Coronavirus - are we all doomed?

[Isaac]

Well, I agree with the implication that from the high view of things, unfortunately, if the existence of extreme viewpoints without balance is going to be a fact, sometimes the most effective antidote is the same thing on the other side. But I'm pretty sure with human nature the way it is, we'll always have plenty of both. However, even that strategy is the result of a careful, calculating viewpoint whose end desired outcome is....balance.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Since this thread has talked about balanced and unbalanced treatments, I guess I'll have to admit to being unbalanced. Oh, wait, we were talking politics?...

The concept of balance applies in politics like it does in other parts of life, and even in the Yin/Yang symbol. (And would you believe that the smilies on this forum don't include that symbol?)

The whole point of the government laid out by the USA Founding Fathers was that EVERYTHING was seen as compromise in a world which was guaranteed to be impermanent in its characteristics, with what we call "checks and balances" to prevent a runaway government. We don't have a king or a royal family with power. England's monarchy is symbolic because they are governed through Parliament. We don't have a permanent dictator like North Korea. Our leader potentially gets changed out every four years. Our members of Congress change out potentially every two years for the House and six years for the Senate.

For a long time, Congress did what was called "logrolling" - originally a big balancing act by a lumberjack rolling a log in a lake and trying to stay afloat / above water on a constantly moving, slippery surface that bobbed up and down, tilted, and rolled. The government found many compromises and kept the country going, trying to find a balance point that offered at least some care of poor people but allowed people who could do it to not stay poor. Welfare and Medicare and Social Security are some examples of offering help to poor people.

I'm not sure I can put a date on it, but a long time ago we started slipping away from the compromises that kept us going reasonably well. Here is the thing about compromises - NOBODY likes everything about them but EVERYBODY likes something about them. "Every dog gets a bone." Well, a lot of people decided that wasn't enough and wanted more. But a funny thing called reality stepped in. Sometimes there IS no more. Witness Greece from several years ago. Witness the City of Detroit within the last few years. I believe Chicago isn't far behind. When too many people demand too much and claim it as rightfully theirs, they ignore the fact that they didn't earn it.

The "entitlement" mind-set is largely to blame for the problems here. Poor people have lost track of the fact that taking stuff from someone else is theft or robbery. People (particularly prominent Democrats) bemoan the loss of Democracy, forgetting that we never had it. There was a phrase that was popular a few years ago speaking of the "tyranny of democracy." A "true" democracy can reinstate slavery against a minority and make it law. This is what the Founding Fathers desperately wanted to avoid. That is why we have TWO chambers in our legislature and why their representation is not handled identically. One is by population, the other by geo-political boundaries. Thus, in the Senate, Wyoming and Vermont (the two least populous states) have equal footing with California and Texas (the two MOST populous states.) The House is based on population alone, with a rough average of one Representative for every 700,000 persons (give or take a few percent due to rounding).

This bizarre dichotomy means that the tyranny of the majority has to get through the Senate where all states are equal. You can't easily ram-rod a bad piece of legislation through Congress except in rare moments when the "election pendulum" has swung too far, leading to serious imbalance in the Senate. Recent case in point: The Affordable Care Act a.k.a. Obamacare.

Since the 2nd Amendment to the constitution defines the right to keep and bear arms, it will take a constitutional amendment to revoke that right. Which means that amendment would have to be ratified by 2/3 of the states (rounded up). That's 34 states. So back to Tera's question on whether we would be able to do something about gun rights - surely we can. But we have to get 2/3 of the House AND 2/3 of the Senate to agree and then we would have to get the president to sign it. We CAN make changes; we have done so in the past; but I do not see this one coming any time soon.

 

[moke123]

Since the 2nd Amendment to the constitution defines the right to keep and bear arms, it will take a constitutional amendment to revoke that right.

In addition to Docs explanation, we have a third branch of government, the judiciary. In theory, they could interpret (define) the 2nd amendment to only encompass a well regulated militia therefore precluding gun ownership by private citizens.

 

[Jon]

It depends on what you mean by balanced. If someone has a different view to someone else, the average of these views isn't necessary a balance. It is just another view somewhere on the political continuum. It does not mean the average view is any more rational than the other view. It does not mean that they see the other point of view clearer than the person who is not in the centre.

And some issues are binary. One says we need X, the other says we need not-X. The "balanced" person can't make up their mind.

 

[Steve R.]

In addition to Docs explanation, we have a third branch of government, the judiciary. In theory, they could interpret (define) the 2nd amendment to only encompass a well regulated militia therefore precluding gun ownership by private citizens.

The "militia" consists of private citizens. The terms "militia" and "well regulated militia" have been subject to extreme debate as to their meaning.

