79% of the CT population will get it before me. That's fine. Just get it for my Dad and wife A.S.A.P.

Hmmm, not sure how accurate all of this is but from AJC, I would fall under Phase 2. I would come before Phase 3 "young adults 18-30".

My kids in college would also be Phase 2 "individuals in congregate settings". I think there is a large overlap between Phase 2 & 3 folks.

Coronavirus: When will Georgia teachers, police officers get COVID vaccine?

Reading a lot of frustration about how so far there are roughly 11.5 million vaccines distributed and only 2 million administered. The Feds say it's up to the states and the states don't have any money and increasingly hand it over to frontline workers to figure out. It's the testing debacle all over again.

Was talking to my back specialist this afternoon and he basically said he was given almost no information other than being told that it would probably be spring/summer for the first tier of public health workers to be finished in LA County. We are still going to be dealing with this in 2022 I would imagine.

I have a suspicion that the situation will improve after another three weeks

This has basically nothing to do with the federal government at this point. So yeah, I don’t think it’s remotely that simple.

I do think it will improve with a focused President. Periodic/daily national briefings reporting progress (or lack of) will put state governments on notice.

I can easily see Biden asking Governors "besides vaccines, what can I help you with". Biden has had time to understand the problems. There will be bumps and mistakes for sure.

I'll be disappointed if the is not largely ready to go on Day 1.

The relief bill should help some as there is money for vaccine distribution, but there seems to be surprisingly little planning for actually getting vaccines into people's arms. There's going to be a lot of outrage at the first stories of vaccines thrown away because they expired before use.

I don't think any of that stuff moves the needle in the current environment.

Pun intended?

No actually, but if it works ... :p

This is where I was coming from (although I did not know that it outside the direct control of the President) - Biden appears to be putting Covid at the forefront of his mind and comes across as having a can-do attitude, rather than the incumbent who has never acknowledged the seriousness of the disease and appears to be operating a scorched earth policy on his way out.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/29/healt...day/index.html

No surprise, it's here folks.

US president-elect Joe Biden criticises Covid vaccine handling by Trump administration | The National

Zombie watch! Post any sightings here.

The thing is that's mostly a lot of bluster. Invoking the DPA to produce more vaccine is irrelevant when the issue is distributing the vaccine we already have. Biden may be able to improve coordination with some states, use the bully pulpit, etc. and that may have some impact. States where a significant number of people don't want the vaccine though are not going to see much movement no matter what he does, and a lot of this is up to state and local beauracracy outside of his control.

Yeah, totally agree. The issue (based off a 2 min conversation, so don’t take this as gospel) in the case I was told about is that the county can’t even coordinate with the state as to who is a critical health worker, so it’s basically sign up to this list and wait for the word that we’ve got your vaccine ready but don’t hold your breath.

Not sure it matters who the president is in that case. Best case scenario is additional funding helps, but still... if it’s anything like the testing and contact tracing it’s all going to be outsourced to the lowest bidder anyway, so good luck with that.

RIP another republican congressman

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/con...4KDDvsBbXFFQ3g

yeah I was not surprised at ALL

COuld have originated here

My 86 year-old mother tested positive yesterday. So far no symptoms, but it's very worrying.

Yeah my mother is almost the same age and very worried for her if she gets it. Thinking of your family JP, and I hope your mom quickly recovers.

Sorry if this is one of the other threads, but I saw yesterday that a Republican Congressman-Elect in Louisiana got COVID right before Christmas, and has now died of COVID complicatons at age 41. Leaves behind a wife and two young kids. :(

I'm sorry for being an ass but would like to know if he was a Covid denier. If so, not going to be sorry about it. Don't wish it on anyone but not going to give my sympathies either.

Not sure but he did make comments about learning to live with covid, have to open the economy, other countries are coping, etc...

Good luck to your Mom, JP. I sincerely hope the symptoms are mild or non-existent.

Not familiar with this outlet but it collected a lot of Tweets that are just embedded Tweets of him going maskless at a lot of campaign events, while voting, etc.

Maskless Event Photos Surface After Luke Letlow Dies of COVID-19

SI

Getting ill and that feeling like "he had it coming" is one thing, but not feeling sympathies when somebody dies, that's a whole different level.

