A study of studies didn't refute their value to the extent advertised.
By Editorial Board Star TribuneFebruary 27, 2023 — 5:45pm
The human mind is ill at ease with ambiguity, with imperfect solutions and, especially, with being told to think what it isn't inclined to think.
That's perhaps why a researcher who believes that the effectiveness of wearing face coverings to prevent disease has not yet "been given a proper trial" is nonetheless willing to say that it "makes no difference — none of it," not even N95 respirators, and why others who just knew it all along are happy to add: "I told you so."
So that's that? Masks have been useless against COVID? "There's no evidence that they do work — that's right," says Tom Jefferson. "It's possible they could work in some settings … we'd know if we'd done trials."
Jefferson is lead author of a recent Cochrane review, "Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of acute respiratory viruses." Cochrane is a respected nonprofit that does meta-analysis — essentially, studies of studies — in an attempt to figure out what, if anything, conclusive can be found among disparate research into what works and what doesn't.
Such an approach can improve confidence, but it doesn't necessarily clear away caveats. That Cochrane's work is a "gold standard," as characterized in a recent commentary by New York Times columnist Bret Stephens that was republished by Star Tribune Opinion, is not a universal view, as evidenced by Minnesota epidemiologist Michael Osterholm on a recent podcast. In Osterholm's view, it still involves people, and thus bias.
In this case, it also still involves plenty of ambiguity: What kind of masks were studied? What kind of discipline in using them? What was the quality of the research?
Cochrane's look at masking and other disease precautions took in 78 studies. It updated a 2020 review, adding six done during the pandemic to the bulk done before the COVID era. If there's an overarching conclusion, it's that Cochrane didn't have much confidence in the methodology it encountered. Money quote: "The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions."
Osterholm and colleagues at the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota have further critiques at tinyurl.com/cidrap-masks. Essential advice: If you're in a position of risk, wear an N95.
The Cochrane study also didn't deter the World Health Organization from reiterating that masks are effective. Maria Van Kerkhove, WHO's technical lead for COVID-19, said the organization looks at all available evidence.
But Jefferson's decisive tone, amplified by Stephens, gave fresh energy to sentiment against masks and, in particular, mask mandates. Jefferson, a University of Oxford epidemiologist, called such policies "a complete subversion of the 'precautionary principle,' which states that you should do nothing unless you have reasonable evidence that benefits outweigh the harms."
We suppose that's "first do no harm" in a nutshell. However, inaction can also cause harm. At the start of it all in 2020, the world didn't know exactly what it had on its hands. A new virus was spreading rapidly and killing efficiently. That's exactly the scenario in which it's wise to withdraw, assess and grab what defenses are available. The world knew little about COVID-19 then but could expect to know much more with time. Vaccines were a hope on the horizon.
Did mask mandates cause harm? No, they caused inconvenience to many, annoyance to some. Closing schools to in-person learning, on the other hand, did visible harm to students. Yet even there the counterfactual is hard to pin down — that if schools had been left open at that point, they wouldn't have been a locus of transmission.
It's smart to scrutinize such responses in the hope of improving them next time around. From the looks of it, an opportunity to study masking in the crucible of a live pandemic was missed. It's not too late to learn more, and the Cochrane review is a start.
For a brief while in the early stages of the pandemic, there was unity in the public response. Would society be as proactive again? COVID mutations are unpredictable. Vaccine uptake is dwindling. Meanwhile, a broad outbreak of bird flu has been spreading uncharacteristically among mammals. It's not reaching people but could have a high fatality rate if it did.
Meanwhile, COVID still kills hundreds of Americans each day. You know, in case you lost track.
So here is something worth a thought or two: Through its personnel Fox repeatedly lied about the election. It lied in order to retain its audience. It wished to retain its audience in order to maximize profits. But the Fox audience is not the source of Fox profits. Profits come from advertisers. So who are we talking about? And what was going on there? Advertisers, if they are corporations, have executives, boards of directors. What were they saying? Thinking? Doing? There's probably more there to analyze, and certainly more to discover, than the attitude and behavior of Rupert Murdoch.
This links to a list of current advertisers and their social media contact information. I don't know how definitive it is, but it is clear that boycotting won't be easy.
