hotair--2020-03-08--Which transfiguration will we choose: Sunday reflection

Jesus took Peter , James , and John his brother , and led them up a high mountain by themselves .
And he was transfigured before them ; his face shone like the sun and his clothes became white as light .
And behold , Moses and Elijah appeared to them , conversing with him .
Then Peter said to Jesus in reply , “ Lord , it is good that we are here .
If you wish , I will make three tents here , one for you , one for Moses , and one for Elijah.
” While @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a bright cloud cast a shadow over them , then from the cloud came a voice that said , “ This is my beloved Son , with whom I am well pleased ; listen to him.
” When the disciples heard this , they fell prostrate and were very much afraid .
But Jesus came and touched them , saying , “ Rise , and do not be afraid.
” And when the disciples raised their eyes , they saw no one else but Jesus alone .
As they were coming down from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Do not tell the vision to anyone until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead.
” Perhaps I ’ m one of the few people who truly enjoy all three Back to the Future films .
The first was an absolute perfect time-travel fantasy , full of fun , danger , and Huey Lewis .
The second made you think about the consequences of manipulation , not just on yourself but on everyone around you .
And the third was a fun riff on the Wild West , much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with a perhaps too-cute resolution at the end .
( Plus Mary Steenburgen , an added bonus . )
In all three films , though , one point keeps getting driven home over and over again .
No matter what they do , they end up changing the world in some small fashion in ways that can not be undone .
In the first and last films , the changes end up being around the margins ; “ Eastwood Canyon , ” for instance .
In the second , the changes are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hill Valley .
The message in all three films is clear — the choices we make change us and the world around us , sometimes in very unexpected ways .
Underlying that is the fact that we make those changes lacking perfect knowledge , which means that those changes play out in unexpected and even dangerous ways .
When that happens , we have to work through the damage of poor choices and hope to atone and redeem them through better choices later .
Today ’ s Gospel and readings bring the reality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first reading in Genesis , the Lord tells Abram — soon to be transfigured into Abraham — the plans He has for the world through Abram ’ s transfiguration .
Because of Abram ’ s hospitality and love , God will use Abram to become the father of a great nation of people , all of which will return to the Lord in their own time .
Eventually , Abraham ’ s choice to be transfigured will change the entire world , even as other choices keep changing it in other ways .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ see in Genesis .
In the beginning , Adam and Eve lived in close communion with the Lord , walking in His garden and enjoying the best of material and spiritual life .
Rather than be content with this relationship , the two freely chose to transfigure themselves with greater knowledge than they could handle .
They wanted to be gods themselves rather than abide with God on the terms of His love for them .
What happens as a consequence of choosing this transfiguration ?
They get cast out of the garden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sin sinks into human nature as a long-range consequence .
The material world grows harsher , and eventually one of their sons kills another in a fight over God ’ s favor .
That transfiguration becomes a ruination for Adam and Eve and their lives , with consequences felt to this very day .
Consider a different transfiguration , too , one that might not come immediately to mind .
The Lord transformed the Israelites from an enslaved people to a mighty nation through Moses , forming them for the purpose of being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the entire world .
This reached its height in David and Solomon , but the kingdom lost its way by choosing to be transfigured by the world rather than the other way around .
They adapted and adopted worldly ambitions of power and indulged in idol worship rather than transfigure themselves fully to the Lord .
Eventually the Israelite and Judean kingdoms crumbled , a consequence of choosing the wrong path of transfiguration .
It is in this wreckage that Christ came to recall us from our own attachments to sinfulness and selfishness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get the clearest message they can receive about the choices in front of them .
They see the transfigured Jesus in the splendor of His heavenly form , along with those of Moses and Elijah ; they also receive a theophany of the Lord Himself telling them , “ This is my beloved Son , with whom I am well pleased ; listen to him.
” There is nothing left to the imagination here — the three disciples know precisely what the choice to follow Jesus will mean for them if they remain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ choices we make each day as His disciples , and each of them have their own consequences .
Those choices change the world , in small ways usually but sometimes in larger ways as well , changes that can resonate unpredictably through our lives and the lives of others .
We can not know all of the ways in which that occurs , which is why it is incumbent upon us to choose carefully and with the highest stakes in mind .
When we follow the Lord , it allows us to “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” because we can then trust the Lord ’ s plan and perfect knowledge rather than try to calculate all of the angles for ourselves .
Each day we transfigure ourselves in one way or the other through those choices .
Which transfiguration will we choose today ?
The front-page image is a detail from “ Transfiguration of Christ ” by Giovanni Bellini , c. 1487 , currently located at the Museo Nazionale di Capodimonte .
Via Wikimedia Commons .
“ Sunday Reflection ” is a regular feature , looking at the specific @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Catholic parishes around the world .
The reflection represents only my own point of view , intended to help prepare myself for the Lord ’ s day and perhaps spark a meaningful discussion .
Previous Sunday Reflections from the main page can be found here .
For previous Green Room entries , click here .

This morning’s Gospel reading is Matthew 17:1–9:
Jesus took Peter, James, and John his brother, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. And he was transfigured before them; his face shone like the sun and his clothes became white as light. And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, conversing with him. Then Peter said to Jesus in reply, “Lord, it is good that we are here. If you wish, I will make three tents here, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.” While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud cast a shadow over them, then from the cloud came a voice that said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him.” When the disciples heard this, they fell prostrate and were very much afraid. But Jesus came and touched them, saying, “Rise, and do not be afraid.” And when the disciples raised their eyes, they saw no one else but Jesus alone. As they were coming down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, “Do not tell the vision to anyone until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead.”
Perhaps I’m one of the few people who truly enjoy all three Back to the Future films. The first was an absolute perfect time-travel fantasy, full of fun, danger, and Huey Lewis. The second made you think about the consequences of manipulation, not just on yourself but on everyone around you. And the third was a fun riff on the Wild West, much less frenetic but still an enjoyable ride, with a perhaps too-cute resolution at the end. (Plus Mary Steenburgen, an added bonus.)
In all three films, though, one point keeps getting driven home over and over again. No matter what they do, they end up changing the world in some small fashion in ways that cannot be undone. In the first and last films, the changes end up being around the margins; “Eastwood Canyon,” for instance. In the second, the changes are much more transfiguring of that flexible hamlet Hill Valley.
The message in all three films is clear — the choices we make change us and the world around us, sometimes in very unexpected ways. Underlying that is the fact that we make those changes lacking perfect knowledge, which means that those changes play out in unexpected and even dangerous ways. When that happens, we have to work through the damage of poor choices and hope to atone and redeem them through better choices later.
Today’s Gospel and readings bring the reality of transfiguration to us. In our first reading in Genesis, the Lord tells Abram — soon to be transfigured into Abraham — the plans He has for the world through Abram’s transfiguration. Because of Abram’s hospitality and love, God will use Abram to become the father of a great nation of people, all of which will return to the Lord in their own time. Eventually, Abraham’s choice to be transfigured will change the entire world, even as other choices keep changing it in other ways.
Contrast this with the first transfiguration we see in Genesis. In the beginning, Adam and Eve lived in close communion with the Lord, walking in His garden and enjoying the best of material and spiritual life. Rather than be content with this relationship, the two freely chose to transfigure themselves with greater knowledge than they could handle. They wanted to be gods themselves rather than abide with God on the terms of His love for them.
What happens as a consequence of choosing this transfiguration? They get cast out of the garden as a personal consequence, but original sin sinks into human nature as a long-range consequence. The material world grows harsher, and eventually one of their sons kills another in a fight over God’s favor. That transfiguration becomes a ruination for Adam and Eve and their lives, with consequences felt to this very day.
Consider a different transfiguration, too, one that might not come immediately to mind. The Lord transformed the Israelites from an enslaved people to a mighty nation through Moses, forming them for the purpose of being a nation of priests and prophets to the entire world. This reached its height in David and Solomon, but the kingdom lost its way by choosing to be transfigured by the world rather than the other way around. They adapted and adopted worldly ambitions of power and indulged in idol worship rather than transfigure themselves fully to the Lord. Eventually the Israelite and Judean kingdoms crumbled, a consequence of choosing the wrong path of transfiguration.
It is in this wreckage that Christ came to recall us from our own attachments to sinfulness and selfishness. On Mount Tabor, the disciples get the clearest message they can receive about the choices in front of them. They see the transfigured Jesus in the splendor of His heavenly form, along with those of Moses and Elijah; they also receive a theophany of the Lord Himself telling them, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him.” There is nothing left to the imagination here — the three disciples know precisely what the choice to follow Jesus will mean for them if they remain true to it.
These are the choices we make each day as His disciples, and each of them have their own consequences. Those choices change the world, in small ways usually but sometimes in larger ways as well, changes that can resonate unpredictably through our lives and the lives of others. We cannot know all of the ways in which that occurs, which is why it is incumbent upon us to choose carefully and with the highest stakes in mind. When we follow the Lord, it allows us to “rise and … not be afraid,” because we can then trust the Lord’s plan and perfect knowledge rather than try to calculate all of the angles for ourselves.
Each day we transfigure ourselves in one way or the other through those choices. Which transfiguration will we choose today?
The front-page image is a detail from “Transfiguration of Christ” by Giovanni Bellini, c. 1487, currently located at the Museo Nazionale di Capodimonte. Via Wikimedia Commons.
“Sunday Reflection” is a regular feature, looking at the specific readings used in today’s Mass in Catholic parishes around the world. The reflection represents only my own point of view, intended to help prepare myself for the Lord’s day and perhaps spark a meaningful discussion. Previous Sunday Reflections from the main page can be found here. For previous Green Room entries, click here.


hotair--2020-03-08--Panderfest: Kamala Harris waited until now to make an endorsement

