Thursday, November 19, 2020

Reality Bites

President Trump needs to succeed in legal proceedings in three states of four states, PA, GA, Michigan and Wisconsin to prevail in his challenge to the election results.  That will not happen.

Failing that, President Trump needs to prevail upon the Republican dominated legislatures in three of those states to appoint the state's electors.  That will not happen (and it would be lunacy to try).

Joe Biden will be the next President.

The GOP needs to hold the Georgia Senate seats.

OR

Trump should be disqualified for continuing to tweet inane, discredited conspiracy theories about the vote and counting.  It is a disgrace that a sitting President is doing this and embarrassing to watch his chief lawyer, the obviously addled Rudy Giuliani, try to explain*.  Trump just doesn't care and tosses out to his audience any piece of favorable junk that comes to his attention without the slightest regard for accuracy.

Biden should be disqualified for his complicity in the Democratic Party's decades long effort to undermine the integrity of our election processes.  Democrats have systematically pushed for lax voter registration laws, opposed a regular process for purging voter registration lists to eliminate the ineligible, including dead voters, and resisted voter ID, all routinely employed by every other Western democracy to protect the legitimacy of the electoral process, as well as relentlessly pushing for general mail-in balloting and ballot harvesting, both banned by those same democracies because of their potential to undermine the integrity of elections.

And all capped by Democrats challenging the legitimacy of any election they lose - remember the Florida fraud in 2000, the Diebold machines in Ohio in 2004?  How about the Russia collusion hoax in 2016 when the Clinton campaign colluded with Russian intelligence and used Putin's disinformation to leak to the media, and persuade the FBI and DOJ to obtain a warrant to spy on its opponents campaign and then, when their opponent lost, create a 4-year campaign to undermine the legitimacy of that election?  And then we have sacred Progressive icon, Stacey Abrams, the Georgia mediocrity, who still refuses to concede she lost the 2018 gubernatorial race based upon her loony theory of voter suppression.

Best solution is for all state legislatures to ignore the votes and select independent electors pledged to support THC for President!

Can I count on your support?

------------------------------------

*  Rudy Giuliani trying to explain the conspiracy:

Pepe Silvia | Know Your Meme

Perhaps Rudy could become Robert Mueller's roomie in a nice, quiet, long-term care facility.


Wednesday, November 18, 2020

Covid Context

 I was going to wait exactly a month from Covid+7 to do an update, but wanted to point out some things about today's data (as always, I am using Worldometers as my data source).

The USA today reported 173,000 new covid cases and 1,956 deaths, large numbers by any standards.

1.  Given the trend I expect both figures to increase over the next 2-3 weeks.

2.  The fatality numbers are the highest in the world today as an absolute number but, in reality, the U.S. has a lot of company with high fatality (and case) counts.  I went through today's data for every country with a population of more than 1 million and then scaled them up to the population of the U.S.  There are 34 other countries with elevated (more than 1,000) deaths on that scale and our neighbor Canada stands at 900.

The countries range from Slovenia (6500 deaths in U.S. equivalents), Belgium (6500) and Poland (5000) at the top end to Brazil (1100), Germany (1000), Russia (1000) and Colombia (1200) at the low.  The U.S. experience is, sad to say, not abnormal.  It includes countries not renowned for medical care as well as some with among the finest systems in the world, such as Switzerland.  A full list of the countries can be found below.

3.  The fact that the U.S. is not abnormal also indicates that while there is, as explained in Covid+7, variation in how countries account for deaths, there is also nothing to indicate that the U.S. death count is being "rigged" or "pumped up" compared to the rest of the world.

4.  Because of testing and analysis issues the number of Covid cases as an absolute figure has limited value; however it does have great value in trying to identify trends.

5.  Temporal aspects remain important.  If I had done a similar "scaled up" comparison this summer, Latin American countries, not European, would have topped the list.

6.  What we are seeing in the U.S. is now broad based across most of the lower 48 states.  Unlike the early spring, which saw a few states take the brunt of covid, everyone is now in the game.  Even states like Maine, which had stayed relatively unscathed, have seen a sharp increase over the past month.

7.  If you look at the countries and U.S. states it is difficult to find any consistent pattern in the public health measures and the outcomes we are seeing.  Covid doesn't do politics and we are continually humbled by what we don't know.

