, in spite of mainstream media’s habit of calling resisters to government overreach “anti-government,” in spite of peer pressure calling resisters “selfish,” in spite of loss of jobs for resisting. Here are some high-profile upsets to the status quo:

* Airlines, healthcare, and municipal workers were among the first to protest vaccine mandates.

* On November 2, 2021, Edward Durr, a commercial truck driver won the New Jersey Senate seat over long-standing politician Steve Sweeney. His words,

It’s people told they can’t have a job. They can’t go to church. They can’t go to school. You can’t go shopping. They can’t go and eat dinner. …You cannot continue to tell people they cannot do things when we live in the freest country in the world. Edward Durr

* In Virginia financier and political newcomer Glenn Youngkin defeated career politician Terry McAuliffe in the governor’s race. Youngkin’s platform included private sector creation of jobs and lower taxes. But what prompted his win was his support for parents of school-age children concerned about school closures, mask mandates, and curriculum over which parents exercised little control.

* On November 12, a three-member panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans affirmed its ruling to place President Biden’s on hold.

The public interest is also served by maintaining our constitutional structure and maintaining the liberty of individuals to make intensely personal decisions according to their own convictions – even, or perhaps particularly, when those decisions frustrate government officials. Circuit Court Judge Kurt Engelhardt

* A slick video, reminiscent of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, landed on DC Patriots website opposing P&G’s vaccine mandate. The video reminds viewers of the byword “our body our choice,” and warns of the results of our allowing politicians and corporations to push producers too hard.

Our company has threatened us with termination in the near future for daring to say “our body our choice.” … When the factories in which we work grind to a halt you will be to blame.

The Real Fight

Children suffocate under masks, workers live under threats of termination, going to work or going to our house of worship now comes with numerous restrictions.

The fight is no longer against a bug. The fight is for the survival of our free Republic.

Picture: New York City firefighters protest vaccine mandates in front of Mayor’s office.

Two Generation C Embraced by the Establishment

There are two Generation C. One is the Covid Generation, and the other the Connected Generation. They are different in age and general attributes, but share one crucial trait: trust in the establishment.

The term Generation C is popping up in the press, “C” standing for corona virus or COVID-19. But the “C” in Generation C has another definition, connectedness or connected consumer. The latter definition predates the former by more than a decade.

Generation C: The corona virus generation

The corona virus generation describes those born between 2016 and 2030. Children born in 2016 would be four years old when the pandemic surfaced, and the country started to shut down. Those born during the pandemic would be 10 years old in 2030.

The response to COVID-19, especially in progressive states, produced one of the greatest economic and social upheavals in the nation’s recent history. Children’s education, friendships, routines, and even livelihoods suffered great disruptions. Children were forced to wear masks, stay away from their grandmas, and admonished not to hug their friends.

Such events can instill anxieties and fears in developing minds that go on to define a generation. Children of the Great Depression became The Silent Generation — cautious, thrifty, and loyal. Young minds that experienced the tragedy of 9/11 while in school or college grew into Millennial adulthood in the shadow of the Patriot Act — they are comfortable with government mandates and restrictions.

It is of course too early to say what the characteristics of the corona virus generation will be. We can only point out that masks and social distancing might prove to be Generation COVID’s Patriot Act.

Generation C: The consumer generation

Way back in 2010, Strategy& published The rise of Generation C: Implications for the world of 2020. Here Generation C refers to the “connected” generation, young people that “live online.” These “digital natives” have vast networks of connections and contacts that rank as pure gold in strategies of communications and technology companies.

In the face of declining revenues from traditional services, the challenge for the communication and technology industries will be to abandon successful but outlived business models and refocus on what it takes to thrive in the Generation C environment. This shouldn’t be taken as bad news, however; the rise of ubiquitous broadband, and of newly connected populations from emerging economies, will enable operators to capitalize on a vast new array of services. The Rise of Generation C, Strategy&, March 26, 2010.

The Strategy& analysis labels Generation C as those born after 1990. However, others have postulated that although most members of Generation C do fall into the Millennial category, they comprise a group that is more psychographic than demographic, with a mindset that spans generations. Google has studied this group and says,

Most recently, we conducted a global study on Gen C with Ipsos MediaCT and TNS2 and for the first time we’re now able to see the behaviors that make Gen C such a potent force. From electronics to travel, clothes to cosmetics, live events to fitness, Gen C buy products and services with far greater regularity than do their non-Gen C counterparts; they’re up to 3.6x more likely to purchase. And two thirds of Gen C around the world say that, “If there is a brand I love, I tend to tell everyone about it.” The Power of Gen C: Connecting with Your Best Customers, Google Marketing Strategies, January 2014.

