Monthly Archives: May 2020

On 38 North Joseph DeThomas analyzes the results of increasing sanctions on North Korea, and the Executive Summary is that “The DPRK [North Korea] Wins This Round“. But, for folks who particularly loathe North Korea, this may be of interest:

Exports of Coal

Perhaps even more important, the DPRK is exporting large quantities of coal. Coal exports were estimated to have reached 3.7 million tons from January to August 2019, with three-quarters of those exports taking place between May and August. The value of these shipments was estimated at $370 million—all of it contrary to UN sanctions and all of it off the official trade books. The Panel had satellite imagery indicating that coal shipments were continuing at the end of 2019. The DPRK’s techniques for evasion were diverse. Much of the coal was sent from Nampo or Songrim (Songnim) in North Korean vessels and then transferred ship-to-ship to Chinese local barges. But here, too, the DPRK and its foreign partners are becoming more efficient and less discrete. Coal is now being shipped from North Korea directly to several Chinese ports in large self-propelled barges of a type not known to be in the North Korean inventory but which are quite commonly used in China. The DPRK has also begun to ship directly to China in large bulk carriers, including a “ghost ship.” It appears to have purchased a ship destined to be scrapped. On the official books, the vessel has been dismantled, but it is continuing to ship coal.

If there’s one thing that’ll shut down illicit coal exports and the money that accompanies it, it’s lack of demand. Coal, one of the greatest polluting fossil fuels, a disaster during production as well as consumption, is on its way out as fracking has reduced the cost of natural gas, thus motivating the use of same for power in place of coal. Not attractive on the environmental or financial fronts, its potential to generate jobs for miners who take great pride in their jobs – it may be closer to religious fervor in some cases – is currently its last line.

Conservatives, who generally deeply dislike North Korea, should sit up, take note, and turn to the job of shutting down demand for coal. True, some consumers, such as China, are difficult to dissuade, but others may be less stubborn. This is a lever conservatives should be grasping and manipulating, not only as a way to give North Koreans another reason to boot out the autocrats in Pyongyang, but as one step on the way to regaining a healthy environment we critically need, and to conform to economic principles.

Rarely are there so many positives to a potential action in the international order.

The Lincoln Project (TLP) folks are kicking up their heels. Having suitably angered President Trump by suggesting vast incompetency, they’ve widened their focus to include the Arizona Senatorial race by producing and distributing this ad:

While their immediate aim is obvious, TLP will also become a new factor in the November race for two reasons: a reasonable locus for moderate Republicans to focus on, and, by their very existence, a provocation to base Republicans to either hate, or to think. I think they’re trying to split the vote not only on President Trump, but, very responsibly, for all the Republicans who’ve thrown themselves at his feet and declared their loyalty to him.

From WaPo:

It turns out that there are moves afoot to address the problems of software reliability from a legal viewpoint, as Dr. Trey Herr explains on Lawfare. For example:

Liability is the legal mechanism to hold a goods and services provider accountable for the quality, security and safety of those goods and services. Determining acceptable quality, security and safety requires clear standards. In the jargon of the legal class, this refers to a “duty of care”—the minimum obligation required of a provider whose products might harm their users. The duty of care becomes critically important in defining the standard of behavior expected of final goods assemblers. An effective standard might well create legal obligations to set “end-of-life” dates for software, remove copyright protections that inhibit security research, or block the use of certain software languages that have inherent flaws or make it difficult to produce code with few errors.

But as a 2016 National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) report noted, determining which errors are “‘sloppy and easily avoidable’ is not a trivial matter.” Even avoiding simple errors is not an affirmation of sterling quality. A handful of efforts, new and old, try to address this problem. Some look at specific high-impact sectors like power generation and distribution, and medical device manufacturing. Others are more holistic, such as Microsoft’s Security Development Lifecycle, a decade-plus-long effort from SAFE Code and their Fundamental Practices for Secure Software Development, and the still new Framework for Secure Software from BSA. NTIA’s Software Bill of Materials (SBOM) effort is complementary in addressing how organizations track what code they use rather than how it is developed or patched.

The article’s a bit of a slog, but if you ponder using more than murky economic tools to encourage better software, this may prove to be a good starting point.

