That's how it works. That's how all of this works.

So, a group of Republicans in the House of Representatives want Vice President Pence to count only the "right" Electoral votes from swing states that Trump insists he really won, in spite of actual, verified, certified vote counts that say otherwise.  And that, they insist, will put Trump back in office. 

Not really. 

 Article II of the Constitution, amended by the 12th Amendment, directs the States to conduct elections and select electors according to rules they set forth, then to convey the *sealed* results to the President of the Senate, who will open and announce the results. It does not give the President of the Senate the perogative to decide which electors from which states he or she will pick. 

It doesn't matter if the VP performs the duty of presiding over the Senate on January 6th or not. The results that were certified and sent by the states are what they are, and the only ones that count.

Loosey-goosey personal interpretations of the Constitution, which Republicans abhorred from 1854 to 2014, don't trump the actual Constitution or laws passed by Congress and the states and upheld by the judicial branch, no matter how hysterically they are expressed by the likes of Louie Gohmert or Matt Gaetz. All 50 states have prescribed processes for selecting electors based on the popular vote returns within that state. These laws have been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. Who gets to vote, how they vote and when they vote is decided by the states (within limits established by the Constitution and various amendments). When the votes are counted is also up to the states, as long as the vote count concludes before the states certify the counts and electors are designated. 

Unless fraud can be proven, the vote counts stand. No court in the states or federal judiciary has found any evidence of fraud that would affect the outcome. Although they did find a case of two dead folks whose votes were cast, for Trump.

Joe Biden won the election according to the laws of the 50 states and the Consitution and laws of the United States. Pissy tweets and GOP hissy fits aside, Biden is the President-elect and will be inaugurated on January 20th. 

It's how it works. It's how all of this works.

More Thoughts on COVID

Recently a friend asked my thoughts on a podcast from the CATO Institute. CATO is a libertarian oriented think tank. The podcast titled "Following the Science and Pandemic Policy and Outcomes," features an interview with Dr Jeff Singer, MD, FACS. The interview can be heard here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/following-the-science-and-pandemic-policy-outcomes/id158961219?i=1000495909421

It is notable that among the physicians who  question the premises underlying current public health recommendations on controlling Coronavirus, how few have epidemiology or infectious disease control credentials. Dr Singer is a surgeon. Donald Trump's COVID advisor, Dr Scott Atlas, is a radiologist, etc, etc. Dr Singer, in the podcast, points out that they learn about viruses in their first year in medical school. They also learn about the anatomy of the heart early on. I'm not going to let an orthopedist do heart surgery on me though.

The false narrative that 85% (or 80%) of people who wear masks get COVID anyway needs to be tossed out. It is a manipulation of a data point in a larger study. Used as a stand alone point, it is misleading and potentially deadly to some. What it refers to is people who wear masks in close-packed environments with other folks, many of whom are doing things that require they be unmasked at least part of the time. Examples are restaurants and bars where you are eating and drinking, churches where there is a lot of singing, or closely packed outdoor events like large outdoor political rallies with lots of shouting and standing in packed long lines to enter. Given the type of activities going on in these environments, I have to wonder how well (and much) those folks who say they were masked actually wore masks and how well.

The other thing about the masking discussion in the podcast is that it's focused on how well masks do at protecting the wearer from others. Surgical and cloth masks worn by the public probably afford, on average, a 50% level of protection.  What makes the difference is how well that same mask protects others from the wearer. And that level of protection is more like 90%, which means if both parties are wearing masks and one is infected, you're still looking at a >95% level of protection. And that, as CDC Director Redfield pointed out in a Senate hearing, is better than you'd ask from a vaccine.

The masking issue, by the way, illustrates why I abandoned libertarianism in my late 30s/early 40s. Libertarianism simply doesn't allow that real life often requires communitarian solutions. COVID and most public health solutions are compelling examples of that.

But the bulk of the podcast dealt with questions of lockdowns, their efficacy, social,  emotional and psychological costs, and economic impacts. And whether a herd-immunity strategy would be better. So, my thoughts on that:

First off: the benchmark for lock downs in popular imagination is NYC, Milan, Rome or Madrid. These were situations where the cities and surrounding regions were taken by surprise by the speed and source of the infections. They also made some initial and serious miscalculations in their response. In fairness health officials had based their pandemic response on influenza and SARS models and Coronavirus turned out to be a different breed of cat. Also, population density, public infrastructure and social and behavioral factors favored explosive growth of the disease.

Most lockdowns throughout the US looked a lot different. Grocery stores, hardware stores and restaurants changed their operations but did not close. Vital services were sustained. A lot of industries were able to modify procedures to keep their businesses viable. And the economic pain was mitigated to a huge degree by economic relief packages pushed through congress in the spring.

We are now  heading into a surge that will likely be significantly worse than this spring's outbreak, certainly in terms of hospitalizations. If numbers of deaths aren't as high, it will be due to a better understanding of what works and what doesn't that we didn't have in March. Still, I don't expect there to be anything like the shut downs we saw in NYC. And, back then, even in NYC and large European cities, there were still measures taken to ensure people could get necessary supplies.

The podcast is largely focused on deaths, which is a horrifyingly large number on it's own, but Dr Singer touches only lightly on  illness that doesn't result in deaths. People who are hospitalized with COVID but don't die -- and even those who don't get hospitalized -- can experience debilitating symptoms and lingering effects that cost them and our economy for years. Many of them will also die years before their time. And those COVID effects will be the co-morbidities this next time around.

About those co-morbidities that folks have been saying are skewing and inflating numbers of COVID deaths, that is another false narrative. Modeling as a discipline is a popular punching bag for many who currently occupy the right end of the political spectrum, because they don't know or don't care what they're talking about. *Prospective* models based on assumptions are tricky and need to be used with caution. Models that are based on well-documented occurrences are a different thing. We know how many folks are going to die this year or next year of heart disease or COBPD because we know how many have. So if there is an increase in death among people with those conditions who get COVID, those are clearly excess deaths due to COVID, they aren't due to greedy doctors tinkering with statistics as Trump and company would like to have folks think.

In the podcast, Dr Singer says -- correctly -- that herd immunity is a phenomenon, not a strategy. Herd immunity can be reached through vaccination programs, and through naturally acquired immunity and usually though a combination of both.

Here's the critical point; no credible public health official would aspire to naturally acquired herd immunity as an approach to resolving an epidemic, certainly not with a disease that has the morbidity and mortality that COVID has. To achieve naturally acquired herd immunity from COVID you probably need a 60-70 percent level of immunity in the population. Some argue it need not be that high, that it might be as low as 40 percent.

Right now, we are recording less than 10 million cases, less than 2.7 percent of the population has been infected. Dr Singer suggests in the podcast  that the actual number of infected persons my be 10 times higher, something less than 27 percent infected. In the best case scenario, a lot more people will have to get sick, and between one and three percent of them die, and many more incur years -- or life -- long disability from COVID, to reach herd immunity. By the way, Dr Singer thinking the actual number  of infections is 10 times higher puts a spotlight on the Trump Administration's utter failure at testing.

In contrast, a nationwide policy of mask wearing, encouraged and modeled by our political leaders, and with policies of closing down or limiting  commercial and public services selectively will still blunt the spread and impact of COVID. Had such been implemented at the outset of the epidemic in the US, our death toll could well have stayed below 50,000. That translates to 180,000 parents, grandparents, children, spouses and siblings still alive. That translates to thousands of "essential workers," school teachers, nurses, physicians, bus drivers, etc still being alive.

What about the schools? Let's not kid around, that is a conundrum. A sizable portion of our population is poorly served by broadband. Service is spotty and ridiculously expensive. Many locations -- and they tend to be where people are less affluent -- don't have broadband at all, or folks have to rely on 4G. Most companies have unofficial limits on "unlimited plans," which means your access slows to a crawl when you pass the limit. That hurts kids who are learning at home.

There is also the reality that teachers and school official are often de facto first responders when it comes to spotting signs of child endangerment in the home. So any policy of closing schools is fraught will direct  and indirect consequences. On the other hand, children above the age of 12 are as capable of harboring and spreading Coronavirus as any adult, which means our junior and senior high schools are able to act as epidemic engines.

For what it's worth, when I drive past schools in West Virginia's Eastern Panhandle and see kids going into school or moving between classes, their mask compliance appears far better than adults in stores around the area.

Years ago, Jerry Pournelle and Larry Niven wrote SciFi novels that became unofficial libertarian manifestos (also vastly superior, literary-wise, than anything by Ayn Rand). The point they made in their novels was that national government could and should, when extraordinary situations arise, be the responder of choice because it is the organization able to muster massive amounts of resources and to deploy them where needed. They further expressed concern that when government intervened when it wasn't needed, it squandered -- and diluted -- its credibility and energy.

The Coronavirus epidemic in the United States is one of those occasions calling for government action and response.

Militia?

A lot of folks have settled, comfortably, into the idea of forming militia to enforce their personal whims and notions. Tricked out with tactical gear and a variety of weapons, these are more properly called gangs. 

