Join us at our brand new blog - Blue Country Gazette - created for those who think "BLUE." Go to www.bluecountrygazette.blogspot.com

YOUR SOURCE FOR TRUTH

Tuesday, May 31, 2022

FACE THIS FACT: You Are Going to Get COVID Again ... and Again ... and Again

You Are Going to Get COVID Again ... and Again ... and Again  COVID. (photo: Jamie Hodgson/Getty Images/The Atlantic)

Will the danger mount each time, or will it fade away?

Two and a half years and billions of estimated infections into this pandemic, SARS-CoV-2’s visit has clearly turned into a permanent stay. Experts knew from early on that, for almost everyone, infection with this coronavirus would be inevitable. As James Hamblin memorably put it back in February 2020, “You’re Likely to Get the Coronavirus.” By this point, in fact, most Americans have. But now, as wave after wave continues to pummel the globe, a grimmer reality is playing out. You’re not just likely to get the coronavirus. You’re likely to get it again and again and again.

“I personally know several individuals who have had COVID in almost every wave,” says Salim Abdool Karim, a clinical infectious-diseases epidemiologist and the director of the Center for the AIDS Program of Research in South Africa, which has experienced five meticulously tracked surges, and where just one-third of the population is vaccinated. Experts doubt that clip of reinfection—several times a year—will continue over the long term, given the continued ratcheting up of immunity and potential slowdown of variant emergence. But a more sluggish rate would still lead to lots of comeback cases. Aubree Gordon, an epidemiologist at the University of Michigan, told me that her best guess for the future has the virus infiltrating each of us, on average, every three years or so. “Barring some intervention that really changes the landscape,” she said, “we will all get SARS-CoV-2 multiple times in our life.”

If Gordon is right about this thrice(ish)-per-decade pace, that would be on par with what we experience with flu viruses, which scientists estimate hit us about every two to five years, less often in adulthood. It also matches up well with the documented cadence of the four other coronaviruses that seasonally trouble humans, and cause common colds. Should SARS-CoV-2 joins this mix of microbes that irk us on an intermittent schedule, we might not have to worry much. The fact that colds, flus, and stomach bugs routinely reinfect hasn’t shredded the social fabric. “For large portions of the population, this is an inconvenience,” Paul Thomas, an immunologist at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, in Tennessee, told me. Perhaps, as several experts have posited since the pandemic’s early days, SARS-CoV-2 will just become the fifth cold-causing coronavirus.

Or maybe not. This virus seems capable of tangling into just about every tissue in the body, affecting organs such as the heart, brain, liver, kidneys, and gut; it has already claimed the lives of millions, while saddling countless others with symptoms that can linger for months or years. Experts think the typical SARS-CoV-2 infection is likely to get less dangerous, as population immunity builds and broadens. But considering our current baseline, “less dangerous” could still be terrible—and it’s not clear exactly where we’re headed. When it comes to reinfection, we “just don’t know enough,” says Emily Landon, an infectious-disease physician at the University of Chicago.

For now, every infection, and every subsequent reinfection, remains a toss of the dice. “Really, it’s a gamble,” says Ziyad Al-Aly, a clinical epidemiologist and long-COVID researcher at Washington University in St. Louis. Vaccination and infection-induced immunity may load the dice against landing on severe disease, but that danger will never go away completely, and scientists don’t yet know what happens to people who contract “mild” COVID over and over again. Bouts of illness may well be tempered over time, but multiple exposures could still re-up some of the same risks as before—or even synergize to exact a cumulative toll.

“Will reinfection be really bad, or not a big deal? I think you could fall down on either side,” says Vineet Menachery, a coronavirologist at the University of Texas Medical Branch. “There’s still a lot of gray.

The majority of infections we witnessed in the pandemic’s early chapters were, of course, first ones. The virus was hitting a brand-new species, which had few defenses to block it. But people have been racking up vaccine doses and infections for years now; immunity is growing on a population scale. Most of us are “no longer starting from scratch,” says Talia Swartz, an infectious-disease physician, virologist, and immunologist at Mount Sinai’s Icahn School of Medicine. Bodies, wised up to the virus’s quirks, can now react more quickly, clobbering it with sharper and speedier strikes.

Future versions of SARS-CoV-2 could continue to shape-shift out of existing antibodies’ reach, as coronaviruses often do. But the body is flush with other fighters that are much tougher to bamboozle—among them, B cells and T cells that can quash a growing infection before it spirals out of control. Those protections tend to build iteratively, as people see pathogens or vaccines more often. People vaccinated three times over, for instance, seem especially well equipped to duke it out with all sorts of SARS-CoV-2 variants, including Omicron and its offshoots.

