Yes, But Also

 

 

 

 Pieces like this one at Naked Capitalism bring out... conflicting isn't the word so let's say split feelings in me. The article is about how communication strategies for getting people vaccinated can backfire, basically for some segments of the population, more aggressive messaging can harden their reluctance to get the vaccine rather than ease it. What I'm split on is that yes, it is important to know how your messaging is effecting people, how it can be better, and to correct mistakes so you can achieve the goal. But on the other hand, I'm tired of pretending that if we tailor our messages in just the right way, then opposition to the vaccine will just melt away.

Obviously, the goal is get as many people vaccinated as we possibly can. So we need to make sure that the messaging is as effective as it can be. Whatever it takes to get people lining up for that jab, right? But at the same time, fuck these people. When we keep  almost weekly news stories about right wing personalities dying because they weren't vaccinated, I honestly struggle to see how it's very news worthy. "Man who refused to get treatment for highly infectious disease dies from that disease," isn't exactly a surprising turn of events. 

Then again, mocking these people's audience and dancing on their hosts grave isn't exactly the best way to make them believe you're on their side. Or that your primary concern is their continued well being. There's a long history of propaganda on the right that their political opponents see them as a mass of sub-human swine who, if they can't be corralled, are only fit for the slaughter. Which, yes, it doesn't help to reinforce this, but the idea that conservatives are under siege from the rest of society is the only story conservatism has about itself. If that hasn't changed over the course of centuries, I doubt a more even tone from newscasters on CNN will sway things very much.

Still, its wrong to treat people, especially ones you don't like, as a monolith. It's hard to convince someone you want them to take an opportunity to change when you're dancing on the grave of their loved one, telling the survivors that they deserved everything they because they believed people like Tucker Carlson. Shoving their family members death in their faces, if nothing else, is not a very good rhetorical strategy which, if your goal is to get as many people vaccinated as possible, you need to be careful about how you act because everything finds its way online these days. Someone is going to see you being a dick about their dead mom, so just keep that in mind.

However, it's bullshit that in this setup the "just get the vaccine already," crowd has to keep their emotions in check, or at least as neutral as possible, while the anti-vax crowd gets license to do whatever they want. On twitter the other day, I came across this screen shot of some one asking for legal advice and I think it's good for you to read it in full:

This woman lost her child because her boss not only refused to get vaccinated but refused to protect anyone from catching it once she knew she was diagnosed with COVID. When we talk about people getting mad at others for refusing to get the vaccine, this is what we're talking about. it's easy to frame this conversation in terms of elitist libs mocking homespun conservatives as ignorant hicks because that's a trope we use for everything, all the time. It makes the debate feel familiar, as just one more extension of a never ending culture war that consumes every aspect of our lives. Sure, there are elements of that trope, no doubt, but the prime driver of this rage is the bodies. The thousands of dead or infected who will possibly carry the effects of the disease for the rest of their lives. Why are those seeking to get people vaccinated told that they cannot react on their emotions, that they must keep them in check in order to extend every possible grace and fairness towards those who dismiss them at every turn?

There's also the the problem that vaccines are just the latest front of denial during the pandemic. At first, the disease didn't even exist. Then, it was just the flu. Then, it was nothing to worry about because it only had a 1% mortality rate. Now, it's that vaccines and vaccine mandates are fascist, authoritarian measures anathema to the very idea of American freedom. All these policy stances were ones that conservatives adopted and championed to protect their own political positions, no one on MSNBC or The New York Times made them say these things because they called them names.

The conservative fight against vaccines has nothing to do with science or freedom or anything else that comes out of their mouths. Their opposition comes from the fact that having to wear a mask or get a vaccine violates the one true principle of conservatism. If you're not familiar with it, the one principle of conservatism is that there must be an in group which the law protects but does not bind, along side out groups which the law binds but does not protect. Public health measures shatter this principle because they require conservatives to do things for people who are inherently (in their mind) inferior and imposes consequences for failing to do so. All the talking points, all the lies about the vaccine come from this central violation which means that no amount of messaging or coddling will change the conservative outlook completely.

