Open to Hope

A year or so ago I took the 5 personality traits assessment—Dr. Jordan Peterson’s version, at UnderstandMyself.com, to learn about myself. Mr. Spherical Model took it too, so we could understand each other better. 

word cloud on openness, screen shot from here

I think I’m pretty self-aware, but there were some surprises. One was that I am moderately low in neuroticism. The words don’t mean exactly the everyday meanings. In this case, it doesn’t mean I’m free from anxiety and worry (people who know me well would say, “obviously”). But it does mean I tend to be positive and hopeful. And I measured nearly average in extroversion, rather than extremely low, which I would have expected. I’m a classic introvert, but I’m not shy, so I guess that’s how this comes out.

The other surprise, because I am clearly conservative in many senses of the word, is that I am extremely high in openness. Higher than all but a few in a hundred.

My assessment tells me: “The closest synonym for openness is creativity,” which I am in some limited ways, I think. But there’s also this that doesn’t seem to fit me: “High levels of openness are, furthermore, necessary for entrepreneurial success, and often prove useful at the top of hierarchies, even in very conservative occupations such as banking, accounting and law, which need creative people in leadership positions to provide new vision and direction.”

I don’t prefer to be at the top of a hierarchy; I don’t want to be low either. I prefer to be independent when possible. I guess a whole combination of other personality things come into play. I am willing to restructure when needed, and lead when I must.

But I do notice one thing about my openness: I don’t dismiss very many ideas out of hand. I explore ideas. I like working with the abstract. I like making connections that maybe aren’t obvious to others.

One of the places openness has shown up in my life is in healthcare. I’ve experienced a lot of, shall we say, disappointing healthcare during my lifetime. I’m, right now, in good health, but it’s a razor edge. If I eat a wrong thing; if I fail to get enough sleep; if I breathe in some pollen, mold, perfume, or whatever; if the weather suddenly changes—then I’m no longer fully functional. No little errors or vices allowed.

Moses raises the brass serpent
image found here

I’ve come to this relatively good health after a series of doctors have made pretty bad errors. That has left me less than trusting of standard medicine, and surprisingly open to trying things that are non-standard. I don’t want to talk about what those are; I don’t want the conversation to be about any of those particular things. The point is, because I’ve been open to some “weird” things, I’m pretty healthy—and mostly quite a lot healthier than people my age. Low blood pressure, not overweight, good skin, healthy heart, low cholesterol.

I think of it as something like the Bible story during Moses’s time, when there were poisonous snakes (fiery serpents, Numbers 21:6-9[i]). The people were told to look up at the staff prepared by Moses as God directed—a pole with a brass serpent on it, now a symbol for healing medicine. People who didn't look refused because of the simpleness; such a thing couldn’t possibly help. They didn’t want to be duped.

There’s another story in the Old Testament, 2 Kings 5. A Syrian called Naaman came to the prophet Elisha for healing. Elisha didn’t even come out to see him personally but sent a message telling him to bathe in the River Jordan seven times. He couldn’t understand how that could help, and he wasn’t going to do it. But his servant said, essentially, “If you’d been told to do something great, you’d have done it, right?” Yes. If he couldn't get a direct immediate healing, then he ought to have been asked to do something important, something of consequence. Anyway, Naaman was humble enough to be persuaded, did the simple thing that didn’t seem to make sense, and was healed.

Naaman washes in Jordan seven times
screenshot from video Naaman and Elisha, found here

I don’t want to miss out on something because of too much skepticism. I don’t want to say, “That would never work,” as though I already know everything, just because I can’t yet see how it could work.

Last week I had a brief interaction online with someone who I surmise was very low in openness. This happened when a friend read the story about a study that showed hydroxychloroquine was not working and could even be harming patients. As others have pointed out since, there were a lot of problems with that study, which I had questions about immediately based on what I’d read. But my friend had said, “So much for that idea,” giving up hope for that treatment possibility.

One of the obvious things about the study was that it didn’t combine hydroxychloroquine with both Zithromax and zinc. Zinc didn’t come into it at all. So I shared the video I mentioned April 6^th of a NY doctor who had treated around 700 patients, all successfully, using the three in combination.

That doctor was interviewed by Rudy Giuliani. Someone responded to my comment that we couldn’t possibly believe that doctor, because Giuliani is a shrill for President Trump, totally partisan. Giuliani is the former Mayor of New York City. He has plenty of connections there. He has an online podcast on which he interviews people. He interviewed Dr. Vladimir Zelenko. I do not know the doctor’s political affiliation; since he is in NYC, I could guess with 80% accuracy that he votes Democrat. Who knows? It didn’t come up. It wasn’t relevant. They were talking about his data, how he got it, what he’d seen in his actual patients, how he came to combine the three things.

I was simply trying to engender hope. So I responded to the comment that there was other good news. I shared the story about Dr. Robin Armstrong, who had very good success treating residents of a nursing home in Galveston.

