Monthly Archives: March 2020

In this post I suggested another reason to avoid exposure to COVID-19 are the possible long-term consequences, of which none are known. Well, The Mirror has published an article that suggests surviving men may be really unhappy – at least, the fathering kind:

… a new study has warned that the disease could also cause damage to men’s testicles.

While this link is yet to be proven, researchers from Wuhan’s Tongji Hospital are urging male coronavirus patients to have their fertility tested once they’ve recovered.

In their study , which has been widely shared on Chinese social media, the researchers, led by Professor Li Yufeng, explained: “New coronavirus infections are mainly caused by damage to the lungs and immune system, but in theory new coronavirus infections can also cause testicular damage.

How so?

The coronavirus invades cells through the combination of a protein (S protein) and an enzyme, dubbed ACE2.

In particular, large amounts of ACE2 are expressed in the testis, indicating that coronavirus has the potential to cause damage in this area.

The researchers added: “It is theoretically speculated that new crown infection may cause testicular damage, affecting sperm production and androgen synthesis.

“Obstructed sperm production will affect male fertility, and severe cases may cause male infertility; androgen deficiency may affect male secondary sexual characteristics and sexual function, and reduce quality of life.”

So they haven’t seen any cases, they’re merely theorizing. It’s hard to really analyze the danger here, since it’s based on theoretical interactions and not sample cases.

It’ll be interesting to see if this just sinks under the surface as no evidence comes available, or if men start complaining. This could render the uninfected men quite attractive.

On Lawfare, former CIA analyst Yaya J. Fanusie assesses the weaponization – my word – of cryptocurrencies:

As the North Korean case highlights, two things enable cryptocurrency laundering: easy access to unhosted wallets and the existence of cryptocurrency exchanges around the world with lax anti-money laundering (AML) measures. Although the U.S. began regulating cryptocurrency exchanges in 2013, most other nations have lagged behind in applying AML rules to cryptocurrency activity. The intergovernmental Financial Action Task Force, which sets global AML standards, provided formal guidance in 2019 for how all countries should regulate their virtual asset sectors. But illicit actors will likely continue exploiting differences in national regulatory regimes to find noncompliant exchanges where they can trade crypto anonymously. Even this month, a Seychelles-based exchange announced it would cease U.S. operations so that it could onboard clients without verifying their identity. …

Legal and regulatory activity surrounding crypto and illicit finance will likely grow in the coming years as U.S. adversaries rely increasingly on cryptocurrency operations to fund threats. The U.S. Treasury now designates cryptocurrency addresses just as it designates bank accounts and other property, and the Justice Department is seeking to acquire funds held by 113 cryptocurrency accounts involved in the North Korean laundering transactions. With such enforcement actions likely to continue, intelligence analysts, sanctions compliance officers and financial crime investigators will need to become much more conversant with the world of crypto.

Fanusie structured this essay around an apparent North Korean hack of an exchange which netted the autocracy around $250 million. The easy lesson to draw is here is, if you really insist on holding & using cryptocurrencies, be careful of your exchanges.

The hard question?

I think the hard question is whether or not the unintended consequences of cryptocurrencies overwhelm the perceived advantages of cryptocurrencies. I am aware that cryptocurrencies were initially – allegedly? – devised to deprive governmental entities of control of money supplies. Financial histories are replete with accounts of countries printing money in order to satisfy debts, only to see inflation spiral out of control to the detriment of the citizenry. In fact – not following cryptocurrencies much – I have to wonder, or ask my readers, if the flip side of that desire has been considered: there are times when printing money by increasing the debt is highly desirable – such as the $2 trillion stimulus bill, now under consideration, to rescue workers left bereft as companies are forced to suspend operations in the face of COVID-19. Can cryptocurrencies display enough flexibility to perform the same function – save citizens from undeserved financial disaster – even if not in the same way?

But, more importantly, I have to wonder if the cryptocurrencies invented and enabled by the West are being used by its adversaries to damage the West. North Korea, despite the imbecilic blather of President Trump, is no friend of the United States, and would happily see us drown in our own toxins, helping it along if possible. So would Russia and, probably, China – all have national ambitions unblunted by the terrible wars that have left Europe unsettled for more than a century.

And while I have little reason to doubt the idealistic goals of the progenitors of the primordial cryptocurrency example, bitcoin, I do have to wonder about other cryptocurrencies, as well as the founders and managers of exchanges. Are their motivations congruent to the original, or merely pecuniary? Almost regardless of the answer, is this blinding them to the existential dangers they let loose by chasing their dreams? Remember this?