Like the name but the sponsors are major consumer companies and they are sophisticated and need to be finessed into doing something. Unfortunately Fox viewers are their consumers too. We need people who can access the top executives of these companies and have a rational conversation and define the consequences of not doing anything. Disney was attacked and backed off in part because they knew the financial decision DeSantis made would cost the state of Florida a lot more money which they will help make public. The threat of a boycott might be a powerful weapon.
The most effective boycotts historically have been generated at the grassroots level. What we need to do is get the information out and then find a way of getting and communicating the level of effectiveness. Most boycotts die out because the people involved don't get feedback on the impact they're having. Fox viewers, like most of us, patronize these companies but there are only about 5 or 6 million of them and a lot more of us who don't watch or listen to Fox at all.
Dave I just looked up who they are on Google and agree this would be very effective. If we can’t trust what a fox is broadcasting how can we believe your ads.
In 2022, the media company Fox Corporation reported a revenue of around 14 billion U.S. dollars. Most of its revenue was generated with the segment television, at over 7.6 billion U.S. dollars.Feb 9, 2023
What we have not seen yet is corporate sponsors who have decided that advertising now on Fox is worth the cost to there reputation and brand. Loss of advertising dollars and audience is the only way to manage Fox
The major source of revenue for the faux entertainment network (FEN), are cable TV subscriptions. If you have cable TV, you are financing the FEN. There is a movement for not paying for FEN on all cable subscriptions, i.e. you would have to opt in for FEN. That would undermine their profits much more than their advertisers. Just saying.
Let's hope that the damages Fox has to pay to Dominion will exceed the billions of lost revenue Fox avoided through lies about the lost election. It would be a shame if Fox could shrug off the damages as no more than a cost of doing business.
In addition to the full 6 billion, I would like to see Fox (and any affiliates owned by the Murdoch family) begin every show, for each and every host by reading out loud, on air, the questions and answers Robert has directed us to from the deposition. To have to do this for 16 years for (Jan 6th) sounds about right to me.
It makes me sick to read that the "National Review does not mention the Dominion lawsuit disclosures in its coverage today, but laughably leads its news stories with a plea for donations to help to “Combat the Lies”"
Commentators talk about whether or not Fox will settle. I don't care what Fox wants, I don't want Dominion to settle! This case needs to leave a very public mark on Fox, which a settlement will probably not do. But unless you were including some concept of punitive damages, Dominion sued Fox for 1.6 billion, though I think 6 billion is very fair for the amount of damage to this democracy that has been done by Fox.
While I agree with Robert that seating Judge Janet Protasiewicz on the Wisconsin Supreme Court is critically important for the people in Wisconsin and for all of us in this country, I also believe we can’t afford to tolerate MSM interviewers who allow guests to spout nonsense and who, then, simply move to the next topic instead of asking the follow-up questions. Admittedly, anchors and reporters must pick their battles. While they can’t subject all the nonsense to critical scrutiny, they, at least, can call out some of it.
I understand that what in Madison’s day was known as “the press” and today has become “the media” was considered at least as critical a factor as the three branches of government, for it alone could provide the necessary information and nurture the fundamental discourse that would maintain the democratic republic. Accordingly, even as laypersons, I contend we must use every resource in our arsenal to demand that the inaccuracies and distortions that repeatedly are served up are not left unchallenged.
As for me, I intend regularly to contact so-called journalists with the follow-up questions they neglect to ask and discuss the ensuing consequences of said omissions. I hope others will join me in this fight.
Hi, Barbara Jo. The one news anchor who does a good job of following up is Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC. He has developed into a fine interviewer who does not merely accept the answers his guests give to him.
Good for you for fighting back. Sadly, the ONLY thing that matters to MSM is ad revenue generated by ratings, clicks and likes (engagement). I don't watch any of it.
Marsha, I grant that the media constitute a commercial, profit-driven enterprise. Still, because news media theoretically should act as filters getting as close as possible to the verifiable truth, the question, in my view, is whether news media can meaningfully engage in “public service” and nurture the “public trust” and still make their corporate owners the sort of money they currently do, or whether the desire to make bigger profits actually drive media owners to provide expedient rather than useful content. I imagine the answer partly rests with whether viewers (and readers) take note of and really care whether the news media are fair and accurate and are guided by democratic principals.
Here's my elephant in the room: Writing postcards to elect Judge Protasiewicz to the Wisconsin State Supreme Court. Someone once told me that if you get nothing else right, be sure to spell their name correctly. To that end, don't be afraid to proofread...even after writing your 70th postcard!
And this 16-second video will help you pronounce her name: "Pro-Tuh-Say-Witz." Got it!
Lynell, Thank you both for the phonetic pronunciation and the video. Though I’ve attended carefully to the spelling, I had no idea how to pronounce the judge’s surname.
Beyond the possible financial cost in payments to Dominion, are there no legal consequences for Fox's deliberate promotion of the big lie or punitive action that can be taken by the FCC?
Possibly. But Trump nearly destroyed the FCC with his appointments. I will check out the current board and write about the current state of affairs in the an upcoming newsletter.
I should have posted this yesterday, as it pertains to a parent who'd fought in WWII. But, as they say, better late than whatever...
I wrote this on Feb. 6th, the 2nd anniversary of my father's death. It was in response to Robert's beautiful piece, "My Kippah," honoring his beloved friend.
I read your moving piece about your friend, and wanted to write a comment but it was too difficult, as your writing expressed what needed to be said in such a loving and beautiful way that nothing more was wanted. Today is the 2nd anniversary of my father's death. Because you shared with me (as part of your community), I'd like to share a very small bit with you.
My father, Charles James Leven, was a great man. He lived to be 93. When he was 14, he ran away from home and in pretty short order enlisted in the Canadian Army during WWII. There's a video of him talking about his experience online with an interviewer, if you type in his name. Did you know, he had such integrity that even as a teenager in the midst of a world conflagration - where the enemy was literally intent on killing every Jewish person in the world - my father, a Jewish teen, refused to countenance any abuse of German prisoners? When he saw it, he stopped it. He participated in the second wave of D-Day and was wounded by shrapnel. Happily for me, he recovered, came back to the U.S. and went to college on the G.I. Bill. When he was a young man, the prejudice against Jewish people in this country was such that he got a job in retail, as most other occupations were closed to him. He rose through the ranks to become a Senior Vice President at Saks 5th Avenue, and in retirement, Chair of AARP.
The real news about him, though, is that, despite not having a father (his father died of meningitis when he was only two), he committed his life to the care of his wife, my mother, and of his children (my brothers and I) with steadfast faithfulness and commitment. He had cancer twice (the first time in the 1960's, can you imagine) and recovered twice, plus open-heart surgery. Looking back, I think a Higher Power must have been involved somehow through his many vicissitudes. He was always modest. When he laughed, no sound came out of his mouth but everyone in the room had to laugh with him. As a boy, he'd watched the elderly Civil War vets march in the local (Massachusetts) parades - something that just astounded me. He had so many stories that even in his 90's, he rarely repeated one unless specifically asked. He was a living bridge to history. He became a scholar of WWII. I wish he had written a book, himself. He read everything ever written about that conflict, or nearly so.
I loved (and admired) him so very much. He was an old-fashioned person, in a certain sense. He embodied, in my mind, a real American.
Your father was a good American and a really extraordinary person. You were so fortunate to have him. Thank you for sharing some of his story. May his memory be a blessing.
Regarding the DOE study conclusions regarding the Covid source, the most obvious question is what business is the Covid source to the Department of ENERGY?
that is a good question, but DOE funds labs around the world for energy programs. It apparently has a lab monitoring function that gave it some insight into what happened with the Wuhan lab in China. That is a surmise on my part.
I have been asking that question since the first time I heard about the report. Thank you for asking that question, David, and thank Robert for answering it. It makes a little more sense to me now.
Last night, after Rachel Maddow interviewed her, my wife and I contributed to Nebraska state senator Machaela Cavanaugh. Sen. Cavanaugh is in the midst of a filibuster that is intended to stop all business in the Nebraska state legislature until that body stops trying to pass anti-trans legislation. A heroic stand by a lone legislator in a bright red state!
What if all the outlets and advertisers who are abandoning Scott Adams and "Dilbert" took it up several notches, and abandoned Rupert Murdoch and Fox, Inc.?
Has anyone else noticed that MY PILLOW advertises on Fox. And Amazon? Yesterday, I ordered something from Amazon, mistakenly thinking it was the only on-line source. What an amazingly efficient system!!!!!!! I canceled when I found another source. AMAZON is a top advertiser on Fox!
I'm 96, old enough to remember there have always been cheats. And old enough to remember when we didn't admire them. A 'Shanda' for the neighbors.
Yeah! The things we do for our consciences - and we're not the only ones! "In this best of all available worlds, occasionally something happens for the best." igm
Do we still have an "FCC"? Is it staffed? Are there no rules that can be enforced? Is there anyone here who can explain why the FCC has no power over a situation like this? Isn't an abuse of this enormity a violation of some FCC rule or code? Can anyone here help us to understand if the FCC has any reason to exist if they can't act on such abuses?
Robert replied elsewhere (above) that Trump destroyed the FCC with his appointments [as he did by appointing DeJoyless as head of the USPS]. He said he'll write about the current board in a forthcoming post.
Thank you for the info you provided several days ago about the Cochrane mask metdata analysis. I used it as follows for the following rebut in the Minneapolis Star Tribune: https://www.startribune.com/readers-write-benefits-of-masking-school-meals-abortion/600254619/ and the newspaper followed up 2 days later with not only several more such letters but also its major opinion https://www.startribune.com/its-still-ok-to-think-masks-were-a-good-idea/600254868/
Wow, wow, wow! Congrats for doing an amazing job in fighting disinformation. I am pinning your note to the top for other readers to see. Thanks!
Too bad the second article is paywalled. But kudos to you for countering the disinformation in the original article.
https://www.startribune.com/its-still-ok-to-think-masks-were-a-good-idea/600254868/
It's still OK to think masks were a good idea
A study of studies didn't refute their value to the extent advertised.
By Editorial Board Star TribuneFebruary 27, 2023 — 5:45pm
The human mind is ill at ease with ambiguity, with imperfect solutions and, especially, with being told to think what it isn't inclined to think.
That's perhaps why a researcher who believes that the effectiveness of wearing face coverings to prevent disease has not yet "been given a proper trial" is nonetheless willing to say that it "makes no difference — none of it," not even N95 respirators, and why others who just knew it all along are happy to add: "I told you so."
So that's that? Masks have been useless against COVID? "There's no evidence that they do work — that's right," says Tom Jefferson. "It's possible they could work in some settings … we'd know if we'd done trials."
Jefferson is lead author of a recent Cochrane review, "Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of acute respiratory viruses." Cochrane is a respected nonprofit that does meta-analysis — essentially, studies of studies — in an attempt to figure out what, if anything, conclusive can be found among disparate research into what works and what doesn't.
Such an approach can improve confidence, but it doesn't necessarily clear away caveats. That Cochrane's work is a "gold standard," as characterized in a recent commentary by New York Times columnist Bret Stephens that was republished by Star Tribune Opinion, is not a universal view, as evidenced by Minnesota epidemiologist Michael Osterholm on a recent podcast. In Osterholm's view, it still involves people, and thus bias.
In this case, it also still involves plenty of ambiguity: What kind of masks were studied? What kind of discipline in using them? What was the quality of the research?
Cochrane's look at masking and other disease precautions took in 78 studies. It updated a 2020 review, adding six done during the pandemic to the bulk done before the COVID era. If there's an overarching conclusion, it's that Cochrane didn't have much confidence in the methodology it encountered. Money quote: "The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions."
Osterholm and colleagues at the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota have further critiques at tinyurl.com/cidrap-masks. Essential advice: If you're in a position of risk, wear an N95.
The Cochrane study also didn't deter the World Health Organization from reiterating that masks are effective. Maria Van Kerkhove, WHO's technical lead for COVID-19, said the organization looks at all available evidence.
But Jefferson's decisive tone, amplified by Stephens, gave fresh energy to sentiment against masks and, in particular, mask mandates. Jefferson, a University of Oxford epidemiologist, called such policies "a complete subversion of the 'precautionary principle,' which states that you should do nothing unless you have reasonable evidence that benefits outweigh the harms."
We suppose that's "first do no harm" in a nutshell. However, inaction can also cause harm. At the start of it all in 2020, the world didn't know exactly what it had on its hands. A new virus was spreading rapidly and killing efficiently. That's exactly the scenario in which it's wise to withdraw, assess and grab what defenses are available. The world knew little about COVID-19 then but could expect to know much more with time. Vaccines were a hope on the horizon.
Did mask mandates cause harm? No, they caused inconvenience to many, annoyance to some. Closing schools to in-person learning, on the other hand, did visible harm to students. Yet even there the counterfactual is hard to pin down — that if schools had been left open at that point, they wouldn't have been a locus of transmission.
It's smart to scrutinize such responses in the hope of improving them next time around. From the looks of it, an opportunity to study masking in the crucible of a live pandemic was missed. It's not too late to learn more, and the Cochrane review is a start.
For a brief while in the early stages of the pandemic, there was unity in the public response. Would society be as proactive again? COVID mutations are unpredictable. Vaccine uptake is dwindling. Meanwhile, a broad outbreak of bird flu has been spreading uncharacteristically among mammals. It's not reaching people but could have a high fatality rate if it did.
Meanwhile, COVID still kills hundreds of Americans each day. You know, in case you lost track.
Thank you for providing this article, Erica!
Welcome, you only need to hit your reader at the right time before the whole article loads. This works on most outlet sites.
I read the first one, but unless you have a subscription, it would not allow me to read the follow-up 2 days later.
So here is something worth a thought or two: Through its personnel Fox repeatedly lied about the election. It lied in order to retain its audience. It wished to retain its audience in order to maximize profits. But the Fox audience is not the source of Fox profits. Profits come from advertisers. So who are we talking about? And what was going on there? Advertisers, if they are corporations, have executives, boards of directors. What were they saying? Thinking? Doing? There's probably more there to analyze, and certainly more to discover, than the attitude and behavior of Rupert Murdoch.
It may be time to publish a list of Fox advertisers so those of us who don't watch it know whose products to stop buying.
This links to a list of current advertisers and their social media contact information. I don't know how definitive it is, but it is clear that boycotting won't be easy.
https://dropfox.com/advertisers/
Thanks! Maybe collectively we could choose two or three and make concerted effort on those alone?
Great idea.
Agree and we need a national approach to this to have any impact. We need an organization to sponsor this effort.
I think that dropfox is trying to be that organization and that by spreading this as far as we can, we can put some legs under it.
Like the name but the sponsors are major consumer companies and they are sophisticated and need to be finessed into doing something. Unfortunately Fox viewers are their consumers too. We need people who can access the top executives of these companies and have a rational conversation and define the consequences of not doing anything. Disney was attacked and backed off in part because they knew the financial decision DeSantis made would cost the state of Florida a lot more money which they will help make public. The threat of a boycott might be a powerful weapon.
The most effective boycotts historically have been generated at the grassroots level. What we need to do is get the information out and then find a way of getting and communicating the level of effectiveness. Most boycotts die out because the people involved don't get feedback on the impact they're having. Fox viewers, like most of us, patronize these companies but there are only about 5 or 6 million of them and a lot more of us who don't watch or listen to Fox at all.
Dave I just looked up who they are on Google and agree this would be very effective. If we can’t trust what a fox is broadcasting how can we believe your ads.
I think you've hit on the right approach Stephen. Hopefully the list below will help.
Plus the $ they make from their cable tv packages.
In 2022, the media company Fox Corporation reported a revenue of around 14 billion U.S. dollars. Most of its revenue was generated with the segment television, at over 7.6 billion U.S. dollars.Feb 9, 2023
https://www.statista.com › statistics
This is the greatest source of revenue for faux entertainment.
What we have not seen yet is corporate sponsors who have decided that advertising now on Fox is worth the cost to there reputation and brand. Loss of advertising dollars and audience is the only way to manage Fox
The major source of revenue for the faux entertainment network (FEN), are cable TV subscriptions. If you have cable TV, you are financing the FEN. There is a movement for not paying for FEN on all cable subscriptions, i.e. you would have to opt in for FEN. That would undermine their profits much more than their advertisers. Just saying.
Whatever works, I cut the cable a long time ago, and Fox isn't among the subscriptions I carry.
Let's hope that the damages Fox has to pay to Dominion will exceed the billions of lost revenue Fox avoided through lies about the lost election. It would be a shame if Fox could shrug off the damages as no more than a cost of doing business.
In addition to the full 6 billion, I would like to see Fox (and any affiliates owned by the Murdoch family) begin every show, for each and every host by reading out loud, on air, the questions and answers Robert has directed us to from the deposition. To have to do this for 16 years for (Jan 6th) sounds about right to me.
It makes me sick to read that the "National Review does not mention the Dominion lawsuit disclosures in its coverage today, but laughably leads its news stories with a plea for donations to help to “Combat the Lies”"
I agree with you.
Commentators talk about whether or not Fox will settle. I don't care what Fox wants, I don't want Dominion to settle! This case needs to leave a very public mark on Fox, which a settlement will probably not do. But unless you were including some concept of punitive damages, Dominion sued Fox for 1.6 billion, though I think 6 billion is very fair for the amount of damage to this democracy that has been done by Fox.
While I agree with Robert that seating Judge Janet Protasiewicz on the Wisconsin Supreme Court is critically important for the people in Wisconsin and for all of us in this country, I also believe we can’t afford to tolerate MSM interviewers who allow guests to spout nonsense and who, then, simply move to the next topic instead of asking the follow-up questions. Admittedly, anchors and reporters must pick their battles. While they can’t subject all the nonsense to critical scrutiny, they, at least, can call out some of it.
I understand that what in Madison’s day was known as “the press” and today has become “the media” was considered at least as critical a factor as the three branches of government, for it alone could provide the necessary information and nurture the fundamental discourse that would maintain the democratic republic. Accordingly, even as laypersons, I contend we must use every resource in our arsenal to demand that the inaccuracies and distortions that repeatedly are served up are not left unchallenged.
As for me, I intend regularly to contact so-called journalists with the follow-up questions they neglect to ask and discuss the ensuing consequences of said omissions. I hope others will join me in this fight.
Hi, Barbara Jo. The one news anchor who does a good job of following up is Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC. He has developed into a fine interviewer who does not merely accept the answers his guests give to him.
Good for you for fighting back. Sadly, the ONLY thing that matters to MSM is ad revenue generated by ratings, clicks and likes (engagement). I don't watch any of it.
Marsha, I grant that the media constitute a commercial, profit-driven enterprise. Still, because news media theoretically should act as filters getting as close as possible to the verifiable truth, the question, in my view, is whether news media can meaningfully engage in “public service” and nurture the “public trust” and still make their corporate owners the sort of money they currently do, or whether the desire to make bigger profits actually drive media owners to provide expedient rather than useful content. I imagine the answer partly rests with whether viewers (and readers) take note of and really care whether the news media are fair and accurate and are guided by democratic principals.
Here's my elephant in the room: Writing postcards to elect Judge Protasiewicz to the Wisconsin State Supreme Court. Someone once told me that if you get nothing else right, be sure to spell their name correctly. To that end, don't be afraid to proofread...even after writing your 70th postcard!
And this 16-second video will help you pronounce her name: "Pro-Tuh-Say-Witz." Got it!
https://chopwoodcarrywaterdailyactions.substack.com/p/extra-extra-226
Lynell, Thank you both for the phonetic pronunciation and the video. Though I’ve attended carefully to the spelling, I had no idea how to pronounce the judge’s surname.
Me neither, Barbara Jo. Thanks to Jessica Craven's video, I can now say it correctly!
With the accent on SAY.
Excellent explanation of right wing media hypocrisy as well as the other items discussed.
Once again, thank you for this capsule of all the chaos and chicanery battering our weary, but stalwart hearts, minds, bodies, and spirits.
Beyond the possible financial cost in payments to Dominion, are there no legal consequences for Fox's deliberate promotion of the big lie or punitive action that can be taken by the FCC?
Possibly. But Trump nearly destroyed the FCC with his appointments. I will check out the current board and write about the current state of affairs in the an upcoming newsletter.
Please do. This is vital information, although we have depend on the DOJ to follow up.
I think giving Trump's team an early look at advertising from his opponent is one of the more disgusting acts that I've read about
I should have posted this yesterday, as it pertains to a parent who'd fought in WWII. But, as they say, better late than whatever...
I wrote this on Feb. 6th, the 2nd anniversary of my father's death. It was in response to Robert's beautiful piece, "My Kippah," honoring his beloved friend.
I read your moving piece about your friend, and wanted to write a comment but it was too difficult, as your writing expressed what needed to be said in such a loving and beautiful way that nothing more was wanted. Today is the 2nd anniversary of my father's death. Because you shared with me (as part of your community), I'd like to share a very small bit with you.