This commenter, whom I don’t know, came back and said we can't believe that, because Dr. Armstrong is a Republican activist. He is, in fact, a former state committeeman, which the Dallas news report mentioned, even though it wasn’t relevant to the story. He’s not a Republican doctor; he’s a doctor who happens to be a Republican. Did I find that the story was good news because he was a Republican?

I did happen to know who Dr. Armstrong was; I have heard him speak several times in person, and I find him calm, reasonable, and believable as a person. But I would have found the story to be good news even if he had been a doctor I’d never heard of before.

I don’t ask the political affiliation of my doctors before I decide whether to accept their advice.

Which is what I then told that commenter. He came back at me as the one who had made this political by only providing stories that were spewed by partisan hacks.

Really? I made it partisan? I’ve collected other good news stories. But I did not further comment. This person was not willing to allow me to be hopeful about a treatment unless he approved first. I don’t need to submit to that.

It happens that I had become aware of—and hopeful about—hydroxychloroquine prior to any mention of it by the president. I had been writing about it March 19th, the day the president first mentioned it in his daily press conference. There were stories out of France and South Korea about its use. What we’re getting since is additional trial and error. Clinical trials are underway. I’m still hopeful about the hydroxychloroquine used in combination with both zinc and Z-pac. And there are other promising treatments being developed as well.

Back in March I read a story about how, during the 1918 flu pandemic, patients were treated outside when possible, and these patients seemed to heal quicker. There’s speculation about why: cleaner air, sunshine, some combination. The story speculated that maybe there’s something useful here for this current pandemic. Some comments following the article called it quackery, and called the author’s credentials into question. Other comments were supportive. Several said when they shared it on Facebook, it was removed. There’s a notice above the article that the publisher doesn’t fact check, and sends me to cdc.gov for accurate coronavirus info. Nevertheless, I tucked that story away as something hopeful to wait and see if more information might come out.

Camp Brooks emergency open-air hospital in Boston, 1918 influenza.
National Archives photo, included in this story

Last week, there was an announcement of studies showing that sunlight killed the coronavirus. Exposure to sunlight for a minute or two was enough. 

It’s not like sunshine as a disinfectant is a new idea. It’s been around long enough to be a useful metaphor for curing corruption of all sorts.

April 23, 2020 daily briefing, announcement about
heat, humidity and sunlight affecting SARS-CoV-2
screenshot found here

Anyway, this good news came up in the daily press briefing. Following the doctors’ explanation about this study and other things (heat and humidity also help against the virus), the President follows up with encouraging words. And, because he is who he is and says unscripted things, he uses the word “disinfectant,” talking about the possibility of using UV rays (sunlight) to treat Covid-19 in the lungs. Result: internet and media explosion.

I heard the briefing live; I was very pleased to know that leaving something in the sun for a few minutes was enough to kill off the virus. Yay! And when the President spoke, about using UV light inside, my thought was, “That’s an out-of-the-box idea,” but not necessarily a loony one. I was open to wait and see.

Dr. Birx, the expert we’re listening to for all things Covid-19, seemed unaware, but a few days earlier Aytu BioScience issued a press release about its work on using UV light in the lungs to treat Covid-19.  It is my assumption that this press release info had made its way into the President’s consciousness, but not Dr. Birx’s. And not the media’s.

Healight, explanation video on UVA treatment possibility.
screenshot from here

I haven’t seen whether President Trump has done a personality assessment. But I would guess that he is very high in openness. Reports from those who have talked with him personally are that he listens intently; he is curious and takes in as much information as he can get. After that, he confidently makes a decision about what actions to take.

There was nothing in what President Trump said that wasn’t related to UV rays as a disinfectant. Take a look at the transcript.[ii] If you heard “disinfectant” and thought only of Lysol and Clorox, and “inject” and thought only of a needle—not that light the dentist “injects” into your mouth to cure the material used in your filling, or not the scope the gastroenterologist “injects” to view your intestines during a colonoscopy—that is your failure to see things in more than one limited way.

Maybe the media tends to be low on the openness scale. That’s unfortunate, since curiosity and desire to learn ought to be hallmarks of that profession. Maybe it’s purposeful misunderstanding out of malice.

Nevertheless, I look forward to the possibility of learning whether researchers have success in treating this and other internal infections with UV light.

I am open to hope.

I’m hopeful that an effective treatment—or several—will be found sooner, rather than later.

I’m hopeful that we will accumulate even more mounting evidence that this virus is nowhere near as dangerous as originally thought, and it will eventually be seen as something on par with a bad flu year. That’s on top of the actual flu, so still a concern. But not a danger so ferocious that we must shut down the world and cower in our homes until we starve.

I’m hopeful that we will be able to open up again soon. Very soon. I think many places should have done so by now. We may need to take some precautions for a while, but I’m hopeful that we can find creative ways to do whatever hygiene is necessary while getting back to work.

