This would make sense if I had brought up Joe Rogan and was actively defending him. You brought him up and I have not defended him. So what exactly am I retreating from?
Perhaps this is about how a post is perceived and processed?
Joe Rogan is, IMO, the single-biggest influence on 'nu politics' in the last decade+. He was chiefly an athlete/martial artist, who developed a strong enough voice and personality to become a prime vehicle of information for a huge swathe of disenfranchised people as well as others who had been led to believe that all mainstream media was evil and that government (specifically Obama) were not to be trusted. He became the voice of those who wanted a 'new' type of 'politician', one who was 'of the people for the people and not the system'.
It's an admirable aim in some ways. Systems are certainly going to have issues, and some will involve corruption. Sadly, I don't believe any system is pure, and expecting as such is utopian IMV.
It then becomes a case of where you want to place your main level of trust. In that sense, a healthy balance is always good, but when push comes to shove, you have to make decisions, most specifically in matters of public health. And those choices must (IMO) be based on as much accurate information as possible (which for me comes from those who have studied for many years) versus opinions, commentators and aggregators. We can splice this into several different levels of detail, but for simplicity's sake, let's just say that in such matters we choose to either adhere to knowledge of accredited professionals in their field, or unaccredited commentators not in said-field.
Covid was, IMO, a huge unknown which unfolded by the day and happened on the watch (in this nation) of a President who has proven to be one of the most politically vindictive, and franchise-minded, world leaders on record. He opposed lockdown on the basis of its economic impacts. Joe Rogan repeatedly expressed how he felt lockdown was unnecessary.
Fauci is said to have privately encouraged swift lockdowns and similar measures, whilst publicly he was rather more reserved in stating what he felt needed to happen. Given what we've just learnt about how the POTUS felt, not to mention the groundswell of public opinion against lockdown, it's pretty easy to hypothesize a dozen reasons why this might've happened.
I sort of understand lack of trust in lockdowns, because for a few years people such as Rogan had expressed repeated opinions that systemic interference existed already; the idea of lockdown, plus exploding conspiracy theories about vaccines, meant that during covid there was a perfect storm of paranoia where covid was essentially either a 'big pharmaceutical scam', a general scam by 'them', or a way of making sure that the levers of mass control could be exercised whenever necessary...or a combination of all them!!!
Personally? I have always done a lot of reading on a variety of matters, which at least gives me some confidence in the decisions I make with regards to things like public health (bear in mind, I am still ignorant of many things!)...repeatedly, through my own experiences and also observations, I have seen both the medical and health professions in general as containing very decent people whose main interest is in the thrust of their jobs. Covid 19 came from relatively nowhere, and in a culture which demands fast answers and instant villains, the situation was immediately pretty desperate. As the scramble to achieve a base of knowledge on origin, actual disease identity, and cure ensued, I can only imagine the chaos was huge and the answers in some cases shifting daily as more data became available.
Already, the likes of Rogan and others had bedded in such distrust generally, that any shift from statements made maybe only days earlier was seen as malevolence at work, of some conspiratorial action designed to fudge us over. I don't think that was largely the case. I think the truth is a lot of people were scrambling to do the right thing.
What is fascinating it that the worst operators were a government that consistently said it was not airborne for some time, and the various bottom-feeders in and around government who made sure they did not let a good crisis go to waste and ended up making millions upon millions from federal money. Yet somehow, amidst this entire complex scenario, we are now being focused on whether
Fauci said things in diary which did not reflect his public opinions? As if determining this fact will 'solve' something? I think it is pathetic. Absolutely pathetic AND disingenuous. It has (IMO)
nothing to do with 'demanding truth' and everything to do with sticking a head on a spike to parade around the town square. And in that regard, I think it is a colossal waste of time, unless it's going to be an 'all-in' investigation. Which it clearly was never going to be.
I have already written about the path I chose. So far so good. The truth is, thanks to the actions of others, much of what I did would've been rendered useless if covid19 had been instantly and virulently fatal. An example. As the first shows after lockdown started to occur in Spring of 2022, my lot went to South America, starting in Chile. We were required to wear N95 masks for all travel. The DAY we left on our commercial flight (they went charter) the mask-on-plane rule became non-mandatory. I spent the connecting flight from LA seated next to someone with a cough, and behind me was an elderly woman who I remain convinced hacked up a piece of lung. At that point, there was little to do other than hope the latest round of vaccine I had taken would prove to be a barrier (I did not get sick).
So, in short, yes, I have little time for the likes of Joe Rogan as experts on how to live my life. He is a very good raconteur and has had a great range of guests on his show. He is not, however, who I turn to for life advice.
For that matter, neither is Kennedy, a man desperately out of his depth IMO. My biggest issue with him is not that he was into heroin at one point or snorted drugs off a toilet seat; that's noise. It is the fact he holds title as the head of an office for which he has no formal qualifications! Personally, I am not a fan of this sort of thing...it's a bit like when entertainers and reality TV stars become leaders. I am fine with life experience in a field alongside some credentials, even as the main component in some circumstances, however in Kennedy's case, environmental lawyer to health czar is a bit of a stretch.
You stated that you did feel podcasts being ingested as 'news sources' was an issue, and said you had no issue with the lack of regulation surrounding them.
Your opinion.
Everything I wrote in reply was my opinion.
Final thought...we are now firmly in a world where the initial fear of government overreach and malfeasance has become a firm truth. It's not even 'meet the new boss, same as the old boss', it's 'be careful what you wish for' for all those who threw rocks at Obama and Biden. No-one is ever squeaky in politics, that's how they get there in the first place, but some do genuinely have a political ego that sees them want to be remembered as public servants who did the best for their country.
(I have written a long piece here. I've taken time. I will respectfully ask you that if you are only going to reply with a one-line answer/pick a sentence you have found offense with and drag us onto that course) please spare us both and don't bother.
I always welcome discussion, particulrly in this thread, which I started precisely for anyone who wanted to go long and dig in...which, for clarity, absolutely includes you!)
