hotair--2020-05-16--Taibbi: Sullivan, Russiagate, and COVID-19 reveal Dems and progressives as "defenders of the spy sta

Taibbi: Sullivan, Russiagate, and COVID-19 reveal Dems and progressives as "defenders of the spy state" and the real authoritarians

Has the pursuit of moral triumphalism on the Left led them to abandon their moral compass altogether ?
Rolling Stone writer Matt Taibbi makes that argument on his own eponymous site in a lengthy condemnation of the abandonment of civil rights by Democrats and progressives .
From Russiagate to COVID-19 all the way into Judge Emmet Sullivan ’ s courtroom , Taibbi accuses the Left of becoming the authoritarians — perhaps even the fascists , although Taibbi doesn ’ t use that term — the Left claims to abhor .
Of course , one has to ask whether that was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ starts with the presumption that their concerns over civil liberties were valid and authentic at some point .
Taibbi ’ s essay presents this in a series of interconnected arguments that is tough to excerpt , but this gets to the heart of his cri de coeur : I can understand not caring about the plight of Michael Flynn , but cases like this have turned erstwhile liberals – people who just a decade ago were marching in the streets over the civil liberties implications of Cheney ’ s War on Terror apparatus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Politicians and pundits across the last four years have rolled their eyes at attorney-client privilege , the presumption of innocence , the right to face one ’ s accuser , the right to counsel and a host of other issues , regularly denouncing civil rights worries as red-herring excuses for Trumpism .
Democrats clearly believe constituents will forgive them for abandoning constitutional principles , so long as the targets of official inquiry are figures like Flynn or Paul Manafort or Trump himself .
In the process , they ’ ve raised a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ liberties is now genuine-to-permanent .
Blue-staters have gone from dismissing constitutional concerns as Trumpian ruse to sneering at them , in the manner of French aristocrats , as evidence of proletarian mental defect .
Nowhere has this been more evident than in the response to the Covid-19 crisis , where the almost mandatory take of pundits is that any protest of lockdown measures is troglodyte death wish .
The aftereffects of years of Russiagate/Trump coverage are seen everywhere : press outlets reflexively associate complaints of government overreach with Trump , treason , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gleeful tone when describing aggressive emergency measures and the problems some “ dumb ” Americans have had accepting them .
One small quibble : Actually , I don ’ t understand “ not caring about the plight of Michael Flynn.
” Flynn spent his life in service to his country , and got paid for it by being discarded when he attempted to warn the Obama administration about the rise of ISIS before it exploded onto the scene in western Iraq and Syria .
He retired from the military before going into the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Perhaps he should have been more picky about his client list , but Turkey was and still is nominally a US ally and a member of NATO ( whether or not that ’ s wise ) .
This prosecution looks more like a punishment for crossing the Obama administration and the political leadership at the top of the intelligence community than a rational and legal response to any legal or security threat Flynn posed .
To be fair , Taibbi wrote that as a sort of rhetorical mechanism — the protection of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s not give the attack on Flynn any credit for a moral sense in its illegitimate targeting .
And it ’ s not just Flynn , as Taibbi argues extensively , but the entire Russiagate archipelago that exposes the rottenness of the Left ’ s approach to civil rights and authoritarianism .
That also applies to the national media that has cheered it on , especially in relation to Sullivan ’ s latest rulings , demonstrating that power rather than freedom is the ultimate goal .
“ One had to search far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ analyst willing to say the obvious , ” Taibbi writes scornfully , “ i.e .
that Sullivan ’ s decision was the kind of thing one would expect from a judge in Belarus.
” Skeptics of the Left would argue , and undoubtedly will argue , that power was the idea all along , and that civil rights was a handy mask to be discarded whenever it interfered .
Taibbi leaves a curious lacuna in his civil-rights argument , one that leaves this outside of the Donald Trump context in which he frames @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demonstration of Taibbi ’ s argument than the contrasts between the treatment received by Brett Kavanaugh in comparison to Joe Biden , and Clarence Thomas in comparison to Bill Clinton ( until very recently , anyway ) for alleged incidents of sexual harassment and/or assault .
The two Republican-nominated jurists got the Salem witch trial treatment in which they were essentially asked to prove their innocence over vague and uncorroborated allegations .
The same torch-and-pitchfork crowd that provided the social panic for those pillories then insisted on due process and the benefit of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even when the evidence and corroboration were stronger for both .
In both cases , the media played right along too , offering praise and hero-worship for accusers of Thomas and Kavanaugh without any but the most cursory look into the veracity of their claims .
Monica Lewinsky , Juanita Broaddrick , and Tara Reade have , in contrast , got and are receiving the “ little bit nutty , little bit slutty ” treatment , with deep dives into their pasts and lots of speculation over their mental state .
This has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but rather simply just the destruction of one ’ s opponents .
The defense of women only mattered to these groups as long as it suited their political purposes .
The civil-rights arguments of # MeToo and “ believe all women ” got applied when it suited the Left , only to be quickly discarded when it was about to be applied to the Left , at which point they wrapped themselves in concern over due process and the presumption of innocence .
They actually don ’ t value either civil rights for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — except for the value both have in grabbing power through their exploitation .
Taibbi ’ s argument is compelling enough , and it should be read in full .
Its only real fault is that it doesn ’ t go far enough to the obvious conclusion , which is that civil rights has never been the point of progressivism .
Power is the point of progressivism , and its concern for civil rights has always been a cover for that purpose .
That is what makes progressives dangerous to the rule of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have increasingly seen play out before our eyes and about which Taibbi rightly warns .
As Democrats have morphed into the Progressive Party , that danger has only increased — and become more and more our reality .
Update : I should have included Juanita Broaddrick among the women who became very inconvenient to the Left , even after # MeToo .
I ’ ve added her name above .

Has the pursuit of moral triumphalism on the Left led them to abandon their moral compass altogether? Rolling Stone writer Matt Taibbi makes that argument on his own eponymous site in a lengthy condemnation of the abandonment of civil rights by Democrats and progressives. From Russiagate to COVID-19 all the way into Judge Emmet Sullivan’s courtroom, Taibbi accuses the Left of becoming the authoritarians — perhaps even the fascists, although Taibbi doesn’t use that term — the Left claims to abhor.
Of course, one has to ask whether that was the point all along, but Taibbi starts with the presumption that their concerns over civil liberties were valid and authentic at some point. Taibbi’s essay presents this in a series of interconnected arguments that is tough to excerpt, but this gets to the heart of his cri de coeur:
I can understand not caring about the plight of Michael Flynn, but cases like this have turned erstwhile liberals – people who just a decade ago were marching in the streets over the civil liberties implications of Cheney’s War on Terror apparatus – into defenders of the spy state. Politicians and pundits across the last four years have rolled their eyes at attorney-client privilege, the presumption of innocence, the right to face one’s accuser, the right to counsel and a host of other issues, regularly denouncing civil rights worries as red-herring excuses for Trumpism. Democrats clearly believe constituents will forgive them for abandoning constitutional principles, so long as the targets of official inquiry are figures like Flynn or Paul Manafort or Trump himself. In the process, they’ve raised a generation of followers whose contempt for civil liberties is now genuine-to-permanent. Blue-staters have gone from dismissing constitutional concerns as Trumpian ruse to sneering at them, in the manner of French aristocrats, as evidence of proletarian mental defect. Nowhere has this been more evident than in the response to the Covid-19 crisis, where the almost mandatory take of pundits is that any protest of lockdown measures is troglodyte death wish. The aftereffects of years of Russiagate/Trump coverage are seen everywhere: press outlets reflexively associate complaints of government overreach with Trump, treason, and racism, and conversely radiate a creepily gleeful tone when describing aggressive emergency measures and the problems some “dumb” Americans have had accepting them.
One small quibble: Actually, I don’t understand “not caring about the plight of Michael Flynn.” Flynn spent his life in service to his country, and got paid for it by being discarded when he attempted to warn the Obama administration about the rise of ISIS before it exploded onto the scene in western Iraq and Syria. He retired from the military before going into the private sector and then into politics. Perhaps he should have been more picky about his client list, but Turkey was and still is nominally a US ally and a member of NATO (whether or not that’s wise). This prosecution looks more like a punishment for crossing the Obama administration and the political leadership at the top of the intelligence community than a rational and legal response to any legal or security threat Flynn posed. To be fair, Taibbi wrote that as a sort of rhetorical mechanism — the protection of the law applies to everyone — but let’s not give the attack on Flynn any credit for a moral sense in its illegitimate targeting.
And it’s not just Flynn, as Taibbi argues extensively, but the entire Russiagate archipelago that exposes the rottenness of the Left’s approach to civil rights and authoritarianism. That also applies to the national media that has cheered it on, especially in relation to Sullivan’s latest rulings, demonstrating that power rather than freedom is the ultimate goal. “One had to search far and wide to find a non-conservative legal analyst willing to say the obvious,” Taibbi writes scornfully, “i.e. that Sullivan’s decision was the kind of thing one would expect from a judge in Belarus.”
Skeptics of the Left would argue, and undoubtedly will argue, that power was the idea all along, and that civil rights was a handy mask to be discarded whenever it interfered. Taibbi leaves a curious lacuna in his civil-rights argument, one that leaves this outside of the Donald Trump context in which he frames this. There perhaps is no better demonstration of Taibbi’s argument than the contrasts between the treatment received by Brett Kavanaugh in comparison to Joe Biden, and Clarence Thomas in comparison to Bill Clinton (until very recently, anyway) for alleged incidents of sexual harassment and/or assault.
The two Republican-nominated jurists got the Salem witch trial treatment in which they were essentially asked to prove their innocence over vague and uncorroborated allegations. The same torch-and-pitchfork crowd that provided the social panic for those pillories then insisted on due process and the benefit of the doubt for two popular Democrats — even when the evidence and corroboration were stronger for both. In both cases, the media played right along too, offering praise and hero-worship for accusers of Thomas and Kavanaugh without any but the most cursory look into the veracity of their claims. Monica Lewinsky, Juanita Broaddrick, and Tara Reade have, in contrast, got and are receiving the “little bit nutty, little bit slutty” treatment, with deep dives into their pasts and lots of speculation over their mental state.
This has nothing to do with overarching principles, but rather simply just the destruction of one’s opponents. The defense of women only mattered to these groups as long as it suited their political purposes. The civil-rights arguments of #MeToo and “believe all women” got applied when it suited the Left, only to be quickly discarded when it was about to be applied to the Left, at which point they wrapped themselves in concern over due process and the presumption of innocence. They actually don’t value either civil rights for women or civil rights of the accused — except for the value both have in grabbing power through their exploitation.
Taibbi’s argument is compelling enough, and it should be read in full. Its only real fault is that it doesn’t go far enough to the obvious conclusion, which is that civil rights has never been the point of progressivism. Power is the point of progressivism, and its concern for civil rights has always been a cover for that purpose. That is what makes progressives dangerous to the rule of law and due process, as we have increasingly seen play out before our eyes and about which Taibbi rightly warns. As Democrats have morphed into the Progressive Party, that danger has only increased — and become more and more our reality.
Update: I should have included Juanita Broaddrick among the women who became very inconvenient to the Left, even after #MeToo. I’ve added her name above.