If you’re not hopeful about these things, maybe that’s a difference in personality trait and you can’t help it. But I would ask, until you can replace one of my hopes with something equally useful, stop insisting that I shouldn’t have these hopes just because they haven’t come out of mouths that meet your approval.

I’m not very hopeful our media can meet this request. Oh, well. I can at least keep tuning them out while I go about looking elsewhere for good news.

---

[i] This story is mentioned a couple of times in the Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 17:21, and Alma 38:18-22, adding respectively that “because of the simpleness of the way, or the easiness of it, there were many who perished” and “the reason they would not look is because they did not believe that it would heal them.”

[ii] I transcribed it for you: “So, I’ll ask a question, which some of you are probably thinking of, if you’re totally into that world, which I find to be very interesting. So, supposing we hit the body with a tremendous—whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light. And [turning to one of the doctors] I think you said, that hasn’t been checked, but you’re going to test it? And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do, either through the skin or in some other way. And [turning again] I think you said you’re going to test that too? Sounds interesting. Right, and then I see the disinfectant—where it [the UV light] knocks it out in a minute, one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that by injection, inside, or almost a cleaning. ‘Cause you see it gets in the lungs and does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it’d be interesting to check that. So, that, you’re going to have to use medical doctors. But it sounds, it sounds interesting to me. So we’ll see. But the whole concept of the light, the way it kills it in one minute—that’s pretty powerful.”

Is the Cure Worse Than the Disease?

There have been a great many confusing things surrounding this pandemic. This was addressed with good humor in a video online by humorist Adley:

Clarity would be nice.

We have shut down the economy, taking away people’s livelihoods, which brings on many social/emotional issues that are directly related to losing a steady income. And also taking away people’s other healthcare that is deemed non-emergency. Some things can be put on hold for a week or two, or maybe a month. But non-emergencies can get more urgent as days pass. Things like cancer treatments, heart disease care, joint replacement surgery, or even impacted wisdom teeth removal.

In the face of an emergency, we can be compliant. But we want to know that there’s a darn good reason for doing what we’re being asked to do. And we reserve the right to say when enough is enough.

I thought this would be a good time to look at this basic Spherical Model axiom and see how it applies during the pandemic:

Whenever government attempts something beyond the proper role of government (protection of life, liberty, and property), it causes unintended consequences—usually exactly opposite to the stated goals of the interference.

This pandemic response is an interesting case. There’s certainly some element of the proper role of government. But there also appears to be using that as an excuse for asserting power. So let’s take a look.

Asking the Question

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo
screenshot from here

What is the stated goal of shutting down our economy, leading to 27 million unemployed and a self-imposed depression? To save people from dying from the virus. OK. But people have been confined long enough to begin asking, “Is the cure worse than the disease?” That question was actually put to New York Governor Andrew Cuomo yesterday, and here’s how that went: 

Cuomo: The illness is death. What is worse than death?

Reporter: What if somebody commits suicide because they can’t pay their bills?

Cuomo: Yeah, but the illness is maybe my death, as opposed to your death. You said they said the cure is worse than the illness. The illness is death. How can the cure be worse than the illness, if the illness is potential death?

Reporter: What if the economy failing—

Cuomo: Worse than death?

Reporter: Equals death?

Cuomo: No it doesn’t. It doesn’t equal death. Economic hardship—yes. Very bad. Not death. Emotional stress from being locked in a house. Very bad. Not death. Domestic violence on the increase. Very bad. Not death. And, not death of someone else. See, that’s what we have to factor into this equation.

But the illness doesn’t mean certain death. The illness is very close to certain survival. Except for a few with certain underlying conditions, “the odds are always in our favor.”[i] Just today a study announced that the state of New York has a 13.9% infection rate. That’s 2.7 million people statewide. Infection rate within New York City is probably 21.2%. But as an Epoch Times story reports today:

With about 15,500 current fatalities linked to COVID-19 in New York, the death rate, or mortality rate, would be 0.5 percent.

That means that in New York, the hardest hit place in the US, where the disease has killed more than most of the rest of the US combined, contracting the infection means survival for 995 out of every 1000 people. As diseases go, 0.5% fatality rate is high. Flu is about 0.1%. But 0.5% doesn’t equal death, as Governor Cuomo implies.

In fact, as we went into this society shutdown, lacking even the data we have now, we feared the disease might kill 3-5%. That still means 95-97% survival of those who contract it, but that was considered too risky. It’s several orders of magnitude higher than the flu. So we shut down the world based on that fear.

What would we have chosen to do if we had known the rate was 0.5% in our worst hit area, and maybe equivalent to the annual flu for the rest of us? We didn’t have that information, but I’m asking it hypothetically.

Does shutting down save some lives? Probably. But denigrating anyone as heartless and selfish for wanting to risk going back to work is disingenuous. We don’t shut down the world because of the annual flu, or because of car accidents. Why this particular virus, then?

In government’s basic role of protecting life, liberty, and property, can government protect life from this virus at the expense of our liberty and property without limit?