Even so, it's important to still try. I have no sympathy for those who refuse to get the vaccine and die, but that doesn't mean I want them to. No one should have to experience begging for a vaccine (or really, their lives) before they get intubated a few days before they're dead. It's a pointless, horrific way to die, even if they brought it upon themselves, it still isn't anything to celebrate. Also, and a bit more cynically I will admit, the more people who go unvaccinated, the more it puts everyone at risk as more variants evolve to become vaccine resistant, spreading from those who got their shot and those who didn't with little distinction. Even if you can't empathize or sympathize, which to be clear, I have incredible difficultly with both, paying attention to how vaccine messaging is used is important even if the only compelling reason you can find is self-preservation.

Things I Wished I Loved: Killing Them Softly

I really wanted to like Andrew Dominik's 2012 film Killing Them Softly. The movie was the second collaboration between Dominik and Brad Pitt after the commercial flop of the criminally under seen The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford- I'm guessing the plan was that a punchier run time paired with a more manageable title would lead to a better box office return. The film is a tight 97 minutes but still manages to pack in the same thematic work of the stripping away the mythology to get to the ugly, mundane realities of a beloved American myth that Assassination was packed to the brim with. Everyone here is stellar, too. Pitt gives one of the best performances of his career with Richard Kind, James Gandolfini, Ray Liotta, Scott McNairy, and Ben Mendelsohn rounding out the cast. 

It's just such a shame that it all goes to waste. 

What kills this movie dead, what made it infuriating to watch in theaters and only gets worse on a rewatch, is the movie's insistence on putting the subtext through a bullhorn. 

The film takes place amidst the financial ruin and presidential election of 2008. Which, honestly, is perfect. The plot of the movie is centered around finding out who is responsible for disturbing the order of the world to set things right again so having the world collapse in the background provides some nice commentary about how performative and improvised these measures of control really are. There's also a nice corollary to the fundamental criminal nature of our financial system and how uncomfortably well it lines up with the kick up tributary system of La Cosa Nostra.

Instead of letting this marinate in the background, though, the movie brings its subtext to the forefront at every possible opportunity. The robbery of the gambling den that sets the plot off has C-SPAN on in the background, Hank Paulson's congressional testimony blares over a montage of two goons waiting to pick up a suspect, the camera lingers on a speech made by candidate Obama even after characters move out of frame, even the final climatic conversation is framed by Obama's victory speech. 

There's a fifteen minute period in the movie where none of this happens, where Dominik lets things lie and the story play out which makes the movie sores during this time. James Gandolfini has one the best scenes of his career wallowing in pathetic self pity, Pitt and McNairy trade one of the best subtly threatening conversations ever put to film and the assassinations that bring the whole sordid affair to a close are so expertly done that there's a thrill to how cold and professional they are. 

Even the movie's closing line, which should be an instant classic, feels more like the film berating you with its point instead of honing the theme to fine, sharp edge.

And yet. I find myself replaying "America isn't a country, it's just a business" and "I'm American. And in America you're on your own," over and over in my head these days. The social fabric of this country is so nonexistent that you can't even get people to wear a piece of cloth over their mouths in public because why should anyone be slightly inconvenienced for another person's benefit without getting something in return? Get a free vaccine? Nope. Texas and Florida are going so far as to ban local governments from instituting any anti-COVID measures because of "freedom" or whatever.

Hell, that isn't even the only thing that resonates in the movie. A huge thread of the movie is that the Mob, the most romanticized criminal organization, symbol of freedom from the drudgery of everyday life, has straitjacketed itself by adopting the structures and strictures of corporate America. For all the talk about self-determination, they're bound by the grind, trapped by the unrelenting need for money to fund our basic necessities. How free are then, if the only way they can live on our own is if they victimize someone else lest they get left out in the cold to hungry?

