The National Review was founded by William F Buckley in the mid 1950s. Let's be clear: I think Buckley was, in many ways, abhorrent. Nevertheless, at least Buckley had some principles.
This article is simply designed to justify our President's desire to undermine social distancing across the country, which will unnecessarily kill people. I cannot imagine Buckley standing for this sort of garbage.
While I don't care for William Buckley, Trump, or lots of things really this article only seems to be about Twain's experiences with Cholera, and is sort of a fluff piece written probably because they thought hey everyone likes Mark Twain.
If they have designed it to justify Trump's desire to undermine social distancing they have designed it very subtly.
Honestly, the lesson behind this piece is - break quarantine because the experiences are better than the sickness. Even when it talks about Twain being sick, it's in a hand-wavy passing sort of manner.
>The sickness prevented him from seeing parts of Syria, but he still found a cause to laugh: It was “a good excuse to lie there on that wide divan and take an honest rest.” He recovered, and the trip continued.
All in all, cholera doesn't sound that bad according to this.
The problem is, at this day and age, any editorial choice seems to have a political angle. From this particular organization, that angle will be conservative at best.
Maybe the world is making me paranoid. Maybe not everyone has an agenda in media and politics. But I genuinely believe this type of article is meant to further a larger message. This one is 'quarantine = bad and breaking the quarantine = good'. It's subtle, but it's there.
well it also talks about him getting his comeuppance which is a vernacular expression for getting the righteous justice of the world for ones misdeeds (often misdeeds occasioned by stupidity) so I find it difficult to accept an agenda there.
“When the cholera was raging in Naples; when the people were dying by the hundreds and hundreds every day; when every concern for the public welfare was swallowed up in selfish private interest, and every citizen made the taking care of himself his sole object, these men banded themselves together and went about nursing the sick and burying the dead. Their noble efforts cost many of them their lives.”
The parallels of today are striking. It is fortunate this time around that we know considerably more about the communicative properties of bacteria and viruses to at least provide some semblance of protection for doctors and nurses.
7 comments
[ 2.4 ms ] story [ 30.7 ms ] threadThis article is simply designed to justify our President's desire to undermine social distancing across the country, which will unnecessarily kill people. I cannot imagine Buckley standing for this sort of garbage.
If they have designed it to justify Trump's desire to undermine social distancing they have designed it very subtly.
>The sickness prevented him from seeing parts of Syria, but he still found a cause to laugh: It was “a good excuse to lie there on that wide divan and take an honest rest.” He recovered, and the trip continued.
All in all, cholera doesn't sound that bad according to this.
The problem is, at this day and age, any editorial choice seems to have a political angle. From this particular organization, that angle will be conservative at best.
Maybe the world is making me paranoid. Maybe not everyone has an agenda in media and politics. But I genuinely believe this type of article is meant to further a larger message. This one is 'quarantine = bad and breaking the quarantine = good'. It's subtle, but it's there.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2921690?seq=1
The first page preview is enough background to get an idea. If you have access, the plague material ends after about 2 pages IIRC.
The parallels of today are striking. It is fortunate this time around that we know considerably more about the communicative properties of bacteria and viruses to at least provide some semblance of protection for doctors and nurses.