Dan Snyder is a piece of shit, but should not be forced to sell his team

In my life, I have always tried to pride myself on being a man of strong convictions and principles. I believe your principles should be applied ubiquitously in life. Meaning, if a time comes when someone you are not a fan of is wronged, then you should stand up and support that person even if you don't like them. I believe that if you compromise your principles when it is convenient, then you are a person without any principles at all.

I am no fan of Dan Snyder. Granted, I don't know a ton about him, but everything I've heard about him in bits and pieces has not been positive. So my opinion on him has always been "cautiously negative." I don't loathe the guy, but I tend to believe one has a poor reputation for a reason. Dan Snyder has given the public a plethora of reasons to doubt his character as a human being. His insistence on keeping a racially insensitive team name, when many people openly supported changing the name, including in his own fan base. Failing to stand by his own player, Trent Williams, who was diagnosed with cancer, allowing a rift between one of the team's best players and the organization. Allowing discord to grow behind closed doors among executives and staffers that created for a toxic working environment. Not to mention many other rumored issues. And now, the latest information comes via The Washington Post, where as many as 15 women have come forward alleging sexual harassment and improprieties in the Redskins organization. The indictments on Snyder just keep piling.

Dan Snyder himself was not accused in this report. He is guilty of allowing toxic behavior to run roughshod in his organization, and for him that is a terrible look that just adds to his ever-growing negative reputation. However, in my opinion, these should not be grounds to have a sports franchise that he legally purchased and owns taken away from him. I will never support morality policing. Ever. Under any circumstance. Dan Snyder's culpability in the wrongdoing of his staffers is both subjective and arbitrary. I think almost everyone will agree that is makes him look incompetent at best, and a slimeball at worst, and that the owner of a team is responsible for those who work under them. But, that's from a moral perspective, not a legal one. And being incompetent and a slimeball is not a crime. Nowhere is it said that to own a sports team, you have to be a great and respected human being. If Snyder himself committed sexual improprieties or was proven to have actively encouraged others to engage in harassment or inappropriate behavior, then that would be a different story, and I would be first in line to support his ouster, but as of now he was not alleged to have done so. As this story continues to unfold, he, as of now, is basically accused of gross incompetence and/or negligence. Which in my opinion doesn't meet the NFL bylaws for owner removal of directly engaging in detrimental conduct themselves.

In this country, we always have separated morality from legality. It's a necessity. For Dan Snyder to have his team stripped away from him because he did something morally wrong, is morality policing to a T. It sets a terribly dangerous precedent that I want absolutely no part of in society and in the sports world. Where every time a sports owner does or says something people deem immoral, they can just have their sports teams they legally purchased taken away from them. Especially when morality is an ever-sliding scale that seems to shift based on whatever the vocal outrage mob decides to take up arms against on any given day. We simply cannot allow a reality to exist where the general public, and a small portion of it at that, gets to decide matters of legal precedent based on moral standards. Ever. Especially when in today's absurd social climate, things deemed morally inappropriate by some in the vocal minority include: using the term "master bedroom," saying men can't get pregnant, and starting a restaurant that cooks food not typically associated with the owner's personal ethnicity.

Think that's hyperbolic and it would never get to that point? Maybe. But then again, I never thought I'd see the day where someone lost their job for cracking their knuckles out their car window, a soccer player be released for something their wife posted on social media, or major media publications would call for the banning of the Star Spangled Banner and celebration of the 4th of July. Once you open the door to where morality and subjectivity rule the day, in the age of social media, it's now those with the loudest voices, and not the soundest, who will decide what is right and wrong based on their personal ethics. Forgive me for not even wanting the remote possibility of living in an age where some crazy scenario like the public pressure of an angry mob scaring a league and its owners into forcing the sale of a team for an owner's wife being photographed in public wearing the jersey of a player who said something bad on social media 10 years prior, is something that is no longer considered crazy.

Two things can be true: Dan Snyder is likely a piece of shit who doesn't deserve the privilege of owning an NFL team, but there is no precedent here to allow morality to dictate legality. And until he or any other owner commits a crime or violates a legal statute agreed upon in NFL/NBA/MLB/NHL's bylaws, then I will support that person's rights to continue owning their respected teams, while condemning their actions on a moral level. Most of all, I feel fucking gross even remotely having to "defend" Dan Snyder in any way.

