What You Can Do With An Onion And A Lightbulb August 14, 2020August 14, 2020 Is this great or what? Four minutes of an experiment you can try yourself. PLUS! Stephan the Russian bear. Two minutes. PLUS! A different view of sharks. Three minutes. (Thanks, David!) PLUS! Curtis Mayfield. I didn’t know any of this (well, I knew the music) . . . but the paragraph at the end about Mayfield’s final album just blew me away. PLUS! (does it feel as though I’m stalling on something really bad?) Sure, he eats real razor blades — but how does he keep them from puncturing the balloon? (Thanks again, David.) And now, unable to stall any longer . . . The new Postmaster General, appointed to throw the election results into doubt, is classifying ballots as “junk mail.” And it gets worse each day. Yesterday we learned the Postal Service is removing sorting machines, crippling it’s capacity, without explanation. But, of course, there is an explanation. As unthinkable as it is: after 244 years, our experiment in democracy may be ending. (See, e.g.: When investigators threatened his power, he declared himself dictator.) Help save the day? Become a poll worker? Have a great weekend.
But Will He Go? August 13, 2020August 12, 2020 I ran this as a “bonus” at the end of Monday’s post, but it warrants its own day: Herd immunity is still key in the fight against Covid-19. Perhaps the clearest thinking yet. And here’s an all too fitting addendum that must-read Rolling Stone piece linked to yesterday: a new book called Evil Geniuses: The Unmaking of America — “A Recent History.” By Kurt Andersen Bill Maher deliver’s Trump’s eulogy. But will he go? When investigators threatened his power, he declared himself dictator. . . . He threatened the press, joked about ruling for life and bullied everyone, including the allies who helped him get into office, while enjoying a cult following among his base. When a special judicial investigation threatened to reveal his financial corruption and complicity in criminal acts, he did not hesitate to destroy the democracy he led to remain in power. . . . Have a nice day, and if you can, click here.
Difficult But Necessary August 12, 2020August 11, 2020 The Unraveling of America. You don’t want to miss this piece. And perhaps ask friends and relatives what they think of it. We can do so much better. And — if only because I inherited the happy gene — I’m hopeful that we will.
Let’s Make A Video August 11, 2020August 9, 2020 Yesterday (There’s An Off-Ramp Up Ahead) I referred to Trump’s famous assertion that he would only hire the best people. So first, just treat yourself to these two minutes, (Thank you, Jimmy Kimmel.) Funny, no? Did you know all that? I didn’t. And now, help me make a video. Or if they’re more tech savvy, get one of your kids to. It’s one-minute that will cost nothing to produce and — who knows? — might go viral and help a little. It couldn’t hurt. So here it is . . . or my rough draft, at least. All improvements welcome! 1. White on black screen, one second: GOOD AT FIRING NOT SO GOOD AT HIRING 2. A one-second rat-a-tat compilation, perhaps from here, of: Trump: “YOU’RE FIRED” . . . “YOU’RE FIRED” . . . “YOU’RE FIRED” 3. White on black screen, one second: CHIEFS OF STAFF RUNNING THE WELL-OILED MACHINE 4. A photo of each with dates of his service underneath, one second each . . . intercut with a half-second (or less) of “you’re fired”: REINCE PREIBUS January 20-July 31 Trump: “YOU’RE FIRED” JOHN KELLY July 31, 2017-January 2, 2019 Trump: “YOU’RE FIRED” MICK MULVANEY February 16, 2019-March 30, 2020 Trump: “YOU’RE FIRED” MARK MEADOWS (not yet fired) You can get the photos and dates here. 5. White on black screen, one second: SECRETARIES OF HOMELAND SECURITY KEEPING US SAFE 6. A photo of each with dates of his/her service underneath, intercut with a half-second (or less) “you’re fired”: JOHN KELLY ELAINE DUKE KIRSTJEN NIELSEN KEVIN MCALEENAN CHAD WOLF (not yet fired) You can get the photos and dates here. 7. You get the idea . . . maybe do ATTORNEYS GENERAL next (KEEPING THINGS HONEST), with Sessions, followed by Whitaker (and perhaps a few seconds from the Jimmy Kimmel clip above for comic relief), followed by Barr (“not yet indicted”) 8. NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISORS MICHAEL FLYNN (“not yet imprisoned”) KEITH KELLOGG H.R. McMASTER JOHN BOLTON CHARLES KUPPERMAN ROBERT O’BRIEN photos and dates here 9. DIRECTORS OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE MIKE DEMPSEY DAN COATS JOSEPH MAGUIRE RICHARD GRENELL JOHN RATCLIFFE (not yet