cited – Renaissance Guy

Real Men Aren’t Scared of Needles

Since most of my readers access this site from countries where the COVID-19 vaccine is now available, I’m here to remind you to get vaccinated when it’s your turn. If you’re over twelve in the United States, you are eligible now. While there are many things in life that can be safely postponed or procrastinated, this isn’t one of them. Getting as many people vaccinated as quickly as possible is humanity’s last best chance to quash this virus before it becomes endemic, which would make it impossible to go back to normal.

You’ve probably already heard this argument from better qualified sources than me. And let’s be real, if you haven’t listened to epidemiological statistics or long term morbidity case studies coming from the CDC, you have no reason to listen to them coming from me. So instead, I’m going to present an argument that you probably won’t see on a prime time TV spot any time soon.

You should get the vaccine because getting the virus will ruin your sex life.
I mean, you should also get it because the virus might kill you, or kill other people, or leave you unable to climb stairs, and so on. But if those stories haven’t convinced you already, clearly you have a different set of priorities. So if you need a better reason than your own survival: you should get vaccinated because more and more COVID-19 survivors are developing sexual dysfunction, in particular male erectile dysfunction. Not just from running out of breath or getting tired, either, but from the virus itself being present long after acute infection phase. Tissue samples confirm the presence of COVID-19 spike proteins obstructing normal arousal mechanisms.

Don’t take my word for it. The pilot study is open access, and not that long to read by the standards of journal articles. Yes, there is some medical jargon, and there’s the usual amount of carefully worded and qualified statements saying that more study is needed, but the data speaks for itself. It’s incredibly obvious, isn’t it? A novel virus is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual, certainly without any choice. Luckily our scientists are able to interpret the resulting loss of essence correctly.

There are obviously public health implications in these findings that viral particles are lingering in certain tissues and obstructing function after the acute infectious period. But the American public has demonstrated in its actions that it doesn’t really follow the nuance of public health, or scientific studies, or systemic issues in general. The only people who care about things like disability adjusted life expectancy or long term national stability are over-educated bleeding-heart know-it-alls. On the other hand, protecting one’s manhood from the virus’s attempt to sap and impurity our precious bodily fluids is as American as apple pie.

On Social Distancing Vis a Vis Communism

I wish to try and address some of the concerns raised by protests against measures taken to protect public health in the wake of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Cards on the table: I think people who are going out to protest these measures are, at best, foolhardy and shortsighted. It’s hard for me to muster sympathy for their cause. Still, calling someone names doesn’t often win hearts and minds. So I’m going to try and do that thing that people tell me I’m good at; I’m going to write about the situation from where I stand, and try to understand where these people are coming from, in the hopes that I can, if not change behaviors, at least help people understand who may be equally mystified and apoplectic at my position as I am at theirs.

I’m not going to address any conspiracy theories, including the conspiracy theory that these measures are part of some ill-defined plan of a shadowy elite to seize control. Mostly because, from where I stand, it’s a moot point. Even taking all of the claims about evil motivations at face value, even if we assume that everyone in government secretly wants to live in a totalitarian dictatorship and they see this as their chance, that doesn’t really affect the reality. The contents of my governor’s soul is between him and God [1]. He says he wants to save lives, and he’s put in place policies to mitigate the spread of disease. People are dying from COVID-19; maybe slightly more or fewer people than the numbers being reported, but definitely people [2], including people I know.

For context, since the beginning of this episode, I have had friends and acquaintances die, and other friends and acquaintances friends go from being student athletes, to being so sick that they can’t sit up to type on a laptop. My university campus- the places where I learn, interact with others, and often write these posts -is split between being field hospitals, quarantine lodgings for hospital workers, and morgues. Because there aren’t enough staff, undergraduate students, even freshmen like me, who have any experience in nursing or medicine, are called on to volunteer as emergency workers, and facing the same conditions, often without proper equipment, that have claimed so many lives. Every night, from my own bedroom, I hear the sirens of ambulances rushing back and forth from the retirement village to the hospital. We’re not even the epicenter, and things are that bad here.

So the virus is very real. The toll is very real. The danger is real. We can quibble over who bears responsibility for what later. There will be plenty of time for anger, grief, and blame; plenty of time to soberly assess who overreacted, who under-reacted, who did a good job, and who ought to be voted out. I’m counting on it. In the now, we know that the virus spreads by close and indoor contact [2][3]. We know that there are only so many hospital beds, and we have no way to protect people or cure them [4][5]. It stands to reason that if we want to save lives, we need to be keeping people apart. And if we believe that a function of government is looking out for and protecting lives, which even most libertarians I know agree on, then it stands to reason that it’s the government’s job to take action to save as many lives as possible. Yes, this will require new and different exercise of powers which might in another context be called government overreach. But we live in new and different times.

Not everyone is able to comfortably come to terms with change. I get it. And if I’m really honest, I’m not happy with it either. A lot of people who argue for shutdowns try to spin it as a positive thing, like a children’s television episode trying to convince kids that, hey, cleaning up your room is actually fun, and vegetables are delicious. Look at the clear skies, and the dolphins in the Hudson River. Staying at home makes you a hero; don’t you want to feel like a hero? And yeah, there are silver linings, and reasons why you can look on the bright side. For some people looking for that bright side is a coping mechanism. But truth be told, mostly it sucks. Not being able to hug your friends, or eat out at a restaurant, or just hang out in public, sucks. You’re not going to get around that. And a lot of people are angry. People feel deprived and cheated.
And you know what? That’s fine. You’re allowed to feel angry, and cheated. Being upset doesn’t make you a bad person. Your experiences and feelings are valid, and you’re allowed to pout and stomp and scream and shout.

That’s fine. Let it out, if you think it’ll make you feel better. You’re right, it’s not fair. Life isn’t fair, good people are suffering, and that’s infuriating. Unfortunately (and I do mean this sincerely), it won’t change anything. The virus has made it abundantly clear that it doesn’t care about our feelings, only our behavior. However we feel, if we want to save people, we need to stay apart. If we support the idea that governments should look out for people, we should insist that they lend their power to these measures. We can still hate being cooped up. But we need to understand that this is the lesser of the evils. Whether it takes a week, a month, or even a year, the alternative of massive death needs to be ruled out.

