hotair--2020-04-28--No really, let's postpone the election, says ... a majority of Democrats?

Let ’ s just stipulate up front that no one ’ s going to postpone the election in November .
Donald Trump certainly won ’ t delay it , and he doesn ’ t have the authority to do so anyway .
It would require an act of Congress to move the election , and even if Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill agreed to do such a thing , Trump ’ s term in office ends on January 20 by the terms of the Constitution .
That can ’ t be changed by statute alone , and states aren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ constitutional amendment in eight months to potentially create an imperial presidency , pandemic or not .
Like it or not , we ’ re having an election on November 3 .
But who would prefer to postpone it ?
According to a Zogby poll — insert your caveats here — a strong majority of voters want to put it off until after the COVID-19 pandemic eases .
And that strong majority includes a majority of Democrats : Nearly 60 % of likely voters at least somewhat agreed ( 30 % strongly agreed/29 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be suspended if the coronavirus pandemic gets worse between now and November , while 41 % at least somewhat disagreed ( 25 % strongly disagreed/16 % somewhat disagreed ) .
A majority of almost every sub-group surveyed at least somewhat agreed with this notion , including Democrats ( 53 % at least somewhat agreed/47 % at least somewhat disagreed ) .
Leading Democrats have indulged in this conspiracy-theory paranoia over the last week or so , including Joe Biden on multiple occasions , # 3 House Democrat James Clyburn , and Bernie Sanders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ using this oft–debunked claim as a scare tactic to rally their voters .
Do they know that their own voters see this as a good idea rather than a problem ?
It ’ s not just Democrats who think it ’ s a good idea , either : The sub-groups that agreed the most with suspending the 2020 presidential election , if the coronavirus pandemic gets worse , were urban voters in large cities ( 67 % at least somewhat agreed/33 % at least somewhat disagreed ) , Catholics ( 66 % at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disagreed ) , voters with college degrees ( 60 % at least somewhat agreed/40 % at least somewhat disagreed ) , Hispanics ( 68 % at least somewhat agreed/32 % at least somewhat disagreed ) and Republicans ( 69 % at least somewhat agreed/31 % at least somewhat disagreed ) .
Voters in the South ( 64 % at least somewhat agreed/36 % at least somewhat disagreed ) were much more inclined to agree with canceling the presidential election , if the pandemic gets worse , than voters living in the Central/Great Lakes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agreed/47 % at least somewhat disagreed ) .
Interestingly , one of the few demos to oppose the idea overall is also one of the most vulnerable to COVID-19 .
Seniors ( 55+ ) oppose a delay in the election by a 55/45 margin , the only age demo in opposition .
Trump does better with older voters and their insistence on holding an election might play better for him in November , although Jonathan Zogby disagrees : Zogby noticed the slight differences among groups , such as men and women , younger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some are more eager to vote even if the crisis worsens , a bad sign for Trump .
“ Two important demographics that could positively impact the 2020 presidential election for the Democratic Party are younger voters aged 18-29 and women .
It ’ s possible their turnout could increase at the polls as a referendum on President Trump and his handling of the pandemic , ” he said in his survey analysis .
Maaayyyybeeee , but the biggest pushback on holding the election on time comes from demos normally opposed to Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minorities , and younger voters , especially between 23-39 years of age .
When — not if — the election gets held on November 3rd , will this reluctance create a reduced turnout of voters in those demos ?
If it does , Democrats will be toast , and not just in the presidential election .
Trump scoffed at the idea of a delay in last night ’ s briefing , perhaps for that reason .
He ’ s got every reason to press forward if these demo results hold up .
Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the conspiracy theory , but declared that November 3rd is “ a good number ” for the election .
That might end up disappointing Democrats most of all , who might need more time to find a nominee less inclined toward paranoid conspiracy thinking .

Let’s just stipulate up front that no one’s going to postpone the election in November. Donald Trump certainly won’t delay it, and he doesn’t have the authority to do so anyway. It would require an act of Congress to move the election, and even if Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill agreed to do such a thing, Trump’s term in office ends on January 20 by the terms of the Constitution. That can’t be changed by statute alone, and states aren’t going to rush through a constitutional amendment in eight months to potentially create an imperial presidency, pandemic or not.
Like it or not, we’re having an election on November 3. But who would prefer to postpone it? According to a Zogby poll — insert your caveats here — a strong majority of voters want to put it off until after the COVID-19 pandemic eases. And that strong majority includes a majority of Democrats:
Nearly 60% of likely voters at least somewhat agreed (30% strongly agreed/29% somewhat agreed the 2020 presidential election should be suspended if the coronavirus pandemic gets worse between now and November, while 41% at least somewhat disagreed (25% strongly disagreed/16% somewhat disagreed). A majority of almost every sub-group surveyed at least somewhat agreed with this notion, including Democrats (53% at least somewhat agreed/47% at least somewhat disagreed).
Leading Democrats have indulged in this conspiracy-theory paranoia over the last week or so, including Joe Biden on multiple occasions, #3 House Democrat James Clyburn, and Bernie Sanders’ campaign. These Democrats have been using this oft–debunked claim as a scare tactic to rally their voters. Do they know that their own voters see this as a good idea rather than a problem?
It’s not just Democrats who think it’s a good idea, either:
The sub-groups that agreed the most with suspending the 2020 presidential election, if the coronavirus pandemic gets worse, were urban voters in large cities (67% at least somewhat agreed/33% at least somewhat disagreed), Catholics (66% at least somewhat agreed/34% at least somewhat disagreed), voters with college degrees (60% at least somewhat agreed/40% at least somewhat disagreed), Hispanics (68% at least somewhat agreed/32% at least somewhat disagreed) and Republicans (69% at least somewhat agreed/31% at least somewhat disagreed). Voters in the South (64% at least somewhat agreed/36% at least somewhat disagreed) were much more inclined to agree with canceling the presidential election, if the pandemic gets worse, than voters living in the Central/Great Lakes region (53% at least somewhat agreed/47% at least somewhat disagreed).
Interestingly, one of the few demos to oppose the idea overall is also one of the most vulnerable to COVID-19. Seniors (55+) oppose a delay in the election by a 55/45 margin, the only age demo in opposition. Trump does better with older voters and their insistence on holding an election might play better for him in November, although Jonathan Zogby disagrees:
Zogby noticed the slight differences among groups, such as men and women, younger and older voters, to suggest that some are more eager to vote even if the crisis worsens, a bad sign for Trump. “Two important demographics that could positively impact the 2020 presidential election for the Democratic Party are younger voters aged 18-29 and women. It’s possible their turnout could increase at the polls as a referendum on President Trump and his handling of the pandemic,” he said in his survey analysis.
Maaayyyybeeee, but the biggest pushback on holding the election on time comes from demos normally opposed to Trump: urban voters, college post-grads, minorities, and younger voters, especially between 23-39 years of age. When — not if — the election gets held on November 3rd, will this reluctance create a reduced turnout of voters in those demos? If it does, Democrats will be toast, and not just in the presidential election.
Trump scoffed at the idea of a delay in last night’s briefing, perhaps for that reason. He’s got every reason to press forward if these demo results hold up. Trump let Biden off the hook for pushing the conspiracy theory, but declared that November 3rd is “a good number” for the election. That might end up disappointing Democrats most of all, who might need more time to find a nominee less inclined toward paranoid conspiracy thinking.


hotair--2020-04-28--The Bulwark cites Cathy Young for the proposition that everyone involved in Tara Reade's story has '

The Bulwark cites Cathy Young for the proposition that everyone involved in Tara Reade's story has 'false memories' (Update)

Today at the Bulwark Charlie Sykes has a piece titled “ What Biden Has To Say.
” Here ’ s how it opens : I have no idea if Tara Reade ’ s allegations against Joe Biden are true .
And , like Cathy Young , I think there are reasons to be skeptical .
( You can read her deep dive into the facts here . )
But the story obviously is not going away and Joe Biden is going to have to address it directly .
.
.
and soon .
To be fair here , I think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many people on the right with regard to this story .
It ’ s not absolute certainly about Reade ’ s story , it ’ s absolutely certainty that the media treatment of her story is a universe apart from how they treated Judge Brett Kavanaugh just two years ago .
That ’ s exactly right .
What we have so far is many of the people who were most outspoken about Kavanaugh completely changing their tune for Biden .
And the media ( with very few exceptions ) is coasting along and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s truly stunning to watch .
Meanwhile the allegations themselves continue to get more and more credible .
And here is where I think Sykes ’ piece falls apart because he clearly doesn ’ t want to offer an opinion of his own , he ’ s just going to rely on what Cathy Young says : I read Young ’ s piece before Business Insider published the story with corroboration from Reade ’ s neighbor and co-worker .
As these things go , I found it an improvement over Michelle Goldberg ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
She basically argued that both Reade and Dr. Ford had strengths and weaknesses to their claims .
They could both be true but neither story was without serious problems .
Fair enough .
But I was curious to see if Young had updated the piece in light of the new information .
She had but I can ’ t say I ’ m impressed : What to make of this ?
Well , it ’ s certainly far stronger than any of the other evidence in Reade ’ s favor — or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That said , it ’ s not unheard-of for people to construct false memories and influence each other , especially in a case that has become the focus on intense publicity .
Is it possible , for instance , that Reade originally told LaCasse about what she perceived as sexual harassment by Biden — the neck- and shoulder-touching , the request for her to serve drinks at a fundraiser ( and the comment from another aide that the request was due to her attractiveness and “ nice legs ” ) — and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recalling an account of forcible penetration with fingers ?
Yes .
Yes , it is .
Young comes back to this idea of “ false memories ” a few paragraphs later only this time it ’ s Reade herself who has the false memories .
My position on the Christine Blasey Ford/Brett Kavanaugh story has long been that it ’ s entirely possible they ’ re both telling the truth : Ford has retroactively magnified an act of drunken teenage horseplay into an assault with intent to rape , while Kavanaugh simply doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possible that Reade is telling “ her truth , ” but Biden did not do what she claims he did ?
Maybe an “ incident with the gym bag ” did happen : for instance , she brought the gym bag , and Biden kissed her on the cheek and squeezed her waist .
Maybe as time went on , her memory “ edited ” this into a sexual assault — perhaps magnified by the abuse she apparently suffered in her marriage .
Look , I wasn ’ t there when the alleged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say with complete confidence what took place .
If someone wants to be skeptical there ’ s room for that , but I don ’ t think the way you do that is by making up your own facts , i.e .
maybe everyone involved who remembers it or remembers hearing about it just imagined it .
In this case we have two people , LaCasse and Reade ’ s as-yet-unnamed friend , who say there were told the same story about an assault 25 years ago .
Reade ’ s brother and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That ’ s pretty strong contemporaneous corroboration for a case like this .
As Young admits , it ’ s a lot stronger than the support Ford had for her claims .
So to believe what Young claims , i.e .
that Reade had some lesser encounter with Biden and “ edited ” in her mind , that means the three living people who claim they heard details of a sexual assault back then are all wrong .
They must be because Reade hadn ’ t had time to edit the story when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ means they all recently had a false memory , presumably pushed by Reade to match the story she had gradually come to believe .
Again , I won ’ t say it ’ s impossible but it seems less probably than the alternative , i.e .
they all heard a version of the same story back then because Reade was telling the same story then as she ’ s telling now .
I realize there was some of this regarding Dr. Ford ’ s story at the time , but here ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t have three people she told at the time ( or close to it ) who remember the story the same way .
In her case , all we had was her recall .
Her good friend not only couldn ’ t back it up , she doubted she had ever met Brett Kavanaugh at a party .
She continued to say that even after a pressure campaign to get her to change her tune .
So maybe false memories aren ’ t quite that easy to induce in people as Young suggests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assume a whole group of people are having them without some real reason to think that ’ s the case .
Update : CNN has interviewed LaCasse about what Reade told her in the mid-90s .
Lynda LaCasse told CNN in a phone interview Monday that she remembers stepping out of her two-bedroom home in Morro Bay , California , to sneak in a cigarette break away from her children .
It was 1995 , perhaps even early 1996 , based on her recollection .
LaCasse said she often sat outside on her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on this particular day , she cried as she discussed with Reade a custody battle for her kids .
Reade began to cry too , LaCasse said .
“ She started talking about Joe Biden .
And I didn ’ t really know much about Joe Biden , ” she said .
LaCasse said that Reade told her that when she was working in Washington some years prior , Biden “ had pushed her up against a wall and he put his hand up her skirt and he put his fingers inside of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the aftermath of that.
” … LaCasse told CNN that in her conversation with Reade in the 1990s , she suggested that Reade file a police report .
Reade responded that she had already had a conversation with her own mother about this topic .
LaCasse said that she didn ’ t clearly remember other details of this exchange .
For example , she said she might have referred Reade to a women ’ s shelter at the time , but said she wasn ’ t sure if she had .
“ But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ skirt — that ’ s something you don ’ t forget , ” LaCasse said .
But it was something she had forgotten — or at least , put out of her mind for years , LaCasse said .
After the mid-1990s , she said she and Reade were not in touch , and it was only a few years ago that they reconnected around the time that Reade ’ s mother died .
And according to LaCasse , it was last year when Reade brought up Biden that LaCasse told her that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sexual assault .
So LaCasse told Reade that she remembered what she ’ s been told years earlier .
This came from her memory .
She wasn ’ t tricked into recalling it .

Today at the Bulwark Charlie Sykes has a piece titled “What Biden Has To Say.” Here’s how it opens:
I have no idea if Tara Reade’s allegations against Joe Biden are true. And, like Cathy Young, I think there are reasons to be skeptical. (You can read her deep dive into the facts here.) But the story obviously is not going away and Joe Biden is going to have to address it directly . . . and soon.
To be fair here, I think Sykes does understand what is animating so many people on the right with regard to this story. It’s not absolute certainly about Reade’s story, it’s absolutely certainty that the media treatment of her story is a universe apart from how they treated Judge Brett Kavanaugh just two years ago.
So the issue right now is not just whether Biden committed the act, it is whether the story will be treated in a remotely consistent way. Will the allegations against Biden be accorded the same level of scrutiny as the allegations against Brett Kavanaugh? So far . . . not even close.
That’s exactly right. What we have so far is many of the people who were most outspoken about Kavanaugh completely changing their tune for Biden. And the media (with very few exceptions) is coasting along and giving Biden a pass. It’s truly stunning to watch.
Meanwhile the allegations themselves continue to get more and more credible. And here is where I think Sykes’ piece falls apart because he clearly doesn’t want to offer an opinion of his own, he’s just going to rely on what Cathy Young says:
The invaluable Cathy Young has written a remarkably balanced piece comparing the credibility of the charges against Kavanaugh and Biden: “A Tale of Two Scandals.” In both cases, she writes, there are problems with the credibility of the charges. But, she concedes, they “may, disturbingly, be true—but also leave so much room for doubt that any fair and reasonable fact-finder would have to find in favor of the accused not only under the stringent ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ standard, but under the very accuser-friendly ‘preponderance of the evidence’ standard (which means that it’s at least slightly more likely than not that the accused committed the offense).
I read Young’s piece before Business Insider published the story with corroboration from Reade’s neighbor and co-worker. As these things go, I found it an improvement over Michelle Goldberg (a low bar) or Ruth Marcus. She basically argued that both Reade and Dr. Ford had strengths and weaknesses to their claims. They could both be true but neither story was without serious problems. Fair enough. But I was curious to see if Young had updated the piece in light of the new information. She had but I can’t say I’m impressed:
What to make of this? Well, it’s certainly far stronger than any of the other evidence in Reade’s favor — or in favor of Kavanaugh’s accusers. That said, it’s not unheard-of for people to construct false memories and influence each other, especially in a case that has become the focus on intense publicity. Is it possible, for instance, that Reade originally told LaCasse about what she perceived as sexual harassment by Biden — the neck- and shoulder-touching, the request for her to serve drinks at a fundraiser (and the comment from another aide that the request was due to her attractiveness and “nice legs”) — and recently “jogged her memory” into recalling an account of forcible penetration with fingers? Yes. Yes, it is.
Young comes back to this idea of “false memories” a few paragraphs later only this time it’s Reade herself who has the false memories.
My position on the Christine Blasey Ford/Brett Kavanaugh story has long been that it’s entirely possible they’re both telling the truth: Ford has retroactively magnified an act of drunken teenage horseplay into an assault with intent to rape, while Kavanaugh simply doesn’t remember it. Is it possible that Reade is telling “her truth,” but Biden did not do what she claims he did? Maybe an “incident with the gym bag” did happen: for instance, she brought the gym bag, and Biden kissed her on the cheek and squeezed her waist. Maybe as time went on, her memory “edited” this into a sexual assault — perhaps magnified by the abuse she apparently suffered in her marriage.
Look, I wasn’t there when the alleged incident happened so I can’t say with complete confidence what took place. If someone wants to be skeptical there’s room for that, but I don’t think the way you do that is by making up your own facts, i.e. maybe everyone involved who remembers it or remembers hearing about it just imagined it.
In this case we have two people, LaCasse and Reade’s as-yet-unnamed friend, who say there were told the same story about an assault 25 years ago. Reade’s brother and mother also apparently knew the story. That’s pretty strong contemporaneous corroboration for a case like this. As Young admits, it’s a lot stronger than the support Ford had for her claims.
So to believe what Young claims, i.e. that Reade had some lesser encounter with Biden and “edited” in her mind, that means the three living people who claim they heard details of a sexual assault back then are all wrong. They must be because Reade hadn’t had time to edit the story when she told them back then. That means they all recently had a false memory, presumably pushed by Reade to match the story she had gradually come to believe.
Again, I won’t say it’s impossible but it seems less probably than the alternative, i.e. they all heard a version of the same story back then because Reade was telling the same story then as she’s telling now.
I realize there was some of this regarding Dr. Ford’s story at the time, but here’s the difference. Dr. Ford didn’t have three people she told at the time (or close to it) who remember the story the same way. In her case, all we had was her recall. Her good friend not only couldn’t back it up, she doubted she had ever met Brett Kavanaugh at a party. She continued to say that even after a pressure campaign to get her to change her tune.
So maybe false memories aren’t quite that easy to induce in people as Young suggests. And maybe we shouldn’t assume a whole group of people are having them without some real reason to think that’s the case.
Update: CNN has interviewed LaCasse about what Reade told her in the mid-90s.
Lynda LaCasse told CNN in a phone interview Monday that she remembers stepping out of her two-bedroom home in Morro Bay, California, to sneak in a cigarette break away from her children. It was 1995, perhaps even early 1996, based on her recollection. LaCasse said she often sat outside on her stoop smoking Virginia Slims, and that on this particular day, she cried as she discussed with Reade a custody battle for her kids. Reade began to cry too, LaCasse said. “She started talking about Joe Biden. And I didn’t really know much about Joe Biden,” she said. LaCasse said that Reade told her that when she was working in Washington some years prior, Biden “had pushed her up against a wall and he put his hand up her skirt and he put his fingers inside of her, and she was dealing with the aftermath of that.”… LaCasse told CNN that in her conversation with Reade in the 1990s, she suggested that Reade file a police report. Reade responded that she had already had a conversation with her own mother about this topic. LaCasse said that she didn’t clearly remember other details of this exchange. For example, she said she might have referred Reade to a women’s shelter at the time, but said she wasn’t sure if she had. “But remembering somebody putting their hands up your skirt — that’s something you don’t forget,” LaCasse said. But it was something she had forgotten — or at least, put out of her mind for years, LaCasse said. After the mid-1990s, she said she and Reade were not in touch, and it was only a few years ago that they reconnected around the time that Reade’s mother died. And according to LaCasse, it was last year when Reade brought up Biden that LaCasse told her that she remembered their conversation about the alleged sexual assault.
So LaCasse told Reade that she remembered what she’s been told years earlier. This came from her memory. She wasn’t tricked into recalling it.


