Thomas Jefferson - Good or Bad

"We hold these truths to be self-evident

That all men are created equal

That they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights

That among these are Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness"

 

These words were written by Thomas Jefferson, whose memory protestors now despise and desecrate. Jefferson was a brilliant and complex man and flawed as we all are. He and the other founders lived their lives in a land far distant from the great power centers in Europe and filled with independent-minded people. He was a student of the philosophical Enlightenment then taking place in England and France which generated his ideas of equality and personal freedom. But for the first time in the history of the world he and the other founders had a golden opportunity to put these ideas into actual practice. So, they took a shot at it and put on the line their "lives, fortunes and sacred honor". They won their independence and eventually the members of this somewhat disparate group were able to compromise their differences and put together an actual structure of a self-governing society, which was finally agreed to by every State involved but only after months of public debate by the citizenry.

 

Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner, as were 5 of our first 7 Presidents. By present day standards the act of buying and selling people to be farm hands and household servants is an abomination. Instead today we pay low wages and perhaps give room and board to imported farm and landscape workers, au pairs and nannies, who are nevertheless free to come and go as they wish. Washington and Jefferson were both uneasy about slavery, but without excusing the situation, this was the way things were if you lived in Virginia in the 18^th or early 19^th century. I haven't the slightest doubt that 250 years from  now, if civilization doesn't meet up with some great catastrophe, all our food will be synthetic and those in that time will look back with horror on our practice of killing and eating animals. Surely, procreation will be highly controlled and it's likely our present habit of elimination of unwanted pregnancy by uterine evacuation will be considered barbaric. I could go on but, without excusing Mr. Jefferson, the point is that judging the behavior of people living in the remote past by present day moral standards is just as invalid as it will be for people in the distant future to judge us.

 

Jefferson's words, at the time they were written, were improperly applied. They did not include slaves, or Indians, or even women. But they have served as a blueprint or a master plan for our society ever since and step by step, often with great turmoil, we have advanced to adhere to them more perfectly. The amazing thing is that, despite the great technological and political changes that have taken place since, they apply today just as much as the day they were written. As noted by the response to the post, all of us, regardless of our political stance, accept them as true and good. They are the spirit of America, ideas that have over time been adopted in one form or another world-wide.

 

Let us study the history of our founders so that we are fully aware of their strengths and weaknesses but let us not desecrate the memory or the inspired ideas of these brilliant and daring men. Who they were and the inspirations they had are inseparable. Those who seek to destroy the one, will likely at the same time destroy the other.

 

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

Black Lives Matter. Is Racially Motivated Police Brutality a Real Problem

The Black Lives Matter movement was started after the killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman in Sanford FL in 2012. Mr. Martin was apparently inappropriately followed by Mr. Zimmerman who was overenthusiastic in his volunteer community watch position. However, whatever the events leading up to the fight between the two men, the immediate situation was that Zimmerman was being held down and beaten, had a concealed gun and used it.  The shooting was held to have been racially motivated, and indeed NBC broadcasted a doctored version of an earlier 911 call by Zimmerman to suggest that he was following Martin because he was black. Zimmerman was tried for 2^nd degree murder and manslaughter and was acquitted, interestingly by an all-female jury. 

 

BLM came to national prominence after the killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson MO in 2014 by police office Darren Wilson. The reported events and a later investigation by both the FBI and the Obama Dept of Justice concluded that the shooting was in self-defense and that there was no civil rights issue. A friend of Mr. Brown stated that when the shooting occurred, he was on his knees with hands up saying, "Don't shoot". This account was later proved to be false. Nevertheless "Hands up, Don't shoot" is a persistent chant at the many rallies regarding possible racially motivated police brutality.

 

The death of Eric Garner in NYC in 2014, which inflamed things further, was pretty definitely a case of unnecessary force after a minor infraction. The recent killing of George Floyd by Derik Chauvin is on video for all to see and was clearly an unjustified killing worthy of a murder charge. Were the actions of this sadistic officer influenced because of Mr. Floyd's skin color? The subsequent protests and riots assume it was.

The police killing over the weekend in Atlanta of Rayshard Brooks was recorded on police video camera and can be seen on the internet. The incident was a much more complicated affair than the brief snippet usually shown on TV. I added a link.  If you watch it, you can decide for yourself whether the officer can have avoided the shooting, but the events clearly suggest that racial animosity had nothing to do with the matter. Nevertheless, the inevitable rioting occurred afterward.

 

If you look on YouTube, you can find a whole host of recordings on police video of such incidents. Those I viewed started with the police being polite but violence ensuing after the subject resists arrest. But I'm sure it's a mixed bag, and we don't know the facts in those events which are not recorded. In fact, however a great many, maybe most, show police being murdered in such altercations.

So, is racially motivated police brutality a common fact of life? Many innocent black men have verified that they have been unnecessarily accosted. Many on the left are assuming it's the case and have turned to protesting and rioting to demand it cease. On the other hand, the cases that sparked the formation of Black Lives Matter don't come close to proving it. The involvement of police in high crime minority ghettos and the propensity of some arrested subjects to respond violently are certainly factors. Should the police be better trained to respond to such situations? Probably.

 

All the police I know are good people trying to do a job which is at times unusually demanding and at times dangerous. Is it too much to ask that we investigate each case on its individual merits instead of generalizing? And publicize them all, not just those that fit an agenda and make the racial agitation in our country worse than it is already. Maybe have a national commission to review them and give us a true picture.

 

https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-police-body-cam-footage-challenges-narrative-on-death-of-rayshard-brooks?utm_campaign=dw_newsletter&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=89525786&_hsenc=p2ANqtz--eXJPe3v8-04ZvtSGYw9srjxwyEkom0bQLeI_4UIsj3hASlWBwdSsKfOBRasixlugaXN-eLRhx6L0QWyDl_LGUP_qiEg&utm_content=non_insiders&utm_source=housefile

 

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

Coronavirus Restrictions In Pennsylvania

Last evening Em and I had dinner with 4 old friends on the patio at the Scranton Country Club. Governor Wolf decreed last week that he is now allowing restaurant service outdoors and everyone was pleased to have this liberty. We were required to wear the obligatory masks on entering and walking through the building but could remove them on exiting to the patio. From that point I was able to meet up and chat with a number of other old friends pretty much as in the past but of course minus handshakes or kisses for the ladies. Eating indoors anywhere is still verboten regardless of how far apart you sit.

In PA more than 2/3 of the coronavirus deaths are nursing home patients. People with significant chronic medical conditions make up most of the rest and should be cautious. The nursing homes are an obvious setup for problems. The residents are enfeebled, confined indoors and in close personal contact with nurses who move from one patient to another. For the overwhelming majority of the rest of us the disease is not life threatening and for a great number produces minimal or no illness. In particular, it is consoling that children are spared as opposed to the case of influenza which annually kills about 150 nationwide.

As a solution to the virus problem we have mandated a draconian economic shutdown with all its attendant severe economic, psychologic and health consequences. Also, there is "social distancing" probably not a bad idea for now, and mask wearing which is of unproven benefit for those who are healthy but nevertheless gives an impression of doing something. This response was to "flatten the curve" so as to avoid overwhelming of the medical facilities, particularly in the New York metro area and other less severe hotspots but is continuing long after its intended effect has been achieved. It should be pointed out that social distancing reduces the virus spread but does not eliminate it so that if we are unable to achieve the much discussed "herd immunity" it remains active in the community until we are saved by an effective treatment or vaccine.

All this considered, the process of stepwise opening up of social and economic activity limited by observations of the numbers of involved individuals makes little sense to me. Since the virus remains active, inevitably as there is increased personal contact there will be increased infectivity (unless of course the virus, like other respiratory viruses, has a seasonal incidence or weakens in intensity). So, it's likely to be a viscous cycle with the news media broadcasting alarm with any increase even though it might be expected. Of course, this would be increased infection among those who almost all recover and in fact are usually only mildly affected.

In contrast, what about those in nursing homes who are likely to be severely affected and make up the large majority of deaths? Well in mid-May President Trump and his advisors, recognizing this situation, called for testing of all nursing home patients and staff within two weeks and staff tested weekly thereafter. This action would of course be of immense help in managing infection control among the residents. In response, as reported in the newspaper 2 days ago, Governor Wolf and Dr. Levine, the pediatric psychiatrist who is in charge of the PA Health Department, have given PA nursing homes until JULY 24th to accomplish the task.

Commercial labs and hospital labs are widely available to process these tests, and Medicare pays for them. Is it too difficult to ask that this life saving preventive measure be carried out ASAP? Well the same news report mentions that one local nursing home chain has long since accomplished the task and will be testing all residents and staff routinely every 2 weeks. Most others however appear to be content to follow the Governor's advisory. Perhaps we could speed up the process by the one which is following the President's advice teaching the others how to do it.

So what things come down to is this. At the same time as we have a severe economic shutdown with an intensely regulated letup process along with strict personal behavior advisory in order to slow down, but not stop, the spread of a disease which is relatively mild for most, we have extremely lax regulations for avoiding disease in those with most of the lethality.

What's going on here? Is it me who's crazy? (That's a rhetorical question)!

 

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

Opening Up From Covid19. Compare the Governors

Last night we ate out in a restaurant in Naples. They're just open this week and people are coming back. The beaches here in southwest Florida are now open. The golf courses have never been closed. "Social distancing" is the rule but masks are discretionary. There's been a light touch on the less populated areas of the state. So far, so good. It's been pointed out that The Villages, with its 100,000+ population of older residents has had very limited number of cases with no Covid19 patients presently in its hospital.

Governor DeSantis has been getting praise for his decision making. Going by "Suttons Law" he went where the money was and early on took aggressive measures to protect nursing home patients. Also, given the known characteristics of the virus he judged that being outdoors in the sun was a good place to start reopening. Of course, the climate here is a big advantage since getting outside is what everyone does. Overall, the pace of opening is fast enough to prevent the grumbling and protesting faced by some governors such as Governor Whitmer in Michigan.

I'm informed now that NEPA will continue to be locked down until June 4th. As much as we'd enjoy getting back to our townhouse there's not much sense in going back to sit in the house all day. At the same time I saw reported that almost 70% of the deaths in PA were in nursing home or assisted living residents. Is that something just to be accepted or is it possible that more aggressive efforts, such as those taken in Florida, to protect those individuals could make a big change in the total picture.

Governor Cuomo, in contrast to Governor DeSantis, seems to have made significant blunders. He called for wildly inflated numbers of ventilators and hospital beds, which were nevertheless provided by the federal government. But when faced with the problem of nursing homes reluctant to take back residents hospitalized and likely still infected with Covid 19 he mandated their return instead of considering having them convalesce in the available empty virus adapted beds.

Leaving the removal of restrictions to the discretion of the individual states was a good plan. The idea is very much in keeping with our very salutary governmental philosophy of federalism which allows for the dispersion of political power into the hands of the of the citizens where it belongs. Decisions are therefore adapted to the local situation. It also allows us to compare and contrast, and learn from, the various approaches to the problem.

Personal freedom, requiring at the same time self-control and responsibility, is the hallmark of our republic. So make your feelings known folks. You're the boss.

 

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

Unknowns about Coronavirus and Opening Up the U.S.

As our country begins to open up one fact is clear. There are a lot of things we don't know about this virus. One of the big unknowns is why it seems to behave drastically differently in various places. I puzzled about this situation two or three weeks back. Why did it hit the New York metro area but not California so much? Why northern Italy, but not many of the Asian countries nearby to China? Drs. Fauci and Birx were congratulating Californians for making such good preventative efforts, presumably better than did New York, but I don't believe that explanation for a minute. Different possibilities come to mind, not only differences in mitigation efforts but also climate, population density and age, geographic location, but none of them hold up when scrutinized. You don't have to take my word for it since the dilemma finally hit the New York Times over the weekend, so it must be true.

Here's an interesting account from an old classmate friend of mine who has been traveling to Hanoi almost yearly since his military service in Vietnam to help doctors there to modernize their medical care. On April 22 he got a letter from one of his Vietnamese doctor contacts offering to send some of their surplus M95 masks to help ICU doctors in the U.S. They were having very limited virus problems, even though, as my friend informed me, there is a large contingent of Vietnamese who work in China and who came home for the Chinese New Year in late January and early February, presumably carrying the virus with them. In addition Vietnam, with its 1500 miles of coastline and beautiful beaches, is a major vacation spot for the Chinese. Yet only a few days later the major hospital in Hanoi had to close down because of a sudden influx of cases, attributed possibly to travelers coming from Europe.

So, what's going to happen now is a crap shoot. Some are focused on the severe adverse economic impact of our present efforts, with attendant major adverse social, physical and psychological consequences, which will only deepen as it is prolonged, perhaps reaching 1930's proportions or worse. Others are concerned with the potential resurgence of the virus with immediate deleterious effects and feel any price to prevent this is not too much to pay. But one of the strengths of our country is its wide dispersion of government power. So now we're going to have 50 different experiments to help show us the right way to go. And that's a good thing because experts and scientific models are often wrong in their predictions. Dr Fauci in late February was telling us that we should worry more about the flu than the coronavirus. Dr. Birx in a weekend interview admitted that the medical experts greatly underestimated the number of asymptomatic infections when devising their strategies. 

Opening Up From Coronavirus. The Case Of Georgia.

It’s said that one of the strengths of our federal system is that the individual states can serve as independent laboratories for new ideas which will be tested out and compared with results in other states. It’s reported that 3 states, Georgia, Oklahoma and Alaska, plan very shortly to allow more aggressive commercial opening. Efforts to dissuade Georgia governor Brian Kemp, including from the President himself, have not so far changed his mind.

Slowly but surely the evidence is coming in that Covid19 is for the great majority of those it infects an inconsequential or very mild problem. In addition, antibody testing is showing that it is far more widespread in the population than we had supposed. To be sure, what turns out to be a relatively small minority of those infected develop severe illness. As of now management has been mostly just supportive. However in the daily medical reports I read online information is coming in from doctors and researchers almost by the hour on the illness’s specific pathophysiology, that is, how it affects the body to do its damage, key points that will likely gradually produce more helpful treatment, above and beyond drugs that attack the virus itself.

Our social distancing efforts have apparently slowed down the contagion enough to give the medical community a breather, primarily in the population-dense urban areas where the illness was intense. But it does not rid us of the virus or change the nature of the illness. Dr. Fauci, in last night’s Task Force report, expressed his certainty that the virus, even though slowed, would be back in the winter. In fact, it seems clear that the strategy of simply slowing the virus’s spread actually ensures persistence of the virus, and eventual continued illness in the vulnerable, by preventing development of even more general immunity in the population.

In considering how to proceed at this point we must balance the recommendations of the public health officials against the effects of major increasing unemployment, which if sustained too long may have a cascading effect due to business failure resulting in more unemployment. This is essentially what happened after the stock market crash in 1929. The bad effects of sustained high unemployment are well documented and are myriad. These include increases in depression, with substantial increased death from suicide, drug and alcohol addiction and poor physical health. Crime and social unrest increase. Social services can help for a while but, as the demand for governmental social service increases, available funds from taxation sources decreases.

So, suppose, as Governor Kemp and his two other colleagues have decided, we take a more liberal attitude with our commercial restrictions and intensify efforts to protect the vulnerable who we now are fairly well able to identify. Could this cause a more generalized immunity which might starve out the virus. If we continue with the present more cautious restrictions the virus will presumably linger on, and, as Dr. Fauci has described, return intermittently, and continue to strike the vulnerable. In thinking about this scenario there is the concern that the virus could mutate and recur as does the influenza virus, but as in the SARS pandemic of 2003, the virus of which was a close cousin to our present problem (and which incidentally also started in China), there was no recurrence. This does not appear to be the tendency of coronaviruses.

In Sweden they are taking the less restrictive approach and it seems to be working out. If Governor Kemp sticks to his guns, as Mr. Trump is fond of saying, we’ll see what happens.

Coronavirus Management and Herd Immunity

Little by little the picture of this epidemic is becoming clearer and is gradually confirming what seemed likely from previous small clues. The disease seems very mild in the large majority of cases and because in most instances it is undetectable without testing, it is far more widespread than we had supposed. To be sure it can be lethal, rarely in young otherwise healthy people, but primarily in those susceptible to any illness. In fact, there is controversy over how to determine the cause of death in those who appear to die from a previous serious condition but have virus present on testing. Thus, considering the previously undetected large pool of those infected, the infection appears to have a mortality rate closer to the range of epidemic illnesses like the flu which we normally take in stride.

 

There are a couple of major differences however. First is its tendency to cause, in those more seriously affected, an extensive lung inflammation requiring intensive treatment. Second it is a novel virus with no previous community exposure and is highly contagious so that in some areas the medical system is greatly stressed. Moreover, a strong suspicion is emerging that the lung involvement is more a severe immunologic reaction to the virus rather than the infection per se leading to some new ideas about treatment.

 

Our country's response to the problem was to try to reduce the viral infectivity by limiting the opportunity for transmission, social distancing. This reduces the rate of illness but doesn't affect the virus survival so that there is fear that if social distancing is withdrawn a more severe epidemic will reemerge.

 

Development of a vaccine appears to be too far off to be useful at present. We are hopeful for effective treatments, but this remains uncertain. Another theoretical way to address the problem remains. We assume that the large majority of those minimally symptomatic have at least temporary immunity to reinfection and if the number of such individuals is large enough that viral spread will be limited. But allowing the infection simply to run its course to develop this so-called herd immunity is unacceptable because of the higher morbidity and mortality in some susceptible individuals.

 

One epidemiology expert from Yale University, Dr David Katz, has proposed that there could have been another alternative to the one we have taken of shutting down all but essential activity. In his scenario we could have directed all our resources to prevention of exposure to those susceptible to serious illness, but otherwise allow the contagion to proceed, thus allowing for widespread public immunity. He notes that, considering what has already been done it is too late to consider his approach. However, he presented his idea in the New York Times in late March. Much has happened since then. The curve has been flattened. We are now attempting to return from the economic abyss that has destroyed the livelihood of so many in our country. We have increasing civil controversy over what degree of restriction of our freedoms is reasonable and necessary. As we move into this phase I think Dr Katz's ideas should be considered as a way to proceed. I was interested to see that at his recent news conference Governor Cuomo  had a similar thought.

 

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10