hotair--2020-06-08--Uh, what: WHO official says it's "very rare" for asymptomatic patients to spread coronavirus

Two headlines , submitted for your approval .
One… The first was published by CNBC today .
The second was published by Time magazine three days ago .
How are our scientific experts still at odds over a fact as basic as whether asymptomatic patients are infectious ?
There are nearly two million confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the U.S. alone available for study .
Granted , it ’ s a novel virus so some of their early impressions were bound to be revisited .
We can forgive them ( sort of ) for initially believing that transmission happened by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ air .
We can even forgive them ( not really ) for their early skepticism towards wearing masks .
But how can there be a dispute over one of the disease ’ s most distinguishing characteristics , its supposed transmissibility by people not suffering symptoms ?
This was , I thought , essentially the entire reason why COVID-19 was so hard to control and why nothing short of shutting down the economy could slow it down .
We couldn ’ t stop it by quarantining the visibly sick because it wasn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it around .
Was it ?
From CNBC : Preliminary evidence from the earliest outbreaks indicated that the virus could spread from person-to-person contact , even if the carrier didn ’ t have symptoms .
But WHO officials now say that while asymptomatic spread can occur , it is not the main way it ’ s being transmitted .
“ From the data we have , it still seems to be rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual , ” Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove , head of WHO @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , said at a news briefing from the United Nations agency ’ s Geneva headquarters .
“ It ’ s very rare.
” … “ What we really want to be focused on is following the symptomatic cases , ” Van Kerkhove said .
“ If we actually followed all of the symptomatic cases , isolated those cases , followed the contacts and quarantined those contacts , we would drastically reduce ” the outbreak .
I thought we urgently needed to ramp up testing because random testing of seemingly healthy people was the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asymptomatic patients before they passed the virus along .
Now they ’ re telling us that … we mainly just need to test the symptomatic cases after all ?
What ?
Is this some new Chinese disinformation that the WHO has been tasked by Beijing with propagating ?
Here ’ s the story that accompanies the Time headline I featured up top : In a study published June 3 in the Annals of Internal Medicine , researchers at the Scripps Research Translational Institute reviewed data from 16 different groups of COVID-19 patients from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ idea of how many cases of coronavirus can likely be traced to people who spread the virus without ever knowing they were infected .
Their conclusion : at minimum , 30 % , and more likely 40 % to 45 % .
Such so-called asymptomatic spread is unique for a respiratory virus ; most cause symptoms and disease once they infect their hosts .
SARS-CoV-2 , the virus responsible for COVID-19 , is , however , particularly wily because it can also infect hosts silently and use them as unwitting pawns in its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ found is extraordinarily high , ” says Dr. Eric Topol , director and founder of the Institute and one of the authors of the paper .
“ That means the range of what can happen with SARS-CoV-2 is from no symptoms to [ death ] .
That ’ s not at all similar to any virus or pathogen we ’ ve experienced that has killing potential in the past .
What we have here is an extraordinary spectrum , including this quiet , stealth mode of infecting somebody.
” Note the distinction between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have no symptoms ” and “ X percent of coronavirus transmissions came from patients who have no symptoms.
” The CDC estimates that 35 percent of patients are asymptomatic but that ’ s not strictly inconsistent with the WHO ’ s new conclusion .
It could be that 35 percent get infected , never know , but also don ’ t pass it on to anyone else .
The significance of Topol ’ s study is that it claims , or seems to claim , that a huge majority of transmissions are coming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t know .
When Topol was asked about the WHO statement today on Twitter , he seemed to take a middle-ground view .
It may be that the WHO is right , that infected but asymptomatic people are infecting others only very rarely , yet the total population of asymptomatic patients may be so enormous that that still adds up to a large percentage of total infections overall : I don ’ t know how to square that with the CDC estimate , though .
One would think you ’ d need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ account for 40 percent of all transmissions if they ’ re infecting other people only infrequently .
And I can ’ t understand why asymptomatic people would be so much less likely to infect others if , as studies have shown , they have as much of the virus in their system as symptomatic patients do .
Someone who ’ s symptomatic may be more prone to expel the virus for greater distances than someone who ’ s not symptomatic ( e.g.
, through a hacking cough ) , but surely talking face-to-face @ @ @ @ @ @ @ space for some length of time should create a meaningful risk .
Except no , I guess , not if you believe the WHO .
Watch Kerkhove speaking today in the clip below .
At one point she distinguishes between true asymptomatics and people with merely “ mild ” symptoms .
Maybe all she ’ s saying here is that most of the people whom we think of as “ asymptomatic ” actually do have some sort of slight reaction to the disease — “ COVID toes ” or a day of muscle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people can transmit the disease .
But the true asymptomatics ?
They might be rare , and evidently they infect others rarely .
Why that might be , I have no idea since she doesn ’ t speculate .
After you ’ re done with the clip , read this fascinating and potentially important Wall Street Journal story about infection patterns across the country .
The Journal wanted to test the theory that the virus spreads most easily in high-density urban centers like New York City so it looked at transmission rates in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s *not* city density that ’ s the key variable .
It ’ s the frequency with which people live together in crowded households , with extended families under the same roof particularly vulnerable .
“ Remote , rural hamlets where extended families live under the same roof have turned deadlier than some of the densest blocks of Manhattan or Chicago , ” the WSJ reported .
“ In both contexts , the virus has zeroed in on crowded homes , sometimes wiping out generations in a matter of days.
” Among @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases , the top 10 percent in terms of the highest rates of crowding accounted for 28 percent of all COVID-19 cases .
This has always been the core argument for adopting centralized quarantine , as China did and some other Asian nations have done : Once someone in a family household gets sick , the only way to prevent a chain reaction is to get that person out of the home and into a hotel room or some other facility so that they can recover without infecting others .
We ’ ll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well , we ’ ve given up on fighting this disease by and large .
But we should .

Two headlines, submitted for your approval. One…
…and two:
The first was published by CNBC today. The second was published by Time magazine three days ago. How are our scientific experts still at odds over a fact as basic as whether asymptomatic patients are infectious? There are nearly two million confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the U.S. alone available for study.
Granted, it’s a novel virus so some of their early impressions were bound to be revisited. We can forgive them (sort of) for initially believing that transmission happened by touching contaminated surfaces instead of through the air. We can even forgive them (not really) for their early skepticism towards wearing masks. But how can there be a dispute over one of the disease’s most distinguishing characteristics, its supposed transmissibility by people not suffering symptoms? This was, I thought, essentially the entire reason why COVID-19 was so hard to control and why nothing short of shutting down the economy could slow it down. We couldn’t stop it by quarantining the visibly sick because it wasn’t just the visibly sick who were passing it around.
Was it? From CNBC:
Preliminary evidence from the earliest outbreaks indicated that the virus could spread from person-to-person contact, even if the carrier didn’t have symptoms. But WHO officials now say that while asymptomatic spread can occur, it is not the main way it’s being transmitted. “From the data we have, it still seems to be rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual,” Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove, head of WHO’s emerging diseases and zoonosis unit, said at a news briefing from the United Nations agency’s Geneva headquarters. “It’s very rare.”… “What we really want to be focused on is following the symptomatic cases,” Van Kerkhove said. “If we actually followed all of the symptomatic cases, isolated those cases, followed the contacts and quarantined those contacts, we would drastically reduce” the outbreak.
I thought we urgently needed to ramp up testing because random testing of seemingly healthy people was the only way to catch some of those asymptomatic patients before they passed the virus along. Now they’re telling us that … we mainly just need to test the symptomatic cases after all? What?
Is this some new Chinese disinformation that the WHO has been tasked by Beijing with propagating?
Here’s the story that accompanies the Time headline I featured up top:
In a study published June 3 in the Annals of Internal Medicine, researchers at the Scripps Research Translational Institute reviewed data from 16 different groups of COVID-19 patients from around the world to get a better idea of how many cases of coronavirus can likely be traced to people who spread the virus without ever knowing they were infected. Their conclusion: at minimum, 30%, and more likely 40% to 45%. Such so-called asymptomatic spread is unique for a respiratory virus; most cause symptoms and disease once they infect their hosts. SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for COVID-19, is, however, particularly wily because it can also infect hosts silently and use them as unwitting pawns in its infectious campaign. “The range we found is extraordinarily high,” says Dr. Eric Topol, director and founder of the Institute and one of the authors of the paper. “That means the range of what can happen with SARS-CoV-2 is from no symptoms to [death]. That’s not at all similar to any virus or pathogen we’ve experienced that has killing potential in the past. What we have here is an extraordinary spectrum, including this quiet, stealth mode of infecting somebody.”
Note the distinction between saying “X percent of coronavirus patients have no symptoms” and “X percent of coronavirus transmissions came from patients who have no symptoms.” The CDC estimates that 35 percent of patients are asymptomatic but that’s not strictly inconsistent with the WHO’s new conclusion. It could be that 35 percent get infected, never know, but also don’t pass it on to anyone else. The significance of Topol’s study is that it claims, or seems to claim, that a huge majority of transmissions are coming from asymptomatic patients.
But I don’t know. When Topol was asked about the WHO statement today on Twitter, he seemed to take a middle-ground view. It may be that the WHO is right, that infected but asymptomatic people are infecting others only very rarely, yet the total population of asymptomatic patients may be so enormous that that still adds up to a large percentage of total infections overall:
The rate of asymptomatic infections is ~40%. The viral load in these people are the same as those with symptoms. But the transmissibility magnitude has not been established, just that it does indeed occur.
Reviewed here:https://t.co/CUK8NBDvP9 https://t.co/eGHmI9uLvn — Eric Topol (@EricTopol) June 8, 2020
I don’t know how to square that with the CDC estimate, though. One would think you’d need a huge population of asymptomatic patients to account for 40 percent of all transmissions if they’re infecting other people only infrequently. And I can’t understand why asymptomatic people would be so much less likely to infect others if, as studies have shown, they have as much of the virus in their system as symptomatic patients do. Someone who’s symptomatic may be more prone to expel the virus for greater distances than someone who’s not symptomatic (e.g., through a hacking cough), but surely talking face-to-face with an asymptomatic carrier in a confined space for some length of time should create a meaningful risk. Except no, I guess, not if you believe the WHO.
Watch Kerkhove speaking today in the clip below. At one point she distinguishes between true asymptomatics and people with merely “mild” symptoms. Maybe all she’s saying here is that most of the people whom we think of as “asymptomatic” actually do have some sort of slight reaction to the disease — “COVID toes” or a day of muscle aches or what have you. Those people can transmit the disease. But the true asymptomatics? They might be rare, and evidently they infect others rarely. Why that might be, I have no idea since she doesn’t speculate.
After you’re done with the clip, read this fascinating and potentially important Wall Street Journal story about infection patterns across the country. The Journal wanted to test the theory that the virus spreads most easily in high-density urban centers like New York City so it looked at transmission rates in different regions. The verdict: It’s *not* city density that’s the key variable. It’s the frequency with which people live together in crowded households, with extended families under the same roof particularly vulnerable. “Remote, rural hamlets where extended families live under the same roof have turned deadlier than some of the densest blocks of Manhattan or Chicago,” the WSJ reported. “In both contexts, the virus has zeroed in on crowded homes, sometimes wiping out generations in a matter of days.” Among U.S. counties with 50 or more coronavirus cases, the top 10 percent in terms of the highest rates of crowding accounted for 28 percent of all COVID-19 cases. This has always been the core argument for adopting centralized quarantine, as China did and some other Asian nations have done: Once someone in a family household gets sick, the only way to prevent a chain reaction is to get that person out of the home and into a hotel room or some other facility so that they can recover without infecting others. We’ll probably never do it here because, well, we’ve given up on fighting this disease by and large. But we should.


