Tag Archives: journalism

The Real Reason Why Vaccine Mandates Were Not a Good Idea

Posted on by
Reply

I am trying to imagine a scenario in which vaccine mandates would be a good plan and it’s difficult to actually come up with any situation. If people were dying so rapidly that everyone knew we were doomed, and only those who were vaccinated lived, a mandate would not be required because people would be desperate and lining up and demanding the vaccine. Unfortunately, if we were in this dire situation, it is unlikely that a vaccine could be produced in time to save the planet.

Event 201, held in October of 2019 and hosted by The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in partnership with the World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation proposed a response to a theoretical pandemic. One part of the strategy to ‘diminish large-scale economic and societal consequences’ of a pandemic was to focus on the control of misinformation.

I think this part of the strategy has seen abuse. Information around the pandemic has been tightly controlled to the point of being misleading because of what has been omitted.

So much effort has gone into controlling the dialogue during the COVID-19 pandemic that people’s thoughts, if they have been following the media, are not truly original. We’ve been programmed as a result of a pre-determined narrative that has been fed to us, relentlessly.

My husband and I don’t have TV and Cable but we went out for his birthday to a restaurant with several TV’s on display and while we dined, every few minutes there was an image of a person having a needle put in their arm. First of all, it is an image that I find disturbing, but more importantly, I thought about the people who have seen this many more times than I have. I can’t imagine how many times this has come across the screen in the past couple of years, never mind the funding that has gone into this advertising.

When literally “everyone” is getting sick, regardless of vaccination status, it becomes increasingly difficult to push the vaccine as the solution to a pandemic.

What we are seeing now is new information coming out which doesn’t match the mainstream narrative and is creating confusion both among people without medical backgrounds and medical professionals. Questions are arising. Until now these were squashed pretty effectively but when literally “everyone” is getting sick, regardless of vaccination status, it becomes increasingly difficult to push the vaccine as the solution to a pandemic. Thankfully we do not see people dying at unprecedented rates. Some may say this is due to the vaccine, but even that is coming into question.

There are psychological and sociological reasons why vaccine mandates are a bad idea.

This brings me to the point of vaccine mandates.

There are psychological and sociological reasons why the vaccine mandates are a bad idea. I’m going to use a somewhat crass illustration. We take our dogs to the vet to get castrated. We don’t ask them. We do it for their good, or so we tell ourselves. Actually we are doing it for our convenience because we don’t want the responsibility of more dogs to care for, but none the less, we make the decision for them because we are the ones who know what is best for them. Ultimately, we are in a position to decide this on their behalf. We feed them, provide a home for them and care for them. We decide what sort of life they should have which is ultimately the kind of life we want for them. We don’t want a house full of dogs, because puppies grow up. So we implement the solution. And after a few days the dog gets over the pain and it appears that life for out pet goes on as normal.

A vaccine mandate is a little like that. It ignores the will of the people. It assumes a kind of unquestionable superiority.

This is not how people in society like to interact with one another. We have an aversion to bending unquestioningly and without options to the will of the other.

When one has the right to apply force, and the other is left without choice we understand this as victimization. It is not pleasant to be backed into a corner and threatened. It is definitely not good for the relationship.

If you have raised children you will have somewhat of an understanding of the dynamics here, but even if you do not have children, you will remember being a child. As a child, your parents tried to make decisions in your best interest. As children we accepted the decisions of our parents, sometimes reluctantly, but mostly we could see they were making choices for our good. Unless we were raised in a severely dysfunctional or abusive home, we knew they loved and cared for us and we could trust them.

The government and health authority assumed they could play the role of loving, caring parents and make decisions for us. However, the fact remains that these people are not our parents. They are our peers.

Peers consult with one another. Peers are open to alternate views. Peers respect each other’s choices. If you have a strong sense of self and healthy boundaries you quickly move on from a friend who thinks they can control you or make your decisions for you.

Dialogue and negotiation go into maintaining a trusting relationship. If you can sense there is a forgone conclusion being forced on you then dialogue begins to look like manipulation. Psychologically that is an abusive relationship. Most of us can sense this.

Many people are naively trusting. This is the majority that the government has relied on during this pandemic. These people do not spend time listening to alternative sources because they feel there is no need to do so. They trust the government. They trust the health authorities. They are afraid and need someone in charge to make decisions for them. They’ve been told that certain sources promote “misinformation” and believe that listening to them is potentially harmful. Rather than listening and determining this for themselves, they simply take the word of others and believe that these sources cannot be trusted and that they have malign motivations that are not in the best interests of the public.

I’ve listened to many sources during the pandemic and have tuned out many, but I’ve also thought to myself that if there was a grain of truth in among all the chaff then I wanted to find it. So I compared what I heard and weighed it. Fortunately I have more time than most, as a writer, to do this kind of “research.” Someone said to me, “Do you think you have some secret information?” Actually, I may have accessed information that others have not noticed, simply because I allowed myself to look.