Real militia, in America, are organized according to precedents laid down in the US Constitution (Article I) and elaborated in the Federalist Papers. 

Real militia historically conformed to the Militia acts of 1792 and 1795, amended throughout the 1800s and superseded by the militia act of 1903, which organized the National Guard. 

Real militia report to a duly elected chain of command and conform to training standards and discipline prescribed by Congress. 

Real militia are led by officers, commissioned by Congress and guided by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 

Real militia have fought and died to preserve our freedoms and liberty. It is a proud tradition that represents the best of our nation.

Mimicking militia to intimidate citizens pursuing their constitutional rights to vote or make their voices heard is no better -- far worse actually -- than stolen valor at the local VFW or Walmart. It insults the patriotism and dedication to the rule of law on which our country is founded and that free men and women have died for.

Again, Masks Work.

Wednesday night, October 15th, Donald Trump repeated to Savannah Guthrie something that isn't true. When discussing masks and their effectiveness in controlling Coronavirus spread, Trump said that 85 percent of people who used masks got COVID-19.

That's not true.

Trump cherry-picked a study and took it completely out of context. Here are some facts: 

Masks work. A simple cloth or surgical mask will protect folks around you from up to 95 percent of any Coronavirus you might spread if you are infected. Did you ever wonder why doctors and nurses in ORs wear masks? Hint: it's not to protect them from you. It's to protect you from them. Masks work.

A simple cloth or surgical mask will protect you from up to 50 percent of any Coronavirus another person might spread to you if they aren't masked. If they are wearing a mask that 95 percent rule I just mentioned applies. Again, masks work. 

Yes, when COVID-19 first hit, many doctors (including Anthony Fauci) recommended against widespread mask use. That was because there weren't enough masks available for first responders who were at highest risk, and the risk that asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic could spread the infection wasn't fully appreciated. As doctors learned more, and more supplies became available, they updated their guidance, as people do if they are professional and objective. 

Please, wear a mask and listen to people who know what they're talking about, instead of a panicky real estate hustler who is trying to keep his job. It might save your life.

Remembering Ike's Role in Making Our World

Eisenhower visiting his troops

When I was growing up, President Eisenhower was viewed in our house as a kindly old duffer who was a good general and, at best, a so-so president. As I grew up, matured and read more, I came to realize what an exceptional figure he was and how much he dominated the world we Americans have lived in. 

In his excellent book, Commander in Chief, Eric Larrabee writes of Eisenhower at war's end:

"Eisenhower's truly astonishing accomplishment was swallowed up in the victory itself. Not many really noticed, as he so often arranged it, the plece of legerdemain that had been performed. The conduct of the war had been removed from British hands so deftly that they had no legitimate cause for complaint. His policy was simplicity itself:  "he would not let either a British or an American general single-handedly," writes Martin Blumenson;  "both British and Americans had to win it together." There was going to be no mean-spirited haggling over honor or glory;  victory was going to be shared... "His real achievement," writes [Stephen] Ambrose, "was that he had won without alienating the British."  The word "indispensable" should be used with care, but no candidate has been proposed for the role of doing what Eisenhower did.

"Churchill understood. "Let me tell you what General Eisenhower has meant to us ...," he wrote to President Truman after Roosevelt had died and the European war had ended. "In his headquarters unity and strategy were the only reigning spirits. . . . At no time has the principle of alliance between noble races been carried and maintained at so high a pitch. In the name of the British Empire and Commonwealth I express to you our admiration of the firm, far-sighted, and illuminating character and qualities of General of the Armies Eisenhower."  And lastly, which no one much noticed either, the design of Roosevelt had been supplanted by the design of Eisenhower. America was not going to withdraw from European concerns as the President had wished but would embrace them as Eisenhower had learned to do. In the figure of this man we were in Europe to stay, and on this rock would be built the Truman Doctrine, the Marshall Plan, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and the world we have lived in since."

Ike is a leader to look to for guidance in our own time.

Equivalency?

A friend of mine posted this meme on Facebook. He is retired military and fairly conservative. On cue, someone replied to my friend's post with words to the effect of: "but, Obama fired Mattis!" I suppose that's meant to establish equivalency and absolve Trump of the behavior Mattis found "felony stupid."

Anyway, it got me thinking and I decided to pull the thread a little. General Mattis and President Obama fell out over the Iran nuclear deal in 2013. When that sort of thing happens, the general (or senior government official) does one of two things; they shut up and march, or they quit on principle. Mattis did the latter.

What did Obama do? He accepted Mattis's retirement request, praised his service, and ensured Mattis had time to arrange turnover to his replacement and retire in a dignified manner. Since then, Obama has never uttered a bad word about Mattis. 

As Secretary of Defense, Mattis's relationship with Trump grew increasingly vitriolic. The last straw was Trump abandoning our Kurdish allies in Syria, at which point Mattis offered his resignation. Because Trump refused to see Mattis (and had refused to meet with him for some time), Mattis published his letter openly, so Trump couldn't ignore it. 

What did Trump do? He peremptorily fired Mattis and has continued to bad-mouth him since. Mattis was also allowed no time to arrange turnover to his replacement as SECDEF, which adversely impacted operations of the Defense Department. 

So, if you choose to ponder this tale of a General and two presidents, consider what "equivalency" it reveals.

Rick Rescorla COL, USA Ret. -- Hero of 9/11

I wrote this two years ago and thought it worth sharing again.

Rick Rescorla, COL, USA Ret, was unquestionably one of the heroes of 9/11. He was a veteran of both the British Army and the American Army (pictured here at Ia Drang in 1965, where he served as a Company Commander during some of the heaviest fighting). 

In February, 1993, Rescorla was the head of security for Dean Witter (later merged with Morgan-Stanley in 1997). He figured the World Trade Center, which had just been attacked by terrorists, would be targeted again and determined to be ready when it happened. He drilled employees relentlessly on evacuating the building and warned the City and NY/NJ Ports Authority, which managed the WTC, about his concerns.

After the first plane hit the WTC on 9/11, the Ports Authority announced over the PA system that all persons should remain in place. Rescorla disregarded the announcement and implemented Morgan Stanley's evacuation procedure. Because of his quick action and years of preparation, over 2,500 Morgan Stanley employees evacuated the WTC before the towers fell. It will be impossible to tell how many others followed the Morgan Stanley employees out of the building because of their example. It is evident however that Rick Rescorla's actions halved (at least) the death toll on 9/11. 

When the last employees were out of the building, Rick went back up to the Morgan Stanley offices to make sure there were no stragglers. He was making that extra effort that defines heroes when the tower collapsed. His body was never recovered. 

His is one story of heroism from that day. We should #NeverForget.

COVID-19 vs Ebola

It amazes me that so many of the same people who refuse to wear masks, refuse to practice social distancing, and demand we open schools in regions where COVID-19 is surging, are the same people who lost their minds over Ebola 6 years ago. Ebola was actually pretty hard to get if you weren't in family- or health care worker-level contact with a patient who was experiencing symptoms (and you weren't using PPE and practicing good infection control measures).

 Ebola occurred in one corner of the huge African continent, yet people who traveled from the opposite end of the continent, like Kenya and South Africa, were harassed and -- in the case of a nurse traveling from Kenya -- forced into quarantine by Governor Chris Christie. The person who now occupies the White House insisted that the United States should refuse entry to desperately ill American missionary health care workers who became infected working in a Liberian emergency clinic. Those health care workers were transported in isolation pods and treated in one of the few medical facilities in this country equipped to handle Ebola patients, and they were Americans. They survived, by the way, and we learned a lot about treating Ebola patients in the process. If Trump and his amen choir had their way, they would have died in Liberia. 

COVID-19 has a much lower case fatality rate than Ebola but is far more communicable, so it is actually a more deadly epidemic. Since it is a novel virus, we have little or no natural immunity.  There is no vaccine and no proven treatment yet. And still, Trump and his followers insist it's like a cold, or the flu, dismiss the warnings of health experts and ridicule the proven measures that will stop this disease in its tracks. 

Ebola killed two Americans, both of whom contracted the disease overseas, one of whom died overseas. Ebola further sickened (I believe) six more, only two of whom contracted the disease in the United States while nursing an undiagnosed patient in Dallas. 

COVID-19 has infected millions in the United States and has 200,000 deaths since the outbreak landed on our shores in March.

Remember in November.

The Myth of Irish Slaves

Irish slaves in America?  Well, since the allegation pops up on social media occasionally, I thought it worth exploring and dissecting. Let's be clear from the outset; it's a myth. But like most myths, this one has elements of truth. So let's look at those and then contrast and compare Irish "slavery" in America with the actual institution of slavery in America.

The Irish slave myth conflates indentured service with slavery. Many English men and women voluntarily entered into indenture contracts to make their way to America. They would work an agreed number of years in exchange for passage. On completion of their term of service men might be given deed to land or help establishing themselves in a trade. Women were usually "entitled" to a husband during or after their service was completed. 

