thebulwark--2020-04-23--Forget about a V-Shaped Recovery

Forget about a V-Shaped Recovery

Anyone confident that the U.S. will experience a V-shaped economic recovery later this year has not been paying attention to the rapidly deteriorating global economic and financial market outlook .
In particular , they are choosing to ignore the toxic combination of a record-high global debt-to-GDP ratio and the deepest worldwide economic recession in the post-war period .
The resulting risks include a vicious return of the European sovereign debt crisis , the abrupt shift of the Chinese economy to a lower long-run growth path , and a wave of debt defaults in emerging markets .
If each of these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ constitute strong headwinds against any U.S. recovery from the coronavirus-induced recession .
Global financial markets , key to an energetic rebound , would be particularly unsettled .
The specific case of Italy , which has an economy about ten times the size of that of Greece , underscores the risk of a Eurozone sovereign debt crisis later this year .
Before Italy became the center of the European coronavirus epidemic , it already had public debt equal to about 135 percent of GDP and a shaky banking system .
Its sclerotic economy had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ According to the IMF , Italy will be among the European economies hardest hit by the coronavirus epidemic and could see its GDP shrink by as much as 10 percent in 2020 .
Were that to occur , Italy ’ s public finances would become unsustainable .
With a widening budget deficit , its public debt-to-GDP ratio would skyrocket to 160 percent .
At the same time , the country could be headed for a banking sector crisis , with companies and households struggling ever harder to make debt payments .
Anticipating that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be on a sustainable path , investors are starting to shun the Italian bond market .
This is reflected in the widening spread between Italian and German government bond yields : The difference is approaching levels last seen in 2012 .
Should investors continue to have doubts about Italy ’ s public finances , the country ’ s European partners might be called upon to bail it out to prevent it from defaulting on its debt , which could trigger a run on Italian banks and force the country to crash out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ major challenge to the frugal , bailout-averse , Northern European countries like Germany and the Netherlands , since it might take up to €2 trillion to keep Italy afloat .
Like Europe , China too is casting a dark cloud over the global economic outlook .
This is not simply because of the direct impact of the coronavirus pandemic on its economy .
It is also likely that the epidemic will have punctured China ’ s enormous credit bubble , resulting in a spate of household and corporate bankruptcies .
As a consequence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a much lower long-run economic growth path than before .
It could repeat the Japanese experience following the bursting of its asset and credit price bubble in the 1980s and 1990s .
Over the past decade , China was the main engine of world economic growth and the world ’ s largest consumer of internationally traded commodities .
A permanent long-run slowing in the Chinese economy would almost certainly have profound implications for the world economic outlook .
Especially in the context of a Chinese economic slowdown , the emerging market economies are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of prospective weakness in the global economy .
They will now face a perfect economic storm of a coronavirus hit to their economies , a collapse in international commodity prices , a record rate of capital reversal , and weak external demand for their exports .
With $ 70 trillion in debt now on the emerging economies ’ books , many will likely have no choice but to restructure their debt or default .
As policymakers in the U.S. mull “ opening up ” the economy in an attempt to prevent further damage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recognize that there is no miracle bounce-back coming .
Even if the virus disappeared tomorrow , the world economy and global financial markets will still be stalked by structural risks .
Whether it starts sooner or later , American policymakers should plan for a slow and difficult recovery .

Anyone confident that the U.S. will experience a V-shaped economic recovery later this year has not been paying attention to the rapidly deteriorating global economic and financial market outlook.
In particular, they are choosing to ignore the toxic combination of a record-high global debt-to-GDP ratio and the deepest worldwide economic recession in the post-war period. The resulting risks include a vicious return of the European sovereign debt crisis, the abrupt shift of the Chinese economy to a lower long-run growth path, and a wave of debt defaults in emerging markets.
If each of these risks were to materialize, they would constitute strong headwinds against any U.S. recovery from the coronavirus-induced recession. Global financial markets, key to an energetic rebound, would be particularly unsettled.
The specific case of Italy, which has an economy about ten times the size of that of Greece, underscores the risk of a Eurozone sovereign debt crisis later this year. Before Italy became the center of the European coronavirus epidemic, it already had public debt equal to about 135 percent of GDP and a shaky banking system. Its sclerotic economy had barely recovered from the Great Recession.
According to the IMF, Italy will be among the European economies hardest hit by the coronavirus epidemic and could see its GDP shrink by as much as 10 percent in 2020. Were that to occur, Italy’s public finances would become unsustainable. With a widening budget deficit, its public debt-to-GDP ratio would skyrocket to 160 percent. At the same time, the country could be headed for a banking sector crisis, with companies and households struggling ever harder to make debt payments.
Anticipating that Italy’s public finances might not be on a sustainable path, investors are starting to shun the Italian bond market. This is reflected in the widening spread between Italian and German government bond yields: The difference is approaching levels last seen in 2012.
Should investors continue to have doubts about Italy’s public finances, the country’s European partners might be called upon to bail it out to prevent it from defaulting on its debt, which could trigger a run on Italian banks and force the country to crash out of the Euro. This would pose a major challenge to the frugal, bailout-averse, Northern European countries like Germany and the Netherlands, since it might take up to €2 trillion to keep Italy afloat.
Like Europe, China too is casting a dark cloud over the global economic outlook. This is not simply because of the direct impact of the coronavirus pandemic on its economy. It is also likely that the epidemic will have punctured China’s enormous credit bubble, resulting in a spate of household and corporate bankruptcies. As a consequence, China should expect to shift to a much lower long-run economic growth path than before. It could repeat the Japanese experience following the bursting of its asset and credit price bubble in the 1980s and 1990s.
Over the past decade, China was the main engine of world economic growth and the world’s largest consumer of internationally traded commodities. A permanent long-run slowing in the Chinese economy would almost certainly have profound implications for the world economic outlook.
Especially in the context of a Chinese economic slowdown, the emerging market economies are likely to constitute yet another major source of prospective weakness in the global economy. They will now face a perfect economic storm of a coronavirus hit to their economies, a collapse in international commodity prices, a record rate of capital reversal, and weak external demand for their exports. With $70 trillion in debt now on the emerging economies’ books, many will likely have no choice but to restructure their debt or default.
As policymakers in the U.S. mull “opening up” the economy in an attempt to prevent further damage, one can only hope that they recognize that there is no miracle bounce-back coming. Even if the virus disappeared tomorrow, the world economy and global financial markets will still be stalked by structural risks. Whether it starts sooner or later, American policymakers should plan for a slow and difficult recovery.


thebulwark--2020-04-23--The Pro-Wrestling Presidency Keeps Working the Marks

In Florida professional wrestlers are now essential workers .
No , really .
On April 9 , Gov .
Ron DeSantis filed an amended version of his state ’ s “ State at Home ” order , with an exception for : The news broke last Monday during a press conference by Orange County Mayor Jerry Demings and while it might have seemed ludicrous , it wasn ’ t especially surprising .
That ’ s because Orange County , Florida is home to World Wrestling Entertainment ’ s Performance Center and Full Sail University .
You may never have heard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are critical to WWE ’ s survival .
People who follow the wrestling industry understood that the company ’ s chairman , Vince McMahon was up to something .
The WWE is the biggest entity in professional wrestling .
It is so big , actually , that it ’ s close to the truth to say that the WWE is professional wrestling in roughly the same way that Barnum & Bailey is the circus .
And the COVID-19 pandemic has become an existential threat to the WWE .
The economics of professional wrestling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 ) The gate attendance from weekly televised live shows in giant arenas ; as well as non-televised house shows .
( 2 ) The sale of merchandise at these live shows .
( 3 ) The broadcast rights for these live shows , currently contracted to the USA Network and Fox .
( 4 ) Subscriptions to the company ’ s over-the-top streaming service , the WWE network .
The social distancing measures required by the pandemic have obliterated two of those revenue streams and threatened a third , since it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before people will pack into an arena to watch a live sports-entertainment event .
The WWE has tried to adapt .
Since mid-March , the company has been using the small-venue Performance Center as the location for live , empty-house shows of its three weekly programs Raw , SmackDown , and NXT .
In early April , the company was forced to move its big yearly showcase , WrestleMania , from Raymond James Stadium in Tampa , to the Performance Center , too .
And then there ’ s Full Sail University , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been NXT ’ s home arena since 2012 .
If the Florida state government hadn ’ t carved out exceptions for wrestlers as essential workers , then even this work-around would have been shut down and the WWE would have ground to a halt .
That ’ s what McMahon had initially planned for .
Wrestling journalist Dave Meltzer initially reported that after the WrestleMania tapings , WWE would spend the Easter weekend taping enough content to fulfill their broadcast obligations through April .
But the next day Meltzer published an update @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decreed that the weekly live tapings would continue .
Because without live shows , the company might have found itself in breach of contract : Contracts with both NBC Universal and Fox call for a certain number of shows per year that can be taped .
For Raw , that number is three which , at the start of the year , was earmarked for one show over Christmas week and two shows during European tours .
In theory , that would leave them with 49 live Raws .
Fox has a similar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ publicly , the fear was that by violating the contract , it would give the networks the legal ability to withhold money or find a way to change the deals .
With no house shows , the company , like all sports companies , is surviving largely based on television revenue , but the networks paying that are also taking in far less revenue than they projected at this point in time due to the pandemic .
It ’ s unclear whether the decision to return to live is an actual thing that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recent weeks based on declining ratings or if he is guarding against the possibility of them doing so .
But how did this political deal get done ?
Days after WWE changed its schedule , two Orlando area journalists reported that Vince McMahon ’ s wife Linda—the former Trump Small Business Administration administrator , who left her government post to run the pro-Trump SuperPAC , America First Action—would be dropping $ 18.5 million in ads from her PAC in Florida .
Also a total coincidence : Vince McMahon being picked to serve on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ business .
Donald Trump and Vince McMahon have been friends for decades and have often used their businesses to scratch each other ’ s backs : Trump ’ s former Atlantic City property hosted both WrestleManias 4 and 5 and the two staged “ The Battle of the Billionaires ” at WrestleMania 23 .
McMahon personally inducted Trump into the WWE ’ s Hall of Fame in 2013 .
These connections to pro wrestling explain a lot about the Trump presidency : The nightly coronavirus “ briefings ” are really just promos .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ greatest crowd pops he ’ s had in his life .
Trump ’ s modus operandi is to constantly put himself over as the victimized babyface .
He ’ s forever playing to the crowd against whatever heel best fits his needs that day .
Sometimes it ’ s an unknown authority figure ( “ The Deep State ” ) .
Sometimes it ’ s the announcers ( meaning : the media ) .
Sometimes it ’ s those dastardly foreigners ( a classic wrestling trope ) .
And sometimes Trump decides to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cuomo , in a squash match , because he senses that the storyline of another 2,000 Americans dying is getting stale and he needs to generate some heat with the marks .
The entire work would be immensely entertaining , if it didn ’ t carry real world consequences .

