washingtonmonthly--2020-04-28--Why Are Farmers Destroying Food While Grocery Stores Are Empty?

For many Americans , grocery shopping has become an intensely stressful experience .
To maintain social distancing , people must queue before entering stores .
Once inside , they must scramble to find increasingly scarce products , including household staples from milk and eggs to pork and beef .
Others can no longer afford to go to grocery stores .
Instead , they wait for hours to get goods from food banks that are also running short on supplies .
But in a seeming paradox , farmers are destroying their products—including many of the same goods that stores lack .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s biggest dairy co-op , has called many of its members and instructed them to dump their milk .
The cooperative has estimated that farmers are now dumping up to 3.7 million gallons of milk per day .
Sanderson Farms , a chicken processor , smashes 750,000 eggs each week .
Farmers have been plowing their produce into the ground .
How is it that Americans can face shortages , and in some cases go hungry , while farmers face a glut so large they ’ re deliberately wasting food ?
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ America ’ s food supply chain has proven unable to adjust to the new COVID reality .
In particular , food processors and distributors that serve shut-down commercial customers , like restaurants , aren ’ t able to retool in order to send food to retail outlets like grocery stores , where demand is high .
But that just begs the question : why is the supply chain set up in this now obviously risky way ?
Decades of consolidation have made food systems more vulnerable , say experts .
Beginning in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agribusinesses to merge and grow largely without restraint in the name of efficiency—before , antitrust and other policies helped keep these industries decentralized and competitive .
Consequently , a small number of giant , often vertically integrated , firms , produce and distribute the bulk of food in the U.S. Their hulking and specialized supply chains are not so efficient in the face of disruption .
Dairy Farmers of America , for example , now controls 30 percent of all raw milk in the United States .
( I wrote about consolidation in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
In the meat industry , roughly 50 factories process 98 percent of the nation ’ s beef .
The same holds for pork : Following industry consolidation in the late 1980s and 1990s , the portion of U.S. hogs slaughtered in massive , million-head capacity plants rose from 38 percent to 88 percent in just two decades .
Losing even one of these large plants can rattle entire livestock markets ( as ranchers saw when a fire took out a Kansas beef plant this summer ) .
Larger plants also concentrate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some of the largest clusters of COVID-19 outbreaks among workers in the country .
At least 15 massive meat-processing plants shut down this month , reducing production capacity by 20 percent for both pork and beef .
Experts now predict meat consumer shortages within a month and farmers are euthanizing livestock to deal with a sudden backlog of animals .
“ If you pull out one little thing in that specialized , centralized , consolidated chain , then everything crashes , ” said Mary Hendrickson , a rural sociology professor at University of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ animal welfare catastrophe , an environmental catastrophe , a farmer catastrophe , and a worker catastrophe altogether , and we can trace a lot of this back to the pursuit of efficiency.
” Hendrickson argued that a more diverse network of both small and regional meat processing plants may have been able to mitigate risks and absorb production from closed facilities .
“ What if we had regional pack facilities like we used to have ?
Would we have 20 percent of the pork processing capacity closed because of worker sickness ?
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be less likely.
” But it isn ’ t just bottlenecks .
Consolidation also drives inflexibility .
Farmers increasingly raise foods on contract for one dominant buyer that can dictate what they grow and how ( Heinz , for instance , has their tomato farmers use Heinz crafted seeds ) .
Large swaths of foods may be raised for one specific plant that serves just one purpose , such as bottling milk for grocery stories or processing cheese for restaurants .
While highly specialized products and plants create consistency , these rigid supply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to different uses if things go awry .
Take the case of eggs .
Farmers such as Kerry Mergen in Minnesota raise laying hens on contract .
Mergen ’ s 61,000-bird operation was specifically designed to supply eggs for pre-cracked fluid-egg mixes , used almost exclusively in food service .
Most of what they produced went to one Cargill plant that temporarily shut down this week due to lost restaurant and food-service customers .
Even though grocery stores report egg shortages , grading eggs for retail requires special equipment and likely new contracts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the corporation that Mergen raised hens for , Daybreak Foods , decided to euthanize his flock and sell the birds to a rendering plant to become pet food .
Shifting entire business models built around serving restaurants or adjusting to sudden systemic labor shortages is no easy task for any system .
Some foods are trapped in particular channels because the FDA requires different labeling for consumer-facing goods .
And even if all surplus foods could make it to grocery stores , it ’ s not clear that home cooks ’ demand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that of restaurants .
When it comes to storing or donating extra vegetables , government and food bank cold storage is already maxed out , in part because the USDA bought up frozen meats that would have been sold to China , as part of the agency ’ s trade war relief effort earlier this year .
All this taken into account , experts like Hendrickson still contend that less centralized food systems with a stronger mix of public , nonprofit , and private players could more readily adapt to the COVID-19 crisis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most local food providers , such as local farms providing community supported agriculture ( CSA ) shares , have reacted quickly to the crisis and benefited from a spike in demand for direct food sales .
These businesses are not tied to complicated purchasing contracts and often work with multiple buyers and distribution channels , including direct access to consumers .
“ If you look at what the small farmers are doing , they ’ re changing on a dime to online ordering systems and delivery , ” said Hendrickson .
“ Those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ latitude to change are going to be really important in the future.
” Finally , public food infrastructure could play a critical role in supporting mid-sized producers , responding to shocks , and serving communities cut out of consolidated supply chains .
Michelle Miller , the associate director of the University of Wisconsin ’ s Center for Integrated Agricultural Systems , pointed to the critical role that the U.S. Department of Agriculture played in managing disruptions to food systems following the Dust Bowl drought and Great Depression .
She also touted the benefit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ food terminals , that provided accessible markets for producers of all sizes to sell their products , even if their normal buyers are no longer accepting their product .
Unfortunately , when the U.S. embraced pro-corporate policies that allowed massive corporate consolidation , it also cut back on programs that help buy up and distribute food to those in need .
“ There is some basic infrastructure that used to be in place that is no longer , as the food system became privatized and vertically integrated , ” said Miller .
Now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ renders many Americans food insecure , the Trump administration is trying to temporarily revive a similar kind of public investment in the agricultural system .
After ignoring months of warnings that they should act , warnings that may have helped prevent some of the waste and shortages had they been heeded , the Department of Agriculture now plans to buy up $ 19 billion in goods to help the sector and provide food to those in need .
But the government can ’ t fix decades of neglect overnight .
Before it can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have to move through a system that ’ s poorly equipped to handle a crisis .
To prepare for the next disruption , we need a long-term solution .
And that means we need not just a better public system for distributing food , but vigorous antitrust enforcement .
Otherwise , no amount of money will allow farms to adjust to sudden shocks .

