"Mask Up"

The long-range forecast has changed. Once for sunny with pleasant termperatures, it is now more dire.

On April 13, Tucker Carlson remarked "if the vaccine is effect, there is no reason for people who have received the vaccine to wear masks or avoid physical contact. So maybe it doesn't work and they're simply not telling you that."

The next morning on CNN, Fauci struck back, maintaining Carlson's skepticism is "counter to the safety and health of the American public" and rhetorically asking "why would we not tell people if it doesn’t work?”

If the reports of the exchange are accurate, Fauci did not directly address the contradiction Carlson suggested, and that night he contended" like most Americans, we’re grateful for vaccines (and) we're not against it (vaccination) on principle."

Carlson then proceeded to question both the efficacy and safety of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Whether or not Carlson's skepticism is warranted, it is clear that Dr. Fauci is unclear on whether masks will be the norm once herd immunity against this virus strain is reached.

In late February CNN's Dana Bash (seen at 9:31 of the video below), drawing upon her education at the finest university in the USA, asked Dr. Fauci

You and the President have suggested that we'll approach normality by the end of the years. What does "normal" mean? Do you think that Americans will still be wearing masks for a while in 2022?

Fauci responded

You know, I think it is possible that will be the case. I really think it depends on what you mean by normality.... If normality means exactly the way things were before we had this happen to us, I mean, I can't predict that. obviously, I think we're going to have a significant degree of normality beyond, what, the terrible burden that all of us have been through over the last year that as we get into the fall and the winter, by the end of the year, I agree with the President completely that we will be approaching a degree of normality. It may or may not be precisely the way it was in November of 2019 but it will be much, much better than what we are doing right now.

Fauci is laying the groundwork for an America that will look and feel much different that it did in 2019 but hoping that it does not feel that way to Americans.

He was noncommittal. Although the Administration touts at every opportunity the increasing number of people receiving one of the vaccines, Fauci would not even hold out a likelihood that in 2022- nine months from now and roughly 22 months before the danger of the coronavirus fully surfaced- that masks would be unnecessary.  He did not say even that they'd be unnecessary unless a variant emerges as a significant peril.

Yet, he insists on predicting "a signifcant digree of normality" and a situation "much, much better than what we are doing right now." 

“If the vaccine is effective," Carlson insisted, "there is no reason for people who have received the vaccine to wear masks." But Fauci- and President Biden- are reasonably confident of the vaccine's effectiveness. However, they anticipate that wearing a mask will prove (necessarily, in their minds) to be either a semi-permanent or recurring practice.

If the risk of contracting a coronavirus declines even minimally, Fauci and the President will not deter "reopening" of the economy. It's good for the bottom line and will help keep Republicans off their backs.

Restaurants, even bars, will get the green light because commerce will be encouraged. Patrons officially will be requred to  keep their masks on except when eating or drinking, a condition few will comply with. Still, masks will be encouraged, perhaps even mandated, for offices, drugstores, supermarkets, home improvement stores, and the like.

Consequently, Dr. Fauci predicts a great deal of normalcy while he does not evince any concern for people wearing masks into the third year of a pandemic. Hence, there is the opaque phrase "may or may not be precisely the way it was in November of 2019." With support of the President, he is setting people up for accepting a lifestyle that will include masks while business and pleasure proceed apace.

If this p;ans out, ultimately there will be a backlash from individuals mad as hell and not willing to take it anymore. While Anthony Fauci's disposition is sunny (or at least pleasing) his hazy forecast is for clouds with a better than 50% chance of heavy rain.

Share |

Power In The Cause Of Prejudice

On April 12, I argued that Chief Tim Gannon of the Brooklyn Center, MN police department erred in concluding before investigation that the killing by Daunte Wright by a police officer was an "accidental discharge."  However, I noted also that Brooklyn Center Mayor Mike Elliot acted reprehensibly in recommending that the police officer, later identified as Kimberly Potter, be fired.