I wish I’d been at the meeting where this was decided. Remember Rep Steven King (R-IA) and his ridiculous views?

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the largest business lobbying group in the country, is endorsing state Sen. Randy Feenstra for the Republican congressional primary nomination against U.S. Rep. Steve King.

Feenstra, of Hull, is one of four Republicans challenging King in Iowa’s June 2 primary. King, of Kiron, has represented northwest Iowa in Congress since 2002.

“In difficult times, we are reminded of the importance of having effective leaders that understand the genius of the American system of government. As the architect of Iowa’s largest income tax cut, Randy Feenstra has shown his willingness to tackle hard issues to help his fellow Iowans,” U.S. Chamber CEO Thomas J. Donohue said in a statement to the Des Moines Register. “As we take on this pandemic, we need strong advocates in Congress, like Randy, who will be a champion for all Americans, and especially those in Iowa’s agribusiness community. The U.S. Chamber is proud to lend its endorsement to Randy Feenstra and looks forward to partnering with him in the future.” [Des Moines Register]

But are they only worried that they have the wrong Representative in place – or about potentially worse results?

King is not only a Congressional representative, but also a representative of the GOP brand, and as much as he may be popular in the northwestern quadrant of Iowa – and, having been through that part of Iowa during election season, I can testify that at least the cornfields love him – his unfortunate remarks in the vein of white supremacy may blemish the brand.

Worse yet, all four of the Congressional house seats in Iowa, after the Presidential election and the Iowa Senate seat, constitute the most important races in the Iowa. That means for many voters they’ll be looking at the top of the ballot and asking themselves if they really want to vote for Trump, Ernst, King – and then all the downballot Republicans as well, from the Iowa statehouse to the local races.

If King is on the ballot, those voters in IA-4 may decide to punish the GOP by voting against their candidates right down the ballot.

That may be the concern of the Chamber of Commerce and the Iowa GOP. Will the fields of IA-4 be blue or red in November?

Today’s missive from Erick Erickson is an illustration of why I wouldn’t consider subscribing to his paid newsletter (the one I receive is free and I am on it involuntarily):

I asked over the weekend if anyone knew any of the champions of “herd immunity” who’d gone out to get the virus. I actually really was curious. But my question was met with outrage as if I was insulting people. I actually really am curious. I hear so many conservatives advocate herd immunity, oblivious to what it would entail, I presumed some had. Thankfully, they have not.

I say that because the model for herd immunity has been Sweden, even as the Swedes deny they are pushing herd immunity. Well, things are not going well in Sweden. They have a 12% mortality rate and, per capita, have way more infections than the United States — in fact, the sixth worse on the planet right now. All the worst hit places on the planet are in Western Europe. Yay socialized medicine!

My point isn’t to gloat on any of this.

And, yet, you just did. Gloat, that is.

Second, the Covid-19 national strategy of any country is not driven by the economic form of medical service, although it may be constrained by it. To prove it, we could do – and why didn’t Erickson? – a side by side comparison from this Johns Hopkins site that provides data. For example, tonight (it’s updated on a daily basis, I believe) it shows Sweden’s case-fatality rate at 12.2%, the United States at 5.8% – and Norway at 2.7%. Finland 4.5%. Germany 4.2%. France 14+%! I believe, besides the United States, those are all socialized medical services. Wait, which medical economic system is best again?

But Erickson – and I – are wasting our breath. Dude, you know better than to trust these numbers! The uncertainties around virtually the entire Covid-19 phenomenon is what’s driving Trump’s terribly inappropriate economic optimism, his disbelief at the bad news that came our way and is still coming our way, and all the rest. So why are you being so quick to attack socialized medicine based on untrustworthy numbers?

This is really all about politics, from how Covid-19 national strategies are chosen, how much testing is performed, to why – especially! – Erickson shoots his mouth off, and it really makes him untrustworthy. Politics is Erickson’s prism, and I think it prevents him from presenting the best possible analyses of issues. Indeed, I wonder why he didn’t mention the pastors who claimed they’d not become ill, or would be cured by God … and are now dead of Covid-19. More of his political prism?

It’s too bad, because this is not far off the mark:

The fight that must be fought now is on reopening. We inarguably flattened the curve. The virus is inarguably going to be around. So how do we reopen?

