The Delusional COVID Honor Code and Its Risk

We are at a critical point in our fight against COVID.   We have finally reached the point in the pandemic when, as a result of mass vaccinations and new case numbers coming down drastically, most states have fully reopened, several are scheduled for June.   Only two have set no date. 

But there's a catch.   Roughly half of the population has not been vaccinated.   And what is government's response to this catch?   Regarding mask mandates, it ignores the problem.   

The general guidance is that if you are fully vaccinated you don't have to wear a mask except in the limited situations defined by the CDC - airplanes, public transportation, etc. By deduction, that means that if you aren't fully vaccinated you should still wear a mask in all situations.   But I have not seen a sign anywhere that says, "If you are not fully vaccinated you must wear a mask to enter."

Everyone is operating on an honor system.   That is, if someone is not fully vaccinated they will wear a mask.   

Clearly in many situations, like stores, it would be impossible to police mask wearing, so one has no choice but to follow the honor system.   But at least the sign at the entrance should clearly state that if you are not vaccinated you must wear a mask to enter.   Or one could say, recognizing the risk, that everyone still must wear a mask, whether vaccinated or not. 

But even at the gym I go to, they are using the honor system.   Here it would be very easy to require people to present proof that they are vaccinated when entering the gym.

So what is the problem with an honor system?   It sounds very American.   

The problem is that many of those who have decided not to be vaccinated, for political or anti-government reasons, are the very people who were against mask mandates to begin with.   They will not now voluntarily don a mask because they haven't been vaccinated. 

And so you have half of the population that is still highly susceptible to infection by COVID most likely not wearing masks and thereby putting both themselves and those around them at risk.   For those who are vaccinated the risk may be relatively low, at least for the infection to be serious, but the risk is still there. 

We are thus risking another COVID surge.   Granted it may be limited to half the population, but that would still be bad for the economy, schools, our return to normalcy. 

At one point, there was discussion about having vaccine passports for entrance to all sorts of venues that put people in close indoor quarters - such as planes, theaters, restaurants.  That idea has been discarded because it was felt that it would impinge on people's right of freedom of movement.   But does one have a right to risk infecting another individual?  No.

Masks mandates should still be mandatory for those who are not fully vaccinated.   And in all situations where it is practical, proof of vaccination should be required before being allowed to enter without a mask.  Where it is not practical, until we reach herd immunity, everyone should still have to wear a mask. 

From a public policy perspective, perhaps such a policy would even encourage some people who weren't going to get vaccinated to get it.   That would be helpful. 

Bottom line, the government must do what it can to protect us from more damage from this pandemic. 

Man Is Not Wired for the World He Has Created

Why is man so beset with the ravages of insecurity and fear?   This lack of a feeling of security and the endless competition of modern life has left man unable to experience any peace with himself.   One may point to those with strong egos as being an exception, but in reality those who exhibit a strong ego have been found at their core to be very insecure.   Man is typically fully functional, but he is not at peace. 

Why does it matter?  If man is fully functional, so what if he is insecure and not at peace?  The reader may think that sounds like new-age hogwash.   

If man is insecure and not at peace, he cannot have, despite his best efforts, healthy relationships with his spouse, children, parents, and colleagues; he cannot act rationally in his best interest; and the insecurity leads to the violence, cruelties both large and small, and inhumanity that we see evidenced everyday.   And so there is no end to the dysfunction and the psychic suffering in this world.

Take a moment, or actually many, to think about your relationship with yourself and others.   If you think deeply, allowing reality to replace illusion, you will know that what I have just said is true. 

But back to my original question, why is this the almost universal state of man.   A strong clue comes from the comparison of aboriginal people* with not just contemporary man, but really man since he left the aboriginal life style.   Certainly man since the time of the Buddha, which was 3500 years ago, which predates the period when the Old Testament is thought to have been written. 

