A pretty alarming, but not alarmist, view of the COVID 19 emergency as it now stands.

 

http://www.gyromantic.com/2020/03/reem-ghalib-md-on-covid-19.html

 

Reem Ghalib MD on COVID 19

Dr. Reem Ghalib summarized the situation in one of the best social media posts to date on this topic (copied/pasted below). Please read what she has to say and share with your loved ones, friends, and colleagues. Urge people to be calm and logical in their decision making. Err on the side of caution. Re the info below--note that "coronavirus" is used generically to mean the specific strain Covid 19.  

Dear Friends,

So much confusion, misinformation and denial is bouncing around on social media about the coronavirus that I thought I would try to explain, in plain language, why the experts see this as such an emergency.

You will see the claim online that this virus is a lot like the viruses that cause colds, and that if you get it, it will probably just seem like a bad cold and you are very unlikely to die. Depending on who you are, these statements are probably true. But they are incomplete, and the missing information is the key to understanding the problem.

This is a coronavirus that is new to the human population, jumping into people late last year from some kind of animal, probably at a wildlife market in Wuhan, China. It is related to the viruses that cause colds, and acts a lot like them in many ways. It is very easy to transmit through the respiratory droplets that all of us give off. But nobody has ever been exposed to this before, which means nobody has any immunity to it.

The virus is now moving explosively through the human population. While most people will recover, about 20 percent of the people who catch it will wind up with a serious disease. They will get pneumonia that causes shortness of breath, and they may need hospitalization.

Some of those people will get so sick that they cannot be saved and will die of the pneumonia. The overall death rate for people who develop symptoms seems to be 2 or 3 percent. Once we have enough testing to find out how many people caught the virus but did not develop symptoms, that might come down to about 1 percent, optimistically.

This is a large number. It is at least 10 times higher than the mortality rate for the seasonal flu, for instance, which in some years kills 60,000 or 70,000 Americans. So just on that math, we could be looking at 600,000 or 700,000 dead in the United States. But it gets worse.

Older people with existing health problems are much more vulnerable, on average. The mortality rate of coronavirus among people over age 80 may be 15 or 20 percent. It appears to have 7 or 8 percent mortality for people aged 70 to 79. Here is the terrible part: If you are a healthy younger person, you can catch the virus and, without developing serious symptoms yourself, you can pass it along to older people. In other words, as the virus spreads, it is going to be very easy to go out and catch it, give it to your grandmother and kill her, even though you will not die yourself. You can catch it by touching a door knob or an elevator button.

Scientists measure the spread of an epidemic by a number called R0, or “R naught.” That number is calculated this way: for every person who develops the illness, how many other people do they give it to before they are cured (or dead) and no longer infectious? The R0 for coronavirus, in the absence of a control strategy, appears to be a number close to 3 – maybe a bit higher or lower, but in that ballpark. This is an extremely frightening number for such a deadly disease.

Suppose you catch the virus. You will give it to 3 other people, and they will each give it to three others, and so forth. Here is how the math works, where you, the “index case,” are the first line:
1
3
9
27
81
243
729
2,187
6,561
19,683
59,046
177,147
531,441
1,594,323
4,782,969
14,348,907

So, in just 15 steps of transmission, the virus has gone from just one index case to 14.3 million other people. Those 15 steps might take only a few weeks. The index person may be young and healthy, but many of those 14 million people will be old and sick, and they will likely die because they got a virus that started in one person's throat.

The United States is not at this point yet, with millions infected, as best we can tell. We don’t really know, because our government has failed us. We are many, many weeks behind other countries in rolling out widespread testing, so we don’t really have a clue how far the thing has spread. We do know that cases are starting to pop up all over the place, with many of the people having no known exposure to travelers from China, so that means this virus has escaped into our communities.

We do not have approved treatments, yet. We do not have a vaccine. The only tool we really have now is to try to slow down the chain of transmission.

This can be done. In other words, R0 is not fixed – it can be lowered by control measures. If we can get the number below 1, the epidemic will die out. This is the point of the quarantines and the contact-tracing that you are hearing so much about in the news. But the virus is exploding so fast that we will not have the labor available to trace contacts for much longer, so we have to shift strategies. This has already begun, but we are not doing it fast enough.

It is now likely that the majority of Americans will get this virus. But slowing it down is still crucial. Why? Because the healthcare system has limited resources. We only have about a million hospital beds in America. We have well under a million ventilators. If millions of Americans get sick enough to need treatment, we will have a calamity on our hands. What will happen is a form of battlefield triage, where the doctors focus on trying to treat the young and allow the older people to die.

This is not theoretical. It is already happening in Italy, where people over 65 are being left alone on hospital gurneys to suffocate to death from pneumonia. They basically drown in their own sputum. There is simply not enough medical capacity to take care of them. The United States appears to be about two weeks behind Italy on the epidemic growth curve.

What do we need to do now? We need to cancel all large gatherings – all of them. You have probably seen that the N.B.A. has postponed the rest of its season. Other sporting events, concerts, plays and everything else involving large audiences in a small space – all of it needs to be canceled. Even if these events take place, do not go to them. No lectures, no plays, no movies, no cruises – nothing.

Stay at home as much as possible.Stay out of restaurants. I would cancel any travel that is not absolutely essential. Work from home if you possibly can. You may have to go buy groceries and medicine, of course, but make the trips quick and purposeful. Wash your hands assiduously after you have been in public places, for a full 20 seconds, soaping up thoroughly and being sure to get between the fingers. Sunlight and alcohol will kill the virus.

And please stop passing around statements on social media claiming that the situation is not serious or is being exaggerated. This is a national crisis, and conveying misinformation to your friends and family may put their lives in danger”

Don't panic... but rational fear and sensible precautions... hell yeah

Look, I'm trying really hard to be rational and not panicked about this COVID 19. Sensible precautions, etc. And up until recently I was probably more concerned about the disruption and likely worldwide recession that will be coming down the pike than the danger of actually dying from the disease. But THIS scares me, personally. I'm 67 and many, even most of my friends and relatives are over 60. Obviously all we can do is to take the recommended precautions. But we must take them SERIOUSLY. In most places in the US, the virus is not yet present in the general population. But it WILL be in the coming weeks or months, and if you are over 60 you had better take very seriously the need to protect yourself from infection. If you get sick, you will probably survive, but the statistics are horrible. Hopefully these will turn out to be applicable only to the conditions in China in February, and not apply to our very different living conditions, lifestyle, and medical care here in the US. But to minimize the fact that this really is a very deadly and dangerous disease, from which the great majority have no immunity, is to be a fool.

"As you can see, very low rates of mortality (relatively speaking for the young) up to very high ones for people over 80 and a steady slope from 1% on up over age 50. We have a great deal of evidence that for the great majority of people who are young or relatively young and in good health COVID-19 is a manageable disease. But for the elderly and those in fragile health it is very dangerous and deadly in a significant percentage of cases."

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/new-studies-shed-light-on-impact-and-vulnerability-to-covid-19

--

 

Epidemiologist comments on COVID-19

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cI_D3ULz6-qoBRMND8dIVz-naW92MqATphBg5bQEIjg/preview?fbclid=IwAR3IA1NOAJ2OZJN9jYFWiRjHqeNmKz7Rzp1flihCqGvgGZPF4wsfL-Z1arE  

--

佛光山

All we are is the result of what we have thought, it is founded on our thoughts, it is made up of our thoughts.   --Dhammapada

 

Zinc ion preparations help reduce corona virus replication?

This may seem less than totally scientific, but it falls in the category of "what do you have to lose?" which is the same basis on which I take certain supplements like CoQ10 and Nicotinamide Riboside/PQQ/Pterostilbene, which have been shown to have some efficacy even if not definitively so. Since thanks to the decimation of public health by the Trump administration our public health response to the coming epidemic is pathetic, and doesn't promise to get any better, we need to do what we can as individuals to try to lessen the impact. 

Anyway, everyone legitimately wonders what they can do to decrease the likelihood that they will become severely ill or even die from the now-likely epidemic of COVID-19. (Not here yet, but responsible experts say "when not if.") It occurred to me to wonder whether zinc compound containing prophylactics like Airborne might have some effect, and there is at least some research to suggest that Zn compounds like pyrithione which make zinc ions bioavailable may indeed inhibit the replication of RNA viruses like coronaviruses. Not definitive, but it's enough for me. If the disease reaches a level of widespread "community spreading," such that health experts start advising people not to shake hands, not to go to public gatherings or ride public transportation if symptomatic; to self-quarantine if ill, etc., I intend to not only maintain a heightened hand washing and avoidance of face-touching hygiene routine, but to take something like Airborne if anyone around me is sick of at the slightest sign of illness. I believe I have actually experienced the avoidance of colds, or reduction in their duration and/or severity, from use of these kinds of preparations, so if there's any chance it's actually true that they inhibit viral replication, seems to me it's worth it to take them. 

See this. 

--

 

A modest announcement of conceivable interest

Friends and correspondents, 

Some of you may know that I've tried to play some or all of Bach's monumental keyboard Partita in E minor BWV 830 before in various settings and fragments, but anyway I'm giving it another go at the Community Music Workshop  next Tuesday, Jan. 28 at noon  at the Portland Community Music Center,at 3550 SE Francis, between Powell and Holgate. [If you're receiving this and don't live in Portland, it's just for information, of cours]. 

I will be playing a simulated harpsichord using a Roland C30 (electronic harpsichord) as either the controller for a software model or using the onboard Flemish harpsichord sample set. (Technicalities; will depend on acoustics and logistics). If anyone is interested in attending, they are of course welcome, and anyway even better will be the really fine pianist who comes after me on the program, Kristy Moore, who will play (I'm sure beautifully) the haunting and mysterious Première Communion de la Vierge  from Vingt Regards sur l'enfant-Jésus by Olivier Messiaen (1908-1992). 

I always say the CMW is a workshop, not a professional level performance, which is certainly true for me and some others, but some, including Kristy, are really fine musicians and you will be in for a real treat. There is no admission charge but contributions to the Community Music Center, which has the usual 21st century budgetary problems and constraints, are welcomed and encouraged. The organizer for  the CMW is Judy Seubert, who deserves our enormous gratitude for making this happen every month. 

You should feel free to ask questions after the music; people rarely do but it always livens things up when someone does. 

The pianist starting out the program asked me not to publicize her appearance one other time, so I refrain this time, too, and that's the only reason. It's in the program. 

Thanks to anyone planning to come. Draft program, subject to change, attached. 

David Studhalter 

--

佛光山

All we are is the result of what we have thought, it is founded on our thoughts, it is made up of our thoughts.   --Dhammapada

 

stolen from a friend's facebook post

"Music is a moral law. It gives soul to the universe, wings to the mind, flight to the imagination, and charm and gaiety to life and to everything. "

--Plato

(Stolen from a friend's Facebook post. Just love this picture). 

--  

Discovery of a galaxy so distant we're seeing it as it was less than 1 billion years after the Big Bang

This article doesn't really focus on what I consider the main point. Which is that the morphology of this, the most distant galaxy yet observed, confirms the fact that all galaxies are approximately the same age, and that early on they were very different from later epochs. Which is confirmation of the FACT that the Big Bang is real. It is true that there are problems with all the detailed models of the Big Bang and the inflationary period that resulted in an enormous physical universe beyond even the part of it that's even theoretically observable, but the basic fact that the universe we live in is finite and finite in age is the only plausible hypothesis consistent with the data... including this data. The simple question, how much of the universe lies beyond the horizon where light from there could ever reach us on Earth, is unanswerable. It is pretty clear that it's "most of it," but it could be anywhere from 90% to a power of ten so enormous the mind literally boggles and fails to comprehend. 

Happy Holidays, everyone. 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/12/world/mambo-9-distant-galaxy-scn/index.html   

 

Nature simply does not care what we believe. 

 

The threat to the Rule of Law

I think most people, who get most of their information about public affairs from television and social media, are not really grasping just how serious a threat to the rule of law Trump's outright refusal to cooperate with the Article I branch in investigating him and his administration actually is. If you talk to people with knowledge and interest in Constitutional law, they, almost all of them, feel like their hair is on fire at the complacency with which the Cult of the Republican Party is treating this threat.

But Democratic candidates need to do a much better job of conveying the gravity of this situation to their constituency and potential voters in the upcoming election. One point they should be... and mostly aren't... making is that our economy depends on a fully functioning and impartial system of law and justice. Of course it isn't perfect, far from it, but one of the reasons even China invests in American financial securities, and investors worldwide have hitherto seen the US as a safe haven for investment and as a place to locate businesses and manufacturing, is that they can be confident no oligarch will seize their property, like in Russia, and that if they become involved in a dispute they won't have to bribe someone or play politics to get due process of law and reasonably honest dispute resolution. We devolve into authoritarianism, autarchy, systemic corruption... all the hallmarks of Trump and his administration... and our very economic security, as well as our political liberties and rights, will be severely threatened. Get even a glimmer of awareness of this situation to dawn on some folks who don't usually think much about politics, and Trump's support will start swirling down the toilet even faster, as it should.