Even this month, a Seychelles-based exchange announced it would cease U.S. operations so that it could onboard clients without verifying their identity.

That would worry me a lot if I were in cryptocurrencies. While there is certainly more than one lesson in history concerning mismanagement of the money supply by government entities for personal or nationalistic reasons, there is an argument to be made that better societal management through responsible selection of leaders is far more appropriate than simply leaving in an outraged huff and taking one’s marbles into the bear’s den – which may turn out to be an accurate description of cryptocurrency advocates’ actions.

Ever sit out in the wilderness, campfire petering along (yeah, this isn’t your fantasy), hear a wild, drawn out cry, and think, that’s the cry of the …

President Trump cast doubt Thursday on New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo’s assertion that his state, which has become the epicenter for the coronavirus outbreak in the United States, will need 30,000 ventilators to properly care for the influx of patients anticipated to flood hospitals in coming weeks.

“I have a feeling that a lot of the numbers that are being said in some areas are just bigger than they’re going to be,” Trump told Fox News host Sean Hannity in a phone interview. “I don’t believe you need 40,000 or 30,000 ventilators. You know, you go into major hospitals sometimes they’ll have two ventilators, and now all of a sudden they’re saying, ‘Can we order 30,000 ventilators?’” [WaPo]

I have a feeling.

Or, from Fox News, a couple of weeks ago, when Trump was informed of estimated death rates:

In this clip, Trump:
1. Denies WHO's coronavirus death rate based on “hunch"
2. Calls coronavirus "corona flu"
3. Suggests it's fine for people w/ Covid-19 to go to work
4. Compares coronavirus to "the regular flu," indicating he doesn't get the difference pic.twitter.com/uC9c03zX31

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) March 5, 2020

Now, this is just my hunch …

Yeah. No training, no learning, no curiosity, no idea. But he’s got a hunch. It’s the cry of the wild – and lame – amateur.

But, back to the WaPo article, this next paragraph was enlightening:

El Greco’s The Vision of St. John:

I just want to know why this dude on the left is wearing a hazmat suit.

Getting away from COVID-19 for a moment, many years ago I speculated that a democracy could vote itself out of existence through the election of a Party devoted to that goal; I never seemed to notice that this, roughly speaking, is what happened to the Wiemar Republic in the 1930s. It lends some urgency to the question of how a democracy can prevent such an occurrence, given that attempting to stop such a thing is nominally a transgression of democracy itself.

But can’t the same be said for permitting a democracy to destroy itself? Actually, I suspect not, despite the allure of the concept, because democracy is not an end in itself, nor an unalloyed good. Democracy is a tool that a group of people have chosen to use as their tool of governance. We like to believe it’s the best tool in all circumstances, but, quite frankly, this belief may only be a belief.

All that said, for the advocate of a democracy that is in the midst of enemies, real or perceived, that might wish to destroy that democracy, a safeguard is a desirable, yet nettlesome, thing, for well-regarded democracies are all about the rights accorded to the individual and respected by the State. How to go about that?

Well, it turns out Israel has to tried to thread that needle, as Lila Margalit explains on Lawfare:

The power to bar political parties from participating in elections was first recognized by the Israeli Supreme Court in 1964, in a case involving the “Socialist’s List,” a party affiliated with the pro-Nasserist Al-Ard movement, banned as a security threat a year earlier. Despite the lack of any explicit statutory authorization to disqualify political parties, the court held that the CEC [Central Elections Committee] had the inherent power to disqualify parties that seek to undermine the very existence of Israel. Two decades later, in 1985, the constitutional Basic Law: The Knesset was amended to provide statutory authority to disqualify parties that negate fundamental constitutional norms. The amendment was passed following another court ruling, which held that the CEC could not disqualify parties on additional grounds unless the law was changed.

Today, this provision—Article 7A of the Basic Law—allows parties as well as individual candidates to be barred from running for office if their purposes, activities or statements negate Israel’s existence as a Jewish and democratic state; incite racism; or support the armed struggle of an enemy state or a terrorist group against the country. The power to disqualify a party is held by the CEC, a highly politicized body that includes party representatives from the outgoing Knesset and is headed by a Supreme Court justice. The CEC’s decisions can be appealed to the Supreme Court, and any decision to disqualify individual candidates must be affirmatively approved by the court before it becomes final.

Interestingly enough, under Article 7A only right wing individuals and organizations have been banned. I do find it discouraging to see the CEC is highly politicized, though. It suggests to my mind that disqualification is just another weapon in the war between political parties, just another paving stone on the pathway to hell.