hotair--2020-06-08--What is Tesla's 'Battery Day' and will it be a game-changer for electric cars?

Maybe you ’ ve heard people talking about this .
Elon Musk ’ s Tesla has been saying for weeks that it would soon hold an event called “ Battery Day ” at which the company would make a big announcement about new advances in battery technology .
Originally this was scheduled to take place in late May but that date slipped .
The company is still planning to hold two events , one in person an one online , but an exact date isn ’ t available yet .
So what is this all about and will it really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ technology ?
One reason that Battery Day didn ’ t happen last month may be that Reuters published a detailed story in mid-May which spelled out what Tesla was expected to announce .
The big headline is a new million-mile battery : The new “ million mile ” battery at the center of Tesla ’ s strategy was jointly developed with China ’ s Contemporary Amperex Technology Ltd ( CATL ) and deploys technology developed by Tesla in collaboration with a team of academic battery experts recruited by Musk , three people familiar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the technical advances made by Tesla and CATL in battery chemistry and design originated at a small research lab at Dalhousie University in Halifax , Nova Scotia .
The lab has been run since 1996 by Jeff Dahn , a pioneer in the development of lithium-ion batteries for electric vehicles and grid storage .
Dahn and his team began an exclusive five-year research partnership with Tesla in mid-2016 , but the relationship dates back at least to 2012 .
Among the critical contributions from Dahn ’ s lab : Chemical additives and nano-engineered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more resistant to bruising from stress such as rapid charging , thus extending their life .
The reference to a million mile battery has to do with how many cycles of charging and discharging a battery can take before it begins to fail .
Currently , the battery pack in the Tesla Model 3 is expected to last around 1,500 cycles .
At that point the lithium crystals inside the battery begin to crumble from the stress of being charged and discharged and the efficiency declines sharply .
But Tesla has filed a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” which uses a new process to create a lithium battery which can be charged and discharged at least twice as many times as current cells .
In addition , there are some coatings which can be used to further increase the life of the lithium in the battery , meaning Tesla could soon have cars with batteries that don ’ t have to be replaced for the lifetime of the car .
There ’ s a deep-dive video on the lithium cathode patent here if you ’ re so inclined .
Tesla @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a new battery design that doesn ’ t use cobalt .
Cobalt is the most expensive metal used in current batteries .
Eliminating it could mean significant cost savings .
Additional changes to the size and number of battery cells in each battery pack will simplify the production of the battery packs which could also make producing them significantly cheaper .
The goal of all of this is to bring the cost of the batteries and eventually the packs themselves below the threshold of $ 100 per kWh .
That ’ s the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the cost of an electric car is roughly equivalent to the cost of a gas-powered vehicle .
At present , the excess cost of electric cars has to be offset by state and federal rebates .
But once the cost of the batteries drops that shouldn ’ t be necessary anymore .
Elon Musk has said that he believes the cost of the packs will be below that level within two years .
The technology used in these auto batteries is applicable to other things like Tesla ’ s Powerwall , which is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ solar power generation .
So to answer the question about whether or not this is a big deal , it probably is if it means the cost of electric cars will drop and make them much more competitive in the market .
As mentioned above , the researcher behind a lot of this new technology is Jeff Dahn .
Here ’ s a brief history of Dahn ’ s work on lithium ion batteries including his work with Tesla .

Maybe you’ve heard people talking about this. Elon Musk’s Tesla has been saying for weeks that it would soon hold an event called “Battery Day” at which the company would make a big announcement about new advances in battery technology. Originally this was scheduled to take place in late May but that date slipped. The company is still planning to hold two events, one in person an one online, but an exact date isn’t available yet.
So what is this all about and will it really be a big deal for electric car technology? One reason that Battery Day didn’t happen last month may be that Reuters published a detailed story in mid-May which spelled out what Tesla was expected to announce. The big headline is a new million-mile battery:
The new “million mile” battery at the center of Tesla’s strategy was jointly developed with China’s Contemporary Amperex Technology Ltd (CATL) and deploys technology developed by Tesla in collaboration with a team of academic battery experts recruited by Musk, three people familiar with the effort said… A number of the technical advances made by Tesla and CATL in battery chemistry and design originated at a small research lab at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia. The lab has been run since 1996 by Jeff Dahn, a pioneer in the development of lithium-ion batteries for electric vehicles and grid storage. Dahn and his team began an exclusive five-year research partnership with Tesla in mid-2016, but the relationship dates back at least to 2012. Among the critical contributions from Dahn’s lab: Chemical additives and nano-engineered materials to make lithium-ion batteries tougher and more resistant to bruising from stress such as rapid charging, thus extending their life.
The reference to a million mile battery has to do with how many cycles of charging and discharging a battery can take before it begins to fail. Currently, the battery pack in the Tesla Model 3 is expected to last around 1,500 cycles. At that point the lithium crystals inside the battery begin to crumble from the stress of being charged and discharged and the efficiency declines sharply.
But Tesla has filed a patent for a “single crystal cathode” which uses a new process to create a lithium battery which can be charged and discharged at least twice as many times as current cells. In addition, there are some coatings which can be used to further increase the life of the lithium in the battery, meaning Tesla could soon have cars with batteries that don’t have to be replaced for the lifetime of the car. There’s a deep-dive video on the lithium cathode patent here if you’re so inclined.
Tesla may also announce some other changes including a new battery design that doesn’t use cobalt. Cobalt is the most expensive metal used in current batteries. Eliminating it could mean significant cost savings. Additional changes to the size and number of battery cells in each battery pack will simplify the production of the battery packs which could also make producing them significantly cheaper.
The goal of all of this is to bring the cost of the batteries and eventually the packs themselves below the threshold of $100 per kWh. That’s the figure at which it is generally believed the cost of an electric car is roughly equivalent to the cost of a gas-powered vehicle. At present, the excess cost of electric cars has to be offset by state and federal rebates. But once the cost of the batteries drops that shouldn’t be necessary anymore. Elon Musk has said that he believes the cost of the packs will be below that level within two years.
The technology used in these auto batteries is applicable to other things like Tesla’s Powerwall, which is designed as a home battery solution for solar power generation. So to answer the question about whether or not this is a big deal, it probably is if it means the cost of electric cars will drop and make them much more competitive in the market.
As mentioned above, the researcher behind a lot of this new technology is Jeff Dahn. Here’s a brief history of Dahn’s work on lithium ion batteries including his work with Tesla.


hotair--2020-06-08--Bombshell: DOJ comes for Prince Andrew in criminal probe, seeks interview