The Last of Us Part II: A gorgeous well-made game that ruined the franchise for me ***SPOILERS***

THIS CONTAINS SPOILERS FOR THE LAST OF US PART I AND PART II 



The Last of Us is one of my favorite games of the previous generation. And that's coming from someone who doesn't adore most third person action style games. I would much rather play an RPG, a metroidvania, or a platformer. Staying in the action genre, I typically prefer games with RPG elements or exploration like God of War or Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order. What made The Last of Us stand out to me above other games in its genre were its deep character development, its amazing storytelling, superb voice acting and a brilliant musical score, which brought it all home. The Last of Us, to me, was never great because of its gameplay. The gun play, upgrade elements, and traversing the environments were all done much better in other games. However, the story of Joel and Ellie's journey was so beautifully written and crafted, that it truly touched the soul.

I'm a sucker for father-daughter stories. In this case, you can put daughter in quotes, because Ellie is obviously not Joel's biological daughter, but essentially filled in those shoes once his real daughter was killed in the opening moments of the game. Joel and Ellie's bond was one of my favorites in video game history. Their fight for survival being the bond that tied them together, they each grew to love one another platonically, learning about one another in their true and rawest forms. Joel looked at Ellie as someone to look after and care for, filling in that void missing after his daughter's death; perhaps viewing his relationship with her as a mulligan, and a way to make up for his daughter dying under his watch, by saving Ellie and giving her as good a life as one possibly can during post-apocalyptic times. Ellie looked at Joel as the father figure she didn't have, but not in the traditional sense. Ellie always oozed independence and was strong-willed, so while she didn't seek structure from Joel, he gave her that comfort any young girl craves. While she'd never admit it, she looked up to Joel. Seeing their relationship continue to blossom throughout the game, culminating in Joel sacrificing everything, even the future of the human race to save Ellie, when he couldn't save his own daughter, is the kind of stuff that gives you goosebumps and packs an emotional punch few video games can.

Their relationship was something that stayed with me long after I completed the game and why I so heavily anticipated the sequel. There were so many directions they could have taken with the sequel's story. With their development talent, it was hard to screw up. As long as they kept the same general formula, the story was going to be enjoyable. There were so many angles they could have taken. Ellie finding out about Joel sacrificing the Fireflies to save her, her turning on him, and them having to repair their relationship while they traverse they apocalyptic United States in search for another group who is working on a cure. They could've implemented more immune characters out there in the wild they searched to unite with. They could have explored other means to make a cure, and it would be up to Ellie and Joel to find it since they were responsible for other cure not being development. Anything, but the story path they chose. The route they decided to go in The Last of Us Part II was insulting, arrogant, and took one great big dump on two of the greatest video game characters in recent memory.

By killing off Joel in the first hour of the game, it reeked of trying to do something bold just for the hell of it, adding shock value to the game when it didn't need it. They tried desperately to subvert expectations after putting out trailers and promotional photos with Joel in the game, implying he was a central character to the plot once again. But most importantly, they ruined Joel and Ellie's characters in order to promote a dull, boring, uninteresting new character in Abby, who is essentially an lesser clone of Ellie on steroids. Much like Game of Thrones season 8, Naughty Dog's writers(I'm not going to put this entirely on Neil Druckmann) took amazing characters and ruined all the character development they built up.

They turned Joel into sacrificial lamb fodder to give Ellie a cliched revenge plot, and stain Abby's character so they could spend half the adventure trying to wash it out and convince the player to artificially grow to love her. And oh, boy did they try and make you love her. Every scene possible they shoved it right in your face with how caring and awesome she is, they gave her character all the best guns and upgrades, and built her like a tank so you could feel like a badass walking around and punching the fuck out of anything in your path. They turned Ellie into a dark, revenge-obsessed, emotionless killing machine totally devoid of all the character and charm she had in the first installment.

All of these changes, and for what? To preach to the audience that revenge is always bad? First of all, that's debatable, but secondly, that message has been done to death in video games, movies, and television. This was nothing new, and the way they approached it wasn't fresh either. To make things even more insulting, they force awkward gameplay segments onto the player, like having you literally tasked to pummel Ellie into oblivion with their new "golden child" Abby, once again pissing on series' best character's legacy, and being forced to brutally kill dogs with Ellie while "Lovable Abby" pets and plays catch with dogs during every moment of downtime.

The story concludes with Ellie having the perfect ideal life in a post-apocalyptic world. She has a nice house in a beautiful meadow with her newfound love and a child. What more could you ask for? Except, because for absolutely no reason at all, she goes all Daenerys Targaryen and decides to seek out revenge one final time "because flashbacks" and decides to travel down the entire west coast to seek out one girl, a needle in a haystack, just to kill someone she could have already killed. And after fighting through mobs of combatants and taking wooden shrapnel to the abdomen, and track her down barely alive, she decides to let her live at the last second before she can kill Abby and fulfill her promise to Joel's brother Tommy. It was contrived, it was lazy, and if you'd have asked me I'd have told you that David Benioff and D.B. Weiss were brought on as writers for the game. The Last of Us Part II absolutely RUINED the series for me in every way. If there is another entry, I will not be purchasing it.

That's not to say the game doesn't have its strengths. The Ellie and Joel flashback segments were my favorites in the game(go figure). They captured some of the charm and emotion of Part I, and did more to build up story than the present moments. The graphics were amazing, arguably the best I've ever seen. How detailed the environments were, it seemed every blade of grass had its own physics, how the player interacted with ambiance was better and more realistic than anything I've ever played, and the character models were awesome.

Unfortunately, the action elements of the game weren't all that improved from Part I, the upgrade systems were largely unchanged, the puzzle segments were extremely vanilla, and even Gustavo Santaolalla's work wasn't nearly as noticeable or memorable as it was in the first. What a letdown.

The Last of Us Part II is one of the most disappointing games I have ever played. It not only didn't live up to the greatness of the original, but urinated all over its legacy, which is a real shame. I loved the characters, loved the story, and I was hoping this would be Naughty Dog's new focal series to carry gamers through the next generation at the very least. Instead, I got a game that ruined the series for me beyond repair and has me trying to forget it even existed so I can hold on to the memories of the first game.

Why harping on what tribes American land was taken from is a tired narrative

Leading up to last night's Mount Rushmore event in South Dakota, the NY Times put out an article questioning if this is a monument worth keeping and celebrating due to the history behind it(I also wrote about my feelings on statues/monuments, so feel free to check that out also). One of the criticisms pointed out, was that the land Mount Rushmore was built on was taken from the Lakota tribe. This point isn't anything exactly groundbreaking. People have been criticizing aspects of American history for years over the nature of how we procured the land and who it was taken from. Many Americans have guilt over taking land from Native Americans.

I feel for any civilization or tribe that has their land taken from them. I've never experienced anything like that and most people in America alive today haven't either. I honestly can't relate to how it would feel like being driven from your home and being either outcast or slaughtered. However, you can both separate your empathy for those who've lost land to conquests and also acknowledge that this is a part of history that needs to be accepted. America is no different than any culture or civilization throughout history. Territorial conquests are as much a part of humanity as the need for food and water. Go back as far as you want through human history and you will always find one kingdom, empire, nation trying to conquer another. Ancient Egypt, Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, The Vikings, The Conquistadors, The Mongols, Medieval England, The Ottoman Empire, Great Britain, and on and on. Not to mention Native American tribes fighting other Native American tribes for land.

Conquering land is what homosapiens do. It's the innate human desire to want more of what you already have and establish grander civilizations. There will always be a desire for dominance to secure your place at the top of the "food chain." If you are going to critique America for having a history of taking land of others, then you'd essentially have to critique every civilization in human history, which makes this entire narrative redundant. Every piece of land that is currently held by a nation today at one point in human history belonged to someone else. I hate to be so blunt, but even in the animal kingdom fortune favors the strong. This doesn't apply to just humans. With all living organisms, the biggest and baddest tribe takes territory until someone else stronger can come along and take it from them. It's unfortunate, it's bloody, it's dark, but it's also life. Not all life is sunshine and rainbows, there is an animalistic territorial aspect to all dominant species.

America is not without its problems. Most people would admit that. However, "where we got our land from" is not one of them. I think most of this comes from people who mean well and the concerns come from a good and honest place, but are talked into having national guilt instead of national pride; and those who just simply hate America and want to pick apart every morsel of its past. The past is something we can't change, all we can do is improve going forward. Improvement will never occur if people are still fixated on centuries-old seizure of dirt that we now stand on. Go outside, light a sparkler, and take pride in the fact that land your people procured became something that, while flawed, is also incredibly great. And grew to a nation full of many freedoms, amazing technological and medical innovations, and sports... yeah, mother fucking sports.

On Rachel Hill and the decisions to stand or kneel during sporting events

USWNT soccer player Rachel Hill was criticized in recent days for choosing to stand for the national anthem before a soccer match, as the rest of her teammates knelt. She was seen putting her hand on the shoulder of teammate Casey Short, as she embraced in tears with fellow teammate Julie Ertz. The criticism grew so strong that she chose to release a public statement explaining her decision.

Was her decision disrespectful to her teammates? Did she do anything wrong? Should she have been forced to kneel? My answer to all of those questions is no. In the current fight for equity in America, it's important to not forget that equity must apply to all people. True equity isn't removing freedoms from one section and placing them down in another. Everyone, regardless of what you believe or stand for, should have the freedom to do what they want during the national anthem. I've always said if people want to kneel, that is their right as Americans. Their First Amendment right of peaceful protest and right to express yourself and your beliefs. I've always been consistent that when the kneeling started with Colin Kaepernick years back, I fully supported his right to kneel as much as he desired, though I took issue with the pig socks he wore at a later time. While he had the right to wear them, I think it was an ignorant gesture.

Equity needs to be consistent. Without consistency, you don't have true equality under the American flag. Saying someone has the right to kneel, but not stand is just as hypocritical as it is to one has the right to stand, but not kneel. Rachel Hill fully respected her teammates' rights to kneel during the national anthem, and their should respect her right to stand. That's unity. That's equity. Respecting each other's rights to freely express themselves in a peaceful way without harboring hatred and ill-will toward the other.

I hear talk about "being an ally" which is a phrase I personally loathe. The term "ally" implies teams and tribalism, which does nothing but create societal division. Division is the last thing this country needs right now. You should not be forced to choose between two groups that you love, for subjective or arbitrary reasons and public pressure. Standing for the national anthem doesn't mean you don't support racial justice the same way kneeling doesn't mean you hate America. It can't be both ways.

Ridiculing Rachel Hill for her decision is, frankly, bullying. Trying to force someone into another set of morals and ideals. Doing this says a lot about the people who are doing so. It suggests to me that they don't truly care about equity. If they did, they would support her freedom to stand; an honored tradition in this country, as the anthem means something special to a lot of people. Not respecting that right, just like not respecting someone's right to kneel, says to me that the criticism is inspired more by power and control than equity. Trying to force a soccer player to conform to one's ideology under vitriol and scrutiny. That's not what I want this country to be about, and I believe that's not what most people want this country to be about either. Having people constantly afraid to be themselves and uphold non-hateful values which are important to them, does not make for a sustainable society. It makes for a society where everyone walks on eggshells in fear. Fear... the very emotion most responsible for racism and injustice. The last thing America needs right now.

The phrase "believe all women" would be better served to be changed to "listen to women and take them seriously"

In the last few days there has been a surge of allegations in the gaming and tech community accusing several high profile personalities of sexual improprieties. As is almost always the case, lines are going to be drawn, sides are going to form, and you are going to have people supporting the alleged victim one one side and the alleged perpetrator on the other.

The phrase "believe all women" is often thrown around in instances like this whenever a sexual accusation is made. I think the better phrase is "listen to women and take them seriously." Too long to be suited for a hashtag on social media, I know, but it's a phrase that I feel works so much better in accomplishing what we need to actually accomplish, and that's getting getting justice for anyone victim of sexual assault or harassment. "Believe all women" a phrase that I absolutely cannot stand, find it incredibly dangerous, and I wish people would be a little bit more rational before blindly throwing phrases around without knowing their implications and the harm they could potentially cause not just for the MeToo movement, but for others.

No person, for any reason should ever simply believe something just because. We, as a society, already operate under this model the far majority of the time in everyday life, however, for some reason that logic seems to have escaped us with regard to sexual allegations. Whenever we are told a piece of information of any kind, we first process the plausibility of that information. It's an innate mechanism that prevents human beings from being snookered and taken advantage of. Shutting off your own safeguards and your ability to evaluate any piece of information given to you and its legitimacy is willfully dumbing down your own intellect.

There is a perception out there that immediately believing a woman whenever a sexual allegation is made is good for the woman, therefore you are doing the right thing. I think those who believe this are legitimately trying to do the right thing, just going about it the wrong way. There is a major problem with sexual assault and harassment in this world. Women have not been taken seriously enough, and they need to be, so vile individuals no longer take advantage of these women and treat them like sex objects. Countless victims are still out there unheard and afraid to speak due to years of us failing them as a society. However, merely "believing" a woman accomplishes nothing. If you want to get justice for a woman done wrong, it's not about what you believe, it's about what you can prove. That's just how the justice system works. It starts with listening to women and taking their allegations seriously, which, may be a small difference, but an important one. Facts and plausibility are always what need to be believed. If a woman accuses a man of sexual assault, law enforcement needs to listen intently, get all the facts, do a thorough investigation and either successfully corroborate those claims or not. Now, whether or not enough evidence will be amassed to actually bring charges is another story, but "believing" someone's story has no affect on that outcome whatsoever.

The court of public opinion is obviously a completely different beast, but I think the same logic should apply. It doesn't matter what the public believes when claims of sexual improprieties are made. The public's belief operates independently from the reality of what actually occurred, so it will do nothing to bring forth justice that the alleged victim desires. It will, on the other hand, potentially cause a total shit storm for the accused if they are, in fact, innocent. In today's age of social media, public pressure is greater than ever. People will be hounded with thousands upon thousands of angry voices calling for justice from all around the world, when mere decades ago that number was limited to some angry letters, emails, and signs outside of buildings. Companies feel backlash, so for the sake of self-preservation decide to end careers over what amounts to only an accusation. It's a horrible precedent to set, and enables anyone out there who wants vengeance on an individual for whatever reason, that they can severely damage a person's livelihood with very little else besides mean social media messages as a punishment, if they decide that trade-off is worth it. Mindlessly believing someone without merit, throws shade on the legitimate victims, who then will unfairly be lumped into the pool of sex crimes victims with those who either made fictional or exaggerated claims. Seeing the vitriol false accusers get on social media from enraged users who feel betrayed for buying into their stories, could deter actual victims from coming forward to tell their stories out of fear that if they oddly word their stories, they will get piled on as well. False accusers poison the well for everyone. It's extremely dangerous, and the last thing we want as a society is victims to not feel comfortable about coming forward and speaking out.

Whether you want to accept this fact or not, not every person accused of an impropriety is guilty. Most rape and assault allegations are true, but there are some that aren't. They should not be ignored either. There are good people out there who are the victim of crazy, spiteful, vindictive individuals who just want to ruin lives, and we should not enable this simply because we don't have the patience to wait for all the facts to come out. You can pick a side you think is most plausible, while also acknowledging that you still don't know the facts. Yet, many people can't even do that, and parading around with "BELIEVE ALL WOMEN" phrases implies just that: you don't need the facts, they don't matter. I've seen people like Neil DeGrasse Tyson being called a sexual predator like it was a proven fact of life, before even hearing his side of the story and letting the investigations take their natural course. These people didn't need to hear the facts, they just decided he was accused, so he's guilty, and then it spreads like wildfire. Others see it, believe it to be true, because they are too lazy or ignorant to put the time and effort into researching the subject, and next thing you know half the internet thinks someone is Satan over what amounted to be very little information at that point. And if it turns out in the end that the accused is actually innocent, then their lives could potentially be severely damaged with no hope for reconstruction. No one offers redemption to those kicked to the curb for no good reason, they become yesterday's news, and society moves on to the next big story to latch onto.

It's happened to others. Johnny Depp, Chris Hardwick, Alec Holowka from the gaming industry. Alec Holowka committed suicide over these allegations, as it ruined relationships he had in the gaming industry. A sober reminder that there are human beings on the other side of this, and actions this severe, if illegitimate can have dire consequences. We, as a society, have gone too far on our course correction in trying to solve the problem of sexual misbehavior. We've turned off our brains and decided to blindly follow the herd on the path toward justice, when the only path that will bring justice is the path of logic, reason, and a sensible mind in pursuit of justice. In the end, it's the victims of sex crimes who suffer the most, because the more this becomes a trend, the more society will regress back into not taking sexual allegations as seriously as they need to be, and more innocent women will not get the justice they so desperately deserve.

The myth about chokeholds and why a total ban is a bad idea

There has been much discussion in the news lately about the use of chokeholds in law enforcement, whether or not they should be restricted or banned completely, and I just wanted to take a few minutes to shed some light about their use, importance, and why I feel many people arguing for their outright ban have this very wrong.

Chokeholds, in this case classified as "sleeper holds" are one of the quickest, safest, and most effective ways to subdue a person and get them under your control. In 5-10 seconds, if a proper chokehold is executed, the person will temporary go unconscious and come to within a handful of seconds. A proper sleeper chokehold temporarily cuts off blood flow of the carotid artery in the neck causing the person to blackout. If executed properly, they do not cut off air flow, and are typically safe. People volunteer to be put in sleeper chokeholds all the time and if they are done by someone who knows what they are doing they rarely cause injury.

I agree that they should not be used by police officers haphazardly. They should only be used when an individual is either combative or resisting arrest and needs to be quickly and safely brought under control so he/she can be handcuffed. So, I support only using them in those types of situations, but an all-out ban on them is both dangerous to the officer and the civilian. If cops are no longer allowed to use chokeholds for any reason, then they will be forced to resort to other means to get a person under control as quickly as possible, which is how police are trained. It's all about speed, effectiveness, and efficiency.

Now, I'll throw out this scenario. A cop pulls someone over, for whatever reason. Their car was reported stolen, they were speeding, they were blowing red lights, etc. The officer finds out they have a warrant out for their arrest and is placing the person under arrest. As the officer goes to handcuff the individual, they decide to struggle, resist, or even fight back. If they are no longer legally allowed to use a chokehold, they now have to find another way to subdue the individual. The quickest and most effective way to do so after a chokehold is going to be physical blows. Specifically to the head or throat area, as blows to the body are not going to subdue an individual effectively. Punches or elbows to the face, possibly groin shots to the testicular area. These are going to cause much greater potential damage to the person being detained, and also the longer the officer has to tussle with this person, the greater harm potentially comes to them and nearby civilians if the officer is overpowered and potentially has their firearm taken from them.

Most of the people arguing for a total ban of chokeholds, including sleeper chokeholds have no experience or knowledge of hand-to-hand combat or law enforcement tactics. Many ex-officers, military, and professional fighters, who are either well versed in police tactics or combat maneuvers advocate for the use of chokeholds. The lawmakers and people in power against their use really have no knowledge of this, and if they listened to those who do know, they would not be pushing for total bans on chokeholds. Police reforms should be done by people most knowledgeable about these issues, not people in a suit and tie behind a desk. This is an over-correction in response to George Floyd's tragic death, which was a) not a chokehold, and b) was ruthlessly and callously pinned to the ground for almost 9 minutes. Sleeper chokeholds are done in seconds, and do not cut off an individual's breathing. Two completely different things. Kneeling on a person's throat has no business being used by police officers, especially when handcuffed it's absolutely barbaric. Sleeper chokeholds, however are extremely effective, and in fact, I can argue that more lives of innocent civilians would have been saved in struggles with cops if a chokehold was used instead of fighting, wrestling, which can lead to who knows what.

Rash policy decisions are always the worst, and I suspect any state that rushes to put a total ban on chokeholds, rather than specifying their use, will come to regret the decision within a few years, as both officer fatalities and civilian injuries during incidents with officers rise. Reforms should focus on properly training officers how to execute them, and what instances they should specifically be used in, rather than taking this effective maneuver out of their arsenal altogether.

I find it impossible to trust any of our nation's leaders, media, and respected voices for the handling of the COVID-19 pandemic

One of life's greatest comforts is knowing you have authority figures out there in the world much more educated and knowledgeable than you about specific subject matters, and that you can trust that they will properly educate you on those subjects and provide you with the proper guidance. 99.9% of the population knows nothing about virology, preventing disease, and how to live life under the dark cloud of a pandemic. So, naturally, we trust that we will be informed by those more informed than us, so we know what to do, how to act, and how to go about daily life.

Many of our nation's top doctors and disease specialists told the American people back in January and February that the coronavirus was not going to be a significant concern in the United States. That turned out to totally false, as in March the entire country was under lockdown. We were then told that wearing masks would not only be ineffective in preventing the spread of the virus, but shamed people who bought them, as they'd be taken away from medical professionals who needed them. Several weeks later, masks became mandatory universally in this country. Gee, who could have seen that coming? Ask China, Japan, and South Korea, countries used to dealing with pandemics what masks do. Many of their citizens wear masks year-round routinely as a part of daily life, not only during pandemics. Apparently this knowledge was so secretive that our nation's top doctors and experts didn't know about this revelation, and I'll venture to hypothesize that this critical error during those early weeks helped assist the spread of COVID-19. All because our disease experts and leaders were either too incompetent, too naive, too ignorant, or too disingenuous to acknowledge the importance of masks.

We've seen news outlets report that it could linger in the air for several hours respiratory droplets were expelled into the air. That turned out to be false, and has since been disputed. We were told it could linger on all surfaces from anywhere from hours to days. This has also since been proven to be incorrect, as latest reports show surface spreading isn't considered high risk. We were told to disinfect all items purchased from supermarkets and now that isn't necessary. Look, I understand. The more this virus is studied, the more they will understand it, and findings will change over time. In that case, it's the responsibility of our experts to stress that these things are only recommendations and it is not in any way proven at that point to be factually true, otherwise you will frighten the public. The country had people locked away in their homes for months afraid to go near anybody, touch anything, order food, etc. You have to think this contributed to suicide rates and mental health issues spiking, as well as businesses suffering because people are afraid to order out because they might have to handle a contaminated pizza box, or re-cooking their food after it was ordered to destroy any potential pathogens. I was one of them. We have a president who is speaking to the people, clearly having no clue about the virus, and how it works; spitballing preposterous ideas on how to prevent the virus. Both because of his own ignorance on the subject, and also I'd assume because he wasn't briefed thoroughly by his experts on the machinations of the virus and how to treat it.

However, maybe the most egregious and disgraceful aspect of all of this has been the social distancing guidelines. Our leaders, experts, and media shamed anyone who thought the guidelines were ridiculous and over the top. Companies removed and pulled down argumentative pieces citing data and rationale as to why this virus may be handled incorrectly and/or overblown. Some from experts themselves, offering a differing opinion from the orthodoxy. Families who were going broke and protested out on the streets to save their businesses so their families wouldn't wind up homeless were being mocked and shamed. People who wanted to go outside or go to a beach for some fresh air were ridiculed. Religious folk who wanted to go to church and pray were being criticized. All trashed by experts and news outlets for being selfish and putting others' lives at risk. Yet, in another breath, fully supported thousands of protestors marching on the streets shoulder to shoulder. An abomination of hypocrisy and inconsistency. There is nothing wrong with protesting. I fully support it and anyone's First Amendment right to express their beliefs in a peaceful nature. And if our nation's talking heads support that too, then great. But you can't tell one group of people they are allowed to gather together outside for one cause and then tell another they can't for theirs. It's despicable, and makes you lose credibility and trust from your citizens.

It has to be an all or none proposition. Either you can gather in public or you can't. Either you can protest in general or you can't. Picking and choosing which is worthy is putting your own personal agenda in play for said causes, and it is not the job of disease experts and the media to do so. Their job is to keep the country and its people safe and report news unbiased, respectively. The First Amendment applies to all Americans, whether you are supporting racial injustices or wanting to feed your family and speak about re-opening business. The virus does not care who you are or what you represent. It will kill or infect you all the same. How are we supposed to trust people who have either lied to us, been wrong, or promoted an agenda one way or another every step of the way?

The dam has already been broken at this point. There is no going back. If a spike of COVID returns in the fall, they can't lock back down again. The country can't sustain it economically or psychologically, and they've already indirectly told the public that the virus' seriousness only applies to certain situations, so as far as the people are going to be concerned, that means it isn't very serious at all. As someone who has taken this virus seriously from the beginning, that's disconcerting, as if another lockdown is truly needed, it is no longer feasible thanks to incompetence from our peers. More than anything I'm now just confused and feel betrayed. Was the lockdown necessary at all? Would it have been better to just allow people to wear masks and social distance from the beginning without locking down and simply quarantining those who are high risk? I don't know the answers to those questions. All I know is that I don't trust the people who are giving us those answers, and I don't know if or when I ever will.