Guest Post by Melissa Pedersen
Sometimes people use "respect" to mean "treating someone like a person." And sometimes they use "respect" to mean "treating someone like an authority."
And sometimes people who are used to being treated like an authority say "if you won't respect me I won't respect you" and they mean "if you won't treat me like an authority I won't treat you like a person," and they think they're being fair. But they're not and it's not okay.
"Autistic Abby" - Tumblr, April 2015.
"The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark is a 1995 book by the astrophysicist Carl Sagan, in which the author aims to explain the scientific method to laypeople and to encourage people to learn critical and skeptical thinking." - (Wikipedia). It is the book from which these quotes are gleaned. It is this blogger's hope that folks (not just Americans, either) reading this post meditate upon Mr. Sagan's words. Especially the "QCumbers" and Q Adjacents among us.
I worry about the lack of critical thinking I see nowadays. Today, I saw a post that illustrates my point perfectly on Avian Flu Talk, AKA Pandemic Talk, a site on which I am an adviser. This post came from my friend Maggie, who is a mod on that site:
Now I do agree that people have the right to believe whatever they would like to believe. For instance, the anti-vax stance portrayed above. It is certainly the individual's right to hesitate in getting a shot because they fear thimerosal, the form of mercury used as a preservative in vaccines. But how many have truly looked up the the history of thimerosal in vaccines? And how many have a mammoth-sized reticence of the tiny amount of mercury in a vaccine, shed quickly by the body, but no thought at all of the massive amount of mercury and other contaminants in their air and water, which they are exposed to every day?! (Swallowing a camel while straining out a gnat? -- Melissa Pedersen).
For some, of course, the concern is not the thimerosal, but the belief that, for example, "the Covid vaccines will change your DNA!!!" (People, calm down! The Covid vaxxes on the market are not DNA-based, most of them are RNA-based. RNA ≠ DNA!). Here is an article explaining why that is significant, and why an RNA-based vax will not change your DNA. And here is another. Nor do vaccines cause autism. Not that any of that will make a difference to those who seem determined to borrow trouble, for as Maggie states in her AFT signature: Believers don't need proof, and skeptics won't accept proof. And that is their prerogative. But then they take other, sometimes innocent people along with them for the ride, down the rabbit hole, or wherever the hell they go...🙄.
Hopefully, there will be enough of us taking the vaccine that we will achieve herd immunity (which the skeptics will benefit from) without them. The alternative is not a happy place to go... But I do not dispute their right to choose, I only question if making a choice without using critical thinking skills and doing due diligence on a topic, is truly making a
choice
NOUN
an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities.
"the choice between good and evil"
synonyms:
option · alternative · possibility · possible course of action · solution · answer · way out
Addendum, 3/20 -- And this is why I always saythat people have a Constitutional (and God-given) right to be stupid. It's not the act of making a decision that someone else might disagree with that is stupid, or the decision itself. It's the act of going thru life on auto-pilot, of doing things without thinking, and without stopping occasionally to make sure we still have all the facts, and have them straight. To make sure the decisions we made 20 years ago still work for us. Are we the same person we were 20 years ago, or even last week? And who are we listening to when look for direction to make a decision? People who have been studying something for 30 years, or some self appointed social media genius? Why are we sure someone on YouTube or Twitter has our best interests at heart or is less likely to have an agenda we don't know about? Because they seem to agree with us maybe?
It's also interesting that in America much more than in other countries unless it is threatening or sometimes hate inspired, most speech is protected by the Constitution, even if it's inaccurate, misleading, or downright erroneous. It's as a result too often left unchallenged and uncorrected and then it's read and digested and maybe added to by others who don't fact-check and the errors build upon each other.
When I was young, I admired Amelia Earhart. I was always surprised though that people would rather believe that she was captured and killed by the Japanese or that she had gone underground to do spy work during WW II and after that, had had plastic surgery to alter her appearance and then went to some quiet little town in New England to live as a mystery woman. More likely she and Fred Noonan just made a small miscalculation in plotting navigation and then unavoidably made more mistakes that built upon the first one, getting more and more off course, till they ran out of fuel, ditched their plane and drowned. Almost 85 years later and we still believe silly stories rather than likely logic. And we still make huge mistakes that really are a lot of small mistakes that build upon each other. -- Melissa Pedersen
So, the protests carry on in Portland, OR. The last two days of demonstrations have included crowbars, hammers, bear spray and firearms, as well as a fire set outside the federal courthouse entrance. The reasons for the protests included not only the trial of Derek Chauvin, who had third-degree murder charges reinstated in the George Floyd case, and is awaiting trial after a jury is seated; but also the extension of a tar sands pipeline from Canada to Wisconsin.
This blogger condemns anything other than peaceful protests, but it is hard to do so wholeheartedly.
I want to at all times stand for the advancement of progressive values. And I certainly recognize that there are those on the right hand side of the aisle whose minds are sufficiently open to the possibility of injustice and the righting of it. Protesters/fellow progressive patriots, we owe it to ourselves to take the high road in order to give those folks a chance to decide to stand with us. There is strength in numbers, and we sure could use their help. If we attend protests ultimately wielding weapons, setting fires, and destroying property (besides it being intrinsically wrong), we become everything those more conservative folks fear, and we turn them against us, making it easier for them to rationalize inaction against the injustice, and the injustice itself, which is almost universally followed by corresponding power grabs by the moneyed/powerful ones behind the injustices.
Not to mention making it easier to rationalize when some of their cohorts are the violent ones, like on January 6, and to a large extent last summer.
But then, if we do things by the book, we have the reasonable expectation that we would have our grievances fairly and thoroughly addressed. This would be the result we would expect of a peaceful protest. That is what the other side would owe us as befits good-faith actions on the part of us, the peaceful protesters.
And this is the crux of my less-than-whole-heartedness. Look at history, and judge for yourselves if peaceful protest and operating within the law has any more than rarely ended up in anything but status quo:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_incidents_of_civil_unrest_in_Colonial_North_America
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_incidents_of_civil_unrest_in_the_United_States
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_racial_violence_in_the_United_States
https://time.com/5542892/kitty-marion--suffrage-birth-control/
https://www.history.com/news/night-terror-brutality-suffragists-19th-amendment
https://prohibition.themobmuseum.org/the-history/the-road-to-prohibition/the-temperance-movement/
https://www.history.com/topics/gay-rights/the-stonewall-riots
You can see by reading a bit on those links, and researching a bit, that those movements started off peacefully. Still, little or no change was enacted. Eventually push came to shove. Unfortunately, just about every major social change or revolution has been accompanied by violence. Why? Because those not being marginalized denied that marginalization was taking place, either out loud or by evincing no reaction to the marginalization. Since the majority consociation held the power, the marginalized group was able to achieve no change. The status quo prevailed until the marginalized group took a "No Justice, No Peace" type of position, then change was gradually, sometimes quickly affected. Isn't it just easier, more peaceful and cost-effective to grant and enforce everyone's equal rights?
Nonetheless, I am calling for both sides in this matter to do the right thing. Protesters, be peaceful, without exception. And establishment, address the grievances with thoroughness, equity and dispatch. To ignore them, as is history, is to say those grievances are meaningless. And is to say that the people who have those grievances are worth less than you. And a wise man once counseled against considering people "worth-less" - Matthew 5:21-22. That kind of treatment is its own form of violence. Socially-accepted, passive-aggressive violence, but violence nonetheless. And you have no right, therefore, to complain when karma comes back around in the form of more violence.
Most importantly, fence-sitters, those of you who know in your hearts that these injustices are going on or are considering that they might be: You are the ones who actually have the most power here. I implore you -- investigate, do what is right. If you don't, you will account for it in some way, shape or form later, I guarantee. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
https://news.yahoo.com/rioters-set-fire-federal-courthouse-162333860.html
For Andrew Cuomo.
Why?
For starters, Lindsey Boylan, former Deputy Secretary, and special advisor to Cuomo. Boylan claims Cuomo kissed her, and "would go out of his way to touch me on my lower back, arms and legs," as well as once suggesting they play strip poker. What a way to sweep a girl off her feet!
Or how about Charlotte Bennett, Cuomo's Health Policy Advisor? She reported uncomfortable conversations about dating, whether she was interested in dating older men, and the fact that Cuomo was open to dating a woman in her 20's. What a charmer!
"I understood the governor wanted to sleep with me, and felt horribly uncomfortable and scared. And was wondering how I was going to get out of it, and assumed it was the end of my job," said Bennett. The next week, she informed Cuomo's Chief Of Staff, Jill DesRosiers, of these awkward conversations, whereupon Bennett was quickly transferred to another job. The Governor's Special Counsel, Beth Harvey, acknowledged Bennett had made the complaint, and had then been transferred away "to a position in which she had already been interested." How convenient! But Bennett has told interviewers that she likes her new job, and other than hoping that telling her story will empower other harassment victims, she just wants to move on, a pretty common feeling after being sexually harassed. Bennett went on to say, in part: "To the Governor’s survivors: I am here. Lindsey is here. You do not have to say a single word. But if you choose to speak your truth, we will be standing with you. I promise.”
After we heard from those two ladies, Anna Ruch came forward to describe her encounter with Governor Hot Pants. Ruch, who met Cuomo at a wedding in 2019, says Cuomo placed his hand on her lower back, and when she removed his hand with hers, Cuomo remarked that she "seemed aggressive" (!!!), so he put his hands on her cheeks, and asked if he could kiss her! (Governor-dude, if you think Anna Ruch was aggressive, you oughtta be damn glad you didn't try that stunt on Your Crusading Blogger, who would make Lorena Bobbit look like Pollyanna if anyone unwelcome tried a move like that on me). Obvious case of blood pooling too low and not circulating up to the brain.
After thinking about it for awhile, the good Governor decided to cooperate with an investigation launched by New York Attorney General Letitia James. Considering that he is in the super hot seat with two scandals going on, that might have been the prudent way to go.
Your Crusading Blogger held her tongue (and her keyboard) in her hands last year when it came out that Cuomo had signed an order requiring nursing homes to admit Covid patients. I withheld judgement (and scorn) because our elected officials just about universally ham-handed the pandemic, first by inadequately planning for one, and thus having to constantly play catch-up with a novel, quick-changing and complicated virus. Let's face it, the lowest-hanging fruit that we had to deal with first was personified by President It'll Go Away In The Spring-Inject Bleach. And I certainly felt alot of sympathy for our nation's governors as they tried to navigate the pandemic with no real, consistent, solid leadership from a centralized federal government. Instead Trump left pandemic response up to the states, and allegedly showed favoritism for red states, and those states whose governors showed "proper appreciation" of his efforts on their behalf.
Now that controversy is back in the limelight as it has come out that Cuomo's aides allegedly fudged numbers on reports containing nursing home deaths. Not cool. Not furthering of progressive values. Most importantly, not compatible with preserving the life, health and welfare of the people whom Cuomo was elected to serve. If Cuomo felt he did right last year, why the cover-up? This blogger believes that if they had known Cuomo would conduct himself in this manner, most New Yorkers who did, would not have voted for him.
Many other countries keep their politicians honest with the concept of a "no confidence" vote, where opposition parties can, under certain circumstances, call a special election to settle whether a given politician should be retained after a controversy. Certainly there are circumstances, and I believe this is one of them, where such a concept would be of great utility in the American political system. I maintain that there are occasions (the previous president being one, also), where the American system makes it unnecessarily difficult to remove a particularly bad leader, especially when unfitness for office is caused or abetted by moral or mental illness, and further buttressed by politics. I refer to the blind loyalty of most leading Republicans to the previous president, no matter his conduct. I put such blind loyalty in the category of selling one's soul to the devil. There is always a day of reckoning for such enablers. But I digress. I certainly can also see how a "no confidence" vote situation could be just as easily misused by an opposing party to "play politics" when political winds aren't blowing their way, so "no confidence" should not be permitted to be entered into easily, but with ill-suited leaders abounding, I'm sure most of us agree something needs to be done.
I'm starting to wonder, between this ignominy, the recent conduct of former New York (remember when he was America's?) Mayor and former Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani,
plus that of a few other folks from that neck of the woods, if there isn't something in the water in the Great State of New York...
Addendum: As I was writing this post, two more accusers have come forward:
(Of course, leave it to Faux News to finally take sexual harassment seriously, as long as the allegations are against a Democrat, wink).
