hotair--2020-05-20--Trump: Our high case count is a badge of honor in that it reflects a large amount of testing

He ’ s only half-right here , and “ badge of honor ” is an unfortunate way to describe anything related to the feds ’ COVID-19 response , but this answer represents notable progress from him complaining last week that maybe testing is overrated .
At least he ’ s recognizing now that more testing is a good thing even if it pushes the official case count up .
Watch , then read on .
He ’ s right that we ’ ve done more total testing than any other country , almost twice as many as second-place Russia .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of the reason we ’ re seeing cases go up is because our testing capacity has expanded , which means we ’ re now detecting some infections that would go undetected in countries with less robust capacity ( or in the U.S. itself two months ago , when our testing levels were garbage ) .
But the important metric in testing is tests per capita , which lets us compare countries with large populations to smaller ones .
Take a group of one million Americans and a group of one millions Italians @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being done within each group ?
In Italy it ’ s 51,000 .
Here it ’ s 38,000 .
The leader of the pack among larger western nations , Denmark , is testing 84,000 per million .
No doubt America is still missing some new cases because our testing isn ’ t as comprehensive as theirs is .
But it ’ s getting better .
In fact , let ’ s lay down a marker here so that we can look back in a month or so and see how much progress we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the world .
At the moment the U.S. ranks 38th among all nations in testing per capita according to Worldometer , but that ’ s misleading because some of the countries ahead of us are small nations .
Among those with populations of five million or more , we ’ re 16th .
( A few other nations ahead of us in testing per capita fall just shy of five million . )
But look at this trendline in U.S. testing over the past 12 days : We ’ ve added 25 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weeks .
With the development of antigen tests and saliva tests , who knows how much higher it ’ ll be in two months and where we ’ ll stand relative to other countries .
The uptick in testing has also driven down the positivity rate , which is good news as the country reopens for business : It wasn ’ t long ago when 20 percent of Americans tested each day for COVID-19 were turning up positive .
That figure has now been cut by three-quarters .
Whether it ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or much greater testing capacity is hard to say — probably some of both — but it suggests that our ability to detect infections is increasing more quickly than the disease is spreading .
That ’ s exactly what we want as social distancing eases a little .
It should give us some confidence that if an outbreak starts bubbling somewhere , we now have enough tests to spot it early .
( Although that assumes that testing capacity is equal across all communities in all 50 states , which , er , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ d be nice if the media paid more attention to the positivity rate but they ’ ve been resistant , preferring to focus on total cases instead .
That ’ s potentially misleading for the reason Trump gives in the clip : In some areas , what appears to be a spike in infections is probably just a function of an increase in testing capacity .
Stop what you ’ re doing and read Sean Trende on how misleading CNN has been recently about the supposed increase in new cases in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seems to think that the rate of infections in Texas is rising .
In reality , the rate may be flat or even declining — but because there ’ s been much more testing in Texas recently , infections that would have gone undetected a few weeks ago are suddenly being picked up .
When you graph out the number of new cases , you see a worrisome spike .
But when you graph out the positivity rate , which measures new cases against the number of new tests , you see this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trende , when you dig into the county data you see that it ’ s only a few counties that are experiencing a conspicuous increase in new cases ( probably a result of outbreaks at meatpacking plants ) .
In the big metro areas the number of daily new cases is flat .
The supposedly ominous increase statewide , then , appears to be a more localized problem , and may not amount to a meaningful “ increase ” at all .
It may simply be that Texas ’ s expanded testing is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ epidemic that ’ s currently static , like putting on a new pair of glasses at an optometrist ’ s office and suddenly being able to read the small print on the eye chart .
The letters aren ’ t “ new ” ; they were always there .
It ’ s a good thing that we can see them now !
Exit question : Are outlets like CNN deliberately distorting the outlook in states like Texas or do they mistakenly believe that case counts are the only meaningful variable here ?

He’s only half-right here, and “badge of honor” is an unfortunate way to describe anything related to the feds’ COVID-19 response, but this answer represents notable progress from him complaining last week that maybe testing is overrated. At least he’s recognizing now that more testing is a good thing even if it pushes the official case count up. Watch, then read on.
He’s right that we’ve done more total testing than any other country, almost twice as many as second-place Russia. And he’s definitely right that part of the reason we’re seeing cases go up is because our testing capacity has expanded, which means we’re now detecting some infections that would go undetected in countries with less robust capacity (or in the U.S. itself two months ago, when our testing levels were garbage). But the important metric in testing is tests per capita, which lets us compare countries with large populations to smaller ones. Take a group of one million Americans and a group of one millions Italians, say; how many tests are being done within each group?
In Italy it’s 51,000. Here it’s 38,000. The leader of the pack among larger western nations, Denmark, is testing 84,000 per million. No doubt America is still missing some new cases because our testing isn’t as comprehensive as theirs is.
But it’s getting better. In fact, let’s lay down a marker here so that we can look back in a month or so and see how much progress we’ve made relative to the rest of the world. At the moment the U.S. ranks 38th among all nations in testing per capita according to Worldometer, but that’s misleading because some of the countries ahead of us are small nations. Among those with populations of five million or more, we’re 16th. (A few other nations ahead of us in testing per capita fall just shy of five million.) But look at this trendline in U.S. testing over the past 12 days:
We’ve added 25 percent more capacity in less than two weeks. With the development of antigen tests and saliva tests, who knows how much higher it’ll be in two months and where we’ll stand relative to other countries. The uptick in testing has also driven down the positivity rate, which is good news as the country reopens for business:
US daily numbers via @COVID19Tracking Newly reported deaths
Today: 1,430
Yesterday: 786
One week ago (5/12): 1,543 Newly reported cases
T: 21K
Y: 20K
5/12: 21K Newly reported tests
T: 399K
Y: 338K
5/12: 305K Positive test rate
T: 5%
Y: 6%
5/12: 7% — Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) May 19, 2020
Meanwhile, the positive test rate continues to decline. Over the past 7 days, it has been 6.2%, roughly half what the 7-day trailing average was on May 1 (12.1%). That may partly reflect more widespread availability of testing in the general population but still a good sign. — Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) May 19, 2020
It wasn’t long ago when 20 percent of Americans tested each day for COVID-19 were turning up positive. That figure has now been cut by three-quarters. Whether it’s a product of fewer active infections out there or much greater testing capacity is hard to say — probably some of both — but it suggests that our ability to detect infections is increasing more quickly than the disease is spreading. That’s exactly what we want as social distancing eases a little. It should give us some confidence that if an outbreak starts bubbling somewhere, we now have enough tests to spot it early. (Although that assumes that testing capacity is equal across all communities in all 50 states, which, er, isn’t the case.)
It’d be nice if the media paid more attention to the positivity rate but they’ve been resistant, preferring to focus on total cases instead. That’s potentially misleading for the reason Trump gives in the clip: In some areas, what appears to be a spike in infections is probably just a function of an increase in testing capacity. Stop what you’re doing and read Sean Trende on how misleading CNN has been recently about the supposed increase in new cases in Texas as that state reopens. CNN seems to think that the rate of infections in Texas is rising. In reality, the rate may be flat or even declining — but because there’s been much more testing in Texas recently, infections that would have gone undetected a few weeks ago are suddenly being picked up.
When you graph out the number of new cases, you see a worrisome spike. But when you graph out the positivity rate, which measures new cases against the number of new tests, you see this:
What’s more, says Trende, when you dig into the county data you see that it’s only a few counties that are experiencing a conspicuous increase in new cases (probably a result of outbreaks at meatpacking plants). In the big metro areas the number of daily new cases is flat. The supposedly ominous increase statewide, then, appears to be a more localized problem, and may not amount to a meaningful “increase” at all. It may simply be that Texas’s expanded testing is bringing into focus a picture of an epidemic that’s currently static, like putting on a new pair of glasses at an optometrist’s office and suddenly being able to read the small print on the eye chart. The letters aren’t “new”; they were always there. It’s a good thing that we can see them now!
Exit question: Are outlets like CNN deliberately distorting the outlook in states like Texas or do they mistakenly believe that case counts are the only meaningful variable here?


hotair--2020-05-20--Federal judge: All Texas voters can vote by mail ... for now

Texas Democrats are claiming a victory after a federal judge ruled that all Texas voters are eligible to vote by mail if they are concerned about exposure to the coronavirus at polling places .
As he made his ruling , U.S. District Judge Fred Biery cited the Declaration of Independence.to justify his opinion .
Judge Biery , appointed by former President Bill Clinton , ruled that all Texas voters can now be considered as “ disabled ” due to concerns over the safety of voting in person during the coronavirus pandemic .
This qualifies every voter to be able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that election officials must accept and tabulate those votes .
His order must be posted on the websites of election administrators , for any elections held “ during the pendency of pandemic circumstances.
” Texas Democrats , along with individual voters , filed the lawsuit to seek an expedited ruling in order to expand voting by mail during the pandemic outbreak .
Currently , there are several lawsuits concerning voting working through the court system .
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton says he will appeal the ruling which came down Tuesday .
Paxton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would usher in increased voter fraud .
Judge Biery ’ s ruling completely rejects Paxton ’ s opinion .
Biery agreed with a state district court ruling that election law in fact allows this expansion of voting by mail , citing Paxton ’ s own opinions as precedence .
Moreover , Biery wrote , “ For those who have recently awakened from a Rip Van Winkle sleep , the entire world is mostly without immunity and fearfully disabled.
” Biery added that actual instances of voter fraud are virtually nonexistent , and that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s scepter of pandemic disease and death is far more serious than an unsupported fear of voter fraud in this sui generis experience.
” On April 17 , District Court Judge Tim Sulak issued a temporary injunction enabling vote-by-mail in Travis County ( Austin area ) and all Texas voters under threat of the coronavirus pandemic , at least through July .
The State of Texas appealed .
Sulak ’ s ruling claims that susceptibility to the coronavirus counts is a disability under the state election code .
Judge Sulak pointed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time constraints in order to deny the state ’ s motion to reject the court ’ s jurisdiction .
Judge Sulak assumed office on January 1 , 2011 , and his current term ends on December 31 , 2020 .
He lost his bid for re-election in the Democrat primary on March 3 .
He is a Democrat .
So , this is a massive expansion of mail-in voting in Texas .
Current Texas law allows for mail-in voting under specific circumstances – the voter is 65 years or older , has a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the county during the election period , or is confined in jail .
Judge Biery ’ s order spotlights public health and safety concerns as well as possible voter suppression .
Frankly , it sounds hyperbolic , especially given that Texas has not experienced an overwhelming number of cases of the coronavirus , like New York or New Jersey , for example .
Re-opening the state is well underway .
In a lengthy order , which he opened by quoting the preamble to the Declaration of Independence , Biery said he had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters and stated the right to vote “ should not be elusively based on the whims of nature.
” “ Two hundred forty-years on , Americans now seek Life without fear of pandemic , Liberty to choose their leaders in an environment free of disease and the pursuit of Happiness without undue restrictions , ” Biery wrote .
“ There are some among us who would , if they could , nullify those aspirational ideas to return to the not so halcyon and not so thrilling days of yesteryear of the Divine Right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a sovereign people for a modern mess of governing pottage in the hands of a few and forfeiting the vision of America as a shining city upon a hill , ” he said .
Texas Democrats , in the federal lawsuit , claim that traditional elections during a pandemic impose unconstitutional and illegal burdens on voters without universal mail-in voting .
Judge Biery says he chooses “ voting by letter carrier over voting with disease carriers.
” Never let a crisis go to waste .
Today the Texas Supreme Court has scheduled a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ request for a writ of mandamus to overturn the earlier injunction granted by Judge Tim Sulak to allow all eligible voters to vote by mail .
Republicans argue that universal voting by mail ushers in voter fraud and weakens the integrity of elections .
There are currently several legal challenges in both state and federal courts challenging Texas ’ vote by mail laws and restrictions .

Texas Democrats are claiming a victory after a federal judge ruled that all Texas voters are eligible to vote by mail if they are concerned about exposure to the coronavirus at polling places. As he made his ruling, U.S. District Judge Fred Biery cited the Declaration of Independence.to justify his opinion.
Judge Biery, appointed by former President Bill Clinton, ruled that all Texas voters can now be considered as “disabled” due to concerns over the safety of voting in person during the coronavirus pandemic. This qualifies every voter to be able to vote by mail. His ruling orders that election officials must accept and tabulate those votes. His order must be posted on the websites of election administrators, for any elections held “during the pendency of pandemic circumstances.”
“For want of a vote,” the judge wrote, “our democracy and the Republic would be lost and government of the people, by the people and for the people shall perish from the earth.”
Texas Democrats, along with individual voters, filed the lawsuit to seek an expedited ruling in order to expand voting by mail during the pandemic outbreak. Currently, there are several lawsuits concerning voting working through the court system.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton says he will appeal the ruling which came down Tuesday. Paxton argues that this violates state law and would usher in increased voter fraud. Judge Biery’s ruling completely rejects Paxton’s opinion.
Biery agreed with a state district court ruling that election law in fact allows this expansion of voting by mail, citing Paxton’s own opinions as precedence. Moreover, Biery wrote, “For those who have recently awakened from a Rip Van Winkle sleep, the entire world is mostly without immunity and fearfully disabled.” Biery added that actual instances of voter fraud are virtually nonexistent, and that “The Court finds the Grim Reaper’s scepter of pandemic disease and death is far more serious than an unsupported fear of voter fraud in this sui generis experience.”
On April 17, District Court Judge Tim Sulak issued a temporary injunction enabling vote-by-mail in Travis County (Austin area) and all Texas voters under threat of the coronavirus pandemic, at least through July. The State of Texas appealed. Sulak’s ruling claims that susceptibility to the coronavirus counts is a disability under the state election code. Judge Sulak pointed to the general risk to public health and time constraints in order to deny the state’s motion to reject the court’s jurisdiction.
Judge Sulak assumed office on January 1, 2011, and his current term ends on December 31, 2020. He lost his bid for re-election in the Democrat primary on March 3. He is a Democrat.
So, this is a massive expansion of mail-in voting in Texas. Current Texas law allows for mail-in voting under specific circumstances – the voter is 65 years or older, has a disability or illness, will be out of the county during the election period, or is confined in jail. Judge Biery’s order spotlights public health and safety concerns as well as possible voter suppression. Frankly, it sounds hyperbolic, especially given that Texas has not experienced an overwhelming number of cases of the coronavirus, like New York or New Jersey, for example. Re-opening the state is well underway.
In a lengthy order, which he opened by quoting the preamble to the Declaration of Independence, Biery said he had concerns for the health and safety of voters and stated the right to vote “should not be elusively based on the whims of nature.” “Two hundred forty-years on, Americans now seek Life without fear of pandemic, Liberty to choose their leaders in an environment free of disease and the pursuit of Happiness without undue restrictions,” Biery wrote. “There are some among us who would, if they could, nullify those aspirational ideas to return to the not so halcyon and not so thrilling days of yesteryear of the Divine Right of Kings, trading our birthright as a sovereign people for a modern mess of governing pottage in the hands of a few and forfeiting the vision of America as a shining city upon a hill,” he said.
Texas Democrats, in the federal lawsuit, claim that traditional elections during a pandemic impose unconstitutional and illegal burdens on voters without universal mail-in voting. Judge Biery says he chooses “voting by letter carrier over voting with disease carriers.” Never let a crisis go to waste.
“One’s right to vote should not be elusively based on the whims of nature. Citizens should have the option to choose voting by letter carrier versus voting with disease carriers,” Biery wrote in his ruling. “’We the People’ get just about the government and political leaders we deserve, but deserve to have a safe and unfettered vote to say what we get.”
Today the Texas Supreme Court has scheduled a hearing for Attorney General Paxton’s request for a writ of mandamus to overturn the earlier injunction granted by Judge Tim Sulak to allow all eligible voters to vote by mail. Republicans argue that universal voting by mail ushers in voter fraud and weakens the integrity of elections. There are currently several legal challenges in both state and federal courts challenging Texas’ vote by mail laws and restrictions.


hotair--2020-05-20--Don't expect a baby boom from the pandemic lockdown

In what ’ s probably one of the least surprising headlines you ’ ll see this year , the Associated Press is reporting that America ’ s birthrate continued to decline in 2019 .
The CDC is saying that the number of births last year declined roughly 1 % from 2018 levels .
That translates to about 3.7 million births .
In a bit of good news , however , unintended pregnancies among teenagers also continued to fall .
What may come as surprise to at least some people is the projection that we shouldn ’ t expect to see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because of the pandemic and the lockdowns .
In fact , the birth rate may well wind up declining even faster .
U.S. births continued to fall last year , leading to the fewest number of newborns in 35 years .
The decline is the latest sign of a prolonged national “ baby bust ” that ’ s been going on for more than a decade .
And some experts believe the coronavirus pandemic and its impact on the economy will suppress the numbers further .
“ This unpredictable environment , and anxiety @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make women think twice about having children , ” said Dr. Denise Jamieson , chair of obstetrics and gynecology at Emory University .
The idea that there won ’ t be more babies coming into the world this fall may seem counterintuitive at first .
After all , with so many people out of work and stuck at home , what else do couples have to take up their time ?
I mean , there ’ s only so many things available to binge on Netflix , right ?
Perhaps , but there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ play here .
This isn ’ t the same as some sort of blizzard where everyone is stuck in their houses with the power going out .
In those situations , you know the snow is going to melt sooner or later and unless your roof collapses , things are going to quickly return to normal .
The pandemic , on the other hand , has people stressing out , exhibiting symptoms of depression , and filled with anxiety over whether their jobs will come back or if they ’ ll even survive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s generally not a formula for putting people in a romantic mood .
Some of those same concerns about the future are likely also playing a role in family planning .
Bringing a baby into the world when you don ’ t know if you ’ ll be able to afford to raise a child has to be a factor .
With easy access to cheap birth control being the norm , more couples are probably thinking twice about expanding their families .
And it ’ s pretty hard to blame them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all of that , the marriage rate is also projected to fall this year .
It was going down anyway , but with bans on large gatherings still in place , many ceremonies have had to be postponed .
And newlyweds are traditionally among the people most likely to start bringing new children into the world .
This all remains speculation for now .
The “ experts ” have been wrong before , after all .
For all we know , we may see a big spike of “ coronababies ” in November @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kind of doubt it .

In what’s probably one of the least surprising headlines you’ll see this year, the Associated Press is reporting that America’s birthrate continued to decline in 2019. The CDC is saying that the number of births last year declined roughly 1% from 2018 levels. That translates to about 3.7 million births. In a bit of good news, however, unintended pregnancies among teenagers also continued to fall. What may come as surprise to at least some people is the projection that we shouldn’t expect to see a reversal in these trends in 2020 because of the pandemic and the lockdowns. In fact, the birth rate may well wind up declining even faster.
U.S. births continued to fall last year, leading to the fewest number of newborns in 35 years. The decline is the latest sign of a prolonged national “baby bust” that’s been going on for more than a decade. And some experts believe the coronavirus pandemic and its impact on the economy will suppress the numbers further. “This unpredictable environment, and anxiety about the future, is going to make women think twice about having children,” said Dr. Denise Jamieson, chair of obstetrics and gynecology at Emory University.
The idea that there won’t be more babies coming into the world this fall may seem counterintuitive at first. After all, with so many people out of work and stuck at home, what else do couples have to take up their time? I mean, there’s only so many things available to binge on Netflix, right?
Perhaps, but there are a lot of other factors at play here. This isn’t the same as some sort of blizzard where everyone is stuck in their houses with the power going out. In those situations, you know the snow is going to melt sooner or later and unless your roof collapses, things are going to quickly return to normal. The pandemic, on the other hand, has people stressing out, exhibiting symptoms of depression, and filled with anxiety over whether their jobs will come back or if they’ll even survive the spread of the disease. That’s generally not a formula for putting people in a romantic mood.
Some of those same concerns about the future are likely also playing a role in family planning. Bringing a baby into the world when you don’t know if you’ll be able to afford to raise a child has to be a factor. With easy access to cheap birth control being the norm, more couples are probably thinking twice about expanding their families. And it’s pretty hard to blame them under the circumstances.
On top of all of that, the marriage rate is also projected to fall this year. It was going down anyway, but with bans on large gatherings still in place, many ceremonies have had to be postponed. And newlyweds are traditionally among the people most likely to start bringing new children into the world.
This all remains speculation for now. The “experts” have been wrong before, after all. For all we know, we may see a big spike of “coronababies” in November or December. But somehow I still kind of doubt it.


hotair--2020-05-20--New bodycam video shows 2017 Arbery arrest ... for shoplifting

And … so ?
The New York Post reports on another video from 2017 that featured another law-enforcement contact with the now-deceased Ahmaud Arbery , this time for allegedly attempting to shoplift a television .
It comes from roughly the same period of time in which Arbery got detained for a minor drug possession charge , video of which emerged on Monday , as Jazz wrote yesterday .
Once again , we see Arbery exhibit a lack of enthusiastic cooperation with local law enforcement , and once again it ’ s a complete non-sequitur to the incident in which two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Newly released police bodycam video shows Georgia slay victim Ahmaud Arbery being handcuffed and arrested for shoplifting in 2017 .
The video , dated Dec. 1 , 2017 , shows Arbery and three teenagers being confronted by police in the parking lot of a Walmart shopping center , according to the footage posted on YouTube on Tuesday .
… Gregory McMichael , 64 , a former Glynn County cop and investigator for the district attorney ’ s office , and his 34-year-old son , Travis McMichael , were charged with murder earlier this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ went public and caused widespread outrage .
The McMichaels claimed they believed Arbery was a suspected burglar after he was spotted at a nearby construction site — which has since become a morbid tourist stop .
An extended version of the video released by a lawyer for Arbery ’ s family shows he was chased for more than 4 minutes before Travis McMichael confronted him and shot him twice at close range with a shotgun during a scuffle .
It does show , however , that people really want to dig into Arbery @ @ @ @ @ @ @ My reaction to this is similar to Jonathan Adler ’ s , with one caveat : The caveat is that police weren ’ t the ones involved in the shooting .
The point of releasing these bodycam videos appears to be more that Arbery ’ s somewhat minor criminal background authorized an open season on him by private citizens .
Arbery clearly wasn ’ t a saint , but he ’ s clearly not much of a criminal , either , or at least not a very successful one .
Neither of these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threat to anyone , other than being a sullen teenager .
That ’ s what makes these video releases more of a counter-indication to the use of deadly force .
In both cases , professional law enforcement quickly and easily ended the minimal threat Arbery allegedly posed to public peace .
The victim in this particular video called the cops rather than try a “ citizen ’ s arrest , ” and no one had to die from the encounter .
Neither incident required the use of deadly force , and Arbery never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wheedling .
Even if the McMichaels are to be believed , Arbery was at worst perhaps committing another property crime .
That doesn ’ t require deadly force or acute intervention to save one ’ s own life or someone else ’ s under any definition of self-defense .
Had the McMichaels called the police — like the shopowner in this video — instead of trying to be junior G-men and conducting a four-minute chase to attempt to capture him , Arbery would still be alive and the McMichaels would not face a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though , someone ’ s pushing out body-cam videos in an attempt to muddle up the real issues in this case by painting Arbery in the worst possible light .
Arbery may not have been a particularly law-abiding citizen in 2017 , but that is no justification for shooting an unarmed Arbery on suspicion of prowling in 2020 .

And … so? The New York Post reports on another video from 2017 that featured another law-enforcement contact with the now-deceased Ahmaud Arbery, this time for allegedly attempting to shoplift a television. It comes from roughly the same period of time in which Arbery got detained for a minor drug possession charge, video of which emerged on Monday, as Jazz wrote yesterday. Once again, we see Arbery exhibit a lack of enthusiastic cooperation with local law enforcement, and once again it’s a complete non-sequitur to the incident in which two private citizens shot him to death:
Newly released police bodycam video shows Georgia slay victim Ahmaud Arbery being handcuffed and arrested for shoplifting in 2017. The video, dated Dec. 1, 2017, shows Arbery and three teenagers being confronted by police in the parking lot of a Walmart shopping center, according to the footage posted on YouTube on Tuesday. … Gregory McMichael, 64, a former Glynn County cop and investigator for the district attorney’s office, and his 34-year-old son, Travis McMichael, were charged with murder earlier this month after cellphone video of his death went public and caused widespread outrage. The McMichaels claimed they believed Arbery was a suspected burglar after he was spotted at a nearby construction site — which has since become a morbid tourist stop. An extended version of the video released by a lawyer for Arbery’s family shows he was chased for more than 4 minutes before Travis McMichael confronted him and shot him twice at close range with a shotgun during a scuffle.
It does show, however, that people really want to dig into Arbery’s background for some reason. My reaction to this is similar to Jonathan Adler’s, with one caveat:
Apparently the statute of limitations for shoplifting allows someone to shoot you three years later. https://t.co/uuipTmK4Ty — Jonathan H. Adler (@jadler1969) May 19, 2020
The caveat is that police weren’t the ones involved in the shooting. The point of releasing these bodycam videos appears to be more that Arbery’s somewhat minor criminal background authorized an open season on him by private citizens. Arbery clearly wasn’t a saint, but he’s clearly not much of a criminal, either, or at least not a very successful one. Neither of these videos show him posing any sort of threat to anyone, other than being a sullen teenager.
That’s what makes these video releases more of a counter-indication to the use of deadly force. In both cases, professional law enforcement quickly and easily ended the minimal threat Arbery allegedly posed to public peace. The victim in this particular video called the cops rather than try a “citizen’s arrest,” and no one had to die from the encounter. Neither incident required the use of deadly force, and Arbery never threatened anyone with more than whining and wheedling.
Even if the McMichaels are to be believed, Arbery was at worst perhaps committing another property crime. That doesn’t require deadly force or acute intervention to save one’s own life or someone else’s under any definition of self-defense. Had the McMichaels called the police — like the shopowner in this video — instead of trying to be junior G-men and conducting a four-minute chase to attempt to capture him, Arbery would still be alive and the McMichaels would not face a life sentence for murder.
Clearly, though, someone’s pushing out body-cam videos in an attempt to muddle up the real issues in this case by painting Arbery in the worst possible light. Arbery may not have been a particularly law-abiding citizen in 2017, but that is no justification for shooting an unarmed Arbery on suspicion of prowling in 2020.


hotair--2020-05-20--The first casinos are reopening and it's a very different experience for tourists

In Idaho , the Coeur d ’ Alene Casino Resort Hotel , operated by the Native American Coeur d ’ Alene Tribe , became one of the many casinos in the United States to reopen this month .
Being one of the primary sources of both jobs and revenue for the tribe , this was seen as a welcome development .
But since we now live in the world of the novel coronavirus , the casino experience is quite different from what visitors saw in the old days .
Many of the staples that gamblers took for granted are missing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been modified to remain in compliance with social distancing rules .
Will the crowds return in their previous numbers if this is the new normal ?
( NBC News ) Since the Worley , Idaho , casino reopened April 27 , after being closed for more than a month because of the COVID-19 pandemic , its operations have looked very different .
Rather than waiting in line for all-you-can-eat crab and prime rib at the casino ’ s buffet — which is closed indefinitely — guests queued up at the main entrance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have their temperature taken before coming inside .
On the casino floor , every other gaming machine was turned off and patrons no longer sat shoulder to shoulder .
Large monitors hanging on the walls looped a video instructing people on how to properly smoke or sip a drink while wearing a mask , a new requirement for all employees and guests .
The Coeur d ’ Alene not alone in this decision to reopen , and plenty of other Native American casino operations are either already open or are preparing to follow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Resort in upstate New York , operated by the Oneida Nation Tribe is preparing to resume operations also .
Around the country , nearly 100 casinos are either back in operation or preparing for their grand reopenings .
And they ’ re implementing most of the same changes in order to do so as safely as possible .
One of the biggest changes is that the “ all you can eat ” buffet is a thing of the past and may never be coming back .
The restaurants that are open at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of their former capacity , with plenty of space between tables and plexiglass guards in front of the registers .
The spa and the swimming pools are also still closed .
And while wearing anything to conceal your identity used to be forbidden on the gaming floor , masks are now required .
When I wrote about the problematic question of reopening casinos last month , I suggested that these should be some of the last businesses to come back online because of the unique nature of the operation .
Some of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ addressed by the Coeur d ’ Alene Casino .
For one thing , they don ’ t have any table games like blackjack so there are no chips or cards being handled by everyone to worry about .
Also , nearly all of the gambling transactions are conducted using credit cards and casino cards for the slot machines , so handling cash isn ’ t an issue .
Rather than physically moving ( or removing ) any of the slot machines , the casino is simply leaving every other machine turned off so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ next to each other .
But one thing that hasn ’ t changed is the fact that the casino remains an industry of tourism .
That means that they will be luring in plenty of people from distant locations .
At the moment , there are no confirmed cases of COVID-19 on the tribe ’ s reservation nor anywhere in Benewah County , where the casino is located .
But now there will be a flood of visitors arriving and mixing with the tribe members who work at the resort .
It only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flare up .
And that ’ s what everyone will be watching for .
If the tribe can accomplish this safely , then business may indeed return to usual , at least under the rules of the new normal .
But if they suddenly see a big spike in COVID cases , this will have proven to be a terrible decision .

In Idaho, the Coeur d’Alene Casino Resort Hotel, operated by the Native American Coeur d’Alene Tribe, became one of the many casinos in the United States to reopen this month. Being one of the primary sources of both jobs and revenue for the tribe, this was seen as a welcome development. But since we now live in the world of the novel coronavirus, the casino experience is quite different from what visitors saw in the old days. Many of the staples that gamblers took for granted are missing, possibly forever, and other features have been modified to remain in compliance with social distancing rules. Will the crowds return in their previous numbers if this is the new normal? (NBC News)
Since the Worley, Idaho, casino reopened April 27, after being closed for more than a month because of the COVID-19 pandemic, its operations have looked very different. Rather than waiting in line for all-you-can-eat crab and prime rib at the casino’s buffet — which is closed indefinitely — guests queued up at the main entrance, standing 6 feet apart, to have their temperature taken before coming inside. On the casino floor, every other gaming machine was turned off and patrons no longer sat shoulder to shoulder. Large monitors hanging on the walls looped a video instructing people on how to properly smoke or sip a drink while wearing a mask, a new requirement for all employees and guests.
The Coeur d’Alene not alone in this decision to reopen, and plenty of other Native American casino operations are either already open or are preparing to follow suit quickly. The Turning Stone Casino and Resort in upstate New York, operated by the Oneida Nation Tribe is preparing to resume operations also. Around the country, nearly 100 casinos are either back in operation or preparing for their grand reopenings. And they’re implementing most of the same changes in order to do so as safely as possible.
One of the biggest changes is that the “all you can eat” buffet is a thing of the past and may never be coming back. The restaurants that are open at the resort are only allowing 25% of their former capacity, with plenty of space between tables and plexiglass guards in front of the registers. The spa and the swimming pools are also still closed. And while wearing anything to conceal your identity used to be forbidden on the gaming floor, masks are now required.
When I wrote about the problematic question of reopening casinos last month, I suggested that these should be some of the last businesses to come back online because of the unique nature of the operation. Some of the challenges I brought up have already been addressed by the Coeur d’Alene Casino. For one thing, they don’t have any table games like blackjack so there are no chips or cards being handled by everyone to worry about.
Also, nearly all of the gambling transactions are conducted using credit cards and casino cards for the slot machines, so handling cash isn’t an issue. Rather than physically moving (or removing) any of the slot machines, the casino is simply leaving every other machine turned off so visitors don’t wind up sitting next to each other.
But one thing that hasn’t changed is the fact that the casino remains an industry of tourism. That means that they will be luring in plenty of people from distant locations. At the moment, there are no confirmed cases of COVID-19 on the tribe’s reservation nor anywhere in Benewah County, where the casino is located. But now there will be a flood of visitors arriving and mixing with the tribe members who work at the resort. It only takes one mistake for an outbreak to flare up. And that’s what everyone will be watching for. If the tribe can accomplish this safely, then business may indeed return to usual, at least under the rules of the new normal. But if they suddenly see a big spike in COVID cases, this will have proven to be a terrible decision.


hotair--2020-05-20--CDC director: America's ready to start its grand reopening

Mission accomplished ?
At least in terms of flattening the curve , yes , CDC director Robert Redfield tells The Hill ’ s Steve Clemons in an interview released late last night .
The shelter-in-place orders have succeeded in tamping down mass community spread and health-care resources are extensive enough to deal with spot outbreaks — for now , anyway .
Redfield spends most of the time arguing for a massive investment in public health infrastructure , to the point where the green light for starting to reopen is almost an afterthought .
Still , the green light is given @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) said Tuesday that he believes the U.S. is ready to begin reopening , even as he acknowledged the need to invest further in the nation ’ s public health infrastructure and expand contact tracing to avoid sustained outbreaks .
“ I want to clarify that the community-based transmission , the community-to-community transmission that overwhelmed the public health departments in late February , March , April , that ’ s really coming down , ” Redfield said in an interview with Steve Clemons , author of The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Redfield told The Hill that the CDC is working with state public health agencies to contain outbreaks in nursing homes , among homeless populations , in meatpacking facilities and in other areas .
He signaled states will have sufficient testing and contact tracing to follow the White House ’ s guidelines for reopening .
The CDC is actually a bit late to the reopening party , Clemons points out .
They finally promulgated a decision-tree matrix for states to consider , but by that time more than a dozen states had already begun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ square .
Redfield tells Clemons that was a communications issue , not a policy conflict , and that the decision trees were not the result of a power struggle : “ This outbreak has gone from a CDC to an all-of-government response , ” he said , saying the guidelines went through an inter-agency review process .
“ One of the things that became clear at the task force when we put up our initial guidelines is a number of people criticized , and I think appropriately , that a lot of our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CDC-eze , meaning that they ’ re not easy for the American public to actually get through , ” he said .
“ And so the decision was , why don ’ t you guys do some decision trees that are simple one-pagers .
You ’ ve probably seen them targeting the American public .
And we released those six decision trees last week.
” Just because we ’ re ready to start reopening doesn ’ t mean the crisis is over , Redfield warns .
The spread should slow over the next @ @ @ @ @ @ @ steam in the fall .
States and local governments should use this time to hire as many contact tracers as possible , to find outbreaks now but more importantly to keep from having to do more shutdowns in the fall and winter .
Testing capacity will be a major issue at that point , even if we ’ re not using the capacity we have right now : [ F ] or the states to open up , it was important that they could test people that have flu like illness and or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surveillance .
They had the contact tracers that they needed right now .
But in the fall/winter , we ’ re going to need a much more robust workforce because we ’ re going to make the mission that we ’ re going to stay in containment .
We can ’ t get to the point that we have to retreat from containment .
I believe we ’ re going to get there .
The testing has to be readily available , and it ’ s increasing .
I think yesterday there were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You know where that exact number needs to be is being defined .
But Congress really helped enormously , where they released $ 11 billion for the states to begin to really concretize that testing and contact tracing and isolation .
The bottom line is that we have enough resources now to deal with the spot outbreaks that reopening will create .
That means we need to get people back to work now , because that economic activity will fuel our later efforts at containment and eradication .
Redfield sees the need for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scale of three to six trillion dollars to deal with future pandemics .
We can ’ t put that kind of investment together without a fully functioning economy , especially when whatever resources we have on hand are being spent on the consequences of the shutdown on private businesses and employment .
Redfield ’ s not backing reopening because of politics — he ’ s backing it because of that hard economic reality .
Watch the full interview between Redfield and Clemons here .
It ’ s pretty dry — Redfield isn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it has some nuggets worth watching .

Mission accomplished? At least in terms of flattening the curve, yes, CDC director Robert Redfield tells The Hill’s Steve Clemons in an interview released late last night. The shelter-in-place orders have succeeded in tamping down mass community spread and health-care resources are extensive enough to deal with spot outbreaks — for now, anyway. Redfield spends most of the time arguing for a massive investment in public health infrastructure, to the point where the green light for starting to reopen is almost an afterthought.
Still, the green light is given:
The head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said Tuesday that he believes the U.S. is ready to begin reopening, even as he acknowledged the need to invest further in the nation’s public health infrastructure and expand contact tracing to avoid sustained outbreaks. “I want to clarify that the community-based transmission, the community-to-community transmission that overwhelmed the public health departments in late February, March, April, that’s really coming down,” Redfield said in an interview with Steve Clemons, author of The Hill’s daily Coronavirus Report. Redfield told The Hill that the CDC is working with state public health agencies to contain outbreaks in nursing homes, among homeless populations, in meatpacking facilities and in other areas. He signaled states will have sufficient testing and contact tracing to follow the White House’s guidelines for reopening.
The CDC is actually a bit late to the reopening party, Clemons points out. They finally promulgated a decision-tree matrix for states to consider, but by that time more than a dozen states had already begun to roll back restrictions on the public square. Redfield tells Clemons that was a communications issue, not a policy conflict, and that the decision trees were not the result of a power struggle:
“This outbreak has gone from a CDC to an all-of-government response,” he said, saying the guidelines went through an inter-agency review process. “One of the things that became clear at the task force when we put up our initial guidelines is a number of people criticized, and I think appropriately, that a lot of our guidelines are written in what they called CDC-eze, meaning that they’re not easy for the American public to actually get through,” he said. “And so the decision was, why don’t you guys do some decision trees that are simple one-pagers. You’ve probably seen them targeting the American public. And we released those six decision trees last week.”
Just because we’re ready to start reopening doesn’t mean the crisis is over, Redfield warns. The spread should slow over the next few months but it might pick up steam in the fall. States and local governments should use this time to hire as many contact tracers as possible, to find outbreaks now but more importantly to keep from having to do more shutdowns in the fall and winter. Testing capacity will be a major issue at that point, even if we’re not using the capacity we have right now:
[F]or the states to open up, it was important that they could test people that have flu like illness and or syndromic disease. They could set up surveillance. They had the contact tracers that they needed right now. But in the fall/winter, we’re going to need a much more robust workforce because we’re going to make the mission that we’re going to stay in containment. We can’t get to the point that we have to retreat from containment. I believe we’re going to get there. The testing has to be readily available, and it’s increasing. I think yesterday there were 400,000 tests done in a day. You know where that exact number needs to be is being defined. But Congress really helped enormously, where they released $11 billion for the states to begin to really concretize that testing and contact tracing and isolation.
The bottom line is that we have enough resources now to deal with the spot outbreaks that reopening will create. That means we need to get people back to work now, because that economic activity will fuel our later efforts at containment and eradication. Redfield sees the need for an investment in public-health infrastructure on the scale of three to six trillion dollars to deal with future pandemics. We can’t put that kind of investment together without a fully functioning economy, especially when whatever resources we have on hand are being spent on the consequences of the shutdown on private businesses and employment. Redfield’s not backing reopening because of politics — he’s backing it because of that hard economic reality.
Watch the full interview between Redfield and Clemons here. It’s pretty dry — Redfield isn’t exactly a dynamic speaker — but it has some nuggets worth watching.


hotair--2020-05-20--Why did NASA's head of human spaceflight suddenly resign?

People resigning or being dismissed from the Trump administration is obviously nothing new these days .
We ’ ve seen virtually unprecedented rates of turnover for the past couple of years .
But the most recent departure comes at a very strange time and leaves a bit of a mystery in its wake .
The resignation of Doug Loverro , NASA ’ s chief of human space exploration programs , was announced last night .
He ’ d only been on the job for six months , but that ’ s not the only strange part of this event .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the first launch of astronauts into orbit from an American spaceport on a rocket built in America in over a decade .
Elon Musk ’ s SpaceX corporation is prepared to launch two astronauts into orbit on a Falcon 9 Crew Dragon flight on May 27th , but Loverro won ’ t be the one overseeing this historic mission .
( The Verge ) The head of NASA ’ s human exploration program , Doug Loverro , has resigned less than six months after assuming the position within the agency , according @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change in leadership comes just a week before NASA will launch its first astronauts from the US in nearly a decade , on top of SpaceX ’ s new Crew Dragon spacecraft .
This is the second time during the Trump administration that this role has been in turmoil .
In July 2019 , NASA demoted the original person in this position , William Gerstenmaier , who had been serving as the associate administrator for human exploration at NASA for nearly 15 years .
Loverro took over the position in December after a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his tenure has been cut short .
“ Loverro hit the ground running this year and has made significant progress in his time at NASA , ” a memo to NASA employees states .
“ His leadership of [ human exploration ] has moved us closer to accomplishing our goal of landing the first woman and the next man on the Moon in 2024 .
Loverro is being replaced by Ken Bowersox , who previously held the position as an interim director last year , so we ’ ll at least have someone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The real question here is why Loverro would depart at such a pivotal moment in America ’ s manned spaceflight operations .
The problem is that Loverro isn ’ t saying… at least not yet .
He sent a memo out to the staff assuring them that his departure had nothing to do with the performance of the operation , but was because of his “ personal actions.
” He ’ s citing a “ risk he took earlier this year ” as the determining factor .
Loverro was quite vague in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ key portion of his memo that ’ s raising eyebrows : “ The risks we take , whether technical , political , or personal , all have potential consequences if we judge them incorrectly .
I took such a risk earlier in the year because I judged it necessary to fulfill our mission .
Now , over the balance of time , it is clear that I made a mistake in that choice for which I alone must bear the consequences.
” That ’ s kind of tough to parse , isn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three categories of “ risks ” that can be taken… technical , political or personal .
Since he already expressed full confidence in the program as it stands , it doesn ’ t seem likely that he ’ s talking about a technical risk .
But at the same time , he says he took the risk because he judged it necessary to fulfill the mission .
What other sort of a risk would directly impact the mission of the program ?
And why would he include “ political ” in the list @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politicized operations in the federal government .
( Which is really saying something these days . )
Did he do something that he thought would anger Donald Trump , leading him to resign before he could be fired ?
Or was it “ suggested ” to him in private that he should consider resigning so he could look like he was leaving on his own terms ?
The only other option he offers is a “ personal ” risk .
That could mean anything from an affair with a subordinate to a gambling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would have been “ necessary to fulfill the mission.
” In any event , with Bowersox in charge , we should still be on track for SpaceX to pull off this launch next week assuming the weather cooperates .
Bob Behnken and Doug Hurley will be taking the first ride on the Crew Dragon and I hope that you all keep them in your prayers .
The vehicle has been nearly flawless throughout the testing phase and , for the first time , we have a capsule with the ability to jettison during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ command , returning for a soft landing .
Let ’ s hope they don ’ t need to test that feature on this flight .

People resigning or being dismissed from the Trump administration is obviously nothing new these days. We’ve seen virtually unprecedented rates of turnover for the past couple of years. But the most recent departure comes at a very strange time and leaves a bit of a mystery in its wake. The resignation of Doug Loverro, NASA’s chief of human space exploration programs, was announced last night. He’d only been on the job for six months, but that’s not the only strange part of this event. We’re only eight days away from the first launch of astronauts into orbit from an American spaceport on a rocket built in America in over a decade. Elon Musk’s SpaceX corporation is prepared to launch two astronauts into orbit on a Falcon 9 Crew Dragon flight on May 27th, but Loverro won’t be the one overseeing this historic mission. (The Verge)
The head of NASA’s human exploration program, Doug Loverro, has resigned less than six months after assuming the position within the agency, according to a NASA memo. The drastic change in leadership comes just a week before NASA will launch its first astronauts from the US in nearly a decade, on top of SpaceX’s new Crew Dragon spacecraft. This is the second time during the Trump administration that this role has been in turmoil. In July 2019, NASA demoted the original person in this position, William Gerstenmaier, who had been serving as the associate administrator for human exploration at NASA for nearly 15 years. Loverro took over the position in December after a long search by NASA, but now his tenure has been cut short. “Loverro hit the ground running this year and has made significant progress in his time at NASA,” a memo to NASA employees states. “His leadership of [human exploration] has moved us closer to accomplishing our goal of landing the first woman and the next man on the Moon in 2024.
Loverro is being replaced by Ken Bowersox, who previously held the position as an interim director last year, so we’ll at least have someone with experience in the program taking charge. The real question here is why Loverro would depart at such a pivotal moment in America’s manned spaceflight operations.
The problem is that Loverro isn’t saying… at least not yet. He sent a memo out to the staff assuring them that his departure had nothing to do with the performance of the operation, but was because of his “personal actions.” He’s citing a “risk he took earlier this year” as the determining factor. Loverro was quite vague in this description. Here’s the key portion of his memo that’s raising eyebrows:
“The risks we take, whether technical, political, or personal, all have potential consequences if we judge them incorrectly. I took such a risk earlier in the year because I judged it necessary to fulfill our mission. Now, over the balance of time, it is clear that I made a mistake in that choice for which I alone must bear the consequences.”
That’s kind of tough to parse, isn’t it? He chooses to cite three categories of “risks” that can be taken… technical, political or personal. Since he already expressed full confidence in the program as it stands, it doesn’t seem likely that he’s talking about a technical risk. But at the same time, he says he took the risk because he judged it necessary to fulfill the mission. What other sort of a risk would directly impact the mission of the program?
And why would he include “political” in the list? NASA is one of the least politicized operations in the federal government. (Which is really saying something these days.) Did he do something that he thought would anger Donald Trump, leading him to resign before he could be fired? Or was it “suggested” to him in private that he should consider resigning so he could look like he was leaving on his own terms?
The only other option he offers is a “personal” risk. That could mean anything from an affair with a subordinate to a gambling problem, but none of those options would have been “necessary to fulfill the mission.”
In any event, with Bowersox in charge, we should still be on track for SpaceX to pull off this launch next week assuming the weather cooperates. Bob Behnken and Doug Hurley will be taking the first ride on the Crew Dragon and I hope that you all keep them in your prayers. The vehicle has been nearly flawless throughout the testing phase and, for the first time, we have a capsule with the ability to jettison during ascent in the event of an abort command, returning for a soft landing. Let’s hope they don’t need to test that feature on this flight.


hotair--2020-05-20--Mika Brzezinski to Twitter: When are you going to end these smears and deplatform Trump?

I don ’ t know why she ’ s having trouble with the concept that the president is entitled to smear anyone he wants , on any platform he wants , any time he wants .
It ’ s in the Constitution , not to mention the Bible .
It ’ s always bittersweet for a Never Trumper when Joe and Mika are mad at Trump for something .
Even when they have a point , it can ’ t be forgotten that they ’ re the cable-news equivalent of Dr. Frankenstein .
They helped mainstream his candidacy to Official @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s wrecking the lab and they want help .
Brzezinski ’ s mad because Trump continues to tweet vicious nonsense insinuating that Scarborough had something to do with the death of an aide who worked for him when he was in Congress .
He did it last week… …and he did it again this morning , which set Mika off : Scarborough ’ s aide wasn ’ t murdered .
She had a heart condition , collapsed , and hit her head on a desk .
Trump may or may not realize that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ information from dubious sources , so who knows — but he ’ s happy to pass along the smear regardless because he ’ s angry at Scarborough for criticizing him relentlessly since their falling out a few years ago .
This has now gone beyond “ Morning Joe ” vs. Trump , said Brzezinski in a monologue this morning .
This is now about Twitter .
She wasn ’ t messing around when she said the company would be hearing from her .
She raged about it all morning .
( “ Jack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for those who don ’ t use the platform . )
Trumpers are replying to her that she ’ s a “ Karen , ” which is funny and true enough ( even her haircut is right ) but which obscures the issue .
Should a private company let its product be used to broadcast thinly veiled accusations of murder to a global audience by an unbalanced demagogue ?
Brzezinski tweeted at Twitter HQ to “ please read your policy.
” Here ’ s the section on “ abusive behavior ” : You @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of someone , or incite other people to do so .
We consider abusive behavior an attempt to harass , intimidate , or silence someone else ’ s voice .
On Twitter , you should feel safe expressing your unique point of view .
We believe in freedom of expression and open dialogue , but that means little as an underlying philosophy if voices are silenced because people are afraid to speak up .
In order to facilitate healthy dialogue on the platform , and empower individuals to express diverse opinions and beliefs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intimidates , or is otherwise intended to shame or degrade others .
In addition to posing risks to people ’ s safety , abusive behavior may also lead to physical and emotional hardship for those affected .
The point of that rule , as I read it , is to make everyone comfortable using the platform .
It ’ s not the abuse per se that Twitter ’ s worried about , it ’ s how fear of it might discourage some people from participating in conversation .
The multimillionaire TV personalities with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ network are at no risk of having their voices “ silenced , ” needless to say .
But that ’ s a crabbed reading .
Very basic here : Is falsely insinuating that someone has committed murder a form of “ harassment ” ?
Of course it is .
It probably doesn ’ t amount to actionable libel because of Trump ’ s wink-wink ambivalence about whether Scarborough is guilty ( “ Some people think so ” ) but the point is clearly to popularize the smear among those who read his Twitter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Why enable him , Brzezinski wants to know from Dorsey and his company ?
There are obvious answers : Influence .
Prestige .
It ’ s nice to be known as the president ’ s social media platform of choice , even if he ’ s using it to fling sh*t at people like a rabid monkey .
And it ’ s risky to make an enemy of a famously vindictive politician whose fans already have it in for Big Tech .
Presumably Twitter will come up with some more politic justification @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the public interest for Americans to see what the president is saying , even if what he ’ s saying is irresponsible.
” But Brzezinski and Scarborough have a prominent enough platform in their own right on MSNBC to make life uncomfortable for Twitter .
That ’ s why I wanted to call her harangue today to your attention : It ’ s possible that this episode will lead to some sort of change in how Twitter handles Trump ’ s account , even if no one expects them to ban him or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s been kicked around before is to append some sort of label to tweets by Trump that violate the company ’ s terms of service noting the violation .
Maybe that ’ s what they ’ ll end up doing — although then they ’ ll be back to having to explain why the president ’ s tweets get to stay up with some sort of disclaimer attached while your tweets or mine would be summarily yanked down and our accounts suspended .
And before you ask , no , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ major social media company needs a strategy on how to handle the president ’ s tweets because he ’ s too much of a low-rent troll to conduct himself with basic civility .
Stay tuned .
Here ’ s Pelosi commenting today about Trump ’ s Scarborough tweets and mentioning something about , uh , doggie doo .

I don’t know why she’s having trouble with the concept that the president is entitled to smear anyone he wants, on any platform he wants, any time he wants.
It’s in the Constitution, not to mention the Bible.
It’s always bittersweet for a Never Trumper when Joe and Mika are mad at Trump for something. Even when they have a point, it can’t be forgotten that they’re the cable-news equivalent of Dr. Frankenstein. They helped mainstream his candidacy to Official Washington in 2015. Now he’s wrecking the lab and they want help.
Brzezinski’s mad because Trump continues to tweet vicious nonsense insinuating that Scarborough had something to do with the death of an aide who worked for him when he was in Congress. He did it last week…
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1260161295019630592
…and he did it again this morning, which set Mika off:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1263081823812366338
Scarborough’s aide wasn’t murdered. She had a heart condition, collapsed, and hit her head on a desk. Trump may or may not realize that — he’s constantly ingesting garbage information from dubious sources, so who knows — but he’s happy to pass along the smear regardless because he’s angry at Scarborough for criticizing him relentlessly since their falling out a few years ago.
This has now gone beyond “Morning Joe” vs. Trump, said Brzezinski in a monologue this morning. This is now about Twitter.
She wasn’t messing around when she said the company would be hearing from her. She raged about it all morning. (“Jack” is Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, for those who don’t use the platform.)
.@twitter need to know why trump is not banned? — Mika Brzezinski (@morningmika) May 20, 2020
I will be reaching out to head of twitter about their policies being violated every day by President Tump. Hope my call is taken. Please retweet if you agree — Mika Brzezinski (@morningmika) May 20, 2020
. @jack please take my call today. Please stop allowing your platform policies to be abused by the day. It’s called libel. — Mika Brzezinski (@morningmika) May 20, 2020
.@jack At what point is @Twitter a part of this? TAKE DOWN TRUMP’s ACCOUNT— the world world be safer. Retweet if you agree — Mika Brzezinski (@morningmika) May 20, 2020
A call is being set up with @jack and the GC. Thanks for your interest. I will keep you posted https://t.co/eyQwke6KB4 — Mika Brzezinski (@morningmika) May 20, 2020
Curious @twitter Why not delete Trumps misleading tweets?Twitter Deleted Two Tweets From Brazil’s President Jair Bolsonaro For Spreading Coronavirus Misinformation https://t.co/SB4d5TyFCR — Mika Brzezinski (@morningmika) May 20, 2020
Trumpers are replying to her that she’s a “Karen,” which is funny and true enough (even her haircut is right) but which obscures the issue. Should a private company let its product be used to broadcast thinly veiled accusations of murder to a global audience by an unbalanced demagogue? Brzezinski tweeted at Twitter HQ to “please read your policy.” Here’s the section on “abusive behavior”:
You may not engage in the targeted harassment of someone, or incite other people to do so. We consider abusive behavior an attempt to harass, intimidate, or silence someone else’s voice. On Twitter, you should feel safe expressing your unique point of view. We believe in freedom of expression and open dialogue, but that means little as an underlying philosophy if voices are silenced because people are afraid to speak up. In order to facilitate healthy dialogue on the platform, and empower individuals to express diverse opinions and beliefs, we prohibit behavior that harasses or intimidates, or is otherwise intended to shame or degrade others. In addition to posing risks to people’s safety, abusive behavior may also lead to physical and emotional hardship for those affected.
The point of that rule, as I read it, is to make everyone comfortable using the platform. It’s not the abuse per se that Twitter’s worried about, it’s how fear of it might discourage some people from participating in conversation. The multimillionaire TV personalities with their own morning show on a national network are at no risk of having their voices “silenced,” needless to say.
But that’s a crabbed reading. Very basic here: Is falsely insinuating that someone has committed murder a form of “harassment”? Of course it is. It probably doesn’t amount to actionable libel because of Trump’s wink-wink ambivalence about whether Scarborough is guilty (“Some people think so”) but the point is clearly to popularize the smear among those who read his Twitter account, which is the entire planet. Why enable him, Brzezinski wants to know from Dorsey and his company?
There are obvious answers: Influence. Prestige. It’s nice to be known as the president’s social media platform of choice, even if he’s using it to fling sh*t at people like a rabid monkey. And it’s risky to make an enemy of a famously vindictive politician whose fans already have it in for Big Tech. Presumably Twitter will come up with some more politic justification, like “It’s in the public interest for Americans to see what the president is saying, even if what he’s saying is irresponsible.” But Brzezinski and Scarborough have a prominent enough platform in their own right on MSNBC to make life uncomfortable for Twitter. That’s why I wanted to call her harangue today to your attention: It’s possible that this episode will lead to some sort of change in how Twitter handles Trump’s account, even if no one expects them to ban him or to delete his tweets. One idea that’s been kicked around before is to append some sort of label to tweets by Trump that violate the company’s terms of service noting the violation. Maybe that’s what they’ll end up doing — although then they’ll be back to having to explain why the president’s tweets get to stay up with some sort of disclaimer attached while your tweets or mine would be summarily yanked down and our accounts suspended.
And before you ask, no, I can’t believe either that a major social media company needs a strategy on how to handle the president’s tweets because he’s too much of a low-rent troll to conduct himself with basic civility.
Stay tuned. Here’s Pelosi commenting today about Trump’s Scarborough tweets and mentioning something about, uh, doggie doo.


hotair--2020-05-20--NBC: Trump abandons another presidential tradition to slap Obama

The public rift between President Trump and former President Obama is escalating .
It ’ s to be expected since this is a presidential election year .
President Trump is running for re-election , Obama ’ s vice-president is running against Trump , and there has never been any love lost between Trump and Obama .
Who knew something as simple as the unveiling of a portrait would get caught in the crossfire ?
NBC News reports that President Trump has no plans to continue a White House tradition – the unveiling of the official portrait of his predecessor , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hosts his predecessor during his first term for an unveiling ceremony in the East Room at the White House .
It ’ s a chance to honor the former president and guests applaud the latest addition to the collection of presidential portraits .
Currently , if you go to this website , you can see all of the portraits except Obama ’ s .
In his place , there is a photo of Obama posing for White House photographer Pete Souza .
NBC was the first to report Obama ’ s portrait unveiling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if he is re-elected .
The network ’ s report references the extent of attacks Trump has taken against Obama .
Remember , Obama is always the victim in the eyes of the press .
Yet this modern ritual won ’ t be taking place between Obama and President Donald Trump , according to people familiar with the matter .
And if Trump wins a second term in November , it could be 2025 before Obama returns to the White House to see his portrait displayed among every U.S. president from George Washington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shunning yet another presidential custom , and he has attacked Obama to an extent no other president has done to a predecessor .
Most recently he ’ s made unfounded accusations that Obama committed an unspecified crime .
The tradition has continued through some less than cordial presidential transitions until now .
The press is treating this snub from Trump as though it is a one-sided action and Obama is an innocent victim of a racist , divisive president .
One op-ed on CNN ’ s site blames Trump ’ s anger over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ North Star for Trump is the racial appeal of constantly aiming snubs and attacks at the nation ’ s first black president , Barack Obama .
Seemingly out of nowhere , Trump and his faithful echo chamber at Fox News have concocted a conspiracy theory he has dubbed “ Obamagate.
” There ’ s no particular logic to Obamagate , which roughly boils down to a claim floated without evidence that former President Barack Obama led a supposed “ coup ” to sabotage Trump ’ s presidency .
There doesn ’ t have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pressed by a reporter to explain it , Trump was unwilling to even try .
We ’ re likely to see more attacks on Obama as Trump searches for a strategy to reverse the serious challenges he faces as he tries to get re-elected .
Even before reports surfaced of the President — enraged over falling poll numbers a few weeks ago — shouting into the phone at his campaign manager , Brad Parscale , it was clear that the odds are not in Trump ’ s favor .
New York magazine ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ casualty of Trump ’ s norm-breaking habit.
” This is the “ most petty ” example .
One of the most concerning structural elements of the Trump administration has been the realization that a good chunk of the limitations on executive power are just unofficial norms that can be cast aside by a president in pursuit of unchecked power .
One of the most serious examples playing out in the shadow of the pandemic is Trump ’ s dismissal of inspectors general across the Executive branch , including the State Department IG , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investigating if Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was making a staffer run personal errands and walk his dog .
The most petty example is that Trump is reportedly planning to skip the White House portrait ceremony , in which the current president formally hangs up a painting of his predecessor in the East Room .
“ Unchecked power ” is where this magazine wants to go against Trump ?
This is especially rich as it is a contrasting view of Trump and Obama .
I ’ m old enough to remember that Barack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Obamacare , on a strictly partisan vote that rocked 1/6 of the American economy , and implemented DACA , as well as weaponized every department in the federal government against conservatives .
So , spare me the St. Barack overtones here .
Also reported by NBC is the word from those close to Obama that he isn ’ t interested in attending such a ceremony with Trump anyway .
When he said this during the George W. Bush unveiling ceremony , he wasn ’ t really serious , apparently - “ We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Barack Obama said when he hosted former President George W. Bush for his portrait unveiling in 2012 , “ but the presidency transcends those differences.
” Those complaining about the narcissism of Trump conveniently ignore who ushered in a new level of presidential narcissism – Barack Obama .
Obama normalized it .
It ’ s not surprising that any of this is happening , especially as we move closer to the November election .
There is little normalcy left in Washington .
From the beginning of the Trump administration , Democrats have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Former elected officials have traveled overseas and trashed Trump and his administration , which is certainly a norm-busting thing to do but it is not criticized in the press .
Trump latched on to Hillary Clinton ’ s whisper campaign that Obama may not have been born in America and the birther narrative blossomed .
As recently as last weekend , Obama told high school graduates that the Trump administration isn ’ t even pretending to do their jobs .
Before that he told former staffers that Trump is incompetent and handling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ call with former staffers was deliberately leaked to the press so Obama ’ s criticisms could be on the record .
Joe Biden began his presidential campaign by calling Trump a racist .
If anyone is at all surprised that Trump punches back , they haven ’ t been paying attention for the last three years or more .
Does anyone think that when the time comes , a Democrat will afford the courtesy of an unveiling ceremony at the White for Trump ’ s official portrait ?
Especially if that Democrat is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a third term of the Obama administration .
He ’ d be happy to give his best friend Barack the ceremony .

The public rift between President Trump and former President Obama is escalating. It’s to be expected since this is a presidential election year. President Trump is running for re-election, Obama’s vice-president is running against Trump, and there has never been any love lost between Trump and Obama. Who knew something as simple as the unveiling of a portrait would get caught in the crossfire?
NBC News reports that President Trump has no plans to continue a White House tradition – the unveiling of the official portrait of his predecessor, President Obama. Traditionally, a president hosts his predecessor during his first term for an unveiling ceremony in the East Room at the White House. It’s a chance to honor the former president and guests applaud the latest addition to the collection of presidential portraits. Currently, if you go to this website, you can see all of the portraits except Obama’s. In his place, there is a photo of Obama posing for White House photographer Pete Souza. NBC was the first to report Obama’s portrait unveiling may not happen until Trump leaves office if he is re-elected. The network’s report references the extent of attacks Trump has taken against Obama. Remember, Obama is always the victim in the eyes of the press.
Yet this modern ritual won’t be taking place between Obama and President Donald Trump, according to people familiar with the matter. And if Trump wins a second term in November, it could be 2025 before Obama returns to the White House to see his portrait displayed among every U.S. president from George Washington to Bush. Trump is unconcerned about shunning yet another presidential custom, and he has attacked Obama to an extent no other president has done to a predecessor. Most recently he’s made unfounded accusations that Obama committed an unspecified crime.
The tradition has continued through some less than cordial presidential transitions until now. The press is treating this snub from Trump as though it is a one-sided action and Obama is an innocent victim of a racist, divisive president. One op-ed on CNN’s site blames Trump’s anger over a sinking re-election campaign.
But the North Star for Trump is the racial appeal of constantly aiming snubs and attacks at the nation’s first black president, Barack Obama. Seemingly out of nowhere, Trump and his faithful echo chamber at Fox News have concocted a conspiracy theory he has dubbed “Obamagate.” There’s no particular logic to Obamagate, which roughly boils down to a claim floated without evidence that former President Barack Obama led a supposed “coup” to sabotage Trump’s presidency. There doesn’t have to be logic. Indeed, when pressed by a reporter to explain it, Trump was unwilling to even try. We’re likely to see more attacks on Obama as Trump searches for a strategy to reverse the serious challenges he faces as he tries to get re-elected. Even before reports surfaced of the President — enraged over falling poll numbers a few weeks ago — shouting into the phone at his campaign manager, Brad Parscale, it was clear that the odds are not in Trump’s favor.
New York magazine’s Intelligencer calls this the “latest casualty of Trump’s norm-breaking habit.” This is the “most petty” example.
One of the most concerning structural elements of the Trump administration has been the realization that a good chunk of the limitations on executive power are just unofficial norms that can be cast aside by a president in pursuit of unchecked power. One of the most serious examples playing out in the shadow of the pandemic is Trump’s dismissal of inspectors general across the Executive branch, including the State Department IG, axed on Friday, who was reportedly investigating if Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was making a staffer run personal errands and walk his dog. The most petty example is that Trump is reportedly planning to skip the White House portrait ceremony, in which the current president formally hangs up a painting of his predecessor in the East Room.
“Unchecked power” is where this magazine wants to go against Trump? This is especially rich as it is a contrasting view of Trump and Obama. I’m old enough to remember that Barack Obama rammed through a health insurance takeover, Obamacare, on a strictly partisan vote that rocked 1/6 of the American economy, and implemented DACA, as well as weaponized every department in the federal government against conservatives. So, spare me the St. Barack overtones here.
Also reported by NBC is the word from those close to Obama that he isn’t interested in attending such a ceremony with Trump anyway. When he said this during the George W. Bush unveiling ceremony, he wasn’t really serious, apparently -“We may have our differences politically,” President Barack Obama said when he hosted former President George W. Bush for his portrait unveiling in 2012, “but the presidency transcends those differences.” Those complaining about the narcissism of Trump conveniently ignore who ushered in a new level of presidential narcissism – Barack Obama. Obama normalized it.
Obama, for his part, has no interest in participating in the post-presidency rite of passage so long as Trump is in office, the people familiar with the matter said.
It’s not surprising that any of this is happening, especially as we move closer to the November election. There is little normalcy left in Washington. From the beginning of the Trump administration, Democrats have taken potshots and tried to impeach him. Former elected officials have traveled overseas and trashed Trump and his administration, which is certainly a norm-busting thing to do but it is not criticized in the press. Trump latched on to Hillary Clinton’s whisper campaign that Obama may not have been born in America and the birther narrative blossomed. As recently as last weekend, Obama told high school graduates that the Trump administration isn’t even pretending to do their jobs. Before that he told former staffers that Trump is incompetent and handling the coronavirus pandemic badly. That phone call with former staffers was deliberately leaked to the press so Obama’s criticisms could be on the record. Joe Biden began his presidential campaign by calling Trump a racist. If anyone is at all surprised that Trump punches back, they haven’t been paying attention for the last three years or more.
Does anyone think that when the time comes, a Democrat will afford the courtesy of an unveiling ceremony at the White for Trump’s official portrait? Especially if that Democrat is Joe Biden? Biden is running for a third term of the Obama administration. He’d be happy to give his best friend Barack the ceremony.


hotair--2020-05-21--Tomorrow could be the end of Hong Kong as we know it

The BBC has a rundown of some the reactions to the move from pro-democracy forces in Hong Kong : A @ @ @ @ @ Hong Kong , including Democratic Party leader Wu Chi-wai , said the announcement was the @ @ @ @ @ , two systems ” .
Civic Party lawmaker Dennis Kwok said “ if this move @ @ @ @ @ country , two systems ’ will be officially erased .
This is the end of @ @ @ @ @ Tanya Chan added that this was the “ saddest day in Hong Kong history ” @ @ @ @ @ Joshua Wong tweeted that the move was an attempt by Beijing to “ silence Hong @ @ @ @ @ force and fear ” .

When the British handed over Hong Kong to China in 1997, China promised to respect it’s independence for the next 50 years. The shorthand for that plan was “one country, two systems.” But the two systems part of the plan could effectively come to an end tomorrow. China has tried and failed in the past to exert more control over Hong Kong, but this time it seems prepared to simply bypass Hong Kong’s government entirely and pass the new law via the mainland’s one party system:
This time, China is effectively circumventing the Hong Kong government, undercutting the relative autonomy granted to the territory. Instead, it is going through China’s rubber stamp legislature, the National People’s Congress, which holds its annual session starting Friday.
Security rules proposed by the Hong Kong government in 2003 would have empowered the authorities to close seditious newspapers and conduct searches without warrants. That proposal was abandoned after it triggered large protests.
You may recall that the months of protests in Hong Kong were prompted by an attempt to introduce a new law which might have made it possible for China to extradite people to the mainland for trial. That proposal was eventually withdrawn because of the protests. This time China is simply holding the vote in a place where protests won’t matter. And China is using the authoritarian’s favorite gimmick, claiming opposition to the Chinese Communist Party in Hong Kong isn’t home-grown but based on collusion with “external forces.”
In a clear effort to head off international concerns, China’s Foreign Ministry sent a letter on Thursday night to ambassadors posted to Beijing, urging them to support the legislation and laying out the government’s position. “The opposition in Hong Kong have long colluded with external forces to carry out acts of secession, subversion, infiltration and destruction against the Chinese mainland,” the letter stated.
The BBC has a rundown of some the reactions to the move from pro-democracy forces in Hong Kong:
A number of pro-democracy figures in Hong Kong, including Democratic Party leader Wu Chi-wai, said the announcement was the death of “one country, two systems”. Civic Party lawmaker Dennis Kwok said “if this move takes place, ‘one country, two systems’ will be officially erased. This is the end of Hong Kong.” His colleague Tanya Chan added that this was the “saddest day in Hong Kong history”.
The Wall Street Journal has more including an important point about the precedent being set here:
“I know that everyone is scared and worried tonight,” Joshua Wong, one of the city’s best-known activists, wrote in a Facebook post. “After this law is passed: What will happen to Hong Kong? How many people will be prosecuted? How many organizations will be banned?”… “I will continue to do what I believe to be correct,” said Martin Lee, the 81-year-old founding chairman of the city’s Democratic Party, who is known as the “Father of Democracy” in the city… “I don’t know which is worse: the law itself, or the process of allowing the standing committee to pass the law for Hong Kong,” he said, referring to Beijing’s plan to use its highest political body to introduce laws for Hong Kong and override the city’s lawmakers. “It’s a dangerous precedent set at a critical stage, and in the future they can repeat the same thing again and again.”
That’s a key point. It almost doesn’t matter how limited the new law passed Friday is. Once China established this precedent, i.e. that it can simply pass laws for Hong Kong via its one-party legislature in the mainland, Xi Jinping can go back and do this again and again for any reason at any time. This would make the claim of two systems little more than a mirage.
Here in the U.S., a bipartisan group of Senators are working on legislation which would sanction Chinese individuals involved in the attempted crackdown:
Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D., Md.) and Sen. Pat Toomey (R., Pa.) said they had been working on the bill, which aims to defend human rights in Hong Kong and pressure China to preserve the territory’s special status. They said Thursday’s developments made the legislation more urgent, and they will press Senate leaders to take up the matter quickly… “We would impose penalties on individuals who are complicit in China’s illegal crackdown in Hong Kong,” Mr. Van Hollen said. He called the move by Beijing “a gross violation” of China’s agreement with the U.K. to preserve more freedom and autonomy in the territory. Mr. Toomey called the move by China “very, very deeply disturbing.”
Senator Lindsey Graham said every effort should be made to prevent China from “destroying” Hong Kong.
President Trump: It is imperative that we put China on notice as to the consequences they would face if they try to end the “one country, two systems” arrangement of autonomy in Hong Kong. — Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) May 22, 2020
It is time to pass my legislation imposing sanctions on China for refusing to cooperate with the international community regarding the origins of #COVID19, failing to close their wet markets, and for their efforts to destroy Hong Kong. — Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) May 22, 2020
Sen. Ted Cruz also said it was time to reassess U.S. policy toward China.
The Chinese Communist Party is fast moving to end what is left of Hong Kong’s autonomy, stripping away essential freedoms from Hong Kong’s people. This is unacceptable and will require a reevaluation of U.S. policy if it is not immediately reversed. As I’ve long said, Hong Kong is the new Berlin, and now the U.S. must stand strong with our allies and hold the line against the spread of communism.”
Senators Rubio, Risch, and Gardner also released a joint statement:
“Reports that the CCP will introduce legislation implementing Article 23 of the Hong Kong Basic Law at this week’s National People’s Congress indicate Beijing will begin an unprecedented assault against Hong Kong’s autonomy. The Basic Law states clearly that the authority to advance Article 23 legislation rests with the executive and legislative branches of the Hong Kong government, and not with Beijing. The Chinese government is once again breaking its promises to the people of Hong Kong and the international community. “This comes on the heels of a series of other serious blows to Hong Kong’s self-rule in recent weeks, including the advocacy of a law criminalizing disrespect of the national anthem of the People’s Republic of China and pressure on Hong Kong’s legislature that led to the sidelining of pro-democracy legislators. “The United States will stand resolute in its support of the Hong Kong people. These developments are of grave concern to the United States, and could lead to a significant reassessment on U.S. policy towards Hong Kong.”
Nikki Haley highlighted the issue.
No surprise that while countries are focused on a virus spread by China’s carelessness, the Chinese Communist Party moves forward with its strategic plan by passing a law that tackles the political dissent that erupted on Hong Kong’s streets last year. #StandWithHongKong https://t.co/XluNFMQ917 — Nikki Haley (@NikkiHaley) May 21, 2020
And again, there is bipartisan consensus on this. Even Nancy Pelosi is expressing alarm.
Beijing’s announcement of yet another attempt to bring an end to the “one country, two systems” framework in #HongKong is deeply alarming. Attempting to circumvent the HK legislature shows a complete disrespect for the rule of law. — Nancy Pelosi (@SpeakerPelosi) May 21, 2020
Last week we had the beginning of what looked like a new trade war between the U.S. and China. Now we have something potentially even worse. There are more than 7 million people living in Hong Kong many of whom have expressed their admiration for freedom and the United States in particular. Over the next few hours, their freedom could effectively be wiped out by the world’s largest communist authoritarian state.