Covid, Race Relations, Environment, Etc. - Alarmism + Misappropriation = Secret Combinations?

[smac97]

24 minutes ago, Calm said:

That ignores the fact there could be multiple things that are caused at the same act as that effect and people are so focused on what they don’t process all consequences. Just because you think you could have foreseen something looking back, doesn’t mean others could looking forward...or even yourself. 

I think USU's point is that the law imposes liability for consequences that are reasonably foreseeable.  This reasonable foreseeability is measured not in relation to the specific individual, but to a fictitious "reasonable person" or "reasonably prudent person."  The rationale for this is that the specific individual who is being sued for conduct that resulted in reasonably foreseeable harm will pretty much always try to evade responsibility by claiming, as USU notes, "But I didn't intend that to happen."  So for legal analysis, the court sets aside what the specific individual anticipated what would happen and replaces it with what a "reasonably prudent person" would have anticipated.

24 minutes ago, Calm said:

For example, it is foreseeable and inevitable that if someone chooses to go to one restaurant, they do not go to another.  Is the purpose of their choice not to go to the other restaurant.

USU's remarks contemplate reasonably foreseeable adverse consequences to conduct.  Going to a restaurant is lawful, peaceable conduct that, standing alone, would not result in reasonably foreseeable adverse consequences.  

However, let's take a look at this video:

I think a reasonably prudent person would understand that protesting by mobs illegally stopping cars in the middle of the street could easily result in injury.  So even if the specific protesters claim that they did not intend for anyone to be injured, they could still be held legally responsible for injuries that were reasonably foreseeable from their (mis)conduct.

24 minutes ago, Calm said:

Thus the issue that an act often creates multiple effects, where one effect is desired and all others are side effects. Thus the act was not intended to create the effect, it just also happened. 

The question, though, is whether the unintended effect was reasonably foreseeable.  If it was, then the person who caused it may be legally responsible for it, regardless of their specific intent (or lack thereof).

24 minutes ago, Calm said:

Judging others’ motivations in such a simplistic and rigid manner is a risky business...especially if God judges one by the same rule one judges others.

This is a fair point.  I don't think analytical frameworks used in the legal sphere are the end-all for approaching issues in life.  They are tools in the toolbox, alongside many others.

Thanks,

-Smac

[halconero]

It’s a hard needle to thread.

Yes, there are certainly groups out there who seek to appropriate many worthy causes, and plenty of bad causes.

The needle I mention is because I’ve come to realize that I don’t give enough credence to randomness and chaos as an explainer. Sometimes things happen, and sometimes they happen all at once. Many times there are groups trying to appropriate the chaos of the moment to further their ends, except their objectives are on full display and their membership rolls are open to the public - the exact opposite of a secret combination. That doesn’t make them good, just unsecretive.

I’m not sure what I’m getting at here, other than to say I’ve been pondering a lot the balance between understating the influence of conspiratorial groups, and overattributing the world’s ills to them. Funny enough, it was an interaction on this board that caused this self-reflection. I work in areas of immigration and refugee policy, and in stating a combination of facts, trends and opinions on the subject they accused me of being a subversive individual funded by George Soros. I sat back in my chair, reflected on my quite boring life and banal funding sources (mostly government grants + some program funding from some non-profits). Made me wonder if I had misattributed the actions of others to conspiracy when much more parsimonious and banal explanations were sitting in front of me instead.

All that is to say that yes, these groups exist. Yes, they influence plenty of initiatives. And yet, they still must contend with random events, other groups that openly appropriate movements they themselves wish to influence, and the sometimes banal agency and motivations of individuals.

Edited July 1, 2020 by halconero

[smac97]

On 7/1/2020 at 8:13 AM, USU78 said:

In smac's business one is charged with serving a system whose sole purpose is to judge, as best as mankind can devise, the actions of others. Certain tools have been developed through the combined experience of thousands over a thousand years and more for making those judgments. 

The tools work, with some sometimes notable exceptions. In my 36 years in that business I've developed a "nose" for such things. It's seldom wrong. People tend to behave according to mostly discernable patterns. Over large groups, those patterns' exceptions tend to disappear in the flow of humanity.

If I intend the act, I intend the reasonably foreseeable consequences of the act: that's one of the tools. It is useful for assigning responsibility for the consequences, which is about as close as mankind can get to judging others' hearts and minds. G-d's judgment is quite another thing.

