Skip to content

Month: February 2022

Chickens roosting, etc.

N.C. pundit and consultant Thomas Mills believes Rep. Madison Cawthorn, a man with “no redeeming qualities,” finds himself in the bed he made for himself. His star may be rising in the national GOP, but not in North Carolina:

Cawthorn’s candidacy is being challenged by a group of voters that claims his support for the insurrection makes him ineligible to serve in Congress. They say, according to an NPR article, he “violated U.S. Constitution. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which was passed after the Civil War to prevent Confederates from holding public office, states that no one can hold office if they had taken an oath to support the Constitution and then ‘engaged in insurrection.’” In other words, Cawthorn is not loyal to the United States and, therefore, unfit to be a Member of Congress. Makes sense to me. 

Cawthorn is suing to have the complaint dismissed. He claims that the State Board of Elections does not have the right to declare him ineligible as a candidate. His lawyer also suggested that he would invoke the Amnesty Act of 1872 which returned full citizenship to most former Confederates and allowed them to hold public office. However, as Duke professor Mac McCorkle noted, invoking the Amnesty Act “would seem to admit that he was involved in an insurrection” 

This week, the State Board of Elections weighed in, declaring they have the right to examine Cawthorn’s candidacy and possibly reject it. If they proceed with the inquiry, Cawthorn might have to testify under oath about his role in the attack on the Capitol. That testimony could then be used by the Congressional Committee investigating the events of January 6. 

Cawthorn may find himself in serious hot water. On Tuesday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell called the attack on the Capitol an “insurrection.” That contradicts Cawthorn’s depiction of the events of January 6. In addition, Republican leaders in North Carolina and Washington are suspiciously quiet about the challenge to Cawthorn’s candidacy. No prominent North Carolina Republicans are coming to his defense.

The North Carolina State Board of Elections will hold hearings like those we saw last over the absentee voting fraud perpetrated by Republican operatives in 2018 in the NC-9 congressional race. Not a good look for either the GOP or Cawthorn. He’ll have to “show by a preponderance of the evidence” he is still eligible to run.

When Cawthorn decided the new NC-14 was not red enough for him, he announced he would run in the congressional district next door (NC-13) that Republican mapmakers drew to favor the election of state House Speaker Tim Moore. Once Cawthorn made his play, Moore announced he would run again for his state House seat instead.

Now, Moore may have his revenge. None of the state’s leading Republicans are contesting or complaining about the lawsuit. In addition, Moore could make Cawthorn’s life even more difficult if the legislature re-draws the districts that were struck down last week. Cawthorn could find himself looking for another district.

Cawthorn is difficult person for intelligent people to like, regardless of political persuasion. His naked ambition runs over precedent and seniority. He lies like Donald Trump. He wears his ignorance like a badge of honor. And he will say whatever he believes gets him the most applause. Now, he may find himself in a lonely fight to defend his candidacy.

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

For The Win, 4th Edition is ready for download. Request a copy of my free countywide GOTV planning guide at ForTheWin.us. This is what winning looks like.

Freedom means never having to be responsible

Screencap from March 9, 2020.

Had Sean Hannity last night not made Thomas Friedman’s point for him, Friedman’s often breathless prose might have gone unread, as usual. But Hannity did. In addressing Sarah Palin’s lawsuit against the New York Times over an editorial, Hannity suggested he, too, could sue the Times over an April 2020 article he claims “falsely accused” him as responsible for coronavirus deaths. Or at least issue a demand letter.

Hannity has his rights, dontcha know. Responsibilities? Not so much.

Friedman’s column addresses the Spotify controversy that Neil Young sparked over the platform’s popular Joe Rogan podcast. Sure, Rogan has the right to his opinions, Friedman writes, “but where’s your sense of responsibility to your fellow citizens, and especially to the nurses and doctors who have to deal with the fallout for your words?”

The dispute illustrates how the decoupling of rights from responsibilities is “unraveling our country today.”

Friedman writes:

“We are losing what could be called our societal immunity,” argued Dov Seidman, founder of the How Institute for Society. “Societal immunity is the capacity for people to come together, do hard things and look out for one another in the face of existential threats, like a pandemic, or serious challenges to the cornerstones of their political and economic systems, like the legitimacy of elections or peaceful transfer of power.”

But societal immunity “is a function of trust,” added Seidman. (Disclosure: Seidman is a donor to my wife’s museum, Planet Word.) “When trust in institutions, leaders and each other is high, people — in a crisis — are more willing to sublimate their cherished rights and demonstrate their sense of shared responsibilities toward others, even others they disagree with on important issues and even if it means making sacrifices.”

You are not required to like everyone in your platoon, but duty demands you bear the responsibility of fighting beside and for them. Once, that was considered patriotic. Today, it’s a violation of personal freedom.

Statistics demonstrate how much additional burden the unvaccinated place, not just upon themselves, but upon the hospital staff that have to treat them and watch them die unncecessarily in droves. Rogan’s spread of Covid and vaccine misinformation on his popular podcast further impairs the country’s capacity to end the pandemic. A Rogan podcast from December drew a response from medical experts condemning his promotion of “baseless conspiracy theories” and “false and societally harmful assertions.”

That was Rogan’s right. That was Spotify C.E.O. Daniel Ek’s right. But who was looking out for the doctors and nurses on the pandemic front lines whose only ask is that the politicians and media influencers who are privileged enough to have public platforms — especially one like Rogan with an average of 11 million listeners per episode — use them to reinforce our responsibilities to one another, not just our rights.