hotair--2020-04-28--Here we go. Has Maryland fixed their vote-by-mail issues?

Yesterday we discussed the “ mostly ” mail-in voting going on today in Maryland ’ s 7th Congressional District where residents will select the replacement for Elijah Cummings .
The number of problems that voters encountered in trying to navigate this new procedure were daunting , but the Board of Elections made further adjustments at the last minute to give everyone the best chance possible to vote .
We won ’ t know the official results of the election for weeks , but by tomorrow we should have a fairly good idea as to how people felt about the process @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some of the final logistics that were put in place to deal with the task at hand .
Not to put too fine of a point on this , but let ’ s just say… we have questions .
Ballots have been mailed to the approximately 500,000 voters in the district , which includes parts of the city of Baltimore and the counties of Howard and Baltimore .
State officials are encouraging voters to return their completed ballots using the postage-paid envelopes included with the ballot .
Stamps are not required to mail @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mention that two stamps are needed .
Just make sure your ballot is postmarked by Tuesday and includes your signature to ensure it will be counted .
If you don ’ t feel comfortable mailing your ballot , you can use one of the drop boxes available in each jurisdiction .
All of that sounds very optimistic and cheerful , but as we already learned , there have been more than a few problems .
The details released last night highlight even more issues to be addressed .
First of all , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ massive number of ballots , but far too many people didn ’ t receive theirs .
The registration rolls were apparently not complete enough or not up to date enough to get them to all the right homes .
Some households saw one person getting a ballot , but other family members not getting theirs .
To add another option , they allowed voters to request “ virtual ballots ” to be emailed to them .
In addition to the problems people ran into just trying to download and print the pdf file @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If you had a ballot mailed to you , it came with an envelope that required no postage to send in .
That ’ s great , except for the fact that the instructions they included said that “ two stamps ” were required to mail it in .
But wait… there ’ s more .
If you managed to download the pdf and print out your ballot , you have to use postage to mail it in using your own envelope .
Since you have to pay for the postage , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and that ’ s unconstitutional .
Then there are the drop-off ballot boxes .
If you wish to go down to one of the few in-person voting locations but don ’ t want to go mix with the crowds , you can drop your ballot off in the clearly marked box .
That ’ s a nice option .
Unfortunately , there are only a few of them and they are not located at the usual polling place where most voters are used to going .
If you weren ’ t hunting down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no idea where the nearest ballot box drop-off location is .
All of this is adding up to what appears to be a gigantic mess .
And this is only a special election in one district .
In June , only a handful of weeks away , they ’ re going to try the same thing again for the entire state .
Buckle up tight , Maryland voters .
It sounds like you ’ re in for a wild and woolly ride .

Yesterday we discussed the “mostly” mail-in voting going on today in Maryland’s 7th Congressional District where residents will select the replacement for Elijah Cummings. The number of problems that voters encountered in trying to navigate this new procedure were daunting, but the Board of Elections made further adjustments at the last minute to give everyone the best chance possible to vote. We won’t know the official results of the election for weeks, but by tomorrow we should have a fairly good idea as to how people felt about the process.
The Baltimore Sun provides details of some of the final logistics that were put in place to deal with the task at hand. Not to put too fine of a point on this, but let’s just say… we have questions.
Ballots have been mailed to the approximately 500,000 voters in the district, which includes parts of the city of Baltimore and the counties of Howard and Baltimore. State officials are encouraging voters to return their completed ballots using the postage-paid envelopes included with the ballot. Stamps are not required to mail the ballots, although the instructions mistakenly mention that two stamps are needed. Just make sure your ballot is postmarked by Tuesday and includes your signature to ensure it will be counted. If you don’t feel comfortable mailing your ballot, you can use one of the drop boxes available in each jurisdiction.
All of that sounds very optimistic and cheerful, but as we already learned, there have been more than a few problems. The details released last night highlight even more issues to be addressed.
First of all, as noted yesterday, they mailed out a massive number of ballots, but far too many people didn’t receive theirs. The registration rolls were apparently not complete enough or not up to date enough to get them to all the right homes. Some households saw one person getting a ballot, but other family members not getting theirs.
To add another option, they allowed voters to request “virtual ballots” to be emailed to them. In addition to the problems people ran into just trying to download and print the pdf file, now a new issue has arisen. If you had a ballot mailed to you, it came with an envelope that required no postage to send in. That’s great, except for the fact that the instructions they included said that “two stamps” were required to mail it in.
But wait… there’s more. If you managed to download the pdf and print out your ballot, you have to use postage to mail it in using your own envelope. Since you have to pay for the postage, Maryland has essentially introduced a poll tax and that’s unconstitutional.
Then there are the drop-off ballot boxes. If you wish to go down to one of the few in-person voting locations but don’t want to go mix with the crowds, you can drop your ballot off in the clearly marked box. That’s a nice option. Unfortunately, there are only a few of them and they are not located at the usual polling place where most voters are used to going. If you weren’t hunting down the information carefully, you likely have no idea where the nearest ballot box drop-off location is.
All of this is adding up to what appears to be a gigantic mess. And this is only a special election in one district. In June, only a handful of weeks away, they’re going to try the same thing again for the entire state. Buckle up tight, Maryland voters. It sounds like you’re in for a wild and woolly ride.


hotair--2020-04-28--Why didn't Mike Pence wear a mask at the Mayo Clinic?

But big enough that the Mayo Clinic itself felt obliged to call attention to it .
Maybe Pence didn ’ t want any dorky face gear interfering with the extremely cool “ Mike Pence look ” that he ’ s spent years putting together .
That wasn ’ t the first time Pence , the leader of the White House ’ s coronavirus task force and thus the de facto head of the federal response , had shirked proper pandemic hygiene in America 2020 : I ’ ve worn a mask out a few times and understand his aversion to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t easy to breathe in .
And it ’ s hard not to feel ridiculous , as though you ’ re overreacting , when you ’ re wearing one and you run across someone who isn ’ t .
But the clinic ’ s “ masks for all ” policy should have solved that peer pressure problem for Pence .
S.O.P .
is to wear one .
He stood out because he refused .
Oh well .
It ’ s not like a clinic is a place where there ’ s likely to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guess .
He was asked afterward why he didn ’ t wear a mask and said it ’ s because he ’ s tested frequently : Right , but the test only tells you if you ’ re infected *at the moment you ’ re tested .
* It ’ s possible he tested negative two days ago and has been infected since .
And in any case , it ’ s besides the point .
Whether the country ’ s leaders follow the norms they ’ ve been advocating may matter at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said she supporters the president ’ s coronavirus response because he tells it like it is and “ really gives someone [ in the press ] the time of day if you know what I mean.
” And it seems some of the president ’ s comments at the briefings have made an impact on how Love is approaching the coronavirus , telling ABC News she “ refuses to wear a mask.
” “ If he ’ s not going to wear one I ’ m not going to wear one , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like Pence start wearing these things in public , the sooner it ’ ll seem normal to the general public to do so .
That ’ s a special problem for this White House since Trump will never wear one , as he ’ s far too vain to make even a small sacrifice in the name of leading by example .
One more point .
Remember that masks are recommended not because they block the virus from getting in ( although ideally they provide some protection ) but because they block the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ masks to be commonplace in the population because inevitably some people wearing them will be asymptomatic carriers .
Their masks will catch some of the viral particles they expel when they speak or cough , limiting transmission to those around them .
As the saying goes , “ my mask protects you , your mask protects me.
” It ’ d be one thing if Pence had exposed only himself to contracting the virus while at the Mayo Clinic by declining to wear a mask — which he did .
The greater risk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by doing nothing to contain his own respiratory emissions .
And no , it ’ s no excuse that he was expected to speak while on the premises .
People around him who were wearing masks could be heard just fine when they spoke : Maybe the minor public shaming he ’ ll receive for this episode will make him rethink his policy at the next photo op .
At least he ’ s given up on shaking hands .
I ’ ll leave you with this :

