hotair--2020-05-22--Stacey Abrams endorses seven Democrats for Senate - does it matter?

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it , does it make a sound ?
If a Democrat trying desperately to be chosen as her party ’ s vice-presidential choice endorses candidates , does it matter ?
Stacey Abrams , the self-proclaimed governor of Georgia , is doing everything humanly possible to remain relevant in news coverage as Team Biden goes through the process of picking a running mate for Status Quo Joe .
She is all but proclaiming herself as Biden ’ s choice and the media is happy to indulge her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ noticed , the push is on for Stacey Abrams .
Not only does she think she is Biden ’ s obvious choice but so do many in the media .
As soon as good old Joe pledged to choose a woman as his running mate , Abrams became a top contender , according to press reports .
At first it seemed like standard pandering for two important groups of Democrat voters – black voters and women voters .
Then magazines and newspapers jumped on the bandwagon and are in the process of turning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Now , in order to prove how important she is , apparently , Abrams has announced her endorsement of seven senate candidates .
All of the Senate races are considered consequential in the November election , as the Democrats are working to take back the Senate from Republicans .
She says she will raise money for each of them and work to get out the vote .
The candidates are running in battleground states , as well as Southern states , where Abrams has urged the party to invest in growing populations of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Arizona , John Hickenlooper in Colorado , Barbara Bollier in Kansas , Sara Gideon in Maine , Mike Espy in Mississippi , Cal Cunningham in North Carolina and Jaime Harrison in South Carolina .
“ Leader Abrams will headline a virtual event , mostly high-dollar fundraising events , for each candidate in the coming weeks and leverage her social media networks to help the candidates gain support , ” Abrams spokesman Seth Bringman said .
“ These efforts are part of her commitment to help Democrats take back the U.S. Senate majority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. Senate races in Georgia.
” Take , for example , Jaime Harrison in South Carolina .
He is an African-American Democrat running against Senator Lindsey Graham .
We can blame Rep. Clyburn and African-American voters in South Carolina for making Joe Biden ’ s nomination a thing .
Harrison is scooping donors from Graham , at least according to a South Carolina newspaper .
Some donors to Graham in past elections are not particularly happy with his alliance with Trump in Washington so they are taking their checkbooks and moving over to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strongly they were really Republicans , doesn ’ t it ?
It ’ s unlikely Graham will lose , but here we are .
Harrison calls Abrams an inspiration and that her race is a good playbook for Democrats in the South .
But she lost , something Democrats ( especially Abrams herself ) don ’ t want to admit .
Mark Kelly in Arizona , husband of former Rep. Gabby Giffords and former astronaut , is raking in the big Bloomberg bucks so it ’ s not surprising that Abrams wants to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely need Bloomberg money down the road if she runs for office again .
In statements provided ahead of her official endorsement , Abrams called Jaime Harrison , the associate chair of the Democratic National Committee who is seeking to block Sen. Lindsey Graham from a fourth term , “ a strong leader for the people of South Carolina ” who “ will work hard to address inequalities ” such as in rural health care and infrastructure .
For Arizona , Abrams said former astronaut Mark Kelly “ has a proven record of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the former Colorado governor and 2020 presidential candidate , “ is the one to help us cross the finish line ” for a Democratic Senate majority , Abrams said .
Maine House Speaker Sara Gideon “ will fight for expanded access to quality affordable health care ” if elected to the Senate in place of Republican Sen. Susan Collins .
Mike Espy , a former Mississippi congressman and U.S. agriculture secretary , “ is ready to lead on Day One , ” Abrams said , while former state Sen. Cal Cunningham is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ North Carolina , “ a must-win state for the U.S. Senate in 2020.
” Barbara Bollier , a Kansas physician and state senator who switched from the GOP in 2018 , is “ uniquely qualified to help address the disparities dividing America , ” including on affordable health care , said Abrams , who is planning to hold virtual campaign events for each of the candidates getting her backing .
These were Abrams ’ first endorsements outside the state of Georgia .
She has also endorsed the Rev .
Raphael Warnock , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Georgia .
Espy ran in a special election in 2018 against Cindy Hyde-Smith and lost .
He is the former Secretary of Agriculture during the Clinton administration who went on to be elected to the House .
He was involved in an ethics charge and indicted by a Grand Jury , and later acquitted at trial .
Abrams hasn ’ t officially endorsed these candidates but released a statement of her intended endorsements yesterday .
It ’ s probably no coincidence that she did so to counter any publicity garnered by other Democrat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ticket .
Both Amy Klobuchar and Val Demmings were mentioned on cable television shows yesterday as confirming that Biden ’ s campaign was vetting them for vice-president .
As bitter and victimized as Abrams has appeared since she lost the Georgia race , hold on to your hat if she is snubbed by Joe Biden .

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? If a Democrat trying desperately to be chosen as her party’s vice-presidential choice endorses candidates, does it matter?
Stacey Abrams, the self-proclaimed governor of Georgia, is doing everything humanly possible to remain relevant in news coverage as Team Biden goes through the process of picking a running mate for Status Quo Joe. She is all but proclaiming herself as Biden’s choice and the media is happy to indulge her.
In case you haven’t noticed, the push is on for Stacey Abrams. Not only does she think she is Biden’s obvious choice but so do many in the media. As soon as good old Joe pledged to choose a woman as his running mate, Abrams became a top contender, according to press reports. At first it seemed like standard pandering for two important groups of Democrat voters – black voters and women voters. Then magazines and newspapers jumped on the bandwagon and are in the process of turning her into some kind of superhero/superstar.
Now, in order to prove how important she is, apparently, Abrams has announced her endorsement of seven senate candidates. All of the Senate races are considered consequential in the November election, as the Democrats are working to take back the Senate from Republicans. She says she will raise money for each of them and work to get out the vote.
The candidates are running in battleground states, as well as Southern states, where Abrams has urged the party to invest in growing populations of potential Democratic voters for candidates Mark Kelly in Arizona, John Hickenlooper in Colorado, Barbara Bollier in Kansas, Sara Gideon in Maine, Mike Espy in Mississippi, Cal Cunningham in North Carolina and Jaime Harrison in South Carolina. “Leader Abrams will headline a virtual event, mostly high-dollar fundraising events, for each candidate in the coming weeks and leverage her social media networks to help the candidates gain support,” Abrams spokesman Seth Bringman said. “These efforts are part of her commitment to help Democrats take back the U.S. Senate majority, a path that also includes two U.S. Senate races in Georgia.”
Take, for example, Jaime Harrison in South Carolina. He is an African-American Democrat running against Senator Lindsey Graham. We can blame Rep. Clyburn and African-American voters in South Carolina for making Joe Biden’s nomination a thing. Harrison is scooping donors from Graham, at least according to a South Carolina newspaper. Some donors to Graham in past elections are not particularly happy with his alliance with Trump in Washington so they are taking their checkbooks and moving over to Harrison. It makes you wonder how strongly they were really Republicans, doesn’t it? It’s unlikely Graham will lose, but here we are. Harrison calls Abrams an inspiration and that her race is a good playbook for Democrats in the South. But she lost, something Democrats (especially Abrams herself) don’t want to admit.
Mark Kelly in Arizona, husband of former Rep. Gabby Giffords and former astronaut, is raking in the big Bloomberg bucks so it’s not surprising that Abrams wants to publicly support him – she’ll likely need Bloomberg money down the road if she runs for office again.
In statements provided ahead of her official endorsement, Abrams called Jaime Harrison, the associate chair of the Democratic National Committee who is seeking to block Sen. Lindsey Graham from a fourth term, “a strong leader for the people of South Carolina” who “will work hard to address inequalities” such as in rural health care and infrastructure. For Arizona, Abrams said former astronaut Mark Kelly “has a proven record of service to our country.” John Hickenlooper, the former Colorado governor and 2020 presidential candidate, “is the one to help us cross the finish line” for a Democratic Senate majority, Abrams said. Maine House Speaker Sara Gideon “will fight for expanded access to quality affordable health care” if elected to the Senate in place of Republican Sen. Susan Collins. Mike Espy, a former Mississippi congressman and U.S. agriculture secretary, “is ready to lead on Day One,” Abrams said, while former state Sen. Cal Cunningham is Democrats’ best choice to succeed in North Carolina, “a must-win state for the U.S. Senate in 2020.” Barbara Bollier, a Kansas physician and state senator who switched from the GOP in 2018, is “uniquely qualified to help address the disparities dividing America,” including on affordable health care, said Abrams, who is planning to hold virtual campaign events for each of the candidates getting her backing.
These were Abrams’ first endorsements outside the state of Georgia. She has also endorsed the Rev. Raphael Warnock, who is challenging Republican Sen. Kelly Loeffler in Georgia. Espy ran in a special election in 2018 against Cindy Hyde-Smith and lost. He is the former Secretary of Agriculture during the Clinton administration who went on to be elected to the House. He was involved in an ethics charge and indicted by a Grand Jury, and later acquitted at trial.
Abrams hasn’t officially endorsed these candidates but released a statement of her intended endorsements yesterday. It’s probably no coincidence that she did so to counter any publicity garnered by other Democrat women that Team Biden is considering for the ticket. Both Amy Klobuchar and Val Demmings were mentioned on cable television shows yesterday as confirming that Biden’s campaign was vetting them for vice-president. As bitter and victimized as Abrams has appeared since she lost the Georgia race, hold on to your hat if she is snubbed by Joe Biden.


