Yeah, We're Gonna Work All Weekend

So now I'm seeing that the Democrats plan to finish an agreement on the BIF and the BBB by October 31. Both the House and Senate have been on recess this past week, with key figures like Speaker Pelosi and Sen Sinema in Europe. The House and Senate do return next week, but the House will be working only four day weeks until the 31st, while the Senate will at least be wrorking five day weeks.

Although I had earlier seen December 3 as a deadline, November is going to be pretty much of a loss, with both houses in holiday recess for two weeks. But a Washington insiders' newsletter says,

We’ve pointed this out before, but Democrats truly are nowhere when it comes to finishing this reconciliation package. The “serious progress” that has been made is not really evident to us, or to the lawmakers involved.

→ Democratic leaders on the Hill have been unable to reach agreement on a topline number. This is key to everything and is at the heart of their stalemate.

→ Progressives, especially in the Senate, are still demanding a massive expansion of Medicare to include vision, healing and dental programs. That’s a big, big expenditure.

→ House Democrats continue to push for Medicaid expansion and making Obamacare subsidies permanent.

→ The two chambers keep exchanging proposals -- there have been some swapped this week. But they aren’t close to a deal, our sources tell us. Which is why the White House needs to lean in.

So there's unwillingness to compromise among House leftists, while Sens Manchin and Sinema appear to be holding the line on their own demands.

A major holdup in the talks is Sinema's opposition to any tax increases for individuals and large corporations, per two Senate Democratic aides familiar with the matter. Her position threatens to deprive the package of over $700 billion in revenue to finance the bulk of President Joe Biden's agenda.

. . . Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington, the chair of the 96-member Congressional Progressive Caucus, told reporters that progressives were open to cutting the price tag but not the overall scope of the package, favoring packing as many priorities into the legislation as possible, with shorter expiration dates.

"We're not going to pit childcare against climate change," she said. "We're not going to pit seniors against young people."

But Speaker Pelosi is sending a different message:

“In order to pass both the Build Back Better Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill on time, it is essential that difficult decisions must be made very soon,” she wrote to House Democrats, referencing the two planks of Biden’s agenda.

She continued: “Overwhelmingly, the guidance I am receiving from Members is to do fewer things well so that we can still have a transformative impact on families in the workplace and responsibly address the climate crisis: a Build Back Better agenda for jobs and the planet For The Children!”

As I've been saying, a key indicator of incompetence is an inability to plan tasks realistically and adhere to any sort of real-world schedule. It doesn't appear to me that anything has been done to resolve the problems that led to the Democrat failures last month, despite vague happy talk about "progress". We're still just gonna work all weekend to fix it.

The COVID Religion And Abp Broglio

The controversy over United Airlines's vaccine mandate has brought to the fore a key question for people who request exemptions based on religious or conscientious grounds. United's original policy states:

"Given our focus on safety and the steep increases in Covid infections, hospitalizations and deaths, all employees whose request is approved will be placed on temporary, unpaid personal leave on October 2 while specific safety measures for unvaccinated employees are instituted," said United's memo to employees. "Given the dire statistics...we can no longer allow unvaccinated people back into the workplace until we better understand how they might interact with our customers and their vaccinated co-workers."

Although the employees' unions were slow to react, six individual employees did file a class action suit against the company, which is covered in a lengthy, obtuse, and poorly organized piece in Breitbart News.

United Airlines originally told its 67,000 U.S. employees they must be vaccinated against Chinese coronavirus (or secure an exemption) by September 27 or face termination. As the airline’s vaccine mandate stands, any employees with exemptions would still be considered employed but would be placed on unpaid leave and would lose their benefits for up to six years or until the airline deems pandemic conditions safe for unvaccinated employees to return, according to the complaint.

However, the airline indicated that exemptions of any sort would be few and difficult to obtain, and employees who considered requesting one would, according to the CEO, be "putting your job on the line. You better be very careful about that." But in response to the lawsuit, "the airline agreed of its own accord to postpone its vaccine mandate until October 15 for employees with exemptions during litigation." Yesterday, the judge issued a temporary restraining order extending this deadline to October 26 as he considered other issues raised in the case. Still, unvaccinated employees are subject to punitive and humiliating treatment during even this pause:

According to an internal memo obtained by Breitbart News, the airline has temporarily mandated that unvaccinated employees wear N-95 or KN95 respirator masks at all times, effective October 2, as it waits for “the outcome of the litigation” regarding its reasonable accommodation process.

