JustOneMinute

On To Crazytown!

Portlandia is crazier than you think and the Times is getting nervous.

Protestors are taking their noise to the white neighborhoods (are there any others in Portland?). In once incident they threatened to burn down the home of a white guy flying an American flag. A Black neighbor white-knighted him, so I guess that made it safe to report.

Still, this isn't exactly Biden 2020 outreach at its best. And its not just Portland.

RBG Delivers An RPG To The Election

I am contemplating the RBG news from my window ledge. Hey, its first floor, so its really only the shrubs we need to worry about.

Ross Douthat explains why the Republicans are likely to just go for it and seat a third Trump judge. (He does not say "Effin' go for it!", but he might have!).  His gist - from a conservative's perspective the Supreme Court has had a legitimacy problem since Roe v. Wade in 1973. The Republican Establishment has had a festering legitimacy problem developing over decades of "Republican" judges drifting left, like Souter, Kennedy and Breyer. With that background, if they hesitate a few steps short of the finish line and look for some vague pre-election Democratic promises of Supreme Court "reform" , the party is over:

But that [promises of high minded reform] might be an idealist’s fancy. Suppose that Ginsburg isn’t replaced this fall, Biden is elected, and he fills her seat and then replaces at least one conservative justice as well, flipping the court back to liberal control. The Democratic incentive to reform our juristocracy would diminish or evaporate, and liberalism’s self-understanding as the party of hyper-educated mandarins would come back to the fore, making progressives enthusiastic about judicial power once again.

Meanwhile, conservatives would have all of their suspicions about establishment Republicans confirmed yet one more time, and they could add the Supreme Court to the lengthening list of elite institutions in which cultural liberalism’s power seems more consolidated every day.

The likely result would be a right-wing coalition that’s angrier and Trumpier than the G.O.P. that nominated Trump himself four years ago. So our imagined Republican senator’s reward for his high-minded vote could easily be a longer-term defeat for moderate conservatism: The judiciary would be handed over to ambitious liberals, and his own party would become more populist, paranoid and hostile to any form of compromise.

Sometimes you just have to keep throwing punches:

Of course I am speculating, but my point is to suggest the inherent unknowability of some “what’s best for the republic” outcome as our Republican senator contemplates his vote. It might be that a high-minded renunciation of power saves us from a crisis … but it might just as easily be that the only way out of the crisis is through, meaning for both sides to contest frankly for the power to change a broken system, and to look for new norms on the other side rather than propping up old ones that clearly don’t work anymore.

I'm leaning towards "fine, fight on!". And of course Trump is - he loves a brawl, never saw a scuffle he couldn't escalate, and may have reached peak popularity with the Never-Trumpers during the Kavanaugh imbroglio. If I were a Republican strategist, would I want to spend six weeks debating COVID or RBG? It's a no-brainer. Do unto others before they do unto you, amirite? And Cocaine Mitch tied the 2016 and 2018 elections to the Supreme Court, and came up a winner each time. I don't see a prospect for peace for out time.

That said, as an example of high-minded compromise, the invaluable (and clearly shaken) David French offers this suggestion.

What can be done? An increasing number of center-right legal scholars, including the American Enterprise Institute’s Adam White and George Mason Law School professor Ilya Somin are proposing a variant of an approach best summed up as “make them keep their word.” It goes something like this:

First, Trump makes his pick.

Second, the Senate applies the Schumer principle and gives the nominee a hearing. This will have the benefit of giving the American people a more-complete picture of the qualifications and philosophy of the nominee and thus the stakes of the presidential election.

Third, the Senate then applies the Graham/Rubio/Cruz rule and does not vote before the election. If Trump wins, they then vote on the nominee.

But what if Trump loses? What principle comes into play? Joe Biden’s own words provide the guide.

In the October 2019 Democratic debate, Joe Biden clearly expressed his opposition to court-packing. “I’m not prepared to go on and try to pack the court,” he said, “because we’ll live to rue that day.” He continued, “We add three justices. Next time around, we lose control, they add three justices. We begin to lose any credibility the court has at all.”

