Open (More or Less) Post on Covid 170

[ecosophia]

We are now in the fourth year of these open posts. When I first posted a tentative hypothesis on the course of the Covid phenomenon, I had no idea that discussion on the subject would still be necessary more than three years later, much less that it would turn into so lively, complex, and troubling a conversation. Still, here we are. Crude death rates and other measures of collapsing public health are anomalously high in many countries, but nobody in authority wants to talk about the inadequately tested experimental Covid injections that are the most likely cause; public health authorities government shills for the pharmaceutical industry are still trying to push through laws that will allow them to force vaccinations on anyone they want; public trust in science is collapsing; and the story continues to unfold.

So it's time for another open post. The rules are the same as before: 

1. If you plan on parroting the party line of the medical industry and its paid shills, please go away. This is a place for people to talk openly, honestly, and freely about their concerns that the party line in question is dangerously flawed and that actions being pushed by the medical industry and its government enablers are causing injury and death on a massive scale. It is not a place for you to dismiss those concerns. Anyone who wants to hear the official story and the arguments in favor of it can find those on hundreds of thousands of websites.

2. If you plan on insisting that the current situation is the result of a deliberate plot by some villainous group of people or other, please go away. There are tens of thousands of websites currently rehashing various conspiracy theories about the Covid-19 outbreak and the vaccines. This is not one of them. What we're exploring is the likelihood that what's going on is the product of the same arrogance, incompetence, and corruption that the medical industry and its wholly owned politicians have displayed so abundantly in recent decades. That possibility deserves a space of its own for discussion, and that's what we're doing here. 
 
3. If you plan on using rent-a-troll derailing or disruption tactics, please go away. I'm quite familiar with the standard tactics used by troll farms to disrupt online forums, and am ready, willing, and able -- and in fact quite eager -- to ban people permanently for engaging in them here. Oh, and I also lurk on other Covid-19 vaccine skeptic blogs, so I'm likely to notice when the same posts are showing up on more than one venue. 

4. If you plan on making off topic comments, please go away. This is an open post for discussion of the Covid epidemic, the vaccines, drugs, policies, and other measures that supposedly treat it, and other topics directly relevant to those things. It is not a place for general discussion of unrelated topics. Nor is it a place to ask for medical advice; giving such advice, unless you're a licensed health care provider, legally counts as practicing medicine without a license and is a crime in the US. Don't even go there.

5. If you don't believe in treating people with common courtesy, please go away. I have, and enforce, a strict courtesy policy on my blogs and online forums, and this is no exception. The sort of schoolyard bullying that takes place on so many other internet forums will get you deleted and banned here. Also, please don't drag in current quarrels about sex, race, religions, etc. No, I don't care if you disagree with that: my journal, my rules. 

Please also note that nothing posted here should be construed as medical advice, which neither I nor the commentariat (excepting those who are licensed medical providers) are qualified to give. Please take your medical questions to the licensed professional provider of your choice.

With that said, the floor is open for discussion.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I saw a video of liberals in some northern-ish city, repeatedly in the interview denouncing voter ID for blacks because 'they don't have it,' and going online to do it is 'too difficult' and 'they dont have computers.'

I mean.................what is that if not condescending racism.

The interviewer then asked blacks in N.Y. City about I.d. when voting. If they had I.D. 'Well of course.'
and as for the 'computer difficulties' question they were like W. T. F.?

[(Anonymous)]

"...what is that...if not racism?"

Well, possibly it is a simple statement of fact. In my place of residence there some people who are poor, chronically ill and living in state-supported housing units. Most of them are not white. Some of them do not have a way to cook food in their homes. They might or might not have a microwave oven but they are prohibited from buying any appliance that uses heat such as an electric skillet, toaster oven or whatever. Because of fire regs and insurance policies. Poor people are not quite full citizens in the US. Lack of money or health can legally deprive you of your power to eat cheap, well cooked, nutritious food, you see.