Unfortunately, many of the very same people who demanded we shelter in place to flatten the curve are moving the goalposts. We have gone from flattening the curve to “crushing the curve” or eradicating the virus before going outside.

The virus is not going away. Flattening the curve was never about stopping people from dying. It was about avoiding an overwhelmed hospital infrastructure. We have had time to prepare resources and hospitals. It is time to reopen.

We at least must have a serious conversation of how to do it. I think some of the governors have done so, and are trying to implement some decisions; the protesters are getting in the way, though. But then Erickson gets all starry eyed:

This Sean Trende piece really captures my thinking and I regret I didn’t write it. He is spot on.

This seems to reflect a wider phenomenon of people being driven into “teams” regarding the shutdown. We’ve become polarized on the issue, and indeed this polarization is beginning to reflect our underlying politics. This is an unwelcome development. One of the dynamics about team sports is an inability to see the other side’s point of view; indeed, that is in many ways the point of teams. As this virus develops, flexibility will be crucial in determining how well we come out of it, and a willingness to listen to the viewpoints of those we don’t generally agree with is probably the most important trait we can have. But, as with so many other things, that seems to be one more fatality resulting from this virus.

No, and no, and no. One of the dynamics of a failed team is the inability to see the other side’s point of view. Failed teams go away. Failed teams die.

Successful teams have insight into their opponents. Think of the tapes that NFL teams review prior to game day. That is insight, formalized.

No, what we’re seeing isn’t teams. It’s cults. Absolute belief, often in the irrational, automatic disdain for the other cults. Simultaneously often frightened of other cults. Ready to spread lies about other cults at the drop of a hat. Those are just some of the behaviors we see on both sides.

And it fits cults to a T. Look around and see all the cults, too. Such hermetically sealed cults actually do survive for a long time. Unlike similar teams.

That’s why I have a hard time taking Erickson seriously. He occasionally has something good to say. His dislike of the paranoia of the right goes in his plus column. But his fumbling of details in a non-linear system – and his automatic assign of blame to anywhere but his side of the column – is a whole lot of negative marks.

Seen in the neighborhood tonight.

No commentary needed.

In the past I’ve ruminated on whether or not investors are the most important part of the corporate program, and come down against it; I believe that there’s much evidence showing that customers and employees – no particular order – are as important as, if not moreso, than investors in the great corporate equation.

This position has been unpopular out in the corporate world, as I understand it. The link above is to a post concerning Megan McArdle’s negative reaction to an article in which corporate C-suite types are signing a statement to the effect that investors do not belong at the front of the cafeteria line.

But I think we’re about to get more evidence for my side of the teeter-totter. WaPo has this report on how some large companies are treating their employees – and their investors:

Since the coronavirus pandemic was declared, Caterpillar has suspended operations at two plants and a foundry, Levi Strauss has closed stores, and toolmaker Stanley Black & Decker has been planning layoffs and furloughs.

Steelcase, an office furniture manufacturer, and World Wrestling Entertainment have also shed employees.

If you haven’t heard of The Lincoln Project, here’s their latest political advertising.

The Lincoln Project advertises itself as a collection of Republican NeverTrumpers, including prominent Trump critic and lawyer George Conway, husband of President advisor Kellyanne Conway.

While Lincoln is an important name that associates with important American values held by most American, I think it’s not unfair to suggest that the name may be ineffectual. I might have gone with Rational Republicans, myself. Or maybe Responsible Republicans. Let the other side make the case that they’re the responsible ones, then stomp them into the ground.

And, make no mistake, this is not about the Trump base. He has to betray them in a big & public way before that rock will crack. This is all about appealing to independents to not vote for Trump. In a sense, The Lincoln Project has the same goal as Bruce Bartlett, who reportedly backed Trump to win the nomination way back in 2016. He did so in the belief that the resultant shellacking in the elections would destroy the corrupt heart of the GOP, which could then be reformed without the harmful elements. He had the right goal but the approach turned out to be flawed.

Will The Lincoln Project succeed? If they can reach the independents, then they have a chance. Pound on the facts AND the concept of Responsible Leadership, and, in the context of the facts, does the Trump Administration come anywhere close?