The U.S. Department of Justice has formally told the U.K. for the first time that Prince Andrew is part of a criminal probe springing from his links to now-deceased pedophile Jeffrey Epstein .
Prince Andrew , unlike his mum Queen Elizabeth II , does not hold sovereign immunity from prosecution .
He can be forced to appear in a British court to answer questions .
Talk about a diplomatic nightmare .
If you watched Netflix ’ s Jeffrey Epstein : Filthy Rich , as I did , you know that Prince Andrew isn ’ t an innocent bystander who was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the criminal charges against Epstein .
He was a friend and benefitted from the friendship , at least when it came to enjoying the hospitality of Epstein in his homes and the trafficked young girls his lifestyle brought .
Andrew has admitted being pals with Epstein since 1999 after being introduced by socialite Ghislaine Maxwell .
Epstein was a guest at Ghislaine ’ s birthday party at Sandringham .
He also attended Beatrice ’ s 18th birthday party at Windsor Castle , just two months after a warrant was issued for his arrest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Andrew and Epstein met on at least ten occasions and the Duke stayed over at Epstein ’ s New York mansion , Palm Beach home and on a private island in the US Virgin Islands .
The prince has maintained all along he is innocent of any wrongdoing .
During his infamous television interview with the BBC last November , he said he would cooperate with an American investigation if “ legal advice was to do so ” .
But , he hasn ’ t cooperated so far and the Southern District of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fresh out of patience .
In January U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman leading the inquiry said Prince Andrew “ provided zero co-operation ” .
Then , two months later , Berman said the Duke had “ now completely shut the door on voluntary co-operation ” .
He warned that the office was considering its options .
Team Andrew hits back against claims that there has been no communication with Berman ’ s office and Berman admits “ communications through his attorneys ” .
Nonetheless , Randy Andy is “ not willing to submit to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. Department of Justice has invoked the terms of a mutual legal assistance treaty with Great Britain in order to question Prince Andrew as a witness .
The Sun reports the request was “ formally lodged by the DoJ last month under the terms of a 1994 MLA treaty.
” If the request is granted , U.S. prosecutors have two options .
The first , typically only used for witnesses to crimes , would see the Duke asked to voluntarily attend an interview and give a signed statement .
Crucially , this would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say angry American investigators – frustrated at what they see as a lack of cooperation from the Queen ’ s son to date – have the power to pursue an explosive second route .
That would see Andrew asked to attend London ’ s City of Westminster Magistrates ’ Court to provide oral or written evidence on oath .
If he refused , the Duke could be forced to attend in person by summons , with DoJ lawyers able to quiz him .
But any evidence session could be held “ in camera @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or public present .
He would still have the right to “ take the Fifth ” by staying silent to avoid self-incrimination .
The Home Office always handles MLA requests filed to the UK in criminal matters .
The DOJ is declining to comment , as is Buckingham Palace .
Britain ’ s Home Office said they do not comment on the existence of MLA requests .
The Duke ’ s legal team responded to the Sun ’ s report .
“ Legal discussions with the DOJ are subject to strict confidentiality rules @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guidelines , ” a source close to the prince ’ s legal team said in response to the Sun report .
“ We have chosen to abide by both the letter and the spirit of these rules , which is why we have made no comment about anything related to the DOJ during the course of this year .
We believe in playing straight bat.
” And there is more pushback from Andrew ’ s legal team as the day goes on .
They say Berman is just seeking publicity .
Andrew ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ferguson , said that Justice Department officials had given them “ unequivocal assurance ” that their discussions with investigators would remain confidential .
But they suggested that Berman ’ s public statements on the case were “ seeking publicity rather than accepting the assistance proffered.
” And lawyers said that Andrew has been told by the DOJ that he is not , nor ever was , a “ target ” of the criminal probe .
“ Far from our client acting above the law , as has been implied by press briefings in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by a lower standard than might reasonably be expected for any other citizen , ” Andrew ’ s lawyers said .
So , what do we think Prince Andrew will do ?
His barrister ( lawyer ) Clare Montgomery is known as a top barrister who previously represented Chilean dictator General Pinochet , so Prince Andrew shouldn ’ t be a challenge , right ?
He can plead the Fifth and never say a word in a court of law , or under oath anywhere .

The U.S. Department of Justice has formally told the U.K. for the first time that Prince Andrew is part of a criminal probe springing from his links to now-deceased pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Prince Andrew, unlike his mum Queen Elizabeth II, does not hold sovereign immunity from prosecution. He can be forced to appear in a British court to answer questions.
Talk about a diplomatic nightmare. If you watched Netflix’s Jeffrey Epstein: Filthy Rich, as I did, you know that Prince Andrew isn’t an innocent bystander who was caught up in a wide-ranging investigation into the criminal charges against Epstein. He was a friend and benefitted from the friendship, at least when it came to enjoying the hospitality of Epstein in his homes and the trafficked young girls his lifestyle brought.
Andrew has admitted being pals with Epstein since 1999 after being introduced by socialite Ghislaine Maxwell. Epstein was a guest at Ghislaine’s birthday party at Sandringham. He also attended Beatrice’s 18th birthday party at Windsor Castle, just two months after a warrant was issued for his arrest for sexual assault of a minor. Andrew and Epstein met on at least ten occasions and the Duke stayed over at Epstein’s New York mansion, Palm Beach home and on a private island in the US Virgin Islands.
The prince has maintained all along he is innocent of any wrongdoing. During his infamous television interview with the BBC last November, he said he would cooperate with an American investigation if “legal advice was to do so”. But, he hasn’t cooperated so far and the Southern District of New York leading the Epstein inquiry is fresh out of patience. In January U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman leading the inquiry said Prince Andrew “provided zero co-operation”. Then, two months later, Berman said the Duke had “now completely shut the door on voluntary co-operation”. He warned that the office was considering its options.
Team Andrew hits back against claims that there has been no communication with Berman’s office and Berman admits “communications through his attorneys”. Nonetheless, Randy Andy is “not willing to submit to an interview”. So, the U.S. Department of Justice has invoked the terms of a mutual legal assistance treaty with Great Britain in order to question Prince Andrew as a witness. The Sun reports the request was “formally lodged by the DoJ last month under the terms of a 1994 MLA treaty.”
“The DoJ does not make a request of this nature lightly, especially one involving a senior member of the British royal family. “It puts the UK government in a very difficult position – and the Duke of York even more so.”
If the request is granted, U.S. prosecutors have two options.
The first, typically only used for witnesses to crimes, would see the Duke asked to voluntarily attend an interview and give a signed statement. Crucially, this would NOT be under oath. But sources say angry American investigators – frustrated at what they see as a lack of cooperation from the Queen’s son to date – have the power to pursue an explosive second route. That would see Andrew asked to attend London’s City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court to provide oral or written evidence on oath. If he refused, the Duke could be forced to attend in person by summons, with DoJ lawyers able to quiz him. But any evidence session could be held “in camera” – privately, with no press or public present. He would still have the right to “take the Fifth” by staying silent to avoid self-incrimination.
The Home Office always handles MLA requests filed to the UK in criminal matters.
The DOJ is declining to comment, as is Buckingham Palace. Britain’s Home Office said they do not comment on the existence of MLA requests. The Duke’s legal team responded to the Sun’s report.
“Legal discussions with the DOJ are subject to strict confidentiality rules, as set out in their own guidelines,” a source close to the prince’s legal team said in response to the Sun report. “We have chosen to abide by both the letter and the spirit of these rules, which is why we have made no comment about anything related to the DOJ during the course of this year. We believe in playing straight bat.”
And there is more pushback from Andrew’s legal team as the day goes on. They say Berman is just seeking publicity.
Andrew’s lawyers, Clare Montgomery and Stephen Ferguson, said that Justice Department officials had given them “unequivocal assurance” that their discussions with investigators would remain confidential. But they suggested that Berman’s public statements on the case were “seeking publicity rather than accepting the assistance proffered.” And lawyers said that Andrew has been told by the DOJ that he is not, nor ever was, a “target” of the criminal probe. “Far from our client acting above the law, as has been implied by press briefings in the U.S., he is being treated by a lower standard than might reasonably be expected for any other citizen,” Andrew’s lawyers said.
So, what do we think Prince Andrew will do? His barrister (lawyer) Clare Montgomery is known as a top barrister who previously represented Chilean dictator General Pinochet, so Prince Andrew shouldn’t be a challenge, right? He can plead the Fifth and never say a word in a court of law, or under oath anywhere.


hotair--2020-06-08--Satellite data suggest coronavirus was spreading in Wuhan months earlier than believed

China first told the World Health Organization it was treating multiple cases of a mysterious pneumonia on December 31 , 2019 .
At the time it was warning doctors in local hospitals not to spread “ rumors ” about the disease .
In March , the South China Morning Post reported that the first known case of the disease may have been contracted in Wuhan around mid-November , pushing the timeline back a few more weeks .
However , using satellite photos , Dr. John Brownstein and a team of researchers says it appears the virus may have been spreading @ @ @ @ @ @ @ earlier : Using techniques similar to those employed by intelligence agencies , the research team behind the study analyzed commercial satellite imagery and “ observed a dramatic increase in hospital traffic outside five major Wuhan hospitals beginning late summer and early fall 2019 , ” according to Dr. John Brownstein , the Harvard Medical professor who led the research .
Brownstein , an ABC News contributor , said the traffic increase also “ coincided with ” elevated queries on a Chinese internet search for “ certain symptoms that would later be determined as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ … “ Something was happening in October , ” said Brownstein , the chief innovation officer at Boston Children ’ s Hospital and director of the medical center ’ s Computational Epidemiology Lab .
“ Clearly , there was some level of social disruption taking place well before what was previously identified as the start of the novel coronavirus pandemic.
” … “ At all the larger hospitals in Wuhan , we measured the highest traffic we ’ ve seen in over two years during the September through December 2019 time frame , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is used to measuring tiny changes , like 2 % to 3 % growth in a Cabella ’ s or Wal-Mart parking lot .
That was not the case here .
Here , there is a very clear trend.
” ABC published this graph showing a spike in hospital traffic well before November : The timeline along the bottom of that graph is a bit hard to parse but that dotted line seems to mark the point at which there was an uptick .
That would have been sometime around early August and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to fall off .
Obviously people who are infected don ’ t become sick immediately .
It takes a number of days for symptoms to crop up .
So if people were heading to the hospital as early as August , the first infections may have been taking place in late July .
The graph of Wuhan internet searches for words that might be associated with an outbreak of coronavirus seem to have an uptick at almost exactly the same time : ABC reports that this data showing something changed in Wuhan last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ classified early U.S. intelligence reporting.
” Back in April there were reports that U.S. intelligence agencies believe China was hiding the true scope of the outbreak .
The earlier timeline would help explain how it was possible that there were cases of the virus in the U.S. in 2019 .
Last month the Seattle Times reported that antibody testing had identified two people who ’ d had the disease in late December and early January .
One of the two cases , a woman identified as Jean , came down with the disease @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jean had not traveled to China or anywhere else before she became ill .
So she must have gotten the virus from someone else who had traveled in China even earlier and then returned to the U.S. and spread it to her .
The big caveat here is that the evidence is circumstantial .
Of course China has the records for all the people who visited those Wuhan hospitals in October .
It probably still has samples from people who visited with corona-like symptoms .
Unfortunately , it doesn ’ t seem very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cooperation from China in investigating this .
They have a politically-driven narrative about China ’ s outstanding response to the virus which overlooks the weeks in January they spent downplaying this .
Pushing back the spread of the virus by 2-4 months would only make the CCP response look worse and they won ’ t allow that to happen .
Finally , there ’ s a potential problem with the idea that the virus was spreading in Wuhan as far back as July or August of 2019 .
How is it possible there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in January ?
The simple answer is that it ’ s not possible .
If the virus was spreading and people were going to the hospital , there must have been deaths .
But perhaps those were classified as pneumonia at the time .
We ’ ve already seen the ways in which authoritarian regimes hide coronavirus deaths in order to keep them out of the official numbers .
And remember that leaked document on the outbreak which had 640,000 updates .
We already know China is willing to cover up the numbers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well .
Here ’ s the video report that appeared on Good Morning America this morning .

China first told the World Health Organization it was treating multiple cases of a mysterious pneumonia on December 31, 2019. At the time it was warning doctors in local hospitals not to spread “rumors” about the disease. In March, the South China Morning Post reported that the first known case of the disease may have been contracted in Wuhan around mid-November, pushing the timeline back a few more weeks. However, using satellite photos, Dr. John Brownstein and a team of researchers says it appears the virus may have been spreading widely in Wuhan in October and even earlier:
Using techniques similar to those employed by intelligence agencies, the research team behind the study analyzed commercial satellite imagery and “observed a dramatic increase in hospital traffic outside five major Wuhan hospitals beginning late summer and early fall 2019,” according to Dr. John Brownstein, the Harvard Medical professor who led the research. Brownstein, an ABC News contributor, said the traffic increase also “coincided with” elevated queries on a Chinese internet search for “certain symptoms that would later be determined as closely associated with the novel coronavirus.”… “Something was happening in October,” said Brownstein, the chief innovation officer at Boston Children’s Hospital and director of the medical center’s Computational Epidemiology Lab. “Clearly, there was some level of social disruption taking place well before what was previously identified as the start of the novel coronavirus pandemic.”… “At all the larger hospitals in Wuhan, we measured the highest traffic we’ve seen in over two years during the September through December 2019 time frame,” Diamond said. “Our company is used to measuring tiny changes, like 2% to 3% growth in a Cabella’s or Wal-Mart parking lot. That was not the case here. Here, there is a very clear trend.”
ABC published this graph showing a spike in hospital traffic well before November:
The timeline along the bottom of that graph is a bit hard to parse but that dotted line seems to mark the point at which there was an uptick. That would have been sometime around early August and then that peaks around December and begins to fall off. Obviously people who are infected don’t become sick immediately. It takes a number of days for symptoms to crop up. So if people were heading to the hospital as early as August, the first infections may have been taking place in late July.
The graph of Wuhan internet searches for words that might be associated with an outbreak of coronavirus seem to have an uptick at almost exactly the same time:
ABC reports that this data showing something changed in Wuhan last fall is “a key factor in classified early U.S. intelligence reporting.” Back in April there were reports that U.S. intelligence agencies believe China was hiding the true scope of the outbreak.
The earlier timeline would help explain how it was possible that there were cases of the virus in the U.S. in 2019. Last month the Seattle Times reported that antibody testing had identified two people who’d had the disease in late December and early January. One of the two cases, a woman identified as Jean, came down with the disease just after Christmas last year. But Jean had not traveled to China or anywhere else before she became ill. So she must have gotten the virus from someone else who had traveled in China even earlier and then returned to the U.S. and spread it to her.
The big caveat here is that the evidence is circumstantial. Of course China has the records for all the people who visited those Wuhan hospitals in October. It probably still has samples from people who visited with corona-like symptoms. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem very likely that we’ll get any cooperation from China in investigating this. They have a politically-driven narrative about China’s outstanding response to the virus which overlooks the weeks in January they spent downplaying this. Pushing back the spread of the virus by 2-4 months would only make the CCP response look worse and they won’t allow that to happen.
Finally, there’s a potential problem with the idea that the virus was spreading in Wuhan as far back as July or August of 2019. How is it possible there were no deaths recorded until months later in January? The simple answer is that it’s not possible. If the virus was spreading and people were going to the hospital, there must have been deaths. But perhaps those were classified as pneumonia at the time. We’ve already seen the ways in which authoritarian regimes hide coronavirus deaths in order to keep them out of the official numbers. And remember that leaked document on the outbreak which had 640,000 updates. We already know China is willing to cover up the numbers, so why not the timeline as well.
Here’s the video report that appeared on Good Morning America this morning.


hotair--2020-06-08--Philly Inquirer editor quits over "insensitive" headline

This story looks suspiciously similar to what happened at the New York Times after they decided to run that op-ed from Tom Cotton .
Only this time , the tale is playing out a bit to the south in the City of Brotherly Love .
It was revealed this weekend that the Pulitzer Prize-winning Executive Editor at the Philadelphia Inquirer was resigning over yet another “ mistake ” in the form of the decision to run an offensive article by a similarly prize-winning reporter .
Stan Wischnowski was thanked for his many years of service to the paper , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tragic mistake was accepted nonetheless .
( Inquirer.com ) Stan Wischnowski , the top editor of The Philadelphia Inquirer , has announced his resignation , days after discontent among the newspaper ’ s staff erupted over a headline on a column about the impact of the civil unrest following the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis .
Wischnowski , 58 , led the paper over two turbulent periods in recent years , driving it ; its sister paper , the Daily News ; and its website , Inquirer.com , to reshape themselves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ business .
Wischnowski will be out the door on Friday and the search is on for a replacement “ who embodies our values , embraces our shared strategy , and understands the diversity of the communities we serve.
” Ouch .
He must have pulled a really bonehead maneuver here , eh ?
I suppose we ’ d better find out what he did that was so bad .
As it happens , Wischnowski approved the publication of an article about the recent riots written by Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Inga Saffron .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Too , ” sent shockwaves through the newsroom .
( For the record , Saffron is the newspaper ’ s architecture critic . )
More than 40 reporters decided to “ call in sick and tired ” over the decision and it led Jenice Armstrong , a female , African-American reporter , to pen a scathing rebuttal .
In it , she vented about how she is paid less than most of her colleagues and how Black reporters and editors are underrepresented at the paper .
So what was so horrible about Saffron @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out that the destruction of businesses in the city negatively impacts communities of color more than anyone else and such actions are counterproductive to the cause .
Really controversial stuff , eh ?
Or maybe it was just the title .
The paper later edited it to read , “ Damaging buildings disproportionately hurt the people protesters are trying to uplift.
” But the more easily offended took the original title as some sort of attack on “ Black Lives Matter , ” despite the fact that the contents of the article said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conveyed .
Is it really that shocking to think that the architecture critic talking about how “ buildings matter ” would seem rather normal to everyone else ?
But none of that came up for discussion .
The paper issued a rapid apology for their supposed lack of sensitivity , leading to the Executive Editor ’ s decision to cut his career short .
The original author of the offending piece , Ms. Saffron , is apparently still on the payroll .
So that ’ s apparently all it takes to topple an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ engage in some sort of walkout and trash the paper ’ s management on social media .
In an era where publishers are laying off journalists in record numbers , you ’ d suspect that most of them would be a bit more careful about how they handled such issues .
If the newspaper had chosen to publish something truly racist or offensive , that would be one thing .
But Saffron ’ s article fully supported the rights and objectives of the legitimate protesters .
She was simply pointing out that burning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a particularly productive use of anyone ’ s time .
And for that , somebody ’ s head had to roll .
It turned out to be the Executive Editor .
Welcome to the woke world of 2020 .

This story looks suspiciously similar to what happened at the New York Times after they decided to run that op-ed from Tom Cotton. Only this time, the tale is playing out a bit to the south in the City of Brotherly Love. It was revealed this weekend that the Pulitzer Prize-winning Executive Editor at the Philadelphia Inquirer was resigning over yet another “mistake” in the form of the decision to run an offensive article by a similarly prize-winning reporter. Stan Wischnowski was thanked for his many years of service to the paper, but his resignation in the wake of this tragic mistake was accepted nonetheless. (Inquirer.com)
Stan Wischnowski, the top editor of The Philadelphia Inquirer, has announced his resignation, days after discontent among the newspaper’s staff erupted over a headline on a column about the impact of the civil unrest following the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis. Wischnowski, 58, led the paper over two turbulent periods in recent years, driving it; its sister paper, the Daily News; and its website, Inquirer.com, to reshape themselves as the digital age transformed the news business.
Wischnowski will be out the door on Friday and the search is on for a replacement “who embodies our values, embraces our shared strategy, and understands the diversity of the communities we serve.” Ouch. He must have pulled a really bonehead maneuver here, eh? I suppose we’d better find out what he did that was so bad.
As it happens, Wischnowski approved the publication of an article about the recent riots written by Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Inga Saffron. The article, originally titled “Buildings Matter Too,” sent shockwaves through the newsroom. (For the record, Saffron is the newspaper’s architecture critic.) More than 40 reporters decided to “call in sick and tired” over the decision and it led Jenice Armstrong, a female, African-American reporter, to pen a scathing rebuttal. In it, she vented about how she is paid less than most of her colleagues and how Black reporters and editors are underrepresented at the paper.
So what was so horrible about Saffron’s article? She was pointing out that the destruction of businesses in the city negatively impacts communities of color more than anyone else and such actions are counterproductive to the cause. Really controversial stuff, eh? Or maybe it was just the title. The paper later edited it to read, “Damaging buildings disproportionately hurt the people protesters are trying to uplift.” But the more easily offended took the original title as some sort of attack on “Black Lives Matter,” despite the fact that the contents of the article said pretty much exactly what the new title conveyed. Is it really that shocking to think that the architecture critic talking about how “buildings matter” would seem rather normal to everyone else?
But none of that came up for discussion. The paper issued a rapid apology for their supposed lack of sensitivity, leading to the Executive Editor’s decision to cut his career short. The original author of the offending piece, Ms. Saffron, is apparently still on the payroll.
So that’s apparently all it takes to topple an editor these days. Reporters can all engage in some sort of walkout and trash the paper’s management on social media. In an era where publishers are laying off journalists in record numbers, you’d suspect that most of them would be a bit more careful about how they handled such issues. If the newspaper had chosen to publish something truly racist or offensive, that would be one thing. But Saffron’s article fully supported the rights and objectives of the legitimate protesters. She was simply pointing out that burning down communities of color wasn’t a particularly productive use of anyone’s time.
And for that, somebody’s head had to roll. It turned out to be the Executive Editor. Welcome to the woke world of 2020.


hotair--2020-06-08--Scientist: We could see up to 1,100 additional daily coronavirus deaths from these protests if they'

Scientist: We could see up to 1,100 additional daily coronavirus deaths from these protests if they're large enough

Bear in mind that the U.S. is averaging around 900 deaths or so on weekdays lately .
If the high end of these estimates bears out , the protests will have caused the daily national death toll to more than double .
Trevor Bedford is the Seattle researcher who used genomic analysis early on in the pandemic to detect hidden community spread in Seattle , the first big clue that America had a more significant COVID-19 problem than it realized .
He ’ s watching the mass demonstrations against police brutality this week with growing concern , knowing that from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part is all that matters .
The virus won ’ t make exceptions in the name of progress .
What sort of uptick can we expect from the protests ?
He tried to quantify it .
Note the last bit .
He ’ s not claiming that *any* protests will kill hundreds .
He ’ s assuming 600,000 participants in the aggregate nationwide .
I ’ m guessing we reached that number on Saturday given the huge rallies in D.C. and Philly , among other places… …but maybe we haven ’ t reached @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Six hundred thousand people protesting on a given day is a lot — but given how many protests there have been scattered across the country this past week , I wonder if maybe we ’ re clearing that threshold more than we know .
Let ’ s not kid ourselves either that any increase in the numbers will necessarily derive from the protests .
Reopening the country is boosting infections too .
I ’ d feel safer outdoors in a large crowd in the sunshine with a mask on while in constant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ casino right now : The Vegas clip shocked me more than the protest clips did because of how normally everyone is behaving .
Mass demonstrations are many things but “ normal ” isn ’ t one ; the Vegas footage looks like it came from an alternate dimension in which there ’ s no coronavirus , though , with a few stray masks being worn by gamblers the only hint of a lurking threat .
Most Americans aren ’ t behaving that recklessly — majorities still say they ’ d be “ somewhat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attending a public gathering — but the backsliding on social distancing has clearly begun .
“ America Has Given Up on the Pandemic ” write two authors at the Atlantic : Americans have not fully grasped that we are not doing what countries that have returned to normal have done .
Some countries have almost completely suppressed the virus .
Others had large outbreaks , took intense measures , and have seen life return to normal .
Americans , meanwhile , never stayed at home to the degree that most Europeans have , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Google .
Our version of the spring lockdown looked more like Sweden ’ s looser approach than like the more substantial measures in Italy , or even the United Kingdom and France .
Swedish public-health officials have acknowledged that this approach may not have been the best path forward… Maybe the U.S. will somehow avoid another New York–style outbreak .
Maybe the number of new infections will not grow exponentially .
Maybe treatments have sufficiently improved that we will see huge outbreaks , but fewer people will die than we ’ ve come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ won ’ t be because the United States made concerted , coordinated decisions about how to balance the horrors of the pandemic and the frustration of pausing everyday life .
Instead , the United States has moved from attempting to beat the virus to managing the harm of losing .
“ [ M ] oved from attempting to beat the virus to managing the harm of losing ” captures a lot about American politics and culture in 2020 .
The country doesn ’ t meet great challenges anymore ; it doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ manages the rate of its failure .
We ’ ve succeeded in reducing the death toll from one 9/11 per day to two 9/11s per week .
That ’ s something , no ?
That ’ s progress .
Or what passes for progress in a decadent nation .
What ’ s amazing , though , is that even our public health experts seem satisfied with an elevated death toll under certain circumstances .
Jaws dropped over the weekend on conservative social media at this new tweak to Contra Costa County ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also allowing religious gatherings of up to 100 people but that seems like political cover aimed at showing “ evenhandedness ” in carving out an otherwise inexplicable exception to social distancing rules .
In the name of granting an exception to the George Floyd demonstrations , a cause approved by the left , the county will also grant an exception for right-wingers and their religious beliefs .
But of course the virus doesn ’ t care either way .
A mass gathering is a mass gathering is a mass gathering .
To my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protests in an age of pandemic are the ones that insist on justifying them as a matter of public health , not as a fundamentally political or cultural movement for racial equality .
At Slate Susan Matthews strains to frame the demonstrations that way because she knows it makes the egregious double standard somewhat easier to swallow : “ Police brutality—and racism more broadly—has an enormous and well-documented impact on public health and loss of life… So it ’ s not wrong for public health experts to take the purpose of the protests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ particularly when the purposes relate to matters of public health.
” If you tell Americans that politics is more important than containing the virus , they ’ ll understandably be outraged .
But if you tell them that one important public health concern may weigh more heavily than another important public health concern , that seems on its face a bit more reasonable .
But it isn ’ t .
The salient fact about COVID-19 isn ’ t that it ’ s an “ important public health concern , ” it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ once-in-a-century threat to public health .
Modeling at the start of the pandemic projected two million Americans dead if no countermeasures were taken .
We shut down the entire economy and still lost more than 100,000 people in less than three months .
Nothing compares right now .
Lockdown opponents have spent months arguing their position in terms of public health , in fact : No economy means unemployment and bankruptcies , which means suicide and drug addiction and domestic violence and all manner of social ills on an unimaginably vast canvas the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likes of Matthews didn ’ t want to hear it .
Nothing compares to the virus right now , they countered .
I think they were right ; we averted 60 million infections by locking down , according to one study .
But ultimately they didn ’ t think they were right .
Here ’ s a simple thought experiment to puncture the “ important public health concern ” nonsense .
Would any public health expert have condoned mass demonstrations at this particular point in the pandemic for any other public health concern @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , imagine someone wanted to organize a million-person march on Washington for breast-cancer research funding or Alzheimer ’ s research funding or any of a thousand other worthy — and urgent , given the number of victims — health causes one might champion .
Can anyone imagine our scientific class declaring why , yes , this gigantic mass gathering amid rampant infection and death on behalf of a public health priority is welcome ?
Or would they have said good cause , but you ’ re out of your mind ?
Is there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lose public trust either way for subordinating public health to political advocacy by endorsing the protests but they might lose a tiny bit less if they at least copped to what they were doing forthrightly .

Bear in mind that the U.S. is averaging around 900 deaths or so on weekdays lately. If the high end of these estimates bears out, the protests will have caused the daily national death toll to more than double.
Trevor Bedford is the Seattle researcher who used genomic analysis early on in the pandemic to detect hidden community spread in Seattle, the first big clue that America had a more significant COVID-19 problem than it realized. He’s watching the mass demonstrations against police brutality this week with growing concern, knowing that from an epidemiological standpoint the “mass” part is all that matters. The virus won’t make exceptions in the name of progress.
What sort of uptick can we expect from the protests? He tried to quantify it.
These infections will percolate through the community and be realized over the coming weeks. Assuming an IFR of between 0.5% and 1%, we would expect these ~54k infections to result in 270-540 eventual deaths per day of protests. 7/12 — Trevor Bedford (@trvrb) June 7, 2020
My (updated) best guess is that each day of protests involving 600k people will result in between 200 and 1100 eventual deaths. 9/12 — Trevor Bedford (@trvrb) June 7, 2020
Note the last bit. He’s not claiming that *any* protests will kill hundreds. He’s assuming 600,000 participants in the aggregate nationwide. I’m guessing we reached that number on Saturday given the huge rallies in D.C. and Philly, among other places…
The crowd in Philly is…unfathomable? I can’t even guess. Unbelievable. pic.twitter.com/02ZIcyTXW5 — Bradford Pearson (@BradfordPearson) June 6, 2020
…but maybe we haven’t reached it on (m)any others. Six hundred thousand people protesting on a given day is a lot — but given how many protests there have been scattered across the country this past week, I wonder if maybe we’re clearing that threshold more than we know.
Let’s not kid ourselves either that any increase in the numbers will necessarily derive from the protests. Reopening the country is boosting infections too. I’d feel safer outdoors in a large crowd in the sunshine with a mask on while in constant motion than I would hanging around a casino right now:
Las Vegas is officially back. pic.twitter.com/EI3nXs2e5w — Arash Markazi (@ArashMarkazi) June 6, 2020
The Vegas clip shocked me more than the protest clips did because of how normally everyone is behaving. Mass demonstrations are many things but “normal” isn’t one; the Vegas footage looks like it came from an alternate dimension in which there’s no coronavirus, though, with a few stray masks being worn by gamblers the only hint of a lurking threat. Most Americans aren’t behaving that recklessly — majorities still say they’d be “somewhat uncomfortable” eating at a restaurant or attending a public gathering — but the backsliding on social distancing has clearly begun. “America Has Given Up on the Pandemic” write two authors at the Atlantic:
Americans have not fully grasped that we are not doing what countries that have returned to normal have done. Some countries have almost completely suppressed the virus. Others had large outbreaks, took intense measures, and have seen life return to normal. Americans, meanwhile, never stayed at home to the degree that most Europeans have, according to mobility data from Apple and Google. Our version of the spring lockdown looked more like Sweden’s looser approach than like the more substantial measures in Italy, or even the United Kingdom and France. Swedish public-health officials have acknowledged that this approach may not have been the best path forward… Maybe the U.S. will somehow avoid another New York–style outbreak. Maybe the number of new infections will not grow exponentially. Maybe treatments have sufficiently improved that we will see huge outbreaks, but fewer people will die than we’ve come to expect. If so, it won’t be because the United States made concerted, coordinated decisions about how to balance the horrors of the pandemic and the frustration of pausing everyday life. Instead, the United States has moved from attempting to beat the virus to managing the harm of losing. This is America.
“[M]oved from attempting to beat the virus to managing the harm of losing” captures a lot about American politics and culture in 2020. The country doesn’t meet great challenges anymore; it doesn’t really even attempt to. It simply manages the rate of its failure. We’ve succeeded in reducing the death toll from one 9/11 per day to two 9/11s per week. That’s something, no? That’s progress. Or what passes for progress in a decadent nation.
What’s amazing, though, is that even our public health experts seem satisfied with an elevated death toll under certain circumstances. Jaws dropped over the weekend on conservative social media at this new tweak to Contra Costa County’s stay-at-home orders:
I keep re-reading this over and over again. pic.twitter.com/ioc215FmxD — Professor Pecknold (@ccpecknold) June 6, 2020
The county’s also allowing religious gatherings of up to 100 people but that seems like political cover aimed at showing “evenhandedness” in carving out an otherwise inexplicable exception to social distancing rules. In the name of granting an exception to the George Floyd demonstrations, a cause approved by the left, the county will also grant an exception for right-wingers and their religious beliefs. But of course the virus doesn’t care either way. A mass gathering is a mass gathering is a mass gathering.
To my mind the most obnoxious defenses of the protests in an age of pandemic are the ones that insist on justifying them as a matter of public health, not as a fundamentally political or cultural movement for racial equality. At Slate Susan Matthews strains to frame the demonstrations that way because she knows it makes the egregious double standard somewhat easier to swallow: “Police brutality—and racism more broadly—has an enormous and well-documented impact on public health and loss of life… So it’s not wrong for public health experts to take the purpose of the protests into account when making this assessment, particularly when the purposes relate to matters of public health.” If you tell Americans that politics is more important than containing the virus, they’ll understandably be outraged. But if you tell them that one important public health concern may weigh more heavily than another important public health concern, that seems on its face a bit more reasonable.
But it isn’t. The salient fact about COVID-19 isn’t that it’s an “important public health concern,” it’s that it’s a novel, once-in-a-century threat to public health. Modeling at the start of the pandemic projected two million Americans dead if no countermeasures were taken. We shut down the entire economy and still lost more than 100,000 people in less than three months. Nothing compares right now. Lockdown opponents have spent months arguing their position in terms of public health, in fact: No economy means unemployment and bankruptcies, which means suicide and drug addiction and domestic violence and all manner of social ills on an unimaginably vast canvas the longer businesses remain shut down. The likes of Matthews didn’t want to hear it. Nothing compares to the virus right now, they countered. I think they were right; we averted 60 million infections by locking down, according to one study. But ultimately they didn’t think they were right.
Here’s a simple thought experiment to puncture the “important public health concern” nonsense. Would any public health expert have condoned mass demonstrations at this particular point in the pandemic for any other public health concern? Instead of rallies against police racism, imagine someone wanted to organize a million-person march on Washington for breast-cancer research funding or Alzheimer’s research funding or any of a thousand other worthy — and urgent, given the number of victims — health causes one might champion. Can anyone imagine our scientific class declaring why, yes, this gigantic mass gathering amid rampant infection and death on behalf of a public health priority is welcome? Or would they have said good cause, but you’re out of your mind? Is there any doubt? Scientists are going to lose public trust either way for subordinating public health to political advocacy by endorsing the protests but they might lose a tiny bit less if they at least copped to what they were doing forthrightly.


hotair--2020-06-08--Vox: 'Abolish the police' helps shift the Overton Window

Vox published a piece today which argues that whether or not the concept of abolishing the police is a good idea , it does have value as a way to change the narrative .
Author Emily VanDerWerff says the phrase is helping to shift the Overton Window about the types of reform that are possible .
A lot of the tension between leftist politics and more mainstream liberal politics boils down to one big disconnect .
The former group reads “ abolish the police ” and internalizes that statement as a goal perhaps even more than as a solution .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ position would agree that we should probably have a process for dealing with murder and other violent crimes… If I could be slightly too reductive , I would say most leftists hear “ abolish the police ” and understand it to mean “ [ work to ] abolish the police [ in their current form by taking several well-planned steps to reform the existing justice system ] , ” while more mainstream liberals hear that phrase and understand it to mean , “ abolish the police [ first , and then something something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ something something ” is a host of unforeseen consequences that will sweep in without more incremental change… Thus , the surface-level debate over “ abolish the police ” is not a matter of policy ; it ’ s a matter of political discourse .
And it ’ s already bearing fruit , if the moves made by local governments throughout the country — Minneapolis ’ s pledge to dismantle its own police department is an obvious example — are any indication .
Even if you vehemently disagree with the idea of abolishing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ phrase shifts the Overton window and makes you rethink what is possible within American politics .
In other words , we should take the protesters seriously , not literally .
Where have I heard this before ?
The author has a point about this moving the Overton Window .
If abolishing police is on the table , it makes changes in police funding levels look a lot less extreme .
But what the author doesn ’ t really try to deal with in this piece ( and she admits this up front ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good idea .
I ’ ve pointed out this earlier Vox piece once before but it ’ s worth a look if you haven ’ t seen it .
Before Vox became swept up in the “ abolish ” narrative , author Matt Yglesias wrote a piece last year arguing for more police as a solution to some of our policing problems : In a 2005 paper , Jonathan Glick and Alex Tabarrok found a clever instrument to measure the effects of officer increases through the terrorism “ alert levels ” that were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
During high-alert periods , the Washington , DC , police force would mobilize extra officers , especially in and around the capital ’ s core , centered on the National Mall .
Using daily crime data , they found that the level of crime decreased significantly on high-alert days , and the decrease was especially concentrated on the National Mall .
Critically , the finding was notthat adding police officers leads to more arrests and then locking up crooks leads to lower crime in the long run .
It ’ s simply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people commit crimes in the first place .
That seems to be the criminal justice ideal , in which fewer people are getting locked up because fewer people are being victimized by criminals .
This sounds a little paradoxical , but the reality is the size of the prison population is driven largely by the harshness of the sentencing , not the number of police stops .
The criminologist Lawrence Sherman has observed that the United States is very unusual in spending much more money on the prison system than on our police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ switching to a formula Tabarrok has summarized as “ more police , fewer prisons , less crime ” : uniformed officers patrolling the streets stopping crime before it starts rather than working in prisons surveilling convicts .
About a year ago , Stephen Mello of Princeton University assessed the Obama-era increase in federal police funding .
Thanks to the stimulus bill , funding for Clinton ’ s Community Oriented Policing Services ( COPS ) hiring grant program surged from about $ 20 million a year in the late-Bush era to $ 1 billion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mello to assess some quasi-random variation in which cities got grants .
The data shows that compared to cities that missed out , those that made the cut ended up with police staffing levels that were 3.2 percent higher and crime levels that were 3.5 percent lower .
The evidence from that latter study suggests there is more benefit yet to be gained from putting more cops on the beat .
So what happens when you do the opposite ?
What happens when the narrative is “ abolish the police ” and , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ budgets toward that goal .
Logically , if more cops equal less crime then fewer cops should result in more crime .
The piece also points out that the goal of hiring more police is popular , including among black Americans .
Has that really changed in the last few weeks or is the new “ abolish the police ” narrative just being dictated by a very small and extreme segment of the far left ?
My guess is it ’ s very much the latter .
Remember a few months ago when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ polls and his supporters were convinced he was about to become the Democratic nominee ?
It didn ’ t happen .
Instead , more moderate voters stepped up and made Joe Biden the nominee .
Far left views may get more of a hearing in America than they used to get , but most people , including most Democrats , aren ’ t really there yet .
What we ’ re seeing now with “ abolish the police ” is more about a shift in the Overton Window than a genuine change in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will work out about the same as Bernie ’ s campaign .
In fact , I suspect this moment of progressive triumph , bringing this new narrative to the forefront , will once again end in tears for the far left .

Vox published a piece today which argues that whether or not the concept of abolishing the police is a good idea, it does have value as a way to change the narrative. Author Emily VanDerWerff says the phrase is helping to shift the Overton Window about the types of reform that are possible.
A lot of the tension between leftist politics and more mainstream liberal politics boils down to one big disconnect. The former group reads “abolish the police” and internalizes that statement as a goal perhaps even more than as a solution. Even the most hardcore advocate of this position would agree that we should probably have a process for dealing with murder and other violent crimes… If I could be slightly too reductive, I would say most leftists hear “abolish the police” and understand it to mean “[work to] abolish the police [in their current form by taking several well-planned steps to reform the existing justice system],” while more mainstream liberals hear that phrase and understand it to mean, “abolish the police [first, and then something something something],” where “something something something” is a host of unforeseen consequences that will sweep in without more incremental change… Thus, the surface-level debate over “abolish the police” is not a matter of policy; it’s a matter of political discourse. And it’s already bearing fruit, if the moves made by local governments throughout the country — Minneapolis’s pledge to dismantle its own police department is an obvious example — are any indication. Even if you vehemently disagree with the idea of abolishing the police, just the statement of the phrase shifts the Overton window and makes you rethink what is possible within American politics.
In other words, we should take the protesters seriously, not literally. Where have I heard this before? The author has a point about this moving the Overton Window. If abolishing police is on the table, it makes changes in police funding levels look a lot less extreme. But what the author doesn’t really try to deal with in this piece (and she admits this up front) is whether or not this is a good idea.
I’ve pointed out this earlier Vox piece once before but it’s worth a look if you haven’t seen it. Before Vox became swept up in the “abolish” narrative, author Matt Yglesias wrote a piece last year arguing for more police as a solution to some of our policing problems:
In a 2005 paper, Jonathan Glick and Alex Tabarrok found a clever instrument to measure the effects of officer increases through the terrorism “alert levels” that were a feature of the early to mid-aughts. During high-alert periods, the Washington, DC, police force would mobilize extra officers, especially in and around the capital’s core, centered on the National Mall. Using daily crime data, they found that the level of crime decreased significantly on high-alert days, and the decrease was especially concentrated on the National Mall. Critically, the finding was notthat adding police officers leads to more arrests and then locking up crooks leads to lower crime in the long run. It’s simply that with more officers around, fewer people commit crimes in the first place. That seems to be the criminal justice ideal, in which fewer people are getting locked up because fewer people are being victimized by criminals. This sounds a little paradoxical, but the reality is the size of the prison population is driven largely by the harshness of the sentencing, not the number of police stops. The criminologist Lawrence Sherman has observed that the United States is very unusual in spending much more money on the prison system than on our police departments. This suggests the possibility of switching to a formula Tabarrok has summarized as “more police, fewer prisons, less crime”: uniformed officers patrolling the streets stopping crime before it starts rather than working in prisons surveilling convicts. About a year ago, Stephen Mello of Princeton University assessed the Obama-era increase in federal police funding. Thanks to the stimulus bill, funding for Clinton’s Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) hiring grant program surged from about $20 million a year in the late-Bush era to $1 billion in 2009. The program design allowed Mello to assess some quasi-random variation in which cities got grants. The data shows that compared to cities that missed out, those that made the cut ended up with police staffing levels that were 3.2 percent higher and crime levels that were 3.5 percent lower.
The evidence from that latter study suggests there is more benefit yet to be gained from putting more cops on the beat. So what happens when you do the opposite? What happens when the narrative is “abolish the police” and, at a minimum, cities begin slashing budgets toward that goal. Logically, if more cops equal less crime then fewer cops should result in more crime.
The piece also points out that the goal of hiring more police is popular, including among black Americans. Has that really changed in the last few weeks or is the new “abolish the police” narrative just being dictated by a very small and extreme segment of the far left? My guess is it’s very much the latter.
Remember a few months ago when Bernie Sanders was riding high in the polls and his supporters were convinced he was about to become the Democratic nominee? It didn’t happen. Instead, more moderate voters stepped up and made Joe Biden the nominee. Far left views may get more of a hearing in America than they used to get, but most people, including most Democrats, aren’t really there yet.
What we’re seeing now with “abolish the police” is more about a shift in the Overton Window than a genuine change in public sentiment. If so, this will work out about the same as Bernie’s campaign. In fact, I suspect this moment of progressive triumph, bringing this new narrative to the forefront, will once again end in tears for the far left.


hotair--2020-06-08--Will George W. Bush vote for Joe Biden? How about other Bushies?

There is an article in the New York Times that claims knowledge of the fact that former President George W. Bush will not be voting for President Trump in November .
This isn ’ t much of a surprise , frankly , as Bush didn ’ t vote for Trump in 2016 .
In order to justify a claim about a former president ’ s decision , in favor of the Democrat candidate , of course , the author goes through a whole list of Republicans and former military officers who will not be supporting Trump .
Despite the fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ either Bush ( father or son ) as president in some areas , Republicans willing to vote for Joe Biden risk the loss of continued appointment of conservative judges , sustaining business-friendly regulations and cutting taxes .
Apparently it is more important to voice disgust over how Trump speaks than voting in favor of actual policies .
And many see the breaking point now over Trump ’ s handling of the Black Lives Matter protests .
Former President George W. Bush won ’ t support the re-election of Mr. Trump , and Jeb @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ll vote , say people familiar with their thinking .
Senator Mitt Romney of Utah won ’ t back Mr. Trump and is deliberating whether to again write in his wife , Ann , or cast another ballot this November .
Cindy McCain , the widow of Senator John McCain , is almost certain to support Mr. Biden but is unsure how public to be about it because one of her sons is eying a run for office .
And former Secretary of State Colin Powell announced on Sunday that he will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Mr. Trump “ lies about things ” and Republicans in Congress won ’ t hold him accountable .
Mr. Powell , who voted for former President Barack Obama as well as Hillary Clinton , said he was close to Mr. Biden politically and socially and had worked with him for more than 35 years .
“ I ’ ll be voting for him , ” he said .
Colin Powell hasn ’ t voted as a Republican since it no longer suited his ambitions .
He voted for Barack Obama , placing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voted for Hillary Clinton .
No doubt he is pals with Biden , too .
The idea coming from anti-Trump reporters now is that these high profile names give cover to current Republican officeholders who are thinking of privately voting against Trump in November .
Admiral McRaven has joined the chorus of other retired military leaders who have come out against Trump .
“ This fall , it ’ s time for new leadership in this country — Republican , Democrat or independent , ” said William H. McRaven , the retired Navy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Osama bin Laden .
“ President Trump has shown he doesn ’ t have the qualities necessary to be a good commander in chief.
” Admiral McRaven , in an interview on the 76th anniversary of D-Day , noted that those wartime leaders inspired Americans with “ their words , their actions and their humanity.
” In contrast , he said , Mr. Trump has failed his leadership test .
“ As we have struggled with the Covid pandemic and horrible acts of racism and injustice , this president has shown none of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ The country needs to move forward without him at the helm.
” Politics in 2020 is a bare-knuckled battle .
President Trump prides himself as the Fighter-in-Chief , especially when it comes to sticking up for himself .
The “ muh principles ” chorus of Republicans and former Republicans fails to see the irony in ignoring past civility shown to the Republican nominee .
Whether or not elected officials were pleased with the choice of nominee , everyone kept it to themselves publicly .
Now even retired military officers are weighing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bit much .
None of these opinions will mean anything to Trump ’ s base of voters who are firmly behind him and enthusiastically ready to go to the polls and vote for his re-election .
Independents , the ones that both parties are courting , may be turned off by the Democrats and their handling of the protests – ignoring the violence and destruction that threatens to move outside city limits – and that is a risk these public figures take when they justify speaking out with the president ’ s handling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strong law and order stance may backfire on Trump with Independents , we don ’ t know yet .
The point is , their boldness may not be rewarded as they think it will .
They are currying favor with the social justice warriors and it ’ s cheap pandering .
Why ?
To sell more books or get more time on television ?
George W. Bush isn ’ t going to vote for Trump .
Neither is JEB !
There is too much bitterness from 2016 .
George P. Bush , son @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Texas will likely vote for Trump , who has endorsed him in the past .
George W. ’ s spokesman says the NYT article is fake news .
At this point , these public officials who are coming after Trump with criticism may fail to understand that the very reason they use now will likely benefit Trump in November .
Depending how events play out , Trump will likely benefit with voters for sounding strong on law and order , in support of law enforcement .
Suburban women want to feel secure and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and chaos in cities , it will not bode well for Joe Biden .
No one looks at Joe Biden and thinks “ strength ” .
Team Biden will roll out “ Republicans for Biden ” later in the campaign .
He just doesn ’ t want to do it too soon because he knows the far left will be appalled at any perceived outreach to Republicans .
We ’ ll see how this all plays out going forward .

There is an article in the New York Times that claims knowledge of the fact that former President George W. Bush will not be voting for President Trump in November. This isn’t much of a surprise, frankly, as Bush didn’t vote for Trump in 2016. In order to justify a claim about a former president’s decision, in favor of the Democrat candidate, of course, the author goes through a whole list of Republicans and former military officers who will not be supporting Trump.
Despite the fact that Trump has been more conservative than either Bush (father or son) as president in some areas, Republicans willing to vote for Joe Biden risk the loss of continued appointment of conservative judges, sustaining business-friendly regulations and cutting taxes. Apparently it is more important to voice disgust over how Trump speaks than voting in favor of actual policies. And many see the breaking point now over Trump’s handling of the Black Lives Matter protests.
Former President George W. Bush won’t support the re-election of Mr. Trump, and Jeb Bush isn’t sure how he’ll vote, say people familiar with their thinking. Senator Mitt Romney of Utah won’t back Mr. Trump and is deliberating whether to again write in his wife, Ann, or cast another ballot this November. Cindy McCain, the widow of Senator John McCain, is almost certain to support Mr. Biden but is unsure how public to be about it because one of her sons is eying a run for office. And former Secretary of State Colin Powell announced on Sunday that he will vote for Mr. Biden, telling CNN that Mr. Trump “lies about things” and Republicans in Congress won’t hold him accountable. Mr. Powell, who voted for former President Barack Obama as well as Hillary Clinton, said he was close to Mr. Biden politically and socially and had worked with him for more than 35 years. “I’ll be voting for him,” he said.
Colin Powell hasn’t voted as a Republican since it no longer suited his ambitions. He voted for Barack Obama, placing race over political philosophy, and he voted for Hillary Clinton. No doubt he is pals with Biden, too. The idea coming from anti-Trump reporters now is that these high profile names give cover to current Republican officeholders who are thinking of privately voting against Trump in November.
Admiral McRaven has joined the chorus of other retired military leaders who have come out against Trump.
“This fall, it’s time for new leadership in this country — Republican, Democrat or independent,” said William H. McRaven, the retired Navy admiral who directed the raid that killed Osama bin Laden. “President Trump has shown he doesn’t have the qualities necessary to be a good commander in chief.” Admiral McRaven, in an interview on the 76th anniversary of D-Day, noted that those wartime leaders inspired Americans with “their words, their actions and their humanity.” In contrast, he said, Mr. Trump has failed his leadership test. “As we have struggled with the Covid pandemic and horrible acts of racism and injustice, this president has shown none of those qualities,” Admiral McRaven said. “The country needs to move forward without him at the helm.”
Politics in 2020 is a bare-knuckled battle. President Trump prides himself as the Fighter-in-Chief, especially when it comes to sticking up for himself. The “muh principles” chorus of Republicans and former Republicans fails to see the irony in ignoring past civility shown to the Republican nominee. Whether or not elected officials were pleased with the choice of nominee, everyone kept it to themselves publicly. Now even retired military officers are weighing in. It’s all a bit much.
None of these opinions will mean anything to Trump’s base of voters who are firmly behind him and enthusiastically ready to go to the polls and vote for his re-election. Independents, the ones that both parties are courting, may be turned off by the Democrats and their handling of the protests – ignoring the violence and destruction that threatens to move outside city limits – and that is a risk these public figures take when they justify speaking out with the president’s handling of the protests. Or, a strong law and order stance may backfire on Trump with Independents, we don’t know yet. The point is, their boldness may not be rewarded as they think it will. They are currying favor with the social justice warriors and it’s cheap pandering. Why? To sell more books or get more time on television?
George W. Bush isn’t going to vote for Trump. Neither is JEB! There is too much bitterness from 2016. George P. Bush, son of JEB! currently in office in Texas will likely vote for Trump, who has endorsed him in the past. George W.’s spokesman says the NYT article is fake news.
Freddy Ford, a spokesman for Bush, told The Texas Tribune that Bush would steer clear of speaking publicly on his presidential vote and called The New York Times assertion false. “This is completely made up,” Ford said in an email. “He is retired from presidential politics and has not indicated how he will vote.”
At this point, these public officials who are coming after Trump with criticism may fail to understand that the very reason they use now will likely benefit Trump in November. Depending how events play out, Trump will likely benefit with voters for sounding strong on law and order, in support of law enforcement. Suburban women want to feel secure and with Democrats continuing to deny violent protesters and chaos in cities, it will not bode well for Joe Biden. No one looks at Joe Biden and thinks “strength”.
Team Biden will roll out “Republicans for Biden” later in the campaign. He just doesn’t want to do it too soon because he knows the far left will be appalled at any perceived outreach to Republicans.
Mr. Biden himself, while eager to win support across party lines, intends to roll out his “Republicans for Biden” coalition later in the campaign, after fully consolidating his own party, according to Democrats familiar with the campaign’s planning.
We’ll see how this all plays out going forward.


hotair--2020-06-08--Warner Brothers strips Elmer Fudd of his rifle

With the launch of HBO Max a little while back , the streaming giant offered up a huge variety of programming options to compete with Disney+ .
One of these was a cooperative effort with Warner Brothers , in which Executive Producer Peter Browngardt was asked to revive the franchise ’ s classic Looney Tunes characters for an extensive collection of shorts .
Those all became available at launch , including one of their best-known pairings , Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd .
But there ’ s one key difference between the new offerings and the original series of hilarious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ carrying his trusty rifle while hunting the wascally wabbit .
This is apparently a nod to the gun control movement .
After all , you wouldn ’ t want poor old Elmer shooting someone , would you ?
( Washington Examiner ) Classic cartoon character Elmer Fudd won ’ t be holding his famed rifle in a reboot of the Looney Tunes series .
HBO Max premiered the remake of Looney Tunes Cartoons last week , and the executive producer told the New York Times that weapons such as dynamite and other “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the series but not guns .
“ We ’ re not doing guns , ” Peter Browngardt said .
“ But we can do cartoony violence — TNT , the Acme stuff .
All that was kind of grandfathered in.
” Character Yosemite Sam will also not be using guns as weapons , according to outlet Comic Book .
Before we dig into this further , here ’ s a look at one of the Fudd/Bugs pairings with the charming , totally non-violent name of “ Dynamite Dance.
” ( From the WB @ @ @ @ @ @ @ watched that clip , you probably noticed one striking feature related to the change I mentioned above .
In lieu of the long rifle he used to carry , Elmer is now chasing Bugs Bunny with… a scythe .
Yes , that ’ s right .
The same weapon carried by the Spectre of Death in all classic renditions of that grim figure .
He swings the weapon wildly in a way that would surely result in one of the more gruesome murder scenes in the history of cinema were he ever able @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Bugs Bunny is indestructible , so you don ’ t have to worry about it . )
Of course , Bugs isn ’ t exactly an unarmed pacificist himself .
The rabbit has a seemingly inexhaustible supply of dynamite , black powder and TNT .
I lost track of how many sticks he detonated over those few minutes , but it seemed like it was well into the hundreds .
And all of the explosions were depicted in an incredibly unsafe fashion .
Of course , Bugs is never injured in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charge to explode in his hands right next to Elmer ’ s head .
( Or in his mouth , in his ears , down his pants or between his legs . )
If the underlying message is that guns are unsafe and shouldn ’ t be shown to children , what sort of message are they sending here ?
Guns are dangerous , kids .
Ask your parents to get you some explosives instead .
The most recent iteration of the gun control movement ’ s linguistic tricks involves saying “ gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If this was supposed to support the “ safety ” angle , it was a total faceplant .
The really strange part of this editing of the Warner Brothers classics for a 2020 audience is all of the other “ issues ” that don ’ t seem to be coming under scrutiny .
The idea of a hunter carrying a rifle in the woods while seeking game wasn ’ t controversial in the 40s and it ’ s still uncontroversial today .
Even most gun control advocates make a point of saying that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hunting , provided you ’ re not using an “ assault rifle.
” What should have been far more upsetting to progressives in the modern era was the absolutely blatant racism , sexism and all the rest of the isms found in the original Looney Tunes shorts .
If Browngardt and company have no problem leaving these levels of cartoon violence in their offerings , I wonder if they ’ ll be bringing back those old classic aspects of the cast as well ?
Probably not , but this might serve as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and 50s come to us from a very different era with different sensibilities .
Looney Tunes probably isn ’ t the best fodder for launching a social justice campaign in the modern era .
Before closing it ’ s worth noting that Warner Brothers is responsible for these decisions , but they are owned by Time Warner , which also owns HBO .
Of course , Time Warner is owned by AT & T which apparently owns roughly 38 % of the planet at this point .
Heck , for all I know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ m about to get called down to the principal ’ s office .

With the launch of HBO Max a little while back, the streaming giant offered up a huge variety of programming options to compete with Disney+. One of these was a cooperative effort with Warner Brothers, in which Executive Producer Peter Browngardt was asked to revive the franchise’s classic Looney Tunes characters for an extensive collection of shorts. Those all became available at launch, including one of their best-known pairings, Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd. But there’s one key difference between the new offerings and the original series of hilarious cartoons. Elmer Fudd is no longer carrying his trusty rifle while hunting the wascally wabbit. This is apparently a nod to the gun control movement. After all, you wouldn’t want poor old Elmer shooting someone, would you? (Washington Examiner)
Classic cartoon character Elmer Fudd won’t be holding his famed rifle in a reboot of the Looney Tunes series. HBO Max premiered the remake of Looney Tunes Cartoons last week, and the executive producer told the New York Times that weapons such as dynamite and other “Acme stuff” will be used in the series but not guns. “We’re not doing guns,” Peter Browngardt said. “But we can do cartoony violence — TNT, the Acme stuff. All that was kind of grandfathered in.” Character Yosemite Sam will also not be using guns as weapons, according to outlet Comic Book.
Before we dig into this further, here’s a look at one of the Fudd/Bugs pairings with the charming, totally non-violent name of “Dynamite Dance.” (From the WB YouTube page.)
So if you watched that clip, you probably noticed one striking feature related to the change I mentioned above. In lieu of the long rifle he used to carry, Elmer is now chasing Bugs Bunny with… a scythe. Yes, that’s right. The same weapon carried by the Spectre of Death in all classic renditions of that grim figure. He swings the weapon wildly in a way that would surely result in one of the more gruesome murder scenes in the history of cinema were he ever able to make contact. (Spoiler alert: Bugs Bunny is indestructible, so you don’t have to worry about it.)
Of course, Bugs isn’t exactly an unarmed pacificist himself. The rabbit has a seemingly inexhaustible supply of dynamite, black powder and TNT. I lost track of how many sticks he detonated over those few minutes, but it seemed like it was well into the hundreds. And all of the explosions were depicted in an incredibly unsafe fashion. Of course, Bugs is never injured in the slightest, even when he allows the charge to explode in his hands right next to Elmer’s head. (Or in his mouth, in his ears, down his pants or between his legs.)
If the underlying message is that guns are unsafe and shouldn’t be shown to children, what sort of message are they sending here? Guns are dangerous, kids. Ask your parents to get you some explosives instead.
The most recent iteration of the gun control movement’s linguistic tricks involves saying “gun safety” instead of gun control. If this was supposed to support the “safety” angle, it was a total faceplant. The really strange part of this editing of the Warner Brothers classics for a 2020 audience is all of the other “issues” that don’t seem to be coming under scrutiny. The idea of a hunter carrying a rifle in the woods while seeking game wasn’t controversial in the 40s and it’s still uncontroversial today. Even most gun control advocates make a point of saying that they don’t want to end hunting, provided you’re not using an “assault rifle.”
What should have been far more upsetting to progressives in the modern era was the absolutely blatant racism, sexism and all the rest of the isms found in the original Looney Tunes shorts. If Browngardt and company have no problem leaving these levels of cartoon violence in their offerings, I wonder if they’ll be bringing back those old classic aspects of the cast as well? Probably not, but this might serve as a good reminder that entertainment from the 40s and 50s come to us from a very different era with different sensibilities. Looney Tunes probably isn’t the best fodder for launching a social justice campaign in the modern era.
Before closing it’s worth noting that Warner Brothers is responsible for these decisions, but they are owned by Time Warner, which also owns HBO. Of course, Time Warner is owned by AT&T which apparently owns roughly 38% of the planet at this point. Heck, for all I know, they own Hot Air and I’m about to get called down to the principal’s office.