Tag Archives: responsibilities

“Coronavirus-Related Fatalities”

Posted on by
Reply

That term or phrase, along with “coronavirus-linked deaths” get bandied about a lot. See, for instance:

…its [Sweden’s] population had a total of eight coronavirus-related deaths in July, or an average of 0.26 coronavirus-linked deaths a day.

And

…4 and 329 coronavirus-related daily fatalities in the UK and US….

This is not to pick on Just the News; most of the news outlets use those phrases. All of them also seem to use the phrases interchangeably with “coronavirus-caused fatalities.”

But what do those alternative phrases really mean?

Here are some examples of other meanings for the phrases, considering a patient with Condition X, the…coronavirus…is present in his body, and he dies:

  • Cause of death: Condition X, coronavirus present
  • Cause of death: Condition X, coronavirus contributory
  • Cause of death: coronavirus, Condition X contributory
  • Cause of death: coronavirus, Condition x present

Notice that: all of those outcomes are “coronavirus-related/linked.” However, only one of them is solely coronavirus-caused, which is the only meaning of the uncaveated phrase “coronavirus-related/linked” when used to mean “coronavirus-caused.” Even taking a looser meaning for a loosely used phrase, two of those alternatives clearly are not “coronavirus-caused.”

To the extent the news purveyors really are relying on interchangeability, they’re badly mistaken. They’re either wholly illogical and non-credible or very lazy in their word use and non-credible. Or both and non-credible.

My Black Life Matters

Posted on by
Reply

Your black lives don’t matter. Neither do your brown lives. Or your white lives. Or your oriental lives. Go suck an egg.

That’s the position of Congresswoman Cori Bush (D, MO).

I’m going to make sure I have security because I know I have had attempts on my life[.]

And

And defunding the police has to happen. We need to defund the police and put that money into social safety nets.

Bush bleats that she’s had a few death threats. She doesn’t care that folks in the inner city and in other crime-ridden neighborhoods—black, brown, white, oriental folks—exist with the daily threat of actual death from gang fight shootings, drive-by shootings, shootings in the bodega during a robbery, shootings from drug deals gone bad, bullets sprayed around from any of those gunfights.

No, those folks’ lives aren’t worth spit to Bush. She demands to defund the police forces that would, if backed by politicians in local governments, instead of being excoriated, disarmed, defenestrated by Bush and her ilk, protect those blacks, browns, whites, and orientals who without police actually will be killed, not just get the occasional angry emailed threat.

No. “Suck it up,” Bush says in her cynically manufactured righteous anger.

Back Rent

Posted on by
Reply

On the day the moratorium on rent paying, enacted during the Wuhan Virus situation, expired, the aggregated back rent owed as a result of that moratorium amounts to some $15 billion.

There is broad concern for the renters who owe the money, and that’s appropriate as far as it goes. But the concern doesn’t go far enough. What’s lacking is any concern regarding the other side of that coin: to whom all that money is owed.

“To whom” are the landlords, most of whom are mom and pop businesses and individual moms or pops who own a house, or two, that they rent out. Those $15 billion are owed to far fewer landlords than they are owed by renters.

Absent the rent payments, those small-time landlords are unable to pay their own mortgages on the rental properties for which they’re responsible, and in many cases, without that income they’re unable to pay their mortgages on their own homes.

Where’s the concern for them? Where’s the help for them?

The silence deafens.

Dishonesty?

Posted on by
Reply

Or Cowardice?

Recall The New York Times‘ reporter, Katie Benner, who tweeted out the following, regarding 10s of millions of Americans:

Her tweets read, in case the image proves unreadable,

Today’s #January6thSelectCommittee underscores the America’s current, essential natsec dilemma: Work to combat legitimate national security threats now entails calling a politician’s supporters enemies of the state. /1
As Americans, we believe that state power should not be used to work against a political figure or a political party. But what happens if a politician seems to threaten the state? If the politician continues to do so out of office and his entire party supports that threat? /2
This dilemma was unresolved by the Russia probe and 2 impeachments. With many Republicans denying the reality of the Jan. 6 attack, I doubt the #January6thCommittee will resolve it either. That leaves it up to voters, making even more essential free, fair access to the polls. /3

This time, I’m less interested in this…journalist’s…slur than I am in what she did about it. Amid the backsplash against her despicable smear of all of us average Americans so impudent as to disagree with her august self, Benner deleted those tweets. She claimed her tweets were unclearly worded.

Hogwash. If Benner truly were concerned about clarity, she would have left her tweets up, cited them in a quoting tweet or series of tweets, said they were “unclearly worded,” and then said in clear, concrete terms what she truly meant.

Benner chose not to. Instead, she chose to attempt to white wash her history—which is part of all our social history, part of the information database that all of us must use, for good or ill—to try to pretend her history didn’t actually exist.

Dishonesty or cowardice? You make the call. For me, it’s a tough call since there’s so much overlap: much of dishonesty is a form of cowardice.

“We stand for what is right across the world”

Posted on by
Reply

In a virtual Congressional hearing last Tuesday—Corporate Sponsorship of the 2022 Beijing Olympics—there was this exchange between Senator Tom Cotton (R, AR) and Paul Lalli, Coca-Cola’s Global Vice President for Human Rights and corporate representative at the hearing:

SEN. TOM COTTON (R-AR): So your company said at the time that we will continue to stand up for what is right in Georgia and across the United States. So are we to take from your statement at the time that Coca Cola will not stand up for what is right outside the United States? Because that’s what it sounds like this morning in this testimony.
PAUL LALLI, COCA-COLA’S GLOBAL VICE PRESIDENT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS: No, Senator, we stand up for what is right across the world. We apply the same human rights principles in the United States that we do across the world.
COTTON: Do you believe that the Chinese Communist Party is committing genocide against the Uyghur people?
LALLI: We’re aware of the reports of the State Department on this issue as well. There are other departments of the US government. We respect those reports. They continue to inform our program, as do reports from other from civil society.

Think about that deliberately vapid non-response. Coca Cola stands for what’s right across the world, and Coca Cola doesn’t object to the People’s Republic of China’s abuse, much less genocide, of the Uyghurs in the PRC’s Xinjiang province.

Nor was it just Cotton that the Coca-Cola rep refused to answer. Progressive-Democrat Tom Malinowski (D, NJ) pressed Lalli specifically on whether Coca-Cola would condemn any Chinese government abuses against Uyghurs. Lalli’s carefully empty response:

We respect all human rights.

It seems pretty clear: Coca Cola considers that abuse, that genocide, to be part of what’s right across the world. Because Uighurs, in Coca-Cola’s august consideration, don’t count as human or otherwise worthy of human rights.