JustOneMinute

OK, Back To Zoom Calls Everyone

The Biden Recovery hits a wall. Clearly the gloomy jobs report is due to fear of out-of-control Federal spending. Unless its due to a failure by Biden to propose free child care, pick up the tab on student debt, push for DC statehood, pack the Supreme Court and pound the table for the Green New Deal.

Or maybe this sort of recovery takes time? Nahh... crazy talk.

Go long candles. And start brushing up on your cave art.

Lock 'Em Up

Facebook continues its suspension of Trump. Trump has as much media access as anyone in the world, so I just can't get exercised about a 'free speech' issue here.

Banning lunatic fringe anti-vax groups gets closer to a danger zone. I generally think the anti-vaxxers are doing the public a disservice, but plenty of libs (and Facebook employees) would say the same about gun rights enthusiasts.

Now, if Facebook wants to ban their own highly lucrative practice of selling micro-targeted ads, we'd be getting somewhere. With their micro-targeting, good speech can't counter bad speech because (unlike radio, TV or print) most of those ads never hit the mainstream radar. Can't rebut what you haven't heard!

But yes, pigs will fly to the board meeting where FB changes their ad policies.

MORE: Trump has launched "From The Desk of Donald J. Trump". His latest missive suggests he has not yet Moved On:

Have You Herd?

'Herd immunity' for COVID probably won't happen, per the NY Times. Variants plus vaccine hesitancy mean we'll have COVID as background noise for a while:

Now, more than half of adults in the United States have been inoculated with at least one dose of a vaccine. But daily vaccination rates are slipping, and there is widespread consensus among scientists and public health experts that the herd immunity threshold is not attainable — at least not in the foreseeable future, and perhaps not ever.

Instead, they are coming to the conclusion that rather than making a long-promised exit, the virus will most likely become a manageable threat that will continue to circulate in the United States for years to come, still causing hospitalizations and deaths but in much smaller numbers.

How much smaller is uncertain and depends in part on how much of the nation, and the world, becomes vaccinated and how the coronavirus evolves. It is already clear, however, that the virus is changing too quickly, new variants are spreading too easily and vaccination is proceeding too slowly for herd immunity to be within reach anytime soon.

FWIW, its not just us. Circulating disease anywhere creates opportunities for new variants, and the developing world won't have a chance to get vaccinated (or not) for quite a while now.

Groan. Annual booster shots, like with the flu. Experts will study emerging variants and guess at the appropriate booster for the next season. I'll guess COVID season will overlap with flu season, since more of us are indoors breathing each others deadly air. 

And do keep in mind:

Herd immunity is often described as a national target. But that is a hazy concept in a country this large.

“Disease transmission is local,” Dr. Lipsitch noted.

“If the coverage is 95 percent in the United States as a whole, but 70 percent in some small town, the virus doesn’t care,” he explained. “It will make its way around the small town.”

Or vice versa. The Times presents a cool but sort of unreadable graphic showing poll results about vaccine hesitancy across the US. Northeasterners have a good shot at wanting a shot. Down South, less so.

Squint and see!

 

Saturday Afternoon

Away we go.

Energy Weapons Used Near White House?!?

This is the biggest story ever to be totally overlooked. From CNN:

Washington (CNN)Federal agencies are investigating at least two possible incidents on US soil, including one near the White House in November of last year, that appear similar to mysterious, invisible attacks that have led to debilitating symptoms for dozens of US personnel abroad.

Multiple sources familiar with the matter tell CNN that while the Pentagon and other agencies probing the matter have reached no clear conclusions on what happened, the fact that such an attack might have taken place so close to the White House is particularly alarming.

Defense officials briefed lawmakers on the Senate and House Armed Services Committees on the matter earlier this month, including on the incident near the White House. That incident, which occurred near the Ellipse, the large oval lawn on the south side of the White House, sickened one National Security Council official, according to multiple current and former US officials and sources familiar with the matter.

In a separate 2019 episode, a White House official reported a similar attack while walking her dog in a Virginia suburb just outside Washington, GQ reported last year.

 

Those sickened reported similar symptoms to CIA and State Department personnel impacted overseas, and officials quickly began to investigate the incident as a possible "Havana syndrome" attack. That name refers to unexplained symptoms that US personnel in Cuba began experiencing in late 2016 -- a varying set of complaints that includes ear popping, vertigo, pounding headaches and nausea, sometimes accompanied by an unidentified "piercing directional noise."

 

Apparently lawmakers have been briefed bit not Joe Biden. From Jim Geraghty:

 

Q    Mr. President, what do you know about this supposed direct energy attack on the Ellipse and the person who was injured?

THE PRESIDENT:  I don’t know anything about it.

Q    So you have not been briefed on it?

