Joe’s first White House Speech — Reasonable Assurances and Sensible Warnings

Joe’s first White House Speech

Reasonable Assurances and Sensible Warnings

March 11th, 2021

Day fifty of the Biden presidency, and so far so good. Both politically and psychologically, today was a good point for Biden to stop and have a talk with the people. It came a few hours after he signed into law the biggest rebuilding act America had seen since FDR’s first 100 days. The American Rescue Act will, in the estimate of Goldman-Sachs, result in 8% annual growth over the next 12 months. That, too, is a rate of growth not seen since the 1930s. Best of all, it’s going to people and small businesses, what you could call “trickle up economics.” It will save thousands of small businesses, protect millions from hunger and homelessness. It is, as Biden once put it about the AMA, “a big fucking deal.”

In the glow from this massive legislative victory, Biden addressed the state of the country on the anniversary of the Covid pandemic.

After the past year where lies, braggadocio and delusions were all Americans got from the White House, Biden’s cautionary optimism was a gust of fresh air. Biden extolled the immense gains the vaccine program had made in the past 50 days, but didn’t try to pretend it was all his doing. (In a truly pathetic footnote, Trump put out a brief communiqué under a sort-of presidential seal, from The Office of Donald J. Trump, trying to take credit for the vaccine program.) The program has been pretty much miraculous, despite Trump. When Biden first took office, he spoke of 100 million vaccines in the first 100 days (the last day of April). That was considered a high goal, even before we learned that the outgoing administration had absolutely no plan in place for distribution or even procurement of the needed vaccines.

Now, not only are we well ahead of pace for that, but we may have vaccines available for the entire adult population by the end of May, some 500 million shots all told. The CDC is of the opinion that we’ll have herd immunity by the beginning of May, but Doctor Fauci, on the Rachel Maddow show tonight, cautioned that we are in a race against variants, and we may, even with full vaccinations, end up playing whack-a-mole (his term) with those variants, much the way we do with strains of flu and the common cold. It’s evolution, people.

Biden himself made the same cautionary note, and urged people to keep on social distancing and wearing masks for the time being, despite what the “Neanderthals” in the GOP think we should be doing. It’s not a popular request, but Biden has some courage. Things are a lot more hopeful, but we are not out of the woods. He’s right, Fauci’s right, and nearly every expert in the field is right. Tucker Carlson, Alex Jones and Donald Trump are all wrong, and for vicious, self-serving reasons.

Biden spoke movingly of the loss and deprivation hundreds of millions of people suffered over this past year—well over half a million dead (“more than World War I, World War II, and 9/11”), millions of families separated, millions of jobs lost. Even the most cynical of viewers had to admit that he SOUNDED sincere.

He knows, at long last, that there is a light at the end of the tunnel, and he just wants us not to derail ourselves by being reckless as we approach the light. It won’t stop the freedumb morons, but it might just keep enough sane people cautious enough that we might get by.

Fauci and Maddow were talking about monoclonal antibody treatments. Two studies showed respectively 87 and 89% efficacy if administered early in the course of the disease, numbers so convincing that they dropped the double blind nature of the studies on the ground that it was not moral to give half the subjects a placebo based on what is known.

This doesn’t mean that you can run out licking random seats in the New York subway knowing you just need to pop two in the mouth and you’ll be all better. The treatments are by infusion only, and still very expensive. And if you get to the point where the symptoms are life-threatening, then you’re far enough along that the treatment will be of little or any help. Fauci is hoping for a treatment that involves simple injections, or even just pills, but that’s an unknown amount of time in the future. It’s not here, and may not be here for years, but there is a cure.

Not mentioned was the spectre of “long COVID”. Roughly a third of people who become infected develop symptoms weeks or months later, even if they were completely asymptomatic to begin with. And yes, you can still be infected, even with the shots. You just are very unlikely to develop symptoms, and in the beginning, they will be mild. Nobody knows how that will affect development of “long COVID.”

Futher, variants are appearing, and while the evolutionary trend is for such variants to become both more contagious and milder (the weeding-out process of evolution means viruses that successfully inhabit live hosts will outnumber the ones that kill their hosts) that is just a trend. The mutations are individually random, and a variety of Covid could show up that is as lethal as Ebola and as communicable as measles. Worst case scenario, to be sure, but within the realm of possibility. And if we are reckless and go on acting as a culture medium for this virus, the higher the chances that something even nastier will crop up. And the more variations, the more types of vaccines are needed unless and until we can come up with an umbrella shot that can block all Covids. Note: we haven’t been able to develop a shot like that for influenza, and with the common cold, it’s pointless to even try.

Because of this, Biden’s speech was perfect for the occasion. He didn’t tell us what we wanted to hear. He told us what we needed to hear, and for most of us, that’s going to help us a lot through the coming year.

 

The Constitutional Gerrymander – A proposal to make the Senate more equitable

November 15th 2018

The latest wrinkle amongst Republicans arguing in favor of the Senate system of allocation (and by extension the Electoral College) is that it actually favors Democrats, since seven of the ten lowest states by population have one Democratic Senator and five of the smallest have two Democratic Senators. It’s a perfectly true statement, but it’s also a fact that is cherry-picked. The Senate doesn’t favor Democrats, as this last election showed: Overall, in the 33 states that had Senate elections this year, Democrats outpolled Republicans by some 12 million votes—and lost two seats. (Although three seats are still undergoing the recount process).

There’s an easier way to demonstrate that the Republican making this argument is gaslighting you: just ask him if this means he supports changing the makeup of the Senate to make it more equitable. After all, if the Senate gives the Democrats an unfair advantage, surely he would want to do something about it. At that point the Republican will either tell you that the Constitution is the sacred word of God and must not be questioned, or he’ll just simply scamper away. Either way he’ll suddenly lose interest in defending the underrepresentation of those poor Republicans.

Of the fourteen* states in the 1790 census, four had 2,071,170 people, roughly 53% of the total population**. That 53% covered 28% of the Senate. (If you limited to white property owners, then the Senate representation of people who could vote was much more equitable, since women and slaves could not vote). But even the 53/28 ratio is more equitable than it is today: 70/30. Thirty percent of the population control 70% of the Senate, and the fascist right have been blasting those 35 states with unending propaganda, persuading them that they must defeat the “city elites” or be completely subsumed by those pesky Americans living in desirable and productive states. OK, they don’t put it quite that way. They usually settle for warning about coastal elites.

And yes, these are billionaires with bloated senses of entitlement warning the rural population against elites. Yes, it’s grotesque.

I have a suggestion to alleviate this state of affairs while still protecting the smaller states. It would require a constitutional amendment, and would not be popular in at least ten states, but it should be worth considering.

Change the allocation of the Senate as follows: the smallest ten states by population will have just one senator. The ten largest by population would have three senators. The rest would stay at two senators.

What would the top to bottom distribution be then? The ten smallest states, with 9,582,945 people, would see their representation halved, from 20% to 10%. However, they only make up 3.1% of the population, so they would still be overrepresented. The ten largest states would make up 30% of the Senate rather than 10%, but with about 49% of the population, would still be underrepresented.

I don’t have a problem with the built-in bias in and of itself. There is a certain amount of wisdom in not allowing the population centers to run rough-shod over the more thinly populated regions. It’s just that the existing bias is way out of hand, and gives a handful of rich bad actors a loophole to manipulate the government of the country on the cheap.

How would this affect the Electoral College? As most of you know, the EC gives each state electoral votes that equal the sum of their House representatives and the two senators. (For example, Wyoming has one representative and two senators, thus three EC votes). Worse, most states have a winner take all tabulation. Win California by one vote, and get all 55 of the electoral votes).

As a part of the same amendment reallocating the Senate, I would get rid of the Electoral College altogether. Its only purpose is to allow unpopular political parties to cheat, and steal presidencies. (Oddly enough, all five instances involve Republicans). It’s detrimental to the validity of national elections, and has done far more harm than good.

The amendment would have a provision automatically reallocating Senator seats based on the ten-year census. For example, I was using the figures from the 2010 census and the 2020 census might show different states occupying the coveted #10 position, or the much-less-coveted #41 position. It’s not real likely in this census, but it will occur as states rise and fall. In which case, reallocation takes place before the following election, and is automatic. States losing a Senator may decide in a special election which one to dump.

As things stand, this particular idea has zero chance of implementation, but then, that’s true of most new ideas. Pass it around, let people mull it over, and see if it germinates.

The United States does need to address the issue of allocation, because it is being used as a tool to thwart public will, and that’s always detrimental.

*Maine was counted apart from Massachusetts but was still a part of the state. Likewise Kentucky and Virginia. So you had 16 states in the census but only 14 in the Senate.

**Skewed by the fact that slaves (some 700,000 or so) only counted as 3/5ths of a person each, and could not vote. Even then, bigotry made America grotesque.

error

Enjoy Zepps Commentaries? Please spread the word :)