Home test for COVID. Negative

Albertsons pharmacy: "I don't think we have any."

Fred Meyer pharmacy: "Sorry, we don't carry them."

Walgreens pharmacy: "One to a customer."

Walmart pharmacy: "I think we have three kits left in the store."

Finding a home test kit was hard. The test was easy.

Stopping COVID has multiple tools--vaccinations, masking, distancing, business slowdowns and closures, therapeutics for the infected, and separation of the infected from others. For isolation to work, people need to know when they are infected. A reliable, available, affordable home test is part of the system, and that part isn't working.

The test kit available at Walgreens was $10, with one test. I found two test kits at Walmart because they were mis-shelved and hidden behind other items. The boxes had two tests and sold for $12. I took two, leaving one for the person standing behind me. The quarter on this and other photographs is there to show sizes.

Walmart's kit

I can afford the tests, but they are not priced for working families doing routine, prophylactic testing. That is a problem. Some of the therapeutics only work when the infection is new, so early diagnosis is critical. People only know to isolate if they know they are infected.

Availability is a problem, too. I will try Costco later this morning, but I am uncomfortable with Costco because it gets crowded and so many scofflaws take off their masks after passing through the entry door. I presume that people who ignore mask requirements are also likely to be among the 40% of local adults who refuse vaccinations. I will go just as the store opens, shop fast, and leave, while wearing a K-95 mask. Ideally I will do a home test for every member of my household twice this week, what with the holiday visiting taking place, but that would be eight tests. Possibly Costco will have them in bulk.

I used the Walgreen's test kit, shown below. 

The test was easy to take, in large part because the instructions included both simple drawings and clear text in both English and Spanish.

The kit was manufactured in China. This was inserted in the box:

The instructions tell one to open the sealed packet, remove the seal on the funnel that contained a reagent and to remove a swab, holding it by the stick end. It instructs one to twirl the swab in each nostril for 15 seconds each, then insert the swab into the reagent. 

One then twirls the swab in the liquid at the bottom of the plastic funnel one had inserted into the perforated hole in the box to hold it upright. 

Then one puts four drops of the liquid into the little square hole marked "S"  in the little analyzer tool that was in the kit. The tool is three inches long.

Shortly after inserting the drops, the color of the upper rectangle marked with the "C" and the "T" changes color temporarily. This is welcome feedback, acknowledging that presumably something is being analyzed.

We are instructed to wait 15 minutes. If the test were positive, then a red line would appear next to the "T" and if it were negative then no line would appear.  The photo above is my test result: No second line.

I would have preferred a negative test result to have caused some active visible change to the analyzer tool, an affirmative consequence of a negative test, but in this test one is asked to assume that no news is good news. That is a design flaw. "No change" could be the result of  a flawed test. Still, I will trust that. What choice do I have?

That is it. No great drama. The tests are simple, and now that I have done one, subsequent tests with this kit would be very easy. America still has a problem, though. If home testing to allow early diagnosis, early isolation, and early treatment with new therapeutics, is to be effective, then test kits need to be available and affordable, so people can use them freely. Two years into the pandemic and we aren't there yet. That is crazy. That would be a very fair criticism of the Biden administration. We should have big stacks of test kits, available for a token price, in grocery stores and pharmacies all across America.

The unvaccinated are dying.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

The more unvaccinated people get sick, the better for the GOP. It proves Biden is weak.

Watch Biden beg. 

Please get vaccinated.

Fox & Friends hosts say it with snark and a sneer: COVID is here and growing again. They shake their heads with disdain; Biden said he would "shut down the virus." Ha!

I watch just enough Fox News to know what they are saying and how they are saying it. The narrative is that Biden is trying to get you to wear masks, and you refuse to listen or be bullied by him. He is trying to get you to get vaccinated and you refuse to knuckle under.

On their website, they write:

Biden’s warning comes almost a year into his presidency after repeating many times on the campaign trail that he was the candidate who would "shut down the virus" and blaming former President Trump for his "ineptitude" in slowing the spread.

The COVID vaccines were developed during Trump's term under Operation Warp Speed, which he initiated.

MAGA world is claiming that the water for the horse is there because of Trump, proof of his competence. Biden cannot get the horse to drink, proof of Biden's incompetence.