Left unsaid, though implied by criticism of one man for a premature observation and another for premature verdict and sentencing, was praise for the town's city manager He had responded to a question at the city's news conference on Monday by first stating

My name is Kurt Boganey, B-O-G-A-N-E-Y. And in response to the question about termination, all employees working for the city of Brooklyn Center are entitled to due process with respect to discipline. This employee will receive due process. And that’s really all that I can say today.

"Due process." What a novel concept! It shouldn't be controversial but is in many quarters today. Boganey remarked additionally

we are providing reports to the city council about officer discipline, about information on staffs of black and brown people, or people of color in the city of Brooklyn Center. We are developing some task forces to assess if any of our policies or if any of our practices lead to disproportionate inequitable results. our objective for doing that analysis is to eliminate any inequity that occurs as a result of our practices and our policies. That has been communicated to the chief and to the police officers or the city of Brooklyn Center.

In the old days of the previous decade, that was commonly called "pro-active" until people realized how awful that term was. Nonetheless (or "further"), it seems to be a rather progressive approach to policing: gather information; address possible inequity; communicate with the police department and city officials.

Boganey also replied to one question "I can't make that judgement" and to another, "I can't speculate." Given that many facts were not yet determined and the officer had not yet been interviewed, those remarks were not only fair but prudent.

Of course, that meant he had to go.  Open minds make some politicians uncomfortable and can inhibit the formation and spread of bias. Monday evening we learned that Brookly Center

now has a new city manager and — at least temporarily — a new de facto leader of the police department after a city council vote that granted the mayor “command authority” over the agency.

The overhaul is likely to give Mayor Mike Elliott the power to fire the police chief and police officers, one legal expert told The Washington Post.

“At such a tough time, this will streamline things and establish a chain of command and leadership,” Elliott wrote after the motion passed by a 3-to-2 vote. Elliott, who by law serves on the council, and two other members voted in the affirmative.

The police chief "resigned" the following day. Brooklyn Center did have a chain of command and leadership, the latter unfortunately seized by a narrow-minded mayor. It now is turning over a dangerous amount of power to one official, who was discomfited by the professional leadership offered by its city manager, who valued facts over bias.  Given today's climate, that may not be surprising.  And that's the problem.

 

Share |

No, It's Not "No"

Twitter is where stupidity goes to thrive and proliferate. The same is true for much of social media but I'm on Twitter, so following the most recent shooting (fatal in this case) of a black man by police, there is this:

My son just now: Is it safe for me to walk my dog?

He’s 15. He’s Black.

I hate that he has to ask this question.

I hate that my answer is “no”.

— Bryce Tache (@brycetache) April 13, 2021

 

Mr. Tache's self-description is "My family is LGBTQ, Black, Latinx, white, immigrant, indigenous." Thus, even though his son is black, Tache himself may not be. Nonetheless, I'll assume, as he probably wishes readers do, that he is black. This eliminates that one obvious question but leaves several others, asked in no particular order, including:

 

• What neighborhood does this individual live in?  Sate, dangerous, or not clearly either? Is it close-knit, one in which residents regularly communicate with each other?
• Is the neighborhood well-patrolled or ignored by police?
• What is the individual's standing in the neighborhood? (He might be well-respected, secretly despised, a newcomer thus slightly more at-risk, or none of the above.)
• How old and big is the fellow? (Age and size might affect his degree of vulnerability.)
• What kind of dog will he be walking? (If I were intent on assaulting an individual and see him walking a Doberman Pinscher, well, I'll take a pass.)
• What time of day (or night) would he be walking the dog? Similarly, what is the weather like and will the street be deserted, filled with other respectable individuals, or filled with disreputable individuals? 

If Mr. Tache is concerned only with the possibility of attack by police, then: congratulations! He lives in a safe neighborhood. If this is his only concern about walking the dog, then he should- won't, but should- be interested in recognizing the response to protests in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota which

began Sunday, the day 20-year-old Daunte Wright was killed in what the police chief described as an accidental shooting following a traffic stop. The officer who shot Wright, identified by authorities as Kim Potter, has been with the Brooklyn Center Police Department for 26 years, according to the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. She has been placed on administrative leave.

