A fare-thee-well

As I understand it, I have three to twelve months left to live. And since I'm already about three months in, I'd think much less than twelve is more accurate.

I don't feel like writing anymore. Hell, I don't feel like thinking and feeling anymore.

So, this is likely my last post.

I can't say that I will miss this shitty planet with all of the shitty little parasites running around on it being shitty to each other.

I'd wish you all good luck. But that would be in vain. Mankind is its worst enemy and won't be satisfied until it does itself in.

All religion is merely fantasy. You think you'll be rewarded for killing each other? If there were a sky daddy, I couldn't imagine it rewarding people for the disgusting way you view and treat your fellow man.

Myself, I am elated that I finally have a ticket out. For the rest, it's too late. The damage you've wrought is past the tipping point. That is what saddens me.

So, fare thee whatever the fuck you get. 

RIP Sinéad O’Connor

"The death of Irish singer-songwriter Sinéad O’Connor at just 56 is a sad loss."

When sheep meet one who has had a glimpse of the truth, their reactionary response is always "That is one crazy fucker."

But those of us with critical thinking and a tendency to rebuke anything imperialist carry that weight with the knowledge that all of humanity is suffering and simply can't see or can't accept that their difficulties are features, not bugs. 

RIP Sinéad O’Connor

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2023/08/05/ddrk-a05.html

An 'imposter Christianity' is threatening American democracy - CNN

White Christian nationalist beliefs have infiltrated the religious mainstream so thoroughly that virtually any conservative Christian pastor who tries to challenge its ideology risks their career, says Kristin Kobes Du Mez, author of the New York Times bestseller, "Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation."

"These ideas are so widespread that any individual pastor or Christian leader who tries to turn the tide and say, 'Let's look again at Jesus and scripture,' are going to be tossed aside," she says.

The ideas are also insidious because many sound like expressions of Christian piety or harmless references to US history. But White Christian nationalists interpret these ideas in ways that are potentially violent and heretical. Their movement is not only anti-democratic, it contradicts the life and teachings of Jesus, some clergy, scholars and historians say.

So, FINALLY people are starting to recognize what I've been saying here on this blog for well over a decade.

Christianity has become perverse.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/24/us/white-christian-nationalism-blake-cec/index.html

Public Trust in MSM Falls

By Olivier Knox with research by Caroline Anders A pair of surveys about the mainstream news media over the past week or so delivered bracing news about Americans’ trust (or mistrust) in reporters, as well as a curious gap between the public and the press on the question of whether all sides of an issue deserve “equal coverage.” Both are worth exploring because they raise a lot of questions about the health of America’s news and its republic, as well as the difficult relationship between the people who consume information, notably about politics, and the troubled industry that has traditionally delivered it. Let’s start with the “trust” question.

Trust in mainstream news — television and newspapers, specifically — has fallen again, Gallup told us this week. At this point, there are probably exotic diseases that poll higher than we do, though we can take (extremely) modest comfort that Congress is even less highly regarded.

