The site uses cookies that you may not want. Continued use means acceptance. For more information see our privacy policy.

Not a War–a Fire.

A fire is a better metaphor for pandemics than a war.

Lots of metaphors around these days. Fire is one of the better ones. Fire spreads; disease spreads. Fire is dangerous; disease is dangerous.

War doesn’t spread the same way, though its devastation does. It’s more targeted. It is man-made.

Nobody says, “Let’s let the fire burn, we can’t shut the economy down because of a little fire.” Good people don’t offer up grandparents in immolation.

The administration’s response to the fire, to the disease, has not been good. It has gotten marginally better, but threatens to get worse again. The response, and the disease. Which is the big problem with letting a big-time loser direct the fire department. Not good.

Places that do not heed the basic rule of fire safety—deprive it of fuel—will be scorched worse than those places that do. For a disease, human contact is spreading the embers to new fuel.

With developed diseases, like influenza, we have vaccines. That’s a controlled burn or a fire break. Sets some distance. People still get flu, but we try to make it harder for that particular fire to spread. With this new fire, it will take time to develop a vaccine. So we have to spread the fuel apart—social distancing.

As with fire, this disease will spread to any fuel it can reach. Different houses will burn differently. Some will be spared, others will collapse. These are human lives we’re talking about.

You don’t reopen until the fire has abated, until it’s under control. You don’t mess around with fire. Places that do will, with high probability, get burned. Already, due to Donald John Trump’s errors of judgment, more are sick than should be. And some probably getting sick because of his unfounded optimism. All these Republicans who have downplayed the threat, and their counter-culture media drones, they’re fanning the fucking flames. Morons.

Anyway, stay safe out there. Be thankful for the mail carriers, the doctors, the grocery workers, and, yes, the firefighters. Right now they’re all firefighters.

Donald John Trump is a firebug. Don’t listen to his lies. His job is to make sure all those firefighters are equipped, and that we’re doing all we can to stop the spread, but he’s not. That’s a failure.

As a side note, the term shelter-in-place refers to an immediate stoppage of nonessential movement during an acute emergency. Basically, during a shelter-in-place situation, unless the danger to you is greater where you are than the risk of moving, you shouldn’t. It applies to wherever you happen to be at the time of the order.

The orders being issued aren’t correctly described as shelter-in-place. They are stay-at-home. Nobody expects someone to start living out of their local gas station if that’s where they are right now. During a real shelter-in-place, one would be expected to stay at the gas station until the immediate danger had abated and the order lifted.

A Standard District

The question before the Supreme Court in Gill v. Whitford (Wisconsin) and Benisek v. Lamone (Maryland) isn’t really whether partisan gerrymandering is unconstitutional, but whether there is a standard they can set forth that will be effective. Such a standard does not explain how states should develop their districts, but only how to tell if they have not done their job with fidelity to the law.

The best fix, as usual, would be for states and congress to work the problem out. But given the problem is that we can’t elect moderate representation (due to gerrymandering), it quickly becomes a chicken-egg paradox.

Although there are various suggested standards to use, it is likely none of them are ideal enough for the members of the court who don’t want to have to go ten rounds on the subject. But that should not stop them from imposing an imperfect standard. There are plenty of instances where the court had to refine itself in case after case. And there is always the opportunity for interplay between the federal and state legislatures on the matter.

Consider tea. People add milk and sugar (or other sweeteners) to make it taste better. Some like tea stronger, some weaker. There is no perfect cup of tea. But when you order tea from a restaurant, or you buy a canister or bottle of tea from a vendor, they have normalized the tea. They are producing a product that, on average, will not be perfect tea for anybody, but will be acceptable tea for everybody.

Now, they could punt. They could rule per curiam and open the floodgates to hear challenges on every district until a standard is found. If they believe that these particular districts are unconstitutional, justice demands at least that.

But even that ruling must articulate a why that points to the future grounds where some standard would be built. The basic shape of partisan gerrymandering is non-compactness, is choosing to shift pockets of voters either to concentrate or dilute them. The standard, therefore, must be to the strength of the tea. Nobody buys watery tea, and nobody wants it too strong.

Thus, in comparing districts, they should each be tea and not tea concentrate and not water with tea flavor. If quality control lets a few stronger or weaker through, that’s tea for you. But if quality control misses the basic task, that violates the constitution. Toss it and the QC inspector in the harbor.