A Window Into Their 'Minds'

 

If you read this blog with any regularity, you probably know that I hold the crazed right in abject contempt. Their eagerness to embrace conspiracies, their elevation of 'Queen' Romana Didulo to other worldly status speaks to both the weakness of their minds and their extreme credulity. As well, the fact that they continue to protest against non-existent vaccine mandates suggest they live in a fantasy-fueled world of their own. 

I applaud Peterborough mayor Diane Therrien's assessment of them. And rather than treat them with kid gloves or pander to them a la Pierre Poilievre, more political leaders need to strongly denounce them and their disruptive, illegal tactics. I want nothing to do with them.

And I will lump these people into the results of a recent Abacus poll. When asked the question, All things considered, which is a better place to live - Canada or the U.S.? 91 % of Canadians polled preferred Canada, of course, The other 9% did not.

Looking into how they answered the other questions, reveals that the plurality of younger men [those under 45] think they would be better off financially and enjoy life more if they were living in the US.

Conservative voters also tended to be less keen on Canada.

Only 60% think they have better health care than they would have in the US, and only just over a third think Canada is a better place to earn a living and enjoy life.

Those who are unvaccinated against Covid, of which the deranged are a large part, also have reservations about our home and native land.

Only half of this group think living in Canada means being safer from violence or having better health care.  A plurality thinks they would be better off financially and enjoy life more living in the United States.

Now I realize that I am conflating the 9 % with the crazies, but it seems to me that they all have something in common: an unwillingness or an inability to see things as they really are. By objective standards, there really is no basis to argue that life in the U.S. is better, unless one thinks the freedom to engage in violence, to carry and use guns at will,  to support insurrectionists, and elevate cult-like movements as legitimate expressions of democracy is preferable to life here at home.

In which case, all I can say is, Don't let the door hit you on your way out.

 

 

UPDATED: This Is Gonna Hurt

 

I have a friend whose daughter recently started her career in healthcare as an occupational therapist in a facility where people are awaiting placements in LTCs, and already she is feeling burnt out.

- burnt out over the fact that she cannot do her job properly in assessing people for their needs, as she is being called upon to perform much more basic functions, such as changing patients' diapers.

- burnt out over having to do the paperwork her job entails on her own time at night, without additional payment.

- burnt out over the fact that her facility keeps accepting new patients, which leaves her even less tome to assess the ones she already has.

She is just one of thousands of  healthcare workers toiling under stressful conditions across the province, and thus far, despite the proclamations of Doug Ford and his health minister, Sylvia Jones,, little relief seems pending. 

Other people as well are losing faith in a system that is supposed to be there, up and running well, when we need it. Thus far, Ford's 'vision' is not inspiring confidence:

‘Just a code word for privatization,’ Aug. 18

The unconscionable and heartless directive by the Ford government to free up hospital beds by having “elderly” patients transferred to long-term care (LTC) facilities far removed from their families and communities, follows the same scheme the McGuinty-Wynne Liberals hatched, which brought the same outrage that families and others are expressing now.

The Conservatives have blatantly put ageism forward by discriminating against people of a certain age as “elderly.”

Where do those other adults waiting for nursing home placement fit into the government’s solution of clearing hospital beds?

To label those of any age waiting in hospital for accommodation in a long-term facility as “bed-blockers” shows a disturbing indifference to them. 

The chaos in hospitals is not the fault of Ontario seniors, but government has shamefully placed the blame on some of our most vulnerable people.

Ellen Watson, Aurora

Privatization does not work, Aug. 12

Remember how former Premier Mike Harris “created a crisis” in education with the goal of privatizing?

Well, today Premier Ford has created a crisis in health care and, surprise, surprise, he is talking about privatization, which has already wreaked havoc in long-term-care (LTC) homes.

Ask yourself if education is any better for Mike Harris’s heavy-handed disruption tactic?

I submit that things are much worse.

If anyone thinks privatizing healthcare will make things better, look to the past, then think again!

As George Santayana once wrote, “Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”

Jonathan O’Mara, Whitby, Ont. 

Privatization does not work, Aug. 12

While I am not schooled in the intricacies of economics, it does seem to me that any model of privatization means profit, by which the provider must charge more, through extra billing, not covered by OHIP, or reduce costs, such as offering staff less money and benefits, and/or reducing the number of staff, and thereby lower the quality of service.