A big deal? Not really.
But big enough that the Mayo Clinic itself felt obliged to call attention to it.
Maybe Pence didn’t want any dorky face gear interfering with the extremely cool “Mike Pence look” that he’s spent years putting together.
VP Pence at Mayo Clinic Minnesota … pic.twitter.com/wahnuFLc82 — Howard Mortman (@HowardMortman) April 28, 2020
Hmmmm:
the @MayoClinic has deleted this tweet about face masks and the @VP's visit. pic.twitter.com/0OJTwdy6x0 — Eli Yokley (@eyokley) April 28, 2020
That wasn’t the first time Pence, the leader of the White House’s coronavirus task force and thus the de facto head of the federal response, had shirked proper pandemic hygiene in America 2020:
Here’s a masked Gov. Jared Polis meeting an unmasked Pence in VP’s trip to Colorado 10 days ago. pic.twitter.com/fQJc3PvJwj — Dan Diamond (@ddiamond) April 28, 2020
I’ve worn a mask out a few times and understand his aversion to it. Some cloth masks aren’t easy to breathe in. And it’s hard not to feel ridiculous, as though you’re overreacting, when you’re wearing one and you run across someone who isn’t. But the clinic’s “masks for all” policy should have solved that peer pressure problem for Pence. S.O.P. is to wear one. He stood out because he refused.
Oh well. It’s not like a clinic is a place where there’s likely to be virus in the air, I guess.
He was asked afterward why he didn’t wear a mask and said it’s because he’s tested frequently:
Pence, via pooler @glubold, on why he didn’t wear a mask at the Mayo Clinic pic.twitter.com/c8B31NebzU — Seung Min Kim (@seungminkim) April 28, 2020
Right, but the test only tells you if you’re infected *at the moment you’re tested.* It’s possible he tested negative two days ago and has been infected since. And in any case, it’s besides the point. Whether the country’s leaders follow the norms they’ve been advocating may matter at the margins:
[Kimberly] Love said she supporters the president’s coronavirus response because he tells it like it is and “really gives someone [in the press] the time of day if you know what I mean.” And it seems some of the president’s comments at the briefings have made an impact on how Love is approaching the coronavirus, telling ABC News she “refuses to wear a mask.” “If he’s not going to wear one I’m not going to wear one,” she said.
The sooner high officials like Pence start wearing these things in public, the sooner it’ll seem normal to the general public to do so. That’s a special problem for this White House since Trump will never wear one, as he’s far too vain to make even a small sacrifice in the name of leading by example.
One more point. Remember that masks are recommended not because they block the virus from getting in (although ideally they provide some protection) but because they block the virus from getting out. We want masks to be commonplace in the population because inevitably some people wearing them will be asymptomatic carriers. Their masks will catch some of the viral particles they expel when they speak or cough, limiting transmission to those around them. As the saying goes, “my mask protects you, your mask protects me.” It’d be one thing if Pence had exposed only himself to contracting the virus while at the Mayo Clinic by declining to wear a mask — which he did. The greater risk is that he exposed others to infection by doing nothing to contain his own respiratory emissions.
And no, it’s no excuse that he was expected to speak while on the premises. People around him who were wearing masks could be heard just fine when they spoke:
PENCE flouts Mayo Clinic policy that everyone on campus wear a mask, even as he meets with staff and a patient. pic.twitter.com/kfo64KQDhU — Dan Diamond (@ddiamond) April 28, 2020
Maybe the minor public shaming he’ll receive for this episode will make him rethink his policy at the next photo op. At least he’s given up on shaking hands. I’ll leave you with this:


hotair--2020-04-28--Sen. Gillibrand: 'I stand by Vice President Biden...he has vehemently denied this allegation'

NBC News reporters Julie Tsirkin and Mike Memoli reported a short while ago ( as I write this ) that Sen. Gillibrand was asked about Tara Reade ’ s allegations today during a conference call .
Gillibrand replied , “ I stand by Vice President Biden .
He ’ s devoted his life to supporting women and he has vehemently denied this allegation.
” This is quite a stunning turn around for Sen. Gillibrand .
During the Kavanaugh confirmation two years ago , she repeatedly made it clear that to not believe Dr. Ford was to not believe women as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the tweets she published back in 2018 .
Let ’ s start with this one in which Gillibrand claims all Democrats are asking for is a nominee who has “ never assaulted a woman.
” Back then she was outraged that dastardly Republicans “ don ’ t believe women.
” When it came to having Dr. Ford ’ s back , Gillibrand wanted it to be almost literal .
This one is pretty awkward : “ Past actions matter .
We need another nominee.
” In case it wasn ’ t clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stand with survivors of sexual assault “ Now and always.
” Anyone who would vote for Kavanaugh after hearing from Ford is saying “ the experiences of women don ’ t matter.
” “ Don ’ t rest until we get to the bottom of this.
” The stakes were high for those willing to vote for Kavanaugh : “ It ’ s really about who we are as a country.
” “ Are we a country that values women ?
Do we believe women when they tell us about sexual trauma ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a silver lining : “ Her strength will forever be a source of strength as we continue to fight for survivors to be believed , for women to be valued .
And we won ’ t stop fighting.
” But it sounds as if Sen. Gillibrand has stopped fighting .
She ’ s now siding with Biden because he denied the allegations and , suddenly , that ’ s good enough .
All that heated rhetoric about what kind of country we are going to be and having a nominee who hasn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Gillibrand ’ s hypocrisy on this is so glaring that I ’ m somewhat amazed she ’ s not embarrassed by it .
I ’ ll close with a speech Gillibrand made backed by model Emily Ratajkowski and actress Amy Schumer .
What happened to this person ?

NBC News reporters Julie Tsirkin and Mike Memoli reported a short while ago (as I write this) that Sen. Gillibrand was asked about Tara Reade’s allegations today during a conference call. Gillibrand replied, “I stand by Vice President Biden. He’s devoted his life to supporting women and he has vehemently denied this allegation.”
Notable: @SenGillibrand asked today on a conference call about Tara Reade allegations of assault by @JoeBiden. She says, “I stand by Vice President Biden. He's devoted his life to supporting women and he has vehemently denied this allegation.” Per @JulieNBCNews — Mike Memoli (@mikememoli) April 28, 2020
This is quite a stunning turn around for Sen. Gillibrand. During the Kavanaugh confirmation two years ago, she repeatedly made it clear that to not believe Dr. Ford was to not believe women as a whole. Here are a few of the tweets she published back in 2018. Let’s start with this one in which Gillibrand claims all Democrats are asking for is a nominee who has “never assaulted a woman.”
.@HeidiHeitkamp’s opponent, Kevin Cramer, just supported Judge Kavanaugh by saying it's unreasonable to require "a perfect record." To be clear, the "perfect record" we’re asking for from a Supreme Court justice is that they've never assaulted a woman. — Kirsten Gillibrand (@SenGillibrand) September 22, 2018
Back then she was outraged that dastardly Republicans “don’t believe women.”
Senate Republicans aren't even pretending to consider Dr. Ford's testimony. Rushing a vote sends a clear signal: They don't value survivors. They don't believe women. https://t.co/gwQUr9b3Ci — Kirsten Gillibrand (@SenGillibrand) September 25, 2018
When it came to having Dr. Ford’s back, Gillibrand wanted it to be almost literal.
When Dr. Blasey Ford testifies, I'll be there. I'll have her back, and so will millions of women all across this country. America's women are listening, we're paying attention, and we believe her. pic.twitter.com/34NwVpI4cp — Kirsten Gillibrand (@SenGillibrand) September 26, 2018
This one is pretty awkward: “Past actions matter. We need another nominee.”
At the end of the day, Judge Kavanaugh is interviewing for a job. And in job interviews, character counts. Past actions matter. We need another nominee. — Kirsten Gillibrand (@SenGillibrand) September 26, 2018
In case it wasn’t clear how she felt:
Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, you are a hero. — Kirsten Gillibrand (@SenGillibrand) September 27, 2018
Staring at an all-male Senate majority, Dr. Ford gave a powerful, honest testimony of the lasting trauma Judge Kavanaugh has caused her. The bravery she’s demonstrated has made her a hero. To survivors of sexual assault, to women and to our country. — Kirsten Gillibrand (@SenGillibrand) September 28, 2018
Gillibrand pledged to stand with survivors of sexual assault “Now and always.”
Every day, but this week especially, I want you to know that if you are a survivor of sexual assault, you are not alone. I hear you, I believe you, and I am standing with you. Now and always. — Kirsten Gillibrand (@SenGillibrand) September 28, 2018
Anyone who would vote for Kavanaugh after hearing from Ford is saying “the experiences of women don’t matter.”
Any senator who votes to confirm Judge Kavanaugh after Dr. Ford’s testimony is telling our country exactly this: the experiences of women don’t matter. Their trauma doesn’t matter. Their stories and their voices don’t matter. — Kirsten Gillibrand (@SenGillibrand) September 28, 2018
“Don’t rest until we get to the bottom of this.”
The White House didn’t want to hear from Dr. Blasey Ford. They didn’t want a complete FBI investigation until they were forced to conduct one — and even then, they only wanted a sham investigation to provide cover. Keep speaking out. Don't rest until we get to the bottom of this. https://t.co/ZTdM7VSGZ4 — Kirsten Gillibrand (@SenGillibrand) October 1, 2018
The stakes were high for those willing to vote for Kavanaugh:
The stakes of the vote on Kavanaugh? Deciding whether we’re a country that listens to and believes women. Each of my colleagues in the Senate needs to determine if women’s voices, traumas and stories matter to them. I’ve made my decision. — Kirsten Gillibrand (@SenGillibrand) October 3, 2018
“It’s really about who we are as a country.”
So what do we do next in the fight to stop Judge Kavanaugh and stand with survivors? We fight like our rights and lives are on the line, because they are. Keep going. Be heard. pic.twitter.com/P6ekshwDW5 — Kirsten Gillibrand (@SenGillibrand) October 4, 2018
“Are we a country that values women? Do we believe women when they tell us about sexual trauma?”
Women are watching as the most powerful people in this country disbelieve, distrust and minimize their experiences. We need to answer this: Are we a country that values women? Do we believe women when they tell us about sexual trauma? Do the stories of survivors matter to us? — Kirsten Gillibrand (@SenGillibrand) October 4, 2018
Even in defeat, Gillibrand saw a silver lining: “Her strength will forever be a source of strength as we continue to fight for survivors to be believed, for women to be valued. And we won’t stop fighting.”
But make no mistake: Our fight was not for nothing. The bravery of Dr. Ford’s testimony inspired women everywhere. Her strength will forever be a source of strength as we continue to fight for survivors to be believed, for women to be valued. And we won’t stop fighting. — Kirsten Gillibrand (@SenGillibrand) October 6, 2018
But it sounds as if Sen. Gillibrand has stopped fighting. She’s now siding with Biden because he denied the allegations and, suddenly, that’s good enough. All that heated rhetoric about what kind of country we are going to be and having a nominee who hasn’t assaulted anyone, forget that stuff. Gillibrand’s hypocrisy on this is so glaring that I’m somewhat amazed she’s not embarrassed by it. I’ll close with a speech Gillibrand made backed by model Emily Ratajkowski and actress Amy Schumer. What happened to this person?