The internal memo continues,

You must wear your mask at all times in all United locations, including outdoors and on aircraft (this includes for personal or business travel). You may remove your mask only when you are actively eating or drinking and you must put your mask back on in between bites and sips. To the extent possible, please only eat or drink outdoors or in rooms alone or when socially distanced from others. Failure to comply with this mask requirement is subject to disciplinary action as outlined in the mask policy in the Working Together Guidelines.

This policy goes well beyond current CDC guidlines or OSHA rules and amounts to effective religious discrimination. In fact, for those who suggest COVID has become a state religion, it clearly suggests that the unvaccinated are ritually unclean and disregards current medical evidence that vaccinated individuals spread COVID as easily as unvaccinated.

I can't help but see Abp Broglio's announcement in that context:

“No one should be forced to receive a COVID-19 vaccine if it would violate the sanctity of his or her conscience,” Timothy Broglio, archbishop for the military services, said in a statement.

Since Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin issued a military-wide vaccine mandate this summer, Broglio said, some service members have requested a religious exemption through the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. While he said the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had determined that being vaccinated was “not sinful,” the church valued its teachings on the “sanctity of conscience.”

“This circumstance raises the question of whether the vaccine’s moral permissibility precludes an individual from forming a sincerely held religious belief that receiving the vaccine would violate his conscience,” he wrote. “It does not.”

The problem for the past two years has been an environment of constantly changing "science" and moving goalposts enforced by the power of the state that leave little room for informed personal choice, or indeed the nudgings of conscience. I can't imagine that Abp Broglio made his announcement without coordinating it with the USCCB and possibly the Vatican as well. This will definitely strengthen the ability of military members, and probably others as well, to substantiate their requests for exemption.

The bishops are showing considerable insight into the real issues at stake in the COVID crisis.

Pushback?

I'm skeptical of stories that pilots and other staff at Southwest are pushing back against the effectively non-existent vaccine mandate by calling in sick. First, the union, and other corresponding unions, make it clear that any such effort is an illegal action and by definition can't be organized. Second, there are other possible explanations for the crunch, and third, people have only so much sick time to use this way.

However, this doesn't mean workers covered by collective bargaining agreements don't have recourse. The same Southwest pilots union that says it isn't behind a sickout has filed suit against the airline.

The Southwest pilots association filed a motion for a restraining order against the airline on October 8.

“Several times since August 30, 2021, Southwest Airlines has taken new unilateral actions which violate the status quo between the parties in further violation of the Railway Labor Act,” the motion states. “Most recently, on October 4, 2021, Southwest Airlines unilaterally rolled out a new and nonnegotiated COVID vaccine mandate for all employees, including SWAPA pilots. The new vaccine mandate unlawfully imposes new conditions of employment and the new policy threatens termination of any pilot not fully vaccinated by December 8, 2021.”

Just as a lay observer, this has struck me as a problem for employers from the start. To set a deadline for employees to be vaccinated or lose their jobs imposes an entirely new condition on employment that didn't exist when they were hired. If they aren't covered by a labor agreement, that's one thing, and presumably an "at will" employment environment pertains. But if there's a collective bargaining contract, any termination outside the terms of the contract is highly questionable, and this is the point the Southwest pilots are raising.

The problem continues to be, as I've noted, that the proposed OSHA rule Biden has announced hasn't been issued and is at best many months, and potentially years, from taking effect. In the meantime, employers are imposing mandates on their own with no legal authority, based only on the threat that a rule will be imposed down the road. The optimism reflected in this story disregards this reality:

"Inside, companies are rejoicing," said Brian Kropp, distinguished vice president of research at Gartner. "It is the best of all possible outcomes for most large employers."

. . . Once the new rule from the Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration goes into effect, companies with 100 or more employees will enjoy the benefits of a vaccine mandate without looking like the bad guy, Kropp said.

"They don't have to deal with any of the fallout that's associated with putting in their own mandate," Kropp said. "They can just blame the government for it."

Except the rule hasn't gone into effect, and the companies can't blame the government.

Los Angeles City firefighters have filed a noice of intent to sue on the same basis as the Southwest pilots:

The plaintiffs are members of the United Firefighters of Los Angeles (UFLAC). The union stated its position in an Oct. 4 bulletin, “[T]he city cannot impose any consequences relevant to the October 5 deadline” to be vaccinated for COVID-19, adding that the city’s ordinance “does not provide for any consequence, and any intended discipline must first be bargained with UFLAC.”

It appears that Intel, originally cited as a tech giant happy to comply with a federal mandate, has since hesitated. In its company policy regading COVID, sections 8.1 and 8.3, it repeats that "Intel does not require COVID-19 vaccination for its workforce", although if local governmnet requirements exist, they must be followed. But so far, the promised OSHA rule does not exist.

In addition, FAQ 8.13 prohibits managers from collecting or sharing employee medical data, including vaccination status. "Employees do not need to share whether they have been vaccinated." This in fact is a provision of federal law, the HIPAA Privacy Rule.

The Rule requires appropriate safeguards to protect the privacy of personal health information, and sets limits and conditions on the uses and disclosures that may be made of such information without patient authorization.

Requiring anyone to show an employer, much less a bouncer, barber, or airline clerk one's "proof of vaccination" is likely a violation of federal law. Nobody seems to have thought this through, although it also appears to be an issue in the LA firefighters suit against the city.

This story is rapidly deveoping, and late last night it emerged that six United Airlines employees filed a class action suit against the carrier

claiming that those who were seeking exemptions from the vaccine mandate “were subjected to intrusive inquiries about their medical conditions or religious beliefs, including a requirement that they obtain letters from pastors.” That case is supposed to be heard today and the court restrained the airline from placing on unpaid leave any employee who receives religious or medical exemptions from the company for COVID-19 vaccinations. The court also put a temporary restraining order preventing United from denying any requests for religious or medical exemptions.

So far, this story isn't well reported, and as far as I can determine, the judge's restraining order is on a technical issue of jurisdiction, which is the matter that will be heard today, not the whole case. However, the underlying issue also seems to involve medical confidentiality and likely the HIPAA Privacy Rule.

Unmfortunately, this shows that reporters anywhere on the spectrum aren't well informed on the fields they cover, and their mental cevelopment is roughly at the level of promising middle school students.

Crisis Management??

Two weeks ago, the news was that Vice President Harris had brought in a crisis managemet team to help her public image.

LORRAINE VOLES was one of two hires, along with former Obama speechwriter ADAM FRANKEL, reported by both the Washington Post and CNN over the weekend. Both worked for the vice president during the transition, and “offered to be of assistance,” an official from the White House said. A Harris aide said Voles and Frankel began their new roles in August.

Although the White House official didn’t use the word “crisis,” Voles is well known as a public relations and crisis communications expert. She most recently led crisis communications at George Washington University and at Fannie Mae, after serving as a strategist and adviser to HILLARY CLINTON’s 2006 Senate reelection race and 2008 presidential bid. In the late ‘90s, she helped AL GORE craft his message as vice president. Now she’ll help Harris with long-term planning, her policy agenda and with “organizational development” and strategic communications, according to a White House official.

But over the weekend, her bizarre performance in a scripted video feature with child actors can only have made the crisis worse.

The first installment of Vice President Kamala Harris’s YouTube Originals space series featured child actors who auditioned for their roles in the project.

Trevor Bernardino, a 13-year-old actor from Carmel, California, and one of five teenagers featured in the video, was asked to submit a monologue discussing something he is passionate about and three questions for a world leader, according to an interview with KSBW TV. Trevor then interviewed with the production director.

. . . “It was pitched to my son and us as a pilot,” [the actor's father] said, but whether it continues will “depend on the reaction and what the producers want to do — our hope is that it gets picked up.”

. . . The video, which by Monday had garnered some 114,000 views on YouTube, as well as 1,900 likes and 2,800 dislikes, was shared online by the vice president’s aides and supporters. A trailer for the show drew 48 likes and 136 dislikes. Comments on both videos have been disabled.

. . . In one segment, Harris expounds on the virtues of space exploration and scientific discovery.

. . . Paired with the caption, “Me when I miscalculate a micro dose and start fully tripping midday,” the clip has been viewed close to a million times.

Well, it doesn't inspire confidence that Ms Voles's prior clients include Hillary Clinton and Al Gore, two people who, the more we saw of them, the less we liked them. Gore in particular needed a competent crisis manager after the "release my second chakra" episode, whether he had one on the payroll or not. He certainly could have afforded one. But this goes to the question of judgment. As the massage story developed in his case, it appears that he had a habit of bringing massage therapists into his room in high class hotels and propositioning them for sex acts.

There's not much a crisis manager can do when you keep creating new crises for yourself. The same applies to Vice President Harris. Her problem is that she keeps cackling in inappropriate situations, giving herself the appearance of being unserious and disengaged. A real crisis manager would have to sit her down and and tell her to start acting like a senior politician if she wanted people to think of her as one. Instead, she comes off as if she's tripping. (I definitely don't rule it out that she is.)

But if the producers involved with that video anticipated what the reaction would be, why didn't her handlers simply insist it not be released? What on earth is she paying Ms Voles for she didn't axe that whole project? I would guess that only a crisis manager who badly needed the work would take that job.

Here's Another Puzzle For Traditionalists

Speaker Pelosi has been at the back of my mind as I've considered the question of whether the Latin mass made more reverent Catholics when it was the norm, but an incident inolving her in Rome this weekend brought it to the fore:

Pelosi was given the honor of meeting with the Pope on Saturday.

Pelosi was also invited to do a reading during Mass at St Patrick’s Catholic American Parish in Rome. But there was some form of a “security incident” according to Paulist Fr. Steven Petroff, rector of St. Patrick’s, who was saying the Mass. The Rome correspondent for The Epoch Times described it as Pelosi being “heckled.”

We know little else about the incident, except that according to Fr Petroff, there was some type of disruption that caused her security detail to take her out of the mass before she could do the second reading, which would be Hebrews 4: 12-13:

12 For the word of God is living and effectual, and more piercing than any two edged sword; and reaching unto the division of the soul and the spirit, of the joints also and the marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

13 Neither is there any creature invisible in his sight: but all things are naked and open to his eyes, to whom our speech is.

If I were she, I might take the circumstances as a caution of some sort, but I doubt if she even gave the passage any thought or study before she was going to read it. It may as well have been in Latin.

Which brings me to yet another puzzle: Pelosi, born in 1940, would have been confirmed in the early 1950s, well before any innovations in the Church. She would have been 30 by the time the novus ordo was promulgated, in other words a cradle Catholic fully formed by adulthood, all of that time hearing the mass in Latin under the old calendar and lectionary. According to traditionalists, this is just the thing that will restore the Church, right?

So how come Pelosi is at odds with the very wing of the Church that's most sympathetic to traditionalists? I suspect her own Abp Cordileone would have problems with her serving as a lector within his archdiocese (I don't know if she ever does -- if anyone knows, I'll be interested to hear). And I think this goes to the question of how the Church has changed since Vatican II.

Keep; in mind that Pelosi and President Biden are both in the mold of US Catholic politicians formed before Vatican II, most prominently the Kennedys but including others like Dan Rostenkowski, who eventually served 17 months in Federal prison for corruption.

All visibly attended mass, but I very much doubt if any ever went to confession, or if they did, it never had much effect. None seems ever to have had a problem with the public scandal he created, but they were all happy to campaign on the Catholic brand.

It's plain that the US bishops are less and less comfortable with that sort of arrangement, and Abp Cordileone has been increasingly vocal in his warnings to Pelosi that Catholic politicians shouldn't campaign on the brand if they don't support Catholic teaching.

This is a post-Conciliar development and a good one. It's reflected in a YouTube presentation by Bp Barron prior to the Catholic Paul Ryan's retirement as Speaker suggesting that Republican views like Ryan's were incresingly acceptable to Catholics and, by extension, the Catholic hierarchy. Ryan, born in 1970, was also formed entirely under novus ordo.

One clear intent of the Vatican II constitutions that produced novus ordo was to increae lay involvement in the mass and, by implication, the overall life of the Church. It's significant that somehow a vetus ordo machine politician like Speaker Pelosi should find herself in difficulties trying to participate in a novus ordo mass, in Rome, so soon after meeting with the pope.

But the changes go beyond that. There was nothing new in the clergy abuse scandal. Cardinal McCarrick, born in 1930, was convicted of abuse committed in the 1990s but was almost certainly part of a pattern over a much longer period, and which wasn't unique in the pre-Conciliar, Latin mass hierarchy. It was only in a post-Conciliar environment that laity could play a major role in addressing this problem.

I don't see how a return to the bad old days helps anything.

Let's Get Back To The Latin Mass Question

For some time, I've been in the habit of revisiting what I thought I knew about the Catholic Church when I was a lot younger, vis-a-vis what I've learned since converting. Just in the last few days, it occurred to me that I knew a lot of Catholics in high school, college, and early adulthood, and that shouldn't be a surprise, since Catholics are the largest religious denomination of any sort in the US. Not only that, but I was always at least somewhat interested in Catholicism, though I was raised Presbyterian. If nothing else, I wanted to know how so many people could be so wrong over so many centuries.

I was born in 1947, as were the Catholics whom I knew in my age cohort. I could probably list two dozen names among fairly close friends, as well as girls and women I dated, and they would have been a large proportion of people who were more than just acquaintances in my youth. And this means we can extrapolate: if they were early baby boomers like me, they would have been confirmed at about age 12, which is to say in the late 1950s, not only before Vatican II, but well before the introduction of the Paul VI mass in 1970. They were raised, formed, and initiated as pre-Conciliar Catholics.

What I began to realize once I followed this train of thought was that, by the time I knew them in their mid to late teens and into early adulthood, none was still an observant Catholic. This would be in a ten year span, between about 1965 and 1975. Of the two Catholic women I dated in my single years after college, both were already divorced. (One had shot her husband, but it was an accident. There's more to that story.) All these people had been formed as Catholics prior to novus ordo, and nearly all had come to a conclusion that, while they still identified as Catholics, their Catholic formation had been a serious handicap, something to be overcome.

I would also say that most still regarded the Catholic brand as something prestigious, an indication that they were serious people and not superficial. Their problem was they felt this had made them neurotic and guilt ridden. And they'd gotten this way before novus ordo was even a glimmer in a cardinal's eye.

I'll grant that this is anecedotal and subjective, but I think it reflects what had become of Catholicism in popular culture, and in fact in Catholics' view of themselves, by the 1950s. The 1979 play Sister Mary Ignatius Explains It All For You is clearly based on pre-Conciliar stereotypes of Catholic education, including a teacher who is a religious fanatically inculcating a sexually repressive, anti-Freudian world view. Fulton Sheen in his televison presentations of the period, also pre-Conciliar, clearly recognized this threat to Catholicism posed by the view of psychoanalysis and its efficacy in popular culture.

But let's put this in the context of the current Catholic traditionalist movement, especially the view that the Latin mass is a revival of a somehow purer Catholicism. Let's take what I think is a representative expression of this view, Ten Reasons To Attend The Traditional Latin Mass, The reaons include:

2. What is true for me is even more true for my children. This way of celebrating most deeply forms the minds and hearts of our children in reverence for Almighty God, in the virtues of humility, obedience, and adoring silence. It fills their senses and imaginations with sacred signs and symbols, “mystic ceremonies” (as the Council of Trent puts it).

The problem here is that the Catholics I knew, in the last generation to be fully formed in the old Latin mass Church, hadn't been effectively formed in it. By adolescence or early adultood, they'd all fallen away, and they all felt their Catholic upbringing was a handicap to be overcome. Not just some of them, all of them.

The piece sums up:

Similar points could be made about the distracting “Sign of Peace”; or female lectors and EMHCs, who, apart from constituting an utter break with tradition, can be clad in clothing of questionable modesty; or the almost universal custom of loud chitchat before and after Mass; or the ad-libbing and optionizing of the priest.

This is a straw man argument that conflates innovations that, whether you agree with them or not are sanctioned by the Church, with accidents like skimpy clothing, chitchat, or a skylarking priest that may or may not be present in a novus ordo parish-- and indeed, there's nothing to prevent them from happening in a Latin mass. The piece goes on:

This point should be emphasized: it is especially harmful for children to witness, again and again, the shocking lack of reverence with which Our Lord and God is treated in the awesome Sacrament of His Love, as pew after pew of Catholics automatically go up to receive a gift they generally treat with casual and even bored indifference.

