Sunday, March 15, 2020

There Is Other News (Not Just The Coronavirus)

It is easy to forget that we are in a presidential election year, given the way the news about the coronavirus virus appears to be crowding out other news stories. It was not that long ago that the prognosticators were saying that Joe Biden was done, and Sanders would be the Democratic Party nominee. Then Super Tuesday happened. Now, the pressure is on Sanders to drop out. That seems unfair as it takes 1991 delegates to win the nomination, and Biden leads Sanders 890 to 736. That does not seem like an insurmountable lead. Sanders, in fact, announced he would not drop out. Then he added a new member to his campaign - one Phillip Agnew. Mr. Agnew has called Zionism (the national movement for a Jewish homeland) "a racist, exploitative, and exclusionary ideology." Agnew also said that Obama, when he defended Jews right to a homeland, was supporting "ethnic cleansing, slavery, genocide, exploitation, and appropriation." Sanders has aligned himself with more anti-Semites than any major presidential candidate has in modern times. Imagine if he staffed his campaign with racists, sexists, islamophobes, or anti-LGBTQ people. He would face daily attacks by the mainstream media and other Democrats.

Recently, Brian Williams of MSNBC, had Mara Gay, a member of the New York Times editorial board, as a guest. Gay commented on Twitter post she saw. The post said: "Bloomberg spent $500 million on ads. The US population is 327 million. He could have given each American $1 million and still have money left over. I feel like a $1 million check would be life-changing for people. Yet he wasted it all on ads and STILL LOST." Gay: "It's an incredible way of putting it. It's true. It's disturbing." It is disturbing - that these two opinion makers are unable to do simple math. $500 million divided by 327 million people comes to $1.53 per person. Not what I would call "life-changing." But when your agenda drives your discussion, then there is no need for thinking. What these two should have concluded was that the Democrats' claim that big money wins elections is a lie. It did not work for Tom Steyer and it did not work for Mike Bloomberg - two billionaires. They both lacked the personal connection to people. And the right message.

Speaking of Joe Biden (see top paragraph) he said this while campaigning before the South Carolina primary: "My name's Joe Biden. I'm a Democratic candidate for the United States Senate. Look me over. If you like what you see, help out. If not, vote for the other Biden." I do not say that to make fun of Biden. I point it out because it may be a gross understatement to say that he has merely lost a step. Plus, as William McGurn pointed out in a 3/3/20 Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal, Biden, under pressure from the left-wing of the party, has apologized for his prior policy positions, including a crime bill he sponsored, his votes to ban federal funding for abortions, and even for referring to Mike Pence as a "decent guy." Biden stands for one thing only - he is not Donald Trump. That seems to be enough for many in the Democratic Party.

Chuck Schumer, the Senate Minority Leader, was recently speaking at a pro-abortion rally in front of the US Supreme Court, while the Court was hearing arguments on an abortion related case. Schumer furiously yelled this: "I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price...You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions." It was outrageous for Schumer to threaten Supreme Court Justices, by name no less. Schumer is said to be a "moderate," compared, say, with Maxine Waters. But in 2018 Waters said this: "...and if you see anybody from that Cabinet (Trump's) in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere..." These two politicians reflect the overall attitude of the Democratic Party - if they disagree with you, they have the right to harass you, to assault you, and for some, to batter you.

The Chief Justice, John Roberts, was so off-put by Schumer's comments that he issued a rebuke to Schumer. Rare for a Chief Justice to do. Roberts: "Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous. All Members of the Court will continue to do their job, without fear or favor, from whatever quarter." But some on the Left felt that Schumer's attack on the Court was justified because, you know, the Court now has a conservative majority. For example, one executive V.P. at People For the American Way noted that "he (Schumer) is acutely aware that Trump and the far right are packing the courts with extreme ideologues..." "Packing the court" now means appointing conservatives to the Left, turning its historical meaning (see below) on its head.

This attack on the Supreme Court by Democrats is not new. It's been happening ever since a conservative majority sits on the Court for the first time in decades. That's right - once the Court was majority conservative, it was time to attack, and to propose "reforms." Five Senators previously threatened the Court in an amicus (friend of the Court) brief: "The Supreme Court is not well. Perhaps the court can heal itself before the public demands it be 'restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.'" That "restructuring" has included calls by Democrats to "pack" the Court (add to the number of justices on the Court after the next Democrat is elected President in order to allow the appointment of more left-wing justices), term limits for the justices (in order to get the conservatives off the bench), and limiting the jurisdiction of the Court. (Article 3 of the Constitution does not state how many justices must be on the Court. It does say what cases over which the Court has exclusive (original) jurisdiction, and where it may have appellate jurisdiction.)

After Elizabeth Warren dropped out of the presidential race, MSNBC host Rachel Maddow said this: "If Hillary Clinton can't win when she gets the nomination and you (Warren) can't get the nomination and neither can Kamala Harris, and neither can Amy Klobuchar, and neither can Kirsten Gillibrand...is it just that it can't be any woman ever?" I'm sure that's it. The country did not know Klobuchar or Gillibrand, and really did not know Harris (who stood for ?). As for Warren, she was popular, but many or her ideas overlapped with Sanders', who already had that left-wing base in his corner.

Finally, in a demonstration of left-wing hypocrisy, we have Human Rights Watch (HRW), an NGO. The Jerusalem Post reported that their executive Director, Ken Roth, "accepted a major donation (said to be $470,000) from a Saudi real estate tycoon by promising not to support advocacy of the LGBT community in the Middle East and North Africa." So, when Iran executed by hanging a man charged with violation of that country's anti-gay laws, HRW said...nothing. But, you can count on HRW to continue their ongoing criticisms of Israel. The Saudis are well known to use their money to buy influence; and use their money in the US to fund numerous mosques, and worse, to help fund major US universities. Not that the money would influence left-wing professors at all.

The Coronavirus

My initial reaction to the news about this virus was that it was an overblown story. I was quite annoyed with the mainstream media reporting every new case and every death. The result seemed to be nothing other than mass hysteria. After all, imagine if they reported every case of the flu every year, and every one of the estimated yearly 20,000 to 60,000 deaths. Or, if they reported every injury from every auto accident, along with the 30,000 to 40,000 deaths per year. I still think it's too much reporting. As of this post, the number of US cases is over 3000, and the number of deaths is 61. The CDC estimates 9.3 million to 45 million cases of the flu per year.

Notwithstanding my personal reaction, it appears that China was able to significantly reduce the number of cases by restricting movement. Shortly thereafter, but apparently not soon enough, Italian leaders essentially shut down the country. Since then, Spain, France and Israel have shuttered much of their countries. No restaurants, cafes, bars, gyms, theaters, museums. In the US, major sporting events have been cancelled - the NBA and NHL suspending play, MLB delaying the start of the baseball season, and the NCAA cancelling March Madness. Large events are being cancelled. Some states and communities are limiting gatherings to 250 or 500 people. In Israel, the limit is 10 people, the minimum number required for a "minyan" (quorum), the number of people required to engage in certain prayers. Many school districts have closed, as have a large number of colleges and universities.

I do not recall anything like this in my lifetime. As someone in the high risk group, I certainly do not want to catch this virus, nor would I want to spread it to others. They tell us that this virus is far more easily transmitted to others than the flu. Hence, the need for "social distancing." Since Friday, and notwithstanding my initial refusal to go along with the conventional wisdom, we have been practicing social distancing. We have not left the house over the weekend, with the exception of doing some grocery shopping.

Many of the experts also tell us that, aside from being spread more easily than the flu, the mortality rate is higher. I have seen numbers saying 3.4% higher to 10% higher. I am not buying that. Not yet anyway. After all, we are told that for most people who get the coronavirus, they are likely to get a mild to moderate case. If that is correct, then thousands (millions?) will never see a doctor or ER, and will simply self-medicate until they feel better. Those people will never enter the system as part of the reported or known cases. Therefore, if we do not know the total number of cases, we cannot possibly calculate the percentage of fatalities. What we can say is that the elderly, and those with underlying health problems or immune problems, are most at risk.

The economic consequences of society's reaction to this virus have the potential to be devastating. It is estimated that the NCAA alone is losing one billion dollars from the cancellation of the college basketball playoffs (March Madness). The NBA anticipates similar losses. Then we have the vendors who operate at these sports arenas and stadiums, and their suppliers, and all the restaurants and bars in the vicinity of where the now cancelled sporting events would have taken place. Then, you have the businesses shutting down completely for the time being, with others telling their employees to work remotely from home where feasible. Major stores (Walmart and Ralph's, for example) have reduced the number of hours they are open to the public.

The politics. Frankly, I am somewhat reluctant to get into the politics surrounding this virus. Not because Trump was not at his best in his initial speech to the country. That was clear. He has done better since. Some of the attacks on the President by the Democrats and the mainstream media are completely unwarranted. As with natural disasters, there will be a need for financial aid to states and businesses. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin said this: "If you're providing liquidity to good businesses that just need liquidity for 3 to 6 months, that's not a bailout." That may be semantics. However, contrary to what one might expect from my conservative outlook, I see this as a time when we need to join together. That has been one of my concerns with this virus. After 9/11, the country was united. After the Northridge earthquake, Southern Californians helped one another.

This crisis seemed different. People seemed to be more selfish, what with the hoarding of toilet paper and water. Then there was the young guy who purchased 17,000 bottles of hand sanitizer, thinking he would cash in by selling them at a huge mark-up. I understand that Amazon and others prevented him from doing so. As a firm believer in capitalism, I admire his entrepreneurial spirit. I do not admire his timing, nor his desire to take advantage of a crisis situation. The same for people who are hoarding face masks, which affects the ability of doctors, nurses and hospital staff (those who need them the most) to get those masks. This morning, as I was thinking about what might be done to help people, rather than take advantage of people, I emailed one of my Rabbis at Chabad. I suggested that it would be nice for younger, healthy people to volunteer to do the grocery shopping for the elderly, sick and disabled, given the long lines at many markets and Costco and other places. He replied that he was in the process of sending out an email to the Chabad community announcing just that. I was also pleasantly surprised to learn that our son and his new bride, and our daughter, had announced on Facebook that they were ready to help pick up food and medications for those who could not or should not leave their homes. That is the spirit that I hope we will see more of - Americans reaching out to help their fellow Americans.