THE PRESIDENT:  I have not been briefed on it.

Like Obama, Biden gets the bad news by watching the news.

Now To Be Fair, I am mildly sympathetic to the decision to not brief the President. That would be a heck of a brief:

"Mr. President, we aren't sure what, if anything happened. We don't know who did it and we don't have any decisions to be made about how to respond. We've been investigating seemingly similar incidents for years and don't have many answers."

This is not actionable intel at this point and the intelligence services probably don't need to hear Biden rant at them to get to the bottom of this. On the other hand, the media went wild over the idea that Trump was giving a pass to Russians paying bounties for dead American soldiers in Afghanistan. Yes, Trump said it was Fake News and it remains unconfirmed, but still - we expect a but more energy from our Media Lapdogs Watchdogs.

Oh, Yeah, A Speech

Last night Joe Biden gave his big speech on his vision for this and that. Per CDC guidelines I maintained proper social distancing by watching the Yankees trounce the Orioles. WaPo coverage here. When its big news that both the VP and the House Speaker are women, well, we have known that for months.

I am more intrigued by this WSJ story describing bipartisan opposition to Biden's proposed capital gains tax hikes. Menendez, Manchin and Mark Warner and others are fretting out loud. I'd guess those rates go up, but by how much?

Gun Up!

After years of ducking Second Amendment cases the Supreme Court takes up a New York case about concealed carry permitting.

We all know what side they're on, but the NY Times provides useful coverage:

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court said on Monday that it would review a New York law that imposes strict limits on carrying guns outside the home, setting the stage for its first major Second Amendment case in more than a decade.

...

The Supreme Court has turned down countless Second Amendment appeals since it established an individual right to keep guns in the home for self-defense in 2008 in District of Columbia v. Heller.

Since then, lower courts have generally sustained gun control laws. But they are divided on the fundamental and open question posed by the new case: whether states can stop law-abiding citizens from carrying guns outside their homes for self-defense unless they can satisfy the authorities that they have a good reason for doing so.

...

The new case is a challenge to a New York law that requires people seeking a license to carry a gun outside their homes to show a “proper cause.” Two men denied licenses, along with the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, sued, saying “the state makes it virtually impossible for the ordinary law-abiding citizen to obtain a license.”

California, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Rhode Island have similar laws, according to gun rights groups.

Showing "Proper cause" for a permit is required in the NY State law (NY Penal Law 400). But what does it mean? Ahh!  Various NY courts have concluded that it means the applicant must demonstrate (Klenosky v. N.Y. City Police Dep’t)

'a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community or of persons engaged in the same profession.’ 

So "Its a dangerous world out there and I want to be ready for it" is not acceptable - its a dangerous world for all of us!

[Stray aside - as my years advance I'm wondering if I could go with a Tired Old Man permit application - the 'general public' has to be more agile, mobile and hostile than me, amirite? I need an Equalizer!]

Well. The 2008 Heller decision established a right (at the Federal level) to have a gun in the home as a means of self-defense, subject to reasonable regulation. That was expanded to a state-level right by the 2010 McDonald v. City of Chicago, and here we have sat for a decade.

The Times recaps some relevant cases. Some restrictive laws similar to NY have been upheld, most recently in Hawaii (last year the SC ducked a New Jersey case similar to this one.)

On the other hand, a restrictive Illinois law was struck down at the appeals level in 2012 Moore v. Madigan. Judge Posner wrote the decision and it is a likely roadmap for the current Supreme Court. Another case to consider as a possible roadmap is the 2017 Wrenn v. District of Columbia, which struck down restrictive concealed permitting there.

OK, lots of homework! My current guess is that everyone will hate the court's decision, whatever it is. I'll guess NY State will howl because the result will be a requirement of a more permissive process; gun enthusiasts will howl that the result does not go far enough.

Here is an exceprt from Posner, and I'll say it first - "Indians?!?". C'mon, man - 'Native Americans'!

We should be able to find plenty of thoughtful, sober evaluations of the Illinois experience post-Posner. No reason to think any of the research is politicized!

And do let me add: The Heller and McDonald decisions were a big deal establishing an individual right to bear arms but asking states to allow guns within the home didn't change much in most states (I'll guess a few cities were rocked.) Obliging states to lighten up on concealed carry laws is a MUCH bigger deal. The Court has a bit of a political and legitimacy crisis, so we'll see how Roberts navigates that.

On To The Next Crisis

Derek Chauvin was convicted so the left is moving on to the next crisis. What kind of country are we living in if a mere child of sixteen can't chase girls around with a knife and try to stab them?

Body cam footage starts at 6:35. Slo-mo replay around 8:30.

Getting Ready For The Weekend

Away we go again.