English men and some women were also sentenced to transportation for lesser crimes. They were usually sentenced to a prescribed number of years and shipped off to one of the American colonies where they were turned over to bailiffs who in turn, farmed them out to plantations where they would work off their sentences. At the end of their sentence, if they survived, they were set free and usually stayed in the colony.

You may notice that I have referred to English indentured servants (okay, Welsh, Cornsh and Scots were indentured also) and this essay is supposed to be about Irish men and women. Well, while there was a steady stream of Irish immigrants to America, there weren't a lot of indentured servants. By the mid-1600s, England had established a harsh, iron grip over Ireland. No crime committed by an Irishman was minor enough to preclude hanging, shooting or just trampling under horses' hooves. There wasn't much interest in sentencing Irish men and women to transportation. Nor was there a financial interest in voluntary indenture agreements. Why clutch fractious Irish immigrants to your colonial breasts when they were likely to stir trouble and whose loyalty to the English crown was doubtful. 

By the way, the life of these indentured servants was not easy. Many (maybe 50% in some areas) were worked to death. Those sentenced to transportation certainly had it worse than those who entered into voluntary agreements. Transportation was also a 17th and 18th century version of today's private prison industry. Judges who sentenced young, healthy laborers to transportation (for even the least offenses) might expect a kickback from a colonial company's representative in England.

Of course, the real problem with indentured labor was that you couldn't keep them past a certain point. Also, if they escaped they might be hard to find, particularly if they were in a city such as Philadelphia, Boston, or New York. 

Starting fairly early in the 1800s, as the industrial revolution took hold in the United States, and at the same time canal and railroad construction drew large numbers of Irish immigrants to America, a popular argument took hold among slavery's apologists. The argument went thus: African slaves were better off than the "wage slaves" in the north, who were cruelly treated by overseers, paid a pittance and often bound to the companies they worked for by contracts and indebtedness. In contrast, African slaves in the southern states were cared for by their masters who fed and clothed them. Not only were the slaves cared for because they were valuable property, they were loved, as if they were family members. 

This argument gained traction after the Civil War and was integral to the "lost cause" myth perpetuated by the United Daughters of the Confederacy and others who sympathized with the "nobility" of the slavers. 

The context of the Irish Slave myth usually comes down to "White folk suffered too, maybe even worse than black folks. So, why are black folks getting all the attention and benefits?" Let's dissect that bit of mythology.

Yes, a lot of white immigrants to America suffered privation, hardship and early deaths. But pay attention to the critical word, immigrants. Leaving aside those who were sentenced to transportation  white men and women who departed their homes for America did so voluntarily. If any Africans voluntarily set sail for America in the 16th through 19th centuries, they were so few as to not matter. The millions who made it to Americs during those centuries did so in chains. 

Moreover, once they arrived, they  -- and their descendants -- were pretty much locked into involuntary servitude and given a status no different than farm equipment or livestock, forever. 

That was not a reality for any Irish -- or any other non-Africans who came to Anerica in those years. 

Some Observations, Analysis and Opinions on COVID-19 and "Reopening."

Some observations, analysis and opinions on COVID-19 and "reopening. I appreciate any of my former colleagues and current friends correcting anything I got wrong.

-- Warning, it's a bit long --

I favor a hazard reduction approach to protecting yourself and others from COVID-19.

It appears, now, that fomites (inanimate objects) aren't a very efficient route of transmission. That's not to say they can't be, just that it isn't likely relative to droplet spread. There hasn't been much published on the risk of fecal oral or fecal face spread but I suspect it plays a larger role in institutional spread than fomites and may come close to droplet spread. I think in a classroom of young children it may be an understudied risk. 

One thing to keep in mind about asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic carriers is that they are probably not efficient carriers. By that I mean because they aren't coughing or sneezing they aren't propelling a lot of virus into the environment. They are capable of spreading the virus, but not particularly well.

When you hear or read about fomite spread you need to differentiate between very brief intervals between the object being contaminated and someone getting exposed, versus an object being contaminated and then being undisturbed for several hours. Or, several minutes if outside and exposed to UV, high temps (>90F), or wind. Almost all studies showing SARS COV-2 surviving for hours and days on surfaces or in the air reflect lab conditions, not real world/real environment conditions; and literature that report those studies make that distinction.

So, the significant danger for most of us is droplet spread from people expelling virus contained in particles usually 6 to 12 feet away from us, farther if forcibly expelled by an explosive sneeze, forceful cough or spitting. Or if you're in a crowded area with a lot of people expelling the virus by singing, talking loudly to be heard over a lot of background noise, etc. 

There is definitely a time-dose relationship between who gets COVID-19 and who doesn't. 

So what do I mean by harm or hazard reduction: the simplest thing is wear a mask (which depending on the quality -- assuming it's not N-95 -- reduces your exposure chances 20-50%. Your mask also reduces risk to others around you up to 90% (source control)). If you encounter someone not wearing a mask give them a wide berth, maybe 20 feet. 

Spend as little time as possible in indoor facilities; if you go to the store get what you went for, pay and  get out. There is no need to walk the aisles looking for that impulse buy you know is waiting for you, or to socialize with neighbors. 

Keep hand sanitizer with you and use it liberally after you've been in the store or bought gas, etc.

These suggestions are for people who may be incidentally or casually exposed, who aren't in high risk situations or occupations. And, of course, who aren't physiologically at higher risk.

People who face institutional exposure need to understand the mechanics of exposure in their particular environments. Most concerning are people who work directly with COVID-19 patients; most are already trained and educated in how to work in such a high risk environment. As long as they have sufficient personal protective equipment (PPE) and are able to follow the buddy principal and other safety protocols, they can operate safely. 

Front-line responders, ER workers, primary care clinic workers face greater challenges because they don't know who is a carrier and who has hay fever or a simple cough or cold until they have done a preliminary exam. They have to take as many precautions as they can without making it impossible to do their jobs. 

The people I worry most about are service workers who deal with an unending stream of the public, some of whom refuse to wear masks or wear them improperly, or think their constitutional rights include close, loud berating of the person trying to get their coffee or check out their groceries. I don't understand why stores don't refuse admission to people who won't mask or mask properly. Through such neglect, they put their employees and customers at risk to mollify selfish ignoramuses. It seems like such a poor return. 

And then we get to reopening schools and assessing risk to students, teachers, administrative and support staffs. 

Studies indicate that young children (think K-5) are at a significantly lower risk of getting infected. It may be their respiratory systems don't, at that age, retain particle in the lungs long enough, or pull them in deep enough, to cause infection. (I hypothesize that may be an evolutionary advantage to protect the species' young from some of our ancient diseases, tuberculosis among others.) However, starting around age 10, children do appear to become exposed and able to spread the virus at a level approaching that of adults. Since children are physiologically different, some have stronger immune systems than others and some are more heavily exposed at home and in their non-school environment (remember, it's a time-dose relationship) you can't draw a hard fast line at age 10 and say that those on one side are okay and those on the other side aren't.

The school reopening proposals I've looked at tend to be similar; reduced class sizes and somewhat reduced contact hours for K-5 with increasingly reduced contact hours for children in intermediate and secondary grades. Many are offering blended and 100% online options. If school districts are able to ensure good ventilation in their buildings, sufficient distance between students in the classrooms, enough teachers to staff classrooms with half the students they're normally staffed for, it might work. But that's a big if, considering our public schools were strapped financially for decades before the current fatwa against public education was issued by our current administration and Department of Education. 

So now that we're talking politics and policy, let's jump right in. The United States has a lousy primary health care system and -- thanks to COVID-19 and serious incompetence at the federal and (some) states' level -- a tertiary care system that is in deep trouble. We also have a lot of children who live in poverty and suffer poor health and malnutrition and, consequently, have compromised immune systems. And many of those children live in dire circumstances that are invisible to their communities. In short, we know who, theoretically, is at risk but can only grasp at who is really at risk. And, our government(s) propose to put those children and their teachers and families together in an extended "grand experiment," to what end? 

Yes, other countries have seen their kids back to school and appear to be pulling it off. Those countries did the hard work, made the hard choices and made the sacrifices needed to get them to the point that they could. At our national and (some) states' level, our leaders deluded themselves or outright lied about the disease and its dangers. They tanked the economy, and political futures, in doing so. Now they want to "reopen" and "get America working again," and they want our children and grandchildren to be their cannon-fodder.

Science and Experts Matter

I've had two professional careers in my life. The first was as a Navy Hospital Corpsman and Preventive Medicine Technician. In that role I specialized in operational (field) preventive medicine, communicable disease control, infection control in health care facilities and disease vector control. 

After 21 years in the Navy. I started my second career as an intelligence officer for the Army and then Defense Intelligence Agency. In that position, I specialized in analyzing foreign military and civilian health conditions and capabilities. Later on, I specialized in intelligence community management, coordinating intelligence analysis between numerous DoD intelligence organizations and key allies. I also represented my agency as the Chair for Defense Intelligence at U. S. Army War College. 