For many Americans, grocery shopping has become an intensely stressful experience. To maintain social distancing, people must queue before entering stores. Once inside, they must scramble to find increasingly scarce products, including household staples from milk and eggs to pork and beef. Others can no longer afford to go to grocery stores. Instead, they wait for hours to get goods from food banks that are also running short on supplies.
But in a seeming paradox, farmers are destroying their products—including many of the same goods that stores lack. Dairy Farmers of America, the country’s biggest dairy co-op, has called many of its members and instructed them to dump their milk. The cooperative has estimated that farmers are now dumping up to 3.7 million gallons of milk per day. Sanderson Farms, a chicken processor, smashes 750,000 eggs each week. Farmers have been plowing their produce into the ground.
How is it that Americans can face shortages, and in some cases go hungry, while farmers face a glut so large they’re deliberately wasting food? A number of recent stories have noted that America’s food supply chain has proven unable to adjust to the new COVID reality. In particular, food processors and distributors that serve shut-down commercial customers, like restaurants, aren’t able to retool in order to send food to retail outlets like grocery stores, where demand is high. But that just begs the question: why is the supply chain set up in this now obviously risky way?
Decades of consolidation have made food systems more vulnerable, say experts. Beginning in the 1980s, the federal government allowed more agribusinesses to merge and grow largely without restraint in the name of efficiency—before, antitrust and other policies helped keep these industries decentralized and competitive. Consequently, a small number of giant, often vertically integrated, firms, produce and distribute the bulk of food in the U.S. Their hulking and specialized supply chains are not so efficient in the face of disruption.
Dairy Farmers of America, for example, now controls 30 percent of all raw milk in the United States. (I wrote about consolidation in the dairy industry for the Monthly here). In the meat industry, roughly 50 factories process 98 percent of the nation’s beef. The same holds for pork: Following industry consolidation in the late 1980s and 1990s, the portion of U.S. hogs slaughtered in massive, million-head capacity plants rose from 38 percent to 88 percent in just two decades.
Losing even one of these large plants can rattle entire livestock markets (as ranchers saw when a fire took out a Kansas beef plant this summer).
“The portion of U.S. hogs slaughtered in massive, million-head capacity plants rose from 38 percent to 88 percent in just two decades. Losing even one of these large plants can rattle entire livestock markets.”
Larger plants also concentrate more workers in close quarters, causing some of the largest clusters of COVID-19 outbreaks among workers in the country. At least 15 massive meat-processing plants shut down this month, reducing production capacity by 20 percent for both pork and beef. Experts now predict meat consumer shortages within a month and farmers are euthanizing livestock to deal with a sudden backlog of animals.
“If you pull out one little thing in that specialized, centralized, consolidated chain, then everything crashes,” said Mary Hendrickson, a rural sociology professor at University of Missouri. “Now we have an animal welfare catastrophe, an environmental catastrophe, a farmer catastrophe, and a worker catastrophe altogether, and we can trace a lot of this back to the pursuit of efficiency.”
Hendrickson argued that a more diverse network of both small and regional meat processing plants may have been able to mitigate risks and absorb production from closed facilities. “What if we had regional pack facilities like we used to have? Would we have 20 percent of the pork processing capacity closed because of worker sickness?” she asked. “It would just be less likely.”
But it isn’t just bottlenecks. Consolidation also drives inflexibility. Farmers increasingly raise foods on contract for one dominant buyer that can dictate what they grow and how (Heinz, for instance, has their tomato farmers use Heinz crafted seeds). Large swaths of foods may be raised for one specific plant that serves just one purpose, such as bottling milk for grocery stories or processing cheese for restaurants. While highly specialized products and plants create consistency, these rigid supply chains cannot easily redirect their products to different uses if things go awry.
Take the case of eggs. Farmers such as Kerry Mergen in Minnesota raise laying hens on contract. Mergen’s 61,000-bird operation was specifically designed to supply eggs for pre-cracked fluid-egg mixes, used almost exclusively in food service. Most of what they produced went to one Cargill plant that temporarily shut down this week due to lost restaurant and food-service customers. Even though grocery stores report egg shortages, grading eggs for retail requires special equipment and likely new contracts with a different large buyer. Instead, the corporation that Mergen raised hens for, Daybreak Foods, decided to euthanize his flock and sell the birds to a rendering plant to become pet food.
Shifting entire business models built around serving restaurants or adjusting to sudden systemic labor shortages is no easy task for any system. Some foods are trapped in particular channels because the FDA requires different labeling for consumer-facing goods. And even if all surplus foods could make it to grocery stores, it’s not clear that home cooks’ demand for fresh fruits and vegetables could match that of restaurants. When it comes to storing or donating extra vegetables, government and food bank cold storage is already maxed out, in part because the USDA bought up frozen meats that would have been sold to China, as part of the agency’s trade war relief effort earlier this year.
All this taken into account, experts like Hendrickson still contend that less centralized food systems with a stronger mix of public, nonprofit, and private players could more readily adapt to the COVID-19 crisis. For example, the smallest and most local food providers, such as local farms providing community supported agriculture (CSA) shares, have reacted quickly to the crisis and benefited from a spike in demand for direct food sales. These businesses are not tied to complicated purchasing contracts and often work with multiple buyers and distribution channels, including direct access to consumers.
“If you look at what the small farmers are doing, they’re changing on a dime to online ordering systems and delivery,” said Hendrickson. “Those organizations that have the most flexibility and latitude to change are going to be really important in the future.”
Finally, public food infrastructure could play a critical role in supporting mid-sized producers, responding to shocks, and serving communities cut out of consolidated supply chains. Michelle Miller, the associate director of the University of Wisconsin’s Center for Integrated Agricultural Systems, pointed to the critical role that the U.S. Department of Agriculture played in managing disruptions to food systems following the Dust Bowl drought and Great Depression. She also touted the benefit of public food wholesale markets, or food terminals, that provided accessible markets for producers of all sizes to sell their products, even if their normal buyers are no longer accepting their product.
Unfortunately, when the U.S. embraced pro-corporate policies that allowed massive corporate consolidation, it also cut back on programs that help buy up and distribute food to those in need. “There is some basic infrastructure that used to be in place that is no longer, as the food system became privatized and vertically integrated,” said Miller.
Now, as COVID empties grocery shelves and renders many Americans food insecure, the Trump administration is trying to temporarily revive a similar kind of public investment in the agricultural system. After ignoring months of warnings that they should act, warnings that may have helped prevent some of the waste and shortages had they been heeded, the Department of Agriculture now plans to buy up $19 billion in goods to help the sector and provide food to those in need. But the government can’t fix decades of neglect overnight. Before it can have an impact, this money will have to move through a system that’s poorly equipped to handle a crisis.
To prepare for the next disruption, we need a long-term solution. And that means we need not just a better public system for distributing food, but vigorous antitrust enforcement. Otherwise, no amount of money will allow farms to adjust to sudden shocks.


washingtonmonthly--2020-04-28--Republicans Have Advice for Joe Biden

Republicans Have Advice for Joe Biden

I don ’ t think it ’ s a great idea for Democrats to take advice from Republican strategists , but it ’ s still interesting to see what they think about the upcoming 2020 presidential election .
Tim Alberta gathered several of them in a “ smoke-filled Zoom ” and picked their brains about everything from turnout theories to who Biden should pick as a running mate .
A few interesting themes emerged , some of which are worthy of consideration .
The group , which included 2016 campaign managers “ Danny Diaz ( Jeb Bush ) , Beth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Roe ( Ted Cruz ) and Terry Sullivan ( Marco Rubio ) , ” tended to agree that most of the motivation the left needs to vote is provided by Donald Trump .
With the exception of Ms. Hansen , they all saw Biden ’ s current relative invisibility as an advantage for him .
Partially , this was simply because Biden can not commit gaffes if no one is listening , but it ’ s mainly because Trump desperately wants to make this a choice election rather than a simple referendum on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t do that if Biden is hidden below the water line .
Hansen focused in all of her remarks much more on motivating the base , and she thinks Biden is unable to do this from his isolation chamber in Wilmington .
Jeff Roe defined what he saw as Biden ’ s two many options : The Democratic primary voters sent a pretty clear message that they believe the way to win this election is not to pander to them but to gather in the middle .
But that doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ task of energizing the left .
Roe calls this “ the difference between a Stacey Abrams or an Amy Klobuchar ” as a running mate .
“ The middle is not where the votes are .
It ’ s the base—and Biden doesn ’ t have them.
” The general feeling among these Republican strategists is tilted in favor running base elections , but Roe is the most emphatic : Hanson tends to agree but she ’ s more interested in walking a fine line .
I would say it goes a little @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him—and you said this just a second ago , Jeff—it gets you enough of the base without freaking people out .
And that ’ s the balance .
I would argue that he can ’ t pick somebody that it ’ s just going to be so clear it ’ s not a good fit for who he is .
I mean , he does have a reputation of [ chuckles ] 150 years in politics , and people know who he is , and they know that he is a pragmatic , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , centrist , populist kind of a leader .
And so , picking somebody that ’ s just asynchronous for that , I think will not help him .
Balancing the competing interests of staying on brand and creating some excitement , the group recommended Kamala Harris as his ideal running mate .
Elizabeth Warren was ruled out both because they believed she ’ d scare off the middle and because she ’ d make it much harder for Biden to raise Super PAC money .
So , that ’ s the kind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for how Biden should position himself , but they also tend to look at the outcome as highly dependent on whether people are focused more on health or on the economy .
Jeff Roe came up with the example of a contractor building a beautiful house which then burns down .
That ’ s what Trump is going to argue on the economy .
You can trust him to build you another beautiful house .
But this won ’ t work at all if people are still more interested in a president who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump has already lost that argument .
Sullivan is skeptical that he can win the economic argument either : It may be a problem , but we can sure that the economy will be struggling in November , and Trump has a better shot fighting on that ground than on his record on Covid-19 .
Related to that , these Republican consultants are eager to see Biden move to the left .
Even when playing Devil ’ s Advocate , they say he ’ s better off using identity than ideology to excite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advantage of him being in non-campaign mode is that he doesn ’ t have to make big promises to the left .
And , above all , they say that Trump is eager to seize on anything , however small , to argue that Biden is a communist just like Warren and Sanders .
The overall impression is a little confusing .
They seem to think getting out the base is more important than winning the middle , but their idea of the middle seems to be restricted completely to tax-averse Romney-Clinton suburbanites @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work Obama-Trump voters ?
When they think about Trump defections , they tend to think of elderly people who are naturally going to be more concerned about their health than the economy .
It ’ s more of a risk for them to vote in person , too , so getting them to the polls will be more difficult than usual in states that don ’ t have an automatic mail-in option .
That ’ s a subject for a different piece , but low-information working class voters are classic swing voters who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economic condition .
Trump won them over by arguing that free trade had been a bad deal and promising to blow things up and do things differently in the future .
Record high unemployment is going to create swing in this group , but Biden has to capture it .
A return to Obama-ism might be a good sell in the suburbs , but less so in the sticks .
Overall , I think the flaw in these consultants ’ advice is that they ’ re describing the kind of campaign that they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how many of them will actually vote for Biden in the fall ?
In this highly partisan age , it ’ s hard to win crossover votes from anyone who is politically engaged .
The middle among high-information voters is very inelastic , which is why it ’ s not the middle that matters the most .
Yet , I think all of this is basically wrong .
Biden isn ’ t the one who needs to be chasing voters .
When you chase one group too hard , you lose another group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now and he ’ ll continue to have the upper hand until he blows it .
What he wants to do is be welcoming to everyone .
He wants to have an argument for why he ’ s the safe choice .
People want some equilibrium .
So , Biden doesn ’ t need to excite his base but he also doesn ’ t need to stiff-arm the left to appeal to the middle .
He has an opportunity to win back a lot of Obama-Trump voters , but he doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allowances for their prejudices .
He just needs to be steady and offer an unthreatening alternative to Trump , and he ’ s going to win over most of the swing in the electorate .
Where Biden should bring the heat is as an advocate for everyone who has been screwed over in the last four years and specifically by this pandemic .
That ’ s where he should mine for excitement and enthusiasm .

