Don’t be too hard on them, Randy. They still have a higher purpose
President Trump is redefining himself as a wartime president, boldly acting to sweep away obstacles and mobilizing government and business to fight together to get us up to speed in overcoming a threat that nobody anticipated. Yesterday’s White House press briefing, held outdoors in the sunny weather, intensified the frenzy of TDS-addled media and other Democrats. President Trump’s effectiveness – in reforming regulatory and bureaucratic roadblocks and mobilizing vastly increased production of necessary medical equipment in short supply – was on display more even more vividly than before. He comes across as a leader who is dealing with an unexpected threat, learning as he goes, and tapping into the unmatched resources of the American people to fight it.
I agree that he is now ramping up efforts to face this threat and have gratefully praised him for this and for retaining the professionals who have been urging this. It’s less true that no one anticipated such a threat. The reality is that the biological threats division of the National Security Council have been warning administrations of this for a long time and urging preparation, and that in early January after the president’s brilliant blockade of people from China, his experts were warning that we needed leadership to immediately require dispersing test kits and huge production of medical equipment in short supply (as e.g. South Korea expedited). But almost two months went by with assurances from Trump that this was not necessary for another kind of flu virus. If he had been willing to respond to such requests, we would have been able to fight this threat much more effectively.
It’s probably the forgivable instinct of political candidates (and the rest of us) to be naively optimistic in the face of such a devastating possibility, and again I am grateful that Trump appears to now recognize that we need to unite in strong action against this non-partisan foe. I can’t image the stress this unique challenge puts on the shoulders of someone in the president’s position, and he needs our support and prayers as much as any leader in my memory.
There’s more to that story.
"Hospitals in New York are running short. To his credit, Gov. Andrew Cuomo is doing his best, but he admits “you can’t find available ventilators no matter how much you’re willing to pay right now, because there is literally a global run on ventilators.”
It’s a little late. Several years ago, after learning that the Empire State’s stockpile of medical equipment had 16,000 fewer ventilators than the 18,000 New Yorkers would need in a severe pandemic, state public-health leaders came to a fork in the road.
They could have chosen to buy more ventilators to back up the supplies hospitals maintain. Instead, the health commissioner, Howard Zucker, assembled a task force for rationing the ventilators they already had.
In 2015, that task force came up with rules that will be imposed when ventilators run short. Patients assigned a red code will have highest access, and other patients will be assigned green, yellow or blue (the worst), depending on a “triage officer’s” decision.
In truth, a death officer. Let’s not sugar-coat it. It won’t be up to your own doctor.
In 2015, the state could have purchased the additional 16,000 needed ventilators for $36,000 apiece, or a total of $576 million. It’s a lot of money, but in hindsight, spending half a percent of the budget to prepare for pandemic was the right thing to do.
But in New York, rationing ventilators should be unnecessary. The state knew of the shortage, had the money and should have bought the lifesaving equipment, instead of making a plan for who should live or die. A lesson for the future."
I think you’re right about that.
Had NY ordered what they needed then though, they still would need more now to meet the current anticipated need. However, the 16,000 they should have had on hand would cover most current need and hopefully get new ones in time for the coming wave.
So much is clear on hindsight.
And I do wonder what the Pro-Abortion people are thinking in this crisis. They are fighting the attempts to get resources to coronavirus medical people, in order to keep abortions going strong??WTH?
Federal judges in three states have blocked orders suspending elective abortions in order to preserve medical essentials such as personal protective equipment (PPE) for healthcare professionals who are treating victims of the infection caused by the coronavirus.
At evangelicals’ Nat’l Prayer Breakfast, the preacher pointed to Jesus and his call to replace hate with loving our enemies: “Be accountable and ask God to give you strength to go against your old nature and follow Jesus’ message! How many of you love someone with whom you politically disagree?” All hands went up.
The noticeable exception seated next to the podium was our president. He rose, politely stating that he disagreed with this message, and then directly attacked GOP Sen. Romney as well as the faith of Nancy Pelosi. It’s unique to have such a free speaking leader publicly dismiss a core tenet of Jesus. In the uniquely daunting ordeal of leading us against a common enemy, our beleaguered president needs to know the support of our prayers. This is a stressful time for all of us, and especially for him.
