Everybody's giving things away, and that's great. (But including the government, which is giving away revenue which doesn't exist and probably never will, which is not great at all.)

Here's the thing— I want some people to get rich from this crisis, which is tentacled and will last for a long time. I want people who are hungry for success to wake up every morning this month ready to work their hardest to provide new solutions to our problems. And when they solve them, I want them generously and shamelessly rewarded.

I don't want them to think about the 'reward' of telling their old high school girlfriends, at the reunion, that they did their best within the confines of their smug government salaries. I want them pulling up at the Holiday Inn ballroom in a Koeniggsegg and helping a (young) supermodel out of the passenger seat, because the doors are complicated and difficult to use in a weirdly-cut and revealing cocktail dress, which is what she'll be wearing.

I want those people to be deeply, disproportionately enthusiastic about their ideas… And well-paid for seeing them through.

Crid, my lad---

When very old Grandma E can go out again, she has the perfect weirdly-cut, revealing cocktail dress already selected.

http://alldaychic.com/the-monarch-butterfly-dress-by-luly-yang-couture/

I also want people to be able to make money but not through fear, uncertainty, doubt, and lies.

I also want people to be able to make money but not through fear, uncertainty, doubt, and lies.

The WHO doesn't like the competition.

> I also want people to be
> able to make money but not
> through fear, uncertainty,
> doubt, and lies.

Yes yes yes, and you'll regulate the flaming Hell of every-unseen-person in the world no matter what the distance to enforce a weepy child's prayer list of trite virtues, without regard to the interests of people who are actually struggling to meet each others interests.

It's just so god damn SMIRKINGLY condescending. Is there a particular reason, any reason to think someone about whom you know nothing is bringing "fear, uncertainty, doubt, and lies," but that you want to be a busybody? Did I *say* in the hypothetical that such things should be disregarded? Do you seriously contend that you have that much specialized awareness of perfidy and hazard which others lack? You can't tolerate ANY discussion of compensation without clucking?



You want command, not solutions for human flourishing, even as plague howls across the planet.

We have a name for people like you: Liberals.



Thanks… Just woke up, hadn't had coffee. Good to go!

I mean, you wouldn't put up with Robert Kraft trying to pay for a handy or anything, amirite? It might be an entrenched human trafficking conspiracy! By old white guys!

(It ain't).

This morning, a squadron of ninnies across globe are inculcating these values of know-it-all intrusion into defenseless children… In lessons unrelieved by school days or playtime outside the home.

And then there are disappointing bits....

There will always be people who primarily look after themselves in a crisis. We like to think they won't; that US history is full of examples of people giving all to the cause. it's not. We've had friction and conflict in almost every one of our crises.

One example:

The 1863 New York City Draft Riots occurred because the city's Irish and German immigrants didn't like the fact that they were being sent to war when rich people could buy their way out. In addition, New York had long been hostile to African-Americans and that hostility spilled over during the draft riots as the rioters rampaged and burned African-American businesses and houses. They didn't like being sent to war to "rescue" black people enslaved in the South when black people were exempt from the draft. The city's Tammany Hall political machine had enrolled many of the city's Irish and German immigrants as voting citizens, making them subject to the draft, whereas African-American were not considered citizens and were therefore not subject to being drafted.

We'll always have conflict and friction - no crisis can wipe that out. If most of us buckle down and do what needs to be done, we'll get through this okay.

Medtronic: founded in Minnesota by Earl Bakken and his brother-in-law.

I loved this bit about Bakken...

A self-described "nerd", Bakken designed a rudimentary electroshock weapon in school to fend off bullies.

Note: commenter "goosegg" was hoarding Tamiflu and N95 respirators back in '16 against avian flu - is likely to be well prepared today!

Even if you don't get a respirator, you should probably get a good First Aid kit using Amy's Amazon link!

We have no way to determine someone's motives. If someone develops a vaccine to make money or out of altruism, it doesn't matter. One is not better than the other.
The Left hates landlords, piles on regulations (can't evict, yet landlord is liable for tenants, etc) and yet expects rental properties to appear by magic. They pile regulations on home builders (must build X% of affordable, so much landscaping, solar panels) but want affordable housing. argh

CC ✓

David DiSalvo, writing at Forbes:

I Spent A Day In The Coronavirus-Driven Feeding Frenzy Of N95 Mask Sellers And Buyers And This Is What I Learned

"I also want people to be able to make money but not through fear, uncertainty, doubt, and lies."

Fear is very good for gun sales!

Americans bought about two million guns in March, according to a New York Times analysis of federal data. It was the second-busiest month ever for gun sales, trailing only January 2013, just after President Barack Obama’s re-election and the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

With some people fearful that the pandemic could lead to civil unrest, gun sales have been skyrocketing. In the past, fear of gun-buying restrictions has been the main driver of spikes in gun sales, far surpassing the effects of mass shootings and terrorist attacks alone.

Watching the news this morning... Domestic abuse calls are up. An Austin City Council member was making a public plea for owners of short-term-rentals to open up their properties for domestic abuse victims who need to escape abusive partners.

I suppose this is noble in theory, but what happens when the pandemic is under control, life returns to normal, and you have someone in your investment property that you can't evict?

My husband and his friend tried to help a single mom who was about to be homeless last year. Husband owns lot with RV-size storage bays. His friend owns an older camper trailer. So they let this gal and her kid live in the camper, on the lot, for very low rent and covered the electric bill. She paid rent once in the 6 months she lived there, moved her adult daughter and her pets in, and trashed the place. Of course, when they kicked her out, they were the bad guys.

Fear is very good for gun sales! ~ JD at April 2, 2020 9:55 AM

Also for toilet paper sales, it would seem.

I've been there Ahw. Texas has fairly easy eviction laws compared to other states. But that doesn't mean eviction is in any way easy. I wouldn't be surprised if few take the councilmember up on that.

"Coronavirus in NY: Dad hid COVID-19 symptoms to visit Rochester maternity ward after wife gave birth"

https://www.syracuse.com/coronavirus/2020/03/coronavirus-in-ny-dad-hid-covid-19-symptoms-to-visit-rochester-maternity-ward-after-wife-gave-birth.html

On the same case, from Bratfree:

From Cambion:

"...Sounds like he may have had symptoms first and exposed his wife, who showed symptoms after coming home from the hospital.

"Not to mention that New York state has a disturbingly high number of cases compared to the rest of the country and they do not need more. Frankly, I think at this point, intentionally not telling people you might be sick with COVID-19 ought to be considered an act of terrorism. New York is at a point where providers are letting people die if they feel resuscitation would be futile rather than at least trying to save anyone without a DNR/DNI."

From kittehpeoples:

"This is a pipe dream, but I feel a need to blurt it out anyway-- he should be held accountable. He should be held accountable for every life he decided to risk because of his pride in his working penis. If anybody who was there that day catches it, he should have to foot the medical bills, and if anyone dies, he should face jail time.

"I know it'll never happen. But goddamn, what a fucking sociopath. There should be consequences for bullshit like that."

And, best of all, from LovetoLurk:

"We all know how the news is reluctant to identify someone as a parent if the person has done something wrong, but their status as a parent is mentioned in the first sentence if the person has done something good. I wonder who would be higher on the news totem pole if a moo and/or baby died. Would the duh be vilified? Would the coverage of the baby play it off like a tragedy, with no mention of how the virus got there? I’m sure if a moo died, it would just be a wonderful story about how the best moos martyr themselves for their babies."

“Also for toilet paper sales, it would seem.“

Charmin’s Gun Emporium: for all your shittin’ & shootin’ needs. Whether you’re fully loaded or want to be fully loaded, we’ve got you covered.

...Sounds like he may have had symptoms first and exposed his wife, who showed symptoms after coming home from the hospital.

"Not to mention that New York state has a disturbingly high number of cases compared to the rest of the country and they do not need more. Frankly, I think at this point, intentionally not telling people you might be sick with COVID-19 ought to be considered an act of terrorism. New York is at a point where providers are letting people die if they feel resuscitation would be futile rather than at least trying to save anyone without a DNR/DNI."

Sounds like COVID 19 is a politically unprotected disease. Imagine if we had handled the AIDS epidemic the way this guy wants to.

From the Rochester dad link:

“The mother became symptomatic shortly after delivering. That’s when the significant other admitted his potential exposure and that he was feeling symptomatic," UR Medicine spokesman Chip Partner told the paper.

Spit balling here, sounds like she had it pre-admittance. Depends on what they mean by "shortly". Also, hospitals aren't screening with non-contact thermometers?? Any of y'all watch House? what is his mantra? patients lie.

Amazon has a FDA approved non-contact (hah! the sensor needs to be 1 to 3" away from the forehead) thermometer that has an "accuracy is ± 0.4 ℉". Not great accuracy, but adequate particularly for something that doesn't need to be cleaned after every use.

As for outing him, those commenting are clearly ignorant of the HIPPA regime. Outing him will cost that hospital dearly.

More about running a business —the kind where your investors, employees and even customers are counting on you to make things happen— in an environment of sniggering pretensions about "fear, uncertainty, doubt, and lies." —

Romer: There’s an interesting constraint here involving perceptions of price-gouging. We may need just to accept the fact that many people get very upset when they see what they think of as price-gouging. And many firms don’t want their reputation damaged because they are accused of it. Economists know that this is inefficient, but it’s just the reality. But it’s also important to understand that a firm making N95 masks will need to scale production dramatically. At something close to normal prices, it is unlikely that a firm will buy the additional capital equipment necessary for a many-fold increase in their production capacity, only to meet a temporary surge in demand.

Here's Szabo in 2005; there's nothing new under the sun.

Darth, those people aren't ignorant. They know plenty about doctors and the health system in general - in part because they're always swapping stories about health care workers who are either helpful or hostile to their private decisions as patients.

Given how scared everyone is right now, patients - or amateur detectives OUTSIDE the hospital - likely don't need anyone to break any rules to help them connect the dots and to file charges against the man in question. And the commentators know that.

On the other hand, from elsewhere:

"Yeah, ok, ok. I get that people are upset but going over the top like that is inexcusable. Someone who doesn't know what 'an act of terrorism' is needs to shut the fuck up.

"What he did -- knowingly putting himself in a situation in which he could infect other people, particularly vulnerable hospital patients and nurses -- meets the definition of assault.

"It's just not possible to conflate an act of assault with an act of
terror.

"If he were arrested, a clever prosecutor could file an assault charge for each person he came in close contact with. Pile up enough charges, the guy would have no choice but to agree to a plea bargain and admit guilt in open court."

Can you believe this?

On top of everything else...the CDC is headquartered in Atlanta.

"Georgia governor says he didn't know people without symptoms can spread coronavirus"

"The governor of Georgia — the state where the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is headquartered — said Wednesday he had only just learned that the coronavirus can be spread by people who aren't showing any symptoms. Public health officials have been warning for months that asymptomatic people can transmit the virus, which appears to be a major factor behind its rapid spread around the world..."

"Kemp announced the stay-at-home order after initially resisting calls from mayors across the state to do so..."

Read the rest at:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/georgia-governor-says-he-just-learned-that-people-without-symptoms-can-spread-coronavirus/

“Georgia governor says he didn't know people without symptoms can spread coronavirus.”

I just saw that on the news, Lenona.

When a reporter asked him, “Governor Kemp, how is it possible that you didn’t know that?”, Kemp replied, “Governor? I’m the Governor of Georgia? Moi? Gosh, I didn’t know that!”

Meanwhile in Houston, Methodist Hospital is using donated plasma from NBA players who beat the virus to treat patients.

Lenona and JD,

The comments of the governor of Georgia is just a recent and topical demonstration a disturbing and continuing trend.

People such as Kemp assert great confidence about things they do not understand... then get slapped in the face with reality... and then declare that no one informed them.

Anyone who has been paying attention to the facts has understood all of this for months.

Ignorance of this nature is going to cause massive problems... and not just related to the current pandemic.

Gog, when dealing with Methodist you need to keep a hand on your wallet. They have the nicest facilities, the prettiest doctors, and the highest bills they refuse to disclose upfront.

We have way too many politicians and people in charge who refused to face the truth early on and some who still refuse to face the truth, playing political games with people's lives.

• Donald Trump, whether through an abundance of optimism or a true misunderstanding of the nature of a pandemic, told people it would not hit the US hard - until it did.
• Nancy Pelosi issued a public assurance on 24-Feb that coming down to Chinatown was safe, that everything was handled and under control - two days before the San Francisco Chronicle reported that federal officials were warning about COVID-19 becoming a pandemic.
• Bill de Blasio urged New Yorkers to go downtown to restaurants and theaters, went to the gym, delayed shutting down the NYC schools, is known to argue heatedly with his public health experts on what steps need to be taken, and promised to try and re-open schools by April 20th, while lambasting Trump for saying he hoped to have America open for business by April 12.
• The aforementioned Georgia governor, Kemp, is claiming ignorance about how COVID-19 could be spread weeks into a national campaign to educate people and get them to self-quarantine.
• Two governors banned any doctors in their states from prescribing a medication for off-label uses simply because a president of the opposing party touted it as a potential game changer. One went so far as to require doctors to report other doctors who might be prescribing it for off-label uses. That one, on the advice of people in her state who actually have a medical degree, has since lifted the ban.
• The mayor of New Orleans refused to cancel Mardi Gras, despite warnings from her public health experts.
• The governor of Florida, Ron DeSantis, waited weeks before issuing a lockdown order for his state, allowing students on Spring Break to congregate on public beaches and spread the virus.
• Now you have the House of Representatives opening an investigation of the administration's handling of the crisis, in the middle of the crisis - in an election year. If the people don't like the way the president's doing his job, they can replace him in 8 months.

On the bright side, we have others who are buckling down, cooperating, and getting the job done.

• California governor, Gavin Newsom, a frequent critic (and target) of the president, reports that their relationship is cordial now and that the president has been very good about helping the state and is responsive to him when he calls. Newsom was the first governor to issue a lockdown order and has mostly effectively marshaled his state's resources to combat the spread of the virus; California still lags in issuing and processing tests.
• New York governor, Andrew Cuomo, is receiving praise from both sides of the aisle for his handling of the crisis - even with his largest city being the hardest-hit city in the US.
• Robert Kraft, a strong Trump supporter, assisted the Democratic administration of Massachusetts with the loan of his team's plane to ship a load of over 1 million masks purchased in China.
• Numerous companies - Tesla, My Pillow, Medtronic, LL Bean, Brooks Brothers, etc. - have donated production capacity, money, and expertise in whatever way they can.
• Large corporations are offering to continue to pay employees to keep them afloat despite a lack of revenue.
• Thousands of citizens are sewing masks and donating them to fellow citizens, first responders, and healthcare workers.

These are the types of responses we need.

However, we still do need to refine some of our responses.

• Government aid for corporate entities should be tied to reduced layoffs. Simply giving companies replacement revenue while they layoff or furlough employees without pay leaves the taxpayers picking up two tabs.
• Lockdowns need to be coordinated - having some states self-quarantining and others not is like having a peeing section in the pool.
• A more stringent and uniform criteria is needed to determine which entities get government assistance. E.g., are cruise lines and casinos really so vital that the government should bail them out?

Conan,

As usual I think you are going WAY too easy on Trump and are too harsh on other politicians given the facts of what actually transpired.

For example, Trump classified the meetings regarding the Corona virus:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-secrecy-exclusive/exclusive-white-house-told-federal-health-agency-to-classify-coronavirus-deliberations-sources-idUSKBN20Y2LM

"The officials said that dozens of classified discussions about such topics as the scope of infections, quarantines and travel restrictions have been held since mid-January in a high-security meeting room at the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS), a key player in the fight against the coronavirus."

He then repeatedly reported that the coronavirus was essentially a non-issue in the United States.

Taking such behavior into account it isn't reasonable to then hold anyone to the same level of responsibility who was purposefully kept in the dark and fed false or misleading information by the president.

> the types of responses
> we need.

Coney. ♥ Love this guy!

The Conesman.

The Cone-ifier.

The Prehistoric Flying Cone-asaures.

Coulda added something about the mask bumbling… Though it would have been difficult to do so without releasing the fetid gas from thirty or forty years of corrupting industrial & finance policy.

Also —and I am *not* a science-y guy— this crisis has made it clear that almost no one in public life has even a seventh-grader's understanding of biology and the scientific method. They've never read anything for the lay public, let alone challenging works for non-majors. No biographies, no history of science, nothing.

These people, and not just the Di-Fucking-Blasio and governor of Georgia, are standing their with their dicks in their hand. Lives were thereby lost and tormented.

They are not worldly.

They are what happen when taxpayers admire ANY politician... ANY of them.

And, as usual, I think you're going full speed at Trump and GOP politicians while reflexively excusing non-GOP politicians.

You're telling me that Nancy Pelosi, the US Speaker of the House with Congressional access to the best experts the US has, was so totally in the dark about coronavirus and epidemiology on 24-Feb that her encouraging people to gather publicly in Chinatown was Donald Trump's fault? Yet she faults Donald Trump for not taking it seriously as early as January.

Or that Bill de Blasio, urgently warned by NYC's public health department to close the NYC schools, failed to do so in time because Donald Trump didn't tell him to? Did Trump tell Bill to go to the gym after the CDC issued the social-distancing protocol?

Or that the mayor of New Orleans, defying the advice of her public health department and not canceling Mardi Gras, can blame Donald Trump for the fact that people who attended the parade got sick?

Or that Wanda, who fed her now-dead husband, Gary, fish tank cleaner, did so solely because Trump mentioned a less-lethal variation of one of that brand's ingredients as having the potential, when mixed with another chemical, to be a "game-changer?" Keep in mind that Wanda is an outspoken never-Trumper, has donated thousands to Democratic causes and candidates as well as to "pro-science" groups, claims to be pro-science, and has a history of mental illness issues. Yet she blindly followed medical advice found in a tweet from a politician she hated whose education consisted of a bachelor's level economics degree. Um, that doesn't quite add up.

Personally, I think the police should investigate whether Wanda murdered Gary and then took just enough chloroquine-phosphate to get herself sick, but not enough to kill her. And, yes, I've probably read too much Agatha Christie.

Trump is by no means blameless in this, but he's getting blamed for a lot of things that are not actually his fault by supports of the opposition party in their zeal to score political points.

The truth is, too many of our political, corporate, and cultural leaders dismissed the possibility that a pandemic could break out and overwhelm the US medical system until it did. We'd escaped unscathed from two Ebola scares, an H1N1 outbreak, and some localized Legionnaire's Disease outbreaks. COVID-19 simply failed to rise above the noise until it exploded. We'd grown complacent and, in some ways, we still are.

A whole raft of government institutions let us down, not just one man. And it took decades for our various government entities to develop that level of incompetence.

Conan Says:

"And, as usual, I think you're going full speed at Trump and GOP politicians while reflexively excusing non-GOP politicians."

My comment was neutral with regard to political party.

All I said was that you were going way too easy on Trump and too harsh on other politicians given the facts.

"other politicians" includes folks like Ron DeSantis for example.

Furthermore... you provided Trump with the following potential interpretation "whether through an abundance of optimism..." that wasn't afforded to anyone else.

He had access to the most complete information of any political figure and purposefully classified the information which reduced the amount of information available to others.

If he can simply be guilty of an "abundance of optimism" surely that excuse would apply more to all of the other politicians on your list who had less reason to be concerned since the magnitude of the problem was being purposefully hidden from them through the secrecy of classified meetings.

Why didn't you afford anyone else on your list the "abundance of optimism" explanation?

Have you considered the possibility that those meetings were classified for political reasons as opposed for the benefit of the public?

Conan,

Here is another important quote from the article I posted:

"“We had some very critical people who did not have security clearances who could not go,” one official said. “These should not be classified meetings. It was unnecessary.”"

You honestly don't think this modulates accountability at all?

Imagine for a moment you were at work and in a management position. The CEO becomes aware that the financials aren't looking so good, but decides to keep that information to himself and tells everyone in a corporate wide correspondence that everything is looking good.

You have been kept in the dark about all of this and reassure your department that things are good just as the CEO has publicly stated despite some underlying concerns from the staff that they have the sense that sales have fallen.

Then two months later the CFO released the financials in the quarterly statement and it looks very bleak and in response the CEO calls for lay offs.

Are you really going to tell me that in that position you are as responsible as the CEO if they purposefully kept you in the dark and you had no access to the details of the financial release in advance?

Sure... maybe if you were a little more skeptical you could have read the tea leaves in advance and given your team a heads up that things might be rough this quarter... but unless you were clued into everything your responsibility is markedly less than the person who had access to all of the information and purposefully kept you out of the loop.

What's most interesting about COVID-19 outbreak in the US is the shift it has put the Democratic party through.

Prior to the outbreak, the Dems nomination fight was between a host of senators and representatives, the theoretical arm of our government - people able to espouse academic theories comfortably from the armchair.

Dems are now ignoring their former senators in favor of governors, people with frontline experience in handling challenges and resolving issues. Andrew Cuomo and Gavin Newsom are rising in the esteem of even the purely academic left wing of the party while the academic theorists that once dominated the headlines (Cortez, Warren, Harris, et al) are sliding into obscurity as people are watching the governors and mayors, the executives.

Some thoughts on governors vs. senators as presidential aspirants from Peggy Noonan (a conversation she had with an unnamed governor and potential presidential aspirant):

He listened closely, nodded, then shook his head. No, he said, governors still have the advantage. Why? Because foreign policy still comes down, always, to your gut, your instincts. And your instincts are sharpened by the kind of experience you get as a chief executive in a statehouse, which is constant negotiation with antagonists who have built-in power bases. You learn what works from success and failure with entrenched powers that can undo you, from unions to local pressure groups to unreliable allies. Being a governor is about handling real and discernible power. A governor can learn what a senator knows more easily than a senator can learn what a governor knows.

We're seeing some governors and mayors rise to the challenge and some get swamped by it.

The Economist once opined, "Americans process failure better than any people on Earth." That doesn't mean we fail more, it means we debrief, we adjust, we correct, and we move on - better and faster than anyone else. Our system is brutal in processing failure.

And we'll process this, too. We'll move forward from where we are, go to war with the army we have and make adjustments. The Fredendalls will be replaced by the Pattons. Kasserine Pass was a bloody, but profitable lesson. The US Army that invaded Sicily half a year later had very little in common with the one that got bloodied in Tunisia.

==================================================

The CEO becomes aware that the financials aren't looking so good, but decides to keep that information to himself and tells everyone in a corporate wide correspondence that everything is looking good.

You propose a scenario that cannot be played out in reality. The CFO of a publicly-traded company has a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders. Allowing the CEO to withhold information from the board violates that; and would be abetting fraud, a crime.

I've worked with many CEOs and never met one once who withheld bad news from his subordinates. That's a Hollywood fantasy. A CEO of a company in trouble needs his subordinate management team to understand the situation if he's going to reverse course.

Information and analyses about publicly-traded companies is public. Wall Street analysts are brutal in their efficiency reading monthly stats about a company's performance. It's very difficult for one officer of a publicly-traded company to withhold information, even the CEO. It is possible, but that's not the situation here.

In each of the scenarios I laid out, the executives I named were advised by their experts to take an unpopular action and did not heed that expert advice. The information was already in their hands, not withheld at the top. Others had taken those actions already - e.g., Boston, Dublin, and Chicago canceled their St. Paddy's Day parades long before de Blasio canceled New York's.

de Blasio, for one, is known for arguing with his public health experts. According to Politico:

He and top health officials fought during lengthy planning meetings in City Hall, according to multiple accounts from sources with knowledge of the interactions and published reports. The discord had been years in the making — several current and former city officials said he has long distrusted the top brass of the health department, feeling they do not understand politics and public relations and mishandled an outbreak of Legionnaires disease in 2016.

“He certainly has no trust in his field of expert commissioners and high ranking agency officials,” one former City Hall official said this week. “If an expert at an agency says to him, ‘Mayor this is what’s happening,’ instead of granting that some truth and acting on it, he will laboriously poke and prod at that opinion for hours.”

Contrast that with Fauci's statement that Trump listens to his experts and does not countermand them, asks questions of them and listens to the answers.

Even Cuomo, whom I put in the "rising the the challenge" bucket, was slow to act. Several other states had already shut down schools before he acted. But Cuomo did finally act, putting politics and feelings aside to quickly establish a working relationship with federal authorities, including Trump, an adversary until then.

This isn't about who failed yesterday. This is about who can get the job done going forward. Trump? He has risen to some challenges and failed at others. He'll be judged in eight months. The sober Trump we see today has very little in common with the blustery Trump we elected in 2016. He even tweets less.

Conan Says:

"You propose a scenario that cannot be played out in reality. The CFO of a publicly-traded company has a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders. Allowing the CEO to withhold information from the board violates that; and would be abetting fraud, a crime."

I never mentioned the CEO lying to the board or to share holders.

I mentioned the CEO keeping middle managers in the dark.

That happens all the time Conan.

Please just answer the following question in a straight forward manner:

If someone deliberately conceals the full information from someone else... and something goes wrong that this information would have been helpful addressing... who shoulders more responsibility, the person who hid the information, or the people who had the information hidden from them.

As much as you want to focus your attention on de Blasio the problem you are going to run into here is he isn't in the loop on meetings classified by the president.

That acts to reduce his accountability in comparison to Trump because Trump is the one who classified the information and kept it out of his hands.

These details matter.

I feel like you are engaging in black and white thinking here. It is possible to proportion responsibility in accordance with who knew what when.

Conan Says:

"This isn't about who failed yesterday. This is about who can get the job done going forward. Trump? He has risen to some challenges and failed at others. He'll be judged in eight months."

What would prevent your argument in eight months from becoming completely analogous to this one?

Why would the following be an invalid argument from your perspective in November:

'This isn't about who failed yesterday. This is about who can get the job done going forward.'

People who have failed almost always want to focus on some rosy imagined future.

It is completely fair and reasonable to hold any politician accountable for their failures at any time. We don't need to wait eight months to have a judgment on past, recent, or current performance.

The most serious concern for me is that so far as Trump is concerned he has done an amazing job and takes no responsibility for anything.

You call him "sober Trump" who has little in common with the "blustery Trump" of the past... If that were true he would acknowledge his own failings with regard to his response instead of constantly asserting he has done a perfect job better than anyone else has ever done.

If that isn't bluster I don't know what is.

"He even tweets less."

This is factually untrue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_on_social_media

His rate of tweeting has actually steadily increased over the course of his presidency.

It is up by a factor of 5 since the first half of his first year.

Why did you think it decreased when it went up so substantially?

He currently averages almost 30 tweets per day.

My comment was neutral with regard to political party.

Your comment never mentioned political party, but it was not quite as "neutral" as you allege. I have several friends who consider themselves non-partisan but post or tweet anti-Trump and anti-Republican things all the time, rarely, if ever, having a good thing to say about a conservative or libertarian point of view or figure. Likewise, they never criticize Democrat failure, scandals, or partisan behavior and often leap to the defense of Democrats. Like you, they think of themselves as non-partisan and insist they are, but they never step across the aisle.

You alleged about a week ago that you had actually stepped across the aisle and voted Republican, but when queried about for whom it was you'd voted, you went silent. Tell us now, for whom did you vote Republican?

That happens all the time Conan.

Not as much as you appear to think it does.

Besides, as I said, that's not the case here. The mayors of New York City and New Orleans were both warned by their own public health departments to implement a lock-down protocol and did not or did so late in the game, after ignoring the warnings.

Other states and cities had implemented such protocols and there was an ongoing national discussion about the need for more such protocols. Clearly these middle managers had the information they needed. They simply chose to ignore it for political reasons.

New Orleans and Florida need tourist revenue and a chief executive who cuts that off is going to be very unpopular with donors, and with voters, come election day.

Have you ever seen Jaws? That's why Amity's beaches remained open despite the shark-chewed bodies piling up.

I'm not focusing on de Blasio as the problem. de Blasio is only the mayor of New York City. He's not responsible to the government failure in places in which he had no authority. My assertion is that a number of government institutions at all levels, and of both parties, failed us. We cannot blame Trump for all those failures.

There's no black and white thinking. These mayors and governors had the information they needed and chose not to act upon it.

In addition, there are plenty of non-nefarious reasons to classify a meeting, especially in the face of a pandemic with a potentially high death toll - not the least of which is to allow the people in it to speak freely or to reduce panic about the information discussed.

Classifying the meeting does not mean the administration subsequently withheld relevant information from the parties that ultimately needed it. It only means the meeting itself was classified.

I'm not going to assume a conspiracy because an anonymous source didn't get invited to a meeting.

Conan Says:

"Your comment never mentioned political party, but it was not quite as "neutral" as you allege."

It is precisely as neutral as I allege... I'm the one who said it and I know what my intentions are.

You need to refrain from adding on your own meaning to other peoples words when they have told you otherwise.

If you can do that then I will extend you the same courtesy.

"Like you, they think of themselves as non-partisan and insist they are, but they never step across the aisle."

That is nonsense Conan... just the other day I called Biden a dope.

What you are doing here is dropping your own baggage in my lap. I cannot speak for your friends and I am not responsible for what they do or do not do.

When I tell you what I mean, that is what I mean.

"You alleged about a week ago that you had actually stepped across the aisle and voted Republican, but when queried about for whom it was you'd voted, you went silent. Tell us now, for whom did you vote Republican?"

Conan, it isn't that I step across the aisle... I'm not a democrat or a republican. I'm an independent who votes for whoever I think happens to be the best candidate in any particular race based on their track record and policies.

As for who I have specifically voted for, you have overlooked an obvious reason why I have opted not to answer that question.

It would reveal the local municipality in which I live.

Do you believe I am entitled to that kind of privacy? I certainly would not make such a request of you.

I also note that you haven't asked what democrats I have voted for... you just are assuming I vote straight blue ticket, which isn't at all the case.

Now if you are curious about a conservative I have great respect for who was on the national stage who none of us were given a chance to vote for that would be Colin Powell. I think he is an accomplished, principled, capable man who would have brought honor to any office he was elected into.

However he never won the nomination so I suppose he doesn't count.

I would take Colin over Trump or Biden in a heart beat even at age 82.

I am not going to tell you who I vote for in state and local elections and I hope you can understand why. It is a matter of privacy.

What I will tell you though is that I didn't vote for Clinton or Trump in 2016... if I was such a hard line blue voter as you seem to believe shouldn't I have voted for Clinton?

The fact that I voted for neither supports my contention that I am non-partisan.

Can you say the same or did you vote for one of those two?

You need to refrain from adding on your own meaning to other peoples words when they have told you otherwise.

The way you communicate something can carry an unintended implication - as can what you omit from your communication. As I said, you don't criticize non-Republicans. The imparts that denied bias to your posts.

You're entitled to whatever privacy you desire. You could always have simply said, "it was a local candidate." Now, if you read here regularly you know where everyone lives. You can't find them with that information, so it seems a bit paranoid to not want to reveal anything about your own locale - unless where you live is so small that revealing the name of it would point all of us to your door.

I would agree about Powell being an honorable man and a good candidate for high office. I would be willing to vote for him myself, depending upon the policies he espoused in his campaign. I tend to like a fiscal conservative in office (and no, Trump is not one).

And yes, you could have voted for the Green Party and maintained your lefty bona fides, perhaps even enhanced them given Clinton's Wall Street ties. Don't know if you did, but you could have.

I've already admitted I voted for Trump - not out of admiration for him or loyalty to a particular party. I registered "U" when I moved here, which in NC means "Unaffiliated." I voted for him because I no longer live In California where any non-Democrat vote is wasted and I could not, in good conscience, let my vote for Johnson-Weld be even a minute part of why Hillary Clinton won. I didn't think she had it in her to be a good president and I was worried about the people who would be empowered by a Clinton victory - BLM, Occupy Wall Street, etc.

So, like the bettor at an insect race, I picked what I viewed as the lesser of two weevils. We finally got a decent Libertarian ticket in Johnson and Weld, and they still got less than 5% overall and not a single electoral vote.

I didn't get registered here in time for the primary, so I wasn't able to cast a vote for William Weld (if I'd been able, as a "U," to vote in a Republican primary).

My own political philosophy is fiscal conservative, social libertarian. I agree with Jefferson that "that government governs best which governs least." The chief redeeming feature Trump has, for me, is he also believes in lower taxes and fewer regulations. Now, if he could just stop spending money like a drunken sailor. We have Democrats for that.

Conan Says:

"The way you communicate something can carry an unintended implication - as can what you omit from your communication. As I said, you don't criticize non-Republicans. The imparts that denied bias to your posts."

That is your own personal baggage Conan. I criticize non-Republicans plenty when it is appropriate. What you are seeing has less to do with what my views actually are and more to do with what you suspect they are based on a stereotype you have stuck me with.

Have you considered the possibility that to someone who leans to the right that someone who is actually fairly middle of the road will appear as if they are biased to the left?... it is a matter of relative position as opposed to absolute position.

I suspect your interpretation is due to your own political leanings since I have many criticisms of the DNC.

There are many life long republicans who have been very critical of Trump.

The fact that I am critical of Trump isn't evidence of bias... it is evidence that I don't like people in office who I have concluded on the basis of their track record is unqualified and unprincipled.

You or anyone else can have a different assessment. However viewing Trump as unqualified and unprincipled shouldn't strike anyone as being so outlandish as to be the hallmark of someone who votes straight ticket.

Just like if you were to criticize Hillary Clinton as being a political opportunist I wouldn't find that unusual or unfair.

I believe my criticisms of Trump have always been backed up in a factual understanding of his actions and decisions.

"Now, if you read here regularly you know where everyone lives. You can't find them with that information, so it seems a bit paranoid to not want to reveal anything about your own locale - unless where you live is so small that revealing the name of it would point all of us to your door."

This may strike you as strange, but where you or anyone else here lives is completely immaterial and uninteresting to me. I'm interested in what people think and why they think it. It is my view that personal details are just a distraction from what really matters, which is the structure of the argument itself and the information that backs it up.

You may see it as "paranoid" for me not to want to reveal where I live... but I see it as creepy and weird that anyone here would want to know.

I happen to like my privacy and I respect the privacy of others.

I would like to think you have the capacity to respect my consistency here even if that isn't how you choose to operate. If I was busy asking everyone questions about their lives and then sharing nothing that would be hypocritical... but I never ask anyone anything about themselves because those mundane details are completely irrelevant to me.

I'm a live and let live kind of person.

"I tend to like a fiscal conservative in office (and no, Trump is not one)."

I don't have any particular objections to fiscal conservative principles on its face. I for example like the idea of things like the balanced budged amendment. The fundamental problem is that there is no such thing as a credible fiscal conservatives in washington these days... just a lot of folks who pretend to be.

What I do see are deficit hawks while democrats hold the presidency and massive deficit spenders when republicans hold the presidency.

I do find this lack of consistency to be concerning and frustrating.

"So, like the bettor at an insect race, I picked what I viewed as the lesser of two weevils. We finally got a decent Libertarian ticket in Johnson and Weld, and they still got less than 5% overall and not a single electoral vote."

Okay, let's broach a more neutral topic here then.

What are your thoughts about alternative voting schemes beyond first passed the post.

Hypothetically speaking would you support a ranked voting system for example?

"My own political philosophy is fiscal conservative, social libertarian. I agree with Jefferson that "that government governs best which governs least." The chief redeeming feature Trump has, for me, is he also believes in lower taxes and fewer regulations. Now, if he could just stop spending money like a drunken sailor. We have Democrats for that."

Your broad strokes description of your political philosophy is fine by me and I am sure we probably agree on several things on a theoretical basis. The disagreements are probably in the details.

For example, I see great utility in regulations associated with standardization. I have no interest in each state having its own electrical outlets and utility frequency.

Similarly I see great utility in regulations that promote work place safety and environmental protection because they serve to protect the people and the future of the nation. Corporations have unfortunately demonstrated they cannot be trusted to prioritize safety beyond what it required by law.

What I want to see is data based government that is responsive to information.

I am also deeply concerned that most of our society is scientifically illiterate, which doesn't bode well for the future.

Okay, one more round before we move on to more recent topics.

What I do see are deficit hawks while democrats hold the presidency and massive deficit spenders when republicans hold the presidency.

And the reverse holds true as well. Democrats are deficit hawks for Republican presidents and spendthrifts for Democratic ones.

That a political party, any party, hypocritically insists upon sainthood standards for the other party and excuses its own excesses is nothing new.

Hypothetically speaking would you support a ranked voting system for example?

While first-past-the-post has its share of issues, it's a clean way of doing it.

I'm don't really like ranked voting - too easy to game with a large slate of candidates vs. a smaller one. It encourages parties to stack the ballot rather than find the best candidate.

What I want to see is data based government that is responsive to information.

A data-driven government is efficient government, eh?

However, an efficient government is not a thing greatly to be desired. When a German who lived through the Nazi era was asked what happened, he replied that the government was divorced from humanity; that efficiency was the goal of every government agency (it was with the Soviet government as well). Collectivism craves efficiency and human beings are, by their nature, inefficient.

Conan Says:

"Democrats are deficit hawks for Republican presidents and spendthrifts for Democratic ones."

I haven't identified this behavior. The Democrats don't generally bring up deficits either way.

"A data-driven government is efficient government, eh?"

A data-driven government would be efficient only in the sense that it would avoid making decisions that are unlikely to result in the desired outcomes.

It might be slow because people aren't making rash decisions based on their own feelings or the political climate of the day.

The Nazi government you refer to was anything but data driven... it functioned on a principle of eugenics that had no scientific foundation.

A data-driven government would have rejected the Nazi philosophy. Xenophobia is anything but based on data.

I am also deeply concerned that most of our society is scientifically illiterate, which doesn't bode well for the future. ~ Artemis at April 4, 2020 12:59 AM

Most of our society is also economically illiterate. Socialism is not a beneficial economic system.

A data-driven government would have rejected the Nazi philosophy. ~ Artemis at April 5, 2020 8:45 AM

Let me stop you right there. You're assuming an inherent benevolence in data and in a data-driven government. History teaches us otherwise.

Eugenics was once viewed as a science world-wide and applied to population control in many countries. Selective breeding of the human population was advocated as early as Plato, but picked up steam in the early 20th century when a movement took hold in the United Kingdom and spread to other countries from there.

Despite a growing body of criticism, eugenics was widely accepted in the United States and advocated by many leading figures, including Theodore Roosevelt (president) and Margaret Sanger (founder, Planned Parenthood). Roosevelt later recanted his advocacy of eugenics.

Relying on eugenics data, forced sterilizations of undesirable populations became a standard practice in many countries, including the US. Population control advocates applauded forced sterilizations. The practice was opposed by the Catholic Church.

The Nazis gave eugenics a well-deserved bad name. But others had institutionalized it as well - the "New Soviet Man" was to be achieved by a combination of forced reeducation and eugenic breeding programs. NSM was to be selfless (re-education) and strong (eugenics).

Several ethicists and sociologists worry publicly that modern genetics capabilities are leading us down a back-door path to a resurgence in eugenics. Pre-birth testing for diseases, genetic abnormalities, etc. and gene manipulation capabilities are giving us the ability to enforce selective breeding.

Mankind has tried data-driven governments - they inevitably result in brutality as the scientific result is preferred over the human one. Any element of humanity in society and its governance is lost.

How much of what we knew to be scientifically true yesterday is known to be false today? How much of what we know to be scientifically true today will be known to be false tomorrow?

The ability for science to do something should not always translate that activity into a standard practice. We don't need another Unit 731 working on "logs" to develop new cures for disease and treatments for wounds. Science is not always benevolent, because humanity is not.

I haven't identified this behavior. The Democrats don't generally bring up deficits either way.

You haven't been paying attention.

Newsweek reported in August 2019, "Fiscal conservatives and Democrats alike are ridiculing Republican congressional members and President Donald Trump after federal spending hit a $3.7 trillion record and the budget deficit climbed to $867 billion so far this fiscal year."

And followed that with, "Great work by Mitch McConnell in deepening our budget deficit. I guess it was worth it to give his rich friends and donors a tax break," said Amy McGrath, the Kentucky Democratic challenger to the current Republican Senate Majority Leader."

Vox reports that, "When George W. Bush was president, Congress enacted two debt-financed tax cuts, approved two costly wars and a significant military buildup, expanded Medicare significantly, and increased most categories of domestic discretionary spending. This led to a large increase in the federal budget deficit that Democrats spent a lot of time complaining about." [emphasis mine]

Conan Says:

"Most of our society is also economically illiterate. Socialism is not a beneficial economic system."

I agree with you.

Too many folks talk about our economy as if it is to be either structured as a capitalist one or a socialist one.

What we are is a mixed economy.

You make intelligent choices for each element when it comes to how it should function.

For example, private prisons are a stupid idea because there should not be a profit motive for incarceration. However for things like automobiles, regulated free market capitalism works just fine (now before you get upset about the word regulated, we do need regulations to decide which side of the road we drive on, how we measure speed, etc...)

"Let me stop you right there. You're assuming an inherent benevolence in data and in a data-driven government. History teaches us otherwise."

History doesn't teach this.

I am not sure we have had a data-driven government before.

Can you name one I can use as a reference?

"Despite a growing body of criticism, eugenics was widely accepted in the United States and advocated by many leading figures, including Theodore Roosevelt (president) and Margaret Sanger (founder, Planned Parenthood). Roosevelt later recanted his advocacy of eugenics."

That doesn't make it scientific or data-driven.

What you are literally describing is people making rash decisions based on their own feelings or the political climate of the day, which is precisely what I objected to.

A growing body of criticism should always cause people not to accept something in a data-driven government.

You are describing the opposite where people hold views contrary to the growing body of evidence.

"Relying on eugenics data, forced sterilizations of undesirable populations became a standard practice in many countries, including the US."

This isn't data-driven government either Conan.

What you are talking about is people making their own personal value judgments based on their own biases and NOT on the data.

"How much of what we knew to be scientifically true yesterday is known to be false today? How much of what we know to be scientifically true today will be known to be false tomorrow?"

This goes back to what I originally said with regard to scientific illiteracy.

Let me put this into perspective for you.

2000 years ago people knew that if you held a book at arms length and let go it would drop to the floor.

200 years ago people knew that if you held a book at arms length and let go it would drop to the floor.

20 years ago people knew that if you held a book at arms length and let go it would drop to the floor.

Today people know that if you hold a book at arms length and let go it will drop to the floor.

That is the data... that observation has never changed over the entire course of human history.

The only thing that has changes is our understanding if *why* the book falls.

Our understanding of the world may grow richer and more complete as time moves on, but the we do not have situations where well established data suddenly flips.

"Mankind has tried data-driven governments - they inevitably result in brutality as the scientific result is preferred over the human one. Any element of humanity in society and its governance is lost."

We have done no such thing.

All you have demonstrated is that people have the capacity to do monstrous things and then generate post-hoc justifications that aren't actually substantiated in the data.

Those are 2 different things.

The inquisition wasn't driven by data either... just xenophobic zealots.

Zealotry and xenophobia are to be avoided. Data is useful for making valid and beneficial decisions.

Conan,

With regard to your comment at April 5, 2020 10:04 AM I think this is just a difference in our subjective view of what is meant by "The Democrats don't generally bring up deficits either way."

I do think the Democrats sometimes bring up deficits... I just don't think it is the general trend.

What I will say however is the following. When politifact examined "several claims about how the deficit has grown under Republican presidents and shrunk under Democrats."

They found it to be "mostly true" while also recognizing that things are more complicated than those claims might at first suggest.

The point being that between the 2 parties one appears to be more hypocritical on this issue than the other.

Furthermore, an ironic takeaway is that fiscal conservatives should prefer to have a democrat in the presidency and republicans in congress.

You might want to read a copy of the constitution Arty. Specifically the parts where the president has control of the budget.

https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/34/spending-clause

We have done no such thing. ~ Artemis at April 5, 2020 4:35 PM

Um, yes we have. We've seen countries run by engineers and technocrats.

Just take a look at the Brezhnev-era Soviet Union. A metallurgical engineer by training, Brezhnev was part of a Politburo laden with technically-educated members.

More than 80% of the Chinese Communist Party officials had a technical background (mostly engineering) by the '90s.

Now you know why Communists were obsessed with Five-Year Plans; the data-based models tell them this should be the outcome over five years. The human rights records of such governments are littered with atrocities.

I read a book several years ago about the economic reality of living in the Soviet Union. It described the chaos of the Soviet factory system with impossible output quotas and the system-gaming factory managers engaged in to avoid being sent to the gulag for failure to meet those quotas.

The farming system was no better, saddling farms with statistically-derived crop quotas that were imposed and enforced by a central bureaucrat with no experience in farming - quotas with little or no consideration of random events that can adversely affect crop yields.

You can't get a baby in one month by getting nine women pregnant. Some things cannot be done more efficiently - even through bureaucratic fiat.

Today, Singapore could be considered a technocracy. A 2011 article in The Economist, claimed "the political and expert components of the governing system there seem to have merged completely."

Singapore, however, is not without its issues. There is no right to privacy in Singapore and no protection against government surveillance of citizens. In addition, punishment for even minor crimes can be severe. Just ask American student, Michael Fay, who was sentenced to six lashes from a bamboo cane for the crime of vandalizing cars.

The underlying fault with your argument is that it assumes an inherent benevolence in science and data that does not exist. That there is no perfect form of government is why our founding fathers, all pretty smart guys, created a system of limited government focused on protecting individual rights.

==================================================

And, yes, eugenics was considered scientific and data-driven - then. Eugenics is today considered a form scientific racism because it is generally applied along racial lines. However, when the concepts were first proposed in 1883, they were founded on the work of Darwin and began with interpretations of Mendelian inheritance and the theories of August Weismann.

The father of eugenics was Francis Galton, a Victorian-era polymath with interests in statistics, anthropology, sociology, psychology, and a wide variety of other disciplines. A child prodigy, Galton was reading by the age of two; by age 5, he was speaking Greek and Latin and doing long division. Galton is credited with authoring over 340 papers and books, as well as creating the concept of correlation and developing the law of regression toward the mean. Galton was the first to apply statistical methods to the study of human differences and inheritance of intelligence.

Galton also pioneered the use of twin studies in genetics, trying to settle the question of nature vs. nurture. He himself leaned heavily toward nature over nurture.

In all, Galton was a pretty data-driven individual; obsessed with data, in fact.

==================================================

Our understanding of the world may grow richer and more complete as time moves on, but the we do not have situations where well established data suddenly flips.

No one is arguing that reality flips, but your apple example is of pretty basic data - certainly not the level of data on which one should build a system of government.

The argument being made here is that our understanding of what the data are telling us changes with greater understanding of the underlying factors.

Yes, we understood for centuries that apples will fall if dropped. Do we accept that as sufficient data and base government decrees on only that without understanding why they fall every time they're dropped?

Granted, we understood gravity better after Isaac Newton wondered about apples falling to the ground in a churchyard, but whatever flawed understanding we had of their falling before Newton was driven by the science and the data we had then.

In addition to an inherent benevolence you assume a perfect presentation and interpretation of existing data. What if our data today are incomplete or misinterpreted by our limited understanding of the world? What if we draw the wrong conclusions? What if someone is manipulating the data for political ends?

==================================================

The 1632 trial of Galileo also provides another example of faulty data reliance. The Church accepted the prevailing scientific theory (the "consensus of scientists" of that day) of a geocentric universe. Galileo was put on trial for heresy for challenging the Church's doctrine, which was based on the prevailing scientific theory.

The scientists of the day rejected the idea that the Earth was moving because they could not see the annual stellar parallax that should be visible if the Earth were moving.

In fact, their data were incomplete because their equipment was inadequate and their underlying assumptions were off. Scientists of the day believed the stars were millions of miles away. Because of that, they held that if the Earth were in fact moving, they should see the stellar parallax in viewing those distant stars. In fact, the stars are billions of miles away and that is why they could not see the stellar parallax through their crude instruments.

With the advent of better scientific instruments, Friedrich Bessel was able to confirm the stellar parallax in 1838 and revise the existing data about stellar distance.

Conan Says:

"Um, yes we have. We've seen countries run by engineers and technocrats."

That doesn't imply that the government was data-driven.

If I put a devout religious person in charge of the government that doesn't make it a theocracy either.

The hallmark of data-driven governance is the actual use of information to drive accurate and useful decisions.

I've seen lots of engineers who drive their decisions by personal preference and opinion even when the data suggests otherwise.

If the mere presence of an engineer makes for data-driven government then by analogy the mere presence of a religious person makes something a theocracy.

"More than 80% of the Chinese Communist Party officials had a technical background (mostly engineering) by the '90s."

Which means nothing.

Please demonstrate how they went about making their decisions. How did they collect the data, did they establish well-defined success criteria ahead of time, did they establish well-defined failure criteria?

"It described the chaos of the Soviet factory system with impossible output quotas and the system-gaming factory managers engaged in to avoid being sent to the gulag for failure to meet those quotas."

This by definition isn't data driven... how could the quotas be impossible if they were established properly?

This sounds to me like the quotas were established by fiat... not by data.

"You can't get a baby in one month by getting nine women pregnant. Some things cannot be done more efficiently - even through bureaucratic fiat."

BINGO... decisions by fiat are by definition not driven by data.

I am not sure why there is a disconnect here Conan.

Each and every instance you have described is about someone making an irrational demand that isn't driven by data at all... and then having folks come in like a mindless machine to just try and make it happen.

As far as I am concerned that is the complete opposite of data-driven decision making.

No rational data-based decision maker would conclude you could get one baby in a month by getting nine women pregnant... the data wouldn't support such a ludicrous conclusion.

"The underlying fault with your argument is that it assumes an inherent benevolence in science and data that does not exist."

I haven't assumed any such thing.

All of your examples rely on a complete perversion of what is meant by data-driven decision making in government.

Only a lunatic would assert that if you get one woman pregnant and the result is one baby born nine months later that if you get nine women pregnant you will have one baby born the following month.

My only assumption is that data-driven government actually means we are talking about decisions that are driven by information and rational thought.

Any form of government can be mucked up by a bunch of lunatics who think 9 pregnant women implies 1 baby a month for 9 months straight.

Conan Says:

"And, yes, eugenics was considered scientific and data-driven - then."

You suggested that the Nazi extermination campaign was data-driven.

What data substantiated the genocide of their targeted groups?

Are you suggesting that the eugenics movements generated credible data that European Jews were intellectually inferior?

Furthermore, what data would drive a decision to commit genocide of any group?

Such decisions aren't data driven Conan... they are driven by fanaticism and irrationality.

That exterminations were industrialized is in no way shape or form evidence that the decision to kill off millions of people was data-based.

Conan Says,

"The 1632 trial of Galileo also provides another example of faulty data reliance. The Church accepted the prevailing scientific theory (the "consensus of scientists" of that day) of a geocentric universe. Galileo was put on trial for heresy for challenging the Church's doctrine, which was based on the prevailing scientific theory."

This is just another example of something that wasn't data driven.

The belief that all of the objects within the heavens was perfectly spherical and existed in perfect crystal spheres was NOT based on data.

It was based on Aristotelian idealizations of what the philosophers of his time *thought* the universe ought to be like.

The Church not being a data-driven decision maker rejected Galileo's actual evidence based on real observations from his newly developed telescope in favor of their unsubstantiated beliefs in the geometric perfection of objects in the heavens.

Once again, you have not provided an example of data-based decision making.

The church in your example adhered to doctrine over data.

You are literally making my argument for me.

They should have been data-driven and listened to the new information Galileo was presenting to them.

This is what it means to make data-driven decisions. That you don't hold to your own preconceived notions of truth and let the data guide you... especially when it seems the data is suggesting something you didn't expect.

The Church not being a data-driven decision maker rejected Galileo's actual evidence based on real observations from his newly developed telescope in favor of their unsubstantiated beliefs in the geometric perfection of objects in the heavens.

Galileo's observations and mathematical proofs (theory of tides) upset the scientists of the day as well as the philosophy of the Church. This was not simply a religious persecution - scientists used the Inquisition to rid themselves of someone who was inconvenient to them - not unlike a group of scientist conspiring to prevent scientists with an opposing viewpoint from publishing in any peer-reviewed periodicals they control. The Inquisition, relying on the consensus of the scientists of the day, convicted Galileo of heresy.

Artie, you're like those socialists who claim that "this time, we'll get it right." You want a data-driven government, but you fail to acknowledge that, even today, our data and our understanding of that data my be flawed. A government will build a power-base on that data and then you expect it to turn on a dime when some crackpot comes along with new data. That ain't gonna happen.

Yes, we understand today that Galileo was right. We're not talking about today's knowledge, we're talking about the data the Inquisition had at its disposal in 1632. What do you think they'll say about us in nearly 400 years? That we were deluded in our scientific conclusions? Perhaps.

You assume such a data-driven government will always accept and correctly interpret any new data presented to it. It won't. Human nature will always intervene. And that all data presented to it will be free of any manipulation or error.

Collectivist governments have always claimed to be scientific and data-driven - whether National Socialist, Fascist, or Communist. And, in the end, they were not. They were brutal and totalitarian and that kind of government always will be.

The individuals' desires don't matter because the "data-driven" government always knows best. Your utopian data-driven government will devolve into brutality, too. Tyranny is inevitable where the government is not responsible to the governed.

And no, Artie, I'm not making your argument for you. You're moving the goal posts, tweaking your argument as you go.

That you don't hold to your own preconceived notions of truth and let the data guide you... especially when it seems the data is suggesting something you didn't expect. ~ Artemis at April 5, 2020 8:42 PM

A government based upon that is pure Utopian fantasy (in Star Trek, the idealized Planet Vulcan, where logic rules). You're ignoring human nature.

You're like those Soviets who truly believed they could create the New Soviet Man, a being whose indoctrination would defeat his human nature.

The United States is the best you're gonna get. If the government won't accept your discovery, you can present it directly to the people. You can publish in a wide variety of publications, write books about it, and even go on television to present it.

Good night, Artie. Sleep tight.

Conan Says:

"Galileo's observations and mathematical proofs (theory of tides) upset the scientists of the day as well as the philosophy of the Church."

There was no such thing as "scientists of the day" Conan.

It is erroneous to use such terminology until after the establishment of the scientific method and the enlightenment.

I might as well talk about the "scientists" of the stone age.

The people who observed the night sky and filled it with fantastical stories of myth and legend were not and cannot be described as scientists.

Galileo was put under house arrest by the Pope and the church. Not by a bunch of folks functioning under the precepts of the scientific method.

"This was not simply a religious persecution - scientists used the Inquisition to rid themselves of someone who was inconvenient to them - not unlike a group of scientist conspiring to prevent scientists with an opposing viewpoint from publishing in any peer-reviewed periodicals they control."

So now forcing people to convert to Christianity under penalty of death and torture was done by "scientists" and is analogous to flat earthers failing to publish their crackpot ideas in reputable academic journals?

Those things are not only unlike one another, but they are so very far apart as to barely exist in the same reality.

Peer-review is not a mechanism to prevent the publication of "opposing viewpoints". It is how professional scientists hold one another accountable for publishing quality work. The only people qualified to do this are other people who work in the field.

You for example would not be qualified to vet or challenge a publication about gravitational waves produced by a merging black hole binary. This sort of thing is well beyond the scope of your understanding. The same applies for any realm of science where you have not established yourself as an expert.

"You want a data-driven government, but you fail to acknowledge that, even today, our data and our understanding of that data my be flawed."

Your objection is meaningless Conan when the alternative is to make decisions based on what?... feelings and unsubstantiated opinions?

Our options are to make decisions where information is an input or to not make decisions where information is an input.

One of these options is superior to the other.

"Yes, we understand today that Galileo was right. We're not talking about today's knowledge, we're talking about the data the Inquisition had at its disposal in 1632."

What "data" did the church have that demonstrated the geocentric model of the universe was superior to the heliocentric model?

This is the point you are missing Conan.

In a data-driven paradigm when new information is brought forth that challenges our preconceptions... we reject the preconceptions in favor of the new data.

That is exactly what didn't happen with the Church. Instead they put Galileo under house arrest for heresy.

By definition they were not acting in a data-driven way... they were literally locking away the new data since it violated what they wanted to be true based on their religious views.

"Collectivist governments have always claimed to be scientific and data-driven"

I am completely uninterested in what people or governments claim to be.

I am interested in what they actually are.

This guy claims he killed his daughter because god told him to do it:

https://nypost.com/2017/10/17/man-allegedly-killed-daughter-because-god-told-him-to/

What conclusions do you draw from this?... if you use the same logic you have been using in this conversation you must conclude that god promoted the murder of this girl.

You haven't allowed for the possibility that the claim in and of itself is false.

I don't care if the Nazi's claim their campaign to kill millions of people was data-driven if they don't actually have any real data to support their monstrous behavior.

Have you ever considered the possibility that the Nazi's might be lying about their motivations?... or do you just believe what the Nazi's tell you in their ad campaigns (what most of us refer to as propaganda)?

"And no, Artie, I'm not making your argument for you. You're moving the goal posts, tweaking your argument as you go."

I've done no such thing. You simply are arguing against strawmen.

You are pretending that the Nazi regime was actually data-driven when it wasn't.

There is no data that suggests it is a good move to exterminate entire populations of people.

Such things are not based on data, they are based on racism, xenophobia, and antisemitism.

I haven't once shifted the goal posts of my argument... you just refuse to actually address my argument on its own merits and instead keep presenting unrelated things that in no way shape or form represent what I am talking about.

"A government based upon that is pure Utopian fantasy (in Star Trek, the idealized Planet Vulcan, where logic rules). You're ignoring human nature."

I haven't ignored anything here Conan.

Please explain to me in detail how making decisions that runs contrary to the available information is superior to making decisions that are supported by the available information.

That is the challenge you have thus far refused to address and runs to the core of my position.

Honestly all of this is a mischaracterization of what happened to Galileo.

Galileo was a very abrasive person. He offended many people. He was also a friend of the pope. Galileo wasn't jailed due to his heliocentric theories. He was jailed for publishing a pamphlet that slyly called the pope among others an idiot. At the time doing anything like that to any ruler, much less the pope, was clear cause for execution. The Paul V didn't even want it brought to trail. But with how abrasive and public Galileo acted the pope couldn't stop things. In the end Galileo was sentenced to house arrest. Most other would have been executed.

Ben,

You are leaving out a few key details that are rather important.

In 1616 Galileo was forbidden from holding or defending the proposition that the earth orbited the sun.

He then proceeded to author his now famous Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems where he created a fictitious conversation between three people named Salviati, Sagredo, and Simplicio.

Salviati put forth the case for the heliocentric model of the solar system, Simplicio actively defended the church held geocentric view point, and Sagredo was an open-minded neutral participant.

In 1633 he was put on trial and under house arrest because the Church could not even tolerate satire if it didn't conform to their orthodoxy.

I wouldn't say that made Galileo "abrasive"... it made the Church completely incapable of dealing with facts.

Why would you side with the authoritarian group that demanded the complete absence of thought and inquiry?

The problem was never that Galileo was "abrasive"... it was that the Church couldn't handle any of their flawed ideas being scrutinized or criticized.

Please explain to me in detail how making decisions that runs contrary to the available information is superior to making decisions that are supported by the available information. ~ Artemis at April 5, 2020 11:16 PM

Artie, that is a mischaracterization of what I actually argued. I did not advocate a government that makes decisions which "run contrary to available in formation." I argued that a government which makes decisions based solely on data/science/reason/logic will end in brutality and totalitarianism; that all such attempts in the past have ended in exactly that way.

Additionally, I pointed out that science is not by default benevolent; that data can be manipulated, misinterpreted, and misunderstood. Just because we can do something does not mean we should.

Artie, I think you probably have a very good education. I also think that you lean on that education a little too heavily, giving you a tendency to miss the forest for the trees. Don't focus on the trees here. Listen to the main point, the big idea. I repeat, it's this: You cannot run a human government on pure reason/data/science/logic.

Such governance might sound wonderful in the academic abstract, but in reality, all efforts to do so in the past have lead to brutality and totalitarianism.

The French Revolution was supposed to usher in a government and society based on reason and science. Instead, it ushered in a series of brutal authoritarian regimes that plunged the world into more than twenty years of near-constant warfare and cost hundreds of thousands of lives.

And, if that weren't enough, La Révolution gave us the metric system, a sin for which it simply cannot be forgiven. ;-)

Conan Says:

"Artie, that is a mischaracterization of what I actually argued. I did not advocate a government that makes decisions which "run contrary to available in formation." I argued that a government which makes decisions based solely on data/science/reason/logic will end in brutality and totalitarianism; that all such attempts in the past have ended in exactly that way."

Great... but you were arguing this in reference for my contention that I would like to see data-driven government.

Nowhere did I suggest that I wanted government that was run "solely" on data/science/reason/logic... whatever that is supposed to mean.

It doesn't make sense for you to first mischaracterize my argument... and then call it a mischaracterization when I explain in greater detail exactly what I mean.

Data-driven government is one that takes the best available information and uses it to drive decision making. The decisions are aligned with the data that is available.

By contrast a government that is not data-driven is one that makes decisions that run contrary to what the data suggests.

For example, a data-driven government would identify the best locations to put a new bridge based on prevailing traffic patterns and computer simulations. Then with that list of locations a decision can be made taking other factors into account.

By contrast a non data-driven government might identify the best locations to put a new bridge on the basis of where the largest campaign contributor happened to live and if they wanted it near or far from their home.

"Additionally, I pointed out that science is not by default benevolent; that data can be manipulated, misinterpreted, and misunderstood. Just because we can do something does not mean we should."

Who argued that science by default was benevolent?

That science demonstrates that it is possible to construct a nuclear bomb says nothing about whether or not we ought to build one.

This is why I keep saying you have set up a strawman here.

You haven't actually acknowledged let alone dealt with anything I have actually stated.

Conan Says:

"Such governance might sound wonderful in the academic abstract, but in reality, all efforts to do so in the past have lead to brutality and totalitarianism."

You actually have things backwards.

The most brutal and oppressive regimes have been those that are driven by feelings and adherence to tradition or orthodoxy.

Data-driven decision making is by definition the opposite of that.

There was no data driven decision that suggested that it was justifiable to enslave anyone for example.

Data, reason, and logic is precisely how we arrive at the conclusions that it is improper to own other people because we recognize their demonstrable similarity to us and then conclude that since we don't want to be enslaved it is wrong to do that to other people.

The very act of trying to rationalize the dehumanization of a human being is to run afoul of the demonstrable fact that a human beings are biologically analogous to one another.

It is the illogical and false religious belief in the hierarchy of being that sets one group of humans above or below another.

Read some real history Arty. You clearly are clueless. Galileo was a very abrasive person. That is a well documented fact. His publishing a book where he calls his intellectual opponents Simplicio (i.e. idiot) is just one of very many examples.

"In 1633 he was put on trial and under house arrest because the Church could not even tolerate satire if it didn't conform to their orthodoxy."

He was put on trial for willfully disobeying a direct order from his government. It was also strongly suspected that the current head of his government (Pope Paul V) was being called an idiot in that work. That his government was a church and that there was a scientific disagreement in the work are almost irrelevant. Anyone doing the exact same thing in another nation would be executed. Calling the king an idiot in writing had that effect. That Galileo was only put under house arrest is actually unusual. Almost anyone else would have been executed.

For example, a data-driven government would identify the best locations to put a new bridge based on prevailing traffic patterns and computer simulations. Then with that list of locations a decision can be made taking other factors into account.

What makes you think that's not how the government plans roads and bridges today?

Are you with the Highway Department? City Planning? Can you testify to personal experience having seen political influence move a bridge or other project from an ideal location to a less-than-suitable one?

By contrast a non data-driven government might identify the best locations to put a new bridge on the basis of where the largest campaign contributor happened to live and if they wanted it near or far from their home.

Now who's building straw men?

It's not just traffic patterns or political influence that determine a bridge location, Artie. In bridge building, one needs to factor in the type of embankment, construction techniques, cost of materials, water flow, current strength, size of the deck, grades of concrete and steel required (and available at what cost), seismic zone, logistics for the construction, budget allocation, etc.

What if the owner of the property deemed the best site for your hypothetical bridge refuses to sell? Does your data-driven government invoke eminent domain and take his property? Or does it respect individual property rights and build somewhere else? What factors might tip your data-driven government toward eminent domain vs. respecting the owner's property rights?

What if a comprehensive analysis shows it's better financially to accommodate a politically-connected contributor to the local arts and culture scene by moving the bridge to another suitable location than it is to risk those contributions by building that bridge in the first location?

Even in your data-driven government model, there will be political influence. No government system in history has avoided it.

Conan Says:

"What makes you think that's not how the government plans roads and bridges today?"

I have made no claims about how the government plans roads.

"Are you with the Highway Department? City Planning? Can you testify to personal experience having seen political influence move a bridge or other project from an ideal location to a less-than-suitable one?"

Why would I need to be to have an opinion about wanting the decisions to be data driven?

Wanting the decisions to be data driven has no baring on how the decisions bare out in practice.

If they are data driven then great... if they aren't then I see need for improvement.

Conan, this is what I mean by you setting up strawmen arguments here.

You are making up a position to fight against.

My position is VERY straight forward and always has been... let me quote it again for you from my original statement:

"What I want to see is data based government that is responsive to information."

That is all I said and from this you went off down a giant rabbit hole about collectivism and how this will lead to brutality and the Nazi's, etc...

Everything you are arguing about is a fantasy of your own making having nothing to do with anything I actually said.

You literally transformed a statement about wanting government to be responsive to information into the following counterargument:

"I argued that a government which makes decisions based solely on data/science/reason/logic will end in brutality and totalitarianism; that all such attempts in the past have ended in exactly that way."

Your statement has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

Being responsive to information doesn't in any way shape or form lead to the ridiculous place you have gone with this discussion.

Ben,

There is a fundamental difference between being "abrasive" and writing comedic satire.

Some might have found George Carlin to be "abrasive" due to the nature of his humor, but that doesn't actually mean he was abrasive in reality.

What you are confusing here was the oversensitivity of the church to any perceived criticism whatsoever, regardless of the intellectual merits of the criticism.

You call Galileo abrasive... I call the church overly sensitive... it is a matter of perspective... and the fact that the church locked someone in their house for authoring a book they didn't like suggests maybe, just maybe, they were a bit too sensitive.

Or are you keen on locking away political dissidents who publish works of fiction that rub you the wrong way?

Good night, Artie.

Conan,

Do you recall just recently when we agreed that you would operate as a respectful considerate adult in our conversations?

You aren't doing that when I make the following statement:

"What I want to see is data based government that is responsive to information."

And you then spend paragraphs likening this to supporting an efficient Nazi regime as you did here:

"A data-driven government is efficient government, eh?

However, an efficient government is not a thing greatly to be desired. When a German who lived through the Nazi era was asked what happened, he replied that the government was divorced from humanity; that efficiency was the goal of every government agency (it was with the Soviet government as well). Collectivism craves efficiency and human beings are, by their nature, inefficient."

There is no reasonable straight forward inference between my statement and your response.

You don't simply get from desiring people to gather and carefully consider information prior to making choices that impact the whole of society to marching folks into concentration camps for extermination.

If you were operating as a respectful considerate adult you would recognize your response as being a strawman argument not remotely related to anything I stated.

This is your opportunity to demonstrate that you are an honest and reasonable interlocutor.

Do you recall just recently when we agreed that you would operate as a respectful considerate adult in our conversations? ~ Artemis at April 8, 2020 1:24 AM

Do you recall when I told you that you have tendency to be arrogant and condescending? This is an example of what I was referring to. You put the burden of civility on someone else, because it's never your fault. In addition to arrogance, that's a mark of immaturity, Artie.

And "we agreed" to no such thing. You put up walls and I changed tack to try and get you to see reason - or at least realize there are valid points of view outside of your own. You are resistant to the idea that your point of view is not always the only correct one or that another point of view could have merit. That's the "rigid thinking" on your part that I've repeatedly warned you about.

Artie, "respectful and considerate" does not mean what you think it means. It does not mean "obsequious" or "subservient."

As I told you before, Artie, if you want respect and consideration, you're gonna have to give it. And you don't. Try showing respect and civility here and see how everyone's attitude toward you changes.

Good bye, Artie.

If Galileo did the exact same thing in Spain, France, Habsburg or a dozen other nations he would have been hung. If they were to take his scientific accomplishments into consideration he would have been beheaded instead. That he was placed under lifetime house arrest instead is unusual and notable. The Catholic Church wasn't any more merciful than any of the other governments of the time.

The Catholic Church wasn't any more merciful than any of the other governments of the time.

God to the Pope: "You're extremely cruel but, hey, at least you're not any worse than all the other guys so well done!"

God to the Pope: "You're extremely cruel but, hey, at least you're not any worse than all the other guys so well done!" ~ JD at April 8, 2020 10:38 AM

Don't forget, JD, that in those benighted times imprisonment was usually reserved for the nobility. Until then, commoners who committed crimes met a pretty harsh fate, including capital and corporal punishment for what we might consider relatively minor infractions. A lifetime of house arrest was actually pretty merciful.

As for being "no worse than all the other guys?" The Church had no authority to carry out capital punishments, so it wasn't actually worse.

People then believed in the existence of the Devil and that witches and demons were real. Cruel punishments were intended to force the devil out and redeem the soul of the person being punished. The soul was considered more important than the body it was in.

The sentences handed down by the Inquisition consisted mostly "of penances like wearing a cross sewn on one's clothes, going on pilgrimage, etc. When a suspect was convicted of unrepentant heresy, the inquisitorial tribunal was required by law to hand the person over to secular authorities for final sentencing, at which point a magistrate would determine the penalty, which was usually burning at the stake although the penalty varied based on local law."

And don't confuse the Holy Inquisition with the Spanish Inquisition. They were run under a different authority. The Spanish Inquisition was established by Ferdinand and Isabella in the wake of the Reconquista of Spain and operated completely under royal authority - staffed by clergy and religious orders - and independently of the Vatican. The Spanish Inquisition was effectively medieval Spain's secret police.

Conan Says:

"Do you recall when I told you that you have tendency to be arrogant and condescending? This is an example of what I was referring to. You put the burden of civility on someone else, because it's never your fault. In addition to arrogance, that's a mark of immaturity, Artie."

Oh please.

I made a statement about how I would like to see a government that is responsive to information and you likened that to in some sense supporting a Nazi regime.

There is literally a name for what you did... it is the fallacy called Reductio ad Nazium.

In order to properly formulate a legitimate argument as opposed to a fallacious one you would need to describe in detail how a government that is responsive to information is necessarily causally linked to something like genocide.

Not only haven't you done this, you can't do this because it would require you to conclude that the natural conclusion of information is to justify the extermination of an entire population of people. Is this something you actually believe to be true?

Your response was arrogant, condescending, and down right stupid.

It is no different than you pitifully attempting to redefine the proper usage of due dates involving the word "by".

"And "we agreed" to no such thing."

My mistake... I gave you the chance to demonstrate you were a decent human being.

It turns out you aren't.

"You put up walls and I changed tack to try and get you to see reason - or at least realize there are valid points of view outside of your own. You are resistant to the idea that your point of view is not always the only correct one or that another point of view could have merit. That's the "rigid thinking" on your part that I've repeatedly warned you about."

Your failure to present useful information and your consistent use of fallacious reasoning isn't a problem for me to correct.

It isn't simply "my point of view" that responsiveness to information fails to be linked with the holocaust in a causal or necessary fashion.

You haven't established that link.

Furthermore, if you were to make an attempt to establish such a link what exactly would that say about you as a person?

What information do you believe exists that would justify the Nazi's as some unavoidable end result of the government considering and being responsive to information?

"As I told you before, Artie, if you want respect and consideration, you're gonna have to give it. And you don't. Try showing respect and civility here and see how everyone's attitude toward you changes."

It is always possible that you failed to make a decent argument and that you are guilty of poor reasoning in your argument Conan.

If someone points that out to you it isn't a sign of disrespect or a lack of consideration.

For someone who constantly harps on about arrogance it doesn't appear as if you are capable of admitting when you are in error or when your argument is lacking.

Even with the whole due date thing... you honestly don't know that if someone says they will get you something by Monday that this includes Monday as the latest day?

I had hop for you, but I am pretty convinced at this point that you are just a stupid and insecure person.

You had a chance to operate as a respectful human being... and instead you decided to devolve a conversation into some perverse obsession you have with the Nazi's.

JD,

Isn't it amazing how some folks on this forum constantly whine and complain about totalitarians and authoritarians... and then when we discuss Galileo being locked away by the Church for writing a comedic book suddenly that isn't authoritarian... it is "merciful" and justified by peoples delusional belief in boogiemen and demons.

It gives me the distinct impression that autocratic rule isn't really something they oppose. They just want certain people or groups to be the autocrats.

The church being merciful for locking someone away for writing a work of fiction... good grief.

This post is just for fun to point out the fundamental difference in Conan's description of Galileo's imprisonment for writing a fictional book when he was holding "scientists" of the 1600's accountable... versus when he was forced to acknowledge that it was Church that locked him away for violating their orders that he not voice his evidence supported view that the earth orbited the sun.

Here it was "scientists" convicting him of heresy and locking him away because he was "inconvenient":

"This was not simply a religious persecution - scientists used the Inquisition to rid themselves of someone who was inconvenient to them - not unlike a group of scientist conspiring to prevent scientists with an opposing viewpoint from publishing in any peer-reviewed periodicals they control. The Inquisition, relying on the consensus of the scientists of the day, convicted Galileo of heresy."

and here is the church being "pretty merciful" by only imposing a lifetime of house arrest instead of executing him:

"Don't forget, JD, that in those benighted times imprisonment was usually reserved for the nobility. Until then, commoners who committed crimes met a pretty harsh fate, including capital and corporal punishment for what we might consider relatively minor infractions. A lifetime of house arrest was actually pretty merciful."

Furthermore, this wasn't so bad because of the following:

"People then believed in the existence of the Devil and that witches and demons were real."

It is truly fascinating how people will twist themselves into knots and change their description of events depending upon who is ultimately responsible.

First it was the fault of "scientists" silencing a person merely for holding an alternative point of view... then it was the mercy of the church to protect peoples souls because everyone believed witches and demons were real.

Same actions by Galileo, same punishment... but viewed in an entirely different way depending on who was viewed as enacting the punishment.

There is no logic or reason to be found here. Just a well spring of cognitive bias.

I get the feeling that Conan would accept anything as good or excusable if it were sufficiently cloaked in what he believes comes from a place of conservatism.

Let's get real though... it isn't an act of mercy to lock someone away for writing a work of fiction. That is an act of brutality.

To call it an act of mercy is no different than suggesting an abusive spouse is merciful for choosing to strike with their fist instead of a baseball bat. Both acts are brutal even if one happens to be more brutal than the other.