Teachers Are Not Essential

Listen to this episode

S1: The following program may contain explicit language and. It’s Tuesday, August 4th, twenty twenty from Slate, it’s the gist. I’m Mike Pesca.

S2: The sweepstakes is a horrible word and I don’t think I’ll ever use it again or ever before.

S3: It’s one of those words or phrases that force you into like sweater weather or gadget grabs.

S2: The choice of a pick of vice president is less consequential this time than it usually is. And usually it’s not really consequential at all. You can’t convey any of this as a pundit, however, because once the host primes you with that exciting speculative question, hey, what’s Joe Biden thinking? It’s hard not to respond as if the stakes are high, the veep stakes, if you will, and I most certainly won’t. I think I have established so there’s not a lot of evidence. In fact, there’s almost no evidence that the vice presidential selection affects anything. Some stats show that Sarah Palin may be hurt, John McCain a little bit. But in this case, this year, people are really quite invested in a particular choice or really Ojinaga, of choice, not because they are trying to convince us that this will affect the election, but because the people being asked are often people with an ideology which is fine. You get tapped to be a pundit for a number of reasons. There’s the pundits who are very good at knowing where things are going to go, or at least convincing you thereof. And there are pundits who, you know, represent a certain way of thinking about the world, and they’re there to tell the audience how their way of thinking is right. But sometimes these things are a little mixed up and people are called upon to predict what will happen. And what they really wind up saying is what they want to happen. Like Tiffany Cross on MSNBC.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S4: I think something that could help Joe Biden is having a younger, more progressive running mate that can go into some of these groups and constituencies and make inroads and push them to adopt an agenda that comprehensively addresses a lot of the issues that impact communities of color.

S5: All right. Here’s Renee Graham also on MSNBC. I think there are women who have more progressive bona fides, and I think people do want that because they want something to balance out by people like MSNBC.

S2: Pundits might want that, but there is no evidence that other people don’t want that or have no interest in a progressive candidate or even might be turned off by that more than they would a woman who’s a little more like Joe Biden himself. Now, perhaps you heard those statements and they seemed reasonable to you. They’re not unreasonable, to be fair, but to posit the pick as something that Joe Biden has to do or needs to do if he wants to improve his electoral chances. I think that is inaccurate. I think what’s going on is that all of those prognosticators in this one now are articulating a pick that they want Joe Biden to do.

Advertisement

S6: Here is Jennifer Addison on C-SPAN and then is one hundred percent upon Vice President Biden to both bring the progressive wing of the party into governance with him, but also to select a vice presidential candidate that can really speak to progressives, that has progressive bona fides or one or they won’t vote for him, except they will.

