« Just trying to help here | Main | Some reading for the inauguration »

January 15, 2021

Comments

“There are no solutions. There are only trade-offs.” —Thomas Sowell

I impeachment is the constitutional remedy for Trump's behaviour, so I don't think there's really an alternative unless anyone thinks it should now be politely ignored.

At least the incoming administration and its supporters in the legislature seem more attuned to political realities than was Obama's. Or rather, they have perhaps learned from their mistakes.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/14/biden-federal-pandemic-response-expansion-459473
...despite the mounting health crisis and Biden’s overriding goal of crafting a bipartisan response, Democrats are bracing for his team to hit immediate resistance.

One senior Senate Democratic aide said while cobbling together 60 votes for the package isn’t “outside the realm of possibility,” Democrats “won’t have a ton of patience for political games” and are preparing now to use the budget reconciliation process to pass the bill with only Democratic votes if necessary.

“I think a lot of Democrats have etched in their brain the ‘Lucy and the football’ incident we had with the Affordable Care Act,” the aide said, referencing the months Democrats spent fruitlessly trying to win GOP votes for the bill in 2010....

I have no strong views about this, for all I care they should put Trump before the ICC, but then a few others would have to turn up there as well, so that's not going to happen.

But from a tactical point of view I'm not sure this was the right move:

Firstly, it's hard to explain what holding an impeachment trial against a former president even means, because I always thought and correct me if I'm wrong please, that impeachment was designed to remove a sitting president from office.

Secondly, if Trump is anything, he's a great showman, and won't this give him a stage enabling to convince his followers that he's still important, a martyr even.

Thirdly, it's unlikely that he will actually be convicted, so that will be the second failed impeachment attempt, which doesn't actually look very good. For all the gloating about "the first president to be impeached twice", Trump can easily turn this around to "they went after me twice and didn't succeed" and turn this into a narrative of persecution a la "vast right-wing conspiracy".

I think it would have been better to take advantage of his loss of immunity and get him for tax evasion, embezzlement or whatever else they can come up with. This way he would end like a common criminal, not a martyr. Of course both options are not mutually exclusive but I fear that the impeachment will overshadow everything.

Regarding the legality of this impeachment opinions actually seem very divided:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/12/06/can-former-presidents-be-impeached/

impeachment was designed to remove a sitting president from office.

Impeachment can, but does not have to, include disqualification from holding federal office in future. Which would rule out a Trump run in 2024.

Disqualification only requires a majority vote in the Senate, if I'm not mistaken. I don't know if the Senate can vote for disqualification without first voting for removal.

second failed impeachment attempt

Not failed.

Regarding the legality of this impeachment opinions actually seem very divided

Trump was already impeached for the second time. The action of the House was perfectly legal. He has not yet convicted by the Senate, which is what removes and disqualifies him under the impeachment clause. Also, there is Clause 3 of the 14th amendment:

"No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

Either conviction for impeachment or Clause 3 of the 14th Amendment should be used against Trump, so that he isn't entitled to a pension and other benefits, including national security briefings.

There is precedent for convicting a federal judge after having been impeached after holding office, although arguably a judgeship is different since the term is for life.

I agree that criminal prosecution is optimal, but whatever needs to be done to keep him away from any government benefit or classified information is also required.

The prevention of taking office, loss of emoluents and Secret Service detail seem to be important to me.

I'm not really interested in discussions of tactics, because it is not like anyone here is going to have the least bit of influence on what steps are or are not taken. So I tend to look at this more like a machine that when you drop the ball in it, what is going to happen unfolds.

So in the case of impeachment, it is just too personal for Pelosi and others to step away from it and these op-eds about it jamming up Biden's first 100 days seems to ignore that. Or pretend this is just business as usual and the Dem caucus is simply going to make calculations and decide. Imagine your at a company and 1/2 or even 1/3 of your workforce feels like something must be done concerning some thing the company deals with. You ignore that third at your peril.

And, as I said, it is going to give a sense of immediacy and urgency to everything. It's hard to disentangle who is saying what, but I feel like a lot of these articles are getting off the record statements from people who either 1) have a hidden interest or 2)people who don't want to get out in front of it, but will go along. That's my take.

