Covid in the Age of Extremes

Epidemics/Pandemics, Extremism

 

In this day and age of extreme polarization and extremism, people who distrust authority, and there are surprisingly many of those, may be subjected to extreme abuse. For example, recently I heard about a case where a Republican politician who voted to impeach Trump, was told by someone that that the politician was going to hell and he could hardly wait to get to heaven to observe the politician fry.  Stop for a moment and think about what a monstrous god would provide such heinous entertainment for his faithful adherents.  Some people actually believe in such a God. I am sure some people have been met with similar abuse from people who don’t trust the medical authorities and think their God will inflict similar punishment on the perceived miscreants health care professionals.

Recently I read about a physician who had been abused as a Nazi in response to an opinion he gave online about vaccines. The physician also said he had been called a murderer and other “disgusting names” by Twitter trolls. These days people who step out into the limelight with their opinions often are greeted by such extreme views. We live in the age of extremes.

CBC journalist, Ian Hanomansing, has written a book about physicians who have stepped up to the plate to help and guide people in order to combat the lies, paranoia, fairy tales, and fake news that is out there. These physicians are helping individuals through these trying times as they face threats to their physical and mental health but are rewarded by bilious abuse. Yet these health care professionals heroically soldier on.

 

As Hanomansing said of these heroes,

“They (and other like them),  are our defence against the offensive and pin-brained voices of prejudice, pseudoscience, nonsensical advice, quackery, witchcraft and religious zealotry.  And they continue to inform and reassure us despite personal attacks on their character and well-being.”

When zealotry rules, everyone should run for cover.

Folk Hero or Dangerous Idiot

Vigilantism

 

 

The American right is, as predicted trying to make a hero out of Kyle Rittenhouse the young man, who shot and killed 2 men and injured a third in Wisconsin. Some are selling T-shirt with his name on them. Others are selling whisky to raised money on his behalf. Celebrity as important as money in American, is now his reward for inserting himself into an explosive situation to defend America. The classic vigilante well rewarded.

 

David French in The Atlantic, had some interesting things to say about young vigilantes. He pointed out, “a political movement that turns a deadly and ineffective vigilante into a role model is a movement that is courting more violence.” Rittenhouse fled with his AK-15 style automatic rifled when the protesters/rioters (depending on your point of view) he confronted turned on him. I would say they did that in self-defense.  None of them shot at Rittenhouse. He had already killed one of them. When Rittenhouse fled he heard a gunshot, though he admitted that no one shot at him, and he fired at two of the pursuers, killing one and injuring another.  What kind of a hero is that? Is that what we want American boys to do? Would you want your son to do that?

 

Yet by now, the myth of the brave warrior has gained potency, no matter how absurd. Those who are unhinged from reality because they are so absorbed by the myth of vigilante have a new hero—Kyle Rittenhouse.  The latest version is the young man with an AK-15 style automatic rifle firing on unarmed people chasing him after he shot one man. French paints this picture of that young hero:

As seen in Kenosha, in anti-lockdown protests in Washington State, and in the riot in Charlottesville, one of the symbols of the American hard right is the “patriot” openly carrying an AR-15 or similar weapon. The “gun picture” is a common pose for populist politicians. Mark and Patricia McCloskey leveraged their clumsy and dangerous brandishing of weapons at Black Lives Matter protesters into an appearance at the Republican National Convention. Rittenhouse is the next step in that progression. He’s the “patriot” who didn’t just carry his rifle; he used it.

Many Republican politicians actually show photos of themselves carrying guns in their political ads. Isn’t there something unsettling in that image? It is the image of America on the warpath. As David French said of these young wanna be superheroes:

 “But there is also an immense difference between quiet concealed carry and vigilante open carry, including in ham-handed and amateurish attempts to accomplish one of the most difficult tasks in all of policing—imposing order in the face of civil unrest. And there is a dramatic difference between the use of weapons as a last resort, when your life or the lives of others are in immediate danger, and the open carrying of weapons as an intimidation tactic or as an intentionally disconcerting display of political identity and defiance.”

 

Most Americans know that the myth of the vigilante is a myth. It may have power to move them but not enough to get them out of their parent’s comfortable home. They are safe in their beds at night. Yet, their political leaders egg them on to get out there and save the nation. Become a patriot! Reap the rewards. Pack some heat and exercise your second Amendment rights and walk the mean streets looking for trouble, while your political leaders, like Donald Trump, after encouraging their followers to  invade the capitol, retreat to their 5-star hotels smirking at the suckers who do what they ask.