Thus, this Generation C is the holy grail, pursued at every click of their smart device. Their reward is a vast array of apps that gives them instant gratification and endless connectivity.

Same difference

These two generations are different in age and general attributes. But they share an inclination anathema to The Silent and Boomer generations – trust in the establishment.

Silents and Boomers are skeptical. Millennials are trusting, as evidenced by their willingness to share limitless amounts of information. They are happy to live in the fishbowl of connectivity and be plugged into the smart grids of smart cities.

Although it is too early to define the corona virus generation, it might be safe to assume they too will trust. Their developing minds are saturated with mandates that are willingly obeyed: wear masks, stay 6 feet apart, stay home from work or school, vaccinate, and do not say anything counter to CDC guidelines on social media.

Is the trend becoming apparent?

As major difficulties occur – the Great Depression, 9/11, COVID-19 – mandates and obedience to them are normalized. Such mandates are not limited to government edicts. They can be pressures to conform applied by those that benefit from specific behaviors. The populace is promised safety, convenience or peer acceptance, in exchange for trust in the establishment. A drift towards increasing levels of dependence on the establishment becomes inevitable, obliterating individual freedoms.

If wariness of democracy and free speech does not represent a political position, what does it represent? What unites so many young Americans in these attitudes? I propose that the answer is fear — the ultimate enemy of freedom … When people are afraid, they cling to the certainty of the world they know and avoid taking physical, emotional and intellectual risks. In short, fear causes people to privilege psychological security over liberty. Why Are Millennials Wary of Freedom? New York Times Opinion, October 14, 2017.

[Featured Image of school children tearing up a giant mask: Picture by Trent Nelson, in Salt Lake Tribune of April 24, 2021, article 3 Utah school districts now allow students to skip masks, based on their parents’ judgment]

Freedom Trash Can to Mask Burning

Citizens of Idaho gathered in front of their capitol to burn their masks. For folks that were around in the 1960s, the Idaho event might bring back memories of Freedom Trash Cans and draft-card burning.

Citizens of Idaho took a page from the 1960s. Back in the ‘60s the boiling cauldron of Vietnam-war protests, civil rights protests, and women’s liberation prompted action in town squares throughout America. Young men burned their draft cards, and young women tossed their bras into the Freedom Can.

On March 6, 2021, about 100 Idaho citizens gathered in front of Idaho’s state capitol to burn Covid face masks.

Darr Moon, an organizer of the mask-burning event, stated the reason for the protest.

I think people need to realize that we’re standing here today to rein back government, to reestablish our republican form of government, government that has balance between the branches. The Guardian, March 6, 2021

Today, Presidents, Governors, and Mayors play Kings and Queens by raining executive orders on the head of their constituents – stay indoors, wear masks, don’t visit Grandma, your children don’t need school. Faced with such scenarios, some folks obey but others push back.

Here are some pictures of what push-back looked like in the turbulent 60s. The women’s protest pictures are from the Smithsonian Magazine and the Vietnam War protest pictures from Les Anglonauts. Young men burned their draft cards in opposition to the Vietnam War. Women threw their bras and other symbolic items into a Freedom Trash Can to protest the “feminine oppression” that the Miss America Pageant represented. The 1960s are worth exploring, as a time when suddenly a lot of people said “NO” to the status quo.

Your Stimulus Check is Coming – Think No Further!

If you made less than $75,000 in 2019 you will likely get a relief check of $600 soon. If you think no further you will be delighted.

On December 27, 2020, President Donald Trump signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (H.R. 133), which contains in it the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act. This omnibus bill carries a price tag of $2.3 trillion dollars — $1.4 trillion in regular annual appropriations that keep the federal government running, and $900 billion in supplemental appropriations for Coronavirus relief.

Under this bill, a $600 check will be sent to people who made up to $75,000 in 2019. As of this writing, President Trump’s demand that Congress cut “unnecessary” expenses and increase direct payments to $2,000, might be DOA in the Senate. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has attached a couple of powerful poison pills to the proposal (elections investigation and repeal of legal protections for social media platforms) which Democrats are unlikely to approve.

Situation Chaotic But Normal

The signing came after several weeks of haggling in Congress and four days of objections by President Trump – not an unusual situation. Legislators are under pressure to bring the bacon home to their constituents, so compromises can get lengthy. Presidents do not have line-item veto power, so they must approve or veto an entire bill.