hotair--2020-05-22--"Judicial intimidation": Whitehouse blasts Rao as "cartoon of a fake judge" after appellate interven

"Judicial intimidation": Whitehouse blasts Rao as "cartoon of a fake judge" after appellate intervention in Flynn case

Did Sheldon Whitehouse somehow lose the ability to count to three ?
After a sharp intervention by a panel from the DC Circuit Court of Appeals to Judge Emmet Sullivan ’ s handling of the Michael Flynn case , the Senate Democrat attacked one of the jurists , Neomi Rao , as a “ cartoon of a fake judge.
” Whitehouse , a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee , told Twitter followers to “ watch this space ” in anticipation of more attacks on Rao : It ’ s worth noting that Rao wasn ’ t alone in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sidney Powell ’ s writ of mandamus request .
The order from the three-judge panel didn ’ t have any author named , nor did it note any dissent among the three in ordering Flynn to explain why he won ’ t accept the withdrawal motion from the Department of Justice and his actions under Rule 48 .
For some reason , though , Whitehouse singled out Rao — and not with any substantive criticism , but instead for ad hominem personal attack .
Ted Cruz accused Whitehouse of attempting “ judicial intimidation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ else , it looks more like a campaign of misdirection .
The unsigned and apparently unanimous order to Sullivan looks like solid evidence that the district court judge is in trouble , Vice News writes this morning .
The “ surprise move ” shows that Powell has a legitimate argument about Flynn ’ s actions , two former federal prosecutors tell Vice : Before , a lot of folks thought Flynn ’ s attempt to go over Judge Emmet Sullivan ’ s head , known in fancy legal-speak as a “ writ of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ making Sullivan very , very angry .
“ This order suggests that the court is taking seriously Flynn ’ s request for a writ of mandamus , and his argument that Judge Sullivan may not deny the government ’ s motion to dismiss , ” said Barbara McQuade , a former U.S. Attorney in Detroit .
Now , it ’ s Judge Sullivan who must explain himself .
… “ Good news for Flynn , ” said Gene Rossi , a former prosecutor with the Eastern District of Virginia .
At National Review @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also sees the order as writing on the wall .
The explicit reference to Fokker Services BV and Rule 48 , along with the very short time for response , sends a clear signal that the appellate jurists think Sullivan has gone off the reservation , McCarthy argues , and he thinks Sullivan knows it : It is apt to get Judge Sullivan ’ s attention that the only case the panel cited is United States v. Fokker Services B.V .
In that 2016 ruling , the D.C .
Circuit granted a writ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ refused to dismiss a case ( on a deferred prosecution arrangement ) because the judge thought the Justice Department was letting the defendant off too easily .
The Fokker Court explained that , under Rule 48 ( a ) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure , a judge has no power to deny a motion to dismiss charges .
The D.C .
Circuit there elaborated that decisions to dismiss pending charges “ lie squarely within the ken of prosecutorial discretion , ” and that judges may not substitute their view that a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Justice Department ’ s determination that a case should be dropped .
Let ’ s just call that a big ol ’ hint as to what the appellate circuit thinks of Sullivan ’ s proposed circus .
It won ’ t escape his attention either that their June 1 deadline for his response comes well before Sullivan ’ s own mid-July deadline for receipt of amicus briefs , a strong suggestion that they intend to close up the circus before it ever opens .
And that doesn ’ t even touch on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court precedent which expressly forbids what Sullivan ’ s trying to do here .
The best move Sullivan can make at this point is to moot the appeal by folding his tent and allowing the dismissal motion .
Don ’ t be too surprised if that happens late on a Friday afternoon before a holiday weekend , but given Sullivan ’ s clear personal animus toward Flynn in this case , don ’ t necessarily expect Sullivan to act in his own best interest at this point , either .

Did Sheldon Whitehouse somehow lose the ability to count to three? After a sharp intervention by a panel from the DC Circuit Court of Appeals to Judge Emmet Sullivan’s handling of the Michael Flynn case, the Senate Democrat attacked one of the jurists, Neomi Rao, as a “cartoon of a fake judge.” Whitehouse, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, told Twitter followers to “watch this space” in anticipation of more attacks on Rao:
Where you see Neomi Rao, you can expect a lot of Trumpy dirt to follow. She’s a cartoon of a fake judge. Watch this space.https://t.co/aOPt7HKweo — Sheldon Whitehouse (@SenWhitehouse) May 21, 2020
It’s worth noting that Rao wasn’t alone in the order sent to Flynn demanding answers to Sidney Powell’s writ of mandamus request. The order from the three-judge panel didn’t have any author named, nor did it note any dissent among the three in ordering Flynn to explain why he won’t accept the withdrawal motion from the Department of Justice and his actions under Rule 48. For some reason, though, Whitehouse singled out Rao — and not with any substantive criticism, but instead for ad hominem personal attack.
“Not cool,” scolded fellow Judiciary member Mike Lee (R-UT):
Not cool, Sheldon. Judge Rao is a gifted, hard-working legal scholar and jurist. I know you disagree with her here—and I strongly disagree with you on that point—but is it ever appropriate to call a sitting jurist “a cartoon of a fake judge”? I can’t think of a good reason. Ever. https://t.co/OWQvCdU9bh — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) May 22, 2020
Ted Cruz accused Whitehouse of attempting “judicial intimidation” with his tweet:
Shameful. Senate Dems, tired of threatening Supreme Court Justices, turn to the court of appeals for their partisan campaign of judicial intimidation. https://t.co/FrBdvmlgUs — Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) May 22, 2020
If nothing else, it looks more like a campaign of misdirection. The unsigned and apparently unanimous order to Sullivan looks like solid evidence that the district court judge is in trouble, Vice News writes this morning. The “surprise move” shows that Powell has a legitimate argument about Flynn’s actions, two former federal prosecutors tell Vice:
Before, a lot of folks thought Flynn’s attempt to go over Judge Emmet Sullivan’s head, known in fancy legal-speak as a “writ of mandamus,” would mostly succeed in making Sullivan very, very angry. “This order suggests that the court is taking seriously Flynn’s request for a writ of mandamus, and his argument that Judge Sullivan may not deny the government’s motion to dismiss,” said Barbara McQuade, a former U.S. Attorney in Detroit. Now, it’s Judge Sullivan who must explain himself. … “Good news for Flynn,” said Gene Rossi, a former prosecutor with the Eastern District of Virginia.
At National Review, fellow former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy also sees the order as writing on the wall. The explicit reference to Fokker Services BV and Rule 48, along with the very short time for response, sends a clear signal that the appellate jurists think Sullivan has gone off the reservation, McCarthy argues, and he thinks Sullivan knows it:
It is apt to get Judge Sullivan’s attention that the only case the panel cited is United States v. Fokker Services B.V. In that 2016 ruling, the D.C. Circuit granted a writ of mandamus against a district judge who refused to dismiss a case (on a deferred prosecution arrangement) because the judge thought the Justice Department was letting the defendant off too easily. The Fokker Court explained that, under Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, a judge has no power to deny a motion to dismiss charges. The D.C. Circuit there elaborated that decisions to dismiss pending charges “lie squarely within the ken of prosecutorial discretion,” and that judges may not substitute their view that a defendant should be prosecuted in place of the Justice Department’s determination that a case should be dropped.
Let’s just call that a big ol’ hint as to what the appellate circuit thinks of Sullivan’s proposed circus. It won’t escape his attention either that their June 1 deadline for his response comes well before Sullivan’s own mid-July deadline for receipt of amicus briefs, a strong suggestion that they intend to close up the circus before it ever opens. And that doesn’t even touch on Sineneng-Smith, the brand-new and unanimous Supreme Court precedent which expressly forbids what Sullivan’s trying to do here.
The best move Sullivan can make at this point is to moot the appeal by folding his tent and allowing the dismissal motion. Don’t be too surprised if that happens late on a Friday afternoon before a holiday weekend, but given Sullivan’s clear personal animus toward Flynn in this case, don’t necessarily expect Sullivan to act in his own best interest at this point, either.


hotair--2020-05-22--Large hydroxychloroquine study shows COVID-19 patients who got the drug died more often

