he U.S. invasion of Iraq, predicated on Saddam Hussein secretly developing weapons of mass destruction (WMD), started 20 years ago today, on March 20, 2003.
I recall landing at LAX that night, walking through the terminal and seeing images from CNN: dark skies over Baghdad lit up with tracers from anti-aircraft guns and explosions from U.S. bombs.
Colin Powell had convinced me, in his speech to the United Nations Security Council, that we had intelligence confirming WMD, which justified invading and toppling Hussein.
That proved false. But his other prediction, “If you break it you own it,” played out tragically, not ending after America’s official withdrawal in 2011. Echoes of the war will span generations, as poignantly told in this reflection by Lulu Garcia-Navarro.
In an article in The New York Times, Peter Baker assesses former President Bush’s perspective about the invasion of Iraq:
As far as he is concerned, the world is better off without Saddam Hussein, and he has told advisers he has not changed his mind about that.
Perhaps. But was it worth the carnage?
The invasion succeeded in toppling Mr. Hussein, by all accounts one of the world’s most brutal dictators, but touched off a virulent insurgency and relentless sectarian civil war that ultimately killed 4,600 American troops and 3,650 contractors, at least 45,000 members of the Iraqi military and police, at least 35,000 insurgents and an estimated 200,000 civilians.
I hold fromer President George Bush and former Vice President Dick Cheney — a strong advocate for the invasion — responsible for the greatest blunder in U.S. policy during my lifetime. Aside from any guilt they may silently carry, only God can hold them accountable when they pass from this life.
A run on Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) late last week — when account holders started withdrawing money, fearful that the bank didn’t have sufficient funds to honor their requests, thus fulfilling their fears that the bank would not have the funds to cover all withdrawals — led to the bank’s collapse, the second largest bank failure in U.S. history according to NBC News.
U.S. regulators stepped in, spending the weekend developing a plan to protect all deposited funds, even those exceeding the $250,000 guaranteed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
The SVB of last week is no more, replaced by a “bridge bank” with a new CEO:
Silicon Valley Bridge Bank, N.A. is a new bank that is regulated by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. Silicon Valley Bridge Bank, N.A. has fully stepped into the shoes of the former Silicon Valley Bank. — Company News, March 14
SVB’s prior management has no bank to manage, only management questions to answer and tarnished reputations to defend.
The demise of this regional bank, which catered to VCs and their startup companies, unleashed debates about the cause of the collapse and whether the government’s move to protect depositors was a “bailout,” a term that became a pejorative following the Great Recession of 2008. Some argue the FDIC ceiling should not have been raised — don’t protect those rich VCs from moral hazard. Some have inferred that the bank’s failure reflected the higher risk of the startup companies it served.
I think both conclusions are unwarranted. From the varied news reports and opinions I’ve read and heard, I’ve concluded the following:
What Triggered the Run?
Probably to minimize risk and adhere to regulatory requirements, SVB invested some of its deposits in long-term U.S. Treasury bonds. As the Federal Reserve raised interest rates to reduce inflation, the lower yields of SVB’s bonds became a liability: investors could buy Treasury bonds at higher yields than those held by SVB. Faced with a threatened downgrade by Moody’s and depositors withdrawing funds, the bank moved to sell $21.4 billion in bonds — taking a loss of $1.8 billion. That spooked the market and accelerated the run to withdraw funds, which the bank simply couldn’t fulfill. Too much, too fast.
The post mortem on the collapse must determine whether SVB understood its increasing vulnerability as the Fed repeatedly raised interest rates. If so, did it assess the probability of a run, perhaps judging it too low to require action? The threat of Moody’s downgrading SVB apparently prompted management to act, but its options were limited, as it was boxed in by the difference in yields between the bonds it held and current rates.
Making this autopsy more interesting, regulations for mid-sized banks like SVB were relaxed by Congress in 2018, with the bank’s CEO, Greg Becker, an outspoken advocate for looser regulations. Would the previous regulations have prevented SVB’s failure? Or identified the vulnerability in time to address it before the bank run and subsequent collapse?
Coincidentally, the CEO exercised options to buy and sell 12,451 shares of the bank on February 27. Daniel Beck, the CFO, sold 2,000 shares the same day. Both transactions were apparently prescheduled under a 10b5-1 insider trading plan, so they may not indicate that the executives anticipated the failure and sought to enrich themselves. Investigations by the SEC and Justice Department will provide more insight and, hopefully, prosecution if warranted.
Saving the Depositors
Addressing the brouhaha over the $250,000 FDIC insurance limit (per customer per account), let’s start by not equating a checking or savings account as an investment. A key element of a bank’s mission is to provide a safe haven for depositors, one less source of financial risk.