Government’s Goal

Let’s state government’s goal a little more specifically. It is to slow the spread of the virus:

·         to prevent the medical resources from being overwhelmed.

·         to buy time for development of treatments, preventions, testing, and medical resources.

People have been pretty willing to accomplish those things. The first has been accomplished in most areas. New York is past their peak. New Jersey and some other areas are still facing bad times, but so far we haven’t faced what Italy did, having to choose who had to die for lack of resources.

Governor Abbott of Texas pointed out[ii] that, while we have a number of cases in our large cities, and at places around the state, overall, we have had a death rate of 17 per million population. This is while New York has had a death rate of 989 deaths per million. The US as a whole has had 131 deaths per million.

That shows that Texas has been doing something right—or has been very fortunate.

With New York’s mortality from the virus 58 times higher than Texas, should Texas continue requiring people to stay home until New York gets to our levels? Remember, that means taking people’s liberty and property. Can that be justified when the medical resources, even in New York, are not overwhelmed, and the spread has already been delayed?

Or can we balance saving lives from coronavirus while getting back to regaining our liberty and property?

It seems reasonable, in places like Texas, to slowly start going out. As Governor Abbott explained the opening up process:

If you’re going grocery shopping or whatever the case may be, you know that you’ve gone to the store and you’ve been able to do that without spreading the coronavirus. We want people, as they begin to go to the hair salon, or as they begin to go to restaurants, as they begin going to a movie theater—whatever they may be doing as we begin to open up businesses—maintain those safe, healthy, distancing practices so that we can assure that we can open up without spreading the coronavirus.

There will be some uptick in cases as we do this. But if we can maintain a manageable level, that seems more prudent than a siege mentality that locks us in our homes until we starve or get evicted. Whatever we’ve been doing has already been keeping the death rate low. Opening gradually doesn’t mean we necessarily kill more people. It means the Governor is keeping those two “slow the spread” goals in mind and is avoiding using the crisis to grab power.

The Governor is hopeful that by fall schools can open. Most people attending schools are less susceptible to severe illness. Those who are in higher risk groups (that includes me) may need to be hypervigilant longer than young, healthy people. And we can hope that treatments are available by fall so that we can find a way to normalize post-Covid-19.

Here in Houston the public health data shows that we hit our peak around April 4^th or at the latest April 9^th.

Houston Daily Case Count as of April 23, 2010
provided on Facebook by Leslie Joan May

Yet I heard on news that we’ll hit our peak around the first week of May, inconsistent with the data. That’s confusing.

The county set up a temporary hospital in a stadium parking lot downtown; not a single bed was used. It is being dismantled.

Nevertheless, yesterday our county judge Lina Hidalgo announced a new requirement that everyone leaving their homes needed to be wearing a facemask, starting Monday, for 30 days. Noncompliance can result in $1000 fine and jail time.

Why now, when the voluntary social distancing we’ve been doing has done its intended work already? Where is the data showing that wearing a mask when not near people avoids spreading the virus person-to-person?

This same county judge has been attempting to let felons (including violent felons in her first attempt)  out of jail because of the virus—because the virus spreads there. So, she would like to let felons back out on the street, not with a 14-day quarantine, because—where would they quarantine if they have to find housing first? Yet if we law-abiding citizens want to walk to the park without a mask on—away from all other humans, outdoors—we are the criminals.

Something is wrong with this picture.

People have been willing to wear masks. And do all the social distancing that has been asked of us. Mostly in the name of helping others rather than ourselves, regardless of Governor Cuomo’s accusations about heartless people who want to get back to work. Most people are reasonable and considerate. If they’re going to a place with a lot of contact (grocery stores, doctors’ offices, essential work around others), they’re going to be willing to wear a mask—now that government finally admitted that mask wearing helps to prevent spread both from the infected and to the uninfected. But being coerced to wear one in places where there is no need because there is no human contact with someone who hasn’t been in our house with us all along—that’s not even reasonable.

What if someone is already recovered from the disease and is no longer either contagious or susceptible? Are they exempt? No. They are considered criminal for not wearing a mask, even in places where they couldn’t spread it regardless.

To add to the lack of credibility, Judge Hidalgo wore her mask at the press conference yesterday, at least part of the time with her nose uncovered—unclear on the concept. One would assume that she is far enough away from others at a press briefing that wearing a mask, other than for demonstration purposes, would just make her harder to understand and would contribute nothing toward safety.

In a rather embarrassing lack of attention to detail, the graphic covering the story on the news listed things you can use as “homemade masks, scarfs, or bananas,” which had social media coming up with some creative responses.

Found on Texas State Rep. Valoree Swanson's Facebook page

The question is not whether masks might be effective in preventing the spread of the virus. The question is whether coercion is a valid way for government to encourage the practice.

Threats to Life, Liberty, and Property

What does coercion do? Does it protect life? Maybe a tiny bit under some circumstances. But our goal has never been to prevent all cases, or even all deaths (although we wish we could); our goal has been to slow the spread for those two purposes listed above. Since what we’re doing has already accomplished that, why this added coercion now?

If we don’t ask the questions, then we suffer significant loss of liberty and property for the sake of some vague sense that we’re preserving life when in reality we might not even be doing that.

Government isn’t in control of the existence of the virus. In an emergency—which this seemed to be—we were willing to take some drastic temporary measures to preserve life. But even under these circumstances, when government takes away a person’s business, that relates to the “takings” clause; government can’t take that without just compensation. And because government produces nothing, that just compensation comes from taxpayers—which means workers making income; it is a finite amount made smaller by the stay-at-home orders.

Has government done the right thing to shut down? We may not know until we have hindsight and a whole lot more data.

Is government doing the right thing when it continues a suspension of our liberties and the taking of our properties in the name of saving lives? Certainly not if it can’t connect the dots between its actions and lives saved. Certainly not if there are other ways to accomplish the saving of lives (special care for the most vulnerable, for example.) Certainly not if the “cure” is worse than the “disease.”

So, about government interference. Does the purpose—saving lives from coronavirus—qualify as a proper role of government? Probably. Does saving all lives from this virus at the expense of other possible causes of death and at the expense of our liberty and property qualify? The protests we’re beginning to see show that the people say no.

Are there unintended consequences to government stepping beyond its proper role? Yes. Some of them life threatening. Most of them threatening to our liberty and property—which amount to the living of our lives. When government “saves” our life by taking our “livelihood,” preventing us from “making a living,” is that really saving our life? In a few cases out of a thousand, possibly. But in an overwhelming majority of cases, the answer is no. Maybe we’re getting to the point where sensible people can assess their own risk and act accordingly.

---

[i] Yes, I’m quoting from The Hunger Games.

[ii] On Glenn Beck Radio, Wednesday, April 22, 2020. Behind a paywall, here. 

Federalism Works—Even in a Crisis

"Comedian talks to 'Past Self' about Covid-19"
screenshot from here

There’s a funny video about a woman early in the year talking to her future self four months later, getting some surprising news about what turns out to be important in 2020. Great fun! One of the things about this crisis combined with social media is the opportunity to enjoy the talents of individual Americans we’d probably never hear from otherwise. 

Along those lines, you might want to tune in to SGN—that is, Some Good News, a low-budget, homemade “news” program put together by John Krasinski. 

Good humor and looking for the positive are a good approach to a crisis. We’re not wired to thrive in negativity.

I would so much like to be past this pandemic, so we could turn our attention to other things—like we were doing last January, before all the changes revealed by the future (current) self of that video.

One of the purposes here at the Spherical Model is to educate about our Constitution. So let’s turn back to that today, while still using this current situation, and cover the concept of federalism.

Federalism

Federal: relating to a type of organization that is made by joining together separate organizations or states

State: a politically unified people occupying a definite territory; a nation

When the thirteen original colonies declared independence from England, they were a loosely joined group of separate states (i.e., nations), a confederation. The document joining them, the Articles of Confederation, was weak and imperfect. That’s why, a few years later, representatives from these separate but confederated states worked out a new Constitution, “in order to form a more perfect union.”[i]

They did not give up being their own sovereign states, but they united with the other states in a stronger union. It’s important to remember that it was states joining together, and not merely a few million unaffiliated individuals suddenly becoming a new single nation. The nature of America is that it is the United States (nations) of America.

Over time, with inadequate history and civics being taught, too many people think of the states as just provinces.

Province: any one of the large parts that some countries are divided into

America didn’t divide itself into provinces that it called states; states united together to form America. We’re all Americans, but we’re also citizens of our respective states. You might forget that in some states, but you don’t forget it here in Texas.

Federalism Applied to the Pandemic

Issues of federalism are coming up a lot here, in America, during this pandemic. Some of the posturing between governors and the president come from these questions : “Who pays?” And “Who bears the blame?” If a state can make the federal government assume responsibility, then costs come out of the federal budget rather than the state budget. And if a mistake is made—not enough protection of the people, or putting small business out of businesses by ordering them to close for a time—then the blame and responsibility for restitution get laid at the feet of the federal government, rather than the respective state governments.

But we’re set up to be a federal government—each level of government handling all it can, and the next level up handling only what it must. Ideally.

During a pandemic, the federal government should be expected to handle border issues—people coming in and out of the country—with more vigilance and care than during normal times. Shutting down air traffic from China in late January is an example, followed not long after with flights from European countries that were having severe outbreaks.

The federal government can also provide information from national resources, such as the CDC, which can be used by state and local authorities, combined with their local data sources, to determine actions. The federal government is stepping up to its line of authority by recommending shut-down procedures. It does not, however, tell all states what they must do. A state still has authority to follow those guidelines exactly or adjust according to its own situation and needs.

