The Italian Job

What is the connection between Italy and China all about?

Back in 1269, Marco Polo, the Italian explorer, traveled East to the orient and made contact with one of the oldest civilizations on the planet.  The Chinese welcomed him and Polo brought back Chinese inventions to Italy, such as pasta and gunpowder - or so the story goes.  Trade routes were opened up to the orient, and the rest is history.

Well, a checkered history.  The Chinese government later on became weak, and Western powers, finding new uses for this "gunpowder" invention, managed to colonize China, forcing trade concessions in Hong Kong and Singapore, among other places.  The Opium wars erupted.  The boxer rebellion.  Then Japan decided to try its hand at this colonization thing, and all hell broke loose.  It was only after World War II and the Communist revolution that China clawed its way back to power and self-determination.   With liberalization of its markets after the rapprochement under Nixon, the Chinese economy took off like a rocket, to where it is today.

Prior to then, China was largely isolated from the Western world.  Today, China is exerting influence - economic influence - across the globe.  Its "Belt and Road" initiative, is replacing the silk road of Marco Polo.  The Chinese government is engaging other countries - not militarily, but economically, investing in many industries, encouraging development across the world, and often lending money to various countries to do this.   Our model is to set up an airbase and then sell these countries weapons - something that has accelerated over the last few years.  The carrot versus the stick - maybe China has the right idea, although they seem to be moving to a stick model, themselves.

 As a result of this economic development, Chinese people are migrating (along with everyone else) to other countries, including Italy.   Hundreds of thousands of Chinese now live in Italy, and Chinese companies have bought up Italian businesses, particularly high-end leather goods manufacturers, which sell these luxury items in the home country to the new generation of affluent Chinese.  The Italians, aging and struggling with their own economy, are only all too happy to sell out.   This is not a critique - the Chinese are being good capitalists, as we would do.  Except what we do is open an McDonald's in Venice, instead.  Again, who's the idiot here?

But as you might expect, with such a large Chinese population, and an outbreak of a virus in China, Chinese people returning from China were likely the vector that spread the virus to Northern Italy. And with the average age in Italy being seven years higher than China, the mortality rate has been much worse.  Throw in the fact that Italians smoke like chimneys, and you have a perfect storm.

Some crackpot right-wing media sites started making the connection between the virus outbreak in Northern Italy and the influx of Chinese immigrants to that area.  Many discounted this, but now even the New York Times has taken note of it.   And if you google "Chinese immigrants in Italy" you will see there are stories going back several years about this issue.  Some right-wing Italians are not happy about the 350,000 legal immigrants (and some say, just as many illegal ones) and the Chinese themselves complain about discrimination and poor treatment in their new adopted home.

Again, this is just stating facts - it is not "racist" to say this virus originated in China and spread from there.   It is not "racist" to say the Chinese government, which is prone to chronic lying all of the time - and brutal suppression of its own people - has mishandled this crises and by suppressing information until it was embarrassingly obvious what was going on and is partly to blame for the spread of this.   Sadly, in response to this crises, the Chinese government has retreated further into its fantasy land - now blaming the virus as a biological weapon unleashed by the United States and further cracking down on freedoms of their own people.

It is sad, too.  Because the success of China in the last few decades has been a direct result of increased freedoms for its people, its markets, and greater transparency in its government.  As a result of this virus, I think we will see China retreat further and further into paranoia, becoming a very, very large North Korea.  China's military will assume greater power and its military ambitions increase further.  This, in turn, will damage their economy even further, as more market and personal freedoms are curtailed and joint ventures with Western countries are fractured.  It is a downward death spiral - each new piece of bad news will be justification for further retrenchment.

If the 20th Century was "The American Century" then the 21st had the potential to be "The Chinese Century".  But it remains to be seen whether China can continue to grow and expand, while at the same time, reverting to its old, totalitarian ways.

So far, it seems like they are going in the wrong direction.

Hoarding, Again

What causes people to hoard things?   Fear.

