Congratulations to the Obama Administration

I posted yesterday "For my two cents, states need to stick to their positions if they choose a regulatory approach to dealing with the potential of Ebola spreading in the population, until proven vaccines are readily available in the health care marketplace in massive quantity."  The Obama administration has chimed in regarding regulations in public health.  Guess what the Obama administration spokesman said:

"I guess you can take that up with James Madison," said White House spokesman Josh Earnest, referring to the fourth president and key drafter of the Constitution, when asked why there was no binding federal policy. 

You can read a complete article regarding the stance of the Obama administration here.  The interesting thing here for me is that I have accused our executive branch of overstepping the intent of the Founding Fathers in regard to the powers of the presidency for years.  I am a known proponent of local control of government regulation, start the game at the community, move to the state, then and only in a limited manner the federal government.  So, today for my two cents, hats off to an administration for finally recognizing and accepting the limits of central authority vested in the executive branch of the U.S. government.  A minor victory for state rights, and coming from such a liberal administration, who would have guessed?

Ebola II

So apparently some health care experts believe that the disregard for their civil liberties overrides concern for ensuring Ebola does not spread to the general population.  Normally, I'd be all in for the protection of civil liberties.  I believe in minimalizing government intrusion into as many areas of our lives as possible and in regulation as a principle only where it deals with our rights of property and due process as defined in the U,S, Constitution.  I will remind my readers right at the start that I consider the greatest property right of any human as the right to life (implying some regulation applies to how life may be lived).

In an article (read it here) Dr. Anthony Fauci argues that we may unnecessarily deter workers with great medical skill from traveling to the danger zone to work because they will be quarantined upon return.  Dr. Fauci has a point, but if your personal sacrifice in the name of aultruistic service to mankind means you can not plan on an extra 21 days upon your return during which you are monitored to ensure you are not incubating the germ and becoming an active case of Ebola, then you are not that bright to begin with and probably should not be a doctor or nurse responsible for medical practice.  And hey, by the way I thank you for going out and making this sacrifice on the behalf of humanity--I really do.

I believe that human security is very important and that the security of life can be regulated, including the requirement of treatment for diseases that can be transmitted between humans.  A most effective means of treating communicable diseases with less than stellar medicinal treatment options is still the quarantine of the effected/potentially effected population.  For my two cents, states need to stick to their positions if they choose a regulatory approach to dealing with the potential of Ebola spreading in the population, until proven vaccines are readily available in the health care marketplace in massive quantity.  And yes, I am sorry that quarantine is not fun Kacy Hickox, and I was aghast to know that the facility you are in does not even include a shower facility.  However, the rights of people to have the right of life ensured outweigh your individual right to move around freely when returning from an Ebola hotspot at this time.

Ebola Vaccines/Treatments

The World Health Organization says that at least 5 new experimental vaccines for Ebola will be available by 2015 and millions of doses of two exisiting vaccines will be available in 2015.  I categorize this announcement as good news.  You can read a brief piece about the WHO announcement here. 

I have to date, not strayed into the discourse on Ebola and stopping the spread of Ebola.  My silence is not a lack of interest.  I have personal friends in Nigeria, acquaintances who live and work in Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone.  For me the stakes here are personal, for my friends and acquaintances the stakes are even more personal.  I believe in dealing witht he pandemic we must ask a few questions.  My questions are not medical questions, as the exact causes, forms, treatments of diseases is outside of my expertise.

One, why is Ebola so deadly now compared to other know outbreaks?  From 1976 (when it was first identified) through 2013, the World Health Organization reported a total of 1,716 cases.  This year over 9,000 cases have been identified.  In answer to this question I think of demographics thanks to Malthus.  Malthus warned about pandemic sweeping away the population of the earth as a result of overpopulation.  I do not hold to Malthus' bleak view of the growth of population as the cause of natural and unnatural disaster.  I do, however, believe that simply the fact of having more people around meant that the virus had a chance to spread to more people.  I also think about modernization, namely infrastructure improvement.  In the last 10 years more miles of road have been constructed and/or paved than in the preceding 100 years in Sub-Saharan Africa, making travel much easier than ever (by the way, disease travels with humans).

Two, given the answers to question one, what should people do to combat the spread of Ebola?  My simplest answer is isolation.  I realize that isolation will cause disruption of economic life for a period of time.  Not allowing free travel in an era when commerce requires travel will definitely have costs.  I ask you to consider, however, that dead people do not engage in any commerce, that societies tending to thousands of ill people are losing commerce already.  Nigerian officials point tot he contribution of strict isolation rules for those exposed or potentially exposed to Ebola as a major reason why Ebola did not spread in that country.

My two cents is probably not worth that much when it comes to the science of epidemiology.  I do, however, believe that I understand as well as anyone that not being in contact with a disease will keep you from getting a disease.  I think it is also readily noticeable that not allowing those with the disease or exposed to the disease to travel will help stop the spread of the disease.  

SS on the SS Gravy Train

To be fair Schutzstaffel is not the same as Social Security and Social Security benefit payments are not regularly a "gravy train".  I use the term SS Gravy Train as an emphatically negative response to an article I read earlier in the AP wireline.  A story that I believe, for my two cents, should anger or at least cause psychic discomfort to citizens and residents of the U.S.

You can read the story for yourself here.  Why are suspected Nazi war criminals and SS guards receiving social security benefit payments after being forced out of the U.S.?  Because the Justice Department's Office of Special Investigation (OSI) used the payments as levarage to get suspected SS war criminals to leave the country voluntarily rather than being forced to go through the deportation process.  OSI was so fearful of the cost and length of the process of deportation that they cut deals with Nazi war criminals, several of whom are now living outside the U.S. and continuing to receive social security payments.  The article linked above states that 38 of 66 suspects removed from the country kept their social security benefits.  

Rather than forcing congress to change the process for deportation of suspected war criminals, rather than forcing the State Department to care more about war crimes and less about diplomatic nicety, we paid war criminals to leave the country and stay out of the country.  We, the U.S., dumped war criminals on other countries.  Even when pressure and outrage stopped the dumping practice we have continued to pay benefits to these suspected war criminals.  We freeze the assets of suspected criminals before trial and sentencing in this country routinely.  But apparently this does not apply to suspected Nazi war criminals.

Where's Kim Jong-Un?

I have been reading the speculation for the last two weeks about the whereabouts of Kim Jong-Un.  After deeply considering all the thoughts of several writers, I decided on my own approach to the question.

First we have to recognize what he looks like:



Then we can ask, where is Kim Jong-Un?

Bombs Away

Quick someone tell me the last time a bombing campaign against a state caused that state to collapse? Can you think of one?  I surely can not think of one instance where a bombing campaign caused a state actor to collapse.  

In case any reader has forgotten or you have not read any of my previous blogs, I have said that I consider IS to be a revolutionary movement based on a radical religious-based identity (and I am not saying that all Muslims are radical), not an ethno-nationalist movement, and gasp, not a terrorist movement--though they make ample use of terrorizing the locals to acheive governing authority.  IS uses terror and force to control the population in the territory it is attempting to govern in its attempt at creation of a modern Islamic Caliphate.  IS is using force to push existing government forces and local militias out of the territory it is attempting to control.  I am basically arguing that IS is a quasi-state actor trying to build a country (a quasi-state actor because no other set of actors is willing to recognize this state as legitimate).

Back to the original question of this post.  If--big if--IS is a state-like actor, why should we expect that a bombing campaign is going to be enough to defeat IS?  The Doolittle Raid did not cause Japan to surrender, neither did the March 1945 fire bombing of Tokyo, it took two atomic bombs after years of hard fighting and mounting irreplaceable losses.  Bombing Dresden did not cause Germany to surrender, rather years of fighting and growing insurmountable losses of which Dresden was only one caused Germany to fall in WWII.  Bombing the North during the Vietnam War did not cause North Vietnam to lose, did it?   For my two cents, the world must do a better job of supplying and supporting ground forces against IS or find a different strategy for containing and ultimately defeating IS, air strikes are simply not going to be the answer.  

Hooray, I Made it to Friday

I am right in the middle of a silly season stretch.  Midterms, guest speakers, homecoming at the college, homecoming for the area school district, little league football practices/games are all running together in one blur.  Plus, two KC Royals games going 12 and 11 innings to start the post-season have added to the blur.  

In the midst of all of the goings on I get to do one thing that is always a little fun.  I get to take the family to a nice hotel, spend some time with them, and go to a nice event for the alumni and members of the Pan Sophic Fraternity (who for some reason allege that I am their advisor).  In honor of the Pans I offer the following Friday frivolatry.

and while the guys may have a little Animal House in them, I don't suspect they go this far: