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.

It's Not Over Until It's Over

So, Mueller...  Some thoughts:

Many folks opposed to Trump had  unrealistic hopes for Mueller's findings, and may now react to the report with anger and apathy; not unlike the "General Betray-us" outrage that followed the Petraeus report on the Iraq war. It would be a mistake. Mueller and his team did an exhaustive and penetrating examination of the Trump campaign and its relationship with the Russian government and individuals. The report does not exonerate Donald Trump or his campaign organization but does find (as far as has been reported) that neither the candidate or campaign crossed a criminal line when it came to accepting foreign assistance. That is, admittedly, a low bar but one that ought to give some comfort to Americans who care more about our democracy than party.

The investigation needed to be done and it wasn't a witch hunt. It was precipitated by incredibly stupid -- and in one case, drunken -- behavior by Trump campaign staff and advisors and by the candidate himself; all of whom seem to lack any awareness that appearance of impropriety matters.

Trump has been his own worst enemy. His servility and fan-boyish behavior to Putin, Kislyak, and Lavrov reinforced the worst suspicions that he was "gotten to," or is an active supporter of Russian aims. Trump's declaration to Lester Holt that he fired Comey "because of the Russia thing" amounts to obstruction in plain sight, but still obstruction. Trump's legal team of John Doud and Ty Cobb pursued the right strategy of transparency but Trump's nearly hysterical response to being investigated -- something he should have welcomed as essential in clearing him and his campaign -- leaves reasonable folks thinking he has something to hide or is too emotionally fragile to hold office. Neither scenario helps him.

This isn't over, in spite of the Trump Team's end zone celebration. Mueller's investigation spun off further lines of investigation that are now closing in. I am reminded of the Nixon team, in January 1973, congratulating themselves over containing the Watergate inquiry with a few guilty pleas, just before James McCord sent a letter to Judge John Sirica and the dam broke.