At the beginning of the outbreak, I thought coverups — private and public sector — would happen right away. Which is yet Reason # 10 billion why the idiots who think the media have over-counted the infections and deaths are . . . well, idiots:

Covid Gag Rules at U.S. Companies Are Putting Everyone at Risk Employees say the biggest names in American business have banned them from alerting others to coronavirus outbreaks.

Excerpt:

Lindsay Ruck was just starting her Father’s Day brunch shift at the Cheesecake Factory in Chandler, Ariz., when her boss told her a co-worker had Covid-19. In between making bloody marys, Ruck shared the news with several of her colleagues, who’d been worrying about such a moment since the restaurant reopened the month before. At the end of Ruck’s shift, when she went to the back office to count her cash, her boss and another supervisor were waiting.

Her boss, the general manager, told her she wasn’t allowed to mention the coronavirus case to anyone, including fellow staff. The company was informing only the people who’d worked during the sick employee’s last shift, and, per Cheesecake higher-ups, even the information that any worker had tested positive was deemed private, Ruck recalls. Realizing she could be among those kept in the dark about the next sick colleague, she filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board and took a couple of weeks off while awaiting the results of a Covid test and weighing whether to keep working there. After getting a negative test result, she returned to the restaurant, in need of the paycheck.

That is a good video, WV.

Syriza. I was thrilled when they won, and that Varoufakis was their finance guy — at least for short time. A (supposedly) truly leftist movement takes power in Greece, and then . . . Well, it’s complex, but they basically succumbed to the ferocity of austerity and Varoufakis couldn’t prevent this from within.

Speaking of excellent videos, this one by David Harvey goes well with yours:

The Crisis of Capitalism

____

P.S. We all live in glass houses, of course, to one degree or another. So that’s baked into what follows:

IMO, some folks on the left spend far too much time attacking this or that person or party for failing to push for better social welfare programs. While vast improvements along those lines are obviously needed, and urgently, the root of our problems is the existence of capitalism, not the absence of a better safety net. Urging the addition of a better safety net, while laudable, while necessary in the short term, still falls woefully short. It will always fall woefully short. It won’t end poverty, hunger, homelessness. It won’t prevent catastrophic climate change. It won’t stop the Sixth Extinction. It will reshuffle the deck chairs on the Titanic to a degree, and provide a few more life boats. But the ship will still sink. And it doesn’t have to be.

Clinging to this horrific economic system, which is quite literally economic apartheid, is sheer madness. Expending all of our energy trying to offset its horror show of effects is sheer idiocy. The very acknowledgement that it requires those offsets tells us we should dump it altogether. Replace it seed, root, tree and branch with economic democracy, from the ground up. All of us co-owners, by writ and right, under a new constitution. No proxies. Direct ownership.

That’s the only way we survive as a species. That’s the only way most life forms survive the 22nd century.

Zooey wrote:

This stands a chance of becoming the longest thread ever.

I think you may be right. So much to criticize, so little time!

;>)

ZN,

Thanks for repurposing this. Likely saves tons and tons of energy and refuse in the bargain. And we Americans are incredibly wasteful.

Sidenote: Am currently reading Hope Jahren’s excellent The Story of More. About climate change, waste, pollution, cruelty to animals, endless greed, etc. etc. It makes you want to dance and sing!!

. . .

Also, to repeat:

I am in no way saying that leftists qua leftists should refrain from blasting away at all deserving rhetorical targets, including the Dems. I may be on an island about this, but I just see it as counterproductive when leftists with audiences do so in the current context, and 70 some days before the election.

And, as is my wont, more in the next post. But, I promise to be short. I really do!

More on that pressure stuff.

