Well, as promised, I got the hell out of Dodge. I took a few days down in Houston as Texas was well ahead of Michigan in easing restrictions. I ate out. Got my hair cut. Spent toasty days by the pool. It was heaven-adjacent. Next I need to get down to Florida to see my brother.
What I really need to do, above all else, is stop procrastinating on my fiction writing. You would think this situation was the perfect excuse to really kick in the afterburners on my book, but instead I have been using it as an excuse to watch more dumb movies and peruse more social media. This must stop above all else.
[TV, Sports] Tube Notes, Lonely at the Top
[Movies] Flick Check, A Couple to Skip
[Rant] Coronatime, Month 3
Wednesday, June 10, 2020
[TV, Sports] Toob Notes, Lonely a the Top
Two documentaries featuring the best ever athletes at their sport came out on ESPN.
Last Dance
The story of the rise of Michael Jordan and the stormy times with the six-time NBA champion Chicago Bulls. It was too long and with too much filler. It was also way too worshipful, but that's not surprising since it's motivator is Bill Simmons who is the author of the terrific Book of Basketball and almost certainly the biggest basketball fan in history.
There was a time when I was a basketball fan. I loved the NBA in the Bird/Magic era. I would often watch entire double-headers and I still hear the NBA on CBS jingle when I think of it. Of course, I followed the Pistons back-to-back championship teams who everyone else hated, and rightly so. They were truly thugs on the court, but they were our thugs. (That's lame at best and shameful at worst.)
Michael Jordan never interested me. I hated the fawning he got, no matter how much he deserved it. I hated the media saturation. Coming from this era of great competition between Magic and Bird followed by the home team championships we go into the era where it not only was just about one team, but about one person that caused me to sour on the NBA.
In any event, I learned a couple of things from this documentary. First, I never knew how much conflict there was on those Bulls teams, not just with Bulls management but also among the players themselves. The other thing I noticed was Michael Jordan's intelligence. He had much more shaded views of events than I would have imagined. He seems very self-aware and thoughtful about his actions during those times. The extent to which he is regretful about anything is never explored although it can be read between the lines in some cases. Still, there is no mention of gambling or the less laudable second comeback.
At ten hour-long episodes it would have benefitted from some more judicious editing. It could have been at least 30% shorter.
Lance
The Lance Armstrong documentary is more economical, covering two two-hour episodes. Now that all the lawsuits have been settled; Lance comes clean about his actions and feelings. It is anything but worshipful, and quite stark on that matter. At the outset the interviewer asks Lance if he is going to tell the truth, and Lance responds that he will tell "my truth". Well, then.
We all know the outlines of Lance's story. Highlighted here are many scenes from his youth, his pre-cancer youth. He was a real prick. Think of the kind of prickishness that many young people display and amplify it by his level of talent and there you go. I always knew he was a prick, I just didn't know how bad.
But the real meat here is following him deeper and deeper into his lie. More and more people have to be destroyed. In retrospect Lance regrets most of the harm he's caused. Most. There are some people he still feels are worthy of his wrath -- Floyd Landis in particular. He still feels victimized by inequities in how juiced cyclists are treated -- some are still loved, others trashed. And, of course, whatever his cycling legacy, there is no denying the good Livestrong foundation has done.
All said and done, these two documentaries (Lance being far superior) really haven't changed the way I think about their subjects. I disliked the fawning of Jordan when he was playing and I can't see anything in the fawning Last Dance to change my mind. I saw Lance Armstrong's downfall as a Greek tragedy of hubris and I see it even more so after Lance.
A more interesting question to me is, is it a good thing to be the best? It might seem that way, but as I look at these two documentaries, I see some terrible aspects to it. Jordan does a good job of keeping his family out of it so it's hard to tell about his relationships with them (I know his marriages have been stormy, but that's not unusual). With respect to his friends, you see people like Ahmad Rashard and a couple of others but what are those friendships actually like? What does it mean for them to be a friend Michael Jordan? Given the realities of the situation, the nature of the differences in their lives, are they really friends or orbiters. Another way of putting it is given Michael's stature and position in the world, is it possible to just be a friend of his or are there other constraints and requirements? Can you really see yourself as having an equitable relationship with Michael? I cannot say whether a "friendship" with Michael is rewarding in the way most friendships are. Nor can I speculate on whether being his son or daughter allows for the traditional family rewards. It may be better or worse, but I strongly suspect it's quite different.
I can pretty much guarantee that were costs to being Lance Armstrong's son. He tells the story of defending his father during his 'tween years -- and if you know 'tween boys, you know how brutal that would be -- only to have his father come out and admit the lies. Unlike the speculation with Jordan, Lance, and Lance, is upfront about the costs to the people around him. Even absent the "disgrace", it's clear the Lance's relationships are affected by his Lance-ness. One of the final quotes from a long time acquaintance is that he has been Lance's friend for decades and "I still don't know if I love him or hate him."
Michael is rich, of course. Lance was, but is less so now and doesn't seem to have strong prospects. Both experienced boundless glory. One is still famous, the other infamous. But what of the value of their lives.
Let's think 50-60 years out. They will be mostly forgotten as people, just the statistics and outlines of their stories will be left and known only to those who take an esoteric interest in their respective sports. As much as we elevate athletes, they are, in essence, entertainers; creators of ephemeral exhilaration. There is value in that, however fleeting. There is, of course, value in the charitable work they have both done. Michael, as Chairman of the Charlotte Hornets, keeps a large business running and makes payroll, which is an underrated source value.
At my age, I have come to the conclusion that the value of your life is in how much you've enhanced the lives of the people you care about and it would be easy to say that the added costs of your glory to those close to you are too high and swamp the benefits. But that would be to discount the value you have, or could have, provided to strangers. As I started this post I was assuming I would come to the conclusion that the personality types who have that level of competitive drive are ultimately toxic for those around them and so it would be more of a curse than anything else, but now I am not so sure. I think if you have that level of competitiveness in you and you do not have the gifts to achieve it, that might be another story. That strikes me as a recipe for sociopathology. If you do actually achieve that level of eliteness, it seems like the pluses you can offer to the world might -- might -- outweigh the struggles of those around you (and yourself).
Back to the documentaries, take Last Dance with a grain of salt. Lance is an all time great character study. Both are worth watching.
Addendum: Some have outright accused the Last Dance of being rife with lies. Maybe an entire shaker of salt is in order.
Last Dance
The story of the rise of Michael Jordan and the stormy times with the six-time NBA champion Chicago Bulls. It was too long and with too much filler. It was also way too worshipful, but that's not surprising since it's motivator is Bill Simmons who is the author of the terrific Book of Basketball and almost certainly the biggest basketball fan in history.
There was a time when I was a basketball fan. I loved the NBA in the Bird/Magic era. I would often watch entire double-headers and I still hear the NBA on CBS jingle when I think of it. Of course, I followed the Pistons back-to-back championship teams who everyone else hated, and rightly so. They were truly thugs on the court, but they were our thugs. (That's lame at best and shameful at worst.)
Michael Jordan never interested me. I hated the fawning he got, no matter how much he deserved it. I hated the media saturation. Coming from this era of great competition between Magic and Bird followed by the home team championships we go into the era where it not only was just about one team, but about one person that caused me to sour on the NBA.
In any event, I learned a couple of things from this documentary. First, I never knew how much conflict there was on those Bulls teams, not just with Bulls management but also among the players themselves. The other thing I noticed was Michael Jordan's intelligence. He had much more shaded views of events than I would have imagined. He seems very self-aware and thoughtful about his actions during those times. The extent to which he is regretful about anything is never explored although it can be read between the lines in some cases. Still, there is no mention of gambling or the less laudable second comeback.
At ten hour-long episodes it would have benefitted from some more judicious editing. It could have been at least 30% shorter.
Lance
The Lance Armstrong documentary is more economical, covering two two-hour episodes. Now that all the lawsuits have been settled; Lance comes clean about his actions and feelings. It is anything but worshipful, and quite stark on that matter. At the outset the interviewer asks Lance if he is going to tell the truth, and Lance responds that he will tell "my truth". Well, then.
We all know the outlines of Lance's story. Highlighted here are many scenes from his youth, his pre-cancer youth. He was a real prick. Think of the kind of prickishness that many young people display and amplify it by his level of talent and there you go. I always knew he was a prick, I just didn't know how bad.
But the real meat here is following him deeper and deeper into his lie. More and more people have to be destroyed. In retrospect Lance regrets most of the harm he's caused. Most. There are some people he still feels are worthy of his wrath -- Floyd Landis in particular. He still feels victimized by inequities in how juiced cyclists are treated -- some are still loved, others trashed. And, of course, whatever his cycling legacy, there is no denying the good Livestrong foundation has done.
