hotair--2020-04-20--Facebook deleting posts promoting anti-lockdown protests if they violate local government orders

A terrible precedent , especially since Facebook admits that it ’ s letting local government set its policy here .
It reeks of what you ’ d see in a Middle Eastern country when demonstrations break out , where parts of the Internet suddenly go dark to stop organizers from coordinating .
Facebook said Sunday it did not remove the groups or events partly because states have not outlawed the activity .
Organizers also have called for “ drive-in ” protests , in keeping with recommendations that people keep a short distance between each other .
In other cases , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jersey and California , the company has removed that content , Facebook said .
“ Unless government prohibits the event during this time , we allow it to be organized on Facebook .
For this same reason , events that defy government ’ s guidance on social distancing aren ’ t allowed on Facebook , ” said Andy Stone , a spokesman for the company .
Facebook ’ s going to claim that this policy is no different than it is in other cases involving solicitation of illegal activity .
You can ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ buy drugs or hire prostitutes so you can ’ t use it to organize rallies that violate social-distancing orders either .
But there ’ s a difference , of course : The protests aren ’ t petty crime , they ’ re a form of civil disobedience .
Stephen Moore is an imbecile for comparing the “ reopen now !
” protesters to Rosa Parks but the analogy is useful in this context .
If Facebook ’ s going to defer to the whims of local government in deciding whether mass civil disobedience @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more just than the anti-lockdown rallies are at risk too .
Some government officials would have claimed after the Ferguson riots that protests should be banned temporarily to let people cool off for awhile lest they turn violent .
Would Facebook have suppressed posts organizing rallies in that case ?
The company would say that there are differences between those protests and the anti-lockdown demonstrations now .
For one thing , the constitutional right to assemble during normal times isn ’ t in doubt ; the scope of the right to assemble during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ using its police powers to limit infection , is .
But in that case , a communications platform like Facebook should err on the side of speech , assuming that the protesters would win in court if they challenged a lockdown order .
Facebook might answer that by saying that there ’ s not just a constitutional difference between traditional civil rights protests and the current protests , there ’ s a public safety difference .
The anti-lockdown protests are inherently and unavoidably dangerous because they involve people congregating while a dangerous disease @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the company ’ s concern , they wouldn ’ t be looking to local government for guidance on whether to delete posts promoting the events .
They ’ d simply have a blanket policy against them , as they ’ re entitled to have as a private platform .
And that policy would be flimsy .
It ’ s *possible* to have a rally that observes basic good social-distancing practices — everyone in masks , a certain distance apart , and so forth .
This will backfire .
It ’ ll create some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into free-speech martyrs and end up inadvertently promoting the rallies .
It ’ ll also deepen fear and loathing of Facebook specifically and Big Tech generally by righties who already distrust social media platforms for being too cozy with the state .
Every primetime show on Fox will have something about this tonight , probably packaged with this equally counterproductive soundbite by Gretchen Whitmer implying that she might extend the lockdown orders in Michigan *because* of the rallies .
Whitmer would say that ’ s because any mass gathering enables the disease to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in context it feels like a parent telling a mouthy kid that they ’ ve just been grounded an extra week for their backtalk .
The more the lockdowns seem like punishment instead of an unfortunate but necessary public-health measure , the more resistance to them there ’ ll be .
The most effective response to the rallies so far has been those nurses walking out into the middle of the street to try to shame protesters while they were idling at red lights .
If Facebook wants to discourage people from joining @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off publicizing posts from health-care workers about the extra risk created by the gatherings than by trying to delete calls to organize .
It ’ d work better and it ’ d be light-years better for the company in terms of PR .
Watch Zuckerberg on ABC this morning .
At 2:40 of the clip he ’ s asked about Facebook deleting posts and says that , although there ’ s room to debate policy , in a health emergency the standard of what counts as “ harmful information ” is different .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ organized to promote myths about the disease ( although I can only imagine what some of the attendees believe about it ) .
They ’ re being organized to … debate policy , specifically to insist that the stay-at-home orders have outlived their usefulness and should be lifted before more economic damage is done .
Exit question : If Facebook is suppressing posts about the rallies because they don ’ t want to encourage mass gatherings , shouldn ’ t they suppress *all* posts encouraging mass gatherings ?
E.g.
, if someone wants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 100 guests and posts the where-and-when info on Facebook , will Facebook take that down ?
What about a post by a church announcing that services will be held this weekend as usual , come one , come all ?

A terrible precedent, especially since Facebook admits that it’s letting local government set its policy here. It reeks of what you’d see in a Middle Eastern country when demonstrations break out, where parts of the Internet suddenly go dark to stop organizers from coordinating.
Facebook said Sunday it did not remove the groups or events partly because states have not outlawed the activity. Organizers also have called for “drive-in” protests, in keeping with recommendations that people keep a short distance between each other. In other cases, involving protests planned for states like New Jersey and California, the company has removed that content, Facebook said. “Unless government prohibits the event during this time, we allow it to be organized on Facebook. For this same reason, events that defy government’s guidance on social distancing aren’t allowed on Facebook,” said Andy Stone, a spokesman for the company.
More specifics:
Says it is working to get answers from New York, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Pennsylvania as to whether anti-quarantine protests breaks those states' social distancing measures. — Donie O'Sullivan (@donie) April 20, 2020
Facebook’s going to claim that this policy is no different than it is in other cases involving solicitation of illegal activity. You can’t use their platform to try to buy drugs or hire prostitutes so you can’t use it to organize rallies that violate social-distancing orders either. But there’s a difference, of course: The protests aren’t petty crime, they’re a form of civil disobedience. Stephen Moore is an imbecile for comparing the “reopen now!” protesters to Rosa Parks but the analogy is useful in this context. If Facebook’s going to defer to the whims of local government in deciding whether mass civil disobedience should be suppressed then causes that are more just than the anti-lockdown rallies are at risk too. Some government officials would have claimed after the Ferguson riots that protests should be banned temporarily to let people cool off for awhile lest they turn violent. Would Facebook have suppressed posts organizing rallies in that case?
The company would say that there are differences between those protests and the anti-lockdown demonstrations now. For one thing, the constitutional right to assemble during normal times isn’t in doubt; the scope of the right to assemble during a pandemic, when the state is using its police powers to limit infection, is. But in that case, a communications platform like Facebook should err on the side of speech, assuming that the protesters would win in court if they challenged a lockdown order. Facebook might answer that by saying that there’s not just a constitutional difference between traditional civil rights protests and the current protests, there’s a public safety difference. The anti-lockdown protests are inherently and unavoidably dangerous because they involve people congregating while a dangerous disease is spreading. But if that were the company’s concern, they wouldn’t be looking to local government for guidance on whether to delete posts promoting the events. They’d simply have a blanket policy against them, as they’re entitled to have as a private platform.
And that policy would be flimsy. It’s *possible* to have a rally that observes basic good social-distancing practices — everyone in masks, a certain distance apart, and so forth.
This will backfire. It’ll create some sympathy for the protesters by turning them into free-speech martyrs and end up inadvertently promoting the rallies. It’ll also deepen fear and loathing of Facebook specifically and Big Tech generally by righties who already distrust social media platforms for being too cozy with the state. Every primetime show on Fox will have something about this tonight, probably packaged with this equally counterproductive soundbite by Gretchen Whitmer implying that she might extend the lockdown orders in Michigan *because* of the rallies. Whitmer would say that’s because any mass gathering enables the disease to spread and requires further mitigation, but in context it feels like a parent telling a mouthy kid that they’ve just been grounded an extra week for their backtalk. The more the lockdowns seem like punishment instead of an unfortunate but necessary public-health measure, the more resistance to them there’ll be.
WATCH: Gov. Whitmer tells @Maddow that Wednesday's protest at Michigan's Capitol is the “kind of irresponsible action that puts us in this situation where we might have to actually think about extending stay-at-home orders, which is supposedly what they protesting." pic.twitter.com/WxVtTVEeia — MSNBC (@MSNBC) April 17, 2020
The most effective response to the rallies so far has been those nurses walking out into the middle of the street to try to shame protesters while they were idling at red lights. If Facebook wants to discourage people from joining the demonstrations, they’re better off publicizing posts from health-care workers about the extra risk created by the gatherings than by trying to delete calls to organize. It’d work better and it’d be light-years better for the company in terms of PR.
Watch Zuckerberg on ABC this morning. At 2:40 of the clip he’s asked about Facebook deleting posts and says that, although there’s room to debate policy, in a health emergency the standard of what counts as “harmful information” is different. But the rallies aren’t being organized to promote myths about the disease (although I can only imagine what some of the attendees believe about it). They’re being organized to … debate policy, specifically to insist that the stay-at-home orders have outlived their usefulness and should be lifted before more economic damage is done. Exit question: If Facebook is suppressing posts about the rallies because they don’t want to encourage mass gatherings, shouldn’t they suppress *all* posts encouraging mass gatherings? E.g., if someone wants to hold a wedding right now with 100 guests and posts the where-and-when info on Facebook, will Facebook take that down? What about a post by a church announcing that services will be held this weekend as usual, come one, come all?


