hotair--2020-06-14--The food unknown for our journey: Sunday reflection

Jesus said to the Jewish crowds : “ I am the living bread that came down from heaven ; whoever eats this bread will live forever ; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.
” The Jews quarreled among themselves , saying , “ How can this man give us his flesh to eat ?
” Jesus said to them , “ Amen , amen , I say to you , unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood , you do not have life @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and drinks my blood has eternal life , and I will raise him on the last day .
For my flesh is true food , and my blood is true drink .
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him .
Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father , so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me .
This is the bread that came down from heaven .
Unlike your ancestors who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this bread will live forever.
” This weekend , I will be spending much of my time at church doing photography for long-delayed First Communion celebrations .
I hope you will enjoy this reflection I wrote in 2014 on this same Gospel reading .
I ’ ll be back next week with a fresh reflection on Matthew 10:26-33 .
Have a blessed weekend !
Today the Catholic Church and other ecclesial communities celebrate the Feast of Corpus Christi , the commemoration of the Eucharist .
This puts the sacrifice of Jesus Christ in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as our commitment to faith in it to form and save us .
And that was true from the moment Jesus made this statement in Capernaum , where He went from the center of adoring crowds to all but abandoned in this core “ hard saying ” in the Gospel .
The change occurs with dramatic swiftness in the Gospel of John .
John 6 starts off with Jesus moving to the Sea of Galilee in Tiberias for one of the Passovers noted during His ministry .
By this time , word of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prophecies had prompted “ a multitude ” to follow him to Tiberias , waiting for Him to speak even though Jesus had gone up into the hills to sit with His disciples .
The crowd grew to five thousand who came without provisions , so desperate were they to hear Jesus speak .
The disciples fretted about whether to send them home , but Jesus performed the miracle of the loaves and fishes to feed them all .
Jesus left before they could proclaim his as an earthly king to Capernaum , on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so in the dark — not the easiest journey to make .
As soon as the crowd realized what had happened , though , they followed Jesus to Capernaum , and demanded to know why He had left .
Jesus explained that they still didn ’ t grasp that His ministry wasn ’ t about filling stomachs and seizing power , but in performing works that would instill faith and opening their hearts to the Word of God ( John 6:26-7 ) : Still uncomprehending , the crowds then demanded that Jesus explain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argued that Moses had given Israel manna as an example of his authority , but Jesus rebukes them , saying that the Father gave them manna , and that Jesus Himself was the “ bread of life ” given by the Father so that they might have eternal life .
At this , the locals began to object , as they had known Jesus as the son of the carpenter , not the Son of God .
After quieting their murmurs , Jesus has to explain even further , and spells it out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ manna in the wilderness , and they died , ” Jesus says just before today ’ s Gospel .
“ This is the bread which comes down from heaven , that a man may eat of it and not die.
” Rather than resort to the usual parables , Jesus goes even further into explicit detail about the need to eat and drink his flesh and blood to share in the life of the Father and Son in today ’ s Gospel reading .
At this , the once-adoring crowd that wanted to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for his teaching altogether .
It wasn ’ t just the casual crowds either , but “ many of his disciples drew back and no longer walked with him ” ( John 6:66 ) , after asking again whether Jesus meant what He said ( John 6:60 ) , which he affirms yet again .
The exodus is so dramatic that Jesus asks his twelve core disciples whether they ’ d like to head for the exits , too .
Peter responds , “ Lord , to whom shall we go ?
You @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What does this Gospel passage show ?
In one sense , it shows the futility of focusing on Jesus ’ teaching only for one ’ s own purposes , and for strictly material ambitions .
Jesus fed the multitude in Tiberias because they needed to be fed and they needed to see His works so that they would listen to His Word .
Instead , the crowd was happy enough to have their belly filled , and balked when called to take ownership for the sacrifice of Jesus in literal terms , offered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crowd in this case was focused on what Jesus would do for their own desires , and not in formation to the will of the Father through total surrender and obedience .
If that sounds familiar , it ’ s because it ’ s the same problem Moses confronted when Israel received manna from heaven .
In the first reading today ( Deuteronomy 8:2-3 , 14b-16a ) , Moses reminds the Israelites that God has sent them manna for the past 40 years not just to fill their bellies , but to test @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that “ not by bread alone does one live , but by every word that comes forth from the mouth of the Lord.
” God sent the “ stiff-necked people ” on a 40-year journey in the wilderness to form them into a nation that would “ keep His commandments.
” Jesus does the same here in Capernaum .
Like the Israelites under Moses , the Israelites of Jesus ’ time wanted deliverance on their own terms , someone who would bring the Kingdom of God to Jerusalem as a birthright .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this passage makes it clear that it won ’ t be that easy .
God ’ s people will be called to formation on a much more profound level by participation in the sacrifice that will save them , taking it into their bodies so that they are transformed into a saved people through Jesus that enter into the Kingdom of God .
Merely being the descendants of those who ate the first bread from heaven in the wilderness won ’ t cut it .
This is also our challenge , even apart @ @ @ @ @ @ @ challenges us to formation in the faith , not adaptation of the Word to suit our own wills , desires , and ambitions .
It takes us outside our own comfort zone , and does so purposefully .
The multitude on the slopes of Tiberias were happy to follow Jesus when it meant getting fed , and that was enough for some of them to proclaim Jesus their temporal lord and master .
When Jesus explained what they ’ d really need to eat in order to follow Him into salvation , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they chose their own wills , desires , and ambitions — and began looking for someone else who would pander to them .
This is one reason why I love the Eucharist , precisely because it is a “ hard saying ” and cuts against our grain in our worldly approach to life .
It parallels faith itself in its uncompromising nature .
Either one is all in or all out , and being all in means giving up one ’ s own agenda to the Lord ’ s .
By embracing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I surrender my own agenda and ask the Father to knit me more closely to His will , and to form myself ever more to open my heart to the Holy Spirit .
It ’ s my way of committing myself to being all in .
In doing so , as Paul writes in today ’ s second reading from 1 Corinthians 10:16-17 , “ we , though many , are one body , ” in Christ .
With the “ participation in the blood … [ and ] the body of Christ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in formation to Him , His Word , and His Church .
In other words , we can ’ t just be in it for the food .
Today ’ s picture is of Galilee looking toward Capernaum , from my own collection taken during our pilgrimage in 2013 .
“ Sunday Reflection ” is a regular feature , looking at the specific readings used in today ’ s Mass in Catholic parishes around the world .
The reflection represents only my own point of view , intended to help prepare myself for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spark a meaningful discussion .
Previous Sunday Reflections from the main page can be found here .

This morning’s Gospel reading is John 6:51–58:
Jesus said to the Jewish crowds: “I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.” The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”
This weekend, I will be spending much of my time at church doing photography for long-delayed First Communion celebrations. I hope you will enjoy this reflection I wrote in 2014 on this same Gospel reading. I’ll be back next week with a fresh reflection on Matthew 10:26-33. Have a blessed weekend!
Today the Catholic Church and other ecclesial communities celebrate the Feast of Corpus Christi, the commemoration of the Eucharist. This puts the sacrifice of Jesus Christ in stark relief for us, as well as our commitment to faith in it to form and save us. And that was true from the moment Jesus made this statement in Capernaum, where He went from the center of adoring crowds to all but abandoned in this core “hard saying” in the Gospel.
The change occurs with dramatic swiftness in the Gospel of John. John 6 starts off with Jesus moving to the Sea of Galilee in Tiberias for one of the Passovers noted during His ministry. By this time, word of Jesus’ preaching, healings, and prophecies had prompted “a multitude” to follow him to Tiberias, waiting for Him to speak even though Jesus had gone up into the hills to sit with His disciples. The crowd grew to five thousand who came without provisions, so desperate were they to hear Jesus speak. The disciples fretted about whether to send them home, but Jesus performed the miracle of the loaves and fishes to feed them all. Jesus left before they could proclaim his as an earthly king to Capernaum, on another shore in Galilee, and did so in the dark — not the easiest journey to make.
As soon as the crowd realized what had happened, though, they followed Jesus to Capernaum, and demanded to know why He had left. Jesus explained that they still didn’t grasp that His ministry wasn’t about filling stomachs and seizing power, but in performing works that would instill faith and opening their hearts to the Word of God (John 6:26-7):
“Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of man will give to you…”
Still uncomprehending, the crowds then demanded that Jesus explain further and explain His works. They argued that Moses had given Israel manna as an example of his authority, but Jesus rebukes them, saying that the Father gave them manna, and that Jesus Himself was the “bread of life” given by the Father so that they might have eternal life. At this, the locals began to object, as they had known Jesus as the son of the carpenter, not the Son of God. After quieting their murmurs, Jesus has to explain even further, and spells it out explicitly. “Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died,” Jesus says just before today’s Gospel. “This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die.” Rather than resort to the usual parables, Jesus goes even further into explicit detail about the need to eat and drink his flesh and blood to share in the life of the Father and Son in today’s Gospel reading.
At this, the once-adoring crowd that wanted to proclaim Jesus king suddenly loses their enthusiasm for his teaching altogether. It wasn’t just the casual crowds either, but “many of his disciples drew back and no longer walked with him” (John 6:66), after asking again whether Jesus meant what He said (John 6:60), which he affirms yet again. The exodus is so dramatic that Jesus asks his twelve core disciples whether they’d like to head for the exits, too. Peter responds, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of everlasting life.”
What does this Gospel passage show? In one sense, it shows the futility of focusing on Jesus’ teaching only for one’s own purposes, and for strictly material ambitions. Jesus fed the multitude in Tiberias because they needed to be fed and they needed to see His works so that they would listen to His Word. Instead, the crowd was happy enough to have their belly filled, and balked when called to take ownership for the sacrifice of Jesus in literal terms, offered repeatedly and explicitly by Jesus.
The crowd in this case was focused on what Jesus would do for their own desires, and not in formation to the will of the Father through total surrender and obedience. If that sounds familiar, it’s because it’s the same problem Moses confronted when Israel received manna from heaven. In the first reading today (Deuteronomy 8:2-3, 14b-16a), Moses reminds the Israelites that God has sent them manna for the past 40 years not just to fill their bellies, but to test them and see whether they would learn that “not by bread alone does one live, but by every word that comes forth from the mouth of the Lord.” God sent the “stiff-necked people” on a 40-year journey in the wilderness to form them into a nation that would “keep His commandments.”
Jesus does the same here in Capernaum. Like the Israelites under Moses, the Israelites of Jesus’ time wanted deliverance on their own terms, someone who would bring the Kingdom of God to Jerusalem as a birthright. The institution of the Eucharist by Jesus in this passage makes it clear that it won’t be that easy. God’s people will be called to formation on a much more profound level by participation in the sacrifice that will save them, taking it into their bodies so that they are transformed into a saved people through Jesus that enter into the Kingdom of God. Merely being the descendants of those who ate the first bread from heaven in the wilderness won’t cut it.
This is also our challenge, even apart from the Eucharist itself. The Gospel challenges us to formation in the faith, not adaptation of the Word to suit our own wills, desires, and ambitions. It takes us outside our own comfort zone, and does so purposefully. The multitude on the slopes of Tiberias were happy to follow Jesus when it meant getting fed, and that was enough for some of them to proclaim Jesus their temporal lord and master. When Jesus explained what they’d really need to eat in order to follow Him into salvation, and by consequence the nature of that salvation, they chose their own wills, desires, and ambitions — and began looking for someone else who would pander to them.
This is one reason why I love the Eucharist, precisely because it is a “hard saying” and cuts against our grain in our worldly approach to life. It parallels faith itself in its uncompromising nature. Either one is all in or all out, and being all in means giving up one’s own agenda to the Lord’s. By embracing the real presence in Corpus Christi, I surrender my own agenda and ask the Father to knit me more closely to His will, and to form myself ever more to open my heart to the Holy Spirit. It’s my way of committing myself to being all in.
In doing so, as Paul writes in today’s second reading from 1 Corinthians 10:16-17, “we, though many, are one body,” in Christ. With the “participation in the blood … [and] the body of Christ,” the new multitudes strengthen ourselves in formation to Him, His Word, and His Church. In other words, we can’t just be in it for the food.
Today’s picture is of Galilee looking toward Capernaum, from my own collection taken during our pilgrimage in 2013.
“Sunday Reflection” is a regular feature, looking at the specific readings used in today’s Mass in Catholic parishes around the world. The reflection represents only my own point of view, intended to help prepare myself for the Lord’s day and perhaps spark a meaningful discussion. Previous Sunday Reflections from the main page can be found here.


hotair--2020-06-14--The COVID push toward a cashless society aids the left's deplatforming efforts

Among the many changes that COVID-19 has ushered in as we slowly emerge into the “ new normal ” is a big shift away from using cash for normal transactions .
The rationale is that dirty money can literally be dirty and possibly carry the virus on it for some period of time .
We ’ re already seeing an increasing number of bars and restaurants either “ encouraging ” the use of plastic to make payments or refusing to accept cash entirely as they reopen .
Plenty of people have chosen to do this voluntarily as remote ordering and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lockdown .
But this shift in spending habits may be coming at an unexpected price .
As Peter Roff explains at Townhall , we may have taken for granted the anonymity that cash purchases provide on a daily basis .
Credit and debit card transactions leave a virtual paper trail for individuals , businesses and organizations .
And all of that data is available not only to the government , but also anyone who wants to purchase it or , in some cases , hacks it .
And once all of your spending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the deplatforming begin !
Americans should be concerned about the potential for the government , for banks , and for payments companies to infringe on their freedoms by preventing them from making legal purchases , barring them from platforms , or using their transaction history against them .
This may be one of the reasons cash continues to be the most frequent payment instrument .
It ’ s used in 30 percent of all transactions and more than half of transactions under $ 10 .
Those numbers are likely to drop as more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policies .
Some retailers , sports stadiums , restaurants , and other businesses now refuse to accept cash – and the number of them who do not is growing at an alarming rate .
This all impacts consumer freedom of choice .
Even absent the pressure from the government , payment providers like PayPal have unilaterally closed the accounts of organizations because of complaints about their political leanings .
As Roff goes on to explain , it ’ s not just PayPal that is shutting down people ’ s access to online transactions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Stripe , and Apple Pay forbid their services to be used to purchase firearms .
We ’ re also reminded of Operation Choke Point , the Obama Administration ’ s program intended to pressure banks to not do business with companies engaging in perfectly legal but “ problematic ” activities such as payday lenders and firearms dealers .
But as I mentioned at the top , it ’ s not just the government looking over your shoulder that you need to be worried about .
Big Data collects all sorts of information @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it off to whoever can afford it .
They are also susceptible to hacking , as has already been seen in the past .
It ’ s not hard to imagine activist groups getting their hands on lists of people who join the NRA , donate to Christian conservative causes or subscribe to conservative publications .
At that point , the doxxing and deplatforming can begin in earnest .
Roff also points out that these types of tracking practices are already in use in China , where cash is quickly becoming a thing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and can be applied to your “ Social Credit ” score , impacting where and how you are able to travel , shop or do most anything else .
A glimpse at that sort of dystopian future playing out in real-time should be enough to give anyone pause .
Is that the sort of America we ’ re going to be living in from now on ?
If that ’ s the game , I ’ m not sure I want to keep playing .
Of course , there may not be any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
At least according to the New York Post , the world is probably going to end next week anyway .
Those crafty Mayans may have been right all along .

Among the many changes that COVID-19 has ushered in as we slowly emerge into the “new normal” is a big shift away from using cash for normal transactions. The rationale is that dirty money can literally be dirty and possibly carry the virus on it for some period of time. We’re already seeing an increasing number of bars and restaurants either “encouraging” the use of plastic to make payments or refusing to accept cash entirely as they reopen. Plenty of people have chosen to do this voluntarily as remote ordering and delivery became far more popular during the lockdown.
But this shift in spending habits may be coming at an unexpected price. As Peter Roff explains at Townhall, we may have taken for granted the anonymity that cash purchases provide on a daily basis. Credit and debit card transactions leave a virtual paper trail for individuals, businesses and organizations. And all of that data is available not only to the government, but also anyone who wants to purchase it or, in some cases, hacks it. And once all of your spending habits are available for inspection, let the deplatforming begin!
Americans should be concerned about the potential for the government, for banks, and for payments companies to infringe on their freedoms by preventing them from making legal purchases, barring them from platforms, or using their transaction history against them. This may be one of the reasons cash continues to be the most frequent payment instrument. It’s used in 30 percent of all transactions and more than half of transactions under $10. Those numbers are likely to drop as more and more vendors are adopting cashless transaction policies. Some retailers, sports stadiums, restaurants, and other businesses now refuse to accept cash – and the number of them who do not is growing at an alarming rate. This all impacts consumer freedom of choice. Even absent the pressure from the government, payment providers like PayPal have unilaterally closed the accounts of organizations because of complaints about their political leanings.
As Roff goes on to explain, it’s not just PayPal that is shutting down people’s access to online transactions based on their political speech. Square, Stripe, and Apple Pay forbid their services to be used to purchase firearms. We’re also reminded of Operation Choke Point, the Obama Administration’s program intended to pressure banks to not do business with companies engaging in perfectly legal but “problematic” activities such as payday lenders and firearms dealers.
But as I mentioned at the top, it’s not just the government looking over your shoulder that you need to be worried about. Big Data collects all sorts of information about your spending habits and they sell it off to whoever can afford it. They are also susceptible to hacking, as has already been seen in the past. It’s not hard to imagine activist groups getting their hands on lists of people who join the NRA, donate to Christian conservative causes or subscribe to conservative publications. At that point, the doxxing and deplatforming can begin in earnest.
Roff also points out that these types of tracking practices are already in use in China, where cash is quickly becoming a thing of the past. Purchases are monitored and can be applied to your “Social Credit” score, impacting where and how you are able to travel, shop or do most anything else. A glimpse at that sort of dystopian future playing out in real-time should be enough to give anyone pause. Is that the sort of America we’re going to be living in from now on? If that’s the game, I’m not sure I want to keep playing.
Of course, there may not be any reason to worry about any of this. At least according to the New York Post, the world is probably going to end next week anyway. Those crafty Mayans may have been right all along.
https://twitter.com/nypost/status/1271843667200835584
Have a great day!


hotair--2020-06-14--Kim Jong-un's sister is flexing her muscle

Remember all of that hopeful talk about a potential reunification of the Korean peninsula in conjunction with the disarmament negotiations between Washington and Pyongyang ?
Yeah… it looks like that ’ s probably not a thing anymore .
In what will surely spark yet another round of speculation about what ’ s going on inside of Kim Jong-un ’ s government , his sister , Kim Yo Jong , has apparently been handed the responsibility for their country ’ s negotiations with Soth Korean President Moon Jae-in .
So what was her first move in that delicate diplomatic dance ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ military action against them .
It ’ s the classic iron fist in a velvet glove approach , only without the glove .
( Associated Press ) The powerful sister of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un threatened military action against South Korea as she bashed Seoul on Saturday over declining bilateral relations and its inability to stop activists from floating anti-Pyongyang leaflets across the border .
Describing South Korea as an “ enemy , ” Kim Yo Jong repeated an earlier threat she had made by saying Seoul will soon witness the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ liaison office in the border town of Kaesong .
Kim , who is first vice department director of the ruling Workers ’ Party ’ s Central Committee , said she would leave it to North Korea ’ s military leaders to carry out the next step of retaliation against the South .
When the major complaint you can come up with as an excuse for threatening military action is pamphlets blowing across the border , you probably weren ’ t all that serious about a peace deal to begin with .
Of course @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reverting back to the conditions we were accustomed to in the pre-Trump negotiations era , North Korea always threatens military action against somebody , but they don ’ t deliver on it .
Looked at in that context , it ’ s a fairly safe bet that this is just the usual saber-rattling that always comes out of Pyongyang .
The real difference here is who is issuing the threats .
It ’ s long been known that Kim ’ s sister was one of his more influential advisers , but she ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Now her brother has appointed her as second in command of the Workers ’ Party ’ s Central Committee and put her in charge of negotiating with the South .
That puts her much more in the spotlight and establishes her position in any potential line of succession should the need arise .
It ’ s a good bet that Kim Jong-un is doing this precisely for that reason .
Rumor ’ s about the dictator ’ s poor health continue to swirl and the order of succession remains one of the big @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being old enough to take power , the dictator ’ s sister might not have been accepted as a legitimate ruler by some of the country ’ s warlords if he were to suddenly die or disappear .
( They ’ re generally not used to any sort of matriarchal power structure . )
And a power vacuum could lead to the sort of internecine battles that could implode and totally destabilize the nation .
It ’ s possible that Kim Jong-un is promoting his sister ’ s involvement in leadership as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ idea of a woman in a position of power and settle the issue of succession .
South Korea is taking a very passive role in these recent developments .
Moon Jae-in has already promised to prosecute the North Korean defectors who are sending pamphlets over the border , but neither Kim nor his sister seems to be in a mood to listen .
The other possibility to consider is that this is all an effort to put pressure on President Trump to serve up some major concessions .
Good luck with that , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ respond well to threats , and I don ’ t expect him to cave to this maneuver .

Remember all of that hopeful talk about a potential reunification of the Korean peninsula in conjunction with the disarmament negotiations between Washington and Pyongyang? Yeah… it looks like that’s probably not a thing anymore. In what will surely spark yet another round of speculation about what’s going on inside of Kim Jong-un’s government, his sister, Kim Yo Jong, has apparently been handed the responsibility for their country’s negotiations with Soth Korean President Moon Jae-in. So what was her first move in that delicate diplomatic dance? She canceled the daily briefings and threatened military action against them. It’s the classic iron fist in a velvet glove approach, only without the glove. (Associated Press)
The powerful sister of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un threatened military action against South Korea as she bashed Seoul on Saturday over declining bilateral relations and its inability to stop activists from floating anti-Pyongyang leaflets across the border. Describing South Korea as an “enemy,” Kim Yo Jong repeated an earlier threat she had made by saying Seoul will soon witness the collapse of a “useless” inter-Korean liaison office in the border town of Kaesong. Kim, who is first vice department director of the ruling Workers’ Party’s Central Committee, said she would leave it to North Korea’s military leaders to carry out the next step of retaliation against the South.
When the major complaint you can come up with as an excuse for threatening military action is pamphlets blowing across the border, you probably weren’t all that serious about a peace deal to begin with. Of course, even if we’re completely reverting back to the conditions we were accustomed to in the pre-Trump negotiations era, North Korea always threatens military action against somebody, but they don’t deliver on it. Looked at in that context, it’s a fairly safe bet that this is just the usual saber-rattling that always comes out of Pyongyang.
The real difference here is who is issuing the threats. It’s long been known that Kim’s sister was one of his more influential advisers, but she’s traditionally remained in the background. Now her brother has appointed her as second in command of the Workers’ Party’s Central Committee and put her in charge of negotiating with the South. That puts her much more in the spotlight and establishes her position in any potential line of succession should the need arise.
It’s a good bet that Kim Jong-un is doing this precisely for that reason. Rumor’s about the dictator’s poor health continue to swirl and the order of succession remains one of the big questions. With none of his children being old enough to take power, the dictator’s sister might not have been accepted as a legitimate ruler by some of the country’s warlords if he were to suddenly die or disappear. (They’re generally not used to any sort of matriarchal power structure.) And a power vacuum could lead to the sort of internecine battles that could implode and totally destabilize the nation. It’s possible that Kim Jong-un is promoting his sister’s involvement in leadership as a way of getting everyone used to the idea of a woman in a position of power and settle the issue of succession.
South Korea is taking a very passive role in these recent developments. Moon Jae-in has already promised to prosecute the North Korean defectors who are sending pamphlets over the border, but neither Kim nor his sister seems to be in a mood to listen. The other possibility to consider is that this is all an effort to put pressure on President Trump to serve up some major concessions. Good luck with that, though. Trump typically doesn’t respond well to threats, and I don’t expect him to cave to this maneuver.


hotair--2020-06-14--Sunday morning talking heads

Sunday morning talking heads

Police reform is the topic of the hour on the Sunday shows as nationwide protests over the killing of George Floyd stretch towards the start of their fourth week .
The star guest is Sen. Tim Scott , lead author of the Republican bill that stands the best chance of passing the Senate .
He wants to incentivize local PDs to be more transparent about bad behavior by officers in the expectation that that ’ ll produce less of that behavior in the long run .
That ’ s a more conservative approach to reform than the sort of mandates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ himself explained the gap between the two parties on the subject this way : He later added , “ I think we both have the desire to see the chokehold used infinitely less .
We take two different paths to get there , but that ’ s one area .
I think the duty to intervene is something that we have in our legislation .
Watching the three officers stand there while the other one was on Mr. Floyd ’ s neck , that ’ s something that we should work on .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that deals with data and training , both really important parts .
When I look at the House bill , there ’ s a lot around de-escalation training .
It ’ s in our legislation as well .
Use of force boards , that ’ s a part of our bill .
We do it differently .
We want to study it before we move into it .
They want to move it — quickly into it .
I think it ’ s important for us to have that conversation .
But when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beginning point in legislation , that means there ’ s a really good chance that something good will come out of it.
” Scott continued , “ We ’ re distances away on the qualified immunity .
That is something that there are members of my conference that want to have that conversation .
That ’ s the minority of my conference .
I would say that the majority of their conference wants to have a conversation around qualified immunity .
How we deal with the no-knocks is a place where we both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have two different ways — two different approaches to dealing with it.
” Scott further stated that there needs to be more information on how no-knock warrants are used .
It ’ s hard to believe that ending qualified immunity for cops will end up in the final legislation when Trump has already ruled it out .
Republicans won ’ t want to have an intraparty spat over that if there aren ’ t 67 votes in the Senate to override a presidential veto , and there probably aren ’ t .
( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ qualified immunity on its own but the time horizon on that is longer . )
Scott will be on “ Meet the Press ” and “ Face the Nation ” to discuss areas of possible compromise with Democrats and to recall his own experiences of being viewed suspiciously by police because he ’ s black .
He may also have a word or two for some of his critics on the left , black and white alike , who have treated him as a Republican “ token ” this week : “ If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the other side , be careful on what you have in your own heart , ” he said of those detractors on Wednesday .
Oh , and he ’ ll certainly be asked about Trump ’ s resistance to renaming military bases that are currently named after Confederates .
As of two days ago Scott was neutral on that .
Has he shifted ?
Another guest of note this morning is Seattle police chief Carmen Best , who ’ s unhappy with the atrocious leadership in her city that allowed a group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the heart of the capitol hill district .
She ’ ll follow Scott on “ Face the Nation ” to discuss whether it ’ s time to liberate the CHAZ or to let the “ summer of love ” play out unimpeded as innocent people are menaced and extorted inside .
Elsewhere , Oklahoma Sen. James Lankford will be on “ This Week ” and “ State of the Union ” to share his own thoughts on police reform as well as the prospect of the president holding a massive rally indoors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ news is that the city hasn ’ t been hit hard by COVID-19 yet .
The bad news is that the trend lately … isn ’ t great : Finally , Stacey Abrams will be on “ This Week ” to make one last desperate attempt to convince Biden to nominate her for vice president even though reportedly she hasn ’ t been contacted by his vetting team .
The full line-up is at the AP .

Police reform is the topic of the hour on the Sunday shows as nationwide protests over the killing of George Floyd stretch towards the start of their fourth week. The star guest is Sen. Tim Scott, lead author of the Republican bill that stands the best chance of passing the Senate. He wants to incentivize local PDs to be more transparent about bad behavior by officers in the expectation that that’ll produce less of that behavior in the long run. That’s a more conservative approach to reform than the sort of mandates and regulations Democrats are eyeing. Scott himself explained the gap between the two parties on the subject this way:
He later added, “I think we both have the desire to see the chokehold used infinitely less. We take two different paths to get there, but that’s one area. I think the duty to intervene is something that we have in our legislation. Watching the three officers stand there while the other one was on Mr. Floyd’s neck, that’s something that we should work on. There’s another part of it that deals with data and training, both really important parts. When I look at the House bill, there’s a lot around de-escalation training. It’s in our legislation as well. Use of force boards, that’s a part of our bill. We do it differently. We want to study it before we move into it. They want to move it — quickly into it. I think it’s important for us to have that conversation. But when you’re that close from a beginning point in legislation, that means there’s a really good chance that something good will come out of it.” Scott continued, “We’re distances away on the qualified immunity. That is something that there are members of my conference that want to have that conversation. That’s the minority of my conference. I would say that the majority of their conference wants to have a conversation around qualified immunity. How we deal with the no-knocks is a place where we both want to deal with it. We have two different ways — two different approaches to dealing with it.” Scott further stated that there needs to be more information on how no-knock warrants are used.
It’s hard to believe that ending qualified immunity for cops will end up in the final legislation when Trump has already ruled it out. Republicans won’t want to have an intraparty spat over that if there aren’t 67 votes in the Senate to override a presidential veto, and there probably aren’t. (The Supreme Court might end up tackling qualified immunity on its own but the time horizon on that is longer.) Scott will be on “Meet the Press” and “Face the Nation” to discuss areas of possible compromise with Democrats and to recall his own experiences of being viewed suspiciously by police because he’s black. He may also have a word or two for some of his critics on the left, black and white alike, who have treated him as a Republican “token” this week: “If you want us to root out racism on the other side, be careful on what you have in your own heart,” he said of those detractors on Wednesday. Oh, and he’ll certainly be asked about Trump’s resistance to renaming military bases that are currently named after Confederates. As of two days ago Scott was neutral on that. Has he shifted?
Another guest of note this morning is Seattle police chief Carmen Best, who’s unhappy with the atrocious leadership in her city that allowed a group of hippies to declare their own mini-state in the heart of the capitol hill district. She’ll follow Scott on “Face the Nation” to discuss whether it’s time to liberate the CHAZ or to let the “summer of love” play out unimpeded as innocent people are menaced and extorted inside. Elsewhere, Oklahoma Sen. James Lankford will be on “This Week” and “State of the Union” to share his own thoughts on police reform as well as the prospect of the president holding a massive rally indoors in Tulsa next week. The good news is that the city hasn’t been hit hard by COVID-19 yet. The bad news is that the trend lately … isn’t great:
Finally, Stacey Abrams will be on “This Week” to make one last desperate attempt to convince Biden to nominate her for vice president even though reportedly she hasn’t been contacted by his vetting team. The full line-up is at the AP.


hotair--2020-06-15--Tim Scott: No one will dismantle qualified immunity, either

How do we reform policing on a national level , given that the authority and jurisdiction for policing exists exclusively at the local level ?
Senator Tim Scott ( R-SC ) told CBS ’ Margaret Brennan on Face the Nation yesterday that there are several options for Congress to facilitate reform .
The one national policy that would increase accountability , however , is off the table for change , Scott says .
“ If we can drill into officer misconduct , ” Scott says , that will greatly improve policing and confidence in the communities it serves .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal legal status conferred on policing by the courts rather than Congress ?
That would be a “ poison pill ” in the Senate , Scott declared : MARGARET BRENNAN : Officer misconduct .
You ’ ve been talking about having information sharing when it comes to hiring .
But what about the firing ?
Democrats in particular emphasize that reducing qualified immunity , making it easier to fire bad cops needs to be in legislation .
Are you open to that ?
SEN. SCOTT : Well , there are two ways that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Republican perspective and the president sent the signal that qualified immunity is off the table .
They see that as a poison pill on our side .
We could use a decertification of officer , except for the law enforcement unions , say that ’ s a poison pill .
So we ’ re going to have to find a path that helps us reduce misconduct within the officers .
But at the same time , we know that any poison pill in legislation means we get nothing done .
That sends @ @ @ @ @ @ @ signal right now in America .
I think we ’ re going to have legislation that can be negotiated that gets us to the place where something becomes law that actually makes a difference .
That ’ s got to be our goal .
MARGARET BRENNAN : To be clear , you personally would be open to reducing immunity , but not removing it completely ?
SEN. SCOTT : No , I think there ’ s a way for us to deal with it .
Decertification would be a path that I would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a path that has got a roadblock because I don ’ t have the votes on the other side to- to make that into law .
If we do it right , I think we can reduce the number of times that we ’ re dealing with misconduct on the police departments .
If we don ’ t do it right , then we ’ ll have the same situation where there is no law .
We can do better than that as a nation , and we will .
Getting rid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pill , but why should Congress not act to restrict it ?
In this , Congress is about 50 years late in coming to the table .
The doctrine of qualified immunity comes not from law but from judicial fiat , imposed by the Supreme Court in 1967 ’ s Pierson v Ray for entirely rational reasons .
The need to protect society raises the vulnerability of police and other officials to lawsuits stemming from the proper execution of their jobs — and since Congress never saw fit to address this , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them .
A change from a good-faith to reasonable-person standard in 1982 ’ s Harlow v Fitzgerald arguably shifted the burden of proof to the plaintiffs and made it more difficult for lawsuits to succeed .
In fact , it seems it has made them impossible outside of a criminal conviction , or when political pressure gets high enough to force a deal , such as with the Philando Castile shooting in the Twin Cities .
Perhaps this is the best tailoring we can get for balancing the need to defend police in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rights of citizens to demand accountability for injustice , but … shouldn ’ t Congress at least ask ?
We do need a mechanism to block frivolous and malicious lawsuits from tying up law enforcement , but we need to have better reach into real police misconduct , too .
That ’ s something Congress should tackle directly , and unlike everything else Scott has in mind , it ’ s an issue that falls directly within Congress ’ authority .
The rest of the reforms Scott discusses are fine and mostly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ better training , and adding and standardizing reporting requirements for all law enforcement agencies .
All of that will provide better information , but it doesn ’ t really provide accountability for abuses .
Only reforming qualified immunity will do that — on a federal level .
This just serves as a reminder that the only real accountability for police misconduct comes at the local level — and aimed at the city and county governments that run these police and sheriff ’ s offices .
Scott ’ s proposal will give us plenty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take place locally .
It ’ s long past time that America ’ s major cities rethink the progressives ’ grip on their institutions and give others a chance to see if they can do better .
At the very least , they would have a more adversarial relationship with the unions in cities , which might force more changes and real reform .
Addendum : The Supreme Court punted on it today , too : The Supreme Court declined on Monday to take a closer look at a legal doctrine it created @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is shielding law enforcement and government officials from accountability .
… Under the doctrine , an officer will not be liable even if he violated the Constitution unless it was “ clearly established ” by prior cases that his conduct was unconstitutional .
That requires a high bar and makes it difficult to win unless the situation is similar to a prior case with nearly identical facts .
In some cases with unique fact patterns , of which there are many , officers have been granted immunity even if they have been found @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Constitution .
The proper forum for this issue is Congress .
One has to suspect that the Supreme Court has belatedly recognized this as well .
If Congress doesn ’ t take it up , then it ’ s simply not serious about reform .

How do we reform policing on a national level, given that the authority and jurisdiction for policing exists exclusively at the local level? Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) told CBS’ Margaret Brennan on Face the Nation yesterday that there are several options for Congress to facilitate reform. The one national policy that would increase accountability, however, is off the table for change, Scott says.
“If we can drill into officer misconduct,” Scott says, that will greatly improve policing and confidence in the communities it serves. So why not address qualified immunity, a federal legal status conferred on policing by the courts rather than Congress? That would be a “poison pill” in the Senate, Scott declared:
MARGARET BRENNAN: Officer misconduct. You’ve been talking about having information sharing when it comes to hiring. But what about the firing? Democrats in particular emphasize that reducing qualified immunity, making it easier to fire bad cops needs to be in legislation. Are you open to that? SEN. SCOTT: Well, there are two ways that you could deal with that from- from the Republican perspective and the president sent the signal that qualified immunity is off the table. They see that as a poison pill on our side. We could use a decertification of officer, except for the law enforcement unions, say that’s a poison pill. So we’re going to have to find a path that helps us reduce misconduct within the officers. But at the same time, we know that any poison pill in legislation means we get nothing done. That sends the wrong signal, perhaps the worst signal right now in America. I think we’re going to have legislation that can be negotiated that gets us to the place where something becomes law that actually makes a difference. That’s got to be our goal. MARGARET BRENNAN: To be clear, you personally would be open to reducing immunity, but not removing it completely? SEN. SCOTT: No, I think there’s a way for us to deal with it. Decertification would be a path that I would be interested in looking at. That is a path that has got a roadblock because I don’t have the votes on the other side to- to make that into law. If we do it right, I think we can reduce the number of times that we’re dealing with misconduct on the police departments. If we don’t do it right, then we’ll have the same situation where there is no law. We can do better than that as a nation, and we will.
Getting rid of qualified immunity might be a poison pill, but why should Congress not act to restrict it? In this, Congress is about 50 years late in coming to the table. The doctrine of qualified immunity comes not from law but from judicial fiat, imposed by the Supreme Court in 1967’s Pierson v Ray for entirely rational reasons. The need to protect society raises the vulnerability of police and other officials to lawsuits stemming from the proper execution of their jobs — and since Congress never saw fit to address this, the Supreme Court decided to do it for them. A change from a good-faith to reasonable-person standard in 1982’s Harlow v Fitzgerald arguably shifted the burden of proof to the plaintiffs and made it more difficult for lawsuits to succeed. In fact, it seems it has made them impossible outside of a criminal conviction, or when political pressure gets high enough to force a deal, such as with the Philando Castile shooting in the Twin Cities.
Perhaps this is the best tailoring we can get for balancing the need to defend police in the proper exercise of their duty and the rights of citizens to demand accountability for injustice, but … shouldn’t Congress at least ask? We do need a mechanism to block frivolous and malicious lawsuits from tying up law enforcement, but we need to have better reach into real police misconduct, too. That’s something Congress should tackle directly, and unlike everything else Scott has in mind, it’s an issue that falls directly within Congress’ authority. The rest of the reforms Scott discusses are fine and mostly unremarkable — developing best-practice guidelines, providing better training, and adding and standardizing reporting requirements for all law enforcement agencies. All of that will provide better information, but it doesn’t really provide accountability for abuses. Only reforming qualified immunity will do that — on a federal level.
This just serves as a reminder that the only real accountability for police misconduct comes at the local level — and aimed at the city and county governments that run these police and sheriff’s offices. Scott’s proposal will give us plenty of data, but action has to take place locally. It’s long past time that America’s major cities rethink the progressives’ grip on their institutions and give others a chance to see if they can do better. At the very least, they would have a more adversarial relationship with the unions in cities, which might force more changes and real reform.
Addendum: The Supreme Court punted on it today, too:
The Supreme Court declined on Monday to take a closer look at a legal doctrine it created nearly 40 years ago that critics say is shielding law enforcement and government officials from accountability. … Under the doctrine, an officer will not be liable even if he violated the Constitution unless it was “clearly established” by prior cases that his conduct was unconstitutional. That requires a high bar and makes it difficult to win unless the situation is similar to a prior case with nearly identical facts. In some cases with unique fact patterns, of which there are many, officers have been granted immunity even if they have been found to have acted in violation of the Constitution.
The proper forum for this issue is Congress. One has to suspect that the Supreme Court has belatedly recognized this as well. If Congress doesn’t take it up, then it’s simply not serious about reform.


hotair--2020-06-15--Top eBay executives sent live insects, a Halloween mask and threatening messages to critical blogger

Top eBay executives sent live insects, a Halloween mask and threatening messages to critical bloggers

It really is astounding what thin skin some powerful people have .
Today we ’ re learning that six former eBay executives are facing federal charges over a campaign of harassment targeting the authors of a blog about e-commerce companies based in Massachusetts .
The site had been critical of eBay and in response these top executives decided they were going to harass the couple who published it .
What they resorted to sounds like something out of a Hollywood thriller : Six former eBay Inc. employees have been charged with waging an extensive campaign to terrorize and intimidate the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with threats and disturbing deliveries to their home , including live spiders and cockroaches , federal authorities said Monday .
Executives were upset about the newsletter ’ s coverage , so their employees set out to ruin the lives of the couple who ran the website , sending a funeral wreath , bloody pig face Halloween mask and other alarming items to their home , authorities said .
The employees also sent pornographic magazines with the husband ’ s name on it to their neighbor ’ s house and planned to break into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a GPS device on their car , officials said… In addition to the disturbing deliveries , the employees set up fake social media accounts to send threatening messages to the couple , authorities said .
After the bloody pig mask was delivered , the editor received a message saying : “ DO I HAVE UR ATTENTION NOW ?
?
?
?
, ” according to court documents .
They also posted the couple ’ s names and address online , advertising things like yard sales and encouraging strangers to knock on the door @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Actually , the part about encouraging strangers to show up at the couple ’ s home is worse than the AP makes it sound .
On August 18 just after midnight , the eBay employees allegedly posted a classified ad on Craigslist claiming to be from the Natick couple inviting “ singles , couples and swingers ” to their house to party after 10 p.m. every night .
“ People were encouraged to knock on the couple ’ s door , anytime day or night , ” said Lelling .
Brian Gilbert , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s global security team , even tried to contact the couple sympathetically as all of this was happening in order to present a sympathetic face for the company .
He apparently hope that would result in more positive coverage from the couple ’ s blog .
He is one of the six who have now been charged by the feds .
Ebay was notified that it ’ s employees were up to something in August of 2019 and by September an internal investigation led to the firing of six individuals .
Ebay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
However , he resigned his position at the company last September over vague and unspecified differences with the company ’ s board .
But according to the Associated Press , Wenig sent a message to his subordinate last August just 30 minutes after a critical article about him appeared on the blog : Ebay claims that while that was inappropriate , Wenig had no idea how far his subordinates would go .
It sounds like plausible deniability to me .
If he didn ’ t know it was because he didn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t be held responsible .
What exactly did Wenig think his people were going to do when he gave the green light to “ take her down ?
” The AP made an effort to contact him but the person who answered the phone said they weren ’ t interested in talking .
The strangest part of all of this is that someone pulling down a 7 figure salary was so dialed in to a blog/newsletter published by a couple in Massachusetts .
How damaging was this newsletter going to be to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anywhere close to as damaging as the story that is coming out today .
This CNBC story shows images of some of the items that were sent to the couple .

It really is astounding what thin skin some powerful people have. Today we’re learning that six former eBay executives are facing federal charges over a campaign of harassment targeting the authors of a blog about e-commerce companies based in Massachusetts. The site had been critical of eBay and in response these top executives decided they were going to harass the couple who published it. What they resorted to sounds like something out of a Hollywood thriller:
Six former eBay Inc. employees have been charged with waging an extensive campaign to terrorize and intimidate the editor and publisher of an online newsletter with threats and disturbing deliveries to their home, including live spiders and cockroaches, federal authorities said Monday. Executives were upset about the newsletter’s coverage, so their employees set out to ruin the lives of the couple who ran the website, sending a funeral wreath, bloody pig face Halloween mask and other alarming items to their home, authorities said. The employees also sent pornographic magazines with the husband’s name on it to their neighbor’s house and planned to break into the couple’s garage to install a GPS device on their car, officials said… In addition to the disturbing deliveries, the employees set up fake social media accounts to send threatening messages to the couple, authorities said. After the bloody pig mask was delivered, the editor received a message saying: “DO I HAVE UR ATTENTION NOW????,” according to court documents. They also posted the couple’s names and address online, advertising things like yard sales and encouraging strangers to knock on the door if they weren’t outside.
Actually, the part about encouraging strangers to show up at the couple’s home is worse than the AP makes it sound.
On August 18 just after midnight, the eBay employees allegedly posted a classified ad on Craigslist claiming to be from the Natick couple inviting “singles, couples and swingers” to their house to party after 10 p.m. every night. “People were encouraged to knock on the couple’s door, anytime day or night,” said Lelling.
Brian Gilbert, the manager of special operations for eBay’s global security team, even tried to contact the couple sympathetically as all of this was happening in order to present a sympathetic face for the company. He apparently hope that would result in more positive coverage from the couple’s blog. He is one of the six who have now been charged by the feds.
Ebay was notified that it’s employees were up to something in August of 2019 and by September an internal investigation led to the firing of six individuals. Ebay CEO Devin Wenig has not been charged. However, he resigned his position at the company last September over vague and unspecified differences with the company’s board. But according to the Associated Press, Wenig sent a message to his subordinate last August just 30 minutes after a critical article about him appeared on the blog:
A half hour after the article was published, “Executive 1” texted another executive, identified as “Executive 2”: “(Victim 1) is out with a hot piece on the litigation. If you are ever going to take her down..now is the time,” according to court documents.
Ebay claims that while that was inappropriate, Wenig had no idea how far his subordinates would go. It sounds like plausible deniability to me. If he didn’t know it was because he didn’t want to know so he couldn’t be held responsible. What exactly did Wenig think his people were going to do when he gave the green light to “take her down?” The AP made an effort to contact him but the person who answered the phone said they weren’t interested in talking.
The strangest part of all of this is that someone pulling down a 7 figure salary was so dialed in to a blog/newsletter published by a couple in Massachusetts. How damaging was this newsletter going to be to a multi-billion dollar business? Certainly not anywhere close to as damaging as the story that is coming out today.
This CNBC story shows images of some of the items that were sent to the couple.


hotair--2020-06-15--That Iowa poll showing Joni Ernst trailing is worrisome

There ’ s not a lot to say about this apart from the obvious , which is that it wouldn ’ t be happening unless the national electoral climate suddenly looked bad for the GOP .
There ’ s no reason specific to Ernst to explain why she ’ d be trailing a little-known Democratic challenger .
She ’ s an incumbent ; she ’ s likable ; she won easily in 2014 ; Trump won her state easily in 2016 .
There ’ s no baggage or scandal that would account for voters turning on her .
She hasn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of some key issue that might alienate independents .
If Iowa ’ s trending blue it ’ s because the whole map is trending blue , at least for the moment .
The respected Selzer poll has Democrat Theresa Greenfield leading 46/43 .
That ’ s within the margin of error , but Iowa ’ s not supposed to be a coin flip .
The senator ’ s job approval rating among all Iowans began to drop earlier this year , according to Register polling , falling to 47 % in March from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poll shows that rating has changed little , now at 49 % .
Another 39 % say they disapprove of the job she is doing , and 13 % are unsure… Forty-five percent of Iowans have a favorable view of Ernst , and 40 % say they have an unfavorable view .
Those numbers have dipped during the past year .
In February 2019 , 56 % said they had a favorable view of Ernst and 29 % had an unfavorable view… Women choose Greenfield by 20 percentage points , 54 % to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ college degree choose Greenfield by an even larger margin : 60 % to 29 % … While Ernst leads 47 % to 41 % among those ages 35 to 54 , Greenfield leads with those younger than 35 ( 46 % to 40 % ) and those 65 and older ( 50 % to 42 % ) .
Ernst ’ s approval and favorable ratings are down from last year , but she ’ s still above water in both metrics .
And Greenfield remains largely unknown , with 39 percent of Iowans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about her yet to form an opinion .
If Iowans aren ’ t voting “ for ” Greenfield and they ’ re not really voting “ against ” Ernst , we ’ re left to wonder if this is largely a Trump thing .
The fact that Greenfield leads by eight among senior citizens is further evidence : Ernst won that demographic by 18 points in 2014 but Trump has trailed Biden within the group consistently in recent polling nationally , and now here ’ s the same thing happening in Iowa .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ blue across the map , whether because of the double whammy of the pandemic and the economic fall-off or just general Trump fatigue , the GOP ’ s in trouble .
Suddenly not just the White House would be in play but the Senate majority , as Dems have decent pick-up opportunities in Maine , Colorado , Arizona , North Carolina , and Montana .
Putting Iowa and the two Georgia seats on the ballot this fall in play would give them even more opportunities in case some of the others fall through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s made a race of it .
All ’ s not lost , though .
Josh Kraushaar reports that Susan Collins has bounced back a bit from a hit her polling took in Maine earlier this year .
At last check she was leading again — barely : In polling conducted by the pro-Collins 1820 PAC , the fourth-term senator trailed Democratic opponent Sara Gideon by 10 points at the end of the impeachment trial—a significant deficit for a senator who rarely saw her approval dip underwater before this campaign .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still volatile in Maine , Collins was able to close her polling deficit by late April , aided by positive advertising about her work helping Mainers in the midst of the pandemic , particularly her coauthorship of the successful Paycheck Protection Program .
An internal survey taken for 1820 PAC by the Tarrance Group in late April , obtained by National Journal , found Collins reemerging with a narrow lead over Gideon , 48 to 47 percent .
The poll found her favorability rating had increased 7 points from January to April , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s encouraging but I wonder if it ’ s outdated .
Trump ’ s polling in late April was several points better than it is now .
If there really is a “ Trump effect ” weighing on Republican senators then we might expect Collins to have slipped a bit again lately .
( She trailed challenger Sara Gideon by four points in the last public poll taken of the state , but that was in March , pre-pandemic , a lifetime ago . )
Another clue that there ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president has started to disappear from ads run by Republican incumbents .
According to the Daily Beast , among 15 spots created by GOP Senate campaigns in battleground states since March , Trump was mentioned in just one of them .
Democrats Tim Kaine and Joe Manchin turned up in some of Collins ’ s ads to signal her bipartisanship and independence , but POTUS did not .
Here ’ s what those campaigns are looking at , no doubt : There was another poll out yesterday showing Biden within two points in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need to say anything about that .
The methodology has been questioned , and in any case , if it ’ s even close to being accurate then the election is already over .
Relatedly , the Beast is also reporting that some of Trump ’ s aides have taken to trying to shield him from discouraging polling because it “ helps keep the president from flying into a rage as much as he otherwise would.
” But not all feel that way .
Some of them are leveling with him in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ great the risk is might he be convinced to do something differently .
Problem is , it ’ s hard to convince a narcissist that he ’ s not popular : “ I have told the president that the numbers are real and that I believe he can and will win , but that right now it looks bad , ” said a Republican who recently spoke to Trump .
“ He said , ‘ Come on , don ’ t you know that ’ s all fake ?
’ But in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ ve seen ] , we ’ re way down right now.
” “ Something needs to change , ” the Trump ally added .
This person wasn ’ t the only one sounding the alarm over the past month .
Two other sources who ’ ve spoken to the president lately—one of whom is a senior administration official—said that when the topic of polls came up they advised Trump that the surveys on swing states and key demographics seemed bleak .
Both said they were concerned the president wasn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wished .
Politico has an entertaining story today quoting various Republican officials outside the Beltway who are not only confident that Trump will win but , in some cases , that he ’ ll win in a landslide .
There was never realistically a “ Trump landslide ” scenario in 2020 , though .
Even before the pandemic , with the economy roaring , he had trouble getting north of 45 percent approval .
Certainly there were ( and are ) scenarios where he wins reelection ; there were ( but probably no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wins the popular vote .
The realistic best-case scenario now , though , is that he squeaks through to another electoral college win while losing the popular vote and probably losing a couple of states that he won in 2016 .
That ’ ll be some complexion for his second term — an even more evenly and bitterly divided America , with the president no longer beholden to voter opinion in any way .
Here ’ s the latest ad from the Never Trump outfit The Lincoln Project , which has moved from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incumbents like Ernst .
It ’ s true that Ernst has utterly failed to keep her promise to make big spenders on the Hill “ squeal ” but that ’ s a party-wide failing .
And in her semi-defense , senators really no longer set policy in any meaningful way .
Even if Ernst wanted to push spending cuts , it ’ s McConnell and the leadership that decides what comes to the floor and what legislation looks like , just as Pelosi and her team decide it in the House .

There’s not a lot to say about this apart from the obvious, which is that it wouldn’t be happening unless the national electoral climate suddenly looked bad for the GOP. There’s no reason specific to Ernst to explain why she’d be trailing a little-known Democratic challenger. She’s an incumbent; she’s likable; she won easily in 2014; Trump won her state easily in 2016. There’s no baggage or scandal that would account for voters turning on her. She hasn’t been on the wrong side of some key issue that might alienate independents.
If Iowa’s trending blue it’s because the whole map is trending blue, at least for the moment.
The respected Selzer poll has Democrat Theresa Greenfield leading 46/43. That’s within the margin of error, but Iowa’s not supposed to be a coin flip.
The senator’s job approval rating among all Iowans began to drop earlier this year, according to Register polling, falling to 47% in March from 57% a year before. This poll shows that rating has changed little, now at 49%. Another 39% say they disapprove of the job she is doing, and 13% are unsure… Forty-five percent of Iowans have a favorable view of Ernst, and 40% say they have an unfavorable view. Those numbers have dipped during the past year. In February 2019, 56% said they had a favorable view of Ernst and 29% had an unfavorable view… Women choose Greenfield by 20 percentage points, 54% to 34%. White women without a college degree choose Greenfield by an even larger margin: 60% to 29%… While Ernst leads 47% to 41% among those ages 35 to 54, Greenfield leads with those younger than 35 (46% to 40%) and those 65 and older (50% to 42%).
Ernst’s approval and favorable ratings are down from last year, but she’s still above water in both metrics. And Greenfield remains largely unknown, with 39 percent of Iowans saying they don’t know enough about her yet to form an opinion. If Iowans aren’t voting “for” Greenfield and they’re not really voting “against” Ernst, we’re left to wonder if this is largely a Trump thing. The fact that Greenfield leads by eight among senior citizens is further evidence: Ernst won that demographic by 18 points in 2014 but Trump has trailed Biden within the group consistently in recent polling nationally, and now here’s the same thing happening in Iowa.
If America’s retirees have shifted blue across the map, whether because of the double whammy of the pandemic and the economic fall-off or just general Trump fatigue, the GOP’s in trouble. Suddenly not just the White House would be in play but the Senate majority, as Dems have decent pick-up opportunities in Maine, Colorado, Arizona, North Carolina, and Montana. Putting Iowa and the two Georgia seats on the ballot this fall in play would give them even more opportunities in case some of the others fall through. The Selzer poll suggests that Greenfield’s made a race of it.
All’s not lost, though. Josh Kraushaar reports that Susan Collins has bounced back a bit from a hit her polling took in Maine earlier this year. At last check she was leading again — barely:
In polling conducted by the pro-Collins 1820 PAC, the fourth-term senator trailed Democratic opponent Sara Gideon by 10 points at the end of the impeachment trial—a significant deficit for a senator who rarely saw her approval dip underwater before this campaign. But in a sign that public opinion is still volatile in Maine, Collins was able to close her polling deficit by late April, aided by positive advertising about her work helping Mainers in the midst of the pandemic, particularly her coauthorship of the successful Paycheck Protection Program. An internal survey taken for 1820 PAC by the Tarrance Group in late April, obtained by National Journal, found Collins reemerging with a narrow lead over Gideon, 48 to 47 percent. The poll found her favorability rating had increased 7 points from January to April, and stood at 53 percent.
That’s encouraging but I wonder if it’s outdated. Trump’s polling in late April was several points better than it is now. If there really is a “Trump effect” weighing on Republican senators then we might expect Collins to have slipped a bit again lately. (She trailed challenger Sara Gideon by four points in the last public poll taken of the state, but that was in March, pre-pandemic, a lifetime ago.) Another clue that there’s a “Trump effect” is that the president has started to disappear from ads run by Republican incumbents. According to the Daily Beast, among 15 spots created by GOP Senate campaigns in battleground states since March, Trump was mentioned in just one of them. Democrats Tim Kaine and Joe Manchin turned up in some of Collins’s ads to signal her bipartisanship and independence, but POTUS did not.
Here’s what those campaigns are looking at, no doubt:
Approval rating in June of election year via @CNN: 74% – Johnson '64
71% – Eisenhower '56
59% – Nixon '72
58% – Clinton '96
55% – Reagan '84
52% – Obama '12
49% – W Bush '04
45% – *Ford '76
38% – Trump '20
38% – *Carter '80
37% – *HW Bush '92 *lost re-election bid — Ryan Struyk (@ryanstruyk) June 8, 2020
There was another poll out yesterday showing Biden within two points in Arkansas, but we don’t need to say anything about that. The methodology has been questioned, and in any case, if it’s even close to being accurate then the election is already over. Relatedly, the Beast is also reporting that some of Trump’s aides have taken to trying to shield him from discouraging polling because it “helps keep the president from flying into a rage as much as he otherwise would.” But not all feel that way. Some of them are leveling with him in the belief that only if he knows how great the risk is might he be convinced to do something differently. Problem is, it’s hard to convince a narcissist that he’s not popular:
“I have told the president that the numbers are real and that I believe he can and will win, but that right now it looks bad,” said a Republican who recently spoke to Trump. “He said, ‘Come on, don’t you know that’s all fake?’ But in a lot of these internal numbers [that I’ve seen], we’re way down right now.” “Something needs to change,” the Trump ally added. This person wasn’t the only one sounding the alarm over the past month. Two other sources who’ve spoken to the president lately—one of whom is a senior administration official—said that when the topic of polls came up they advised Trump that the surveys on swing states and key demographics seemed bleak. Both said they were concerned the president wasn’t taking them as seriously as they had wished.
Politico has an entertaining story today quoting various Republican officials outside the Beltway who are not only confident that Trump will win but, in some cases, that he’ll win in a landslide. There was never realistically a “Trump landslide” scenario in 2020, though. Even before the pandemic, with the economy roaring, he had trouble getting north of 45 percent approval. Certainly there were (and are) scenarios where he wins reelection; there were (but probably no longer are) even scenarios where he wins the popular vote. The realistic best-case scenario now, though, is that he squeaks through to another electoral college win while losing the popular vote and probably losing a couple of states that he won in 2016. That’ll be some complexion for his second term — an even more evenly and bitterly divided America, with the president no longer beholden to voter opinion in any way.
Here’s the latest ad from the Never Trump outfit The Lincoln Project, which has moved from targeting Trump to targeting pro-Trump GOP Senate incumbents like Ernst. It’s true that Ernst has utterly failed to keep her promise to make big spenders on the Hill “squeal” but that’s a party-wide failing. And in her semi-defense, senators really no longer set policy in any meaningful way. Even if Ernst wanted to push spending cuts, it’s McConnell and the leadership that decides what comes to the floor and what legislation looks like, just as Pelosi and her team decide it in the House.


hotair--2020-06-15--NYPD to eliminate plainclothes anti-crime units

NYPD Commissioner Dermot Shea announced today that he is putting an end to anti-crime units staffed by plain-clothes police and instead moving those officers to other units .
Police Commissioner Dermot Shea described the move as a massive cultural shift for the department , saying the 600 officers who are part of the unit will be transitioned to other departments , including the detective bureau and neighborhood policing .
“ This is a seismic shift in the culture of how the NYPD polices this great city , ” he said .
“ I would consider this in the realm of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ Stop , Question and Frisk ’ …I think it ’ s time to more forward and change how we police in this city .
We can do it with brains .
We can do it with guile .
We can move away from brute force.
” Anti-crime officers are often closest to criminals , and Shea said the move is “ not without risk ” as he questioned whether the decision would result in fewer firearms being taken off the streets .
It ’ s not clear why Shea announced this change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said he intended to cut funding for the NYPD in the wake of recent protests .
That move seemed to be prompted by an unpleasant reception the mayor received during a recent memorial for George Floyd .
However , Commissioner Shea made clear that he does not support plans to defund police .
In an interview with NBC4 in New York , he said , “ When you start hearing terms like defund the police I get beyond concerned.
” He added , “ We had 40 incidents where people were shot this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a number that big in five years.
” Here ’ s the interview published one week ago .
That was last Monday .
By last Friday members of the City Council were proposing to cut $ 1 billion from the NYPD budget .
That ’ s about 1/6th of the total .
Even Mayor de Blasio thinks that would be going too far : The cuts would include reducing uniform headcounts through attrition , cutting overtime , shifting responsibilities away from the NYPD , finding efficiencies and savings and lowering fringe expenses , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The mayor has said we ’ re committed to reprioritizing funding and looking for savings , but he does not believe a $ 1 billion cut is the way to maintain safety , ” said Mayor de Blasio spokesperson , Freddi Goldstein .
So that ’ s the backdrop to today ’ s announcement .
The City Council appears eager to slash the NYPD budget and the mayor and commissioner are trying to prevent that from happening .
Nearly 90 % of the NYPD budget goes to personnel so you can ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officers .
Maybe this announcement today is intended to reduce some of the political pressure by showing a willingness to make significant changes within the department without cutting budgets dramatically .
Here ’ s Commissioner Shea ’ s announcement from earlier today .
At the end of this he returns to the discussion of budget cuts : “ I said a month or two ago , there ’ s a storm on the horizon .
And that storm is on the horizon and it , even more so , makes me concerned about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around headcount .
”

NYPD Commissioner Dermot Shea announced today that he is putting an end to anti-crime units staffed by plain-clothes police and instead moving those officers to other units.
Police Commissioner Dermot Shea described the move as a massive cultural shift for the department, saying the 600 officers who are part of the unit will be transitioned to other departments, including the detective bureau and neighborhood policing. “This is a seismic shift in the culture of how the NYPD polices this great city,” he said. “I would consider this in the realm of closing one of the last chapters of ‘Stop, Question and Frisk’…I think it’s time to more forward and change how we police in this city. We can do it with brains. We can do it with guile. We can move away from brute force.” Anti-crime officers are often closest to criminals, and Shea said the move is “not without risk” as he questioned whether the decision would result in fewer firearms being taken off the streets.
It’s not clear why Shea announced this change today. Mayor de Blasio has previously said he intended to cut funding for the NYPD in the wake of recent protests. That move seemed to be prompted by an unpleasant reception the mayor received during a recent memorial for George Floyd.
However, Commissioner Shea made clear that he does not support plans to defund police. In an interview with NBC4 in New York, he said, “When you start hearing terms like defund the police I get beyond concerned.” He added, “We had 40 incidents where people were shot this week. We haven’t had a number that big in five years.” Here’s the interview published one week ago.
That was last Monday. By last Friday members of the City Council were proposing to cut $1 billion from the NYPD budget. That’s about 1/6th of the total. Even Mayor de Blasio thinks that would be going too far:
The cuts would include reducing uniform headcounts through attrition, cutting overtime, shifting responsibilities away from the NYPD, finding efficiencies and savings and lowering fringe expenses, the announcement said in part. “The mayor has said we’re committed to reprioritizing funding and looking for savings, but he does not believe a $1 billion cut is the way to maintain safety,” said Mayor de Blasio spokesperson, Freddi Goldstein.
So that’s the backdrop to today’s announcement. The City Council appears eager to slash the NYPD budget and the mayor and commissioner are trying to prevent that from happening. Nearly 90% of the NYPD budget goes to personnel so you can’t make cuts of that magnitude without cutting officers. Maybe this announcement today is intended to reduce some of the political pressure by showing a willingness to make significant changes within the department without cutting budgets dramatically.
Here’s Commissioner Shea’s announcement from earlier today. At the end of this he returns to the discussion of budget cuts: “I said a month or two ago, there’s a storm on the horizon. And that storm is on the horizon and it, even more so, makes me concerned about any discussions about budget cuts, specifically around headcount.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54YjzfMecW4


hotair--2020-06-15--Ben Carson: We're working on Trump to make him more supportive of athletes kneeling during the anthe

Ben Carson: We're working on Trump to make him more supportive of athletes kneeling during the anthem

Just gon na repeat what I said last week when Piers Morgan laughably suggested that Trump should take a knee in the Oval Office : If he gives up on culture war , he ’ s done .
He ’ ll have nothing left .
It ’ s the one thing his base absolutely expects of him and which they might realistically abandon him over .
There ’ s room for him to maneuver on tax policy , on military interventions abroad , on his Supreme Court appointees writing landmark gay-rights decisions .
But the minute Trump loses his appetite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on cultural disputes , he ’ s finished .
Carson raises an interesting point , though , by implying that Trump simply doesn ’ t understand that athletes who kneel aren ’ t protesting the flag or the anthem or America writ large .
They ’ re protesting police brutality and using the anthem as an opportunity to make a visible public statement about it .
I think Trump does understand and just doesn ’ t care , taking the position that you don ’ t coopt a moment designed to honor America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not .
Carson ’ s giving him less credit than I do .
From his interview this morning with Hugh Hewitt : BC : I think the important thing is if they are going to kneel during the National Anthem that they make sure that people understand why they ’ re kneeling .
A lot of people are under the impression that they ’ re kneeling because they don ’ t respect our National Anthem or they don ’ t respect the flag or what it stands for .
And in fact , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s the reason that most of them are kneeling .
I think most of them are kneeling because you know , they want to protest some brutality in the police forces .
They need to make that very clear .
And of course , now that that has been brought to national attention , I ’ m not sure if it needs to continue… HH : So is there any chance you might persuade the President that he ought not to be upset with players kneeling during the National Anthem ?
BC : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he has manifested as much animosity in that region lately .
And I think we just continue to work him .
He ’ ll get there .
If Carson doubts that the kneeling protests need to continue now that the country is focused on police brutality , why does he hope Trump eventually grasps their meaning ?
Sounds like he ’ s setting POTUS up here with a new reason to feel aggrieved : “ We passed police reform and they ’ re still kneeling .
I told you it was about disrespecting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Speaking of disrespecting America , here ’ s something new from Gallup that ’ s had me at a loss all day .
Normally when I see a poll result that surprises me I can at least spitball a reason why the data looks the way it does .
Not this time .
I understand why the average person ’ s pride in being American is down .
The response of the government and more recently the general public to our COVID-19 pandemic is a national embarrassment .
What I don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republicans whose pride has dimmed lately .
Independents are flat since 2019 and Democrats are actually up a few points ( although within the margin of error ) .
I ’ d expect the opposite result given the calamities that have hit us in the past three months : Democrats ’ pride would drop off a cliff , indies ’ would droop , but Republicans ’ would firm up and possibly even rise in solidarity with the president as he tries to feel his way through this crisis .
What explains the numbers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Democrats have already lost as much pride as they can reasonably be expected to lose , that ’ s probably not equally true of independents .
And certainly we wouldn ’ t expect Republicans , who pride themselves on their patriotism , to sag at a moment when Trump ’ s supposed to be making America great again .
Is “ pride ” here really just a reflection of electoral forecasting ?
I.e .
Republican “ pride ” is down because they sense Trump ’ s chances of losing have increased ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ t Democrats ’ “ pride ” up by the same magnitude ?
In lieu of an exit question , here ’ s a surprising addition to the ranks of Republican senators who support renaming U.S. military bases that are named after Confederates .
James Lankford represents the deep red state of Oklahoma and gains nothing politically from crossing Trump on it .
This is just his own small gesture towards righting historical wrongs , which is exactly how Carson wants Trump to see the kneeling protests .

Just gonna repeat what I said last week when Piers Morgan laughably suggested that Trump should take a knee in the Oval Office: If he gives up on culture war, he’s done. He’ll have nothing left. It’s the one thing his base absolutely expects of him and which they might realistically abandon him over. There’s room for him to maneuver on tax policy, on military interventions abroad, on his Supreme Court appointees writing landmark gay-rights decisions. But the minute Trump loses his appetite for stickin’ it to the libs on cultural disputes, he’s finished.
Carson raises an interesting point, though, by implying that Trump simply doesn’t understand that athletes who kneel aren’t protesting the flag or the anthem or America writ large. They’re protesting police brutality and using the anthem as an opportunity to make a visible public statement about it.
I think Trump does understand and just doesn’t care, taking the position that you don’t coopt a moment designed to honor America for your pet cause, righteous or not. Carson’s giving him less credit than I do. From his interview this morning with Hugh Hewitt:
BC: I think the important thing is if they are going to kneel during the National Anthem that they make sure that people understand why they’re kneeling. A lot of people are under the impression that they’re kneeling because they don’t respect our National Anthem or they don’t respect the flag or what it stands for. And in fact, I don’t think that’s the reason that most of them are kneeling. I think most of them are kneeling because you know, they want to protest some brutality in the police forces. They need to make that very clear. And of course, now that that has been brought to national attention, I’m not sure if it needs to continue… HH: So is there any chance you might persuade the President that he ought not to be upset with players kneeling during the National Anthem? BC: Well, I don’t think he has manifested as much animosity in that region lately. And I think we just continue to work him. He’ll get there.
If Carson doubts that the kneeling protests need to continue now that the country is focused on police brutality, why does he hope Trump eventually grasps their meaning? Sounds like he’s setting POTUS up here with a new reason to feel aggrieved: “We passed police reform and they’re still kneeling. I told you it was about disrespecting America, not the police!”
Speaking of disrespecting America, here’s something new from Gallup that’s had me at a loss all day. Normally when I see a poll result that surprises me I can at least spitball a reason why the data looks the way it does. Not this time.
I understand why the average person’s pride in being American is down. The response of the government and more recently the general public to our COVID-19 pandemic is a national embarrassment. What I don’t understand is why it’s only Republicans whose pride has dimmed lately. Independents are flat since 2019 and Democrats are actually up a few points (although within the margin of error). I’d expect the opposite result given the calamities that have hit us in the past three months: Democrats’ pride would drop off a cliff, indies’ would droop, but Republicans’ would firm up and possibly even rise in solidarity with the president as he tries to feel his way through this crisis.
What explains the numbers? Even if you want to say that Democrats have already lost as much pride as they can reasonably be expected to lose, that’s probably not equally true of independents. And certainly we wouldn’t expect Republicans, who pride themselves on their patriotism, to sag at a moment when Trump’s supposed to be making America great again. Is “pride” here really just a reflection of electoral forecasting? I.e. Republican “pride” is down because they sense Trump’s chances of losing have increased? In that case, why isn’t Democrats’ “pride” up by the same magnitude?
In lieu of an exit question, here’s a surprising addition to the ranks of Republican senators who support renaming U.S. military bases that are named after Confederates. James Lankford represents the deep red state of Oklahoma and gains nothing politically from crossing Trump on it. This is just his own small gesture towards righting historical wrongs, which is exactly how Carson wants Trump to see the kneeling protests.


hotair--2020-06-15--NYC's homeless outreach program declared a "very expensive failure"

Last year , long before the novel coronavirus came ashore here , New York City was already dealing with a massive homelessness problem .
This was particularly noticeable in the subway stations , where many of the homeless would seek shelter either on the platforms or by endlessly riding the cars all night .
That ’ s when the city ’ s Mass Transit Authority ( MTA ) leaped into action , developing a new plan that would supposedly use ten-person teams to “ lure ” the homeless out of the subways and into public shelters where they would have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to help them .
The cost of the project was more than five million dollars , but the municipal government felt it was worth it if it would get people the help they need while simultaneously cleaning up the subways and making them safer .
But now , the Inspector General ’ s office has finished a review of the program and deemed it to be a very expensive flop .
( NY Post ) The MTA ’ s multimillion-dollar effort to shrink the homeless population in the city ’ s subways has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s watchdog says in a damning new report .
Complaints about vagrants in the system surged after the agency last year revamped its $ 5 million annual effort to get the unsheltered out of the subways and into shelters — while homeless-related train delays continued apace , MTA Inspector General Carolyn Pokorny ’ s office found .
The “ very expensive ” and “ minimally effective ” program cost at least $ 2.6 million in overtime on top of the contact — but 10-person teams of MTA cops and social workers from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three transients out of the system per station per night , the report said .
As noted above , not only did the plan itself cost five million dollars , they eventually ran up an additional $ 2.6 million in overtime for the police who were part of the outreach teams .
The OIG dispatched inspectors to monitor the teams ’ performance and success rates , hoping to deliver good news to City Hall about the anticipated decline of homeless individuals in the MTA stations and on the trains .
Unfortunately , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the outreach teams only managed to convince three homeless people per station per night to leave the area and come to a shelter for help .
For every person who received help , there were literally dozens of others who refused and stayed put .
Even worse , in the case of the few they did manage to lure to a shelter and provide services to , the majority of them wound up leaving the next day .
And where did they wind up ?
Right back at the MTA stations .
Complaints @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the MTA more than doubled in February compared to the same period in the previous year .
( And remember that this was before the pandemic outbreak got up to steam . )
Delays in the running of the trains caused by the homeless spiked significantly as well .
As horrible as it may sound to say , this goes back to one of the principal tenets I ’ ve pointed to while covering the issue of homelessness .
You can ’ t help people who don ’ t want to be helped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some of these shelters may be , you ’ re not going to get people off of the streets voluntarily unless they are ready to come in from the cold .
Your prospects are even worse if the people are suffering from mental illness and/or addiction problems .
So how does New York City tackle this problem once and for all ?
Don ’ t look at me .
If I was that much of a genius I ’ d already be running for Mayor .
But I do know that dealing with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ streets is never going to solve the problem because the supply is essentially endless .
We need to identify the main drivers causing people to wind up in a condition of homelessness and address those needs first .
That way you slow down the flow into the pipeline .

Last year, long before the novel coronavirus came ashore here, New York City was already dealing with a massive homelessness problem. This was particularly noticeable in the subway stations, where many of the homeless would seek shelter either on the platforms or by endlessly riding the cars all night. That’s when the city’s Mass Transit Authority (MTA) leaped into action, developing a new plan that would supposedly use ten-person teams to “lure” the homeless out of the subways and into public shelters where they would have access to a variety of programs designed to help them.
The cost of the project was more than five million dollars, but the municipal government felt it was worth it if it would get people the help they need while simultaneously cleaning up the subways and making them safer. But now, the Inspector General’s office has finished a review of the program and deemed it to be a very expensive flop. (NY Post)
The MTA’s multimillion-dollar effort to shrink the homeless population in the city’s subways has been an expensive bust, the agency’s watchdog says in a damning new report. Complaints about vagrants in the system surged after the agency last year revamped its $5 million annual effort to get the unsheltered out of the subways and into shelters — while homeless-related train delays continued apace, MTA Inspector General Carolyn Pokorny’s office found. The “very expensive” and “minimally effective” program cost at least $2.6 million in overtime on top of the contact — but 10-person teams of MTA cops and social workers from contractor Bowery Residents’ Committee lured just three transients out of the system per station per night, the report said.
As noted above, not only did the plan itself cost five million dollars, they eventually ran up an additional $2.6 million in overtime for the police who were part of the outreach teams. The OIG dispatched inspectors to monitor the teams’ performance and success rates, hoping to deliver good news to City Hall about the anticipated decline of homeless individuals in the MTA stations and on the trains.
Unfortunately, the OIG discovered that, on average, the outreach teams only managed to convince three homeless people per station per night to leave the area and come to a shelter for help. For every person who received help, there were literally dozens of others who refused and stayed put. Even worse, in the case of the few they did manage to lure to a shelter and provide services to, the majority of them wound up leaving the next day. And where did they wind up? Right back at the MTA stations.
Complaints about homeless people on the subways by the MTA more than doubled in February compared to the same period in the previous year. (And remember that this was before the pandemic outbreak got up to steam.) Delays in the running of the trains caused by the homeless spiked significantly as well.
As horrible as it may sound to say, this goes back to one of the principal tenets I’ve pointed to while covering the issue of homelessness. You can’t help people who don’t want to be helped. As well-intentioned and professionally staffed as some of these shelters may be, you’re not going to get people off of the streets voluntarily unless they are ready to come in from the cold. Your prospects are even worse if the people are suffering from mental illness and/or addiction problems.
So how does New York City tackle this problem once and for all? Don’t look at me. If I was that much of a genius I’d already be running for Mayor. But I do know that dealing with the homeless after they are on the streets is never going to solve the problem because the supply is essentially endless. We need to identify the main drivers causing people to wind up in a condition of homelessness and address those needs first. That way you slow down the flow into the pipeline.