Just 16 percent of U.S. adults have “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in newspapers. Things are worse for TV news, at 11 percent. Congress? Eek, 7 percent, according to Gallup polling that found faith in key American institutions has been eroding for years. Things get a little less bleak if you add “some” confidence — 37 percent say they feel that way toward newspapers, 35 percent about TV. But they get considerably grimmer if you take past Gallup polls showing record-low numbers of Americans trust mainstream media to report the news fully, accurately and fairly while large numbers deem us to be of low ethical character. The latest Gallup’s polling doesn’t get at the “why” of this erosion, (though Everyone Online Is Sure It Proves Them Right). That makes it harder to have serious conversations about how to win back that trust, which was never all that high to begin with. That’s if it’s even possible to restore it. LOSING GROUND In my quarter-century as a reporter, traditional news media have been losing ground in two ways: Medium (the technological means by which information is obtained) and source (the identity of the person or institution from whom the information is obtained). TV news still commands vast audiences, but go ahead and ask a 20-something “where do you get your news?” And the growth of partisan media, particularly on the right, means “getting news” in 2022 might be synonymous with “get confirmation of prior beliefs.” The news media can do a lot of things wrong — we sometimes trust the wrong sources, make basic factual errors, disregard important stories and perspectives, focus too much on incremental politics, stay stubbornly out of touch with our audience’s daily lives, the list is long. Q-Anon prophecies have come and gone, unfulfilled, but millions still believe. President Donald Trump generated an unprecedented whirlwind of falsehoods during his four years in office, and his debunked claims of being cheated out of a second term now appear to be an article of faith for millions of Republicans. So “getting it wrong” seems like an incomplete explanation for our predicament. For an admittedly partial explanation, I might look to Congress. Specifically, look at incumbents’ sky-high rate of reelection. It seems people loathe Congress but are fine with their representative. It seems plausible that people trust where they get their news, but not where people they disagree with get theirs. That comes with a big caveat. Congress has no competition. Traditional news outlets do. EQUAL COVERAGE Which gets us to the equal coverage question, explored in this survey by the non-partisan Pew Research Center. More than three-quarters of Americans (76 percent) say journalists should always strive to give all sides equal coverage. But 55 percent of the journalists Pew surveyed said every side does not always deserve equal coverage, a position shared by just 22 percent of Americans. Younger journalists and those with less time in the industry are more likely to reject the “equal coverage” principle. Republicans and Republican-leaning independents are more likely to say journalists should provide equal coverage (87 percent) than Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (68 percent). Americans with low levels of trust in the media are more likely to favor the “equal coverage” aspiration (84 percent) than those with higher levels of faith (66 percent). But both are still solid majorities, and that leaves a chasm between reporters and their audiences. Where Gallup didn’t give us the “why” of the erosion, Pew didn’t give us a definition for “equal coverage,” so it’s hard to tell whether it’s an exhortation to be fair or an embrace of what has come to be known as “bothsides” coverage that equates things that aren’t close to the same. That matters quite a bit. Does a performance artist running for president (Vermin Supreme) deserve the same amount of time on a nightly broadcast as the front-runners for the major party nominations? Do climate-change deniers deserve the same column space as scientists? Those are pretty easy “nos.” There are harder ones.

As in 2016, the 2020 Election Under Attack by Both Foreign (Russia) & Domestic (Trump/Barr) Threats

This is a 5-alarm fire for our republic. Please have a look at what Trump, Barr and the others are trying to pull: Just as in 2016, the 2020 Election Under Attack by Both Foreign (Russia) & Domestic (Trump/Barr) threats. 

https://youtu.be/P2YSrccu740 

Via Glenn Kirschner

Ultimate immunity

Judd Legum Jul 29   

With the pandemic raging and unemployment well above 10%, Congress is rushing to pass another relief bill. Extended unemployment assistance will expire in days, millions are at imminent risk of eviction, and there are still major backlogs in COVID-19 testing.

But the top priority for the White House and Senate Republicans is not economic relief or improving testing to slow the spread of the virus. The top priority is to grant businesses near-total immunity if they expose their workers or customers to COVID-19. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has repeatedly said the Senate will not vote on any bill that doesn't include a liability shield for businesses.

Successfully suing a business for exposing someone to COVID-19 is already extremely difficult. Part of the reason is that it is difficult to successfully sue anyone for causing an injury. This kind of suit is known as "tort action." In the United States, an "injury victim generally bears the burden of proof on every element of a tort action, so that to recover in a negligence suit, for example, the plaintiff must convince a factfinder that it is more likely than not that a defendant was careless, this carelessness empirically caused injury and played a significant causal role, and that injury inflicted specific losses."

Avoiding liability does not take "superhuman" efforts. Rather, defendants win if they show they have taken "reasonable, ordinarily prudent, duly considerate measures to limit the risks of injury they impose on others."

Even if an injury victim proves the defendant was negligent, "the plaintiff’s case can be countered by a defendant who can successfully persuade the factfinder that the plaintiff’s own conduct was, more likely than not, careless and played a significant causal role in bringing about the losses alleged."

The nature of COVID-19 makes these standards particularly difficult for plaintiffs to meet. It is difficult to prove where someone contracted COVID-19, since it is highly contagious and can spread in a variety of settings. Even if someone was able to establish the likelihood that they contracted the virus in a particular establishment, they would have to prove that their own carelessness (infrequent handwashing, failure to social distance, not wearing a mask) was not a contributing factor.

In other words, under the status quo, a COVID-19-related lawsuit is only likely to be successful in the most egregious cases.

This is why, despite dire warnings, there has not been a flood of consumer lawsuits related to contracting COVID-19 in a public setting. According to a tracker maintained by Hunton Andrews Kurth, just 16 lawsuits have been filed nationally by consumers related to contracting COVID-19 in a public place.
The Republican proposal

The proposal advanced by Senate Republicans and the White House, however, would make any lawsuit — even against the most irresponsible business — virtually impossible.

