Month: January 2021

On 1/9/21 one of the headlines in our local newspaper read “Action Filed in NYE Collapse.” The article goes on to say that the City Attorney filed a civil action against both the owner of the warehouse and the organizer of a New Year’s Eve party where a balcony collapsed under the weight of dancing attendees. 

I find this civil action interesting because it actually involves two separate issues. The first involves the safety of the building and the violation of some building codes. To me the owners of the building should be liable for a poorly constructed mezzanine balcony and its collapse as well as the injuries that occurred as a consequence. No problem here.

However the second part of this civil action involves a more basic constitutional concept, as it claims that the NYE party “violated the county and state orders preventing large gatherings.” The City Attorney said that the defendants exposed countless people to Covid by hosting what could be a super-spreader event. 

Now let’s be clear. 

The basic principle here involves whether or not the government has the constitutional authority to stop group gatherings. This same principle is involved in the government’s authority to prevent an entire menagerie of different things, like restaurant dining, either indoor or outdoor, attending church services, going to a gym, getting a haircut, etc. The latest is a dictum that limits travel to less than 120 miles from one’s home . . . unless that travel is “essential.” (121 miles is bad, but 119 miles is okay?)

Although their intent may be good, iis it legal for “those that know best” to tell everybody what they can and cannot do.? Their dictums are not laws.

The party goers knew full well that they were possibly exposing themselves to Covid when they paid their entry fee. Similarly restaurant attendees, gym attendees, church attendees all know that there is a risk involved if they go to a restaurant, a gym, a barber shop, a synagogue or a church, etc. They basically accept that risk if they do these things.

Certainly the Covid pandemic is bad. People are getting sick and people are dying, but does a pandemic (or anything else for that matter) allow the government to suspend certain constitutional freedoms? If it’s Covid this year, might it be the flu next year, or something else the following year? As is alluded to in my book, The Keneally Chronicles, should the Supreme Court have been involved in this issue from the beginning ? Is the suspension of basic freedoms for any reason by “those who know best” okay? Personally I think not, but where is SCOTUS?

The Supreme Court has been absent in the entire election fiasco. For how much longer will SCOTUS be AWOL in this other basic issue?

Simon & Schuster said on Thursday, 1/7/21, that it would cancel the publication of an upcoming book by Senator Josh Hawley, one of several members of Congress who tried to overturn the results of the presidential election.

“Simon and Schuster:

As a publisher, it will always be our mission to amplify a variety of voices and viewpoints: at the same time we take seriously our larger public responsibility and cannot support Senator Hawley after his role in what became a dangerous threat to our democracy and freedom,” the publisher, which is in the process of being sold by ViacomCBS to Penguin Random House, said.

The book blurb that is still on the publisher’s website says Hawley “argues that big tech companies—Facebook, Google, Amazon, and Apple—represent the gravest threat to American liberty since the monopolies of the Gilded Age, and proposes a democratic, hopeful path forward.”

A comment on Twitter starts: “This could not be more Orwellian . . . “

Abigail Shrier a columnist for the WSJ put this in perspective:

“You’re not entitled your book contract,’ can quickly become ‘United doesn’t have to let you onto its planes’ ‘Marriott doesn’t have to let you stay at its hotels,’ or ‘Visa doesn’t have to let you use its cards.’ And maybe that’s the point.”

As reported by RedState’s Mike Miller, ABC News has championed “cleansing” the country of the “movement he (Trump) commands.” 

“Cleansing!!” . . . Scary, and by ABC News, no less.

Gird your loins. This is just the beginning. Cancel Culture is just beginning to  pick up steam.

Will the courts try to balance the scales of justice?Will the Supreme Court come out of its recent hibernation to deal with this issue, or will it continue to be in absentia?

1/11/21

From the very beginning of Covid in the US, it should have always been about balancing the health issues and the economic issues of this disease. For the last ten months for the most part the health issues have dominated the economic issues with various levels of lockdowns being the prime weapon to combat the extent of the virus. At this point a rational person could be asking our governor, “Hey G-man, how is that working out? 

We are now in the midst of the “surge of all surges” with infections and deaths from Covid reaching all time highs, while at the same time economic casualties continue to pile up. Long ago I lost count of how many times from “those in the know” I have heard the words like, “just wait for the vaccine, and then all will be okay.” But it’s not over. I am here to tell you that the vaccine will not make everything okay . . . it will just bring in a new different set of problems.

Over the last few months I have repeatedly asked, “why are those who have already had Covid and then recovered from Covid still being treated like lepers.” Why should they be forced to continue to quarantine? They no longer have any Covid to spread, and the chance of them contracting the infection again is so small that is approaches zero. As of now those who are in this group make up only a small portion of the populace. But it’s not over.

In addition within months there will be a significant number of individuals who have had both doses of the vaccine, and thus they will also be immune. They will neither be susceptible to catch the virus nor to spread the virus. Should they continue to be under lockdown like those who have already had the virus and are thus immune to reinfection? 

Businesses will be continuing to clamor to reopen. Will it be okay for them to be open only to those who have either had the infection or have received the vaccine? Do “those in the know” have an answer to this coming problem or more important, have they even thought about this coming quandary? Will there be special I.D. cards for those who have had the vaccine? (At this point one might ask if there are I.D. cards for those that have already tested positive for the virus . . . err . . . “No”) Will one need a special “I’ve had the vaccine” picture I.D. to go to a restaurant, while still not needing an I.D to vote? Will there be a black market for these vaccine I.D.’s for the 44% of the population that are not planning on getting the vaccine? 

It’s not over . . . not by a long shot!

These were the first words on my rejection letter from Peter & Shooter Publishers a little over a year ago. As some of may know, I have taken an interest in writing in my retirement, but I have learned that this can be an expensive hobby. Before embarking on the gigantic time-sink of writing a novel, I decided to ask my editor for his opinion. He then forwarded my outline to someone he knows in the publishing business. It actually did not take very long for my rejection letter to come in the mail on January 4, 2020..

What was it about you ask? In fact I saved my outline, as you never know what the future will bring. What follows is a short summary of my outline:

-A popular President was gliding along to his re-election to a second term. The opposing political party was not adverse to trying anything. In fact one of their higher-ups was overheard saying, “Nothing is off the table. We will do anything to defeat this President. Nothing is too low. Nothing is too dishonest. The end, getting rid of this guy, justifies the means . . . justifies anything!”

-The fact that he was gaining popularity doing in the so-called battleground states, and despite the fact that his rallies were drawing exorbitant peaceful crowds, didn’t stop his enemies from nominating a milk-toast candidate who campaigned very little. 

-They were growing desperate, and so basically they stole the election using a combination of unlawful methods in the battleground states.

-The liberals were in charge in these ill-gotten battleground states, and so the local challenges went nowhere. The Supreme Court then ducked the issue entirely.

-On the day of the electoral vote, there was a planned huge rally in the Capitol in support of the President. The crowd was infiltrated with Antifa and far leftists masquerading as the President’s supporters. When the unruly crowd broke through the obvious weak security (the mayor of  Washington D.C. had refused additional Federal Security assistance), the press was quick to jump on the bandwagon and blame the President for everything. 

-Because the opposition was worried that the present President might run again in four years, they again tried to use impeachment and then Article 25 to get the President out of office despite the fact that he only had two weeks left in office.

Although I thought that my story was interesting, Peter and Shooter Publishing said that it was too far out and unbelievable, and so “Sorry, Charlie.”

No, this is not about an actual military conflict, but rather about the worldwide battle against Covid, and the ethics of triage. In major battlefield situations the wounded must be triaged. Decisions have to be made concerning the ultimate viability of an individual and the necessary allocation of resources, especially time. 

For example, consider that severely wounded soldier, ‘A,’ needed urgent surgery and this surgery would tie up two surgeons each for four hours with the estimated chance for survival of 20% with surgery and 0% without immediate surgery. Compare that to the wounded soldiers, B,C,D, and E in the same medical tent who also needed surgery. If their surgery was done expeditiously by a single surgeon, their individual chances of survival would be 75% with surgery, and 25% without surgery. Who should get the immediate surgery(s)? This decision making process is called ‘triage,’ or a determination of priority in order to increase the number of survivors. 

In this day, fortunately triage decisions are needed only very rarely. However, with this Covid pandemic, this has already started to change. The limited resource with Covid does not involve the surgeon’s allocation of time, but rather the allocation of other resources, namely the availability of ICU beds, and the number of ICU nurses needed to adequately care for these very ill patients. In some places there are no further available ICU beds and ICU nurses taking care of these patients are already stretched too thin – taking care of up to three critically ill patients, instead of one or two.

Methodist Hospital in L.A. County has already formed a committee whose responsibility is to triage patients as to the priority of ICU bed allocation. On this committee there is a physician, a community member, a bioethicist specialist, and a spiritual care provider. One  of the major issues with Covid ICU care is the length of time that these individuals can often need to remain in the ICU . . . sometimes upwards to two weeks. As a practical matter this sort of committee needs to consider the factor of limited turnover of these ICU beds when making a determination as to which Covid patients then get the very limited number of available ICU beds.

If there is only one available  ICU bed, do you give it to a critically ill elderly Covid patient with Alzheimer’s and an O2 sat of 80%,  (a normal O2 sat is >93%), or to a 65 year old with an O2 sat of 90%? To many, this triage decision would be easy, but most of these Covid triage decisions will be a lot tougher, as once an individual is in ICU on a ventilator, it will very difficult to to take him/her off the ventilator.

About a week ago a medical colleague and I sent a letter to the editor concerning the prudence of having an Advanced Medical Directive. Those who do not want to be on a ventilator because of Covid can avoid the ventilator by having an Advanced Medical Directive, and I would recommend that everyone have one. It would be a tragedy if an ICU bed was filled by someone who did not want to be there, while someone else died because no ICU bed was available.

FYI: this letter was not deemed important enough to publish!

On 12/13/20, I wrote a blog titled “If Not This, Then What?” 

It had to do with why isn’t the Supreme Court getting involved in the 2020 election controversy?

When I went to bed late on the evening of 11/3/20, President Trump had a comfortable lead, but when I woke up the following morning, it was a totally different story. What happened? There are multiple suggestions as to what happened. Multiple accusations. In the days that followed, there were multiple examples of very suspicious behavior in multiple states. Of course multiple accusations do not necessarily translate into multiple transgressions. Some were probably true and some were probably not true.

The gist of my commentary back on 12/13 was that because any outcome would be very contentious, an impartial arbiter was going to be necessary. Because there were basically innumerable  accusations of wrong doing, and outright law breaking, who was going to decide if there was some serious lying and cheating? Who was going to have to be that impartial arbiter? Was the outcome of the election fraudulent?

As I said clearly back on 12/13, the Supreme Court was going to have to be involved, but the Supreme Court ducked. In one of the most contentious elections ever, the Supreme Court chickened out. There is no other polite way to say this . . . the Supreme Court led by the Chief Justice was a coward. 

Rumor has it that Chief Justice John Roberts was overheard screaming at his colleagues that getting involved would lead to riots in the streets, and then possibly more softly, “we don’t want that, do we?” So they basically sat on the sideline when the American people were pleading for them to get in the game.

The learned nine basically decided, “We can’t have riots in the streets!” 

Well today in Washington, D.C., Mr. Roberts, there were riots in the streets surrounding the Capitol. There were hundreds of thousands there who felt that the election was fraudulent. Where were the arbiters? Perhaps home sitting on their hands chanting, “Hear no evil; see no evil; speak no evil . . . don’t look at us!” Mr. Roberts are your hands still blue from sitting on them for weeks? Do you feel any guilt about what happened today? Why is your mouth and the mouths of your eight colleagues still proudly shut.

Now I do not condone the violence that occurred at the Capitol today, but come on . . . Why did the nine learned Justices not see this coming? Millions of Americans think that this election was stolen by the Dems. For years to come close to fifty percent of Americans will not trust the results of elections, and a lot of them will forever refer to 2020 as the year that the Robert’s Rules of Order turned into the Robert’s Rules of Disorder because of a lack of a spine(s).

Some of you may remember Limbo Rock by Chubby Checker in  1962. It’s chorus went like this:

Limbo lower now

Limbo lower now

How low can you go?

I was reminded of this song as the California Supreme Court (CSC) reached the bottom of the barrel this past week when on 12/28/20 it decided that “non-violent” sex offenders may be eligible for the early parole. Former Gov. Jerry Brown, who championed the 2014 initiative (Proposition 57) as a way to reduce prison populations and costs by speeding up chances for parole, has repeatedly said he and other proponents never intended for it to cover sex offenders.

However, the CSC and its Chief Justice said otherwise. 

“How low can you go?”

“The initiative’s language provides no indication that the voters intended to allow the (Corrections) Department to create a wholesale exclusion from parole consideration based on an inimate’s sex offense convictions when the inmate was convicted of a nonviolent felony,” wrote Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye in the unanimous decision.

So, is Proposition 57 and the ruling by CSC just another example of:

-another poorly written initiative . . . written by Democrats

-the far left nature of the California Supreme Court, 

-the dumbness of California voters who voted to retain Justice Sakauye in  2010 and voted ‘yes’ on 57 many years ago.

I believe that this most recent decision is probably an example of all three. 

Because I did not really know anything about Chief Justice Sakauye, I was hesitant to throw stones specifically at her . . . until this morning when I read about her request that “court employees and judicial officers be included as a priority in the plan” of vaccine priority. Actually although just about everyone is championing to get their particular group moved up on the vaccine priority list, her three page letter to Gov. Newsom included parts that complimented him on his leadership over the past tumultuous year. 

Yes, you heard that right . . . the same Chief Justice who thought that some sexual deviants should be eligible for early parole was in my way of thinking, sucking up to Newsom by complimenting him on a job well done!  

A job well done!!?? 

I would ask Justice Sakauye,                                                                             “How low can you go?”

Gee, I wonder if she has signed the Newsom recall petition yet?

Have the lunatics taken over the asylum?

For those of you not familiar with this idiom, it is used in a situation in which those in charge are incapable of handling their responsibilities, and should rather be put under scrutiny themselves.

It is said have originated in a 1919 remark by Richard A. Rowland about the founding of United Artists. Perhaps an allusion to the short story by Edgar Allan Poe, The System of Doctor Tarr and Professor Fether, first published 1845.

Here the asylum is the House of Representatives. Have the lunatics taken over?  I think that the answer is “yes,” if the opening session is any indication.

From the Washington Times:

The 117th Congress kicked off with a fresh controversy Sunday when the Democrat delivering the opening prayer concluded by saying “amen,” and then added “a-woman.”

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, Missouri Democrat, ended his prayer “in the name of the monotheistic god,” then added what sounded like “Brahma,” before finishing with “and god known by many names by many different faiths. Amen and a-woman.”

Huh!?

Critics, led by Republican lawmakers, were quick to point out that “amen” means “so be it,” and does not refer to the male gender, while “a-woman” doesn’t mean anything.

But the lunatics(House Democrats), led by Nancy Pelosi, didn’t stop there.

From Townhall:

If that wasn’t bad enough, House Democrats have revealed their new, “future-focused” rules, which include the following: “In clause 8(c)(3) of rule XXIII, gendered terms, such as ‘father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, first cousin, nephew, niece, husband, wife, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, stepfather, stepmother, stepson, stepdaughter, stepbrother, stepsister, half brother, half sister, grandson, or granddaughter’ will be removed.

In their place, terms such as ‘parent, child, sibling, parent’s sibling, first cousin, sibling’s child, spouse, parent-in-law, child-in-law, sibling-in-law, stepparent, stepchild, stepsibling, half-sibling, or grandchild’ will be used, instead.

Is this Saturday Night Live?

The really scary part is that this comedy is from the first day!

Are we actually paying them to be nonsensical?

A particular highlight of the new rules is this: “The Office of the Whistleblower Ombudsman, for instance, is renamed in the rules to the ‘Office of the Whistleblower Ombuds.’”

The best response was that of the House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy who tweeted, “This is stupid.

“Signed,

“- A father, son, and brother.”

Well said. 

Stupid it is. Lunatics they are, and the House of Representatives is an asylum!

Is it possible that lockdowns do more harm than good? 

“No way . . . Nonsense,” you say. Now granted I am a contrarian, but whatever we are doing does not seem to be working as far as Covid is concerned. Tracking of Covid cases are not identifying outdoor dining, gyms, and hair salons/ barbershops as likely sources of exposure, and yet “those that know best” continue to lockdown these businesses even though the evidence suggests otherwise.

What about locking down the populace in general? Again “those in the know” say that these lockdowns can only be beneficial. My response, “Not so fast, kimosabe.” 

With lockdowns there is a lack of sun exposure. Is it possible that forcing individuals to stay inside can be decreasing their Vitamin D levels? “Those in the know” might respond, “Yes, that is possible, but so what? What does one’s Vitamin D level have you do with Covid?”

Dr. John Campbell in England has some interesting observations in his videos on Youtube concerning Vitamin D and Covid. 

First of all, Vitamin D is an immuno-modulator. It is necessary for both innate and adaptive immunity, and it suppresses excess pro-inflammatory cytokines which can be very detrimental in Covid patients. Also there is a relationship between decreased Vitamin D levels and high blood pressure, diabetes, cancer, and cardiovascular disease. Notice that I did not say a cause-effect relationship, but a relationship nonetheless. Isn’t it interesting that patients with coincident high blood pressure, diabetes, cancer, and cardiovascular disease all have increased mortality with Covid.

Are there any studies that show a relationship between Vitamin D and Covid? If we are talking about randomized, prospective, controlled trials  – as made famous by Dr. Fauci, – not that I am aware of. However, there are studies than do demonstrate an association between low Vitamin D levels and poor outcomes with Covid. In one study 82% of hospitalized Covid patients had low Vitamin D levels compared to 47% in community controls. In another study, Covid patients with normal Vitamin D levels (> 30 ng/ml) had less clinical severity, less mortality, and lower CRP levels compared to those with low Vitamin D levels. 

Also with Covid, Blacks and Hispanics have a significantly poorer outcome when contracting Covid. In a study out of Arizona Blacks had a 55% incidence of a low Vitamin D level and Hispanics had a 37.6 incidence, whereas the Vitamin D level was low in only 23% of whites. Could these low levels explain why Blacks and Hispanics have fourfold higher rate of Covid hospitalization compared to whites?

Okay so maybe there is some sort of association with Vitamin D and Covid, but what does this have to do with lockdowns? 

In study published in Nature involving 6524 patients in 152 countries when the UV Index was increased, the number of new Covid cases as well as the case fatality rate was less. In other words the amount of sunshine appeared to be inversely related to the number of new Covid cases as well as the Covid case fatality rate. Hmmm.

What’s the basic difference to individuals between a non-sunny day and staying inside, locked down, when considering the Vitamin D an individual gets from UV light. In other words is it possible that locking down individuals deprives them of sun exposure, and thus decreases their Vitamin D levels in a detrimental way?

Something to think about?

FYI: For what it’s worth, Dr. John Campbell takes 2000 units of oral supplemental Vitamin D every day, and the older author of this blog takes 4000 units daily.

From Gallup:

“Americans are most likely to name President Donald Trump and Michelle Obama as most admired man and woman in 2020.”

When I first read this I was only mildly surprised. Actually I was surprised that M.O. made this list as I can’t think of anything that she has done to warrant being admired. Wait! She did inspire a school lunch menu that none of the children liked. Ridiculous. Of course, her husband, B.O. won the Nobel Peace Prize by just breathing room air back in 2009. . . . Even more ridiculous! (When one thinks about it, B.O. actually should have won the “Antithesis of Peace” Prize for the eight years he was in office.)

The fact that Donald Trump won as the most admired man came as no surprise to me, and contrary to B.O., if the Nobel Peace Prize is to be based on merit this year, he should also easily win that award for his gigantic strides in establishing peace treaties between four Moslem in the Mideast and Israel.

However, as I read further along this list, I realized just how ridiculous this “most admired” award is. Number two on the list is Barack Obama, and even more ridiculous is that number three is . . . Joe Biden. Now if there was a “time spent hiding in the basement award,” Sleepy Joe would easily win hands down, and this would probably be the only time, I would ever vote for him.

Hard as it is to imagine this gets even more ridiculous as LeBron James polled in at number nine, and the most ridiculous of all is that Kamala Harris polled in at number two on the female side. On down the list on the female side, there are such stellar names as Hillary Clinton, A.O.C., and Greta Thunberg . . . OMG. Ridiculousness personified!

At this point I came to the conclusion that either

1. Americans in general (other than Republicans, who overwhelmingly chose Trump) are basically dumb.
2. This poll over-sampled Californians.
3. Americans with any sense do not answer the telephone when a random and unknown number is calling.

But there is some saving grace in this telephone survey.

In addition to the public figures named by Americans, 11% name a relative or friend as the man they admire most. Obviously, strong work to those who were polled in red states.

(If perchance I had been asked this question by Gallup, I would have chosen my son and my three sons-in-law, as work ethic and success in raising a family are what I admire most)