My planned discussion of the Wuhan lockdown will have to wait for another day. I live north of San Antonio, and yesterday, the CDC released one person from Lackland Air Force Base that had supposedly finished quarantine with two negative tests for COVID-19. Then a third test came back positive.
I don't know whether the person had recovered, or was never ill. But he/she went to the Holiday Inn Express, then on to one of the city's bigger malls. The individual ate at the food court and shopped in several stores. The individual was then sent back to Lackland. The mall was closed and 'disinfected.' The city and county declared medical states of emergency and forbade any quarantined or formerly quarantined individual from entering the city or county.
I thought it was peculiar when the CDC distributed returning citizens at various military bases across the U.S. I figured they must not have sufficient quarantine capacity at any one facility. But it sure seemed like a recipe for causing multiple contagion points. And Lackland is awfully close to the center of San Antonio.
I've been telling my wife to stock up in case there are runs on food and other materials, and she's been effectively ignoring me. That's a polite way of describing her reaction. Then late yesterday, she went to the store to get some things. Apparently, most of HEB (the Texas grocery monopoly) and Walmart were both nearly empty of food and overrun with people hauling water and other stuff out. She was pretty upset.
Most of the conservative bloggers I read are saying the coronavirus is nothing more deadly than a new strain of flu. And they may be right. But that doesn't take into account the panic the public will show from all of the 'world ending' news reports. And San Antonio's state of emergency is sure to rile up everyone down here in south Texas.
FYI San Antonio is a true democratic hotbed. The surrounding counties are republican, but San Antonio and it's county, Bexar, are democrat. So a democrat mayor issued a state of emergency.
I don't like panic inducing news and actions. I do advocate being sure you have a reasonable water and food supply. But don't overdue it. Make moderate purchases and keep a good long-term capability that you can use for storms and long electricity outages.
On the other hand, I do agree with the city's actions at forbidding previously quarantined people entry into the city. Unless they happen to live here. Since the subject individual went to a Holiday Inn, I presume the individual is not a resident of south Texas. That agreement would change if the CDC could show that it's testing and isolation procedures were reliable.
But having two tests showing negative, followed by a positive (after release of an individual) indicates one of a few possibilities. First, illness from the COVID-19 might be recurring. It appears to go away, but you still have the virus, and it takes hold again. Since the individual seemed one of the first to be released, I think it likely he/she had shown no symptoms. So this possibility likely didn't happen in this case. [Update: I've read news accounts where this individual initially tested positive, so this might be the situation with this individual.] Second, the quarantine process is not very effective. The individual probably got exposed sometime in the 14-day no-symptom period, and the density of the virus did not increase to a detectable level till the last test. This seems the most probable situation and suggests an extended quarantine period and better isolation procedures are needed. The third possibility is that the test is just not reliable. That could easily be the case.
Any of the three possibilities are worrisome. I don't think they can contact all of the possible people that were exposed. It probably numbered in the hundreds. I guess we'll find out just how contagious COVID-19 is, a little sooner than I expected.
Tuesday, March 3, 2020
Monday, March 2, 2020
Speculation on Coronavirus II - The Numbers
I won't give my introduction again, see my first post "An Introduction." What I will remind any readers is that I am not a doctor. This is my speculation. And it may all be nonsense.
I won't try to quote specific numbers, and here I am focusing only on China. What I saw in the reporting was that China's infected numbers grew to about 75,000 and then seemed to stall. In the meantime, numbers started growing around the world.
From all reports, it seems easy to catch. People on ships, people traveling to Italy or China, just about anybody in contact with an infected person seems to get sick.
An early BBC report from China, after they isolated the city in Wuhan, showed that they allowed people to go in, but not to come back out. At least that's what the crew reported. They then went in, and a little while later, Chinese police escorted them back out. Peculiar. Also, a recovered Chinese national claims that when he went to the hospital early in the epidemic, the Chinese medical staff were wearing full HAZMAT/infectious gear that he had seen only in movies. The Chinese seemed to think it spread easily.
