1 I am sure this is something that was not anticipated when the geniuses... excuse me, experts determined that shelter-in-place was the only way to handle the situation. The various downsides of "forced propinquity" were not taken into account. Yes, there were the jokes about how the divorce rate would go up, but those were only jokes. This is serious.

Young children are having problems with not being able to associate with their friends; a woman in my church told us yesterday that her four-year-old daughter is becoming very aggressive and nasty, talking very nastily to her mother, hitting the walls, etc. I grant you that some of this can merely be chalked up to being four years old, but this kind of thing has never before occurred with this little girl.

It's another real reason that we need to get on with opening things up again.

2 We imprison people to PUNISH them after all, Dana. What makes this any different?

3 Let's go back over that, Tim. Leftist/liberals sure don't imprison people to punish them. In the first place, they don't want to imprison them for anything, because they think society causes all the problems. And they thing incarceration is brutal. Only conservatives believe in imprisoning people to punish them, although we hope that there may be a modicum of rehabilitation to be obtained thereby, if the prisoner uses the time to reflect on his crimes. More to the point, the idea is that society benefits from having the criminal forcibly removed from society. That would work very nicely for a number of people currently working in the Federal government.

G.K. Chesterton said (as you and I have quoted in these pages before) "It is terrifying to consider how few politicians are hanged." I think it is more terrifying to consider how many bureaucrats are not hanged. I could easily produce a list of former FBI and NSI goons who are making millions of dollars who should have ended up at the end of a hangman's rope.

4 Well, I can't argue with any of that Dana!