The political leaders may be weak, but they have a powerful influence on the youth enthused by the mythology enough to go out there and make their lives meaningful by shooting at hapless dissidents.  Those leaders are just “adopting a pose,” as French but it is a deadly pose, not for them or their own sons, but for the “suckers.”

There are long term consequences to marrying yourself to a myth. Eventually you tend to get caught up in the maelstrom you have created. Sometimes, like Rittenhouse, you get away with it. At other times, not so much.

The problem with vigilantes is not just that they impose order where the lawful authorities fail to do it. The problem is that they don’t impose order at all. They pour fuel on a sparking dispute and turn it into a conflagration. That is precisely what Rittenhouse did. He did not help bring law and order, he made things worse. Much worse. He left a bloody trail of dead and injured in his wake.

The American right that is determined to make a hero of a foolish young man with a gun should be careful of what they ask for. It might be even uglier next time, for there will certainly be a next time. The myth of the warrior vigilante just got a supercharge in Kenosha Wisconsin. And such warriors tend to fire away indiscriminately. Then the American right will have even more blood on its hands, but by now they are getting quite accustomed to that.

 

Self-defense?

criminal Justice, Rebellion and Resistance, Vigilantism

 

 

David French described Kyle Rittenhouse’s conduct this way in his illuminating article in The Atlantic:

“He didn’t impose order. He didn’t stop a riot. He left a trail of bodies on the ground, and two of the people he shot were acting on the belief that Rittenhouse himself was an active shooter. He had, after all, just killed a man…without any meaningful training, he was engaged in remarkably dangerous and provocative conduct. But that dangerous and provocative conduct did not eliminate his right of self-defense, and that self-defense claim is the key issue of his trial, not the wisdom of his vigilante presence. But that brings us to the danger of Kyle Rittenhouse as a folk hero. It is one thing to argue that the law is on Rittenhouse’s side—and there is abundant evidence supporting his defense—but it is quite another to hail him as a model for civic resistance.

It was frankly to be expected that an American jury, composed mainly of people who appeared to be white, would acquit a young “brave” hero, as Trump described him, who wanted to protect them from the black hordes. It would have been surprising had they not done that. It is also not surprising that the jury accepted the claim that Rittenhouse was acting in self-defense, even though he created the dangerous conditions by showing up where he did not belong with an automatic rifle. Did his victims not have the right to use self-defense to protect themselves against him? That’s how the law, especially in the United States, works when the police and justice officials are also infused with the same mythology. As a result, the law in its majestic manner arranged for Rittenhouse to walk away a free man while 2 men were left to die on the street as a result of his highly unreasonable actions.

 

Mythology of the Vigilante

Rebellion and Resistance, Vigilantism

 

The problem in the Rittenhouse case is that the prosecutors had to contend not only with a very limiting self-defense law in the United States, but also a deep and very real mythology of the vigilante. That mythology has justified some of the most astonishing acts of violence conceivable. That was nowhere more clearly displayed than Cormac McCarthy’s brilliant book Blood Meridian which described acts of nearly unimaginable violence involving vigilantes on the Mexican border. That mythology has been reinforced in recent decades by the Marvel comic universe where every young boy is allowed to be a defender of the people. I thought Rittenhouse was astonishingly foolish in bringing the danger upon himself, but in law, people are allowed to be foolish. As David French pointed out in The Atlantic,

“The narrow nature of the self-defense inquiry is one reason people can escape responsibility for killings that are deeply wrongful in every moral sense. Take, for instance, cases in which bad cops create danger and confusion through incompetence or excessive aggression, and then they respond to the danger or confusion they created by using deadly force.”

  

The power of the right to self-defense, particularly in the US, much more so than in Canada, was evident a couple of years ago in the case of Breonna Taylor. In that cases cops with a “no-knock warrant” in hand, without warning, in the middle of the night, crashed into her apartment she was sharing with her boyfriend. Unsurprisingly, in the dark of night he fired a shot at the police in self-defense and they fired an incredible volley of shots into the apartment in return, but still also  supposedly in self-defense. Even though the police had foolishly and dangerously created the incident that mothered the ensuing violence, the Grand Jury refused to authorize charges against the police.

Rittenhouse was just as foolish and just as much the author of his own misfortune, but none of that mattered in the law of Wisconsin.  Even though 17-year old Rittenhouse inserted himself into a potentially violent situation, swinging an AK-15 style automatic rifle and elicited a reaction by the protesters/ rioters to defend themselves, when they chased Rittenhouse to such an extent that he feared for his life, in effect the jury called shooting his pursuers self-defense.