From what we know of aboriginal man, primarily from first-hand experience of aboriginal groups which remained intact, that is to say isolated, as late as the first part of the 20th century, aboriginal man lived happy lives not consumed by fear and other neuroses and emotions normally associated with man.   Close to home, we know this about American Indians before they were corrupted by contact with the White man.   Hence the phrase, "noble" or "innocent" savage.  

But while they were certainly innocent of the world of modern man, innocent in a similar sense to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, they were not innocent of the world they lived in.  They were aware of the significant natural and physical challenges that they faced in life.   But despite the hardships, or what we would certainly view as hardships, it did not impact their spirit and their sense of self.   Why?

Although aboriginal man was able to speak a different, and we believe a more exact and nuanced, language than animals spoke, and they had a more developed brain, their lives were in important ways more similar to that of our immediate primate ancestors, the large apes, than to modern man.   They lived off the land much as animals do and were deeply connected to it.   Their communal life was similar to that of the larger apes.   

Perhaps most importantly, for their psychic health, was their after-birth experience and the way they raised their young.  Birth, being thrust out of the womb, has to be a scary experience. When an animal is born, it is typically licked all over by the mother and is always next to the mother’s warmth until weaned. Aboriginal mothers, sans the licking, cared for their babies in much the same way.   But now when a baby is born, at least since Victorian times, it is slapped on the behind, washed by a stranger, rolled up in a blanket and given to its mother to be held and fed before being put in a basinet by itself. Not a nurturing environment. 

When a child is born, he has four basic needs:  food, freedom from pain, warmth/nurturing, and physical security. These are what I have called the four irreducible needs of all human beings, indeed probably of all sentient beings. In particular, a baby’s need for nurturing, for unconditional love, is almost without limit. So from the moment of its birth, a modern baby finds that its needs are not met, and the first seeds of insecurity are sown.  An animal's needs, on the other hand, unless it is the runt of the litter, are met. 

Aboriginal children are raised much as young animals are raised . . .  communally.  Thus they play together with other children from an early age, they are watched over by all adults, not just their mother, and they practice through their games basic, necessary, functions of life.   From the very start, the "I" of the child is more an "i," and all thoughts are in the context of "we."

Man is an advanced animal.  He is another species but not another life-form, class, or order.   And so he is biologically and developmentally "wired"  - –meaning all of his mental and other functions - for life as an animal.  And there has been almost no evolutionary development, mutations, of man since he appeared on this earth tens of thousands of years ago.   He has developed his brain and his skills, but these have not been evolutionary changes.  He is wired as he was at the dawn of man. 

So what happened when aboriginal man moved into a non-communal setting where he had to fend for himself?  How did he function?  Uprooted, he did what he had to do, he depended on his wits for survival and growth.   And so the "we" and "i" of communal life became the "I" of modern life.   Whether living on a farm, in a small village, or in a modern city, he has had to depend on himself.   He had to compete with others for his livelihood, especially once he left the farm. 

At some point also the way newborn babies were cared for and children raised changed because of the new lifestyle.   Except for the rich, where children were given over to the care of wet-nurses and nannies, babies were cared for pretty much as was "natural" until the advent of modern medicine and the establishment of hospitals.   As to being raised, for most children in the West, being inducted into adult life meant childhood labor, acting as an individual, not being part of a communal group that passed into adulthood together.   For those with money, they were not sent to work, but they passed through their lessons and education as individuals, competing with their peers.   In all cases, whether rich or poor, they were left totally adrift of the security of both parents and communal peers and instead needed to survive based on their own wits. 

And this has affected man terribly.   Some may be successful, powerful, rich, but they are at their core insecure, unhappy persons.   And of course the mass of people are not successful, powerful, or rich, but they are still at their core insecure, unhappy people because they are a product of our society. 

So if man is not wired for the world he has created, what do we do?  We can't change the world.   It is what it is.   There is no chance of reverting to the past, to a "back to the past" future.   

The only thing we can do is do what the Buddha and other prophets have taught:  change the way we relate to ourselves and the world around us.   Learn to accept things the way they are, know that you will be ok, safe, regardless what life throws your way because you have everything you need inside you to be at peace and happy, and thus be able to react to whatever you experience with dispassion, free of labels, free of the intervention of your mind.   

Obviously your mind will have other ideas.   It won't be agreeable to this way of looking at yourself and the world.   And so you must free yourself from your mind; all the emotions, judgments, cravings, and attachments that cause you pain and suffering are a product of your mind.   So say to them all, "Not me!"

And so you will rest undisturbed, and when you do, nothing offends, and when nothing offends there is nothing that interferes with you taking joy in each moment and having faith that you will be ok, safe.   Yes, there is something circular here, but that is typical of Buddhist thought.

This perspective will allow you to be in this world, interact with it, but respond to it in a spiritual way, not the way you've been trained and raised to do, through the mind.   This way of approaching life is not about separating yourself from the world; this is about changing how you interact with it.

_______________

*I use the word aboriginal not as a synonym for indigenous, but in an anthropological sense, denoting a simple, often hunting-and-gathering, village-oriented communal society.   Many such societies may make up a tribe or a people, but the societal unit is the village commune.   This is in contrast to indigenous people such as the Inca and Astec who developed complex civilizations that were not communal. 

Vaccine Passports Should Be Required

There is much controversy over whether airlines and other close-quarter non-essential venues can require proof of vaccination for entrance.   As a public health measure, not only should companies be able to require it, the government should mandate that vaccination is a prerequisite whether to boarding a plane or going to a movie or live theater or dining-in at a restaurant.   If you are not vaccinated, you potentially endanger the life of another person and so you must pay the price. 

Such restrictions on people who are not vaccinated are not without precedent.   Many schools require that children are current with their vaccinations, barring religious or health exceptions, in order to attend school.   And in states with mask mandates, people who don't wear a mask in enclosed venues, even essential ones like grocery stores, are denied entrance.

Is this step necessary to protect the public?  Yes. Despite the fact that the US vaccination percentage was increasing at a good pace, the number of new cases per day climbed again, due probably to a combination of spring break travel and the newer variants spreading more quickly, together with people not wearing masks.   Recently the number of daily vaccinations has decreased.   It cannot be said at this point that the virus is under control. 

From a public health perspective, the virus must be brought under control.   The human cost of the pandemic in the United States has been huge.   In another month, we are likely to be at 600,000 deaths.   This virus cannot be beaten by half measures. 

The problem we face is two-fold.   One problem is that a sizable portion of the population (surveys show a range from 25 - 39%) is hesitant or has actually indicated that it will not be vaccinated.   The problem is worst among Republicans, those in rural areas, Blacks, and those aged 18-49.   The other problem is that again a sizable portion of the population (anywhere from 15% to 50%) refuses to wear masks and take other measures to reduce the potential of both transmitting or becoming infected with the virus.  While there is no data on the overlap of these two groups, it is probably more likely than not that these two population subsets are largely coterminous and therefore especially dangerous. 

If such a large percentage of the adult population does not get vaccinated and if a similar proportion refuse to wear masks in public, we will not be able to get the virus under control.   The numbers will surely go down, but there will remain a sizable risk and masks with social distancing will continue to be required of all.   A return to normalcy is not in the offing. 

Given this underlying public health and social problem, which is created not by the virus but by the attitudes of people, people who are not vaccinated should be refused entry to all non-essential enclosed spaces, such as airplanes, restaurants, and theaters. 

But the reader may ask, if everyone has to wear a mask on airplanes or in a theater, why should being vaccinated be required?  Two reasons.  First, many people are careless about how they wear their masks, not covering their nose, so they may be wearing a mask but still present a risk.   Second, at least in planes, people often take off their mask for a period of time either to eat, drink, or just because they're tired of wearing a mask; you can bet the same would happen in a dark theater.    And as a side note, we all long for a return to normalcy.  If everyone in an airplane or theater was vaccinated, we wouldn't have to wear masks.   What a relief that would be.

People may have a right not to get vaccinated or not to wear masks, but they don't have a right to thereby endanger the health and lives of others.   Thus if you insist on this personal choice, you have to accept the limitations placed on your movements for the public safety. 

Reform the Filibuster

The filibuster's purpose used to be to achieve an important government objective - foster bipartisan compromise and thus have measures pass with support from both parties.   Filibusters today have a totally different purpose - to prevent the majority from moving forward with its agenda with absolutely no intention of compromise and support. 

Understandably, therefore, talk is rife among Senate Democrats (not just the progressives) to kill the filibuster.   It is hardly likely in this highly partisan atmosphere that voting rights legislation, or any of the key Biden initiatives will be able to get the key 60 votes, which would require 10 Republicans in this Congress, needed to move a measure to a vote. 

The filibuster was designed in and for a different political world.   One where the partisan lines were not so hardened, where party discipline was not so strict.  In the current atmosphere, the filibuster promotes minority rule.   That goes against the principles of our democracy. 

But rather than kill it, i would suggest the following reforms.   First, require that those choosing to filibuster work for it, as in the original rules.   Require that Senators truly filibuster, hold the floor with non-stop speeches.   And second, require that the filibuster end within a given time frame, perhaps a few days.   If negotiations for a bipartisan compromise are not successful, the majority should be able to pass it's desired legislation.  That would allow opponents to make their point and encourage negotiations, but it would not allow minority rule. 

The White Man's Burden — Revisited

The white man's burden

Rang loud and clear

Trumpeted by church and state alike. 

Exercise dominion over the colored savages. 

Cleanse them of their heathen ways. 

Civilize them in Western manners,

And bring wealth and power

Back to your homeland. 

And so in search of his holy grail

The white man plundered

The colored world. 

He stole the riches of the

Incas, Aztecs, and Native American Indians,

Vietnamese and Asian Indians, 

Yoruba, Ashanti, Maasai, and Zulu,

Not just gold and gems

But land, precious ancestral land. 

The white man created a world of

Homeless people, 

Uprooted from their land,

A key to their sustenance and sense of self. 

He forced his faith, the Christian faith,

Upon the conquered peoples,

Belittling the faith of their fathers,

Robbing them of another aspect of 

Their sense of self. 

Much as he tried to do with his fellow white man,

The Jews, who although not heathen

Were held to be infidels, Christ-killers. 

The self-righteousness of the Christian white man

Knew no bounds. 

And in the process of plundering and colonizing,

The white man committed genocide

Against the colored man. 

In Mexico, Central and South America,

A population of 38 million when the Spanish arrived

Was reduced to 6 million 200 years later. 

In North America, a population of 7-12 million

Was reduced to 237,000 by the end of the Indian wars. 

In Africa and Asia numbers are not available,

But the slave trade stole 17 million from their

Ancestral African homes and way of life

To toil under the lash of slavery. 

Although the majority of deaths were caused by Western disease.

Acts of purposeful violence and population control were common.

The record of United States history 

Against Native Americans in this regard

Is clear and transparent. 

These lands were not, as the white man likes to say,

Uninhabited and available for settlement. 

They were home to millions of people in

Long-established civilizations, with

Vibrant cultures and religions. 

The white man will say that

Slavery was abolished, recognizing its evil. 

But while it was abolished, not the Civil War

Nor the 13th and14th Amendments,

Nor the Civil Rights laws

Restored the Black man to his 

Rightful dignity and respect

As a human being

Because the dominant white culture

Would not accept that;. 

Though no longer slave

The black man was held inherently inferior.

As a result, now in the 21st Century

The white man, or better put,

The Christian white man

Has a very different burden. 

It is the burden of having committed

Crimes against humanity

For hundreds of years

In the quest for power, dominance, and wealth. 

To relieve himself of this

Spiritual and social burden,

The Christian white man must

Atone for his sins,

Both those of today and those of his forebears. 

