Walt Disney World cancels Halloween event, promises "modified" Food & Wine

Yeah, what Brian said. The death is coming, it lags two to three weeks behind. We saw that in New York, though it was potentially worse there because hospitals were close to underwhelmed in some areas. Hard to say if it will be the same elsewhere.

There are a number of factors to consider. From what I have read, Florida's median age for positive cases has dropped. Expectation with that (all other things being equal) is fewer of those positive cases will result in deaths.

Also you have to look at who you are testing. At one time, it was difficult for younger people to get a test unless you were in another high risk category. Even with symptoms. If you are testing more people (who you were not testing before) and your positive test rate is increasing, that may not necessarily be a bad thing (or at least not as bad as it otherwise looks). Before the expanded testing, people were still getting the virus but you didn't know about it. And if they didn't need to be hospitalized, you wouldn't know it. If now you are testing them with expanded testing, they will still have it but presumably not need to be hospitalized.

A lot of things to consider which makes it tough for simple graphs/charts or headlines.

Ya know, if they’d quit testing there’d be no cases at all. 🙄

RCMAC: Stable Genius.

As long as we are being blunt, can we all admit now that it wasn't just about merely Civil War statues that were going to be taken down? That what we are witnessing is what was in 1984? There's an attempt to just remove history, no matter if it was a positive thing or not. It's about cancel culture.

That would be pretty silly to admit that, because that's not what's going on. There's a huge difference between remembering history and celebrating the people who contributed to the ugliest parts of it. I know that makes some white people very uncomfortable, but imagine how it feels to be black and see that.

extremecoasterdad said:

There's an attempt to just remove history, no matter if it was a positive thing or not. It's about cancel culture.

I don't think anyone who wants one of those statues removed wants folks to forget what the people "honored" by those statues were fighting for. Exactly the opposite, in fact.

As I understand it, a Ulysses S. Grant statue was taken down in San Francisco. I get taking down those of Confederate leaders, but I think that going after Grant, one of the great champions of rights for Blacks and Native Americans, seems to be pretty ignorant. From what I read, it was due to him owning a slave at one point...a slave whom Grant freed pretty quickly. I’m not suggesting he was always perfect, but from my research, he seems like the kind of guy anti-racists would appreciate.

Grant went to war with tribes and forced many on to reservations... there's a lot of blood on his hands. We have a serious reckoning to face: Many of the most iconic American figures were in fact, pretty miserable on issues of human rights. We need to have the conversation about how we recognize them but acknowledge their record in a nation that has been getting racism wrong for centuries. Far from erasing history... we need to own up to it.

Jeff said:

Far from erasing history... we need to own up to it.

I struggle with what owning up to it means. How do I own up to something that happened 150 years ago by someone who I have no connection with whatsoever other than we are both white males? What am I supposed to do to make-up for someone's, Grant in this particular example, wrong doing?

I admit that I know nothing about Grant other than he is from Ohio. If I learn about him does that make it better? Not trying to sound like a jerk bur I really do not know what I am supposed to own up to.

Just the reality that we celebrate figures in history that are in part responsible for the fact that we have two Americas. We always have.

I'm reminded of the Hamilton show doc that aired on PBS some years ago. Christopher Jackson, a black man playing the role of George Washington, visited the estate in Mt. Vernon, including the slave quarters. He was very emotional, because he found it impossible to reconcile that a man so key to the founding of the nation was a contributing factor in its division. American education has largely glossed over this. In all of the talk of freedom, it was never freedom for all. He kicked the can down the road. Imagine acting in that part.

What "we" collectively as Americans need to own is that there has always been two, unequal Americas, and as uncomfortable as it might be, the reason in part is the people we elevate as ideals. Being a white guy, it's easy for me to overlook the negatives, but I need to have empathy to see it from Chris Jackson's point of view and be willing to have the discussions about how we reconcile the good and bad, instead of ignoring it.

I wasn't there in 1776 either. I can't do anything about the past. But I can be a part of how we collectively work to fix the problem, by listening and not dismissing the very real hurt and discrimination that persists today.

Despite the marketing lines about inalienable rights/endowed by creator and all men created equal, the United States was founded on discrimination. We have been fighting it ever since.

From today's NYT, I thought this was an interesting and complex way of looking at the question:

"The construction and demolition of monuments are history, but monuments themselves are not history. They are useful windows on history. They disclose stories we would now like to disavow, but if we look carefully, we can also find what the monuments were intended to hide. In the name of remembering, we don’t want to forget."

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/23/opinion/drakes-cross-white-supremacy.html

extremecoasterdad said:

As long as we are being blunt, can we all admit now that it wasn't just about merely Civil War statues that were going to be taken down? That what we are witnessing is what was in 1984? There's an attempt to just remove history, no matter if it was a positive thing or not. It's about cancel culture.

That's not even a correct use of the term "cancel culture", dad.

It's not about erasing history. It's about removing tributes to traitors that lost that were erected as a means of intimidating Blacks during the Jim Crow and civil rights eras.

Except that some of the statues that have been removed go beyond Confederate soldiers. A statue of arguably our greatest president was torn down in Oregon, and I don't think it's unreasonable to be concerned that mob mentality could eventually lead to removal of monuments to Washington, Jefferson, and others in DC and elsewhere. There's a growing mentality that their greatest accomplishments are invalid because many of them were racists and owned slaves, while ignoring the fact that slavery was far from exclusive to the US and these men did want to abolish it, and provided the means to eventually do so. It's naively easy to argue now that slavery should have been abolished at the birth of the nation, but in reality the constitution and union would likely not have existed otherwise.

Here's a good writeup on the 3/5ths compromise and why it was necessary...written by an African American (and my brother's econ professor once upon a time).

I don't have a problem with calling into question how we view Washington, Jefferson, and others. Right now, that view is unreservedly positive. Maybe if we saw them more accurately as people with both strengths and flaws it would be helpful.

I don't have a problem viewing them as people with flaws, either. You know...humans. The sugar-coated, abbreviated fundamentals of history we get as young kids is fine, but to not acknowledge that the great people from our past have flaws and possibly did not so great things as we mature and learn more is grossly naive. Context is absolutely crucial when we learn about our history, yet it's often lost or ignored. Despite their faults, I still consider many of the founders great men and think they need to continue to be honored as such.

Vater said:

There's a growing mentality that their greatest accomplishments are invalid because many of them were racists and owned slaves, while ignoring the fact that slavery was far from exclusive to the US and these men did want to abolish it, and provided the means to eventually do so.

If they wanted to free the slaves why didn't they free their own slaves? Jefferson only freed 7 of the 600 he owned, 2 of which were his sons. Washington freed his slaves upon the death of his wife yet many remained slaves after her death.

Yes, what Brian said. I go back to what I said earlier, it's time to have those conversations. It's not unreasonable to recognize their accomplishments, but not without accepting their flaws. We have to decide together how we recognize the duality, because centuries later, we haven't. Dismissing the concern outright isn't going to move anything forward.