Often there’s an implicit analogy to buildings, the quintessential symbol of humanity, when talking about logic. Logic can, at least in my reality, be viewed as a set of operations which are used to make inferences based on assumptions (e.g., if A, then C) and assertions (A is true, B is false), we hope, the real world, with which we can make deductions that, once again, we hope mirror the real world.

If one or more of your assumptions are wrong, then your inferences, your arguments, may be entirely in accordance with your operations, i.e., your rules of argument, but your results are simply wrong.

In fact, the rules of argument are rarely at issue in logician’s circles; it’s all about the assumptions. Or so a logician once told a group of us on social media back in the early 1990s.

Why bring this up? Erick Erickson persists in sending his emails, and I am drawn to them like watching train accidents. Some of what he has to say is valid and even interesting, although I am not his target audience – in fact, that may be why I find it interesting. And then there’s yesterday’s mailing, entitled COVID-19 and the Mark of the Beast. This caught my attention:

If COVID-19 were wiping out children instead of grandparents, many of the same people now demanding we fully reopen and refusing a vaccine would be beating down the door to get one. A virus that takes children would be viewed far differently than one that kills an elderly person in a nursing home.

Throughout history, there have been anti-Christs and marks of beasts. It is arguably not a one-time thing even if the precursors are just shadows of the real and final anti-Christ. I have a pastor friend who argues the rainbow flag is just the latest incarnation as increasingly a refusal to celebrate LGBT issues can ruin a person or small business. I know a guy who persuasively argued the hammer and sickle of communism is the mark.

I would argue that instead of obsessing about marks of beasts and whether a government might exercise long-established precedent to make sure you and I don’t spread viruses that can kill and overwhelm hospitals, we should instead focus on what we truly know is true. If we put our trust in Jesus, we are saved.

Anyone can be persuasive when arguing using invalid assumptions – such as that there is a God. So Erickson is half-persuaded by such an argument? Maybe rather than looking for holes in the logic, maybe it’s time to look at your assumptions.

Make no mistake, Erickson dismisses the entire Mark of the Beast silliness as a waste of time, if historically interesting in that it reflects the era. But rather than rebuffing his the friend obsessed with the hammer and sickle, he hides in a different bit of the mythology.

I suspect he’ll always be uncomfortable swimming about in his pea-soup of bad assumptions.

Readers may remember my post on economist and Discovery Institute co-founder George Gilder and his silly statement on the Covid-19 outbreak:

So let’s stop pretending that our policies have been rational and need to be phased out, as if they once had a purpose. They should be reversed summarily and acknowledged to be a mistake, perpetrated by statisticians with erroneous computer models.

Perhaps then we can learn from this experience with the flaws of expertise not to shut down the economy again for the totally bogus “crisis” of climate change. [RealClearMarkets]

WaPo rebuts, if not by name, with this article on how epidemics are evaluated, and a quite lovely graph:

Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter data was used to recreate the view Apollo 13 astronauts had on their journey:

… and that would be the late Stephen Hawking. Of course, that’s after a long and highly productive life, astrophysicist Dr. Stephen Hawking.

Sufferer of ALS since his early twenties, Dr. Stephen Hawking. Dr. Stephen Hawking, more famous for his wheelchair than for his numerous achievements.

I’m not speaking to my reader, of course, but to Ken Turnage II of Antioch, California, who had the half-wit to say this:

“[T]he World has been introduced to a new phrase Herd Immunity which is a good one,” he wrote. “In my opinion we need to adapt a Herd Mentality. A herd gathers it ranks, it allows the sick, the old, the injured to meet its natural course in nature.”

As NBC Bay Area reported, Turnage wrote that the pandemic also would address homeless people in that it would “fix what is a significant burden on our society and resources that can be used.” [WaPo]

While City Council members removed him from his position as chair of a planning commission for being “insensitive,” they really should have read him the riot act, pointing out that there’s no necessary connection between good health and intellectual excellence, that there are literally millions upon millions of ill people who have made significant, sometimes towering, contributions to human society, from science (Hawking), the literary scene (Proust), religion (pick your sect and you’ll find some sickly person who’s made significant contributions), and etc. If we extend this to the elderly, many folks do their best work in their senior years, drawing on a lifetime of experience and creativity in a huge variety of occupations, of which I might only exclude sports, and even some sports do not exclude excellence by the elderly.

