Tag: vaccine mandates

bookmark_borderIn praise of Aaron Rodgers

Posted on by Marissa

New York Jets (and former Green Bay Packers) quarterback Aaron Rodgers recently went on Joe Rogan’s podcast and shared his views on vaccine mandates and standing up for what he believes in. 

“I’m going to continue talking about this because it’s important to me. I don’t want the memories to be lost. I don’t want what I went through to get brushed over… Look at my situation, I lost friends, allies in the media, millions of dollars in sponsorship because I talked about what worked for me in my own beliefs and my own health reasons why I didn’t get vaccinated.”

I agree with Rodgers 100%. It seems that, for the most part, people have forgotten about the violations of people’s fundamental rights that were committed in the name of fighting the Covid pandemic. I will never forget the fact that my hometown of Boston decided that people like me would not be allowed into restaurants, bars, gyms, theaters, museums, or other indoor public places. The signs in restaurant windows, announcing that proof of vaccination was required to enter, will forever be seared into my memory. This policy was immoral and wrong. The people who enacted it should not be allowed to just continue with their lives, and move on to other issues, with no negative consequences.

Rodgers is right. The memories should never be lost. Violating people’s rights should never be brushed over. 

Rodgers continued: 

“You stand for something, you stand courageously for what you believe in or the opposite side of that is saying nothing or being a coward. I wasn’t willing to do that. Say whatever you want about the way I went about doing it…

In the end, I believe what I did and what I stand for is a tough position to be in. But I think it’s (an) important responsibility to continue to speak up and use my voice to give other people the permission to stand up as well because there’s a lot of people that believe a lot of the things that I believe in that don’t have the opportunity to do it, don’t have the courage to do it, don’t have the platform to do it in. I feel like I can speak for some of those people and hold the line to some of those people regardless what crosshairs that puts me in with certain media members.”

I absolutely love these sentiments.

Amen.

Unfortunately but unsurprisingly, the article about Rodgers and Rogan’s interview, which was originally published in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and also published on Yahoo News, demonstrated the bias that is typical of media outlets. 

The article states:

“Rodgers claimed that people ‘didn’t do critical thinking’ during the pandemic and alleged that ‘as more research comes out, there’s more papers published in very reputable scientific publications that talk about all of the things I was stumping for and talking about.’ What exact scientific publications he was referring to wasn’t clear.”

The fact that people didn’t do critical thinking during the pandemic is not merely something that Rodgers is claiming; it is true. Far too many people failed to think critically during the pandemic, as demonstrated by the widespread enactment of, and public support for, policies that violate people’s rights. 

It’s also unnecessary to mention that it is unclear which scientific publications Rodgers refers to. The author could have simply omitted this sentence. It doesn’t add any information or explanation but is merely the author’s way of expressing his skepticism of, and disdain for, Rodgers. And expressing one’s opinions or feelings about the subject of an article is exactly what journalists should avoid doing.

Another thing mentioned in the article is that Rodgers lost his weekly appearances on “The Pat McAfee Show” due to his controversy with Jimmy Kimmel. This angers me, because Rodgers didn’t do anything wrong and does not deserve to be punished in any way for his comments on Kimmel. As I explained in an earlier post, Kimmel is the one who behaved wrongly in this situation, and therefore the one who deserves to be punished. Kimmel deserves to lose his late-night talk show more than Rodgers deserves to lose his radio appearances.

bookmark_borderThe United States is a totalitarian dictatorship

Posted on by Marissa

I haven’t yet posted about the horrendous state of affairs involving Donald Trump being arrested and charged with crimes for expressing unpopular views and challenging the results of an election.

Please do not mistake my lack of posts on this topic as apathy about the topic, or worse, tacit approval of the events that have happened.

Rather, I have been so upset, angered, and physically sick to my stomach about what has happened that I have been unable to put my thoughts into coherent words and sentences.

In this blog post, I will attempt to do just that, because it is important to make it clear that I am not even remotely okay with what has happened, and continues to happen, in this country.

To put it bluntly, but in my opinion 100% correctly, the United States is a totalitarian dictatorship.

Over the past three and a half years, I have witnessed:

  • The election of a president of the United States who believes that he has the right to require people to undergo medical procedures
  • A nationwide campaign of obliteration of all public art that represents minority cultural and ideological groups and that allows members of such groups to feel accepted and included
  • Mass arrests of dozens of people for the “crime” of holding a protest that advocated for an unpopular cause
  • The arrest of a former president for the “crimes” of expressing unpopular views and challenging the results of an election

I state unequivocally that the things that are happening in the United States today, and that have been happening in the United States over the past three and a half years, are completely unacceptable, and I condemn them fully and completely.

