hotair--2020-08-17--Paranoia spreads on social media over photos of locked mailboxes

This increasingly feels like Russiagate in that we have Trump feeding suspicions that something sinister is afoot with things he ’ s said and his critics spinning that into ever more far-fetched conspiracy theories .
Last week he told Fox that he opposes more funding for the Postal Service in the new stimulus relief bill since that might facilitate universal mail-in voting .
That was stupid in two ways , first because it handed Democrats a political cudgel over delays in mail delivery and second because the USPS already has the capacity to process universal voting by mail even if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which they won ’ t ) .
They do more volume during Christmas season than they would in a national mail-only election .
Trump ’ s comments would have been bad enough in isolation , but in the context of Postmaster General Louis DeJoy trying to reorganize the agency to cut costs they ’ ve triggered a burst of paranoia .
Twitter erupted last week over news that mail-sorting machines were being removed from some facilities and mailboxes were being taken off the streets of some U.S. cities , even though there seem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Last night brought a new freakout , easily the dumbest one yet .
Read this and consider : If Trump and DeJoy were looking to create obstacles to voting , why would they bother extending their efforts to a state like California that ’ s going to go blue by 30 points regardless ?
And why would Mitch McConnell have anything to say or do about it ?
That item has 17,000 retweets as I write this .
There ’ s a perfectly rational explanation for locking the mailboxes , it turns out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election to the presidency .
Most of those mailboxes aren ’ t even truly “ locked ” in the sense of being unusable : We ’ re in the midst of a full-blow national panic now .
Trump lit the match , social-media posters are providing the kindling , and Democrats are supplying as much oxygen as they can in hopes that this fire will incinerate Trump ’ s campaign .
Thousands of voters have called government offices in recent days to ask whether it is still safe to mail their ballots , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Attorneys general from at least six states are huddling to discuss possible lawsuits against the administration to block it from reducing mail service between now and the election , several told The Washington Post .
State leaders are scrambling to see whether they can change rules to give voters more options , and Democrats are planning a massive public education campaign to shore up trust in the vote and the Postal Service… “ I was planning on doing it though the post office , ” said Kamilla Gilfedder , 36 , a voter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to vote for Biden .
“ It was primarily just to avoid covid .
I ’ ve got a toddler , and my family is high-risk .
But when I think about it , I just want to make sure that my vote is registered .
So I think I ’ m going to go in.
” Kathy Blair , 73 , a retiree who lives in St. Paul , Minn. , said she is still waiting for her granddaughter in California to receive a birthday present she mailed July 14 using priority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote early in person this fall and has persuaded several of her friends who had planned to vote by mail to do the same .
Otherwise , she said , “ five weeks , six weeks later the ballots may never show up , ” calling the postal delays “ a travesty.
” Some of the main Russiagate players are returning to the stage… But it ’ s not just them .
Even the most independent members of the Democratic caucus , like Joe Manchin , are pounding Trump for USPS delays .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ centrist Democrats in Congress and he ’ s , uh , well … let ’ s just say it ’ s gettin ’ chippy out there : As Karen noted this morning , Pelosi has already called the House back into a sort of emergency session over the issue , demanding that DeJoy come and testify next Monday .
The inspector general of the USPS is also taking a look at some of the administrative changes made lately by DeJoy , including the possibility of a conflict of interest over some of his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ potentially a win-win-win situation .
First , they might convince voters to blame Trump for any delays they ’ re experiencing in mail delivery , and not just with respect to voting .
If your diabetes medicine is arriving slower than usual lately , they want you not only blaming DeJoy for the slowdown but believing that DeJoy engineered it deliberately to help Trump with the election .
Second , spooking the electorate that their mail-in ballots might not arrive in time is a good way to convince them to vote earlier than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s the candidate who ’ s leading right now .
Democrats want to shorten the campaign in any way they can , to give Trump less time for a comeback .
This is their opportunity .
This morning on Fox , Trump said he ’ d be open to various alternatives to mail-in ballots in order to make voting easier , from extending in-person voting to the weekend before November 3 to opening more polling places .
We already have that “ extension , ” though ; it ’ s called early @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he started about the Postal Service , more people are going to use it this year than otherwise would have .
To his detriment .
Third , it ’ s no coincidence that DeJoy ’ s being asked to testify next Monday .
What else is happening that day ?
Right — the start of the Republican National Convention .
Pelosi wants to counterprogram Trump ’ s big reelection pitch to voters with days of news about a slowdown in postal service orchestrated by the president and carried out by his evil lackey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t surprise me if House Dems call other witnesses on Tuesday , Wednesday , and/or Thursday to keep the story going as the convention wears on .
There are a number of pieces online today that debunk some of the worst fears about what ’ s happening with the post office , and not just from hardcore MAGA types .
Byron York has one at the Examiner ; anti-Trumper Nick Harper has one as well at Medium .
I ’ ve made some of the same points they make in my own posts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one seems able to answer : Why is DeJoy undertaking to reorganize the Postal Service right now , in the thick of a pandemic , when more Americans than ever before are hoping to vote by mail ?
Paul Brandus wonders : In a way , Trump ’ s comments about not wanting to fund the USPS in the next round of stimulus relief are a red herring .
The agency won ’ t be insolvent until next year .
Denying them a bailout now shouldn ’ t affect their ability to process @ @ @ @ @ @ @ harder to explain is DeJoy ’ s insistence on ending overtime for USPS workers under the circumstances described by Brandus .
That ’ s the main cause of the delays in delivery , it seems ; DeJoy is pinching pennies at a moment when the rest of the federal government is spending money hand over fist to try to keep the country functioning .
So what ’ s the answer to Brandus ’ s objections about this exceedingly ill-timed overhaul ?
Why not just give the USPS money short-term to keep it functioning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mail — which includes medicine — moving , and start the reorganization after a vaccine has arrived and America starts getting back to something approaching normal ?