fired) photos and dates here 10. And then maybe other key posts . . . faster and faster . A big part of the job will really be finding the best timing and pace. People who want to can freeze-frame to check names and dates. Maybe give a little more time to Flynn (“not yet imprisoned”) . . . until the onrush ends abruptly on a black screen: 11. THIS IS NO WAY TO RUN A COUNTRY 12. SO NOW IT’S OUR TURN 13. Photo of Trump, January 20, 2017-NOVEMBER 3, 2020 A dozen unseen men and women, young voices and old, Southern accent, New England accent, LatinX accent — one after another in rapid fire: YOU’RE FIRED. Can you put that together for us? A powerful minute millions might share. If you’re worried you’ll be wasting our effort because someone else will, just me-mail me first. But from my point of view, nothing would be better than to unleash a dozen variants . . . or to combine the best elements of each. For fairness, we should make a distinction between those he fired and those who were merely “acting” and replaced. So for those, I’d suggest some kind of “acting” designation below the photo, and instead of the “You’re Fired” clip, maybe the clip of Trump saying, “Bye-Bye.” Come to think of it, for Jeff Sessions, instead of “you’re fired,” how about the “I’d like to punch him in the face” clip? With a little disclaimer that reads, “not said about Sessions, but clearly how he felt.” Have fun with this! Do it exactly as above — or add your own magic and do it better! Put it on your Facebook page and let me link to it as well. Or if you prefer anonymity, let me post it directly here and give you some tasteful pen name, the way Hamilton and Madison and Jay wrote the Federalist Papers. No question: these next few weeks are history in the making.
There’s An Off-Ramp Up Ahead August 9, 2020August 9, 2020 So here is a site that has it all. A resource for those of us who believe Trump has been a catastrophe. It’s so obvious — yet 40% of the country doesn’t see it. Or are just having too much fun watching it drive us crazy. Either way, quite a few of these folks must recognize, at least deep down, that what they hoped would happen did not. That having a roguish World Wide Wrestling Hall of Famer shake things up sounded like a good idea, certainly like an entertaining idea: yet, in practice, like throwing paper towels out to a desperate crowd or making light of a pandemic, proved to be an idea that did not bear fruit. Last time, there were a lot of people who wouldn’t tell pollsters they were going to vote for Trump — but did. Dare we hope that this time, there will be a lot who, without necessarily admitting it, quietly won’t? I don’t know. Ads are running in swing states to “model” that behavior. Genuine 2016 Trump voters — not actors — telling their stories on camera. In essence: “I voted for Trump. I had high hopes. I was conned. I can’t take four more years.” That’s a sort of off-ramp . . . other good people can see those stories, relate, and decide there’s no shame in leaving the cult. Maybe we should rely on the nation’s intelligence agencies, not Putin, after all. Maybe trade wars aren’t “easy to win.” Maybe the self-styled “king of debt” who bankrupted so many companies and stiffed so many contractors has been wrong in demonizing immigrants — maybe automation is the big challenge to our jobs. Maybe leaning on Ukraine for dirt on Biden or on the U.K. to move its golf tournament to Trump’s resort is not putting the interests of ordinary Americans ahead of his own. Maybe his son-in-law is not up to doing everything. (Since that article appeared, add now also organizing our nation’s response to the pandemic.) Maybe there weren’t “some very fine people” among the torch carriers chanting “Jews will not replace us.” I just want to say to any 2016 Trump voter — hey, I get why you might have done that. There was so much to be frustrated about. Maybe he could cut through it all and find simple solutions to our challenges . . . and be entertaining along the way. A little common sense, a little swagger, some fresh ideas, “the best people” — what have we got to lose? So I get it. But now we know. And may come to know a lot more once he’s no longer in a position to obstruct justice.. So now, if you decide not to renew his contract, I just want to say, thank you. You took a shot in hopes of making a better world. It didn’t work out. In the immortal words of George W. Bush, “Fool me once . . . ” BONUS: Perhaps the clearest thinking yet: Herd immunity is still key in the fight against Covid-19. Well worth the read.
