powerlineblog--2020-02-04--Waiting on Iowa [UPDATED THROUGHOUT THE EVENING]

The Super Bowl has been played , and Monday is a slow day for soccer and college basketball .
So , by default , I ’ m following the Iowa caucuses .
There ’ s nothing to report from Iowa yet , except for this : Entrance polling suggests that Bernie Sanders is crushing it with young voters and that Joe Biden is the clear favorite among older ones .
Biden has generated little enthusiasm among the young , while the elderly seem skeptical of Sanders .
There ’ s a good chance that the Democrats will nominate either Sanders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ skeptical or fearful of Sanders ( as they should be ) and the young are uninspired by Biden ( as should also be the case ) , that ’ s a problem for Democrats as they look ahead to November .
UPDATE : Still nothing solid to report .
However , the anecdotal evidence I ’ m seeing suggests that Biden is having a tough night .
UPDATE : There are , I understand , more than 1,700 precincts in Iowa .
As we approach 10:00 in the East , there is “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of them .
For what it ’ s worth , Pete Buttigieg has almost 27 percent of the vote .
Sanders is second at just under 24 percent .
Biden is third at around 20 percent .
Then come Elizabeth Warren ( 16 percent ) and Amy Klobuchar ( just under 14 percent ) .
UPDATE : Still very little to report as we hit 10:30 in the East .
The final alignment data now has Buttigieg and Sanders virtually tied at around 27 percent .
Warren has moved into third with 20 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 14 percent , a result that , if it were to hold , would be a huge setback for the former vice president .
But this is with less than 2 percent of precincts reporting .
REPUBLICAN UPDATE : According to FiveThirtyEight , President Trump has won the Republican caucuses with 97 percent of the vote .
UPDATE : Technical and “ quality control ” issues are standing in the way of finding out what happened at the caucuses .
Iowa should either switch to a primary or lose its “ first state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Iowa can remain first only if it sticks to caucuses .
So New Hampshire should go first .
UPDATE : As we approach 11:30 in the East , the delay continues .
Reportedly , state party officials are briefing the campaigns about the matter .
Maybe the Russians are to blame .
There are reports that attendance at this year ’ s caucuses is at about the same level as in 2016 .
If so , then anti-Trump sentiment and a large field of candidates failed to push Iowa Democrats to new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new to report about Iowa .
However , I just learned that MLB Network ’ s “ Shredder ” declared Trevor Story the best shortstop in baseball .
The result is disputed , though , because Brian Kenny and Harold Reynolds say the best shortstop is Francisco Lindor .
SIGNING OFF : It ’ s a few minutes before midnight in the East .
I doubt that we ’ ll get meaningful results any time soon , so I ’ m signing off .
Many will be disappointed by this farce of an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iowa caucuses , and kind of liked how the evening turned out .

The Super Bowl has been played, and Monday is a slow day for soccer and college basketball. So, by default, I’m following the Iowa caucuses.
There’s nothing to report from Iowa yet, except for this: Entrance polling suggests that Bernie Sanders is crushing it with young voters and that Joe Biden is the clear favorite among older ones. Biden has generated little enthusiasm among the young, while the elderly seem skeptical of Sanders.
There’s a good chance that the Democrats will nominate either Sanders or Biden. If the elderly are skeptical or fearful of Sanders (as they should be) and the young are uninspired by Biden (as should also be the case), that’s a problem for Democrats as they look ahead to November.
UPDATE: Still nothing solid to report. However, the anecdotal evidence I’m seeing suggests that Biden is having a tough night.
UPDATE: There are, I understand, more than 1,700 precincts in Iowa. As we approach 10:00 in the East, there is “final alignment” data from only 24 of them.
For what it’s worth, Pete Buttigieg has almost 27 percent of the vote. Sanders is second at just under 24 percent. Biden is third at around 20 percent. Then come Elizabeth Warren (16 percent) and Amy Klobuchar (just under 14 percent).
UPDATE: Still very little to report as we hit 10:30 in the East. The final alignment data now has Buttigieg and Sanders virtually tied at around 27 percent. Warren has moved into third with 20 percent.
Biden is down to around 14 percent, a result that, if it were to hold, would be a huge setback for the former vice president.
But this is with less than 2 percent of precincts reporting.
REPUBLICAN UPDATE: According to FiveThirtyEight, President Trump has won the Republican caucuses with 97 percent of the vote.
UPDATE: Technical and “quality control” issues are standing in the way of finding out what happened at the caucuses. Iowa should either switch to a primary or lose its “first state to vote status.”
Apparently, though, Iowa can remain first only if it sticks to caucuses. So New Hampshire should go first.
UPDATE: As we approach 11:30 in the East, the delay continues. Reportedly, state party officials are briefing the campaigns about the matter. Maybe the Russians are to blame.
There are reports that attendance at this year’s caucuses is at about the same level as in 2016. If so, then anti-Trump sentiment and a large field of candidates failed to push Iowa Democrats to new levels of enthusiasm.
UPDATE: Nothing new to report about Iowa. However, I just learned that MLB Network’s “Shredder” declared Trevor Story the best shortstop in baseball. The result is disputed, though, because Brian Kenny and Harold Reynolds say the best shortstop is Francisco Lindor.
SIGNING OFF: It’s a few minutes before midnight in the East. I doubt that we’ll get meaningful results any time soon, so I’m signing off.
Many will be disappointed by this farce of an election. However, I dislike the Iowa caucuses, and kind of liked how the evening turned out.


powerlineblog--2020-02-04--The Liberals’ Racism Dodge: An Extreme Case

Everyone knows that when a liberal is out of ammo , his first recourse is to accuse those who disagree with him of being racists .
This dodge is so familiar , and so ineffective , that I usually don ’ t bother to comment on it .
But today we saw an extreme instance , and one that involves the organization that I run , Minnesota ’ s think tank , Center of the American Experiment .
So here goes .
By way of background , my home state of Minnesota has a lot going for it , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slow population growth , below-average per capita GDP growth , below-average job growth , and below-average income growth .
One of the state ’ s problems is a chronic net outflow of higher-earning workers .
The Center published a paper on this in 2016 that received a great deal of attention .
That paper was based mainly on the IRS ’ s vast database that tracks the movements of tax filers from state to state .
For a considerable time , the IRS did not update that database .
They finally did , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years ’ worth of information .
So our senior economist , John Phelan , analyzed the new IRS data and published an op-ed on it in the Minneapolis Star Tribune .
It was the most-read column in the newspaper today , according to the Strib ’ s Editorial Editor , who predicted that it would have a lot of influence in the state ’ s upcoming legislative session .
John Phelan is British , with an advanced degree from the London School of Economics .
His style is inflammatory only in comparison with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ excerpts from his op-ed : On net , in every year from 2001 through 2016 , Minnesota lost residents to other states .
This was a source of much discussion in our state , prompting fears of slower economic growth and a lost congressional seat .
So there was some celebration when , in 2017 and 2018 , the Census Bureau found that there were net in-migrations of people into Minnesota from other states , in the net amounts of 7,941 and 6,769 , respectively .
Unfortunately , that uptick of migration into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Figures for 2019 show that in-migration dropped essentially to zero , a positive net of 65 people .
And another new data set provides more cause for concern .
*** The IRS database has just been updated with the addition of two more years of statistics on the movement of taxpayers across state lines , covering the years 2016-17 and 2017-18 .
Unfortunately , these new data show that the trend that existed as of 2016 continues : Minnesota gains low-income residents from other states , but loses middle- and upper-income residents , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the IRS data show that Minnesota , on net , lost $ 900 million in income to other states between 2016 and 2018 .
… *** In Minnesota , we often hear talk about whether our high tax rates drive away “ the rich.
” Unfortunately , that is only one of our problems .
The IRS database shows that Minnesota was a net loser of residents in every income category from $ 50,000 up in 2017-18 .
Out-migration is very much a middle-class issue .
By contrast , the state attracted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incomes of $ 25,000 or less .
*** In the long run , repelling the middle class and high wage earners is not a sustainable strategy for any state .
How can Minnesota do better ?
High taxes are an obvious culprit .
The large and growing body of evidence on the effects of taxation on migration was summarized recently by economists Henrik Kleven , Camille Landais , Mathilde Muñoz and Stefanie Stantcheva .
They found “ there is growing evidence that taxes can affect the geographic location of people both within and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prosper in the 21st century , we must attract , rather than drive away , highly productive citizens .
Whether we like it or not , we are competing with other states for jobs and taxpaying residents .
That is the kind of solid , data-based analysis my organization prides itself on , and it is highly influential with both voters and legislators .
But a lefty on Twitter saw something completely different : This is stupid almost beyond belief .
“ Low income ” is “ code for people of color ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ significant fact , not “ code ” for anything .
Maybe Mr. Collins is so bigoted that he doesn ’ t believe that “ people of color ” can make money .
Welcome to the 20th century , you troglodyte : they can , and most often do .
But Phelan ’ s point has nothing to do with race : it has to do with economics .
If you chase away people who make money , and attract only people who don ’ t , you are in trouble .
Liberals can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , so they name-call instead : “ the Klan-robe crowd at the Center of the American Experiment.
” Does publishing data-driven studies of spending , taxes , energy , natural resources , education , economic growth , etc.
, make you a “ Klan-robe crowd ” ?
Sure , if your opponent is a leftist who has absolutely no idea what he is talking about and zero ability to engage in rational debate .
You might assume that Bob Collins , the author of the “ Klan-robe crowd ” absurdity , is just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Twitter .
Perhaps so .
But he was also , until a few months ago , one of Minnesota Public Radio ’ s top political commentators .
This post from MPR ’ s web site bids farewell to Collins on his retirement in April .
It congratulates Collins on not trying to be a “ fair and neutral ” journalist , but rather one who would “ tell us when someone is just wrong.
” That “ someone , ” of course , always being a conservative .
John Phelan , a gentleman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ I say nothing about ethnicity in this article.
” He gave Collins too much credit .
Leftists have their own definition of “ racism ” that needn ’ t , as in this case , have anything to do with race .
It ’ s just a pathetic smear .
Collins replied , pitifully , to John : You could say that Bob Collins is just a poor dumb lefty who can ’ t muster an argument to save his life , and who no longer has any influence over anyone .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a few months ago , he was spreading his hateful ideology throughout the state of Minnesota , in large part at taxpayer expense , under the imprimatur of public radio .
This is the insane leftism that we deal with every day .
If you disagree with the left ’ s party line , whatever it may be at the moment , you are a “ racist , ” whether or not race has anything to do with the topic at hand .
It is stupid , it is weak , and I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it provides a window into the evil that is leftism .