Country death counts for November 18 scaled up to USA population:

More than 3,000

Slovenia (6500), Belgium (6500), Poland (5000), Bulgaria (5000), Bosnia & Herzogovina (4700), Czech Republic (4000), Switzerland (4000), Italy (3800), Austria (3500), Hungary (3200)

2,000 to 3,000

Croatia (3000), Georgia (3000), Armenia (2900), Tunisia (2800), Lithuania (2800), Romania (2600), Spain (2500), UK (2400), Portugal (2400), France (2100)

Less than 2,000

USA (1956), Iran (1900), Jordan (1900), Greece (1800), Ukraine (1800), Argentina (1700), Netherlands (1500), Moldova (1400), Slovakia (1300), Colombia (1200), Brazil (1100), Panama (1100), Serbia (1000), Guatemala (1000), Germany (1000), Canada (900)

The Resolute Urgency Of Now

Billy Corgan on Howard Stern performing an acoustic version of his Smashing Pumpkins' 1990s song Tonight, Tonight.  It's missing the elaborate arrangement and strings of the Pumpkins original but is quite effective.  In the interview, Corgan remarks how surprised he's been at how the song has endured.  He starts playing at 1:50.


We'll crucify the insincere tonight, tonight
We'll make things right,
We'll feel it all tonight, tonight

We'll find a way to offer up the night tonight
The indescribable moments of your life tonight

The impossible is possible tonight, tonight
Believe in me as I believe in you tonight, tonight

Monday, November 16, 2020

What Is This Thing Called Love?

Sinatra at his finest, from his 1955 album of torch songs, In The Wee Small Hours.  Composed by Cole Porter.  Impeccable arrangement by Nelson Riddle.


 


Sunday, November 15, 2020

Insularity

Insularity: ignorance of or lack of interest in cultures, ideas, or peoples outside one's own experience.

 

I like to occasionally read The Ringer, the Bill Simmons founded website featuring sports and pop culture.  I particularly like the sports coverage, find the pop culture stories sometimes interesting.  The Ringer every once in a while carries articles on politics which inevitably are Progressive-oriented, unable to fathom why anyone not a racist is not a Progressive, and exhibiting an invincible ignorance of basic facts and history.  I now know to avoid reading the overtly political articles but those attitudes can creep into their other posts.

A few days ago The Ringer ran a piece by Matthew Sigur on Chris Stapleton's new album, Starting Over.  I like Stapleton's music, read the article and came across this passage:

He’s no politician, and he doesn’t have all the answers. However, when asked about topics like gun violence, lack of care for U.S. veterans, or supporting the Black Lives Matter movement, Stapleton won’t back down from his beliefs.

“I’m for love, kindness, equality, being good to good people,” he says. “Some things don’t register to me if it’s against humanity.”

What is that supposed to be telling me?  I think in the context of the first paragraph, Sigur is signaling that Stapleton is on the right side of social justice and wokeness.  But look again at the quote from Stapleton and you can read it as merely asserting truisms that most people believe.  I certainly support love, kindness, equality and being good to good people, - it's how I try to live my life - but if you read this blog you know what I also think about social justice and wokeness.

Let's look more closely at that first paragraph, to what Sigur considers "topics".

The first is "gun violence" which is more a slogan than a topic.  I'm against violence in civilian life unless it is in self-defense.  I think most people are, regardless of their views about the "gun violence" or the Second Amendment.  I gather "gun violence" are Progressive code words for a grab bag of government actions they advocate but in and of itself the phrase is empty of substantive content.

"Lack of care for U.S. veterans".  All those in support of lack of care for veterans, please raise your hands.  I thought so.

And now we come to "supporting the Black Lives Matter movement".  That's where Stapleton's brilliant response comes into play.  It looks like Sigur takes it as supporting BLM.  But BLM explicitly opposes equality as well as love and kindness outside of a specific racial context, and denies our common humanity.  My guess is that Sigur, like many liberals or Progressives who don't pay close attention to substance, does not understand this about BLM.  I read Stapleton's response as very clever at not saying anything controversial.

What is most illuminating is that Sigur thinks believing in love, kindness, equality and being good to good people are characteristics exclusively of those on the Left.

That got me thinking of something else that's been bugging me.  On our recent two month trip back East we saw a lot of lawn signs like this:

“IN THIS HOUSE, WE BELIEVE: BLACK LIVES MATTER / WOMEN’S RIGHTS ARE HUMAN RIGHTS / NO HUMAN IS ILLEGAL / SCIENCE IS REAL / LOVE IS LOVE / KINDNESS IS EVERYTHING”

They are often accompanied by Hate Has No Home Here and Biden/Harris signs.

