The Affordable Connectivity Program: Breaking Down the Barrier of the Digital Divide

Despite the vast deserts of the Antelope Valley, it is no stranger to being on the cutting edge of technology – especially as it is known by many to be the Aerospace Valley. It was here that the barrier of sound was first broken in an aircraft piloted by Captain Chuck Yeager. However, if the Antelope Valley is to continue breaking barriers in the quest for progress it is crucial and essential that the students, parents, grandparents, and all residents have an equitable and inclusive access to the tools of technology and access to the internet.

With the Antelope Valley being the home to the largest population of foster youth in Los Angeles County and the state of California, combined with the rural and exurban nature of the area, there are many community members for whom internet access would be out of reach if not for the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP). The ACP has played a major role in transforming lives for the better, by offering newfound opportunities to reach for brighter futures. Today, I urge Congress to continue this vital program and recognize the immeasurable benefits it brings to Antelope Valley residents.

In Lancaster and Palmdale alone, over 45,000 households are enrolled in the ACP according to the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC), a subdivision of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Prior to its implementation, the lack of reliable, high-speed internet access left many residents at a distinct disadvantage in education, healthcare, and economic opportunities. The ACP has bridged this divide and helped to level the digital playing field for achieving outcomes that without such access would be out of reach to so many individuals.

This is especially true in the realm of education, where some of the most significant impacts of the ACP in Antelope Valley can be seen. Our students were once forced to contend with spotty internet connections and limited access to online resources, which served as tremendous hindrance to achieving their academic goals, particularly in an increasingly digital learning environment. The ACP enables students of all ages to access educational materials, participate in remote learning, and prepare for a brighter future.

Telehealth services, too, have become an essential lifeline for our rural residents, many of whom previously faced long journeys to access healthcare facilities. We also saw that during COVID the need for such access truly was the difference in being able to safely meet with medical providers or not. With the ACP, we have the opportunity to consult with healthcare professionals remotely, receive medical advice, and even access critical mental health services. This program has not only improved our physical health but has also had a profound impact on our mental well-being, particularly during these challenging times.

Beyond education and healthcare, the ACP has empowered rural entrepreneurs and small businesses in the Antelope Valley. Reliable internet access is a prerequisite for success in today’s interconnected world. With this program, local businesses have the digital infrastructure they need to grow, create jobs, and thrive. Through the ACP small businesses have been given a chance for equal footing to communicate, collaborate, and compete in the robust and ever-changing economy our community today. 

If Congress fails to act, though, and the ACP is not extended, then tens of thousands of local households could see sharp increases to their costs to access the internet, and many working families could lose access entirely.

The ACP has become a beacon of hope for communities such as the Antelope Valley and has brought transformation to our neighborhoods. Thanks to the ACP, we have seen improved access to education, healthcare, and economic opportunities from which we were once divided behind a digital barrier. Let’s not go back to being cut off from these resources, and instead, let’s unite in urging Congress to continue funding this essential program and ensure that all Americans are included an equitable opportunity to advance in this digital age.

Dispelling the Deception: A Discussion on the Dobbs Decision

On June 24^th, a step was taken towards correcting a grave legal and ethical mistake that has darkened our country for the past 50 years. In much the same way that for over 80 years in our nation’s history slavery had been a “protected right”, the notion that abortion was a similarly “protected right” was invalidated. While many states continue to debate what that means within their borders, and while the decision has not “abolished abortion” despite cries and protests making that claim – it has reignited the conversation. Much as we saw in the aftermath of the overturning of slavery and the laws that some states still imposed supporting a disparate treatment of individuals, for now, the decision is returning to the states for how they choose to treat the lives of those merely too small and without a voice to yet advocate for themselves.

For some this is a question of balancing competing interests. For politicians, their pandering is to those from whom they can get votes, which somewhat diminishes their credibility, and we all know that politicians are not above manipulating narratives to serve their self-seeking interests. Really the question now facing Americans is how they choose to respond. Historically, a fundamental value has been to defend the helpless, especially those without a voice and unable to champion their cause. By so doing, these groups have eventually been able to grow strong with bold voices to obtain equality and/or continue to make further advances towards that goal.

What makes this debate so contradictory is that we were all once in need of this defense, but once we no longer need the protection, we fail to offer it to others. Adding to the complexity is typically the one most likely to fiercely defend their young is the mother, even seen in the natural world, yet in this case it is the mother making the ultimate decision – but why? And that is really what gets to the heart of this issue, apart from law, politics, and ethics – it is a heart issue. It is a heart in desperate need of truth and that has been all too often deceived.

The deception takes place on so many levels – scientifically, sociologically, economically – and each could be a subject for discussion all on its own. For the purpose of this piece, though, it is the overall deception being addressed, and that is because what is fundamental to the lie is the inescapable truth that in every abortion there are at least two victims – the baby and the mother.  Others can be hurt, too, but the greatest harm is to these two. It is crucial to address this fact because ignoring the harm to the mother misrepresents what so many of us are fighting to make known.

Platitudes are often made about this being a “women’s right” issue, but the reality is that is a deflection to the fact that this “right” does nothing to address the wrongs almost any woman being faced with making this decision is likely facing and practically certain will only compound. Women already victims of sexual abuse who find themselves pregnant as a result of that abuse will find no comfort in killing an innocent life, that is much a part of them as their abuser. They may not want to raise that child, but ending that life does not undo the stigma, trauma, and rightful desire for justice against their abuser – the baby though is just as innocent a victim as the mother. Women facing poverty and economic hardship before a pregnancy still face those issues, and the reality is there are more services and resources available to them when pregnant and a mother than when faced alone. Finally, and perhaps most importantly is the mental and emotional well-being of the mother that is being ignored by far too many. From the 2018 analysis and study on abortion and mental health to the the British Journal of Psychiatry, and even in Psychology Today the consensus is clear that the emotional and mental effect experienced by each woman after an abortion in unique and oftentimes matching those experienced by victims of trauma.  

As the debate and protest in response to the Dobbs decision and the overturning of Roe v. Wade continues it is imperative that the discussion focus on the heart of the issue. That is the heart of those most deeply affected. In addressing that issue it is the love and truth communicated at pregnancy clinics and by those who truly understand what it means to advocate for women who need to lead in directing the narrative – not the politicians, lawyers, and even so-called scholars, but those who truly love these women. 

Then and now…Let’s Learn not Repeat

160 years ago, our nation stood on the edge of a chasm with parallels far too eerily similar to where we find ourselves today. If we are not careful to learn from the history of our past, we could all too easily find ourselves doomed to repeat it.

While there are many differences between the presidencies and the personalities of Buchanan and Trump, there are a number of commonalities between the two, as well. Both served one term during a period of fierce and hotly contested divide between factions within the country. Those contestations in both cases having occasions of turning to violence, and where the response to the violence by each of the two presidents would be criticized.

Legislative Impasse

These two presidents, also, served during a time where partisanship had essentially blocked the legislative branch from an ability to effectively govern and pass legislation.  The legislative stalemates, under both administrations, could be seen preventing the passage of pragmatic policies on things such as trade, troops, and transportation. Yet, in reality, the fundamental impasse was really on principle and ideology.

Supreme Court

Another similarity was the expectation of the influence that the Supreme Court would wield over the contentions. Buchanan thought that the highest court of the land would be sufficiently persuasive enough on the people to pacify their intense passions. Under Trump there was the belief, by some, that the judicial branch would become an election arbitrator.

The Election

It further can’t help but be noticed that successors for both Presidents Buchanan and Trump were elected in highly contested elections. While in the case of the of the former, it wasn’t so much a question of election integrity as it was a rejection of the candidate, nearly in entirety, by practically half the country, in which he was not even found on the ballot. In the most recent case, questions again surrounded the electoral practices of certain states, though this time it was that it was not the State Legislatures establishing the measures for election.

Military Intervention

What may have been one of the most striking points of comparison was in regards to the inauguration of both Buchanan and Trump’s successors. In both of those cases, there was an unusually increased presence of troops in attendance to maintain the peace during an event that was at least perceived to have potential concerns for the setting off of a powder-keg of hostilities.

Though, in retrospect, each of the successor’s inaugurations did proceed forward in a peaceful transition of power on that day. Nevertheless, the words quoted by Buchanan in his March 1^st, 1861 speech justifying his decision, as the concerns over secret organizations swirled, could have been words for 2021, “In a time of high excitement consequent upon revolutionary events transpiring all around us, the very air filled with rumors and individuals indulging in the most extravagant expressions of fears and threats.”