During a pandemic people are afraid and typically we have a fight, flight or freeze response. There is really a very small percentage of the population who end up taking leadership roles or who end up seriously questioning the status quo. As a result, there is a small number of people who end up making decisions on behalf of the majority during a pandemic. Globalization and the WHO has meant we are much more on the same page than we might have been even a few decades ago. Someone I spoke to pointed out to me how all the world is saying the same thing, implying that this was evidence that the narrative was reliable. Maybe so.

I went back this week to why I have become suspicious even when all the voices are saying the same thing. I have a keen interest in parenting and so a number of years ago I wanted to know what the research showed regarding children and corporal punishment. It turns out that the research shows that mild, carefully and thoughtfully administered spanking positively affects children. I went back to the original resource to find this information, because all the news sources and articles, and there were probably hundreds, reported a different story. They all copied an article that had misinterpreted/misrepresented the actual research. If any of these journalists would have taken the time and effort to actually read the research they would not have written their articles in the way they did. That was the day I learned that we cannot simply gullibly accept what we are fed.

I’m sure you can’t have helped noticing how news sources tend to parrot one line. It is because they often have one source. Let’s say that source is the WHO. The whole world has access to what the WHO is communicating, so, understandably that will be the message that most of the world hears. And as I’ve already demonstrated, journalists can be lazy about doing research.

There is a comparatively small number of people, leaders in their own right, who don’t swallow everything. For some reason they don’t entirely trust the “step-parents” so to speak—the ones who have stepped into the parental role. We see this in about, what? 15% of the population?

People are waking up to the possibility that allowing pharmaceutical companies to make decisions for us far into the future in terms of an indefinite number of boosters might not be a good thing.

Initially we were comforted by news from our government leaders and directives from health officials whom we saw as legitimately working on our behalf to mitigate a bad situation. But now, after two years, we have so much more information to fit into the picture. People are waking up to the possibility that allowing pharmaceutical companies to make decisions for us far into the future in terms of an indefinite number of boosters might not be a good thing. Clearly something is not working as advertised. And to add to the suspicion is the fact that the definition of vaccine was broadened mid-pandemic. Here is the comparison:

From 2015 to August 31, 2021 a vaccine was defined as “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease” and vaccination was “the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.”

The new definition for the vaccine now reads, “A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases,” while vaccination is “the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection from a specific disease.”

Epoch Times

The real reason mandates are not a good idea is that they can end up creating the worst scenarios in a society. The worst scenario is when we report our neighbours and when this means we turn on one another and can no longer trust those who desire to live peacefully beside us.

I’m going to use another analogy. If your neighbour is playing loud music, at first you tolerate it. Then you decide you can no longer tolerate it and you deliberate what you will do about it. Maybe wait it out. Maybe there is a birthday party, a one time occasion and you can let it pass.  But then you realize there is no party, so you go over and ask if they might turn the sound down a little. You ask in your calmest tone. We’ve done this on a number of occasions and the result has always been positive. People are accommodating because they are neighbours too. We’ll all do better if we get along.

Now if you went over and told your neighbour you didn’t like their choice of music and demanded that they stop playing it, then they would look at you like you were crazy. And you would be the crazy one because in our society people have the freedom to play whatever music they choose.

Asking people to wear masks is like turning down the music.

Social distancing is like turning down the music.

Even staying home when you’re sick, is like turing down the music.

A harmonious society is important to the world. It is probably the most important thing in the world.

But vaccine mandates force people to change something very basic about themselves. Vaccines will change what happens inside their body. We are not the same after taking a vaccine and that is the whole purpose of the vaccine. Medically speaking, it is the desired outcome that the vaccine will have a long term “protective” impact. While some people are ready to change their music, others are not. Some are more concerned about the impact on their body than receiving “protection.” I believe we need to respect this. If we sacrifice a few for the good of many, where do we draw the line? I do not see this as a good idea. Maintaining respect for individual music choices is very important to a harmonious society and a harmonious society is important for the world. It is probably the most important thing in the world. We do not become more harmonious by picking on one another and singling out people, turning people against others and name calling.

We live in a condo and have seen interactions between neighbours that have not always been acrimonious. We have been the go-between at times. We’ve employed various means of communication and suggestions for adaptation. One neighbour in particular was a source of agitation for others since they are recently immigrated and don’t understand the culture fully. The people beneath them complained persistently about thudding noise to the point where restraints were put on communication as the relationship became increasingly tense. One day the neighbour appeared at our door and wanted us to see what he had done in his suite. He had put a large plush carpet on the floor. This suggestion had been made at one time. He had a broad smile on his face and to see him happy to have come up with a resolution in his own time was very satisfying, after literally years.