Some people have raised the argument that, even though we care about human lives, Americans need to work. The implication that Americans need to work, as opposed to, say, just kinda wanting to work, implies a kind of right. Maybe not as absolute as free speech, or as technical as the right to a trial by a jury of peers, but maybe something akin to a right to privacy; a vague but agreed upon notion that we have a general right to strive for something. Of course, no right is truly absolute. Even free speech, the one that we put first in our bill of rights, and generally treat as being the most inviolable, has its limits. As a society we recognize that times of war, rebellion, or public danger, our rights are not absolute. The police don’t have to mirandize you to ask where the bomb is, or stop chasing an armed suspect because they ran into a private home [6].

Hopefully, even if we may, as a matter of politics, quibble on where the exact lines are, we can all concede that rights are not absolute, and having exceptions for a larger purpose is not advocating tyranny. This same line of reasoning would apply to any previously undefined right to work as well. And I think it’s pretty clear the basis for why the current pandemic constitutes such an exception. We can have respectful disagreements about what measures are useful in what areas, but when the overarching point is that we need to minimize human contact for public safety, it seems like that covers most things in dispute. Again, you don’t have to like it. You’re welcome to write a response. But do so from your own home. If you’re feel compelled to protest something specific, then protest safely, but don’t sabotage the efforts of people trying to make this go away.

Maybe you’re thinking: Okay, that sounds nice, but I actually need to work. As in, the bills don’t stop coming, and this stimulus check isn’t going to cut it for longer. Life doesn’t stop for illness. Even in localities that have frozen certain bills and have good food banks, there are still expenses. In many places, not enough has been done to allow people who want to do the right thing to be able to do so. Not everyone can work from home, and in a tragic irony, people who live paycheck to paycheck are less likely to be able to work from home, if their jobs even exist in a telecommuting economy. For what it’s worth, I’m with the people who say this is an unfair burden. Unfortunately, as we know, life isn’t fair, and there’s not a way to reconcile saving lives and letting everyone work freely. As an aside, though I don’t think anyone genuinely believes in sacrificing lives for GDP, I’ll point out that more people getting sick and dying actually costs jobs in the long run [7][8]. Economists agree that the best way to get everyone back to work is to devote as much of our resources as possible to fighting this virus.

People say we can’t let the cure be worse than the disease, and although I disagree with the agenda for which this is a talking point, I actually agree with the idiom. Making this a choice between working class families starving, and dying of disease is a no-win scenario, and we do need to weigh the effects of cutting people off. That doesn’t make the virus the lesser of the evils, by any stretch of the imagination. Remember, we haven’t actually ruled out the “Millions of American Deaths” scenario if we go back to regular contact patterns, we’ve just put it off for now. That’s what flattening the curve means; it’s an ongoing process, not a one and done effort [9]. Saving lives is a present tense endeavor, and will be for some time. Still, a cost-benefit analysis requires that we understand the costs. People are losing jobs, and suffering for it, and government policy should take that into account.

Here’s where I diverge from others: keeping things shut down does not necessarily have to mean that people go hungry. Rather than ease lockdown restrictions, this is where I would say governments, both state and federal, need to be doing more while they’re telling people to stay home. It’s not fair to mandate people stay at home while their livelihoods depend on getting out and working; agreed, but there’s more than one way to neutralize that statement. The government could scale up the stimulus checks, giving every American an emergency basic income. Congress could suspend the debt limit and authorize special bonds akin to war bonds to give unemployment and the Payroll Protection Program as much funding as they need, removing the bottleneck for businesses. Or, you could attack the problem from the opposite end; mandate a halt on payments for things like rent, mortgages, utilities, and so on, and activate emergency nutrition programs drawn up by the pentagon to keep Americans fed during a nuclear winter. Common carriers such as utilities, telecoms, delivery companies, and other essential services could be placed under temporary government control through existing emergency powers if necessary.

Such a mass mobilization wouldn’t be unprecedented in American history. The world wars the the New Deal show that it can be done while maintaining democratic governance. The measures wouldn’t need to be permanent, just for the duration of the crisis created by the pandemic. There’s a good historical case that a strong response would benefit our economic recovery once this passes [8]. You wouldn’t necessarily need to do all of the things I mentioned; you could tailor it to fit demands in specific areas. The point is, people don’t need to starve. The trade off only exists in the system we’ve constructed for ourselves. That system is malleable, even if we don’t often view it as such, because we so rarely get to a point like this. The lockdown is easier to see as malleable, because it’s recent, and we can remember a time before it, but there’s a much stronger scientific basis for why we need to keep it in place, at least for now.

I’ll address one more point, and that is the argument that, material need or no, people have a deeper need, and by implication a right, to get out and try to make a living in the world. This is subtly different than the idea that people have a default legal right to do as they will, as covered earlier. By contrast this strikes at a deeper, philosophical argument that people have a need to contribute positively. The idea that people simply go stir crazy, and television and video games lack that certain element of, as Aristotle put it, Eudaimonia, the joy achieved by striving for a life well lived [10]. I think this is what people are getting at, at least, the people who have really sat down and thought about it, when they decry increasing government dependence while life is under quarantine. They probably understand that people need to eat, and don’t want anyone to die, but deeper than any legal right, are concerned that if this state of affairs drags out, that people will stop striving, and lose that spark that drives the human spirit. People need to be able to make their own lives, to give them meaning.

Expressed in philosophical terms, I’m more sympathetic to this argument than my politics might suggest. I agree that people need meaning in their lives. I even agree that handouts don’t provide that meaning the same way that a successful career does. It is human nature is to yearn to contribute, not just survive, and for a lot of people, how they earn money outside the home is what they see as their contribution; the value they add and the proof of their worth. Losing that is more than just tragic, it’s existentially terrifying. I remember the upheaval I went through when it became clear I wasn’t going to be able to graduate on time with my disability, and probably wouldn’t get into the college on which I had pinned my hopes and dreams as a result. I had put a lot of my value on my being a perfect student, and having that taken away from me was traumatic in its way. I questioned what my value was if society didn’t acknowledge me for being smart; how could I be a worthwhile person if society rejected the things I put my work into. Through that prism, I can almost understand how some people might be more terrified of the consequences of a shutdown than of the virus.

