hotair--2020-09-08--The worst-laid plans: Minneapolis city council suddenly getting cold feet on abolishing police

Abolish in haste , repent at leisure .
The city council at the epicenter of the national unrest over policing and the death of George Floyd once promised to lead other cities to a police-free Utopia .
Three months later , without any plans to accomplish it and with residents and investors balking at the prospect , the Minneapolis City Council ’ s abolition movement has “ lost momentum , ” the Star Tribune reports : The Minneapolis City Council ’ s resolve to end the city ’ s police department has lost momentum , the result of the failure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ November and council members ’ diverging ideas on the role of sworn officers in the future .
In the three months since nine council members pledged to end the department following George Floyd ’ s killing , the city has experienced a surge in violent crime , another night of unrest and blowback from residents who felt they had been left out of the initial conversations about change .
Some council members have remained consistent in their statements about policing , while others have softened their rhetoric , saying now that they do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of public safety .
Most of the city council members have done nothing but make statements .
No one has yet to come up with an actual plan for public safety without a police force , mainly because that task is a flat-out impossibility .
The city ’ s Charter Commission refused to put the idea on this year ’ s ballot without an actual , detailed proposal for how the city planned to enforce the law and keep the city safe .
In desperation , the council tried claiming to the commission @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a police force .
So why not just fix the one the city already has ?
The biggest voice demanding abolition — and who also accused people who call police for property crimes of grasping at “ privilege ” — now wants to make excuses for dealing with “ complicated ” issues : “ I think when you take a statement and then move into policy work , it gets more complicated , ” said City Council President Lisa Bender .
In the coming weeks , she said , the council will work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ robust plan for getting feedback from residents on what changes they want to see — and when .
Gee , policy work is “ complicated ” ?
Whodathunkit ?
Perhaps that ’ s a good reason not to make public promises to do something unprecedented before , oh , doing some due diligence on what it means and what it would take .
Instead of dealing with their decades-long incompetence at running their own police department , Bender wanted to change the subject to getting rid of them altogether — and set that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police practices in place .
Now it looks to those wanting reform that the moment has passed : Perhaps the voters in Minneapolis should be talking about getting rid of Bender and the rest of the city council .
Even if some think abolishing the police is a good idea , Bender and her cohort are clearly incompetent at it .
For the vast majority of the voters , however , the radical plan from Bender et al to leave them at the mercy of violent criminals without any hope of protection should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ council members get re-elected , then Minneapolis deserves the impoverishment and collapse that will follow .

Abolish in haste, repent at leisure. The city council at the epicenter of the national unrest over policing and the death of George Floyd once promised to lead other cities to a police-free Utopia. Three months later, without any plans to accomplish it and with residents and investors balking at the prospect, the Minneapolis City Council’s abolition movement has “lost momentum,” the Star Tribune reports:
The Minneapolis City Council’s resolve to end the city’s police department has lost momentum, the result of the failure to get the question before voters in November and council members’ diverging ideas on the role of sworn officers in the future. In the three months since nine council members pledged to end the department following George Floyd’s killing, the city has experienced a surge in violent crime, another night of unrest and blowback from residents who felt they had been left out of the initial conversations about change. Some council members have remained consistent in their statements about policing, while others have softened their rhetoric, saying now that they do envision officers as part of any revamping of public safety.
Most of the city council members have done nothing but make statements. No one has yet to come up with an actual plan for public safety without a police force, mainly because that task is a flat-out impossibility. The city’s Charter Commission refused to put the idea on this year’s ballot without an actual, detailed proposal for how the city planned to enforce the law and keep the city safe. In desperation, the council tried claiming to the commission that their new structure would likely include a police force. So why not just fix the one the city already has?
The biggest voice demanding abolition — and who also accused people who call police for property crimes of grasping at “privilege” — now wants to make excuses for dealing with “complicated” issues:
“I think when you take a statement and then move into policy work, it gets more complicated,” said City Council President Lisa Bender. In the coming weeks, she said, the council will work with city staffers to create a more robust plan for getting feedback from residents on what changes they want to see — and when.
Gee, policy work is “complicated”? Whodathunkit? Perhaps that’s a good reason not to make public promises to do something unprecedented before, oh, doing some due diligence on what it means and what it would take. Instead of dealing with their decades-long incompetence at running their own police department, Bender wanted to change the subject to getting rid of them altogether — and set that as the goal, rather than reforming police practices in place.
Now it looks to those wanting reform that the moment has passed:
“They really did miss the opportunity to create actual change,” said Michelle Gross, of Communities United Against Police Brutality. “It’s almost as if changing the police is a bad word, and you’re supposed to be talking instead about getting rid of police.”
Perhaps the voters in Minneapolis should be talking about getting rid of Bender and the rest of the city council. Even if some think abolishing the police is a good idea, Bender and her cohort are clearly incompetent at it. For the vast majority of the voters, however, the radical plan from Bender et al to leave them at the mercy of violent criminals without any hope of protection should be disqualifying.
If any of these council members get re-elected, then Minneapolis deserves the impoverishment and collapse that will follow.


hotair--2020-09-09--Liberals figure out a way to make the Oscars even worse

I realize that many of you will read the title of this column and assume that it ’ s just more fake news .
How could anyone possibly make the Oscars worse than they ’ ve been in recent years ?
Heck , they can ’ t even get much of their own liberal audience to tune in .
( The 2020 edition hit an all-time low with a 5.3 rating and that was before the Pandemic hit . )
And yet they ’ ve managed to figure out a way .
From now on , it won ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ movie , or at least “ good ” as defined by the Hollywood elite .
Now the prospective nominees for the Best Picture Award will be judged on whether or not the people involved in every aspect of the production are “ diverse ” enough .
This is apparently Hollywood ’ s latest nod to the Black Lives Matter movement , though we might at least hope that it will include Hispanics , Asians and Indigenous Americans as well .
The Los Angeles Times has the predictably woke details .
And the Oscar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ latest step in its ongoing effort to boost diversity both within its own ranks and across the film industry , on Tuesday the film academy announced new representation standards for films to be eligible to compete for best picture .
Developed over the past few months by a special task force as part of the organization ’ s Academy Aperture 2025 initiative , the standards encompass both representation onscreen — in the types of stories being told and the actors involved — as well as behind the scenes in the makeup of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ companies involved .
Keep in mind that this isn ’ t just a case of tipping the scales to the more diverse production teams .
Your movie can ’ t even qualify for consideration for a Best Picture nomination unless you meet at least two of the four diversity criteria .
( The standard isn ’ t applied to other awards , but the “ trickle-down ” effect will produce the same result . )
And since bonus points will be awarded for going above and beyond the minimum bar , you may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ land will be shooting for all four of them .
So what do they have to do to qualify ?
The four categories are listed as “ Onscreen Representation , Themes and Narratives , ” “ Creative Leadership and Project Team , ” “ Industry Access and Opportunities ” and “ Audience Development.
” Aside from the “ audience development ” category ( which I can ’ t make heads or tails of ) you should be able to figure out the meaning behind those yourselves .
So why will this probably make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they have been ?
For a long time now , it was very rare to see the top-grossing film of the year showing up as the Best Picture winner or even a nominee in many cases .
You can look down the list of the last 20 Best Picture winners and compare their box office totals to the really popular films .
In 2020 , Parasite won the award but it wasn ’ t even in the top ten for box office draw , left totally in the dust by Avengers : Endgame @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Heck… Parasite didn ’ t make half as much money as Jumanji : The Next Level .
The year before , the same situation applied to Green Book .
To find a Best Picture winner that grossed more than $ 100 million you need to go back to the 2013 awards when Argo took home the statue .
But even then , the film didn ’ t come close to the top ten for box office gold .
The point here is that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of us actually enjoy and would want to see .
They hand out prizes to the pictures that we ’ re supposed to like because of their artsy-fartsy criteria but the unwashed masses just aren ’ t enlightened enough to know what entertainment is good for them .
But now , when preparing to launch a new film project , not only will the production houses continue to crank out these elite stories that nobody cares about , but they won ’ t even be able to recruit the best talent possible to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , you say ?
Michael Bay , one of the top-grossing directors of the modern era is available to take the helm of your new arthouse project ?
Sorry .
He ’ s a straight , White , cisgender male .
But we ’ ve got this Hispanic lesbian available who graduated film school five years ago and has directed two absolutely kick-ass documentaries on salmon migration patterns .
Better grab her while she ’ s still on the market .
Honestly , it ’ s all too tiresome .
I don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actually watched the Oscars .
I ’ m pretty sure it was in the 90s .
And none of this nonsense is doing anything to lure me back , I assure you .

