.
.
.
“When you test, you have a case.
When you test, you find something is wrong with people.
If we didn’t do any testing, we would have very few cases.”
– President Donald J. Trump
“Object permanence,” as you may already know, is an important concept in the theories of influential child psychologist Jean Piaget, and refers to a child’s ability to know that objects continue to exist even though they can no longer be seen or heard. In the first six months of their lives, babies are extremely egocentric. They “have no concept that the world exists separate from their point of view” – their point of view at that very moment, that is:
“To determine if object permanence was present, Piaget would show a toy to an infant before hiding it or taking it away. In one version of his experiment, Piaget would hide a toy under a blanket and then observe to see if the infant would search for the object. Some of the infants would appear confused or upset by the loss while other infants would instead look for the object.
“Piaget believed that the children who were upset that the toy was gone lacked the understanding of object permanence, while those who searched for the toy had reached this developmental milestone. In Piaget’s experiments, this tended to occur around the age of 8 to 9 months…” [although it’s now thought that usually occurs earlier, between 6 and 8 months.]
Watching our President, we begin to wonder if it’s possible that some adults – even high-functioning ones – may never have developed object permanence. To believe that cases of a disease or virus are CAUSED by testing for that disease or virus is a sign of not yet having reached that stage. The infantilism of our President has long been noted and mocked, but for the Free World to be led by a man stuck in a developmental stage before 8 months is … more severe and troubling than we thought.
Fish rotting head-down and all, we’ve all noticed the increases in America’s racism and sexism in the years since a proud racist and sexist was elected to be our leader – Trump models the pathologies that most Americans were previously ashamed of, if only a little, if only enough to control their behavior a bit. That’s gone now.
In the same way we see Trump’s infantilism and denial of plain reality mirrored in the more susceptible populace around us:
- Supervisor Wagner incapable of grasping that opening up the economy and following public health advice are not contradictory but mutually necessary.
- Supervisor Michelle Steel discerning “species discrimination” in the public health advice to not put masks on dogs, but only humans.
- Valley-girl anti-mask speakers at the Board of Supervisors rolling their eyes, “HELLO?? Are we still TALKING about this?” to the applause of their cohorts.
- Facebook trolls hissing “I’m SO OVER this” when the topic turns to coronavirus. (And then actually coming down with it!)
After all, what’s the point of being more mature than the Leader of the Free World?
I hope that when, in the centuries to come when we try to figure out how America ever elected Trump (assuming a future with thought still exists) we can see him as a sort of object lesson, where we put the absolute worst of us, all our pettiness, cruelty, stupidity, solipsism, and infantilism, up onto the pedestal of the Presidency, just so we could learn to purge all those things from ourselves, for good.
Can I get an “Amen?”
I suppose this is your Weekend Open Thread. Then VENT, me hearties!
I’ll qualify my “amen” by noting that infants (the normal kind and the one occupying the WH) need a parent to keep them alive, and we have Moscow Mitch and most of the GOP to thank for keeping their offspring alive and in charge.
I have a question for the usual OJB voices.
Would one consider having been infected with COVID-19 be considered a pre-existing condition worthy of insurance denial ?
Asking for a friend…
Under current law (PPACA, aka Obamacare) there is no denial of insurance due to preexisting conditions. So your friend can get it until the US Supreme Court declares Obamacare unconstitutional next week.
I think I’ll wait on getting tested.
My friend was right.
I see where you’re coming from now.
The fact that Obamacare is on thin ice right now, along with the requirement to cover us regardless of pre-existing conditions, is a rational incentive to avoid getting tested for Covid.
That is a pretty brilliant observation.
Nice insight, Mike. I wouldn’t expect the idiocracy to fix it anytime soon.
Not a bug but a feature?
We know that Trump wants less testing, before the election. So maybe somebody smarter than him already figured this out for him.
Exactly. If you don’t test, then you don’t have it, and you’re still insured.
No way that idiot figured this out.
He didn’t even wear a mask at the mask factory.