Mandates do not meet the ultimate end goal of good relationships….Mandates have given people justification for turning on each other.

The reason why mandates are not a good idea is mandates do not meet the ultimate end goal of good relationships that are essential in a well-adjusted society. Ask any coach what makes a good team and they will tell you cooperation. Mandates have given people justification for turning on each other. Rather than negotiating, we make “demands.” In the case of the man who installed the carpet, patient understanding brought about a positive outcome.

Advertisement

Wounds of a Friend or Kisses of an Enemy

Posted on by
Reply

I am writing a more personal post this week. I watched the movie Emma and was struck by her lack of self-awareness. This of course is the theme around which the story revolves. I’ve been doing some soul searching. How unaware am I of the impact of my words?

The movie was timely as I was just brought up short by someone who corrected me with what I am to consider as a ‘loving rebuke from a brother.’

Rebukes are those double-edged swords. They can wound and heal or they can destroy. In the movie Mr. Knightley soundly rebukes Emma for her insensitive remarks to Mrs. Bates.

Mr. Churchill initiated a game requiring everyone to say three very foolish things. Laughing, Mrs. Bates self-deprecatingly says she is sure to say several foolish things if she opens her mouth. Emma then responds that the difficulty for Mrs. Bates would be to limit herself to three things.

So simply and beautifully done by Jane Austin.

Emma has mis-stepped before, but how her character flaw is laid bare before her friends. Mrs. Bates fumbles a little and mutters, “I see. I see….I will try and hold my tongue. I must make myself very disagreeable, or she would not have said such a thing.”

Emma changes when the full impact of her actions dawns on her. She heeds Mr. Knightly’s rebuke, as spoken by someone who cares.

Mr. Knightley points out that Mrs. Bates is below Emma’s station in life and will continue to sink and this is why Emma’s behaviour is so disgraceful. He reminds Emma that Mrs. Bates has known her since infancy and that when she was younger “her notice of you was an honour.” He says others will take their lead from her in their view of Mrs. Bates. To her credit, Emma comes to deeply regret her words and determines to make amends.

Wounds that heal. Mr. Knightley is greatly relieved to see that he has not ruined his chances with Emma, and that deep down her character was what he hoped, not what he feared.

As authors and journalists, we have to hold ourselves to a gold standard that refuses to stoop to ridicule and chooses to see the world as it “could be.”

I watched a brief clip by Jordan Peterson in which he says, you don’t want a partner who will just pat you on the head; you want someone who will push you towards who you could be.

As authors and journalists, we have to hold ourselves to a gold standard that refuses to stoop to ridicule and chooses to see the world as it “could be.”

Comedians have recently come under fire. While I agree with the importance of having the liberty of free speech, I’ve been of the opinion that a good comedian makes us laugh, collectively, at ourselves, our lives and the dilemmas we face. ‘Collectively’ is the key word here. We may be embarrassed but we can laugh at ourselves without feeling we are a target.

It’s easy to go with the flow, and laugh even when we know something is hurtful to someone. There is a verse in the Bible that says, “Better are the wounds of a friend than the kisses of the enemy.” Do we really want the approval of the enemy? A true friend looks for fairness to all and is guided by kindness, while an enemy harbours malice.

Someone who does not like you when you are real will not like you if you fake it to go along with them.

I found a saying when I was young that went like this, “A fool convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.” Someone who does not like you when you are real will not like you if you fake it to go along with them, either. You become subservient when another can make you change outwardly and your outward behaviour no longer matches your inner convictions.

There is tremendous power in words to wound. There is also power to influence others for good or evil. It is much easier to tear down than it is to build.

In today’s society trashing a person’s life seems to be some sort of sadistic sport: Let’s see whose life we can destroy this week.

In Canada thousands of caregivers risked their lives during the worst part of the pandemic and have now lost their jobs, on top of it all, due to vaccine mandates. Some provinces have decided against firing health workers as we approach the “endemic,” and the journalistic response has been disturbing. Chris Selley covered the surprising attitude in a recent article entitled, Canadians are enjoying firing the unvaccinated far too much.

Kudos to our local school boards and unions who have decided to continue business as usual rather than lose teachers.

I’ve led a sheltered life and cruelty always comes as a shock to me. It may be because I’ve stayed off Twitter. (Smile.) The real reason why I am not on Twitter is because of how much of my valuable time it would consume. But there is another reason. I would find it too hard to resist firing off those zingers in the moment. I need a Mr. Knightly in my life to hold me to a higher standard.

Who Won the American Election?

Posted on by
Reply

Remarkably, opinion pieces of journalists, passing as news, flowed off the press and refuted claims of election fraud before any evidence was formally presented, much less investigated. In the absence of the kind of reflection and insight that might serve as a caution, journalists remained oblivious to their diminishing reputation and public credibility. Ratings for public news channels have never been so low.

Journalism has become a sad reflection of an element of society that cares less about investigative reporting and more about controlling the narrative. The currant narrative is clearly that there is no election fraud. Period. Even though, prior to the election, both Democrats and Republicans repeatedly questioned the integrity of election processes.

I’ve watched several hearings that presented claims of misdemeanours in elections— sending/receiving ballots from dead voters, voters with parking lot mailing addresses, voters who don’t exist. Whether this was intentional, is virtually impossible to prove. Intention would imply fraud. This is called “rigging” the election.

Of course, we want to believe that nobody would stoop to undermine the American election process by endorsing non-existent voters, or duplicate voters, or voting in place of others, or incentivized voting, or voting of non-citizens. If it happened, and these turned out to be predominantly Democrat voters, we are assured, by the same journalists who insisted there was no voter fraud, that it was on a small scale of only a few thousand, not enough to change the election outcome.

At the close of an article that vehemently denies evidence of election fraud, a journalist concedes that the level of fraud is at best insignificant. There were not enough irregularities to change the election result.

And so, with the consolation that the fraud that happened was insignificant, because it didn’t affect the outcome, public attention is steered away from the glaring truth of a compromised electoral system. The same journalists who declared there was no fraud a few weeks earlier, have moved us to the acceptance of “irrelevant” fraud.

As the hearings progressed, with their “irrelevant” allegations, the opinions of journalists progressed as well. When testimonies came forward presenting more substantial evidence, the witnesses themselves became “irrelevant” and the story was not about the allegations but about Giuliani’s hair dye running down his face. Lawyers who shied away from participating in the hearings were touted as evidence of a sinking ship, with no hint at other possibilities, like their livelihoods being threatened.

If I were in charge of Republican allegations of election fraud I would have gone about this differently. But of course it is too late now. I would have focused only on evidence that does not require witness corroboration and only on such evidence as would change the election outcome. Too much time has been wasted on proving that the election process can be manipulated. There was never a need to be prove this at all. The real question is, was the level of manipulation able to change the outcome? In other words, did the American vote count?

There is still another equally disturbing problem with journalism surrounding the election, besides misrepresentation and manipulation. This is silence. Silence when there is a real issue to report. Like the lawsuits filed by Sidney Powell. Silence when voters rally by tens or hundreds of thousands in support of the president. Silence about the actual significance of only Republican watchers not being allowed to observe ballot counting.

One can’t help but speculate that journalists who are willing to suppress the voices of half the population of America might also be willing to cooperate to suppress the votes of these same American citizens. Meaning, of course, the loss of a democratic election process. It will require a level of fearlessness journalism, and integrity we have not seen up to this point, to uncover what actually happened in the American election.

In Defense of Journalism and Having an Opinion

Posted on by
Reply

Several weeks ago I told myself they are coming for Rex Murphy next. And it has happened.

There is something sinister occurring in the world. I’ve watched it for some years now.

An element of society has set themselves up as judge and jury. All they have to do is point a finger, and with magical power like the wand of a fairy godmother, the subject is transformed, only, not into an elegant beauty, but rather into a despicable, contemptible wretch. What follows is a sort of feverish glee in shifting the tide of public opinion and completing the humiliation, the shame, and the degradation.

This act of pointing is all that is needed. Once a target has been identified, sensitivity readers comb through fifteen years of Facebook history and find one comment that suffices as evidence to flay the defendant. There is, of course, no defense attorney and no jury. To assume to step up in behalf of the victim is to become a similar public pariah. All it takes is one identifiable microagression, even if it is only a quote, not an original thought, and that is enough for a guilty verdict. Microagression, by definition, according to the Merriam-webster dictionary, includes that which is said unconsciously and unintentionally.

Those pronounced guilty are placed in public stocks and made a spectacle, to the chants and jeers of the media who work the crowd into a dizzying and dangerous frenzy. J.K.Rowling is a recent victim.

The petty crimes of mis-speech and wrong-think have been elevated to criminal status equal to the act of homicide. If Rex Murphy can be indicted then we are all in danger of being caught in this irrational witch hunt where intent is irrelevant and errors are committed unconsciously.

Rex Murphy identified the bigger problem and tried to mitigate it. He tried to be a peacemaker, rather than an agitator. He tried to bring us together, one nation under God. Like a father who commends his children for their good effort. He acknowledged and praised diversity of background and thought. But the agitators would much rather stir up dissent and fan dying embers into raging flames, intent on lighting the whole forest on fire. They thrive on a brilliant show of their own making. Today is a dangerous time to be a tree.