It only makes sense that privatization results in greater costs to the tax-payer and consumers, and less quality to those unable to pay for enhanced services.

While privatization advocates claim that fewer people will be waiting in the public system, they fail to state that a private tier would syphon off professionals (already in short supply) from the public system, contributing further to the strain on our public system.

We must maintain the integrity of our universal heath care system.

Norah Downey, Midland, Ont.

Sylvia Jones warns ‘status quo’ in Ontario health care is not sustainable, Aug. 17

It apparently was not bad enough the Ford government opted for mass institutionalization of our seniors in long-term care facilities in defiance of their stated wishes to age in place.

Now to fill empty LTC beds in the white elephants his government has funded to the tune of over $6 billion of taxpayer’s money? They plan to ship our seniors, like cattle, from one community to another so they don’t “block beds” in hospitals. Remove them from all that is familiar at the most vulnerable time in their lives to a place they don’t know, to be cared for by strangers, where it is difficult for family to visit?

In other words, abandon them after a lifetime of helping to build this province.

Could this government possibly have a more contemptuous view of older adults? Is this really what Ontario voted for?

Patricia Spindel, Ajax, Ont.

UPDATE: Let's give the final word to Brittlestar:

UPDATED: The Inmates Run Amok

One of the people I follow religiously on Twitter is Caryma Sa'd. A Toronto lawyer and satirist, her online presence is largely devoted to video she shoots of the unhinged amongst us, i.e., those Canadians obviously infected by the American disease whose symptoms include uncritical acceptance of conspiracy theories popularized by groups like QAnon.

Sa'd's brilliance lies in the fact that for the most part, she merely documents their madness, letting their words and actions indict them. Because they appear so clearly foolish and deluded, it is fair to say they strongly dislike, even hate, her. Such people rarely enjoy having a mirror held up to their delusional behaviour.

The following CBC report makes use of some footage Sa'd recently shot in Peterborough, where a group went to make citizen arrests of its police force. It did not go well:

As in the United States, these inmates seem to think they are in charge of the asylum. How to get them on much-needed medication eludes me. Perhaps some Thorazine or Haloperidol in their water bottles would be a good start?

UPDATE: To add insult to injury, now the Americans are starting to notice:

H/t TizzyEnt

The Devil In Ms. Jones

To those 57%  who couldn't rouse themselves to vote in the last Ontario election, please do not make sounds of outrage over the likelihood that Doug Ford will introduce more privatization into our healthcare system. You didn't participate, so I really have little regard for your thoughts on the matter. Electoral silence, in my view, gives consent.

Sylvia Jones, our new Minister of Health, is starting to use the word innovation a great deal, which many see as code for privatization. Indeed, one can well-imagine that one of her early innovations will benefit the many private operators of long-term care facilities including, of course, the Chair of Chartwell Homes, the infamous Mike Harris.

Here is one of the brilliant ideas Ms. Jones is sharing:

Jones and Long-Term Care Minister Paul Calandra will outline a spate of “operational” reforms Thursday morning at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Toronto.

One move, first reported by CityNews and confirmed by the Star, is to make permanent a pandemic emergency measure that allows the moving of patients in hospitals awaiting a long-term care bed to nursing homes in other communities.

Progressive Conservative sources said the decision to transport elderly people to an available bed elsewhere would be left up to doctors and could free up some 250 hospital beds by year’s end.

A bloodless solution, eh, unless you happen to be an essential caregiver to the relocated senior, likely a senior yourself.

I won't bore you with the details of how, despite the mantra that private enterprise always does things more efficiently, the private model is more a shell game than a solution; you probably already understand it is merely rearranging those deck chairs on the Titanic and ultimately confining many to the steerage section to await their doom.

I'll let the always entertaining and infinitely more witty Brittlestar speak for me.

Revised: Sometimes, All You Can Do Is Feed The Birds

I have revised slightly my original post. With lunta's comments I realized my point was not entirely clear, that sometimes we have to "just feed the birds," whose meaning I had hoped was clear.

I hope the revisions clarify my point.

For many years, there was a popular saying that everyone seemed to know: "Think globally, act locally." Basically, it was a call to consider the global environmental implications in every decision we make. Not a bad sentiment, but I find myself living by something quite different in these latter days of my life.

In my backyard, which is perpetually sun-challenged, I have an array of drought-resistant perennials ranging from Hostas to Black-eyed Susans to Purple Coneflowers. Unfortunately, I have never had any luck with my Milkweed efforts, but at least the 'garden' offers something for pollinators.