The idea that work gives human life meaning isn’t new. Since the industrial revolution created the modern concept of the career, people have been talking about how it relates to our philosophical worth. But let’s tug on that threat a little longer. Before any conservative pundits were using the human value of work to attack government handouts, there was a German philosopher writing about the consequences of a society which ignored the dislocation and alienation which occurred when the ruling class prevented people from meaningful work. He used a German term, Entfremdung der Gattungswesen, to describe the deprivation of the human soul which occurs when artificial systems interfere in human drives. He argued that such measures were oppressive, and based on his understanding of history would eventually end in revolution.

That philosopher was Karl Marx. He suggested that industrial capitalism, by separating the worker from the means of producing their livelihood, the product of their labor, the profits thereof, and the agency to work on their own terms, the bourgeoisie deny the proletariat something essential to human existence [11]. So I guess that protester with the sign that “social distancing = communism” might be less off the wall that we all thought. Not that social distancing is really communist in the philosophical sense, rather the contrary; social distancing underlines Marxist critiques of capitalism. True to Marxist theory, the protester has achieved consciousness of the class iniquities perpetuated by the binding of exploitative wage labor to the necessities of life, and is rallying against the dislocation artificially created by capitalism. I suspect they probably wouldn’t describe themselves as communist, but their actions fit the profile.

Here’s the point where I diverge from orthodox Marxism. Because, again, I think there’s more than one way to neutralize this issue. I think that work for meaning doesn’t necessarily need to be work for wages. Suppose you decoupled the drive of material needs from the drives for self improvement and worth, either by something like a universal basic income, or the nationalization and dramatic expansion of food banks, rent controls, and utility discount programs, such that a person was able to survive without working. Not comfortably, mind you, but such that starving is off the table. According to Marx this is most assuredly not communism; it doesn’t involve the worker ownership of the means of production. People still go to work and sell their labor, and market mechanisms dictate prices and reward arbitrage.

What this does, instead, is address the critique of our current system raised by both Marx, and our protester. In addition to ensuring that no one goes hungry, it also gives the opportunity, indeed, an incentive, for individuals to find socially useful and philosophically meaningful work beyond the market. Feeling useless sitting at home? Go get on video chat and tutor some kids in something you’re good at. Go mow lawns for emergency workers in your area. Take an online class, now that lots of them are free. Make some art; join the trend of celebrities posting videos of themselves singing online. If you have any doubts that there is plenty of unpaid but necessary and useful work around the house, ask a housewife. Rather than protest the lack of a particular task, we should take this opportunity to discover what useful and meaningful work we can accomplish from home.

The dichotomy between opening and starving is a false fabrication, as is the dichotomy between deference to scientific and philosophical principles. Those who protest one or the other appear either to represent a fringe extreme, or misunderstand the subtleties of the problem and the multitude of measures which we may take to address it. Our individual freedoms reflect a collective responsibility and commitment to self moderation and governance, which we must now demonstrate, by showing the imagination, foresight, and willingness to sacrifice for a greater cause which has defined our human struggle. In this moment, the responsibilities to our fellow human beings outweigh some of the rights we have come to take for granted. This exigency demands a departure from our norms. We must be prepared to suspend our assumptions, and focus on what really matters. Now is the time to find meaning in things that matter to us. To demand better from our government than platitudes and guidelines. To help ourselves and our fellow human being without prejudice.

Works Consulted

[1] Matthew 7:1, KJV

[2] “Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19).” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2020, www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/index.html.

[3] “Coronavirus.” World Health Organization, World Health Organization, www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019.

[4] “ Over the past several weeks, a mind-boggling array of possible therapies have been considered. None have yet been proven to be effective in rigorously controlled trials”“Pursuing Safe and Effective Anti-Viral Drugs for COVID-19.” National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 17 Apr. 2020, directorsblog.nih.gov/2020/04/17/pursuing-safe-effective-anti-viral-drugs-for-covid-19/.

[5] “ There are no drugs or other therapeutics approved by the US Food and Drug Administration to prevent or treat COVID-19. Current clinical management includes infection prevention and control measures and supportive care”“Therapeutic Options for COVID-19 Patients.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 21 Mar. 2020, www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/therapeutic-options.html.

[6] Burney, Nathan. “The Illustrated Guide to Law.” The Illustrated Guide to Law, 17 Apr. 2020, lawcomic.net/.

[7] Pueyo, Tomas. “Coronavirus: Out of Many, One.” Medium, Medium, 20 Apr. 2020, medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-out-of-many-one-36b886af37e9.

[8] Carlsson-Szlezak, Philipp, et al. “What Coronavirus Could Mean for the Global Economy.” Harvard Business Review, 16 Apr. 2020, hbr.org/2020/03/what-coronavirus-could-mean-for-the-global-economy.

[9] Ferguson, Neil M, et al. “ Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to reduce COVID-19 mortality and healthcare demand.” Imperial College of London, 16 Mar. 2020, https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/mrc-gida/2020-03-16-COVID19-Report-9.pdf

[10] Aristotle. “Nicomachean Ethics.” The Internet Classics Archive, classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.1.i.html.

[11] Marx, Karl. “The Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844.” Marxists Internet Archive, www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/preface.htm.

Truth Machine

I find polygraphs fascinating. The idea of using a machine to exploit bugs in human behavior to discern objective truth from falsehood is just an irresistible notion to a story-minded person like me. To have a machine that can cut through the illusions and deceptions of human stories is just so metaphorically resonant. Of course, I know that polygraphs aren’t really lie detectors, not in the way they’re imagined. At best they monitor a person for signs of physiological stress as a reaction to making up lies on the spot. This is easily lost in background noise, and easily sidestepped by rehearsing a convincing lie ahead of time.

A large part of the machine’s job is to make a subject afraid to lie in the first place, which makes lies easier to spot. It doesn’t work if the subject believes the lie, or doesn’t experience stress while telling it, nor is it effective on people who fall outside of some basic stereotypes about liars. Eye surgery, heart arrhythmia, brain damage, and ambidextrousness can all throw a polygraph to the point of uselessness. At worst, polygraphs provide a prop for interrogators to confirm their own biases and coerce a subject into believing they’re trapped, whether or not they’re actually guilty, or else to convince jurors of an unproven circumstantial case.