One of the less fortunate results in the wake of the Great Recession was the failure for any business leader to suffer any great sanctions. From the bankers and insurance companies, such as AiG, they got their TARP funds, performed a little reform within, and carried on, unless they were bought out. A glaring exception was Lehman Brothers, which no one bought out and died, as if a single exception.

And Americans were not pleased. This is not how capitalism is supposed to function, in the minds of most folks. The strong survive and the weak and foolish go under.

So I’m very interested to find out in the coming days, months, and years how the apparent rescue of Boeing, victim of its own foolishness in the case of the 737 Max tragedies, and then joining in the general corporate suffering brought on by the COVID-19 outbreak. Here’s WaPo:

Sarah Winchester’s residence as it is today.

Winchester (2018) is a vapid little horror movie built on the more substantial bedrock of the story of Sarah Winchester, widow of the heir to the Winchester fortune and 50% of the Winchester Repeating Arms Company. She lived during the late 1800s to 1922; she lost her husband and only child to disease, and thereafter built what is today known as the Winchester Mystery House in San Jose, CA, a veritable museum of Winchester’s life. We’ve visited it and, liking houses that have housed oddballs, had a ball, as Mrs. Winchester was quite the superstitious lady. A house on which construction proceeded 24/7 (or she’ll die!) makes for quite the collage.

However, this movie aspires to take us from this reality to the next, from life to the dead, and it really just flounders about. It’s not the cast’s fault: led by Dame Helen Mirren, they give it their best shot. The problem lies in a story which attempts to use Mrs. Winchester’s superstitious nature to launch into a paranormal horror story about her supposed guilty conscience about all the deaths caused by the rifles produced by her late husband’s company, and that leads to the ghosts of the slain arriving for a noisy little buffet dinner made of her soul.

But perhaps I jest.

There’s very little to find compelling, from the widowed psychologist devoted to rationalism until he isn’t, to Winchesters, Sarah, her niece Marian and her family, and a museum-worthy collection of Winchester rifles, all running around trying to round up all these ghosts, including that bloodthirsty one …

Yeah. I’m sure this appeals to some temperaments, but it’s just a little too silly for me.

But if you’re considering visiting the Winchester Mystery House, this might give you a taste of how the structure may have been before God’s hammer fell on it. Well, someone’s, anyways. It was damaged in the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake, and some of it has never been rebuilt.

But it’s fun. If you get a chance, go see the house. Don’t bother with the movie.

Yesterday, the President upset various professionals with this statement:

I would to have it open by Easter. I will — I will tell you that right now. I would love to have that — it’s such an important day for other reasons, but I’ll make it an important day for this too. I would love to have the country opened up and just raring to go by Easter. [whitehouse.gov^[1]]

He thinks the near-term is a bright future; meanwhile, his own Surgeon General has suggested that this week may see a horrific uptick in infection counts. The various governors have protested:

Governors across the nation on Tuesday rejected President Donald Trump’s new accelerated timeline for reopening the U.S. economy, as they continued to impose more restrictions on travel and public life in an attempt to curb the spread of the coronavirus.

The dismissal of Trump’s mid-April timeframe for a national reopening came from Republicans and Democrats, from leaders struggling to manage hot spots of the outbreak and those still bracing for the worst. Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, the head of the National Governors Association and a Republican, called the messaging confusing since most leaders are still focused on enforcing the restrictions, not easing them. He accused the White House of running on a schedule made of some “imaginary clock.” [AP]

I think Governor Hogan should call on the RNC to unilaterally upend the primary results for the GOP and declare Trump unqualified and unacceptable, but that’s just me being a drama queen.

So can President Trump “reopen” the country the week of Easter? Here’s Professor Chesney on Lawfare:

2. No, the president cannot simply order state and local officials to change their policies

Here we have issues that fall under the headings of both federalism and separation of powers. Let’s start with federalism.

Most readers will appreciate this already, but it needs to be said: Our constitutional order has a federal structure, meaning that (a) federal powers are supreme, yes, but limited in scope and (b) the state governments are independent entities, not mere subordinate layers under and within the federal government (that is, the federal-state relationship is not similar to the way that counties and cities are subordinate layers under the state governments).

What follows from this? The federal government cannot commandeer the machinery of the state governments (or, by extension, of local governments). That is, the federal government cannot coerce the states into taking actions to suit federal policy preference. See, e.g., New York v. United States and Printz v. United States. And so, the federal government cannot compel state and local officials to promulgate different rules on social distancing and the like.

And the Executive has no authority, constitutionally or statutorily, to override State officials.

So what should we expect? Chesney suggests a lot of pressure from Trump, both directly and via his base. Governor Walz of Minnesota just put in place a shelter in place order to last two weeks, so it doesn’t seem likely we’ll be back in full economic production mode by Easter.

But we may be mourning our dead. I hope not, though – supposedly, Minnesota is doing quite well at staying away from each other.

¹ If you haven’t seen or read an entire news conference with Trump, this one is fairly salutary in its incoherentness. Give it a read.

I’ve theorized, supported by observations offered over the years by analysts and, hey, Fox News viewers themselves, that Fox News is popular because it offers news and, more importantly, analysis that makes those viewers happy. Not informed (as Bruce Bartlett will tell you), but happy.

And that’s just what came to mind when I read this:

… it must be good. Dinos on parade.

Concerning the Senate chamber’s denizens, a reader asks:

Are there enough GOP Senators out of chamber for the Democrats to ram some stuff through, if they can get it on the floor past McC?

Not that I’ve heard. My understanding is that the Senate is down five Republicans: Rand, Lee, Romney, Cruz, Gardner, and Scott. I see that’s six. That suggests the currently able to vote members are 47-45-2, with Pence casting any deciding votes necessary.

It makes me laugh to think of another Republican going down and suddenly Schumer is the Majority Leader, though. Maybe that’d require two. I think some forehead veins would be popping.

And then maybe a deliberate exposure of Democratic Senators to the virus by some rogue Republican staffer. Wow, this could get messy. Reminds me of the old brutal wars that wiped out chunks of the Roman Senate that Turchin related.

Anosmia:

The term anosmia means lack of the sense of smell. It may also refer to a decreased sense of smell. Ageusia, a companion word, refers to a lack of taste sensation. Patients who actually have anosmia may complain wrongly of ageusia, although they retain the ability to distinguish salt, sweet, sour, and bitter—humans’ only taste sensations. [The Free Dictionary]

Noted in “Losing sense of smell may be a hidden symptom of coronavirus, doctors warn,” Michael Brice-Saddler, WaPo:

There’s been a fufuraw over Senator Paul Rand’s (R-KY) behavior. He was given the test for infection by SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind the COVID-19 disease, on March 16, and then carried on with his life as a US Senator as if nothing was wrong.

A week later, the test came back positive. For an entire week, a US Senator, working at the S capitol, has potentially been exposing other denizens^[1] of the US Capitol to SARS-CoV-2, depending on when an infected person begins producing and shedding viruses.

The Senator’s defense?

“Given that my wife and I had traveled extensively during the weeks prior to COVID-19 social distancing practices,” he said, “and that I am at a higher risk for serious complications from the virus due to having part of my lung removed seven months ago, I took a COVID-19 test when I arrived in D.C. last Monday. I felt that it was highly unlikely that I was positive since I have had no symptoms of the illness, nor have I had contact with anyone who has either tested positive for the virus or been sick.”

Which all sounds very reasonable. I accepted it for a couple of hours, but it bugged me. So think about it.

What is quarantining all about? It’s not about self-care. It won’t make the person in quarantine healthier! It’s about caring, by not exposing, the other members of society! When Senator Rand confused the priority of his own personal desires with the judgment of epidemiologists world wide, he committed an increasingly common amateur mistake on the right, the belief that their opinion is better than the experts.

That’s fine when it’s your backfiring car you’re trying to fix.

That’s inexcusable when it comes to a potentially terminal virus for which there’s neither cure nor vaccine as yet. By not quarantining after taking the test, he’s negated most of the worth of that test.

It’s not surprising in the least that he refuses to take any responsibility for this mistake, as we see above and in this limp defense:

His office defends Paul’s decision by saying he left the Senate after realizing he tested positive. “As soon as he got the results, he left the building,” the office said.

Oh boy, leaving who knows how many Senators in deep shit? Several GOP Senators who were in Rand’s vicinity immediately, much to their credit, went into self-quarantine for two weeks, and since they’re in quarantine, they can’t vote. We can at least applaud Senators Lee (R-UT) and Romney (R-UT) for demonstrating proper leadership in this time of health crisis.

This massive lapse of judgment on Senator Rand’s part is the reason I’m calling for his immediate apology and resignation from the Senate. We need competent Americans in our leadership, not someone who doesn’t understand the purpose of quarantining.

¹ At one time, I would have used denizen without any further thought: a colorful but merely whimsical noun. However, given Republican hostility to government, it seems hospitable to use such a word for my conservative readers, make them feel at home, as it were, by suggesting a concordance of sentiment. Truth be told, though, I recognize these denizens as actually fellow Americans, dedicated to our betterment through their service via government.

