Unexpected political stories

 Today I saw two news stories which are the opposite of what I'd expect based on simple political stereotypes.

First a story about a US Education Department civil rights investigation of Denver Public Schools. The schools are accused of giving preference to minority membership on a district committee. Given the usual left / right divide over affirmative action type policies I was surprised the Biden administration is doing this.

Then I saw a story that NIH has stopped investigating health effects of cell phone radiation. Again, this seems the opposite of what I'd expect. Though this might be explained by the fact that cell phone companies give money on a bipartisan basis to avoid problems of this sort.

Aristotle was right (sort of)?

 

Aristotle, ancient Greek philosopher and scientist, argued that things fall because they have a natural tendency to move toward the center of the universe (center of the Earth). Rather than a force of gravity causing downward acceleration there is instead a force which holds pushes upwards to prevent things from falling. Galileo and others argued instead that bodies are naturally at rest and there is a force that causes them to fall.

It turns out in one sense modern physics, relativity, is in agreement with Aristotle. According to general relativity gravity is not a force (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3LjJeeae68) but instead a side effect of the geometry of spacetime. Things fall because the mass of the Earth warps the geometry of space such that the the object will move toward the center of the Earth. And it is the force produced by the whatever is holding an object up which actually exists.

Abortion as birth control

 Throughout the abortion argument there has been a fairly consistent statement that abortion is not being used as birth control. Yet the reaction to reversing Roe v Wade shows this appears to not be the case.

With the decision there are reports of an upswing in men seeking vasectomies -- apparently some proportion of men assumed that their partner would get an abortion if they got pregnant. And there are women saying they'll only sleep with men who've had a vasectomy.

This also explains the prevalence of STDs, appears these people never heard of using a condom both for contraception and disease prevention.

OSHA COVID lives saved?

 The Supreme Court decision striking down the OSHA vaccine mandate was struck down. Reading about the decision I came across an interesting factor in the government's justification for the mandate.

The government argued (and OSHA's summary) that the mandate would conservatively save over 6,500 lives. This when over 800,000 have died in the pandemic. 6,500 lives is less than the one week death count from COVID for about the last 5 months. If that's all the lives they expect the mandate to save then it really doesn't seem that significant.

Of course, 6,500 is labeled a conservative minimum, still I would have expected a nationwide mandate of large employers to be able to save more than a week's worth (or 3 days worth lately) of deaths.

Playing with numbers

 I was scanning blogs I follow and found one which quoted an insurance company employee as saying "the death rate is up a stunning 40% from pre-pandemic levels among working-age people." This blog is very anti-vaccine and argues (without detailed numbers of analysis) that the cause of this increase is the COVID vaccine.

So I decided to look at the numbers and see what I could deduce. I did this using the CDC Wonder database, which provides number of deaths by age, date, race, cause of death, etc. So I chose by year and age in 5 year groups. Complete data is available for 2018-2020, provisional data for 2021 through November 20 (41 days short of the full year).

To analyze I took the average for 2018-2019 as a baseline and compared them against 2020 and against the partial 2021 data. I compared death rates (number per 100,000). I also compared absolute deaths (raw numbers) because population data is not available for those 85 and over, so death rates aren't available.

2021 data is fairly error prone since 1) population data is not present, 2020 numbers are used and 2) incomplete partial year data must be extrapolated to a full year. To estimate full year 2021 data I took the 41 missing days, added 3 more days (to estimate late reported deaths, a number I picked without any real basis), so added 44 days more to 2021 numbers.

The basic results were interesting:

• Death rates for children under 10 went down about 5% in 2020 and 2021. I can't say why but would guess a reduction in accidents (kids kept indoors? parents at home more?) and poorer medical care (non-emergency care shut down part of the year).
• Death rates for those 15-29 are up about 20% in 2020 vs 2018-19. It's likely most of this is COVID, part may be differences in accident rates, the primary cause of death at this age. In 2021 the increase might be 25% from 2018-19 (but the numbers are much more uncertain).
• For those 30-49 the death rate is up about 25% in 2020 and extrapolated 2021 numbers do show a 40% increase. So the blog insurance employee comment may very well be true.
• Over age 50 the increase in the death rate declines to 15-20% for older adults. This lower increase is even though the vast majority (around 3/4) of COVID deaths are those over 50. I'd guess two reasons for this. One is the absolute number of deaths in these age ranges is higher (so excess COVID deaths aren't as high a percentage) but the primary reason is likely that COVID affects those already sick more than those who are healthy. So a significant percentage of older adults who died of COVID would have died in the year anyway (though not as soon). Obviously this is a guess, it would take a much more detailed analysis of deaths and cause of death to make an absolute statement. And this is an area where statistics can easily be manipulated to generate a pre-determined result.
• For 2021 the extrapolated increased death rate for those 50-74 appears to be a bit higher than 2020, but not significantly so. For age 80 and up death rates appear to be going down from 2020. Without population data part of this could be an effect of a significant number of deaths in this age range having reduced the population. But part of it is likely due to a lower rate of COVID deaths. That lower rate could be people taking better precautions or it could be vaccines since vaccination rates are very high in older adults.