When California Senator Kamala Harris dropped out of the primary race , I ’ ll confess that I was a bit surprised .
She ’ d run a terrible campaign and probably had little hope of winning the nomination because she flip-flopped on so many of her positions , but she ’ d still gained at least some momentum and was briefly in contention .
It just seemed a bit premature for her to leave the race when and how she did .
What she didn ’ t do at that time was endorse any of her rivals for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on , she remained mum on the topic .
Now , at long last , she ’ s broken her silence and come out with an endorsement for Uncle Joe .
( NY Post ) Sen. Kamala Harris endorsed former Vice President Joe Biden for president in a video released on her Twitter account Sunday .
In a posting addressing her supporters , the former Democratic presidential candidate said Biden “ has served our country with dignity and we need him now more than ever.
” “ I have decided I am with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for president of the United States .
I believe in Joe , ” she said .
That ’ s a real profile in courage , isn ’ t it ?
Waiting around until the race is essentially down to two people with one of them ( Biden ) currently being seen as the presumptive favorite is similar to going to the Kentucky Derby and trying to place your bet after the horses reach the final stretch .
That ’ s not how the game is played .
Keep in mind that the man @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” is also the same guy that Harris absolutely shredded in a debate last summer , knocking him for his failed record on busing , race relations and hanging around with segregationists .
If you go back and watch the video of those exchanges it probably won ’ t sound like she thought Joe was the man we need “ now more than ever.
” So what ’ s Harris ’ game ?
That much seems obvious .
On the day that she dropped out , I wrote that Harris had just made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And we ’ ve already heard Joe Biden suggest that he would be very interested in selecting a Black woman as his running mate .
The peanut gallery has already weighed in on this question and narrowed the field down to either Harris or Stacey Abrams .
So is that where Joe ’ s thinking is heading right now ?
And if not , was Harris trying to remind him that she should be the “ obvious ” choice ?
If we ’ re limiting the field to Black females , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ logic .
Harris didn ’ t run a very good national campaign , but unlike Abrams , she at least has some experience in both winning elections and serving in the executive branch of government ( as Attorney General of California ) .
Abrams has mostly just become famous for trying to make herself famous .
I won ’ t be shocked at all if Biden winds up picking a veep based on race and gender rather than experience or skill ( assuming he wins the nomination ) .
And at this point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about Sanders , for that matter .
But there are certainly more choices out there that could do him more good than either Harris or Abrams .
It ’ s not as if he ’ s going to need any help carrying California .
While she fails the skin color test , Biden might consider giving the nod to Amy Klobuchar as a consolation prize .
He very well might need some help getting over the top in Minnesota and she remains quite popular there .

When California Senator Kamala Harris dropped out of the primary race, I’ll confess that I was a bit surprised. She’d run a terrible campaign and probably had little hope of winning the nomination because she flip-flopped on so many of her positions, but she’d still gained at least some momentum and was briefly in contention. It just seemed a bit premature for her to leave the race when and how she did.
What she didn’t do at that time was endorse any of her rivals for the nomination. And as the weeks dragged on, she remained mum on the topic. Now, at long last, she’s broken her silence and come out with an endorsement for Uncle Joe. (NY Post)
Sen. Kamala Harris endorsed former Vice President Joe Biden for president in a video released on her Twitter account Sunday. In a posting addressing her supporters, the former Democratic presidential candidate said Biden “has served our country with dignity and we need him now more than ever.” “I have decided I am with great enthusiasm going to endorse Joe Biden for president of the United States. I believe in Joe,” she said.
That’s a real profile in courage, isn’t it? Waiting around until the race is essentially down to two people with one of them (Biden) currently being seen as the presumptive favorite is similar to going to the Kentucky Derby and trying to place your bet after the horses reach the final stretch. That’s not how the game is played.
Keep in mind that the man who “served our country with dignity” is also the same guy that Harris absolutely shredded in a debate last summer, knocking him for his failed record on busing, race relations and hanging around with segregationists. If you go back and watch the video of those exchanges it probably won’t sound like she thought Joe was the man we need “now more than ever.”
So what’s Harris’ game? That much seems obvious. On the day that she dropped out, I wrote that Harris had just made herself the presumptive favorite in the veepstakes. And we’ve already heard Joe Biden suggest that he would be very interested in selecting a Black woman as his running mate. The peanut gallery has already weighed in on this question and narrowed the field down to either Harris or Stacey Abrams.
So is that where Joe’s thinking is heading right now? And if not, was Harris trying to remind him that she should be the “obvious” choice? If we’re limiting the field to Black females, I couldn’t really argue with the logic. Harris didn’t run a very good national campaign, but unlike Abrams, she at least has some experience in both winning elections and serving in the executive branch of government (as Attorney General of California). Abrams has mostly just become famous for trying to make herself famous.
I won’t be shocked at all if Biden winds up picking a veep based on race and gender rather than experience or skill (assuming he wins the nomination). And at this point, I’d say the same about Sanders, for that matter. But there are certainly more choices out there that could do him more good than either Harris or Abrams. It’s not as if he’s going to need any help carrying California. While she fails the skin color test, Biden might consider giving the nod to Amy Klobuchar as a consolation prize. He very well might need some help getting over the top in Minnesota and she remains quite popular there.


hotair--2020-03-08--So the coronavirus was at CPAC. And so were we; Update: MN Health Dept says

So the coronavirus was at CPAC. And so were we; Update: MN Health Dept says ...

As those of you who follow us on social media or who read some of the interviews that were posted probably already know , Ed Morrissey and I attended the annual CPAC festivities in Maryland last week .
I also brought my wife this year ( her first CPAC ) and we had a great time catching up with many friends I rarely get to see in person and attending many presentations by a variety of speakers .
Yesterday , however , we found out from the organizers of the event that there was a less-welcome guest at CPAC… the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Twitter .
Before long , CNN had picked up the story .
There was apparently one attendee from New Jersey who returned home and then began displaying symptoms , later testing positive for the WuFlu .
The American Conservative Union announced on Saturday that one of the attendees at last week ’ s Conservative Political Action Conference in National Harbor , Maryland , has tested positive for coronavirus .
President Donald Trump , Vice President Mike Pence and other administration officials attended the conference , though the ACU says the attendee did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or vice president , nor did they attend events in the main hall .
The ACU said the Trump administration “ is aware of the situation.
” “ The exposure occurred previous to the conference .
A New Jersey hospital tested the person , and CDC confirmed the positive result , ” ACU said in a statement .
“ The individual is under the care of medical professionals in the state of New Jersey , and has been quarantined.
” This was jarring news for all of us , I can assure you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ed had begun feeling under the weather as soon as he returned home , but he was quickly diagnosed with something less serious .
Still , particularly after reading Allahpundit ’ s update on the projections for who will be affected and how badly , those of us in the 60+ age group clearly have more to be concerned about now .
Annoyingly , after assuring everyone that neither the President nor the Vice President came in contact with the patient , the ACU apparently decided not to share the identity of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so we could self-isolate if we ’ d shaken hands with them .
Of course , how much good that would do six days after leaving the conference is questionable to say the least .
The news produced a fair amount of gallows humor on Twitter last night , at least in the circles where I hang out .
So how much do we really have to worry about ?
That ’ s hard to say .
If the individual in question began displaying symptoms toward the end of this week and tested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ probably exposed roughly a week before CPAC began .
If that ’ s the case , they could definitely have been asymptomatic but still contagious throughout the conference .
That ’ s sort of the worst-case scenario with the coronavirus .
You can be walking around infecting people for quite a while before you ’ re even aware that there ’ s a problem .
But even then , we still don ’ t know enough to say how long the window is and when we ’ ll have a good idea as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Live Science has some of the most recent estimates from medical experts and there is still apparently a lot that doctors aren ’ t sure about yet .
The incubation period is supposed to be “ one to two weeks ” but other reports indicate that it could be as much as 21 days .
And even if you are infected , many people will develop symptoms so mild that they ’ ll just assume it ’ s a cold and not even go for testing .
The virus reportedly stays in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of weeks after your symptoms abate ( in mild cases ) but doctors believe that you are far less contagious during that period .
Of course , that ’ s what they believe .
As I said , this is still so new that there is no 100 % consensus among the medical community .
So now we wait .
If I was exposed , it ’ s been somewhere between seven and eleven days since it happened .
I haven ’ t noticed any symptoms yet , but it will be at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before I can start breathing any easier .
The same goes for Ed and my spouse .
Meanwhile , my wife happens to work in a place where she comes into contact with a large number of children every day .
That means she ’ s constantly being exposed to every bug that ’ s making the rounds , and for all we know one of those families already ran across the coronavirus anyway .
In short , there ’ s simply no way to say whether the coronavirus will be knocking on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s already here .
Crossing our fingers and saying some prayers .
We ’ ll keep you updated as the situation hopefully doesn ’ t develop .
Update ( Ed ) : The Minnesota Department of Health has a hotline for COVID-19 , but it was closed yesterday when I got the news from the ACU .
I called them this morning and detailed the case to them , including the fact that I ’ d had Influenza-A when I got back and spent the week on Tamiflu .
I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which they said indicates I ’ m almost certainly in the clear .
I just need to watch for symptoms that might develop later but they have no concerns about me being out in public .
I ’ m more or less a homebody anyway , but at least that ’ s one stress I don ’ t need to consider .
As Jazz says , if this changes , we ’ ll be writing about it .
Let ’ s hope it doesn ’ t change .