Waiting until you get symptoms — or will be in a situation where you can’t social distance — makes sense. But bear in mind that Obamacare (properly called PPACA, for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act — is actually the composite of two bills. Even if the “Affordable Care” portion of it were to get scuttled, the “Patient Protection”portion would likely remain — and that’s the part that has the pre-existing condition protection.
I think that one *may* also be able to get tested anonymously.
To be honest, I think that even if the law changed insurance companies would not make it an exclusion. Otherwise, there’s not enough private security in the world to keep insurance executives alive.
Trump can only suggest…the true enablers are the red state governors that ignoring science and the disregard for human life, opened way to early, costing more lives, with this reckless act, locally the Orange County Board of Supervisors are Complicit to the Deaths, in Opening the Beaches in the O.C. and All should be held accountable, and along with, Sheriff Barnes, should be indicted.
*The various Governors are scared “shoeless”! If they don’t open the economy the death kneel will occur next election day. If they do open, they are guaranteed to kill thousands and hospitalize more thousands and destroy lots of the nursing home and small hospital economy. Bad choices. We can say that both Cuomo and Gavin are doing very good jobs of trying to walk between these raindrops. Meanwhile, this is going to show how China wins the war…..by being basically “self sustaining”. Oh sure, they will have to cut back growth for five years, but their economy has been over-heating for the last ten years. With the sea change to EV,AV,AI Technology across the board, they are perfectly positioned to sell everywhere in the world. The US economy will fall to its knees because we are basically “Consumer Driven”. Not so anymore…..those days are over. We could see some very serious troubles coming if we are not careful and do not make the right choice in November. We have just ONE Shot and there may not be any more to load up. As the European Union turns to the Chinese more and more…..leaving the USA out of the game…..the toll will come and we may not be able to pay it. We used to have a great country because we could push people around, take out their governments and create war wherever we wanted. Well, as Ross ‘the Boss” Perot said: “When you pass NAFTA, you will hear a giant sucking sound….of lost jobs in America.” With over 50 Million Americans filing for Unemployment….you might want to ask yourself a question:
“How does it feel, how does it feel, to be on your own…..like a Rolling Stone?”
Perhaps of interest-
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/charting-17b-transfer-military-equipment-police-departments?
How Doug Chaffee will eventually vote on the resolution below? Easy vote when the majority of the Board of Supervisors reject it. I guess he will support it , after even Umberg also called for renaming. Umberg proposed alternatives names are mostly military-minded ones.
Orange County Democrats call for John Wayne’s name to be removed from airport
The resolution claims the Oscar-winning icon was racist and bigoted.
https://www.ocregister.com/2020/06/27/those-we-honor-reflect-our-values-rename-john-wayne-airport-tom-umberg/
On a side note, let me take this out of my system: County Dems have been taking good positions lately, without having ” Mr Pragmactic Adelanto” in their Central Committee.
I’ll bet you, knowing Chaffee, that he’ll hem and haw and cluckle about tradition and local sensibilities, and vote with everyone else to reject it. I’ll bet you ten bucks. This is too controversial for him.
And I need your help with this recall too. We’ve just filed, should be able to knock on doors by August for our signatures.
Yes, DPOC has taken some good positions lately. No doubt that has everything to do with my expulsion and nothing to do with the massive social changes that suddenly made taking such positions safe.
As for Adelanto — which for those just tuning in, was a thought experiment that maybe the homeless should receive free housing where land was cheap and free transportation to spend half of the week working or whatevering where land was expensive — is this the same Ricardo Toro who flipped out at the Kraemer facility because his area was the closest housing development to it, evening though it was pretty far away?
That Ricardo should really meet this Ricardo. Maybe one of them can spell out an affirmative plan for where to house the homeless.
Nice post, by the way.
As they say down in Oak View Comunidad, #BOOM.
Nope, I didn’t flip out regarding the Kraemer facility. I saw myself as a bridge between the homeless and the surrounding community. My original post on Kraemer delineated the common sense strategy of having multiple small shelters throughout the county. See the link of this post and subsequent ones:
http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2015/04/spitzers-homeless-shelter-proposal-raises-concerns-in-rio-vista-neighborhood/
Your Adelanto proposal was a version of an apartheid system, based on class. Poor people, homeless, segregated, regardless of your intention to tackle tokenism.