I realize that many of you will read the title of this column and assume that it’s just more fake news. How could anyone possibly make the Oscars worse than they’ve been in recent years? Heck, they can’t even get much of their own liberal audience to tune in. (The 2020 edition hit an all-time low with a 5.3 rating and that was before the Pandemic hit.) And yet they’ve managed to figure out a way.
From now on, it won’t be enough to simply make a good movie, or at least “good” as defined by the Hollywood elite. Now the prospective nominees for the Best Picture Award will be judged on whether or not the people involved in every aspect of the production are “diverse” enough. This is apparently Hollywood’s latest nod to the Black Lives Matter movement, though we might at least hope that it will include Hispanics, Asians and Indigenous Americans as well. The Los Angeles Times has the predictably woke details.
And the Oscar goes to … inclusion. In the latest step in its ongoing effort to boost diversity both within its own ranks and across the film industry, on Tuesday the film academy announced new representation standards for films to be eligible to compete for best picture. Developed over the past few months by a special task force as part of the organization’s Academy Aperture 2025 initiative, the standards encompass both representation onscreen — in the types of stories being told and the actors involved — as well as behind the scenes in the makeup of the crew and in the inclusivity of the companies involved.
Keep in mind that this isn’t just a case of tipping the scales to the more diverse production teams. Your movie can’t even qualify for consideration for a Best Picture nomination unless you meet at least two of the four diversity criteria. (The standard isn’t applied to other awards, but the “trickle-down” effect will produce the same result.) And since bonus points will be awarded for going above and beyond the minimum bar, you may rest assured that production houses across the land will be shooting for all four of them. So what do they have to do to qualify?
The four categories are listed as “Onscreen Representation, Themes and Narratives,” “Creative Leadership and Project Team,” “Industry Access and Opportunities” and “Audience Development.” Aside from the “audience development” category (which I can’t make heads or tails of) you should be able to figure out the meaning behind those yourselves.
So why will this probably make the awards shows even more sucky than they have been? For a long time now, it was very rare to see the top-grossing film of the year showing up as the Best Picture winner or even a nominee in many cases. You can look down the list of the last 20 Best Picture winners and compare their box office totals to the really popular films. In 2020, Parasite won the award but it wasn’t even in the top ten for box office draw, left totally in the dust by Avengers: Endgame, The Lion King and Frozen II. Heck… Parasite didn’t make half as much money as Jumanji: The Next Level.
The year before, the same situation applied to Green Book. To find a Best Picture winner that grossed more than $100 million you need to go back to the 2013 awards when Argo took home the statue. But even then, the film didn’t come close to the top ten for box office gold. The point here is that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has never given awards to movies that most of us actually enjoy and would want to see. They hand out prizes to the pictures that we’re supposed to like because of their artsy-fartsy criteria but the unwashed masses just aren’t enlightened enough to know what entertainment is good for them.
But now, when preparing to launch a new film project, not only will the production houses continue to crank out these elite stories that nobody cares about, but they won’t even be able to recruit the best talent possible to make them. What’s that, you say? Michael Bay, one of the top-grossing directors of the modern era is available to take the helm of your new arthouse project? Sorry. He’s a straight, White, cisgender male. But we’ve got this Hispanic lesbian available who graduated film school five years ago and has directed two absolutely kick-ass documentaries on salmon migration patterns. Better grab her while she’s still on the market.
Honestly, it’s all too tiresome. I don’t even remember the last time I actually watched the Oscars. I’m pretty sure it was in the 90s. And none of this nonsense is doing anything to lure me back, I assure you.


hotair--2020-09-08--Reporter refuses Trump's request to remove mask at press conference

President Trump held a press conference Monday at the White House .
When he opened it up for questions from the White House press corps , things got a little weird .
Reuters ’ White House reporter Jeff Mason was called on and began to ask a question .
President Trump stopped him and asked him to remove his face mask .
The president explained that Mason sounded “ muffled ” .
The reporter started to honor the request , he put his hand up to his mask as though to remove it , then stopped .
He said he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re going to have to take that off , please .
You can take it off .
How many feet are you away ?
” the president said .
Mason declined to remove his mask , but offered to “ speak a lot louder.
” “ Well , if you don ’ t take it off — you ’ re very muffled , ” Trump responded , “ so if you would take it off , it would be a lot easier.
” Mason again offered to speak “ a lot louder , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asked Trump “ Is that better ?
” Later , when two other reporters removed their masks to ask questions , Trump noted how clear they sounded .
“ … so clear…as opposed to everybody else , where they refuse.
” That ’ s a problem with face masks – they make a normal conversation more difficult .
They do muffle voices .
When someone speaks to us , our eyes tend to move down to watch the other person ’ s lips as they speak .
That ’ s not possible if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It hasn ’ t been that long ago that the White House press corps attended daily press briefings and press conferences without wearing masks .
I remember when reporters first began wearing them at the White House .
Mason had one on and when he was called on during a press conference , President Trump ribbed him a little about being politically correct .
It was an innocent exchange .
The exchange Monday , however , looked as though Mason was just trying to defy the president .
Trump was polite and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him to remove it .
Some press reports of the incident claim Trump did it as retaliation for the question Mason was trying to ask .
He asked about the president ’ s trip to France in 2018 and the phony manufactured scandal that Trump trashed veterans and the military during that trip .
If it was any other president and if we were not less than two months out from a presidential election , this vicious kind of story wouldn ’ t be a part of the news cycle .
But , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s looking pretty good in his re-election bid , so he must be stopped by the press , the propaganda wing of the Democrat Party .
Here ’ s an example from Deadline : President Donald Trump spent much of his Labor Day tweeting about an article in The Atlantic that painted him as dismissive of American soldiers who died in battle and unwilling to visit their graves .
The most explosive claim in the piece is that Trump called fallen soldiers “ suckers ” and “ losers , ” something that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surprise , then , that he seemed piqued when asked about the article in a news conference on Monday .
As Reuters ’ White House reporter Jeff Mason , who was wearing a mask , began to ask his question , Trump interrupted .
Mason asked his question .
“ Mr .
President , some people are having a hard time believing your denial of the Atlantic story because of what you said about John McCain .
Do you understand that ?
” The president responded to Mason ’ s question by saying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t understand it .
I don ’ t understand it at all because…I have always been on the opposite side of John McCain .
John McCain liked wars .
I will be a better warrior than anybody , but when we fight a war , we ’ re gon na win ’ em.
” “ The story is a hoax , ” said Trump of the Atlantic piece .
“ Written by a guy who ’ s got a tremendously bad history…It ’ s a made up story .
It ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say a thing like that ?
Only an animal would say a thing like that ?
” Trump then spent four minutes trying to refute the Atlantic piece , saying that “ 15 people have come out ” to verify his version of the events .
While Mason says “ some people ” are not believing the president ’ s denial , plenty of people do believe the president , which is something the biased press doesn ’ t understand .
Even people who don ’ t pay very much attention to politics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s participation in military ceremonies and graduations .
It has become a regular ritual for him to stay after he speaks and shake the hand of every graduate at the end of the ceremony .
He did it at the U.S .
Naval Academy graduation and the Air Force Academy long before he was running for re-election .
Trump ’ s beef with McCain was personal , it was separate from McCain ’ s military service .
The way Trump speaks is already well-known to his supporters .
Trump rightly pointed out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between him and the president that he could safely remove the mask .
Two other reporters did so .
How many interviews have you seen where a reporter is seated a few feet from Biden or Kamala ?
Not a peep is said when their interviews are conducted maskless .
They are socially distanced , just like Trump was at the podium during the White House press conference .
In this case , it looked like Mason was grandstanding .
He should have either spoken louder in the first place or just removed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to ask a question .

