CULTURE IMPACTS COVID RESPONSE

The Coronavirus infestation is peaking. As of January 26 the country has encountered more than 25 million cases, and suffered close to 425 thousand fatalities. Every statistic more depressing than the next. In some circles, the tendencv has been to blame former president Donald Trump's administration's grossly inadequate response to the developing crisis. There is no argument that the administration failed to manage the ever intensifying pandemic from day one. Even though we were repeatedly promised that the end was around the corner, with only 4% of the world's population, we ended up with 25% of the world's deaths. This statistic in itself should make us question why this is. It couldn't all be Trump. Multiple statistical analyses indicate that, compared to most developed countries, we are grossly under performing. Bloomberg's "Covid Resilliance Ranking," which scores the 53 largest economies on their success containing the virus with the least amount of socio-economic disruption, ranks the U.S. number 37 - well behind New Zealand, Taiwan, Australia, Japan, South Korea , China and others. The Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity, a Texas based think tank, on its "World Index of Healthcare Innovation," which measures Covid-19 fatalities per million residents, places us 27 out of 31. The only countries lagging behind us are Spain, Italy, the U.K., and Belgium. And Foreign Policy Magazine ranks us among the six worst performing countries in the world on its "Covid-19 Global Response Index," along with Turkey, Iran, Mexico and Indonesia. The assumption is that, even though some strategies are being applied more or less emphatically, most countries communicate similar protocols containing social distancing, masks, and other hygiene practices. The difference is that these protocols are more fully embraced and complied with in some countries than in others. That difference appears to be cultural based. According to an article published in the "Harvard Political Review," "The Importance of Culture in Societal Responses to Covid-19," (Oct. 14, 2020), suggests that cultural attitudes and relationships definitely impacts a country's response to and outlook on the pandemic. Their research concludes that countries with a generally "collectivist framework" show a faster, more effective response, as their citizens are more likely to comply with social distancing and hygiene practices that help reduce the spread, while individualist countries respond much less successfully. This contrast between individualistic cultures like the U.S., collective attitudes found in China, South Korea, or Japan, or some mix of those forms as in Canada and France, could well be at the root of these significantly divergent outcomes. It is worth mentioning that U.S. national media has long pointed at our highly individualistic culture as the primary reason behind us having the most Covid-19 cases in the world. In countries where the population places a higher emphasis on group welfare, we generally see widespread compliance with nationally announced public health measures. People wear masks whenever they feel sick at any time, Covid or not. They also trust their government and follow directions. But in countries where cultural traits are more individualistic, focused on personal freedom, and where attitudes toward government control are more skeptical, as in the U.S., we have seen pockets of intense resistance to recommended guidelines, like wearing masks, physical distancing and the temporary closure of businesses. However, recognizing why we may be lagging the world in our effective response to this pandemic is little more than understanding the underlying problem of why we are where we are. It still poses the question what to do about this. I recently came across a thought provoking opinion piece that tends to address this issue in plain language. I really have no idea who wrote this, but I consider it something worthwhile communicating. They are not my words, but they definitely reflect my sentiment: "WELCOME TO THE FREEDOM CAFE" "We trust you to make your own choices if you want to wear a face mask. And, in the spirit of individual liberty, we allow our staff to make their own choices about the safety procedures they prefer to follow as they prepare and serve your food. We encourage employees to wash their hands after using the bathroom, but understand that some people maybe allergic to certain soaps or simply prefer not to wash their hands. It is not our place to tell them what to do. We understand that you may be used to chicken that has been cooked to 165 degrees. We do have to respect that some of our cooks may have seen a meme or a You Tube video saying that 100 degrees is sufficient, and we do not want to encroach on their beliefs. Some of our cooks may prefer to use the same utensils for multiple ingredients including ingredients some customers are allergic to. That's a cook's right to do so. Some servers may wish to touch your food as they serve it. There is no reason that a healthy person with clean hands can't touch your food. We will take their word for it that they are healthy and clean. Water temperature and detergent are highly personal choices and we allow our dish washing team to decide how they'd prefer to wash the silverware you will put in your mouth. Some of you may get sick, but almost everyone survives food poisoning. We think you'll agree that is a small price to pay for the sweet freedom of not ever being told what to do - and especially for the silly reason of keeping strangers healthy." Does anyone argue with public health departments establishing requirements for food handling safety? Does anyone complain that such requirements are an infringement on individual liberties? Perhaps we should learn to distinguish between individual liberties and social responsibilities. Theo Wierdsma

DOMESTIC TERRORISM IS NOT A FEDERAL CRIME!