Everyone knows that when a liberal is out of ammo, his first recourse is to accuse those who disagree with him of being racists. This dodge is so familiar, and so ineffective, that I usually don’t bother to comment on it. But today we saw an extreme instance, and one that involves the organization that I run, Minnesota’s think tank, Center of the American Experiment. So here goes.
By way of background, my home state of Minnesota has a lot going for it, but in the 21st Century has suffered from slow population growth, below-average per capita GDP growth, below-average job growth, and below-average income growth. One of the state’s problems is a chronic net outflow of higher-earning workers. The Center published a paper on this in 2016 that received a great deal of attention. That paper was based mainly on the IRS’s vast database that tracks the movements of tax filers from state to state.
For a considerable time, the IRS did not update that database. They finally did, a few weeks ago, with two years’ worth of information. So our senior economist, John Phelan, analyzed the new IRS data and published an op-ed on it in the Minneapolis Star Tribune. It was the most-read column in the newspaper today, according to the Strib’s Editorial Editor, who predicted that it would have a lot of influence in the state’s upcoming legislative session.
John Phelan is British, with an advanced degree from the London School of Economics. His style is inflammatory only in comparison with some other economists. Here are some excerpts from his op-ed:
On net, in every year from 2001 through 2016, Minnesota lost residents to other states. This was a source of much discussion in our state, prompting fears of slower economic growth and a lost congressional seat. So there was some celebration when, in 2017 and 2018, the Census Bureau found that there were net in-migrations of people into Minnesota from other states, in the net amounts of 7,941 and 6,769, respectively. Unfortunately, that uptick of migration into Minnesota has proved to be temporary. Figures for 2019 show that in-migration dropped essentially to zero, a positive net of 65 people. And another new data set provides more cause for concern.
***
The IRS database has just been updated with the addition of two more years of statistics on the movement of taxpayers across state lines, covering the years 2016-17 and 2017-18. Unfortunately, these new data show that the trend that existed as of 2016 continues: Minnesota gains low-income residents from other states, but loses middle- and upper-income residents, generally to lower-tax states. In fact, the IRS data show that Minnesota, on net, lost $900 million in income to other states between 2016 and 2018. …
***
In Minnesota, we often hear talk about whether our high tax rates drive away “the rich.” Unfortunately, that is only one of our problems. The IRS database shows that Minnesota was a net loser of residents in every income category from $50,000 up in 2017-18. Out-migration is very much a middle-class issue. By contrast, the state attracted a net inflow of domestic migrants with incomes of $25,000 or less.
***
In the long run, repelling the middle class and high wage earners is not a sustainable strategy for any state. How can Minnesota do better? High taxes are an obvious culprit. The large and growing body of evidence on the effects of taxation on migration was summarized recently by economists Henrik Kleven, Camille Landais, Mathilde Muñoz and Stefanie Stantcheva. They found “there is growing evidence that taxes can affect the geographic location of people both within and across countries.” If Minnesota wants to prosper in the 21st century, we must attract, rather than drive away, highly productive citizens. Whether we like it or not, we are competing with other states for jobs and taxpaying residents.
That is the kind of solid, data-based analysis my organization prides itself on, and it is highly influential with both voters and legislators. But a lefty on Twitter saw something completely different:
As soon as I got to the paragraph about the influx of low income people (code for people of color), I knew it had to be from the Klan-robe crowd at the Center of the American Experiment. Migration out of Minnesota is on the rise. https://t.co/35HMxowwBe — Bob Collins (@MyLittleBloggie) February 3, 2020
This is stupid almost beyond belief. “Low income” is “code for people of color”? No, income is an economically significant fact, not “code” for anything. Maybe Mr. Collins is so bigoted that he doesn’t believe that “people of color” can make money. Welcome to the 20th century, you troglodyte: they can, and most often do. But Phelan’s point has nothing to do with race: it has to do with economics. If you chase away people who make money, and attract only people who don’t, you are in trouble. Liberals can’t argue with that obvious proposition, so they name-call instead: “the Klan-robe crowd at the Center of the American Experiment.”
Does publishing data-driven studies of spending, taxes, energy, natural resources, education, economic growth, etc., make you a “Klan-robe crowd”? Sure, if your opponent is a leftist who has absolutely no idea what he is talking about and zero ability to engage in rational debate.
You might assume that Bob Collins, the author of the “Klan-robe crowd” absurdity, is just another mother’s basement moron on Twitter. Perhaps so. But he was also, until a few months ago, one of Minnesota Public Radio’s top political commentators. This post from MPR’s web site bids farewell to Collins on his retirement in April. It congratulates Collins on not trying to be a “fair and neutral” journalist, but rather one who would “tell us when someone is just wrong.” That “someone,” of course, always being a conservative.
John Phelan, a gentleman as always, tweeted to Collins: “I say nothing about ethnicity in this article.”
I say nothing about ethnicity in this article. — John Phelan (@Minnesotanomics) February 3, 2020
He gave Collins too much credit. Leftists have their own definition of “racism” that needn’t, as in this case, have anything to do with race. It’s just a pathetic smear. Collins replied, pitifully, to John:
You could say that Bob Collins is just a poor dumb lefty who can’t muster an argument to save his life, and who no longer has any influence over anyone. You would be right. But until a few months ago, he was spreading his hateful ideology throughout the state of Minnesota, in large part at taxpayer expense, under the imprimatur of public radio.
This is the insane leftism that we deal with every day. If you disagree with the left’s party line, whatever it may be at the moment, you are a “racist,” whether or not race has anything to do with the topic at hand. It is stupid, it is weak, and I doubt that it persuades anyone. But it provides a window into the evil that is leftism.
UPDATE: John Phelan responded with his usual restraint here.


powerlineblog--2020-02-04--Fact-Checking Jokes: It’s a Thing

Fact-Checking Jokes: It’s a Thing

As you no doubt are aware , the liberal Snopes.com web site has repeatedly “ fact checked ” satirical stories @ @ @ @ @ America ’ s foremost satire site , or–as Glenn Reynolds says–America ’ s paper of @ @ @ @ @ development , and consistent with the hypothesis that liberals undergo an initiation in which any @ @ @ @ @ surgically removed , CNN reacted angrily to President Trump ’ s joke that Michael Bloomberg @ @ @ @ @ to stand on in the Democratic debates ( to which , by the way , @ @ @ @ @ via a rule change as part of the DNC ’ s “ stop Bernie ” @ @ @ @ @ comments : This is funny on several levels , one of them being Bloomberg ’ @ @ @ @ @ 8″ .
Sorry , Mike , I don ’ t think so .
By the @ @ @ @ @ Bee , this story from today ’ s edition is pretty funny : Halftime Show @ @ @ @ @ By Eliminating Most Of Wardrobe .

As you no doubt are aware, the liberal Snopes.com web site has repeatedly “fact checked” satirical stories on the Babylon Bee, America’s foremost satire site, or–as Glenn Reynolds says–America’s paper of record. In a related development, and consistent with the hypothesis that liberals undergo an initiation in which any possible sense of humor is surgically removed, CNN reacted angrily to President Trump’s joke that Michael Bloomberg was looking for a box to stand on in the Democratic debates (to which, by the way, he apparently is being admitted via a rule change as part of the DNC’s “stop Bernie” hysteria). Brit Hume comments:
This apparently is real. pic.twitter.com/HoKdxOpwyj — Brit Hume (@brithume) February 2, 2020
This is funny on several levels, one of them being Bloomberg’s claim to be 5′ 8″.
Sorry, Mike, I don’t think so.
By the way, speaking of the Bee, this story from today’s edition is pretty funny: Halftime Show Reduces Risk Of Wardrobe Malfunction By Eliminating Most Of Wardrobe.


powerlineblog--2020-02-03--Thoughts & prayers for Rush [With Comment by John]

At the end of his show today , Rush Limbaugh revealed that he is fighting stage 4 lung cancer .
Rush has posted a transcript of the segment here .
I am posting the audio below .
Either way , the news is crushing .
Rush intends to carry on as his physical condition permits .
He is irreplaceable .
There is no one like him .
Not close .
Exchanging messages with an esteemed political science professor this afternoon , my professor friend put it this way : “ Yes , he is a genius , a true original @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what he is saying or analyzing .
Not merely reciting talking points .
I came to love his show , and listened to it in the car as often as I could .
I timed my errands with his program .
Heard his open today , but not the heartbreaking news at the end.
” Our thoughts and prayers are with Rush as he faces this struggle .
JOHN adds : One of my work colleagues was diagnosed with stage 4 lung cancer a year ago .
As a result of his experience @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a revolution in cancer therapy under way .
My friend has gotten cutting-edge treatment of the sort that I am sure Rush will benefit from as well .
He is alive , well , and working .
This is obviously a very tough diagnosis , but it is not hopeless .
Rush , get well–we need you !