The hypocrisy is monumental, but there is a deeper psychology at work. The refusal of Trump voters to get vaccinated is, in fact, a failure. COVID is still here. Biden is visibly frustrated. Worse, he is a supplicant. He wants something MAGA is refusing to grant. That puts MAGA world in the power position.

All of us have watched others in frustrating situations, for example a guy pulling on the starter rope when the small engine won't start. We have seen a driver spinning wheels of a car stuck in snow. We have seen parents who cannot stop a child's tantrum. Watching, we feel two emotions simultaneously. First a recognition that the person is not at fault, not really. And second, a sense that if they just did something better or different they could solve that problem. Maybe the person should be adjusting the engine's choke, should be rocking the car back and forth, or should doing something--anything--differently to calm the child.

Fox quotes Biden, with all the awkwardness of his phrasing preserved: 

[COVID is] here now and it’s spreading and it’s going to increase. For unvaccinated we are looking at a winter of severe illness and death if you’re unvaccinated for themselves, their families, and the hospitals they will soon overwhelm. But, there’s good news, If you’re vaccinated and have your booster shot you’re protected from severe illness and death.

The denoted message is one of Biden doing his job, encouraging vaccinations. The deeper message is one of his helplessness. He cannot convince Trump supporters to vaccinate.

Don't we see that MAGA  vaccine resisters are doing this to themselves? That it is their fault so many people are spreading COVID and getting ill?

Sacrifice, for a principle

Not entirely, and maybe not at all. Football coaches get fired because the team's quarterback threw an interception and the team lost out on being in the title game. We look at results, not causes. 

Fox and MAGA world have positioned resistance to Biden's vaccinations as a matter of sacrifice and conscience, rather like a hunger strike. The self-imposed suffering is proof of sincerity. They are the patriots here.

But Biden is offering cool, refreshing water bringing health to the horse. Surely, Biden should be the good guy in this narrative. It is not working out that way. The vaccinated and COVID compliant have grown tired of virus protocols. We want it over. To the third of the country that is MAGA world, Biden is the guy who is abusing the child by trying to restrain it, making the tantrum worse. He is the bad guy. Or the stupid guy digging the tire wheels deeper into the snow.

Mostly old people dying

Is it logical or fair to blame Biden for not being able to persuade the horse to drink? No. But the MAGA tactic of making Biden look pathetic in his helplessness is good politics. People are dying at a rate that a great many Americans seem to consider acceptable, about 1% of the people over age 65. It is a value judgement. I am not totally surprised. I used to be young once and remember thinking that people age 72 were pretty much used up and surely ready to die. People my age vote, but we don't matter as much to the young as we think we do. We are a burden. Saving our lives just isn't worth the hassle of inconveniencing the young and healthy. 

That is the MAGA position. I am dismayed by it, but I am not sure they are wrong on the politics of it.

Profiles of the Capitol rioters

     "JEREMY says 'Just made it into the Capitol here. Oh yeah, oh yeah. It gets no better than this. Freedom. God bless America.'”

            Criminal Complaint, U.S. District Court

Six Oregon men were among those arrested for being inside the Capitol on January 6.

The six are among the 705 people whose cases are reported within a data set of public information: https://seditiontracker.com  To see suspects organized by state click https://seditiontracker.com/suspects/by_state

Identified as Jeremy Grace

The site displays a mug shot or photos within the Capitol, a several-page criminal complaint, plus any motions filed by the prosecution or defense relating to bail. The criminal compaint is authored by the law enforcement person who observed the defendant in the Capitol or who examined the photographic and telephone records surrounding events that day.

Jeremy Grace: White Power gesture

The criminal complaints are formal and deadpan. They outline evidence that the defendant was illegally in the Capitol and the multiple offenses that act involves: Trespass, destruction of property, assault. The complaints put the actions into a broader context. The January 6 riot was not frat-pledge high jinkshi-jinx or random vandalism. The rioters were there intentionally disrupting an act of Congress.

The complaints summarize like this:

Based on the foregoing, your affiant submits that there is probable cause to believe that HUBBARD violated 18 U.S.C. § 1752(a)(1) and (2), which makes it a crime to (1) knowingly enter or remain in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do; and (2) knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, engage in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions; or attempts or conspires to do so.