So why did the Chinese numbers stop climbing? Either the numbers actually stopped climbing, the Chinese are lying, or they simply stopped testing/reporting on the numbers. I hope the former is true, but really suspect they've stopped formal testing and/or reporting.
Think about the quarantine or isolation procedure. Suppose in a city of 1 million, 20,000 people have the virus, and the government stops people from leaving the area. Would anybody enter that didn't live there? Further, suppose they had an extremely large infectious disease isolation capability at the city hospitals that could handle 1,000 people at a time. The rest (19,000) are told to self-quarantine at home. Do they go to the store for food? Or do their relatives, who then have to get the food to the infected person, do the shopping for them? Self-quarantine, except for the survival hermit out in the woods, is not going to stop person-to-person contact with the sick. Of course, everyone is going to minimize person-to-person contact and hopefully use good hygiene procedures to minimize contagion.
While the spread may be slowed, it's going to grow from an ever-greater base. 19,000 will become 25,000 then 30,000.... With the 14-day incubation period, there's going to be person-to-person contact. But now, who's going to get the test kits into the city or the medical supplies needed? I presume the Chinese army would use HAZMAT protection to deliver food, medicines and supplies. At least to the extent protective gear is available.
They say half of the population of Wuhan left before the lock-down. Some of those must have been infected and would be spreading it further.
I just don't understand a stall of the numbers. Unless masks work, or most people are on a self-sufficient homestead and do not need or desire to socialize or shop, the numbers should not have stalled. Most likely, it's the Chinese government not reporting numbers that would induce a panic.
But there might be one other situation where an infected-number stall is reasonable. Oftentimes, you need a certain 'number' of pathogens to get sick. Your body can fight off a small number, in many cases. Suppose a high-density release started the epidemic, and high population interaction extended the initial spread. Then the Chinese minimized person-to-person interaction, all of the sick started wearing masks, and good quarantine was provided to the really sick. The spread per person might drop off with each 'wave' of newly sick. Resulting in an eventual stall.
I suspect that happened with SARS. But I don't really think it happened with COVID-19. Since most of the symptoms look like flu, unless you do the right tests, it would be easy for China simply to classify most non-lethal cases as flu rather than coronavirus. Simply order the hospitals to stop doing COVID-19 tests if the patient does not need the ICU.
Anybody see any CDC or WHO reporting from on-site Chinese health facilities in the affected areas?
I won't try to quote specific numbers, and here I am focusing only on China. What I saw in the reporting was that China's infected numbers grew to about 75,000 and then seemed to stall. In the meantime, numbers started growing around the world.
From all reports, it seems easy to catch. People on ships, people traveling to Italy or China, just about anybody in contact with an infected person seems to get sick.
An early BBC report from China, after they isolated the city in Wuhan, showed that they allowed people to go in, but not to come back out. At least that's what the crew reported. They then went in, and a little while later, Chinese police escorted them back out. Peculiar. Also, a recovered Chinese national claims that when he went to the hospital early in the epidemic, the Chinese medical staff were wearing full HAZMAT/infectious gear that he had seen only in movies. The Chinese seemed to think it spread easily.
So why did the Chinese numbers stop climbing? Either the numbers actually stopped climbing, the Chinese are lying, or they simply stopped testing/reporting on the numbers. I hope the former is true, but really suspect they've stopped formal testing and/or reporting.
Think about the quarantine or isolation procedure. Suppose in a city of 1 million, 20,000 people have the virus, and the government stops people from leaving the area. Would anybody enter that didn't live there? Further, suppose they had an extremely large infectious disease isolation capability at the city hospitals that could handle 1,000 people at a time. The rest (19,000) are told to self-quarantine at home. Do they go to the store for food? Or do their relatives, who then have to get the food to the infected person, do the shopping for them? Self-quarantine, except for the survival hermit out in the woods, is not going to stop person-to-person contact with the sick. Of course, everyone is going to minimize person-to-person contact and hopefully use good hygiene procedures to minimize contagion.