And states have varied widely. Wyoming—with a lot of natural social distancing, and very few cases—shouldn’t have the same rules placed on their people as NYC, where more cases have happened than anywhere in the US. More cases actually than most of the rest of the US combined. South Dakota has turned out to be a good experiment of more openness in a less densely populated state. Texas is huge, and a mix of rural and urban counties, so Governor Abbott is giving a lot of autonomy to local areas on when and how to open back up.

So federalism is a good thing. As opposed to top-down, one-size-fits-all arbitrary authoritarian rule.

Authoritarianism

An odd phenomenon has been happening. One of the complaints about Donald Trump, since before his election, was that he was authoritarian. I believed that myself. He often talks like an authoritarian. But his actions have been federalist. He didn’t shut down the country. He didn’t order the states to do exactly as the CDC recommended. He didn’t order them all to reopen. He left the authority with state and local jurisdictions.

And while he’s been doing that, those who claim to fear his authoritarianism have insisted that he has failed to protect America by not being authoritarian enough.

Earlier today, Andrew Klavan illustrated this in his podcast. He played a clip from an old 2004 Saturday Night Live skit, in with Donald Trump participated. This was during the time when Trump was allowing his name to be licensed to all kinds of products. In the skit, it’s to a thing called House of Wings. With dancing chickens (people in costumes) around him, he plays it straight. 

Trump's 2004 "House of Wings" skit on SNL
screenshot from here

Here’s Donald Trump's part of the script:

Am I saying I’m a chicken wing expert? No, but I can tell you this: the wing is hands down the best part of the chicken. Better than the head. Better than the torso. Better than the back. And at Donald Trump’s House of Wings you can get them with 5 different levels of hotness: regular, hot, 3-alarm, suicidal, and hell spawn. And, if you like celery, congratulations! It’s on the house.

He doesn’t take himself too seriously. And—this is the point Klavan makes—he deadpans it.

That tells you absolutely everything about what Donald Trump has been doing during these press briefings—specifically when he said, “I have absolute authority to open everything up.” 

And the governors all reacted: “What? This is unconstitutional. We have power! We’ll sue. We have power.” 

And so he said, “OK. It’s up to the governors.” 

“What? What do you mean?”

It was one of the great deeks (?) in human history. It was absolutely terrific, and I’m going to be talking about this today. Trump has preserved federalism during a crisis. He has done what I said he should do at the very beginning, which is that he has let this crisis go to waste.

New word for the day: deeks. I have no idea how to spell it, and I couldn’t find a definition. But from context, I imagine it means he ensnared them in his game. Or it was an amazing feat.

Also, "letting this crisis go to waste" is Yuge, and I thank Andrew Klavan for putting it that way.

Andrew Klavan, screenshot from his podcast

Later Klavan says,

He has essentially done something that conservatives should be cheering…. He has put the Democrats in the position of defending federalism. He has put the press in the position of calling for him to become a tyrant while he tells them about the Constitution. That is an amazing, amazing feat on his side.

And it should tell us something about him, first of all, that, not only has he got a good sense of humor and he’s been deadpanning the press and just letting them make fools of themselves. But also that he is committed to the country working the way the country is supposed to work.

I think my Congressman, Dan Crenshaw, gets it. He understands that the federal government is not the nanny protector, and certainly not God. He had an exchange with Bill Maher over the weekend—which almost never goes well for conservatives, because Maher has an agenda he plans to put out regardless of what is actually said. But Rep. Crenshaw did well.

Dan Crenshaw with Bill Maher
screenshot from here

Bill Maher said Trump didn’t act quickly enough, after one advisor, Peter Navarro, suggested things were more serious than others were saying. Dan Crenshaw points out, "Two days later he implemented a restrictive travel ban from China which he was widely criticized for. And, you know, that same day, on January 31st, Nancy Pelosi proposed the 'No Ban Act,' which would be congressional limitation on what President Trump is actually able to do with that travel restriction."

Maher countered that not all travel from China ceased. Dan answered that American citizens and other passport holders were allowed to return (under quarantine for 14 days) to the United States.

And I loved this:

If you're saying you wish that travel restriction had been more extreme, okay, fine. You apparently had the foresight back then when apparently no one else did. But the fact is that if Joe Biden was in charge at that moment, he's already said he wouldn't have done it.... Nancy Pelosi actually proposed legislation to stop it.

Local Decisions Can Be Different

We were only able to act on information we had at the time. Now we have new information. Lately the information shows a couple of things: the disease is more contagious than we had supposed, which means more people have contracted it that previously thought. Simultaneously, new data shows an even higher percentage who are asymptomatic or mild enough that they didn’t notice they had it. Most testing has been done on those with severe enough symptoms to need medical assistance. That means the data have yet to show us the percentage of deaths among those who contract the disease—what we need to know for the best decisions.

The coronavirus still appears more likely to cause death than a typical flu. However, it’s a lot less likely than originally thought—back when the economy was shut down because of the danger.