This will make for a hell of a rant later today about “ Trump enemy statements.
” Three things about this study distinguish it from ( most ) other recent studies of hydroxychloroquine use by coronavirus patients .
One : The sample size is enormous , involving nearly 100,000 people at 671 medical centers on six continents over four months .
Two : Researchers looked only at patients who received the drug within 48 hours of testing positive for COVID-19 .
That doesn ’ t mean that all of them were in the earliest stages of the disease when they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been properly diagnosed until many days after symptoms first appeared .
But anyone on a ventilator was excluded from the study so that the most dire cases wouldn ’ t influence the results .
And the 48-hour time frame means that this should give us a sense of whether the drug is more effective taken earlier in the course of treatment .
Three , most importantly : The data suggests that HCQ might be doing more harm than good .
The VA study from last month that Trump complained about this week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drug were more likely to die , but the sample in that one was a tiny fraction of what it was in this new one .
It ’ s alarming that a data set this large would end up suggesting that hydroxychloroquine is accelerating death in COVID patients .
A former FDA official who spoke to WaPo found the result so unnerving that he called on the agency to revoke HCQ ’ s emergency-use authorization .
“ It ’ s one thing not to have benefit , but this shows distinct harm , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute .
“ If there was ever hope for this drug , this is the death of it.
” … “ I wish we had had this information at the outset , ” [ researcher Mandeep Mehta ] said , “ as there has potentially been harm to patients.
” … For those given hydroxychloroquine , there was a 34 percent increase in risk of mortality and a 137 percent increased risk of a serious heart arrhythmias .
For those receiving hydroxychloroquine and an antibiotic — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was a 45 percent increased risk of death and a 411 percent increased risk of serious heart arrhythmias .
Here ’ s the breakdown from the abstract of the study itself , published at the Lancet : “ Macrolide ” refers to an antibiotic like azithromycin .
The study ’ s not definitive , as it ’ s not a clinical trial .
And advocates for the drug insist that it needs to be taken with zinc to be effective .
WaPo notes a recent study from NYU ’ s health center that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ higher rate of survival .
But that wasn ’ t definitive either and some experts suspect that the higher rate of survival wasn ’ t caused by the addition of zinc but was merely a coincidence : “ They said the results also could have been due to other factors , such as the zinc being added to patients ’ regimens later in the pandemic when hospital treatments and procedures had been refined.
” If later studies confirm that hydroxychloroquine taken with zinc does provide some benefit , the new question will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ higher mortality seen in this new study .
Does zinc erase all of the apparent added risk of death from taking HCQ for coronavirus patients or does it merely offset the added risk , meaning that there ’ s no net benefit ?
Or is it patient-specific ?
WaPo notes that “ The population infected with covid-19 in hospitals , it turned out , was already at higher risk of cardiovascular complications because many suffer from high blood pressure or other heart issues.
” A well-known side effect of HCQ is cardiac arrythmia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heart problems .
Maybe the drug when taken with zinc has some benefit for coronavirus patients who lack comorbidities involving the heart but is too risky for people with coronary issues to take .
There ’ ll be more studies .
But people who ’ ve forgotten more about this stuff than I ’ ll ever know seem to think this one is highly , highly discouraging for hydroxychloroquine as a COVID-19 treatment , even though it ’ s not a clinical trial : “ There was no evidence whatsoever of any benefit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There was significant evidence of harm .
Here ’ s how it works : when something is real , you continue to see a real signal as you collect more and better data .
When something is not real , it disappears .
Tell me again why anyone should be advocating such treatments .
But your reasons had better stand up to 14,888 patients versus 81,144 comparators .
Make it good.
” Meanwhile , sales of the drug doubled in March of this year from March 2019 .
Prescriptions for the generic version @ @ @ @ @ @ @

This will make for a hell of a rant later today about “Trump enemy statements.”
Three things about this study distinguish it from (most) other recent studies of hydroxychloroquine use by coronavirus patients. One: The sample size is enormous, involving nearly 100,000 people at 671 medical centers on six continents over four months.
Two: Researchers looked only at patients who received the drug within 48 hours of testing positive for COVID-19. That doesn’t mean that all of them were in the earliest stages of the disease when they started taking HCQ; some may not have been properly diagnosed until many days after symptoms first appeared. But anyone on a ventilator was excluded from the study so that the most dire cases wouldn’t influence the results. And the 48-hour time frame means that this should give us a sense of whether the drug is more effective taken earlier in the course of treatment.
Three, most importantly: The data suggests that HCQ might be doing more harm than good. The VA study from last month that Trump complained about this week also found that patients who took the drug were more likely to die, but the sample in that one was a tiny fraction of what it was in this new one. It’s alarming that a data set this large would end up suggesting that hydroxychloroquine is accelerating death in COVID patients.
A former FDA official who spoke to WaPo found the result so unnerving that he called on the agency to revoke HCQ’s emergency-use authorization.
“It’s one thing not to have benefit, but this shows distinct harm,” said Eric Topol, a cardiologist and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute. “If there was ever hope for this drug, this is the death of it.”… “I wish we had had this information at the outset,” [researcher Mandeep Mehta] said, “as there has potentially been harm to patients.”… For those given hydroxychloroquine, there was a 34 percent increase in risk of mortality and a 137 percent increased risk of a serious heart arrhythmias. For those receiving hydroxychloroquine and an antibiotic — the cocktail endorsed by Trump — there was a 45 percent increased risk of death and a 411 percent increased risk of serious heart arrhythmias.
Here’s the breakdown from the abstract of the study itself, published at the Lancet:
96032 patients (mean age 53.8 years, 46.3% women) with COVID-19 were hospitalised during the study period and met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 14888 patients were in the treatment groups (1868 received chloroquine, 3783 received chloroquine with a macrolide, 3016 received hydroxychloroquine, and 6221 received hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide) and 81144 patients were in the control group. 10698 (11.1%) patients died in hospital. After controlling for multiple confounding factors (age, sex, race or ethnicity, body-mass index, underlying cardiovascular disease and its risk factors, diabetes, underlying lung disease, smoking, immunosuppressed condition, and baseline disease severity), when compared with mortality in the control group (9.3%), hydroxychloroquine (18.0%; hazard ratio 1·335, 95% CI 1·223–1·457), hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide (23.8%; 1·447, 1·368–1·531), chloroquine (16.4%; 1·365, 1·218–1·531), and chloroquine with a macrolide (22.2%; 1·368, 1·273–1·469) were each independently associated with an increased risk of in-hospital mortality.
“Macrolide” refers to an antibiotic like azithromycin.
The study’s not definitive, as it’s not a clinical trial. And advocates for the drug insist that it needs to be taken with zinc to be effective. WaPo notes a recent study from NYU’s health center that suggested HCQ plus zinc might mean a higher rate of survival. But that wasn’t definitive either and some experts suspect that the higher rate of survival wasn’t caused by the addition of zinc but was merely a coincidence: “They said the results also could have been due to other factors, such as the zinc being added to patients’ regimens later in the pandemic when hospital treatments and procedures had been refined.” If later studies confirm that hydroxychloroquine taken with zinc does provide some benefit, the new question will be how to square that result will the higher mortality seen in this new study. Does zinc erase all of the apparent added risk of death from taking HCQ for coronavirus patients or does it merely offset the added risk, meaning that there’s no net benefit?
Or is it patient-specific? WaPo notes that “The population infected with covid-19 in hospitals, it turned out, was already at higher risk of cardiovascular complications because many suffer from high blood pressure or other heart issues.” A well-known side effect of HCQ is cardiac arrythmia, making it riskier for people with heart problems. Maybe the drug when taken with zinc has some benefit for coronavirus patients who lack comorbidities involving the heart but is too risky for people with coronary issues to take.
There’ll be more studies. But people who’ve forgotten more about this stuff than I’ll ever know seem to think this one is highly, highly discouraging for hydroxychloroquine as a COVID-19 treatment, even though it’s not a clinical trial: “There was no evidence whatsoever of any benefit with any of these treatment regimes. There was significant evidence of harm. Here’s how it works: when something is real, you continue to see a real signal as you collect more and better data. When something is not real, it disappears. Tell me again why anyone should be advocating such treatments. But your reasons had better stand up to 14,888 patients versus 81,144 comparators. Make it good.”
Meanwhile, sales of the drug doubled in March of this year from March 2019. Prescriptions for the generic version have grown from 460,000 to 830,000.


hotair--2020-05-22--NYT on Reade: Perhaps we shouldn't believe this one woman; <span class="red">Update: Attorney withdr

NYT on Reade: Perhaps we shouldn't believe this one woman; Update: Attorney withdraws?

The media ’ s momentum from # BelieveWomen to # ImpeachOneWoman continues apace today at the New York Times .
A few days after CNN reported that Tara Reade might have exaggerated her educational credentials , the NYT has a new report out this morning that also finds discrepancies in her accounts .
This might matter in a legal sense , as Reade spent nearly a decade testifying as an expert witness at trials .
The subtext of the article is impossible to miss — did Reade perjure herself ?
And did people get convicted as a result ?
Defense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in which Tara Reade , the former Senate aide who has accused Joseph R. Biden Jr. of sexual assault , served as an expert witness on domestic violence , concerned that she misrepresented her educational credentials in court .
Then known as Alexandra McCabe , Ms. Reade testified as a government witness in Monterey County courts for nearly a decade , describing herself as an expert in the dynamics of domestic violence who had counseled hundreds of victims .
But lawyers who had faced off against her in court began raising questions about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the verdicts that followed , after news reports this week that Antioch University had disputed her claim of receiving a bachelor ’ s degree from its Seattle campus .
… Ms. Reade told The New York Times that she had obtained her degree through a “ protected program ” for victims of spousal abuse , which , court records show , she suffered at the hands of her ex-husband in the mid-1990s .
That history , she said , caused her to change her name , leading to confusion about her status at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law degree from Seattle University .
But an Antioch spokeswoman , Karen Hamilton , told The Times that while Ms. Reade had attended classes , she was certain Ms. Reade had not received a degree .
This article raises more questions than it answers , as is somewhat typical for this genre .
Other than the spokesperson ’ s statement , no evidence is presented that Reade lied about it .
There is much quoting of random lawyers who express horror at the complications that will ensue if Reade lied , and discussion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ along with the discussion of the use of a professional name for a while .
A read through the article , however , leaves all of these questions unanswered .
All we know is that they exist … mainly because media outlets have been interested enough to ask .
As Allahpundit wrote with CNN ’ s report , that ’ s not necessarily a bad thing , since the circumstances of Reade ’ s allegations against Biden require establishment of credibility .
We already know that Reade has told inconsistent stories about Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , so if she exaggerates or gives inconsistent accounts of other aspects of her life , that should go to credibility .
However , if that ’ s the process in place now , it should have been the process in place all along .
Why didn ’ t the NYT and CNN do deep dives on the backgrounds and work histories of Christine Blasey Ford , Deborah Ramirez , and Julie Swetnick ?
Reade at the least has much more contemporaneous corroboration for this allegation than the others , who had none @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even more suspect .
More to the point , why were attempts to raise even the potential of doing so greeted with angry allegations of attempting to smear the “ victims ” with irrelevant issues ?
This NYT dive into Reade ’ s background has nothing to do with her allegation against Biden ; all of it is irrelevant to her allegation .
It ’ s possible to embellish a resumé and still have been victimized in a sexual assault by a powerful politician , after all .
As credibility is almost the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disputes , Reade ’ s history is fair game for media scrutiny .
That should be the case with every similar case — rather than # BelieveWomen , the media and the rest of us should vet their credibility .
Will the media exhibit the same standards and enthusiasm the next time someone they don ’ t like gets similarly accused ?
Don ’ t bet your life on it .
Update : The timing on this is interesting : If the decision was made on May 20 , then it predates this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after CNN ’ s .
Did they get blindsided by something in these ?

