If it saves one life...

An AT article mentioned that Streisand is blaming Trump for the COVID-19 deaths. I couldn’t help wondering whether the logical conclusion isn’t that Trump is also responsible for the survival of everyone who didn’t die. After all, if you have the power of life and death, doesn’t it mean you get credit for successes as well as blame for failures?

I expect the response would be that medical professionals get credit for patient survival. I respect medical professionals in a general way, but even if they do everything they can, some patients die. One can blame God, of course, but it’s more likely that blame will be attributed to Trump. Who knew he was medically so much more powerful, without even having studied medicine? And I suspect he isn’t spending his time trying to kill anyone, so it must be some natural talent. Or a crock. I’m going with the latter.

I’m not one of those alleged Trumpophiles who support Trump no matter what. I’ve never met such a person, but like Sasquatch, it’s possible they are real. I question his reaction to the pandemic but I know he deferred to the expertise of medically trained people. Their original advice was not to worry, soon enough followed by advice to social distance, wear masks, and wash our hands frequently. From there, local governments made things worse. The stricter the guidance/edicts, the more I question the judgment of the source.

Totalitarians generally rely on emotional arguments to justify their yen for power. “For the children.” “If it saves one life.” “For the planet.” It’s all poppycock. None of their ideas, even if sincerely well meaning and based on science that hasn’t been politically fudged, will be 100% successful. Some people get overlooked, some children don’t get access to what is generally available, and the planet is pretty tough and resilient, as are human beings.  Totalitarians use the effectivity gap to demand ever increasing sacrifices so that no one is overlooked (at least, regarding transferring away their wealth).

Some things are worth dying for. Among those are things that you will die without. A primitive hunter accepts the danger of going after a large animal with big horns because he’s hungry, and his family is hungry. We unemployed are getting hungry, if only in a figurative sense. Even if we still have jobs or money, we are being told to avoid stores. This is unsustainable, as sooner or later people will choose to ignore stupid rules. When shopping is outlawed, only outlaws will shop.

What if Jesus had looked at the cross and said, “I know how to save one life, anyway,” and walked away? We all die of something, but we have the opportunity of eternal life, because He thought we were worth dying for.

Let us consider the tradeoffs for ourselves, Mr. President. Rescind all lockdown orders.

An AT article mentioned that Streisand is blaming Trump for the COVID-19 deaths. I couldn’t help wondering whether the logical conclusion isn’t that Trump is also responsible for the survival of everyone who didn’t die. After all, if you have the power of life and death, doesn’t it mean you get credit for successes as well as blame for failures?

I expect the response would be that medical professionals get credit for patient survival. I respect medical professionals in a general way, but even if they do everything they can, some patients die. One can blame God, of course, but it’s more likely that blame will be attributed to Trump. Who knew he was medically so much more powerful, without even having studied medicine? And I suspect he isn’t spending his time trying to kill anyone, so it must be some natural talent. Or a crock. I’m going with the latter.

I’m not one of those alleged Trumpophiles who support Trump no matter what. I’ve never met such a person, but like Sasquatch, it’s possible they are real. I question his reaction to the pandemic but I know he deferred to the expertise of medically trained people. Their original advice was not to worry, soon enough followed by advice to social distance, wear masks, and wash our hands frequently. From there, local governments made things worse. The stricter the guidance/edicts, the more I question the judgment of the source.

Totalitarians generally rely on emotional arguments to justify their yen for power. “For the children.” “If it saves one life.” “For the planet.” It’s all poppycock. None of their ideas, even if sincerely well meaning and based on science that hasn’t been politically fudged, will be 100% successful. Some people get overlooked, some children don’t get access to what is generally available, and the planet is pretty tough and resilient, as are human beings.  Totalitarians use the effectivity gap to demand ever increasing sacrifices so that no one is overlooked (at least, regarding transferring away their wealth).

Some things are worth dying for. Among those are things that you will die without. A primitive hunter accepts the danger of going after a large animal with big horns because he’s hungry, and his family is hungry. We unemployed are getting hungry, if only in a figurative sense. Even if we still have jobs or money, we are being told to avoid stores. This is unsustainable, as sooner or later people will choose to ignore stupid rules. When shopping is outlawed, only outlaws will shop.

What if Jesus had looked at the cross and said, “I know how to save one life, anyway,” and walked away? We all die of something, but we have the opportunity of eternal life, because He thought we were worth dying for.

Let us consider the tradeoffs for ourselves, Mr. President. Rescind all lockdown orders.