At the end of his show today, Rush Limbaugh revealed that he is fighting stage 4 lung cancer. Rush has posted a transcript of the segment here. I am posting the audio below. Either way, the news is crushing.
Rush intends to carry on as his physical condition permits. He is irreplaceable. There is no one like him. Not close.
Exchanging messages with an esteemed political science professor this afternoon, my professor friend put it this way: “Yes, he is a genius, a true original who entertains, but really thinks through what he is saying or analyzing. Not merely reciting talking points. I came to love his show, and listened to it in the car as often as I could. I timed my errands with his program. Heard his open today, but not the heartbreaking news at the end.”
Our thoughts and prayers are with Rush as he faces this struggle.
Here's the audio of Rush Limbaugh announcing on his show that he has lung cancer. pic.twitter.com/V60pAOpf68 — Julio Rosas (@Julio_Rosas11) February 3, 2020
JOHN adds: One of my work colleagues was diagnosed with stage 4 lung cancer a year ago. As a result of his experience, I have realized that there is a revolution in cancer therapy under way. My friend has gotten cutting-edge treatment of the sort that I am sure Rush will benefit from as well. He is alive, well, and working. This is obviously a very tough diagnosis, but it is not hopeless. Rush, get well–we need you!


powerlineblog--2020-02-04--Impeach This: Trump Surging After Winning Iowa Dem Caucus

If displaying total ineptitude worthy of the Obamacare website in the Iowa caucuses isn ’ t enough , on the day before the final impeachment vote Gallup has released its latest weekly tracking poll showing Trump ’ s job approval rating at 49 percent , his highest since taking office .
If he can maintain that level , the November election is over .
Notice when Trump ’ s approval line breaks sharply upward .
Yes , right around the time the impeachment fiasco starts .
Maybe there are other reasons for this , like the continuing robust health of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t rule out that a lot of voters don ’ t like frivolous impeachments .
That , and the sorry state of the Democratic candidate field .
Meanwhile , Prof. Joshua Dunn at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs reminds us that the Iowa caucuses—and the Democratic Party as a whole right now—were predicted by Monty Python : Worth remembering between the guffaws , by the way , is that these are the people who want to abolish the electoral college and institute the confusing ranked-choice voting system .
Yeah—that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ something like Iowa ’ s caucus system for the whole country .
Next , it is fun to watch people like Jen Rubin shred the last of their credibility , which was already about as minimal as a Jennifer Lopez Super Bowl halftime costume : And the poor folk at the Babylon Bee are going to have to work overtime with all the material the Democrats are giving them .
But they are up to the challenge : IOWA—The Democratic primaries have broken down into chaos after the party encountered its archnemesis head-on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
While progressives were optimistic going into the primaries , they ’ d forgotten that numbers , counting , and addition would be required .
“ No one told us math would be involved !
” said one angry Bernie Sanders voter .
“ We just kinda wanted them to pick our guy .
We weren ’ t told there would be things like addition , counting , and more counting .
Can ’ t we just win based on blind optimism , kinda like how socialism works ?
” I haven ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ melt down since election night four years ago .

If displaying total ineptitude worthy of the Obamacare website in the Iowa caucuses isn’t enough, on the day before the final impeachment vote Gallup has released its latest weekly tracking poll showing Trump’s job approval rating at 49 percent, his highest since taking office. If he can maintain that level, the November election is over.
Notice when Trump’s approval line breaks sharply upward. Yes, right around the time the impeachment fiasco starts. Maybe there are other reasons for this, like the continuing robust health of the economy, but you can’t rule out that a lot of voters don’t like frivolous impeachments. That, and the sorry state of the Democratic candidate field.
Meanwhile, Prof. Joshua Dunn at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs reminds us that the Iowa caucuses—and the Democratic Party as a whole right now—were predicted by Monty Python:
Worth remembering between the guffaws, by the way, is that these are the people who want to abolish the electoral college and institute the confusing ranked-choice voting system. Yeah—that’s the ticket: let’s adopt something like Iowa’s caucus system for the whole country.
Next, it is fun to watch people like Jen Rubin shred the last of their credibility, which was already about as minimal as a Jennifer Lopez Super Bowl halftime costume:
And the poor folk at the Babylon Bee are going to have to work overtime with all the material the Democrats are giving them. But they are up to the challenge:
IOWA—The Democratic primaries have broken down into chaos after the party encountered its archnemesis head-on for the first time: basic math. While progressives were optimistic going into the primaries, they’d forgotten that numbers, counting, and addition would be required. “No one told us math would be involved!” said one angry Bernie Sanders voter. “We just kinda wanted them to pick our guy. We weren’t told there would be things like addition, counting, and more counting. Can’t we just win based on blind optimism, kinda like how socialism works?”
I haven’t had this much fun watching Democrats melt down since election night four years ago.


Deferred gratification

The epic failure of the Iowa Democratic party to release vote totals last night , or even reliably to count votes , constitutes a huge embarrassment .
But to say , as I heard commentators opine last night , that this failure largely negates the impact of the Iowa caucuses is incorrect , in my view .
The failure might have wrecked these commentators ’ Monday night , but the results , once released , will have an impact .
If Joe Biden finishes in fourth place with only around 15 percent of the vote , this will be a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it will hurt his ability to raise funds , which is already a problem .
Biden probably needs strong fundraising to compete effectively in the wave of primaries ahead .
If Elizabeth Warren wins or finishes a respectable second , the results will breathe new life into her seemingly stalled campaign .
If Bernie Sanders wins , he will have a good shot at an Iowa-New Hampshire double .
That would give him , if not “ Big Mo , ” than at least some momentum going forward .
Indeed , it might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If Pete Buttigieg cracks the top two or finishes a close third , his campaign will gain credibility .
He will then have a shot at replacing Biden as the leader of the “ Stop Bernie ” movement if Biden continues to falter .
Those who suggested that last night ’ s foul-up substantially diminishes Iowa ’ s impact cited the 2012 Republican caucuses .
In 2012 , Mitt Romney was declared the victor but Rick Santorum was later determined to have won .
The mistake prevented Santorum from gaining anything like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But Santorum ’ s problem was that someone else ( Romney ) was declared the winner when the cameras were rolling and the focus was on Iowa .
No one was declared the winner last night .
Soon , someone will be .
His or her gratification has been delayed , but won ’ t be substantially diminished in the end .

The epic failure of the Iowa Democratic party to release vote totals last night, or even reliably to count votes, constitutes a huge embarrassment. But to say, as I heard commentators opine last night, that this failure largely negates the impact of the Iowa caucuses is incorrect, in my view. The failure might have wrecked these commentators’ Monday night, but the results, once released, will have an impact.
If Joe Biden finishes in fourth place with only around 15 percent of the vote, this will be a meaningful setback. At a minimum, it will hurt his ability to raise funds, which is already a problem. Biden probably needs strong fundraising to compete effectively in the wave of primaries ahead.
If Elizabeth Warren wins or finishes a respectable second, the results will breathe new life into her seemingly stalled campaign. If Bernie Sanders wins, he will have a good shot at an Iowa-New Hampshire double. That would give him, if not “Big Mo,” than at least some momentum going forward. Indeed, it might very well make him the new frontrunner.
If Pete Buttigieg cracks the top two or finishes a close third, his campaign will gain credibility. He will then have a shot at replacing Biden as the leader of the “Stop Bernie” movement if Biden continues to falter.
Those who suggested that last night’s foul-up substantially diminishes Iowa’s impact cited the 2012 Republican caucuses. In 2012, Mitt Romney was declared the victor but Rick Santorum was later determined to have won. The mistake prevented Santorum from gaining anything like the normal benefit of winning Iowa.
But Santorum’s problem was that someone else (Romney) was declared the winner when the cameras were rolling and the focus was on Iowa. No one was declared the winner last night.
Soon, someone will be. His or her gratification has been delayed, but won’t be substantially diminished in the end.


powerlineblog--2020-02-04--Did Trump do anything wrong?

Did Trump do anything wrong?

Tomorrow , the Senate will acquit President Trump .
There ’ s a good chance that more Democrats will vote to acquit than Republicans will vote to convict .
In fact , there ’ s a good chance that no Republican Senator will vote to convict .
These outcomes would be a defeat for the Democrats .
However , the impeachment will still be worth it for the Dems if it helps them in November — e.g.
, by enabling them to pick off a few of the GOP Senators who vote to acquit .
The reason for the likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many have concluded that , although Trump was wrong to have used aid to Ukraine as a means of inducing that country to investigate the Bidens ( or announce an investigation ) , the wrongdoing doesn ’ t rise to the level of an impeachable offense .
Lamar Alexander called Trump ’ s conduct “ inappropriate.
” Ben Sasse told reporters that “ Lamar speaks for lots and lots of us.
” Charles Grassley , Richard Burr , Susan Collins , Joni Ernst , Rob Portman , Mitt Romney , Marco Rubio , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ similar to Alexander ’ s .
Lisa Murkowski has gone further .
She called Trump ’ s behavior “ shameful and wrong.
” However , she will vote to acquit .
Murkowski may be overstating things by saying “ shameful.
” However , I agree with the basic line these Senators are taking .
Trump ’ s attorneys have argued that Trump didn ’ t do anything wrong by linking U.S. aid to Ukraine ( for a time ) with an investigation of the Bidens .
They say that the Bidens acted corruptly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be investigated .
In this view of things , Trump was promoting the national interest in fighting corruption , rather than trying to promote his own political fortunes .
I find this argument unpersuasive for two related reasons .
First , to say that the Bidens needed to be investigated is not to say that Ukraine needed to investigate them .
If Joe Biden committed an offense by using the threat of an aid cutoff to advance his family ’ s economic interests , that ’ s a matter for the U.S. to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump used the same threat to advance his political interests was a matter for the U.S. to investigate ( though not via impeachment ) .
The Bidens did not violate Ukrainian law .
It ’ s not illegal for a Ukrainian company to place an unqualified person on its board in the hope of gaining influence with his father .
It ’ s not against Ukrainian law for a U.S. official to withhold foreign aid for any reason , good or bad .
Ukraine ought not investigate Trump for withholding military aid for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden for doing the same thing for economic reasons .
Ukraine shouldn ’ t be pressured to investigate any American official who hasn ’ t violated Ukrainian law , and such pressure certainly shouldn ’ t take the form of withholding aid used to combat Russian aggression .
If anyone should be investigating alleged corruption by the Bidens , it ’ s the U.S. President Trump had Rudy Giuliani look into the matter , but hasn ’ t launched an official investigation .
He told Ukraine ’ s president that Attorney General Barr @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump has never given him such an assignment .
Trump ’ s unwillingness to launch an investigation undercuts the argument that such an investigation is needed to serve the U.S. national interest and that our Ukraine policy should hinge on that country ’ s willingness to investigate the Bidens .
Second , it appears from the evidence ( specifically , Gordon Sondland ’ s unrebutted testimony ) that , as crunch time approached , Trump ’ s demand was that Ukraine announce an investigation , rather than actually investigate .
From the perspective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but not from the perspective of uncovering corruption — this lesser demand made sense .
Trump could use Ukraine ’ s announcement against Joe Biden .
He could claim that Biden was under investigation by another country for corruption .
Indeed , an announcement might be preferable to a real investigation .
An investigation , unless Trump used threats to dictate its outcome , would likely have cleared the Bidens of any violation of Ukrainian law .
A pending investigation would leave the Bidens under a cloud .
In any case , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ announcement further undercuts the claim that Trump actually wanted to get to the bottom of possible corruption by the Bidens .
If that ’ s what he wanted , he would have ( 1 ) had the U.S. investigate or , at a minimum , ( 2 ) insisted on a Ukrainian investigation , as opposed to just a general announcement .
Therefore , I think Senators like Grassley , Rubio , Portman , Ernst , and Sasse are correct in rejecting the argument that Trump did nothing wrong here .
They are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does not give rise to an impeachable offense .
I don ’ t think it comes close to doing so .