This is an Op-Ed, and should be read as such, but it does include actual quotations from our madman in chief and links to other evidence, including scientific research, which is why it’s particularly relevant. I also happen to think the author draws solid conclusions from that evidence:

Trump’s ugly new conspiracy theory only underscores his weakness

Excerpt:

Another deranged conspiracy theory

That’s because Trump’s new announcement came packaged with another demented conspiracy theory. Trump had rage-tweeted that the “deep state” was getting the Food and Drug Administration to delay trials for coronavirus vaccines and therapeutics, for the explicit purpose of harming his reelection. He even cited FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn in the tweet:

The deep state, or whoever, over at the FDA is making it very difficult for drug companies to get people in order to test the vaccines and therapeutics. Obviously, they are hoping to delay the answer until after November 3rd. Must focus on speed, and saving lives! @SteveFDA
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 22, 2020

Trump’s new announcement was immediately denounced by scientists and physicians. As The Post reports, many felt the announcement had “misled the public by overstating the evidence behind a therapy that shows promise but still needs to be rigorously tested.”
AD

Specifically, Trump overstated its immediate benefits. He claimed it is “proven to reduce mortality by 35 percent,” when in fact, the FDA itself offered a much narrower assessment, saying patients under 80 who also met a range of other conditions were 35 percent more likely to be alive one month later.

Meanwhile, some experts said even the FDA’s conclusions hadn’t received enough examination. Importantly, they noted all this could have adverse consequences: The overstatement of the treatment’s value and scientific grounding could create a false public sense of security about the coronavirus. As one noted: “The reality is what we have today to treat covid is extremely limited.”

Also . . . and more importantly . . . Trump should go to jail for stuff no one’s even trying to nail him for:

Kids in cages; using the military to attack peaceful protestors; tampering with the Postal system; suppressing the vote via that system; the massive destruction of our environmental protections; his criminal neglect, leading to nearly 180K Covid deaths (likely a major undercount) . . . and countless cases of outright fraud, grifting, using the office to feather his own nest, etc. etc. I need a lot more coffee to list all of his “sins.”

In short, it’s for the stuff that has been investigated, and the stuff he’s done that should be but won’t be.

wv wrote:

Well Im fine with fast-tracking a vaccine. I’d be very surprised if any President in any nation did not fast-track it, if something looks promising.

The thing is they have to be honest about the risks, etc.

w
v

I think the radically new thing here is this:

No president in our memory has used so many strong-arm tactics on various agencies, all to benefit him personally. From where I sit, this is unprecedented. The bullying, the public shaming, the sending in various hatchet men to accuse them of being “Deep Staters!” and “You’re just doing this to hurt me in the election!”

Trump is obviously desperate, and he’s relentlessly fixated on his reelection, cuz he knows he’s likely doing jail time if he loses. I can’t think of another president — perhaps Nixon? — with that kind of thing forever hanging over his head, defining his policy decisions, executive orders, etc. etc.

And, of course, it’s one thing to “fast track” this or that. It’s another thing entirely to bully scientists into dropping numerous (essential) testing phases along the way. And given Trump massive deregulation of corporations, businesses in general, finance, environmental protections, workers’ protections, etc. etc. . . . this latest move fits an obvious pattern.

Do everything and anything to make Trump look better, no matter the costs in blood or treasure.

WV, thanks for the hat tip regarding James C. Scott.

Just finished his Two Cheers for Anarchism.

https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691161037/two-cheers-for-anarchism

It’s really good. Very accessible, almost “breezy” in style at times, it takes us on a journey through the whys and wherefores of societal change, resistance to change, resistance to the status quo, etc. etc. Only quibble with the book is it’s too short (roughly 200 pages). I wanted more.

It ties into your comments regarding the difficulties of breaking free . . . pretty much starting at the family level. A patriarchal family and how that already pretty much trains us to go along with authority, nearly without question, then onto school, the workplace, the economy, government and so on, and all the pressure points set up to tie us down. But Scott shows how often people still find ways to rebel, mostly small, mostly unnoticed, etc. So it’s that push/pull between nearly impossible odds, and persistent, often creative attempts to rebel.

