Let's vaccinate the willing

I sometimes think U.S. media forgets that there's a whole world out there that isn't the U.S.

We're drowning in stories about the unvaccinated all over the country contracting CoViD-19, especially the Delta variant. Many stories are framed as cautionary tales aimed at convincing the vaccine-hesitant to get vaccinated.

It's a worthy cause, in the abstract. It's even a practically useful one, inasmuch as the more unvaccinated hosts there are, the greater the likelihood that (a) breakthrough cases will occur, and, more troublingly, (b) a variant will evolve that is more successful at infecting vaccinated people, diminishing or negating the effectiveness of existing vaccines.

However, this is a worldwide pandemic, and with global travel slowly resuming, dangerous variants can arise anywhere and spread everywhere. While the proportion of vaccinated people in some parts of the U.S. is a lot lower than it ought to be, the proportion of vaccinated people in other parts of the world is even lower.

I fully support getting more, and more accurate, information to those who are genuinely uninformed about CoViD-19 and the vaccines against it. I fully support doing whatever's needed to work around whatever practical obstacles keep people from getting the shot(s), like the inability to take time off work or to get to vaccination sites because of a lack of transportation.

Yet at the same time we have to stop fantasizing that hardcore denialists, like those who think Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. makes sense, will ever get vaccinated. Efforts to reach out to them are a gigantic waste when there are literally billions of people around the world who would be thrilled to be vaccinated.

Right now, we have to prioritize getting the vaccines into the arms of willing recipients, because that will give us the best bang for our buck. Most of those willing recipients live in less affluent countries.

Yes, that means giving up, for the time being, on the idea of herd immunity in the U.S. Guess what? We have to do that anyway! Between the delusions of the ex-domestic Dear Leader, the fanatical irrationality of the existing anti-vaccine crowd, and the readiness of far-right media (traditional and social) to pander to both, we face a brick wall of reality-denial in something like a quarter of the U.S. population.

We have to stop wasting time beating on that brick wall, and redirect our energies to drying up the global supply of unvaccinated people to the fullest extent possible.

Once we've reached the billions of willing vaccine recipients, then we'll be in a position to tackle the truly hardheaded.

Persistent thoughts, July 2021

• Multiple books about the ex-domestic Dear Leader are dropping. The thing is, all the teaser stories are trivial: he was angry at Pence for hiring an ex-Donnie staffer; he complained about the low quality of his lawyers; he spoke favorably of Hitler; etc. Don't get me wrong: for any normal president (or any normal person, for that matter), any of these stories would be valuable, revelatory in all the wrong ways. However, the ex-domestic Dear Leader's reputation is so putrid that these new stories are frankly boring, amounting to inconsequential gossip.

  Publishers who want my dollars will have to commission genuine investigatory works that expose the corruption, incompetence, cruelty, and ignorance of his administration in pitiless detail. Such books take a lot more time and effort than gossipy tell-alls (which are essentially hardcopy clickbait) but a presidency as brazenly corrupt, stunningly incompetent (at doing helpful, useful things), operatically cruel, and pridefully ignorant as the ex-domestic Dear Leader's needs to be chronicled in all its fetid infamy as a warning to future generations.

  I hope and assume that professional journalists and historians are doing the hard, unglamorous work of uncovering the dirty deeds that haven't made the headlines, the dirty deeds that compromised our health (and not just with regard to the pandemic), our environment, our economy, and our national security. We know he did dirty deeds: he would sell out the nation in a heartbeat and there was a small ocean's worth of money sloshing around D.C. during his term, so dirty deeds were done, both by him and on his behalf. We don't know the details, though. And for our own safety, we need to know those details.

• How long can the far-right echo chamber of outrage sustain itself?

  How much money do the rubes who donate to these con artists have?

  How long can those rubes stay mad as hell without bursting a blood vessel?

  How many of them will wind themselves up so thoroughly that they'll engineer their very own mass-casualty incidents, and how many innocents will they take out?

  What will it take for them to ask why they trust the highly unreliable information sources they do?

  If they don't trust people who have spent years exploring a subject, why do they trust some random bozo on social media whose identity they can't determine?

  Some fraction of these folks will never emerge from their cocoons of delusion; the only question is how large a fraction. Already some of them have died of CoViD-19 while denying its very existence with their last breaths. It's tragic for their families and friends, of course, but also for the rest of us, because reality-deniers of all stripes are incompetent to help solve the very large problems humanity faces — and can worsen those problems immeasurably by preventing us from addressing them at all.