Gordon, who is tracking large groups of people to study the risk of reinfection, is already starting to document promising patterns: Second infections and post-vaccination infections “are significantly less severe,” she told me, sometimes to the point where people don’t notice them at all. A third or fourth bout might be more muted still; the burden of individual diseases may be headed toward an asymptote of mildness that holds for many years. Gordon and Swartz are both hopeful that the slow accumulation of immunity will also slash people’s chances of developing long COVID. An initial round of vaccine doses seems to at least modestly trim the likelihood of coming down with the condition, and the risk may dwindle further as defenses continue to amass. (“We do need more data on that,” Gordon said.)

Immunity, though, is neither binary nor permanent. Even if SARS-CoV-2’s assaults are blunted over time, there are no guarantees about the degree to which that happens, or how long it lasts. Maybe most future tussles with COVID will feel like nothing more than a shrimpy common cold. Or maybe they’ll end up like brutal flus. Wherever the average COVID case of the future lands, no two people’s experience of reinfection will be the same. Some may end up never getting sick again, at least not noticeably; others might find themselves falling ill much more frequently. A slew of factors could end up weighting the dice toward severe disease—among them, a person’s genetics, age, underlying medical conditions, health-care access, and frequency or magnitude of exposure to the virus. COVID redux could pose an especially big threat to people who are immunocompromised. And for everyone else, no amount of viral dampening can totally eliminate the chance, however small it may be, of getting very sick.

Long COVID, too, might remain a possibility with every discrete bout of illness. Or maybe the effects of a slow-but-steady trickle of minor, fast-resolving infections would sum together, and bring about the condition. Every time the body’s defenses are engaged, it “takes a lot of energy, and causes tissue damage,” Thomas told me. Should that become a near-constant barrage, “that’s probably not great for you.” But Swartz said she worries far more about that happening with viruses that chronically infect people, such as HIV. Bodies are resilient, especially when they’re offered time to rest, and she doubts that reinfection with a typically ephemeral virus such as SARS-CoV-2 would cause mounting damage. “The cumulative effect is more likely to be protective than detrimental,” she said, because of the immunity that’s laid down each time.

Al-Aly sees cause for worry either way. He is now running studies to track the long-term consequences of repeat encounters with the virus, and although the data are still emerging, he thinks that people who have caught the virus twice or thrice may be more likely to become long-haulers than those who have had it just once.

There’s still a lot about SARS-CoV-2, and the body’s response to it, that researchers don’t fully understand. Some other microbes, when they reinvade us, can fire up the immune system in unhelpful ways, driving bad bouts of inflammation that burn through the body, or duping certain defensive molecules into aiding, rather than blocking, the virus’s siege. Researchers don’t think SARS-CoV-2 will do the same. But this pathogen is “much more formidable than even someone working on coronaviruses would have expected,” Menachery told me. It could still reveal some new, insidious qualities down the line.

Studying reinfection isn’t easy: To home in on the phenomenon and its consequences, scientists have to monitor large groups of people over long periods of time, trying to catch as many viral invasions as possible, including asymptomatic ones that might not be picked up without very frequent testing. Seasonal encounters with pathogens other than SARS-CoV-2 don’t often worry us—but perhaps that’s because we’re still working to understand their toll. “Have we been underestimating long-term consequences from other repeat infections?” Thomas said. “The answer is probably, almost certainly, yes.”

Of the experts I spoke with for this story, several told me they hadn’t yet been knowingly infected by SARS-CoV-2; of those who had, none were eager for the sequel. Menachery is in the latter group. He was one of the first people in his community to catch the virus, back in March of 2020, when his entire family fell ill. That November, he discovered that he had lost most of his kidney function, a rapid deterioration that he and his doctors suspect, but cannot prove, was exacerbated by COVID. Menachery received a transplant three months ago, and has been taking immunosuppressive medications since—a major shift to his risk status, and his outlook on reinfection writ large. “So I wear my mask everywhere,” he told me, as do his wife and their three young kids. Should the virus return for him, it’s not totally clear what might happen next. “I’m nervous about reinfection,” he said. “I have reason to be.”

Almost no one can expect to avoid the virus altogether, but that doesn’t mean we can’t limit our exposures. It’s true that the body’s bulwarks against infection tend to erode rather rapidly; it’s true that this virus is very good at splintering into variants and subvariants that can hop over many of the antibodies we make. But the rhythm of reinfection isn’t just about the durability of immunity or the pace of viral evolution. It’s also about our actions and policies, and whether they allow the pathogen to transmit and evolve. Strategies to avoid infection—to make it as infrequent as possible, for as many people as possible—remain options, in the form of vaccination, masking, ventilation, paid sick leave, and more. “There are still very good reasons” to keep exposures few and far between, Landon, of the University of Chicago, told me. Putting off reinfection creates fewer opportunities for harm: The dice are less likely to land on severe disease (or chronic illness) when they’re rolled less often overall. It also buys us time to enhance our understanding of the virus, and improve our tools to fight it. “The more we know about COVID when we get COVID,” the better off we’ll be, she said.

SARS-CoV-2 may yet become another common-cold coronavirus, no more likely to screw with its hosts the fifth time it infects them than the first. But that’s no guarantee. The outlooks of the experts I spoke with spanned the range from optimism to pessimism, though all agreed that uncertainty loomed. Until we know more, none were keen to gamble with the virus—or with their own health. Any reinfection will likely still pose a threat, “even if it’s not the worst-case scenario,” Abdool Karim told me. “I wouldn’t want to put myself in that position.”

"People have been racking up vaccine doses and infections for years now; immunity is growing on a population scale."

Monday, May 30, 2022

'Every Republican voter locked those dead kids in there with a mass murderer'

UVALDE, TX - MAY 25: Law enforcement work on scene after a mass shooting yesterday at Robb Elementary School where 21 people were killed, including 19 children, on May 25, 2022 in Uvalde, Texas. The shooter, identified as 18-year-old Salvador Ramos, was reportedly killed by law enforcement. (Photo by Jordan Vonderhaar/Getty Images)

One of the most revolting parts of American gun massacres is hearing conservatives argue that rather than address the problem of guns in our society, we should instead fortify our schools and train our children on what to do when they’re being slaughtered by Republican-fueled mass killers. As if this wasn’t all disgusting enough, to watch parents subject their children to these regimes is monstrous.

American schools are wasting BILLIONS of dollars on technology and hardware upgrades to make our population feel better about their cowardly refusal to address the nightmare of guns. These spending plans are often carried out with the guidance of Keystone Cop style police departments and private security contractors who work hand in hand to profit off of the violent, bloody, rapid-fire dismemberment of America’s youngest children.

So, forcing kids to wear masks to protect them and others from Covid is child abuse? But subjecting them to active shooter drills and locking them in prisons so Daddy can play dress-up GI Joe on the weekend isn’t? The rest of the world looks at American gun-worshipping parents as some of the lowest forms of life and who could blame them at this point? Here’s an example article, one of thousands explaining what’s going on nationwide:

“Most of the classrooms in Millard can only be locked from the outside,” says a campaign brochure from Millard Families for Safe Schools, which is advocating approval of the bond. “It is counter-intuitive that the first thing teachers do in the event of (an emergency) is leave the classroom to lock the door. We need to pay for thousands of new locking mechanisms that will allow teachers to lock the classroom door from the inside if the situation demands.”

In California, doors that can be locked on the inside of a classroom, known by some as “Columbine doors” (see sidebar), now are required in any K-12 school construction that receives state financing.

So, let’s see how that all worked out:

The Uvalde school district had an extensive safety plan. 19 children were killed anyway.

The district adopted an array of security measures that included its own police force, threat assessment teams at each school, a threat reporting system, social media monitoring software, fences around schools and a requirement that teachers lock their classroom doors, according to the security plan posted on the district’s website.

And this:

"It appears as though there was failure of access control," said Paul Timm, vice president of Facility Engineering Associates.

Lockdown protocols in schools have become the norm…  "We should come up to a building and find every door locked… "We recommend all schools should be teaching classes with all classes [sic] with the classroom door closed and locked; schools don't like to do that because of operations. Kids have to (use) the restroom, and they come back and it's interrupting us, but it's a safer way to teach," he said.

Was that the problem? Our teachers don’t want to teach in a prison? Or was it this:

Texas Shooting Onlookers Say Police Were 'Unprepared,' Didn't Go Into School

Upset that police were not moving in, he raised the idea of charging into the school with several other bystanders.

“Let’s just rush in because the cops aren’t doing anything like they are supposed to,” he said. “More could have been done.”

“They were unprepared,” he added.

And then there’s this:

Meanwhile, a law enforcement official familiar with the investigation said the Border Patrol agents had trouble breaching the classroom door and had to get a staff member to open the room with a key. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly about the ongoing investigation.

