The Supreme Court Can't Declare COVID-19 Unconstitutional, The Senate Can't Vote It Away, And Trump Doesn't Have Sway Over Nature

Trump has several key tactics.  He is good at figuring out how to flatter or goad people.  For whatever reasons he's good at mesmerizing his followers.  He 'negotiates' for everything else.  Negotiate includes bribes and threats if people don't want to play his game.  So he's got the Senate Republicans locked into supporting him.  And he's appointed two of the Supreme Court Justices and lots and lots of other far right judges.

Policies that depend on how the Senate votes, Trump can impact.  Actions requiring court approval, he's working on.  Even if he loses at lower court levels, there's a good chance the Supreme Court will save him.

But viruses (actual virus like COVID-19) follow the laws of nature.  Scientists don't even control that.  They can study and find ways to use the laws of nature to fight the virus, but they can't turn off the virus because the president tells them to.

About three years ago today I asked if people would stay on the bus if the driver were acting like Trump  -  because that is the real test of faith and trust.  Most people don't understand the details of tax laws or trade agreements or health systems to be able to sort out what is and isn't true.  (Well if you have a pre-existing condition or you lose your job, or have an uncovered medical bill, you find out what doesn't work.)

In that post I gave a couple more examples beyond bus driver:

• If your doctor acted like Trump
• If your high school teacher acted like Trump
• If your pilot acted like Trump
• If your boss (of the job you really need) acted like Trump
• If your priest acted like Trump

We all are more susceptible because of the Physician in Chief's ego-centric interpretation of scientific evidence.  Here is a list of responses from Kurt Eichenwald's Trump supporting acquaintances about the virus:

• It's a hoax.
• All places reporting sickness are blue states, and theyre lying. (Theyre not all blue states.)
• Democrats are infecting themselves.
• This is a chinese problem, & we're not Chinese.
• Everyone saying this is serious are anti-Trump and lying..
• A vaccine is almost ready, so there is no reason to worry about it.
• It's been isolated. (In China, they believe)
• WHO is a bunch of foreigners who hate trump for standing up for America. So they are lying to hurt him....
• It's not a serious disease. In fact, people can go to work with it! It's less serious than a cold.

This is from the cult part of his following.

You can believe your doctor, but if he's a quack, you'll pay for those beliefs.  These people are infected by something far worse than COVID-19.  And COVID-19 might be their kool-aid.

Unfortunately, my US Senators voted against me getting rid of this doctor and we all have to wait until November to fire him and January next year for him to leave.  (I did contact them to let them know their refusal to look at more evidence for impeachment has led to this now, where far more people are going to be severely affected by the virus - older folks, other vulnerable folks, and people who have other illnesses but will find doctors and hospitals unable to give them adequate attention.  

Corona Virus Is a Scientific Problem,  Not Susceptible To Political Spin So Trump's In Trouble.  But so are the rest of us.


I'd note that the Washington Post says that Trump's grandfather was an early victim of the Spanish flue in 1918.  But Wikipedia is not as conclusive:

The family story of his death is that "on May 29, 1918, while walking with his son Fred, Trump suddenly felt extremely sick and was rushed to bed. The next day, he was dead. What was first diagnosed as pneumonia turned out to be one of the early cases of the Spanish flu, which caused millions of deaths around the world.[3]:116" However, his death certificate shows this to be untrue as he was being attended by the doctor for a week prior to his death. His status as an early case of the flu requires more research to confirm.[24] He was 49 years old.

If A Bus Driver Acted Like Trump . . .

the passengers would choose from several (not mutually exclusive, nor exhaustive) options:

• Think it's exciting to have a crazy driver
• Sit tight, trust in fate, and hope to survive
• Pray
• Get off the bus at the very next stop - assuming this was a city bus with lots of stops
• Call 911 for help
• Try to disable the bus, say, by turning off the ignition 
• Get the driver out of the driver's seat
• Jump out of the emergency exit

But what does a country with democratic traditions do?  The wheels of democracy turn slowly.  We're bound by the rule of law.

We also thought we were bound by tradition, but we now have a president who ignores those traditional restraints that are necessary in a civil society.   Miss Manners can only tell us what is proper, she has no enforcement powers to prevent the child-president from violating any tradition or policy that isn't backed by statute.  And getting the Justice Department or Congress to enforce the statutes is also problematic.

This seems to be the situation we're in.  So many rules of national etiquette are being violated, but the law doesn't deal with that.  And getting enough proof of statutory violations takes time, especially with the president's nominal party in control of Congress.

