Connect with us

Government

Did racism kill Jackie Robinson?

Major league baseball opens today, and few are likely to give race a thought. When Jackie Robinson integrated MLB in 1947, it was a far different story. Did racism lead to Robinson’s early death?

Adoring fans clamor for an autograph from baseball legend Jackie Robinson in 1962, but Robinson faced slurs, hatred and insults in his early years in the majors. Bettman/

Baseball great Jackie Robinson was a living, breathing example of athleticism and apparent good health, playing four sports at UCLA and becoming the first Black man to play in major league baseball.

And yet, the athletic hero and civil rights champion died at age 53, almost blind, from a heart attack, with underlying diabetes and associated complications.

When Robinson died on Oct. 24, 1972, few researchers studied health disparities. There was little understanding that social factors and stress greatly affect health, and that racism and discrimination contribute to poor health outcomes among communities of color. Fewer people paid attention to racial and ethnic gaps in life expectancy.

Since Robinson’s death, however, research has shown that enduring structural and everyday racism can have serious negative consequences for health.

We are researchers who examine mental and physical health disparities in marginalized populations. We can’t help but wonder: Did racism kill Jackie Robinson? And might his life – and early death – help people understand the mechanisms behind how racism kills?

Jackie Robinson faced racism from the start.

Jackie the hero

Robinson was born Jan. 31, 1919, in Cairo, Georgia, a small town not far from the Florida-Georgia line. Robinson’s father, a sharecropper, abandoned the family when Robinson was a baby. His mother, a housekeeper, moved her five children to Pasadena, California to be near her brother.

Robinson went to Pasadena Junior College and later to UCLA, where he became the school’s first four-letter athlete. His wife, Rachel, would later say he was a “big man on campus.” Yet the big man was not destined to be a graduate; he had to drop out of college due to lack of finances.

Jim Crow still had control in much of the country, but in Brooklyn, Branch Rickey, general manager of the Brooklyn Dodgers, believed it was time to integrate baseball. In 1946, Rickey signed Robinson to play for the Montreal Royals, a Dodgers farm team. Robinson was a star, and Rickey called him up. In 1947, at age 28, Robinson became the first Black American to play in the majors.

Robinson was Rickey’s choice not only because of Robinson’s prowess on the diamond but also because of his strength of character off the field. Yet Rickey warned him it would not be easy. Robinson would be insulted and reviled, Rickey told him, but Robinson could not speak out. He would have to endure whatever insults came his way.

They weren’t just verbal. Some players intentionally slid into his legs with their cleats. He had to have metal plates sewn into his cap to protect him from “beanballs” – pitches intentionally aimed at a batter’s head. Fastballs hurled from the arm of a major league pitcher can be traumatic and result in concussions, broken bones, severe bruising or death.

And always, there were racial slurs.

One of the worst incidents happened when the Philadelphia Phillies came to Ebbets Field to face the Dodgers in Brooklyn in 1947.

Robinson later wrote about that day, recalling some of the insults and taunts. They were not only from fans but from Phillies players.

Robinson also wrote that he considered giving up and tearing into the Phillies’ dugout.

Instead, he went on to win Rookie of the Year in 1947. In 1949, he was National League MVP. He led the Dodgers to a World Series Title in 1955.

Jackie Robinson talks about civil rights in Birmingham.

Broken records, broken health

Robinson’s health problems began while he was still in the major leagues. He struggled with his weight, and he experienced pain in his knees, arm and ankles. He was diagnosed with diabetes at age 37, about the time he retired. Two of his brothers also had diabetes. Robinson’s hair began to turn white.

By 1969, at age 50, he had nerve and artery damage in his legs. In 1970, he suffered two mild strokes. His doctors noted that both of his legs would soon require amputation. He then lost sight in one eye and experienced limited vision in the other. He suffered from high blood pressure, and had three heart attacks, the third of which was fatal.

However, despite these problems, Robinson kept his diabetes “in the closet,” insisting that he felt good.

A not-so-grand slam of factors

Those of us who study health disparities now have a better understanding how Jackie’s life experiences all likely contributed to his early death. His refusal to capitulate to the hatred he encountered on a daily basis, the magnitude of his role in the struggle to challenge Jim Crow and integrate baseball, and the extensive racial trauma all likely played a factor. In addition, the death of his eldest son, Jackie Robinson Jr., in a car crash in 1971 no doubt took its toll.