The social distancing we’ve been doing was never designed to eradicate the illness; it was designed to spread out the spread, to avoid overwhelming resources. We’ve accomplished that. Yay! We’ve done it!

So, what is the rationale for continuing to keep all “non-essential” businesses shuttered? Or why prevent people from practicing sensible social distancing and hygiene as they go out? Why—as Michigan’s governor has ordered—prevent people from driving from their primary home to their second home within the state, typically a more rural cabin, which they own and haven’t touched since their last visit, and in which they can continue social distancing? Or why prevent people from driving in a car with another family member—whom they’ve been isolated with already for a month? Is there some way the disease spreads from inside one car to inside another car? Or from one person who clearly doesn’t have it to another person who clearly doesn’t have it?

We need common sense. Leaders at every level ought to be able to support their plans with data that applies to their situation. But if a leader doesn’t use data or common sense, at least they can only affect those within their jurisdiction, not all of us.

Because we’re a diverse country—urban, suburban, rural—we need local decisions. And they shouldn’t the same in a dense city with a lot of mass transit as in a rural area where people travel by car and are easily able to maintain distance even in public.

Federalism is ideal for a country like ours. Let decisions be local. And let them be different one from another.

---

[i] Preamble to the US Constitution.

Tyranny's Body Count Rises

Sometimes we talk about the overwhelming body count caused by communist regimes in the 20^th Century. But we’re two decades into the next century, and those numbers continue to add up.

We need to add every death from the SARS-COV-2, the COVID-19, also called the novel coronavirus, to the body count for the Chinese Communist Party.

Is it important to determine blame?

Think of it this way, using a simple society: your tribe is at war with a nearby tribe. You would rather not be at war; you are not the aggressor. But every night for a week, homes on the outskirts of your village have been attacked. The people within each home have been murdered. The signs of forced entry and violence are obvious. The aggressor tribe you’re at war with has threatened to do this violence. You set out scouts to watch the village perimeter. They report that intruders who appear to be dressed as your enemy tribesmen sneak in and out. In the morning additional households have been murdered.

Do you say, “Let’s not be hasty. We could have serial murderers among us. We don’t want to falsely blame our enemies and set in motion a need for action”? And then do you spend your time trying to find evidence of an internal serial murderer? Or do you start building a protective wall around the outer settlements—or some other protection against your enemy?

It’s helpful to know what’s actually happening so you can take the most appropriate actions to protect yourselves in the future.

In this case, the warring tribe against us is the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). It has declared war against us, the US in particular, the West in general, the rest of the world in all practical purposes.

Screenshot from "Tracking Down the Origin of the Wuhan Coronavirus"

The Crimes of China

China’s claim that the virus was a spontaneous mutation from wild animals—bats—that found its way into the population through a seafood market is now known to be a lie. It turns out, no one bought or sold bats at the Huanan Seafood Market. The bats that carry the coronavirus are specifically horseshoe bats, located in caves 900 km from the market—but captured and brought to the Wuhan Virology Lab where they were studied, just up the road from that market.

The logical assumption is—and the evidence shows—that this was a virus that was manufactured in a lab. The virus in nature does not transfer to humans. But a scientist at this lab, Shi Zhengli, had published as far back as 2010 on the methodology for getting these coronaviruses to infect humans. It was a matter of a lock and key. She replaced the key, the S-protein, in the SARS virus with one found in a bat coronavirus, and had plans to next experiment on primates. This woman has disappeared, but China says, “No, she’s fine,” but won’t show her, or even a new photo of her.

Shi Zhengli, speaking on cross-species infection in 2018
screenshot from here

At this point we don’t know the purpose of this research. It looks like creating a bioweapon is a possibility. But some funding for the research came from the US, which is puzzling if that was the only purpose.

We don’t yet have evidence that the outbreak was on purpose. It seems logical that they might have wanted to develop a vaccine first (which they would control distribution of), or they might have wanted to develop genetic engineering that would avoid affecting their own people. So, at this point I think it was an accidental leak.

But once it was out, the source was almost immediately known, as well as the virus’s ability to move person-to-person, and not just animal-to-human. They had the entire genome sequenced—which they provided to the world in February, months earlier than they would have been able to do in so short a time if this work had not already been essentially complete.

The CCP shut down any information about the virus. They destroyed evidence at the seafood market. They waited a full six weeks—and probably even weeks longer than that, to tell the world it was highly contagious—risking their own people by not closing down travel, and not taking containment measures, until mid-January, a full two months into the spread. Mid-January, before admitting human-to-human spread, they cut off Wuhan from the rest of China, but they did not cut off Wuhan from the rest of the world. 

A University of Southampton study found that the spread of Covid-19 could have been reduced by about 95% if China had been honest just three weeks earlier.

In February, when it was obvious they had long known about the contagion, they started claiming it was a bio-weapon placed in China by the Americans.

The WHO took China's word without question every step of the way. That is unconscionable.