Atone by acknowledging these

Acts of inhumanity and genocide

Through public commissions and hearings. 

By changing all history books to 

Accurately state the abundance of

Indigenous culture,

It's destruction by the white man,

And the role of even these 

Decimated populations and imported slaves, 

And their descendants, in the development,

And yes, often even the defense, of

The new nation state. 

Atone by adopting an attitude of

Remorse and understanding 

For the suffering that his actions

Have caused colored people 

Both in the past

And continuing to this day. 

Atone, most importantly, by finally offering

The colored man respect and true equality. 

The white man's burden is huge,

His responsibility for past evil is vast. 

The need for him to atone for past sins

Is self-evident if he wishes to be considered

A human being,

A child of God.

 

Mourning the Loss of Gay Neighborhoods

It may seem insignificant or self-indulgent in the era of Trumpism and the pandemic, but I mourn the loss of gay neighborhoods.   Across the country, whether in New York City, Philadelphia, Chicago, or San Francisco, and I’ve read also around the world, the vibrant gay neighborhoods (“ghettos”) that provided shelter (in the broadest sense), nourishment, and a feeling of community to gays and lesbians for decades have become a pale stand-in for their former selves.

What happened?  The most common explanation is that with the greater acceptance of gays and lesbians by the broader society, culminating in the legalization of same-sex marriage, people no longer felt the need to congregate and they chose instead to assimilate.  Some point to real estate pressures, but I feel that is mostly bogus.  It has to do with the desire to assimilate. 

But the question remains, “Why?”  Why would you forsake the feeling of community and camaraderie of living in a heavily gay and lesbian neighborhood for life among straights?  Why would you trade the vibrancy of these neighborhoods for the relative sterility (from a LGBT perspective) of straight urban areas let alone the suburbs?

The clear answer to me is not a pretty one.  Despite 5 decades of burgeoning gay pride activities and marketing, that feeling is trumped by the more deeply-rooted internalized homophobia that is still strong among gays (I cannot speak for lesbians).  This is what the experience of societal and familial homophobia has done to us as individuals.

That is why so many choose assimilation over community.  Why the desire to see themselves as “normal” is so strong, and why they themselves still define “normal” with reference to straight norms, not the norms of the LGBT community.

There is a lot of talk and display about celebrating our difference.  There is much flaunting of that difference in Gay Pride Parades.   For many, if not most, however, it is just talk.  People mouth the words, but they have no deep meaning.  I do not minimize the valid importance for many gays and lesbians of marriage and having children.  But I do think that part of that importance is the stamp of normality that it provides.

Yes, we are out today.  In that sense we have come far in the last 50 years since Stonewall.  But with the greater acceptance, and now even marriage, comes the temptation to fulfill the desire to be “normal" while still being gay.

I have been out for 50 years.  During that time, I have cherished my straight colleagues and their embrace of me.  I was very fortunate.  We were of one mind about politics and values, what a human being should be.  We had complete respect for each other.

But I never wished to adopt a straight persona, to be like them.  I cherish my gayness.  We are different, blessedly so.  Sometimes outrageously so. 

I came out while living in Chicago’s “Boystown.”  Gays were everywhere at all hours of the day … on the streets, in the grocery store, the local bookstore.  The community was not just defined by gay bars.  

More recently I have lived in Philadelphia’s former gay neighborhood, NYC, and Boston, and the scene was not what it once was.  Now it is just defined by the bars; so few gays still live in these neighborhoods that they are invisible unless you have Gaydar.  I missed the comfort and easy camaraderie of being, of living, among fellow gays.  

Even knowing what I understand now, I still find it hard to accept that people would give that up for living in straight neighborhoods.  We live our work lives in a straight world, and as I’ve experienced, it can be very rewarding and enriching.  

But we should want to be at home in a neighborhood where we are part of a gay culture, a milieu, an ambiance that is special and that affirms who we are.  For the same reasons that ethnic neighborhoods are special and worthy of preserving - for the city, it creates a vibe which is stimulating; for the neighborhood residents, it fosters maintenance of their identity and provides a sense of belonging which the larger culture never provides.