Police fired tear gas and stun guns to disperse Monday night's demonstrators who were defying a curfew, while protesters threw "bottles, fireworks, bricks and other projectiles at public safety officials," according to a tweet from Operation Safety Net. The operation is a joint effort of local agencies to ensure public safety during the trial of Derek Chauvin, the former Minneapolis police officer facing charges in the death of George Floyd, being held around 10 miles away.

Defying a curfew, the demonstrators were subject to arrest. Some reportedly threw bottles, fireworks, bricks and other projectiles at law enforcement personnel. They were calling for the head- figuratively, I think- of a police officer, who is the colleague, and in a few cases the friend, of those same law enforcement personnel.

Although a few in the crowd may have been attacked in some way by police, we know of none for now. And as far we know, the number of protestors, many of them black, who were injured or even hurt by police, appears to be a number less than 1. Mr. Tache has his answer.

Share |

Mayor Issues His Verdict

Stacey Elizabeth Plaskett served as one of the managers at the second impeachment trial in the USA Senate of Donald J. Trump. A member of the Democratic caucus in the House of Representatives, Plaskett represents the US Virgin Islands and is a delegate, thus officially "Delegate Plaskett" rather than "Representative Plaskett." Still, she is right:

This police chief should NOT make pronouncements characterizations and dismiss the officers actions as an accident before an investigation. #BlackLivesMatter #JusticeInPolicingAct https://t.co/Fej8638AT4

— Rep. Stacey Plaskett (@StaceyPlaskett) April 12, 2021

 

Noting he had viewed the video of the incident, Chief  Gannon was wrong to have remarked "from what I viewed in the officer’s reaction and distress immediately after that this was an accidental discharge that resulted in the tragic death of Mr. Wright." Nor should he have reiterated approximately seven minutes later that with the video and "much of the training that I’ve received, and that’s why I’m believing it to be an accidental discharge."

Then what shall we, as individuals of the left presumably committed to employee rights, make of this exchange between a questioner and the mayor of Brooklyn Center?

Mike Elliott: (18:40)

Let me be very clear. My position is that we cannot afford to make mistakes that lead to the loss of life of other people in our profession. And so I do fully support releasing the officer of her duties.

Speaker 8: (19:06)

You support her being fired?

Mike Elliott: (19:06)

I do.

Twenty-four seconds after the last comment, Elliot acknowledged "I have not spoken with the officers involved myself."

Let's review: 1) both men saw the video; 2) one man saw the video and knows the training the officer received and tentatively concludes the shooting was an accident; 3) one man saw the video, (presumably) does not fully know the training the officer received, and recommends she be fired.

Chief Gannon should have limited his comments to the facts, and on this specific aspect to roughly "from hearing the officer say 'taser, taser,' it appears she planned to fire her taser and not her firearm." 

But however neutral the Chief should be at this stage, he wears the uniform and his opinions will be viewed in light of that.  He represents the police force, the shooting reflects upon him, and neutrality cannot be assumed. Mayor Elliot, however, is mayor of the entire city and is assumed to be neutral and objective.

Admittedly, Elliot's statement is consistent with the rest of his comments, which make it clear that he already has decided the case, which may be useful to the defense if the Officer is disciplined and/or found guilty of a criminal offense. Gannon, though, strove to convince the press and the public that he is impartial, which is inconsistent with "I'm believing it to be an accidental discharge."

Delegate Plaskett is correct- Chief Gannon's characterization was inappropriate. It would have been helpful, however, if Plaskett had been more inclusive in her own characterization and at least suggested that Mayor Elliot was contemptuous of the due process rights of employees in the workplace.

Share |

Star System

On March 9 we learned from the Miami (South Florida) Sun Sentinel that then-Miami Heat big man Meyers Leonard, not a household name, had

issued an apology Tuesday evening about the slur, saying he was unaware of “how offensive it is to the Jewish community.”