But I was left scratching my head.  It appeared to be signaling that the posters were claiming something in defiance of the ignorant and bigoted types who don't believe.  But what the heck do these slogans mean? 

I think there are few people who don't think that Black Lives Matter, but I would ask those with the signs, if someone says, "All Lives Matter" should they be fired from their job, told to shut up, or be considered racist?  And do the posters actually support the entire platform of the Black Lives Matter organization which endorses, among other things, elimination of the nuclear family?

"Women's Rights Are Human Rights".  I believe in equality under the law but what, specifically is this supposed to mean?  As it stands it's just a meaningless statement.

"No Human Is Illegal".  Huh?  Is this an awkward way of saying they support open borders?  Do they believe humans can commit illegal acts? 

"Science Is Real".  Now there's a really controversial statement!  Having read enough Progressive tropes on this subject they think this is a shot at the ignorant non-Progressives who they think don't believe in science.  But even Progressives don't actually believe that slogan.  Ideologues like science that supports their views and dislikes science that does not and that's true across the political spectrum.  Doubt it?  Have a discussion with a Progressive about evolutionary biology and you'll be called transphobic or sexist, they'll go after your job, and try to deplatform you.  The people most likely to employ this slogan actually don't really know the science involved at any depth beyond sloganeering.  Want to talk the science, technology and data on climate change?  That's a topic I know a lot about and most of those who recite "Science is real" don't - just ask them some questions; trust me.

But there is a bigger problem with "Science is Real".  Those using the slogan also like to assert they will "follow the science" (see, for instance, Joe Biden and Andrew Cuomo), with the pretense that science can provide the solution to complicated societal issues without political input.  But while science can inform us, it does not dictate solutions in a political context - those solutions depend on the values we bring to the decision making.  Take Covid.  What are the types of expertise you need to decide what is the best course for a society?  It is not exclusively public health experts; it's why there is such discussion and disagreement about the true costs of lockdowns.  Are we just trying to prevent, or delay, or end the diseases?  What are the costs of each strategy in doing so?  Moreover, as we've seen with Covid, even public health experts do not agree, there is actually no such thing as one certain thing the science tells us. And let's look at the track record here - public health experts opposed travel bans, told us for two months that non-medical personnel wearing masks was stupid and useless, banned private efforts to develop Covid tests, saying "we've got this", and more recently told us that a Covid immunity shield descended on those demonstrating and rioting in favor of causes supported by public health officials.

Science is important.  I'm an analytical type and don't like it when Left or Right jumps right over analysis to advocacy.  More worrying is seeing more and more scientists doing the same.  A final example - science can tell us, and has told us, a lot more in recent years about fetuses but it can only inform, not answer, the moral questions and competing values around abortion.  

"Love Is Love".  I'm on board for that!  Though I suspect there is a secret decoder ring subtext I am missing.

"Kindness Is Everything".  That's a demonstrably false statement.  This is something way beyond generally taking an approach of kindness or, as Chris Stapleton put it, "being good to good people". It's actually quite simpleminded if taken literally and I am confident if you probe poster attitudes on political topics you'll find they don't believe it either.  And you can't support the goals of the Black Lives Matter organization and also believe "kindness is everything".

In the instances described above we see insularity in action.  Progressive sloganeering that actually doesn't make much sense deployed against non-Progressive strawmen that exist in their minds, but not in real life.

As for me, I'll roll with this lawn sign:

Image


Before The Green Monster

Fenway Park - 1917

Image

A few differences between now and then, and even between 1917 and the major reconstruction in the early 1930s.

In Left Field is a wall, but not the Green Monster we know and love.  In front of the wall you'll notice the outfield seems to slope upwards.  That's not an optical illusion, it actually is a 10-foot slope on which the ball is still in play.  It was placed there when the park was constructed in 1911-12, to accommodate overflow crowds would could sit there and because of the slope see over each other.  It was rarely used and most of the time posed a challenge to outfielders.  The area became known as Duffy's Cliff for Red Sox outfielder Duffy Lewis who patrolled left field from 1912 through 1916 and became a master at handling balls hit towards the slope.

As you go to center, you'll see that where there are now grandstands there is a great hole making straight-away center very, very deep.

As we move to Right Field there are no bullpens in front of the bleachers, making home run hitting very difficult for a left hander.  Indeed, the greatest slugger of the day, left-handed Babe Ruth hit only 11 of his 49 home runs between 1914 and 1919 at Fenway and over his career the Babe's slugging percentage at Fenway was the lowest of the nine ballparks in which he played the bulk of his career.