Neil Young, in fact. In a statement pulling his music from Spotify, Young wrote, “I am happy and proud to stand in solidarity with the frontline health care workers who risk their lives every day to help others.” Young takes his responsibility to others seriously.

Friedman concludes:

Rogan has vowed to do better at counterbalancing controversial guests. He could start by offering his listeners a 186-minute episode with intensive care nurses and doctors about what this pandemic of the unvaccinated has done to them.

That would be a teaching moment, not only about Covid, but also about putting our responsibilities to one another — and especially to those who care for us — at least on a par with our right to be as dumb and selfish as we want to be.

We might call it the Ayn-Randification of America. Where once we had the ability to pull together and sacrifice in the midst of national crisis, now it’s everyone for themselves. The right has rebranded juvenile behavior and the spreading of misinformation “freedom.” Responsibility, Donald Trump knows, is for suckers.

Don’t Look Up lampooned that national malady. Sean Hannity lives it every day.

900,000 Americans have died during the pandemic.

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

For The Win, 4th Edition is ready for download. Request a copy of my free countywide GOTV planning guide at ForTheWin.us. This is what winning looks like.

Astroturfing your kid’s eduction

Salon’s Jon Skolnik put together a great piece outlining what’s been discovered about the latest assault on public schools by wealthy right wing interests:

Until very recently, “book bans” seemed like a term out of the past, or a phenomenon that erupted sporadically in a small school or library district in the most conservative areas of the country. But over the last several years, parents’ groups aggrieved by the left’s alleged influence K-12 education have been working tirelessly to bring them back. All kinds of books have been exiled from library shelves or school curricula in the latest book-ban frenzy, although there’s no question that books about slavery, racism and the civil rights movement, along with books about growing up LGBTQ and that community’s struggle for equality, are center stage.

This phenomenon has largely been perceived, and framed in media accounts, as a grassroots movement, with local groups of parents or school-board officials leading the brigade in their own towns or neighborhoods. But that may not be the real story. New reporting suggests that certain elements of this broad-based advocacy have been coordinated by some of the country’s most influential deep-pockets conservatives, who stand much to gain from fanning the flames of the culture war, even at the most granular levels.  

Last week, The Guardian reported that a number of ostensible grassroots groups on the frontlines of the “parental rights” movement have connections to right-wing politicians and donor networks who are highly skilled at “astroturfing” local conflicts on a national scale.

Notable among these groups is Moms for Liberty, a 70,000-member nonprofit with 165 chapters throughout the country. The group is operated by Tina Descovich and Tiffany Justice, two former school board members. But according to its articles of incorporation, Moms for Liberty was originally co-founded and co-directed by Bridget Ziegler, the wife of Christian Ziegler, vice chairman of the Florida Republican Party, as Media Matters noted. Marie Rogerson, a former campaign consultant who now serves as the group’s director of development, formerly worked for Republican state Rep. Randy Fine, according to Treasure Coast Newspapers. Fine himself has been a central figure in Florida Republicans’ crusade against “critical race theory.” 

While Moms for Liberty is perhaps the most high-visibility advocacy groups of its kind, there are many others in the mix. Groups like Parents Defending Education and No Left Turn in Education also operate in the same ecosystem and, like Moms for Liberty, have connections to big players in right-wing politics. 

Parents Defending Education — a self-described “grassroots organization” promoting “the restoration of a healthy, non-political education for our kids” — is led by Nicole Neily, whose résumé is littered with connections to the Koch brothers. Neily was the president and founder of the pro-free speech group Speech First, which according to The Nation, runs “a highly professional astro-turfing campaign, with a board of former Bush administration lawyers and longtime affiliates of the Koch family.” Neily has also served in leadership capacities at the Independent Women’s Forum and the Cato Institute, both of which are direct recipients of Koch cash.

At present, nonprofit law does not require nonprofit organizations such as Moms for Liberty to disclose their donors. But in an interview with Salon, Moms for Liberty co-founder Tiffany Justice denied speculation that the group is funded by big-money benefactors, claiming it is mostly financed through memberships, small donations, and t-shirt sales.  

“If somebody wants to write me a check to get masks off of kids’ faces and to make sure that kids in schools are not being indoctrinated,” Justice said, “absolutely, I’m going to take that check.”

No Left Turn’s funding is, likewise, something a mystery. The group, which had 30 chapters in 23 states as of last June, lists among its supporters numerous high-profile right-wingers, including David Clarke, the pro-Trump former sheriff of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, who often speaks at GOP events and has taken money from the National Rifle Association. Clarke formerly served on the board of the Steve Bannon-backed group that was later implicated in a border wall fundraising racket. Other board members include Sharon Slater, president of Family Watch International, an evangelical lobbying nonprofit famous for spreading anti-LGBTQ pseudoscience; and CEO Elana Yaron Fishbein, who reportedly attended a private briefing held by the Heritage Foundation last May with state lawmakers looking to remove “critical race theory” from classrooms, according to NBC News. 

No Left Turn and Parents Defending Education did not respond to Salon’s inquiries.

In organizing terms, Moms for Liberty, Parents Defending Education and No Left Turn all adhere to a similar formula, as the Guardian noted. In most cases, a parent ostensibly flags a local school for doing something they consider beyond the pale, such as incorporating “controversial” books about gender or sexuality into the curricula. That parent and their allies reach out to one of the aforementioned groups, whose leaders weave the incident into their broader national narrative. 