All said and done, these two documentaries (Lance being far superior) really haven't changed the way I think about their subjects. I disliked the fawning of Jordan when he was playing and I can't see anything in the fawning Last Dance to change my mind. I saw Lance Armstrong's downfall as a Greek tragedy of hubris and I see it even more so after Lance.
A more interesting question to me is, is it a good thing to be the best? It might seem that way, but as I look at these two documentaries, I see some terrible aspects to it. Jordan does a good job of keeping his family out of it so it's hard to tell about his relationships with them (I know his marriages have been stormy, but that's not unusual). With respect to his friends, you see people like Ahmad Rashard and a couple of others but what are those friendships actually like? What does it mean for them to be a friend Michael Jordan? Given the realities of the situation, the nature of the differences in their lives, are they really friends or orbiters. Another way of putting it is given Michael's stature and position in the world, is it possible to just be a friend of his or are there other constraints and requirements? Can you really see yourself as having an equitable relationship with Michael? I cannot say whether a "friendship" with Michael is rewarding in the way most friendships are. Nor can I speculate on whether being his son or daughter allows for the traditional family rewards. It may be better or worse, but I strongly suspect it's quite different.
I can pretty much guarantee that were costs to being Lance Armstrong's son. He tells the story of defending his father during his 'tween years -- and if you know 'tween boys, you know how brutal that would be -- only to have his father come out and admit the lies. Unlike the speculation with Jordan, Lance, and Lance, is upfront about the costs to the people around him. Even absent the "disgrace", it's clear the Lance's relationships are affected by his Lance-ness. One of the final quotes from a long time acquaintance is that he has been Lance's friend for decades and "I still don't know if I love him or hate him."
Michael is rich, of course. Lance was, but is less so now and doesn't seem to have strong prospects. Both experienced boundless glory. One is still famous, the other infamous. But what of the value of their lives.
Let's think 50-60 years out. They will be mostly forgotten as people, just the statistics and outlines of their stories will be left and known only to those who take an esoteric interest in their respective sports. As much as we elevate athletes, they are, in essence, entertainers; creators of ephemeral exhilaration. There is value in that, however fleeting. There is, of course, value in the charitable work they have both done. Michael, as Chairman of the Charlotte Hornets, keeps a large business running and makes payroll, which is an underrated source value.
At my age, I have come to the conclusion that the value of your life is in how much you've enhanced the lives of the people you care about and it would be easy to say that the added costs of your glory to those close to you are too high and swamp the benefits. But that would be to discount the value you have, or could have, provided to strangers. As I started this post I was assuming I would come to the conclusion that the personality types who have that level of competitive drive are ultimately toxic for those around them and so it would be more of a curse than anything else, but now I am not so sure. I think if you have that level of competitiveness in you and you do not have the gifts to achieve it, that might be another story. That strikes me as a recipe for sociopathology. If you do actually achieve that level of eliteness, it seems like the pluses you can offer to the world might -- might -- outweigh the struggles of those around you (and yourself).
Back to the documentaries, take Last Dance with a grain of salt. Lance is an all time great character study. Both are worth watching.
Addendum: Some have outright accused the Last Dance of being rife with lies. Maybe an entire shaker of salt is in order.
[Movies] Flick Check, A Couple to Skip
One of the benefits that will come with the end of lockdown will be that I can go back to largely ignoring movies. The other day I found myself paging through Amazon Prime, having flashbacks to going to rent a video from Blockbuster and seeing nothing I wanted to watch and wandering the aisles until I finally settled on something that at least would pass the time inoffensively. I saw two movies this month, neither of which was worth the time spent watching.
Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil, and Vile -- This is an unfocused retelling of the Ted Bundy serial killings. Supposedly from the point of view of his girlfriend/fiance who stood by him through the ordeal, or at least stood by him much longer than she should have. It is manipulative. We see her standing by him, although we are not clear on why she should have known better because we are presented with so few details of the investigation that it's made to seem like he really was possibly not guilty. Is that meant to have shown us what it looked like to her? Are we supposed to assume she looked no more deeply at it? The actions and state of mind of the woman we are focussed on is unclear, and so it ends up dramatically unsatisfying. (A final revelation at the end only serves to make this worse.) Slightly more interesting are the portrayals of the trial and the showboating characters who tried to use it as an entertainment platform. Zac Efron played Bundy and did a good job at serious acting. We are thankfully spared any portrayals of the actual murders. All in all, a fine concept, that results in nothing but a shrug.