Those who combine together for the purpose of acting, where the acts' consequences, subjectively intended or not, are inevitable, can be charged with responsibility for those consequences in that sphere. G-d's judgment is something quite different. Subjective intent matters, along with willful blindness and self deception.

I have lost count of the number of times I have encountered people who fail to pay rent, or else fail to make their mortgage payments, and are thereafter genuinely shocked when the utterly foreseeable adverse consequences of such nonpayment arrives.

By way of example: In February a client of mine purchased a home at a foreclosure sale.  The property owner, though gainfully employed (ironically enough, in an accounting office), had not made a mortgage payment in years.  The new owner and the former owner entered into a short-term lease agreement that ended several weeks ago, and which included a stipulation to an order of restitution (basically, the tenant agreed ahead of time to the new owner filing an eviction lawsuit and immediately getting an order forcing the tenant to vacate).  We got the order, which required the tenant to vacate the property by last Monday, and served it on the tenant.  The order specifically said the tenant would be removed by law enforcement if he did not vacate by Monday at 10:00 a.m.

A few weeks ago, the tenant filed a motion with the court asking for a hearing, which was scheduled for last Thursday.  Also, the landlord called our office and said that the tenant was apparently making no plans to move out (the landlord had driven by and not seen any indication that they were packing up their things).  As I knew the lockout was scheduled for last Monday, I called and texted and emailed the tenant several days before that asking him to call me as soon as possible to discuss the lockout.  He didn't respond to any of my efforts.  He also ducked all of the landlord's calls.

So last Monday arrives.  At 10:05, I get a distraught call from the tenant, telling me that the police were at his door telling him he had to move out. 

• I said something like this: "I am sorry to hear this.  But the foreclosure took place four months ago.  You agreed to be out by today at 10:00 a.m.  You knew this was coming."
• He responded: "I thought that asking for a hearing would give me more time."
• I responded: "Well, that's not what the order says.  I've been trying to reach you for days to make sure you understood what was going to happen today.  Why didn't you return my texts, calls, and email?"
• He responded: "I just didn't want to talk to you."
• I responded: "Okay.  Well, you'll have to leave.  I'm very sorry, but this has been in the works for weeks and months now.  You've known about it for weeks and months."
• He responded: "We don't have anywhere to go.  I have a wife.  And five children.  And a dog.  We have nowhere to go.  And we don't have anything packed, either.  I need at least another month..."

We continued for a while, but eventually he accepted that he would need to move out that day.  We ended the call civilly, but he was clearly quite upset.

I felt bad about the whole thing.  So did the landlord.  But the tenant had known for months that he needed to find another place to live, and to move out by a specific date and time.  He was also two months behind on his rent, apparently had no intention of paying any more rent, and was asking for another month. 

This fellow did not "foresee" his family being removed from their (former) home by law enforcement on Monday at 10:00 a.m., even though he agreed to that date, even though he had received an order telling him what would happen if he did not vacate by that date, and even though the attorneys involved tried repeatedly to communicate with him about that date.

This is why "But I didn't intend for that to happen" doesn't hold much water for lawyers and judges.  This is why lawyers account not only for the real-world actors, but also consider what a "reasonably prudent person" could and should have foreseen would happen.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 2, 2020 by smac97

[USU78]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I have lost count of the number of times I have encountered people who fail to pay rent, or else fail to make their mortgage payments, and are thereafter genuinely shocked when the utterly foreseeable adverse consequences of such nonpayment arrives.

By way of example: In February a client of mine purchased a home at a foreclosure sale.  The property owner, though gainfully employed (ironically enough, in an accounting office), had not made a mortgage payment in years.  The new owner and the former owner entered into a short-term lease agreement that ended several weeks ago, and which included a stipulation to an order of restitution (basically, the tenant agreed ahead of time to the new owner filing an eviction lawsuit and immediately getting an order forcing the tenant to vacate).  We got the order, which required the tenant to vacate the property by last Monday, and served it on the tenant.  The order specifically said the tenant would be removed by law enforcement if he did not vacate by Monday at 10:00 a.m.

A few weeks ago, the tenant filed a motion with the court asking for a hearing, which was scheduled for last Thursday.  Also, the landlord called our office and said that the tenant was apparently making no plans to move out (the landlord had driven by and not seen any indication that they were packing up their things).  As I knew the lockout was scheduled for last Monday, I called and texted and emailed the tenant several days before that asking him to call me as soon as possible to discuss the lockout.  He didn't respond to any of my efforts.  He also ducked all of the landlord's calls.