This dude’s unwillingness to put himself out in order to help the physically weak suggests that he should be the first thrust off the lifeboat next time there’s an opportunity. The rationalization to do so need not be true; I merely answer the call of dramatic reality. But I suspect intellectual insufficiency would be an adequate explanation.

This leaves me feeling slightly incredulous:

President Donald Trump’s recent hostility toward independent federal watchdogs has jolted the very Senate Republicans who are among his most outspoken defenders.

Two months after acquitting Trump on charges of obstructing Congress, GOP senators are sounding subtle but unmistakable alarms about Trump’s efforts to brush back lawmakers’ oversight of the government’s behemoth, $3 trillion response to the coronavirus pandemic. And their warnings have grown more urgent as Trump mounts a concerted campaign against inspectors general, one of the last functional checks on his administration’s performance.

“We need to empower inspectors general to be able to do their work — especially when you’re dealing with trillions of dollars, you’ve got to have good, reasonable oversight over those things,” Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.), who penned a letter to Trump last week on the topic, said in an interview.

That Lankford and other GOP senators like Chuck Grassley of Iowa have felt compelled to speak out publicly underscores the degree to which Trump has undermined routine congressional oversight — including the very mechanisms that Republicans themselves have crafted to rein in a rogue executive. [Politico]

This follows the replacement of an official at the Department of Health and Human Services:

There should be some sober reassessment on the left in the wake of the Tara Reade accusations of a sexual assault by former Vice President Joe Biden back in the 1990s. Why? Let’s have Andrew Sullivan explain it:

The problem with defending due process in a case like Biden’s with respect to Tara Reade is that Biden himself, when it comes to allegations of sexual abuse and harassment, doesn’t believe in it. Perhaps in part to atone for his shabby treatment of Anita Hill, Biden was especially prominent in the Obama administration’s overhaul of Title IX treatment of claims of sexual discrimination and harassment on campus. You can listen to Biden’s strident speeches and rhetoric on this question and find not a single smidgen of concern with the rights of the accused. Men in college were to be regarded as guilty before being proven innocent, and stripped of basic rights in their self-defense.

Harvard Law professor Jeannie Suk Gersen noted the consequences of Biden’s crusade in The New Yorkerlast year. “In recent years,” she wrote, “it has become commonplace to deny accused students access to the complaint, the evidence, the identities of witnesses, or the investigative report, and to forbid them from questioning complainants or witnesses … According to K.C. Johnson, a professor at Brooklyn College and an expert on Title IX lawsuits, more than four hundred students accused of sexual misconduct since 2011 have sued their schools under federal or state laws — in many cases, for sex discrimination under Title IX. While many of the lawsuits are still ongoing, nearly half of the students who have sued have won favorable court rulings or have settled with the schools.”

On Friday’s Morning Joe, Biden laid out a simple process for judging him: Listen respectfully to Tara Reade, and then check for facts that prove or disprove her specific claim. The objective truth, Biden argued, is what matters. I agree with him. But this was emphatically not the standard Biden favored when judging men in college. If Biden were a student, under Biden rules, Reade could file a claim of assault, and Biden would have no right to know the specifics, the evidence provided, who was charging him, who was a witness, and no right to question the accuser. Apply the Biden standard for Biden, have woke college administrators decide the issue in private, and he’s toast.

And, not incidentally, reminiscent of the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings. The FBI didn’t find any evidence that a sexual assault by Kavanaugh on Professor Ford had occurred, but the Left still cried for his nomination to be declined. Their outrage when Senator Collins (R-ME) voted to affirm has led Collins to be considered one of the most vulnerable Republican Senators up for re-election. Collins is, ironically, one of the least loyal Republican Senators to President Trump, at least when measured by FiveThirtyEight’s TrumpScore, which, for Collins, is currently at 66.9%. Interestingly, this is over the two Congresses that have come into being while Trump has occupied the Oval Office; her score is an astounding 43.2% for the current Congress. All the usual caveats that apply to TrumpScores, of course, apply.

