Thought for the Day

[Stavros]

Boris Johnson, on leaving St Thomas's Hospital in London-

"On Saturday, the PM issued a statement thanking the National Health Service staff at St. Thomas' Hospital. "I can't thank them enough. I owe them my life," he said.

In a video statement posted online on Sunday, Johnson personally named some of the health care workers who looked after him, including two nurses -- one from New Zealand and one from Portugal -- who stood by his bedside "for 48 hours when things could have gone either way."

"I have today left hospital after a week in which the NHS has saved my life, no question," Johnson said in the video. "It's hard to find the words to express my debt."
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/12/u...gbr/index.html

[broncofan]

The President cannot force states to open businesses. The Commerce Clause is in Article I and permits Congress to pass laws in order to regulate interstate commerce. Congress is not allowed to delegate its authority to the Executive Branch. Furthermore, it's not clear that Congress would be able to pass a law forcing states to open businesses. During the Affordable Care Act case Republicans argued that one reason the Act couldn't be passed under the Commerce Clause is that it didn't regulate commerce but instead created it. They construed the power given to Congress as being regulatory, meaning that you can define the parameters of commerce and prohibit certain activities but not force anyone to engage in it. When the Affordable Care Act passed, the contested portion called the individual mandate was passed under Congress' power to tax.

Either way, the President does not have Commerce Clause power because we're a nation of laws and it's Congress that passes laws. There's also something called the dormant commerce clause. I'm not going to bore you with a basic application but in essence it prohibits states from passing laws that, even in the absence of federal legislation, interferes with Congress' regulatory ability. Anyhow, under that analysis states always have the ability to pass laws protecting their citizens' health, welfare, and safety.

Yes I'm bored or I wouldn't have written this.

[Stavros]

Proof that the devil is always in the detail, something that one is not surprised has escaped the attention of your President, who, as a devout Christian cannot be tempted by the devil but resists him at all times.
Don't be bored, Bronofan, you have enlightened me and probably a lot of others too. Now, about them pesky Governors...

[Stavros]

If for the sake of argument, the President can prove that Covid 19 originated in a laboratory in Wuhan, does this not exonerate the 'wet market' in that city where it has been assumed the virus began?

On the one hand, this would undermine the claim that the 'exotic' species that were being sold in the market have been the source of the virus, but on the other hand it would not -to me and others- justify the continued sale of pangolins, bamboo rats and other forms of meat to the public.

But what if the market was the source, does this not suggest that all 'open markets' are vulnerable because their produce is on sale in a way that cannot prevent them being infected from airborne germs and bateria, be the market Wuhan, Paris, London, San Francisco and so on?

Maybe it is time for a review of open markets -everywhere.

[fred41]

If for the sake of argument, the President can prove that Covid 19 originated in a laboratory in Wuhan, does this not exonerate the 'wet market' in that city where it has been assumed the virus began?

On the one hand, this would undermine the claim that the 'exotic' species that were being sold in the market have been the source of the virus, but on the other hand it would not -to me and others- justify the continued sale of pangolins, bamboo rats and other forms of meat to the public.

But what if the market was the source, does this not suggest that all 'open markets' are vulnerable because their produce is on sale in a way that cannot prevent them being infected from airborne germs and bateria, be the market Wuhan, Paris, London, San Francisco and so on?

Maybe it is time for a review of open markets -everywhere.

I guess while hygiene is always going to be a problem among markets that sell any type of animal,especially in crowded, cramped and sometimes unclean condition...and putting aside for the moment, the fact that there are also unsavory folk selling endangered species (or exotic endangered species parts) at ‘some’ of wildlife Markets...it seems that some animals are simply more likely than others to carry a deadly virus...https://www.discovermagazine.com/hea...ebola-and-sars

...still, any type of market selling produce, live or otherwise, should be held to stringent rules of hygiene. I just don’t believe that a large portion of them are.

[Stavros]

Thanks for the link to a fascinating article, Fred. I think -I hope we are moving into a new era of self-awareness in regard to public hygiene.

Last year before Christmas I had to use the toilet in the Mall in town, and while I was washing my hands I noted three men who were at the urinals but left without washing their hands. The entrance to the Gents is by an L-shaped corridor so there were no handles on doors to touch, but I do find this aspect of male behaviour worrying, but these days if I had suggested to the men that they wash their hands before leaving I think I would have got a volley of verbal abuse, so I hope this is one area of behaviour that people now realize they must change. And, in contrast to some public places, the Mall toilets do have hot water, soap and dryers that work.

I have also noted in the town's three supermarkets, that fresh pastries, such as croissants, bread rolls, and sweet pastries such as muffins and tarts that were on open display before, are now packaged in transparent bags, something I think should have happened a long time ago.

Markets are attractive places the world over, be it for their fruit and veg, their meat and fish, and the 'street food' stalls which is often the only reason why outsiders go -in London, Borough Market on a Satuday morning has a lot of street food stalls as well as produce, and may attract more tourists as is also true of Portobello Road in Notting Hill, but I do wonder if these open stalls have a future, though in Portobello Road there is a lot of antques/junk rather than food.

Are we going to to become more sensitive to what happens in our urban spaces? I think we must, though there is also the potential for social conflict if identifiable social groups are ostracised or unwelcome in public spaces -adopting a procedure for public safety could become an instrument of public discrimination. We have to be careful in all the things we do.

[Stavros]

I throw out this idea even though it does not appear to have any life in it - a Government of National Unity the USA.

In the UK we have not had as many Coalition Governments as they have had on the Continent but we have had them, the most obvious being the National Government and Wartime Coalition that lasted with various personnel changes from 1931-45, and the most recent being the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition of 2010-15 which was a matter of expediency because no party had overall control of the House of Commons.

In the US there are some similarities to the UK -House Representatives and Senators represent a Place, not a Party, but differences, so that the Executive Power is separated into the Office of the President. Thus, most of the literature that I have found tends to limit discussion of coalition poitics to Congress, where if there have been Coalitions they have been loose 'Coalitions of Interest' rather than bi-partisan politics operating at every level. Oddly, such coalitions in the US ought to be easier to organize precisely because the party system is weaker and less co-ordinated than it is here.

Here is a legal view which limits itself to these bi-artisan coalitions of interest but I think is wrong to argue that the option for a more comprehensive form of Coalition politics is limited because of the 'District' basis of political representation-
https://www.bu.edu/bulawreview/files...SFUNCTION1.pdf

And this article pleads both for a multi-party system on the basis of what the Founding Fathers wanted, but also fails to address the topic as I present it-
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/10/19...ican-democrat/

For the idea I am proposing is a Government of National Unity in which the President, even if his or her VP is of the same party, selects for Cabinet posts a range of people chosen because they are from different parties -ie A Democrat President chooses Republicans and Independents to be various Secretaries (State, Education, Energy etc), but also Congress puts together a cross-party organization -say a Special Committee to process national decisions in Senate and House-, while the President brings Governors and even Mayors into a National Council so that there is a 'one size fits all' public policy structure which at the very least ensures the eye-watering trllions of dolars being raised is spent on the USA, not just some of its citizens.
The job is thus for all to work with the President, as National Leader, on the basis that the only way -or the best way for the US to see itself through this crisis is to set aside the differences which to outsiders makes the US look increasingly dysfunctional.

So far, so daft, because it seems inconceivable that Mitch McConnell will even contemplace such a thing -but maybe this is how the Democrats can break the impasse, if they can wean enough 'moderate Republicans' away from the members of their party who they do not feel they relate to. In doing so, this 'National Plan' would, or could isolate the extremists and expose them for their lack of relevance. For what is crucial is that in presenting this as an option, in November, American voters could be confident that if they vote for, say, Biden, they are not voting for a Partisan Democrat who eulogizes 'America', but assembles a team that truly resembles it.

In the UK we were facing a break-up of the Union because of Brexit, and though I think that Northern Ireland may go in the next 10 years, I am now less confident of an independent Scotland because I think the SNP is in big trouble and may not even survive in its current form if Alex Salmond sues the party as he has said he will. I see too that there is little sign of Coalition politics ending in Germany and Italy, while France poses an unusual problem as I don't think it has ever been so divided while having such weak party representation at the same time.

But the US looks increasingly fragile, and I am not sure how the Democrats, if they want to win in November, can do it without persuading Republican voters who detest the leader of their party to vote for them instead, and it seems to me that instead of the tired political rhetoric about national unity, politicians need to replace it with a practical plan that actually does commit to a cross-party coalition at every level- the Executive, the Legislatures, and the States. It sounds crazy, but maybe it is the only rational way out of the crisis--??

[filghy2]

I throw out this idea even though it does not appear to have any life in it - a Government of National Unity the USA.

A Democrat president can appoint moderate Republicans to cabinet posts, as has been done several times in the past. That seems more feasible than a formal coalition. You could also have a standing council of federal and state leaders, which is what we've had in Australia for a long time, and which was transformed into the National Cabinet to coordinate decisions on the coronavirus. It would be more unwieldy in the US though, because there are 51 leaders rather than 9.

I doubt that you can really expect much beyond that for the same reason that very few Republicans have been willing to stand up to Trump - they know it would end their careers because the Republican base would turn on them. They will only turn against Trump if it looks like he is going to lead them to a crushing defeat, in which case the Democrats won't need them.

[holzz]

unpopular opinions - mental health treatment is bullshit because they try and reinforce conservative conformity. by merely being on this site, most professionals reckon we're "ill". they can go fuck themselves.

and that Trump is a good guy who will beat Biden and only says/does what most Americans secretly think.

[Stavros]

A Democrat president can appoint moderate Republicans to cabinet posts, as has been done several times in the past. That seems more feasible than a formal coalition. You could also have a standing council of federal and state leaders, which is what we've had in Australia for a long time, and which was transformed into the National Cabinet to coordinate decisions on the coronavirus. It would be more unwieldy in the US though, because there are 51 leaders rather than 9.

I doubt that you can really expect much beyond that for the same reason that very few Republicans have been willing to stand up to Trump - they know it would end their careers because the Republican base would turn on them. They will only turn against Trump if it looks like he is going to lead them to a crushing defeat, in which case the Democrats won't need them.

I know it is a weak argument, but I do think there must be doubts about this 'base' since Covid 19 started, because I am sure some of them must now know someone, maybe from their own family who has either died from Covid 19 or fallen ill, and I don't think all of them can blame it on China.

The key to re-election in 2020 was always going to be the economy, but now that the economy is in deep trouble, willl that 'base' remain solid? My point is that there has been a degree of alienation in the Republican party that the Demoocrats could exploit while trying to rescue their own base from its lukewarm faith. By creating a synthetic coalition, could the appeal to a broader mass of voters succeed? Maybe not, but is it worth trying?

Consider what has happened with Brexit, and the way in which it split the Conservative Party so that it is not the same party as it was from 1832 to 2016- then consider the fact that Labour's identity crisis post-Blair so weakened it as to make it incapable of Government, a task that it has so far failed to achieve, while the days of the SNP's supremacy in Scotland may be numbered. Yet these changes to the foundations of Liberal Democracy have not produced a coherent alternative at any level. It is as if the parties entrusted to manage capitalism have not only failed at management, the opposition has failed to offer a vision of something else that does not look like all that went before. I can thus understand the anger of 2016, but anger is a limited basis for political success, and I think across the Atlantic, voters want something more, and something different.

But where are the visionary politicians who are committed to radical change?