So last Monday arrives.  at 10:05, I get a distraught call from the tenant, telling me that the police were at his door telling him he had to move out. 

• I said something like this: "I am sorry to hear this.  But the foreclosure took place four months ago.  You agreed to be out by today at 10:00 a.m.  You knew this was coming."
• He responded: "I thought that asking for a hearing would give me more time."
• I responded: "Well, that's not what the order says.  I've been trying to reach you for days to make sure you understood what was going to happen today.  Why didn't you return my texts, calls, and email?"
• He responded: "I just didn't want to talk to you."
• I responded: "Okay.  Well, you'll have to leave.  I'm very sorry, but this has been in the works for weeks and months now.  You've known about it for weeks and months."
• He responded: "We don't have anywhere to go.  I have a wife.  And five children.  And a dog.  We have nowhere to go.  And we don't have anything packed, either.  I need at least another month..."

We continued for a while, but eventually he accepted that he would need to move out that day.  We ended the call civilly, but he was clearly quite upset.

I felt bad about the whole thing.  So did the landlord.  But the tenant had known for months that he needed to find another place to live, and to move out by a specific date and time.  He was also two months behind on his rent, apparently had no intention of paying any more rent, and was asking for another month. 

This fellow did not "foresee" his family being removed from their (former) home by law enforcement on Monday at 10:00 a.m., even though he agreed to that date, even though he had received an order telling him what would happen if he did not vacate by that date, and even though the attorneys involved tried repeatedly to communicate with him about that date.

This is why "But I didn't intent for that to happen" doesn't hold much water for lawyers and judges.  This is why lawyers account not only for the real-world actors, but also consider what a "reasonably prudent person" could and should have foreseen would happen.

Thanks,

-Smac

You just described nearly every day of my working life! Is there a bug in my office?

[alter idem]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I think USU's point is that the law imposes liability for consequences that are reasonably foreseeable.  This reasonable foreseeability is measured not in relation to the specific individual, but to a fictitious "reasonable person" or "reasonably prudent person."  The rationale for this is that the specific individual who is being sued for conduct that resulted in reasonably foreseeable harm will pretty much always try to evade responsibility by claiming, as USU notes, "But I didn't intend that to happen."  So for legal analysis, the court sets aside what the specific individual anticipated what would happen and replaces it with what a "reasonably prudent person" would have anticipated.

USU's remarks contemplate reasonably foreseeable adverse consequences to conduct.  Going to a restaurant is lawful, peaceable conduct that, standing alone, would not result in reasonably foreseeable adverse consequences.  

However, let's take a look at this video:

I think a reasonably prudent person would understand that protesting by mobs illegally stopping cars in the middle of the street could easily result in injury.  So even if the specific protesters claim that they did not intend for anyone to be injured, they could still be held legally responsible for injuries that were reasonably foreseeable from their (mis)conduct.

The question, though, is whether the unintended effect was reasonably foreseeable.  If it was, then the person who caused it may be legally responsible for it, regardless of their specific intent (or lack thereof).

This is a fair point.  I don't think analytical frameworks used in the legal sphere are the end-all for approaching issues in life.  They are tools in the toolbox, alongside many others.

Thanks,

-Smac

Watching the video, I don't understand why protesters are allowed to obstruct traffic. To me this should make the city liable for any harm or damage. If pedestrians get in trouble for wandering in traffic outside designated crosswalks, why are protestors exempt from laws of safety? 

[RevTestament]

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

I do not dispute the seriousness of the viral pandemic, but I have some serious reservations about governmental overreach, hysteria, economic injury through reflexive shutdowns, etc.

I do not dispute that Americans can and should improve race relations, including some modifications to governmental actions in relation thereto.  However, I have some serious concerns about the death of George Floyd being (mis)appropriated for ulterior purposes (anarchy, marxism, wanton violence and destruction, opportunistic looting, etc.).

I also believe we should be good stewards of the earth.  However, I am concerned about alarmism, wild predictions that are not borne out by data, misanthrophy, and other ill characteristics of extreme envirtonmentalism.  By way of illustration:

That last question gave me pause.  Why is there so much shrill alarmism going on?  Why are these noble endeavors (limiting COVID, improving race relations, improving the environment) so heavily encumbered with groups and individuals seeking to misappropriate and exploit them for other, more nefarious purposes?