Ad Astra -- This movie won a lot of accolades but it is actively bad. The story of an astronaut who has to follow up a lost mission to Neptune that was headed by his father because some aspect of the technology used in that mission is now causing chaos back on Earth and might destroy the solar system. As you might guess, this is about the astronaut's daddy issues. Near as I can tell it is little more than exposition from start to finish. He is brought into the mission via a briefing (exposition). He learns more from an older scientist and friend of his father who accompanies him (exposition). He learns yet more for another character he meets along the way (exposition). He finally encounters his father and they explore their feelings (exposition). The visuals are striking at times, but the science challenges your reality suspension skills. The most interesting question is how Brad Pitt decided to star in this. He is usually top notch at spotting good scripts, but this one is a real clunker.
So looking forward to not watching movies again.
Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil, and Vile -- This is an unfocused retelling of the Ted Bundy serial killings. Supposedly from the point of view of his girlfriend/fiance who stood by him through the ordeal, or at least stood by him much longer than she should have. It is manipulative. We see her standing by him, although we are not clear on why she should have known better because we are presented with so few details of the investigation that it's made to seem like he really was possibly not guilty. Is that meant to have shown us what it looked like to her? Are we supposed to assume she looked no more deeply at it? The actions and state of mind of the woman we are focussed on is unclear, and so it ends up dramatically unsatisfying. (A final revelation at the end only serves to make this worse.) Slightly more interesting are the portrayals of the trial and the showboating characters who tried to use it as an entertainment platform. Zac Efron played Bundy and did a good job at serious acting. We are thankfully spared any portrayals of the actual murders. All in all, a fine concept, that results in nothing but a shrug.
Ad Astra -- This movie won a lot of accolades but it is actively bad. The story of an astronaut who has to follow up a lost mission to Neptune that was headed by his father because some aspect of the technology used in that mission is now causing chaos back on Earth and might destroy the solar system. As you might guess, this is about the astronaut's daddy issues. Near as I can tell it is little more than exposition from start to finish. He is brought into the mission via a briefing (exposition). He learns more from an older scientist and friend of his father who accompanies him (exposition). He learns yet more for another character he meets along the way (exposition). He finally encounters his father and they explore their feelings (exposition). The visuals are striking at times, but the science challenges your reality suspension skills. The most interesting question is how Brad Pitt decided to star in this. He is usually top notch at spotting good scripts, but this one is a real clunker.
So looking forward to not watching movies again.
[Covid19, Rant] Coronatime, Month 3
At long last it appears as though things are loosening up. From what I gather, this is only partially because of relaxed government restrictions. It is mostly because folks are starting to get defiant, evidently Michigan is at the cutting edge of this defiance. We've all heard about the protests at the Capitol in Lansing. You'll have heard about them as either valid expressions of frustration and disagreement with the lockdown or greedy racist misogynist nazis looking to kill people, depending on your "news" source.
But there have been a lot of little things beyond that. A couple of weeks ago a 77-year-old barber opened his shop. He couldn't pay bills, couldn't support himself, so took all the precautions that he could then defied the shutdown order. In what was probably a foolish adherence to law, the State suspended his license and the police cited him. As far as I know, he is still cutting hair in defiance of everything.
I suppose that the judge's ruling is not indefensible but it strikes me as dubious. Another court affirmed the Governor's right to extend her emergency powers. So it seems there is this push-and-pull on who is allowed to do what. Many local police organizations are actively stating that they do not have the manpower or the inclination to harm their public relations by comprehensively enforcing those orders. The Governor has since extended our lockdown through mid-June, and it's getting increasingly hard for me not to see this, charitably, as an overreaction, or uncharitably as a middle finger to her opponents. Whether it's really what's best for everyone doesn't seem to be the main issue.
This is not really a big deal except as a way to point out that it never needed to come to this. Whatever the merits of her position, the Governor, who was elected as a compromising centrist, has positioned her messages negatively. She has spoken from a place of fear, wherein we all must suffer until we are safe, and as though the only thing saving us is to stay sheltered. The subliminal message is that we are at the virus's mercy. It would be a different story if she had said, "Michigan is opening. Here is the timeline for getting back to normal. Unless something terrible happens, nothing will stop that." From a practical standpoint there is no difference in policy, but putting forward the image of having a strong plan to open rather than a shelter-in-fear-until-it's-over message would have made all the difference in the world.