Norms are enforced by enough people agreeing the driver needs to be taken out of the driver's seat.

But Republicans in Congress are hoping the driver will go by their favorite neighborhoods (where they can, say, repeal ACA or cut corporate taxes) before the bus crashes.

That leaves it up to Democrats to put up as many roadblocks as they can until enough Republicans realize the futility of this Trumpian bargain.

You can play this exercise with other occupations.

• If your doctor acted like Trump
• If your high school teacher acted like Trump
• If your pilot acted like Trump
• If your boss (of the job you really need) acted like Trump
• If your priest acted like Trump

It works less well where there is a one to one relationship - like a doctor-patient relationship where the patient could just leave.

 It works better in situations like a teacher, or a supervisor of many people, situations where one risks something if she stands up alone.

Using these analogies may help identify strategies to stop this president before he does something so terrible (where the damage can't be undone) that the timid can no longer stand by and do nothing.

Actually, that kind of damage is already happening, but to marginalized and demonized people that the majority of Americans don't identify with, so they don't feel the damage or the personal threat, yet.

And that is part of the danger - that violating the long-standing traditions becomes the new norm.

Think about how people reacted to his speech to Congress Wednesday.  Because he didn't rant and rave, they thought it was an improvement.  It's like he has been running 20 minute miles, and now he ran a 15 minute mile and people think that's great.  Except that great runners do a mile around 4 minutes. And when you are president, you shouldn't be mediocre.

This also reveals how people pay more attention to tone than to content.  Although he didn't have any outbursts, his speech was full of factual errors and generalities. No details of how he's going to get all those jobs, improve education, or pay for that wall.

I predict that as Republicans realize that the ACA is not going to be repealed until they offer a health care plan just as good or better (in which case Obama's goal is still fulfilled), as they realize that Trump doesn't care about the deficit, or international political and economic stability, they will join the Democrats in stopping this bus driver.  Let's hope this happens before there's a spectacular crash.


This Andrew Sullivan piece echoes these ideas about the reaction to Trump's speech, but he puts it in the context of how abused spouses feel when their abuser is nice to them.

Leaving LA. Arriving Seattle. Then On Home To Anchorage

The rain stopped during the morning in LA and we had periods of sunshine.  We even got a rainbow while waiting on the plane to take off.











And here are all those beaches I've been posting pictures of.  This time from the air.  The line out to see at the bottom is the north side of Marina del Rey.  Then comes the Venice Pier, and beyond that is the Santa Monica Pier.  Strange light close to sunset time.

I spent most of the flight trying to catch up on my reading of Abramson's Proof of Collusion.  I'm trying to imagine the explanations we'll get when current Republican Senators write the memoirs.  Murkowski might write something like, well, I opposed when I thought it would make a difference, but I had to balance getting things for Alaska vs losing all leverage vs being attacked and cut out completely.  I waited until there were enough other Republican senators to act in ways that would make a difference."   All the pictures of her I see nowadays have this terribly pained expression.  Is that her current look, or is that what the editors think is the most likely to get readers' attention?

Abramson tells a bunch of different stories that all tie together to explain Trump's historic and more current ties to Russia, gives details on the key players, and a massive backup of footnotes, of sources.  He doesn't make extravagant claims.  He mentions things that are missing in the evidence.  One can't help but wonder how the Republicans piled up on Clinton, yet the evidence of Trump's collusion is overwhelming.  Yet they do nothing, letting him stay in the country's cockpit pulling the levers.  If there was a hint that a pilot had a drinking problem, he'd be suspended until it was determined if it were true.  If a teacher were accused of inappropriately touching a child, he'd be out of the classroom immediately.  Yet the Republicans allow Trump to keep tearing apart the United States' political and physical infrastructure, honor, economy, and ideals while they let Mueller gather the details.  (It's not bad that they let Mueller do his work.  I'd like them to protect Mueller from being removed, and protect his work from being buried by Trump's new Attorney General.)  But in the meantime they let him continue to do his damage.

I do recommend the book for anyone who isn't quite sure of how and why Trump will be found guilt of colluding with the Russians to get elected in exchange for wrecking Western alliances, removing sanctions, supporting Russia's annexing of Crimea, pulling out of the Paris Climate Treaty, and on and on.

And then I noticed we were flying over downtown Seattle.  You've seen enough pictures of all the buildings.  Here are a couple of more impressionistic pictures.

The wide shot.









And the closer shot.  (The green is the ferris wheel on the waterfront.)











