The Supremes and the New Texas Abortion Law

How is changing culture "nuking" them? — Apollodorus

Well, they'd be dead, mostly -- a major change.

Basically, the pigs are allowed to roam around in oak forests and feed naturally on acorns, chestnuts, etc. — Apollodorus

Jamon iberico does sound superb. But most of us have to put up with less delicious mass-produced and overly wet ham. What is the etymology of "Jamon"? "Ham" comes from Old English, meaning back of the knee, or thigh.

We did that in Germany after WW2, — Apollodorus

Germany was/is an archetypically western culture. Their Fascist episode was within the outer limits of the western tradition. Once thoroughly defeated by the Allies in 1945, the Germans returned to their normal national behavior.

we need to sort out Pakistan, Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc. — Apollodorus

Maybe just nuke the lot of them?

our opinions don't matter because we have no will to surgically alter their culture. — frank

If we are serious about "liberating women from Islam" then we need to sort out Pakistan, Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc. by enforcing a new religion or ideology.

But we are not doing that. If anything, we are trying to do it piecemeal and that allows for pockets of resistance leading to a backlash. — Apollodorus

And I think that's what China will do eventually. Islam will be gone as anything but a museum piece. — frank

Correct. Islam has fanaticism, China has the intelligence, and the West has (nearly) given up. — Apollodorus

This is, bluntly speaking, crazy talk. AS IF we could surgically alter their culture. AS IF we could enforce a new religion or ideology. I would much prefer that right-wing fundamentalist Islam to
disappear, along with all other right-wing fundamentalist religious practice. But...

Crushing foundational religion in our own society, let alone in Afghanistan, would require a super-commitment, total control, a couple of centuries at least, and more money than there is. Further, we would have to be an authoritarian dictatorship like China to pull this off. Or, better, the intervention of enlightened aliens like in Arthur C. Clark's Childhood's End.

I worry about the boys, girls and women. — James Riley

Right, torturing children is very very bad, but what makes men a more tolerable victim of The Taliban and Islamic State than women?

I told Prishon that I thought he had posted a lot in only 9 days, and that quantity usually cuts into quality. That said, he wasn't a disruptive presence.

There have been bannings that made a lot more sense than this one.

has anyone, conceived of nonexistence/death? — TheMadFool

We have no need to worry about our non-existence, because the personified process of dying and death takes care of everything for us. It's a free service, though various agencies try to collect as much as possible before The End, when we cease forever to produce revenue.

Granted, at times death seems to provide moderately interesting subject matter, but it's always a dead end, so to speak.

As Emily wrote

Because I could not stop for Death –
He kindly stopped for me –

Emily was sure that the horses pulling the carriage in which she and Death rode were headed for eternity. Paradise? Well, she didn't say that, and she could have if she had wanted to. However, Immortality was a third passenger. I don't expect immortality to be in my carriage ride with Death. You can think so if you want -- it won't make any difference, either way, Just my opinion.

“Do you think I’m prettier than her?” — Nicholas Mihaila

"What is ethical" isn't always obvious.

An objective evaluation of appearance is not being sought here. What is being requested is validation. The questioner wants to hear that she is an attractive person. Is there some reason you can not validate this person by saying "yes"?

The SS officer asking you about Jews hiding nearby is a clearcut ethical conflict between a simplistic, rigid rule (always tell the truth) and a higher requirement that one protect the innocent or that one preserve life.

Sort your ethical priorities in descending order, from what is the most important ethical consideration; to what ethical considerations are of middling importance, and which ethical considerations are least important. What can you live with, and what can you not?

The key ethical consideration should help you determine the course of action for lesser ethical considerations. So, what is your top ethical consideration?

Maybe so.

Over the last 400,000 years, we can assume that humans lived in some fairly difficult conditions, and those that were not dying in agony probably liked their lives well enough. That's true right now. Not dying in agony? Hey, it's time to party! So sure, no doubt there will be people on the Arctic Riviera who will think life is happiness indeed.

I've always assumed that humans, along with some other animals, insects, plants, fungi, bacteria, and viruses would make it through the thermo-culling event. And they will likely breed their way back to the global nuisance we have become to ourselves.

If things go badly, billions will not survive. The Arctic Rivera, Tierra del Fuego resort and casino, and the settlements on various mountains here and there, won't offer refuge for all that many people. So... exit stage left, right, front, and back.

Let me beat this probably dead horse a little longer.