The decision to move forward on impeachment

I share the oft expressed doubt about the wisdom of pressing ahead on impeachment without forcing the WH to cooperate on witnesses and documents, which would probably take until well into the election season. But, in weighing the obvious factors, I find myself agreeing with Josh Marshall, who also has doubts but comes down in favor of getting on with it NOW.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-right-decision-is-to-move-ahead-now  

"Medicare for All"

I've come to dislike the meme "Medicare for All" even more than "Single Payer," which was coined by opponents to frame it as something scary. But what we're talking about is NOT Medicare as we know it. It is decent, maybe not absolutely perfect, but decent medical care, including care for catastrophic illnesses, that is truly universal. This is a commitment society must make to its members in order to qualify, at this stage of our development, as truly civilized. Full stop. Simple as that.  

Since nearly every developed country, including South Korea, Taiwan, almost all European countries, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Israel, and even some Latin American countries, come a whole lot closer to this ideal than we do, there is simply no way anyone can convince me that we cannot "afford" this. 

AN ATHEIST'S THANKSGIVING HOMILY

 AN ATHEIST'S THANKSGIVING HOMILY

 

I am an atheist. Have been nearly all my life. And I am one of those who, faced with the old saw that an agnostic is little more than an atheist who lacks the courage of his convictions, I gave it some thought. A personal God, that created and cares for the universe, answers prayer, keeps everything virtuous, etc. Well, nah. Don't see any evidence for that; literally none at all. Pretty sure that isn't the way it is, so I'll commit. Agnostic, no; atheist. But I make a distinction between religion, which to me is a belief in some supernatural agency like this, and spirituality, which does not, necessarily. An atheist is not required to be narrow minded, and to exclude consideration of the magisterium that is normally relegated to religion, just because of semantics. Indeed, an honest examination of one's circumstances, Aristotle's considered life, requires it.

 

For a time I studied, and gained a lot from, traditional Buddhism. Still think of myself as a Buddhist, albeit a secular Buddhist. There are basic truths, some spiritual and some actually objective psychological truths, in Buddhist thought. The idea that (at least most) suffering is caused by attachment to the delusion of "self" and the happiness of one's own being. That wisdom is not knowledge, per se, but a realistic view, almost literally, seeing  what existence really is. And that from such seeing necessarily flow compassion, lovingkindness, and a clear eyed understanding that one's own happiness is not something you gain by grasping at it, but, just the opposite, that well being of ones's self comes from caring for others and seeking well being of others.

 

When Buddhist teachers I associated with started talking about having "faith" in "holy beings," at first I thought of them as merely metaphorical paradigms for states of mind that are beneficial to seek to emulate. But after a while, I came to see it more as just the usual regression to norm: people have a strong tendency to seek out comfort and reassurance that the universe is not cold and indifferent, but actually caring and reassuring, filled with superior beings that look after us, answer prayers, etc. But, to me, this is a mistaken view. What Buddhists refer to as "precious human life" is precisely that quality that enables us to honestly perceive, and create realistic mental models of the way things are. So we have to be honest. Clear-eyed. The Buddha himself cautioned his followers not to believe what they were taught, perhaps out of respect for their teachers or the tradition they arose out of; but to believe what they perceived themselves, from their own practice of the proven effective and practical techniques of clearing the mind and really seeing what exists and is real. And, while I can imagine that some people honestly see the world as filled with supernatural, caring entities that help us in our hours of need, I don't. I see the universe as beyond humanity; essentially indifferent; existing on a scale so vast that our existence is of scant importance. The universal compassion, lovingkindness, joy, and balance of view that make up human wisdom are qualities of mind, not of existence beyond ourselves. It is these things that constitute what we call meaning of life; we should not, and will fail if we try to, find meaning in the cosmos, in the externality of our existence. The meaning of our existence is in our own mind, in our own ability to summon virtue, love, compassion, and other states of mind that make human life transcendent and significant. These things are not supernatural. But neither are they external, created by some intelligence outside ourselves. They are, in fact, our essence, our unique existence, available to us if we use our innate ability to develop genuine awareness, also called wisdom, to allow us to perceive the truth about ourselves, and not to wallow in delusion. We, our minds, our being, is what gives the universe meaning. I don't try to tell other people what they should believe, but, well, everyone of course prefers their own view of things, and mine is that the universe is contingent. Life arises from nonlife, over time so vast we cannot imagine it, and, through processes which are not supernatural but which we, as limited and finite beings, do not fully understand… here we are. We don't need a magical mystery religion to have a profound and abiding sense of the mystery and wonder of existence, and to have a genuinely spiritual outlook.

 

Which brings me to Thanksgiving. The "thanks" in Thanksgiving are traditionally thought of as thanks to… God. We thank thee, God, from whom all blessings flow, and all that. So what meaning does gratitude have for an atheist? It's a good question. We atheists have to face and address the natural human inclination to feel grateful. And I do. Very much so. My theory is this. We humans have evolved, over the depth of time, a highly developed ability to construct reasonably accurate models of reality. Of course, we easily delude ourselves, but we are much better at this than other animals, and it has led us to the civilization we have, because we would not have it but for our ability to figure out how systems work. Including the whole shebang, the cosmos. Not that we have final answers, but we have more knowledge and ideas about it than any other living things we know of. And what we learn, from personal experience as well as systematic investigation, is that the universe is contingent; that the laws of physics, particularly entropy, make the success that is the enterprise of life on Earth remarkable in so many ways, and unlikely in so many ways, that it is a genuine marvel that we are here, and that we are able to sustain ourselves and live in any degree of harmony at all with the other living systems of our world. And this makes us feel, if we are paying attention, very, very fortunate. Which is, I think, a pretty good definition of gratitude. We don't have to posit the existence of a personal God, or believe in anything supernatural, to be suffused with a powerful feeling of gratitude to be alive, and to be able to experience existence, in a vast cosmos of which we are only a tiny flicker.

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone.

 

Some interesting Supreme Court history and its implications, as uncovered by Thom Hartmann

 This is really interesting. Back in the early days of the Reagan administration, when the shoe was very much on the other ideological foot with regard to the Supreme Court, the Righties, in fact none other than CURRENT Chief Justice of the United States, John Roberts (then a DOJ lawyer), thought seriously about a fairly radical interpretation of the Constitutional provision whereby the Congress determines exactly what the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over, as a means of reversing landmark decisions like Brown v. Bd. of Ed. and Roe v. Wade. The truth is that the period from about 1935 to 1990 or so, when the SC was a force for progress and human rights in America, was the aberration. Since then, the court has mostly reverted to norm, and the Court is, as it was before FDR almost throughout all of American history to that time, a reactionary force that exists mostly to protect the interests of the already powerful. Wouldn't it be delicious, if perhaps too risky to actually contemplate doing, to use Roberts's idea against THEM, and undo not Brown and Roe but Buckley v. Valeo, Citizens United v. FEC, Heller v. DC, and Shelby County v. Holder?

If you don't know what all four of those cases stand for, look them up, because every citizen should know in detail just how and when the Supreme Court took our rights away, step by step.

https://www.yesmagazine.org/…/supreme-court-history-intervi…
Supreme Court History includes John Robert's memo how to bypass court by enacting statutes with provisions removing judicial review.

PLEASE vote for the Future of our World

Posted this to Facebook.

I really hate Facebook. Its format seems to force discourse to devolve into quibbling over relatively unimportant details, and to invite name-calling. I regret having fallen into some of this kind of back and forth with people with whom I want to share insights and ideas, only to end up in futile bickering about the "little picture" details where we disagree.

But I want to try a different tack. So please don't add comments to this post quibbling about policy details. If you truly disagree with the thrust of what I have to say, please explain why, and how you believe what you advocate is more likely to be of benefit.

I believe that this upcoming election demands something more of us than conventional politics. And that is that we SET ASIDE our narrow self-interest, and vote as if the future of the world depends on our choice. Because it does.

The present regime in the United States has at its head an oligarch; a kleptocrat; a lawless would be dictator who, if re-elected, will probably do just about everything he can to undermine the long term interests of our country and subvert our democracy. I don't think it goes to far to say he is a traitor. His elimination from our body politic is a matter of the gravest urgency. Essentially any other political figure would be an improvement.

But in addition to that, the election of a Democratic Senate is equally important. We have, at present, a Trumpist party that will do nothing at all, other than continue (if they get the chance) to approve Right Wing judges who will do nothing to stop the continued subversion of Democracy. They might even try to repeat their one and only legislative "achievement" in Trump's term, which was a massive tax giveaway transferring even more wealth from the already hollowed out middle class to the tiniest tranche of the super-rich, who are their real constituency. Their politics is entirely based on lies, and it refuses to face facts or to take any action at all on the greatest existential crisis in the history of civilization, the Climate Emergency.

I see us as living on borrowed time. We have failed to take action on critical infrastructure, especially to do what is necessary to face this crisis. We have hollowed out our manufacturing economy, failed to maintain excellence in public education, failed to ensure the health care of all our citizens, failed to ensure that government works for the people and not for extremely narrow vested interests. We are at the abyss. We cannot go on with this. We must turn back, elect leaders who will base policy on facts, and who will be able to convey to the people the enormity of our predicament.

We will, like it or not, soon be faced with a full scale emergency on the scale, at least, of World War II. We cannot face this emergency with crooks, fools and liars in charge of the government. Even if we may disagree with details of the policies of some of our candidates, we MUST ensure that our government is returned to people who believe in science, who act on the basis of facts, and who will do their level best to represent the interests of the people of the United States. All of the people of the United States.

Look, we can worry about disruption to the economy of this or that policy. But we will not face recession or specific ruffled feathers of narrow self-interest, such as not being able to renew a particular health plan or having to pay higher taxes than we thought in this or that area, if we fail to overturn the Right Wing government we now have. We will instead be marching towards complete collapse. If we allow the Climate Emergency to go unchecked, as scientists tell us is right in front of us, actually happening right now, we won't have a recession, or even a depression. We will have a collapse. And the economy will be utterly destroyed. It is that stark. And the choice is that clear.

Please set aside whatever specific and narrow interests you may be worried about and consider the long term well being of our world, and coming generations. Vote Democratic, no matter who the candidates are, as if your future, and the future of your children, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, and everyone else's progeny depend on it. Because IT DOES.

 

 

Why I support a securities transaction tax, and other tax increases primarily aimed at wealthier Americans

There's a great deal of discussion among Democrats these days about taxes. It is clear that Republicans are LIARS when it comes to taxes, as they basically just want to transfer wealth to the top and don't care a whit about long term debt, OR about investing in our nation's future. As the Trump Tax Giveaway to the Superrich proves.

One of the proposed progressive taxes Centrist Democrats object to is the idea of a securities transaction tax. Such Democrats have, over the past 30 years or so, largely bought into Republican economic theories, but it's time to return to an earlier view that realistic taxation is, as Justice Brandeis put it, "the price of civilization." First point. Proposed transaction taxes are TINY, and would probably be structured to not apply to IRAs and 401(k)s. But apart from that, the average investor would pay at most a few hundred dollars per year. MOST developed countries have these kinds of taxes, and in many cases higher than what is proposed here.

But, secondly, this is an example of a tax that's actually designed to disincentivize economically destructive behavior, namely large scale short term trading, which is basically gaming markets to take the equivalent of rents from the top, as opposed to the rational and original purpose of securities markets, which is to raise capital. Investors who are primarily interested in investing in successful businesses to build capital value and participate in a production economy tend to buy and hold stocks, rather than trade them short term, and this is better for the economy. Such investors would be little affected by a small transaction tax, and if it were deemed to be an issue, it would be a simple matter to exclude the first $1000 or even $5000 of tax, which would then mean that the tax would apply ONLY to people and institutions who are engaging in relatively massive short term trading. It is perfectly legitimate and actually a positive good to discourage this behavior, as it does not contribute to growth in the economy but only serves to transfer of wealth from production upward to the very richest.

Even with these considerations, which are an example of the use of tax policy to regulate the economy as opposed to raising revenue, it is estimated that the tax would in fact raise a fair amount of much needed revenue. Which brings me to a third point. WE NEED TAXES which fall more on wealthier people in this country. Wealthy people, even moderately wealthy people, NEED TO PAY MORE IN TAXES. This includes me, although I don't qualify as wealthy, just reasonably comfortable.

We have before us a truly desperate situation, where we must rebuild nearly our entire energy and transportation infrastructure in a fairly short period of time (because of deferred maintenance in part, but mainly to address the Climate Emergency). We must also revamp our medical care system to ensure that everyone is covered, because it is our national shame that alone among the wealthy nations of the world we have failed to do this, and there simply is no valid reason why we should not. Further, we must make up for a longstanding funding deficit for education and basic research. To name just a few key things. The enterprise of American civilization has been choked by greed and hoarding at the top, and it is time to come together as a people and make the decision to use more of our resources and economic strength as a nation to ensure not only our survival but our character as a country of social mobility and a robust middle class into the future. Much of this will come from policy reform, but some of it must come from MORE INVESTMENT. The ONLY way to do that is to increase spending on these critical factors. Given the Climate Emergency, it is no exaggeration to say that we need to mobilize in a way equivalent to the mobilization of World War 2, and sooner, rather than later. This cannot be done for nothing... everyone must contribute. But from those who have been rewarded with outsize, even excessive wealth, more must be asked. And from those who have modestly more, modestly more must be asked. It is time for us to ACCEPT THIS REALITY, and even embrace it, for it is the only path forward that makes any sense long term.

  

 

A few comments on intelligent life in the universe in response to an article in Daily Beast

https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-will-we-make-first-contact-with-alien-life?source=facebook&via=desktop  

[You can't actually read this without joining DB for $1 for a month, but DB is kind of good anyway, so you might want to. Anyway, my comments]:

First, the article fails to make a clear distinction between reasonable estimates of the probability that we will discover extraterrestrial LIFE, which could mean only microbial life with a non-terrestrial origin, at some point in the relatively near future (seems quite plausible), vs. the likelihood that we will encounter or find actual evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence. The latter divides into evidence of relatively nearby intelligent civilizations somewhat more advanced or comparable to our own vs. evidence of very distant extremely advanced civilizations. Such very advanced civilizations would likely be detectable across extragalactic distances. Any realistic estimate of the probability of finding intelligent life requires a full examination of the logic and evidence involved in the so-called Fermi Paradox, which this article entirely ignores. 

I have discussed these issues on my blog, www.gyromantic.com (search for Fermi Paradox). The gist is that there are very good logical reasons to conclude that intelligent life is exceedingly rare in the universe. So rare, in fact, that the chances of detecting or encountering another civilization close enough to make even centuries-long dialog times possible are vanishingly small. I see no reason to think that we are "alone" in the universe (chiefly because the universe is so very large that anything that can possibly happen likely will have happened, and repeatedly).  But I see EVERY reason to suppose that advanced civilizations are so rare, and so distant from one another, that for all intents and purposes they are on their own, and must make their own way, independent of others in the same general situation, in a vast, dark, and mostly empty cosmos.

This predicament is not as bleak as all that, however. We have every prospect of developing sustainable energy on our planet, and practical space flight and even space colonization in the general vicinity of our star, the Sun. From there, our civilization and its remote descendants could, with no foreseeable serious impediments, proceed to colonize other stars, spreading life and civilization that originated on our little world throughout first our region of space, star-hopping from one stellar system to the next. Exploiting the resources of material and energy to make new habitats for life and, specifically, intelligent life: us, and our descendants, who will gradually evolve into something trans-human, no doubt. And there is nothing foreseeeable that will stop this process. Stars are very, very far apart from one another, but time is vast, and the possibility of colonizing the entire Galaxy in something like 1 to 2 million years is not prohibited by anything. In fact, if we survive the next century or two, I would venture to say that it is nearly inevitable, and once our descendants have filled enough niches and established beachheads in enough locations, the complete extinction of the enterprise of terrestrial life will become a very unlikely occurrence. We will evolve into forms unrecognizable to our current incarnations, most likely, but there will be literally nothing to stop us. Even the complete colonization of the Galaxy will just be the beginning, because on the scale of galaxies (hundreds of thousands of light years), other galaxies are not far from each other. The Magellanic Clouds (smallish companion galaxies to the Milky Way) are roughly 180,000 and 210,000 light years, respectively. The huge Andromeda Galaxy is just under 2 million. This is a vast distance, but if we have developed the technology to build colony habitats to spread life in space over centuries, the later stages of the evolution of that kind of technology could cross such distances, and spread our civilization, or more properly its offspring, even to other galaxies. 

And there's every reason to believe this might well have already happened elsewhere in the universe, but space is so vast that we would not necessarily know about it... ever. Space is expanding so fast that more and more of the universe every moment is beyond the reach of any form of communication, forever, because nothing, not even radio or laser signals, can travel faster than light. But the point is that humanity's future in a universe that is mostly empty of intelligent life, is actually very bright. Eventually our region of the universe will be very full of intelligent beings and their handiwork. And they will be our children. 

Most people don't really think about the far future at all, but it actually is a reason for us to be very, very serious about preserving the ecosystems of our planet and making sure that we survive the next century or few centuries. Because we have every prospect of giving rise to intelligent civilization of a truly cosmic scale, that does not now exist, except so far from here that it resounds no echoes, sends no signals that we can receive, and might as well not exist for all that it matters to us here and now. But that situation will not persist, at least not everywhere. And if we want humanity's particular mode of existence to persist, and thrive, and develop in ways we cannot now even imagine, then we must ensure our survival into a future time when that becomes not only a dream, but a reality, even an inevitability. 

 

--

  •ds

Nature simply does not care what we believe. 

 

Portland's "big riot"

As I, among many local folks, fully expected, the Antifa/Proud Boys riot turned out to be pretty much nothing. I believe these things are being blown entirely out of proportion by the sensation-hungry media, where in actual fact both the Antifa overtestosterone infused tiny minority of the left and the Redneck Right are unrepresentative and not really a threat to civil order or anything else. Let's focus on issues and the election; and nonviolent demonstrations, which outnumber these things by orders of magnitude. 

--

  •ds

Nature simply does not care what we believe. 

 

Maybe there really is a conspiracy with regard to Epstein

 I know the whole Epstein conspiracy theory thing seems to have spun out of control. But sometimes people really do conspire. Consider that all the leaked information about public figures... former NM Gov. Richardson, former Sen. Mitchell, Bill Clinton... has concerned Democrats. Consider that Barr "unrecused"himself (which wasn't even a thing before the great legal scholar Emperor Donald the Munificent invented the idea), and that it is Barr who is in charge of the Bureau of Prisons and any investigations and reports that come out of it, and HE who will spin the results of any FBI probe. MAYBE taking Epstein off suicide watch, wherein protocols were simply ignored, was just a normal SNAFU. But mainly, as David Cay Johnston noted,* from personal knowledge: the Federal lockup ("MCC") where this occurred is not an old fashioned jail. The cells are like dorm rooms, except with high ceilings, no attachment points specifically to avoid suicide and violence. And the bedclothes are not cloth, they are a paperlike material DESIGNED to tear if an attempt is made to use them as a rope. One last fact. Epstein credibly was reported to have told a visitor that the prior suicide attempt was not that, but an attempted murder. His cellmate was a big beefy ex cop on lockup for accusations of corruption. So, tell me again that this is all just normal judicial screw up and nothing to see here.

The Trump administration, of course, is doing their usual: accusing others of what it is that they are the ones most likely guilty of. The Clintons couldn't even rig the election to get their candidate in (that was Trump and the Russians). How could they gain access to a Federal prison under the watchful eye of the attorney general (really Trump's Roy Cohn), to murder Epstein? The biggest fish that has something to gain from hushing up the Epstein case is not Bill Clinton. It's Trump himself.

This is the kind of thing that used to only happen in countries that had a history of swinging back and forth between barely functioning democracy and dictatorship, like Brazil, Argentina, the Philippines. That, my friends, is what we are well on the way to becoming right here in the USA.

*See this link: https://soundcloud.com/user-830442635

Obama Legacy and What, now, shall we do?

 Farflung correspondents, 

Below is an excerpt of a reader comment on Talkingpointsmemo (which if you don't know you should), on the legacy of Obama.

«

His first full term was spent trading in his political capital to address a healthcare system that was refusing to care for sick people because greed. He also did the little things like helping to pull us out of the worst recession since the depression and kill OBL. So, yeah, I forgive him for acting in good faith at those moments in history when the world needed the GOP to step up and act like adults. The GOP did the exact opposite and that is the real story here. Literally nobody new the depths they would go to sabotage Obama. The fact they are still getting away with is all the more infuriating.

»

I agree with this, more or less, but I do argue that Obama reflected the same overly cautious attitude of many Democrats (still, and most of them are less visionary and capable than he). Progressives (hell, let's start calling ourselves LIBERALS, for starters) in our country have become afraid of our own shadows. This is one of the reasons that many younger Democrats are angry and frustrated. I really do believe that decisive action is critical, and is actually popular.

We should not be hemming and hawing about impeachment, for example. Of course the Senate won't convict. Acknowledge that. Bring the impeachment inquiry, conduct it expeditiously and quickly (since we've already wasted two years), lay out the case, censure Trump, and vote not to refer it to the Senate with an explanation that it is deemed a foregone conclusion that the partisan gridlock in the Senate would prevent fair consideration.

Meantime, and I've been saying this since Jan. 1; PASS the damn progressive legislative agenda that we want to enact as soon as we have both houses and the presidency. Write the damn bills. All of them. Talk them up. Go on the political shows and refuse to talk about Trump and his BS and say, we want to talk about the solutions WE HAVE for America. Then our candidates need to run on those issues. Do we disagree about details? Of course. But hash it out. Make the compromises in our own caucus, hammer out the bills, and pass them. Presidential candidates can talk about the tweaks and improvements they'd like to see, but they can all agree to run on the broad outlines of an ALREADY PASSED in the House agenda for America. If Nancy Pelosi were the great master legislator that her admirers claim she is, this is what she would be doing. Schumer is a caretaker; he can do nothing legislatively. But she can. Passing bills, even in only one house, is a way to SET AN AGENDA.

I am deeply disappointed in the leadership in our party and very fearful that a combination of cheating, con-man politics, and poor turnout could even spell defeat for us in 2020 if we don't up our game and soon. And I don't think I need to convince many Democrats, or even many Republicans, that that would be utterly catastrophic for our country.