DO NOT COMPLY!

This is a message I've heard from a good number of my like-minded friends, including a social media group to which I belong that is oriented toward preserving - or should I say re-gaining? - our freedoms.

Do not comply!

They're referring in general to the myriad restrictions that have been forced on us all, by unelected health officials and executive-branch leaders at the local, state and national levels, without legislative due process. But they seem to be specifically addressing the wearing of masks.

Don't get me wrong: I'm with them. I do not believe masks are effective in mitigating the spread of viruses. I find them uncomfortable, inconvenient, unsafe in terms of restricting peripheral vision, de-personalizing, and, well, silly-looking. I believe that there are adverse health effects that would be associated with wearing a mask for long periods at a time, especially over a long period of time. And I recognize that there are people with legitimate medical or psychological afflictions that make wearing a mask at all more than just a nuisance.

However, I've been thinking about what it means to comply, or not comply. What is the CDC's end game when it comes to masks? What are they really trying to accomplish: supposedly mitigate the spread of this virus by getting everyone to wear a mask when shopping, dining out, going to movies or other entertainment, and traveling? Or, knowing that nobody really wants to wear one, discourage people from shopping, dining out, going to movies or traveling?

I have my own opinion, but I wanted to see what other like-minded folks think. So I posted the following survey to the social media group page mentioned above:

"Is the CDC's real purpose in requiring mask-wearing:

A. To allow people to live their lives as normally as possible, but to try to prevent the spread of the virus (right or wrong) by requiring that they wear masks while doing so? Or -

B. To use masks as an inconvenience/symbol of authority/discomfort/etc. to try to discourage people from living their lives as normally as possible?

In other words, is the end game to let you do pretty much everything you'd normally do, but with a mask on; or is it to use the mask to try to get you to change/refrain from doing what you'd normally do? (e.g., dining out, shopping, air travel, etc.)"

The group overwhelmingly responded "B," 67-2, so more than 97% of the respondents selected "B."

That served to validate my own view: the CDC and government officials want to restrict our activity by making it inconvenient to engage in the things we want to do, hoping that we'll resist the inconvenience as if that were the real act of non-compliance. But in so doing, we're accepting the restricted activity, which is what they really want. We're complying with their desire to change our lives, our activities.

In this sense, the mask is but a subterfuge, and the idea is to get us so focused on the mask that we don't do the things we'd normally do, because we'd have to don a mask in order to do them, and by God, we're just not going to wear one of those things.

What got me thinking about this in the first place was an upcoming trip to Los Cabos, Mexico, to celebrate my wife's and my 25th anniversary. We had the trip booked, and were getting excited to go. Then, in mid-January, I got an email from our carrier, Southwest Airlines, notifying us of a new CDC requirement that we get tested in Mexico before we could board our return flight. Both my wife and I immediately resisted, and said we weren't going. She was especially concerned that we would be subjected to the PCR test, which she calls "the brain-scraper." Turns out the CDC will accept the less invasive (and expensive) antigen test. My primary objection was simply that I wasn't going to let the CDC force me to get tested.

In other words, I would not comply.

However, that's a hard stop. Refuse to get tested, and you can't fly home. (It's not the airlines' fault; the CDC has authority over them in matters of what it deems "health emergencies.") And if you can't fly home - well, as tempting as an expat move to Cabo is, you're probably just staying home.

Then I began thinking about what the CDC was really after in implementing this new requirement. I looked at the history of their travel warnings, specifically related to Mexico. They've been urging people to not fly throughout the pandemic. However, the CDC has no authority to prevent an individual from flying (unless that individual has an active case of a communicable disease). They could ground the airlines, as they have cruise ships, but that would be impractical, as some air travel is necessary.

Most countries (and some states) have imposed their own inconveniences that resulted in people not flying. Primary among these is the 14-day mandatory quarantine. If I have family in, say, Italy, that requirement might not dissuade me from an extended visit. However, if I want to take a two-week vacation in Italy, having to take a month off to meet the quarantine requirement there, then spend my two weeks enjoying the country, is probably a non-starter.

Not so with Mexico, however. Los Cabos has been open to tourists since July 10. And U.S. tourists have been going to Cabo. Over 80% of Cabo's economy is driven by tourism, and 90% of its visitors are Americans, with 70% of visitors being repeat guests.

Now - do you think the CDC likes this? Apparently, they do not: with the December holiday season approaching, and many Americans pining for warmer climes, the CDC decided to try and nip travel to Mexico in the bud. It raised its designation for travel to Mexico to 4, or "very high," and said that all travel to the country should be avoided. It based this, supposedly, on "the numbers." The head of the WHO, in lockstep with the CDC, said, "Mexico is in bad shape."