What is happening in the United States is nothing less than a war on dissent. A war on unpopular minorities. A war on human diversity. A war on individualism, on individual rights, on liberty, on freedom. A war on the entire concept of being different, of being a rebel, of resisting authority, of thinking for oneself.

And the worst thing about this war is that the people who are most fiercely waging it are portraying themselves as fighting for diversity and inclusion, and their opponents as intolerant, discriminatory, and racist. Those who have most ardently advocated against respect for fundamental rights are portraying themselves as fighting for liberty, freedom, and bodily autonomy, and their opponents as authoritarians, Nazis, and fascists.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

The people who advocate for the removal of Confederate statues and the replacement of Columbus Day with Indigenous Peoples’ Day are the people who are truly intolerant, who are truly genocidal, who are truly discriminatory, who are truly racist.

The people who demand the violation of the fundamental right to decline medical intervention, who demand that all people’s bodies be forcibly penetrated against their will – and make no mistake, that is exactly what proponents of vaccine mandates have been demanding – are the people who are truly authoritarians, who are truly fascists.

The United States today is run, dominated, controlled by people with no moral compass and no logical consistency, people who practice a form of hypocrisy so blatant, so appalling, and so profound that it is shocking to witness.

The very same people who demanded that everyone’s bodily autonomy be taken away, and condemned those who dared to stand up to them as morons, idiots, racists, white supremacists, and fascists, did an about face to immediately commence pontificating about the importance of bodily autonomy, and accusing their opponents of taking away liberties and freedoms, when the Supreme Court made a decision that jeopardized unfettered access to abortion.

The very same people who praised and fetishized “resistance” when it came in the form of destroying public art that represented minority cultural and ideological groups (making these acts of destruction the exact opposite of resistance), viciously insulted as “insurrectionists” and “rioters” those who engaged in actual resistance to authority.

And when it comes to historical figures who engaged in actual resistance to authority centuries ago, the very same people described above condemn those historical figures as “insurrectionists” and “traitors,” and therefore unworthy of honoring or celebrating.

The hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty are appalling. The people who run, dominate, and control the United States are using words to mean the exact opposite of what the words actually mean, and acting as if this is perfectly normal and the people who dare to question them are the problem.

People are ridiculed for using the word “tyranny” to characterize the things that have been happening in the United States… but it is 100% correct to characterize these events as tyranny.

I would argue that it is ridiculous for someone to claim that the things happening in the United States do not constitute tyranny.

The condition of the United States since 2020 has been one of authoritarianism, of tyranny, of totalitarianism, of complete intolerance for both human freedom and human diversity.

In the United States today, we live in a society that values conformity and compliance above all else, a society that is not only indifferent towards, but actively hostile towards, liberty and individual rights. Society demands that everyone be the same, that everyone follow the same norms, that everyone undergo the same medical procedures, that everyone live in the same way and think in the same way. It is treated as self-evident that everyone must undergo the procedures recommended by the medical establishment, everyone must follow the advice given by experts, and everyone must live under the policies that scientists decide will make people safest. What matters is that people follow norms, trust experts, and obey authority. What matters is that people silence their own feelings and perspectives and instead grovel at the feet of those deemed less “privileged” than themselves. No one is allowed to dissent, to rebel, to defy, to resist, to question authority, to think for oneself, to live in a way that deviates from the norm, or to be different from the majority in any way. These actions and attributes, which in my opinion are synonymous with being honorable and good, are instead equated with moral badness by a society that values nothing but conformity and compliance.

That is what I see happening in the United States today.

It is not acceptable. It is not even remotely close to being acceptable, and never will be. And I don’t want anyone to interpret a lack of writing on this topic, or the presence of writings on other topics, as acceptance. Because acceptance is the antithesis of how I feel about what is happening in the United States today.

bookmark_borderMassachusetts bill H.734, which would ban vaccine mandates

Posted on by Marissa

A bill was filed in the Massachusetts House of Representatives which would prevent the Covid vaccine from being required in order to enter businesses, schools, places of public accommodation, and the state of Massachusetts itself. The bill, H.734, was filed by Rep. Peter Durant.

Below is the testimony that I submitted to the Joint Committee on Emergency Preparedness and Management in support of the bill:

I support this bill for a pretty simple reason: the ability to make one’s own medical decisions about one’s own body is a fundamental right. In my opinion, it’s the most fundamental right there is. And I think it’s important to have a law protecting this right.
I believe that all medical procedures should be optional. Nobody should ever be told that they have to get a medical procedure, by their employer, by their school, by the government, or by a public place that they’re trying to go into. A person’s medical decisions and medical information are not their employer’s business, their school’s business, or the government’s business.

