This is super-interesting and very insightful, I think. "Performative miserabilism" is a great turn of phrase. I was *most* struck by this graph. I realize his point was, "Ignore this graph, they weren't telling the truth before," but I'm not sure that's the best explanation.
There could be an enormous number of reasons for this. Most people, after all, don't die. It may be on balance more pleasing to people to sit at home, pursue their hobbies, and stay well away from big family gatherings. Especially since no one is starving.
I don't know whether his interpretation or Jon's is more correct. Could be a bit of both. But the latter would explain why there's not more outrage about the government's incompetence. Perhaps people's lives on balance have actually improved.
Maybe losing Grandma struck them as a reasonable price to pay to be away from the French Office, which is notoriously toxic, and the pressures of everyday life, which *are* unusual in France because of the social demand, generally, for extremely disciplined behavior:
(This has always been my theory about why the French are so riot-prone. This is a culture that places an unusual number of formal and informal limits on behavior. Everyone understands the phrase, "Ça se fait pas." The pressure cooker just blows, once in a while.)
It may well be that the reason people *aren't* rioting is precisely the reason they *usually* riot. They've had a break from the pressure of being French. (This pressure isn't pointless: They've built a magnificent country by being French. It's just a hard thing to be.)
Do I believe the statistics about vaccine hesitancy are bogus? No. I've spoken to too many people who've expressed the sentiment, in seriousness, to doubt that a big problem lies ahead. Right now it's supply, but it's going to be demand. I'll be thrilled if he's right;
but it would be *completely irresponsible* to bet on it. This is a problem everyone responsible, at every level of government, and even internationally, must be working to solve. Now. Yes, the elderly got their shots--but they're the ones at highest risk.
Most people will, of course, get vaccinated. But if you want to achieve herd immunity, you just can't have a huge proportion of the population who refuses. And a solid third of France is truly pretty insane:
As in, he's *probably* right they'll vote for Macron again. You get what I mean?
But certainly the term "performative miserabilism" is dead-on. And certainly, the French never, ever, think about the UK. The obsession is entirely one-way.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
If you're telling me you want to put me in a reeducation camp and you tell me you want me to disarm, I'm not apt to do so. To get rid of the weapons, we have to rebuild social trust. People are armed because they don't trust us not to put them in reeducation camps.
No, I don't know how to rebuild social trust, either. But fundamentally, the reason people have guns is because they don't trust the people around them. Rational or irrational, that's why.
I actually suspect even the most ardent 2A enthusiasts are sick to death of this and realize there's a connection between "number of guns" and "number of mass shootings." Deep down, they probably share the desire for "a lot fewer guns."
1. Do not view books are "very important to your child's development and college education." View them as "something that might shut them up for a while so you can be in peace." Buy every book marketed "for children" on the market.
2. Key: Provide *no* other sources of entertainment--certainly not you. They'll start reading. Worried this will screw them up, emotionally? Probably will, yes.
But they will read. (And they won't lose their minds in a pandemic lockdown, either.)
"For the first time in a long time, the United States is not overwhelmingly predominant." This is true.
"If Beijing dominates Asia, the world’s largest market, China will be globally preeminent—and is likely to use its power to coerce and weaken the United States." Also true.
What does this entail? I don't think it entails what the author is hinting. I'm not quite sure what he's hinting, though. "We need to work with those countries willing to invest resources in confronting China, such as India and Vietnam," he says.
This, on the other hand, belongs on the front page, and it's why I can't quit the @nytimes, no matter how they debase themselves with the culture-war clickbait: nytimes.com/2021/03/21/wor…
I guess the red-meat-for-the-Hamptons articles pay for the real reporting, so I should just accept it. It's a functional business model for journalism, even if it's an embarrassing one, and those are scarce these days.
Midway through the article it suddenly hit me--I'm amazed it eluded me thus far--that the reason I've not yet been able to find a coherent account of *exactly how* you make mRNA in a lab is that ... it's a secret. A trade secret.
A lot of journalists going to town on *very* speculative theories of this monster's motivations, of which we in fact know almost nothing at this stage. First it's an anti-Asian hate crime, now it's Evangelical Prudishness Disorder: nytimes.com/2021/03/20/us/…
I realize that when a monstrous act of evil occurs, we search for explanations and that this is a very natural thing to do. Either of these explanations *could* be right. But we're not exactly a country where "mass shootings" are an unknown phenomenon, and most of the time:
We're in the end left stupefied and mystified by the evil (and wondering why we think any lunatic has a fundamental freedom to buy a gun but not an AstraZeneca vaccine.) Ultimately, even at trial--if the shooter survives,