This piqued my curiosity, given our travel plans, so I looked into "the numbers." The US ranks 7th among all countries in cases/1M population with over 83,000; Mexico ranks 93rd, with less than 15,000. The US ranks 9th in deaths/1M population with 1,430; Mexico ranks 18th, with a little under 1,300.

So the CDC really doesn't want people traveling to Mexico, supposedly based on "the numbers," in spite of the fact that Mexico's numbers - especially in the winter tourist zones like Los Cabos and Cancun - are much better than those in the US. They can't force Mexico to restrict travel or require a self-quarantine period. But they can make it a nuisance for Americans to return to the US if they do go, in hopes of dissuading them from travel.

This is consistent with the conclusion of the informal mask poll that I posted: it's not that the CDC really wants more people to get tested; if they did, they could easily mandate testing in the US. No, they want to suppress behavior. They're hoping you won't get tested in Mexico, because the prospect of having to arrange for a test, the potential discomfort, the cost, leads you to change your travel plans. That's the real endgame, not testing.

And that changed my thinking. By canceling our trip, I'd actually be playing into the CDC's hands. Refusing to comply in this instance didn't mean giving up our trip because we refuse to get tested, it would mean taking the trip anyway, in spite of the CDC's wishes. Besides, the cancellation deadline for the villa we'd rented had passed, and Mexico is well-prepared to administer the tests - better prepared than the US, in fact. Every hotel and timeshare in Los Cabos has tests, medical personnel, and the necessary forms to present to the airlines. The airport will have last-minute antigen testing, with results available within an hour or less. Kiosks are being set up in the tourist areas for testing. The Los Cabos tourism website lists hospitals and clinics that offer testing, which types of tests are offered, the turnaround time for results, and the facility's contact information.

Besides, we're only going to have one 25th anniversary. And the place we're renting is well worth the trip, even if defying the CDC's wishes weren't:

So take that, CDC. I'll send you a postcard.

Back to masks. I see a corollary relationship with mask requirements. See, the CDC/governments can't make me wear a mask. But they can fine or shut down a restaurant or store that doesn't either require me to wear one, or refuse me service.

Some of my friends address that by seeking out establishments that don't require patrons to wear masks. All well and good. My wife and I enjoy Mexican food, so I googled "Mexican restaurant that doesn't require masks near me." I found one place in the Kansas City metro. I could go there, and not wear a mask, and be happy that I'm refusing to comply with the county mask mandate.

Or could I? What am I really complying with? The county's desire to change the way I live my life, by keeping me from going to whatever Mexican (or other) restaurant I want to patronize. I applaud what this place is doing. But it's not among my KC Mexican faves. It's 22 minutes from my house. That's not an insurmountable obstacle. However, there are five Mexican restaurants that we love, all within 10 minutes. They're places we've frequented for more than 20 years, and places that we tried to help survive through the shutdown, by frequently ordering takeout food from them. We continue to support them by dining in. They're not to blame for the requirements; they're forced into it by the city, county or state. Blame government.

The place that doesn't require masks also doesn't get very good reviews (admittedly, some of the recent bad reviews are from Karen-ish mask nazis who walk out appalled that they're not requiring masks), and it's counter-serve, vs. a true sit-down restaurant.

See, I don't want to be forced to change my favorite restaurants, stores, or other businesses. I'm not going to change doctors. And I'm sure as hell not giving up travel. Air travel is necessary for my job, and travel is too big a part of our lives to give it up. I traveled on business four times last year after March, and my wife accompanied me on two of those trips, to Florida's Atlantic coast. We also went to Taos on a driving trip (in spite of a 14-day quarantine requirement in New Mexico, which we somehow forgot to comply with), and to northwest Arkansas on another road trip. Every one of those trips was memorable, and I wouldn't have given them up - especially last year - for anything.

I have other friends who address these requirements by simply defying them. They'll go shopping, or walk to their table in a restaurant, without a mask. And that's perfectly fine. If they are approached by someone who tells them they should wear a mask, I'm assuming they'll have an appropriate response at the ready.

What's more likely to happen, however, is that some passive-aggressive mask nazi will become upset, and not confront them, but turn in the store or the restaurant. (Most jurisdictions and states have complaint hotlines established so that citizens can turn in their fellow citizens and local businesses to the authorities, just like in Stalinist Russia.) Then, the business may get fined or even shut down.

As noted earlier, I like my favorite stores and restaurants. I want them to stay in business, to stay open. I wouldn't want them to have to pay a fine, or close, because of me.

So I will occasionally don a mask, for the minimum amount of time I can get away with, in order to continue to live my life as freely as possible. I know, it sounds oxymoronic. (It certainly is moronic.) But in the grand scheme of things I'm willing to give up, I am absolutely not willing to give up flying, eating in the restaurants I want to eat in, or shopping at the stores where I want to shop. To preserve those rights, I am willing to give up being bare-faced for very short periods of time.