You have no idea how badly I want to say that Andrew Dominik made not only the best Western of the 21st century but also the best crime movie since Heat and that we should all be kicking ourselves for sleeping on them both. But then I just remember that slow zoom in on Obama as Gandolfini walks out of frame so the movie can grind itself to a halt for a few seconds so all the peasants understand what's happening and I just want to bang my head against the wall in frustration, baffled that a quiet masterpiece of a movie insists on tripping over itself on something so maddeningly trivial. 

If you're bored one night scrolling and these things don't bother you as much as they bother me, check it out. I may have a lot of problems with the movie but I at it'd be nice if people actually saw the damn thing.

Clay, Not Cornerstone

We have this idea that the law is inherent and immutable. It exists to protect us, to create order in what would otherwise be a chaotic, brutal world. But like every other aspect of society, the law is merely an invention, something we created along the way to make things run as we believed they should. As with any other invention, the law can be tinkered with, abused, or just outright ignored as needed. 

The Texas abortion law is one of a few recent examples of this practice. Under the law, all abortions are banned - including pregnancies that result from incest and rape - after six weeks. If any woman gets an abortion after that time, the law allows any U.S. citizen to sue not only the woman but the doctor who performed the abortion, anyone who gave her money to pay for it, anyone who gave her a ride, along with anyone else who could conceivably said to have "aided and abetted" in acquiring the abortion. Should the plaintiffs win their civil suit, the law requires judges to impose at least a $10,000 fine on the defendants, payable to the plaintiffs.

There are a litany of problems with this law. For one, abortion is a federally guaranteed constitutional right, up until the point of fetal viability. Banning abortions at 6 weeks on its own makes the Texas law inherently unconstitutional but, like I said, there are other problems, too. The whole point of the bounty system is for Texas to try to avoid an official state punishment against women who seek or get abortions. Its supposed to be an end run around the law, basically the official version of "You can't blame me for the things I let other people do." 

Obviously, I don't have the legal background to say definitively whether or not Texas declaring open season on women and their support networks while awarding bounties to pro-lifer vigilantes amounts to those vigilantes qualifying as state actors but, still. It's an incredibly obvious question to bring up, one which I expect will be argued at length as the challenges to the law make their way to the Supreme Court. 

The other, other problem the Texas law has is that it makes an absolute mockery of standing. In the legal world, standing is basically the concept that if you have suffered a specific harm, you have the right to sue to repair that harm in court. Larger point being, standing isn't exactly something you can just grant to people willy-nilly, there still has to be some form of active harm done to people bringing the lawsuit, especially when it comes to civil actions.

Part of why I think the bounty system won't survive contact (at least at first) with the court system is that there is no compelling argument in favor of it that doesn't involve the pursuit of state interests. What specific harm, for example, does anyone in Dallas suffer if a woman in El Paso gets an abortion? What possible injury could they cite as reason for the lawsuit? The state can claim this harm because it represents the whole of the community, so it can take action to protect what it sees as public interest. Except, Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey have slammed this door closed. These cases established and defined abortion as a constitutional right under the 14th amendment which limited the options states could use to directly crackdown on abortion. Even with a Supreme Court willing to indulge Texas' nonsense (we'll deal with this in a minute) required Texas had to invent this bounty scheme in the first place. But, like I said, standing isn't something you can conjure out of thin air, some part of it has to be conferred in order for it to work. 

Push against this feature of the law even just a little and it quickly falls apart. There is no basis for any random citizen to sue another for pursuing medical treatment they don't like. The only possible justification I can think of is that these suits are in the public interest but, again, private individuals don't have this because they cannot prove they've suffered a distinct or palpable injury which is a constitutional requirement for any lawsuit to work. These vigilante cases only legal authority then would have to come from the fact that these private individuals are acting as proxies for the state which, brings us right back to constitutional hard stop set up by Roe and Casey.