Schools And Tests August 7, 2020August 7, 2020 First: tests. Last week I posted a 17-minute video I thought everyone should watch. It explains that ten-minute at-home tests could be printed by the hundreds of millions for a buck each (they’re just little strips of paper that turn a color if your spit contains the virus) — and this would solve all our problems! Because . . . although they’re not terribly sensitive (and thus have up to now been characterized as “unreliable”) . . . they’re sensitive enough. Rapidtest.org makes the case in a single page that will won’t take you 17 minutes. And if you’re still dubious, there’s this from Harvard Magazine: . . . “[W]e have a system for coronavirus testing…which is flailing, with raging outbreaks occurring.” What the country needs instead are rapid tests, widely deployed, so that infectious individuals can be readily self-identified and isolated, breaking the chain of transmission. To do that, Mina says, everyone must be tested, every couple of days, with $1, paper-based, at-home tests that are as easy to distribute and use as a pregnancy test: wake up in the morning, add saliva or nasal mucous to a tube of chemicals, wait 15 minutes, then dip a paper strip in the tube, and read the results. Such tests are feasible—a tiny company called E25Bio, and another called Sherlock Biosciences (a start-up spun out of Harvard’s Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering and the Broad Institute in 2019) can deliver such tests—but they have not made it to the marketplace because their sensitivity is being compared to that of PCR tests. Mina says that is beside the point. “Imagine you are a fire department,” he says, “and you want to make sure that you catch all the fires that are burning so you can put them out. You don’t want a test that’s going to detect every time somebody lights a match in their house—that would be crazy: you’d be driving everywhere and having absolutely no effect. You want a test that can detect every time somebody is walking the streets with a flame-thrower.” . . . FOR PUBLIC-HEALTH PURPOSES, speed and frequency of testing are vastly more important than sensitivity: the best test would actually be less sensitive than a PCR test. As Mina explains, when a person first becomes infected, there will be an incubation period when no test will reveal the infection, because the viral loads are so low. About “three to five days later, the PCR test will turn positive, and once that happens the virus is reproducing exponentially in a very predictable fashion.” At that point, critically, “even if a rapid test is 1,000 times less sensitive than a PCR test,” Mina says, the virus is increasing so rapidly that the test “will probably turn positive within eight to 15 or 24 hours. So the real window of time that we’re discussing here—the difference in sensitivity that makes people uncomfortable”—is so small that public-health officers would be missing very few asymptomatic people taking the test in that narrow window of time. Given that the current testing frequency in most states, using highly sensitive but expensive and delayed PCR tests, is not even once a month, he points out—“Really, it’s never.” So even though a saliva-based paper test wouldn’t register a positive result for as long as a half or even a full day after the PCR test, it would have great value in identifying pockets of infection that might otherwise be undetected altogether. The strength of this system is that it would actually abrogate the need for contact tracing, says Mina. “If your goal is not to have a heavy hand over the population” (implementing onerous public-health restrictions on businesses and recreational activity), this is the way to do it, he explains, because it strips away “all of that complexity.” Most people who test positive will have done so before they become infectious, and can easily self-quarantine for the six days or so until they cease being infectious. Even if some people don’t quarantine, and the test cuts off just 90 percent of all the infections that might spread, “you’d immediately bring the population prevalence of the disease to very low numbers, to the point where all of a sudden society would start to look safe again.” MINA HAS BEEN PREDICTING the advent of more widely available, cheaper tests for months. But those tests have not materialized, largely because of regulatory risk, he says: manufacturers cannot meet Food and Drug Administration (FDA) templates for test sensitivity that use PCR as the standard. The FDA—whose approval process is stringent because it is designed to test the efficacy of clinical diagnostics—has no jurisdiction over public-health testing. But at the moment, there is no alternative regulatory process for tests designed to ensure population-level wellness—such as a certification program that might be run through the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the agency charged with safeguarding the public health. “It is time to stop allowing diagnostic definitions to get in the way of absolutely essential public-health interventions,” says Mina, for whom explaining the distinction between the two types of test, and the different ways they can be used, has been an uphill battle. But it is one that he desperately hopes to win—and that the country needs him to win—for public-health measures to stand a chance of reining in the outbreak as schools and other institutions move toward reopening this fall. . . . “We’re putting billions more into developing therapeutics [treatments for COVID-19] which is really, really difficult.” With rapid testing, by contrast, “We have solutions, sitting in front of us right now, that are cheaper, would be much quicker to build, and much less risky to actually introduce and roll out. And the only thing standing in the way is that there just doesn’t seem to be the will to bring a public-health tool to market.” . . . So there’s another reason to visit Rapidtest.org: it provides a tool to email or text your governor, senators and congressperson. Second, and harder: what to do until we print billions of those tests and make schools safe by keeping infectious kids and staff home? The first thing I think we can agree on is that it doesn’t help, as we seek the least-bad courses of action, either to minimize the risks or to exaggerate them. Complacency — like Trump’s — has proven disastrous. But neither is it helpful to exaggerate the risks. In tweet after tweet, the head of the teachers union is leads with “risking the lives of children.” What parent can think rationally in the face of such an awful threat? Yet the head of the CDC says that the risk of a school-age kid losing his or her life to COVIS is one in a million. Even that one is, of course, one too many. But it’s far lower than the (still extremely low) risk of kids dying of the ordinary flu . . . a risk we’ve always just lived with, because we had to. (What were we going to do: shut down all the schools?) As concerned as parents should be for themselves — and for school staff and grocery clerks and UPS drivers and anyone else who leaves the house — at least they should be comforted that the risk of losing their kids is “one in a million.” As I’ve suggested before, that’s good news that no one, regardless of political leanings, should feel compelled to reject. Still, it leaves two big questions. The first I am not remotely competent to answer: what if, a year or ten or thirty from now, kids who were seemingly unharmed by contracting COVID turn out to suffer some long-term damage? Certainly something to worry about. But so is the enormous damage to kids not going to school — especially kids from low-income families. The second is the risk of infecting vulnerable adults, spreading a virus that’s already out of control in many parts of the country. That risk argues for thinking differently in places like New York, that at least for now have low rates of infection, versus places where the numbers are much worse. Several of you sent me the New York Times piece headlined, “When Covid Subsided, Israel Reopened Its Schools. It Didn’t Go Well.” And for sure there are some good lessons to be learned from their experience (ventilation!). But only when you get to the end of a very long article do you encounter this: But Israel is plunging ahead. Only one option has been ruled out: closing the schools. I think it’s fair to say that Israelis care about their kids. And that they’re pretty smart about a lot of things. So while the headline suggests we shouldn’t reopen our schools, based on their experience, that’s not the conclusion they’ve drawn. I think that’s worth noting, as we struggle to find the least-bad way forward. (Also worth noting, from the U.K.: No known case of teacher catching coronavirus from pupils, says scientist. There have definitely been staff deaths here in the U.S., but few — and few still among staff without comorbidities. And I’m not sure we know that even those tragic infections came from the kids.) Yes, vulnerable staff should be paid to work from home until going to work is safe. For sure! But it’s not clear to me that healthy young staff are anything but “essential” workers with a crucial role to play. Yes, vulnerable parents should have the option to keep their kids home, if they deem it necessary. Yes, older kids should wear masks, and windows should be kept open, and smart teachers and administrators should come up with other risk-mitigating strategies, like “pods.” But I think that’s what the discussion should be about: the kids are not at risk . . . what are the smartest ways to mitigate the risk to vulnerable adults? Lots more to say, but let me end with something that can’t be said often enough: We never should have been forced to make these tough trade-offs in the first place. A competent administration would never have pulled back the forward-deployed CDC teams designed to “fight diseases there, so we don’t have to fight them here” — or ignored more than a dozen urgent warnings. The idea that anyone would vote not to fire the incompetents who let this happen simply staggers me. Sign up to be a poll worker!
A Little Good News August 5, 2020August 4, 2020 But first . . . How a long-time Republican strategist sees the Republican Party: . . . I am here to bear reluctant witness that Mr. Trump didn’t hijack the Republican Party. He is the logical conclusion of what the party became over the past 50 or so years, a natural product of the seeds of race-baiting, self-deception and anger that now dominate it. Hold Donald Trump up to a mirror and that bulging, scowling orange face is today’s Republican Party. . . . And now, a little good news. Yes, we have loads to worry about; but on one score at least — the US Postal Service’s ability to handle a dramatic surge in “vote by mail” — things may not be as dire as they seem. This informative analysis comes from Today’s Edition newsletter: Most of my incoming email over the last four days has expressed concern about Trump’s plan to hobble the Post Office to suppress the vote in November 2020. The story received prominent coverage in the NYTimes, WaPo, CNN, MSNBC, The New Yorker, and smaller political outlets like the Bulwark. . . . While we should be concerned about the health of the Post Office, I do not believe that widespread alarm or panic is justified. Let me explain. Many people seem to believe that Trump will manipulate the Post Office to selectively prevent Democrats from successfully voting by mail. I don’t believe that will occur to any meaningful degree. If the Post Office is used a political tool, it is a blunt instrument. Efforts to “slow the mail” will hurt Democrats and Republicans. That is not a winning strategy for Trump. Why? Remember that time he lost the popular vote by 3 million votes and eked out a win in the Electoral College because of 70,000 votes in three states? Any suppression effort that drives down both Republican and Democratic votes will erase his slim margin in 2016, assuming all other factors remain constant. So, let’s start with a clear-eyed look at the challenges facing the Post Office. The Post Office is in trouble. It has been in trouble continuously since 2006. Why? In 2006, Congressional Republicans imposed a special rule on the Post Office. It requires the Post Office to account for its retirement obligations in a way that no other federal agency is required to do. As explained by the Institute for Policy Studies, In 2006, Congress passed a law that imposed extraordinary costs on the U.S. Postal Service [that] required the USPS to create a $72 billion fund to pay for the cost of its post-retirement health care costs, 75 years into the future. This burden applies to no other federal agency or private corporation. Nor does it apply to private corporations. Since 2006, the Post Office has been on life support, beholden to Congress and the Executive for its continued sustainability because of a made-up accounting rule designed by Republicans to punish the Post Office. Trump is now exploiting that vulnerability to wage a war against Amazon (read: Jeff Bezos), which uses the USPS to deliver packages. Professor Heather Cox Richardson provides the historical context in her Letters from an American. I recommend Professor Richardson’s essay, which is an objective, calm assessment of the situation. Against this historical backdrop, Trump—with an assist from the media—is creating the impression that he can and will slow down or prevent the delivery of mail-in ballots by starving the Post Office of necessary financial support. Let’s examine that fear by looking at the scale of the Post Office and the number of likely mail-in ballots. In examining the scale of the Post Office, I am using averages. The Post Office is big. ‘You just won’t believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is.’ It delivers 472 million pieces of mail each day. If the number of mail-in ballots doubled from 2016 (a very generous assumption), then 60 million ballots would be mailed over a four week period (of six day weeks) before November 3, 2020. That would mean the Post Office would handle about 2.5 million pieces of additional mail each day—a daily increase of about one-half of 1%. Given that there are 31,322 Post Offices in the U.S., the additional volume per Post Office is roughly 100 extra pieces of mail per day. Of course, much of the mail-in vote will come in the last week, which would mean that the average post office would see three hundred pieces of additional mail per day. Another way to look at the scale of the mail-in ballots is to consider that the ballots will be delivered to about 5,000 local election jurisdictions in the U.S.—or about 12,000 ballots mail-in ballots per jurisdiction over a four week period. Of course, many offices would see tens (or hundreds) of thousands of additional pieces of mail per day, but those Post Offices would be of larger scale and proportional in size to their service population. On a relative basis, the uptick in their daily volume would feel like a one-half of one percent increase. That is hardly the description of Armageddon that some media outlets are describing. The most precise statement of the problem that I could find appeared in a Washington Post op-ed entitled, “Trump just told us how mail delays could help him corrupt the election.” The op-ed quotes a source as follows: “The new policies have resulted in at least a two-day delay in scattered parts of the country . . . Letter carriers are manually sorting more mail, adding to the delivery time. Bins of mail ready for delivery are sitting in post offices because of scheduling and route changes.” Bottom line: the operational problems created by the Post Office’s perpetual near-insolvency—a steady-state since 2006—is resulting in modest delays in “scattered parts of the country.” The “bins of mail waiting to be delivered” probably describes any Post Office in any part of the country any day of the week. So, let’s not hyperventilate about exaggerated fears of a crush of mail-in ballots. Even more importantly, we can obviate or minimize the threat of a Postal Office slowdown in a variety of ways. Check your local regulations, but many states allow you to drop off your ballot at specially designated “drop boxes.” Others allow you to mail your ballot up to four weeks before the election. Still others permit you to track the progress of your mail in ballot through the mail. See Ballotrax California. (“Tracking your ballot – when it is mailed, received, and counted – has never been easier.”) Or you can take advantage of in-person “early voting” to avoid long lines on election day. We are not helpless. In short, we can reduce the small risk of a Post Office slow-down by removing pressure from the Post Office by engaging in early, “alternative voting” strategies. It may take some effort on your part to figure out how to do that in your jurisdiction, but there are PLENTY of resources to help you. Start with Vote411.org, which is sponsored by the League of Women Voters. And, finally, for those of you who are inclined to believe that Trump will “shut down” the Post Office before November 3rd, there is the pesky point that the Post Office is one of America’s most beloved institutions. See Forbes, “America’s Most Loved Brand? The Post Office—No Matter What President Trump Says.” If Trump shuts down the Post Office (he can’t, he won’t), he will anger 160 million postal customers who hold the Post Office in high regard. I can’t imagine anything more counterproductive he could do to his reelection chances—other than banning TikTok. Of course, once the Post Office delivers those tens of millions of ballots, there remains the small challenge of counting them.
Wisdom At 13 and 78 — It’s Magic August 4, 2020 Three minutes of kindness and wisdom. (Magic of a sort, but the actual magic follows.) How do we get the good people of Poland to embrace that kindness and wisdom? (Or the good people of Russia, Chechnya, and so many other places?) Rémy Bonny writes: Last week, I was in Warsaw to evaluate the presidential election campaign. Poland’s president Andrzej Duda called the LGBTI-movement more harmful than communism . . . [and] immediately after the election, the anti-LGBTI campaign by the government continued. An LGBTI-activist was detained at her home in the early morning. And prominent politicians called to declare the whole of Poland an ‘LGBTI Free Zone’. Poland’s prime minister Mateusz Morawiecki gave a press conference where he announced that he will start the procedure to establish an international convention to defend traditional family values . . . Poland receives international support for their bigotry war from various international partners. It ranges from American evangelicals to Russian intelligence organisations. The main anti-LGBTI NGO in Poland, Ordo Iuris, receives direct support from Kremlin-linked oligarchs like Konstantin Malofeev and Vladimir Yakunin. And now . . . Talk about being flexible! (Thanks, Alan!) https://andrewtobias.com/wp-content/uploads/box.mp4 BONUS Do NOT play cards with this guy. (Thanks, David!)
How They See Us August 2, 2020August 5, 2020 As fat, for one thing. Here’s Bill Maher suggesting we get ourselves together — how much would it cost a family of four to serve water at meals instead of soda? — not least because our odds of serious illness or death from COVID would fall so sharply. Watch. Here’s how young Europeans see us. . . . [They’re] shocked to learn that the American government does not guarantee social protections that citizens in other advanced economies take for granted. . . . Four minutes. A little funny; a little sad. Here’s how people from around the world see our COVID response. Seven minutes. South Korea recorded its first case the same day we did. By this past Saturday, they had had 301 deaths to our 157,278. Sweden took a controversial approach but — if I’m reading this table right — they had just 40 serious or critical active cases on Saturday, to our 18,685. So in the long run, their approach may not prove to have been so dumb. School-age children are far more likely to die from the flu than from COVID. So especially in cities like New York, that have succeeded in reducing hospitalizations to a new low, the question is not how much risk parents are willing to expose their kids to, but how much risk they themselves are willing to take. One can imagine many young healthy parents reasonably deciding to take the risk of allowing their kids to go back to school — even as elderly and/or otherwise vulnerable parents are strongly urged not to. As for teachers and staff, the current position of the teachers union is that no teachers should take any risk on behalf of the kids. I am a huge fan of teachers and of unions; but my own view is that extreme positions on any side of a difficult issue rarely represent the least-bad trade-off. As always, it’s worth noting that we never should have been in this awful mess. But we are; so what’s the least bad way to proceed? BONUS: Ninety seconds, wherein a nice city councilwoman admits she was going to vote against mandatory masks — freedom! — but has changed her mind. Without saying so, she reminds us (see Bill Maher, above) that we also need to eat better and walk more. Have a great week.