I'm providing this quasi resume to illustrate that I have earned a degree of expertise in public health and national security and intelligence.

Expertise matters in this country. We *should* listen to people who know what they're talking about. If you are an electrician, plumber, auto mechanic, dentist, lawyer, programmer, etc, do you want to listen to someone who knew nothing of your profession except what they heard from some blowhard on TV or radio, or had googled something related to your area of expertise? Of course you wouldn't. If you're like quite a few of my friends, you'd not only not listen, you'd call them on their BS. 

When I argue, on Facebook and elsewhere, that facemasks work, or that the White House is badly bungling its COVID-19 response, or that foreign policy under this administration is shredding alliances that prevented international conflagrations, it's not because I'm a Democrat or Republican or liberal or conservative, it's because I have a pretty good idea what I'm talking about. 

When world-renowned experts like Dr Anthony Fauci advise us on how to survive and get through the COVID-19 pandemic, it behooves us -- and the administration and Congress -- to listen and take them seriously. When foreign policy experts and intelligence experts warn against pursuing half-baked policies pushed by rank novices pushing personal agendas, it behooves us -- and the administration and Congress -- to listen and take them seriously.

If you ignore a highly infectious, novel respiratory virus, a lot of people will get sick and a lot will die. Clausewitz and our history tell us that nature and our enemies get a vote. Our experience today tells us that viruses don't give a damn about what we think or plan. We can't all be experts in everything so it behooves us to listen to those who have sweated and studied to become experts in their chosen fields, and then take them seriously. 

Facts matter. Science matters. And nature doesn't care what we'd like to happen.

Broken Promises Matter. Their Lives Matter

There was a meme floating around a few days ago, consisting of two captioned photos. The first photo showed Martin Luther King marching alongside Ralph Abernathy and some other African-American men; the caption read "This is a demonstration." The second photo showed folks, mostly black folks, looting a big box store; that caption read, "This is looting." 

I have no problem with the juxtaposition of the photos and their captions. Both are objectively true. But having grown up in the era of that first photo and having paid attention to the nightly news during that time, I'm compelled to point out that most white folks we lived around lost their minds over the first photo. They seemed certain that a simple act of standing up for your rights would lead to the second photo, looting and burning. To me, that goes a long way toward explaining the dilemma we find ourselves in. 

The argument, then, was that black Americans should be patient, be like other "immigrants," wait their turn, don't get pushy. You can't change peoples' hearts overnight, my grandmother told me.  

I can't speak for black folks in America obviously, but I think they would like the country to honor the promises in its founding documents: that all men are created equal and are entitled to the life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, that the US Constitution, amended by the 13th. 14th, 15th, and 24th Amendments, guarantees them full rights of citizenship. 

I think they would like white Americans to acknowledge they're not asking for their rights as a "handout" or an undeserved favor.  Black Americans built much of America's agricultural economy from the 17th century on. The foundations of our great cities, of New York, Baltimore, Norfolk, Mobile, New Orleans and others were laid by black workers who were kidnapped and brought here as chattel. The great public buildings in our Capitol were built by black Americans who had little choice in the matter. Grand plantation houses, real and imagined, like  Monticello, Mount Vernon, Tara, among others, were built and adorned by enslaved laborers and craftsman.

 Black Americans fought to free the colonies from Great Britain. They served in the hundreds of thousands -- and died in the tens of thousands -- from 1861 to 1865 as American soldiers to gain the freedom they should never have been denied. Since then -- in hundreds of battle and scores of wars -- they served, defended, and died for a country that more often than not erased their heroism and sacrifice from our national narrative. 

The men in the first photo sought change through non-violence. They bet their lives that their countrymen would flinch at the thought of black women, men and children being beaten and killed in their streets and neighborhoods. It wasn't a safe bet by any means, as we saw in Birmingham, Montgomery, Philadelphia (Pennsylvania and Mississippi), and Memphis; the last where Martin Luther King was assassinated. They weren't asking for favors from their white countrymen, they were demanding only what they were guaranteed. 

Decades later, black men, women and children die at the hands of police who are absolved of responsibility, too often, by prosecutors who are trying to protect their cities and counties from increased insurance premiums due to successful litigation, or prosecutors who fear offending police officers and their unions who might support an opponent in the next election. Black men, women and children are harrassed and killed by vigilantes and their protectors in the courts and law enforcement. 

Only a few weeks ago, we saw men and women -- almost all white -- tricked out in military gear and many sporting rifles and sidearms, demanding access to bars, restaurants, barber shops, hair salons. movie theaters and such. With their camo and body armor and varied accoutrement. I couldn't help but think of young Medgar Evers, similarly dressed and equipped, on June 6th, 1944 wading ashore on a Normandy beach because his country expected it of him. And of Medgar Evers, two decades later, shot dead in his driveway because he wanted to vote, because his Constitution guaranteed him the right and because he was impatient enough to expect his country would keep its word. 

They have waited long enough. Their lives matter, and they have a right to their rage.

A Boot in Your Face, A Knee on Your Neck

George Owell, describing life under totalitarian rule, asked his readers to "imagine a boot in your face, forever." 

Or, a knee on your neck.

For too many of our citizens, that takes no imagination at all. 

It's also said that history begins when the last witness dies; until then it's memory. If that is true, if God smiles, and if George Floyd is the last American to die for the "aggravating circumstance" of being black, our country is at least three generations away from that time when the viciousness of Jim Crow and the lynching era can be called history. 

What happened to George Floyd on May 25th, 2020, on that street in Minneapolis was viscerally maddening. The audio of him pleading with his killers, "Sir, I can't breathe, please," being taunted by men who were confident they would get away with it, is our national shame. 

Yes, Minneapolis, Hennepin County, Minnesota and the US Government appear to have had enough. What those police officers did, what was caught on video, appears to have sufficiently horrified enough people that someone will be held accountable. But the thug who knelt on George Floyd's neck and the men who stood by while he did it believed in their impunity. They thought nothing was going to happen to them. They taunted George Floyd and acted like it was all a lark. They did not behave like that in a vacuum.  That is our national shame, that they expected to get away with it.

George Floyd.was more than strange fruit his killers thought they left behind. He had a biography. He had a family, friends, hopes and a home. And he did not did not deserve to be suffocated in a gutter, hearing his killer's laugh as he lost consciousness. 

The Flynn Deals; it ain't over

As supporters of Donald Trump fume over alleged FBI perfidy in "persecuting" Mike Flynn, it is useful to remember that his indictment  (and subsequent conviction) for lying to the FBI was the result of his agreement to plead guilty to the least charge in exchange for cooperating with the government as it investigated Russian involvement in the 2016 election and related matters. 

Flynn faced a plethora of other, more serious, charges, some of which would have included his son. Among those charges: lying on financial disclosure documents he submitted prior to assuming his position as Trump's National Security Advisor (a felony). As a former intelligence agency head and retired general officer, he traveled to Russia, accepted compensation from Russia Today and failed to notify the Department of Defense and Director of National Intelligence before and after the trip. He also failed to include the compensation on his renewal application for a security clearance (more felonies). He failed to disclose his lobbying work for a Turkish owned consulting firm with close ties to the Turkish government until after he was fired from his White House post and was under investigation by the FBI (possibly a felony). 

But wait, there's more. In a September 2016 meeting with Turkish government officials attended by former Director of Central Intelligence James Woolsey, Flynn is alleged (by Woolsey) to have discussed forcibly detaining and renditioning Fethullah Gulen, a dissident scholar accused by Turkey's president of plotting a coup against him. Turkey had requested Gulen's extradition and was rejected because the application did not pass muster on it's merits by the Obama Justice Department, and is still rejected by Trump's Justice Department. Fethullah Gulen is a legal resident of the United States, so Woolsey's accusation -- if substantiated -- puts Flynn in the way of conspiracy to kidnap charge (a very serious felony). 

So before shedding tears over Mike Flynn's treatment by the FBI, consider this possibility. They didn't really want to go after someone with Flynn's record of service, but confronted with crimes committed -- possibly in fits of impetuosity and ignorance of the law; attributes those of us who've known and worked with/for Mike Flynn are very familiar with -- had little choice, and tried to give him the best deal they could.

Flynn got a good deal out of the FBI and the Special Counsel. He's probably gotten very bad advice from his current legal counsel. The Attorney General's decision to drop charges agaist him after he has already pled guilty (twice) and attested to his crimes, under oath, in court, is irregular and quite possibly irrelevant. The judge presiding over his case, Judge Emmett Sullivan, is the arbiter. And he isn't happy with Flynn or his lawyers, or William Barr, Esquire. 

It ain't over.

Can we escape this folly?

What is happening on the USS Theodore Roosevelt provides an important data point. Take it along with findings from two NYC hospitals that tested 100% of women admitted to Labor and Delivery wards and found 88% who tested positive for Coronavirus had no symptoms of the disease. 

Coronavirus clue? Most cases aboard U.S. aircraft carrier are symptom-free

https://news.yahoo.com/coronavirus-clue-most-cases-aboard-152447944.html

Most pregnant women with Coronavirus had no symptoms, study finds.

https://www.today.com/health/most-pregnant-women-coronavirus-had-no-symptoms-study-finds-t178958

This illustrates the absolute folly of relaxing current efforts to contain COVID-19 spread. If done too soon, without the ability to identify infected asymptomatic patients, the disease will rebound and kill tens of thousands more Americans. 

This should not be about left or right. It  should not be about Democrat or Republican. It is about the health and welfare of our country, our neighbors, our families, our loved ones.

Needed: Competence, Humility, Honesty

If announcing an arbitrary date to withdraw from a theater of war -- a date divorced from realities on the ground -- is a bad idea, how much worse an idea is announcing an arbitrary date to "reopen the economy?" In this case the date will be divorced from the reality that many infection rates in parts of the country have yet to peak, and that respiratory disease epidemics have a nasty tendency to rebound, even when we do things right. 

Because we have not been able to test a statistically significant  asymptomatic population, we don't know what the disease burden in the population. This is an epidemiological problem and knowing "n" is an important piece of the puzzle. Without it you don't know infection rates or case fatality rates and you can't do contact tracing and management. Without that knowledge you will guarantee an already likely rebound within weeks of "reopening."

This isn't about politics. It isn't about left or right, Democrat or Republican, or whether you approve of Trump or not.  It's about competence and the humility to listen to experts over your friends and political allies.

To Mask, or not to... Just Mask!

CDC changed its position on wearing face masks and now urges people wear them in addition to practicing social distancing and rigorous hand washing. They also urge people to use DIY masks or other alternatives so as not to impact the stock of N95 masks available for health care workers. 

The reason for wearing masks in public is not to protect you, but to protect others from you, should you be infected but without symptoms (or with symptoms and not paying attention). It's having other people wearing masks that protects you from them.

Data Matters, Statistics Matter, Testing Matters

There's been a lot of talk about China's government and the Communist Party heirarchy covering up COVID-19 case numbers. I don't doubt there have been coverups but I think it's more complicated than the Central Committee orders a cover-up and, presto, it happens. 

Based on some years spent as an analyst looking at China, I believe that cover-ups, such as alleged or presumed with COVID-19 numbers, happen from the bottom up rather than top down. The evidence of this happening in Hubei province is compelling. 

A local official will get reports of a disease spreading and supress the information because it makes him look bad or puts his boss in a bad light. Perhaps the official's cousin owns the local bird market and will take a financial hit if the market is closed. Once the cover-up begins, it seeps upward because it's in no one's interest to expose it (and that they can't control corrupt underlings). When the cover-up is exposed to the national leadership, the usual result is more foot-dragging. In the case of COVID-19, it appears Beijing saw the impending disaster and decided red faces were preferable to what they knew was coming anyway and they started taking public measures to control the catastrophe. 

The official data coming from China is suspect. Recent press reports about seriously underreported deaths in Wuhan are highly credible, for example.

The point is that when cover-ups begin in such a disorganized and self-interested fashion, they are much harder to untangle and correct; not just for western health officials, journalist and intelligence agencies, but for the national leadership in Beijing. For the west, we are left with flaky numbers and models to go by. Beijing is left with blunt force measures to contain a monster of unknown size. 

Data matters, reliable statistics matter, testing matters.

We Have to Do Better

Twenty years ago, I wrote the following in an introduction to a paper arguing for an expanded intelligence capability directed at identifying health threats and capabilities. 

"The idea of humankind under assault has been a staple of science fiction ranging from H. G. Wells' Martians to Robert A. Heinlein's "bugs". Yet throughout history humans have been in an inter-species war with ravenous predators (bacteria, viruses, etc.) that see Homo sapiens as food. For centuries humans believed diseases were the acts of angry gods or invidious miasmas. Only in the last two centuries have we understood that we share an ecosystem with enemies too small to see, too numerous to count, and too dangerous to ignore."

Regrettably, the Coronavirus pandemic reinforces my observation and those of so many others in recent years. But, more importantly, all the warnings and concerns beg the question of why we don't take this more seriously. Why have we argued over "human rights" to health care when the case for the public good has been staring us in the face? Why do we deal in the false dichotomy of economy (read stock markets) vs health when any objective analysis indicates the two are inextricably linked? In the 1980's Nick Eberstadt's analysis of Soviet Bloc health conditions -- as indicated by their shocking mortality patterns -- and sluggish economic performance was groundbreaking work in showing the linkage. 

We have to do better next time. There will be a next time, for most of us. Coronavirus isn't a slate-wiper, not by a long shot. But it is dangerous because too many countries have allowed it to be; some in ignorance and too many for ignoble reasons. We have to do better.

The day after Trump's hostage video aired ... Scenes from Costco

The Costco parking lot was full by 9 a.m. I wanted to pick up a freezer we have been thinking about for a few weeks (they had sold out the day before). I also wanted to buy some shelf-milk and some salad that we like. And, if they had any, some toilet paper. I knew the last item wasn't happening as soon as I saw the parking lot. 

A lot of people were there with limited purchases in mind. A lot of others were there to get whatever they thought they might need, and lots of it. Paper towels were particularly popular. A sign near the paper towels said "Two per Customer" (there are 10 or 12 rolls per package), but who reads signs, right? Some people were heading to the registers with as many as could fit in their carts. I wondered if they thought they were buying toilet paper, as the bags are similar in appearance. Or, maybe they were just going to use them as toilet paper, plumbing be damned. 

Interestingly, there were cases of Kleenex unmolested right near the paper towels and empty toilet paper shelves. 

The cash register lines (My God, the cash register lines!) stretched back to the deli and freezer areas at the rear of the store. Costco stores are huge, so you can imagine the length of the lines. The lines gave people a chance to socialize with neighbors and strangers who were united in pursuit of the ephemeral toilet paper roll or creative ideas for using paper towels. Maybe the lines were a little longer as some folks tried to do social distancing. 

The store had staff stationed outside to spray and wipe down carts between customers as much as they were able. One woman's job appeared to be yelling to people who were about to grab an unclean cart that the clean ones were "over here." Interestingly, they were cheery and uber-helpful. 

When I first saw the parking lot and the crowd of folks entering the store, I was afraid it was going to look like the opening of a Black Friday sale at midnight, the day after Thanksgiving, with fists flying and people battling over Tickle Me Elmos or Cabbage Patch Kids. It wasn't at all like that. People were good humored, if acquisitive. The traffic jams in the store were brief and resolved amicably. 

All in all, it was a testament to civilization.

Some Thoughts About Joe Biden's and Bernie Sanders' Campaigns

Last year I suggested that Joe Biden's best year to run for President was 2016. I may have been premature on that one. Biden seems to have caught lightning in a jar with his timing. He is not only the anti-Trump, he is also the anti-Sanders. 

Last year, I also suggested that Sanders would find 2020 quite different than 2016. With Hillary Clinton not available to campaign against, Sanders would have to run against a faceless, amorphous "establishment," a much less satisfying experience than opposing someone who personifies the establishment. Sanders would also find the center-left to left lane crowded ( he had it to himself in 2016). 

Joe Biden's campaign looked DOA by the Iowa Caucus and overdue for burial by the Nevada caucuses. The premature rumors of his political death, however, protected him from Bernie's target practice. In debates, Sanders focused his fire on -- again -- faceless "establishment" candidates, "the billionaire class," and finally, Mike Bloomberg. Sanders' campaign staff was busy sticking pins in their Elizabeth Warren dolls. And, all along, they largely ignored Joe Biden and African American voters over 50, whose life experiences taught them that before government can be a force for good, good government needs to win at the ballot box. South Carolina was Sanders' come-uppance and Biden's renewal. 

As Nicole Wallace has noted, Biden was not the "establishment's" candidate. They (whomever they are) had dumped Biden in  the dirt and left him begging for enough money to drag himself into Super Tuesday. Biden was truly the people's candidate in South Carolina and on Super Tuesday. He won overwhelmingly, with almost no campaign staff or commercials or any of the slick stuff we're assured candidates need to win primaries and general elections. And, in Michigan, Missouri, and Mississippi he did it all over again. 

Donald Trump, his allies in Congress, and his 40 watt bulb of a son are going to resuscitate the Hunter Biden and Burisma controversy now that Biden is back in play. They will regret it. They're going to remind Americans -- somewhat more than half of whom thought Trump should have been removed from office over the Ukraine affair -- of the whole sordid business again, and again, and again. 

The turnout figures in Michigan and Missouri should terrify Trump; particularly Michigan, which Trump won because so many voters stayed home, unexcited and uninspired by Clinton. This year, they are inspired and excited by the prospect defeating Trump. 

Buckle up.

Maybe its Time for a Little Panic

About six weeks ago, I wrote that people should neither relax or panic when it comes to Corona Virus disease (COVID-19). I noted that the inevitable comparisons to the 1918-1919 Spanish influenza pandemic be approached with skepticism. While I maintain the two main points of that post are correct (it takes a 1918 world to fuel a 1918 pandemic, and COVID-19 is largely preventable through good hygiene and public health practices), maybe it's time for a wee bit of panic. 

I say this not because the disease is worse than thought, but because the response -- here in the US anyway -- is so inept. The useful responses by knowledgeable health officials in CDC are drowned out by contradictory  protestations from the White House, echoed and amplified by their carney barkers in right-wing media. The confusion over testing and whether to test is the most glaring example but not the only one. The federal government's inability to field enough tests means we cannot gauge the actual spread of the disease or adequately assess a realistic case fatality rate. It means we can't effectively protect our most vulnerable populations because we can't screen those who may carry the infection without showing symptoms (such as healthcare workers, nursing home staffs,  teachers, aircrews). 

People are more inclined to panic when they are frightened by things they poorly understand. The best medicine for preventing panic is truth, in large doses. If people know the truth, if it's presented calmly, stating the risks and correctives, they keep their resolve and their heads. When they're fed contradictions, lies, conspiracy theories and self-serving whines that drown out the truth, they get more scared and more angry. And they get sicker and more of them die. 

Thank you, Amy and Elizabeth

It was kind of sad to see Amy Klobuchar's and Elizabeth Warren's campaigns flame out this week. And not just because they were the two remaining women candidates (sorry, I don't consider Gabbard's viability significant enough to deserve the title, "candidate"). 

An interesting editorial, written in the early 2000s, discussed the difference between John McCain, described as a "governing conservative" and his opponents, described as "movement conservatives." McCain, the author proposed, was a conservative interested in using government to achieve practical goals consistent with a conservative philosophy. His opponents -- approaching the 2008 campaign -- were interested in using government to achieve their ideological aims regardless the cost to citizens.

Klobuchar and Warren are "governing progressives." Yes, yes, the media has assigned Klobuchar to the "moderate wing," whatever that is, which only displays the shallowness of today's media coverage of our politics. She is as progressive as Elizabeth Warren if you look at her legislative accomplishments and considerably more effective. But both senators are interested in using government to accomplish goals consistent with their progressive policies. 

And that puts them at odds with Bernie Sanders who may be described as a "movement progressive," although I am not sure progressive is the right term to use. Sanders' Medicare for All proposal exemplifies what I think would be his governing style; stirring aspirational goals mixed with a few specifics whose impacts are not thought through, and absent any real means to accomplish them or measure their success. But actually accomplishing things is a secondary goal to tearing down existing systems and preening about one's morality in doing so. 

In comparison, both Warren and Klobuchar offered detailed plans that identified ends and means. While the plans differed in ways, they were both achievable and offered Americans enough information to evaluate them on their merits. 

Similarly, the Green New Deal, which Sanders espoused, is a set of aspirations bereft of real discussion of ways and means for getting there. One would think the "existential crisis of our times" deserves a little more as to how we deal with climate change and it's anthropogenic sources when it comes to determining trade-offs and mitigating current and near term harm to people living in the world. 

In both of Sanders' campaigns he's told us that he will accomplish his legislative goals through inspiring a movement, a political revolution, among the young, workers and -- in general -- folks who have been screwed over by "the billionaires." In his legislative career, he has done nothing of the sort. 

In contrast, Elizabeth Warren exhaustingly researched and documented the causes of financial insecurity among middle and lower middle class Americans (see The Two Income Trap) and exposed predatory lending practices that resulted in her proposal for a Consumer Finance Protection Bureau (CPFB). Warren's legislative record is anemic compared to Klobuchar's, but that is due in part to Klobuchar's longer time in the Senate. Moreover, Warren's talents seem to be more in the executive realm than the legislative. 

There is more at stake in this race than defeating Trump. Repairing Trump's vandalism will require executive and legislative skill. More importantly, it will require commitment to and passion for governing and service to the public. Klobuchar and Warren represent such commitment. I hope and think Joe Biden does as well. 

OMG!! Super-delegates!!

For the record: the Democratic party implemented "super-delegates" after the 1972 convention because they thought rules passed after the 1964 convention made it too possible for an energized minority to steamroller the process and nominate a poison pill candidate. They had the 1964 Republican primary season as an example to avoid. There was also concern that Hubert Humphrey, having skipped primaries altogether in 1968, relied on party leaders to secure the nomination. In 1972, Democratic party leaders worried that a less scrupulous politician that Humphrey could engineer a delegate coup. Super-delegates were the solution; ensuring a robust primary process while allowing party elders to act as a brake if needed on the shenanigans that accompanied the Republicans' 1964 convention and the Democrats' 1968 convention, and initially seemed to threaten their 1972 convention. Super-delegates, comprising elected officials and party leaders, were free to vote for whomever they pleased, unlike pledged delegates who must vote for their candidate on the first ballot unless they are released by the candidate. 

Super-delegates were always controversial, but never more than in 2016 when Bernie Sanders supporters seemed to think they were a device meant to keep their candidate from the nomination. In fact, while Sanders wasn't the reason for super-delegates, a candidacy like his was very much in the minds of those party leaders 44 years before. In 2016, Sanders -- who to this day is listed as an Independent rather than as a Democrat -- represented an outsider seeking to co-opt the Democratic party and it's establishment which he deemed corrupt because they were unwilling to bend their rules to accommodate him. 

During the 2016 primary campaign, Sanders repeatedly lost to Hillary Clinton. The super-delegates' role in the vote tally was irrelevant as Clinton amassed a majority without the superdelegates' votes. 

In 2018, the rules for super-delegates were modified to respond to Sanders supporters' concerns. They weren't done away with, but their potential influence was limited by preventing them from voting in the first ballot at the convention. They are free to vote in sequential ballots, along with all other delegates who, at that point, would also be free to vote for whomever they pleased (pledged delegates are automatically released after the first ballot).

So, two takeaways: 

-- from 1976 to 2016, super-delegates did not make any difference in the outcome of the Democrats' nominating process, and

-- following the 2018 rule changes (meant to respond to Sanders' supporters concerns) super-delegates have even less influence over the nomination outcome. 

It's time to set this boogyman aside. If Sanders loses the nomination, it won't be because of super-delegates. It will be because more Democrats wanted his opponent to be their nominee. If Sanders wins, it won't be in spite of super-delegates. It will be because more Democrats wanted him to be the nominee. 

That simple. 

What's Next for Mayor Pete?

So, Mayor Pete Buttigieg has ended his candidacy. His was a stirring and  -- initially -- implausible pursuit; often and fairly compared to Barack Obama's 2008 campaign. So, what's next for Mayor Pete. His popularity and loyal base of support, along with a graceful and very well-timed exit, makes him a leading candidate for the VP slot.  But, I would not bet on it. 

While Pete would make a great VP, I think, in today's Democratic party climate, he won't wind up as a candidate. The chief thing that plagued Pete as a presidential candidate makes him a risky choice as a VP candidate; his nearly absent support among African Americans. 

Pete would be an otherwise obvious running mate for Elizabeth Warren. They are both data-driven policy wonks, which would be a refreshing change from the  "gut" driven circus we're currently witnessing. Pete would be an attractive understudy to Warren and would represent passing the torch to the new generation of Democrats. But...  Warren's support among African Americans is soft, and adding Pete to her ticket will further aggravate that weakness. 

Joe Biden has dangled the prospect of a woman and/or person of color as VP enough that not choosing one will disappoint a lot of his supporters. 

I don't see Bernie putting Pete on the ticket if he gets nominated. In spite of the glowing thesis that Pete wrote about Bernie's early political career, the campaign has revealed the chasm in their thinking and political styles. Besides, I don't think Bernie wants to share the ticket with a marquee candidate.

Pete would be a good add to an Amy Klobuchar candidacy, but -- as much as I like her -- she is likely to be out of the race by next Wednesday. And the heated exchanges between her and Pete during the debates don't augur well for a shared ticket. 

The candidate who really might gain from putting Pete on the ticket is Mike Bloomberg.   In many ways Pete resembles a much younger Bloomberg, before going out on his own, before the first million. Pete's description of being dissatisfied with life as a McKinsey consultant smacks of Bloomberg's restiveness as a Wall Street drone. And there is the shared experience of running troubled cities (albeit diffent in scale). An effective political partnership between the two would alleviate worries about Bloomberg's age. But... if Pete has problems with African American voters, Bloomberg's record is radioactive. And, following his two debate performances, Bloomberg's candidacy looks like it has two flat tires and is leaking gas.

So, what is next for Pete? My guess is an ambassadorship, possibly a cabinet job, or a Senate campaign. I'd love to see him as the next chairperson of the DNC, where he could fix much of Tom Perez's damage and start building the next-gen Democratic party.