The drama in this data set comes from the deadpan description of the events surrounding each defendant's actions. The complaints describe the method of identification of the defendant by a unique hat or scarf or sometimes a bare-faced photograph, descriptions of throwing a bicycle rack or barricade or some other act of violence, and what the defendant might have said or texted.  This is from the indictment document for Richard Harris who was living out of his car, but if given bail would return to his father's home in Happy Valley, Oregon

A still photograph (from a video) clearly shows Defendant, unmasked and with his arm upraised, addressing a masked, uniformed police officer. The Government proffered that Defendant told the officer that the police were outnumbered, that there are “a f***ing million of us out there,” and that they were “listening to Trump.” . . . 

Aware that he was being filmed, Defendant then spoke into the phone, asking where Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was, adding, “We’re coming for you, you b***h!” He also asked where Vice President Mike Pence was, stating, “We’re coming for you too, you f***ing traitor!” 

Two brothers, Jonathanpeter Klein, age 21, and Matthew Klein, age 24, had long records of involvement in Proud Boy activities. They were already in law enforcement's attention from their attacks on the Oregon Capitol. The Complaint included:

31. J. KLEIN entered the Capitol Rotunda. While there, J. KLEIN engaged in another celebratory exchange with PERSON 1 during which J. KLEIN greeted PERSON 1 by declaring, “proud of your f***ing boy!”

32. J. KLEIN and M. KLEIN exited the Capitol. After exiting the Capitol, J. KLEIN and M. KLEIN worked in coordination to forcibly open a secured door on the Capitol’s north side. Federal law enforcement officers were visible on the other side of the door while J. KLEIN and M. KLEIN took this action. 

Like the other complaints, it concluded that their various acts were part of a broader conspiracy "to impede and disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business and official functions."

Identified as Richard Harris

I invite readers to follow the links and peruse the record. For myself, I perceive:

---These defendants were caught up in a movement, and then on the afternoon of January 6, a moment. They were believers in Trump and the Stop the Steal goal. January 6 in the Capitol was a period of excitement in transgression and hope. A universal quality to the texts and quotations by people in the Capitol was thrill. 

Identified as Reed Christianson

---These defendants were willing, enthusiastic pawns in Trump's bigger wish to overturn the election, but they were not disciplined soldiers in that effort. They were on their own, having fun, part of a rowdy crowd with no direction or leadership.

---They were dangerous, but they didn't think of themselves as criminals. They were proud of themselves, which is why they took selfies and called their friends while the riot was taking place.

Medford is number one for un-affordability

Medford, Oregon is expensive.

Costs are high, incomes are low.

Medford wasn't just somewhere on the list of un-affordability. We topped the list.

NPR: Best and Worst Places.

Planet Money is a program feature of NPR, National Public Radio. The article they posted had an intriguing title: 

       

"The best and worst places to live if you only care about money"

Medford was on the list.

The NPR article is based on two papers authored by Stanford Economist Rebecca Diamond and Berkeley's Cecile Gaubert and Enrico Moretti, based on data form 2014. Spatial Sorting and Inequality and Where is Standard of Living the Highest. 

The studies' methodology intentionally avoided subjective things like the climate, traffic, and beaches. They look at economic value: The incomes people earned in a place compared to the cost of living there. Is it "worth it" to take a high-paying job in a city if it costs a lot more to live there? The studies observed that incomes are higher in the Bay Area, Boston, and New York, and costs are higher, but in those cases, yes, it was worth it. Incomes were enough better. 

They examined inexpensive places, and featured Natchez, Mississippi as a place where incomes are low but costs are even lower, so money goes farthest. It is the country's best "deal." McAllen, Houston, and Beaumont, Texas were also good. 

Here is what NPR reported to be the least affordable place for a college graduate, after comparing local incomes and costs:

The five places with the lowest standard of living for college graduates: 

Medford, Oregon
Provo, Utah
Salem, Oregon
Olympia, Washington
Asheville, North Carolina

Then, for people who had not graduated from college:

The five places with the lowest standard of living for those with only a high school diploma:

Asheville, North Carolina
San Diego, California
Manhattan, Kansas
Medford, Oregon
Jacksonville, North Carolina

What is going on with Medford?