As with many aspects of culture, what is lost is irretrievably lost.  Assimilation is healthy for society up to a point; it is important that citizens feel a commonality, that there be a social compact. Beyond that, however, assimilation is destructive of the richness of diversity that makes life interesting and a society vibrant.  Our society, unfortunately, aided by the conforming influences of technology and globalization is marching towards a homogenous world.  How sad. 

America's Broken Towns and Cities

For the first 300 years of its existence, the towns of America's colonies and then states were more or less self-sufficient. Yes, they brought in goods that were manufactured in other cities or states, but the fabric of the daily economy was all local.  Even as late as the 1950s, you bought all of the goods you needed in local stores owned by locals.  Yes, there were supermarket chains already then, like A&P, but even they were embedded in the town and felt local.  

There were no malls and suburbs were just starting to grow. The focus of everyone's life was the local downtown, whether it was a small town or a larger city.  Downtown was where the action was, whether it was making a needed purchase, socializing with friends, or seeking entertainment.  It was vibrant. 

Even the major shift from the United States being an agricultural economy to an industrial economy, with its migration of people from rural areas into urban ones, did not change this basic aspect of local life.  Even though things weren't quite what they once were, rural America was still functional  Towns were real towns with stores and services.   If you needed something not available locally, you ordered it from the Sears and Roebuck catalog. 

But with the advent of mass-produced suburbs and expressways courtesy of Eisenhower's interstate highway program, and the suburban malls that they spawned, the focus of the America's local economy and life changed.   In rural America, the nearest Walmart became the new village.  I don't know if because the malls were spanking new or because they consisted mostly of chain stores which were known through advertising, but Americans deserted their local stores in favor of these flavorless, characterless, shopping and eating venues. 

For example, within the course of two decades, by the 1980s, downtown Reading, where I grew up, the 3rd largest city in Pennsylvania, was a dead zone.   Soon to be recreated as an office center by tearing down many of the old buildings and replacing them with brick office buildings.   Many store fronts were empty.   Many filled with low-priced merchandise catering to the now-poor in-town population.   The movie theaters were all shuttered.   Even the fabled Crystal Restaurant was no more.   Pomeroy's Deparmtent store held on for a few more years, but it was hopeless.   The changed dynamic of the life of the city was clear. 

This is the pattern that has repeated itself across all of America.   Virtually no place was spared.   And in time, this pattern of modern development even took root in Europe, even in France.   I read an article in The New York Times a while ago that told how the old regional centers in France were now empty of local commercial life, which had been replaced by the suburban shopping mall.   I read an article about how local bakeries, once the epicenter of local German life, no longer existed.   Bread was now baked in large bakeries and sent around the country.   No more freshly baked rolls from the corner bakery for breakfast!

This change from local self-sufficiency to big box stores is the reason why our cities, not just our rural areas, are mostly dead zones, except for offices.   And this is why rural small-town America has turned into a lifeless space, where drug-addiction is a major problem.   Further, people may still be living in the country, but they have lost all connection to the land.   They are not inspired by the land or nurtured by it.  Not only don't they farm, but they typically don't even have a vegetable garden.  It's more convenient to go to the local Walmart or supermarket and buy groceries. 

If there is to be any hope in saving America, it does not lie in some "new idea."  It requires going back to the future.  It means rebuilding a local economy based on local business in a local downtown.   I have no idea how one goes about doing that.   Perhaps a smaller city that still retains the infrastructure of their downtown could through government grants encourage the rebirth of local storefronts and restaurants, and a rebirth of local life downtown.   This should be a focus of HUD in the Biden administration.

If we don't change the dynamics of local economies and life, if we don't rebuilt local communities, then we will continue down a path with less meaning, more ennui, more drugs, less social interaction, and eventually a total breakdown of all social norms in a technologically-addicted society.