hotair--2020-04-28--Trump to order meatpacking plants to reopen under Defense Production Act

My first thought upon reading this was “ Reopen how ?
” The problem with the now-infamous Smithfield plant in South Dakota , for instance , isn ’ t that they ’ ve been forced to close down due to aggressive stay-at-home orders by local government .
The problem is that many , many workers are sick with COVID-19 — more than 700 at last check .
Trump can reopen every plant in the country .
Who ’ s going to staff them ?
But there ’ s more to this than meets the eye .
Workers and management at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meat processor , have been waging a PR war against each other in the media this past week .
Five days ago CNN published a brutal report on Tyson ’ s plant in Waterloo , Iowa , where at least 182 cases of coronavirus are linked to the facility .
Meatpacking is an excellent incubator for a virus because of how close employees are to each other on the production line .
“ I work about two feet from my coworkers , ” said one Tyson worker .
“ I ’ m about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my partner.
” The company says it ’ s taken steps to improve hygiene , sanitizing the plant every day , instituting temperature checks on workers , and so forth , but some employees say it ’ s not nearly enough .
“ I don ’ t think Tyson gives two sh*ts about their employees .
I really don ’ t , ” Thompson told CNN… There are “ 2,700 employees , three shifts , and they only cleaned it once a day .
This is after they knew that they already had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Thompson told CNN .
“ There was no enforcement of PPE , there was no requirement .
In fact , some people we saw walking around actually had masks , but they were wearing them around their neck , ” he said… The employees said other crowded areas , such as the locker rooms and hallways , were not being modified in any way to promote social distancing .
“ We ’ re all extremely congested , especially at the shift exchange in the locker room , ” a third Tyson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ production line worker .
Tyson made masks mandatory on April 7 but didn ’ t provide them to employees at first .
Some employees believe the plant should close before there ’ s a Smithfield-scale outbreak and complain that their bosses care only about the bottom line .
“ All they talked about was production , production , production , production , ” said one of his discussions with plant managers .
Yesterday it was management ’ s turn to fire back .
John Tyson , the company chairman , bought a full-page @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that “ The food supply chain is breaking.
” You can read the full text here .
Tyson does some PR by describing how the company is paying bonuses to frontline workers and taking steps to improve safety , like encouraging employees to stay home if they feel sick ( which doesn ’ t solve the problem of asymptomatic carriers ) , but the thrust of his message is how much America stands to lose if Tyson and other meatpackers have to shut down .
Not only will many thousands of animals need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if Tyson can ’ t process them , he warns , but millions of pounds of meat will disappear from the supply chain if plants are “ forced to shutter our doors.
” Which is the key bit — “ forced.
” An important detail in CNN ’ s story about the Waterloo plant is that local officials and ( of course ) labor leaders fear for the safety of the workers there and are pushing for a shutdown : “ Eighteen local and state elected officials , including mayors , state representatives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Tyson Foods on Thursday asking it to voluntarily close down the plant.
” Tyson management is clearly worried that that sentiment will spread and eventually pressure state officials into ordering a mandatory closure of the plant .
In that context , the point of John Tyson ’ s paid ad yesterday is obvious : He wanted to apply counterpressure to federal officials , starting with Trump , by spooking the public about meat disappearing if the plant was allowed to close .
He wants the feds to bigfoot Iowa ’ s state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to remain open no matter what .
Sounds like it worked like a charm : President Donald Trump plans to order meat-processing plants to remain open , declaring them critical infrastructure as the nation confronts growing disruptions to the food supply from the coronavirus outbreak , a person familiar with the matter said… Trump signaled the executive action at the White House on Tuesday , saying he planned to sign an order aimed at Tyson Foods Inc. ’ s liability , which had become “ a road block ” for the company .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ order , though , will not be limited to Tyson , the person said .
It will affect many processing plants supplying beef , chicken , eggs and pork… The White House has been discussing the order with meatpacking executives to determine what they need to operate safely and stay open , in order to prevent shortages , the person said .
White House General Counsel Pat Cipollone worked with private companies to design a federal mandate to keep the plants open and to provide them additional virus testing capacity as well as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to immunize meatpacking plants from lawsuits so that they can order their workers back on the line without fear of accountability , no matter how real and foreseeable the risk of mass infection is .
Workers who are afraid can always refuse the order , of course — but there ’ s a catch : “ Iowa Workforce Development said Monday that failing to return to work out of fear of catching the virus will be considered a voluntary quit , which disqualifies workers from receiving unemployment benefits.
” Employees have lost their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the DPA .
Without that , they at least had a chance that local officials would close the plant down .
They can always strike , but this is a baaaaaad economy in which to risk one ’ s job .
Instead I assume this battle will continue to be fought in the media .
If the Waterloo plant does fall victim to a Smithfield-type catastrophe , with hundreds of workers getting sick after they ’ re called back on the job , it ’ ll be a PR disaster for Tyson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ although Americans love meat enough — and are frightened enough by the whispers about a broken food supply — that they ’ ll probably forgive him anything in the name of keeping the hamburger conveyor belt moving .

My first thought upon reading this was “Reopen how?” The problem with the now-infamous Smithfield plant in South Dakota, for instance, isn’t that they’ve been forced to close down due to aggressive stay-at-home orders by local government. The problem is that many, many workers are sick with COVID-19 — more than 700 at last check. Trump can reopen every plant in the country. Who’s going to staff them?
But there’s more to this than meets the eye. Workers and management at Tyson, the world’s second-largest meat processor, have been waging a PR war against each other in the media this past week. Five days ago CNN published a brutal report on Tyson’s plant in Waterloo, Iowa, where at least 182 cases of coronavirus are linked to the facility. Meatpacking is an excellent incubator for a virus because of how close employees are to each other on the production line. “I work about two feet from my coworkers,” said one Tyson worker. “I’m about an arm’s length away from my partner.” The company says it’s taken steps to improve hygiene, sanitizing the plant every day, instituting temperature checks on workers, and so forth, but some employees say it’s not nearly enough.
“I don’t think Tyson gives two sh*ts about their employees. I really don’t,” Thompson told CNN… There are “2,700 employees, three shifts, and they only cleaned it once a day. This is after they knew that they already had positive tests coming out of that plant,” Thompson told CNN. “There was no enforcement of PPE, there was no requirement. In fact, some people we saw walking around actually had masks, but they were wearing them around their neck,” he said… The employees said other crowded areas, such as the locker rooms and hallways, were not being modified in any way to promote social distancing. “We’re all extremely congested, especially at the shift exchange in the locker room,” a third Tyson employee told CNN. She is a production line worker.
Tyson made masks mandatory on April 7 but didn’t provide them to employees at first. Some employees believe the plant should close before there’s a Smithfield-scale outbreak and complain that their bosses care only about the bottom line. “All they talked about was production, production, production, production,” said one of his discussions with plant managers.
Yesterday it was management’s turn to fire back. John Tyson, the company chairman, bought a full-page ad in several major papers warning ominously that “The food supply chain is breaking.” You can read the full text here. Tyson does some PR by describing how the company is paying bonuses to frontline workers and taking steps to improve safety, like encouraging employees to stay home if they feel sick (which doesn’t solve the problem of asymptomatic carriers), but the thrust of his message is how much America stands to lose if Tyson and other meatpackers have to shut down. Not only will many thousands of animals need to be euthanized and their meat wasted if Tyson can’t process them, he warns, but millions of pounds of meat will disappear from the supply chain if plants are “forced to shutter our doors.”
Which is the key bit — “forced.” An important detail in CNN’s story about the Waterloo plant is that local officials and (of course) labor leaders fear for the safety of the workers there and are pushing for a shutdown: “Eighteen local and state elected officials, including mayors, state representatives and state senators, wrote a letter to Tyson Foods on Thursday asking it to voluntarily close down the plant.” Tyson management is clearly worried that that sentiment will spread and eventually pressure state officials into ordering a mandatory closure of the plant. In that context, the point of John Tyson’s paid ad yesterday is obvious: He wanted to apply counterpressure to federal officials, starting with Trump, by spooking the public about meat disappearing if the plant was allowed to close. He wants the feds to bigfoot Iowa’s state and local governments by ordering the plant to remain open no matter what.
Sounds like it worked like a charm:
President Donald Trump plans to order meat-processing plants to remain open, declaring them critical infrastructure as the nation confronts growing disruptions to the food supply from the coronavirus outbreak, a person familiar with the matter said… Trump signaled the executive action at the White House on Tuesday, saying he planned to sign an order aimed at Tyson Foods Inc.’s liability, which had become “a road block” for the company. He didn’t elaborate. The order, though, will not be limited to Tyson, the person said. It will affect many processing plants supplying beef, chicken, eggs and pork… The White House has been discussing the order with meatpacking executives to determine what they need to operate safely and stay open, in order to prevent shortages, the person said. White House General Counsel Pat Cipollone worked with private companies to design a federal mandate to keep the plants open and to provide them additional virus testing capacity as well as protective gear.
They’re going to immunize meatpacking plants from lawsuits so that they can order their workers back on the line without fear of accountability, no matter how real and foreseeable the risk of mass infection is. Workers who are afraid can always refuse the order, of course — but there’s a catch: “Iowa Workforce Development said Monday that failing to return to work out of fear of catching the virus will be considered a voluntary quit, which disqualifies workers from receiving unemployment benefits.” Employees have lost their leverage because of Trump’s invocation of the DPA. Without that, they at least had a chance that local officials would close the plant down.
They can always strike, but this is a baaaaaad economy in which to risk one’s job. Instead I assume this battle will continue to be fought in the media. If the Waterloo plant does fall victim to a Smithfield-type catastrophe, with hundreds of workers getting sick after they’re called back on the job, it’ll be a PR disaster for Tyson. And maybe for the president, although Americans love meat enough — and are frightened enough by the whispers about a broken food supply — that they’ll probably forgive him anything in the name of keeping the hamburger conveyor belt moving.


hotair--2020-04-28--Today's hot topics on #TEMS: Congress abdicates, global dangers percolate, Israel celebrates, Sunday

Today's hot topics on #TEMS: Congress abdicates, global dangers percolate, Israel celebrates, Sunday-schooling migrates, plus a briefing tailgate, and more!

Today on The Ed Morrissey Show ( 4 pm ET ) , we have another great lineup for the news of the day !
The show will be streamed on Hot Air ’ s Facebook page and embedded here and on the show page for those who are not on Facebook .
Join us as we welcome : • Andrew Malcolm joins us for Tuesdays with Andrew !
The Prince of Twitter and I will discuss all of the hot political stories of the day .
• Tonight begins the celebration for the 72nd anniversary of Israel ’ s founding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he thanks Harry Truman on this occasion , plus we ’ ll also ask him about a real-life Dead Parrot case in Canada .
Well , almost … • How can parents keep Sunday school going for their children while the churches are closed ?
Former Amazon executive and U.S. Navy pilot Erick Goss founded Minno , a digital lifestyle company for Christian parents and families .
We ’ ll hear how parents can get practical support for their family catechesis .
• If time permits and the White House holds one , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the daily COVID-19 briefing , so don ’ t go away !
The Ed Morrissey Show and its dynamic chatroom can be seen on the permanent TEMS page .
Be sure to join us , and don ’ t forget to keep up with the debate on my Facebook page , too !
How can Republicans and conservatives keep the momentum going ?
Find out in GOING RED , published in April from Crown Forum !

Today on The Ed Morrissey Show (4 pm ET), we have another great lineup for the news of the day! The show will be streamed on Hot Air’s Facebook page and embedded here and on the show page for those who are not on Facebook.
Join us as we welcome:
Andrew Malcolm joins us for Tuesdays with Andrew! The Prince of Twitter and I will discuss all of the hot political stories of the day.
Tonight begins the celebration for the 72nd anniversary of Israel’s founding. Jeff Dunetz reminds us of why he thanks Harry Truman on this occasion, plus we’ll also ask him about a real-life Dead Parrot case in Canada. Well, almost …
How can parents keep Sunday school going for their children while the churches are closed? Former Amazon executive and U.S. Navy pilot Erick Goss founded Minno, a digital lifestyle company for Christian parents and families. We’ll hear how parents can get practical support for their family catechesis.
If time permits and the White House holds one, we will cut away to live coverage of the daily COVID-19 briefing, so don’t go away!
The Ed Morrissey Show and its dynamic chatroom can be seen on the permanent TEMS page. Be sure to join us, and don’t forget to keep up with the debate on my Facebook page, too!
How can Republicans and conservatives keep the momentum going? Find out in GOING RED, published in April from Crown Forum!


hotair--2020-04-28--Mnuchin: "Outrageous" that the Lakers took a PPP loan, audits coming for all grants over $2M

Who knew Steve Mnuchin had the chops to dunk on the Los Angeles Lakers ?
Of course , no one could have predicted that an NBA franchise would pull a bush-league move like taking $ 4.6 million out of an emergency relief fund for small business , either .
The Treasury Secretary called that “ outrageous ” and warned that the Small Business Administration would now audit all loans of $ 2 million or more under the Paycheck Protection Program .
Non-qualifying businesses will pay a lot more , Mnuchin warned in this CNBC interview , if they don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ m going to be putting out an announcement later this morning that for any loan over $ 2 million , the Small Business Administration will be doing a full review of that loan before there is loan forgiveness , ” Mnuchin said on “ Squawk Box.
” “ This was a program designed for small businesses .
It was not a program that was designed for public companies that had liquidity.
’ ” … “ I think that ’ s outrageous , ” he said of the loan to the Lakers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .
“ We don ’ t think they ever should have been allowed to , ” Mnuchin said .
“ We put out an FAQ clarifying the certification.
” According to guidance posted by the Small Business Association on April 23 , borrowers must “ certify in good faith ” their loan request is “ necessary.
” The Lakers did commit to repay the loan , as did Ruth ’ s Chris Steak House , Shake Shack , and a handful of others .
Others , however , have been less embarrassed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contacted some of the publicly traded companies that got seven-figure loans through the program , and they ’ re reluctant to part with the windfall — for now , anyway : A handful of publicly traded companies say they aren ’ t planning to return loans received from a small-business rescue program , despite pressure from the Trump administration to repay the funds .
Companies in the hotel , cruise ship and medical-device sectors said they are qualified to receive the money under the Paycheck Protection Program and need the funds to stay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after the Small Business Administration suggested that dozens of publicly held companies should give back money received from the Paycheck Protection Program by May 7 .
Not coincidentally , those are the same industries that lobbied Congress to keep more restrictive language out of the bill .
They don ’ t want to return the money because they worked hard to put themselves in position to keep smaller businesses from getting their hands on it .
Congress obliged by leaving the terms ambiguous enough that the Los Angeles Lakers — one of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ league sports !
— could dip into the trough .
Mnuchin suggested that criminal penalties might apply for those who do not return the cash .
At the very least , those who got $ 2 million or more will have to now pay attorneys to deal with the audit if they don ’ t surrender the cash first .
In the meantime , perhaps some naming and shaming will suffice — and if that doesn ’ t work , perhaps a concerted effort to shun them in favor of smaller businesses might @ @ @ @