Still, they’re fascinating. The kabuki theater act that interrogators put on to try and maneuver the subject into the correct state of mind to find a chink in the psychological armor, the different tactics, the mix of science and showmanship is exciting to explore. I enjoy reading through things like polygraph manuals, and the list of questions used in interviews of federal employees for security clearance.

What’s interesting is that most of the questions are just bad. Questions like “Prior to [date], did you ever do anything dishonest?” are just bad questions. After all, who decides dishonesty? Is a dishonest act only an action committed in service of a direct, intentional lie, or is it broader? Does omission count as an act in this context? Is dishonesty assessed at the time of the act, or in retrospect? Would a knowing deception made in the interest of a unambiguously moral end (for example, misdirecting a friend about a Christmas present) constitute a dishonest act?

These questions are listed in the manual as “No-answer Comparison Questions”, which if I understand the protocol correctly, are supposed to be set up such that a subject will always answer “No”, and most of the time, will be lying. The idea here is to establish a baseline, to get an idea of what the subject looks like when lying. The manual suggests that these questions will always be answered with “no” because, earlier in the interrogation, the interrogator will have made clear that it is crucial for subjects to provide an impression of being truthful people. The government, the interrogator is instructed to say, doesn’t want to work with people who lie or cheat, and so it is very important that people going through this process appear honest and straight laced.

Of course, this is hogwash. The government does want people who lie, and it wants people who are talented at it. A general needs to be talented at deception. An intelligence operative needs to keep secrets. Any public figure dealing with sensitive information needs to be able to spin and bend the truth when national security demands it. Even the most morally absolutist, pro-transparency fiend understands that certain government functions require discretion with the truth, and these are exactly the kind of jobs that would involve polygraph tests beforehand.

The government’s polygraph interrogation protocols rely on subjects swallowing this lie, that they need to keep a consistent and presentable story at the expense of telling the truth. They also rely on the subject recognizing that they are lying and having a reaction, since a polygraph cannot in itself divine material truths, but work only by studying reactions. For it to really work, the subject must also be nervous about lying. This too is set up ahead of time; interrogators are instructed to explain that lying is a conscious and deliberate act, which inspires involuntary physiological fear in the subject. This is arguably half true, but mostly it sets up a self-fulfilling prophecy in the mind of the subject.

It’s pretty clear that the modern polygraph is not a lie detector. But then again, how could it be? Humans can barely even agree on a consistent definition of a lie within the same language and culture. Most often we tie in our definition of lying with our notions of morality. If you used deception and misrepresentation to do a bad thing, then you lied. If you said something that wasn’t true, but meant nothing by it, and nothing bad came out of it, well then you were probably just mistaken. I don’t want to make this post political, but this trend is obvious if you look at politics: The other side lies, because their ranks are filled with lying liars. By contrast, our side occasionally misspeaks, or is misinterpreted.

This isn’t to say that there’s no such thing as truth or lies, just that we can’t seem to pin down a categorical definition, which you do need if you’re going to program a machine to identify them. We could look for physiological reactions involved in what we collectively call lying, which is what polygraphs purport to do, but this just kicks the problem back a step. After all, what if I genuinely and wholeheartedly don’t consider my tactful omission about “clandestine, secret, unauthorized contact with a non-U.S. citizen or someone (U.S. citizen or non-U.S. citizen) who represents a foreign government, power, group or organization, which could result in a potential or real adverse impact on U.S. national security, or else could result in the unauthorized aid to a foreign government, power, group or organization” to be a lie? If the machine is testing my reactions, it would find nothing, provided I didn’t believe I had anything to lie about.

This is where competent question design and interrogation technique is supposed to obviate this issue. So, a competent interrogator would be sure to explain the definition of contact, and foreign power, and so on, in such a way that would cause me to doubt any misconceptions, and hopefully if I’m lying, trigger a stress reaction. The interrogator might insinuate that I’m withholding information in order to get me to open up, or try and frame the discussion in such a way that I would think opening up was my only option. But at that point, we’re not really talking about a lie detecting machine, so much as a machine that gives an interrogator data to know when to press psychological attacks. The main function of the machine is to give the interrogator certainty and undermine my own confidence, so that the interrogator can pull off bluffing me into cracking.

So are polygraphs useful? Obviously, as a psychological tool in an inquisitional interrogation, they provide a powerful weapon. But are they still more useful than, say, a metal box with a colander attached? Probably, under some circumstances, in the hands of someone familiar with the underlying principles and moving parts of both psychology, physiology, and the machine itself. After all, I don’t think there would be such a market if they were complete bunk. But then again, do I trust that they’re currently being used that way by the groups that employ them? Probably not.

Works Consulted

Burney, Nathan. “Convict Yourself.” The Illustrated Guide to Law, lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2494.

United States, Department of Defense, Polygraph Institute. “Law Enforcement Pre-Employment Test.” Law Enforcement Pre-Employment Test. antipolygraph.org/documents/dodpi-lepet.pdf.

A Witch’s Parable

Addendum: Oh good grief. This was supposed to go up at the beginning of the week, but something went awry. Alas! Well, it’s up now.

Suppose we live in colonial times, in a town on an archipelago. The islands are individually small and isolated, but their position relative to the prevailing winds and ocean currents mean that different small islands can grow a wide variety of crops that are normally only obtainable by intercontinental trade. The presence of these crops, and good, predictable winds and currents, has made those islands that don’t grow food into world renowned trade hubs, and attracted overseas investment.

With access to capital and a wide variety goods, the archipelago has boomed. Artisans, taking advantage of access to exotic painting supplies, have taken to the islands, and scientists of all stripes have flocked to the archipelago, both to study the exotic flora and fauna, and to set up workshops and universities in this rising world capital. As a result of this local renaissance, denizens of the islands enjoy a quality of life hitherto undreamt of, and matched only in the palaces of Europe.