Are these misappropriations examples of how "secret combinations" come about?  From the Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

I am not saying that reasonable and measures responses to COVID, or peaceful protests about the death of George Floyd, or reasoned calls for improved environmental stewardship are "secret combinations."  I am wondering that the misappropriation and misuse of these legitimate issues for ulterior purposes are possible vectors whereby "secret combinations" can gain traction in society.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

At first I poo pooed your notion that there is the specter of secret combinations, but then I realized one of the proposals to stop global warming is to tax CO2 emissions. This is the perfect vector to get rich on misinformation. What incentive is there in such a system to decrease emissions? If CO2 goes down, the taxes the bureaucrats are living off of would go down. That is a horrible plan because of the built in disincentives to decrease emissions.

As for climate change alarmism - the average temperature has increased about 1 centigrade or 2 deg F over the last 50 years, and there is not really much apparent increase at the moment. Where I am at the summers have actually been cooler in the last 8 or so years than 20 years ago. A lot depends on where highs go, but I might remind the reader that D&C does tell us that the seas will not know their bounds, which sounds consistent with rising sea levels as reported in some island nations. If we were really concerned about this one option is to get out of our gas cars to a better energy source. I took a course on the history of nuclear energy, and all the professor talked about is why we should ditch nuclear power. Did I learn about better options than water cooled plants? Did I learn about the first technology invented by Alvin Weinberg as a possible source of civilian nuclear power - the molten salt reactor? No. You would think a course on the history of nuclear power would teach about better options than the water cooled plants we presently have. Virtually all our water-cooled plants are reaching their allotted time for decommissioning. Where are we going to get the replacement power? From coal? From natural gas? Those are the basic options presently. The government(dept of energy) imho has been frittering away all its discretionary spending on one pie in the sky horribly expensive fusion reactor experiment, which has no possible immediate civilian use. Why? Maybe the oil lobby wants it this way. We need an organized effort to fund good options people. Fund multiple new fusion ideas. Fund research into molten salt reactors using thorium. Instead imho, the funds are being spent in a misguided fashion on things like ethanol, renewable energy, and ITER. I am not saying spend nothing on renewable energy, but there are alternatives which would be safe and much cheaper. 

I too am alarmed by the misuse of information, but it is important to remember that news outlets make their money off of sensationalism. The best option is to be more informed, and not rely solely on them. 

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

That isn't a response.  My heart goes out to the grocery store clerks; the guys and girls who wear masks all day at my bike shop working to repair bikes.  My good friend who is a respiratory therapist who works in a moon suit all day and who works two shifts a day.  The low-paid people who wear masks and face shields at restaurants and gas stations.  They aren't cheating.  

But the government workers:  Fully paid; no fear of layoff; they don't show up and they don't work from home.  They don't work from home because nobody has given them the means to do so nor requires it.  They don't wear masks and face shields because they have taken off.  People who look at construction plans, who inspect buildings. People who used to patrol at parks and beaches. People who regulate hospitals, who approve new hospitals.  People who work in county supervisors offices responding to complaints.  Ninety percent of these are off - completely off.  Who is holding them to account?  Politicians -- in my state, Gov. Newsom, the County Board of Supervisors, Mayor Garcetti.   

You laud the "innocent" masses, and then fault the govt that they voted for, Bob.  I've got news for you:  They all cheat.  Why?  Because our dear leaders cheat and do so brazenly.  And yokels vote against their own self-interest.  Why?  Because they didn't listen to the teacher at school, and didn't read to inform themselves.  Easier to cheat their way to oblivion.

[blarsen]

On 6/30/2020 at 12:47 PM, pogi said:

Are you looking in the mirror when you ask that question?

Adding the element of secret combinations to an already devastating pandemic and other world events isn’t alarmist?  Not only are we dealing with these issues, but now there is an invisible boogie-man/men that may be behind it all.  Terrifying!  

If I were a humble member of a high-level secret society/secret combination, I would be overjoyed to see how perfectly tyranny, statist-control and destroying the existing order could be brought about by a simple pandemic combined with the exploitation of events that could be ramped up into such a charge as universal racism in the targeted society.  If such people aren't already involved, they should rethink their plans and put pandemics/etc. into their most effective category for achieving these kinds of goals.

Medical tyranny coupled with charges such as universal racism would be almost perfect vehicles for the take-over of a society, the realization of which should warm the heart of any half-intelligent latter-day gadianton.

Edited July 1, 2020 by blarsen

[blarsen]

4 hours ago, alter idem said:

Absolutely, you are right, as I read the warnings found in the Book of Mormon. Ether 8:24-25. This is a sober warning from a prophet of God who saw us in vision. His warning was that when these secret combinations come among us, we need to wake up so we can be aware and fight against their hidden agendas and evil influence and their desire to destroy our freedom. Imo, we are seeing them at work today. If we don't soon get a sense to what's happening around us, we'll find we can no longer do anything about it.

But we can't claim that we members are not being warned. If we're reading the Book of Mormon,  as we've been counseled to do, and looking for the warning signs, then the spirit is able to warn us.

Moroni has God actually commanding us to "wake up to our awful situation" when we see these things come among us.  That's "commanded".

[USU78]

3 minutes ago, blarsen said:

Moroni has God actually commanding us to "wake up to our awful situation" when we see these things come among us.  That's "commanded".

What were we all expecting things to look like at ground level, I'm wondering?  I've been asking myself that question the last few months.

[Islander]

On 6/30/2020 at 12:29 PM, smac97 said:

These are fair points to raise.  I'm curious whether he is providing a substantively accurate portrayal of the state of things.  Partisanship makes that difficult.

Thanks,

-Smac

Difficult to discern since politics and partisanship are assumed by all from the outset. The issue here is that we live in the communication age and social media platforms, for example, become echo chambers that are expertly used by the activists. Those who are more tech savvy, have better financial backing, media outlets at their disposal/collaborators and organizational skills, can muster "higher volume". And opinion, regardless of factual foundation", becomes generalized and soon verbalized as "truth" from the highest podiums of society.

The other element at play, I suggest, is the lack of academic integrity. People are willing to fudge any and all numbers to support an ideological position. The root of that is the rejection of absolute morality and ethics from higher education. For example when we, as a society, can no longer discern with clarity that a human being is born alive, although by all definitions of biology and medicine he/she is, we have rejected all previously held moral positions in favor of an ideological doctrine. 

[JamesBYoung]

We have secret combinations in and out of the church.

They are called 'group's for a better word, and they are economic and social and cultural and business and business and academica and a whole bunch of other interests.

The plan, and those plans are not conspiracies.

The pandemic is not a plandemic.

[blarsen]

19 minutes ago, JamesBYoung said:

We have secret combinations in and out of the church.

They are called 'group's for a better word, and they are economic and social and cultural and business and business and academica and a whole bunch of other interests.

The plan, and those plans are not conspiracies.

The pandemic is not a plandemic.

Secret combinations, i.e., conspiratorial groups/secret societies, are generally regarded as engaging in or planning some type of nefarious activity.

In making an assertion such as:  "The pandemic is not a plandemic", you're up against the logical problem of not being able to prove a negative proposition.

[blarsen]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

What were we all expecting things to look like at ground level, I'm wondering?  I've been asking myself that question the last few months.

It's a toughie and a very broad subject.  First step is to actually admit the possibility of such things.  Most people, including LDS, can't take this first step, despite their scriptures and talks such as Pres. Benson's, I Testify talk, given in Fall Conference, 1988.

I think they can be discerned by their more public agendas, which may sound very good, but exact a very high price to achieve, usually at the expense of principles of liberty, good will and good governance.

[JamesBYoung]

2 hours ago, blarsen said:

Secret combinations, i.e., conspiratorial groups/secret societies, are generally regarded as engaging in or planning some type of nefarious activity.

In making an assertion such as:  "The pandemic is not a plandemic", you're up against the logical problem of not being able to prove a negative proposition.

I don't have to.  The assertion that "there are bad guys with this plandemic doing bad things in secret" requires the asserters to proved with good evidence that nefarious things are going on.  No one has done that.

[JamesBYoung]

1 hour ago, blarsen said:

It's a toughie and a very broad subject.  First step is to actually admit the possibility of such things.  Most people, including LDS, can't take this first step, despite their scriptures and talks such as Pres. Benson's, I Testify talk, given in Fall Conference, 1988.