To smoothen this process, some groups provide detailed walkthroughs for parents about how to file open records requests, create press releases, file civil rights complaints and petition school boards. One template provided by No Left Turn, for example, offers “a letter written by a parent of a child whose teacher assigned the reading of ‘Front Desk‘ by Kelly Yang,” a children’s book about a young Chinese immigrant that parents in a small Long Island district described as “extremely divisive and controversial” and characterized as “a recommended CRT novel.” (There is no such thing as a “CRT novel,” recommended or otherwise, and Yang’s book has never otherwise been described in those terms.) 

Taken together, parents’ rights groups appear to have a relatively narrow focus: to eradicate what they see as left-wing ideology from public schools. But Dr. Maurice T. Cunningham, a political science professor at the University of Massachusetts Boston and the author of “Dark Money and the Politics of School Privatization,” argues that their real goals are far more ambitious.    

“There is absolutely no doubt in my mind — zero — that what groups like Moms for Liberty and Parents Defending Education are doing is structural and aimed at the destruction and ultimate privatization of America’s public school system,” Cunningham, wrote by email. “These groups are communications operations and highly networked into The Daily Caller, Breitbart [and] Fox News. They have gotten educators fired and attacked online. They want to create chaos,” he concluded, “to destroy trust in public education and draw funding away.”

If you read this blog regularly, you know that I’ve been saying this for quite some time. The long game is the destruction of public schools and they’ve been working on this for decades. They’ve been running for school boards, fighting for prayer in school, vouchers for religious education, homeschooling pushes, banning educational material of all types. It waxes and wanes in terms of focus and energy but it’s always there at some level. And they jump into it with both feet whenever there’s an opening.

The pandemic opened the door this time as parents suddenly had to become involved with their kids’ curriculum with virtual learning and the big money saw the opportunity to push this bogus anti-CRT movement.

There’s a lot more detail at the link and I encourage you to read it. All is not as it seems.

A New Conspiracy

Jesus take the wheel. These people are crazy:

In an eyebrow-raising series of tweets that read like a paperback political thriller, Rep. Troy Nehls (R-TX) claimed on Tuesday that he was the subject of a Capitol Police intelligence investigation. Capitol Police almost immediately fired back and said there was never any investigation and Nehls’ version of events was wrong.

The back and forth started Tuesday morning when Nehls attacked Capitol Police on Twitter, appearing to possibly be softening the ground for whatever may be coming down the pike by castigating investigators for secretly entering his office nearly three months ago.ADVERTISING

Nehls had been aware of the incursions almost the entire time because, according to his account, police botched one of the supposedly clandestine entries. But he only disclosed the alleged break-in now.

Capitol Police Chief Tom Manger quickly issued a statement refuting Nehls’ claims. Manger said no case investigation was ever initiated or conducted into Nehls or his staff, and he suggested that police had not broken into the office, but entered in the course of duty having found it left “open and unsecured.”

“The United States Capitol Police is sworn to protect Members of Congress. If a Member’s office is left open and unsecured, without anyone inside the office, USCP officers are directed to document that and secure the office to ensure nobody can wander in and steal or do anything else nefarious,” the statement said.

The statement explained that Capitol Police entered after an agent was noticed that the office had been left “wide open.” After police followed up with the office, Manger said, the department decided not to take further action.

According to Nehls, who has attacked the Capitol Police response to the Jan. 6 riot, the agency opened a “malicious investigation” into his office. It began, he said, on Nov. 20, when officers secretly entered his office and took pictures of “confidential legislative products.”

But that wasn’t the end. Nehls added that, two days later—when most members and staff had cleared out for Thanksgiving recess—three officers with the Capitol Police intelligence division returned to his office, “dressed like construction workers,” only to find a staffer in the room.

What’s this paranoid garbage all about? Bizzaroworld:

The tweets came two days after Axios reported that a Jan. 6 “shadow” committee, featuring Nehls, an election objector and former sheriff, was investigating Capitol Police “negligence” in response to the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

That’s right. The Republicans are running a competing January 5th “investigation” in which the real insurrectionists were the Democrats and the Capitol Police who failed to stop the good, patriotic Republicans from storming the building and threatening to kill them.

I’m serious. That’s really what they are doing, And if they get control of the House in 2022, it’s going to be a three ring circus like we’ve never seen before. They. Are. Batshit. Crazy.

What’s happening in Ottawa

Here’s a thumbnail sketch from Kate Riga at TPM:

A trucker protest in Ottawa, initially over vaccine requirements, has inspired copycat demonstrations and attracted the hearty support of right-wing figures across the United States. 

It’s day 12 of the protests, which attracted thousands of people over the last couple weekends. 

1-Day 12 

The mayor of Ottawa declared a state of emergency Monday, as big rigs clog the densely-populated streets around the Parliament building. The protests have featured sustained horn honking, diesel fumes and heckling of the mask-wearing locals. Some protesters have also reportedly engaged in such unsavory behavior as urinating on monuments and pressuring a homeless shelter to give them free food.

Initially, the protest — or so-called “Freedom Convoy of 2022” — was sparked by a new restriction from the Canadian government requiring that truckers crossing back into the country’s borders be fully vaccinated. Though the majority of Canadian truckers were already vaccinated, they were previously exempt from entry requirements.

The convoy reached Ottawa, and thousands of protesters swarmed the area two weeks ago. Their numbers dwindled through the week, ticking back up last weekend. 

On Monday night, police seized fuel from the protesters whose numbers, they said, had dropped. A court also granted a 10-day injunction against sounding horns in downtown Ottawa. But the protests continued. The trucks into Tuesday morning blocked a major international crossing between Canada and the United States. 

2- A Cauldron of Discontent 

The truckers’ initial complaints have devolved into a general howl against Canadian COVID-19 restrictions of all kinds. 