So are vaccines causing huge increases in deaths among adults? I don't think so for the following reasons:

• For those over 80 death rates are going down if anything. With higher vaccination rates it implies vaccines don't cause excess deaths in this age group.
• For those 30-49 (where excess rates appear to be 40%) most of the increase was in 2020 (up 25%). As there was no vaccine in 2020 and subtracting off the first 2-3 months of 2020 (pre-COVID) the excess death rate in 2020 and 2021 is probably comparable. This could be shown using monthly data but I don't have the time or inclination to pursue it.
• As vaccination rates are lower for the 30-49 age group and vaccines were not available until later in the year it isn't clear if the vaccines have reduced the absolute death rate in this age group. But there is a good argument vaccines have not caused the huge number of deaths anti-vaxxers claim (note my analysis doesn't look at cause of death, so is not biased by conspiracy claims that officials are misclassifying vaccine deaths).

So no, it doesn't appear COVID vaccines are dangerous, while COVID itself is clearly dangerous.

The politics of mask mandates?

 Colorado is experiencing another surge in COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations. The health care system is reportedly becoming overwhelmed, and a lot of health care workers are experiencing burnout after the last 1 1/2 years.

In this environment Colorado's governor has refused to impose a statewide mask mandate. Instead he says county and local health authorities should decide any mandates. Two counties, Boulder and Larimer, have re-imposed mandates.

Other counties have not imposed mandates, yet many of them are actively lobbying the governor to impose a statewide mandate. If masks are so important one wonders why the county doesn't impose its own mandate independent of the state. While a mandate by one county in the Denver Metro area will do less than a metro area wide mandate (given the number of people who cross county lines daily) a county mandate ought to do some good and say that officials are serious about it. Yet most counties aren't putting their own mandates into place.

Could this be politics? Mask mandates are unpopular, especially among conservatives. One place actively lobbying for masks is Jefferson County. It is in suburban Denver and generally conservative politically. Are they lobbying the governor so that with a statewide mandate the (democratic) governor will get any negative political fallout from a new mandate?

"Defund the police" Justice Department Style?

Immediately after the verdict in the Derek Chauvin case the Justice Department announced an investigation into the Minneapolis Police Department looking for a pattern of racial bias or excessive force.

Now today the Justice Department announced a similar investigation into the Louisville, KY police department over the death of Breona Taylor.

One wonders if the Justice Department is going to investigate any police department where an event hits the national news or prompts protests. There are plenty of other cases of questionable police behavior which have not hit the national news, have not prompted protests, and apparently for this reason will not prompt a Federal investigation.

Russian actions, Trump vs Biden

In the last couple days President Biden announced new sanctions against Russia for hacking and election interference. The claim is Russia interfered in the 2020 election in favor of Donald Trump.

Coincidentally (?) Russia is reported to be moving troops to its border with Ukraine and there may be another Russia / Ukraine conflict.

It's interesting that Donald Trump was supposed to be the friend of Russia or even Russian agent, yet it's under Joe Biden (perceived as anti-Russia) that Russia thinks it can get away with military action.

What is offensive?

 Big news this week is that Dr. Seuss is being "cancelled". More specifically a few of his books which have been declared "racist" -- expressing racial stereotypes which some find offensive.

To Think That I Saw It On Mulberry Street has been removed from publication, apparently because of one picture in the book showing a stereotypical Chinese man holding chopsticks. This has apparently been declared offensive. There are a few other pictures in the book which stereotype other groups, I'm not sure if they're part of the reason that the book is so bad.

Coincidentally, I decided to finally watch the Star Wars movie "Rogue One". This movie is praised for a female lead and a "diverse" cast. Yet I find it odd when watching the movie. The female lead is an English actress, so no diversity there. Of the various characters one is a stereotypical oriental martial arts master. I can't see that as any less "offensive" (that Chinese are martial arts masters) than the Dr. Seuss stereotype of Chinese clothing.

A few other characters fit other stereotypes, yet apparently these are ok in the movie context. Of course, the overtly white males are all officers of the Empire and thus villains.

Still, it seems it would be as easy to declare Rogue One as "racist" as it is to declare Dr. Seuss "racist".

Travel bans for me but not for thee

 In January 2020 President Trump restricted travel from China as the COVID-19 epidemic ramped up. At the time this was roundly criticized as unnecessary and xenophobic by Democrats including Joe Biden. If I remember correctly some lawsuits were also filed against the restriction.

Sometime later when this was brought up as an example of President Trump paying attention to COVID-19 (contrary to the talking point that he ignored the pandemic) Nancy Pelosi acknowledged the China travel ban but said it didn't do any good since US citizens and a number of other people were still allowed into the country.

On January 25, 2021 Joe Biden issued a proclamation restricting travel to the US from Europe and Brazil. And just like the Trump China restrictions the restrictions don't apply to US citizens and several categories of non-citizens.

It looks like Joe Biden just issued a travel "ban" which is essentially the same as the Trump travel "ban" he criticized a year ago. Yet this one is not being labeled xenophobic or racist, perhaps because we're primarily banning whites, not Asians.

What Was Donald Trump Really Like as President?

 Now that Donald Trump is out of office the Biden administration is hard at work to reverse everything which was done over the last four years. Perhaps not literally everything, but a lot.

Something else happening is further claims about how irrational Donald Trump was as President. Recent comments by Dr. Fauci say how refreshing it is to no longer be working for Trump. Yet what's the truth of these claims?

There are numerous reports describing Donald Trump's behavior as President as childish. One was by the person labeled as "Anonymous". Yet in the end it turns out "Anonymous", regardless of the truth of his accusations, lied about his identity. He wasn't a White House insider but a high level staffer at DHS. In addition, "Anonymous" (Miles Taylor) had previously denied the identity when initially asked by the press if it was him.

Other reports of the Trump administration portray a President who listened to policy debate, asked reasoned questions, and made thoughtful decisions (see "You're Hired!" by Casey B. Mulligan). Which version is true?

It's hard to say the reality of Trump's behavior. Descriptions of his Presidency are strongly based on the opinions of those doing the describing. I haven't seen objective hard evidence presented (e.g. taped together documents from reports Trump routinely ripped up things he didn't like), so we're dependent on news reports, largely by overtly anti-Trump media companies, sourced by people who have a reason to dislike the Trump administration.

Dr. Fauci says it's refreshing not to work for Trump, yet Dr. Fauci has lied to the public (and admitted it), both about masks (in March, 2020 he said they aren't needed, around July he admitted he lied because they didn't want common people buying scarce maks) and about herd immunity (admitting he stated the percentage of the population needed for herd immunity based on what he thought the public would accept).

So what's the truth? Especially after Donald Trump's failure to accept the election the best political move many can take is to talk about the horrors of Trump. I'm sure we'll see books from former members of the administration talking about the horror of the Trump White House (and a few others about how great it was). Yet can we know the truth? The Trump administration has been defined by the highly polarized positions of this supporters and opponents. Will people lie about him? "The Resistance" was formed to get him out of office "by any means". It seems clear many allies have been willing to support impossible election fraud claims.

It may be we never know the truth of what went on in the White House.

This is Human Trafficking?

Florida law enforcement has announced a big human trafficking bust. Yet was it? See 71 Arrested in Human Trafficking Sting in Florida Ahead of Tampa Super Bowl.

The headline announces a bust against human trafficking, yet reading the story it appears this was just a prostitution sting. The police posted online ads for sex or had female detectives pose as sex workers. They then arrested men who answered the ads. All will be charged with some variation of patronizing a prostitute.

Notice that no actual prostitutes, pimps, etc. were involved. Nobody actually involved in human trafficking was arrested nor were any women "rescued" from sex work.

This appears to be an attempt to generate some headlines in advance of the Superbowl. These arrests are not doing to do anything to fight actual human trafficking. There might be a brief, minimal affect on the number of men seeking out a prostitute out of fear of a new police sting, but beyond that it will be business as usual in the sex trade.

Was Trump's speech an impeachable offense?

 A second Trump impeachment is being demanded based on outrage for the riot at the Capitol. More and more people seem to be demanding impeachment, even if done after Trump leaves office (for which there is apparently precedent).

Yet what was the impeachable offense? The impeachable offense was basically that the crowd attacked the Capitol building. If the crowd had marched to the Capitol and spent the afternoon chanting and yelling we wouldn't be talking about a second impeachment, it would have just been a bunch of Trump deplorables and the media would have spent days talking about how they were all stupid racists.

So the impeachment "offense" is largely an offense by the Capitol occupying crowd, not directly by Donald Trump. One could imagine a similar "offense" if somebody had gone and shot a cabinet official shortly after members of Congress called for attacks on those working for the administration.

The next few days will say whether Trump is impeached (most likely yes) and whether the Senate convicts or even holds a trial (most likely no).  

Vote counting irony

After watching this year's election fiasco I've been reading a description of the Bush v Gore mess in 2000 for comparison. The book is Courting Justice by David Boies. He was one of Gore's lawyers during that fiasco. The last three chapters are about Bush v Gore.

Much of the Bush v Gore argument ended up being the Gore camp wanting more votes to be counted (though they really only cared about 4 left leaning counties). The Bush camp wanted the results accepted as is (understandable, they were ahead). A consistent theme throughout the book is that the more votes that are counted the more Gore will gain over Bush. In this case the extra votes being counted were questionable ballots -- those not properly filled out but where the "intent of the voter" can be discerned, something Florida law allowed to be counted. Mr. Boies even seems to argue that the more votes counted in Republican counties, the better for Gore.

This leaves me wondering why this is the case. Could it be that on average Democrats don't know how to fill out a ballot, don't know how to follow directions filling out a ballot, or are afraid to ask for help? How does this compare to common stereotypes today of stupid Trump supporters?

I've read arguments by scholars that we should have some sort of minimal test for voting. The arguments tend by those of the left against "deplorables" (to stereotype broadly) and are in terms of trying to prevent the return of old, regressive policies as opposed to newly enacted progressive policies. This dovetails with arguments that conservatives are more likely to not have a college degree, etc. which I've seen since the 1980 election when I was first involved with major party politics.

Yet election vote counting shows an interesting contrast. Apparently it's Democrats who are more likely to be unable to fill out a ballot correctly. Should we perhaps ask whether those who can't vote properly are intelligent enough to choose a candidate properly?

[NOTE: I do NOT advocate establishing some sort of eligibility test for voting. It's far, far too easy to turn any requirement for voting into a partisan test (e.g. literacy "tests" in the Jim Crow south).

Social Security confusion

 One of the things I've learned over the years is that one of the most confusing areas of personal finance is retirement, Social Security, etc. Having a technical degree and having filed individual income tax schedules not related to farming, I've been completely stymied when it comes to retirement. I first dealt with retirement income, taxes, etc. for my father in law. How to take benefits (monthly payments, lump sum, etc) for some types of pension is bad enough. He had a civil service pension and the 1099 form looked nothing like the examples in tax books (different numbers, etc). Figuring out the taxable amount of the pension is a disaster. No wonder tax preparation is a lucrative career.

Now I've seen another possible confusion. My wife passed away recently. Social Security was notified and I'm wondering how the final payments work. Social Security rules say you must return any payment "for the month of death" along with later months. Since her November payment was in the bank before she died I'm wondering if I need to return it. Add to this online complaints of "Social Security yanked the last payment out of the bank and caused everything else to bounce" and I wasn't sure what to expect.

Well, it turns out there's no problem. The Social Security payment "for a month" is paid the next month. Luckily there was no bank deposit the next month. Still, it took me a couple times reading the rules to figure out that "for a month" didn't mean the payment made "in a month", which is a reasonable assumption. I wonder how many people are confused by this. I wonder how many people return the payment for the month of death thinking this what is required.

In the days of the web this is made more difficult because searches related to Social Security and death turn up more responses about the SS death benefit or survivor benefits than how the last payment is treated.

So we have the irony that once somebody has finished their working life and is ready to relax in retirement it suddenly seems an advanced degree is needed to sort out the financial and tax issues.

Joe Biden and Coronavirus

 Joe Biden is emphasizing dealing with COVID-19 and assures us that he will use the vast powers of the federal government to change the course of the disease. As with most political statements time will tell what this really means.

It's been quite clear that Mr. Biden is in an ideal position going into the presidency. If COVID-19 cases decline and we can return to some semblance of normalcy in the months after his inauguration then he can claim the credit. On the other hand, if the virus remains out of control or gets worse then he can claim that Trump mismanaged it so badly that nobody could have fixed it.

The next few months will be interesting. Mr. Biden seems to think he can command the government and people to do something and they will do it. After almost 50 years in politics he should realize it doesn't work that way.

Is Supreme Court packing unconstitutional?

 Newsweek has published an opinion piece arguing that Court Packing is unconstitutional. I wondered about this since at first glance the Constitution doesn't specify the size of the Supreme Court so how could it prohibit additional justices?

Reading the article the argument is basically that it's wrong to add justices to change the ideological makeup of the Court. Thus court packing is unconstitutional because it's being done for the wrong reason. This argument may seem absurd yet numerous courts have struck down Trump administration actions (e.g. immigration restrictions) in this way. The court argues that President Trump's reasons for some new action make it illegal even if the law appears to allow the action.

This argument also follows the reasoning of other court rulings. There is no mention of abortion or same sex marriage in the constitution yet the Supreme Court has found them to be protected by the Constitution. Using a similar argument to prohibit court packing shows the nature of one school of constitutional interpretation which can find any desired result in the Constitution given enough looking.

Is this interpretation correct? That's less clear. In a way the argument against court packing boils down to the Constitution protecting "tradition". The this sense it's the opposite of the ruling in favor of same sex marriage (which is not traditional). Yes arguing court packing is unconstitutional would be quite ironic. Rulings which extract some hidden meaning from the Constitution (e.g. abortion, same sex marriage, etc) tend to be favored by the political left while more literal readings and originalism are of the political right. Yet this argument, though in the nature of the "left wing" court arguments, would have the effect of favoring the right.

Is Trump's criticism really so unprecedented?

 The latest anti-Trump headline is "Trump launches unprecedented attack on military leadership he appointed." President Trump criticized military leadership,saying:

I'm not saying the military's in love with me -- the soldiers are, the top people in the Pentagon probably aren't because they want to do nothing but fight wars so that all of those wonderful companies that make the bombs and make the planes and make everything else stay happy,

This is termed an "unprecedented attack". Yet reading this statement it sounds a lot like statements from "doves" in Congress who want shrink the military. So it doesn't look like this is an unprecedented attack, unless it's the fact it's an "attack" by a President who has increased the military budget.

Notice the pattern -- the Trump administration has supported the military overall but the headlines are all "Trump hates the military" because something could be taken negatively.

Media bias in the era of Trump

The media again shows how anything from Donald Trump is taken in the worst possible light.

One of the big stories this morning is that Donald Trump suggested delaying the 2020 election. A CNN headline is typical:  "Trump floats delaying election despite lack of authority to do so."

So what is the basis of this outrage? Turns out Donald Trump did a single tweet:

With Universal Mail-In Voting (not Absentee Voting, which is good), 2020 will be the most INACCURATE & FRAUDULENT Election in history. It will be a great embarrassment to the USA. Delay the Election until people can properly, securely and safely vote???

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 30, 2020

From this the media emphasizes:

1. The standard talking point that there is no election fraud in the United States and an all mail ballot is no different than absentee balloting so there's no problem switching to an all mail ballot system.
2. Donald Trump doesn't have the authority to do this. Maybe he's going to defy the law and constitution?

As far as I can tell all Donald Trump did is make a suggestion. The suggestion wasn't even in any sort of official setting. But to the media any suggestion made by Donald Trump is considered to be a fait accompli, official policy, and something he is driving to implement.

Yet Donald Trump didn't say going to do this unilaterally. Presidents make proposals all the time which they know perfectly well they can't implement unilaterally. The State of the Union address is largely a list of legislative proposals from the President. Nobody screams that the President is going to steamroll over Congress. But in this case he will?

This story is part and parcel of the media narrative that Trump is an authoritarian and/or dictator (odd he hasn't shut them down if he were) and that he doesn't intend to leave office if he loses the election, instead proclaiming himself dictator. And what is the evidence of this? Essentially zero. Trump did mention a third term at one of his rallies a year or so ago. This is after a few bloggers had suggested that there needs to be a way to punish (Democrats in) Congress for refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of his election. This was similarly a throwaway line at a rally, not a serious proposal.

So here we again see the media creating a controversy. Donald Trump never said he would unilaterally postpone the election but the media chose to interpret his statement that way because it shows him in the worse light.

Has Trump lost the election

The media is telling us how far behind Donald Trump is in the polls. There are regular articles about how Trump's presidency is melting down and in panic.

It might be informative to consider the situation four years ago. In 2016 after Trump clinched the nomination and before the convention he trailed Hillary Clinton in the polls by about the same percentage as today. Four years ago Hillary Clinton was a candidate without a strong, excited base. She was unable to get much of the Obama vote, in particular in the swing states which mattered.

So today? Trump trails in the polls. He has an opponent who hasn't generated a lot of excitement. For many on the left Joe Biden's chief appeal is that he isn't Donald Trump. People have publicly stated they are voting for Biden as a vote against Trump, especially to to get around some of the unpalatable things in Biden's past.

We shall see how the election progresses.