I think they can be discerned by their more public agendas, which may sound very good, but exact a very high price to achieve, usually at the expense of principles of liberty, good will and good governance.

That is an assertion, blarsen.  Prove it.  Just don't assert and say "see?"

[blarsen]

55 minutes ago, JamesBYoung said:

I don't have to.  The assertion that "there are bad guys with this plandemic doing bad things in secret" requires the asserters to proved with good evidence that nefarious things are going on.  No one has done that.

And who is making that assertion??  You would certainly not engage in an inquiry of it unless you thought it a possibility.  That's the way science/investigation works.  You, of course, have removed yourself from considering such a proposition (not really an assertion).

Edited July 1, 2020 by blarsen

[blarsen]

53 minutes ago, JamesBYoung said:

That is an assertion, blarsen.  Prove it.  Just don't assert and say "see?"

You seem to be confused by the term ‘assertion’.  I’m just speculating for the sake of discussion.  Do you see the difference?

[pogi]

test

[pogi]

On 6/30/2020 at 1:17 PM, smac97 said:

Please don't personalize the thread.

Nothing personal.  I am simply suggesting that if you are truly concerned about "alarmism", "hysteria", and "wild predictions that are not borne out by data", etc., then it is only fair that we discuss the effects of the topic you raise in this regard.  I was simply asking for some self-reflection.  I see alarmism, hysteria, and wild predictions not borne out by data, dripping from the topic at hand.  Just take a look at AVOW and other Mormon doomsdayer groups.  They are not uncommon.  They feed off of this type of speculation.  My own parents are freaking out about secret combinations and doomsday scenarios (no joke, they just brought it up to me the day before you posted this, which is why it triggered something in me).  It is terribly concerning to me.  I don't think it is psychologically/spiritually healthy to feed the flame of such alarmism and hysteria against an invisible enemy of which is "not borne out by data", when we have real, tangible problems to be alarmed about right in front of our face.  Problems that are affecting everyone.  Problems that we can actually DO SOMTHING about.  

As soon as someone has good evidence of an actual secret enemy infiltrating our government and orchestrating chaos in all of these current events in a concerted effort to take over our country out of pure "misanthropy", then we have something to be truly alarmed about.  Let's talk then.  Until then, I see this as adding to unnecessary anxiety in highly anxious times.     

Edited July 2, 2020 by pogi

[let’s roll]

Thoughts?  Here’s mine.  The Savior has invited us to look to Him in all things and to have no fear and no doubt.

My thought is that there is no reason why that invitation doesn’t apply to all the topics in the OP.

Edited July 1, 2020 by let’s roll

[JamesBYoung]

3 hours ago, blarsen said:

And who is making that assertion??  You would certainly not engage in an inquiry of it unless you thought it a possibility.  That's the way science/investigation works.  You, of course, have removed yourself from considering such a proposition (not really an assertion).

I pointed out your assertion and corrected you on how to handle it.  Please do so.

[JamesBYoung]

3 hours ago, blarsen said:

You seem to be confused by the term ‘assertion’.  I’m just speculating for the sake of discussion.  Do you see the difference?

 

You can back off all you want, but you can't hide your assertion.

[pogi]

On 6/30/2020 at 4:25 PM, Bob Crockett said:

I don't think I'm ignorant.  My law practice includes a lot of administrative work, meaning, I'm in contact with many different aspects of local and state government.  My administrative practice involves interface with the following subject areas:  water quality, water pollution; air pollution; securities regulation; department of building and safety; health boards; doctor boards; dental boards; dam safety and much more.  My administrative practice not only includes filling out applications and pursuing them to suing over them. 

And, yes, I can say that they are lazy and have used Covid-19 as a means to take a vacation.  From regulation; from showing up; from supervising at beaches and parks; from supervising doctors and hospitals; some work they could be doing from home but aren't.

Compared to health care workers, grocery store clerks and restaurant workers; yes, they are lazy.  Creepishly lazy.   The politicians see this as a way to ingratiate themselves with public employee unions, who are all pressing for the time off.   You don't like it?  You don't like what I'm saying?  

I'm constantly in zoom calls with angry clients trying to get work done with the government; essential work; life threatening cases.   It cannot be done.  You and I are being hosed by the government.  We are being let down when we need them the most.

Even postal workers -- make no effort to ascend the elevators in multistory buildings to drop off packages.   Negligence and laziness I've not seen before.