#BOOM!
You saw yourself as a bridge to help the community keep out the homeless.
Capitalism itself is “an apartheid system,” if you want to insult actual victims of apartheid by minimizing their struggle, based on making distinctions by ability to pay. Vern of I can’t afford to live in most of Newport or Anaheim Hills based on our inability to pay. To some extent — redlining, gentrification, redlining, et al. — that constitutes or leads to unfairness. But to some extent, it’s not unusual: allocation of scarce resources like the most desirable sites to live are a problem everywhere, whether the decisions are made by commissars, village leaders, honest lotteries, dishonest lotteries, angry mobs, or lords of estates.
There’s no really good solution, but we can at least argue that the best solution involves the exchange of some private benefit and public benefit. Yes, Newport Beach has to be responsible for some share of housing the homeless. And some small lucky portion of the homeless may win the (probably dishonest) lottery and get to live in Newport Beach. But that win for a few homeless is not a great outcome, because it’s a loss for the vast majority of homeless — which seems not to have occurred to you.
How do we best serve ALL of the homeless? Don’t just create a few lucky winners; come up with an program that creates liquid assets and collective assets that can be shared. In other words, go ahead and let them BUY THEIR WAY OUT OF THE PROBLEM by giving people inexpensive and decent private housing where land is cheap — having purchased the land there, Newport Beach could also set up the businesses around them to earn back some of the cost — and less expensive common housing in Newport Beach itself. Create free transportation between them, to take people from individual to collective — cheap land to expensive land — housing once a week in either direction.(for those who want to work (or panhandle, I suppose) in NB. Others can stay at home if they choose.
There’s small number of winners and large number of losers in such a system. Everyone gets to go where they want — and work for higher NB wages — for half a week.
Now, as I said before: this is just a thought experiment and I have no doubt that it could be improved upon — except for the fundamental argument that yes, the rich SHOULD be able to buy themselves out of the problem with local tax money SO LONG AS the housing provided is adequate for individual families without overcrowding, which I think has to stay.
But surely you have a better idea — and a practicable one. Is Step 1 “Abolish Capitalism” and set up an unbribable Commissar system! We can get right on it — but it’s a shame that the homess will have to wait 50 or so years for that to happen.
So come on, make your proposal! I look forward to discussing it with you with the same ardor and relentless focus that you’ve offered to me.
#shakalaka!
Wrong again. Expressing concerns did not imply to send the homeless to Adelanto.
I haven’t offered you “ardor and relentless focus”. I was surprised that you did a 360 degree turn on the issue, and called you on it.
Sending poor people, practically forcing them to places like Adelanto, is a form of economic apartheid. I am no longer interested in discussing this issue with you.
Your Karl Rove tactics to pre-empt discussions, like distorting my participation on the homeless issue, and red-baiting me (making references to commissars, soviets characters) is unacceptable.
I am surprised you consider yourself a Bernie supporter.
You mean to say he did a 180.
Documentation:
Glad you aren’t interested in discussing it anymore — though I’ll bet that you bring it up again — so I’ll try to polish off the discussion.
(1) You helped people try to cut off one homeless shelter because conceivably homeless people might get there and do something bad. No, that did not people “send them to Adelanto” — it just meant that those many people would spend more time sleeping on the streets or in jail.
(2) There was — and is — no existing “send them to Adelanto.” The question is: should Newport Beach have actually house homeless people, or can it have the option of raising local taxes to house them elsewhere overnight — while still respecting their constitutional right to walk the sidewalks and be awake in the parks and beaches of Newport Beach during the day. I said: sure, let them buy their way out of it. Make them pay dearly, though.
Nobody would have to be “sent to Adelanto” against their will. (By the way: this already happens with sending people to Victorville, where they get harassed and have no ready lodging, but the homeless get nothing out of it. This would be an opportunity to get decent individual housing in a place with cheaper land, and a free trip back to Newport Beach where they could work and stay in dormitory/barracks housing when they do, and if they save up enough money to rent or buy in Newport, nothing stops them. It would be their choice as to whether to pursue this sort of arrangement. They could, for example, take their chances with another city, or — if there wasn’t any shelter available — could exercise their right to sleep on the streets. Newport only has to solve its share of the housing problem under the settlement, so it only has to design a system to provide shelter for that many people — and the shelter they’d be paying for would be a lot better than that in a crummy motel room, church basement, etc. It would be a home — a shared home with someone on a complementary schedule, but one with real privacy.
(4) How many times have you brought this up in the last four months or so? You picked this fight. Apparently you just expected me to sit still for it indefinitely. I tried that for a while; didn’t work.
(5) A 360-degree turn leaves you facing the same way you were when you started.
(6) To reiterate a point that you failed to engage, the idea of requiring rent for housing is itself an act of economic apartheid. I asked you to state what your affirmative proposal was — you, to put it kindly, demurred.
(7) I don’t think that I did distort your participation in the Kraemer homeless issue. I’m sure that I didn’t distort it as much as you distorted my think-piece. So if I’m Rove, you’re Rover.
(8) You slam capitalist approaches — just as I slam unregulated and ungenerous ones — so what does that leave you proposing? Under purely socialist housing systems you’re assigned a place to live, based on what makes sense to the whole society, by housing commissioners. In Russia, they’re called commissars. I didn’t accuse you of supporting this approach; I tried to list all of the various alternatives to the notion I presented to make it easier for you to pick from a menu. But you did not rise to the challenge of doing so.
(9) You seem to be surprised by a lot of things that should be unsurprising. Bernie would argue that everyone should be given a decent, safe, and private place to live. I’d like to see that too. It requires political changes that are not happening soon, and the homeless can’t wait for them.
(10) But would Bernie has that everyone has the right to be given a free place to live in the most expensive real estate in the county? Have someone drop off a quote from him where he says that, and I promise to consider it.
OK genius, let me bring you back to earth from another of your delusional trips.
I referred to Adelanto as another instance of your positions no longer representing a radical-progressive vision, during a recent conversation with Vern.
Apparently he had forgotten about it. You took his opening by endowing yourself with the virtuosity of being “an actual pragmatist”. Those who disagree are irrational.
Vern
Posted May 14, 2020 at 11:42 AM
And what is this “Adelanto” proposal of Greg’s, which shows “how much he has regressed?” Does that mean anything to you, Greg?”
GD: I’m not a wild-eyed radical, but to be an actual pragmatist these days is to be perceived as a radical.”
I took issue with you being a pragmatist, as the action of what is considered being pragmatic has ethical implications. The man whom you craved to attend dinners on his honor, approved the use of the infamous atomic bombs. He took a pragmatic decision.
Your Adelanto thought experiment, is in my view (as Bernie likes to say), a kind of economic apartheid, segregating people based on class. No matter your good intentions, you are sending poor people to remote locations. A scarcity analysis done by a member of the NYT editorial board reaches different conclusions than yours ( link below).
Your opinion on my participation on the local homeless issue grossly simplifies the dynamics of the policies that were being debated and implemented. It is like saying that you did not care about the plight of the homeless, when you supported one of your poster boys, Spitzer.
You channel Karl Rove because I questioned your idea, and because I point out how ineffective you have become. No wonder activists in many situations avoids being associated with you. You drove people nuts during the mapping of the Anaheim districts. I hear that the same happened when you were in the DPOC Central Committee.
Regarding your red-baiting. Yo sound like Nixon/Kissinger, condemning Chile for electing a Socia-lDemocrat. How do I slam capitalist approaches? If I had, so what?
You’re fast evolving into the second coming of Ayn Rand.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/15/opinion/sunday/homeless-crisis-affordable-housing-cities.html?
You’re right, Vern, 180. Thanks for catching it.
BTW, this is the post where the original ” Adelanto thought experiment” was blasted by many readers.
http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2019/03/day-of-reckoning-for-homeless-neglecting-south-county/
Great — I was having problem finding it, as I thought it referred to a post that I wrote.
I’m happy for people to read that discussion. Let South County (and Newport) pay — through the nose — for not housing homeless there. Eventually taxpayers may wonder why they think that that prejudice is worth it.