A man, or even a boy, with an AR-15 assault style weapon cruising the streets of America looking for damsels or others in distress has become part of this vibrant mythology. These are American patriots, even though they unleash inevitable violence and seldom perform the magic they have learned in their FantasyLand to expect.

Even if they leave a trail of dead bodies in their wake, accomplish absolutely nothing to bring about law and order, protect no one, they can become instant  heroes invited by right wing politicians to be their aides and a former president call them “brave”.

The mythology of self-defense is so potent it can turn vinegar into wine.

When do we know enough?

Epidemics/Pandemics

 

Recall that the test for the vaccines on children from 5-11 in the US “only” tested 2,400 children. Is that enough? I wish the group had been longer but then the test would have taken longer.

Some people argue that the test of 2,400 is inadequate because the group should have been much larger. Much larger would be nice. But right now it is the best test we have. Parents can say the test is not big enough and we will wait for a larger test.  We must always remember that doing nothing is making a choice too. These parents are choosing the status quo. That also has risks, because there are no decisions that involve no risks when it comes to taking or not taking vaccines.

Such parents have to remember that a significant number of children die from Covid-19 if parents do nothing as they have been doing up to now. Until now they had no choice. Now they do. Canada just approved the vaccine for children aged 5-11. Now doing nothing is a choice. Is it the best choice?

I would suggest we rely on the best test we have. That test shows the vaccine is 91% effective in preventing serious disease in children. The evidence is not perfect, but that is a significant benefit for the vaccine. Parents who don’t allow their children to take the vaccine are depriving them of vaccine that best available shows that it would really help 9 out of 10 children improve their odds of avoiding serious illness.

We have to chose one or the other. We cannot make a choice to take no risks, because such a choice does not exist. People who do nothing are also taking a risk. Is it a smaller risk? Why?

Dr. Paul Offit used the example of the polio vaccine which most of us are too young to remember. Oldsters like I remember. It was a very dangerous disease that really scared a lot of young children like me in the mid-fifties. I was overjoyed when a vaccine was approved, and I could take it. I was so overjoyed I remember it about 65 years later.

Dr. Salk produced the vaccine with a team of scientists that he led.  In their scientific tests 200,000 people got the vaccine and 200,000 people got a placebo instead.  During the time of the tests 16 people died in the placebo group. None died in the other group where they got the vaccines. Dr. Salk was horrified that 16 people died in his view unnecessarily because he wanted to give the vaccines to them but couldn’t.

When it comes to risk, we must always ask what human price are we willing to pay for knowledge. There is always a price to pay for human knowledge. Sometimes the price is high, as it was for the 16 people who got the placebo instead of the vaccine. Please note I am not advocating for no tests of new drugs!  I also remember the thalidomide drug that devastating children around the world because it had not been adequately tested. It is a difficult decision to make when testing has gone on long enough. I understand that the recent testing for the Covid-19 pills were so successful the FDA  scientific team overseeing the tests cut short the testing because it was so overwhelming beneficial they did not want to withhold it any longer. .

When it comes to risk we have to ask ourselves when do we know enough to make a decision, because often, not making the decision, is actually making a decision. Sometimes that decision is the wrong one and people suffer needlessly.

We can never stop worrying about and analyzing risks. But we should listen to science. Not uncle Ernie.

 

You are Betting Your life

Epidemics/Pandemics

 

It is obvious that in many places such as Steinbach and Southern Manitoba in particular, there  is the deep distrust of government, authorities, and science. As a result, such distrusters refuse to take vaccines, and increasingly it is obvious that no rational argument can persuade them otherwise.  That in fact is the hallmark of a religious belief. Faith is not moved by rational argument. If a belief has been arrived at by means other than reasoning and data arguments based on reason and data will be entirely fruitless.

Many people distrust the authorities for a variety of reasons. One of them is the vaccines had not been adequately tested because they have been approved so fast. So, they want to wait and see. ‘Why take a chance?’, they ask. I had one of such people tell me, ‘I will wait for you to take the chance. You can be the guinea pig.’ Sounds rational, doesn’t it? It’s not.

First, and most importantly, by now there is overwhelming evidence that vaccines are safe even for young people. But there is another more subtle reason.