President Trump held a press conference Monday at the White House. When he opened it up for questions from the White House press corps, things got a little weird.
Reuters’ White House reporter Jeff Mason was called on and began to ask a question. President Trump stopped him and asked him to remove his face mask. The president explained that Mason sounded “muffled”. The reporter started to honor the request, he put his hand up to his mask as though to remove it, then stopped. He said he would speak louder.
“You’re going to have to take that off, please. You can take it off. How many feet are you away?” the president said. Mason declined to remove his mask, but offered to “speak a lot louder.” “Well, if you don’t take it off — you’re very muffled,” Trump responded, “so if you would take it off, it would be a lot easier.” Mason again offered to speak “a lot louder,” and raised his voice as he asked Trump “Is that better?” Trump sighed, responding hesitantly, “It’s better.”
.@realDonaldTrump scolds a reporter for wearing a mask: "You’re going to have to take that off, please. How many feet are you away? Well, if you don’t take it off, you are very muffled. So, if you would take it off it would be a lot easier…" pic.twitter.com/64l8N0yLdq — Washington Examiner (@dcexaminer) September 7, 2020
Later, when two other reporters removed their masks to ask questions, Trump noted how clear they sounded. “… so clear…as opposed to everybody else, where they refuse.”
That’s a problem with face masks – they make a normal conversation more difficult. They do muffle voices. When someone speaks to us, our eyes tend to move down to watch the other person’s lips as they speak. That’s not possible if the person is wearing a face mask.
It hasn’t been that long ago that the White House press corps attended daily press briefings and press conferences without wearing masks. I remember when reporters first began wearing them at the White House. Mason had one on and when he was called on during a press conference, President Trump ribbed him a little about being politically correct. It was an innocent exchange. The exchange Monday, however, looked as though Mason was just trying to defy the president. Trump was polite and said “please” when he asked him to remove it.
Some press reports of the incident claim Trump did it as retaliation for the question Mason was trying to ask. He asked about the president’s trip to France in 2018 and the phony manufactured scandal that Trump trashed veterans and the military during that trip. If it was any other president and if we were not less than two months out from a presidential election, this vicious kind of story wouldn’t be a part of the news cycle. But, it’s Trump and he’s looking pretty good in his re-election bid, so he must be stopped by the press, the propaganda wing of the Democrat Party.
Here’s an example from Deadline:
President Donald Trump spent much of his Labor Day tweeting about an article in The Atlantic that painted him as dismissive of American soldiers who died in battle and unwilling to visit their graves. The most explosive claim in the piece is that Trump called fallen soldiers “suckers” and “losers,” something that he denies. It’s not a surprise, then, that he seemed piqued when asked about the article in a news conference on Monday. As Reuters’ White House reporter Jeff Mason, who was wearing a mask, began to ask his question, Trump interrupted.
Mason asked his question. “Mr. President, some people are having a hard time believing your denial of the Atlantic story because of what you said about John McCain. Do you understand that?”
The president responded to Mason’s question by saying, “No, I don’t understand it. I don’t understand it at all because…I have always been on the opposite side of John McCain. John McCain liked wars. I will be a better warrior than anybody, but when we fight a war, we’re gonna win ’em.” “The story is a hoax,” said Trump of the Atlantic piece. “Written by a guy who’s got a tremendously bad history…It’s a made up story. It’s a totally made-up story.” “Who would say a thing like that? Only an animal would say a thing like that?” Trump then spent four minutes trying to refute the Atlantic piece, saying that “15 people have come out” to verify his version of the events.
While Mason says “some people” are not believing the president’s denial, plenty of people do believe the president, which is something the biased press doesn’t understand. Even people who don’t pay very much attention to politics on a regular basis have seen Trump’s participation in military ceremonies and graduations. It has become a regular ritual for him to stay after he speaks and shake the hand of every graduate at the end of the ceremony. He did it at the U.S. Naval Academy graduation and the Air Force Academy long before he was running for re-election. Trump’s beef with McCain was personal, it was separate from McCain’s military service. The way Trump speaks is already well-known to his supporters.
Trump rightly pointed out to Mason that there was enough distance between him and the president that he could safely remove the mask. Two other reporters did so. How many interviews have you seen where a reporter is seated a few feet from Biden or Kamala? Not a peep is said when their interviews are conducted maskless. They are socially distanced, just like Trump was at the podium during the White House press conference.
In this case, it looked like Mason was grandstanding. He should have either spoken louder in the first place or just removed his mask for however long it took to ask a question.


hotair--2020-09-09--Mediaite: Joe Biden's Instagram "ask me anything!" still missing one important thing

Want to personally pose a question to Joe Biden ?
“ I ’ m answering your questions , ” Biden — or his campaign — posted on the Democratic nominee ’ s Instagram account .
“ Ask me anything !
” Want to get an answer ?
That ’ s a whole other issue , Mediaite ’ s Charlie Nash discovered : 2020 Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden told his Instagram followers to “ Ask me anything !
” after announcing he would be answering questions on the app .
Over 24 hours later , however , the former vice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ I ’ m answering your questions .
Ask me anything !
” Biden declared in an Instagram story , with a submission box for followers to ask their questions .
Over the next 24 hours , Biden did not appear to reply to a single question publicly on his Instagram account , instead posting campaign graphics , merchandise promotions , and a link to his interview with rapper Cardi B. Biden could yet respond to the questions , either in an Instagram post or via video , but Instagram Q & As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after the questions have been fielded .
A politician who won ’ t answer questions ?
Heaven forfend !
That ’ s nothing new , but setting up those expectations in a social-media “ AMA ” is an amateurish bungle .
As Nash notes , those are usually live events , but even when they ’ re not , there ’ s an expectation of some timeliness to it .
It ’ s the immediacy of the connection as well as the promised transparency that gives AMAs their cachet — and extends to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when they don ’ t , the celebrities who fumble it end up looking more clueless than when they started .
What makes this even more puzzling is why the campaign didn ’ t just write the answers themselves .
Biden ’ s adventures in virtual Q & As make it pretty clear his team scripts out his answers for those venues .
Why not just cut out the aged middleman and conduct the AMA with the same aides writing the scripts ?
Instead , it appears from Biden ’ s Instagram page @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thread , perhaps after the Trump campaign started poking fun at their failure : Call this a “ how do you do , fellow kids ?
” moment from Biden and his team .
It ’ s more amusing than damaging ; no one has thought of Biden and cool and hip since , well , we stopped using the term “ hip ” unironically .
And frankly , Biden might have done more damage by actually engaging in the AMA and attempting to answer live questions .

Want to personally pose a question to Joe Biden? “I’m answering your questions,” Biden — or his campaign — posted on the Democratic nominee’s Instagram account. “Ask me anything!”
Want to get an answer? That’s a whole other issue, Mediaite’s Charlie Nash discovered:
2020 Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden told his Instagram followers to “Ask me anything!” after announcing he would be answering questions on the app. Over 24 hours later, however, the former vice president has yet to answer any. “I’m answering your questions. Ask me anything!” Biden declared in an Instagram story, with a submission box for followers to ask their questions. Over the next 24 hours, Biden did not appear to reply to a single question publicly on his Instagram account, instead posting campaign graphics, merchandise promotions, and a link to his interview with rapper Cardi B. Biden could yet respond to the questions, either in an Instagram post or via video, but Instagram Q&As typically take place in real time straight after the questions have been fielded.
A politician who won’t answer questions? Heaven forfend! That’s nothing new, but setting up those expectations in a social-media “AMA” is an amateurish bungle. As Nash notes, those are usually live events, but even when they’re not, there’s an expectation of some timeliness to it. It’s the immediacy of the connection as well as the promised transparency that gives AMAs their cachet — and extends to public figures who understand it. And when they don’t, the celebrities who fumble it end up looking more clueless than when they started.
What makes this even more puzzling is why the campaign didn’t just write the answers themselves. Biden’s adventures in virtual Q&As make it pretty clear his team scripts out his answers for those venues. Why not just cut out the aged middleman and conduct the AMA with the same aides writing the scripts? Instead, it appears from Biden’s Instagram page that they have just removed the whole thread, perhaps after the Trump campaign started poking fun at their failure:
Call this a “how do you do, fellow kids?” moment from Biden and his team. It’s more amusing than damaging; no one has thought of Biden and cool and hip since, well, we stopped using the term “hip” unironically. And frankly, Biden might have done more damage by actually engaging in the AMA and attempting to answer live questions.


hotair--2020-09-09--Trump: Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, and Tom Cotton are now on my Supreme Court shortlist

My favorite theory on social media this afternoon of why three aspiring presidents are suddenly SCOTUS candidates is that Trump ’ s trying to clear the 2024 field for Don Jr ( or Ivanka ) .
In that case , presumably Nikki Haley and Tucker Carlson are in the mix as well .
You can view the whole list here .
Most of the names are unfamiliar to me , but Ed Whelan ’ s right that Neomi Rao is a notable omission .
Not only is she young , female , and a minority , she harshly criticized Judge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the Executive Branch ” in the Mike Flynn case .
How much more loyalty does she need to show Trump to earn some Supreme Court consideration ?
It ’ s common for presidents to consider solicitors general for the Court and Trump has two esteemed ones on his list , Paul Clement and Noel Francisco .
Both are over 50 , though , which may be a teeny bit older than Trump would prefer with a lifetime appointment on the line .
Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron is also on the list , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has him lined up to run for governor or succeed him in the Senate in a few years .
Cameron is only 34 years old , though , and lacks the judicial experience or top-flight clerkships that would normally qualify someone for the Court .
I think he ’ s on the list as a courtesy , as thanks for speaking at the Republican convention .
Same goes for Cruz , Hawley , and Cotton .
There ’ s probably nothing serious behind adding them to the list , just a bit of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ loyal soldiers in the Senate .
And it ’ s a way to signal to MAGA fans that Trump is fond of the same populist bombthrowers that they are .
The average Fox-watcher won ’ t know what to make of most people on his list but they all have an opinion about these three and that opinion ’ s apt to be positive .
I laughed when I saw Hawley ’ s inclusion , not because he ’ s unqualified but because he very clearly has his eye on another job .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for John Roberts , and served as a state AG ; at just 40 years old , he ’ s an appealing candidate .
But Hawley ’ s not inveighing against Section 230 and heavy-breathing about leaving military bases named after Confederates because he wants a seat on the Court .
He wants Trump ’ s job .
So much so that he ’ s *already* taken himself out of the running for the Court after Trump announced his list : Cotton seems like a less likely choice .
He has a gilded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but no Supreme Court clerkship or AG credentials .
I doubt that he ’ s interested in a Court seat either , as he ’ s been to Iowa more than once over the past four years and visited New Hampshire a few months ago .
A guy whose chief contribution to politics this summer was egging on Trump to deploy regular troops against looters also seems more inclined temperamentally to the electoral , not the judicial , side of American government .
And yet , after Trump announced his list this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t think he ’ s trying out for a nomination — clearly there are people ahead of him on Trump ’ s list , like Amy Coney Barrett and Amul Thapar — but Trump just handed him an opportunity to show off his conservative cred to future primary voters .
So he seized it .
The most interesting possibility is Cruz .
He has top-flight credentials too — Harvard , clerked for Rehnquist — although he either doesn ’ t understand how Section 230 works or is too dishonest in his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does .
What makes him interesting is that I think he ’ ll end up as yesterday ’ s news in a 2024 primary .
Trumpers don ’ t really trust him after 2016 and he ’ ll have lots of competition for the populist vote this time from Hawley , Cotton , and others .
His “ constitutional conservative ” shtick *might* come back into vogue during a Biden presidency but there ’ s no reason to believe there ’ ll be a clamor for it on the right in 2024 if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cruz is 49 ; if he has any dreams of being on the Court , it would probably have to happen before 2024 or else he ’ ll age out of the pool for a future Republican president .
So if Trump offered him a nomination in , say , 2022 , might he take it ?
Remember that Texas is turning bluer and Cruz barely survived against Beto O ’ Rourke in 2018 .
It ’ s quite possible if not likely that he ’ ll be out of government by 2025 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a lifetime appointment .
He should forget his presidential pipe dream and lobby for the Court .
He ’ d be acceptable in that role even to MAGA types .
Exit question : Could any of these three get confirmed by the Senate ?
One of the reasons to look at senators when considering a Court or cabinet appointment is that , traditionally , they might be expected to squeeze a few more votes in favor out of the opposition in the spirit of senatorial comity .
I ’ m not so sure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though .
It ’ ll probably take 50 Republicans to push any of them over the line .
And you never know what Romney , Collins , or Murkowski might do .

