GRAND REOPENING - COMING SOON - RIGHT HERE!!!!

Well, after all those quickly executed shutdowns and lockdowns, it was inevitable that we would need to have reopenings, but hopefully they would be orderly and well-planned. I first asked myself about this on 3/29/20, and I'm glad I did. Since we luckily avoided having everywhere in crisis, every state had some spare capacity to start planning reopening. Now some of those plans are being released and going forward. This is something to celebrate, though in a sober manner with good social distancing and hygiene practices. Yes, we dodged a bullet, and didn't have the level of outbreak that northern Italy had. Congrats to us and the people who urged wise steps.

So here are a somewhat random assortment of reopening plans. The first one out of the gate was Georgia. Not well organized, but instead managed like a political football. Trump was encouraging opening (LIBERATE!) as soon as possible, and under threat from mass protests, though the mass protests didn't actually happen. In that atmosphere, Georgia went big and bold, which means foolhardy. Trump then reversed his support and mildly criticized the plan, which I think is going ahead anyway.

Texas is being more cautious than Georgia with a phased plan to open stores, restaurants, libraries, museums, and theatres at 25% capacity starting on May 1. The second phase starts on May 18. Counties with 5 or fewer cases can open at 50% capacity.

Mike DeWine, governor of Ohio and a leader in taking charge and not waiting for Trump, sets out some conditions based on hygiene and social distancing. However, he backed down on face coverings 'cuz Merrikans don't like them. Also, the plan was to coordinate with other regional governors, but Michigan's governor hadn't put together a plan in time.

The leadership by the federal government is minimal, as it generally has been, except when it comes to underwriting programs (mostly for businesses). The federal guidelines expect the states to set up testing, tracing (sure!), supplies of protective equipment, etc. Well, if states have all that responsbility, the federal government can shove their guidelines where the sun don't shine.

Well, interesting times. Stay tuned for sure!

THIS WILL BE A DEFACTO CLEARINGHOUSE FOR REOPENING POSTS, COMMENTS, AND UPDATES.

Image: wtol.com

Extras. How New Mexico avoided disaster. New Mexico again, but the epidemic is heavy in Gallup and the Navajo lands, with good video. A critique of how New Jersey handled its shutdown--Hoboken did it early and provides evidence of the doubling time being around 3 days.  New Zealand (yes, I know, not a state in the US) did great. Hokkaido (northern Japanese island) opened to soon and too aggressively and had to close again.

Views of workers in the US about safety and other issues.

Still new cases, still new hospitalizations. Why is this happening during the shutdown? Answer: Many are essential workers.

Florida has plans for major theme parks to reopen, but their management doesn't seem quite so eager.

Surge of covid cases in Texas, located in the panhandle. How will this go? On 6/26/20, the governor had to close bars back down. Also no elective surgery in the most populous counties. Very typical epidemiological measures.

A region in China sees about a dozen new cases, and they lock it down.

Missouri and Maryland had packed venues during Memorial Day weekend. Will we be seeing the consequences in a month or two? Bars in Texas were allowed to reopen, and the mayor of Houston is worried.

California has had a rather tight lockdown, but cases haven't slowed. What to do next?

The governor of N. Carolina (a dem) has slowed down the reopening and is telling people to damn-well wear a mask.

An article focusing on psychological reactions and why liberals and conservatives aren't responding the same to covid-19.

A lot of southern states are seeing surges in covid cases. How will this affect the presidential election? This includes Texas. More information about cases in southern Texas and half of Florida. How Texas fumbled its reopeening to create a surge of cases. When medicine and politics clash, some politicians are going to prioritize their candidates and their parties. Kelly Anne Conway makes Trump the cautious sage of reopening?!?!

Battles over school reopenings in Texas and California. Of course it's going to happen. Sickout by teachers and staff closes Arizona schools. 

And then the colleges... Lots of unnecessary mixing by college students doing the party thing. Lots of colleges. I couldn't list them all. 

Anti-mask militants get angry in Idaho. Yes, the absurdity of the existence of militants against masks. 

And a hair salon owner sets up and embarrasses Nancy Pelosi. And denies she set up Pelosi while appearing on Fox News. I'm not falling for that. 
 

And as summer ended and cool weather came, so did a surge in covid. This isn't unexpected for a respiratory virus. Increases nearly everywhere, and surges in some places. Here's a surge in El Paso TX.

Shootings and August links

In less than 24 hours, there were two major mass shootings, following up a mass shooting at a festival in California (so three in fairly short span). The shooting in El Paso, TX targeted Mexicans. The shooting in Dayton, OH was by a young man with a long history of violent fantasies, including having a kill list and a rape list while he was in high school. (Google these shootings for details. I won't choose one link as representative). This article about the background of the El Paso shooter is chilling: mostly 'normal' but with all too familiar undercurrents including bullying at school along racial lines, hopelessness about job prospects while automation continues, and open racist sentiments expressed after Trump was elected.

Ignore the headline of this article (Washington Post again - a good source). It's not so much that there's pushback from the NRA on gun legislation, as there is deep worry from GOP legislators. Can they stay in office if they sign on to gun legislation? Probably not if they depend on votes from GOPers, which they do. According to polls, the wide majority of Republicans are still against even partial gun control measures. So it's less the NRA standing in the way, but instead the very popular Guns R Us ethos among Republicans.

Faltering Dem candidates. A Politico author contrasts the Republicans, who understand the importance of legacy and a winning historical narrative, with the Democrats, who are sniping at each other over the party's recent past. Part of this is due to a leadership vacuum since Obama is gone and the Clintons are gone, and both failed in some major ways.

Stealth reform measures for Social Security. Why hasn't this been big news? With funding issues looming, the Dems in the House are working on a big change to SS. This should be drawing a lot of attention, debate, number-crunching, and fact-checking, but the press barely utters a peep. Sure, it's not likely to get through the Senate, but it's a real proposal with seemingly real numbers, and these numbers are likely to be the basis for future work on SS.

Zero interest on bonds. A big difference from when I was young is that now the return on bonds is almost nothing. I find this fascinating. The world is awash in money chasing after profits. We've created so much wealth, and so much paper or digital money that there isn't enough ways to spend it or invest it. This doesn't worry me, however. We won't turn dirt poor even if there's a crash. There will just be another inflation via QE (quantitative easing) as there was last time.

Update on Gaza. Tensions rise and fall, but nobody wants a repeat of the last useless, destructive war. Progress!

Image: wikipedia.org

Extras. Gun control (now called gun safety) advocacy group shows how common private sales are without a background check.

Last outpost of crazy: Ohio war

Just imagine that you're engaged in a guerrilla war. You can pick your side: a church or a strip club.

Usually, I'd pick the church, but not this time. They started the war:

... a nine-year battle that began when church members protested at the Foxhole on weekends, posting patrons' license plate numbers online and urging them to repent. [The owner] sued the church in federal court and lost in 2009.

So what's a good countermove in such a fight?  How about sending topless women to church services?

Now, guess which one wants protesters to stop getting on the property, intimidating visitors, and blocking entrances. Probably both.

Effective protest? Made you look? Made you think?

sbccfilmreviews.org

Extras. This has been going on a long time.

Analysis of the Cincinnati shooting video

Earlier this month, a security officer for the University of Cincinnati shot and killed an unarmed driver during a traffic stop. The officer was indicted for murder, and also indicted on the lesser charge of manslaughter.

He was wearing a body camera throughout the incident, and the video was just released. Now, accordingly to the prosecutor, the video shows "the most asinine act by a police officer I have ever seen."

That's not what I saw when I closely watched the video, though admittedly I wasn't able to watch it frame by frame.

The officer pulled over the driver for a minor infraction--not having a front license plate... or did he pull him over for driving while black? The officer asks for his license. The driver searches around for it, but doesn't produce it. That is an expedient move by the driver because his license had been suspended (as investigation showed after the fact). If he had produced his license, the officer would quickly confirm that he was driving with a suspended license. That would probably mean an arrest, towing the car, and lots of fines for the driver.

Here is a chronology of how the altercation unfolds:

• At 3:12, the officer starts to open the car door. The driver grabs it to keep it closed. He moves his right hand to the ignition. The officer's right hand is on the roof of the car. The driver says "I didn't even do nothing."
• At 3:13, the officer says "Come on and take your seatbelt off." His right hand is still on the roof of the car.
• At 3:14, the driver starts the ignition (can be heard) and the officer reaches with his left hand into the car to grab the ignition.
• At 3:16, the officer yells "stop, stop." At the same time, the sound of the engine revving is audible. The gun is visible in the officer's right hand.
• At 3:17, the officer fires this gun. The driver slumps to his right. The car is also moving forward.
• At 3:18, the officer is falling backward. The camera shows the sky.
• At 3:19, the officer is starting to stand up. His gun is clearly seen in his right hand.
• At 3:24, he is running after the car down the street.

Clearly, the driver was fleeing the traffic stop. Clearly, the officer reached for his weapon and shot within 3 seconds of the driver starting the ignition. Both men were acting and reacting very quickly. As the prosecutor said:

"You won't believe how quickly he pulls his gun and shoots him in the head."

The officer claimed he was dragged, and that doesn't seem to be true. However, the driver must have put the car in gear while the officer was reaching in, so the officer had good reason to worry that he might be dragged or knocked down and run over.

To understand and judge the criminal charges, we will have to consider how officers should act when a driver tries to flee a minor traffic stop. We have to consider whether the officer was in danger, or whether he was trigger happy, or both. This is not an open-and-shut case.

It does seem to me that many officials in Cincinnati have ganged up on the officer. It's not just the prosecutor, who laid on charges of intentional murder and incompetence, The university fired him. The mayor stated that he wanted charges. No one there wants Ferguson-type riots and demonstrations. The officer seems to have been thrown under the bus as Cincinnati tries not to be the next epicenter of race-based demonstrations.

This isn't my final word on this case. I might write a post on how the video refutes the claims that the prosecutor made in his (grandstanding) press conference. Maybe I'll learn more about police training that leads officers to shoot first and shoot fast. Maybe I'll unravel how a simple traffic stop ends up with someone dead, not just once, but too many times already this year.

3:12 -- Look where their hands are.

Image: youtube.com

Extras. USA Today's list of events at the end of this article differs from mine. They're wrong and they seem biased against the officer: "Without a word, Tensing fires a single shot," "the car rolls a short distance." The car didn't roll a few feet, but probably at least 150 feet. You can hear the rev of the engine as though it was accelerating, not 'rolling.'

More of the chronology:

• At 3:27, someone asks "Are you alright." The officer, while running, says "I'm good."
• At 3:41, he is close to where the car has crashed and we can see another security officer enter the frame.
• At 4:15, we can see that a third security officer is also already on the scene.

Were these other two officers already at the other end of the block? What did they see? Did they have body cameras too? Maybe their footage isn't important since we have video of the entire event at close range. Or maybe it is important if it is shows more of what happened.

Update 7/31/15. Video from the body cameras of the two officers who arrived just as the altercation erupted.

Update 8/1/15. A Cincinnati officer killed in June of this year.

Update on voter fraud

Prior to the November 2014 election, I collected several articles on voter fraud, a topic I've discussed before. The usual spiel on voter fraud is 1) it's committed by the Democrats regularly (and is the only reason they win, according to some), 2) let's laugh at the zany claims made by those zany conservative hicks.

I don't want to do a piece that falls into either of these categories, but what's left? How about a sober evaluation of the claims? Here's what I found:

Local investigation in Florida of non-citizens voting. This seems like a level-headed initial investigation into real (not imagined) fraudulent voting by non-citizens. However, it leaves unanswered how these non-citizens ended up on the voter roles. Were they registered by default or by honest error when they obtained or renewed a driver's license? Were they registered in a voter drive by unscrupulous operators? Is the mistake and/or fraud different in many of the cases? We don't have those answers, and the non-citizens aren't shining much light on how this happened. The reporters aren't doing a good job either because they cite 100 possible cases, but not how wide an area they came from? Is it just one county, all of Florida, or what? Perhaps this isn't so much a real investigation as a bait for a particular segment of the audience.

Non-citizens voting in Virginia. This is skirmish in the voter fraud war. The Electoral Board did some research using juror records, and found approx. 300 possible non-citizens who were on the voter roles. They forwarded the information to the local prosecutor, but got no response.

Here are some others:

• Iowa cases, 200 not 3.5K.
• Non-citizens voting far fewer than the margin of victory in Ohio.
• No non-citizens voting in Boulder. Another similar case of GOPers trying to root out voter fraud. The local DA's response: "We don't need state officials sending us on wild goose chases for political reasons."
• Isolated fraud incident in Colorado.