hotair--2020-04-20--Happy (slowly) re-opening the economy day, Texas

It ’ s starting to happen slowly but surely – Texas is re-opening for business .
Governor Abbott issued a series of executive orders Friday meant to provide guidance in cautiously re-opening businesses in the state .
Life isn ’ t getting back to the pre-coronavirus days but it ’ s a start .
Governor Abbott announced the establishment of a strike force to find ways to safely and effectively bring the state back to life .
This strike force is comprised of business people , elected officials , and medical professionals .
It is broken into four key workgroups @ @ @ @ @ @ @ education , and fiscal accountability and federal liaison .
The medical team will further develop the state ’ s plan for testing and tracking COVID-19 cases .
“ By coming together , we can get Texans back to work , practice safe standards that will prevent the spread of COVID-19 , and we can overcome this pandemic , ” Abbott said .
These actions by the governor are being taken because there is cautious optimism that Texas is not experiencing the devastation that other areas are experiencing from the spread of the coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Governor Abbott said that Texas is in line to dramatically increase testing by the end of April or the first of May .
Currently , Texas ranks 49 out of 50 states for testing .
“ Because of the efforts by everyone to slow the spread , we ’ re now beginning to see glimmers that the worst of COVID-19 may soon be behind us , ” Abbott said , noting that the number of infections is “ beginning to level off ” and the death toll , while tragic , has “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dire predictions.
” “ We have demonstrated that we can corral the coronavirus , ” Abbott added .
As of Sunday , it was reported that at least 663 more people tested positive for the new coronavirus , an increase of about 4 % over the previous day , bringing the total number of known cases to 18,923 .
Many major cities are rolling back predictions of the numbers of patients that might overwhelm hospital systems .
Concerns that Texas hospitals would be unable to accommodate a surge of COVID-19 patients seem to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looks as though back-up plans will not need to be implemented .
Elective surgeries will be allowed again beginning Tuesday .
“ It turned out in hindsight that we have a great number of hospital beds that are vacant , that appear that will not be needed to treat COVID-19 patients , ” Gov .
Greg Abbott said at a Friday afternoon press conference when he also announced plans to gradually reopen the state economy .
“ Because of the hospital bed vacancy and because of a new supply chain for PPE , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some more procedures.
” A prohibition on medical procedures that are not “ immediately medically necessary ” will be loosened starting next week , allowing hospitals that have struggled financially without those lucrative procedures to begin recouping losses .
Starting Tuesday night , health care facilities may perform a limited number of nonessential surgeries , so long as they preserve at least 25 % capacity available to treat COVID-19 patients and don ’ t deplete medical resources .
State parks will be open beginning today .
Governor Abbott closed them two weeks ago @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effect during visits to state parks .
Face coverings , keeping a distance of 6 feet between each other , and no group gatherings larger than five people are all rules that still apply .
There are two exceptions in the state park openings – Franklin Mountains and Hueco Tanks state parks in El Paso remain closed .
The coronavirus appears to be spreading quickly in the El Paso area and officials are keeping an eye on that .
On Friday , retail businesses will be allowed to begin product pick-up .
Governor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it means that stores will be allowed to bring orders to cars of customers , like how restaurants are doing curbside pick-up of food orders .
In one week , on Aprile 27 , the governor will address additional openings , depending on data and medical reports .
Additional openings will be announced April 27 “ after further input from medical staff , ” Abbott said .
Abbott repeatedly pointed to April 27 as the next date on which he could announce additional steps to reopen the economy , as long as Texas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the spread of the virus .
Previewing that date , Abbott said , “ One of the things that we will consider is the elimination of the stay-at-home policy , ” which he announced late last month and expires April 30 .
“ If the data continues to show a flatlining and then a decline ” in positive tests , “ that is a signal that we can begin the process of opening up some businesses that adhere to the strictest strategies that will reduce the spread of the coronavirus , ” he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ news for Texas , a state economy that is the 10th largest economy in the world .
The coronavirus pandemic has led the state into recession territory economically and these moves will bring some optimism to business owners .
Perhaps Texas will be able to model a safe , responsible way for other states to use when they are able to re-open with the help of facts on the ground .
This gives hope for the light at the end of the tunnel that life will get better , hopefully sooner rather than @ @ @ @ @ @ @

It’s starting to happen slowly but surely – Texas is re-opening for business. Governor Abbott issued a series of executive orders Friday meant to provide guidance in cautiously re-opening businesses in the state. Life isn’t getting back to the pre-coronavirus days but it’s a start.
Governor Abbott announced the establishment of a strike force to find ways to safely and effectively bring the state back to life. This strike force is comprised of business people, elected officials, and medical professionals. It is broken into four key workgroups including economic revitalization, health care, education, and fiscal accountability and federal liaison. The medical team will further develop the state’s plan for testing and tracking COVID-19 cases. “By coming together, we can get Texans back to work, practice safe standards that will prevent the spread of COVID-19, and we can overcome this pandemic,” Abbott said.
These actions by the governor are being taken because there is cautious optimism that Texas is not experiencing the devastation that other areas are experiencing from the spread of the coronavirus. Projections are not proving accurate. Governor Abbott said that Texas is in line to dramatically increase testing by the end of April or the first of May. Currently, Texas ranks 49 out of 50 states for testing.
“Because of the efforts by everyone to slow the spread, we’re now beginning to see glimmers that the worst of COVID-19 may soon be behind us,” Abbott said, noting that the number of infections is “beginning to level off” and the death toll, while tragic, has “not come close to the early, dire predictions.” “We have demonstrated that we can corral the coronavirus,” Abbott added.
As of Sunday, it was reported that at least 663 more people tested positive for the new coronavirus, an increase of about 4% over the previous day, bringing the total number of known cases to 18,923.
Many major cities are rolling back predictions of the numbers of patients that might overwhelm hospital systems. Concerns that Texas hospitals would be unable to accommodate a surge of COVID-19 patients seem to have lessened in recent days. It looks as though back-up plans will not need to be implemented. Elective surgeries will be allowed again beginning Tuesday.
“It turned out in hindsight that we have a great number of hospital beds that are vacant, that appear that will not be needed to treat COVID-19 patients,” Gov. Greg Abbott said at a Friday afternoon press conference when he also announced plans to gradually reopen the state economy. “Because of the hospital bed vacancy and because of a new supply chain for PPE, we feel that we can begin allowing some more procedures.” A prohibition on medical procedures that are not “immediately medically necessary” will be loosened starting next week, allowing hospitals that have struggled financially without those lucrative procedures to begin recouping losses. Starting Tuesday night, health care facilities may perform a limited number of nonessential surgeries, so long as they preserve at least 25% capacity available to treat COVID-19 patients and don’t deplete medical resources.
State parks will be open beginning today. Governor Abbott closed them two weeks ago. Social distancing rules are still in effect during visits to state parks. Face coverings, keeping a distance of 6 feet between each other, and no group gatherings larger than five people are all rules that still apply. There are two exceptions in the state park openings – Franklin Mountains and Hueco Tanks state parks in El Paso remain closed. The coronavirus appears to be spreading quickly in the El Paso area and officials are keeping an eye on that.
On Friday, retail businesses will be allowed to begin product pick-up. Governor Abbott calls it “retail-to-go” and it means that stores will be allowed to bring orders to cars of customers, like how restaurants are doing curbside pick-up of food orders.
In one week, on Aprile 27, the governor will address additional openings, depending on data and medical reports.
Additional openings will be announced April 27 “after further input from medical staff,” Abbott said. Abbott repeatedly pointed to April 27 as the next date on which he could announce additional steps to reopen the economy, as long as Texas is continuing to make progress in slowing the spread of the virus. Previewing that date, Abbott said, “One of the things that we will consider is the elimination of the stay-at-home policy,” which he announced late last month and expires April 30. “If the data continues to show a flatlining and then a decline” in positive tests, “that is a signal that we can begin the process of opening up some businesses that adhere to the strictest strategies that will reduce the spread of the coronavirus,” he said.
All of this is good news for Texas, a state economy that is the 10th largest economy in the world. The coronavirus pandemic has led the state into recession territory economically and these moves will bring some optimism to business owners. Perhaps Texas will be able to model a safe, responsible way for other states to use when they are able to re-open with the help of facts on the ground. This gives hope for the light at the end of the tunnel that life will get better, hopefully sooner rather than later, for many of us.


hotair--2020-04-20--"Fear, desperation" drive largest month for gun sales ever

Last month we saw reports indicating that requests for background checks and foot traffic at gun shops were spiking in an unprecedented fashion .
As it turns out , those weren ’ t just people going window shopping .
The figures for March are now in and a staggering 2.3 million firearms were sold in the United States ( an all-time record ) , many to self-described first-time buyers .
But whether they were old hands or new to the process , many of them offered the same reasons for wanting a firearm .
The Free Beacon interviewed a number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concerns over the possibility that the rule of law might begin crumbling if the coronavirus gets out of control and they wanted to be ready to protect their families and homes in the event of widespread civil unrest .
Aaron Eaton learned how to shoot in the Army back in 2006 but holstered a pistol for the last time when he left in 2009 and took a job as a technician for a sewer company .
That all changed on March 26 when the father of four walked out of an Alabama gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same gun he handled as a military policeman at the height of the Iraq war .
“ Simply put : I wanted peace of mind when it comes to the safety of my family , ” Eaton said .
Eaton ’ s pistol was one of 2.3 million firearms to fly off the shelves in March , the single busiest month for gun sales ever .
The Washington Free Beacon spoke to half a dozen new gun owners who purchased a total of six handguns and two shotguns .
All of the new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though some asked not to have their last names published because of potential career backlash .
Some of the people purchasing a weapon , like Mr. Eaton in the excerpt above , had prior , military experience with handling a firearm and seemed familiar with the hoops one has to jump through in order to purchase one .
Other first-time buyers clearly had a lot more trouble .
As we discussed previously , many liberals in California who had previously supported stringent gun control laws were shocked and dismayed with how difficult it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long they would have to wait to bring it home .
They also displayed a shocking lack of knowledge about how to safely handle one .
Another common complaint among those looking for firearms involved the growing trend in many states to try to “ empty the jails ” to prevent the spread of the virus there .
Further , overburdened police departments announced that the would no longer be aggressively enforcing certain laws .
That adds up to a situation where some shoppers felt things were closing in on Mad Max territory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ roving bands of bad guys showed up on their street .
The Free Beacon offers this quote from Jake Wilhelm , a Virginia-based environmental consultant who recently purchases a Sig Sauer P226 .
Another first-time buyer expressed concerns over what would happen if the police in his home city experienced an outbreak of COVID-19 among their ranks .
Who , he wondered , will protect the public from the bad guys with guns if the good guys are all in the ICU ?
It ’ s a fair question .
One other fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this record for gun sales at a time when some states , including New York , still have most if not all of their gun shops closes as nonessential businesses .
Given the fact that you generally can ’ t cross state lines to purchase a firearm in a state where you are not a resident , that means millions of potential shoppers were removed from the pool .
How high might the sales have been if all of the gun stores in every state were open ?
The mind boggles .

Last month we saw reports indicating that requests for background checks and foot traffic at gun shops were spiking in an unprecedented fashion. As it turns out, those weren’t just people going window shopping. The figures for March are now in and a staggering 2.3 million firearms were sold in the United States (an all-time record), many to self-described first-time buyers. But whether they were old hands or new to the process, many of them offered the same reasons for wanting a firearm. The Free Beacon interviewed a number of recent shoppers and they all expressed concerns over the possibility that the rule of law might begin crumbling if the coronavirus gets out of control and they wanted to be ready to protect their families and homes in the event of widespread civil unrest.
Aaron Eaton learned how to shoot in the Army back in 2006 but holstered a pistol for the last time when he left in 2009 and took a job as a technician for a sewer company. That all changed on March 26 when the father of four walked out of an Alabama gun store with a Beretta 92FS, the same gun he handled as a military policeman at the height of the Iraq war. “Simply put: I wanted peace of mind when it comes to the safety of my family,” Eaton said. Eaton’s pistol was one of 2.3 million firearms to fly off the shelves in March, the single busiest month for gun sales ever. The Washington Free Beacon spoke to half a dozen new gun owners who purchased a total of six handguns and two shotguns. All of the new gun owners provided proof of purchase, though some asked not to have their last names published because of potential career backlash.
Some of the people purchasing a weapon, like Mr. Eaton in the excerpt above, had prior, military experience with handling a firearm and seemed familiar with the hoops one has to jump through in order to purchase one. Other first-time buyers clearly had a lot more trouble. As we discussed previously, many liberals in California who had previously supported stringent gun control laws were shocked and dismayed with how difficult it was to obtain a gun and how long they would have to wait to bring it home. They also displayed a shocking lack of knowledge about how to safely handle one.
Another common complaint among those looking for firearms involved the growing trend in many states to try to “empty the jails” to prevent the spread of the virus there. Further, overburdened police departments announced that the would no longer be aggressively enforcing certain laws. That adds up to a situation where some shoppers felt things were closing in on Mad Max territory and they wanted to be ready if roving bands of bad guys showed up on their street.
The Free Beacon offers this quote from Jake Wilhelm, a Virginia-based environmental consultant who recently purchases a Sig Sauer P226.
“[My fiancée and I] came to the conclusion in early March that if a nation like Italy was going into full lockdown, we in the U.S. were likely on the same path,” Wilhelm said. “Given that, and knowing that police resources would be stretched to the max, I decided to purchase a handgun.”
Another first-time buyer expressed concerns over what would happen if the police in his home city experienced an outbreak of COVID-19 among their ranks. Who, he wondered, will protect the public from the bad guys with guns if the good guys are all in the ICU? It’s a fair question.
One other fact to consider here is that America set this record for gun sales at a time when some states, including New York, still have most if not all of their gun shops closes as nonessential businesses. Given the fact that you generally can’t cross state lines to purchase a firearm in a state where you are not a resident, that means millions of potential shoppers were removed from the pool. How high might the sales have been if all of the gun stores in every state were open? The mind boggles.


hotair--2020-04-20--Poll: Plurality unaware that Joe Biden is talking about the pandemic

The latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll came out this weekend and it ’ s got plenty of bad news for almost everyone .
The eye-popping number that NBC seems to focus on the most is the significant majority of Americans who are more worried about the novel coronavirus getting its second wind if we reopen the country too quickly ( 58 % ) as compared to those who are more concerned with the economic damage being caused by the shutdown ( 32 % ) .
One other stark figure comes with the question of whether or not people felt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a “ very major ” or “ fairly major ” way .
One month ago , only 26 % of people felt that way .
Now the figure is at 77 % .
Buried deeper down in the poll , however , there ’ s some unpleasant news for presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden .
When asked how much they trust what they ’ re being told about the pandemic by either President Trump or Uncle Joe , neither fared very well .
Trump only scored 36 % in terms of who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the subject .
But for Biden , not only was that number even lower , but nearly half of the people surveyed weren ’ t even aware that he ’ s been weighing in on the subject .
( NBC News , emphasis added ) Only 36 percent of respondents in the poll say they generally trust what Trump has said when it comes to the coronavirus , while 52 percent say they don ’ t trust him .
By comparison , 69 percent say they trust the Centers for Disease Control and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ governor ; 60 percent trust Dr. Anthony Fauci , the nation ’ s top infectious disease expert ; 46 percent trust New York Gov .
Andrew Cuomo ; and 35 percent trust Vice President Mike Pence .
The numbers for Joe Biden , the apparent Democratic presidential nominee , are 26 percent who trust , 29 percent who don ’ t trust , and 42 percent who aren ’ t aware of his coronavirus statements or who don ’ t have an opinion .
Trump ’ s trust numbers shouldn ’ t come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a brief period where he saw a modest gain in approval on his handling of the pandemic , he ’ s now back down where he ’ s been in general approval for most of his presidency .
And as one NBC News analyst correctly points out , this is likely a sign that we ’ re starting to move from the “ rally around the flag ” stage we see in every crisis to the “ recrimination ” phase .
As I wrote last week , there was never going to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political terms , no matter how this story eventually ends .
If the measures we ’ ve taken are successful and we somehow keep the COVID-19 death toll down around the same levels we see in a bad flu season , people will say that Trump overreacted and trashed the economy for nothing .
If the virus proves more resilient and aggressive than anticipated and the death rate keeps grinding upwards into the many hundreds of thousands , they will say that he failed to act sufficiently boldly and killed off a significant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ majority of the media will happily play along with either scenario as long as they get to blame the Bad Orange Man .
Biden ’ s numbers , however , are rather shocking .
Despite cable news and the major newspapers covering every one of his basement blogging sessions and heaping praise on him , his trust numbers on dealing with the pandemic are ten points lower than Trump ’ s .
He ’ s also underwater in terms of the trust/don ’ t trust questions for those who are aware that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But the fact that more than 40 % are either unaware that he ’ s been commenting or don ’ t care enough to form an opinion should be setting off some alarm bells .
What that says is that Joe Biden has been effectively sidelined completely during one of the most crucial periods of crisis that America has witnessed in generations .
That ’ s not exactly heartening news for his supporters .
But at the same time , there may be a silver lining in there for Uncle Joe .
With @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fewer people are bearing witness to his repeated episodes where he seems to lose the thread entirely on live television and begins babbling incoherently .
That situation isn ’ t going to hold forever , though .
Sooner or later he ’ s going to wind up in a debate with Donald Trump , even if there ’ s no live audience to witness it .
And if he goes wandering off into some stuttering alternate dimension while answering a question , I find it hard to believe that any but the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in turning the reins over to him .

The latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll came out this weekend and it’s got plenty of bad news for almost everyone. The eye-popping number that NBC seems to focus on the most is the significant majority of Americans who are more worried about the novel coronavirus getting its second wind if we reopen the country too quickly (58%) as compared to those who are more concerned with the economic damage being caused by the shutdown (32%). One other stark figure comes with the question of whether or not people felt that the coronavirus has changed their life in a “very major” or “fairly major” way. One month ago, only 26% of people felt that way. Now the figure is at 77%.
Buried deeper down in the poll, however, there’s some unpleasant news for presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden. When asked how much they trust what they’re being told about the pandemic by either President Trump or Uncle Joe, neither fared very well. Trump only scored 36% in terms of who trusts what he’s saying on the subject. But for Biden, not only was that number even lower, but nearly half of the people surveyed weren’t even aware that he’s been weighing in on the subject. (NBC News, emphasis added)
Only 36 percent of respondents in the poll say they generally trust what Trump has said when it comes to the coronavirus, while 52 percent say they don’t trust him. By comparison, 69 percent say they trust the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 66 percent trust their own governor; 60 percent trust Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease expert; 46 percent trust New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo; and 35 percent trust Vice President Mike Pence. The numbers for Joe Biden, the apparent Democratic presidential nominee, are 26 percent who trust, 29 percent who don’t trust, and 42 percent who aren’t aware of his coronavirus statements or who don’t have an opinion.
Trump’s trust numbers shouldn’t come as much of a surprise. After a brief period where he saw a modest gain in approval on his handling of the pandemic, he’s now back down where he’s been in general approval for most of his presidency. And as one NBC News analyst correctly points out, this is likely a sign that we’re starting to move from the “rally around the flag” stage we see in every crisis to the “recrimination” phase.
As I wrote last week, there was never going to be a winning situation for the President in political terms, no matter how this story eventually ends. If the measures we’ve taken are successful and we somehow keep the COVID-19 death toll down around the same levels we see in a bad flu season, people will say that Trump overreacted and trashed the economy for nothing. If the virus proves more resilient and aggressive than anticipated and the death rate keeps grinding upwards into the many hundreds of thousands, they will say that he failed to act sufficiently boldly and killed off a significant portion of the country. And the majority of the media will happily play along with either scenario as long as they get to blame the Bad Orange Man.
Biden’s numbers, however, are rather shocking. Despite cable news and the major newspapers covering every one of his basement blogging sessions and heaping praise on him, his trust numbers on dealing with the pandemic are ten points lower than Trump’s. He’s also underwater in terms of the trust/don’t trust questions for those who are aware that he’s been speaking at all.
But the fact that more than 40% are either unaware that he’s been commenting or don’t care enough to form an opinion should be setting off some alarm bells. What that says is that Joe Biden has been effectively sidelined completely during one of the most crucial periods of crisis that America has witnessed in generations. That’s not exactly heartening news for his supporters.
But at the same time, there may be a silver lining in there for Uncle Joe. With fewer people paying attention to him, fewer people are bearing witness to his repeated episodes where he seems to lose the thread entirely on live television and begins babbling incoherently. That situation isn’t going to hold forever, though. Sooner or later he’s going to wind up in a debate with Donald Trump, even if there’s no live audience to witness it. And if he goes wandering off into some stuttering alternate dimension while answering a question, I find it hard to believe that any but the most partisan progressives are going to feel confident in turning the reins over to him.


hotair--2020-04-20--Senior Biden advisor: Why doesn't Trump just put more money into PPP on his own?

If leadership starts at the top , as Symone Sanders declares here , then Team Biden is in serious trouble .
Joe Biden ’ s senior campaign adviser called it “ unacceptable ” on Twitter last night that the Paycheck Protection Program has run out of funds , which is true .
However , Biden ’ s senior advisor laid the blame on Donald Trump for not appropriating additional funds to replenish the PPP , which is … huh ?
Maybe Biden ’ s “ senior adviser ” needs a remedial civics course to comprehend the office he ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Constitution , presidents don ’ t appropriate funds .
That ’ s Congress ’ job .
You ’ d think that someone who rose to the level of “ senior adviser ” to a major-party presidential nominee would already know this , but here we are .
Presidents do not have authority to spend more money than Congress allocates ; in fact , they don ’ t even have the mechanisms to do so .
Ironically , this tweet comes less than 90 days after the Democratic-controlled House attempted to remove Trump from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hundred million dollars in lethal military aid to Ukraine .
If Sanders answers this at all , she will likely claim that she ’ s criticizing Trump ’ s administration of the $ 350 billion fund .
However , it ’ s clear that Trump spent it the way Congress authorized .
Furthermore , that same Democratic-controlled House skedaddled immediately after passing the bill and hasn ’ t been seen in Washington DC since .
They should have remained at their posts in this crisis and oversaw the operation of the fund , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That would have been leadership .
At least Trump stuck around and did his job , and got what money Congress allocated out to some of the businesses that need it .
Instead , Nancy Pelosi ’ s idea of leadership is negotiating from the ice-cream hoard in her $ 24,000 fridges on the next tranche for the PPP .
She wants state bailouts and other spending attached to the bill , and even a few concessions in that direction hasn ’ t gotten Pelosi on board to appropriate the funds : Negotiations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of nearly $ 500 billion in aid to small businesses and health care providers while expanding COVID-19 testing capacity , with some haggling left to be done over the measure ’ s finer points .
Discussions were seen continuing into early Monday on a few remaining issues , such as whether the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or National Institutes of Health should administer a new $ 25 billion virus testing program .
Multiple sources familiar with the talks , who weren ’ t authorized to speak publicly , said beyond the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and it wasn ’ t clear how quickly a deal might come together .
By late Sunday momentum had slowed considerably from earlier in the day .
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin , the administration ’ s point man for the talks , and top Democratic leaders fanned out across the Sunday morning talk shows exuding optimism that they were on the cusp of a deal .
Leadership does indeed start at the top .
So when will Sanders demand that Pelosi recall the House to DC to demonstrate some ?
And when will @ @ @ @ @ @ @

If leadership starts at the top, as Symone Sanders declares here, then Team Biden is in serious trouble. Joe Biden’s senior campaign adviser called it “unacceptable” on Twitter last night that the Paycheck Protection Program has run out of funds, which is true. However, Biden’s senior advisor laid the blame on Donald Trump for not appropriating additional funds to replenish the PPP, which is … huh?
Maybe Biden’s “senior adviser” needs a remedial civics course to comprehend the office he’s seeking:
Let’s talk about how unacceptable it is that this administration has run out of money for small business loans. It is the president and his administration’s job to make sure all Americans are taken care of during this time. Leadership starts at the TOP. — Symone D. Sanders (@SymoneDSanders) April 19, 2020
Ahem. According to the Constitution, presidents don’t appropriate funds. That’s Congress’ job. You’d think that someone who rose to the level of “senior adviser” to a major-party presidential nominee would already know this, but here we are. Presidents do not have authority to spend more money than Congress allocates; in fact, they don’t even have the mechanisms to do so. Ironically, this tweet comes less than 90 days after the Democratic-controlled House attempted to remove Trump from office for merely delaying spending a few hundred million dollars in lethal military aid to Ukraine.
If Sanders answers this at all, she will likely claim that she’s criticizing Trump’s administration of the $350 billion fund. However, it’s clear that Trump spent it the way Congress authorized. Furthermore, that same Democratic-controlled House skedaddled immediately after passing the bill and hasn’t been seen in Washington DC since. They should have remained at their posts in this crisis and oversaw the operation of the fund, and adjusted its parameters as needed. That would have been leadership.
At least Trump stuck around and did his job, and got what money Congress allocated out to some of the businesses that need it. Instead, Nancy Pelosi’s idea of leadership is negotiating from the ice-cream hoard in her $24,000 fridges on the next tranche for the PPP. She wants state bailouts and other spending attached to the bill, and even a few concessions in that direction hasn’t gotten Pelosi on board to appropriate the funds:
Negotiations were sputtering late Sunday on a package of nearly $500 billion in aid to small businesses and health care providers while expanding COVID-19 testing capacity, with some haggling left to be done over the measure’s finer points. Discussions were seen continuing into early Monday on a few remaining issues, such as whether the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or National Institutes of Health should administer a new $25 billion virus testing program. Multiple sources familiar with the talks, who weren’t authorized to speak publicly, said beyond the testing provisions there were other open items and it wasn’t clear how quickly a deal might come together. By late Sunday momentum had slowed considerably from earlier in the day. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, the administration’s point man for the talks, and top Democratic leaders fanned out across the Sunday morning talk shows exuding optimism that they were on the cusp of a deal.
Leadership does indeed start at the top. So when will Sanders demand that Pelosi recall the House to DC to demonstrate some? And when will Joe Biden demand the same thing?


hotair--2020-04-20--You know who this pandemic is really hurting, right?

Last month we learned that the outbreak of COVID-19 has really been eating into the mafia ’ s ability to generate revenue in its usual fashion .
( That is , if you believe there actually is a mafia consisting of criminal Italian-Americans .
Which of course I don ’ t . )
But it turns out that disruption of global supply chains is affecting all sorts of enterprises of the illegal kind as well as the regular ebb and flow of conventional commerce .
According to a report from the Associated Press , meth cookers and dealers across the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crisis .
So are the larger , international drug cartels .
Some drugs that are more organic in nature and sourced closer to our country are still flowing , but the toxic supply of chemicals required to cook meth come largely from China .
And one of the biggest sources there is , somewhat ironically , located right in Wuhan .
So supplies of raw materials are running low .
Coronavirus is dealing a gut punch to the illegal drug trade , paralyzing economies , closing borders and severing supply chains in China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make such profitable drugs as methamphetamine and fentanyl .
One of the main suppliers that shut down is in Wuhan , the epicenter of the global outbreak .
Associated Press interviews with nearly two dozen law enforcement officials and trafficking experts found Mexican and Colombian cartels are still plying their trade as evidenced by recent drug seizures but the lockdowns that have turned cities into ghost towns are disrupting everything from production to transport to sales .
Apparently , traffic at the southern border has slowed to a trickle as compared to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sneaking through a vehicle packed with drugs or dubious chemicals becomes considerably riskier .
The same applies to international flights and incoming ships at our seaports .
Fewer containers to be searched translates to more time to search them all .
One former Mexican intelligence agency official is quoted as saying that the cartels are “ scrambling ” both in terms of supply and demand .
Not only is it hard to get your hands on the drugs and raw materials , but the usual spots where dealers sling their products have also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , bars and restaurants closed down and fewer people on the streets , dealers stand out like a sore thumb .
All of this is impacting illegal drug prices as well as the amount of product available .
Denver and Chicago are reportedly running out of heroin .
( Gasp ! )
The cost of cocaine has risen as much as 20 % while methamphetamines in Los Angeles cost twice what they did last year at roughly $ 1,800 per pound .
It ’ s getting so a person can ’ t even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The other irony here , at least according to one DEA official , is that Mexico is the source of a lot of both finished meth and the precursor chemicals that American meth cookers use , but they get all of their supplies from China .
( Primarily one company in Wuhan . )
But now , just as with legitimate manufacturing enterprises , they may need to cut their reliance on the Chinese and figure out how to source those chemicals locally .
Exit question : With the prices going up and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that drug addiction will sag in the United States as addicts are forced to go cold turkey ?
While a horrible way to accomplish it , that would at least be one positive outcome of the pandemic .

Last month we learned that the outbreak of COVID-19 has really been eating into the mafia’s ability to generate revenue in its usual fashion. (That is, if you believe there actually is a mafia consisting of criminal Italian-Americans. Which of course I don’t.) But it turns out that disruption of global supply chains is affecting all sorts of enterprises of the illegal kind as well as the regular ebb and flow of conventional commerce.
According to a report from the Associated Press, meth cookers and dealers across the country are really struggling because of this crisis. So are the larger, international drug cartels. Some drugs that are more organic in nature and sourced closer to our country are still flowing, but the toxic supply of chemicals required to cook meth come largely from China. And one of the biggest sources there is, somewhat ironically, located right in Wuhan. So supplies of raw materials are running low.
Coronavirus is dealing a gut punch to the illegal drug trade, paralyzing economies, closing borders and severing supply chains in China that traffickers rely on for the chemicals to make such profitable drugs as methamphetamine and fentanyl. One of the main suppliers that shut down is in Wuhan, the epicenter of the global outbreak. Associated Press interviews with nearly two dozen law enforcement officials and trafficking experts found Mexican and Colombian cartels are still plying their trade as evidenced by recent drug seizures but the lockdowns that have turned cities into ghost towns are disrupting everything from production to transport to sales.
Apparently, traffic at the southern border has slowed to a trickle as compared to the same time last year, so sneaking through a vehicle packed with drugs or dubious chemicals becomes considerably riskier. The same applies to international flights and incoming ships at our seaports. Fewer containers to be searched translates to more time to search them all.
One former Mexican intelligence agency official is quoted as saying that the cartels are “scrambling” both in terms of supply and demand. Not only is it hard to get your hands on the drugs and raw materials, but the usual spots where dealers sling their products have also been affected. With so many motels, bars and restaurants closed down and fewer people on the streets, dealers stand out like a sore thumb.
All of this is impacting illegal drug prices as well as the amount of product available. Denver and Chicago are reportedly running out of heroin. (Gasp!) The cost of cocaine has risen as much as 20% while methamphetamines in Los Angeles cost twice what they did last year at roughly $1,800 per pound. It’s getting so a person can’t even make a dishonest living any more.
The other irony here, at least according to one DEA official, is that Mexico is the source of a lot of both finished meth and the precursor chemicals that American meth cookers use, but they get all of their supplies from China. (Primarily one company in Wuhan.) But now, just as with legitimate manufacturing enterprises, they may need to cut their reliance on the Chinese and figure out how to source those chemicals locally.
Exit question: With the prices going up and supplies dwindling, is there any chance that drug addiction will sag in the United States as addicts are forced to go cold turkey? While a horrible way to accomplish it, that would at least be one positive outcome of the pandemic.


hotair--2020-04-20--Hoo boy: 60% of Dems say Trump is more to blame for the crisis than China is

There ’ s partisanship , there ’ s hyperpartisanship , and then there ’ s “ worse than China.
” This is emphatically not correct , Democrats .
And I say that as an old-school Never Trumper .
It ’ s even worse than my headline makes it out to be .
Rasmussen asked people if they agreed with Dem Sen. Chris Murphy when he said a few days ago , “ The reason that we ’ re in the crisis that we are today is not because of anything that China did , is not because of anything the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of what this president did.
” Murphy wasn ’ t just maximizing Trump ’ s blame , he was minimizing China ’ s .
Which a lot of Democrats like , it seems .
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 42 % of all Likely U.S .
Voters agree with U.S .
Senator Chris Murphy ’ s recent statement : “ The reason that we ’ re in the crisis that we are today is not because of anything that China did , is not because of anything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s because of what [ President Trump ] did.
” Forty-seven percent ( 47 % ) disagree with the Connecticut Democrat .
Eleven percent ( 11 % ) are undecided .
( To see survey question wording , click here . )
Once again , though , there ’ s a clear partisan difference of opinion .
Sixty percent ( 60 % ) of Democrats agree with Murphy that Trump is more to blame than China and the WHO .
Seventy-one percent ( 71 % ) of Republicans and unaffiliated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % margin disagree… Thirty-two percent ( 32 % ) of all voters think the U.S. government ’ s response to the coronavirus has been better than government actions in most other countries .
Forty-two percent ( 42 % ) say it ’ s worse than others , while 24 % view it as about the same .
Trump has been terrible but I wouldn ’ t even place him second in line behind China among the key players in this national catastrophe who deserve the most blame .
That distinction belongs to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tests at a fateful early moment when wider testing might have helped identify and isolate the sick .
The problem with blaming the president for America ’ s special failure in containing the virus is that it ’ s debatable whether our failure is all that special .
We have the largest number of confirmed cases in the world by a country mile , with nearly 800,000 .
Spain is second with just a quarter of that number .
( China ’ s true numbers are known but to God , and to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ largest number of deaths , nearly double that of Italy .
( Again , only if you take China ’ s numbers — and Iran ’ s numbers — at face value . )
But when you adjust for population , our singular catastrophe is less singular .
Measuring by total cases per million people , the U.S. is fourth behind Spain , Belgium , and Italy and nearly identical to France .
Measuring by deaths per million , we ’ re 10th among major western countries .
Spain and Italy have more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ UK nearly twice as much .
That ’ s not an excuse for the president , who was embarrassingly sanguine about the threat early on , runs a chaotic shop involving multiple task forces without clear lines of authority , continues to try to shift responsibility for testing and everything else to other people , especially governors , and last week called for “ liberating ” states that won ’ t reopen until it ’ s safer to do so .
But many of America ’ s European allies have been hit just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more so .
Even our prime failure , our inability to ramp up testing , isn ’ t quite singular .
We ’ ve done a bad job in tests per million people but Britain and France are both worse .
Would we have been better off with Boris Johnson as president ?
Probably , yeah .
( That ’ s my old-school Never Trump side showing . )
But maybe not wildly better .
It turns out it ’ s pretty hard for western countries to get a handle on this particular @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is for Far East nations like South Korea and Taiwan that have had experience containing deadly respiratory illnesses in the recent past .
This plague is Chinese totalitarianism ’ s curse on the world and I resent any effort to obscure that , Trump ’ s many faults notwithstanding .
In lieu of an exit question , here ’ s Dan Crenshaw making the case that Trump Is Not To Blame .
He ’ s overstating his case , but earning the president ’ s favor is a smart move for an ambitious @ @ @