Whether any of this matters is an open question. With a 6-3 majority, the conservative wing can lose Roberts but still sit comfortably with a 5-4 ruling in favor of Texas. I've made a big deal about how flagrantly unconstitutional the Texas law is but, if the Supreme Court wants to, it can change the definition of "unconstitutional" whenever they want. Move to limit corporate spending in elections? Well, by our own doctrines, corporations are people, money is speech, therefore, campaign finance restrictions are unconstitutional. It's incredibly easy to alter the bedrock legal principles that our whole system is built on so, the next year will be somewhat nerve wracking as we wait to see whether or not women's bodily autonomy is something the Supreme Court is interested in protecting. 

Because for all the muddling the pro-life movement does, abortion is a bodily autonomy issue. Yes, a fetus is involved, but that does not make it the central issue. In order for the fetus to survive, it must use the the food, blood, and oxygen among many, many other things, of its mother. Here's the important thing- nothing and no one is allowed to use your body against your will. If you are in the hospital and another patient needs a blood transfusion to live, the hospital cannot take your blood because, bodily autonomy. Even when we die, our organs cannot be harvested to save others is we did not consent to do so when we were alive. It is a irony of their position that the so called pro-lifers dream world is one where a corpse has greater dignity and sanctity than a living woman.

There are no fundamental differences between a pregnancy or the above situations. The main objections against lumping all these things together usually bring out nonsensical arguments or religious ones about how, in the case of abortion, because sex was involved, that was the woman's choice so pregnancy is just her avoiding responsibility for her decisions. Which, honestly, your religious beliefs are your own but are ultimately irrelevant. If you believe that life begins at conception, that every fetus has a soul, and that every abortion is ending all the potential of a human life, fine, I'm not saying you can't believe that. What I am saying you can't do is turn around so that everyone has to live your creed, because that isn't caring or loving.

If your goal is to make sure every baby comes into the world with a family who loves and care about them, banning abortion won't do that. Because instead of love, this law uses the power of the state to make every woman afraid, afraid to go to their doctor, afraid to ask for help, afraid to do anything other than keep her head down and just try to figure it out however she can. This law is designed to cut pregnant women off from any and all decisions other than having their child and, much more insidious than that, place any one who helps them do anything else in legal peril. What love is to be found in fear, desperation, and isolation? 

This is why so much work is done by pro-life groups to make the whole abortion argument about the life of the fetus. Yes, it does function to muddle the discussion as a whole and wastes an inordinate amount of time not only trying to refute subjective moral and religious questions but also trying to move the argument to the actual issues abortion deals with. All that said, the rhetoric is primarily for their own internal consumption so they feel galvanized to pursue the goal. It also serves as a soothing mental balm as the contradictions of your stated goals about the sanctity of life being achieved by the reality of grinding an entire segment of the population under heel. Something has to square that circle, so in comes the pursuit of life itself above all else to trump the concerns of robbing women of their independence and dignity.

Another interesting aspect to notice here is that while Texas is flagrantly breaking the law, any prospective punishment is largely theoretical at this point. Which, again, shows that the law is largely a social construction that is unevenly applied. If you has an individual did something that so blatantly violated the constitutional rights, you'd be screwed. But a state does it? Not only do they get away with it, they get the chance to rewrite things so their illegality becomes the law itself.

One of the most common flexes of supposed first world countries like the United States is that we are a nation of laws. The idea is that we have risen above the barbarity of simply ruling by force of violence, that we have evolved into a system based on reasoned laws, applied equitably and dispassionately with only the occasional lapse brought about by individual bad actors. Except, laws are

tools. We wield them as we will to make the world a better place or to wrap people in chains. We use the law to put distance between us and the consequences of what we want. If something terrible is legal or the law does evil work we throw our hands up, say "what are you gonna do, it's the law," and move on. 

But the law, and its consequences, are only what we want them to be. It's never been anything more or anything less.