Tomorrow, the Senate will acquit President Trump. There’s a good chance that more Democrats will vote to acquit than Republicans will vote to convict. In fact, there’s a good chance that no Republican Senator will vote to convict.
These outcomes would be a defeat for the Democrats. However, the impeachment will still be worth it for the Dems if it helps them in November — e.g., by enabling them to pick off a few of the GOP Senators who vote to acquit.
The reason for the likely unanimity among Republican Senators is this: many have concluded that, although Trump was wrong to have used aid to Ukraine as a means of inducing that country to investigate the Bidens (or announce an investigation), the wrongdoing doesn’t rise to the level of an impeachable offense.
Lamar Alexander called Trump’s conduct “inappropriate.” Ben Sasse told reporters that “Lamar speaks for lots and lots of us.” Charles Grassley, Richard Burr, Susan Collins, Joni Ernst, Rob Portman, Mitt Romney, Marco Rubio, and Pat Toomey have publicly made comments similar to Alexander’s.
Lisa Murkowski has gone further. She called Trump’s behavior “shameful and wrong.” However, she will vote to acquit.
Murkowski may be overstating things by saying “shameful.” However, I agree with the basic line these Senators are taking.
Trump’s attorneys have argued that Trump didn’t do anything wrong by linking U.S. aid to Ukraine (for a time) with an investigation of the Bidens. They say that the Bidens acted corruptly, and that their corruption needed to be investigated. In this view of things, Trump was promoting the national interest in fighting corruption, rather than trying to promote his own political fortunes.
I find this argument unpersuasive for two related reasons. First, to say that the Bidens needed to be investigated is not to say that Ukraine needed to investigate them. If Joe Biden committed an offense by using the threat of an aid cutoff to advance his family’s economic interests, that’s a matter for the U.S. to investigate — just as the allegation that Trump used the same threat to advance his political interests was a matter for the U.S. to investigate (though not via impeachment).
The Bidens did not violate Ukrainian law. It’s not illegal for a Ukrainian company to place an unqualified person on its board in the hope of gaining influence with his father. It’s not against Ukrainian law for a U.S. official to withhold foreign aid for any reason, good or bad.
Ukraine ought not investigate Trump for withholding military aid for political reasons and it ought not investigate Biden for doing the same thing for economic reasons. Ukraine shouldn’t be pressured to investigate any American official who hasn’t violated Ukrainian law, and such pressure certainly shouldn’t take the form of withholding aid used to combat Russian aggression.
If anyone should be investigating alleged corruption by the Bidens, it’s the U.S. President Trump had Rudy Giuliani look into the matter, but hasn’t launched an official investigation. He told Ukraine’s president that Attorney General Barr would be investigating, but Barr says Trump has never given him such an assignment.
Trump’s unwillingness to launch an investigation undercuts the argument that such an investigation is needed to serve the U.S. national interest and that our Ukraine policy should hinge on that country’s willingness to investigate the Bidens.
Second, it appears from the evidence (specifically, Gordon Sondland’s unrebutted testimony) that, as crunch time approached, Trump’s demand was that Ukraine announce an investigation, rather than actually investigate.
From the perspective of Trump’s political interests — but not from the perspective of uncovering corruption — this lesser demand made sense. Trump could use Ukraine’s announcement against Joe Biden. He could claim that Biden was under investigation by another country for corruption.
Indeed, an announcement might be preferable to a real investigation. An investigation, unless Trump used threats to dictate its outcome, would likely have cleared the Bidens of any violation of Ukrainian law. A pending investigation would leave the Bidens under a cloud.
In any case, the fact that Trump was demanding only an announcement further undercuts the claim that Trump actually wanted to get to the bottom of possible corruption by the Bidens. If that’s what he wanted, he would have (1) had the U.S. investigate or, at a minimum, (2) insisted on a Ukrainian investigation, as opposed to just a general announcement.
Therefore, I think Senators like Grassley, Rubio, Portman, Ernst, and Sasse are correct in rejecting the argument that Trump did nothing wrong here. They are also correct in concluding that the wrongdoing does not give rise to an impeachable offense. I don’t think it comes close to doing so.


powerlineblog--2020-02-04--Tom Perez looks back

Tom Perez looks back

Just before the Democratic meltdown in Iowa last night , the Democratic Party tweeted out Chairman Tom Perez ’ s @ @ @ @ @ have been instituted under his leadership .
If only Perez had waited a few hours @ @ @ @ @ on the Iowa fiasco .
Quotable quote : “ Some of our major changes this @ @ @ @ @ how states administer their caucuses — and they are all geared towards making our nominating @ @ @ @ @ to more voters .
You ’ ll see some of the changes relating to caucuses @ @ @ @ @ Iowa .
”

Just before the Democratic meltdown in Iowa last night, the Democratic Party tweeted out Chairman Tom Perez’s reflections on the reforms that have been instituted under his leadership. If only Perez had waited a few hours, he could have elaborated on the Iowa fiasco.
Quotable quote: “Some of our major changes this year have to do with how states administer their caucuses — and they are all geared towards making our nominating process more transparent and accessible to more voters. You’ll see some of the changes relating to caucuses on display this week in Iowa.”
Via Ed Driscoll/InstaPundit.


Schiff’s closing fantasia

Chief House impeachment manager has established himself as a contender for recognition as the most repulsive Democratic officeholder in the @ @ @ @ @ is intense , however , and I may be overlooking some obvious candidates for the @ @ @ @ @ chart the path upward in the Democratic Party .
Schiff continued in his accustomed vein @ @ @ @ @ Senate impeachment trial yesterday .
Tristan Justice isolated a notable thread in Schiff ’ s @ @ @ @ @ column ( video below ) .
Schiff ’ s closing fantasia caricatures Professor Dershowitz ’ @ @ @ @ @ .
It is , you might say , a Schiffian parody .
Quotable quote : @ @ @ @ @ to the Russians in exchange for support in the next election , or decide to @ @ @ @ @ let Jared Kushner run the country , delegating to him the decision whether to go @ @ @ @

Chief House impeachment manager has established himself as a contender for recognition as the most repulsive Democratic officeholder in the United States. The competition is intense, however, and I may be overlooking some obvious candidates for the crown. Schiff continues to chart the path upward in the Democratic Party.
Schiff continued in his accustomed vein during closing arguments in the Senate impeachment trial yesterday. Tristan Justice isolated a notable thread in Schiff’s closing argument in this Federalist column (video below). Schiff’s closing fantasia caricatures Professor Dershowitz’s analysis of impeachable offenses. It is, you might say, a Schiffian parody.
Quotable quote: “Trump could offer Alaska to the Russians in exchange for support in the next election, or decide to move to Mar-A-Lago permanently and let Jared Kushner run the country, delegating to him the decision whether to go to war.”


Joe Diffie, RIP

COVID-19 has claimed one of its more prominent victims in country singer Joe Diffie , age 61 .
I remember @ @ @ @ @ on the radio in the early 1990s , when I first started listening to country @ @ @ @ @ Third Rock From the Sun ” the only popular song , to my knowledge , @ @ @ @ @ of causation .
Aristotle would approve , I think .
The unfortunate events described in @ @ @ @ @ local sheriff calling his wife from a bar , and come full circle with : @ @ @ @ @ As is often the case , I am not sure whether it adds to or @ @ @ @ @ You can always listen with your eyes closed .
Diffie ’ s obituary is here @ @ @ @ @ business , he had a tangled personal life .
But no need to dwell on @ @ @ @ @ here is a sweet song by Diffie called “ Bigger than the Beatles .
”

COVID-19 has claimed one of its more prominent victims in country singer Joe Diffie, age 61. I remember Diffie fondly because he was on the radio in the early 1990s, when I first started listening to country music. I liked “Third Rock From the Sun” the only popular song, to my knowledge, whose theme is the nature of causation. Aristotle would approve, I think.
Cause and effect, chain of events
All of the chaos makes perfect sense
When you’re spinning round, things come undone
Welcome to Earth, 3rd rock from the Sun
The unfortunate events described in the song begin with the local sheriff calling his wife from a bar, and come full circle with:
Mayor says “Use your head, if he ain’t in his car
He’s hiding from his wife, down at Smokey’s Bar”
Here is the video. As is often the case, I am not sure whether it adds to or detracts from the song. You can always listen with your eyes closed.
Diffie’s obituary is here. Like many in show business, he had a tangled personal life. But no need to dwell on that here.
Finally, here is a sweet song by Diffie called “Bigger than the Beatles.” [UPDATE: Having watched it again, I don’t like the video. It introduces irony and I hate irony. Just listen to the song.]
UPDATE: One of Diffie’s cousins turns out to be a Power Line reader. He wrote us as follows:


powerlineblog--2020-03-30--This day in baseball history — The Cuban Cowboy returns to the Senators

On March 30 , 1970 , the Washington Senators signed Pedro Ramos .
He had been released by Cincinnati the previous fall .
For Ramos , it marked a return to the city where he started his major league career in 1955 .
The city , but not the team .
The original Washington Senators moved to Minnesota after the 1960 season .
Ramos went with them .
He pitched for the Twins in 1961 — in fact , he pitched their very first game , a shutout win over the New York Yankees — and was then dealt to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ competent pitchers for the Senators in the late 1950s .
The other was Camilo Pascual , his fellow Cuban .
Pascual developed into a good pitcher and then an outstanding one .
Ramos was never more than competent except for a magical month with the New York Yankees in 1964 ( described below ) .
Ramos stood out for two things — his flamboyance and the home runs he allowed .
Adopting a “ Cuban Cowboy ” persona , Ramos loved to dress up in full cowboy suits , six shooters included .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ show .
According to Sonny Siebert , a teammates of Ramos ’ s in Cleveland , the Cuban Cowboy ’ s only known marriage ( to a Cuban beauty queen ) ended when he shot up the family television in a dispute over his wife ’ s program choices .
Ramos was anti-Castro .
In 1960 , he talked of enlisting to invade Cuba .
He wisely backed off , however , saying “ I ’ m a ball player , not a fighter.
” Ramos might have said he ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cuban Cowboy was quite the ladies ’ man .
Opposing managers knew how to get under Ramos ’ s skin , and none knew better than Paul Richards of the Baltimore Orioles .
Richards was convinced that Ramos doctored the baseball .
Ramos denied the accusation , saying it was his “ Cuban palm ball ” that moved so erratically .
Richards persisted and one night he persuaded the home plate umpire to visit the mound to investigate .
As a result of the inspection , Bill McKinley ejected Ramos .
The next @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strip if the umpire came to the mound .
He might have done it , too .
Ramos was proud of his foot speed .
He repeatedly challenged Mickey Mantle to a race .
The Mick declined , a wise decision considering his ailing knees and the no-win situation such a race would have amounted to for him .
The great Richie Ashburn accepted Ramos ’ s challenge during spring training in 1959 .
Ramos outran him by a goodly distance .
Ashburn was 32 years old at the time , but had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year before .
Ramos was 2 for 4 lifetime in stolen bases .
Ramos sure gave up a lot of home runs .
A 1981 study found that , on a per inning basis , Ramos gave up more round trippers than any pitcher in big league history .
The problem , his SABR biography speculates , was that , true to his gunslinger image , Ramos loved to challenge the game ’ s best hitters .
Maybe he should have relied more on his Cuban palm ball .
It was the game @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who smashed the most famous home run Ramos ever allowed .
Facing Ramos on May 30 , 1955 , Mickey Mantle came within inches of being the first player to hit a fair ball out of Yankee Stadium .
Mantle would later recall that “ Pedro Ramos always carried a gun and he and Camilo Pascual would laugh and rag each other about who gave up the longest home runs to me.
” Ramos also liked to challenge Ted Williams .
Legend has it that , after striking out Williams , a young @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dugout for safekeeping .
After the game , Ramos asked Williams to sign the ball .
According to the version of the story told by Red Sox pitcher Mel Parnell , Williams exploded in anger , but then said “ All right , give me the goddamn ball and I ’ ll sign it.
” A few weeks later , Williams launched a long home run off of Ramos .
Rounding first Williams supposedly shouted at the young Cuban , “ I ’ ll sign that son of a bitch too if you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Williams was the manager of the Washington Senators when they signed Ramos in March 1970 .
The Cuban Cowboy had nothing left , however .
He made only four appearances , all in relief , allowing seven earned runs in eight and one-third innings .
Ramos was finished as a major leaguer .
However , he wasn ’ t through pitching professionally .
There were stints in the minor league with Richmond , Savannah , and Tidewater , followed by several years in the Mexican League .
Ramos finally retired from baseball @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s post-baseball career was marred by drug and gun-related criminal convictions .
At first , he received lenient sentences .
However , his fourth conviction , for speeding , drunken driving , and carrying a concealed weapon , earned him three years in a Miami penitentiary .
In between brushes with the law , Ramos was a cigar manufacturer .
He produced a brand of Honduran cigars in a small factory in Nicaragua , of which he was part owner and on-duty quality-control supervisor .
A writer who visited the factory in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pistol and bragged about people he had shot .
Apparently , little is known about Ramos ’ s life and times in this century .
As far as I can tell , he ’ s still alive .
If so , he ’ s about to turn 85 .
Ramos ’ s lifetime pitching record is 117-160 , with an ERA of 4.08 .
The won-loss record is a bit deceiving , given the teams Ramos pitched for .
In his prime , 1958-1965 , Ramos was an average-quality major league pitcher .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ September 1964 .
In the midst of a wild three-way pennant race , the Yankees obtained Ramos from Cleveland on September 5 for $ 75,000 and two players to be named later ( Ralph Terry and Bud Daily , as it turned out ) .
Ramos proceeded to save 8 games , with a 1.25 ERA .
He struck out 21 batters in 22 innings and didn ’ t yield a walk .
He gave up only one home run .
It was against the Senators , of all teams , to Don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yankess won the pennant , finishing one game ahead of Chicago and two ahead of Baltimore .
Unfortunately , as a September pickup , Ramos was disqualified from pitching in the World Series .
That stage would not have been too big for the Cuban Cowboy .

On March 30, 1970, the Washington Senators signed Pedro Ramos. He had been released by Cincinnati the previous fall.
For Ramos, it marked a return to the city where he started his major league career in 1955. The city, but not the team. The original Washington Senators moved to Minnesota after the 1960 season. Ramos went with them. He pitched for the Twins in 1961 — in fact, he pitched their very first game, a shutout win over the New York Yankees — and was then dealt to Cleveland.
Ramos was one of two competent pitchers for the Senators in the late 1950s. The other was Camilo Pascual, his fellow Cuban.
Pascual developed into a good pitcher and then an outstanding one. Ramos was never more than competent except for a magical month with the New York Yankees in 1964 (described below).
Ramos stood out for two things — his flamboyance and the home runs he allowed. Adopting a “Cuban Cowboy” persona, Ramos loved to dress up in full cowboy suits, six shooters included.
The guns weren’t just for show. According to Sonny Siebert, a teammates of Ramos’s in Cleveland, the Cuban Cowboy’s only known marriage (to a Cuban beauty queen) ended when he shot up the family television in a dispute over his wife’s program choices.
Ramos was anti-Castro. In 1960, he talked of enlisting to invade Cuba. He wisely backed off, however, saying “I’m a ball player, not a fighter.”
Ramos might have said he’s a lover, not a fighter. The Cuban Cowboy was quite the ladies’ man.
Opposing managers knew how to get under Ramos’s skin, and none knew better than Paul Richards of the Baltimore Orioles. Richards was convinced that Ramos doctored the baseball. Ramos denied the accusation, saying it was his “Cuban palm ball” that moved so erratically.
Richards persisted and one night he persuaded the home plate umpire to visit the mound to investigate. As a result of the inspection, Bill McKinley ejected Ramos.
The next time Ramos pitched, he vowed to strip if the umpire came to the mound. He might have done it, too.
Ramos was proud of his foot speed. He repeatedly challenged Mickey Mantle to a race. The Mick declined, a wise decision considering his ailing knees and the no-win situation such a race would have amounted to for him.
The great Richie Ashburn accepted Ramos’s challenge during spring training in 1959. Ramos outran him by a goodly distance. Ashburn was 32 years old at the time, but had stolen 30 bases in 42 attempts the year before.
Ramos was 2 for 4 lifetime in stolen bases.
Ramos sure gave up a lot of home runs. A 1981 study found that, on a per inning basis, Ramos gave up more round trippers than any pitcher in big league history.
The problem, his SABR biography speculates, was that, true to his gunslinger image, Ramos loved to challenge the game’s best hitters. Maybe he should have relied more on his Cuban palm ball.
It was the game’s best hitter at the time who smashed the most famous home run Ramos ever allowed. Facing Ramos on May 30, 1955, Mickey Mantle came within inches of being the first player to hit a fair ball out of Yankee Stadium.
Mantle would later recall that “Pedro Ramos always carried a gun and he and Camilo Pascual would laugh and rag each other about who gave up the longest home runs to me.”
Ramos also liked to challenge Ted Williams. Legend has it that, after striking out Williams, a young Ramos rolled the ball into the Washington dugout for safekeeping. After the game, Ramos asked Williams to sign the ball. According to the version of the story told by Red Sox pitcher Mel Parnell, Williams exploded in anger, but then said “All right, give me the goddamn ball and I’ll sign it.”
A few weeks later, Williams launched a long home run off of Ramos. Rounding first Williams supposedly shouted at the young Cuban, “I’ll sign that son of a bitch too if you can ever find it!”
Ironically, Williams was the manager of the Washington Senators when they signed Ramos in March 1970. The Cuban Cowboy had nothing left, however. He made only four appearances, all in relief, allowing seven earned runs in eight and one-third innings.
Ramos was finished as a major leaguer. However, he wasn’t through pitching professionally. There were stints in the minor league with Richmond, Savannah, and Tidewater, followed by several years in the Mexican League. Ramos finally retired from baseball after the 1975 season.
Ramos’s post-baseball career was marred by drug and gun-related criminal convictions. At first, he received lenient sentences. However, his fourth conviction, for speeding, drunken driving, and carrying a concealed weapon, earned him three years in a Miami penitentiary.
In between brushes with the law, Ramos was a cigar manufacturer. He produced a brand of Honduran cigars in a small factory in Nicaragua, of which he was part owner and on-duty quality-control supervisor.
A writer who visited the factory in the 1990s reported that Ramos still carried a pistol and bragged about people he had shot. Apparently, little is known about Ramos’s life and times in this century. As far as I can tell, he’s still alive. If so, he’s about to turn 85.
Ramos’s lifetime pitching record is 117-160, with an ERA of 4.08. The won-loss record is a bit deceiving, given the teams Ramos pitched for. In his prime, 1958-1965, Ramos was an average-quality major league pitcher.
However, Ramos rose above mediocrity in September 1964. In the midst of a wild three-way pennant race, the Yankees obtained Ramos from Cleveland on September 5 for $75,000 and two players to be named later (Ralph Terry and Bud Daily, as it turned out). Ramos proceeded to save 8 games, with a 1.25 ERA. He struck out 21 batters in 22 innings and didn’t yield a walk.
He gave up only one home run. It was against the Senators, of all teams, to Don Zimmer, of all people.
The Yankees won the pennant, finishing one game ahead of Chicago and two ahead of Baltimore. Unfortunately, as a September pickup, Ramos was disqualified from pitching in the World Series.
That stage would not have been too big for the Cuban Cowboy.


powerlineblog--2020-03-30--Our own private Wuhan

Our own private Wuhan

New York City and environs present as our own version of Wuhan .
It is a public health dystopia .
I was encouraged on Saturday when President Trump stated that he was considering a quarantine on New York , New Jersey , and parts of Connecticut .
It sounded like a good idea to me .
I thought it made perfect sense .
What is the argument against it ?
According to the Wall Street Journal , New York Governor Andrew Cuomo decried the quarantine idea a “ declaration of war on states ” that would crash financial markets and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lockdown is what they did in Wuhan , China , and we ’ re not in China , ” Cuomo said on CNN Saturday evening .
What is he talking about ?
I ’ m not entirely sure .
I take it as an allusion to the American constitutional regime versus the Chinese Communist regime .
The argument needs to be fleshed out , but Cuomo obviously prefers to shut down the discussion , or the thought underlying it .
To the extent that an argument underlies Cuomo ’ s comment , Cuomo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unconstitutional .
Andrew McCarthy usefully addresses the legal issues in the NR column “ Does President Trump Have the Power to Issue a Quarantine Order ?
” The Journal quotes legal experts on both sides of the question .
I ’ m with Andrew McCarthy ; I think the president has the authority to order a quarantine under the circumstances .
President Trump climbed down from the idea of a quarantine on Saturday night .
Apparently in lieu of a presidential quarantine order , the CDC issued a travel advisory on Saturday urging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Connecticut to “ refrain from non-essential domestic travel ” for 14 days , effective immediately .
I take it that President Trump assessed the costs versus the benefits ( including the political element of each ) in coming down against a quarantine .
What is to be done ?
I wonder if a more limited kind of quarantine might not make sense .
We are in lockdown in Minnesota .
As of this moment , the state ’ s data attribute 9 deaths and 39 hospitalized as a result of the virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ early in the curve that will result in a death spiral .
Why hasn ’ t the governor called on the airlines to limit air travel from New York to Minneapolis ?
There is no harm in asking and it would draw attention to the public health hazard that New York presents to those of us in flyover country .
The problem with shutting down discussion is that it prevents us from developing our own informed assessment of the costs versus the benefits of the options before us .
The impetus to shut @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the White House reporters and the rest of the mainstream media .
We can see it every day in the White House task force briefings and in the media organs that empower Andrew Cuomo and his like with their support .
They really don ’ t want us to be in a position to make up our own minds and do something about it .
The graph below ( via Erick Erickson ) is a few days old , but it raises the question .
What is to be done , or what @ @ @ @ @ @

New York City and environs present as our own version of Wuhan. It is a public health dystopia. I was encouraged on Saturday when President Trump stated that he was considering a quarantine on New York, New Jersey, and parts of Connecticut. It sounded like a good idea to me. I thought it made perfect sense.
What is the argument against it? According to the Wall Street Journal, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo decried the quarantine idea a “declaration of war on states” that would crash financial markets and result in legal challenges. “A lockdown is what they did in Wuhan, China, and we’re not in China,” Cuomo said on CNN Saturday evening.
What is he talking about? I’m not entirely sure. I take it as an allusion to the American constitutional regime versus the Chinese Communist regime. The argument needs to be fleshed out, but Cuomo obviously prefers to shut down the discussion, or the thought underlying it.
To the extent that an argument underlies Cuomo’s comment, Cuomo must believe that a quarantine would be unconstitutional. Andrew McCarthy usefully addresses the legal issues in the NR column “Does President Trump Have the Power to Issue a Quarantine Order?” The Journal quotes legal experts on both sides of the question. I’m with Andrew McCarthy; I think the president has the authority to order a quarantine under the circumstances.
President Trump climbed down from the idea of a quarantine on Saturday night. Apparently in lieu of a presidential quarantine order, the CDC issued a travel advisory on Saturday urging residents of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut to “refrain from non-essential domestic travel” for 14 days, effective immediately. I take it that President Trump assessed the costs versus the benefits (including the political element of each) in coming down against a quarantine.
What is to be done? I wonder if a more limited kind of quarantine might not make sense. We are in lockdown in Minnesota. As of this moment, the state’s data attribute 9 deaths and 39 hospitalized as a result of the virus. We are told that we are early in the curve that will result in a death spiral. Why hasn’t the governor called on the airlines to limit air travel from New York to Minneapolis? There is no harm in asking and it would draw attention to the public health hazard that New York presents to those of us in flyover country.
The problem with shutting down discussion is that it prevents us from developing our own informed assessment of the costs versus the benefits of the options before us. The impetus to shut down discussion courses in the veins of the White House reporters and the rest of the mainstream media. We can see it every day in the White House task force briefings and in the media organs that empower Andrew Cuomo and his like with their support. They really don’t want us to be in a position to make up our own minds and do something about it.
The graph below (via Erick Erickson) is a few days old, but it raises the question. What is to be done, or what else is to be done?


powerlineblog--2020-03-30--…and we’re here to remind you

…and we’re here to remind you

Last week authorities in the great state of Michigan promulgated a “ reminder ” threatening doctors and pharmacists with consequences for prescribing or filling orders for chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine to treat the Wuhan virus .
They demand “ further proof for efficacy for treating COVID-19 ” and warn against “ stockpiling ” creating shortages of the drug for patients with lupus and other conditions for which the drugs are proven treatments .
The “ reminder ” reminds me of the articles of the Soviet criminal code prohibiting “ wrecking ” and “ hoarding.
” The old joke mocks the official @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the government and he ’ s here to help us .
He ’ s not being truthful .
Governor Whitmer et al .
are from the government and they ’ re here to remind us .
They ’ re being “ helpful ” in their own way .
President Trump , of course , has expressed hope that these drugs might prove successful as a treatment for the virus .
Now Politico ’ s Dan Diamond reports “ FDA issues emergency authorization of anti-malaria drug for coronavirus care.
” The emergency use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can infer that Diamond himself is not on board with this development , but he doesn ’ t appear to know much about it .
The related HHS statement is posted here .
It provides that HHS has accepted donations of both drugs by Sandoz and Bayer “ for possible use in treating patients hospitalized with COVID-19 or for use in clinical trials .
These and other companies may donate additional doses , and companies have ramped up production to provide additional supplies of the medication to the commercial market.
” Does Governor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taken note of the drugs in several posts over the past few weeks .
The Wall Street Journal has now published two columns by Dr. and former Kansas Governor Jeff Colyer touting the use of hydroxychloroquine together with azithromycin .
Dr. Colyer ’ s first column was written with Dr. Daniel Hinthorn , director of the Division of Infectious Disease at the University of Kansas Medical Center .
Their March 22 column was published under the wildly inflammatory headline “ These Drugs Are Helping Our Coronavirus Patients.
” Subhead : “ The evidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But we don ’ t have the luxury of time.
” Dr. Colyer supplemented this column on Saturday in “ An Update on the Coronavirus Treatment.
” Subhead : “ Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin continue to show results for patients.
” Does Governor Whitmer know about this ?
I have uploaded the Michigan “ reminder ” to Scribd and posted it below .
It was removed by Scribd ’ s automated copyright gremlins on Saturday but appears to have been restored as of this moment .
If it disappears , I will post the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do something about this and its equivalents in other states throwing their weight around in the current panic .
Reminder of Appropriate Prescribing and Dispensing 3-24-2020 684869 7 by Scott Johnson on Scribd

Last week authorities in the great state of Michigan promulgated a “reminder” threatening doctors and pharmacists with consequences for prescribing or filling orders for chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine to treat the Wuhan virus. They demand “further proof for efficacy for treating COVID-19” and warn against “stockpiling” creating shortages of the drug for patients with lupus and other conditions for which the drugs are proven treatments. The “reminder” reminds me of the articles of the Soviet criminal code prohibiting “wrecking” and “hoarding.”
The old joke mocks the official who announces that he’s here from the government and he’s here to help us. He’s not being truthful. Governor Whitmer et al. are from the government and they’re here to remind us. They’re being “helpful” in their own way.
President Trump, of course, has expressed hope that these drugs might prove successful as a treatment for the virus. Now Politico’s Dan Diamond reports “FDA issues emergency authorization of anti-malaria drug for coronavirus care.” The emergency use authorization extends to both drugs. One can infer that Diamond himself is not on board with this development, but he doesn’t appear to know much about it.
The related HHS statement is posted here. It provides that HHS has accepted donations of both drugs by Sandoz and Bayer “for possible use in treating patients hospitalized with COVID-19 or for use in clinical trials. These and other companies may donate additional doses, and companies have ramped up production to provide additional supplies of the medication to the commercial market.” Does Governor Whitmer know about this?
We have taken note of the drugs in several posts over the past few weeks. The Wall Street Journal has now published two columns by Dr. and former Kansas Governor Jeff Colyer touting the use of hydroxychloroquine together with azithromycin. Dr. Colyer’s first column was written with Dr. Daniel Hinthorn, director of the Division of Infectious Disease at the University of Kansas Medical Center. Their March 22 column was published under the wildly inflammatory headline “These Drugs Are Helping Our Coronavirus Patients.” Subhead: “The evidence is preliminary on repurposing two treatments. But we don’t have the luxury of time.”
Dr. Colyer supplemented this column on Saturday in “An Update on the Coronavirus Treatment.” Subhead: “Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin continue to show results for patients.” Does Governor Whitmer know about this?
I have uploaded the Michigan “reminder” to Scribd and posted it below. It was removed by Scribd’s automated copyright gremlins on Saturday but appears to have been restored as of this moment. If it disappears, I will post the text in an update. Somebody ought to do something about this and its equivalents in other states throwing their weight around in the current panic.
Reminder of Appropriate Prescribing and Dispensing 3-24-2020 684869 7 by Scott Johnson on Scribd


powerlineblog--2020-03-30--An Optimistic Projection of COVID-19 Deaths [with comment by Paul]

The University of Washington ’ s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation is producing data and projections on the COVID-19 epidemic .
I don ’ t know the basis of this group ’ s projections , but for what it is worth , they are optimistic .
IHME expects COVID-19 deaths to peak in the U.S. on April 13 , at 2,341 .
This is their “ deaths per day ” chart ; click to enlarge .
You can see the wide range of uncertainty : Why is this an optimistic assessment ?
For two reasons .
First , IHME @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then begin to decline .
That might reduce the hysteria that , in this instance , may be worse than the disease .
Second , IHME projects total deaths from COVID-19 in the U.S. to be only 81,114 , with not many additional deaths after around mid-May .
Again , click to enlarge : Does 81,114 sound like a lot of deaths ?
In a country of 330 million , it actually isn ’ t .
In 2018 , the CDC tells us that there were 2,839,205 resident deaths in the U.S. Eighty-one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of that total .
As I have written many times , just two years ago , according to the Centers for Disease Control , the seasonal flu virus killed 61,000 Americans while generating almost no publicity and zero government hysteria .
If the University of Washington group is right , the Wuhan virus will be a little worse than that , but not much .
If it kills 81,000 , it will be around twice an average flu season .
Maybe there will be a silver lining to the Wuhan virus : it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Americans and others .
According to the CDC , these are the principal causes of death in the U.S. : As you can see , at 81,000 COVID-19 is nowhere near the top of the list .
It represents an increase in the “ Influenza and Pneumonia ” category , I think .
But these other diseases take their toll year after year , while COVID-19 will soon fade from the scene .
Maybe in a year or two , sheepishness over the current overreaction to COVID-19 will translate into a more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Then again , maybe not : politicians are hard to embarrass .
PAUL ADDS : John ’ s list provides useful perspective on the projected 81,000 deaths estimate .
However , it ’ s important to remember that the 81,000 number assumes the strong measures that have been taken to limit the spread of this virus in the U.S. — what John calls the overreaction .
Without these measures , the University of Washington would very likely be projecting a great many more than 81,000 deaths .
In that scenario , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ list John presents .
We keep the number of annual deaths from the flu well below 81,000 through a vaccine .
Unfortunately , we don ’ t yet have a vaccine for the Wujan coronavirus .
Thus , officials are trying to keep the number of deaths due to this virus from rocketing into the hundreds of thousands through stringent social distancing measures .
JOHN responds : Paul makes a good point , but it isn ’ t so simple .
Does the U. of Washington model take into account the various shutdown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as many other measures that federal and state governments have taken ?
Does it break out the impacts of these measures , many of which I have endorsed , separately ?
Do any of the models do this ?
Does the U. of Washington model have a hypothetical alternative death count , as Paul seems to assume , for the counterfactual situation where there are no shutdown orders ?
Or where there are shutdown orders in all 50 states ?
Do they adjust the model whenever a new state orders a shutdown ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ us what benefit would be gained from quarantining New York City , as the administration briefly considered ?
Not that I can find .
I intend to write about this later .

The University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation is producing data and projections on the COVID-19 epidemic. I don’t know the basis of this group’s projections, but for what it is worth, they are optimistic. IHME expects COVID-19 deaths to peak in the U.S. on April 13, at 2,341. This is their “deaths per day” chart; click to enlarge. You can see the wide range of uncertainty:
Why is this an optimistic assessment? For two reasons. First, IHME expects U.S. deaths to peak soon and then begin to decline. That might reduce the hysteria that, in this instance, may be worse than the disease. Second, IHME projects total deaths from COVID-19 in the U.S. to be only 81,114, with not many additional deaths after around mid-May. Again, click to enlarge:
Does 81,114 sound like a lot of deaths? In a country of 330 million, it actually isn’t. In 2018, the CDC tells us that there were 2,839,205 resident deaths in the U.S. Eighty-one thousand would be less than three percent of that total. As I have written many times, just two years ago, according to the Centers for Disease Control, the seasonal flu virus killed 61,000 Americans while generating almost no publicity and zero government hysteria. If the University of Washington group is right, the Wuhan virus will be a little worse than that, but not much. If it kills 81,000, it will be around twice an average flu season.
Maybe there will be a silver lining to the Wuhan virus: it might focus attention on the main killers of Americans and others. According to the CDC, these are the principal causes of death in the U.S.:
As you can see, at 81,000 COVID-19 is nowhere near the top of the list. It represents an increase in the “Influenza and Pneumonia” category, I think. But these other diseases take their toll year after year, while COVID-19 will soon fade from the scene. Maybe in a year or two, sheepishness over the current overreaction to COVID-19 will translate into a more appropriate focus on these more important killers. Then again, maybe not: politicians are hard to embarrass.
PAUL ADDS: John’s list provides useful perspective on the projected 81,000 deaths estimate. However, it’s important to remember that the 81,000 number assumes the strong measures that have been taken to limit the spread of this virus in the U.S. — what John calls the overreaction.
Without these measures, the University of Washington would very likely be projecting a great many more than 81,000 deaths. In that scenario, the death total would move well up the list John presents.
We keep the number of annual deaths from the flu well below 81,000 through a vaccine. Unfortunately, we don’t yet have a vaccine for the Wujan coronavirus. Thus, officials are trying to keep the number of deaths due to this virus from rocketing into the hundreds of thousands through stringent social distancing measures.
JOHN responds: Paul makes a good point, but it isn’t so simple. Does the U. of Washington model take into account the various shutdown orders around the country, as well as many other measures that federal and state governments have taken? Does it break out the impacts of these measures, many of which I have endorsed, separately? Do any of the models do this? Does the U. of Washington model have a hypothetical alternative death count, as Paul seems to assume, for the counterfactual situation where there are no shutdown orders? Or where there are shutdown orders in all 50 states? Do they adjust the model whenever a new state orders a shutdown? Does this or any other model tell us what benefit would be gained from quarantining New York City, as the administration briefly considered? Not that I can find.
I intend to write about this later.


powerlineblog--2020-03-30--Observations on the Great Hunkering (8)

Observations on the Great Hunkering (8)

• You want to know how long the month of March has been ?
It was still this month that Pete Buttigieg , Amy Klobuchar , Elizabeth Warren , and Michael Bloomberg were running for president .
Remember impeachment ?
Seems as long ago as Andrew Johnson ’ s impeachment .
How long is April—T.S .
Eliot ’ s “ cruelest month ” —going to be ?
By the way , in retrospect does anyone think the frivolous impeachment whose outcome was foreordained might have distracted the White House from the coronavirus ?
See Henry Olsen ’ s article on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any case , if you should happen to miss the daily deep thoughts of Mayor Pete , well pine no more , because he ’ s offering his own thoughts in New York magazine on being quarantined at home .
And while he doesn ’ t say whether he has an adequate supply of toilet paper , it is apparent that he has run short of razor blades ( see photo ) .
About which he says , “ It seems to be popular online .
I just relish the fact that I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ every day.
” • John has already noted how suddenly we seem to recognize that maybe we don ’ t need so much heavy regulation .
Here ’ s my favorite example right now , from The Hill : Actually , this is the epitome of fake news , as the headline and the lede are wholly misleading ( but what else is new ? )
, as the second paragraph makes clear : Translation : You won ’ t face EPA fines or penalties if you don ’ t keep your paperwork @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mean that water pollution , air emission , or toxic disposal regulations or other quantitative limits are waived .
It most emphatically does not mean industrial plants “ would not need to meet environmental standards , ” or that refineries , coal power plants , chemical plants , etc .
can pollute to their heart ’ s content , or that General Motors can go back to making cars that run on regular gasoline for the next two months .
It is simply a real-world recognition that if we ’ re trying to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to workplaces , keeping up the logbooks and monitor data is one thing that can go by the wayside for a couple months .
Similar waivers were issued for oil refineries after Hurricane Katrina in 2005 , with no effect on pollution levels .
Actually pollution is going to go way down during this period because of depressed economic activity—a point I ’ ll come back to in a sequel some time in the next few days .
You would think even the dimmest reporter would be able to grasp this point .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ example of how it is possible to rack up big environmental fines for paperwork violations , even if you are in full compliance with regulatory limits .
( State and local environmental agencies actually feast on fining people for paperwork violations—it ’ s how many of them make their budgets . )
• We ’ ll be arguing for months/years about the efficacy of the COVID-19 response from all levels of government , but one aspect of the matter ought to be setting off alarm bells .
Ever since 9/11 we ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for potential mass casualty terrorist attacks , including bombings , chemical attacks ( Anthrax ) , and .
.
.
biological weapons .
And New York City is obviously Target One for any such attack , along with every other major American city .
You ’ d have thought that our Homeland Security apparatus would have been making plans along with serious preparations and materiel procurement for a significant surge capacity for hospitals , including respirators , masks and other PPE , as well as quarantine facilities , etc .
Yet New York @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the necessary facilities to accommodate a biological pandemic , whether from Chinese negligence or a terrorist bioweapon .
You know who does build in significant hospital surge capacity as a matter of routine preparation ?
Israel .
For the obvious reason .
There ought to be some serious questions about our unprepared state of affairs after we get past the current moment .
• I ’ m borrowing this meme from the TWiP pile just so I can set up today ’ s comic relief video immediately below :