So maybe the people spoken of as not having access to computer services are also vision impaired, unable to afford the constantly-on ISP services, or limited in the number of minutes or bandwidth it takes to go through government designed websites that assume everyone has the latest gewgaws and costly ‘smartphones’ – so a process that is easy peasy for hip upper middleclass urbanites is a laborious, frustrating easily defeated process for rural people with dodgy connections and outdated equipment.

The more interesting question to me is just why, when and how was it ‘decided’ (not by any voting process I ever heard of) that the government has any right to keep an electronic or physical likeness of my face on file? A likeness that can be stolen, made subject to criminal ransomware or abused by police themselves to come in and seize my pet squirrel on any pretext they like.

Since I do not operate a two-ton vehicle, I am not a criminal, and my address is clearly known by the government tax office, the voter registration office and the utilities companies, then no state ought to refuse me the right to vote just because they do not have a mugshot of me. My presenting my voter registration card ought to be proof enough of my address and elegibility to vote.

Exactly where in the US Constitution does it say that states have the power to deny me the right to vote just because my face is not part of the public record? Would this intrusive government demand have crept into the culture about the same time as the CIA engaged AT&T to enable unconstitutional domestic spying on everyone’s phone calls? Or was it when the Fourth Amendment against unwarranted search and seizure was set aside by fiat without any kind of lawful procedure?

[(Anonymous)]

I very much appreciate your comment and every point you raise.

The people in the video were pretty much responding with an 'all blacks are...' sort of (caretaking) attitude...

But your thoughts could be put on the stripes on the American flag.

Or be a spoken word poem.

[(Anonymous)]

"Exactly where in the US Constitution does it say that states have the power to deny me the right to vote just because my face is not part of the public record?"

Tenth amendment. States have the power to do anything the constitution does not explicitly say they cannot, and so the question is "Where in the constitution does it say you can vote without proving your identity in a fashion the government of your state has determined appropriate?"

[(Anonymous)]

Not a Constitutional question is it, but a matter for the states to decide. And that issue depends entirely on how much money is behind the unnecessary, intrusive government overreach and how much of it the hidden faces who grabbed all that money are willing to spend to fight me in the courts for the power to secure my own privacy just like they do for themselves.

Since the government was able to function without this violation of private property for 250 years, then they can very well get along without it for the rest of all time.

I own my body and my face and any images of them constitute part of my my privately owned intellectual property, which the government is not permitted to seize without compensating me for the theft.

I and many others might set far too dear a price on our liberty than they are willing to pay. Like the prophecy from the Ghost of Christmas Future, Old Scrooge may find he has but little time to enjoy his wealth.

The prophecies of the indigenous peoples of this continent are not far from fruition, either. There are greater forces at work here than the petty purse-strings of political power. The people pulling those strings right and left will do well to keep this in mind: blood trumps money and spirit trumps blood.

Of course, the money people will always be able to buy the laws and punishments they want. So the question is moot in practical terms. But despite the undoubted power of the rich to coerce, corral, and oppress the poor, the question of human liberty continues to hang in the air, still unsatisfied. And it SHALL hang there for a long, long time.

Maybe – just maybe – it is about to be answered in a fashion those who have ears can hear. Time and oil prices will tell.

[(Anonymous)]

"I own my body and my face and any images of them constitute part of my my privately owned intellectual property, which the government is not permitted to seize without compensating me for the theft."

According to what law?

[ecosophia]

I'm going to suggest dropping this debate at this point. I just deleted a lengthy post from the other anon quoting the Declaration of Independence -- which of course is not a law, and has no legal force in this matter. It's been my experience, though, that once Americans claim that something is their inalienable right, especially if they brandish the Declaration in the process, their brains have turned off and there's no point talking to them. It's astonishing how many people can't grasp that a right is nothing more than an agreement, by a group of people, that something ought to be allowed.