S2: And if it is true that they won’t, which it is not, it’s not true in large number. I mean, it’s America. It’s a huge country. 17 people won’t do it if he doesn’t pick the right person. But if it’s true that they won’t do it, I’m going to throw this other thought out there for you to consider you ready. Who needs I’m sure progressives might evoke a set of policies that you favor and they might call to mind, I don’t know, progressives right there in the name. But what is being postulated is that it is right, proper and savvy to court progressives because progressives have energy and supposedly this righteous agenda. But if it is also the case that unless a progressive VP pick is made, that all these important progressives will stay away on Election Day, then I think we have to fairly ask what manner of monster are these people? People? Who are not sufficiently motivated to vote against Donald Trump, they have the chance to vote Donald Trump out of office and they choose not to because of the vice presidential pick. If you don’t think it’s an urgent task to remove Donald Trump from the presidency, if you’re on the fence with a noncommittal attitude towards voting out Donald Trump didn’t really how much do I have to consider your wants, needs and desires? Donald Trump is running against an adult that’s almost rational. People would need to know, how about this? An adult who isn’t a rapacious, idiotic threat to democracy. I shall cast my vote for that adult and whoever that adult chooses to associate with in normal times. I see the normal argument, yes, you’ve got to unite the party. You can convince me it’d be good to have a progressive on the ticket because this progressive policies are good and we want Biden to have good policies. Sure, but the presence of Donald Trump gives lie to the argument that progressives need a and if you don’t vote to get Donald Trump out of office, you aren’t a progressive. You are opposed to progress. I’m not making a political judgment. I’m making a moral judgment. Anyone who has a chance to vote out Donald Trump and doesn’t take that chance should not be a person whose opinion I value or you value that person, should not be courted, should not be sweet talked, should not be placated, should not be spoken of as a force for anything other than the perpetuation of a horror show. I am not actually insulting progressives because I don’t really think there are any progressives out there who are in the category of I’m not going to vote against Trump unless I get my Elizabeth Warren. But if there are, there are bad people and no party should be eager to have them in their fold. If you can govern without those types as part of your coalition, you’re better off again. I think the presence of these types of people is largely mythological. I think that, again, country of 300 something million, there’s definitely 11 people out there who are Warren for VP or bust. Absolutely. And I think there are angry Chapo Trappists out there. But I’m not talking about them. I am talking about people who need a progressive to get sufficiently excited to vote for Joe Biden, even considering the fact that Joe Biden is running against Donald Trump. Again, I think there might not be such a person, but I do know that if there is, that person is not worthy of our good graces. On the show today, I spiel about a certain back to school sentiment, reading, writing and wretched animus for the legitimate concerns of teachers. But first, Jesse Eisenberg has a new Audible Original series out Audible Originals as a genre that’s ripe for exploring and for tweaking. So when Jesse was offered the opportunity, he recognized the fact that there are really no rules, requirements or traditions going on here. So what he did was he created three characters and they narrate three monologues, though there’s actually no breaking of the fourth wall or, I don’t know, fifth sound wave, whatever the audible equivalent is, the characters are related, but they are spread out over time. We meet them at different times, not only of their lives, but bars. So one character speculates about another’s motivation. And then we actually get to hear what form that other characters personality. A father frets about a son. We get to see the results of that worry when you finish saving the World is the name of the series. It stars book smarts, Kaitlyn Dever, Stranger Things, Fennville Wolford and The Gist. Jesse Eisenberg. I say that just because here he is right now on the.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S1: Jesse Eisenberg’s new project is called When You Finish Saving the World, it is a three part Audible Original series and it’s really quite excellent. It takes three characters who are interrelated from three perspectives. And I don’t even know how much to give away. But Jesse’s here and I’m just going to push him and make them and crack them and make them give up his secrets. Hello, Jesse, thanks for coming back on. Thanks. I promised I wouldn’t cry, but we’ll see what happens. So the first chapter and I have to say, it’s not often that you experience a work of art, shall we say, and have no idea even what the genre is. And I, I benefited from that because I did not know what time place this would take, in what form this would take. I just knew that I would be listening to it. And as it revealed itself to me, I found it thrilling and creative and shocking. And one aspect of my reflecting on it is just to bemoan the fact that given how much we have to promote things and what gets people into the theater or watching something on Netflix, you always just necessarily have to lose that surprise of, hey, this is what the genre is going to be. And these are some twists that it’s going to take that you have that you had no chance of knowing about. I don’t know. I guess my question is, when you wrote this thing, how much did you think would be revealed to the audience before they began experiencing it?

Advertisement

S7: Yeah, I mean, you hit it on the head. I mean, in your experience of, like, listening to it and not knowing what to expect and not knowing even how to kind of absorb this medium was the exact same experience I had writing it. Like I had no idea how long it could be. It felt like maybe there should be like a 30 second monologue and that would be cute. And then I just kept writing and just kind of hoped that I was writing, you know, that it was good. But there was no kind of cannon to compare this to. You know, there’s no you know, you never you know, I didn’t take a you know, an audio literature class in college or anything. So, yeah, there was no I didn’t have anything to compare it to, but I just kind of assumed that if it kind of had some plot propulsion and some humor, it would kind of, I don’t know, it would sustain in this very strange format.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S1: Right. Right. So it did have plot propulsion, but I thought that the joy was not in asking what comes next, but really in trying to listen to the three different characters who are interrelated and figure out maybe what came first, you know, what’s their motivations and what drove them. And there was a joy as the listener for you to do that mental math yourself.

