I've never seen such a separation between people who sympathize with the sick, dying and at risk,
from those who take these losses as a given and focus on national and economic security as the role of government.
I believe we can manage both, but when I see the political slamming, shaming and denial going on,
it's like nothing else I've seen before.
I even see prolife advocates express no sympathy for hospital staff affected by shortages
because they see this as an issue of falsely blaming federal govt for responsibilities of state leaders,
instead of supporting the opportunity to bolster states from within.
I asked my prolife friends, how is ignoring the lives of people affected
different from wanting to save a baby from abortion DESPITE the poor decisions of
the parents and the "bad politics" of the state that enables abortion. If you care
in those cases to save the baby from bad politics, why the neglect for people
affected by bad policies by city and state officials? I don't get it but I tried and might have to give up trying!
I still believe this pandemic supports arguments on all sides
that YES we do need states to manage their own localized health care to meet population demands
without relying on federal assistance and YES we do need federal govt to intervene in cases
of catastrophic events, including epidemics, without conflict with states doing the majority
of their own support in order to free up federal authority to focus on interstate commerce and national security.
So both YES to Trump's early enforcement of border controls and travel restrictions.
and YES to political leaders who want to fund health care for all, which is better done
through party and states so you don't backlog the system by concentrating decision
making in the hands of a few, but allow all sites to have direct contact with resources needed.
Why can't we say YES to all the leaders with different priorities and solutions?
It isn't "either or" but all the above.
Create jobs and positions for all leaders with a following and sponsors behind them.
Invest those resources into jobs doing the work instead of fighting about it.
And there's plenty of work to delegate and organize by leaders
to keep the economy and country going. Why not?
Why is there a fight when all ideas and leaders can be put to work equally?
That's what I don't get.
Thanks for your help to coordinate people, ideas and resources
to be effective instead of the nonsense and abuse of media I see
happening that isn't about solutions but arguing about problems!
from those who take these losses as a given and focus on national and economic security as the role of government.
I believe we can manage both, but when I see the political slamming, shaming and denial going on,
it's like nothing else I've seen before.
I even see prolife advocates express no sympathy for hospital staff affected by shortages
because they see this as an issue of falsely blaming federal govt for responsibilities of state leaders,
instead of supporting the opportunity to bolster states from within.
I asked my prolife friends, how is ignoring the lives of people affected
different from wanting to save a baby from abortion DESPITE the poor decisions of
the parents and the "bad politics" of the state that enables abortion. If you care
in those cases to save the baby from bad politics, why the neglect for people
affected by bad policies by city and state officials? I don't get it but I tried and might have to give up trying!
I still believe this pandemic supports arguments on all sides
that YES we do need states to manage their own localized health care to meet population demands
without relying on federal assistance and YES we do need federal govt to intervene in cases
of catastrophic events, including epidemics, without conflict with states doing the majority
of their own support in order to free up federal authority to focus on interstate commerce and national security.
So both YES to Trump's early enforcement of border controls and travel restrictions.
and YES to political leaders who want to fund health care for all, which is better done
through party and states so you don't backlog the system by concentrating decision
making in the hands of a few, but allow all sites to have direct contact with resources needed.
Why can't we say YES to all the leaders with different priorities and solutions?
It isn't "either or" but all the above.
Create jobs and positions for all leaders with a following and sponsors behind them.
Invest those resources into jobs doing the work instead of fighting about it.
And there's plenty of work to delegate and organize by leaders
to keep the economy and country going. Why not?
Why is there a fight when all ideas and leaders can be put to work equally?
That's what I don't get.
Thanks for your help to coordinate people, ideas and resources
to be effective instead of the nonsense and abuse of media I see
happening that isn't about solutions but arguing about problems!