The Divide

The gravest concern for similarity is what came, and could come next, after these presidential terms.  It certainly did not take long for many states to sever themselves from the Union, some not even waiting for one term to end and another to begin. While denying the legal right to secede, being able to stop it proved challenging. However, when eventually becoming a matter related to the federal government, greater opportunity to act existed and was taken. In a bit differing of a way, though, not entirely without mirroring the historical parallel, such federal flexing of power can be seen in the present, with 30 executive orders being signed in just the first 5 days the new administration has been in office.

Hopefully, similarities will end here. Certainly, both successors of Presidents Buchanan and Trump have called for unity. If we are not careful, though, and do not exercise calm and caution, if we do not learn, then there is a foreboding risk of repeating what was, and might again have to be, endured to preserve a union united in unity.

In Defense of Calm

In the days since the riot upon on the Capitol, there was a brief moment of unity lasting for a few hours, and then as quickly as it came it was replaced by the return of highly charged and divisive rhetoric.

Contrary to what we have been seeing, as of late, it is possible to passionately dialogue and debate without resorting to dire divisions, dastardly diatribes, or a deafening silencing of the dissent.

The riot upon the Capitol was wrong. Period. Full stop.

In addition to the death, destruction, and deepened divide it also derailed the attempt that was being taken at the very time of the attack to address the constitutional statutes requiring that, “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof,” and that, “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.”

This insurrection did a disservice to democracy (in both direct and indirect forms, as by our representatives) and served to deal a near deathblow on any discussion about legitimate concerns over election integrity.

Furthermore, the fallout from this fatal fiasco continues to fan the flames of animosity and fuel contempt. Recently, these fires have raged to the point that representatives on both sides of the debate, as to whether potential violations to the aforementioned constitutional statutes warranted a pause in what should be more than a mere ceremonial proceeding, have come under accusation and attack to the points of calls for resignation, questions of their patriotism, fitness to serve, fulfilling of their constitutional oath of office, and even being directly accosted in airports and public spaces.

To be clear, elected officials should be held accountable for their actions, votes, and even their words. They are not above the standards of governance and the social contract under which we all abide. Fundamental to the contract, though is the tenet that we are all responsible for our own actions.

Responsibility for the riots rests with those who engaged in riotous acts, illegal actions, rising to point of destruction of property, and all-out assault resulting in the injury and deaths of people present.

While it is inevitable to search for an explanation in the face of tragedy, those who would attempt to absolve any individuals from their responsibility and from facing the consequences of their actions, by suggesting that the individuals had been pushed to act in this way, are negating the fundamental distinction that the responsibility for an action rests with the person acting.

This same principle also prohibits a transference of blame to another for what caused one individual to act in a particular way. Engaging in either false justification starts an endless process of looking back at the triggering events for causation.

Suicide bombers who strap vests to themselves may have had their head filled with lies from charismatic religious and/or political leaders, but it is ultimately their belief in the lie and their action upon that belief that results in the action they take.  

It has long been debated what makes one a freedom fighter and another a terrorist? What makes one a patriot and another a traitor? When is it justifiable to use force and when is it a violation of rule of law? What is the evaluative standard for the provocation and response of violence?

While such questions are unlikely to find their answer anytime soon, what can be answered is that the actions at the Capitol were a violation of the rule of law. If law is to be enacted it requires that legislators be permitted to dialogue and debate, and that process is not served when their attempts to do so are blocked by riot, revenge, or resentful cries for resignation in response to either or both.

At this time of great divide, it would be wise to heed the words of Lincoln who knew the risks that awaited if cooler heads were unable to prevail in resolving the divide, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” While he did not expect the Union to be dissolved or the house to fall, just what one thing or the other might become of this nation stands on a precipice and is calling for calm and balance, rather than rage and reaction.

Private Censorship?

Recently, there have been several analogies offered to compare the actions taken by Twitter and other “Big Tech” firms to a variety of other actions.

One such analogy is to compare opposition to demanding a baker to bake a cake for a wedding that the baker did not support to the opposition of the decision by Twitter to enact a lifetime ban on accounts making statements they did not support.

Both are similar in asserting that private businesses should not be required by government to do something they do not want to do. Private businesses have the right to refuse service.

In the case of the baker, the Supreme Court ruled in his favor holding that being required to bake a cake would be a violation of the baker’s right to the free exercise of religion. It is worth noting in the dissenting opinion to the baker’s case, Ruth Bader Ginsburg asserted, “It is a general rule that such objections do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law.”

