Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Three Cheers for Emily Burns!
Yeah. Let’s have another post on this subject. My own refers to a substack post by one Emily (funny, that) Burns, which appears here. Her point is that Emily (“Never Mind”) Oster’s Atlantic screed begging for ‘COVID amnesty’ is merely “another cynical attempt to ask women to forget the harms of the last few years.”
The political establishment—left and right—want desperately to move on, to pretend the last 30 months didn’t happen. With very few exceptions (Ron DeSantis, Kirsti Noem, Rand Paul, Kevin Massie, Ron Johnson, and a few others, later), they betrayed their core values. Many Republicans and so-called Libertarians quickly capitulated the primacy and importance of individual liberties. Whereas supposedly equality-loving democrats embraced policies that in no uncertain terms screwed women, children and the poor. The 2020 democrat campaign slogan might as well have been “protect the rich, infect the poor.”
I’d add to that list: the very sick, and the very old. Both of which I have personal experience with.
First, let’s be clear to whom Emily Oster is speaking. She’s speaking to the furious well-educated suburban women who are swinging towards Republicans in this cycle, even in the bluest of states. Because it was the bluest of states that were hit hardest by these policies. It was in blue states that the schools were closed longest, that the economic devastation was worst, that crime spiked the most, where masks were required longest. The damage done by these policies is at its beginning, not its end. Dr. Oster, would like these women to believe that it was all just a mistake, a misunderstanding, and remember that it is the Republicans who are looking to limit their freedoms. That while democrats had no problem sacrificing the well-being of your living children for three years in support political power, it is Republicans that pose a true threat to you as a woman.
I’d love to quote more, but I think that would be beyond the boundaries of fair use. So, please read the whole thing, here.
Oh, Hell. Here’s a bit more:
Emily [Oster] is asking us to forgive a mistake. There was no mistake. There was a political calculation that harmed us, but even more, that harmed our children. The harm was considered acceptable because those who undertook it, took the votes of women for granted. They assumed they could lie and manipulate us into believing these harms were necessary, or barring that, unintentional. If we, as women, want our votes to be courted in the future by either party, we must vote to punish the past three years treachery.
I devoutly hope the Burns is right, and that the Oster’s screed is the result of terror and panic on the Left. And that those women with sense to do so will see through it and react accordingly.
Published in General
Amen. To a Progressive, it’s not a mistake until it has political consequences.
I read Oster’s article in the Atlantic.
What in the world would make anyone think that it is specifically directed to women in general, or to “furious well-educated suburban women” in particular?
Ah, what a difference a year+ makes …
I’ll forgive when this jackass apologizes. Tearfully. Yeah, he’s so convincing when he cries.
I doubt I’ll forget, though. Every time someone says “health care is a right”, I’ll remember.
Unless you’re on the right.
Jerry, as I point out often when arguing with the spouse, you must be forgetting that this is the Year of the Woman. (As was last year, and the one before that. Plus it is probably the Decade of the Woman as well.)
Last time I looked, Jerry, you weren’t a woman. So perhaps you missed the nuance? Wouldn’t be the first time, LOL.
Who do you think that Emily Oster was directly addressing? Or do you think her post wasn’t politically motivated?
How can we be sure these days?
Yeah, well. There is that.
I’ve looked, including today, and you’re correct that I’m not a woman. I don’t recall that you ever looked, She. :)
I don’t think that I’d heard of Oster before. She’s identified as an economist at Brown University. She seemed to be making a public policy argument, augmented with some personal examples.
I’m not sure what you mean by “politically motivated.” The article relates to a political issue, which doesn’t seem improper to me, and I suppose that any such article is “politically motivated” so some extent. The suggestion in the Burns article that you quoted is that Oster’s article was specifically designed to influence the votes of certain suburban women voters in the present election. I don’t see any particular evidence that this is true, other than the timing of the article, perhaps.
On the timing issue, my reaction is that this story is being released a bit too late, if the purpose is to influence votes. I don’t have precise figures, but there’s a lot of early voting in this country. The timing might have been better about 2-4 weeks ago.
Are you serious about there being some “nuance” that I’ve missed, indicating that this article was specifically directed to women? I suspect not, but I don’t know.
Just going on publicly available info, Jerry. Anything else might be TMI. Glory Be.
And I’d be happy for you to address all of them here.
Exactly! Which is why I’m so glad that you agree that it’s not improper to point that out!
I don’t see any particular evidence that this is true, other than the timing of the article, perhaps.
Taken in terms of what Perry Mason might have called a “hostile witness,” I’ll accept your rendition of the facts.
You may be right. I don’t think I’ve ever expressed grandiose appreciation of how those who might agree with me politically might have framed things in a social or other sort of “media” context. But, we’ll see.
Yeah. For a person who’s observed and reacted to some of the boneheaded reactions that you’ve shown over the past several months, I think I’m gold. If I’m (someh0w) on the outs here, the rest of you–have at it!
Kimmel would reflexively agree with the assertion that health care is a right. Which means that either a person’s human rights depend on them agreeing with him, or that health care isn’t in fact a right and he is a liar.
Perhaps Emily Oster would like to compensate me, and all the others who lost jobs or businesses, for lost income.
Or perhaps even, lost or dead friendships or other relationships. I might settle for something of the sort on their part.