Schools and School Boards: The Procedural Side

 I am firmly of the opinion that democracy is hard because it requires us to place procedure ahead of substance.  So any attempt to address schools and school boards has to start with procedural matters that shouldn't be hard, but apparently have to be emphasized.

Naturally I am inspired by the right-wing uproar over Attorney General Merrick Garland's memo calling on the Department of Justice to coordinate with local officials in dealing with threats to school board members.  The memo states "While spirited debate about policy matters is protected under our Constitution, that protection does not extend to threats of violence or efforts to intimidate individuals based on their views. Threats against public servants are not only illegal, they run counter to our nation's core values."  Naturally Republicans took this to mean criminalizing public comments at school board meetings. 

So let's start with some basic common sense.  Parents showing up at school board meetings to express their views is entirely appropriate.  Disrupting meetings, shouting down other speakers, and turning public meetings into shouting matches is not appropriate. Such conduct is especially inappropriate when done by activist from out of town, with no children in the schools, attempting to thwart the wishes of the majority, which has happened in some cases (though by no means all). That being said, such disruptions are merely inappropriate and not a crime, much less a federal offense.  There is no reason to prosecute such conduct, but it is entirely reasonable for school boards to remove disrupters from meetings and do is necessary to maintain order, just like any other public (or private) body.  And threatening school board members (or anyone else, for that matter), or stalking, trespassing, vandalism, or brandishing weapons are crimes and should be treated as such.  

This should be so much common sense and not at all grounds for controversy, but apparently some people are not able to distinguish between showing up at school board meetings and speaking and threatening school board members.  And, in fairness to the right wing, the National School Board Association letter that inspired the DOJ memo really did go too far, calling such threats and intimidation "domestic terrorism" and suggesting prosecution under the PATRIOT Act.  

I did some basic background looking into what federal laws might be invoked.  In general, I think it is best to make clear what is and is not considered a crime and what could not could not be subject to federal prosecution, so that people will have clear guidance on what is and is subject to prosecution.  (And yes, I realize this also communicates what loopholes to exploit).  The most obvious federal offense here is a federal ban on threats or extortion by mail or other "interstate communications" such as e-mail, texts, phones, etc.  Using any of these methods to send a ransom note for a kidnapping carries a sentence of 20 years.  Using these methods to threaten kidnapping or bodily harm with intent to extort money or any "other thing of value" carries a 20 year sentence.  Using these methods to transmit threats of kidnapping or bodily harm without extortion carries a sentence of five years.  Using these methods to threaten damage to property or reputation, or criminal charges in an attempt to extort carries a two year sentence.  Threats to property or reputation without an attempt at extortion are apparently not federal crimes.  Showing up in person and committing stalking, harassment or vandalism, though certainly more menacing to the target, are not federal crimes.

Kidnapping obviously is not an issue here.  Are threats demanding that an official resign from office or change his/her vote, or that a candidate drop out from the election considered extortion?  I don't know.  Nor do I know how direct a threat or attempt at extortion has to be to qualify.  No doubt there are federal precedents.  But clearly any letter, e-mail, text or phone call threatening bodily harm or kidnapping is a federal crime carrying a sentence of five years.  Just recently our local newspaper announced that someone was being charged under federal law for sending threatening e-mails to a local meteorologist who had run for Senate as a Republican and was considering a run for governor.  It commented that this carried a potential sentence of five years.  The same sentence is entirely appropriate for anyone threatening school board members.

What about domestic terrorism?  Well, our terrorism statute defines domestic terrorism as:

[A]ctivities that—
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B)appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States

Clearly threats to school board members (1) are a violation of the criminal laws of federal or state law, and (2) occur within the territorial jurisdiction of the US.  I do not think there is much doubt that they are intended to influence policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.  But I do not see what is being described as dangerous to human life.  However, if things were to escalate from mere threats to shooting at school board members, running them off the road, or putting pipe bombs in their mail boxes, that would look very much like domestic terrorism.