I also want to mention that this bill doesn’t only benefit people who don’t want to get the vaccine. It benefits everyone. I happen to be vaccinated, by choice. I was fortunate enough not to have been required to get the vaccine by my employer. But back when the City of Boston had the vaccine mandate for indoor public spaces, I made the decision not to go to any restaurants, bars, museums, concerts, sporting events, or anything in the City of Boston, because I believe that having to provide medical documentation in order to be allowed into a place is just wrong. It felt totalitarian to me, and it felt incompatible with my dignity as a human being, so I chose to miss out on these activities rather than participate in something that I consider to be morally wrong. I think it’s important that such a situation never be allowed to happen again.

It’s not just about a vaccine. It’s about dignity for all people. It’s about the right to medical freedom, the right to autonomy over one’s own body, and the right to privacy. I think it’s important for these basic rights to be protected by the law.

bookmark_borderMy thoughts on the 2022 elections

Posted on by Marissa

Before 2020, two things were essentially treated as non-controversial and universally agreed-upon. First, the fact that the existing collection of statues and monuments in the United States would continue to exist, with possible additions from time to time. Second, the right to decline medical intervention. In other words, the fact that no adult should be required or forced to undergo any medical procedure.

Unfortunately, beginning in 2020, these two things became controversial, to put it mildly. Politicians from one of the two major political parties began to support both the destruction of the statues and monuments that I need in order to have a life that is worth living, as well as policies that force people to undergo medical intervention against their will. 

For me, the issues of statue destruction and vaccine mandates are by far more important than any other political issues. Both the continued existence of the statues that make my life worth living, as well as the right of people to decline medical intervention, should be universally accepted and completely non-controversial. When one of the two major political parties decided to take positions opposing both of these things, it became a complete no-brainer for me to support and vote for candidates from the other party. There really isn’t much of a decision to be made when one political party supports destroying everything that makes your life worth living and the other one doesn’t.

Last Tuesday night, while watching coverage of the election results, I felt my mood slowly begin to go downhill. Even though I was watching Fox News, the channel least prone to anti-everything-that-makes-life-worth-living bias, the banter of the pundits and the victory speeches of the winning candidates started to get to me for several reasons.

First of all, it seems to be the general consensus among pundits and the general public that Republicans weren’t as successful in this election as expected. This is disappointing because, as I’m sure you’ve guessed, the party that supports destroying everything that makes my life worth living is the Democratic Party. 

But watching the election results was also depressing because even the Republican Party generally doesn’t place as much importance as it should on the issues that truly matter. It is frustrating to see politicians bickering about inflation, the economy, the cost of gas, the war in Ukraine, abortion, whether “drag queen storytime” events are appropriate for kids, and which bathrooms people should be allowed to use, while everything that makes life worth living has been destroyed and no one seems to have any interest in remedying this or punishing the perpetrators. 

The news coverage was depressing for a third reason as well. Given the severity and pervasiveness of the statue genocide, the mere mention of states and cities is enough to trigger overwhelming feelings of grief for the statues that were removed and/or destroyed in those states and cities. For example, when the Fox broadcast showed a map of the county-by-county election results in Virginia, along with the locations of major cities such as Charlottesville and Richmond, my entire being was flooded with stomach-sickening disgust and rage.

The atrocities that have been perpetrated against historical figures have been so devastating to me that for quite some time I gave up consumption of news entirely. Although I used to read the newspaper every day, browse news websites, watch the news on TV, and follow numerous local organizations and public figures on social media, the constant stream of horrifying new developments became so traumatizing that I made the decision to reduce, and then eliminate, my exposure to information. Consuming news used to be an important activity for me because I found it interesting and believe that there is inherent value in being knowledgeable about what is happening in the world. Giving it up was a significant sacrifice but necessary in order to prevent myself from being completely psychologically destroyed. Lately, my mental state has stabilized somewhat (knock on wood), and I have experimented with adding back some of the activities and information sources that I had eliminated. But the past week seems to have demonstrated that I added back the TV news a bit prematurely. I will have to wait before I can safely resume it, if I am ever able to at all. 

Unfortunately, the reality is that I live in a country where the President and Vice President want the people I love to be dismembered and tortured to death. And now I live in a state whose governor-elect wants this as well. But even many politicians from the opposing party, including my state’s current governor, don’t particularly care about the dismemberment and torture of the people I love, either. This demoralizing situation is exemplified by the election of Glenn Youngkin as governor of Virginia last year. Although he was certainly an improvement over his morally repugnant predecessor, Youngkin made no move to repair, restore, or defend the statues that were so viciously brutalized.

Prior to 2020, the continued existence of the people I love was taken for granted, the nation’s collection of statues a backdrop of sorts, atop which politicians bickered over various issues. During the summer of 2020, when the frequency of dismembering and torturing was at its nauseating peak, the outrage of those on the conservative side of the political spectrum made me feel seen and heard. But now, the post-2020 collection of statues, so diminished as to not even be worth fighting for, has become the new backdrop. In other words, the existence of the people I love used to be taken for granted, but now their non-existence is taken for granted. This horrific, incomprehensible, and profound loss no longer seems to register to politicians of either party.