Right now, this issue is becoming very important because vaccines for those aged 5 to 11 are the in the process of being approved. They have already been approved in the US I understand.  I heard paediatrician Paul Offit interviewed on Amanpour & Company on PBS. He is the author of the book You Bet Your Life. He makes some very interesting points.  As he said,

 

“You never know everything. The question is when do you know enough? You know enough to move forward with vaccines. You know that for the 5-11-year-olds, there have been 2 million cases in the age group.  You know that there have been 8,300 hospitalizations in the group, about one-third of which end up in the ICU and about one-third of those had no pre-disposing risk factor which would put them at risk of serious disease and that more than 100 children have died. You should know that this study was done with about 2,400 children showing the vaccine was 91% effective. And you know that as far as everything that most people are concerned about such as the fear of myocarditis, the heart muscle inflammation, it was less of a problem in the 12-15 year olds and that this group, the 5-11-year-olds is getting even less of a dose. So, is that enough?  Of the 18 people who voted on that from the FDA Vaccine Advisory Committee, pretty much everybody voted yes. 17 to 0 with one abstention. Those 17 people would never have voted yes unless they would be willing to give the vaccine to their own children. I can tell you that if any of my children were between 5 and 11 years old now, I would give them the vaccine in a second, because there are no risk free choices. There are just choices to take a different risk and doing nothing is a choice to do something—i.e. to take a different risk.”

By doing nothing your children, or you on their behalf, are taking the risk not to take a vaccine that has been scientifically proven to be very safe and effective! That is a big decision. That is not doing  nothing! And you are betting your child’s life on that choice you have made for them.

Most of us don’t like taking risks.  But sometimes we have no choice. When it comes to vaccines for children (or for ourselves for that matter) we have no choice to take no risks. Either way we are making a choice to take a risk and we can’t get around this no matter how much we would like to do that. We are on the horns of a big dilemma. So how should we make such an important choice?

We can look to Uncle Ernie who has been doing a lot of “research” on the Internet even though he has no training on how to do that or how to evaluate the results of the research. Or we can look for advice to the large number of well trained and educated scientists who are working collaboratively with other scientists around the world. I wouldn’t bet my life or my child’s life on Uncle Ernie or even on my own “research.” That is too risky.

As Dr. Offit put it,

“About the only thing you have on your side is science, reason, and data. So, some people that think for example the vaccine is dangerous for pregnant women or think that it causes infertility or that it alters your DNA. You can argue that with science, reason and logic, but for people who don’t reach this conclusion with reason or logic won’t be talked out of it with reason and logic.”

We have to take the risk we think is most reasonable to take. I know what that is for me. I would do the same for my children. Either way you are betting your life.  Or  your child’s life.

 

Patriot or Martyr

criminal Justice, Extremism, guns, Polarization, Rebellion and Resistance, Vigilantism, violence

 

I understand that the jury has still not rendered its verdict in the case of Kyle Rittenhouse and will resume deliberations tomorrow.  Yesterday I posted about why I thought there was a good chance he would be acquitted and made a hero.  Today I want to talk about the less likely  chance that he will be convicted and made a martyr. If he is a patriot for his actions as his supporters allege and many on the right believe to be the case, then if he is convicted  he will be hailed as a martyr. Which is it?

Personally, I don’t think a young man who travels from out of state carrying an automatic AR-15 style rifle  to an area of heated dispute   that some call riots and others protests, depending on which side of the great divide in America (and Canada) they lie, is a hero so should not be welcomed as a hero if successful  or a martyr if not.  Instead, he was a foolish young man who took a dangerous chance while endangering the lives of many others that led in fact to the deaths of 2 Americans while injuring a third.  He was not trained for this job and took it upon himself as a vigilante to “help” the police to do their job. He made things much worse as the trail of devastation behind him made clear. It is part of their belief that “the system” cannot be trusted and only private vigilantes or warriors can be trusted.

I realize that many young American men have been raised in the Marvel FantasyLand where such actions are encouraged. They think they can stand up to the evils of a corrupt or inept system that fails to protect American citizens.

Rittenhouse should not be valorized. He was hardly a peacemaker. No one should encourage other young American men (and they are largely men who do this) to take such foolhardy and dangerous actions. Such actions are not helpful. They are pouring fuel onto an already raging fire.

Rittenhouse may or may not be guilty of murder or the other crimes he was charged with, but he is neither a hero nor a martyr.  And he might be much worse.

 

Heroic Vigilantes

criminal Justice, Extremism, guns, racism, Trumpism, Vigilantism

At the time I am writing this blog I don’t know if Kyle Rittenhouse has been found guilty of any the charges against him. I suspect he will be acquitted.  The reason is that self-defense in the US is a pretty robust defence. Added to that, the United States has a rich history of vigilantism, particularly on the border with Mexico, but really everywhere. This is particularly true where white vigilantes are defending the country against non-white threats. Vigilantes are part of American mythology. The country was built on this and frankly I think it is baked into the American DNA. As a result, I will be shocked if Rittenhouse is convicted.