At the rate the planet is warming, there probably won't be enough time left to implement much of the electrification plan. Having warmed up, it will take a very long time for the oceans to cool back down. Having warmed up, it will take an ice age to refreeze the tundra (which is busy leaking methane).

The kind of life-way that will result from global warming -- a life-way we are definitely going to find very unsatisfactory -- is not being planned for as a likelihood--nowhere, really, not just in the US. The key piece of an appropriate long-range planning process is the steady, continuous, and permanent rollback of consumption to 1880 -1900 levels and content.

Such a 120-140 year roll-back would be no sort of dark ages. People used to not consume as much non-food stuff as they have, ever since the 1920s. Less clothing, less household furnishing, less heating, less cooling, no cars, no planes. People walked, used public transit, or bicycled. Few people owned horses to just to ride around on. For longer trips, inter-city trolleys and trains were used.

Houses built for the working classes did not have huge walk-in closets and 8 drawer dressers, shoe racks, and so on for clothing. Even up to the 1950s many people bathed once or twice a week (not twice a day as some do now).

As long as we continue to expect increases in GDP every year and a "rising standard of living" whatever that means, no significant slowing or reduction in greenhouse gases is going to happen.

To hell with these political leaders and these corporations. — Xtrix

Fine by me. The efforts of "these political leaders and these corporations" has been directed for many decades toward neutralizing the masses as a political force capable of pursuing their own interests.

That is why the best they can come up with for plans to save the planet is to convert 1 billion internal combustion engines to 1 billion electric motors -- overlooking the massive carbon output that will require.

Under capitalism, planning must be directed toward sustaining capitalism as the dominant paradigm.

Why? — Xtrix

Without 100% electricity sourced from wind, solar, nuclear, and hydro, electric vehicles is business as usual.

There are about a billion cars on the world's roads. If we were serious about global warming, we would not be devising plans to replace 1 billion internal combustion autos with electric ones. Aside from the energy to power these vehicles, there is an extraordinarily large energy requirement to recycle 1b old and manufacture 1 billion new vehicles. We do not have a global electric grid free of CO2 and methane emissions to power a billion cars (and more trucks, trains, planes, etc.)

We require transportation, BUT the choice is clear: either cars for all and failure at controlling global warming, or greatly reduced resource consumption and possible success at controlling rising CO2 levels (plus methane, etc.) and steady heating.

The existing global economic model is flat out unsustainable. We are failing at limiting global warming, which isn't just an inconvenience, it will eventually be an existential threat.

That's why.

The important issue isn't whether planning is centralized or scattered, it is whether planning for the short, medium, and long run is underway. In many cases, it appears to be quite inadequate. it isn't just national governments that too often fail at this: Corporations, individuals, small farmers, professionals, small tradesmen--all sorts.

Just one small example: A developer wants to build 50 houses. The local city/county wants the tax revenue. How does it happen that the developer, local government, and others do not notice that the land for these 50 houses is a flood plain? Building houses on flood. plains isn't planning -- it's gambling. People, insurance companies, taxpayers -- all sorts -- are losing this gamble too often.

Smart companies build sufficient warehouse capacity BEFORE they build out their wholesale or retail operation. Manufacturers build sufficient factory capacity before they attempt to go into new markets.

Amazon seems to do reasonably good medium range planning (2 decades out), which has enabled them to keep up with booming demand for home delivery. Target, surprisingly, seems to have had problems with its supply chain for several years. Bad planning, maybe.

I don't think switching to electric autos (140 million of them in the us alone) is a good idea, but at least there is talk of building out a coast-to-coast charging system, which will certainly be needed when we roll out more of the electric fleet.

On the other hand, there are all sorts of problems with building out a non-fossil fuel electric grid, and I don't see a lot of planning for that taking place. Mostly there seems to be a lot of dithering. But long range dithering doesn't count as long range planning.

:up:

Once we figured out how to do it, we couldn't stop.

Do you know how many people lived on Earth back then? 10 000 years ago or so? — Prishon

There were not many humans "back then", depending on which "back then" you are thinking of. Generally speaking, the Paleolithic populations of humans were very small.

Estimates are very rough. But my understanding is that for most of the Paleolithic Period total human populations were very small. During the "population bottleneck" around 70,000 years ago, the total population of humans was reduced to maybe 10,000 to 30,000. Something happened (the Tuba Volcano cold snap, maybe) that killed off a lot of people. We are all descendants of the people surviving that event.