It’s a disturbing situation, to put it mildly, and it is a reality that I have to live with every day. If my day is going relatively well, I can manage to function and possibly even be in a good mood while the disturbing reality lurks in the back of my mind. But other times, the disturbing reality comes to the forefront. Overall, it is very difficult to live in a society in which the political establishment, and likely the majority of people, support the destruction of everything that makes my life worth living.

I believe that it is never acceptable to destroy or remove a statue. I believe that it is never acceptable to require a person to undergo a medical procedure. Without the people I love being allowed to exist, life is not worth living. And without the freedom to make decisions about my own body, life is not worth living, either. Any politician or public figure who disagrees with me on these issues wants me to have a life that is not worth living. And I can’t support any politician or public figure who thinks that, regardless of how mainstream those views are, and regardless of what party the politician is from. 

bookmark_border“They don’t deserve their jobs back”

Posted on by Marissa

“1,400 people voluntarily quit their jobs rather than get vaccinated. They don’t deserve their jobs back. They chose not to do a very, very harmless thing that protects the rest of society. [Expletive] them. I don’t give a [expletive]. ‘This is unfair,’ [expletive] deal with it.”

These are the words of someone named Chris Baugh, an employee of the New York City mayor’s office, which were brought to light last month in a Project Veritas report.

It is disturbing and infuriating that anyone would think, let alone say, such things.

Yes, the 1,400 employees chose not to take an action that protects the rest of society.* So what? People are not morally obligated to protect the rest of society. People are obligated merely to abstain from actively harming people. There simply is no moral obligation to protect other people. I don’t understand why Baugh would react with such viciousness and nastiness towards people who did not harm anyone, but merely abstained from actively protecting others. These employees did nothing wrong.

Then there is the fact that getting a vaccine is not harmless, let alone “very, very” harmless. Getting the covid vaccine requires one’s skin to be penetrated with a needle. That is inherently harmful. Maybe not hugely so… but the magnitude of the harm does not matter. There is no moral obligation to make any sacrifice to protect other people, no matter how small. When you take into account the fact that covid vaccines frequently cause people to become sick for up to 48 hours (that’s a pretty long time to be sick in my book), plus the risk of serious side effects such as strokes and myocarditis, it becomes even more incorrect to call the vaccines harmless.

Contrary to Mr. Baugh’s assertion, the city employees who lost their jobs due to declining a medical intervention absolutely do deserve their jobs back. These employees did nothing wrong; therefore they did not deserve to be punished by having their employment terminated. Declining medical intervention is something that people have a fundamental right to do. Declining medical intervention is not wrong, and it is never acceptable to punish people for it in any way. This is a very, very important moral principle that I will continue to reiterate as long it is not universally agreed upon.

“[Expletive] them”? Really? No, [expletive] you, Mr. Baugh, for your cruelty, viciousness, and nastiness towards people who did absolutely nothing wrong.

How dare you ridicule people for claiming that vaccine mandates are unfair, when in reality, vaccine mandates are unfair, and therefore the people you are ridiculing are saying something that is completely true?

How dare you not “give a [expletive]” about the fact that people’s rights were violated?

And how dare you demand that people who unjustly lost their jobs “deal with it”?

Requiring someone to get a medical procedure as a condition of employment is morally wrong, is unfair, and violates the person’s rights. People should not be expected to “deal with” things that are morally wrong and unfair and that violate their rights. If something is morally wrong, unfair, and violates people’s rights, as is the case with vaccine mandates, then it should not be tolerated, accepted, or dealt with; it should be gotten rid of.

But apparently, Chris Baugh believes that morally wrong, unfair, and rights-violating situations are perfectly fine, and that the people who voice their opposition to them are the problem.

Fortunately, Baugh was fired on October 20, the day after his words were published. Someone who has demonstrated such appalling moral bankruptcy deserves neither a job nor, in my opinion, the right to breathe oxygen or exist on this earth.

*Although even that is debatable, because covid vaccines seem to have almost zero effect on the actual spread of covid, but only its severity.

bookmark_border“Just get the shot”

Posted on by Marissa

“Or just help yourself and people around you to stay healthy. Just get the shot.”

I recently saw this comment on a social media post. Quite frankly, this comment pisses me off. 

No, we do not have to get the shot. 

People can get the shot if they want to. People can choose not to get the shot if that is what they prefer. Both options are equally good and equally valid.

People have a fundamental right not to get the shot.

It really is not a difficult concept to understand.

How dare this person order other people to get a shot? What right does this person have to do such a thing?