On the word "militia", Wikipedia: "During colonial America, all able-bodied white men of all ages were members of the militia, depending on the respective state's rule." So the simple fact that you were a white male between certain ages made you a member of the "militia". This simple "simple" interpretation and concept appears to have died out over the years in favor of a more "formal" structure (organizations), such as a State's National Guard. Nevertheless it seems that even today private citizens are members of the "militia". Today, there is a more formal definition, the "militia" is now divided into two classes: organized and unorganized. The unorganized "militia", being anyone not in an organized "militia".

As to "well regulated militia", from a short CNN paper: "27 Words: Deconstructing the Second Amendment

One of the biggest challenges in interpreting a centuries-old document is that the meanings of words change or diverge."Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined," says Rakove. "It didn't mean 'regulation' in the sense that we use it now, in that it's not about the regulatory state. There's been nuance there. It means the militia was in an effective shape to fight.

"In other words, it didn't mean the state was controlling the militia in a certain way, but rather that the militia was prepared to do its duty.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

In theory, they could interpret (define) the 2nd amendment to only encompass a well regulated militia therefore precluding gun ownership by private citizens.

@moke123 - yes, they could - except that I believe that has already been tested and found to not be the correct interpretation. By the Supreme Court's principle of stare decisis, they would not revisit that decision soon. For those not up on their Latin, that is "let the decision stand" - meaning "don't go revisiting cases or hearing new cases when we've already resolved this question.

 

[moke123]

Until a new question comes up and the court agrees to hear it. 30 years ago who would have thought the court would have to define the word "Sex"

 

[AccessBlaster]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It doesn't say the right of the Militia, instead it says the people. This is why the founding fathers are under attack along with the Constitution. These were very smart people.

 

[moke123]

At the time it was written all people (except blacks and indians) were required to be in the militia.
Prior to Heller, the right of individual citizens to bear arms existed only within the context of participation in the militia. Heller overturned that precedent.

This can be argued, un-neccessarily, all day

 

[AccessBlaster]

Apparently not, or else it would have been over turned by now.

 

[Isaac]

We may still have more modern versions of a militia than you might think. In my state several major Sheriff's departments, ones big enough to encompass practically the whole state's population, have what's called a Posse. It is comprised entirely of armed citizens, trained as volunteers in various law enforcement support activities. That is about as close to, if not actually, a real life example of a still-existent militia, as you could want.

Even if the court overturned 200 years of stare decisis on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, that would just be the first hole in the damn. Next there would be a flood of compelling arguments just on the basis of the state's power of policing and state's rights alone, which might, at worst, end up leaving the decision up to the states. Then you might have liability fights over defenseless people who'd been victimized vs. firearms control orders from officials. These are all just "might happen" ideas I thought of, but it seems very unlikely that a truly sweeping disarming policy could survive its practical application unless our entire legal system was changed.

Even if it was actually successful! Then there would be one more step. Presumably we might become like Chicago. Post-implementation, people might realize the ineffectiveness and change back ...

 

[Steve R.]

You may be able to own a gun, but soon it may be illegal to buy ammunition for that gun. The La Times reported on June 9, 2019: Gun owners stockpile ammo before new California background check law begins. The Sacramento Bee reported on April 25, 2020 that Stay granted in California ammo case, restricting sales again using criticized database. I don't know if there is any subsequent news. The take-away from this type of "obstructionist" laws is that unless successfully challenged, the imposition of this type of law will incrementally become more onerous essentially negating the 2'nd Amendment.

A related event: New York attorney general sues to dissolve NRA, sets up gun rights group for political damage. The intent of "attacking" the NRA is to disable the ability the the pro-gun lobby to protect gun rights. This is similar to the Obama administration's unlawful use of the IRS, a government agency, to castrate the Tea Party, a lawful poetical entity.

 

[moke123]

A related event: New York attorney general sues to dissolve NRA, sets up gun rights group for political damage. The intent of "attacking" the NRA is to disable the ability the the pro-gun lobby to protect gun rights. This is similar to the Obama administration's unlawful use of the IRS, a government agency, to castrate the Tea Party, a lawful poetical entity.

New York was not alone . . .
https://thehill.com/regulation/cour...onal-rifle-association-foundation-for-alleged

Pretty similiar to https://www.npr.org/2019/11/07/7772...pay-2-million-over-misuse-of-foundation-funds

One odd thing a friend told me the other day.
He ordered ammo online to be shipped to his house in N.Y. He said he had to pay $1.00 more to have it shipped in a plain brown wrapper as opposed to the regular shipping box.
Obviously this is done to skirt the laws.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Obviously this is done to skirt the laws.

Sorry but that's not true, FedEx UPS and others have partnered with the ATF to have all firearm related material regulated. The extra cost is do to the special handing of explosive materials. Ask me how I know, I live in a heavily regulated state California.

Sorry for the edit:

 

[Steve R.]

@moke123: Democrats are fanatical adherents to Lavrentiy Beria philosophy of: "Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime".

 

[moke123]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1291412757540044800

 

[deletedT]

@moke123 the ending part reminded me of something. It's a long while back when I had joined to AWF. But I never forget it. Somebody told me we have guns to protect ourselves, you have knives. What's the difference. I couldn't help laughing.

 

[dynamictiger]

I am sorry if some of this is already said, however i am not reading 65 pages of posts.

I am sitting in one of the few places in the world where our cases are in single digits and the virus hasn't established itself in our community.

In addition, as it happens, my main work is related to bacteria eradication and public health issues. And as a helpful looking glass I have lived/worked in several other countries and states.

I think this mix of experiences gives me a unique perspective.

The observations I have made is:

- Isolation is our friend. I read somewhere we are the most isolated capitol city in the world
- Boring is our friend. I regularly read that we don't get many tourists as we are kind of boring...and to be honest I think that may be true to some views.
- Conservative and generally co-operative population
- Political leader who is plain speaking and keeps the message on point

I have been monitoring the actual data, not what the press would have us believe, but the actual data in our state. In looking back as far back as 22nd of March the data was showing we had very low if any community spread. However we didn't lock down till 27th of March. By the 2nd of April the numbers were dropping through the floor, and this has continued.

In contrast other parts of the country have gone the reverse. In comparison part of the reason is the conservative population. About the 12th of March I held a staff meeting. I suggested I was concerned with where this COVID thing was going and I asked my staff to consider not going to gyms and other facilities where they used shared surfaces or equipment. I expected a bit of support and a lot of grumbling. I was surprised to find all my under 30's staff supporting this. I think this alone speaks to our generally conservative population. In other countries, I have been in I am fairly certain I would have got a lot more 'lip' about this and the attitude would be one of 'what do you know'?

Coronavirus is tricky. We have not defeated it previously and it has been with us for a long time. This particular one is nastier than the more common cold. It is interesting to read the vaccination studies and heartening to read some as they are suggesting some potential to work.

The Spanish Flu died out, (broadly assuming) it had infected so many and the community built a combination of resistance and management to handle it, leaving it nowhere to replicate. Perhaps this may happen, one can only hope.

I am optimistic one way or another this situation will be resolved. To a certain extent it simply must. Whether that is by eradication of the actual virus, drugs to treat the infected, a vaccine for the population or adapting to live with this thing, I am unclear. Humans live with Flu and that kills a lot of people. I think malaria kills more people (in a year) than this thing has, last I checked, and we don't fuss about that. To a certain extent the coverage by media of this is disproportional to the actual issues. Its a little like watching a shark feeding frenzy as the press pumps out doom and gloom on an hourly basis. I wont go into press on this post, however, I do not believe a single news item in mainstream media, a lot of the time the statements are 'perhaps extreme' or 'isolated views'.

 

[AccessBlaster]

The Spanish Flu died out, (broadly assuming) it had infected so many and the community built a combination of resistance and management to handle it, leaving it nowhere to replicate. Perhaps this may happen, one can only hope.
I am optimistic one way or another this situation will be resolved. To a certain extent it simply must.

Virus strain: Strains of A/H1N1 the spanish flu Lasting from February 1918 to April 1920, it infected 500 million people–about a third of the world's population at the time–in four successive waves. The death toll is typically estimated to have been somewhere between 17 million and 50 million, making it one of the deadliest pandemics in human history.

We are in for a bumpy ride.

 

[deletedT]

I think malaria kills more people (in a year) than this thing has

I think that I think is not enough for me. Specially when it comes from somebody who works within Public Health issues frame.
I'm very interested in what you're trying to tell us. That we don't need to be afraid of this virus? How many people are dead by malaria per year?
Up to now corona virus has left at least 733,234 dead. and it's not even a year. And it's world wide. While Malaria's death has been mostly within Africa continent. (and pandemic in only 31 countries).
Not that I want to say African countries doesn't matter for us, but the widest a pandemic grows, the widest the concerns.
Plus we know how to stop malaria, but we have nothing to fight against Corona Virus.

In 2018, there were an estimated 405 000 deaths from malaria globally,
compared with 416 000 estimated deaths in 2017, and 585 000 in 2010.

soruce:

The "World malaria report 2019" at a glance

The main figures and data published in the World malaria report 2019 all in one page

www.who.int

Edit:

and we don't fuss about that. To a certain extent the coverage by media of this is disproportional to the actual issues. Its a little like watching a shark feeding frenzy as the press pumps out doom and gloom on an hourly basis

I really don't understand why everybody tries to blame everything on media. So many people are dead, so many infected, so much damage to each nation's economy and you expect media to shut up and go on their regular programs?