The studies evaluated 443 "commuting zones" representing 96.3% of the U.S. population. NPR's links lead eventually to the Stanford working papers which included the basis for the city rankings but not the rankings that include Medford. Therefore, my source for ranking Medford is NPR not the papers themselves.  The papers are data-rich and quantitative.

Some of the studies' observations are obvious and intuitive. People with high skills are drawn to places with high productivity and high salaries, and costs are higher. High real estate costs trickle down to haircuts and car washes and everything else. However, the "Spatial Sorting" paper explains why a place might break that pattern and be an outlier of high costs without high income:

A last important difference across geographic locations is the local amenities that they provide, which directly impact quality-of-life. Diamond (2016) highlighted that local amenities influence location choices, especially for the high skill[ed employee]. . ..Taken together with our environmental quality results, these results suggest that we see a transformation away from “production cities” towards “production and consumer cities” offering both high wages and better amenities (albeit at higher housing costs). . .. Spatial sorting of college workers was initially strongly directed at high-wage locations, but is now increasingly directed at high-amenity locations.

Medford, Oregon doesn't "make sense" as a place to live based on incomes, but it is a pleasant place to live, at least when there isn't forest-fire smoke. People like to retire here, or live here and work remotely. There are other pleasant places in the U.S. so why might Medford be an outlier among outliers, the very worst value?

I don't have Stanford research data, but I have a 30-year career's worth of anecdotes as a Financial Advisor. I suspect local realtors have their own versions of the same anecdotes.  Medford is a refuge for Californians who retire here or work remotely from here. Prices are high for real estate in the Medford area because "crazy Californians" from the Bay Area think our home costs are ridiculously cheap. They come to escape the traffic and crowds. They bid up and buy houses for cash, with the money from their California home sale windfall, and have more left over to invest. Directly or indirectly, they bring the high-productivity and high-income costs of the Bay Area here. Some people blame Californians. They skew the income/cost structure here, and many people who earn their money here are disadvantaged. (Not Financial Advisors. They are hugely advantaged by that infusion of investable money.) California pension and dividend checks are a nice clean industry for this area.

The bad news for locals is that Medford is expensive, if one is trying to pay for it with a Medford job. The good news is that it is expensive because this is an unusually nice place to live. 

Vaccinate: Mandate or incentivize

The unvaccinated are bad for business.

They raise costs for employer group medical plans.
They endanger co-workers and customers.

NPR

Unvaccinated employees are expensive.  

The unvaccinated are three times as likely to be infected with COVID as the vaccinated--30 per 1,000 versus 8.7 per 1,000. 

Their likelihood of going to an Emergency Department is twice as high--18.5% versus 8%. 

Their risk of hospitalization is over twice as high--9% versus 3.9%. 

Their risk of death is seven times as high--0.43 per 1,000 versus 0.06 per 1,000.   Source: CDC Pac. NW study.

Vaccinated people who do get breakthrough cases have similar peak viral loads but the vaccinated clear the virus from their bodies more quickly than do the unvaccinated. The vaccinated  are less infectious, and for a shorter period. Nature

Meanwhile, ICU units at hospitals are overflowing with COVID patients. They are costly to the health plans and taxpayers that ultimately pay their hospital bills. Unvaccinated COVID patients plug up the system for the normal run of hospitalizations. It strikes home. A friend is enduring hip pain and would normally be having hip replacement surgery now, but is being delayed because hospital space in Medford is not available.

College classmate Harry "Chip" O'Hare wrote me with a comment about his own frustrations in getting his employees to 100% vaccination status. Chip and his partners own and operate a food service wholesale business in Massachusetts, employing mostly white collar people.

Other classmates saw his advice to me and chimed in. Some echoed him. Some thought there ought to be a formal system of triage, with the willfully unvaccinated accommodated only on a space-available basis. Others suggested setting up alternative treatment centers where people who preferred a regimen of ivermectin, vitamin D, zinc, and whatever else is recommended on social media, can be granted their wish outside the normal healthcare system. 

Some suggestions weren't serious, but reflected frustration with the unvaccinated: Send the unvaccinated to Texas and let Texas secede from the union again. Some others were careful and serious, with warnings that adjustments to health plans needed to avoid complicated ERISA rules regarding discrimination. Lockton. Get legal advice before making changes.

