I watched the briefing at 1:30 PM by the White House doctor and the Walter Reed staff very closely, and several things struck me. First and most important, they let slip the fact that Trump was diagnosed 72 hours ago, which clearly means before he went to that fundraiser at his golf club. Think about that for a minute.
The second thing takes me a bit into the weeds and I thought I had a scoop here until I saw that Andrea Mitchell picked up on the same thing. Two points: First, one of the doctors said that Trump had had his experimental cocktail 48 hours ago which means on Thursday, not yesterday as the White House doctor's office clearly suggested in their announcement. Second, the White House physician kept repeating, in answer to questions, that Trump is not on oxygen now. When he was asked whether Trump had been on oxygen on Thursday or Friday, he replied disingenuously and quickly that he was not on oxygen on Thursday. What is more, it is clear that Trump started the Remdesivir therapy yesterday.
From all of this, I infer that on Thursday night and Friday morning Trump was doing so much less well that he was put on oxygen and also started on the five day course of Remdesivir, which I gather is given to assist patients who are having trouble breathing and are on oxygen.
In light of all of this, it is impossible to say just how sick Trump was or how sick he is.
Meanwhile, this morning we learned that Sen. Ron Johnson has tested positive and so has Chris Christie. I am a little bit sensitive about using the word "obese" for men whose body mass index is a trace above normal but there is no question about Christie.
This gets more and more interesting.
24 comments:
I had a surprisingly pleasant experience this afternoon. I had to have the muffler on my car replaced. So I drove to a nearby Midas Muffler shop, wearing my Biden/Harris button on my jacket. I walked into the shop, and there sitting behind the counter was a burly man, with crew cut hair and tattoos on both of his white arms - one of Popeye on his huge right forearm; I could not make out the large tattoo on his left arm. The woman sitting next to him – who turned out to be his wife – had a very husky voice, I assumed from being a long-time chain smoker. I mentally labeled them as working class, and assumed they were Trump supporters. As he was taking my information – name, address and phone number – he casually said, “I like your button.” I looked at him, a bit surprised, thanked him and said something to the effect, so you are not a Trump supporter. He responded, “God no – cant’ stand him. He’s ruining this country.” His wife nodded in agreement.
After the work had been completed and I was paying, I asked him if he had been in the Navy, given his Popeye tattoo. He replied “No, my father was.” “WWII?” I asked. “No, Korean War.: I then said, “Imagine what President Truman would do if he ever met Trump.” He responded, “He would strangle him, like any patriot would.” I laughed. I was staring at the tattoo on his other arm, which I could not make out, given the angle. He turned his left forearm, and there was a tattoo of Muhammad Ali, in a fighting stance. He said he had seen each of Ali’s fights and loved the man. As I exited I told them to make sure to vote, and they indicated they already had.
I left the shop, my feelings elevated and more optimistic about the future than when I had walked in. I also learned a valuable lesson, a lesson that from time to time I have to be reminded of – that you can’t always judge people by their exterior, their hair-cut or their physical appearance. That sometimes they can surprise you. And this is an important lesson to relearn from time to time.
MS
Geeze, you don't really get out much, do you?
Anonymous,
You may not have noticed, but we are in the midst of a pandemic. So, no, I do not get out much.
MS
MS, I would have made the same assumptions you made. A good lesson learned. Like you, I don't get out all that much either.
Thank you, David.
On a totally different subject, my wife and I watched a wonderful documentary on Netflix tonight titled, “My Octopus Teacher.” It is not about aliens or giant sea creatures, but a beautifully photographed documentary about a naturalist going through a life crisis who connects with – yes, an octopus, living in the shallows near his home in South Africa. It is an extremely informative and quite touching film about octopi specifically, which are quite amazing creatures, and the wonders of nature generally, and is actually quite moving. I highly recommend it, if only for relief from the current political news.
MS
I watched that tonight, too. What a delightful film. For those unfamiliar I highly recommend the book Other Minds by the philosopher Peter Godfrey-Smith. It's a fascinating rumination about octopuses and consciousness.
Fun fact: The White House has more cases of COVID than the entire country of New Zealand.
Fervent wish: COVID, the international pandemic (redundant -- I know) virus takes out the upper echelons of the U.S. Republican Party who belittled it while it killed hundreds of thousands of Americans -- many lacking the luxury to avoid it. It would be well-deserved.
To quote Sinead O'Connor: "Maybe I sound mean, but I really don't think so."
-- Jim
This morning I watched a preview of the newly released film The Trial Of The Chicago Severn, a timely reminder of the protests at the 1968 Democratic National Convention and the ensuing trial. During the preview they showed news footage of the protesters confronting the military and singing Dylan’s Blowin’ In The Wind. When I was 18, thar song seemed quite profound to me. Fifty-two years later, an answer blowing in the wind no longer seems to me like a particularly good answer. Have I gotten smarter or stupider?
