Give it up for Claire Emmert!! She’s barely even started drawing already getting stuff published—now, onto the fable:
I must address the elephant in the room: We all know that the real (not the Champion for Liberty’s (UCL) mild-mannered alter ego) Dr. Ron Paul is not too keen on the idea of masks1 and it was brought to my attention by the first person that read the comic.2 Foremost, comics use visuals to tell a story, the mask allows for B.A.-looking costume while reminding the reader of the environment in which the story takes place. Second, Dr. Paul is not saying that masks are bad, he is merely offering an objective analysis concerning some of the problems associated with mask-wearing and its effectiveness. Dr. Paul is not a young man despite his looks and demeanor and it’s possible he may even wear a mask; I think, if he were asked directly, he would say people should use their own judgement based on the primary care physician’s recommendations or make a decision based on individual circumstance. It is also the case that many a biker where a bandanna to prevent bugs and such from flying into their mouth/face. In conclusion, I don’t want to hear any smart remarks concerning the mask. On to the diabolical debacle: the government has failed us at every turn of panicked pandemic pandemonium and made the situation worse.
I am ashamed to admit that I thought Dr. Paul went a little too hard, a little too soon, but Dr. Paul turned out to be right on all accounts per usual. I know Dr. Paul is on some “liberty over e’rythang” philosophy; however, he never suggested that the pandemic was not dangerous or serious and attempts to provide analysis of actions taken by government. This has been such a polarizing subject: one either supports everything the government says and does, or they go protest at the state capital with their rifles. That’s the psychology of fear: not being able to objectively discuss something and only being able to react—can it not happen that we have a conversation about whether or not masks are effective while wearing a mask? It’s like the pro-mask advocates think their opponent is going to rip their mask off at any moment and start coughing all over everything. However, the opponents of the pro-maskers can be just as ineffective: the narrative of comparative stats to the flu, for instance, because the corona virus was on top of the flu. Taking Corona out of it and just doubling the numbers of the flu, would or could be enough to overwhelm the hospitals and healthcare facilities. What I mean to say is, if, theoretically, one just doubled the flu numbers, it could potentially have disastrous effects. Flu season at the hospital is like tax season for accounting offices. That, put together with all the changing regulations, education, training, and everything else, I’ll admit it was a scary time and still is. The thought of “shelter-in-home” or “shut-down” (whatever you want to call it) didn’t feel right, but there was Italy and New York and most people kind of went along with the program; once in a while, it even seemed attractive. Of course, reality revealed its true colors like it always does at 2am when the bar turns on the lights and you leave with a woman (even though you’ve begun to come to your senses, but at this point you’re already committed to leaving with her), and you get into her filthy car, understanding that those car seats imply messy children but, even so, you still wonder how anything requiring a car seat could even have been alive long enough to accumulate such a trash bin, right before she tells you “we should eat” because she drank a lot and alcohol does not mix well with her Bipolar medication. That’s where we’re at with COVID. What was once thought of as a one-night stand, all in good fun, two consenting adults, has resulted in life-altering consequences that could last us the rest of our lives—that’s how I felt when I heard about H.R. 6666.
I often struggle with prose and opinions on political philosophy because, I think, who am I to give someone my opinion and why should they care? A cartoonist? A LibertyReport patron? Plus, I feel my personality is better utilized when it is directed to specific arguments in response to something, like improv and such. Maybe it’s what they refer to as “impostor syndrome.” Of course, I am an experienced and educated healthcare professional, so there is that, and, for what it’s worth, Dr. Paul is a physician, as well. Ad hominem arguments are only an informal fallacy—meaning they are occasionally valid, but, regardless, let’s have the ad hominem debate and one can decide for themselves if it is valid. It is my contention that the intervention to stop the spread of infection is doing more harm than good, and as for the opposition:
These are the same people who, prior to the pandemic, told us there should be a “certificate of need” to have hospital beds, and then turned around and told us they didn’t have enough hospital beds3. The same people who told us it was a good idea to restrict hospital beds based on a committee of hospital owners’ opinions (this tantamount to requiring permission to open a burger joint from a committee of restaurant owners 3/4 of which are McDonald’s and Burger King), is now telling us we need more beds. The same people that say that there needs to be licensing and strict regulations for respirators and healthcare equipment for the good of public health, are now saying we have a shortage of ventilators and removed red tape in order to seek assistance from the private sectors of the market.