The Republican legislation shields business from COVID-19 liability for "negligence." Instead, it only permits liability for "gross negligence," which is defined as "a conscious, voluntary act or omission in reckless disregard" of someone else's safety. In other words, it's not enough for a business to act recklessly and put someone's safety in danger. Plaintiffs would have to prove the business engaged in the conduct on purpose, knowing it would put people in danger.

Further, plaintiffs are required to establish "gross negligence" by "clear and convincing evidence," a much higher standard than the standard for negligence, which is "more likely than not." Even if plaintiffs meet that higher standard, defendants can also prevail if they show they made "reasonable efforts" to comply with government guidelines. That means a "grossly negligent defendant can possibly escape liability if it can establish it simply tried, but failed, to comply with coronavirus safety measures." Another complicating factor is that guidelines from the CDC for businesses are not mandatory so one can be in compliance with the guidelines without doing anything at all.

Plaintiffs would also be required "to provide a list of the places they went and people they met in the 14-day period prior to experiencing symptoms, as well as any persons who visited their residence during that period." This requirement is to assist defendants in attributing blame to the plaintiff.

The proposal also mandates that all COVID-19 lawsuits be filed in federal court, a venue considered much more favorable to defendants than state courts. No personal injury or medical malpractice suits related to COVID-19 would be permitted in state courts.

Should a plaintiff somehow be able to prevail, the bill imposes significant limitations on damages. All of these limitations would remain in place for at least five years and would apply retroactively to infections that occurred before its passage. The bill also allows "prevailing defendants to seek compensatory and punitive damages if a claim outlined in a demand letter turns out to be meritless."

So what's the impact of the Republican proposal? Under the status quo, COVID-19 litigation is unlikely, but something that businesses still need to consider as a possibility. Under the Republican proposal, businesses will know they are fully protected from liability in almost any conceivable scenario. This will incent many businesses to cut corners on safety protocols to reduce costs.
What happened in Utah

On May 4, Utah enacted "new legislation that grants civil immunity to persons (including private employers, businesses, and government) related to exposure to COVID-19." The only exception, similar to the new proposal by national Republicans, was for "willful misconduct."

The following day, local media reported that "nearly half of the employees" of one business "tested positive for COVID-19 after the business instructed employees to not follow quarantine guidelines and required staff who had tested positive to report to work." The business has not been identified.

The infections likely occurred while the legislation was being considered. It's not clear whether the imminent legal protections influenced the business' behavior. But it is an example of what can happen when businesses believe they can act with impunity.

There are already about a dozen states with COVID-19 immunity laws. Many of those states, including Alabama, North Carolina, and Arkansas, are experiencing widespread outbreaks.

---

Losing everything

I recently had the devastating loss of my niece whom I loved and had grown to depend upon. She drowned in a river on a weekend outing. And that was compounded by prejudgment from both my family and my church. So, I lost them, too. Though my niece lived with me for the last six months of her life, I was excluded from her memorial service. 

I have lived with HIV for over 30 years and it seems there is always some new complication because frankly we still don't know that much about it. I credit my longevity to my own dogged determination to understand what is happening to me and why. No one else. Just me. Because no one has ever given a damn about me. 

Since my niece's passing I began to experience hallucinations. Seeing and hearing, even conversing with people who simply aren't there. How do you tell people that you are afraid you're losing your mind? How can you admit it to yourself? Again, I had to figure it out because no one else would. 

It turns out that a chemical imbalance can occur called lactoid acidosis that is not checked for in standard lab work. It has to be asked for specifically. This condition has so many symptoms that can mimic other conditions that it is really difficult to recognize that they aren't each a symptom of other conditions but a constellation of symptoms pointing to a single root cause and condition - one that can be treated easily. 

This condition is also aggravated and compounded by extreme stress, trauma and PTSD. It can also induce hallucinations. Had I not lost so much in a matter of weeks I might still be fluttering about attempting to treat symptoms and not the cause. 

This doesn't make my losses any easier but if anything good came from it is that I now know how to treat myself medically. Psychologically and spiritually are a different matter. My faith is shaken and I can never worship with people who were so unkind, incompassionate, and unsupportive in my time of need as I have been for each and every one of them. 

I question why I even bother trying to figure out what doctors can't or won't. Why do I do this knowing that it might extend my time in this miserable and lonely hell on earth. I'm too tired and broken inside to attempt answering these questions. I'll close now while I can still see this text through my tears.

UPDATE:

The lab work came back normal. So, my theory of chemical imbalance isn't the problem. The only explanation left is stress induced psychosis. And because of the pandemic there is a waiting list for counseling. On the upside, my phantom friends haven't come around for several days.