Look people. There’s a very real possibility that the cult-like fortification of our schools that these GQP sucking rejects in our police departments and in our local governments have tricked parents into spending billions of dollars on… they may have just been a big part of the reason these kids died. Not only did they provide a totally false sense of security that prevented us from addressing the real problems, they may have actually trapped the shooter in that classroom with the kids for much much longer than necessary. It seems pretty clear. All of the other “solutions” to the gun nightmare have failed and might be doing even more damage than doing nothing. Meanwhile, the only solutions worth discussing are of course being blocked by the deplorable half of our society.

I mean really, you’re telling me an entire crew of border patrol agents couldn’t break down that door? They had to wait for staff to open it? That sounds like the kind of fortified door that was designed to keep people with guns out. And it did. It kept them out and it kept a madman with guns in.

Anybody with a soul could have told Americans that fortifying their schools rather than changing gun laws was the clearest symbol of our cultural, moral, and spiritual decline (if not outright collapse). Anyone with a brain could tell them (and many of us did) that it wasn’t going to change anything. Schools are chaotic. Cities are chaotic. Life is chaotic. Hell, we can’t even keep our nuclear weapons transport vehicles organized properly without people screwing it up and risking an apocalypse. There was simply no way that school fortification was ever going to put a dent in school shootings. Frankly, I think a lot of these creepy Trump-loving, Bible thumping, police officers and security companies who sold us this crap knew it from the beginning and just took advantage.

So now here we are, left with the very real possibility that the solutions that we were sold by Republicans and by our police departments are the solutions that protected a mass shooter from our police officers.

It’s time to stop desecrating the memories of our dead children. 

It’s not just the shooters who are responsible for these deaths any longer.

Every Republican voter locked those dead kids in there with a mass murderer. And we all spent billions to help them do it.

"It’s time to stop desecrating the memories of our dead children."

Sunday, May 29, 2022

Jessica Winter / The New Yorker: Seeing America, Again, in the Uvalde Elementary-School Massacre

 Seeing America, Again, in the Uvalde Elementary-School Shooting 

People wait to hear news after the mass shooting at Robb Elementary School, in Uvalde, Texas. (photo: Marco Bello/Reuters)

readersupportednews.org 

Nineteen children and two adults were murdered in Texas. This is the country that gun-rights advocates have chosen.

On Tuesday, the Federal Bureau of Investigation released a report titled “Active Shooter Incidents in the United States in 2021,” which logged sixty-one mass shootings last year. The deadliest of these was at a supermarket in Boulder, Colorado, where ten people were killed, a death toll that was matched ten days ago, at a supermarket in Buffalo, New York, and then exceeded, at Robb Elementary School, in Uvalde, Texas, where an eighteen-year-old shot and killed nineteen children and two adults. Early reports indicate that he used a handgun and a rifle. Families who gathered at the local civic center, which was used as a reunification site, were asked for DNA swabs to assist investigators in identifying their loved ones. The shooting began around eleven-thirty in the morning; as darkness fell, many families were still waiting outside the civic center, without word of their children.

This is the second-deadliest K-12 school shooting in U.S. history, after the December, 2012, massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, in Newtown, Connecticut, where twenty children and six educators were killed. Eventually, Sandy Hook also came to be seen as the graveyard of the gun-control movement: in 2013, a new assault-weapons ban, and also a bill to require universal background checks for firearm sales, failed in the Senate. If an entire classroom of dead first-graders could not spur even remedial action in Congress on gun control, nothing would. And nothing has.

A few months after Sandy Hook, the agitprop-documentary-maker Michael Moore, writing in HuffPost, imagined a scenario in which the parents of the victims leaked photographs of the classroom crime scenes to the press. If that were to happen, Moore argued, the horrifying images would have the same galvanizing effect on activist movements and public opinion as those of Emmett Till, in 1955, or Phan Thi Kim Phúc, in 1972. “There will be nothing left to argue over,” Moore wrote. “It will just be over. And every sane American will demand action.” (Just like that!) Sandy Hook parents swiftly shut Moore down, but there was a kernel of sense in his proposal—he was grasping for some method of defibrillation for a movement in arrest. Published images that represent school shootings are always heartrending and always the same: the surviving children filing out, some in tears, others in shock and excitement; the desperate parents; the sorrowful reunions. One of the many unforgivable obscenities of America’s gun obsession is how it can render the image of an anguished child and her caregiver, captured in real time as they absorb a life-altering trauma, as commonplace, interchangeable, even banal. Wait, which one is this again?

On Tuesday night, the poet Jana Prikryl shared the “Alas, poor country” passage from “Macbeth,” in which Ross laments that Scotland has become not a place to live but merely a place to die: “Almost afraid to know itself. It cannot / Be call’d our mother, but our grave . . . where violent sorrow seems / A modern ecstasy.” A modern ecstasy—and a habit, or a ritual, with its attendant ceremonies and scripts and rites. These always include cut-and-paste expressions of sympathy and concern from various bridesmaids of the National Rifle Association. Mitch McConnell, the Senate Minority Leader—who once said, following a school shooting in his home state of Kentucky, “I don’t think at the federal level there’s much that we can do other than appropriate funds” for school safety officers and counselling—tweeted that he was “horrified and heartbroken” by the tragedy at Robb Elementary School. Ted Cruz, the junior senator for Texas—who once ran a campaign ad that boasted, “After Sandy Hook, Ted Cruz stopped Obama’s push for new gun-control laws”—tweeted that he and his wife were “fervently lifting up in prayer the children and families in the horrific shooting.” Governor Greg Abbott—who last year signed seven pieces of gun-rights legislation into law, including one that permitted Texans to carry handguns without a license and another exempting the state from future federal gun restrictions—said that he and his wife “mourn this horrific loss and we urge all Texans to come together to show our unwavering support to all who are suffering.”

Politicians like these are routinely criticized for their hypocrisy and empty gestures—their “thoughts and prayers.” But, if only for the sake of rhetorical hygiene, we should go a step further. Republicans, as we know, get what they want. It is their best feature. They have vacuumed up the state legislatures, gerrymandered much of the country, stacked the Supreme Court and the federal judgeships, turned back the clock on L.G.B.T.Q. rights, paralyzed entire school districts with engineered panics over critical race theory and “grooming,” ended (or so it seems) reproductive rights as a constitutionally guaranteed freedom, and blocked all attempts at gun-control legislation. If the leaders of this political movement, which in Texas managed to ban most abortions and criminalize health care for trans kids in the space of a school year, took real offense to murdered children, they would never simply accept their deaths as the unfortunate cost of honoring the Founding Fathers’ right to take up muskets against hypothetical government tyranny. They would act. If America were not afraid to know itself, we could more readily accept that gun-rights advocates are enthralled with violent sorrow. This is the America they envisaged. It is what they worked so hard for. Their thoughts and prayers have been answered.

It this Bozo teenager can get an automatic weapon and kill innocent people and get away with murder, anybody can.

Saturday, May 28, 2022

Republican blames Uvalde shooting on liberal teachers, because sure, why not?

Those of us whose brains are hopelessly riddled with windmill cancer probably can’t see it, but there’s a clear line to be drawn between liberal things and other, seemingly unrelated, terrible things—like post-pandemic inflation that somehow seeped from President Joe Biden’s mind into the global economy or, you know, school shootings undertaken with AR-15s.

Since the obvious answer for ending America’s unrivaled status as the world’s most popular mass-murderer theme park is to stop selling military weapons to disturbed 18-year-olds, that answer has to be vigorously ignored at times like this by the same people who are paid handsomely to ignore it all the rest of the time.

Thus, we get tortured explanations like the following, from Republicans who need to continually trot out fresh bugaboos to keep their base from questioning the wisdom of putting assault rifles in the hands of teenagers. You see, it’s liberal teachers who did it—at least according to Republican hopeful Heather Ann Sprague, who helpfully posted some of her transphobic thoughts on Facebook in the wake of the tragic school shooting in Uvalde, Texas.

Portland (Maine) Press Herald:

A Republican candidate for the Maine House of Representatives is blaming “liberal teachers” for the mass shooting at a Texas elementary school that killed 19 children and two teachers.

[...]

In an apparent reference to a rumor on social media that has been debunked, Sprague claimed there were pictures online of the shooter dressed in women’s clothing.

“All I have to say is this is the result of what happens when kids are pushed past their limits. Its obvious he was brainwashed in school by liberal teachers to think he shouldn’t be a male. If this crap doesn’t stop we will have more shootings because there are alot more confused, fed up and now mentally ill kids out there thanks to the #publicschoolsystem THIS is why I have been TRYING to get the truth out about what the schools are doing to our youth because it’s DANGEROUS,” Sprague said in her post.

So a Republican took unconfirmed information that felt comforting to her, and instead of researching it thoroughly, she immediately weaponized it in order to smear liberals and deflect responsibility from her own party’s shameful lack of action? Yeah, I used to have that problem, too, but then I took ivermectin and it knocked it right out.

Of course, you probably already heard the rumor that the perpetrator in the horrific Robb Elementary School shooting was a “confused” transgender kid. That’s false, of course—and I know it’s false because I did a perfunctory Google search that almost instantly revealed Paul Gosar thinks it’s true. But its falsity didn’t stop conservatives—including Republican politicians—from spreading it far and wide. 

In another Facebook post, Sprague wrote, “I’ll go a step further and say the teachers that molded this kid into a #killer should be arrested for multiple MURDERS.” But not the person who sold the gunman two assault rifles with multiple rounds on his 18th birthday. Okay.

She also wrote, “more and more I cant help but think these shootings are on purpose to push gun control with the lives of babes. If they’re not getting shot they’re getting aborted. It’s disgusting and EVIL. If elected I will push to have armed guards at ALL our schools here in Maine.”

Do Republicans’ brains even work anymore? I dropped that post into Google Translate and it told me to get help.

Of course, this is the same kind of muck conservatives stir up whenever there’s a mass shooting. They mix all that roiling sediment with our own righteous indignation in order to muddy what should be a pretty clear picture, and then they wait for the whole mess to settle down again—which it inevitably will, no doubt before Congress is spurred to take anything even resembling meaningful action.

And blaming trans kids for this mayhem is particularly perverse, since they’re more vulnerable to school violence than most. But they—and grade school teachers, FFS!—are an easy scapegoat, since Republican politicians know their base will never push back on this slander. So trans kids and teachers now join video games, rap music, COVID-19 lockdowns, unlocked doors, a dearth of good guys with guns, single mothers, and bastard politicians who cut mental health services (whoops!) as bullshit explanations for this ongoing carnage. None of them seem interested in slowing sales of assault rifles to anyone who wants one, though. Nor will they ever.

By the way, Sprague is the only Republican running in her district, and will face incumbent Democrat Ann Matlack in the general election. So voters, it seems, will have a pretty stark choice in this election between bullshit and reality. Let’s hope they choose wisely.

"Of course, this is the same kind of muck conservatives stir up whenever there’s a mass shooting. They mix all that roiling sediment with our own righteous indignation in order to muddy what should be a pretty clear picture, and then they wait for the whole mess to settle down again..."

Thursday, May 26, 2022

Beto O'Rourke's Outburst at Abbott's News Conference Shows the Spine Democrats Need

Beto O'Rourke's Outburst at Abbott's News Conference Shows the Spine Democrats Need  Democratic gubernatorial candidate Beto O'Rourke interrupts a news conference held by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott on May 25, 2022, in Uvalde, Texas. (photo: AP)

Americans witnessed something rare in Texas on Wednesday: a Democrat with a spine.

Gubernatorial candidate and former U.S. Rep. Beto O’Rourke showed up at news conference about the horrific Robb Elementary School shooting and confronted Gov. Greg Abbott. He busted right into the middle of the briefing – decorum be damned – and said what a whole lot of Americans would like to say: “You’re doing nothing. You’re offering us nothing.”

He was, of course, shouted down.

One man on the stage angrily hollered: “I can’t believe you’re a sick son of a bitch who would come to a deal like this to make a political issue.”

He was whisked away with urgency, but not before creating a moment that resonated with those of us who know full well that politicians at that press conference – like Abbott and Republican Sen. Ted Cruz – have bent over backward to loosen or block gun regulations and fight against things like Medicaid expansion, which would give people greater access to mental health care. Politicians who themselves routinely pull outrageous political stunts – like Cruz cooking bacon on a hot rifle or Abbott putting migrants on buses to Washington, D.C. – to make a point.

Necessary urgency for the moment

Was O’Rourke’s viral outburst also political stunt? Absolutely.

Was it wrong to do that at a news conference the day after at least 19 children and two adults were gunned down at an elementary school? Some will say it absolutely was, and I can understand that perspective. But I was glad to see it, particularly on a day when Democratic Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin told reporters that no gun control measures would be taken up in the Senate until after Memorial Day. As if now is not the time for a bit of urgency.

Why do mass shootings keep happening? Because this is what we've allowed America to become.

We only made it 10 days after the Buffalo grocery store massacre in New York before the Uvalde elementary school shooting happened in Texas. And Democrats are comfortable saying, “Well, we’ve got the long weekend coming up, so we’ll just hold off on things for now”?

I’ll take O’Rourke making a righteous scene at a press conference over that ineffectual frittering any day.

My son never came home from Sandy Hook. My heart bleeds for Texas as I relive Dylan's murder.

Later, outside the event, O’Rourke continued talking about Abbott’s gun policies, his voice rising to a yell: “He has refused to support a ban on AR-15s and AK-47s. This 18-year-old who just turned 18 bought an AR-15 (style) and took it into an elementary school and shot kids in the face and killed them. Why are we letting this happen in this country? Why is this happening in this state? Year after year, city after city. This is on all of us if we do not do something.”

My response to that was: Yes. Thank you. More of this, please. More of this passion. More of this in-your-face resistance to people who respond to mass shootings by denying that America has a serious gun problem.

Could we prioritize lives over picnics?

We aren’t going to stop all gun violence. Ever. But we know full well the reasonable and broadly popular steps that can be taken to help make Americans, and American children most importantly, safer: universal background checks; an assault rifle ban; a federal red flag law; a liability insurance requirement for gun owners; a ban on high-capacity magazines.

Why won't most Republicans try to fix the gun problem? Will voters ever care?

I’d love to live in a country where we could all sit down and hash this whole gun thing out like reasonable people. But we don’t live in that country, and I don’t imagine we will as long as the National Rifle Association is lining the pockets of politicians who gladly blame mass shootings on everything but guns.

Like it or not, for people on my side of the fence, O’Rourke’s outburst was a refreshing display of chutzpah.

We need leaders unafraid to take a stand, not leaders who figure they can worry about such things after they’ve enjoyed their Memorial Day picnics.



Wednesday, May 25, 2022

Rep. Ruben Gallego unloads on Sen. Krysten Sinema (and others) for inaction on guns.

WASHINGTON, DC - JULY 28: U.S. Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) questions Gregory Monahan, Acting Chief of the U.S. Park Police as he testifies about the June 1 confrontation with protesters at Lafayette Square near the White House during a House Natural Resources Committee hearing on July 28, 2020 on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. The committee is investigating the circumstances under which the square was cleared before President Trump made an appearance at St. John's Church. (Photo by Leah Millis-Pool/Getty Images)
"I was teaching [my colleagues] how to stab [the rioters] in the neck and stab them in the eye … We had pens … I don't give a fuck. Like, I would have killed all those motherfuckers to save this democracy. Fuck those guys..." [Arizona Rep. Ruben Gallego, and his pen, recalling Jan. 6]

Kyrsten Sinema used to be our Arizona state legislator and she was cool and said the right things and we sent her money and always our vote. Now she’s just a corporate knob polisher who never meets constituents and loves a holdover Jim Crow policy so much she’s willing to sacrifice voter rights and democracy itself to uphold it. And little kids’ lives too.

Ruben Gallego is my Arizona congressman now and he’s cool and says the right things and we send him money and always our vote. He will not be blinded by ‘my precious’ like Sinema was, and it’s because people know the former Marine combat vet is fighting for them, not a corporate moneybags, that his name is often mentioned as a primary challenger to Sinema in ‘24. As it stands now, most Democrats here can’t stand her and Gallego would win easily.

I’ve met the Congressman a few times and you can probably tell he’s a straight shooter, a no bullshit guy. So today after Republicans started with their NRA talking points within hours of the tragedy in Uvalde, Rep. Gallego went on a bit of a profanity-fueled rant in response to the hollow “thoughts and prayers” BS from the usual hollow elected officials, beginning with this crap from Cruz saying we shouldn’t “politicize” mass murders. 

Rep. Gallego wrote:

Fuck you @tedcruz you care about a fetus but you will let our children get slaughtered. Just get your ass to Cancun. You are useless.

A couple minutes later, Rep. Gallego added, in case Sen. Cruz didn’t get his drift:

Just to be clear fuck you @tedcruz you fucking baby killer.

Then Darrell Issa tweeted the standard T&P garbage, literally, so Rep. Gallego threw a few choice words his direction.

Rep. Gallego to Darrell Issa:

Fuck your prayers.  They haven’t worked for the last 20 mass shootings how about passing laws that will stop these killings.

So, the Iraq War veteran is pissed as hell. Good. Someone in D.C. should be. Then this in response to his fellow Arizonan:

Rep. Gallego responds to Sen. Krysten Sinema’s tweet saying she’s horrified and no parent should have to fear violence at their kids’ school. He writes:

Please just stop.. unless you are willing to break the filibuster to actually pass sensible gun control measures you might as well just say “thoughts and prayers”

Whoa! House-passed gun legislation closing loopholes and adding background checks is of course stalled in the Senate because of: a) evil Republican motherfuckers and/or b) the filibuster. Sinema could do something about one of those choices but she won’t because she clearly loves a racist tool that serves her corporate fundraising and attention-seeking more than sensible laws that save lives.  

Perhaps this rebuke to the state’s Senior Senator is a sign Rep. Gallego is planning to run in ‘24. Perhaps not, perhaps he’s just sad and pissed as hell for obvious reasons and Sen. Sinema got in the way. Either way, it’s deserved.


Thanks to samanthab in the comments, here is Sen. Sinema’s reply to Jake Sherman.

Typical, she says DC solutions are not “realistic here,” then WTF is she doing in the Senate? Go home already, and make room for someone who does have a purpose. She’s also going to start “conversations” with “both sides of the aisle” because her bipartisanship BS has worked so well so far.


"
Now Sinema's just a corporate knob polisher who never meets constituents and loves a holdover Jim Crow policy so much she’s willing to sacrifice voter rights and democracy itself to uphold it. And little kids’ lives too."

 

Tuesday, May 24, 2022

GOP brought partisan attacks to the baby formula crisis. Biden brought a C-17 with 35 tons of formula

INDIANAPOLIS, IN - MAY 22: Airmen unload pallets from the cargo bay of a U.S. Air Force C-17 carrying 78,000 lbs of Nestlé Health Science Alfamino Infant and Alfamino Junior formula from Europe at Indianapolis Airport on May 22, 2022 in Indianapolis, Indiana. The mission, known as Operation Fly Formula, is being executed to address an infant formula shortage caused by the closure of the United States largest formula manufacturing plant due to safety and contamination issues. (Photo by Jon Cherry/Getty Images)

The Biden administration's push to increase the supply of baby formula is seeing real results as a military C-17 cargo plane brought 132 pallets containing 35 tons of formula to Indianapolis on Sunday. The formula, which came from Switzerland via Germany, is a specialized hypoallergenic type that will be distributed to medical providers to get to the babies and toddlers who need it most. It will be enough to feed 9,000 babies and 18,000 toddlers for a week. Another military flight with 114 pallets of hypoallergenic formula is expected in the coming days.

Additionally, under President Joe Biden’s invocation of the Defense Production Act, two authorizations were issued allowing formula makers to get priority access to the ingredients and equipment they need.

The Biden administration’s efforts both to get specialized formula to babies who can’t tolerate regular cow’s milk-based products and to increase the supply being manufactured in the U.S. stand in contrast to the Republican response to the baby formula shortage, which has been a combination of partisan attacks and voting against measures to ease the shortage.

RELATED STORY: 192 House Republicans vote against easing the baby formula shortage

On Wednesday, 192 House Republicans voted against a bill to provide $28 million to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to increase inspection staff—remember that a key reason for the shortage was concerns about contamination forcing the closure of a major formula plant—as well as preventing the sale of fraudulent formula during the crisis and improving data collection. Just 12 voted for the bill. Nine House Republicans also voted against a bill to ensure that people on the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) can access formula, given a system where states contract with specific formula companies and if those brands are out of stock, WIC recipients cannot get anything else. 

That latter bill did pass the Senate by unanimous consent on Thursday, so there are nine House Republicans who are even worse than Republicans senators like Ted Cruz or Rand Paul. But prospects for the FDA funding to pass the Senate are dim.

In addition to voting against funding to tackle the crisis, Republicans have used the formula shortage for vile partisan attacks basically calling for the Biden administration to starve immigrant babies in U.S. custody. Republican after Republican howled in outrage that border facilities had some formula on hand for migrant babies detained after being brought across the border—as is required by a long-standing legal settlement that calls for the government to offer people in its custody basic humane treatment, including feeding them. Which, for babies, means formula. For those who are not breastfed, no other food will do. Even Donald Trump abided by this requirement, with a 2020 Department of Homeland Security Inspector General report on how the federal government was handling migrants arriving at the border in 2019 including the line, “We also observed all Border Patrol stations had food, snacks, juice, and infant formula available for children.”

Now that formula is in the headlines, though, Republicans used it as a political tool to demand that the U.S. government starve immigrant babies.

The Abbott Laboratories formula plant that was forced to close, turning a mild formula shortage into a crisis, is slated to reopen in the next week or two following a consent decree with the FDA that includes safety upgrades and certifications. Once it reopens, it could take as long as two months for it to affect the formula supply, but it’s a positive development. Military flights importing formula from other countries can hopefully fill the gaps in the meantime by providing the most specialized formulas needed by babies with allergies and more serious health conditions.

One thing we do know is that however the formula crisis ends, it will be no thanks to Republicans.

Republicans have always had a thing about fetuses, but once they're born not so much.  Wasn't it GOP Marie who said, "Let them eat cake"?