These are the same people who are telling us, now, we have a surplus of items. The exact same people who arrest people who price gouge sanitation and PPE supplies who are, indeed, the exact same people who allow drug companies to charge double (and that’s being generous) for medications if you have insurance, are telling us we have to wear PPE (masks) or go to jail. These same people that told us masks were ineffective, are mandating masks for public safety. Unless of course you’re black or a “person of color” in Oregon (yes, Oregon has made laws that only apply to certain races). Is the government in Oregon the same people that told us Blacks and Hispanics were more vulnerable to infection and death? Because wouldn’t that be the strangest contradiction?
The same people that want to let violent criminals out of jail and prevent infection, are threatening to take people to jail for playing at the park. Furthermore, how can they police these dictates? The jails are a huge risk for infection. Many people think that this is not a fatal measure, but, if you don’t pay the $500 fine (the law just imposed by Governor Whitmer in Michigan), you will have an arrest warrant issued, (if you resist arrest) they will take you by force, and (if you try to defend yourself) they will kill you. This is true for all laws. These, by the way, are the same people who told us masks won’t make a difference in the beginning.
The same people who took total control of their states with arbitrary laws and regulations about social gatherings based on nothing (or at least that’s how it was ruled by a New Jersey supreme court judge), is now telling us there is a second wave. Restrictions on restaurants, being different from bars, different from grocery stores, different from churches, different for protests, and for what purpose, and to what end?
The same people who let people out of quarantine with no adverse “second wave” until after the infection-safe police protests, are telling us there is a second wave coming. And, to what effect will the culmination of years of problems with policing ending in riots have when they start making them enforce more laws that the people do not agree with?
The same people who prevented by those in healthcare, who were ready to act in this situation, are now telling healthcare professionals they need to be tested every week. CNN4, and a lot of other media outlets for that matter, have exposed the CDC and FDA’s role in preventing healthcare professionals to make the proper interventions. These people are supposed to save us now.
The same people that said saving one life was more important than depression, suicide, economic depression, domestic violence, and alcoholism rates, are the same people claiming they want to save us. The same peoples’ policy made death rates worse with their nursing home policies.
The same people who told us the goal was to delay infection and not overwhelm the healthcare system and that we should “shelter in place” and lock everything down, are the same people that, when the hospitals were not overran, set up temporary emergency facilities all over the country and recruited healthcare professionals, took all of them down without ever being used before they let people out of their home quarantine. Make that make sense. They had to have known they couldn’t lock people down forever, and, when they accommodated for a massive influx of people, they took all of it away before they reopened the cities! I know I just said that, but I don’t understand how people cannot see this. The same people who say private markets cannot efficiently provide safe and reliable healthcare equipment, turned to the private market and lifted regulations and rules in order to produce them more efficiently.
Now, to be fair, the goal (at least at the beginning) was to “flatten the curve” and not overwhelm the healthcare system, and that was accomplished. However, the benefit did not outweigh the risks. This has gone too far, and now they’re trying to put into place a permanent program to prevent the spread of infections? Furthermore, the government has no right to do any of this stuff. What is this going to mean in the future? That they can lock us in our house whenever they feel like it? The Undisputed Champion for Liberty had to destroy this plan. Enough is enough. The government has failed us at every single turn dealing with this pandemic, and now we are to believe it’s different? This is without even getting to all the politicized motivations. The philosopher among us is thinking, “How is it that the countries’ leading experts who advise the authorities who are doing their best be wrong, compared to one guy who draws comics and listens to podcasts? How can one pretend they have the right answer when more sophisticated people have failed?” For philosophers always think in questions. The answer is: I don’t. That is exactly my point, one should listen to their doctor, or mother, village medicine man, priest, or whoever has an interest in their specific community related to their specific disposition. Communities, families, and whatever other secular institution should be responsible for making decisions, for they are the ones who will suffer consequence: trial & error is more responsibly conducted; trial & error on the government’s behalf is affecting peoples’ lives in wide array consequences and taking the power to adjust and adapt out of their hands. H.R. 6666—you can’t make this stuff up.
1. Ron Paul Liberty Report (2020). Corona masks – infection prevention…or submission-signaling? Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZ_akkTDylo&t=86s on 9/6/2021.
2. I am not going to link to a bunch of videos as Dr. Ron Paul’s Liberty Report has been going H.A.M. every day since COVID started. Go ahead and subscribe.
3. I will not be citing all the facts of the case, and, if one is inclined to think I am making something up, I encourage them to do their own research and would appreciate any feedback. Except, of course, the citation below, because it seems that this has also been a news channel strongly supporting these stipulations, and even they reported this abuse of power.
4. Ortega, B., Bronstein, S., Devine, C., and Griffin, D. (2020). How the government delayed coronavirus testing. CNN Investigates. Retrieved from: https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/09/politics/coronavirus-testing-cdc-fda-red-tape-invs/index.html&p=8&pos=8 on 7/4/2020.