This increasingly feels like Russiagate in that we have Trump feeding suspicions that something sinister is afoot with things he’s said and his critics spinning that into ever more far-fetched conspiracy theories. Last week he told Fox that he opposes more funding for the Postal Service in the new stimulus relief bill since that might facilitate universal mail-in voting. That was stupid in two ways, first because it handed Democrats a political cudgel over delays in mail delivery and second because the USPS already has the capacity to process universal voting by mail even if all 50 states resorted to it (which they won’t). They do more volume during Christmas season than they would in a national mail-only election.
Trump’s comments would have been bad enough in isolation, but in the context of Postmaster General Louis DeJoy trying to reorganize the agency to cut costs they’ve triggered a burst of paranoia. Twitter erupted last week over news that mail-sorting machines were being removed from some facilities and mailboxes were being taken off the streets of some U.S. cities, even though there seem to be innocent explanations for both. Last night brought a new freakout, easily the dumbest one yet.
Read this and consider: If Trump and DeJoy were looking to create obstacles to voting, why would they bother extending their efforts to a state like California that’s going to go blue by 30 points regardless? And why would Mitch McConnell have anything to say or do about it?
That item has 17,000 retweets as I write this. There’s a perfectly rational explanation for locking the mailboxes, it turns out, one that predates Trump’s election to the presidency. Most of those mailboxes aren’t even truly “locked” in the sense of being unusable:
I just drove there. There was a guy taking photos because he saw the inaccurate post on Twitter. I showed him that there were slots on the other side (I have no idea why I called them holes like english was my 13th language). pic.twitter.com/oM8pnQKHRj — haunted dog (@zandywithaz) August 17, 2020
We’re in the midst of a full-blow national panic now. Trump lit the match, social-media posters are providing the kindling, and Democrats are supplying as much oxygen as they can in hopes that this fire will incinerate Trump’s campaign.
Thousands of voters have called government offices in recent days to ask whether it is still safe to mail their ballots, according to officials across the country. Attorneys general from at least six states are huddling to discuss possible lawsuits against the administration to block it from reducing mail service between now and the election, several told The Washington Post. State leaders are scrambling to see whether they can change rules to give voters more options, and Democrats are planning a massive public education campaign to shore up trust in the vote and the Postal Service… “I was planning on doing it though the post office,” said Kamilla Gilfedder, 36, a voter in Lexington, Ky., who plans to vote for Biden. “It was primarily just to avoid covid. I’ve got a toddler, and my family is high-risk. But when I think about it, I just want to make sure that my vote is registered. So I think I’m going to go in.” Kathy Blair, 73, a retiree who lives in St. Paul, Minn., said she is still waiting for her granddaughter in California to receive a birthday present she mailed July 14 using priority service. Blair said she plans to vote early in person this fall and has persuaded several of her friends who had planned to vote by mail to do the same. Otherwise, she said, “five weeks, six weeks later the ballots may never show up,” calling the postal delays “a travesty.”
Some of the main Russiagate players are returning to the stage…
The Postmaster General must resign. He’s slowed delivery, banned overtime & decommissioned mail-sorting machines. Right before the election. During a pandemic. The House must demand answers. Hearings should start now. It can’t wait. We won’t let Trump destroy the Post Office. — Adam Schiff (@RepAdamSchiff) August 16, 2020
But it’s not just them. Even the most independent members of the Democratic caucus, like Joe Manchin, are pounding Trump for USPS delays. Jim Cooper is one of the most centrist Democrats in Congress and he’s, uh, well … let’s just say it’s gettin’ chippy out there:
We need to subpoena the Postmaster General, and if he fails to appear, we should send the Sgt at Arms to arrest him. — Jim Cooper (@repjimcooper) August 15, 2020
As Karen noted this morning, Pelosi has already called the House back into a sort of emergency session over the issue, demanding that DeJoy come and testify next Monday. The inspector general of the USPS is also taking a look at some of the administrative changes made lately by DeJoy, including the possibility of a conflict of interest over some of his investments. For Democrats, this is potentially a win-win-win situation. First, they might convince voters to blame Trump for any delays they’re experiencing in mail delivery, and not just with respect to voting. If your diabetes medicine is arriving slower than usual lately, they want you not only blaming DeJoy for the slowdown but believing that DeJoy engineered it deliberately to help Trump with the election.
Second, spooking the electorate that their mail-in ballots might not arrive in time is a good way to convince them to vote earlier than usual, which benefits Biden since he’s the candidate who’s leading right now. Democrats want to shorten the campaign in any way they can, to give Trump less time for a comeback. This is their opportunity. This morning on Fox, Trump said he’d be open to various alternatives to mail-in ballots in order to make voting easier, from extending in-person voting to the weekend before November 3 to opening more polling places. We already have that “extension,” though; it’s called early voting, and thanks to the panic he started about the Postal Service, more people are going to use it this year than otherwise would have. To his detriment.
Third, it’s no coincidence that DeJoy’s being asked to testify next Monday. What else is happening that day? Right — the start of the Republican National Convention. Pelosi wants to counterprogram Trump’s big reelection pitch to voters with days of news about a slowdown in postal service orchestrated by the president and carried out by his evil lackey, the postmaster general. Wouldn’t surprise me if House Dems call other witnesses on Tuesday, Wednesday, and/or Thursday to keep the story going as the convention wears on.
There are a number of pieces online today that debunk some of the worst fears about what’s happening with the post office, and not just from hardcore MAGA types. Byron York has one at the Examiner; anti-Trumper Nick Harper has one as well at Medium. I’ve made some of the same points they make in my own posts, but one question persists that no one seems able to answer: Why is DeJoy undertaking to reorganize the Postal Service right now, in the thick of a pandemic, when more Americans than ever before are hoping to vote by mail? Paul Brandus wonders:
Yes, the Post Office is a bloated money pit and needs to innovate. But with 11 weeks to go in an important election — perhaps the most crucial since 1860, when Abraham Lincoln squeaked in with less than 40% of the vote — this isn’t the time. If Trump wanted to overhaul the post office, he could have done so in 2017-2018, when Republicans controlled both the House and Senate. Instead, he has decided that now is the time? No. Give the postal service what is needed to get through this election and then let’s revisit reform.
In a way, Trump’s comments about not wanting to fund the USPS in the next round of stimulus relief are a red herring. The agency won’t be insolvent until next year. Denying them a bailout now shouldn’t affect their ability to process ballots in November. What’s harder to explain is DeJoy’s insistence on ending overtime for USPS workers under the circumstances described by Brandus. That’s the main cause of the delays in delivery, it seems; DeJoy is pinching pennies at a moment when the rest of the federal government is spending money hand over fist to try to keep the country functioning. So what’s the answer to Brandus’s objections about this exceedingly ill-timed overhaul? Why not just give the USPS money short-term to keep it functioning, allow for overtime to keep the mail — which includes medicine — moving, and start the reorganization after a vaccine has arrived and America starts getting back to something approaching normal?


hotair--2020-08-17--When your census taker smells like booze

After some delays caused by the plague , the nation ’ s army of temporary census workers has taken to the streets in an effort to get everyone counted in an orderly fashion .
But according to a report out this week from the Associated Press , things aren ’ t going very well .
They spoke to a number of workers who are going door-to-door and found that the response from the public has been luke-warm at best when compared to previous decades .
People in many areas are refusing to answer some or all of the questions and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ refusing to answer the doors at all .
The workers are attributing this to a combination of factors including concerns over the virus , a general distrust of government , and , for at least one region , issues with the hand sanitizer being given to the enumerators smelling like bourbon .
Out on her first day of knocking on doors in the San Francisco Bay Area , the census taker had limited success getting people to answer the questions on the 2020 census .
Residents at only two homes answered all the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , what their relationships were and their sex , age , race and whether they ’ re Hispanic .
No one was home at three households , residents at two homes wouldn ’ t give her the time of day , and the rest only answered some questions .
Workers on the front-lines of the massive effort trying to count everyone in the U.S. have faced unprecedented obstacles in the last phase of the 2020 census : people wary of talking to strangers in a pandemic and distrustful of government ; a shortened @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concerns about the quality of the protective equipment they ’ ve received .
Giving out hand sanitizer to the enumerators under the current conditions is an obvious requirement .
But the choice of ordering “ bourbon-scented hand sanitizer ” made by a distillery in Oklahoma seems a bit odd .
You can understand the company manufacturing the product wanting to stay on brand and add such a scent to the product , and for home use , that ’ s probably fine .
( Heck , I ’ d certainly be willing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when you ’ re going out to deal with the public or even showing up for a meeting with your boss , do you really want to walk up to them smelling of Jim Beam ?
With that in mind , the response from some members of the public is probably understandable .
Even knowing that there ’ s a pandemic sweeping the world , if a person wearing a mask and reeking of whiskey shows up at your door and begins asking you very personal questions , how are you supposed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enumerators here because they ’ re just trying to do their jobs , but somebody at the Census Bureau seems to have really dropped the ball on this one .
The more alarming issue here is the number of people who are slamming the doors or refusing to finish the census because they don ’ t trust the government with their information .
This is understandable if you ’ re in the country illegally ( and for good reason ) , but for regular citizens to refuse to participate for that reason is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have anticipated this .
While this year ’ s Pew polling showed a surprising increase in trust in both state and local government based on how the pandemic is being handled , trust in the federal government remains dismal .
If this translates into far fewer citizens completing the census it will skew the alignment of congressional districts for the next decade , as well as having an impact on the allocation of federal funding .
Refusing to complete the census is still technically against the law .
Noncompliant people can be fined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or more of the questions or $ 500 for lying about your answers .
In some cases , the fine can reach $ 2,500 , but the Census Bureau describes that as a “ course of last resort.
” But nobody has been prosecuted under those laws since Jimmy Carter was in office .
If there is widespread refusal in some areas , will the government really just start rounding people up , taking them to court and fining them ?
I suppose it ’ s possible , but it seems unlikely in @ @ @