My favorite theory on social media this afternoon of why three aspiring presidents are suddenly SCOTUS candidates is that Trump’s trying to clear the 2024 field for Don Jr (or Ivanka).
In that case, presumably Nikki Haley and Tucker Carlson are in the mix as well.
You can view the whole list here. Most of the names are unfamiliar to me, but Ed Whelan’s right that Neomi Rao is a notable omission. Not only is she young, female, and a minority, she harshly criticized Judge Emmet Sullivan for his “unlawful incursions on the Executive Branch” in the Mike Flynn case. How much more loyalty does she need to show Trump to earn some Supreme Court consideration?
It’s common for presidents to consider solicitors general for the Court and Trump has two esteemed ones on his list, Paul Clement and Noel Francisco. Both are over 50, though, which may be a teeny bit older than Trump would prefer with a lifetime appointment on the line. Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron is also on the list, an interesting choice since Mitch McConnell clearly has him lined up to run for governor or succeed him in the Senate in a few years. Cameron is only 34 years old, though, and lacks the judicial experience or top-flight clerkships that would normally qualify someone for the Court. I think he’s on the list as a courtesy, as thanks for speaking at the Republican convention.
Same goes for Cruz, Hawley, and Cotton. There’s probably nothing serious behind adding them to the list, just a bit of free media buzz as thanks for being loyal soldiers in the Senate. And it’s a way to signal to MAGA fans that Trump is fond of the same populist bombthrowers that they are. The average Fox-watcher won’t know what to make of most people on his list but they all have an opinion about these three and that opinion’s apt to be positive. I laughed when I saw Hawley’s inclusion, not because he’s unqualified but because he very clearly has his eye on another job. He went to Yale Law, clerked for John Roberts, and served as a state AG; at just 40 years old, he’s an appealing candidate. But Hawley’s not inveighing against Section 230 and heavy-breathing about leaving military bases named after Confederates because he wants a seat on the Court. He wants Trump’s job. So much so that he’s *already* taken himself out of the running for the Court after Trump announced his list:
I appreciate the President’s confidence in listing me as a potential Supreme Court nominee. But as I told the President, Missourians elected me to fight for them in the Senate, and I have no interest in the high court. I look forward to confirming constitutional conservatives — Josh Hawley (@HawleyMO) September 9, 2020
Cotton seems like a less likely choice. He has a gilded legal education too, from Harvard Law, but no Supreme Court clerkship or AG credentials. I doubt that he’s interested in a Court seat either, as he’s been to Iowa more than once over the past four years and visited New Hampshire a few months ago. A guy whose chief contribution to politics this summer was egging on Trump to deploy regular troops against looters also seems more inclined temperamentally to the electoral, not the judicial, side of American government. And yet, after Trump announced his list this afternoon, Cotton tweeted this:
It's time for Roe v. Wade to go. — Tom Cotton (@TomCottonAR) September 9, 2020
The Second Amendment protects your right to own a gun—period. — Tom Cotton (@TomCottonAR) September 9, 2020
The First Amendment protects your right to worship. End of story. — Tom Cotton (@TomCottonAR) September 9, 2020
I don’t think he’s trying out for a nomination — clearly there are people ahead of him on Trump’s list, like Amy Coney Barrett and Amul Thapar — but Trump just handed him an opportunity to show off his conservative cred to future primary voters. So he seized it.
The most interesting possibility is Cruz. He has top-flight credentials too — Harvard, clerked for Rehnquist — although he either doesn’t understand how Section 230 works or is too dishonest in his pandering to populists to admit that he does. What makes him interesting is that I think he’ll end up as yesterday’s news in a 2024 primary. Trumpers don’t really trust him after 2016 and he’ll have lots of competition for the populist vote this time from Hawley, Cotton, and others. His “constitutional conservative” shtick *might* come back into vogue during a Biden presidency but there’s no reason to believe there’ll be a clamor for it on the right in 2024 if Trump wins a second term. And Cruz is 49; if he has any dreams of being on the Court, it would probably have to happen before 2024 or else he’ll age out of the pool for a future Republican president. So if Trump offered him a nomination in, say, 2022, might he take it? Remember that Texas is turning bluer and Cruz barely survived against Beto O’Rourke in 2018. It’s quite possible if not likely that he’ll be out of government by 2025 — unless he lands a job with a lifetime appointment.
He should forget his presidential pipe dream and lobby for the Court. He’d be acceptable in that role even to MAGA types.
Exit question: Could any of these three get confirmed by the Senate? One of the reasons to look at senators when considering a Court or cabinet appointment is that, traditionally, they might be expected to squeeze a few more votes in favor out of the opposition in the spirit of senatorial comity. I’m not so sure that expectation still holds in 2020, though. It’ll probably take 50 Republicans to push any of them over the line. And you never know what Romney, Collins, or Murkowski might do.


hotair--2020-09-09--White professor who pretended to be black resigns from GW University history department

Last week a GW University associate professor of history named Jessica Krug outed herself on Medium .
Krug wrote that she was a “ culture leech ” who had lived as a black woman from the Caribbean for much of her life despite the fact that she was actually a white , Jewish person who grew up in Kansas .
At the time , I found Krug ’ s confession off-putting .
Rather than make me feel any sort of sympathy for her , it sounded to me as if she were begging for attention .
Today , George Washington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ position : This outcome wasn ’ t much of a surprise given the statement the Department of History published last Friday which called on Krug to resign or be fired : The members of the faculty of The George Washington University Department of History are shocked and appalled by Dr. Jessica Krug ’ s admission on September 3 , 2020 that she has lied about her identity for her entire career .
With what she has termed her “ audaciously deceptive ” appropriation of an Afro-Caribbean identity , she has betrayed the trust @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fellow scholars of Africana Studies , colleagues in our department and throughout the historical discipline , as well as community activists in New York City and beyond .
The discipline of history is concerned with truth telling about the past .
With her conduct , Dr. Krug has raised questions about the veracity of her own research and teaching .
Accordingly , the department calls upon Dr. Krug to resign from her position as associate professor of History at GW .
Failing that , the department recommends the rescinding of her tenure and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s made the department a laughing stock so I ’ m sure people there are angry at having their careers damaged by this .
What I don ’ t understand is why Krug dragged out her own humiliation .
Here ’ s a bit of her Medium post : I believe in restorative justice , where possible , even when and where I don ’ t know what that means or how it could work .
I believe in accountability .
And I believe in cancel culture as a necessary and righteous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to wield against those with more power .
I should absolutely be cancelled .
No .
I don ’ t write in passive voice , ever , because I believe we must name power .
So .
You should absolutely cancel me , and I absolutely cancel myself… My politics are as they have ever been , and those politics condemn me in the loudest and most unyielding terms .
She was practically begging to be punished .
She knew she had lost all credibility .
So why put on the public show @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her abasing herself and offer her grace ?
Is she planning to write a tell-all book and this was the explosion of condemnation she needed for a good ending to her story ?
This is what felt so odd to me about her story in the first place .
If you ’ re really ashamed , you hide .
You don ’ t stand up on a soapbox to denounce yourself .
Why not resign quietly and disappear .
She could have changed her name , gone home to Kansas , or fled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a certain sense under the circumstances .
Instead she led her own cancellation campaign and waited a week to resign as if she hadn ’ t thought about that in advance .
It ’ s all just very weird .
This bad situation is completely of Krug ’ s own making and she deserves to face all the professional consequences of lying to everyone she ’ s met in the last decade or two .
At the same time , I hope she still has someone looking out for her because she clearly @ @ @ @

Last week a GW University associate professor of history named Jessica Krug outed herself on Medium. Krug wrote that she was a “culture leech” who had lived as a black woman from the Caribbean for much of her life despite the fact that she was actually a white, Jewish person who grew up in Kansas. At the time, I found Krug’s confession off-putting. Rather than make me feel any sort of sympathy for her, it sounded to me as if she were begging for attention. Today, George Washington University announced that Krug had resigned her position:
Update regarding Jessica Krug: Dr. Krug has resigned her position, effective immediately. Her classes for this semester will be taught by other faculty members, and students in those courses will receive additional information this week. — GW University (@GWtweets) September 9, 2020
This outcome wasn’t much of a surprise given the statement the Department of History published last Friday which called on Krug to resign or be fired:
The members of the faculty of The George Washington University Department of History are shocked and appalled by Dr. Jessica Krug’s admission on September 3, 2020 that she has lied about her identity for her entire career. With what she has termed her “audaciously deceptive” appropriation of an Afro-Caribbean identity, she has betrayed the trust of countless current and former students, fellow scholars of Africana Studies, colleagues in our department and throughout the historical discipline, as well as community activists in New York City and beyond. The discipline of history is concerned with truth telling about the past. With her conduct, Dr. Krug has raised questions about the veracity of her own research and teaching. Accordingly, the department calls upon Dr. Krug to resign from her position as associate professor of History at GW. Failing that, the department recommends the rescinding of her tenure and the termination of her appointment.
She’s made the department a laughing stock so I’m sure people there are angry at having their careers damaged by this. What I don’t understand is why Krug dragged out her own humiliation. Here’s a bit of her Medium post:
I believe in restorative justice, where possible, even when and where I don’t know what that means or how it could work. I believe in accountability. And I believe in cancel culture as a necessary and righteous tool for those with less structural power to wield against those with more power. I should absolutely be cancelled. No. I don’t write in passive voice, ever, because I believe we must name power. So. You should absolutely cancel me, and I absolutely cancel myself… My politics are as they have ever been, and those politics condemn me in the loudest and most unyielding terms.
She was practically begging to be punished. She knew she had lost all credibility. So why put on the public show? Was she hoping people would see her abasing herself and offer her grace? Is she planning to write a tell-all book and this was the explosion of condemnation she needed for a good ending to her story?
This is what felt so odd to me about her story in the first place. If you’re really ashamed, you hide. You don’t stand up on a soapbox to denounce yourself. Why not resign quietly and disappear. She could have changed her name, gone home to Kansas, or fled the country. That would have made a certain sense under the circumstances. Instead she led her own cancellation campaign and waited a week to resign as if she hadn’t thought about that in advance. It’s all just very weird.
This bad situation is completely of Krug’s own making and she deserves to face all the professional consequences of lying to everyone she’s met in the last decade or two. At the same time, I hope she still has someone looking out for her because she clearly needs some help.


hotair--2020-09-09--Mulan was filmed in Xinjiang and the credits thank communist officials, but Disney threatened to aba

Mulan was filmed in Xinjiang and the credits thank communist officials, but Disney threatened to abandon Georgia last year

I haven ’ t seen the live-action Mulan film and don ’ t have any intention of doing so .
It turns out that Disney filmed this at least partly in the Xinjiang region of China , the same area where more than a million Uighurs have been rounded up and put into concentration camps where they are drilled on communist propaganda until they can convincingly spout it themselves .
Not only did Disney have the permission of the Chinese government to film in the region , they even thanked some of the authorities who are involved in the camps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Disney ( DIS ) acknowledges several Chinese government bodies in the credits for the live-action remake of the 1998 animated picture of the same name , but a few in particular have raised red flags : The Xinjiang government ’ s publicity department and the Public Security and Tourism bureaus for Turpan , a city of about 633,400 people just outside Xinjiang ’ s capital Urumqi… The Turpan Public Security Bureau has been listed by the US government as an organization involved in “ human rights violations and abuses ” in the region… @ @ @ @ @ @ @ posted a photo from Urumqi , the capital of Xinjiang and said she was scouting out locations for the film .
And in an interview in September with Conde Nast traveler , Mulan production designer Grant Major discussed filming in Xinjiang ’ s Taklamakan Desert , in the region ’ s far southwest .
Adrian Zenz , a leading academic at the Victims of Communism Foundation who has helped break major stories from Xinjiang , said that the earliest documented case of a re-education center in the region was in Turpan in 2013 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possible Disney didn ’ t know about the growing number of detention centers set up across Xinjiang , the widespread oppression in the region was impossible to miss .
“ There were police stations and checkpoints all over Xinjiang by late 2016 , not to be missed , ” he said .
In short , it ’ s not credible that Disney was unaware it was making this movie in a region that is a police state aimed at wiping out the culture of a specific minority group .
But this isn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has faced .
The film ’ s star Liu Yifei said last year , “ I support the Hong Kong police .
You can all attack me now .
What a shame for Hong Kong.
” Hong Kong political activist Joshua Wong said last week that this was Disney kowtowing to Beijing .
By the way , I haven ’ t seen anyone say this specifically , but a film like Mulan involves thousands of people and tens of millions of dollars .
Stars of such films have contracts which usually require them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ film around the world .
I ’ m sure they also have clauses in their contracts about not doing anything that would damage the film ’ s prospects .
All that to say , it strikes me as very , very unlikely that the star of Mulan said on social media without first passing it by her Disney handlers .
In any case , if Disney was surprised I don ’ t see any condemnation of it at the time .
What put all of this in context for me was a tweet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exactly right .
Back when Mulan was still in production last year , Disney CEO Bob Iger explained how difficult it was to work in a place like Georgia where a Republican legislature had passed a law making abortion illegal after the detection of a fetal heartbeat .
Here ’ s Iger at the time : Disney ’ s chief executive , Bob Iger , said on Wednesday it would be “ very difficult ” for the company to continue filming in Georgia if the state ’ s highly restrictive abortion law is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , made in an interview with Reuters , were the strongest sign yet that Hollywood could pull back from Georgia , which has lured television and film producers with generous tax breaks , but has also at times repelled the industry with its politics .
“ I rather doubt we will ” continue filming in the state , Iger said .
“ I think many people who work for us will not want to work there , and we will have to heed their wishes in that regard.
” Disney couldn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abortion law , but was grateful and happy to produce Mulan in a Chinese region where forced abortion and sterilization is common : While individual women have spoken out before about forced birth control , the practice is far more widespread and systematic than previously known , according to an AP investigation based on government statistics , state documents and interviews with 30 ex-detainees , family members and a former detention camp instructor .
The campaign over the past four years in the far west region of Xinjiang is leading to what some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demographic genocide.
” The state regularly subjects minority women to pregnancy checks , and forces intrauterine devices , sterilization and even abortion on hundreds of thousands , the interviews and data show .
Even while the use of IUDs and sterilization has fallen nationwide , it is rising sharply in Xinjiang .
So that ’ s where Disney stands .
Conservative Americans ( and their elected officials ) so disgust the company and its CEO that they would rather flee a state than continue to work there , but Chinese communists crushing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Hong Kong , well , that ’ s fine so long as Disney can sell their products in China .

I haven’t seen the live-action Mulan film and don’t have any intention of doing so. It turns out that Disney filmed this at least partly in the Xinjiang region of China, the same area where more than a million Uighurs have been rounded up and put into concentration camps where they are drilled on communist propaganda until they can convincingly spout it themselves. Not only did Disney have the permission of the Chinese government to film in the region, they even thanked some of the authorities who are involved in the camps in the credits of the film:
Disney (DIS) acknowledges several Chinese government bodies in the credits for the live-action remake of the 1998 animated picture of the same name, but a few in particular have raised red flags: The Xinjiang government’s publicity department and the Public Security and Tourism bureaus for Turpan, a city of about 633,400 people just outside Xinjiang’s capital Urumqi… The Turpan Public Security Bureau has been listed by the US government as an organization involved in “human rights violations and abuses” in the region… In 2017, Mulan director Niki Caro posted a photo from Urumqi, the capital of Xinjiang and said she was scouting out locations for the film. And in an interview in September with Conde Nast traveler, Mulan production designer Grant Major discussed filming in Xinjiang’s Taklamakan Desert, in the region’s far southwest. Adrian Zenz, a leading academic at the Victims of Communism Foundation who has helped break major stories from Xinjiang, said that the earliest documented case of a re-education center in the region was in Turpan in 2013. Zenz said that while it was possible Disney didn’t know about the growing number of detention centers set up across Xinjiang, the widespread oppression in the region was impossible to miss. “There were police stations and checkpoints all over Xinjiang by late 2016, not to be missed,” he said.
In short, it’s not credible that Disney was unaware it was making this movie in a region that is a police state aimed at wiping out the culture of a specific minority group. But this isn’t the only political problem the film has faced. The film’s star Liu Yifei said last year, “I support the Hong Kong police. You can all attack me now. What a shame for Hong Kong.” Hong Kong political activist Joshua Wong said last week that this was Disney kowtowing to Beijing.
This film is released today. But because Disney kowtows to Beijing, and because Liu Yifei openly and proudly endorses police brutality in Hong Kong, I urge everyone who believes in human rights to #BoycottMulan. https://t.co/utmP1tIWNa — Joshua Wong 黃之鋒 😷 (@joshuawongcf) September 4, 2020
By the way, I haven’t seen anyone say this specifically, but a film like Mulan involves thousands of people and tens of millions of dollars. Stars of such films have contracts which usually require them to put in significant time promoting the film around the world. I’m sure they also have clauses in their contracts about not doing anything that would damage the film’s prospects. All that to say, it strikes me as very, very unlikely that the star of Mulan said on social media without first passing it by her Disney handlers. In any case, if Disney was surprised I don’t see any condemnation of it at the time.
What put all of this in context for me was a tweet by Ben Shapiro:
It's almost as if this is mostly insincere corporate bulls*** designed to earn maximum international dollars while profiting from self-flagellating virtue signalling. This is woke-ism for fun and profit. — Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) September 9, 2020
He’s exactly right. Back when Mulan was still in production last year, Disney CEO Bob Iger explained how difficult it was to work in a place like Georgia where a Republican legislature had passed a law making abortion illegal after the detection of a fetal heartbeat. Here’s Iger at the time:
Disney’s chief executive, Bob Iger, said on Wednesday it would be “very difficult” for the company to continue filming in Georgia if the state’s highly restrictive abortion law is carried out. Iger’s comments, made in an interview with Reuters, were the strongest sign yet that Hollywood could pull back from Georgia, which has lured television and film producers with generous tax breaks, but has also at times repelled the industry with its politics. “I rather doubt we will” continue filming in the state, Iger said. “I think many people who work for us will not want to work there, and we will have to heed their wishes in that regard.”
Disney couldn’t work in a state with a restrictive abortion law, but was grateful and happy to produce Mulan in a Chinese region where forced abortion and sterilization is common:
While individual women have spoken out before about forced birth control, the practice is far more widespread and systematic than previously known, according to an AP investigation based on government statistics, state documents and interviews with 30 ex-detainees, family members and a former detention camp instructor. The campaign over the past four years in the far west region of Xinjiang is leading to what some experts are calling a form of “demographic genocide.” The state regularly subjects minority women to pregnancy checks, and forces intrauterine devices, sterilization and even abortion on hundreds of thousands, the interviews and data show. Even while the use of IUDs and sterilization has fallen nationwide, it is rising sharply in Xinjiang.
So that’s where Disney stands. Conservative Americans (and their elected officials) so disgust the company and its CEO that they would rather flee a state than continue to work there, but Chinese communists crushing the freedoms of millions of people in Xinjiang and Hong Kong, well, that’s fine so long as Disney can sell their products in China.


hotair--2020-09-09--Dunkin' testing food pickup where you never see a human being

Like many of you , I ’ m sure , our family has been experimenting with some of the rather unique food delivery and pickup options that have been made available since the plague blew into town .
Some of the easiest to use are the delivery services who bring your order up to your door and leave it for you to come out and bring it in after they go .
We usually tape a tip to the front screen door with a note that reads , “ For delivery .
Thank you.
” Since you pay via plastic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that seems to work pretty well .
Picking up orders at diners is another matter .
A few of the local eateries are now able to allow customers ( wearing masks ) to come inside and pay at the counter while the checkout person stands six feet back for the transaction .
Most of the rest bring the food out to your vehicle and hand it in through the window .
But for some of you , that may still be too close for comfort .
Dunkin ’ ( formerly Dunkin Donuts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pickup system that removes the human element from the food delivery process entirely .
You pay through their app , show up at a store devoid of any workers out in the customer service area , and then pick up your order and anything you want to buy off the shelves and simply walk out .
( CBS Boston ) Dunkin ’ is testing out a new program allowing customers to get their order without every coming into contact with an employee .
Customers would be able to pick out their items from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ store will track what they get and then charge them through an app .
“ Customers can approach the store environment and pick up their coffee and donuts – walking away without any face-to-face interaction , ” says MasterCard , which is partnering with Dunkin ’ for the program .
It sounds like Dunkin ’ is taking a page from the playbook of the Amazon stores that have been popping up in some major cities .
( Or at least they were showing up until they were looted and burned , anyway .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ food and coffee order down to a designated counter where you can grab them , that part is easy enough .
Much like the process I described above , you can pay for that in advance through your phone , then just grab it and go .
But most Dunkin ’ stores have other products on shelves for impulse buyers .
How do you handle those without a check-out person being involved ?
Similar to the way the Amazon stores do it , cameras track you as you move through the store .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ products you pick up to take with you .
The system then simply bills your account through the phone app and you pay for all of your purchases without even scanning their UPC .
On top of that , you don ’ t come face to face with any workers , even if they are six feet away or more .
Does that make everyone feel better ?
I ’ m just not sure about it and the closest Dunkin ’ to my house doesn ’ t have this system installed yet .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ distancing , but now we ’ re not just talking about distance .
This is complete isolation between the human workers and the customers .
If they are only allowing one customer in the store at a time , that makes the whole thing seem even creepier .
But perhaps this is our new reality .
Even after a vaccine is developed ( knock on wood ) , we may be shopping this way from here on out .
People are pining to get back to the old normal , but I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s ever going to happen .
What happens to the wait staff profession if that ’ s the case ?
Why would you tip people for service that never shows up to help you ?
And the social element of such engagements is entirely gone .
It may not be the future we signed up for , but it could conceivably be the one we ’ ll be getting .

Like many of you, I’m sure, our family has been experimenting with some of the rather unique food delivery and pickup options that have been made available since the plague blew into town. Some of the easiest to use are the delivery services who bring your order up to your door and leave it for you to come out and bring it in after they go. We usually tape a tip to the front screen door with a note that reads, “For delivery. Thank you.” Since you pay via plastic over the phone when placing the order, that seems to work pretty well.
Picking up orders at diners is another matter. A few of the local eateries are now able to allow customers (wearing masks) to come inside and pay at the counter while the checkout person stands six feet back for the transaction. Most of the rest bring the food out to your vehicle and hand it in through the window. But for some of you, that may still be too close for comfort. Dunkin’ (formerly Dunkin Donuts) is now experimenting with a new pickup system that removes the human element from the food delivery process entirely. You pay through their app, show up at a store devoid of any workers out in the customer service area, and then pick up your order and anything you want to buy off the shelves and simply walk out. (CBS Boston)
Dunkin’ is testing out a new program allowing customers to get their order without every coming into contact with an employee. Customers would be able to pick out their items from various self-serve stations. Cameras in the store will track what they get and then charge them through an app. “Customers can approach the store environment and pick up their coffee and donuts – walking away without any face-to-face interaction,” says MasterCard, which is partnering with Dunkin’ for the program.
It sounds like Dunkin’ is taking a page from the playbook of the Amazon stores that have been popping up in some major cities. (Or at least they were showing up until they were looted and burned, anyway.) If the workers slide your hot food and coffee order down to a designated counter where you can grab them, that part is easy enough. Much like the process I described above, you can pay for that in advance through your phone, then just grab it and go. But most Dunkin’ stores have other products on shelves for impulse buyers. How do you handle those without a check-out person being involved?
Similar to the way the Amazon stores do it, cameras track you as you move through the store. The smart software can identify any additional products you pick up to take with you. The system then simply bills your account through the phone app and you pay for all of your purchases without even scanning their UPC. On top of that, you don’t come face to face with any workers, even if they are six feet away or more.
Does that make everyone feel better? I’m just not sure about it and the closest Dunkin’ to my house doesn’t have this system installed yet. I suppose I can appreciate the social distancing, but now we’re not just talking about distance. This is complete isolation between the human workers and the customers. If they are only allowing one customer in the store at a time, that makes the whole thing seem even creepier.
But perhaps this is our new reality. Even after a vaccine is developed (knock on wood), we may be shopping this way from here on out. People are pining to get back to the old normal, but I’m beginning to wonder if that’s ever going to happen. What happens to the wait staff profession if that’s the case? Why would you tip people for service that never shows up to help you? And the social element of such engagements is entirely gone. It may not be the future we signed up for, but it could conceivably be the one we’ll be getting.


hotair--2020-09-09--McEnany: No really, Trump will tackle the national debt in his second term

Would that it were true .
Alas , no one ’ s taking the massive growth in national debt seriously except to offer some lip service around elections .
The current fight in Congress over multiple rounds of imaginary money demonstrate that clearly enough , even at the White House .
Nonetheless , Kayleigh McEnany promised this morning that the Trump administration would take it seriously … in the next term , natch ( starts at 6:20 ) : As America gets closer and closer to the 2020 Election , White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany suggested that President Donald @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as an issue he has to address during his first term .
During an interview with Fox News ’ Sandra Smith , McEnany was asked for her response to the Congressional Budget Office ’ s ( CBO ) estimation that the federal budget is looking at a record deficit of $ 3 billion .
[ Three trillion dollars , not billion — Ed . ]
“ What is the president ’ s plan as the economy rebounds to take this on ?
” Smith asked .
“ Obviously [ spending ] was needed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s why we are looking at this right now — but something obviously has to be done about this as we slowly see the economy recover.
” “ I spoke to the president about this just before before coming and joining you , ” McEnany said .
“ He said ‘ absolutely.
’ The debt is a big second term priority of his .
He wants to see unprecedented growth and we ’ ll see that on President Trump ’ s watch.
” Trump , like pretty much every president before him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , likes to pretend we can grow our way out of deficit spending .
Remember when the tax cut in late 2017 was going to pay for itself based on sustained 4 % annual GDP growth over several years ?
Good times , good times .
In reality , we never actually sustained 4 % growth over a single year , or even in an annualized single quarter .
The 2018 GDP growth rate was 3.0 % , and 2.2 % in 2019 , well before the pandemic hit , and the best @ @ @ @ @ @ @ December 2017 was 2018Q1 , with annualized growth at 3.8 % .
That was also the last quarter when the economy grew at an annualized rate of 3 % or better .
The next-best quarter was 2019Q1 ’ s 2.9 % annualized growth rate .
And that ’ s just performance against the tax cut ’ s arguable deficit .
( Arguable , because deficits come from spending rather than collection , and tax cuts allow people to keep more of the money they earn , which is a good in itself .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s term runs at a trillion dollars a year , roughly 5 % of the economy .
You ’ d need annualized GDP growth past 5 % to account for that — and then seize every last penny of it in taxes — to grow out of the annual deficit .
And even that leaves the accumulating national debt untouched .
The only serious way to deal with deficits and debt is to deal with the structural issues of federal entitlement spending — Social Security , but primarily Medicare and its unfunded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clear that he has no intention of pursuing entitlement reform , which means he ’ s not serious about either the deficit or the national debt .
There is no way to cut enough from the federal budget to stop either from accumulating without rewriting the statutes that trigger the automatic spending in entitlements — and neither party has the appetite to face voters and explain that free stuff ain ’ t really free after all .
And Trump the Populist has less appetite for that than most others in Washington .
All @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here all the more absurd , but at least absurd claims about deficits and debt are in season .

Would that it were true. Alas, no one’s taking the massive growth in national debt seriously except to offer some lip service around elections. The current fight in Congress over multiple rounds of imaginary money demonstrate that clearly enough, even at the White House.
Nonetheless, Kayleigh McEnany promised this morning that the Trump administration would take it seriously … in the next term, natch (starts at 6:20):
As America gets closer and closer to the 2020 Election, White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany suggested that President Donald Trump does not view the federal debt as an issue he has to address during his first term. During an interview with Fox News’ Sandra Smith, McEnany was asked for her response to the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) estimation that the federal budget is looking at a record deficit of $3 billion. [Three trillion dollars, not billion — Ed.] “What is the president’s plan as the economy rebounds to take this on?” Smith asked. “Obviously [spending] was needed with the coronavirus pandemic — and that’s why we are looking at this right now — but something obviously has to be done about this as we slowly see the economy recover.” “I spoke to the president about this just before before coming and joining you,” McEnany said. “He said ‘absolutely.’ The debt is a big second term priority of his. He wants to see unprecedented growth and we’ll see that on President Trump’s watch.”
Trump, like pretty much every president before him since we went off the gold standard, likes to pretend we can grow our way out of deficit spending. Remember when the tax cut in late 2017 was going to pay for itself based on sustained 4% annual GDP growth over several years? Good times, good times.
In reality, we never actually sustained 4% growth over a single year, or even in an annualized single quarter. The 2018 GDP growth rate was 3.0%, and 2.2% in 2019, well before the pandemic hit, and the best quarter since the tax cut passed in December 2017 was 2018Q1, with annualized growth at 3.8%. That was also the last quarter when the economy grew at an annualized rate of 3% or better. The next-best quarter was 2019Q1’s 2.9% annualized growth rate.
And that’s just performance against the tax cut’s arguable deficit. (Arguable, because deficits come from spending rather than collection, and tax cuts allow people to keep more of the money they earn, which is a good in itself.) The overall budget deficit in Trump’s term runs at a trillion dollars a year, roughly 5% of the economy. You’d need annualized GDP growth past 5% to account for that — and then seize every last penny of it in taxes — to grow out of the annual deficit. And even that leaves the accumulating national debt untouched.
The only serious way to deal with deficits and debt is to deal with the structural issues of federal entitlement spending — Social Security, but primarily Medicare and its unfunded liabilities. Trump has made it blindingly clear that he has no intention of pursuing entitlement reform, which means he’s not serious about either the deficit or the national debt. There is no way to cut enough from the federal budget to stop either from accumulating without rewriting the statutes that trigger the automatic spending in entitlements — and neither party has the appetite to face voters and explain that free stuff ain’t really free after all. And Trump the Populist has less appetite for that than most others in Washington.
All of this makes McEnany’s claim here all the more absurd, but at least absurd claims about deficits and debt are in season.


hotair--2020-09-09--Trump told Woodward in February that COVID was deadlier than flu, admitted in March that he was down

Trump told Woodward in February that COVID was deadlier than flu, admitted in March that he was downplaying it

An admission like this might endanger Trump ’ s campaign if this country weren ’ t a civic disaster that no longer demanded accountability from its leaders .
Just one more reason he should be grateful to be an American .
The early pro-Trump spin on this bombshell on political Twitter is to try to make it a story about Bob Woodward sitting on the information for months in order to cash in with a late-campaign book instead of revealing it ages ago .
That ’ s a fair point , but maaaybe one that can wait five minutes until @ @ @ @ @ @ @ held back what he knew about the danger from a once-in-a-century pandemic .
Or we could all compromise by admitting that both Trump and Woodward are unfit for the jobs they hold .
There ’ s also some developing spin that this is really a story about Trump ’ s health experts also not taking the virus seriously enough early on .
That ’ s a fair point too — if Trump knew in early February that it was much deadlier than the flu ( and airborne ! )
, why was the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weeks later ?
The problem with that spin , though , is that eventually the health experts did come around on demanding lockdowns , being sticklers about masks , etc , whereas Trump … never did .
He knew how dangerous the virus was on February 7 , yet here he was a month later on Twitter : A few days before that he spent several minutes of airtime on Hannity ’ s show comparing COVID to the plain ol ’ flu .
Why ?
Listen to the audio Woodward recorded .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The idea that he downplayed the severity of the virus in public to avert panic is silly given the time frame .
On the day he said that , March 19 , New York City was already locking down .
San Francisco has been under a stay-at-home order for weeks .
Public panic was a fact of life .
What Trump was worried about was a panic on the stock market specifically , and the reason that worried him is because he was planning to run this fall on the big beautiful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ office .
Remember that he reportedly flipped out in late February after Nancy Messonier of the CDC warned reporters that community spread was coming to the U.S. and that it might affect daily life in unprecedented ways .
That caused the stock market to dive , infuriating Trump to the point where he reportedly considered firing her .
He wasn ’ t worried about public anxiety over the virus .
He was worried about investor anxiety over their portfolios and what it would mean for his election chances .
He thought he could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economic advisors like Larry Kudlow to stupidly insist in late February that the virus was mostly contained .
All of Trump ’ s preferences in handling the virus since then have flowed from that view , that his chances at reelection depend on a revival of the economy and the stock market ( which he often seems to conflate ) and that anything he can do rhetorically to encourage that is what should be done .
That ’ s why he wanted states to reopen earlier than the experts did , that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ events this summer , that ’ s why he ’ s pushing schools everywhere to resume in-class instruction this fall regardless of the extent of local infections , to free parents up to get back to work .
Downplaying the virus to create a perception of normalcy is , he thinks , his key to a second term .
That ’ s why he ’ s worried about “ panic , ” not some altruistic sense of not wanting the average joe to feel anxiety .
Some of the quotes from Woodward ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attributed to Anthony Fauci , are right in line with that .
Mattis quietly went to Washington National Cathedral to pray about his concern for the nation ’ s fate under Trump ’ s command and , according to Woodward , told Coats , “ There may come a time when we have to take collective action ” since Trump is “ dangerous .
He ’ s unfit.
” In a separate conversation recounted by Woodward , Mattis told Coats , “ The president has no moral compass , ” to which the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ True .
To him , a lie is not a lie .
It ’ s just what he thinks .
He doesn ’ t know the difference between the truth and a lie.
” … Fauci at one point tells others that the president “ is on a separate channel ” and unfocused in meetings , with “ rudderless ” leadership , according to Woodward .
“ His attention span is like a minus number , ” Fauci said , according to Woodward .
“ His sole purpose is to get reelected.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told ABC a few months ago about Trump ’ s approach to foreign policy : “ There really isn ’ t any guiding principle — that I was able to discern other than– what ’ s good for Donald Trump ’ s reelection.
” Trump knew the virus was deadly from the start , realized that it was going to be a major electoral liability for him , and so he undertook to do what he could to convince people that it ’ s not as big a deal as the egghead scientists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ masks early on , becoming a cheerleader for premature reopening , and generally inculcating a sense among fans that the crisis is overblown , it ’ s worked to some degree .
Two weeks ago , a poll found that 57 percent of Republicans deemed the country ’ s enormous COVID death toll “ acceptable.
” His mismanagement of the pandemic is the single biggest mistake of his presidency but his dogged effort to downplay the threat and to turn it into a partisan issue despite having known better early on may salvage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reelected .
Like Radley Balko says , since when does Trump care about public panic anyway ?
His new campaign message is that Antifa is coming to kill you and that Biden wants to let poor people overrun America ’ s suburbs .
He ’ s all about panic when it serves his interests .
In the case of COVID and its effects on his economic record , though , panic cut the other way .
Here ’ s one more quote from the book , as a gloss on the Atlantic story @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : He also apparently let slip to Woodward that he ’ s built some sort of new nuclear weapons system that was supposed to remain secret , and he boasted about Kim Jong Un once regaling him with “ a graphic account of Kim having his uncle killed.
” Like I say , he ’ s lucky to be president of a country in late-stage decline , that no longer cares about whether its politicians are fit for office .
I recommend revisiting this timeline from Tim Miller of various Trump pronouncements early @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s February 7 comment to Woodward about how deadly the virus is .
Or , if you can ’ t be bothered , just watch the clip below from July that ’ s going around today about his relentless downplaying of the crisis looooong after the public was already panicked about it .
Fauci , at least , is trying to do damage control : That would have been very helpful to Trump , if not for the fact that Woodward had audio of the president himself .
Whoever does Fauci ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him on this : If Trump had reason to know from Xi in early February that the virus was unusually deadly — and airborne — why were Fauci and other experts still emphasizing hand-washing and ambivalent about the potential threat to the U.S. at the time ?
According to WaPo , Woodward reports that Trump advisor Matthew Pottenger warned at a meeting on January 28 that “ after reaching contacts in China , it was evident that the world faced a health emergency on par with the flu pandemic of 1918 , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Why wasn ’ t that information relayed in the starkest terms immediately , with Trump and Fauci demanding that the states act ASAP to limit community spread ?
Exit question : Why did Trump agree to be interviewed by Bob Woodward in the first place — on tape , to boot ?

An admission like this might endanger Trump’s campaign if this country weren’t a civic disaster that no longer demanded accountability from its leaders.
Just one more reason he should be grateful to be an American.
The early pro-Trump spin on this bombshell on political Twitter is to try to make it a story about Bob Woodward sitting on the information for months in order to cash in with a late-campaign book instead of revealing it ages ago. That’s a fair point, but maaaybe one that can wait five minutes until we absorb the president admitting that he held back what he knew about the danger from a once-in-a-century pandemic. Or we could all compromise by admitting that both Trump and Woodward are unfit for the jobs they hold.
There’s also some developing spin that this is really a story about Trump’s health experts also not taking the virus seriously enough early on. That’s a fair point too — if Trump knew in early February that it was much deadlier than the flu (and airborne!), why was the Surgeon General still discouraging wearing masks three weeks later?
The problem with that spin, though, is that eventually the health experts did come around on demanding lockdowns, being sticklers about masks, etc, whereas Trump … never did. He knew how dangerous the virus was on February 7, yet here he was a month later on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1237027356314869761
A few days before that he spent several minutes of airtime on Hannity’s show comparing COVID to the plain ol’ flu. Why?
Listen to the audio Woodward recorded. The two clips begin at around 1:55 here.
In new tapes, President Trump admits to Bob Woodward he concealed critical details he knew about the coronavirus. "I wanted to always play it down." https://t.co/eICaAx70mY pic.twitter.com/zXNOZtIBx7 — CNN Newsroom (@CNNnewsroom) September 9, 2020
The idea that he downplayed the severity of the virus in public to avert panic is silly given the time frame. On the day he said that, March 19, New York City was already locking down. San Francisco has been under a stay-at-home order for weeks. Public panic was a fact of life. What Trump was worried about was a panic on the stock market specifically, and the reason that worried him is because he was planning to run this fall on the big beautiful gains in the Dow since he took office. Remember that he reportedly flipped out in late February after Nancy Messonier of the CDC warned reporters that community spread was coming to the U.S. and that it might affect daily life in unprecedented ways. That caused the stock market to dive, infuriating Trump to the point where he reportedly considered firing her.
He wasn’t worried about public anxiety over the virus. He was worried about investor anxiety over their portfolios and what it would mean for his election chances. He thought he could talk the market up, even enlisting economic advisors like Larry Kudlow to stupidly insist in late February that the virus was mostly contained. All of Trump’s preferences in handling the virus since then have flowed from that view, that his chances at reelection depend on a revival of the economy and the stock market (which he often seems to conflate) and that anything he can do rhetorically to encourage that is what should be done. That’s why he wanted states to reopen earlier than the experts did, that’s why he tried to hold in-person events this summer, that’s why he’s pushing schools everywhere to resume in-class instruction this fall regardless of the extent of local infections, to free parents up to get back to work. Downplaying the virus to create a perception of normalcy is, he thinks, his key to a second term. That’s why he’s worried about “panic,” not some altruistic sense of not wanting the average joe to feel anxiety.
Some of the quotes from Woodward’s new book, most notably those attributed to Anthony Fauci, are right in line with that.
Mattis quietly went to Washington National Cathedral to pray about his concern for the nation’s fate under Trump’s command and, according to Woodward, told Coats, “There may come a time when we have to take collective action” since Trump is “dangerous. He’s unfit.” In a separate conversation recounted by Woodward, Mattis told Coats, “The president has no moral compass,” to which the director of national intelligence replied, “True. To him, a lie is not a lie. It’s just what he thinks. He doesn’t know the difference between the truth and a lie.”… Fauci at one point tells others that the president “is on a separate channel” and unfocused in meetings, with “rudderless” leadership, according to Woodward. “His attention span is like a minus number,” Fauci said, according to Woodward. “His sole purpose is to get reelected.”
That’s exactly what John Bolton told ABC a few months ago about Trump’s approach to foreign policy: “There really isn’t any guiding principle — that I was able to discern other than– what’s good for Donald Trump’s reelection.” Trump knew the virus was deadly from the start, realized that it was going to be a major electoral liability for him, and so he undertook to do what he could to convince people that it’s not as big a deal as the egghead scientists claim. Whether that meant scoffing at masks early on, becoming a cheerleader for premature reopening, and generally inculcating a sense among fans that the crisis is overblown, it’s worked to some degree. Two weeks ago, a poll found that 57 percent of Republicans deemed the country’s enormous COVID death toll “acceptable.” His mismanagement of the pandemic is the single biggest mistake of his presidency but his dogged effort to downplay the threat and to turn it into a partisan issue despite having known better early on may salvage just enough partisan support to get him reelected.
Like Radley Balko says, since when does Trump care about public panic anyway? His new campaign message is that Antifa is coming to kill you and that Biden wants to let poor people overrun America’s suburbs. He’s all about panic when it serves his interests. In the case of COVID and its effects on his economic record, though, panic cut the other way.
Here’s one more quote from the book, as a gloss on the Atlantic story that got so much attention last week:
The loathing was mutual. “Not to mention my f***ing generals are a bunch of pussies. They care more about their alliances than they do about trade deals,” Trump told White House trade adviser Peter Navarro at one point, according to Woodward.
He also apparently let slip to Woodward that he’s built some sort of new nuclear weapons system that was supposed to remain secret, and he boasted about Kim Jong Un once regaling him with “a graphic account of Kim having his uncle killed.”
Like I say, he’s lucky to be president of a country in late-stage decline, that no longer cares about whether its politicians are fit for office.
I recommend revisiting this timeline from Tim Miller of various Trump pronouncements early on in the pandemic to situate Trump’s February 7 comment to Woodward about how deadly the virus is. Or, if you can’t be bothered, just watch the clip below from July that’s going around today about his relentless downplaying of the crisis looooong after the public was already panicked about it. Fauci, at least, is trying to do damage control:
QUESTION: Did you get any sense that President Trump was downplaying the coronavirus. "No, no, I didn’t. I didn’t get any sense that he was distorting anything." – Dr. Anthony Fauci https://t.co/LXANZOY8P2 — Jon Nicosia (@NewsPolitics) September 9, 2020
That would have been very helpful to Trump, if not for the fact that Woodward had audio of the president himself.
Whoever does Fauci’s next interview really needs to press him on this: If Trump had reason to know from Xi in early February that the virus was unusually deadly — and airborne — why were Fauci and other experts still emphasizing hand-washing and ambivalent about the potential threat to the U.S. at the time? According to WaPo, Woodward reports that Trump advisor Matthew Pottenger warned at a meeting on January 28 that “after reaching contacts in China, it was evident that the world faced a health emergency on par with the flu pandemic of 1918, which killed an estimated 50 million people worldwide.” Why wasn’t that information relayed in the starkest terms immediately, with Trump and Fauci demanding that the states act ASAP to limit community spread?
Exit question: Why did Trump agree to be interviewed by Bob Woodward in the first place — on tape, to boot?