While the spread may be slowed, it's going to grow from an ever-greater base. 19,000 will become 25,000 then 30,000.... With the 14-day incubation period, there's going to be person-to-person contact. But now, who's going to get the test kits into the city or the medical supplies needed? I presume the Chinese army would use HAZMAT protection to deliver food, medicines and supplies. At least to the extent protective gear is available.
They say half of the population of Wuhan left before the lock-down. Some of those must have been infected and would be spreading it further.
I just don't understand a stall of the numbers. Unless masks work, or most people are on a self-sufficient homestead and do not need or desire to socialize or shop, the numbers should not have stalled. Most likely, it's the Chinese government not reporting numbers that would induce a panic.
But there might be one other situation where an infected-number stall is reasonable. Oftentimes, you need a certain 'number' of pathogens to get sick. Your body can fight off a small number, in many cases. Suppose a high-density release started the epidemic, and high population interaction extended the initial spread. Then the Chinese minimized person-to-person interaction, all of the sick started wearing masks, and good quarantine was provided to the really sick. The spread per person might drop off with each 'wave' of newly sick. Resulting in an eventual stall.
I suspect that happened with SARS. But I don't really think it happened with COVID-19. Since most of the symptoms look like flu, unless you do the right tests, it would be easy for China simply to classify most non-lethal cases as flu rather than coronavirus. Simply order the hospitals to stop doing COVID-19 tests if the patient does not need the ICU.
Anybody see any CDC or WHO reporting from on-site Chinese health facilities in the affected areas?
Speculation on Coronavirus - An Introduction
If I actually hit the publish button, this will be one of a series of posts on the coronavirus COVID-19. It is totally my speculation about what has, is and will happen. I'm not a doctor. My Ph.D. is in physics and electrical engineering, so I am good at solving problems. But any or all of this could be nonsense!
From the numbers posted by Johns Hopkins University, the death rate for those diagnosed with the virus is now at 3.4% (March 2, 2020). Reports seem to indicate nearly all deaths are the elderly or those with pre-existing health conditions. For some reason, the accepted 'truth' is that the death rate is between 2 and 3 percent. I'm not sure how they make that conclusion, but I suspect they are assuming there is a significantly large undiagnosed group of people with coronavirus--that have not died.
Either way, that means if the virus spreads in your community, you might expect one out of thirty to fifty people that catch it to die.
They also 'say' that the virus survives longer outside of the body than the flu, that it can 'hang' in the air longer, and that it may also be spread through fecal matter. I would therefore guess that it is significantly smaller than the various flu viruses, and can probably penetrate cells easier. Combined with the fact that you cannot tell whether a person is infected before symptoms show, and that a number of people have recovered (according to CDC tests) and then later tested positive again, one has to assume that this spreads much easier than the flu.
That is, if it gets out in your community, a lot of people will catch it. That doesn't mean they will all show bad symptoms, get very sick, or even die.
One thing about the source of the virus. It seems pretty amazing that China's most infectious bio-research facility was a couple of miles from the alleged food market where they say the infection started. It seems more likely than not that COVID-19 was part of a Chinese bio-weapon or bio-research project that accidentally got out. It's ease of spread, and worse-than-flu effects, seem consistent with a man-made or man-modified virus.
There are two things that really concern me about the virus and what happens in the future. First, my wife has asthma and her lungs are not in good shape. I'm really worried that she might catch it with a bad outcome. Second, China and Italy have responded by isolating communities. Some schools in the US have been closed. If the virus spreads and the death rate stays high, we may see community closures throughout the US.
The problems with a city or town closure are how to distribute food, water, fuel and electricity safely. I saw a run on gasoline a couple of years ago after storm damage to off-shore and near shore facilities. The gas at stations disappeared in a day. Luckily, gas availability returned in a few days before the cars ran dry and people were stuck.
But what if a city closure means no gas and diesel trucks get in. No food gets to market. Will the electricity grid stay up from power stations outside the isolated city? What about city water? How will they get their fuel. With a claimed 14-day incubation period, you figure any isolation is going to be a minimum of 14 days and probably 30 days or more. How many people keep that amount of food, water and/or fuel around? If the U.S. starts to isolate cities or communities, there are going to be runs everywhere--on everything!
Clearly, the spread of COVID-19 is not at that point in the U.S., and President Trump has done a good job of delaying or slowing down the spread in the U.S.
Obviously, I don't want a panic, or think that one is appropriate now. I do think you should start thinking about where you would get water and how long your food would last if they said no-one was going in or out of your town (without HAZMAT clothing) for the next 30 days. Personally, if current outcome probabilities are accurate, I think town/city/region closures would be much more destructive than the virus. They should be avoided in almost all cases.
One last point. I'm pretty disgusted about the Surgeon General and others deriding citizens for buying face masks. They claim they don't help prevent catching the virus (point 1), then they claim they want the masks available to protect doctors and nurses (point 2). If they don't help prevent catching the virus, what good are they to doctors and nurses? I know this is over-simplified. But pass a law that in a national medical emergency, the Government can prioritize purchase/delivery of medical items to medical facilities and professionals. Don't expect citizens in an open market to not make a choice in their individual best interest.
From the numbers posted by Johns Hopkins University, the death rate for those diagnosed with the virus is now at 3.4% (March 2, 2020). Reports seem to indicate nearly all deaths are the elderly or those with pre-existing health conditions. For some reason, the accepted 'truth' is that the death rate is between 2 and 3 percent. I'm not sure how they make that conclusion, but I suspect they are assuming there is a significantly large undiagnosed group of people with coronavirus--that have not died.
Either way, that means if the virus spreads in your community, you might expect one out of thirty to fifty people that catch it to die.
They also 'say' that the virus survives longer outside of the body than the flu, that it can 'hang' in the air longer, and that it may also be spread through fecal matter. I would therefore guess that it is significantly smaller than the various flu viruses, and can probably penetrate cells easier. Combined with the fact that you cannot tell whether a person is infected before symptoms show, and that a number of people have recovered (according to CDC tests) and then later tested positive again, one has to assume that this spreads much easier than the flu.
That is, if it gets out in your community, a lot of people will catch it. That doesn't mean they will all show bad symptoms, get very sick, or even die.
One thing about the source of the virus. It seems pretty amazing that China's most infectious bio-research facility was a couple of miles from the alleged food market where they say the infection started. It seems more likely than not that COVID-19 was part of a Chinese bio-weapon or bio-research project that accidentally got out. It's ease of spread, and worse-than-flu effects, seem consistent with a man-made or man-modified virus.
There are two things that really concern me about the virus and what happens in the future. First, my wife has asthma and her lungs are not in good shape. I'm really worried that she might catch it with a bad outcome. Second, China and Italy have responded by isolating communities. Some schools in the US have been closed. If the virus spreads and the death rate stays high, we may see community closures throughout the US.
The problems with a city or town closure are how to distribute food, water, fuel and electricity safely. I saw a run on gasoline a couple of years ago after storm damage to off-shore and near shore facilities. The gas at stations disappeared in a day. Luckily, gas availability returned in a few days before the cars ran dry and people were stuck.
But what if a city closure means no gas and diesel trucks get in. No food gets to market. Will the electricity grid stay up from power stations outside the isolated city? What about city water? How will they get their fuel. With a claimed 14-day incubation period, you figure any isolation is going to be a minimum of 14 days and probably 30 days or more. How many people keep that amount of food, water and/or fuel around? If the U.S. starts to isolate cities or communities, there are going to be runs everywhere--on everything!
Clearly, the spread of COVID-19 is not at that point in the U.S., and President Trump has done a good job of delaying or slowing down the spread in the U.S.
Obviously, I don't want a panic, or think that one is appropriate now. I do think you should start thinking about where you would get water and how long your food would last if they said no-one was going in or out of your town (without HAZMAT clothing) for the next 30 days. Personally, if current outcome probabilities are accurate, I think town/city/region closures would be much more destructive than the virus. They should be avoided in almost all cases.
One last point. I'm pretty disgusted about the Surgeon General and others deriding citizens for buying face masks. They claim they don't help prevent catching the virus (point 1), then they claim they want the masks available to protect doctors and nurses (point 2). If they don't help prevent catching the virus, what good are they to doctors and nurses? I know this is over-simplified. But pass a law that in a national medical emergency, the Government can prioritize purchase/delivery of medical items to medical facilities and professionals. Don't expect citizens in an open market to not make a choice in their individual best interest.
Saturday, December 21, 2019
Impeachment 2019 to 2020
It's been a long time since my last blog. I still don't know whether I was right about William Barr or not. The DOJ IG report on the Page FISA application came out a mixed bag. It points out lots of FBI misconduct, mistakes, and/or illegal acts, all of which worked towards continuing a pointless investigation of President Trump. But IG Horowitz failed to draw any conclusions regarding bias or intent. It's kind of like he takes Pelosi's word that she prays for the good of President Trump while she's impeaching him on trumped up 'nothing' charges. Surely she cannot hate, detest, or dislike President Trump since she doesn't admit to those feelings!
Since FBI Director Wray is just correcting the process within the FBI so the FISA mistakes won't happen again, that leaves only prosecutor Durham's investigation to produce any consequences for the FBI, DOJ or intelligence community beyond changing internal regulations.
But what I really wanted to talk about was the recent passing of Articles of Impeachment by the House of Representatives against President Trump. Those were for Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress. I don't believe either is written in law with any legal consequences. Thus no crime. I won't go any further with those arguments, as it's been done comprehensively and repetitively in the press and blogs.
But after passing the articles, with only Democratic congress-persons votes, Speaker Pelosi did not have a vote to transmit the articles to the Senate. She has indicated that she will not transmit them until she is satisfied that there will be a 'fair' trial in the Senate. Since she has no leverage to change Senate rules for such a trail, I have my doubts about her public reasons.
And an aside here. The Articles of Impeachment were published, so the Senate has access to them. Likewise, they published the vote on TV and announced that the Articles had passed. I relooked at the Constitution and it says nothing about the House being required to transmit them to the Senate. The only thing stopping the Senate from holding a trial now is the Senate's own rules.
Many folks seem to think Pelosi is afraid of a quick disposition and acquittal of President Trump. That is likely true.
But consider the alternatives going forward:
Since FBI Director Wray is just correcting the process within the FBI so the FISA mistakes won't happen again, that leaves only prosecutor Durham's investigation to produce any consequences for the FBI, DOJ or intelligence community beyond changing internal regulations.
But what I really wanted to talk about was the recent passing of Articles of Impeachment by the House of Representatives against President Trump. Those were for Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress. I don't believe either is written in law with any legal consequences. Thus no crime. I won't go any further with those arguments, as it's been done comprehensively and repetitively in the press and blogs.
But after passing the articles, with only Democratic congress-persons votes, Speaker Pelosi did not have a vote to transmit the articles to the Senate. She has indicated that she will not transmit them until she is satisfied that there will be a 'fair' trial in the Senate. Since she has no leverage to change Senate rules for such a trail, I have my doubts about her public reasons.
And an aside here. The Articles of Impeachment were published, so the Senate has access to them. Likewise, they published the vote on TV and announced that the Articles had passed. I relooked at the Constitution and it says nothing about the House being required to transmit them to the Senate. The only thing stopping the Senate from holding a trial now is the Senate's own rules.
Many folks seem to think Pelosi is afraid of a quick disposition and acquittal of President Trump. That is likely true.
But consider the alternatives going forward:
- The House transmits the articles sometime after the new year, and public opinion has grown even more against finding President Trump guilty. She's worse off.
- The House transmits the articles sometime after the new year, and public opinion has turned against President Trump. Democrats have scored for 2020 elections.
- The House holds the articles until the election, hoping to gain seats in the Senate where they can convict Trump in the new congress. Election impact is unknown for Democrats.
- The House holds the articles until they can add another article, with a more credible sounding crime, to the list. Hurts Republicans in the election, and may sway Republicans to convict in a Senate trial.
- Finally, the House transmits the articles, loses in the Senate, then creates new articles of impeachment for another try (or two or three).
I figure Speaker Pelosi is going to do her risk analysis and try to pick the option with the best outcome for Democrats. I do not believe she is limited to only transmitting or not transmitting the current two Articles of Impeachment.
Consider that in the past (and near present), the media has been a big plus for Democrats, doing everything they can to bring down Trump. It didn't work in the impeachment trial--I suspect because they couldn't control what the public saw on round-the-clock, live coverage. But everyone learns from mistakes, especially the broadcast networks. If they don't broadcast everything live, they can cherry pick quotes and present lies and misconstrued statements as facts. Most of the public sees only what they want them to see. Public opinion would move in their favor.
Hence, I believe if the Democrats can gin up any kind of follow-up charges, they can add them to the list of Articles of Impeachment and do a better job of moving public opinion their way. Democrats in this case are the combined democrats in congress, democrats in the deep state (the bureaucracy), and the media.
I really hope that doesn't happen and I'm just wandering around lost within my own thoughts.
Sunday, April 21, 2019
Trump, Lori Loughlin and William Barr
OK, so you are probably wondering what all three of these have in common? Not too much, except justice. It's just that all three cases have really been bothering me over the past few days.
Despite being cleared by the Mueller report, Trump got screwed--again. The world got to see his frustration with the probe, and his desire to end it. He didn't end it, and in fact, he didn't do any acts of obstruction. He allowed everyone to talk without invoking executive privilege and he freely gave all documents requested in the probe. Yet we still are told about his private frustration expressed in communications with the White House lawyer and his other aids. Who would not have been frustrated and wanted the probe ended? Anyone who claims otherwise is a hypocrite. The report actually gives me a low opinion of several people: 1) the White House counsel who did not invoke attorney-client privilege when no crime was committed, 2) Mueller and his team for spilling non-prosecutable dirt on Trump, 3) William Barr for releasing 'dirt' that was not a crime, and 4) all the media and readers that condemn Trump for being infuriated.
Lori Loughlin is a bit different. At someone else's suggestion (Rick Singer), she provided him funds to bribe a USC coach to get her daughters into college. She paid the funds to Singer's non-profit to make it look like a donation. Supposedly, the feds charged 50 other parents with similar actions. But she wasn't charged with bribery--that federal crime only applies to bribing government officials. I read that the multiple federal charges against her have a penalty of up to 40 years. The charges against Singer are only 70 years in total. And I've read nothing about a penalty for the coach--except termination.
For full disclosure, I really like Lori Loughlin's mystery movies on Hallmark (Garage Sale Mysteries). They are clean, moral, and just good fun--unlike most movies produced today. So if you paid a bribe to get your child into college, would you think it fair to be threatened with 40 years in jail? It's not on the level of murder, armed robbery, assault, or even embezzlement. Yet she is getting charged with more years, on average, than many of those violent crimes. Yet who did she hurt? Potentially, two students weren't accepted at USC because of her actions. I was not accepted at lots of prestigious universities that I thought I should have been accepted at (but couldn't afford anyway). My conclusion is it's prosecutorial overreach. She's being charged with federal crimes like fraudulently sending money through the 'federal' postal system and money laundering. Crimes that were intended to catch serious criminals such as drug cartels and the mafia. I'm just disgusted.
Finally, I come to William Barr. As I said earlier, I don't like his release of derogatory information that does not reflect a crime. He blacked out such material on others, who he says were not in the public eye. So it's okay to do something to our president that isn't okay to do to someone else who was not charged? But what's really bugging me is all of the bloggers who believe Barr will investigate FBI misbehavior and charge the wrong-doers. If you don't know what I'm talking about, you aren't a conservative who thinks the swamp has been breaking laws in going after Trump.
Way too many of those bloggers think because Barr spoke honestly to Congress and the press, that he will do what is right, and punish those who broke laws. What I think will happen is that Barr will investigate the FBI's behavior, and he will change the regulations under which they operate so it won't happen (he thinks) again in the future. He will satisfy his desire for justice by rationalizing that he cannot change what has happened, but he can stop it from occurring again in the future. Congress and the bureaucracy do this all the time. Congress stops future behavior by passing laws. Bureaucracy prevents unwanted future behavior by passing regulations. Unfortunately, bad actors don't usually pay attention to regs or laws. If they cannot work around them, they will just hide their actions.
I think Barr will try to minimize future controversy over his actions. Charging people like Strozck and Comey would bring an uproar from the press and an attempt to destroy Barr's reputation (more than the current slander). I'll think he'll avoid that and take the easy way out. I agree with the bloggers that any FBI (or others) that broke laws in the probe's instigation or investigation ought to be prosecuted. We have crimes on the book as deterrents. If you don't use them, no one is deterred, and this will happen again to another, future president.
Despite being cleared by the Mueller report, Trump got screwed--again. The world got to see his frustration with the probe, and his desire to end it. He didn't end it, and in fact, he didn't do any acts of obstruction. He allowed everyone to talk without invoking executive privilege and he freely gave all documents requested in the probe. Yet we still are told about his private frustration expressed in communications with the White House lawyer and his other aids. Who would not have been frustrated and wanted the probe ended? Anyone who claims otherwise is a hypocrite. The report actually gives me a low opinion of several people: 1) the White House counsel who did not invoke attorney-client privilege when no crime was committed, 2) Mueller and his team for spilling non-prosecutable dirt on Trump, 3) William Barr for releasing 'dirt' that was not a crime, and 4) all the media and readers that condemn Trump for being infuriated.
Lori Loughlin is a bit different. At someone else's suggestion (Rick Singer), she provided him funds to bribe a USC coach to get her daughters into college. She paid the funds to Singer's non-profit to make it look like a donation. Supposedly, the feds charged 50 other parents with similar actions. But she wasn't charged with bribery--that federal crime only applies to bribing government officials. I read that the multiple federal charges against her have a penalty of up to 40 years. The charges against Singer are only 70 years in total. And I've read nothing about a penalty for the coach--except termination.
For full disclosure, I really like Lori Loughlin's mystery movies on Hallmark (Garage Sale Mysteries). They are clean, moral, and just good fun--unlike most movies produced today. So if you paid a bribe to get your child into college, would you think it fair to be threatened with 40 years in jail? It's not on the level of murder, armed robbery, assault, or even embezzlement. Yet she is getting charged with more years, on average, than many of those violent crimes. Yet who did she hurt? Potentially, two students weren't accepted at USC because of her actions. I was not accepted at lots of prestigious universities that I thought I should have been accepted at (but couldn't afford anyway). My conclusion is it's prosecutorial overreach. She's being charged with federal crimes like fraudulently sending money through the 'federal' postal system and money laundering. Crimes that were intended to catch serious criminals such as drug cartels and the mafia. I'm just disgusted.
Finally, I come to William Barr. As I said earlier, I don't like his release of derogatory information that does not reflect a crime. He blacked out such material on others, who he says were not in the public eye. So it's okay to do something to our president that isn't okay to do to someone else who was not charged? But what's really bugging me is all of the bloggers who believe Barr will investigate FBI misbehavior and charge the wrong-doers. If you don't know what I'm talking about, you aren't a conservative who thinks the swamp has been breaking laws in going after Trump.
Way too many of those bloggers think because Barr spoke honestly to Congress and the press, that he will do what is right, and punish those who broke laws. What I think will happen is that Barr will investigate the FBI's behavior, and he will change the regulations under which they operate so it won't happen (he thinks) again in the future. He will satisfy his desire for justice by rationalizing that he cannot change what has happened, but he can stop it from occurring again in the future. Congress and the bureaucracy do this all the time. Congress stops future behavior by passing laws. Bureaucracy prevents unwanted future behavior by passing regulations. Unfortunately, bad actors don't usually pay attention to regs or laws. If they cannot work around them, they will just hide their actions.
I think Barr will try to minimize future controversy over his actions. Charging people like Strozck and Comey would bring an uproar from the press and an attempt to destroy Barr's reputation (more than the current slander). I'll think he'll avoid that and take the easy way out. I agree with the bloggers that any FBI (or others) that broke laws in the probe's instigation or investigation ought to be prosecuted. We have crimes on the book as deterrents. If you don't use them, no one is deterred, and this will happen again to another, future president.
Friday, April 19, 2019
The Despicable Judge Napolitano
Before Trump was elected, I used to like reading Judge Napolitano's articles on Fox News. He was a pretty good libertarian and believed in constitutional government. I didn't like his articles where every sentence was a question, but the other stuff was pretty good.
Then came President Trump's election. Suddenly everything President Trump did was despicable, repellent, abhorrent, and likely subject to prosecution. No longer did Judge Napolitano believe in freedom of speech, believe in innocent until proven guilty, or the primacy of constitutional protections and authorities. Instead, his articles left out anything on the exoneration side of an argument against Trump.
In my opinion, he became a rabid Never-Trumper who would not apply the principles of freedom he so strongly pushed during the Obama era.
And even after the Mueller report came out, he said there was enough there for prosecution. I won't ever read another article of his.
Then came President Trump's election. Suddenly everything President Trump did was despicable, repellent, abhorrent, and likely subject to prosecution. No longer did Judge Napolitano believe in freedom of speech, believe in innocent until proven guilty, or the primacy of constitutional protections and authorities. Instead, his articles left out anything on the exoneration side of an argument against Trump.
In my opinion, he became a rabid Never-Trumper who would not apply the principles of freedom he so strongly pushed during the Obama era.
And even after the Mueller report came out, he said there was enough there for prosecution. I won't ever read another article of his.
Tuesday, April 16, 2019
Notre Dame Fire - Accident a Cause or Hope?
In general I don't like conspiracy theories. But I dislike premature government pronouncements even more. And too often, especially in cases of large disasters, they sound like misdirection of the public. A recent New York Post article on the Notre Dame fire yesterday contained one of those premature announcements.
The French regional manager announced that the fire was an accident. The French stated there was no evidence of arson. Then they stated that 50 investigators were interviewing workers to find out what happened. And they were supposedly starting from the assumption that it was an accident.
How can you say it was an accident when you have 50 investigators trying to find out what happened? My presumption would be, when starting an investigation, that it was arson or an act of terrorism. Sure, you investigate all possibilities. But you don't want to miss arson because the arsonist says it was an accident.
Since the statement it was an accident was obviously premature, this is one of those cases where I think the French government is intentionally trying to convince the public that the cause was what they prefer to find. They don't want another blatant act of terrorism or arson, possibly by immigrants who are not Christian, to inflame bad feelings in their nation.
What really bothers me is the possibility that if they find something other than an accidental cause, they will label it a state secret and bury the results. If that is not a possibility, why say it was an accident rather than that they were still trying to identify the source of the fire?
The French regional manager announced that the fire was an accident. The French stated there was no evidence of arson. Then they stated that 50 investigators were interviewing workers to find out what happened. And they were supposedly starting from the assumption that it was an accident.
How can you say it was an accident when you have 50 investigators trying to find out what happened? My presumption would be, when starting an investigation, that it was arson or an act of terrorism. Sure, you investigate all possibilities. But you don't want to miss arson because the arsonist says it was an accident.
Since the statement it was an accident was obviously premature, this is one of those cases where I think the French government is intentionally trying to convince the public that the cause was what they prefer to find. They don't want another blatant act of terrorism or arson, possibly by immigrants who are not Christian, to inflame bad feelings in their nation.
What really bothers me is the possibility that if they find something other than an accidental cause, they will label it a state secret and bury the results. If that is not a possibility, why say it was an accident rather than that they were still trying to identify the source of the fire?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)