MS
Blowing in the Wind isn't Dylan's best song by any means, in my opinion.
It's from his second album, Freewheeling, released in 1963 and he is just beginning to find his own voice. By his next album, The Times They are a-Changing", released in 1964, he has already found his voice.
There are lots of cover versions of Blowing in the Wind, while the best songs in The Times They are-Changing, the title song, With God on our Side, Only a Pawn in their Game, the Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll, don't lend themselves to cover versions because their delivery depends on that unique mixture of indignation, sarcasm, irony and rage that only Dylan can deliver.
Everyone:
Stand back and stand by. Stay cool, calm, and composed. Do not get your hopes up.
We do not know what will happen to Trump. He is receiving the best medical treatment possible and if he recovers from the virus, he could come back with a vengeance (i.e. his usual self). If you know his psychology, he will fight until the very bitter end (i.e. scorched earth) in terms of medical recovery and in terms of the election.
Thus, I recommend refraining from publicly commenting on this blog or social media about your (negative) wishes, hopes, or prayers regarding him.
DO NOT under-estimate him.
All those hoping the virus comes for those on your enemies list...careful, as it may come for you too.
C,
How much worse can Il Duce do than he has already done and has made plans to do. The Constitution protects the right of citizens to publicly and privately comment negatively about their government and its leaders. I do not agree that we should refrain from expressing our detest and hatred for this man and his administration out of paranoia.
The only worse measures Il Duce could try to implement would be to mobilize the Office of the Attorney General and the FBI to engage in mass arrests of citizens speaking and writing critically about him, ala’’ Stalin, Pinochet, Lukashenko, etc., etc. Since I am the commenter who has most frequently compared Il Duce to Hitler, I should not dismiss such a maneuver as unlikely. But I will not allow concern that this might happen to stifle my freedom of speech, and I suspect many who read this blog feel the same way. If it has gotten to the point where we have to fear that Il Duce will engage in secret police tactics, then now is the time to speak out, or all will be lost.
And Anonymous, that’s the point – the virus doesn’t somehow miraculously come to dissenters – it comes to those too stupid to listen to public health experts and comply with the recommended protocols of wearing face masks and engaging in social distancing. Ant those who are too stupid and egotistical to do so, deserve what they get.
MS
I need to clarify and qualify what I wrote above, because I do not want to be responsible for someone losing their job. If you are a public employee – whether at the federal, state or municipal level – then you do have to be careful regarding the comments that you submit to this blog, because you could lose your job, and an argument that what you wrote is protected by the 1st Amendment, depending on what you wrote, could very well fail. The law regarding the free speech rights of public employees is very complicated, and not what you would assume. The issue has gone to the Supreme Court in numerous cases, in different contexts, and the Supreme Court has sustained the termination of public employees based on what they said or wrote publicly. The rules are different regarding private speech, but this blog would qualify as a public forum and could result in a public employee’s termination based on what s/he wrote on the blog be sustained by the courts. In addition, if you are not a public employee, your right to free speech is not protected at all, and if you made a comment on this site that your private employer found offensive you can be terminated, unless you are what is called a “for cause” employee or are protected by a union contract.
None of the above applies to me, since I am self-employed and can blow off steam as much as I want without fear of retaliation by the government – unless, of course, things have deteriorated so much that the secret police come to my home at night and drag me office to an underground prison somewhere. I am willing to take the risk.
MS
That POTUS has the power "to mobilize the Office of the Attorney General and the FBI to engage in mass arrests of citizens speaking and writing critically about him, ala Stalin, Pinochet, Lukashenko, etc." seems a little...hyperbolic? Unknown's clarification and qualification @4:37 PM itself pulls the rug out from under the extreme fear expressed in the prior comment. The law is many-faceted and complex. A First Amendment claim will turn on one's position, when and how one exercises speech, the substance of the message, and whether or not it pertains to a matter of public concern. But if one is a public employee on the payroll of the City of Boredom in the state of Confusion, and if one writes on this blog that "the President is poo-poo," it is the Boredom City Manager who might have the authority to take disciplinary measures, not the FBI or the DOJ. Also, Unknown left out Obama from the list of abusers of executive authority against those who exercise their freedom of speech.
One of Dylan's best songs is another wind song, i.e., "Hurricane." Another is "Jokerman."
The theme of wind in Dylan has probably already been the subject of various doctoral theses.
There's also Idiot Wind, Percy's Song (turn turn to the rain and the wind) and the famous line from Homesick Subterranean Blues, "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows", which inspired the Weathermen.
There's an anti-intellectual strain in Dylan seen in "Blowing in the Wind" and "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows" as well as songs such as The Ballad of a Thin Man, where Dylan uses the phrase "you're very well read, it's well known" to put the fellow down.
Dean,
I am not sure what your point is. My two comments were intended to address entirely different contexts. The first comment addressed C’s concerns that Il Duce and the federal government could use the power of the government to suppress opposition by everyday citizens, some of whom may post what the government might regard as inflammatory anti-government speech. I indicated that such speech would be protected against, e.g., para-military repression under the 1st Amendment, but would not exclude the possibility that such repression could yet occur in this country should it deteriorate into fascism. I took the position that the prospect of such deterioration should not be a reason for refraining from criticism on this blog.
The second comment did not “pull the rug out from under ... the prior comment.” I was intended to caution individuals who comment on the blog that if they are public employees they could incur retaliation even in the absence of the deterioration contemplated in the first comment did not occur, under existing Supreme Court precedent. I did not want to mislead people that the 1st Amendment would protect them if they are public employees and made critical comments on the blog – they would not be dragged off in the middle of the night, but they could lose their job. In this context, even employees of the FBI and the Department of Justice could be subjected to such retaliation.
MS
"The only worse measures Il Duce could try to implement would be to mobilize the Office of the Attorney General and the FBI to engage in mass arrests of citizens speaking and writing critically about him, ala’’ Stalin, Pinochet, Lukashenko, etc., etc."
Granted, this is all framed as a hypothetical, a fact I didn't properly acknowledge. Instead, I scoffed at the notion that "POTUS has the power...," which is not what you stated, precisely. But the line I have quoted above does not merely contemplate FBI and DOJ employees losing their jobs. It invokes "mass arrests of citizens," not under a hypothetical fascist regime, but now, today, under numerous Supreme Court cases that determine the free speech rights of public employees. Most public employees do not work for the federal government.
Let me adjust yet again my remarks. I see that the earlier comment was entirely hypothetical, intended to comfort C that blog posts critical of Trump are protected speech, while imagining a worst case scenario of mass arrests (hence, contra my last comment, *not* pertaining to "now, today"). The second comment was an excursus warning public employees about the risks of posting in a public forum.
I confess that my ability to reason has been waylaid by the incessant invocation these days--not merely here, but widely--of fascism, which is of course always a threat and not one exclusive to Trump. Mostly, I am discouraged that a thread about criticism of POTUS even remotely calls for a general caveat about risks of job loss to public employees of losing.
^"risks of job loss to public employees."
Dean,
I am not sure we are on the same page. The second comment dealing with the 1st Amendment rights of public employees was intended as a cautionary comment to individuals who post on this blog – or any other blog , for that matter, or in any public context – that they should be aware that my first comment was not intended to encourage them to write inflammatory comments if they are public employees – any public employees, whether of the federal, state or local government - because they could be terminated, and a free speech defense would likely not protect them. I was not suggesting that the case law which deals with these issues could be used to make “mass arrests of citizens,” only that these precedents – which pre-date this administration by 30 years – could be used by this administration to retaliate against them, by having them fired. This is surely not as serious as being arrested and thrown in prison, but it is serious enough to ruin one’s life, and I just wanted to make readers aware of this.
MS
Understood. The cautionary comment is what I lament @7:30 PM. I am discouraged because, first, speaking out against the government is not per se "inflammatory"; it is a fundamental protection of the First Amendment. Second, to suggest that a free speech defense would "not likely" protect a public employee who posts here to criticize the government is too sweeping a statement. It seems odd to me, on the one hand, to advise speaking out, while on the other hand to caution that one could lose one's job for doing so. So, don't speak out? Speak out, but don't be too critical?
You also mention that private employees enjoy even less protection than public employees. Should they not comment at all? Is this what we refer to as a "chilling effect"?
The prudential point, then, is to consider your actions when the government that employs you is also the one you want to criticize or when your political speech might appear to represent an official opinion of the government for which you work. But, again, the Boredom City Manager is not likely to be able to fire you for publicly criticizing the President (though there are exceptions), nor can the federal government legally fire you for doing so.
Dean,
“It seems odd to me, on the one hand, to advise speaking out, while on the other hand to caution that one could lose one's job for doing so. So, don't speak out? Speak out, but don't be too critical?” I wrote the cautionary comment in order to clarify that my prior comment encouraging readers of this blog who wish to speak their minds and criticize the administration should be aware that there can be risks in doing so, not of incarceration, but of employment discipline, including termination. Those risks apply to both public employees and private employees. The risk may be minimal, because, first, the employer would have to discover the statement, which may be highly unlikely; and second, even if discovered, unless the individual explicitly identified him/herself, the employer would have to be able to link the statement to the employee. But the risk exists, and,. after having encouraged robust expression of criticism of this government, I felt obliged to point out the risk – certainly not as severe as being sent to the Gulag, but a risk nonetheless.
And you, and other readers, would be surprised at some of the decisions in which public employees made public comments for which they were disciplined, sued claiming the discipline (sometimes termination) violated their free speech rights under the 1st Amendment, and they lost. Here are just a few examples: Green Township Education Assoc. v. Rowe, 328 N.J. Super. 525 (N.J. Super. Ap. Div. 2000) (the Court addressed the issue whether the Green Township Board of Education could constitutionally prohibit teachers in its elementary and secondary schools from wearing political buttons bearing the message “NJEA SETTLE NOW” in the presence of students; the Court held that the Board’s written policy barring wearing such buttons in the presence of students did not violate the teachers’ 1st Amendment rights); Ruotolo v. City of New York, 514 F.3d 184 (2d Cir. 2008) (police officer who claimed his 1st Amendment rights were violated when employer retaliated against him by giving him undesirable shift assignments; denial of use of leave time; transfer to different precinct because he prepared a report outlining health hazards being caused by contamination by underground gasoline storage tanks and reported the results of the report to the Police Benevolent Association not protected by 1st Amendment); Schreir v. University of Colorado, 427 F.3d 1253 (10th Cir. 2005) (professor of medicine who vocally and publically criticized a proposal to move the Health Sciences Center to another location, resulting in his termination, not protected by 1st Amendment). And the most notorious decision of all, Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006), in which the Supreme Court held that the 1st Amendment rights of a deputy district attorney were not violated, despite the fact that he claimed he had been retaliated against by his employer because he had testified in court that he believed that evidence being used by another district attorney in a criminal prosecution had been obtained by using a fraudulent search warrant.
I raise this issue not to discourage dissent, but to alert the blog’s readers that there can be unpredictable adverse consequences – admittedly very low circumstantially - relating to their employment, and that 1st Amendment rights may not be as protective as you might believe.
MS
I don't know the case law well on public employees and what they can and can't legally be terminated for doing/saying. I have no reason to doubt MS's statement that the law in that area is somewhat complicated.
But it's worth clarifying that everyone in the U.S. has First Am. rights that give at least a baseline of protection against adverse action by the government, or any entities that can be deemed "state actors", for the expression of opinion. Thus, to take the most obvious example, no one can be fined or arrested by any arm of federal, state or local govt for the expression of opinion or for speech in general unless it is hate speech, as defined by statutes and caselaw, or obscenity (again as defined by statute and caselaw) or specific incitement to imminent violent acts. (Or a few other special cases like the old Holmesian example of shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.)
Of course, if you took a bullhorn into a residential street at 4 a.m. and made a political speech with it, you could be arrested for disturbing the peace and/or possibly violating noise ordinances, but that's a separate issue.
LFC,
I wish you were correct, but you are not entirely correct. Any action by a public employer is per se state action. And while it is true that even public employees cannot get arrested for expressing their opinions, they most certainly can get fired, and the firing would constitute state action. Take, for example, Waters v. Churchill, 511 U.S. 661 1994), in which a public hospital terminated a nurse for allegedly making critical remarks to a co-worker during a break, about how her department was being poorly administered, even though there was a factual dispute regarding what the nurse had actually said. The Supreme Court held that the termination could be sustained as long as the employer reasonable believed the nurse had made the criticism, even if the belief was not accurate.
More astoundingly, in Morales v. Jones, 494 F.3d 390 (7th Cir. 2007), a Milwaukee police officer obtained information that the Deputy Chief had been harboring her brother, who was wanted on an arrest warrant for drug dealing. The information also indicated that the brother had been seen at the Deputy Chief’s home, in the presence of the Chief of Police. The officer conveyed this information to his partner. The partner prepared a police report, which included the name and address of the Deputy Chief on its first page and left the report on his supervisor’s desk before leaving work, intending to deliver the report to the District Attorney the next day. When he returned the next day, the first page had been removed. He delivered the report to the District Attorney’s office, with the first page missing. When an Assistant District Attorney asked him why the first page was missing, the police officer recounted to the Assistant District Attorney the information he and his partner had received implicating the Deputy Chief.
Thereafter, both police officers were transferred to night-shift patrol duty. The police officers sued in federal court, claiming that the transfers were retaliatory employment actions taken for their having exercised their free speech rights under the 1st Amendment. The officers prevailed in a jury trial. The 7th Circuit reversed, holding that the police officers’ speech had been expressed as part of their official duties and therefore, pursuant to the Supreme Court decision in Garcetti v.Ceballos, was not protected under the 1st Amendment. The Court dismissed the claim of the first police officer who had conveyed the information to his partner; dismissed the claim of the partner related to his conversation with the Assistant District Attorney; but remanded the case with respect to the partner to determine whether the Chief and Deputy Chief had retaliated against him based on deposition testimony he had given, which the Court held was protected speech. Decisions such as this serve to insulate governmental corruption from investigation and inhibit public employees from doing their job.
Post a Comment