In Florida professional wrestlers are now essential workers. No, really. On April 9, Gov. Ron DeSantis filed an amended version of his state’s “State at Home” order, with an exception for:
Employees at a professional sports and media production with a national audience—including any athletes, entertainers, production team, executive team, media team, and any others necessary to facilitate including services supporting such production—only if the location is closed to the general public.
The news broke last Monday during a press conference by Orange County Mayor Jerry Demings and while it might have seemed ludicrous, it wasn’t especially surprising.
That’s because Orange County, Florida is home to World Wrestling Entertainment’s Performance Center and Full Sail University. You may never have heard of these two institutions, but they are critical to WWE’s survival. People who follow the wrestling industry understood that the company’s chairman, Vince McMahon was up to something.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
The WWE is the biggest entity in professional wrestling. It is so big, actually, that it’s close to the truth to say that the WWE is professional wrestling in roughly the same way that Barnum & Bailey is the circus.
And the COVID-19 pandemic has become an existential threat to the WWE.
The economics of professional wrestling are built upon four pillars: (1) The gate attendance from weekly televised live shows in giant arenas; as well as non-televised house shows. (2) The sale of merchandise at these live shows. (3) The broadcast rights for these live shows, currently contracted to the USA Network and Fox. (4) Subscriptions to the company’s over-the-top streaming service, the WWE network.
The social distancing measures required by the pandemic have obliterated two of those revenue streams and threatened a third, since it is likely to be a very long time before people will pack into an arena to watch a live sports-entertainment event.
The WWE has tried to adapt.
Since mid-March, the company has been using the small-venue Performance Center as the location for live, empty-house shows of its three weekly programs Raw, SmackDown, and NXT. In early April, the company was forced to move its big yearly showcase, WrestleMania, from Raymond James Stadium in Tampa, to the Performance Center, too.
And then there’s Full Sail University, a for-profit college near Orlando. It has been NXT’s home arena since 2012.
If the Florida state government hadn’t carved out exceptions for wrestlers as essential workers, then even this work-around would have been shut down and the WWE would have ground to a halt.
That’s what McMahon had initially planned for. Wrestling journalist Dave Meltzer initially reported that after the WrestleMania tapings, WWE would spend the Easter weekend taping enough content to fulfill their broadcast obligations through April. But the next day Meltzer published an update saying that McMahon had reversed himself and decreed that the weekly live tapings would continue. Because without live shows, the company might have found itself in breach of contract:
Contracts with both NBC Universal and Fox call for a certain number of shows per year that can be taped. For Raw, that number is three which, at the start of the year, was earmarked for one show over Christmas week and two shows during European tours. In theory, that would leave them with 49 live Raws. Fox has a similar deal. While nobody will say so publicly, the fear was that by violating the contract, it would give the networks the legal ability to withhold money or find a way to change the deals. With no house shows, the company, like all sports companies, is surviving largely based on television revenue, but the networks paying that are also taking in far less revenue than they projected at this point in time due to the pandemic. It’s unclear whether the decision to return to live is an actual thing that the networks told McMahon to do in recent weeks based on declining ratings or if he is guarding against the possibility of them doing so.
But how did this political deal get done? Days after WWE changed its schedule, two Orlando area journalists reported that Vince McMahon’s wife Linda—the former Trump Small Business Administration administrator, who left her government post to run the pro-Trump SuperPAC, America First Action—would be dropping $18.5 million in ads from her PAC in Florida.
That’s probably a total coincidence.
Also a total coincidence: Vince McMahon being picked to serve on Trump’s panel to reopen American business.
Donald Trump and Vince McMahon have been friends for decades and have often used their businesses to scratch each other’s backs: Trump’s former Atlantic City property hosted both WrestleManias 4 and 5 and the two staged “The Battle of the Billionaires” at WrestleMania 23. McMahon personally inducted Trump into the WWE’s Hall of Fame in 2013.
These connections to pro wrestling explain a lot about the Trump presidency:
The nightly coronavirus “briefings” are really just promos. Political rallies provide his narcissism with the greatest crowd pops he’s had in his life.
Trump’s modus operandi is to constantly put himself over as the victimized babyface.
He’s forever playing to the crowd against whatever heel best fits his needs that day. Sometimes it’s an unknown authority figure (“The Deep State”). Sometimes it’s the announcers (meaning: the media). Sometimes it’s those dastardly foreigners (a classic wrestling trope).
And sometimes Trump decides to go after a governor, like Andrew Cuomo, in a squash match, because he senses that the storyline of another 2,000 Americans dying is getting stale and he needs to generate some heat with the marks.
The entire work would be immensely entertaining, if it didn’t carry real world consequences.


thebulwark--2020-04-23--February 7: A Day That Will Live in Infamy

February 7 is a day that changed the world .
It ’ s a day that defines the Trump administration @ @ @ @ @ .
A day that will shape the campaign around the president ’ s reelection .
@ @ @ @ @ Li Wenliang , the Chinese ophthalmologist who sounded the alarm about COVID-19 , succumbed to @ @ @ @ @ a WeChat message to a group of other doctors about the virus ’ spread , @ @ @ @ @ Chinese government and forced to sign a statement denouncing his warning as an unfounded and @ @ @ @ @ following this shameful and destructive treatment by the Chinese government should have been a wake-up @ @ @ @ @ leaders .
Instead , when Trump was asked about China ’ s handling of the @ @ @ @ @ the U.S. president delivered Chinese government propaganda .
( Again . )
And a few @ @ @ @ @ ’ s State Department announced that they were sending 17.8 tons of donated medical equipment—supplies @ @ @ @ @ desperately need—to China .

February 7 is a day that changed the world.
It’s a day that defines the Trump administration’s failures on COVID-19.
A day that will shape the campaign around the president’s reelection.
On February 7, Dr. Li Wenliang, the Chinese ophthalmologist who sounded the alarm about COVID-19, succumbed to the virus. After sending a WeChat message to a group of other doctors about the virus’ spread, he was detained by the Chinese government and forced to sign a statement denouncing his warning as an unfounded and illegal rumor.
His death following this shameful and destructive treatment by the Chinese government should have been a wake-up call to America’s leaders.
Instead, when Trump was asked about China’s handling of the outbreak later that day, the U.S. president delivered Chinese government propaganda. (Again.)
And a few hours after that, Trump’s State Department announced that they were sending 17.8 tons of donated medical equipment—supplies that American hospitals would soon desperately need—to China.
February 7 changed everything.
Watch it now.


Donald Trump, Un-American

For all his “ America First ” sloganeering , the term that applies best to Donald J. Trump is “ Un-American.
” He has repudiated the oath of office and the documents at the core of our national identity : the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence .
Consider how he describes presidential authority .
At a recent press briefing , he suggested that he could order states to reopen businesses .
“ The federal government has absolute power … I have the absolute right to do if I want to.
” He has often made similar claims , including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ absolute right ” to seek foreign investigations of American political figures–an offense that triggered the first article of his impeachment .
Absolute power was precisely what the Founders sought to avoid .
The word “ absolute ” appears three times in the Declaration , always to proclaim what the patriots were fighting against : “ absolute Despotism , ” “ absolute Tyranny , ” and “ absolute rule.
” Trump ’ s threat to adjourn Congress calls to mind the Declaration ’ s charge that George III had “ dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ invasions on the rights of the people.
” To prevent anyone from gaining absolute power , the Constitution included elaborate checks on the government and provided that all officials would be accountable for their actions .
Alexander Hamilton wrote that a British monarch “ is the absolute master of his own conduct in the exercise of his office , ” whereas in a republic , “ every magistrate ought to be personally responsible for his behavior in office.
” Trump has said of his administration ’ s catastrophic failure to provide for coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take responsibility at all.
” Article II of the Constitution commands the president to “ take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.
” In 2016 , House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy ( R-CA ) wrote : “ The take-care clause is a bulwark against tyranny .
It supports the separation of powers stipulated in the Constitution : The legislative branch makes law and the executive branch administers it.
” Instead of administering the law , Trump has subverted it .
During the Ukraine inquiry , he ordered the executive branch to defy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his duty was an attack on the bulwark of the take-care clause and led to the second article of impeachment .
Even worse , he has undercut respect for the rule of law .
When he told Michael Flynn and Michael Cohen to “ stay strong , ” he was not imploring them to testify truthfully .
Instead , he was using Mafia language to suggest that they should not inform on him .
When Cohen flipped , Trump struck back by openly urging an investigation of his father-in-law .
Not exactly faithful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ system of justice : both the Declaration and the Constitution affirm the sanctity of trial by jury .
After a federal jury convicted Trump-associate Roger Stone , the president not only denounced the verdict , but personally attacked the forewoman .
All twelve jurors have written statements indicating that they now fear for their safety .
One said : “ It is intimidating when the President of the United States attacks the foreperson of a jury by name.
” Even after those statements became public , Trump did it again , retweeting an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” and “ stacked.
” The jurors have reason to worry .
Over the years , Trump has come awfully close to inciting physical violence .
At campaign rallies in 2016 , he suggested that supporters should beat up disruptive protesters .
His most ominous rally comment involved Hillary Clinton : “ If she gets to pick her judges , nothing you can do , folks , Although the Second Amendment people — maybe there is , I don ’ t know.
” He soon denied that he was talking about assassination , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president ’ s tendency to leave room for doubt and lack clarity so that the nefarious can interpret his remarks as they wish .
Lately , he has issued tweets hinting at revolt against stay-at-home measures : “ LIBERATE MICHIGAN !
” and “ LIBERATE MINNESOTA !
” In one case , he added an allusion to guns : “ LIBERATE VIRGINIA , and save your great 2nd Amendment .
It is under siege !
” The specter of domestic insurrection is what led to the Constitutional Convention in the first place .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to “ preserve , protect , and defend the Constitution ” would never say such things .
Shortly after the attacks of September 11 , 2001 , Mayor Rudolph Giuliani made inspirational remarks to the United Nations : “ Our belief in democracy , the rule of law , and respect for human life—that ’ s how you become an American.
” Trump has rejected the principles of the Founding and our nation ’ s fundamental law , and in the process , he has become an un-American .

For all his “America First” sloganeering, the term that applies best to Donald J. Trump is “Un-American.” He has repudiated the oath of office and the documents at the core of our national identity: the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
Consider how he describes presidential authority. At a recent press briefing, he suggested that he could order states to reopen businesses. “The federal government has absolute power … I have the absolute right to do if I want to.” He has often made similar claims, including his assertion that he has an “absolute right” to seek foreign investigations of American political figures–an offense that triggered the first article of his impeachment.
Absolute power was precisely what the Founders sought to avoid. The word “absolute” appears three times in the Declaration, always to proclaim what the patriots were fighting against: “absolute Despotism,” “absolute Tyranny,” and “absolute rule.”
Trump’s threat to adjourn Congress calls to mind the Declaration’s charge that George III had “dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.”
To prevent anyone from gaining absolute power, the Constitution included elaborate checks on the government and provided that all officials would be accountable for their actions. Alexander Hamilton wrote that a British monarch “is the absolute master of his own conduct in the exercise of his office,” whereas in a republic, “every magistrate ought to be personally responsible for his behavior in office.”
Trump has said of his administration’s catastrophic failure to provide for coronavirus testing: “I don’t take responsibility at all.”
Article II of the Constitution commands the president to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” In 2016, House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) wrote: “The take-care clause is a bulwark against tyranny. It supports the separation of powers stipulated in the Constitution: The legislative branch makes law and the executive branch administers it.” Instead of administering the law, Trump has subverted it. During the Ukraine inquiry, he ordered the executive branch to defy lawful congressional subpoenas. This violation of his duty was an attack on the bulwark of the take-care clause and led to the second article of impeachment.
Even worse, he has undercut respect for the rule of law. When he told Michael Flynn and Michael Cohen to “stay strong,” he was not imploring them to testify truthfully. Instead, he was using Mafia language to suggest that they should not inform on him. When Cohen flipped, Trump struck back by openly urging an investigation of his father-in-law. Not exactly faithful execution.
Americans take pride in the system of justice: both the Declaration and the Constitution affirm the sanctity of trial by jury. After a federal jury convicted Trump-associate Roger Stone, the president not only denounced the verdict, but personally attacked the forewoman. All twelve jurors have written statements indicating that they now fear for their safety. One said: “It is intimidating when the President of the United States attacks the foreperson of a jury by name.” Even after those statements became public, Trump did it again, retweeting an accusation that the jury was “rigged” and “stacked.”
The jurors have reason to worry. Over the years, Trump has come awfully close to inciting physical violence. At campaign rallies in 2016, he suggested that supporters should beat up disruptive protesters. His most ominous rally comment involved Hillary Clinton: “If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks, Although the Second Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know.” He soon denied that he was talking about assassination, but this is an example of the president’s tendency to leave room for doubt and lack clarity so that the nefarious can interpret his remarks as they wish.
Lately, he has issued tweets hinting at revolt against stay-at-home measures: “LIBERATE MICHIGAN!” and “LIBERATE MINNESOTA!” In one case, he added an allusion to guns: “LIBERATE VIRGINIA, and save your great 2nd Amendment. It is under siege!” The specter of domestic insurrection is what led to the Constitutional Convention in the first place. A president who believed in the oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution” would never say such things.
Shortly after the attacks of September 11, 2001, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani made inspirational remarks to the United Nations: “Our belief in democracy, the rule of law, and respect for human life—that’s how you become an American.” Trump has rejected the principles of the Founding and our nation’s fundamental law, and in the process, he has become an un-American.


thebulwark--2020-04-24--We Cannot “Reopen” America

We Cannot “Reopen” America

The movement to “ reopen ” America is a fallacy based on a fantasy .
The fallacy is the notion that lifting stay-at-home orders will result in people going back to their normal routines .
This is false .
The state-issued stay-at-home orders did not determine most people ’ s desires to stay home—they merely ratified behaviors that the vast majority of people and institutions were already adopting in response to COVID-19 .
The fantasy is that we can go back to what the world looked like 12 weeks ago .
This is not possible now and will not be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the novel coronavirus .
Understand that I am not saying that stay-at-home orders should be indefinite .
What I am saying is that whenever the stay-at-home orders are rolled back—whether it is tomorrow or a month from now—it will not result in anything like a “ reopening ” of the country .
And the sooner people grasp how completely and fundamentally the world has changed , the faster we ’ ll be able to adapt to this new reality .
Let ’ s take a close look at just a couple of examples @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” because the city as we knew it in February 2020 is gone .
Las Vegas is the 28th-largest metropolitan area in America , home to 2.2 million people .
Its main business is gambling-related tourism .
The city welcomes roughly 42 million visitors a year who pour $ 58 billion dollars into the local economy and support 370,000 jobs .
Almost 40 percent of the area ’ s workers are employed in the hospitality industry .
Up until this past January , 70,000 people got off an airplane in Las Vegas every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the city ’ s charms .
On these flights , passenger seats are roughly 17 inches wide with 31 inches of pitch .
So in order to get to Las Vegas—where the principal pleasure is spending disposable income on hotel rooms , while eating expensive meals , and playing casino games—something like 150 people would share 8,000 cubic feet of cabin space and recycled air for anywhere from one to four hours .
So tell me : When the state of Nevada lifts the stay-at-home order that it issued on March 12 and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s economy reopen their doors , do you think that Las Vegas is going to come roaring back ?
Because I do not .
What is much more likely is that the former steady flow of visitors to Las Vegas will resume as a trickle .
There are economic reasons for this : National unemployment levels will be near 20 percent , so people will be grappling with a great deal of financial uncertainty .
Disposable income will be at a low ebb .
When disposable income is in retreat , people generally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ primary purpose is to lose money in an entertaining manner .
But there are health reasons , too : People who are older or immunocompromised—or who come into regular contact with someone who is older or immunocompromised—are going to curtail their behavior in order to cut down on unnecessary personal interactions .
Getting on an airplane to fly to a city so that you can stay in a hotel , eat in crowded dining rooms , and stand elbow-to-elbow with strangers around a craps table will be far , far down the list @ @ @ @ @ @ @ open to taking a risk .
Which means that the 28th-largest city in America is going to hollow out .
If the tourism industry were to only decline by 30 percent in Las Vegas , it would be an utter catastrophe .
No tourists means no work for maids , taxi drivers , cooks , dealers , waiters , and the tens of thousands of jobs that make up the invisible , back-of-the-house operations in hospitality .
No jobs for the people in hospitality means a shockwave to the local economy : The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Real estate values will implode .
The strain on social services will be gigantic .
The central fact to be grasped here is that “ reopening ” the economy is a largely a formality until there is a vaccine .
Because only then will people modify their behavior to something approximating pre-pandemic levels .
Theaters have been closed by government order in most places for the last month—but those orders only validated decisions that had already been made at the corporate level : Most large theater chains had closed their doors of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heating up in early March .
Various states will , at some point , rescind these orders and allow movie theaters to open .
Exactly what good will that do ?
There are 41,000 movie screens in America and the industry is dominated by three large chains—AMC , Regal , and Cinemark .
It is unclear how any of them can survive .
Take AMC , the largest theater chain in America .
When the pandemic hit , AMC furloughed 25,000 employees .
This month the company served notice that it would stop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ locations ( which account for most of its theaters ) .
The company has debt payments due this summer and recently had its credit rating downgraded .
It ’ s seeking to raise $ 500 million in private debt just to stay afloat until it can reopen theaters .
But what does “ reopening ” look like for the theater industry in the presence of COVID-19 ?
At a minimum , theaters will have to radically reconfigure seating in order to put space between customers—which would mean cutting seating capacity by at least @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to implement a more rigorous cleaning regimen between screenings , which will cut down the number of showings they can offer on each screen per day .
Then there ’ s the popcorn .
Mask usage is going to be the default for most Americans for the foreseeable future .
It is difficult to shovel popcorn into your mouth and sip on a soda while wearing a mask .
Which means that concession sales for any customers who do come to the movies are likely to drop significantly—and such sales account for about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Add it all up and three things jump out at you : ( 1 ) If every theater in America opened tomorrow , what percentage of normal attendance would you see ?
70 percent ?
50 percent ?
30 percent ?
What would that translate into as a percentage of total revenue decline , once you factor in concession sales ?
( 2 ) The theatrical exhibition business is such a low-margin industry that even a 30 percent decline in revenues would be enough to push just about every operator in America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if some theaters managed to stay afloat in the short term , what movies would they show ?
The Marvel movie Black Widow was originally scheduled to open in theaters today .
That debut has been postponed indefinitely .
Let ’ s say you are Disney and you made Black Widow expecting it to open to $ 130 million dollars , pre-pandemic .
Now you think that , at some point in the undetermined future , maybe it will open $ 70 million .
Or possibly $ 30 million .
Are you going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this asset ?
Or would you rather bootstrap the part of your business that looks like the future—meaning , your streaming service—and eschew the theatrical release altogether ?
And what happens then ?
When the theater chains enter bankruptcy and become distressed assets , who is going to buy them ?
Because , again , movie exhibition is a low-margin business which has been in decline for several years .
The theater chains themselves have functionally zero assets—they own seats , screens , projectors , and popcorn machines .
That ’ s it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an interest in purchasing the theaters are the studios themselves—but here there is a vicious circle at play .
Where it might have made sense pre-pandemic for Disney to buy AMC , that is no longer the case .
Disney ’ s various businesses have been so deeply exposed by the coronavirus that its stock is down about 30 percent .
It ’ s in the fight of its life and not in any position to take a gamble on trying to bring movie theaters back from the dead .
All of which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ movie theaters is going to do absolutely nothing to save the movie-theater business .
Because the world has changed and the source of this change is not a government order .
I ’ ve only picked two examples , but we could scan the economic landscape and find existential dislocations pretty much everywhere .
• How will the airline industry “ come back ” when people decide to take flights only for travel that can not be avoided—and international travel is severely restricted ?
• How will professional sports—which require thousands of people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ front of live crowds again ?
The sports leagues may be able to limp along with only broadcast revenues , but the micro-economies built around stadiums and arenas will not .
• As teleworking becomes increasingly accepted—or even preferred—the physical office will wane .
What happens to commercial real estate ?
The list goes on and on : Dine-in restaurants , coffee shops , hotels , theme parks , concert venues , convention centers , shopping malls , museums , libraries , schools , colleges—every one of these businesses is headed into a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with stay-at home orders .
You can “ reopen ” the country all you want .
You can not force people to act as though there is not a pandemic .
There are some industries likely to be less affected by the virus ( agriculture , manufacturing ) and some industries that will boom because of it ( telecom , logistics , e-commerce ) .
But the American economy is a tightly integrated system where disruption in one sector can cascade into failures everywhere else .
In the last 50 years we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ energy were sufficient to throw the entire country into deep recessions .
Exactly what sort of recession should we be expecting when several sectors are pushed toward extinction , all at once ?
Surveying the scene , Nick Eberstadt writes that : We are still very much in the “ fog of war ” phase of the calamity .
.
.
.
Few had seriously considered the contingency that the world economy might be shaken to its foundations by a communicable disease .
And even now that this has happened , many remain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world that no longer exists .
Such “ prewar ” thinking is evident everywhere right now in the earliest phase of what may turn out to be a grave and protracted crisis .
Here in the United States , we watch , week by week , as highly regarded financial analysts from Wall Street and economists from the academy misestimate the depths of the damage we can expect—always erring on the side of optimism .
After the March lockdown of the country to “ flatten the curve , ” the boldest voices dared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hit 10 % unemployment before the worst was over .
Four weekly jobless claims reports and 22 million unemployment insurance applications later , U.S. unemployment is already above the 15 % mark : north of 1931 levels , in other words .
By the end of April , we could well reach or break the 20 % threshold , bringing us to 1935 levels , and 1933 levels ( 25 % ) no longer sound fantastical .
Even so , political and financial leaders talk of a rapid “ V-shaped recovery ” commencing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to economic normalcy within months .
This is prewar thinking , and it is looking increasingly like the economic equivalent of talk in earlier times about how “ the boys will be home by Christmas.
” .
.
.
Societies the world over face the prospect of rolling lockdowns and quarantines until such time as a technological breakthrough rescues them from this condition .
This would seem to mean that not just a single national lockdown of a country ’ s population and economy is in store to fend off mass contagion but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just one mother-of-all-economic-shocks but an ongoing crisis that presses economic performance severely in countries all around the world simultaneously .
Yes , some of the economic devastation we ’ ll witness in the months ahead , like the possible demise of the movie-theaters business , might have happened anyway—but without the catalyst of the coronavirus , it would likely have come more slowly , across a decade or more , and with less shock and immediate pain for workers , families , and communities .
And yes , there will eventually be creative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ activity .
But that is in the long run .
The reality of our near- and medium-term future is something very different .
And whatever the government orders people to do , that reality will look more like our “ stay-at-home ” present than the pre-virus past .

The movement to “reopen” America is a fallacy based on a fantasy.
The fallacy is the notion that lifting stay-at-home orders will result in people going back to their normal routines. This is false. The state-issued stay-at-home orders did not determine most people’s desires to stay home—they merely ratified behaviors that the vast majority of people and institutions were already adopting in response to COVID-19.
The fantasy is that we can go back to what the world looked like 12 weeks ago. This is not possible now and will not be possible until we possess a vaccine for the novel coronavirus.
Understand that I am not saying that stay-at-home orders should be indefinite. What I am saying is that whenever the stay-at-home orders are rolled back—whether it is tomorrow or a month from now—it will not result in anything like a “reopening” of the country. And the sooner people grasp how completely and fundamentally the world has changed, the faster we’ll be able to adapt to this new reality.
Let’s take a close look at just a couple of examples.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
Vegas, Baby
Las Vegas will not “reopen” because the city as we knew it in February 2020 is gone.
Las Vegas is the 28th-largest metropolitan area in America, home to 2.2 million people. Its main business is gambling-related tourism. The city welcomes roughly 42 million visitors a year who pour $58 billion dollars into the local economy and support 370,000 jobs. Almost 40 percent of the area’s workers are employed in the hospitality industry.
Up until this past January, 70,000 people got off an airplane in Las Vegas every single day, mostly to take in the city’s charms.
On these flights, passenger seats are roughly 17 inches wide with 31 inches of pitch. So in order to get to Las Vegas—where the principal pleasure is spending disposable income on hotel rooms, while eating expensive meals, and playing casino games—something like 150 people would share 8,000 cubic feet of cabin space and recycled air for anywhere from one to four hours.
So tell me: When the state of Nevada lifts the stay-at-home order that it issued on March 12 and the casinos that drive the state’s economy reopen their doors, do you think that Las Vegas is going to come roaring back?
Because I do not.
What is much more likely is that the former steady flow of visitors to Las Vegas will resume as a trickle.
There are economic reasons for this: National unemployment levels will be near 20 percent, so people will be grappling with a great deal of financial uncertainty. Disposable income will be at a low ebb. When disposable income is in retreat, people generally do not take extravagant vacations where the primary purpose is to lose money in an entertaining manner.
But there are health reasons, too: People who are older or immunocompromised—or who come into regular contact with someone who is older or immunocompromised—are going to curtail their behavior in order to cut down on unnecessary personal interactions.
Getting on an airplane to fly to a city so that you can stay in a hotel, eat in crowded dining rooms, and stand elbow-to-elbow with strangers around a craps table will be far, far down the list of behaviors on which most people are open to taking a risk.
Which means that the 28th-largest city in America is going to hollow out.
If the tourism industry were to only decline by 30 percent in Las Vegas, it would be an utter catastrophe. No tourists means no work for maids, taxi drivers, cooks, dealers, waiters, and the tens of thousands of jobs that make up the invisible, back-of-the-house operations in hospitality.
No jobs for the people in hospitality means a shockwave to the local economy: The retail and service sectors will be crunched. Real estate values will implode. The strain on social services will be gigantic.
The central fact to be grasped here is that “reopening” the economy is largely a formality until there is a vaccine. Because only then will people modify their behavior to something approximating pre-pandemic levels.
Dinner and a Movie
Consider the movie theater.
Theaters have been closed by government order in most places for the last month—but those orders only validated decisions that had already been made at the corporate level: Most large theater chains had closed their doors of their own volition as the pandemic began heating up in early March.
Various states will, at some point, rescind these orders and allow movie theaters to open.
Exactly what good will that do?
There are 41,000 movie screens in America and the industry is dominated by three large chains—AMC, Regal, and Cinemark.
It is unclear how any of them can survive.
Take AMC, the largest theater chain in America. When the pandemic hit, AMC furloughed 25,000 employees. This month the company served notice that it would stop paying rent on all of its leased locations (which account for most of its theaters). The company has debt payments due this summer and recently had its credit rating downgraded. It’s seeking to raise $500 million in private debt just to stay afloat until it can reopen theaters.
But what does “reopening” look like for the theater industry in the presence of COVID-19?
At a minimum, theaters will have to radically reconfigure seating in order to put space between customers—which would mean cutting seating capacity by at least 50 percent. Theaters will also have to implement a more rigorous cleaning regimen between screenings, which will cut down the number of showings they can offer on each screen per day.
Then there’s the popcorn. Mask usage is going to be the default for most Americans for the foreseeable future. It is difficult to shovel popcorn into your mouth and sip on a soda while wearing a mask. Which means that concession sales for any customers who do come to the movies are likely to drop significantly—and such sales account for about half of theater chains’ gross profits.
Add it all up and three things jump out at you:
(1) If every theater in America opened tomorrow, what percentage of normal attendance would you see? 70 percent? 50 percent? 30 percent? What would that translate into as a percentage of total revenue decline, once you factor in concession sales?
(2) The theatrical exhibition business is such a low-margin industry that even a 30 percent decline in revenues would be enough to push just about every operator in America into bankruptcy.
(3) Even if some theaters managed to stay afloat in the short term, what movies would they show? The Marvel movie Black Widow was originally scheduled to open in theaters today. That debut has been postponed indefinitely. Let’s say you are Disney and you made Black Widow expecting it to open to $130 million dollars, pre-pandemic. Now you think that, at some point in the undetermined future, maybe it will open $70 million. Or possibly $30 million. Are you going to take that sort of chance with this asset? Or would you rather bootstrap the part of your business that looks like the future—meaning, your streaming service—and eschew the theatrical release altogether?
And what happens then? When the theater chains enter bankruptcy and become distressed assets, who is going to buy them? Because, again, movie exhibition is a low-margin business which has been in decline for several years. The theater chains themselves have functionally zero assets—they own seats, screens, projectors, and popcorn machines. That’s it.
The only parties who might have an interest in purchasing the theaters are the studios themselves—but here there is a vicious circle at play. Where it might have made sense pre-pandemic for Disney to buy AMC, that is no longer the case. Disney’s various businesses have been so deeply exposed by the coronavirus that its stock is down about 30 percent. It’s in the fight of its life and not in any position to take a gamble on trying to bring movie theaters back from the dead.
All of which is to say that “reopening” movie theaters is going to do absolutely nothing to save the movie-theater business.
Because the world has changed and the source of this change is not a government order.
It’s a virus.
I’ve only picked two examples, but we could scan the economic landscape and find existential dislocations pretty much everywhere.
How will the airline industry “come back” when people decide to take flights only for travel that cannot be avoided—and international travel is severely restricted?
How will professional sports—which require thousands of people to be packed into small spaces—play in front of live crowds again? The sports leagues may be able to limp along with only broadcast revenues, but the micro-economies built around stadiums and arenas will not.
As teleworking becomes increasingly accepted—or even preferred—the physical office will wane. What happens to commercial real estate?
The list goes on and on: Dine-in restaurants, coffee shops, hotels, theme parks, concert venues, convention centers, shopping malls, museums, libraries, schools, colleges—every one of these businesses is headed into a nuclear winter that has nothing to do with stay-at home orders.
You can “reopen” the country all you want. You cannot force people to act as though there is not a pandemic.
The Long War
There are some industries likely to be less affected by the virus (agriculture, manufacturing) and some industries that will boom because of it (telecom, logistics, e-commerce).
But the American economy is a tightly integrated system where disruption in one sector can cascade into failures everywhere else. In the last 50 years we’ve seen how shocks to finance or energy were sufficient to throw the entire country into deep recessions.
Exactly what sort of recession should we be expecting when several sectors are pushed toward extinction, all at once? Surveying the scene, Nick Eberstadt writes that:
We are still very much in the “fog of war” phase of the calamity. . . . Few had seriously considered the contingency that the world economy might be shaken to its foundations by a communicable disease. And even now that this has happened, many remain trapped in the mental coordinates of a world that no longer exists. Such “prewar” thinking is evident everywhere right now in the earliest phase of what may turn out to be a grave and protracted crisis. Here in the United States, we watch, week by week, as highly regarded financial analysts from Wall Street and economists from the academy misestimate the depths of the damage we can expect—always erring on the side of optimism. After the March lockdown of the country to “flatten the curve,” the boldest voices dared to venture that the United States might hit 10% unemployment before the worst was over. Four weekly jobless claims reports and 22 million unemployment insurance applications later, U.S. unemployment is already above the 15% mark: north of 1931 levels, in other words. By the end of April, we could well reach or break the 20% threshold, bringing us to 1935 levels, and 1933 levels (25%) no longer sound fantastical. Even so, political and financial leaders talk of a rapid “V-shaped recovery” commencing in the summer, bringing us back to economic normalcy within months. This is prewar thinking, and it is looking increasingly like the economic equivalent of talk in earlier times about how “the boys will be home by Christmas.” . . . Societies the world over face the prospect of rolling lockdowns and quarantines until such time as a technological breakthrough rescues them from this condition. This would seem to mean that not just a single national lockdown of a country’s population and economy is in store to fend off mass contagion but rather quite possibly a succession of them—not just one mother-of-all-economic-shocks but an ongoing crisis that presses economic performance severely in countries all around the world simultaneously.
Yes, some of the economic devastation we’ll witness in the months ahead, like the possible demise of the movie-theaters business, might have happened anyway—but without the catalyst of the coronavirus, it would likely have come more slowly, across a decade or more, and with less shock and immediate pain for workers, families, and communities.
And yes, there will eventually be creative destruction that spurs innovation and increasing economic activity. But that is in the long run.
The reality of our near- and medium-term future is something very different. And whatever the government orders people to do, that reality will look more like our “stay-at-home” present than the pre-virus past.


BLEACH??????