There’s partisanship, there’s hyperpartisanship, and then there’s “worse than China.”
This is emphatically not correct, Democrats. And I say that as an old-school Never Trumper.
It’s even worse than my headline makes it out to be. Rasmussen asked people if they agreed with Dem Sen. Chris Murphy when he said a few days ago, “The reason that we’re in the crisis that we are today is not because of anything that China did, is not because of anything the WHO did. It’s because of what this president did.” Murphy wasn’t just maximizing Trump’s blame, he was minimizing China’s.
Which a lot of Democrats like, it seems.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 42% of all Likely U.S. Voters agree with U.S. Senator Chris Murphy’s recent statement: “The reason that we’re in the crisis that we are today is not because of anything that China did, is not because of anything the [World Health Organization] did. It’s because of what [President Trump] did.” Forty-seven percent (47%) disagree with the Connecticut Democrat. Eleven percent (11%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.) Once again, though, there’s a clear partisan difference of opinion. Sixty percent (60%) of Democrats agree with Murphy that Trump is more to blame than China and the WHO. Seventy-one percent (71%) of Republicans and unaffiliated voters by a 46% to 39% margin disagree… Thirty-two percent (32%) of all voters think the U.S. government’s response to the coronavirus has been better than government actions in most other countries. Forty-two percent (42%) say it’s worse than others, while 24% view it as about the same.
Trump has been terrible but I wouldn’t even place him second in line behind China among the key players in this national catastrophe who deserve the most blame. That distinction belongs to the CDC, which accidentally contaminated its own tests at a fateful early moment when wider testing might have helped identify and isolate the sick.
The problem with blaming the president for America’s special failure in containing the virus is that it’s debatable whether our failure is all that special. We have the largest number of confirmed cases in the world by a country mile, with nearly 800,000. Spain is second with just a quarter of that number. (China’s true numbers are known but to God, and to Xi Jinping.) We have the largest number of deaths, nearly double that of Italy. (Again, only if you take China’s numbers — and Iran’s numbers — at face value.) But when you adjust for population, our singular catastrophe is less singular. Measuring by total cases per million people, the U.S. is fourth behind Spain, Belgium, and Italy and nearly identical to France. Measuring by deaths per million, we’re 10th among major western countries. Spain and Italy have more than three times our number and the UK nearly twice as much.
That’s not an excuse for the president, who was embarrassingly sanguine about the threat early on, runs a chaotic shop involving multiple task forces without clear lines of authority, continues to try to shift responsibility for testing and everything else to other people, especially governors, and last week called for “liberating” states that won’t reopen until it’s safer to do so. But many of America’s European allies have been hit just as hit as us, if not more so. Even our prime failure, our inability to ramp up testing, isn’t quite singular. We’ve done a bad job in tests per million people but Britain and France are both worse. Would we have been better off with Boris Johnson as president?
Probably, yeah. (That’s my old-school Never Trump side showing.) But maybe not wildly better. It turns out it’s pretty hard for western countries to get a handle on this particular disease, much more so than it is for Far East nations like South Korea and Taiwan that have had experience containing deadly respiratory illnesses in the recent past.
This plague is Chinese totalitarianism’s curse on the world and I resent any effort to obscure that, Trump’s many faults notwithstanding. In lieu of an exit question, here’s Dan Crenshaw making the case that Trump Is Not To Blame. He’s overstating his case, but earning the president’s favor is a smart move for an ambitious young politician.


Film review: <i>Resistance</i>

“ What is the best way to resist ?
” asks a young Marcel Marceau in the middle of Nazi-occupied France .
“ It is to survive.
” The recently released film Resistance tells the story of how the world ’ s greatest mime risked his life in the French Resistance in World War II and saved the lives of scores of Jewish children .
This taut and haunting biopic has a few paint-by-numbers tropes , but Jesse Eisenberg ’ s performance as Marceau helps the film to rise above them and make for a genuinely moving experience ( via @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be read here ) : In many films about World War II and the Holocaust , the certain knowledge of what transpired takes the edge off of the tension .
In this case , with Marceau ’ s back story not nearly as well known , Resistance offers some surprises — not all of them pleasant , and a few deeply disturbing .
The film starts in Strasbourg with a callow Marcel obsessed with his art rather than the world around him , one of the occasional paint-by-numbers tropes noted above , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than a hundred Jewish children from Germany to France will suffice .
It becomes clear by 1940 , with the six-week conquest of France , that it will take much more sacrifice and action to save Jews and French patriots from the Nazis .
Marceau has to ask himself and those around him what strategy can work against an all-encompassing evil force like Nazi Germany .
The film gets bookended with a speech by General George S. Patton ( Ed Harris ) and the story told mainly in retrospect .
This seems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does pay off somewhat at the end .
One gets the sense , as does Marcel in the film , that the French Resistance is doing more dramatic work than some of what we see in the first half of the film , but that also pays off too .
This is a film that rewards patience , and while occasionally using somewhat well-used tropes , also puts them to somewhat more novel use .
The film has its triumphs , but it has a great deal of pain as well ; it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ payment .
Eisenberg shows off his dramatic skills better here than in The Social Network , in this case getting to the raw emotional connection for which playing Mark Zuckerberg didn ’ t truly allow .
However , the performance that truly drives Resistance comes from Clémence Poésy ( Harry Potter ) as Emma , the woman whom Marcel is wooing .
Equally powerful if shorter performances come from Vica Kerekes as Emma ’ s sister Mila and Bella Ramsey ’ s debut as the orphaned Elsbeth , who captures Marcel ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a horrifying encounter with Klaus Barbie ( Matthias Schweighöfer , also brilliant and disturbing ) in Lyons , Poésy ’ s performance is magnificent and heartbreaking .
It ’ s not a perfect film , but it is a qualified gem that could easily remain buried in the present coronavirus pandemic .
Resistance was likely headed to an arthouse release anyway , but its March 27th release date and its subject matter probably doomed it even more .
In that , though , perhaps the equalizing effect of cinema shutdowns will prompt more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the somewhat anemic list of new home-theater releases thus far .
Using the Hot Air scale for films already on home theater platforms , Resistance gets a 4 : • 2 – Wait for it to come on a TV channel you already get Resistance is rated R for its realistic and sometimes horrifying violence , but the worst of it takes place off-screen .
It has one scene with a sexual situation but no nudity .
Mature teens should be able to handle the subject matter , especially with proper context provided @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely too intense for pre-teens and younger .

“What is the best way to resist?” asks a young Marcel Marceau in the middle of Nazi-occupied France. “It is to survive.” The recently released film Resistance tells the story of how the world’s greatest mime risked his life in the French Resistance in World War II and saved the lives of scores of Jewish children. This taut and haunting biopic has a few paint-by-numbers tropes, but Jesse Eisenberg’s performance as Marceau helps the film to rise above them and make for a genuinely moving experience (via Christian Toto, whose own review can be read here):
In many films about World War II and the Holocaust, the certain knowledge of what transpired takes the edge off of the tension. In this case, with Marceau’s back story not nearly as well known, Resistance offers some surprises — not all of them pleasant, and a few deeply disturbing. The film starts in Strasbourg with a callow Marcel obsessed with his art rather than the world around him, one of the occasional paint-by-numbers tropes noted above, and assuming at first that the rescue of more than a hundred Jewish children from Germany to France will suffice. It becomes clear by 1940, with the six-week conquest of France, that it will take much more sacrifice and action to save Jews and French patriots from the Nazis. Marceau has to ask himself and those around him what strategy can work against an all-encompassing evil force like Nazi Germany.
The film gets bookended with a speech by General George S. Patton (Ed Harris) and the story told mainly in retrospect. This seems clunky at the beginning, but it does pay off somewhat at the end. One gets the sense, as does Marcel in the film, that the French Resistance is doing more dramatic work than some of what we see in the first half of the film, but that also pays off too. This is a film that rewards patience, and while occasionally using somewhat well-used tropes, also puts them to somewhat more novel use. The film has its triumphs, but it has a great deal of pain as well; it doesn’t offer payoffs without emotional payment.
Eisenberg shows off his dramatic skills better here than in The Social Network, in this case getting to the raw emotional connection for which playing Mark Zuckerberg didn’t truly allow. However, the performance that truly drives Resistance comes from Clémence Poésy (Harry Potter) as Emma, the woman whom Marcel is wooing. Equally powerful if shorter performances come from Vica Kerekes as Emma’s sister Mila and Bella Ramsey’s debut as the orphaned Elsbeth, who captures Marcel’s heart in a different way. After a horrifying encounter with Klaus Barbie (Matthias Schweighöfer, also brilliant and disturbing) in Lyons, Poésy’s performance is magnificent and heartbreaking.
It’s not a perfect film, but it is a qualified gem that could easily remain buried in the present coronavirus pandemic. Resistance was likely headed to an arthouse release anyway, but its March 27th release date and its subject matter probably doomed it even more. In that, though, perhaps the equalizing effect of cinema shutdowns will prompt more attention to this film, especially with the somewhat anemic list of new home-theater releases thus far.
Using the Hot Air scale for films already on home theater platforms, Resistance gets a 4:
4 – Buy the Blu-Ray/DVD
3 – Worth a rental price or pay-per-view
2 – Wait for it to come on a TV channel you already get
1 – Avoid at all costs
Resistance is rated R for its realistic and sometimes horrifying violence, but the worst of it takes place off-screen. It has one scene with a sexual situation but no nudity. Mature teens should be able to handle the subject matter, especially with proper context provided by the adults, but this is likely too intense for pre-teens and younger.


hotair--2020-04-21--Swedish model estimates one-third of Stockholm will have been infected by May 1. What about New York

Swedish model estimates one-third of Stockholm will have been infected by May 1. What about New York?

If you ’ re still hopeful about herd immunity and the Oxford model , in which many millions more people than thought have asymptomatic cases of the virus , here you go .
The Swedish government is right there with you .
The Swedish Public Health Agency has collaborated on a new study that estimates one-third of all Stockholm residents will have been infected with COVID-19 by May 1 .
That amounts to approximately 600,000 people in Sweden ’ s capital city .
Sweden ’ s official figures report only 15,322 positive cases so far in the whole of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ invisible ” infections .
The astonishing numbers are in stark contrast to the latest World Health Organization ( WHO ) estimates that “ no more than two to three percent ” of the world ’ s population have been infected… The study indicates that for every confirmed case of COVID-19 , a further 999 people are likely to have been infected with the virus without knowing it .
The study used a model that includes the number of positive COVID-19 cases in Stockholm from February 17 to April 10 , along with samples @ @ @ @ @ @ @ March 27 to April 3 .
The ( heavily criticized ) Stanford study of Santa Clara County in California made waves a few days ago by estimating that the true number of infections locally may be 50 to 85 times greater than the number of confirmed cases .
This Swedish study is suggesting that the ratio of actual infections to confirmed cases in their country might be more like a thousand to one .
Which is hard to compute .
There are 15,322 confirmed cases in Sweden .
At 1,000 to one , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infections .
The total population is 10.23 million .
I don ’ t understand how the Swedish and Stanford models can diverge so dramatically .
Even allowing for the fact that Sweden should have higher rates of transmission than other western countries because , uniquely , it ’ s resisted lockdowns and school closings , we should logically expect to see a higher number of deaths per capita early in their outbreak too .
And we do see a big number — they ’ re seventh in the world in deaths per million @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about a third of Belgium ’ s number and less than half of Spain ’ s and Italy ’ s .
How is Sweden pulling off a singularly high infection rate with a not so singularly high death rate ?
One possibility is that their infection rate isn ’ t actually singular .
Maybe hot spots in Italy , Spain , and Belgium are also much further towards herd immunity than anyone suspects right now .
And … New York ?
Nate Silver is intrigued by the data suggesting that New York ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which can be the result of a comprehensive lockdown — or herd immunity .
I wrote a week ago about a study of pregnant women at a New York City hospital in late March and early April that showed 15 percent who were admitted to give birth were infected with COVID at the time of testing .
Nearly 90 percent of them had no symptoms ( yet ? )
.
If that 15 percent figure was representative of the city ’ s population circa April 1 ( which is a biiiiiiiig “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that 33 percent of New Yorkers will be infected by May 1 ?
Bear in mind , the study of pregnant women said nothing about whether the other 85 percent of women tested may have had the virus previously and cleared it from their system before arriving at the hospital .
It was a PCR test ( e.g.
, nose/throat swab ) , not an antibody test .
Conceivably the total number of women who ’ d had coronavirus at some point prior to admission to the hospital could have been higher than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really use some extensive antibody testing of New York to resolve this question .
And soon , as the head of the CDC is warning that the second wave this fall could be worse than what we ’ re dealing with now .
Why ?
Because in the fall we ’ ll be coping with two epidemics , not one .
“ There ’ s a possibility that the assault of the virus on our nation next winter will actually be even more difficult than the one we just went through , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interview with The Washington Post .
“ And when I ’ ve said this to others , they kind of put their head back , they don ’ t understand what I mean.
” “ We ’ re going to have the flu epidemic and the coronavirus epidemic at the same time , ” he said .
Having two simultaneous respiratory outbreaks would put unimaginable strain on the health-care system , he said… In the coming summer months , U.S. health officials need to persuade Americans to think ahead to the fall and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That way , public health officials can minimize the number of people hospitalized from flu .
Getting a flu vaccination , Redfield said , “ may allow there to be a hospital bed available for your mother or grandmother that may get coronavirus.
” One thought : If the virus really is as wildly contagious as Sweden suspects , and as prevalent in NYC as we ’ re speculating , then the idea that there ’ s some special “ blue state ” explanation for why New York has been especially hard hit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ population density and subway crowding may explain why it ’ s been hit *faster* than everywhere else but we should expect the same ~0.5 percent fatality rate in red states as they build towards herd immunity , albeit much more slowly .
( I ’ m calculating the fatality rate in NYC on the assumption that a third of the population has been infected to this point . )
The fact that more rural areas have avoided heavy impact so far would be no reason to assume that that ’ ll continue .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ again , but in slow motion .
In lieu of an exit question , for your amusement , here ’ s Don Lemon freaking out about anti-lockdown protests .
Trump said at today ’ s briefing that , from what he ’ s seen of the protests , the participants are being responsible and practicing social distancing .
Not true , my man .
And he ’ s inviting a round of bad publicity for the demonstrators in the media by giving reporters a reason to focus on their irresponsibility .

If you’re still hopeful about herd immunity and the Oxford model, in which many millions more people than thought have asymptomatic cases of the virus, here you go. The Swedish government is right there with you.
The Swedish Public Health Agency has collaborated on a new study that estimates one-third of all Stockholm residents will have been infected with COVID-19 by May 1. That amounts to approximately 600,000 people in Sweden’s capital city. Sweden’s official figures report only 15,322 positive cases so far in the whole of the country, suggesting significant numbers of “invisible” infections. The astonishing numbers are in stark contrast to the latest World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that “no more than two to three percent” of the world’s population have been infected… The study indicates that for every confirmed case of COVID-19, a further 999 people are likely to have been infected with the virus without knowing it. The study used a model that includes the number of positive COVID-19 cases in Stockholm from February 17 to April 10, along with samples taken from infected people in the period March 27 to April 3.
The (heavily criticized) Stanford study of Santa Clara County in California made waves a few days ago by estimating that the true number of infections locally may be 50 to 85 times greater than the number of confirmed cases. This Swedish study is suggesting that the ratio of actual infections to confirmed cases in their country might be more like a thousand to one.
Which is hard to compute. There are 15,322 confirmed cases in Sweden. At 1,000 to one, we’d expect 15.3 million actual infections. The total population is 10.23 million.
I don’t understand how the Swedish and Stanford models can diverge so dramatically. Even allowing for the fact that Sweden should have higher rates of transmission than other western countries because, uniquely, it’s resisted lockdowns and school closings, we should logically expect to see a higher number of deaths per capita early in their outbreak too. And we do see a big number — they’re seventh in the world in deaths per million people. But that’s only about a third of Belgium’s number and less than half of Spain’s and Italy’s. How is Sweden pulling off a singularly high infection rate with a not so singularly high death rate?
One possibility is that their infection rate isn’t actually singular. Maybe hot spots in Italy, Spain, and Belgium are also much further towards herd immunity than anyone suspects right now. And … New York? Nate Silver is intrigued by the data suggesting that New York’s infection rate has fallen below 1.0, which can be the result of a comprehensive lockdown — or herd immunity.
New York City had *seemed* have an R of around 0.9, with a fairly slow decline from a plateau. But the decline has accelerated in the past week or so and the past few days of testing data suddenly makes it look more like an R of 0.7. More like 0.8 in the suburbs and 0.85 upstate. — Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) April 21, 2020
Yeah, it is not crazy to ask questions about this stuff, particularly given how we're now seeing notably steeper deceleration in NYC than upstate. https://t.co/22o2Nvkiae — Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) April 21, 2020
I wrote a week ago about a study of pregnant women at a New York City hospital in late March and early April that showed 15 percent who were admitted to give birth were infected with COVID at the time of testing. Nearly 90 percent of them had no symptoms (yet?). If that 15 percent figure was representative of the city’s population circa April 1 (which is a biiiiiiiig “if”), is it possible that 33 percent of New Yorkers will be infected by May 1? Bear in mind, the study of pregnant women said nothing about whether the other 85 percent of women tested may have had the virus previously and cleared it from their system before arriving at the hospital. It was a PCR test (e.g., nose/throat swab), not an antibody test. Conceivably the total number of women who’d had coronavirus at some point prior to admission to the hospital could have been higher than 15 percent.
Seems like we could really use some extensive antibody testing of New York to resolve this question. And soon, as the head of the CDC is warning that the second wave this fall could be worse than what we’re dealing with now. Why? Because in the fall we’ll be coping with two epidemics, not one.
“There’s a possibility that the assault of the virus on our nation next winter will actually be even more difficult than the one we just went through,” CDC Director Robert Redfield said in an interview with The Washington Post. “And when I’ve said this to others, they kind of put their head back, they don’t understand what I mean.” “We’re going to have the flu epidemic and the coronavirus epidemic at the same time,” he said. Having two simultaneous respiratory outbreaks would put unimaginable strain on the health-care system, he said… In the coming summer months, U.S. health officials need to persuade Americans to think ahead to the fall and the importance of getting flu shots. That way, public health officials can minimize the number of people hospitalized from flu. Getting a flu vaccination, Redfield said, “may allow there to be a hospital bed available for your mother or grandmother that may get coronavirus.”
One thought: If the virus really is as wildly contagious as Sweden suspects, and as prevalent in NYC as we’re speculating, then the idea that there’s some special “blue state” explanation for why New York has been especially hard hit is a hard sell. Things like population density and subway crowding may explain why it’s been hit *faster* than everywhere else but we should expect the same ~0.5 percent fatality rate in red states as they build towards herd immunity, albeit much more slowly. (I’m calculating the fatality rate in NYC on the assumption that a third of the population has been infected to this point.) The fact that more rural areas have avoided heavy impact so far would be no reason to assume that that’ll continue. It should be New York all over again, but in slow motion.
In lieu of an exit question, for your amusement, here’s Don Lemon freaking out about anti-lockdown protests. Trump said at today’s briefing that, from what he’s seen of the protests, the participants are being responsible and practicing social distancing. Not true, my man. And he’s inviting a round of bad publicity for the demonstrators in the media by giving reporters a reason to focus on their irresponsibility.