Also in the backyard I keep a birdbath and two bird feeders, both of which I replenish regularly. Seeing the birds come and the bees collecting pollen offers me a small measure of comfort in these dark days. Because, when you think about it, sometimes all you can do is feed the birds.

The above  essentially encapsulates what has become my philosophy of life. Recognizing that the big issues like war, famine, drought, massive climate change, to name but four, have little likelihood of remediation, I was forced to change my outlook in order to keep even a semblance of hope and positivity.

Feeding the birds both literally and metaphorically allows me to maintain my humanity. Metaphorically, it means doing a little good, usually locally, when I can. Such acts do not have a world-shaking impact but perhaps might make someone else's life just a little bit better or at least reduce their suffering in a small way.

I will not bore you with details of how I try to practise this philosophy, but opportunities to help abound: community refrigerators, hot-meal programs, foodbanks, mentoring, helping a neigbour, providing a sympathetic ear to someone in distress, etc. Because some people enjoy a graphic, l bring to your attention, and only as an example, the situation of a young boy whose family is facing real challenges in living with and accommodating his rapidly deteriorating condition. I am not advocating for them, but only offer this as one example of how all of us, in our way, in our own communities, can "feed the birds." 

Here is Brodie's story:

In my life, I have much to be thankful for. I accept the goodness in my life with gratitude, knowing that days of grace are guaranteed to no one, nor are they really ever merited. As grateful as I am, if I can do even a little to show monetary/emotional support for individuals who are suffering, I feel called to do so.

We sometimes really do underestimate what a kind word, a sympathetic voice, a show of support or a small donation can achieve in someone's life.

They Walk Amongst Us

Most of the world is rightfully decrying the attempt on Salmon Rushdie's life. A cowardly effort to silence a voice that some find blasphemous, his near-death experience is a potent reminder that there are those living amongst us who attack the views of those they find objectionable, often in tandem with hatred for their ethnicity or gender.

We should not be surprised to learn that this reactionary behavour is happening in our own country as well. Journalists are often the target of such odious attacks, one of them being Rachel Gilmore, a reporter who covers federal politics for Global News. At this point I would normally post a video showing the kinds of abuse that is heaped upon her by men who feel threatened by her, but I do have certain standards for my blog and will not promote their bile. However, if you have a strong stomach and want to know more about what she has to endure, check out her Twitter feed.

Donovan Vincent, a veteran reporter and the Star's new public editor, writes about this disquieting trend:

... a rise in hate — fuelled in part by political polarization, divisions over mask mandates and vaccines, economic and employment shifts and other factors — has resulted in a torrent of racist, homophobic, misogynistic and violent messages being directed at journalists, often women and women of colour.

In the past week alone, a horrible message was sent to Toronto Star podcast host Saba Eitizaz, a journalist of South Asian background. The filthy, cowardly and pathetic note — the sender didn’t leave a real name or contact info and hid behind an encrypted email address — also mentioned Hill Times columnist and podcast host Erica Ifill, a Black woman, and Rachel Gilmore, a reporter for Global News who is white.

I can’t repeat much of the content of the note because this is a family newspaper. But the personal attacks were meant to unnerve these women.

Make them feel fearful, humiliated. Make them doubt themselves. Silence their smart, confident voices.

The letter infers the women are on a hit list, and need to be “silenced” and “retired.”

There is no doubt that racism plays a part in some of these gutless comments.

Others in my newsroom, mainly young, non-white journalists or those with ethnic backgrounds, have also been recent targets.

“They are trying to silence us, intimidate us and play on our anxiety. They’re trying to keep minorities oppressed. That’s how I feel,” said one of my young colleagues, who didn’t want to be named to avoid receiving more hate.

Reading some of their messages, I was struck by instances where similar language and terminologies popped up. For example, some of the letters refer to the female targets needing to be “boogaloo’ed the f…k out of Canada” — i.e. escorted out of this country.

If you go to this link, you will see the efforts Erica Gilmore made to bring to the authorities' attention the threats she and others were facing. The results were less than satisfactory. This has prompted some action on the part of news-gatherers.

These past few weeks, the Star, the Hill Times, Global News and the Canadian Association of Journalists, along with the journalists impacted and others, have decided enough is enough. The parties came together to pen a letter that is being sent to the chiefs of police in Toronto and Ottawa (the three women span those cities) and federal Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino. It’s also being sent to the heritage minister — who is looking into legislation and regulations to address online hate — the justice minister, the minister for women and gender equality, the commissioner of the RCMP, and Ontario’s attorney general.