“Our departure will be based on the prime minister doing what is right, ending all mandates and restrictions on our freedoms,” Tamara Lich, one of the loose movement’s leaders, said at a news conference.

A spokesman for the group, speaking Monday, urged Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to “come out of hiding.” Trudeau has been quarantining after testing positive for COVID-19, but called for a stop to the protests Monday. The spokesman also cribbed a quote from Aaron Sorkin’s The West Wing, saying that Trudeau has a “.22 caliber mind in a .357 world.” 

A national poll conducted last week shows that 68 percent of Canadians say they have “very little in common with how the protesters in Ottawa see things,” while 32 percent say they have “a lot in common.” One of the pollsters attributed the one-third’s support to a general wearying of the pandemic and its accompanying restrictions.

Canada is relatively well-vaccinated, with 88 percent of citizens over the age of four having received at least one dose. 

3-Support from Southern Neighbors 

In the least surprising twist to this story, the protests have been a magnet for the usual cast of characters occupying the United States’ right wing.

Former President Donald Trump and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Green (R-GA) both issued statements boosting the demonstrations. 

“The Freedom Convoy is peacefully protesting the harsh policies of far-left lunatic Justin Trudeau, who has destroyed Canada with insane COVID mandates,” Trump wrote in a statement.

Glenn BeckMike HuckabeeEric Trump and Franklin Graham all used Facebook to raise the profile of the protests and encourage support. Extensive coverage of the protests on Fox News has also attracted sympathetic Americans. 

There has been fundraising for the movement on fringey platforms — reportedly including on white supremacist Telegram channels. Much of that money went to a GoFundMe page for the protests before the company shut it down, sparking another wave of right-wing agita. 

4 GoFundMe Pulls the Plug 

The GoFundMe page for the trucks amassed about $8 million before the company shut it down. In a statement, it said that what began as a peaceful protest had become an “occupation,” in violation of company policy. 

“Given how this situation has evolved, no further funds will be directly distributed to the Freedom Convoy organizers — we will work with organizers to send all remaining funds to credible and established charities verified by GoFundMe,” the company wrote. 

The company later scrapped that plan and instead automatically refunded all donations. 

GoFundMe’s original response piqued fury from some Republican players. 

“It is a fraud for GoFundMe to commandeer $9M in donations sent to support truckers and give it to causes of their own choosing,” Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) tweeted. “I will work with [Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody (R)] to investigate these deceptive practices — these donors should be given a refund.” 

“#GoFundMe now won’t honor #FreedomConvoy donations and will instead redirect to other charities? In WV, organizations must not deceive donors and engage in deceptive advertising practices. If you’ve been victimized by a deceptive act or practice, let us know!” added West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey (R).

Jack Posobiec, an alt-right conspiracy theorist and troll, directed his followers to rival site GiveSendGo instead. 

5 A Far Right That, For Now, Is Still Fringe

Canada’s far right has not yet assimilated into the mainstream as well as the faction has in the United States.  

They have been less successful in getting a toehold in their country’s government, and, as evidenced by the much higher vaccination rates and lower relative casualties from COVID-19, have largely taken protections in stride. The Canadian government has said that nearly 90 percent of its truckers are vaccinated, making the protesters a small minority.

The protest now is a hodgepodge of discontent with no clear set of demands. But the movement is certainly attracting the interest of its dangerous, and more electorally powerful, United States cousin. Conversations about a copycat protest across the southern border are happening online; whether that energy will make the jump to the trucks and streets or fizzle out in the endless Pong game of the right-wing echo chamber is still unclear. 

I noted over the weekend that Trump sent out this statement on his new company’s letter head:

Note that he’s calling for a similar “protest” in Washington DC. What a great idea…

The receding surge

California is lifting its mask mandate next week. LA County is not, at least for the time being. This thread by Bob Wachter of the University of California in San Francisco spells out where we are in detail:

The U.S. has clearly turned the page on mask mandates, with many governors – even in blue states – removing mandates in most indoor spaces. 

Soon, you’ll be allowed to go mask-less indoors. In this thread, I’ll address the harder question: should you? (1/25) 

During prior lulls (May-June & November, 2021), I resumed indoor dining and was comfortable with unmasked get-togethers with vaccinated friends. But in Dec-Jan, I went back to my Surge Rules: masking indoors (except for with those in my bubble), and avoiding indoor dining. (2/25) 

If you’re still following me, I’m guessing you – like me – are struggling with whether it’s time to go back to “normal.” Let’s acknowledge that millions of Americans have already done so. While they’re taking some risk (still a lot of virus around), there’s something blissful about “normal”; avoiding all the risk-benefit math & angst.

As case rates & hospitalizations continue to fall, more folks will join them, deciding that risk of getting Covid – & having a bad outcome if they do – have dropped to levels that don’t merit masking.  I’m likely to join them in a few weeks. But I wasn’t ready this weekend, when I was went to a college pal’s 65th birthday party in So. Florida. His plan was to serve food/drink inside the house, but the backyard would be the hang-out spot. Good plan, I thought, and then it began to rain.

So today, I’ll walk thru how I made the choice to go indoors. As with my recent thread on my son’s Covid, I don’t do this because the party was unusual (though it was fun!), but the opposite – because it’s so commonplace. Millions of times a day people have to decide whether to don a mask indoors, eat in a restaurant, or mask their kid. I hope my analysis is helpful – whether you decide to remain careful for a few more weeks, or that you’re ready to go mask-less. I now consider both to be reasonable decisions.