Who knew Steve Mnuchin had the chops to dunk on the Los Angeles Lakers? Of course, no one could have predicted that an NBA franchise would pull a bush-league move like taking $4.6 million out of an emergency relief fund for small business, either. The Treasury Secretary called that “outrageous” and warned that the Small Business Administration would now audit all loans of $2 million or more under the Paycheck Protection Program. Non-qualifying businesses will pay a lot more, Mnuchin warned in this CNBC interview, if they don’t voluntarily return the money:
“I’m going to be putting out an announcement later this morning that for any loan over $2 million, the Small Business Administration will be doing a full review of that loan before there is loan forgiveness,” Mnuchin said on “Squawk Box.” “This was a program designed for small businesses. It was not a program that was designed for public companies that had liquidity.’” … “I think that’s outrageous,” he said of the loan to the Lakers, which announced Monday it has repaid it. “We don’t think they ever should have been allowed to,” Mnuchin said. “We put out an FAQ clarifying the certification.” According to guidance posted by the Small Business Association on April 23, borrowers must “certify in good faith” their loan request is “necessary.”
The Lakers did commit to repay the loan, as did Ruth’s Chris Steak House, Shake Shack, and a handful of others. Others, however, have been less embarrassed about raiding PPP. The Washington Post contacted some of the publicly traded companies that got seven-figure loans through the program, and they’re reluctant to part with the windfall — for now, anyway:
A handful of publicly traded companies say they aren’t planning to return loans received from a small-business rescue program, despite pressure from the Trump administration to repay the funds. Companies in the hotel, cruise ship and medical-device sectors said they are qualified to receive the money under the Paycheck Protection Program and need the funds to stay in business. Their resistance comes days after the Small Business Administration suggested that dozens of publicly held companies should give back money received from the Paycheck Protection Program by May 7.
Not coincidentally, those are the same industries that lobbied Congress to keep more restrictive language out of the bill. They don’t want to return the money because they worked hard to put themselves in position to keep smaller businesses from getting their hands on it. Congress obliged by leaving the terms ambiguous enough that the Los Angeles Lakers — one of the most lucrative franchises in all of major league sports! — could dip into the trough.
Mnuchin suggested that criminal penalties might apply for those who do not return the cash. At the very least, those who got $2 million or more will have to now pay attorneys to deal with the audit if they don’t surrender the cash first. In the meantime, perhaps some naming and shaming will suffice — and if that doesn’t work, perhaps a concerted effort to shun them in favor of smaller businesses might do the trick.


hotair--2020-04-28--Horrible: Number of minors calling sexual assault hotline increased 22% during lockdown

There ’ s a horrible logic to it .
With stay-at-home orders in place across the country the number of minors who find themselves trapped at home with their abusers is up .
The situation has resulted in a substantial increase in the number of calls from people under 18 to the National Sexual Assault Hotline : By the end of March , with much of the country under lockdown , there was a 22 % increase in monthly calls from people younger than 18 , and half of all incoming contacts were from minors .
That ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Camille Cooper , the organization ’ s vice president of public policy , tells NPR .
Of those young people who contacted the hotline in March , 67 % identified their perpetrator as a family member and 79 % said they were currently living with that perpetrator .
In 1 out of 5 cases where the minor was living with their abuser , RAINN assisted the minor in immediately contacting police .
“ As a result of looking at the information that we had from those sessions , it was clear that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ severity , ” Cooper says .
“ So a lot of the kids that were coming to the hotline were feeling pretty vulnerable and traumatized .
And it was a direct result of COVID-19 , because they were quarantined with their abuser .
The abuser was now abusing them on a daily basis.
” The figures in the report all come from March .
Since the first shutdowns in the country didn ’ t happen until after the middle of March , all of this increase must have happened in a relatively short @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ten days of the month .
It makes me wonder what the numbers will look like in April .
The abuse reporting system is still operating during the crisis , meaning that if someone calls the police for help they can still be removed from a home by social services despite the lockdown .
This isn ’ t the only type of abuse that is reportedly surging during the pandemic .
The BBC reported last week that calls to a revenge porn hotline in the UK also started surging in March .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but the story suggests that the combination of more stress and more free time has led to more bad behavior : Traffic to the helpline ’ s website nearly doubled in the week beginning Monday 23 March and more cases were opened in the following four weeks than in any previous four-week period… When the messages lit up her phone Ava , 21 , immediately started to panic .
One read , “ Can ’ t even get the same satisfaction from leaking your nudes now you ’ re an actual hoe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was bluffing , she remembers thinking .
“ I don ’ t care what happens to me as long as I ruin your life , ” another message read .
It quickly became clear that her ex was enraged by the fact that she was isolating with her new boyfriend… The rate of domestic violence cases has been dropping across the country .
The Marshall Project looked closely at reports in three U.S. cities and found that the rate has dropped but not as much as the drop in other types of crime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 911 calls are up even though the number of cases is down .
When The Marshall Project examined three American cities , we were able to drill deeper into the data and sketch a fuller picture .
Based on police reports in these cities—Chicago , Austin , and Chandler , Arizona—domestic violence appears to be dropping , as have reports of all crimes .
( A similar trend has been observed in New York City . )
But domestic violence numbers are falling less than crime overall , and in some cases the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That may be because it ’ s harder for victims to get help during the pandemic… Survivors always have a cost-benefit analysis in their minds , police and victim advocates say .
Sometimes tolerating abuse is safer when the alternative is moving into a shelter where victims and their children may be exposed to the coronavirus , or when the abuser is the primary breadwinner as tens of millions lose their jobs .
When victims do call police , a single report can belie many violent incidents that went unreported amid a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , training director at the Institute on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault at the University of Texas at Austin… One way to peek at the gap of underreporting is by comparing 911 calls with police incident reports .
Since the outbreak of COVID-19 in early March , the Chicago Police Department has been seeing more and more domestic violence-related service calls—as many as 13-percent more than last year at this time—even as domestic violence police reports decline , according to Aileen Robinson , the police ’ s domestic violence operation coordinator there ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ available online ) .
This means fewer victims are following through with filing complaints after they or their neighbors called the police .
So police , at least in Chicago , are getting a higher number of calls for domestic violence but fewer people following through with reports .
While it ’ s hard to know why , it does make a certain sense that in the midst of a crisis the risk of disrupting the relationship and the living situation is greater .
I hope no one reading this is living through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but if you are the National Sexual Assault Hotline is 800.656.HOPE ( 4673 ) .
The National Domestic Violence Hotline is 1-800-799-SAFE ( 7233 ) .

There’s a horrible logic to it. With stay-at-home orders in place across the country the number of minors who find themselves trapped at home with their abusers is up. The situation has resulted in a substantial increase in the number of calls from people under 18 to the National Sexual Assault Hotline:
By the end of March, with much of the country under lockdown, there was a 22% increase in monthly calls from people younger than 18, and half of all incoming contacts were from minors. That’s a first in RAINN’s history, Camille Cooper, the organization’s vice president of public policy, tells NPR. Of those young people who contacted the hotline in March, 67% identified their perpetrator as a family member and 79% said they were currently living with that perpetrator. In 1 out of 5 cases where the minor was living with their abuser, RAINN assisted the minor in immediately contacting police. “As a result of looking at the information that we had from those sessions, it was clear that the abuse was escalating in both frequency and severity,” Cooper says. “So a lot of the kids that were coming to the hotline were feeling pretty vulnerable and traumatized. And it was a direct result of COVID-19, because they were quarantined with their abuser. The abuser was now abusing them on a daily basis.”
The figures in the report all come from March. Since the first shutdowns in the country didn’t happen until after the middle of March, all of this increase must have happened in a relatively short period of time, maybe the last ten days of the month. It makes me wonder what the numbers will look like in April. The abuse reporting system is still operating during the crisis, meaning that if someone calls the police for help they can still be removed from a home by social services despite the lockdown.
This isn’t the only type of abuse that is reportedly surging during the pandemic. The BBC reported last week that calls to a revenge porn hotline in the UK also started surging in March. The connection in this case is less obvious, but the story suggests that the combination of more stress and more free time has led to more bad behavior:
Traffic to the helpline’s website nearly doubled in the week beginning Monday 23 March and more cases were opened in the following four weeks than in any previous four-week period… When the messages lit up her phone Ava, 21, immediately started to panic. One read, “Can’t even get the same satisfaction from leaking your nudes now you’re an actual hoe [whore].” Surely he was bluffing, she remembers thinking. “I don’t care what happens to me as long as I ruin your life,” another message read. It quickly became clear that her ex was enraged by the fact that she was isolating with her new boyfriend…
The rate of domestic violence cases has been dropping across the country. The Marshall Project looked closely at reports in three U.S. cities and found that the rate has dropped but not as much as the drop in other types of crime. In fact, the number of 911 calls are up even though the number of cases is down.
When The Marshall Project examined three American cities, we were able to drill deeper into the data and sketch a fuller picture. Based on police reports in these cities—Chicago, Austin, and Chandler, Arizona—domestic violence appears to be dropping, as have reports of all crimes. (A similar trend has been observed in New York City.) But domestic violence numbers are falling less than crime overall, and in some cases the kinds of abuse reported is more violent. That may be because it’s harder for victims to get help during the pandemic… Survivors always have a cost-benefit analysis in their minds, police and victim advocates say. Sometimes tolerating abuse is safer when the alternative is moving into a shelter where victims and their children may be exposed to the coronavirus, or when the abuser is the primary breadwinner as tens of millions lose their jobs. When victims do call police, a single report can belie many violent incidents that went unreported amid a pattern of abuse, says Margaret Bassett, training director at the Institute on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault at the University of Texas at Austin… One way to peek at the gap of underreporting is by comparing 911 calls with police incident reports. Since the outbreak of COVID-19 in early March, the Chicago Police Department has been seeing more and more domestic violence-related service calls—as many as 13-percent more than last year at this time—even as domestic violence police reports decline, according to Aileen Robinson, the police’s domestic violence operation coordinator there (the department does not make 911 data available online). This means fewer victims are following through with filing complaints after they or their neighbors called the police.
So police, at least in Chicago, are getting a higher number of calls for domestic violence but fewer people following through with reports. While it’s hard to know why, it does make a certain sense that in the midst of a crisis the risk of disrupting the relationship and the living situation is greater.
I hope no one reading this is living through a situation like the ones described above, but if you are the National Sexual Assault Hotline is 800.656.HOPE (4673). The National Domestic Violence Hotline is 1-800-799-SAFE (7233).