Presumably, many of the accounts at SVB were with businesses, many with multi-million dollar cash flows for staff, supplies, finished goods, capital expenditures, etc. Losing these funds because a company’s account balances exceed the FDIC limit would impair company operations, perhaps catastrophically. Increasing the FDIC limit seems a prudent step to protect the companies and all those who support their operations — none guilty of making a reckless investment.
As the FDIC insurance pool is funded by the banks, not taxpayers, it can be considered a cost of doing business, an investment to ensure public confidence in the banking system.
In the few days since SVB’s collapse, I’m reading of an influx of deposits in big banks such as Bank of America and Citibank, reflecting uncertainty about the security of funds held at regional and local banks. For most individuals, the $250,000 FDIC insurance will be sufficient; however, for companies with larger deposits in checking or savings accounts, increasing the limit seems appropriate and consistent with the goal of a secure banking system.
The FDIC was formed by Congress in 1933. Let’s see if the current recalcitrant Congress will move beyond rhetoric to increase insurance coverage and tighten the regulations to address the root causes of SVB’s failure.
Update: March 18, 2023
Apparently no white knight will rescue SVB, as the parent SVB Financial announced it would file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection to sell off the assets of the core bank, although not the funds and general partner entities and SVB Securities.
Reuters reported SVB had only $2.2 billion in liquidity, compared to assets of $209 billion at the end of last year. What a fall.
Last week the country honored the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s life and legacy, lamenting his tragically shortened life and yet unfulfilled promise of racial equity. The same day as the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday, Alabama and Mississippi memorialized Robert E. Lee’s birthday, state holidays dating from the late 1800s.
Perhaps a Robert E. Lee holiday in the decades post-Reconstruction, when the South was building Jim Crow to undermine the outcome of the Civil War, is understandable. By the 1960s, however, these Confederate celebrations were clearly antithetical to the values of racial equity raised by the Civil Rights movement, hopefully mirrored in the social evolution of the country.
Yet the Robert E. Lee holidays have remained on the calendar, incredibly paired with the MLK holiday in Alabama and Mississippi since it started in 1986. Alabama’s governor and legislature don’t seem bothered by the contradictory values, content to quietly honor the legacy of the Civil War and slavery.
As a new resident of Alabama, I’m appalled by the dissonance, which prompted a letter to the governor:
❝Dear Governor Ivey,
Before moving to Alabama a year ago, I was curious how I would find the state addressing its history of slavery, the Civil War, Jim Crow, and the Civil Rights era. I’ve found some hopeful signs, such as the effort to amend the state constitution to delete racist language. However, I’m appalled that the state has a holiday memorializing Robert E. Lee’s birthday. Even worse, it’s the same day as the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday — which I interpret as a sophomoric and impudent attempt to negate the life and contributions of Rev. Dr. King.
Other than the symbolism of Jim Crow, Alabama honoring Robert E. Lee with a holiday surprises me. Lee had no tie to the state other than his military campaigns during the Civil War. Although the record shows he was conflicted by slavery, he fought to preserve it, leading many Confederate soldiers to their deaths under his command.
For Alabama to honor Lee and his legacy with a holiday is inconsistent with reconciling the state’s lamentable racial history. I urge you to use your last term as governor to remove this annual commemoration of the state’s racist past. You have the opportunity to articulate a vision of racial equity that respects all of Alabama’s citizens.
After 15 ballots, untold contortions, genuflections, and compromises of his integrity, Kevin McCarthy finally achieved what he’s long coveted: becoming Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.
Reflected in the number of ballots, he also became leader of a group of recalcitrant and ungovernable Republican representatives — just one now able to call for a vote to oust the speaker. McCarthy will lead with a gun to his head.
In a speech to the chamber after finally securing the role he so desired, McCarthy said, “As Speaker of the House my ultimate responsibility is not to my party. Our responsibility is to our country.”
While their responsibility is to the country, McCarthy’s flip-flops and compromises have unfortunately ceded power to a small group of the most conservative members of the Republican party. Their agenda does not reflect and will not benefit the broad needs of the American people.
On Monday, November 21, Alabama Governor Kay Ivey stopped the Department of Corrections from executing prisoners on death row, ordering a “top-to-bottom review of the state’s execution process.” Her action followed two recent executions called off because of problems administering the lethal drugs. These two were preceded by an execution in July that took three hours before Joe Nathan James Jr. was “successfully” killed.
The press release announcing the governor’s action quoted her saying,
“For the sake of the victims and their families, we’ve got to get this right.”
That begs the question: how about the prisoners being executed? Do they deserve a “humane” execution, assuming that’s possible?
Responding to the news of the order, I submitted the following to the governor’s website:
Governor Ivey,
Thank you for stopping prisoner executions in Alabama and ordering a “top-to-bottom review of the state’s execution process.” The recent attempted executions of Alan Eugene Miller and Kenneth Eugene Smith following the prolonged execution of Joe Nathan James Jr. reveal a systemic failure with Alabama’s process.
To ensure the integrity of the review and its findings, I urge you to appoint the “reviewers” to be independent of the Department of Corrections. Otherwise, you’re asking the fox to count the chickens in the coop; a few will no doubt disappear.
One additional point: your statement “I don’t buy for a second the narrative being pushed by activists that these issues are the fault of the folks at Corrections or anyone in law enforcement” is nonsensical. Isn’t the execution process defined and controlled by the Department of Corrections? Aren’t department staff solely responsible for the procedure and, therefore, accountable for its integrity? Please don’t stir the political coals.
Without excusing the crimes and the injustice to the victims and their families, those sentenced to die are humans with souls. They deserve the most humane execution Alabama can carry out. Otherwise, the state becomes an instrument of revenge rather than justice.
The governor’s order comes admidst earlier lawsuits and investigations from the U.S. Department of Justice, contending the conditions at Alabama’s prisons are unconstitutional because they don’t provide safe and sanitary conditions — safe from other prisoners and prison staff.
Almost two weeks after the midterm election, votes are still being counted — recounted in some elections — and a runoff on December 5 will decide whether Raphael Warnock, the incumbent, or Herschel Walker will represent Georgia in the U.S. Senate. We are certain the Democrats will retain control of the Senate, regardless of the outcome of Georgia’s runoff, and Republicans have won enough districts to become the majority party in the House, taking control from the Democrats.
Despite Republicans controlling the House, this outcome is a relief, much better than I expected from the polls and punditry prior to the election. The historical trend is that the party in power loses seats in Congress in the midterm election, and this seemed destined because polls consistently showed voter dissatisfaction with the state of the economy and President Biden’s performance. Inflation remains high, reflected in the food and gas prices Americans pay every day. If that weren’t obvious, Republicans unceasingly blamed the president — ignoring that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has disrupted energy and food supplies from both countries.
Fortunately, the Republican majority in the house will be slim. Whoever leads that fractious party, Kevin McCarthy or a more conservative challenger, will have to bow to conservative pressure to investigate the Biden administration. The investigations will begin with son Hunter and his laptop and could lead to impeachment hearings. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia introduced a resolution calling for the president’s impeachment for “abuse of power by enabling bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors.” See H.Res.57.
Adding to the gravitational pull distorting the next two years, the former president — whom I shall not name — has declared he’s running for president again.
”In order to make America great and glorious again. I am tonight announcing my candidacy for president of the United States." — former president Donald Trump
Back to the hopeful outcome of the midterm election, despite the near certainty of a gridlocked Washington for the next two years: despite voter dissatisfaction with the economy and the president’s performance, many voters apparently agreed with President Biden’s argument that the election was a referendum on democracy. The candidates who embraced Donald Trump’s “big lie” that the 2020 election was stolen largely lost their races for the House, governor, and secretary of state. While the races were often close, enough voters seemed concerned by threats to future elections.
Losing access to abortion, with the federal right overturned by the Supreme Court in June, was also a strong factor, which can be inferred from the ballot initiatives in Kansas, during the summer, and California, Kentucky, Michigan, and New York in the midterms.
While the election outcome was not as definitive as I would like, it was far better than my fears, which were turning to depression from the drumbeat of reporting as the election neared. Analyzing the unexpected result, Astead Herndon and Shane Goldmacher in a post-mortem assessment on The Run-Up podcast suggested anti-democracy concerns motivated voters more than dissatisfaction about the economy and President Biden. I concur with that, fro my own fear of Donald Trump or his minions again taking control of government. I can only hope that fear will carry America through the 2024 election, if that’s what it takes.
Moving to Alabama a year ago, I was curious how I would find the state addressing its legacy of slavery, the Civil War, Jim Crow, and the Civil Rights era. I’ve found some hopeful signs, such as amending the state constitution to delete racist language and the portions that have been repealed. However, celebrating Robert E. Lee’s and Jefferson Davis’ birthdays and Confederate Memorial Day as state holidays seems inconsistent with reconciling the state’s lamentable history. Perhaps the idea is to let sleeping dogs lie.
“They want reparations because they think the people that do the crime are owed that. Bullshit. They are not owed that."
Equating reparations — “something done or money paid to make amends or compensate for a wrong,” meaning the wrong of slavery — to “the people that do the crime” seems patently racist to me. The two are not equal.
Following your unfortunate remarks, you issued no clarification. No apology. No acknowledgment of the slur on 27 percent of the state’s population, whom you are supposed to represent.
“Race has no color. Reparation would have no color.”
That makes no sense, Senator. To quote you, it sounds like BS. I can’t judge your intent, but it seems your remarks reflect the Jim Crow era that framed you.
Amazingly, the Uvalde, Texas, school massacre that left 21 dead — 19 elementary school students and two teachers — yielded a bipartisan effort in the Senate to pass very moderate legislation aimed at stemming gun violence. Once approved in the Senate by an unlikely and historic coalition including 15 Republicans, the legislation was rapidly passed by the House and signed by the president.
The National Rifle Association (NRA) was “deeply involved in drafting the bill, although the gun rights group ultimately opposed it,” according to The New York Times. That the bill passed, with 13 of the 15 Republicans voting for it having A or A+ ratings from the NRA, punctuates the unlikely outcome.
Unfortunately, Alabama’s two senators, Richard Shelby and Tommy Tuberville, voted against the bill, which prompted me to write each:
Senator,
I’m deeply disappointed that you did not support the gun safety legislation that, fortunately, passed Congress and was signed by President Biden.
The provisions in the bill are reasonable: requiring background checks for first time gun purchasers under 21, closing the “boyfriend loophole,” funding state grants to implement red flag laws, funding mental health programs, funding increased security at schools.
Your fellow conservative, Republican Senator John Cornyn, worked arduously to ensure the legislation does not infringe on our Second Amendment rights. So I cannot understand your unwillingness to support it and extend grace to the parents who have lost children to senseless and tragic mass shootings.
Another tragic massacre of 19 children and two teachers, killed by an angry 18-year-old with a semi-automatic rifle. The reflexive response from Congress is to offer thoughts and prayers for the families and defer any suggestion of tougher access to guns, saying this is not the time for politics. The country's seeming acceptance of the tragedy is infuriating. Surely this is not what the writers of the Constitution had in mind when they wrote the Second Amendment.
My response, seemingly futile, is to write Senators Shelby and Tuberville and Representative Rogers:
Following another tragic slaughter of American children and their teachers, it’s time for Congress to do more than offer thoughts and prayers and lamely suggest we arm our teachers.
No, I’m not suggesting we disarm America. I do respect the Second Amendment and know that most gun owners are responsible.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment is not without limits, and we accept the longstanding law restricting the right to own automatic weapons. So placing additional measures such as requiring background checks, increasing the legal age for purchasing firearms, and licensing some gun purchases seem like reasonable steps that won’t violate the Constitution.
Yes, I know those steps won’t eliminate gun deaths, just as seat belts and air bags don’t eliminate deaths from car accidents. Yet seat belts and air bags have measurably reduced deaths and were implemented as part of a continuous process to improve automotive safety. We should adopt the same philosophy to reduce gun deaths — particularly mass shootings.
Our children’s lives are sacred, more than the NRA’s talking points echoed by too many of our elected leaders. We must do more than offer thoughts and prayers. It’s time to explore reasonable options with earnestness and humility, honoring these children whose lives have ended too soon and so tragically.
This is my first letter to an Alabama politician since we moved to Opelika in November:
Governor Ivey,
I am distraught by your support of the so-called Alabama Vulnerable Child Compassion and Protection Act, which does not provide compassion or protection. Thankfully, Judge Liles Burke’s ruling stopped your misguided and harmful plan to ban puberty blockers and hormones for minors with gender dysphoria. His injunction provided ample justification for the ruling:
”the uncontradicted record evidence is that at least twenty-two major medical associations in the United States endorse transitioning medications as well-established, evidence-based treatments for gender dysphoria in minors.”
Further, your Tweet claiming knowledge of God’s intentions reveals hubris, a lack of knowledge of gender dysphoria, callous indifference for the mental health challenges faced by children with gender dysphoria, and disregard for parental rights — which I thought was a bedrock principle of Republicans. It’s really not simple.
"we’re going to go by how God made us: if the Good Lord made you a boy, you’re a boy, and if he made you a girl, you’re a girl. It’s simple."
For the health of the transgender youth of Alabama, I urge you to get to know several families with transgender youth and meet with the medical community to become more informed. It may not make for great election year politics, but it’s the principled step to take.
On the 20th anniversary of the sudden shift in world history we call 9/11, the brazen and brilliant attack on America, I'm at a family gathering in the Great Smokey Mountains. I feel the cool morning warmed by the sun and hear the sound of Le Conte creek coming up through the trees outside our room. This morning, life is normal as our family catches up with each other's lives while the TV, sound muted, shows the memorial in New York City, the president and vice president looking somber, Bruce Springsteen singing. No one here is watching. We don't pause our conversation for the moment of silence observed by the crowd in New York.
That morning, 20 years ago, I was working in my office in Lowell, expecting a colleague from Roanoke to fly up for a meeting and dinner. I don't recall whether he called or emailed saying he wasn't coming, referring to a plane crash. Ed was somewhat cautious and didn't enjoy flying, so I initially thought this was a convenient excuse to cancel the trip. I walked upstairs to the cafeteria and stopped in the auditorium, where a large group had gathered around a TV, watching the smoke billowing from the twin towers of the World Trade Center. It was immediately obvious, underscored by the horror of seeing the towers fall. This was no accident. The twin towers, the attack on the Pentagon, then the downed airliner in Pennsylvania, mercifully crashed while heading back to a target in Washington.
9/11 dramatically shifted the agenda of the U.S. government, and those decisions will shape the country for generations. First, the invasion of Afghanistan to quell Al-Qaeda, then on to Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein, incorrectly accused of being a collaborator and a terrorist threat.
U.S. armed forces have been mired in both countries for 20 years — just extracting ourselves ingloriously from Afghanistan, enabling the Taliban to recapture the country without a fight. We tried to leave Iraq during President Obama's term, creating a vacuum that enabled the ISIS caliphate in Iraq and Syria, which required a renewed military campaign to defeat it. Defeat is too strong an assessment; weaken and disperse are more accurate and hopefully sufficient to prevent ISIS from again threatening innocent people with their fundamentalist and brutal orthodoxy.
While I find leaving Afghanistan to the Taliban deeply troubling, especially the uncertain fate of the country's women, I support President Biden's decision, although not the way it was implemented. Staying there would be a forever war if we retained a military presence to keep the Taliban from taking over while acquiescing to the massive corruption.
The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq — the lives lost, the financial cost, the distraction from other global priorities — was a policy blunder equal to the one in Vietnam in the 1960s, a blunder born of anger and hubris. War is a blunt act of vengeance, often harming the innocent more than the enemy. Establishing a just, representative government in a country is a goal that has consistently evaded U.S. policy.
Perhaps the clearest act of justice in response to 9/11: Osama bin Laden is dead, killed by U.S. special forces at his hideaway in Pakistan after an unrelenting 10-year search.
Reflecting on the course of these 20 years, I wish those who lost family and friends will be comforted and inspired by memories of the good times and how they lived. For those who served valiantly in Afghanistan and Iraq, seeking justice and helping plant the seeds of democracy, I hope they can find satisfaction from their efforts, despite the inability to see those seeds fully bloom. And I pray our leaders will find humility as they steer the ship of state in this uncertain world
The resurgence of coronavirus infections from the Delta variant seems like a variation on the tragedy of the commons.
As originally proposed, a tragedy of the commons refers to individuals acting independently in their own self interest, ultimately depleting a natural resource until it's no longer available to anyone. The players pursue their short-term interests without considering the needs of others nor their own long-term interest. A group of farmers who let their cows graze on a shared field (the common) until the grass is gone was reportedly the example used to illustrate the initial concept. A real, current example: restrictions to prevent overfishing the waters off New England.
Turning to the variation: the SARS-CoV-2 virus keeps mutating, a clear example of evolution, with the surviving variants better adapted to infecting people and propagating the virus. The Delta variant first appeared in India last fall, where a huge unvaccinated population provided a fertile environment. Travelers then carried it other countries, and it seems to be the dominant variant in the U.S., hospitalizing and killing the unvaccinated. As troubling, it is infecting the vaccinated, who have mild symptoms yet serve as carriers to spread infections.
It's a tragic reversal for Americans, just as we were shifting back to "normal" and enjoying the summer.
The best way to defeat the virus hasn't changed since the start of 2021: get vaccinated, avoid gatherings with groups in tightly packed spaces, and wear a mask around anyone who could be a carrier. Straightforward, yet some Americans feel being told to get vaccinated and wear a mask are infringements on individual liberty. They resist and protest, encouraged by political leaders who fan the "don't tread on me" flames.
And so we have a tragedy, like a tragedy of the commons. As individuals exercise their personal liberty, society suffers. Infections increase and people die.
Governments and businesses are now imposing vaccinate or test mandates and requiring that people wear masks. Ironically, this response could have been avoided if only those advocating personal liberty had chosen to get vaccinated and wear a mask "for the good of the country." Unfortunately, paraphrasing Voltaire, no snowflake feels responsible for the avalanche.
Although I spend my days working with words, my usual role is editing. Or writing stories of technology companies or short technical descriptions of products.
My writing as introspection and making sense of this life has languished. I feel the void. There's so much in this world to contemplate, which I do best through translating my thoughts into words on a screen. While my ego preens for the satisfaction of being read by others, the deeper gratification comes from rereading my own words and seeing if the ideas make sense.
Earlier today, I spent a fulfilling hour talking with Len Edgerly, a simpatico friend I met years ago at a podcast event in Boston. Via Zoom, we shared a few of the themes and questions in our lives, teasing out some of the deeper meanings:
What is it about meditation that causes the mind to settle?
Will acting quickly on intuition, rather than a thoughtful, deliberative tradeoff of pros and cons lead to a good decision?
Not knowing what will happen, can we be comfortable in the uncertainty and wait quietly for discernment to provide an answer?
In a world so troubled, how can we make a positive difference without becoming overwhelmed?
As we talked, Len asked whether I had written a blog post lately, perhaps wondering if he had missed one. It was a nonjudgmental question, a timely question — just the writing prompt I needed.
Len has started a new writing project, recounting how he and his wife adopted a puppy to fill the void from the death of their Yorkie. He's devoting 30 minutes each morning to crafting the story, while learning the nuances of a new writing platform. Just 30 minutes. But every day.
His example of persistent and modest effort tempers my impulse to make sense of the world's ills in one massive missive. What's more practical for a busy life is persistent attention and effort. And so, I send this out, a reflection of this moment.
Thank you, Len.
Initially published on July 31, 2021 on my HEY World blog.
I've heard Studs Terkel's name at various times throughout my life, the mention generally lauding his interviewing skills. Most recently, Ezra Klein recommended his books; Klein's favorite: Working, Terkel's survey of people's jobs. That led me to an audio compilation of about a dozen of those actual interviews, produced by Radio Diaries from the original tape recordings. I bought the Audible version.
Wow. Such powerful interviews. Terkel's questions are short and direct, yet he establishes a trusting rapport with those he's talking with, where they feel comfortable disclosing. Moved by what I heard, I wrote this review:
Studs Terkel is legendary for his interview skills. These dozen interviews reveal why. Terkel's short, probing, disarming questions explore various jobs, their challenges, and what the incumbents truly feel about them.
Talking with the father and son in a car repair garage uncovers the tensions in a multi-generational family business. The only female executive in a national advertising agency shares she's either ignored or stereotyped, her talents discounted. A Black police officer describes the racism he faced in the Chicago police force during the 1970s; sadly, not much seems to have changed.
Each story is short, yet unforgettable.
I resonate with Terkel's skills because of my interest in interviewing. When I produced a series of podcasts talking with Unitarian Universalists about their spiritual paths, my goal was to get below the surface to reach the meaning of their lives. Now, when I write the questions for Microwave Journal interviews with industry executives, I try to craft at least one to connect with the humanity of the person I'm interviewing, hoping to get beyond the talking points of the business.
Listening to Terkel, I'm inspired to take a microphone and recorder and record impromptu conversations with people on the street, looking for our common humanity. In this divisive world, we need to listen to each other's stories.
It seems a bit surreal to be packing a suitcase for an early departure to Atlanta tomorrow morning.
Bucking the odds, the 2021 International Microwave Symposium (IMS) refused to cancel the physical event and, thanks to the vaccines, will be one of the first conferences in the industry to act as though life is "normal" — although the attendance will be a fraction of the last IMS in Atlanta, in 2008.
The last business trip I took was in January 2020, flying to Philadelphia for a client meeting in Pennsylvania. I was really looking forward to returning to Barcelona for the 2020 Mobile World Congress the end of February; however, the conference and that trip were cancelled as the pandemic swept the globe.
We did fly to Austin last summer when our daughter had surgery. Before returning home, I spent a couple weeks with our son in Auburn. That seems so long ago, dodging the virus during its surge in the south when the flights and airports were pretty empty.
I hear the airports and flight are packed again. Can't say I'm ready for that part of the old normal.
ATL on August 29, 2020. I've never seen the Atlanta airport so deserted.
This week Governor Greg Abbott of Texas announced the state's mask mandate will end March 10, saying citizens "no longer need government running our lives." Yet, in a subsequent interview with KTRK TV in Houston, he said, "We are still urging people to continue to wear the mask."
I've been surprised that masks became and remain such a lightning rod in the country's response to COVID-19. More precisely, the issue is whether the government has the authority to require wearing masks in a public space.
The argument for wearing masks is they reduce the risk of transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which has led to the deaths of some 525,000 Americans (and counting). As part of its responsibility for public safety and health, governments have the authority to require wearing masks, at least in public spaces, to reduce the risk of infection, hospitalization, and death.
Those opposed to mandates argue governments are infringing on an individual's freedom and liberty, adding people will act responsibly if presented with the evidence, presumably then choosing to wear a mask.
I side with a government mandate for these reasons:
1) The government has a responsibility for public safety and health, with the authority to impose regulations to ensure appropriate standards.
The history of the country has been a progression of government regulation to improve safety and health, either as society gains more knowledge or to address violations. Perhaps stop signs and red lights were controversial when first proposed, yet today we accept them, trading the expectation to safely drive to the grocery store for the loss of time and personal freedom.
2) Behavioral and cultural change takes time, while a pandemic grows exponentially.
When COVID-19 first exploded in New York City, then spread across the country, we didn't have much time to socialize wearing masks and overcome the inconvenience, discomfort, and self-consciousness doing so. If I'm the only one in a store wearing a mask, I'll take it off so I won't stand out and be embarrassed — particularly since wearing masks quickly became polarized, an unfortunate symbol of a different argument.
Intuitively, wearing a mask reduces the transmission of particles to and from the lungs, and much experimental data confirms their effectiveness. Their use is accepted in other countries: I've seen many people wearing masks in China, whether to prevent disease or reduce breathing pollutants from the air.
I doubt my reasoning will convince those who see this as a violation of personal freedom. I suspect the issue is not COVID-19, it's the relationship between the individual and society. COVID-19 is simply a battle in a much more expansive philosophical war.
Ten of the 211 Republicans in the House of Representatives voted to impeach President Trump on January 13, just one week after a mob of angry partisans stormed the Capitol, following a speech where the President told his followers, “We must stop the steal and then we must ensure that such outrageous election fraud never happens again, can never be allowed to happen again.”
Of course, there was no election fraud.
Peter Meijer, a newly elected representative from Michigan, was one of the 10 who voted to impeach the president. Michael Barbaro, host of The Daily podcast, interviewed Meijer yesterday to understand Meijer’s hopes entering Congress, his response to the claims of election fraud, and what led him to vote for impeachment and place himself in a small cohort of unpopular, endangered — electorally and possible physically — Republicans.
In a world of political spin, I found Meijer open, honest, and vulnerable. I sent him the following feedback:
Representative Meijer,
I listened to your interview with Michael Barbaro on The Daily and want to thank you for being so thoughtful and open, describing your hopes as a newly elected representative, assessment of the claims of election fraud, and decision to vote to impeach President Trump following the attack on the Capitol.
I have been disheartened by the tone of political discourse, particularly about the election, and respect your principled decision to choose our democracy over the Republican party’s allegiance to President Trump. May your leadership be an example to the party.
May you be safe and have a successful term, building bridges with your colleagues on both sides of the aisle.
Reference
House of Representatives vote to impeach Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors. Roll Call 17 | Bill Number: H. Res. 24
I sent the following to Representative Annie Kuster today.
I am writing to support the impeachment of President Trump in response to Wednesday’s violent mob attack on the Capitol, which interrupted Congress’ acceptance of the votes from the Electoral College and, more profoundly, threatened the safety of government officials, led to the death of Brian Sicknick, and desecrated our democracy.
As you know, the Constitution provides a process for removing a President from office for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” In my view, President Trump’s false, absurd, and continued gaslighting that the election was fraudulent, culminating in his rally on Wednesday, where he instructed attendees to go to the Capitol to “stop the steal,” is sedition — which certainly qualifies for impeachment.
President Trump’s subsequent video telling supporters to go home, that he loved them and knows how they feel, did not condemn the violence and lawlessness, and he continued to falsely claim a fraudulent election. Only the following day did he release a video addressing the “heinous attack on the United States Capitol” and, for the first time, conceding the election — perhaps because Congress had, indeed, certified the election.
Although President Trump has now acknowledged he will leave office on January 20, impeachment is warranted: to warn those extremists who flagrantly attacked our democracy and to provide a coda to this travesty of governance, that the House of Representatives held a delusional and despotic President accountable.
Just over a year ago, on December 18, the House of Representatives approved two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump, for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
The articles were submitted to the Senate on January 16, 2020, which voted to acquit the president of both charges on February 5.
Suppose, however, at least 67 Senators had voted to convict the president on one or both of the articles. Donald Trump would have been removed from office and Vice President Mike Pence would have assumed the role.
A more emotionally stable President Pence would have been less divisive and may well have handled the pandemic more responsibly than the man he replaced.
Pence would logically have been the Republican candidate for president in the 2020 election. With the anti-Trump fervor gone, the nation could have rallied around Pence, supporting his efforts to develop a more coherent strategy to combat COVID-19.
The Republican party would be in a far better place inaugurating a President Pence on January 20. Its fealty to President Trump led it down a blind alley promoting false claims of a fraudulent election, claims that undermine our democracy and relegate the party to infamy.
As we end this tumultuous year, 2020, which has been defined by the coronavirus, deaths in the U.S. from COVID-19 are approaching 330,000 from over 19 million confirmed cases. These numbers understate reality because not all cases and deaths have been diagnosed.
Why did it turn out so, the infections accelerating this fall as the weather turned colder and the U.S. responded with que será, será and a shrug?
The Paradox
The pandemic is a paradox which the country has not been able to solve.
Many who are infected with COVID-19 have no symptoms, many have mild symptoms, most recover — yet the virus is the third leading cause of death in the U.S., the cumulative death toll the same as the population of Salt Lake City or Birmingham, according to Scientific American.
The highly contagious disease spreads largely by close contact among people and, in some cases, transmission across longer distances. Limiting gatherings with others avoids exposure, by definition. When that is not possible, wearing a mask to reduce the probability of either inhaling the virus or expelling reduces the risk of infection. Yet government and business policies implementing these steps, either as regulations or simply recommendations, have been decried by some as unconstitutional infringements on personal liberty.
The life of an infection is relatively short — weeks — yet the U.S. has not been able to contain it after 11 months. It has consistently spread across the country, infecting all regions, even those knowing for months it was coming. December — not yet history — has been the worst month for deaths since the first peak in April.
Confirmed COVID-19 infections in the U.S. Source: Johns Hopkins University, 12/30/20.
Why is this pandemic such a paradox, when the U.S. has the medical expertise, the infrastructure, and financial resources to counter it? Why is it so difficult to manage, when other countries have demonstrated strategies that work?
I’ve concluded we lack government leadership, a coordinated and unified response, and both community and individual resolve. These interconnected deficits, amplified by a vocal minority of naysayers, have created a controversy about wearing masks and a false either/or choice between reducing infections or sustaining the economy.
What Can We Do?
Eleven months in, can we do anything to mitigate this tragedy or must we await the country being vaccinated, accepting the collateral infections and deaths while hoping they don’t affect us personally?
I think the following steps would yield measurable improvement, reducing infections and death until enough of us are vaccinated for the country to reach herd immunity. These steps must be implemented consistently across the nation, a “united we stand, divided we fall” strategy.
1. Stay in place for 14–21 days to minimize new infections.
The idea is for everyone to stay in place to let the current infections play out without causing new infections.
The incubation period for COVID-19 infection is 5–6 days average and up to 14 days, according to the World Health Organization. The BMJ reports data from culture studies indicates people can become infectious 1–2 days before feeling symptoms and will remain infectious for up to seven days. CDC guidance is a person with a mild case of COVID-19 remains infectious for “no longer” than 10 days after symptoms appear, while a person with a more severe or critical illness will “likely” be infectious for no more than 20 days.
The life of the infection defines the time we need to stay in place. While some exceptions will be required — seeking medical care, getting groceries — wearing masks and reducing the number of people in stores will reduce the probability of infection.
Everyone staying in place must be done nationally at the same time; otherwise the virus will cross borders and spread from areas with high infection to those with low infection — just as we’ve seen it cross the country this year.
2. Quarantine international travelers entering the U.S.
As other countries and some U.S. states have done, incoming travelers must quarantine for an appropriate time to minimize the risk of bringing in the virus and spreading infection.
A 14-day quarantine has been the norm, based on the incubation period for infection, although this time could be reduced if the quarantine is combined with testing.
Our near-empty hotels can provide the rooms, meals, and testing centers for travelers.
3. Implement a multi-layer testing strategy.
The foundation of a multi-layer testing strategy is in-home antigen tests with near real-time results, with a protocol of one or two tests per week per person following the national stay-in-place period. This policy would apply nationwide, for anyone going to public places (e.g., offices, stores, churches).
If a test is positive, the person quarantines while confirming the infection with either additional in-home antigen or local PCR tests.
Although the antigen tests may not be as accurate as PCR tests, they can be widely accessible, and the near real-time results will enable anyone infected — especially if they are asymptomatic — to protect others from becoming infected. See RapidTests.org.
Ideally, the test results would be reported to public health officials to provide community data on the positivity rate. To balance individual privacy with public health, the data — even from a positive test — could be reported anonymously (by zip code, perhaps). Someone with a positive test could be asked to contact local health officials. Anyone becoming seriously ill will presumably show up at a hospital.
4. Provide additional economic relief.
Given the economic impact of staying in place, adding to the year-long effects, it’s reasonable for the federal government to provide additional economic relief: unemployment, rent and mortgage assistance, and business support. Considering this national disaster, the “cost” to the federal deficit is an investment in the economy, particularly with interest rates so low.
I believe if this strategy had been employed in the spring, when the coronavirus was first spreading in the U.S., the number of infections, deaths, and attendant economic devastation would be considerably less than what we’re living through. Had we been united around a nationwide response, the virus would not have been able to dance through our patchwork of local and state plans and political divisiveness.
While Operation Warp Speed’s development of vaccines is heartening and will, hopefully, enable us to return to a more normal life by the end of 2021, we have a long winter and spring to endure. A strategy built around these principles will alleviate the nation’s suffering near-term.
SARS-CoV-2 won’t be the last pandemic to threaten the globe. Developing such a strategy will help us better prepare for the next time.
Caveat: I claim no medical expertise. Nonetheless, I think the framework is a sound approach and should be appropriately tweaked to reflect the latest medical knowledge of the virus.