Guest Post by Chip O'Hare

Chip O'Hare

Being a business owner, we have been struggling with the mandate issue and have yet to take a stand with our employees. I’ve made the case that those who are unvaccinated should be taken off our health care program and given the money to get their own plan, and thus not burdening our company with their cost in the event of their contracting COVID. 

My partners have yet to move on any policy, other than to educate and cajole, which the Trumpers (yes, we have a few) ignore. Yesterday I learned that one of our non-vaccinated associates has “pneumonia”, not COVID, and is seriously ill. He was adamant about his diagnosis, but I have my doubts, as this is a convenient dodge on his part. We will bear the cost of his treatment, of course, which I believe to be unfair to the other associates.  I call BS.

Yesterday I learned that one of our company's clients adopted a very effective way to encourage vaccinations among their workers, many of whom were in low-wage categories whose demographics skew toward immigrant status, and who do not have a high vaccination rate in our state. The client announced that all their employee bonuses required vaccination verification. They also offered a group bonus for each shift that would be paid only if all members of that shift were vaccinated. Bingo, they were at 100% in 2 days. Peer pressure works.

It’s clear that mandates won’t work, but I believe that those who are unvaccinated should bear responsibility for their treatment. Again, it’s a fairness issue. It’s also unfair to spread the disease to the others around them who are vaccinated or not, and it’s really unfair to health care workers to be over-worked as the unvaccinated flood the nations ER’s.  

Finally, there is no mandate for those receiving government assistance. Why is that? It makes no sense to attempt to mandate businesses while at the same time ignoring those whose lives depend on their monthly checks from the U.S. Or is this too politically difficult? I’ve had this tossed at me by those on the right and I don’t have the answer.

Kentucky Tornado: 74. Kentucky COVID 11,713

I have stopped feeling bad about the COVID deaths of the unvaccinated.

Fast death is breaking news. 

Slow death is just another day in Kentucky.

Kentucky's Graves County experienced a tragedy when the tornado tore through the county seat. A live broadcast from Mayfield is playing on CNN as I write this. Fast death is news. A bigger tragedy is that there have been 135 deaths from COVID in Graves County. There has been one death for every 276 people in the county, so far. One in five people in the county have contracted COVID and they are getting 19 new COVID cases a day. Someone dies from COVID about every other day. 

Only 42% of the people in Graves County are vaccinated.

COVID is bad in Graves County, but it is not an exception. The county is the rectangular-shaped one, in purple, one county east of the western border, It is an "extreme high risk place," but so is most of Kentucky. Statewide, only 53% of the population is vaccinated.

This is Trump country.  An unopposed Republican state senator received 13,461 votes. Trump got 13,206. Trump won Graves County 77%-20%. In May their senator Rand Paul said he would not get vaccinated. This summer and fall he has been prominent as an antagonist of Dr. Anthony Fauci. 

The messaging from Fox News has evolved and settled into a sweet spot of yes-but-no on vaccinations. Fox news hosts and their guests say they are "not anti-vax." That is the subordinate clause of a primary message of opposition to vaccination. Subordinate clauses give cover. They permit saying with greater intensity that vaccines don't work, that vaccines are rife with dangerous side-effects, that people still get sick sometimes after being vaccinated, that vaccinated people with a breakthrough case are infectious, and that people may need to endure yet more boosters as the virus evolves. Oh, the burden!

The subordinate clause "We aren't anti-vax, but" also permits them to reframe vaccinations as an attack by tyrannical government. It is an outrage that the unvaccinated and unmasked face discrimination and mandates. It is a Gadsden Flag frame, with villains in the form of Biden, Democratic governors, and Dr. Fauci. There are heroes, in the form of resisters, people like Ben Shapiro, a leader in the "Do Not Consent" movement. 

Adults in Kentucky are making their own choices. They are consuming the news they select, voting for the leaders they prefer, and are dying because of their beliefs. They don't want a free, lifesaving vaccine. I say, OK.

I am having a change of heart to say it, but I will repeat it: OK. I give up. I don't feel sorry anymore for the tragedy of unvaccinated people suffocating and dying from COVID. 