I don’t think it’s a great idea for Democrats to take advice from Republican strategists, but it’s still interesting to see what they think about the upcoming 2020 presidential election. Tim Alberta gathered several of them in a “smoke-filled Zoom” and picked their brains about everything from turnout theories to who Biden should pick as a running mate. A few interesting themes emerged, some of which are worthy of consideration.
The group, which included 2016 campaign managers “Danny Diaz (Jeb Bush), Beth Hansen (John Kasich), Jeff Roe (Ted Cruz) and Terry Sullivan (Marco Rubio),” tended to agree that most of the motivation the left needs to vote is provided by Donald Trump. With the exception of Ms. Hansen, they all saw Biden’s current relative invisibility as an advantage for him. Partially, this was simply because Biden cannot commit gaffes if no one is listening, but it’s mainly because Trump desperately wants to make this a choice election rather than a simple referendum on his performance in office. He can’t do that if Biden is hidden below the water line. Hansen focused in all of her remarks much more on motivating the base, and she thinks Biden is unable to do this from his isolation chamber in Wilmington.
Jeff Roe defined what he saw as Biden’s two many options:
He’s got a decision to make. There’s two schools of thought in presidential politics. I openly subscribe to one of them. You either believe that you win with the middle or you believe that you motivate your base. And when you’re running against an incumbent president, almost always they have a defined electorate, so they motivate their base.
The Democratic primary voters sent a pretty clear message that they believe the way to win this election is not to pander to them but to gather in the middle. But that doesn’t mean that Biden can safely ignore the task of energizing the left. Roe calls this “the difference between a Stacey Abrams or an Amy Klobuchar” as a running mate. “The middle is not where the votes are. It’s the base—and Biden doesn’t have them.”
The general feeling among these Republican strategists is tilted in favor running base elections, but Roe is the most emphatic:
And it is shown time and time again that intensity, when we nominate middle-of-the-road candidates and when they nominate middle-of-the-road candidates, they do terrible. Bob Dole was our worst candidates in a generation, and John Kerry was the worst candidate for them. You can’t do a centrist move in this day and age…
Hanson tends to agree but she’s more interested in walking a fine line.
I would say it goes a little bit beyond base. What it gets him—and you said this just a second ago, Jeff—it gets you enough of the base without freaking people out. And that’s the balance. I would argue that he can’t pick somebody that it’s just going to be so clear it’s not a good fit for who he is. I mean, he does have a reputation of [chuckles] 150 years in politics, and people know who he is, and they know that he is a pragmatic, middle of the road, blue collar, centrist, populist kind of a leader. And so, picking somebody that’s just asynchronous for that, I think will not help him.
Balancing the competing interests of staying on brand and creating some excitement, the group recommended Kamala Harris as his ideal running mate. Elizabeth Warren was ruled out both because they believed she’d scare off the middle and because she’d make it much harder for Biden to raise Super PAC money.
So, that’s the kind of prism they’re looking through for how Biden should position himself, but they also tend to look at the outcome as highly dependent on whether people are focused more on health or on the economy. Jeff Roe came up with the example of a contractor building a beautiful house which then burns down. That’s what Trump is going to argue on the economy. You can trust him to build you another beautiful house. But this won’t work at all if people are still more interested in a president who can contain a global health pandemic. Trump has already lost that argument. Sullivan is skeptical that he can win the economic argument either:
Your house burns to the ground, you’re not thinking rationally. Right now, I don’t know that voters are thinking through this in a logical, rational way, and so I think that they’re not necessarily going to go back to Trump because he presided over it. And the economy is still going to suck by the time we get to the election, even if he’s done amazing things, it’s still not going to be where it was two months ago. And that’s a problem for him.
It may be a problem, but we can sure that the economy will be struggling in November, and Trump has a better shot fighting on that ground than on his record on Covid-19.
Related to that, these Republican consultants are eager to see Biden move to the left. Even when playing Devil’s Advocate, they say he’s better off using identity than ideology to excite the base. They argue that one advantage of him being in non-campaign mode is that he doesn’t have to make big promises to the left. And, above all, they say that Trump is eager to seize on anything, however small, to argue that Biden is a communist just like Warren and Sanders.
The overall impression is a little confusing. They seem to think getting out the base is more important than winning the middle, but their idea of the middle seems to be restricted completely to tax-averse Romney-Clinton suburbanites. What about all those out of work Obama-Trump voters?
When they think about Trump defections, they tend to think of elderly people who are naturally going to be more concerned about their health than the economy. It’s more of a risk for them to vote in person, too, so getting them to the polls will be more difficult than usual in states that don’t have an automatic mail-in option. That’s a subject for a different piece, but low-information working class voters are classic swing voters who make their decisions based on the current economic condition. Trump won them over by arguing that free trade had been a bad deal and promising to blow things up and do things differently in the future. Record high unemployment is going to create swing in this group, but Biden has to capture it. A return to Obama-ism might be a good sell in the suburbs, but less so in the sticks.
Overall, I think the flaw in these consultants’ advice is that they’re describing the kind of campaign that they might be able to support. But how many of them will actually vote for Biden in the fall? In this highly partisan age, it’s hard to win crossover votes from anyone who is politically engaged. The middle among high-information voters is very inelastic, which is why it’s not the middle that matters the most.
Yet, I think all of this is basically wrong. Biden isn’t the one who needs to be chasing voters. When you chase one group too hard, you lose another group. Biden is winning this election right now and he’ll continue to have the upper hand until he blows it. What he wants to do is be welcoming to everyone. He wants to have an argument for why he’s the safe choice. People want some equilibrium. So, Biden doesn’t need to excite his base but he also doesn’t need to stiff-arm the left to appeal to the middle. He has an opportunity to win back a lot of Obama-Trump voters, but he doesn’t need to pander to them or make allowances for their prejudices. He just needs to be steady and offer an unthreatening alternative to Trump, and he’s going to win over most of the swing in the electorate.
Where Biden should bring the heat is as an advocate for everyone who has been screwed over in the last four years and specifically by this pandemic. That’s where he should mine for excitement and enthusiasm.