I would say again that in my admittedly anecdotal experience and my subjective view of it, every Catholic I knew in my age cohort, formed as children in the universal Latin mass environment of the 1950s (and indeed, some older Catholics I knew at the time) had lapsed and felt their Catholic formation was a handicap well before novus ordo came on the scene.

It's also plain that figures like Fulton Sheen were aware of factors like Marxism and psychoanalytic theory that were challenging Catholicism well before Vatican II. I've been carefully reading Lumen Gentium and Gaudium et Spes, and it's plain that the Council was aware of these and many other factors that were challenging the Church, and they recognized that these were not simple problems, and the Church would be dealing with them for centuries to come.

To regard the Latin mass as some sort of panacea that will stop the erosion of observant Catholics is simplistic and reflects an inability to recognize trends that were well under way before Vatican II.

Dr Collins Never Did His Job

Over the past few days, I've noted an anomaly: Maine is being hammered with COVID cases despite having one of the highest vaccination rates in the US:

A week ago, I noted Maine was having a surge in COVID-related hospitalizations. This happened despite 84% of everyone over 12, 85.3% of everyone over 18, and 98.4% of everyone over 65 are at least partially vaccinated.

Maine's policies on masking follow CDC guidelines. But here's a graph of Maine's COVID cases as of this morning:

On the other side of the country, Los Angeles County's statistics show a remarkable difference:

In contrast to Maine, only 77.9% of the population is fully vaccinated. While the county has an indoor masking requirememt, as opposed to Maine's recommendation, the effectveness of masks is at best debatable -- but given the disparity we see here, so should be the effectiveness of vaccines. In fact, LA County is even mooting dropping its mask mandate:

“I’m very cognizant that when we introduced the mask mandate in June, we noted that it was really related to increased transmission and feeling like we needed to add another layer of protection,” Public Health Director Barbara Ferrer told the Board of Supervisors Tuesday. “And I think we did the right thing. But I also am aware when we have very low transmission and more people vaccinated, it doesn’t necessarily make sense to keep that mask mandate everywhere, assuming of course that we don’t have a dangerous variant that we need to protect ourselves from.

So what's the difference between Maine and LA County? As a mere English major who never had an epidemiology course, I would venture the guess that LA County's very high COVID peak in the late 2020 surge left a large proportion of its population with natural immunity, and this was responsible for its unusually low peak in the Delta surge this past summer. Just as an informed observer, I would think that this is confirmation for the consensus that's quietly emerging that vaccines have proven less effective than natural immunity, so much so that vaccines alone haven't performed much better than masks, social distance, or lockdowns in controlling the pandemic.

Notwithstanding, with COVID essentially under control, Los Angeles City, which is only part of the county, just imposed a new vaccine mandate itself thst goes beyond the county.

ABC7 reports that Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti signed a city ordinance requiring all people within the city of Los Angeles “to show proof of full COVID-19 vaccination before entering indoor restaurants, bars, gyms, shopping centers, entertainment venues, and personal care establishments.”

Garcetti signed the ordinance a few hours after the Los Angeles City Council passed the COVID-19 vaccination proof measure which is “considered one of the strictest in the nation”[.]

So we have a situation where measures that are clearly overkill are adopted in an area where the problem is generally under control, while vaccinations are proving no more effective than masking, social distance, and business closures in other areas.

What answers can the National Institutes of Health (Dr Collins), which subsumes the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Dr Walensky) and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (Dr Fauci)) give us that might help policymakers and the public understand this problem? Remember, COVID has now been with us for fully two years, yet the effectiveness of this estalishment's solutions, including the wildly expensive and by now overhyped vaccines, has been marginal at best.

In a just universe, Dr Collins's retirement might well have been the result of a quiet request from the administration in light of his poor leadership over this period. A theoretical Trump-like president -- not necesssarily Trump himself -- would initiate a careful and thorough high-priority search for a replacement.

Such a search woukld recognize the need for a leader who could credibly advocate common-sense precautions across the board. Instead, after two years, all we have is a vacuum that allows opportunistic power grabs by local politicians. I can't imagine Dr Collins's replacement will be any improvement.