A little context: I’m (still) a fairly healthy 64-y.o. man. I’ve had 3 Pfizers; including boost 4 months ago. Florida’s current case rate is about 100 cases/100K/day, about 1/5th of its Omicron peak but still well above prior lulls. And of course there are many home-test positive case that aren’t reported. Hospitalizations have also fallen.

Like most of the U.S., I assume that if I got Covid I’d have a hard time getting the Pfizer oral antiviral Paxlovid, the monoclonal Sotrovimab, or a course of Remdesivir. In other words, despite there being 3 therapies that markedly lower the hospitalization and death rates for high-risk outpatients with Covid, none would be available to me if I got infected. (They are being reserved for people at higher risk than me, which is appropriate given their scarcity.)

My 3 Pfizer shots have reduced my risk of getting Covid by ~50% – a significant benefit, but breakthroughs are, quite obviously, commonplace. More importantly, the 3 shots have reduced my chances of a severe case and death by about 95% (the booster being key to that).

I haven’t gotten Covid yet, and I still consider getting it undesirable & not inevitable.
Why undesirable? 1) Small, but non-zero, risk of a severe infection (though a near-zero risk of death); 2) ~5% risk of Long Covid – & an unknown (probably small but non-zero) risk of long-term organ dysfunction; 3) I’m staying with my 86-year-old mom (boosted but at higher risk than me).

So I’m not “over it” – if you are, you’ve probably stopped reading by now. As long as there’s lots of Covid around – & there is – I’m still going to be careful. So that’s the background.

The party: ~40 people, mostly from Northeast, a few from FL, a few from CA. Since outsiders arrived in FL 1-2 days ago, the risk for most is that of their hometown, rather than that of FL. All the states have seen similar drops in case-rates.

The host asked everybody to be vaxxed/boosted & to do a rapid test. I’ll assume most complied on testing, and that anybody testing positive stayed home. Knowing that most of the group are professionals in their 60s who live in blue states, national demographic data would predict fairly high vax & “careful” rates as well.

In Palm Beach County, test positivity rate is still ~17%. Based on our experience @UCSF, asymptomatic test positivity rate tends to be ~half the overall test pos. rate (vs. symptomatic rate, which exceeds the average).  But I doubt this group’s rate would be 8.5%. Given all the factors (demographic predictors of vax & behavior, party’s vax & testing requirement, relatively low case & test positive rates in guests’ hometowns), I’d guess that 1-3% of asymptomatic people in a group like this would test positive for SARS-CoV-2 at this stage of the Omicron surge/de-surge.

Let’s go with 2%, or 1-in-50. That would mean that in a group of 40 people there would be a ~55% chance that at least one person was positive & potentially infectious. Omicron’s household attack rate is ~33% – that’s the chances that a family member will become infected by someone w/ Covid living in the same home.

In a mask-less group at a 2-3 hour party (vs. a family sharing a home, meals, and bathrooms), it’s got to be far lower than that – I’ll estimate a 5% chance of getting infected if I come in close contact w/ person with Covid (remember, there’s only 55% chance that such a person is there). That chance would drop with good ventilation – which is why we kept two doors open during the party. So that’s what I was thinking when the rain began to fall.On the panel below, I’ve summarized my estimates & calculations.

(Note that these are my best estimates from the literature, but there’s educated guesswork here, since not every situation has been well studied.) As you can see, while getting Covid from the party would be an unusual outcome, it wouldn’t be shocking (~1 in 50 chance).
But getting the kinds of outcomes that would make me regret having gone (hospitalization, death, Long Covid, or infecting mom) would be quite rare. With that, & since the only two alternatives were to leave a party I really wanted to be at, or to eat oysters and drink nice wine in a downpour, I went inside. It was delightful.

3 days later, I feel fine & am confident that I didn’t get Covid (will test for symptoms). Having gone through all this (mostly reassuring) math, is the mask gone for good? Not yet – case rates remain high by historical standards, & I don’t need to be mask-less in most indoor spots.

I can wait on indoor dining for a few weeks, since it’s likely to be much safer soon. But in situations where the benefits of going mask-less are high (ie, a party during a rainstorm) or the downsides of masking are higher & risks of infection lower (as with schools), it does seems reasonable to ditch the masks, if not now then pretty darn soon.

This all seems pretty reasonable to me. I’m anxious to get back to normal. But the thought of getting COVID and getting very sick at this late stage in the pandemic horrifies me. So I’ll stay careful and make these sorts of calculations as long as its necessary. But it’s nice to know that the surge is receding and we at least don’t have to worry about the hospital system collapsing — for a while anyway.

Promises made, promises kept

Trump’s list of judges contained a glaring omission:

Running for reelection in 2020, Donald Trump’s slogan was “Promises Made. Promises Kept.” 

He certainly kept one promise. On May 18, 2016—and again in September of that year—Trump promised his supporters explicitly that, if elected, he would not appoint a Black woman to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

I can already hear snuffling noises off to my right protesting that he did no such thing, that Trump actually, as he said at the time, named highly qualified federal judges “representative of the kind of constitutional principles I value.” 

Yet it is a fact that the two lists his campaign developed with the counsel of conservative activists (which he had promised not to stray from in filling the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat on the Court) contained not a single Black woman. Trump said nothing about excluding Black female judges. He just did it.

This is not a small point; the two Supreme Court lists are an important part of why Trump was elected president. He was not a natural candidate for white evangelical Christians to embrace—nor was he the beau ideal of the conservative legal movement. But once the lists came out, along with his promise to hew to them, religious-right leaders, white evangelical voters in the pews, and many conservatives of the Federalist stripe boarded the Trump Train, clearing the path to his nomination that June. 

That list was eight men and three women. 

That list was all white. 