He’s right. Court-packing is dangerous. Yet if the GOP violates its principles to jam through a nominee in Trump’s last days in office, the pressure from congressional Democrats to pack the court may well be overwhelming. So Biden should make a deal with the lame-duck Senate. Keep the seat open, and he’ll pledge not to sign any legislation packing the Supreme Court while he’s in office.

A promise - pardon me, "pledge" - from Joe Biden? Frankly, I don't think for a second there is enough trust on either side to make it work, and Trump is the one guy committed to screaming matches.

We're just going to do this. And to be honest, although I feel as if I'm ODing on history right now, the "Hmm, Can This Really Burn Down?" side of me is kinda fascinated. Maybe I should try watching NASCAR for the crashes or hockey for the fights.

Kind of a BFD

Eli Lilly's new monoclonal antibody therapy for COVID seems to succeed at mitigating COVID when administered early:

A single infusion of an experimental drug markedly reduced levels of the coronavirus in newly infected patients and lowered the chances that they would need hospitalization, the drug’s maker announced on Wednesday.

...

More than 450 newly diagnosed patients received the monoclonal antibody or a placebo infusion. Some 1.7 percent of those who got the drug were hospitalized, compared with 6 percent of those who received a placebo — a 72 percent reduction in risk, Eli Lilly reported.

Well. First, 94% of untreated patients did not need hospitalization. A positive test result is hardly a death sentence, as we all know.

That said, a 1.7% chance of progressing to hospitalization is better than a 6% chance. A breakdown on how this therapy affected different age groups would be of tremendous interest to the old-timers out there, not to mention at the keyboard.

Glide Path, Interrupted

Peace and prosperity first-termers are nearly invincible with economic numbers like this. (Hardly seems Fair, amirite?) Trump's tight labor market (President's always get too much credit!) drove low-end wage increases, poverty reduction, and improved health coverage.

Well. Rear view mirror. But looking ahead, is there time for Trump to convince people that Biden's backers want to defund the police, burn the suburbs, and end all jobs? Maybe! In my humble (also fearful and reflexive) opinion, some progressives equate work with exploitation and view a tight labor market as a policy failure.

Obviously, Biden talks about creating jobs and may personally believe it, but who thinks he'll be making policy? After the Dems abolish ICE and open the borders we'll see how tight a labor market we get, and how low-skill workers fare. Good luck to them!

Plenty Of Blame To Go Around

Ross Douthat ruminates on how much blame for the COVID debacle should be shouldered by Trump.

He mentions the February testing debacle at the CDC and the slow-walking of Emergency Use Authorizations by the FDA and links to a ProPublica piece. The NY Times and the WaPo had similar coverage and a similar theme - it was careerists, not Trump, that let the process drift.

Which brings us to a "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" point - Trump was not elected on a "Trust The Bureaucrats" platform. Yet that's what he did in February. Ooops. But when he learns his mistake, shifts gears and starts pounding the table for plasma, vaccines, or hydroxychloroquine, the usual suspects gasp that he is politicizing the process rather than trusting the professionals.

Probably for space reason Ross slides past an interesting conversation:

Framed this way, the debate over Trump’s coronavirus culpability resembles other debates in the Trump era, dividing those who treat the president’s incompetence or malice or authoritarianism as an emergency that throws every other problem into shadow from those who think that the trends that gave us Trump are still the more important forces and that the president himself captures too much of our attention.

I've said since 2015 that Trump is a symptom, not a cause, of a badly divided country. The culture wars, Rust Belt job losses and immigration debate have been around for decades. However, if I'm sticking with medical metaphors I'd add that Trump is a symptom that compounds the disease - he thrives on the underlying divisions and exacerbates and exploits at every opportunity. Just for example - why in the world did we have a sitting President tweeting about NFL players kneeling during the anthem? To kinda-quote a forgotten French leader, Trump missed a good opportunity to shut up.

Well. Bush 43 ran as a "Uniter, not a Divider" and we saw how that worked. Obama talked about "there is not a liberal America and a conservative America — there is the United States of America" and we saw how that played. The forces of division are strong - Trump wasn't going to overcome them, but he didn't have to choose to amplify them.

Also Kind Of A Big Deal

A long-time aide to Bull Durham resigns? This is no doubt Deeply Meaningful, but what does it mean?