 The letter points out that incidents of online abuse directed at the three women — “targeted, vile threats of violence” — made them fear for their safety and prompted them to file a number of police reports. The lengthy letter includes demands that the chiefs and safety minister take steps to address the incidents and work with the media organizations to combat the abuse of journalists, and fight online hate and the harassment of all victims.

A key point of the letter is that the harassment seems to be part of a campaign against journalists, and that police and the law often treat these cases as separate. But that’s a fundamental misunderstanding that misses the “connections among cases and the connections to extremist groups,” the letter points out.

Despite the fact that the MSM is routinely denigrated in social media, I, for one, have a deep respect for what journalists do.  Are they perfect? Of course not. They are, however, our best hope of staying informed, much-needed ballast in the sea of misinformation we now must habitually navigate.

They have my deep respect and full support.

 

 

Who Benefits?

 

Some time ago, I read an excellent book by Michael Lewis called The Premonition: A Pandemic Story. In it, the author follows a group of dedicated researchers and a public health officer who fearlessly follow the science of the emerging pandemic, frequently facing obstructions and even threats to their very careers. Their heroism stands in sharp contrast to the careerists who lead entities like the Centers for Disease Control, utterly failing to fulfill their mandate of protecting and keeping the public adequately informed on the emerging virus. To say that such people are political whores is the gentlest way to describe them.

I was therefore not entirely surprised that the CDC has now loosened its guidelines around COVID-19. Here are some of them, with emphasis added:

The changes shift much of the responsibility for risk reduction from institutions to individuals. The C.D.C. no longer recommends that people stay six feet away from others. Instead, it notes that avoiding crowded areas and maintaining a distance from others are strategies that people may want to consider in order to reduce their risk.

People who are exposed to the virus no longer must quarantine at home regardless of their vaccination status, although they should wear a mask for 10 days and get tested for the virus on Day 5, according to the new guidelines. Contact tracing and routine surveillance testing of people without symptoms are no longer recommended in most settings. 

...the guidelines note that schools may want to consider surveillance testing in certain scenarios, such as for when students are returning from school breaks or for those who are participating in contact sports.

Unvaccinated students who are exposed to the virus will no longer need to test frequently in order to remain in the classroom, an approach known as “test to stay.” The C.D.C. no longer recommends a practice known as cohorting, in which schools divide students into smaller groups and limit contact between them to reduce the risk of viral transmission. 

Not everyone is onboard with the new guidelines: 

Dr. Saskia Popescu took issue with the CDC removing the quarantine recommendation for those who have been exposed, particularly those unvaccinated. She also questioned the feasibility of people wearing masks in small offices where they will have to take them off for eating and drinking.

Additionally, Popescu said discouraging routine testing ignores the "high levels of asymptomatic cases."

"We should be providing people the resources to stay home if they're exposed, especially if unvaccinated and [without] vaccine-induced protection, not doing away with the quarantine guidance [altogether]," Popescu said.

Dr. Judy Stone called the CDC's guidelines "capitulation" in a tweet.

"What would be welcome to me and many others would be masking until rates are down and a focus on improving ventilation," she said. "Immunocompromised/elderly people have been devalued and discarded."

So, as I often ask about suspicious actions and decisions, "Who benefits?" 

Clearly, those disruptive elements of society who have made a fetish of their opposition to masks and mandates benefit. But if appeasement of such people is part of the motivation here, they will surely be on about something else in short order.

Perhaps the biggest winners are to be found in the world of commerce. The past two years have been admittedly very difficult, with shut-downs, staff absences, etc. But, as Rick Salutin has asked on more than one occasion, "Does the economy exist to serve us, or do we exist to serve the economy?

The new guidelines also serve to weaken calls by workers to provide more sick days, another cost to business, along with the expenses of  hiring temps in many instances. The strongest suggestion in the guidelines is that people who test positive should stay at home for five days. 

As well, the new CDC direction pays no heed to the dangers of long-Covid. If anything, they will facilitate the spread of a virus about whose long-term effects we still really understand little.

Ultimately, everything is up to the individual in the new guidelines. And if the past two years have taught us anything at all, it is that individuals, and groups of individuals, make some pretty poor, even dangerous, choices.