How short? Only once have I had to wear a mask for more than 30 minutes, and usually much less than that. (The lone exception was the visitation for my brother-in-law, who lost his battle with depression last year. I was there for two hours. And I wasn't about to dishonor my sister and her kids by refusing to be there, for any reason.) Here's my routine. You probably do the same things, but if you don't, maybe this will help.

I frequently shop at Target, because I can get groceries, alcohol (in Missouri, where the liquor laws are sane), and household goods in one trip. The mask doesn't go on until I'm in the vestibule between the inner and outer doors. Like most men, I organize my shopping trips with the precision of a military operation. Rather than just wander the aisles, my list is prepared in aisle order. It's on my iPhone, which has Face ID. So when it goes into sleep mode, the mask comes down to wake it up and get the list back, rather than messing with a passcode. I'm in and out of the store in less than 20 minutes, every time. And as soon as I hit the exit vestibule, off comes the mask.

Restaurants, of course, are easy. The mask goes on just inside the front door, and comes off when I reach the table, before I sit down. Sometimes I put it back on after I get up to leave, and then take it off just outside the door. But sometimes, depending on the place, I just carry it out. I figure if anyone squawks, the restaurant can just say they kicked me out.

When I fly, I have a system (pre-pandemic, I traveled over 110 days a year on business, so I'm pretty travel-savvy). The mask stays off until I'm in the security line. Immediately after clearing security (I have TSA pre-check, so that always goes fast), I either buy a bottle of water or fill one that I brought. I also always have a bag of almonds with me. I sit down, well away from anyone else, and the mask comes off to eat and drink.

Except I don't really eat and drink. I do some, but I also frequently just raise the bottle to my lips and pretend to drink, or pretend to grab an almond from the bag, and chew on ... nothing. The mask is required for boarding, so when I get up to board, on it goes. Boarding generally takes about 20 minutes, and it might take another ten to get up to about 10,000 feet. Then the tray table comes down, the mask comes off, and the eating and drinking (or pretend eating and drinking) resume. I usually put the tray table back up at around 10,000 feet, and don the mask again until I leave the jetway. Then the water bottle comes back out. Depending on my proximity to other passengers and what they're doing, I may start and finish the eating and drinking charade before and after 10,000 feet. I've never been hassled by flight attendants or passengers, on either airline that I fly.

Hotels are easy. I nearly always stay at Hilton properties, and I get the digital key, which lets me use my phone to enter the room. I select a room on the app in advance. So when I arrive, I bypass the front desk, so they have no opportunity to ask me to wear a mask. Once I've checked in, I figure they're not going to kick me out (they desperately need to fill rooms), so I just enter and leave without a mask. Same on the elevators (I usually wait for an empty one), and in the hallways. I see most other guests doing the same thing.

Look, I want it both ways. I want to have my cake and eat it, too. But it's impossible (without a bona fide medical condition) to fly without a mask. Not wearing one in stores or restaurants in jurisdictions where they're required puts the business at risk, which I won't do, because I selfishly want them to stay open so I can continue to patronize the businesses I choose to patronize, rather than have to change my favorites. (The owner of the Mexican restaurant that doesn't require them said he'd gladly pay a fine, and that's perfectly okay. It's the place that doesn't want to - or maybe can't, because of being shut down for months and then having to operate at limited capacity - that I'm concerned about.)

I'm a firm believer in free choice. You do you, and I'll do me. So I have no issue with someone who wants to change their preferences to only shop in stores that don't require masks. Nor with people who go to their favorite stores and restaurants without wearing one. Nor with people who refuse to fly due to the requirement. And I certainly have no issue with anyone who legitimately can't wear a mask due to a medical disorder.

I'll probably get lit up in the comments, so let me reiterate: I believe that masks are ineffective. I disagree with the jurisdictional requirements to wear them, and with the health "experts'" opinions. I believe there are ulterior motives underlying the mandates. Masks are uncomfortable. They're hot. They're hard to breathe through. They fog my glasses.

However, this isn't a both/and situation. It is binary. You're not refusing to comply when refusing to wear a mask. You are choosing what to comply with, and complying with one thing while refusing to do another. Maybe that means not flying. Maybe it means not eating out, or doing curbside grocery pickup or grocery delivery (we've had mixed results with other people picking out our groceries, especially meat and veggies). Or maybe it means not eating at your favorite restaurants, instead choosing one that is willing to defy jurisdictional requirements. And that's fine. You do you.

My own preference is to determine what the CDC, et al are really trying to force me to do, or not do, or change ... and then refusing to comply with that. I just happen to believe that they're really after making me change my life, not making me wear a mask or get a test. I'm going to keep living my life to the full.

And if the CDC thinks they can use a two-inch by four-inch strip of cloth to imprison me in my own home, they need to think again.