My father, Charles James Leven, was a great man. He lived to be 93. When he was 14, he ran away from home and in pretty short order enlisted in the Canadian Army during WWII. There's a video of him talking about his experience online with an interviewer, if you type in his name. Did you know, he had such integrity that even as a teenager in the midst of a world conflagration - where the enemy was literally intent on killing every Jewish person in the world - my father, a Jewish teen, refused to countenance any abuse of German prisoners? When he saw it, he stopped it. He participated in the second wave of D-Day and was wounded by shrapnel. Happily for me, he recovered, came back to the U.S. and went to college on the G.I. Bill. When he was a young man, the prejudice against Jewish people in this country was such that he got a job in retail, as most other occupations were closed to him. He rose through the ranks to become a Senior Vice President at Saks 5th Avenue, and in retirement, Chair of AARP.
The real news about him, though, is that, despite not having a father (his father died of meningitis when he was only two), he committed his life to the care of his wife, my mother, and of his children (my brothers and I) with steadfast faithfulness and commitment. He had cancer twice (the first time in the 1960's, can you imagine) and recovered twice, plus open-heart surgery. Looking back, I think a Higher Power must have been involved somehow through his many vicissitudes. He was always modest. When he laughed, no sound came out of his mouth but everyone in the room had to laugh with him. As a boy, he'd watched the elderly Civil War vets march in the local (Massachusetts) parades - something that just astounded me. He had so many stories that even in his 90's, he rarely repeated one unless specifically asked. He was a living bridge to history. He became a scholar of WWII. I wish he had written a book, himself. He read everything ever written about that conflict, or nearly so.
I loved (and admired) him so very much. He was an old-fashioned person, in a certain sense. He embodied, in my mind, a real American.
Thanks so much for sharing, Louise. You are blessed to have such an extraordinary father.
Your father was a good American and a really extraordinary person. You were so fortunate to have him. Thank you for sharing some of his story. May his memory be a blessing.
Thank you.
Regarding the DOE study conclusions regarding the Covid source, the most obvious question is what business is the Covid source to the Department of ENERGY?
that is a good question, but DOE funds labs around the world for energy programs. It apparently has a lab monitoring function that gave it some insight into what happened with the Wuhan lab in China. That is a surmise on my part.
But why publish the findings at all if they're of only "low confidence"? Better to just have said "Inconclusive."
Because they knew that millions would click through. It's nothing more than $$$.
Good question. I can't remember which late night comedy show made a point of this. Their question was how does the DMV weigh in. LOL.
I have been asking that question since the first time I heard about the report. Thank you for asking that question, David, and thank Robert for answering it. It makes a little more sense to me now.
Since the early days of Fox I’ve referred to it as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican National Committee.
Last night, after Rachel Maddow interviewed her, my wife and I contributed to Nebraska state senator Machaela Cavanaugh. Sen. Cavanaugh is in the midst of a filibuster that is intended to stop all business in the Nebraska state legislature until that body stops trying to pass anti-trans legislation. A heroic stand by a lone legislator in a bright red state!
What if all the outlets and advertisers who are abandoning Scott Adams and "Dilbert" took it up several notches, and abandoned Rupert Murdoch and Fox, Inc.?
Has anyone else noticed that MY PILLOW advertises on Fox. And Amazon? Yesterday, I ordered something from Amazon, mistakenly thinking it was the only on-line source. What an amazingly efficient system!!!!!!! I canceled when I found another source. AMAZON is a top advertiser on Fox!
I'm 96, old enough to remember there have always been cheats. And old enough to remember when we didn't admire them. A 'Shanda' for the neighbors.
L&B&L
Yeah! The things we do for our consciences - and we're not the only ones! "In this best of all available worlds, occasionally something happens for the best." igm
I made that up, Sylvia
L&B&L
RE: Fox lies.
Do we still have an "FCC"? Is it staffed? Are there no rules that can be enforced? Is there anyone here who can explain why the FCC has no power over a situation like this? Isn't an abuse of this enormity a violation of some FCC rule or code? Can anyone here help us to understand if the FCC has any reason to exist if they can't act on such abuses?
As I understand it the FCC has no licensing authority over cable providers as they do not use the public broadcasting radio waves.
Thank you. Sounds right but seems wrong. Like a technicality that should be swept away by law and logic.
Robert replied elsewhere (above) that Trump destroyed the FCC with his appointments [as he did by appointing DeJoyless as head of the USPS]. He said he'll write about the current board in a forthcoming post.