How dare this person presume that he/she has the right to tell other people what they must do with their bodies?

Also, getting the shot doesn’t necessarily help a person to stay healthy. Even if it did, people have a fundamental right to decide for themselves what measures, if any, to take to stay healthy. People have a fundamental right to decide for themselves what risks, if any, to take with their health. Additionally, people have no obligation to help the people around them stay healthy. A person’s health is his/her own business, not the business of others.

The attitude demonstrated by this person reminds me of the screaming, angry rant of a sports commentator who, during the halftime of an NBA game, viciously insulted Kyrie Irving for his decision to abstain from the vaccine. “Just get a damn shot!” he shouted, as part of a stream of vitriol and abuse.

This nastiness towards someone who did nothing wrong completely baffles me and blows my mind. Why would someone feel anger towards Kyrie Irving for a medical decision that he made about his own body? The medical decisions that Kyrie makes are no one’s business but his. How could someone be angry about something that is none of his business?

I have the right to make decisions about my body. You have the right to make decisions about your body. You do not have the right to make decisions about my body.

Kyrie has the right to make decisions about Kyrie’s body. A nasty, yelling commentator does not have the right to make decisions about Kyrie’s body.

Contrary to said commentator’s claim, Kyrie actually doesn’t have to get a shot if he doesn’t want to. 

His body, his choice.

The attitude demonstrated by both the social media commenter and the TV analyst is immoral, illogical, and incomprehensible. This attitude pisses me off, and it needs to stop, yesterday.

People have a fundamental right not to get the shot.

You have no right to order them to get it.

It really is that simple.

bookmark_borderThe incomprehensible hatred for “the anti-vaxers”

Posted on by Marissa

“I’m massively hostile to the anti-vaxers. Love the Singapore idea of making them pay for their hospital treatment. Or if that’s too strong the Greek idea of fining the elderly 85 pounds for every month they refuse the vaccine. Something must be done.”

So reads a tweet from last year, which has been making the rounds because its author (hypocritically) recently complained that his latest covid vaccine made him more sick than actually getting covid. 

There are numerous problems with this tweet.

First, the author equates “anti-vaxers” with people who choose not to get the Covid vaccine. This is erroneous, because choosing not to do something is not the same as being opposed to the thing. A person can fully support the fact that vaccines exist and are widely available, while themselves choosing not to get one. Apparently, the idea of people being able to make their own choices is a difficult concept for this tweeter to grasp. 

Second, I disagree with the implication that making vaccine-free people pay for “hospital treatment” is a harsher policy than fining them each month. In my opinion, fining people for the mere fact that they decline the vaccine is by far the harsher (and therefore much more unjust and morally wrong) of the two policies. Holding people financially responsible for medical services that they receive is, arguably, not a punishment at all, but merely the default. After all, for products and services in general, it is typical that when a person purchases a product or service, they are expected to pay for it. When it comes to medical services, it is common for either an insurance company or the government to pay, but holding the individual person financially responsible is not so much a punishment, as the withholding of a benefit. On the other hand, fining a person for declining a medical procedure is directly and indisputably punishing a person for their personal medical decision. It is, therefore, an egregious violation of fundamental human rights. This is much more severe than merely withholding a benefit. Plus, for vaccine-free people who do not ever end up requiring “hospital treatment” for Covid (most likely the vast majority!), the Singapore policy would not negatively affect them at all. That policy only has a negative financial effect on people who are unlucky enough to get a severe enough case of Covid that they go to a hospital. The Greek policy, on the other hand, directly punishes all old people who decline the vaccine, regardless of whether they end up getting severely sick from Covid, or even whether they end up getting Covid at all. This, again, is much more severe than a policy that only affects the few people who happen to get a very severe case of Covid.

Third, people do not “refuse the vaccine.” They choose not to get the vaccine. Semantics matter.

But most important of all is the fact that the overall sentiments expressed in this tweet are absolutely incomprehensible to me. How on earth could someone be “massively hostile” to people who are doing absolutely nothing wrong? To people who are simply going about their lives and minding their own business? How could someone be “massively hostile” towards people for declining a medical procedure? Declining medical procedures is something that people have a fundamental human right to do. How could someone feel hostility towards people for simply going without a particular medical intervention? I just don’t get it.

And why exactly must something be done about the fact that people have declined a medical procedure? People have a fundamental right to make their own medical decisions. People have a fundamental right to decline medical procedures. If a person doesn’t wish to get a medical procedure, then for them to decline the medical procedure is exactly what makes sense. It is exactly the way that things should be. Why would someone consider this a problem? I just don’t understand this way of thinking.