This Gun Control Op-Ed In The Times Was Widely Ignored. Too Bad.

A week ago the NY Times gave space to Dan Gross, who "was the president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence from 2012 to 2017 and is a co-founder of the Center for Gun Rights and Responsibility".

He delivered a truth bomb to the Times readership about the irrelevance of an assault weapons ban and made good points on other topics.

No one cared.

I Helped Lead the Gun Control Movement. It’s Asking the Wrong Questions.

A campaign galvanized by mass shootings and assault weapons will inevitably find itself in a dead end. But there’s a way out.

He bonds with his target audience by noting that hs own brother was critically injured in a mass shooting years ago. Then:

It also breaks my heart to see gun control supporters, part of a movement I once helped to lead, repeat the mistakes that doom us all to the unacceptable status quo: tens of thousands of shooting deaths a year.

The pattern is as familiar as it is tragic: In the immediate aftermath of a mass shooting, the main demand of political leaders and gun control groups is a federal assault weapons ban. The news media, which seems to pay attention to gun laws only in the wake of mass shootings, amplifies that call, mostly taking at face value the idea that an assault weapons ban is the best way to prevent “gun violence.” Then, as headlines about the latest calamity fade, so do the hopes of federal policy change.

The problem as he sees it is that since assault weapons aren't the crux of the problem, going after then won't be much of a solution. That is a familiar argument on the right but a breakthrough insight for much of the left:

I believe that is the wrong question and illustrates the problem with the gun control debate in the United States. Though it does not grab national headlines, the daily toll of gun deaths and injuries is just as horrifying as our mass shootings, and more preventable as a matter of policy. The gun control movement should focus on the deaths and injuries that are most common, rather than be galvanized by mass shootings like the one that put my brother in a coma.

Of the nearly 40,000 deaths involving guns in 2019, well under 1 percent were caused by what the F.B.I. defines as “active shooter” incidents. In an average year, around 60 percent of deaths involving guns are suicides and upward of 30 percent are homicides that don’t meet the “active shooter” definition, like episodes of domestic and gang violence. Even unintentional shootings (about 1 percent of the total) outnumber mass shootings.

There are far more effective means to prevent these sadly routine tragedies than by focusing on assault weapons. And that means that it is both wrong and counterproductive for advocacy organizations and elected leaders to use the moments when the public is focused on gun control to push an assault weapons ban.

He reassures his audience that he personally would be fine with an AWB, then continues:

But the fact is that if one were to objectively list solutions based purely on how much they would lower the number of gun deaths in our country, an assault weapons ban would not be high on the list.

When an assault weapons ban is debated, the conversation inevitably becomes a technical and confusing one. While there is no standard definition of an “assault weapon,” much of the focus in the wake of mass shootings is on semiautomatic AR-15-style rifles. Yet most mass shootings, like most gun fatalities in this country, are committed with handguns.

No kidding.

The most meaningful way to deal with the problem, though, is not to look at how to keep certain guns from all people, but how to keep all guns from certain people — the people almost all of us agree should not have guns.

I have spent the past two years building relationships with leaders in the gun rights community, and have found that this framing leads us to common ground. And it points to five specific moves that together would have an enormous impact:

• Vigorously pursue and prosecute the small percentage of gun dealers who are knowingly contributing to the illegal gun trade (a trade that is disproportionately hurting communities of color).

• Identify opportunities to strengthen the background check system by adding prohibited purchasers that we all, including 90 percent of gun owners, agree should not have guns. For instance, federal rules governing privacy for health records could be modified to allow mental health clinicians to identify those who are a threat to themselves or others, so that they could be temporarily added to the National Instant Check System. This would have to include exemptions for private sales that may make some gun control supporters uncomfortable; but in the end, in combination with the other measures listed here, it would result in a significant improvement to public safety.

• Invest in a large-scale education and awareness campaign on the dangers of owning and carrying guns, and what can be done to mitigate those dangers. It is crucial that these efforts be led in partnership with gun rights groups and public health experts and that they remain free from any judgment about gun ownership or connection with political advocacy. There are many initiatives already, such as public education about the warning signs of mental illness and suicide, which have proved effective and could be models.

• Expand on the work of “violence interrupters” and similar programs proved to reduce gun violence in cities.

• Clearly define what it means to be a federally licensed firearm dealer, with standards that include sales volume. For years, gun control groups have talked about closing the “gun show loophole.” The real problem is not specifically gun shows but people who are regularly selling multiple guns to strangers, regardless of the venue, without being required to conduct the same background check that a federally licensed dealer must. Not only does this clearly contribute to straw-man purchasing and gun trafficking; it also puts honest dealers at a competitive disadvantage.

That laundry list does not terrify me. Points one and five seem to involve stricter enforcement of current laws.

Strengthening the background check system always sounds good (Don't just 'modify' it, "strengthen" it!). Obviously, rules and an appeal process are required; we don't want this to end up like the mysterious 'no-fly' list. I'd guess some sort of judicial oversight would be appropriate to turn a mental health professional's concerns into a court order.

A public education will be a nightmare to work out that satisfies both sides. Probably not possible, actually, given the current and ongoing fury of the culture wars.

And urban interventions, such as 'violence interrupters', should be happening anyway,as big city mayors try something other than defunding the police.

Now, do let me add: my theory as to the impetus for an assault weapons ban suggests his approach, however sensible, doesn't address the underlying psychology of the mass shooting hysteria.

He correctly notes that 60% of gun violence is suicide and 30% is somewhat predictable - abusive domestic partner or gang-adjacent lifestyle (member, customer, live in high-crime neighborhood.)

suburban moms (and dads!) have a pretty clear idea of their domestic violence risk and are in the suburbs in part to avoid urban violence. Bolt From The Blue school shootings freak them out in a way that Chicago gang violence does not. Only one is on the doorstep. Urban violence is someone else's worry and frankly, right now there aren't a lot of votes to expand stop and frisk and Incarceration Nation.

Urban gang-bangers are not shooting it out in suburban malls and schools. People are worried about the danger they might experience, not the one that they only read about as happening in a place they'll never be.

A Fateful Moment

It was Sunday afternoon at The Masters in 2016 that the earth wobbled in its space-time continuum, Jordan Spieth blew up, and a Year of Weirdness began. This may not be in order but subsequent surprises included the Leicester City Foxes (5,000-1 at the start of the season) winning the English Premier League; the LeBron's overcoming a 3-1 deficit to beat the mighty Warriors; Brexit; the Cubbies winning their first World Series in a century in extra innings of the seventh game (and after a rain delay); Trump; Tom Brady coming back from 28-3 in the Super Bowl; and the Academy Awards announcing the wrong "Best Picture" winner.

OK, some of that was kind of fun, but here's hoping Hideki Matsuyama can hold on.

We've Seen Worse

Per Gallup:

Quarterly Gap in Party Affiliation Largest Since 2012

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- In Gallup polling throughout the first quarter of 2021, an average of 49% of U.S. adults identified with the Democratic Party or said they are independents who lean toward the Democratic Party. That compares with 40% who identified as Republicans or Republican leaners. The nine-percentage-point Democratic advantage is the largest Gallup has measured since the fourth quarter of 2012. In recent years, Democratic advantages have typically been between four and six percentage points.

The gap has been wider in this millennium but this time does seem different, since the Republican Party is so clearly divided and adrift.

 

 

Oh, well. Negative partisanship is likely to bail out the Reps, unless Biden can keep his crazies under control.

The DeSantis Freight Train

FL Gov. DeSantis is neither the Second Coming nor the Anti-Christ, but he'll be depicted as both in the run up to 2024.

Trump, Ripping Off His Own Donors To Own The Libs?

I believe this unbelievable NY Times story about Trump fleecing his donors.

How Trump Steered Supporters Into Unwitting Donations

Online donors were guided into weekly recurring contributions. Demands for refunds spiked. Complaints to banks and credit card companies soared. But the money helped keep Donald Trump’s struggling campaign afloat.

The gist: website donors were met with a page that had two default options pre-checked: one box doubled the intended donation, the other made the intended donation a weekly event. Only the wary and diligent who unchecked both boxes avoided giving  lot more than intended.

Both the Biden and Trump campaigns had to refund some contributions, but...

The sheer magnitude of the money involved is staggering for politics. In the final two and a half months of 2020, the Trump campaign, the Republican National Committee and their shared accounts issued more than 530,000 refunds worth $64.3 million to online donors. All campaigns make refunds for various reasons, including to people who give more than the legal limit. But the sum the Trump operation refunded dwarfed that of Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s campaign and his equivalent Democratic committees, which made 37,000 online refunds totaling $5.6 million in that time.

Or, in pictures:

 

The Times does not explain how this got around the legal contribution limits problem. There was a buried hint (above) that they just took excessive donations now with the expectation of sorting it out later:

All campaigns make refunds for various reasons, including to people who give more than the legal limit.

There is also a suggestion that the 'Stop The Steal' fundraising was used to pay down the pre-election Ponzi scheme.

The recurring donations swelled Mr. Trump’s treasury in September and October, just as his finances were deteriorating. He was then able to use tens of millions of dollars he raised after the election, under the guise of fighting his unfounded fraud claims, to help cover the refunds he owed.

Well. Is this survivable? I haven't been right about Trump since 2016, but this seems as if it ought to be out of bounds for anybody.