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.