Miracles and Hucksters

There is an old joke that has a man sitting on his roof as flood waters rise around his house. A boat pulls up and the people on the boat invite the man aboard. "No thanks" he says, "I prayed and God will rescue me." The boat leaves. Not long after a helicopter hovers overhead; the pilot calls down over his PA system and tells him he will lower a hoist. The man waves the helicopter away, because he is waiting for his miraculous rescue. Shortly after that, the flood waters engulf the house and the man drowns. 

He shows up in front of God and asks him why God didn't answer his prayers and why he let him drown. God answers, "Dude, I sent you a boat and a chopper. What were you thinking?"

Yesterday, Donald Trump predicted a miracle and Corona Virus will disappear. 

God sent us scientists, virologists, epidemiologists, public health communications experts, people who have handled epidemics and pandemics and have saved millions of lives. Trump has defunded their organization, demeaned their expertise and made loyalty more important than saving lives. 

But, yeah, wait for that miracle.

Billionaires! OMG? Really?

For me, the jury is out on Mike Bloomberg. But I have a problem with the attack line that reduces him to "a billionaire... trying to buy the presidency." Bloomberg is self-financing his campaign because it's the best way he can make up for his late entry. He has also made it clear that he will continue to pour money into the campaign of whomever wins the nomination. For what it's worth, the other billionaire in the Democratic race, Tom Steyer, has made the same commitment. Their goal is primarily getting rid of Trump. 

Being a billionaire isn't, in and of itself, a moral failing. People like Bloomberg and Steyer worked their asses off and made a lot of people wealthier in the process. They took advantage of tax breaks that Congress and state legislatures have them, but there is no indication that their fortunes incorporate the sort of tax fraud that the alleged billionaire occupying the oval office employed. 

There is a lot of room to question the rentier economy that Bloomberg and Steyer thrived in and embody. I believe the loosely regulated  financial industry has turned parasitic and needs tight regulation and rigorous accountability. Dodd-Frank and Sarbanes-Oxley were okay starts, but hardly the corrective we need. It's worth noting that Bloomberg's tax proposals are aggressive and more likely to pass a SCOTUS challenge than Warren's and Sanders' wealth tax proposals. Steyer has proposed significant reforms to the financial industry. 

I'm not arguing that being a billionaire is a qualifier, or that it disqualifies, in its own right. But be clear, Steyer and Bloomberg are not the Koch's, or even close. And they certainly are not the faux billionaire currently squatting in the White House.

Perceptions of Impropriety

On June 27th, 2016 former President Bill Clinton met briefly with Attorney General Loretta Lynch at Phoenix Airport, while Lynch's Justice Dept was investigating Hillary Clinton. The dawn came up like thunder.

Clinton and Lynch insisted their conversation was innocuous and had nothing to do with the investigation concerning Hillary Clinton. But the die was cast, GOP politicians insisted the meeting constituted, at best, a serious perception of impropriety and that Attorney General Lynch should recuse herself from any further involvement in the Hillary Clinton investigation. FBI Director James Comey wrote later that the meeting precipitated his decision to co-opt the Dept of Justice and Attorney General when he announced the results of investigation. 

In short, that innocuous, inadvertent meeting had immense ramifications, not because something nefarious happened but because something nefarious might have happened and Americans needed assurance that things were on the up and up. 

Yesterday, Dept of Justice prosecutors recommended Roger Stone be sentenced to seven to nine year in prison. His long-time friend, Donald Trump blew a gasket and ranted on Twitter that it was unfair, "a miscarriage of Justice!" Within hours, the Justice Dept announced their own line prosecutors had it wrong, that the recommended sentence -- which was in line with federal sentencing guidelines -- was too harsh. 

It was no less a perception (if not outright manifestation) of impropriety. Where is the GOP's outrage?

The (Now) Irrelevant Whistleblower

There is a name floating around social media of an individual that some folks think is "the whistleblower." Some irresponsible members of the House of Representatives and Senate have shared it widely, likely hoping it results in retribution and discourages others who are considering doing their duty and reporting this administration's corruption. Many of Trump's supporters have forwarded those posts and tweets. Trump himself has winked at his supporters' actions. 

As to this whistleblower, it doesn't matter if the alleged individual is the whistleblower and who his or her friends or political leanings may be.

What matters is that the Intelligence Community Inspector General (IC IG), who was appointed by Donald Trump, evaluated the whistleblower complaint and found it "credible and urgent." Those are the criteria for passing it forward to the Congressional intelligence committees, in a law written and championed by Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), one of Trump's allies in the Senate.

People who traffic in the supposed whistleblower's name may be violating the whistleblower law. They certainly are endangering the whistleblower's career and/or life for doing something that is not only legal but required under the law. And lest you missed it, I repeat: the whistleblower's complaint was investigated by the Trump appointed IC IG and deemed credible and urgent. That's what matters!

Self-fulfilling Fear-mongering

There is a refrain coming from various pundits and opinioneers that if the Senate doesn't allow witnesses and doesn't convict Trump, that we will be on our way to a dictatorship. While their alarm may be understandable, their conclusion is immediately wrong and potentially a self-fulfilling prophecy. 

The folks who have been telling you for years that your vote doesn't matter, that both major parties are the same, that all politicians are corrupt (so why bother voting) would love it if Americans threw up their hands in despair and frustration and walked away from the polls. 

You see, some politicians are corrupt. Sometimes, the parties do act alike if they are not held to account by voters. But we -- voters -- don't need to accept that as our reality. We can do something about it, by informed voting. We can give as much thought to who we elect as our political leaders as we give to the cars we buy, or the smartphones we buy.

But if we surrender to frustration and despair; if we just decide, "Screw it, my vote doesn't matter," then our apathy may well lead to the dictatorship we're told to anticipate.

About epidemics; it's not 1918, or 1348. Don't relax, and don't panic.

The Corona virus outbreak, centered in Wuhan, justifiably has epidemiologists and health experts alarmed. It's also been a shot in the arm (groans are appropriate here) for the cottage industry that peddles over the top comparisons to the Black Death and Spanish flu. 

Because Corona viruses spread through respiratory transmission, comparisons to the 1918 Spanish flu are appropriate, to a point. The doomsayers routinely miss a big detail however, namely that it's not 1918 (or the middle of the 14th century if we want to reach back to the Black Death). 

In 1918, there were no antibiotics that might have saved patients who succumbed to secondary bacterial infections. There were certainly no antivirals that might have blunted the primary infection. Nursing care was nowhere near its current state in ability to support patients. Ventilators didn't exist. Most importantly, national and international public health systems were just getting started. Communication may have taken weeks to cross oceans and continents. Trans-oceanic cables existed for those who could afford to use them, which didn't always apply to health authorities. 

In short, a 1918 style epidemic needs a 1918 world to happen in. In 2020, we have capabilities to contain even a highly infectious, rapidly spreading disease. A bad Corona virus can kill a lot of people, and those deaths will be tragedies. But keep perspective, panic is also deadly.

Misdemeanor (The 1787 version)

Word of the day: Misdemean (Verb, archaic): To behave badly; with a reflexive pronoun, i.e. to misdemean oneself.

A person who misdemeans himself, or herself, is a misdemeanant. What they do is a misdemeanor. 

"Misdemeanor," in 1787, did not refer to a lesser crime. It referred to bad behavior more generally. One example of a misdemeanor -- of persons misdemeaning themselves -- would be violating an oath, such as that a president takes upon inauguration, or the oath senators took as impeachment  procedures commenced in their chamber. 

To the men who met in Philadelphia in 1787, their honor and their oaths were all important. Challenging someone's honor was grounds for a duel. In an age lacking in elaborate legal sructures and catalogues of federal statutes and codes, being a misdemeanant, committing a misdemeanor, was serious stuff and as bad or worse, maybe, than committing "high crimes." Honor was at stake, for the person, for the institution, and the country.

Those who revere the Constitution and its framers need to focus on the word, misdemeanor, and what it meant then; what the framers' "original intent" was. And, they -- we -- need to consider what it means when the person sitting in the oval office lies the way most of us grow fingernails. We need to consider what the framers' would think of Senators and Congressional Representatives who put party ahead of patriotism, or worse, put one man's ego and ill-temper ahead of the Republic. 

No, Virginia is not going to take your Guns. But home-grown, Putin-inspired terrorists may take your country.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/17/virginia-lee-carter-school-strike-bill-guns

I hope a lot of people will read the article at link. 

Some key points: 

1. Virginia Delegate Lee Carter's life has been threatened because some conspiracy-minded folks completely misinterpreted a bill he wrote to protect teachers' right to strike. 

2. It doesn't matter if Lee Carter is a Socialist (or Democrat, Republican, etc); he was duly elected to his office in the Virginia legislature. When we start threatening legislators' lives because of positions they take (or--in this case--we mistakenly think they take), how different are we from ISIS, or brownshirts, or the Red Brigades, etc. 

3. Lee Carter *opposed* legislation that would restrict sales of military-style semi-automatic weapons in the Commonwealth; a point apparently missed by folks who jumped on the bandwagon and are  threatening his life. 