S7: Yeah, exactly. I mean, I love I love stories that are told from different characters, perspectives that are all interrelated because you get, you know, kind of like in a macro way, you get the feeling that, you know, there’s no hero and villain and that stories are complicated. And then in this, you kind of because it takes place in three different eras, each character separated by 15 years, you get a kind of sense of how a character may have developed over the course of 30 years and why they would behave the way they do based on kind of what we learn from the other characters. Yeah, and I just, you know, again, because there’s no kind of precedent for this medium or there are precedents, but they’re all on audible and six months old. Yeah, I kind of just was hoping that if there is kind of enough interplay and if it feels like the characters are kind of full on their own and have enough of their own storyline, then, you know, wouldn’t get wouldn’t get boring with each character.

S1: Yeah. So I will let us reveal this much to the audience. There are three characters. So first we meet a guy named Nathan Katz and he’s doing therapy into his cell phone and a guy sending the files to a therapist the year twenty seventeen. And the issue is he’s not bonding with his baby.

S8: OK, yeah. Here, OK, you told me to spend a few minutes recording my feelings into my phone and then email the audio file to you. This way I can practice articulating my feelings and give you some insight into my thoughts. But but what if I don’t have any feelings? Hmm. Let me think. Yeah, I don’t have any I can’t think of any feelings right now. That was Rachel’s idea to go see a therapist anyway. She doesn’t even have a problem with me. We’ve never gone to couples therapy or whatever and we don’t even really fight that much. She just thinks that I don’t connect to the baby, which seems like a totally normal thing to not connect to. I mean, it’d be a one way relationship. The baby doesn’t connect to me either.

Advertisement

S1: When that session was over, when that hour and a half was over, I went on a little bit of journey. I, I enjoyed spending some time with this character. For some reason, he reminded me of you and some characters you’ve played in the past. And I literally said to myself, I knew two things about this. I knew you were in it. The actor Finn Wolford was in it and the actress Kaitlyn Dever was in it and was over. I said to myself, where the hell were the other two characters? Then Chapter two comes on and Finn. He plays the son who was not bonded to for about an hour and a half, essentially doing a version of therapy, and then after that I still said, well, where’s the Kaitlyn Dever? What can it be? And it starts off and it’s the mom or the wife of the character you play. But it’s 15 years. In the past, it’s 22. And my mind was kind of just blown by the structure. How do you decide on that framing?

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S7: Well, when I was getting to the end of my section where the character, you know, can’t connect to this child, I kind of started imagining what the child would be at 15 years old. And I guess because I’m a new parent and was writing it when I was a new parent, I was starting to think about what my son would be like at 15 and how that would kind of like maybe relieve some of the kind of guilt I have for screwing things up now because, you know, he’d be his own person and his behavior would be less a reflection of my flaws and more a reflection of like so many other effects of society and even more importantly, the wonderful effect that my wife will have on him because she’s just a better person. And so I kind of started picturing that from the character’s perspective. And then I started picturing what his perspective would be like growing up with a dad who maybe doesn’t express himself emotionally well and growing up with a mother who is a kind of militant activist for issues around social justice and domestic violence. And so I tried to kind of put myself in that boy’s perspective and I realized I had kind of written myself into a corner because I had set my character’s storyline in twenty seventeen. And so I realized I had to set it in the future. And luckily, you know, at the time people were talking about the future, people were talking to Andrew Young was running for president and talking about, you know, what the job market’s going to look like. And, you know, in a decade and people were talking about emerging technologies. I was reading about, you know, how socialization might change in the future. And so I thought actually be really interesting to discuss, you know, the world from this kid’s perspective as a kid who’s like a capitalist with activist parents in a future where there are not as many jobs. And so I started writing from that kid’s perspective and then I realized I had a third member of this family. And I have to address her story in some way. And, you know, I thought it would be interesting. I’ve been living in Indiana on and off for the last five years. And, you know, the kind of culture war has a different face here in Indiana. You know, in New York where we also live, you know, there’s a real feeling of, you know, homogeneity and that any kind of argument you make will be, you know, fall will fall on agreeable ears. But, you know, in the Midwest, you have a I don’t know, I just find myself talking about things more carefully here, kind of wondering who’s listening, how expressive I can be about my, you know, the red diaper I grew up in. And so I was trying to like think of how can I address, like, the culture war? I don’t want to move 15 years in the future. But I thought if I moved 30 years in the past to two two, I can kind of address what might be happening on a liberal campus, you know, before the invasion of Iraq and how, you know, probably a lot of people here had family overseas in vulnerable places about to be deployed. And yet, if you’re on a liberal campus where I live here in Bloomington, Indiana, I think there’d be a real local feeling of anti-war activism. And so when I placed this young woman who we know grows into a kind of strict activist, I thought, wouldn’t it be interesting to kind of see her intellectual and kind of spiritual awakening occur as a freshman on a liberal campus with a boyfriend who’s stationed in his starn, about to be deployed at any minute to Afghanistan? And so she’s put in this untenable place of being on an anti-war campus. And yet her the love of her life is is about to join.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S1: So how much of the first monologue played by the one that your character plays, how much of that was written before you started writing the other ones?