As those of you who follow us on social media or who read some of the interviews that were posted probably already know, Ed Morrissey and I attended the annual CPAC festivities in Maryland last week. I also brought my wife this year (her first CPAC) and we had a great time catching up with many friends I rarely get to see in person and attending many presentations by a variety of speakers.
Yesterday, however, we found out from the organizers of the event that there was a less-welcome guest at CPAC… the coronavirus. The news first popped up on Twitter.
Important Health Notification for CPAC 2020 participants and attendees. pic.twitter.com/NtahNO8st3 — ACU (@ACUConservative) March 7, 2020
Before long, CNN had picked up the story. There was apparently one attendee from New Jersey who returned home and then began displaying symptoms, later testing positive for the WuFlu.
The American Conservative Union announced on Saturday that one of the attendees at last week’s Conservative Political Action Conference in National Harbor, Maryland, has tested positive for coronavirus. President Donald Trump, Vice President Mike Pence and other administration officials attended the conference, though the ACU says the attendee did not come into contact with the president or vice president, nor did they attend events in the main hall. The ACU said the Trump administration “is aware of the situation.” “The exposure occurred previous to the conference. A New Jersey hospital tested the person, and CDC confirmed the positive result,” ACU said in a statement. “The individual is under the care of medical professionals in the state of New Jersey, and has been quarantined.”
This was jarring news for all of us, I can assure you. It also raised momentary concerns because Ed had begun feeling under the weather as soon as he returned home, but he was quickly diagnosed with something less serious. Still, particularly after reading Allahpundit’s update on the projections for who will be affected and how badly, those of us in the 60+ age group clearly have more to be concerned about now.
Annoyingly, after assuring everyone that neither the President nor the Vice President came in contact with the patient, the ACU apparently decided not to share the identity of the infected individual with the rest of us so we could self-isolate if we’d shaken hands with them. Of course, how much good that would do six days after leaving the conference is questionable to say the least. The news produced a fair amount of gallows humor on Twitter last night, at least in the circles where I hang out.
So how much do we really have to worry about? That’s hard to say. If the individual in question began displaying symptoms toward the end of this week and tested positive yesterday, that means they were probably exposed roughly a week before CPAC began. If that’s the case, they could definitely have been asymptomatic but still contagious throughout the conference. That’s sort of the worst-case scenario with the coronavirus. You can be walking around infecting people for quite a while before you’re even aware that there’s a problem.
But even then, we still don’t know enough to say how long the window is and when we’ll have a good idea as to whether we were infected or not. Live Science has some of the most recent estimates from medical experts and there is still apparently a lot that doctors aren’t sure about yet. The incubation period is supposed to be “one to two weeks” but other reports indicate that it could be as much as 21 days. And even if you are infected, many people will develop symptoms so mild that they’ll just assume it’s a cold and not even go for testing.
The virus reportedly stays in your system for up to a couple of weeks after your symptoms abate (in mild cases) but doctors believe that you are far less contagious during that period. Of course, that’s what they believe. As I said, this is still so new that there is no 100% consensus among the medical community.
So now we wait. If I was exposed, it’s been somewhere between seven and eleven days since it happened. I haven’t noticed any symptoms yet, but it will be at least a week, if not two before I can start breathing any easier. The same goes for Ed and my spouse. Meanwhile, my wife happens to work in a place where she comes into contact with a large number of children every day. That means she’s constantly being exposed to every bug that’s making the rounds, and for all we know one of those families already ran across the coronavirus anyway. In short, there’s simply no way to say whether the coronavirus will be knocking on our door any time soon or if it’s already here.
Crossing our fingers and saying some prayers. We’ll keep you updated as the situation hopefully doesn’t develop.
Update (Ed): The Minnesota Department of Health has a hotline for COVID-19, but it was closed yesterday when I got the news from the ACU. I called them this morning and detailed the case to them, including the fact that I’d had Influenza-A when I got back and spent the week on Tamiflu. I’m no longer symptomatic, either, which they said indicates I’m almost certainly in the clear. I just need to watch for symptoms that might develop later but they have no concerns about me being out in public. I’m more or less a homebody anyway, but at least that’s one stress I don’t need to consider.
As Jazz says, if this changes, we’ll be writing about it. Let’s hope it doesn’t change.
Update (AP): Not great:


hotair--2020-03-08--Sunday morning talking heads

Sunday morning talking heads

In normal times the Sunday shows would be chest-deep in the 2020 primaries this morning .
We don ’ t live in normal times so instead the top story is coronavirus , with NIH ’ s Anthony Fauci scheduled to discuss the near-certainty of a major epidemic on “ Meet the Press ” and “ Fox News Sunday.
” This won ’ t be a basic informational update from him either .
He ’ s going to be grilled on the many CDC failures that allowed the virus to gain a foothold here despite the early warning from China .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ comprehensively when other first-world countries in harm ’ s way , like South Korea , are on top of it ?
Why did the feds limit screening to patients who ’ d recently traveled abroad ( or were in direct contact with someone who did ) even after community spread here was evident ?
Why weren ’ t more public labs prepared to deal with an influx of cases ?
More than anything else , I ’ m interested in his tone this morning , especially after Trump ’ s bizarrely sanguine appearance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are we really looking at here in terms of the extent of the contagion and likely fatalities ?
What ’ s the probability that this thing spreads too quickly for hospitals to be able to treat everyone who needs treatment ?
Is it 50 percent or more like 100 ?
Fauci ’ s not going to want to panic the public but he ’ s not going to spew nonsense about the virus being “ relatively contained ” either .
Surgeon General Jerome Adams will also be on this morning to talk COVID-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Face the Nation ” and “ State of the Union.
” And yes , of course there ’ s some 2020 chitchat too .
Bernie Sanders will talk with “ This Week , ” “ Meet the Press , ” “ State of the Union , ” and “ Fox News Sunday ” to try to halt the other contagion that ’ s been in the news lately , Joementum .
Sanders desperately needs a good showing on Tuesday to make this a long race , especially in Michigan .
If he gets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up on him to quit .
Especially since , with coronavirus circulating , the more we can avoid unnecessary gatherings at rallies and polling precincts , the better .
The full line-up is at the AP .

In normal times the Sunday shows would be chest-deep in the 2020 primaries this morning. We don’t live in normal times so instead the top story is coronavirus, with NIH’s Anthony Fauci scheduled to discuss the near-certainty of a major epidemic on “Meet the Press” and “Fox News Sunday.” This won’t be a basic informational update from him either. He’s going to be grilled on the many CDC failures that allowed the virus to gain a foothold here despite the early warning from China. Why are we still having problems testing comprehensively when other first-world countries in harm’s way, like South Korea, are on top of it? Why did the feds limit screening to patients who’d recently traveled abroad (or were in direct contact with someone who did) even after community spread here was evident? Why weren’t more public labs prepared to deal with an influx of cases?
More than anything else, I’m interested in his tone this morning, especially after Trump’s bizarrely sanguine appearance at the CDC on Friday. What are we really looking at here in terms of the extent of the contagion and likely fatalities? What’s the probability that this thing spreads too quickly for hospitals to be able to treat everyone who needs treatment? Is it 50 percent or more like 100? Fauci’s not going to want to panic the public but he’s not going to spew nonsense about the virus being “relatively contained” either.
Surgeon General Jerome Adams will also be on this morning to talk COVID-19. He’s booked on “Face the Nation” and “State of the Union.” And yes, of course there’s some 2020 chitchat too. Bernie Sanders will talk with “This Week,” “Meet the Press,” “State of the Union,” and “Fox News Sunday” to try to halt the other contagion that’s been in the news lately, Joementum. Sanders desperately needs a good showing on Tuesday to make this a long race, especially in Michigan. If he gets swamped again, the pressure will ramp up on him to quit. Especially since, with coronavirus circulating, the more we can avoid unnecessary gatherings at rallies and polling precincts, the better. The full line-up is at the AP.


hotair--2020-03-08--Ohio joins fight to keep boys out of girls' sports

The battle lines are still being drawn in the effort to save women ’ s and girls ’ competitive sports in the United States and the fight has now moved on to Ohio .
In the Buckeye State , legislators have introduced a new bill with the appropriate name of the Save Womens ’ Sports Act .
Much like similar legislation being debated around the country , this measure would bar boys who “ identify ” as girls from competing in girls ’ sports for all of the usual and obvious reasons .
This measure would apply to all public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ private schools and colleges that are members of a state or national athletic association .
As I ’ m sure you ’ ve already guessed , the proposal is drawing howls of protests from the usual suspects .
( Fox 8 News ) Ohio lawmakers proposed a new House Bill that would prohibit transgender female athletes from participating in girls ’ sports .
It ’ s called the Save Women ’ s ’ Sports Act and is being sponsored by Rep. Jena Powell ( R ) District-80 in Darke County and Rep. Reggie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ County .
“ We want every girl in our state to achieve her athletic dreams .
The Save Women ’ s Sports Act ensures that happens , ” said Rep. Powell .
At a press conference on Wednesday , supporters said the proposed bill is about “ fairness ” and pointed to a number of issues including physical differences between the genders .
To avoid some of the typical objections , the law would provide exceptions for intersex students who would be able to compete with either gender .
The supporters of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ correctly described the situation .
They note that males retain significant physical advantages in most competitive sports even if they ’ ve been suppressing their testosterone levels .
They have “ greater lung capacity , larger hearts , higher red blood cell counts , stronger tendons and ligaments , greater muscle strength and increased bone density.
” As you would expect , objections were raised by the LGBT Community Center of Greater Cleveland .
Their director claims that there is “ no need ” for such a bill because the Ohio High School @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rules in place covering these questions .
Sadly , the OHSAA rules are completely inadequate .
They state that male competitors identifying as females “ must have completed a minimum of one year of hormone treatment related to gender transition to participate in girls sports.
” As was already pointed out above , such treatments are not only dangerous science experiments being performed on children , but they don ’ t remove the natural physical advantages that males have , though they might reduce them slightly .
And that ’ s simply not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seen in too many cases around the country .
Perhaps a better question for the Ohio legislature to be examining is how medical professionals are being allowed to inject foreign hormones into children ’ s bodies that are totally unnatural to them , warping their physical development while their young bodies are still growing .
Even worse , other children are being given drugs to prevent the natural onset of puberty and some are even getting irreversible surgery .
These practices should be considered blatant acts of child abuse and medical malpractice .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Supreme Court at the moment dealing with some transgender issues .
But I sincerely doubt that any of them will produce a ruling broad enough to cover questions of that nature or of the rules governing participation in girls ’ and women ’ s sports .
Until the day arrives when they are ready and willing to tackle the larger issues , this fight will have to take place at the state level .
And far too often , it ’ s the girls who wind up on the losing end .