The media’s momentum from #BelieveWomen to #ImpeachOneWoman continues apace today at the New York Times. A few days after CNN reported that Tara Reade might have exaggerated her educational credentials, the NYT has a new report out this morning that also finds discrepancies in her accounts. This might matter in a legal sense, as Reade spent nearly a decade testifying as an expert witness at trials.
The subtext of the article is impossible to miss — did Reade perjure herself? And did people get convicted as a result?
Defense lawyers in California are reviewing criminal cases in which Tara Reade, the former Senate aide who has accused Joseph R. Biden Jr. of sexual assault, served as an expert witness on domestic violence, concerned that she misrepresented her educational credentials in court. Then known as Alexandra McCabe, Ms. Reade testified as a government witness in Monterey County courts for nearly a decade, describing herself as an expert in the dynamics of domestic violence who had counseled hundreds of victims. But lawyers who had faced off against her in court began raising questions about the legitimacy of her testimony, and the verdicts that followed, after news reports this week that Antioch University had disputed her claim of receiving a bachelor’s degree from its Seattle campus. … Ms. Reade told The New York Times that she had obtained her degree through a “protected program” for victims of spousal abuse, which, court records show, she suffered at the hands of her ex-husband in the mid-1990s. That history, she said, caused her to change her name, leading to confusion about her status at the school. She later received a law degree from Seattle University. But an Antioch spokeswoman, Karen Hamilton, told The Times that while Ms. Reade had attended classes, she was certain Ms. Reade had not received a degree.
This article raises more questions than it answers, as is somewhat typical for this genre. Other than the spokesperson’s statement, no evidence is presented that Reade lied about it. There is much quoting of random lawyers who express horror at the complications that will ensue if Reade lied, and discussion of investigations into the question itself, along with the discussion of the use of a professional name for a while.
A read through the article, however, leaves all of these questions unanswered. All we know is that they exist … mainly because media outlets have been interested enough to ask. As Allahpundit wrote with CNN’s report, that’s not necessarily a bad thing, since the circumstances of Reade’s allegations against Biden require establishment of credibility. We already know that Reade has told inconsistent stories about Biden’s alleged sexual assault on her, so if she exaggerates or gives inconsistent accounts of other aspects of her life, that should go to credibility.
However, if that’s the process in place now, it should have been the process in place all along. Why didn’t the NYT and CNN do deep dives on the backgrounds and work histories of Christine Blasey Ford, Deborah Ramirez, and Julie Swetnick? Reade at the least has much more contemporaneous corroboration for this allegation than the others, who had none at all and whose credibility was therefore even more suspect.
More to the point, why were attempts to raise even the potential of doing so greeted with angry allegations of attempting to smear the “victims” with irrelevant issues? This NYT dive into Reade’s background has nothing to do with her allegation against Biden; all of it is irrelevant to her allegation. It’s possible to embellish a resumé and still have been victimized in a sexual assault by a powerful politician, after all.
As credibility is almost the only currency available in these kinds of disputes, Reade’s history is fair game for media scrutiny. That should be the case with every similar case — rather than #BelieveWomen, the media and the rest of us should vet their credibility. Will the media exhibit the same standards and enthusiasm the next time someone they don’t like gets similarly accused? Don’t bet your life on it.
Update: The timing on this is interesting:
Doug Wigdor announces he is no longer representing Tara Reade pic.twitter.com/ETMrgfIruq — Matt Viser (@mviser) May 22, 2020
If the decision was made on May 20, then it predates this NYT report — but it was just after CNN’s. Did they get blindsided by something in these?


hotair--2020-05-22--Biden to black radio host: If you're considering voting for Trump, "then you ain't black"; <span cla

Biden to black radio host: If you're considering voting for Trump, "then you ain't black"; Update: Settles the "basement question," says NYT reporter

What ’ s worse here — the cultural appropriation , or the Democratic-plantation attitude ?
We report , you decide .
Joe Biden told the Breakfast Club host Charlamagne tha God this morning that “ multiple black women ” are under consideration for his running mate , but Charlamagne still didn ’ t sound convinced .
Biden then offered his final argument for support , which was , er , to question the authenticity of Mr. Tha God ( NYT styleguide version ) : “ I ’ m not acknowledging anybody who is being considered , but I guarantee you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ considered .
Multiple , ” Biden said of his search process for a vice presidential nominee .
It was then that an aide to the Biden campaign could be heard interjecting into the conversation , attempting to cut short the interview .
“ Thank you so much .
That ’ s really our time .
I apologize , ” the aide said .
“ You can ’ t do that to black media !
” Charlamagne retorted .
“ I do that to white media and black media because my wife has to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Biden shot back , apparently referring to a subsequent media appearance by Dr. Jill Biden , before adding : “ Uh oh .
I ’ m in trouble.
” “ Listen , you ’ ve got to come see us when you come to New York , VP Biden , ” Charlamagne said .
“ It ’ s a long way until November .
We ’ ve got more questions.
” “ You ’ ve got more questions ?
” Biden replied .
“ Well I tell you what , if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you ’ re for me or Trump , then you ain ’ t black.
” Oh my .
If Biden meant this as a joke , Charlamagne wasn ’ t laughing at it .
The context of this clearly indicated that he wanted a serious commitment from Biden on picking a woman of color to indicate that “ my community ” had some investment in the Democratic ticket .
Biden ’ s response typifies his party ’ s attitude toward its most loyal demographic , which is to attack the authenticity of anyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Or , or to put it into Democratic identity-politics terms : There ’ s nothing like an old white dude who spent the last fifty years in Washington telling young African-Americans that he ’ s a better arbiter of blackness than they are .
This is even worse than Hillary Clinton ’ s phony adoption of southern patois in 2007 ( “ noways taaaahrd “ ) and again eight years later .
At least Hillary knew better than to tell black voters that they weren ’ t black enough .
One thing ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s right that “ it ’ s a long way until November.
” Democrats have to cringe at the thought of that — and wonder how many more of these episodes they ’ ll have to endure with Biden .
The Atlantic ’ s Adam Serwer is less amused :

What’s worse here — the cultural appropriation, or the Democratic-plantation attitude? We report, you decide. Joe Biden told the Breakfast Club host Charlamagne tha God this morning that “multiple black women” are under consideration for his running mate, but Charlamagne still didn’t sound convinced. Biden then offered his final argument for support, which was, er, to question the authenticity of Mr. Tha God (NYT styleguide version):
“I’m not acknowledging anybody who is being considered, but I guarantee you: There are multiple black women being considered. Multiple,” Biden said of his search process for a vice presidential nominee. It was then that an aide to the Biden campaign could be heard interjecting into the conversation, attempting to cut short the interview. “Thank you so much. That’s really our time. I apologize,” the aide said. “You can’t do that to black media!” Charlamagne retorted. “I do that to white media and black media because my wife has to go on at 6 o’clock,” Biden shot back, apparently referring to a subsequent media appearance by Dr. Jill Biden, before adding: “Uh oh. I’m in trouble.” “Listen, you’ve got to come see us when you come to New York, VP Biden,” Charlamagne said. “It’s a long way until November. We’ve got more questions.” “You’ve got more questions?” Biden replied. “Well I tell you what, if you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.”
Oh my. If Biden meant this as a joke, Charlamagne wasn’t laughing at it. The context of this clearly indicated that he wanted a serious commitment from Biden on picking a woman of color to indicate that “my community” had some investment in the Democratic ticket. Biden’s response typifies his party’s attitude toward its most loyal demographic, which is to attack the authenticity of anyone who dares not to support them.
Or, or to put it into Democratic identity-politics terms: There’s nothing like an old white dude who spent the last fifty years in Washington telling young African-Americans that he’s a better arbiter of blackness than they are. This is even worse than Hillary Clinton’s phony adoption of southern patois in 2007 (“noways taaaahrd“) and again eight years later. At least Hillary knew better than to tell black voters that they weren’t black enough.
One thing’s for sure, though. Charlamagne’s right that “it’s a long way until November.” Democrats have to cringe at the thought of that — and wonder how many more of these episodes they’ll have to endure with Biden.
Update: New York Times reporter Jonathan Martin puts it succinctly:
This morning should end once and for all the question of which party is more eager to get Biden out of his basement. — Jonathan Martin (@jmartNYT) May 22, 2020
The Atlantic’s Adam Serwer is less amused:


hotair--2020-05-22--Hmmm: Mississippi church that challenged shutdown mysteriously ... explodes

A Mississippi church at the center of a legal battle over the shutdown exploded and burned to the ground yesterday — and it doesn ’ t look like a coincidence .
The pastor of First Pentecostal in Holly Springs has led protests to allow his congregation to gather once again in defiance of local COVID-19 shutdown orders , including one inside a Walmart to accuse officials of double standards .
A local judge had rebuked the church for acting in “ an excessively reckless and cavalier manner , ” a ruling the church had planned to fight .
That fight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intentionally , as investigators suspect arson for the explosion and destruction of the church .
So what was the first clue ?
Well , the spray-painted message on the building might qualify , albeit somewhat illiterate : First Pentecostal Church had sued the city of Holly Springs , Miss.
, which is about an hour southeast of Memphis , arguing that its stay-at-home order had violated the church ’ s right to free speech and interfered with its members ’ ability to worship .
After firefighters put out the blaze early Wednesday , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bet you stay home now you hypokrits , ” spray-painted on the ground near the church ’ s doors , according to Maj. Kelly McMillen of the Marshall County Sheriff ’ s Department .
A photograph of the graffiti also appears to show an atomic symbol with an “ A ” in the center , which is sometimes used as a logo for atheist groups .
Aren ’ t there two Ks in hypokrits ?
Actually , if the arsonists wanted to go after hypocrites , they ( a ) might have checked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) watched the YouTube video produced by the church .
The point was pretty well made , even if the judge didn ’ t buy the argument .
Shutdown orders that keep Walmart open while shutting down churches are clearly arbitrary , especially since churches have much less circulation of people within them .
And eventually , a challenge on First Amendment grounds would succeed because the cities and states imposing them are demonstrably using a less-intrusive manner of serving a legitimate state interest in Walmart than in First Pentecostal , even though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right in the latter .
The NYT then relates this to the overall argument in other states , including Minnesota : They pretty clearly discriminate against religious institutions , but the issue is that it ’ s an unconstitutional discrimination .
Laws discriminate all the time , but they are legitimate if they do so in an even-handed manner , especially when it comes to constitutional rights .
Those rules also discriminate against hair and nail salons and tattoo parlors , but that discrimination is based on non-arbitrary risk issues , and there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tattoo .
When infringing on constitutional rights for issues of public safety , states have to use the least intrusive method possible .
Allowing other businesses to operate more openly while still restricting churches provides evidence that lesser intrusive measures are available , which makes the harsher church restrictions flat-out unconstitutional .
Was this really the work of illiterate atheists ?
Or did someone else want to set up atheism as a villain by burning the church ?
We ’ ve seen hoaxes before in church fires and other kinds of “ hate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crimes too , so keep an open mind .
Be … agnostic for now , in other words .
Suffice it to say that the hysteria that has been whipped up in this pandemic makes this believable for the moment as a hate crime against Christians , especially those who argue for their constitutional rights against arbitrary government orders .
It ’ s about time that elected officials and judges start turning the dial down from 11 .
This time , no one got hurt .
The next time we might not be @ @ @

A Mississippi church at the center of a legal battle over the shutdown exploded and burned to the ground yesterday — and it doesn’t look like a coincidence. The pastor of First Pentecostal in Holly Springs has led protests to allow his congregation to gather once again in defiance of local COVID-19 shutdown orders, including one inside a Walmart to accuse officials of double standards. A local judge had rebuked the church for acting in “an excessively reckless and cavalier manner,” a ruling the church had planned to fight.
That fight has been indefinitely postponed, and apparently intentionally, as investigators suspect arson for the explosion and destruction of the church. So what was the first clue? Well, the spray-painted message on the building might qualify, albeit somewhat illiterate:
First Pentecostal Church had sued the city of Holly Springs, Miss., which is about an hour southeast of Memphis, arguing that its stay-at-home order had violated the church’s right to free speech and interfered with its members’ ability to worship. After firefighters put out the blaze early Wednesday, the police found a message, “Bet you stay home now you hypokrits,” spray-painted on the ground near the church’s doors, according to Maj. Kelly McMillen of the Marshall County Sheriff’s Department. A photograph of the graffiti also appears to show an atomic symbol with an “A” in the center, which is sometimes used as a logo for atheist groups.
Aren’t there two Ks in hypokrits? Actually, if the arsonists wanted to go after hypocrites, they (a) might have checked their dictionary first, but (b) watched the YouTube video produced by the church. The point was pretty well made, even if the judge didn’t buy the argument. Shutdown orders that keep Walmart open while shutting down churches are clearly arbitrary, especially since churches have much less circulation of people within them. And eventually, a challenge on First Amendment grounds would succeed because the cities and states imposing them are demonstrably using a less-intrusive manner of serving a legitimate state interest in Walmart than in First Pentecostal, even though they are infringing on an explicit constitutional right in the latter.
The NYT then relates this to the overall argument in other states, including Minnesota:
Arguments over whether religious services can be held in person have become increasingly contentious in recent weeks.
Some churches in Minnesota this week said they would resume services in defiance of the governor’s orders. That followed a federal judge’s ruling in North Carolina that allowed for indoor religious gatherings after the governor said they were largely banned. And five lawyers with the Justice Department said in a letter to California on Tuesday that the state’s restrictions to combat the virus discriminated against religious institutions.
They pretty clearly discriminate against religious institutions, but the issue is that it’s an unconstitutional discrimination. Laws discriminate all the time, but they are legitimate if they do so in an even-handed manner, especially when it comes to constitutional rights. Those rules also discriminate against hair and nail salons and tattoo parlors, but that discrimination is based on non-arbitrary risk issues, and there is no explicit constitutional right to a tattoo. When infringing on constitutional rights for issues of public safety, states have to use the least intrusive method possible. Allowing other businesses to operate more openly while still restricting churches provides evidence that lesser intrusive measures are available, which makes the harsher church restrictions flat-out unconstitutional.
Was this really the work of illiterate atheists? Or did someone else want to set up atheism as a villain by burning the church? We’ve seen hoaxes before in church fires and other kinds of “hate crimes,” as well as legit crimes too, so keep an open mind. Be … agnostic for now, in other words. Suffice it to say that the hysteria that has been whipped up in this pandemic makes this believable for the moment as a hate crime against Christians, especially those who argue for their constitutional rights against arbitrary government orders. It’s about time that elected officials and judges start turning the dial down from 11. This time, no one got hurt. The next time we might not be so lucky.


hotair--2020-05-22--Should we cut back the federally enhanced unemployment benefits?

Yesterday , when Ed discussed the prospects for another round of pandemic stimulus aid from Congress , he looked at the unlikely possibility of another round of federally enhanced unemployment benefits .
The Senate is obviously looking at the current mixture of good and bad news that we ’ re seeing this month while considering the question .
On the one hand , many states are allowing businesses to slowly open back up and recall at least some of their workers .
Also , new unemployment claims are still racking up , but the rate is slowing significantly .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ businesses remain closed and even the ones that are reopening are largely doing so at reduced capacity , so they probably can ’ t bring back all of their workers… at least not yet .
So it sounds like Mitch McConnell and the GOP majority are looking at ways to reduce the “ perverse incentives ” that Ed was talking about while not leaving too many people up the creek without a paddle .
( Associated Press ) After the Senate decided to take a “ pause ” on new pandemic proposals , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaving town for a weeklong Memorial Day break .
Republicans are staking out plans to phase out coronavirus-related unemployment benefits to encourage Americans to go back to work..
The Senate also began efforts to fast-track an extension of a popular small business lending program .
“ Republicans and the White House are reaching consensus on the need for redesigning the unemployment benefits so they are not a barrier to getting people back to work , ” Rep. Kevin Brady of Texas , the top Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Donald Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell huddled at the White House to discuss the issues .
The first thing to address are the aforementioned perverse incentives .
The most glaring examples of this are the people whose jobs are once again available , but they ’ re making more money from federally enhanced employment benefits than their jobs paid so they ’ re staying home for the time being .
If your job disappears because the government shut down your employer ’ s business and there are no other comparable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shut down , you are effectively unable to work .
This should obviously qualify you for unemployment benefits if you ’ ve been paying into the system .
But if your job is once again ready for you to return and you make the choice not to , you have shifted yourself from the category of being unable to work to a classification of being unwilling to work .
And in that scenario , public sympathy for your situation largely evaporates .
But just as rushing into huge new aid programs was bound @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quickly and without proper preparations will take us down a rocky path as well .
As Ed noted , the unemployment situation is slowly improving but it ’ s still pretty bad .
With that in mind , the Senate should probably be considering a modified program that incentivizes the largest number of people returning to work as can safely do so while still maintaining some level of support for those who honestly lost their jobs due to government decisions and have no option to return yet .
Yes , this makes it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be doable .
Step one should obviously be to put limits on the federal enhancements to unemployment benefits .
( Which should have been done in the original package , but Democrats blocked the effort . )
The total payments should never exceed the employee ’ s former pay .
In fact , the total should be somewhat less , perhaps maxing out at 90 % of their pay rate .
Plenty of companies who are managing to do business are asking their employees to take pay cuts currently .
This is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make sacrifices .
Each person applying for these benefits should be able to show that they did in fact lose their job because of the pandemic and that the employer is not currently hiring for their position .
The states should be able to verify this easily enough as part of the application process .
Any states unwilling to participate could be dropped out of the federal benefits enhancement program .
( And their elected officials would find themselves facing an angry mob if they failed to comply . )
Just taking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number of desirable effects .
The total amount of additional debt being run up in Washington would be reduced .
Employers would be more likely to get their former , experienced employees back on the job more reliably .
And as more people return to work , consumer confidence and demand would start returning to previous levels .
Of course , there will be political hurdles to overcome .
Too many of our liberal elected officials don ’ t really see high unemployment as that much of a problem .
The more people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for their continued survival , the more they will be willing to accept expansions of government power over their lives .
And , of course , Democrats will quickly begin screaming about “ heartless Republicans ” the moment anyone mentions trimming the unemployment benefits by a single penny .
But if Mitch McConnell and the rest of his colleagues communicate the reasons for these decisions clearly and avoid falling into any of Nancy Pelosi ’ s media traps , we could still get this done in an intelligent fashion .

Yesterday, when Ed discussed the prospects for another round of pandemic stimulus aid from Congress, he looked at the unlikely possibility of another round of federally enhanced unemployment benefits. The Senate is obviously looking at the current mixture of good and bad news that we’re seeing this month while considering the question. On the one hand, many states are allowing businesses to slowly open back up and recall at least some of their workers. Also, new unemployment claims are still racking up, but the rate is slowing significantly.
But at the same time, many nonessential businesses remain closed and even the ones that are reopening are largely doing so at reduced capacity, so they probably can’t bring back all of their workers… at least not yet. So it sounds like Mitch McConnell and the GOP majority are looking at ways to reduce the “perverse incentives” that Ed was talking about while not leaving too many people up the creek without a paddle. (Associated Press)
After the Senate decided to take a “pause” on new pandemic proposals, senators faced mounting pressure to act before leaving town for a weeklong Memorial Day break. Republicans are staking out plans to phase out coronavirus-related unemployment benefits to encourage Americans to go back to work.. The Senate also began efforts to fast-track an extension of a popular small business lending program. “Republicans and the White House are reaching consensus on the need for redesigning the unemployment benefits so they are not a barrier to getting people back to work,” Rep. Kevin Brady of Texas, the top Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee, told reporters on a conference call. President Donald Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell huddled at the White House to discuss the issues.
The first thing to address are the aforementioned perverse incentives. The most glaring examples of this are the people whose jobs are once again available, but they’re making more money from federally enhanced employment benefits than their jobs paid so they’re staying home for the time being.
If your job disappears because the government shut down your employer’s business and there are no other comparable jobs available because nearly everyone else is shut down, you are effectively unable to work. This should obviously qualify you for unemployment benefits if you’ve been paying into the system. But if your job is once again ready for you to return and you make the choice not to, you have shifted yourself from the category of being unable to work to a classification of being unwilling to work. And in that scenario, public sympathy for your situation largely evaporates.
But just as rushing into huge new aid programs was bound to produce problems, rushing out too quickly and without proper preparations will take us down a rocky path as well. As Ed noted, the unemployment situation is slowly improving but it’s still pretty bad. With that in mind, the Senate should probably be considering a modified program that incentivizes the largest number of people returning to work as can safely do so while still maintaining some level of support for those who honestly lost their jobs due to government decisions and have no option to return yet.
Yes, this makes it more complicated, but it should still be doable. Step one should obviously be to put limits on the federal enhancements to unemployment benefits. (Which should have been done in the original package, but Democrats blocked the effort.) The total payments should never exceed the employee’s former pay. In fact, the total should be somewhat less, perhaps maxing out at 90% of their pay rate. Plenty of companies who are managing to do business are asking their employees to take pay cuts currently. This is a period of crisis and everyone is having to make sacrifices.
Each person applying for these benefits should be able to show that they did in fact lose their job because of the pandemic and that the employer is not currently hiring for their position. The states should be able to verify this easily enough as part of the application process. Any states unwilling to participate could be dropped out of the federal benefits enhancement program. (And their elected officials would find themselves facing an angry mob if they failed to comply.)
Just taking those two steps would likely produce a number of desirable effects. The total amount of additional debt being run up in Washington would be reduced. Employers would be more likely to get their former, experienced employees back on the job more reliably. And as more people return to work, consumer confidence and demand would start returning to previous levels.
Of course, there will be political hurdles to overcome. Too many of our liberal elected officials don’t really see high unemployment as that much of a problem. The more people you have who depend on the government for their continued survival, the more they will be willing to accept expansions of government power over their lives. And, of course, Democrats will quickly begin screaming about “heartless Republicans” the moment anyone mentions trimming the unemployment benefits by a single penny. But if Mitch McConnell and the rest of his colleagues communicate the reasons for these decisions clearly and avoid falling into any of Nancy Pelosi’s media traps, we could still get this done in an intelligent fashion.


hotair--2020-05-23--Rapper Zuby: Here's what's wrong with what Joe Biden said about black people

I wrote about this topic yesterday because I was genuinely surprised that so many black progressives refused to give Joe Biden a pass on his “ you ain ’ t black ” comment .
Al Sharpton said no one should be doing that and most surprising to me was the reaction of Bernie Sanders ’ press secretary Briahna Joy Gray who argued that this was a form of identity politics which was basically racist in nature .
I didn ’ t really spend much time looking at the reaction from the right but earlier today a rapper named Zuby ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conservative views on a lot of issues , put up a thread which made some great points about why what Biden said is so offensive and the assumptions behind it .
He makes some great points about the way this charge ( “ you ain ’ t black ” ) is part of a long , hurtful history of black people being told they aren ’ t really black if they don ’ t toe a certain political line .
Joe Biden knows that , statistically speaking , he ’ s probably going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote .
And if he were asked about that he could simply say , “ I feel confident I ’ ll get the majority of the black vote.
” That ’ s still an assumption on his part but he could point to past elections and make the argument .
But what he actually did was engage in a kind of in-group social punishment .
As Briahna Joy Gray said , that form of identity politics is arguably racist from the outset .
Just because someone is black does not mean you know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Zuby is a perfect example of that .
But perhaps the worst part of this is that in order to issue this kind of statement , Biden had to assume a kind of honorary membership in a group he ’ s not really part of , something he did via his politics .
Then based on that he told people who are actually black that they don ’ t deserve to be part of the group .
In a sense , Joe Biden was saying : I ’ m politically black enough that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of you “ ain ’ t black.
” That ’ s just astoundingly arrogant , not to mention stupid .
If you watch the clip , it wasn ’ t really a reaction to anything the show ’ s host said .
Biden came up with that on his own .
Biden did apologize but it ’ s hard to imagine any conservative making a statement like this and not having the the term “ racist ” follow them around for the rest of their career .
So who is Zuby ?
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but he has a bunch of rap videos and has done interviews with a number of shows .
Here ’ s one he did last year with Sky News talking about hot button issues including trans women participating in women ’ s sports , reparations , cultural appropriation , etc .
He also discusses his background growing up in the UK and Saudi Arabia , going to Oxford to study computer science and becoming a professional rapper .
He ’ s an interesting guy and any American who would assume his politics based @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looking pretty foolish .

I wrote about this topic yesterday because I was genuinely surprised that so many black progressives refused to give Joe Biden a pass on his “you ain’t black” comment. Al Sharpton said no one should be doing that and most surprising to me was the reaction of Bernie Sanders’ press secretary Briahna Joy Gray who argued that this was a form of identity politics which was basically racist in nature.
I think it’s racist (and essentialist) to tie someone’s racial or cultural identity to their politics in any case. I disagree with Black Republicans and think they vote against our broadly shared racial interests, but they’re Black. Same with Black moderates. But they’re Black. https://t.co/avydXoIjHh — Briahna Joy Gray (@briebriejoy) May 22, 2020
I didn’t really spend much time looking at the reaction from the right but earlier today a rapper named Zuby (more about him below) who holds conservative views on a lot of issues, put up a thread which made some great points about why what Biden said is so offensive and the assumptions behind it. He makes some great points about the way this charge (“you ain’t black”) is part of a long, hurtful history of black people being told they aren’t really black if they don’t toe a certain political line.
Every black person is aware of the power and pain of being considered an 'outsider' within one's own 'race'. This happens everywhere, but it is a common phenomenon particularly amongst Black Americans, due to history and culture. (2/14) — ZUBY: (@ZubyMusic) May 23, 2020
ALL black conservatives, libertarians, centrists, or even moderate liberals have been on the receiving end of at least one of these slurs. Usually levied by another black person, but occasionally by a particularly bold 'woke white progressive' type. (4/14) — ZUBY: (@ZubyMusic) May 23, 2020
So, to be considered 'not black' is like being an outcast of a community that often already feels alienated… (6/14) — ZUBY: (@ZubyMusic) May 23, 2020
Most Black Americans don't have this SOLID sense of heritage. People (of all colours) know this and weaponise it against them to prevent individuals from stepping out of the 'groupthink'. Anyone who is perceived to go 'against' 'The Black Community' must be punished. (8/14) — ZUBY: (@ZubyMusic) May 23, 2020
So, when Biden suggested that 'you ain't Black' if you consider voting for Trump instead of him, he exposed a much deeper form of racism. The sense of 'ownership' of Black people. Unearned allegiance and entitlement. It was a vile statement… (10/14) — ZUBY: (@ZubyMusic) May 23, 2020
If you were born black, then you will die black. There is no such thing as being 'politically black'. This is nonsense designed to CONTROL you and keep you needy. NOBODY can take away your ‘Blackness’. Your ‘Black Card’ is your birthright. Regardless of who you vote for. (12/14) — ZUBY: (@ZubyMusic) May 23, 2020
That is all. I hope you enjoyed my TED talk. Much love. 👊🏾 Zuby #ImStillBlack (fin) — ZUBY: (@ZubyMusic) May 23, 2020
Joe Biden knows that, statistically speaking, he’s probably going to get the majority of the black vote. And if he were asked about that he could simply say, “I feel confident I’ll get the majority of the black vote.” That’s still an assumption on his part but he could point to past elections and make the argument. But what he actually did was engage in a kind of in-group social punishment. As Briahna Joy Gray said, that form of identity politics is arguably racist from the outset. Just because someone is black does not mean you know anything about them as an individual. Zuby is a perfect example of that.
But perhaps the worst part of this is that in order to issue this kind of statement, Biden had to assume a kind of honorary membership in a group he’s not really part of, something he did via his politics. Then based on that he told people who are actually black that they don’t deserve to be part of the group. In a sense, Joe Biden was saying: I’m politically black enough that I can say with confidence that some of you “ain’t black.” That’s just astoundingly arrogant, not to mention stupid. If you watch the clip, it wasn’t really a reaction to anything the show’s host said. Biden came up with that on his own. Biden did apologize but it’s hard to imagine any conservative making a statement like this and not having the the term “racist” follow them around for the rest of their career.
So who is Zuby? I’d never heard of him before but he has a bunch of rap videos and has done interviews with a number of shows. Here’s one he did last year with Sky News talking about hot button issues including trans women participating in women’s sports, reparations, cultural appropriation, etc. He also discusses his background growing up in the UK and Saudi Arabia, going to Oxford to study computer science and becoming a professional rapper. He’s an interesting guy and any American who would assume his politics based on his skin color would wind up looking pretty foolish.