S7: Oh, 100 percent. I wrote the whole thing in the order in which it’s intended to be listened to, which is good because you can kind of like drop hints in ways that are slightly you know, if it’s in chronological order, then you can certainly drop hints. But it’s more of a logical expression of the hint because it’s because the future things did not happen yet. But I thought it’s more fun to write and probably more fun to listen to. If there are certain things that, you know, have happened in the past and you’re seeing their effect, but you didn’t you don’t know kind of what the moment, the immediacy and the feeling of the kind of visceral response to those past things, you know, like. So, for example, early on we find out that Rachel, the wife and mother of the boy, that she had a boyfriend who has passed away and we don’t know why. And when we finally get to her story and you hear that her boyfriend is deployed, it gives you kind of an eerie feeling because, you know, probably what’s going to happen. But on the other hand, she’s experiencing the immediacy of this romantic relationship in a way that. I say, I would say convinces the listener that this is a real and beautiful and sustainable relationship.

Advertisement

S1: So did you have the idea for how the boyfriend would die when you were writing the first chapter, which references the death? But I got to say, as a listener, I didn’t really dwell on the matter. I said I just I guess said to myself, I don’t know. Car accident, maybe cancer. Did you have it all plotted out?

Advertisement
Advertisement

S7: No, no. In fact, that the only thing I kind of the the only thing I kind of like, really reworked a bit was to kind of like weave that boyfriends, you know, fate, as it were, you know, into the other stories. But, you know, Rachel, I kind of just conceived that she is a character experience, such a great trauma that she just doesn’t talk about it a lot, which which seems logical enough and also kind of serves as a story point to, you know, so that it’s not revealed too early.

S1: Right. And a wooden box. So was the wooden box in all three episodes the whole time?

S7: No. So I did like a ton of research on the military because I know so little about military. I grew up in New Jersey. I knew no one who was in the military. The only thing you know, when when the war was even conceived of in Iraq, we were marching and, you know, in major cities. And so, you know, my military service was drawing on poster boards, you know, and driving to D.C. So I started doing a lot of research. It’s really easy to do research on, you know, kind of the you know, the military in Indiana. There’s so many I have so many friends here who, you know, who joined or their friends joined. And so I started I found I was looking for like a good base, you know, literally to set the story. And I found this base called K2. And it’s Pakistan, which I think has recently I think as recently as like way after I wrote it. But like I like within the last few months has been kind of outed as having had nuclear material that is now infecting the people who were stationed there. But, you know, somebody told me all their war stories and how they got this wooden box from, you know, a town nearby the base and Uzbekistan. And so I started just reading all these stories. And it’s just fascinating, especially as somebody who grew up on the East Coast, I don’t know how you feel or if you were aware of stuff like that, but I was just totally unaware of what was happening in the military.