On the video, Leonard can be heard saying, “F------ cowards, don’t f------ snipe at me you f------ k--- b----.”

The anti-Semitic slur was uttered in the middle of the two profanities amid video-game play of Call of Duty, a war-simulation online game.

Leonard issued a statement on Instagram several hours after his comments came to light.

“I am deeply sorry for using an anti-Semitic slur during a livestream yesterday,” the statement issued opened. “While I didn’t know what the word meant at the time, my ignorance about its history and how offensive it is to the Jewish community is absolutely not an excuse and I was just wrong.

"I was just wrong" are the words of a genuine apology. Despite- or perhaps because- of that, as Bill Maher explained (at 37:10 of a video no longer available) Friday on Real Time

I mean, before the day was out- banned.  fined by the NBA and trded. I mean- and then they're making him- of course, the groveling apology and then he's meeting with rabbis, Holocaust survivors. Do we have to drag the Holocaust into this- really, Passover? He goes on, has to go on Zoom in front of college kids so they can yell at him. Does everything have to be a summary excutionin America? What happened to just accepting the apology?

Why merely accept the apology when getting the offender to grovel is so much more satisfying? A moment later, Maher would add  "But the reason it's important to talk about it- the reason it's important- would they have done it if it was the star of the team?" Guest Heather McGhee apparently thought the team would have, for she responded  "probably more, right, I would have heard about it if he was the star of the team, right?" Maher responded to the response with

But there could be a big name NBA player, somebody, anybody who didn't understand this term or used it in a fit of anger and regretted it. Would they have suspended him? I don't think so.

We have a pretty good idea if they would have because a somewhat similar incident occurred in December 2018 when we learned

After talking with Los Angeles Lakers' LeBron James, the NBA will take no action in the aftermath of his social media post of a song lyric that referenced "Jewish money," a league source told ESPN on Monday.

The league office accepted his explanation that he made a mistake, a source said.

James had been quoting the song "ASMR" by the performer 21 Savage on Saturday, typing the lyrics "We been getting that Jewish money. Everything is Kosher" onto a public Instagram account with 45.9 million followers.

After the Lakers' 107-99 loss to the Memphis Grizzlies on Sunday night, James told ESPN's Dave McMenamin, "Apologies, for sure, if I offended anyone. That's not why I chose to share that lyric. I always [post lyrics]. That's what I do. I ride in my car, I listen to great music, and that was the byproduct of it. So, I actually thought it was a compliment, and obviously it wasn't through the lens of a lot of people. My apologies. It definitely was not the intent, obviously, to hurt anybody."

LeBron James, as anyone on planet Earth (and possibly elsewhere) knows, was (and arguably still is) both the face of the National Basketball Association and its best player. On anyone's list, James is one of the ten greatest non-centers in league history and one of the five greatest on most lists.

And what did James do in response to being asked about his demonstration of anti-Semitism? He issued an apology so lame, so transparently insincere, that it was an insult to lame, insincere apologies. He might well have said "Yea, sure, O.K., if for some reason someone was offended but, hey, that's me. Take it or leave it."

The NBA, obviously, took it.  LeBron James was not fined, has since won a championship with the Lakers, is due to be paid over $39 million this season, over $41 million next season, and over $44 million the following season. Not bad for an anti-Semite.

I might be the last person to deny that James' behavior was tolerated in part because he rejected the option of an apology in favor of the classic "I apologize although I did nothing wrong." However, it would be violating the law of parsimony to argue that the primary reason he was not penalized, with the incident forgiven and forgotten, was because he refused to admit error.

In all likelihood, the  National Basketball Association chose to give LeBron James a pass largely because he is LeBron James.  In a league in which player is valued over team and superstar celebrated over mediocrity, James, and is, someone the league will appease at every turn. Thus, when Bill Maher remarked if "a big name NBA player" had done this, "Would they have suspended him? I don't think so," he nailed it.