Eventually we caught the next flight and made our way home to Anchorage where it feels a lot warmer than our outdoor thermometer's 14˚F (-10˚C) reading.  The temperature at the drug store sign up the street seemed a bit off in the other direction.  It said 42˚F.

Wash Post Article Sounds Pretty Sexist And Racist As It Attributes Ocasio-Cortez' Win To Tribalism

A Washington Post article that appeared in Thursday's Anchorage Daily News really bothered me this morning.  It seemed pretty clear to me this was written by a white male (turned out to be by two white males), who despite writing at the Post and appearing to be generally left-leaning, acted as though women and people of color winning elections were some sort of quirky desperation play by Democrats.

Let's look at some of it.  (The second half was less disturbing.)

"The newest star of the Democratic Party, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, launched her New York congressional campaign by declaring “women like me aren’t supposed to run for office” — a jarring embrace of her distinction as a 28-year-old Latina less than a year removed from a job tending bar."

Many people's stereotypes tend to dismiss young women (28 is young to me), even white women, as not very important.  Young men, especially if they're wearing suits, get more respect.

The idea that women like her shouldn't run, was so true that no one paid attention to the race, assuming the long-term white male incumbent would easily get reelected.  Even in a district that has 18% whites and 49% Hispanics,  The percentages come from Wikipedia. I'd note a Twitter feed pointed out that a Wikipedia moderator had taken down her Twitter page because she wasn't deemed important enough to have a page of her own. (I'd note that neither the white female (Alyse Galvin, Independent) nor the white male (Dimitri Shein, Democrat), running to unseat Rep Don Young of Alaska have Wikipedia pages either.)

The fact that she worked tending bar less than a year ago basically dismisses her.  Here's a mere bartender running for Congress.  I'd note Randy Bryce, who is running for Speaker Paul Ryan's seat, was a steel-worker a year ago.  Did the reporters bother to find out if she was more than 'just' a bar tender?  If they found out that she'd tended bar, why didn't they find out she's got an asteroid named after her too, because she did really well in a science fair project?  But apparently that didn't fit their story arc.

Our economy is such that even highly qualified people find tending bar a better option than other available jobs.  But it doesn't define who they are.

"Her campaign slogan: “It’s time for one of us.” 

That appeal to the tribal identities of class, age, gender and ethnicity turned out to be a good gamble, steering her to the nomination in a year when Democratic voters are increasingly embracing diversity as a way to realize the change they seek in the country."  (emphasis added)

Tribal identities?  First, I'm already disgusted with the sudden popularity of 'tribal' to describe America's current political scene*.  Let's take a term from anthropology where it has a fairly specific definition that most people don't understand well, and then use it as a metaphor for current US politics.  What could go wrong?

The wealthier, white, Protestant male good-old-boys have dominated American politics since we were still a colony.  No one called that tribalism.   But when a woman of color unexpectedly wins an election in a district with a strong Hispanic plurality, it's because she's appealing to tribalism?  Please.  Class, age, gender, and ethnicity used to be demographic characteristics, but now that white males are losing, they are suddenly tribal identities?!  I know that word is currently floating in the US political ether, but like all popular new terms about to become clichés, they are easy to bandy about without considering all the implications let alone the accuracy of the term.  Maybe it was 'unexpected' because people don't take young Hispanic women seriously, or they didn't pay attention to the current demographics of the district.

As I recall, it was Richard Nixon's Southern strategy that got racist Southern Democrats to switch to the Republican party by using not so subtle racist appeals.  And Trump has been much more blatant about his white-nationalist leanings.  What exactly are these two reporters trying to say?

"The tribal trend has implications for the 2020 Democratic presidential primary, where a historic number of nonwhite and female candidates are considering launching campaigns, including Sens. Kamala D. Harris (Calif.) and Cory Booker (N.J.). They will likely face off against a cadre of more traditional white male candidates, including possible bids by former vice president Joe Biden and former Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe."

What's their point?  Nobody called it tribalism when Irish or Italian male politicians appealed to Irish and Italian voters.   Isn't increasing the number of women in Congress long overdue?  The Senate has the highest number of women ever - 23% and in the House of Representatives it's only 20%.  So having women candidates is tribal?  Maybe it's a reaction to the sexual predator in the White House.  Or the 80% of male majority in the House?  They don't trust white males to represent their interests any more.  How many women presidents have we had in 220 years?  India and Pakistan have had women heads of state already.