The battle lines are still being drawn in the effort to save women’s and girls’ competitive sports in the United States and the fight has now moved on to Ohio. In the Buckeye State, legislators have introduced a new bill with the appropriate name of the Save Womens’ Sports Act. Much like similar legislation being debated around the country, this measure would bar boys who “identify” as girls from competing in girls’ sports for all of the usual and obvious reasons. This measure would apply to all public schools and colleges, as well as private schools and colleges that are members of a state or national athletic association. As I’m sure you’ve already guessed, the proposal is drawing howls of protests from the usual suspects. (Fox 8 News)
Ohio lawmakers proposed a new House Bill that would prohibit transgender female athletes from participating in girls’ sports. It’s called the Save Women’s’ Sports Act and is being sponsored by Rep. Jena Powell (R) District-80 in Darke County and Rep. Reggie Stoltzfus (R) District-50 in Stark County. “We want every girl in our state to achieve her athletic dreams. The Save Women’s Sports Act ensures that happens,” said Rep. Powell. At a press conference on Wednesday, supporters said the proposed bill is about “fairness” and pointed to a number of issues including physical differences between the genders.
To avoid some of the typical objections, the law would provide exceptions for intersex students who would be able to compete with either gender.
The supporters of the bill, along with its authors, correctly described the situation. They note that males retain significant physical advantages in most competitive sports even if they’ve been suppressing their testosterone levels. They have “greater lung capacity, larger hearts, higher red blood cell counts, stronger tendons and ligaments, greater muscle strength and increased bone density.”
As you would expect, objections were raised by the LGBT Community Center of Greater Cleveland. Their director claims that there is “no need” for such a bill because the Ohio High School Athletic Association (OHSAA) already has rules in place covering these questions. Sadly, the OHSAA rules are completely inadequate. They state that male competitors identifying as females “must have completed a minimum of one year of hormone treatment related to gender transition to participate in girls sports.”
As was already pointed out above, such treatments are not only dangerous science experiments being performed on children, but they don’t remove the natural physical advantages that males have, though they might reduce them slightly. And that’s simply not good enough, as we’ve seen in too many cases around the country.
Perhaps a better question for the Ohio legislature to be examining is how medical professionals are being allowed to inject foreign hormones into children’s bodies that are totally unnatural to them, warping their physical development while their young bodies are still growing. Even worse, other children are being given drugs to prevent the natural onset of puberty and some are even getting irreversible surgery. These practices should be considered blatant acts of child abuse and medical malpractice.
There are a few cases pending with the Supreme Court at the moment dealing with some transgender issues. But I sincerely doubt that any of them will produce a ruling broad enough to cover questions of that nature or of the rules governing participation in girls’ and women’s sports. Until the day arrives when they are ready and willing to tackle the larger issues, this fight will have to take place at the state level. And far too often, it’s the girls who wind up on the losing end.


hotair--2020-03-09--Two more GOP reps self-quarantine due to CPAC exposure

Two more GOP reps self-quarantine due to CPAC exposure -- and both had recent contact with Trump

They ’ re both favorites of his .
One is Doug Collins , a top Trump advocate during the impeachment saga and the president ’ s preferred candidate for the Senate vacancy that eventually went to Kelly Loeffler in Georgia .
The other is Matt Gaetz , another tireless Trump cheerleader in the House who had a brief falling out with POTUS over war powers but was sufficiently back in his good graces to have attended a party at Mar-a-Lago this weekend and hitched a ride back to D.C. from Florida on Air Force One today… …after having had contact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CPAC .
Here ’ s Collins , who was with Trump during his visit to the CDC on Friday , days after CPAC : And here ’ s Gaetz , who was seen wearing a gas mask on the House floor a few days ago during a coronavirus debate in what he claims wasn ’ t a mocking stunt but pretty clearly was : Here he is today in an enclosed space with the president : Reportedly he found out *during the flight* that he ’ d been in contact with CPAC Patient @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the plane from Trump to quarantine himself .
This makes at least three people who had direct contact with the CPAC attendee and then had direct contact with Trump during the 14-day incubation period .
The third is Matt Schlapp , head of the ACU that hosts CPAC : There may be more than three who met CPAC Patient Zero and then met Trump , in fact .
Per the WSJ : It ’ s smart , responsible , and good leadership by example on the part of Collins and Gaetz ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to isolate instead of taking the idiotic “ it ’ s only a flu !
” approach .
Just one question : What was Gaetz doing in the presidential limo and on Air Force One today when it was already reported last night that he was potentially at risk because of his contact at CPAC ?
“ Gaetz was on the list I provided last night , ” said Kassam in a separate tweet this afternoon .
“ How did I know [ about the risk of exposure ] before he did ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ d been experiencing flu-like symptoms for the past week .
He ’ s been calling around today to the CDC , D.C. Department of Health , and various medical facilities asking how he can get tested — and can ’ t get a straight answer .
Speaking of which , have Collins , Cruz , and Gosar all been tested ?
Gaetz says he has , but it would be … discouraging , to put it mildly , to find that even U.S. senators are having trouble getting a test while they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Trump , Gaetz claims it fell to him to take sensible precautions to protect the president on the flight , against Trump ’ s own instincts : The man is 73 years old , a member of the age group that ’ s at highest risk for serious complications from COVID-19 , and he was “ coaxing ” Gaetz to come talk to him .
Reportedly the White House is being cleaned more frequently to protect him and people showing any symptoms are being asked to stay away from the building .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to hold rallies but WaPo notes that there are none scheduled right now for the first time this year .
According to Gabriel Sherman ’ s sources , he ’ s privately worried about coming down with the disease : As Trump pushes a nothing-to-see-here message in public , sources said he ’ s privately terrified about getting the virus .
“ Donald is a famous germaphobe .
He hates it if someone is eating nachos and dips a chip back in after taking a bite .
He calls them ‘ double dippers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Former Trump aide Sam Nunberg recalled Trump ’ s response to the last major outbreak in 2014 .
“ When I worked for Trump , he was obsessed with Ebola , ” Nunberg told me .
( One Mar-a-Lago guest disputed this and said Trump was handshaking with gusto this past weekend .
“ He was acting like the opposite of a germaphobe , ” the source said . )
Stories about Trump ’ s coronavirus fears have spread through the White House .
Last week Trump told aides he ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus to give it to him on Air Force One , a person close to the administration told me .
The source also said Trump has asked the Secret Service to set up a screening program and bar anyone who has a cough from the White House grounds .
“ He ’ s definitely melting down over this , ” the source said .
He isn ’ t acting or sounding like a germaphobe publicly .
If he was , he never would have offered Gaetz a ride today without having someone check @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in contact with the sick CPAC patient .
Stephanie Grisham is demanding a retraction of the claim that Trump think journalists will try to infect him .
Meanwhile , says Sherman of Trump ’ s sanguine view of the threat from the virus , “ The problem is that the crisis fits into his preexisting and deeply held worldview—that the media is always searching for a story to bring him down.
” It ’ s weird that the “ media ” plot to create bad press for Trump somehow also appears to involve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ locked down 60 million people to slow the spread of the disease .
They ’ re really going all-out to make the disease look frightening : I ’ ll leave you with this from Gosar , who ’ s apparently having a truly weird time in self-quarantine .

They’re both favorites of his. One is Doug Collins, a top Trump advocate during the impeachment saga and the president’s preferred candidate for the Senate vacancy that eventually went to Kelly Loeffler in Georgia. The other is Matt Gaetz, another tireless Trump cheerleader in the House who had a brief falling out with POTUS over war powers but was sufficiently back in his good graces to have attended a party at Mar-a-Lago this weekend and hitched a ride back to D.C. from Florida on Air Force One today…
…after having had contact with the coronavirus patient who was at CPAC.
Here’s Collins, who was with Trump during his visit to the CDC on Friday, days after CPAC:
This afternoon, I was notified by CPAC that they discovered a photo of myself and the patient who has tested positive for #COVID19. While I am not experiencing any symptoms, I have decided to self-quarantine out of an abundance of caution. Full statement → pic.twitter.com/74oeaYOBYR — Doug Collins (@RepDougCollins) March 9, 2020
And here’s Gaetz, who was seen wearing a gas mask on the House floor a few days ago during a coronavirus debate in what he claims wasn’t a mocking stunt but pretty clearly was:
Congressman Gaetz was informed today that he came into contact with a CPAC attendee 11 days ago who tested positive for COVID-19. — Rep. Matt Gaetz (@RepMattGaetz) March 9, 2020
While the Congressman is not experiencing symptoms, he received testing today and expects results soon. Under doctor's usual precautionary recommendations, he'll remain self-quarantined until the 14-day period expires this week. — Rep. Matt Gaetz (@RepMattGaetz) March 9, 2020
Here he is today in an enclosed space with the president:
Here is Rep. Matt Gaetz exiting the Beast and entering Air Force One in Florida today. pic.twitter.com/BSmVuV3MdZ — Maegan Vazquez (@maeganvaz) March 9, 2020
Reportedly he found out *during the flight* that he’d been in contact with CPAC Patient Zero and moved to a different part of the plane from Trump to quarantine himself.
This makes at least three people who had direct contact with the CPAC attendee and then had direct contact with Trump during the 14-day incubation period. The third is Matt Schlapp, head of the ACU that hosts CPAC:
White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham said neither Trump nor Pence was in “close proximity to the attendee,” but ACU chairman Matt Schlapp told The Washington Post on Saturday that he himself interacted with the infected person at the event. The precise chronology could not be learned, but Schlapp did shake Trump’s hand on the stage on the last day of the conference. “I think we have to be calm and see what occurs here and hope our friend gets better,” Schlapp said.
There may be more than three who met CPAC Patient Zero and then met Trump, in fact. Per the WSJ:
The number of CPAC exposures could reach even further. The man, who is hospitalized in New Jersey, had obtained a special category of ticket that entitled him to meet with top-ranking officials, and even more people have potential exposure, according to a person close to the organizers of CPAC. “We thought that we had a dozen people that had direct contact,” the person said. “It’s clear that we were not given accurate information, and that there are more, so now we are having to take additional measures.”
It’s smart, responsible, and good leadership by example on the part of Collins and Gaetz (and Ted Cruz and Paul Gosar) to isolate instead of taking the idiotic “it’s only a flu!” approach. Just one question: What was Gaetz doing in the presidential limo and on Air Force One today when it was already reported last night that he was potentially at risk because of his contact at CPAC?
Here are some of the other people who may have been in the green room on Thursday afternoon at the same time as the CPAC #coronavirus infectee: – Rep Louie Gohmert;
– Ronna McDaniel
– Michael Knowles
– Kay James
– KellyAnne Conway
– Betsy Devos
– Rep Matt Gaetz
– Diamond/Silk — Raheem Kassam (@RaheemKassam) March 9, 2020
“Gaetz was on the list I provided last night,” said Kassam in a separate tweet this afternoon. “How did I know [about the risk of exposure] before he did? Disaster.” Yesterday he reported that he’d been experiencing flu-like symptoms for the past week. He’s been calling around today to the CDC, D.C. Department of Health, and various medical facilities asking how he can get tested — and can’t get a straight answer.
Speaking of which, have Collins, Cruz, and Gosar all been tested? Gaetz says he has, but it would be … discouraging, to put it mildly, to find that even U.S. senators are having trouble getting a test while they’re waiting in self-quarantine.
As for Trump, Gaetz claims it fell to him to take sensible precautions to protect the president on the flight, against Trump’s own instincts:
Gaetz said: "I refused to go into his office, I stood outside the door. I told him he could talk from that distance. " — Ben Terris (@bterris) March 9, 2020
The man is 73 years old, a member of the age group that’s at highest risk for serious complications from COVID-19, and he was “coaxing” Gaetz to come talk to him.
Reportedly the White House is being cleaned more frequently to protect him and people showing any symptoms are being asked to stay away from the building. He’s supposedly “eager” to hold rallies but WaPo notes that there are none scheduled right now for the first time this year. According to Gabriel Sherman’s sources, he’s privately worried about coming down with the disease:
As Trump pushes a nothing-to-see-here message in public, sources said he’s privately terrified about getting the virus. “Donald is a famous germaphobe. He hates it if someone is eating nachos and dips a chip back in after taking a bite. He calls them ‘double dippers,’” a prominent Republican said. Former Trump aide Sam Nunberg recalled Trump’s response to the last major outbreak in 2014. “When I worked for Trump, he was obsessed with Ebola,” Nunberg told me. (One Mar-a-Lago guest disputed this and said Trump was handshaking with gusto this past weekend. “He was acting like the opposite of a germaphobe,” the source said.) Stories about Trump’s coronavirus fears have spread through the White House. Last week Trump told aides he’s afraid journalists will try to purposefully contract coronavirus to give it to him on Air Force One, a person close to the administration told me. The source also said Trump has asked the Secret Service to set up a screening program and bar anyone who has a cough from the White House grounds. “He’s definitely melting down over this,” the source said.
He isn’t acting or sounding like a germaphobe publicly. If he was, he never would have offered Gaetz a ride today without having someone check first to see if Gaetz had been in contact with the sick CPAC patient.
Stephanie Grisham is demanding a retraction of the claim that Trump think journalists will try to infect him. Meanwhile, says Sherman of Trump’s sanguine view of the threat from the virus, “The problem is that the crisis fits into his preexisting and deeply held worldview—that the media is always searching for a story to bring him down.” It’s weird that the “media” plot to create bad press for Trump somehow also appears to involve the government of Italy, which just locked down 60 million people to slow the spread of the disease. They’re really going all-out to make the disease look frightening:
What is scary is the difference in the fatality rate between Lombardy (around Milan) and the rest of Italy (see picture). Data collection procedure should be the same. I fear difference is due to Lombardy hospitals (considered the best in Italy) running out of available ICU units pic.twitter.com/CGkejbWRb8 — Zingales (@zingales) March 9, 2020
I’ll leave you with this from Gosar, who’s apparently having a truly weird time in self-quarantine.


hotair--2020-03-09--NY Times: Medicare for All won't happen even if Sanders wins and Democrats take the Senate

The NY Times published a news story today which finally says what many observers have noted for months .
There is almost zero chance Medicare for All will become law even if Bernie Sanders wins the White House .
In fact , even if Democrats win the Senate and change the filibuster rules , that probably wouldn ’ t matter either .
Just 14 members of the Senate have signed on to his Medicare for All Act , which would require a huge expansion of federal spending , and Democrats would need to pick up four seats in November to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Even if they succeeded , most of the Democrats seeking to unseat vulnerable Senate Republicans — John Hickenlooper in Colorado , for example , and Mark Kelly in Arizona — have come out against Medicare for all , raising the curious prospect of Democratic Senate candidates opposing the Democratic presidential nominee ’ s most prized policy plan .
In the House , a similar Medicare for all bill has 119 sponsors , all Democrats , out of a total 435 members — at least 218 votes are needed to pass legislation — and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supporters .
Nor are most of the roughly 40 freshman Democrats known as “ front liners , ” who helped their party win control of the House in 2018 by flipping Republican seats… Even if the rules were changed to get rid of the filibuster , making it possible to pass major legislation with only 50 Senate votes , “ there is not any guarantee that the 51st Democrat would be willing to support Medicare for all or anything close to it , ” said Mark Peterson , a professor of public policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ University of California , Los Angeles .
In sum , there ’ s almost no chance this is going to happen .
And that ’ s even before you consider the substantial push back that would begin the moment Democrats tried to make this happen .
Here ’ s the ad which opposes all of the Democratic proposals including the Public Option : What ’ s odd is that nothing in this story is really news .
Since Bernie Sanders announced he was running for president last February all of the same conditions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ promised his supporters Medicare for All several hundred times , in stump speeches and on television since then .
So why is the Times only now getting around to mentioning that his top campaign priority isn ’ t possible ?
I think there are two reasons .
First , last month a number of high profile figures on the left suddenly decided it was important for people to know that Medicare for All had no chance of passing even if Bernie Sanders was elected .
One of the people delivering that message was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Paul Krugman said the same thing about a week later .
This happened as Bernie Sanders was peaking in the polls and expected to do well on Super Tuesday .
Suddenly people in Sanders ’ camp decided it might help his campaign if moderates were less nervous about Medicare for All .
So they began stating the obvious : It wasn ’ t going to happen no matter what Bernie said .
And then you had the South Carolina primary followed by Joe Biden ’ s big night on Super Tuesday .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bernie ’ s campaign could be over in another week or two .
There ’ s simply no more harm that can be done at this point by telling the truth .
That ’ s my guess as to why the Times finally wrote this story now instead of any time in the past year .
Bernie ’ s people said it was okay and not long after that it appeared it wouldn ’ t matter anyway .

The NY Times published a news story today which finally says what many observers have noted for months. There is almost zero chance Medicare for All will become law even if Bernie Sanders wins the White House. In fact, even if Democrats win the Senate and change the filibuster rules, that probably wouldn’t matter either.
Just 14 members of the Senate have signed on to his Medicare for All Act, which would require a huge expansion of federal spending, and Democrats would need to pick up four seats in November to gain majority control of the chamber. Even if they succeeded, most of the Democrats seeking to unseat vulnerable Senate Republicans — John Hickenlooper in Colorado, for example, and Mark Kelly in Arizona — have come out against Medicare for all, raising the curious prospect of Democratic Senate candidates opposing the Democratic presidential nominee’s most prized policy plan. In the House, a similar Medicare for all bill has 119 sponsors, all Democrats, out of a total 435 members — at least 218 votes are needed to pass legislation — and Speaker Nancy Pelosi is not among the supporters. Nor are most of the roughly 40 freshman Democrats known as “front liners,” who helped their party win control of the House in 2018 by flipping Republican seats… Even if the rules were changed to get rid of the filibuster, making it possible to pass major legislation with only 50 Senate votes, “there is not any guarantee that the 51st Democrat would be willing to support Medicare for all or anything close to it,” said Mark Peterson, a professor of public policy, political science and law at the University of California, Los Angeles.
In sum, there’s almost no chance this is going to happen. And that’s even before you consider the substantial push back that would begin the moment Democrats tried to make this happen.
The industry groups that were largely on board for the Affordable Care Act have already mobilized, through groups like the Partnership for America’s Health Care Future, to squelch any thoughts of Medicare for all. They are aggressively lobbying Congress and spending on television ads, one of which aired during the most recent Democratic debate.
Here’s the ad which opposes all of the Democratic proposals including the Public Option:
What’s odd is that nothing in this story is really news. Since Bernie Sanders announced he was running for president last February all of the same conditions have been in place. Sanders has promised his supporters Medicare for All several hundred times, in stump speeches and on television since then. So why is the Times only now getting around to mentioning that his top campaign priority isn’t possible?
I think there are two reasons. First, last month a number of high profile figures on the left suddenly decided it was important for people to know that Medicare for All had no chance of passing even if Bernie Sanders was elected. One of the people delivering that message was AOC, Bernie’s top surrogate. Paul Krugman said the same thing about a week later. This happened as Bernie Sanders was peaking in the polls and expected to do well on Super Tuesday. Suddenly people in Sanders’ camp decided it might help his campaign if moderates were less nervous about Medicare for All. So they began stating the obvious: It wasn’t going to happen no matter what Bernie said.
And then you had the South Carolina primary followed by Joe Biden’s big night on Super Tuesday. Rather suddenly, it looked as if Bernie’s campaign could be over in another week or two. There’s simply no more harm that can be done at this point by telling the truth.
That’s my guess as to why the Times finally wrote this story now instead of any time in the past year. Bernie’s people said it was okay and not long after that it appeared it wouldn’t matter anyway.


hotair--2020-03-09--Ben Smith: Bernie Sanders is right. The media does mostly hate him

Ben Smith , formerly of Buzzfeed fame and now the media editor for the New York Times , continues to make waves at his new position .
I was wondering how long he was going to last at his new gig when one of his first columns carried the title , “ Why the Success of the New York Times May Be Bad News for Journalism.
” Apparently , nobody is ready to put a leash on him at the Gray Lady yet because this week ’ s entry is almost equally provocative .
This column at least has a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sanders Gets Right About the Media .
And what Sanders “ gets right ” about it is that the corporate , for-profit media has its own agenda aside from needing to show a profit .
And that agenda leans toward a more stable , comfortable and , above all , moderate form of progressivism .
And also that most of these media mavens don ’ t like people who come around with radical ideas and rock the boat .
Specifically… people like Bernie Sanders .
At the same time , the events of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his criticism of the media , the subject of a 1988 town hall with Mr. Sanders and the radical provocateur Abbie Hoffman .
Mr. Sanders complained that Vermont ’ s television stations had been “ prostituted by commercials.
” ( The video is a trip , and worth the click . )
His main point : “ The media itself is as important a political issue as exists.
” Mr. Sanders is right about that , and about two other big things : that much of the U.S. media still covers elections as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the affluent New Yorkers who run and appear on television networks are not inclined to like him .
The narrative of Joe Biden ’ s comeback was an irresistible story to the media — one that often eclipsed the coronavirus , never mind discussion of health care or poverty — on cable news in recent days .
Smith appears to draw one conclusion ( among many ) about the current state of cable news , particularly at MSNBC and CNN , that probably rings true to a lot of people .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because he is cranky toward them .
His distrust and occasional verbal abuse of mainstream media outlets are scarcely less intense than that displayed by Donald Trump , albeit phrased a bit more politely and at a lower volume .
Smith also discusses the “ palpable air of relief ” on display at MSNBC when Joe Biden appeared to be the new frontrunner after Super Tuesday .
That also feeds into the idea that the press is still rooting against Bernie nearly as much as they despise Donald Trump .
While I find @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he approaches the question from the 10,000-foot level , I find my support for this theory crumbling a bit when we get down to the fine details .
I will wholeheartedly agree that the New York Times ( sorry , Ben ) , the Washington Post , CNN and MSNBC all seem to be shoulder to shoulder in their opposition to a Bernie Sanders candidacy , but I don ’ t get the impression that it ’ s because of some fundamental policy difference between moderate centrism and more radical socialism .
No @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out on the table , I would wager that there are plenty of people at all of those media outlets who would be thrilled to see Medicare for All , a Green New Deal , Guaranteed Basic Income and a wealth tax that would send the dreaded One Percent to stand online at the soup kitchens .
But there ’ s one factor stopping them from fully embracing Sanders and the Bernie Bros .
Fear .
If there ’ s one thing those outlets almost universally hate more than everything else , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mantle of conservatism is draped around the shoulders of the Bad Orange Man , it ’ s almost infinitely worse .
At the same time , most of them are smart enough to realize that all of those planks from Bernie ’ s platform that I listed above are fringe concepts that are highly popular in the young socialist wing of the Democratic Party but would send the middle of the country ’ s political ranks screaming for the exit .
In short , going the Full Bernie would do much to guarantee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s a bridge too far for the vast majority of the MSM .
So they huddle up close with Joe Biden as the “ safe ” ( or at least “ safer ” ) option and pray that he doesn ’ t have a complete memory wipe during the debates .
But with all that said , I will reiterate that Smith does make a number of good points about Sanders ’ view of the media , if not the underlying motivations that drive them .

Ben Smith, formerly of Buzzfeed fame and now the media editor for the New York Times, continues to make waves at his new position. I was wondering how long he was going to last at his new gig when one of his first columns carried the title, “Why the Success of the New York Times May Be Bad News for Journalism.” Apparently, nobody is ready to put a leash on him at the Gray Lady yet because this week’s entry is almost equally provocative.
This column at least has a somewhat more subdued title: What Bernie Sanders Gets Right About the Media. And what Sanders “gets right” about it is that the corporate, for-profit media has its own agenda aside from needing to show a profit. And that agenda leans toward a more stable, comfortable and, above all, moderate form of progressivism. And also that most of these media mavens don’t like people who come around with radical ideas and rock the boat. Specifically… people like Bernie Sanders.
At the same time, the events of the past week have validated much of his criticism of the media, the subject of a 1988 town hall with Mr. Sanders and the radical provocateur Abbie Hoffman. Mr. Sanders complained that Vermont’s television stations had been “prostituted by commercials.” (The video is a trip, and worth the click.) His main point: “The media itself is as important a political issue as exists.” Mr. Sanders is right about that, and about two other big things: that much of the U.S. media still covers elections as if they’re sporting events and that the affluent New Yorkers who run and appear on television networks are not inclined to like him. The narrative of Joe Biden’s comeback was an irresistible story to the media — one that often eclipsed the coronavirus, never mind discussion of health care or poverty — on cable news in recent days.
Smith appears to draw one conclusion (among many) about the current state of cable news, particularly at MSNBC and CNN, that probably rings true to a lot of people. The networks are cranky toward Bernie Sanders largely because he is cranky toward them. His distrust and occasional verbal abuse of mainstream media outlets are scarcely less intense than that displayed by Donald Trump, albeit phrased a bit more politely and at a lower volume.
Smith also discusses the “palpable air of relief” on display at MSNBC when Joe Biden appeared to be the new frontrunner after Super Tuesday. That also feeds into the idea that the press is still rooting against Bernie nearly as much as they despise Donald Trump.
While I find myself nodding along with Ben Smith as he approaches the question from the 10,000-foot level, I find my support for this theory crumbling a bit when we get down to the fine details. I will wholeheartedly agree that the New York Times (sorry, Ben), the Washington Post, CNN and MSNBC all seem to be shoulder to shoulder in their opposition to a Bernie Sanders candidacy, but I don’t get the impression that it’s because of some fundamental policy difference between moderate centrism and more radical socialism.
No, if all their cards were spread out on the table, I would wager that there are plenty of people at all of those media outlets who would be thrilled to see Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, Guaranteed Basic Income and a wealth tax that would send the dreaded One Percent to stand online at the soup kitchens. But there’s one factor stopping them from fully embracing Sanders and the Bernie Bros. Fear.
If there’s one thing those outlets almost universally hate more than everything else, it’s conservatism. And when the mantle of conservatism is draped around the shoulders of the Bad Orange Man, it’s almost infinitely worse. At the same time, most of them are smart enough to realize that all of those planks from Bernie’s platform that I listed above are fringe concepts that are highly popular in the young socialist wing of the Democratic Party but would send the middle of the country’s political ranks screaming for the exit.
In short, going the Full Bernie would do much to guarantee another four years of Trump. And that’s a bridge too far for the vast majority of the MSM. So they huddle up close with Joe Biden as the “safe” (or at least “safer”) option and pray that he doesn’t have a complete memory wipe during the debates. But with all that said, I will reiterate that Smith does make a number of good points about Sanders’ view of the media, if not the underlying motivations that drive them.


hotair--2020-03-09--Epstein prosecutors: Yeah, Prince Andrew lied about cooperating with us

Stunning , ain ’ t it ?
Go figure that the man who was so concerned over acting honourably in breaking up with his former pal that he spent four days in Jeffrey Epstein ’ s mansion to let him down easy suddenly can ’ t see the honour in fulfilling his public pledge to cooperate with investigators .
Why , it ’ s as if people who enjoy the company of sex traffickers turn out to be highly unreliable !
Prosecutors still investigating Epstein ’ s crimes publicly complained in January that Prince Andrew was talking out of both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to cooperate .
Now they ’ re talking about “ options ” on the table to force the royal to answer their questions : “ Contrary to Prince Andrew ’ s very public offer to cooperate with our investigation into Epstein ’ s co-conspirators , an offer that was conveyed via press release , Prince Andrew has now completely shut the door on voluntary cooperation , ” U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman said , adding that his office is “ considering its options.
” Federal investigators have been trying for months to speak with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who has been accused by one alleged victim of sexual abuse .
… It ’ s unusual for a federal prosecutor to comment on whether a particular person is cooperating in an investigation , but earlier this year Berman said that he decided to do so in part because of Andrew ’ s public statement expressing a willingness to assist in the investigation .
“ He publicly offered , indeed in a press release , offered to cooperate with law enforcement investigating the crimes committed by Jeffrey Epstein and his co-conspirators , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ late January , adding that Andrew had yet provided “ zero cooperation.
” Buckingham Palace , where Prince Andrew pointedly no longer has any offices , declined to explain Andrew ’ s reneging on his pledge .
They are referring reporters to Andrew ’ s lawyers , who are *ahem* used to high-profile crisis interventions : Buckingham Palace said then it would not comment and the matter was being dealt with by the prince ’ s legal team .
Contacted on Monday , a Palace spokeswoman said : “ The issue is being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s legal team.
” Buckingham Palace has consistently refused to reveal any details of Andrew ’ s legal team but the Duke has reportedly hired Clare Montgomery , a senior barrister at Matrix Chambers , whose clients have included Augusto Pinochet , Chile ’ s former dictator , and Shrien Dewani , charged with and acquitted of murdering his wife in South Africa .
She also prosecuted the Metropolitan police over the death of Jean Charles de Menezes , shot dead in a failed anti-terror operation .
… In a December interview @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Virginia Giuffre , now 35 , called Andrew ’ s denial “ BS ” .
“ He knows what happened , ” she said .
“ I know what happened , and there ’ s only one of us telling the truth , and I know that ’ s me.
” So what exactly are the options for the Department of Justice and the FBI ?
Calling them limited might be an understatement .
Neither the FBI nor the DoJ has any jurisdiction over British subjects , and especially not over British royals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or even a material-witness warrant , but ( a ) good luck getting a judge to approve the latter , and ( b ) good luck in enforcing either one .
Unless Prince Andrew makes the colossal error of traveling to the US for the rest of his life , he ’ s safely out of reach — legally speaking , anyway .
Politically , of course , this is an utter nightmare for the royals .
They ’ re already under fire for Harry and Meghan ’ s self-imposed ejection to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ post-Diana baggage over the anachronistic qualities of a ceremonial monarchy .
Harry and Meghan don ’ t see the value in it , it seems , and Prince Andrew makes it look like more trouble than it ’ s worth now .
The only asset that the monarchy has will turn 94 next month , and when she ’ s gone so will be any excuse to perpetuate the institution .

