I think a number of thingsFirst, how much I detest the term "herd" being applied to human populations. I don't even like the word being applied to wild populations of animals and barely like it for farm animals. You might be able to tell why from the definitions of it from my favorite dictionary, Merriam Websters:
1 a : a typically large group of animals of one kind kept together under human control
a herd of cattle
b : a congregation of gregarious wild animals
herds of antelopes
2 a (1) : a group of people usually having a common bond
a herd of tourists
(2) : a large assemblage of like things
herds of cars
b : the undistinguished masses : CROWD
… isolate the individual prophets from the herd …
—Norman Cousins
refused to follow the herd [=do what other people do]
I am opposed to considering People in the same terms as farmers and ranchers, agronomists, etc. consider the animals they keep to exploit and kill for profit. I'll go far into that and the rest of the negative implications of considering People in terms of economic utility and as objects for exploitation and use and disposal if you want me to.
I don't think that's unrelated from the appalling information put so badly by the headline, the vast areas of the United States in which our putridly for-profit and "drop dead if you can't afford it" medical system has left so many Americans in terms of protecting them from preventable illness, disability and death. I think it's all part of the same attitude that sees human beings in terms of economic utility to the rich and so powerful and the college-credentialed and so enculturated into the same moral depravity - not to mention the part the theory of natural selection plays in that, though just for now since I've got a busy day ahead of me.
You can't separate that from the Nazi genocides, other active genocides and the equally homicidal cullings of the human population through thinking of us in those terms such as the economists specializing in "economic Darwinism" who informed Trump's Covid-19 policy that led to, some estimate, a million Americans dying unnecessary through the putrid concept of "herd immunity." The same thing that, when Little Bobby Kennedy called for using the same idea to deal with bird flu, which experts in that area said would lead to disaster, though you can see why it would appeal to an affluent white boy lawyer from a rich family who was a complete asshole. It wouldn't cost him and his buddies anything to just let "nature" take its course. And I'm sure the legal scholars would be OK with it, in so far as "the law" went. They generally rig things to ensure "the law" not having to take responsibility for its consequences.
I'm kind of shocked how much of New England falls behind, though I'm not surprised by many of the other areas. Most shocking to me is Western Massachusetts where health insurance for all is mandated and Vermont where they had universal coverage for children. Maybe letting the for-profit medical system work its will is a proven danger to us even under such insurance coverage. I can't tell from the map but I think the yellow colored part of Maine are in the sparsely populated Somerset, Piscataquis and part of Aroostook counties. Which doesn't surprise me. To be frank, I'm surprised it isn't bigger.
I think the large areas of yellow are a result of having medical care being so hard to access over such huge parts of the country, something that Trump and Little Bobby and the rest of their criminal gang are exacerbating by policies that lead to thing like rural hospitals closing, along with the fascists in Congress, many of whom "serve" those areas. Our politics and law are a disaster FOR US. That's a more helpful idea than snarking over how stupid people who live in those places are. I'll bet a majority of them would like for them and theirs and their neighbors to have full coverage, and some of them are smart enough to realize that them not being protected is dangerous to themselves, as well.
That answer your question?
No comments:
Post a Comment