You know a lot more about Scott than I do, but it seems, via the title and the book’s content, he’s not fully in the anarchist camp, but is open to much of its (wide-ranging) philosophy, and he gives examples why it makes sense. He talks about looking at things through an anarchist squint. Traffic lights and patterns, small farmers and artisans, getting rid of tests and metrics that end up leading to just getting better at those tests and metrics, etc. etc. The Heisenberg Effect as well.

Good stuff.

Anyway . . . NC is still a treasure. Don’t know how he does it, especially at 91.

This shit pissing me off to no end:

https://www.businessinsider.com/delta-anti-mask-navy-seal-bin-laden-2020-8

Robert O’Neill, the former Navy SEAL famous for his role in the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, was banned by Delta Air Lines on Thursday for refusing to wear a mask on a flight the day before.

O’Neill tweeted a maskless selfie on Wednesday captioned, “I am not a p—-.” He deleted the tweet five hours later.

On Thursday, he tweeted that the airline had banned him.

Good on Delta. A thousand bravos!!

It’s not about you being a “p___”, you selfish fuck! Wearing the mask all but stops the transmission of the virus to others, you selfish piece of shit!

nittany ram wrote:

No, but his shirt looks “redder”. Maybe that’s what’s throwing you off.

Seriously I’ve seen a lot of talk about Goff putting on weight since last season but I can’t see it in any of the photos I’ve seen.

He needs to get stronger. It was a huge factor in Brady’s development. But more important, IMO, is his delivery, his mechanics. He just takes too long to wind up and throw.

Wish he’d study Peyton Manning, 24/7. Brady’s really good there too. Get the ball up around the ear, then fire, fast. Up fast, fire fast. No towel-whip windups.

All kinds of reasons why this is essential, but the obvious one is this: It takes the heat off the offensive line trying to protect him. Plus, it gives his receivers an advantage setting up DBs. Plus, it drives great pass-rushers bonkers. Just ask Aaron Donald.

Good article from Nathan “the hero” Robinson.

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2020/08/sometimes-the-chicken-kills-you-though

A sidebar within the article will break your heart. It’s about the beyond obscene treatment of chickens, and by extension, pretty much all animals raised to be our food sources. Chickens as subject are introduced as a metaphor/(false) binary choice at the start of said article.

An excerpt:

We need to reject the view of politics embedded in Sedaris’ analogy. The reason I bring up salmonella is to point out that it’s not inherently a given that someone with a (D) after their name is the best choice. We have to examine the candidates carefully. Yes, the Republican Party in this country is so monstrous that there are almost no conceivable circumstances in which voting Republican is the better choice. But to refuse examine your own candidate, to ask even the most basic questions about “how are they cooked” and what they stand for, means that over time you’re probably going to end up being served worse and worse chicken, because the airline staff (DNC) realize they can get away with serving you something that’s extremely close to a plate of shit and you’ll still eat it.

My colleague Briahna Joy Gray explains this more eloquently and less disgustingly in her “Defense of Litmus Tests.” Briahna points out that when we make it clear at the outset that we have few standards for our party’s candidate, and we will vote for them regardless of how much they depart from or even betray our values, we are preemptively surrendering the leverage that we need to use to get better candidates. One of the most absurd moments in the Democratic primary was when progressives were asked if they would support the Democratic candidate even if it was Michael Bloomberg, a racist, sexist, Republican billionaire who might arguably have actually been worse than Trump. But this is what you get if you make it clear that you’re willing to be pushed around, to sit silently and eat your poisoned chicken.

Notice how passive the voter is in Sedaris’ analogy. They are strapped into their seat, and their only ability is to make a binary choice between two meals. Presumably, since this is supposed to represent an election, it is not possible to “not eat at all”—they’re going to get something, and if they remain undecided, the airline staff will force-feed them the plate of shit with tiny bits of broken glass. (Not even Spirit does that yet.) We do not participate in making the meal, we just have to accept what we are given.

But we can’t accept that candidates are just going to be handed to us and that our role is to pick the least fecal one. There is no reason we cannot have good meals, but voters have to see themselves as active participants in the political process who get to make demands of their parties, who do not just have to accept a menu of options that has been pre-decided for them.