Stunning, ain’t it? Go figure that the man who was so concerned over acting honourably in breaking up with his former pal that he spent four days in Jeffrey Epstein’s mansion to let him down easy suddenly can’t see the honour in fulfilling his public pledge to cooperate with investigators. Why, it’s as if people who enjoy the company of sex traffickers turn out to be highly unreliable!
Prosecutors still investigating Epstein’s crimes publicly complained in January that Prince Andrew was talking out of both sides of his mouth when he pledged to cooperate. Now they’re talking about “options” on the table to force the royal to answer their questions:
“Contrary to Prince Andrew’s very public offer to cooperate with our investigation into Epstein’s co-conspirators, an offer that was conveyed via press release, Prince Andrew has now completely shut the door on voluntary cooperation,” U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman said, adding that his office is “considering its options.” Federal investigators have been trying for months to speak with Andrew, a longtime friend of Epstein who has been accused by one alleged victim of sexual abuse. … It’s unusual for a federal prosecutor to comment on whether a particular person is cooperating in an investigation, but earlier this year Berman said that he decided to do so in part because of Andrew’s public statement expressing a willingness to assist in the investigation. “He publicly offered, indeed in a press release, offered to cooperate with law enforcement investigating the crimes committed by Jeffrey Epstein and his co-conspirators,” Berman said at a news conference in late January, adding that Andrew had yet provided “zero cooperation.”
Buckingham Palace, where Prince Andrew pointedly no longer has any offices, declined to explain Andrew’s reneging on his pledge. They are referring reporters to Andrew’s lawyers, who are *ahem* used to high-profile crisis interventions:
Buckingham Palace said then it would not comment and the matter was being dealt with by the prince’s legal team. Contacted on Monday, a Palace spokeswoman said: “The issue is being dealt with by the Duke of York’s legal team.” Buckingham Palace has consistently refused to reveal any details of Andrew’s legal team but the Duke has reportedly hired Clare Montgomery, a senior barrister at Matrix Chambers, whose clients have included Augusto Pinochet, Chile’s former dictator, and Shrien Dewani, charged with and acquitted of murdering his wife in South Africa. She also prosecuted the Metropolitan police over the death of Jean Charles de Menezes, shot dead in a failed anti-terror operation. … In a December interview with the BBC, the accuser, Virginia Giuffre, now 35, called Andrew’s denial “BS”. “He knows what happened,” she said. “I know what happened, and there’s only one of us telling the truth, and I know that’s me.”
So what exactly are the options for the Department of Justice and the FBI? Calling them limited might be an understatement. Neither the FBI nor the DoJ has any jurisdiction over British subjects, and especially not over British royals. They could still issue a subpoena, or even a material-witness warrant, but (a) good luck getting a judge to approve the latter, and (b) good luck in enforcing either one. Unless Prince Andrew makes the colossal error of traveling to the US for the rest of his life, he’s safely out of reach — legally speaking, anyway.
Politically, of course, this is an utter nightmare for the royals. They’re already under fire for Harry and Meghan’s self-imposed ejection to Canada, plus all of the usual post-Diana baggage over the anachronistic qualities of a ceremonial monarchy. Harry and Meghan don’t see the value in it, it seems, and Prince Andrew makes it look like more trouble than it’s worth now. The only asset that the monarchy has will turn 94 next month, and when she’s gone so will be any excuse to perpetuate the institution.


hotair--2020-03-09--The spread of COVID-19 in Iran may be far worse than reported

The spread of the coronavirus in China was aided by a government crackdown on news about the virus .
Government officials showed up at the home of the doctor who initially tried to spread word about the virus in a chat room .
They forced him to sign a document warning him about his illegal behavior .
Something similar may be happening in Iran .
Officially , there are 6,566 cases of the virus in Iran .
However , the Atlantic published a piece today suggesting the actual number could be far higher .
Of course the whole problem is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ international political concerns , may be lying about the actual number of people infected .
But there are other ways to estimate the spread of the virus within Iran and all of those methods suggest the real numbers are much higher than the official count : • A paper by the University of Toronto ’ s Ashleigh Tuite and others noted that , by February 23 , cases of Iranian origin had surfaced in Canada , Lebanon , and the United Arab Emirates .
Given the volume of air travel between Iran and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ estimated how many native COVID-19 cases must have occurred in Iran to produce one case each in these other countries .
Their estimate for February 23 : 18,300 .
Since the epidemic reached 100 cumulative cases , the official numbers have doubled roughly every three days .
If that rate held , the estimate as of today would be 586,000… • A government website invited Iranians to submit details of symptoms they were experiencing .
After 2 million responses , about 9 percent reported COVID-19 symptoms .
In the United States , among @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them to be tested for COVID-19 , about 10 percent have eventually tested positive .
If that rate holds , Iran would have 730,000 cases .
• On March 4 and 5 , two evacuation flights of Chinese citizens were allowed to leave Tehran for China ’ s Gansu province .
Chinese authorities were of course wary of introducing more coronavirus carriers into the country , so they tested passengers and found 11 COVID-19 cases out of 311 passengers .
If Chinese people in Iran got the disease at the same rate as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 3.5 percent , for a total of 5.7 million at the time of the flight .
That ’ s a sample but other means of estimating yield figures between half-a-million and 8 million cumulative cases .
The average would be somewhere around 2 million : The messages coming out of Iran on social media , especially from health-care workers , do little to convince me that my doomsday figures are inaccurate .
David N. Fisman , a colleague of Tuite ’ s at the University of Toronto , notes that the virus reportedly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tehran fled to smaller cities , thereby sowing COVID-19 all over the country .
Circulating on social media are reports that some provinces , such as Mazandaran , have set up roadblocks to keep more people with the infection from spilling into their territory .
The situation the doctors describe is desperate , with nurses wrapping themselves in tablecloths because they have long since run through their supply of proper gear .
They swear that the official numbers are wrong .
“ Just stay overnight in the hospital to find out what I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrote .
Or if you want to live , go home , and don ’ t come out until the plague passes .
“ [ Our ] society now needs fear more than hope.
” I ’ ve seen some of the social media posts Atlantic author Graeme Wood is talking about .
For instance : This is from just over a week ago .
Some locals apparently set this clinic on fire because sick patients from a heavily infected area were being brought in : If the estimates above are accurate , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ situation in Iran is desperate as they will not have hospital beds to treat people .
I wonder what the Iranian people are going to make of this .
It has only been a couple of months since Iran admitted that it shot down a passenger jet full of people .
Iranians were reportedly furious that the government had lied to them about what happened for several days .
Now it appears the regime may be lying once again only this time the consequences will be far more deadly .
As of yesterday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virus in Iran , a jump of 49 deaths from the previous day .