hotair--2020-04-28--Pentagon: Oh, by the way. UFOs are real

Pentagon: Oh, by the way. UFOs are real

This news broke yesterday , and as regular readers likely know , I tend to be among the first to jump on a good UFO story .
This one , however , I originally took a pass on because there really wasn ’ t all that much “ news ” involved .
The Pentagon , seemingly unprompted ( or at least not specifying which journalist , if any , was asking about it ) decided to officially release three videos purportedly showing Unexplained Aerospace/Ariel Phenomenon ( basically UFOs ) .
I headed over to check out the files instantly ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they were the exact same three videos that we ’ ve been discussing here since December of 2017 .
One was taken during an encounter with the Nimitz carrier group in 2004 and the others were from encounters with the Roosevelt carrier group in 2015 .
Still , plenty of mainstream media outlets , including ABC News , saw fit to at least mention it .
The Pentagon has declassified three previously leaked top secret U.S. Navy videos that show “ unexplained aerial phenomena ” and that some believe could show Unidentified Flying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ to clear up any misconceptions by the public on whether or not the footage that has been circulating was real or whether or not there is more to the videos , ” said a Pentagon spokesperson .
“ The aerial phenomena observed in the videos remain characterized as ‘ unidentified ' ” , the spokesperson added .
The videos , previously acknowledged by the Navy as being real , captured what Navy fighter pilots saw on their video sensors during training flights in 2004 and 2015 .
This obviously caused a stir @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interesting speculation and discussion , leading me to bring it up here today .
What should have been one of the most obvious observations was brought up by Greg Price who wrote about the story at the Daily Caller .
He later took to Twitter to express his amazement at one angle of the story which really should have been groundbreaking news but was landing with a thud in most of the press .
( Adult language warning ) “ We literally confirmed the existence of UFOs today and nobody gives a s**t. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ isn ’ t it ?
The new was put out , as always , by Pentagon spokeswoman Susan Gough , who I ’ ve dealt with before often enough that she has her own content tag here on our site .
But as we ’ ve previously discussed , getting any answers out of the Pentagon is like pulling teeth and they constantly contradict themselves .
They also make statements that are later shown to be highly deceptive on this subject , if not patently false .
( Saying the Luis Elizondo never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of many examples . )
But in essence , Greg is correct .
What actually happened was that after more than two years of badgering and decades worth of investigations , the Pentagon came out and confirmed that UFOs are real and they have no idea what they are or where they came from .
That should have been groundbreaking news , but apparently 2020 is so incredibly messed up that few people are interested unless aliens are coming down to finally put us out of our collective misery .
# sigh @ @ @ @ @ @ @ announcement were uncovered later .
Researcher and investigative journalist Dave Beaty looked into the files and discovered a peculiar glitch .
Two of the files are of the normal format you ’ d expect in most government releases on any subject .
But one of them – the FLIR video – was different .
The fact that the copy of the video released by the Pentagon was , at some point , downloaded from YouTube is curious .
There ’ s plenty of speculation as to why , but the most solid guess @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the Navy failed to even keep a copy of the video after the initial investigation so they later had to go steal it from the public domain .
The alternate theory is that the version that was put out on YouTube ( originally in 2007 before it “ disappeared ” ) was stripped of sensitive information so they preferred to release that one .
This suggests that there ’ s potentially another , possibly even longer version that we ’ re not being shown .
Of course , I will repeat one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the beginning .
Our military pilots have been saying for some time now that these were not unique events .
They see these things all the time .
But until recently , they weren ’ t supposed to talk about them .
The guys from the Nimitz said they ’ d seen dozens of them for weeks on end .
The idea that the government only has three videos after all this time is patently nonsensical and I don ’ t believe it for a minute .
But there you have it , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the United States government has officially confirmed the existence of UFOs .
They still don ’ t have a word to say about the possibility of extraterrestrial life being involved ( assuming it is ) , but I ’ m guessing that ’ s going to be coming in time .
It ’ s not impossible that we ’ re witnessing some sort of official government disclosure on the UFO topic , but they ’ re doing it in dribs and drabs .

This news broke yesterday, and as regular readers likely know, I tend to be among the first to jump on a good UFO story. This one, however, I originally took a pass on because there really wasn’t all that much “news” involved. The Pentagon, seemingly unprompted (or at least not specifying which journalist, if any, was asking about it) decided to officially release three videos purportedly showing Unexplained Aerospace/Ariel Phenomenon (basically UFOs). I headed over to check out the files instantly (of course) only to discover that they were the exact same three videos that we’ve been discussing here since December of 2017. One was taken during an encounter with the Nimitz carrier group in 2004 and the others were from encounters with the Roosevelt carrier group in 2015. Still, plenty of mainstream media outlets, including ABC News, saw fit to at least mention it.
The Pentagon has declassified three previously leaked top secret U.S. Navy videos that show “unexplained aerial phenomena” and that some believe could show Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs) in an effort “to clear up any misconceptions by the public on whether or not the footage that has been circulating was real or whether or not there is more to the videos,” said a Pentagon spokesperson. “The aerial phenomena observed in the videos remain characterized as ‘unidentified'”, the spokesperson added. The videos, previously acknowledged by the Navy as being real, captured what Navy fighter pilots saw on their video sensors during training flights in 2004 and 2015.
This obviously caused a stir in the ufology community and generated some interesting speculation and discussion, leading me to bring it up here today. What should have been one of the most obvious observations was brought up by Greg Price who wrote about the story at the Daily Caller. He later took to Twitter to express his amazement at one angle of the story which really should have been groundbreaking news but was landing with a thud in most of the press. (Adult language warning)
We literally confirmed the existence of UFOs today and nobody gives a shit — Greg Price (@greg_price11) April 27, 2020
“We literally confirmed the existence of UFOs today and nobody gives a s**t.”
That is sort of remarkable, isn’t it? The new was put out, as always, by Pentagon spokeswoman Susan Gough, who I’ve dealt with before often enough that she has her own content tag here on our site. But as we’ve previously discussed, getting any answers out of the Pentagon is like pulling teeth and they constantly contradict themselves. They also make statements that are later shown to be highly deceptive on this subject, if not patently false. (Saying the Luis Elizondo never worked on the AATIP program is only one of many examples.)
But in essence, Greg is correct. What actually happened was that after more than two years of badgering and decades worth of investigations, the Pentagon came out and confirmed that UFOs are real and they have no idea what they are or where they came from. That should have been groundbreaking news, but apparently 2020 is so incredibly messed up that few people are interested unless aliens are coming down to finally put us out of our collective misery. #sigh
A few other odd facts involving this announcement were uncovered later. Researcher and investigative journalist Dave Beaty looked into the files and discovered a peculiar glitch. Two of the files are of the normal format you’d expect in most government releases on any subject. But one of them – the FLIR video – was different.
Doing some analysis DoD UAP videos from 4.27.20 1-FLIR.mp4 The video decoder shows mp4 handler "(C) 2007 Google Inc. v06.24.2007." Which means it was on YouTube in 2007 and downloaded. IMO that's odd. https://t.co/zUQPJEyOHS@james_greywood @LtTimMcMillan @UfoJoe11 #TicTac pic.twitter.com/WVz2o2pcFW — Dave Beaty (@dave_beaty) April 28, 2020
The fact that the copy of the video released by the Pentagon was, at some point, downloaded from YouTube is curious. There’s plenty of speculation as to why, but the most solid guess I’ve heard thus far is that the Navy failed to even keep a copy of the video after the initial investigation so they later had to go steal it from the public domain. The alternate theory is that the version that was put out on YouTube (originally in 2007 before it “disappeared”) was stripped of sensitive information so they preferred to release that one. This suggests that there’s potentially another, possibly even longer version that we’re not being shown.
Of course, I will repeat one belief that I’ve maintained from the beginning. Our military pilots have been saying for some time now that these were not unique events. They see these things all the time. But until recently, they weren’t supposed to talk about them. The guys from the Nimitz said they’d seen dozens of them for weeks on end. The idea that the government only has three videos after all this time is patently nonsensical and I don’t believe it for a minute.
But there you have it, folks. In case you were wondering, the United States government has officially confirmed the existence of UFOs. They still don’t have a word to say about the possibility of extraterrestrial life being involved (assuming it is), but I’m guessing that’s going to be coming in time. It’s not impossible that we’re witnessing some sort of official government disclosure on the UFO topic, but they’re doing it in dribs and drabs.