To be honest , my first reaction was : This can not possibly be true , right ?
The president of the United States was not , in fact , suggesting injecting some unknown disinfectant like bleach into the human body ?
Surely , our timeline had not descended that far into madness and parody ?
But , as you know , here we are .
On the day before we hit the grim milestone of 50,000 U.S. deaths , the president mused from the podium of the White House about the magical curing powers of UV rays inside the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he brought in “ a top administration scientist to back up his assertions and eagerly theorizing—dangerously , in the view of some experts—about the powers of sunlight , ultraviolet light and household disinfectants to kill the coronavirus.
” And then ?
Let ’ s roll the tape : Also , there was some talk about the clinical benefits of disinfectants : I mean what are we talking about here ?
Clorox cocktails ?
Suppositories that glow in the dark ?
And you thought the Tide pod stuff was stupid ?
Imagine , for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ having to listen to this , knowing that you can ’ t just stand up and tell the drunk at the end of the bar to STFU .
To historians of the presidency , Trump ’ s performance brought back memories of that time when Woodrow Wilson suggested filling dirigibles with cow farts and sending them over the German lines .
Or FDR ‘ s cunning plan to send infected gerbils into the sewers of Berlin .
And who can forget when Abraham Lincoln suggested replacing battlefield nurses with leeches carried on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I digress , because history quails at coming up with parallel moments of pure bullshit .
This sort of thing utterly wrecks satire , because how do you write a parody of a caricature of a hoax about something this stupid ?
There ’ s seldom been a time with a greater need for a well-honed sense of the absurd , but admit it : it ’ s hard to laugh at what we know is ridiculous , but also pathetic and dangerous .
There were few critics who have topped H.L .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ idiocy : “ On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart ’ s desire at last , ” he wrote presciently , “ and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
” But it would ’ ve broken Mencken to describe not just the idiocy of the president but the slavish turd-polishing claque will rush to his defense Even as we speak , Breitbart has concocted a defense which insists that Trump didn ’ t say what he actually said because while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ word “ inject ” he also said that he would leave it to “ medical doctors ” to come up with the actual process .
So see ?
Everything is cool because the president was only musing out loud .
He didn ’ t release a paper outlining a bleach-injection procedure , so it ’ s all a hoax .
Other toadies are no doubt beavering away to find some reporter , somewhere , who also said something that was also dumb , so that they can say , “ Samesies !
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thing .
And we should fully expect Salena Zito to magically overhear some swing-state voters talking about how they took the president ’ s bleach thing seriously , not literally .
It seems almost futile to point out what we just saw here because in a week—or 24 hours—we ’ ll have forgotten all about the bleach comments .
The people who are willing to acknowledge what Donald Trump is will be right where we are now and the people who insist on pretending that he is not an ignorant , unstable , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so .
After all , their livelihoods depend on it .
We ’ ll all move on to the next trial balloon , insult , tweet , mangling of scientific facts , and trigger-the-lib moment .
And Americans will keep dying .

To be honest, my first reaction was: This cannot possibly be true, right? The president of the United States was not, in fact, suggesting injecting some unknown disinfectant like bleach into the human body? Surely, our timeline had not descended that far into madness and parody?
This is a hoax, right. Didn't really happen, right ???? https://t.co/3DoSbgKwoV — Charlie Sykes (@SykesCharlie) April 23, 2020
But, as you know, here we are. On the day before we hit the grim milestone of 50,000 U.S. deaths, the president mused from the podium of the White House about the magical curing powers of UV rays inside the body. During his briefing Thursday, he brought in “a top administration scientist to back up his assertions and eagerly theorizing—dangerously, in the view of some experts—about the powers of sunlight, ultraviolet light and household disinfectants to kill the coronavirus.”
And then? Let’s roll the tape:
“So, supposing we hit the body with a tremendous, whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light—and I think you said that hasn’t been checked but you’re going to test it,” Trump said at one point. “And then, I said, supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way.”
Also, there was some talk about the clinical benefits of disinfectants:
“And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute—one minute—and is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside, or almost a cleaning?” he asked. “Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it would be interesting to check that.”
I mean what are we talking about here? Clorox cocktails? Suppositories that glow in the dark?
And you thought the Tide pod stuff was stupid?
Imagine, for a moment, being an actual scientist having to listen to this, knowing that you can’t just stand up and tell the drunk at the end of the bar to STFU.
Here is Dr. Birx's reaction when President Trump asks his science advisor to study using UV light on the human body and injecting disinfectant to fight the coronavirus. pic.twitter.com/MVno5X7JMA — Daniel Lewis (@Daniel_Lewis3) April 24, 2020
To historians of the presidency, Trump’s performance brought back memories of that time when Woodrow Wilson suggested filling dirigibles with cow farts and sending them over the German lines. Or FDR‘s cunning plan to send infected gerbils into the sewers of Berlin. And who can forget when Abraham Lincoln suggested replacing battlefield nurses with leeches carried on the backs of rabbits . . .
But I digress, because history quails at coming up with parallel moments of pure bullshit.
This sort of thing utterly wrecks satire, because how do you write a parody of a caricature of a hoax about something this stupid? There’s seldom been a time with a greater need for a well-honed sense of the absurd, but admit it: it’s hard to laugh at what we know is ridiculous, but also pathetic and dangerous.
There were few critics who have topped H.L. Mencken’s dim view of political idiocy: “On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last,” he wrote presciently, “and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”
But it would’ve broken Mencken to describe not just the idiocy of the president but the slavish turd-polishing claque will rush to his defense
Even as we speak, Breitbart has concocted a defense which insists that Trump didn’t say what he actually said because while, yes, the president used the word “inject” he also said that he would leave it to “medical doctors” to come up with the actual process. So see? Everything is cool because the president was only musing out loud. He didn’t release a paper outlining a bleach-injection procedure, so it’s all a hoax.
Other toadies are no doubt beavering away to find some reporter, somewhere, who also said something that was also dumb, so that they can say, “Samesies!” Of course, anti-anti-Bleachism is already a thing. And we should fully expect Salena Zito to magically overhear some swing-state voters talking about how they took the president’s bleach thing seriously, not literally.
But still:
This statement by the makers of Lysol is a direct response to @realDonaldTrump: “As a global leader in health and hygiene products, we must be clear that under no circumstance should our disinfectant products be administered into the human body.” https://t.co/ZoAlT7Fc1v — Andrew Feinberg (@AndrewFeinberg) April 24, 2020
It seems almost futile to point out what we just saw here because in a week—or 24 hours—we’ll have forgotten all about the bleach comments. The people who are willing to acknowledge what Donald Trump is will be right where we are now and the people who insist on pretending that he is not an ignorant, unstable, and dangerous man will continue to do so. After all, their livelihoods depend on it.
We’ll all move on to the next trial balloon, insult, tweet, mangling of scientific facts, and trigger-the-lib moment.
And Americans will keep dying.
Hilarious.


thebulwark--2020-04-25--Bill Barr Wants Trump to Know He’s Reliable in a Pandemic, Too

In a radio interview Tuesday , Attorney General Bill Barr unveiled a threat against governors who do not open their states for business .
We have to give businesses more freedom to operate in a way that ’ s reasonably safe .
To the extent that governors don ’ t and impinge on either civil rights or on the national commerce—our common market that we have here—then we ’ ll have to address that .
“ States ’ rights ” was once conservatives ’ rallying cry against legal action against local government by the Department of Justice .
But now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in support of his patron ’ s push to “ re-open the country ” and end “ stay-at-home ” policies : Seldom has an attorney general ’ s nod to pressure from partisan operatives sounded so high-minded .
As reported , this is the backdrop for his statements : And there lies the key difference separating Barr ’ s legal threat from the posture of his predecessors during the Civil Rights movement : Previous attorneys general intervened with states to disrupt unlawful segregation .
By contrast , AG Barr speaks of intervening to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s health .
The Supreme Court has long upheld the states ’ broad discretion to determine what is needed to safeguard health , particularly in epidemics .
Barr ’ s threat is short on legal force .
But as is depressingly often the case , his declaration seems designed less to serve the rule of law than to advertise loyalty for the president ’ s current reelection gambit .
How stark the contrast with Dwight Eisenhower ’ s attorney general , Herbert Brownell , at the dawn of the civil rights movement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through the ranks of Republican politics and elite law firms .
But his loyalty was to the Constitution .
In 1954 the Supreme Court sought the federal government ’ s participation in a private citizen ’ s suit against a local school authority—Brown v. the Board of Education .
Brownell knew well his president ’ s preference for neutrality and Eisenhower ’ s political reluctance to offend powerful Southern Senators whose legislative support he needed .
Still , when asked directly at oral argument the attorney general ’ s position on the question @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the assistant attorney general answered exactly as Brownell had instructed : The 58-year-old rule of “ separate but equal ” was unconstitutional and should be overturned .

In a radio interview Tuesday, Attorney General Bill Barr unveiled a threat against governors who do not open their states for business.
We have to give businesses more freedom to operate in a way that’s reasonably safe. To the extent that governors don’t and impinge on either civil rights or on the national commerce—our common market that we have here—then we’ll have to address that.
“States’ rights” was once conservatives’ rallying cry against legal action against local government by the Department of Justice. But now Barr decries “states’ wrongs” in support of his patron’s push to “re-open the country” and end “stay-at-home” policies:
These are unprecedented burdens on civil liberties right now. You know, the idea that you have to stay in your house is disturbingly close to house arrest.
Seldom has an attorney general’s nod to pressure from partisan operatives sounded so high-minded. As reported, this is the backdrop for his statements:
On Friday, the Conservative Action Project, a group that includes a wide range of Trump supporters, right-wing legal activists, Tea Party organizers, anti-abortion crusaders, and big business lobbyists, called on the Trump administration to take the protesters’ fight to the courts and sue to force states to lift the restrictions, which medical experts and Trump himself have credited for saving millions of lives.
And there lies the key difference separating Barr’s legal threat from the posture of his predecessors during the Civil Rights movement: Previous attorneys general intervened with states to disrupt unlawful segregation. By contrast, AG Barr speaks of intervening to disrupt local lawful protections of the public’s health. The Supreme Court has long upheld the states’ broad discretion to determine what is needed to safeguard health, particularly in epidemics.
Barr’s threat is short on legal force. But as is depressingly often the case, his declaration seems designed less to serve the rule of law than to advertise loyalty for the president’s current reelection gambit.
How stark the contrast with Dwight Eisenhower’s attorney general, Herbert Brownell, at the dawn of the civil rights movement. He, too, came up through the ranks of Republican politics and elite law firms. But his loyalty was to the Constitution.
In 1954 the Supreme Court sought the federal government’s participation in a private citizen’s suit against a local school authority—Brown v. the Board of Education. Brownell knew well his president’s preference for neutrality and Eisenhower’s political reluctance to offend powerful Southern Senators whose legislative support he needed. Still, when asked directly at oral argument the attorney general’s position on the question the government’s brief had avoided, the assistant attorney general answered exactly as Brownell had instructed: The 58-year-old rule of “separate but equal” was unconstitutional and should be overturned.
The rest is history.


thebulwark--2020-04-26--America First, But without Trump

America First, But without Trump

The Age of Illusions How America Squandered Its Cold War Victory by Andrew J. Bacevich Metropolitan , 236 pp.
, $ 27 Early in The Age of Illusions , Andrew Bacevich discusses the movie The Best Years of Our Lives .
The 1946 classic follows the postwar lives of three World War II veterans in Boone City , a fictional working-class town .
Bacevich refers to the movie and its characters repeatedly in the book , usually in an attempt to illustrate that there has been too much change in America and that it has come too fast .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ offers the Emerald City of The Wizard of Oz—a gleaming vision of the future .
It ’ s a stand-in for a dream of global trade and exchange and freedom—an unrealistic dream , in Bacevich ’ s telling , promoted by the likes of Francis Fukuyama and Thomas Friedman .
In his telling , the dream of this Emerald City has dominated post-Cold War American foreign policy .
Bacevich , an emeritus professor of history and security studies Boston University , is a retired U.S. Army colonel who served in Vietnam and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The American Conservative , his essays , and his books—he is quite prolific—Bacevich combines social conservatism with an opposition to American “ militarism ” and “ interventionism ” —although in this book he keeps talking about the lack of progress on social issues , including LGBT rights , and brings up how as a white male he does not stand the authority to make certain judgments .
In late 2019 , he became the founding president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft , an organization dedicated to “ mov [ ing ] @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Complaining about American militarism—by which Bacevich means the U.S. investment in and use of its military as one of its several tools of global hegemony , to which he objects—is , unsurprisingly , a major theme of his new book .
This is a deceitful proposition as the United States indeed relies on its military power a lot , but that reliance is far from an -ism , an ideological end to itself .
The book has another , more wistful motif : repeated comparisons between the author and Donald Trump .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ was engaging in at a given moment , and how Bacevich was himself at that moment doing some much more virtuous thing .
Indeed , the best example of many that Bacevich cites is how Donald Trump was leading a perverted life as the author was fighting in Vietnam .
Bacevich ’ s obsession with Trump isn ’ t just because they are contemporaries ( Trump was born in June 1946 and Bacevich in July 1947 ) .
Rather , Bacevich sees in Trump a populist leader , but a bad one .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pat Buchanan , whose populism was “ intent on salvaging what remained ” of the America of Best Years .
But Trump is an opportunist ; he discredits populism .
Bacevich seems to be implying that American political populism deserves a better hero , somebody more like himself .
Bacevich ’ s book is poorly researched and edited .
Pages go by without a single citation .
One has to ask whether Bacevich would have given a passing grade to his students for papers researched as poorly as this book has been .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In one instance , Bacevich calls Carly Fiorina and Ben Carson the only Republican presidential candidates in 2016 who were not white males .
Bobby Jindal had come up just in the previous page , and the very next paragraph is a discussion about Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio .
In his chapter on the 2016 elections , Bacevich points out some of Trump ’ s and Hillary Clinton ’ s weaknesses but acknowledges that he had signed up to be an adviser for Bernie Sanders ’ s campaign during that cycle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidate who survives Bacevich ’ s criticisms—which is ironic , since if Sanders were elected president , he would certainly expand the power of the presidency , and Bacevich strenuously objects to the too-powerful “ imperial presidency.
” Elsewhere , Bacevich blames George W. Bush for having done too little to combat racism , sexism , and homophobia , although he concedes that “ little evidence exists to suggest that the forty-third president was himself overtly racist , sexist , or homophobic.
” Note the grudging way he phrases that line , inserting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overtly.
” What “ little evidence ” is Bacevich talking about ?
Does he have evidence that Bush was covertly a bigot ?
This small smear is typical .
Bacevich ’ s book is full of sweeping generalizations and significant , big-if-true factual claims supported by no evidence .
For instance , in his discussion of the Iraq war , Bacevich calls Donald Rumsfeld a militarist , Dick Cheney a nationalist , and Paul Wolfowitz a missionary zealot ; those are , according to Bacevich , the three legs of the stool of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of his previous writing ) .
But Bacevich doesn ’ t here define any of the three terms , nor does he provide any evidence that support the assertion that those three individuals resemble whatever those terms mean .
In another passage , Bacevich claims that , for Wolfowitz , the purpose of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars was to demonstrate “ the willingness , even eagerness , of the United States to remove regimes of which it disapproved.
” Bacevich provides no evidence for this claim .
I can say with some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Wolfowitz during an intense week-long seminar , that demonstrating an enthusiasm for regime change was not among the top ten reasons that he favored the Iraq War .
Bacevich claims that “ Iranophobes clearly hoped ” that the U.S. departure from the nuclear deal would trigger a war .
As the standing secretary of the Iranophobe Society , I believe that our argument has always been that appeasing Iran always leads to more aggression from Iran , and so to prevent a war , we need to punish Iran militarily .
Two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this argument for the millionth time earlier this year .
One suspects that what Bacevich really means by “ Iranophobes ” is people who eat bagels for breakfast .
Earlier in the book he referred to the “ Israel lobby , ” adopting the term popularized by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt ’ s anti-Semitic book by that name .
He also complains that , “ in the dispute between Israelis and Palestinians , Washington in no sense plays the role of honest broker ; in matters affecting Israel , the national interests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ afterthought.
” If only I had a penny every time I heard that Jews control the Department of State .
Some of the lacunae in Bacevich ’ s argument are telling .
For all his criticism of globalism and “ neoliberalism ” —a slur against those of us who tend to believe that market economics and free trade are , on the whole , good things—Bacevich makes no mention of automation and the information revolution in industries , which are in fact the major causes of the loss of manufacturing jobs that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mentioned even once in the book reveals how Bacevich tends to think in terms of sweeping ideologies rather than facts .
Whatever one thinks about Bacevich ’ s political and policy beliefs , his respect for the troops , which surely animates much of his thinking , is admirable and honorable .
( Not only did Bacevich serve in the Army himself , but both his parents were WWII veterans , and his son , an Army first lieutenant , died during Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2007 . )
So it is no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ book is one in which Bacevich discusses the role of the military in American society .
He correctly points out that our military ’ s enlistees are mostly working class .
Bacevich puts a pessimistic spin on this fact : The military , he says , is “ buying ” its poor recruits with money and benefits .
A better take would be that the military is the best—and perhaps the only reliable—bastion of upward mobility in our society .
But Bacevich is right that our elite institutions are letting down our veterans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 , “ the undergraduate student body at Princeton included exactly one veteran.
” Most of our virtual-signaling corporations also do little to recruit veterans , perhaps because of the terribly inaccurate image that veterans are likely to be damaged .
They are not : the overwhelming majority of our military veterans are normal Americans , with a tendency to be more disciplined and capable and less thin-skinned than lifelong civilians .
Bacevich ’ s book ends where it began , with complaints that American leadership tends too often to want to use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of course , that military power is just one tool of America ’ s leadership , but it is a very important and necessary tool .
I have a hard time believing that Vladimir Putin is scared of America ’ s power of virtues .
This is the fundamental contradiction of the book .
Its subtitle is “ How America Squandered Its Cold War Victory.
” Let ’ s take a step back and remember how we accomplished that victory : Accumulating wealth through innovation , free markets , and trade , keeping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) our government ’ s legitimacy through its liberalism while rejecting the very relativism moral Bacevich champions , and maintaining our military might .
Over the course of the book , Bacevich faults Americans of all kinds—from the Founding Fathers and Lincoln to modern-day politicians and voters—for their idealism and faith in America as a cause .
But again , that idealism was an invaluable factor in America ’ s Cold War victory .
It reminds one of Henry Kissinger ’ s quip that Iran has to decide whether it wants to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the fatal mistake of the “ realist.
” Ideological regimes seldom choose to be nations .
They almost always choose to be imperial causes , be it Islamist , Communist , or , in America ’ s case , liberal .
Bacevich is asking us to change the very foundation of what makes us a nation .
But , in a closing irony , Bacevich has his own cause he deems greater than liberalism .
The book ends with three pages of discussion about climate change , which Bacevich barely mentions in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threat of climate change , in Bacevich ’ s view , is what should bring Americans together with their enemies—if you think that Republicans are unreasonable and unscientific , try Vladimir Putin !
It ’ s a gloomy and desperate new ideology he proposes to reorder America and the world , one rooted in a Darwinian fear of survival rather than a Lockean commitment to equality and liberty .
Now that hardly sounds like ‘ the best years of our lives .
’