 

Share |

Before Matt Gaetz, there was George Costanza. CNN on April Fools' Day reported

Rep. Matt Gaetz, the Florida Republican being investigated by the Justice Department over sex trafficking allegations, made a name for himself when he arrived on Capitol Hill as a conservative firebrand on TV and staunch defender of then-President Donald Trump. Behind the scenes, Gaetz gained a reputation in Congress over his relationships with women and bragging about his sexual escapades to his colleagues, multiple sources told CNN.

Gaetz allegedly showed off to other lawmakers photos and videos of nude women he said he had slept with, the sources told CNN, including while on the House floor. The sources, including two people directly shown the material, said Gaetz displayed the images of women on his phone and talked about having sex with them. One of the videos showed a naked woman with a hula hoop, according to one source.

"It was a point of pride," one of the sources said of Gaetz.

There's no indication these pictures are connected to the DOJ investigation.

There's no indication these pictures are connected to the DOJ investigation. So is that (it) wrong? It is unlikely any selfies were taken of Gaetz showing the pictures and therefore there is no smoking gun and the allegations probably never will be proven.

However, it should be a firing offense, though by the time the Gaetz saga is played out, he likely will be indicted and the "nude women he had slept with... while on the House floor" will become no less a footnote than a dangling participle.

Nonetheless, as an example of "not satisfactory" or "needs further improvement" of job performance, it ought to bring to mind an old Seinfeld episode, which George Costanza describes beginning at :58 of the video below:

My favorite George line. I can't remember the name of the episode. It might have been the red dot, with the red dot on the seater. But it was when George was working at Pendant Publishing and he was having sexual relations with the cleaning woman in his office and gets called- he gets called into the boss; office played by Richard Fancy and Richard did a great job of the tee up, where he's really not quite looking at me and goes "George, it's come to my attention that you've been having sex on the desk of your office with the cleaning woman."

Now of all the things that George could have said- all of the potioential lies- I mean you know you're dealing with Larry David so the things that he could have come up with are innumerable but what they wrote for me was "Was that wrong? Should I not have done that 'cause I got to tell you, I've worked in a lot of offices and that kind of thing goes on all the time. If anyone had said to me when I started here that that was frowned upon..."

Life does not exactly imitate art. "Was that wrong" was brilliantly funny but tactically foolish. It's more effective, as Gaetz has done, to deny, deny, deny.  But both acts took place in the workplace- Costanza with the cleaning woman and Gaetz (allegedly) with male colleagues at his workplace, as he (allegedly) tastlessly and crudely flaunted his sexual exploits.

Moreover, one was appropriately fired and the other should be fired by his constituents, if it must come to that. But given that the operative auxiliary verb is "should" rather than "will," let's hope Matt Gaetz doesn't escape the clutches of the penal system for the illegal acts he (allegedly) committed.

 

Share |

The Name Of The Game Is Control

Althought Tucker Carlson often is slammed as a "racist," his commentaries are less often informed by racial bias that partisanship.

Carlson is funamentally hyper-partisan; not compared to Sean Hannity or even Laura Ingraham, yet far more than allowed by the image of one dedicated to standing up for the beleagured white majority. On April 8, he remarked

.... where the government shows preference to people who have shown absolute contempt for our customs, our laws, our system itself and they're being treated better than American citizens. Now I know that the left and all the little gatekeepers on Twitter become literally hysterical if you use the term "replacement"; if you sugggest that the Democratic Party is trying to replace the current electorate, the voters now casting ballots with new people, more obedient voters from the Third World. But they become hysterical because that's what's happening actually. Let's just say it- that's true.

With few exceptions, the only people using the term "replacement" are the people who are complaining that people are using the term "replacement." Unfortunately, he continues

If this was happening in your home, if you were in the sixth grade, for example, and if without telling you, your kid- your parents adopted a bunch of new siblings and gave them brand new bikes and let them stay up later and helped them with their homework and gave them twice the allowance they gave you, you would say to your siblings "I think we're being replaced by, by kids that our parents love more. And it would be kind of hard to argue against you because look at the evidence.