Lest you were concerned that the COVID-19 – and rest assured your home-bound author is more than a little tired of writing on the topic – had not stirred up the crazies, here’s one that made me laugh.

Put simply: Only an irresponsible sentimentalist imagines we can live in a world without triage. We must never do evil that good might come. On this point St. Paul is clear. But we often must decide which good we can and should do, a decision that nearly always requires not doing another good, not binding a different wound, not saving a different life.

There is a demonic side to the sentimentalism of saving lives at any cost. Satan rules a kingdom in which the ultimate power of death is announced morning, noon, and night. But Satan cannot rule directly. God alone has the power of life and death, and thus Satan can only rule indirectly. He must rely on our fear of death.

In our simple-minded picture of things, we imagine a powerful fear of death arises because of the brutal deeds of cruel dictators and bloodthirsty executioners. But in truth, Satan prefers sentimental humanists. We resent the hard boot of oppression on our necks, and given a chance, most will resist. How much better, therefore, to spread fear of death under moralistic pretexts.

This is what is happening in New York as I write. The media maintain a drumbeat of warnings. And the message is not just that you or I might end up in an overloaded emergency room gasping for air. We are more often reminded that we can communicate the virus to others and cause their deaths. [‘SAY “NO” TO DEATH’S DOMINION,’ R. R. Reno, First Things]

I particularly liked this paragraph:

We, by contrast, are collectively required to cower in fear—fear that we’ll die redoubled by the fear that we’ll cause others to die. We are stripped of whatever courage we might be capable of. Were I to host a small dinner party tonight, wanting to resist the paranoia and hysteria, I would be denounced. Yesterday, Governor Cuomo saw young people playing basketball in a New York City park. “It has to stop and it has to stop now,” he commanded. Everyone must live under death’s dominion.

Yes, I’ve been stripped of the courage to cause someone else’s death – if I were to be infected but not yet showing symptoms myself.

I’ll tell you what, this guy has mastered writing a literary line, but not how to think. I shan’t speculate why, as long time readers will already know my thoughts on the matter.

But my source for this rampage about accepting what God is inflicting on us, the indefatigable Erick Erickson (yes, he’s still sending me mail), pops this dude’s pretensions better than I:

Sounds fine until you realize he is advocating death for about a million people just so he can get back to the office. That’s the thing all these preening jackasses who hate being stuck with their families are missing on this. And you’ll have to forgive me, but I put the ignorance as intelligence columnists in the category of rank jackassery here. …

Look, if you want to go back to work and claim we need to get on with our lives, please go first to your local hospital and talk to the doctors and nurses who are seeing first hand what’s happening. But this rank jackassery with a healthy dose of contrarianism where you pretend it is demonic to stop the spread of a virus is just a bit too much for me.

Yes, the cure should not be worse than the disease. But the cure is sitting on your couch, so shut the hell up.

It’s almost worth the mail for that nice take down. But the cure is sitting on your couch, so shut the hell up. Very nice. I might even give that a standing-O at a public discussion.

And then ask him why he embraces President “16,000 lies and counting” Trump. I’m such an ass in my fantasies.

Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick speaks out in favor of sacrifice for …

Dan Patrick, Texas’ Republican lieutenant governor, on Monday night suggested that he and other grandparents would be willing to risk their health and even lives in order for the United States to “get back to work” amid the coronavirus pandemic.

“Those of us who are 70 plus, we’ll take care of ourselves. But don’t sacrifice the country,” Patrick said on Fox News’ “Tucker Carlson Tonight.”

Patrick, who said he will turn 70 next week, said that he did not fear COVID-19, but feared that stay-at-home orders and economic upheaval would destroy the American way of life.

“No one reached out to me and said, ‘As a senior citizen, are you willing to take a chance on your survival in exchange for keeping the America that America loves for its children and grandchildren?’ And if that is the exchange, I’m all in,” Patrick said. [NBC News]

#ICYMI — I was on @FoxNews with @TuckerCarlson tonight. Click here to watch: https://t.co/potQsjdBID#txlege pic.twitter.com/2xLxYQQZVZ

— Dan Patrick (@DanPatrick) March 24, 2020

The “American way of life?” Really?

Or is it the recognition that a devastated economy in which the incompetence of the Trump Administration shines like a fireworks display bodes ill for the Republican Party in the November elections?

There’s a lot wrong here. The easy stuff is to point out that age is not a great proxy for identifying those who are especially at risk from this virus, and, in fact, Patrick is basically calling on everyone in ill health to put their lives on the line for the Republican Party’s political fortunes.

But it’s also shockingly short-term thinking. COVID-19 is not guaranteed to be a one-off event. Paint that on the back of your eyelids, folks. I would be delighted if the biologists or virologists came up with the breakthrough that would permit them to ascertain how to create safe and effective vaccines and cures for viruses in hours or days, but in the meantime, the only responsible course of action is to prepare for a repetition of this event. It may not be a coronavirus, it may take different forms, but it’s only prudent to assume it’ll occur again.

So, using Lt. Governor Patrick’s reasoning, who’ll be the next group to be sacrificed? What if the next pandemic is akin to the Spanish Flu, which victimized the young and healthy in a particularly gruesome death? All set to toss them into the shredder, Lt. Governor?

You may be wondering about the incompetency of this particular political specimen. Keeping in mind my constant and annoying harping on the toxicity of team politics (epitomized by the aphorism that, at election time, Republicans fall into line …), and the slightly more recent observation that the Republican Party is built on religious tenets, such as Abortion is evil, and the best way to climb to the top of the heap is not through demonstrated competency and ability to “work across the aisle,” but by determined clinging to those tenets, I found this entry in Wikipedia revealing:

Patrick opposes abortion and supported Texas’ “Mandatory Ultrasound Bill”, a bill signed into law in May 2011 by Governor Perry, which requires women seeking abortion to have a sonogram of the fetus taken at least twenty-four hours before the abortion is performed.

Patrick opposes abortion in cases of incest and rape. In January 2014, when he was asked about exceptions to outlawing abortion, Patrick said, “The only exception would be if the life of the mother was truly in danger…but that is rare.”

An abortion absolutist. Yep, that’ll demonstrate he’s an appropriate choice for higher office. It doesn’t matter if he’s in earnest or a hypocrite on the subject, or how competent of a leader he may be; the point is that he’s just demonstrated public incompetency in the matter of public health. It’d be fine if he had queried the experts on taking such a position and was rebuffed; I don’t expect anyone to get these things straight on their own.

But to take it public?

No, welcome to the tail-end of Republican team politics, where competency and coherent thought is not just second to allegiance to the religious tenets of the Party, never to be questioned or breached, but does not even exist.

This is what we have to look forward to if the Republicans are reelected in November. I’m an independent, not a Democrat, so if you’re an independent voter as well, take this to heart.

I was amused to run across someone screaming about the left weaponizing the COVID-19 pandemic, as if he’d never had a civics lesson in his life. Then I ran across this story from the weekend, which rather drives the hypocrisy of the entire debate right in to the nines:

I see that the skeptics movement, sub-section quack-chasers, is going to have to create a new sub-category for the damage that can be done by consulting with quacks:

Not In This Issue, though. The next issue, maybe.

These days, Plaquenil is better known by its generic name, hydroxychloroquine. It is the medication Trump has been hyping as a potential treatment for the novel coronavirus, even though it is not approved for this use and there is scant medical evidence so far that it works to treat the virus.

Trump’s push to use hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19 has triggered a run on the drug. Healthy people are stocking up just in case they come down with the disease. That has left lupus patients like Valdez and those with rheumatoid arthritis suddenly confronting a lack of medication that safeguards them, and not only from the effects of those conditions. If they were required to take stronger drugs to suppress their immune systems, it could render them susceptible to more serious consequences should they get COVID-19. [ProPublica]

I had never expected that I’d be typing Quack-In-Chief, and yet here we are. Now legitimate consumers of a medication are at risk because the President indulged in unjustified speculations, all in service of his political career. Endangering his own constituents.

This is appalling. It should be grounds to impeach him all over again, but I suppose that’s out of the question. Hopefully he’ll be on the short end of the Nixon-McGovern stick in November.

NPR reports that at least one judge finds GOP shenanigans in Wisconsin to be unacceptable.

A judge has struck down the laws that Wisconsin Republicans passed in December’s lame-duck session of the state’s Legislature, restoring powers to Democratic Gov. Tony Evers, if only temporarily.

A county judge ruled on Thursday that all of the laws and appointments passed by legislators were unlawful because they met in what’s known as an “extraordinary session,” which isn’t explicitly allowed under the state’s constitution.

Evers seized on the decision almost immediately, calling on the Wisconsin Department of Justice, led by Democratic Attorney General Josh Kaul, to withdraw the state from a lawsuit that seeks to overturn the Affordable Care Act.

“As the governor has requested, please take whatever steps are necessary to remove Wisconsin from Texas v. United States,” wrote Evers’ chief legal counsel, Ryan Nilsestuen, in an email to the Department of Justice shortly after the ruling was released.

Evers and Kaul campaigned on leaving the case, but one of the lame-duck laws has prevented them from following through on their pledge.

The ruling also temporarily struck down 82 appointments that former Republican Gov. Scott Walker made during the waning days of his administration, all of which were confirmed by Republican state senators in the lame-duck session.

Note that this was a county judge. Often low-level judges get overturned or corrected. While the Wisconsin GOP was certainly dishonorable in its extraordinary session practice, I fear dishonorable isn’t a legal term.

And, yes, if the Democrats were to do something similar when thrust unexpectedly from power, I’d be equally disappointed.

Big hats: soup de jour!
(Don’t think “mutant bunny rabbit”! Oh, you just did.)

Lady of Burlesque (1943) is a surprisingly interesting whodunit mystery set at a burlesque house. The players are all in play: striptease ladies, comics, backstage crew, even the mobster who’s a little free with his fists. Adding to the interest is the fact that this movie derives from a novel written by famous strip tease queen Gypsy Rose Lee, so it’s reasonable to assume it’s truly reflective of backstage life as a member of a burlesque company.

Dixie Daisy is a new but leading member of the burlesque troop of the gentleman S. B. Foss, a woman ambitious for the next step up the ladder, and she works hard for her troupe. But when an injured diva returns, Dixie is sidelined.

And then the diva is murdered. Add in the diva’s abusive mobster boyfriend, and things get ugly, and just to sprinkle pepper on everything, one of the comics of the troupe is infatuated with Dixie – much to her aggravation.

A second body, though, really amps up the worries, and the troupe, wondering who has a hatchet to sharpen among them, has to decide if the show goes on or not, which leads to a finale that couldn’t be foreseen – but was some fun reaching.

The print we saw was a bit muddy, but not awful. The acting and staging was excellent, and if the pacing sometimes seemed a little off, it wasn’t terribly off-putting. We enjoyed that hour and a half more than we anticipated, and you might, too.

I don’t usually quote someone just to quote them, but conservative and rueful former Republican Max Boot really puts the, er, boot in on the Trump cultists:

This was the result of post-Cold War, post-9/11 complacency, with voters imagining that they could take peace and prosperity for granted. If the coronavirus should teach us anything, it is that governing is a deadly serious business. Electing a grown-up isn’t a luxury; it’s a matter of life and death. The price of “owning the libs” turns out to be far higher than even most Trump critics could have imagined.

Kevin Drum is trying to prognosticate:

Right now, New York City is the canary in the coal mine. Whatever happens there over the next month is most likely what will happen to the rest of the country in the month or two after that. Even if we’re successful in flattening the curve a little bit, that won’t change the eventual rate of infection or the number of deaths. It just spreads it out a bit.

I’m not so sure. When it comes to the spreading of air-borne disease, density matters. And New York City is one of the most densely populated cities in the country. I expect the densely populated city centers of the country to see a higher rate of infections, and possibly death, than the more lightly populated cities and the rural areas.

And while it’s difficult to see silver linings, at least cities like New York have excellent hospital services, even if they’re likely to be overwhelmed – or already are. Our rural areas have become sadly notorious for their decaying medical care systems. The last thing they need is for the pandemic to his them, because they’ll swiftly begin losing patients who could have been saved.

But I guess we’ll see soon enough.

The first poll concerning the Montana Senate race has come in, and I’m pushing my count of Republican Senate reelection races to ten, as Public Policy Polling finds …

A new Public Policy Polling survey finds that races for U.S. Senate and House in Montana are both neck and neck. In the Senate race, Governor Steve Bullock [(D)] and Senator Steve Daines [(R)]are tied 47-47, with just 6% of voters undecided. In the House race, [Democrat] Kathleen Williams and [Republican]Matt Rosendale are tied 45-45, with 9% still undecided. Bullock and Williams both lead among independent voters, with an 8 point lead for Bullock (50-42) and a 12 point lead for Williams (51-39).

It’s fascinating that a state that I considered solid Republican, with Trump defeating Clinton by more than 20 points in 2016 (while Libertarian Gary Johnson picked up 5.64% of the vote, which I interpret as The conservatives beat the liberals by more than 25 points) now appears to be flirting with the idea of going Democratic. And just to add to the fun …

Susan Good Geise, a Republican county commissioner in Montana, told KTVH she’ll be the Libertarian Party’s new candidate in Montana’s U.S. Senate race – replacing a last-minute withdrawal.

Geise’s entry could change the dynamics of the race between Sen. Steve Daines (R) and Gov. Steve Bullock (D). [Political Wire]

My guess is that, if Geise gets any support, it’ll come from the Daines camp. My reason? Daines doesn’t seem to be an especially repulsive personality, so I think the Bullock support is sincere, rather than partially composed of Republicans Who Can’t Stand Daines. Libertarians tend to ally with the Republicans, so Geise may be the honorable alternative Libertarians will choose if the Republicans continue down their path of incompetent governance and repulsive personalities. They’re less likely to choose a Democrat, since the conservatives and libertarians still love their little fantasy that the Democrats are far-left socialists.

Still, the election is more than half a year away, which is plenty of time for any candidate to trip over their shoelaces.

From The Metro (UK):

An Italian hospital that ran out of life-saving equipment for coronavirus patients was saved by a ‘hero’ engineer who used cutting-edge technology to design oxygen valves within a matter of hours.

At least 10 lives were saved when technician Christian Fracassi came to the aid of an overwhelmed Brescia hospital that ran out of breathing tubes for an intensive care machine on Saturday.  Doctors raised the alarm after their regular supplier said they could not produce the valves on time – forcing them to come up with an alternative solution.

With the help of the editor of a local newspaper Giornale di Brescia and tech expert Massimo Temporelli, doctors launched a search for a 3D printer – a devise that produces three dimensional objects from computer designs.

Word soon reached Fracassi, a pharmaceutical company boss in possession of the coveted machine. He immediately brought his device to the hospital and, in just a few hours, redesigned and then produced the missing piece.

Now, despite the country battling an unprecedented health crisis, there is potential for a legal battle with local media reporting that the manufacturers of the valves are refusing to share their blue print for further production and could potentially sue for copyright breaches.

I would assume the same scenario could easily surface in the litigation-happy United States. Therefore, Congress should pass some legislation to cover such lifesavers:

If an action is taken in pursuit of the treatment of COVID-19 which would be considered to be in violation of copyright or trademark laws, the violation will be considered null and void, and no penalty will apply to all those in support of said action, so long as aberrational profits are not taken by those responsible.

I do believe I’ll be sending that on to my Congressional reps.

Erick Erickson promised last week that he’d not send any more emails to non-subscribers to his newsletter, and I sighed with relief. Aaaaaaaand … then he sent more emails. He thinks he’s doing a public service by conveying facts and opinion about the COVID-19 outbreak to non-subscribers, countering right-wing skepticism along the way. Maybe he’s right.

But he’s insisting on writing in political opinion, and I can’t help but laugh.

Senate Republicans have been spending like drunken sailors for several years. They have shown zero fiscal restraint. It is pretty damn impressive that as a virus sweeps across the nation, the private sector goes on lockdown, and the death toll rises that suddenly the GOP is interested in fiscal restraint.

As if he should be surprised. Erickson apparently has forgotten – or never accepted it occurred – the behavior of Congress, both wings, 2001-2007, when the Republicans held Congress and the Presidency, spent money like mad on all their pet projects, started two wars and refused to up taxes to pay for them, and generally behaved in a most irresponsible manner. The Party of Fiscal Responsibility became nothing more than a joke.

Here’s the thing – one incident, even a six year long incident, may be an aberration. Two, though, is a trend. Give the Republicans control of government and they turn into wastrels. Split control with the Democrats and they become fiscal hawks. We know the name for this behavior. It’s hypocrites.

But, worse yet, that trend means the Republican Party, and all those who adhere to it, are party to a toxic political culture. For all that Erickson likes to cite scripture and draw back in horror from liberals – his phrase from an earlier email, “baby-killers” – he doesn’t really seem to like to admit to the truth – that the Republicans’ behavior is congruent with a Party of hypocrisy, power-grubbers, and liars, all types of people who are ill-suited to being in the government of the United States.

Erickson should really ask himself how he can have such a flawed judgment that he embraces such an anti-intellectual position as calling abortion “baby-killing,” while tacitly endorsing the election of people who are so ill-suited to the task of running government that they’re actually damaging the United States.

And then trying to rationalize it all by labeling anyone who’s against Trump as having “Trump Derangement Syndrome,” while ignoring the documented fact of 16,000+ lies, prevarications, and unsupportable boasts in his idol of worship. Is this what Jesus approved?

Maybe it’s good that he’s trying to spread facts and thoughtfulness to a population of Americans who are known to be skeptical about official information, who think they can, with neither experience nor training, reason their way to their preferred outcome – “it’s all a hoax to damage Trump!”, to summarize a WaPo article I read today – but if he’s going to try to mix politics into it, even politics critical of his own Party, then he opens himself up to charges of guilt – and not just guilt by association.