And one other point.  Isolated threats against school board members are a local issue to be handled locally.  When threats become pervasive, it becomes a national issue and appropriate for federal prosecution. 

What to Do About COVID: Test, Test, Test

Also interesting about having COVID: My Republican but not ant-vax boss's reaction to getting the disease after being vaccinated.  His conclusion was that the vaccine is worthless in preventing infection, although it may make infection less severe.  Given that he was the first infection in is study group in months, that sounds overly harsh, but it is indisputable that vaccines lose their effectiveness quickly, and that frequent boosters will probably be necessary.

Perhaps even more significantly, he has become opposed to any attempt to prevent spread.  At least, he opposes masks and disinfecting surfaces.  He does see it as appropriate for me to have an air filter in my office since I deal with elderly clients, but opposes any further use of air purifiers. And his is generally opposed on principle to any attempt to stop the spread.  Everyone will end up getting it, he says, so why bother.   Instead, he wants a cure.  And the good news is that we may be months away from having an effective treatment.  So (I said) isn't it better to delay people getting it until treatment is available.

And, in fact, there seems to be a general opposition to any sort of prevention or mitigation on the right, in favor of cure. Most recent is the case of Allen West, unvaccinated, infected, and hospitalized, who has promoted the superiority of treatment by monoclonal antibodies over vaccines because vaccine "enrich[es] the pockets of Big Pharma," as opposed to monoclonal antibodies which, also come from big pharma. And certainly plenty of right wingers are angry at the prospect of having to get regular booster shots and see it as an affront.

I really do not understand this insistence that we must forego all prevention and mitigation and focus entirely on cure. I can understand it over lockdowns, which carry high economic and social costs and are only sustainable in the very short run (a few months at most).  I can sort of understand it over masks, which, though mostly sustainable over the long run, are uncomfortable and not sustainable for restaurants, bars, and gyms.  But why the resistance to vaccines?  And even if vaccines require regular boosters, why the outrage over that?  

I think it might be because right wingers hope that if everyone gets COVID everyone will have long-term immunity.  And there might be something to the approach if COVID was like, say, measles, and getting it once did give lifetime immunity.  But it belongs to the same category of virus as cold and flu, which give only a short-lived immunity.  Cases of re-infection have occurred.  While information on the subject remains sketchy, some evidence points to the possibility of immunity lasting as little as three months to as long as five years, with a median of 16 months.  

So far as I can tell, right wingers want to go back to their pre-pandemic lifestyles with no change whatever and no disruption, not even small changes like getting regular shots.  How many people get sick or die as a result is simply unimportant.  But what they ignore is that people getting sick and dying is itself disruptive.  Take it from me, being sick for a week, convalescent for a week, still not full steam for a week, and then having to catch up is a whole lot more disruptive than getting a shot.  Getting a shot every six months is less disruptive than being out of action for two weeks every two years or so.  And having places you want to do business closed because everyone is sick is also disruptive.

Another part (and have have gotten this very strongly at work) is the sense that those of use who accept any sort of inconvenience in the interest of mitigation have been brainwashed by a sinister elite that is offering suggestions with no scientific merit, not to stop the disease, but simply to control our lives.  This view ranges from completely nuts (our anti-vaxxer arguing that the vaccine contains a microchip that will tell "them" about everything we do) to semi-rational (my boss saying that I an succumbing to propaganda, and that the people making these suggestions know less than they think).

Which leads to the subject of testing.  We need more of it, lots more.  Again, going back to personal experience, I knew that home testing existed.  I looked at the shelves of the pharmacy and didn't find any.  My boss had a test kit and explained that you have to go up to the counter and ask for one.  Well, the first time I asked the store was sold out, but I got one on a second try.  But tests are expensive ($24 for two).  And even more significantly, they are extremely hard to replace.  So when my boss first felt symptoms, he didn't want to "burn" a test, but asked for an appointment.  It took several days to get in and several more to get results and by then the whole office was infected.  I went ahead and burned a home test when it became impossible to deny that I had symptoms and actually found out before he did that I had it.  But by then I had met with five or six clients, called in a witness to a will signing, gone dancing, gone shopping, etc.  If home tests had been cheap and plentiful, everyone could have tested as soon as they felt symptoms or suspected exposure, and we could have stopped this a lot faster.  I also burned a test at the end of my quarantine to see if I was still positive (I was).  So now I am out of tests everywhere I look they are sold out.

Home tests have their drawbacks.  They are less sensitive slower lab tests and catch the infection only about 87% of time.  Tests are therefore sold in pairs with the recommendation that if the test is negative, take a second test two days later.  Two negative tests should be good enough.  Furthermore, the rapid tests are tests for antigens (proteins on the shell of the virus), a good marker for contagion.  And getting fast result allows people to quarantine and warn others sooner rather than later, a vital tool in stopping the spread. 

Furthermore effective, simple treatment is probably coming down the pike in the form of a pill that can be taken at home and can be much more widely affordable than monoclonal antibody infusions.*  Thus far the COVID pill has been 50% effective at preventing hospitalization and death in high-risk patients.  If taken early, could it prevent or at least mitigate illness altogether?  There is even hope that it may prevent household members from being infected.  Treatment is more effective the sooner it starts. Thus rapid, widespread testing is critical to important treatment.

So how do we make home test kits cheap and plentiful and how do we get people to use them?

Making home test kits cheap and plentiful is certainly doable.  Many other countries have done it.  The holdup in the US appears to be FDA insistence on a medical level of accuracy.  That creates an obstacle to production.  Joe Biden has promised to invoke to Defense Production Act to produce 280 million tests, but that is less than one test per American -- far too few to allow the frequency of testing that we need.  So the best way to increase production appears to be for Biden to change classification from medical device to public health tool to remove the FDA regulatory barrier. And that is my number one issue these days.  Let's all write to the White House to urge him to make the change.  Here is the link. Write or Call the White House | The White House.  

Some people have objected that making home test kits universal will lead people to stop reporting their diagnoses, making it harder to track the disease.  There are two responses to this.  One is that keeping track of the disease is merely an end to stopping it, and if the best way to stop it reduces reporting, so be it.  The second is that if COVID pills become widely available, people will have a strong incentive to report a positive test -- to get treatment.

But that still leaves the issue of getting people to actually use the tests.  Why should that be a problem?  After all, the fact that tests are sold out proves that they are in high demand.  Some 79% of Americans have expressed eagerness for home tests and an interest in regular self-testing.  Unlike all prevention measures, testing has not become a culture war issue.  It is often presented as an alternative to vaccines.

But given the overall trajectory of this country, can anyone doubt that if rapid testing becomes widely available it will become a culture war issue.  Swabbing the inside of your nose is uncomfortable.  Asking people to do it regularly is burdensome.  Already some people in the more paranoid precincts are spreading wild stories about something harmful on the swabs.  Saliva tests avoid the swab, but have to be mailed to a lab.  Some paranoid people fear the lab as well.  And who can doubt that once widespread testing becomes available, doing it regularly will once again make you part of the "sheeple" who have been brainwashed into fear, and will become an intolerable threat to freedom.

Weekly testing the workforce is offered as an alternative to vaccines.  How long before it starts to feel like harassment?  It is being proposed as a way to control spread in the schools.  Do you think ant-mask parents will accept the alternative?  No doubt there are Asian or Nordic countries where if people were asked to self-test before going restaurants or bars or large public gatherings, they would do so.  In the US they would not.  And imagine the outrage if any restaurant or bar or public gathering started requiring rapid tests as a condition of admission.**  Imagine the lines of people waiting!

In short, how do we avoid making COVID testing a culture war issue?  My advice would be to avoid fanfare.  Just have it show up on the shelves -- well advertised, but without a big governmental announcement.  Do focus group tests on how to sell it to the vaccine skeptics, but my guess is that the most effective pitch will be two-fold.  The closely track the reasons not to be concerned that self-testing will reduce reporting.  One is the emphasize the privacy and secrecy of the test.  Nobody else has to know about it.  And the other is to sell it as something to do out of self interest.  Find out soon so you can have effective treatment!

_______________________________________
*Presumably antibodies would continue to be used for high-risk patients.
**Actually, I am told that the Albuquerque Folk Festival did require rapid testing for everyone who did not present a vaccine card, but (1) that was presumably a distinct minority of people attending, and (2) it did not attract anti-vaxxer types.

Reflections on Catching COVID

Well, COVID is no longer an abstraction to me, or something that only affects other people.  I have now had it.  How has that affected me?

By way of background, I work in a five-person office.  Four of us were vaccinated; one is a confirmed anti-vaxxer.  All of us caught it.  The anti-vaxxer was diagnosed last, although in  hindsight he says that he may have been sick for several days and just in denial.  He also has diabetes and emphysema.  Unsurprisingly, he landed in the hospital.  Our office also has a young fellow only 19 years old, fully vaccinated, with no discernable risk factors, who also landed in the hospital.  The rest of us had only mild cases.

For me, my nose ran like a faucet.  The amount of Kleenex I used in the first few days was extraordinary.  Coughing and sneezing was less frequent that with a cold, but deeper -- terrifyingly deep.  I had sporadic, low-grade fevers, especially at night, never above 100.2.  I also had poor appetite, general fatigue, and insomnia.  The insomnia was the worst part of it. I did not lose my sense of smell or taste.  This lasted about a week.  I attempted to work from home, but my energy was extremely limited.  The next week my symptoms resolved except an about-to-sneeze feeling in my nose and a little post-nasal drip. But my energy was extremely limited.  Just walking around the block wiped me out.  My ability to focus on work was quite limited.  The following week I was well enough to go into work, but was still limited in how long I could focus before getting light-headed or brain fog and having to take a nap.  Since then it has been making up for lost time.

Infected people are supposed to quarantine for ten days from first symptom.  That means no shopping.  I learned to use Insta-Cart, and drive-up windows.  Three things I greatly came to appreciate -- pulse oximeters (my oxygen was fine), Kleenex with lotion (the difference is extraordinary given how often I was blowing my nose), and doing my own shopping.

So, thoughts on that.   

First of all, vaccines are far from perfect.  Four out of five people at the office were fully vaccinated, but all of us got sick.  I got the Pfizer vaccine.  It appears that Pfizer 47% effective at preventing infection five months out.  That means, even if we start giving boosters at six months, there will be significant numbers of breakthrough infections before then.  I personally got my first shot in April and my second on May 8.  That means I was considered fully vaccinated two weeks later, on May 22.  I felt sick enough to self-test on Sunday, September 26 and was probably contagious at least two days earlier.  So I was about four months out from the "fully vaxxed" date and probably about five months out from my first shot.

Second, this is not the same as saying that vaccines are worthless. My boss, a Republican but not an anti-vaxxer, concluded that vaccines are worthless at stopping the spread of COVID and merely mitigate its severity.  Yet he, himself, enrolled in a COVID study in order to get the vaccine early was was told that he was only their fifth breakthrough infection (his wife was the sixth), and their first in months.  He may very well be the beginning of a wave.  But the vaccine was apparently quite effective for a number of months at least.

Third, while people complain about the disruptions caused by mitigation efforts, getting the disease is also disruptive.  Five out of five people in our office were infected and got sick.  Granted, one stayed at his post for almost a week before giving out, and the next week some of us started coming back, at a highly reduced rate of efficiency, and without seeing clients.  But the disruption was absolutely real.  If everyone had gotten the disease at different times, the disruption would have been a lot less.

And finally, vaccines cannot do it alone.  We need much more rapid, abundant testing, and an effective treatment.

Presidents and Conspiracy Theories: Is This Time Different?

Conspiracy theories have always been with us.  The only realistic goal is to contain, rather than eliminate, them. 

That being said, there has been a clear escalation of conspiracy theories, starting in 1992.  Pre-1992, I never saw a President’s basic legitimacy questioned.  Conspiracy theories about Presidents might be out there, but they remained on the fringes. Since 1992, every President I have seen has been the target of conspiracy theories.  

Bill Clinton was accused of everything from running drugs in Arkansas to regularly having his associates murdered.  GW Bush was accused of masterminding 9-11.  Barrack Obama was accused of being born in Kenya and ineligible to be President.  And Donald Trump has been accused of being a Russian agent.  Now Joe Biden is accused of winning by massive electoral fraud.

Unlike for pre-1992 Presidents, these conspiracy theories have become widely-known and circulated.  For the most part, they have been excluded for respectable discourse, but not entirely.  In some cases there has been mainstream buy-in.  For instance, Special Counsel Ken Starr, tasked with investigating Bill Clinton’s role in the failed Whitewater Savings and Loan, also investigated rumors that he had Vince Foster murdered.   Republican Congressman Dan Burton even shot a pumpkin to investigate the blood splatter.  But, to be clear, Starr decisively cleared Clinton of killing Vince Foster and from then on such allegations were relegated to the fever swamps.  And Special Counsel Robert Mueller investigated whether the Trump campaign conspired with Russia in its hack and leak operation, and found some outreach (on both sides), but no conspiracy.  On the other hand, claims that Bush was behind 9-11 or that Obama was born in Kenya were never taken seriously.  Such believes somewhat warped our political discourse, but they did not have any serious impact on policy.

So in one way, the claim that Biden won by massive fraud is simply another piece of insanity, and maybe it will go no further than any other such insanity.  But it doesn’t seem like it.  Allegations that Obama was born in Kenya did lead to a few lawsuits to declare his presidency illegitimate, but none by any one of any serious influence.    A few state legislatures contemplated laws requiring candidates to provide their birth certificates, but none actually succeeded.  Accusations against Clinton and Trump were taken seriously enough to lead to investigations, but then again, the Clintons really did invest in a crooked savings and loan, although they appear to have been purely passive investors.  And the Russian intelligence service really did hack the DNC e-mails and deliver them to Wikileaks to harm the Clinton campaign, and Trump really did welcome the assistance. 

None of these other conspiracy theories ever spawned over 60 lawsuits to overturn an election, some backed by state attorney generals and other leading elected officials.  None ever involved a U.S. Senator offering to argue for them in front of the Supreme Court.  None led to a serious attempt to overturn an election, let alone a violent insurrection.   None became the leading issue for a major political party.*  And none led to the immense wave of new legislation sweeping all states.  And, above all else, none  led to attempts to subvert the vote-counting apparatus and threats to nullify future elections.

This one is dangerous in a way that none of the others have been.

 ___________________________________________

*Trump’s first impeachment was only tangentially related to the Russia investigation.  His efforts to pressure Ukraine appear to have arisen from Trump’s insane belief that really Ukraine had forged the evidence of the Russian hack. 

Memo to Democrats: Focus on What is Really Essential

 I must admit I have not been following all the in’s and out’s of the Democrats’ $3.5 trillion dollar budget, or becoming very emotionally invested in it.  Maybe that is burnout from Obamacare – I just can’t get that worked up over a policy initiative again.  But I prefer to think that is because I have some sense of the crisis we are facing, and of political reality.

So far as I am concerned, the bipartisan infrastructure package and the Democratic budget plan fit in the category of nice to have, but just not that essential.  I phone banked for the Democratic candidates for the Georgia Senate to keep Republicans from blocking what was really essential, but I was quite prepared to settle for that and not expect anything else.

At the time, I thought two things were really essential – getting out vaccines, and passing COVID relief to mitigate the economic impact.  Everything else was expendable so long as we could get that.

Well, in the clear light of hindsight, that was a mistake.  What was really essential was (1) getting out COVID vaccines, (2) passing COVID relief, and (3) dealing with any other crises that came up.  In the clear light of hindsight, at least four crises should have been foreseeable from day one (1) the border, (2) withdrawal from Afghanistan), (3) the usual natural disasters and (4) the debt ceiling.  The delta variant of COVID was not a foreseeable, crisis, but it is present and we have to deal with it.  

So, how do I grade this Administration?

Getting out vaccines.  Grade: A.  They did a fine job.  Anyone who wants the vaccine can have it.

Passing COVID relief.  Grade: A.  We have given the economy the boost necessary to recover.  

Withdrawal from Afghanistan.  Grade F.  We were completely caught off guard by the speed of the collapse and unready to get our people out.  Some people would raise Biden's grade to a D minus or even a D based on the catch-up evacuation.  Color me unconvinced.  The evacuation was too little too late and a bureaucratic nightmare.  That being said, the Taliban has shown some interest in keeping working relations with us and we have some leverage.  We are not going to get the Taliban to stop being the Taliban.  But with careful use of our leverage and skillful diplomacy (neither of which the Biden Administration has displayed much, but we can always hope), we may convince them to let our people out.  In that case I would be willing to raise Biden's grade to a D or even a C minus.

The border.  Grade F.  Any number of people have commented that Biden’s approach was the exact opposite of what would make sense.  Whatever else one thinks of Remain in Mexico, it was a huge political success.  It took the border out of the headlines and out of our discourse.  People who were outraged at the right of asylum seekers mistreated inside the US could not muster much interest in what was going on in Mexico.  Go ahead and call that cruel and inhumane and an outrage.  There are some political facts of life we simply have to live with.  There are also practical facts, like that the US simply cannot take in everyone who wants to come here.  Any number of people have commented that Biden took the exact opposite approach from what he should have done.  His actions were to withdraw Remain in Mexico on day one.  When chaos broke out at the border, he panicked and reduced refugee admissions.  Instead, he should have kept Remain in Mexico while increasing refugee admissions.  Refugees, after all, have already been vetted and processed in third countries and are being let in in a controlled manner.  That is what we want to achieve at the border.*  Certainly we could send assistant to people waiting to be processed. (Make it part of COVID relief if necessary).  We could make staying in Mexico an alternative to being deported to a dangerous situation.  (With all necessary executive procedures, which takes time).  And we could expand the number of immigration judges.  (That would probably command bipartisan support).  But Remain in Mexico is going to have to remain until our side comes up with a humane but controlled alternative.

Natural disasters.  Grade A.  Ever since the Hurricane Katrina debacle, Presidents have been conscious of the need to manage natural disasters well.  With the exception of Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico, they have.

The debt ceiling.  Grade unknown so far.  But a C at best.  It should have been obvious from day one that more debt ceiling brinkmanship was absolutely predictable.  Republicans do it every time a Democrat is in the White House  Why didn't Democrats include the debt ceiling in the reconciliation bill?  Why didn't they deal with a procedure that apparently takes a minimum of two weeks more than two weeks before a looming default?  If Democrats abolish the debt ceiling altogether or raise it to 100 quadrillion dollars, I will give them an A.  If they manage to kick the can past the 2024 election, I will give them a B.  If they raise it enough to set off a future showdown but don't do serious damage, a C.  If the economy takes a hit from a flirtation with default, a D.  And if we actually default, and F multiple minus.

Delta variant.  Grade D.  Clearly we have a disaster on our hands, but I don't altogether blame Biden for two reasons.  One is that large numbers of people are doing everything in their power to sabotage all COVID mitigation attempts.  The other is that even countries that have done much better than we have are still having secondary waves of infections due to the delta variant.  The good news is that  promising treatment is now in the works.  The bad news is that we have a disastrous shortage of home testing.  We need to clear regulatory burdens to home tests, and we need to do it yesterday.  More on this soon.

So come on, Mr. President, get on it.  COVID, debt ceiling, border, getting our people out of Afghanistan, and future crises.  Everything else is mere luxury.

____________________________________________

*It was also highly predictable that the federal courts, which had already found Donald Trump's immediate overturning of Dreamers arbitrary and capricious would likewise find overturning Trump's policy arbitrary and capricious.