"Many of the key Democratic House primaries this year have been competitions over biography, with a premium given to those who break new ground or remove old barriers. House nominees in key races to unseat Republicans include a black former NFL player turned attorney, a female retired fighter pilot and a lesbian Air Force intelligence officer, all of whom defeated more conventional opponents."

Aren't most elections about biography?  Most candidates campaign on who they are more than on their policies and programs.  The people on this list sound highly qualified, with a wide array of experience not normally represented in Congress.  I'm sure these folks could represent more different Americans than 'more traditional white male candidates.'

The rest of the article gets less problematic in its language and analysis, but the beginning parts quoted here sound much more like off-the-cuff, testing of political opinion that reflects a white male bias, rather than serious, knowledgeable analysis.  And this comes from the Washington Post!  No wonder people are focused on gender and race rather than qualifications and policy.  It's where media direct our attention.

Oh yeah, the title of the article was:

 "The worst thing to be in many Democratic primaries? A white male candidate."

The reporters generally aren't responsible for the titles.  This goes to the editors.   Nothing like stoking Trump supporters fears that they are being targeted.  Why not turn it around and say 'Females and people of color trying to get more balance into our legislatures."  Not as catchy of course, but not as inflammatory either.  And more accurate.  But alarmist titles get more clicks.


Here's a link to the whole article on misusing 'tribalism'   I needed a password to see it, so it probably won't work.  But if you have a local library card, you might be able to get to it.  It's better than the abstract you can get at the link above.  ‘Tribalism’ gets a bum rap"  Guest Editorial by Lawrence Rosen, Anthropology Today, October 2016.

At What Point Is A Politician Liable For Deaths Because Of His Actions Or Inactions?

Retired pilot Dave Bronson took office as Anchorage's new mayor on Thursday, July 1.  That was at a time when Alaska's COVID situation was relatively low.  So low that the State Health and Human Services Department only posted new numbers Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays.  So my starting date on this chart is Friday, July 2, 2021.  My ending date is Thursday, September 23.  Yes, they went back to reporting the numbers five days a week.  There was a Friday report too.  One of the worst ever.  They added 41 deaths and the new resident case total was 1729.  The highest ever.  But that report included a lot of backlogged numbers.  Most of the deaths probably happened during Bronson's tenure, but the new cases inflated that one day total. I decided the Thursday report was damning enough.  

These numbers are for the whole state of Alaska, and the Mayor of Anchorage is only in charge of Anchorage, But Anchorage is by far the largest city in the state with almost half the population, and people from nearby the Matsu borough and the Kenai Peninsula work and shop in Anchorage.  Plus it's the transportation hub of the state.  Many people outside of Anchorage have to fly through Anchorage on the way to other places.  It's also the medical center of Alaska, the place where people from more rural areas, with smaller hospitals or just clinics, come for more serious health needs.  So what the Mayor of Anchorage does regarding COVID affects more than just Anchorage.   

Our mayor came into office  having at various times denied COVID was a serious problem.  He thinks people's individual liberties are violated by mask mandates and vaccine mandates. And that the health restrictions harm business more than the virus.  He recently said he didn't know what more he could do.  

The alarming change in the COVID numbers is the result of his willful ignorance.  His stubborn clinging to bullshit information.  (Sorry, misinformation is much too tepid a term for the organized and profitable propaganda that is aimed at Trump supporters.)

My sense is that Bronson is the kind of man who rarely if ever acknowledges he's wrong.  Maybe on something minor like flipping a coin.  But he's been adamantly certain about LGBTQ issues for many years.  It's hard for a man like him to do the right thing after investing so much of himself to following the wrong path.  And because he's mayor, his actions and or lack of actions, impact tens of thousands of people. 

 One hundred and forty-four people have died since he took over Anchorage.  

• Let's drop half of them as not Anchorage related.  
• Let's skip the first month in office (there were only 12 deaths reported between July 2 and August 2). That leaves us 132 deaths. 
• Let's cut out 50% of deaths since August 2,  since Anchorage only has half of Alaska's population.  That leaves us 66 deaths.  
• Let's just arbitrarily say that 10% (and this is really low) of those could have been avoided had Bronson taken rigorous action against the spread of COVID in Anchorage.  

That would be six people who would probably be alive, but for  Bronson's inaction.  Probably a lot more.  He may be passionate about the life of every single fertilized human egg that is created, but actual birthed human beings seem much less important to him.   And we're not even talking about all the people who have been very ill.  Or the businesses that are suffering because people are cautious about going out in public because the of huge surge in COVID cases.