And, honestly, how on Earth did we make some grandfatherly barber who is desperate to make a living the symbol of lockdown defiance? Even though I question how much of a poor, sympathetic old soul this guy really is (note: he's got himself a high-end lawyer, he's also a part time novelist -- never trust a novelist), the "optics" here are atrocious. Would it not have been better to focus on high profile or overly egregious violations? Good grief.
The ultimate downside to all this is to remove the teeth from any future emergency orders. Suppose we open up a bit in June but things take a turn for the worse and we are ordered to go back on full lockdown after a month. Is anybody going to pay attention? The lawsuits against the lockdown continue to pile up and I know of at least one gym that has opened in stealth already.
Apart from the foibles of my pathetically mismanaged State, there is little new info. The CDC is now saying that it doesn't look like object contact is the main vector of transmission. Also, transmission outdoors seems to be pretty rare. People are looking at maps of the spread now and are slowly coming to the idea that broad-based transmission is not the big enemy, but the spread is focused in clusters along with all the implications that has for policy. We are still at a point where we don't know what is good or bad, or what is or isn't working. Every piece of data still has a confounding piece of data. Every story still has a valid counter-story. At this point, you have no justification to shame and sneer at the people who oppose you as being against science because science doesn't know yet. Meanwhile, unemployment remains historically high and the nation's economy remains on edge.
I continue to believe restrictions should be targeted, not state-wide. Rural counties have different issues than Detroit, why treat them the same? I know plenty of small retailers who have never had more than 10 people in their store at once, why treat them like Nordstrom? I know gyms that never have more than 6 clients in at the same time, why treat them like Equinox? I know lots of local restaurants that have outside seating (some exclusively), why treat them like Chilis? Base the policy on the ability to function safely rather than blanket by type of business.
I also think focusing on nationwide testing is probably not feasible and preparing for rapid reaction to new outbreaks is more practical, which follows along with the clustered outbreak evidence. I still think variolation should be in our toolkit.
But mostly, I think nobody cares what I think and everyone has already subsumed their opinion into their moral self-image and no argument -- scientific, statistical, or otherwise -- will change anyone's mind. At this point, beneath the surface of our grand proclamations and policies, we are a nation of people praying that, in a year or so, we'll be the ones who can say I told you so.
Addenda: Michigan is still on lockdown but Texas, where I spent a few days, is opening up. Restaurants are allowed 50% capacity so it was no trouble eating out. Of the three restaurants I ate in, only one took my temp on the way in. They were more strict where I got my haircut. They made me wait outside until a chair was available, checked my temperature, and had me keep my mask on throughout. Swimming in the pool was allowed but half of the lounge chairs had been removed. Again, I am impressed by the sense of positive action in Texas vs. places like California, New York, and, sadly, Michigan where the policy seems to be to duck and cover with righteous pride. Of course, that was rather the case before the plague too.
Addenda 2: After I wrote this we decided to have social justice protests and riots in a few big cities. Not much social distancing going on there (and, in fact, our Governor joined in). Above I questioned whether any future orders to return to lockdown would be followed by anyone. I think the protests have pretty much removed lockdowns as an option if there is a second wave.
I supposed one thing that will come out of this is finding out whether the restrictions really made a difference. Honestly, if there are no major breakouts in the places of mass protest, some health officials will have a lot to answer for. If there are major outbreaks the protestors are going to have lives to answer for.
But there have been a lot of little things beyond that. A couple of weeks ago a 77-year-old barber opened his shop. He couldn't pay bills, couldn't support himself, so took all the precautions that he could then defied the shutdown order. In what was probably a foolish adherence to law, the State suspended his license and the police cited him. As far as I know, he is still cutting hair in defiance of everything.
"I've been through so many of these things. I remember as a kid my mother used to make us sit in the basement because of the polio virus. I've been through the Hong Kong flu and the swine flu," he said.Subsequently, a local judge issued a ruling that allowed him to stay open because he believed the health officials needed to show this specific shop was spreading the virus, not just force a general order on it. Here's the full timeline, surprisingly (or perhaps not) from the UK.
Since he opened his shop again, business has skyrocketed, and a lot of people support his decision, he said. One customer drove from California just for a haircut...