The insurrectionary assault on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, the day when 535 elected officials joined to formally count the votes submitted by the Electoral College, cementing the election of Joe Biden as President-Elect, will indeed be remembered as a day that goes down in infamy. The assault, executed by thugs and far-right militia supporting President Donald Trump, was lambasted by most everyone. Many, including D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, President-Elect Joe Biden, Senator Chuck Schumer and multiple other lawmakers, referred to what transpired as a clear case of domestic terrorism. There is only one problem, even though the U.S. Patriot Act, which was passed in response to the 9/11 attacks in 2001, includes a definition, however, there is no such thing as a federal criminal offense targeting "domestic terrorism." The Patriot Act defines "domestic terrorism" as acts which are dangerous to human life, that are in violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any state, which appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, to influence the policy of government by intimidation or coercion, or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping, and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. Acts of "domestic terrorism" are charged under specific laws, such as killing federal agents, or "attempting to use explosives to destroy a building in interstate commerce." International terrorism, defined as "acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries," is a defined crime in federal law which could be punished with a life sentence, or, if anyone is killed, include the death penalty, even in states where this level of punishment has been abolished. Timothy McVeigh, who was convicted of murder, conspiracy and using a weapon of mass destruction in the the April 19, 1995 bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 and injuring another 500, was labeled as perpetrating the worst act of domestic terrorism in our history. However, he had to be charged with specific federal crimes. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, one of the Boston marathon bombers could not be charged with terrorism under federal law, because he is a naturalized U.S. citizen. But Richard Reid, the "shoe bomber," a British citizen, was charged with eight federal counts of international terrorism, and received three consecutive life sentences and 110 years without parole. The lack of parity between international and domestic acts of terrorism tend to handcuff authorities attempting to prosecute the latter. The FBI and the Department of Homeland Security have long expressed their concerns with the growing threat of extremist domestic terrorism by actors crossing the line from exercising First Amendment protected rights to committing crimes in pursuit of violent agendas. A June 2020 study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies concluded that during the past 25 years the majority of attacks and plots came from far-right attackers - i.e. Neo Nazis, Neo Fascists, White Nationalists and others. In 2019 this sector was responsible for 66% of all attacks and plots. In 2020 their involvement had increased to 90%. At the same time, since 2019, far-left attacks by anti fascists, Antifa, groups grew by 400% as well. To attempt to mitigate their influx, the FBI published a 32 page document intended to alert the public to what to look for: the "Homegrown Violent Extremist Mobilization Indicators." Even in this manual it printed an opening caveat, stating: "Indicators may involve constitutionally protected activities." The ACLU expressed their concerns with the Patriot Act as well. It charged that domestic terrorism laws could "subject political organizations to surveillance, wiretapping, harassment, and criminal action for political advocacy," suggesting the Act includes a "provision that might allow the actions of peaceful groups that dissent from government policy, such as Greenpeace, [could be] treated as "domestic terrorism," Similar civil rights concerns have prevented the passage of legislation designed to create parity between domestic and international terrorism laws. The "Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act" of 2020 (HR 5602), which would create offices within the Justice Department, Homeland Security and FBI to combat far-right violence, passed the House unanimously, but did not get a vote in he Senate. Dr. Francesca Laguardia, one of a number of academics, writing in the Northwestern University law review, argued that "a domestic terrorism statute is unnecessary and far more problematic than its proponents are willing to acknowledge," citing similar civil rights concerns. However, given the insurrectionary assault on the Capitol, the conversation won't end here, nor should it. With the inauguration of President-Elect Joe Biden and Vice-President-Elect Kamala Harris scheduled for January 20, social platforms like Wimkin and Parler are warning that massive demonstrations are being planned designed to stop Biden from entering the White House. A promotional piece published on Wimkin, signed by Vic Freeman, tells it all: "Millions of American militia will meet in Washington D.C. on January 20, 2021, for the purpose of preventing any attempt by the treasonous domestic enemy Joe Biden, or any other member of the Communist Organized Crime Organization known as the Democratic Party, from entering the White House belonging to We The People. In the event that justice is miraculously served and our Re-Elected President Donald J. Trump is sworn in: the President, the Capital and our National Monuments will be protected from the proven-violent Leftist insurgents who have declared war against the United States of America and have been conducting an active insurrection in the United States of America." Some of the militants have been very candid warning that: "This time we are bringing our guns." Hopefully, this time forewarned is forearmed. Regretfully, just throwing the book at them won't prevent another potentially violent altercation. As the French historian Voltaire already recognized three centuries ago: "Those who make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Theo Wierdsma