To prevent further semantic confusion: I, as many others, tend to imprecisely conflate impeachment with conviction. I don't think anybody thinks that the House impeachment was illegal, or better unconstitutional in itself - what they are discussing is if the Senate trial and a possible conviction would be, as it would happen after Trump has left office.

I don't think impeachment itself without conviction is a big political gain, especially in these highly partisan times, and as I said above, it might actually be turned against those who pursued it.

It would be good to remember that Clinton's popularity was the highest after his impeachment trial.

Well, Clinton thought it better not to put out a terrorist hit on Gingrich, Starr, Delay, and company.

Must have been clever triangulation on his part.

Keep your enemies, well, at least alive for comparison purposes.

It's too soon to tell whether it was a wise strategy.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/capitol-maga-rioters-planned-to-capture-and-kill-lawmakers-federal-prosecutors-say?via=newsletter&source=CSAMedition

I don't see how you simply ignore such an assault on the constitution, though, and impeachment is the remedy which the constitution sets out.

As an aside, is Trump not constitutional barred form pardoning anyone involved in matters directly associated with his own impeachment ?

it would have been better to take advantage of his loss of immunity and get him for tax evasion, embezzlement or whatever else they can come up with.

Impeachment doesn’t prevent that.

It’s not in Congress’ power to bring criminal or civil charges against Trump, AFAIK. Impeachment is what is available to them, and is appropriate.

I’m sure no few of them would like to take Trump out behind the woodshed and beat the living sh*t out of him.

Impeachment will do.

Trump can easily turn this around to "they went after me twice and didn't succeed" and turn this into a narrative of persecution a la "vast right-wing conspiracy".

That’s been the story of the last four years, and anyone open to that argument is already on board. Impeach / don’t impeach won’t make a difference.

Some things require a response. I’d say this qualifies.

And, FWIW, I agree with this take.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/14/opinion/trump-impeachment-senate.html
...More than that, the disqualification power is both the primary evidence of and the central reason the Constitution allows for the impeachment of former officers. Were it otherwise, an officer facing impeachment, or an officer who has already been impeached and is about to be removed, could also avoid disqualification simply by resigning. In 1876, disgraced Secretary of War William Belknap tried exactly that — resigning minutes before the House vote on his impeachment. The House impeached him anyway, concluding that his resignation did not defeat Congress’s impeachment power. And although some senators ultimately voted to acquit Belknap (who narrowly escaped a guilty verdict) because he was no longer in office, the Senate as a body first concluded that it had the power to try former officers, adopting a resolution that Belknap could be tried “for acts done as Secretary of War, notwithstanding his resignation of said office” before he was impeached.

The Belknap case cemented two precedents: Congress can impeach and remove former officers, but the fact that the defendant is no longer in office is one factor that senators may take into account in deciding whether to vote to convict. So, when President Richard Nixon resigned in August 1974 in an effort to forestall his seemingly inevitable impeachment and removal, that act did not deprive Congress of the constitutional power to still impeach, remove and disqualify him; it merely mitigated the perceived political expediency of doing so...

It would be good to remember that Clinton's popularity was the highest after his impeachment trial.

Which obviously indicates that Dems are most popular when they are fighting back. lol

What color was the blood of the many wonderful Americans inside the Capitol this terrorist republican wanted to shed?

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/gop-reps-staffer-stood-with-pro-trump-crowd-outside-capitol-during-insurrection

"to join with many, many thousands of wonderful red-blooded American patriots.”

Like the Manson family, Trump's besotted killers seem to include lots of winsome, bloodthirsty women.

William Barr just executed a woman.

Perhaps he was setting precedent for the long queue of female conservative traitors who will be awaiting the gallows over the next decade.

Preventing DJT from running again and from continuing to receive intelligence briefings (especially the latter) seems extremely important, and has to be pursued for this reason if no other. I think it has to be assumed, given his financial troubles, that he will be even more vulnerable to blackmail by hostile powers than he has been, and although presumably he will be watched very carefully by US intelligence, they (the hostile powers) will still prove capable. He cannot be allowed to go on disseminating state secrets, any more than he may already have done.

Which obviously indicates that Dems are most popular when they are fighting back. lol

Bravo!

Well, what can I say, everyone seems gung ho on impeachment - let's hope for the best.