The spread of the coronavirus in China was aided by a government crackdown on news about the virus. Government officials showed up at the home of the doctor who initially tried to spread word about the virus in a chat room. They forced him to sign a document warning him about his illegal behavior. Something similar may be happening in Iran. Officially, there are 6,566 cases of the virus in Iran. However, the Atlantic published a piece today suggesting the actual number could be far higher.
Of course the whole problem is that Iran, motivated by domestic and international political concerns, may be lying about the actual number of people infected. But there are other ways to estimate the spread of the virus within Iran and all of those methods suggest the real numbers are much higher than the official count:
A paper by the University of Toronto’s Ashleigh Tuite and others noted that, by February 23, cases of Iranian origin had surfaced in Canada, Lebanon, and the United Arab Emirates. Given the volume of air travel between Iran and these countries, Tuite’s team estimated how many native COVID-19 cases must have occurred in Iran to produce one case each in these other countries. Their estimate for February 23: 18,300. Since the epidemic reached 100 cumulative cases, the official numbers have doubled roughly every three days. If that rate held, the estimate as of today would be 586,000…
A government website invited Iranians to submit details of symptoms they were experiencing. After 2 million responses, about 9 percent reported COVID-19 symptoms. In the United States, among those whose symptoms and history have led them to be tested for COVID-19, about 10 percent have eventually tested positive. If that rate holds, Iran would have 730,000 cases.
On March 4 and 5, two evacuation flights of Chinese citizens were allowed to leave Tehran for China’s Gansu province. Chinese authorities were of course wary of introducing more coronavirus carriers into the country, so they tested passengers and found 11 COVID-19 cases out of 311 passengers. If Chinese people in Iran got the disease at the same rate as Iranians, that suggests a rate of 3.5 percent, for a total of 5.7 million at the time of the flight.
That’s a sample but other means of estimating yield figures between half-a-million and 8 million cumulative cases. The average would be somewhere around 2 million:
The messages coming out of Iran on social media, especially from health-care workers, do little to convince me that my doomsday figures are inaccurate. David N. Fisman, a colleague of Tuite’s at the University of Toronto, notes that the virus reportedly spread after panicked residents of Qom and Tehran fled to smaller cities, thereby sowing COVID-19 all over the country. Circulating on social media are reports that some provinces, such as Mazandaran, have set up roadblocks to keep more people with the infection from spilling into their territory. The situation the doctors describe is desperate, with nurses wrapping themselves in tablecloths because they have long since run through their supply of proper gear. They swear that the official numbers are wrong. “Just stay overnight in the hospital to find out what I’m talking about,” one wrote. Or if you want to live, go home, and don’t come out until the plague passes. “[Our] society now needs fear more than hope.”
I’ve seen some of the social media posts Atlantic author Graeme Wood is talking about. For instance:
In Iran, horrific videos of #CoronaVirus are emerging. The situation is disastrous especially in the province of Gilan. This poor man collapsed in front of a hospital, but they can't admit him since it's full. While hospitals are ill-equipped, Iran's leaders don't care. pic.twitter.com/O7c23riEqV — Masih Alinejad 🏳 (@AlinejadMasih) March 7, 2020
And another:
Karaj
Nabovat Intersection
The situation in #Iran is getting worse every moment
The woman with the #Coronavirus is left on the ground &there is no emergency to save her.
Int organizations must come to the aid of the Iranian ppl. This regime does nothing for the ppl#COvid19 pic.twitter.com/u7VN8bf1We — mostafa.m (@MostafaMe4) March 9, 2020
And another:
Sari, N #Iran
Enghelab (Revolution) Avenue
Voice says a man with coronavirus has collapsed but is still breathing. Millions of people across the country are at risk as the regime refuses to take adequate measures.#COVID2019 pic.twitter.com/oGedaBORRx — Heshmat Alavi (@HeshmatAlavi) March 9, 2020
Here’s video of a nurse complaining she lacks proper equipment:
The #CoronaVirus has now killed hundreds in Iran. By covering it up initially, the government is directly responsible for the deaths. Listen to this healthcare worker from Iran. She says "we don't have enough equipment. We don't even have standard work attire to protect us" pic.twitter.com/cRXmw3RbzL — Masih Alinejad 🏳 (@AlinejadMasih) March 4, 2020
This is from just over a week ago. Some locals apparently set this clinic on fire because sick patients from a heavily infected area were being brought in:
An angry crowd set fire to a clinic in Bandar Abbas, south of #Iran because it had patients in it suffering from #coronavirus. Some people say the patients were from Qom -very far away- and this had angered the mob. There is a sense of panic. Still hard to believe this happened. pic.twitter.com/e6nRRrlKDx — Ali Arouzi (@aliarouzi) February 29, 2020
If the estimates above are accurate, even the lower ones, then the situation in Iran is desperate as they will not have hospital beds to treat people. I wonder what the Iranian people are going to make of this. It has only been a couple of months since Iran admitted that it shot down a passenger jet full of people. Iranians were reportedly furious that the government had lied to them about what happened for several days. Now it appears the regime may be lying once again only this time the consequences will be far more deadly. As of yesterday, 194 people have died of the virus in Iran, a jump of 49 deaths from the previous day.


hotair--2020-03-09--CDC changing guidelines for cruises, air travel over virus concerns

We already learned that the CDC has been issuing revised guidance for students planning spring break trips or studies abroad , particularly in Italy .
( And Italy is one of the most popular countries to study abroad , besides being a very popular vacation spot . )
But now the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have also updated their guidance for air travel and cruise ships .
They are advising people – particularly the elderly and those with compromised immune systems – to avoid such modes of travel as much as possible until this coronavirus thing has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New guidance from the CDC urges travelers , especially the elderly and those with compromised health , to avoid long plane trips “ and especially ” cruises — a stark shift in rhetoric from an administration that had previously appeared reluctant to discourage Americans from moving around the globe .
The CDC now recommends that travelers “ defer all cruise ship travel worldwide ” and notes that “ cruise ship passengers are at increased risk of person-to-person spread of infectious diseases , including COVID-19.
” The State Department on Sunday also recommended against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of coronavirus infection , and issued a warning that citizens should not rely on repatriation flights “ as an option for U.S. citizens under the potential risk of quarantine by local authorities.
” The new CDC guidance , coupled with the State Department warning , suggests a seismic shift coming for the cruise industry in particular , which depends heavily on American tourists , and disproportionately older ones .
Thanks , guys !
Where were you with this advice before we went to CPAC ?
( Insert grumbling noises here . )
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asking , no .
I haven ’ t developed any symptoms thus far .
And yes .
I have stayed in my home and avoided contact with anyone else ever since we got the news .
We ’ re having our groceries delivered by a local service company and left on the porch .
Getting back to this CDC update , you ’ ll note the special emphasis they put on cruises… “ and especially cruises.
” One would think that all of the news stories flooding the airwaves about quarantine ships around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ away from such plans , but I suppose it ’ s still worth making it official .
As you might expect , the cruise line industry is pushing back on this news .
The Cruise Lines International Association released a statement saying , “ singling out the travel and tourism industry , and cruise lines specifically is unreasonable and unwarranted.
” From a purely capitalist perspective , I can sort of understand that type of reaction , but unless they have some sort of protocol in place to fully test everyone getting aboard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And I would imagine that they are actually losing money on every ship that gets tied up offshore with a quarantine on them anyway .
The cruise ship industry is particularly vulnerable when you consider that roughly a quarter of the people taking cruises are in their 60s or older .
And that ’ s the age group that has thus far been most likely to produce fatalities when infected with the virus .
Hence the CDC warning about seniors taking cruises .
But this is only one example of the broad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to come until the coronavirus runs its course .
No matter if the mortality rate shoots up or remains where it is now , people are justifiably worried and that ’ s impacting nearly all aspects of the economy .
Travel will be impacted ( obviously ) but also retail sales , aside from the basic survival stuff that people are currently stockpiling .
Every business that closes down temporarily or cuts back because of the virus will result in less productivity and lost wages for workers .
It ’ s already a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the comments section here , I ’ m aware that a significant number of you are still writing off the coronavirus as a nothingburger that won ’ t affect the world any more than the flu , or perhaps even less .
That may still be possible , but that ’ s not how the medical community is seeing it and it ’ s far from reaching its peak in the United States yet .
For the doubters , I sincerely hope that you ’ re right , but I don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the woods yet .
And even if this doesn ’ t turn into a mass pandemic with high mortality rates , the impact on the global ( and American ) economy will be felt for some time to come .

We already learned that the CDC has been issuing revised guidance for students planning spring break trips or studies abroad, particularly in Italy. (And Italy is one of the most popular countries to study abroad, besides being a very popular vacation spot.) But now the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have also updated their guidance for air travel and cruise ships. They are advising people – particularly the elderly and those with compromised immune systems – to avoid such modes of travel as much as possible until this coronavirus thing has been gotten under control. (Politico)
New guidance from the CDC urges travelers, especially the elderly and those with compromised health, to avoid long plane trips “and especially” cruises — a stark shift in rhetoric from an administration that had previously appeared reluctant to discourage Americans from moving around the globe. The CDC now recommends that travelers “defer all cruise ship travel worldwide” and notes that “cruise ship passengers are at increased risk of person-to-person spread of infectious diseases, including COVID-19.” The State Department on Sunday also recommended against cruise travel, citing an increased risk of coronavirus infection, and issued a warning that citizens should not rely on repatriation flights “as an option for U.S. citizens under the potential risk of quarantine by local authorities.” The new CDC guidance, coupled with the State Department warning, suggests a seismic shift coming for the cruise industry in particular, which depends heavily on American tourists, and disproportionately older ones.
Thanks, guys! Where were you with this advice before we went to CPAC? (Insert grumbling noises here.) And for those of you who have been asking, no. I haven’t developed any symptoms thus far. And yes. I have stayed in my home and avoided contact with anyone else ever since we got the news. We’re having our groceries delivered by a local service company and left on the porch.
Getting back to this CDC update, you’ll note the special emphasis they put on cruises… “and especially cruises.” One would think that all of the news stories flooding the airwaves about quarantine ships around the world would already have steered people away from such plans, but I suppose it’s still worth making it official.
As you might expect, the cruise line industry is pushing back on this news. The Cruise Lines International Association released a statement saying, “singling out the travel and tourism industry, and cruise lines specifically is unreasonable and unwarranted.” From a purely capitalist perspective, I can sort of understand that type of reaction, but unless they have some sort of protocol in place to fully test everyone getting aboard the ship, that sounds needlessly risky. And I would imagine that they are actually losing money on every ship that gets tied up offshore with a quarantine on them anyway.
The cruise ship industry is particularly vulnerable when you consider that roughly a quarter of the people taking cruises are in their 60s or older. And that’s the age group that has thus far been most likely to produce fatalities when infected with the virus. Hence the CDC warning about seniors taking cruises.
But this is only one example of the broad disruptions we can expect for some time to come until the coronavirus runs its course. No matter if the mortality rate shoots up or remains where it is now, people are justifiably worried and that’s impacting nearly all aspects of the economy. Travel will be impacted (obviously) but also retail sales, aside from the basic survival stuff that people are currently stockpiling. Every business that closes down temporarily or cuts back because of the virus will result in less productivity and lost wages for workers. It’s already a global phenomenon.
Keeping an eye on the comments section here, I’m aware that a significant number of you are still writing off the coronavirus as a nothingburger that won’t affect the world any more than the flu, or perhaps even less. That may still be possible, but that’s not how the medical community is seeing it and it’s far from reaching its peak in the United States yet. For the doubters, I sincerely hope that you’re right, but I don’t think we’re nearly out of the woods yet. And even if this doesn’t turn into a mass pandemic with high mortality rates, the impact on the global (and American) economy will be felt for some time to come.