My company has decided to force us to use our vacation time, which I have mixed feelings about. I had been thinking I should take time off, anyway. Everyone is handling the stresses of our current situation differently - some people seem to prefer being distracted by work, and some days I'm one of them. Other days? Its a struggle to focus on the job.
So... I'm not exactly upset at taking time off? But, at the same time, this is vacation time I won't be able to use later this year... and if I were to take time off, well. There are things I'd rather use it for than to stay at home during a pandemic.
Anyways, I've scheduled most of the Friday's off this month, except for the week I'm on call. Oh, and I'll take the week of Memorial Day off (because of my birthday).
It does give me time to blog, at least. :) I wanted to continue on with some more thoughts on... well, society and economic options, I suppose.
Before I continued, well. I am reminded of this article, the title of which occasionally haunts me.
"I don't know how to explain to you that you should care about other people."
There's a lot of room for debate in the things I'm talking about - whether something should be public, private, or non-profit. Whether it should be at the local (city or county), state, or federal level.
What are the compromises we're willing to make?
At the heart of it, though, is the notion that we should create environments that help people achieve their full potential. Again, a phrase with a lot of room for debate. What is our 'full potential'? How do we cultivate it? What are the tradeoffs, does helping one group achieve their potential overburden another? Is a 'nanny state', and pushing policies 'for our own good' detrimental to that freedom? How do we help people make wise choices in a way that isn't controlling and nannying? (The discussion on free range parenting and helicopter parenting are particularly relevant here).
How do we allow people to achieve their potential, in a world that is NOT particularly safe? Do we focus on trying to make it safer? On building resilience and skills that allow people to succeed even if it's unsafe?
There are all sorts of underlying values and assumptions to each of those statements, but at the heart of it we can debate these topics while understanding that each of us is coming to the argument with a sincere concern for each other.
We can argue about whether the government is the correct place for food stamp programs, while all agreeing that people shouldn't starve and that *some* sort of social program for the needy should be in place (and I would expect/hope everyone trying to cut food stamps and welfare programs is working to support such programs privately, instead.)
Part of the reason I've decided to push on with my own writings, though, is that I feel like I kept getting stuck at this level. At trying to explain why it should matter. Why we should care.
Because it's growing increasingly apparent that a large (or perhaps more accurately - powerful) segment of our society Just. Doesn't. Care.
They don't think people who make less than a certain amount each year matter. They think it's okay for 'grandma to die for the economy', to paraphrase the sentiment.
They're perfectly okay with letting a pandemic spread unchecked, and even as they privately acknowledge that lives will be lost they use that information to sell their stocks before the market tanks, rather than create policies to reduce the death rate. They choose to stay home themselves, safe and secure, while arguing that 'other' people should go back to work.
They push news articles and research that supports what they want to have happen, and it's hard to tell how much of it is a combination of wishful thinking and selecting sources that tell them what they want to hear, and how much of it is done in bad faith.
Because at the heart of it, it is clear that they don't care about other people.
Thank God the majority of us don't feel that way. I do sometimes think that our current crisis, in some ways, highlights that those rich and powerful forces aren't quite as powerful as they're made out to be.
I know that sounds contradictory, given how much the news media has been augmenting the protesters pushing to open up the economy. (and isn't that a whole other can of worms? Why and how does our media amplify the worst, and ignore so many topics more deserving of attention?)
And yet - what good does it do, if a governor says the economy is open and nobody goes out? Yes, there are plenty of stories talking about how many people are. I suspect it's nowhere near 'normal' levels though, which means at least some of the businesses that have opened are operating at a loss. (And, again, is there any truth to the belief that pushing businesses to open is about trying to prevent them from being able to make insurance claims, and their employees from making unemployment claims? It doesn't seem to be about 'care for other people' at all.)
The states that haven't enforced a lockdown have, at least in some cases, had people take it upon themselves to socially distance anyway. Does that mean we don't need a 'nanny state' enforcing it? Or, on the other hand, are enough people dismissing and downplaying the coronavirus threat to create a public health crisis?
I haven't posted as much on it lately, on social media or here, in part because it feels the majority of people have made up their minds. There's little room for persuading people one way or another, any more.
Which makes the current situation stressful in it's own way, because this issue isn't our typical polarizing politics. It's not some argument about taxes or medicare for all, where the consequences of our decisions are delayed and confused enough to gloss over and abstract away the human impact.
Either this coronavirus is a real threat, and a lot of people will die if we let it spread unchecked - or it isn't.
Right now, there's no consensus on that. In part because we *have* been socially isolating. In part because its taken time to spread to the more distant parts of our country.
Unlike other political issues, though, I don't think this difference of opinion can last. The virus does what it does, and no amount of refusing to test or failing to report deaths (or, if you believe the other way - reporting every little thing as coronavirus when it isn't) is going to change what it does.
At some point, the numbers will be inarguable.
So... I'm not exactly upset at taking time off? But, at the same time, this is vacation time I won't be able to use later this year... and if I were to take time off, well. There are things I'd rather use it for than to stay at home during a pandemic.
Anyways, I've scheduled most of the Friday's off this month, except for the week I'm on call. Oh, and I'll take the week of Memorial Day off (because of my birthday).
It does give me time to blog, at least. :) I wanted to continue on with some more thoughts on... well, society and economic options, I suppose.
Before I continued, well. I am reminded of this article, the title of which occasionally haunts me.
"I don't know how to explain to you that you should care about other people."
There's a lot of room for debate in the things I'm talking about - whether something should be public, private, or non-profit. Whether it should be at the local (city or county), state, or federal level.
What are the compromises we're willing to make?
At the heart of it, though, is the notion that we should create environments that help people achieve their full potential. Again, a phrase with a lot of room for debate. What is our 'full potential'? How do we cultivate it? What are the tradeoffs, does helping one group achieve their potential overburden another? Is a 'nanny state', and pushing policies 'for our own good' detrimental to that freedom? How do we help people make wise choices in a way that isn't controlling and nannying? (The discussion on free range parenting and helicopter parenting are particularly relevant here).
How do we allow people to achieve their potential, in a world that is NOT particularly safe? Do we focus on trying to make it safer? On building resilience and skills that allow people to succeed even if it's unsafe?
There are all sorts of underlying values and assumptions to each of those statements, but at the heart of it we can debate these topics while understanding that each of us is coming to the argument with a sincere concern for each other.
We can argue about whether the government is the correct place for food stamp programs, while all agreeing that people shouldn't starve and that *some* sort of social program for the needy should be in place (and I would expect/hope everyone trying to cut food stamps and welfare programs is working to support such programs privately, instead.)
Part of the reason I've decided to push on with my own writings, though, is that I feel like I kept getting stuck at this level. At trying to explain why it should matter. Why we should care.
Because it's growing increasingly apparent that a large (or perhaps more accurately - powerful) segment of our society Just. Doesn't. Care.
They don't think people who make less than a certain amount each year matter. They think it's okay for 'grandma to die for the economy', to paraphrase the sentiment.
They're perfectly okay with letting a pandemic spread unchecked, and even as they privately acknowledge that lives will be lost they use that information to sell their stocks before the market tanks, rather than create policies to reduce the death rate. They choose to stay home themselves, safe and secure, while arguing that 'other' people should go back to work.
They push news articles and research that supports what they want to have happen, and it's hard to tell how much of it is a combination of wishful thinking and selecting sources that tell them what they want to hear, and how much of it is done in bad faith.
Because at the heart of it, it is clear that they don't care about other people.
Thank God the majority of us don't feel that way. I do sometimes think that our current crisis, in some ways, highlights that those rich and powerful forces aren't quite as powerful as they're made out to be.
I know that sounds contradictory, given how much the news media has been augmenting the protesters pushing to open up the economy. (and isn't that a whole other can of worms? Why and how does our media amplify the worst, and ignore so many topics more deserving of attention?)
And yet - what good does it do, if a governor says the economy is open and nobody goes out? Yes, there are plenty of stories talking about how many people are. I suspect it's nowhere near 'normal' levels though, which means at least some of the businesses that have opened are operating at a loss. (And, again, is there any truth to the belief that pushing businesses to open is about trying to prevent them from being able to make insurance claims, and their employees from making unemployment claims? It doesn't seem to be about 'care for other people' at all.)
The states that haven't enforced a lockdown have, at least in some cases, had people take it upon themselves to socially distance anyway. Does that mean we don't need a 'nanny state' enforcing it? Or, on the other hand, are enough people dismissing and downplaying the coronavirus threat to create a public health crisis?
I haven't posted as much on it lately, on social media or here, in part because it feels the majority of people have made up their minds. There's little room for persuading people one way or another, any more.
Which makes the current situation stressful in it's own way, because this issue isn't our typical polarizing politics. It's not some argument about taxes or medicare for all, where the consequences of our decisions are delayed and confused enough to gloss over and abstract away the human impact.
Either this coronavirus is a real threat, and a lot of people will die if we let it spread unchecked - or it isn't.
Right now, there's no consensus on that. In part because we *have* been socially isolating. In part because its taken time to spread to the more distant parts of our country.
Unlike other political issues, though, I don't think this difference of opinion can last. The virus does what it does, and no amount of refusing to test or failing to report deaths (or, if you believe the other way - reporting every little thing as coronavirus when it isn't) is going to change what it does.
At some point, the numbers will be inarguable.
No comments:
Post a Comment