Then why do people expect Trump to have been prepared for it, if they are giving themselves an excuse. Themselves, being Cuomo.
As I’ve said, most politicians naively failed to prepare, with several presidents killing their Nat’l Security Council’s task force on such preparation, and it’s wrong to criticize Trump for this. Again, I think the most vulnerable critique was a failure to act after COVID-19 was a known reality. For after brilliantly blocking visitors from China, he ignored his experts’ recommendations for almost two months that the gov’t decisively use that time to engineer the production of testing and costly equipment.
As I’ve said, a politician running for reelection feeling a need to so optimistically be in denial about this threat in the face of such a dire possibility is understandably forgivable. Most important, we should be thankful he is sincerely trying now to make up for lost time, and joining his team in sounding the alarm.
I’m sorry I don’t. I heard on two network television stations and saw an interview with a former chairman of this committee that the past few presidents including Obama had looked at this NSC standing committee on preparing strategy to handle a pandemic, and instinctively decided money could be saved by cutting it, and leaving it to health and human services, claiming it was perceived that NSC was about threats from foreign powers, and thus this group devoted to how a pandemic could create a national threat did not fit. But others perceived such a threat could be so large, someone needed to be focused on advocating for greater preparation.
Since these reports appeared to exonerate Trump, I assumed it was credible coming from networks that are not fond of defending him. I’m sorry that I can’t remember which network or more specifics about it.
What’s new in the BBC today? 
Every day I read the obituaries. And I don’t find my name there. I also look in the mirror, to see if I turned into a zombie. If neither of these has happened, then it is a good day.
But due to gym and dance closures, along with folks from different cultures…these folks in my condo units, are driving me crazy.
1 Like
I’ve been observing how many people are so inclined to critique our president. I’ve realized that he has not deserved my own comments about his character and weaknesses. Please forgive me for my liberal blind spots as I try to also become a patriot who is worthy of our great nation.
You made me laugh out loud. My son even looked, wondering why I belly laughed.
1 Like
It turns out that conservatives are happier than liberals. But why?
Conservative explanation . Marriage and religious faith are conducive to happiness. More conservatives are married than liberals, and more practice a religion. Ergo, conservatives as a group are happier than liberals as a group.
Liberal explanation . Conservatives are happier because they turn a blind eye to the injustices of the world. They are oblivious to inequality. And when they do see it,they rationalize it. Ignorance is bliss. Conservatives naively believe that people can better themselves by the practice of the old virtues of frugality, perseverance, hard work, self-control, deferral of gratification, and the like, when the truth is that people are products of their environment and need government help to do well.
As a conservative, I of course consider the liberal explanation to be bogus.
Do we conservatives, ostrich-like, ignore injustice? The answer depends on what one takes justice to be. The liberal tendency is to see justice as fairness, and to understand fairness in terms of material equality, equality of wealth and equality of power. A just society for a liberal, then, is one in which material inequality is either eliminated or severely mitigated. Along these lines the prominent political philosopher John Rawls puts forth his famous Difference Principle the gist of which is that social and economic inequalities in a society are justified only if they benefit the worst off, i.e., only if the worst off are better of than they would have been without the inequality.
But why should my having more than you be considered unjust unless it benefits you? Of course, my having more than you will typically benefit you. “A rising tide lifts all boats.”
My roof was leaking in two places. Now I could have done an amateur patch job myself: roofing ain’t rocket science. But I decided to have the entire house professionally re-roofed with all that that entails in terms of new flashing, etc. My ability to afford such an expensive job gave support to a local company and all its jobbers, not to mention the crew of workers who had employment for a week. And having extra dough, I laid $60 in tips on the workers. I could give a hundred examples of how my having more than certain others benefited those others.
When’s the last time a poor man made a loan to a friend, or a contribution to a charity? How many poor people give people jobs? And of course people like me who are modestly well-off due to hard work and the practice of the old virtues have been benefited in innumerable ways by people who are wealthy. Think of those who have endowed art museums and university chairs.
But suppose, contrary to fact, that my having more did not benefit others. Why should that affect the justice of my having more? If I work harder, longer, and smarter than you, and practice the old-fashioned virtues that liberals mock even when they themselves owe their success to them, then it is a good bet that I will end up with more than you. Unless I engage in force or fraud I am entitled to what I earn or what I inherit or what falls out of the sky into my lap. Take my intelligence and my good genes. Do I deserve them? No, but I have a right to them. I have a right to them and right to what I acquire by their use.
I grant that a certain amount of luck is ingredient in every success. But I have a right to my good luck even though I don’t deserve it. Of course, liberals often ‘see’ luck where there is no luck at all but hard work and the exercise of conservative virtues. Hence the conservative saying, “The harder I work the luckier I become.” The point is that what the liberal misconstrues as luck is really not luck at all but effort. Should we help life’s unlucky? I should think so. But not if the helping is really a harming, a making of the recipients of charity weaker and more dependent.
Liberals consider it legitimate for the state to use its coercive powers to promote material equality by taking from the highly productive and giving to the unproductive and less productive. This cannot work in the long run. The well-off will resist being ripped off by government functionaries who line their own pockets and feather their nests with perquisites purchased at taxpayer expense. Many will expatriate. Government, it is clear, is too often a hustle like any hustle rigged by those who benefit from it for their own benefit. Government needn’t be a hustle, but too often it is, which is why vigilance on the part of the citizenry is necessary to keep it in check.
The value of liberty trumps that of material equality. This is a key difference between conservative and libertarian on the one side and leftist on the other. Naturally I believe in formal equality, equality of treatment, treating like cases in a like manner, not discriminating on the basis of irrelevant criteria such as race, sex, or creed.
Yep, as a former conservative, I find being a married and religious liberal is happiest of all 
1 Like
Personally, Bob and Dave…I believe that zombies from Z-Hell (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9), would be much happier than either conservatives or liberals.
Different strokes for different folks!
Schumer got his butt righteously kicked. Bout time.
1 Like
Qaz you may be correct but there are other factors that play into that. There is a good case made by Trump and professionals in the field that show the CDC was misusing the money it was getting, and Trump was trying to get it back on track by forcing it back to is core values.
To wit:
You had one job, CDC: to prepare America to combat infectious disease. It’s a sign of what’s happened to the government generally over the last 20 years, that CDC used its resources to advance left-leaning agendas instead of focusing on positioning itself to fight infectious disease.
We’ve seen the headlines blaming the president for the lack of readiness in response to the outbreak. In mid-March, the Guardian… “Trump’s staff cuts have undermined Covid-19 containment efforts.” You can find other such headlines
Most of these accusations are either completely untrue or wild distortions of the facts. The get-Trump media are so obsessively politicized that much of the coverage of the virus has been corrupted in the same way that Russian collusion coverage was so unreliable. PJ Media , for example, published this [list]of the “Top 10 Lies About President Trump’s Response to the Coronavirus.”
Lost in the debate over whether CDC had enough money to prepare for the crisis is this critical question: What was the CDC doing with the money it already had?
Why, for example, is the CDC spending resources to study transgender health? There are 2,287 search results for “transgender” within the CDC website. The CDC published the following guidance for LGBT youth:
“CDC’s Climate and Health Program is excited to celebrate 10 years of supporting state, tribal, local, and territorial public health agencies as they prepare for specific health impacts of a changing climate.” It reports funding over 18 “grantees” around the nation to support the “BRACE” framework, an acronym for advancing climate change agenda (essentially political propaganda for Green New Deal-type public policy). The CDC is quite open about using its scientific credentials to “Serve as a credible source of information on the health consequences of climate change.”
The CDC sees its role in the climate change debate as providing, “leadership to state and local governments, community leaders, healthcare professionals, non-governmental organizations, the faith-based communities, the private sector and the public, domestically and internationally, regarding health protection from the effects of climate change.”
If CDC employees want to use their own time and money to promote climate change and transgender social issues, they should be free to do so. But taxpayer money should not be used to advance political agendas—particularly when those agendas are completely unrelated to an agency’s mission. The Centers for Disease Control should spend its money and time fighting infectious disease, not playing politics.
I don’t think much of this if any can be laid at Trump’s feet. There are many bad actors that made choices to NOT be prepared for this.
Perhaps some blame, in hindsight, can be assigned to the Pres - but in hindsight. Most everyone is giving him props for the actions he has taken.
What’s new with Trump, according to the BBC?
Perhaps North Korea, found a way - to combat this pandemic?
How about a song, to cheer us all up?