Be that as it may, I found an associated thread in this seemingly unconnected story from WaPo on the aftermath of the recent & controversial Wisconsin elections:

“Guest accomodations are at The Supporters Inn, where we support you in everything you do, including sitting at the dinner table!”
(Don’t get the chili!)

The visuals for I, Frankenstein (2014) were undoubtedly a startlingly immersive experience, but on the small screen, the lack of an interesting story becomes apparent in this sequel to the original Frankestein. The original novel, for all that it was a response to a challenge to write a horror story to a group that included the author, Mary Shelley, found its true calling in its exploration of themes concerning humanity, how we treat the Other, and how such treatment can redound, much to the detriment of those responsible for same.

In this sequel, the monster stumbles into a war, but not a human war, which would make some sense and link the audience to the story. No, this is a fight to the death between the demons of Hell and a legion of Gargoyles, representatives of Heaven. Both sides can assume human appearance, or can take on their native appearance for purposes of tearing the other side to pieces.

The monster, named Adam by the Queen of the Gargoyles, is special to the demons because the demons face a limitation: they need bodies empty of a soul, yet still living, in order to make their appearance on Earth. Only with an enhanced army can they finish off the Gargoyles, who apparently have no manner of replenishment, or at least none that is shared with the audience. Adam, having killed Dr. Frankenstein’s wife and caused the death of the good Doctor himself, and being assembled from pieces, is thought to be the key to bringing dead bodies back to life – sans souls. And so for two hundred years he’s stumbled around the Arctic, pursued by demons.

Let’s review: we have demons and gargoyles, neither of which appear to be trustworthy, we have the monster, responsible for the murder of the Doctor’s wife and is lacking in charm, and we have the current-day doctors working on revivification without knowing their employers are demons from Hell. Nary a sympathetic character across the landscape.

At this juncture, the only thing that can save this story would be some self-consciousness, manifested in clever lines or even plot complications from the humans, but we don’t get that. It’s just a lot of demon on gargoyle on monster on demon violence, with not much going for it in terms of interesting theme, character development, or plot complications. We could have even had a credible romantic subplot (“my, what big stitches you have!”), but they skipped that one, too.

So if you like demons and gargoyles and have a big screen – a huge screen –  this might be worth your time. Otherwise, don’t bother. You’ll spend your time creating an alternative script. Here’s how I felt about this movie:

Quite the charmer!

It comes from Ryland’s Newspaper, Ryland’s coronavirus project. For some people, coronavirus is a disaster, others see in it a conspiracy – and then there’s folks like Ryland, who, like entrepreneurs in decades past, see opportunity where others see catastrophe.

Go Ryland!

Like most Americans, the protests in Lansing, St. Paul, Sacramento, and a few other State capitals has stirred up the emotions, which, of course, differ depending on your viewpoint. An email from a conservative friend of mine, which is being passed around in conservative circles, finally crystalized in my brain my particular source of disturbance at the actions of my fellow Americans. It’s short, so I’ll just quote it here.

How do you brainwash an entire nation?

How do you get people to start snitching on their neighbors if they aren’t social distancing?

How do you convince people that it’s okay to violate their God-given rights?

All it takes is five little words from our politicians…

“It’s for the greater good.”

“No, you can’t go to church on Easter, it’s for the greater good.”

“No, gun shops need to be closed, it’s for the greater good.”

“No, you can’t leave your house unless it’s for a reason I approve, it’s for the greater good.”

Nonsense.

Baloney.

Here’s a quote from the Kansas Attorney General, a politician who actually has his head on straight…

“Today’s judicial ruling is a much-needed reminder that the Constitution is not under a stay-home order and the Bill of Rights cannot be quarantined.”

“The Constitution protects our liberties especially during times of crisis, when history reveals governments too quick to sacrifice rights of the few to calm fears of the many.”

Amen to that.

I think far too many Americans forget that God gave all of us a brain and we should use it and not just blindly follow what some Governor tells us.

You and I have our own ability to make judgements.

And, as a clever sign said at one of the protests over the weekend, “Give me liberty or give me COVID-19.”

Don’t sacrifice your freedoms…

Don’t let the “sheeple masses” bully you into giving up your rights that our Founding Fathers and so many others risked everything for.