Here is the Hartford Courant lede:

Federal prosecutor Nora Dannehy, a top aide to U.S. Attorney John H. Durham in his Russia investigation, has quietly resigned — at least partly out of concern that the investigative team is being pressed for political reasons to produce a report before its work is done, colleagues said.

COVID delays, fear that if Trump loses any final report will be buried, and other speculation.

Kind Of A Big Deal - One

Bahrain normalizes ties with Israel. The Bahraini leadership is backed by the Saudis so this is a useful weathervane but... the Saudis are unlikely to take the plunge themselves any time soon:

Its importance is mostly because it’s an indication that the new leadership in Saudi Arabia supports normalization,” Ms. Fontenrose said. “Bahrain doesn’t make a foreign policy move without Saudi Arabia’s express permission.”

Toby Matthiesen, a research fellow at St. Antony’s College, Oxford University, said that the Saudis “could be testing the waters” for their own normalization with Israel. But, he noted, Saudi Arabia participated in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war and has a long history of support to the Palestinian cause, and its autocratic leaders are sensitive to public opinion on such issues.

After Mohammed bin Salman, the powerful Saudi crown prince, appeared to make an overture toward Israel in 2018 by saying in an interview that Israelis “have the right” to a homeland, his father, King Salman, quickly countered with a rare public rebuke.

Israeli experts hold little hope of normalization with Saudi Arabia as long as King Salman retains power, saying that the country’s custody of Islamic holy sites complicates its ability to strike a deal with Israel if the Palestinians see it as a betrayal.

“I hope I’m wrong, but I cannot imagine them signing a normalization of relations with us,” General Gilead said.

Baby steps are fine. FWIW, King Salman is 84, so tick-tock.

 

 

Mother Nature Versus The West

Between COVID and wildfires, if this was a fight the ref would stop it. I'm puzzling over the residential real estate model for San Francisco: a bunch of people earning lots of money from companies that are urging them to work remotely are paying outlandish rent to live in a city that has gruesome air quality each summer and a year-round homeless challenge. Sustainable?

AstraZeneca Vaccine Trial On Pause

A participant in the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine trial has developed a dire inflammatory disease which can be a result of infection, or, er, things that mimic infection, such as vaccines.

The program is on pause pending a safety review. Obviously they are not un-vaccinating anyone, but no new patients will get jabbed. And since the protocol (in the US anyway) calls for two vaccinations 4 weeks apart, a long safety pause will disrupt that timing for those awaiting their second shot.

Derek Lowe has more.

Where It's Happening

Politico looks at eight battleground states.

COVID and the Common Cold

Per a recent study noted by Glenn, an infection by the common cold may prevent the flu by activating the interferon portion of the body's immune defenses. Although hard to test, this leads the researchers to speculate that colds may also stave off COVID.

Well. One message here - always trust wild speculation from Dr. Tom! Back in June the tireless research chemist and pharma follower Derek Lowe outlined the mechanisms by which COVID jams up our body's natural defenses.

From the article and comments a couple of ideas emerged, which I tweeted about:

1 - interferon therapy MAY mitigate a COVID infection;

2- co-infection by anything that activates the interferon system, such as colds (or the normal flu?) MAY help beat back COVID.

My punchline:

*IF* co-infection mitigates COVID the implications are notable. First, the advent of the fall cold/flu season may see a *reduction* in COVID spread/severity. *PLOT TWIST*!

Second, would it be better for the low-risk to skip the annual flu shot? And how would this be tested?

I can't imagine our public health leaders advising at-risk groups such as seniors to skip the annual flu shot (I know I'm not.) Frankly, I can't imagine them urging the young, hale and hearty to skip the regular flu shot - it MIGHT be a great idea, but it would be a heck of a roll of the dice.

As to testing the hypothesis, my only brainwave was to remark on the high levels of asymptomatic COVID cases found in some homeless shelters. Not to stereotype, but that seems like a plausible environment for co-infection with colds or other ailments.

1. WBUR: Testing Reveals 'Stunning' Asymptomatic Coronavirus Spread Among Boston's Homeless

2.  Baltimore Sun: Coronavirus spreading in homeless shelters; many cases are asymptomatic | COMMENTARY

 

 

3. CDC: Assessment of SARS-CoV-2 Infection Prevalence in Homeless Shelters — Four U.S. Cities, March 27–April 15, 2020

 

I don't know what it means but... stay sniffly, my friends.

Labor Day Weekend!

Celebrate Labor Day by relaxing!

Deficits As Far As The Eye Can See

The NY Times ponders the national debt, which is poised to surpass 100% of GDP. But even long-time deficit hawks admit that this is the srt of economic emergency that ought to be met with deficit spending (I agree!).

But why do deficits matter? Well, if Biden is elected Republicans will trot out all the familiar arguments, just as Democrats trot them out when Republicans want to cut taxes. The Times reprises the familiar "crowding out" argument (Reagan-ear flashbacks, anyone?) but ignores an interesting implication:

For decades, analysts argued that an explosion of government borrowing risked devouring a large part of the nation’s savings, leaving less cash available for private businesses to use for investment.

Those companies would then be forced to pay higher interest rates to gain access to that smaller pool of funds. And those higher borrowing costs, it was argued, would curtail investment and hurt economic growth. The process is known as “crowding out,” and there is no sign that it is happening now. Interest rates remain low and inflation is muted.

Hmm. If the goal is to expand the net saving pool by raising taxes, that can only happen if the money handed over in taxes would have otherwise been consumed, rather than saved. Economists love to contemplate the "marginal propensity to consume". The gist is, a low-earner living paycheck to paycheck spends roughly 100% of new income; a high earner applies their income to a combination of consumption (eg, stylin' vacations and fine dining) and savings. Reducing their savings to increase government "savings" does not reduce any "crowding out" effect.

And at the extreme, if 'crowding out' is the concern, our Super-Billionaires, such as Jeff Bezos, the $200 Billion Man, are Too Big To Tax! Go ahead - hit Bezos with a $100 billion tax bill. Will that make him cut down on private jets, yachts and mansions? Host fewer parties? Unless his dinner party guests routinely find a deed to a LearJet in their party favor bag, I don't think Bezos could be spending anywhere near what he rakes in.

Which means that every tax dollar he pays is a reduction in private saving, fully offsetting the increase in public 'saving'. The 'crowding out' impact is zero. So why bother?!?

That said, there may be other reasons to tax Bezos / Buffet / Gates / Zuckerberg et al. Public support for our tax system is no doubt driven in part by a perception of fairness. And the switch from private to public savings means We The People can decide to invest in bridges and roads, rather than let Bezos invest in rocket ships. How sensible the public decision-making process is relative to private actors is a different question.

BONUS QUERY: If the Democrats are ascendant in 2012, will they really want to put up a tax bill that hits high-earners such as doctors and small business owners? Post-pandemic, that might not be the place to start. And with deficit hawks in retreat, Biden might just decide to skip the scuffle over a tax bill and focus on spending. Maybe! (Now I'm having Clinton '93 flashbacks, with the Bond Vigilantes, Greenspan and Clinton's insistence on tax hikes and limited new spending. I don't see Biden re-walking that road.)

Con Air?

President Donny-from-Queens rehashes some conspiracy theories that ought to be left to call-in radio. I kind of like "Con Air":

Trump added on "The Ingraham Angle" that an RNC attendee had traveled to Washington "on a plane from a certain city, and in the plane it was almost completely loaded with thugs wearing these dark uniforms, black uniforms with gear and this and that."

The president declined to say who had told him the story, but promised Ingraham he would reveal it "sometime.

"This person was coming to the Republican National Convention and there were like seven people in the plane [with] this person, and then a lot of people were on the plane to do big damage," Trump insisted. "This is all happening."

What?!? To be fair-ish, Sen. Rand Paul made a similar claim after he was harassed by protestors in DC a few days ago:

Paul hypothesized the protesters were compensated and flown in to instigate a violent riot, but didn't offer any suggestions on who might have paid them or evidence to support his assertion. That protesters are paid to cause disruption is a common talking point among some conservative figures for which there is no substantive evidence. Such claims have been regularly challenged by fact-checkers.

"You just think, Oh, these are some normal hoodlums from a big city. I promise you that at least some of the members and the people who attacked us were not from D.C. They flew here on a plane," he said. "They've all got fresh, new clothes."

Where are they getting this stuff?