It is now well established that the racism and discrimination that people of color experience has a negative effect on health. This burden was incalculably magnified by a society that refused to acknowledge, denied the existence of and justified structural racism. For instance, in 2016, the city of Philadelphia issued an official apology for the racist incidents Robinson encountered there in 1947. Yet efforts to make amends could be offered only to his widow – Jackie didn’t live long enough to receive them.

Environmental conditions that influence health, referred to as the social determinants of health, are driven by structural racism. Many of the social determinants lead to poor health outcomes. These include the conditions in which people are born, live, play, work and age. Racism and poverty/socioeconomic disadvantage are two social determinants that contribute to worse health outcomes in the U.S.

Robinson and his four siblings were raised by their mother after their father abandoned the family when Robinson was an infant. His mother worked long hours as a housekeeper. The Robinsons encountered racism as a Black family in a mostly white neighborhood, and they endured name-calling and taunts from neighbors, who summoned the police to their home without reason.

These traumatic events, including being abandoned by a parent and enduring verbal or physical abuse from others, are known as adverse childhood experiences, or ACES. ACES and other lifetime adversities can have negative effects on one’s health as an adult, leading to higher risk of conditions like depression and heart disease. Robinson’s childhood and adolescence increased his risk for poor health later in life.

Researchers have identified collective coping as as one of the key strategies Black Americans use to deal with racism-related stress. But Robinson did not have access to collective support from other Black baseball players until MLB teams slowly began signing Black athletes months after his debut with the Dodgers. He was carrying the burden alone, except for the support of his wife and Rickey, until other Black players were hired and Dodgers began openly supporting him.

Jackie Robinson talks with talk show host Dick Cavett about becoming the first Black man to play in the majors.

Before the ballpark

Though Robinson’s illnesses were diagnosed in early adulthood, they could have had their roots in childhood. Adverse social and physical conditions as well as limited access to and poor quality of health care serve as barriers to illness prevention and treatment, limiting the ability to protect one’s health. Experiences of racial trauma and discrimination like those Robinson experienced are linked to smoking, unhealthy eating habits and alcohol use, decreased trust in health care providers, increased cardiovascular risks and negative cardiovascular outcomes.

Experiences of racism and discrimination are painful, sometimes daily, occurrences for many people of color. These include things like being followed in stores, receiving poor service in restaurants and being stopped by police.

We know that Robinson’s experience in the majors was not his first exposure to racism and discrimination. As a lieutenant in the U.S. Army, he sat next to a fellow officer’s wife on a bus at the Fort Hood, Texas base in July 1944. The woman was Black; however, her skin color was light. The bus driver was not pleased. He told Robinson to move to the back of the bus. Robinson refused. Robinson was shackled, arrested and court-martialed. Robinson later was acquitted and given an honorable discharge.

Over time, these repeated stressful episodes can lead to cardiovascular disease by increasing what is called allostatic load. When a person repeatedly experiences the stress of racism, high levels of the stress hormone cortisol are released in the body. Elevated cortisol can lead to high levels of blood sugar, as seen in diabetes, and high blood pressure. Robinson had both diabetes and high blood pressure after years of enduring what was likely a high allostatic load.

Some researchers believe allostatic load may be one reason why high blood pressure is more prevalent and more severe among Black Americans than White Americans.

The reasons for worse health among Black individuals goes beyond physiological responses to racism – it can be racism itself. Black patients also receive less frequent and poorer-quality health care than whites, even when severity of disease, quality of insurance, occupational status and level of education are controlled for.

Racism is even more likely to affect mental health than physical health, but it’s impossible to know how the racism that Robinson experienced affected his mental well-being. Racism is associated with negative impacts on mental health including depression, stress, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, suicidal thoughts and alcohol use. In fact, mental and physical health are connected. Poor mental health can negatively affect the way the body responds to stress, and increase inflammation that can increase risks for diabetes, hypertension, heart disease and cancer.

Jackie Robinson's casket being carried from a church.
Pallbearers carry the body of Jackie Robinson from a New York City church on Oct. 27, 1972. Bettman/Getty Images

A new day?