The archipelago is officially designated as a free port, open to ships from across the globe, but most of daily life on the islands is managed by the Honorable South India Trading Company, who collect taxes and manage infrastructure. Nobody likes the HSITC, whose governor is the jealous brother of the king, and is constantly appropriating funds meant for infrastructure investment to spend on court intrigue.

Still, the HSITC is entrenched in the islands, and few are willing to risk jeopardizing what they’ve accomplished by attempting insurrection. The cramped, aging vessels employed by the HSITC as ferries between the islands pale in comparison to the new, foreign ships that dock at the harbors, and their taxes seem to grow larger each year, but as long as the ferry system continues to function, there is little more than idle complaint.

In this town, a local woman, who let’s say is your neighbor, is accused of witchcraft. After the debacle at Salem, the local magistrates are unwilling to prosecute her without absolute proof, which obviously fails to materialize. Nevertheless, vicious rumors about men being transmogrified into newts, and satanic rituals conducted at night, spread. Local schoolchildren and off duty laborers congregate around your house, hoping to get a glimpse of the hideous wretch that legend tells dwells next door.

For your part, you carry on with your daily business as best you can, until one day, while waiting at the docks to board a ferry to the apothecary, a spat erupts between the woman in question and the dock guard, who insists that he shan’t allow her to board, lest her witchery cause them to become shipwrecked. The woman is denied boarding, and since the HSITC run all the ferries, this now means that she’s effectively cut off from rest of the world, not by any conviction, but because there were not adequate safeguards against the whims of an unaccountable monopoly.

As you’ve probably guessed, this is a parable about the dangers posed by the removal of net neutrality regulations. The internet these days is more than content. We have banks, schools, even healthcare infrastructure that exist solely online. In my own case, my life support systems rely on internet connectivity, and leverage software and platforms that are distributed through open source code sharing. These projects are not possible without a free and open internet.

Others with more resources than I have already thoroughly debunked the claims made by ISPs against net neutrality. The overwhelming economic consensus is that the regulations on the table will only increase economic growth, and will have no impact on ISP investment. The senate has already passed a bill to restore the preexisting regulations that were rescinded under dubious circumstances, and a house vote is expected soon.

I would ask that you contact your elected representatives, but this issue requires more than that. Who has access to the internet, and under what terms, may well be the defining question of this generation, and regardless of how the vote in the house goes, this issue and variants of it will continue to crop up. I therefore ask instead that you become an active participant in the discussion, wherever it takes us. Get informed, stay informed, and use your information to persuade others.

I truly believe that the internet, and its related technologies, have the potential to bring about a new renaissance. But this can only happen if all of us are aware and active in striving for the future we seek. This call to arms marks the beginning of a story that in all likelihood will continue for the duration of most of our lifetimes. We must consult with each other, and our elected representatives, and march, and rally, and vote, by all means, vote. Vote for an open internet, for equal access, for progress, and for the future.

For Whom The Bell Tolls

Someone whom I knew from my online activities died recently. To say that I was close to this person is a bit of a stretch. They were a very involved, even popular, figure in a community in which I am but one of many participants. Still, I was struck by their death, not least of all because I was not aware that they were ill in the first place, but also because I’m not entirely sure what to do now.

The (at this point still weak, and open to interpretation) scientific consensus is that while the formation and definition of bonds in online communities may vary from real life, and that, in certain edge cases, this may lead to statistical anomalies, online communities are, for the most part, reflective of normal human social behavior, and therefore social interaction in an online setting is not substantially materially different from real life communities[1][2]. Moreover, emotions garnered through online social experiences are just as real, at least to the recipient, as real life interaction. The reaction to this latter conclusion has been both mixed, and charged [4][5], which, fair enough, given the subject matter.

I have been reliably informed by a variety of sources both professional and amateur that I do not handle negative emotions well in general, grief in particular. With a couple of exceptions, I have never felt that the times when I felt grief over something, that I was justified in it enough to come forward publicly. I had more important duties which I could not reasonably justify taking my attention away from. Conversely, on the one or two occasions when I felt like I might be justified in grieving publicly, I did not experience the expected confrontation.

When I have experienced grief, it has seldom been a single tidal wave of emotions, causing catastrophic, but at its core, momentary, devastation to all in its path. Rather, it has been a slow, gentle rain, wavering slightly in its intensity, but remarkable above all for its persistence rather than its raw power. Though not as terrifying or awesome as the sudden flood, it inevitably brings the same destructive ends, wiping away the protective topsoil, exposing what lies beneath, and weakening the foundation of everything that has been built on top of it, eventually to its breaking point.

In this metaphor, the difference between the death of a person whom I am extremely close to, and the death of someone whom I know only peripherally is only a matter of duration and intensity. The rains still come. The damage is still done. And so, when someone with whom I am only tangentially connected, but connected nonetheless, I feel a degree of grief; a degree that some might even call disproportionate, but nevertheless present. The distress is genuine, regardless of logical or social justification.

It is always challenging to justify emotional responses. This is especially true when, as seems to be the case with grief in our culture, the emotional response demands a response of its own. In telling others that we feel grief, we seem to be, at least in a way, soliciting sympathy. And as with asking for support or accommodations on any matter, declaring grief too frequently, or on too shoddy a pretext, can invite backlash. Excessive mourning in public or on Facebook, or, indeed, on a blog post, can seem, at best, trite, and at worst, like sociopathic posturing to affirm one’s social status.

So, what is a particularly sensitive online acquaintance to do? What am I to do now?

On such occasions I am reminded of the words of the poet John Donne in his Devotions Upon Emergent Occasions, and severall steps in my Sickness, specifically, the following except from Meditation 17, which is frequently quoted out of its full context. I do not think there is much that I could add to it, so I will simply end with the relevant sections here.

“Perchance, he for whom this bell tolls may be so ill, as that he knows not it tolls for him; and perchance I may think myself so much better than I am, as that they who are about me, and see my state, may have caused it to toll for me, and I know not that. The church is catholic, universal, so are all her actions; all that she does belongs to all. When she baptizes a child, that action concerns me; for that child is thereby connected to that body which is my head too, and ingrafted into that body whereof I am a member. And when she buries a man, that action concerns me: all mankind is of one author, and is one volume; when one man dies, one chapter is not torn out of the book, but translated into a better language; and every chapter must be so translated; God employs several translators; some pieces are translated by age, some by sickness, some by war, some by justice; but God’s hand is in every translation, and his hand shall bind up all our scattered leaves again for that library where every book shall lie open to one another. As therefore the bell that rings to a sermon calls not upon the preacher only, but upon the congregation to come, so this bell calls us all; but how much more me, who am brought so near the door by this sickness.
[…]

The bell doth toll for him that thinks it doth; and though it intermit again, yet from that minute that this occasion wrought upon him, he is united to God. Who casts not up his eye to the sun when it rises? but who takes off his eye from a comet when that breaks out? Who bends not his ear to any bell which upon any occasion rings? but who can remove it from that bell which is passing a piece of himself out of this world?

No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend’s or of thine own were: any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.“

Works Consulted

Zhao, Jichang, et al. “Being rational or aggressive? A revisit to Dunbar׳s number in online social networks.” Neurocomputing 142 (2014): 343-53. Web. 27 May 2017. <https://arxiv.org/pdf/1011.1547.pdf>.

Golder, Scott A., et al. “Rhythms of Social Interaction: Messaging Within a Massive Online Network.” Communities and Technologies 2007 (2007): 41-66. Web. 27 May 2017. <https://arxiv.org/pdf/cs/0611137.pdf>.

Wilmot, Claire. “The Space Between Mourning and Grief.” The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 08 June 2016. Web. 27 May 2017. <https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2016/06/internet-grief/485864/>.

Garber, Megan. “Enter the Grief Police.” The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 20 Jan. 2016. Web. 27 May 2017. <https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2016/01/enter-the-grief-police/424746/>.

Keep Calm and Carry On

Today, we know that poster as a, well, poster, of quintessential Britishness. It is simply another of our twenty-first century truisms, not unlike checking oneself before wrecking oneself. Yet this phrase has a far darker history.

In 1940, war hysteria in the British Isles was at its zenith. To the surprise of everyone, Nazi forces had overcome the Maginot line and steamrolled into Paris. British expeditionary forces at Dunkirk had faced large casualties, and been forced to abandon most of their equipment during the hastily organized evacuation. In Great Britain itself, the Home Guard had been activated, and overeager ministers began arming them with pikes and other medieval weapons [10]. For many, a German invasion of the home isles was deemed imminent.

Impelled by public fear and worried politicians, the British government began drawing up its contingency plans for its last stand on the British Isles. Few military strategists honestly believed that the German invasion would materialize. Allied intelligence made it clear that the Germans did not possess an invasion fleet, nor the necessary manpower, support aircraft, and logistical capacity to sustain more than a few minor probing raids [5]. Then again, few had expected France to fall so quickly. And given the Nazi’s track record so far, no one was willing to take chances [3].

Signposts were removed across the country to confuse invading forces. Evacuation plans for key government officials and the royal family were drawn up. Potential landing sites for a seaborne invasion were identified, and marked for saturation with every chemical weapon in the British stockpile. So far the threat of mutually assured destruction has prevented the large scale use of chemical weapons as seen in WWI. However, if an invasion of the homelands had begun, all bets would be off. Anti-invasion plans call for the massive use of chemical weapons against invading forces, and both chemical and biological weapons against German cities, intended to depopulate and render much of Europe uninhabitable [4][7][8].

Strategists studying prior German attacks, in particular the combined arms shock tactics which allowed Nazi forces to overcome superior numbers and fortifications, become convinced that the successful defence of the realm is dependent on avoiding confusion and stampedes of refugees from the civilian population, as seen in France and the Low Countries. To this end, the Ministry of Information is tasked with suppressing panic and ensuring that civilians are compliant with government and military instructions. Official pamphlets reiterate that citizens must not evacuate unless and until instructed to do so.

IF THE GERMANS COME […] YOU MUST REMAIN WHERE YOU ARE. THE ORDER IS “STAY PUT”. […] BE READY TO HELP THE MILITARY IN ANY WAY. […] THINK BEFORE YOU ACT. BUT THINK ALWAYS OF YOUR COUNTRY BEFORE YOU THINK OF YOURSELF. [9]

Yet some remained worried that this message would get lost in the confusion on invasion day. People would be scared, and perhaps need to be reminded. “[T]he British public were suspicious of lofty sentiment and reasoned argument. […] Of necessity, the wording and design had to be simple, for prompt reproduction and quick absorption.”[1]. So plans were made to make sure that the message is unmistakable and omnipresent. Instead of a long, logical pamphlet, a simple, clear message in a visually distinctive manner. The message, a mere five words, captures the entire spirit of the British home front in a single poster.

KEEP CALM AND CARRY ON

The poster was never widely distributed during World War II. The Luftwaffe, believing that it was not making enough progress towards the total air supremacy that was deemed as crucial for any serious invasion, switched its strategy from targeting RAF assets, to terror bombing campaigns against British cities. Luckily for the British, who by their own assessment were two or three weeks of losses away from ceding air superiority [5], this strategy, though it inflicted more civilian casualties, eased pressure on the RAF and military infrastructure enough to recover. Moreover, as the British people began to adapt to “the Blitz”, allied resolve strengthened rather than shattered.

German invasion never materialized. And as air raids became more a fact of life, and hence less terrifying and disorienting to civilians, the need for a propaganda offensive to quell panic and confusion subsided. As the RAF recovered, and particularly as German offensive forces began to shift to the new Soviet front, fears of a British collapse subsided. Most of the prepared “Keep Calm” posters were gradually recycled as part of the paper shortage.

With perfect historical retrospect, it is easy to recognize the fact that a large scale German invasion and occupation of the British Isles would have been exceedingly unlikely, and victory against an entrenched and organized British resistance would have been nigh impossible. The British government was on point when it stated that the key to victory against an invasion was level-headedness. Given popular reaction to the rediscovered copies of the “Keep Calm” design, it also seems that they were on the mark there.

The poster and the phrase it immortalized have long since become decoupled from its historical context. Yet not, interestingly, the essence it sought to convey. It is telling that many of the new appropriations of the phrase, as seen by a targeted image search, have to do with zombies, or other staples of the post-apocalyptic genre. In its original design, the poster adorns places where anxiety is commonplace, such as workplaces and dorm rooms, and has become go-to advice for those under stressful situations.