Do these cases change anything? No. The typical charges of 'massive voter fraud' originate with conservative talk radio demagogues, and these guys don't care about truth, evidence, or investigations. So we'll continue to hear these claims of voter fraud, and they'll be unchanged by the reality of minimal numbers. The only reason I bother to note this information is in preparation to refute the argument. Not that I'll convince any true believers, but sometimes I just want to get some truth out there.

Voter fraud! (assumed)

Image: norcalblogs.com

Update 3/4/17. Here's a report from Ohio on one type of voter fraud--non-citizen voting. In 2017, that would be a staggering 82 of them. I guess the million of non-citizens voting for Clinton came from other states.

GOP disconnect from success

It's going to be slow on the political fronts for a while, but I like that because it gives me more time to reflect. So I started wondering whether a lot of libertarian made good on their threat to stay home in November. I couldn't find anything definitive. Supposedly the "white" vote was lower, but no one can be sure why. Obama had very good GOTV (get out the vote) operations, which the Dems hope he'll keep stoked in the future.

I found a very interesting conservative blogger in my search for info.  He likes to dig into the demographics, but yet he fell for the same tales that other conservatives swallowed--that the polling data was skewed, that Romney had a great ground game (with lots of contacts with potential voters), that people couldn't possibly want four more years of Obama. So there's an interesting mix of hard realism about the fight in Ohio and an optimistic prediction of 331 electoral votes for Romney, including Pennsylvania. His write-up on white voters made me want to read more, so I dug into his general posts and his columns. Unfortunately he makes the usual partisan mistake of underestimating the weaknesses of his side (vague numbers and policies) and overestimating the faults of the other side (terrible economic policies).

When you read about demographics, you'd think the GOP couldn't win another presidential election. Yet the GOP has clear majorities in 27 state capitols compared to Democrats with 19 states. At the state level, the GOP is stronger on reform and budget restraint.

You would think the general electorate would want some of that in the federal government, wouldn't you? I do, so I'm not writing off the GOP nationally. However, they have to figure out how to translate policy success at the state level to the national level, and they haven't done that yet. Not even close.

Image: thegazette.com

Good posts:

• Real Clear Politics on demographics.
• Allahpundit on lessons from the exit polls, like the economy isn't so bad and young people like Obama.
• Gawker on why it's not just demographics, but also policy preferences that contribute to voting patterns.
• A mea culpa from Dick Morris. But why would anyone believe a former Clinton adviser who got caught with a prostitute and now bashes the Clintons and Dems non-stop for fun and profit? That's not analysis, it's vendetta.
• 2012 vote totals by state. Good for seeing how close Ohio actually was.
• A belated find--analysis of which whites didn't vote.

Leader of the opposition

Ed Morrissey of HotAir writes a couple of interesting columns on who will be the de facto leader of the Republicans. He correctly points out that Boehner and McConnell will be too busy and too tainted with deal-making, so he offers these names:

1. Rand Paul
2. Bobby Jindal
3. Rick Perry
4. Marco Rubio
5. Chris Christie

These are mostly good picks in that they're likely to be visible leaders, if not the leader. (It makes me wonder who was the leader from 2009 to 2011 when the primaries started. Critics say it was Rush Limbaugh, and maybe it was. Luckily not anymore.)

Rand Paul is certainly going to be the leader of the small-government libertarian pack. He has stayed almost constantly true to those principles. However, the libertarians aren't the dominant force in the GOP, so he couldn't be the dominant leader. His small-military views just aren't popular with most of the GOP, and they can't overlook that.

Bobby Jindal bucked a fair amount of the 2012 losing rhetoric, so it seemed that he was trying to make a name for himself as an intelligent reformer of the GOP. As a moderate, I like that, but I don't know if enough Republicans feel that way. Certainly the noisy ones don't. Nonetheless, he deserves to be on this list right now, but he could easily fall off by going too far or not far enough.

Rick Perry doesn't deserve to be on this list. He was a laughable candidate in 2011. Maybe the pain meds have worn off, but you can't fix stupid. He gives every indication of having been briefed on all of his opinions, rather than mulling them over and developing his own ideas. I think he's someone's marionette. If he can become a national leader, then I don't know anything about American politics.

Marco Rubio is certainly running for leader and running for president. However, Romney's campaign showed the weakness of choosing someone who is constantly running for office instead of being engaged in actual governing and problem-solving. Rubio is flash but no substance at this point. I don't think the GOP will go for a lightweight again.

Chris Christie has lately been reviled among many Republicans, so it's hard to imagine him rising above that to be a spokesman and leader of a large enough slice of the GOP. He's certainly got the verbal talent and a can-do record, but too many Republicans hate him right now, and that's not going to be easy to change.

Something missing from this list is the conservative-pragmatic governor archetype. I'm thinking Mitch Daniels, Scott Walker, John Kasich, and Rick Snyder. They've all dealt (cleaned up/reformed) at the state level with the kinds of problems the federal government faces--how to trim spending and reduce benefits for government workers without massive service cuts. Also important, they haven't tainted themselves with culture war rhetoric on abortion and contraception as Virginia governor Bob McDonnell has.

These governors are the solid, working leaders in each of their states, but who speaks for them nationally? If they did have a national champion, that would be a formidable leader. I'm going to be curious to see how this develops. The next few months will be worth watching.

 

Image: qctimes.com

Extra. Will we have new leaders in punditry? It's less important, but it would be such a relief.

Update 6/21/13. According to this column, Jindal has trotted out the typical GOP fallback position of bashing liberals. It looks like Jindal will put on any stance when it is expedient, including clear-eyed reformer. Too bad it was just an act.

Voter fraud or reporting fraud?

I'm fucking tired of lying right-wing media, so this won't be a pleasant post. Last night as I worked to document poll predictions, I came across this story of voter fraud in St. Lucie County, FL.

It seems that there was 140% turnout of registered voters. How did this fraud go unnoticed in a Florida county, but was detected by those hard-working watchdogs of liberty? They actually linked to the evidence, which was vote tallies. The first two pages show the fraud (example):

001 Lakewood Pk Vil Hall - County  (Reg. Voters) 4815   (Cards Cast) 6550   (Turnout) 136.03%

However, for anyone who bothered to go forward to page 3 of the pdf document (yeah, just click the arrow), you would find out the votes cast for president totaled 3280 in this precinct, so a turnout of 68%. Go to page 5, and you'll see that the votes in this precinct were 1869 for Romney and 1383 for Obama. This is the basis for TownHall.com, the Examiner, and FreeRepublic screaming about voting fraud.

Let me say something to the conservatives who are spreading this shit. Do some homework before you repeat this crap, and then you won't have to hide your mistakes (ahem, Conservative Commune).

Also not to be believed: 108% voter registration in an Ohio county. As I said, I'm so fucking tired, specifically, I'm tired of all the tremendous effort it takes to rebut liars.

 Image: pissedoffteeacher.blogspot.com

Prediction: Just the horse race now

The shape of the rest of the presidential campaign is now set. There will be no more surprises or major surges. At this point, it's just a matter of sucking up the few remaining persuadables and getting out the vote. I don't even think there will be a major gaffe. The candidates are too cautious and seasoned for that.

No-Hope Debate

Some may hope for a game-changer, perhaps at the final debate tomorrow. I doubt it. The debate is supposed to focus on foreign policy. Both candidates will project caution and credibility, so each will have a difficult time discrediting the other. Nothing in those complex, subtle issues will move the needle for the electorate. 

The Electoral Map

Since the campaign issues are now fully revealed and explored, the only variables are how the electorate is digesting the info. According to Nate Silver, Obama is favored about 2 to 1. Looking at Silver's blog and Real Clear Politics, that's believable. Both need either Ohio or a miracle, and Obama is ahead in Ohio by 2.1%. Silver puts Obama's chance of winning Ohio at 70%.

Even if Obama loses Ohio, he can still win if he holds onto Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin, and New Hampshire. If Romney loses Ohio, he has to win those four states in which Obama now leads. That's quite a stretch. (To play with possible outcomes, I recommend this LA Times webpage.)

Another Lost Opportunity

I have to report that this outcome is disappointmenting to me. Neither politician has believably addressed the most important fiscal issues, which are reforming the tax system and government spending. Nor have they pushed the electorate to a clear understanding of the national challenges. The country seems as dumb and divided as before. Sigh.

Oh well, so there hasn't been the plain talk I'd like to see. That would be too dangerous a strategy for a presidential campaign.

The racecourse: High in the center and round at both ends

Image: facebook somewhere