How much has changed for Black baseball players since Robinson’s time? As of June 2020, approximately 8% of players and one owner in major league baseball were Black, making it difficult to challenge the very system that discriminates against them. However, contemporary players including Jason Heyward and Dominic Smith have described the pervasiveness of systemic racism in American society and their profession, and the importance of raising awareness of its pernicious effects.

[Deep knowledge, daily. Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter.]

In 2020, more than 150 Black former and current baseball players created The Players Alliance to use their “collective voice and platform to create increased opportunities for the Black community in every aspect of our game and beyond.” It seems that what is changing is the refusal to remain quiet, to be stoic in the face of racism and discrimination, both on the field and off.

As Smith noted on Twitter, “Silence kills.” Just as diabetes and hypertension kill silently, so does racism.

Tamra Burns Loeb receives funding from the UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine COVID-19 Research Award Program and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Derek Novacek receives funding from VA Advanced Fellowship in Mental Illness Research and Treatment as well as from the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Alicia Morehead-Gee does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Illegal Immigrants Leave US Hospitals With Billions In Unpaid Bills

Illegal Immigrants Leave US Hospitals With Billions In Unpaid Bills

By Autumn Spredemann of The Epoch Times

Tens of thousands of illegal…

Published

on

Illegal Immigrants Leave US Hospitals With Billions In Unpaid Bills

By Autumn Spredemann of The Epoch Times

Tens of thousands of illegal immigrants are flooding into U.S. hospitals for treatment and leaving billions in uncompensated health care costs in their wake.

The House Committee on Homeland Security recently released a report illustrating that from the estimated $451 billion in annual costs stemming from the U.S. border crisis, a significant portion is going to health care for illegal immigrants.

With the majority of the illegal immigrant population lacking any kind of medical insurance, hospitals and government welfare programs such as Medicaid are feeling the weight of these unanticipated costs.

Apprehensions of illegal immigrants at the U.S. border have jumped 48 percent since the record in fiscal year 2021 and nearly tripled since fiscal year 2019, according to Customs and Border Protection data.

Last year broke a new record high for illegal border crossings, surpassing more than 3.2 million apprehensions.

And with that sea of humanity comes the need for health care and, in most cases, the inability to pay for it.

In January, CEO of Denver Health Donna Lynne told reporters that 8,000 illegal immigrants made roughly 20,000 visits to the city’s health system in 2023.

The total bill for uncompensated care costs last year to the system totaled $140 million, said Dane Roper, public information officer for Denver Health. More than $10 million of it was attributed to “care for new immigrants,” he told The Epoch Times.

Though the amount of debt assigned to illegal immigrants is a fraction of the total, uncompensated care costs in the Denver Health system have risen dramatically over the past few years.

The total uncompensated costs in 2020 came to $60 million, Mr. Roper said. In 2022, the number doubled, hitting $120 million.

He also said their city hospitals are treating issues such as “respiratory illnesses, GI [gastro-intenstinal] illnesses, dental disease, and some common chronic illnesses such as asthma and diabetes.”

“The perspective we’ve been trying to emphasize all along is that providing healthcare services for an influx of new immigrants who are unable to pay for their care is adding additional strain to an already significant uncompensated care burden,” Mr. Roper said.

He added this is why a local, state, and federal response to the needs of the new illegal immigrant population is “so important.”

Colorado is far from the only state struggling with a trail of unpaid hospital bills.

EMS medics with the Houston Fire Department transport a Mexican woman the hospital in Houston on Aug. 12, 2020. (John Moore/Getty Images)

Dr. Robert Trenschel, CEO of the Yuma Regional Medical Center situated on the Arizona–Mexico border, said on average, illegal immigrants cost up to three times more in human resources to resolve their cases and provide a safe discharge.

“Some [illegal] migrants come with minor ailments, but many of them come in with significant disease,” Dr. Trenschel said during a congressional hearing last year.

“We’ve had migrant patients on dialysis, cardiac catheterization, and in need of heart surgery. Many are very sick.”

He said many illegal immigrants who enter the country and need medical assistance end up staying in the ICU ward for 60 days or more.

A large portion of the patients are pregnant women who’ve had little to no prenatal treatment. This has resulted in an increase in babies being born that require neonatal care for 30 days or longer.

