top of page

Our new non-essential reality

Editorial submitted by Conrad Doyle  It is a rare phenomenon in which we find ourselves today. Things we never could have imagined are now our new reality. Our aunts, uncles and parents, that grew up in the shadows of the great depression have undoubtedly watched the younger generations respond to being told no. No, you can't do that. No you cannot go there. No you can't have it, and no, you cannot get whatever, whoever or wherever you are wanting. Oh, and no — you can not buy it either.  Shelves are bare, preferred brands are sold out and on backorder from suppliers. Just try to find a bag of dried beans or rice. They have become as endangered as an honest politician.  Some grocery staples will be months in backlog from manufacturers and shippers. Even corporations will be at the mercy of the farmers, planters, reapers, processors, shippers, etc. — all of which are at the mercy of the weather, climate and TIME.  If “hindsight is 20/20,” as the old proverb goes, how many of us have learned from ,and have made provisions, for life as it is currently, and is likely to be for the unforeseeable future? Sadly, very few of us have, or even know how, to grow and preserve our own foods. We have become lazy, assuming and tragically dependent on the government or essential members to meet our nutritional needs. We demand they meet our life-sustaining needs. We demand they help us raise, feed, clothe, vaccinate, medically treat, and educate our children from pre-school through college. And oh, by the way, it is essential these “needs” are free. What is an ”essential” employee or job, and who makes that determination? If you are one of the millions of non-essential citizens, you can be found at home waiting for the ”ruling class,” or the “essential” workers, to decide whether or not to allow the ”non-essentials” of society to resume life as “normal.” The ruling elite, self-described essential members (aka politicians) continue to sit in their plush offices (paid for by the non-essential tax-paying citizens) and make decisions about the who, what, where, when and how their subjects will be allowed to return to their non-essential lives, working at their non-essential jobs, paying their non-essential bills. Then we have the non-essential businesses owned by non-essential entrepreneurs that provide other non-essential individuals with non-essential employment so they can return to their non-essential lives. Okay, enough already. You get the non-essential point...  Of all of the non-essential activities that we are advised to refrain from, attending any faith-based services has drawn the greatest and loudest amount of public ire. Everyone has an opinion about this edict, as would be expected. The right to worship together with others of like faith is likely a more emotionally charged argument than the hotly contested right to bear arms.  The tenets of a given religion is not the issue. No one cares whether a particular religion is a heresy when compared to another. The anger is derived from the “forbidding” of public congregating. If you take out the reason for the congregation of people (religion), then you have a group of citizens that share time, space and air with other citizens that are at the same activity. A group of humans meeting in a confined area, inhaling and exhaling. It doesn't matter whether it is a ballgame or a worship service.  The grouping of people in a confined area has been proven to be the best conduit for quickly and efficiently transferring a pathogen, contaminating and killing large numbers of people, and spreading it like a wildfire.  Because of the disastrous consequences of such meetings, our legislators have, in the words of our State Representative, taken “an unprecedented and historic turn of events, we are doing remote voting from our offices to finish our work in the Kentucky General Assembly due to the COVID-19 virus. We must be on the campus of the Capitol in order to vote, but passed a new rule today that in these extraordinary times will allow us to vote from our individual offices to keep 100 of us from being in the same room”.  Leadership in the House should be applauded for having the foresight to ensure our elected officials are availed the opportunity to carry out the responsibilities of their position in a socially safe manner. It’s unfortunate that our State Rep. made a choice to voluntarily interject herself into a public protest.  Isn't it ironic that she aligned herself with a group that was protesting the Governor’s decision to close businesses and gatherings that he considers non-essential. While I do not totally disagree with her comments, I do find it hypocritical that she benefitted from the exact edicts that kept her safe, she protests against. According to the video posted online, safe social distancing was not invited to the protest as the 100+ crowd can be seen standing within arms reach of one another, some less than a foot apart.