hotair--2020-05-23--San Francisco approves tent cities for the homeless

When we previously discussed California ’ s program intended to move homeless people off the streets and into hotels , we learned that while they had indeed moved an impressive number of people indoors , it was still barely a drop in the bucket of the total homeless population .
Some areas were failing to fill even half of the rooms that had been paid for .
And even in the areas where the rooms were filling up quickly , there were still far too many homeless on the streets to accommodate them all .
With that in mind , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at other options .
Mayor London Breed finally authorized the establishment of tent cities to accommodate some of the homeless population while dealing with the pandemic .
She ’ s resisted such an idea ever since taking office , but at this point she apparently saw no other viable options .
One of the new tent encampments is located right outside of City Hall on a street that ’ s been blocked off for this purpose .
( Associated Press ) San Francisco is joining other U.S. cities in authorizing homeless tent encampments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a move officials have long resisted but are now reluctantly embracing to safeguard homeless people .
About 80 tents are now neatly spaced out on a wide street near San Francisco City Hall as part of a “ safe sleeping village ” opened last week .
The area between the city ’ s central library and its Asian Art Museum is fenced off to outsiders , monitored around the clock and provides meals , showers , clean water and trash pickup .
In announcing the encampment , and a second one to open @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Francisco ’ s mayor acknowledged that she didn ’ t want to approve tents , but having unregulated tents mushroom on sidewalks was neither safe nor fair .
Mayor Breed is catching some heat for waiting so long to take this action , but that ’ s understandable .
Setting up a bunch of tents on the streets isn ’ t an ideal solution for a variety of reasons .
She was looking for other options , attempting to work with both the state and federal governments , but nothing of the scope @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tent city is probably the best they could manage , at least for now .
We also shouldn ’ t make this out to be a total disaster .
They have the tent city set up with on-site security personnel to reduce possible crime and violence , things which regularly plague the homeless out on the streets .
There are showers and sinks to help people try to sanitize against the virus .
Drinking water and meals are also provided .
It ’ s not the same as a hotel room , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the conditions most of them were living in previously .
But as I already said , this is not a long term solution .
Hotels rooms are not a long term solution .
Cutting off the root causes of people winding up on the streets as much as is possible is the only true solution .
Not everyone will be able to return directly to a “ normal ” life , obviously , but some will if given the chance .
Those who are homeless because of mental health or addiction issues will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moved to appropriate care facilities .
None of that is easy and none of it is cheap .
But if the state government is serious about addressing this issue , that ’ s what ’ s got to be done eventually .
Otherwise this problem will only continue to grow .
The number of homeless in California is already estimated to be more than 150,000 and that represents an 18 % increase just since 2018 .
The system is already overwhelmed and there aren ’ t enough resources available to take care of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to grow , all of the issues associated with huge crowds of homeless people will expand as well .

When we previously discussed California’s program intended to move homeless people off the streets and into hotels, we learned that while they had indeed moved an impressive number of people indoors, it was still barely a drop in the bucket of the total homeless population. Some areas were failing to fill even half of the rooms that had been paid for. And even in the areas where the rooms were filling up quickly, there were still far too many homeless on the streets to accommodate them all.
With that in mind, San Francisco has been forced to look at other options. Mayor London Breed finally authorized the establishment of tent cities to accommodate some of the homeless population while dealing with the pandemic. She’s resisted such an idea ever since taking office, but at this point she apparently saw no other viable options. One of the new tent encampments is located right outside of City Hall on a street that’s been blocked off for this purpose. (Associated Press)
San Francisco is joining other U.S. cities in authorizing homeless tent encampments in response to the coronavirus pandemic, a move officials have long resisted but are now reluctantly embracing to safeguard homeless people. About 80 tents are now neatly spaced out on a wide street near San Francisco City Hall as part of a “safe sleeping village” opened last week. The area between the city’s central library and its Asian Art Museum is fenced off to outsiders, monitored around the clock and provides meals, showers, clean water and trash pickup. In announcing the encampment, and a second one to open in the famed Haight-Ashbury neighborhood, San Francisco’s mayor acknowledged that she didn’t want to approve tents, but having unregulated tents mushroom on sidewalks was neither safe nor fair.
Mayor Breed is catching some heat for waiting so long to take this action, but that’s understandable. Setting up a bunch of tents on the streets isn’t an ideal solution for a variety of reasons. She was looking for other options, attempting to work with both the state and federal governments, but nothing of the scope and scale required was available. This tent city is probably the best they could manage, at least for now.
We also shouldn’t make this out to be a total disaster. They have the tent city set up with on-site security personnel to reduce possible crime and violence, things which regularly plague the homeless out on the streets. There are showers and sinks to help people try to sanitize against the virus. Drinking water and meals are also provided. It’s not the same as a hotel room, but it’s a significant improvement over the conditions most of them were living in previously.
But as I already said, this is not a long term solution. Hotels rooms are not a long term solution. Cutting off the root causes of people winding up on the streets as much as is possible is the only true solution. Not everyone will be able to return directly to a “normal” life, obviously, but some will if given the chance. Those who are homeless because of mental health or addiction issues will need to be helped through recovery or moved to appropriate care facilities.
None of that is easy and none of it is cheap. But if the state government is serious about addressing this issue, that’s what’s got to be done eventually. Otherwise this problem will only continue to grow. The number of homeless in California is already estimated to be more than 150,000 and that represents an 18% increase just since 2018. The system is already overwhelmed and there aren’t enough resources available to take care of them all. As that number continues to grow, all of the issues associated with huge crowds of homeless people will expand as well.


hotair--2020-05-23--Candy company ditches the rainbow, goes gray for Pride Month

June is designated as LGBTQ Pride Month .
Rainbows are a symbol of the gay community .
So , what happens if a company uses rainbows in its advertising all year long and wants to do something different to recognize Pride Month ?
How about doing the opposite ?
That is what Mars Wrigley U.S. , the makers of Skittles has decided to do .
The candy with “ Taste the rainbow ” as its slogan is ditching the rainbow for the month and donating $ 1 to GLAAD for each bag purchased , up to $ 100,000 .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Only one rainbow matters during PRIDE.
” It just goes to show that no company , even a candy company , can risk being seen as not woke enough in its marketing campaigns .
This year marks the first time Skittles is going gray in the United States , though it has already been done in Canada , Germany , and the U.K .
In order to avoid the overkill of rainbows by other companies during the month of June , Skittles is launching a “ Give the rainbow ” campaign .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Skittles has gone in the opposite direction , removing the rainbow—in fact , removing color entirely—from its packaging for a Pride partnership with GLAAD .
The “ Give the Rainbow ” campaign plays on the concept that only one rainbow matters in June , and that ’ s the one that represents the diversity and visibility of the LGBTQ community .
This year , the special edition rainbow-less Skittles—colorless candies are packed inside the colorless branding—will be available for purchase in the U.S. for the first time , at CVS and select @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Give the Rainbow ” in Canada , Germany , and the U.K .
While the candies lack color , they don ’ t lack flavor .
The original five flavors of strawberry , orange , grape , green apple and lemon are all the same shade in the new packs .
It ’ s clever but won ’ t it be a little confusing for the consumer ?
How will they tell which Skittle is which flavor ?
Some of us eat them one at a time , you know .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Just a thought .
So , the advertising campaign is a collaboration with GLAAD ( Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation ) and the money will go towards its news and campaigns , according to the report .
“ We believe that giving up our rainbow means so much more than just removing the colors from our Skittles packs , ” said Hank Izzo , vp of marketing at Mars Wrigley U.S. in a statement , “ and we ’ re excited to do our part in making a difference for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , not only in June , but all year long.
” According to Open Secrets , the organization that tracks contributions to political candidates , Mars , Inc. does not make political contributions .
As of the 2016 presidential election , the company spent $ 1.7M on lobbying , and individuals have dedicated $ 36,166 in contributions to political candidates .
All political contributions were made by employees or Mars family members , not the company itself .
The top recipient of individual contributions was Hillary Clinton ( $ 14,884 ) .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 4471 ) and third was Bernie Sanders ( $ 3456 ) .
Donald Trump only received $ 114.00 in contributions .
Clearly , the employees and family members lean Democrat more so than Republican .
I ’ ll end with this little tidbit : Skittles are now made in the Chicago area but up until 2016 , they were made in Waco , Texas .
The company is very protective of its secret process .
My husband was once in the Waco plant and had to sign a confidentiality agreement to enter @

June is designated as LGBTQ Pride Month. Rainbows are a symbol of the gay community. So, what happens if a company uses rainbows in its advertising all year long and wants to do something different to recognize Pride Month? How about doing the opposite?
That is what Mars Wrigley U.S., the makers of Skittles has decided to do. The candy with “Taste the rainbow” as its slogan is ditching the rainbow for the month and donating $1 to GLAAD for each bag purchased, up to $100,000. The Skittles package is gray and states “Only one rainbow matters during PRIDE.”
During PRIDE only #OneRainbow matters. That’s why we have given up our rainbow to show support for the LGBTQ+ community! For every SKITTLES Pride Pack sold we are donating $1 to @glaad.🌈 pic.twitter.com/mecpWaVhzA — SKITTLES (@Skittles) May 20, 2020
It just goes to show that no company, even a candy company, can risk being seen as not woke enough in its marketing campaigns. This year marks the first time Skittles is going gray in the United States, though it has already been done in Canada, Germany, and the U.K. In order to avoid the overkill of rainbows by other companies during the month of June, Skittles is launching a “Give the rainbow” campaign.
So it’s a relief to see that Skittles has gone in the opposite direction, removing the rainbow—in fact, removing color entirely—from its packaging for a Pride partnership with GLAAD. The “Give the Rainbow” campaign plays on the concept that only one rainbow matters in June, and that’s the one that represents the diversity and visibility of the LGBTQ community. This year, the special edition rainbow-less Skittles—colorless candies are packed inside the colorless branding—will be available for purchase in the U.S. for the first time, at CVS and select Walmart stores. The brand previously launched “Give the Rainbow” in Canada, Germany, and the U.K. While the candies lack color, they don’t lack flavor. The original five flavors of strawberry, orange, grape, green apple and lemon are all the same shade in the new packs.
It’s clever but won’t it be a little confusing for the consumer? How will they tell which Skittle is which flavor? Some of us eat them one at a time, you know. I pick out the grape flavored ones first. Just a thought.
So, the advertising campaign is a collaboration with GLAAD (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) and the money will go towards its news and campaigns, according to the report.
“We believe that giving up our rainbow means so much more than just removing the colors from our Skittles packs,” said Hank Izzo, vp of marketing at Mars Wrigley U.S. in a statement, “and we’re excited to do our part in making a difference for the LGBTQ community through our partnership with GLAAD, not only in June, but all year long.”
According to Open Secrets, the organization that tracks contributions to political candidates, Mars, Inc. does not make political contributions. As of the 2016 presidential election, the company spent $1.7M on lobbying, and individuals have dedicated $36,166 in contributions to political candidates. All political contributions were made by employees or Mars family members, not the company itself. The top recipient of individual contributions was Hillary Clinton ($14,884). The second highest was Senator Ted Cruz ($4471) and third was Bernie Sanders ($3456). Donald Trump only received $114.00 in contributions. Clearly, the employees and family members lean Democrat more so than Republican.
I’ll end with this little tidbit: Skittles are now made in the Chicago area but up until 2016, they were made in Waco, Texas. The company is very protective of its secret process. My husband was once in the Waco plant and had to sign a confidentiality agreement to enter.


hotair--2020-05-23--Emotional North Dakota governor begs anti-maskers: Please drop the culture-war resistance and wear o

Emotional North Dakota governor begs anti-maskers: Please drop the culture-war resistance and wear one

Via WaPo , the supposed war over masks is overstated .
Read this if you missed it a few days ago for the latest numbers , and remember that even you-know-who donned one ( temporarily ) during his visit to the Ford plant in Michigan this week .
Two-thirds of Republicans say they ’ re wearing masks “ most of the time ” when they ’ re around other people .
But that one-third that ’ s holding out , they ’ re , uh… The strongest argument against mask-wearing is that there ’ s no hard proof that they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there ’ s plenty of evidence pointing that way and ( b ) it ’ s a minimal imposition with a potentially outsized impact on slowing down the epidemic .
But the culture-war objections don ’ t waste much time reckoning with efficacy .
They range from grumbling about “ showing weakness ” to half-baked theories about business owners violating people ’ s rights by demanding that they be worn on the premises .
In extreme cases , defiance can turn nihilistic and toxic — literally : Speaking of nihilism , although many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , no shoes , no mask , no service ” policy , a select few go the other way .
Their policy is “ no masks allowed ” : In the last few weeks a spate of American stores have made headlines after putting up signs telling customers who wear masks they will be denied entry .
On Thursday , Vice reported on a Kentucky convenience store that put up a sign reading : “ NO Face Masks allowed in store .
Lower your mask or go somewhere else .
Stop listening to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he ’ s a dumbass.
” Another sign was posted by a Californian construction store earlier this month encouraging hugs but not masks .
In Illinois , a gas station employee who put up a similar sign has since defended herself , arguing that mask-wearing made it hard to differentiate between adults and children when selling booze and cigarettes .
As far as I ’ m aware , there ’ s no major politician in either party who ’ s anti-mask .
Trump doesn ’ t want to wear one in public but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doing so .
Mitch McConnell has been seen wearing a mask recently , as has Ted Cruz .
Ivanka Trump wore one while touring a food distribution facility in Maryland a few weeks back .
To the extent that people in a position of influence are urging others to abandon masks , it ’ s local officials .
And even they ’ re rare , I ’ d guess .
Although they do exist : Here ’ s North Dakota Gov .
Doug Burgum , a Republican , pleading with the holdouts to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yesterday .
Also yesterday , the CDC estimated that 40 percent of coronavirus transmissions are happening before an infected person develops symptoms , when they have no clue that they might be spreading the virus .
The agency ’ s best guess is that fully a third of all infected people are asymptomatic .

Via WaPo, the supposed war over masks is overstated. Read this if you missed it a few days ago for the latest numbers, and remember that even you-know-who donned one (temporarily) during his visit to the Ford plant in Michigan this week. Two-thirds of Republicans say they’re wearing masks “most of the time” when they’re around other people.
But that one-third that’s holding out, they’re, uh…
They’re something.
Came across this clip in @FOX9 video from Monday's protest/rally outside Shady's Tavern in Albany, MN. This is @LouRaguse, a fellow Reporter & friend trying to cover the story. And getting *harassed* for wearing a mask. A judge will decide soon whether the bar can legally re-open pic.twitter.com/iHYXUvysow — Paul Blume (@PaulBlume_FOX9) May 22, 2020
The strongest argument against mask-wearing is that there’s no hard proof that they reduce transmission, although (a) there’s plenty of evidence pointing that way and (b) it’s a minimal imposition with a potentially outsized impact on slowing down the epidemic. But the culture-war objections don’t waste much time reckoning with efficacy. They range from grumbling about “showing weakness” to half-baked theories about business owners violating people’s rights by demanding that they be worn on the premises.
In extreme cases, defiance can turn nihilistic and toxic — literally:
https://twitter.com/AnandWrites/status/1263818537132531714
Speaking of nihilism, although many businesses now have a “no shirt, no shoes, no mask, no service” policy, a select few go the other way. Their policy is “no masks allowed”:
In the last few weeks a spate of American stores have made headlines after putting up signs telling customers who wear masks they will be denied entry. On Thursday, Vice reported on a Kentucky convenience store that put up a sign reading: “NO Face Masks allowed in store. Lower your mask or go somewhere else. Stop listening to [Kentucky governor Andy] Beshear, he’s a dumbass.” Another sign was posted by a Californian construction store earlier this month encouraging hugs but not masks. In Illinois, a gas station employee who put up a similar sign has since defended herself, arguing that mask-wearing made it hard to differentiate between adults and children when selling booze and cigarettes.
As far as I’m aware, there’s no major politician in either party who’s anti-mask. Trump doesn’t want to wear one in public but he’s not discouraging others from doing so. Mitch McConnell has been seen wearing a mask recently, as has Ted Cruz. Ivanka Trump wore one while touring a food distribution facility in Maryland a few weeks back. To the extent that people in a position of influence are urging others to abandon masks, it’s local officials. And even they’re rare, I’d guess. Although they do exist:
Absolutely bizarre. The Bexar County GOP chair concludes this rally by stating that the coronavirus is a hoax perpetuated by Democrats, tells people to take off their masks, and then everyone hugs each other. pic.twitter.com/1XOFeswMiO — Timothy Burke (@bubbaprog) May 22, 2020
Here’s North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum, a Republican, pleading with the holdouts to do the right thing in a speech yesterday. Also yesterday, the CDC estimated that 40 percent of coronavirus transmissions are happening before an infected person develops symptoms, when they have no clue that they might be spreading the virus. The agency’s best guess is that fully a third of all infected people are asymptomatic.