Think for yourself.

Question everything.

Question everything, the author says, and so I did – specifically, this missive. I’m not going to pull this one apart, as is my usual indulgence, because I believe this time the refutation is more effective by addressing its overall failures.

The careful reader will notice how heavily it leans on RIGHTS. Rights, of course, are secularly sacred to the typical American, as they are enshrined in the Constitution.

But notice the relentless splitting of Americans on the political fault line. It’s well known that virtually all the protesters belong in the conservative camp, as has been reinforced by the shameful behavior of President Trump in encouraging protester demands which is believed by most epidemiologists to lead to a substantially greater death toll from the Covid-19 outbreak than we’ve already suffered (roughly 60,000 American lives and counting).

And notice how the phrase greater good is treated with disdain, loathing, as if it was a cover for, oh, I don’t know, fascism.

Let’s take greater good and give it a different name: responsibility.

And let’s ask those protesters why they demand to have unlimited rights without taking responsibility for them.

Let’s get RESPONSIBILITY out there and talked about. Let’s talk about not our RIGHTS but our RESPONSIBILITIES to one another. Our RESPONSIBILITY to care for each other, to not endanger each other, to be a human society, and not a bunch of islands who just happen to have legal ties and have little other connection to each other.

Once we ACKNOWLEDGE that RESPONSIBILITY comes with RIGHTS, and (not to harp on it, but it’s true) American RIGHTS are LIMITED, then we can have a robust conversation about how best to respond to the Covid-19 outbreak, how to best modify the various Governor’s actions to balance RESPONSIBILITY with RIGHTS.

For example, I noticed a protest in one of the Southern states that banning drive-in religious services was overreach. I tend to agree, at least so long as everyone stays in their cars and 10′ apart – not hard to do. Maybe, like a drive-in movie theater, they could temporarily allocate a radio band for the preacher so he doesn’t shout himself hoarse.

But that’s my R-Word: RESPONSIBILITY. It’s funny, forty years ago it was a Republican talking point that the Democrats were irresponsible and the Republicans were the responsible ones. No longer. For all of Governor Noem’s (R-SD) silly blather about everyone will be responsible for themselves, it only takes a few irresponsible people to screw it up for everyone else.

And we all know society has more than a few of them. As Governor Noem and the rest of the nation is finding out. (Time to resign, Governor Noem.)

The fact of the matter is that sometimes proper, moral actions are difficult to discern because they require expert advice, which is often scarce in-person. That’s where the governors come, since by using their political prominence, they can secure that advice and then broadcast it, properly formulated, to their citizenry.

To trust everyone to act RESPONSIBLY without direction in times of crises is to not understand this fundamental truth. And that’s why we need to inject the word RESPONSIBILITY into the conversation, how to fulfill it, and how people should be embarrassed when they don’t fulfill it. To the protester shouting “It’s just the flu!” I suggest that she be told she’s being IRRESPONSIBLE for not gathering up and understanding the known facts about the outbreak.

Etc. Etc. Time for me to go out and garden. Remember, folks, the dark side of this relentless call for RIGHTS is self-centeredness. Selfishness. Like the missive says, question everything. Including the missive. It helped bring focus to my thought processes, and I hope I have done the same for you.

Geomancy:

Geomancy (Greek: γεωμαντεία, “earth divination”) is a method of divination that interprets markings on the ground or the patterns formed by tossed handfuls of soil, rocks, or sand. The most prevalent form of divinatory geomancy involves interpreting a series of 16 figures formed by a randomized process that involves recursion followed by analyzing them, often augmented with astrological interpretations. [Wikipedia]

Noted in “Superstition And The Chinese Real Estate Market,” Stuart Vyse, Skeptical Inquirer (May/June 2020):

Feng shui is a belief system based on concept of chi (or qi), the life force that is a foundational concept in Chinese traditional medicine and purported to be present in humans and all nature. Feng shui is a form of geomancy that, when applied to residential houses, as well as to commercial and public buildings, suggests that the design of the building and its placement in the surrounding landscape will affect the fortunes and wellbeing of its inhabitants (Matthews 2018).

The garden is starting to awaken. Here’s last year’s acquired Pasque …