• You want to know how long the month of March has been? It was still this month that Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, Elizabeth Warren, and Michael Bloomberg were running for president. Remember impeachment? Seems as long ago as Andrew Johnson’s impeachment. How long is April—T.S. Eliot’s “cruelest month”—going to be?
By the way, in retrospect does anyone think the frivolous impeachment whose outcome was foreordained might have distracted the White House from the coronavirus? See Henry Olsen’s article on this question from last week.
In any case, if you should happen to miss the daily deep thoughts of Mayor Pete, well pine no more, because he’s offering his own thoughts in New York magazine on being quarantined at home. And while he doesn’t say whether he has an adequate supply of toilet paper, it is apparent that he has run short of razor blades (see photo). About which he says, “It seems to be popular online. I just relish the fact that I’m no longer expected to shave every day.”
You’re welcome.
• John has already noted how suddenly we seem to recognize that maybe we don’t need so much heavy regulation. Here’s my favorite example right now, from The Hill:
EPA Suspends Enforcement of Environmental Laws Amid Coronavirus The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a sweeping suspension of its enforcement of environmental laws Thursday, telling companies they would not need to meet environmental standards during the coronavirus outbreak.
Actually, this is the epitome of fake news, as the headline and the lede are wholly misleading (but what else is new?), as the second paragraph makes clear:
The temporary policy, for which the EPA has set no end date, would allow any number of industries to skirt environmental laws, with the agency saying it will not “seek penalties for noncompliance with routine monitoring and reporting obligations.”
Translation: You won’t face EPA fines or penalties if you don’t keep your paperwork up to date. It does not mean that water pollution, air emission, or toxic disposal regulations or other quantitative limits are waived. It most emphatically does not mean industrial plants “would not need to meet environmental standards,” or that refineries, coal power plants, chemical plants, etc. can pollute to their heart’s content, or that General Motors can go back to making cars that run on regular gasoline for the next two months. It is simply a real-world recognition that if we’re trying to reduce the number of non-essential personnel going to workplaces, keeping up the logbooks and monitor data is one thing that can go by the wayside for a couple months. Similar waivers were issued for oil refineries after Hurricane Katrina in 2005, with no effect on pollution levels. Actually pollution is going to go way down during this period because of depressed economic activity—a point I’ll come back to in a sequel some time in the next few days.
You would think even the dimmest reporter would be able to grasp this point. And it ought to be a vivid example of how it is possible to rack up big environmental fines for paperwork violations, even if you are in full compliance with regulatory limits. (State and local environmental agencies actually feast on fining people for paperwork violations—it’s how many of them make their budgets.)
• We’ll be arguing for months/years about the efficacy of the COVID-19 response from all levels of government, but one aspect of the matter ought to be setting off alarm bells. Ever since 9/11 we’ve been told that we need to prepare for potential mass casualty terrorist attacks, including bombings, chemical attacks (Anthrax), and . . . biological weapons. And New York City is obviously Target One for any such attack, along with every other major American city. You’d have thought that our Homeland Security apparatus would have been making plans along with serious preparations and materiel procurement for a significant surge capacity for hospitals, including respirators, masks and other PPE, as well as quarantine facilities, etc. Yet New York seems to have caught desperately short of the necessary facilities to accommodate a biological pandemic, whether from Chinese negligence or a terrorist bioweapon.
You know who does build in significant hospital surge capacity as a matter of routine preparation? Israel. For the obvious reason. There ought to be some serious questions about our unprepared state of affairs after we get past the current moment.
• I’m borrowing this meme from the TWiP pile just so I can set up today’s comic relief video immediately below:


powerlineblog--2020-03-30--Inside the fish bowl

Inside the fish bowl

Remember the story about the man who lost his life when he scarfed down an aquarium cleaner containing chloroquine to ward off the Wuhan virus on President Trump ’ s recommendation ?
Marc Thiessen put it this way in a recent column : After the president expressed hope that the anti-malaria drug chloroquine was showing signs of success as a treatment for the coronavirus , news organizations tried to blame him for the death of an Arizona man who self-medicated with fish tank solvent that contained a different form of the substance .
“ Man dies after taking drug touted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CBS News declared .
No , he didn ’ t .
Trump never suggested anyone self-medicate with aquarium cleaner .
That must have been some fool for Trump , though the media never identified the fool by name .
Now the Washington Free Beacon ’ s Alana Goodman takes a look behind the headlines in “ Woman Who Ingested Fish Tank Cleaner Is Prolific Donor to Democratic Causes.
” Subhead : “ Arizona woman who accidentally poisoned her husband donated to ‘ pro-science resistance ’ PAC , among others.
” What do we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Arizona woman who said that she and her 68-year-old husband ingested a substance used to clean fish tanks after hearing President Donald Trump tout chloroquine as a cure for the coronavirus has given thousands of dollars to Democratic groups and candidates over the last two years .
The woman ’ s most recent donations , in late February , were to a Democratic PAC , the 314 Action Fund , that bills itself as the “ pro-science resistance ” and has vocally criticized the Trump administration ’ s response to the coronavirus pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the White House .
Although local and national media outlets withheld the couple ’ s names , the Washington Free Beacon established their identities through descriptions in local news reports , where the pair were identified by their first names and ages : Gary , 68 , and Wanda , 61 .
The Free Beacon is withholding their identities at Wanda ’ s request .
Federal Election Commission records show that Wanda has donated thousands of dollars to Democratic electoral groups and candidates over the past two years , including Hillary Clinton , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ EMILY ’ s List , a group that aims to elect pro-choice female candidates .
Wanda told the Free Beacon that she and her husband were both Democrats , not Trump supporters .
They heard about the potential benefits of chloroquine , an antimalarial drug , in news reports .
She decided at the “ spur of the moment ” to try taking it , but reached for a fish tank cleaner in her pantry that contains chloroquine phosphate , a different and deadly form of the chemical .
The Food and Drug @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use of chloroquine to treat coronavirus on Sunday .
“ We weren ’ t big supporters of [ Trump ] , but we did see that they were using it in China and stuff , ” Wanda told the Free Beacon .
“ And we just made a horrible , tragic mistake , ” she said .
“ It was stupid , and it was horrible , and we should have never done it .
But it ’ s done and now I ’ ve lost my husband .
And my whole life @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t think it would kill us , ” she added .
“ We thought if anything it would help us ‘ cus that ’ s what we ’ ve been hearing on the news.
” Goodman has much more .
Let ’ s jump to this : She said she and her husband had decided to stay in their home to avoid catching the virus .
They were spending much of their time watching media coverage .
“ We were watching the news because we were self-isolating and getting pretty nervous .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ still scared , ” Wanda told the Free Beacon .
She said she and her husband are not active on social media and don ’ t read much online news , but they get a lot of their information from television .
“ I didn ’ t know , and I didn ’ t understand how serious it was , ” she added .
“ It was the worst situation I could ever , ever , ever imagine anybody being in.
” Wanda told NBC News that her experience was a cautionary tale @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at face value .
“ Oh my God , don ’ t take anything .
Don ’ t believe anything that the president says and his people , ” she said .
She told a local news outlet that she was still “ pretty much in shock ” over her husband ’ s death .
“ We were just having the best day before this happened .
I made him his favorite lunch , grilled steak and asparagus and red potatoes , and we were just having the best Sunday , ” she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I have a hard time getting my head around this story .
Something doesn ’ t compute .
Whole thing here .

Remember the story about the man who lost his life when he scarfed down an aquarium cleaner containing chloroquine to ward off the Wuhan virus on President Trump’s recommendation? Marc Thiessen put it this way in a recent column:
After the president expressed hope that the anti-malaria drug chloroquine was showing signs of success as a treatment for the coronavirus, news organizations tried to blame him for the death of an Arizona man who self-medicated with fish tank solvent that contained a different form of the substance. “Man dies after taking drug touted as coronavirus treatment by Trump,” CBS News declared. No, he didn’t. Trump never suggested anyone self-medicate with aquarium cleaner.
That must have been some fool for Trump, though the media never identified the fool by name. Now the Washington Free Beacon’s Alana Goodman takes a look behind the headlines in “Woman Who Ingested Fish Tank Cleaner Is Prolific Donor to Democratic Causes.” Subhead: “Arizona woman who accidentally poisoned her husband donated to ‘pro-science resistance’ PAC, among others.”
What do we have here? Goodman reports:
The Arizona woman who said that she and her 68-year-old husband ingested a substance used to clean fish tanks after hearing President Donald Trump tout chloroquine as a cure for the coronavirus has given thousands of dollars to Democratic groups and candidates over the last two years. The woman’s most recent donations, in late February, were to a Democratic PAC, the 314 Action Fund, that bills itself as the “pro-science resistance” and has vocally criticized the Trump administration’s response to the coronavirus pandemic and held up her case to slam the White House. Although local and national media outlets withheld the couple’s names, the Washington Free Beacon established their identities through descriptions in local news reports, where the pair were identified by their first names and ages: Gary, 68, and Wanda, 61. The Free Beacon is withholding their identities at Wanda’s request. Federal Election Commission records show that Wanda has donated thousands of dollars to Democratic electoral groups and candidates over the past two years, including Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and EMILY’s List, a group that aims to elect pro-choice female candidates. Wanda told the Free Beacon that she and her husband were both Democrats, not Trump supporters. They heard about the potential benefits of chloroquine, an antimalarial drug, in news reports. She decided at the “spur of the moment” to try taking it, but reached for a fish tank cleaner in her pantry that contains chloroquine phosphate, a different and deadly form of the chemical. The Food and Drug Administration issued an emergency authorization for the use of chloroquine to treat coronavirus on Sunday. “We weren’t big supporters of [Trump], but we did see that they were using it in China and stuff,” Wanda told the Free Beacon. “And we just made a horrible, tragic mistake,” she said. “It was stupid, and it was horrible, and we should have never done it. But it’s done and now I’ve lost my husband. And my whole life was my husband.” “We didn’t think it would kill us,” she added. “We thought if anything it would help us ‘cus that’s what we’ve been hearing on the news.”
Goodman has much more. Let’s jump to this:
She said she and her husband had decided to stay in their home to avoid catching the virus. They were spending much of their time watching media coverage. “We were watching the news because we were self-isolating and getting pretty nervous. We were scared. I’m still scared,” Wanda told the Free Beacon. She said she and her husband are not active on social media and don’t read much online news, but they get a lot of their information from television. “I didn’t know, and I didn’t understand how serious it was,” she added. “It was the worst situation I could ever, ever, ever imagine anybody being in.” Wanda told NBC News that her experience was a cautionary tale about taking the president’s words at face value. “Oh my God, don’t take anything. Don’t believe anything that the president says and his people,” she said. She told a local news outlet that she was still “pretty much in shock” over her husband’s death. “We were just having the best day before this happened. I made him his favorite lunch, grilled steak and asparagus and red potatoes, and we were just having the best Sunday,” she said.
Try as I might, I have a hard time getting my head around this story. Something doesn’t compute. Whole thing here.