washingtonmonthly--2020-04-29--What Is Disturbing About Tara Reade’s Allegations

Tara Reade , who worked in Joe Biden ’ s Senate office in the early 1990s , has alleged that the former vice president sexually assaulted her .
Her claims are disturbing , but not in the way that Rebecca Traister has suggested .
While Triaster refers to the “ alleged ” assault throughout her piece , she writes under the assumption that what Reade claims is true .
In that way , she affirms the kind of “ zero tolerance ” for accusations that became rampant when similar charges were launched against then-Senator Al Franken .
Having had experience @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sexual harassment , I have always maintained that women should be taken seriously when they make such allegations .
That means following up by conducting an investigation .
As in most cases of sexual assault , there were no witnesses to what Reade claims happened between her and Biden , which means that it will be difficult to prove one way or another .
Since Reade told her story to Katie Halper , some additional evidence has surfaced .
First came this report from Ryan Grim .
That is an important piece of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t identify themselves , their daughter , the senator in question , or the specific allegations .
After choosing to remain anonymous to other reporters , two of Reade ’ s friends confirmed to Rich McHugh that she had told them about the assault at the time .
But as Joan Walsh reports , there are a lot of inconsistencies in these stories .
Reade now says she made claims of sexual harassment , but not assault , to her supervisors in Biden ’ s office ; they vehemently deny hearing any such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to find a new job by a supervisor , but she has also changed her recollection of which supervisor it was when speaking to reporters in recent weeks ( all of the people she named deny it ) .
The AP contacted 21 former Biden staffers , none of whom remember any Reade complaint against their boss .
Reade also claims she complained to the Senate personnel office ; there is no record of it… Just last Thursday , Reade filed a complaint with the Washington , DC , police department , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in its reporters ’ words , “ because she is being harassed online and wanted law enforcement to be aware of her claim.
” The public record of the claim doesn ’ t name Biden but says Reade “ disclosed that she was the victim of a sexual assault ” in 1993 .
While hardly dispositive , Walsh also notes this .
In his closely documented , almost 50-year career , there have been no other similar claims against Biden .
The Times interviewed the other seven women who came out last year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their will ; none said his behavior crossed the line to sexual assault .
After many dozen interviews , with Reade and her friends , along with lawyers and two dozen Biden staffers , the writers concluded : “ The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden.
” Men who do what Reade says Biden did tend to do it more than once ( see Harvey Weinstein , Jeffrey Epstein , and Donald Trump ) .
Also , once an allegation like Reade ’ s surfaces , others usually follow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so far .
For reasonable people , none of this paints a clear picture of whether these allegations are true .
That leaves us with two very uncomfortable conclusions as possibilities .
The first is that the man who is the presumptive Democratic nominee for president is guilty of sexually assaulting a woman more than 25 years ago .
The other is that Tara Read is lying .
What is even more disturbing is that we have precious little information to help us decide between those two conclusions .
For many feminists , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about sexual assault is anathema .
But are we really willing to dispense with that possibility in these days of disinformation ?
Automatically believing any woman is an open invitation to that kind of thing .
That is exactly where Reade ’ s past provides a counterweight to the recent evidence that has surfaced .
First of all , it is important to know that Tara Reade has gone by several different names in the past , including Tara Reade Moulton , Tara McCabe , Alexandra Tara McCabe , and Alexandra Tara Reade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had a twitter account under the name Tara McCabe , where she retweeted praise for Joe Biden ’ s efforts to end sexual assault , as well as condemnation of Vladimir Putin .
The piece Reade retweeted from the New Yorker outlines Putin ’ s new cold war against America and how he is trying to “ damage American confidence and undermine the Western alliances — diplomatic , financial , and military , that have shaped postwar world.
” Then , all of the sudden in 2018 , writing under the name Alexandra @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Putin , sometimes in fairly sexual terms .
Here is what she wrote in November 2018 in an article titled “ Why a Liberal Democrat supports Vladimir Putin.
” The week she came forward with her allegations against Biden , Reade wrote this .
All of those missives to Putin that Reade wrote have now been deleted ( links go to where they ’ ve been archived ) , so she obviously doesn ’ t want that to be part of the story .
But they certainly raise some questions about a possible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ won ’ t attempt to analyze Reade , it is clear that she is an avid storyteller—which is what she claims is behind her missives about Putin .
She also shows signs of being the victim of sexual assault/abuse , perhaps even during her time in Washington , DC .
Finally , something dramatic changed for her between 2017 and 2018—although what that would entail is a complete mystery .
Taking such a deep dive into Reade ’ s past makes me uncomfortable .
It reeks of blaming the victim .
But she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ equally uncomfortable picture of a presidential candidate .
There is no getting around that if we honestly want to search for the truth .
On the one hand , we have a man with a history of touching women in ways that made them uncomfortable but has faced no other accusations of sexual assault .
Back in 2008 , Biden went through a thorough vetting by the Obama campaign and either they found nothing , or did and ignored it .
I find the latter option to be implausible .
On the other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allegations of sexual assault have been corroborated by friends and family—although not by any co-workers .
Her story is replete with inconsistencies and her recent history points to the possibility that her claims could part of a disinformation campaign .
The agenda I bring to the table is that I want to believe Joe Biden .
Frankly , though , I struggle with that and have tried to weigh all of the evidence .
That is what is disturbing about this whole thing…we just don ’ t know .
And I ’ m @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have to live with that .

Tara Reade, who worked in Joe Biden’s Senate office in the early 1990s, has alleged that the former vice president sexually assaulted her. Her claims are disturbing, but not in the way that Rebecca Traister has suggested. While Triaster refers to the “alleged” assault throughout her piece, she writes under the assumption that what Reade claims is true. In that way, she affirms the kind of “zero tolerance” for accusations that became rampant when similar charges were launched against then-Senator Al Franken.
Having had experience with someone who made false claims of sexual harassment, I have always maintained that women should be taken seriously when they make such allegations. That means following up by conducting an investigation. As in most cases of sexual assault, there were no witnesses to what Reade claims happened between her and Biden, which means that it will be difficult to prove one way or another.
Since Reade told her story to Katie Halper, some additional evidence has surfaced. First came this report from Ryan Grim.
In interviews with The Intercept, Reade also mentioned that her mother had made a phone call to “Larry King Live” on CNN, during which she made reference to her daughter’s experience on Capitol Hill. Reade told The Intercept that her mother called in asking for advice after Reade, then in her 20s, left Biden’s office. “I remember it being an anonymous call and her saying my daughter was sexually harassed and retaliated against and fired, where can she go for help? I was mortified,” Reade told me.
That is an important piece of evidence. But the caller didn’t identify themselves, their daughter, the senator in question, or the specific allegations.
After choosing to remain anonymous to other reporters, two of Reade’s friends confirmed to Rich McHugh that she had told them about the assault at the time.
“This happened, and I know it did because I remember talking about it,” Lynda LaCasse, who lived next door to Reade in the mid-’90s, told Insider. The other source, Lorraine Sanchez, who worked with Reade in the office of a California state senator in the mid-’90s, told Insider that she recalls Reade complaining at the time that her former boss in Washington, DC, had sexually harassed her, and that she had been fired after raising concerns.
But as Joan Walsh reports, there are a lot of inconsistencies in these stories.
Reade now says she made claims of sexual harassment, but not assault, to her supervisors in Biden’s office; they vehemently deny hearing any such complaint. She says she was told to find a new job by a supervisor, but she has also changed her recollection of which supervisor it was when speaking to reporters in recent weeks (all of the people she named deny it). The AP contacted 21 former Biden staffers, none of whom remember any Reade complaint against their boss. Reade also claims she complained to the Senate personnel office; there is no record of it… Just last Thursday, Reade filed a complaint with the Washington, DC, police department, but told the Post she did so, in its reporters’ words, “because she is being harassed online and wanted law enforcement to be aware of her claim.” The public record of the claim doesn’t name Biden but says Reade “disclosed that she was the victim of a sexual assault” in 1993.
While hardly dispositive, Walsh also notes this.
In his closely documented, almost 50-year career, there have been no other similar claims against Biden. The Times interviewed the other seven women who came out last year to accuse Biden of touching them against their will; none said his behavior crossed the line to sexual assault. After many dozen interviews, with Reade and her friends, along with lawyers and two dozen Biden staffers, the writers concluded: “The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden.” Men who do what Reade says Biden did tend to do it more than once (see Harvey Weinstein, Jeffrey Epstein, and Donald Trump). Also, once an allegation like Reade’s surfaces, others usually follow. They have not, at least so far.
For reasonable people, none of this paints a clear picture of whether these allegations are true. That leaves us with two very uncomfortable conclusions as possibilities. The first is that the man who is the presumptive Democratic nominee for president is guilty of sexually assaulting a woman more than 25 years ago. The other is that Tara Reade is lying. What is even more disturbing is that we have precious little information to help us decide between those two conclusions.
For many feminists, the possibility that a woman would lie about sexual assault is anathema. But are we really willing to dispense with that possibility in these days of disinformation? Automatically believing any woman is an open invitation to that kind of thing. That is exactly where Reade’s past provides a counterweight to the recent evidence that has surfaced.
First of all, it is important to know that Tara Reade has gone by several different names in the past, including Tara Reade Moulton, Tara McCabe, Alexandra Tara McCabe, and Alexandra Tara Reade. In 2016 and 2017, she had a twitter account under the name Tara McCabe, where she retweeted praise for Joe Biden’s efforts to end sexual assault, as well as condemnation of Vladimir Putin.
The piece Reade retweeted from the New Yorker outlines Putin’s new cold war against America and how he is trying to “damage American confidence and undermine the Western alliances — diplomatic, financial, and military, that have shaped postwar world.”
Then, all of the sudden in 2018, writing under the name Alexandra Tara Reade, she began praising Vladimir Putin, sometimes in fairly sexual terms. Here is what she wrote in November 2018 in an article titled “Why a Liberal Democrat supports Vladimir Putin.”
Through my lens, President Putin brought a chaotic and failed nation to become a vibrant, creative, economic force within a decade. I don’t care what your politics; just admit that his sheer, calculated vision and willful energy brought Russia back to be a world power…President Putin has an alluring combination of strength with gentleness. His sensuous image projects his love for life, the embodiment of grace while facing adversity. It is evident that he loves his country, his people and his job. Although his job may seem like in the words of writer, Elizabeth Gilbert on genius, “ trying to swallow the sun.” This is a whole lot to deal with for one mere mortal… President Putin’s obvious reverence for women, children and animals, and his ability with sports is intoxicating to American women.
The week she came forward with her allegations against Biden, Reade wrote this.
When the anti-Russia, anti-Putin propaganda starts up, personally, I shut down. I love Russia, I love my Russian relatives and friends. And like most women across the world, I like President Putin… a lot, his shirt on or shirt off.
All of those missives to Putin that Reade wrote have now been deleted (links go to where they’ve been archived), so she obviously doesn’t want that to be part of the story. But they certainly raise some questions about a possible disinformation campaign against Biden.
While I won’t attempt to analyze Reade, it is clear that she is an avid storyteller—which is what she claims is behind her missives about Putin. She also shows signs of being the victim of sexual assault/abuse, perhaps even during her time in Washington, DC. Finally, something dramatic changed for her between 2017 and 2018—although what that would entail is a complete mystery.
Taking such a deep dive into Reade’s past makes me uncomfortable. It reeks of blaming the victim. But she has made serious allegations that paint an equally uncomfortable picture of a presidential candidate. There is no getting around that if we honestly want to search for the truth.
On the one hand, we have a man with a history of touching women in ways that made them uncomfortable but has faced no other accusations of sexual assault. Back in 2008, Biden went through a thorough vetting by the Obama campaign and either they found nothing, or did and ignored it. I find the latter option to be implausible.
On the other hand, we have a woman whose allegations of experiencing some form of sexual misconduct back in 1993 have been corroborated by friends and family—although not by any co-workers. Her story is replete with inconsistencies and her recent history points to the possibility that her claims could part of a disinformation campaign.
The agenda I bring to the table is that I want to believe Joe Biden. Frankly, though, I struggle with that and have tried to weigh all of the evidence. That is what is disturbing about this whole thing…we just don’t know. And I’m afraid we’re all going to have to live with that.


washingtonmonthly--2020-04-29--Reports of Kim Jong Un’s Demise Are Greatly Exaggerated

Castro was regularly rumored to be dead .
It became a featured meme .
James Cason , who later became Coral Gables mayor , served as head of the U.S .
Interests Section in Havana between 2002 and 2005 and once said that Castro “ must have died 20 times since the time I went to Cuba.
” Sensational rumors are started and popularly circulated for many reasons .
Self-started rumors , for example , are often launched for publicity purposes , as with Morton Downey Jr. or Jussie Smollett.For the Beatles , McCartney ’ s rumored death proved a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him led to headlines , premature obituaries and huge record sales .
Americans scoured albums and pictures to find clues — a barefoot Paul walking across Abbey Road or a cryptic Sgt .
Pepper ’ s photo with Paul ’ s back turned .
Songs played backward supposedly revealed “ Paul is dead !
” Enter Kim Jong Un .
Why on Earth would this rumor start ?
Unlike rumors spread for self-promotion , those spread by others can be weaponized , meant to weaken a target or to test an adversary ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s leadership and hold on power are constantly being tested .
This rumor-mongering may just be the latest installment .
It could be an attempt by the West—or Beijing—to smoke out Kim just to see where he is and if he ’ s willing to come forth and dispel the rumor .
This allows adversaries the ability to calculate if and how he responds to foreign pressures .
Does he remain out of the public eye ?
Or does he order and preside over a missile test launch ?
Each type of response @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his personality and his grip on power .
The Kim ’ s-dead rumor also provides grist for any surviving and well-hidden North Korean opposition — weak as it may be — to step up and act .
Credible rumors of a weakened or dead leader provide pretext and cover for any potential Pyongyang political factions or military leaders to consider a coup d ’ etat .
U.S. intelligence agencies and defense personnel look for troop movements , changed postures , heightened defense preparedness , broadcast messaging , chatter within diplomatic channels , runs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Weaponized rumors also are a psychological game played by adversarial nations to test the resilience and response mechanisms of other countries .
In nations that have unreliable , usually state-run , news organizations , rumors carry greater weight and credibility than denials .
People living in dictatorships rely heavily on rumors and whispered news for their information .
No wonder — listening to the regularly broadcast staccatoed exhortations of North Korean TV newscasters praising the “ Dear Respected Comrade Leader ” is enough to turn a die-hard Socialist worker into a fearful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a political leader is presumed critically ill or dead , there is an opportunity to take the temperature of a population towards its leadership .
When the wishful thinking and targeted rumors of Castro ’ s death were being floated , there were many who stood anxiously in the Miami and Havana wings , waiting to spring into action and overthrow his regime .
In the end , however , Castro outlived most of his island-based opponents .
Kim may be unhealthy—he may even actually be taking his last breaths—but at 36 years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ physically fitter and likely to outlive President Trump .
Soviet leaders were often dead and rumored to be alive .
The only way the world was ever assured that people like Soviet General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev were really dead was when Moscow ’ s radio stations stopped their regularly scheduled programming and put Tchaikovsky ’ s “ Swan Lake ” into heavy rotation .
Authoritarian states may be uniquely vulnerable to weaponized rumors , but developed , democratic countries with free and independent media and radio stations are also susceptible .
Thanks , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kim Jong Un seem to be dead quite yet .
But one person who definitely is long gone is the great American author and journalist Mark Twain .
During his lifetime , Twain was also rumored to be dead .
When contacted by an English reporter for the New York Journal , he famously responded that , “ The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated .
”

Castro was regularly rumored to be dead. It became a featured meme. James Cason, who later became Coral Gables mayor, served as head of the U.S. Interests Section in Havana between 2002 and 2005 and once said that Castro “must have died 20 times since the time I went to Cuba.”
Sensational rumors are started and popularly circulated for many reasons. Self-started rumors, for example, are often launched for publicity purposes, as with Morton Downey Jr. or Jussie Smollett.For the Beatles, McCartney’s rumored death proved a sales coup. The public mourning for him led to headlines, premature obituaries and huge record sales. Americans scoured albums and pictures to find clues — a barefoot Paul walking across Abbey Road or a cryptic Sgt. Pepper’s photo with Paul’s back turned. Songs played backward supposedly revealed “Paul is dead!”
Except he wasn’t.
Enter Kim Jong Un. Why on Earth would this rumor start?
Unlike rumors spread for self-promotion, those spread by others can be weaponized, meant to weaken a target or to test an adversary’s resilience and reactions. Kim’s leadership and hold on power are constantly being tested. This rumor-mongering may just be the latest installment.
It could be an attempt by the West—or Beijing—to smoke out Kim just to see where he is and if he’s willing to come forth and dispel the rumor. This allows adversaries the ability to calculate if and how he responds to foreign pressures. Does he remain out of the public eye? Or does he order and preside over a missile test launch? Each type of response gives the world a clue both to his personality and his grip on power.
The Kim’s-dead rumor also provides grist for any surviving and well-hidden North Korean opposition — weak as it may be — to step up and act. Credible rumors of a weakened or dead leader provide pretext and cover for any potential Pyongyang political factions or military leaders to consider a coup d’etat.
U.S. intelligence agencies and defense personnel look for troop movements, changed postures, heightened defense preparedness, broadcast messaging, chatter within diplomatic channels, runs on goods and altered daily worker patterns.
Weaponized rumors also are a psychological game played by adversarial nations to test the resilience and response mechanisms of other countries. In nations that have unreliable, usually state-run, news organizations, rumors carry greater weight and credibility than denials. People living in dictatorships rely heavily on rumors and whispered news for their information. No wonder — listening to the regularly broadcast staccatoed exhortations of North Korean TV newscasters praising the “Dear Respected Comrade Leader” is enough to turn a die-hard Socialist worker into a fearful rumor consumer.
At times, when a political leader is presumed critically ill or dead, there is an opportunity to take the temperature of a population towards its leadership. When the wishful thinking and targeted rumors of Castro’s death were being floated, there were many who stood anxiously in the Miami and Havana wings, waiting to spring into action and overthrow his regime. In the end, however, Castro outlived most of his island-based opponents. Kim may be unhealthy—he may even actually be taking his last breaths—but at 36 years old, he is younger, seemingly physically fitter and likely to outlive President Trump.
Soviet leaders were often dead and rumored to be alive. The only way the world was ever assured that people like Soviet General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev were really dead was when Moscow’s radio stations stopped their regularly scheduled programming and put Tchaikovsky’s “Swan Lake” into heavy rotation.
Authoritarian states may be uniquely vulnerable to weaponized rumors, but developed, democratic countries with free and independent media and radio stations are also susceptible. Thanks, Facebook!
Neither Sir Paul McCartney nor Kim Jong Un seem to be dead quite yet. But one person who definitely is long gone is the great American author and journalist Mark Twain. During his lifetime, Twain was also rumored to be dead. When contacted by an English reporter for the New York Journal, he famously responded that, “The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated.”


washingtonmonthly--2020-04-29--The Misinformation Being Used to Pressure Us Into Re-Opening the Economy

The people who are intent on re-opening the economy in the midst of the coronavirus crisis are relying on a lot of faulty science and outright lies .
I thought it would be helpful to shine a bit of sunlight on some of their claims .
As an example , there are those who are suggesting that social distancing hasn ’ t worked to stop the spread of the virus , so we might as well end the practice .
But that is based on a false premise .
As you might recall , the reason given for social distancing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ flatten the curve , ” ensuring that our health care system did not become overwhelmed .
To demonstrate , here is the graph that went viral at the time .
Tom Friedan , head of the CDC under President Obama , made it clear that these efforts were designed not to prevent widespread transmission , but to “ prevent explosive transmission and anything that overwhelms the health care system.
” By taking those protective measures , it has always been assumed that the number of cases would remain the same , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of time .
Even more widely circulated is the disinformation coming from two doctors , Daniel Erickson and Artin Massihi , who are the owners of an urgent care clinic in Bakersfield , CA .
They produced an hour-long video which basically claimed that the mortality rate for COVID-19 patients was so low that restrictive stay-at-home measures are unwarranted .
You can read a bit about how they cooked their numbers , but it is even more important to know that not only did Youtube remove the video from their platform for violating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but two groups representing emergency medical professionals took the unprecedented step of condemning their presentation .
The American College of Emergency Physicians ( ACEP ) and the American Academy of Emergency Medicine ( AAEM ) jointly and emphatically condemn the recent opinions released by Dr. Daniel Erickson and Dr. Artin Massihi .
These reckless and untested musings do not speak for medical societies and are inconsistent with current science and epidemiology regarding COVID-19 .
As owners of local urgent care clinics , it appears these two individuals are releasing biased , non-peer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interests without regard for the public ’ s health .
COVID-19 misinformation is widespread and dangerous .
Members of ACEP and AAEM are first-hand witnesses to the human toll that COVID-19 is taking on our communities .
ACEP and AAEM strongly advise against using any statements of Drs .
Erickson and Massihi as a basis for policy and decision making .
Finally , there is a lot of chatter about how social distancing is actually hindering the process of developing “ herd immunity.
” That is an epidemiological term used to describe “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a disease that the infection will not spread within that group.
” Most commonly , herd immunity is reached when a critical number of people have either been vaccinated or have developed natural immunity .
Given what we know about COVID-19 , that critical number would have to be at least 70 percent of the population .
Since a vaccine for coronavirus hasn ’ t been developed yet , those who are suggesting that we re-open the economy in order to develop herd immunity are relying on the assumption that people who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ necessary to give them natural immunity .
But as Brian Resnick writes , that might be a faulty assumption .
In addition , many people promoting the idea of herd immunity rely on two other factors : ( 1 ) that it is only the mortality rates for those over 60 that need to be taken into consideration , and ( 2 ) that people over 60 can be quarantined while the rest of us get back to normal life .
Nowhere do you hear them address the long-term health effects we are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , nor do they deal with the reality that many elderly people live with their children and grandchildren—something that is especially prevalent with low income elderly and people of color .
In exploring the possibility of developing herd immunity , Thomas Friedman looks to the example provided by Sweden .
But it is important to note what that country has actually done .
Tegnell [ the country ’ s top infectious disease official ] explains that Sweden is not just blithely letting all Swedes get the disease to achieve herd immunity , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the most sustainable way to navigate through this pandemic .
So colleges and high schools are closed , but kindergarten through grade nine are open , as are many restaurants , stores and businesses .
But the government has also issued social-distancing guidelines , which many people are abiding by , encouraged working from home and discouraged nonessential travel .
Most important , it has encouraged everyone over 70 to stay at home and banned gatherings of more than 50 people and visits to nursing homes .
Given all of that , here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is also helpful to remember that , in the hands of Prime Minister Boris Johnson , the U.K. ’ s experiment with herd immunity turned into a debacle .
Hopefully , all of this provides you with some factual information that helps to dispel some of the misinformation we ’ re hearing from those who are intent on re-opening the economy in ways that disregard the best advice from scientific experts .

The people who are intent on re-opening the economy in the midst of the coronavirus crisis are relying on a lot of faulty science and outright lies. I thought it would be helpful to shine a bit of sunlight on some of their claims.
As an example, there are those who are suggesting that social distancing hasn’t worked to stop the spread of the virus, so we might as well end the practice. But that is based on a false premise. As you might recall, the reason given for social distancing was that it is a way to “flatten the curve,” ensuring that our health care system did not become overwhelmed. To demonstrate, here is the graph that went viral at the time.
Tom Friedan, head of the CDC under President Obama, made it clear that these efforts were designed not to prevent widespread transmission, but to “prevent explosive transmission and anything that overwhelms the health care system.” By taking those protective measures, it has always been assumed that the number of cases would remain the same, but would be spread over a longer period of time.
Even more widely circulated is the disinformation coming from two doctors, Daniel Erickson and Artin Massihi, who are the owners of an urgent care clinic in Bakersfield, CA. They produced an hour-long video which basically claimed that the mortality rate for COVID-19 patients was so low that restrictive stay-at-home measures are unwarranted. You can read a bit about how they cooked their numbers, but it is even more important to know that not only did Youtube remove the video from their platform for violating its community guidelines on spreading coronavirus misinformation, but two groups representing emergency medical professionals took the unprecedented step of condemning their presentation.
The American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) and the American Academy of Emergency Medicine (AAEM) jointly and emphatically condemn the recent opinions released by Dr. Daniel Erickson and Dr. Artin Massihi. These reckless and untested musings do not speak for medical societies and are inconsistent with current science and epidemiology regarding COVID-19. As owners of local urgent care clinics, it appears these two individuals are releasing biased, non-peer reviewed data to advance their personal financial interests without regard for the public’s health. COVID-19 misinformation is widespread and dangerous. Members of ACEP and AAEM are first-hand witnesses to the human toll that COVID-19 is taking on our communities. ACEP and AAEM strongly advise against using any statements of Drs. Erickson and Massihi as a basis for policy and decision making.
Finally, there is a lot of chatter about how social distancing is actually hindering the process of developing “herd immunity.” That is an epidemiological term used to describe “the state where a population…is sufficiently immune to a disease that the infection will not spread within that group.” Most commonly, herd immunity is reached when a critical number of people have either been vaccinated or have developed natural immunity. Given what we know about COVID-19, that critical number would have to be at least 70 percent of the population.
Since a vaccine for coronavirus hasn’t been developed yet, those who are suggesting that we re-open the economy in order to develop herd immunity are relying on the assumption that people who have contracted COVID-19 have developed the antibodies necessary to give them natural immunity. But as Brian Resnick writes, that might be a faulty assumption.
Recently, the World Health Organization put out a buzzkill of a statement: “There is currently no evidence that people who have recovered from Covid-19 and have antibodies are protected from a second infection.”… But experts in immunology and virology tell me that the WHO is right: The detection of antibodies to Covid-19 is not enough to declare a person immune because we don’t yet know how immunity to this virus works.
In addition, many people promoting the idea of herd immunity rely on two other factors: (1) that it is only the mortality rates for those over 60 that need to be taken into consideration, and (2) that people over 60 can be quarantined while the rest of us get back to normal life. Nowhere do you hear them address the long-term health effects we are seeing with those who have survived COVID-19, nor do they deal with the reality that many elderly people live with their children and grandchildren—something that is especially prevalent with low income elderly and people of color.
In exploring the possibility of developing herd immunity, Thomas Friedman looks to the example provided by Sweden. But it is important to note what that country has actually done.
Tegnell [the country’s top infectious disease official] explains that Sweden is not just blithely letting all Swedes get the disease to achieve herd immunity, but rather is pursuing a designed strategy for the most sustainable way to navigate through this pandemic. So colleges and high schools are closed, but kindergarten through grade nine are open, as are many restaurants, stores and businesses. But the government has also issued social-distancing guidelines, which many people are abiding by, encouraged working from home and discouraged nonessential travel. Most important, it has encouraged everyone over 70 to stay at home and banned gatherings of more than 50 people and visits to nursing homes.
Given all of that, here are the results so far.
The death rate in Sweden has now risen significantly higher than many other countries in Europe, reaching more than 22 per 100,000 people, according to figures from Johns Hopkins University, controlled for population. By contrast, Denmark has recorded just over seven deaths per 100,000 people, and both Norway and Finland less than four.
It is also helpful to remember that, in the hands of Prime Minister Boris Johnson, the U.K.’s experiment with herd immunity turned into a debacle.
Hopefully, all of this provides you with some factual information that helps to dispel some of the misinformation we’re hearing from those who are intent on re-opening the economy in ways that disregard the best advice from scientific experts.


washingtonmonthly--2020-04-29--Yes, Justin Amash’s Candidacy Will Help Trump

Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan is now seeking the Libertarian Party ’ s nomination for president and Donald Trump is pretty excited about it .
I suspect Trump is right for once .
While it ’ s true that the Libertarian Party was already likely to have a candidate on most if not all ballots in the country , Amash has good name recognition and more political skills than the typical Libertarian nominee .
He will boost the party ’ s performance .
The next question is obviously whether he ’ ll pull more votes from Trump or from Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right-leaning just as the Greens are generally left-leaning .
This would ordinarily mean that some Republicans would opt for the Libertarian because their ideology is more libertarian than conservative .
It ’ s the same assumption Trump is making with respect to 2016 Green Party candidate Jill Stein—that she helped him by attracting a portion of the left , thereby denying Hillary Clinton some votes .
However , the 2020 election is shaping up to be a ‘ yes ’ or ‘ no ’ vote on Trump rather than an expression of ideological @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for saying ‘ no , ’ the more diluted the ‘ no ’ vote will be .
The simplest way of demonstrating this is to imagine ten voters , five of whom support Trump and five of whom do not .
If one of those Trump opponents votes for Amash , then Trump wins 5-4-1 .
This is the more likely scenario than the one where five liberals and five conservatives vote , and one conservative opts for Amash , giving Biden the victory .
The best situation is the one in which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Justin Amash makes that less likely .
Now , this could be somewhat offset by a certain kind of voter .
This voter is basically unwilling to cast a ballot for a Democrat under any circumstances , and also unwilling to stay at home or leave the ballot line blank .
In a choice between Trump and Biden , they ’ d choose Trump even though they ’ re very unhappy with him .
Amash gives them a chance to register their displeasure without supporting a party they loathe .
These people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their votes .
The problem is that I believe there are probably just as many people on the far left who would use Amash ’ s ballot line for the same purpose .
In one sense , Biden can benefit from having another voice amplifying his criticisms of Trump , but Amash will also be looking to attract people on the left who are critical of Biden ’ s record .
He will have some success in this , especially because many of the strongest criticisms of Biden align with libertarian philosophy—think drug @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has more credibility with the left than the average Libertarian candidate because he quit the Republican Party and voted to impeach the president .
It ’ s hard to say with certainty , but I think it ’ s a good bet that Amash will pull in more potential Biden voters than Trump voters .
I also think this is largely out of his control .
He can have some influence through what he chooses to emphasize , but he ’ ll always be more of a receptacle for protest than a true @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , so almost by definition he ’ ll be diluting it .

Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan is now seeking the Libertarian Party’s nomination for president and Donald Trump is pretty excited about it.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1255510996623527936
I suspect Trump is right for once. While it’s true that the Libertarian Party was already likely to have a candidate on most if not all ballots in the country, Amash has good name recognition and more political skills than the typical Libertarian nominee. He will boost the party’s performance.
The next question is obviously whether he’ll pull more votes from Trump or from Biden. In general, the Libertarians are right-leaning just as the Greens are generally left-leaning. This would ordinarily mean that some Republicans would opt for the Libertarian because their ideology is more libertarian than conservative. It’s the same assumption Trump is making with respect to 2016 Green Party candidate Jill Stein—that she helped him by attracting a portion of the left, thereby denying Hillary Clinton some votes.
However, the 2020 election is shaping up to be a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ vote on Trump rather than an expression of ideological preference. The more options people have for saying ‘no,’ the more diluted the ‘no’ vote will be. The simplest way of demonstrating this is to imagine ten voters, five of whom support Trump and five of whom do not. If one of those Trump opponents votes for Amash, then Trump wins 5-4-1.
This is the more likely scenario than the one where five liberals and five conservatives vote, and one conservative opts for Amash, giving Biden the victory. The best situation is the one in which nearly all anti-Trump votes go to Biden. Justin Amash makes that less likely.
Now, this could be somewhat offset by a certain kind of voter. This voter is basically unwilling to cast a ballot for a Democrat under any circumstances, and also unwilling to stay at home or leave the ballot line blank. In a choice between Trump and Biden, they’d choose Trump even though they’re very unhappy with him. Amash gives them a chance to register their displeasure without supporting a party they loathe. These people do exist, and Amash will win their votes. The problem is that I believe there are probably just as many people on the far left who would use Amash’s ballot line for the same purpose.
In one sense, Biden can benefit from having another voice amplifying his criticisms of Trump, but Amash will also be looking to attract people on the left who are critical of Biden’s record. He will have some success in this, especially because many of the strongest criticisms of Biden align with libertarian philosophy—think drug war and foreign policy. He also has more credibility with the left than the average Libertarian candidate because he quit the Republican Party and voted to impeach the president.
It’s hard to say with certainty, but I think it’s a good bet that Amash will pull in more potential Biden voters than Trump voters. I also think this is largely out of his control. He can have some influence through what he chooses to emphasize, but he’ll always be more of a receptacle for protest than a true vote-getter. The protest vote is anti-Trump, so almost by definition he’ll be diluting it.


washingtonmonthly--2020-04-30--‘Will American Capitalism Survive the Current Republican Party?’

There is a common scene in television shows and movies where a thief points a gun at the head of his victim and makes the demand : “ Your money or your life.
” I thought of that when I read this news .
Some states that are reopening parts of their economies have warned employees that they ’ ll lose their unemployment benefits if they refuse to go back to work for their employers , even if they ’ re worried about contracting the coronavirus .
“ If you ’ re an employer and you offer to bring your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not to , that ’ s a voluntary quit , ” Iowa Gov .
Kim Reynolds ( R ) said Friday .
“ Therefore , they would not be eligible for the unemployment money.
” … The situation is similar for workers in Texas , where Gov .
Greg Abbott ( R ) on Monday gave the go-ahead for retail stores , restaurants , movie theaters and malls to reopen on Friday… Cisco Gamez , a Texas Workforce Commission spokesman , told the Texas Tribune that employees who choose not to return to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I ’ ll admit that I did a double-take when I saw how Bill Kristol responded to that story .
He tweeted : “ So the Republican position is employers should get a waiver of liability if their workplace turns out to be unhealthy , but employees should lose unemployment benefits if they won ’ t return to that unhealthy workplace .
Will American capitalism survive the current Republican Party ?
” It sure looks like being a Never Trumper has opened Kristol ’ s eyes to the way his party has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the fact that McConnell is insisting that a provision limiting the liability of businesses from lawsuits related to COVID-19 be included in the next coronavirus relief bill .
So he nailed it .
For Republicans , employees must return to work or lose their unemployment benefits .
But employers shouldn ’ t be held responsible if they fail to provide adequate protection in the workplace .
That might not be the exact equivalent of “ your money or your life , ” but it is interesting to note what Philip Bump has reported @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plants .
The Washington Post reported on Saturday that major meat processors had failed to protect many workers and had kept employees working in close quarters even as the virus spread… A number of the counties with the highest per capita infection rates are home to meat processing facilities where the virus has spread quickly .
We ’ ve written before about Louisa County , Iowa , where the number of confirmed cases surged quickly at the beginning of April .
It is home to a Tyson plant and has an infection rate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dakota County , Neb .
is also home to a Tyson plant .
Its infection rate is 226 cases per 10,000 .
Cass County , Ind .
has the sixth-highest per capita infection rate at 269 cases per 10,000 residents .
It ’ s home to a Tyson Fresh Meats plant .
As we reported on Saturday , it ’ s not only Tyson that has experienced outbreaks .
Spikes in infections in Hall County , Neb.
, and Nobles County , Minn. , have been driven by the virus spreading through plants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Trump signed an executive order that invoked the Defense Production Act requiring these meat processing plans to stay open .
Referring to that plan on Tuesday , Trump said , “ We are working with Tyson , we are .
We ’ re going to sign an executive order today , I believe .
That will solve any liability problems where they have certain liability problems .
We ’ ll be in very good shape.
” So there you have it .
These plants were closing because they were causing massive outbreaks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where they are located .
Trump ordered them to stay open while ensuring that their liability problems will be waived .
That is exactly what the Republican governors are attempting to do more broadly in their states .
As an aside , if Bump ’ s reference to JBS USA rings a bell , this is why .
JBS , a Brazilian company that is the largest meat producer in the world , has received $ 78 million in government pork contracts funded with the [ agricultural ] bailout funds — more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s winning hand in securing a quarter of all of the pork bailout contracts is one example of the power a small number of multinational meat companies now hold in the United States .
JBS has become a major player in the United States even as it faces price-fixing and other investigations from the federal government .
So the Brazilian company that is under criminal investigation for price-fixing not only gets $ 78 million from the agricultural bailout that was supposed to relieve farmers who were impacted by Trump ’ s trade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immunity for failing to take precautions to protect their workers during a pandemic .
As Kristol asked , “ will American capitalism survive the current Republican Party ?
”