During the fall campaign, when Trump was facing strong headwinds, he re-rang the Supreme Court bell by releasing, on September 23, a new list of potential nominees. The eleven names included one Black man, one Latino man, and one Indian American man. There was also one (and only one) woman, who was white. 

There was no Black woman.

Trump campaigned on his promised judicial nominations. In August, he told a rally in Ashburn, Virginia, “Even if you can’t stand Donald Trump, even if you think I’m the worst, you’re going to vote for me. You know why? Judges …”

The point, of course, is that all the caterwauling about Biden refusing to consider the most qualified people once again exposes their bigotry. Trump laid out a huge list of all the people he supposedly felt were the most qualified. And not one Black woman made the list.

Run like local matters

Outside Sequim, Wash. Town Hall, July 2019.

Reader IW sent this by on Monday. Made my day.

The town of Sequim (pronounced “Squim”; pop. 8.000; Clallam County pop. 77,000) on Washington’s Olympic peninsula found its local government hijacked by the fringe right. Covid had swamped the local hopitals. Restrictions put in place by the local health officer brought a “tsunami of hatred” her way in the summer of 2020.

“People called for my public hanging,” Berry tells The Nation‘s Sasha Abramsky

Going into the 2020 election, there were 19 counties in the nation that had voted for the winner of every presidential election since 1980, when Ronald Reagan was first elected. Eighteen of those counties, all rural, lost their bellwether status in 2020 by going for Trump. Clallam County became the sole holdout by narrowly supporting Biden.

Clallam County residents were perhaps too comfortable with Biden’s 3-point win (even higher in Sequim). Sequim’s new mayor was not.

William Armacost was first appointed to the city council in 2018, was elected unopposed to a four-year term in November 2019, and was finally appointed mayor by his colleagues in January 2020. After he became mayor, he was caught on camera pushing a shopping cart at a Costco wearing a T-shirt emblazoned with a Stars and Stripes–painted skull and the words “THIS IS THE USA. We Eat Meat. We Drink Beer. We Own Guns. We Speak English. We Love Freedom. If you do not like that GET THE FUCK OUT.”

You snooze, they win

Things got ugly fast. Armacost and his Independent Advisory Association (IAA) forced the resignation of the popular city manager and secured appointments to city council for QAnon conspiracists. A power struggle ensued.

Armacost’s ascent to the mayorship was a red flag. All around Sequim, residents—whether they had previously been apolitical or had long been involved in political organizations and protests—reacted in horror to his bullying persona and far-right antics. “It was so raucous, and some of the statements were so ugly,” says Lisa Dekker, a member of the local chapter of Indivisible. “It shocked the progressive community.”

And then? Then, people organized the Sequim Good Governance League (SGGL) in the spring of 2021.

“All these conservative people snuck onto the city council when nobody opposed them,” says Ron Richards, a rugged 77-year-old onetime Clallam County commissioner who lives in a ranch house at the base of the Olympic Mountains and regularly hikes miles up into the snows for exercise. “And then they appointed their friends to government. It resulted in the most right-wing people you could imagine running the city of Sequim.” Horrified, Richards got involved in the SGGL.

They recruited candidates, canvassed every neighborhood, got up in the middle of the night to send e-mail blasts, and wrote postcards. On election night 2021, the organizing paid off (emphasis mine):

“When it turned out to be two-to-one,” [Lowell] Rathbun remembers, his reaction was visceral: “Holy crap! We kicked butt.”

SOS, the IAA, Armacost, and the other conservatives had, for two years, told everyone who would listen that they represented the silent majority of the county, that their brand of divide-and-conquer politics was the only brand worth selling. But, says [Marsha] McGuire, the former Library of Congress researcher, “At the election we proved it: They are not the majority.”

When the votes were counted, they showed that the SGGL-backed candidates had ridden a wave of genuine popular fury against the faux populists aligned with Armacost. In Sequim, the five SGGL candidates for city council—Rathbun, Janisse, Vicki Lowe, Kathy Downer, and Rachel Anderson—all got between 65 and 70 percent of the vote. Both hospital commissioners’ positions in the county went to SGGL candidates, as did the fire commission and school district posts up for election last year.

That’s how it’s done. When the left forfeits, when the right runs unopposed, the right fringe comes to believe they are the majority even in places they are not. Proving they are not takes work. Even forcing them to lose by less helps statewide candidates. You can’t win if you don’t show up to play.

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

For The Win, 4th Edition is ready for download. Request a copy of my free countywide GOTV planning guide at ForTheWin.us. This is what winning looks like.

As sick of Trumpism as Covid

Image via Unilad.

It took the RNC leadership a decade to catch the T-party in losing its collective mind, but inevitably last week it got there. And then some.

In a column headlined “The RNC turns into an Orwellian horror show,” Jennifer Rubin wrote Monday (Washington Post):

The Republican Party has betrayed our democratic system — first by refusing to accept the results of the 2020 election, then by exonerating the violators and censuring the defenders of our Constitution at its recent meeting in Salt Lake City. The party time and again has sided with treacherous seditionists.

The Post’s Dana Milbank writes this Tuesday morning:

God bless those crafty wordsmiths of the Republican Party! The people who gave us “alternative facts,” “enhanced interrogation techniques,” “tender age shelters” and “hiking the Appalachian Trail” have outdone themselves.

The Republican National Committee last week passed a resolution condemning GOP Reps. Liz Cheney (Wyo.) and Adam Kinzinger (Ill.) for serving on the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection — or, as the RNC called it, “a Democrat-led persecution of ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse.”