hotair--2020-05-16--The NFL thinks it's ready to reopen. We shall see

It sounds as if Roger Goodell isn ’ t willing to wait around for the White House or anyone else to tell him when the National Football League is “ ready ” to get back to business .
According to the Associated Press , the league sent out a memo to all 32 teams yesterday telling them that they can begin to get back to their normal preparations for the 2020 season on Tuesday .
Of course , they ’ ve included a lot of caveats and hoops to jump through before they can begin and the reopening will only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just say that a first look at the plan leaves me feeling a bit dubious at best .
NFL teams can begin reopening their facilities on Tuesday if state and local governments will allow it .
In a memo sent to the 32 teams Friday by Commissioner Roger Goodell and obtained by The Associated Press , he stressed that the clubs must be “ in compliance with any additional public health requirements in their jurisdiction , and have implemented the protocols that were developed by ( league medical officer ) Dr. ( Allen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on May 6.
” Facilities have been closed since late March due to the coronavirus pandemic .
It ’ s not that I don ’ t want the NFL to crank things back into gear and get ready for the season , but there are obvious issues with this plan that should raise concerns .
The first ( and biggest ) issue is Goodell ’ s stipulation about “ if state and local governments will allow it.
” Different parts of the country have been impacted by the pandemic in wildly varying degrees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while others saw only a relative handful of cases .
Also , regardless of the severity , our state , county and municipal elected executives have taken significantly different approaches when deciding whether to lock their people down or let them largely go about their lives while taking sensible precautions .
The Cowboys and the Texans might be fine because Governor Abbott seems to be moving forward briskly with the Texas reopening plan .
( Well , the Mayor of Houston is another question , but you get the point . )
What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gretchen Whitmer is being sued because she didn ’ t even want people driving back and forth between their own homes .
Do you really think she ’ s going to sign off on a stadium opening up ?
Out in Maryland , Governor Hogan is trying to launch a statewide reopening this week , but the Mayor of Baltimore has already said he ’ s not going to comply .
The Ravens could be in for a long wait .
And that ’ s the problem .
While I definitely oppose a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to allow counties and cities to decide for themselves based on the best local information , the NFL isn ’ t in the same category .
Every team needs to be starting from the same footing .
If some teams are allowed to get started before others , they are automatically gaining an unfair advantage .
Granted , phase one of Goodell ’ s plan doesn ’ t really allow full practice sessions .
The coaches aren ’ t allowed to come to the facility and the only players being let in would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ require rehab .
The medical and training staff would be brought back to work for that purpose .
I suppose that wouldn ’ t give them too much of an advantage initially since the players can probably get some of the best medical care possible anywhere in the country .
But letting some teams go to “ phase one ” means they have a head start on reaching “ phase two.
” And at that point , real workouts and practice sessions will be taking place .
If every team can ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same time , then none of them should be allowed to .

It sounds as if Roger Goodell isn’t willing to wait around for the White House or anyone else to tell him when the National Football League is “ready” to get back to business. According to the Associated Press, the league sent out a memo to all 32 teams yesterday telling them that they can begin to get back to their normal preparations for the 2020 season on Tuesday. Of course, they’ve included a lot of caveats and hoops to jump through before they can begin and the reopening will only happen in phases. Let’s just say that a first look at the plan leaves me feeling a bit dubious at best.
NFL teams can begin reopening their facilities on Tuesday if state and local governments will allow it. In a memo sent to the 32 teams Friday by Commissioner Roger Goodell and obtained by The Associated Press, he stressed that the clubs must be “in compliance with any additional public health requirements in their jurisdiction, and have implemented the protocols that were developed by (league medical officer) Dr. (Allen) Sills and distributed to all clubs on May 6.” Facilities have been closed since late March due to the coronavirus pandemic.
It’s not that I don’t want the NFL to crank things back into gear and get ready for the season, but there are obvious issues with this plan that should raise concerns. The first (and biggest) issue is Goodell’s stipulation about “if state and local governments will allow it.” Different parts of the country have been impacted by the pandemic in wildly varying degrees, with some areas getting absolutely hammered while others saw only a relative handful of cases. Also, regardless of the severity, our state, county and municipal elected executives have taken significantly different approaches when deciding whether to lock their people down or let them largely go about their lives while taking sensible precautions.
The Cowboys and the Texans might be fine because Governor Abbott seems to be moving forward briskly with the Texas reopening plan. (Well, the Mayor of Houston is another question, but you get the point.) What about the Detroit Lions, however? Gretchen Whitmer is being sued because she didn’t even want people driving back and forth between their own homes. Do you really think she’s going to sign off on a stadium opening up? Out in Maryland, Governor Hogan is trying to launch a statewide reopening this week, but the Mayor of Baltimore has already said he’s not going to comply. The Ravens could be in for a long wait.
And that’s the problem. While I definitely oppose a one-size-fits-all reopening plan for states, preferring to allow counties and cities to decide for themselves based on the best local information, the NFL isn’t in the same category. Every team needs to be starting from the same footing. If some teams are allowed to get started before others, they are automatically gaining an unfair advantage.
Granted, phase one of Goodell’s plan doesn’t really allow full practice sessions. The coaches aren’t allowed to come to the facility and the only players being let in would be the ones dealing with injuries who require rehab. The medical and training staff would be brought back to work for that purpose. I suppose that wouldn’t give them too much of an advantage initially since the players can probably get some of the best medical care possible anywhere in the country. But letting some teams go to “phase one” means they have a head start on reaching “phase two.” And at that point, real workouts and practice sessions will be taking place. If every team can’t reach that level of preparation at the same time, then none of them should be allowed to.


hotair--2020-05-16--Madam Speaker, proxy voting is not remote voting

Yesterday , Ed Morrissey provided a good takedown of the preposterous $ 3 trillion dollar “ stimulus ” bill passed by Nancy Pelosi and most of her Democratic colleagues in the House .
The number of things wrong with this budget-busting boondoggle is too lengthy to fully explore here , but in the same session , they snuck in a rule change that Ed mentioned briefly but deserves a bit more attention .
That was the decision to temporarily ( we hope ) allow proxy votes to be cast on the House floor .
As Ed correctly noted , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it would only initially last for 45 days .
If this dead-on-arrival package was actually passed , it includes a provision for sixty days of vacation for Congress so there wouldn ’ t be any voting going on anyway .
But the proxy vote rule also allows for the measure to be renewed every 45 days if the members think they can get away with it .
As the NY Post reported yesterday , this was the opposite of a bipartisan move .
No Republicans supported the rule change and Pelosi couldn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to go along .
The Democratic-held House on Friday authorized proxy voting for the first time in its history , due to the coronavirus pandemic — disregarding Republican claims that the change is unconstitutional and unwise .
The reform was adopted in a near-party-line 217-189 vote , with all Republicans opposed and joined in their nay votes by three Democrats and Libertarian Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan .
Under the new rules , lawmakers can vote on behalf of up to 10 colleagues if they have written letters authorizing them to do so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there is little reason for the members to take any time off and they could make arrangements to conduct their business safely , there is one point where I disagree .
In the event that some of the members simply can ’ t make it back to Washington or are perhaps in self-quarantine after exposure to someone who tested positive for the novel coronavirus , I really see nothing wrong with allowing real-time remote voting .
We do so much these days via teleconferencing ( and were doing so even before the pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reason to think we couldn ’ t quickly get an effective system in place to allow members to vote from home or a remote office .
As long as they were able to monitor the totals and verify that their vote was correctly tallied , it shouldn ’ t be that much of an issue .
And it could be made to self-expire periodically the same way that this proxy measure was crafted .
Such a plan would certainly be preferable to the idea of literal proxy voting .
Allowing one member to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as many as eleven votes just smacks of abuse , no matter how honest and well-intentioned the member may be .
And what happens in the event that someone decides to “ bend the rules ” a bit ?
This could wind up being similar to the problems we face with faithless electors .
Once a member surrenders their vote to a colleague and that vote is cast , I ’ m not aware of any provision in the House rules to reel that back in .
Certainly , there could be punishments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such as a censure .
The members could even expel someone hijacking a proxy vote if they wished to do so .
But it would still be too late for that specific vote , wouldn ’ t it ?
The die would have already been cast , and if it was a close vote , the course of legislative history would have already been changed .
The ideal situation would be to have all of our elected representatives just show up and do their damn jobs .
As Ed Morrissey suggested , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the chambers and arrange private transportation back and forth .
( I ’ m sure some of the hotels would be grateful for the business these days . )
But failing that , I think remote voting could still be an option if it ’ s implanted carefully .