Nobody deserves to die from this pandemic, we're all victims here (unless it turns out somebody actually constructed this thing in some lab as a means of chemical weapon of sorts), but it's actually frightening when it was somebody in his early 40s that died.

If he truly was a Covid denier (and we don't know if he was or not), he very likely influenced others (he's a politician) and put others in danger. So no sympathies from me, just neutral "okay, let's move on".

Yeah, he may not have been a vocal denier but it's pretty evident he didn't take any precautions multiple times. So no sympathy from me.

If this was one of the more well known Republicans/COVID denier who then caught it and died, I would have less sympathy for them. This guy didn't even make it to Congress yet, and left behind two very young kids and a wife. I have sympathy for them. I don't know if this guy was a state politician before coming to Congress. If it turns out he ran on being a COVID Denier, then I have little symoathy for him and a lot for his family.

Sorry to hear. Please keep us updated and she will for sure be in my prayers.

There's a difference between sympathy and supporting what someone did. IMO there's never a good reason not to have sympathy for somebody in these situations. Some people were voted for *because* of their stances - I think COVID denier goes too far as I've yet to have see any significant public official say the virus doesn't exist - but are we prepared to say that it's good for nobody to be willing to represent constituents whose preferred policy on the pandemic we don't agree with?

"Covid denier" is not 100% accurate, I really meant "denying or purposely oblivious to the severity and transmissibility of Covid (and quite possibly endangering others on multiple occasions) after plenty of evidence has been provided". Because it's a mouthful, I'll just use the shortcut of "Covid denier".

I agree that covid deniers have the right to be represented, as in this case, with another covid denier. I (personally) don't need to spend anytime feeling sympathy for "them" if they pass away.

That's fair enough. I think 'Covid minimizer' might be an easier way to go, but so long as we know what you're trying to say it's not something to quibble over.

I just think sympathy is for all, even those who caused their own suffering.

The way I read this is as such, and its not a great condemnation by any stretch, but when I see these things it's how I am thinking:

You learned that someone had died, and chose to spend time on them, because you replied. So, the way I read that is that you found your reaction worthy of sharing with the rest of us, and that comment was to go out of your way to point out that you don't feel sympathy for them, so in my head, I take that to mean that your reaction was some version of "good, I'm glad" that covid denier died (otherwise why is it worth the time to share your reaction). And that is a reaction that I personally don't like whenever I feel it for someone else's suffering, so seeing you express it is slightly unsettling.

This is way more minor than the words I just put to it. But that's how I read it, take that however you'd like.

Because I was responding to a post about the death and like many of us are apt to do here, we share our thoughts.

If it was out of the blue where I originated/linked the story and said no sympathy, I could see your point.

I don't wish death or disease on anyone, but I do understand why some don't mourning a loss of someone who cavalierly endangered themselves or others.

That's where I'm coming from.

yeah. Especially when they were in a position to harm others through policy and leadership. Callous as it is his death may save lives. It is sad for his kids, but perhaps knowing he had those kids he should have been more cautious.

I'm now in quarantine. My nephew tested positive this morning. I haven't had direct contact with him, but my parents have, and they've been at my house since the 26th. Getting tested on Saturday.

Thinking about you and your family Cartman :::hug:::

This can be said about anybody whose policy positions we disagree with though. To take a super-obvious example, I don't think the board would be just fine with pro-lifers not valuing the lives of people who advocated for a woman's right to choose.

Sorry but I call bullshit on this. We aren't talking about a policy, we are talking about downplaying the worst public health crisis in a century. Nuance matters here.

You can call BS on it all you want, but it doesn't apply here. If you want to talk about numbers, pro-lifers will happily point out to you that more people get aborted every year than will die of COVID in this country. The main point though isn't about that; it's more fundamental. It's the logical underpinning of the idea that we get to not treat other people with humanity because we don't like what they say. How we treat the pandemic most definitely is a policy. If we're talking about some aspect of it that isn't about public policy, then we aren't talking about anything that an elected representative is responsible for.

Four thousand people dieing a day and hospitals are overflowing, and we still have people arguing like the virus is a matter of opinion or political preference.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

It isn't about what they say, it is about what they do, and the effect that has on other peoples lives.

If Trump drops dead of a massive stroke I will be happy about it, not because he died, but because his death will likely save countless lives. That isn't a lack of humanity, that is looking at the situation from perhaps an uncomfortable perspective. I believe the same with this congressman.

dola- and again I will call bullshit on Covid being policy. We are in this situation because the right made it a culture war and a political war, not because of any policies they did or didn't put in place.

This congressman isn't getting replaced by a liberal who will point policy in another direction. He's going to get replaced by someone with similar ideas. His death doesn't change the landscape at all. It doesn't save lives. His death is pointless.

Leaving the exaggeration of the facts aside, I would pose the question below I asked to Lathum to you as well. When do we get to decide, and on what basis, that contrary opinions on an issue are not to be tolerated?


What's the line on when it's ok to have a different opinion on an issue and still be treated with humanity? When does something become 'beyond policy'?


In that case we need to be ok with people doing the same with public figures who espouse points of view we don't like. If they die, the damage people believe they are doing to the country/humanity/etc. ends as well.

It is an excellent point, but I would say perhaps at least a small portion of people may change their perspective because of his death, just look at Chris Christie

again, nuance matters.

What nuance in this case, and based on what?

honestly. I don't have the energy for you. You're right and I am wrong. Well done.

My point wasn't to exasperate you. I regret that was the outcome. It was to examine the logical foundation of the board's majority POV on this issue, because I think it is lacking and unsound.

I'm gonna go get drunk now and cook some steak. Happy new year!

I think it comes down to what you mean by "not valuing the lives of people" you strongly disagree with.

Not valuing = "not really caring what happens" sure, I agree with your statement in this case Covid deniers, pro-anti-abortion. But not valuing doesn't mean I'm going out of my way to beat them up, persecute them etc.

My example I would use is the folks that fly the wingsuit close by cliff faces, mountain ranges etc. I'm good with them doing their YOLO, but if they went smack against a mountain, I'm pretty sure I won't feel any sympathy for the deceased. They pushed the boundaries of common sense IMO, more power to them, but I'd rather give my sympathies (and energy) to what I consider "real" causes.

Is your point that we should "value/care" what happens to everyone & anyone?

Hope they tell us the perp's reason soon. Not enough info in the story to really know.

I can see trying to steal & sell them or give them to family. I can even see trying to contaminate them to cause one massive headache (understatement).

Wisconsin COVID-19 vaccine ruined at hospital purposely; FBI involved

To answer your question in the last sentence in a word: Yes.

To the previous part, when we divide people into those we think we should care about and those we think we shouldn't - your point about it being indifference as opposed to active oppression is noted, but IMO not relevant here - we're undercutting the idea that all people are of equal value, that they have as much dignity & humanity as we do, etc.

That isn't as bad as oppression. It is the first step towards it, and pretty much everyone on this board at least has consistently expressed beliefs founded in the basic equality and dignity of all people. If what some of them believe is a 'real' cause, and what others believe isn't, well ... I'm just saying if we believe that, and I do, we need to really believe it. Or if we don't, be straightforward about just redefining what the Other means instead.

Then we have a fundamental difference of opinion (no surprise) and likely won't change each other's mind (np, I think we both agree that good people can agree to disagree without getting into personal attacks :)).

I don't believe we should care/value what happens to everyone & anyone (see wingsuit example). I don't believe all people are of equal value. All people may start off being of equal value but as they progress, make the decisions they make, take the actions they take, the gauge/meter ticks up or down.

There are literally 100's of millions of people (in aggregate) I would care/value more before even thinking about a covid denier and a wingsuit dare devil.


I may be wrong but don't think above bolded is correct. Let's use an extreme use case ... I don't think cannibalistic serial killers (looking at you Jeffrey Dahmer) deserve basic equality and dignity post-cannibalistic murders. They have done something that goes beyond the pale and don't deserve basic equality and dignity.

I assume even with what I consider the worse case (that I can think of) you do believe Jeffrey Dahmer is deserving of "of equal value, that they have as much dignity & humanity as we do, etc".


EDIT: oh wait, we are really getting off-topic here. Not sure which thread is most appropriate for this discussion though.

I don't think it that's far off-topic yet, but if others think so I will agree to move or end the discussion.


I think this is really telling. I agree that we have a fundamental difference and that we need not resort to attacks in discussing it :).

You and I are often lumped together to a degree as a couple of the most similar - though we disagree fairly often as well - dissenting voices on here. As you have no need of being reminded, this happens to the point where many often assume we are trolling or not debating in good faith when we are simply trying to forthrightly, or even over-diplomatically as far as that goes, state our opinions. And yet even here, we are in disagreement on some really entry-level stuff.

I would say that if someone can move up or down in value based on their decisions and actions, then it cannot be that they were ever equal to begin with. All of us have greater or lesser capablities in all spheres, and the whole point of equal dignity and value is that it is something which transcends those distinctions between us. If you don't have it at the end, you didn't really have it at the start either.

The other aspect is that the entire concept of a free society is one in which that basic equality exists. This isn't a matter of the particular American system (modern or otherwhise) even in this case, it's more fundamental than that. You can't have a society in which you don't recognize equality and then call it free, representative, pluralistic, etc. Those concepts rest on the presupposition that we don't dismiss the experiences, struggles, feeling, opinions, etc. of a person or group of people because they are different from us - particularly since it's always inherently going to be the case that everyone is different from us. So IMO this really goes to the core of what even are we about in modern society. It's far more important than a pandemic could ever be.

This makes sense. And like I said in my first post on the topic, my concern over this is smaller than the words I'm giving it to be sure, but I do find it to be an interesting conversation nonetheless. Your explanation in your first reply to me also makes sense. For me, I just wouldn't post anything, if I did, that signals with intention that it does matter enough to me to put some energy and thought into, so that neutrality option is pretty much gone. But it's not the same case for you, so that's cool. Uh, I hope that makes sense hah.

I agree with this. I'll use some of the more controversial leftist things that I've said here as examples. I've said that I have ejected many a trump supporter from my life over the last few years, including some family members. I've said that I make strong judgements on what it means to cast a vote for Trump, that to do so is to support racism and many other horrid things, either actively or in a "well it's not a barrier to my support" way, and that I literally want nothing to do with anyone who votes for Trump, there's no forgiveness for that in 2020.

But, I don't wish ill on any of them. I wish for them to see some science and have a shift in values. I don't want any of them to die. I don't think they are my enemy.

I think I've talked a little about my horribly racist neighbor here in Fort Wayne. She's one of the most vile people I've ever interacted with. If she died, I wouldn't be happy about it. I would feel some sympathy, 100%.


I certainly don't live up to my own standards here, and I'm not sure they're 100% set in stone. I absolutely felt joy when Jesse Helms died. But I felt conflicted in that joy. I would feel sympathy for George W Bush's death, I'm not sure what I would feel for Dick Cheney. I feel like Donald Trump has inflicted actual trauma on our nation and sympathy for him will be VERY hard to find. But I think it's very important for myself to at least acknowledge these feelings when I find myself having them and put myself in check... for the original reason Brian stated regarding the path to oppression beginning with removing the humanity of people who are different.

Impressive post Radii (and not because of anything related to me). It's always worth applauding people being self-reflective to that degree, regardless of where you come out.

I feel sympathy here. Sympathy for a broken human being. I really don't believe that many people are simply independently and inherently evil. With many serial killers there is a fucked up backstory of abuse. That doesn't justify anything that these people do, and they deserve their consequences, but there is still in almost all cases a situation worthy of some sympathy, and a regret that a human life went down such a horrible path.

Of course it's not equal compared to the victims of this person, but it's absolutely there.

Yes, I do think this is an interesting discussion. It does get to a "core" belief that one has. Appreciate the participation.

WTF!!!!

This gets worse. The pharmacist was arrested, and claimed they deliberately spoiled the vaccines then injected people with them hoping to convince everyone the vaccines are not effective. https://t.co/C4JQFt3VxG

— Zack Davisson (@ZackDavisson) January 1, 2021

This person shouldn't see daylight for a long time.

Hope he likes prison

SI

Ohio has was seem like strange rules for nursing home residents like my mother. She's quarantined and will be treated for COVID now that she's tested positive, but she won't get another test until 12 weeks after her positive result. Given that she's three days after her positive with still no symptoms, it seems odd to me that they aren't trying to confirm the first test.

And just got the call that Mom is showing symptoms. Given her age and health, the doctor isn't very optimistic.

So sorry, Jphillip.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Ugh. Praying.

Hoping for the best for your family.

Oh man :(

SI

It's so incredibly frustrating that in December we still can't keep it out of nursing homes.

This is so true.

Sorry to hear about your mom, wishing her all the best.

I don't know if we really know why the rollout has been "slow". From bits and pieces that I've read, it's not because the vaccine isn't in the hands of States, its the distribution or the actual inoculation process.

If this is true, I think Romney has a point on using "other" medical professionals to help out.

'Inexcusable': Mitt Romney Blasts Lack of Comprehensive Vaccination Plan

Sorry to hear that, JPhillips. Praying for a speedy recovery.

I've said it in other threads and this is the non-political thread but the way this has all been handled is criminal in my opinion.

So sorry to hear about that JPhillips. Keeping her (and you and your family) in my thoughts!

The UK is now going to extend the time for the 2nd dose. The logic is delaying the 2nd dose means more people can get the 1st dose early.

Fauci is saying stick with the science of 2-3 weeks but I can see some logic in the UK approach. UK is assuming the 1st dose helps some (reduce chance to catch it, and reduced severity if you do catch it). However, we don't know how long the protection last in just the 1st dose (not tested in the trials).

So it's a gamble but think it's a pretty good gamble in my simple mind. If it doesn't work well, that means UK will have to buy more "jabs" and do it again, and possibly have Covid continue longer.

Not sure what the right answer is but interesting dilemma. If you were in charge in UK, US, India (where Covid is seriously getting out of hand), what would you do?

I think I would do what UK is doing or at least for a good sample population.

Most people here AFAIK are generally supportive of the idea, on the basis that the reports have always said that the initial jab gives up to 90% protection after 3 weeks, and the second jab is primarily to improve long term protection and get up to 95%.

Assuming all of that is true, it seems to make sense to have 50% of the country 90% protected instead of 20% of folks 95% protected (these last numbers are plucked out of the air for illustrative purposes only)

Edit to add: particularly as our hospitals are getting slammed and infection rates continue to rise.

Under a reasonable administration, all of this time spent waiting on the vaccine would have been spent developing the infrastructure needed to quickly vaccinate as many people as possible the second the vaccine was approved. This administration is not reasonable or logical.

Or capable of competently doing something like this

SI

If the 90% is accurate, then it makes good sense to me. Why is Fauci so negative on it then? 90% is a lot better than the 50-60% efficacy we were willing to accept last Fall.

BTW, are you upset they are calling it the UK Variant? :)

Just got back from taking the test. Was super easy. It wasn't the brain poke one, they give you the swab and it is all inside the mouth. Now to wait for the results.

Where did you go, how much did it cost, & how long until results?

Not at all, we found it here first.

There is a company called Curative that has a bunch of mobile testing sites in the area. You make a reservation, then drive to one of the mobile sites. They are free, and results are within 48 hours.

I know these tests check to see if you have it now (debatable what the false positives/negatives % are) but is it worthwhile to get tested for the antibodies?

The logic is if you have antibodies, that means you have been exposed, recovered (or never got too sick), and therefore it's less pressing for you to get a vaccination?

Anyone here had the antibodies test done?

Looks like Israel will be first to inoculate her population.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/p...e-its-n1252682

Trump's tweet today saying the death count is fake is infuriating. When we're all dead, the population will have no understanding of how everything went to shit.

Every time I see a local news article on facebook about a murder, or a fatal car crash, there will be comments saying, "tomorrow he'll be counted as a COVID death". Trump fueled this, he says at rallies that doctors get paid several thousand dollars every time they declare someone dead of COVID.

I wonder if these people were always around and they just have more of a voice, like everyone has a worldwide voice now about their politics, opinions on movies, how they're generally just smarter and more enlightened than anyone else. Having that voice just increases people's confidence that their opinions matter. I know in 2012 there were a lot of bots spreading this kind of thing, but there are plenty of genuine ones as well. Every once in a while I run across one that has a mutual friend on facebook.

I think these people were around all along. I do remember hearing stuff like this sometimes from friends' parents from time to time in the 80's, and around some of the soup kitchens and other community service stuff my father would manage and make me volunteer at occasionally as a kid. Maybe he brought me there not just to help, but to get some exposure to the crazy segment of the homeless community, and see his world (being as a pastor and being heavily involved with the homeless community and mental health issues of church members and their families.

Anyway, at this point, I'm starting to feel like anyone who has one of these people in their families and doesn't ostracize them, who just ignores it and pretends everything is fine, is complicit in all of this. At some point you can't continue to support the villainous dictator hell-bent on the destruction of the country and still hang out with grandkids and come over for Sunday dinner. I THINK my brother is a non-Trump voting Republican, he's never admitted voting for Trump, but if he started supporting him openly and backing this stuff I'd be done with him. I just can't do it anymore.

I sympathize with a lot of this, but I think it's really important that we don't have this kind of reaction. There's a massive gap between ostracizing/being done with somebody, and just ignoring it and pretending everything is fine. There's middle ground there. I think with family it is vital to be able to say - on all matters including this kind of thing - it's not ok, not one little bit, but you're still family.

It's paramount that we don't ever get to the point of not being willing and able to engage with others for any reason. There's no even theoretical path to reconciliation, healing, unity, etc. if we do that. The idea of not being able to speak to someone or whatever because of their political views is simply giving up, and there's all kinds of reasons for people to have given up on each of us due to our flaws as well. It's hard to come back once you go down that road.

Wrong thread, but I don't see support for Trump and the installation of a dictatorship as an expression of "political views". That's not a discussion about tax rate, or immigration policy, or how COVID should be combatted, or or how much we should fund the military. We can all reasonably disagree on those types of things.

When I was a kid, I had a now long-dead racist grandfather who liked to make comments about his beliefs in front of me and my siblings. My mother told him that we weren't visiting anymore. We didn't. Eventually he promised to keep his racist thoughts to himself, and we returned, but only with supervision. Maybe we shouldn't have returned at all, but for the time, the 80s, I'm glad my mother protected us as much as she did. This is closer to that, IMO. If I had a kid, I wouldn't want racist relatives or Trump supporters to be a part of his life, at least if they're going to preach those values to him. And there's plenty of overlap there anyway. (my grandfather would have LOVED Trump.)

This was a closer question in 2016. Now, that can be no mistake. If you're an enthusiastic Trump supporter in 2021, and support his actions, that's just so far beyond a line that I'm not willing to cross to accept as a friend, or family. If you vote for Trump for your own personal demented reasons and keep that yourself, well, then I won't know about it anyway so whatever. But the Trump patriots - I just can't anymore. At least drunk old pathetic racists like my grandfather who lived pathetic lives with no influence on anything can only cause limited harm. When the president and others in power want to overturn election results, the stakes are even higher.

Edit: I work in state government in a red state and I don't know a single outspoken Trump supporter even at work. That gives me hope that this is mostly a fringe thing, fueled by some powerful people. Though I also know that plenty of these people likely voted Trump and support him now, but are to ashamed to admit that in polite company like an office. If these policies became more of a thing that is just regular "political opinion" that more people can openly chat about, than our democracy is truly in danger.

Protect yourself, protect your kids. Family is family, but that doesn't give them a pass, and you don't need to put yourself in that position if you don't want to. It's perfectly ok to cut someone off in your life. If they make a big deal about it, then talk about it, but if they aren't willing to at least see your side of it, and address the reason why you don't want to be around them, then you don't need to take it any further. It's not about completely cutting people off. I think I generally give people a ton of leeway and the benefit of the doubt on a lot of things, but don't expect me to be the one to keep it going, change things for you, if you don't see how the situation is hurting me (or my family).

I think democracy is more in danger if we *can't* openly chat about any kind of belief. There shouldn't be a line when it comes to that.

I'm allowed to chose who I want to associate with, I'm pretty sure.

Edit: I'm not going to talk to or welcome into my home a racist or a Trump supporter or a Nazi as if their beliefs have some underlying legitimacy that I need to honor. If somebody thinks tax rates should be higher or lower than I do, or we fall on different lines about appropriate COVID personal cautiousness or government regulations, that's a different kind of thing.

Democracy is in danger when we HAVE to talk about every kind of belief. There are just some things that are not compatible with Democracy, and those things should be accepted as the common good. When we HAVE to talk about everything we lose hold of the things that make Democracy work. It gets muddled, it is weakened. We have to agree on a base level of ideals or else its lost. If there's no base order, there can be no democratic progress.

Of course you are.


Definitionally democracy requires every person having a voice - not those people whose voice we feel like approving or tolerating. Whatever else may be said of the concept of progress and having a set of ideals that everyone accepts, it isn't democratic.