I hesitate to even write this.  If I even mention the toilet paper hoarding that is (or at least was) going on, it will only prompt people to think, "Hmmmm.... there is a toilet paper shortage - I'd better buy some!" and the whole problem bootstraps itself.  As I noted in an earlier posting:

We stopped by the Walmart, where people were frantically putting cases of water and toilet paper in their carts.  It was a mob scene,with the employees bringing out pallets of water, which were quickly stripped bare, as if by piranha.   Lots of shouting and hollering going on.  Apparently they're going to go home, stay hydrated, and shit their guts out. The cold and flu section was also completely ravaged as well. 

It was infectious, too - moreso than the virus.  Mark said, "Gee, maybe we should get some water, too!" and then I reminded him we bought a case not long ago - not because we were paranoid about the virus, but because we were camping.   Oh, and the trailer has a 40-gallon fresh water tank that is full.  I think we are fine in the water department, and the virus isn't going to shut off tap water anytime soon.

Hoarding works the same way.   People react to hoarding by others by hoarding of their own.  And sadly, efforts to curb hoarding end up causing more hoarding.  So when stores say "due to short supply, limit five per customer!" people who wanted to buy one roll of toilet paper will buy five (the suggested amount, after all) and the folks who weren't going to buy at all, end up buying.  "Gee, there's a toilet paper shortage, I guess I'd better buy some!"

Worse yet are government attempts to "cure" shortages with price controls or "anti-gouging" laws or regulations.  These serve only to increase shortages, as the incentive to supply the masses evaporates overnight.   If someone is paying $20 for a roll of toilet paper (the current meme which has no basis in reality) then someone, somewhere, would go out and find a roll for them - perhaps from their own bathroom vanity.   The hoarder will sell his hoard when he realizes that prices are berserk - or at least one will.  Then the price drops to $19 a roll - and another hoarder sells out "before the price drops further!" until no one is hoarding and the price is back to normal.

When you limit sales or control prices artificially, this serves only to increase the perception that there is a shortage and that prices should be higher - encouraging more hoarding.  Once people realize there is no shortage (and with toilet paper today, there was no, is no, and will be no shortage of this commodity, if Georgia-Pacific has anything to say about it) they stop panic buying.

It is akin to the change shortage that occurred in Argentina a few years' back.   People got the idea in their head that there was a shortage of change for bus fare.  Probably some person got on the bus and said, "Gee, I have no change!" and someone heard this and said, "there is no change!" and then told a friend - probably on Facebook - and before long, people started hoarding change, deluging banks for change, and voila! a change shortage actually occurred.

Over time, people realize there is no real change shortage, and eventually, people wake up one day and realize there is a jar of change on their desk for no reason.   No doubt in a week or two - if not already - people will realize they have more toilet paper than they need until the end of 2020, and no one is going to pay them $20 a roll for it.

What happens in the marketplace?  Well, as prices and demand go up, people rush in with more supply.  Walmart is stocking the shelves with toilet paper as we speak.  Paper mills are making it.  Truckers are trucking it.  We won't run out.   In Argentina, the mints produced more change, banks distributed it, and eventually, people realized they had enough.

Or, people turn to alternatives.   Bottled water in short supply?  Drink tap water and put it in those reusable bottles of which you have twenty of (as they give them away as promotional items).   No change for the bus?  Eventually, the bus company will install a card reader or just raise fares to an even paper peso paper currency amount.  Out of toilet paper?  Our ancestors did without, using all sorts of alternatives, including wash cloths (that were sanitized and re-used).   But I doubt it will get to that.

Sadly, these things take on a life of their own.  Articles are written about the "shortage".  TeeVee news pieces are done showing frantic shoppers and empty shelves.  Editorial cartoons show people hoarding toilet paper.  Other articles and opinion pieces exhort people not to hoard toilet tissue.  Each time this is mentioned, it merely bootstraps the deal - raising awareness in the minds of consumers that there is a "shortage" and "we'd better get some!"

But what is the underlying cause of this?  A number of  things, I think.  First is fear.  People are afraid of running out of something, and if reports come in that something is in short supply, it bootstraps that fear.   All it takes is for one shopper to see someone with a stack of toilet paper in their cart, and they, too, will decide they need to buy some.  It probably started with just one person - just like this virus.

Status is the second thing.  Everyone wants to be "the guy" who is luxuriating in quarantine, with an ample supply of bottled water and toilet paper (and apparently meat).  "Those other bastards are suffering!" they say, "I'm wiping my ass with an entire roll of toilet paper every day!"  It is akin to the Christmas shopping nightmare every year, where the media anoints some product as this year's Cabbage Patch doll or Tickle-me Elmo, and people start fighting over them.  "I won!" they seem to be saying, if they secure the coveted toy for their kids.

And you laugh, but it is true.  I recall the whole "Cabbage Patch" thing, where people (mostly white trash) lusted after these ugly little dolls, and when they got them, encouraged their kids to carry it everywhere with them so as to show off that their child  has the desired toy!   Who the fuck carries dolls to the grocery store?  No one, until this Cabbage Patch nonsense.

The third reason is the same reason hoarders hoard junk in their homes.  They perceive something to be valuable, and thus keep it, even when it has a trivial real-world value.  The want to "rescue" the world by being the person with the desired item at the right place and at the right time.  Thus, we are treated to stories in the media about "hero toilet paper man" who stands on a street corner handing out rolls of toilet paper as a savior to us all (who the fuck needs Jesus anymore?).   Like any hoarder, he is acting out his save-the-day scenario.  It is sick thinking, really.

Hell is other people - and we are seeing this today, with this virus thing.   The virus itself is bad, but human behavior is even worse.   We are seeing people intentionally flaunting safety guidelines just to act out the "bad boy" behavior.  Others are running around as virus vigilantes either in person or on Facebook.  Politicians are either doing too little or too much.  The media is hyping the whole thing for ratings.  People are hoarding nonsensical items like bottled water and toilet paper, crowding into stores to buy them - not realizing that is the prime place to get the virus in the first place.

China is already seeing the epidemic peter out, after a month or two of quarantine.   Those that got the virus either lived (about 97%) or died.  The rest never got it.   Life is going back to normal there, and we can expect the same to happen in America - and the rest of the world - in a few weeks or months at the latest.

Stories about "bodies stacking up at the morgue" and whatnot are sensational, but tend to overstate the case.   More people died on the highways in America trying to get home from vacation or back to Canada than have died from this virus.   In fact, probably by a factor of ten or so.   Every two or three days, more people die in car accidents than have died from this virus in the United States.   Even if thousands die - in a nation of 330 million - it pales in comparison to the overall death rate.

This is not to trivialize the virus (again, take your damning and shaming elsewhere - no sale here!) only to point out reality.   There is no toilet paper shortage.  There is no bottled water shortage.  And life will return to "normal" faster than you think it will - although the new normal may be slightly different than the previous one, as I noted before.

But this ain't the end of the world - by a long shot.

Letter to the Editor - New Yorker

Reading the New Yorker these days is disorienting.  But some of the readers provide the best writing.

A recent article in the New Yorker argues that outcomes should be equalized to make everything "fair" in life.   The author used, as an example, that when leaving money to your kids, you should "adjust" the amount to each child based on their needs:  

They have four children, who range in age from their late teens to their late twenties. Chloe, the oldest, is a math wiz with a coding job at Google; she hopes to start her own company soon. Will, who has a degree in social work, is paying off his student debt while working at a halfway house for recovering addicts. The twins, James and Alexis, are both in college. James, a perpetually stoned underachiever, is convinced that he can make it as a YouTuber. (He’s already been suspended twice, for on-campus pranks.) Alexis, who hopes to become a poet, has a congenital condition that could leave her blind by middle age.

How odd, as this sort of describes my family.  My sister wasn't blind, but she did end up dying prematurely from cancer.   My older brother is an artist who is making a living, but hardly getting rich.   I am not a coder at Google, but managed to do OK in the Patent business.  And my other brother... well, if the shoe fits.

Parents often divert more money to children they perceive as being "in need" and this does prompt some children to learn that being "in need" can be a profitable venture.   In the book The Millionaire Next Door, the author notes that many of these self-made millionaires view their daughters as damaged goods who will require monetary support well into adulthood.

In my case, my Father would write checks to my sister every month - long before she was diagnosed with cancer.  She did not marry well, and with children, she was always strapped for cash.  Of course, her "needs" included cable television - and they had a nice house, cars, and food on the table.  They were hardly destitute, and perhaps if her husband didn't cash his paycheck in bars..... but I digress.   But it does make one wonder - would her life have been different without the financial support of my Dad?  Would she have learned to be more self-sufficient and perhaps kicked her husband in the ass to stop blowing payday money on beer?  Perhaps.

But of course, it got more complicated than that, and once she was diagnosed with cancer, well, you can't blame Dad for trying to help her out financially.   My Mother used to say, "Well, we want to treat each of you the same - no favorites!" and for a while, whenever my sister would get a monthly check for $500, my Mother would write checks to the rest of us as well, to be "fair".    Unfortunately, they realized quite quickly that on their limited income, they could afford to support my Sister to the tune of $500 a month, but not all four of us for $2000 a month.   So the checks lasted a month or two and nothing more was heard about it.

When my Father died, he wrote me out of his will - not that he had a substantial amount of money to leave behind.   My Mother, as I noted before, left her money in a trust which was distributed equally to all four of us (or in my sister's case, her surviving children).    Was I bitter or angry about any of this?  Hell, no, and let me tell you why.

First of all, it ain't my money.    Sob stories abound online, on forums and "Dear Help Me" columns about children who think they have a "right" to an inheritance, and end up getting screwed.   Parents can do as they please with their money - just as you can with yours.  They can spend it, give it away to an odious Pentecostal church, or favor one child over the other, based solely on eye color.   They can be rational, arbitrary, fair, or biased.  It is their choice, and their choice alone.

In my situation, I certainly have no qualms - my sister's story is a tragic one, and my Father rightly wanted to make sure her children were provided for.   But overall, it is better, in the example from the New Yorker above, to be the wealthy "coder" with their own money, than to be the slacker ne'er-do-well, the social worker, or the girl tragically going blind.

But that was not the point of the article. The author posited that we need to equalize outcomes in society by providing more money to those who don't succeed.  This seems to be a mantra among liberals these days, who seem to have forgotten what "Equal Opportunity" was all about.

The response to this article, however, was interesting.  From the Letters to the Editor, February 3, 2020:

Joshua Rothman examines many perspectives on what it means to create an equal society (“Same Difference,” January 13th). I wonder whether, for those seeking progress, equality of opportunity should be the focal point. The concept implicitly acknowledges that although we are not all created equal, we should all have the chance to attain satisfaction in life. Rothman considers whether a child who is going blind should receive a larger share of an inheritance than her siblings. I lost my vision at the age of thirteen. The special instruction I received in the years that followed enabled me to attend college and law school. I may not be equal in a physical sense, but Connecticut’s public-education system enabled me to pursue my career. Of course, one person’s opportunity could be another’s closed door, for any number of reasons. Still, equality of opportunity is a good place to start.
Adrian SprattBrooklyn, N.Y.

Handicapped people don't want special treatment, but rather the chance to succeed on their merits.  They do not want equalized outcomes, but merely equalized opportunities.

I digress, but let's get this out of the way - the term "Handicapped" is not a slur, insult, or demeaning in any way, but merely a descriptive adjective.  This whole nonsense of people being "differently abled" is just that.  As one comedian noted, being handicapped is not being "differently abled" but rather having one less ability than others.

And no, the term "handicapped" was not derived from people begging "cap-in-hand" - that is a false etymology - read your Snopes!

Sadly, a lot of "non-disabled" people believe that the purpose of things like handicapped bathroom stalls and handicapped parking isn't to allow for equal participation in everyday life but rather as a special "treat" to compensate for disability - to try to make the outcome equal, rather than level the playing field.  People have written to Dear Abby complaining that "normal people" shouldn't used the handicapped-accessible stall in the restroom, as it is reserved for handicapped people.   This is, of course, bullshit.

I had a blind friend in college, and he vehemently wanted to live an independent life, dependent on no one, or as few people as possible.   No one wants to be coddled or supported by others.  No one wants to be a burden to society (except Bernie Bros. - and they are not handicapped!).   People want independence and dignity and a chance to succeed on their merits as the letter-writer above illustrates.

In the not-so-distant past, handicapped people were shunted off to institutions or forced to stay at home, living on the largess (and at the whim) of able-bodied relatives.  It was sort of like What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? - and yes, abuse of the disabled did occur (and sadly, still does).

The folks who want equal outcomes are well-meaning, but again, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.   It is sort of like those events where someone decides to let Benny, the retarded boy, "win" at a game, by having the other players not oppose him.   I suspect that Benny knows what is going on - that he is being pandered to.  And perhaps he goes along with this because it makes the "abled" people fell better about themselves for helping a disadvantaged person.  But what Benny really wants is to be part of society - contributing to it and working like any other person - not to be some sideshow act and patronized and pandered to, to appease the guilt feelings of others.

Today there are better opportunities than ever before, for handicapped people.   Almost all businesses are wheelchair accessible (by law) and it is far easier to get around, if you can't walk.   For the blind, computers allow them to translate text-to-speech and access volumes of data online.  No longer the need to read braille, or try to find publications in braille!  For the deaf, the same is true, and there is talk of curing deafness with electronic medical devices - something some deaf people don't think they need to be cured of.  Experiments in curing blindness electronically are proceeding as well.  And for the retarded, "mainstreaming" is much more common and institutionalization, far less.

These are all good things - allowing people to fully participate in life.  We have made incredible advances in the last 50 years.  Oh, right, the world is a rotten place.  What am I thinking?  I need to toe the party line of the TeeVee and Facebook.  Heretic!

So what's the harm in equalized outcomes versus equalized opportunities?  Some people can't even tell the difference between the two!  Equal opportunity means eliminating arbitrary barriers to success in the world - barriers such as denying jobs based on race or ethnicity or religion or whatnot.  It also means eliminating physical barriers, particularly for handicapped people - something as simple as a street curb can be as daunting as a ten-foot wall to someone in a wheelchair (although some more athletically inclined can jump a curb in a wheelchair - I've seen it done!).

Once they have the opportunity they can determine their own outcome based on their abilities, not their disabilities.  And yes, outcomes are partially determined by luck and circumstance as well.  My blind friend worked at his father's bank, something that sort of stuck in his craw, as he felt it was something of a handout - or that others would perceive it as such.  It also meant he was beholden to his father - and couldn't piss him off (as I did with mine).   Freedom means the freedom to tell people to fuck off, if they deserve it.   I don't know what became of my blind friend  (I checked online, it seems he, too, has passed away.  Getting old sucks - everyone you know, dies!).

Today, it seems the conversation has morphed from equal opportunity to equal outcomes.   Programs like Affirmative Action, set aside places in college and the employment based on race, not ability - effectively changing outcomes.  Some argue that such extreme measures are needed, as even with equal opportunities, it could take generations for true equality to take place in the marketplace.   It is an argument - whether one agrees with it or not.  My only take is that if Affirmative Action is a band-aid to fix past discrimination, at what point does the band-aid get removed?   Either the wound heals or it never will.

Similarly, all this talk about "income inequality" falls along the same lines.  Some today posit that income inequality or wealth inequality (and the two are far different things!) is "unfair" and the only way to fix this problem is to take away income or even wealth from the few and give it to the many, to equalize outcomes, which over time will equalize opportunities.

The progressive tax system is an acknowledgment that to some extent, even earned income can be a windfall in the upper brackets.   For example, Jeff Bezos started out selling used books, borrowing money from his parents to establish Amazon, literally in a garage.   He has done pretty well since then, but of course, we all like to take a piss on him now that he has so much money and perhaps too much influence.  But he is an example of the "self-made man" that is still possible in America, and one reason we should encourage equal opportunities but not equal outcomes - the incentive of wealth is what drives people to succeed.   Some succeed more than others.

But to some extent, we do attempt to equalize outcomes - and we used to do it more.  The graduated or "progressive" income tax increases tax rates on individuals for amounts made over certain thresholds.  In the past, these marginal rates could be as high as 75% or more, but today they have been dropped to about 35% or so.  The problem with the progressive tax is that for the super-wealthy, they have ways around such onerous taxes - moving other countries, moving assets offshore, paying themselves in capital gains instead of ordinary income, and so on and so forth

Not only that, but studies have shown that over-taxing individuals can dampen an economy.  And it was no less than Jack Kennedy who instituted one of the early tax rate cuts, in response to the recession of 1958-1960, to bolster the economy.  Progressive taxes are fine and all, but there is a point where they do more harm than good - and revenue from such taxes actually decreases.

In recent years, cutting taxes has been a mantra for Republicans, and perhaps we have cut taxes too far.  The Bush era tax cuts started the problem - it has only gotten worse.  Sadly, some politicians (such as Bernie) not only propose rolling back those tax cuts, but instituting draconian tax rates and even wealth taxes - neither of which have a chance of passing Congress anytime in our lifetimes.

The inheritance tax, or "Gifts and Estate Tax" as it is correctly known, also tries to level the playing field, but preventing people from passing huge sums of money from parent to child, thus creating family dynasties of wealth that can never be extinguished.   In countries like Mexico or South Korea, a small number of wealthy families end up controlling vast amounts of wealth, and as a result, opportunities for others are limited.   Again, in recent years, Republicans have slashed the "death tax" as they call it, even offering a one-year holiday (for those planning their deaths that year).   And perhaps we need to revisit this tax, although it is fraught with problems, too.

The Gifts and Estate tax has a lot of "loopholes" you can drive a bus through.  You can leave money to your grandkids in a "Crummy" generation-skipping trust and avoid the tax.  You can give money to your kids during your lifetime, annually, and avoid the tax (up to a certain dollar amount).  You can work around this tax - and the lower cutoff limits are pretty high to begin with.   If you tax people enough, they find ways around taxes - particularly the wealthy.   If you tell a rich person they can avoid $5 million in taxes if they spend $2.5 million, they will do so, even if it is ultimately wasteful spending.   They end up saving money - that's the point.

What the "income inequality" people fail to realize, is that if you take away all incentive to succeed and instead mandate equal outcomes for everyone, not many will succeed at all.  The Jeff Bezos of the world will not be encouraged to quit their jobs and risk it all to start a company in their garage.  Rather, they will hunker down and try to get "a good job" or pick their way through the hierarchy of the government to accumulate power.  Such is the fate of Communist countries, or even totalitarian countries (same difference) like Russia.

It is sad that a blind man can "see" this, but able-bodied people cannot.    Equal opportunities - yes.  Equal outcomes - no.

Facebook, the Real Virus

Politicians are doing things just to say they are "doing something".  Ordinary people aren't much better.

Today, we went to a picnic pavilion and grilled a couple of hamburgers for lunch.  The place was deserted and there was zero risk of transmitting or receiving any virus, whatsoever.  There were maybe a dozen people at the beach, in groups of 2-3, spaced at least 40 yards apart from one another. Again, zero risk.

But because some "spring break" kids were on the beach on a neighboring island and "someone took a picture of them" milling around, they decided to close the beaches here as well.   The same is true down in Florida.

What was weird was not one, but two busybody ladies came by while we were there.  The first said something along the lines of "Did those people" (referring to those on the beach) "have special permission to be there?"   We demurred that we didn't know.  "Well, I live here!' she said.  "We do, too" we replied.  I half expected the usual "You're too young to live here!" bullshit, but she held her tongue.  She was going around the island to check to see if the beach ban was really in effect, and to no doubt update her Facebook wall with a detailed report.

That's the problem with this self-quarantine - people don't have enough to do with their time and they go looking for trouble.  I suspect that spousal abuse - and familial murders - will increase in the coming weeks.

A half-hour later, I wandered over to the beach access to see if indeed the beach was "closed" with police tape or a sign or anything.  No sign of any "closing" going on.  And in fact, a four-wheeler from the turtle center ran down the beach, apparently ignoring the sun bathers violating the ban.  I think so long as people were not congregating in crowds, no one really cares - or should care.

Another busybody came by and tried the door to the restroom, which was locked.  The island authority decided to close the restrooms so no one could wash their hands.  Of course, I have an issue with the authority on that - they don't have hot water in the restrooms to begin with - a hand sanitizing faux pas.   Anyway, I said to the lady, "I hear the restrooms are closed," and she replied, "Yes, I know, we're just going around checking to make sure they did what they said they were going to do!"

I was a little taken aback by this - restroom vigilantes.   It is one thing to "quarantine" at home and practice CDC recommendations, another thing to go out and chastise other people and anoint yourself the virus police.   Oddly enough, the latter is more likely to get you infected - or infect others.  Just stay at home and mind your own fucking business.

A friend of mine who watches television and is on Facebook (we like them in spite of these character flaws) filled me in as to what is going on.  Apparently CNN is making a big deal out of this - showing the same clip over and over again of irresponsible millenials congregating on the beach, probably spreading the virus on purpose, so as to kill off all the baby boomers.  They were probably eating avocado toast at the same time.  Damn millenials - ruining everything, even this virus thing!  You kids - get off my lawn!   And my beach!

Anyway, the "Concerned Old Biddies of America" all got on Facebook and started a torch-and-pitchfork parade.  To the castle!  Kill the monster!   And now it is all out of hand.

Politicians, of course, love a parade.  When you see one, make sure you are out in front of it.  When this "tea party" thing started, for example, many Republican politicians scrambled to posit that they were the ones who started it all, not just the Johnny-come-latelies who were latching onto potential votes (later on, they just as quickly distanced themselves from it).  So politicians across the country are scrambling to show they are "doing something" by banning this or that.  Maybe avocado toast is next.

Close the restaurants!  Close the hotels!  Close Wall Street!  Close colleges!  Close schools!  Close businesses!  Close the beach!  Limit gatherings to an arbitrary number of people!  Hundreds of people have died here, folks!  Time to do something!

And maybe some of these actions make sense.  Others do not.  A wide-open beach, drenched in sun, isn't an unsafe place to be, provided you aren't sneezing in someone's face, which is hard to do when you are 40 yards away from them.    But forget common sense - just close the beach entirely, even if "beaches" aren't inherently unsafe.

Of course, there is a subtext here.  The folks on neighboring "pretend rich people's island" absolutely hate spring breakers.   We don't get a lot of them, but the old folks who live there despise the few they do get.   Here is a chance to get even with them.

My perspective is this:  I am more worried about giving someone this virus than getting it.  For all I know, I already have it, or had it (that nasty cold we had a couple of weeks ago).  Living on an island where the average age is 74, I don't want to be the typhoid Mary who kills off all my neighbors.   We went to pick up a golf cart for a friend of ours and the seller - who used to live on the island - is 80+ years old.  She invited us in, but we respectfully declined.   We've tried to stay at least 4-6 feet from folks, if not more.   But others are less cautious.  An oldster today came right up to me, was "in my face" and wanted to shake my hand.  I used a wipe afterwords (discreetly) but I was more worried about him than myself - after all, he was at least 80 years old, too.

The media is reporting a lot of hype.  A recent article cites a 32-year-old dying from the virus - "This could happen to you too, buddy!" was the message they seemed to be sending.  It is only paragraphs into the article that they explain he had major pulmonary problems that exacerbated the issue.  They made it sound like anyone could keel over dead from this, but the reality is, you have to be either very old or very sick, or very both.   The survival rate is 97%, and even higher among young, healthy kids.

If those kids get the virus, they may get ill, but once they recover, they will not be transmitting the virus and moreover be immune.  I think they realize this, too, which is why they are being "irresponsible" on the beach.   So long as they are not french-kissing Grandma, the risk to oldsters may be overstated.   Old people should be isolating themselves from others - particularly younger people.

I predict that in a week or so, people are going to chafe against these restrictions, particularly if the infection rate and death toll don't rise as predicted.   To date, far, far more people have been killed on the nation's highways than by this virus.   I believe we may be losing perspective.  This isn't MERS which had a whopping fatality rate of 34% or more.

But to suggest such a thing is heresy - in this age of social media.   Fake news and false rumors are valid, of course - you won't be shamed for being an anti-vaxxer on Facebook.  But calling out Chinese government policy makes you a racist.  Go figure.

Time will tell whether the measures taken were too much or too little.   I suspect this isn't the last time a pandemic will hit the world in our time - after all, the population keeps going up and up, and the closer we all live together, the more likely it is that some random piece of DNA will kill us.

That's how nature works - like with "invasive species" trying to stop these things is like shoveling water or herding cats.   The underlying problem is overpopulation - which the virus, it seems, is trying to cure for us.

Of course, someday, we may cure ourselves of this problem, as for the last 70 years or so, we've been poised to wipe ourselves off the face of the earth on a moment's notice.   Perhaps that is the ultimate "cure" for all of mankind's woes.

Sanders Considering Several Options for Campaign’s Future

Sanders is huddling with advisers to determine his next move.

Sen. Bernie Sanders has convened a series of weighty discussions about the future of his presidential campaign with his closest confidants, according to two people with direct knowledge of the conversations, and at least five potential paths forward have come up in the private talks.

Several options have been proposed, among them are:

1.  Remain in the race, and tear down Joe Biden with campaign attack ads and stump speeches, so that Biden will lose in November. 

2.  Actively aid Donald Trump by encouraging the "Bernie Bros." that Trump stands for the same things as he does.   It worked the last time... right?

3.  Act as a "useful idiot" for Vladimir Putin in helping advance the cause of Russia.  Jill Stein is ready to step in to assist, if need be.

4.  Run as an independent (which is what he is registered as, anyway) and encourage voters to "write-in" his name, so that Biden will lose one or two "Swing States" and Trump will once again win the electoral college, but lose the popular vote.  The Russian Internet Research Agency is already actively promoting this online.  (I am not kidding about this, either!).  Ralph Nader has encouraged this approach.

5.  Do the honorable thing, drop out of the race, pledge his delegates to Biden, and actively work to get Joe Biden elected, so we won't have four more years of Trump. Retire to his dacha on Lake Champlain and enjoy a well-deserved retirement, and stop being an annoying pain-in-the-ass to the rest of us.

Of the five options, number five was quickly shouted down. "Bernie has never done the honorable thing!" one of his advisers notes, "It just isn't his style.  Bernie is all about Bernie - always has been, and always will be.  He really doesn't care if he destroys the village to save a village.   The main thing is, he has to be morally right, even if he destroys the country in the process!"

The people with knowledge of the talks spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe sensitive conversations. They cautioned that other options or nuances may also be on the table and stressed that Sanders (I-Vt.) had not yet made up his mind. and was still trying to reach out to supporters. A campaign spokesman did not dispute their account.

So, gear up for four more years of Trump!

(c) 2020 Fun with Cut-and-Paste