The approve-the-whole-bill or veto-the-whole-bill process leads to pork-laden bills landing in a President’s desk.

In a video release President Trump strongly objected to “wasteful” expenditures in the Appropriations Bill. He would have preferred less “unnecessary” spending and more Coronavirus relief. However, he had to sign the whole bill in order to fund relief and fund government operations.

The Consolidated Appropriations bill occupies 5,593 minutiae-filled pages – 3,280 pages more than last year’s bill. The House Committee on Appropriations website has brief summary of the bill plus links to specific sections (called “Divisions”).

Divisions A through L are regular appropriations, Divisions M and N deal with Coronavirus Relief, and Divisions O through Z are Authorizing Matters unrelated to the funding of regular or Coronavirus appropriations.

This massive bill was delivered to Congress shortly before a vote was expected, not an unusual situation, but much worse than last years’ 24-hour reading allocation of 2,313 pages.

Focus of Coronavirus Relief

As numerous news outlets have reported, the focus of the $900 billion Coronavirus Relief is direct payments to citizens, forgivable loans to businesses, and extension of federal unemployment subsidies ($300 per week).

There are many other provisions, like: Funding of cultural and entertainment venues. A campaign to increase awareness of the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, and combat misinformation. Funding for low-income families that pay for drinking water and wastewater services.

Focus of the Annual Appropriations

The $1.4 trillion regular annual appropriations include the usual, very wide, domestic and international funding. “Very wide” means funding the average American would probably not fathom. For example:

Not less than $20 million for the recruitment and retention of women in the Afghanistan National Security Forces—twice the amount specified last year. Division C – Defense

Up to $500 million for Jordan, including not less than less than $150 million for reimbursements for enhanced border security. Division C – Defense

$116 million for the wild horse and burro program, $15 million above the fiscal year 2020 enacted level. Division G – Interior/Environment

Authorizing Matters

Here are a couple of samples of the Authorizing Matters in the Appropriations and Coronavirus Relief Bill 20121:

Establishes, within the Smithsonian Institution, the Women’s History Museum and the National Museum of the American Latino.” Division T – Smithsonian

Requires the Secretary of Energy to conduct a study on the benefits of blue hydrogen technology and how that can further enhance the deployment and adoption of carbon capture and storage.” Division Z – Energy, Title IV Carbon Management

Who Voted No

Not everyone in Congress felt pressured to concur with this bill.

In the House, 50 Republicans, 2 Democrats, and 1 Libertarian voted against the bill. The two Democrats issued strong statement explaining their vote:

Rashida Tlaib (D-Michigan) – We will be back here in a month because the suffering will have gotten much worse because there has been a lack of bold action and priorities to put people first.

Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) – $600 is a slap in the face to every American struggling due to the pandemic. You deserve better. I voted against the 5,593-page spending bill that gave billions to corporate interests, the military industrial complex & other countries, leaving crumbs for you who need help most.

In the Senate, 6 Senators, all Republicans, voted NO. They objected to the bill’s price tag in light of an already perilous national debt, the nearly 6,000 pages of complex legislation that nobody had time to read, and the process by which just a few legislators craft bills and expect automatic approval from everyone else. Here is a sample of the Senator’s frustration:

Rick Scott (R-Florida) – Once again, in classic Washington style, vital programs are attached to a massive omnibus spending bill that mortgages our kids & grandkid’s future. Therefore, I can’t support this bill.

Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin) – The dysfunction of Washington, D.C. was on full display as Congress combined covid relief with a massive omnibus spending bill three months past the deadline and into the current fiscal year. This monstrosity was 5,593 pages long, and passed only nine hours after the Senate first saw it.

Mike Lee (R-Utah) – This process, by which members of Congress are asked to defer blindly to legislation negotiated entirely in secret by four of their colleagues, must come to an end.

And the Spending Goes On

Constituents clamor for relief – this time from the economic effects of Coronavirus response – and legislators are happy to oblige by passing massive spending bills. The idea of cutting back on non-urgent spending to allocated funds to urgent challenges is anathema to most legislators.

The U.S. national debt is $27.5 trillion, and debt to GDP is 128.9%. No matter, say the bulk of today’s legislators. What used to be a derisive accusation – making money out of thin air – is now accepted as Modern Monetary Theory. Government keeps producing money by borrowing, legislators keep spending, and the people are happily appeased. Think no further!