Legitimate political discourse! Seven people died in connection with the attack, 140 police officers were hurt and 734 people have been prosecuted on charges ranging up to seditious conspiracy. Marauders sacked the Capitol for the first time since the War of 1812, threatening assassination, and smashing, clubbing and defecating to the tune of $1.5 million in property damage. But the Republican Party says it’s all legit. Just a bit of civil discourse.

Perhaps the RNC is learning from Rep. Madison Cawthorn that saying offensive, lunatic things is really a good thing for all the earned media and clicks. But given the number of Americans down that rabbit hole with them, the question for Democrats and Americans still in possession of their faculties and souls is what the Republicans’ decent into madness means for November.

Both parties rank poorly in public opinion, John Cassidy begins at The New Yorker, writing, “According to the latest Economist/YouGov polling data, forty-one per cent of Americans have a favorable opinion of the Democratic Party and thirty-six per cent have a favorable opinion of the Republican Party.”

Yes, but what about November? Well, Joe Biden defeated Trump in such an environment. Biden’s own approval rating stood north of 50 percent until August, until the Afghanistan withdrawal, rising inflation, and the collapse of BBB.

Trump 2: The Revenge Tour could do for Democrats in 2022 what Trump: American Carnage did for them in 2018 and 2020.

Cassidy ponders:

Of course, Trump’s reëmergence doesn’t relieve the White House and the Democrats of the many policy challenges that they face—including inflation, the pandemic, and the Senate filibuster. Ultimately, they will be judged on their record in office, and an anti-Trump message won’t necessarily provide a political panacea. Terry McAuliffe’s defeat in Virginia illustrated the danger for Democrats of overly relying on the spectre of Trump when he is no longer in power. But Trump’s return to the headlines is an important development because it shifts some of the focus back to the G.O.P. and highlights the simple but defining question that the Party cannot avoid, as much as the Republican leaders McConnell and Kevin McCarthy, the House Minority Leader, may want to. Does the G.O.P. still support democracy? Or is it now Trump’s sock puppet—an authoritarian populist movement eager to run roughshod over anyone or anything that gets in its way, including the votes that eighty-one million Americans cast for Biden?

The RNC’s “legitimate political discourse” declaration last week may not help. At least, not Republicans. A CBS News poll Cassidy cites shows 83 percent of Americans disapprove of the Jan. 6 rioters’ actions. Fifty-four consider it an insurrection.

Democrats need to give voters something to vote for this fall. They need to sell it, not just assume voters know they represent American values: e pluribus unum, democracy, renewal, prosperity, and sanity. Trump’s presence on the bottom of the GOP’s shoes (if he is not under indictment by the fall) will give Democrats and independents something to vote against without Democrats having to make a big show of it. Trump and Republicans will bring the show.

Trump’s reëmergence doesn’t guarantee anything. The antiquated American political system favors minority rule. Opposition parties usually do well in midterms, and this year’s electoral map favors Republicans. But the past week has highlighted the cancer that is still eating at the G.O.P. and reminded anti-Trump voters why it is so vital for them to get out and exercise their democratic duty—an important factor in a year in which Democratic strategists fear a decline in turnout. Coming in the same week that Omicron cases kept falling sharply and the January job figures came in unexpectedly strong, this has given Biden and other Democrats reason to hope that they can eventually get their ship back on course.

But making that happen will take a significant turnout among voters as sick of Trumpism as they are of Covid. They’ll need reminding.

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

For The Win, 4th Edition is ready for download. Request a copy of my free countywide GOTV planning guide at ForTheWin.us. This is what winning looks like.

Unpacking the disinformation

I thought I would share this piece from Snopes about a bit of disinformation that’s making the rounds on the right. I would have called it “misinformation” except as you will see in the story it turns out there is a political agenda. Naturally. This is what we are dealing with and it’s very unfortunate. Scientific knowledge is evolving all the time and we have to be flexible and open to new information. But disinformation is making everything much, much worse:

In February 2022, a number of conservative news outlets reported on a working paper entitled “A Literature Review and Meta Analysis of the Effects of Lockdowns on COVID-19 Mortality” by a group of scholars at Johns Hopkins University. The paper claimed that the lockdowns implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic had little impact on preventing deaths. As this study appeared to run counter to previous reports that found lockdowns saved lives, we wanted to take a closer look at it.

Who is it from? What are the specific claims? What evidence are those claims based on?

A Working Paper, Not Peer-Reviewed Published Study

The first thing we noticed when we examined the actual study, not the media reports covering the study, was that this was a “working paper” by a group of economists, not epidemiologists. A working paper typically refers to a pre-publication study that has not yet undergone a scientific peer-review process. The authors state as much in a brief description at the top of the study:

This opening paragraph contains one other important detail. This study was not endorsed by Johns Hopkins University. While many media outlets presented this working paper as if it was a “Johns Hopkins study,” this report would be more accurately described as a non-peer-reviewed working paper by three economists, one of whom is an economics professor at Johns Hopkins University.

Furthermore, the National Post noted that this paper did not come from Johns Hopkins University’s Coronavirus Resource Center. Rather, it comes from the university’s unaffiliated Krieger School of Arts and Sciences:

“Throughout the pandemic, most COVID research out of Johns Hopkins University has typically come from its Coronavirus Resource Center, an initiative run out the university’s world-renowned medical school.

But the new paper, which was drafted by three economists, comes out of the university’s unaffiliated Krieger School of Arts and Sciences.”

Who Wrote This Paper?