As of today, 2,152,647 people worldwide have been confirmed to have contracted the virus (depending on testing, so that actual number is likely higher). The US has 667,801 cases.  Worldwide deaths are at 143,802. Every single one of these cases is to be laid at the feet of the CCP.

Sources

treating CCP virus patient in Wuhan, March 19
image from here

I expect you not to take my word for it. I am no expert. I just read and listen and try to piece things together. Here are some recommended sources to get you started:

The Epoch Times put out a special edition related to the virus for March/April 2020, which is full of information. Because the Chinese Communist Party has been at fault in endangering the world, they have made the editorial decision to consistently call it the CCP virus. This is a subscription paper, but some articles may be available online singly. I suggest “The Mysterious Origin of the CCP Virus”  and “How China’s Coverup Led to a Global Pandemic.” 

Also provided by The Epoch Times is a documentary on YouTube called “Tracking Down the Origin of the Wuhan Coronavirus,” posted April 7, 2020. Narrating the documentary is investigative reporter Joshua Phillip, who has spent over a decade writing about China’s espionage and unconventional warfare. The 54-minute documentary covers the origins, the forensic case, and the biology in a clear and reasonable way, providing documentation along the way. 

Another good source is a YouTube presentation by philosopher Stefan Molyneux of Freedomain, called “The Case Against China.” This 64-minute presentation lays out the case as you might a murder case. Our “murderer” (the CCP) waited 6 weeks to notify the “police”—the WHO. He lies (saying there is no human transmission). He refuses to allow the “police” (WHO) to question him. When the police bring a search warrant, they find he has destroyed evidence and records (at the Huanan Seafood Market). He attempted to collect “life insurance”—China steals a US patent that was given for free to attempt to treat the virus. He threatens anyone who knows anything—Chinese doctors disappear. He is found with the evidence—the bat studies in the virology lab. He previously declared that he hates his victim and plans to murder—China declared a “people’s war” against the United States in May 2019. The cause of death is found to be as expected—the bat virus being studied in the lab at the epicenter of the infection. How should the jury find the accused? Guilty.

Stefan Molyneux, presenting "The Case Against China"
screenshot from here

On his Friday night special three weeks ago, Glenn Beck went through the case, which he called “China Lied.” This is behind a paywall, but it’s worth it. Add to this his Wednesday night special a week ago, called “Arguing with (Chinese) Socialists,”  a smaller piece of which is available on Youtube. 

Screenshot from Glenn Beck, "Arguing with Chinese Socialists"

I’ve been following Bill Whittle’s daily updates on his video podcast The CoronaSphere Lounge. Episode 21 was titled, “Is theCoronavirus Man-Made?” It was in this one that he recommended “Tracking Down the Origin of the Wuhan Coronavirus.” A few days later, on episode 24, he recommended “The Case Against China.” Most of the time Whittle's daily updates have been optimistic about our coming out of this soon, and rebounding. Anyway, he lays out the information well himself, drawing from other sources.

Outcomes

This CCP-caused pandemic happened while China had a treaty to behave as other civilized nations do.  In Britain, legislators pointed out, “Legally binding international healthcare regulations require states to provide full information on all potential pandemics. It appears likely that in its early response to the outbreak, [China failed to] uphold its obligations.”

So, what can be done to hold them accountable? Every country should pursue the Chinese government through international courts for the billions or trillions of dollars in coronavirus compensation. The G7 should hold China accountable for the trillions in economic impact that would have been avoided if the CCP had been honest about the outbreak immediately.

One lawsuit, by Texas lawyer Larry Klayman, was filed for $20 trillion against the Chinese government—a higher amount than China’s GDP. In the suit he must defend the allegations about it being China’s fault. He believes he can.

What courts can be used? The International Court of Justice, the Permanent Court of Arbitration, the Hong Kong courts, resolution of disputes through bilateral investment treaties, or the World Trade Organization.

Another likely way is more organic. Without any orders from above, people will refuse to buy products from China. The money that companies used to save by using cheaper labor in China will no longer be a savings if it causes them to lose buyers of their products.

Let’s be clear about one thing: the Chinese regime is led by Chinese President Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party. The Chinese people did not perpetrate this crime.

Screenshot from Glenn Beck's "China Lied"

We know from our long dealings with Hong Kong and Taiwan—as well as the many many Chinese who have become Americans—that the Chinese people are worth supporting. After so many decades under this murderous tyranny, a best outcome would be that holding the CCP accountable for this pandemic—both in lives lost and in economic costs—might lead to the overthrow of the regime.

The CCP can no longer play on the world stage among civilized nations. They have lost that right. But their people have, over the past couple of decades, seen some small sample of what freedom brings to the rest of the world. Perhaps they will no longer stand for this tyranny when it removes them from the trade that has boosted their standard of living so significantly. It would be sweet justice if this led to freedom for the Chinese people—and freedom from the CCP for the whole world.