There is a common scene in television shows and movies where a thief points a gun at the head of his victim and makes the demand: “Your money or your life.” I thought of that when I read this news.
Some states that are reopening parts of their economies have warned employees that they’ll lose their unemployment benefits if they refuse to go back to work for their employers, even if they’re worried about contracting the coronavirus. “If you’re an employer and you offer to bring your employee back to work and they decide not to, that’s a voluntary quit,” Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds (R) said Friday. “Therefore, they would not be eligible for the unemployment money.”… The situation is similar for workers in Texas, where Gov. Greg Abbott (R) on Monday gave the go-ahead for retail stores, restaurants, movie theaters and malls to reopen on Friday… Cisco Gamez, a Texas Workforce Commission spokesman, told the Texas Tribune that employees who choose not to return to work will become ineligible for unemployment benefits.
I’ll admit that I did a double-take when I saw how Bill Kristol responded to that story. He tweeted: “So the Republican position is employers should get a waiver of liability if their workplace turns out to be unhealthy, but employees should lose unemployment benefits if they won’t return to that unhealthy workplace. Will American capitalism survive the current Republican Party?” It sure looks like being a Never Trumper has opened Kristol’s eyes to the way his party has abandoned workers.
Kristol was referring to the fact that McConnell is insisting that a provision limiting the liability of businesses from lawsuits related to COVID-19 be included in the next coronavirus relief bill. So he nailed it. For Republicans, employees must return to work or lose their unemployment benefits. But employers shouldn’t be held responsible if they fail to provide adequate protection in the workplace.
That might not be the exact equivalent of “your money or your life,” but it is interesting to note what Philip Bump has reported about counties that are home to meat-packing plants.
The Washington Post reported on Saturday that major meat processors had failed to protect many workers and had kept employees working in close quarters even as the virus spread… A number of the counties with the highest per capita infection rates are home to meat processing facilities where the virus has spread quickly. We’ve written before about Louisa County, Iowa, where the number of confirmed cases surged quickly at the beginning of April. It is home to a Tyson plant and has an infection rate of 238 cases per 10,000 residents. Dakota County, Neb. is also home to a Tyson plant. Its infection rate is 226 cases per 10,000. Cass County, Ind. has the sixth-highest per capita infection rate at 269 cases per 10,000 residents. It’s home to a Tyson Fresh Meats plant. As we reported on Saturday, it’s not only Tyson that has experienced outbreaks. Spikes in infections in Hall County, Neb., and Nobles County, Minn., have been driven by the virus spreading through plants operated by JBS USA.
On Wednesday, Trump signed an executive order that invoked the Defense Production Act requiring these meat processing plants to stay open. Referring to that plan on Tuesday, Trump said, “We are working with Tyson, we are. We’re going to sign an executive order today, I believe. That will solve any liability problems where they have certain liability problems. We’ll be in very good shape.”
So there you have it. These plants were closing because they were causing massive outbreaks of COVID-19 in the mostly rural communities where they are located. Trump ordered them to stay open while ensuring that their liability problems will be waived. That is exactly what the Republican governors are attempting to do more broadly in their states.
As an aside, if Bump’s reference to JBS USA rings a bell, this is why.
JBS, a Brazilian company that is the largest meat producer in the world, has received $78 million in government pork contracts funded with the [agricultural] bailout funds — more than any other U.S. pork producer. JBS’s winning hand in securing a quarter of all of the pork bailout contracts is one example of the power a small number of multinational meat companies now hold in the United States. JBS has become a major player in the United States even as it faces price-fixing and other investigations from the federal government.
So the Brazilian company that is under criminal investigation for price-fixing not only gets $78 million from the agricultural bailout that was supposed to relieve farmers who were impacted by Trump’s trade war with China, they now get immunity for failing to take precautions to protect their workers during a pandemic. As Kristol asked, “will American capitalism survive the current Republican Party?”


washingtonmonthly--2020-04-30--Ageism Is Becoming a Serious Problem for Republicans

Over the last decade , the Republican Party has been bleeding support from younger voters , even though they don ’ t tend to turn out in large numbers .
To demonstrate , here is what the electoral map would have looked like in 2016 if people aged 18-34 were the only voters .
We can talk about how the issues affected those results , but I am reminded of the kind of contempt for young people someone like Johah Goldberg demonstrated during this conversation that took place in 2012 .
I suspect that when Golberg said that young people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” he was voicing the kind of attitude that often goes unspoken by conservatives , but communicated nonetheless .
That is a particular kind of ageism .
Frankly , Republicans have never made much of an attempt to win over young voters .
Instead , the GOP has almost always relied on support from older Americans .
As Ron Brownstein noted , “ Democrats have lost seniors in every presidential race since 2004 by at least 5 percentage points.
” But heading into 2020 , that seems to be changing .
While that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elections , it is hard to ignore the possibility that the way this administration has handled the coronavirus crisis is having an impact .
The problematic numbers for Trump come as his handling of the coronavirus crisis has faced withering criticism and low marks from voters , many of whom have told pollsters they do not trust the president to provide accurate information about the pandemic .
As Trump pines for the economy to be reopened , most Americans say they fear restarting economic activity too soon , according to a Wall Street @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resurgence of coronavirus cases would be especially devastating for seniors .
“ They ’ ve been scared to death , ” said LeaMond , adding that health care is likely to be a top issue for older voters in 2020 just as it was in 2018 .
We ’ ve also watched as Republican politicians and conservative commentators suggest that we need to re-open the economy , even if it means that more senior citizens will die .
I was particularly struck by this clip of Ben Shapiro pontificating on the lives of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Shapiro ’ s comments about 80 year-olds , I ’ d just like to note that , at one point , he said that if five-year-olds were dying , everyone would agree to a lock-down forever .
But in 2012 , 26 six and seven-year-olds were gunned down at their school in Newtown , Connecticut and all we got from conservatives was “ thoughts and prayers.
” So I doubt that someone like Shapiro would be any more concerned if they were falling victim to a pandemic .
Not only does Shapiro insinuate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of less value , his assumption is that they are all grandmas living in nursing homes .
As a way to puncture that stereotype , I ’ ll go out on a limb and suggest that Shaprio probably hasn ’ t watched one of the hottest series on Netflix .
Those aren ’ t just younger actors playing the roles of elderly women .
Lily Tomlin is 80 years old and Jane Fonda is 82 .
For those of us entering our “ golden years , ” they are a vision of hope @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the years ahead .
Is it any wonder that when Republicans tell us our lives are expendable , we find that terribly insulting ?

Over the last decade, the Republican Party has been bleeding support from younger voters, even though they don’t tend to turn out in large numbers. To demonstrate, here is what the electoral map would have looked like in 2016 if people aged 18-34 were the only voters.
We can talk about how the issues affected those results, but I am reminded of the kind of contempt for young people someone like Johah Goldberg demonstrated during this conversation that took place in 2012.
I suspect that when Golberg said that young people are “so frickin’ stupid,” he was voicing the kind of attitude that often goes unspoken by conservatives, but communicated nonetheless. That is a particular kind of ageism.
Frankly, Republicans have never made much of an attempt to win over young voters. Instead, the GOP has almost always relied on support from older Americans. As Ron Brownstein noted, “Democrats have lost seniors in every presidential race since 2004 by at least 5 percentage points.” But heading into 2020, that seems to be changing.
[S]everal recent national polls, such as the latest from CNN, Quinnipiac University and NBC/Wall Street Journal, have shown the 77-year-old Biden leading Trump among voters 65 and older; those surveys have also shown Biden running competitively among voters aged 50-64, who have also been a very difficult group for Democrats.
While that shift actually began during the 2018 midterm elections, it is hard to ignore the possibility that the way this administration has handled the coronavirus crisis is having an impact.
The problematic numbers for Trump come as his handling of the coronavirus crisis has faced withering criticism and low marks from voters, many of whom have told pollsters they do not trust the president to provide accurate information about the pandemic. As Trump pines for the economy to be reopened, most Americans say they fear restarting economic activity too soon, according to a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll released Sunday. A resurgence of coronavirus cases would be especially devastating for seniors. “They’ve been scared to death,” said LeaMond, adding that health care is likely to be a top issue for older voters in 2020 just as it was in 2018.
We’ve also watched as Republican politicians and conservative commentators suggest that we need to re-open the economy, even if it means that more senior citizens will die. I was particularly struck by this clip of Ben Shapiro pontificating on the lives of the elderly.
Before we get to Shapiro’s comments about 80 year-olds, I’d just like to note that, at one point, he said that if five-year-olds were dying, everyone would agree to a lock-down forever. But in 2012, 26 six and seven-year-olds were gunned down at their school in Newtown, Connecticut and all we got from conservatives was “thoughts and prayers.” So I doubt that someone like Shapiro would be any more concerned if they were falling victim to a pandemic.
Not only does Shapiro insinuate that the lives of 80 year-olds are of less value, his assumption is that they are all grandmas living in nursing homes. As a way to puncture that stereotype, I’ll go out on a limb and suggest that Shaprio probably hasn’t watched one of the hottest series on Netflix.
Those aren’t just younger actors playing the roles of elderly women. Lily Tomlin is 80 years old and Jane Fonda is 82. For those of us entering our “golden years,” they are a vision of hope for what life could be like in the years ahead. Is it any wonder that when Republicans tell us our lives are expendable, we find that terribly insulting?