In short, I am “massively hostile” to people who engage in this intolerant, nasty, and authoritarian way of thinking. It is this way of thinking, not people who decline the vaccine, that something must be done about.

bookmark_borderYou don’t need to understand people’s decisions in order to respect them

Posted on by Marissa

One of the moral principles that I strongly believe in, and that I frequently write about on this blog, is the idea that people have the right to do anything they want, as long as it does not violate the rights of anyone else. (This idea is known as the non-aggression principle.)

Unfortunately, many people have the idea that unless they personally understand and agree with another person’s actions and decisions, those actions and decisions are not legitimate. I strongly disagree with this way of thinking. As long as someone’s actions are not directly harming you, they are not required to justify those actions to you, or to anyone else. People have a right to do whatever they believe is best for them. It doesn’t matter if their reasoning does not make sense to you, because their reasoning is none of your business.

Second Amendment rights provide a great example of this. More times than I can count, I have heard the claim, “No one needs an AR-15” (as well as an almost infinite number of variations of this claim with regard to different types of weapons, ammunition, etc.). People who make this claim are completely disregarding the non-aggression principle. One doesn’t need to prove a need for something in order to be allowed to have it. The only thing that matters is the fact that having an AR-15 does not, in itself, harm anyone. Therefore, people have the right to own and carry AR-15s for any reason, or for no reason at all. 

This meme from the National Association for Gun Rights sums it up perfectly:

Another decision that people are frequently expected to justify is the decision not to receive the Covid vaccine. Once I was arguing with someone on Twitter who claimed that if a person chooses not to follow the advice of public health experts, then of course it makes sense that the person would not be allowed to just wander around in public. This line of reasoning took my breath away, not just because of its blatant and unabashed authoritarianism, but more subtly because of its disturbing presumption that people are required to justify their medical decisions. This person seemed to be presuming that people are obligated to provide some sort of medical justification for disobeying the advice of medical experts, and if they fail to do so, then it is okay for them to be punished by having their freedoms taken away. In other words, it is one thing if someone has medical contraindications to getting the vaccine, but absent that, everyone should get the vaccine. Consistent with this way of thinking, the person then proceeded to interrogate me about what reasons a person could possibly have for declining the vaccine. But this way of thinking is wrong, and this line of questioning completely misses the point. Other people’s medical decisions, and the reasons for them, are none of his business and none of my business, either. The right to decline medical procedures is fundamental, and no one is required to provide medical justification, or any justification at all, for exercising it. “I don’t want to” is a perfectly good and complete reason for declining the vaccine.

Analogous situations frequently arise in everyday life as well. Society often expects people to provide a reason if they say no to an invitation, or leave a social event before it is over. These expectations are problematic for me, because I don’t particularly enjoy socializing, and I’m not able to tolerate it for as large amounts of time as most people are. Once when I told a friend that I was having a busy week and therefore wouldn’t be able to go to a particular event with her, she insisted that I explain exactly what I was doing and why that made it impossible for me to attend the event. I have been advised, when a social event is lasting longer than I want to stay, that I should make an excuse such as saying that I have a headache or have to get up early the next day. This has always seemed not quite right to me. Why should I have to make an excuse for staying for what I perceive to be a normal amount of time? My decision to leave a social event would be perfectly legitimate even if my only reason for doing so was preferring to play video games, sit on my couch, or watch paint dry. Just like with medical decisions or gun ownership decisions, people should not have to justify to others their decisions about how to spend their time and energy.

bookmark_borderThoughts on discrimination and exclusion

Posted on by Marissa

The Boston Marathon is one week from today, and I do not plan to go. For many years, I enjoyed watching the runners cross the finish line on Boylston Street, as well as walking around in Boston on what was usually a beautiful spring day. Even though I’m not a diehard fan of long-distance running, the Marathon signaled the start of spring, and the atmosphere of excitement and joy in the city was difficult to top.

In 2020, there was no Marathon due to Covid. In 2021, the Marathon was held on Columbus Day, a day that has been wrongfully turned into Indigenous Peoples’ Day in Boston and some of its surrounding suburbs. The Boston Athletic Association, the organization that runs the Marathon, decided to apologize to indigenous people for holding the race on “their” day (which is actually Italian Americans’ day). To atone for this transgression, the BAA donated money to indigenous organizations and financed various events and art installations honoring indigenous people. Separately, competitors at the Marathon were required to have received the Covid vaccine. For the 2022 Marathon, the BAA has banned Russian athletes from competing due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

At first glance, these decisions by the BAA may seem to have nothing in common. But recently, while pondering the Marathon and whether or not I should go, I had an epiphany: all of the things that make me angry and filled with moral outrage are things that are discriminatory or exclusionary in some way. And the above-mentioned decisions of the BAA all fall into this category. These policies are the reason why I will not be attending the Marathon this year, or perhaps ever. I don’t want to support an event that discriminates against Italian people, Russian people, and people who have opted against getting a particular medical procedure. One of my most basic beliefs is that everyone should be treated equally and everyone should be included.