Some additional thoughts: 

Virginia Governor Northam has temporarily prohibited carrying weapons, including firearms, within the state's capitol complex. This is a protective measure in response to social media activity calling for violence against Commonwealth lawmakers. Most states have similar laws and they aren't temporary measures. The federal government has even stronger prohibitions on carrying weapons into government buildings. 

You know who else prohibits firearms on their premises? The NRA and CPAC. Think about that. 

Any legislation passed by the Virginia legislature and Senate to restrict sales and possession of firearms in the Commonwealth must conform to existing US Supreme Court decisions. While the Supreme Court has held that the 2nd Amendment isn't absolute, they have set a pretty high bar that any state or local government most clear in order to restrict firearms ownership. 

So, anyone telling you that the State of Virginia is going to swoop down and seize your handgun or AR-15 or shotgun is lying to you. 

And that brings me to my final point. A lot of the memes showing up on Facebook calling for "patriots" to rally -- with their guns -- at the state capitol, or suggesting that legislators should be hung as traitors to the 2nd Amendment bear the same hallmarks as Russian-produced lies that flooded Facebook and Instagram during the 2016 election cycle. 

Please don't let our country's main enemy tear us apart any more. All these memes are lies. Whether they work or not is up to us.

How Trump Was Able to Respond to Baghdad

There have been a number of social media posts lauding the administration's response to the attack on our Baghdad embassy, comparing it to the response to the 2012 attack on our Benghazi consulate. These posts invariably show Donald Trump in a complimentary light, versus Hillary Clinton as an indecisive, feckless leader who abandoned her people. 

So, for the record (and these are facts, not spin):

Multiple Congressional investigations -- all headed by the GOP majority -- found that the State Dept and the US Government's inability to rapidly respond to the event in Benghazi was not the fault of Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. They identified long standing problems and shortfalls that dated back decades. 

Adequately protecting diplomatic facilities has been a concern since the 1970s at least. In 1979 our Islamabad embassy was destroyed by a mob. In 1983, our embassy in Beirut was attacked by a car bomb. In 1998, our embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam were leveled by truck bombs. And so on. 

After each attack, the State Dept requested additional funds to improve embassy security. Congress repeatedly failed to fund those requests. 

The Special Purpose Marine Air Ground Task Force (or MAGTF) that was dispatched to Baghdad last week -- that the administration is doing victory laps over -- was commissioned in 2013 by the Obama administration Defense Department to provide a coherent rapid response capability for embassy security *because of Benghazi* and because they were frustrated by Congress's preference to point fingers and cast blame rather than fund an actual response capability.

So, yes, the Trump administration did respond quickly to the Baghdad embassy attack, for which they deserve credit. But they did so using a capability the Obama administration ensured they possessed.

Greenwood and the Memory Hole.

On May 30th, 1921, a young black man stepped into an elevator in the Drexel Building in downtown Tulsa, Oklahoma. Nineteen year-old Dick Rowland was on his way to the top floor to use the "Coloreds Only" bathroom. It's believed--as he got on the elevator--he stumbled and fell against the operator, a 17 year old white woman named Sarah Page. The young woman screamed and a clerk working in a first floor haberdashery claimed he saw Rowland running out of the building and that Page had been assaulted. 

Tulsa was a tinderbox. The economy was slumping, the Ku Klux Klan was on the rise, and recent oil discoveries on Osage lands were making the wrong people rich. The Osage were buying and building mansions and being chauffered by white men in large touring cars. In the Greenwood section of Tulsa, black folks were making money, opening businesses, building theaters and hospitals, and black professionals were pouring in. Greenwood became known as "The Black Wall Street."

Dick Rowland was arrested by the Tulsa police, who quickly determined he had been in the wrong place at the wrong time. Sarah Page refused to press charges. However, the police placed Rowland in protective custody because a lynch mob had formed and demanded he be turned over to them. Lynchings weren't uncommon in Oklahoma; since statehood in 1907, 26 black men had been lynched. 

In Greenwood, word of Rowland's plight spread and men gathered, determined Rowland would not be lynched. Many of the men were veterans of fighting in France, were armed and knew how to fight. Fifty to sixty men with rifles and shotguns drove to the Tulsa County Courthouse where Rowland was being held. When they arrived, they formed a skirmish line and declared they were there to assist the sheriff and his men defend the courthouse against the mob which had grown to more than 1,000.

The sight of armed black men enraged the white mob, many of whom armed themselves and set about attacking the blacks at the courthouse and marching toward Greenwood. By early morning of June 1st, 1921, Greenwood was in flames and the Greenwood massacre was fully underway. Before June 2nd dawned, Greenwood had been bombed from private aircraft and burned by rioters on foot. Initial estimates placed the dead at 36 blacks and 10 whites. Later estimates placed the number of blacks killed at 200. Today, it's accepted that the black death toll likely exceeded 300. By some estimates it was the worst race riot in American history. 

And then, it fell out of history. 

Hiding a Crime

Hiding the massacre was one of the most effective jobs of dropping something down the memory hole as happened in our history. 

My father was born in Tulsa 18 months after Greenwood was destroyed and its residents massacred. He grew up in Tulsa for his first 18 years, returning in 1952 with a young family and lived there another eight years. If he knew about the massacre, it was very incomplete and sketchy knowledge. And, he never mentioned it.

I grew up in Tulsa for my first eight years, attended early elementary grades and listened to my grandmother and great-aunts recount tales of their early years in Tulsa from 1919 on; they never hinted at the massacre 

It was likely a combination of things. The  mood in the country wasn't favorable to reporting the massacre. As a whole the United States, coming out of WWI, the Big Red Scare and the Palmer Raids, was famously seeking a "return to Normalcy." The leading Tulsa newspaper of the time deliberately  suppressed reporting, to the extent of destroying issues that addressed the event. And, for white Tulsa, since the massacre happened to black people it  wasn't worth much mention anyway. Moreover, the Klan had grown powerful in Tulsa and Oklahoma politics. Lifting the curtain on something like the Greenwood massacre was a dangerous proposition through the rest of the decade. 

As well, the full import of the massacre may have been lost in the clutter of other horrific acts of the time. There was a concerted effort to rob wealthy Osage families of their oil wealth that included  pre-meditated murder of possibly hundreds of innocents, with state, local, and federal authorities turning their backs on the crimes.

Indeed, it's hard to escape the idea that 1920's Tulsa was run as a criminal enterprise. Greenwood was one of the wealthier neighborhoods in the state (if not the country). It was full of professionals and business people and Tulsa as a whole was flush with oil money. Real estate values were high and there must have been a lot of Greenwood cash in local banks. What happened to it all? The money stolen from Osage tribal members through murder and various scams ran to millions. Of course, one of the first rules of a criminal enterprise is you don't talk about it. With a compliant newspaper and courts and an absence of anything like social media, it's easy for a story or stories like this to disappear. 

The Greenwood massacre was kept alive in the memories of surviving victims and their families. Tulsa lawyer and Greenwood resident, Buck Franklin, wrote a searing account of the events. His son who was six at the time, John Hope Franklin, became one of the leading African-American historians of our time and kept the memory alive. Over the last twenty years the city of Tulsa has begun dealing with the legacy and is now supporting efforts to locate and exhume mass graves of victims. Books and documentaries have been developed since 2000. With added attention from a recent episode of HBO's Watchmen series, the massacre is entering the country's consciousness and Greenwood's ghosts may yet get their acknowledgement.

.

For the Record

One is left having to choose whether Vice President Mike Pence is a liar or just stupid. 

For the record; when an administration plans something like the Soleimani killing (or bin Laden's), no one expects "every member of Congress" to be briefed. There is an expectation that the "gang of eight" will be briefed (Speaker of the House, House Minority Leader, Senate Majority and Minority Leaders, House Intelligence Committee Chair and Ranking Member, and Senate Intelligence Committee Chair and Vice Chair). Trump saw fit to inform Vladimir Putin, friends and club members at Mar a Lago,  and some Congressional Republicans.  NO Democrats. He also suggested that Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff were security risks. 

For the record, Pelosi and Schiff have been in Congress since 1987 and 2001, respectively. For most of that time they have held the highest clearances you can hold in this country. While they have often been in opposition to the various administration they've served alongside, there has never been any indication either have been "loose-lipped" with classified material, unlike Trump who threw that canard into the mix. 

For the record, Donald Trump invited Russia's ambassador and foreign secretary into the oval office and divulged top secret code-word intelligence provided by a foreign governmentvto them, after refusing U. S. media access to the meeting (we know what happened because the Russian photographer who was allowed in worked for TASS).

For the record, Trump claimed he has authority to declassify anything he wants. He doesn't. He doesn't have the authority to declassify intelligence provided by a foreign government. Its their intelligence and they retain the perogative to classify or declassify. A U. S. President may have impunity when declassifying foreign government intelligence, but that doesn't translate to authority and it doesn't mean such irresponsibility doesn't have consequences.

But, back to Pence. I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt that he isn't lying. Let's just say he's a loyal foot soldier who doesn't know any better.