The concept in journalism of offering your platform for a diversity of voices and alternative opinions is generally a noble pursuit. But this does not mean that in that process, you need to abandon the use of common sense and subjective editorial oversight. I say this because it appears that at the New York Times, they just flung open their op-ed space to anyone with a modicum of literacy while displaying a rather imbalanced mindset.
I say this based on a recent “guest essay” that appeared in the opinion pages of the Times, written by book author Belle Boggs. Her entry is about an episode that transpired inside her home, leading to…we guess, a dire situation…? It makes very little logical sense and is steeped almost entirely in emotive overreaction, leading to the most vacuous of conclusions.
Before explaining what happened I’ll begin with the way she and her husband reacted. It is a series of actions taken that appear to steamroll forward, but with no real momentum. She writes, “What happened over the next few days restored my faith in the systems in our country that keep us safe.” As Boggs explains things:
-
Her husband went on the website of The Center For Disease Control.
-
They called their health care after-hours line and spoke to a nurse.
-
The nurse also contacted the CDC.
-
They called local law enforcement.
-
They next spoke with the county animal control center.
-
They were contacted later by the healthcare office.
-
A wildlife technician inspected the home.
-
A day later, they went to the ER.
-
They submitted to getting rabies shots.
-
The couple incurred $600 in medical costs.
This “traumatic” episode was the result of a bat having flown into their home. After some time of dealing with the invader it flew out of an opened door. Nobody was bitten. Nobody came in direct contact or had otherwise been affected. All of this hyperactivity came about because they simply had looked at a bat. If this sounds like the rantings of a hysterical hypochondriac, just wait.
According to Mrs. Boggs, this was Donald Trump’s fault. Ummm…what?!
Despite everything going on in our country and our state — Mr. Trump and the looming threat of autocracy, that he selected an anti-abortion hard-liner for his running mate and that here in North Carolina we have a lieutenant governor who recently claimed that “some folks need killing”— I am reminded of how much good we now enjoy, which hangs in the balance of this election.
I cannot fathom how one makes the connection between a small wild animal managing to get into your home and leaping to a political declaration as a result. But I also cannot grasp getting this worked up over a completely benign interaction with a creature. (Then again, I may be inured to this kind of panic, considering I frequent establishments in my area that post warning signs about alligators near the patio tables.)
What we are dealing with are people who want the state to cater to their frailties and look at an impending Trump administration possibly removing unneeded safeguards most rational adults do not need. Boggs represents the people who were completely broken by the pandemic, conditioned now to leap to the government for remedy from any perceived calamity.
The C.D.C., a huge federal agency that works to protect every one of us from infectious disease, food-borne illness and emerging threats like bird flu, pulled through.
(If the agency had not “pulled through,” you would have been just fine, Mrs. Boggs.)
The C.D.C. is part of what Mr. Trump’s allies would call the administrative state and is in the cross hairs of Project 2025, which proposes breaking up the agency, limiting public health messaging and reducing the data collection that informs good decisions.
(I’d be curious to learn which of these nonessential overreactions were considered “good decisions” being made.)
I want to believe Kamala Harris is right when she says “we are not going back” to a time when every calamity leaves us on our own. I don’t want to live in a country that doesn’t hold the health and safety of its citizens in high regard.
(If we are discussing mental health, she may have a point.)
I don’t want to be left to make important decisions without guidance from qualified professionals. But for now and for at least the next six months, I don’t. I live in the United States of America — land of bats, land of doctors, land of public health — and that’s worth fighting for.
(TRANSLATION: “I don’t want to be self-reliant and instead want the nanny state to take care of me.”)
So there you have it – we need to ensure that Trump is not elected this November because here, in the Land of Bats, we cannot take such a risk. Otherwise, all the coddling governmental offices in place to oversee our daily guidance might be removed, and people would have to be accountable for themselves and make adult decisions. That is truly a frightful reality for a sector of this country.