Unfortunately, in my experience, discriminatory and exclusionary attitudes have become increasingly common and accepted in our society. An increasing number of cities, towns, and organizations have decided, like the BAA, to honor and celebrate indigenous people while ignoring Italian Americans. Like the BAA, companies and governments around the world have perpetrated blatant medical discrimination by enacting vaccine mandates. And now, Russian and Belarussian people are being excluded from athletic competitions and other areas of society because their president made a foreign policy decision that most people disagree with.

Additional examples are everywhere. Affirmative action, by its very nature, treats people differently based on race, which is the definition of racial discrimination. People who don’t like guns refer to those who do to as a “death cult” and ridicule them for allegedly “fetishizing” “killing machines.” Politicians mindlessly express support for “working families” while completely ignoring the fact that this rhetoric, and its corresponding policies such as child tax credits, paid parental leave, and many welfare programs, blatantly discriminate against people who do not have children. During the “Me Too” movement, people were lectured, “Yes, all women” (whatever that’s supposed to mean) and exhorted to “believe all women.” Silly me, I thought that making generalizations about people based on their gender was sexist, and that people’s credibility should be evaluated without regard to their gender. And, although already mentioned above, it bears repeating that intolerant attitudes with regard to Covid safety measures have reached truly appalling levels of ugliness over the past year. People around the world have been subjected to vicious rhetoric, excluded from activities and public places, barred from employment, fined, and even banned from leaving their homes, all for declining a medical procedure that happens to be recommended by the medical establishment. 

The BLM movement and the “woke” ideology provide a myriad of examples of discrimination and exclusion. The reason why I hate this ideology is because it is the exact opposite of what it claims to be. The people who pontificate the most vociferously about diversity and inclusion are, in reality, actively working to undermine these values. An obvious example of this is the obliteration of Confederate statues, flags, holidays, historical markers, and place names. Deciding that only one side in a war is allowed to be honored is the antithesis of inclusion. The brutal destruction of monuments to any historical figure who is even remotely controversial has had the result of completely stripping our country’s statuary of its diversity. It is the antithesis of diversity to allow only the viewpoints of the majority to be reflected in public art. The vicious attacks on Christopher Columbus statues and Columbus Day are similarly discriminatory. Not only does the erasure of Columbus deprive the world of a remarkable historical figure; it also discriminates against Italian Americans.

The slogan “Black Lives Matter” is itself discriminatory. Why should only black people’s lives matter, while the lives of other races are ignored? The phrase “All Lives Matter” resonates with me. Every historical figure deserves to have his or her life memorialized and his or her story told. Every person should be honored, respected, and included, no matter their skin color, gender, age, religion, culture, sexual orientation, abilities, preferences, choices, experiences, or political beliefs. Enough with elevating groups that have allegedly been marginalized, while actively harming other groups and individuals. Enough with singling out certain groups to honor and celebrate, while trampling on everyone else. Instead of having special months and days for black people, indigenous people, Asian Americans, women, gay people, trans people, et cetera, let’s include everyone and treat everyone as equals. 

It is my belief that supporters of the “woke” ideology do not actually believe in diversity or inclusion. Instead, they simply believe in going along with whatever cause is popular and groveling at the feet of whatever group happens to be politically favored. I believe in diversity and inclusion. I believe that All Lives Matter, not just the lives of people who are politically favored.

bookmark_borderWashington council member’s absurd comments on vaccine mandate

Posted on by Marissa

Thankfully, vaccine mandates have been lifted over the past few weeks in various places. One such place was Washington, D.C., where Mayor Muriel Bowser lifted that city’s mandate on February 15. Dismayingly, however, there are numerous people who value safety over respecting people’s fundamental rights, and who have objected to the lifting of vaccine mandates.

One such person was Washington, D.C. Councilmember Brianne Nadeau, who said (according to the Daily Wire):

“As a CM, and a parent of 2 kids under 5, I am flabbergasted and angry. Why would we give up on vaccines when we have come this far? Why are we not protecting the workers in these industries? Why are we telling parents we don’t care if they participate in society? I’m so F-ing mad… This will have a chilling impact on businesses. People who were going out and eating indoors BECAUSE of the mandate will not do that anymore.”

Everything about this statement is absurd.

First of all, ceasing to force people to get vaccines against their will does not constitute “giving up on vaccines.” It is frustrating that so many people equate forcing people to do a thing with the thing itself.

Second, the vaccine mandate applied to workers at affected businesses in addition to customers. Forcing workers to get a medical procedure against their will is the exact opposite of “protecting the workers in these industries.”