SCOTUS screws us again

Prof. Richard Hasen's op-ed piece in the New York Times well summarizes today's Supreme Court decisions' corrosive effect on voting in the U.S. The headline's not an overstatement: "The Supreme Court is Putting Democracy at Risk".

Of Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, Hasen writes:

Thanks to Brnovich, a state can now assert an interest in preventing fraud to justify a law without proving that fraud is actually a serious risk, but at the same time, minority voters have a high burden: They must show that the state has imposed more than the “usual burdens of voting.” Justice Alito specifically referred to voting laws in effect in 1982 as the benchmark, a period when early and absentee voting were scarce and registration was much more onerous in many states.

It is hard to see what laws would be so burdensome that they would flunk the majority’s lax test.

I don't know why Alito (I can't bring myself to use the title "Justice": the irony is too bitter) decided 1982 was a good year to set as a baseline but I can't say I'm surprised he went back in time nearly forty years. That's his M.O., to take us as far back as he can convince his fellow reactionaries to go.

With Brnovich, SCOTUS has rendered the 1960s-era Voting Rights Act an empty shell.

The other case, Americans for Prosperity v. Bonta, concerned disclosure of donors to charities. The Court significantly reduced the ability of states (or anyone else) to mandate such disclosure, even for law enforcement purposes (e.g., to detect campaign finance violations). Prof. Hasen explains the impact of today's decision:

In the Americans for Prosperity case, [Chief Justice Roberts] redefined the “exacting scrutiny” standard to judge the constitutionality of disclosure laws so that the government must show its law is “narrowly tailored” to an important government interest. This makes it more like strict scrutiny and more likely that disclosure laws will be struck down. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissent, “Today’s analysis marks reporting and disclosure requirements with a bull’s-eye.”

The court’s ruling calls into question a number of campaign finance disclosure laws. Perhaps even more significant, it also threatens the constitutionality of campaign contribution laws, which are judged under the “exacting scrutiny” standard, too. Lower courts can now find that such laws are not narrowly tailored to prevent corruption or its appearance or do not provide voters with valuable information — two interests the court recognized in the past to justify campaign laws. A requirement to disclose a $200 contribution? A $500 campaign contribution limit? Plaintiffs in future cases are likely to argue that a law targeting small contributions for disclosure or imposing low contribution limits are not “narrowly tailored” enough to deter corruption or give voters valuable information, even if Congress or a state or municipality found such laws necessary.

I'll let Prof. Hasen describe the combined ugly results:

As in Shelby County and in the 2010 Citizens United case, which struck down Congress’s limit on corporate campaign spending, this conservative Supreme Court in today’s rulings shows no deference to democracy-enhancing laws passed by Congress, states or local governments.

...

If you put the Brnovich and Americans for Prosperity cases together, the court is making it easier for states to pass repressive voting laws and easier for undisclosed donors and big money to influence election outcomes.

The wealthy and powerful (but I repeat myself) already had a vastly disproportionate say over our laws and public policies. The U.S. Supreme Court, courtesy of the reactionary Justices who now dominate it, has strengthened that stranglehold.

Inequity of opportunity, wealth, and access to power has driven this country to a brink not seen since the Civil War. Think I'm exaggerating? Look at any objective assessment of the haves and have-nots in American society today — I recommend Robert Reich's The System — and the yawning gulf between them looks a lot like that which precipitated the French Revolution. (And Reich's book was published before the pandemic had really taken hold. Suffice to say, the pandemic didn't invalidate any of his assessments: it reinforced them.)

With these decisions, the Court has guaranteed that the Republicans who represent a minority of the population will reinforce their grip on power. The Court also has guaranteed that more younger voters will be discouraged from participating in elections — indeed, some of them will conclude that "democracy" is a sham, a rigged game, just as the most poisonous and irresponsible voices on the far right are loudly proclaiming (though for entirely different and false reasons).

The far-right majority in Brnovich cloaked their reasoning in concern for election integrity and public trust in the election process. The effect of that decision, and the indirect effect of Americans for Prosperity, will be to diminish both.

From Citizens United onward, this Court has undermined the body politic through its blinkered obsession with safeguarding the rich and powerful. When the history of the United States is someday written, this Court's contribution to the era's disunity and dysfunction — and perhaps to the nation's downfall as a democracy altogether — will be as infamous as doomed Marie Antoinette's "Let them eat cake".

Let me offer earliest congratulations on cementing your place in history, right-wing Justices.

Cosby is still guilty

While Bill Cosby's accusers are understandably upset, to put it mildly, by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court overturning his conviction for sexual assault, it's crucial to remember that the court didn't find that the evidence against him was false. The court didn't find that he didn't do the things he was accused of doing.

No, the court vacated his conviction because a prior prosecutor gave Cosby what I've heard described as a "handshake" promise that the disgraced comedian's testimony in a civil matter wouldn't result in criminal charges. The state high court ruled that Cosby should never have faced the trial that ended in his conviction and imprisonment.

If ever one were justified in saying somebody got off on a technicality, this would be the time.

Now, I can frankly agree with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's vacating of the conviction. Cosby relied on the prosecutor's word, it seems. If you're pissed that he got off, blame the original prosecutor, one Bruce L. Castor, Jr. I don't know if he should have entered into the agreement with Cosby in the first place, but having done so, he should have made that fact clear to his office. Sloppy, Mr. Castor.

(It's of some interest that after leaving his prosecutor job, Castor went on to cover himself with glory — or something — defending the domestic Dear Leader during the latter's second impeachment trial. If Senate Republicans hadn't had the fix in from the beginning, Castor would very likely have cemented his place in history for a shambolic "defense" that led to the first presidential impeachment conviction. Castor is not my idea of a fine legal mind, nor does he seem to be detail-oriented.)

However, let me repeat that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court didn't find what was revealed at trial to be untrue. And what was revealed at trial convinced a jury to convict Cosby.

Cosby did the things of which he was accused.

He no longer has this criminal conviction on his record — but he is in no way innocent.

Evacuate our Afghan allies

My God, are we still fussing over how, or even whether, to evacuate the Afghanis who helped us during our long war in Afghanistan?

Apparently so, according to George Packer's piece in The Atlantic.

In the past few weeks, the outlook for Afghans who helped the United States in Afghanistan has gone from worrying to critical. As U.S. and NATO troops leave the country with breathtaking speed, the Taliban are attacking districts that had long been in the Afghan government’s hands, setting up checkpoints on major roads, and threatening provincial capitals. Many of the 18,000 Afghans who, along with their families, have applied for Special Immigrant Visas will soon have nowhere to hide, no armed force standing between them and their pursuers.

I don't know how President Biden made the decision to extricate U.S. forces from Afghanistan by 11 September 2021 (Packer says that informed opinion is that most will be gone by the 4th of July). I won't second-guess the decision, as I can imagine very good reasons for it. However, it would be unconscionable for the U.S. to abandon those Afghanis who put their lives on the line for us.

Packer cites possible reasons for the administration's foot-dragging:

No doubt an administration that polls poorly on immigration fears a public backlash, particularly as America approaches the bitter 20th anniversary of September 11. Evacuation would require the suspension of all kinds of standard procedures. There is always the risk of fraud, and perhaps of allowing an enemy combatant into the United States. The spectacle of evacuation might induce Afghan security forces to panic and desert in even larger numbers than they’re deserting now, causing a rush to the airports and borders and a collapse of the government of President Ashraf Ghani.

Most of these reasons strike me as abject moral cowardice that should not be tolerated in our government.

The immediate obstacles include legislative ones: Congress controls how immigration occurs. Congress must act swiftly to bend those rules. Guam has offered itself as a place where the necessary processing of immigrants (to keep out enemy combatants, for instance) can take place, rather than forcing all of it to take place in Afghanistan. The logistics of getting everyone out who needs to get out are manageable but becoming more difficult every day.

Mr. Biden, get your administration moving on this. You created this situation. You must address this consequence of your decision.

U.S. credibility and honor are at stake. Do we stand by those who have helped us, or not?

Awkward question about gun safety

The killing of nine innocent victims at the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) light rail yard in San Jose, California on 26 May was horrific. The gunman, himself a VTA employee, possessed what police later discovered to be a veritable arsenal, including more than 20,000 rounds of ammunition. He also appears to have tried to divert emergency responders away from the light rail yard by setting his house on fire (via a delayed-ignition mechanism) at approximately the same time he was starting his rampage. Clearly, he planned very carefully for his murder spree.

The gunman committed suicide as police closed in so we will never hear a reason for the slaughter from his lips. However, statements from his ex-wife and ex-girlfriend suggest that he was volatile — possibly mentally ill, though he was never diagnosed. Moreover, the Wall Street Journal reported that the gunman had been detained by Customs officials in 2016 after returning from the Philippines; per the San Francisco Chronicle, the officials "found a notebook expressing hatred for his workplace, along with books about terrorism".

The Santa Clara County district attorney says Homeland Security never contacted San Jose police to report the 2016 encounter.

“I am concerned about an individual who has books about terrorism and is so angry at their coworkers that they are writing it down, not typing it but taking pen-to-paper and writing down how angry they are. Now that’s not a crime to do those things but it is certainly something for a D.A., for a police chief, would be of interest."

The D.A. has a point. On the other hand, what exactly would local officials have been able to do?

The Second Amendment, as the modern-day SCOTUS has interpreted it, offers a virtually unfettered right for private citizens to own firearms. There are very limited circumstances under which someone may be permanently barred from gun ownership, or have his or her weapons' temporarily seized (under so-called "red flag" laws). However, the exceptions are extremely narrow.

And when it comes right down to it, what law would have allowed police either to seize this guy's weapons, or to prevent him from buying them, prior to his rampage?

That's the awkward question this incident raises. It's why gun-safety advocates would be well-advised not to use this tragedy to argue for strengthened gun-safety legislation.

Yes, this guy was volatile and angry. However, this country has no shortage of volatile, angry people, and most of them, even if they own guns, don't shoot other people. (At least, that's my impression; if you've done the research to prove me wrong, speak up.)

Unfortunately, the ones who do pop their cork kill more than enough of the rest of us. Shooting sprees that kill four or more people at once (the definition of "mass shooting" used by some incident trackers) grab the headlines but a lot more of us die one or two at a time, often at the hands of someone we know.

So, absent the ability to read minds or peer into the future, shootings large and small will plague us. Prudent laws (limiting magazine size, for instance) might reduce the damage but ultimately shootings are unavoidable so long as private gun ownership is treated as sacrosanct.

(By the way, don't start with that "if everybody were armed we'd all be safer" crap. The idea that "good guys with guns" can neutralize the threat of "bad guys" is simpleminded horseshit that would leave the country hip-deep in bodies.)

This lamentable situation has convinced me that the Second Amendment must go. Moreover, its repeal must be followed by the drying-up of the unfathomably large surplus of firearms already in private hands. Neither of these things is likely to happen in my lifetime but nevertheless, that's my hope.

(I'll offer one alternative to repeal of the Second Amendment: an ironclad rule that gun ownership be licensed at least as strictly as driving, with periodic psychological exams to determine emotional fitness to operate guns safely. I doubt any such examination is possible today or will be possible in my lifetime.)

The ones who control gun violence

I tried to muster some horror, some sorrow — any emotion, really — when I heard about the shooting deaths of eight people at an Indianapolis FedEx facility.

Honestly, though, I couldn't.

No disrespect meant to the Indianapolis victims but we've all been here before. People die at the hands of non-police gun wielders literally every day in this country.

I've written angry, frustrated posts again and again and again in this blog; search for "gun control" to see them. I just went over those posts, and the tragedy of our time is that from 2012, when I wrote the first one, to 2018, when last I was moved to comment, right up to today, not a goddamned thing has gotten better.

Why? Because too goddamned many of you are single-issue voters who will crucify your (generally Republican) elected representatives if they even gesticulate vaguely in the direction of legislation making guns a little more challenging to own. As I wrote in 2015:

The problem wasn't and isn't with the majority of us. It was and is with the minority that believes any regulation is an abridgement of the Second Amendment.

You folks are the ones who need to get over your absolutism on the subject of gun ownership.

You folks are the ones with blood on your hands.

And you folks are making the rest of us angrier and angrier, thus making us more, not less, likely to countenance drastic overreach in gun-safety legislation — maybe even Constitutional amendments. You should think about our concerns before we stop giving a shit about yours.

Okay, done speaking to the Second Amendment absolutists.

For the rest of us, since it would be foolish to wait for a come-to-Jesus moment among Second Amendment absolutists, our only option is to become as single-mindedly focused as they. If you live in a county or state whose elected officials fear the wrath of gun-rights groups (not just the NRA), you will have to become a single-issue voter. You must tell your representatives, "You will only get my vote if you work your ass off to make meaningful gun-safety legislation happen" at either the state or federal level.

(It will, of course, be a much more effective strategy if you can corral a few thousand of your family and friends to do the same.)

By the same token, you must work to defeat even your favorite representative if he or she is a Second Amendment absolutist or provides aid and comfort to them.

Incidentally, one sign that your representative has the wrong mindset is the beyond-stupid argument, "This bill wouldn't end gun violence". Of course no single law will end gun violence. No single law or safety measure has eliminated injuries and deaths from car crashes, either — but we have a lot fewer than we did. The same common-sense logic applies to gun-safety legislation, too. Pretending to hold out for a miraculous bill that would fix everything insults voters' intelligence.

The path toward a less bloody future is blocked by Second Amendment absolutists: they control the level of gun violence in this country through their irrational intransigence. If they can't be unburdened of their paranoia, the rest of us will have no choice but to match their fanatical zeal to defend their weapons with our own fanatical zeal to defend our lives.