This work was conducted by three economists, not epidemiologists: Jonas Herby, Lars Jonung, and Steve H. Hanke. It’s worth noting that Hanke, a senior fellow at the CATO Institute, was at the center of a brief controversy in June 2020 after he erroneously claimed that Vietnam had not reported any COVID-19 data. An open letter from 285 “public health researchers and professionals and concerned citizens” to Johns Hopkins University demanded an apology from Hanke and claimed that his tweet was “more politically driven than evidence based.” Hanke later deleted the tweet.  

While we can’t say if Hanke’s political opinions influenced the conclusions of this working paper, he has repeatedly posted messages on Twitter equating lockdowns with fascism. 

What is a Lockdown?

While many media reports on this working paper noted that “lockdowns only reduced COVID deaths by 0.2 per cent,” this may give readers a false impression of what this working paper actually found. The common definition of a “lockdown” is a mandatory state of isolation. In terms of the pandemic, many people would take “lockdown” to refer to a requirement for people to stay inside their homes (not attending public events, school, going to restaurants, or leaving for any other non-essential reason.)

This paper, however, defines a lockdown as “the imposition of at least one compulsory, non-pharmaceutical intervention (NPI).” This means that this study interprets a mask-wearing requirement as a “lockdown,” even if that requirement did not prevent a person from visiting public spaces. 

Samir Bhatt, professor of statistics and public health, Imperial College London, said:

“I find this paper has flaws and needs to be interpreted very carefully …  The most inconsistent aspect is the reinterpreting of what a lockdown is. The authors define lockdown as “as the imposition of at least one compulsory, non-pharmaceutical intervention”. This would make a mask wearing policy a lockdown. For a meta-analysis using a definition that is at odds with the dictionary definition (a state of isolation or restricted access instituted as a security measure) is strange.

Professor Neil Ferguson, director of the MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, Jameel Institute, Imperial College London, also found this definition of a lockdown problematic:

This report on the effect of “lockdowns” does not significantly advance our understanding of the relative effectiveness of the plethora of public health measures adopted by different countries to limit COVID-19 transmission. The policies which comprised “lockdown” varied dramatically between countries, meaning defining the term is problematic. In their new report, Herby et al appear to define lockdown as imposition of one or more mandatory non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs); by that definition, the UK has been in permanent lockdown since 16th of March 2021, and remains in lockdown – given it remain compulsory for people with diagnosed COVID-19 to self-isolate for at least 5 days.

Which Studies Were Included? Which Excluded? 

Another point of concern is that 12 of the 34 studies analyzed in this review were, themselves, working papers. The analysis of 34 included 14 in the field of economics and only one in epidemiology. 

Dr. Seth Flaxman, associate professor in the Department of Computer Science, University of Oxford, said (emphasis ours):

Smoking causes cancer, the earth is round, and ordering people to stay at home (the correct definition of lockdown) decreases disease transmission. None of this is controversial among scientists. A study purporting to prove the opposite is almost certain to be fundamentally flawed.

In this case, a trio of economists have undertaken a meta-analysis of many previous studies. So far so good. But they systematically excluded from consideration any study based on the science of disease transmission, meaning that the only studies looked at in the analysis are studies using the methods of economics.

These do not include key facts about disease transmission such as: later lockdowns are less effective than earlier lockdowns, because many people are already infected; lockdowns do not immediately save lives, because there’s a lag from infection to death, so to see the effect of lockdowns on Covid deaths we need to wait about two or three weeks. (This was all known in March 2020 – we discussed it in a paper released that month, and later published in Nature. Our paper is excluded from consideration in this meta-analysis.)

It’s as if we wanted to know whether smoking causes cancer and so we asked a bunch of new smokers: did you have cancer the day before you started smoking? And what about the day after? If we did this, obviously we’d incorrectly conclude smoking is unrelated to cancer, but we’d be ignoring basic science. The science of diseases and their causes is complex, and it has a lot of surprises for us, but there are appropriate methods to study it, and inappropriate methods. This study intentionally excludes all studies rooted in epidemiology–the science of disease.”

Furthermore, nearly half of the studies analyzed (16 of 34) were published in 2020. The most recent study comes from June 2021, meaning that this meta-analysis contains little to no data related to the delta variant, and no data related to omicron. 

Prof. Bhatt said:

“Two years in, it seems still to focus on the first wave of SARS-COV2 and in a very limited number of countries … As I have mentioned it looks at a tiny slice of the pandemic, there have been many lockdowns since globally with far better data, there are many prominent studies that cover the period in question looking at infections … The list of such studies is very long and suggests a highly incomplete meta-analysis.”

The Bottom Line

The viral “Johns Hopkins study” about lockdowns was not the work of Johns Hopkins University, it was not peer-reviewed, and it was not written by epidemiologists. A number of researchers have also taken issue with the methods used in this study.

In a Feb. 4 thread on Twitter, Meyerowitz-Katz dug into the details of this study and found, among other things, that this paper was not peer-reviewed, that the analysis excluded all studies with a counter-factual model — thereby excluding nearly all epidemiological-focused papers — and that it heavily weighted studies that supported their conclusion.

Furthermore, the conclusions of this non-peer reviewed working paper run counter to published studies in academic journals that found lockdowns did prevent COVID-19 deaths. One study, for example, found that lockdown policies helped prevent millions of deaths early in the pandemic. NPR reported:

Solomon Hsiang, director of the Global Policy Lab, says these unprecedented shelter-in-place orders came at an extreme economic cost. Yet when government officials were ordering them, it was unclear exactly how significant the social benefits would be.

“The value of these studies you’re seeing today is that they’re demonstrating what the benefits of this policy are,” Hsiang said in a press call discussing the studies. “They averted tens of millions of additional infections and millions of deaths.”