After the climate recovered, total human populations would still have remained small -- under a million at any one time. Why not more people, faster population growth? Hunter-gatherers were not able to reproduce abundantly. Their lifestyle did not allow for rapid reproduction; breast-feeding, for instance, slows down reproduction and at this time children were probably breast fed for several years. They were very mobile. Everyone expended a lot of energy providing food, warmth, and shelter.

One estimate is that during warm Paleolithic intervals between ice ages, the population of inhabitatal Europe might have been only 1 person per square mile--a pretty thin population.

Sometime after 10,000 years ago (like... 8,000 years ago) population started to grow more rapidly. Try this article.

Thats the usual reply. Its only Natural to destroy the surface of the planet. Who cares? The Earth wont stop to travel around the Sun and life will always find a way. Of course. — Prishon

In our present form, we had been on earth for what... 400,000 years, give or take 15 minutes, without doing much damage. As stone-age hunter-gatherers our presence was no more significant than other mammals. Still, we were exceptional enough to produce technology (stone tools, cooked food, spears, and the like) which enabled us to become a top predator.

At some fairly recent period in time--less than 20,000 ago--we changed. We developed the tools and skills to exploit resources more profoundly. We began to settle, to dig, and build in more significant ways. By 12,000 years ago, we started to cultivate and settle, to build small villages, and later larger, higher stone walls. We found nuggets of copper and began shaping them into ornaments and tools. Then we started digging deeper. We built with wood and stone.

We were not very many, and the earth was very big. Our footprint was slight, but we were accumulating new abilities. By 3,000, 4,000, or 5,000 years ago--take your pick--we were set to take on the world.

Still, the major damage didn't begin until we harnessed metal machines to coal and oil--just yesterday in our history. Nothing in our experience as a species predicted how consequential steel, coal and oil would be.

But not my kind of barren life. All is directed to the short term profit. But people are ratio-endowed. Thats Natural too. — Prishon

We could blame capitalism. I'm happy to do that, but there is another cause: Humans are just not very good at wide-ranging, long-term consequence-calculating. And if we can do the calculation, we can't usually motivate immediate behavior change for distant benefit--maybe a century or more in the future.

So yes, we evolved to become a huge nuisance for the planet, but we can not be other than what we are. Yes, we are sort-of rational, but not rational enough to change our short-term, let alone our long-term behavior. Is that OK? No, but that's where we are.

Is there an applicable solution? That's the $64,000,000,000,000,000 question,

I bet you have a big car and lots of material posession! For which I dont blame you by the way... — Prishon

Gees, where did that come from?

Actually, I have never owned a car. As for lots of material possessions, it's mostly books and ordinary household stuff. It's more than I need or want, but in 75 years, one accumulates stuff which is much more a burden than an asset.

Humans have been using or "damaging" the planet for millennia. Bronze Age mines continue to pollute. Using resources is what people do.

Certainly the capitalist driven industrial revolution bears the major responsibility for global warming. No doubt, the coal barons, oil barons, lumber barons, steel barons, railroad barons, auto barons, air travel barons, plastic junk barons, etc. barons of Europe, North America, and now Asia didn't intend to cause global warming. But had they known of global warming in 1800 it is doubtful they would have behaved any differently. If it is man's nature to use resources, capitalists are manic blind resource exhausters, who never have a reason to moderate until something is gone, and not even then.

You didn't invent petroleum-based transportation, I didn't invent coal-based electrical generation, but we are all now complicit. My modest lifestyle wastes energy, generates more than my share of CO2, and so does yours, cost likely.

The trouble is, we are enmeshed in a complex system of energy production and use which we can not simply opt out of--especially not in large numbers. While other arrangements are possible, I can not imagine how we would bring alternate arrangements into existence without bringing on a catastrophe we want to avoid.

We all need to stop consuming most of what we consume. When we all do that, the economy will collapse and in short order there will be nothing to consume, and the credits on the screen will roll as the audience files out into eternity.

We missed the best opportunities to manageably rework our economy we were going to get 30 or 40 years ago (when global warming became clearly certain).

Who should be allowed to wear a gun (and use it)? — Prishon

A useful approach to determining 'who should wear a gun' is to apply strict standards of attractiveness and style.

"Does a gun look good on this person?"
"Do the person's clothing choices add to, or detract from appearance of the gun? And visa versa?
"Does wearing a gun match their general style of dress, comportment, make-up, hair, gait, pitch of voice, cock size, and so forth?

No one should be allowed to make up for a little dick by wearing a big gun.