This last week in particular has been something of a roller coaster for me. I feel characteristically anxious about the future, and yet at the same time lack sufficient information to make a workable action plan to see me through these troubling times. At a doctor’s appointment, I was asked what my plan was for the near future. With no other option, I picked a response which has served both myself and my forebears well during dark hours: Keep Calm and Carry On.

Works Consulted

1) “Undergraduate Dissertation – WWII Poster Designs, 1997.” Drbexl.co.uk. N.p., 23 Jan. 2016. Web. 11 May 2017. <http://drbexl.co.uk/1997/07/11/undergraduate-dissertation-1997/>.

2) “Dunkirk rescue is over – Churchill defiant.” BBC News. British Broadcasting Corporation, 04 June 1940. Web. 11 May 2017. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/4/newsid_3500000/3500865.stm>.

3) Inman, Richard. “Fighting for Britain.” Wolverhampton History – Wolverhampton History. Wolverhampton City Council, 13 Dec. 2005. Web. 11 May 2017. <http://www.wolverhamptonhistory.org.uk/people/at_war/ww2/fighting3>.

4) Bellamy, Christopher. “Sixty secret mustard gas sites uncovered.” The Independent. Independent Digital News and Media, 03 June 1996. Web. 11 May 2017. <http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sixty-secret-mustard-gas-sites-uncovered-1335343.html>.

5) “Invasion Imminent.” Invasion Imminent – Suffolk Anti-invasion defences. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 May 2017. <http://pillboxes-suffolk.webeden.co.uk/invasion-imminent/4553642028>.

6) “Large bomb found at ex-Navy base.” BBC News. British Broadcasting Corporation, 22 Apr. 2006. Web. 11 May 2017. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/hampshire/4934102.stm>.

7) Ministry of Information. CIVIL DEFENCE – BRITAIN’S WARTIME DEFENCES, 1940. Digital image. Imperial War Museums. n.d. Web. 11 May 2017. <http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205019014>.

8) “Living with anthrax island.” BBC News. British Broadcasting Corporation, 08 Nov. 2001. Web. 11 May 2017. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1643031.stm>.

9) Ministry of Information. If the Invader Comes. 1940. Print.

10) RAMSEY, SYED. TOOLS OF WAR;HISTORY OF WEAPONS IN MEDIEVAL TIMES. N.p.: ALPHA EDITIONS., n.d. Print.

The Antibiotic Apocalypse and You

Following up on the theme established inadvertently last week: I’m still sick, though on the whole, I’m probably not feeling worse, and possibly arguably marginally better. In an effort to avoid the creativity-shattering spiral that happens when I stop writing altogether, this week I will endeavor to present some thoughts on a subject which I have been compelled to be thinking about anyway: Antibiotics.

A lot of concerns have been raised, rightfully, over the appearance of drug-resistant pathogens, with some going so far as to dub the growing appearances of resistant bacteria “the antibiotic apocalypse”. While antibiotic resistance isn’t a new problem per se, the newfound resistance to our more powerful “tiebreaker” drugs is certainly a cause for concern.

In press releases from groups such as the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, much of the advice, while sound, has been concentrated on government organizations and healthcare providers. And while these people certainly have more responsibility and ability to react, this does not mean that ordinary concerned citizens cannot make a difference. Seeing as I am a person who relies on antibiotics a great deal, I figured I’d share some of the top recommendations for individuals to help in the global effort to ward off antibiotic resistance.

Before going further, I am compelled to restate what should be common sense: I don’t have actual medical qualifications, and thus what follows is pretty much a re-hash of what other experts have given as general, nonspecific information. With this in mind, my ramblings are no substitute for actual, tailored medical advice, and shouldn’t be treated as such.

Before you’re put on antibiotics

1) Stay home when you’re sick

This one is going to be repeated, because it bears repeating. Antibiotic resistant strains spread like any other illness, and the single best way to avoid spreading illness it to minimize contact with other people. Whether or not you are currently infected with antibiotic-resistant illness; in fact, whether or not you even have an illness that is treatable by antibiotics; staying at home when you’re sick will help you get better sooner, and is the single most important thing for public health in general.

2) Wash hands, take your vitamins, etcetera.

So obviously the best way to deal with illness is to avoid spreading it in the first place. This means washing your hands frequently (and properly! Sprinkling on some room temperature water like a baptism for your hands isn’t going to kill any germs), preparing food to proper standards, avoiding contact with sick people and the things they come in contact with, eating all of your vegetables, getting your vaccinations, you get the picture. Even if this doesn’t prevent you from getting sick, it will ensure that your immune system is in fighting shape for if you do.

3) Know how antibiotics work, and how resistance spreads

Remember high school biology? This is where all that arcana comes together. Antibiotics aren’t a magical cure-all. They use specific biological and chemical mechanisms to target specific kinds of organisms inside you. Antibiotics don’t work on viruses because they aren’t living organisms, and different kinds of antibiotics work against different diseases because of the biological and chemical distinctions.

Understanding the differences involved when making treatment decisions can be the difference between getting effective treatment and walking away unharmed, and spending time in the hospital to treat a resistant strain. Antibiotic resistance is a literally textbook example of evolution, so understanding how evolution works will help you combat it.

Public understanding of antibiotics and antibiotic resistance is such a critical part of combating resistance that it has been named by the World Health Organization as one of the key challenges in preventing a resistant superbug epidemic.

4) Treat anyone who is on antibiotics as if they were sick

If someone is on antibiotics and still doesn’t feel or seem well (and isn’t at home, for some reason), you’re going to want to take that at face value and keep your distance. You can also kindly suggest that they consider going home and resting. If you become sick after contact with such persons, be sure to mention it to your doctor.

If they’re feeling otherwise fine, you want to treat them as if they were immunocompromised. In other words, think of how you would conduct yourself health-wise around a newborn, or an elderly person. Extra hand-washing, making sure to wipe down surfaces, you get the picture. If they’re on antibiotics preventatively for a chronic immunodeficiency, they will appreciate the gesture. If they’re recovering from an acute illness, taking these extra precautions will help ensure that they don’t transmit pathogens and that their immune system has time to finish the job and recover.