19 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

That isn't a response.  My heart goes out to the grocery store clerks; the guys and girls who wear masks all day at my bike shop working to repair bikes.  My good friend who is a respiratory therapist who works in a moon suit all day and who works two shifts a day.  The low-paid people who wear masks and face shields at restaurants and gas stations.  They aren't cheating.  

But the government workers:  Fully paid; no fear of layoff; they don't show up and they don't work from home.  They don't work from home because nobody has given them the means to do so nor requires it.  They don't wear masks and face shields because they have taken off.  People who look at construction plans, who inspect buildings. People who used to patrol at parks and beaches. People who regulate hospitals, who approve new hospitals.  People who work in county supervisors offices responding to complaints.  Ninety percent of these are off - completely off.  Who is holding them to account?  Politicians -- in my state, Gov. Newsom, the County Board of Supervisors, Mayor Garcetti.   

For the first time in the many, many years I have posted on this website, my account was suspended.  I must have really ticked someone off, but I am still trying to figure out how?  Was it because I used a colorful word for "bum"?  Was it because I explained in exasperation that my co-workers and I worked our tooshies (colorful word used) off?  I have seen more colorful language in PG movies like The Goonies for crying out loud!  If what I said is too much for whoever reported me, heaven help you in todays society.  I understand rules, but come-on...  What I don't understand is why I was targeted when I was just following Bob's use of PG rated colorful language too :

On 6/30/2020 at 1:18 PM, Bob Crockett said:

 I screamed holy hell...

Should Bob be suspended for this?  I hope not.  I just don't understand why I was and he was not, especially considering his repugnant treatment and disparaging remarks of "creepishly lazy" government workers (after explaining that I was a government worker).  That is a personal attack on me and co-government workers.  That was insulting and ignorant. 

To address some of your points, Bob.  Yes, there have been significant changes in how local governments operate in order to prevent the spread of Covid that is ravaging across our country. Services are not what you are used to expecting.  But is that any different from what we are experiencing in the business world with grocery stores closing early that used to be open 24-hours/day?  Long lines.  Closed dinning rooms.  etc. etc. etc.  We all are adjusting to a new way of life.  

I want a CFR for your claim that "90%" of government employees are "completely off" work.  We can't get enough workers right now to deal with our concerted response.  Yes, some areas of government have had to adjust and reduce services in one area to deal with immediate threats in other areas.    But I don't see anyone taking vacations and manipulating the system to be lazy and get paid for it.  Not at all.

In regard to local government workers not worrying about lay-offs etc.:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/coronavirus-local-government-layoffs-pay-cuts-cities-counties-states

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/massive-layoffs-and-pay-cuts-likely-coming-to-state-and-local-governments/ar-BB132FFv

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/state-local-governments-layoffs

Where is this gravy train of ongoing paid vacation and total security you speak of?  I want aboard! 

P.S. I am really sorry that you have to walk down the stairs to get your mail now.  I am sure the government workers are just being "negligent and lazy" and are not doing so out of concern at all for your well-being (and theirs) by limiting time in closed quarters where people work. 

You are complaining about having to walk down stairs - correction, take the "elevator" down stairs - to get your mail, and you are accusing government workers like me of being lazy? Hmmm...  

We all have to make adjustments and sacrificed if we want to keep things afloat. We all will experience inconveniences.  If not, you are the problem.

 

 

Edited July 2, 2020 by pogi

[pogi]

7 hours ago, blarsen said:

If I were a humble member of a high-level secret society/secret combination, I would be overjoyed to see how perfectly tyranny, statist-control and destroying the existing order could be brought about by a simple pandemic combined with the exploitation of events that could be ramped up into such a charge as universal racism in the targeted society.  If such people aren't already involved, they should rethink their plans and put pandemics/etc. into their most effective category for achieving these kinds of goals.

Medical tyranny coupled with charges such as universal racism would be almost perfect vehicles for the take-over of a society, the realization of which should warm the heart of any half-intelligent latter-day gadianton.

"secret combinations", "destroying the existing order" "medical tyranny" etc.?  You prove my point.  Alarmism, hysteria, etc. etc. etc.  Feed the flames! 

Alarmism: it is only bad if you can actually see something to be alarmed about.  That seems to be the message around these parts.

Edited July 2, 2020 by pogi