Clearly short fat people should not be allowed to wear a gun or guns, just as they should not be allowed to wear blue suede shoes, pink pants, a teal colored shirt, and an orange jacket. Fat people wearing lycra are disgusting, and so are fat people with two guns hanging from a gun belt. Just stupid. Fat people wearing lycra are too attractive a target for their own good.

Women may be allowed to carry a gun in their purse, provided the purse is attractive and the gun is small and easily handled. Hauling a sawed off shotgun out of a Hermés Birkin bag is just not done in America or any place else. Well, maybe in Venezuela, these days.

Male gun wearers should be unconditionally handsome, at least as tall as average, but not too tall; physically fit, dressed in rugged clothing featuring perfectly faded denim, earth tones, brown leather boots, etc. They should be visibly well hung, too, Might as well have the complete package. (Note "puny dick/no gun" rule.)

Acne-pocked youth should definitely not wear guns. Republicans, especially, should not be allowed to wear guns, considering how unsightly Donald and Mitch are. Homely hookers should not be allowed to sport guns, and tacky looking johns should not be allowed to have a gun tucked into their belt either. As a group, Blacks and Whites should not be allowed to wear guns because both are too large a catchall, and will include too many badly dressed, badly groomed, homely, and stupid people. Same for all other groups, Stupid people, of course, should not be allowed to have guns, let alone wear them.

Anyone wearing lycra, unless they are really fit and well-endowed, should be subject to arrest. And even if they are well endowed, certain bizarre color combinations should not be allowed.

Men with annoying reedy high pitched voices should not wear guns and annoying women with low-pitched raspy voices should not be allowed either. Speech coaches can train people to speak attractively. Want a gun? Get thee to a speech coach. And maybe a charm school, too.

Remember what Oscar Wilde said: "Only shallow people do not care about appearances."

the process of living and then dying but is perhaps more accurately identified as the absence of one’s consciousness. — Dante

Some people think "consciousness" is a 'user interface' generated by the unconscious brain. So, in a sense, we are never "conscious". What we are (after birth, before death) is "in existence". We didn't exist, we do exist, an then once again we don't exist -- and we will never be back in any way, shape, manner or form -- at least that is what I think.

What I think about the matter, and what anyone else thinks about the matter, doesn't matter because it doesn't make one whit of difference. Every living thing eventually dies and it stays dead. At least as far as we can tell.

Some philosophers of mind have argued that consciousness is a form of user illusion. — Wikipedia

That could very well be. If it is the unconscious mind that does all the work, it would need an interface. But then the question arises, Who uses the interface the unconscious mind creates? Is the ego part of that interface, and the part that interacts with other egos' interfaces?

Except for the defense part, all those things can be done by religion, right? — frank

Is religion good at maintaining social cohesion? Infrastructure? Services?

Only a cautious "Perhaps" applied to the pre-Reformation church, when it had a monopoly. Where it didn't have a monopoly (post-Reformation) it was the subject of quite a bit of rancor. The American colonies had good cohesion when only one sect had a monopoly -- like the Puritans, the Anglicans, or the Quakers. Otherwise, they weren't producing all that much cohesion.

That said, I think "faith", "regular and sincere divine worship", a common narrative of origin and salvation, and so forth can be a healthy element of society. But the State does a better job of providing social cohesion which over-arches sectarian and partisan interests (at least, most of th time).

Because the State is the custodian of the law and not salvation, it can ignore behavior which offends priests and theologian. The church may shoehorn its morality into the law (regarding divorce, abortion, homosexuality, etc.) and once the State gets rid of that influence (as it has over the last century) law becomes tolerant of what the church can not stand.

Of course, Frank, things can go the other way. The Nazi State generated a degree of social cohesion, and where it did not, it forced cohesion, compliance, and cooperation. Similarly, the Soviet State achieved cohesion, but seems to have required a very heavy hand to get and keep it. There are a number of states which perform miserably on just about any measure. Western Europe, North America, Japan, and some other states have, it seems to me, done a pretty good job.

the common man even tho up close and personal, he's actually pretty offensive. — frank

King: "The people are revolting!"

Queen: "Yes, they certainly are."

I've just been interested in Neoliberalism for a while now — frank

My son, we are prone to find evil interesting, and our God-given curiosity may want to investigate it. Beware of Darkness, though. It is seductive and offers the gaping gates of Neoliberal Hell masqueraded as the high road to salvation. Only peer into the dark if you must, but do not step so little as a nanometer past those hideous gates, lest you be lost forever.