In Defense of the Governor’s Partying While We Dine Alone

Politicians often belong to elite circles that thrive in the acquisition of power. Their default modus operandi is “For your own safety and the safety of your neighbors, follow my rules.” There is no covenant that the rule maker follow those same rules.

California Governor Gavin Newsom has issued numerous directives, instructions and guidelines regarding COVID-19, all describing in great detail what residents of the state can and cannot do. One activity specifically verboten is partying indoors by members of several households. One suggestion especially idiosyncratic is wearing a mask while dining — admittedly a difficult scenario to visualize, leaving one to feel obliged to wear a mask between bites.

Therefore, California residents were justifiably confused when news broke that Governor Newsom on November 6, attended a dinner, along with several other guests, in celebration of the birthday of lobbyist Jason Kinney. The venue was the elite Napa Valley restaurant French Laundry.

Enter U.S. Congressman for California’s 4th District, Tom McClintock, a conservative Republican whose libertarian streak is known to liberty-loving communities. On November 19, on the House floor, Congressman McClintock delivered a speech in defense of Governor Newsom’s maskless cozy dinner.

The speech is must-read

Mr. Speaker:

I rise this morning in defense of Governor Gavin Newsom who recently defied his own idiotic Covid edicts as he partied at one of the few restaurants that he has not yet forced out of business. I defend him because he was doing what we all once did in a free society: make our own decisions over what risks we are willing to run and what precautions we are willing to take according to our own circumstances to protect our own health.

Yes, Covid is a nasty bug and a quarter of a million Americans have died while having it. But this isn’t the Bubonic Plague. The CDC’s best estimate is that if you are under 49, your chance for surviving Covid – it you get it – is 99.92 percent. Even for those over 70 the survival rate is 94.6 percent.

Forty percent who get it don’t even know they have it. Yet we have allowed our officials to ruin our quality of life over it – destroying countless businesses, throwing tens of millions into unemployment, robbing our children of their educations and shredding our most cherished rights as Americans.

Governor Newsom’s night of partying should be a wake-up call to every American.

Every time we step outside our homes, the risks we face multiply. A free society assumes that its citizens are competent to assess those risks, balance them against the avoidance costs, and to manage their decisions in a generally responsible way. It’s called common sense, and it’s a necessary prerequisite for self-government and liberty.

The choices of an octogenarian with emphysema might be very different from those of a healthy governor in California. Only a fool would claim the omniscience to make an informed judgment for every person in every circumstance in every community. Sadly, this crisis has revealed that fools abound in public office and that a fool with power can quickly become a petty tyrant.

Which brings us back to Governor Newsom. These government nannies love to tell us that they’re just following the science. What does the science tell us? It tells us that Covid poses virtually no risk to children but can be severe among the elderly. So, what did these lockdown leftists do? They closed all the schools and ordered infected patients into nursing homes!

The science tells us that outdoor transmissions of the virus are extremely rare and that 80 percent of infections occur in people’s homes. So what did these lockdown leftists do? They closed our beaches, parks and campgrounds and ordered people to stay at home!

The science tells us that obesity is a contributing factor to the severity of the disease. So what did these lockdown leftists do? They closed all the gyms and kept the liquor stores open!

These lockdowns haven’t saved lives. The states with the most stringent lockdowns generally have the highest mortality rates from Covid. Utah stayed open while next door, Colorado shut down. Utah currently has half the Covid mortality rate and 3/4 the unemployment rate as Colorado. But the lockdowns have cost countless lives from suicides, drug and alcohol abuse, domestic violence, and deferred health screenings and treatments.

Recently, Governor Newsom demanded that restaurant diners replace their masks after every bite, but also minimize the times they take them off. I guess that means take very big bites. Thanksgiving dinners are allowed in California, but only when they are held outside, guests are seated six feet apart, and they last no more than two hours. It’s all right to use the bathroom, but only if it is frequently sanitized. Otherwise, presumably you’ll just have to use the bushes. And for God’s sake – NO SINGING!

I have wondered how much longer the American people are going to tolerate this nonsense?

So let us not criticize Governor Newsom. Perhaps he has just offered us all deliverance from his own folly.

Nor should we criticize the California legislators who ignored travel and quarantine restrictions to junket to Hawaii. Nor should we ridicule Speaker Pelosi for choosing not to wear a mask in a hair salon that was forced to close for the rest of us.

Good for them. They’re demonstrating by their own actions the freedom that every American citizen needs to reclaim from these very same people. The governor SHOULD make his own decisions about running his own life. I only ask that he and his ilk would stop telling the rest of us how to run ours.