Yesterday, Ed Morrissey provided a good takedown of the preposterous $3 trillion dollar “stimulus” bill passed by Nancy Pelosi and most of her Democratic colleagues in the House. The number of things wrong with this budget-busting boondoggle is too lengthy to fully explore here, but in the same session, they snuck in a rule change that Ed mentioned briefly but deserves a bit more attention. That was the decision to temporarily (we hope) allow proxy votes to be cast on the House floor.
As Ed correctly noted, it’s a rather pointless maneuver since it would only initially last for 45 days. If this dead-on-arrival package was actually passed, it includes a provision for sixty days of vacation for Congress so there wouldn’t be any voting going on anyway. But the proxy vote rule also allows for the measure to be renewed every 45 days if the members think they can get away with it. As the NY Post reported yesterday, this was the opposite of a bipartisan move. No Republicans supported the rule change and Pelosi couldn’t even get all of the Democrats to go along.
The Democratic-held House on Friday authorized proxy voting for the first time in its history, due to the coronavirus pandemic — disregarding Republican claims that the change is unconstitutional and unwise. The reform was adopted in a near-party-line 217-189 vote, with all Republicans opposed and joined in their nay votes by three Democrats and Libertarian Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan. Under the new rules, lawmakers can vote on behalf of up to 10 colleagues if they have written letters authorizing them to do so.
While I agree with Ed that there is little reason for the members to take any time off and they could make arrangements to conduct their business safely, there is one point where I disagree. In the event that some of the members simply can’t make it back to Washington or are perhaps in self-quarantine after exposure to someone who tested positive for the novel coronavirus, I really see nothing wrong with allowing real-time remote voting.
We do so much these days via teleconferencing (and were doing so even before the pandemic hit), there’s little reason to think we couldn’t quickly get an effective system in place to allow members to vote from home or a remote office. As long as they were able to monitor the totals and verify that their vote was correctly tallied, it shouldn’t be that much of an issue. And it could be made to self-expire periodically the same way that this proxy measure was crafted.
Such a plan would certainly be preferable to the idea of literal proxy voting. Allowing one member to step up to the lectern and cast as many as eleven votes just smacks of abuse, no matter how honest and well-intentioned the member may be. And what happens in the event that someone decides to “bend the rules” a bit? This could wind up being similar to the problems we face with faithless electors. Once a member surrenders their vote to a colleague and that vote is cast, I’m not aware of any provision in the House rules to reel that back in.
Certainly, there could be punishments for such violations put in place, such as a censure. The members could even expel someone hijacking a proxy vote if they wished to do so. But it would still be too late for that specific vote, wouldn’t it? The die would have already been cast, and if it was a close vote, the course of legislative history would have already been changed.
The ideal situation would be to have all of our elected representatives just show up and do their damn jobs. As Ed Morrissey suggested, they could all move into a hotel near the chambers and arrange private transportation back and forth. (I’m sure some of the hotels would be grateful for the business these days.) But failing that, I think remote voting could still be an option if it’s implanted carefully.


hotair--2020-05-18--Navarro: Let's face it, the CDC "really let the country down" in the COVID-19 crisis

Curious , but not just for the statement but also the reaction to it — and why the question got asked in the first place .
Chuck Todd accurately introduced Peter Navarro on yesterday ’ s Meet the Press as “ the director of trade and manufacturing policy inside the White House , ” mainly focused on China .
That topic certainly has lots of potential on a Sunday morning talk show , especially with new efforts to roll back supply chains from China to the US .
Instead , Todd focuses on COVID-19 , which definitely has some connection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he also asks Navarro about the CDC and Donald Trump ’ s confidence in it , which isn ’ t at all part of Navarro ’ s portfolio .
In fact , Navarro at first tells Todd that “ you should ask the president that question , not me , ” but then proceeded to answer it anyway : CHUCK TODD : I want to ask you quickly about the CDC and ask you whether the president has confidence in the CDC .
It does seem as if the initial guidelines , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They put down very limited guidelines with more detailed ones coming later .
CDC hasn ’ t been able to give a briefing now in over a month .
Does the president have confidence in the CDC as our lead , as our lead on this pandemic ?
PETER NAVARRO : Well , I ’ d say two things about that .
First of all , you should ask the president that question , not me .
But early on in this crisis , the CDC which really had the most trusted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , really let the country down with the testing .
Because not only did they keep the testing within the bureaucracy , they had a bad test .
And that did set us back .
But going forward with these guidelines , the important thing to understand here for the American people is this , opening up this economy is not a question of lives versus jobs .
The fact of the matter is and what President Trump realized early on is that if you lock people down , you may save lives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But you indirectly , you ’ re going to kill a lot more people .
And why do I say that ?
We know statistically based on our experience with the China trade shock in the 2000s that unemployment creates more suicides , depression and drug abuse .
But we also know this in this crisis , as we ’ ve basically locked down our hospitals for everything but COVID , women haven ’ t been getting mammograms or cervical examinations for cancer .
We haven ’ t been able to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kidneys .
And that ’ s going to kill people as well .
So if you contrast like this complete lock down where some of the people in the medical community want to just run and hide until the virus is extinguished , that ’ s going to not only take a huge toll on the American economy it ’ s going to kill many more people than the virus , the “ China Virus ” ever would .
The Washington Post reported this as evidence that tensions are rising between the CDC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be true .
However , Congress has also been looking hard at the CDC , and the Post never quite gets around to acknowledging that Navarro ’ s statement about blowing the testing was accurate : Early on , the F.D.A.
, which oversees laboratory tests , sent Dr. Timothy Stenzel , chief of in vitro diagnostics and radiological health , to the C.D.C .
labs to assess the problem , several officials said .
He found an astonishing lack of expertise in commercial manufacturing and learned that nobody was in charge of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Problems ranged from researchers entering and exiting the coronavirus laboratories without changing their coats , to test ingredients being assembled in the same room where researchers were working on positive coronavirus samples , officials said .
Those practices made the tests sent to public health labs unusable because they were contaminated with the coronavirus , and produced some inconclusive results .
This is not new information either .
News of the contamination goes back more than two months , before the US had to go into lockdown without the kind of testing capacity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Even at that point , as Axios reported in early Marc , the contamination was only one of a number of ways in which the CDC had appeared to fumble the COVID-19 response : The big question : It was not immediately clear if or how possible contamination in the Atlanta lab played a role in delays or problems with testing .
Nor was it clear how significant or systemic the contamination concerns may be ; whether it was a one-time issue that ’ s easily resolved , or a broader concern involving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the scenes : The FDA official who visited the Atlanta lab , Timothy Stenzel , is the director of the Office of In Vitro Diagnostics and Radiological Health .
• About a week ago , when the Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar was under extreme pressure over the delays in getting coronavirus testing kits to market , Stenzel traveled to Atlanta to help troubleshoot whatever technical problems might have been occurring with the tests .
• Stenzel was alarmed by the procedures he witnessed in the Atlanta laboratory and raised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a source familiar with the situation in Atlanta .
• Stenzel is a highly-regarded scientist and diagnostics expert .
He was on the ground in Atlanta to deal with technical issues and happened to stumble upon the inappropriate procedures and possible contaminants .
He is not a laboratory inspector and thus was not charged with producing an inspection report on the lab conditions .
• But he raised the concerns and they have been taken seriously and risen to the highest levels of the U.S. government .
At that time , the White @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CDC ’ s actions and procedures , as Axios also reported .
The contamination turned out to be from the virus itself , and the delay in working with the private sector lost several weeks — at least — in development of effective testing .
None of this is news , nor is the White House ’ s unhappiness with the CDC response .
Even so , CNN still called this “ remarkable , ” but at least noted that Navarro ’ s statement was essentially correct .
In fact , Navarro didn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that CNN and other media outlets hadn ’ t already reported — and blamed on the Trump administration — before : The only thing extraordinary is Navarro ’ s opining on issues outside of his own portfolio .
He should have stuck to his first impulse and told Todd to ask Trump himself — or better yet , HHS Secretary Alex Azar , to whom the CDC reports .
Face the Nation actually asked the right person … and got the company line .
“ What problem did the CDC have ?
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up Navarro ’ s comments .
Er … .