The Age of Illusions
How America Squandered Its Cold War Victory
by Andrew J. Bacevich
Metropolitan, 236 pp., $27
Early in The Age of Illusions, Andrew Bacevich discusses the movie The Best Years of Our Lives. The 1946 classic follows the postwar lives of three World War II veterans in Boone City, a fictional working-class town. Bacevich refers to the movie and its characters repeatedly in the book, usually in an attempt to illustrate that there has been too much change in America and that it has come too fast.
As a contrast to Boone City, Bacevich offers the Emerald City of The Wizard of Oz—a gleaming vision of the future. It’s a stand-in for a dream of global trade and exchange and freedom—an unrealistic dream, in Bacevich’s telling, promoted by the likes of Francis Fukuyama and Thomas Friedman. In his telling, the dream of this Emerald City has dominated post-Cold War American foreign policy.
Bacevich, an emeritus professor of history and security studies Boston University, is a retired U.S. Army colonel who served in Vietnam and the Persian Gulf. In his articles in The American Conservative, his essays, and his books—he is quite prolific—Bacevich combines social conservatism with an opposition to American “militarism” and “interventionism”—although in this book he keeps talking about the lack of progress on social issues, including LGBT rights, and brings up how as a white male he does not stand the authority to make certain judgments. In late 2019, he became the founding president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, an organization dedicated to “mov[ing] U.S. foreign policy away from endless war.”
Complaining about American militarism—by which Bacevich means the U.S. investment in and use of its military as one of its several tools of global hegemony, to which he objects—is, unsurprisingly, a major theme of his new book. This is a deceitful proposition as the United States indeed relies on its military power a lot, but that reliance is far from an -ism, an ideological end to itself.
The book has another, more wistful motif: repeated comparisons between the author and Donald Trump. Bacevich regularly mentions what vices Donald Trump was engaging in at a given moment, and how Bacevich was himself at that moment doing some much more virtuous thing. Indeed, the best example of many that Bacevich cites is how Donald Trump was leading a perverted life as the author was fighting in Vietnam.
Bacevich’s obsession with Trump isn’t just because they are contemporaries (Trump was born in June 1946 and Bacevich in July 1947). Rather, Bacevich sees in Trump a populist leader, but a bad one. Bacevich expresses a fondness Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan, whose populism was “intent on salvaging what remained” of the America of Best Years. But Trump is an opportunist; he discredits populism. Bacevich seems to be implying that American political populism deserves a better hero, somebody more like himself.
Bacevich’s book is poorly researched and edited. Pages go by without a single citation. One has to ask whether Bacevich would have given a passing grade to his students for papers researched as poorly as this book has been. There are some strange errors, too. In one instance, Bacevich calls Carly Fiorina and Ben Carson the only Republican presidential candidates in 2016 who were not white males. Bobby Jindal had come up just in the previous page, and the very next paragraph is a discussion about Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio.
In his chapter on the 2016 elections, Bacevich points out some of Trump’s and Hillary Clinton’s weaknesses but acknowledges that he had signed up to be an adviser for Bernie Sanders’s campaign during that cycle. Indeed, Sanders is the only candidate who survives Bacevich’s criticisms—which is ironic, since if Sanders were elected president, he would certainly expand the power of the presidency, and Bacevich strenuously objects to the too-powerful “imperial presidency.”
Elsewhere, Bacevich blames George W. Bush for having done too little to combat racism, sexism, and homophobia, although he concedes that “little evidence exists to suggest that the forty-third president was himself overtly racist, sexist, or homophobic.” Note the grudging way he phrases that line, inserting the qualifiers “little” and “overtly.” What “little evidence” is Bacevich talking about? Does he have evidence that Bush was covertly a bigot?
This small smear is typical. Bacevich’s book is full of sweeping generalizations and significant, big-if-true factual claims supported by no evidence. For instance, in his discussion of the Iraq war, Bacevich calls Donald Rumsfeld a militarist, Dick Cheney a nationalist, and Paul Wolfowitz a missionary zealot; those are, according to Bacevich, the three legs of the stool of American exceptionalism (the subject of much of his previous writing). But Bacevich doesn’t here define any of the three terms, nor does he provide any evidence that support the assertion that those three individuals resemble whatever those terms mean.
In another passage, Bacevich claims that, for Wolfowitz, the purpose of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars was to demonstrate “the willingness, even eagerness, of the United States to remove regimes of which it disapproved.” Bacevich provides no evidence for this claim. I can say with some confidence, having studied the Iraq War with Wolfowitz during an intense week-long seminar, that demonstrating an enthusiasm for regime change was not among the top ten reasons that he favored the Iraq War.
Bacevich claims that “Iranophobes clearly hoped” that the U.S. departure from the nuclear deal would trigger a war. As the standing secretary of the Iranophobe Society, I believe that our argument has always been that appeasing Iran always leads to more aggression from Iran, and so to prevent a war, we need to punish Iran militarily. Two of our society’s members made this argument for the millionth time earlier this year.
One suspects that what Bacevich really means by “Iranophobes” is people who eat bagels for breakfast. Earlier in the book he referred to the “Israel lobby,” adopting the term popularized by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt’s anti-Semitic book by that name. He also complains that, “in the dispute between Israelis and Palestinians, Washington in no sense plays the role of honest broker; in matters affecting Israel, the national interests of the United States figure as an afterthought.” If only I had a penny every time I heard that Jews control the Department of State.
Some of the lacunae in Bacevich’s argument are telling. For all his criticism of globalism and “neoliberalism”—a slur against those of us who tend to believe that market economics and free trade are, on the whole, good things—Bacevich makes no mention of automation and the information revolution in industries, which are in fact the major causes of the loss of manufacturing jobs that he laments. That these factors are not mentioned even once in the book reveals how Bacevich tends to think in terms of sweeping ideologies rather than facts.
Whatever one thinks about Bacevich’s political and policy beliefs, his respect for the troops, which surely animates much of his thinking, is admirable and honorable. (Not only did Bacevich serve in the Army himself, but both his parents were WWII veterans, and his son, an Army first lieutenant, died during Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2007.) So it is no surprise that the best passage in the book is one in which Bacevich discusses the role of the military in American society. He correctly points out that our military’s enlistees are mostly working class. Bacevich puts a pessimistic spin on this fact: The military, he says, is “buying” its poor recruits with money and benefits. A better take would be that the military is the best—and perhaps the only reliable—bastion of upward mobility in our society. But Bacevich is right that our elite institutions are letting down our veterans. He points out that, in 2016, “the undergraduate student body at Princeton included exactly one veteran.” Most of our virtual-signaling corporations also do little to recruit veterans, perhaps because of the terribly inaccurate image that veterans are likely to be damaged. They are not: the overwhelming majority of our military veterans are normal Americans, with a tendency to be more disciplined and capable and less thin-skinned than lifelong civilians.
Bacevich’s book ends where it began, with complaints that American leadership tends too often to want to use military force. It is true, of course, that military power is just one tool of America’s leadership, but it is a very important and necessary tool. I have a hard time believing that Vladimir Putin is scared of America’s power of virtues.
This is the fundamental contradiction of the book. Its subtitle is “How America Squandered Its Cold War Victory.” Let’s take a step back and remember how we accomplished that victory: Accumulating wealth through innovation, free markets, and trade, keeping (and making a role model of) our government’s legitimacy through its liberalism while rejecting the very relativism moral Bacevich champions, and maintaining our military might.
Over the course of the book, Bacevich faults Americans of all kinds—from the Founding Fathers and Lincoln to modern-day politicians and voters—for their idealism and faith in America as a cause. But again, that idealism was an invaluable factor in America’s Cold War victory. It reminds one of Henry Kissinger’s quip that Iran has to decide whether it wants to be a nation or a cause. This is the fatal mistake of the “realist.” Ideological regimes seldom choose to be nations. They almost always choose to be imperial causes, be it Islamist, Communist, or, in America’s case, liberal. Bacevich is asking us to change the very foundation of what makes us a nation.
But, in a closing irony, Bacevich has his own cause he deems greater than liberalism. The book ends with three pages of discussion about climate change, which Bacevich barely mentions in the previous two hundred pages. The threat of climate change, in Bacevich’s view, is what should bring Americans together with their enemies—if you think that Republicans are unreasonable and unscientific, try Vladimir Putin! It’s a gloomy and desperate new ideology he proposes to reorder America and the world, one rooted in a Darwinian fear of survival rather than a Lockean commitment to equality and liberty. Now that hardly sounds like ‘the best years of our lives.’