Words from 'both sides of my mouth'

A friend recently commented to me that concerning Covid19 I sometimes seem to be 'talking out of both sides of my mouth.' That one minute I was seemingly finding fault with government imposed restrictions and the other calling for personal caution. So I explained to them -- and will do so here as well -- that there is no contradiction, just a broad range of clearer and clearer facts that requires the two seemingly (but only seemingly) contradictory POVs.

When the virus was first upon us there was little data. But there were reports out of some parts of Italy, and then Spain, dealing with overwhelmed hospitals and a seemingly fearsome number of serious illnesses and deaths.

Responding to the "what ifs?" with strong measures -- especially since health professionals had long feared a repeat of the 1918 flu epidemic which killed millions -- was thus a reasonable response even if the specifics were put together in a hurry.

I'd compare this to the response anyone would be likely to make if they smelled smoke in their home. It'd not be casual. It'd not be slow. Everyone would be awakened. Its source we be sought out with urgency and with the tools in hand to put out any found flames.

And so our nation responded similarly to the reports of this virus.

Where was the smoke emanating from? China. Then Europe. And as in the case of a smoke in a home doors were shut to limit any fire's potential spread.

That was done by President Trump with typical alacrity. The left and their media voices of course complained. (As they always do with and about anything this president does no matter what.)

Since the perceived threats of and from the virus were quite different in various parts of our largely varying nation the specific local responses varied as well.

Sadly this was so not only in their intensity -- as they should have been -- but in their wisdom and their effectiveness. And as real data started to flow in -- something beyond mere fear -- again responses varied (and continue to vary) in their wisdom and effectiveness. 'Smart' leadership brought rewards to the people, incapable leaders brought various levels of hurt, confusion and pain.

Now we know, for instance, just who Covid19 largely threatens: The old and generally infirm plus those with certain pre existing and quite specific health issues.

This is not to say that no one else can get it -- or even, just possibly, become truly sick -- but that the number of such, as sad as each individual case may be, do not numerically call for a major shut down of a nation. Indeed, as is usually the case, giving very specific 'aid', both as to prevention of the disease among such, and focused care to those who actually require it, was as always not just generally wise, but in simple terms simply "good medicine."

And all of the above is, to use my friend's phrase, the "two side of my mouth."

Side one: Keep the politics out. See what is actually so -- who actually requires care re prevention and a cure -- and then do that with energy and wisdom and conviction -- just as you'd search out the cause of the smell of smoke I mentioned early on, above.

Side two: Act to protect *everybody* to the degree that they actually require such. Care for every American's actual needs -- this instead of looking to protect and advance the interest of specific groups -- politicians and their media handmaidens in particular.

The "two sides" then are equally real: The threat to some is real, the threat to others far less -- and indeed the threat of over action to these later far, far greater than the threat of this Covid19 virus.

Denying the above and spreading BS stories about who "created" the virus is -- sorry, but it must be said -- a childish and totally selfish response.

As is trying to frighten people who needn't actually be frightened -- and using this moderately bad (and only that) virus as a tool to take control of their lives while using misrepresentation of the facts -- fear mongering in fact! -- to do so.

No, I am not speaking out of "two side of my mouth." But I am speaking honestly and forthrightly about both equally important parts of this important story.


-

Can we again be "One Nation ... Indivisible"?

Last evening I shared on Facebook a short piece by rather middle-of-the-road (by my own standards) John Hinderaker entitled "Is Disunion in our Future?"    In it Hinderaker raised the real possibility of our country actually coming apart -- splitting in two.

Others less middle-of-the-road have been warning of that  occurring for a while now, and some are saying -- pointing to the burning and pillaging of various US cities by the left's ever angry hoards while supposedly "Democratic" legislators, governors and mayors, be it through action or inaction,  have in effect sided with the pilligers -- as proof.

The city of Portland (WA) -- once the seen jewel in the "woke" left lover's crown -- has seen violence, pillaging and destruction now every night for weeks -- and the toll on the city is far worse than the media is allowing the nation to understand.

Some say we've been here before. The riots and mayhem of the sixties was, they say, just as bad. Yet the sixties ended, prosperity and a measure of civility in time returned. "See!" such such say. "We've been through this before and it passed."

Only now, however, do many realize what else was occurring as this supposedly "passed." -The roaches hid away (in the universities) until the lights went out again. And lo and behold, here they are, more 'roachie' than ever.

Will the same thing come to pass this time? Will today's passions cool off and civility return to our nation?

My own expectation is that yes, the same will likely occur again. But for that to occur it will require that the 'fool me once, shame on you' "woke" -- those of all races and groups -- to admit they were used -- tricked! -- and, yes, vote in large numbers for to reelection of President Trump.

Is such possible?

I think so, yes.

For example I think of the middle class moms in Portland who no longer feels quite safe going into town -- and that's if her favorite shops are not already boarded up.

Will such go from "woke" to being actually awake to the degree that she was used?

Or the black middle class who had for a time welcomed the activists (black and white) -- taking them at face value -- only to realize that in reality those people shared none of the same concerns or interests.

My own semi-rural New Hampshire town still has totally peaceful streets, but even here of late there have been tensions mounting as the 'Portland, East" peeple (as perhaps only I call them) who have governed it are starting to be taken notice of -- and the harm they have been slowly doing to the town's working people's own interests.

What the future holds can not be reliably predicted. But if it is not to be division then it will have to be a pulling together on traditional American values. -Those that allows differences among us to exist because of the strength fo what holds us as a nation together. The supreme value of "life, liberty and the (personal) pursuit of happiness."

Then and only then can we be "one nation, under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.


_

"You say you want a revolution. Well, you know..."

"You say you want a revolution. Well, you know..."  So sang the Beatles back in 1968.

But the fact is that few "revolutions" work out well, or work out at all. That's a historical fact.

It shouldn't surprise us. Few ideas work out. Few last. What is old is not better because it is old. But it is often better because it has been tested. That's why it is still around. In simple terms "it worked."

The American revolution did work. Some see that as a near miracle -- one suggesting divine favor. Others see it as the one in a million that came together because a certain, rare, group of brilliant, imaginative, bold, studious, history-knowing men were together at the right time -- and that was "miracle" enough.

To say the American revolution "worked" is not hype. It is not partisan. Nor is it blind acceptance. Simply put, it did. It accomplished what it set out to accomplish and benefited -- this in very real ways -- more people than any other single act of man.

But that is not to say that it does not have enemies. Nor those who for any number of reason wish to see it undone.

Nor does it suggest that it is the end all/be all of human progress.

On the other hand this can be said: Those trying to bring it down today -- including those who say they are trying to "improve it" be it via "fundamental change" from within, or from without via riots and destruction, have shown no reason whatever why they should be either believed or trusted.

Few "brilliant" ideas pass the test of time and experience. And the ideas being put forth today are not even that. They are built on shallow thinking, almost childish word play, ignored contradictions -- and to the extent they have been tested -- and some have been tested! -- they have proved devastating to those upon whom that test has been conducted.

Anyone honest and wishing to see can find this out. Historically it is so. Internationally it is even now proving so. And even domestically one need just look at the places where its "ideas" have been tried and look at the results.

Human beings can for a time rationalize anything that offers them a seeming advantage. But a look at American prosperity and how it has proven open and advantageous to such a wide range of people demonstrates that the central truths of the American Revolution STILL are the best hope for, not only "mankind," but for each of us as individuals.

"Life." "Liberty" "The pursuit of happiness" -- each come to the degree that an individual personally applies the life principles that first led to the American Revolution, and then to its lasting success.

These principles may be considered 'old hat,' "bourgeois," "middle class" or any of a hundred other names put upon it. But 'cut to the proverbial chase' and one finds that their truths still are just that: Truths.

That hard work pays.
That free people are the most productive people.
That personal responsibility is required.
The dependency fails.
That the 'old fashioned" moral values are constant.

That all the above especially matters in youth -- when it must be taught.

That parents can pass these principles and modes of thinking and living along by word and example, but that no other method of teaching them is nearly as reliable.

That denying traditional moral values, and calling debased things by fancy new names, does not change their long term effects.

That the so-called "Judeo-Christian ethic" builds better, happier, lives for both individual people, and for communities, than any other tried method.

That short cuts to contentment --- be they high or low, practiced by the rich or the poor -- that ignores all the above simply do not work.

America -- the one given to us by our forebears -- does work. Is working.

Cut out the clamor. Look about you. The above is as true today as it ever was.

That is not a "belief." It is a fact.



-