Advertisement
Advertisement

S1: Yeah, it’s it’s always a revelation that it’s such a reality for so many of our countrymen. And I mean, I did a little teaching on a base in South Korea and that was just so eye opening that this was just the definition of reality and not at all unusual, that it’s reality for some people and so far different from reality than myself.

S7: Yes. Was that that was before before the the Iraq war. Right.

S1: Yeah. Yeah. OK, right. OK, so have you met. So Finn, what’s the name. Finn Wolfhagen. Yeah. Yeah I know. Did you meet Finn. Did you meet Kaitlyn Dever who voices Rachel.

S7: Yeah. So it’s, it’s a really strange process. So this is obviously, you know, basically three long monologues essentially. So, you know, the characters aren’t interacting with each other. I’ve done animation movies where the characters are interacting with each other, but still the actors don’t meet. So with this because I was also like directing it, I met with Finn. We flew to Vancouver to record him and then with Kaitlyn Dever, I met her. And a day later, the world entirely shut down. So we ended up I just met her for coffee just to talk about it. Then a day later, the world kind of went on lockdown and we sent her a microphone and she went into our closet and recorded it. So, you know, but it’s for this kind of thing. It really doesn’t it doesn’t matter. You don’t have to be in the same room.

S1: Yeah, except you might want to say to yourself, God, I got to act with Kaitlyn Dever in the future. She’s fantastic.

Advertisement
Advertisement

S7: She’s unbelievable. And, you know, I, I, I turned this this audible book into a movie. And her character in the book is being played by Julianne Moore because it’s being played at at fifty. And so there’s no part for Caitlyn. And the thing I lament the most because she’s just absolutely brilliant.

S2: And tomorrow we will continue with Jesse Eisenberg’s personal connection to the material, to fatherhood and to his wife’s lack of any real interest in the movie CBX. And now the spiel with schools reopening throughout the country, parents, administrators, teachers and students are gingerly attempting the balancing act between education and contagion. There’s so much uncertainty, so much nervousness, some outright dread. The ground is not solid. The virus is not contained in education. Plans are not tested. There is, however, one source of certainty. The source is neither pedagogical or epidemiological, but polemical. Certain writers are sure that teachers are trying to get one over. In The Washington Post, former George W. Bush speechwriter Marc A. Thiessen has a column headlined Schools Aren’t That Risky and Teachers are Essential Workers. We Must Reopen. Which schools aren’t that risky? University of Texas researchers point out that Miami, Fort Lauderdale, Nashville and Las Vegas, big cities. If you have a school of five hundred people, you can expect five students or staff to show up infected with the coronavirus. Could be three, could be 12 school of a thousand. The number is double. The New York Times has a chart. Look up the area you live in. If you live in Los Angeles, you could expect eight infected kids. Polk County, Florida, 13, Houston, 10. I’d say that’s risky. Let’s go to the second part of the headline about teachers being essential workers. Now, this is the crux of the argument. This is what the you must go back to school crowd is hinging its argument on pretty much the word essential and the guilt associated with that word. Thiessen writes, At the height of the pandemic, millions of grocery clerks, factory workers, food processors, truck drivers, railroad workers, mass transit workers, sanitation workers, utility workers, police officers and firefighters continue to show up for work because it was essential that they do so. Are teachers less essential than these professions? I have an answer. They are in the pandemic. There’s a definition of essential. And that definition is what we need right now to keep the society functioning. I can prove that teachers were an essential because we did schooling without them. And here we are today. There couldn’t be a similar pause in trucking. There couldn’t be a similar pause in the utilities we get because we need uninterrupted utilities each day or else society would collapse. So we went to online learning and it was worse than in-person learning. But it was also an alternative in a way that factories and mass transit have no virtual alternative. And you know what? In New York City, as of last month, one hundred twenty six MTA workers died. So maybe some more care should have been given to the safety of, say, bus drivers. Right. What do you call an online a virtual truck driver, not a truck driver? What do you call an online teacher? You call that person a teacher, maybe not the best teacher that that teacher can be, but a teacher getting by and not causing anyone to die. The use of a central worker as a brag or challenge or accusation is what is driving so much of this unfair, unsound, unsafe argument. The New York Post editorial board, ever the antagonist of unions, writes United Federation of Teachers chief Mike Mulgrew was apparently decided that his members aren’t essential workers. After all, he doesn’t want them going back to work this fall without impossible safety guidelines. That makes teachers a lot less necessary than all the cops, firefighters, sanitation workers and others who kept showing up through the lockdowns. Well, brave New York Post writers who are certainly going into their offices to write their op eds and squeezing through hallways crowded with six to 10 year olds. I’m sure that the dynamic might. I suggest that teachers and firefighters and police have job requirements that differ and physical health is, in fact a requirement to do the job. If you’re a firefighter or a policeman, there is literally a physical fitness test to get the job and physical fitness requirements stay on the job. Many teachers, on the other hand, are immunocompromised in ways police aren’t allowed to be if they continue working. The New York Post continues. That growth is the left hand is promising a court fight to keep his members from having to show up. He says three thousand teachers have already filed for medical exemptions for the fall, with many more expected. In all, he insists, a minimum of 60 percent of instruction will be done remotely. Again, that’s all about teachers preferences. Thus ends the New York Post section of my quoting, except how is that a teacher’s preference? They talked about three thousand teachers filing for medical exemptions. That’s not a high number. The OFT in this city has seventy five thousand teachers, nineteen thousand classroom professionals, plus all the thousands of secretaries, counselors, psychologists, social workers. Three thousand is pretty small. Even if it goes up triples or quadruples, it’s in line with the prevalence of dangerous medical conditions in the overall population. And the post itself quotes Mulgrew as saying that a large portion will go on in class. So what if two thirds is done remotely? That is the plan not to have all the kids in class at once. The post is. Religious handwaving away an inarguable threat to the lives of New York teachers. They’re calling it a preference and they’re using the word essential to shame and bully the legitimately vulnerable. There’s a viciousness to that of viciousness echoed in another Murdoch owned publication, The Wall Street Journal, which ran an op ed titled School Opening Extortion. Teachers’ unions are using covid-19 as a political weapon. No, covid-19 isn’t a political weapon. It’s a biological one. That’s what you called it. When settlers threw infected blankets into populations with no defenses, it’s not different to throw defenseless teachers into populations sure to be infected. Shame on The Wall Street Journal for writing. Quote, For most Americans, the coronavirus is a scourge. Teachers unions seem to think it’s also an opportunity to squeeze more money from taxpayers and put their private and public charter school competition out of business. That’s the only way to read the extraordinary effort by national and local union leaders to keep their members from returning to classrooms. Well, it’s the only way to read it. If you didn’t have a good teacher, adherence of this argument must not have had one because they’re ignoring that charter schools and private school teachers are also extremely hesitant to return to unsafe conditions. They just lack the political agency in the form of collective bargaining units to say so. The essential workers who bravely did their duty in Amazon’s service centers and trucking hubs and grocery checkout lines were in fact, essentially. Yes, yes, they were. And they were brave. They were also not able to agitate for better conditions without losing their jobs. It is sad, bordering on tragic that they couldn’t in many cases. And it’s not an incomprehensible sense of greed that makes people want to not die on the jobs. By the way, it’s a benefit to the Wall Street Journal writers and The Wall Street Journal readers. If schools don’t become hot spots like so many of those essential factories and essential meatpacking plants became The Atlantic ran a similar article, but with a different bent. It attacked teachers as shirkers. But this one was written by the wife of a teacher who herself is also a nurse. Headline I’m a nurse in New York. Teachers should do their jobs just like I did. Schools are essential to the functioning of our society, and that makes teachers essential workers because she is a nurse and not, say, a professor of logic. Let me point out the floor. Their schools are essential. They are teachers are essential. They are. But teachers have to be in essential schools to teach. Well, that is not essential. That is what teachers are arguing. That’s why teachers should be accommodated. This author, Kristin McConnell, also seems to have antipathy toward sound reasoning in all forms, as this sentence indicates. Instead of taking the summer to hone arguments against returning to the classroom, administrators and teachers should be thinking about how they can best support children and their families through a turbulent time. Just like you can both teach and not be in school, you can also both think about supporting students and simultaneously make the case that the best way to do so is to not force them into a school environment during a pandemic and not force yourself into one either rather than honing arguments. I like that part. Instead of taking the summer to hone their arguments, they should have just gotten down to the task of teaching. Instead of honing arguments about why Pickett’s charge was a bad idea, maybe the Confederate soldiers should have been thinking about how to run up a hill as artillery fire, tear them to pieces rather than spending all your time honing arguments about the housing market. That was a bubble in 2006. Maybe you should have been spending your time flipping a lot more houses. Maybe Kristen McConnell is very anti honing and not just the honing, but also the tuning. So writing about teachers who are threatening safety strikes, she says, quote, These threats run counter to the fact that by and large, school districts are already fine tuning social distancing measures and mandating mask wearing fine tuning. Maybe she didn’t read that Washington Post diary of an Arizona superintendent, which was titled I’m sorry, but it’s a fantasy about opening schools where he wrote, We still haven’t received our order of Plexiglas barriers. So we’re cutting up shower curtains and trying to make do with that. Yep, they’re fine tuning. They’re just crossing the T’s and gouging out their eyes. Overall, the entire essay in The Atlantic is an exercise in psychological displacement, where the author goes through a harrowing experience and is now eager to have her husband and those of his profession to do the same. And we should also point out that it’s not just teachers who would be in danger. Of course, the students would give it to the teachers, the teachers and the students would give it to each other. The students would infect their parents and then maybe everyone shows up in your hospital again. She writes, The military language people use when discussing covid-19 in the spring seem totally appropriate. And in a way, that mentality got me through the peak. This was a war and I was a soldier. It wasn’t my choice to serve, but it was my duty. I had skills and knowledge that were needed, she goes on. I was terrified when I started taking care of covid-19 ICU patients before my first covid-19 shift. I had panic attacks that made me wheeze and I walked onto the unit my first day in tears. Well, my God, wouldn’t it have been great if you could have treated those patients from afar with them getting most of the benefit of the medicine you provided? Also, in this scenario, if your service wasn’t a matter of life and death, or rather if it was only a matter of life and death, if patients entered the hospital, that would be the proper analogy, that the threat was only if the patients left their home and entered the hospital. And also if the patient stayed home, society would be much safer. Overall, this argument by analogy is so far off in its particulars. It’s worthless as anything other than a piece of psychology. And to broaden it out in case Christine McConnell stands for a whole maybe a piece of future anthropology, it’s displaced rage directed at teachers, one of whom is right there in your house. Hmm. So to Nurse McConnell, I would say even if you want your husband to tough it out, I think the better strategy would be for his bosses and his bosses bosses to not tough it out, but to think it through this way, not just teachers, but everyone in the school ecosystem won’t attempt to second wave, thus thrusting you back into the horror that you found so formative. But also, it would seem that was a little bit warping.

Advertisement
Advertisement

S3: And that’s it for today’s show, Daniel Shrader produces the gist he thinks of. The gist is it contains six year twelve hundred act structure that is leading up one day to the big reveal. Margaret Kelly, just producer guesses that reveal actually occurred somewhere in season three or four. A careful listener would know this was all just the dream within a dream portion, which Montgomery is the executive producer of Slate podcasts. She will be delivering the third monologue in this triptych, which she reveals that she get this whole obsession with Perus. The gist are plexiglass order didn’t come in. So we’re going to have to line the boards of this particular ice rink with good intentions. Let’s be honest, we would never do that to NHL players because we are not horrible people to do it to professional athletes. That Perdu Pro. And thanks for listening.