I suppose that the judge's ruling is not indefensible but it strikes me as dubious. Another court affirmed the Governor's right to extend her emergency powers. So it seems there is this push-and-pull on who is allowed to do what. Many local police organizations are actively stating that they do not have the manpower or the inclination to harm their public relations by comprehensively enforcing those orders. The Governor has since extended our lockdown through mid-June, and it's getting increasingly hard for me not to see this, charitably, as an overreaction, or uncharitably as a middle finger to her opponents. Whether it's really what's best for everyone doesn't seem to be the main issue.
This is not really a big deal except as a way to point out that it never needed to come to this. Whatever the merits of her position, the Governor, who was elected as a compromising centrist, has positioned her messages negatively. She has spoken from a place of fear, wherein we all must suffer until we are safe, and as though the only thing saving us is to stay sheltered. The subliminal message is that we are at the virus's mercy. It would be a different story if she had said, "Michigan is opening. Here is the timeline for getting back to normal. Unless something terrible happens, nothing will stop that." From a practical standpoint there is no difference in policy, but putting forward the image of having a strong plan to open rather than a shelter-in-fear-until-it's-over message would have made all the difference in the world.
And, honestly, how on Earth did we make some grandfatherly barber who is desperate to make a living the symbol of lockdown defiance? Even though I question how much of a poor, sympathetic old soul this guy really is (note: he's got himself a high-end lawyer, he's also a part time novelist -- never trust a novelist), the "optics" here are atrocious. Would it not have been better to focus on high profile or overly egregious violations? Good grief.
The ultimate downside to all this is to remove the teeth from any future emergency orders. Suppose we open up a bit in June but things take a turn for the worse and we are ordered to go back on full lockdown after a month. Is anybody going to pay attention? The lawsuits against the lockdown continue to pile up and I know of at least one gym that has opened in stealth already.
Apart from the foibles of my pathetically mismanaged State, there is little new info. The CDC is now saying that it doesn't look like object contact is the main vector of transmission. Also, transmission outdoors seems to be pretty rare. People are looking at maps of the spread now and are slowly coming to the idea that broad-based transmission is not the big enemy, but the spread is focused in clusters along with all the implications that has for policy. We are still at a point where we don't know what is good or bad, or what is or isn't working. Every piece of data still has a confounding piece of data. Every story still has a valid counter-story. At this point, you have no justification to shame and sneer at the people who oppose you as being against science because science doesn't know yet. Meanwhile, unemployment remains historically high and the nation's economy remains on edge.
I continue to believe restrictions should be targeted, not state-wide. Rural counties have different issues than Detroit, why treat them the same? I know plenty of small retailers who have never had more than 10 people in their store at once, why treat them like Nordstrom? I know gyms that never have more than 6 clients in at the same time, why treat them like Equinox? I know lots of local restaurants that have outside seating (some exclusively), why treat them like Chilis? Base the policy on the ability to function safely rather than blanket by type of business.
I also think focusing on nationwide testing is probably not feasible and preparing for rapid reaction to new outbreaks is more practical, which follows along with the clustered outbreak evidence. I still think variolation should be in our toolkit.
But mostly, I think nobody cares what I think and everyone has already subsumed their opinion into their moral self-image and no argument -- scientific, statistical, or otherwise -- will change anyone's mind. At this point, beneath the surface of our grand proclamations and policies, we are a nation of people praying that, in a year or so, we'll be the ones who can say I told you so.
Addenda: Michigan is still on lockdown but Texas, where I spent a few days, is opening up. Restaurants are allowed 50% capacity so it was no trouble eating out. Of the three restaurants I ate in, only one took my temp on the way in. They were more strict where I got my haircut. They made me wait outside until a chair was available, checked my temperature, and had me keep my mask on throughout. Swimming in the pool was allowed but half of the lounge chairs had been removed. Again, I am impressed by the sense of positive action in Texas vs. places like California, New York, and, sadly, Michigan where the policy seems to be to duck and cover with righteous pride. Of course, that was rather the case before the plague too.
Addenda 2: After I wrote this we decided to have social justice protests and riots in a few big cities. Not much social distancing going on there (and, in fact, our Governor joined in). Above I questioned whether any future orders to return to lockdown would be followed by anyone. I think the protests have pretty much removed lockdowns as an option if there is a second wave.
I supposed one thing that will come out of this is finding out whether the restrictions really made a difference. Honestly, if there are no major breakouts in the places of mass protest, some health officials will have a lot to answer for. If there are major outbreaks the protestors are going to have lives to answer for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)