I don't know what preceded or followed this rant. However, the supporters of immigration rights are not advocating that immigrants be granted increased rights, privileges, or new bikes but a path to citizenship, which would render them eligible for the same- not increased- benefits as others. Some recommend mere legalization (against which I've vociferously argued). At the extreme, in a few jurisdictions (such as California), privileges already conferred upon citizens and legal immigrants are being conferred upon illegal immigrants.

But now Tucker finally gets to the real issue when he maintains

So this matters on a bunch of different levels but on the most basic level it's a voting rights question. In a democracy, one person equals one vote.

Well, no, it doesn't, in part because this is a republic, not a democracy. In 2018, Democrats failed to gain control of the lower legislative chambers in three states while winning a majority of votes statewide. One of those states  was North Carolina, in which Republicans won 10 of 13 seats in the US House despite losing the statewide vote. 

Over in the other federal chamber, North Dakota has 770,000 residents and two Senators while South Dakota has 897,000 residents and two Senators. They are granted four senators, reliably Republican and conservative, for 1,667,000 individuals. California has nearly 40 million residents and two Senators, fairly reliably Democratic. Thus, there is one Senator for every 416,750 individuals in the Dakotas and one for every 19,806,750 individuals in California. If it's one man, one vote in the Dakotas, it's 47 men, one vote in California.

And then there is the race for the presidency, in which the Democratic nominee won the popular vote in 2000 and 2016 but lost in the Electoral College, leaving the nation with two individuals who turned out to be disastrous presidents.

Still, Carlson continues with

If you change the population, you dilute the political pwer of the people that live there. So every time they import a new voter, I become disenfranchised as a current voter. So I don't understand, what you don't understand, is everyone wants to make a racial issue out of it and ooh, the white replace theory- no, no, no. This is a voting rights question. I have less political power because they are importing a brand new electorate. Why shouldn't I sit back and take that? The power that I have as an American guaranteed at birth is one man, one vote and they're diluting that.  No, they're not allowed to do that. Why are we putting up with this?

Now people are imported goods who don't come to this country to escape tyranny or extreme poverty and hunger but because "they (presumably Democrats) import a new voter" continuosly.   Carlson won't tell his audience that these imports can vote only once they go through the arduous process of becoming a citizen, a full-fledged American because it would disabuse it of the ignorance he depends upon.

Voting rights is an issue, the main (if not only) issue uniting the party pols with the party faithful. Ingrained in GOP voters is the myth that once an immigrant, legal or illegal, enters the country, he or she gets to vote. Do not pass go; just vote. Thus, most of those voters want immigrants to stay put in their native countries while most of the party's officeholders and office seekers are fine with immigrants coming as long as they don't gain citizenship, thus the right to vote. 

Many Republicans believe, as Tucker is claiming, that every immigrant who votes further disenfranchises him and others like him. But they are not being disenfranchised. They are competing with other Americans and, in some instances, actually cooperating with them in electing a Republican to office. 

The electorate always is changing. Carlson rails against a "brand new electorate," though every individual of every ethnic group becomes a new part of the electorate once he or she turns 18 and registers to vote (which should be made far easier).

The Republican Party could compete for these voters but for the most part chooses not to do so. Competition is the key, just as the left should compete in the marketplace of ideas rather than trying to shut down Carlson or other right-wing voices.  If you wish, however it might annoy persuadable voters, call Tucker Carlson "anti-semitic, racist, and toxic" or a "white supremacist" with "a hood or swastika."  Surely, his appeal is not to brotherhood or a generosity of spirit.  Nonetheless, his aim is not to bring back the Ku Klux Klan but to shrink the electorate for eletoral gain. It is less for racial hegemony than for Republican hegemony.

 

Fox News is paying millions to help a straight up white supremacist spread his radicalizing vitriol. The only thing missing is a hood or swastika. But the words and hysterical delivery are just as potent. This is a hate group operating openly on a national level. https://t.co/ySfaqxEOOD

— Walter Shaub (@waltshaub) April 9, 2021

Share |