Why are they asking for amnesty? Perhaps because nothing will prevent things like this from finally coming out:
The gotcha is that they cannot claim ignorance. People literally warned of these results and were treated horribly by those who smugly claimed “science” was on their side.
P.S. The underlying story that generated the article above is this:
Part of the argument for “COVID-19 amnesty” is that we didn’t know early on how COVID-19 behaved or what the outcomes/effectiveness of certain approaches would be. Is that true?
I could have added this as an update to an earlier post today, but it deserves its own entry. Well-written, thoughtful piece by Mary Harrington:
The penultimate paragraph:
We all knew every pandemic policy would come with trade-offs. The lawn-sign priesthood forbade any discussion of those trade-offs. I don’t blame the class that so piously dressed their own material interests as the common good, for wanting to dodge the baleful looks now coming their way. But no “amnesty” will be possible that doesn’t acknowledge the class politics, the corruption of scientific process, the self-dealing, and the self-righteousness that went to enforcing those grim years of lawn-sign tyranny.
P.S. That may be the first time I’ve ever used the word “penultimate.” Did I do it right? 🙂
UPDATE: Francis Turner has a point:
I’m willing to forgive people but has to be a quid pro quo that is an acknowledgement that there is something to forgive.
In this article:
It has an interesting prerequisite to forgiveness:
After watching this video, I was reminded of the “Three R’s” of forgiveness promoted by Dr. Laura Schlessinger, talk show host, and author. She was one of my must-listen-to hosts in the early 1990s…
The approach Schlessinger offered to avoid “toxic forgiveness” involved Remorse (expressing real regret), Repair (taking action to fix the consequences of behavior), and Not Repeating the action.
That is worth considering.
Worth a read. We should not forget…
Charity toward fellow human beings died during the pandemic…
Not only is Jim Breuer a hilarious comedian, he’s actually somebody who has been brave during the pandemic. Recently, I saw he posted an entire comedy special on YouTube. Sadly, I cannot embed it here, but you can watch it directly on YouTube.
But these large racial gaps in vaccination have not continued — and as a result, neither have the gaps in COVID death rates.
Instead, COVID’s racial gaps have narrowed and, more recently, even flipped. Over the past year, the COVID death rate for white Americans has been 14% higher than the rate for Black Americans and 72% higher than the Latino rate, according to the latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
It is a remarkable turnabout, a story of both public health success and failure.
I don’t necessarily agree with all his conclusions, but Ben Shapiro has a point:
Although I don’t support Jesse Kelly’s harshness in his quote tweet, my reply asks questions that have had me scratching my head for a while around politicians (and others) wanting to prevent access to certain, potential COVID-19 treatments.
I think 3 question are left out of this conversations:
– Will it hurt me to try it?
– Do you have an alternative? If so, is it unquestionably effective?
If a drug won’t hurt me and you don’t truly have a guaranteed alternative (or I can take it and the alternative), let me.
— Alan Fahrner (@JegErAlan) February 13, 2022
The Lord has blessed me, thus far, and I have not caught COVID-19. However, if I do and it is severe, why won’t they let me take what I want?
P.S. Before you assume I am anti-vax (or the like), I have had my primary series and a booster.
This is one of my tweets from last night:
Well, I figured if I am going to get blamed for it, I might as well do it. Just made a donation to the Freedom Convoy (albeit small). I encourage others to do so to.
Does this mean I approve of everything they are doing? No. I don’t even approve of everything I do (sadly).
— Alan Fahrner (@JegErAlan) February 12, 2022
I think the final sentence is important. I always support the right to protest, even if I disagree wholeheartedly with your take. I do not support lawbreaking (with some exceptions: e.g. when laws themselves are clearly immoral).
So, during the summer of 2020 protests, I did not approve of the intentional, prolonged blocking of Interstates. I’m in line with Jazz Shaw (writing about a protest in New Zealand):
While I do not approve of blocking traffic as part of a protest, particularly when there is a risk of emergency response vehicles being isolated, there’s no question that the entire Freedom Convoy concept is rapidly turning into a movement and spreading around the world.
And, Freedom Convys are a movement that I support.
So, am I a hypocrite?
I think not, but maybe. Thoughts:
- I noted that I don’t approve everything they are doing. In the end, I have to decide if I support something overall. In this case, I do.
- New rules were established by the MSM, progressives/liberals, and governments in the summer of 2020. Heck, in Seattle they literally took over a section of the city, and the city treated it as a valid form of protest. Consistency (and morality) means you cannot approve a method of protest only based on the views of the protesters. So, I may disapprove of the tactic, but they should get the same “kids gloves” treatment the 2020 protesters got.
- The only prolific law-breaking the Freedom Convoy is doing is blocking traffic. That doesn’t mean it is okay, but…looking back at #2…you can’t say, “No way! It must stop!,” when you were explictly (or implicitly) approving protesters burning down buildings, looting businesses, beating and killing people, etc. during the
protestsriots of 2020.
Speaking of consistency, I have repeatedly said, since the beginning of the pandemic, that rights are for things are bad, not for when they are good. COVID-19 has been the excuse for totalitorian control, for why rights have to be “temporarily” given up, because it is such a huge emergency. It’s for our own good. To save grandma.
Although I do not discount the noble intentions of many involved, that’s not how rights work, the path to hell is paved with good intentions, and…
Not to mention, it wasn’t all with good intentions.
Thanks you Canadian truckers!
This is such a devastatingly tragic thread. 🙁
All I can say is, “Don’t look away,” especially if u supported the draconian measures. Not 2 shame u, but so u (& we) won’t repeat our mistakes…& so that we can have empathy 4 (& ask forgiveness from) those we harmed so horribly. https://t.co/I4QO4nv1ua
— Alan Fahrner (@JegErAlan) February 10, 2022
“How do you respond when an anti-vaxxer dies of COVID?”
The same way you should respond with a pro-vaxxer dies of COVID:
I wish the complete article wasn’t behind a paywall. We can all use Martin’s words…you should check out Hot Air’s snippet at the link above.
I am of two minds with this, “You have to choose, Joe Rogan or me” that Neil Young, Joni Mitchell, Nils Logrin (and more?) are doing with Spotify.
First, I abhor people trying to get other people deplatformed. (I abhor the action, not the people.)
However, I respect individuals willing to personally sacrifice for their beliefs. I don’t know who owns whose catalogues, but I am going to assume that it’s not in Young’s, Mitchell’s, or Logrin’s best monetary interest to reduce the reach of their music.
At a minimum, I think the three are misguided, and probably lean on the side that what they are doing wrong, but I don’t think that the answer is to attack them back, try to get others to stop listening to their music (itself a form of deplatforming), etc.
And I hope that Joe Rogan tries to get them on his program to discuss their differences of opinion (and that they accept).
In the end, we are all trying to navigate difficult waters in a fog, and we are all guaranteed to hit some rocks here-and-there. That should lead to compassion, not judgment.
I’ve got a lot of respect for people who stand up for freedom:
Greg’s monologue, directly:
If I were traveling with the truckers, this is the song I’d be listening to: 🙂
Although tenuous “impact to others” has been been abused by those who…actually…want to control others (including you), we do have responsibilities to others. With that in mind:
Assuming it is true, and believing that (probably) the majority of what NYC is forcing on folks around COVID-19 is bogus, this is wrong.
- You should be allowed to decide your own risk.
- Your friends, aware of your condition, should be able to decide their own risk.
- But, when the risk is not of the tenuous type that is abused, you should not be deciding others’ risk. If accurate, Palin decided eating out was worth risking the health of the staff and patrons of the restaurants.
I tried to find the “other side of the story,” but I could not locate anything indicating Palin has responded; just this:
And, since it is behind a “you have to create an account to read it”-wall, I don’t know if “dodges” is legit.
If you have COVID-19, stay away from other people. Yes, we would not necessarily have done that with the common cold or the flu, but…let’s be honest…that is a reasonable request, isn’t it?
Final note: I am very disappointed in Palin, and her behavior hurts “her side” (and the side of us who believe much of the reaction to the pandemic is overblown, immoral, etc.) However, the “punishment must fit the crime.” She shouldn’t be treated like she just committed murder.