If he is acquitted, I think many Americans, particularly on the right, will immediately make Rittenhouse out to be a hero. I think that would be a bigly mistake. Rittenhouse is no hero. David French wrote a fine essay on the subject in The Atlantic.  He pointed out that “For millions he’s become a positive symbol, a young man of action who stepped up when the police (allegedly) stepped aside.” This is precisely the point.  Millions of Americans don’t trust authority.  The pandemic should have by now made that clear to pretty well everybody.

In America there is a strong distrust of government and pretty well everyone in authority except a few perceived renegades, like the previous president. That distrust is the essence of vigilantism and anti-vaccism. Vigilantes are only needed because we can’t trust the authorities to do the right thing and protect us from harm. That is exactly why millions refused to get vaccinated. They refuse because the authorities tell us that is what we should do. For millions of people no more needs to be said to persuade us not to be vaccinated.

A willingness to dissent from authority can be charming. I often endorse exactly that myself. But as I have said before, it is charming only if the dissent is rational. It must be grounded on good reasons and evidence, not your uncle Ernie’s research on the internet.

Personally, I agree with French that “the Trumpist right is wrongly creating a folk hero out of Rittenhouse.” That does not mean he should be convicted.  I have been trying to follow the case in the newspapers and online. Frankly, I find the evidence mixed. There is significant evidence that Rittenhouse was asking for trouble. He went to Kenosha carrying an AR-15 style automatic rifle to defend American businesses from left wing rioters. So he thought. Then in defence of those businesses he was chased by at least 3 and maybe 4 protesters (or rioters if you like) one of whom had a gun and one of whom assaulted him with a skateboard. He may have legitimately feared for his life even though he had been immensely foolish to go to a riot (as he perceived it, not entirely without justification) with a rifle and basically without being trained to do so.

There are many cases of Americans doing very foolish and even dangerous things and getting shot at as a result, who nonetheless had a reasonable case for claiming self-defence. Remember the police officers who barged into the home of Breanna Taylor without knocking and unsurprisingly were met with gunfire in return from the occupant of her house?  The police fired back and were successful with their claim of self-defence to a murder charge even though they killed her boyfriend in his home. The police initiated the entire incident and were in my opinion entirely at fault, yet they were acquitted.

 

I think the same thing might happen to Rittenhouse. He was white and shot at 4 white men not a black man, so he will have a harder time making the defence work, but it certainly could. Added to that, he was defending white citizens from a perceived black mob. I don’t think he was justified in going to the city with a gun, but I think that defence might work. The American mythology might save him.

None of this makes Rittenhouse hero material. In much of white America though a young man carrying an automatic rifle to defend whites is automatically hero material. As French said,

“Most of the right-wing leaders voicing their admiration for Rittenhouse are simply adopting a pose. On Twitter, talk radio, and Fox News, hosts and right-wing personalities express admiration for Rittenhouse but know he was being foolish. They would never hand a rifle to their own children and tell them to walk into a riot. They would never do it themselves.”

 

That will not stop them from broadcasting their hypocritical support for Kyle Rittenhouse. And if Rittenhouse is made into an American folk hero, as I expect he will be, this will be a dangerous precedent for the next foolish young white man who steps into the next fray to defend his country from the perceived ravages of the next black militant.

As French explained,

“But these public poses still matter. When you turn a foolish young man into a hero, you’ll see more foolish young men try to emulate his example. And although the state should not permit rioters to run rampant in America’s streets, random groups of armed Americans are utterly incapable of imposing order themselves, and any effort to do so can lead to greater death and carnage. In fact, that’s exactly what happened in Rittenhouse’s case. He didn’t impose order. He didn’t stop a riot. He left a trail of bodies on the ground, and two of the people he shot were acting on the belief that Rittenhouse himself was an active shooter. He had, after all, just killed a man.”

Americans who encourage young white men to become vigilantes will have a lot on their conscience when the next young man, whether a white vigilante, or a black victim of vigilantism, is killed.

As French said,

“If the jury acquits Rittenhouse, it will not be a miscarriage of justice. The law gives even foolish men the right to defend their lives. But an acquittal does not make a foolish man a hero. A political movement that turns a deadly and ineffective vigilante into a role model is a movement that is courting more violence and encouraging more young men to recklessly brandish weapons in dangerous places, and that will spill more blood in America’s streets.”

 

I am very interested to see what justice comes out of this trial. it will tell us a lot about that country.  I fear the “justice” will be a pretty thin and toxic gruel. After all, vigilantes are rarely heroes.