After reading the evil book, sprinkle yourself with holy water from the left side of the sacred spring of collectivism. Say 10 Hail Marx, and burn the paper effigy of Margaret Thatcher announcing that there is no such thing of society.

Go and sin no more.

imagination! — Alkis Piskas

Indeed. Computers are the very model of unimaginative idiot savants.

Another huge thing the partisans of "brain as computer" do not account for is that the brain is flesh. Animals are embodied, and the body is subject to all sorts of gross and subtle influences of which silicon circuits know nothing. Cool, fresh air and bright sunshine in the morning can make oe eel glad to be alive. A beer or three can smooth out the rough edges of reality for a while. The prospect of great sex can organize one's whole day. All that and much more because we are flesh. Computers have no bodies. Brains are always part of a body -- even in the case of C. elegans, where the 'brain" is composed of 302 neurons.

My point again: It's all just a metaphor anyway. A brain is a brain. A computer is a computer. — Hermeticus

Exactly.

I find the "brain as computer" metaphor as useful as everyone else. But a metaphor is "a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.

1. Brain continuously runs a thread (process) called "SensoryInput". — Hermeticus

The brain receives a lot of input all the time, from internal and external sources. A lot of what passes through seems to be unexamined. Sometimes it's appalling how much, sometimes important stuff, can pass along this flow of information and not be noticed. I didn't notice the revolution, but suddenly noticed that dog-shaped cloud.

There's nothing wrong with your flow chart; it looks like what you would put together if you were applying yourself to writing an input/output program. Maybe you composed the list using memory plus imagination. I bet you have no knowledge of how the brain actually delivered that material to your fingers so you could type it. I can't explain what part of my brain is generating the text I am now typing. (Sure, the language production area; saying so comes out of memory not experience.)

I sometimes daydream how my brain works. It's fun for a while.

The thing is, we have no access to how our brain produces "us". Most of the brain's activities are sub- or non-conscious. The conscious mind is cut out of all the internal traffic -- or at least, 99.9%. This isn't a defect--it's a feature. It enables us to attend to what we wish to attend to consciously, or what is forced upon us. We don't have to deal with both the action on the baseball diamond and the details of digestion, proprioception, and keeping our heart and lungs operating all at the same time.

We can observe something about the brain with EEGS and fMRIs, which are still a very far cry from observing our brain producing "us".

Doesn't neoliberalism exist in European countries that have state operated/managed health care? Or are you saying neoliberalism is peculiarly American, or maybe Anglo-American?

It seems like neoliberalism is just the theology of capitalism. Capitalism is selfish, so what's new?

Can we say the brain is an analogue computer being able to simulate all physical processes in thd world, even a lightning flash? — Prishon

I can imagine a supernova, let alone imagine a lightning flash. I have curiosity. For instance, when I wrote this response, I wrote "lightening"; that's what I say when I describe an electrical discharge in the clouds. Then I noticed how you spelled it. "Hmmm," I thought; "which one is correct." It turns out your spelling is correct. "Lightening" is the present participle of lighten, or reduce the darkness of something. All these years (I'm 75) I've been saying it wrong,

A computer can not ask itself whether it is right or wrong, and can not 'feel' anything, either way.

I'm assuming you do not actually believe that.

Then what's all the fuss about? I'm curious. — TheMadFool

well, lots of people believe that "private is better" "public is worse". The question isn't whether insured well informed care consumers can get good care in the US, or not. They can. The question is whether the good care they get can be provided for less money (it can) and more equitably (it can). But not within the private, for profit model.

What the US has is a continuum of care quality ranging between excellent and mediocre. Where on the continuum of quality one will end up depends first on money (do you have good insurance) and then on knowledge. One really should get the same quality of care without respect to money or how well can decode the system.

Will everybody get luxury grade care in a single payer, government operated system? It may well be that in the government operated hospital NOBODY gets luxury grade care (private room, order off special menu, private nurses, etc.). And really, why should one get such care? Expensive frills like that relate to the ability to pay, rather than medical benefit.

In the free enterprise system, whether you get care at all can depend on the ability to pay. No insurance? No surgery.

If you nationalize the health sector, more people can afford healthcare but quality takes a hit.

If you privatize the healthsector, quality is A1 but fewer people can afford it. — TheMadFool

There is nothing intrinsically worse about the quality of socialized health care. There is nothing intrinsically better about the quality of privatized health care.

Why is the state in the best position to coordinate care? — frank

a) it is national in scope
b) it has the power to compel compliance
c) it has law making authority
d) it has great revenue-raising capacity

Because it is national in scope, it can eliminate regional inadequacies (such as exist in the SE and SW United States).

Because it has the power to compel compliance, institutions (hospitals, AMA, pharmaceutical corporations, etc.) and individuals can not disregard state directives on minimum standards of care (affecting every aspect of health care). The state has extraordinary leverage when it is the pocketbook from which providers will be paid.

The state is in a position to legislate how health care will be organized.

Because the state has national revenue raising capacity, it can distribute the cost of care across the entire tax base (including corporations who would no longer have to provide expensive health care insurance programs).

My view is that a civilized state works to build cohesive community and the health and happiness of its citizens through the provision of care, essential services and amenities. — Tom Storm

Why? — frank

People living in a civilized state where they experience a reasonable level of community cohesion and enjoy good health, education, personal security, and "amenities" experience much less social friction.

Too much social friction begins to undermine the stability of society, such that there is more disorder, more disruption, less production, less consumption, and so on. If social friction becomes very severe, one ends up with a revolution or worse, a failed state.

Social friction has been slightly elevated since Covid-19's appearance, and mild social unrest related to police-black community interaction. Moderate unrest? Yes, moderate. Nothing close to "severe" where the rioters burn down the richer folks' housing. Poor people burning down their own neighborhoods is more or less tolerable, depending how far close one is.

With more malignant neglect and aggravation, we could get beyond "moderate friction" to "serious friction" or even "severe friction". Some people say "speed the day." Those people generally do not have a pot to piss in.

What should the state be responsible for? And why? — frank

A healthy population (and healthy workforce) is essential to a strong economy. In most countries health care is either funded by, provided by, or managed by the State. Given that the State is in the best position to coordinate public and private health care, it should be in charge.

The reason that health care is dominated by commercial interests (for-profit hospitals, clinics, and insurance rackets) is that the US (the state, and the nation of individuals) has always and strongly preferred to receive goods and services in a capitalist marketplace. Health care is just one more service and set of goods.

Inefficiency and diminished efficacy is no reason (under capitalism) to socialize medical care, since the corporate purpose is to generate profit. If an excess number of people die because of that decreased efficiency and efficacy, well... Who cares, as long as there are no unbearable liability issues?

However health care is managed and financed, it will cost money. The question is how much. We could certainly receive the same level of care we receive now for less money in a government financed / government managed plan.

We could deliver much better collective health care (aka public health) services were we free of supporting the profit level of corporate healthcare. Public Health services are directed mostly at disease prevention.

Personally... I've been satisfied with the quality of care I have received over the last 50 years. But, I've also been employed and have had fairly stable finances during these decades. People without employment and stable finances are not in a position to be proactive in their own health care. A visit to the doctor costs too much if one does not have health insurance, so one eventually ends up in the ER or hospital with more advanced, less readily treatable disease. Or, one dies without needed care.

Especially when this virus has produced fatalities quite close to the 1918 epidemic -- even over a similar length of time. I have not heard anyone dismiss the 1918 influenza as a minor infection. Yet, this one -- killing roughly as many -- just isn't being given its proper due by the vaccine / face mask shy.

(OK, so granted, the 1918 stats are estimates because about a quarter of the states did not report influenza case counts and deaths in 1918. Don't know why they didn't. 3/4ths of the states managed it.)

I got the shots -- I was eager to get them. BTW, I definitely felt both of them, advances in technology or not. Was the injection a bad experience? No, I've had far, far worse--thinking of a long needle being jabbed into my jaw for a ghastly dental procedure.

The angle about the vaccine that I find really interesting is this: People have varying levels of risk aversion, ranging between total avoidance and ready acceptance. This goes for anything involving risk. This is the first time that I have been aware of political views playing a critical role in personal risk management. Conservatives, who are otherwise proactive in health care decisions, have decided THIS vaccine is risky. The vaccine doubters (and acceptors, for that matter) almost never possess the background to evaluate a good vs. poor vaccine.

But having voted for Trump seems to guide the amount of risk aversion they feel about this vaccine. They may wear masks compulsively, avoid crowded rooms, commercial venues, etc., keep their distance, and so forth -- but the vaccine is NO GO.

I can see how an uninformed person could be alarmed by discussions of the vaccine -- like, "RNA? What's that? I don't want that in my body." Some people are scared by technical terms.