Does science tell when to shutdown?

Biden's claim that he would follow the science when deciding when to shutdown the economy is a shame and a shame. Don Boudreaux explains why science cannot tell us when to shut down. His reply to a reader echos what the WSJ posted earlier. Claiming otherwise denies the responsibility of authorities to consider ALL aspects of life, not just some statistics on coronavirus. I recognize that decision is difficult, in large part because uncertainty makes comparison of the costs and benefits difficult. I also recognize that the promise to "follow the science" may be a great campaign tactic because it contributes the narrative that Trump is anti-science. However, we need more clear and honest discussion of the costs and benefits of shutdowns, not pious, vague promises.

Is the WSJ Editorial Board a group of racists who support vigilantes?

An earlier post called the outrage over what Tucker Carlson said about vigilantism a sham and a shame. I wonder if an editorial by the WSJ will generate the same reaction. Here are the first and last paragraphs of the editorial.

"The violent protests of the last three months in Portland, Ore., escalated on Saturday night into a right-left confrontation that resulted in one man shot dead in the streets. This is what happens when political leaders fail to perform the most basic responsibility of government to protect innocent lives and property.

...

"Vigilantism isn’t the cause of the current urban violence, but it could become one result of the failure to control violence. Americans have watched for weeks as rioters burned and looted businesses that people spent a lifetime building. Yet mayors like Ted Wheeler have let it happen. Inevitably, average citizens will move to defend themselves if elected officials won’t protect them. The proper place to do that is at the ballot box, however, not in the streets with guns."

Stating that "average citizens will move to defend themselves" is a more restrained way of asking "[h]ow shocked are we that 17-year olds with rifles decided they had to maintain order ... ?"

Is Tucker Carlson a racist who supports vigilantes?

The uproar over what Tucker Carlson said after a teenager allegedly shot and killed two people and shot and wounded a third is a shame and a sham. Here is what he said.

"Kenosha devolved into anarchy because the authorities abandoned the people. Those in charge, from the governor on down, refused to enforce the law. They’ve stood back and watched Kenosha burn." (Tweet, almost verbatim transcript.)

"Are we really surprised that looting and arson accelerated to murder? How shocked are we that 17-year olds with rifles decided they had to maintain order when no one else would?"

Reaction has been severe. Folks says that Carlson justifies or defends the shooter. Robert Reich says “If they don’t take action after this, every one of Fox News’s executives, directors, and advertisers is complicit in Tucker Carlson’s racist, murderous rants."

I see a difference between what Carlson says and a justification, defense, or racist murderous rant. I see a prediction that 17-year olds with rifles decide to maintain order when the government does not. If saying that people steal more when no one stops them does not justify or defend the thief. Nor does saying that more people defend their property themselves when the government fails to protect the property justify or defend the vigilante. Neither response is surprising because the response is predictable. Neither statement justifies or defends the response. 

I suspect that what Reich says about Carlson is a despicable attempt to attract eyeballs; Carlson does not mention race during the segment and takes care to proclaim both that he does not have all the facts and that a trial will determine whether or not the shootings were murder. Reserving judgement is neither racist nor murderous.  

Carlson is no angel here. The headline, "Two people killed in riots", makes the riots appear to be the cause of death. In fact, the allegation is that a vigilante killed two people. That the vigilante was responding to the riots does not make the riots the cause of death.

Discussing the consequences of violent protests and the governments reaction or lack of reaction to them is an important component of a meaningful analysis of the impact of defunding the police and reforming policing. We need more meaningful analysis of the impacts, not partisan narratives.

Should we "follow the science?"

The emphasis by some politicians and reporters that public policy should follow the science is a shame and a sham. By following the science, they mean implementing policies that Dr. Fauci and others who study rates of infection, hospitalizations, ICU and ventilator usage, and deaths from COVID-19 recommend. If these expert scientists tell us that imposing shutdowns, masks, or other dictates would save some level of lives because the rates exceed some level, "following the science" means that the politicians would follow the recommendation and impose the recommended shutdowns, masks, or other dictates. This singular focus on the adverse impacts of COVID-19 ignores the reality that the implementing the recommendations imposes its own costs. What happens to current income when the government commands people not to work? What happens to learning and future incomes when the government commands students to learn remotely? What happens to death rates from other diseases? What happens to rates of depression and suicide now and in the future? This sample of questions shows that anyone trying to determine the best response to COVID-19 should balance many competing priorities.

I agree that the "most elemental duty of the politician [is] the balancing of competing priorities." Politicians who say or imply that that COVID-19 is the only priority shirk their most elemental duty. For reporters not to press them to ask about how they balance competing priorities stifles the honest and difficult debate we need.  

Trump claims mail-in voting leads to voter fraud without evidence

The repeated editorial comment by the media that Trump fails to present evidence to support his claim that mail-in voting leads to voter fraud or that the claim is unsubstantiated is a shame and a sham. Any sentient human knows fraud occurs. It also understands that mail-in ballots are more prone to fraud than in-person voting. Moreover, substantial evidence exists that fraud occurs. See this report by Politico, this database complied by the Heritage Foundation, this academic study of voting by non-citizens, and the recent problems with and abuses of mail-in and absentee ballots in New York, North Carolina and New Jersey. 

Commentators can argue about whether fraud is widespread or not and how many outcomes it affects. The argument is constrained because we don't know how much fraud occurs. We don't know because we don't examine many elections or ballots closely. Prosecutors have little reason to investigate unless the fraud is egregious or obvious. Moreover, if the "right" candidate won the prosecutor may not want to investigate. Not finding fraud when no one is looking for it does not prove that fraud does not exist. 

Is Biden's claim about masks accurate?

I fear that Biden's claim about the efficacy of wearing masks and the media's complacency in reporting it are both shams and and shames. Biden claimed that "The estimates by the experts are that it [mandatory mask wearing] will save over 40,000 lives in the next three months." A quick Google search reveals no support for the claim. The search does reveal that in June the IHME forecast that wearing masks would save 33,000 by October. Perhaps Biden rounded up and presumed that the mandate would make people go back in time to change their behavior retroactively. Otherwise, how would wearing masks for three months save 40,000 lives when wearing them for five months would save only 33,000?

Compounding the exaggeration is the lack of any attempt that I have seen by the media to press him on the basis for his recommendation. The media stresses the inability of Trump to "follow the science" and repeats endlessly that he makes statements "without evidence". What is the science that says wearing masks for the next three months would save 40,000 lives? What evidence did he provide to support his claim other a vague reference to "experts"? The media mocks Trump when he says, "people say". Saying "experts say" is no better.

Obama and "peaceful protesters"

What President Obama said about "sending [federal] agents to use tear gas and batons against peaceful demonstrators," is a sham and a shame. The agents are not attacking peaceful protesters. They use force only when someone threatens them or federal property. Calling people who shoot explosives at federal agents or buildings, set fires to property, shine blinding lasers into eyes of federal agents, or tear down fences surrounding federal properties "peaceful protesters" is so false that I don't know whether to call the description fake news or despicable. A more accurate description is "rioters". We need honest and clear discussion about the role of federal agents, not false narratives about what they do.

Obama on the filibuster

What President Obama said about the filibuster at John Lewis's funeral is a sham and a shame. He called the filibuster a "relic of Jim Crow". His statement implies that the right to filibuster is racist and began during the Jim Crow era. Both implications are false. The filibuster is not racist and did not begin in the Jim Crow era. 

We need careful and thoughtful debate before deciding whether or not to remove the filibuster, not false portrayals of the filibuster as being racist. Ds don't want to remove the filibuster because it is racist. I suspect that they want to remove it to grab power. I suspect that they envision a Biden victory, gaining a majority in the Senate, and keeping control of the House. Then, by removing the filibuster, they could add Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico as states and give themselves another "safe" four seats in future Senates, perhaps "pack" the Supreme Court, and pass any bill no matter how much the Rs attempt to resist. 

Obama's claim that the filibuster is racist differs sharply from recent history. "In 2017 most Senate Democrats signed a letter supporting the filibuster because 'we are steadfastly committed to ensuring that this great American institution continues to serve as the world’s greatest deliberative body.'" Either the Ds then were ignorant or the filibuster's association with racism or willing to overlook the association because it served a greater good. Or maybe the claim is false.

Obama would have been more accurate if he had said that the filibuster was used by Senators to delay civil rights legislation in the 1950s and 60s. However, that segregationists used the filibuster does not make it a relic of Jim Crow. Its use preceded and survives Jim Crow and has been used many more times to delay action on issues not related to Jim Crow. That racists use something does not make the thing racist. That racists used their votes to elect segregationists does not make voting racist.  

The filibuster did not begin during Jim Crow. In fact, the filibuster has been standard practice in the Senate since the founding of the country. Filibuster occurs when someone uses the right to unlimited debate to delay taking a vote on a motion. One of the first to threaten to limit unlimited debate and the ability to filibuster was Henry Clay, hardly a paragon of civil rights and racial equality. 

The Senate adopted a rule, known as cloture, to limit debate in 1917. They agreed a vote of 2/3 of the Senators would end debate. The Senate reduced the number of votes needed to 3/5 in 1975. Subsequently the so-called nuclear option reduced the number to a simple majority for confirming federal judges and, later, for confirming Supreme Court judges.

I agree with Thomas Sowell

Thomas Sowell says black and minority lives would improve if politicians supported charter schools (Fox News, July 2020).

Not one drop

The VCU Committee on Commemoration and Memorials has recommended de-commemoration of anyone recognized publicly by the University or the City of Richmond who served in the military of the Confederacy or provided medical care for the military of the Confederacy. The list of names of people that they want to de-commenorate include James Dooley, Fitzhugh Lee, Lewis Ginter, Hunter McGuire, Matthew Fontaine Maury, the McCaw family because of medical care provided by James B. McCaw, the Tompkins family because of medical care provided by Sally Tompkins, W.C. Wickham, and Judson B. Wood.

I don't think that applying a strict litmus test is the best way to determine whether or not to recognize a historical figure. I would prefer to reflect more generally on the accomplishments. 

1. Did the person do something that merits recognition? 
2. Could we recognize the person for contributions to humankind or the University while acknowledging their flaws. 
3. Might we consider more carefully their views on slavery, race, and succession before dismissing their accomplishments? Given the contentious discussions we are having now about race and federalism, adding information about their positions on race, slavery, and succession to their commemorations could be wonderful opportunities to learn. 
4. Might we consider more carefully their reasons for providing service to the Confederacy? Should we expunge people who opposed succession or provided service because they felt their primary allegiance was to their State or community instead of the nation? Adding information about why they served to their commemorations could be wonderful opportunities to learn about the concepts of duty, honor and patriotism. 
5. Might we embrace forgiveness as a value, similar to what Nelson Mandela did, when we judge them.  

Read below to learn more about the people the Committee wants to de-commemorate.


James Dooley
Major Dooley’s leadership of various civic endeavors runs as a continuous thread through the history of Richmond, from the early 1870s through the early 1920s. Like his father before him, he was a faithful board member of St. Joseph’s Orphanage for over 50 years. He served on the board of the Medical College of Virginia and, in 1919, gave the funds for the construction of the Dooley Hospital. He became an officer of the Virginia Cooperative Education Association, which advocated universal public education. A gifted orator, Major Dooley rallied the community around many causes, including support for Irish famine victims.


Hunter Holmes McGuire
was a physician, teacher, and orator. He started several schools and hospitals which later became part of the Medical College of Virginia (MCV) in Richmond, Virginia. McGuire was later president of the American Medical Association. McGuire contributed to the original (first) of the Geneva Conventions, which is why the Boston Medical Journal said in his obituary that he had "humanized war."

James McCaw
During his lifetime he was successively Professor of Chemistry and of the Practice of Medicine in the Medical College of Virginia for many years, served as Dean of the Faculty for twelve years, and at the time of his death was President of the Board of Visitors of the College. He was also a charter member and one of the founders of the Medical Society of Virginia, and at one time President of the Richmond Academy of Medicine. He pioneered advances in emergency care.


Sally Tompkins
She joins the ranks of women like Clara Barton who responded to the urgent needs which were presented during the Civil War, especially after the Battle of First Bull Run when the realities of warfare became stark in both the Union and Confederate capital cities. They helped develop nursing into the skilled profession it was to become. Sally Tompkins reported obsession with cleanliness led to progress in sanitation during treatment. Her proven lower mortality rates as a result are exceptionally notable among her many legacies to the United States and medical providers everywhere, practices still in widespread use.


Fitzhugh Lee

After the war, Lee devoted himself to farming in Stafford County, Virginia, and was conspicuous in his efforts to reconcile the Southern people to the issue of the war, which he regarded as a final settlement of the questions at issue. In 1875, he attended the Battle of Bunker Hill centennial at Boston and delivered a remarkable address. In 1885, he was a member of the board of visitors of West Point, and from 1886 to 1890 was governor of Virginia having defeated in 1885 Republican John Sergeant Wise with 52.77% of the vote.^[4]

Lee commanded the third division at both of President Grover Cleveland's inaugural parades in 1885 and 1893.^[8]

In April 1896, Lee was appointed consul-general at Havana by President Cleveland, with duties of a diplomatic and military character added to the usual consular business. In this post (in which he was retained by President William McKinley until 1898) he was from the first called upon to deal with a situation of great difficulty, which culminated with the destruction of the warship USS Maine. Upon the declaration of war between Spain and the United States, he re-entered the army.

He was one of four ex-Confederate general officers who were made major generals of United States Volunteers (the others being Matthew Butler, Joseph Wheeler and Thomas L. Rosser). Fitzhugh Lee commanded the 7th Army Corps, but took no part in the actual operations in Cuba. He was military governor of Havana and Pinar del Río in 1899, subsequently commanded the Department of the Missouri, and retired in 1901 as a brigadier general, U.S. Army.

Lewis Ginter

Major Lewis Ginter (April 24, 1824 – October 1, 1897) was a prominent businessman, military officer, real estate developer, and philanthropist centered in Richmond, Virginia. A native of New York City, Ginter accumulated a considerable fortune throughout his numerous business ventures and became one of Richmond's wealthiest citizens despite his exceptionally modest demeanor.^[1] While the Jefferson Hotel, Lewis Ginter Botanical Garden, and Ginter Park embody some of Ginter's major urban contributions to Richmond, many of his philanthropic gifts were given anonymously to charitable organizations and individuals in need.^[2] His continued devotion to Richmond is captured in his famous remark, "I am for Richmond, first and last."^[3]

Matthew Fontaine Maury 

was an American astronomer, naval  officer, historian, oceanographer, meteorologist, cartographer, author, geologist, and educator. He was nicknamed "Pathfinder of the Seas" and "Father of Modern Oceanography and Naval Meteorology" and later, "Scientist of the Seas" for his extensive works in his books, especially The Physical Geography of the Sea (1855), the first such extensive and comprehensive book on oceanography to be published. Maury made many important new contributions to charting winds and ocean currents, including ocean lanes for passing ships at sea. 

Williams Carter Wickham 
was a Virginia lawyer, plantation owner and politician. At the Virginia Secession Convention of 1861, Wickham voted against secession. After the American Civil War, Wickham became a Republican and served in the Virginia Senate as well as became President of the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway company. After the surrender of the Confederacy, Wickham was active in improving harmony between the states and reorganizing Virginia's economy, which had been ruined by the war. He became a Republican and voted in 1872 for General Ulysses S. Grant as a member of the Electoral College of Virginia.


Finally, I quote some passages from E. P. Alexander, Military Memoirs of a Confederate: A Critical Analysis.They illustrate that at least some Confederates were not motivated by a desire to preserve slavery or white supremacy. I think that we could learn from them.

When given the opportunity to remain in the Union army and serve his time on the West coast away from the war, he replied

What is Russia trying to do?

What we are hearing about Russian interference in the 2020 election is a sham and a shame. I don't know whether to blame the intelligence reports or the news media. Here is what AP reports:

"Just weeks into this year’s election cycle, Russia already is actively interfering in the U.S. presidential campaign in hopes of reelecting President Donald Trump, and is also trying to help the candidacy of Sen. Bernie Sanders on the Democratic side, intelligence officials have concluded.

The Russian efforts are aimed at undermining public confidence in the integrity of U.S. elections and stirring general chaos in American politics, intelligence experts say" (https://apnews.com/1398cc440971a3f39d95346a875d3726, 21 Feb 2020).

I suspect that the second paragraph is accurate. I am confident that "the Russian efforts are aimed at undermining public confidence in the integrity of U.S. elections and stirring general chaos in American politics." The best way to undermine confidence and to stir chaos is to focus on non-traditional candidates with a core of fervent followers. Therefore putting out disinformation that is favorable to Trump or Sanders is probably the best way to undermine confidence and to stir chaos.

However, I challenge the statements in the first paragraph. No one knows who Russia hopes wins the nominations or elections. To claim otherwise is speculation. Moreover, the first paragraph contradicts itself. It  states that the goal is to help reelect Donald Trump and also to help Bernie Sanders. Unless having Bernie be the Democratic nominee helps Trump win the election, the two goals in the first paragraph are not the same.  

Holman Jenkins of the WSJ makes my point more emphatically. "We are idiots if we think the Russians are asking themselves what they can do to advance Trump’s cause. The Kremlin is asking how to keep American politics roiled and distrustful. ... The real upside of Russia’s meddling comes from keeping Americans unreasonably and unnecessarily poisoned against each other."

I see two possibilities for why the media keeps repeating something they cannot know. The first possibility is that the news media is not thinking. Instead, they are repeating a narrative about Trump and Russia without recognizing that the account is speculative and internally inconsistent. The second possibility is that the news media is repeating phrases from an intelligence briefing or a leak from a briefing and do not want to stray from the language of the source. The first possibility tells me that the news media is being lazy. The second possibility tells me that the intelligence agency or person describing the report is putting "spin" on the facts.

We need truth today. We need facts unvarnished with spin or narrative. We need reporters who say what they know and who refrain from speculating about things they can't know and from repeating mindlessly an what someone leaking a confidential report said was in the report.

Note: Reference to Holman Jenkins is a revision to the original post.