The Democratic governor of Colorado said aloud both the sentiment and the logical policy response. He said that people have had every opportunity to protect themselves, and if they haven't chosen to do it, it's their "own darn fault."  He announced a policy outside the mainstream of Democratic governors. He says that the COVID emergency is over, that vaccinations protect the COVID-concerned from serious illness, so we should end mandates. He is being realistic. People are weary of COVID mandates and now they are backfiring and do more harm than good. It has become a point of pride to resist. Let people choose to be protected from COVID. Or not.

I would be OK with me if Oregon's Governor Kate Brown said the same thing.

Acceptance. It takes a change of heart from people with a public health, protect-your-neighbor orientation, but I have experienced it. If you are willing to risk dying of COVID, it is OK with me. Suit yourself. I give up feeling sorry for you.

I still feel sorry for tornado deaths, though. 

Walking on woke eggshells.

Definition of Adjunct professor: 

     "They may also be called an adjunct lecturer, adjunct instructor, or adjunct faculty. Collectively, they may be referred to as contingent academic labor."

The universities are a minefield. Try not to offend. Good luck with that.

The leader of a small faculty group at Portland Community College, the Pathway Learning Community, sent this letter to his colleagues:

Dear Pathway Colleagues,

It has been brought to our attention that the use of the term majority faculty, as a way to respect our part-time colleagues, has associations with systems of power in a way that feels alienating to some faculty of color. Hurting colleagues is not acceptable. We apologize for the harm this has caused. We will return to the term part-time in the form, as we look for a better way to communicate respect. We commit to finding ways to communicate that are respectful and inclusive, especially for those educators in all employee classes who carry identities that have been marginalized.

The PLC Pathway Team
Interim Temporary Program Dean for Sciences

Pronouns: he, him, his

The letter is deadly earnest and sincere. 

To explain: Adjunct faculty at the college had been described in earlier communications as "part time" faculty. Hierarchy is an issue because full time and tenured professors make a great deal more money than do the adjuncts, whose jobs are insecure and poorly paid. The difference in status is obvious to everyone, but it is impolite to acknowledge it with one's terms. The email author chose not to use the term "part time;" it embeds hierarchy, "part" being less than "full." 

There was a respectful workaround. The college union used the term "majority faculty" to describe adjuncts, so it had apparently been vetted and found acceptable. Since there are more adjunct faculty members than full time ones at PCC, they constitute a majority of the faculty. The team leader substituted that term. Moreover, the word "majority" has the benefit of somewhat normalizing their status, thereby upgrading it. It was a good intention.

It backfired. Some people the email called "faculty of color" took offense. "Majority" implied to them inclusion in a racial group,` which at PCC would be White. They are not White. Therefore they are not majority. Including them in a "majority" denied their status as a disadvantaged racial minority.

Describes a good apology

The team leader heard their complaint and acknowledged he gave them harm and acknowledged their hurt. 

He gave a full and compete apology, by the book. He said he had done wrong. He admitted he hurt others. He apologized. He said improvement was necessary. He committed to being better in the future.

His email is a window into a cultural phenomenon. I commend the email author on his effort to be respectful to his colleagues. He is coping with a treacherous environment where people are exquisitely sensitive to insults, micro-aggressions, and errors in categorization of identity. It is a minefield. 

I have an impression I will share: What an oppressive environment. How difficult it must be to self-monitor so punctiliously. How stifling of communication.

I should keep quiet. By the rules of identity privilege and oppression, and the lens of "systems of power," I have no legitimacy to comment. I am White, a cisgender male, physically able, heterosexual, and married. I am educated, financially comfortable, and live in a nice neighborhood. Therefore, I could not possibly understand the feelings of the oppressed, and have no basis for critiquing others' demands for a respectful, non-racist, work environment. I have no standing. 

And yet I have not disappeared. I still live, earn and spend money, vote, and have opinions. My opinion is that it must be exhausting to be the author of that email, to need to walk on eggshells. My opinion is that stories about this academic environment have drifted out into public attention and it frightens people, including people on the left. It is too much. It is overboard. My opinion is that this level of attention to insult and terminology and identity, especially when error is called "harm," has a political dimension. The left is now very conscious of the authoritarian impulses of the political right. Those impulses frighten people. The left needs to acknowledge that there are authoritarian impulses on the left as well. Those, too, frighten people.

I wish the left would lighten up a little.