Dr. Trenschel told The Epoch Times last year that illegal immigrants were overrunning healthcare services in his town, leaving the hospital with $26 million in unpaid medical bills in just 12 months.

ER Duty to Care

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act of 1986 requires that public hospitals participating in Medicare “must medically screen all persons seeking emergency care … regardless of payment method or insurance status.”

The numbers are difficult to gauge as the policy position of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is that it “will not require hospital staff to ask patients directly about their citizenship or immigration status.”

In southern California, again close to the border with Mexico, some hospitals are struggling with an influx of illegal immigrants.

American patients are enduring longer wait times for doctor appointments due to a nursing shortage in the state, two health care professionals told The Epoch Times in January.

A health care worker at a hospital in Southern California, who asked not to be named for fear of losing her job, told The Epoch Times that “the entire health care system is just being bombarded” by a steady stream of illegal immigrants.

“Our healthcare system is so overwhelmed, and then add on top of that tuberculosis, COVID-19, and other diseases from all over the world,” she said.

A Salvadorian man is aided by medical workers after cutting his leg while trying to jump on a truck in Matias Romero, Mexico, on Nov. 2, 2018. (Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

A newly-enacted law in California provides free healthcare for all illegal immigrants residing in the state. The law could cost taxpayers between $3 billion and $6 billion per year, according to recent estimates by state and federal lawmakers.

In New York, where the illegal immigration crisis has manifested most notably beyond the southern border, city and state officials have long been accommodating of illegal immigrants’ healthcare costs.

Since June 2014, when then-mayor Bill de Blasio set up The Task Force on Immigrant Health Care Access, New York City has worked to expand avenues for illegal immigrants to get free health care.

“New York City has a moral duty to ensure that all its residents have meaningful access to needed health care, regardless of their immigration status or ability to pay,” Mr. de Blasio stated in a 2015 report.

The report notes that in 2013, nearly 64 percent of illegal immigrants were uninsured. Since then, tens of thousands of illegal immigrants have settled in the city.

“The uninsured rate for undocumented immigrants is more than three times that of other noncitizens in New York City (20 percent) and more than six times greater than the uninsured rate for the rest of the city (10 percent),” the report states.

The report states that because healthcare providers don’t ask patients about documentation status, the task force lacks “data specific to undocumented patients.”

Some health care providers say a big part of the issue is that without a clear path to insurance or payment for non-emergency services, illegal immigrants are going to the hospital due to a lack of options.

“It’s insane, and it has been for years at this point,” Dana, a Texas emergency room nurse who asked to have her full name omitted, told The Epoch Times.

Working for a major hospital system in the greater Houston area, Dana has seen “a zillion” migrants pass through under her watch with “no end in sight.” She said many who are illegal immigrants arrive with treatable illnesses that require simple antibiotics. “Not a lot of GPs [general practitioners] will see you if you can’t pay and don’t have insurance.”

She said the “undocumented crowd” tends to arrive with a lot of the same conditions. Many find their way to Houston not long after crossing the southern border. Some of the common health issues Dana encounters include dehydration, unhealed fractures, respiratory illnesses, stomach ailments, and pregnancy-related concerns.

“This isn’t a new problem, it’s just worse now,” Dana said.

Emergency room nurses and EMTs tend to patients in hallways at the Houston Methodist The Woodlands Hospital in Houston on Aug. 18, 2021. (Brandon Bell/Getty Images)

Medicaid Factor

One of the main government healthcare resources illegal immigrants use is Medicaid.

All those who don’t qualify for regular Medicaid are eligible for Emergency Medicaid, regardless of immigration status. By doing this, the program helps pay for the cost of uncompensated care bills at qualifying hospitals.

However, some loopholes allow access to the regular Medicaid benefits. “Qualified noncitizens” who haven’t been granted legal status within five years still qualify if they’re listed as a refugee, an asylum seeker, or a Cuban or Haitian national.

Yet the lion’s share of Medicaid usage by illegal immigrants still comes through state-level benefits and emergency medical treatment.

A Congressional report highlighted data from the CMS, which showed total Medicaid costs for “emergency services for undocumented aliens” in fiscal year 2021 surpassed $7 billion, and totaled more than $5 billion in fiscal 2022.

Both years represent a significant spike from the $3 billion in fiscal 2020.