In addition to Ginsburg’s dissent, which would speak to not allowing business owners to deny service based on objections of belief, in other cases surrounding the autonomy of private business, the Supreme Court has upheld the Civil Rights Act under the authority of the Commerce Clause. Under this interpretation, businesses are required to provide certain services, as an application of interstate commerce, and intrastate commerce when impacting interstate. In practical application, however, this action did more to uphold an individual’s 14^th amendment right to equal protection.  

Considering the narrow scope applied in the baker’s decision, it is clear that to make an analogy to Twitter’s actions poses a number of differences. Particularly, as the baker’s case was not ruled from the perspective of private business, but rather from the Free Exercise Clause and the individual’s right under the First Amendment.

Ironically, perhaps more relevant to this case is one from 75 years ago. In Marsh v. Alabama (1946) Justice Hugo Black wrote that “Ownership does not always mean absolute dominion” in support of the notion that “a privately owned company town was subject to First Amendment principles even though it was technically private.”

Also, often posited, is the notion that the internet and social media platforms are much more like the public square, street, or park than a private space. Hence, whether technically private or viewed as public space, either can be subject to First Amendment principles.

“Big Tech” and social media platform providers would likely assert that this is a case of a violation of Terms of Service and subsequent to that violation, it is their right to refuse service. The service being provided being the dissemination of an individual’s words, thoughts, and ideas through their platform. In this case, they are essentially acting as publishers for authors of their choice and refusing to publish particular authors for objecting to their content, and thereby engaging in censorship. Private censorship, not governmental, but censorship all the same; and censorship silences opposing and dissenting voices.

If found to be subject to First Amendment principles, then subject to the previously held, and very limited scope of standards for when censorship is permitted, and perhaps being required to hold to some consistency in adherence of the standard applied.

The Tale of Two Sides to Protests

We have all heard the expression, “Violence is never the answer.” Certainly, it is an oft-repeated phrase, especially in light of recent events. However, while keeping things simple is often a desirable trait in political talking points, the real world is seldom that simple. Maybe in a perfect world, “Violence is never the answer,” but this is far from a perfect world.

In reality what I think most of these well-meaning and well-intended individuals are really trying to say is, “Unprovoked violence is never the answer.” Students of history might remember the Battle of Lexington and Concord where the shot heard around the world was fired, beginning the American Revolution, and the side which fired first remaining a mystery.

In the retrospective analysis of wars, hostile altercations, and violent actions one of the first questions examined is who is the aggressor? Who was the one who struck first? The response that follows is generally deemed self-defense and justifiable when measured as a proportionally protective response.

In the denouncement of actions that can only be described as an indelible stain on our nation’s collective history, it should also warrant an introspective examination of what qualifies as a provocation rising to a level requiring a justifiable, measured, and proportionally protective response, and what would be that response for the provocation in question.

In a specific examination of the recent events, a charitable interpretation would be to identify the provocation as being a failure to investigate the claims made that election procedures in several states failed to meet the constitutional standard set forth in Articles 1 and 2 requiring that elections for Senators and Representatives, and Electors for the President are to be determined in a manner prescribed by the State Legislatures.

A proportionally protective response would be to ensure that investigation took place. Efforts to facilitate that investigation were underway when they were disrupted due to those seeking the investigation having to be evacuated to places of safety. This was not a proportionally protective response and as such met with the condemnation it received from many.

However, for some, the provocation was not as cool and dispassionate as merely a failure to investigate the constitutionality of election procedure. Rather, for some, it was seen to be deeply personal and passionate, connected with the loss of rights to assemble, freely worship, be secure in their person and property/livelihoods, and to know that their voice was being heard. When the provocation is brought on by the usurpation of one’s inalienable and intangible rights it becomes murky and more difficult to discern what the proportionally protective response should be.  

To further compound the issue is the debate over the legitimacy of the claims, sometimes even the “truth” of the claims, as to what is being taken. In the court of public opinion, the less than impartial mainstream media, and the social media battlefield this debate wages and is usually deeply partisan in awarding points to the claims. The sad and regrettable reality is that truth has long been under assault and when language has been hijacked, disputes on the definition of words like justice, so important to this discussion, make meaningful dialogue to facilitate arriving at common ground all the more difficult.

Protestors for the social justice movement are often absolved and excused in needing to meet any burden of proof to legitimate their claims that their actions are a proportionally acceptable response to their grievances. Blind eyes are turned when those protests turn violent, as a silent and tacit approval that they have just been pushed to the point where their response is “justified.”

Whereas, protestors for the rights upon which this nation was founded are often vilified, maligned, and ostracized. Their protests are scrutinized and the standard for the scrutiny is often much lower than whether it rose to violence. Rather it is often merely whether it used divisive rhetoric, stoked the flames of dissidence, or just used words with which the scrutinizer disagreed.

This only serves to widen the divide until the chasm can no longer be bridged. If we cannot find common ground on which to agree, then the actions seen during the Electoral College certification could only be the beginning of a much larger conflict. Rather than mere insincere platitudes espousing for calls of unity between factions still distrustful of one another, that likely will last only for days, what about a deep and genuine return to what it is that makes us Americans, makes us One Nation Under God, makes us the United States – a holding to the self-evident truth, “That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

’tis the Season – Election Season Still

Most people are shaking off their turkey comas’ last effects and looking to decorate for Christmas, with future elections as far from their mind as possible. For a select few political geeks, as a final certification of this last election is finishing, there’s already a look to what comes next – an analysis of the results and a reflection of that analysis to give future direction.

• Yes, thoughts are already turning to the 2022 elections, for which the California Primary is just a short 15 months away.

The 2022 election will see every California state assembly member, every member of Congress, one-third of the U.S. Senators, and 36 state governors facing an election, which includes a gubernatorial race.

THREE MILLION SWING VOTERS?

As the 2020 election autopsy begins, many will lavish praise with backslapping and congratulations. A lot of hard work makes for a justifiable celebration. Still, as races for statewide offices start, there’s also a cold, stark reality confronting California conservatives – how to swing 3,000,000 Californian voters to vote in their own best interest.

With less presidential controversy, there could be an increase of voters willing to consider a more conservative view, and for some, this might be a return. For others, it may result in their abandonment and apathy, but what matters is moving those 3,000,000 voters whose election decision is not always ideologically consistent.

On average, to see a move of those voters, it would require each county to move 51,724 voters or each congressional district 56,603 voters. Even with the wins picked up, we did not see changes at that level across counties or congressional districts.

While that shouldn’t reflect a pessimism of California being “lost,” it means that there is a lot of work to facilitate a fundamental and dynamic shift. That cannot occur as a generational change without a deliberate county by county, district by district effort.

• If conservatives don’t actively facilitate change, the numbers for statewide wins won’t be there.

CAN PROPOSITIONS TELL US ANYTHING?

Even looking at the mixed bag of propositions, Prop 15, the Tax on Commercial and Industrial Properties for Education and Local Government Funding Initiative, went down to defeat with less than 700,000 votes. The less controversial, but in reality, damaging for the next generation, Prop 19, Property Tax Transfers, Exemptions, and Revenue for Wildfire Agencies and Counties Amendment, passed by less than 400,000 votes.

Prop 22, App-Based Drivers as Contractors and Labor Policies Initiative, the state legislature’s hotly contested action to reclassify independent contractors as employees, which significantly impacted “gig workers,” saw a small rollback, passed by almost 3,000,000 votes.

• Prop 22 saw substantial funding by Uber and Lyft to alert Californians to pass and save “gig workers.”

Prop 20, the Criminal Sentencing, Parole, and DNA Collection Initiative, saw defeat by nearly 4,000,000 votes. In contrast, Prop 25, the Replace Cash Bail with Risk Assessments Referendum, while technically defeated, but in actuality saw the reinstatement of cash bail, which came with a vote spread of over 2,100,000 votes.

• Clearly, there is little consistency in any ideology of propositions.

Even if you could create a candidate whose platform aligned by some crystal ball prediction with the winning propositions, there’s little sign voters vote for candidates based on platform and issues outside of partisan persuasion.

Certainly, voters of a partisan persuasion, but the 3,000,000 in question, have not shown to vote by any truly predictable standard driving their decision making.

The solution is a daunting task, but one desperately needed, requiring a team going county to county and district to district. To give small palatable Civics lessons to guide their decision-making process while simultaneously making them feel good about it because feelings are a driving force more so than pure rationality and reason.

Now, let’s go convince some voters to make better decisions, inspire them to care, and instill within them feelings goodwill – after all, ’tis the season!

Innocent Until Proven Guilty? Not if a Republican

  In 2018 California Republicans experienced a crushing blow in a series of congressional defeats, in districts that had been previously safely red for years. Picking ourselves back up, we began the daunting task of clawing back those districts and did so through a grueling primary process.

The battle might not have been harder fought than in the 25th congressional district, but in the end coming out of the street brawl is a tougher and more competitive candidate who can take whatever the Democrats throw at them. In the May 12th Special Election this was demonstrated when Mike Garcia reclaimed the seat that had been lost in 2018.

With this infusion of hope and the momentum building for a California Comeback, other congressional districts can be seen to be within the grasp of being reclaimed. Young Kim in the 39th congressional district having outperformed against her rival Democrat contender Gil Cisneros.

Even in the 48th congressional district while having to compete against other Republican candidates Michelle Steele showed a commanding presence and has well positioned herself for the November General election.

In each of these cases, the CAGOP has recognized that the road to the house begins and ends in California. The Republican Establishment has a laser focused goal of retaking a majority in Congress, and seeing the current House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy assuming the role of Speaker of the House.

To accomplish this goal, it will require reclaiming every seat within reach. One such seat is in the 10th congressional district, where Josh Harder defeated Jeff Denham in 2018, by almost 10,000 votes. With such odds reclaiming the seat will be a tough task and one in which Republican unity is crucial- but still a seat that could be retaken.

After another hard-fought primary, Ted Howze emerged with a top-two victory advancing to the November General election. Despite the usual Primary squabbles, Republicans coalesced around Howze after his March win.

Unfortunately, the unity would be short-lived. The painful lessons of 2018 not searing enough to prevent the GOP Establishment from repeating their failed strategies, which only resulted in defeat. Rather than learning that victory requires fight and tenacity, rather than learning from President Trump that the press needs to be boldly challenged, they instead whimpered and cowered away pitifully when met with the first signs of challenge.

When their standard-bearer candidate in the 10th congressional district needed them most, when the chips were down, and Republicans could actually unite, they didn’t. They folded. They turned spineless and ate their own.

Why? Because they are afraid of blowback from a purely partisan attack piece that doesn’t even stand-up to minimal standards of journalistic integrity. In this day and age, it only takes an allegation to undermine and torpedo the reputations of good men- ask Justice Kavanaugh. While surviving the appointment process it will always be with asterisk after his name.

The fundamental tenet of jurisprudence that one is innocent until proven guilty has its own asterisk by it- unless you are a Republican. Then, the guilt is automatically assumed and sentencing accelerated, often by those who should be an ally.

We see this again, in this case- instead of recognizing that the path to victory is paved by resiliency, instead of repeating the successes that had seen in the 25th congressional district, successes that came when purely partisan attacks did not derail support for the ultimate goal and mission- Howze found himself abandoned, deserted, and even attacked by his own.

This about-face is bewildering and perplexing as to why the sell-out on one of their own. It is as if the California Republican Establishment has learned nothing in the era of Trump and even less in the two years since the crushing mid-term elections. At this point in time, controversial comments are uttered every hour and pass even more quickly.

Regurgitating a tweet from years past as a pathetic ploy of attack and to see it then used by Republicans against their own is nearly as adept as China’s unleashing of COVID-19 upon America and watching it be used to collapse the country from within. Both are just as insidious. Both need to have powerful leaders step forth to stop the internal decline and fall. Ted Howze is one such leader and it is why he is the threat to the Democrats, and perhaps even to the Establishment. We can’t let him be defeated.

COVID-19 Series #4: Misdirection Malady and Myopia- Don’t be Misled

While the entire globe is consumed by the coronavirus crisis a whole litany of other problems plaguing the people are being ignored. It is true that crises have a tendency to consume focus; nevertheless, it is imperative that leaders not be myopic to the myriad of other issues still facing our state and country. At this time, politicians seem more intent in measuring who has the bigger… intent, zeal, and authority to reopen the economy, and their talk is just the next cue of misdirection to get the people to “look over here.”

In the past weeks there had been much lip-service paid to the need to give people hope- hope being more powerful than fear. As a result, it is not surprising that there is now this new dose of hope being doled out- the plan for the economy to reopen. Of course, who gets to deliver this message of hope and who gets to be the gift bearer for its delivery is now the political one-up gamesmanship at play.

The federal government vs. the state governors, with the local level politicians being instrumental in the enforcement of whatever direction is taken. Not to mention, there is the power play of political partisanship in their plight to pursue obtaining the greatest amount of power possible through this pandemic.

Meanwhile the people continue to be led down, an albeit thorny, primrose path. They continue to trust their elected officials, who even when being given the absolute most favorable benefit of the doubt, have still shown themselves to, at a minimum, needing to be held accountable.

Public policy decisions have consequences. These decisions have been made, are being made, and still are yet to be made that need to be held to measurable and objective standards of accountability. Voters must start to realize the importance of their choices.

When voters ignore the big picture, forget the past, and fail to consider the future, being only focused on only the absolute imminent, immediacy of the present, the political class is permitted to play fast and loose with all of their decisions except for those made right at the time of election. When in reality, the issues of economic survival amidst unprecedented unemployment numbers, small business sustainability, housing costs, medical costs, liberty, infrastructure, homelessness, and now even more evident- education all need to desperately be evaluated.

In this weighing, a tremendous want has been found, and the simple fact is that the political class has been blinded to all but the virus. Now, they are making every attempt to get the people to join them in their ostrich like behavior of burying their head in the sand to avoid facing the issues, issues largely impacted as a result of their less than data driven decision making.

They certainly are not willing to face that the people expect a resolution for the politician produced problems because – coronavirus. So, never mind the politician and expert behind the curtain pulling the levers putting on the show in which we are now stuck. Just keeping watching where they are pointing and wait for the next pyrotechnic show of smoke, mirrors, flashes of light, hope, and maybe another $1,200 stimulus check further sweetened by state supplements, all with no solution for how payment for it will be made…but that’s okay- we don’t have to face that today… or when we vote… we’ll just keep kicking the can down the street.

COVID-19 Series #3- Duplicity of Data Driven Decision-Making Declarations

The phrase data driven decision-making seems to be very popular these days. For starters, data drives analysis, analysis makes decisions. Good data, data that is accurate, is important in analysis. Also, just as necessary is sound, critical thinking skills, logic, and rationality by which to reach conclusions based on what is believed to be good data. If either the data OR the analysis is faulty it stands to reason the conclusions will also be faulty.

As the world attempts to respond to the coronavirus pandemic we seem to be seeing shortages is both good data and good decision making. In looking at the data that we have on COVID-19 we know very little. We do not know what percentage of a sample population that has or had the virus. Without that data we don’t have real numbers on the percentages of infected that needed medical attention, nor do we have real case-fatality numbers.

We know that following the World Health Organization recommendations for “Doing the 5”– covering coughs, not touching our faces, washing our hands, maintaining social distance, and staying home when sick all can have a significant impact to limit the spread this- and really any communicable virus — this is not new information. (Just like the fact that those who might not be showing symptoms, asymptomatic, can also transmit the disease is again not new information.)

However, what isn’t known, or certainly hasn’t been communicated, is the coefficient value in reducing the spread that each, any, and/or the combined effect of these measures can have on the total number of infections to occur. In some ways, it would require needing to be able to see the future, and that is not a human ability.

Instead, what is offered is a vast number of models, each trying to create a picture of how things could possibly look based upon supposed values for the variables. It is for this reason that the numbers can vary so greatly from model to model- 7 billion infected and 40 million dead; 21 million Chinese having cell phone accounts terminated; 200,000 Americans likely to die if we do everything perfectly, the actual effects being comparable past flu epidemics, and the list could go on.

So, with all these models, what are we to do? Well, common-sense tells us that we shouldn’t govern by reactionary hysterics. We should evaluate each model for the likelihood of its reality. We should create several response options for each model. We should evaluate the repercussions for each the responses to each module. We should respond in a manner that is consistent with values, lessons learned from past precedent, rationality, and logic.

That is what would be done if data really was driving decision making. But, no, like so many catch phrases, that isn’t what we see happening with COVID-19 and the data, and certainly not the economy. Rather, than a measured and reasonable response that could have followed the recommendations of the World Health Organization- a response that could have been taken without resulting in orders to shelter in place, close down thousands upon thousands of businesses, and create constitutional challenges that threaten the very foundations on which our country was established- the response directed was to decimate the economy, pass a $2.2 trillion spending bill (the debt for which has barely been given a passing thought), to watch unemployment claims climb to levels never seen before in all the time they have been tracked, and see the Dow plummet with the largest single day drop in history.

Why? Well, that will have to be the subject for another piece- for now, just remember all that drives decisions is not necessarily data, no matter what you might hear and finding what is driving these decisions is definitely worth determining.