After some delays caused by the plague, the nation’s army of temporary census workers has taken to the streets in an effort to get everyone counted in an orderly fashion. But according to a report out this week from the Associated Press, things aren’t going very well. They spoke to a number of workers who are going door-to-door and found that the response from the public has been luke-warm at best when compared to previous decades. People in many areas are refusing to answer some or all of the questions and, in at least some cases, refusing to answer the doors at all. The workers are attributing this to a combination of factors including concerns over the virus, a general distrust of government, and, for at least one region, issues with the hand sanitizer being given to the enumerators smelling like bourbon.
Out on her first day of knocking on doors in the San Francisco Bay Area, the census taker had limited success getting people to answer the questions on the 2020 census. Residents at only two homes answered all the questions about how many people lived there, what their relationships were and their sex, age, race and whether they’re Hispanic. No one was home at three households, residents at two homes wouldn’t give her the time of day, and the rest only answered some questions. Workers on the front-lines of the massive effort trying to count everyone in the U.S. have faced unprecedented obstacles in the last phase of the 2020 census: people wary of talking to strangers in a pandemic and distrustful of government; a shortened schedule; administrative snafus, and nagging concerns about the quality of the protective equipment they’ve received.
Giving out hand sanitizer to the enumerators under the current conditions is an obvious requirement. But the choice of ordering “bourbon-scented hand sanitizer” made by a distillery in Oklahoma seems a bit odd. You can understand the company manufacturing the product wanting to stay on brand and add such a scent to the product, and for home use, that’s probably fine. (Heck, I’d certainly be willing to give it a try.) But when you’re going out to deal with the public or even showing up for a meeting with your boss, do you really want to walk up to them smelling of Jim Beam?
With that in mind, the response from some members of the public is probably understandable. Even knowing that there’s a pandemic sweeping the world, if a person wearing a mask and reeking of whiskey shows up at your door and begins asking you very personal questions, how are you supposed to feel? We can sympathize with the enumerators here because they’re just trying to do their jobs, but somebody at the Census Bureau seems to have really dropped the ball on this one.
The more alarming issue here is the number of people who are slamming the doors or refusing to finish the census because they don’t trust the government with their information. This is understandable if you’re in the country illegally (and for good reason), but for regular citizens to refuse to participate for that reason is disconcerting. Still, we probably should have anticipated this. While this year’s Pew polling showed a surprising increase in trust in both state and local government based on how the pandemic is being handled, trust in the federal government remains dismal. If this translates into far fewer citizens completing the census it will skew the alignment of congressional districts for the next decade, as well as having an impact on the allocation of federal funding.
Refusing to complete the census is still technically against the law. Noncompliant people can be fined $100 for refusing to answer one or more of the questions or $500 for lying about your answers. In some cases, the fine can reach $2,500, but the Census Bureau describes that as a “course of last resort.” But nobody has been prosecuted under those laws since Jimmy Carter was in office. If there is widespread refusal in some areas, will the government really just start rounding people up, taking them to court and fining them? I suppose it’s possible, but it seems unlikely in the extreme.


hotair--2020-08-17--New Zealand "beat the virus" but they just postponed their elections

As we ’ ve noted here before , New Zealand has been held up as the “ model of success ” in the national and international media when it comes to dealing with the global COVID-19 pandemic .
Prime Minister Jacinda Arden moved quickly when the virus finally reached her shores and imposed some of the most brutal lockdown conditions imaginable , essentially turning New Zealanders into a prison population for more than a month .
But to give credit where due , it worked… at least for a while .
They reported zero cases of the novel coronavirus for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ went wrong .
A new batch of cases cropped up last Tuesday in Aukland , all showing up in a single family .
By the end of the week , it had spread to 30 people , all of whom had been in contact with members of that family and most of whom worked at the same food processing facility .
So how did the Prime Minister respond ?
She immediately instituted another lockdown and followed that up by postponing the upcoming elections .
New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has delayed the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 17 as the nation ’ s first community outbreak of Covid-19 in more than three months worsens .
Ardern said Monday she delayed the election from Sept. 19 after consultation with other political parties , to provide certainty to voters .
A fresh outbreak of the virus in Auckland has seen the largest city locked down since Aug. 12 with people urged to stay home and consumer-facing businesses shut — denting consumer confidence while making political campaigning and fund-raising impossible .
The city , home to almost one third of the nation ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ key battleground for Ardern as her Labour Party seeks a second term .
Ardern has buttered her political bread by branding herself as the Virus Mistress… the leader who tamed the beast and kept her nation safe .
But at what cost ?
After stopping the virus in its tracks , she was able to free her people to go about their normal affairs , unlike most of the rest of the world… provided nobody left or entered the country .
But her policies effectively shut down the country ’ s robust tourism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have canceled or postponed projects in New Zealand , normally a prime place for filming big-budget movies because of the beautiful , unspoiled scenery .
Even with the country almost entirely reopened , their unemployment rate remains higher than normal , despite their “ creative ” method of calculating it .
And now Arden has pushed back the elections for the entire country by at least a month over less than 30 cases of the virus , all of them located in one area .
Thirty cases in virtually any other part of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be a total victory over the novel coronavirus .
And yet , most of Aukland – the largest city in the country by far – is locked down again , with everyone back in COVID jail .
All campaigning for the upcoming ( delayed ) elections has ground to a halt .
I ’ m not going to take a victory lap over anyone else ’ s misery , but this is precisely the situation we ’ ve discussed here in the past and the current events in New Zealand were predicted .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ initial outbreak of the virus was admirable , but it also left her with a nation of 4.8 million people ( 1.6 million of whom live in Aukland ) with zero herd immunity .
The number of New Zealanders who contracted the virus and survived with some form of immunity isn ’ t big enough to qualify as a rounding error .
Meanwhile , everyone was allowed to come and go as if the virus no longer existed .
All it was going to take was one person to screw up and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over again .
And now it has .
What Ardern has accomplished was never going to be a permanent solution .
She can ’ t isolate her islands from the rest of the world permanently and the virus isn ’ t going to go away .
Until she can lay her hands on nearly five million doses of a reliable , effective vaccine , she ’ s going to be locking her countrymen down again and again .
How is this a sustainable model ?
Ardern ’ s approval ratings are still sky @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being the most popular Prime Minister in a century , so apparently people are still willing to tolerate all of this .
But it certainly doesn ’ t sound like any way to run a country .

As we’ve noted here before, New Zealand has been held up as the “model of success” in the national and international media when it comes to dealing with the global COVID-19 pandemic. Prime Minister Jacinda Arden moved quickly when the virus finally reached her shores and imposed some of the most brutal lockdown conditions imaginable, essentially turning New Zealanders into a prison population for more than a month. But to give credit where due, it worked… at least for a while. They reported zero cases of the novel coronavirus for nearly three months.
But then something went wrong. A new batch of cases cropped up last Tuesday in Aukland, all showing up in a single family. By the end of the week, it had spread to 30 people, all of whom had been in contact with members of that family and most of whom worked at the same food processing facility. So how did the Prime Minister respond? She immediately instituted another lockdown and followed that up by postponing the upcoming elections.
New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has delayed the general election by four weeks until Oct. 17 as the nation’s first community outbreak of Covid-19 in more than three months worsens. Ardern said Monday she delayed the election from Sept. 19 after consultation with other political parties, to provide certainty to voters. A fresh outbreak of the virus in Auckland has seen the largest city locked down since Aug. 12 with people urged to stay home and consumer-facing businesses shut — denting consumer confidence while making political campaigning and fund-raising impossible. The city, home to almost one third of the nation’s 5 million citizens, is a key battleground for Ardern as her Labour Party seeks a second term.
Ardern has buttered her political bread by branding herself as the Virus Mistress… the leader who tamed the beast and kept her nation safe. But at what cost? After stopping the virus in its tracks, she was able to free her people to go about their normal affairs, unlike most of the rest of the world… provided nobody left or entered the country. But her policies effectively shut down the country’s robust tourism industry. Also, motion picture studios have canceled or postponed projects in New Zealand, normally a prime place for filming big-budget movies because of the beautiful, unspoiled scenery. Even with the country almost entirely reopened, their unemployment rate remains higher than normal, despite their “creative” method of calculating it.
And now Arden has pushed back the elections for the entire country by at least a month over less than 30 cases of the virus, all of them located in one area. Thirty cases in virtually any other part of the world today would be considered to be a total victory over the novel coronavirus. And yet, most of Aukland – the largest city in the country by far – is locked down again, with everyone back in COVID jail. All campaigning for the upcoming (delayed) elections has ground to a halt.
I’m not going to take a victory lap over anyone else’s misery, but this is precisely the situation we’ve discussed here in the past and the current events in New Zealand were predicted. The rapidity with which Ardern eliminated the initial outbreak of the virus was admirable, but it also left her with a nation of 4.8 million people (1.6 million of whom live in Aukland) with zero herd immunity. The number of New Zealanders who contracted the virus and survived with some form of immunity isn’t big enough to qualify as a rounding error. Meanwhile, everyone was allowed to come and go as if the virus no longer existed. All it was going to take was one person to screw up and the entire crap show was going to start over again. And now it has.
What Ardern has accomplished was never going to be a permanent solution. She can’t isolate her islands from the rest of the world permanently and the virus isn’t going to go away. Until she can lay her hands on nearly five million doses of a reliable, effective vaccine, she’s going to be locking her countrymen down again and again. How is this a sustainable model? Ardern’s approval ratings are still sky high and she’s described as being the most popular Prime Minister in a century, so apparently people are still willing to tolerate all of this. But it certainly doesn’t sound like any way to run a country.


hotair--2020-08-17--Is the Constitution undemocratic?

Is the Constitution undemocratic?

While I realize that the title question is a bit counterintuitive ( or just silly , depending on your preferences ) , it becomes an interesting one with a little more context .
Saturday , at Outside the Beltway , Steven Taylor published an essay titled The Consequences of Design .
I ’ ll warn you in advance that it ’ s a very anti-Trump analysis of what the author sees as a potential electoral crisis in November .
This would be brought about by a combination of three things : a decrepit election infrastructure , including the Post Office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and , of course , the Bad Orange Man and his nefarious plans .
You can read that if you like , but I was more interested in a response on the same site from James Joyner that focuses primarily on the second element in that list .
Did the Founders somehow err in crafting our current electoral system , putting weaknesses in it that are only now being exposed in the era of Trump ?
Here are a few of his key thoughts , focusing primarily on the different structures of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the electoral college and all the baggage that goes along with that .
So , yes , having equal representation in the Senate for all states , regardless of population , is inherently undemocratic .
And the error is compounded by the fact that the Electoral College doubles down on this .
Further , we legislatively capped the size of the House of Representatives at 435 in 1929 and have kept it there despite the population more than doubling since .
As we all learned in grade school , this was part of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states came to the convention as sovereign equals in a Confederation , that was the starting point of negotiations .
The small states had all the leverage and there was only so much they were going to be willing to concede .
And , indeed , having the House constructed on the basis of the populations of the several states was a huge concession .
Likewise , amending the Constitution is absurdly difficult .
The main path requires two-thirds of both Houses of Congress to approve a measure , which then needs to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That ’ s nearly impossible !
If all of that sounds like Joyner is concluding that the Constitution is somehow outdated and not suited to the needs of the 21st ( or even 20th ) century , you ’ re not far off .
In his concluding paragraph , he describes our constitutional system of government as being one that was “ devised to meet the needs of a fledgling nation of 4 million people clustered along the Eastern Seaboard half a century before the invention of the telegraph.
” And this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of “ a continental superpower of 330 million incredibly diverse citizens.
” In order to accept Joyner ’ s proposition , we have to start with one fundamental assumption .
The leaders of the 13 original states arrived at the convention as the representatives of independent entities , closer to being nations in their own right than subdivisions of some larger , national institution .
And that ’ s precisely how they did arrive , flexing plenty of muscle as the details of the new country were hammered out .
The smaller states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ process and they ensured that the upper chamber in the legislative branch would be structured in such a way that those smaller states would share equal power with the larger ones .
Joyner further notes that allowing the House of Representatives to be structured based on population was actually a major compromise on their part .
But to accept the idea that the system they developed is now not only antiquated , but dangerously flawed relies on yet another assumption .
To accept this , we must believe that the states are no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the smaller states are simply subdivisions of the larger whole .
A casual glance at how our country evolved over the next two centuries and more might certainly lead you to believe this to be the case .
The vaunted Commerce Clause of the Constitution was put in place because the Founders envisioned times of conflict , not amounting to civil war , but potential trade wars and embargos between the various states .
That never wound up happening .
( Well… aside from the Civil War part , but you see where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In reality , both the legislatures and the courts embarked on a rather rapid evolution toward a powerful , central federal government never envisioned by the Founders .
Both the Ninth and Tenth Amendments eventually became withered leftovers of a bygone era .
The underlying expectation of strong , independent states working in a functional confederation slowly rotted away , leaving only the archaic structures of both the Senate and the electoral college as remnants of that earlier time .
With all that said , I can understand where Joyner is coming from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mean that I agree with it .
I ’ m not arguing for trade wars between New York and Vermont over who gets to sell their cheese where , but the independence of the state governments should still be respected inasmuch as possible .
If you wipe out those distinctions , then there ’ s no point in allowing the states to pass their own laws governing matters that don ’ t run afoul of the Bill of Rights .
There ’ s no point in letting them decide their own state tax @ @ @ @ @ @ @ else .
You may as well just have one standard template for the entire country .
And that ’ s definitely not what the Founders intended .
Those vestigial structures from the era of the Founders ( the structure of the Senate and the electoral college ) are the last shields left allowing the states to maintain their individuality .
Without those features , there ’ s really no point in even having states .
And that ’ s something worth fighting for .

While I realize that the title question is a bit counterintuitive (or just silly, depending on your preferences), it becomes an interesting one with a little more context. Saturday, at Outside the Beltway, Steven Taylor published an essay titled The Consequences of Design. I’ll warn you in advance that it’s a very anti-Trump analysis of what the author sees as a potential electoral crisis in November. This would be brought about by a combination of three things: a decrepit election infrastructure, including the Post Office, flaws in the original Constitution, and, of course, the Bad Orange Man and his nefarious plans.
You can read that if you like, but I was more interested in a response on the same site from James Joyner that focuses primarily on the second element in that list. Did the Founders somehow err in crafting our current electoral system, putting weaknesses in it that are only now being exposed in the era of Trump? Here are a few of his key thoughts, focusing primarily on the different structures of the House and the Senate, along with the electoral college and all the baggage that goes along with that.
So, yes, having equal representation in the Senate for all states, regardless of population, is inherently undemocratic. And the error is compounded by the fact that the Electoral College doubles down on this. Further, we legislatively capped the size of the House of Representatives at 435 in 1929 and have kept it there despite the population more than doubling since. As we all learned in grade school, this was part of the so-called Great Compromise. Because the states came to the convention as sovereign equals in a Confederation, that was the starting point of negotiations. The small states had all the leverage and there was only so much they were going to be willing to concede. And, indeed, having the House constructed on the basis of the populations of the several states was a huge concession. Likewise, amending the Constitution is absurdly difficult. The main path requires two-thirds of both Houses of Congress to approve a measure, which then needs to be passed by three-fourths of the states. That’s nearly impossible!
If all of that sounds like Joyner is concluding that the Constitution is somehow outdated and not suited to the needs of the 21st (or even 20th) century, you’re not far off. In his concluding paragraph, he describes our constitutional system of government as being one that was “devised to meet the needs of a fledgling nation of 4 million people clustered along the Eastern Seaboard half a century before the invention of the telegraph.” And this system is incapable of meeting the needs of “a continental superpower of 330 million incredibly diverse citizens.”
In order to accept Joyner’s proposition, we have to start with one fundamental assumption. The leaders of the 13 original states arrived at the convention as the representatives of independent entities, closer to being nations in their own right than subdivisions of some larger, national institution. And that’s precisely how they did arrive, flexing plenty of muscle as the details of the new country were hammered out. The smaller states held almost total veto power over the process and they ensured that the upper chamber in the legislative branch would be structured in such a way that those smaller states would share equal power with the larger ones. Joyner further notes that allowing the House of Representatives to be structured based on population was actually a major compromise on their part.
But to accept the idea that the system they developed is now not only antiquated, but dangerously flawed relies on yet another assumption. To accept this, we must believe that the states are no longer equal actors in any way and the smaller states are simply subdivisions of the larger whole. A casual glance at how our country evolved over the next two centuries and more might certainly lead you to believe this to be the case. The vaunted Commerce Clause of the Constitution was put in place because the Founders envisioned times of conflict, not amounting to civil war, but potential trade wars and embargos between the various states. That never wound up happening. (Well… aside from the Civil War part, but you see where I’m going here.)
In reality, both the legislatures and the courts embarked on a rather rapid evolution toward a powerful, central federal government never envisioned by the Founders. Both the Ninth and Tenth Amendments eventually became withered leftovers of a bygone era. The underlying expectation of strong, independent states working in a functional confederation slowly rotted away, leaving only the archaic structures of both the Senate and the electoral college as remnants of that earlier time.
With all that said, I can understand where Joyner is coming from here. But that doesn’t mean that I agree with it. I’m not arguing for trade wars between New York and Vermont over who gets to sell their cheese where, but the independence of the state governments should still be respected inasmuch as possible. If you wipe out those distinctions, then there’s no point in allowing the states to pass their own laws governing matters that don’t run afoul of the Bill of Rights. There’s no point in letting them decide their own state tax rates, minimum wages, or anything else. You may as well just have one standard template for the entire country.
And that’s definitely not what the Founders intended. Those vestigial structures from the era of the Founders (the structure of the Senate and the electoral college) are the last shields left allowing the states to maintain their individuality. Without those features, there’s really no point in even having states. And that’s something worth fighting for.


hotair--2020-08-17--Recess over: Pelosi calls the House back to D.C. for emergency USPS vote, hearing scheduled

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said she was calling House members back to Washington to work on the coronavirus funding package – specifically addressing the U.S .
Postal Service funding .
Apparently she is finished thinking about doing so because on Sunday night it was reported that she pulled the trigger and cut short their summer recess .
Members of Congress will be expected to vote this week on a bill that would bar changes to the U.S .
Postal Service because of fears over delayed ballots .
Last week Rep.Carolyn Maloney , Chairman of the House Oversight Committee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ USPS from implementing a planned organizational overhaul that critics maintain would handicap mail-in voting .
It is called the Delivering for America Act .
Here we are at the beginning of the Democrat convention which will take up most of this week , though mostly virtually , and yet the Democrats are so obsessed with promoting their conspiracy theory that the House will hold a vote while convention activities are happening .
The conspiracy theory is that President Trump is trying to sabotage the November election by instructing the new Postmaster General to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re-election .
As I wrote about Sunday , her decision is likely because she is realizing that Democrats are not covering themselves in glory by refusing to work with Republicans to pass another coronavirus funding package , which includes billions of taxpayer dollars .
Democrats proposed $ 25 billion in emergency funding for the Postal Service .
Concerns over the Postal Service accelerated late last week after Trump told Fox Business that voting by mail would be difficult if the emergency funding , in addition to $ 3.6 billion in vote-by-mail funding , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need that money in order to have the post office work , so it can take all of these millions and millions of ballots , ” Trump said .
“ But if they don ’ t get those two items , that means you can ’ t have universal mail-in voting , because they ’ re not equipped to have it.
” Pelosi sent a letter to Democrats and released a statement announcing that an emergency hearing will be scheduled this month for Postmaster General DeJoy to testify before Congress .
In a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , cited President Donald Trump ’ s “ campaign to sabotage the election , ” saying he was manipulating the Postal Service to disenfranchise voters .
“ Alarmingly , the Postmaster General — a Trump mega-donor — has acted as an accomplice in the president ’ s campaign to cheat in the election , as he launches sweeping new operational changes that degrade delivery standards and delay the mail , ” Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer , D-N.Y. , said in a statement earlier .
“ The Postal Service itself has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ send in their ballots by state deadlines — may be disenfranchised in 46 states and in Washington , D.C. , by continued delays , ” the statement continued .
“ This constitutes a grave threat to the integrity of the election and to our very democracy.
” The Democrats requested that Postmaster General Louis DeJoy , a Republican fundraiser and top donor to Trump who took over the Postal Service in June , and Postal Service Board of Governors Chairman Michael Duncan , a former chairman of the Republican National Committee , testify @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 24 .
The hearing , Democrats said , “ will examine the sweeping operational and organizational changes at the Postal Service that experts warn could degrade delivery standards , slow the mail and potentially impair the rights of eligible Americans to cast their votes through the mail in the upcoming November elections.
” Schumer also wants the Senate to hold hearings on the USPS and question DeJoy .
Naturally , it is all about removing DeJoy from the position because Democrats and the union workers don ’ t approve of the changes he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ members have endorsed Joe Biden for president .
Friday the postal service filed a notice with the Postal Regulatory Commission seeking a short-term end-of-the-year rate increase .
The reasons given were due to increased expenses , heightened demand for online packages due to the coronavirus pandemic , and an expected increase in holiday mail volume .
And , if predictions come true , there will be a marked increase in mail-in voting , too .
The Democrats are busy scaring voters to apply for mail-in ballots and to return them as early as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ telling people to bypass the polling places and vote by mail .
There is no reason to think a voter can ’ t vote in person unless the person has underlying health issues and is confined to home .
Dr. Fauci said if people can go to the grocery store , they can vote in person .
Every state is putting precautions into place to make that possible .
Expect this phony conspiracy theory to continue by the Democrats and their cohorts in the media .
All of the Sunday morning political shows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration officials about mail-in voting .
Democrats want to use the coronavirus pandemic as a reason to implement universal mail-in voting across the country .
Never let a crisis go to waste .

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said she was calling House members back to Washington to work on the coronavirus funding package – specifically addressing the U.S. Postal Service funding. Apparently she is finished thinking about doing so because on Sunday night it was reported that she pulled the trigger and cut short their summer recess. Members of Congress will be expected to vote this week on a bill that would bar changes to the U.S. Postal Service because of fears over delayed ballots.
Last week Rep.Carolyn Maloney, Chairman of the House Oversight Committee, introduced a bill that would prohibit USPS from implementing a planned organizational overhaul that critics maintain would handicap mail-in voting. It is called the Delivering for America Act. Here we are at the beginning of the Democrat convention which will take up most of this week, though mostly virtually, and yet the Democrats are so obsessed with promoting their conspiracy theory that the House will hold a vote while convention activities are happening. The conspiracy theory is that President Trump is trying to sabotage the November election by instructing the new Postmaster General to make changes that would allegedly benefit his re-election. As I wrote about Sunday, her decision is likely because she is realizing that Democrats are not covering themselves in glory by refusing to work with Republicans to pass another coronavirus funding package, which includes billions of taxpayer dollars.
Democrats proposed $25 billion in emergency funding for the Postal Service. Concerns over the Postal Service accelerated late last week after Trump told Fox Business that voting by mail would be difficult if the emergency funding, in addition to $3.6 billion in vote-by-mail funding, was blocked. “Now, they need that money in order to have the post office work, so it can take all of these millions and millions of ballots,” Trump said. “But if they don’t get those two items, that means you can’t have universal mail-in voting, because they’re not equipped to have it.”
Pelosi sent a letter to Democrats and released a statement announcing that an emergency hearing will be scheduled this month for Postmaster General DeJoy to testify before Congress.
In a letter to Democrats, Pelosi, D-Calif., cited President Donald Trump’s “campaign to sabotage the election,” saying he was manipulating the Postal Service to disenfranchise voters. “Alarmingly, the Postmaster General — a Trump mega-donor — has acted as an accomplice in the president’s campaign to cheat in the election, as he launches sweeping new operational changes that degrade delivery standards and delay the mail,” Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said in a statement earlier. “The Postal Service itself has warned that voters — even if they send in their ballots by state deadlines — may be disenfranchised in 46 states and in Washington, D.C., by continued delays,” the statement continued. “This constitutes a grave threat to the integrity of the election and to our very democracy.” The Democrats requested that Postmaster General Louis DeJoy, a Republican fundraiser and top donor to Trump who took over the Postal Service in June, and Postal Service Board of Governors Chairman Michael Duncan, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee, testify before the House Oversight Committee on Aug. 24. The hearing, Democrats said, “will examine the sweeping operational and organizational changes at the Postal Service that experts warn could degrade delivery standards, slow the mail and potentially impair the rights of eligible Americans to cast their votes through the mail in the upcoming November elections.”
Schumer also wants the Senate to hold hearings on the USPS and question DeJoy. Naturally, it is all about removing DeJoy from the position because Democrats and the union workers don’t approve of the changes he is making. The U.S.P.S. union members have endorsed Joe Biden for president.
In a separate statement, Schumer called on the Senate to hold similar hearings and to legislate to undo recent changes. “If Mr. DeJoy refuses to appear before Congress and the American people to testify, he should be stamped ‘Return to Sender,'” Schumer said. “He shouldn’t be allowed to be the postmaster general.”
Friday the postal service filed a notice with the Postal Regulatory Commission seeking a short-term end-of-the-year rate increase. The reasons given were due to increased expenses, heightened demand for online packages due to the coronavirus pandemic, and an expected increase in holiday mail volume. And, if predictions come true, there will be a marked increase in mail-in voting, too. The Democrats are busy scaring voters to apply for mail-in ballots and to return them as early as possible. Imagine that. Democrats are telling people to bypass the polling places and vote by mail. There is no reason to think a voter can’t vote in person unless the person has underlying health issues and is confined to home. Dr. Fauci said if people can go to the grocery store, they can vote in person. Every state is putting precautions into place to make that possible.
Expect this phony conspiracy theory to continue by the Democrats and their cohorts in the media. All of the Sunday morning political shows included questioning of Trump campaign surrogates and administration officials about mail-in voting. Democrats want to use the coronavirus pandemic as a reason to implement universal mail-in voting across the country. Never let a crisis go to waste.


hotair--2020-08-18--DNC Chair: We need to be done with caucuses

DNC Chairman Tom Perez has been fairly quiet this summer , but with the arrival of the Democrats ’ “ virtual convention ” this week he seized the opportunity to use his platform to address the party .
In a rather curious choice of topics , Perez apparently decided to kick things off by ticking off his own voters in Iowa , Nevada and other states that still use caucuses for their primary elections when picking a presidential nominee .
The Chairman declared in no uncertain terms that 2020 should be the last year that caucuses are held and all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elections .
But rather than focusing on the debacles we witnessed in this year ’ s contests , he cited the bitter fight between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton in 2016 as his reason for calling for change .
( Associated Press ) Democratic National Committee Chair Tom Perez said Monday that the handful of 2020 presidential caucuses should be the last the party ever holds .
He didn ’ t specifically name Iowa , which for decades has led off the nominating calendar , but his position would represent a seismic shift @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Perez ’ s term as chair will end before the 2024 nominating calendar is determined .
But he told The Associated Press on the opening day of the Democratic National Convention that he plans to “ use the bully pulpit as a former chair to make sure we continue the progress ” of changes after the bitter 2016 primary fight between nominee Hillary Clinton and runner-up Bernie Sanders .
The number of states that hold caucuses has been mostly declining for a while , but the practice is far from being extinct .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ most famous caucus ) , twelve other states and three territories still hang onto the practice .
While Perez will get no argument from me on this score , the states who do this seem to cling to their traditions fiercely .
Any suggestion that they drag themselves out of the 19th century and just hold a normal vote is often looked at as some sort of grave insult .
So why bring it up just as the convention is kicking off ?
This is supposed to be the time when the party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ behind them and comes together behind the presumptive nominee and his or her running mate .
Possibly because this is Perez ’ s last term as chairman so he doesn ’ t have to worry about pleasing everyone and building alliances anymore .
More curious , as I mentioned above , was Perez ’ s choice of the Bernie versus Hillary infighting from 2016 as his rationale .
Was it really all that much different in 2020 ?
You only need to substitute Biden ’ s name for Clinton ’ s and you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Bernie Bros were never going to find any of the other leading contenders to be progressive/liberal enough for their tastes .
And anyone seen as “ blocking Bernie from the nomination ” was only going to engender hard feelings .
On top of that , what do caucuses have to do with the Democratic infighting ?
The bitter divisions were equally loud and clear in the states that held primary elections .
It just doesn ’ t make any sense .
In the end , there really isn ’ t all that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states that choose to hold caucuses anyway .
That ’ s a decision that ’ s made at the state level and the national party can ’ t simply veto them .
They do have some options available to put pressure on them if they really feel moved to do so , however .
Just as they already do with any states who move up their contests too early on the calendar , the party can dock noncompliant states some or all of their delegates at the convention .
But that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leave some severely bad blood between the state and national parties .
And that sort of internecine scrapping can impact fundraising in both directions , so I rather doubt the DNC will try to take too hard of a line on this .
That ’ s kind of a shame because there are definitely a lot of issues with the caucus process .
It removes the anonymity of voting , leaving voters open to peer pressure .
There are also frequent transparency issues in terms of how the votes are counted and reported @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to revisit how badly they can go when any step in the process breaks down , as we saw in Iowa this year .
But for better or worse , we seem to be stuck with them for the foreseeable future .

DNC Chairman Tom Perez has been fairly quiet this summer, but with the arrival of the Democrats’ “virtual convention” this week he seized the opportunity to use his platform to address the party. In a rather curious choice of topics, Perez apparently decided to kick things off by ticking off his own voters in Iowa, Nevada and other states that still use caucuses for their primary elections when picking a presidential nominee. The Chairman declared in no uncertain terms that 2020 should be the last year that caucuses are held and all of the states should move to standard elections. But rather than focusing on the debacles we witnessed in this year’s contests, he cited the bitter fight between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton in 2016 as his reason for calling for change. (Associated Press)
Democratic National Committee Chair Tom Perez said Monday that the handful of 2020 presidential caucuses should be the last the party ever holds. He didn’t specifically name Iowa, which for decades has led off the nominating calendar, but his position would represent a seismic shift in the party’s traditions. Perez’s term as chair will end before the 2024 nominating calendar is determined. But he told The Associated Press on the opening day of the Democratic National Convention that he plans to “use the bully pulpit as a former chair to make sure we continue the progress” of changes after the bitter 2016 primary fight between nominee Hillary Clinton and runner-up Bernie Sanders.
The number of states that hold caucuses has been mostly declining for a while, but the practice is far from being extinct. In addition to Iowa (probably the most famous caucus), twelve other states and three territories still hang onto the practice. While Perez will get no argument from me on this score, the states who do this seem to cling to their traditions fiercely. Any suggestion that they drag themselves out of the 19th century and just hold a normal vote is often looked at as some sort of grave insult.
So why bring it up just as the convention is kicking off? This is supposed to be the time when the party puts all the unpleasantness of the primary behind them and comes together behind the presumptive nominee and his or her running mate. Possibly because this is Perez’s last term as chairman so he doesn’t have to worry about pleasing everyone and building alliances anymore.
More curious, as I mentioned above, was Perez’s choice of the Bernie versus Hillary infighting from 2016 as his rationale. Was it really all that much different in 2020? You only need to substitute Biden’s name for Clinton’s and you saw the same scenario playing out. The Bernie Bros were never going to find any of the other leading contenders to be progressive/liberal enough for their tastes. And anyone seen as “blocking Bernie from the nomination” was only going to engender hard feelings. On top of that, what do caucuses have to do with the Democratic infighting? The bitter divisions were equally loud and clear in the states that held primary elections. It just doesn’t make any sense.
In the end, there really isn’t all that much the DNC can do about the states that choose to hold caucuses anyway. That’s a decision that’s made at the state level and the national party can’t simply veto them. They do have some options available to put pressure on them if they really feel moved to do so, however. Just as they already do with any states who move up their contests too early on the calendar, the party can dock noncompliant states some or all of their delegates at the convention. But that’s a pretty drastic move and tends to leave some severely bad blood between the state and national parties. And that sort of internecine scrapping can impact fundraising in both directions, so I rather doubt the DNC will try to take too hard of a line on this.
That’s kind of a shame because there are definitely a lot of issues with the caucus process. It removes the anonymity of voting, leaving voters open to peer pressure. There are also frequent transparency issues in terms of how the votes are counted and reported. And we don’t need to revisit how badly they can go when any step in the process breaks down, as we saw in Iowa this year. But for better or worse, we seem to be stuck with them for the foreseeable future.


hotair--2020-08-18--China expels teacher at elite school who criticized the ruling communist party as a 'political zombi

China expels teacher at elite school who criticized the ruling communist party as a 'political zombie'

Yesterday the Chinese Communist Party expelled a former teacher over her comments critical of President Xi Jinping .
Cai Xia was a professor at the elite Central Party School that trains many of the country ’ s top leaders in communist theory .
The cause for her expulsion from the party was a 20-minute segment of audio which leaked this summer .
In the audio clip , Cai described the CCP as a “ political zombie ” and suggested China needed to get rid of President Xi and his control of everything via the police and surveillance .
Here ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what she said in the leaked audio : So , the Party itself is already a political zombie .
And this one person , a central leader who has grasped the knife handle [ police apparatus ] , the gun barrel [ military ] , and faults within the system itself—that is : one , corruption among the officials ; and two , the lack of human rights and legal protection for Party members and cadres .
With these two grasped in his hands , he has turned 90 million Party members into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his personal advantage .
When he needs it , he uses the Party .
When he doesn ’ t need it , Party members are no longer treated as Party members .
He can easily put you somewhere and label you as a corrupt official… Nowadays , not supporting the real economy is a crime , being defiant against the Party is a crime , being dishonest towards the Party is a crime .
Where is rule of law ?
What kind of political party is this ?
He has become a total @ @ @ @ @ @ @ however he wants .
That ’ s why I say that this Party is already a political zombie… I think the best solution is of course to replace the person .
As a matter of urgency , I think that is the first step .
But you can see what he is doing now : holding military power in his hand , holding the entire Central Political and Legal Affairs Commission and the police in his hands .
Putting everyone under surveillance using high-tech tools .
Who can come out and say “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
It ’ s impossible .
Even at the Central Standing Committee meetings , we say majority rule , but does the majority actually rule ?
No… Because right now society can ’ t be counted on , he ’ s already atomized the entire Chinese society into scattered sand .
All of civil society and the capacity for self-organization have been shattered .
Running the country with the police , violently monitoring the people .
Society itself is at the point of death .
So you can probably see why Cai was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s directly calling for Xi Jinping to step down and be replaced and she ’ s implicitly saying the entire party has become a cult of personality where everyone is afraid to speak up for fear of being labeled an enemy of the state .
Cai has left China and is now free to speak her mind .
In an interview with the Guardian she talked about China ’ s failure to alert the world about the coronavirus : Beijing has blamed the suppression of information about the outbreak in Wuhan on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on 20 January that the virus was contagious , weeks after it had emerged in December .
But a speech published by the party magazine Qiushi showed that Xi met the politburo and gave instructions on the needed virus response on 7 January , almost two weeks before the public was warned .
“ If he knew on 7 January , why did it take until 20 January to announce the outbreak ?
In other words , the fact that people were concealing the news from him is the result of the system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when he knew the situation on 7 January , he did not make it public or mobilise resources .
So shouldn ’ t he bear responsibility ?
” This is an example of the dynamic she described in the leaked audio , i.e .
Xi is responsible for everything and no one is willing to say that Xi was wrong about anything so no one can admit the country ever made a mistake even when the result is a global pandemic that killed hundreds of thousands of people .
Now that she ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s happy about it .
“ Many of my good friends who saw the news of me being expelled are cheering .
They think this is a good thing , ” she told the Guardian .

Yesterday the Chinese Communist Party expelled a former teacher over her comments critical of President Xi Jinping. Cai Xia was a professor at the elite Central Party School that trains many of the country’s top leaders in communist theory.
The school said in a notice that Cai, a professor at the party school since 1992, had made comments that “damaged the country’s reputation” and were full of “serious political problems”.
The cause for her expulsion from the party was a 20-minute segment of audio which leaked this summer. In the audio clip, Cai described the CCP as a “political zombie” and suggested China needed to get rid of President Xi and his control of everything via the police and surveillance. Here’s a transcription of a portion of what she said in the leaked audio:
So, the Party itself is already a political zombie. And this one person, a central leader who has grasped the knife handle [police apparatus], the gun barrel [military], and faults within the system itself—that is: one, corruption among the officials; and two, the lack of human rights and legal protection for Party members and cadres. With these two grasped in his hands, he has turned 90 million Party members into slaves, tools to be used for his personal advantage. When he needs it, he uses the Party. When he doesn’t need it, Party members are no longer treated as Party members. He can easily put you somewhere and label you as a corrupt official… Nowadays, not supporting the real economy is a crime, being defiant against the Party is a crime, being dishonest towards the Party is a crime. Where is rule of law? What kind of political party is this? He has become a total mafia boss who can punish his underlings however he wants. That’s why I say that this Party is already a political zombie… I think the best solution is of course to replace the person. As a matter of urgency, I think that is the first step. But you can see what he is doing now: holding military power in his hand, holding the entire Central Political and Legal Affairs Commission and the police in his hands. Putting everyone under surveillance using high-tech tools. Who can come out and say “let’s solve this problem”? It’s impossible. Even at the Central Standing Committee meetings, we say majority rule, but does the majority actually rule? No… Because right now society can’t be counted on, he’s already atomized the entire Chinese society into scattered sand. All of civil society and the capacity for self-organization have been shattered. Running the country with the police, violently monitoring the people. Society itself is at the point of death.
So you can probably see why Cai was kicked out of the party. She’s directly calling for Xi Jinping to step down and be replaced and she’s implicitly saying the entire party has become a cult of personality where everyone is afraid to speak up for fear of being labeled an enemy of the state.
Cai has left China and is now free to speak her mind. In an interview with the Guardian she talked about China’s failure to alert the world about the coronavirus:
Beijing has blamed the suppression of information about the outbreak in Wuhan on local officials. Chinese health officials said on 20 January that the virus was contagious, weeks after it had emerged in December. But a speech published by the party magazine Qiushi showed that Xi met the politburo and gave instructions on the needed virus response on 7 January, almost two weeks before the public was warned. “If he knew on 7 January, why did it take until 20 January to announce the outbreak? In other words, the fact that people were concealing the news from him is the result of the system,” said Cai. “But when he knew the situation on 7 January, he did not make it public or mobilise resources. So shouldn’t he bear responsibility?”
This is an example of the dynamic she described in the leaked audio, i.e. Xi is responsible for everything and no one is willing to say that Xi was wrong about anything so no one can admit the country ever made a mistake even when the result is a global pandemic that killed hundreds of thousands of people.
Now that she’s been expelled, Cai said she’s happy about it. “Many of my good friends who saw the news of me being expelled are cheering. They think this is a good thing,” she told the Guardian.


hotair--2020-08-18--Dem convention, night two: AOC, Jill Biden, and the Clenis

Here ’ s the live feed in case you ’ re watching on your computer .
Read on .
Kudos to the Trump campaign or whichever Trump ally slipped this photo to the Daily Mail for publication on day two of the convention : It should be noted that Davies was 22 at the time and claims that “ President Clinton was a perfect gentleman during the trip and I saw absolutely no foul play involving him.
” As for why Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell were tagging along with a former president on a humanitarian trip with one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ question .
Good question .
Perhaps Bill will address the subject in tonight ’ s speech .
We ’ re headed for another two-hour program tonight starting again at 9 p.m .
ET .
After watching last night ’ s proceedings , Anthony Fisher thinks that ’ s one hour too many .
Trumpists will look for any excuse to call Democrats anti-American , so the DNC gave us a large and diverse choir of Zoom-boxed heads kicking off the show with the “ Star Spangled Banner.
” I get that , Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ America and couldn ’ t be seen as “ canceling ” John Philip Sousa .
But were the rest of the first hour ’ s barrage of videos and musical guests necessary ?
… Democrats , you ’ ve got time to fix this .
Between now and Tuesday night , ditch the script and cut the program by an hour .
Just give the time back , if not in deed , then in spirit… This new flexibility in scheduling can give a heat-seeking missile like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez more than the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been allotted to speak at the convention .
A rousing AOC speech is sure to move the needle further than yet another unity video .
I think that ’ s good advice *if* all of the participating egos can be accommodated .
But can they ?
Democrats are planning a keynote address this evening featuring no less than 17 speakers , one of whom is Stacey Abrams .
If you cut an hour , is there still time for the keynote plus all of the other speakers , even with most of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of airtime ?
The line-up is lengthy — AOC , Sally Yates , Chuck Schumer , John Kerry , Tom Perez , Jimmy and Roslynn Carter , a few other randos , plus close Biden friend Chris Coons and then FLOTUS-to-be , Jill Biden .
Come to think of it , you probably could do it in an hour .
Give them an average of four minutes each and there ’ d still be 15 minutes or so left over for commercials or whatever weird musical interludes they ’ re planning .
Progressives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ idea .
If the DNC ’ s going to limit Ocasio-Cortez to a single minute to speak , all of the touchy-feely bloat in the first hour is surely completely expendable .
An obvious possibility : Party chiefs could find more time for her , they just don ’ t want to .
They ’ re aiming for swing voters , not the DSA choir .
It ’ s not an accident that John Kasich got more exposure than AOC will .
Tonight ’ s schedule is a mix of aging Democrats Of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ primetime slot somewhere plus the nominee ’ s closest friends and family aiming to humanize him for voters .
You can ’ t put Kerry , Carter , or Clinton on night one of the convention , as none of them are big enough draws anymore to get casual voters to tune in that early .
That ’ s why they lined up Bernie and Michelle Obama for Monday night , because those two have meaningful followings .
You can ’ t put any of these people on nights three or four either @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nominee and Democrats Of Stature whose stature was earned more recently than tonight ’ s crop — Pelosi , Hillary , and of course Barack Obama .
Can ’ t put ’ em on night four either , as that ’ s the night to keep the focus exclusively on Biden himself .
So night two it is , by default .
Then we ’ ll get Coons and Jill Biden to draw us a picture of Joe the friend and husband , which feels unnecessary this year .
Most of Biden ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do with his personal warmth and gregariousness .
Eighty percent of the reason to vote for him is that he ’ s Not Trump and the other 20 percent is that he seems like a decent enough guy .
I guess Coons and Mrs. Biden are going to do what they can to lock down that remaining 20 percent .
Here ’ s live commentary via Twitter to inform and entertain as you watch .
The thread is open for comments .

Here’s the live feed in case you’re watching on your computer. Read on.
Kudos to the Trump campaign or whichever Trump ally slipped this photo to the Daily Mail for publication on day two of the convention:
New image of Bill Clinton getting a massage from Epstein victim Chauntae Davis during the infamous 2002 trip to Africa with JE, Maxwell, Chris Tucker and Kevin Spacey pic.twitter.com/8Rbnms413P — TrueAnon Pod (@TrueAnonPod) August 18, 2020
It should be noted that Davies was 22 at the time and claims that “President Clinton was a perfect gentleman during the trip and I saw absolutely no foul play involving him.” As for why Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell were tagging along with a former president on a humanitarian trip with one of their sex slaves in tow, good question. Good question.
Perhaps Bill will address the subject in tonight’s speech.
We’re headed for another two-hour program tonight starting again at 9 p.m. ET. After watching last night’s proceedings, Anthony Fisher thinks that’s one hour too many.
Trumpists will look for any excuse to call Democrats anti-American, so the DNC gave us a large and diverse choir of Zoom-boxed heads kicking off the show with the “Star Spangled Banner.” I get that, Democrats, you had to prove you love America and couldn’t be seen as “canceling” John Philip Sousa. But were the rest of the first hour’s barrage of videos and musical guests necessary?… Democrats, you’ve got time to fix this. Between now and Tuesday night, ditch the script and cut the program by an hour. Just give the time back, if not in deed, then in spirit… This new flexibility in scheduling can give a heat-seeking missile like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez more than the 60 seconds she’s said to have been allotted to speak at the convention. A rousing AOC speech is sure to move the needle further than yet another unity video.
I think that’s good advice *if* all of the participating egos can be accommodated. But can they? Democrats are planning a keynote address this evening featuring no less than 17 speakers, one of whom is Stacey Abrams. If you cut an hour, is there still time for the keynote plus all of the other speakers, even with most of them limited to just a few minutes of airtime? The line-up is lengthy — AOC, Sally Yates, Chuck Schumer, John Kerry, Tom Perez, Jimmy and Roslynn Carter, a few other randos, plus close Biden friend Chris Coons and then FLOTUS-to-be, Jill Biden.
Come to think of it, you probably could do it in an hour. Give them an average of four minutes each and there’d still be 15 minutes or so left over for commercials or whatever weird musical interludes they’re planning. Progressives in particular should like Fisher’s idea. If the DNC’s going to limit Ocasio-Cortez to a single minute to speak, all of the touchy-feely bloat in the first hour is surely completely expendable.
An obvious possibility: Party chiefs could find more time for her, they just don’t want to. They’re aiming for swing voters, not the DSA choir. It’s not an accident that John Kasich got more exposure than AOC will.
Tonight’s schedule is a mix of aging Democrats Of Stature who have to be given a primetime slot somewhere plus the nominee’s closest friends and family aiming to humanize him for voters. You can’t put Kerry, Carter, or Clinton on night one of the convention, as none of them are big enough draws anymore to get casual voters to tune in that early. That’s why they lined up Bernie and Michelle Obama for Monday night, because those two have meaningful followings. You can’t put any of these people on nights three or four either. Night three is for the VP nominee and Democrats Of Stature whose stature was earned more recently than tonight’s crop — Pelosi, Hillary, and of course Barack Obama. Can’t put ’em on night four either, as that’s the night to keep the focus exclusively on Biden himself. So night two it is, by default.
Then we’ll get Coons and Jill Biden to draw us a picture of Joe the friend and husband, which feels unnecessary this year. Most of Biden’s political “brand” has to do with his personal warmth and gregariousness. Eighty percent of the reason to vote for him is that he’s Not Trump and the other 20 percent is that he seems like a decent enough guy. I guess Coons and Mrs. Biden are going to do what they can to lock down that remaining 20 percent.
Here’s live commentary via Twitter to inform and entertain as you watch. The thread is open for comments.
A Twitter List by allahpundit


hotair--2020-08-18--New Zealand PM probably shouldn't be picking a fight with Trump right now

We ’ ve seen President Trump get into the occasional spat with a variety of world leaders in the past , ranging from Xi Jinping to Angela Merkel to Justin Trudeau .
But one I didn ’ t expect or see coming would be a back-and-forth with the Prime Minister of New Zealand .
I mean , talk about punching down .
I don ’ t think the President started out planning to get into a spat with Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern , but his comments were just part of his normal stream-of-consciousness Q & A style .
He was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases yesterday and he pushed back , saying that some countries that had done very well in suppressing the virus were now running into problems .
That ’ s when he invoked New Zealand , saying that nation had been held up as having “ beat the virus ” but now they are experiencing a “ big surge in New Zealand.
” That didn ’ t sit well with Ardern and she quickly went out before the press in her country to say that Trump had gotten it all “ patently wrong.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ draconian tactics she ’ s employed to keep their numbers low .
( NPR ) New Zealand ’ s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern says President Trump ’ s claim that New Zealand now has a “ big surge ” in coronavirus cases is “ patently wrong , ” adding that the two countries are not comparable in how they handle the pandemic .
“ We are still one of the best-performing countries in the world when it comes to COVID , ” Ardern said on Tuesday .
“ Our workers are focused on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s remarks came on Monday — the same day New Zealand reported nine new cases , and the U.S. added nearly 42,000 .
But the U.S. president , speaking to supporters at an airport in Mankato , Minn. , claimed New Zealand was an example of a country that had early success in fighting the outbreak , only to struggle now .
To be fair to New Zealand here , saying they had a “ big surge ” isn ’ t particularly accurate .
Their “ surge ” consisted of nine cases , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There were reports of additional positive tests at a food processing facility where one of the family members worked , but those were later walked back a bit as being possibly unconfirmed .
Still , whether it ’ s nine cases or nineteen or ninety ( the highest quote we ’ ve seen ) , that ’ s not exactly a massive uptick in a nation of nearly five million people , so she probably has a point .
But Ardern wasn ’ t happy with simply stopping there .
She went on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no comparison between New Zealand ’ s current cluster and the tens of thousands of cases that are being seen daily in the United States.
” Lady !
What are you doing ?
You had a graceful exit from the conversation in hand and then you decided you had to taunt the bear ?
Ardern also circled back to her normal pattern of bragging about how New Zealand is handling the virus better than almost any other place in the world .
But if it ’ s so under control , then why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into a total lockdown and postpone your elections by a month ?
Yes , the virus will likely die off again in New Zealand within a couple of weeks , but as I asked in the article I just linked… at what cost ?
Ardern ’ s citizens are on a rollercoaster ride , going from total freedom to move about to being in solitary confinement .
Yes , that ’ s one way to “ beat ” the virus , but it ’ s unsustainable in the long run .
Her economy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tourist industry has vanished .
Now she ’ s decided to jump into a spat with the United States .
The Australians at least recognize that America is their friend and faithful defender and tend to avoid any spats with Donald Trump , even if he gives them an opening .
This is probably one fight that Ardern would have been better off avoiding by simply ignoring Trump ’ s one-off comment to a reporter on the other side of the world .

We’ve seen President Trump get into the occasional spat with a variety of world leaders in the past, ranging from Xi Jinping to Angela Merkel to Justin Trudeau. But one I didn’t expect or see coming would be a back-and-forth with the Prime Minister of New Zealand. I mean, talk about punching down. I don’t think the President started out planning to get into a spat with Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, but his comments were just part of his normal stream-of-consciousness Q&A style. He was asked yet again about upticks in COVID-19 cases yesterday and he pushed back, saying that some countries that had done very well in suppressing the virus were now running into problems. That’s when he invoked New Zealand, saying that nation had been held up as having “beat the virus” but now they are experiencing a “big surge in New Zealand.”
That didn’t sit well with Ardern and she quickly went out before the press in her country to say that Trump had gotten it all “patently wrong.” And she went on to defend the draconian tactics she’s employed to keep their numbers low. (NPR)
New Zealand’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern says President Trump’s claim that New Zealand now has a “big surge” in coronavirus cases is “patently wrong,” adding that the two countries are not comparable in how they handle the pandemic. “We are still one of the best-performing countries in the world when it comes to COVID,” Ardern said on Tuesday. “Our workers are focused on keeping it that way.” Trump’s remarks came on Monday — the same day New Zealand reported nine new cases, and the U.S. added nearly 42,000. But the U.S. president, speaking to supporters at an airport in Mankato, Minn., claimed New Zealand was an example of a country that had early success in fighting the outbreak, only to struggle now.
To be fair to New Zealand here, saying they had a “big surge” isn’t particularly accurate. Their “surge” consisted of nine cases, all in one family in Aukland. There were reports of additional positive tests at a food processing facility where one of the family members worked, but those were later walked back a bit as being possibly unconfirmed. Still, whether it’s nine cases or nineteen or ninety (the highest quote we’ve seen), that’s not exactly a massive uptick in a nation of nearly five million people, so she probably has a point.
But Ardern wasn’t happy with simply stopping there. She went on to insist that there’s “no comparison between New Zealand’s current cluster and the tens of thousands of cases that are being seen daily in the United States.” Lady! What are you doing? You had a graceful exit from the conversation in hand and then you decided you had to taunt the bear?
Ardern also circled back to her normal pattern of bragging about how New Zealand is handling the virus better than almost any other place in the world. But if it’s so under control, then why did you slam your largest city back into a total lockdown and postpone your elections by a month? Yes, the virus will likely die off again in New Zealand within a couple of weeks, but as I asked in the article I just linked… at what cost?
Ardern’s citizens are on a rollercoaster ride, going from total freedom to move about to being in solitary confinement. Yes, that’s one way to “beat” the virus, but it’s unsustainable in the long run. Her economy is already taking a beating and their tourist industry has vanished. Now she’s decided to jump into a spat with the United States. The Australians at least recognize that America is their friend and faithful defender and tend to avoid any spats with Donald Trump, even if he gives them an opening. This is probably one fight that Ardern would have been better off avoiding by simply ignoring Trump’s one-off comment to a reporter on the other side of the world.