An employee working with Medicaid who asked to be referred to only as Jennifer out of concern for her job, told The Epoch Times that at a state level, it’s easy for an illegal immigrant to access the program benefits.

Jennifer said that when exceptions are sent from states to CMS for approval, “denial is actually super rare. It’s usually always approved.”

She also said it comes as no surprise that many of the states with the highest amount of Medicaid spending are sanctuary states, which tend to have policies and laws that shield illegal immigrants from federal immigration authorities.

Moreover, Jennifer said there are ways for states to get around CMS guidelines. “It’s not easy, but it can and has been done.”

The first generation of illegal immigrants who arrive to the United States tend to be healthy enough to pass any pre-screenings, but Jennifer has observed that the subsequent generations tend to be sicker and require more access to care. If a family is illegally present, they tend to use Emergency Medicaid or nothing at all.

The Epoch Times asked Medicaid Services to provide the most recent data for the total uncompensated care that hospitals have reported. The agency didn’t respond.

Continue reading over at The Epoch Times

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/15/2024 - 09:45

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Fuel poverty in England is probably 2.5 times higher than government statistics show

The top 40% most energy efficient homes aren’t counted as being in fuel poverty, no matter what their bills or income are.

Published

on

By

Julian Hochgesang|Unsplash

The cap set on how much UK energy suppliers can charge for domestic gas and electricity is set to fall by 15% from April 1 2024. Despite this, prices remain shockingly high. The average household energy bill in 2023 was £2,592 a year, dwarfing the pre-pandemic average of £1,308 in 2019.

The term “fuel poverty” refers to a household’s ability to afford the energy required to maintain adequate warmth and the use of other essential appliances. Quite how it is measured varies from country to country. In England, the government uses what is known as the low income low energy efficiency (Lilee) indicator.

Since energy costs started rising sharply in 2021, UK households’ spending powers have plummeted. It would be reasonable to assume that these increasingly hostile economic conditions have caused fuel poverty rates to rise.

However, according to the Lilee fuel poverty metric, in England there have only been modest changes in fuel poverty incidence year on year. In fact, government statistics show a slight decrease in the nationwide rate, from 13.2% in 2020 to 13.0% in 2023.

Our recent study suggests that these figures are incorrect. We estimate the rate of fuel poverty in England to be around 2.5 times higher than what the government’s statistics show, because the criteria underpinning the Lilee estimation process leaves out a large number of financially vulnerable households which, in reality, are unable to afford and maintain adequate warmth.

Blocks of flats in London.
Household fuel poverty in England is calculated on the basis of the energy efficiency of the home. Igor Sporynin|Unsplash

Energy security

In 2022, we undertook an in-depth analysis of Lilee fuel poverty in Greater London. First, we combined fuel poverty, housing and employment data to provide an estimate of vulnerable homes which are omitted from Lilee statistics.

We also surveyed 2,886 residents of Greater London about their experiences of fuel poverty during the winter of 2022. We wanted to gauge energy security, which refers to a type of self-reported fuel poverty. Both parts of the study aimed to demonstrate the potential flaws of the Lilee definition.

Introduced in 2019, the Lilee metric considers a household to be “fuel poor” if it meets two criteria. First, after accounting for energy expenses, its income must fall below the poverty line (which is 60% of median income).

Second, the property must have an energy performance certificate (EPC) rating of D–G (the lowest four ratings). The government’s apparent logic for the Lilee metric is to quicken the net-zero transition of the housing sector.

In Sustainable Warmth, the policy paper that defined the Lilee approach, the government says that EPC A–C-rated homes “will not significantly benefit from energy-efficiency measures”. Hence, the focus on fuel poverty in D–G-rated properties.

Generally speaking, EPC A–C-rated homes (those with the highest three ratings) are considered energy efficient, while D–G-rated homes are deemed inefficient. The problem with how Lilee fuel poverty is measured is that the process assumes that EPC A–C-rated homes are too “energy efficient” to be considered fuel poor: the main focus of the fuel poverty assessment is a characteristic of the property, not the occupant’s financial situation.

In other words, by this metric, anyone living in an energy-efficient home cannot be considered to be in fuel poverty, no matter their financial situation. There is an obvious flaw here.

Around 40% of homes in England have an EPC rating of A–C. According to the Lilee definition, none of these homes can or ever will be classed as fuel poor. Even though energy prices are going through the roof, a single-parent household with dependent children whose only income is universal credit (or some other form of benefits) will still not be considered to be living in fuel poverty if their home is rated A-C.

The lack of protection afforded to these households against an extremely volatile energy market is highly concerning.

In our study, we estimate that 4.4% of London’s homes are rated A-C and also financially vulnerable. That is around 171,091 households, which are currently omitted by the Lilee metric but remain highly likely to be unable to afford adequate energy.

In most other European nations, what is known as the 10% indicator is used to gauge fuel poverty. This metric, which was also used in England from the 1990s until the mid 2010s, considers a home to be fuel poor if more than 10% of income is spent on energy. Here, the main focus of the fuel poverty assessment is the occupant’s financial situation, not the property.

Were such alternative fuel poverty metrics to be employed, a significant portion of those 171,091 households in London would almost certainly qualify as fuel poor.

This is confirmed by the findings of our survey. Our data shows that 28.2% of the 2,886 people who responded were “energy insecure”. This includes being unable to afford energy, making involuntary spending trade-offs between food and energy, and falling behind on energy payments.

Worryingly, we found that the rate of energy insecurity in the survey sample is around 2.5 times higher than the official rate of fuel poverty in London (11.5%), as assessed according to the Lilee metric.

It is likely that this figure can be extrapolated for the rest of England. If anything, energy insecurity may be even higher in other regions, given that Londoners tend to have higher-than-average household income.

The UK government is wrongly omitting hundreds of thousands of English households from fuel poverty statistics. Without a more accurate measure, vulnerable households will continue to be overlooked and not get the assistance they desperately need to stay warm.

Torran Semple receives funding from Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) grant EP/S023305/1.

John Harvey does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Looking Back At COVID’s Authoritarian Regimes

After having moved from Canada to the United States, partly to be wealthier and partly to be freer (those two are connected, by the way), I was shocked,…

Published

on

After having moved from Canada to the United States, partly to be wealthier and partly to be freer (those two are connected, by the way), I was shocked, in March 2020, when President Trump and most US governors imposed heavy restrictions on people’s freedom. The purpose, said Trump and his COVID-19 advisers, was to “flatten the curve”: shut down people’s mobility for two weeks so that hospitals could catch up with the expected demand from COVID patients. In her book Silent Invasion, Dr. Deborah Birx, the coordinator of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, admitted that she was scrambling during those two weeks to come up with a reason to extend the lockdowns for much longer. As she put it, “I didn’t have the numbers in front of me yet to make the case for extending it longer, but I had two weeks to get them.” In short, she chose the goal and then tried to find the data to justify the goal. This, by the way, was from someone who, along with her task force colleague Dr. Anthony Fauci, kept talking about the importance of the scientific method. By the end of April 2020, the term “flatten the curve” had all but disappeared from public discussion.

Now that we are four years past that awful time, it makes sense to look back and see whether those heavy restrictions on the lives of people of all ages made sense. I’ll save you the suspense. They didn’t. The damage to the economy was huge. Remember that “the economy” is not a term used to describe a big machine; it’s a shorthand for the trillions of interactions among hundreds of millions of people. The lockdowns and the subsequent federal spending ballooned the budget deficit and consequent federal debt. The effect on children’s learning, not just in school but outside of school, was huge. These effects will be with us for a long time. It’s not as if there wasn’t another way to go. The people who came up with the idea of lockdowns did so on the basis of abstract models that had not been tested. They ignored a model of human behavior, which I’ll call Hayekian, that is tested every day.

These are the opening two paragraphs of my latest Defining Ideas article, “Looking Back at COVID’s Authoritarian Regimes,” Defining Ideas, March 14, 2024.

Another excerpt:

That wasn’t the only uncertainty. My daughter Karen lived in San Francisco and made her living teaching Pilates. San Francisco mayor London Breed shut down all the gyms, and so there went my daughter’s business. (The good news was that she quickly got online and shifted many of her clients to virtual Pilates. But that’s another story.) We tried to see her every six weeks or so, whether that meant our driving up to San Fran or her driving down to Monterey. But were we allowed to drive to see her? In that first month and a half, we simply didn’t know.

Read the whole thing, which is longer than usual.

(0 COMMENTS)

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending