Maggie's Farm

Yesterday (3/18) I was watching CBS Morning News.  I do tend to watch in the morning before I catch my train, usually not more then 20 minutes to see headlines.  Now, working from home, I have tended to watch the entire 3 hours (I watch the local morning portion from 6-7 as I work).  I'm no longer surprised at the hyperbole and panic in their reports.  Normally it shouldn't matter, but in these unusual times with people watching TV constantly, it's very concerning.  

Yes, they do pepper in 'feel good' stories of people giving away products, time, and effort (this morning, a distillery that has shifted to making and giving away sanitizer) in order to limit the panic reporting.  These are of a particular type, though.  All are about people voluntarily giving of themselves.  Key word "voluntarily", something which is rarely mentioned in reporting.  I often wonder why.  

I found out yesterday when one of the CBS anchors, Jeff Glor, exposed his massive ignorance with this statement (may not be exact, but close enough).  "It's nice to see people putting capitalism aside and focusing on cooperation."  Wait - WHAT?

Capitalism requires cooperation.  Yes, competition is often pointed to as the hallmark of capital.  Competition keeps prices down, competition produces innovation, competition leads to forward thinking and proactive behaviors.  Competition is critical to capitalism.  However, every company would fail if its workers didn't cooperate.  Every exchange would fail if the two parties involved did not cooperate because every exchange has to be based on mutual benefit.  Every deal between businesses would fail if there wasn't cooperation.  Cooperation is essential to every facet of capitalism.  I'll compare it to any team sport.  The competition between the teams yields high levels of performance from the teams themselves (front office down to the field), but requires the cooperation between teams to set rules, engage in trades, and agree on method of determining winners.  It also requires cooperation on the field between team members to make the competition itself intriguing and interesting to watch (or engage in).

This failure on the part of journalists is increasing daily, and it was happening before the panic of the pandemic.  It's becoming more common.  After all, they are playing to the fears every day.  We were told that, at this stage, the number of deaths would double every day.  Yesterday, 104 people in the US had died.  Today, it's 155.  That's close to a 50% increase, which is the highest it's been, and while the number of dead is likely to increase, we shall see if the rate increases.  However, the 'model' is still what we're comparing to, and even in regions hardest hit the 'model' hasn't played out.  Total worldwide deaths still haven't doubled every day, even with the worst hit places being accounted for.  We haven't even topped 10,000.  So panic is the only way to describe coverage.  We do not know real mortality rates, mainly because we do not know real rates of infection.  For what it's worth, I am still convinced I had a very mild form of it already, and several other friends believe they did, as well.  None of us have been tested, and I see no reason to be tested.

Jeff Glor's statement, in my opinion, is starting to look more and more like the reason behind the panic.  There is an agenda being pushed and it's incumbent upon us to be aware of - and push back against - that agenda with every opportunity we have.  Keep informing people that journalists are just tools and these tools are often poorly employed and poorly informed.

Marat's eulogy was given by the Marquis de Sade, a rather fitting person given the ideologies he promoted, which led to the Reign of Terror. 

As I spoke with a friend this morning, we discussed the 'freak-out' and I immediately flashed to one of my favorite movies, so I thought I'd share.  Wonka loved a good freak-out, and used it to his benefit to get to what he wanted.  I don't think it's far-fetched to believe something too dissimilar is going on now.  The boat ride was frightening, most of the participants were disturbed, uncomfortable and angry.  It seemed the world was ending.  Then...destination arrived, all was well and life went on, though not quite as before. 

An interesting side note:  none of the actors were told what would occur during this scene as it was filmed, many of the reactions are real.  The children, unaware that Wilder was going to sing, thought he was going crazy.

I make an effort, in my role as an older member of my department, to reinforce knowing history.  Not only of the industry, which critical to avoiding errors already made, but also general history because it helps create a more advanced social order.  The critical part of any social order is trust.  Without it, markets fail, relationships fray, and good behavior is set aside in favor of self-interest.  History, at its core, teaches the value of trust.

All good teams, departments, interactions, communities, and even nations are built upon a basic level of trust.  It is rarely discussed, but absolutely essential.

In the U.S., trust has begun a slow dissipation.  Think of an example of someone who did things the 'right way' and was moderately, or supremely, successful (let's say the Boston Red Sox of 2018) versus those who do things the 'wrong way' and are supremely successful yet go unpunished or are barely touched (the Houston Astros of 2017).  When we fail to punish those who gain rewards improperly, we reduce the ability to trust our institutions.  How often have you talked about someone you admire, only to have someone else say "if he/she is so smart or good, why did person X (who wasn't as 'clean') make all the money?"  That kind of response typifies the slow fraying of fundamental trust.

Another example could be our recent trials and investigations regarding Trump.  In this, we see an example of retributive anger (Trump won and I hate him so he has to go), which is very damaging and occurs with the complete loss of trust (can anyone argue that the Democrats trust Trump even a little?).  Transitional anger, the anger we feel as we shift from one order to the next, that sense of loss yielding anger but without feeling the need to lash out,  is manageable and useful.  It can help people progress.  Retributive anger is dangerous and undermines the fabric of trust that is necessary to move forward.

The Democrats are suffering now because of the fact they have engaged retributive anger.  They're mad they lost an election they assumed was theirs, and rather than be angry at their own shortcomings and using that anger in a transitional manner to improve themselves, they've lashed out and are destroying themselves and potentially the nation (if their behavior is followed to its logical conclusion).

We are successful as a nation because we have an innate trust in our political institutions.  That trust exists regardless of those in power because the Constitution protects us, as individuals.  Even if bad people are elected, one person and even a few cannot destroy the system.  Checks and balances assure that.  We can survive a bad president (and have many times).  There are reasonable methods to oust the truly awful.  Engaging those levers in wrong-headed attempts simply because someone is 'offensive' undermines that innate trust of our institutions.  It causes some, and possibly many, to question the validity of our original belief in our Constitution and our laws.

This doesn't happen because of one person.  It doesn't happen because "Trump did it," it happens because a group of people are hoping and trying to undermine that trust, and it isn't the Russians.  Or the Chinese.  It has to happen internally. 

I don't love Trump, I barely tolerate him.  But I've not liked plenty of presidents.  I've had trust in our system, though.  Thankfully, after two clear attempts to undermine that system, it has stood up to the attacks on it, and I still trust it.  It's a shame there's an entire party out there so far off base that its members no longer trust the system and are proposing potential candidates to destroy it.