hotair--2020-04-21--Beltway shocked, <i>shocked</i>: Restaurants trapped between PPP relief and expanded unemployment be

Beltway shocked, <i>shocked</i>: Restaurants trapped between PPP relief and expanded unemployment benefits

I hate to say I told you so , but … wait , I love to say I told you so .
So did Lindsay Graham , Tim Scott , Rick Scott , and Ben Sasse , for that matter , about a time bomb in the CARES Act that is about to blow up in the faces of restaurant owners .
They want Congress to pass a special version of the Paycheck Protection Program for them and other similar businesses , thanks to the “ massive drafting error ” that made unemployment pay better than most entry-level jobs for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their industry needs its own targeted recovery fund because the bailout package Congress passed last month is making it more attractive for their staff to draw unemployment benefits than to continue working .
The new Paycheck Protection Program waives repayment of small business loans if the borrower uses 75 percent of the money to maintain payroll , a measure intended to reduce layoffs .
But with the expanded unemployment benefits included in the stimulus bill , some workers can as much as double their weekly checks if they stay unemployed .
… “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back to work , they ’ re not doing it , ” said Tom Colicchio , the renowned restaurateur and “ Top Chef ” judge , who has been an advocate for small restaurants during the pandemic .
“ They ’ re not going to come back to work because unemployment is too attractive.
” Here ’ s how Congress trapped restaurants and other casual-entertainment businesses .
PPP loans become entirely forgivable — meaning they become grants rather than loans — if restaurants use 75 % or more of the funds on payroll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have a payroll , however , and Congress ’ expanded unemployment benefits makes it more lucrative to quit , at least for the next three months .
Rather than require states to pay 100 % of salaries , which was the original conception of expanded benefits , the bill funds lump-sum additions to the normal level of unemployment which can take a $ 15/hour job and turn it into the equivalent of a $ 24/hour vacation : Who could have predicted that this would incentivize workers to quit their jobs ?
Anyone who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ specifically the aforementioned Graham , Scott , Scott , and Sasse .
At the time , they called it a “ massive drafting error ” at best : “ If this is not a drafting error then this is the worst idea I ’ ve seen in a long time , ” Graham said .
Under the deal worked out with Democrats , jobless individuals would receive $ 600 a week for four months on top of their regular unemployment compensation , which varies by state .
In South Carolina , the maximum @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so for four months an individual could get paid the equivalent of about $ 49,000 a year or $ 24 an hour , Graham said .
“ I think we ’ ve done absolutely the worst thing we can do to stabilize the economy .
We ’ ve incentivized people not to go back to work , ” he said .
“ Every employer in the state has to compete with a $ 24 an hour minimum wage now I guess.
” As I wrote at the time : legislate in haste , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t explain this entirely , though ; even after the quartet pointed out the obvious perverse incentive and easily predicted its impact , Senate Democrats refused to change the language .
Bernie Sanders declared that he would personally derail the bill and force a lengthy debate over the CARES Act if that language got changed , rather than get quick passage of relief to Americans .
The four Senate Republicans were allowed to propose an amendment , which got shot down before the Senate voted 96-0 to pass the bill as is .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ we were indeed right all along .
Restaurant owners want to use PPP money to pay their employees , but the government wants to pay them more to be unemployed .
That leaves restaurant owners in a financial trap , where they either have to pay way above normal market rates for labor in order to keep from having to pay back those loans , or not take any money and go under .
If they choose the former , they will have to pass those costs along to their customers , many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ won ’ t be able to afford it .
This is what comes from government distortion of markets .
The need to distort markets by shutting down commerce in a pandemic is unfortunate but necessary as a short-term measure .
This clause in the unemployment benefits , however , was entirely unnecessary and its outcome was entirely foreseeable .
This was social engineering dressed up as relief , and it ’ s going to destroy a lot of businesses over the next couple of months .
Anyone who claims they didn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should apply ASAP for a Captain Louis Renault Award … once the casino restaurant has enough staff to reopen , that is .

I hate to say I told you so, but … wait, I love to say I told you so. So did Lindsay Graham, Tim Scott, Rick Scott, and Ben Sasse, for that matter, about a time bomb in the CARES Act that is about to blow up in the faces of restaurant owners. They want Congress to pass a special version of the Paycheck Protection Program for them and other similar businesses, thanks to the “massive drafting error” that made unemployment pay better than most entry-level jobs for the next four months:
Restaurants say their industry needs its own targeted recovery fund because the bailout package Congress passed last month is making it more attractive for their staff to draw unemployment benefits than to continue working. The new Paycheck Protection Program waives repayment of small business loans if the borrower uses 75 percent of the money to maintain payroll, a measure intended to reduce layoffs. But with the expanded unemployment benefits included in the stimulus bill, some workers can as much as double their weekly checks if they stay unemployed. … “If the intention was to get people back to work, they’re not doing it,” said Tom Colicchio, the renowned restaurateur and “Top Chef” judge, who has been an advocate for small restaurants during the pandemic. “They’re not going to come back to work because unemployment is too attractive.”
Here’s how Congress trapped restaurants and other casual-entertainment businesses. PPP loans become entirely forgivable — meaning they become grants rather than loans — if restaurants use 75% or more of the funds on payroll. One has to have employees to have a payroll, however, and Congress’ expanded unemployment benefits makes it more lucrative to quit, at least for the next three months. Rather than require states to pay 100% of salaries, which was the original conception of expanded benefits, the bill funds lump-sum additions to the normal level of unemployment which can take a $15/hour job and turn it into the equivalent of a $24/hour vacation:
Unemployment benefits vary by state, but in 2019, before the coronavirus crisis, the average weekly benefit nationwide was $370. A $600 sweetener that the stimulus bill added, on a temporary basis, to weekly unemployment checks raises the average weekly benefit to $970, an amount that approximates average weekly pay nationwide and is nearly double average weekly pay within the food industry: about $500 nationwide for full-time workers.
Who could have predicted that this would incentivize workers to quit their jobs? Anyone who understands economics, for one, but specifically the aforementioned Graham, Scott, Scott, and Sasse. At the time, they called it a “massive drafting error” at best:
“If this is not a drafting error then this is the worst idea I’ve seen in a long time,” Graham said. Under the deal worked out with Democrats, jobless individuals would receive $600 a week for four months on top of their regular unemployment compensation, which varies by state. In South Carolina, the maximum benefit is $326 per week, so for four months an individual could get paid the equivalent of about $49,000 a year or $24 an hour, Graham said. “I think we’ve done absolutely the worst thing we can do to stabilize the economy. We’ve incentivized people not to go back to work,” he said. “Every employer in the state has to compete with a $24 an hour minimum wage now I guess.”
As I wrote at the time: legislate in haste, repent at leisure. Haste doesn’t explain this entirely, though; even after the quartet pointed out the obvious perverse incentive and easily predicted its impact, Senate Democrats refused to change the language. Bernie Sanders declared that he would personally derail the bill and force a lengthy debate over the CARES Act if that language got changed, rather than get quick passage of relief to Americans. The four Senate Republicans were allowed to propose an amendment, which got shot down before the Senate voted 96-0 to pass the bill as is.
And now, we find out that we were indeed right all along. Restaurant owners want to use PPP money to pay their employees, but the government wants to pay them more to be unemployed. That leaves restaurant owners in a financial trap, where they either have to pay way above normal market rates for labor in order to keep from having to pay back those loans, or not take any money and go under. If they choose the former, they will have to pass those costs along to their customers, many of whom are now unemployed too and won’t be able to afford it.
This is what comes from government distortion of markets. The need to distort markets by shutting down commerce in a pandemic is unfortunate but necessary as a short-term measure. This clause in the unemployment benefits, however, was entirely unnecessary and its outcome was entirely foreseeable. This was social engineering dressed up as relief, and it’s going to destroy a lot of businesses over the next couple of months. Anyone who claims they didn’t know this was precisely what would happen should apply ASAP for a Captain Louis Renault Award … once the casino restaurant has enough staff to reopen, that is.