Third, it is preposterous to claim that ceasing to force people to get vaccines against their will constitutes “telling parents we don’t care if they participate in society.” There is absolutely nothing about allowing people to make their own medical decisions that prevents parents from participating in society. It seems that Nadeau is attempting to claim that it is impossible for children under 5, because they are not eligible for the vaccine, to go to places where there is any chance that a non-vaccinated person might exist. This is blatantly false. Plus, Nadeau should have specified that she meant specifically parents of kids under 5, while accompanied by their kids, as opposed to merely using the word “parents” and forcing people to guess about what she actually meant.

Additionally, it is irrelevant whether or not ceasing to violate people’s rights will have a chilling impact on businesses. Violating people’s rights is wrong, in all cases, regardless of the impact on businesses (or anything else, for that matter). If people stop eating indoors because they are unwilling to do so unless the rights of others are violated, so be it.

This leads to my most important point: it is incomprehensible that someone could be “flabbergasted,” “angry,” or “F-ing mad” about the fact that people’s rights are not going to be violated anymore. It is vaccine mandates themselves, not their abolition, that ought to make every person on earth flabbergasted, angry, and F-ing mad.

Finding it unacceptable for people’s fundamental rights to actually be respected, Nadeau introduced a bill to reinstate D.C.’s vaccine mandate. Thankfully, her efforts were unsuccessful. But that didn’t stop her from making another preposterous statement, which you can read below:

“I still believe that reinstating the proof of vaccination requirement for certain establishments and facilities is the best way to protect public health and safety. I believe that it is the best way to protect our immunocompromised neighbors, children under five, and even the ninety-three percent of District residents who have received at least one shot of the COVID-19 vaccine. I strongly encourage businesses to keep this protection in place for their workers and patrons. I truly believe that patrons will choose to spend their money in the places they feel protected. If the Washington Post poll is any indication, then 74 percent of residents who support the requirement will have your back. The restaurant workers who have to face unvaccinated out-of-state customers want it. The parents who have to make tough decisions every day about what risks to take with their young children want it. Residents in their twenties still suffering from long COVID want others to avoid their pain, and the residents who passed away saying goodbye to their loved ones on FaceTime would want it if their voices could be heard… I will continue to engage in the hard work of making the District safer, healthier, and fairer.. I implore the Mayor to do the right thing. I implore her to stand up for workers, for young people, for sick people, and for all those whose voices have been drowned out in this conversation by those of lobbyists.”

Let’s go over everything that is wrong with this statement. 

First of all, the number of people who support something has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the thing is right or wrong.

Second of all, I find it odd for someone to refer to being robbed of bodily autonomy as a “protection.” I would much rather patronize a business where my fundamental rights are respected, as opposed to a business where my rights are violated out of some paternalistic desire to protect health and safety.

Third of all, it is twisted and messed up that Nadeau speaks of workers “who have to face unvaccinated out-of-state customers,” as if the existence of people who decline a particular medical procedure is somehow a foreboding and terrible thing.

I also find it presumptuous of Nadeau to assume that restaurant workers, parents of young children, people with long covid, and people who have died of covid would support having their rights, as well as everyone else’s, violated. I’m sure some people in each of these groups (unfortunately) support vaccine mandates, but I’m also sure some don’t. Nadeau should speak for herself instead of presuming to speak for others.

Additionally, for Nadeau to imply that mandating vaccination constitutes “making the District fairer” and “doing the right thing” is the furthest possible thing from the truth. Vaccine mandates might possibly make places safer and healthier, but they absolutely do not make any place fairer. Mandating any medical procedure is both deeply unfair and morally wrong.

Furthermore, vaccine mandates are the furthest possible thing from “standing up” for anyone. Mandating a medical procedure tramples on people’s rights, which is the opposite of standing up for people.

And finally, it is deeply offensive to claim that the decision to cease trampling on people’s fundamental rights is somehow the result of lobbyists’ influence. And it is utterly wrong to claim that the voices of people who support vaccine mandates have somehow been drowned out. The reality is the exact opposite of this: those who actually believe in respecting people’s rights are the ones who have had our voices drowned out, while those who prioritize safety over liberty have completely dominated the conversation. Ultimately, it is irrelevant what led to the decision to lift D.C.’s vaccine mandate, and it is irrelevant how many or how few people support this decision. Stopping trampling on people’s fundamental rights is simply the right thing to do. Anyone who wishes for the rights of others to be violated deserves to have his or her voice drowned out, because such a person is a morally bad person.

In conclusion, Councilmember Nadeau is demanding that her city do the wrong thing by re-implementing a policy that violates people’s rights to make their own medical decisions. She is flabbergasted and angry that a policy violating people’s rights has come to an end, when the thing that she should be flabbergasted and angry about is the fact that the policy was implemented to begin with. This mindset is illogical, immoral, twisted, and (unfortunately) all too common in today’s society.