5) Never demand antibiotics

I’ll admit, I’m slightly guilty of this one myself. I deal with a lot of doctors, and sometimes when I call in for a sick-day consult, I get paired with a GP who isn’t quite as experienced with my specific medical history, who may not have had time to go through my whole file, and who hasn’t been in close contact with my other dozen specialist doctors. Maybe they don’t recognize which of my symptoms are telltale signs for one diagnosis or another, or how my immunology team has a policy of escalating straight to a fourteen day course, or whatever.

I sympathize with the feeling of just wanting to get the doctor to write the stupid prescription like last time so one can get back to the important business of wasting away in bed. However, this is a problem. Not everyone is as familiar with how antibiotics work and with the intricacies of prescribing them, and so too often when patients ask for antibiotics, it ends up being the wrong call. This problem is amplified in countries such as the United States where economics and healthcare policies make it more difficult for doctors to refuse. This is also a major issue with prescription painkillers in the United States. So, listen to your doctor, and if they tell that you don’t need antibiotics, don’t pressure them.

Bear in mind that if a doctor says you don’t need antibiotics, it probably means that antibiotics won’t help or make you feel any better by taking them either, and could cause serious harm. For reference, approximately one in five of all hospital visits for drug side effects and overdoses are related to antibiotics.

It should go without saying that you should only get antibiotics (or any medication, really) via a prescription from your doctor, but apparently this is a serious enough problem that both the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention feel the need to mention this on their patient websites. So, yeah. Only take the drugs your doctor tells you to. Never take antibiotics left over from previous treatment, or from friends. If you have antibiotics left over from previous treatment, find your local government’s instructions for proper disposal.

If you are prescribed antibiotics

1) Take your medication on schedule, preferably with meals

Obviously, specific dosing instructions overrule this, but generally speaking, antibiotics are given a certain number of times per day, spaced a certain number of hours apart, and on a full stomach. Aside from helping to ensure that you will remember to take all of your medication, keeping to a schedule that coincides with mealtimes will help space dosages out and ensure that the antibiotics are working at maximum efficiency.

Skipping doses, or taking doses improperly vastly increases both the likelihood of developing resistant pathogens, and the risk of side effects.

2) Take probiotics between dosages

Antibiotics are fairly indiscriminate in their killing of anything it perceives as foreign. Although this makes them more effective against pathogens, it can also be devastating to the “helpful bacteria” that line your digestive tract. To this end, most gastroenterologists recommend taking a probiotic in between dosages of antibiotic. Aside from helping your body keep up it’s regular processes and repair collateral damage faster, this also occupies space and resources that would otherwise be ripe for the taking by the ones making you sick.

3) Keep taking your antibiotics, even if you feel well again

You can feel perfectly fine even while millions of hostile cells linger in your body. Every hostile cell that survives treatment is resistant, and can go in to start the infection all over again, only this time the antibiotic will be powerless to halt it. Only by taking all of your antibiotics on the schedule prescribed can you ensure that the infection is crushed the first time.

Furthermore, even though you may feel fine, your immune system has been dealt a damaging blow, and needs time to rebuild its forces. Continuing to take your antibiotics will help ensure that your weakened immune system does not let potentially deadly secondary infections slip through and wreak havoc.

4) Stay Home and Rest

Is this message getting through yet?

If you are on antibiotics, it means your body is engaged in a struggle, and it needs all of your resources focused on supporting that fight. Even the most effective antibiotics cannot eliminate every hostile cell. You immune system plays a vital role in hunting down and eliminating the remaining pathogens and preventing these resistant strains from multiplying and taking hold. In the later stages of this fight, you may not even feel sick, as there are too few resistant cells to cause serious damage. However, unless all of them are exterminated, the fight will continue and escalate.

Ideally, you should stay at home and rest for as long as you are taking antibiotics. However, since antibiotics are often given in courses of fourteen and twenty one days, this is impossible for most adults. At a barest minimum, you should stay home until you feel completely better, or until you are halfway done with your course of antibiotics, whichever is longer.

If you do return to your normal routine while taking antibiotics, keep in mind that you are still effectively sick. You should therefore take all of the normal precautions: extra hand washing, wiping down surfaces, extra nutrition and rest, and the like.

5) If you don’t feel better, contact your doctor immediately

Remember: Antibiotics are fairly all or nothing, and once an illness has developed a resistance to a specific treatment, continuing that line of treatment is unlikely to yield positive results and extremely likely to cause increased resistance to future treatment. Obviously, antibiotics, like any course of treatment, take some time to take effect, and won’t make you feel suddenly completely better overnight. However, if you are more than halfway through your treatment course and see no improvement, or feel markedly worse, this could be a sign that you require stronger medication.

This does not mean that you should stop taking your current medication, nor should you take this opportunity to demand stronger medication (both of these are really, colossally bad ideas). However, you should contact your doctor and let them know what’s going on. Your doctor may prescribe stronger antibiotics to replace your current treatment, or they may suggest additional adjunctive therapy to support you current treatment.

Works Consulted

“Antibiotic resistance.” World Health Organization. World Health Organization, n.d. Web. 28 Apr. 2017. <http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/antibiotic-resistance/en/>.

Freuman, Tamara Duker. “How (and Why) to Take Probiotics When Using Antibiotics.” U.S. News & World Report. U.S. News & World Report, 29 July 2014. Web. 28 Apr. 2017. .

“About Antibiotic Use and Resistance.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 16 Nov. 2016. Web. 28 Apr. 2017. <https://www.cdc.gov/getsmart/community/about/index.html>.

Commissioner, Office Of the. “Consumer Updates – How to Dispose of Unused Medicines.” U S Food and Drug Administration Home Page. Office of the Commissioner, n.d. Web. 28 Apr. 2017. <https://www.fda.gov/forconsumers/consumerupdates/ucm101653.htm>.

NIH-NIAID. “Antimicrobial (Drug) Resistance.” National Institutes of Health. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, n.d. Web. 28 Apr. 2017. <https://www.niaid.nih.gov/research/antimicrobial-resistance>.