Rule Makers Need Not Be Inconvenienced

Congressman McClintock touched upon a truth that must not be ignored. Politicians often belong to elite circles that thrive in the acquisition of power. Their default modus operandi is “For your own safety and the safety of your neighbors, follow my rules.” There is no covenant that the rule maker follow those same rules. Power grows as constituents are rendered increasingly fearful and receptive to obedience in exchange for perceived protection. Rule makers need not be inconvenienced.

(Featured picture posted by Fox News)

Question Authority No Longer

It is the prerogative of each individual to choose questioning and vulnerability or obedience and protection.

Were he alive today, 1960s counterculture icon Timothy Leary would be appalled. Leary is mostly remembered for his efforts to decriminalize psychedelic drugs. However, his principal objective was to encourage people to think for themselves, question authority, and accept the chaos that comes with “a state of vulnerable open-mindedness.”

Throughout human history, as our species has faced the frightening, terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are, or where we are going in this ocean of chaos, it has been the authorities — the political, the religious, the educational authorities — who attempted to comfort us by giving us order, rules, regulations, informing — forming in our minds — their view of reality. To think for yourself you must question authority and learn how to put yourself in a state of vulnerable open-mindedness, chaotic, confused vulnerability to inform yourself. A Notable Quote by Timothy Leary.

Today’s Battle Cry is “Obey Authority”

Instead, we crave for the comfort of authority. We want protection from vulnerability. Those standing at the ready to provide comfort and protection abound. They hold up the equivalent of the Little Red Book that tells us what to think, what to say, and what to do. They use words in ways they were not meant to be used. Science is no longer observation, inquiry and experiment, but is now absolute. They use “science” as a psychological bludgeon.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said the following in response to criticism regarding his COVID-19 guidelines:

I believe for the most part you can trust respected medical authorities … I believe I’m one of them, so I think you can trust me. But I would stick with respected medical authorities who have a track record of telling the truth, who have a track record of giving information and policy and recommendations based on scientific evidence and good data. The Guardian, July 15, 2020

One needs to question Dr. Fauci’s awareness of how drastically scientific knowledge can change. The theory of a stationary earth around which the sun revolved was once scientific truth.

What Might Timothy Leary Question Were He Alive Today?

Why is the media so focused on reporting numbers infected with COVID-19, especially when famous people are among those numbers, and not much reporting on numbers recovered?

Are COVID tests accurate? Celebrities Elon Musk and Erykah Badu recently received on the same day both positive and negative diagnosis, according to media reports.

Have U.S. state and city leaders struck a reasonable balance between lockdowns and future health in the absence of routine in-person exams, workers’ threatened livelihoods, children’s lack of proper education, deterioration of mental well being?

Even if people are willing to question, what would be a venue for those questions? The Internet is today’s soapbox. But…

…[T]he UN Secretary- General launched the United Nations Communications Response initiative to combat the spread of mis- and disinformation in April 2020. ..The Resolution also calls on international organizations to address mis- and disinformation in the digital sphere, work to prevent harmful cyber activities undermining the health response and support the provision of science-based data to the public. WHO, Managing the COVID-19 Infodemic

Social media companies have committed to regulate content in light of the pandemic.
Eliminating misinformation can help social media users gather and disseminate accurate information, helping them stay safe and reduce risk to others … A more ambitious role for social media platforms would be to boost efforts by public health authorities by, for example, upranking links to recommendations from recognised health authorities, and downranking ads for essential limited medical supplies, such as face masks, to prevent hoarding. Building Trust While Influencing Online COVID-19 Content in the Social Media World, The Lancet, April 21, 2020.

Questioning or Obeying is a Personal Choice

Indeed, COVID-19 is a real pandemic. The current estimated COVID-19 death rate of 2.16% is not to be flippantly dismissed. However, the principal question here is whether shutting down discourse that conflicts with official WHO and CDC guidelines is beneficial.

Timothy Leary was certainly not the first to encourage questioning. Greek philosopher Socrates, for example, regarded questioning essential to critical thinking.

The art of Socratic questioning is intimately connected with critical thinking because the art of questioning is important to excellence of thought. Socrates argued for the necessity of probing individual knowledge, and acknowledging what one may not know or understand. Wikipedia, Socratic Questioning.

It is the prerogative of each individual to choose questioning and vulnerability or obedience and protection. Today, it seems the majority have chosen to “stay safe.”

%d bloggers like this: