Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid

Your Risk Isn't Just COVID-19 Symptoms, It's What Comes Later
Do you know the long term harms COVID-19 may do to your brain, lungs, heart, kidneys and the rest of your body?

Over 500,000 persons worldwide have died from the disease -- and one quarter of them used to live in the United States. But there is now increasing evidence that may be only part of the damage the disease can do.

There has been a recent upsurge of young people becoming infected.

Unfortunately, if they are willing to ignore their moral obligation to avoid infecting others -- as apparently many are -- their use of analytical tools such as risk assessment, benefit-cost, and opportunity cost could rationalize their ignoring masks, social distancing and hand washing.

What's the worst that could happen? How serious would that be? How likely is it to happen? They may not become infected. If infected they may have no symptoms. If they have symptoms they may be mild and quickly pass. So the benefit of masking up is relatively small, and the cost of avoiding crowds, the opportunity cost of missing out on social opportunities at parties and beaches, is (in their minds) very high. Their behavior -- if one can overlook their selfish disregard of others -- is marginally understandable.

Videos of hundreds of young folks without masks gathered shoulder to shoulder, ignoring the warnings, makes it seem hopeless. How can their behavior be changed?

What if we were to significantly increase the "cost" side of their equation? And how might we do that? We could "start spreading the news" (to borrow a line from Sinatra's "New York") of the serious after effects of COVID-19 infections -- starting with the human brain and cognitive function (to focus the attention of college students).

In the years to come, it may well be medical professionals who focus on the brain and cognitive function who are seeing and helping many post-COVID patients. The reason is that hypoxia, cardiac dysfunction, blood clots, strokes and similar conditions — all of which have been observed, to one degree or another, in those suffering COVID-19 — can all have long-term effects on brain function and cognition.

Wilfred Van Gorp, "Wave of cognitive disorders in young people from COVID-19," The Hill (Dr. Gorp is the former president of the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology.)

Here are some more excerpts, this time from the BBC: Zoe Cormier, "How Covid-19 can damage the brain; Some scientists suspect that Covid-19 causes respiratory failure and death not through damage to the lungs, but the brain – and other symptoms include headaches, strokes and seizures," BBC, June 22, 2020

For Julie Helms, it started with a handful of patients admitted to her intensive care unit ...and it was not just their breathing difficulties that alarmed her. "[M]any had neurological problems – mainly confusion and delirium,” she says. “this was completely abnormal. It has been very scary, especially because many of the people we treated were very young – many in their 30s and 40s, even an 18-year-old.” [T]he neurological symptoms in their Covid-19 patients, ranging from cognitive difficulties to confusion ... are signs of “encephalopathy” (the general term for damage to the brain) ...

Now, more than 300 studies from around the world have found a prevalence of neurological abnormalities in Covid-19 patients, including mild symptoms like headaches, loss of smell (anosmia) and tingling sensations (arcoparasthesia), up to more severe outcomes such as aphasia (inability to speak), strokes and seizures. This is in addition to recent findings that the virus, which has been largely considered to be a respiratory disease, can also wreak havoc on the kidneys, liver, heart, and just about every organ system in the body.

“In fact, there is a significant percentage of Covid-19 patients whose only symptom is confusion” – they don't have a cough or fatigue, says Robert Stevens, associate professor of anaesthesiology and critical care medicine at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland. “We are facing a secondary pandemic of neurological disease,” says Stevens. “We’ve now learned that the disease affects many different organ systems: patients can die not only from lung failure, but also neurological manifestations. If you had asked me a month ago if there was any published evidence that Sars-CoV-2 could cross the blood-brain barrier, I would have said no – but there are now many reports showing that it absolutely can,” says Stevens.

In fact, some scientists now suspect that the virus causes respiratory failure and death not through damage to the lungs but through damage to the brainstem, the command centre that ensures we continue to breathe even when unconscious. ... The brain is normally shielded from infectious diseases by what is known as the “blood-brain barrier” – a lining of specialised cells inside the capillaries running through the brain and spinal cord. These block microbes and other toxic agents from infecting the brain. If Sars-CoV-2 can cross this barrier, it suggests that not only can the virus get into the core of the central nervous system, but also that it may remain there, with the potential to return years down the line.

Though rare, this Lazarus-like behaviour is not unknown among viruses: the chickenpox virus Herpes zoster, for example, commonly infects the nerve cells in the spine, later reappearing in adulthood as shingles – roughly 30% of people who experienced chickenpox in childhood will develop shingles at some point in their lives. ... David Nutt, professor of neuropsychopharmacology at Imperial College London, says he himself treated many patients in the 1970s and 1980s who had suffered from severe clinical depression ever since the 1957 influenza pandemic in the UK. “Their depression was enduring and it was solid – it was as if their emotional circuits had all been switched off,” he says, warning that we could see the very same thing happen again, but on a much larger scale. “People who are discharged from the ICU with Covid-19 need to be monitored systematically long-term for any evidence of neurological damage – and then given interventionist treatments if necessary.”

And in Pittsburgh, through the Global Consortium Study of Neurological Dysfunction in Covid-19, Sherry Chou, a neurologist at the University of Pittsburgh, has coordinated scientists from 17 countries to collectively monitor the neurological symptoms of the pandemic, including through brain scans. ... Although the virus’s impact on the lungs is the most immediate and terrifying threat, the lasting impact on the nervous system may be far larger and far more devastating, says Chou. "Recovery from neurological injuries is often incomplete and can take much longer compared to other organ systems (for example, lung), and therefore result in much greater overall disability, and possibly more death,” she says.

The final sentence reads, "Patients experiencing lung failure can be put on a respirator, and kidneys can be rescued with a dialysis machine – and, with some luck, both organs will bounce back. But there is no dialysis machine for the brain."

See also, Julie Helms, et al, Strasbourg University Hospital, Strasbourg, France, "Neurologic Features in Severe SARS-CoV-2 Infection," Letter, New England Journal of Medicine, June 4, 2020.

There may be a subsequent blog post regarding the other medical conditions that can be triggered by COVID-19 infections. Until then, here's a Fortune magazine article that groups the potential consequences by areas of the body: Blood, Brain, Eyes, Gastrointestinal tract, Hands, Heart, Limbs, Liver, Lungs, Kidneys, Nose and tongue, Skin, and Toes. "What are the potential long-term effects of having COVID-19?" Associated Press, Fortune Magazine, June 16, 2020

# # #

Syria, Terrorism, Craziness and Common Sense

If you're looking for material regarding University of Iowa, its new President Bruce Harreld, and the Iowa Board of Regents, CLICK HERE.

Sober Risk Assessment Needed to Respond to Terror
Nicholas Johnson
Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 28, 2015, p. A11
There’s so much craziness involved in our response to “terrorism,” and potential Syrian refugees. Where to begin?

Let’s start with risk assessment.

It turns out that fear of dying in a terrorist attack is like a two-pack-a-day cigarette smoker with a fear of flying.

About 3000 people died in the Twin Towers collapse, September 11, 2001. But that number die every month of every year from guns. An equal number die every month in automobiles. Over 7000 die every month from alcohol related causes. Tobacco contributes to 40,000 deaths a month – a risk for our cigarette smoker 10,000 or more times greater than airlines. [Photo credit: Unknown]

Your risks from the most bizarre accident you can imagine is greater than your risk of a terrorist act.

Will we have more U.S. radical jihadist terrorist attacks? Probably; mostly home grown. Can we stop all of them? Of course not. Would more NSA surveillance of Americans help? Probably not. There was advance intelligence about terrorists’ suspicious flight training, and Osama bin Laden’s intention to strike New York. The Russians told us about the Boston Marathon bombers. ISIS’ attacks in Paris were masterminded by someone well known to authorities. Making the haystack bigger doesn’t make the needle easier to find.

It has been suggested that we admit Christians from Syria, but not Muslims – indeed that all U.S. Muslims be issued identity cards and entered in a database.

There are so many thing wrong with such violations of our values and Constitution. We don‘t punish religions. Moreover, if we’re going to do it anyway, we need to single out Christians not Muslims. Christians have committed multiples more domestic terrorist acts than Muslims.

When emotions run high, we need to recall our shame at refusing to welcome German Jewish refugees before World War II. Provoked by politicians, Americans’ fear the Jews might be communists caused our government to turn the Jews’ boats around and send them back to their death at the hands of Nazis.

If we’re going to respond to events in Paris with anything beyond what we’re already doing, refusing to take Syrian refugees is one of the worst things we could do. Not only will it fail to make us safer, it will help to make ISIS stronger.

Focusing on Syrians rather than Europeans is like focusing on Afghans after planeloads of Saudis, funded by other Saudis, brought down the Twin Towers. Not only were the Paris bombers Europeans, not Syrians, as such they could easily enter the U.S. as tourists.

Nearly 35 million foreigners visit our country every year – many don’t even need visas. If we don’t fear admitting those 35 million, without vetting them, by what logic do we refuse to take 10,000 Syrians who have gone through years of the most intense vetting imaginable?

Since 9/11 we have admitted 785,000 refugees into our country. During those 14 years only three have been arrested on terrorism-related charges. That’s 0.0004 of 1 percent. There’s no credible reason to believe our vetting of Syrians will be significantly less successful.

Over 10 million Syrians have left their homes. Europe has welcomed them. We can’t accept 1/10th of 1% of that number?

Bear in mind, ISIS is not trying to take over our 3 million square miles, or kill our 300 million people. This is not your grandfather’s war. ISIS is just trying to terrorize us, to make us fearful. When we build more chain-link fences and hire more security guards, when we can’t enter an airplane – or even a college football stadium – without being frisked or x-rayed, they’ve won.

Our military presence in the Middle East has helped them recruit far more suicide bombers than we’ve ever killed. And our leaving Syria’s young people with no option but to join ISIS will do the same.
___________________
Nicholas Johnson, Iowa City native, managed sealift to Viet Nam when serving as U.S. Maritime Administrator, and maintains FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com Contact: mailbox@nicholasjohnson.org

# # #

Nuclear Power's Future

March 18, 2011, 10:00 a.m.

[March 19: Addition of new paragraph 5, "Predicting the Unpredictable," and, following the blog entry, responses to some blog readers' comments.]

Iowans' "Absolute Safety" from Nuclear Disaster Impossible to Achieve
["[W]e need to be willing to invest [in energy]. But if the investment is in nuclear energy, it must be absolutely safe." Editorial, "Nuclear Energy in Iowa Must be Used Safely," Iowa City Press-Citizen, March 19, 2011, p. A13.]

What is, what should be, America's and Iowa's nuclear power plant future?

The blog essay I'd like to write on the subject will take more time, over time, than I have to devote to it this morning.

So here are some bullet points that, with luck, I'll be able to expand upon over time.

1. Conservation and Population. Our greatest source of the very cheapest energy is conservation. To focus solely on the energy supply side is like earning and borrowing ever more money each year in the futile effort to satisfy all of one's escalating wants, manipulated by a consumerist culture and economy, rather than budgeting and evaluating one's values and true needs. Conservation examples: encouraging more walking and use of bicycles, where feasible, rather than cars; relying proportionately more on urban and cross-country rail, rather than trucks and cars; transferring the tens of billions of dollars earmarked for the nuclear industry to an aggressive home insulation program.

Even less politically popular than conservation would be zero growth population policies. But, of course, the grim reality is that the world's population has gone from 300 million 2000 years ago, to one billion in 1800, 2 billion by 1927, 3 billion by 1960, 4 billion by 1974, 5 billion by 1987, 6 billion by 1999 -- on to a projected 9 billion by 2050. That's 1800 years to add 700 million, 127 years to add the second billion, 33 years to add the third, 14 years to add the fourth billion, 13 years to add the fifth, and 12 years to reach 6 billion.

There has been a three-fold increase in population just during my lifetime. But of course the increase in energy demand grows even faster than population. As a reader wrote me, "World population continues to increase at an alarming rate. Even if we could completely stop population growth tomorrow, people in India and China want our quality of life. They want cars, big houses, appliances, and lots of fancy electronic things. The need for energy will continue to skyrocket." Even if the world's people continued to use energy, per person, at the rates they do today, imagine the difference it would make if there were only half as many people to use (and waste) energy as there are now.

2. No Utopias. There is no single, perfect answer to our energy needs. No matter what we do, there will continue to be climate change, death and injury to civilian populations, and obviously the workers (e.g., the Japanese nuclear plant workers who are dying and will die as I write; those who died on BP's offshore drilling rig, and in the Massey coal mines, last year; those whose health is affected by polluted air and water; those who will suffer property damage, injury and death from exploding natural gas pipelines).

3. The Mix. We will undoubtedly continue to draw upon a mix of sources. Were we to put a multiple of present resources behind wind, solar, biomass, and hydro (which are not devoid of downsides) they could contribute a great deal more than they do now. But for the foreseeable future we are going to continue to have a significant reliance on coal, oil, natural gas -- and nuclear (now providing about 20% of our electric energy).

4. Risk Assessment. Assessing the risk of any event, from falling downstairs to a nuclear disaster, involves, among others, at least two factors: (a) What are the odds, the likelihood, that the event will occur? (b) If it does occur, how serious (i.e., costly in property damage and human life and health) would it be?

There are about 442 operating nuclear reactors in the world; four failed in the Fukushima Daiichi Plant. That is one percent of the world's reactors. Individuals will differ as to how likely a risk that is. But few would differ on the potential seriousness of the consequences should it occur. Coal mining and offshore oil drilling also pose risks to the environment and human life; the likelihood of their occurring are greater than for a nuclear disaster; but the quantity of the impact on human life and health is much less than a nuclear disaster when they do occur.

5. Predicting the Unpredictable. Whether dealing with possible terrorist threats to our airline industry, or the next big thing to threaten the safety of a nuclear reactor, it's much easier to respond to the last threat than to anticipate the next. One airline passenger puts a bomb in his shoe, and the next two million passengers have to take their shoes off before boarding. It's like the southern folktale, "The Story of Epaminondas and His Auntie." (E.g., Epaminondas brings home cake in his hand, turning it to crumbs, and is told he should have put it under his hat. The next day he's sent for butter, brings it home under his hat, where it melts down his face. The pattern continues.)

We're always working on the last threat, rather than preparing for the next. Was a nuclear power plant built to withstand a 7.2 magnitude earthquake "safe"? Sure -- until it's hit with a magnitude 9 earthquake, followed by a tsunami. We can build nuclear reactors to withstand the threats we have either dealt with before, or those we can imagine. But ironically, the very fact there have been so few nuclear reactor disasters means that it is even more difficult to predict what may trigger the next one. All we can know with certainty is that it will probably involve an event that no one predicted.

6. Decommissioning. Like natural gas pipelines that can corrode or otherwise increase the risk of ruinous explosions and fires with the passage of time, so do nuclear reactors. Among other things, the bombarding nuclear activity and heat can weaken the safety structures. Some engineers are suggesting the Fukushima reactors either were scheduled for decommissioning, or should have been, before now. Apparently, a forty-year operating life (which these had) is close to the outer reaches of safe operation. That would mean that the reactors in the U.S. that were constructed prior to 1971, which is a goodly number of them, are due to be decommissioned -- or, as in Germany, at least shut down and subjected to a very, very thorough stress and safety check (an approach rejected by the President and nuclear industry). Not incidentally, decommissioning is a lengthy and costly process, which is but one of the reasons the profit-driven nuclear and electric utility industries have a motive for pushing their luck.

7. Corruption and Capture. Warnings tend to be ignored. Massey's safety record was well known by government and within the industry. Ditto for BP. Ditto for nuclear. In the 1960s, GE's Mark I -- the reactor built at Daiichi -- was touted as a more economical source of nuclear power. Engineers inside and outside the company warned that the cost savings increased safety hazards. Some predicted years ago the precise scenario we have been witnessing over the last ten days in Japan.

In the case of BP, the "regulatory" agency employees were literally sleeping with the industry, while accepting on faith BP's representations regarding the safety of its operations. As a rough rule of thumb, major companies and industries get a return of 1000-to-one on their campaign contributions; give a million, get a billion. One form of that return is watered down, or non-existent, regulation as a result of Congressional, or Presidential intervention.

Unfortunately, this can also take the form of public officials essentially echoing industry propaganda. It was only days before the BP loss of life and ecological disaster that President Obama was assuring Americans that, because of technological improvements, any harm from offshore drilling was virtually impossible. More recently, the President and his Administration have been touting both the necessity and safety of his multi-billion-dollar push for more nuclear power plants. Not incidentally, he has recently appointed the CEO of GE -- the company that stands to gain the most from increased nuclear power plant construction (and whose officers were major Obama campaign contributors, not to mention the executives of MSNBC) -- to a top White House position, while essentially ignoring the ongoing, and unresolved, problems associated with nuclear waste disposal.

8. Increased Nuclear Safety Possible, but Unlikely. There is much that can be done to decrease -- not eliminate, but decrease -- the risk of nuclear disaster. Examples might include stronger containment vessels, removing (or at least not putting new) reactors that are close to major urban centers, drinking water supplies, or seismic fault lines. Unfortunately, for the reasons set forth above (7. "Corruption and Capture") such measures are unlikely to be as vigorously pursued as good science and rational policy would dictate.

9. Who pays? Not incidentally, it is we, as utility ratepayers and taxpayers, who pay for nuclear generated power plants. They are essentially a freebee for shareholders. Sometimes ratepayers must pay in advance of construction; always they will pay eventually in higher rates; and always they will pay as taxpayers following a major disaster. It's another example of "free private enterprise for the poor and socialism for the rich."

Moreover, there's a lesson to be learned from the lack of "free market" response to the nuclear "opportunity," even with billions of dollars from Washington. The relatively low price of domestic natural gas, the enormous (multi-billion-dollar) cost per reactor, the unsolved problem of nuclear waste, and the enormous safety concerns (even if taxpayers pick up most of the economic costs of disasters) have discouraged potential investors from building nuclear power plants over the past couple decades. Sometimes, as citizens, we need to listen to the marketplace in shaping public policy -- even if, as ratepayers and taxpayers, we are willing to be snookered by the utilities and their kept public officials.
_____
[The author of an anonymous comment on this blog says, in part, "To verify my sincerity I can tell you that I live within 10 miles of a plant similar to the ones in Japan except for a few important facts. 1. It is not on a fault line. . . ."

Now I'm not about to predict an earthquake in Iowa, or that if one were to occur Iowa's nuclear power plants would be at risk. After all, how could I know? Besides, the 1811 earthquake epicenter was somewhat south of Iowa, between Missouri and Illinois. But I do note that three months ago FEMA thought an earthquake in this region is "a significant risk today."

The [1811] earthquake took place in the New Madrid Seismic Zone (NMSZ), which is the site of several of the largest historical earthquakes to ever strike the continental U.S. and remains a significant risk today. . . . The earthquake caused strong shaking throughout the central U.S. . . . its impacts were felt as far away as Washington and Ohio . . . [and] caused large areas to be uplifted or dropped down in elevation.

Since then, the regions along the NMSZ have experienced explosive growth in both population and infrastructure. Another series of earthquakes with the magnitude of the 1811 earthquakes could prove catastrophic to the region.

"On The 199th Anniversary of New Madrid Quake, FEMA Urges the Public To Be Prepared Today," FEMA/Department of Homeland Security, December 16, 2010.

The same comment author says, "The biggest difference [between the nuclear power plant in Fukushima, Japan, and the one in Palo, Iowa] is that in the U.S. we NEVER put 6 reactors in one place. When this is done you just end up with a problem waiting to happen." However, the March 19, 2011, Gazette reports that Palo, where there is already a 37-year-old reactor, is at least one of the possible sites for a second reactor. The story details some of the advantages of putting a new one there, but omits to mention the increased risks noted by the comment author. Rick Smith, "MidAmerican downplays mention of Palo as nuke site, but some say it makes good sense," The Gazette, March 19, 2011, p. A1.]

# # #

The Oxymoron of "Corporate Responsibility"

July 16, 2010, 9:00 a.m.

[For BP disaster see, "Uncanny Prediction of BP Disaster & Response," June 10, 2010; "BP's Commercial: Shame on Media," June 9; "Big Oil: Calling Shots, Corrupting Government," May 26, 2010; "Obama As Finger-Pointer-In-Chief," May 18, 2010; "Big Oil + Big Corruption = Big Mess," May 10, 2010; "P&L: Public Loss From Private Profit," May 3, 2010.]

Corporate Risk Assessment and Inevitable Disaster
(bought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
Sat next to a business consultant on a recent flight. Got to talking about Massey and BP. His contention: It's all just about risk assessment. However conscious and precise we may be about the process (whether we're driving a car or drilling miles beneath the ocean's surface), it goes something like this: What are the potential rewards from our risky behavior? What are those risks? How serious would it be if the worst occurred? What is the likelihood it will occur? (Perception of risk -- or more often mis-perception -- is another matter, as when someone fears flying (despite the relatively slight risk) but continues smoking (despite its almost inevitable risks).) Anyone in business is under enormous pressure to both increase profits and decrease costs; in other words to gradually assume ever increasing risks of harm -- to employees, customers, the environment, or the global economy -- until the inevitable disaster occurs.

Goldman Sachs. "Goldman Sachs has agreed to pay $550 million to settle federal claims that it misled investors in a subprime mortgage product as the housing market began to collapse . . .." Notwithstanding the payment, "Goldman did not formally admit to the S.E.C.’s allegations . . .." Now, how credible is that stance? You don't admit to any wrongdoing, but you pay the $550 million fine anyway? Even if you earned over $13 billion, $550 million is a little more than one normally pays to settle a nuisance suit. Moreover, Goldman Sachs "agreed to a judicial order barring it from committing intentional fraud in the future . . .." What a concession from a Wall Street firm! That really stings, and should substantially cut into their future profits. Wow, agreeing to forgo the ability to engage in "intentional fraud." Sewell Chan and Louise Story, "S.E.C. Settling Its Complaints With Goldman," New York Times, January 16, 2010, p. A1.

When grief or anger become seemingly unbearable, we sometimes redirect it into humor. So it is with Harry Shearer's catchy, bouncy, "Mr. Goldman and Mr. Sachs" ("spinning gold out of flax, Mr. Goldman and Mr. Sachs"). Give it a listen; available from Amazon and iTunes.

Massey Coal. It's now come to light that Massey Coal (in whose mine 29 miners died last April) has deliberately applied its risk assessment analysis to miners' safety.

An NPR News investigation has documented a dangerous and potentially illegal act at the Upper Big Branch mine in West Virginia two months before a massive April explosion killed 29 mine workers.

On Feb. 13, an electrician deliberately disabled a methane gas monitor on a continuous mining machine because the monitor repeatedly shut down the machine.

Three witnesses say the electrician was ordered by a mine supervisor to "bridge" the automatic shutoff mechanism in the monitor.

Methane monitors are mounted on the massive, 30-foot-long continuous miners because explosive gas can collect in pockets near the roofs of mines. Methane can be released as the machine cuts into rock and coal. The spinning carbide teeth that do the cutting send sparks flying when they cut into rock. The sparks and the gas are an explosive mix, so the methane monitor is designed to signal a warning and automatically shut down the machine when gas approaches dangerous concentrations.

Howard Berkes, "Massey Mine Workers Disabled Safety Monitor," NPR, July 15, 2010.

There was a risk. But it would result in greater production -- and profits. A worst case scenario was possible, but not inevitable. Sometimes they got away with it. This time they didn't.

BP. BP didn't get away with its cost-saving risk either. By now, everyone's familiar with BP's risk assessment process. The prior blog entries on that one are linked at the top of this blog entry. That company has so often weighted potential cost savings over risks to worker safety and environmental disaster that it amasses hundreds of safety violations (including the Artic spill and Texas City) when other oil companies have less than a handful.

GlaxoSmithKline's Avandia (rosiglitazone). Public Citizen's Health Research Group reports,

3.1 million prescriptions [for Avandia] were filled in 2008. But Avandia is associated with heart failure, heart attacks, liver toxicity, bone fractures, low red blood cell count and macular (retinal) edema with vision loss.

Public Citizen petitioned the FDA to revise the labeling for Avandia due to multiple safety issues in 2000. In 2007 a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine associated the drug with a 43 percent increase in the risk of heart attacks.

"Avandia," Public Citizen Health Research Group.

As an indication of the ties between the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry, as well as the complexities of risk assessment, an FDA advisory panel recently voted 20 to 12 to recommend that GlaxoSmithKline should be permitted to continue to profit from the millions of pills. A vote of 20-12 on such a death risk reminds me of my days on the seven-person FCC, when we would vote 4 to 3 to send a colleague a get-well card. Bear in mind, this same FDA committee, by a vote of 21 to 4, agreed not only that Avandia carries a risk of death from heart attack, but that the risk is much higher from Avandia than from alternative medicines that could be used instead. Matthew Perrone, "FDA Panel Votes to Keep Avandia On the Market," AP/MSNBC, July 14, 2010.

Have you seen the latest commercial for Avandia? The list of side effects goes on seemingly forever. I don't think a diabetic should "ask your doctor if Avandia is right for you," I think if a doctor recommends it diabetics should "ask yourself if your doctor is right for you."

Other examples. These are only the most recent examples. There are hundreds of others. A couple that spring immediately to mind are Bhopal (Union Carbide chemical spill; 500,000 exposed, 15,000 killed) and Three Mile Island (partial core meltdown of Babcock & Wilcox nuclear reactor).

That the U.S. electric utilities chose to save money by managing the nation's electric grid through the Internet, rather than a more secure system, is a monumental calamity just waiting to happen. Siobahn Gorman, "Electricity Grid in U.S. Penetrated by Spies," Wall Street Journal, April 8, 2009, ("Cyberspies have penetrated the U.S. electrical grid and left behind software programs that could be used to disrupt the system, according to current and former national-security officials.").

And see generally, Nicholas Johnson, "'The Corporation' and the Search for Agreement," October 1, 2004 (a commentary prompted by the film "The Corporation").

Obama as "socialist."

Meanwhile, the Tea Party has TPed a Mason City billboard as the organization's own Mount Rushmore, likening President Obama to Hitler and Lenin and indicting the three of them as socialists. Jennifer Jacobs, "Iowa Politics Insider: More Fallout From Obama/Hitler Tea Party Billboard," Des Moines Register, July 15, 2010.

As for "Leaders Prey on the Fearful & Naive" slug at the bottom of their billboard, I'd suggest the TP folks take a look in the mirror, and a second look at those they follow on radio and TV, and as speakers at their rallies.

I won't write at length about the TP's choice and characterization of Hitler and Lenin. Obviously, they have been chosen as characters to despise, in the Republican/TP's efforts to do everything they can to make Obama fail (as they have openly acknowledged). Never mind that if he fails, America fails.

Frankly, each of the disasters noted above have involved not socialism -- government ownership of means of production -- but a form of fascism, fascist corporatism, or more simply put, political corruption, the domination of political and regulatory institutions by large corporations. "Agency capture," to a lesser or greater degree, was a factor in each of the noted disasters.

Indeed, if only Obama were a socialist we would have long since clawed our way out of the global economic collapse brought on by Goldman Sachs and others. When 80 percent of our economy is driven by consumer spending, unemployment (including that which is not reported) runs closer to 20 than 10 percent, and consumers are, not irrationally, saving rather than spending, you can't create an economic turn-around by giving money to corporate executives and calling it a "jobs program."

Darkening consumer confidence and plunging prices combined with a generally dismal outlook to dampen hopes for a quick economic recovery. . . . "Consumers are facing three major hurdles," Art Hogan, chief market strategist at Jefferies & Co., said in an interview. "They are paying down their debt, their houses are not worth as much as they were two years ago and they're staring down the barrel of 10 percent unemployment." . . . Taken together, the week's economic data suggest that a global recovery will be staggered and sluggish in getting off the ground. Consumers -- the engine of the U.S. economy -- are catching few breaks.

Frank Ahrens, "Drops in Consumer Confidence, Prices Temper Recovery," Washington Post, July 15, 2010.

Businesses won't provide additional employment until they see a reason to increse production. There's no reason to increase production unless consumers are going to spend. Consumers aren't going to spend if they're concerned they, too, may soon be unemployed.

"Trickle down" never works, but especially not at this time. What we need is trickle up.

If Obama were a socialist he would have created a federal, employer-of-last-resort, jobs program that would have immediately (FDR's programs were in place in a month) put everyone on a payroll. Give the unemployed a job, the confidence they won't be fired, and the money that goes with it, and they'll use the money to buy stuff they need, not increase their savings accounts. Their purchases will require increased production; increased production will increase private sector employment. Gradually those on the federal payroll will be picked up by private employers.

Now that's a real jobs program. Recession reversed; global economic collapse averted. Corporations profiting from their business sense, not their political dollars -- and our taxpayer bailouts of the wealthy. See generally, "Unemployment Answer is Jobs Not Bailouts," February 6, 2010.

What the TPers ought to get angry about (and, in fairness, to some extent do) is a "capitalism" in which successful businesses keep all of their profits, and unsuccessful businesses pass their losses on to the taxpayer. "Heads I win, tails you lose."

"Socialism" is the Interstate highway system, public schools, libraries, museums, local police and fire protection, the military, and a national, state and local system of parks. I kind of like that socialism, and feel that it often provides me a greater return on my investment of taxes than what I sometimes end up with from the capitalists.

How ironic that the TPers would choose "socialist" as one of their favorite pejoratives for Obama, when he is, apparently, one of the few Americans who appears to be even more frightened of the word than they are.
_______________

* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself.
-- Nicholas Johnson
# # #

UI Held Hostage Day 486 - Secrecy Issues & Other UI Items

May 22, 2007, 7:30 a.m.

UI President Search Updates and Other UI Items
ProLog For presidential candidates and others interested in what's going on at the University of Iowa, I have earlier referred you to our distinguished Executive Vice President and Provost Michael J. Hogan's Web site. To this he has now added his personal blog, creatively christened "ProLog." It will be well worth a regular look, as he says, "It’s my hope to update things here every few days."

Abolish Presidency? Had the Regents simply left Provost Hogan in charge after President David Skorton's departure to Cornell University not only would they have provided the smoothest transition in the University's history, Hogan would soon be into his second year. Yesterday morning's Press-Citizen carries a letter to the editor that suggests something along this line. Julie Spencer, "Let's Just Get Rid of President's Position," Iowa City Press-Citizen, May 21, 2007, p. 11A ("perhaps the best remedy to this ongoing debacle is do away with the president's position altogther").

Pounding Nails Mary Gilchrist, former director of the UI Hygienic Lab, was -- I think it accurate to say -- "fired." Whether her advocacy for the lab was "insubordination" or "whistle blowing" is still in litigation. Whatever a judge may decide, the Massachusetts State Laboratory decided it was exactly the kind of leadership they wanted. She's gone; they've got her now. Hieu Pham, "Gilchrist Lands Job at Mass. Lab," Iowa City Press-Citizen, May 21, 2007, p. 1A. (Hieu Pham quotes Gilchrist as saying, "I think one has to do the right thing, and the consequences cannot be the major factor that determines what one does.")

"Bob," a former employee of Chrysler, said of his former working environment: "if you speak up about an issue, you are considered the nail to be pounded down, not an angel spreading the 'quality word.'" It's a common institutional observation -- and complaint. On May 3 I wrote that "Skorton is the former UI president who was run off by lesser mortals . . .." Nicholas Johnson, "UI Held Hostage Day 467 - UI's Stealth President," May 3, 2007. It produced the following comment to that blog entry from "Obadiah Plainman": "As an attorney, one would think you would know better than to use heresay [sic] to prove a case." It was a fair criticism. (Though I had some credible sources, I didn't feel I had permission to use them). I should have said, "some feel," or "it is rumored that."

But whatever the cause, whatever the characterization, in my opinion the UI is the poorer for the loss of Gilchrist as well as Skorton.

Does Iowa's Open Meetings Apply to Presidential Searches? Last Sunday, upon my return to the blogosphere, I wrote, "I haven't even had time to go through the last ten days' newspapers, . . .. Meanwhile, here are some random items." See Nicholas Johnson, "UI Held Hostage Day 484 - May 20 - Back to Blogosphere," May 20, 2007.

"John Barleykorn" responded with the following comment: "What, no response to your former boss saying the Board of Regents isn't bound by the open meetings law?" It was a reference to N. William Hines, "Law Doesn't Support Charges," Iowa City Press-Citizen, May 14, 2007, p. 11A ("Before the open meetings law zealots storm the university with torches and pitchforks, they and the media that hypes their concerns would do well to real carefully the Iowa law they so righteously champion . . ..")

The only reason I didn't mention this Sunday was because I hadn't yet seen it.

As I did write on Sunday:

The position of Search Committee II is "we will only comply with Iowa's open meetings law if our candidates are willing to be law abiding -- but a few of what we think are our best candidates are scofflaws and we feel we need to accommodate them." I addressed this position before I took my blog break. My position was, in effect, "if you want to violate the law at least make a stab at coming up with a legal argument as to why all of its provisions are inapplicable to what you're doing." See Nicholas Johnson, "But Before I Do . . ." in "UI Held Hostage Day 472 - Beagle's Landing; More Secrecy," May 8, 2007.

What Search Committee II decided it would do -- over the objections of Iowa's governor and the President of the Board of Regents -- was that it would comply with a part of the notice provisions, but not all: they would reveal when they would be interviewing candidates but not where.

Bill Hines is a distinguished legal scholar and teacher, one of the longest serving law school deans in American history, and one who was selected by his colleagues as President of the American Association of Law Schools. He's also a personal friend, has been a basketball player of some considerable skill, and continues to be able to find the most illusive fish in Minnesota. In short, his analysis of the Iowa Open Meetings Law is somewhere between persuasive and entitled to great respect.

Where I totally agree with him is that if Search Committee II wants to take the position that it is somehow exempt from open meetings requirements its legal argument needs to be structured as he has tried to present it. Thankfully, he does not even try to make a case for Search Committee II selectively picking from the act the provisions with which it will (date and time of meeting) and will not (where the meeting is to take place) comply -- as the Committee did. He just flat out argues that the act is not applicable to Search Committee II at all.

I also agree that the Supreme Court of Iowa might (but not, as he argues, "would surely") buy his interpretation.

Finally, I agree with his unstated assertion -- as Professor Arthur Bonfield and I have argued elsewhere -- that the Legislature needs to revisit many of the provisions of the Iowa Open Meetings Law, including those affecting this search.

Where I respectfully disagree -- as I have repeatedly argued in these blog entries -- is that the language of the act can only be interpreted in the way he suggests. I analyze it differently. I believe that Search Committee II is covered by its terms. All of them.

But arguing about such interpretations is what lawyers (and law professors) do. (And although it is somewhere between difficult and impossible for others -- including our spouses -- to comprehend, at its best it is our bizarre way of bonding and strengthening personal respect and affection.)

Clearly, his position is not universally held. There are lots of us "open meetings law zealots" out here.

On the same page with Dean Hines' op ed is Duncan Stewart, "UI Search Candidates' Names Should be Public," Iowa City Press-Citizen, May 14, 2007, p. 11A ("Anyone who wants to lead Iowa's largest university . . . should have the backbone and intellectual standing to make their application public").

And clearly Harold Hammond, an emeritus professor in the department of oral pathology, radiology and medicine, and his lawyer, Iowa City attorney Gregg Geerdes, do not buy the Dean's legal analysis. "Hammond is asking the court to void any and all actions taken by the search committee, stop the defendants from violating the laws again and compensation for attorney's fees." Kathryn Fiegen, "Emeritus Professor Sues Regents, Search Committee," Iowa City Press-Citizen, May 19, 2007, p. 1A.

Secrecy Issues: What's Really At Stake? OK, let's put the legal issues aside for now, and try to understand (a) what are the legitimate issues of concern to presidential candidates regarding secrecy, and (b) if and how Search Committee II's approach is responsive to those concerns.

There seems, to me, to be an internal inconsistency in the Committee's logic and process. I'm the first to acknowledge that may well be because I just don't know -- or understand -- what they've done and why.

During their interview process secrecy has been a paramount concern -- up to and including a willingness to violate the law (in the view of some lawyers, journalists, the Governor of Iowa and the President of the Board of Regents). But now, during the interim between their interviews (May 13 and 14) and passing four names on to the Board of Regents (sometime in June), "In a unanimous decision, the group voted to schedule campus visits for 'several candidates' before forwarding a final slate to the Iowa state Board of Regents." (Of course, the Committee hasn't yet figured out how that is going to work. "The search committee also decided to form a subcommittee to devise ways the on-campus interviews could happen . . ..") Kathryn Fiegen, "UI Finalists Will Interview on Campus; Search Group Decision Unanimous," Iowa City Press-Citizen, May 19, 2007, p. A1.

Now I'm not trying to be cute or critical. I'm really just trying to understand what this is about.

Fiegen quotes one member of the Committee as saying, "An abbreviated process may be necessary to keep some candidates in the pool." An earlier story reported, "The committee says exposure would cause 'needless and irreparable harm,' . . . [And, from another Committee member:] being a known candidate can jeopardize someone's current job. 'Outside academia, people have a hard time understanding,' . . .." Brian Morelli, "Search Committee Proceeds With Plans; Group Enters Closed Session in Undisclosed Location," Iowa City Press-Citizen, May 12, 2007, p. 3A.

Now there is some question as to whether "being a known candidate" really does cause a candidate harm. Indeed, I am informed that some of these candidates, engaging in secret interviews, are the very ones leaking the fact they are under consideration -- precisely because it enhances their reputation in their current position, and may even be the basis for a pay raise.

And given what appears to be most Americans willingness to be moved at any time for an increase in pay, prestige and power, can't it be reasonably assumed that almost every university president and provost is continuously searching for new opportunities? That being the reality, what's the big deal about acknowledging it?

But let's put all that aside as well, and assume for the moment that to be known as a potential president of the University of Iowa is something no one would ever want known because of the "irreparable harm" to their reputation -- something close, I gather, to the legal standard for "defamation."

Accepting that, why does the need for secrecy only extend to their being interviewed by Search Committee II? Why is it not equally applicable to their showing up on campus? Assuming that we are not going to follow the advice from The Gazette that they all show up with pillow cases over their heads (the paper offered to supply them) [Editorial, "The Pillowcase Option," The Gazette, May 9, 2007, p. 4A] won't their identity then be known -- back home as well as in Iowa City?

Is this just a problem in risk assessment, and benefit-cost analysis, for these gamblers playing the odds? That is, having one's identity revealed at any stage is a cause of "irreparable harm," but the odds of actually being chosen improve as the process progresses. When you're one of 100 or more potential candidates the odds of being selected are slight, and the harm is substantial. When you're one of four finalists, the harm is just as great, but the odds of you actually being selected are much better; thus, the reality of significant harm (from being known to be a candidate) is outweighed by the relatively good odds of receiving the even greater benefit of becoming the UI president.

(Dean Hines' interpretation of the law may be found to be correct. Or the Legislature may revise the law to exclude universities' presidential searches from open meetings requirements. It may be it will be decided that the public and media have absolutely no right to know about this process. That's within the power of our democratically elected representatives to decide. But if we do have a need and right to know what is going on, at what stage in the process does that right come into being? Are the identities of the 100 or so candidates who have been rejected by Search Committee II of no relevance to our understanding the process?

Recall what the 19th Century New York City political Boss William Tweed is credited with having said, “I don’t care who does the electing just so long as I do the nominating.” By the time Search Committee II has done the "nominating" -- whether of those who come for campus visits, or the four they forward on to the Board of Regents -- it leaves relatively few choices for "who does the electing."

Our national parties' presidential candidates used to be selected as our UI president is being selected. A "smoked-filled, back room of Party leaders" would do the nominating. The voters' choices were limited to two candidates: one Republican and one Democrat. Today's caucuses and primaries open the nominating as well as the election process to the public and media. Of course, there may be more reason for secrecy surrounding the selection of the President of the University of Iowa than for the President of the United States.

To reveal only the names of some list of "finalists" may be a pragmatic compromise, all considered. But it is just that: a compromise. It is not -- to me, at this time -- a reasoned position.)

And the Committee is saying that "several candidates" will visit the campus -- following which four names will be submitted to the Board. So are we talking numbers here? It would be devastating to an educational administrator were it to become known that he or she was among the "less than 20" interviewed at a secret location, but it is somehow perfectly OK to be one of, say, seven candidates visiting the campus?

And what's this "abbreviated process" about -- a reference to campus visits that are compressed into a relatively shorter time period (say, three or four days rather than a couple of weeks)? There's no "irreparable harm" to having it known that you were a part of an "abbreviated process" at Iowa, but if the University takes its time, and does a little more thorough job of getting to know a number of finalists (and they the University), somehow your career is ruined? Isn't this like a "little bit pregnant"? It seems to me you're either a candidate or you're not. Unless we really are going to take The Gazette's pillow case advice, or limit the candidates' visits to a helicopter fly-over of Iowa City, it seems to me it's going to be very difficult to keep a veil of secrecy over the identity of those candidates visiting the campus.

Oh, well, there are a great many things in this life I don't understand, and maybe I should just chalk this one up as one more.
_____________
UICCU and "Optiva"
The UICCU-Optiva story is essentially behind us. There may be occasional additions "for the record," but for the most part the last major entry, with links to the prior material from October 2006 through March 2007, is "UICCU and 'Optiva'" in Nicholas Johnson, "UI Held Hostage Day 406 - March 3 - Optiva," March 3, 2007. Since then there have been two major additions: Nicholas Johnson, "Open Letter to UICCU Board" in "UI Held Hostage Day 423 - March 20 - UICCU," March 20, 2007, and "'Open Letter': Confirmation from World Council of Credit Unions" in "UI Held Hostage Day 424 - March 21 UICCU," March 21, 2007.

# # #
[Note: If you're new to this blog, and interested in the whole UI President Search story . . .

These blog entries begin with Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search I," November 18, 2006.

Wondering where the "UI Held Hostage" came from? Click here. (As of January 25 the count has run from January 21, 2006, rather than last November.)

For any given entry, links to the prior 10 will be found in the left-most column. Going directly to FromDC2Iowa.Blogspot.com will take you to the latest. Each contains links to the full text of virtually all known media stories and commentary, including mine, since the last blog entry. Together they represent what The Chronicle of Higher Education has called "one of the most comprehensive analyses of the controversy." The last time there was an entry containing the summary of prior entries' commentary (with the heading "This Blog's Focus on Regents' Presidential Search") is Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search XIII -- Last Week," December 11, 2006.

My early proposed solution to the conflict is provided in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search VII: The Answer," November 26, 2006.

Searching: the fullest collection of basic documents related to the search is contained in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search - Dec. 21-25," December 21, 2006 (and updated thereafter), at the bottom of that blog entry under "References." A Blog Index of entries on all subjects since June 2006 is also available. And note that if you know (or can guess at) a word to search on, the "Blogger" bar near the top of your browser has a blank, followed by "SEARCH THIS BLOG," that enables you to search all entries in this Blog since June 2006.]

# # #
Media Stories and Commentary
See above.
_______________
Technorati tags: football, athletics, academics, high school, college, University of Iowa, education, K-12, leadership, university president, Michael Gartner, Iowa Board of Regents, UI president search, Nicholas Johnson, FromDC2Iowa
_______________
Nicholas Johnson's Main Web Site http://www.nicholasjohnson.org/
Nicholas Johnson's Iowa Rain Forest ("Earthpark") Web Site
Nicholas Johnson's Blog, FromDC2Iowa
Nicholas Johnson's Blog Index
_______________