Curious, but not just for the statement but also the reaction to it — and why the question got asked in the first place. Chuck Todd accurately introduced Peter Navarro on yesterday’s Meet the Press as “the director of trade and manufacturing policy inside the White House,” mainly focused on China. That topic certainly has lots of potential on a Sunday morning talk show, especially with new efforts to roll back supply chains from China to the US.
Instead, Todd focuses on COVID-19, which definitely has some connection to trade and manufacturing. However, he also asks Navarro about the CDC and Donald Trump’s confidence in it, which isn’t at all part of Navarro’s portfolio. In fact, Navarro at first tells Todd that “you should ask the president that question, not me,”but then proceeded to answer it anyway:
CHUCK TODD: I want to ask you quickly about the CDC and ask you whether the president has confidence in the CDC. It does seem as if the initial guidelines, they didn’t want them put out. They put down very limited guidelines with more detailed ones coming later. CDC hasn’t been able to give a briefing now in over a month. Does the president have confidence in the CDC as our lead, as our lead on this pandemic? PETER NAVARRO: Well, I’d say two things about that. First of all, you should ask the president that question, not me. But early on in this crisis, the CDC which really had the most trusted brand around the world in this space, really let the country down with the testing. Because not only did they keep the testing within the bureaucracy, they had a bad test. And that did set us back. But going forward with these guidelines, the important thing to understand here for the American people is this, opening up this economy is not a question of lives versus jobs. The fact of the matter is and what President Trump realized early on is that if you lock people down, you may save lives directly from the “China Virus”. But you indirectly, you’re going to kill a lot more people. And why do I say that? We know statistically based on our experience with the China trade shock in the 2000s that unemployment creates more suicides, depression and drug abuse. But we also know this in this crisis, as we’ve basically locked down our hospitals for everything but COVID, women haven’t been getting mammograms or cervical examinations for cancer. We haven’t been able to do other procedures for the heart or the kidneys. And that’s going to kill people as well. So if you contrast like this complete lock down where some of the people in the medical community want to just run and hide until the virus is extinguished, that’s going to not only take a huge toll on the American economy it’s going to kill many more people than the virus, the “China Virus” ever would.
The Washington Post reported this as evidence that tensions are rising between the CDC and the White House, which may be true. However, Congress has also been looking hard at the CDC, and the Post never quite gets around to acknowledging that Navarro’s statement about blowing the testing was accurate:
Early on, the F.D.A., which oversees laboratory tests, sent Dr. Timothy Stenzel, chief of in vitro diagnostics and radiological health, to the C.D.C. labs to assess the problem, several officials said. He found an astonishing lack of expertise in commercial manufacturing and learned that nobody was in charge of the entire process, they said. Problems ranged from researchers entering and exiting the coronavirus laboratories without changing their coats, to test ingredients being assembled in the same room where researchers were working on positive coronavirus samples, officials said. Those practices made the tests sent to public health labs unusable because they were contaminated with the coronavirus, and produced some inconclusive results.
This is not new information either. News of the contamination goes back more than two months, before the US had to go into lockdown without the kind of testing capacity to get us out of it. Even at that point, as Axios reported in early Marc, the contamination was only one of a number of ways in which the CDC had appeared to fumble the COVID-19 response:
The big question: It was not immediately clear if or how possible contamination in the Atlanta lab played a role in delays or problems with testing. Nor was it clear how significant or systemic the contamination concerns may be; whether it was a one-time issue that’s easily resolved, or a broader concern involving protocols, safeguards or leadership. Behind the scenes: The FDA official who visited the Atlanta lab, Timothy Stenzel, is the director of the Office of In Vitro Diagnostics and Radiological Health. About a week ago, when the Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar was under extreme pressure over the delays in getting coronavirus testing kits to market, Stenzel traveled to Atlanta to help troubleshoot whatever technical problems might have been occurring with the tests.
Stenzel was alarmed by the procedures he witnessed in the Atlanta laboratory and raised concerns with multiple CDC officials, per a source familiar with the situation in Atlanta.
Stenzel is a highly-regarded scientist and diagnostics expert. He was on the ground in Atlanta to deal with technical issues and happened to stumble upon the inappropriate procedures and possible contaminants. He is not a laboratory inspector and thus was not charged with producing an inspection report on the lab conditions.
But he raised the concerns and they have been taken seriously and risen to the highest levels of the U.S. government.
At that time, the White House ordered a complete review of the CDC’s actions and procedures, as Axios also reported. The contamination turned out to be from the virus itself, and the delay in working with the private sector lost several weeks — at least — in development of effective testing. None of this is news, nor is the White House’s unhappiness with the CDC response.
Even so, CNN still called this “remarkable,” but at least noted that Navarro’s statement was essentially correct. In fact, Navarro didn’t say anything in this clip that CNN and other media outlets hadn’t already reported — and blamed on the Trump administration — before:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiCFR89qn18
The only thing extraordinary is Navarro’s opining on issues outside of his own portfolio. He should have stuck to his first impulse and told Todd to ask Trump himself — or better yet, HHS Secretary Alex Azar, to whom the CDC reports. Face the Nation actually asked the right person … and got the company line. “What problem did the CDC have?” Azar asked Margaret Brennan when she brought up Navarro’s comments. Er ….


hotair--2020-05-18--Cavuto warns Fox viewers after Trump admits taking hydroxychloroquine: Don't

I like the Onion ’ s version of today ’ s presidential announcement better .
I think he ’ s telling the truth although I don ’ t fault anyone for feeling skeptical .
Trump must be aware of the risk of the potential side effects , most notably heart arrhythmia .
He ’ d naturally be reluctant to take it .
But I can imagine him claiming that he ’ s taking it if he really isn ’ t as a way of showing defiance after various studies over the last month have found no benefit from the drug @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ m wrong ?
Well , then let it be known that the president of the United States is so confident in his “ instinct ” about HCQ that he ’ s taking it himself .
But as I say , I think he ’ s telling the truth .
For one thing , despite his reputation as a germaphobe , he ’ s willing to engage in certain behaviors which he knows are bad for his health .
Even overweight and in his 70s , he reportedly continues to eat plenty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ germaphobia may weigh more heavily here than the fear of side effects : If he ’ s really worried about getting COVID-19 , it would follow that he ’ d try a possible prophylaxis .
That ’ s why the timeline he gave reporters today about when he first started taking hydroxychloroquine grabbed my attention .
He didn ’ t start doing it in April , when he began talking up its benefits in press briefings .
He says he ’ s been on it for about a week and a half , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ valet and later Mike Pence ’ s press secretary had tested positive for the virus .
Trump has had special reason within the last 10 days to take every precaution possible .
It would figure that he ’ d turn to his favorite panacea .
Question , though : Where did he get it ?
He doesn ’ t have malaria , does he ?
Nope : White House doctors just handing out drugs upon request , huh ?
Right , I know , HCQ is approved to treat malaria and various rheumatological @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prescribe it off-label .
But it ’ s a hell of a thing for the president ’ s own physicians to give him a drug that his own FDA has warned about .
Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine can cause abnormal heart rhythms such as QT interval prolongation and a dangerously rapid heart rate called ventricular tachycardia .
These risks may increase when these medicines are combined with other medicines known to prolong the QT interval , including the antibiotic azithromycin , which is also being used in some COVID-19 patients without FDA approval for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other health issues such as heart and kidney disease are likely to be at increased risk of these heart problems when receiving these medicines .
To decrease the risk of these heart problems that can be life-threatening , we are warning the public that hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine , either alone or combined with azithromycin , when used for COVID-19 should be limited to clinical trial settings or for treating certain hospitalized patients under the [ emergency use authorization ] .
Josh Barro makes a good point too , one that ’ s apt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump had a good day today politically before he stepped on the news here .
Moderna ’ s vaccine seems promising .
More states are reopening , including Michigan under Gretchen Whitmer .
The number of deaths in the U.S. reported yesterday was the lowest in nearly two months .
Instead of talking about that , we ’ re going to have a big partisan food fight about the president taking an unproven drug and no doubt triggering another run on the domestic supply by the public , leaving people who really need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Neil Cavuto desperately trying to convince his audience not to emulate Trump by taking the drug .
I wonder whom Fox viewers will trust , him or the demigod president ?

I like the Onion’s version of today’s presidential announcement better.
‘A Dash Of Soap Bubbles, 2 Pinches Of Sunshine, And Just A Drop Of Imagination’ Says Top Hat-Wearing Trump Pouring Ingredients Into Fizzing Concoction https://t.co/3a4XuAdZPH pic.twitter.com/KJ5M8U14fE — The Onion (@TheOnion) May 18, 2020
Here’s the real thing.
“I happen to be taking it … right now, yeah” — Trump claims he’s taking hydroxychloroquine, a drug he’s touted as a potential coronavirus treatment despite a lack of evidence that can lead to potentially fatal heart problems pic.twitter.com/zxiNxlyfEs — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 18, 2020
I think he’s telling the truth although I don’t fault anyone for feeling skeptical. Trump must be aware of the risk of the potential side effects, most notably heart arrhythmia. He’d naturally be reluctant to take it. But I can imagine him claiming that he’s taking it if he really isn’t as a way of showing defiance after various studies over the last month have found no benefit from the drug in coronavirus patients. The doctors say I’m wrong? Well, then let it be known that the president of the United States is so confident in his “instinct” about HCQ that he’s taking it himself.
But as I say, I think he’s telling the truth. For one thing, despite his reputation as a germaphobe, he’s willing to engage in certain behaviors which he knows are bad for his health. Even overweight and in his 70s, he reportedly continues to eat plenty of fast food. Plus, the germaphobia may weigh more heavily here than the fear of side effects: If he’s really worried about getting COVID-19, it would follow that he’d try a possible prophylaxis. That’s why the timeline he gave reporters today about when he first started taking hydroxychloroquine grabbed my attention. He didn’t start doing it in April, when he began talking up its benefits in press briefings. He says he’s been on it for about a week and a half, which jibes with the revelations that his valet and later Mike Pence’s press secretary had tested positive for the virus. Trump has had special reason within the last 10 days to take every precaution possible. It would figure that he’d turn to his favorite panacea.
Question, though: Where did he get it? He doesn’t have malaria, does he? Nope:
Asked if the WH doctor recommended he take hydroxychloroquine, he said he asked and the doctor said, “Yeah, White House doctor…no, I asked him, ‘What do you think?’ He said, ‘Well if you’d like it.’ I said ‘Yeah I’d like it. I’d like to take it. A lot of people are taking it.'” — Daniel Dale (@ddale8) May 18, 2020
White House doctors just handing out drugs upon request, huh? Right, I know, HCQ is approved to treat malaria and various rheumatological conditions like lupus so doctors can always prescribe it off-label. But it’s a hell of a thing for the president’s own physicians to give him a drug that his own FDA has warned about.
Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine can cause abnormal heart rhythms such as QT interval prolongation and a dangerously rapid heart rate called ventricular tachycardia. These risks may increase when these medicines are combined with other medicines known to prolong the QT interval, including the antibiotic azithromycin, which is also being used in some COVID-19 patients without FDA approval for this condition. Patients who also have other health issues such as heart and kidney disease are likely to be at increased risk of these heart problems when receiving these medicines. To decrease the risk of these heart problems that can be life-threatening, we are warning the public that hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, either alone or combined with azithromycin, when used for COVID-19 should be limited to clinical trial settings or for treating certain hospitalized patients under the [emergency use authorization].
Josh Barro makes a good point too, one that’s apt to get lost in the uproar. Trump had a good day today politically before he stepped on the news here. Moderna’s vaccine seems promising. More states are reopening, including Michigan under Gretchen Whitmer. The number of deaths in the U.S. reported yesterday was the lowest in nearly two months. Instead of talking about that, we’re going to have a big partisan food fight about the president taking an unproven drug and no doubt triggering another run on the domestic supply by the public, leaving people who really need it to do without.
Here’s Neil Cavuto desperately trying to convince his audience not to emulate Trump by taking the drug. I wonder whom Fox viewers will trust, him or the demigod president?


hotair--2020-05-18--The Associated Press wants to get rid of the word "mistress"

The Associated Press recently released the latest updates to their style guide , the go-to reference that ’ s intended to teach all of us about the preferred language we ’ re supposed to use when writing professionally .
These updates have become increasingly problematic in recent years because rather than focusing on the correct technical twists and turns of the English language and adopting new words as they enter our language , the Powers that Be in control of the style guide have developed an increasingly liberal slant in their work .
Political correctness is too often given precedence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( The use of the “ singular they ” to avoid offending transgender people is a prime example . )
Sure enough , there are more examples of this trend in the latest update .
John Hirschauer at National Review picks a few of them apart , including the announcement that we ’ re no longer supposed to say “ mistress ” when referring to a woman engaged in a sexual relationship with another woman ’ s husband .
And the reason they offer is straight out of the progressive playbook .
Another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of extramarital affairs .
The AP enjoins writers to avoid using the “ archaic and sexist term ‘ mistress , ’ ” preferring instead “ an alternative like companion or lover.
” Perhaps this change should not bother me – it ’ s only the AP stylebook — but it does .
The status quo apparently vexed the AP enough to impel the change in the first place .
I suspect that the AP and I are both motivated by the sense that what one calls a woman who participates in a protracted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has downstream effects in the culture .
There is , after all , a great chasm between “ mistress ” and “ companion ” in terms of what they imply about the woman engaged in the affair .
The former has lurid and scandalous connotations , while the latter might describe a beloved household pet .
It is worth examining whether “ mistress ” is a “ sexist ” and “ archaic ” term , as the AP insists .
As Hirschauer points out , if the AP felt a need to make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that might be understandable .
The word only applies to the female involved in a heterosexual extramarital affair and there isn ’ t really a male equivalent in common use today .
He suggests bringing back either “ philanderer ” or “ lecher.
” While these are both perfectly serviceable words , neither of them is truly specific enough .
Philanderers can be either male or female .
A lecher is traditionally deemed to be a male , but the meaning goes far beyond the limits of infidelity , suggesting a man with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We could consider adulterer as an alternative but , again , that word is traditionally assigned to both male and female cheaters , while “ adultress ” is reserved just for the ladies .
Perhaps we ’ re seeing a pattern here .
But that ’ s not the reason the AP is giving for wanting to strike “ mistress ” from the common parlance .
They ’ re complaining that the word is “ archaic and sexist.
” By going on to preposterously suggest we say “ companion ” instead , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cheating on your spouse shouldn ’ t be looked upon as anything shameful or inherently wrong , but rather just another “ lifestyle choice.
” I ’ m with Hirschauer on this one .
The word “ mistress ” has a negative connotation because it ’ s talking about something that the rest of society is supposed to frown upon .
I ’ m not talking about people with “ open marriages ” who freely consent to have their partner see other people romantically .
They aren ’ t being cheated on because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The basic concept of adultery involves sneaking around and trying to get away with the violation of your vows without your spouse becoming the wiser .
And that ’ s not an admirable act in any sense of any word .
There are other odd changes in the style guide pointed out at National Review .
They would like to do away with the word “ manhunt ” when describing the pursuit of a wanted suspect or criminal by law enforcement .
We ’ re told that the new word to use for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is more balderdash .
The word “ search ” is generic and could apply to anything as trivial as trying to find your keys in the morning .
“ Manhunt ” works because “ womanhunt ” would sound stupid and probably carry even more sexist connotations than the current usage .
We already know that “ manhunt ” can apply to female suspects as well .
None of these changes have anything to do with the proper use of the English language .
It ’ s all simply political correctness run amuck .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ enforce their decrees on the rest of us… at least not yet .
But I have zero intention of following these dictates .

The Associated Press recently released the latest updates to their style guide, the go-to reference that’s intended to teach all of us about the preferred language we’re supposed to use when writing professionally. These updates have become increasingly problematic in recent years because rather than focusing on the correct technical twists and turns of the English language and adopting new words as they enter our language, the Powers that Be in control of the style guide have developed an increasingly liberal slant in their work. Political correctness is too often given precedence over the proper mechanics of grammar. (The use of the “singular they” to avoid offending transgender people is a prime example.)
Sure enough, there are more examples of this trend in the latest update. John Hirschauer at National Review picks a few of them apart, including the announcement that we’re no longer supposed to say “mistress” when referring to a woman engaged in a sexual relationship with another woman’s husband. And the reason they offer is straight out of the progressive playbook.
Another change in the guidelines concerns press coverage of extramarital affairs. The AP enjoins writers to avoid using the “archaic and sexist term ‘mistress,’” preferring instead “an alternative like companion or lover.” Perhaps this change should not bother me – it’s only the AP stylebook — but it does. The status quo apparently vexed the AP enough to impel the change in the first place. I suspect that the AP and I are both motivated by the sense that what one calls a woman who participates in a protracted extramarital affair matters, and that it has downstream effects in the culture. There is, after all, a great chasm between “mistress” and “companion” in terms of what they imply about the woman engaged in the affair. The former has lurid and scandalous connotations, while the latter might describe a beloved household pet. It is worth examining whether “mistress” is a “sexist” and “archaic” term, as the AP insists.
As Hirschauer points out, if the AP felt a need to make a change because of gender issues, that might be understandable. The word only applies to the female involved in a heterosexual extramarital affair and there isn’t really a male equivalent in common use today. He suggests bringing back either “philanderer” or “lecher.” While these are both perfectly serviceable words, neither of them is truly specific enough. Philanderers can be either male or female. A lecher is traditionally deemed to be a male, but the meaning goes far beyond the limits of infidelity, suggesting a man with excessive or offensive sexual desires in general.
We could consider adulterer as an alternative but, again, that word is traditionally assigned to both male and female cheaters, while “adultress” is reserved just for the ladies. Perhaps we’re seeing a pattern here.
But that’s not the reason the AP is giving for wanting to strike “mistress” from the common parlance. They’re complaining that the word is “archaic and sexist.” By going on to preposterously suggest we say “companion” instead, they are clearly sending a signal that cheating on your spouse shouldn’t be looked upon as anything shameful or inherently wrong, but rather just another “lifestyle choice.”
I’m with Hirschauer on this one. The word “mistress” has a negative connotation because it’s talking about something that the rest of society is supposed to frown upon. I’m not talking about people with “open marriages” who freely consent to have their partner see other people romantically. They aren’t being cheated on because they’re not being deceived. The basic concept of adultery involves sneaking around and trying to get away with the violation of your vows without your spouse becoming the wiser. And that’s not an admirable act in any sense of any word.
There are other odd changes in the style guide pointed out at National Review. They would like to do away with the word “manhunt” when describing the pursuit of a wanted suspect or criminal by law enforcement. We’re told that the new word to use for this should be “search.” This is more balderdash. The word “search” is generic and could apply to anything as trivial as trying to find your keys in the morning. “Manhunt” works because “womanhunt” would sound stupid and probably carry even more sexist connotations than the current usage. We already know that “manhunt” can apply to female suspects as well.
None of these changes have anything to do with the proper use of the English language. It’s all simply political correctness run amuck. Fortunately, the AP can’t enforce their decrees on the rest of us… at least not yet. But I have zero intention of following these dictates.


hotair--2020-05-18--Eric Trump: Dems have a very deliberate strategy to use social distancing rules to prevent Trump fro

Eric Trump: Dems have a very deliberate strategy to use social distancing rules to prevent Trump from holding rallies

I think part of what he said here is being misunderstood .
Check that : I hope part of what he said here is being misunderstood .
Specifically , when he says , “ After November 3 , coronavirus will magically all of a sudden go away and disappear and everybody will be able to reopen , ” he doesn ’ t mean it ’ ll literally go away .
In context it seems to me that he means much/most of the Democrats ’ alleged fear of the virus will go away .
He ’ s accusing them of overstating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a pretext for … uh , stopping Trump from holding rallies ?
Usually the conspiracy theory to explain blue states ’ fondness for shutdowns is that they ’ re trying to tank the economic recovery in hopes that Trump will be punished for it at the polls .
This is the first time I ’ ve heard it suggested that the prospect of 15,000 Trumpers gathering in an arena is so daunting to Democratic governors that they ’ d risk billions of dollars of economic damage to their home states to stop it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ theory that ’ s ever been advanced on “ Judge Jeanine , ” though .
I think Trump ’ s making both points .
They want to hurt the economy and they also want to prevent MAGA gatherings .
A few points in response : 1 .
In reality , there aren ’ t many swing states that are still shut down .
Was the president planning to hold rallies in California or Illinois this summer for some reason ?
That map is actually outdated .
Gretchen Whitmer announced this morning that Michigan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of the lower peninsula will begin reopening on Friday , including bars and restaurants subject to rules about limited capacity .
Wisconsin and North Carolina , two prime battlegrounds this fall , are reopening and each is governed by a Democrat .
It ’ s weird that the great economy-tanking conspiracy has so many Team Blue holdouts .
2 .
Even if every state reopens basic retail and restaurants within the next month or two , the mechanics of airborne transmission mean it will remain Not A Good Idea for thousands of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enclosed space to cheer on the president .
Eric Trump ’ s theory that Democrats will abandon social distancing the day after the election suggests that he thinks social distancing is a ruse of some sort rather than a common-sense way to keep uninfected people from breathing the same air as people carrying a deadly infectious disease .
I mean , if the president were granted carte blanche to hold whatever gathering he likes , would he want thousands of his fans putting each other at risk just to see him rant for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ answer that . )
Pro sports leagues are making plans to play in empty stadiums , never mind that it ’ ll cost them tens of millions of dollars in lost revenue to do so , because public health comes first .
The least Trump can do is follow their lead .
3 .
As much as the president may miss his rallies , he does have the small advantage of being the most famous person in the world , entitled to speak to a national audience of millions any time he wants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s Biden , not Trump , who ’ s at a disadvantage from the rules against large gatherings because he can ’ t create a sense of similar stature doing interviews from his basement .
4 .
No one enjoys lockdowns or social distancing but Americans are more than willing to endure another round of them if a second wave of the disease requires it according to Morning Consult .
I think a second wave would have to get gnarly for people to tolerate new stay-at-home orders after finally emerging from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ majority are open to it .
Note how many are open to renewed “ social distancing measures ” too .
Whatever Eric Trump thinks of the rules against large gatherings — hoax , ruse , unfair burden , etc , instead of very basic hygiene precaution — he ’ s in a small minority of people who don ’ t see the value in them .
I don ’ t think he meant anything he said in the clip , frankly .
It ’ s just part of Team Trump ’ s regular @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Any negative development that hurts you or your allies is the fault of some enemy actor , and if the president loses in November it must be the product of cheating or unfairness .

I think part of what he said here is being misunderstood. Check that: I hope part of what he said here is being misunderstood.
Specifically, when he says, “After November 3, coronavirus will magically all of a sudden go away and disappear and everybody will be able to reopen,” he doesn’t mean it’ll literally go away. In context it seems to me that he means much/most of the Democrats’ alleged fear of the virus will go away. He’s accusing them of overstating their anxiety about the disease to create a pretext for … uh, stopping Trump from holding rallies?
Usually the conspiracy theory to explain blue states’ fondness for shutdowns is that they’re trying to tank the economic recovery in hopes that Trump will be punished for it at the polls. This is the first time I’ve heard it suggested that the prospect of 15,000 Trumpers gathering in an arena is so daunting to Democratic governors that they’d risk billions of dollars of economic damage to their home states to stop it from happening.
Probably not the craziest theory that’s ever been advanced on “Judge Jeanine,” though.
"Biden loves this," @EricTrump says, talking about agonizing shutdowns during the pandemic… "They'll milk it every single day between now and Nov. 3, and guess what, after Nov. 3, coronavirus will magically all of a sudden go away and disappear… " pic.twitter.com/WS0CPQMtsj — Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) May 17, 2020
I think Trump’s making both points. They want to hurt the economy and they also want to prevent MAGA gatherings. A few points in response:
1. In reality, there aren’t many swing states that are still shut down. Was the president planning to hold rallies in California or Illinois this summer for some reason?
That map is actually outdated. Gretchen Whitmer announced this morning that Michigan’s upper peninsula and the northern part of the lower peninsula will begin reopening on Friday, including bars and restaurants subject to rules about limited capacity. Wisconsin and North Carolina, two prime battlegrounds this fall, are reopening and each is governed by a Democrat. It’s weird that the great economy-tanking conspiracy has so many Team Blue holdouts.
2. Even if every state reopens basic retail and restaurants within the next month or two, the mechanics of airborne transmission mean it will remain Not A Good Idea for thousands of Trump fans to crowd together in an enclosed space to cheer on the president. Eric Trump’s theory that Democrats will abandon social distancing the day after the election suggests that he thinks social distancing is a ruse of some sort rather than a common-sense way to keep uninfected people from breathing the same air as people carrying a deadly infectious disease.
I mean, if the president were granted carte blanche to hold whatever gathering he likes, would he want thousands of his fans putting each other at risk just to see him rant for an hour? (Don’t answer that.) Pro sports leagues are making plans to play in empty stadiums, never mind that it’ll cost them tens of millions of dollars in lost revenue to do so, because public health comes first. The least Trump can do is follow their lead.
3. As much as the president may miss his rallies, he does have the small advantage of being the most famous person in the world, entitled to speak to a national audience of millions any time he wants on television or his Twitter account. It’s Biden, not Trump, who’s at a disadvantage from the rules against large gatherings because he can’t create a sense of similar stature doing interviews from his basement.
4. No one enjoys lockdowns or social distancing but Americans are more than willing to endure another round of them if a second wave of the disease requires it according to Morning Consult.
I think a second wave would have to get gnarly for people to tolerate new stay-at-home orders after finally emerging from the first lockdown, but the vast majority are open to it. Note how many are open to renewed “social distancing measures” too. Whatever Eric Trump thinks of the rules against large gatherings — hoax, ruse, unfair burden, etc, instead of very basic hygiene precaution — he’s in a small minority of people who don’t see the value in them.
I don’t think he meant anything he said in the clip, frankly. It’s just part of Team Trump’s regular messaging to the president’s fans: Any negative development that hurts you or your allies is the fault of some enemy actor, and if the president loses in November it must be the product of cheating or unfairness.


hotair--2020-05-18--Azar: "Reopen we must" -- for the sake of US public health

It ’ s not quite “ forget the economy , ” which will never be a slogan in this White House , but look beyond it , Alex Azar argued on yesterday ’ s State of the Union .
The economic issues themselves have profound public health impacts , Azar tells CNN ’ s Jake Tapper , which means we are actually balancing between two competing public-health strategies .
Do we continue to crash the economy for a virus without any end in sight when the economic crash might well turn out to do more damage than COVID-19 ?
At @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Furthermore , Azar continues , this is less of a national policy question than it is a local choice : TAPPER : Let me ask you .
Forty-eight states will have eased restrictions in some form or another by tomorrow .
It ’ s unclear how many of these states have actually met the White House task force guidelines to begin phase one .
But I want you to take a look at some of the images we ’ re seeing around the country , a crowded bar in Wisconsin , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bar in Ohio .
Does it concern you , as health secretary , to see these images ?
Is the U.S. reopening in a way that won ’ t bring back a spike in new cases and deaths in a few weeks ?
ALEX AZAR , U.S. HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES SECRETARY : Well , Jake , thanks to the president ’ s historic response efforts here and the collaborative work of governors and our heroic health care workers on the front lines , we are in a position to be able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it up to states to know their local situation the best .
And so it ’ s very hard to judge in any community whether a bar being open , a restaurant , a school is the right thing .
That ’ s why the local leaders lead this , the states supervise it , and the federal government provides expertise and support from our level .
It depends so much on what the disease burden is .
In almost half of our reporting counties , we have had not a single death @ @ @ @ @ @ @ come in just 2 percent of the reporting counties in the United States .
So , these are very localized determinations .
There should not be one- size-fits-all approaches to reopening .
But reopen we must , because it ’ s not health vs. the economy .
It ’ s actually health vs. health .
There are serious health consequences to keeping us shut down , whether it ’ s the suicidality rates , or if it is cardiac procedures not being received , cancer screenings , pediatric vaccinations declining .
All of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of reopening the economy .
Azar ’ s correct to frame the argument this way , and we already have data on that in place .
If you haven ’ t read my earlier post on the shutdown ’ s impacts on hospitals , be sure to read it now .
One stated goal of the shutdown was to conserve health-care resources in order to focus them on the COVID-19 response , especially personal protective equipment ( PPE ) that was in short supply .
The practical impact of that was not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ care and treatment , but also to rob hospitals of the economic resources that keep them in operation .
If this continues for much longer hospitals will shut their doors — and what will that do to public health ?
Tapper ’ s concern over irresponsible behavior is certainly a germane point , but this too could be seen as an unplanned artifact of delayed reopening .
Americans initially cooperated with the shelter-in-place orders because they had a specific goal in mind — delaying the inevitable transmission of the virus until health-care resources @ @ @ @ @ @ @ restrictions got extended , those goalposts got moved to “ until the virus goes away , ” and many Americans felt as though they ’ d been taken in by a bait-and-switch .
It ’ s no small wonder that some of them have decided to stop abiding by the restrictions as a result .
The slower that states roll out a rational return to normality , the more we will see “ irresponsible ” actions by people who are simply not going to sit in isolation for an indeterminate amount of time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ reopening ” but a refusal to reopen promptly .
Shutdowns are unsustainable , and attempts to keep extending them will result in growing rebellions to them .
That also isn ’ t good for public health , in part because it will increase transmission of the disease , but also because widespread low morale and resentment toward authority will create all sorts of other unhealthy behaviors as well .
Tapper ’ s example here isn ’ t a symptom of a too-early reopening — it ’ s a symptom of a too-long-delayed @ @

It’s not quite “forget the economy,” which will never be a slogan in this White House, but look beyond it, Alex Azar argued on yesterday’s State of the Union. The economic issues themselves have profound public health impacts, Azar tells CNN’s Jake Tapper, which means we are actually balancing between two competing public-health strategies. Do we continue to crash the economy for a virus without any end in sight when the economic crash might well turn out to do more damage than COVID-19? At what point do we cross that threshold?
Furthermore, Azar continues, this is less of a national policy question than it is a local choice:
TAPPER: Let me ask you. Forty-eight states will have eased restrictions in some form or another by tomorrow. It’s unclear how many of these states have actually met the White House task force guidelines to begin phase one. But I want you to take a look at some of the images we’re seeing around the country, a crowded bar in Wisconsin, a boardwalk in New Jersey, another crowded bar in Ohio. Does it concern you, as health secretary, to see these images? Is the U.S. reopening in a way that won’t bring back a spike in new cases and deaths in a few weeks? ALEX AZAR, U.S. HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES SECRETARY: Well, Jake, thanks to the president’s historic response efforts here and the collaborative work of governors and our heroic health care workers on the front lines, we are in a position to be able to reopen now. The president has left it up to states to know their local situation the best. And so it’s very hard to judge in any community whether a bar being open, a restaurant, a school is the right thing. That’s why the local leaders lead this, the states supervise it, and the federal government provides expertise and support from our level. It depends so much on what the disease burden is. In almost half of our reporting counties, we have had not a single death. Sixty-two percent of our COVID cases come in just 2 percent of the reporting counties in the United States. So, these are very localized determinations. There should not be one- size-fits-all approaches to reopening. But reopen we must, because it’s not health vs. the economy. It’s actually health vs. health. There are serious health consequences to keeping us shut down, whether it’s the suicidality rates, or if it is cardiac procedures not being received, cancer screenings, pediatric vaccinations declining. All of these are critical health needs that are part of reopening the economy.
Azar’s correct to frame the argument this way, and we already have data on that in place. If you haven’t read my earlier post on the shutdown’s impacts on hospitals, be sure to read it now. One stated goal of the shutdown was to conserve health-care resources in order to focus them on the COVID-19 response, especially personal protective equipment (PPE) that was in short supply. The practical impact of that was not just to deny all sorts of routine care and treatment, but also to rob hospitals of the economic resources that keep them in operation. If this continues for much longer hospitals will shut their doors — and what will that do to public health?
Tapper’s concern over irresponsible behavior is certainly a germane point, but this too could be seen as an unplanned artifact of delayed reopening. Americans initially cooperated with the shelter-in-place orders because they had a specific goal in mind — delaying the inevitable transmission of the virus until health-care resources got put in place. As those restrictions got extended, those goalposts got moved to “until the virus goes away,” and many Americans felt as though they’d been taken in by a bait-and-switch. It’s no small wonder that some of them have decided to stop abiding by the restrictions as a result. The slower that states roll out a rational return to normality, the more we will see “irresponsible” actions by people who are simply not going to sit in isolation for an indeterminate amount of time.
That issue isn’t with “reopening” but a refusal to reopen promptly. Shutdowns are unsustainable, and attempts to keep extending them will result in growing rebellions to them. That also isn’t good for public health, in part because it will increase transmission of the disease, but also because widespread low morale and resentment toward authority will create all sorts of other unhealthy behaviors as well. Tapper’s example here isn’t a symptom of a too-early reopening — it’s a symptom of a too-long-delayed reopening.


hotair--2020-05-18--Interview: Nick Pope on government secrecy and UFOs

This past weekend I was honored to be granted an interview by Nick Pope .
For those not familiar , Nick is the man who ran the British Government ’ s UFO investigative program back in the early nineties .
He ’ s commonly referred to as “ the Real Fox Mulder.
” He ’ s the author of multiple books about his experiences , many aspects of the UFO phenomenon , and also some works of science fiction .
In particular , his book Open Skies , Closed Minds is a must-read for those interested in the topic of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ ll warn you in advance that we were both dealing with some shutdown-related connectivity issues leading to a couple of glitches in Nick ’ s audio and the failure of my camera to record video of my part of the conversation .
( Sadly , you will be denied the thrill of watching me sit in my home office while talking to him . )
But Nick ’ s camera functioned perfectly and the vast majority of the audio was fine so I didn ’ t want to abandon the interview @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between how the governments of Great Britain and the United States handle transparency when it comes to UFOs .
We also dig into some of the most recent news that ’ s come out on this subject and what it may portend going forward .
I even sneak in a question about Nick ’ s own experiences when it comes to unknown objects in our skies .
Has this expert in the field of ufology ever seen a UFO himself ?
You can keep up with all of his comings and goings on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s been co-hosting The Basement Office with Steven Greenstreet at the New York Post .
You ’ ll also frequently see him on multiple shows where this topic is discussed , including Ancient Aliens .
But enough with the introductions , already .
On with the interview .
Enjoy .
I know I certainly did .

This past weekend I was honored to be granted an interview by Nick Pope. For those not familiar, Nick is the man who ran the British Government’s UFO investigative program back in the early nineties. He’s commonly referred to as “the Real Fox Mulder.” He’s the author of multiple books about his experiences, many aspects of the UFO phenomenon, and also some works of science fiction. In particular, his book Open Skies, Closed Minds is a must-read for those interested in the topic of government secrecy and the UFO phenomenon.
I’ll warn you in advance that we were both dealing with some shutdown-related connectivity issues leading to a couple of glitches in Nick’s audio and the failure of my camera to record video of my part of the conversation. (Sadly, you will be denied the thrill of watching me sit in my home office while talking to him.) But Nick’s camera functioned perfectly and the vast majority of the audio was fine so I didn’t want to abandon the interview entirely.
We talk about the differences between how the governments of Great Britain and the United States handle transparency when it comes to UFOs. We also dig into some of the most recent news that’s come out on this subject and what it may portend going forward. I even sneak in a question about Nick’s own experiences when it comes to unknown objects in our skies. Has this expert in the field of ufology ever seen a UFO himself?
You can keep up with all of his comings and goings on his website. Most recently, he’s been co-hosting The Basement Office with Steven Greenstreet at the New York Post. You’ll also frequently see him on multiple shows where this topic is discussed, including Ancient Aliens. But enough with the introductions, already. On with the interview. Enjoy. I know I certainly did.


hotair--2020-05-18--Texas enters Phase Two in re-opening, reported cases of COVID-19 rise

Today is the day that Texas is easing into Phase Two of the state ’ s plan to reopen .
While businesses are working to reopen safely and follow the guidelines put into place by Governor Abbott and a group of experts known as the Strike Force to Open Texas , the media focuses on a rise in coronavirus cases being reported .
As of Monday , May 18 the big news is that gyms , nonessential manufacturing , and work offices may reopen but must follow social distancing precautions , and capacity is limited to 25 % .
Keeping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ personal protection equipment by the public is the top priority .
When it comes to gyms , the governor said all equipment must be cleaned after each use , and people must wear gloves while working out .
Some local gyms are advising employees to wear face masks and are encouraging members to do the same .
Abbott said that people must stay 6 feet apart while inside gyms .
Locker rooms and showers must remain closed .
Governor Abbott has taken a slow and deliberate approach to reopen the state .
Not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the coronavirus pandemic and the nation ’ s economic collapse but the oil and gas industry has hit unprecedented lows , too .
The Texas economy is a driving force in the strength of the nation ’ s economy , the second-largest in the United States .
Reopening Texas will be good for the national economic recovery .
The reopening has focused on personal services , the food and beverage industry , and a slow return to church services and weddings and funerals .
Hair salons , barbershops , tanning salons , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on May 8 .
Retail stores , restaurants , malls , and movie theaters were allowed to reopen as part of the first phase on May 1 .
Weddings and funeral services were allowed to resume by following the same rules laid out for church services .
Banquet facilities are required to follow the same requirements as restaurants , including keeping tables 6 feet apart and limiting occupancy to 25 % .
Counties throughout the state that had less than five cases of COVID-19 on or after April 30 , as verified by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , were allowed to increase occupancy to up to 50 % for the places listed above if they met certain criteria .
And , some businesses are choosing to remain closed because the restrictions brought about by social distancing rules make reopening financially impractical or detrimental to the customer .
Some examples include public pools , museums , and zoos .
Operating at a 25 % capacity doesn ’ t allow some businesses to make enough money to justify reopening .
Not yet open in Texas are bowling alleys and video arcades , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tattoo and piercing studios .
Governor Abbott is expected to address these businesses during a press conference Monday afternoon .
YMCA summer camps and other camps for kids are looking at options in reopening .
The governor may address them , too .
As Texas continues to reopen , an increase in testing has also continued .
Not surprisingly , the number of coronavirus cases being reported has risen .
This doesn ’ t mean the reopening of the state – still at 25 % capacity in most cases – has failed or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It simply means that more testing means more positive results are being reported .
The increase in numbers is a result of an increase in a testing capacity .
New single-day highs were reported last week but hospital systems are still not overwhelmed .
Texas is the most populous state to begin reopening so far so it is logical that other states are keeping an eye on what happens .
Texas has not been as severely affected by the coronavirus pandemic as some other states have been .
It could take until next @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number of new cases in Texas .
It can also take 10 days for hospitalization numbers to catch up with infection figures , and three-to-four weeks for data on deaths to do so , according to Lauren Ancel Meyers , director of the University of Texas at Austin Covid-19 modeling consortium .
She said tracking data show movement to places such as grocery stores has increased in recent weeks , though it is difficult to predict how much people are taking steps such as distancing and wearing face coverings .
“ Right now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extent to which people are going out and taking those kinds of precautions , ” Meyers said .
More than 700 new cases of the coronavirus were reported in the Amarillo region on Saturday .
This is because results in targeted testing at meatpacking plants came in .
This wasn ’ t a new outbreak due to reopening – the beginning of the outbreak in that area had already been detected and Governor Abbott deployed a surge response team to mitigate the spread in the Amarillo region on May 4 .
Amarillo is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that has a workforce of Hispanics and immigrants who are employed in the meatpacking plants .
The highest rate of infection in Texas is found there .
Meatpacking plants in Texas are scrambling to perform deep cleanings and provide protection for workers , the same as plants in other states .
More doors are opening today in Texas but the precautions against the pandemic remain in place .
Those who aren ’ t ready to reopen or find it not financially feasible will remain closed .
People who are in the at-risk category @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virus are asked to remain at home .
Texas , like other states , is slowly finding its way during unprecedented circumstances .
The state and country are still in crisis but we have to start somewhere and give people hope for the future .

Today is the day that Texas is easing into Phase Two of the state’s plan to reopen. While businesses are working to reopen safely and follow the guidelines put into place by Governor Abbott and a group of experts known as the Strike Force to Open Texas, the media focuses on a rise in coronavirus cases being reported.
As of Monday, May 18 the big news is that gyms, nonessential manufacturing, and work offices may reopen but must follow social distancing precautions, and capacity is limited to 25%. Keeping gym equipment clean and the use of personal protection equipment by the public is the top priority.
When it comes to gyms, the governor said all equipment must be cleaned after each use, and people must wear gloves while working out. Some local gyms are advising employees to wear face masks and are encouraging members to do the same. Abbott said that people must stay 6 feet apart while inside gyms. Locker rooms and showers must remain closed.
Governor Abbott has taken a slow and deliberate approach to reopen the state. Not only has Texas been dealt a blow by the coronavirus pandemic and the nation’s economic collapse but the oil and gas industry has hit unprecedented lows, too. The Texas economy is a driving force in the strength of the nation’s economy, the second-largest in the United States. Reopening Texas will be good for the national economic recovery.
The reopening has focused on personal services, the food and beverage industry, and a slow return to church services and weddings and funerals.
Hair salons, barbershops, tanning salons, and nail salons were allowed to reopen on May 8. Retail stores, restaurants, malls, and movie theaters were allowed to reopen as part of the first phase on May 1. Weddings and funeral services were allowed to resume by following the same rules laid out for church services. Banquet facilities are required to follow the same requirements as restaurants, including keeping tables 6 feet apart and limiting occupancy to 25%. Counties throughout the state that had less than five cases of COVID-19 on or after April 30, as verified by the Texas Department of State Health Services, were allowed to increase occupancy to up to 50% for the places listed above if they met certain criteria.
And, some businesses are choosing to remain closed because the restrictions brought about by social distancing rules make reopening financially impractical or detrimental to the customer. Some examples include public pools, museums, and zoos. Operating at a 25% capacity doesn’t allow some businesses to make enough money to justify reopening.
Not yet open in Texas are bowling alleys and video arcades, water parks, massage salons, and tattoo and piercing studios. Governor Abbott is expected to address these businesses during a press conference Monday afternoon. YMCA summer camps and other camps for kids are looking at options in reopening. The governor may address them, too.
As Texas continues to reopen, an increase in testing has also continued. Not surprisingly, the number of coronavirus cases being reported has risen. This doesn’t mean the reopening of the state – still at 25% capacity in most cases – has failed or shown the skeptics to be correct. It simply means that more testing means more positive results are being reported. The increase in numbers is a result of an increase in a testing capacity. New single-day highs were reported last week but hospital systems are still not overwhelmed.
Texas is the most populous state to begin reopening so far so it is logical that other states are keeping an eye on what happens. Texas has not been as severely affected by the coronavirus pandemic as some other states have been.
It could take until next month to know how reopening affects the number of new cases in Texas. It can also take 10 days for hospitalization numbers to catch up with infection figures, and three-to-four weeks for data on deaths to do so, according to Lauren Ancel Meyers, director of the University of Texas at Austin Covid-19 modeling consortium. She said tracking data show movement to places such as grocery stores has increased in recent weeks, though it is difficult to predict how much people are taking steps such as distancing and wearing face coverings. “Right now it’s hard to know the extent to which people are going out and taking those kinds of precautions,” Meyers said.
More than 700 new cases of the coronavirus were reported in the Amarillo region on Saturday. This is because results in targeted testing at meatpacking plants came in. This wasn’t a new outbreak due to reopening – the beginning of the outbreak in that area had already been detected and Governor Abbott deployed a surge response team to mitigate the spread in the Amarillo region on May 4. Amarillo is in the Texas Panhandle, an area that has a workforce of Hispanics and immigrants who are employed in the meatpacking plants. The highest rate of infection in Texas is found there.
“As Texas continues ramping up its testing capabilities, there will be an increase in positive cases as the state targets the most high-risk areas: nursing homes, meatpacking plants and jails,” Gov. Greg Abbott said in a statement. “By immediately deploying resources and supplies to these high risk areas, we will identify the positive cases, isolate the individuals and ensure any outbreak is quickly contained.” In a press release Saturday, the governor’s office indicated plants with widespread outbreaks have temporarily shut down for thorough disinfection.
Meatpacking plants in Texas are scrambling to perform deep cleanings and provide protection for workers, the same as plants in other states.
More doors are opening today in Texas but the precautions against the pandemic remain in place. Those who aren’t ready to reopen or find it not financially feasible will remain closed. People who are in the at-risk category or are currently experiencing symptoms of the virus are asked to remain at home. Texas, like other states, is slowly finding its way during unprecedented circumstances. The state and country are still in crisis but we have to start somewhere and give people hope for the future.