It would be good to remember that Clinton's popularity was the highest after his impeachment trial.

on one hand: a blow job, and Clinton had 60%-ish job approval at the start of the process

on the other: incitement of insurrection by a President who never reached 50% job approval.

The vast majority of Americans say they oppose the actions of the rioters who stormed and ransacked the Capitol on Jan. 6, while smaller majorities say President Trump bears responsibility for the attack and that he should be removed from office and disqualified from serving again, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.

via digby, John Tester, rancher, school teacher, Senator.

The country has been putting up with threats of this kind of violence for 30 or 40 years. And not infrequently, more than threats.

Trump legitimizes this kind of violence, through his embrace and encouragement of violent actors, and through his divisive and toxic rhetoric.

Impeachment in this case is about more than just removing one person from office, or preventing one person from holding office in the future.

It is a rejection of the kind of political venom that was the basis of Trump's campaign, and of his tenure in office.

So I'm OK with it, even as a gesture. And if he's convicted, it will be more than a gesture, it will prevent him returning to any federal office.

The (R) party needs to find something constructive to run on. All they are bringing right now is bile. Anger, resentment, hostility, and threats. That has a constituency, but it's not a healthy one, and not one that anyone should want.

Well, what can I say, everyone seems gung ho on impeachment

I just think it the least bad option.

I think it's simply necessary.

Impeachment is a done deal.
But what is the hurry with conviction?
The evidence of collusion of him and others is only piling up.
I’d say it can wait to until next year.

I’d say it can wait to until next year.

I'm fine with that as long as they keep taxpayer money and national secrets away from him in the meantime.

But what is the hurry with conviction?

* he could start pardoning the traitors.
* impeaching a non-sitting President is new territory and maybe it would be nice to skip that.
* fuck him and his traitor followers

I always thought and correct me if I'm wrong please, that impeachment was designed to remove a sitting president from office.

I know others have responded to this, but....

First, impeachment (and trial, etc.) is not limited to Presidents. So there are actually more precedents than just the two pre-Trump presidential impeachments.

Second, removal is one of the penalties (after conviction, of course). But not the only possible one. In addition to potentially barring him from ever holding Federal office again, they could 1) revoke the travel allowance ex-Presidents normally get, 2) slash or even totally cancel his $200K pension, 3) remove his security detail, etc.

Third, since there are potential penalties beyond removal, there actually is a point to a Senate trial even after he's out of office. While I have seen arguments that he can't be tried after he leaves office, there are a couple of precedents where individual who had left office were still impeached and tried. (Ex-Sen. William Blount in 1797 and ex-Secretary of War William Belknap in 1876.)

As an aside, is Trump not constitutional barred form pardoning anyone involved in matters directly associated with his own impeachment?

Sadly, no. He can pretty much pardon anybody he likes (except, arguably, himself), and for any or no reason. However he probably would have to pardon them by name, not just "anybody involved in storming the Capital." Given that IDs are still in progress, he'd likely miss a bunch. Including the folks (outside his family and immediate circle) who planned it.

And, Ford's pardon of Nixon notwithstanding, he would probably need to pardon them for specific offenses. Not just "any Federal criminal offenses." A list that is also a work in progress. Be ironic if he pardoned a bunch of folks for the place-holder charges they are currently held on, but left them open for sedition and other serious charges still to come.

What color was the blood of the many wonderful Americans inside the Capitol this terrorist republican wanted to shed?

Blue, obviously. After all, everybody who opposes them is an elitist.

He can pretty much pardon anybody he likes (except, arguably, himself), and for any or no reason.

Well, not everyone agrees with that, including some people whose field it is to know about these things.

Fascinating article, Janie. Thanks!

It would be interesting to see the pardon power litigated in court (although I hope it doesn't happen because I hope that Trump doesn't try it). It might play out that Trump would pardon insurrectionists, then they would be prosecuted anyway, then the pardon be used by the defendants as an absolute defense.

Since there's no precedent, the result could go either way (although JanieM's link is encouraging). It would be fun to see Trump, once again, slapped down by the courts. Still, I hope we're able to skip it.

I hope it doesn't happen because I hope that Trump doesn't try it.

Well, since he's currently stiffing Rudy on his legal fees (and on his expenses), perhaps his usual lack of loyalty will continue here as well. Especially in the cases of those insurectionists that he was complaining about at the time "because they looked low class."

Pardons: With McConnell's delaying tactic, Trump will be president until the Inauguration. The pardon power remains his until that time...one of those cookie crumbles things.

Campos argues for holding off on an immediate Senate trial.

From bobbyp's LGM link:

This is especially true because it’s increasingly evident that a convenient procedural dodge will allow enough Republican senators to even consider convicting Trump if a trial were to be held in the first few days of the Biden administration. That dodge is the argument that holding a Senate trial for a president who is no longer in office isn’t constitutional, which, unlike the typical Republican legal argument in the age of Trump, isn’t actually a frivolous argument on its face. (Tom Cotton has already gone down this road). So it probably makes more sense to wait.

I have a very bad headache today, so maybe it's impairing my reading ability. But his makes no sense to me, especially the first sentence. Is there a "not" (or the equivalent) missing somewhere?

Why would the dodge that you can't try a former president not work as well three months after Jan 20 as well as it would work three days after Jan 20?

Can someone explain the logic?

Can someone explain the logic?

co-signed: cleek.

Put me in the missing-"not" camp.

I guess the first sentence would make some kind of sense if it sayd "allow enough R senators TO REFUSE to even consider..."

But that doesn't explain how/why the same argument wouldn't hold a few months down the line.

Unless Campos thinks that so much evidence will come out that they'll change their tune.

Even so, it isn't one of his more coherent offerings.

Yeah, I think it's that we already know it's not happening until tRump is out of office, so the question is whether to do it immediately thereafter or wait a bit. It took a couple readings for me to get there, but I think the politics of the procedural dodge would get worse as more dirt on tRump came out, so let more of it come out.

What hsh said.

At the rate further information is coming out, the Republicans might decide they'd rather go sooner than later. Just so they can later say, "Gosh, if we'd only known all this new stuff, we'd have voted differently."

Late to the party, but I immediately assumed a missing "not". And separately, what hsh said @03.20

Some work is being done in the courts. (Just pointing to Zoe Tillman's Twitter feed because she's awesome, but start with this thread: https://twitter.com/ZoeTillman/status/1350217499166597120.)

Hmmm. Thread link doesn't work for whatever reason, but Zoe Tillman is worth following if you're on Twitter. She liveblogs court proceedings in a very thorough way.

wj -- Just fixed it. (You had the period and close paren as part of the link.)

Thanks, wj!

Think of a never ending Benghazi hearing...that actually produces something of import.

I waded into the comments to see how they thought on this matter (or maybe Campos copping to an oversight), but the conversation was dominated by feces fulminations regarding Jared and Ivanka's potty obsession.

the conversation was dominated by feces fulminations regarding Jared and Ivanka's potty obsession.

Which, in normal times, might be noteworthy.

and, in other news, the NRA is bankrupt.

and, in other news, the NRA is bankrupt.

Once upon a time, whenever the country was shaken, all the loose nuts fell into California. Now, it seems to be Texas... :(

and, in other news, the NRA is bankrupt.

And lately their finances are in bad shape, too....

It's not relevant to impeachment, but there's a traditional perk for ex-Presidents that Trump definitely should not get.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/sue-gordon-trump-intelligence-briefings-former-president/2021/01/15/94b15c72-5747-11eb-a817-e5e7f8a406d6_story.html

One of the great blessings of his tenure has been his complete disinterest in his intelligence briefings. Lots of potentially damaging information is not at risk simply because he never bothered to be informed.

He might not be interested in it, but he'll know (and be willing to take advantage of) its market value...

It's a pretty fair bet that whatever the timetable the Republicans will do whatever they think politically most advantageous, without regard to truth or justice or the best interests of their country.

So the Ds should just do what they think right. Perhaps the most important thing is to try to stop traitors (of course I mean Trump) having access to state secrets.

If only there were a like button there would be so much less verbosity. Like!, Pro Bono.

Just heard on the news: "Operation Warp Speed appears to be moving in slow motion."

But she works for the local NBC channel, so...MSM.

Still, it's a great line.

I hate, hate, hate the "don't make him a martyr" business.

First, from the POV of their opponents, the nice thing about martyrs is that they are dead.

More seriously, does anyone really imagine that Trump cultists will be more reasonable if he is not convicted than if he is? That strikes me as delusional.

does anyone really imagine that Trump cultists will be more reasonable if he is not convicted than if he is? That strikes me as delusional.

Consider only that he spent 4 years being a victim in the 2016 election that he won! Seems like a total red herring.

Actually, the "don't make him a martyr" line seems like something his staff would push, in an effort to dodge accountability. And a Senate trial that they think (correctly or not) he might lose.

Lincoln, Cooper Union speech, February 27, 1860:


Under all these circumstances, do you really feel yourselves justified to break up this Government unless such a court decision as yours is, shall be at once submitted to as a conclusive and final rule of political action? But you will not abide the election of a Republican president! In that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the Union; and then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon us! That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, "Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!"

Substitute Democratic for Republican, and here we are again.

SSDD, 160 years later.

There's a reason these people run around with Lee's battle flag.

sorry, I should really have included a link to the Cooper Union speech.

It's not a short read, but it's Lincoln.

Lincoln opposed breaking up the United States, because "we want different things". Thanks, russell.

"That is cool."

I hadn't realized anything was cool before 1960, much less, 1860...

I hadn't realized anything was cool before 1960

Ah, youth!

"Cool", meaning very good, has been used since the 1930s -- although its use exploded in the 1950s and 1960s. (I personally remember it being used in the late 1950s. Definitely pre-1960.)

However, there is no obvious reason that it cannot be applied to something that dates to far earlier -- as long as it is highly regarded since it acquired that meaning.

Cool (OED) 2 d. Of a person, an action, or a person's behaviour: assured and unabashed where diffidence and hesitation would be expected; composedly and deliberately audacious or impudent in making a proposal, demand, or assumption.

In common use during the period.

"Cool" in the sense Lincoln used it is old (as in "a cool customer", i.e. having a nerve). I wouldn't be a bit surprised if there is a similar usage in Shakespeare, although I'm not going to search.

Oops. Or what nous said.

and, in other news, the NRA is bankrupt.

This is a good case to look at exactly what the NRA has done. They have filed for Chapter 11 protection in federal bankruptcy court, asserting that they are not a going concern because of threats by the State of New York to (a) dissolve them and (b) seize their assets. The reorganization plan they have asked the court to approve is to let them reincorporate in Texas and transfer their assets to Texas where the State of New York can't touch them.

IANAL, and in particular not a bankruptcy lawyer, so have no idea whether there's any precedents for allowing a non-profit to do this.

Seems The Bard has 'cool' as a verb merely as here in the Scottish Play:

"The time has been my senses would have cooled / To hear a night-shriek"
https://www.shakespeareswords.com/Public/GlossaryHeadword.aspx?headwordId=3297

Otherwise there's but the 'cooling card':
https://www.shakespeareswords.com/Public/GlossaryHeadword.aspx?headwordId=2972

As far as it concerneth our modern use, he doth prefer these terms:
https://www.shakespeareswords.com/public/thesaurus.aspx?phrase=cool

The real question is: does anyone under, say, 25 still use "cool"?

I have subconsciously been trying to avoid the word for fear of outing myself as a child of he 80s.

I grabbed up my suitcase, and took off down the road / When I got there she was layin’ on a coolin’ board.

Son House

Hartmut, I used the George Washington Shakespeare Concordance to look at every use of the word, and he didn't use it in the sense we are discussing (although I have a stubborn half-memory of its being used around that time or maybe a bit later, so I guess by someone else). I imagine nous's OED citation gives an earliest usage for this meaning, but I don't have access.

The real question is: does anyone under, say, 25 still use "cool"?

All the millenials I work with use it, but you have to say it 2 or 3 times. Include the 'l' in written form, but when speaking, sort of leave the 'l' off, so you end up with something like 'coo coo'.

I have subconsciously been trying to avoid the word for fear of outing myself as a child of he 80s.

Depending the circles you travel in, cool can mean almost anything. It's one of those words, like 'ok', that function sort of like an 'insert word here' placeholder, and their specific meaning is inferred from context.

It transcends temporal context. Use it without fear.

Well, as long as you're not using 'kewl', it's cool.

I have subconsciously been trying to avoid the word for fear of outing myself as a child of he 80s.

Interesting, given that the word was in common use in my teen years in the 60s. ;-)

Also, the older meaning survives in the phrase "cool as a cucumber," of which a lesser authority than the OED says:

The meaning of the word "Cool" in the phrase doesn't mean having a low temperature, on the contrary, it means assured and composed. The phrase was first recorded in a poem by the British poet John Gay 'New Song on New Similies' in 1732: "Cool as a cucumber could see the rest of womankind".

I wouldn't be surprised if they got that factoid from the OED, but they don't give any attribution.

"From Old English to the ages of Chaucer and Shakespeare all the way to the present, cool has been able to mean “dispassionate, calm, self-composed.” Some of our latter-day cool expressions — “stay cool,” “play it cool,” “cool as a cucumber,” “cool customer” — play off this ancient connotation of implacability."
On Language: Cool

Now you guys need to figure out “jawn.”

"jawn"??? Never encounteted that one before. Possibly because I'm 3000 miles from where it's current.

ObWi -- a constant source of education, on an amazing variety of topics.

Meanwhile, in California, our Governor seems determined to demonstrate that
1) A Democrat can make a mess of the vaccine rollout just as well as the Trump administration, and
2) The folks pushing for his recall definitely have a point.

https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2021/01/15/covid-19-chaos-and-logjams-in-california-as-vaccine-supply-promises-fall-through/

Just listened to a couple of youtube Cooper Union Speech readings. Unbelievably perfect for this moment. Thanks again.

On first glance, "jawn" looks like what the Irish call a "yoke".

On first glance, "jawn" looks like what the Irish call a "yoke".

But only in Philly.

A Democrat can make a mess of the vaccine rollout just as well as the Trump administration, ...

Being hotly contested by Andrew Cuomo.

FWIW, and if anybody is still interested, "Cool as a cucumber" seems to me to convey imperturbability. Cool in the Lincoln usage conveys a lot of calculated nerve, almost chutzpah (although without chutzpah's normal verve), which seems to me different.

FWIW, and if anybody is still interested, "Cool as a cucumber" seems to me to convey imperturbability. Cool in the Lincoln usage conveys a lot of calculated nerve, almost chutzpah (although without chutzpah's normal verve), which seems to me different.

Yes, which is why OED definition 2d above rather than 2a - "Of a person or a personal attribute, quality, etc.: not affected by passion or emotion, dispassionate; controlled, deliberate, not hasty; calm, composed.
Cool as a cucumber"

2a. is the older and more continuous usage, dating back at least as far as Chaucer. 2d. and the sense of audaciousness begins in the 1730s.

The one abiding perq of my institutional access to information may be that I get unrestrictced access to the OED. Which is also, not coincidentally, the reason why I get less institutional work done whenever I have to consult a dictionary.

Ah, I tried the Chaucer concordance. But the sense of audaciousness beginning in the 1730s makes sense, although I was out by well over a 100 years. I envy you your OED access, nous!

I think Newsom is a bit of a douche-y blockhead sometimes, but I don't blame him for CA vaccine woes. It's hard to set up and maintain a system this large, especially when the management of the supply is being botched and lied about so thoroughly at the federal level. Newsom's mistakes and personal hypocrisies seem to warrant something less than a recall vote in my mind. Can't we just make him get back together with Guilfoyle as punishment for both of them?

I'm theoretically somewhere late in the first tier for the CA plan, but I expect I'll be getting my vaccine later than many in smaller states just because of the scale we have deal with in Southern California. Size creates its own challenges.

"West Virginia has distributed nearly 90% of its supply of the first vaccine shot and is expected to be done inoculating nursing care residents with two doses by the end of January. Firefighters, police, and EMTs in the state — one of the poorest in the country — are also getting close to fully vaccinated.

Many other states are struggling to get their vaccination efforts off the ground. In all, less than a third of all doses that have been distributed across the country (and to U.S. territories), or 10.3 million out of nearly 30 million, have been given to people."
These states have done best — and worst — at vaccinating their residents against COVID-19

Another form of cool, successfully bluffing in poker with a worthless hand. As in Cool Hand Luke.

"West Virginia has distributed nearly 90% of its supply"

ok. how does 'supply' vary from state to state?

because if i'm looking for a model of public health, i'm not sure WV is near the top of the list

here's a great new phrase: Hegemonic Masculinity !

Hegemonic masculinity, in contrast, is based on a societal-level perception of the appropriate role of males. Specifically, it views the traditional role of males—namely that they're the dominant focus of society—as how it society should be ordered. It "justifies and legitimizes the power of dominant men (i.e., White, straight, upwardly mobile, and able-bodied men) over women and marginalized men," the authors write. In this view, women aren't responsible for enhancing feelings of masculinity in men; instead, they're expected to help reinforce the societal order.

This view allows for a large number of threats beyond people who don't conform to gender norms, including the prosperity of any group like minorities or immigrants that might weaken the dominance of the current hegemonic group of males.

(Obviously, there's a lot more to both of these ideas than can be conveyed in a few paragraphs.)

does it correlate to Trump voters?

of course it does!

I think any state's rating on how well they've rolled out the vaccines should take into account the Trump Admin's monumental corruption and incompetence.

That reserve that no longer exists? Unless it's a bookkeeping error (which is possible: cf incompetence), my money would be on the corruption angle.

That is, the "reserve" dosages were diverted/sold to Trump and GOP cronies (cf the galactic-level of corruption that went into purchase and distribution of PPEs way back when).

I'm not rushing to judge Newsom, in other words.

I think Newsom is a bit of a douche-y blockhead sometimes, but I don't blame him for CA vaccine woes.

Certainly Newsom isn't solely responsible for California's vaccine woes. The Federal government contributed -- not least in announcing it was "releasing a reserve supply" which did not, in fact, exist. As did the fact that California had built (long before Newsom) a very lean hospital system -- that is, one with minimal spare capacity to handle emergencies.

Still, I think it's fair to say that he has made things unnecessarily worse. Even just realizing that the Trump administration reflexively lies, and therefore not announcing a revision the rollout plans until you see the reality, would have been a minimally intelligent thing to do.

I think I'm supposed to be in the tier that is getting rolled out either now or very shortly. But I figure to hold off for a while. Let the limited supply go to those whose need is greater. I may be old enough to get priority, but I'm a) healthy, and b) have a job that doesn't need me to go out and interact with others.

ok. how does 'supply' vary from state to state?

Distribution from the manufacturers is controlled by the federal government and is allocated to states in proportion to the number of adults living there.

because if i'm looking for a model of public health, i'm not sure WV is near the top of the list

There doesn't seem to be any kind of correlation between the vaccination percentages in the article I linked and the health ratings in the article you linked.

WV is ahead on vaccine distribution in part because it has relied on local pharmacies rather than chains.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/01/07/954409347/why-west-virginias-winning-the-race-to-get-covid-19-vaccine-into-arms

Many long-term care sites in the state already use local pharmacies for other vaccines and medicines as well as twice-weekly coronavirus testing of residents and staff. The state decided to piggyback off those existing relationships. Because those pharmacies already had data on many patients, it was easier to begin scheduling appointments in early December, securing consent forms and matching doses to eligible patients — logistics that are confounding efforts in many other states.

I think I'm supposed to be in the tier that is getting rolled out either now or very shortly.

Perhaps for the first time in over a half-century that I'm being told that I'm too young...

Never let it be said that gummint has never paid you a compliment.

How are those "local pharmacies" handling the rather extreme refrigeration requirements?

On first glance, "jawn" looks like what the Irish call a "yoke".

Sort of, except a jawn is usually something cool. ;^)

But only in Philly.

That’s my jawn, yo! (variant usage of “yo”)

on the topic of Philly:

I've been trying to explain the appeal of Gritty, who has become more or less my spirit animal, to my wife.

She's not getting it.

A lot of Marxists in Philly

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZymSrDfLhW8

Long, but good story.

Staggering stat: The White House Council of Economic Advisers estimates every day the vaccine can be accelerated is worth ~$10 billion to society.

https://twitter.com/StevenTDennis/status/1350426959172562944


--

There doesn't seem to be any kind of correlation between the vaccination percentages in the article I linked and the health ratings in the article you linked.

that's why i asked the question. WV is not a model of good public health service. so something else must be going on.

donald trump sez goodbye and so does deplorable we:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=su3qmvCkvtE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9dK1JQBmwE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfNO1FFtoUI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yUjmqR7Usc

'cept instead of one last blast from the laugh track machine, real lonesome American gonna set bombs off.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad